Immigration refers to the movement of people between countries. While the movement of people has existed throughout human history at various levels, modern immigration implies long-term, legal, permanent residence. Short-term visitors and tourists are considered non-immigrants (see expatriate). Immigration across national borders in a way that violates the immigration laws of the destination country is termed illegal immigration. Under this definition, an illegal immigrant is a foreigner who either illegally crossed an international political border, be it by land, water, or air, or a foreigner who legally entered a country but nevertheless overstays his/her visa in order to live and/or work therein. Seasonal labour migration, while generally non-permanent in nature (typically for periods of less than a year), is often treated as a form of immigration.
The modern concept of immigration is related to the development of nation-states and nationality law. Citizenship in a nation-state confers an inalienable right of residence in that state, but residency of non-citizens is subject to conditions set by immigration law. The emergence of nation-states made immigration a political issue: by definition it is the homeland of a nation defined by shared ethnicity and/or culture.
The global volume of immigration is high in absolute terms, but low in relative terms. The International Integration and Refugee Association estimated 190 million international migrants in 2005, about 3 percent of global population. The other 97 percent still live in the country in which they were born.citation needed The Middle East, some parts of Europe, small areas of South East Asia, and a few spots in the West Indies have the highest numbers of immigration population recorded by the UN Census 2005.
Global statistics
- See also: List of countries by immigrant population
The European Union allows free travel between member states with the appropriate papers. Most immigrants are from former eastern bloc states to the developed western European states, especially to Italy, Spain, Germany and Britain. Noticeably, some countries seemed to be favoured by these new EU member nationals than others. For example, there are large numbers of Poles who have moved to the UK, Ireland and Netherlands, while Romanians have chosen Italy and Spain.citation needed While France and Germany put in place controls to curb Eastern European migration, the UK (along with Ireland) did not impose restrictions.
Following Poland's entry into the EU in May 2004 it is estimated that by the start of 2007 375,000 Poles have registered to work in the UK, although the total Polish population in the UK is believed to be 750,000. Many Poles work in seasonal occupations and a large number are likely to move back and forth including between Ireland and other EU Western nations.[1]
According to Eurostat,[2] Some EU member states are currently receiving large-scale immigration: for instance Spain, where the economy has created more than half of all the new jobs in the EU over the past five years.[3] The EU, in 2005, had an overall net gain from international migration of +1.8 million people. This accounts for almost 85% of Europe's total population growth in 2005.[4] In 2004, total 140,033 people immigrated to France. Of them, 90,250 were from Africa and 13,710 from Europe.[5] In 2005, immigration fell slightly to 135,890.[6] In recent years, immigration has accounted for more than half of Norway's population growth. In 2006, Statistics Norway's (SSB) counted a record 45,800 immigrants arriving in Norway — 30% higher than 2005.[7] At the beginning of 2007, there were 415,300 persons in Norway with an immigrant background (i.e. immigrants, or born of immigrant parents), comprising 8.3 per cent of the total population.[8]
Canada has the highest per capita net immigration rate in the world,[9] driven by economic policy and family reunification. In 2001, 250,640 people immigrated to Canada. Newcomers settle mostly in the major urban areas of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. By the 1990s and 2000s, a majority of Canada's immigrants came from Asia.[10] Canadian society is often depicted as being a very progressive, diverse, and multicultural. Accusing a person of racism in Canada is usually considered a serious slur.[11] All political parties are now cautious about criticising of the high level of immigration, because, as noted by the Globe and Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000."[12]
Japan accepted just 16 refugees in 1999, while the United States took in 85,010 for resettlement, according to the UNHCR. New Zealand, which is smaller than Japan, accepted 1,140 refugees in 1999. Just 305 persons were recognized as refugees by Japan from 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, to 2002.[13][14] Japanese Minister Taro Aso has called Japan a "one race" nation.[15]
In 2004 the number of people who became British citizens rose to a record 140,795 - a rise of 12% on the previous year. This number had risen dramatically since 2000. The overwhelming majority of new citizens come from Africa (32%) and Asia (40%), the largest three groups being people from Pakistan, India and Somalia.[16] In 2005, an estimated 565,000 migrants arrived to live in the UK for at least a year, most of the migrants were people from Asia, the Indian sub-continent and Africa,[17] while 380,000 people emigrated from the UK for a year or more, with Australia, Spain and France most popular destinations.[18]
