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 were 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. Following this time period immigration fell because in 1924 Congress implemented a quota system in which each country was only allowed to have 2% more immigrants per year based on their respective numbers in 1890. The Immigration Act of 1924 favored immigrants from Northern European countries that already had many immigrants in the U.S. by 1890.[48] Immigration continued to fall throughout the 1940s and 1950's, but it increased again afterwards. but was still low by historical standards.[49] After 2000, immigration 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.[50] 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. 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.
الأحد، 17 مايو 2009
New Zealand
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
Australia
The overall level of immigration to Australia has grown substantially during the last decade. Net overseas migration increased from 30,000 in 1993[44] to 118,000 in 2003-04.[45] 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.[38] 131,000 people migrated to Australia in 2005-06[46] and migration target for 2006-07 was 144,000.
Japan
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.[41][42] Japanese Minister Taro Aso has called Japan a "one race" nation.[43] This comment was heavily criticized by both Japanese and foreign media
Canada
Canada has the highest per capita net immigration rate in the world,[37] 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.[38] 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.[39] 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
الثلاثاء، 5 مايو 2009
Portugal
Portugal, long a country of emigration,[35] 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
Spain
Spain is the most favoured European destination for Britons leaving the UK.[30] 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,[31] more than 200,000 were Romanian, and 260,000 were Colombian.[32][33] In 2005 alone, a regularisation programme increased the legal immigrant population by 700,000 people
United Kingdom
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 500,000. 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.[26]
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.[27] 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,[28] while 380,000 people emigrated from the UK for a year or more, with Australia, Spain and France most popular destinations
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.[27] 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,[28] while 380,000 people emigrated from the UK for a year or more, with Australia, Spain and France most popular destinations
Europe
According to Eurostat,[18] 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.[19] 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.[20] In 2004, total 140,033 people immigrated to France. Of them, 90,250 were from Africa and 13,710 from Europe.[21] In 2005, immigration fell slightly to 135,890.[22] 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.[23] 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.[24]
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
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
Ethics
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.[17] 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--which is in direct contradiction to the needs of the labour market (demanding un-skilled and poor people with low levels of education, willing to do jobs wealthier locals refuse to do). Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail of the legal and protected immigration opportunities offered by wealthy states. 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 undocumented 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.
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--which is in direct contradiction to the needs of the labour market (demanding un-skilled and poor people with low levels of education, willing to do jobs wealthier locals refuse to do). Less privileged individuals, including the mass of poor people in low-income countries, cannot avail of the legal and protected immigration opportunities offered by wealthy states. 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 undocumented 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.
As a political term
Immigration is a modern phenomenon. It owes its existence to the needs of an ever more intensely integrated global capitalist economy to have people move around for the purpose of work, for reproduction of labor power (studies, particularly higher and more specialized forms of knowledge) or political asylum across the borders of, some believe, an increasingly obsolete inter-state system. Immigrants are people who obtain legal status marked, at a minimum, by some form of residence permit that regulates the terms of their employment (see also expatriates). Some, but by no means all, foreign workers and expatriates seek and reach citizenship in the state where they work. Immigrants are different from the undocumented labor force in that the latter does not have legal status in the country in which s/he works. (There can be a host of complex reasons for lack of legal status: lack of interest on part of the worker, the state's refusal to grant such permits to categories of foreign workers, institutional racism, etc.) Not all undocumented workers are, strictly speaking, illegal: Because of the complex history of global migrations, several powerful states, such as the United States, Canada, etc. have had legal systems in which work without explicit consent of the state has fallen through legal "cracks." Both immigrants and undocumented workers differ from tourists as the latter do not engage in income earning activities in the countries they visit, so their economic impact is restricted mainly to consumption and environmental consequences. Seasonal labor migration is often treated in the press and in political rhetoric as a form of immigration.
The modern concept of immigration is related to the development of nation-states and nationality law and/or citizenship 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 modern nation-states made immigration a political issue: by imagining its populations, in violation of multi-ethnic, multi-'racial', multi-cultural realities 'on the ground', as homogenous blocks, constituting a nation defined by shared, single ethnicity, 'race' and/or culture. Legal and political restrictions on the presence of foreigners is a highly controversial political theme because such restrictions are introduced and maintained by states whose citizens have had a major, sustained and deeply consequential presence in states other than their own (see: colonialism).
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] The global volume of immigration has been strikingly low in relative terms. The International Integration and Refugee Association estimated a mere 175 million international migrants in 2005, under 3 percent of the global population.[citation needed] Contrast that to the average rate of globalization (the proportion of cross-border trade in all trade), which exceeds 20 percent.
