Immigration (derived from Latin: migratio) is the act of foreigners passing or coming into a country for the purpose of permanent residence. Immigration is made for many reasons, including economic, political, family re-unification, natural disaster, poverty or the wish to change one's surroundings voluntarily.
Contents |
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) stated there are more than 200-million migrants around the world today. Europe hosted the largest number of immigrants, with 70.6 million people in 2005, the latest year for which figures are available. North America, with over 45.1 million immigrants, is second, followed by Asia, which hosts nearly 25.3 million. Most of today's migrant workers come from Asia.[1]
The United Nations found that, in 2005, there were nearly 191 million international migrants worldwide, about 3 percent of the world population.[2] This represented a rise of 26 million since 1990. Sixty percent of these immigrants were now in developed countries, an increase on 1990. Those in less developed countries stagnated, mainly because of a fall in refugees.[3] Contrast that to the average rate of globalization (the proportion of cross-border trade in all trade), which exceeds 20 percent. The numbers of people living outside their country of birth is expected to rise in the future.[4]
The Middle West (USA), some parts of Europe, small areas of South West Asia, and a few spots in the East Indies have the highest percentages of immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005. The reliability of immigrant censuses is low due to the concealed character of undocumented labor migration. The International Organization for Migration has estimated the number of foreign migrants to be over 200 million worldwide today.[5]
A 2009 survey by Gallup found roughly 700 million adults would like to migrate to another country permanently if they had the chance.[6] Nearly one-quarter (24%) of these respondents, which translates to more than 165 million adults worldwide where hit by cars , named the United States as their desired future residence, while an additional 6.5% of respondents, representing an estimated 45 million, chose Canada. The other top desired destination countries (those where an estimated 25 million or more adults would like to go) were predominantly European. A percentage of respondents representing forty-five million adults named the United Kingdom or France as their desired destination, followed in order of preference by Spain, Germany, Saudi Arabia and Australia.
See also article on remigration (by Gürkan Çelik) in Turkish Review: Turkey Pulls, The Netherlands Pushes? An increasing number of Turks, the Netherlands’ largest ethnic minority, are beginning to return to Turkey, taking with them the education and skills they have acquired abroad, as the Netherlands faces challenges from economic difficulties, social tension and increasingly powerful far-right parties. At the same time Turkey’s political, social and economic conditions have been improving, making returning home all the more appealing for Turks at large (pp.94-99).
One theory of immigration distinguishes between Push and Pull.[7] Push factors refer primarily the motive for emigration from the country of origin. In the case of economic migration (usually labor migration), differentials in wage rates are prominent. If the value of wages in the new country surpasses the value of wages in one’s native country, he or she may choose to migrate as long as the costs are not too high. Particularly in the 19th century, economic expansion of the U.S. increased immigrant flow, and in effect, nearly 20% of the population was foreign born versus today’s values of 10%, making up a significant amount of the labor force. Poor individuals from less developed countries can have far higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries. The cost of emigration, which includes both the explicit costs, the ticket price, and the implicit cost, lost work time and loss of community ties, also play a major role in the pull of emigrants away from their native country. As transportation technology improved, travel time and costs decreased dramatically between the 18th and early 20th century. Travel across the Atlantic used to take up to 5 weeks in the 18th century, but around the time of the 20th century it took a mere 8 days.[8] When the opportunity cost is lower, the immigration rates tend to be higher.[8] 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 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, Myanmar, and Cuba).
Emigration and immigration are sometimes mandatory in a contract of employment: religious missionaries, and employees of transnational corporations, international non-governmental organizations and the diplomatic service expect, by definition, 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). 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 U.S. states of Florida and Texas).
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 (especially in the instance of a gender imbalance). In a few cases, an individual may wish to immigrate to a new country in a form of transferred patriotism. Evasion of criminal justice (e.g. avoiding arrest) is a 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 and social 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 behavior 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.)
The politics of immigration have become increasingly associated with other issues, such as national security, terrorism, and in western Europe especially, with the presence of Islam as a new major religion. Those with security concerns cite the 2005 civil unrest in France that point to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy as an example of the value conflicts arising from immigration of Muslims in Western Europe. Because of all these associations, immigration has become an emotional political issue in many European nations.
