Using the Three Border Model developed by Mike Davis and Alessandra Moctezuma, this thesis presents a number of case studies focused on the narratives of power and transformation that continue to develop on the American side of the U.S.-Mexico border in the post-9/11 context. The first case study overviews the history of the U.S.-Mexico border in relation to the ongoing fortification of the physical boundary and its legal reification in federal policy. The second case study examines the exclusionary policies enacted by the state of Arizona as well as the anti-immigration agenda instituted by the Minuteman Project. The third case study examines the ways in which urban communities in the borderlands contest the material manifestations of the border present in their everyday lives. By surveying case studies at different sites and scales along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, this thesis challenges traditional conceptions of state power at the border.

Using the Three Border Model developed by Mike Davis and Alessandra Moctezuma, this thesis presents a number of case studies focused on the narratives of power and transformation that continue to develop on the American side of the U.S.-Mexico border in the post-9/11 context. The first case study overviews the history of the U.S.-Mexico border in relation to the ongoing fortification of the physical boundary and its legal reification in federal policy. The second case study examines the exclusionary policies enacted by the state of Arizona as well as the anti-immigration agenda instituted by the Minuteman Project. The third case study examines the ways in which urban communities in the borderlands contest the material manifestations of the border present in their everyday lives. By surveying case studies at different sites and scales along the U.S.-Mexico boundary, this thesis challenges traditional conceptions of state power at the border.

Recently, Christopher Heath Wellman has proposed an innovative argument that appears to resolve, at least with respect to immigration, the tension between democratic autonomy (i.e. a people's right to self-determination) and human rights (i.e. respect for individual freedom and universal equality). Wellman argues, from a traditionally liberal point of view, that a legitimate state (i.e. a state that respects human rights) is entitled to self-determination and that part of the definition of being self-determined is having the presumptive right to unilaterally control immigration. In other words, Wellman claims that a state's unilateral right to control immigration can be made compatible with liberal commitments to individual freedom and universal equality. I aim to raise a novel objection against Wellman's argument, which I hope will also challenge philosophers to think differently about the immigration issue as a whole. My position is that even if Wellman's conclusion is correct, that a state's right to self-determination can be made compatible with human rights, the presumptive right that this generates for a legitimate state to unilaterally control immigration is, at best, limited only to admission and exclusion policies (i.e. to questions about who can be let in and who can be kept out). Wellman's conclusion, however, does not hold for strategies of immigration enforcement and expulsion (i.e. to the questions about how these policies may be enforced or what sort of deportation procedures a state is justified in using). And, in fact, I argue that under Wellman's account, a legitimate state would be restricted in deploying certain strategies of immigration enforcement and expulsion. My conclusion is that with respect to immigration enforcement and expulsion strategies, the presumptive right is on the side of the immigrant and not the state. This means that if a legitimate state wishes to control immigration, it is the state who holds the burden of proof to show that not only its immigration policies but also its enforcement and expulsion strategies do not violate prior commitments to individual liberty and universal equality. This, I contend, provides a moral and political baseline justification for immigrant rights, which I refer to as a minimalist defense of immigrant rights.

This dissertation applies economic theories and econometric methods to analyze the interactions between government policies and economic agents in two important and current topics: the protection of the environment and illegal migration.Following the introduction, the second chapter studies the empirical strength of bi-directional linkages between environmental standards and performance, on the one hand, and environmental innovation, on the other. Our empirical results reveal that environmental R&D both spurs the tightening of government environmental standards and is spurred by the anticipation of such tightening, suggesting that U.S. environmental policy (at least in the context of the manufacturing industries that we study) has been responsive to innovation and effective in inducing innovation.The third chapter studies whether a voluntary reduction pollution programs can prompt firms to develop new environmental technologies that yield future emission reduction benefits. Conversely, a VRP may induce a participating firm to divert resources from environmental research to environmental monitoring and compliance activities that yield short-term benefits in reduced emissions. We find evidence that higher rates of program participation are associated with significant reductions in the number of successful environmental patent applications four to six years after the program ended.The fourth chapter examines the migration duration of Mexican immigrants in the U.S. using data from the Mexican Migration Project (MMP). In the past, temporary migrations were frequent, and often the rule rather than the exception in the case of Mexican immigrants. This pattern may be changing due to the tightening of the border between Mexico and the Unites States. Moreover, this paper examines whether migration experience, demographic characteristics, economic conditions or social networks drive the time Mexican immigrants to reside illegally in the United States. The empirical analysis shows that the migration duration increases as the U.S. expected real wage increases. Tighter U.S. migration policies have an ambiguous effect on the migration duration while longer distances decrease the hazard of return to their state of origin.In the final chapter of this dissertation, the general findings are concluded and some future avenues of research are discussed.

