3 comments on “Immigration policy around the globe

  1. Author(s): FREEMAN GP
    Source: INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION REVIEW Volume: 29 Issue: 4 Pages: 881-902 Published: WIN 1995
    Abstract: The politics of immigration in liberal democracies exhibits strong similarities that are, contrary to the scholarly consensus, broadly expansionist and inclusive. Nevertheless, three groups of states display distinct modes of immigration politics. Divergent immigration histories mold popular attitudes toward migration and ethnic heterogeneity and affect the institutionalization of migration policy and politics. The English-speaking settler societies (the United States, Canada, and Australia) have histories of periodically open immigration, machineries of immigration planning and regulation, and densely organized webs of interest groups contesting policies. Their institutionalized politics favors expansionary policies and is relatively immune to sharp swings in direction. Many European states (France, Britain, Germany, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Belgium) experienced mass migration only after World War II and in a form that introduced significant non-European minorities. Their immigration politics is shaped by what most see as the unfortunate consequences of those episodes and are partially institutionalized and highly volatile and conflictual. European states until recently sending countries (Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece) deal with migration pressures for the first time in their modern histories, under crisis conditions, and in the context of intensifying coordination of policies within the European Union. We should expect the normalization of immigration politics in both sets of European states. Although they are unlikely to appropriate the policies of the English-speaking democracies, which should remain unique in their openness to mass immigration, their approach to immigration will, nevertheless, take the liberal democratic form

  2. Author(s): Wiking E, Johansson SE, Sundquist J
    Source: JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY AND COMMUNITY HEALTH Volume: 58 Issue: 7 Pages: 574-582 Published: JUL 200
    Abstract: Study objective: To analyse the association between ethnicity and poor self reported health and explore the importance of any mediators such as acculturation and discrimination.

    Design: A simple random sample of immigrants from Poland ( n = 840), Turkey ( n = 840), and Iran ( n = 480) and of Swedish born persons ( n = 2250) was used in a cross sectional study in 1996. The risk of poor self reported health was estimated by applying logistic models and stepwise inclusion of the explanatory variables. The response rate was about 68% for the immigrants and 80% for the Swedes. Explanatory variables were: age, ethnicity, educational status, marital status, poor economic resources, knowledge of Swedish, and discrimination.

    Main results: Among men from Iran and Turkey there was a threefold increased risk of poor self reported health than Swedes ( reference) while the risk was five times higher for women. When socioeconomic status was included in the logistic model the risk decreased slightly. In an explanatory model, Iranian and Turkish women and men had a higher risk of poor health than Polish women and men ( reference). The high risks of Turkish born men and women and Iranian born men for poor self reported health decreased to nonsignificance after the inclusion of SES and low knowledge of Swedish. The high risks of Iranian born women for poor self reported health decreased to non-significance after the inclusion of low SES, low knowledge of Swedish, and discrimination.

    Conclusions: The strong association between ethnicity and poor self reported health seems to be mediated by socioeconomic status, poor acculturation, and discrimination

  3. Morality, Citizenship, and Immigrants’ Ethnic Education
    in Japan, the United States, and Sweden
    Apichai W. Shipper
    University of Southern California
    The variation in immigration politics and resultant ethnic education practices for
    immigrants in Japan, the United States, and Sweden is best explained through the
    interpretation, prevalent among leaders and elites during the nation-building process, of
    the concept of the person, which concerns with creating and serving citizens. In other
    words, differences in immigration policies are explained through the role of ideas, in
    particular moral-philosophical conceptions of citizenship and personhood, and how these
    ideas get reinforced or reinterpreted in that country’s modern history. Specifically,
    different kinds of policy assumptions are importantly based on distinct political
    mythologies and their often-implicit philosophical traditions on the concept of citizenship
    and personhood.
    These different conceptualizations of the person are reflected in each country’s
    view of foreigners and immigration policy. In Japan, foreigners are viewed as temporary
    workers, in the United States as potential citizens, and in Sweden as free and equal
    persons. Therefore, the immigration control approach in Japan creates hierarchical
    categories of foreigners based on bloodline and profession/occupation. Japanese
    policymakers do not view a foreigner as a complete person unless s/he marries a Japanese
    national, which may than result in the birth of a Japanese offspring (i.e. someone with
    Japanese blood). Whereas the United States immigration policy forces foreigners to
    assimilate by encouraging civic friendship, the Swedish policy respects ethnic differences
    relatively more in its efforts to create an egalitarian, multicultural society. Here, the
    concept of the person in the United States and Sweden allows for a foreigner to become a
    citizen or complete person in an easier and more transparent manner than in Japan.
    The ethnic education practices for immigrants in these three industrialized
    countries are consistent with each country’s historical and cultural tradition: hierarchical
    Japan, assimilationist United States, and multicultural Sweden. In Japan, the government
    is providing ethnic Brazilian education only to children of Nikkeijin in certain
    municipalities with large Brazilian-Nikkeijin population. Ethnic-based schools also exist
    in the United States, but they are privately funded, usually by their ethnic or religious
    communities and, sometimes, by their home governments. In general, public schools in
    the United States promote assimilation of immigrants into its society. In Sweden, the
    government respects ethnic differences and provides children of immigrants in its public
    school system with equal opportunities to choose instructions in their mother’s language
    and education about their home country’s history and culture.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s