Why EU asylum standards exceed the lowest common denominator: the role of regulatory expertise in EU decision-making

While scholars traditionally expected EU policy-making in the area of asylum to produce lowest common denominator standards, recent studies on the first phase of the Common European Asylum System have observed higher asylum standards in some instances. This article aims at explaining this divergence. Drawing on concepts of regulatory expertise and ‘misfit’, it argues that the observed variation in policy output can be explained by the dominance of a few (Northern) member states which were highly successful in inserting their positions in the core EU directives. Government effectiveness and exposure to the phenomenon entailing regulatory expertise provide a powerful explanation for member states being effective policy-shapers. Characterized by low levels of government effectiveness and exposure in the asylum area, Southern European countries were, on the contrary, rather passive during the negotiations and barely left any mark on the EU directives

The Influence of Disorganized Neighborhoods on Delinquency

Disorganized neighborhoods are associated with high levels of violence which can impact resident’s relationships and delinquency. Using self-report surveys from students in a juvenile delinquency course at South Dakota State University and a juvenile justice course at California State University, San Bernardino, this project will compare neighborhood disorganization and friend influence across delinquent behavior. It is expected that there will be a high correlation between disorganized neighborhoods and self-reported delinquency

Goldstein v. Securities and Exchange Commission

Hedge funds are one of the fastest growing and most controversial segments of the financial market. Most people know very little about hedge funds other than that they are the investment vehicle of choice for well-heeled investors - the place where the rich put their money in order to get even richer. In fact, hedge funds thrive on the lack of knowledge about what exactly it is that they do. Without the ability to keep their trading strategies confidential, hedge funds argue they would not be able generate the impressive returns that keep them in business. And so when the Securities and Exchange Commission implemented a rule requiring most hedge fund operators to register their names and open their books for inspection, it is no wonder that it triggered cries of outrage in the industry. Many hedge fund managers threatened to simply move their operations offshore (though it is not clear how many were actually prepared to follow through on that threat). Others took the battle to court. The result of one of those legal battles, Goldstein v. SEC was a decision in June 2006 by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in which the court ordered the SEC to scrap the new rule. The decision effectively allowed hedge funds to maintain the anonymity they desired. That decision and the developments in the law that led to it, are the subject of this paper. While the decision represents an important victory for hedge funds, the debate about whether hedge funds should be more closely regulated continues in Congress and the popular media. This article outlines recommendations for what the SEC or politicians should do in regard to hedge fund regulation. These recommendations can best be summarized as “do nothing.” However, if courts were inclined to make such recommendations, it would likely be one the Goldstein court would agree with. Although not central to the decision, it is clear that the SEC failed to convince the court that there was much of a compelling reason for the new rule on hedge funds because none of the dangers that the SEC warned about actually materialized. Following a brief introduction to the relevant securities laws, this paper examines the development of the specific law at issue in Goldstein. It then examines the arguments that each side made and analyzes the outcome. The paper concludes with recommendations that I believe stem directly from the court\u27s finding and the logic that underlies it

Why are Central Eastern and Southern Member States only now becoming active in EU asylum policies?

Recent attempts to reform EU asylum policy have been characterised by sharp divisions between Southern European countries and states in Central and Eastern Europe over mandatory refugee quotas. Yet as Natascha Zaun explains, this stands in stark contrast to EU asylum debates prior to the 2015 asylum crisis, when both Central Eastern and Southern Member States largely remained silent. She argues the 2015 crisis made clear the redistributive implications of EU asylum policies and motivated these states to adopt stronger positions at the European level

An Analysis of Vacation Activities of the Public and Its Image of North Dakota as a Vacation and Travel Area

