12/03/2017 US withdraws from UN migration compact Published on Dec 3, 2017 US Withdraws From Global UN Pact Aimed At Helping Migrants The pact isn't finalized yet, but it aims to provide help to migrants worldwide. The U.S. has announced it will be leaving the United Nations' Global Compact for Migration due to concerns it undermines U.S. sovereignty. The compact was formed in 2016 when all 193 members of the U.N. adopted the non-binding New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. The U.N. aims to produce a final compact on the subject by late 2018. The declaration says member states will work to protect migrants, attempt to integrate migrants, combat xenophobia and strengthen global cooperation on migration — among other issues. There are around 60 million displaced people worldwide. In a statement, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley said: "America is proud of our immigrant heritage. ... But our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone." The decision to pull out of the compact comes as a number of countries are preparing to meet in Mexico on Monday for a global conference on migration. According to a report in Foreign Policy, a group of national security advisers met with President Donald Trump last week to discuss sitting out the conference. Haley reportedly said the U.S. should continue to take part in the negotiation process. A spokesperson for the president of the U.N. General Assembly says the U.S. role in the compact process is critical and that migration's a global issue that needs global response. Source: https://www.newsy.com/stories/us-withdraws-from-un-s-global-compact-for-migration/ 美国驻联合国外交代表团宣布，总统川普政府已让美国退出联合国一项改善移民和难民问题的协定，表示这项协定“不符合”华府的相关政策。 美国驻联代表团在声明中表示：“代表团已告知联合国秘书长，将退出全球移民契约。”代表团指出，这项纽约宣言所涵盖的许多条款，“不符合”美国的移民和难民政策，以及川普政府的移民准则。这项契约是在前总统欧巴马政府时期于去年决议加入。 联合国大会的193个成员国于2016年9月无异议通过不具约束力的“纽约移民与难民宣言”，誓言维护难民权利，协助重新安置难民，以及确保难民取得教育与工作机会。联合国希望各国借由这项契约，在2018年达成国际共识。 美国驻联合国大使海理（Nikki Haley）表示，美国将持续“慷慨”支持全球移民和难民，但“美国的移民政策必须永远由美国人作决，也仅能由美国人自决”。 海理表示：“我们将决定如何最佳掌控与邻国的边界，以及决定能够获准进入我们国家的人。这项对全球推动的纽约宣言，和美国主权并不相符。” 在川普政府打出“美国优先”的各项政策领导下，美国已退出欧巴马政府时期对全球作出的众多承诺，包括巴黎气候协定等协议，近期更退出联合国教科文组织（UNESCO），称该组织具有“反以色列偏见”。 移民是中国20年来最大的热门话题，美国则是国人移民的首选。据联合国人口司的分析，到2013年为止，中国移民有月四分之一到了美国。 自2017年开始，川普政府试图扭转移民过多过滥的大潮，国人移民哪些人可能碰壁，哪些人依然可以一圆美国梦？ 最近VOA.com约请了评论员撰文分析美国移民问题的现状，以及移民政策改变的趋势。 目前国际社会出现了与移民有关的两大潜流： 潜流之一是：发展中国家大批人口希望移民高福利国家，让发达国家的纳税人供养。欧洲首当其冲，今年春夏，连靠近中国的孟加拉都有大批人口远程绕道北非和意大利，试图进入德国享受永久性高福利。 这种现象的出现，源自近年来欧洲国家敞开接收难民（其实大多为贫困移民）并承诺提供优厚福利，结果大批西亚、非洲人以“难民”身份进入欧洲。 欧洲各国虽然深感头痛，但一则受到意识形态的自我束缚，一时之间不能转变，二则与建制派各政党多年坚持“多元文化”政策有关。 