Talk:Immigration

Emigrate v. Immigrate

I reverted a change to the article where someone had changed "emigrate" to "immigrate". Both would do and so the edit should not have been made, since it is better to stick with an original writer's style (otherwise wikipedia would never stabilise), but emigrate focuses on the moving out and immigrate on the moving in, obviously the two movements are necessarily complementary, but in context the writer was focussing on those who leave, which would indicate "emigrate" as a better stylistic choice in any event. I am not sure why the editor thought "emigrate" was a mistake. Francis Davey 10:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Dual citizenship (of Canadian Americans)

Please see the Wayne Gretzky article. Wayne is a citizen of both America and Canada. He has lived in America with his American family and has been an American citizen for the last 20 years. However there are several like minded canadians who refuse to acknowledge his Canadian American status. They have an admin (Wknight94)that likes to ban people with different opinions. Can anybody help with this situation? Lex393384

When are you considered to be an immigrant?

Re the following statement:

"In general, people are considered as an immigrant if they keep staying in the new country for more than one year."

Where did this come from? It has no basis in US immigration law or scholarship that I am aware of.

I also am unaware of any justification for this statement. For exmaple, people who are in Australia on 4-year working visas are not considered immigrants, as they leave before the 4 years is up, unless their status changes. I am removing this statement --DavidGC 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I have grave concerns about this sentence from the article (and much else, but let's start somewhere):

Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned about their national culture being subsumed by a tide of immigrants.

This sentence is pernicious in many ways:

1. “Countries” don’t have deep concerns – people do. It’s facile to personify countries. More careful language would say that “some people in Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned” or “the governments of Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned” or “elite groups within Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned” or “racists in Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned”. 2. The concept “national culture” is particularly facile and pernicious. What does this mean? Does it include literature, art, films, music, food, religion and language? I live in England: my culture includes German and Austrian composers of music, American films, French cheese and Spanish art. My next door neighbour might have a very different mixture. Anyone who studies culture knows that all culture is contested. The idea that “national culture” is a clear and straightforward notion is very dangerous. 3. “subsumed”: to subsume means “include or absorb (something) in something else”. Perhaps the writer meant “submerged” or “changed beyond recognition”. 4. “A tide of immigrants”: this is dangerous language. Only extreme xenophobes use expressions like this. -- R Salkie, 18 May 2004

Why shouldn Immigration stand as its own article? Kingturtle 05:44 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The article that was here was entirely US-centered, so I moved it. There really should be a standalone article here. Zoe

You mean US-centred. We've got immigrants. See Australia. PML.

I did not write that. Someone else edited what I really wrote. While understandable, they should have attributed it properly. PML.

I wrote that stuff. Sorry guys, I was a bit biased. JLS.

I don't really agree with the statement: Moncrief

"Only four countries in the world actively encourage large numbers of immigrants. Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and Australia."

I really don't think that those four countries "actively encourage" (in the sense of pro-active recruitment of immigrants, which is what it implies to me) anymore, and certainly no more so than other countries that attract immigrants, such as the UK. I realize Canada is perhaps the most immigrant-friendly of the four, but I don't believe even Canada "actively encourages" immigration. It's also at some degree of variance with the sentence that follows it.

What do people think?

Canada does encourage immigration (of the right kind of people). In the late 90's when immigration reached 250,000 per year, the Chretien government raised the bar to 300,000 as its goal. It started a program of sending immigration SWAT teams to various countries to try to untangle the bureaucratic red tape that was slowing down the process. Because of its low total fertility rate (1.67 live births per woman) Canada needs about 500,000 immigrants a year to prevent its population from ageing.

Canada sees immigration as way of importing human and physical wealth and its system is designed to optimize this. While other countries wail about receiving low quality immigrants that end up being supported by the public purse, the average immigrant to Canada is better educated than the native-born and is more likely to be a doctor or computer programmer than an unskilled labourer. So there is relatively little opposition to immigration.

