BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Center for International and Regional Studies - ECPv6.16.2//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Center for International and Regional Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Center for International and Regional Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/Moscow
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
TZNAME:MSK
DTSTART:20190101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20200215T090000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20200216T150000
DTSTAMP:20260611T223947
CREATED:20200308T104243Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20240314T072654Z
UID:10001430-1581757200-1581865200@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Economic Migration to the United States Roundtable
DESCRIPTION:On February 15-16\, 2020\, the Center for International and Regional Studies (CIRS) held a Research Roundtable on the topic of Economic Migration to the United States with the purpose to deepen our understanding of the challenges and opportunities of skilled immigration flows to the U.S. OECD countries\, and\, until fairly recently\, the U.S. have developed their migration policies and systems to attract skilled and highly-skilled migrants. With the last major immigration legislation being enacted 30 years ago\, it is a worthwhile endeavor to analyze the current policy environment and lived experiences of skilled migrants in the U.S. Over the course of two days\, participating scholars and experts engaged in a dynamic conversation that explored several important areas\, including: transnational migration patterns to the U.S.\, categories of mobility\, migration policy and reform\, national security and migration\, international student dynamics\, and integration and political mobilization of specific migrant populations. \n\nSilvia Pedraza\, Professor of Sociology and American Culture at the University of Michigan\, Ann Arbor\, started the conversation by presenting the economic\, political\, and social aspects of transnationalism\, as practiced by immigrants in their home and host countries. Instant communication has made an enormous impact on the lives of immigrants\, helping them to remain connected to their families and community in their home countries. A particularly interesting phenomenon for the Cuban community is the emerging economic markets that have sprung up with the lifting of U.S. embargo against Cuba. Dr. Pedraza questions how increasing transnationalism and easier communication with the home country has affected the assimilation of Cuban immigrants\, and whether it comes at a social or cultural cost to society. \n\nThere are many complex categories of immigration visas to the U.S. Payal Banerjee\, Associate Professor and Chair of Sociology at Smith College\, challenged the participants to consider that the status of highly-skilled migrants is just as precarious as that of low-skilled migrants. Though the common assumption is that low-skilled migrants are more vulnerable than highly-skilled migrants\, the dependence on an employer\, university\, or family member for their legal status produces an unstable situation for highly-skilled migrants. Their status is conditional and terminable at any point\, which could be to the benefit of the employer to keep wages low and the workforce flexible. The divide between documented and undocumented\, skilled and unskilled\, can be challenged when considering that all migrants exist in a state of precarity. Dr. Banerjee argued that immigration and migration policies will need to adapt to the labor ecology of the future\, given the trends pointing towards AI\, automation\, and the use of algorithms in the sectors that are heavily reliant on skilled labor. \n\nContinuing on the theme of immigration policy reform\, Katharine Donato\, the Donald G. Herzberg Professor of International Migration and Director of the Institute for the Study of International Migration in the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University\, led the group through a discussion on the paradoxical way U.S. government administrations have approached reform. Immigration law has not changed since 1990\, but rather\, adjustments have been made on an ad-hoc basis through presidential orders and executive actions. On one hand\, management of immigration policy by executive order is destabilizing for labor migrants\, but it also allows for flexibility for this area where it is difficult to get calibrate the policy in a way that works for all stakeholders. This instability also impacts employers\, who find it difficult to match their need with the supply of visas for highly-skilled migrants. \n\nWork towards matching labor flow with employers needs was also a topic under the discussion led by Lindsay Lowell\, Adjunct Research Professor in Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and Senior Affiliate at the Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM)\, in the context of workplace mobility for highly-skilled migrants in the U.S. The STEM field is uniquely interesting in this regard and more research is needed to understand how the immigration system could be better organized to meet the need for STEM workers. Dr. Lowell also put forward for discussion the interplay between higher education and immigration. Many universities develop specific programs designed to attract international students\, who are a large funding source for universities. Students may come to study in the U.S. expecting that after graduation they will be able to easily transfer to a H-1B visa and find employment. But in reality\, this is often not the case. \n\nElizabeth Ferris\, Research Professor at Georgetown University in the Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM)\, led a discussion on the concept of national security in the U.S. as it relates to