Studies have suggested that some special interest groups lobby for less immigration for their own group and more immigration for other groups since they see effects of immigration, such as increased labor competition, as detrimental when affecting their own group but beneficial when affecting other groups. A 2010 European study suggested that "that employers are more likely to be pro-immigration than employees, provided that immigrants are thought to compete with employees who are already in the country. Or else, when immigrants are thought to compete with employers rather than employees, employers are more likely to be anti-immigration than employees."[10] A 2011 study examining the voting of US representatives on migration policy suggests that "that representatives from more skilled labor abundant districts are more likely to support an open immigration policy towards the unskilled, whereas the opposite is true for representatives from more unskilled labor abundant districts."[11]
Another contributing factor may be lobbying by earlier immigrants. The Chairman for the US Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform which lobby for more permissive rules for immigrants, as well as special arrangements just for Irish, has stated that "the Irish Lobby will push for any special arrangement it can get — 'as will every other ethnic group in the country.'"[12][13]
As a principle, citizens of one member nation of the European Union are allowed to work in other member nations with little to no restriction on movement.[14] This is aided by the EURES network which brings together the European Commission and the public employment services of the countries belonging to the European Economic Area and Switzerland. For non-EU-citizen permanent residents in the EU, movement between EU-member states is considerably more difficult. After 155 new waves of accession to the European Union, earlier members have often introduced measures to restrict participation in "their" labour markets by citizens of the new EU-member states. For instance, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal and Spain each restricted their labor market for up to seven years both in the 2004 and 2007 round of accession.[15]
Due to the European Union's—in principle—single internal labour market policy, countries such as Italy and the Republic of Ireland that have seen relatively low levels of labour immigration until recently (and which have often sent a significant portion of their population overseas in the past) are now seeing an influx of immigrants from EU countries with lower per capita annual earning rates, triggering nationwide immigration debates.[16][17]
Spain, meanwhile, is seeing growing illegal immigration from Africa. As Spain is the closest EU member nation to Africa—Spain even has two autonomous cities (Ceuta and Melilla) on the African continent, as well as an autonomous community (the Canary Islands) west of North Africa, in the Atlantic—it is physically easiest for African emigrants to reach. This has led to debate both within Spain and between Spain and other EU members. Spain has asked for border control assistance from other EU states; the latter have responded that Spain has brought the wave of African illegal migrants on itself by granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of undocumented foreigners.[18]
The United Kingdom, France and Germany have seen major immigration since the end of World War II and have been debating the issue for decades. Foreign workers were brought in to those countries to help rebuild after the war, and many stayed. Political debates about immigration typically focus on statistics, the immigration law and policy, and the implementation of existing restrictions.[19][20] In some European countries the debate in the 1990s was focused on asylum seekers, but restrictive policies within the European Union, as well as a reduction in armed conflict in Europe and neighboring regions, have sharply reduced asylum seekers.[21]
Some states, such as Japan, have opted for technological changes to increase profitability (for example, greater automation), and designed immigration laws specifically to prevent immigrants from coming to, and remaining within, the country. Globalization, as well as low birth rates and an aging work force, has forced Japan to reconsider its immigration policy.[22] Japan's colonial past has also created considerable number of non-Japanese in Japan. Japan keeps tight control on immigration and in 2009, despite generous overseas aid for refugees, granted political asylum to just 30 people.[23] Japanese Minister Taro Aso described Japan as unique in being "one nation, one civilisation, one language, one culture and one race".[24]
In the United States political debate on immigration has flared repeatedly since the US became independent. Some on the far-left of the political spectrum attribute anti-immigration rhetoric to an all-"white", under-educated and parochial minority of the population, ill-educated about the relative advantages of immigration for the US economy and society.[25] While those on the far-right think that immigration threatens national identity, as well as cheapening labor and increasing dependence on welfare.[25]
The term economic migrant refers to someone who has emigrated from one region to another region for the purposes of seeking employment or improved financial position. An economic migrant is distinct from someone who is a refugee fleeing persecution.
