Talk:Immigration
| This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archives (Index) |
|
|
Contents |
[edit] Changes to the ethnics section
I removed the uncited claim that the labour market in developed nations need unskilled immigration. In many countries, like the US and New Zealand this isn't true. They need more skilled immigration. Also in countries like Germany they usually end up unemployed, because they are not needed in the labor market. I also think the picture is bigger than the labor market. We need to think about the economy and the country, which should have been addressed after that claim. Because even though they may be needed in the labor market, they may not benefit to the economy or the country. Camlon1 (talk) 21:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Fact?
The European colonization of the Americas...was the biggest immigration in known history.
Swiiman (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
wat up —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.94.115 (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
what does immigrant mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.196.105 (talk) 01:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC) asdfasdfdsafasfsadfasdfasdfasdfadsfasdfdasfasdfsadfdsfasdfsdfasdfdasfsadfasdfadsfds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.129.158.100 (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial comments on the article
At the end of this (quoted from the article) paragraph are editorial comments that - regardless of the quality of the article - do not belong in the article so I am removing them. They can be read here and properly inserted by the author on the talk page: 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. EDITORIAL COMMENTS START HERE ==> This paragraph is rife of self-contradictions. Is French state racist against non- French citizens? What rights should this stratus of society fight for? I am an eye witness of the events, non European. 100% of the participants were under-age Arab people. Underage means less than 18 but close to 18. The purpose is political: whatever they do, they can't be prosecuted.
Netrapt (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Immigrants vs Colonists
The opening definition of 'immigrants' is too vague and not historically or legally accurate. For example, as Chilton Williamson pointed out in The Immigration Mystique, the 80,000 mostly English and Scots-Irish settlers of colonial America, the ancestors of America’s historic Anglo-Saxon majority, had not transplanted themselves from one nation to another (which is what defines immigration with respect to people), but from Britain and its territories to British colonies. They were not immigrants, but colonists. The immigrants of the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries came to an American nation that had already been formed by those colonists and their descendants. Ignorance of this distinction has lead to the often repeated assertion that the USA is a 'nation of immigrants', when in fact roughly half the population is descended from founding colonists, not immigrants. Wikipediaphile (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
[edit] What About Really Old Immigration?
This article doesn't have any information about immigration except in the past few hundred years. To be comprehensive shouldn't it have some information about immigration going back as far as it did. I'd like to know about immigration in ancient times or the middle ages. Article should be labeled a stub.35.11.207.145 (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
[edit] The japan stamp is wrong
This reads kikoku and it means "Return country". It is stamped in the passport of Japanese National and means they are back in Japan. Foreigner never get that stamp even if they take a vacation out of Japan (They are always admitted). I think it's a little bit out of place to have this stamp in the immigration page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.206.208.214 (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Why does it read as...
Why does the Immigration page has a little box that reads as " This article's introduction section may not adequately summarize its contents. To comply with Wikipedia's lead section guidelines, please consider expanding the lead to provide an accessible overview of the article's key points. (October 2010)"? How can we fix this? I just want to make sure everything is correct; doing so for some homework.... 205.215.177.163 (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
[edit] emigrants vs expatriates
Please see Talk:Expatriate#Expatriates_versus_Emigrants and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Poland#emigrants_vs_expatriates. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with Emigration?
Are the two different enough that they warrant having their own pages? By definition, the only difference is the perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zujua (talk • contribs) 20:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)