Because of the relatively high numbers, immigration is also a substantial business in its own right. For example, Toronto receives about 100,000 immigrants a year. This means it has to build homes for 100,000 people, provide English language training for dependents, have immigration lawyers to resolve the inevitable paperwork problems, etc., etc. Adding it all up makes a noticeable impact on the local economy. GreatWhiteNortherner 08:09, Feb 7, 2004 (UTC)

Edit: It also just occurred to me that if any country in the world could be said to "actively encourage" immigration, it would be Israel. Moncrief

I might change the wording I mention above unless anyone objects.

Moncrief

== Anti-Immigration == I recently viewed a video regarding the effects of over immigration on the U.S. I would presume it to be valid for all nations with a middle class. Thought provoking viewing.http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4094926727128068265 Googol Video. LDavinci

There is currently a separate article titled anti-immigrant, which brings up two issues. First, shouldn't the organized opposition to immigration be included in the immigration article? Maybe that other article should be incorporated into this one. Second, the labels "anti-immigrant" and "anti-immigration" are considered inaccurate by many to whom the labels are applied. They prefer labels like "immigration realist or restrictionist or reductionist." Despite this, everybody else continues to use the "anti-" labels, arguing that they are accurate. Any article discussing opposition to immigration should include a NPOV discussion of the terminology. Will McW 20:02, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

External links

The external links are mostly concerned with U.S. or U.K. immigration. Unless I hear an objection here, I'll move the country-specific links to their respective articles and leave the ones that are internaional or general. -Willmcw 22:06, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the links moving: the (Mostly Illegal) Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride is definitely targeting just the U.S. Noborder.org appears to be mainly concerned with the EU.

Thanks for checking those. I'll move the "freedom Ride" link to the U.S. article. We don't yet have an article for Immigration to the EU. Until we do I guess we should leave it here. -Willmcw 07:02, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with immigrants. The only people that weren't immigrants in the US are the nomads. Everyone else came here as immigrants, not illegally though because there weren't many laws against immigration to the US. Why should laws change the way people think of each other? Also,the jobs that immigrants have are jobs that Americans don't want. Face it, you wouldn't want 10cents per 5 lb. bag of onions ,would you? Hardly any immigrants are terrorists; thy're just people who want to live in the land of the free. -anonymous 13 yr. old some people are getting raced by their colours, their special and unique features and their looks, behaviours. it is unfair for some people for when the people immigrated tries theoir hardest to try and fit in the culture but the people block and doesnt let the respect to come through we should really think about that, it is becoming a serious problem and people are getting afraid to be theirself and be their own personal cultre and if they dont fit in they would often get harrased and this could cause and lead to crime and suicide 125.239.19.201 03:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Food

An anonymous user asked:

What foods have been brought over here through immigration?

First, the phrase "here" has no context in a global encyclopedia. Second, the spread of cuisines or certain foods from country to country is a great topic and if we have any solid sources then we should have an article. Maybe one already exists. Of course, some foods have been spread by very small immigations, such as Marco Polo, who legendarily introduced pasta from China, or Maria d'Medici, who brought ice cream to the French Court. And the spread of Mexican food in the USA seems mostly independent of Mexican immigration. Americans of all stripes just like Mexican food (or American-zied versions of it). OTOH, some neighborhoods, especialy in Manhattan, have seen successive waves of immigrant communities, whose presence is reflected in the restaurants. Wars and conquest are also involved, accounting for some part of the popularity of Indian food in Britain and Algerian food in France, Italian and Japanese food in America. There might be a culinary history article somewhere. Anyway, just posting this here because the anon user posted it in the article. -Willmcw 08:05, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

Vdare

I'm going to add vdare into the links. Feel free to change it if I'm wrong, but I didn't see a link to an immigration reductionist site there (for balance).

The reason why VDARE was not included (and why I'll remove it again) is that VDARE is solely concerned with immigration to the United States. It is included in the external links of Immigration to the United States (along with many other immigration reductionist sites). If there is a website that is opposed to any and all immigration between countries, then that would be appropriate in this globally-oriented article. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:53, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

Immigration to Israel and Germany

This statement here:

"Only five countries in the world have policies that 'actively encourage' large numbers of immigrants: The United States, Israel, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia."