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 immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005. The reliability of immigrant censuses is, however, lamentably 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.
A now outdated theory of immigration distinguished 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. 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 travel costs are not too high. Particularly in the 19th century, economic expansion of the U.S. increased migrant flow, and in effect, nearly 20% of the population was foreign born versus today’s value 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 1700s, but around the time of the 1900s it took a mere 8 days.[3] When the opportunity cost is lower, the immigration rates tend to be higher.[3] 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, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Somalia).
The main problem with push-and-pull theories is three-fold: first, they state the obvious (i.e., people from poorer places will seek to go to richer ones); second, they are unable to explain the emergence of migrant flows (if push and pull were the only things in existence, people from the poorest countries would migrate to the richest ones, when in reality such flows are well-nigh non-existent); third, they are unable to explain the stability of the emerging patterns of migration (i.e., once a flow from country A to country B is established, it will stay on for a relatively long time, even if the initial conditions that had given the push and pull to the migration are not there any more (as the case of the German case of the Gastarbeiter, or guest worker program shows.
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 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. 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 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 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.)
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. However, globalization, as well as low birth rates and an aging work force, has forced even Japan to reconsider its immigration policy.[4] Japan's colonial past has also created considerable pockets of non-Japanese in Japan. Most of these groups, e.g., Koreans, have faced extreme levels of discrimination in Japan.[5]
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.[6] For non-EU-citizen permanent residents in the EU, movement between EU-member states is considerably more difficult. After 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 labour market for up to seven years both in the 2004 and 2007 round of accession.[7]
Due to the European Union's--in principle--single internal labour market policy, societies that have seen relatively low levels of labour immigration until recently--which have sent a significant portion of their population overseas in the past--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.[8][9]
Spain, meanwhile, is seeing growing illegal immigration from Africa. As Spain is the closest EU member nation to Africa--Spain even has an old colonial city on the African continent, called Ceuta, not to mention 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 illegals on itself by granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of immigrants.[10]
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.[11][12] 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.[13]
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.[14] While this mentality shows an obvious bias, it is often hard for civil discussion to occur regarding immigration due to its highly emotional underpinnings.
Since September 11, 2001, the politics of immigration has become an extremely hot issue. It was a central topic of the 2008 election cycle.[15] The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg is noted[16] for having a pro-immigration stand.
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 while failing to recognize the fact that most participants of the 2005 civil unrest were citizens of France, not immigrants themselves, and the essence of their protest was denial of equal rights, and blatant racism, on the part of the state. Because of all these associations, immigration has become an emotional political issue in many European nations.
The modern concept of immigration is related to the development of nation-states and nationality law and/or citizenship 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 modern nation-states made immigration a political issue: by imagining its populations, in violation of multi-ethnic, multi-'racial', multi-cultural realities 'on the ground', as homogenous blocks, constituting a nation defined by shared, single ethnicity, 'race' and/or culture. Legal and political restrictions on the presence of foreigners is a highly controversial political theme because such restrictions are introduced and maintained by states whose citizens have had a major, sustained and deeply consequential presence in states other than their own (see: colonialism).
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] The global volume of immigration has been strikingly low in relative terms. The International Integration and Refugee Association estimated a mere 175 million international migrants in 2005, under 3 percent of the global population.[citation needed] Contrast that to the average rate of globalization (the proportion of cross-border trade in all trade), which exceeds 20 percent.
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 immigrant population recorded by the UN Census 2005. The reliability of immigrant censuses is, however, lamentably 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.
A now outdated theory of immigration distinguished 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. 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 travel costs are not too high. Particularly in the 19th century, economic expansion of the U.S. increased migrant flow, and in effect, nearly 20% of the population was foreign born versus today’s value 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 1700s, but around the time of the 1900s it took a mere 8 days.[3] When the opportunity cost is lower, the immigration rates tend to be higher.[3] 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, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Somalia).
The main problem with push-and-pull theories is three-fold: first, they state the obvious (i.e., people from poorer places will seek to go to richer ones); second, they are unable to explain the emergence of migrant flows (if push and pull were the only things in existence, people from the poorest countries would migrate to the richest ones, when in reality such flows are well-nigh non-existent); third, they are unable to explain the stability of the emerging patterns of migration (i.e., once a flow from country A to country B is established, it will stay on for a relatively long time, even if the initial conditions that had given the push and pull to the migration are not there any more (as the case of the German case of the Gastarbeiter, or guest worker program shows.
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 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. 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 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 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.)
