The Experts below are selected from a list of 46479 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Benjamin Gonzalez O’brien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Understanding Public Opinion on Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:Up until relatively recently, little public polling on Sanctuary cities has taken place. That has changed as these policies have become points of conflict between federal and state/local governments. This chapter analyzes public opinion polls in two states with a significant stake in the Sanctuary debate, California and Texas, to better understand how partisan and racial learning affect support for Sanctuary policies. This chapter shows that both Democrats and Republicans have increasingly “learned” the correct position on Sanctuary policies based on their partisan identification, which is the strongest predictor of support or opposition to Sanctuary policies. Further, the chapter shows that opposition to Sanctuary cities are strongest in areas undergoing rapid Latino growth not in high-crime areas.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Incorporation
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:One of the chief complaints raised against Sanctuary cities is that they can increase crime, while one argument in their favor is that they can increase the incorporation of Latino and immigrant communities. This chapter analyzes both the positive and negative effects of Sanctuary polices, finding that these policies have no effect on crime rates when comparable cities are compared to one another and when crime rates pre/post Sanctuary are examined. The findings show that Sanctuary policies can have positive effects, potentially increasing both Latino voter turnout and police force representation. While Sanctuary policies are found to have few downsides and potential positive benefits, antiSanctuary legislation like Texas’s SB4 are found to have a negative effect. In high-immigrant areas, antiSanctuary legislation is found to depress the number of 911 calls, suggesting that antiSanctuary legislation does in fact reduce crime reporting, as opponents claim.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Legislative Expression: Sanctuary Policymaking in the U.S. States
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:While Sanctuary policies have traditionally been passed by cities and counties rather than states, this situation has shifted in recent years with both California and Oregon embracing their identity as “Sanctuary states,” while in Texas SB4 was signed into law, officially banning Sanctuary legislation across the state. This chapter examines the factors that increase the likelihood that state legislators will introduce pro- or antiSanctuary legislation. We find that racial threat activated by an increasing minority population, the ideology of the state and its voters, and the structure of state institutions all increase the likelihood of pro/anti-Sanctuary legislation being introduced at the state level.
-
Sanctuary Cities - The Sanctuary City in Historical Perspective
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:This chapter examines how the Sanctuary Movement influenced the first city-level Sanctuary declarations, as well as how these policies evolved from the 1980s to 2010s. Charting both shifts in the language of the policies themselves, as well as the political events leading to their passage, this chapter paints a picture of how conflicts over immigration enforcement and refugee policy have shaped modern Sanctuary policies.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Sanctuary Cities: The Way Forward
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:This chapter summarizes the preceding five chapters and discusses the implications of our findings for Sanctuary policies and immigration policy more broadly.
Benjamin Gonzalez O'brien - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sanctuary Cities
Latino Studies, 2020Co-Authors: Benjamin Gonzalez O'brienAbstract:Sanctuary policies first emerged in the 1980s as a response to the Reagan administration’s denial of asylum claims for refugees from Guatemala and El Salvador. In response to a growing refugee crisis, and the fear that many of those who were being denied asylum faced persecution and death in their country of origin, churches and synagogues began offering “Sanctuary” to refugees from these countries, based on ancient religious tradition. The Sanctuary Movement, as it came to be known, led a number of cities to adopt city resolutions in solidarity beginning in 1983, marking the birth of the Sanctuary city. These policies forbade local officials from inquiring into the immigration status of residents and often criticized the Reagan administration’s refugee policies. Today, the scope of Sanctuary policies has