Emigrants from Great Britain: What Do We Know About Their Lives?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
United Arab Emirates MIGRATION PROFILES
United Arab Emirates MIGRATION PROFILES Part I. Global legal instruments related to international migration States parties to United Nations legal instruments Year ratified: Year ratified: - 1949 ILO Migration for Employment Convention 1997 1989 Conv. on the Rights of the Child - 1951 Refugee Convention - 1990 UN Migrant Workers Convention - 1967 Refugee Protocol 2009 2000 Human Trafficking Protocol - 1975 ILO Migrant Workers Convention - 2000 Migrant Smuggling Protocol Part II. Population indicators Population estimates 1990 2000 2010 2013 140 Males ('000) 1 185 2 042 5 960 6 549 120 Females ('000) 622 984 2 482 2 797 100 Total ('000) 1 806 3 026 8 442 9 346 80 Percentage urban population 79 80 84 85 Percentage rural population 21 20 16 15 60 40 20 1985-90 1995-00 2005-10 2010-15 0 Average annual rate of change 5.87 5.09 14.21 2.52 Annual rate of natural increase* 25.34 16.05 15.26 13.80 1985-90 1995-00 2005-10 2010-15 Crude net migration rate* 32.91 34.58 121.11 11.41 Annual rate of natural increase* Total net migration ('000) 260 464 3812 514 * Per 1,000 population Crude net migration rate* Projected change in total population by component (x 1000) 12 10 2015-20 2025-30 2035-40 2045-50 Total population at end of period 10 602 12 330 14 064 15 479 8 Population change during period 1024 851 863 637 6 Annual rate of natural increase* 10.02 6.16 5.56 2.01 Crude net migration rate* 10.29 8.14 7.11 6.39 4 * Per 1,000 population 2 Projected change in working-age (15-64) population (x 1000) 0 2015-20 2025-30 2035-40 2045-50 2015-20 2025-30 2035-40 2045-50 Medium variant 750 983 76 -841 Annual rate of natural increase* Zero-migration variant 219 388 -670 -1398 Crude net migration rate* Difference 531 596 746 558 Part III. -
The Sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit Era
Island Studies Journal, 15(1), 2020, 151-168 The sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories in the Brexit era Maria Mut Bosque School of Law, Universitat Internacional de Catalunya, Spain MINECO DER 2017-86138, Ministry of Economic Affairs & Digital Transformation, Spain Institute of Commonwealth Studies, University of London, UK [email protected] (corresponding author) Abstract: This paper focuses on an analysis of the sovereignty of two territorial entities that have unique relations with the United Kingdom: the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories (BOTs). Each of these entities includes very different territories, with different legal statuses and varying forms of self-administration and constitutional linkages with the UK. However, they also share similarities and challenges that enable an analysis of these territories as a complete set. The incomplete sovereignty of the Crown Dependencies and BOTs has entailed that all these territories (except Gibraltar) have not been allowed to participate in the 2016 Brexit referendum or in the withdrawal negotiations with the EU. Moreover, it is reasonable to assume that Brexit is not an exceptional situation. In the future there will be more and more relevant international issues for these territories which will remain outside of their direct control, but will have a direct impact on them. Thus, if no adjustments are made to their statuses, these territories will have to keep trusting that the UK will be able to represent their interests at the same level as its own interests. Keywords: Brexit, British Overseas Territories (BOTs), constitutional status, Crown Dependencies, sovereignty https://doi.org/10.24043/isj.114 • Received June 2019, accepted March 2020 © 2020—Institute of Island Studies, University of Prince Edward Island, Canada. -
Empire and English Nationalismn
Nations and Nationalism 12 (1), 2006, 1–13. r ASEN 2006 Empire and English nationalismn KRISHAN KUMAR Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, USA Empire and nation: foes or friends? It is more than pious tribute to the great scholar whom we commemorate today that makes me begin with Ernest Gellner. For Gellner’s influential thinking on nationalism, and specifically of its modernity, is central to the question I wish to consider, the relation between nation and empire, and between imperial and national identity. For Gellner, as for many other commentators, nation and empire were and are antithetical. The great empires of the past belonged to the species of the ‘agro-literate’ society, whose central fact is that ‘almost everything in it militates against the definition of political units in terms of cultural bound- aries’ (Gellner 1983: 11; see also Gellner 1998: 14–24). Power and culture go their separate ways. The political form of empire encloses a vastly differ- entiated and internally hierarchical society in which the cosmopolitan culture of the rulers differs sharply from the myriad local cultures of the subordinate strata. Modern empires, such as the Soviet empire, continue this pattern of disjuncture between the dominant culture of the elites and the national or ethnic cultures of the constituent parts. Nationalism, argues Gellner, closes the gap. It insists that the only legitimate political unit is one in which rulers and ruled share the same culture. Its ideal is one state, one culture. Or, to put it another way, its ideal is the national or the ‘nation-state’, since it conceives of the nation essentially in terms of a shared culture linking all members. -