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. However, globalization, as well as low birth rates and an aging work force, has forced even Japan to reconsider its immigration policy.[4] Japan's colonial past has also created considerable pockets of non-Japanese in Japan. Most of these groups, e.g., Koreans, have faced extreme levels of discrimination in Japan.[5]
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.[6] For non-EU-citizen permanent residents in the EU, movement between EU-member states is considerably more difficult. After 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 labour market for up to seven years both in the 2004 and 2007 round of accession.[7]
Due to the European Union's--in principle--single internal labour market policy, societies that have seen relatively low levels of labour immigration until recently--which have sent a significant portion of their population overseas in the past--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.[8][9]
Spain, meanwhile, is seeing growing illegal immigration from Africa. As Spain is the closest EU member nation to Africa--Spain even has an old colonial city on the African continent, called Ceuta, not to mention 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 illegals on itself by granting amnesty to hundreds of thousands of immigrants.[10]
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.[11][12] 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.[13]
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.[14] While this mentality shows an obvious bias, it is often hard for civil discussion to occur regarding immigration due to its highly emotional underpinnings.
Since September 11, 2001, the politics of immigration has become an extremely hot issue. It was a central topic of the 2008 election cycle.[15] The Mayor of New York City, Michael Bloomberg is noted[16] for having a pro-immigration stand.
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 while failing to recognize the fact that most participants of the 2005 civil unrest were citizens of France, not immigrants themselves, and the essence of their protest was denial of equal rights, and blatant racism, on the part of the state. Because of all these associations, immigration has become an emotional political issue in many European nations.
الأحد، 26 أبريل 2009
E. Sometimes the Sentence Does NOT Matter a Damn Bit
Certain offenses are what they are for immigration purposes regardless of the length of the criminal sentence, and even regardless of whether there IS a sentence. In such cases, obviously, a deferred adjudication has no benefit over any other type of conviction."
Some examples of offenses where the sentence does not matter include:
Murder, rape or sexual abuse of a minor, all of which are aggravated felonies under INA §lOl(a)(43)(A) regardless of sentence.
Any controlled substance offense will make an alien deportable regardless of sentence.
JNA §2l2(a)(2)(A)(i)(ll).
Any controlled substance offense will also make an alien deportable regardless of sentence, except for a single offense of simple possession for personal use of less than 30 grams of marijuana.
INA §237(a)(2)(B).
Drug trafficking crimes, which are aggravated felonies regardless of the sentence.
INA §lOl(a)(43)(B).
Any criminal offense relating to a firearm will render an alien subject to deportation regardless of sentence or the severity of the offense. INA §237(a)(2)(C).
Illicit trafficking in firearms is an "aggravated felony regardless of sentence. INA §10l(a)(43)(C).
Domestic violence offenses are deportable offenses regardless of sentence. INA §237(a)(2)(E); and
A single crime involving moral turpitude is a deportable offense if a sentence of a year or more may be imposed -- the actual sentence received is immaterial to deportability. INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i).
Some examples of offenses where the sentence does not matter include:
Murder, rape or sexual abuse of a minor, all of which are aggravated felonies under INA §lOl(a)(43)(A) regardless of sentence.
Any controlled substance offense will make an alien deportable regardless of sentence.
JNA §2l2(a)(2)(A)(i)(ll).
Any controlled substance offense will also make an alien deportable regardless of sentence, except for a single offense of simple possession for personal use of less than 30 grams of marijuana.
INA §237(a)(2)(B).
Drug trafficking crimes, which are aggravated felonies regardless of the sentence.
INA §lOl(a)(43)(B).
Any criminal offense relating to a firearm will render an alien subject to deportation regardless of sentence or the severity of the offense. INA §237(a)(2)(C).
Illicit trafficking in firearms is an "aggravated felony regardless of sentence. INA §10l(a)(43)(C).
Domestic violence offenses are deportable offenses regardless of sentence. INA §237(a)(2)(E); and
A single crime involving moral turpitude is a deportable offense if a sentence of a year or more may be imposed -- the actual sentence received is immaterial to deportability. INA §237(a)(2)(A)(i).
The Seven Things Everyone Should Know
George Carlin once had a great comedy routine about the "Seven words you cannot say on television." Well, I hereby offer my thoughts on the "seven things everyone should know about crimes and immigration." Now that we have established some context for the discussion that follows, here are the Seven Things:
B. Relief from Removal
A deportation or removal hearing, much like a criminal trial, has two parts. The first part is to determine the issue of deportability or (in the case of an arriving alien) inadmissibility. This is comparable to the guilt or innocence phase of a criminal, trial. The alien (called the "Respondent") is called upon to plead to the charges on the charging document. If any of the charges are denied, a hearing is conducted to determine whether the Respondent is deportable. If deportability is based upon a criminal conviction, documentary evidence of the conviction submitted by the prosecuting attorney from the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") is usually the total extent of the evidentiary "hearing," as noted above.
