professional, political, economic persecution retirement (i.e., better weather; lower living costs). sentimental (i.e., the desire to settle in a country due to personal preference; family reunification). personal (i.e, opinion-based; extreme dislike of motherland)
Much immigration occurs for economic reasons. Wage rates vary greatly between different countries; individuals of third world countries in particular can have far higher standards of living in developed countries than in their originating countries. The economic pressure to migrate can be so high that when legal means are restricted, people may immigrate regardless of their legal status. In general, people are considered as an immigrant if they keep staying in the new country for more than one year.
National reactions to immigration
Demonstration by immigrants in Treviso, ItalyThroughout the world, immigration is a controversial issue. All developed nations put restrictions on how many people can immigrate to them. These are usually justified on economic grounds with worries that many poor workers would lower wages and the nation's standard of living. Sometimes the justification for limiting immigration is cultural. The latter is heard most strongly in some homogenous old world (European) nations where citizenship was long tied to a person having deep historical roots in the country. Western European nations, Japan, and other countries have long been deeply concerned about their national culture being subsumed. This concern can be especially high when the immigrants are of differing race or religion than the majority.
Immigration into European countries is a rather recent trend, though until the 1970s and 1980s the levels were relatively modest. Recent increases in immigration have led to the development of political parties in Europe which are almost solely concerned with limiting immigration. In Hong Kong population growth is driven by new immigrants from mainland China, while the natural growth is negative.
Only five countries in the world have policies that "actively encourage" large numbers of immigrants: The United States, Israel, Canada, Australia and New Zealand . These nations still restrict the numbers of people allowed to immigrate, but in most of these countries where population growth was historically entirely due to the relatively large level of immigration have in recent years seen a change in attitude. The countries now permit immigration in particular circumstances, e.g., to fill jobs where a skill is not available locally, for wealthy investors or business leaders, in cases of marriage, multiple citizenship or asylum, or under multilateral agreements such as within the European Union or between New Zealand and Australia.
Differing perspectives on immigration
Some free-market libertarians believe that a free global labor market with no restrictions on immigration would, in the long run, boost global prosperity. Likewise, there are anarchists who believe national borders are not legitimate to begin with. Major corporate interests have been among the strongest advocates of liberalization of immigration laws since movement of personnel is essential to creation of true multi-national corporations. Among those on the opposite side of the issue are nationalists who propose militarizing borders, protectionists who prefer closed labor markets or who see liberal immigration practices as a form of corporate welfare where corporate interests use inexpensive or free immigration rights to compensate employees rather than corporate resources, and xenophobes who fear the presence of foreigners, though these views are not shared by all or even most immigration reductionists.
In practice, no civilized nation operates without basic immigration controls. Some nations, such as Japan, allow for little or no immigration. In countries that do allow immigration there is disagreement over the numbers, policies, and implementation. Those who support more restricted immigration believe that the current levels of immigration serve to depress wages and circumvent unionization, and contribute to unsustainable levels of population growth. Others disagree, believing that overly restrictive immigration policies and practices would not address the economic demand for work emanating from wealthier countries, would not harm the safety or cohesiveness of the country, and would endanger the lives of legimate refugees.
Immigration has become an increasingly controversial topic among environmental activists in recent years, especially within the Sierra Club in the United States. Some environmentalists concerned with overpopulation favor limiting immigration as a means of isolating human population growth, while others argue that overpopulation and environmental degredation are global problems that should be addressed by other methods.
The November 2005 riots in France have led some to conclude that, although reasonable immigration numbers are welcome in most societies, large numbers can cause immigrants to form closed ethnic neighborhoods that lead to social confrontation and seclusion. Most European countries have not yet limited immigration and immigrants (legal & illegal) range between 7% -20% of the population. The lack of government controls on immigration has been blamed on globalization by some.
Major anti-immigration arguments
Anti-immigration sentiments are typically justified with one or more of the following arguments:
immigrants isolate themselves in their own communities and refuse to learn the language/culture immigrants gainfully acquire jobs which would have otherwise been available to native citizens immigrants damage a sense of community and nationality immigrants increase the consumption of scarce resources immigrants make heavy use of social welfare systems Prominent opinion leaders who oppose immigration blame it for such problems as unemployment, crime, harm to the environment, and detoriating public education.
