Sociology: Comparative Immigration

Respond to questions 1 and 2 in typed essays, each of which is roughly 650 words long. Respond to question 3 in a typed essay roughly 1250 words long. Use 12 point font and make sure that your essays are all double-spaced.

Reminder regarding plagiarism: Plagiarism will not be tolerated. Taking exact wordings from lecture slides and advancing them as your own thoughts constitutes a form of plagiarism. You may, of course, rephrase information taken from lecture slides; you may also cite or quote from lecture slides, all the while appropriately referencing the lecture and/or date that the lecture was presented. Exact quotations should be limited in number; you must express ideas in your own words.

1. Drawing on Aptekar, Bloemraad, and Fassin and Mazouz, as well as lectures, contrast Canada, France, and the USA to explain how the “meaning of citizenship” varies among these three countries, with particular attention to the degree to which citizenship is understood as encompassing or excluding continuing homeland attachments.

2. How did cognitive and affective (emotional) factors influence the citizenship decisions of the Castillo family? What objectives did they seek to advance in obtaining citizenship and how did those goals vary by gender and cohort?

3. Explanations of changes in immigration policy contrast the influence of factors related to domestic politics as opposed to pressures or incentives arising from the international arena. Drawing on readings (Tichenor; FitzGerald and Cook-Martin; Reimers; Lee) and lectures, use key concepts such as that of path dependency, strange bedfellow coalitions, the rights/admissions dimensions of immigration policy, the politics of national humiliation, vertical v horizontal dimensions to explain the ways in which both domestic and international politics influence immigration policy; focus your explanation on one episode from each of the following groups:

Group 1: The Chinese exclusion act; the National Origins Act of 1924; the exclusion of Mexicans from the National Origins Act of 1924 (the quota act);

Group 2: The Hart-Celler Act of 1964; the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986; or the current-day stalemate over Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Provide details and examples from readings and lectures.

Please note that you must analyze two policy episodes, taking one from group 1 and one from group 2. There is no expectation that domestic and international factors will be equally important in each case that you analyze (though that may be true); most important is that you demonstrate your ability to identify influences of each type.

Rules:

• Double spaced
• 12 point font (Times New Roman)
• 650 + 650 + 1,250 = total 2,550 words
• MLA format
• Include work cited page
• Cite all sources
• At least 5 sources (pick from readings and lectures listed below only)