If the Respondent is found deportable, the second phase of the hearing is to determine whether he or she must be deported or whether there is some form of relief from deportation available. This is comparable to the punishment phase of a criminal trial. Some examples of relief include asylum, "cancellation of removal," and various discretionary waivers of deportability or inadmissibility.
All the forms of relief from removal, the various statutory grounds of eligibility and discretionary factors, is a topic far too complicated for a paper like this to provide even a smattering of coverage. Criminal defense practitioners are therefore encouraged to consult an experienced immigration attorney before representing a non-citizen client. Suffice to say for present purposes that where the "INA " provides no relief from removal, as is often the case where deportability is based upon criminal conduct, both phases of the proceedings may be completed in as little as five minutes. The DHS attorney submits an authenticated copy of the criminal judgment, that judgment renders the Respondent deportable and ineligible for any relief, and "No more America for you, Jack!"
If the Respondent is found deportable, the second phase of the hearing is to determine whether he or she must be deported or whether there is some form of relief from deportation available. This is comparable to the punishment phase of a criminal trial. Some examples of relief include asylum, "cancellation of removal," and various discretionary waivers of deportability or inadmissibility.
All the forms of relief from removal, the various statutory grounds of eligibility and discretionary factors, is a topic far too complicated for a paper like this to provide even a smattering of coverage. Criminal defense practitioners are therefore encouraged to consult an experienced immigration attorney before representing a non-citizen client. Suffice to say for present purposes that where the "INA " provides no relief from removal, as is often the case where deportability is based upon criminal conduct, both phases of the proceedings may be completed in as little as five minutes. The DHS attorney submits an authenticated copy of the criminal judgment, that judgment renders the Respondent deportable and ineligible for any relief, and "No more America for you, Jack!"
How the Proceedings "Proceed"
One thing must be clearly understood: criminal cases are in no way relit gated in Immigration Court. An Immigration Judge will not go behind a criminal conviction, nor question the underlying sufficiency of it. Matter of Roberts, 20 I. & N. Dec. 294 (IA 1991). Submission of a certified copy of the conviction generally constitutes the entire evidentiary portion of the deportation hearing. Whatever is said in that certified copy is conclusively proven in deportation proceedings.
It therefore does not matter what the alien did or did not do - the only thing that matters is what the judgment says he or she did. Deportability becomes a pure question of law: whether the judgment submitted qualifies as a "conviction," and whether the offense qualifies as one of the deportable categories contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act
It therefore does not matter what the alien did or did not do - the only thing that matters is what the judgment says he or she did. Deportability becomes a pure question of law: whether the judgment submitted qualifies as a "conviction," and whether the offense qualifies as one of the deportable categories contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act
Nature of the Proceedings
There is no jury in Immigration Court proceedings: the Immigration Judge is empowered to make both findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Strict rules of evidence do not apply, and hearsay is routinely admitted. Further, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that deportation proceedings are civil in nature, and that the constitutional safeguards available to criminal defendants --such as protection against unlawfully seized evidence and ex post facto application of new legislation do not apply
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION.
Before proceeding, it would be useful to settle some basic terminology. The law defines an "alien" as anyone who is not a citizen or national of the United States (the distinction between a "citizen" and a "national" is subtle, and of no relevance to this discussion). Aliens may generally be divided into two groups: those with permanent legal status in the United States, and those without. Those who are entitled to reside and work here permanently are called "lawful permanent residents" or "LPR's". The card that evidences LPR status is commonly called a "green card," although it has not been green for over years.
After residing in the U.S. for a certain period of time (usually five years after receiving LPR status), an otherwise eligible immigrant may apply to become a United States citizen through a process called "naturalization."
Aliens who are not LPR's may be in the United States legally in a temporary or "nonimmigrant" visa status. Common examples of nonimmigrant categories include tourist visas and border crossing cards, student visas, and several types of temporary worker visas. And, of course, many aliens, especially in the border areas, may be here illegally without any status.
Criminal conduct may be relevant to a non-citizen in several ways. For an alien who is not an LPR, a conviction will almost certainly result in deportation or removal, and even an "admission of the essential elements" of certain offenses may prevent them from ever receiving permanent resident status. For an LPR, convictions of certain offenses will result in deportation or removal. At the very least, a conviction may prevent an otherwise qualified permanent resident from becoming a citizen.
