This study has confirmed that the Czech Republic (CR) is an example of a state whose integration and migration policy is very restrictive. Its integration and migration policies have been influenced mainly by migratory flows, economic crises, and European integration. In terms of Europeanisation, it is obvious that the CR carried out fundamental reform in the area of integration and migration policy under the influence of the EU. The implementation of rules in practice has been inadequate. The Czech Republic has recognised and identified the weaknesses of both policies but has not eliminated these weaknesses in practice. The main weakness lies in the fact that both policies are heavily centralised. Local authorities and NGOs do not have sufficient powers and financial resources; moreover, local authorities have no legal obligation to participate in integration. There is a disparity between regions resulting from the unequal concentration of foreigners. A long-term problem is the cultural resistance of society and the requirement for foreigners to assimilate into mainstream society. The migration crisis has increased state activity in the area of migration and integration policy. This is not a manifestation of Europeanisation, but a defence of state interests.
{"title":"The Czech Republic and the Reality of Migrant Integration Policy in the Context of European Integration","authors":"H. Bauerová","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.18.3.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.3","url":null,"abstract":"This study has confirmed that the Czech Republic (CR) is an example of a state whose integration and migration policy is very restrictive. Its integration and migration policies have been influenced mainly by migratory flows, economic crises, and European integration. In terms of Europeanisation, it is obvious that the CR carried out fundamental reform in the area of integration and migration policy under the influence of the EU. The implementation of rules in practice has been inadequate. The Czech Republic has recognised and identified the weaknesses of both policies but has not eliminated these weaknesses in practice. The main weakness lies in the fact that both policies are heavily centralised. Local authorities and NGOs do not have sufficient powers and financial resources; moreover, local authorities have no legal obligation to participate in integration. There is a disparity between regions resulting from the unequal concentration of foreigners. A long-term problem is the cultural resistance of society and the requirement for foreigners to assimilate into mainstream society. The migration crisis has increased state activity in the area of migration and integration policy. This is not a manifestation of Europeanisation, but a defence of state interests.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43694916","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper explains the role of local governments (cities, regions) in the implementation of immigration policy in Europe. It covers the period since the 1960s and explains various waves and types of immigration, state policies, and the capacities of local government to help with immigrant integration. Several case studies are presented: Antwerp (Belgium), Malmö (Sweden), and Bologna and the Veneto region (Italy). The policy of migrant integration is exceedingly complex, requiring persistent dedication on part of all countries to mitigate the biggest problems of the contemporary globalised world (wealth distribution; poverty reduction; prevention of economic and political conflicts, especially wars; development of human rights; ecology), and to upgrade democratic capacities in each society. The contribution of this paper is to show that liberal policy in this field is the best option for the effective integration of migrants. Host state and local governments should be more sensitive to the nature and needs of the migrant population, and to foster a better understanding of the values, customs, and culture of both migrants and the domestic population. Useful measures which can help migrants in the process of integration are: tailored education, training for skills and jobs, participation in decision-making processes in the host country, and cooperation between the migrants’ home and host countries. It is important that political leaders continuously convey the message to the public that migrants represent great social capital and potential for the economic development of their society. The public should understand that in the contemporary globalised world society should be open to capital and labour migration, and that in this process our communities are given the chance to be multicultural, open, tolerant, and richer in every aspect. At the same time, all citizens, including the migrant population, have an obligation to protect democratic values and to contribute to the social development of both their home and host societies.
