CLIP ON EMULE p2p system with name : Let us become what we are!
Immigration from areas of high incidence is thought to have fueled the resurgence of tuberculosis (TB), chagas, hepatitis, and leprosy in areas of low incidence. To reduce the risk of diseases in low-incidence areas, the main countermeasure has been the screening of immigrants on arrival.[40] According to CDC, TB cases among foreign-born individuals remain disproportionately high, at nearly nine times the rate of U.S.-born persons. In 2003, nearly 26 percent of foreign-born TB patients in the United States were from Mexico. Another third of the foreign-born cases were among those from the Philippines, Vietnam, India and China, the CDC report said.
The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.
Economic needs-driven immigration is opposed by labor-market protectionists, often arguing from economic nationalism. The core of their arguments is that a nation's jobs are the 'property' of that nation, and that allowing foreigners to take them is equivalent to a loss of that property. They may also criticise immigration of this type as a form of corporate welfare, where business is indirectly subsidised by government expenditure to promote the immigration and the assimilation of the immigrants.[46] A more common criticism is that the immigrant employees are almost always paid less than a non-immigrant worker in the same job, and that the migration depresses wages, especially as migrants are usually not unionised. Other groups feel that the focus should be not on migration control, but on equal rights for the migrants, to avoid their exploitation.
Concerns regarding the cost of immigration, such as the provision of schools for the additional population, are prominent in the United States and Canada. See Economic impact of immigration to Canada. Although much current research has pointed to the fact that the U.S. and Canada are actually dependent on migrant labor, see The Center for U.S. - Mexico Immigration Analysis.
Scholars have come to various opinions about the economic effects of immigration. Those who find that immigrants produce a negative effect on the US economy often focus on the difference between taxes paid and government services received and wage-lowering effects among low-skilled native workers. The economic impact of immigration differs by immigration category. For example, according to Statistics Canada, there are significant differences in the labour force participation rates. 2001 labour statistics by immigration category:
In 2001, the overall unemployment rate of immigrants was 37%. Combined with the overall participation rate of 70%, this means that only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15 years and higher were working in 2001 (i.e., a majority of 56% were not working). The 44% employment rate was significantly lower than the average 2001 employment rate in Canada of 61%.[51] Immigrant unemployment levels do not reduce to the Canadian average during at least the first 10 years of residing in Canada.[52]
Employment statistics also bring into question whether skilled worker immigrants, with a 34% unemployment rate,[49] are successfully meeting existing labour market needs in Canada, and Statistics Canada explains that although progress was made in reducing poverty with pre-1990 residents of Canada (as measured by the low-income rate), this progress was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net widening of the income inequality gap in Canada during the 1990s.[53] And a more recent 2007 Statistics Canada study shows that the income profile of recent immigrants deteriorated by yet another significant amount from 2000 to 2004.[54] Another Statistics Canada study also shows that immigration reduces overall wage levels in Canada.[
In the United States, concerned parties argue that an influx of immigrants, especially less educated immigrants, is responsible for an increase in theft and violent crime in the areas they migrate to. This concern is prevalent in many strata of society, from the common man (a 2000 survey of Americans found 73 percent felt immigrants were dangerous because they brought crime[56]) to the highest levels of the US Government (as clearly stated in a speech by George W. Bush on May 15, 2006[57]). As Professor Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing have noted, this impression is reinforced and magnified by television shows and movies such as The Godfather, The Sopranos, Scarface, Rush Hour and West Side Story that strongly correlate ethnic immigrant groups with organized crime.[58]
Statistics, however, do not consistently support this argument. While one 2005 report stated that 21% of all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, other reports released in 2008 showed that immigrants were anywhere from three to five times less likely to commit crimes than native-born American residents.[59]
Some groups argue that immigration debate increases one type of crime: violent crimes by United States-born citizens against immigrants. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as debate on the issue of immigration increased and language became more incendiary from 2003 to 2006, hate crimes against Latinos rose by 35%[60] The anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform has argued that these statistics are flawed, stating that violence by non-Latino gangs against the Latino organized criminal element are being mistaken for racial violence.[
Non-economic opposition to immigration is closely associated with nationalism, in Europe a 'nationalist party' is almost a synonym for 'anti-immigration party'.[citation needed] Although traditionally, economic arguments dominated the United States immigration debate, it has become more polarized in recent years, as evidenced by demands to deploy the military to the US borders.[citation needed] The emergence of private border militias in the United States has attracted much media attention.[citation needed] Nevertheless, the southern border of the European Union in the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla has Spanish military and paramilitary Guardia Civil patrols while the US-Mexico is still patrolled by civilian police forces.[citation needed]