abstract: This dissertation examines the San Diego border region to understand migrant construction worker’s mobility, autonomy, and labor power. San Diego County is enclosed by a network of internal immigration checkpoints and roving patrol operations that constrain migrant worker’s labor power to the territorial boundaries of the county. The project uses ‘differential mobility’ as a strategic concept to highlight the ways in which borders differentiate, sort, and rank among noncitizen migrant construction workers to meet local labor demands. The project reveals worker’s collective struggle to evade and cross border enforcement operations to maintain consistent employment across a border region that is marked by internal immigration checkpoints, roving patrol stops, and state surveillance measures. In addition, the project examines migrant men’s emerging workplace narratives about the body and penetration that symbolize workers’ understanding of social domination in a global economy. These expressions open up a critical space from which migrant men begin to critique a global economy that drives men northbound for employment and southbound for retirement—inhibiting a future that is neither entirely in the United States or Mexico. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Justice Studies 2020

No description available.

xiii, 97 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number. / This dissertation consists of three essays that empirically address aspects of three common questions posed in the Mexican immigration literature: What characteristics define migrants from Mexico? How does US border-enforcement policy affect migrant behavior? What role does foreign direct investment (FDI) into Mexico play in altering incentives for migration to the United States? The first essay (Chapter II) examines selection patterns of Mexican migrants based on migration frequency. Studies of Mexican migrant selection have largely ignored its temporary and repeated nature. In particular, the literature has not appropriately distinguished between migrants that travel to the United States only once and those who migrate multiple times. I model the selection process of repeat migrants in two stages: selection into initial migration and selection into repeat migration. Allowing for unobservable differences between non-migrants, single-episode migrants and repeat migrants, I find negative selection of repeat migrants relative to non-migrants and no significant differences between the unobservable attributes of repeat and single-episode migrants. The second essay (Chapter III) addresses how border enforcement influences migrant behavior. Increases in border enforcement during the 1990s were distributed non-uniformly along the border, targeting regions believed to experience episodes of high volumes of illegal border crossings. I examine how geographic and time-series variation in annual border enforcement influences US destination choices for undocumented Mexican migrants. While increased enforcement diverts migrants to alternative crossing locations, I show that their final destinations tend to be robust to border enforcement. Thus, in terms of policy, there may be benefits to coordination in enforcement efforts across sectors. The third essay (Chapter IV) addresses the claim that Mexico-bound FDI reduces immigration to the United States by increasing employment opportunities and raising Mexican wages. I use annual, state-level FDI from 1994 to 2004 to examine how FDI flows influence US-migration propensity. FDI flows reduce the probability of migration to the United States and increase the probability of an employment change in Mexico for non-migrants. Further, FDI is found to increase the likelihood of employment changes for household heads in Mexican states bordering the United States, but not the likelihood of employment in interior states. / Adviser: Glen R. Waddell

