Host Countries and the Immigrant Experience: Do Destinations Matter? Suzanne Model University of Massachusetts

1. Host Countries and the Immigrant Experience: Do Destinations Matter? Suzanne ModelUniversity of Massachusetts

2. Technological Change+ Economic Change---> • More international migrants(213,943,812 in 2010)* • More destinations(Europe, Middle East, Asian Tigers)*http://esa.un.org/migration/p2k0data.asp

3. Do conditions at destination affect the integration of international migrants? • "integration” - participation in the major institutions of a receiving society • “institutions” - economy, polity, social welfare system, schools, etc. Entziger & Biezeveld 2003

4. Some scholars say that conditions at destination matter less now because of • GLOBALIZATION (Sassen 1996) • TRANSNATIONALISM (Glick-Schiller et al. 1992)

5. Other scholars say conditions at destination remain very important to international migrants.

6. I agree that conditions at destination remain very important But I also contend that the characteristics of groups interact with conditions at destination to create group differences in levels of integration within and among destinations.

7. PLAN OF LECTURE • Reasons to expect conditions at destination affect integration. • Reasons to expect that characteristics of groups interact with conditions at destination to affect integration. • Implications for theory & research.

8. I. Variations in Immigration HistoryClassic regions of immigration(North America, South America, Australasia) versus‘New’ regions of immigration(Europe, Middle East, East Asia)

9. II. Variations in Duration of StayCountries that Accept International Migrants Mainly as Permanent Residents(Canada, France, Brazil)versusCountries that Accept International Migrants Mainly as Temporary Residents (Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan)

10. Variations in Ideology of Integration • Multi-culturalism (Australia) • Assimilationist (France) • Exclusionist (Japan)

11. IV Variations in Policies Concerning International Migrantsvisa regulationscitizenship ruleslaws against discrimination

12. “No state possesses a truly coherent incorporation regime. Instead, one finds ramshackle, multifaceted, loosely connected sets of regulatory rules, institutions, and practices in various domains of society that together make up the frameworks within which migrants and natives work out their differences. Divergent outcomes are likely if some of these institutional patterns are more effective, influential or durable than others.”(Freeman 2004)

13. Therefore, a more appropriate strategy is to evaluate policies regarding each dimension of integration separately, country by country. This exercise is called ‘BENCHMARKING’

14. LOI (Legal Obstacles to Integration Index 1997)8 Countries; 5 policies MIPEX (Migration Integration Policy Index 2010)31 Countries; 7 policieshttp://www.mipex.eu/

15. V. Variation in Natives’ Feelings About Migrants in Their Country

16. Survey Research Shows Variations in Feelings about the number of “immigrants”, “foreigners” or “minorities” in the receiving country Feelings about the economic or social effects of international migration

17. Percent agreeing that “our government should allow people from other countries to come here to work (as long as there are jobs available)”? World Value Survey1995-7 (Mayda 2004)

18. BUT developing hypotheses about destination effects by looking only at the characteristics of destinations is insufficient becauseconditions at destination do not affect all migrant groups in the same way.

19. In many host countries, some international migrant groups are received relatively well; others are received relatively badly.

20. I. Migrants from ex-colonies are received relatively poorly ex. Former colonials who settle in their “mother country” will encounter more obstacles than other international migrants.John Rex

21. II. Migrants whose ethnicity is the same as the dominant group are received relatively well. (Lahav 2004)Jews to IsraelAusliedlers to GermanyJoseonjok to Korea

22. IIIa Migrants whose ethnicity is “African” are received relatively poorly in the UK, US and Canada.Bashi & McDaniel 1997

23. IIIbMigrants of African or Latino ancestry to the U.S. are in danger of integrating into “the underclass”Segmented Assimilation Hypothesis(Portes and Zhou 1993)

24. IV Diplomatic Relations Between Sending and Receiving Countries Affect Policies toward Specific Groups • Cuban Refugees to the U.S. + • Tibetan Refugees to India + • Mainlander Brides in Taiwan -

25. V. Natives Vary in Their Feelings Toward Specific Groups

26. Can you accept people from ___ as___?Taiwan Social Survey 2008

27. VI. The selectivity of migration affects the ability of migrants to integrate • Positive Selection --> more resources --> easier integration • Negative Selection --> less resources --> harder integration Selectivity - Migrants are not a random subset of a population. Selectivityrefers to the ways in which migrants differ from non-migrants. (Lee 1966)

28. Migrants are likely to be positively selected when • ‘Costs of migration’ are high • travel a long distance • few compatriots at destination • Income inequality is lower in sending country than receiving country (Borjas 1985)

29. Gini Coefficients (Income Inequality) among Persons UNU-WIDER World Income Inequality Database, Version 2.0c, May 2008

30. Implications of Group/Destination Interactions for Theory and Research

31. Theories about the integration of international migrants need to specify: which migrants? in which destinations?

32. A Useful Research Strategy would be tocompare the integration of culturally similar migrants from the same sending country across several destinations.visa status, citizenship, voting rates, residential location, employment outcomes, crime rates, education of later generations, etc.

33. Potential Hypothesis:Perhaps the integration of some migrant groups is less sensitive to conditions at destination, while the integration of other groups is more sensitive to conditions at destination

34. The End 感謝你們關注