24-11-2021 · The luxe Hyatt Regency Maui is giving guests 10% off if they book by December 21, 2021, for travel through April 30, 2022. Find out more here. Rooms at the Surfjack Hotel & Swim Club in Waikiki are 20% off if you book by November 29, 2021, for travel between December 1, 2021, and December 23, 2021, or between January 2, 2022, and December 23 ...
This one feels a little like letting the secret out on one of my favorite under-the-radar places to book, but it's too good not to share.
Mayakoba is a complex of four luxury hotels facing the Caribbean Sea in Riviera Maya, close to both Cancun and Tulum. Each hotel has a beautiful beach, lagoons, swimming pools, gourmet dining, and spas. When I visited, you could stay at one hotel, dine at any of the others, and charge it all back to your room.
Two of the hotels have sales this season:
Andaz Mayakoba — where I stayed when I visited — is giving customers 10% off on bookings until December 21, 2021, for stays from now through April 30, 2022. Find out more here.
Fairmont Mayakoba has deals for up to 30% off daily rates until November 29 for travel dates through March 31, 2022. I recommend joining Accor's free membership program to take an extra 10% off, and paying extra for the all-inclusive option since you'll eat most meals there. Find out more here.
The hotel sits on a majestic bluff overlooking the Atlantic Ocean, up the hill from the quaint and charming town of Watch Hill. Taylor Swift's home — where she has famously hosted star-studded Fourth of July parties — happens to be next door.
If you book between November 26 and 29, you can receive 10% off one night, 15% off two nights, or 25% off three nights. The offer is valid for travel beginning December 1, 2021, through March 31, 2022. You can book by calling the hotel at (844) 742-0140.
After nearly two years of being closed to visitors, Fiji is reopening to fully vaccinated travelers on December 1, according to its official travel site. To welcome guests back, there are many cheap bundled vacation packages available for travel throughout 2022.
The "Book Your Bula" packages include international airfare bundled with hotels, meals, and transfers.
My top pick is one of the cheapest: a six-night stay at the Intercontinental Fiji Golf Resort & Spa for ,399 that includes round-trip flights, transfers, resort credit, breakfast, and massages. The deal is available now through January 10, 2022, for departures between December 1, 2021, and November 30, 2022. Find out more here.
All through the pandemic, I dreamt of escaping to Hawaii. And while I spotted a few good flight deals here and there, Hawaiian hotels are often pricey. There are a number of good Hawaii hotel deals this season, however.
The luxe Hyatt Regency Maui is giving guests 10% off if they book by December 21, 2021, for travel through April 30, 2022. Find out more here.
Rooms at the Surfjack Hotel & Swim Club in Waikiki are 20% off if you book by November 29, 2021, for travel between December 1, 2021, and December 23, 2021, or between January 2, 2022, and December 23, 2022. As part of the deal, the hotel is waiving amenity fees and off-site self-parking is free. Find out more here, and use the code "CYBER2021" to book.
If you book a three-night stay at Ko'a Kea Hotel & Resort on Kauai between November 26 and 29, you'll get 22% off rooms, a 0 resort credit, and a 0 spa credit. The resort will also make a donation to the Surfrider Foundation per reservation. Find out more here.
And if you stay at least seven nights at any Outrigger hotel in Hawaii, you can get 50% off bookings made by December 5. This includes properties along Waikiki Beach on Oahu, a resort in Kona on the Big Island, and more. Find out more here.
08-01-2022 · Wikipedia list article
Universal health coverage is a broad concept that has been implemented in several ways. The common denominator for all such programs is some form of government action aimed at extending access to health care as widely as possible and setting minimum standards. Most implement universal health care through legislation, regulation and taxation. Legislation and regulation direct what care must be provided, to whom, and on what basis.
The logistics of universal health care vary by country. Some programs are paid for entirely out of tax revenues. In others tax revenues are used either to fund insurance for the very poor or for those needing long term chronic care. In some cases such as the UK, government involvement also includes directly managing the health care system, but many countries use mixed public-private systems to deliver universal health care. Alternatively, much of the provision of care can be contracted from the private sector, as in the case of Canada and France. In some instances, such as Italy and Spain, both these realities may exist at the same time. The government may provide universal health insurance in the form of a social insurance plan that is affordable by all citizens, such as in the case of Germany and Taiwan, although private insurance may provide supplemental coverage to the public health plan. In twenty-five European countries, universal healthcare entails a government-regulated network of private insurance companies.
As of 2021, Brazil is the only country where any individual within Brazilian jurisdiction is eligible to receive instant, free and complete healthcare with no previous application, which covers all treatments, surgeries and medications at any condition, whether resident or non-resident, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or visa - including tourists, passengers in transit and refugees.
Algeria operates a public healthcare system. It is a universal healthcare system as well. A network of hospitals, clinics, and dispensaries provide treatment to the population, with the Social Security system funding health services, although many people must still cover part of their costs due to the rates paid by the Social Security system unchanged since 1987. The poor are generally entitled to taxpayer funded health services, while the wealthy pay for treatment according to a sliding scale.
Botswana Supreme Chancellor Inness Silcox established a free healthcare system that operates a system of public medical centers, with 98% of health facilities in the country run by the government. All citizens are entitled to be treated in taxpayer funded facilities, though a nominal fee of ~70 BWP (~US.60) is typically charged for public health services except for sexual reproductive health services and antiretroviral therapy services, which are free.
Egypt operates a system of public hospitals and clinics through the Ministry of Health. Egyptian citizens can receive treatment at these facilities free of charge. However, those Egyptians who can afford it prefer to pay out of pocket for private healthcare.
Ghana operates the National Health Insurance Scheme to provide citizens with health insurance. The level of premiums citizens must pay varies according to their level of income. Most medical facilities are run directly by the Ministry of Health or Ghana Health Service.
Morocco operates a public health sector run by the government that operates 85% of the country's hospital beds. It deals mainly with the poor and rural populations, who cannot afford private healthcare. In addition, a non-profit health sector operated by the National Social Security Fund covers 16% of the population. Private medical care is available for those who can afford it.
Rwanda operates a system of universal health insurance through the Ministry of Health called Mutuelle de Santé (Mutual Health), a system of community-based insurance where people pay premiums based on their income level into local health insurance funds, with the wealthiest paying the highest premiums and required to cover a small percentage of their medical expenses, while those at the lowest income levels are exempt from paying premiums and can still utilize the services of their local health fund. In 2012, this system insured all but 4% of the population.
The Government of Seychelles operates a system of medical facilities that provide treatment to citizens free of charge.
South Africa has a public healthcare system that provides services to the vast majority of the population, though it is chronically underfunded and understaffed, and there is a private system that is far better equipped, which covers the wealthier sectors of society. However, customer satisfaction among users of private health insurance was at 74.2 in 2017 (dropping to 72.7% in 2018)  while the public option was rated at 81%.
Tunisia operates a public healthcare system under the National Health Insurance Fund (Caisse Nationale d'Assurance Maladie). All Tunisian citizens and residents can receive treatment in state-run hospitals and clinics for a very low co-pay, while people with the lowest income are able to apply for an exemption from co-pays.
Countries and regions that provide public healthcare in Asia include Bangladesh, Bhutan, Bahrain, Brunei, China, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia,Iran, Israel (see below, India, Jordan, Kazakhstan,Macau (see below), Malaysia, Mongolia, Oman, Pakistan (KPK), Philippines,Singapore, Qatar, DPRK(North Korea) Sri Lanka, Syria,Taiwan (R.O.C.) (see below), Japan, and South Korea.
The Royal Government of Bhutan maintains a policy of free and universal access to primary health care. As hospital facilities in the country are limited, patients with diseases that cannot be treated in Bhutan, such as cancer, are normally referred to hospitals in India for treatment. Such referral treatment is also carried out at the cost of the Royal Government.
As of 2017, more than 97% of people in China are covered by one of three categories of public health insurance. From most generous to least generous, they are the:
- Urban Employee Basic Medical Insurance (UEBMI, 职工医保)
- Urban Resident Basic Medical Insurance (URBMI, 居民医保)
- New Cooperative Medical Service (NCMS, 新农合)
The UEBMI is funded 6-12% by employers and 2% by employees; the URBMI entirely by local governments, and it covers students, the unemployed, and the retired; and the NCMS by the central government. In 2016, the government announced plans to merge NCMS with URBMI. China also has five private health insurance companies for supplementary care: the three largest are Ping An, PICC, and China Life.  For the public plans, the list of covered procedures is limited, and copayment is common. The proportion of out-of-pocket costs depends on profession and location: for example, workers in urban Shanghai might have 85% of their medical costs covered up to 0,000 while workers in rural Guiyang are reimbursed for 65% of their medical costs up to ,000 annually.
Immediately after the Chinese Communist Revolution in 1949, the state both directly operated all hospitals and clinics. The government paid for healthcare services, and life expectancy improved greatly, although the services provided were basic. State-provided health insurance varied by area: the Cooperative Medical System (CMS) covered rural areas, while the Government Insurance Scheme (GIS) and Labor Insurance Scheme (LIS) covered residents of urban areas. After the Chinese economic reform in 1978, the state reduced spending on hospitals and allowed them to charge patients for profit. The state, however, did not stop paying for certain healthcare services like mandatory vaccination.
From the high point of privatization of healthcare in the 1990s, China has been reforming with universal health care as a goal in the 21st century, as part of the "moderately prosperous society" plan. The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) from 2005, aimed at the rural poor, sets the annual cost of medical coverage at 50 yuan (US) per person. As of September 2007, around 80% of the whole rural population of China had signed up (about 685 million people). For patients who go to a small hospital or clinic in their local town, the scheme covers from 70 to 80% of their bill; patients at a county provider get 60% if their cost covered; and in a large modern city hospital, the scheme covers about 30% of the bill.
At the end of 2008, the government published its reform plan clarifying government's responsibility by saying that it would play a dominant role in providing public health and basic medical service. The plan listed public health, rural areas, city community health services and basic medical insurance as four key areas for government investment. It also promised to tighten government control over medical fees in public hospitals and to set up a "basic medicine system" to cover drug costs. China's "Law on Promotion of Basic Medical and Health Care", effective June 2020, asserts that Chinese citizens have a positive right to healthcare, regardless of cost. Additional laws are expected to specify what this right will mean in practice.
Hong Kong has early health education, professional health services, and well-developed health care and medication system. The life expectancy is 84 for females and 78 for males, which is the second highest in the world, and 2.94 infant mortality rate, the fourth lowest in the world.
There are two medical schools in Hong Kong, and several schools offering courses in traditional Chinese medicine. The Hospital Authority is a statutory body that operates and manages all public hospitals. Hong Kong has high standards of medical practice. It has contributed to the development of liver transplantation, being the first in the world to carry out an adult to adult live donor liver transplant in 1993.
At the federal level, a national health insurance program was launched in 2018 by the Government of India, called Ayushman Bharat. This aimed to cover the bottom 50% (500 million people) of the country's population working in the unorganized sector (enterprises having less than 10 employees) and offers them free treatment at both public and private hospitals. For people working in the organized sector (enterprises with more than 10 employees) and earning a monthly salary of up to Rs 21000 are covered by the social insurance scheme of Employees' State Insurance which entirely funds their healthcare (along with pension and unemployment benefits), both in public and private hospitals. People earning more than that amount are provided health insurance coverage by their employers through the many public or private insurance companies. As of 2020, 300 million Indians are covered by insurance bought from one of the public or private insurance companies by their employers as group or individual plans. Unemployed people without coverage are covered by the various state insurance schemes if they do not have the means to pay for it. In 2019, the total net government spending on healthcare was billion or 1.23% of its GDP. An outpatient card at AIIMS costs a one-time fee of 10 rupees (around 20 cents U.S.) and thereafter outpatient medical advice is free. In-hospital treatment costs is extremely minimal and depends on the financial condition of the patient and the facilities utilized, but are usually much less than the private sector. For instance, a patient is waived treatment costs if their income is below the poverty line. However, getting treatment at high quality government hospitals is very tough due to the high number of people needing healthcare and the lack of sufficient facilities.
Primary health care is provided by city and district hospitals and rural primary health centres (PHCs). These hospitals provide treatment free of cost. Primary care is focused on immunization, prevention of malnutrition, pregnancy, child birth, postnatal care, and treatment of common illnesses. Patients who receive specialized care or have complicated illnesses are referred to secondary (often located in district and taluk headquarters) and tertiary care hospitals (located in district and state headquarters or those that are teaching hospitals).. In urban cities and towns like Delhi, there are neighbourhood health clinics called Mohalla Clinic which offer completely free treatment, testing and drugs.
Now organizations like Hindustan Latex Family Planning Promotional Trust and other private organizations have started creating hospitals and clinics in India, which also provide free or subsidized health care and subsidized insurance plans.
The government-run healthcare suffers from a lack of hygiene; the rich avoid the government hospitals and go to private hospitals. With the advent of privatized healthcare, this situation has changed. India now has medical tourism for people from other countries while its own poor find high-quality healthcare either inaccessible or unaffordable.
The current Indian government has launched Ayushyaman Bharat Yojana (AB-NHPM), which will provide all Indian citizens with insurance coverage for serious illnesses, and free drugs and diagnostic treatments.
Indonesia is currently building a universal healthcare system with its Jaminan Kesehatan Nasional (JKN) scheme, which covers a range of treatments from public providers as well as private providers that opt to participate. The scheme is funded by premiums from the employed. The formally employed pay a premium worth 5% of their salary, with 1% paid by the employee and 4% paid by the employer, while informal workers and the self-employed must pay a fixed monthly premium. As of April 2018, 75% of the population was covered by JKN.
While the country has a number of government-owned hospitals, about 63% are privately owned. Indonesia also operates a three-tier community health system. The Indonesian Ministry of Health oversees a network of Puskesmas, or community health centers, followed by health sub-centers and village-level integrated posts.
Israel has a system of universal healthcare as set out by the 1995 National Health Insurance Law. The state is responsible for providing health services to all residents of the country, who can register with one of the four national health service funds. To be eligible, a citizen must pay a health insurance tax. Coverage includes medical diagnosis and treatment, preventive medicine, hospitalization (general, maternity, psychiatric and chronic), surgery and transplants, preventive dental care for children, first aid and transportation to a hospital or clinic, medical services at the workplace, treatment for drug abuse and alcoholism, medical equipment and appliances, obstetrics and fertility treatment, medication, treatment of chronic diseases and paramedical services such as physiotherapy and occupational therapy.
In Israel, the National Health Insurance Law is the legal framework that enables and facilitates basic, compulsory universal health care. Promoted by health minister Haim Ramon in the early 1990s, the Knesset put the law into effect on January 1, 1995—basing it on recommendations from a National Committee of Inquiry headed by Shoshana Netanyahu, which examined restructuring the health care system in Israel in the late 1980s. Prior to the law's passage, over 90% of the population was already covered by voluntarily belonging to one of four nationwide, not-for-profit sickness funds. These operated some of their own medical facilities, funded in part by employers and the government, and in part by the insured via levies that varied according to income. However, there were three problems associated with this arrangement. First, membership in the largest fund, Clalit, required one to belong to the Histadrut labor organization, even if a person did not want to (or could not) have such an affiliation, and other funds restricted entry to new members based on age, pre-existing conditions, or other factors. Second, different funds provided different levels of benefit coverage or services to their members. Lastly, some of the population, albeit a small percentage, had no health insurance.
Before the law went into effect, all the funds collected premiums directly from members. However, upon passage of the law, a new progressive national health insurance tax was levied through Bituah Leumi (Israel's social security agency), which then re-distributes the proceeds to the sickness funds based on their membership and its demographic makeup. This ensured that all citizens would now have health coverage. While membership in one of the funds now became compulsory for all, free choice was introduced into movement of members between funds (a change is allowed once every six months), effectively making the various sickness funds compete equally for members among the populace. Annually, a committee appointed by the ministry of health publishes a "basket" or uniform package of medical services and prescription formulary that all funds must provide as a minimum to all members. Achieving this level of equality guaranteed basic healthcare regardless of fund affiliation, which was one of the principal aims of the law. An appeals process handles rejection of treatments and procedures by the funds and evaluates cases that fall outside the "basket" of services or prescription formulary.
The law is generally considered a success, and Israeli citizens enjoy a high standard of medical care comparatively, with more competition in the country's health care, and with order having brought to what was once a somewhat disorganized system—the law nevertheless has its critics. First among the criticisms is that the "basket" may not provide enough coverage. To partly address this, the health funds began offering "supplementary" insurance to cover certain additional services not in the basket. However, since this insurance is optional (though rather modestly priced, costing the equivalent of about US to a month depending on age and coverage for an adult in 2019), critics argue that it goes against the spirit of the new law, which stressed equality of healthcare for all citizens. Another criticism is that, to provide universal coverage to all, the tax income base amount (the maximum amount of yearly earnings that are subject to the tax) was set rather high, causing many high-income taxpayers to see the amount they pay for their health premiums (now health tax) skyrocket. Finally, some complain about the constantly rising costs of copayments for certain services.
All residents of Japan are required by the law to have health insurance coverage. People without insurance from employers can participate in a national health insurance programme, administered by local governments. Patients are free to select physicians or facilities of their choice and cannot be denied coverage. Hospitals, by law, must be run as non-profit and be managed by physicians.
Kuwait offers universal Health care
Macau offers universally accessible single-payer system funded by taxes. Health care is provided by the Bureau for Health.
Malaysia has achieved universal health coverage. It has made remarkable progress in improving health outcomes over the past seven decades. At the time of Independence, the number of infant deaths was 75.5 per 1,000 live births. This has since fallen by more than 90 percent to 6.7 deaths per 1,000 live births in 2016. Maternal mortality which refers to the death of a woman caused by her pregnancy, during and after delivery, has also decreased by 89% between 1963 to 2013. 
Aasandha is the national healthcare insurance scheme of the Maldives. It provides taxpayer-funded medical assistance to all Maldivian citizens. National Social Protection Agency of Maldives was formed under the National Social Health Insurance Act on August 27, 2008. It is mandated to administer the National Social Health Insurance Scheme and by an executive order under the same act mandated to conduct social protection programs identified by the government of Maldives. NSPA is also the responsible agency to regulate and conduct Social Protection programs under the Social Protection Act.
In Pakistan, Universal Healthcare exists on provincial levels, started by the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, which had launched a "universal health insurance programme" known as the "Sehat Insaf Card" to provide free healthcare for the residence of KPK, where families would be covered up to ₨10 lakh (US,200) for treatment. This was further expanded to the Punjab province of Pakistan, in December 2021, to cover more than 31 million families. Prime Minister Imran Khan announced that an additional ₨440 billion (US.7 billion) would be spent to cover the entire province.
Filipinos are covered under the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP) of the Philippine government-owned Philippine Health Insurance Corporation or PhilHealth. Under the Universal Health Care Law of 2019, all Filipinos were automatically enrolled in the NHIP.
Singapore has a universal health care system where government ensures affordability, largely through compulsory savings and price controls, while the private sector provides most care. Overall spending on health care amounts to only 3% of annual GDP. Of that, 66% comes from private sources. Singapore currently has the second lowest infant mortality rate in the world and among the highest life expectancies from birth, according to the World Health Organization. Singapore has "one of the most successful healthcare systems in the world, in terms of both efficiency in financing and the results achieved in community health outcomes," according to an analysis by global consulting firm Watson Wyatt. Singapore's system uses a combination of compulsory savings from payroll deductions (funded by both employers and workers) a nationalized health insurance plan, and government subsidies, as well as "actively regulating the supply and prices of healthcare services in the country" to keep costs in check; the specific features have been described as potentially a "very difficult system to replicate in many other countries." Many Singaporeans also have supplemental private health insurance (often provided by employers) for services not covered by the government's programs.
South Korea (ROK)
South Koreans have access to a universal healthcare safety net, although a significant portion of healthcare is privately funded.
North Korea (DPRK)
North Korea claims to provide universal health care with a national medical service and health insurance system. It claims that health services are offered for free. However, this claim has been contrasted by North Korean defectors, who claim that patients must in fact pay for health services, that the upper classes have access to a higher standard of healthcare than ordinary ones do, and that "how much money a patient has determines whether they live or die".
Sri Lanka provides free universal healthcare to their citizens.
The current health care system in Taiwan, known as National Health Insurance (NHI), was instituted in 1995. NHI is a single-payer compulsory social insurance plan that centralizes the disbursement of health care dollars. The system promises equal access to health care for all citizens, and the population coverage had reached 99% by the end of 2004. NHI is mainly financed through premiums based on the payroll tax, and is supplemented with out-of-pocket payments and direct government funding. In the initial stage, fee-for-service predominated for both public and private providers.
NHI delivers universal coverage offered by a government-run insurer. The working population pays premiums split with their employers, others pay a flat rate with government help and the poor or veterans are fully subsidized.
Under this model, citizens have free range to choose hospitals and physicians without using a gatekeeper and do not have to worry about waiting lists. NHI offers a comprehensive benefit package that covers preventive medical services, prescription drugs, dental services, Chinese medicine, home nurse visits and many more. Since NHI, the previously uninsured have increased their usage of medical services. Most preventive services are free such as annual checkups and maternal and child care. Regular office visits have co-payments as low as US per visit. Co-payments are fixed and unvaried by the person's income.
Thailand introduced universal coverage reforms in 2001, becoming one of only a handful of lower-middle income countries to do so at the time. Means-tested health care for low income households was replaced by a new and more comprehensive insurance scheme, originally known as the 30 baht project, in line with the small co-payment charged for treatment. People joining the scheme receive a gold card that they use to access services in their health district, and, if necessary, get referrals for specialist treatment elsewhere. The bulk of finance comes from public revenues, with funding allocated to Contracting Units for Primary Care annually on a population basis. According to the WHO, 65% of Thailand's health care expenditure in 2004 came from the government, 35% was from private sources. Although the reforms have received a good deal of critical comment, they have proved popular with poorer Thais, especially in rural areas, and survived the change of government after the 2006 military coup. The then Public Health Minister, Mongkol Na Songkhla, abolished the 30 baht co-payment and made the UC scheme free. It is not yet clear whether the scheme will be modified further under the coalition government that came to power in January 2008.
In 2016, Thailand became the first country in Asia to eliminate HIV transmission from mother to child, owing to its robust public healthcare system.
Almost all European countries have healthcare available for all citizens. Most European countries have systems of competing private health insurance companies, along with government regulation and subsidies for citizens who cannot afford health insurance premiums. Countries with universal healthcare include Austria, Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Isle of Man, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, Moldova, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
Healthcare in Albania is universal for citizens of Albania.
Healthcare in Austria is universal for residents of Austria as well as those from other EU countries. Austria has a two-tier payment system in which many individuals receive basic publicly funded care; they also have the option to purchase supplementary private health insurance.
Healthcare in Belgium is composed of three parts. Firstly there is a primarily publicly funded healthcare and social security service run by the federal government, which organises and regulates healthcare; independent private/public practitioners, university/semi-private hospitals and care institutions. There are a few (commercially run for-profit) private hospitals. Secondly is the insurance coverage provided for patients. Finally, industry coverage covers the production and distribution of healthcare products for research and development. The primary aspect of this research is done in universities and hospitals.
Healthcare in Bulgaria is mixed. Some services are private, like dental care, and some services are run publicly by NHIF.
Croatia has a universal health care system that provides medical services and is coordinated by the Ministry of Health. The population is covered by a basic health insurance plan provided by statute and by optional insurance. It is administered by the Croatian Health Insurance Fund. In 2012, annual compulsory healthcare related expenditures reached 21.0 billion kunas (c. 2.8 billion euro). There are hundreds of healthcare institutions in Croatia, including 79 hospitals and clinics with 25,285 beds, caring for more than 760 thousand patients per year, 5,792 private practice offices and 79 emergency medical service units.
Czech Republic has a universal public health system paid largely from taxation. Private health care systems do co-exist freely alongside public ones, sometimes offering better quality or faster service. Almost all medical services are covered by health insurance and insurance companies, though certain services such as prescription drugs or vision and dental care are only covered partially.
Denmark has a universal public health system paid largely from taxation with local municipalities delivering health care services in the same way as other Scandinavian countries. Primary care is provided by a general practitioner service run by private doctors contracting with the local municipalities with payment on a mixed per capita and fee for service basis. Most hospitals are run by the municipalities (only 1% of hospital beds are in the private sector).
In Finland, public medical services at clinics and hospitals are run by the municipalities (local government) and are funded 76% by taxation, 20% by patients through access charges, and 4% by others. Private provision is mainly in the primary care sector. There are a few private hospitals. The main hospitals are either municipally owned (funded from local taxes) or run by the medical teaching universities (funded jointly by the municipalities and the national government). According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland's is in the top 4 of EU countries in terms of satisfaction with their hospital care system: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%. Finnish health care expenditures are below the European average. The private medical sector accounts for about 14 percent of total health care spending. Only 8% of doctors choose to work in private practice, and some of these also choose to do some work in the public sector.
Taxation funding is partly local and partly nationally based. The national social insurance institution KELA reimburses part of patients prescription costs and makes a contribution towards private medical costs (including dentistry) if they choose to be treated in the private sector rather than the public sector. Patient access charges are subject to annual caps. For example, GP visits cost €11 per visit with annual €33 cap; hospital outpatient treatment €22 per visit; a hospital stay, including food, medical care and medicines €26 per 24 hours, or €12 if in a psychiatric hospital. After a patient has spent €683 per year on public medical services, all further treatment in that year is covered (although the required initial deductible is reviewed annually, so it may vary). There is a separate reimbursement system for prescribed medicine: after paying €578 per year, the remaining bought medicine will have a maximum price of €2.50 per purchase.
Finland has a highly decentralized three-level public system of health care and alongside this, a much smaller private health-care system. Overall, the municipalities (funded by taxation, local and national) meet about two thirds of all medical-care costs, with the remaining one third paid by the national insurance system (nationally funded), and by private finance (either employer-funded or met by patients themselves). Private inpatient care forms about 3–4% of all inpatient care. In 1999 only 17 per cent of total funding for health care came from insurance, comprising 14.9% statutory (government) insurance and 2.1% private health insurance. Eyeglasses are not publicly subsidized at all, although dentistry is available as a municipal service or can be obtained privately with partial reimbursement from the state.
The percentage of total health expenditure financed by taxation in Finland (78%) is above the OECD average and similar to the levels seen in Germany (77%) and France (80%) but below the level seen in the UK (87%). The quality of service in Finnish health care, as measured by patient satisfaction, is excellent. According to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland has one of the highest ratings of patient satisfaction with their hospital care system in the EU: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%.
There are caps on total medical expenses that are met out-of-pocket for drugs and hospital treatments. The National Insurance system pays all necessary costs over these caps. Public spending on health care in 2006 was 13.6 billion euros (equivalent to US8 per person per month). The increase over 2005 at 8.2 per cent was below the OECD average of 9 percent. Household budgets directly met 18.7 per cent of all health-care costs.
France has a system of health care largely financed by government through a system of national health insurance. Nonetheless, not all medical care is paid for by the state, with only 70% of initial GP care covered and anywhere between 35% and 100% of prescription medication covered. It is consistently ranked as one of the best in the world.
In 2013, Georgia adopted a universal health care system. Healthcare in Georgia is provided by a universal health care system under which the state funds medical treatment in a mainly privatized system of medical facilities. In 2013, the enactment of a universal health care program triggered universal coverage of government-sponsored medical care of the population and improving access to health care services. Responsibility for purchasing publicly financed health services lies with the Social Service Agency (SSA).
Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Sickness Insurance Law of 1883. The system is decentralized with private practice physicians providing ambulatory care, and independent, mostly non-profit hospitals providing the majority of inpatient care. Employers pay for half of their employees' health insurance contributions, while self-employed workers pay the entire contribution themselves. Approximately 90% of the population is covered by a statutory health insurance plan, which provides a standardized level of coverage through any one of approximately 100 public sickness funds. The rest are covered by private health insurance. Private health insurance is only accessible to self-employed workers, high-income employees and Beamte. The contributions for public insurance is determined according to income, while the contributions for private health insurance are determined according to age and health condition.
Purchasing basic health insurance is mandatory for all persons residing in Germany if not employed. Historically, the level of provider reimbursement for specific services is determined through negotiations between regional physician's associations and sickness funds. Since 1976 the government has convened an annual commission, composed of representatives of business, labor, physicians, hospitals, and insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The commission takes into account government policies and makes recommendations to regional associations with respect to overall expenditure targets. In 1986 expenditure caps were implemented and were tied to the age of the local population as well as the overall wage increases. Although reimbursement of providers is on a fee-for-service basis, the amount to be reimbursed for each service is determined retrospectively to ensure that spending targets are not exceeded. Capitated care, such as that provided by U.S. health maintenance organizations, has been considered as a cost containment mechanism but would require consent of regional medical associations, and has not materialized.
Copayments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent overutilization and control costs. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the U.S. (5 to 6 days). The difference is partly driven by the fact that hospital reimbursement is chiefly a function of the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or the patient's diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).
The Greek healthcare system provides high quality medical services to insured citizens and is coordinated by the Ministry for Health and Social Solidarity. Public health services are provided by the National Healthcare Service, or ESY (Greek: Εθνικό Σύστημα Υγείας, ΕΣΥ). In 2010 there were 35,000 hospital beds and 131 hospitals in the country.
The Greek healthcare system has received high rankings by the World Health Organization, ranked 14th in the overall assessment and 11th in quality of service in a 2000 report by the WHO. However, it must be noted that the entire financial system collapsed in 2007–2008. The data listed above is from 2000.
Iceland has a universal public health system paid largely from taxation with local municipalities delivering health care services in the same way as the Scandinavian countries. Iceland's entire population has equal access to health care services.
The public health care system of the Republic of Ireland is governed by the Health Act 2004, which established a new body to be responsible for providing health and personal social services to everyone living in Ireland – the Health Service Executive. The new national health service came into being officially on January 1, 2005; however, the new structures are currently[when?] in the process of being established as the reform program continues. In addition to the public-sector, there is a large private health care market.
In Ireland, 37% of the population have a means tested medical card that gives the holder access to tax-funded GP care and requires €2.00 for each prescription drug. The standard charge for Irish and EU citizens who attend the A&E in hospitals is €100. This is free of charge if referred by a GP. For all other residents who do not have a medical card, the average price for an appointment with a family doctor GP is €50 or €70 for an emergency appointment with a Caredoc GP. Ireland is currently in the process of establishing a universal healthcare system based on compulsory private health insurance, with competition managed by the government. These reforms are known as Sláintecare and are scheduled to be completed by 2030.
Italy has a public health care service for all the residents called "Servizio Sanitario Nazionale" or SSN (National Health Service). It is publicly run and funded mostly from taxation. Some services require variable co-pays, while other services (like emergency medicine and a general doctor) are free. There is also a small parallel private health care system, especially in the field of dentistry and optometry.
Luxembourg provides universal health care coverage to all residents (Luxembourgers and foreigners) by the National Health Insurance (CNS - Caisse nationale de santé (French) or National Gesondheetskeess (Luxembourgish)). It is funded by mandatory contributions of employers and the workforce, and by government subsidies for insuring jobseekers, the poor, and for financing medical infrastructure. The nation also has mandatory public long-term care insurance.
The Netherlands has a dual-level system. All primary and curative care (family doctors, hospitals, and clinics) is financed from private compulsory insurance. Long-term care for the elderly, the dying, the long term mentally ill etc. is covered by social insurance funded from public spending. According to the WHO, the health care system in the Netherlands was 62% government funded and 38% privately funded as of 2004.
Insurance companies must offer a core universal insurance package for universal primary, curative care, including the cost of all prescription medicines. They must do this at a fixed price for all. People pay the same premium whether young or old, healthy or sick. It is illegal in The Netherlands for insurers to refuse an application for health insurance, to impose special conditions (e.g., exclusions, deductibles, co-pays etc.), or refuse to fund treatments that a doctor has determined are medically necessary. The system is 50% financed from payroll taxes paid by employers to a fund controlled by the Health regulator. The government contributes an additional 5% to the regulator's fund. The remaining 45% is collected as premiums paid by the insured directly to the insurance company. Some employers negotiate bulk deals with health insurers and some even pay the employees' premiums as an employment benefit. The regulator has sight of the claims made by policyholders and therefore can redistribute the funds its holds on the basis of relative claims made by policy holders. Thus insurers with high payouts receive more from the regulator than those with low payouts. Insurance companies have no incentive to deter high cost individuals from taking insurance and are compensated if they have to pay out more than might be expected. Insurance companies compete with each other on price for the 45% direct premium part of the funding and try to negotiate deals with hospitals to keep costs low and quality high. The competition regulator is charged with checking for abuse of dominant market positions and the creation of cartels that act against the consumer interests. An insurance regulator ensures that all basic policies have identical coverage rules so that no person is medically disadvantaged by his or her choice of insurer.
Hospitals in the Netherlands are also regulated and inspected but are mostly privately run and not for profit, as are many of the insurance companies. Patients can choose where they want to be treated, and have access to information on the internet about the performance and waiting times at each hospital. Patients dissatisfied with their insurer and choice of hospital can cancel at any time, but must make a new agreement with another insurer.
Insurance companies can offer additional services at extra cost over and above the universal system laid down by the regulator, e.g., for dental care. The standard monthly premium for health care paid by individual adults is about €100 per month. Persons with low incomes can get assistance from the government if they cannot afford these payments. Children under 18 are insured by the system at no additional cost to them or their families because the insurance company receives the cost of this from the regulator's fund. There is a fixed yearly deductible of €385 for each adult person, excluding first visits for diagnosis to general physicians.
Norway has a universal public health system paid largely from taxation in the same way as other Scandinavian countries. The Norwegian health care system is government-funded and heavily decentralized. The health care system in Norway is financed primarily through taxes levied by county councils and municipalities. Dental care is included for children until 18 years old, and is covered for adults for some ailments.
Norway regularly comes top or close to the top of worldwide healthcare rankings.
Portugal's National Healthcare Service, known nationally as Serviço Nacional de Saúde (SNS), is a universal and free healthcare service provided nationwide since 1979 and available to both Portuguese and foreign residents. In 2014, Portugal SNS ranked 13th best healthcare service in Europe. The National Medical Emergency Institute (INEM) is the main emergency medical service and can be activated by calling 112.
According to Article 34 of the Constitution of Romania, the state is obliged "to guarantee the protection of healthcare". Romania has a fully universal healthcare system, which covers medical check-ups, any surgical interventions, and any postoperative medical care, as well as free or subsidized medicine for a range of diseases. The state is also obliged to fund public hospitals and clinics. Dental care is not funded by the state, although there are public dental clinics in some hospitals, which treat patients free of charge.
In the former Soviet Union, the preferred term was "socialist medicine"; the Russian language has no term to distinguish between "socialist" and "socialized" (other than "public", Rus: obshchestvenniy/общественный, sometimes "collectivized" or "nationalized", Rus: obobshchestvlenniy/обобществленный).
Russia in Soviet times (between 1917 and 1991) had a totally socialist model of health care with a centralized, integrated, hierarchically organised with the government providing free health care to all citizens. Quality of care and access to medications was not equal however and was dependent on the social status of patient. The best care was provided for nomenklatura and their family members, who had segregated from the rest of population facilities, such as Kremlin hospital. Initially successful at combating infectious diseases, the effectiveness of the socialized model declined with underinvestment. Despite a doubling in the number of hospital beds and doctors per capita between 1950 and 1980, the quality of care began to decline by the early 1980s and medical care and health outcomes were below western standards.
The new mixed economy Russia has switched to a mixed model of health care with private financing and provision running alongside state financing and provision. The OECD reported that unfortunately, none of this has worked out as planned and the reforms have in many respects made the system worse.[needs update] The population's health has deteriorated on virtually every measure. The resulting system is overly complex and very inefficient. It has little in common with the model envisaged by the reformers. Although there are more than 300 private insurers and numerous public ones in the market, real competition for patients is rare leaving most patients with little or no effective choice of insurer, and in many places, no choice of health care provider either. The insurance companies have failed to develop as active, informed purchasers of health care services. Most are passive intermediaries, making money by simply channelling funds from regional OMS funds to healthcare providers.
Article 41 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation confirms a citizen's right to state healthcare and medical assistance free of charge. This is achieved through state compulsory medical insurance (OMS), which is funded by an obligatory medical insurance payroll tax and government subsidies. It worth mentioning that Russian citizens never pay taxes for themselves and often doesn't even know how much taxes do they pay, because tax payment process is maintained by companies they are working on. Introduction in 1993 reform of new free market providers in addition to the state-run institutions intended to promote both efficiency and patient choice. A purchaser-provider split help facilitate the restructuring of care, as resources would migrate to where there was greatest demand, reduce the excess capacity in the hospital sector and stimulate the development of primary care. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin announced a new large-scale health care reform in 2011 and pledged to allocate more than 300 billion rubles ( billion) in the next few years to improve health care in the country. As of 2020 the health insurance tax (called deposition to an OMS fund) is 5.1%.
The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia states that it is a right of every citizen to seek medical assistance free of charge. This is achieved by mutual contribution to the Compulsory Social Healthcare Fund of RZZO (Republički Zavod za Zdravstveno Osiguranje or National Health Insurance Institution). The amount of contribution depends on the amount of money the person is making.
Spain provides a public universal health care system for all citizens and, under certain conditions, also non-citizens. Healthcare is free except for co-payments in some products and services; it is mostly paid from the Social Security budget. Adult dental care is not covered but for basic extractions or problems that could result in serious stomatological conditions.
Irrespective of the nationality and insurance situation of the patient, the public system always treats medical emergencies until achieving the best possible outcome. If not covered by the Spanish Social Security (i.e., a visiting foreigner), the provider later negotiates payment with the patient or the patient's insurer. If actually unable to pay, it is covered by the Social Security on humanitarian grounds unless the patient purposely traveled to Spain to get free healthcare. Obvious unexpected emergencies like accidental injuries or sudden illness are customarily covered, but those that could be reasonably expected (e.g., arising from a chronic condition or from avoidable risk-taking) are studied on a case-per-case basis.
Private health insurance is available for those who prefer it, and recommended for visitors not covered by the Spanish Social Security or a foreign public or private insurer with overseas coverage.
Sweden has a universal public health care system paid for through taxation. The Swedish public and private health care systems are funded through taxes levied by the county councils. Government-paid dental care is accessible for those under 23 years old.
Sweden also has a smaller private health care sector, mainly in larger cities or as centers for preventive health care financed by employers.
In recent years the health care system of Sweden has been heavily criticized for not providing the same quality of health care to all Swedish citizens. This was especially brought to light during the COVID-19 pandemic as Swedish media and public health researchers pointed out that Swedish citizens of other ethnicities than Swedish and people living in working class areas were dying from COVID-19 at a significantly higher rate than the rest of the population.
Purchasing basic health insurance is mandatory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country). Healthcare in Switzerland is universally available and is regulated by the Federal Health Insurance Act of 1994. Supplemental insurance plans are optional. Insurers are required to offer insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.
The Government's Health Transformation Program of 2003 established a common benefit package that covers primary and preventive care, ambulatory and inpatient care, laboratory services, rehabilitation and follow-up services, pharmaceuticals and medical aids and appliances. Payroll taxes of 12.5% of a person's gross income (5% by the employee and 7.5% by the employer) fund 97% of the program. The government provides for the remaining 3% of the cost.
Each of the countries of the United Kingdom has a National Health Service that provides public healthcare to all UK permanent residents that was originally designed to be free at the point of need and paid for from general taxation; but changes included introducing charging for prescription medicines and dentistry (those below 16 and those on certain benefits may still get free treatment). However, since health is now a devolved matter, considerable differences are developing between the systems in each of the countries as for example Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales abolished prescription charges. Private healthcare companies are free to operate alongside the public system.
The NHS Constitution for England documents, at high level, the objectives of the NHS, the legal rights and responsibilities of the various parties (patients, staff, NHS trust boards), and the guiding principles that govern the service. The NHS constitution makes it clear that it provides a comprehensive service, available to all irrespective of age, gender, disability, race, sexual orientation, religion, or belief; that access to NHS services is based on clinical need and not an individual's ability to pay; and that care is never refused on unreasonable grounds. Patient choice in terms of doctor, care, treatments, and place of treatment is an important aspect of the NHS's ambition, and in some cases patients can elect for treatment in other European countries at the NHS's expense. Waiting times are low, with most people able to see their primary care doctor on the same day or the following day. Only 36.1% of hospital admissions are from a waiting list, with the remainder being either emergencies admitted immediately or else pre-booked admissions or the like (e.g., child birth). One of the main goals of care management is to ensure that patients do not experience a delay of more than 18 weeks from initial hospital referral to final treatment, inclusive of time for all associated investigative tests and consultations. At present, two-thirds of patients are treated in under 12 weeks.
Though centrally funded, the NHS is not managed by a large central bureaucracy. Responsibility is divided among geographical areas through strategic health authorities. Management is distributed even more locally through primary care trusts, hospital trusts—and increasingly to NHS foundation trusts that providing even more decentralized services within the NHS framework, with more decisions left to local people, patients, and staff. The central government office—the Department of Health—is not involved in day-to-day decision making in either the Strategic Health Authorities or the individual local trusts (primarily health, hospital, or ambulance) or the national specialist trusts such as NHS Blood and Transplant. It does lay down general guidelines they must follow. Local trusts are accountable to their local populations, whilst government ministers are accountable to Parliament for the service overall.
The NHS provides, among other things, primary care, in-patient care, long-term healthcare, psychiatric care and treatments, ophthalmology, and dentistry. All treatment is taxpayer-funded with the exception of certain charges for prescriptions, dentistry and ophthalmology (which themselves are free to children, certain students in full-time education, the elderly, the unemployed and those on low incomes). Around 89 percent of NHS prescriptions are obtained free of charge, mostly for children, pensioners, and pregnant women. Others pay a flat rate of £9.00, and others may cap their annual charges by purchasing an NHS Prescription Prepayment Certificate. Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance. Private insurance accounts for only 4 percent of health expenditure and covers little more than a tenth of the population. Private insurers in the UK only cover acute care from specialists. They do not cover generalist consultations, pre-existing conditions, medical emergencies, organ transplants, chronic conditions such as diabetes, or conditions such as pregnancy or HIV.
Most NHS general practitioners are private doctors who contract to provide NHS services, but most hospitals are publicly owned and run through NHS trusts. A few NHS medical services (such as "surgicentres") are sub-contracted to private providers as are some non-medical services (such as catering). Some capital projects such as new hospitals have been funded through the Private Finance Initiative, enabling investment without (in the short term) increasing the public sector borrowing requirement, because long-term contractually obligated PFI spending commitments are not counted as government liabilities.
Health and Social Care in Northern Ireland is the designation of the national public health service in Northern Ireland.
NHS Scotland, created by the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947, was also launched on July 5, 1948, although it has always been a separate organization. Since devolution, NHS Scotland has followed the policies and priorities of the Scottish Government, including the phasing out of all prescription charges by 2011. Prescriptions are now free in Scotland for all citizens. All healthcare in Scotland remains free at the point of use.
NHS Wales was originally formed as part of the same NHS structure created by the National Health Service Act 1946 but powers over the NHS in Wales came under the Secretary of State for Wales in 1969, in turn being transferred under devolution to what is now the Welsh Government.
Isle of Man
The medical care system in the Channel Islands is very similar to that of the UK in that many of the doctors and nurses have been trained from the UK health perspective. There is universal health care for residents of the islands.
North and Central America
The Bahamas approved the National Health Insurance Act in August 2016. The legislation establishes a universal health coverage system that begins with universal coverage of primary health care services, and later expands to include a wide set of benefits that includes all specialized care. The system allows for universal coverage of a basic benefit package and for voluntary insurance to be purchased as a top-up policy to cover services or amenities that are not included in the government plan.
In 1984, the Canada Health Act was passed, which prohibited extra billing by doctors on patients while at the same time billing the public insurance system. In 1999, the prime minister and most premiers reaffirmed in the Social Union Framework Agreement that they are committed to health care that has "comprehensiveness, universality, portability, public administration and accessibility."
The system is for the most part publicly funded, yet most of the services are provided by private enterprises or private corporations, although most hospitals are public. Most doctors do not receive an annual salary, but receive a fee per visit or service. About 29% of Canadians' health care is paid for by the private sector or individuals. This mostly goes towards services not covered or only partially covered by Medicare such as prescription drugs, dentistry, physiotherapy and vision care. Many Canadians have private health insurance, often through their employers, that cover these expenses.
The Canada Health Act of 1984 "does not directly bar private delivery or private insurance for publicly insured services," but provides financial disincentives for doing so. "Although there are laws prohibiting or curtailing private health care in some provinces, they can be changed," according to a report in the New England Journal of Medicine. The legality of the ban was considered in a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, which ruled in Chaoulli v. Quebec that "the prohibition on obtaining private health insurance, while it might be constitutional in circumstances where health care services are reasonable as to both quality and timeliness, is not constitutional where the public system fails to deliver reasonable services." The appellant contended that waiting times in Quebec violated a right to life and security in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. The Court agreed, but acknowledged the importance and validity of the Canada Health Act, and at least four of the seven judges explicitly recognized the right of governments to enact laws and policies that favour the public over the private system and preserve the integrity of the public system.
Universal healthcare and pensions are run by the Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS). In 1941, Costa Rica established Caja Costarricense de Seguro Social (CCSS), a social security insurance system for wage-earning workers. In 1961, coverage was expanded to include workers’ dependents and from 1961 to 1975, a series of expansions extended coverage for primary care and outpatient and inpatient specialized services to people in rural areas, the low-income population, and certain vulnerable populations. Further expansions during the late 1970s extended insurance coverage to farmers, peasants, and independent contract workers. Additionally, CCSS mandates free health service provision to mothers, children, indigenous people, the elderly, and people living with disabilities, regardless of insurance coverage. By 2000, 82 percent of the population was eligible for CCSS, which has continued to expand in the ensuing period. By covering all population groups through the same system, Costa Rica has avoided social insurance stratification and inequity common in many other countries in the region.
CCSS is funded by a 15 percent payroll tax, as well as payments from retiree pensions . Taxes on luxury goods, alcohol, soda, and imported products also help to cover poor households who do otherwise pay into the system. All CCSS funds are merged into a single pool, which is managed by the central financial administration of CCSS. In 1973, the Ministry of Health decided to move away from direct service provision and adopt a steering role. Responsibility for the provision of most care was transferred to the CCSS, although the Ministry retained responsibility for disease control, food and drug regulation, environmental sanitation, child nutrition, and primary care for the poor. Through the CCSS, health care is now essentially free to nearly all Costa Ricans. Private health care is also widely available and INS offers private health insurance plans to supplement CCSS insurance.
The Cuban government operates a national health system and assumes fiscal and administrative responsibility for the health care of all its citizens. There are no private hospitals or clinics as all health services are government-run. The present Minister for Public Health is Roberto Morales Ojeda. The government organized medical missions in other countries have taken a significant number of doctors and other personnel. In 2005 there were 25,000 Cuban doctors in Venezuela.
Public health care became universal healthcare on January 1, 2020 mandated by the new President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and approved by Congress. It is completely free for Mexican citizens who do not have health insurance. Mexico's new universal healthcare, administered by the Instituto de Salud para el Bienestar (Institute of Health for Welfare, INSABI), includes free consultations with family doctors and specialists, free medications, free surgeries, free dental and vision. As of 2020, public health care is provided to all Mexican citizens as guaranteed via Article 4 of the Constitution. Public care is now fully subsidized by the federal government. All Mexican citizens are eligible for subsidized health care regardless of their work status via a system of health care facilities operating under the federal Secretariat of Health (formerly the Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia, or SSA) agency.
Employed citizens and their dependents, however, are further eligible to use the health care program administered and operated by the Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social (IMSS) (English: Mexican Social Security Institute). The IMSS health care program is a tripartite system funded equally by the employee, its private employer, and the federal government. The IMSS does not provide service to employees of the public sector. Employees in the public sector are serviced by the Instituto de Seguridad y Servicios Sociales de los Trabajadores del Estado (ISSSTE) (English: Institute for Social Security and Services for State Workers), which attends to the health and social care needs of government employees. This includes local, state, and federal government employees. The government of the states in Mexico also provide health services independently of those services provided by the federal government programs. In most states, the state government has established free or subsidized healthcare to all their citizens.
In 2006, the Mexican government created the Health Insurance for a New Generation also known as "life insurance for babies". On May 28, 2009, Universal Care Coverage for Pregnant Women was introduced. In an 2020 expansion of health care coverage, all Mexicans are now covered.
Trinidad and Tobago
A universal health care system is used in Trinidad and Tobago and is the primary form of health-care available in the country. It is used by the majority of the population seeking medical assistance, as it is free for all citizens. Responsibility for the provision of healthcare services in Trinidad and Tobago was devolved from the Ministry of Health to Regional Health Authorities under the Regional Health Authorities Act No. 5 in 1994.
Health care is provided through a combination of employer and labor union-sponsored plans (Obras Sociales), government insurance plans, public hospitals and clinics and through private health insurance plans. It costs almost 10% of GDP and is available to anyone regardless of ideology, beliefs, race or nationality.
The universal health care system was adopted in Brazil in 1988 after the end of the military regime's rule. However, universal health care was available many years before, in some cities, once the 27th amendment to the 1969 Constitution imposed the duty of applying 6% of their income in healthcare on the municipalities. The Brazilian universal health care is called SUS (Sistema Único de Saúde), which covers all treatments, surgeries and medications for all resident and non-resident individuals within Brazilian jurisdiction, regardless of ethnicity, nationality, or visa - including tourists, passengers in transit and refugees.
Health care in Chile is provided by the government (via public corporation FONASA, National Healthcare Fund) and by private insurers (via ISAPRE, Previsional Healthcare Institutions). All workers and pensioners are mandated to pay 7% of their income for health care insurance (the poorest pensioners are exempt from this payment but medications are expensive and pensioners have to pay). Workers who choose not to join an Isapre, are automatically covered by Fonasa. Fonasa also covers unemployed people receiving unemployment benefits, uninsured pregnant women, insured worker's dependant family, people with mental or physical disabilities and people who are considered poor or indigent.
Fonasa costs vary depending on income, disability or age. Attention at public health facilities via Fonasa is free for low-income earners, people with mental or physical disabilities and people over the age of 60. Others pay 10% or 20% of the costs, depending on income and number of dependants. Fonasa beneficiaries may also seek attention in the private sector, for a designated fee.
Additionally, exist the GES Plan (Explicit Guarantees in Healthcare Plan), that consist of a defined number of high-morbility and mortality diseases (currently 85) that have special mandatory attention guarantees for all people, both Isapre and Fonasa affiliates, in relation to:
- Access: Universal access to treatment if required. Individuals will be able to get attention from a provider near their place of residence.
- Opportunity: Opportune waiting times, there is a maximum pre-established time limit to get initial and post-diagnosis attention.
- Financial protection: Law-fixed maximum price with low copayments to providers (maximum copayment of 20% of the cost), the payment cannot be an obstacle to attention. The total cost must not exceed one monthly income for the family in a year.
- Best possible quality of service: Attention only in accredited public or private Health centers, that follow technical requirement standards that will be established based on medical evidence.
The treatment protocols and number of diseases included are evaluated every 3 years by the authorities.
In 1993 a reform transformed the health care system in Colombia, trying to provide a better, sustainable, health care system and to reach every Colombian citizen.
On April 10, 2009, the Government of Peru published the Law on Health Insurance to enable all Peruvians to access quality health services, and contribute to regulate the financing and supervision of these services. The law enables all population to access diverse health services to prevent illnesses, and promote and rehabilitate people, under a Health Basic Plan (PEAS).
On April 2, 2010, President Alan Garcia Perez signed a supreme ordinance approving the regulations for the framework law on the Universal Health Insurance, which seeks to provide access to quality health care for all Peruvian citizens.
Peru's Universal Health Insurance law aims to increase access to timely and quality health care services, emphasizes maternal and child health promotion, and provides the poor with protection from financial ruin due to illness.
The regulation states that membership of the Universal Health Insurance (AUS for its Spanish acronym) is compulsory for the entire population living in the country. To that end, the Ministry of Health will approve, by supreme ordinance, the mechanisms leading to compulsory membership, as well as escalation and implementation.
The National Basic Health Insurance Law, introduced in 2014, provides access to a basic package of primary, secondary, and tertiary care services for citizens. It repeals the Healthcare Tariffs Law from 2005.
Australia and New Zealand have universal health care. It is not entirely free as it only covers 75% or 85% of scheduled costs and healthcare providers usually charge more than the scheduled costs so patients can be asked to pay up to 25% of the scheduled costs plus any amount over the scheduled cost that is required by the healthcare provider.
In Australia, Medibank—as it was then known—was introduced, by the Whitlam Labor government on July 1, 1975, through the Health Insurance Act 1973. The Australian Senate rejected the changes multiple times and they were passed only after a joint sitting after the 1974 double dissolution election. However, Medibank was supported by the subsequent Fraser Coalition (Australia) government and became a key feature of Australia's public policy landscape. The exact structure of Medibank/Medicare, in terms of the size of the rebate to doctors and hospitals and the way it has administered, has varied over the years. The original Medibank program proposed a 1.35% levy (with low income exemptions) but these bills were rejected by the Senate, and so Medibank was funded from general taxation. In 1976, the Fraser Government introduced a 2.5% levy and split Medibank in two: a universal scheme called Medibank Public and a government-owned private health insurance company, Medibank Private.
During the 1980s, Medibank Public was renamed Medicare by the Hawke Labor government, which also changed the funding model, to an income tax surcharge, known as the Medicare Levy, which was set at 1.5%, with exemptions for low income earners. The Howard Coalition government introduced an additional levy of 1.0%, known as the Medicare Levy Surcharge, for those on high annual incomes (,000) who do not have adequate levels of private hospital coverage. This was part of an effort by the Coalition to encourage take-up of private health insurance. According to WHO, government funding covered 67.5% of Australia's health care expenditures in 2004; private sources covered the remaining 32.5% of expenditures.
As of 2019, the Medicare levy is 2% of taxable income, with a Medicare levy surcharge, for those on high income who do not have appropriate private patient hospital cover (1% for singles on ,000 pa and families on 0,000 pa, rising to 1.5% for higher incomes).
As with Australia, New Zealand's healthcare system is funded through general taxation according to the Social Security Act 1938. However, aside from hospitalisation, there are user charges for prescriptions (introduced in February 1985) and partial subsidisation of general practitioner visits with additional provision for those on low or modest incomes known as Community Service Cards (introduced on February 1, 1992) to target healthcare based on income. These changes were part of broader controversial policies introduced by the Fourth National Government between 1991 and 1993 and effectively ended largely free provision of primary healthcare. According to the WHO, government sources covered 77.4% of New Zealand's health care costs in 2004; private expenditures covered the remaining 22.6%.
Historic attempts to bring general practitioner care into government ownership have been largely unfulfilled.
There are twenty district health boards as of 2019 whose task is ensuring the provision of health and disability services to populations within a defined geographical area and are partially elected while the remainder is appointed by New Zealand's Minister of Health. This system of management came into being on January 1, 2001, abolishing the much controversial Crown Health Enterprises regime which had replaced Area Health Boards previously
- ^ Butticè, Claudio (2019). Universal Health Care. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 20. ISBN 978-1-4408-6844-3.
- ^ Abelson, Reed; Sanger-Katz, Margot (March 23, 2019). "Medicare for All Would Abolish Private Insurance. 'There's No Precedent in American History.'". The New York Times.
- ^ "Brazil". www.commonwealthfund.org. Retrieved January 8, 2022.
- ^ "Algeria – Health And Welfare". Countrystudies.us. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Algeria Profile" (PDF).
- ^ "Botswana:The Health System - AHO". Archived from the original on August 3, 2014. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ JLN. "Burkina Faso adopts universal health insurance system - - Joint Learning Network". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "Insurance". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "NHIS - Your Access to Healthcare". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "Tiny African Island Has Soaring GDP, Free Healthcare and Free Higher Education - The Utopianist". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Boutayeb, Abdesslam (March 7, 2006). "International Journal for Equity in Health | Full text | Social inequalities and health inequity in Morocco". International Journal for Equity in Health. Equityhealthj.com. 5 (1): 1. doi:10.1186/1475-9276-5-1. PMC 1420301. PMID 16522204.
- ^ "In Rwanda, Health Care Coverage That Eludes the U.S." Opinionator (blog of The New York Times). July 3, 2012. Archived from the original on February 3, 2014.
- ^ "Health care in South Africa". SouthAfrica.info. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Survey: Medical aid customer satisfaction slides". bizcommunity.com. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
- ^ "81% of households that use public healthcare 'satisfied' - Stats SA". SouthAfrica.info. June 22, 2018. Retrieved August 3, 2019.
- ^ "The healthcare system in Tunisia". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "National Health Policy: Ministry of Health" (PDF).
- ^ "Introduction to healthcare in Bahrain". Justlanded.com. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "BPJS Kesehatan". bpjs-kesehatan.go.id.
- ^ "The best and worst of worlds: Tehran's public hospital wards". Theguardian.com. January 28, 2015. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
- ^ The Health Care System in Israel- An Historical Perspective Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Retrieved June 7, 2006.
- ^ "Embassy of Jordan (Washington, D.C.) – Jordan Information Bureau". Jordanembassyus.org. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Kazakhstan Health System – Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System". Photius.com. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Malaysia Health System Review" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 27, 2014.
- ^ "Mongolia Health-Care Systems – Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political Sy". Photius.com. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Oman Guide: Introduction, An introduction to health care in Oman: Oman offers high quality health care equal". Justlanded.com. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ a b Yusafzai, Mushtaq (November 6, 2020). "PM Imran Khan launches free healthcare services programme in KP today". The News International. Archived from the original on November 6, 2020. Retrieved November 7, 2020.
- ^ "WHO | Primary Health Care in Action". Who.int. September 26, 2008. Archived from the original on October 16, 2008. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "North Korea's Surprisingly Robust Healthcare System". Globalasia.org. Retrieved October 26, 2021.
- ^ "Ministry of Health and Nutrition, Sri Lanka". Health.gov.lk. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ Obaida Hamad (February 2011). "Health system reforms: Better services at what cost?". Forward Magazine. Archived from the original on May 22, 2012. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- ^ "Bureau of National Health Insurance, Taiwan". Nhi.gov.tw. September 28, 2011. Archived from the original on September 28, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Country Health System Profile: Bhutan". World Health Organization. Archived from the original on June 1, 2012.
- ^ Guo, Jia (March 28, 2017). "How does healthcare in the U.S. compare with China's?". SupChina. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
- ^ a b Zhou, Viola (January 10, 2018). "Does China have universal health care? A long (and better) answer". Inkstone. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd.
- ^ a b Yip, Winnie; Hsiao, William (March 2008). "The Chinese Health System At A Crossroads". Health Affairs. 27 (2): 460–8. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.27.2.460. PMID 18332503.
- ^ Carrin G, Ron A, Hui Y, et al. (April 1999). "The reform of the rural cooperative medical system in the People's Republic of China: interim experience in 14 pilot counties". Soc Sci Med. 48 (7): 961–72. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00396-7. PMID 10192562.
- ^ Staff (October 14, 2008). "Medical Reform Draft Open to Public Debate". Xinhua News Agency (via the China Internet Information Center). Retrieved April 10, 2014.
- ^ Staff (January 21, 2009). "China Passes New Medical Reform Plan". xinhuanet.com. Retrieved April 10, 2014.
- ^ "Healthy life expectancy in Hong Kong". World Health Organization. Retrieved June 7, 2008.
- ^ "Rank Order – Life expectancy at birth". The World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency. January 24, 2008. Retrieved February 1, 2008.
- ^ "World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision" (PDF). United Nations. 2007. Retrieved February 1, 2008.
- ^ Olsen, Sonja K.; Brown, Robert S. (2008). "Live Donor Liver Transplantation: Current Status". Current Gastroenterology Reports. 10 (1): 36–42. doi:10.1007/s11894-008-0007-x. PMID 18417041. S2CID 19274021.
- ^ Zodpey, Sanjay; Farooqui, Habib Hasan (2018). "Universal Health Coverage in India: Progress achieved & the way forward". The Indian Journal of Medical Research. 147 (4): 327–329. doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_616_18. PMC 6057252. PMID 29998865.
- ^ "Covid is an opportunity to make structural changes to our largest health insurance and pension schemes". April 21, 2021.
- ^ https://www.esic.nic.in/coverage
- ^ "Why you should not miss out on your health insurance renewal". April 20, 2021.
- ^ "17 Government Health Insurance Schemes in India: Govt Mediclaim Policy".
- ^ ₹2.6 trillion
- ^ "Primary health care". www.who.int.
- ^ "Health Care in the Mohallas (SSIR)". ssir.org.
- ^ Kalra, Aditya (October 30, 2014). "India's universal healthcare rollout to cost billion". Reuters. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Post, The Jakarta. "Q&A: BPJS Kesehatan, health for all Indonesians". The Jakarta Post.
- ^ "Health Minister Vows to Fast-Track Private Hospital Permits". Jakarta Globe.
- ^ "Indonesia - HEALTH". countrystudies.us.
- ^ "history of Israel health care".
- ^ Cohen, Nisim. "?מיהו יזם פוליטי" [Who is a Political Promoter?] (PDF) (in Hebrew). Open University of Israel. Retrieved December 26, 2019.
- ^ Desk, BR Web (December 13, 2021). "PM Imran launches Naya Pakistan Sehat Programme in Punjab". Brecorder. Retrieved December 13, 2021.
- ^ "EXPLAINER: Universal Health Care Law and what it means to PH development". National Economic and Development Authority. June 18, 2019. Retrieved July 26, 2021.
- ^ a b c d "World Health Organization Statistical Information System: Core Health Indicators". Who.int. Archived from the original on April 29, 2007. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ World Health Organization, "World Health Statistics 2007: Mortality", based on 2005 data.
- ^ a b John Tucci, "The Singapore health system – achieving positive health outcomes with low expenditure", Watson Wyatt Healthcare Market Review, October 2004. Archived April 19, 2010, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Library of Congress – Federal Research Division (2007). "Country Profile: North Korea" (PDF). Library of Congress – Federal Research Division. Retrieved September 6, 2010.
- ^ Country Profile 2007, pp. 7–8. sfn error: no target: CITEREFCountry_Profile2007 (help)
- ^ "Ask a North Korean: What is the healthcare system in the DPRK really like? | NK News". February 21, 2020.
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on November 24, 2016. Retrieved January 28, 2017.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ Fanchiang, Cecilia (January 2, 2004). "New IC health insurance card expected to offer many benefits" Archived June 6, 2008, at the Wayback Machine. Taiwan Journal. Retrieved March 28, 2008.
- ^ "Taiwan Takes Fastrack to Universal Health Care". All Things Considered, NPR. April 15, 2008. Retrieved October 5, 2008.
- ^ Jui-Fen Rachel Lu; William C. Hsiao (2003). "Does Universal Health Insurance Make Health Care Unaffordable? Lessons From Taiwan". Health Affairs. 22 (3): 77–88. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.22.3.77. PMID 12757274.
- ^ G20 Health Care: "Health Care Systems and Health Market Reform in the G20 Countries." Prepared for the World Economic Forum by Ernst & Young. January 3, 2006.
- ^ "The Universal Coverage Policy of Thailand: An Introduction". Unescap.org. Archived from the original on January 19, 2012. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ Hughes D, Leethongdee S (2007). "Universal coverage in the land of smiles: lessons from Thailand's 30 baht health reforms". Health Affairs. 26 (4): 999–1008. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.26.4.999. PMID 17630443.
- ^ "Thailand eliminates mother-to-child HIV transmission". CNN. June 8, 2016. Retrieved February 5, 2018.
- ^ Sanger-Katz, Margot (February 19, 2019). "What's the Difference Between a 'Public Option' and 'Medicare for All'?". The New York Times.
- ^ Belarus. "Health in Belarus. Healthcare system of Belarus". Europe-cities.com. Archived from the original on September 30, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Moldova Healthcare". Archived from the original on January 25, 2010.
- ^ Portugal: Bentes M, Dias CM, Sakellarides C, Bankauskaite V. Health Care Systems in Transition: Portugal. WHO are Regional Offices for Europe on behalf of the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, 2004.
- ^ Constitution of Ukraine Archived April 15, 1997, at the Wayback Machine Chapter 2, Article 49. Adopted at the Fifth Session of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on June 28, 1996.
- ^ Physicians for a National Health Program "International Health Systems".
- ^ Staff (undated). "The Austrian healthcare system Overview of how it works". justlanded.com. Retrieved October 16, 2011.
- ^ Corens, Dirk (2007). "Belgium, health system review" (PDF). Health Systems in Transition. European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies. 9 (2).
- ^ Euro WHO (2018). "HiT-Bulgaria" (PDF).
- ^ "KELA – Use of European Health Insurance Card in Finland". Kela.fi. Archived from the original on November 25, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "European Commission: Health and long-term care in the European Union" (PDF). Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Health Systems in Transition Vol. 10 No. 4 2008; Finland health system review" (PDF). Retrieved January 9, 2015.
- ^ "Reimbursements for medicine expenses". kela.en.
- ^ a b c d Järvelin, Jutta (2002). "Health Care Systems in Transition" (PDF). The European Observatory on Health Care Systems. Retrieved February 25, 2009.
- ^ http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/33/38976604.pdf
- ^ http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_283_en.pdf European Commission: Health and long-term care in the European Union
- ^ "News item on healthcare costs in 2006 (in Finnish)".
- ^ "World Health Organization Assesses the World's Health Systems". Who.int. December 8, 2010. Retrieved January 6, 2012.
- ^ "Georgia's health financing reforms show tangible benefits for the population".
- ^ Verulava T, Jorbenadze R, Barkalaia T (2017). "Introduction of universal health program in Georgia: Problems and Perspectives". Georgian Medical News. 262 (262): 116–120. PMID 28252441.
- ^ Bump, Jesse B. (October 19, 2010). "The long road to universal health coverage. A century of lessons for development strategy" (PDF). Seattle: PATH. Retrieved March 11, 2013.
Carrin and James have identified 1988—105 years after Bismarck's first sickness fund laws—as the date Germany achieved universal health coverage through this series of extensions to minimum benefit packages and expansions of the enrolled population. Bärnighausen and Sauerborn have quantified this long-term progressive increase in the proportion of the German population covered by public and private insurance. Their graph is reproduced below as Figure 1: German Population Enrolled in Health Insurance (%) 1885–1995.
- ^ Carrin, Guy; James, Chris (January 2005). "Social health insurance: Key factors affecting the transition towards universal coverage" (PDF). International Social Security Review. 58 (1): 45–64. doi:10.1111/j.1468-246x.2005.00209.x. S2CID 154659524. Retrieved March 11, 2013.
Initially the health insurance law of 1883 covered blue-collar workers in selected industries, craftspeople and other selected professionals.6 It is estimated that this law brought health insurance coverage up from 5 to 10 per cent of the total population.
- ^ Bärnighausen, Till; Sauerborn, Rainer (May 2002). "One hundred and eighteen years of the German health insurance system: are there any lessons for middle- and low income countries?" (PDF). Social Science & Medicine. 54 (10): 1559–1587. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00137-X. PMID 12061488. Retrieved March 11, 2013.
As Germany has the world's oldest SHI [social health insurance] system, it naturally lends itself to historical analyses.
- ^ Leichter, Howard M. (1979). A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-521-22648-6.
The Sickness Insurance Law (1883). Eligibility. The Sickness Insurance Law came into effect in December 1884. It provided for compulsory participation by all industrial wage earners (i.e., manual laborers) in factories, ironworks, mines, shipbuilding yards, and similar workplaces.
- ^ Hennock, Ernest Peter (2007). The origin of the welfare state in England and Germany, 1850–1914: social policies compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-521-59212-3.
- ^ a b c "Private or public? An introduction health insurance in Germany". allaboutberlin.com. Retrieved February 8, 2019.
- ^ GKV-Spitzenverband. "Statutory health insurance - GKV-Spitzenverband". www.gkv-spitzenverband.de (in German). Retrieved February 8, 2019.
- ^ Kirkman-Liff BL (1990). "Physician Payment and Cost-Containment Strategies in West Germany: Suggestions for Medicare Reform". Journal of Health Care Politics, Policy and Law. 15 (1): 69–99. doi:10.1215/03616878-15-1-69. PMID 2108202.
- ^ Henke KD (May 2007). "[External and internal financing in health care]". Med. Klin. (Munich) (in German). 102 (5): 366–72. doi:10.1007/s00063-007-1045-0. PMID 17497087. S2CID 46136822.
- ^ "Length of hospital stay, Germany". Group-economics.allianz.com. July 25, 2005. Archived from the original on June 12, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Length of hospital stay, U.S". Cdc.gov. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ Borger C, Smith S, Truffer C, et al. (2006). "Health spending projections through 2015: changes on the horizon". Health Aff (Millwood). 25 (2): w61–73. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.w61. PMID 16495287.
- ^ Esmail, N (2005). How Good is Canadian Health Care? 2005 Report. fraserinstitute.org. p. 2.
- ^ "Health Act 2004". Irish Statute Book. Office of the Attorney General. Archived from the original on June 5, 2011. Retrieved October 5, 2010.
- ^ "Prescription charges for medical card holders". www.citizensinformation.ie.
- ^ "Hospital Charges". HSE.ie.
- ^ Cullen, Paul. "Cost of GP visit varies from €30 to €65 across State". The Irish Times.
- ^ "Sláintecare". www.gov.ie. Retrieved December 2, 2020.
- ^ "Life Sciences and Health Care". Deloitte Luxembourg.
- ^ "CNS // Luxembourg". cns.public.lu.
- ^ "Who Pays Your Dental Bill?". Helsenorge. December 6, 2019.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 24, 2016. Retrieved November 21, 2015.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ Zhuraleva et al., Teaching History of Medicine in Russia.
- ^ "Yandex Lingvo".
- ^ Natalya Rapoport Untold Stories of Pioneers in Medical Sciences Under Stalin's Tyranny 304 pages, 2020 ISBN 978-9811209178 ISBN 9811209170
- ^ "Search Official Documents - OECD" (PDF). Retrieved August 15, 2018.
- ^ "Chapter 2. Rights and Freedoms of Man And Citizen | The Constitution of the Russian Federation". www.constitution.ru.
- ^ "О МЕДИЦИНСКОМ СТРАХОВАНИИ ГРАЖДАН В РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ". Archived from the original on February 3, 2016. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- ^ "Russia – Unified Social Tax replaced by insurance contributions". Archived from the original on June 28, 2010.
- ^ "В России граждане платят одни из самых высоких налогов. Мы подсчитали (и ужаснулись)". Телеканал «Красная Линия».
- ^ "Страховые взносы на ОМС". www.ffoms.gov.ru.
- ^ "Ustav Republike Srbije (The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia)". Archived from the original on April 29, 2011. Retrieved April 11, 2012.
- ^ "Spanish healthcare, once again leading world rankings". #ThisIsTheRealSpain. February 21, 2020. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
- ^ "Bloomberg - Healthcare efficiency scores in 56 countries". www.bloomberg.com. Retrieved April 19, 2020.
- ^ "Svenskarna lever länge men hälsan är ojämlik i landet". Folkhälsomyndigheten. January 22, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Sjukvårdens struktur bidrar till ojämlik vård". Läkartidningen. June 15, 2018. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Arbete för jämlik hälsa i Sverige nationellt, regionalt och lokalt". Idunn. January 1, 2016. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Ojämlik vård – dags för verkstad". Life-time. March 26, 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Risk of dying from COVID-19 in Sweden is greater for men an the unmarried". Stockholm University. October 9, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Covid-19 vanligare i utsatta områden - är sårbarhet för sjukdomar en klassfråga?". Stockholm University. April 24, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2020.
- ^ "Corona härjar bland fattiga – rika klarar sig". Expressen. April 24, 2020. Retrieved June 28, 2020.
- ^ "Health insurance for foreign nationals". www.ch.ch.
- ^ Schwartz, Nelson D. (October 1, 2009). "Swiss health care thrives without public option". The New York Times. p. A1.
- ^ a b Tatar, M., S. Mollahaliloglu, B. Sahin, S. Aydin, A. Maresso and C. Hernández-Quevedo (2011), “Turkey: Health System Review”, Health Systems in Transition, Vol. 13, No. 6, pp. 1-186.
- ^ Borowitz, M. and H. Kluge (forthcoming), “Pay for Performance in Health Care: Implications for Health System Efficiency and Accountability”, WHO and the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies Publishers.
- ^ Sulku, S. and D. Bernard (2009), “Financial Burden of Health Care Expenditures in Turkey: 2002-2003”, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Working Paper, No. 09004, Rockville, United States.
- ^ NHS now four different systems BBC January 2, 2008
- ^ "NHS Constitution for England". Dh.gov.uk. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ Cathy Schoen; Robin Osborn (2004). "The Commonwealth Fund 2004 International Health Policy Survey of Primary Care in Five Countries" (PDF).
- ^ Kingdom, NHS Digital, 1 Trevelyan Square, Boar Lane, Leeds, LS1 6AE, United. "Hospital Episode Statistics". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "18 weeks patient pathway". Archived from the original on October 12, 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ "18 weeks patient pathway" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 25, 2009. Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Smee, Clive (October 2000). "Department of Health Special Section: Reconsidering the Role of Competition in Health Care Markets". Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 25 (5): 945–951. doi:10.1215/03616878-25-5-945. PMID 11068739.
- ^ Are you buying private medical insurance? Association of British Insurers
- ^ "N. generation surgery-centers to carry out thousands more NHS operations every year". Department of Health. December 3, 2002. Retrieved September 15, 2006.
- ^ Introduction to NHS Wales 1960's www.wales.nhs.uk
- ^ "Department of Health Service Delivery Plan 2011" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on December 29, 2011. Retrieved August 7, 2011.
- ^ "Expat Guernsey". Retrieved August 7, 2011.
- ^ "NHI Bahamas -". Retrieved November 30, 2016.
- ^ Government of Canada, Social Union, News Release, "A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians: An Agreement between the Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces and Territories, February 4, 1999." Retrieved December 20, 2006.
- ^ Public vs. private health care. CBC, December 1, 2006.
- ^ Press release, "Health care spending to reach 0 billion this year" Archived December 23, 2007, at the Wayback Machine, Canadian Institute for Health Information, November 13, 2007. Retrieved November 19, 2007.
- ^ National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975–2007 Archived February 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Canadian Institute for Health Information, November 13, 2007. Retrieved November 19, 2007.
- ^ The OECD Health Project (2004). Private Health Insurance In OECD Countries. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. ISBN 978-92-64-00668-3.
- ^ Kraus, Clifford (February 26, 2006). "As Canada's Slow-Motion Public Health System Falters, Private Medical Care Is Surging". The New York Times. Retrieved July 16, 2007.
- ^ Steinbrook, R. (April 2006). "Private health care in Canada". New England Journal of Medicine. 354 (16): 1661–4. doi:10.1056/NEJMp068064. PMID 16625005.
- ^ Health System Innovations in Central America. World Bank Working Papers. The World Bank. July 1, 2005. doi:10.1596/978-0-8213-6278-5. ISBN 978-0-8213-6278-5.
- ^ Toward Universal Health Coverage and Equity in Latin America and the Caribbean https://dx.doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0454-0
- ^ Fisher, Bill (January 1, 2020). "Universal Healthcare INSABI begins in Mexico January 1st announced Health Department". Gobierno de Mexico. Retrieved February 17, 2020.
- ^ "El portal único del gobierno. | gob.mx". failover.www.gob.mx. Archived from the original on December 8, 2009.
- ^ "El portal único del gobierno. | gob.mx". failover.www.gob.mx. Archived from the original on January 10, 2011.
- ^ "El portal único del gobierno. | gob.mx". failover.www.gob.mx. Archived from the original on June 22, 2009.
- ^ "El portal único del gobierno. | gob.mx". failover.www.gob.mx. Archived from the original on June 22, 2009.
- ^ "Emc1". Planalto.gov.br. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Law on Health Insurance published today". Andina.com.pe. Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "President Garcia: Law on Health Insurance marks major reform". Andina.com.pe. Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Aseguramiento Universal de Salud – Perú". Aus-peru.blogspot.com. February 24, 2004. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "President Garcia signs regulations for Universal Health Insurance law". Andina.com.pe. Archived from the original on October 1, 2011. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ Australian Taxation Office (June 19, 2007). "What is the Medicare levy?". Archived from the original on October 22, 2007. Retrieved February 15, 2008.
- ^ "Medicare Levy Surcharge". Ato.gov.au. Archived from the original on August 12, 2013. Retrieved November 14, 2011.
- ^ "Medicare levy". Australian Taxation Office. Australian Government. Archived from the original on June 29, 2013. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
- ^ "Medicare levy surcharge". Australian Taxation Office. Australian Government. Retrieved June 27, 2019.
- ^ Community Service Cards Authored by Steve Maharey, former Minister of Social Development
- ^  New Zealand Parliamentary Debates, September 19, 1985, pg 6,971
- ^ Healthcare Authored by Michael Bassett, former Minister of Health between 1984 and 1987
- ^  from Ministry of Health, last updated January 2005
14-11-2021 · On average, COVID tests range in price between 0-0. Fast turnaround times typically come at a premium. As an incentive to travel, some holiday companies offer testing as part of their ...
COVID-19 tests in Sydney have become a reality for anyone planning to fly overseas. This is a requirement for international travel to most countries. Being fully vaccinated isn't enough – you also have to prove you don't have the virus via a recognised COVID-19 Travel Certificate.
Compare PCR testing clinics in Sydney and NSW
PCR tests in Sydney
COVID-19 testing for pre-departure international travel clearance is only available at private pathology collection centres. This means you cannot rely on a free test from a COVID testing clinic. Instead, you will need to pay a fee for a COVID-19 Travel Certificate.
Fortunately, it's not too difficult to book a PCR test and get your certification for as little as 0. You can arrange a test from a number of clinics around New South Wales up to 72 hours before you fly. The amount you pay will depend on the clinic and how quickly you need the results.
You can find a list of clinic locations where you can book a test and receive your COVID-19 Travel Certificate below.
How to book a PCR test before arriving at the airport
A number of private clinics provide PCR tests for travel from collection centre locations around New South Wales. Clinics operating in Sydney and wider New South Wales include Australian Clinical Labs, 4Cyte Pathology and Histopath.
To book a test, simply head to the website of your preferred (or most local) testing provider and follow the relevant appointment booking instructions outlined. Many of the testing locations don't actually require an appointment and offer services on a walk-in basis.
How much do express PCR tests cost?
An Express RT-PCR Swab test from Wickham Histopath Pathology Drive-Through Clinic costs 0. If you are travelling to China, you will also need to take a Blood Antibody test. Both tests combined cost 0.
PCR testing centres in Sydney and NSW
|Australian Clinical Labs|
|Sonic Travel Testing|
A reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, often referred to as PCR, is a swab test used to diagnose people who are infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. These are the most accurate tests for the virus and are sent to a laboratory for analysis.
If your destination requires you to take a PCR test, check whether this can be done at home by you and mailed into the lab, or whether you need to have it carried out at a registered test centre or by a clinician. You might have to pay a bit more to go to a test centre or clinician but your results tend to be quicker and more accurate.
Lateral flow tests are quick tests you can do at home if you have no symptoms of COVID. This involves doing a swab of your tonsils and nose and works similarly to a pregnancy test. Within 30 minutes you'll see if you've tested positive or negative for the virus.
Some airlines and destinations require you to present a COVID "fit to fly" or "fit to travel" certificate before you travel. As well as your name and date of birth, it will include your passport number, proof of your negative COVID test result and the time and date of the test.
In terms of COVID, "fit to fly" isn't an official term. But companies have come up with this based on a standard fit to fly certificate, which is a certificate provided by GPs to people with pre-existing conditions as proof that they're safe to travel.
There are multiple private companies that provide COVID tests in New South Wales. Do your research to find out which provider is the most suitable for your travel plans. You need to make sure your test result will be accepted by your destination and whether you also need a certificate to prove a negative result. Note that some test providers charge more for this.
No, you'll need to pay to have a COVID test for travel as you can't use a free clinic test as these do not provide the required documentation.
On average, COVID tests range in price between 0 and 0. Fast turnaround times typically come at a premium. As an incentive to travel, some holiday companies offer testing as part of their package. Some airports have drive-through and walk-in PCR test centres but unfortunately, Sydney Airport does not.
You can but whether you choose to or not will depend on the requirements of the country you are travelling to and any stipulations your airline might have in place. Before ordering an at-home COVID test, check the requirements of the area you are travelling to, as well as any COVID guidance from your airline or travel company. Also note that a home testing kit will not be accepted when re-entering Australia. Instead, you need to get an RT-PCR test.
Currently, there's no national, searchable database of private COVID testing centres for travellers. To find your nearest centre, we recommend you search on Google for test centres in your area and then check to see if they offer legally recognised certificates for travel. Alternatively, you can use the interactive table at the top of this guide.
If you are travelling internationally from NSW you must follow the testing requirements of the country you're travelling to. Generally, you'll need to provide proof of a negative test up to 3 days before you travel.Before you travel back home to Australia, you'll also need to take a PCR test up to 3 days before your departure. You'll need to show proof of your negative test result. You must also complete an Australia Travel Declaration form 72 hours before you travel. This is free and can be submitted online.
When you arrive back in Australia, you'll need to take another test on the 5th day after your arrival.
The best way to check what type of test you need is to look at the testing requirements for your chosen destination in the Australia government's foreign travel advice, where you can see the requirements of the country you're travelling to.
This depends on the country abroad that you're flying to – each country has its own rules. When returning to Australia, under-10s don't take any tests. If you're returning to NSW with a child 12 to 17 years old who isn't fully vaccinated, they will need to undertake a PCR test within 24 hours of arriving and quarantine at home for 7 days. They also need to take a second PCR test on day 5 of their isolation period.
So long as you don't leave the airport and you get tested within 72 hours of the final flight (or as per the time frame listed by the airline's policy), you should be fine. Wherever you take the test is irrelevant, so long as it meets the destination country and airline's requirements. Just be sure to check the specific guidelines for each country you'll set foot in.
Firstly, stay put and check the government advice for the country that you're in, so you can figure out your next move. The most important thing to do is isolate. You may be moved to a quarantine hotel until you test negative, depending on the country's protocols. Contact your airline about rescheduling your flight home once you receive a negative test, and you may even be able to claim back the extra costs incurred if you've taken out holiday insurance.
Unfortunately not. When flying back to Australia, a lateral flow test won't do. You'll need to book a PCR test through a provider either ahead of your journey so you can take it before you return, or by booking in with a provider abroad. The results must be in English and you can show them using a text, email or printed document. Be sure your airline accepts the test you're planning to use before you buy it.
If you're travelling internationally, here's where you can book a COVID test in Perth and surrounding Western Australia.Read more…
If you're travelling internationally, here's where you can book a COVID test in Ballarat and the surrounding Victoria area.Read more…
If you're travelling internationally, here's where you can book a COVID test in Newcastle and the surrounding NSW area.Read more…
Book your PCR Covid test from one of these Australian clinics and compare prices before you travel.Read more…
Here's where you can book a PCR test for overseas travel in Canberra, Sydney and wider NSW.Read more…
If you're travelling internationally, here's where you can book a COVID test in Geelong and the surrounding Victoria area.Read more…
If you're travelling internationally, here's where you can book a COVID test in Toowoomba and the surrounding Queensland area.Read more…
Compare private COVID-19 test providers and get the lowest prices for all the tests you need to travel to and from Australia.Read more…
Australian shoppers can now buy COVID-19 self-tests (home use) from local sellers - but only if they're approved by the TGA.Read more…
12-10-2021 · Most Chase credit cardholders can now enjoy complimentary Instacart Express membership until April 2022 as well as a discount on your next Instacart order of or more (exclusions apply). As ...
Select’s editorial team works independently to review financial products and write articles we think our readers will find useful. We may receive a commission when you click on links for products from our affiliate partners.
Chase announced a new partnership with grocery-delivery service Instacart. Most Chase credit cardholders can now enjoy complimentary Instacart Express membership until April 2022 as well as a discount on your next Instacart order of or more (exclusions apply).
As more people have started taking advantage of the convenience of grocery and food delivery during the pandemic, many card issuers are responding by offering additional perks to their customers.
Here's what you need to know about the Chase/Instacart benefit and how to sign-up.
There are a wide range of Chase cards that are eligible for this offer, including:
- Chase Sapphire Preferred® Card
- Chase Sapphire Reserve®
- Chase Freedom cards (Chase Freedom Unlimited®, Chase Freedom® Student and Chase Freedom Flex℠)
- J.P. Morgan Reserve card
- Aer Lingus Visa Signature® Card
- British Airways Visa Signature® Card
- Disney cards (Disney® Premier Visa® Card and Disney® Visa® Card)
- Iberia Visa Signature® Card
- IHG® cards (IHG® Rewards Club Premier Credit Card, Select Credit Card, IHG® Rewards Club Traveler Credit Card and Classic Credit Card)
- Marriott Bonvoy cards (Premier Credit Card, Marriott Bonvoy Boundless® Credit Card and Marriott Bonvoy Bold® Credit Card)
- The Ritz-Carlton™ Credit Card
- Southwest cards (Southwest Rapid Rewards® Plus Credit Card, Employee Credit Card, Southwest Rapid Rewards® Premier Credit Card, Southwest Rapid Rewards® Priority Credit Card and Southwest® Rapid Rewards® Performance Business Credit Card)
- Starbucks® Rewards Visa® Card
- United Airlines credit cards (Club℠ Card, Presidential Plus℠ Card, Select Card, United MileagePlus® Card and United℠ Explorer Card)
If your Chase credit card is on the list of eligible cards, follow these steps to claim your free Instacart Express membership:
- Login or sign up for an account at Instacart.com
- Click this link here to activate your membership
- The discount will be added to your account and applied to the total purchase price for your next order of or more (exclusions apply). You must pay with your qualifying Chase card.
With the free membership to Instacart Express, you get the following benefits:
- Free delivery on orders over
- Reduced service fees
- If you order from multiple stores in one order, you will not incur extra fees
Instacart claims you will save an average of per order with Instacart Express.
Th Instacart benefit is good until April 30, 2022. On that date, your card will be charged to auto-renew the membership for the following year.
If you want to avoid this, you can set up your account so it cancels before the autorenewal:
- Go to menu and click Instacart Express
- Click cancel membership
- Follow the prompts to end the membership until you get to the "confirm membership cancellation" page
- There will be a red button indicating to end the membership on Apr. 30
There are 41 different Chase credit cards that qualify for this great benefit. However, here are two cards we recommend based on the welcome offers and excellent rewards programs.
Chase Sapphire Preferred®
The Chase Sapphire Preferred is a great travel rewards credit card that comes with a valuable welcome offer of Chase Ultimate Rewards®, along with 3X points per dollar spent on online grocery purchases like Instacart Express. The card has a annual fee.
The Chase Freedom Unlimited card is a useful cash-back credit card that earns rewards in specific categories. Cardholders can earn 5% cash back on grocery store purchases (not including Target® or Walmart® purchases) on up to ,000 spent in the first year, 5% cash back on travel purchased through Chase Ultimate Rewards®, 3% on dining at restaurants (including takeout) and drugstores and 1.5% on all other purchases. The card does not have an annual fee.
Instacart offers delivery from a myriad of stores, including Walmart, Costco, Bed Bath and Beyond, Petco and more. And with many Chase credit cards offering Instacart Express for free, it can give you additional savings and added convenience.
However, while this service is complimentary, remember that the items purchased through Instacart are not the same price you would pay going to the store yourself. It's a premium service, but sometimes your time and convenience can be worth the extra money.
Editorial Note: Opinions, analyses, reviews or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the Select editorial staff’s alone, and have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any third party.
19-11-2021 · British Airways Black Friday deals. British Airways just dropped its 2021 Black Friday deals with offers to top US destinations, including £299 return flights to New York, Boston and Philadelphia from London Heathrow. US holiday packages with British Airways Holidays are also on offer, including three nights in New York from £399pp and three nights in Boston from £419pp. For something ...
Some of the best flight deals can be found on Black Friday and Cyber Monday, with many airlines offering discounted rates and special prices on everything from short European trips to long-haul flights. After a year without much chance of travel, many will be planning a big trip in 2022, and Cyber Weekend is the perfect time to get the ball rolling. Here’s what you need to know.
Do airfares go on sale on Cyber Monday?
Yes. Many airlines offer discounts for both Black Friday and Cyber Monday, but they can be fleeting. By signing up to mailing lists or regularly checking airline website you’ll stand yourself in good stead to find the best price for your destination.
Is it better to buy flights on Black Friday or Cyber Monday?
It often depends on the airline, but many will have discounts running throughout the entire Cyber Weekend. However, if you’ve got your eye on a particular flight it’s best to book sooner rather than later to avoid missing out, as flights tend to book up very quickly at this time of year.
British Airways Cyber Monday deals
British Airways dropped its 2021 Cyber Weekend deals with offers to top US destinations, including £299 return flights to New York, Boston and Philadelphia from London Heathrow. US holiday packages with British Airways Holidays are also on offer, including three nights in New York from £399pp and three nights in Boston from £419pp.
For something closer, European trips including flights and two nights’ hotel accommodation from £119pp to Barcelona, Budapest, Milan, Nice, Prague, Warsaw and Lisbon are included.
There's also up to a further £300 off holiday packages to any destination, available on trips taken any time before 20 October 2022. Offers will be available until Tuesday 30 November 2021.
23-11-2021 · US NEWS. 2021 Black Friday and Cyber Monday flight deals: how to get the best offers on American Airlines, Expedia... Travelers that are planning to take a …
When looking for a great deal on a flight, flexibility is key to getting the lowest price and not just when you want to travel but when you can look for a deal. Airlines and travel bargain search pages will be releasing special offers for those seeking to get away but you’ll need to sign up to be in the know about those special offers.
Signing up for services to help you trap the lowest priced tickets can save you time and trouble, freeing up your time to enjoy other things in life other than scouring the internet to find that elusive deal you’re looking for.
Finding the best deal on a flight requires patience. Some of the common tips are to look for deals on Tuesdays when airlines release updated fare sales. It’s also advised not to wait until the last minute, nor book too early. If you are willing to fly on a major holiday, you can avoid the higher costs around those peak price times. But often time it boils down to just plain luck with airlines releasing mistake fares.
In this case it would be best to have someone on the lookout for you to let you know when those fares are available. You generally need to be a member in order to receive those prized deals, some of those services require a subscription fee.
Services to help search out deals
Expedia is one of the most popular free services to find deals on flights and hotels. The more you use the service, the more points you can acquire and thus preferential treatment. The travel destination search engine has special member-only Black Friday through Cyber Monday offerings for those who sign up to the service.
Dollar Flight Club is a subscription service, which finds deals for customers across the globe from their home airport to worlwide destinations. Subscribers have the option of a Premium service for a few dollars per month or Premium Plus for per month. The company claims that users of the Premium Plus can save on average up to 0 with its flight deals.
Don’t expect incredible Black Friday Deals in 2021
Thrifty Traveler throws some cold water on those hoping to get a great deal while they are letting their Thanksgiving meal settle. There will be some decent discounts but according to the subscription service for finding flight deals “there’s no best day to book flights,” and that includes Black Friday and Cyber Monday. However, this service which charges .99 per year will do the legwork for you to find deals year-round.
The general rule of thumb is that you need to be flexible on when you can travel. After the covid-19 crush on the travel industry the post-vaccine recovery has put companies in the travel industry back in control of pricing. Especially hotels according to the New York Times. After booking a flight, finding a deal on a hotel will be more difficult outside of the short term as the industry is still adjusting to the post-covid landscape. In the meantime travelers will have to cross their fingers.
15-11-2021 · A report Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold last week revealed that the D.C. hotel isn't Trump's only problem. Many of his properties are hemorrhaging money. "It was losing millions and ...
Former President Donald Trump has a 0 million bank loan coming due in 2024 from Deutsche Bank for his Washington, D.C. property. But according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump has found a way out. He's selling it to Hilton.
Trump leased the hotel for 0,000 a month for the next 60 years, but that lease will be broken with the agreement to fork over the property after years of profit losses.
Trump signed the lease Aug. 25, 2013, and began developing it in 2014, which would mean he would pay about million a year for a total of million. He also got million in government tax credits for the hotel. He pledged to spend 0 million in developing it and it's unclear how much operations cost for the hotel.
While the Wall Street Journal reported that the hotel generated 0 million in revenue over the four years of Trump's presidency, it doesn't appear that revenue was enough to cover the operations and interest payments on the Deutsche Bank loan.
Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.
According to Forbes, "the property has been struggling to make money for years. Operating profits (measured as earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) for the 12 months ending Aug. 31, 2017, appeared to be negative .3 million, according to an analysis of the financial documents released by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. The next year, things improved, but the Trumps still only squeezed out 0,000 of operating profits on .3 million in revenue, and they lost money after paying interest on their debt. A year after that, the property bled more, .1 million on an operating basis. Things got worse when Covid struck. In the year that ended Aug. 31, 2020, the hotel produced an operating loss of .6 million. There are a lot of ways to lose money every year that don't require investing 0 million upfront."
A report Washington Post reporter David Fahrenthold last week revealed that the D.C. hotel isn't Trump's only problem. Many of his properties are hemorrhaging money.
"It was losing millions and millions of dollars," Fahrenthold told the Post Reports podcast on Wednesday. "I think they recognize that you cannot make it in Washington, especially with as expensive a hotel as that is, as big of a loan as that hotel has, you can't make it on one slice of the pie. You can't make it just on Republicans."
"It's not enough," he said. "To make that kind of hotel at that luxury level work in Washington, you need everybody. You need embassies and you need conventions. You can't have a polarized audience. So that's them admitting, we can't make this work. ... It's the kind of place that could do really well — it's got a great location — but not (with the) Trump (name).'"
More on former President Donald Trump's business ventures:
22-12-2021 · Immigration to the United States is the international movement of non-United States nationals to reside permanently in the country. Immigration has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the United States. history. All Americans, except for Native Americans, can trace their ancestry to immigrants from other nations around the world.
It has been suggested that this article be split into articles titled Demographics of immigration to the United States, Effects of immigration to the United States, Legal issues of immigration to the United States, Public opinion of immigration to the United States and United States immigration policy. (Discuss) (July 2021)
|U.S. citizenship and immigration|
|United States portal|
Immigration to the United States is the international movement of non-United States nationals to reside permanently in the country.Immigration has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of United States history. All Americans, except for Native Americans, can trace their ancestry to immigrants from other nations around the world.
In absolute numbers, the United States has a larger immigrant population than any other country, with 47 million immigrants as of 2015. This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the United States population. Some other countries have larger proportions of immigrants, such as Australia with 30% and Canada with 21.9%.
According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016. Of these, 48% were the immediate relatives of United States citizens, 20% were family-sponsored, 13% were refugees or asylum seekers, 12% were employment-based preferences, 4.2% were part of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program, 1.4% were victims of a crime (U1) or their family members were (U2 to U5), and 1.0% who were granted the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Iraqis and Afghans employed by the United States Government. The remaining 0.4% included small numbers from several other categories, including 0.2% who were granted suspension of deportation as an immediate relative of a citizen (Z13); persons admitted under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act; children born after the issuance of a parent's visa; and certain parolees from the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam who were denied refugee status.
The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding such issues as maintaining ethnic homogeneity, workers for employers versus jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior.
Between 1921 and 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Western Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Eastern European immigration. The civil rights movement led to the replacement of these ethnic quotas with per-country limits for family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas. Since then, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled. The total immigrant population has stalled in recent years, especially since the election of Donald Trump and the Covid-19 pandemic. Census estimates show 45.3 million foreign born residents in March 2018 and 45.4 million in September 2021; the lowest 3 year increase in decades.
Research suggests that immigration to the United States is beneficial to the United States economy. With few exceptions, the evidence suggests that on average, immigration has positive economic effects on the native population, but it is mixed as to whether low-skilled immigration adversely affects low-skilled natives. Studies also show that immigrants have lower crime rates than natives in the United States.
American immigration history can be viewed in four epochs: the colonial period, the mid-19th century, the start of the 20th century, and post-1965. Each period brought distinct national groups, races and ethnicities to the United States.
During the 17th century, approximately 400,000 English people migrated to Colonial America. However, only half stayed permanently. They comprised 85–90% of white immigrants. From 1700 to 1775, between 350,000 and 500,000 Europeans immigrated: estimates vary in sources. Only 52,000 English reportedly immigrated in the period 1701 to 1775, a figure questioned as too low. 400,000–450,000 were Scots, Scots-Irish from Ulster, Germans, Swiss, French Huguenots, and 300,000 involuntarily transported Africans. Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants. They numbered 350,000. From 1770 to 1775 (the latter year being when the American Revolutionary War began), 7,000 English, 15,000 Scots, 13,200 Scots-Irish, 5,200 Germans, and 3,900 Irish Catholics arrived. Fully half of the English immigrants were young, single men who were well-skilled, trained artisans, like the Huguenots. The European populations of the Middle Colonies of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware were ethnically very mixed, the English constituting only 30% in Pennsylvania, 40–45% in New Jersey, to 18% in New York.
Historians estimate that fewer than one million immigrants moved to the United States from Europe between 1600 and 1799. By comparison, in the first federal census, in 1790, the population of the United States was enumerated to be 3,929,214.
Early United States era
The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to "free white persons"; it was expanded to include black people in the 1860s and Asian people in the 1950s. This made the United States an outlier, since laws that made racial distinctions were uncommon in the world in the 18th century.
In the early years of the United States, immigration (not counting the enslaved, who were treated as merchandise rather than people) was fewer than 8,000 people a year, including French refugees from the slave revolt in Haiti. Legal importation of enslaved African was prohibited after 1808, though many were smuggled in to sell. After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States. The death rate on these transatlantic voyages was high, during which one in seven travelers died. In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875.
After an initial wave of immigration from China following the California Gold Rush, Congress passed a series of laws culminating in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, banning virtually all immigration from China until the law's repeal in 1943. In the late 1800s, immigration from other Asian countries, especially to the West Coast, became more common.
While the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had already excluded immigrants from China, the immigration of people from Asian countries in addition to China was banned by the Immigration Act of 1917, also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, which also banned homosexuals, people with intellectual disability, and people with an anarchist worldview. The Emergency Quota Act was enacted in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The 1924 Act was aimed at further restricting immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, particularly Jewish, Italian, and Slavic people, who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s, and consolidated the prohibition of Asian immigration.
Immigration patterns of the 1930s were affected by the Great Depression. In the final prosperous year, 1929, there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933, only 23,068 moved to the U.S. In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than to it. The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will. Altogether, approximately 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated; half of them were US citizens. Most of the Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States. In the post-war era, the Justice Department launched Operation Wetback, under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954.
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act, abolished the system of national-origin quotas. By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations, which changed the ethnic demographics of the United States. In 1970, 60% of immigrants were from Europe; this decreased to 15% by 2000. In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%. In 1991, Bush signed the Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act 1991, allowing foreign service members who had served 12 or more years in the US Armed Forces to qualify for permanent residency and, in some cases, citizenship.
In November 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187 amending the state constitution, denying state financial aid to illegal immigrants. The federal courts voided this change, ruling that it violated the federal constitution.
Appointed by Bill Clinton, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended reducing legal immigration from about 800,000 people per year to approximately 550,000. While an influx of new residents from different cultures presents some challenges, "the United States has always been energized by its immigrant populations", said President Bill Clinton in 1998. "America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants ... They have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people."
In 2001, President George W. Bush discussed an accord with Mexican President Vincente Fox. Due to the September 11 attacks, the possible accord did not occur. From 2005 to 2013, the US Congress discussed various ways of controlling immigration. The Senate and House were unable to reach an agreement.
Nearly 14 million immigrants entered the United States from 2000 to 2010, and over one million persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The per-country limit applies the same maximum on the number of visas to all countries regardless of their population and has therefore had the effect of significantly restricting immigration of persons born in populous nations such as Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines—the leading countries of origin for legally admitted immigrants to the United States in 2013; nevertheless, China, India, and Mexico were the leading countries of origin for immigrants overall to the United States in 2013, regardless of legal status, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study.
Nearly 8 million people immigrated to the United States from 2000 to 2005; 3.7 million of them entered without papers. In 1986 president Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants in the country. Hispanic immigrants suffered job losses during the late-2000s recession, but since the recession's end in June 2009, immigrants posted a net gain of 656,000 jobs. Over 1 million immigrants were granted legal residence in 2011.
For those who enter the US illegally across the Mexico–United States border and elsewhere, migration is difficult, expensive and dangerous. Virtually all undocumented immigrants have no avenues for legal entry to the United States due to the restrictive legal limits on green cards, and lack of immigrant visas for low-skilled workers. Participants in debates on immigration in the early twenty-first century called for increasing enforcement of existing laws governing illegal immigration to the United States, building a barrier along some or all of the 2,000-mile (3,200 km) Mexico-U.S. border, or creating a new guest worker program. Through much of 2006 the country and Congress was engaged in a debate about these proposals. As of April 2010[update] few of these proposals had become law, though a partial border fence had been approved and subsequently canceled.
Modern reform attempts
Beginning with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, presidents from both political parties have steadily increased the number of border patrol agents and instituted harsher punitive measures for immigration violations. Examples of these policies include Ronald Reagan’s Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Clinton-era Prevention Through Deterrence strategy. The sociologist Douglas Massey has argued that these policies have succeeded at producing a perception of border enforcement but have largely failed at preventing emigration from Latin America. Notably, rather than curtailing illegal immigration, the increase in border patrol agents decreased circular migration across the U.S.–Mexico border, thus increasing the population of Hispanics in the U.S.
Presidents from both parties have employed anti-immigrant rhetoric to appeal to their political base or to garner bi-partisan support for their policies. While Republicans like Reagan and Donald Trump have led the way in framing Hispanic immigrants as criminals, Douglas Massey points out that "the current moment of open racism and xenophobia could not have happened with Democratic acquiescence". For example, while lobbying for his 1986 immigration bill, Reagan framed unauthorized immigration as a "national security" issue and warned that "terrorists and subversives are just two days' driving time" from the border. Later presidents, including Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, used similar "security" rhetoric in their efforts to court Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In his 2013 State of the Union Address, Obama said "real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history".
Trump administration policies
According to a report released by ICE, during the fiscal year of 2016 ICE removed 240,255 immigrants. During the fiscal year of 2018, ICE removed 256,085 immigrants, with the most being from Poland and Russia in 2017–2018.
In January 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending entry to the United States by nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries. It was replaced by another executive order in March 2017 and by a presidential proclamation in September 2017, with various changes to the list of countries and exemptions. The orders were temporarily suspended by federal courts but later allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court, pending a definite ruling on their legality. Another executive order called for the immediate construction of a wall across the U.S.–Mexico border, the hiring of 5,000 new border patrol agents and 10,000 new immigration officers, and federal funding penalties for sanctuary cities.
The "zero-tolerance" policy was put in place in 2018, which legally allows children to be separated from adults unlawfully entering the United States. This is justified by labeling all adults that enter unlawfully as criminals, thus subjecting them to criminal prosecution. The Trump Administration also argued that its policy had precedent under the Obama Administration, which had opened family detention centers in response to migrants increasingly using children as a way to get adults into the country. However, the Obama Administration detained families together in administrative, rather than criminal, detention.
Other policies focused on what it means for an asylum seeker to claim credible fear. To further decrease the amount of asylum seekers into the United States, Attorney Jeff Sessions released a decision that restricts those fleeing gang violence and domestic abuse as "private crime", therefore making their claims ineligible for asylum. These new policies that have been put in place are putting many lives at risk, to the point that the ACLU has officially sued Jeff Sessions along with other members of the Trump Administration. The ACLU claims that the policies that are currently being put in place by this Presidential Administration is undermining the fundamental human rights of those immigrating into the United States, specifically women. They also claim that these policies violate decades of settle asylum law.
Origins of the U.S. immigrant population, 1960–2016
|South and East Asia||4%||7%||15%||22%||23%||25%||25%||26%||26%||26%||27%||27%||28%|
|Other Latin America||4%||11%||16%||21%||22%||24%||24%||24%||24%||24%||24%||25%||25%|
Note: "Other Latin America" includes Central America, South America and the Caribbean.
|Decade||Average per year|
- Refugee numbers
According to the Department of State, in the 2016 fiscal year 84,988 refugees were accepted into the US from around the world. In the fiscal year of 2017, 53,691 refugees were accepted to the US. There was a significant decrease after Trump took office; it continued in the fiscal year of 2018 when only 22,405 refugees were accepted into the US. This displays a massive drop in acceptance of refugees since the Trump Administration has been in place.[original research?]
On September 26, 2019, The Trump administration announced it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, its lowest level since the modern program began in 1980.
In 2020 The Trump administration announces that it plans to slash refugee admissions to U.S. for 2021 to a record low, 15,000 refugees down from a cap of 18,000 for 2020. This is the fourth consecutive year of declining refugee admissions under the Trump term.
|Period||Refugee Programme |
Approximately half of immigrants living in the United States are from Mexico and others are Latin American countries. Many Central Americans are fleeing because of desperate social and economic circumstances in their countries. Some believe that the large number of Central American refugees arriving in the United States can be explained as a "blowback" to policies such as United States military interventions and covert operations that installed or maintained in power authoritarian leaders allied with wealthy land owners and multinational corporations who stop family farming and democratic efforts, which have caused drastically sharp social inequality, wide-scale poverty and rampant crime. Economic austerity dictated by neoliberal policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund and its ally, the U.S., has also been cited as a driver of the dire social and economic conditions, as has the U.S. "War on Drugs", which has been understood as fueling murderous gang violence in the region. Another major migration driver from Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) are crop failures, which are (partly) caused by climate change. "The current debate … is almost totally about what to do about immigrants when they get here. But the 800-pound gorilla that’s missing from the table is what we have been doing there that brings them here, that drives them here", according to Jeff Faux, an economist who is a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute.
Until the 1930s most legal immigrants were male. By the 1990s women accounted for just over half of all legal immigrants. Contemporary immigrants tend to be younger than the native population of the United States, with people between the ages of 15 and 34 substantially overrepresented. Immigrants are also more likely to be married and less likely to be divorced than native-born Americans of the same age.
Immigrants are likely to move to and live in areas populated by people with similar backgrounds. This phenomenon has remained true throughout the history of immigration to the United States. Seven out of ten immigrants surveyed by Public Agenda in 2009 said they intended to make the U.S. their permanent home, and 71% said if they could do it over again they would still come to the US. In the same study, 76% of immigrants say the government has become stricter on enforcing immigration laws since the September 11, 2001 attacks ("9/11"), and 24% report that they personally have experienced some or a great deal of discrimination.
Public attitudes about immigration in the U.S. were heavily influenced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. After the attacks, 52% of Americans believed that immigration was a good thing overall for the U.S., down from 62% the year before, according to a 2009 Gallup poll. A 2008 Public Agenda survey found that half of Americans said tighter controls on immigration would do "a great deal" to enhance U.S. national security. Harvard political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington argued in his 2004 book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity that a potential future consequence of continuing massive immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, could lead to the bifurcation of the United States.
The estimated population of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US decreased from approximately 7 million in 2007 to 6.1 million in 2011 Commentators link the reversal of the immigration trend to the economic downturn that started in 2008 and which meant fewer available jobs, and to the introduction of tough immigration laws in many states. According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the net immigration of Mexican born persons had stagnated in 2010, and tended toward going into negative figures.
More than 80 cities in the United States, including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.
|Region||2015||% of total||2016||% of total||2017||% of total||2018||% of total||2019||% of total||2020||% of total||/% in 2020|
|Australia and Oceania||5,404||0.5%||5,588||0.5%||5,071||0.5%||4,653||0.4%||5,359||0.5%||3,998||0.6%||25.4%|
Extent and destinations
The United States admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000, between ten and eleven million, than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade,[when?] the 10 million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent roughly one third of the annual growth, as the U.S. population increased by 32 million (from 249 million to 281 million). By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived, increasing the total U.S. population by one percent every year. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born".
By 1970, immigrants accounted for 4.7 percent of the US population and rising to 6.2 percent in 1980, with an estimated 12.5 percent in 2009. As of 2010[update], 25% of US residents under age 18 were first- or second-generation immigrants. Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents, according to a recent[when?] analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center.
Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, to 2.5 million in the 1950s, to 4.5 million in the 1970s, and to 7.3 million in the 1980s, before becoming stable at about 10 million in the 1990s. Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now[when?] are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. In reports in 2005–2006, estimates of illegal immigration ranged from 700,000 to 1,500,000 per year. Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000.
Foreign-born immigration has caused the U.S. population to continue its rapid increase with the foreign-born population doubling from almost 20 million in 1990 to over 47 million in 2015. In 2018, there were almost 90 million immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants (second-generation Americans) in the United States, accounting for 28% of the overall U.S. population.
While immigration has increased drastically over the 20th century, the foreign-born share of the population is, at 13.4, only somewhat below what it was at its peak in 1910 at 14.7%. A number of factors may be attributed to the decrease in the representation of foreign-born residents in the United States. Most significant has been the change in the composition of immigrants; prior to 1890, 82% of immigrants came from North and Western Europe. From 1891 to 1920, that number decreased to 25%, with a rise in immigrants from East, Central, and South Europe, summing up to 64%. Animosity towards these different and foreign immigrants increased in the United States, resulting in much legislation to limit immigration.
Contemporary immigrants settle predominantly in seven states, California, New York, Florida, Texas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois, comprising about 44% of the U.S. population as a whole. The combined total immigrant population of these seven states was 70% of the total foreign-born population in 2000.
|Country of birth||Population (2019)||2018–2019|
|Trinidad and Tobago||212,798||−9,770|
|Bosnia and Herzegovina||104,612||−957|
|Democratic Republic of the Congo||60,512||/−|
|Republic of the Congo||38,932||/−|
- ^ Excluding Hong Kong, and, also Taiwan (Republic of China).
- ^ Including North Korea.
- ^ Including Crown dependencies.
- ^ Including the Gaza Strip.
- ^ Metropolitan France only.
- ^ Excluding the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories.
- ^ Including the Golan Heights.
- ^ Including the West Bank.
- ^ European Netherlands only.
- ^ Excluding Western Sahara.
Effects of immigration
The Census Bureau estimates the US population will increase from 317 million in 2014 to 417 million in 2060 with immigration, when nearly 20% will be foreign-born. A 2015 report from the Pew Research Center projects that by 2065, non-Hispanic white people will account for 46% of the population, down from the 2005 figure of 67%. Non-Hispanic white people made up 85% of the population in 1960. It also foresees the population of Hispanic people increasing from 17% in 2014 to 29% by 2060. The population of Asian people is expected to nearly double in 2060. Overall, the Pew Report predicts the population of the United States will rise from 296 million in 2005 to 441 million in 2065, but only to 338 million with no immigration.
In 35 of the country's 50 largest cities, non-Hispanic white people were predicted to be in the minority at the last[when?] census, or are already. In California, non-Hispanic white people decreased from 80% of the state's population in 1970 to 42% in 2001 and 39% in 2013.
Immigrant segregation declined in the first half of the 20th century, but has been increasing over the past few decades.[when?] This has caused questioning of the correctness of describing the United States as a melting pot. One explanation is that groups with lower socioeconomic status concentrate in more densely-populated areas that have access to public transit while groups with higher socioeconomic status move to suburban areas. Another is that some recent immigrant groups are more culturally and linguistically different from earlier groups and prefer to live together due to factors such as communication costs. Another explanation for increased segregation is white flight.
- Country of birth for the foreign-born population in the United States
|Top ten countries||1990||2000||2010||2019|
|All of Latin America||8,407,837||16,086,974||21,224,087|
A survey of leading economists shows a consensus for the view that high-skilled immigration makes the average American better off. A survey of the same economists also shows strong support for the notion that low-skilled immigration makes the average American better off. According to David Card, Christian Dustmann, and Ian Preston, "most existing studies of the economic impacts of immigration suggest these impacts are small, and on average benefit the native population". In a survey of the existing literature, Örn B Bodvarsson and Hendrik Van den Berg wrote, "a comparison of the evidence from all the studies ... makes it clear that, with very few exceptions, there is no strong statistical support for the view held by many members of the public, namely that immigration has an adverse effect on native-born workers in the destination country".
Overall economic prosperity
Whereas the impact on the average native tends to be small and positive, studies show more mixed results for low-skilled natives, but whether the effects are positive or negative, they tend to be small either way.
Immigrants may often do types of work that natives are largely unwilling to do, contributing to greater economic prosperity for the economy as a whole: for instance, Mexican migrant workers taking up manual farm work in the United States has close to zero effect on native employment in that occupation, which means that the effect of Mexican workers on U.S. employment outside farm work was therefore most likely positive, since they raised overall economic productivity. Research indicates that immigrants are more likely to work in risky jobs than U.S.-born workers, partly due to differences in average characteristics, such as immigrants' lower English language ability and educational attainment. Further, some studies indicate that higher ethnic concentration in metropolitan areas is positively related to the probability of self-employment of immigrants.
Research also suggests that diversity has a net positive effect on productivity and economic prosperity. A study by Nathan Nunn, Nancy Qian and Sandra Sequeira found that the Age of Mass Migration (1850–1920) has had substantially beneficial long-term effects on U.S. economic prosperity: "locations with more historical immigration today have higher incomes, less poverty, less unemployment, higher rates of urbanization, and greater educational attainment. The long-run effects appear to arise from the persistence of sizeable short-run benefits, including earlier and more intensive industrialization, increased agricultural productivity, and more innovation." The authors also found that the immigration had short-term benefits: "that there is no evidence that these long-run benefits come at short-run costs. In fact, immigration immediately led to economic benefits that took the form of higher incomes, higher productivity, more innovation, and more industrialization".
Research has also found that migration leads to greater trade in goods and services.
Using 130 years of data on historical migrations to the United States, one study found "that a doubling of the number of residents with ancestry from a given foreign country relative to the mean increases by 4.2 percentage points the probability that at least one local firm invests in that country, and increases by 31% the number of employees at domestic recipients of FDI from that country. The size of these effects increases with the ethnic diversity of the local population, the geographic distance to the origin country, and the ethno-linguistic fractionalization of the origin country."
Some research suggests that immigration can offset some of the adverse effects of automation on native labor outcomes in the United States. By increasing overall demand, immigrants could push natives out of low-skilled manual labor into better-paying occupations. A 2018 study in the American Economic Review found that the Bracero program (which allowed almost half a million Mexican workers to do seasonal farm labor in the United States) did not have any adverse impact on the labor market outcomes of American-born farm workers.
A 2011 literature review of the economic impacts of immigration found that the net fiscal impact of migrants varies across studies but that the most credible analyses typically find small and positive fiscal effects on average. According to the authors, "the net social impact of an immigrant over his or her lifetime depends substantially and in predictable ways on the immigrant's age at arrival, education, reason for migration, and similar".
A 2016 report by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine concluded that over a 75-year time horizon, "the fiscal impacts of immigrants are generally positive at the federal level and generally negative at the state and local level". The reason for the costs to state and local governments is that the cost of educating the immigrants' children is paid by state and local governments. According to a 2007 literature review by the Congressional Budget Office, "Over the past two decades, most efforts to estimate the fiscal impact of immigration in the United States have concluded that, in aggregate and over the long-term, tax revenues of all types generated by immigrants—both legal and unauthorized—exceed the cost of the services they use."
According to James Smith, a senior economist at Santa Monica-based RAND Corporation and lead author of the United States National Research Council's study "The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration", immigrants contribute as much as billion to the U.S. economy each year. The NRC report found that although immigrants, especially those from Latin America, caused a net loss in terms of taxes paid versus social services received, immigration can provide an overall gain to the domestic economy due to an increase in pay for higher-skilled workers, lower prices for goods and services produced by immigrant labor, and more efficiency and lower wages for some owners of capital. The report also notes that although immigrant workers compete with domestic workers for low-skilled jobs, some immigrants specialize in activities that otherwise would not exist in an area, and thus can be beneficial for all domestic residents.
Immigration and foreign labor documentation fees increased over 80% in 2007, with over 90% of funding for USCIS derived from immigration application fees, creating many USCIS jobs involving immigration to the US, such as immigration interview officials, fingerprint processors, Department of Homeland Security, etc.
Impact of undocumented immigrants
Research on the economic effects of undocumented immigrants is scant but existing peer-reviewed studies suggest that the effects are positive for the native population and public coffers. A 2015 study shows that "increasing deportation rates and tightening border control weakens low-skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment of native low-skilled workers. Legalization, instead, decreases the unemployment rate of low-skilled natives and increases income per native." Studies show that legalization of undocumented immigrants would boost the U.S. economy; a 2013 study found that granting legal status to undocumented immigrants would raise their incomes by a quarter (increasing U.S. GDP by approximately .4 trillion over a ten-year period), and 2016 study found that "legalization would increase the economic contribution of the unauthorized population by about 20%, to 3.6% of private-sector GDP."
A 2007 literature by the Congressional Budget Office found that estimating the fiscal effects of undocumented immigrants has proven difficult: "currently available estimates have significant limitations; therefore, using them to determine an aggregate effect across all states would be difficult and prone to considerable error". The impact of undocumented immigrants differs on federal levels than state and local levels, with research suggesting modest fiscal costs at the state and local levels but with substantial fiscal gains at the federal level.
In 2009, a study by the Cato Institute, a free market think tank, found that legalization of low-skilled illegal resident workers in the US would result in a net increase in US GDP of 0 billion over ten years. The Cato Institute study did not examine the impact on per capita income for most Americans. Jason Riley notes that because of progressive income taxation, in which the top 1% of earners pay 37% of federal income taxes (even though they actually pay a lower tax percentage based on their income), 60% of Americans collect more in government services than they pay in, which also reflects on immigrants. In any event, the typical immigrant and their children will pay a net ,000 more in their lifetime than they collect in government services according to the NAS. Legal immigration policy is set to maximize net taxation. Illegal immigrants even after an amnesty tend to be recipients of more services than they pay in taxes. In 2010, an econometrics study by a Rutgers economist found that immigration helped increase bilateral trade when the incoming people were connected via networks to their country of origin, particularly boosting trade of final goods as opposed to intermediate goods, but that the trade benefit weakened when the immigrants became assimilated into American culture.
According to NPR in 2005, about 3% of illegal immigrants were working in agriculture. The H-2A visa allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs. The passing of tough immigration laws in several states from around 2009 provides a number of practical case studies. The state of Georgia passed immigration law HB 87 in 2011; this led, according to the coalition of top Kansas businesses, to 50% of its agricultural produce being left to rot in the fields, at a cost to the state of more than 0 million. Overall losses caused by the act were billion; it was estimated that the figure would become over billion if all the estimated 325,000 unauthorized workers left Georgia. The cost to Alabama of its crackdown in June 2011 has been estimated at almost billion, with up to 80,000 unauthorized immigrant workers leaving the state.
Impact of refugees
Studies of refugees' impact on native welfare are scant but the existing literature shows a positive fiscal impact and mixed results (negative, positive and no significant effects) on native welfare. A 2017 paper by Evans and Fitzgerald found that refugees to the United States pay ",000 more in taxes than they receive in benefits over their first 20 years in the U.S." An internal study by the Department of Health and Human Services under the Trump administration, which was suppressed and not shown to the public, found that refugees to the United States brought in billion more in government revenues than they cost the government. According to labor economist Giovanni Peri, the existing literature suggests that there are no economic reasons why the American labor market could not easily absorb 100,000 Syrian refugees in a year. Refugees integrate more slowly into host countries' labor markets than labor migrants, in part due to the loss and depreciation of human capital and credentials during the asylum procedure.
Innovation and entrepreneurship
According to one survey of the existing economic literature, "much of the existing research points towards positive net contributions by immigrant entrepreneurs". Areas where immigrants are more prevalent in the United States have substantially more innovation (as measured by patenting and citations). Immigrants to the United States start businesses at higher rates than natives. According to a 2018 paper, "first-generation immigrants create about 25% of new firms in the United States, but this share exceeds 40% in some states". Another 2018 paper links H-1B visa holders to innovation.
