Matching Items (3)
Description
Are there measurable differences between the human capital of the refugee children born inside and outside of the United States? If so, does the amount of time spent abroad before immigrating matter, and can we get an idea of what happens to this gap over time? Looking at the Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS) 1991-2006, I examine standardized test scores and other indicators of performance of young Indochinese refugees and immigrants. This study finds evidence for a negative correlation between being born abroad and performance in selected metrics at the time of early adolescence. This is extended into a negative relationship between the lengths of time abroad before coming to the United States (age of arrival) and those same metrics. However, this study finds signs that this gap in human capital is at least partly bridged by the time of early adulthood. It remains unclear though, whether this possible catch up is reflected in other early adult outcomes such as household income.
ContributorsWatterson, Christen Brock (Author) / Schoellman, Todd (Thesis director) / Leiva Bertran, Fernando (Committee member) / Department of Economics (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Muslim refugees and Muslim immigrants, and undocumented immigrants have been a prominent part of American culture and have been woven into the history of the United States. Both group's presence in the United States has elicited rhetoric from U.S citizens and U.S public officials. One may infer that the narrative of Muslim refugees and Muslim immigrants overlaps the narrative of undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Both Muslim refugees and immigrants as well as unauthorized immigrants, are criminalized in the United States, or are associated to crime by default of their faith and or their legal status. The association that Muslim refugees and Muslim immigrants, and undocumented immigrants have with crime, based on their rhetoric, has elicited a policy from the United States government as well. The United States government has responded to a presumed threat that both groups pose to U.S. citizens and the nation by means of aggressive legislation, both local and federal. In this research paper, past and present discourse on Muslim refugees and Muslim immigrants and undocumented immigrants was analyzed to determine each of the group's narrative; the mainstream media, newspapers and photographic images, was also considered to determine the narrative of both groups. Based on the discourse on Muslim refugees and Muslim immigrants and on undocumented immigrants, the media portrayal of both groups, and on the change of public policy one may assert that the narratives of both groups overlaps; as both Muslim refugees and immigrants and unauthorized immigrants are seen as a possible threat to the American people.
ContributorsGalvan, Brigitte Magdalena (Author) / Doty, Roxanne (Thesis director) / Magaña, Lisa (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
The purpose of this thesis was to answer the research question of how do states and international agencies, respectively, differ in application of efforts towards implementation of refugee rights, status, and protection and/or resettlement and why these differences occur. The respective refugee crises that arose following the Bosnian war in the 1990s and the Syrian civil war happening in the present day were used as case studies to further examine and answer this question. These case studies were chosen due to their relatively large refugee populations and differing causes for said refugee populations. To properly measure efficacy of refugee policies on a state and international level, the dispute of state sovereignty versus the right to international intervention was focused on and assessed exhaustively throughout this paper. It was determined that sovereignty could only be deemed legitimate and free of international intervention if certain basic functions (keeping the peace, upholding human rights, etc.) were being upheld within a territory's borders. In the cases of both Bosnia and Syria, the lack of protection and rights provided for refugees warranted international intervention, yet that intervention was not always carried out in the most efficient manner. This paper sought to elaborate on why international intervention occurred when it did and whether it was more powerful than state sovereignty. In the end, international agencies would be most effective in implementing refugee policies if individual states complied with those set policies. Until then, the battle between international policies and the proper implementation of those policies by individual states will remain an intricate one.
ContributorsAouad, Dina Ghassan (Author) / Sivak, Henry (Thesis director) / Larson, Elizabeth (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12