... requires a bit of qualification regarding Israel. Israel encourages large numbers of immigrants, but it paints itself as a safe haven for Jewish people. The other four countries listed here have no ethnic restrictions or encouragements with regards to immigration. Would this be appropriate to mention?

Also, if we are going to say that Israel "actively encourages" immigration on the basis of being a country of refuge to a certain group, might we also speak of Germany's Law of Return and the Federation of Expellees with regards to the Volksdeutsche? I have heard that Germany tightened up its policies in this arena--particularly in regards to Volga Germans--but a German friend recently mentioned to me that they still get a lot of Volksdeutsche immigration.

Any thoughts?--TheMcManusBro 04:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

contemporary immigration patterns and approaches Quite a few countries of the world encourage immigration of "co-ethnic" people, who have no recent link with the country but can show a bloodline link. This approach, explicitly linked with citizenship through ius sanguinis, accounts for a massive amount of world migration: Israel, Germany and Greece are the most well-known ones. THis type of "ethnic migration", which the world condemned Serbia for encouraging, is almost never discussed as a problem of international migration.

Across the world, the only countries which accept immigrants as potential citizens are Anglophone: this is not because of their liberal and open mentality (!) but because all except the UK derived their entire dominant population from immigration. As is well-known, the older inhabitants of the lands -- such as American Indians and Australian aborigines -- were mercilessly killed, enslaved, driven out, etc. Therfore for historical reasons the English-speaking countries are more tolerant of immigrants as permanent residents. These countries also award citizenship largely through ius soli [place of birth] and naturalise newcomers easily and in large numbers.

Elsewhere, immigrants are seen more as temporary labour -- Gastarbeiter in Germany, temporary workers in the Middle East -- or grudgingly allowed to seek political asylum, although the award of this status has been in continuous decline since the early 1980s. Family reunification has been the dominant mode of entry for northern Europe since the mid 1970s, and illegal migration [the normal mode in the developing world] has been for southern Europe.

Another category of immigrant is that of colonial citizen: this is particularly relevant for the UK, France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Although often with full citizenship [in the French case] or with inferior categories of citizenship [UK], frequently these immigrants feel as excluded as those with no previous link to the country. The problem is visible in ethnic ghettos in Paris and elsehwere, with violent crime and protests resulting from the exclusion. Generally, all immigrants with racial differences -- especially skin colour -- are much more likely to be unemployed, to have no access to education, and the live in poor quality housing.

I have mentioned these different types of migration, because there are important differences with how the migrants are treated, experience their inclusion in the society, and in how governments report them. These distinctions should not be blurred in the Wikipedia article, as including Israel with Anglophone countries does.

Martin Baldwin-Edwards Mediterranean Migration Observatory--87.202.28.236 06:37, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

good example of what?

" poor individuals of third world countries can have far higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries, as not very well off but financially independent people from highly developed countries can live better in a less developed country where living standards are lower" ... "a good example of the latter is the many retired British ex-pats who choose to make their life in Spain." I do not believe that is true. Life in Spain is as expensive as in the UK, except for fresh veggies, booze and tobacco. Some products are more expensive, in fact. Weather is why they move to Spain.

External link to ILW.COM

Dear Wikipedia volunteers,

I would like to request a reinsertion of link to ILW.COM- the immigrtion portal: www.ilw.com. It was there a weeks ago and then fell off, I wonder what happened.

ILW.COM is an immigration news site with an extremely active discussion board. Especially relevant now in wake of illegal immigration issue.

I thank you for your consideration.

R Saheb

ILW.COM

Removed sentence

Immigration is often forced on an unwilling population by politicians who wish to gain politcal advantage.

This claim has weasel word and POV problems. If there are some specific circumstances worth mentioning along these lines, they should be given as examples. -- Beland 11:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"Events, such as the November 2005 riots in France, have led some to conclude that, although immigration is unwelcome in most societies, large numbers can cause immigrants to form closed ethnic ghettos that lead to social confrontation and seclusion ."