Counter arguments
In response, others points out that:
the isolation argument has rascist undertones as the majority of members in expatriate communities around the world tend not to learn the language of the societies in which they live the argument that immigrants "steal jobs" always overlooks the fact that often the jobs being "taken" are menial and/or low paying positions which "natives" generally do not wish to perform the argument that immigrants make heavy use of social welfare systems is not true, because immigration is correlated with an improvement in economic conditions (immigration tends to drive the economy forward as money is spent on products and services); and in any event countries now tend to have lengthy restrictions or other limitations on the extent to which immigrants can access social welfare, which has the effect of reducing the economic contribution immigrants can make. Commentators also point out that the problems which are purportedly caused by immigrants exist amongst the native-born population as well, and that politicians often use immigration as a convenient scapegoat to distract the public from real social, political and economic problems.
Continental European anti-immigration movements
Current anti-immigration views in Europe seem particularly directed towards the recent influx of Muslims from Turkey and Northern Africa. Prominent European opponents of this migration include Jörg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen, and Pim Fortuyn (deceased). Anti-immigration views are held by virtually all neo-Nazi, and ethnic and racial separatist movements in Europe and the US, although the majority of people with anti-immigration views have no connection to such groups.
Popular attitudes include such examples as the majority of Spaniards who currently see immigration into their country as excessive (see article mentioning El Pais survey). Fascist parties, such as Movimiento Social Español, openly campaign using nationalist or anti-immigrant rhetoric. Everyday racial harassment of Africans is sometimes a problem - a notorious incident being the November 2004 Spain-England football (soccer) friendly. Popular media sometimes portray American Black culture and music negatively for humor, though there exists also an active following of such music in Spain as well.
Portugal was long a dictatorship and had little immigration until a sudden influx in the 1970s, as ex-colonists returned. Today Lisbon has mixed native-born, African, and Middle Eastern neighborhoods. The rural areas have just recently begun to see many new new arrivals. The country has right-wing parties that support curbs in immigration quotas. (Any resident of a Portuguese-speaking country is free to live and work in Portugal, and vice-versa.)
In France, the National Front opposes immigration. Major media, political parties, and a large share of the public see the possibility of anti-immigrant sentiment due to the October/November 2005 rioting.
A major anti-immigrant political organization in Germany is the National Democratic Party.
Opposition to immigration in the United Kingdom
Anti-immigrant perspectives in the United Kingdom have to do with the many South Asians, particularly Pakistanis and Indians, who have moved there in recent decades. Current concerns also involve Africans, Eastern Europeans, East Asians, Middle Easterners, and numerous others have become part of the estimated 4.3 million of the UK's population that is foreign-born (see BBC piece, "Analysis: Britain's Modern Face"). Like other countries, public attention is on their perceived refusal to assimilate, sheer numbers, illegal immigration, and Islamist terrorism. Abuse of asylum policies is also a frequent discussion topic.
During the 2005 election, the Conservative Party's slogan was: "It's time to put a limit on immigration", and the party's leader, Michael Howard, said: "it's not racist to talk about immigration". Critics noted that it indeed seemed racist to focus on public concern over certain groups while ignoring the numerous Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians who arrive and work illegally, and have been involved in other criminal activities. As well, some troubled areas of the UK do not have large or even significant numbers of immigrants, suggesting that other causes than immigration are coming into play.
Anti-immigration views in the United States
In the United States, anti-immigration views have a long history, including the American Party of the mid-19th Century (formed by members of the Know-Nothing movement) and the Immigration Reduction League of the early 20th Century. An immigration reductionism movement formed in the 1970s and continues. Prominent members of the movement deny being anti-immigration or anti-immigrant, though they acknowledge pressing for 75-95% reductions in immigration levels and support laws that target illegal immigrants. However, as most Americans are themselves descended from immigrants, many feel that it is hypocritical to criticize those who enter the country through legal means, and neither of the two major parties has proposed curtailing the number of visas given out annually.
Illegal immigration, principally from across the U.S.-Mexico border, is the more pressing concern for most immigration reductionists. Authors such as Samuel Huntington (famous for the "clash of civilizations" thesis) have also seen recent Hispanic immigration as creating a national identity crises and presenting insurmountable problems for US social institutions. In the May 2005 Spanish edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, he lists the size, illegality, cultural roots, and poverty of this recent wave of migration as most problematic.