Henryk Chałupczak POLAND's STRATEGY to NEUTRALIZE THE
16 HENRYK CHAŁUPCZAK ESSAYS „Studies in Politics and Society” 9/2012 Henryk Chałupczak POLAND’S STRATEGY TO NEUTRALIZE THE GERMAN MINORITY’S PETITIONS AT THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS IN THE INTERWAR PERIOD 1. The Procedure The interwar system for protection of national minorities in Europe was based on commitments undertaken by several states that had fol- lowed from the so called small Treaty of Versailles, resolutions of the Council of the League of Nations that specified the conditions of its execution, and, as far as some states are concerned, conventions signed by those states. The principles to file petitions by the minorities in the states covered by the small Treaty of Versailles were laid down in the so called general procedure and an extraordinary procedure that – even though not included in the Treaty – followed from the Treaty’s inter- pretation. The first of those envisaged a few ways for the minorities to assert their rights, including putting in complaints – some types of the complaints required collaboration with a member of the League’s Council. Art. 12 of the Treaty was particularly important in this respect, according to which should a controversy arise over its interpretation, the controversial issue might be resolved by means of arbitrage (Kutrzeba 1925: 79–82). Regarding the extraordinary procedure, the resolution of the League’s Council of 22 October 1920 had been of fundamental im- portance, since it had granted actors who were not members of the Council – including the minorities – the right to inform the Council by means of petitions about infringements or threats to infringe upon the Treaty regulations. -
Arrangement Between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the States of Guernsey (The
ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND THE STATES OF GUERNSEY (THE GOVERNMENT OF GUERNSEY) CONCERNING THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM-CROWN DEPENDENCIES CUSTOMS UNION The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Guernsey (together “the Governments”), ACKNOWLEDGING that the United Kingdom continues to be responsible for the international relations of Guernsey in international law and that this Arrangement cannot therefore create obligations which are binding under international law and is not intended to alter or affect the constitutional relationship between Guernsey and the United Kingdom, DESIRING to enter into a customs union covering all trade in goods involving the elimination between its members of customs duty on imports and exports and of any charges having equivalent effect, and the adoption of a common customs tariff in their relations with third countries, ACKNOWLEDGING that this Arrangement is without prejudice to the imposition of import value added tax (hereinafter referred to as “import VAT”) or excise duty, or any charges having equivalent effect to import VAT or excise duty, on goods imported into the United Kingdom from Guernsey or into Guernsey from the United Kingdom, RECOGNISING the importance of delivering a safe and fiscally secure customs regime, RECOGNISING the importance of cooperation in delivering such a regime, HAVE DECIDED as follows: PARAGRAPH 1 Object 1. This Arrangement concerns the establishment and operation of the United Kingdom- Crown Dependencies Customs Union (hereinafter referred to as “the Customs Union”), the members of which are the United Kingdom, Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. -
Emigration from Great Britain
This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: International Migrations, Volume II: Interpretations Volume Author/Editor: Walter F. Willcox, editor Volume Publisher: NBER Volume ISBN: 0-87014-017-5 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/will31-1 Publication Date: 1931 Chapter Title: Emigration from Great Britain Chapter Author: C. E. Snow Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5111 Chapter pages in book: (p. 237 - 260) PART III STUDIES OF NATIONALEMIGRATION CURRENTS CHAPTER IX EMIGRATION FROM GREAT BRITAIN.' By DR. C. E. SNOW. General Concerning emigration from Great Britain prior to 1815, only fragmentary statistics are available, for before that date no regular attempt was made to measure the outflow of population.For some years before the treaty of peace with France, under which Canada in 1763 became a colony of the United Kingdom, a certain number of emigrants from Great Britain to the British North Amer- ican colonies were reported, but no reliable figures are available. During the five years 1769—1774 there was an emigration, probably approaching 10,000 persons per annum,2 from Scotland to North America, and substantial numbers also left England for the same destination.It has been estimated by Johnson3 that during the first decade of the nineteenth century the annual emigration from the whole of the United Kingdom to the American Continent ex- ceeded 20,000 persons, the majority going from the Highlands of Scotland and from Ireland. Emigration can be considered from two distinct aspects: (a) from the point of view of the force attracting people to other countries; (b) from the point of view of the force expelling people from their own country. -