expanded, and they may not only bar local officials from collecting information on immigration status, but also include a refusal to honor immigration detainers from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which are issued by ICE to request that local authorities hold immigrants until they can be taken into federal custody for deportation proceedings. Most Sanctuary policies in the United States were passed during three periods. The first ran from 1983 to 1989, with the policies passed in response to the Central American refugee crisis. The September 11 attacks and the subsequent immigration crackdown and passage of policies like Secure Communities would lead to more policies being passed between 2001 and 2012. Lastly, the presidency of Donald Trump led to more declarations based on the administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigration. At the same time, an anti-Sanctuary movement materialized for the first time at both the federal and state level that sought to either prevent further declarations or to attach penalties to Sanctuary policies. One example is Texas’s SB 4, which in 2017 introduced state-wide bans on these policies and allows for fines and removal from office for officials who do not comply with federal immigration policy. The Trump administration itself sought to deny federal grants to Sanctuary jurisdictions, something that had been floated in the past by Republican presidential candidates like Fred Thompson but had never been attempted by previous administrations. The rhetoric of the Trump administration on Sanctuary policies, as well as the media coverage of the 2015 accidental shooting of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco by an undocumented immigrant led to more coverage of the topic than at any other point in history. This in turn led to increased scholarship, which continues, as researchers look to connect the Sanctuary Movement to modern Sanctuary cities; to examine the effects of media framing of these policies; to analyze the causes of public support or opposition; to explore the legality of Sanctuary and anti-Sanctuary legislation; and to document the effects these policies have on the incorporation of immigrant communities and crime rates in Sanctuary cities.
-
Sanctuary Cities
2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O'brienAbstract:On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13768, which marked the first federal action targeting American Sanctuary cities and fulfilled one of Trump’s key campaign promises. Sanctuary cities, which do not permit local officials to inquire into immigration status and may decline ICE detainer requests, have been in existence since the early 1980s, but the shooting of Kathryn Steinle in 2015 brought them renewed attention. Ms. Steinle’s accidental shooting by an undocumented immigrant, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, ignited a firestorm of controversy over these policies. Garcia Zarate had been released by the SFPD based on San Francisco’s Sanctuary policy, leading then-candidate Donald Trump to make a promise to “end” Sanctuary cities a key part of his campaign for president. Yet many Americans know very little about Sanctuary policies despite their growing importance in the debate over undocumented immigration and the incorporation of immigrant communities. In this work, Drs. Collingwood and Gonzalez O’Brien provide the first comprehensive examination of Sanctuary cities in the United States. Analyzing the historical evolution of these policies, the tone and tenor of media coverage, public opinion, state-level Sanctuary legislation, and the effect these policies have on crime rates and Latino political incorporation, the authors hope to provide researchers, members of the public, and lawmakers with the tools to objectively assess the value of Sanctuary legislation.
Loren Collingwood - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Understanding Public Opinion on Sanctuary Cities
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:Up until relatively recently, little public polling on Sanctuary cities has taken place. That has changed as these policies have become points of conflict between federal and state/local governments. This chapter analyzes public opinion polls in two states with a significant stake in the Sanctuary debate, California and Texas, to better understand how partisan and racial learning affect support for Sanctuary policies. This chapter shows that both Democrats and Republicans have increasingly “learned” the correct position on Sanctuary policies based on their partisan identification, which is the strongest predictor of support or opposition to Sanctuary policies. Further, the chapter shows that opposition to Sanctuary cities are strongest in areas undergoing rapid Latino growth not in high-crime areas.