只要欧洲不关闸，估计亚非移民会继续涌向富裕的欧洲，直到造成的麻烦逼近临界点。美国虽与欧亚大陆远隔重洋，但拉美移民通过美国与墨西哥防范疏漏的边境，源源不断地进入美国，总数远多于进入欧洲的移民。 潜流之二是，发达国家多数已陷入政府债务陷阱，入不敷出，难以为继，如不节省政府开支，这些国家将丧失未来。而发达国家为移民提供的福利，是他们债务负担日益沉重的原因之一。 以美国为例，过去几十年来每年有上百万人获得绿卡，但其中只有7%的人是靠技能由雇主协助获得绿卡，其余的93%多数是依亲移民；与此同时，大约一半移民家庭领取社会福利，也就是说，虽然很多依亲移民来美后找到各种低薪工作，但每1百个有依亲移民的家庭中，有54个家庭的生活还是得靠美国其他纳税人来补贴。 川普的“美国优先”政策反映出白宫应对这种国际潜流的态度，那就是，只有顶住上述两大潜流，改变奥巴马时代的“三个放手”政策，即放手移民、放手支出社会福利、放手举债，才能扭转美国经济所面临的潜在威胁。 以上是美国移民政策开始转变的大背景。虽然美国国会出于各议员选区的利益考虑，会设法修改川普提出的新移民政策改革方案，但美国政府收紧移民政策的动向大体上不会逆转。 华人移民知多少？ 根据华盛顿的移民政策研究所（Migration Policy Institute）发布的《在美华人移民》（Chinese Immigrants in the United States）报告： 45年前在美国的华人移民主要是老侨民，多来自于港台，总数大约是40万，此后的华人移民主要来自中国大陆； 1993年老布什总统为在美国的中国人提供“六四绿卡”之前，美国的华人移民大约是70万； 2000年，华人移民数字上升到120万； 2013年底，达202万，其中来自大陆的约为160万人。 这200多万华人移民当中54%已归化为美国公民，也就是说，这些移民中109万人拥有美国的选举权。 此外，截至2012年1月，在美国还有21万非法居留的中国公民 华人移民的结构与大陆社会结构一样，呈现明显的两极化： 移民当中知识精英与英语能力差的低收入阶层各占一半左右。 来自中国的25岁以上的合法移民里，47%拥有学士或更高的学位，这个比例比同期来美各国移民的平均文化程度要高近20个百分点，说明中国移民里知识精英比例很大，这与国内名校毕业生争相留美的普遍印象一致。 另一方面，62%的5岁以上的华人移民承认（5岁以下语言能力未形成，不在调查范围），自己的英语水平有限，这说明，有小部分在国内受过大学教育的移民因专业局限或年龄偏大等原因，在美国难以充分适应，而一半多一点的华人移民未上过大学。 在美华人移民的这种两极化结构也体现在收入方面：19%的华人移民处于贫困状态，比美国本土出生人口的贫困比例还高4个百分点，这些家庭的主要成员受教育少、英语差，是他们生活贫困的重要原因。 而另一方面，虽然华人移民中贫困户几乎占五分之一，但因为另一端的华人知识精英家庭的收入高，拉高了华人总体的收入平均数，结果华人移民家庭的平均收入达到57,000美元（2013年），比美国本土出生人口的家庭平均收入高7.5%。 与国内流传的“移民美国、享福一辈子”之类的“美国梦”相比，美国的华人移民小社会的现实，其实十分“骨感”。 中国人是如何移民美国的？ 移民美国主要有五种方式：工作绿卡、投资移民、依亲移民、政治庇护、特殊机会（如特赦非法移民、“六四绿卡”和杰出人才）。 国内一般只介绍前两种，很多国人也以为，能移民美国的，当然多半是精英中的成功者。但上述华人移民结构的两极化不免让读者们产生一个疑问，那些英语能力差的低收入阶层是如何移民美国的？答案是，申请依亲移民和政治庇护。 我分析了美国国土安全部公布的2009年移民年鉴的数据，2009年共有6.4万华人获得绿卡，其中通过雇主协助申请工作绿卡的占17.5%，仅1.1万人；配偶或未成年子女获得绿卡的占17.1%，而父母或兄弟姐妹获得绿卡的占36.1%，通过政治避难获得绿卡的则占28.7%，后两项加起来占近三分之二。 到了2013年，情况稍有变化，据上述《在美华人移民》报告披露，28%的华人移民获得了工作绿卡；配偶或未成年子女获得绿卡的占33%，父母或兄弟姐妹获得绿卡的占19%，另有约20%的华人通过申请政治庇护获得绿卡。 据该报告称，没有中国公民是以难民身份到达美国的，但中国人以旅游签证或通过非法入境进入美国后，申请政治庇护的比例高于任何国家，2013年财政年度美国共批准25,200人的政治庇护申请，其中8,500多人来自中国，占当年各国政治庇护获准者的34%。 将2013年的数据与2009年的相比，可以发现，获得工作绿卡的华人移民相对增加，但并未超过移民总数的30%；他们的配偶或未成年子女获得绿卡的比例上升明显；由于为非直系亲属申请移民需要等待年度配额，而申请人太多导致等候年限越来越长，于是非直系亲属获得移民绿卡的比例有所下降，但仍占近五分之一；政治庇护获准者在当年移民中的比例虽然减少了，但仍占五分之一。 美国新移民政策的调整方向 美国总统川普最近推出新的移民改革计划，仿效加拿大和澳大利亚等国的“择优计点”制度，以“精英优先”的新移民政策，取代目前的“广揽亲友”、以福利供养他们的移民政策。 其中关键是三条： 其一，终止除配偶和未成年子女之外的非直系亲属的“移民跟随链”； 其二，申请绿卡时按照英语水平、学历、年龄、技能等打分，高分者优先； 其三，新移民不得依赖美国纳税人养活。 很明显，这项新政策对在美国留学的中国学生里的佼佼者而言，是个利好消息。同时，由于今年揭发了若干印度公司长年包揽约40%的工作签证申请、导致大批工作签证被送往印度这一移民申请处理过程中的弊端，今后每年定额的8万工作签证里，中国留学生获准的机会将有所增加。 但是，中国每年来美留学的人数多达40到50万人，他们的绝大多数可能无法获得工作绿卡，而必须回国就业；据国内媒体报导，事实上目前占留美学生80%以上的人也有这样的思想准备。 对那些正排队等待获得绿卡的华人移民的父母或兄弟姐妹来说，川普的移民改革计划则是一个利坏消息，这扇门可能从此关闭，而且，即便是那些已经获准移民来美的非直系亲属，他们今后或许无法再享受美国的社会福利。 特别是那些在国内已经退休并领取养老金，准备在美国隐瞒收入和财产，骗取美国的穷人救济来享受晚年的人，他们的“美国梦”可能就此破碎。 JANUARY 28, 2015 SPOTLIGHT By Kate Hooper and Jeanne Batalova
