No announcement yet.

Iranian Immigration

This is a sticky topic.
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iranian Immigration

    Immigration is the act of relocating to another country or region. An immigrant is a person who intends to stay long-term (often forever), in contrast to a casual visitor or traveler.

    Nationality laws usually cover immigration and citizenship.

    Why people immigrate

    People immigrate for the following reasons:

    economic (e.g., to escape poverty, to seek prosperity).

    altruism (e.g., coming to another country to work and send money back to
    their families, friends, etc.)

    professional (e.g., to find employment; to search for an occupation that is unavailable).

    education (e.g., to attend a learning institution of higher accreditation).
    persecution and oppression (e.g., to avoid death, war, bullying, genocide, and ethnic cleansing).

    political (e.g., to escape dictatorship or other unfair governments; disagrees over government).

    religious (e.g., they were not allowed to practice their own religion in some cases).

    natural disasters (e.g., the tsunami triggered by the 2004 Indian Ocean
    earthquake, and Hurricane Katrina).

    personal (e.g., opinion-based; love of another country).

    relationship (e.g. to be with family or a loved one).

    retirement (e.g., better weather; lower living costs).

    sentimental (e.g., the desire to settle in a country due to personal preference).

    criminal (e.g., to avoid criminal justice; to avoid arrest)

    Note that many of these refer primarily to the motive for emigration from the country of origin. It may be assumed that those who emigrate to escape a problem do so in the hope that they will not face the same problem in the destination to which they immigrate.

    The majority of immigration occurs for economic reasons of one sort or another, as wage rates and living expenses vary greatly between different countries. Poor individuals of less developed countries can have far higher standards of living in more developed countries than in their originating countries. Likewise, people who are not very well off but are financially independent and living in highly developed countries can live better in a country where living standards are lower. One example of the former is immigration to the United States from Mexico and Central American counties, while an example of the latter is immigration of retired British citizens to Spain. For the poor in undeveloped countries, the economic pressure to migrate can become so high that when legal means are restricted, people immigrate illegally.

    United Arab Emirates

  • #2
    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. Major business interests have been among the strongest advocates of liberalization of immigration laws since movement of personnel is essential to the creation of true multinational corporations.[citation needed]

    Another school of thought is offered by protectionists, who prefer closed labor markets or who see liberal immigration practices as a form of corporate welfare where business interests use inexpensive or free government immigration benefits, rather than corporate resources, to compensate employees. Also among those on the opposite side of the issue are nationalists who propose militarizing borders; and xenophobes who fear the presence of foreigners, though these views are not shared by all or even most immigration reductionists. Still others feel that the focus should be taken off of immigration control and placed on the importance of equal rights for immigrants to avoid what they believe to be corporate exploitation of immigrant poverty.

    Some countries, such as Japan, allow for relatively little immigration. However, even in countries that allow for relatively larger levels of immigration, there is disagreement over the numbers, policies, and implementation. Those who support more restricted immigration may argue that the current levels of immigration serve to depress wages and circumvent unionisation, and contribute to unsustainable levels of population growth. Others may disagree, perhaps arguing that overly restrictive immigration policies and practices do not address the economic demand for work emanating from wealthier countries, do not protect the security or cohesiveness of the country, and may endanger the lives of legitimate refugees from political or racial oppression.

    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 the effects of human population growth, while others argue that overpopulation and environmental degradation are global problems that should be addressed by other methods.

    Some theorists have argued that the policies of the recipient country aimed at integrating immigrants into the political, social, and economic environment are more important than the level of immigration itself.[1] This idea may explain the relative success of immigration in some countries, such as Canada.[citation needed]

    The right to freedom of movement of an individual within National borders is often contained within the constitution or in a countries human rights legislation but these rights are restricted to citizens and exclude all others. Some argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right and that Nationalism and immigration policies of State Governments violate the human right of freedom of movement that those same governments recognise within their own borders. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamental human rights are violated when Citizens are forbidden to leave their country. (Article 13). Though of course this only assists immigrants with the first part of their immigration process and does not assist with the second, of finding a new home. States systematically capitalise on this deficiency in full rights to freedom of movement to their advantage by permitting and actively attracting the educated, skilled, and wealthy with the right to move to their country as advantageous to their economy, while declining the rights of less privilaged individuals those same rights. These policies are in direct conflict with the principle of equal opportunities that are held as an inviable standard within the borders of democratic countries.