Removed that also. Lapaz 23:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging with Emigration

• Do not merge. Although from an individualist perspective, the content would be mostly the same (an immigrant is an emigrant), from a sociological perspective, the two are very different. If we wish to focus on the sociological, economic, and other implications of mass emmigration out of a particular country, such a discussion would be out of place in an article on immigration. Mass exodus from a country can have distinct societal effects that are very different from mass immigration into another.DavidGC 00:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

No. Tall Girl 20:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

• Result: Do not merge. Merge has been proposed for over one month. With no votes to merge, closing vote and removing template. --DavidGC 06:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-immigration text block

I removed a large block of text, apparently copied from a forum posting or anti-immigration website, containing copyright material from the San Diego Union-Tribune [1]. It was simply posted onto the end of the article, without any attempt to integrate it with the rest of the article, and was a pure advocacy text. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.Paul111 11:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki debating outlet - [www.debatus.com Debatus.com]

If you want an outlet for debating the issue of US immigration - you guys should check out [2] Also, this should made an 'external link'. Loudsirens 21:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Continuing vandalism: semi-protection

This article is attracting vandalism on a daily basis, probably solely because it has a high-profile title (major controversial issue). Although the vandalism is reverted, not enough editors have the page on their watchlists, and sometimes the vandalism is online too long. I suggest it should get semi-protected status.Paul111 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it also appears one public IP has started to have an edit war with itself :D--topper 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I requested it, but it was denied because the vandalism was not severe. Paul111 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC) It is now, and user 71.72.54.59 has been given a last warning by an admin, although this is not the only vandal at this page.Paul111 19:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, i also agree!

I am not a rasisit, but i think people from a totally other countries shoult stay there! For example in Neatherland there are nearly no people who are no immigrations! Don't you think this sounds a little bit like =(! Some People from some especially countries do not even try to be like the others! (f.e.I THINK I IS BETTER IF I DO NOT SAY)!! But thanks to god that a few people work hard if they move to better countries.

thanks for listening your half austian, half neatherlandish 12-years-old girl

lisa =)Insert lisa-text here

Vandal

Hi, I've never edited before but while looking up the immigration article, I notice this line and wondered if it was correct or the result of vandalism. "The African Nation allows free migration between member states (with restrictions on new member states), but inter-EU migration is relatively gay" . Thanks, I hope I did this right. 155.94.62.221 20:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You can revert such obvious vandalism yourself, use the undo link in the editing history, but check to see that no bona-fide edits get lost.Paul111 12:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Opposing Arguments in the Supporting Section

In the section titled "supporting arguments" the article reads "The main anti-immigration themes are xenophobia, economic issues (costs of immigration, and competition in the labour market), environmental issues (impact of population growth), and the impact on the national identity and nature of the nation-state itself." This is redundant and should be merged with the section immediately below, entitled "Opposing Arguments." JoeyETS 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect??

This article seems to be a target of vandalism almost daily. Would it fit the criteria for an article to be Semi-Protected? It seems to be anonymous users who attack it. JoeyETS 13:14, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Link?

Wow, I'll have three unanswered posts in a row... Anyways, the link that was recently added by 64.9.239.86 to the external links section, *American Immigration Home Page is from what I can tell a grade ten school project. I'm removing it because I don't think the site is either notable or overly accurate thus far. Am I correct in saying that this is non notable and should be removed? JoeyETS 21:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actual Numbers

Are there any comparison charts of actual number of immigrants going into each country each year. I see here, there are % charts with colour coded maps, but no actual numbers.

Taxes

Could somone please add somthing about immigrants paying taxes.Fheo 14:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Sorry but i have the dumbest school project on immigration and all the teachers are being dumb about it.

Mordern Day Example of Immigration

People leaving Mexico to live in the U.S.A. They end up geting cruddy jobs. They cross the border on foot through water. They dont pay taxes and there ends up being an interveiw on the news about some mexican who has a job as a janitor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.142.198.203 (talk) 22:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Parts of this entry do not follow WP:V

Dear all,

Several parts of this entry do not follow WP:V. For example, under "Nationalistic Arguments," there are only three references, and those three do not support the rest of the paragraphs. In addition, under "As political issue" and "Ethics," there is no reference, period.

So, can whoever wrote these paragraphs please insert some citations? That would be really helpful in improving the quality of this entry.

Thanks. Arctura 20:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)