British emigration towards Southern Europe is of special relevance. Citizens from the European Union make up a growing proportion of immigrants in Spain. They mainly come from countries like the UK and Germany, but the British case is of special interest due to its magnitude. The British authorities estimate that the British population in Spain at 700,000.[19] Spain is the most favoured destination for Britons leaving the UK.[20] Since 2000, Spain has absorbed more than three million immigrants, growing its population by almost 10%. Immigrant population now tops over 4.5 million. According to residence permit data for 2005, about 500,000 were Moroccan, another 500,000 were Ecuadorian,[21] more than 200,000 were Romanian, and 260,000 were Colombian.[22][23] In 2005 alone, a regularisation programme increased the legal immigrant population by 700,000 people.[24]
Portugal, long a country of emigration,[25] has now become a country of net immigration, and not just from the former colonies; by the end of 2003, legal immigrants represented about 4% of the population, and the largest communities were from Cape Verde, Brazil, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, UK, Spain and Ukraine.[26]
The overall level of immigration to Australia has grown substantially during the last decade. Net overseas migration increased from 30,000 in 1993[27] to 118,000 in 2003-04.[28] The largest components of immigration are the skilled migration and family re-union programs. In recent years the mandatory detention of unauthorised arrivals by boat has generated great levels of controversy. During the 2004-05, total 123,424 people immigrated to Australia. Of them, 17,736 were from Africa, 54,804 from Asia, 21,131 from Oceania, 18,220 from United Kingdom, 1,506 from South America, and 2,369 from Eastern Europe.[29] 131,000 people migrated to Australia in 2005-06[30] and migration target for 2006-07 was 144,000.[31]
New Zealand has relatively open immigration policies. 23% of the population was born overseas, mainly in Asia, Oceania, and UK, one of the highest rates in the world. In 2004-2005, a target of 45,000 immigrants was set by the New Zealand immigration Service and represented 1.5% of the total population. According to the 2001 census projections, by 2050 57% of all New Zealand children will have Maori or Pacific ancestry, while 68% will be non-European.
Immigration by continent
Immigration to the United States
See Immigration to the United States.
The U.S. has often been called the "melting pot". The name is delivered from United States' rich tradition of immigrants coming to the US looking for something better and having their cultures melded and incorporated into the fabric of the country. Most of them did not possess wealth or power in their home countries. Most were not highly educated. Other than these few commonalities of what they didn't possess, their backgrounds were vastly different. The thread, however, that bound these immigrants together was their vision of improving their current situation. Emma Lazarus, in a poem entitled "The New Colossus," which is inscribed on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty tells of the invitation extended to those wanting to make the US their home. "… Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free…" (Encyclopedia Americana, 1998, Vol. 25, 637)
While recent immigration patterns have changed; the reasons have not. Individuals and families still come to the United States with a vision of improving their lives. The backgrounds of today's immigrants expanded beyond the European Borders. Today they come from all over the world. At a 1984 oath-taking ceremony in Los Angeles, there were nearly a thousand individuals from the Philippines, 890 from Mexico, 704 from Vietnam, 110 from Lebanon, 126 from the United Kingdom, and 62 from Israel. Although not as large a number, there were also individuals from Lithuania, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania. (Luedtke, 1992, 3)
After 2000, legal immigrants to the United States numbered approximately 1,000,000 per year. In 2006, 1.27 million immigrants were granted legal residence. Mexico has been the leading source of new U.S. residents for over two decades; and since 1998, China, India and the Philippines have been in the top four sending countries every year.[32]
By one account, the number of legal immigrants entering the U.S. annually was estimated at 500,000 to 600,000 in 1989.citation needed This subsequently increased and is now well over 1 million annually, not including illegal migration or temporary work visas.citation needed Net illegal immigration also soared from about 130,000 per year in the 1970s to as high as 1,500,000 per year in 2006.citation neededBureau figures show the U.S. population grew by 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005.[33] The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that 45% of children under age 5 are from a racial or ethnic minority.[34]