    Immigration polices that enable governments to selectively grant freedom of movement rights to targeted individuals result in a net economic gain for the host country and a net loss for the donor country, often exacerbating the environment and the global inequality of standards of living that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. An example of this competition for the skilled is active recruitment of health workers by first world countries from the third world. Examples of the underprivilaged trying to escape their environment to make a better life are numerous and well documented in the media as illegal immigration issues on the borders of europe, USA, and in most other countries.

    Barriers to immigration are not only legal, natural barriers to immigration are also very powerful. Immigrants when leaving their country also leave everything familiar, their family, friends, support network, and culture. They also need to liquidate their assets often at a large cost and incur the expense of moving. When they arrive in a new country this is often with many uncertainties including finding work, where to live, new laws, new cultural norms, language or accent issues, possible racism and other exclusionary behaviour towards them and their family. These forces are very powerful and counteract the assertion that, given free unimpeded immigration, populations would move en masse to other areas creating huge population bubbles and their associated strain on infrastructure and services.


    • #3
      Nativism (politics)

      In politics, Nativism is the fear that certain new immigrants will inject alien political, economic or cultural values and behaviors that threaten the prevailing norms and values. It usually involves restrictions on immigrants and sometimes includes policies that favor the interests of established inhabitants (i.e. "natives") over those of immigrants. The term has most often been used in the United States, but the concept is also relevant in other countries, especially ones which have experienced intensive immigration and associated rapid societal change.

      Anti-immigration may be used to describe individuals, groups or movements which oppose significant levels of immigration into their countries. Anti-immigrant may refer to those who are opposed to specific migrant groups, or as a pejorative for those who are anti-immigration. The terms often have negative connotations in a political context, particularly in the West, where politicians generally avoid giving explicit support to anti-immigration platforms or describing their policies as "anti-immigrant". Nevertheless, opinion polls demonstrate that many people across the developed world are uncomfortable with, if not outright opposed to, immigration. Similarly, many other people support immigration.


      • #4
        Right of asylum

        Right of asylum (or political asylum) is an ancient judicial notion, under which a person persecuted for his political opinions or religious beliefs in his country may be protected by another sovereign authority, either the Church as in medieval sanctuaries or a foreign country. Political asylum shouldn't be mistaken with modern refugee law, which rather deals with massive influx of population, while the right of asylum concerns individuals and is usually delivered in a case-to-case basis. However, the two may somehow overlap, since each refugee may demand to be accorded on an individual basis political asylum. This right has its roots in a longstanding Western tradition — although it was already recognized by the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Hebrews — : Descartes went to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France (followed by many English nobles during the English Civil War), etc. Each state offered protection to foreign persecuted persons. However, the development in the 20th century of bilateral extradition treaties has endangered the right of asylum, although international law considers that a state has no obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

        Many ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, recognized a religious "right of asylum", protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent. This principle was adopted by the early Christian church, and various rules developed for what the person had to do to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.

        In England, King Ethelbert made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about 600 A.D. By Norman times, there had come to be two kinds of sanctuary: All churches had the lower-level kind, but only the churches the king licensed had the broader version. There were at least twenty-two churches with charters for that kind of sanctuary, including Battle Abbey, Beverley (see image, right), Colchester, Durham, Hexham, Norwich, Ripon, Wells, Winchester Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and York Minster.

        Sometimes the criminal had to get to the church itself, to be protected, and might have to ring a certain bell there, or hold a certain ring or door-knocker, or sit on a certain chair ("frith-stool"), and some of these items survive at various churches. In other places, there was an area around the church or abbey, sometimes extending as much as a mile and a half, and there would be stone "sanctuary crosses" marking the boundary of the area; some of those still exist today, too. Thus it could became a race between the felon and mediaeval law officers to the nearest sanctuary boundary, and could make the serving of justice a difficult proposition indeed.

        Church sanctuaries were regulated by common law. An asylum seeker was to confess his sins, surrender his weapons, and be placed under the supervision of the head of the church or abbey where he had fled. He then had forty days to make one of two choices: surrender to secular authorities and stand trial for the crimes against him, or confess his guilt and be sent into exile (abjure the realm), by the shortest route and never return without the king's permission. Anyone who did come back could be executed by the law and/or excommunicated by the Church.