-
Sanctuary Cities
2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O'brienAbstract:On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 13768, which marked the first federal action targeting American Sanctuary cities and fulfilled one of Trump’s key campaign promises. Sanctuary cities, which do not permit local officials to inquire into immigration status and may decline ICE detainer requests, have been in existence since the early 1980s, but the shooting of Kathryn Steinle in 2015 brought them renewed attention. Ms. Steinle’s accidental shooting by an undocumented immigrant, Jose Ines Garcia Zarate, ignited a firestorm of controversy over these policies. Garcia Zarate had been released by the SFPD based on San Francisco’s Sanctuary policy, leading then-candidate Donald Trump to make a promise to “end” Sanctuary cities a key part of his campaign for president. Yet many Americans know very little about Sanctuary policies despite their growing importance in the debate over undocumented immigration and the incorporation of immigrant communities. In this work, Drs. Collingwood and Gonzalez O’Brien provide the first comprehensive examination of Sanctuary cities in the United States. Analyzing the historical evolution of these policies, the tone and tenor of media coverage, public opinion, state-level Sanctuary legislation, and the effect these policies have on crime rates and Latino political incorporation, the authors hope to provide researchers, members of the public, and lawmakers with the tools to objectively assess the value of Sanctuary legislation.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Sanctuary Cities, Crime, and Incorporation
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:One of the chief complaints raised against Sanctuary cities is that they can increase crime, while one argument in their favor is that they can increase the incorporation of Latino and immigrant communities. This chapter analyzes both the positive and negative effects of Sanctuary polices, finding that these policies have no effect on crime rates when comparable cities are compared to one another and when crime rates pre/post Sanctuary are examined. The findings show that Sanctuary policies can have positive effects, potentially increasing both Latino voter turnout and police force representation. While Sanctuary policies are found to have few downsides and potential positive benefits, antiSanctuary legislation like Texas’s SB4 are found to have a negative effect. In high-immigrant areas, antiSanctuary legislation is found to depress the number of 911 calls, suggesting that antiSanctuary legislation does in fact reduce crime reporting, as opponents claim.
-
Sanctuary Cities - Legislative Expression: Sanctuary Policymaking in the U.S. States
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:While Sanctuary policies have traditionally been passed by cities and counties rather than states, this situation has shifted in recent years with both California and Oregon embracing their identity as “Sanctuary states,” while in Texas SB4 was signed into law, officially banning Sanctuary legislation across the state. This chapter examines the factors that increase the likelihood that state legislators will introduce pro- or antiSanctuary legislation. We find that racial threat activated by an increasing minority population, the ideology of the state and its voters, and the structure of state institutions all increase the likelihood of pro/anti-Sanctuary legislation being introduced at the state level.
-
Sanctuary Cities - The Sanctuary City in Historical Perspective
Sanctuary Cities, 2019Co-Authors: Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez O’brienAbstract:This chapter examines how the Sanctuary Movement influenced the first city-level Sanctuary declarations, as well as how these policies evolved from the 1980s to 2010s. Charting both shifts in the language of the policies themselves, as well as the political events leading to their passage, this chapter paints a picture of how conflicts over immigration enforcement and refugee policy have shaped modern Sanctuary policies.
Jon M. Conrad - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Bioeconomics of Marine Sanctuaries
Journal of Bioeconomics, 1999Co-Authors: Jon M. ConradAbstract:Consider an offshore fishing grounds of size K. Suppose the grounds has been overfished to the point that net revenue has been driven to zero and the fishery is in open access equilibrium at (X_∞, Y_∞). A marine Sanctuary, where fishing is prohibited, is then created. Suppose the marine Sanctuary is of size K_2 and that fishing is allowed on a smaller grounds, now of size K_1, where K_1 + K_2 = K. In the first, deterministic, model, the present value of net revenue from the grounds-Sanctuary system is maximized subject to migration (diffusion) of fish from the Sanctuary to the grounds. The size of the Sanctuary is varied, the system is re-optimized, and the populations levels, harvest, and value of the fishery is compared to the 'no-Sanctuary' optimum, and the open access equilibrium. In the deterministic model, a marine Sanctuary reduces the present value of the fishery relative to the 'ideal' of optimal management of the original grounds. In the second model net growth is subject to stochastic fluctuation. Simulation demonstrates the ability of a marine Sanctuary to reduce the variation in biomass on the fishing grounds. Variance reduction in fishable biomass is examined for different-sized sanctuaries when net growth on the grounds and in the Sanctuary fluctuate independently and when they are perfectly correlated. For the stochastic model of this paper, sanctuaries ranging in size from 60 to 40% of the original grounds (0.6 ≥ K_2/K ≥ 0.4) had the ability to lower variation in fishable biomass compared to the no Sanctuary case. For a Sanctuary equal to or greater than 70% of the original grounds (K_2 ≥ 0.7K), net revenue would be nonpositive and there would be no incentive to fish.
