Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Host Countries and the Immigrant Experience: Do Destinations Matter? Suzanne Model University of Massachusetts. Technological Change + Economic Change --->. More international migrants (213,943,812 in 2010)*
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.
I. Variations in Immigration HistoryClassic regions of immigration(North America, South America, Australasia) versus‘New’ regions of immigration(Europe, Middle East, East Asia)
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)
“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)
Therefore, a more appropriate strategy is to evaluate policies regarding each dimension of integration separately, country by country. This exercise is called
MIPEX (Migration Integration Policy Index 2010)31 Countries; 7 policieshttp://www.mipex.eu/
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
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)
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.
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
II. Migrants whose ethnicity is the same as the dominant group are received relatively well. (Lahav 2004)Jews to IsraelAusliedlers to GermanyJoseonjok to Korea
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)
--> easier integration
--> harder integration
Migrants are not a random subset of a population. Selectivityrefers to the ways in which migrants differ from non-migrants. (Lee 1966)
UNU-WIDER World Income Inequality Database, Version 2.0c, May 2008
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.
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