Matching Items (7)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Political Science
- Creators: Colbern, Allan
Description
This project seeks to explore how organizations work toward refugee and immigrant integration through forming different types of coalitions and strategic networks. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to identify when coalitions emerge between refugee organizations and immigrant rights groups in order to examine their development, from how the coalitions broadly conceive of refugee and immigrant rights, to how they organize resources and information sharing, service provision, policy advocacy, and policy implementation. The project is guided by the question: What explains the formation of coalitions that advocate for both immigrant rights and refugee rights? Through examining the formation and development of these coalitions, this thesis engages at the intersections of immigration federalism, refugee studies and human rights scholarship to reveal deeper complexities in the politics of immigrant integration. The project sharpens these three scholarly intersections by three multi-level jurisdictions – California and Arizona in the United States and Athens in Greece – and by employing comparative analysis to unpack how national governments and federalism dynamics shape coalition building around immigrant integration.
ContributorsAmoroso-Pohl, Melanie Hope (Author) / Colbern, Allan (Thesis advisor) / Keahey, Jennifer (Committee member) / Walker, Shawn (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Madness is disruptive. It doesn't play by the rules. Madness is influenced, created, and caused by many different factors; it can be at different times disorienting, debilitating, or a space of radical potential. In this thesis, I argue for the empowering potential of narrative and rewriting identity in the face of painful disruptions. I argue that the way that we conceptualize madness and how we internalize trauma affects how we reconfigure identity as an ongoing process and therefore whether and how we are able to embrace creative, diverse and dynamically empowered futures. I argue against positivist traditions of categorization and concept formation when it comes to madness – whether medical or historic//cultural/social. I first use similar tools to “categorize the categorizers” and later break away from positivist tradition through feminist inquiry, pushing against static, linear, and inactive kind and family conceptual hierarchies with my own experience. I use active feminist frameworks and phenomenological ontologies to argue for a corrective epistemic justice exposing reductive gaps in the literature and highlighting the links between violence/oppression/trauma/agency and mental illness that positivist models minimize. I employ personal experiences of gender-based violence and my own changing and intersectional understanding and experience of depression and mental health as a lens through which different pathways can emerge. I use memoir as method to disturb the binary limitations of madness models, instead offering a conceptualization of madness as fluid, intersectional, changing, and deeply personal: an experience that cannot be reduced and compartmentalized. Finally, I explore the pain of trauma and madness as well as the possibility therein towards action as a way of reclaiming self-agency.
ContributorsTownsley, Rebecca (Author) / Behl, Natasha (Thesis advisor) / Muphy-Erfani, Julie (Committee member) / Colbern, Allan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Campaign finance regulation has drastically changed since the founding of the Republic. Originally, few laws regulated how much could be contributed to political campaigns and who could make contributions. One by one, Congress passed laws to limit the possibility of corruption, for example by banning the solicitation of federal workers and banning contributions from corporations. As the United States moved into the 20th Century, regulations became more robust with more accountability. The modern structure of campaign finance regulation was established in the 1970's with legislation like the Federal Election Campaign Act and with Supreme Court rulings like in Buckley v. Valeo. Since then, the Court has moved increasingly to strike down campaign finance laws they see as limiting to First Amendment free speech. However, Arizona is one of a handful of states that established a system of publicly financed campaigns at the state-wide and legislative level. Passed in 1998, Proposition 200 attempted to limit the influence of money politics. For my research I hypothesized that a public financing system like the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Commission (CCEC) would lead to Democrats running with public funds more than Republicans, women running clean more than men, and rural candidates running clean more than urban ones, and that Democrats, women, and rural candidates would win in higher proportions than than if they ran a traditional campaign. After compiling data from the CCEC and the National Institute on Money in State Politics, I found that Democrats do run with public funds in statistically higher proportions than Republicans, but when they do they lose in higher proportions than Democrats who run traditionally. Female candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008, after which the difference was not statistically significant. For all year ranges women who ran with public money lost in higher proportions than women who ran traditionally. Similarly, rural candidates only ran at a statistically higher proportion from 2002 to 2008. However, they only lost at higher proportions from 2002 to 2008 instead of the whole range like with women and Democratic candidates.