This study was designed to determine public attitude toward and knowledge about the State of North Dakota, and to gather data concerning vacation activities of respondents located throughout the United States. The findings of this survey were also compared to the findings of a similar survey conducted in 1960, in order to identify changes in awareness concerning the state or trends in the vacation activities of the public. Primary data was gathered by mail survey packets sent to 500 alumni of North Dakota State University which contained questionnaires that were to be completed by their friends. Each packet contained five questionnaires, instructions, a letter from the governor, and a return envelope. The packets were sent to alumni living in every state in proportion to each state\u27s population. Of the 2,500 questionnaires mailed, 923 were returned, for a 36.9 per cent return rate. The findings of the two studies indicated that the 1972 vacationer was more likely to travel, and more likely to venture out-of- state than was his 1960 counterpart. Families on vacation in 1972 were also more likely to participate in outdoor sports and visit points of historic interest while traveling than were the 1960 vacationers. Respondents of both surveys found it difficult to distinguish between North and South Dakota. Those respondents who were able to distinguish between the two states usually cited South Dakota\u27s Black Hills and Mount Rushmore as the distinguishing characteristic. Over one-third of the respondents answered either cold or snow when asked to record a one-word impression of North Dakota. Finally, the percentage of respondents of the 1960 survey indicating they had seen or heard travel literature or advertising referring to North Dakota exceeded the percentage of 1972 respondents who could recall being exposed to such promotion

Norms matter! The role of international norms in EU policies on asylum and immigration

This article investigates how international norms impact on EU asylum and immigration policy. To this end we scrutinize the assumption that the robustness of international norms indicates the quality of EU integration. Drawing on international norms literature we argue that four characters define an international norms’ robustness: specificity in definition, binding force, coherence with domestic law and international law, and concordant understanding among actors. Our analysis covers three EU policy areas, asylum policy, family reunification policy, and labour migration policy. Across the three areas international norms had had varying degrees of robustness at the time of EU negotiations. The findings show that presence and robustness of international norms on asylum or immigration regulation are reflected in EU legislation. Given that there are more robust norms available on questions of status than on reception conditions or asylum procedures, the qualification directive was much easier to agree on than the reception conditions or the asylum procedures directive which were much more characterized by hard bargaining. The international norm, right to family life, was sufficiently robust and was codified in EU law. However, both the international norm and the EU law do not provide for clear admission criteria. On labour migration, robust international norms with regard to equality provisions for migrant workers are mirrored in EU legislation on residence rights of migrants. With regard to conditions of admission, the absence of international norms indicates little to no EU legislation

One step forward, two steps back: the ambiguous role of Germany in EU asylum policies

Drawing on the Core State Power framework, this paper assesses Germany’s ambiguous role in EU asylum policies from signing of the Maastricht Treaty to the present. It demonstrates that Germany has neither taken on the role of a leader nor pursued any consistent course regarding the institutional setup or content of EU asylum policies. However, this does not mean that Germany does not have any preferences in this area. Overall, German governments have supported whatever policy would decrease the country’s share of asylum-seekers vis-à-vis other European countries, in order to achieve two core goals: first, to avoid the material costs resulting from high numbers of asylum-seekers, a preference that is common among state elites; and second, to avoid audience/electoral costs resulting from the comparatively restrictive preferences of the public, especially when these are mobilised by right-wing populist parties

Regional mobility spaces? Visa waiver policies and regional intergration.

Visa policies today are a central instrument for filtering wanted and unwanted types of travellers, leading to a hierarchy of mobility rights. While there is evidence of a “global mobility divide”, we still know little about the role of regional integration when it comes to the distribution of mobility rights and the (re)structuring of mobility spaces. Against this background, the paper examines the structure of visa relations in different bodies of regional integration (EU, MERCOSUR, ASEAN, ECOWAS, EAC, NAFTA, SADC and SICA). In this article, we compare visa policies in the member states of these institutions in 1969 and 2010 from a social network perspective. While one would generally expect each institution’s member states to become more similar with regard to both internal and external mobility regulations, we find that not all regional clusters align their visa policies. Potential explanations for this state of affairs are investigated

Circumventing deadlock through venue-shopping: Why there is not only talk in US immigration policies in times of economic crisis

This article addresses the question how the financial and economic crisis that hit the US in the late 2000s impacted on immigration policies. Drawing on Kingdon’s multiple streams model and combining it with the notion of two-level games, we find that while the policy stream and the problem stream would call for both restrictive and liberalising changes, the political stream impedes change: The fact that Congress is since long divided over a Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) impedes any restrictive or liberalising changes. With problems resulting from current policies being intensified through the global economic crisis, however, actors favouring either restrictive or liberal policy change look for alternative venues to pursue their policy aims. Through legislative changes on the state level or via executive orders by the president, policies can be changed on a lower level without a CIR