migration. The relationship between the two\, she argued\, largely depends on how national security is defined. According to Dr. Ferris\, for those traditionalists who view national security as primarily protecting borders\, immigration — both legal and unauthorized — tends to be viewed as a potential threat to U.S. national interests. Others take a broader view of national security to include concepts important to human security. Those who take this view tend to see immigration to the U.S. in terms of long-term economic interests and the soft power of the U.S. Though there is a lot of research on immigration in the context of national security\, more work needs to be done bridging the gap between these two parallel views of the topic. \n\nThe U.S. has historically been one of the key focal points attracting international students. Terry Wotherspoon\, Professor of Sociology at the University of Saskatchewan\, led a discussion on the intentions and ability of international students to stay in the U.S. once their education is completed. General trends suggest that a majority of international students have a strong preference to stay in the country of study. Yet fewer than half of those actually end up staying. There can be many reasons behind why students leave despite their wanting to stay\, but there is not much evidence to draw strong conclusions. Dr. Wotherspoon argued that as source countries like India and China are going through important labor market\, demographic\, and technological changes\, it is important to understand the implication for international student mobility and settlement in the U.S. and the long-term political economy of the higher education field. \n\nOn the second day of the Research Roundtable\, the discussion shifted towards looking at economic migration of specific ethnic groups to the U.S. Michael Ewers\, Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Earth Sciences at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte\, opened the day by leading a conversation on skilled migration to the U.S. from the Middle East. For this population\, it is interesting to consider migration in the context of securitization\, economic benefits\, and perceptions of the security threat of migrants. Though the economic and financial impact of immigration in the U.S. is not well-known and widely debated\, what is certain is that large Middle Eastern immigrant populations are settling in large cities in the U.S. that are trending towards population loss\, such as Chicago\, Los Angeles\, and New York. What this could mean for these cities’ economic markets is an interesting area of research. \n\nMigration flows to the U.S. from Latin America in the past have been largely low-skilled\, but since 2007\, the education levels and English language skills of migrants have increased. René Zenteno\, Professor of Demography at The University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA)\, led the participants in a discussion on the experiences of undocumented highly-skilled migrants from Latin America. There are more highly-skilled migrants in the flow of undocumented migrants than before\, and whether or not they have legal status may impact the ability of the migrant to integrate into the labor market. Highly-skilled Hispanic migrants also experience of workplace discrimination to a greater extent than non-Hispanic highly-skilled migrants\, which may also be related to their legal status. The transference of foreign credentials to the U.S. often creates a skill-job mismatch for Latin American migrants who may be highly qualified in their home country\, but must take positions in the U.S. that require less qualification due to the non-recognition of their foreign credentials. \n\nThe final two sessions of the Research Roundtable discussed the experiences of Asian migrants to the U.S. Sangay Mishra\, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Drew University\, opened a discussion on the political mobilization of South Asian immigrants\, by Indian communities in particular. A unique characteristic of the Indian immigrant population is that the vast majority are foreign-born\, not second generation. Indian immigrants are the third-largest immigrant group in the U.S.\, yet at least 50 percent of Indian immigrants are not U.S. citizens and are on other visa types than just the H-1B visa category. For this community\, the parameters of the H4 dependent visa has been an important area of political mobilization. In particular\, lobbying groups have taken up the issue of the right of H4 dependent migrants to work\, and push for immigration reform in this area. The overwhelming percentage of highly educated women who are in this category forms a unique sub-group of the Indian immigrant population that deserves further examination. \n\nMin Zhou\, Professor of Sociology and Asian American Studies\, Walter and Shirley Wang Endowed Chair in US-China Relations and Communications\, and Director of the Asia Pacific Center at the University of California\, Los Angeles\, continued the discussion in a comparison of the Indian and Chinese highly-skilled migrants in Los Angeles\, California. In terms of visa categories\, Indian immigrants mostly migrate to the U.S. on the H-1B visa. For Chinese immigrants\, the majority of migrants come on a student visa and then adjust to the H-1B category. Yet\, Chinese are the overwhelming majority of the recipients of EB-5 investment visas. The integration patterns of these communities are diverse based on education and profession. Those Chinese migrants who have higher socioeconomic characteristics on arrival seem to integrate much more quickly than others. As the non-Hispanic White population in the U.S. continues to lose the numerical majority\, Dr. Zhou suggests that perhaps the power dynamics between races and migrants/non-migrants could shift. \n\nThere are several overall themes coming out of the two days of discussion\, including: the precarity of immigrants in the U.S.