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.
الاشتراك في:
تعليقات الرسالة (Atom)
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق