Blood and fears	Who goes where?
	Gildas Simon, University of Poitiers, France
Cuban immigrants in the United States wait for their papers to be regularized. Few states, including some of the major receiving countries, have ratified the international conventions dealing with the treatment of immigrants     Blood and fears One major problem facing long-term immigrants is that of acquiring the nationality of the country to which they emigrate and all the rights deriving from that status. When governments decide whether or not to grant such people citizenship, they apply two doctrines which have their origin in Roman law, one based on place of birth, the other on descent. The first, known by its Latin name jus soli (literally "right of the soil") is applied by countries that are traditionally favourable to immigration. They regard all people born on their territory as citizens, whatever their parents' nationality. This model, of which Sweden, the United States, Canada and France are examples, is based on the conviction that cultural diversity is not an obstacle to integration. The second model, which goes by the name of jus sanguinis, or "blood right", grants nationality in accordance with the principle of descent. A child of immigrants who is born in the country where his or her parents live does not enjoy the new nationality but has to take their nationality. This principle binds the family to its country of origin and seeks to maintain this link from one generation to the next. The blood right principle operates in Japan, for example, and is also applied by countries which have traditionally sent large numbers of people abroad, wish to avoid a sharp drop in population and, in some cases, want to make it easier for people to return. The two principles are not mutually exclusive. For example, a country trying to restrict the inflow of immigrants will endeavour to set aside jus soli in favour of jus sanguinis and thus deter immigrants from gaining the impression that, on arriving in the country, they are automatically guaranteed nationality both for themselves and for their descendants. Obviously care has to be taken when such changes in direction are made, because enjoyment of a country's nationality clearly offers political, economic and social advantages, and attempts to restrict them may trigger protest. Afghan refugees arrive in Moscow. When his boat landed in the new world. He saw a crowd of unknown people on the bank. And great stars in the sky. They asked him what he was carrying. He unfastened his bundle and held out a clod of earth. They snatched it from his hands and it spilled. He wept. It's my homeland, he said. And all night long he gathered it up. To the last crumb, the last grain. Ante Popovski (born 1930, Republic of Macedonia).	A world-wide overview of immigration-host countries, numbers, ways and means, goals and traditions The very word "hosting" is ambiguous when applied to immigrants, so many and varied are the ways of devising, practising and approaching the operation it purports to describe. A very wide range of situations and behaviour exists in the space between the formal opening of borders to foreigners and offering them a warm welcome, between official speeches and the attitude of the bureaucrat at the guichet, and between cultures and eras. How should we categorize the different "host countries", in the broadest sense of the term-that is, countries that receive immigrants? The most obvious yardstick is numbers. This means either the annual number of legal entries into a country or the number of immigrants who have been there for some time. By this criterion, two countries stand out. First is the United States (720,000 entries in 1995, but 1.8 million in 1991, including 1.1 million whose status was regularized by a law passed in 1986). Germany comes a close second (800,000 in 1995, 1.2 million in 1991), and easily leads the European field where immigration is concerned. Next comes a group of countries (Canada, Japan, the United Kingdom, France, Australia and Israel), which take in an average of between 100,000 and 200,000 legal immigrants every year. In terms of the number of resident aliens, the United States is again top of the list, with 24.6 million foreigners living in the country in 1996 (9.3% of the total population), just ahead of India (8.6 million in 1990, or 1% of its population), Pakistan (7.2 million or 6%) and Germany (7.1 million, 8.8%). Another group is home to between two and four million immigrants-Australia (3.7 million in 1991, 22.3% of its population), Canada (4.3 million in 1991, 16.1%), France (3.6 million in 1990, 6.3%), the United Kingdom (2 million in 1995, 3.4%), Saudi Arabia (4 million, 25.7% in 1990), Côte d'Ivoire (3.4 million, 29.7%) and Hong Kong (2.2 million, 39.9%). These percentages already show the wide variation in the proportion of foreigners to the local population. In some other countries, this proportion is very high. Top of the list are sparsely-populated, oil-rich countries where immigrants are actually in the majority-Qatar (63.7%), Kuwait (71.6%) and the United Arab Emirates (90.1% in 1990). The figures for Saudi Arabia, Bahrein, Oman, Brunei and Libya ranged from 25% to 35% in 1990. A second group of countries with a high proportion of immigrants consists of very small countries, mainly Caribbean or Pacific islands or small states which often have some special status, such as being a tax haven. They include Luxembourg (37.8% foreigners), Macao (44.7%) and Monaco (67%). A third category comprises very large but still sparsely populated "new countries", such as Canada and Australia (16% to 22%). Other possible members of this category are the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States. A fourth group is made up of Western industrial democracies where the proportion of immigrants (much lower than generally supposed) is between three and 10%. This includes most member states of the European Union (those mentioned above plus Austria and Belgium: 9%, and Sweden and the Netherlands: 5%). The United States could also be added to this group. Switzerland, with 18.9% in 1995, stands out here, but its geographical position, history and fiscal policy perhaps suggest that it should belong to the second group. The existence of a tradition of receiving immigrants creates another set of categories, with important implications for demography (age structure, fertility rate), administrative and legal status and economic, social and cultural integration. The list includes countries with both long-established and more recent pro-immigration policies, but also those states which have changed their policies in the past few years. In the developed world, only a few countries have had pro-immigration policies for more than a century now. They are Germany, France, Switzerland and the so-called "new" countries "settled" by Europeans-countries such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States. But some countries in the South have