{"title":"Local Government Capacities for the Integration of Migrants","authors":"Snežana Đorđević","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.18.3.5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.5","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explains the role of local governments (cities, regions) in the implementation of immigration policy in Europe. It covers the period since the 1960s and explains various waves and types of immigration, state policies, and the capacities of local government to help with immigrant integration. Several case studies are presented: Antwerp (Belgium), Malmö (Sweden), and Bologna and the Veneto region (Italy). The policy of migrant integration is exceedingly complex, requiring persistent dedication on part of all countries to mitigate the biggest problems of the contemporary globalised world (wealth distribution; poverty reduction; prevention of economic and political conflicts, especially wars; development of human rights; ecology), and to upgrade democratic capacities in each society. The contribution of this paper is to show that liberal policy in this field is the best option for the effective integration of migrants. Host state and local governments should be more sensitive to the nature and needs of the migrant population, and to foster a better understanding of the values, customs, and culture of both migrants and the domestic population. Useful measures which can help migrants in the process of integration are: tailored education, training for skills and jobs, participation in decision-making processes in the host country, and cooperation between the migrants’ home and host countries. It is important that political leaders continuously convey the message to the public that migrants represent great social capital and potential for the economic development of their society. The public should understand that in the contemporary globalised world society should be open to capital and labour migration, and that in this process our communities are given the chance to be multicultural, open, tolerant, and richer in every aspect. At the same time, all citizens, including the migrant population, have an obligation to protect democratic values and to contribute to the social development of both their home and host societies.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.5","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41706690","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The key question addressed in this paper is that of connecting the institutional setting and planned outcomes of the integration policy with the instruments and types of coordination in the government system. Integration policy may be defined as a “wicked problem”, as it is a cross-sectoral issue that concerns the responsibilities of various actors. Integration is not a policy that can develop serendipitously; it needs to be designed and proper instruments of coordination should be developed. It requires coordination across different sectors and tiers of government, with both formal and informal coordination structures and instruments that can be used to facilitate coordinated implementation of policy goals and measures. Croatia has only rather recently started to develop its integration policy. Due to a relatively small number of migrants, the integration policy is primarily targeted at the refugee population. In practice, integration is an inter-departmental task dealt with by different organisations (ministries, agencies) at different governmental levels (national, local) and includes their cooperation with different non-state actors. This is very challenging in the highly fragmented and pluralistic Croatian public administration system, which lacks integrative government capacity, strategic planning, and prioritisation of developed consultative mechanisms. The paper analyses the recently promoted Croatian integration policy in the light of coordination models and instruments. It provides an overview of the types and instruments of coordination in the government system and presents the development of the Croatian migration and integration policy, its institutional setting, and the implementation of integration in practice. Finally, it provides a classification and evaluation of the coordination instruments in the integration policy.
{"title":"Coordination Instruments in Croatian Integration Policy","authors":"Teo Giljević, Goranka Lalić Novak","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.18.3.1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.1","url":null,"abstract":"The key question addressed in this paper is that of connecting the institutional setting and planned outcomes of the integration policy with the instruments and types of coordination in the government system. Integration policy may be defined as a “wicked problem”, as it is a cross-sectoral issue that concerns the responsibilities of various actors. Integration is not a policy that can develop serendipitously; it needs to be designed and proper instruments of coordination should be developed. It requires coordination across different sectors and tiers of government, with both formal and informal coordination structures and instruments that can be used to facilitate coordinated implementation of policy goals and measures. Croatia has only rather recently started to develop its integration policy. Due to a relatively small number of migrants, the integration policy is primarily targeted at the refugee population. In practice, integration is an inter-departmental task dealt with by different organisations (ministries, agencies) at different governmental levels (national, local) and includes their cooperation with different non-state actors. This is very challenging in the highly fragmented and pluralistic Croatian public administration system, which lacks integrative government capacity, strategic planning, and prioritisation of developed consultative mechanisms. The paper analyses the recently promoted Croatian integration policy in the light of coordination models and instruments. It provides an overview of the types and instruments of coordination in the government system and presents the development of the Croatian migration and integration policy, its institutional setting, and the implementation of integration in practice. Finally, it provides a classification and evaluation of the coordination instruments in the integration policy.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.1","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69356286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The paper presents an account of the Israeli government’s efforts to absorb and integrate an influx of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union and Ethiopia. With fewer than five million persons, Israel accepted 400,000 Jewish refugees between 1989–1992. At the time, the Israeli government discouraged granting of political asylum to tens of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees from East Africa. Furthermore, an Israeli law prevented family reunification of Israeli Arab citizens who married Palestinians living outside of Israel (including the occupied territories). The paper looks at policies designed to provide housing and education to the Russian and Ethiopian immigrants. Israeli absorption policies were not coordinated. Prime Minister Shamir later told the author “Who needed policy? Let them come and we will make policy.” Policies gave preferential treatment to Russian immigrants who had more clout than the Ethiopians. They also had greater social capital. While the national government and the Jewish Agency, an NGO representing world Jewry, set immigration policy, mayors had some input in implementation. One mayor discussed here used absorption of immigrants as a means to foster local economic growth and development. The major finding here is the importance of “political will”. Israeli government officials and much of the Israeli population favoured mass immigration of Jews regardless of where they were from. Israeli leaders want to preserve a Jewish majority among its citizens. With respect to lessons for the EU, the findings here suggest that the successful absorption and acceptance of refugees lies in the attitude of the host country toward immigration. Policies and issues of coordination and implementation are secondary concerns. In the Israeli case despite the lack of adequate resources and lack of coordination absorption of immigrants succeeded.