(Photo: Matt Becker) Chinese migration to the United States is a history of two parts: a first wave from the 1850s to 1880s, halted by federal laws restricting Chinese immigration; and a second wave from the late 1970s to the present, following normalization of U.S.-Chinese relations and changes to U.S. and Chinese migration policies. Chinese immigrants are now the third-largest foreign-born group in the United States after Mexicans and Indians, numbering more than 2 million and comprising 5 percent of the overall immigrant population in 2013. From the 1850s, political unrest and economic pressures at home prompted thousands of Chinese immigrants to move to the western regions of the United States in search of temporary work. Many took low-skilled jobs as manual laborers in mining, construction, agriculture, manufacturing, or service industries. The 1890 decennial census reports a Chinese-born resident population exceeding 100,000; records show that nearly 300,000 Chinese immigrants entered the United States between 1850 and 1889, though historians estimate that as many as half ultimately returned to China. This wave of Chinese migration was accompanied by growing anti-Chinese sentiment and ethnic discrimination, culminating in the U.S. Congress passing the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. The law prohibited Chinese labor migration to the United States and barred Chinese residents from obtaining U.S. citizenship. Though the law was repealed in 1943, little Chinese immigration was permitted until the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 overhauled the U.S. immigration system and significantly expanded migration opportunities for non-European immigrants. Though Hong Kong nationals started moving to the United States in the late 1960s—by 1980, there were 85,000 Hong Kong-born immigrants in the United States, and today, immigrants from Hong Kong account for about one in 10 Chinese immigrants—large-scale immigration from mainland China only resumed after the People’s Republic of China opened its economy to global markets and lifted migration restrictions in 1978. The number of immigrants from mainland China in the United States nearly doubled from 299,000 in 1980 to 536,000 in 1990. Unlike the 19th century immigrants, post-1965 Chinese immigrants are predominantly skilled: China is now the principal source of foreign students in U.S. higher education, and the second-largest recipient of employer-sponsored temporary work visas, after India.