        If the suspect chose to confess his guilt and abjure, he would do so in a public ceremony, usually at the gate of the church grounds. He would surrender his worldly goods to the church, and landed property to the crown. The coroner, a medieval official, would then chose a port city from which the fugitive should leave England (though the fugitive himself sometimes had this privilege). The fugitive would set out barefooted and bareheaded, carrying a wooden cross-staff as a symbol of his protection under the church. Theoretically he would stay to the main highway, reach the port and take the first ship out of England. However in practice, the fugitive could get a safe distance away, ditch the cross-staff and take off and start a new life. But there was one problem: we can safely assume the friends and relatives of the victim knew of this ploy and would do everything in their power to make sure this did not happen; or indeed that the fugitive never reached his intended port of call, a victim of vigilante justice under the pretense of a fugitive who wandered too far off the main highway while trying to "escape".

        Knowing the grim options, some fugitives rejected both choices and opted for an escape from the asylum before the forty days were up. Others simply made no choice and did nothing; since it was illegal for the victims friends to break into an asylum, the church would deprive the fugitive of food and water until a choice was made.

        Henry VIII changed the rules of asylum, reducing to a short list the types of crimes which were allowed to claim asylum. The mediaeval system of asylum was finally abolished entirely by James I in 1623.

        During the Wars of the Roses, when the Yorkists or Lancastrians would suddenly get the upper hand by winning a battle, some adherents of the losing side might find themselves surrounded by adherents of the other side and not able to get back to their own side, so they would rush to sanctuary at the nearest church until it was safe to come out. A prime example is Queen Elizabeth Woodville, consort of Edward IV of England:

        In 1470, when the Lancastrians briefly restored Henry VI to the throne, Edward's queen was living in London with several young daughters. She moved with them into Westminster for sanctuary, living there in royal comfort until Edward was restored to the throne in 1471 and giving birth to their first son Edward during that time. When King Edward died in 1483, Elizabeth (who was highly unpopular with even the Yorkists and probably did need protection) took her five daughters and youngest son (Richard, Duke of York; Prince Edward had his own household by then) and again moved into sanctuary at Westminster. To be sure she had all the comforts of home, she brought so much furniture and so many chests that the workmen had to knock holes in some of the walls to get everything in fast enough to suit her.


        • #5
          Modern political asylum

          The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are obliged not to return or "refoul" refugees to the place where they would face persecution.

          Right of Asylum in France
          Political asylum is recognized in France (droit d'asile) by the 1958 Constitution. It has been restricted due to immigration policies with the December 30, 1993 law; the Debré law of April 24, 1997, the May 11, 1998 law and the December 10, 2003 law. Henceforth, critics, including the Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l'homme - LDH) have opposed themselves to this practical abandon of a longstanding European judicial tradition.

          Political asylum is also defined in France by the 1951 United Nations (UN) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified in 1952), the additional 1967 protocol; articles K1 and K2 of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty as well as the 1985 Schengen Agreement which defined the European policy on immigration. Finally, right of asylum is defined by article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

          On a purely judicial level, only four conditions may be opposed to the accordance of political asylum to someone who has proven being subject to persecution in his country: the presence of the alien represent a serious threat to public order; his request should be adressed by another sovereign state; his request has already been accepted in another state; the request is an abuse on the system of political asylum.

          The December 10, 2003 law has limited political asylum, giving two main restrictions:

          it invented the notion of "internal asylum": the request may be rejected if the foreigner may benefit from political asylum on a portion of the territory of his state
          the OFPRA (Office français pour la protection des réfugiés et apatrides - French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons [1]) now makes a list of allegedly "safe countries" which respect political rights and principles of liberty. In this case, the request may be automatically rejected if the demander comes from such a country.
          Thus, although the right of political asylum has been conserved in France in despite of the various anti-immigration laws, it has been severely restricted. Apart of the purely judicial level, the bureaucratic process is also used to slow down and ultimately reject what might be considered as valid requests.

