DOCSLIB.ORG

Defining Characteristics of Immigrant Populations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defining Characteristics of Immigrant Populations Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2015 Settling In © OECD/European Union 2015 Chapter 3 Defining characteristics of immigrant populations Some of the factors that explain the discrepancies in outcomes between immigrants and the native-born spring directly from the migration process itself. The very fact of being born abroad may constitute an obstacle in that, for example, the immigrant may lack the native-born in-depth knowledge of the host society (how the labour market functions, networks, familiarity with public services, etc.). Understanding the constituent elements of the host country takes time, and integration outcomes tend to improve with duration of stay in the country of residence. More generally, structural differences – like the quality of the education system – between the home and host countries can also have an impact on integration. Mastering the language of the host country is especially important for success in the new country of residence. A person’s reason for migrating to another country can also play an important part in determining outcomes, particularly on the labour market. For example, labour migrants usually have a job waiting for them on arrival or land one shortly afterwards. The situation is very different when it comes to family and humanitarian migrants. Immigrants’ countries of birth, particularly if they are lower-income countries where education systems tend to perform less well, also play a role in integration outcomes. This chapter considers those immigrant-specific characteristics for which data are available through comparable sources internationally. They are: the composition of new immigration flows by category (Indicator 3.1); duration of stay, regions of origin, and citizenship (Indicator 3.2); immigrants’ language of origin and languages spoken at home (Indicator 3.3). Throughout the publication, reference will be made to the background information presented in this chapter so as to explain certain disparities with native populations that affect immigrants. For further discussion of issues raised in each section, see the section entitled “Data limitations” at the end of the chapter. 53 3. DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS Key findings ● Some 4 million immigrants settled permanently in OECD countries in 2013, half of them in an EU country. These flows account for 0.4% of the OECD population and 0.5% of the EU’s. A quarter arrived as labour migrants from outside free mobility areas, while a third came for family reasons (in the European Union, this is the case for a quarter of immigrants). A further quarter of new arrivals were free mobility migrants. EU-wide, 43% of all new permanent migrants are EU citizens who have taken advantage of free mobility. ● In 2012-13, two-thirds of immigrants had been living in the host country for more than 10 years, primarily in the settlement countries and in the longstanding immigration destinations. ● In 2010-11, some 40% of immigrants living in an OECD or EU country had the nationality of their host country. ● One-third of the foreign-born population is from high-income countries. Most migrants come from the same continent or countries that lie close by. Accordingly, half the foreign-born in the European Union are Europeans, and 50% of immigrants to the United States are from Latin America. Likewise, nearly half the immigrants in the OECD countries of Asia and Oceania are Asians, while African immigrants are much more likely to head for Europe than non-European OECD countries. ● Two-thirds of immigrants spoke a foreign language in 2012. The share of immigrants who are foreign speakers and do not use the host-country language at home is larger in Canada and the United States than in several European countries with longstanding immigration, such as France and Germany. INDICATORS OF IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION 2015: SETTLING IN © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2015 55 3. DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS 3.1. Composition of new immigration flows by category Background Indicator The legal category of immigration is of great importance in explaining immigrants’ outcomes, particularly in the labour market. Since 2003, the OECD has collected data by category of permit from most EU and OECD countries. These administrative data are standardised, allowing cross-country comparison. While they cover only new immigration flows since 2005, they offer insight into reasons why foreign migrants settle in a country. This section considers data on permanent immigration as a percentage of the total population. Coverage Permanent immigrants are foreign nationals of any age whose residence permit, issued on entry into the host country, grants them the right to stay permanently. They include foreigners who obtain a permanent residence permit immediately, those who have an initial temporary residence permit which is routinely renewed, and free mobility migrants (excluding those on short-term stays). To these may be added temporary immigrants who become permanent residents following a change in their status, such as students taking on employment after completing their studies. In the 22 OECD countries for which standardised data are available, 3.9 million immigrants obtained permanent residence rights in 2013, half of them in an EU country. Those inflows account for 0.4% of the OECD’s total population and 0.5% of the EU’s, with the most new migrants heading for the small European countries with the lowest unemployment rates – Switzerland and Norway (Figure 3.1). New inflows, as share of the resident population, have risen compared with their average share over the last ten years in Australia, the countries of northern Europe, the Netherlands, Germany and Austria. In contrast, permanent immigration to the countries of Southern Europe and Ireland is much lower than in the pre-crisis period. While flows still account for 0.9% of the population in Ireland, per capita, flows to Spain have declined by as much as half to 0.5%. In Canada and the United States, legal permanent migration