{"title":"The Israeli Case","authors":"F. Lazin","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.18.3.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.18.3.6","url":null,"abstract":"The paper presents an account of the Israeli government’s efforts to absorb and integrate an influx of Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union and Ethiopia. With fewer than five million persons, Israel accepted 400,000 Jewish refugees between 1989–1992. At the time, the Israeli government discouraged granting of political asylum to tens of thousands of mostly Muslim refugees from East Africa. Furthermore, an Israeli law prevented family reunification of Israeli Arab citizens who married Palestinians living outside of Israel (including the occupied territories). The paper looks at policies designed to provide housing and education to the Russian and Ethiopian immigrants. Israeli absorption policies were not coordinated. Prime Minister Shamir later told the author “Who needed policy? Let them come and we will make policy.” Policies gave preferential treatment to Russian immigrants who had more clout than the Ethiopians. They also had greater social capital. While the national government and the Jewish Agency, an NGO representing world Jewry, set immigration policy, mayors had some input in implementation. One mayor discussed here used absorption of immigrants as a means to foster local economic growth and development. The major finding here is the importance of “political will”. Israeli government officials and much of the Israeli population favoured mass immigration of Jews regardless of where they were from. Israeli leaders want to preserve a Jewish majority among its citizens. With respect to lessons for the EU, the findings here suggest that the successful absorption and acceptance of refugees lies in the attitude of the host country toward immigration. Policies and issues of coordination and implementation are secondary concerns. In the Israeli case despite the lack of adequate resources and lack of coordination absorption of immigrants succeeded.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42735393","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Njemačka sebe nikada nije smatrala državom useljenika iako se tamo nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata naselio veći broj izbjeglica, dok je 60-ih godina prošloga stoljeća njemačka industrija privukla veliku skupinu useljenika iz zemalja južne Europe (Španjolske, Italije, Grčke i Turske). Obje su se ove kategorije useljenika gotovo u potpunosti integrirale u njemačko društvo. Tijekom 90-ih godina 20. stoljeća i ratova na području Balkana opet je velik broj izbjeglica pristigao u Njemačku, međutim većina se poslije rata vratila kući. Nova je migracijska politika zaživjela 2015. godine. Kada su se bježeći pred ratom u Siriji izbjeglice nastojale preko „balkanske rute“ domoći središnje Europe, djelomično ih je privukla simbolična no kratkotrajna njemačka politika „raširenih ruku“. Otprilike 1,2 milijuna ljudi podnijelo je zahtjev za azilom u Njemačkoj 2015. i 2016. godine. Nakon zaokreta njemačke politike te uvođenja nove politike u Turskoj i državama istočne Europe te su brojke 2017. godine znatno smanjene. U radu se pokušava odgovoriti na pitanje tko zastupa te izbjeglice i druge migrante. S druge strane, neke skupine migrantskog podrijetla kao što su primjerice građani Europske unije imaju sva izborna prava na lokalnim i EU izborima. U većim gradovima još od 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća većinu drugih stranaca zastupaju savjetodavni odbori građana. Te se savjetodavne odbore također smatra zagovornicima onih izbjeglica bez dugoročnih izgleda da postanu njemački državljani. Samo tri pokrajine (Länder) posjeduju odgovarajući zakonski okvir unutar kojeg savjetodavni odbori mogu djelovati. Savjetodavne odbore prihvaćaju i građani i vijećnici u svih 14 analiziranih reprezentativnih gradova, no u istočnom je dijelu Njemačke prihvaćanje slabije izraženo nego u zapadnom dijelu zemlje.