H 955 Great Britain
Great Britain H 955 BACKGROUND: The heading Great Britain is used in both descriptive and subject cataloging as the conventional form for the United Kingdom, which comprises England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales. This instruction sheet describes the usage of Great Britain, in contrast to England, as a subject heading. It also describes the usage of Great Britain, England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales as geographic subdivisions. 1. Great Britain vs. England as a subject heading. In general assign the subject heading Great Britain, with topical and/or form subdivisions, as appropriate, to works about the United Kingdom as a whole. Assign England, with appropriate subdivision(s), to works limited to that country. Exception: Do not use the subdivisions BHistory or BPolitics and government under England. For a work on the history, politics, or government of England, assign the heading Great Britain, subdivided as required for the work. References in the subject authority file reflect this practice. Use the subdivision BForeign relations under England only in the restricted sense described in the scope note under EnglandBForeign relations in the subject authority file. 2. Geographic subdivision. a. Great Britain. Assign Great Britain directly after topics for works that discuss the topic in relation to Great Britain as a whole. Example: Title: History of the British theatre. 650 #0 $a Theater $z Great Britain $x History. b. England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales. Assign England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales directly after topics for works that limit their discussion to the topic in relation to one of the four constituent countries of Great Britain. -
The Four Health Systems of the United Kingdom: How Do They Compare?
The four health systems of the United Kingdom: how do they compare? Gwyn Bevan, Marina Karanikolos, Jo Exley, Ellen Nolte, Sheelah Connolly and Nicholas Mays Source report April 2014 About this research This report is the fourth in a series dating back to 1999 which looks at how the publicly financed health care systems in the four countries of the UK have fared before and after devolution. The report was commissioned jointly by The Health Foundation and the Nuffield Trust. The research team was led by Nicholas Mays at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The research looks at how the four national health systems compare and how they have performed in terms of quality and productivity before and after devolution. The research also examines performance in North East England, which is acknowledged to be the region that is most comparable to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of socioeconomic and other indicators. This report, along with an accompanying summary report, data appendices, digital outputs and a short report on the history of devolution (to be published later in 2014), are available to download free of charge at www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/compare-uk-health www.health.org.uk/compareUKhealth. Acknowledgements We are grateful: to government statisticians in the four countries for guidance on sources of data, highlighting problems of comparability and for checking the data we have used; for comments on the draft report from anonymous referees and from Vernon Bogdanor, Alec Morton and Laura Schang; and for guidance on national clinical audits from Nick Black and on nursing data from Jim Buchan. -
United Kingdom’S DST, and Supports Findings OFFICE of the UNITED STATES I
30364 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 107 / Monday, June 7, 2021 / Notices HTSUS subheading Product description 7019.90.50 ................. Glass fibers (including glass wool), nesoi, and articles thereof, nesoi. 7403.29.01 ................. Copper alloys (o/than copper-zinc, copper-tin alloys), unwrought nesoi. 8418.10.00 ................. Combined refrigerator-freezers, fitted with separate external doors, electric or other. 9003.11.00 ................. Frames and mountings, of plastics, for spectacles, goggles or the like. 9005.10.00 ................. Binoculars. 9005.80.40 ................. Optical telescopes, including monoculars. 9005.80.60 ................. Monoculars and astronomical instruments other than binoculars and optical telescopes but not including instruments for radio-astronomy. 9010.60.00 ................. Projection screens. 9012.10.00 ................. Microscopes other than optical microscopes; diffraction apparatus. 9015.40.80 ................. Photogrammetrical surveying instruments and appliances, other than electrical. 9015.80.20 ................. Optical surveying, hydrographic, oceanographic, hydrological, meteorological or geophysical instruments and appliances, nesoi. 9027.50.80 ................. Nonelectrical instruments and apparatus using optical radiations (ultraviolet, visible, infrared), nesoi. [FR Doc. 2021–11856 Filed 6–4–21; 8:45 am] implementation of additional duties on investigations/section-301- BILLING CODE 3290–F1–P products, contact [email protected]. digitalservices-taxes. The report -