flows have been stable, and they remain negligible in Mexico and the Asian destinations of Japan and Korea. Altogether, large countries tend to experience lower per capita flows than small ones. Between 2005 and 2013, labour migrants from outside free mobility areas and their families accounted for almost a quarter of new permanent immigration. In the OECD, one-third of new flows came in the form of family migration versus a quarter in the European Union, while freedom of movement accounted for a further quarter, compared to 43% in the European Union (Figure 3.2). The high numbers of permanent immigrants arriving in Switzerland and Norway in 2012-13 brought with them particularly large shares of free-mobility flows. In the settlement countries of Oceania, as well as Canada and the United Kingdom, labour migration (which included accompanying family members) accounted for half of permanent inflows. Family immigration is still the driving force behind immigration to the United States (accounting for two-thirds), Korea and, to a lesser extent, France and Sweden. Sweden has also the largest share of humanitarian migrants in its inflows, followed by North America and Finland. 56 INDICATORS OF IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION 2015: SETTLING IN © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2015 Figure 3.1. 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 Permanent inflows to OECD and EU countries, 2003-11 and 2012-13 1.0 0.8 0.6 Annual averages in percentage of the total population 0.4 0.2 0 2012-13 3. DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS Mexico Japan Korea Figure 3.2. Portugal United States 100 OECD total (22) Permanent inflows to OECD and EU countries by category of immigrant, 2005-13 2003-11 Work Italy 80 France 60 Finland Accompanying family of workers Spain 40 United Kingdom 20 EU total (13) Belgium 0 Germany Netherlands Australia Total = 100 Austria Canada Belgium Family 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933212157Austria Canada Ireland Notes and sources are to be foundDenmark at the end of the chapter. Sweden Finland Humanitarian Denmark France New Zealand Germany Australia Ireland Norway Italy Switzerland Other INDICATORS OF IMMIGRANT INTEGRATION 2015: SETTLING IN © OECD/EUROPEAN UNION 2015 Japan Korea Mexico Free movement Netherlands New Zealand Norway Portugal Spain 1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888933212166 Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom United States EU total without free movement (13) EU total (13) OECD total (22) 57 3. DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS OF IMMIGRANT POPULATIONS 3.2. Duration of stay, regions of origin, and citizenship Background Definition The duration of stay indicator refers to the time that has elapsed between the year of arrival and the year of the survey. The composition by region of origin is subdivided into the five broad regions of Asia, Africa, Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean, Canada-United States, and Oceania. Nationality relates to current nationality – data on nationality at birth are not available for most countries. Coverage Immigrants aged between 15 and 64 years old, excluding those whose country of origin is not reported. Across the OECD and the EU, around two-thirds of immigrants had resided in the host country for at least ten years in 2012-13. In the Baltic countries, and in other countries where borders have changed (countries once in the former USSR and former Yugoslavia), the long-settled proportions reach 90%. Three- quarters of immigrants are also long-time residents in Israel, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and the United States. Most countries in southern and northern Europe have experienced significant migration inflows in recent years. In the last ten years, much greater numbers have arrived than in previous periods. The proportion of recent arrivals is highest in Japan, where three-quarters of immigrants have arrived in the last five years. In some Scandinavian countries (Denmark, Norway and Finland), in Cyprus,1, 2 and in Chile, too, one-third of the immigrant population are recent arrivals.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Globalization, Immigration, and Education: Recent Us Trends
    MASTER GABRIELLA.qxd:09_Suarez-Orozco(OK+Ale).qxd 12-12-2006 16:55 Pagina 93 Globalization and Education Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, Extra Series 7, Vatican City 2006 www.pass.va/content/dam/scienzesociali/pdf/es7/es7-suarezorozco.pdf GLOBALIZATION, IMMIGRATION, AND EDUCATION: RECENT US TRENDS MARCELO SUÁREZ-OROZCO, CAROLA SUÁREZ-OROZCO Over the last decade globalization has intensified worldwide economic, social, and cultural transformations. Globalization is structured by three powerful, interrelated formations: 1) the post-nationalization of produc- tion, distribution, and consumption of goods and services – fueled by grow- ing levels of international trade, foreign direct investment, and capital mar- ket flows; 2) the emergence of new information, communication, and media technologies that place a premium on knowledge intensive work, and 3) unprecedented levels of world-wide migration generating significant demographic and cultural changes in most regions of the world. Globalization’s puzzle is that while many applaud it as the royal road for development (see, for example, Micklethwait & Wooldrige, 2000; Friedman, 2000, Rubin 2002) it is nevertheless generating strong currents of discon- tent. It is now obvious that in large regions of the world, globalization has been a deeply disorienting and threatening process of change (Stiglitz, 2002; Soros, 2002; Bauman, 1998). Globalization has generated the most hostili- ties where it has placed local cultural identities, including local meaning sys- tems, local religious identities, and local systems of livelihood, under siege. Argentina is a case in point. After a decade of cutting-edge free market poli- cies, the economy of the country that once was the darling of such embodi- ments of globalization as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank, imploded.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION LAW BASICS How Does the United States Immigration System Work?