德国从未认为自己是一个移民国家，尽管二战后，它居住了更多的难民，而德国工业在20世纪60年代吸引了大量来自南欧（西班牙、意大利、希腊和土耳其）的移民。我们的目标是使用jenika gotovo和potpunosti integrirale u njemačko društvo。90年代，20年代。几个世纪以来，巴尔干半岛的战争再次来到德国，但大多数人在战争结束后都回国了。一项新的移民政策在2015年得以实施。年当叙利亚难民逃到中欧的“巴尔干路线”时，部分吸引了德国象征性但短期的“伸出援手”政策。2015年，约有120万人在德国提出庇护要求。2016年。年在改变德国的政策并在土耳其和东欧推出新政策后，数字是2017年。这一年大大减少了。这项工作试图回答谁代表这些难民和其他移民的问题。另一方面，一些移民出身的群体，如欧盟公民，享有地方和欧盟选举的所有权利。U većim gradovima jošod 90 ih godina prošlog stoljeća većinu drugih stranacazastubaju savjetodavni odbori grařana。这些咨询委员会还考虑让没有长期出庭的难民律师成为德国公民。只有三个省（州）拥有咨询委员会可以采取行动的适当法律框架。咨询委员会还接受所有14个分析的代表性城市的公民和议员，但德国东部的采纳率低于西部。
{"title":"Migracija i integracija u njemačkim gradovima","authors":"Norbert Kersting","doi":"10.31297/hkju.18.2.6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.18.2.6","url":null,"abstract":"Njemačka sebe nikada nije smatrala državom useljenika iako se tamo nakon Drugoga svjetskog rata naselio veći broj izbjeglica, dok je 60-ih godina prošloga stoljeća njemačka industrija privukla veliku skupinu useljenika iz zemalja južne Europe (Španjolske, Italije, Grčke i Turske). Obje su se ove kategorije useljenika gotovo u potpunosti integrirale u njemačko društvo. Tijekom 90-ih godina 20. stoljeća i ratova na području Balkana opet je velik broj izbjeglica pristigao u Njemačku, međutim većina se poslije rata vratila kući. Nova je migracijska politika zaživjela 2015. godine. Kada su se bježeći pred ratom u Siriji izbjeglice nastojale preko „balkanske rute“ domoći središnje Europe, djelomično\u0000ih je privukla simbolična no kratkotrajna njemačka politika „raširenih ruku“. Otprilike 1,2 milijuna ljudi podnijelo je zahtjev za azilom u Njemačkoj 2015. i 2016. godine. Nakon zaokreta njemačke politike te uvođenja nove politike u Turskoj i državama istočne Europe te su brojke 2017. godine znatno smanjene. U radu se pokušava odgovoriti na pitanje tko zastupa te izbjeglice i druge migrante. S druge strane, neke skupine migrantskog podrijetla kao što su primjerice građani Europske unije imaju sva izborna prava na lokalnim i EU izborima. U većim gradovima još od 90-ih godina prošlog stoljeća većinu drugih stranaca\u0000zastupaju savjetodavni odbori građana. Te se savjetodavne odbore također smatra zagovornicima onih izbjeglica bez dugoročnih izgleda da postanu njemački državljani. Samo tri pokrajine (Länder) posjeduju odgovarajući zakonski okvir unutar kojeg savjetodavni odbori mogu djelovati. Savjetodavne odbore prihvaćaju i građani i vijećnici u svih 14 analiziranih reprezentativnih gradova, no u istočnom je dijelu Njemačke prihvaćanje slabije izraženo nego u zapadnom dijelu zemlje.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69356282","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Austriju je vrlo teško pogodila migrantska kriza 2015. godine, te je stanovništvo negativno reagiralo na priljev migranata i tražitelja azila. Vanjske mjere koje je uvela Austrijska vlada uključivale su nov način „upravljanja granicom“, zatvaranje zapadno-balkanske rute te slanje policijskih i vojnih izaslanstava u susjedne države. Integracijska je politika istovremeno doživjela nastavak regulacije uvođenjem brojnih političkih i zakonskih mjera. Političke su mjere uključivale Plan od pedeset točaka za integraciju (uveden u studenom 2015. god.), Sastanak o azilu (održan u siječnju 2016. god.) i novi program vlade pod nazivom „Za Austriju“ (donesen u siječnju 2017. god.). Ove su mjere predstavljale temelj sljedećih zakona donesenih u lipnju 2017. godine: Zakona o integraciji, Zakona o zabrani skrivanja lica u javnosti, Zakona o integraciji na tržište rada te Zakona o izmjenama pravila o stranim državljanima Iako se broj pristiglih izbjeglica znatno smanjio, broj zakonskih inicijativa kojima se migrantima postavljaju zahtjevi i prijeti im se sankcijama se osjetno povećao. Takav se pristup održao i nakon izbora 2017. i formiranja nove koalicijske vlade.