Like their Korean neighbors, Japanese tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group or race.[62] A shared language and culture also are viewed as important elements in Japanese identity. The idea of multiracial or multiethnic nations, like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, or the United States, strikes many Japanese as odd or even contradictory. Both Japan and South Korea are among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations.[63] Those who were identified as different might be considered "polluted" —- the category applied historically to the outcasts of Japan, particularly the hisabetsu buraku, "discriminated communities," often called burakumin, a term some find offensive —- and thus not suitable as marriage partners or employees.[64] Men or women of mixed ancestry, those with family histories of certain diseases, and foreigners, and members of minority groups faced discrimination in a variety of forms. In 2005, a United Nations report expressed concerns about racism in Japan and that government recognition of the depth of the problem was not total.[65][66] The author of the report, Doudou Dične (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights), concluded after a nine-day investigation that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups: national minorities, Latin American immigrants of Japanese descent, mainly Japanese Brazilians, and foreigners from "poor" countries.[67]
The primary argument of some nationalist opponents in Europe and Asia is that immigrants simply do not belong in a nation-state which is by definition intended for another ethnic group.[citation needed] France, therefore, is for the French, Germany is for the Germans, Japan is for the Japanese, and so on. Immigration is seen as altering the ethnic and cultural composition of the national population, and consequently the national character.[citation needed] From a nationalist perspective, high-volume immigration potentially distorts or dilutes their national culture more than is desired or even necessary.[citation needed] Germany, for example, was indeed intended as a state for Germans: the state's policy of mass immigration was not foreseen by the 19th-century nationalist movements.[citation needed] Immigration has forced Germany and other western European states to re-examine their national identity: part of the population is not prepared to redefine it to include immigrants.[citation needed] It is this type of opposition to immigration which generated support for anti-immigration parties such as Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the British National Party in Britain, the Lega Nord in Italy, the Front National in France, and the Lijst Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands.[citation needed]
One of the responses of nation-states to mass immigration is to promote the cultural assimilation of immigrants into the national community, and their integration into the political, social, and economic structures.[citation needed] In the United States, cultural assimilation is traditionally seen as a process taking place among minorities themselves, the 'melting pot'.[citation needed] In Europe, where nation-states have a tradition of national unification by cultural and linguistic policies, variants of these policies have been proposed to accelerate the assimilation of immigrants.[citation needed] The introduction of citizenship tests for immigrants is the most visible form of state-promoted assimilation.[citation needed] The test usually include some form of language exam, and some countries have reintroduced forms of language prohibition
CLIP ON EMULE p2p system with name : Let us become what we are!
Immigration from areas of high incidence is thought to have fueled the r...all »CLIP ON EMULE p2p system with name : Let us become what we are!
Immigration from areas of high incidence is thought to have fueled the resurgence of tuberculosis (TB), chagas, hepatitis, and leprosy in areas of low incidence. To reduce the risk of diseases in low-incidence areas, the main countermeasure has been the screening of immigrants on arrival.[40] According to CDC, TB cases among foreign-born individuals remain disproportionately high, at nearly nine times the rate of U.S.-born persons. In 2003, nearly 26 percent of foreign-born TB patients in the United States were from Mexico. Another third of the foreign-born cases were among those from the Philippines, Vietnam, India and China, the CDC report said.
The history of HIV/AIDS in the United States began in about 1969, when HIV likely entered the United States through a single infected immigrant from Haiti.
Economic needs-driven immigration is opposed by labor-market protectionists, often arguing from economic nationalism. The core of their arguments is that a nation's jobs are the 'property' of that nation, and that allowing foreigners to take them is equivalent to a loss of that property. They may also criticise immigration of this type as a form of corporate welfare, where business is indirectly subsidised by government expenditure to promote the immigration and the assimilation of the immigrants.[46] A more common criticism is that the immigrant employees are almost always paid less than a non-immigrant worker in the same job, and that the migration depresses wages, especially as migrants are usually not unionised. Other groups feel that the focus should be not on migration control, but on equal rights for the migrants, to avoid their exploitation.
Concerns regarding the cost of immigration, such as the provision of schools for the additional population, are prominent in the United States and Canada. See Economic impact of immigration to Canada. Although much current research has pointed to the fact that the U.S. and Canada are actually dependent on migrant labor, see The Center for U.S. - Mexico Immigration Analysis.