Many countries have immigration and visa restrictions that prohibit a person entering the country for the purposes of gaining work without a valid work visa. Persons who are declared an economic migrant can be refused entry into a country.
The World Bank estimates that remittances totaled $420 billion in 2009, of which $317 billion went to developing countries.[26]
Treatment of migrants in host countries, both by governments, employers, and original population, is a topic of continual debate and criticism, as many cases of abuse and violation of rights are being reported frequently. Some countries have developed a particularly notorious reputation regarding treatment of migrants. The United Nations Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, has been ratified but by 20 states, all of which are heavy exporters of cheap labor. With the sole exception of Serbia, non of the signatories are western countries, but all are from Asia, South America, and North Africa. Arab states of the Persian Gulf, which are known for receiving millions of migrant workers, have not signed the treaty as well.
Although freedom of movement is often recognized as a civil right, the freedom only applies to movement within national borders: it may be guaranteed by the constitution or by human rights legislation. Additionally, this freedom is often limited to citizens and excludes others. No state currently allows full freedom of movement across its borders, and international human rights treaties do not confer a general right to enter another state. Proponents of immigration maintain that, according to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, everyone has the right to leave or enter a country, along with movement within it (internal migration), although article 13 actually restricts freedom of movement to "within the borders of each state." Additionally, the UDHR does not mention entry into other countries when it states that "everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country."[27] Some argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right, and that the restrictive immigration policies, typical of nation-states, violate this human right of freedom of movement.[28] Such arguments are common among anti-state ideologies like anarchism and libertarianism. As philosopher and "Open Borders" activist Jacob Appel has written, "Treating human beings differently, simply because they were born on the opposite side of a national boundary, is hard to justify under any mainstream philosophical, religious or ethical theory."[29] However, Article 14 does provide that "everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."[30]
Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. Family reunification accounts for approximately two-thirds of legal immigration to the US every year.[31] Ethnic selection, such as the White Australia policy, has generally disappeared, but priority is usually given to the educated, skilled, and wealthy. Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail themselves of the legal and protected immigration opportunities offered by wealthy states. This inequality has also been criticized as conflicting with the principle of equal opportunities, which apply (at least in theory) within democratic nation-states. The fact that the door is closed for the unskilled, while at the same time many developed countries have a huge demand for unskilled labor, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy—which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labor—has also been criticized on ethical grounds.
Immigration policies which selectively grant freedom of movement to targeted individuals are intended to produce a net economic gain for the host country. They can also mean net loss for a poor donor country through the loss of the educated minority—the brain drain. This can exacerbate the global inequality in standards of living that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. An example of the 'competition for skilled labour' is active recruitment of health workers by First World countries, from the Third World..
The Commitment to Development Index ranks 22 of the world's richest countries on their immigration policies and openness to migrants and refugees from the poorest nations. See the CDI for information about specific country policies and evaluation not listed below.
Jewish immigration to Palestine during the 19th century was promoted by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century following the publication of "Der Judenstaat".[32] His Zionist movement sought to encourage Jewish migration, or immigration, to Palestine. Its proponents regard its aim as self-determination for the Jewish people.[33] The percentage of world Jewry living in the former Palestinian Mandate has steadily grown from 25,000 since the movement came into existence. Today about 40% of the world's Jews live in Israel, more than in any other country.[34]
The Israeli Law of Return, passed in 1950, gives those born Jews (having a Jewish mother or grandmother), those with Jewish ancestry (having a Jewish father or grandfather) and converts to Judaism (Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative denominations—not secular—though Reform and Conservative conversions must take place outside the state, similar to civil marriages) the right to immigrate to Israel. A 1970 amendment, extended immigration rights to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew". Over a million Jews from the former Soviet Union have immigrated to Israel since the 1990s, and large numbers of Ethiopian Jews were airlifted to the country in Operation Moses. In the year 1991, Israel helped 14,000 Ethiopian immigrants arrive in operation Solomon.
Nearly 34,000 African migrants have entered Israel in recent years.[35] There were 35,638 migrants in Israel in 2011.[36]
In the early 1990s, Japan relaxed its relatively tight immigration laws to allow special entry permits for foreigners of Japanese ancestry in South America to make up for a labor shortage.[37] According to Japanese immigration centre,[38] the number of foreign residents in Japan has been steadily increased, and the number of foreign residents (including permanent residents, but excluding illegal immigrants and short-term visitors such as foreign nationals staying less than 90 days in Japan[39]) were more than 2.2 million people in 2008.[38] The biggest groups are, Koreans (both south and north), Chinese (including People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macau nationalities), and Brazilians (Most of the Brazilians in Japan have Japanese ancestry, due to the huge Japanese immigration to Brazil in the first decades of 20th century). Immediately after World War II, most Koreans in Japan were formerly conscripted as forced labour during the war.[40]
Among the immigrants, Japan accepts a steady flow of 15,000 new Japanese citizens by naturalization (帰化 Kika) per year.[41] Indeed, the concept of the ethnic groups by the Japanese statistics is different from the ethnicity census of North American or some Western European statistics. For example, the United Kingdom Census asks ethnic or racial background which composites the population of the United Kingdom, regardless of their nationalities.[42] The Japanese Statistics Bureau does not have this question yet. Since the Japanese population census asks the people's nationality rather than their ethnic background, naturalized Japanese citizens and Japanese nationals with multi-ethnic background are considered to be ethnically Japanese in the population census of Japan.[38]
Also, according to Japanese Association for Refugees, (or JAR for short),[43] the number of refugees who applied to live in Japan rapidly increased since 2006, and there were more than a thousand applications from all over the world, who seek refugee status to live in Japan in the year of 2008.[43] The refugee policy of Japanese government has been criticized both domestically and internationally, because the number of refugees in Japan is still small compared to the countries like Canada in North America or France in Western Europe. For example, according to the UNHCR, in 1999 Japan accepted 16 refugees for resettlement, while the United States took in 85,010, and New Zealand, which is smaller than Japan, accepted 1,140. Between 1981, when Japan ratified the U.N. Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, and 2002, Japan recognized only 305 persons as refugees.[44][45]
According to Eurostat, 47.3 million people lived in the EU in 2010, who were born outside their resident country. This corresponds to 9.4% of the total EU population. Of these, 31.4 million (6.3%) were born outside the EU and 16.0 million (3.2%) were born in another EU member state. The largest absolute numbers of people born outside the EU were in Germany (6.4 million), France (5.1 million), the United Kingdom (4.7 million), Spain (4.1 million), Italy (3.2 million), and the Netherlands (1.4 million).[46][47]
Some EU member states are currently receiving large-scale immigration: for instance Spain, where the economy has created more than the whole of all the new jobs in the EU over the past five years.[48] 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.[49] In 2004, total 140,033 people immigrated to France. Of them, 90,250 were from Africa and 13,710 from Europe.[50] In 2005, immigration fell slightly to 135,890.[51] 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.[52] Mid- and long term EU demographics indicate a shortage of skilled laborers on a scale that would endanger economic growth and the stability of numerous industries. For this reason the European Union launched an initiative called the EU Blue Card, In 2009. The EU Blue Card is initially a temporary residence and work permit. However it will offer holders the opportunity to apply for a permanent resident permit after working on a EU Blue Card for two to five years uninterrupted, depending on individual member state regulations. In the years ahead, EU member states will gradually accept applications for EU Blue Card. Crucial in the application process is a job contract with an EU-based organization. To facilitate this requirement the European Commission launched the EU Blue Card Database in January 2010.[53]
Italy now has an estimated 4 million to 4.5 million immigrants — about 7 percent of the population. Since the expansion of the European Union, the most recent wave of migration has been from surrounding European nations, particularly Central Europe, and increasingly Asia, replacing North Africa as the major immigration area. Some 997,000 Romanians are officially registered as living in Italy, replacing Albanians (590,000) and Moroccans (455,000) as the largest ethnic minority group, but independent estimates put the actual number of Romanians at double that figure or perhaps even more. Other immigrants from Central and Eastern Europe are Ukrainians (260,000), Polish (120,000), Moldovans (190 000) Macedonians (100,000), Serbs (75,000), Bulgarians (124,000), Bosnians (40,000), Russians (45,600), Croatians (25,000), Slovakians (9,000), Hungarians (8,600). As of 2009, the foreign born population origin of Italy was subdivided as follows: Europe (53.5%), Africa (22.3%), Asia (15.8%), the Americas (8.1%) and Oceania (0.06%). The distribution of foreign born population is largely uneven in Italy: 80 % of immigrants live in the northern and central parts of the country (the most economically developed areas), while only 20 % live in the southern half of the peninsula. In 2008, net immigration to Italy was 438,000.
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.[54] 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 percent of the total population.[55]
Portugal, long a country of emigration, that have created big Portuguese communities in France, USA and Brazil [56] has now become a country of net immigration, and not just from the former colonies; by the end of 2003, legal refugees immigrants represented about 4% of the population, and the largest communities were from Cape Verde, Brazil, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, UK, Spain and Ukraine.[57]
Spain is the most favoured European destination for Britons leaving the UK.[58] 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,[59] more than 200,000 were Romanian, and 260,000 were Colombian.[60][61] In 2005 alone, a regularisation programme increased the legal immigrant population by 700,000 people.[62]
Immigration has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the history of Sweden. The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior.
As the Swedish government does not base any statistics on ethnicity, there are no exact numbers on the total number of people of immigrant background in Sweden. As of 2010, 1.33 million people or 14.3% of the inhabitants in Sweden were foreign-born. Sweden has been transformed from a nation of emigration ending after World War I to a nation of immigration from World War II onwards. In 2009, immigration reached its highest level since records began with 102,280 people emigrating to Sweden. In 2010, 32000 people applied for asylum to Sweden, a 25% increase from 2009, the highest amount in Swedish history.[63] In 2009, Sweden had the fourth largest number of asylum applications in the EU and the largest number per capita after Cyprus and Malta.[64] [65] Immigrants in Sweden are mostly concentrated in the urban areas of Svealand and Götaland and the five largest foreign born populations in Sweden come from Finland, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Poland and Iran.[66]
In 2007, net immigration to the UK was 237,000, a rise of 46,000 on 2006.[68] 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. In the 2001 Census, citizens from the Republic of Ireland were the largest foreign born group and have been for the last 200 years. This figure does not include those from Northern Ireland located in Britain. Those of Irish ancestry number roughly 6 million from first, second and third generation. The overwhelming majority of new citizens come from Asia (40%) and Africa (32%), the largest three groups being people from Pakistan, India and Somalia.[69]
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 (particularly the Indian subcontinent) and Africa,[70] while 380,000 people emigrated from the UK for a year or more, with Australia, Spain and France most popular destinations.[71] Following Poland's entry into the EU in May 2004 it was estimated that by the start of 2007, 375,000 Poles had registered to work in the UK, although the total Polish population in the UK was believed to be 500,000. Many Poles work in seasonal occupations and a large number are likely to move back and forth over time. Many migrants left after the world economic crisis of 2008 and the 30% devaluation of sterling that followed. As of March 2011[update] the UK Immigration Minister was Damian Green.
Canada has the highest per capita net immigration rate in the world,[72] driven by economic policy and family reunification, and is aiming for between 240,000 and 265,000 new permanent residents in 2010.[73] In 2001, 250,640 people immigrated to Canada. Newcomers settle mostly in the major urban areas of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. Since the 1990s, the majority of Canada's immigrants have come from Asia.[74] The leading emigrating countries to Canada are China, Philippines and India.[75] Accusing a person of racism in Canada is usually considered a serious slur.[76] All political parties are now cautious about criticizing 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."[77]
Historians estimate that fewer than 1 million immigrants – perhaps as few as 400,000 – crossed the Atlantic during the 17th and 18th centuries.[78] Relatively few 18th-century immigrants came from England: only 80,000 between 1700 and 1775, compared to 350,000 during the 17th century.[79] In addition, between the 17th and 19th centuries, an estimated 645,000 Africans were brought to what is now the United States.[80] In the early years of the United States, immigration was fewer than 8,000 people a year.[81] After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1850 to 1930, the foreign born population of the United States increased from 2.2 million to 14.2 million. The highest percentage of foreign born people in the United States was found in this period, with the peak in 1890 at 14.7%. During this time, the lower costs of Atlantic Ocean travel in time and fare made it more advantageous for immigrants to move to the U.S. than in years prior. From 1880 to 1924, over 25 million Europeans migrated to the United States.[78] Following this time period, immigration fell because in 1924 Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which favored immigrant source countries that already had many immigrants in the U.S. by 1890.[82] Immigration patterns of the 1930s were dominated by the Great Depression, and in the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it.[83] Immigration continued to fall throughout the 1940s and 1950s, but it increased again afterwards.[84]
The Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965 (the Hart-Cellar Act) removed quotas on large segments of the immigration flow and legal immigration to the U.S. surged. In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled record 37.5 million.[85] After 2000, immigration to the United States numbered approximately 1,000,000 per year. Despite tougher border scrutiny after 9/11, nearly 8 million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2005 – more than in any other five-year period in the nation's history.[86] Almost half entered illegally.[87] 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.[88] The U.S. has often been called the "melting pot" (derived from Carl N. Degler, a historian, author of Out of Our Past), a name derived 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.