The political effects of anti-immigration/immigration reductionism movements have been embodied in the US welfare reform bill of 1996 and initiatives such as Protect Arizona Now in 2004. The Minuteman Project, launched in 2005 with several hundreed volunteers patrolling the Mexican and Canadian borders to assist authorities in spotting illegal immigrants, have also been influenced by opposition to illegal immigration. Some members also support reductions in legal immigration.
Immigration and economics
Another issue concerns free trade; immigrant rights advocates believe it is hypocritical and inhumane to allow goods and money to freely cross borders yet impose numerous requirements on people to do the same thing. It has been argued that this constitutes a form of class warfare against workers, who are not free to move with changing economic conditions in the same manner that businesses can move their capital.
Anti-immigrant rhetoric in the US frequently mentions that foreigners take "American jobs", yet the US Constitution does not guarantee employment for anyone, and free flow of capital means that business owners have no legal obligation to keep jobs in the country. To this end, many immigration opponents/reductionists offer protectionist solutions to economic problems, and there was considerable criticism of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) among them. Many proponents of these policies do not otherwise tend to support the modern welfare state.
Politicians and commentators have contrasted the developed world's immigration controls with what they see as uncontrolled movement of people throughout the Third World. This is inaccurate; many poor countries indeed have numerous restrictions on immigration, and there has been little apparent economic gain from these policies.
Anti-immigrant hate crimes
After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, an increase in Islamophobia was perceived by some, directed towards individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim. An example of this behavior is the murder of Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh Indian living in Mesa, Arizona who was gunned down by native-born US citizen Frank Roque in September 2001. Roque had also shot at several other Sikhs (who were unharmed), apparently because he incorrectly associated their turbans with Islam. The Maricopa County Superior Court sentenced Roque to death in 2003.
Brain Drain
A brain drain or human capital flight is an emigration of trained and talented individuals for other nations or jurisdictions, due to conflict or lack of opportunity or health hazards where they are living. It parallels the term "capital flight" which refers to financial capital which is no longer invested in the country where its owner lives and earned it. Investment in higher education is lost when the trained individual leaves, usually not to return. Also whatever social capital the individual has been a part of is reduced by their departure. Spokesmen for the Royal Society of London first coined the expression “brain drain” to describe the outflow of scientists and technologists to the United States and Canada in the early 1950s.
"Brain drain" is a perception that is hard to measure. In 2000, the US Congress announced it was raising the annual cap on the number of temporary work visas granted to highly skilled professionals under its H1B visa program, from 115,000 to 195,000 per year, effective until 2003. That suggests a ballpark figure for the influx of talent into the United States at that time. In the same year the British government cooperating with the Wolfson Foundation, a research charity, launched a £20 million, five-year research award scheme that aimed at drawing the return of the UK’s leading expatriate scientists and sparking the migration of top young researchers to the United Kingdom.
Historically, the greatest brain drains have been from rural to urban areas. In the 19th century and 20th century there were great migrations to North America from Europe, and in modern times, from developing nations to developed nations. Sometimes such drains occur between developed nations, e.g. from Canada to the United States especially in the finance, software, aerospace, healthcare and entertainment industries due to higher wages and lower taxes.
Iraq is said by some to be presently undergoing a brain drain due to its political instability.
The former Soviet Union and today's Russia continues to experience a braindrain in science, business, and culture as to many of it's Jewish citizens leaving for the United States of America and Israel because of historical Russian anti-Semitism.
An opposite situation, in which many trained and talented individuals seek entrance into a country, is called a brain gain; this may create a brain drain in the nations that the individuals are leaving. A Canadian symposium in 2000 gave circulation to the new term, at a moment when many highly-skilled Canadians were moving to the United States but, simultaneously, many more qualified immigrants were coming to Canada. This is sometimes referred to as a 'brain exchange'.
Multiculturalism
"Multiculturalism" is the public policy for managing cultural diversity in a multi-ethnic society, officially stressing mutual respect and tolerance for cultural differences within a country's borders.
Multiculturalism is a policy that emphasizes the unique characteristics of different cultures, especially as they relate to one another in receiving nations. The word was first used in 1957 to describe Switzerland, but came into common currency in Canada in the late 1960s. It quickly spread to other English-speaking countries.