After residing in the U.S. for a certain period of time (usually five years after receiving LPR status), an otherwise eligible immigrant may apply to become a United States citizen through a process called "naturalization."
Aliens who are not LPR's may be in the United States legally in a temporary or "nonimmigrant" visa status. Common examples of nonimmigrant categories include tourist visas and border crossing cards, student visas, and several types of temporary worker visas. And, of course, many aliens, especially in the border areas, may be here illegally without any status.
Criminal conduct may be relevant to a non-citizen in several ways. For an alien who is not an LPR, a conviction will almost certainly result in deportation or removal, and even an "admission of the essential elements" of certain offenses may prevent them from ever receiving permanent resident status. For an LPR, convictions of certain offenses will result in deportation or removal. At the very least, a conviction may prevent an otherwise qualified permanent resident from becoming a citizen.
INTRODUCTION
Let's begin with two simple facts: First, many people residing in the United States are not United States citizens. That is why immigration attorneys call earns a living. Second, many people residing in this country occasionally run afoul of its criminal laws. That is why criminal defense attorneys can earn a living. Sometimes, these two groups intersect such that immigration attorneys may find clients accused or even convicted of crimes, and criminal defense attorneys may have clients who are not citizens. Worlds collide. Chaos threatens. Things --often very bad things --happen.
For the most part, the criminal justice system is unconcerned with the citizenship of its customers. Citizens and immigrants are sent to jail without distinction. The criminal defense attorney can therefore manage to perform his or her function with knowing much immigration law. The immigration legal system however, places very significance criminal conduct such that the "civil" immigration consequences €“deportation or removal, permanent exile from the United States, denial of any opportunity to obtain or preserve legal status, etc. -- are frequently far more severe than the harshest possible criminal sentence. Ask yourself: €œWhich would you rather endure, a year in a U.S. jail, or the rest of you life across the world, with no chance to return to your family, home and job in the United States?"
Since the immigration consequences are so severe, both the immigration attorney and the criminal defense practitioner should be aware of those consequences. In some cases, of course, it will not be possible to change the outcome of the criminal trial, nor the immigration proceedings that follow. In many others, however, tragedy may be prevented if the defense attorney and the client are simply aware of the immigration issues. Immigration and criminal defense lawyers can work together to anticipate and prevent unjust results. This paper intends a modest start. Some of the information will be very basic for immigration attorneys, because it is being written from the perspective of an immigration attorney speaking to other attorneys who may have less familiarity with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
For the most part, the criminal justice system is unconcerned with the citizenship of its customers. Citizens and immigrants are sent to jail without distinction. The criminal defense attorney can therefore manage to perform his or her function with knowing much immigration law. The immigration legal system however, places very significance criminal conduct such that the "civil" immigration consequences €“deportation or removal, permanent exile from the United States, denial of any opportunity to obtain or preserve legal status, etc. -- are frequently far more severe than the harshest possible criminal sentence. Ask yourself: €œWhich would you rather endure, a year in a U.S. jail, or the rest of you life across the world, with no chance to return to your family, home and job in the United States?"
Since the immigration consequences are so severe, both the immigration attorney and the criminal defense practitioner should be aware of those consequences. In some cases, of course, it will not be possible to change the outcome of the criminal trial, nor the immigration proceedings that follow. In many others, however, tragedy may be prevented if the defense attorney and the client are simply aware of the immigration issues. Immigration and criminal defense lawyers can work together to anticipate and prevent unjust results. This paper intends a modest start. Some of the information will be very basic for immigration attorneys, because it is being written from the perspective of an immigration attorney speaking to other attorneys who may have less familiarity with the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Attorney & Court Updates
Disclaimer
The information contained in this article is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide case-specific legal advice or solutions to individual problems. Readers are not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel who is familiar with the Immigration Laws before relying on the information contained in theses articles.
Each Immigration case is different, based on the circumstance, rights of the alien and the location of the DHS (INS) office and immigration judge. Please do not take the following articles and court decisions, as possible final answer to your case, as they may vary form the examples.
The information contained in this article is intended to educate members of the public generally and is not intended to provide case-specific legal advice or solutions to individual problems. Readers are not to attempt to solve individual problems on the basis of information contained herein and are strongly advised to seek competent legal counsel who is familiar with the Immigration Laws before relying on the information contained in theses articles.
Each Immigration case is different, based on the circumstance, rights of the alien and the location of the DHS (INS) office and immigration judge. Please do not take the following articles and court decisions, as possible final answer to your case, as they may vary form the examples.
الاشتراك في:
الرسائل (Atom)