No description available.

The H-1B visa program was initiated in 1990 to temporarily hire highly-skilled foreign workers. The H-1B visa program has changed several times since its initiation. One of the most important changes occurred in 2001 when the 21st Century Act exempted individuals employed by institutions of higher education and nonprofit and government research organizations from the H-1B visa cap increasing the number of visas available for foreign high-skilled immigrants. To analyze the impact of policy changes affecting the H-1B program on highly-skilled workers, we study the behavior of foreign-born Ph.D. students who graduated from institutions in the United States over the 1990-2013 period. We estimate logit models to quantify the impacts on their stay rates and placement patterns. Our model shows that the exemption policy increased the probability of staying among STEM graduates, Chinese and Indian graduates, and among graduates from universities ranked as high research by Carnegie. These findings suggest that the labor market for non-STEM graduates was near its competitive equilibrium before the exemption policy came into effect. The exemption policy, which could potentially increase the quantity supplied of jobs, did not change the equilibrium quantity in this market, suggesting that the cap of H1-B visas was not binding among this type of graduates. Intuitively the exemption policy can increase or decrease the proportion of Ph.D. graduates in exempted positions. The proportion of graduates in exempted jobs increases as the number of visas for those types of jobs is excluded from the cap (direct effect). Conversely, if the number of candidates willing to take exempted jobs, or if the number of positions opened by exempted institutions are unchanged after the policy change, the increase in the availability of visas for non-exempted positions can increase the proportion of graduates in those types of jobs (indirect effect). The overall effect depends on the magnitude of the direct and indirect effect. Our findings also show that the exemption policy pushed doctoral degree recipients into higher education or affiliated research employment positions. Ph.D. recipients in STEM fields, and graduating from low-rank universities were more likely to go into exempt employment post-policy than before.

This is an examination of how conjugality acts as an access point for Canadian citizenship. The conjugal family unit — married or common-law — continues to be privileged in Canadian law and policy; this is especially evident in immigration policy and practice. Family class immigration continues to be a steady source of immigrants for Canada, spousal/partner sponsorship being the primary type of family reunification. In order to control access, a strict understanding of conjugality is used to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate families. When it comes to family class immigration, it is not simply a case of individuals sponsoring individuals; it is about the state producing and maintaining the ideal family unit through the provision of citizenship. My analysis proceeds in two main parts. First, I engage with mainstream Canadian citizenship theory — focusing specifically on the work of Will Kymlicka and Rita Dhamoon — and analyze its focus on the individual citizen. Moreover, I examine how the state’s asymmetrical treatment of conjugality has created two versions of the conjugal family — the inside family (families within Canadian borders) and the outside family (families outside Canadian borders). Second, I explore the state’s reliance on conjugal relationships in their assessment of potential immigrants and refugees in three areas of immigration policy — the assessment of sexual minority refugee claimants, the assessment of common-law couples seeking sponsorship, and the government’s current crackdown on marriage fraud. Combined, these examples speak to the Canadian state’s vested interest in privileging the conjugal family unit; furthermore, they highlight how the inconsistent and often ambiguous treatment of conjugality undermines its effectiveness as the primary mode of identification in family class immigration. In summary, this dissertation integrates families into a body of scholarship that has ignored the role that one’s personal relationships plays in the provision of state access. / Thesis (Ph.D, Political Studies) -- Queen's University, 2013-03-06 20:33:38.518

The European Union expanded from its first conceptualization as an economic union hedging possible German expansion to encompass policy areas traditionally controlled by the state. One of these areas—immigration and asylum—is closely associated with ideas of state identity and citizenship, and is an area in which states have been unwilling to cede control. Two member states—Italy and Spain—have many similarities, one of which is significant issues in regard to large and undocumented migration but, despite that, took quite different policy directions vis-à-vis the EU’s proposed immigration and asylum norms. This research examines Italy and Spain using Knill and Lehmkuhl’s mechanisms of Europeanization during three policymaking timeframes in order to determine how and why these states have taken divergent paths. This thesis found that different mechanisms were used during different periods and that counterintuitive to expected findings, the weakest mechanism is dominant during the current era.

