In recent years, political asylum and refugees have become acute issues in public debate in Western Europe and North America. The debate has become especially heated since 1989 and the breaching of barriers between Eastern and Western Europe, with East Germans, Albanians, Romanians, and Yugoslavs all trying to move west. Most asylum-seekers continue to come from the Third World. Those who manage to enter the West face growing hostility, poverty, and even violent attacks. In France immigration has already shifted political discourse sharply to the right, testing the nation's tolerance toward foreigners and shaking its liberal foundations. Xenophobia and brutal physical attacks on foreigners by skinheads and extreme right-wingers throughout Germany have caused politicians in Bonn to reconsider their country's asylum provisions. Governments everywhere appear reluctant to open their doors when they are not sure how many will benefit from their hospitality and for how long. To many industrialized countries, asylum-seekers are perceived mostly as economic migrants in search of a better life. Actual migratory pressures from the South and perceived threats of exodus from the East have only served to reinforce this restrictive attitude to asylum. The refugee problem has reached such a critical point that the very institution of asylum is being threatened.

Scholars examining the controversy over church-state relations in the modern era have concentrated almost exclusively on its constitutional aspects. This is to be expected since the U.S. Supreme Court has handed down epic decisions that have drawn an increasingly sharper picture of the First Amendment's guideline concerning the government's involvement in religion. The Court did, in fact, lead the way in establishing or reestablishing the doctrine called “separation of church and state.” But the Court touched off a furious debate within the states that has intermittently yet persistently influenced public policy since the early 1960s. It is time that scholars examine more closely the participants outside of the Court.

There were no paupers aboard the First Fleet, nor any poor laws. There were paid officials of the central state under the direction of the Home Office; there was a military force of Marines, some with their families; and there were convicts, state dependents who legally were no longer the responsibility of a parish but were under the control of the Home Office. The labor of the convicts, but not their persons, was assigned to Governor Phillip, who in turn would assign that labor as he thought fit in the colony, subject of course to instructions from his superiors. Who needed a poor law in a jail?

In the summer of 1918, the white chairman of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Major Joel E. Spingarn, called for urgent congressional action on mob violence. He seized the opportunity of a post in the Military Intelligence Branch (MIB) of the War Department General Staff in Washington, D.C., to put forward a “constructive programme,” the central idea of which was the passage of a bill to make lynching in wartime a federal offense. Attempting to exploit the peculiar circumstances of the national emergency and the expansion of federal powers during World War I, Spingarn also proposed a series of more modest initiatives designed to lessen discrimination and raise black morale. The official reaction to the arguments he advanced in support of his program sheds light on the reluctance of the Democratic administration of Woodrow Wilson to develop a policy on race relations. It also suggests some of the problems and hazards facing a would-be reformer working from within.

In November 1990 voters in the District of Columbia elected two “shadow” United States senators (one of whom is former presidential candidate Jesse Jackson) and one “shadow” representative to lobby for statehood. Statehood bills have been introduced in Congress regularly since 1982 and committee hearings on statehood were held in the fall of 1991 and the spring of 1992. Although only recently has there been serious discussion about District statehood, the issue of the proper relationship of the national government to the federal city has been a matter of debate since 1787. This article provides a historical analysis of statehood and alternative policy options and aruges that the relationship between the federal government and the District has always mirrored national polit.

In the 1990s, an increasing number of refugees make their way to the countries of the West. While the annual number of asylum seekers to Western Europe and North America averaged about 20,000 in the mid- 1970s, by 1990 this figure had jumped to more than 500,000. Unlike previous migrants, many of these asylum seekers came from non-Western countries, including Iran, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and Ghana. Their flight to the West was but a small part of a worldwide refugee problem that has grown larger since the 1980s, especially in the Third World. The vast majority of the 17.5 million people now considered to be refugees are located in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Despite the improved international climate created by the thaw of the Cold War, the current asylum crisis is likely to continue throughout the decade; the mass exodus of Kurds to Turkey and Iran in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war is one reminder of this.

