|
Kurt's Corner
Immigration stems population loss
 According to Managing Migration: The Global Challenge, the latest population bulletin issued by the Population Reference Bureau, the number of international migrants is at an all-time high.
There were 191 million migrants in 2005, which means that 3 percent of the world’s people left their country of birth or citizenship for a year or more.
[1]
The number of international migrants in industrialized countries more than doubled between 1985 and 2005, from almost 55 million to 120 million.
However, most of the world’s 6.6 billion people never cross a national border -- most live and die near their place of birth. Those who cross national borders usually move to nearby countries -- for example, from Mexico to the United States, or from Turkey to Germany. The largest flow of migrants is from less developed to more developed countries. In 2005, 62 million migrants from developing countries moved to more developed countries, but almost as many migrants (61 million) moved from one developing country to another, such as from Indonesia to Malaysia. Large flows of people also move from one industrialized country to another, from Canada to the United States, for example, and much smaller flows move from more developed to less developed countries, such as people from Japan who work in or retire to Thailand.
The international community believes that international migration should be voluntary, and has tried to minimize “forced migration,” whether motivated by persecution or economic deprivation at home. The United Nation’s 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”
[2]
However, the right to emigrate does not give migrants a right to immigrate, and most migrants are not welcomed unconditionally into the countries to which they move. Migration is the movement of people from one place to another. As long as humans have wandered in search of food, they have migrated from place to place. But international migration is a relatively recent development. Only in the early 20th century was the system of nation-states, passports and visas developed to regulate the flow of people across borders.
[3]
International migration is the exception, not the rule. Most people do not want to move away from family and friends. In addition, governments try to regulate border crossings. But international migration is likely to increase in the 21st century because of persistent demographic and economic inequalities and because many advances in communications and transportation facilitate mobility. Borders proliferated over the last century, sometimes placing legal and administrative boundaries between extended families, friends and trading partners where there were none before. There were 193 generally recognized nation-states in 2000, more than four times the 43 in 1900.
[4]
Each nation-state distinguishes citizens and foreigners, uses border controls to inspect those seeking entry, and determines what foreigners can do while inside the country -- whether they are tourists, students, guest workers or immigrants.
Most countries discourage immigration — they do not welcome the arrival of foreigners who wish to settle and become naturalized citizens. Some also discourage emigration. This was the situation in communist nations as symbolized by the Berlin Wall, which was used to deter crossing from East to West Germany between 1961 and 1989. Today, North Korea continues to prevent its citizens from leaving the country.
Five major countries plan for the arrival of immigrants: the United States, which accepted 1.2 million immigrants in 2006; Canada, which accepted 250,000; Australia 125,000; New Zealand 50,000; and Israel 25,000. Industrialized countries had planned to accept 1.5 million immigrants a year. The number of newcomers arriving in these countries each year exceeds the number planned, suggesting that many are temporary visitors or unauthorized foreigners who find ways to settle rather than newcomers who enter explicitly as potential new citizens.
Perspectives on the rising number of migrants can be framed by two extremes. At one extreme, organizations ranging from the Catholic Church to the World Bank have called for more migration, arguing that people should not be confined to their countries of birth by national borders and that more migration would speed economic growth and development in both sending and receiving countries.
At the other extreme, in virtually every industrialized country, organizations are demanding sharp reductions in immigration. In the United States, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) argues that unskilled newcomers hurt low-skilled U.S. workers, have negative environmental effects and threaten established U.S. cultural values. Political parties in many European countries have called for reducing immigration at one time or another.
The discussion around immigration in the United States has been a heated one, often with sides clearly drawn and participants leaving little room for a fair and open discussion. The anti-immigrant lobby sees great waves of Mexicans and others of limited education and English language skills coming to the U.S. and taking jobs at low rates of pay, thus decreasing wages and increasing unemployment for native born citizens; taking advantage of our educational, medical and social service systems; and paying no taxes to support the services they are using. On the other side are those who recognize that the United States is a nation of immigrants and that immigration brings a workforce that, on the one hand, takes jobs that no American wants, and on the other, supplies the educational and technical skills that are not being produced in adequate numbers in our current population. The truth, as with most issues, lies somewhere between the extremes.
Immigration in the United States has experienced a significant increase in recent years. Table 1 shows the 20 highest immigration years since 1820. One will notice that every year between 2000 and 2006 (with the exception of 2003) is on the list, a fact that makes recent immigration closely reflect the conditions during the first couple decades of the 20th Century.
Table 1. Ranking of Top 20 Years, Between 1820 and 2006, Based on Number of Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status
Source: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security / Immigration
The increased wave of immigrants nationally has also been experienced by Michigan. Table 2 provides data on the number of legal permanent residents who have come to Michigan since 1988. In addition to direct immigration, Michigan is more often the beneficiary of secondary migration streams – immigrants who start out somewhere else in the U.S. and then find their way to Michigan.