          As a current example, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, tens of homeless Afghan refugees waiting to be accorded political asylum have been sleeping in a park in Paris near the Gare de l'Est train station. Although their demands haven't been yet accepted, their presence has been tolerated a while. However, since the end of 2005, NGOs notes that the police separates Afghans from other migrants during raids, and expell in charters those who have just arrived in Gare de l'Est by train and haven't had time to make the demand for asylum (a May 30, 2005 decree impose them to pay themselves a translator for helping them in official formalities)


          • #6
            Right of asylum in the United States
            Further information: Political asylum in the United States

            Asylum is offered as part of the United States' obligation under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The primary benefit for such an asylum applicant is the eligibility for a work permit (employment authorization) by simply filing an application for asylum with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). To the later dismay of a large number of these applicants, however, if their claims of persecution are not backed up by genuine evidence or proofs, the claims are eventually denied and they are placed in removal (deportation) proceedings in the Immigration Court. Since the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act voted in 1996, an applicant must apply for asylum within one year of entry or be barred from doing so unless there were certain exceptional circumstances. Some asylum cases have been also granted based on sexual orientation or gender, where cultural norms of the home country create and sustain conditions that make life unsafe or unbearable for the individual.

            As of 2004, recipients of political asylum faced a wait of approximately 14 years to receive permanent resident status after receiving their initial asylee status, because of an annual cap of 10,000 green cards for this class of individuals. However, in May 2005, under the terms of a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit, Ngwanyia v. Gonzales, brought on behalf of asylees against USCIS, the government agreed to make available an additional 31,000 green cards for asylees during the period ending on September 30, 2007. This is in addition to the 10,000 green cards allocated for each year until then. This should speed up the green card waiting time considerably for asylees. However, the issue is rendered somewhat moot, since the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of United States Public Law 109-13 (H.R. 1268 eliminated the cap on annual asylee green cards and currently an asylee who has continuously resided in the US for more than one year in that status has an immediately available visa number.


            • #7
              Exile can be a form of punishment, or a self-imposed leaving of ones homeland. It means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country) while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened by prison or death upon return.

              It is common to distinguish between internal exile, i.e., forced resettlement within the country of residence, and external exile, deportation outside the country of residence.

              Exile has a long tradition as a form of punishment. It has been known in Ancient Rome, where the Roman Senate had the power to exile individuals, entire families or countries (which amounted to a declaration of war).

              The towns of Ancient Greece, as well used exile both as a legal punishment and in Athens as a social punishment. In Athens during the time of democracy, the process of ostracism was devised in which one man who had basically made a nuisance of himself was banished from the city without prejudice for ten years, after which he was allowed to return. Among the more famous recipients of this punishment were Themistocles, Cimon and Aristides the Just. Further, Solon the lawgiver voluntarily exiled himself from Athens after drafting the city's constitution, to prevent being pressed to change it.

              In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a court of law could sentence a noble to exile (banicja). As long as the exile (banita) remained in the Commonwealth he had a price on his head and lost the priviliges and protection granted to him as a noble. Even killing a banita was not considered a crime although there was no reward for his death. Special forms of exile were accompanied by wyświecenie (a declaration of the sentence in churches) or by issuance of a separate declaration to townfolk and peasantry (all of them increased the knowledge of the exile and thus made his capture more likely).

              A more severe penalty than exile was infamy (infamia) - 'a loss of honor and respect' (utrata czci i wiary). A noble who has been infamed not only suffered from the same penalties as an exiled one, but in addition, an exiled noble (banita) who killed an infamed one (infamis) could expect his exile sentence to be revoked. In addition anybody killing an infamed noble could expect a monetary reward from the state (usually a starosta of given region), and sheltering or supporting an infamed noble were also punishable offences. Both exile and infamy could be revoked if the person had done a great service to the state. As the law system in the Commonwealth was fairly inefficient, many exiles actually stayed within the country, often employed and protected by some magnates. One of the most famous exiles of the Commonwealth was Samuel Łaszcz.


              • #8
                Common' ppl.. vote .


                • #9


                  • #10
                    Since 911, the U.S. has quickly revamped policies relating to security. When the idea of Muslim profiling was raised, it caused a significant stir around the world.


                    In the past, law enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have repeatedly investigated, stopped, questioned and in some cases searched individuals due to the colour of their skin, origin, gender, or sexual orientation.

                    Profiling is not something that sprung up after 911, dedicated to "protect" us. It violates civil liberties and generalises by appearance. This method has now increased in intensity, expanding its scope into religion and origin.

                    October 1, 2002, INS inspectors began land, sea and airport campaign allowing authorities to fingerprint, photograph and track visiting aliens who have traveled to Indonesia or Malaysia. Previously, INS inspectors were limited special screening visitors from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Syria.