Since World War II, more refugees have found homes in the U.S. than any other nation and more than two million refugees have arrived in the U.S. since 1980.citation needed Of the top ten countries accepting resettled refugees in 2006, the United States accepted more than twice as much as the next nine countries combined, although some smaller countries accept more refugees per capita.citation needed
Twenty cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Seattle and Portland, have adopted "sanctuary" ordinances banning police from asking people about their immigration status.citation needed If current birth and immigration rates were to remain unchanged for another 60 to 70 years, US population would double to some 600 million people.[35] The actual number of admitted refugees rose in subsequent years with ceiling for 2006 at 70,000. A May 25, 2007 article notes that in the past seven months only 69 people from Iraq have been granted refugee status in the United States.[36]
Causes
Theories of immigration traditionally distinguish between push factors and pull factors.[37] Push factors refer primarily to the motive for emigration from the country of origin. In the case of economic migration (usually labour migration), differentials in wage rates are prominent. Poor individuals from less developed countries can have far higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries. Escape from poverty (personal or for relatives staying behind) is a traditional push factor, the availability of jobs is the related pull factor. Natural disasters and overpopulation can amplify poverty-driven migration flows. This kind of migration may be illegal immigration in the destination country (emigration is also illegal in some countries, such as North Korea).
Emigration and immigration are sometimes mandatory in a contract of employment: religious missionaries, and employees of transnational corporations, international non-governmental organisations and the diplomatic service can expect to work 'overseas'. They are often referred to as 'expatriates', and their conditions of employment are typically equal to or better than those applying in the host country (for similar work).
For some migrants, education is the primary pull factor (although most international students are not classified as immigrants, but may choose to do so if they refuse to return). Retirement migration from rich countries to lower-cost countries with better climate, is a new type of international migration. Examples include immigration of retired British citizens to Spain or Italy and of retired Canadian citizens to the U.S. (mainly to the state of Florida).clarify Some, although relatively few, immigrants justify their drive to be in a different country for cultural or health related reasons and very seldom, again in relative quantitative terms compared to the actual number of international migrants world-wide, choose to migrate as a form of self-expression towards the establishment or to satisfy their need to directly perceive other cultural environments because economics is almost always the primary motivator for constant, long-term, or permanent migration, but especially for that type of inter-regional or inter-continental migration; that holds true even for people from developed countries.
Non-economic push factors include persecution (religious and otherwise), frequent abuse, bullying, oppression, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, and risks to civilians during war. Political motives traditionally motivate refugee flows - to escape dictatorship for instance.
Some migration is for personal reasons, based on a relationship (e.g. to be with family or a partner), such as in family reunification or transnational marriage. In a few cases, an individual may wish to emigrate to a new country in a form of transferred patriotism. Evasion of criminal justice (e.g. avoiding arrest) is a (mostly negative) personal motivation. This type of emigration and immigration is not normally legal, if a crime is internationally recognized, although criminals may disguise their identities or find other loopholes to evade detection. There have been cases, for example, of those who might be guilty of war crimes disguising themselves as victims of war or conflict and then pursuing asylum in a different country.
Barriers to immigration come not only in legal form; natural barriers to immigration can also be very powerful. Immigrants when leaving their country also leave everything familiar: their family, friends, support network, and culture. They also need to liquidate their assets often at a large loss, and incur the expense of moving. When they arrive in a new country this is often with many uncertainties including finding work, where to live, new laws, new cultural norms, language or accent issues, possible racism and other exclusionary behaviour towards them and their family. These barriers act to limit international migration (scenarios where populations move en masse to other continents, creating huge population surges, and their associated strain on infrastructure and services, ignore these inherent limits on migration.)