Overview
Multiculturalism... is a theory (albeit vague) about the foundations of a culture rather than a practice which subsumes cultural ideas. (Harrison, 1984)
Looked at broadly, the term is often used to describe societies (especially nations) which have many distinct cultural groups, usually as a result of immigration. This can lead to anxiety about the stability of national identity, yet can also lead to cultural exchanges that benefit the cultural groups. Such exchanges range from major accomplishments in literature, art and philosophy to relatively token appreciation of variations in music, dress and new foods.
On a smaller scale, the term can also be used to refer to specific districts in cities where people of different cultures co-exist. The actions of city planners can result in some areas remaining monocultural, often due to pressure groups active in the local political arena. This is especially applicable for the UK.
Official multiculturalism
Multiculturalism can also be a prescriptive term which describes government policy.
In dealing with immigrants groups and their cultures, there are essentially three approaches-
Monoculturalism: In most Old World nations, notably with the exception of the UK, culture is very closely linked to nationalism, thus government policy is to assimilate immigrants. These countries have policies aiming at the social integration of immigrant groups to the national culture. This is typical of nations that define themselves as one and indivisible and do not recognize the existence of other nations within their midst.
Melting Pot: In the United States the traditional view has been one of a melting pot where all the immigrant cultures are mixed and amalgamated without state intervention. However, many states have different language policies within the union.
Multiculturalism: In comparison to the above two approaches, multiculturalism is a view, or policy, that immigrants, and others, should preserve their cultures with the different cultures interacting peacefully within one nation. Today, this is the official policy of Canada, Australia and the UK. Multiculturalism has been described as preserving a "cultural mosaic" of separate ethnic groups, and is contrasted to a "melting pot" that mixes them. This has also been described as the "salad bowl" model. No country falls completely into one, or another, of these categories. For example, France has made efforts to adapt French culture to new immigrant groups, while Canada still has many policies that work to encourage assimilation.
Some, such as Diane Ravitch, use the term multiculturalism differently, describing both the melting pot, and Canada's cultural mosaic as being multicultural and refers to them as pluralistic and particularist multiculturalism. Pluralistic multiculturalism views each culture or subculture in a society as contributing unique and valuable cultural aspects to the whole culture. Particularist multiculturalism is more concerned with preserving the distinctions between cultures.
Origins
Multiculturalism became incorporated into official policies in several nations in the 1970s for reasons that varied from country to country.
In Canada, it was adopted in 1971 following the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, a government body set up in response to the grievances of Canada's French-speaking minority (concentrated in the Province of Quebec). The report of the Commission advocated that the Canadian government recognize Canada as a bilingual and bicultural society and adopt policies to preserve this character. Biculturalism was attacked from many directions.
Progressive Conservative leader John Diefenbaker saw multiculturalism as an attack on his vision of unhyphenated Canadianism. It did not satisfy the growing number of young francophones who gravitated towards Quebec nationalism. While many Canadians of British descent disliked the new policies of biculturalism and official bilingualism, the strongest opposition to biculturalism came from Canadians of neither English nor French descent, the so-called "Third Force" Canadians. Biculturalism did not accord with local realities in the western provinces, where the French population was tiny compared to other groups such as the Ukrainian Canadians, the group that was arguably most important in modifying the policy of biculturalism. To accommodate these groups, the formula was changed from "bilingualism and biculturalism" to "bilingualism and multiculturalism."
The Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau promulgated the “Announcement of Implementation of Policy of Multiculturalism within Bilingual Framework” in the House of Commons on 8 October 1971, the precurson of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988 passed in 1988. Symbolically, this legislation affirmed that Canada was a multicultural nation. On a more practical level, federal funds began to be distributed to ethnic groups to help them preserve their cultures. Projects typically funded included folk dancing competitions and the construction of community centres. This led to criticisms that the policy was actually motivated by electoral considerations. After its election in 1984, the Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney did not reverse these policies, although they had earlier been criticized by Tories as inconsistent with "unhyphenated Canadianism." This policy has been supported by every subsequent government and was added to Canada's 1982 constitution, in section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Implementation
Around the world, important government multicultural policies can include:
dual citizenship government support for newspapers, television, and radio in minority languages support for minority festivals, holidays, and celebrations acceptance of traditional and religious dress in schools, the military, and society in general support for arts from cultures around the world programs to encourage minority representation in politics, education, and the work force
While multiculturalist policies oppose cultural assimilation, countries such as Canada do support structural assimilation. Immigrant groups are still encouraged to participate in the larger society, learn the majority languages, and enter the labour force.