Sources: Data from U.S. Census Bureau 2006, 2010, and 2013 American Community Surveys (ACS), and 1980, 1990, and 2000 Decennial Census. Approximately one-quarter of all Chinese emigrants settle in the United States, with other popular destinations including Canada (896,000), South Korea (657,000), Japan (655,000), Australia (547,000), and Singapore (457,000), according to mid-2013 estimates by the United Nations Population Division. Click here to view an interactive map showing where migrants from China and other countries have settled worldwide. Around half of Chinese immigrants obtain lawful permanent residence in the United States (also known as receiving a “green card”) through family channels. The remainder qualifies through employment-based preferences, or asylee status. Compared to the overall foreign- and native-born populations, Chinese immigrants are more highly educated, more likely to be employed, and have a higher household income.
Using data from the U.S. Census Bureau (the most recent 2013 American Community Survey [ACS] as well as pooled 2009-13 ACS data), the Department of Homeland Security’s Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and the World Bank's annual remittance data, this Spotlight provides information on the Chinese immigrant population in the United States, focusing on its size, geographic distribution, and socioeconomic characteristics. Click on the bullet points below for more information:
Distribution by State and Key Cities Most immigrants from China have settled in California (31 percent), and New York (21 percent). The top four counties with Chinese immigrants in 2013 were Los Angeles County in California, Queens County in New York, Kings County in New York, and San Francisco County in California. Together, these four counties accounted for about 29 percent of the total mainland Chinese immigrant population in the United States
Click here for an interactive map that shows the geographic distribution of immigrants by state and county. Select China from the dropdown menu to see which states and counties have the most Chinese immigrants. In the 2009-13 period, the U.S. cities with the largest number of Chinese immigrants were the greater New York City, San Francisco, and Los Angeles metropolitan areas. These three metropolitan areas accounted for about 46 percent of Chinese immigrants in the United States.
Click here for an interactive map that highlights the metropolitan areas with the highest concentrations of immigrants. Select China from the dropdown menu to see which metropolitan areas have the most Chinese immigrants. Chinese immigrants were less likely to be proficient in English and speak English at home than the overall U.S. foreign-born population. In 2013, about 62 percent of Chinese immigrants (ages 5 and over) reported limited English proficiency, compared to 50 percent of the total foreign-born population. Approximately 10 percent of Chinese immigrants spoke only English at home, versus 16 percent of all immigrants. Note: Limited English proficiency refers to those who indicated on the ACS questionnaire that they spoke English less than “very well.” Educational and Professional Attainment
Chinese immigrants tend to have much higher educational attainment compared to the overall foreign- and native-born populations. In 2013, 47 percent of Chinese immigrants (ages 25 and over) had a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to 28 percent of the total immigrant population and 30 percent of the native-born population. The Chinese immigrant population was older than both the overall foreign- and native-born populations. The median age of Chinese immigrants was 45 years—compared to 43 for the foreign-born population overall and 36 for the native-born population. In 2013, 76 percent of Chinese immigrants were of working age (18 to 64), 17 percent were ages 65 and over, and 7 percent were under 18. In comparison, 80 percent of all foreign born in the United States were of working age, 14 percent were 65 and over, and 6 percent were under 18. Meanwhile, 60 percent of the native-born population was of working age, 14 percent was 65 and over, and 26 percent was under 18. Chinese immigrants participated in the labor force at a slightly lower rate than the overall immigrant and native-born populations. In 2013, about 59 percent of Chinese immigrants ages 16 and over were in the civilian labor force, compared to 67 percent and 63 percent of the total foreign- and native-born populations, respectively. Chinese immigrants were much more likely to be employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (51 percent) compared to the other two groups.
Chinese immigrants had much higher incomes compared to the total foreign- and native-born populations. In 2013, the median income of households headed by a Chinese immigrant was $57,000, compared to $48,000 and $53,000 for overall immigrant and native-born households, respectively. In 2013, 19 percent of Chinese immigrants lived in poverty, a rate similar to all immigrants but slightly higher than the 15 percent posted by the native-born population. Immigration Pathways and Naturalization In 2013, 54 percent of the approximately 2.01 million Chinese immigrants residing in the United States were naturalized U.S. citizens, compared with 47 percent of the overall foreign-born population. Chinese immigrants are more likely to have entered the United States more recently than the overall immigrant population, as Figure 5 shows. More than half of Chinese immigrants (53 percent) arrived prior to 2000, followed by 30 percent who arrived between 2000 and 2009, and 17 percent in 2010 or later.