Differing perspectives
Immigration is often highly politicized, and in some countries, a major political issue.
Supporting arguments
General arguments
The main arguments cited in support of immigration are economic arguments, such as a free labor market, and cultural arguments appealing to the value of cultural diversity. Some groups also support immigration as a device to boost small population numbers, like in New Zealand and Canada, or, like in Europe, to reverse demographic aging trends.
Support for fully open borders is limited to a minority. Some free-market libertarians believe that a free global labour market with no restrictions on immigration would, in the long run, boost global prosperity. There are also groups which oppose border controls on ideological grounds - believing that people from poor countries should be allowed to enter rich countries, to benefit from their higher standards of living. Others are advocates of world government and wish to eliminate or severely limit the power of nation-states. This includes the nation-state's ability to grant and deny individuals entry across borders, which advocates of world government generally view as arbitrary and unfair distinctions made on what should be one planet earth, thus eliminating diversity and competition among states.
Economic arguments
Countries like New Zealand, which has experimented with both qualifications- and job-offer-based entry systems, have reported that under the latter system (where much weight is put on the immigrant already having a job offer), the immigrants actually show a much lower uptake of government benefits than the normal population. Under a mostly qualification-based system, many highly trained doctors and engineers had instead been reduced to driving taxis. However, the host nation often get more professionals without losing the cost of training or educating these professionals. According to the Global Health Workforce Alliance, one in four doctors trained in sub-Saharan Africa works in a developing country. A usual example of this case is the fact that there are more Ethiopian doctors on the east coast of America than there are in Ethiopia.[38]
Opposing arguments
The main anti-immigration themes include costs of migrants (potential free-riding on existing welfare systems), labor competition; environmental issues (the impact of population growth); national security (concerns of insular immigrant groups & terrorism against the host country) and growing crime[39]; lack of coordination & cooperation among citizens (differences of language, conventions, culture); and the loss of national identity and culture (including the nature of the nation-state itself).
Health arguments
Immigration from areas of high incidence is thought to have fueled the resurgence of tuberculosis (TB), chagas, hepatitis, and leprosy in areas of low incidence. To reduce the risk of diseases in low-incidence areas, the main countermeasure has been the screening of immigrants on arrival.[40] According to CDC, TB cases among foreign-born individuals remain disproportionately high, at nearly nine times the rate of U.S.-born persons. In 2003, nearly 26 percent of foreign-born TB patients in the United States were from Mexico. Another third of the foreign-born cases were among those from the Philippines, Vietnam, India and China, the CDC report said.[41][42][43]
The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.[44][45]
Economic arguments
Economic needs-driven immigration is opposed by labor-market protectionists, often arguing from economic nationalism. The core of their arguments is that a nation's jobs are the 'property' of that nation, and that allowing foreigners to take them is equivalent to a loss of that property. They may also criticise immigration of this type as a form of corporate welfare, where business is indirectly subsidised by government expenditure to promote the immigration and the assimilation of the immigrants.[46] A more common criticism is that the immigrant employees are almost always paid less than a non-immigrant worker in the same job, and that the migration depresses wages, especially as migrants are usually not unionised. Other groups feel that the focus should be not on migration control, but on equal rights for the migrants, to avoid their exploitation.
Concerns regarding the cost of immigration, such as the provision of schools for the additional population, are prominent in the United States and Canada. See Economic impact of immigration to Canada. Although much current research has pointed to the fact that the U.S. and Canada are actually dependent on migrant labor, see The Center for U.S. - Mexico Immigration Analysis.
Scholars have come to various opinions about the economic effects of immigration. Those who find that immigrants produce a negative effect on the US economy often focus on the difference between taxes paid and government services received and wage-lowering effects among low-skilled native w |
