The Global Movement for Immigrants’ Rights

• In Event: Collective Behavior and Social Movements Section Roundtables
  In Refereed Roundtable (60 minute): Table 13: Movements as Transnational Processes

Abstract

Political and media campaigns against migrants are visible and audible around the world. While they may appear to have a mass appeal and to anchor some parties and campaigns, they rarely constitute social movements on their own. Can you think of a candidate or party anywhere in the world that campaigned on restricting immigration, which actually came to office and focused on doing that successfully without changing policy in other areas? This is because anti-immigrant campaigns are often fronts for additional policy and political goals. Immigration restriction slogans are often supportive of right-wing parties’ electoral campaigns, seeking to garner attention and a larger share of the vote.
In contrast, for decades, there have been top-down as well as organic grassroots social movements in favor of supporting the rights of immigrants and people on the move. Many of these movements involve immigrants themselves and are transnational due to the nature of international migration, drawing from resources, support, and staff from the country of settlement, transit country, and country of origin, as well as interconnected third locations.
In creating shared meaning across space and time, movements for immigrants rights are responding to political and public opinion challenges that curtail the rights of migrants. These are created by three interconnected social processes;

1. Misunderstandings of basic facts about migration and the ensuing creation of moral panics or resource threats through misinformation campaigns, which are often sparked and stoked by opportunistic and reactionary politicians.
2. Spread and activation of transnational white supremacy discursive networks and the ability to tack on racism, xenophobia, and dehumanization to justify great acts of violence.
3. Mismanagement of migration and pushing of responsibility from wealthy countries to poorer ones; failure of wealthy states to accept responsibility for destabilizing many sending communities.

Authors

• Daniel Jenks, University of Pennsylvania

• Ernesto Castañeda, American University

• Cecelia C Walsh-Russo, American University