886 resultados para Immigration italienne


Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Only recently has imprisonment become a central feature of both t across every level of government and involving civil and criminal law enforcement tools. Examining the population as a whole provides crucial insights as to how we arrived at this state of mass immigration imprisonment. While political motivations — parallel to those that fueled the rapid expansion of criminal mass incarceration — may have started the trend, this Article demonstrates that key legal and policy choices explain how imprisonment has become an entrenched feature of immigration law enforcement. In fact, legislators and immigration officials have locked themselves into this choice, as there are now literally billions of dollars, tens of thousands of prison beds, and innumerable third parties invested in maintaining and expanding the use of immigration imprisonment. Using the literature on path dependence and legal legitimacy, this Article explains the phenomenon of immigration imprisonment as a single category that spans all levels of government. Rather than continue further along this path, the Article concludes by suggesting that policymakers should seek a future reflective of immigration law enforcement’s past when imprisonment was the exception rather than the norm.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background: Intimate partner violence (IPV) against women occurs in all countries, all cultures and at every level of society; however, some populations may be at greater risk than others. The aim of this study was to explore IPV prevalence among Ecuadorian, Moroccan and Romanian immigrant women living in Spain and its possible association with their personal, family, social support and immigration status characteristics. Methods: Cross-sectional study of 1607 adult immigrant women residing in Barcelona, Madrid and Valencia (2011). Prevalence rates and adjusted odds ratios (AORs) were calculated, with current IPV being the outcome. Different women’s personal (demographic), family, social support and immigration status characteristics were considered as explicative and control variables. All analyses were separated by women’s country of origin. Results: Current IPV prevalence was 15.57% in Ecuadorians, 10.91% in Moroccans and 8.58% in Romanians. Some common IPV factors were found, such as being separated and/or divorced. In Romanians, IPV was also associated with lack of social support [AOR 5.96 (1.39–25.62)] and low religious involvement [AOR 2.17 (1.06–4.43)]. The likelihood of current IPV was lower among women without children or other dependants in this subgroup [AOR 0.29 (0.093–0.92)]. Conclusion: The IPV prevalence rates obtained for Moroccan, Romanian and Ecuadorian women residing in Spain were similar. Whereas the likelihood of IPV appeared to be relatively evenly distributed among Moroccan and Ecuadorian women, it was higher among Romanian women in socially vulnerable situations related to family responsibilities and the lack of support networks. The importance of intervention in the process of separation and divorce was common to all women.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

by Isaac A. Hourwich.

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

20.00% 20.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

From the Introduction. The Treaty on European Union, also known as the Treaty of Maastricht or the Maastricht Treaty, created the European Union (EU) from the existing European Economic Community (EEC.) It was signed by the member states on February 7, 1992, and entered into force on November 1, 1993.1 Among its many innovations was the creation of European citizenship, which would be granted to any person who was a citizen of an EU member state. Citizenship, however, is intertwined with immigration, which the Treaty also attempted to address. Policy on visas, immigration and asylum was originally placed under Pillar 3 of the EU, which dealt with Justice and Home Affairs. In 1997, however, the Amsterdam Treaty moved these policies from Pillar 3 to Pillar 1, signaling “a shift toward more supranational decision-making in this area,” as opposed to the intergovernmental method of Pillars 2 and 3.2