                    Religious Profiling

                    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been busy keeping up with racial and religious profiling cases after 911. Two examples:

                    -- An Illinois National Guardsman and three private security personnel at O'Hare International Airport engaged in an unnecessary, unjustified, illegal and degrading search of a 22 year old United States citizen of Pakistani descent last November. Ms. Kaukab was identified and subjected to a humiliating search not because she posed any security threat, but only because her wearing of a hijab identified her as a Muslim. [1]

                    -- Five men, including Michael Dasrath and Edgardo Cureg, had their civil rights violated when they were forced off of Continental Flight #1218 on New Year's Eve, after a fellow passenger stated "[the] brown men are behaving suspiciously." Five civil rights lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the men. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is a co-plaintiff in three of the cases. The lawsuits were filed simultaneously in LA, MD, NJ and San Francisco. Four of the passengers are United States citizens and the fifth is a permanent legal resident.

                    The ACLU writes, "We bring these lawsuits because, as a nation, we long ago settled the issue of discrimination. We declared it to be wrong, immoral, and contrary to fundamental American values. We also made it illegal. We decided that every individual should be allowed to participate in every aspect of American society, including in the American economy; to eat at restaurants and stay in hotels; to travel on buses and airplanes." [2]

                    This treatment is not only racist, but it also violates the 4th Amendment which states that the authorities require probable cause prior to a search. Profiling also violates the 14th Amendment which ensures equal protection for everyone regardless of race.

                    Hate Crimes

                    Hate crimes are on the rise. The number of reported anti-Islamic crimes increased from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001. According to the FBI [3], the overall number of hate crimes increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,726 in 2001, signaling an increase of 20.6%.

                    Racially motivated bias represented the largest percentage of bias related incidents at 44.9%, followed by ethnic/national origin bias at 21.6%. Religious based bias rose to 18.8% in 2001. The FBI currently does not collect statistics on anti-Arab or anti-Sikh hate crimes. Organisers of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)[4] and the Arab American Institute (AAI) report there have been over 200 incidents of abuse directed against Arab-Americans since 911.

                    Does racial and religious profiling generalise?

                    Those who are considered terrorists are of various ethnic and religious backgrounds and operate all around the world. High profile attacks such as 911 have brought U.S. attention on terrorists in or from the Middle East, and the U.S.State Department has identified many groups with Arab/Muslim connections - this does not mean only Arabs and Muslims are capable of terrorism.

                    Racial profiling of Arabs would prove difficult because Arabs may have light skin and blue eyes to olive or dark skin and brown eyes. the U.S.has, at various times, classified Arab immigrants as African, Asian, European or white.

                    They have roots spread over several countries such as parts or all of Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Arabs are residing in Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The Arab world of the 7th to the 13th centuries joined the peoples of Spain and North Africa in the west with the peoples of the ancient lands of Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia in the east.

                    Past Events

                    Take into account how America handled Pearl Harbour immediately following the bombing. Racial profiling allowed the wrangling of 120,313 Japanese-Americans persons during that period.

                    According to the Japanese American National Museum's [5] fact sheet, Ellis Island along with several other immigration facilities was used as a detention and internment station for enemy aliens, under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It has been estimated that as many as 8,000 aliens spent time at Ellis Island between 1941-1945. Many of them were Japanese who, though living in the U.S. for decades, were forbidden to become citizens.

                    Even in Canada, Japanese-Canadians were given only 24 hours notice to vacate their homes, before being sent to special sites where they were detained until proper camps were prepared for them. They were categorised as "enemy aliens" and uprooted from their homes and businesses. Their property, which included cameras, radios and watches, was confiscated for what the government considered to be "protective measures". By November of 1942 nearly 22,000 people were displaced. This was all due to racial profiling. [6]

                    Consider also Operation Seek and Keep where Federal agents used racial profiling against Indians and Pakistanis during a high-profile investigation into immigrant smuggling in the 1990s.:

                    "The purpose of Operation Seek and Keep was to dismantle a criminal network that was smuggling Indian nationals into the United States for illegal employment, thus preserving jobs for authorized U.S. workers. From a law enforcement perspective, this case has been unique in that the entire smuggling organization has been broken. International and domestic smugglers have been apprehended, closing down the smuggling pipeline. Employers who placed orders for illegal aliens and the illegal aliens are still being identified and apprehended". [7]

                    This operation had taken in $220 million and smuggled 12,000 people, mostly from South Asia. The operation led to the indictments of more than 30 people.

