Competing for Refugees: A Market-Based Solution to a Humanitarian Crisis

The current refugee crisis demands novel legal solutions, and new ways of summoning the political will to implement them. As a matter of national incentives, the goal must be to design mechanisms that discourage countries of origin from creating refugees, and encourage host countries to welcome them. One way to achieve this would be to recognize that persecuted refugee groups have a financial claim against their countries of origin, and that this claim can be traded to host nations in exchange for acceptance. Modifications to the international apparatus would be necessary, but the basic legal elements of this proposal already exist. In short, international law can and should give refugees a legal asset, give host nations incentives to accept them, and give oppressive countries of origin the bill

Does Private Islamic Schooling Promote Terrorism? An Analysis of the Educational Background of Successful American Homegrown Terrorists

Some commentators argue that private religious schools are less likely to inculcate the attributes of good citizenship than traditional public schools, specifically proposing that private Islamic schools are relatively more likely to produce individuals sympathetic to terrorism. This study offers a preliminary examination of the question by studying the educational backgrounds of Western educated terrorists. While data are limited, in accord with prior work findings indicate the vast majority of both Islamic and reactionary terrorists attended traditional public schools and had no religious education; hence findings suggest that early religious training and identification may actually encourage prosocial behavior

De-centring the securitization of asylum and migration in the European Union: Securitization, vulnerability and the role of Turkey

This article contributes to the debates on de-centring the analysis of migration governance in Europe by focusing on the potential role of external actors in the securitisation of asylum and migration in the European Union (EU). Although there has been a growing amount of literature on the securitisation of asylum and migration in the EU, the role possibly played by external actors in this securitisation process has not been considered to date. This article addresses this gap using the case of Turkey. Theoretically, it contributes to the development of the securitisation framework by de-centring the study of securitisation processes. It argues that, from the vantage point of an external actor, a securitisation process highlights the existence of a vulnerability to a specific phenomenon that is perceived to be threatening. An external actor can then decide to exploit this vulnerability for its own gain, notably by making threats that play on the fears of the other political actor. Empirically, the article demonstrates how the Turkish government has been able to exploit the vulnerability of European countries to migration flows, which had been highlighted by the social construction of asylum and migration as security issues. By repeatedly threatening to send more asylum-seekers and migrants Europe’s way, the Turkish authorities have managed to secure some significant financial and political benefits for themselves in the last few years

Security and polarization in Trump’s America: securitization and the domestic politics of threatening others

This article explores the relationship between foreign policy and domestic politics under Trump. We employ Gramscian theory to make sense of US foreign policy structures, conceptualizing the Trump administration as engaged in a discursive war of position over narratives of national identity and security. Second, we use securitization theory to conceptualize agency and change within this. We analyse 1200 official, opposition and media texts over 20 months following Trump's election. First, we consider Trump's attempted securitization of immigration. Second, we explore the counter-securitization of Trump as a threat to “progressive” America. Third, we analyse how Trump securitized the opposition, conflating the constructed threat posed by immigration with political elites. We show how this led to greater polarization of US political debate, which became underwritten by securitized language. Finally, we note security's referent differed for both groups, with Trump's ethnocentric “real” America opposed to the liberal America endorsed by his critics.