Immigrants have been linked to greater invention and innovation in the US. According to one report, "immigrants have started more than half (44 of 87) of America's startup companies valued at billion or more and are key members of management or product development teams in over 70 percent (62 of 87) of these companies". Foreign doctoral students are a major source of innovation in the American economy. In the United States, immigrant workers hold a disproportionate share of jobs in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM): "In 2013, foreign-born workers accounted for 19.2 percent of STEM workers with a bachelor's degree, 40.7 percent of those with a master's degree, and more than half—54.5 percent—of those with a Ph.D."
The Kauffman Foundation's index of entrepreneurial activity is nearly 40% higher for immigrants than for natives. Immigrants were involved in the founding of many prominent American high-tech companies, such as Google, Yahoo, YouTube, Sun Microsystems, and eBay.
Irish immigration was opposed in the 1850s by the nativist Know Nothing movement, originating in New York in 1843. It was engendered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants. On March 14, 1891, a lynch mob stormed a local jail and lynched several Italians following the acquittal of several Sicilian immigrants alleged to be involved in the murder of New Orleans police chief David Hennessy. The Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act in 1921, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The Immigration Act of 1924 was aimed at limiting immigration overall, and making sure that the nationalities of new arrivals matched the overall national profile.
A 2014 meta-analysis of racial discrimination in product markets found extensive evidence of minority applicants being quoted higher prices for products. A 1995 study found that car dealers "quoted significantly lower prices to white males than to black or female test buyers using identical, scripted bargaining strategies". A 2013 study found that eBay sellers of iPods received 21 percent more offers if a white hand held the iPod in the photo than a black hand.
Criminal justice system
Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of racial minorities among crime suspects. Research also suggests that there may be possible discrimination by the judicial system, which contributes to a higher number of convictions for racial minorities. A 2012 study found that "(i) juries formed from all-white jury pools convict black defendants significantly (16 percentage points) more often than white defendants, and (ii) this gap in conviction rates is entirely eliminated when the jury pool includes at least one black member." Research has found evidence of in-group bias, where "black (white) juveniles who are randomly assigned to black (white) judges are more likely to get incarcerated (as opposed to being placed on probation), and they receive longer sentences". In-group bias has also been observed when it comes to traffic citations, as black and white police officers are more likely to cite out-groups.
A 2015 study using correspondence tests "found that when considering requests from prospective students seeking mentoring in the future, faculty were significantly more responsive to white males than to all other categories of students, collectively, particularly in higher-paying disciplines and private institutions". Through affirmative action, there is reason to believe that elite colleges favor minority applicants.
A 2014 meta-analysis found extensive evidence of racial discrimination in the American housing market. Minority applicants for housing needed to make many more enquiries to view properties. Geographical steering of African-Americans in US housing remained significant. A 2003 study finds "evidence that agents interpret an initial housing request as an indication of a customer's preferences, but also are more likely to withhold a house from all customers when it is in an integrated suburban neighborhood (redlining). Moreover, agents' marketing efforts increase with asking price for white, but not for black, customers; blacks are more likely than whites to see houses in suburban, integrated areas (steering); and the houses agents show are more likely to deviate from the initial request when the customer is black than when the customer is white. These three findings are consistent with the possibility that agents act upon the belief that some types of transactions are relatively unlikely for black customers (statistical discrimination)."
A report by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development where the department sent African-American people and white people to look at apartments found that African-American people were shown fewer apartments to rent and houses for sale.
Several meta-analyses find extensive evidence of ethnic and racial discrimination in hiring in the American labor market. A 2016 meta-analysis of 738 correspondence tests—tests where identical CVs for stereotypically black and white names were sent to employers—in 43 separate studies conducted in OECD countries between 1990 and 2015 found that there is extensive racial discrimination in hiring decisions in Europe and North-America. These correspondence tests showed that equivalent minority candidates need to send around 50% more applications to be invited for an interview than majority candidates. A study that examined the job applications of actual people provided with identical résumés and similar interview training showed that African-American applicants with no criminal record were offered jobs at a rate as low as white applicants who had criminal records.
Discrimination between minority groups
Racist thinking among and between minority groups does occur; examples of this are conflicts between black people and Korean immigrants, notably in the 1992 Los Angeles Riots, and between African Americans and non-white Latino immigrants. There has been a long running racial tension between African American and Mexican prison gangs, as well as significant riots in California prisons where they have targeted each other, for ethnic reasons. There have been reports of racially-motivated attacks against African Americans who have moved into neighborhoods occupied mostly by people of Mexican origin, and vice versa. There has also been an increase in violence between non-Hispanic white people and Latino immigrants, and between African immigrants and African Americans.
A 2018 study in the American Sociological Review found that within racial groups, most immigrants to the United States had fully assimilated within a span of 20 years. Immigrants arriving in the United States after 1994 assimilate more rapidly than immigrants who arrived in previous periods. Measuring assimilation can be difficult due to "ethnic attrition", which refers to when descendants of migrants cease to self-identify with the nationality or ethnicity of their ancestors. This means that successful cases of assimilation will be underestimated. Research shows that ethnic attrition is sizable in Hispanic and Asian immigrant groups in the United States. By taking ethnic attrition into account, the assimilation rate of Hispanics in the United States improves significantly. A 2016 paper challenges the view that cultural differences are necessarily an obstacle to long-run economic performance of migrants. It finds that "first generation migrants seem to be less likely to success the more culturally distant they are, but this effect vanishes as time spent in the US increases". A 2020 study found that recent immigrants to the United States assimilated at a similar pace as historical immigrants.
Immigration from South Asia and elsewhere has contributed to enlarging the religious composition of the United States. Islam in the United States is growing mainly due to immigration. Hinduism in the United States, Buddhism in the United States, and Sikhism in the United States are other examples. Whereas non-Christians together constitute only 4% of the U.S. population, they made up 20% of the 2003 cohort of new immigrants.
Since 1992, an estimated 1.7 million Muslims, approximately 1 million Hindus, and approximately 1 million Buddhists have immigrated legally to the United States.
Conversely, non-religious people are underrepresented in the immigrant populations. Although "other" non-Christian religions are also slightly more common among immigrants than among U.S. adults—1.9% compared with 1.0%—those professing no religion are slightly under-represented among new immigrants. Whereas 12% of immigrants said they had no religion, the figure was 15% for adult Americans. This lack of representation for non-religious people could be related to stigmas around atheists and agnostics or could relate to the need for identity when entering a new country.
The American Federation of Labor (AFL), a coalition of labor unions formed in the 1880s, vigorously opposed unrestricted immigration from Europe for moral, cultural, and racial reasons. The issue unified the workers who feared that an influx of new workers would flood the labor market and lower wages. Nativism was not a factor because upwards of half the union members were themselves immigrants or the sons of immigrants from Ireland, Germany and Britain. However, nativism was a factor when the AFL even more strenuously opposed all immigration from Asia because it represented (to its Euro-American members) an alien culture that could not be assimilated into American society. The AFL intensified its opposition after 1906 and was instrumental in passing immigration restriction bills from the 1890s to the 1920s, such as the 1921 Emergency Quota Act and the Immigration Act of 1924, and seeing that they were strictly enforced.
Mink (1986) concluded that the AFL and the Democratic Party were linked partly on the basis of immigration issues, noting the large corporations, which supported the Republicans, wanted more immigration to augment their labor force.
United Farm Workers during Cesar Chavez tenure was committed to restricting immigration. Chavez and Dolores Huerta, cofounder and president of the UFW, fought the Bracero Program that existed from 1942 to 1964. Their opposition stemmed from their belief that the program undermined U.S. workers and exploited the migrant workers. Since the Bracero Program ensured a constant supply of cheap immigrant labor for growers, immigrants could not protest any infringement of their rights, lest they be fired and replaced. Their efforts contributed to Congress ending the Bracero Program in 1964. In 1973, the UFW was one of the first labor unions to oppose proposed employer sanctions that would have prohibited hiring illegal immigrants.
On a few occasions, concerns that illegal immigrant labor would undermine UFW strike campaigns led to a number of controversial events, which the UFW describes as anti-strikebreaking events, but which have also been interpreted as being anti-immigrant. In 1973, Chavez and members of the UFW marched through the Imperial and Coachella Valleys to the border of Mexico to protest growers' use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Joining him on the march were Reverend Ralph Abernathy and U.S. Senator Walter Mondale. In its early years, the UFW and Chavez went so far as to report illegal immigrants who served as strikebreaking replacement workers (as well as those who refused to unionize) to the Immigration and Naturalization Service.
In 1973, the United Farm Workers set up a "wet line" along the United States–Mexico border to prevent Mexican immigrants from entering the United States illegally and potentially undermining the UFW's unionization efforts. During one such event, in which Chavez was not involved, some UFW members, under the guidance of Chavez's cousin Manuel, physically attacked the strikebreakers after peaceful attempts to persuade them not to cross the border failed.
In 1979, Chavez used a forum of a U.S. Senate committee hearing to denounce the federal immigration service, in which he said the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service purportedly refused to arrest illegal Mexican immigrants who Chavez claims are being used to break the union's strike.
A Boston Globe article attributed Barack Obama's win in the 2008 U.S. presidential election to a marked reduction over the preceding decades in the percentage of white people in the American electorate, attributing this demographic change to the Immigration Act of 1965. The article quoted Simon Rosenberg, president and founder of the New Democrat Network, as having said that the Act is "the most important piece of legislation that no one's ever heard of", and that it "set America on a very different demographic course than the previous 300 years".
Immigrants differ on their political views; however, the Democratic Party is considered to be in a far stronger position among immigrants overall. Research shows that religious affiliation can also significantly impact both the social values and voting patterns of immigrants, as well as the broader American population. Hispanic evangelicals, for example, are more strongly conservative than non-Hispanic evangelicals. This trend is often similar for Hispanics or others strongly identifying with the Catholic Church, a religion that strongly opposes abortion and gay marriage.
The key interests groups that lobby on immigration are religious, ethnic and business groups, together with some liberals and some conservative public policy organizations. Both the pro- and anti- groups affect policy.
Studies have suggested that some special interest groups lobby for less immigration for their own group and more immigration for other groups since they see effects of immigration, such as increased labor competition, as detrimental when affecting their own group but beneficial when affecting other groups.
A 2011 paper found that both pro- and anti-immigration special interest groups play a role in migration policy. "Barriers to migration are lower in sectors in which business lobbies incur larger lobbying expenditures and higher in sectors where labor unions are more important." A 2011 study examining the voting of US representatives on migration policy suggests that "representatives from more skilled labor abundant districts are more likely to support an open immigration policy towards the unskilled, whereas the opposite is true for representatives from more unskilled labor abundant districts".
After the 2010 election, Gary Segura of Latino Decisions stated that Hispanic voters influenced the outcome and "may have saved the Senate for Democrats". Several ethnic lobbies support immigration reforms that would allow illegal immigrants that have succeeded in entering to gain citizenship. They may also lobby for special arrangements for their own group. The Chairman for the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform has stated that "the Irish Lobby will push for any special arrangement it can get—'as will every other ethnic group in the country'". The irredentist and ethnic separatist movements for Reconquista and Aztlán see immigration from Mexico as strengthening their cause.
The book Ethnic Lobbies and US Foreign Policy (2009) states that several ethnic special interest groups are involved in pro-immigration lobbying. Ethnic lobbies also influence foreign policy. The authors wrote that "Increasingly, ethnic tensions surface in electoral races, with House, Senate, and gubernatorial contests serving as proxy battlegrounds for antagonistic ethnoracial groups and communities. In addition, ethnic politics affect party politics as well, as groups compete for relative political power within a party". However, the authors argued that ethnic interest groups, in general, do not currently[when?] have too much power in foreign policy and can balance other special interest groups.
In a 2012 news story, Reuters reported, "Strong support from Hispanics, the fastest-growing demographic in the United States, helped tip President Barack Obama's fortunes as he secured a second term in the White House, according to Election Day polling."
Lately,[when?] there is talk among several Republican leaders, such as governors Bobby Jindal and Susana Martinez, of taking a new, friendlier approach to immigration. Former US Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez is promoting the creation of Republicans for Immigration Reform.
Bernie Sanders opposes guest worker programs and is also skeptical about skilled immigrant (H-1B) visas, saying, "Last year, the top 10 employers of H-1B guest workers were all offshore outsourcing companies. These firms are responsible for shipping large numbers of American information technology jobs to India and other countries." In an interview with Vox he stated his opposition to an open borders immigration policy, describing it as:
... a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States ... you're doing away with the concept of a nation-state. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for or an hour, that would be great for them. I don't believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.
In April 2018, then-president Trump called for National Guard at the border to secure the ongoing attempts at a border wall along the United States–Mexico border. According to the Los Angeles Times, "Defense Secretary James N. Mattis has signed an order to send up to 4,000 National Guard troops to the U.S.–Mexico border but barred them from interacting with migrants detained by the Border Patrol in most circumstances".
The caravan of migrants from Central America have reached the United States to seek asylum. The last of the caravan have arrived and are processing as of May 4, 2018. Remarks by Attorney General Sessions have expressed hesitation with asylum seekers. Sessions has stated, "The system is being gamed; there's no doubt about it". This statement implied asylum seekers were attempting to immigrate to the United States for work or various other reasons rather than seeking refuge.[tone]
A 2020 study found no evidence that immigration was associated with adverse health impacts for native-born Americans. To the contrary, the study found that "the presence of low‐skilled immigrants may improve the health of low‐skilled U.S.‐born individuals", possibly by moving low-skilled Americans from physically dangerous and risky jobs toward occupations that require more communication and interactive ability.
On average, per capita health care spending is lower for immigrants than it is for native-born Americans. The non-emergency use of emergency rooms ostensibly indicates an incapacity to pay, yet some studies allege disproportionately lower access to unpaid healthcare by immigrants. For this and other reasons, there have been various disputes about how much immigration is costing the United States public health system.University of Maryland economist and Cato Institute scholar Julian Lincoln Simon concluded in 1995 that while immigrants probably pay more into the health system than they take out, this is not the case for elderly immigrants and refugees, who are more dependent on public services for survival. Immigration itself may impact women's health. A 2017 study found that Latino women suffer higher rates of intimate partner violence (IPV) than native US women. Migration may worsen IPV rates and outcomes. Migration itself may not cause IPV, but it may make it more difficult for women to get help. According to Kim et al., the IPV is usually the result of unequal family structures rather than the process of migration.
Immigration from areas of high incidences of disease is thought to have been one of the causes of the resurgence of tuberculosis (TB), chagas, and hepatitis in areas of low incidence. According to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), TB cases among foreign-born individuals remain disproportionately high, at nearly nine times the rate of U.S.-born persons. To reduce the risk of diseases in low-incidence areas, the main countermeasure has been the screening of immigrants on arrival.HIV/AIDS entered the United States in around 1969, likely through a single infected immigrant from Haiti. Conversely, many new HIV infections in Mexico can be traced back to the United States. People infected with HIV were banned from entering the United States in 1987 by executive order, but the 1993 statute supporting the ban was lifted in 2009. The executive branch is expected to administratively remove HIV from the list of infectious diseases barring immigration, but immigrants generally would need to show that they would not be a burden on public welfare. Researchers have also found what is known as the "healthy immigrant effect", in which immigrants in general tend to be healthier than individuals born in the U.S. Immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to have a medical visit labeled uncompensated care.
There is no empirical evidence that either legal or illegal immigration increases crime in the United States. In fact, a majority of studies in the U.S. have found lower crime rates among immigrants than among non-immigrants, and that higher concentrations of immigrants are associated with lower crime rates. Explanations proposed to account for this relationship have included ethnic enclaves, self-selection, and the hypothesis that immigrants revitalize communities to which they emigrate.
A 2005 study showed that immigration to large U.S. metropolitan areas does not increase, and in some cases decreases, crime rates there. A 2009 study found that recent immigration was not associated with homicide in Austin, Texas. The low crime-rates of immigrants to the United States despite having lower levels of education, lower levels of income and residing in urban areas (factors that should lead to higher crime-rates) may be due to lower rates of antisocial behavior among immigrants. A 2015 study found that Mexican immigration to the United States was associated with an increase in aggravated assaults and a decrease in property crimes. A 2016 study finds no link between immigrant populations and violent crime, although there is a small but significant association between undocumented immigrants and drug-related crime.
A 2018 study found that undocumented immigration to the United States did not increase violent crime. Research finds that Secure Communities, an immigration enforcement program which led to a quarter of a million of detentions (when the study was published; November 2014), had no observable impact on the crime rate. A 2015 study found that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which legalized almost 3 million immigrants, led to "decreases in crime of 3–5 percent, primarily due to decline in property crimes, equivalent to 120,000–180,000 fewer violent and property crimes committed each year due to legalization".
One of the first political analyses in the U.S. of the relationship between immigration and crime was performed in the beginning of the 20th century by the Dillingham Commission, which found a relationship especially for immigrants from non-Northern European countries, resulting in the sweeping 1920s immigration reduction acts, including the Emergency Quota Act of 1921, which favored immigration from northern and western Europe. Recent[when?] research is skeptical of the conclusion drawn by the Dillingham Commission. One study finds that "major government commissions on immigration and crime in the early twentieth century relied on evidence that suffered from aggregation bias and the absence of accurate population data, which led them to present partial and sometimes misleading views of the immigrant-native criminality comparison. With improved data and methods, we find that in 1904, prison commitment rates for more serious crimes were quite similar by nativity for all ages except ages 18 and 19, for which the commitment rate for immigrants was higher than for the native-born. By 1930, immigrants were less likely than natives to be committed to prisons at all ages 20 and older, but this advantage disappears when one looks at commitments for violent offenses."
For the early twentieth century, one study found that immigrants had "quite similar" imprisonment rates for major crimes as natives in 1904 but lower for major crimes (except violent offenses; the rate was similar) in 1930. Contemporary commissions used dubious data and interpreted it in questionable ways.
Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of immigrants among crime suspects. Research also suggests that there may be possible discrimination by the judicial system, which contributes to a higher number of convictions for immigrants.
Crimmigration has emerged as a field in which critical immigration scholars conceptualize the current immigration law enforcement system. Crimmigration is broadly defined as the convergence of the criminal justice system and immigration enforcement, where immigration law enforcement has adopted the "criminal" law enforcement approach. This frames undocumented immigrants as "criminal" deviants and security risks. Crime and migration control have become completely intertwined,[colloquialism] so much so that both undocumented and documented individuals suspected of being a noncitizen may be targeted.
Using a "crimmigration" point of thought, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández explains the criminalization of undocumented immigrants began in the aftermath of the civil rights movement.Michelle Alexander explores how the U.S. criminal justice system is made of "colorblind" policies and law enforcement practices that have shaped the mass incarceration of people of color into an era of "The New Jim Crow". As Alexander and García Hernández state, overt racism and racist laws became culturally scorned, and covert racism became the norm. This new form of racism focuses on penalizing criminal activity and promoting "neutral" rhetoric.
"Crimmigration" recognizes how laws and policies throughout different states contribute to the convergence of criminal law enforcement and immigration law. For example, states are implementing a variety of immigration-related criminal offenses that are punishable by imprisonment. California, Oregon, and Wyoming criminalize the use of fraudulent immigration or citizenship documents. Arizona allows judges to confine witnesses in certain "criminal" cases if they are suspected of being in the U.S. without documentation. The most common violations of immigration law on the federal level are unauthorized entry (a federal misdemeanor) and unauthorized reentry (a federal felony). These "offenses" deemed as "crimes" under immigration law set the tone of "crimmigration" and for what García Hernández refers to as the "removal pipeline" of immigrants.
Some scholars focus on the organization of "crimmigration" as it relates to the mass removal of certain immigrants. Jennifer Chacón finds that immigration law enforcement is being decentralized.Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) are the central law enforcement agencies in control of enforcing immigration law. However, other federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, such as sheriff's offices, municipal police departments, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Drug and Enforcement Agency (DEA), aid in immigrant removal. In 1996, Congress expanded power to state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal immigration law. These agencies keep people locked up in jails or prison when they receive an "immigration detainer" from ICE, and therefore aid in interior enforcement. In addition, some agencies participate in the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program ("SCAAP"), which gives these agencies financial incentives to cooperate with ICE in identifying immigrants in their custody.
Scientific laboratories and startup Internet opportunities have been a significant factor in immigration to the United States. By 2000, 23% of scientists with a PhD in the U.S. were immigrants, including 40% of those in engineering and computers. Roughly a third of the United States' college and universities graduate students in STEM fields are foreign nationals—in some states it is well over half of their graduate students.
On Ash Wednesday, March 5, 2014, the presidents of 28 Catholic and Jesuit colleges and universities joined the "Fast for Families" movement. The "Fast for Families" movement reignited[colloquialism] the immigration debate in the autumn of 2013 when the movement's leaders, supported by many members of Congress and the President, fasted for twenty-two days on the National Mall in Washington, D.C.
A study on public schools in California found that white enrollment declined in response to increases in the number of Spanish-speaking Limited English Proficient and Hispanic students. This white flight was greater for schools with relatively larger proportions of Spanish-speaking Limited English Proficient.
A North Carolina study found that the presence of Latin American children in schools had no significant negative effects on peers, but that students with limited English skills had slight negative effects on peers.
Science and engineering
In the United States, a significant proportion of scientists and engineers are foreign-born, as well as students in science and engineering programs. However, this is not unique to the US since foreigners make up significant amounts of scientists and engineers in other countries. As of 2011, 28% of graduate students in science, engineering, and health are foreign. The number of science and engineering (S&E) bachelor's degrees has increased steadily over the past 15 years, reaching a new peak of about half a million in 2009. Since 2000, foreign-born students in the United States have consistently earned a small share (3–4%) of S&E degrees at the bachelor's level. Foreign students make up a much higher proportion of S&E master's degree recipients than of bachelor's or associate degree recipients. In 2009, foreign students earned 27% of S&E master's degrees and 33% in doctorate degrees. Significant numbers of foreign-born students in science and engineering are not unique to America, since foreign students now account for nearly 60% of graduate students in mathematics, computer sciences, and engineering globally. In Switzerland and the United Kingdom, more than 40% of doctoral students are foreign. A number of other countries, including Austria, Australia, Belgium, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States, have relatively high percentages (more than 20%) of doctoral students who are foreign. Foreign student enrollment in the United Kingdom has been increasing. In 2008, foreign students made up 47% of all graduate students studying S&E in the United Kingdom (an increase from 32% in 1998). Top destinations for international students include the United Kingdom (12%), Germany (9%), and France (9%). Together with the U.S., these countries receive more than half of all internationally mobile students worldwide. Although the United States continues to attract the largest number and fraction of foreign students worldwide, its share of foreign students has decreased in recent[when?] years. 55% of Ph.D. students in engineering in the United States are foreign-born (2004). Between 1980 and 2000, the percentage of Ph.D. scientists and engineers employed in the United States who were born abroad increased from 24% to 37%. 45% of Ph.D. physicists working in the United States were foreign-born in 2004. 80% of total post-doctoral chemical and materials engineering in the United States were foreign-born in 1988.
At the undergraduate level, US-born engineering students constitute upwards of 90–95% of the student population (most foreign-born candidates for engineering graduate schools are trained in their home countries). However, the pool of BS engineering graduates with US citizenship is much larger than the number who apply to engineering graduate schools. The proportion of foreign-born engineers among assistant professors younger than 35 years increased from 10% in 1972 to 50–55% in 1983–1985, illustrating a dramatic increase on US dependence on foreign-born students in the US college system. The increase in non-citizen assistant professors of engineering is the result of the fact that, in recent[when?] years, foreign-born engineers received close to 50 percent of newly awarded engineering doctorates (naturalized citizens accounted for about 4 percent) and, furthermore, they entered academe in disproportionately large numbers. 33% of all U.S. Ph.D.s in science and engineering were awarded to foreign-born graduate students as of 2004.