\, across the skill spectrum; the increasing difficulty with which rigid visa categories can accurately match skilled labor with market needs\, especially in the STEM fields; and the long-term career trajectories\, workplace mobility\, and settlement opportunities for highly-skilled migrants and international students\, especially at the intersection of higher education and immigration policies. Immigrant experiences across all nationalities are influenced by gender and generational aspects\, especially when it comes to immigrant families and the ability to integrate into the local labor market. More highly-skilled migrants are undocumented than before\, and their experiences of labor market and social integration and discrimination are important areas for future study. \n\nCIRS plans to follow on from this roundtable with a more in-depth research project on the topic of economic migration to the U.S. in order to better understand these questions. \n\n  \nFor the roundtable agenda\, click here.		\nFor the participants’ biographies\, click here. \n\n\n		For the research initiative\, click here.\nParticipants and Discussants: \nZahra Babar\, CIRS – Georgetown University in Qatar	Payal Banerjee\, Smith College	Katharine M. Donato\, Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) – Georgetown University	Michael Ewers\, University of North Carolina at Charlotte	Elizabeth Ferris\, Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) – Georgetown University	Mehran Kamrava\, CIRS – Georgetown University in Qatar	B. Lindsay Lowell\, Institute for the Study of International Migration (ISIM) – Georgetown University	Sangay Mishra\, Drew University	Silvia Pedraza\, University of Michigan\, Ann Arbor	Elizabeth Wanucha\, CIRS – Georgetown University in Qatar	Terry Wotherspoon\, University of Saskatchewan	René Zenteno\, The University of Texas at San Antonio	Min Zhou\, University of California\, Los Angeles\nArticle by Elizabeth Wanucha\, Operations Manager at CIRS
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/economic-migration-united-states-roundtable/
CATEGORIES:American Studies,Focused Discussions,Race & Society
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/events_128966_50000_1583664163-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20200225T124500
DTEND;TZID=Europe/Moscow:20200225T134500
DTSTAMP:20260611T223947
CREATED:20200304T121940Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20210901T094330Z
UID:10001429-1582634700-1582638300@cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu
SUMMARY:Fascism 2.0: Lessons from Democracy in India
DESCRIPTION:Uday Chandra\, Assistant Professor of Government at GU-Q\, presented on “Fascism 2.0: Lessons from Democracy in India” at a CIRS event on February 25\, 2020. The talk drew on his book in progress\, Fascism 2.0\, which traces how and why India’s heterogeneous\, multi-ethnic\, multi-religious society has been recast under modern democratic conditions as a homogeneous\, mono-cultural\, mono-religious polity. Since the 1980s\, the rights and freedoms of religious minorities\, particularly Christians and Muslims\, have eroded steadily with the rise of Hindu nationalism\, a movement among the growing middle classes who see Indian society in majoritarian terms as essentially Hindu. \n\nChandra’s forthcoming book is concerned with what others today call populism. He points to the global rise of fascism\, which\, he argued\, parallels the inter-war period in Europe. Chandra suggested revisiting the “triad of global ideologies—liberalism\, socialism\, fascism\,” which goes back to the contradictory French revolutionary slogan of “liberty\, equality\, fraternity\,” in order to understand the interactions between these ideologies over the past century. By historicizing the politics of the present and using the case of India\, he teases out a set of broad comparative generalizations. \n\nThe book’s title\, Fascism 2.0\, reveals both continuities and changes within fascism\, particularly its adaptation to our age of “digital capitalism.” One of Chandra’s objectives is to identify the relationship between fascism and democracy. Non-democracies such as China or Saudi Arabia are unlikely to evolve into fascist regimes\, he suggests\, because popular sovereignty or the rule of the people is not vital to the functioning of these polities. By comparison\, it is possible to identify conditions that favor the collapse of the liberal order at home and abroad and triggers the turn towards fascism. \n\n“Fascism seemed more promising to ruling elites because it combined socialism’s antipathy to the old ruling classes with a nationalist vision that promised real change for all.” \n\nThe liberal international order\, established after World War II\, was organized around free markets\, multilateral institutions\, and liberal democracy. While this project brought economic prosperity and political freedoms to some\, especially in the West\, it also led to inequalities within these societies and worldwide. Today\, we face new political realities with the rise of “a new breed of illiberal politicians” such as Donald Trump and Viktor Orbán\, who claim to represent ordinary voters better than career politicians. Chandra argued that there are lessons to be learned from India’s democratic experience under Prime Minister Narendra Modi\, who was first elected in 2014. “These lessons concern how democracy sans liberalism—the new global norm—can be hijacked by ‘fascism 2.0\,’ even as we must not lose sight of the ways in which democracy can be restored to a healthy\, competitive state.” \n\nChandra observed that\, a century ago\, fascism emerged in Europe in response to the failures of Western liberal elites to spread the vast economic benefits of imperialism throughout