Scholars have come to various opinions about the economic effects of immigration. Those who find that immigrants produce a negative effect on the US economy often focus on the difference between taxes paid and government services received and wage-lowering effects among low-skilled native workers. The economic impact of immigration differs by immigration category. For example, according to Statistics Canada, there are significant differences in the labour force participation rates. 2001 labour statistics by immigration category:
In 2001, the overall unemployment rate of immigrants was 37%. Combined with the overall participation rate of 70%, this means that only 44% of landed immigrants aged 15 years and higher were working in 2001 (i.e., a majority of 56% were not working). The 44% employment rate was significantly lower than the average 2001 employment rate in Canada of 61%.[51] Immigrant unemployment levels do not reduce to the Canadian average during at least the first 10 years of residing in Canada.[52]
Employment statistics also bring into question whether skilled worker immigrants, with a 34% unemployment rate,[49] are successfully meeting existing labour market needs in Canada, and Statistics Canada explains that although progress was made in reducing poverty with pre-1990 residents of Canada (as measured by the low-income rate), this progress was more than offset by the income profile of new immigrants, resulting in a net widening of the income inequality gap in Canada during the 1990s.[53] And a more recent 2007 Statistics Canada study shows that the income profile of recent immigrants deteriorated by yet another significant amount from 2000 to 2004.[54] Another Statistics Canada study also shows that immigration reduces overall wage levels in Canada.[
In the United States, concerned parties argue that an influx of immigrants, especially less educated immigrants, is responsible for an increase in theft and violent crime in the areas they migrate to. This concern is prevalent in many strata of society, from the common man (a 2000 survey of Americans found 73 percent felt immigrants were dangerous because they brought crime[56]) to the highest levels of the US Government (as clearly stated in a speech by George W. Bush on May 15, 2006[57]). As Professor Ruben Rumbaut and Walter Ewing have noted, this impression is reinforced and magnified by television shows and movies such as The Godfather, The Sopranos, Scarface, Rush Hour and West Side Story that strongly correlate ethnic immigrant groups with organized crime.[58]
Statistics, however, do not consistently support this argument. While one 2005 report stated that 21% of all crimes are committed by illegal immigrants, other reports released in 2008 showed that immigrants were anywhere from three to five times less likely to commit crimes than native-born American residents.[59]
Some groups argue that immigration debate increases one type of crime: violent crimes by United States-born citizens against immigrants. According to a report by the Southern Poverty Law Center, as debate on the issue of immigration increased and language became more incendiary from 2003 to 2006, hate crimes against Latinos rose by 35%[60] The anti-immigration group Federation for American Immigration Reform has argued that these statistics are flawed, stating that violence by non-Latino gangs against the Latino organized criminal element are being mistaken for racial violence.[
Non-economic opposition to immigration is closely associated with nationalism, in Europe a 'nationalist party' is almost a synonym for 'anti-immigration party'.[citation needed] Although traditionally, economic arguments dominated the United States immigration debate, it has become more polarized in recent years, as evidenced by demands to deploy the military to the US borders.[citation needed] The emergence of private border militias in the United States has attracted much media attention.[citation needed] Nevertheless, the southern border of the European Union in the Spanish exclaves of Ceuta and Melilla has Spanish military and paramilitary Guardia Civil patrols while the US-Mexico is still patrolled by civilian police forces.[citation needed]
Like their Korean neighbors, Japanese tend to equate nationality or citizenship with membership in a single, homogeneous ethnic group or race.[62] A shared language and culture also are viewed as important elements in Japanese identity. The idea of multiracial or multiethnic nations, like Australia, Brazil, Canada, Netherlands, or the United States, strikes many Japanese as odd or even contradictory. Both Japan and South Korea are among the world's most ethnically homogeneous nations.[63] Those who were identified as different might be considered "polluted" —- the category applied historically to the outcasts of Japan, particularly the hisabetsu buraku, "discriminated communities," often called burakumin, a term some find offensive —- and thus not suitable as marriage partners or employees.[64] Men or women of mixed ancestry, those with family histories of certain diseases, and foreigners, and members of minority groups faced discrimination in a variety of forms. In 2005, a United Nations report expressed concerns about racism in Japan and that government recognition of the depth of the problem was not total.[65][66] The author of the report, Doudou Dične (Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights), concluded after a nine-day investigation that racial discrimination and xenophobia in Japan primarily affects three groups: national minorities, Latin American immigrants of Japanese descent, mainly Japanese Brazilians, and foreigners from "poor" countries.[67]
The primary argument of some nationalist opponents in Europe and Asia is that immigrants simply do not belong in a nation-state which is by definition intended for another ethnic group.[citation needed] France, therefore, is for the French, Germany is for the Germans, Japan is for the Japanese, and so on. Immigration is seen as altering the ethnic and cultural composition of the national population, and consequently the national character.[citation needed] From a nationalist perspective, high-volume immigration potentially distorts or dilutes their national culture more than is desired or even necessary.[citation needed] Germany, for example, was indeed intended as a state for Germans: the state's policy of mass immigration was not foreseen by the 19th-century nationalist movements.[citation needed] Immigration has forced Germany and other western European states to re-examine their national identity: part of the population is not prepared to redefine it to include immigrants.[citation needed] It is this type of opposition to immigration which generated support for anti-immigration parties such as Vlaams Belang in Belgium, the British National Party in Britain, the Lega Nord in Italy, the Front National in France, and the Lijst Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands.[citation needed]
One of the responses of nation-states to mass immigration is to promote the cultural assimilation of immigrants into the national community, and their integration into the political, social, and economic structures.[citation needed] In the United States, cultural assimilation is traditionally seen as a process taking place among minorities themselves, the 'melting pot'.[citation needed] In Europe, where nation-states have a tradition of national unification by cultural and linguistic policies, variants of these policies have been proposed to accelerate the assimilation of immigrants.[citation needed] The introduction of citizenship tests for immigrants is the most visible form of state-promoted assimilation.[citation needed] The test usually include some form of language exam, and some countries have reintroduced forms of language prohibition
«
Download is starting. Save file to your computer. If the download does not start automatically, right-click this link and choose "Save As". How to get videos onto the iPod or PSP.