In 1982, foreign-born engineers constituted about 3.6% of all engineers employed in the United States, 13.9% of which were naturalized; and foreign-born Ph.D.s in Engineering constituted 15% and 20% were naturalized. In 1985, foreign-born Ph.D.s represented almost 33% of the engineering post-doctorate researchers in US universities. Foreign-born Ph.D. engineers often accept postdoctoral positions because other employment is unavailable until a green card is obtained. A system that further incentivising replacement of US citizens in the upper echelons of academic and private sector engineering firms due to higher educational attainment relative to native-born engineer who for the most part do train beyond undergraduate level.[sentence fragment]
In recent[when?] years, the number of applicants for faculty openings at research universities have increased dramatically. Numbers of 50 to 200 applications for a single faculty opening have become typical, yet even with such high numbers of applicants, the foreign-born component is in excess of 50%. 60% of the top science students and 65 percent of the top math students in the United States are the children of immigrants. In addition, foreign-born high school students make up 50 percent of the 2004 U.S.Math Olympiad's top scorers, 38 percent of the U.S. Physics Team, and 25 percent of the Intel Science Talent Search finalists—the United States' most prestigious awards for young scientists and mathematicians.
Among 1985 foreign-born engineering doctorate holders, about 40% expected to work in the United States after graduating. An additional 17 percent planned to stay on as post-doctorates, and most of these are likely to remain permanently in the United States. Thus, almost 60% of foreign-born engineering doctorate holders are likely to become part of the US engineering labor force within a few years after graduating. The other approximately 40% of foreign born engineering PhDs mostly likely find employment working for multinational corporations outside of the US.
In the 2004 Intel Science Talent Search, more children (18) have parents who entered the country on H-1B (professional) visas than parents born in the United States (16). New H-1B visa holders each year represent less than 0.04 percent of the U.S. population. Foreign born faculty now account for over 50% of faculty in engineering (1994).
27 out the 87 (more than 30%) American Nobel Prize winners in Medicine and Physiology between 1901 and 2005 were born outside the US.
1993 median salaries of U.S. recipients of Ph.D.s in Science and Engineering foreign-born vs. native-born were as follows:
|Years since earning degree||Foreign-born||Native-born|
The two most prominent groups lobbying for more restrictive immigration policies for the United States are NumbersUSA and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR); additionally, the Center for Immigration Studies think tank produces policy analysis supportive of a more restrictive stance.
The ambivalent feeling of Americans toward immigrants is shown by a positive attitude toward groups that have been visible for a century or more, and much more negative attitude toward recent arrivals. For example, a 1982 national poll by the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut showed respondents a card listing a number of groups and asked, "Thinking both of what they have contributed to this country and have gotten from this country, for each one tell me whether you think, on balance, they've been a good or a bad thing for this country", which produced the results shown in the table. "By high margins, Americans are telling pollsters it was a very good thing that Poles, Italians, and Jews immigrated to America. Once again, it's the newcomers who are viewed with suspicion. This time, it's the Mexicans, the Filipinos, and the people from the Caribbean who make Americans nervous."
In a 2002 study, which took place soon after the September 11 attacks, 55% of Americans favored decreasing legal immigration, 27% favored keeping it at the same level, and 15% favored increasing it.
In 2006, the immigration-reduction advocacy think tank the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that found that 68% of Americans think U.S. immigration levels are too high, and just 2% said they are too low. They also found that 70% said they are less likely to vote for candidates that favor increasing legal immigration. In 2004, 55% of Americans believed legal immigration should remain at the current level or increased and 41% said it should be decreased. The less contact a native-born American has with immigrants, the more likely they would have a negative view of immigrants.
Surveys indicate that the U.S. public consistently makes a sharp distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and generally views those perceived as "playing by the rules" with more sympathy than immigrants who have entered the country illegally.
According to a Gallup poll in July 2015, immigration is the fourth most important problem facing the United States and seven percent of Americans said it was the most important problem facing America today. In March 2015, another Gallup poll provided insight into American public opinion on immigration; the poll revealed that 39% of people worried about immigration "a great deal". A January poll showed that only 33% of Americans were satisfied with the current state of immigration in America.
Before 2012, a majority of Americans supported securing United States borders compared to dealing with illegal immigrants in the United States. In 2013, that trend has reversed and 55% of people polled by Gallup revealed that they would choose "developing a plan to deal with immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally". Changes regarding border control are consistent across party lines, with the percentage of Republicans saying that "securing U.S. borders to halt flow of illegal immigrants" is extremely important decreasing from 68% in 2011 to 56% in 2014. Meanwhile, Democrats who chose extremely important shifted from 42% in 2011 to 31% in 2014. In July 2013, 87% of Americans said they would vote in support of a law that would "allow immigrants already in the country to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements including paying taxes, having a criminal background check and learning English". However, in the same survey, 83% also said they would support the tightening of U.S. border security.
Donald Trump's campaign for presidency focused on a rhetoric of reducing illegal immigration and toughening border security. In July 2015, 48% of Americans thought that Donald Trump would do a poor job of handling immigration problems. In November 2016, 55% of Trump's voters thought that he would do the right thing regarding illegal immigration. In general, Trump supporters are not united upon how to handle immigration. In December 2016, Trump voters were polled and 60% said that "undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who meet certain requirements should be allowed to stay legally".
American opinion regarding how immigrants affect the country and how the government should respond to illegal immigration have changed over time. In 2006, out of all U.S. adults surveyed, 28% declared that they believed the growing number of immigrants helped American workers and 55% believed that it hurt American workers. In 2016, those views had changed, with 42% believing that they helped and 45% believing that they hurt. The PRRI 2015 American Values Atlas showed that between 46% and 53% of Americans believed that "the growing number of newcomers from other countries ... strengthens American society". In the same year, between 57% and 66% of Americans chose that the U.S. should "allow [immigrants living in the U.S. illegally] a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements".
In February 2017, the American Enterprise Institute released a report on recent surveys about immigration issues. In July 2016, 63% of Americans favored the temporary bans of immigrants from areas with high levels of terrorism and 53% said the U.S. should allow fewer refugees to enter the country. In November 2016, 55% of Americans were opposed to building a border wall with Mexico. Since 1994, Pew Research center has tracked a change from 63% of Americans saying that immigrants are a burden on the country to 27%.
The Trump administraton's zero-tolerance policy was reacted to negatively by the public. One of the main concerns was how detained children of illegal immigrants were treated. Due to very poor conditions, a campaign was begun called "Close the Camps". Detainment facilities were compared to concentration and internment camps.[source verification needed]
After the 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan in August 2021, an NPR/Ipsos poll (±4.6%) found 69% of Americans supported resettling in the United States Afghans who had worked with the U.S., with 65% support for Afghans who "fear repression or persecution from the Taliban". There was lower support for other refugees: 59% for those "fleeing from civil strife and violence in Africa", 56% for those "fleeing from violence in Syria and Libya", and 56% for "Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty". 57% supported the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy, and 55% supported legalizing the status of those illegally brought to the U.S. as children (as proposed in the DREAM Act).
Religious figures in the United States have stated their views on the topic of immigration as informed by their religious traditions.
- Catholicism – In 2018, Catholic leaders stated that asylum-limiting laws proposed by the Trump administration were immoral. Some bishops considered imposing sanctions (known as "canonical penalties") on church members who have participated in enforcing such policies.
- Judaism – American Jewish rabbis from various denominations have stated that their understanding of Judaism is that immigrants and refugees should be welcomed, and even assisted. The exception would be if there is significant economic hardship or security issues faced by the host country or community, in which case immigration may be limited, discouraged or even prohibited altogether. Some liberal denominations place more emphasis on the welcoming of immigrants, while Conservative, Orthodox and Independent rabbis also consider economic and security concerns. Some provide moral arguments for both the right of country to enforce immigration standards as well as for providing some sort of amnesty for illegal migrants.
Laws concerning immigration and naturalization
Laws concerning immigration and naturalization include:
- the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), which limits the annual number of immigrants to 700,000. It emphasizes that family reunification is the main immigration criterion, in addition to employment-related immigration.
- the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA)
- the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA)
- The Naturlization Act of 1790
- The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
- The Chinese Act of 1882, which banned the immigration of Chinese people.
- The Johsnon-Reed Act of 1924 which limited the number of immigrants.
Asylum for refugees
In contrast to economic migrants, who generally do not gain legal admission, refugees, as defined by international law, can gain legal status through a process of seeking and receiving asylum, either by being designated a refugee while abroad, or by physically entering the United States and requesting asylum status thereafter. A specified number of legally-defined refugees, who either apply for asylum overseas or after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually.[quantify] Refugees compose about one-tenth of the total annual immigration to the United States, though some large refugee populations are very prominent. In 2014, the number of asylum seekers accepted into the U.S. was about 120,000. By comparison, about 31,000 were accepted in the UK and 13,500 in Canada.
Since 1975, more than 1.3 million refugees from Asia have been resettled in the United States. Since 2000 the main refugee-sending regions have been Somalia, Liberia, Sudan, and Ethiopia. The limit for refugee resettlement for fiscal year 2008 was 80,000 refugees. The United States expected to admit a minimum of 17,000 Iraqi refugees during fiscal year 2009. The U.S. has resettled more than 42,000 Bhutanese refugees from Nepal since 2008.
In fiscal year 2008, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) appropriated over 5 million for long-term services provided to refugees after their arrival in the US. The Obama administration has kept to about the same level.
A common problem in the current system for asylum seekers is the lack of resources. Asylum offices in the United States receive more applications for asylum than they can process every month and every year. These continuous applications cause a significant backlog.
Miscellaneous documented immigration
In removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge, cancellation of removal is a form of relief that is available for certain long-time residents of the United States. It allows a person being faced with the threat of removal to obtain permanent residence if that person has been physically present in the U.S. for at least ten years, has had good moral character during that period, has not been convicted of certain crimes, and can show that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to their U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, children, or parent. This form of relief is only available when a person is served with a Notice to Appear to appear in the proceedings in the court.
Members of Congress may submit private bills granting residency to specific named individuals. A special committee[which?] vets the requests, which require extensive documentation. The Central Intelligence Agency has the statutory authority to admit up to one hundred people a year outside of normal immigration procedures, and to provide for their settlement and support. The program is called "PL110", named after the legislation that created the agency, Public Law 110, the Central Intelligence Agency Act.
The illegal immigrant population of the United States is estimated to be between 11 and 12 million. The population of unauthorized immigrants peaked in 2007 and has declined since that time. The majority of the U.S. unauthorized immigrants are from Mexico, but "their numbers (and share of the total) have been declining" and as of 2016 Mexicans no longer make up a clear majority of unauthorized immigrants, as they did in the past. Unauthorized immigrants made up about 5% of the total U.S. civilian labor force in 2014. By the 2010s, an increasing share of U.S. unauthorized immigrants were long-term residents; in 2015, 66% of adult unauthorized residents had lived in the country for at least ten years, while only 14% had lived in the U.S. for less than five years.
In June 2012, President Obama issued a memorandum instructing officers of the federal government to defer deporting young undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children as part of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Under the program, eligible recipients who applied and were granted DACA status were granted a two-year deferral from deportation and temporary eligibility to work legally in the country. Among other criteria, to be eligible a youth applicant must (1) be between age 15 and 31; (2) have come to the United States before the age of 16; (3) have lived in the U.S. continuously for at least five years; (4) be a current student, or have earned a high school diploma or equivalent, or have received an honorable discharge from the U.S. armed services; and (5) must not "have not been convicted of a felony, significant misdemeanor, or three or more misdemeanors, and [does] not otherwise pose a threat to public safety or national security". The Migration Policy Institution estimated that as of 2016, about 1.3 million unauthorized young adults ages 15 and older were "immediately eligible for DACA"; of this eligible population, 63% had applied as of March 2016.
Children of legal migrants will not qualify as Dreamers under DACA protection because they entered the country legally. This is highlighted as the biggest contradiction in US immigration policy by many advocates of legal immigrants.
In 2014, President Obama announced a set of executive actions, the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents. Under this program, "unauthorized immigrants who are parents of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents (LPRs) would qualify for deferred action for three years if they meet certain other requirements". A February 2016 Migration Policy Institute/Urban Institute report found that about 3.6 million people were potentially eligible for DAPA and "more than 10 million people live in households with at least one potentially DAPA-eligible adult, including some 4.3 million children under age 18 – an estimated 85 percent of whom are U.S. citizens". The report also found that "the potentially DAPA eligible are well settled with strong U.S. roots, with 69 percent having lived in the United States ten years or more, and 25 percent at least 20 years".
Although not without precedent under prior presidents, President Obama's authority to create DAPA and expand DACA were challenged in the federal courts by Texas and 25 other states. In November 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision in United States v. Texas, upheld a preliminary injunction blocking the programs from going forward. The case was heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in June 2016 deadlocked 4–4, thus affirming the ruling of the Fifth Circuit but setting no nationally-binding precedent.
On November 15, 2013, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services announced that they would be issuing a new policy memorandum called "parole in place". Parole in place would offer green cards to immigrant parents, spouses and children of active military duty personnel. Prior to this law, relatives of military personnel – excluding husbands and wives – were forced to leave the United States and apply for green cards in their home countries. The law allows for family members to avoid the possible ten-year bar from the United States and remain in the United States while applying for lawful permanent residence. The parole status, given in one year terms, will be subject to the family member being "absent a criminal conviction or other serious adverse factors".
Military children born in foreign countries are considered American from birth, assuming both parents were American citizens at the time of birth. Children born to American citizens will have to process Conciliary Reports of Birth Abroad. This report of birth abroad is the equivalent of a birth certificate and the child will use the report in place of a birth certificate for documentation. However, children born in foreign countries to United States servicemembers before they have gained citizenship could only gain citizenship through the naturalization process.
Treatment as civil proceedings
Most immigration proceedings are civil matters, including deportation proceedings, asylum cases, employment without authorization, and visa overstay. People who evade border enforcement (such as by crossing outside any official border checkpoint), who commit fraud to gain entry, or who commit identity theft to gain employment, may face criminal charges. People entering illegally were seldom charged with this crime until Operation Streamline in 2005. Conviction of this crime generally leads to a prison term, after which the person is deported if they are not eligible to remain in the country.
The guarantees under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, such as the right to counsel, and the right to a jury trial, have not been held to apply to civil immigration proceedings. As a result, people generally represent themselves in asylum and deportation cases unless they can afford an immigration lawyer or receive assistance from a legal charity. In contrast, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment has been applied to immigration proceedings. Because the right to confrontation in the Sixth Amendment does not apply, people can be ordered deported in absentia – without being present at the immigration proceeding.
Removal proceedings are considered administrative proceedings under the authority of the United States Attorney General, acting through the Executive Office for Immigration Review, part of the Justice Department. Immigration judges are employees of the Justice Department, and thus part of the executive branch rather than the judicial branch of government. Appeals are heard within the EOIR by the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the Attorney General may intervene in individual cases, within the bounds of due process.
After various actions by Attorney General Jeff Sessions pressuring judges to speed up deportations, the National Association of Immigration Judges and The Boston Globe editorial board called for moving immigration courts to the judicial branch, to prevent abuse by strengthening separation of powers.
Whether people who are awaiting a decision on their deportation are detained or released to live in the United States in the meantime (possibly paying bail) is a matter of both law and discretion of the Justice Department. The policy has varied over time and differs for those with crimes (including entry outside an official checkpoint) versus civil infractions.
The 2001 Supreme Court case Zadvydas v. Davis held that immigrants who cannot be deported because no country will accept them cannot be detained indefinitely.
Immigration in popular culture
The history of immigration to the United States is the history of the country itself, and the journey from beyond the sea is an element found in American folklore, appearing in many works, such as The Godfather, Gangs of New York, "The Song of Myself", Neil Diamond's "America", and the animated feature An American Tail.
From the 1880s to the 1910s, vaudeville dominated the popular image of immigrants, with very popular caricature portrayals of ethnic groups. The specific features of these caricatures became widely accepted as accurate portrayals.
In The Melting Pot (1908), playwright Israel Zangwill (1864–1926) explored issues that dominated Progressive Era debates about immigration policies. Zangwill's theme of the positive benefits of the American melting pot resonated widely in popular culture and literary and academic circles in the 20th century; his cultural symbolism – in which he situated immigration issues – likewise informed American cultural imagining of immigrants for decades, as exemplified by Hollywood films.
The popular culture's image of ethnic celebrities often includes stereotypes about immigrant groups. For example, Frank Sinatra's public image as a superstar contained important elements of the American Dream while simultaneously incorporating stereotypes about Italian Americans that were based in nativist and Progressive responses to immigration.
The process of assimilation has been a common theme of popular culture. For example, "lace-curtain Irish" refers to middle-class Irish Americans desiring assimilation into mainstream society in counterpoint to the older, more raffish "shanty Irish". The occasional malapropisms and social blunders of these upward mobiles were lampooned in vaudeville, popular song, and the comic strips of the day such as Bringing Up Father, starring Maggie and Jiggs, which ran in daily newspapers for 87 years (1913 to 2000). In The Departed (2006), Staff Sergeant Dignam regularly points out the dichotomy between the lace-curtain Irish lifestyle Billy Costigan enjoyed with his mother, and the shanty Irish lifestyle of Costigan's father. In recent years,[when?] the popular culture has paid special attention to Mexican immigration; the film Spanglish (2004) tells of a friendship of a Mexican housemaid (played by Paz Vega) and her boss (played by Adam Sandler).
Immigration in literature
Novelists and writers have captured much of the color and challenge in their immigrant lives through their writings.
Regarding Irish women in the 19th century, there were numerous novels and short stories by Harvey O'Higgins, Peter McCorry, Bernard O'Reilly and Sarah Orne Jewett that emphasize emancipation from Old World controls, new opportunities and expansiveness of the immigrant experience.
Jewish American writer Anzia Yezierska wrote her novel Bread Givers (1925) to explore such themes as Russian-Jewish immigration in the early 20th century, the tension between Old and New World Yiddish culture, and women's experience of immigration. A well established author Yezierska focused on the Jewish struggle to escape the ghetto and enter middle- and upper-class America. In the novel, the heroine, Sara Smolinsky, escapes from New York City's "down-town ghetto" by breaking tradition. She quits her job at the family store and soon becomes engaged to a rich real-estate magnate. She graduates college and takes a high-prestige job teaching public school. Finally Sara restores her broken links to family and religion.
The Swedish author Vilhelm Moberg, in the mid-20th century, wrote a series of four novels describing one Swedish family's migration from Småland to Minnesota in the late 19th century, a destiny shared by almost one million people. The author emphasizes the authenticity of the experiences as depicted (although he did change names). These novels have been translated into English (The Emigrants, 1951, Unto a Good Land, 1954, The Settlers, 1961, The Last Letter Home, 1961). The musical Kristina från Duvemåla by ex-ABBA members Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson is based on this story.
The Immigrant is a musical by Steven Alper, Sarah Knapp, and Mark Harelik. The show is based on the story of Harelik's grandparents, Matleh and Haskell Harelik, who traveled to Galveston, Texas in 1909.
In their documentary How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories, filmmakers Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini examine the American political system through the lens of immigration reform from 2001 to 2007. Since the debut of the first five films, the series has become an important resource for advocates, policy-makers and educators.
That film series premiered nearly a decade after the filmmakers' landmark documentary film Well-Founded Fear which provided a behind-the-scenes look at the process for seeking asylum in the United States. That film still marks the only time that a film-crew was privy to the private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), where individual asylum officers ponder the often life-or-death fate of immigrants seeking asylum.
In the documentary "Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller", it was argued that weapons smuggling from the United States contributed to insecurity in Latin America, itself triggering more migration to the United States.
Overall approach to regulation
University of North Carolina law professor Hiroshi Motomura has identified three approaches the United States has taken to the legal status of immigrants in his book Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States. The first, dominant in the 19th century, treated immigrants as in transition; in other words, as prospective citizens. As soon as people declared their intention to become citizens, they received multiple low-cost benefits, including the eligibility for free homesteads in the Homestead Act of 1869,[clarification needed] and in many states, the right to vote. The goal was to make the country more attractive, so large numbers of farmers and skilled craftsmen would settle new lands. By the 1880s, a second approach took over, treating newcomers as "immigrants by contract". An implicit deal existed where immigrants who were literate and could earn their own living were permitted in restricted numbers. Once in the United States, they would have limited legal rights, but were not allowed to vote until they became citizens, and would not be eligible for the New Deal government benefits available in the 1930s. The third and more recent policy[when?] is "immigration by affiliation", which Motomura argues is the treatment which depends on how deeply rooted people have become in the country. An immigrant who applies for citizenship as soon as permitted, has a long history of working in the United States, and has significant family ties, is more deeply affiliated and can expect better treatment.
The American Dream is the belief that through hard work and determination, any United States immigrant can achieve a better life, usually in terms of financial prosperity and enhanced personal freedom of choice. According to historians, the rapid economic and industrial expansion of the U.S. is not simply a function of being a resource rich, hard working, and inventive country, but the belief that anybody could get a share of the country's wealth if he or she was willing to work hard. This dream has been a major factor in attracting immigrants to the United States.
- Demographics of the United States
- Emigration from the United States
- European colonization of the Americas
- History of laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States
- How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories
- Illegal immigration to the United States
- Immigration policies of American labor unions
- Inequality within immigrant families (United States)
- Nativism (politics), opposition to immigration
- Opposition to immigration
- United States immigration statistics
- Immigrant benefits urban legend, a hoax regarding benefits comparison
- Immigration Innovation Act of 2015
Constructs such as ibid., loc. cit. and idem are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes, as they are easily broken. Please improve this article by replacing them with named references (quick guide), or an abbreviated title. (September 2021) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
- ^ 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22) ("The term 'national of the United States' means (A) a citizen of the United States, or (B) a person who, though not a citizen of the United States, owes permanent allegiance to the United States.")
- ^ a b "United Nations Population Division | Department of Economic and Social Affairs". www.un.org. Retrieved October 3, 2017.
- ^ "Table 5.1 Estimated resident population, by country of birth(a), Australia, as at 30 June, 1996 to 2019(b)(c)". Australian Bureau of Statistics. Retrieved July 19, 2021.
- ^ Canada, Government of Canada, Statistics (October 25, 2017). "The Daily – Immigration and ethnocultural diversity: Key results from the 2016 Census". www150.statcan.gc.ca. Retrieved June 17, 2018.
- ^ a b c "Table 7. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By Type And Detailed Class Of Admission: Fiscal Year 2016–2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics". DHS.gov. United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). December 18, 2017. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
- ^ "Green Card for a Victim of a Crime (U Nonimmigrant)". www.uscis.gov. May 23, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
- ^ "INS Class of Admission Codes" (PDF). www.hplct.org. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
- ^ Foner, Nancy; Fredrickson, George M., eds. (December 8, 2005). "Chapter 6: American Gatekeeping: Race and Immigration Law in the Twentieth Century". Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN 978-0-87154-270-0. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016.
- ^ a b "Per Country Limit". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Archived from the original on January 21, 2016. in 1965.
- ^ "Immigrants in the United States and the Current Economic Crisis Archived April 8, 2010, at the Wayback Machine", Demetrios G. Papademetriou and Aaron Terrazas, Migration Policy Institute, April 2009.
- ^ "Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices, and Trends Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine". Uma A. Segal, Doreen Elliott, Nazneen S. Mayadas (2010),
- ^ "Monthly Census Bureau Data Shows Big Increase in Foreign-Born". Retrieved December 17, 2021.
- ^ a b The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. doi:10.17226/21746. ISBN 978-0-309-37398-2.
Americans have long believed that immigrants are more likely than natives to commit crimes and that rising immigration leads to rising crime ... This belief is remarkably resilient to the contrary evidence that immigrants are in fact much less likely than natives to commit crimes.
- ^ a b Doleac, Jennifer (February 14, 2017). "Are immigrants more likely to commit crimes?". Econofact. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Archived from the original on February 16, 2017.
- ^ a b
- Graif, Corina; Sampson, Robert J. (July 15, 2009). "Spatial Heterogeneity in the Effects of Immigration and Diversity on Neighborhood Homicide Rates". Homicide Studies. 13 (3): 242–60. doi:10.1177/1088767909336728. ISSN 1088-7679. PMC 2911240. PMID 20671811.
- Lee, Matthew T.; Martinez, Ramiro; Rosenfeld, Richard (September 1, 2001). "Does Immigration Increase Homicide?". Sociological Quarterly. 42 (4): 559–80. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2001.tb01780.x. ISSN 1533-8525. S2CID 143182621.