{"title":"Vanjski i unutarnji utjecaji austrijskoga pristupa migrantskoj krizi","authors":"Benedikt Speer","doi":"10.31297/hkju.18.2.3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.18.2.3","url":null,"abstract":"Austriju je vrlo teško pogodila migrantska kriza 2015. godine, te je stanovništvo negativno reagiralo na priljev migranata i tražitelja azila. Vanjske mjere koje je uvela Austrijska vlada uključivale su nov način „upravljanja granicom“, zatvaranje zapadno-balkanske rute te slanje policijskih i vojnih izaslanstava u susjedne države. Integracijska je politika istovremeno doživjela nastavak regulacije uvođenjem brojnih političkih i zakonskih mjera. Političke su mjere uključivale Plan od pedeset točaka za integraciju (uveden u studenom 2015. god.), Sastanak o azilu (održan u siječnju 2016. god.) i novi program vlade pod nazivom „Za Austriju“ (donesen u siječnju 2017. god.). Ove su mjere predstavljale temelj sljedećih zakona donesenih u lipnju 2017. godine: Zakona o integraciji, Zakona o zabrani skrivanja lica u javnosti, Zakona o integraciji na tržište rada te Zakona o izmjenama pravila o stranim državljanima Iako se broj pristiglih izbjeglica znatno smanjio, broj zakonskih inicijativa kojima se migrantima postavljaju zahtjevi i prijeti im se sankcijama se osjetno povećao. Takav se pristup\u0000održao i nakon izbora 2017. i formiranja nove koalicijske vlade.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69356276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
U uvodu se naglašava važnost politike prema izbjeglicama u slučaju kada bi se trajno naselile na području Zapadnog Balkana. Države u toj regiji imaju brojne javne probleme, te kulturne, društvene i ekonomske specifičnosti u usporedbi s državama koje tradicionalno prihvaćaju doseljenike. Stoga bi politika prema izbjeglicama trebala biti u skladu s tim specifičnostima kao i s europskim okvirom. U radu se nadalje raspravlja o općenitostima vezanima z a temu javnih politika, te su dva glavna pitanja na koja se pokušava odgovoriti. Što su točno javne politike i koja pravila i kriterije treba primijeniti u izgradnji kvalitetne javne politike koja je usmjerena na jasno određeno pitanje (u ovom slučaju izbjeglice)? Raspravlja se o važnim aspektima kvalitetne javne politike: tehničkim i financijskim pitanjima kao i prihvatljivosti/izvedivosti politika i njihovoj administrativnoj operativnosti. Druga okosnica rada nalazi se u općim ljudskim potrebama, prema definicijama koje su ponudili priznati autori u području društvenih znanosti. Osnovnim ljudskim potrebama smatraju se fiziološke potrebe organizma, sigurnosne potrebe, kao i potrebe za pripadanjem, samopoštovanjem i samoostvarenjem. Smjernice za izgradnju politike prema izbjeglicama u radu temelje se na kombinaciji spoznaja iz ova dva područja. Prije navođenja smjernica još se opisuje relevantnost ove teme u prethodnim istraživanjima, te trenutne politike u Srbiji i na Zapadnome Balkanu koje se mogu opisati kao loše. Preporuke koje autor nudi za uspješnu politiku prema izbjeglicama uključuju četiri stupa. Prva se dva bave kratkoročnim pitanjima dok su treći i četvrti usmjereni na dugoročna pitanja. Četiri stupa uključuju egzistencijski (osiguranje prostora i osnovnih životnih uvjeta), socio-ekonomski (osiguranje zaposlenja i zasnivanje održive obitelji), kulturno-obrazovni i integrirajući (osiguranje potpune integracije u sustav).