    IMMIGRATION LAW BASICS How does the United States immigration system work? Multiple agencies are responsible for the execution of immigration laws. o The Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) was abolished in 2003. o Department of Homeland Security . USCIS . CBP . ICE . Attorney General’s role o Department of Justice . EOIR . Attorney General’s role o Department of State . Consulates . Secretary of State’s role o Department of Labor . Employment‐related immigration Our laws, while historically pro‐immigration, have become increasingly restrictive and punitive with respect to noncitizens – even those with lawful status. ‐ Pro‐immigration history of our country o First 100 Years: 1776‐1875 ‐ Open door policy. o Act to Encourage Immigration of 1864 ‐ Made employment contracts binding in an effort to recruit foreign labor to work in factories during the Civil War. As some states sought to restrict immigration, the Supreme Court declared state laws regulating immigration unconstitutional. ‐ Some early immigration restrictions included: o Act of March 3, 1875: excluded convicts and prostitutes o Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882: excluded persons from China (repealed in 1943) o Immigration Act of 1891: Established the Bureau of Immigration. Provided for medical and general inspection, and excluded people based on contagious diseases, crimes involving moral turpitude and status as a pauper or polygamist ‐ More big changes to the laws in the early to mid 20th century: o 1903 Amendments: excluded epileptics, insane persons, professional beggars, and anarchists. o Immigration Act of 1907: excluded feeble minded persons, unaccompanied children, people with TB, mental or physical defect that might affect their ability to earn a living.
    [Show full text]
  • The Immigration Paradox: Poverty, Distributive Justice, and Liberal Egalitarianism
    DePaul Law Review Volume 52 Issue 3 Spring 2003: Symposium - Beyond Belonging: Challenging the Boundaries of Article 2 Nationality The Immigration Paradox: Poverty, Distributive Justice, and Liberal Egalitarianism Howard F. Chang Follow this and additional works at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review Recommended Citation Howard F. Chang, The Immigration Paradox: Poverty, Distributive Justice, and Liberal Egalitarianism, 52 DePaul L. Rev. 759 (2003) Available at: https://via.library.depaul.edu/law-review/vol52/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the College of Law at Via Sapientiae. It has been accepted for inclusion in DePaul Law Review by an authorized editor of Via Sapientiae. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE IMMIGRATION PARADOX: POVERTY, DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE, AND LIBERAL EGALITARIANISM Howard F. Chang* INTRODUCTION According to the 2000 Census, the foreign-born population in the United States reached 31.1 million, representing 11.1% of the total U.S. population.' This percentage is the highest that the United States has experienced since 1930, when 11.6% of the total U.S. popu- lation was foreign born.2 In 1970, the foreign-born population was only 9.6 million, or only 4.7% of the total population.3 The rapid ex- pansion of the foreign-born population in the intervening three de- 4 cades reflects high levels of immigration into the United States, which in turn reflects the liberalization of U.S. immigration laws since 1965. 5 Some observers have reacted to these data with alarm, noting that the sheer number of immigrants now residing in the United States is "by far the most ever recorded.' ' 6 The restrictionist Center for Im- migration Studies (CIS), for example, notes that the foreign-born pop- ulation grew by 11.3 million between 1990 and 2000, and that "[t]he foreign-born population's growth rate in every decade since 1970 has 7 been higher than at any other time in history." The absolute number of immigrants, however, is far less important than their share of the total U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat
    What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat Ted Brader University of Michigan Nicholas A. Valentino The University of Texas at Austin Elizabeth Suhay University of Michigan We examine whether and how elite discourse shapes mass opinion and action on immigration policy. One popular but untested suspicion is that reactions to news about the costs of immigration depend upon who the immigrants are. We confirm this suspicion in a nationally representative experiment: news about the costs of immigration boosts white opposition far more when Latino immigrants, rather than European immigrants, are featured. We find these group cues influence opinion and political action by triggering emotions—in particular, anxiety—not simply by changing beliefs about the severity of the immigration problem. A second experiment replicates these findings but also confirms their sensitivity to the stereotypic consistency of group cues and their context. While these results echo recent insights about the power of anxiety, they also suggest the public is susceptible to error and manipulation when group cues trigger anxiety independently of the actual threat posed by the group. mmigration surged onto the national agenda follow- tervals throughout U.S. history (Tichenor 2002). Current ing the 2004 election, as politicians wrangled over episodes reflect mounting pressures from heavy immi- I reforms on what is perceived to be a growing prob- gration and an expanding Latino electorate. West Europe lem for the United States (U.S.). Public concern followed, also has experienced a rising tide of migrants, spurring with 10% of Americans by 2006 naming it the most im- bitter debates over how to deal with the newcomers and portant problem facing the country, the highest level in 20 a growth in electoral position taking (Fetzer 2000; Sni- years of polling by Pew Research Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Globalization, Immigration, and Cultural Change: Conditions That Predict Shifts in Nationalistic Attitudes
    The University of Southern Mississippi The Aquila Digital Community Dissertations Summer 2020 Globalization, Immigration, and Cultural Change: Conditions that Predict Shifts in Nationalistic Attitudes Kelly Trail Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations Part of the Other Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Trail, Kelly, "Globalization, Immigration, and Cultural Change: Conditions that Predict Shifts in Nationalistic Attitudes" (2020). Dissertations. 1809. https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1809 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by The Aquila Digital Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of The Aquila Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GLOBALIZATION, IMMIGRATION, AND CULTURAL CHANGE: CONDITIONS THAT PREDICT SHIFTS IN NATIONALISTIC ATTITUDES by Kelly Brannan Trail A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School, the College of Arts and Sciences and the School of Social Science and Global Studies at The University of Southern Mississippi in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Approved by: Dr. Robert Pauly, Committee Chair Dr. Robert Press Dr. Julie Reid Dr. Thomas Lansford August 2020 COPYRIGHT BY Kelly Brannan Trail 2020 Published by the Graduate School ABSTRACT Globalization is on the rise across the globe. In many instances, nationalism appears to be, too, as evidenced by the anti-immigrant and “nation first” rhetoric and success of presidential candidates, such as Donald Trump in the United States and Sebastian Pinera in Chile. However, the author questioned whether nationalistic attitudes are truly on the rise across the globe and what conditions cause some countries to shift toward nationalistic attitudes in the face of rising globalization, while others to shift away from it.
    [Show full text]
  • (IOM) (2019) World Migration Report 2020
    WORLD MIGRATION REPORT 2020 The opinions expressed in the report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Organization for Migration (IOM). The designations employed and the presentation of material throughout the report do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of IOM concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning its frontiers or boundaries. IOM is committed to the principle that humane and orderly migration benefits migrants and society. As an intergovernmental organization, IOM acts with its partners in the international community to: assist in meeting the operational challenges of migration; advance understanding of migration issues; encourage social and economic development through migration; and uphold the human dignity and well-being of migrants. This flagship World Migration Report has been produced in line with IOM’s Environment Policy and is available online only. Printed hard copies have not been made in order to reduce paper, printing and transportation impacts. The report is available for free download at www.iom.int/wmr. Publisher: International Organization for Migration 17 route des Morillons P.O. Box 17 1211 Geneva 19 Switzerland Tel.: +41 22 717 9111 Fax: +41 22 798 6150 Email: [email protected] Website: www.iom.int ISSN 1561-5502 e-ISBN 978-92-9068-789-4 Cover photos Top: Children from Taro island carry lighter items from IOM’s delivery of food aid funded by USAID, with transport support from the United Nations. © IOM 2013/Joe LOWRY Middle: Rice fields in Southern Bangladesh.