Immigrants and WIOA Services: Comparison of Sociodemographic Characteristics of Native- and Foreign-Born Adults in New York City, New York
Fact Sheet April 2016 Immigrants and WIOA Services Comparison of Sociodemographic Characteristics of Native- and Foreign-Born Adults in New York City, New York By Margie McHugh and Madeleine Morawski 1 This fact sheet provides a profile of key characteristics of foreign-born and native-born residents of New York City that are relevant to understanding needs for adult education and workforce training services. It is part of a largerWorkforce series of Innovationstate and county and Opportunity fact sheets producedAct by the Migration Policy Institute’s (MPI) National Center on Immigrant Integration Policy to support equitable implementation of the (WIOA), as well as consideration of other policy and funding initiatives to promote the successful linguistic, economic, and civic integration of immigrants and refugees who have settled in the United States. The estimates provided are based on MPI analysis of U.S. Census Bureau American Commu- nity Survey (ACS) data pooled over the 2010-14 period in order to provide the most detailed sociodemographic portrait possible of residents’ characteristics. Mirroring the design of ACTS federal adult education and workforce training program rules, data are provided for those ages 16 and over. F 1) Nativity, Age, and Origin of New York City Residents ON I As of 2010-14, New York City was home to more than 6.7 million residents ages 16 and older; nearly 3 million of whom, or 44 percent, were foreign born. Relatively fewer of the city’s for- eign-born individuals are ages 16-18 or ages 19-24 as compared to its native-born residents; GRAT rather, they are more likely to be in their prime working years, with 68 percent falling in the I 25-to-44 and 45-to-59 age bands (compared to 58 percent of those who are native born). -
Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States
The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States Updated April 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33105 SUMMARY RL33105 The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and April 16, 2021 Relations with the United States Derek E. Mix Many U.S. officials and Members of Congress view the United Kingdom (UK) as the United Specialist in European States’ closest and most reliable ally. This perception stems from a combination of factors, Affairs including a sense of shared history, values, and culture; a large and mutually beneficial economic relationship; and extensive cooperation on foreign policy and security issues. The UK’s January 2020 withdrawal from the European Union (EU), often referred to as Brexit, is likely to change its international role and outlook in ways that affect U.S.-UK relations. Conservative Party Leads UK Government The government of the UK is led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party. Brexit has dominated UK domestic politics since the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the EU. In an early election held in December 2019—called in order to break a political deadlock over how and when the UK would exit the EU—the Conservative Party secured a sizeable parliamentary majority, winning 365 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. The election results paved the way for Parliament’s approval of a withdrawal agreement negotiated between Johnson’s government and the EU. UK Is Out of the EU, Concludes Trade and Cooperation Agreement On January 31, 2020, the UK’s 47-year EU membership came to an end. -
Chapter 1 of the Age of Migration
Copyrighted material_9780230355767. The Age of Migration Copyrighted material_9780230355767. Copyrighted material_9780230355767. The Age of Migration International Population Movements in the Modern World Fifth Edition Stephen Castles Hein de Haas and Mark J. Miller Copyrighted material_9780230355767. © Stephen Castles and Mark J. Miller 1993, 1998, 2003, 2009 © Stephen Castles, Hein de Haas and Mark J. Miller 2014 All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this publication may be made without written permission. No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency, Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS. Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages. The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. First edition 1993 Second edition 1998 Third edition 2003 Fourth edition 2009 Fifth edition 2014 Published by PALGRAVE MACMILLAN Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited, registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire RG21 6XS. Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010. Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies and has companies and representatives throughout the world. Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries ISBN 978–0–230–35576–7 hardback ISBN 978–0–230–35577–4 paperback This book is printed on paper suitable for recycling and made from fully managed and sustained forest sources.