their societies. Socialism\, by contrast\, pitted social classes against each other. Fascism seemed more promising to ruling elites because “it combined socialism’s antipathy to the old ruling classes with a nationalist vision that promised real change for all.” Fascism thus combined socialism and ethno-nationalism to offer a modern agenda of mass education\, public works\, and national rejuvenation. “It is easy to forget today that fascism was astonishingly successful in its own terms\,” Chandra said. \n\nIn postcolonial India\, Chandra explained\, democracy began as “a gift of well-meaning upper-caste Hindus to the masses.” The Congress party\, which led the anticolonial struggle under Gandhi and Nehru\, dominated national politics in India in the 1950s and 1960s. The party reflected the country’s highly diverse polity and emphasized “unity in diversity” within a federal framework. In the mid-1970s\, however\, “democracy was suspended” by Prime Minister Indira Gandhi after global oil shocks and a rising tide of youthful and left-wing protests. Political opponents were imprisoned\, elections suspended\, and civil liberties curtailed. Although this authoritarian turn lasted just a year and a half\, Chandra suggested that the embryo of fascism emerged in Indian politics: personalized rule\, militarism\, the primacy of the state over the economy\, and empty promises of national renewal. \n\nAfter the assassination of Indira Gandhi\, Chandra explained\, the Indian state underwent a crisis of legitimacy\, which has been steadily resolved via the rise of Hindu nationalism championed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP\, literally “Indian People’s Party”). This nationalist ideology\, borrowed from Germany and Italy\, was explicitly rejected by India’s founding fathers because it was exclusivist\, chauvinistic\, and socially divisive. The Congress leadership saw India as a mosaic of faiths and cultures\, held together by their shared struggle against British imperialism. But\, according to Chandra\, the BJP has sought to remake India as a Hindu nation out of a vast ensemble of inherited theistic and nontheistic practices and their accompanying philosophies. For the Hindu nationalist elite\, he said\, these diverse Indic traditions must be replaced by a modern nationalist ideology built around an imaginary majority and pitted against minorities. \n\n“In a digital age\, social democracy means fusing together the myriad voices and social fractals that do not share much in common beyond a common antipathy to fascism.” \n\nUnder Modi\, the BJP has sought to make this ideological fantasy into social reality\, online and offline. A new political morality now justifies violence against ideological enemies in pursuit of a national communitas. Social media platforms empower ordinary users to generate words\, images\, and videos that further the Hindu nationalist project at the expense of minorities and those accused of sympathizing with them. \n\nIn a democracy without liberalism\, Chandra identified “social democracy” as the main alternative to Hindutva (Hinduness) today. The roots of this challenge lie in caste-based\, regionally specific movements for social justice that emerged during the 1980s at the same time as Hindutva. While these regional and caste-based parties allied previously with the Congress party to form national coalition governments\, they now offer a distinctive vision of a federal polity committed to the multitude of small voices that make up contemporary India. In state elections over the past two years\, this coalition of Opposition parties have\, alongside the Congress\, outsmarted and defeated the BJP. \n\nChandra concluded his talk by arguing that India is an ideal case study to understand contemporary fascism. India shows us how fascism\, which must be distinguished from the political movements led by the likes of Corbyn and Sanders\, has arisen paradoxically out of a long process of democratization. Additionally\, it has come at the expense of a small globally oriented and liberal-minded elite at odds with the majority of citizens. Lastly\, the antidote to fascism\, whether today or in the interwar years\, comes less from a return to liberalism than from the tantalizing possibility of social democracy. “In a digital age\, social democracy means fusing together the myriad voices and social fractals that do not share much in common beyond a common antipathy to fascism\,” he said. Over time\, Chandra suggested\, we may be cautiously hopeful that social democratic coalitions will succeed at the expense of fascism. \n\n\n\nUday Chandra is Assistant Professor of Government at Georgetown University in Qatar. He is interested in state-society relations\, power and resistance\, political violence\, agrarian change\, and the philosophy of the social sciences. His work has been published in the Law & Society Review\, Critical Sociology\, Social Movement Studies\, New Political Science\, The Journal of Contemporary Asia\, Contemporary South Asia\, and The Indian Economic & Social History Review. Chandra has co-edited volumes and journal special issues on caste hierarchies\, the ethics of self-making\, the politics of the poor\, and social movements in India. His first book\, Resistance as Negotiation: Making States and Tribes in Modern India\, is forthcoming with Stanford University Press. For the academic year 2019/2020\, he is a CIRS Faculty Fellow. \n\nArticle by Chaïmaa Benkermi (Class of 2021)\, Publications Fellow
URL:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/event/fascism-20-lessons-democracy-india/
CATEGORIES:CIRS Faculty Lectures,Dialogue Series,Race & Society
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://cirs.qatar.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2020/03/events_128971_49999_1584005228-1.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR