Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (February 2008)
|
|
This article is missing citations or needs footnotes. Using inline citations helps guard against copyright violations and factual inaccuracies. (February 2008) |
While the movement of people has existed throughout history at various levels, modern immigration tourists are considered non-immigrants (see expatriate). Immigration that violates the immigration laws of the destination country is termed illegal immigration. Seasonal labor migration, while generally non-pregnant 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 the global population.[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 percentages of immigration population recorded by the UN Census 2005.
In its 4th World Migration Report, the International Organization for Migration said 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]
Theories of immigration traditionally distinguish between push factors and pull factors.[2] 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 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).[clarification needed] 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 worldwide, 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 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.)
Contents |
 |
This section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints. Please improve the article by adding information on neglected viewpoints, or discuss the issue on the talk page. (November 2008) |
Immigration is often highly politicised, and in some countries, a major political issue.
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 labor 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.
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.[3]
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[4]; 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).
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.[5] 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.[6][7][8]
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.[9][10]
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.[11] 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.
Waves of immigration also place pressure on existing health, housing and other infrastructure, which often takes several years to adjust to support larger populations. As Government support can be slow to filter into specifically affected regions, and the areas attracting many migrants are often poor ethnic-minority communities originally, this can increase inequality.
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 workers.[12][13] The economic impact of immigration differs by immigration category. For example, according to Statistics Canada, there are significant differences in the labour force participation rates. 2001 labour statistics by immigration category:[14]
| Labour force rates | Family | Skilled worker principal applicants | Skilled worker dependants | Other economic | Refugees | All immigrants |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Participation rate | 59% | 91% | 63% | 48% | 44% | 70% |
| Employment rate | 39% | 60% | 36% | 29% | 21% | 44% |
| Unemployment rate | 34% | 34% | 43% | 40% | 51% | 37% |
| Rank of total number of immigrants in 2005[15] | 2nd | 3rd | 1st | 5th | 4th |
In 2001, the overall unemployment rate of immigrants was 37%. Combined with the overall participation rate of 70%, this means that only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15 years and higher were working in 2001 (i.e., a majority of 56% were not working). The 44% employment rate was significantly lower than the average 2001 employment rate in Canada of 61%.[16] Immigrant unemployment levels do not reduce to the Canadian average during at least the first 10 years of residing in Canada.[17]
Employment statistics also bring into question whether skilled worker immigrants, with a 34% unemployment rate,[14] are successfully meeting existing labour market needs in Canada, and Statistics Canada explains that although progress was made in reducing poverty with pre-1990 residents of Canada (as measured by the low-income rate), this progress was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net widening of the income inequality gap in Canada during the 1990s.[18] And a more recent 2007 Statistics Canada study shows that the income profile of recent immigrants deteriorated by yet another significant amount from 2000 to 2004.[19]
UK plans to reduce immigration in the face of a weakening economy and rising unemployment, the Immigration Minister Phil Woolas said in October 2008.[20][21]
Unemployment among immigrants in Spain has risen 67% in 2007. Spain's new Plan of Voluntary Return encourages immigrants to leave Spain for three years and offers up to €25,000, but so far, only 186 Ecuadorans have signed up to return.[22][23]
In the United States, concerned parties argue that an influx of immigrants, especially less educated immigrants, is responsible for an increase in theft and violent crime in the areas they migrate to. This concern is prevalent in many strata of society, from the common man (a 2000 survey of Americans found 73 percent felt immigrants were dangerous because they brought crime[24]) to the highest levels of the US Government (as clearly stated in a speech by George W. Bush on May 15, 2006[25]). As Professor Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing have noted, this impression is reinforced and magnified by television shows and movies such as The Godfather, The Sopranos, Scarface, Rush Hour and West Side Story that strongly correlate ethnic immigrant groups with organized crime.[26]
Statistics, however, do not consistently support this argument. While one 2005 report stated that 21% of all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, other reports released in 2008 showed that immigrants were anywhere from three to five times less likely to commit crimes than native-born American residents.[27]
Some groups argue that immigration debate increases one type of crime: violent crimes by United States-born citizens against immigrants. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as debate on the issue of immigration increased and language became more incendiary from 2003 to 2006, hate crimes against Latinos rose by 35%.[28] The anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform has argued that these statistics are flawed, stating that violence by non-Latino gangs against the Latino organized criminal element are being mistaken for racial violence.[29]
Non-economic opposition to immigration is closely associated with nationalism, in Europe a 'nationalist party' will almost certainly have strong opinions on the subject of immigration.[citation needed] Although traditionally, economic arguments dominated the United States immigration debate, it has become more polarized in recent years, as evidenced by demands to deploy the military to the US borders.[citation needed] The emergence of private border militias in the United States has attracted much media attention.[citation needed] Nevertheless, the southern border of the European Union in the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla has Spanish military and paramilitary Guardia Civil patrols while the US-Mexico is still patrolled by civilian police forces.[citation needed]
Like their Korean neighbors, Japanese tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group or race.[30] A shared language and culture also are viewed as important elements in Japanese identity. The idea of multiracial or multiethnic nations, like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, or the United States, strikes many Japanese as odd or even contradictory. Both Japan and South Korea are among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations.[31] Those who were identified as different might be considered "polluted" —- the category applied historically to the outcasts of Japan, particularly the hisabetsu buraku, "discriminated communities," often called burakumin, a term some find offensive —- and thus not suitable as marriage partners or employees.[32] Men or women of mixed ancestry, those with family histories of certain diseases, and foreigners, and members of minority groups faced discrimination in a variety of forms. In 2005, a United Nations report expressed concerns about racism in Japan and that government recognition of the depth of the problem was not total.[33][34] The author of the report, Doudou Diène (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights), concluded after a nine-day investigation that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups: national minorities, Latin American immigrants of Japanese descent, mainly Japanese Brazilians, and foreigners from "poor" countries.[35]
The primary argument of some nationalist opponents in Europe and Asia is that immigrants simply do not belong in a nation-state which is by definition intended for another ethnic group.[citation needed] France, therefore, is for the French, Germany is for the Germans, Japan is for the Japanese, and so on. Immigration is seen as altering the ethnic and cultural composition of the national population, and consequently the national character.[citation needed] From a nationalist perspective, high-volume immigration potentially distorts or dilutes their national culture more than is desired or even necessary.[citation needed] Germany, for example, was indeed intended as a state for Germans: the state's policy of mass immigration was not foreseen by the 19th-century nationalist movements.[citation needed] Immigration has forced Germany and other western European states to re-examine their national identity: part of the population is not prepared to redefine it to include immigrants.[citation needed] It is this type of opposition to immigration which generated support for anti-immigration parties such as Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the British National Party in Britain, the Lega Nord in Italy, the Front National in France, and the Lijst Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands.[citation needed]
One of the responses of nation-states to mass immigration is to promote the cultural assimilation of immigrants into the national community, and their integration into the political, social, and economic structures.[citation needed] In the United States, cultural assimilation is traditionally seen as a process taking place among minorities themselves, the 'melting pot'.[citation needed] In Europe, where nation-states have a tradition of national unification by cultural and linguistic policies, variants of these policies have been proposed to accelerate the assimilation of immigrants.[citation needed] The introduction of citizenship tests for immigrants is the most visible form of state-promoted assimilation.[citation needed] The test usually include some form of language exam, and some countries have reintroduced forms of language prohibition.[citation needed]
Environmentalist opposition to immigration is prominent in Canada, which has the largest absolute numbers of immigrants. Responses to immigration are a controversial topic among environmental activists, especially within the Sierra Club. Some oppose the immigration-driven population growth in the United States as unsustainable, and advocate immigration reduction. Other environmentalists see overpopulation and environmental degradation as global problems, that should be addressed by other methods. Most European countries do not have the high population growth of the United States, and some experience population decline. In such circumstances, the effect of immigration is to reduce decline, or delay its onset, rather than substantially increase the population. The Republic of Ireland is one of the only EU countries comparable to the United States in this respect, since large-scale immigration contributed to substantial population growth.[36] Spain has also witnessed a recent boost in population due to high immigration.[37]
The USA constitutes approximately 5% of the world's population, but creates about 27% of the world's economy.[38] In so doing, it consumes about 25% of world's resources,[39] including approximately 26% of the world's energy,[40] although having only around 3% of the world's known oil reserves,[41] and generate approximately 30% of world's waste.[42][43] The average American's impact on the environment is approximately 250 times greater than the average Sub-Saharan African's.[44][45] In other words, with current consumption patterns, population growth in the United States is more of a threat to the Earth's environment than population growth in any other part of the world (currently, at least 1.8 million legal and illegal immigrants settle in the United States each year; with the average Hispanic woman giving birth to 3 children in her lifetime).[46][47]
California's population continues to grow by more than a half million a year and is expected to reach 48 million in 2030. According to the California Department of Water Resources, if more supplies aren't found by 2020, residents will face a water shortfall nearly as great as the amount consumed today.[48] Los Angeles is a coastal desert able to support at most 1 million people on its own water; the Los Angeles basin now is the core of a megacity that spans 220 miles (350 km) from Santa Barbara to the Mexican border. The region's population is expected to reach 22 million by 2020, and 28 million in 2035. The population of California continues to grow by more than a half million a year and is expected to reach 48 million in 2030. Water shortage issues are likely to arise well before then.[49] California is considering using energy-expensive desalination to solve this problem.[50]
U.S. Census Bureau figures show that the U.S. population grew by 2.8 million between July 1, 2004, and July 1, 2005. If current birth and immigration rates were to remain unchanged for another 60 to 70 years, the US population would double to approximately 600 million people.[51] The Census Bureau's latest estimates actually go so far as to predict that there will be 1 billion Americans in 2100.[52]
Dale Allen Pfeiffer claims that to achieve a sustainable economy and avert disaster, the United States must reduce its population by at least one-third, and world population will have to be reduced by two-thirds.[53] The current U.S. population of more than 300 million and world population exceeding 6.6 billion is, according to Pfeiffer, unsustainable. Fast-shrinking supplies of oil and gas are essential to modern agriculture,[54] so coming decades could see spiraling food prices without relief and massive starvation on a global level such as never experienced before by the humans.[55][56]
 |
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2008) |
The political debate about immigration is now a feature of most developed countries.
Some, such as Japan, traditionally found alternate ways of filling the role normally filled by immigrants (for example, greater automation to compensate for labor shortages), and designed immigration laws specifically to prevent immigrants from remaining within the country. However, globalization, as well as low birth rates and an aging work force, has forced even Japan to reconsider its immigration policy.[57]
Residents of one member nation of the European Union are allowed to work in other member nations with little to no restriction on movement.[58] Due to this policy, traditionally homogenous countries which usually sent a significant portion of their population overseas, such as Italy and the Republic of Ireland are seeing an influx of immigrants from EU countries with lower per capita annual earning rates, triggering nationwide immigration debates.[59][60]
Spain, meanwhile, is seeing growing illegal immigration from Africa. As Spain is the closest EU member nation to Africa, 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 nations; those nations have responded that Spain has brought the wave of African illegals on itself by granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of immigrants.[61]
The United Kingdom 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.[62][63] 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.[64]
In the United States political debate on immigration has flared repeatedly since the US became a nation, generally at times when an ethnically distinct group is moving in large numbers to the US.[65] Since Since September 11, 2001, it has become an extremely hot issue due to perceived security and economic threats from outsiders on one side and a push for more opportunity for legal immigration on the other. It is a central topic of the 2008 election cycle.[66]
The politics of immigration have become increasingly associated with others issues, such as national security, terrorism, and in western Europe especially, with the presence of Islam as a new major religion. Some components of conservative movements see an unassimilated, economically deprived, and generally hostile immigrant population as a threat to national stability[67]; other elements of conservative movements welcome immigrant labor. 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.
|
|
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed. (November 2007) |
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. According to Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, citizens may not be forbidden to leave their country. There is no similar provision regarding entry of non-citizens. Those who reject this distinction on ethical grounds, 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.[68] Such arguments are common among anti-state ideologies like anarchism and libertarianism.
Where immigration is permitted, it is typically selective. 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 of these immigration opportunities. This inequality has also been criticised 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 labour, is a major factor in illegal immigration. The contradictory nature of this policy - which specifically disadvantages the unskilled immigrants while exploiting their labour - has also been criticised on ethical grounds.
Immigration polices 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.
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
| |||||||||