Official multiculturalism around the world
The other country to have most fully adopted Canada's view of multiculturalism is Australia where many of these policies related to multiculturalism are pursued, for example the formation of the Special Broadcasting Service.
In the United States multiculturalism is not an official policy at the federal level. At the state level, it is sometimes associated with English-Spanish bilingualism. However, the government, in recent years, moved to support many multiculturalist policies. In some ways, the United States has gone even further than Canada and Australia with such policies. For instance, California drivers can take their exams in a number of languages and gerrymandered districts guarantee minority representation in government.
In the United Kingdom multiculturalism has been the subject of extensive debate in recent years. Under the Conservatives (1979-1997), multiculturalist rhetoric and policies were confined to left-leaning councils. Since the election of the Labour government in 1997, multiculturalism has influenced government policies and statements.
Multiculturalism, along with other identity politics, has, in part, been successful because it is a useful tool for politicians to win the votes of minority groups. Government money for cultural celebrations or ethnic-specific newspapers can encourage new immigrants to support the governing party.
Criticisms
There have been many criticisms of official multiculturalism from both the left and right. However, criticism of such policies can be difficult, because it can quickly lead to accusations of racism and xenophobia.
Criticisms of multiculturalism can focus on the circumstances of one country or they can be more general.
Criticisms of multiculturalism in general
Critics charge that one of the dangers of pursuing multicultural social policies is that social integration and cultural assimilation can be held back. This can potentially encourage economic disparities and an exclusion of minority groups from mainstream politics. The political commentator Matthew Parris has questioned whether the pursuit of particularist multiculturalism is not apartheid by another name.
One of the most forceful critics of multiculturalism was Ayn Rand, who condemned the world-wide ethnic revival of the late 1960s as a manifestation of tribalization that would lead to an ethnic Balkanization destructive to modern industrial societies. Her philosophy considers multiculturalism to be based on the same premise as monoculturalism; this premise being culturally determinist collectivism (i.e., that individual human beings have no free choice in how they act and are conditioned irreversibly by society). Philosophically, Rand rejected this form of collectivism on the grounds that: 1) it undermines the concept of free will, and 2) the human mind (according to her philosophy) is a tabula rasa at birth. Combining these two premises, she concludes that we all can modify our actions volitionally, assuming we modify the premises we hold to support those actions (which is also volitional). Since this thinking was also her basis for rejecting racism, Objectivists and Neo-Objectivists/Post-Objectivists consider multiculturalism to be akin to racism.
In her 1999 essay, later expanded into an anthology, "Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?" the feminist and political theorist Susan M. Okin argues that a concern for the preservation of cultural diversity should not overshadow the discriminatory nature of gender roles in many minority cultures, that, at the very least, "culture" should not be used as an excuse for rolling back the women's rights movement.
One of the most articulate and careful recent critics of multiculturalism is the political theorist Brian Barry, who argues from the liberal left in his 2002 book "Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism" that multiculturalism divides people when they need to be united in order to fight for social justice.
Another more recent and conservative criticism of multiculturalism based largely upon the Nordic and Canadian experience has been presented by the administrative scientist Gunnar K. A. Njalsson. According to him, multiculturalism is in fact a utopian ideology with a flawed, simplistic and overly optimistic view of human nature, the same weakness he attributes to Communism, Anarchism, National Socialism and many strains of Liberalism. He points out that the current climate in many western nations with official multicultural policies and programmes is such that even lucid and well-argued criticism of the ideology will tend to be met by emotional, sensationalist and even violent opposition. It is this aspect combined with a tendency to require all citizens to think and act in accordance with multiculturalism which, according to Njalsson, would tend to define multiculturalism as a potentially extreme and totalitarian ideology. He also voices concerns that some variants of the multiculturalist ideology may in fact equipe non-egalitarian cultural groups with political clout and influence in such a way as to eventually allow them to dominate the values system of a particular society. This realist criticism of multiculturalism maintains that in countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the US multiculturalism may actually further aggravate a situation where old-stock families are not permitted by their old world countries to consider themselves as English, French, Scandinavian, etc. while at the same time their identity-related sovereignty in their new world countries is reduced by equating them in culture with newer arrivals who can claim two or more national identities.
Put together by people, for people. Source Wikipedia.