    [Show full text]
  • IMMIGRATION DETAINER - NOTICE of ACTION Subject ID: File No: Event #: Date
    DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION DETAINER - NOTICE OF ACTION Subject ID: File No: Event #: Date: TO: (Name and Title of Institution - OR Any Subsequent Law FROM: (Department of Homeland Security Office Address) Enforcement Agency) MAINTAIN CUSTODY OF ALIEN FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED 48 HOURS Name of Alien: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Date of Birth: _________________________ Nationality: __________________________________ Sex: ____________ THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ACTION RELATED TO THE PERSON IDENTIFIED ABOVE, CURRENTLY IN YOUR CUSTODY: Determined that there is reason to believe the individual is an alien subject to removal from the United States. The individual (check all that apply): has a prior a felony conviction or has been charged with a felony has been convicted of illegal entry pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § offense; 1325; has three or more prior misdemeanor convictions; has illegally re-entered the country after a previous removal has a prior misdemeanor conviction or has been charged with a or return; misdemeanor for an offense that involves violence, threats, or has been found by an immigration officer or an immigration assaults; sexual abuse or exploitation; driving under the influence judge to have knowingly committed immigration fraud; of alcohol or a controlled substance; unlawful flight from the otherwise poses a significant risk to national security, border scene of an accident; the unlawful possession or use of a firearm security, or public safety; and/or or other deadly weapon, the distribution or trafficking of a other (specify): __________________________________. controlled substance; or other significant threat to public safety; Initiated removal proceedings and served a Notice to Appear or other charging document.
    [Show full text]
  • Multiculturalism: Success, Failure, and the Future
    MulticulturalisM: success, Failure, and the Future By Will Kymlicka TRANSATLANTIC COUNCIL ON MIGRATION MULTICULTURALISM: Success, Failure, and the Future Will Kymlicka Queen’s University February 2012 Acknowledgments This research was commissioned by the Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), for its seventh plenary meeting, held November 2011 in Berlin. The meeting’s theme was “National Identity, Immigration, and Social Cohesion: (Re)building Community in an Ever-Globalizing World” and this paper was one of the reports that informed the Council’s discussions. The Council, an MPI initiative undertaken in co- operation with its policy partner the Bertelsmann Stiftung, is a unique deliberative body that examines vital policy issues and informs migration policymak- ing processes in North America and Europe. The Council’s work is generously supported by the following foundations and governments: Carnegie Corporation of New York, Open Society Founda- tions, Bertelsmann Stiftung, the Barrow Cadbury Trust (UK Policy Partner), the Luso-American Development Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, please visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/transatlantic. © 2012 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or trans- mitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechani- cal, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is avail- able for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Permission for reproducing excerpts from this report should be directed to: Permissions Department, Migra- tion Policy Institute, 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC 20036, or by contacting [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Border Security: Key Agencies and Their Missions
    = 47)*7=*(:7.9>a=*>=,*3(.*8=&3)= -*.7=.88.438= -&)=_=&))&1= 3&1>89=.3= 22.,7&9.43=41.(>= 57.1=3`=,**3= 43,7*88.43&1= *8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 18/1**= <<<_(78_,4;= ,+233= =*5479=+47=43,7*88 Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress 47)*7=*(:7.9>a=*>=,*3(.*8=&3)=-*.7=.88.438= = :22&7>= After the massive reorganization of federal agencies precipitated by the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there are now four main federal agencies charged with securing the United States’ borders: the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which patrols the border and conducts immigrations, customs, and agricultural inspections at ports of entry; the Bureau of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which investigates immigrations and customs violations in the interior of the country; the United States Coast Guard, which provides maritime and port security; and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), which is responsible for securing the nation’s land, rail, and air transportation networks. This report is meant to serve as a primer on the key federal agencies charged with border security; as such it will briefly describe each agency’s role in securing our nation’s borders. This report will be updated as needed. 43,7*88.43&1=*8*&7(-=*7;.(*= 47)*7=*(:7.9>a=*>=,*3(.*8=&3)=-*.7=.88.438= = n the wake of the tragedy of September 11, 2001, the U.S. Congress decided that enhancing the security of the United States’ borders was a vitally important component of preventing I future terrorist attacks.