Appointed by President Clinton, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, led by Barbara Jordan, called for reducing legal immigration to about 550,000 a year.[89] Since September 11, 2001, the politics of immigration has become an extremely hot issue. It was a central topic of the 2008 election cycle.[90]
The number of foreign nationals who became legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. in 2009 as a result of family reunification (66 percent) outpaced those who became LPRs on the basis of employment skills (13 percent) and humanitarian reasons (17 percent).[91] 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. 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.[92] One econometrics report in 2010 by analyst Kusum Mundra suggested that immigration positively affected bilateral trade when the U.S. had a networked community of immigrants, but that the trade benefit was weakened when the immigrants became assimilated into American culture.[93]
| Year | Year | Year | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1820 | 8,385 | 1915 | 326,700 | 1999 | 644,787 |
| 1821 | 9,127 | 1925 | 294,314 | 2000 | 841,002 |
| 1822 | 6,911 | 1935 | 34,956 | 2001 | 1,058,902 |
| 1825 | 10,199 | 1945 | 38,119 | 2002 | 1,059,536 |
| 1835 | 45,374 | 1955 | 237,790 | 2003 | 703,542 |
| 1845 | 114,371 | 1965 | 296,697 | 2004 | 957,883 |
| 1855 | 200,877 | 1975 | 385,378 | 2005 | 1,122,373 |
| 1865 | 248,120 | 1985 | 568,149 | 2006 | 1,266,129 |
| 1875 | 227,498 | 1995 | 720,177 | 2007 | 1,052,415 |
| 1885 | 395,346 | 1996 | 915,560 | 2008 | 1,107,126 |
| 1895 | 258,536 | 1997 | 797,847 | 2009 | 1,130,818 |
| 1905 | 1,026,499 | 1998 | 653,206 | 2010 | 1,042,625 |
Source: US Department of Homeland Security, Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2010[94]
The overall level of immigration to Australia has grown substantially during the last decade. Net overseas migration increased from 30,000 in 1993[95] to 118,000 in 2003-04.[96] The largest components of immigration are the skilled migration and family re-union programs. 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 the rest of Europe.[74] 131,000 people migrated to Australia in 2005-06[97] and migration target for 2006-07 was 144,000.[98]
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 2010-2014, an annual target of 45,000±5000 immigrants was set by the Immigration New Zealand.
The Cato Institute finds little or no effect of immigration on income of native born.[99] The Brookings Institution finds a 2.3% depression of wages from immigration from 1980 to 2007.[100] The Center for Immigration Studies finds a 3.7% depression wages from immigration from 1980 to 2000.[101]
According to the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia, "In Europe, 28 percent of foreigners between the ages of 25 and 49 are unable to find work, with unemployment rates as high as 35 percent for Turks and Pakistanis and 60 percent for recent immigrant groups such as Somalis."[102]
Research has found that that as immigration and ethnic heterogeneity increase, government funding of welfare and public support for welfare decrease. Ethnic nepotism may be an explanation for this phenomenon. Other possible explanations include theories regarding in-group and out-group effects as well as reciprocal altruism.[103]
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||||||