                    Violation of Amendment rights, media demonisation, denial of service, and an improved chance of being attacked by an angry hate monger: these "privileges" of citizenship in North America have been enjoyed by African-Americans for over a hundred years, by the Japanese-Americans during World War II, and today by
                    Arab-Americans. Are you prepared to believe that it is for your own good? What happens when your skin colour, your God, or your headdress becomes the scapegoat of the day?


                    • #11
                      USA all the way.
                      born to be successful.


                      • #12
                        Abadan all the way. Har ki khasty citizenship e abadan begire biyad pishe khodam


                        • #13
                          Illegal immigration refers to a immigration of people across national borders —in violation of the immigration laws of the country of destination. In politics, the term implies a larger social problem with consequences in other areas of government, such as economy, social welfare, education, healthcare, and costs of government services.

                          For nationalists (also so-called "natives") or voters illegal immigration connotes a perceived threat to traditional culture as well as having societal and real costs that exceed the possible benefits.
                          There are various terms used to describe a person who either enters a country illegally, or who enters legally but subsequently violates the terms of their visa, permanent resident permit, or refugee permit. The status and rights of such individuals are a controversial topic of debate due to the economic vitality, job availability, and environmental costs of illegal immigration, as well as nationalism, racism, and moral concerns.

                          Due to the contentiousness of immigration issues, the selection of language to describe certain types of immigrants is a sensitive matter. Terms that refer to immigrants who choose to cross the border, or overstay a visa, and who do not have residency permits to live or work in the new country, include:

                          criminal alien
                          foreign national
                          illegal immigrant/ migrant/ alien
                          undocumented immigrant/ migrant/ alien / worker
                          undocumented resident
                          The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are commonly used phrases that refer to the illegality of the action of migration without legal authorization. The term "illegal alien" is conferred legitimacy by its official use in federal statutes. An illegal alien is a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa. Alternative terms include "illegal immigrant" and the terms "undocumented immigrant", "undocumented worker", and "paperless immigrant".

                          Those more supportive of the illegal immigrant community tend to replace illegal with undocumented, arguing that it is offensive to describe any human as illegal, whether or not their behavior is illegal. Undocumented worker is often used by supporters to refer to all undocumented individuals, including children and those who do not work. While alien is a term with a specific legal meaning, some argue that the term alien carries with it the negative connotations of extraterrestrials and other meanings of the word alien and is criticized by the pro-illegal immigrant community. George Lakoff, a University of California linguist and progressive strategist, has argued that "the terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing and dread" and should thus be avoided.Meanwhile, border patrol agents and those supporting stronger border controls tend to use illegal alien or the shorter illegals. Illegal immigrant is generally accepted as a neutral term suitable for use in mainstream media according to the AP Stylebook, although the National Association of Hispanic Journalists recommends undocumented immigrant.


                          • #14
                            The international migration of people is largely driven by persons who leave perceived relative poverty and poor living conditions in their own country, or political oppression, in hopes of acquiring a better life in a new country. Nations experiencing extremes of weather, high levels of unemployment, civil war or violent political conflict, will often experience periods of emigration. Poor conditions may be a result of nations that lag in stability, security, technological skills, organizational ability, lack resources, knowledge, or political will or cohesion to build a better educated work force or a better economy.

                            Some immigrate to fill jobs offered by agribusiness, construction, entertainment or other typical low skilled jobs but also high paid jobs. Some immigrate to fill a relative shortage of persons with either a particular skill or training. Many immigrants desire to secure free welfare, free education and free healthcare typically offered by many developed countries for their own citizens or are able to receive these when they arrive. Some corporations seek cheaper labor. Sometimes high unemployment in less-developed nations will cause people to immigrate to find work elsewhere, due to the general imbalance in the world of trade and employment opportunities. Some are trying to escape civil wars, repression, military servitude (such as conscription, or National Service), and sexism in their native country. Advocates of free immigration characterize nearly all migrants as legitimate, implying that the real costs and benefits imposed on the rest of the population are unimportant. Conversely, advocates of restrictions believe it is a given right of citizens to defend and maintain their traditional culture and standard of living without allowing unrestricted immigration. Immigrants are often divided into political migrants and economic migrants. Those who migrate for personal reasons are generally classed as economic migrants, even if living in the new country occasionally greatly reduces their earning potential.


                            • #15
                              Sia bia ye toure USA barat bezaram beri club mlubasho, bar o inchizaro behet neshoon bedam oonvaght khodet motevaje mishi ke US is the best.
                              born to be successful.