In this thesis I use the case study of Portuguese construction workers in Toronto to provide an assessment of how Canada’s skill-based immigrant selection policies treat workers with low human capital. Government rhetoric and much academic writing has presented skill-based immigration programs as responding effectively to the needs of the labour market, and as a progressive move away from the racist and particularistic exclusions present in previous policies. However, the case study presented in this thesis provides a less optimistic reading of the situation. A persistent labour shortage in manual trades, and a selection system that excludes ‘blue collar’ workers from permanent membership, suggest an immigration policy that is neither in synch with the needs of the labour market nor justly administered. Through a discursive policy analysis, I critique Canadian citizenship and immigration policy in two areas. First, policies have been built on flawed assumptions about how certain segments of the labour market function, leading them to place too high a premium on human capital. Second, workers with low human capital tend to be denied permanent membership and held on precarious legal statuses. The result is a differential access to key social, civic and economic rights depending on a migrant’s skill category. An image of ‘fragmented citizenship’ therefore appears more realistic than writings proclaiming an expansion of universal rights and the emergence of a postnational mode of belonging. The new exclusions of skill-based selection systems have not gone unchallenged. In the case of Toronto’s Portuguese community, protests in 2006 surrounding the deportation of undocumented construction workers served to visibly challenge the state’s definition of what constitutes a ‘desirable citizen’. The protests generated wide public support by engaging a traditional logic of national citizenship, arguing that the Portuguese fit the bill as ‘good Canadians’, though this came at the cost of reinforcing the barriers to entry for other groups of migrants.

In this thesis I use the case study of Portuguese construction workers in Toronto to provide an assessment of how Canada’s skill-based immigrant selection policies treat workers with low human capital. Government rhetoric and much academic writing has presented skill-based immigration programs as responding effectively to the needs of the labour market, and as a progressive move away from the racist and particularistic exclusions present in previous policies. However, the case study presented in this thesis provides a less optimistic reading of the situation. A persistent labour shortage in manual trades, and a selection system that excludes ‘blue collar’ workers from permanent membership, suggest an immigration policy that is neither in synch with the needs of the labour market nor justly administered. Through a discursive policy analysis, I critique Canadian citizenship and immigration policy in two areas. First, policies have been built on flawed assumptions about how certain segments of the labour market function, leading them to place too high a premium on human capital. Second, workers with low human capital tend to be denied permanent membership and held on precarious legal statuses. The result is a differential access to key social, civic and economic rights depending on a migrant’s skill category. An image of ‘fragmented citizenship’ therefore appears more realistic than writings proclaiming an expansion of universal rights and the emergence of a postnational mode of belonging. The new exclusions of skill-based selection systems have not gone unchallenged. In the case of Toronto’s Portuguese community, protests in 2006 surrounding the deportation of undocumented construction workers served to visibly challenge the state’s definition of what constitutes a ‘desirable citizen’. The protests generated wide public support by engaging a traditional logic of national citizenship, arguing that the Portuguese fit the bill as ‘good Canadians’, though this came at the cost of reinforcing the barriers to entry for other groups of migrants.

Recently, the H-1B visa program has been a target of reform under the Trump administration. This study explores whether the employment of H-1B physicians in U.S. hospitals has any effect on the quality of healthcare provided. As indicators of quality, I use patient survey scores as well as mortality and readmission rates. This new econometric evidence suggests that patient perception of quality is not influenced by prejudice toward nonimmigrant physicians, but provides inconclusive results for the rate-based measures of healthcare quality.