-
The Bioeconomics of Marine Sanctuaries
1997Co-Authors: Jon M. ConradAbstract:The role of a marine Sanctuary, where commercial fishing might be prohibited, is evaluated in two models; one where net biological growth is deterministic, and the other where net biological growth is stochastic. There is diffusion (migration) between the Sanctuary and the fishing grounds based on the ratios of current stock size to carrying capacity in each area. Fishing is managed under a regime of regulated open access. In the deterministic model, it is possible to determine the steady-state equilibrium and to assess its local stability. In the stochastic model a steady state does not exist, but a stable joint distribution for the fish stock on the grounds and in the Sanctuary is possible. The creation of a no-fishing marine Sanctuary leads to higher population levels on the grounds and in the Sanctuary, and appears to reduce the variation of the population in both areas. The higher population levels and reduced variation has an opportunity cost; foregone harvest from the Sanctuary.
Niskan Walid Masruri - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
ANALYSIS PREFERENCES DROP IN FEED SAMBAR DEER (Cervus unicolor) AND SPOTTED DEER (Axis axis) IN PT. GUNUNG MADU PLANTATIONS CAPTIVITY LAMPUNG TENGAH
2017Co-Authors: Susi Indriyani, Bainah Sari Dewi, Niskan Walid MasruriAbstract:Gunung Madu Plantations (GMP) has built deer Sanctuary as a part of conservation effort for sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and spotted deer (Axis axis), this faunas has suppresed by extinction in its natural habitat which means need to be protected by ex-situ concervation effort. Important to conduct the research with aimed to recognize deer’s preference towards its served feeder (drop-in) and its availability. The research conducted in October to November 2015 in GMP’s deer Sanctuary . The method used in the research palatability test method and direct observation method through 8 tail sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and 10 tail spotted deer (Axis axis). According to the result, food preference of deer in GMP ’s Deer Sanctuary were elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)25.9 %, sauhen grass (Penicum colonum) 22.25%, rayutan (Hypoestes polythyrsa) 21.87%, lamtoro (Leucaena leucocephala) 21.24% and rice mixture ( Dedak oriza sativa) 8.74%. Key words: Preference, Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), Spotted deer (Axis axis), Sanctuary
-
Analisis Preferensi Pakan Drop In Rusa Sambar (Cervus unicolor) dan Rusa Totol (Axis axis) di Penangkaran PT. Gunung Madu Plantations Lampung Tengah
Jurnal Sylva Lestari, 2017Co-Authors: Susi Indriyani, Bainah Sari Dewi, Niskan Walid MasruriAbstract:Gunung Madu Plantations (GMP) has built deer Sanctuary as a part of conservation effort for sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and spotted deer (Axis axis), this faunas has suppresed by extinction in its natural habitat which means need to be protected by ex-situ concervation effort. Important to conduct the research with aimed to recognize deer’s preference towards its served feeder (drop-in) and its availability. The research conducted in October to November 2015 in GMP’s deer Sanctuary . The method used in the research palatability test method and direct observation method through 8 tail sambar deer (Cervus unicolor) and 10 tail spotted deer (Axis axis). According to the result, food preference of deer in GMP ’s Deer Sanctuary were elephant grass (Pennisetum purpureum)25.9 %, sauhen grass (Penicum colonum) 22.25%, rayutan (Hypoestes polythyrsa) 21.87%, lamtoro (Leucaena leucocephala) 21.24% and rice mixture ( Dedak oriza sativa) 8.74%. Key words: Preference, Sambar deer (Cervus unicolor), Spotted deer (Axis axis), Sanctuary
