The online platform for Taylor & Francis Group content

Cookies Notification

This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more.
Advanced and citation search

Citizenship Studies

Volume 18, Issue 6-7, 2014

Translator disclaimer
Between punishment and discipline: comparing strategies to control unauthorized immigration in the United States

Between punishment and discipline: comparing strategies to control unauthorized immigration in the United States

DOI:
10.1080/13621025.2013.865906
Walter Nichollsa*

pages 579-599

Article Views: 213
Article usage statistics combine cumulative total PDF downloads and full-text HTML views from publication date (but no earlier than 25 Jun 2011, launch date of this website) to 30 Apr 2015. Article views are only counted from this site. Although these data are updated every 24 hours, there may be a 48-hour delay before the most recent numbers are available.

Abstract

Immigration scholars have noted the rise of a distinctive discourse concerning immigrants in the United States. The ‘immigrant threat’ discourse is said to portray immigrants as an existential threat to the country and contributes to highly restrictive enforcement policies. Through a close examination of national political debates concerning comprehensive immigration reform (CIR) (2005–2007), the paper shows that most politicians involved in this debate (from liberal Democrats to conservative Republicans) agreed with the basic assumptions of this general discourse. But the paper also identifies important variants on the ‘threat’ discourse and associated strategies. Hardline conservatives stressed that the essential ‘illegalness’ of immigrants posed a threat to the country. Protecting the nation state from this threat required policies to totally banish all undocumented immigrants from the country, irrespective of their ‘good’ conduct or exceptional circumstances. Moderate and liberal reform advocates agreed with the idea that undocumented immigrants posed a threat to the country. However, they believed that banishment alone could not address the threat. Instead they advocated a strategy of risk management whereby the population would be differentiated according to levels of risk (high to low priority) and policies of inclusion and exclusion would be adjusted accordingly. This would allow the government to incorporate low risk/priority immigrants while freeing government resources to target the ‘truly threatening’ groups (i.e., criminals, delinquents, homeless, repeat unauthorized entries, etc.). Thus, while both sides conceded that undocumented immigrants were a threat to the country, they developed important variants on the discourse and contrasting policy solutions to exert control over the population.

Keywords:

Related articles

View all related articles
 

Details

  • Citation information:
  • Received: 14 May 2013
  • Accepted: 2 Aug 2013
  • Published online: 10 Mar 2014

Author affiliations

  • a Department of Sociology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Journal news

Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days

Librarians

Taylor & Francis Group