ContributorsMarshall, Austin Tyler (Author) / Herrera, Richard (Thesis director) / Jones, Ruth (Committee member) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
This thesis seeks to build upon the empirical use of the Copenhagen School of security studies by evaluating and investigating speech-acts in recent Guatemalan newspaper media as they relate to drug trafficking within the geopolitical borders of Guatemala, particularly induced by Los Zetas, a Mexican drug cartel. The study attempts to engage a critical theoretical framework to study securitization within the country and thereby build upon the theory by conducting real-life analysis. Using a research program that is made up of content and text analysis of national press and presidential speeches, I test several hypotheses that pertain to the processes of Guatemala's current drug trade and drug trafficking securitization. By coding securitizing speech-acts and discursive frames in the national print media, I identify the national elite, the power relations between the national elite and citizenship, and attempts to dramatize the issue of drug trade. Upon analyzing the findings of such securitization, I propose several hypotheses as to why the national elite seeks high politicization of drug trade and the implications that rest on such drastic measures. This thesis itself, then, has important implications: it uses empirical tools to help further the theoretical foundations of the Copenhagen School, it examines the process of securitization study from a real world context outside the developed world, and it presents important information on the possible consequences of securitizing drug trade.
ContributorsBrinkmoeller, Matthew (Author) / Doty, Roxanne (Thesis advisor) / Gortzak, Yoav (Committee member) / Jones, Ruth (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
Drawing from feminist scholarship, this thesis re-articulates the concept of “liberal bargain” to makes sense of political parties, race and class in the United States. Specifically, the concept of “partisan liberal bargain” is developed in this thesis to capture how the Democratic party's behavior strategically de-centers race in favor of class discourse. These bargains, the thesis argues, reinforces how liberal orders and racial orders operate together to marginalize both racial and class-based minorities. Employing discourse analysis of over 1,000 news articles, the thesis reveals and unpacks bargains occurring during the 2016 and 2020 Democratic primaries, with a focus on three policy areas where racial justice is intimately and historically embedded: 1) criminal justice, 2) health care, and 3) environmental policy. Discourse analysis empirically captures the thesis’ concept of partisan liberal bargains, showing a prominent lack of concrete or substantial centering of race and strong centering of class and neoliberal discourse. Thus, despite the Democratic party’s strong African American voting bloc and association as the party of race and diversity, this thesis and the concept of partisan liberal bargains shows that racial justice is avoided and even delegitimized in party politics.
ContributorsGallegos, Jacob Daniel (Author) / Colbern, Allan (Thesis advisor) / Keahey, Jennifer (Committee member) / Proferes, Nicholas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021
Description
This study analyzes the role of bipartisan coalitions in creating exclusionary, enforcement focused immigration policy. First, the thesis covers the history of federal immigration law and connects this to critical migration scholarship, which emphasizes the racialization of migration controls and enforcement regimes, by highlighting the growing federal categories of immigrant illegality and criminality. Next, the thesis develops an original framework that builds on prior scholarship in political science to systematically connect coalition building and the Democratic party’s complicity as a cause of this growing regime. Specifically, the thesis applies a coalition building analysis of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, with special focus given to how the president, congressional leaders, and interest groups, in the 1980s. A key finding is that both political parties pushed the enforcement narrative and played key roles to enact employment verification into federal immigration law. The thesis connects this finding to critiques about the two-party political system as well as scholarship that exposes the injustice of U.S. immigration enforcement regime that continued to grow in the interior, at the border, and globally.
ContributorsGoodnight, Ronald Eugene (Author) / Colbern, Allan (Thesis advisor) / Firoz, Malay (Committee member) / Behl, Natasha (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
There are many historical inequities regarding housing in the United States, such as the lack of access to affordable and secure housing for people of color, which is a result of centuries of exclusion. These problems remain ineffectively addressed or unaddressed by policy. Indeed, many community-based organizations report that housing policies fail to address the needs of the people—especially those in marginalized communities. Top-down approaches are efficient and more broadly applicable but miss important community-specific problems. Meanwhile, bottom-up approaches excel in highlighting community perspectives and the lived experiences of residents, but they are challenging to generalize across jurisdictions. This thesis captures community-based understandings of policy through in-depth interviews with community-based organizations (CBOs) and applies these understandings to develop a new quantitative framework for evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of housing policies that can be applied across the United States. The thesis also explores various housing policies through a multi-dimensional, intersectional, and forward-thinking analysis that centers marginalized communities.
ContributorsMoen, Anders Jacob (Author) / Colbern, Allan (Thesis advisor) / Pfeiffer, Deirdre (Committee member) / Lee, Sangmi (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2021