导言强调了难民政策对西巴尔干地区永久居留的重要性。与传统上接受定居者的国家相比，该地区各国有许多公共问题、文化、社会和经济特点。因此，难民政策应符合这些特点以及欧洲框架。这项工作继续讨论一般公共政策问题，目前正在回答两个主要问题。公共政策究竟是什么？哪些规则和标准应该适用于建立一个以明确问题为重点的质量政策（在难民的情况下）？讨论了质量公共政策的主要方面：技术和财务问题以及政策接受/执行和行政运作。Druga okosnica rada nalazi se u općim ljudskimpotrebama，prema definicijama koje su ponudili priznati autori u području društvenih znanosti。人类的基本需求被认为是组织的身体需求、安全需求以及归属感、自尊和自我创造。制定难民政策的指导方针是基于这两个领域的知识。在指导之前，之前的研究主题，塞尔维亚和西巴尔干地区的当前政策，可以说是糟糕的，仍然被描述为相关的。提交人关于成功的难民政策的建议包括四个支柱。前两个是短期问题，而第三个和第四个则侧重于长期问题。四大支柱包括生存（空间和基本生活条件）、社会经济（就业和可持续的家庭建设）、文化和包容性（完全融入系统）。
{"title":"Smjernice za izgradnju politike prema izbjeglicama na zapadnom Balkanu","authors":"Veran Stančetič","doi":"10.31297/hkju.18.2.4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/hkju.18.2.4","url":null,"abstract":"U uvodu se naglašava važnost politike prema izbjeglicama u slučaju kada bi se trajno naselile na području Zapadnog Balkana. Države u toj regiji imaju brojne javne probleme, te kulturne, društvene i ekonomske specifičnosti u usporedbi s državama koje tradicionalno prihvaćaju doseljenike. Stoga bi politika prema izbjeglicama trebala biti u skladu s tim specifičnostima kao i s europskim okvirom. U radu se nadalje raspravlja o općenitostima vezanima z a temu javnih politika, te su dva glavna pitanja na koja se pokušava odgovoriti. Što su točno javne politike i koja pravila i kriterije treba primijeniti u izgradnji kvalitetne\u0000javne politike koja je usmjerena na jasno određeno pitanje (u ovom slučaju izbjeglice)? Raspravlja se o važnim aspektima kvalitetne javne politike: tehničkim i financijskim pitanjima kao i prihvatljivosti/izvedivosti politika i njihovoj administrativnoj operativnosti. Druga okosnica rada nalazi se u općim ljudskim\u0000potrebama, prema definicijama koje su ponudili priznati autori u području društvenih znanosti. Osnovnim ljudskim potrebama smatraju se fiziološke potrebe organizma, sigurnosne potrebe, kao i potrebe za pripadanjem, samopoštovanjem i samoostvarenjem. Smjernice za izgradnju politike prema izbjeglicama u radu temelje se na kombinaciji spoznaja iz ova dva područja. Prije navođenja smjernica još se opisuje relevantnost ove teme u prethodnim istraživanjima, te trenutne politike u Srbiji i na Zapadnome Balkanu koje se mogu opisati kao loše. Preporuke koje autor nudi za uspješnu politiku prema izbjeglicama uključuju četiri stupa. Prva se dva bave kratkoročnim pitanjima dok su treći i četvrti usmjereni na dugoročna pitanja. Četiri stupa uključuju egzistencijski (osiguranje prostora i osnovnih životnih uvjeta), socio-ekonomski (osiguranje zaposlenja i zasnivanje održive obitelji), kulturno-obrazovni i integrirajući (osiguranje potpune integracije u sustav).","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46067391","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Immigration power is thought to be a federal power in the United States, but the States and their localities play key roles in filling congressional immigration policy gaps. When confronted with a major migration crisis, these microfederal jurisdictions in a multi-layered federal system respond differently to the policy gaps. A healthy tolerance for microfederal policies promotes this experimentation and voter preference maximisation. A countervailing interest in uniformity, among other values, tempers the case for microfederalism by suggesting temporal or other limitations may be justified. States and localities have experimented with microfederal policies concerning migrants that touch on migration and integration policy. Restrictionist jurisdictions have promoted policies that discourage migration and integration. Their strategies include: formal cooperation with federal immigration enforcement when restrictionist in policy orientation; adoption of independent state-law measures to supplement federal immigration enforcement; and litigation to attempt to force or realign