大陸及臺灣均規定，發明專利權人專有排除他人未經其同意而實施該發明之權。亦規定，物之發明之實施，指製造、為販賣之要約、販賣、使用或為上述目的而進口該物之行為。在專利權人或其專屬被授權人提起專利侵權實體訴訟前，專利權人或其專屬被授權人一般得請求海關就嫌疑貨物為暫不放行措施或扣押，以防止侵害專利權之貨物進入商業市場。一般而言，涉及商標權或著作權之貨物較容易透過貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。然而，大部分附有專利的貨物均不易以貨物外觀以觀察是否侵權。特別是，舉例而言，一支智慧型手機上可能有上千的專利於其上，而且許多商品都有類似情形。所以，由第一線的海關人員去辨識有無專利侵權是困難的。 「與貿易有關的智慧財產權協定」第52條規定，任何權利人申請第51條之暫不放行措施，都應向主管機關提出足以推定在進口國法律之下有侵害權利持有人智慧財產權之表面證據，並就有關物品提供詳細說明，俾使海關易於辨認。如果權利持有人提供有侵害其智慧財產權之表面證據，仿冒品或是盜版品一般來說較易於由海關第一線人員透過貨物外觀加以辨識。另一方面，專利權人或其專屬被授權人提出侵害其專利權之表面證據是困難的。 除上述問題之外，尚有一更困難的問題有待專利權人或其專屬被授權人解決。那便是，如果專利權人或其專屬被授權人不指派間諜至競爭對手之中，並不知道涉及侵害專利權之貨物何時、何地將會進口。因此，本論文嘗試研究如何扣押侵害專利權貨物之議題。 本論文區分為六個部分。第一章是緒論，說明研究動機及目的，以及研究方法及範圍。第二章是說明及定義智慧財產權邊境執行之指導原則，以及第一線海關人員依據貨物外觀辨識原則查尋嫌疑貨物。第三章是討論智慧財產權邊境執行之三種方式。第四章是分析與比較兩岸專利權之執行。第五章是闡述司法暫時權利保護與專利權邊境執行之配合。第六章是結論。 / Both Mainland China and Taiwan enacted laws to protect patentees’ exclusive rights to the invention and to prevent the rights from being exploited, without the patentee’s consent, via making, offering for sale, selling, using or importing of the infringed goods. Prior to filing the infringement litigation, the patentee or the exclusive licensee may generally initiate to request its customs authorities to suspend the release of, or to detain, suspect goods that involve the infringement of a patent from entering into the channels of commerce. Generally speaking, goods that involve trademark or copyright can be more easily observed whether it is infringed via its apprearance. However, most of goods that involve patents can not be more easily observed whether it is infringed, and inter alia, for example, there are probably more than 1,000 patent rights in one smart phone, and many goods have the similar situations. So it is difficult to distinguish infringed or non-infringed goods by front line staffs of customs. Article 52 of Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights defines suspension of release. It provides: “Any right holder initiating the procedures under Article 51 shall be required to provide adequate evidence to satisfy the competent authorities that, under the laws of the country of importation, there is prima facie an infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right and to supply a sufficiently detailed description of the goods to make them readily recognizable by the customs authorities.” It’s understood that the counterfeit trademark or pirated copyright goods can be generally observed via its appearance by front line staffs of customs, if a right holder supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the right holder’s intellectual property right. On the other hand, it is very difficult for a patentee or a exclusive licensee to supply prima facie evidence of infringement of the patent. In addition to the above mentioned issues, there is a more severe problem that the patentee or the exclusive licensee needs to solve. It’s that the patentee or the exclusive licensee doesn’t know when and where the goods that involve the infringement of patents will import, if the patentee or the exclusive licensee seek for the goods that involve the infringement of patents without designating spies in rivals. Therefore, this thesis tries to research the issue with respect to how to detect and detain goods that infringe patent rights. This thesis is divided in six parts. Chapter 1 makes a description of the motive and the purpose of this article. It also includes the method and the range of this research. Chapter 2 explains and defines “The Guidelines of Intellectual Property Rights Border Enforcement” and the suspect of goods could be found by front line staffs of customs in compliance with “The Principle of Goods Appearance Identification”. Chapter 3 discusses three modes of intellectual property rights enforcement. Chapter 4 analyzes and compares Cross-Strait Customs in patent border enforcement. Chapter 5 describes cooperation of provisional measures and patent border enforcement. Finally, Chapter 6 is the conclusion.

No description available.