Table 2. The Number of Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status by Year, 1988-2006, and Listing Michigan as Their State of Intended Residence
Source: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security / Immigration
An analysis of the foreign-born population in Michigan, as measured by census figures going back to 1850, shows that their numbers and share of the state’s population began to increase post-1990, after falling numerically since 1930 and as a share of the total since 1890.
Figure 1. Immigration Trends in Michigan, 1850 – 2006
[click here for larger image]
Source: Census Bureau / University of Virginia
While the trend of increased immigration in and of itself is important, the fact that Michigan has experienced increasing rates of internal out-migration (more people leaving the state for other parts of the country, than entering the state from elsewhere) makes immigration critical to keeping our population from dropping any further than it already is. When one looks at the components of change (factors that influence population numbers) for Michigan between 2000 and 2007 (Table 3), it is immigration (in addition to births) that is keeping Michigan afloat. Net domestic migration resulted in an exodus of 350,000 more Michigan residents than we were able to attract to move here. However, almost 150,000 immigrants came here directly from other countries, helping to stem the tide of loss.
Table 3. Components of Michigan ’s Population Change, 2000 – 2007
Source: Census Bureau – Population Estimates
Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe (in addition to Mexico and Canada) were the primary world regions providing Michigan with its immigrants. The significance of Asian immigration can be seen in the annual population estimates by race that the Census Bureau issues. While most of the country experienced the largest growth in its Latino population, Asian growth was greatest for Michigan and the Detroit metropolitan area.
Figure 3. Michigan’s Immigrant Streams – Top Countries of Origin Between 2003 and 2006
[click here for larger image]
Source: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security / Immigration
A snapshot of Michigan immigrants for 2006 shows that the majority (not counting children) fall in the younger working-age categories – between 25 and 44 years of age (Figure 4). This is critical to our state, which is experiencing its greatest growth in the post-45 years of age cohorts – fueled by the aging of the baby-boom generation. With the hand-wringing around the loss of our younger residents, particularly those with higher levels of education, it is gratifying to see younger immigrants choosing Michigan, and even more important is that a large percentage are coming with college and advanced degrees.
[5]
Next month’s article will explore immigration and its importance to southeast Michigan. Table 4 provides a preview of the demographic components at work in local counties. As was the case for the state of Michigan, counties in this region are very dependent upon immigration for keeping the population growing (or at least not dropping any more than it already is).
Figure 4. Age Structure of Michigan
Immigrants in 2006
[click here for larger image]
Source: U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security / Immigration
While Livingston, Macomb and Monroe counties all experienced positive domestic migration between 2000 and 2007
[6]
, primarily due to moves from other counties in southeast Michigan, immigration was an important factor for all. Macomb saw immigration gains double those of domestic migration, while Oakland and Wayne domestic losses were somewhat mitigated by relatively large immigration flows.
Table 4. Components of Population Change in Southeast Michigan, 2000 - 2007
Source: Census Bureau – Population Estimates
[1]
United Nations (UN), Report of the Secretary-General on International Migration (A/60/871) (2006); and UN, International Migration 2006 (table), accessed online at www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm
[2]
UN, Article 13(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, accessed online at www.un.org/Overview/rights.html.
[3]
John Torpey, The Invention of the Passport: Surveillance, Citizenship and the State (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1999).
[4]
Charles C. Lemert, Social Things: An Introduction to the Sociological Life (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2005): 176.
[5]
Kurt Metzger, when at Wayne State University, worked with SEMCOG to better understand migration trends in SE Michigan. It is this research that demonstrated the educational attainment and other characteristics of our immigrant population. The full report is available by contacting the UWSEM Research Department.
[6]
The latest estimates for 2006-07 show that 74 of Michigan’s 83 counties, including Livingston, Macomb and Monroe, experienced net domestic out-migration. |
I would like to voice my heartfelt appreciation to United Way for Southeastern Michigan for organizing the Women’s Initiative. This creative group has focused on improving early childhood literacy and is doing vital work in the lives of women, children, and families across Southeastern Michigan. 
Bank of America donated three very large cases of books to assist the United Way Women's Initiative in its efforts to promote early childhood literacy.
National Volunteer Week is about inspiring and encouraging people to seek ways to engage in their community. It’s about showing the nation how to meet challenges not as isolated individuals but as members of a true community, in which everyone works together. During National Volunteer Week individuals and communities can be at the center of social change as they discover their power to make a difference.
United Way is offering Leadership Givers an opportunity to have their voices heard while getting answers to important questions about our current and future work through a series of Town Hall meetings.
Ensure children are ready to enter school