federal executive enforcement priorities on migration and integration. Sanctuary jurisdictions adopt inverse strategies. They may decline to participate in voluntary federal programs; refuse to access available federal immigration status information; deny federal requests to cooperate with federal detainer requests; provide access to State and local services to all comers, without regard to legal status; and, like restrictionist jurisdictions, litigate to attempt to force or realign the federal government’s enforcement priorities to favour migration and integration. Inevitably, conflict between federal and state administration results in litigation. The federal government attempts to assert its primacy in those matters touching on alien regulation. During the Trump administration, this effort has included the likely unconstitutional Executive Order 13768, but also the threat of affirmative federal pre-emption litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions. Provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act may provide Trump with a basis for arguing that federal law expressly or impliedly pre-oempts conflicting state law.
{"title":"American Immigration Microfederalism","authors":"Tuan N. Samahon","doi":"10.31297/HKJU.18.2.7","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31297/HKJU.18.2.7","url":null,"abstract":"Immigration power is thought to be a federal power in the United States, but the States and their localities play key roles in filling congressional immigration policy gaps. When confronted with a major migration crisis, these microfederal jurisdictions in a multi-layered federal system respond differently to the policy gaps. A healthy tolerance for microfederal policies promotes this experimentation and voter preference maximisation. A countervailing interest in uniformity,\u0000among other values, tempers the case for microfederalism by suggesting temporal or other limitations may be justified. States and localities have experimented with microfederal policies concerning migrants that touch on migration and integration policy. Restrictionist jurisdictions have promoted policies that discourage migration and integration. Their strategies include: formal cooperation with federal immigration enforcement when restrictionist in policy orientation; adoption of independent state-law measures to supplement federal immigration enforcement; and litigation to attempt to force or realign federal executive enforcement priorities on migration and integration. Sanctuary jurisdictions adopt inverse strategies. They may decline to participate in voluntary federal programs; refuse to access available federal immigration status information; deny federal requests to cooperate with federal detainer requests; provide access to State and local services to all comers, without regard to legal status; and, like restrictionist jurisdictions, litigate to attempt to force or realign the federal government’s enforcement priorities to favour migration and integration. Inevitably, conflict between federal and state administration results in litigation. The federal government attempts to assert its primacy in those matters touching on alien regulation. During the Trump administration, this effort has included the likely unconstitutional Executive Order 13768, but also the threat of affirmative federal pre-emption litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions. Provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act may provide Trump with a basis for arguing that federal law expressly or impliedly pre-oempts conflicting state law.","PeriodicalId":42223,"journal":{"name":"Croatian and Comparative Public Administration","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.4,"publicationDate":"2018-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43446999","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：