well-established pro-immigration policies too. Merchants and workers from India have long been received by the Sultanate of Oman, and people of the Sahel by Côte d'Ivoire. For the last century or more all Asian countries have taken in Chinese and Indian immigrants. On the other hand, there are the new host countries which have in many cases been surprised and alarmed to find themselves a magnet for immigration. Spain, Greece and Italy, as well as the oil states of the Gulf, the Republic of Korea and Thailand are undergoing this new experience, which partly explains why they find it hard to decide where they stand on this issue. "Old" immigration countries which are today grappling with serious development problems have virtually shut the door on immigrants. They include Brazil, which has taken in several million from all over the world, and Argentina. Both of these countries even became, in the 1980s, notable sources of emigration to the United States or Europe. Why do countries receive immigrants? This is one of the key questions which determines the attitude of governments and one of the things dividing them-at least in theory, since daily reality is much less clear cut. Advertising immigration policies is not really a government priority, and in the major immigration countries the job of receiving immigrants takes many different forms and involves complex and sometimes contradictory alliances. However, three kinds of countries can be identified-those which mainly see immigrants as an extra or major source of labour, those which openly or implicitly allow immigrants to stay permanently, and those which take in immigrants for mainly humanitarian reasons. The first group is easily the biggest: South Africa, the Gulf states, Gabon, the emerging economies of Asia and Japan until the recent financial crisis and most of Western Europe until the first oil crisis, in 1973-75. The second group contains the "old" immigration countries listed earlier, plus Israel, for which the arrival of immigrants (in the sense understood by the Israelis) or the return of people who had left is of the greatest strategic importance. In this group, in contrast to the first one, the place of immigrants in the society, their legal status and their acquisition of nationality are issues of central importance and have given rise to extensive legislation. The countries acting for humanitarian reasons have agreed to open their borders to large numbers of refugees who have been forced to leave their own country either by a natural disaster or more often because of war. More than a million Mozambicans caught up in a civil war and plagued with famine found refuge in neighbouring Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, between 1975 and 1992. There are still five million Afghans in Pakistan and Iran. And despite the present closing of most borders, many countries have fulfilled this humanitarian role one way or another at some time in their recent history. A cold reception As for the yardstick of quality, the handling of immigration and treatment of immigrants are extremely sensitive matters. They can be measured against the words of the Bible: "I was a stranger and you took me in." These words ring in the moral conscience of many countries both North and South, but they do not seem to be really understood and put into practice. Few states, including some of the major receiving countries, have ratified the international conventions dealing with the treatment of immigrants. Without knowing the exact legal situation of immigrants in every country, we can still draw a rough picture of how things are. A first group contains those countries which say openly that they welcome immigrants and back up this commitment with a sizeable array of laws and other measures to facilitate the long-term or permanent settlement of new arrivals. These are Australia, Canada and Sweden. In some ways, Israel belongs to this group too, but it chooses immigrants on a religious or cultural basis. A second group consists of those countries which in practice receive immigrants but where the reception is tempered by frequent displays of mistrust or discrimination, especially towards the most recent arrivals. This happens in most immigration countries in the West. Their geographical position, and very often their colonial past, the attraction of their economic and cultural vitality and the power of their media, the quality of their social and educational systems-all these factors draw to them the migrants of an increasingly nomadic and interconnected planet. But such a trend causes confusion and sparks resistance by a section of society. Most countries do not want to admit, much less advertise, their openness to immigration, so in practice they find it very difficult to come up with clear and coherent policies where immigration and integration are concerned. So their laws on the matter are wobbly and sometimes contradictory. Subject to the whims of the authorities A foreigner who arrives legally often gets greeted, in effect, with folded arms. However, even though immigrants may not find themselves in the El Dorado or paradise they dreamed of, they do get some social and legal protection which enables them to plan a future for themselves and their children. The situation of illegal immigrants is much tougher however. Immigrants in the main receiving countries of the South (Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Gulf) experience even more precarious conditions. Their status is uncertain, they are totally dependent on their employers and are subject to the whims of the authorities and the absence of legal recourse. This often results in large-scale summary deportations of undocumented aliens. Those in this third group are much more vulnerable because of the economic crisis, especially in Africa and Asia. This world overview, inevitably a schematic one, passes no judgment on the validity of this or that country's policies, each one of which may have its own rationale and justification. But it shows the very wide variety of situations immigrants find themselves in and also the broad range of attitudes of those receiving them. As globalization of movement and trade advances, along with increasing links everywhere which facilitate international mobility, and with the arrival in a growing number of countries of new and culturally different populations, the age-old question of how to "welcome the stranger", which has so many implications and such symbolic meaning, has become more urgent than ever. - Stalker, P. Work of Strangers: Survey of International Labour, ILO, Geneva, 1994. - International Migration Review. New York. - L'immigration. Défis et richesses. Semaines sociales. Bayard Editions, Paris, 1998. - Simon, G. Géodynamique des migrations internationales dans le monde. Presses internationales de France, Paris, 1995. - Revue européenne des migrations internationales. Poitiers, France - Internet: migrinter@msh.univ-poitiers.fr The UNESCO Courier