    [Show full text]
  • Explainer: Illegal Immigration in the United States." Migration Policy Institute, April 2019
    Illegal Immigration in the United States EXPLAINER By Jessica Bolter Experts inside and outside the U.S. government largely agree that there are between 11 million and 12 million unauthorized immigrants living in the United States, a population that has been essentially flat for the last decade. The unauthorized population rose relatively steadily for decades until peaking at about 12 million in 2007-08, and then held steady or even fell during and after the Great Recession, based on estimates by the three organizations that regularly make these calculations: the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Pew Research Center, and the Center for Migration Studies of New U.S.York. Unauthorized Immigrant Population Estimates, 2000-17 Center for Migration Department of Homeland Year Pew Research Center Studies of New York Security 2017 10,664,000 -- -- 2016 10,812,000 -- 10,700,000 2015 11,004,000 11,960,000 11,000,000 2014 11,025,000 11,460,000 11,100,000 2013 10,991,000 11,210,000 11,200,000 2012 11,135,000 11,430,000 11,200,000 2011 11,318,000 11,510,000 11,500,000 2010 11,725,000 11,590,000 11,400,000 2009 11,899,000 10,750,000 11,300,000 2008 12,009,000 11,600,000 11,700,000 2007 11,981,000 11,780,000 12,200,000 2006 11,714,000 11,310,000 11,600,000 2005 11,317,000 10,490,000 11,100,000 2000 8,600,000 8,460,000 8,600,000 Sources: Bryan Baker, Illegal Alien Population Residing in the United States: January 2015 (Washington, DC: Department of Home- land Security, 2018), available online; Jeffrey S.
    [Show full text]
  • Do Immigrants Threaten US Public Safety?
    Do Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety? Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny Working Paper 1905 Research Department https://doi.org/10.24149/wp1905 Working papers from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas are preliminary drafts circulated for professional comment. The views in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Do Immigrants Threaten U.S. Public Safety?* Pia Orrenius† and Madeline Zavodny‡ August 2019 Abstract Opponents of immigration often claim that immigrants, particularly those who are unauthorized, are more likely than U.S. natives to commit crimes and that they pose a threat to public safety. There is little evidence to support these claims. In fact, research overwhelmingly indicates that immigrants are less likely than similar U.S. natives to commit violent and property crimes, and that areas with more immigrants have similar or lower rates of violent and property crimes than areas with fewer immigrants. There are relatively few studies specifically of criminal behavior among unauthorized immigrants, but the limited research suggests that these immigrants also have a lower propensity to commit crime than their native- born peers, although possibly a higher propensity than legal immigrants. Evidence about legalization programs is consistent with these findings, indicating that a legalization program reduces crime rates. Meanwhile, increased border enforcement, which reduces unauthorized immigrant inflows, has mixed effects on crime rates. A large-scale legalization program, which is not currently under serious consideration, has more potential to improve public safety and security than several other policies that have recently been proposed or implemented.
    [Show full text]
  • Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy
    Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy Updated July 1, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R45020 SUMMARY R45020 Primer on U.S. Immigration Policy July 1, 2021 U.S. immigration policy is governed largely by the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which was first codified in 1952 and has been amended significantly several times since. U.S. William A. Kandel immigration policy contains two major aspects. One facilitates migration flows into the United Analyst in Immigration States according to principles of admission that are based upon national interest. These broad Policy principles currently include family reunification, U.S. labor market contribution, origin-country diversity, and humanitarian assistance. The United States has long distinguished permanent from temporary immigration. Permanent immigration occurs through family and employer-sponsored categories, the diversity immigrant visa lottery, and refugee and asylee admissions. Temporary immigration occurs through the admission of foreign nationals for specific purposes and limited periods of time, and encompasses two dozen categories that include foreign tourists, students, temporary workers, and diplomats. The other major aspect of U.S. immigration policy involves restricting entry to and removing persons from the United States who lack authorization to be in the country, are identified as criminal aliens, or whose presence in the United States is determined to not serve the national interest. Such immigration enforcement is broadly divided between border enforcement—at and between U.S. land, air, and sea ports of entry—and other enforcement tasks including interior enforcement, detention, removal, worksite enforcement, and combatting immigration fraud. The dual role of U.S. immigration policy—admissions and enforcement—creates challenges for balancing major policy priorities, such as ensuring national security, facilitating trade and commerce, protecting public safety, and fostering international cooperation.
    [Show full text]