In this thesis I use the case study of Portuguese construction workers in Toronto to provide an assessment of how Canada’s skill-based immigrant selection policies treat workers with low human capital. Government rhetoric and much academic writing has presented skill-based immigration programs as responding effectively to the needs of the labour market, and as a progressive move away from the racist and particularistic exclusions present in previous policies. However, the case study presented in this thesis provides a less optimistic reading of the situation. A persistent labour shortage in manual trades, and a selection system that excludes ‘blue collar’ workers from permanent membership, suggest an immigration policy that is neither in synch with the needs of the labour market nor justly administered. Through a discursive policy analysis, I critique Canadian citizenship and immigration policy in two areas. First, policies have been built on flawed assumptions about how certain segments of the labour market function, leading them to place too high a premium on human capital. Second, workers with low human capital tend to be denied permanent membership and held on precarious legal statuses. The result is a differential access to key social, civic and economic rights depending on a migrant’s skill category. An image of ‘fragmented citizenship’ therefore appears more realistic than writings proclaiming an expansion of universal rights and the emergence of a postnational mode of belonging. The new exclusions of skill-based selection systems have not gone unchallenged. In the case of Toronto’s Portuguese community, protests in 2006 surrounding the deportation of undocumented construction workers served to visibly challenge the state’s definition of what constitutes a ‘desirable citizen’. The protests generated wide public support by engaging a traditional logic of national citizenship, arguing that the Portuguese fit the bill as ‘good Canadians’, though this came at the cost of reinforcing the barriers to entry for other groups of migrants. / Arts, Faculty of / Geography, Department of / Graduate

The aim of this study was to describe, analyze and compare the Left Party’s, the Social Democratic Party’s, the Liberal People’s Party’s and the Moderate Party’s ideas on immigration policy from 1960-2010. In this study the immigration policy program or party program was analyzed through idea analysis to find out what immigration policy interventions they have come with, and if they want to assimilate or integrate immigrants. Materials used for the study are the immigration policy programs and party programs. Even scientific journals and articles have been used, in both national and international level. An analysis instrument, by Carl Dahlström (2004), has been used in this study. In the analysis instrument the author mentions eleven (11) immigration policy interventions (6 integration and 5 assimilation meansures). The study concluded that the parties had different immigration policy interventions (assimilation and integration), but during certain periods of time, a number of parties had an equal number of interventions. Keywords: Immigration policy, integration policy, assimilation policy, party program, immigration policy program.

In the following dissertation, I consider how the legal challenges faced by LGBTI refugees might compel reflection on and revision to traditional conceptions of citizenship in the United States. Specifically, I explore the question of how queer refugees and asylum seekers might alter – or queer – the meaning of “citizenship” in the United States. This project contributes to the conversation about citizenship in the field of rhetoric in multiple ways: (1) It highlights tensions between the cultural construction of citizenship and its legal parameters, (2) It expands rhetorical citizenship scholarship through attention to the intersection of identification, marginalization, and the political imaginary, and (3) It reveals tensions between norms of civic and sexual identity. It does this by tracing rhetorical precedent through a case study of sexual orientation and gender identity asylum in the United States. I argue that LGBTI refugees and asylees can shape a queered discourse of citizenship, but that the discourse produced is limited based on narrow definitions of sexual orientation and identity categories. To make this argument, I analyze the precedent-setting case involving Fidel Armando Toboso-Alfonso, in which I address how the establishment of that case as precedent set in place norms of sexual identity that persist in the adjudication of LGBTI asylum cases today. Next, I look to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration training module for handling LGBTI asylum claims in order to make sense of the ways the norms set forth in the precedent-setting case have become codified and interrogated in current efforts to adjudicate LGBTI asylum claims. Finally, I compare visual representations of LGBTI asylum seekers to other refugees in order to understand how photographs of LGBTI asylum seekers fit within or rupture the genre of refugee photography. Taken together, these case studies provide insight into how citizenship is discursively imagined when access to citizen status is predicated on simultaneous normative and non-normative performances of sexual identity.