In 2013, Chinese immigrants were more likely to become lawful permanent residents (LPRs) via employment pathways (28 percent) than the overall LPR population (16 percent). Chinese immigrants were less likely than the overall LPR population to gain green cards as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (33 percent, compared with 44 percent), or through family-sponsored preferences (19 percent, compared with 21 percent). Although no Chinese nationals arrive in the United States as refugees, China is the leading country of U.S. asylum applicants—34 percent of the 25,200 individuals granted asylum in fiscal year (FY) 2013 were from China. Also, Chinese immigrants were more likely to obtain a green card adjusting from an asylee status (19 percent) compared to the total LPR population (12 percent).
As of January 2012, there were approximately 210,000 unauthorized Chinese nationals living in the United States, comprising nearly 2 percent of the 11.4 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States. Around 12,000 Chinese youth were eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program as of March 31, 2014, according to MPI estimates, yet very few applied for DACA in the first two years of the program. Advocates suggest the low application rate in the Chinese immigrant community may stem from factors including limited outreach, cultural inhibitions, fear of disclosing their unauthorized status, and language barriers. Chinese immigrants were much less likely to be uninsured (18 percent) compared to the overall immigrant population (32 percent), but more likely to be uninsured than the native-born population (12 percent). Chinese immigrants were more likely to have private health insurance than the total foreign-born population, though their insurance levels were still below those of the native-born population.
The Chinese diaspora population in the United States is comprised of approximately 4.4 million individuals who were either born in the People’s Republic of China, Hong Kong, Macau, or Taiwan, or reported Chinese or Taiwanese ancestry or race, according to tabulations from the U.S. Census Bureau pooled 2009-13 ACS. Global remittances sent to China via formal channels equaled nearly $60 billion in 2013, though this represented less than 1 percent of the country’s gross domestic product (GDP), according to data from the World Bank. Remittances sent to China have seen a 67-fold increase since 1995.
Visit the Data Hub’s collection of interactive remittances tools, which track remittances by inflow and outflow, between countries, and over time. Sources Baker, Bryan and Nancy Rytina. 2013. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012. Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics. Available Online. Batalova, Jeanne, Sarah Hooker, and Randy Capps with James D. Bachmeier. 2014. DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available Online. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Office of Immigration Statistics. 2014. 2013 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Washington, DC: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. Available Online. Gibson, Campbell J. and Emily Lennon. 1999. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Population of the United States: 1850-1990. Working Paper No. 29, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, February 1999. Available Online. Hutchinson, Edward P. Legislative History of American Immigration Policy 1798-1965. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981. Institute of International Education. 2014. Open Doors 2014. Washington, DC: Institute of International Education. Martin, Daniel C., and James E. Yankay. 2014. Refugees and Asylees: 2013. Annual Flow Report, August 2014. Washington, DC: DHS Office of Immigration Statistics. Available Online. Semple, Kirk. 2013. Advocates Struggle to Reach Immigrants Eligible for Deferred Action. New York Times, December 8, 2013. Available Online. United Nations Population Division. 2013. International migrant stock by destination and origin. Available Online. U.S. Census Bureau. 2013. 2013 American Community Survey. American FactFinder. Available Online. ---. 2010. 2008-2012 ACS. Accessed from Steven Ruggles, J. Trent Alexander, Katie Genadek, Ronald Goeken, Matthew B. Schroeder, and Matthew Sobek. Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2010. Available Online. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Citizenship Through Naturalization. Last updated January 22, 2013. Available Online. U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. Nonimmigrant Visa Issuances by Visa Class and by Nationality, FY2013. Available Online. World Bank Prospects Group. 2013. Annual Remittances Data, October 2014 update. Available Online. Yang, Philip Q. 2000. The “Sojourner Hypothesis” Revisited. Diaspora: A Journal of Transnational Studies 9(2): 235-58. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT THIS ARTICLE, CONTACT US AT Source@MigrationPolicy.org |
OPINIONS >