On 5 January 1973, one month after his reelection to a second term, Richard Nixon described for Congress a major restructuring of his cabinet and White House staff. Nixon began by emphasizing his determination to “revitalize and streamline the Federal Government in preparation for America's third century,” a reference to his effort of the preceding two years to replace seven domestic executive departments and several agencies with four “superdepartments”: a Department of Natural Resources, a Department of Community Development, a Department of Economic Affairs, and a Department of Human Resources. The failure of Congress to report out of committee any of the four bills Nixon submitted in March 1971 to create these superdepartments was now prompting the president to act unilaterally to “reorder … the timeworn and in many cases obsolete relationships among top staff and line officials” in an effort to realize “the broadening of policy perspectives on the part of top managers and advisers” and improvements in “managerial effectiveness” he had hoped to achieve through comprehensive reorganization of the executive branch.

The changing patterns of federal government policy toward the automobile industry provide fruitful material for analyzing how economic power is translated into political power. Government policy toward the auto industry involves an extensive number of decision-making points, and policy-makers are confronted with the nation's largest industry and the largest industrial corporation in the country (GM). This article examines government policy toward the auto industry from 1918 to 1988, focusing on the social constraints limiting the industry's political influence and the economic conditions that increase the vulnerability of government officials to industry lobbying.

The 1900–1920 decades of the Progressive Era constitute a seminal period in American political history, evinced by successful invocation of government authority to contend with consequences of life in an urban, industrial, multicultural society. Legislative precedents established at the state and national level used public power to meet the needs of citizens unable individually to defend themselves against social and economic problems stemming from the brutal, take-off stage of industrial capitalism in the United States. Many scholars view the political transition marking these decades as profoundly significant for the development of public policies, if not for the very creation of the modern American state. This research investigates the electoral bases of national policy innovation in the Progressive Era.

The Berlin Wall is down; the Cold War is finally over. With the stunning victory by the United Nations forces in the Persian Gulf, President George Bush has proclaimed a “new world order.” Bush provides this description of the old world: “Until now, the world we've known has been a world divided—a world of barbed wire and concrete block, conflict and cold war.

Policies of freer trade and greater economic openness became a hallmark of U.S. foreign economic policy after World War II. American policymakers came to accept that the improvement of economic conditions abroad correlated directly with prosperity at home. During that period, U.S. support for policies of economic openness assumed the compatibility of economic liberalism and national security.

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) had come to symbolize everything that is wrong with the American welfare state. Benefit levels have always varied significantly from state to state and seldom have been adequate anywhere to move recipients above the poverty line. Until the 1960s some local administrators discriminated against certain categories of recipients, particularly blacks and unwed mothers. Overt discrimination is now rare; instead, potential beneficiaries must negotiate a series of seemingly neutral administrative hurdles whose cumulative effect is to discourage many of those eligible from applying. Conservatives claim that AFDC subsidizes a broad range of socially-undesirable behaviors, from idleness and a lack of civic obligation to out-of-wedlock births and permanent dependence on public assistance. Liberals dispute these claims but cannot or will not make an affirmative case for the program. Program administrators at the national and local levels have never been strong champions. Opinion polls consistently show that most Americans favor “helping the poor” but not “welfare,” which they equate with AFDC. Finally, beneficiaries view receipt of AFDC as stigmatizing and degrading. Low benefit levels and the lack of decent-paying jobs create a moral climate in which many single mothers receiving AFDC must lie to the Internal Revenue Service and their case workers about working on the side in order to make ends meet.

Refugee policy in the United States is a recent offspring of American immigration policy. Like its parent, refugee admissions are firmly entangled in the thicket of national politics and are Janus-faced. One face presses for admission, the other urges restriction. While the gates of admission are always guarded, time and circumstance determine which face prevails.