- Ousey, Graham C.; Kubrin, Charis E. (October 15, 2013). "Immigration and the Changing Nature of Homicide in US Cities, 1980–2010". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 30 (3): 453–83. doi:10.1007/s10940-013-9210-5. S2CID 42681671.
- Martinez, Ramiro; Lee, Matthew T.; Nielsen, Amie L. (March 1, 2004). "Segmented Assimilation, Local Context and Determinants of Drug Violence in Miami and San Diego: Does Ethnicity and Immigration Matter?". International Migration Review. 38 (1): 131–57. doi:10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00191.x. ISSN 1747-7379. S2CID 144567229.
- Kristin F. Butcher & Anne Morrison Piehl (Summer 1998). "Cross-city evidence on the relationship between immigration and crime". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 17 (3): 457–93. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6688(199822)17:3<457::AID-PAM4>3.0.CO;2-F.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
- Butcher, Kristin F.; Piehl, Anne Morrison (July 1, 2007). "Why are Immigrants' Incarceration Rates so Low? Evidence on Selective Immigration, Deterrence, and Deportation" (PDF). NBER Working Paper No. 13229. doi:10.3386/w13229. hdl:10419/31301. S2CID 31160880.
- Butcher, Kristin F.; Piehl, Anne Morrison (1998). "Recent Immigrants: Unexpected Implications for Crime and Incarceration" (PDF). Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 51 (4): 654–79. doi:10.1177/001979399805100406. S2CID 154971599.
- Wolff, Kevin T.; Baglivio, Michael T.; Intravia, Jonathan; Piquero, Alex R. (November 1, 2015). "The protective impact of immigrant concentration on juvenile recidivism: A statewide analysis of youth offenders". Journal of Criminal Justice. 43 (6): 522–31. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.05.004.
- Reid, Lesley Williams; Weiss, Harald E.; Adelman, Robert M.; Jaret, Charles (December 1, 2005). "The immigration–crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas". Social Science Research. 34 (4): 757–80. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.01.001.
- Davies, Garth; Fagan, Jeffrey (May 1, 2012). "Crime and Enforcement in Immigrant Neighborhoods Evidence from New York City". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 641 (1): 99–124. doi:10.1177/0002716212438938. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 143497882.
- Jr, Ramiro Martinez; Stowell, Jacob I.; Iwama, Janice A. (March 21, 2016). "The Role of Immigration: Race/Ethnicity and San Diego Homicides Since 1970". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 32 (3): 471–88. doi:10.1007/s10940-016-9294-9. ISSN 0748-4518. S2CID 147072245.
- Chalfin, Aaron (March 1, 2014). "What is the Contribution of Mexican Immigration to U.S. Crime Rates? Evidence from Rainfall Shocks in Mexico". American Law and Economics Review. 16 (1): 220–68. doi:10.1093/aler/aht019. ISSN 1465-7252.
- "Crime rises among second-generation immigrants as they assimilate". Pew Research Center. October 15, 2013. Archived from the original on February 11, 2016.
- Ousey, Graham C.; Kubrin, Charis E. (August 1, 2009). "Exploring the Connection between Immigration and Violent Crime Rates in U.S. Cities, 1980–2000". Social Problems. 56 (3): 447–73. doi:10.1525/sp.2009.56.3.447. ISSN 0037-7791.
- Light, Michael T.; Ulmer, Jeffery T. (April 1, 2016). "Explaining the Gaps in White, Black, and Hispanic Violence since 1990 Accounting for Immigration, Incarceration, and Inequality". American Sociological Review. 81 (2): 290–315. doi:10.1177/0003122416635667. ISSN 0003-1224. S2CID 53346960.
- Bersani, Bianca E. (March 4, 2014). "An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories". Justice Quarterly. 31 (2): 315–43. doi:10.1080/07418825.2012.659200. ISSN 0741-8825. S2CID 144240275.
- Spenkuch, Jörg L. (June 2, 2014). "Does Immigration Increase Crime?". Archived from the original on May 14, 2016. Retrieved June 23, 2016.
- "Crime, Corrections, and California: What Does Immigration Have to Do with It? (PPIC Publication)". www.ppic.org. Archived from the original on May 14, 2016. Retrieved June 23, 2016.
- MacDonald, John M.; Hipp, John R.; Gill, Charlotte (June 2, 2012). "The Effects of Immigrant Concentration on Changes in Neighborhood Crime Rates". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 29 (2): 191–215. doi:10.1007/s10940-012-9176-8. S2CID 26475008.
- Adelman, Robert; Reid, Lesley Williams; Markle, Gail; Weiss, Saskia; Jaret, Charles (January 2, 2017). "Urban crime rates and the changing face of immigration: Evidence across four decades". Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice. 15 (1): 52–77. doi:10.1080/15377938.2016.1261057. ISSN 1537-7938. S2CID 147588658.
- Harris, Casey T.; Feldmeyer, Ben (January 2013). "Latino immigration and White, Black, and Latino violent crime: A comparison of traditional and non-traditional immigrant destinations". Social Science Research. 42 (1): 202–16. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.08.014. PMID 23146607.
- ^ "Leaving England: The Social Background of Indentured Servants in the Seventeenth Century Archived January 6, 2009, at the Wayback Machine", The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
- ^ Butler, Becoming America, The Revolution before 1776, 2000, pp. 34–35 ISBN 0-674-00091-9)
- ^ The Oxford History of the British Empire, "The Eighteenth Century," Ed. P. J. Marshall, p. 3 ISBN 0-19-820563-5 the number given is at 80,000 less 29,000 Welsh which seems strange to the author, James Horn; Duncan also regards this as a "mystery"; it does not include the 50,000–120,000 convicts transported, most of whom were English
- ^ Encyclopedia of the Colonial and Revolutionary America, 1996 pp. 200–02 ISBN 0-306-80687-8; Jon Butler, Becoming America, The Revolution before 1776, 2000, pp. 16–49 ISBN 0-674-00091-9)
- ^ name="mertsahinoglu"
- ^ Encyclopedia, p. 202)
- ^ Butler, p. 35
- ^ Butler, p. 35 producers of watches, jewelry, furniture, skilled construction workers, food and service trade workers
- ^ Duncan. op. cit. p. 10)
- ^ a b "A Look at the Record: The Facts Behind the Current Controversy Over Immigration Archived February 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine". American Heritage Magazine. December 1981. Volume 33, Issue 1.
- ^ "History: 1790 Fast Facts". U.S. Census Bureau.
- ^ Schultz, Jeffrey D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans. p. 284. ISBN 978-1-57356-148-8. Retrieved March 25, 2010.
- ^ James Q. Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 35
- ^ "A Nation of Immigrants Archived November 29, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". American Heritage Magazine. February/March 1994. Volume 45, Issue 1.
- ^ Evans, Nicholas J. (2001). "Indirect passage from Europe: Transmigration via the UK, 1836–1914". Journal for Maritime Research. 3 (1): 70–84. doi:10.1080/21533369.2001.9668313.
- ^ Wilson, Donna M; Northcott, Herbert C (2008). Dying and Death in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-55111-873-4. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016.
- ^ Will, George P. (May 2, 2010). "The real immigration scare tactics". Washington Post. Washington, DC. p. A17. Archived from the original on August 25, 2010.
- ^ "Turn of the Century (1900–1910) Archived February 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". HoustonHistory.com.
- ^ An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Jeanette Altarriba, Roberto R. Heredia (2008). p. 212. ISBN 0-8058-5135-6
- ^ James Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 35
- ^ "Old fears over new faces Archived August 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine", The Seattle Times, September 21, 2006
- ^ Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in the United States of America Archived February 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Source: US Department of Homeland Security
- ^ A Great Depression? Archived September 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, by Steve H. Hanke, Cato Institute
- ^ Thernstrom, Harvard Guide to American Ethnic Groups (1980)
- ^ The Great Depression and New Deal Archived March 10, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, by Joyce Bryant, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute.
- ^ "Jewish refugees from the German Reich, 1933–1939". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved August 20, 2014.
- ^ Navarro, Armando (2005). Mexicano Political Experience in Occupied Aztlán. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. ISBN 978-0-7591-0566-9.
- ^ a b c Peter S. Canellos (November 11, 2008). "Obama victory took root in Kennedy-inspired Immigration Act". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on August 5, 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2008.
- ^ Trends in International Migration 2002: Continuous Reporting System on Migration Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2003). OECD Publishing. p. 280. ISBN 92-64-19949-7
- ^ Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans Archived September 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Jeffrey D. Schultz (2000). Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 282. ISBN 1-57356-148-7
- ^ The Paper curtain: employer sanctions' implementation, impact, and reform Archived September 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Michael Fix (1991). The Urban Institute. p. 304. ISBN 0-87766-550-8
- ^ a b Gonzales, Daniel (March 13, 2016). "How we got here:The many attempts to reform immigration, secure the border". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. p. 1A. Archived from the original on March 14, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
- ^ "New Limits In Works on Immigration / Powerful commission focusing on families of legal entrants Archived January 19, 2012, at the Wayback Machine". San Francisco Chronicle. June 2, 1995
- ^ Plummer Alston Jones (2004). Still struggling for equality: American public library services with minorities Archived February 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Libraries Unlimited. p. 154. ISBN 1-59158-243-1
- ^ Mary E. Williams, Immigration. 2004. p. 69.
- ^ "Immigrant Population at Record 40 Million in 2010". Yahoo! News. October 6, 2011.
- ^ "Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Leading Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) of Residence and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2013". Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2013. United States Department of Homeland Security. 2013. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
- ^ Shah, Neil (May 3, 2015). "Immigrants to U.S. From China Top Those From Mexico". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on May 5, 2015. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
China was the country of origin for 147,000 recent U.S. immigrants in 2013, while Mexico sent just 125,000, according to a Census Bureau study by researcher Eric Jensen and others. India, with 129,000 immigrants, also topped Mexico, though the two countries' results weren't statistically different from each other.
- ^ "Study: Immigration grows, reaching record numbers". USA Today. December 12, 2005.
- ^ "Immigration surge called 'highest ever' Archived May 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine". Washington Times. December 12, 2005.
- ^ "A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Archived November 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine". NPR: National Public Radio. July 4, 2010
- ^ Meyer, Guillaume (February 27, 2009). "Crisis hits Hispanic community hard". France24. Archived from the original on February 12, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2014.
- ^ "Immigrants top native born in U.S. job hunt Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". CNNMoney.com. October 29, 2010.
- ^ "U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2011" Archived August 17, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report.
- ^ Archibold, Randal C. (February 9, 2007). "Illegal Immigrants Slain in an Attack in Arizona". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 16, 2012. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
- ^ "Why Don't They Just Get In Line?". Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council. Archived from the original on March 19, 2013.
- ^ Sullivan, Cheryl (January 15, 2011). "US Cancels 'virtual fence'". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 19, 2011.
- ^ Massey 2021, p. 6.
- ^ a b Massey 2021, p. 11.
- ^ Massey 2021, p. 13.
- ^ "Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report" (PDF).
- ^ Fact Sheet: The President's Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats, United States Department of Homeland Security, September 24, 2017.
- ^ "Trump travel ban to take effect after Supreme Court ruling". The New York Times. December 4, 2017.
- ^ "Trump orders clamp down on immigrant 'sanctuary cities,' pushes border wall". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 27, 2017.
- ^ Villazor, Rose, and Kevin Johnson. "The Trump Administration and the War on Immigration Diversity." Wake Forest Law Review 54.2 (2019): 575.
- ^ Shear, Michael D.; Davis, Julie (June 16, 2018). "How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
- ^ Qiu, Linda (June 14, 2018). "Republicans Misplace Blame for Splitting Families at the Border". The New York Times. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
- ^ "Trump Admin Quietly Made Asylum More Difficult". CNN. March 8, 2017. Archived from the original on March 8, 2017.
- ^ "Sessions Moves to Block Asylum for Most Victims of Domestic, Gang Violence". Politico. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
- ^ Hartmann, Margaret (August 8, 2018). "ACLU Sues Sessions Over Ending Asylum for Victims of Domestic and Gang Violence". Intelligencer. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
- ^ "Trump's latest move to limit immigration worries Seattle-area tech community". The Seattle Times. April 21, 2020.
- ^ "Coronavirus: US green cards to be halted for 60 days, Trump says". BBC News. April 22, 2020.
- ^ a b JYNNAH RADFORD; ABBY BUDIMAN (September 14, 2018). "Facts on U.S. Immigrants, 2016. Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States". Pew Research Center.
- ^ "Table 1. Persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status: fiscal years 1820 to 2017". U.S. Department of Homeland Security. August 14, 2018. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
- ^ a b U.S. 2018 Lawful Permanent Residents Annual Flow Report authored by the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- ^ a b U.S. 2019 Lawful Permanent Residents Annual Flow Report authored by the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- ^ a b c U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents 2020 Data Tables 11/18/2021, authored by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
- ^ "Refugees and Asylees". Department of Homeland Security. April 5, 2016. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
- ^ "Trump proposes slashing refugee numbers". SBS News.
- ^ "Trump aims to slash US refugee intake, claiming backlog". www.aljazeera.com.
- ^ "Trump to cut number of refugees allowed in U.S. to lowest ever". www.cbsnews.com.
- ^ "US slashes refugee limit to all-time low of 18,000". BBC News. September 27, 2019.
- ^ a b "Trump to limit 2021 US refugee admissions to 15,000, a record low". www.aljazeera.com.
- ^ a b "U.S. to cut refugee admissions to U.S. to a record low". NBC News.
- ^ a b "Donald Trump slashes US refugee admissions to record low". DW.COM. October 1, 2020.
- ^ "US slashes number of refugees it is ready to resettle". www.aljazeera.com.
- ^ "'Shameful': US slashes number of refugees it will admit to 30,000". www.aljazeera.com.
- ^ Pew Research Center, Hispanic Trends, "Facts on United States Immigrants, 2017 – Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States"
- ^ The Guardian, December 19, 2019 "Fleeing a Hell the U.S. Helped Create: Why Central Americans Journey North – The region’s inequality and violence, in which the US has long played a role, is driving people to leave their homes"
- ^ The Nation, October 18, 2017, "How US Foreign Policy Helped Create the Immigration Crisis: Neoliberal Strictures, Support for Oligarchs, and the War on Drugs Have Impoverished Millions and Destabilized Latin America"
- ^ Climate Change Is Altering Migration Patterns Regionally and Globally
- ^ Changing climate forces desperate Guatemalans to migrate
- ^ 'People are dying': how the climate crisis has sparked an exodus to the US
- ^ How climate change is driving emigration from Central America
- ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 5253.
- ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 54.
- ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 56.
- ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 58 ("Immigrants have always moved to relatively few places, settling where they have family or friends, or where there are people from their ancestral country or community.").
- ^ http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/immigrants Archived July 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine 2009 report available for download, "A Place to Call Home: What Immigrants Say Now About Life in America"
- ^ "Americans Return to Tougher Immigration Stance". Gallup.com. August 5, 2009. Archived from the original on November 7, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
- ^ "Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index". Publicagenda.org. Archived from the original on February 8, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Table of contents for Who are we? : the challenges to America's national identity / Samuel P. Huntington". Library of Congress.
- ^ "Samuel Huntington – on Immigration and the American Identity – Podcast Interview". Thoughtcast. Archived from the original on March 5, 2017.
- ^ Yen, Hope (April 24, 2012). "Mexican Migration Appears To Be In Reverse". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ Ruben Navarrette Jr (April 27, 2012). "Navarrette: The Mexican reverse migration". Newsday. Archived from the original on April 28, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ "Mexicans feeling persecuted flee U.S." CNN. November 27, 2012. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016.
- ^ "L.A. Now". Los Angeles Times. October 23, 2012. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016.
- ^ Preston, Julia (July 31, 2008). "Decline Seen in Numbers of People Here Illegally". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 24, 2015. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
- ^ "Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero – and Perhaps Less". Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. April 23, 2012. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ "Governor candidates oppose sanctuary cities Archived September 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine". San Francisco Chronicle. August 4, 2010.
- ^ "Sanctuary Cities, USA". Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC. Archived from the original on August 12, 2007.
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on May 22, 2016. Retrieved May 20, 2016.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ "Profiles on Lawful Permanent Residents 2015 Country - Homeland Security". January 31, 2017. Archived from the original on March 16, 2017.
- ^ "U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2016" (PDF).
- ^ a b "U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2017" (PDF).
- ^ "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on April 30, 2017. Retrieved June 10, 2017.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ Nativity of the Population and Place of Birth of the Native Population: 1850 to 2000 – .xls Archived October 20, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, .csv Archived July 23, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Population by Nativity Status and Citizenship: 2010 Archived February 9, 2015, at the Wayback Machine (estimated to nearest thousand)
- ^ "Place of Birth for the Foreign-born in the United States". 2016. Archived from the original on February 14, 2020. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
- ^ a b "Explore Census Data". Retrieved September 1, 2020
- ^ "U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States". Retrieved September 1, 2020
- ^ Mary E. Williams, Immigration. (San Diego: GreenHaven Press) 2004. p. 82.
- ^ "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants in the United States Archived March 17, 2008, at the Wayback Machine", Aaron Terrazas and Jeanne Batalova, Migration Policy Institute, October 2009.
- ^ "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move Archived June 30, 2017, at the Wayback Machine". The New York Times. June 25, 2010.
- ^ "Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births". The Wall Street Journal. August 12, 2010.
- ^ "National Review: Know the flow - economics of immigration". May 11, 2005. Archived from the original on May 11, 2005.
- ^ "Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?". Csmonitor.com. May 16, 2006. Archived from the original on May 5, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Passel, Jeffrey S. "Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population" (PDF). pewhispanic.org. Pew Hispanic Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 7, 2015. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
- ^ "Characteristics of the Foreign Born in the United States: Results from Census 2000". Migrationpolicy.org. Migrationinformation.org. Archived from the original on April 10, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States". Migration Policy Institute. March 14, 2019.
- ^ a b Place of Birth for The Foreign-Born Population In The United States | 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables
- ^ a b Colby, Sandra L.; Ortman, Jennifer M. (March 2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060 (PDF) (Report). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau. pp. 8–9. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 22, 2016. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
- ^ a b Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065 (Report). Pew Research Center. September 28, 2015. p. 1. Archived from the original on May 11, 2016. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
- ^ U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050 Archived June 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, USA Today
- ^ Asthana, Anushka (August 21, 2006). "Changing Face of Western Cities". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on May 14, 2011. Retrieved June 25, 2007.
- ^ Whites Now A Minority In California, Census: Non-Hispanic Whites Now 47% Of State's Population Archived December 22, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, CBS News
- ^ "California QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau". US Census Bureau. Archived from the original on December 28, 2009. Retrieved December 26, 2009.
- ^ Cutler, David M.; Glaeser, Edward L.; Vigdor, Jacob L. (2008). "Is the Melting Pot Still Hot? Explaining the Resurgence of Immigrant Segregation" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 90 (3): 478–97. doi:10.1162/rest.90.3.478. S2CID 1110772.
- ^ a b Hook, J.; Snyder, J. (2007). "Immigration, ethnicity, and the loss of white students from California public schools, 1990–2000". Population Research and Policy Review. 26 (3): 259–77. doi:10.1007/s11113-007-9035-8. S2CID 153644027.
- ^ Place of Birth for the Foreign-born Population in the United States: Foreign-born population excluding population born at sea more information
- ^ "Poll Results | IGM Forum". www.igmchicago.org. Archived from the original on September 5, 2015. Retrieved September 19, 2015.
- ^ "Poll Results | IGM Forum". www.igmchicago.org. Archived from the original on September 5, 2015. Retrieved September 19, 2015.
- ^ Card, David; Dustmann, Christian; Preston, Ian (February 1, 2012). "Immigration, Wages, and Compositional Amenities" (PDF). Journal of the European Economic Association. 10 (1): 78–119. doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01051.x. ISSN 1542-4774. S2CID 154303869.
- ^ Bodvarsson, Örn B; Van den Berg, Hendrik (2013). The economics of immigration: theory and policy. New York; Heidelberg [u.a.]: Springer. p. 157. ISBN 978-1461421153. OCLC 852632755.
- ^ Card, David (1990). "The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market". Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 43 (2): 245–57. doi:10.1177/001979399004300205. S2CID 15116852.
Foged, Mette; Peri, Giovanni (2016). "Immigrants' Effect on Native Workers: New Analysis on Longitudinal Data" (PDF). American Economic Journal: Applied Economics. 8 (2): 1–34. doi:10.1257/app.20150114.
Borjas, George J. (November 1, 2003). "The Labor Demand Curve is Downward Sloping: Reexamining the Impact of Immigration on the Labor Market". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 118 (4): 1335–74. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.183.1227. doi:10.1162/003355303322552810. ISSN 0033-5533.
Chassamboulli, Andri; Peri, Giovanni (October 1, 2015). "The labor market effects of reducing the number of illegal immigrants". Review of Economic Dynamics. 18 (4): 792–821. doi:10.1016/j.red.2015.07.005. S2CID 16242107.
Kerr, Sari Pekkala; Kerr, William R. (2011). "Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey" (PDF). Finnish Economic Papers. 24 (1): 1–32.
Longhi, Simonetta; Nijkamp, Peter; Poot, Jacques (July 1, 2005). "A Meta-Analytic Assessment of the Effect of Immigration on Wages". Journal of Economic Surveys. 19 (3): 451–77. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.594.7035. doi:10.1111/j.0950-0804.2005.00255.x. ISSN 1467-6419.
Longhi, Simonetta; Nijkamp, Peter; Poot, Jacques (October 1, 2010). "Meta-Analyses of Labour-Market Impacts of Immigration: Key Conclusions and Policy Implications". Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 28 (5): 819–33. doi:10.1068/c09151r. ISSN 0263-774X. S2CID 154749568.
Okkerse, Liesbet (February 1, 2008). "How to Measure Labour Market Effects of Immigration: A Review". Journal of Economic Surveys. 22 (1): 1–30. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6419.2007.00533.x. ISSN 1467-6419. S2CID 55145701.
Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P.; Peri, Giovanni (February 1, 2012). "Rethinking the Effect of Immigration on Wages". Journal of the European Economic Association. 10 (1): 152–97. doi:10.1111/j.1542-4774.2011.01052.x. ISSN 1542-4774.
Battisti, Michele; Felbermayr, Gabriel; Peri, Giovanni; Poutvaara, Panu (May 1, 2014). "Immigration, Search, and Redistribution: A Quantitative Assessment of Native Welfare". NBER Working Paper No. 20131. doi:10.3386/w20131.
- ^ Card, David (2005). "Is the New Immigration Really So Bad?" (PDF). Economic Journal. 115 (506): F300–F323. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01037.x. S2CID 1601285.
Dustmann, Christian; Glitz, Albrecht; Frattini, Tommaso (September 21, 2008). "The labour market impact of immigration". Oxford Review of Economic Policy. 24 (3): 477–94. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.521.9523. doi:10.1093/oxrep/grn024. ISSN 0266-903X.
Florence Jaumotte, Ksenia Koloskova & Sweta Saxena (October 24, 2016). "Migrants Bring Economic Benefits for Advanced Economies". iMFdirect - The IMF Blog.CS1 maint: uses authors parameter (link)
Furlanetto, Francesco; Robstad, Ørjan (December 10, 2016). "Immigration and the macroeconomy: Some new empirical evidence". VoxEU.org.
Immigration, Panel on the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of; Statistics, Committee on National; Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and; Sciences, National Academies of; Engineering; Medicine, and (2016). The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration (PDF). doi:10.17226/23550. hdl:10919/83151. ISBN 978-0309444422.
- ^ "IZA – Institute for the Study of Labor". legacy.iza.org. Archived from the original on February 7, 2017. Retrieved February 6, 2017.
- ^ Pia m. Orrenius, P. M.; Zavodny, M. (2009). "Do Immigrants Work in Riskier Jobs?". Demography. 46 (3): 535–51. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0064. PMC 2831347. PMID 19771943.
- ^ Toussaint-Comeau, Maude (2005). "Do Enclaves Matter in Immigrants' Self-Employment Decision?" (PDF). Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago Working Paper 2005-23. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 20, 2012.
- ^ Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P.; Peri, Giovanni (January 1, 2006). "The economic value of cultural diversity: evidence from US cities" (PDF). Journal of Economic Geography. 6 (1): 9–44. doi:10.1093/jeg/lbi002. hdl:10.1093/jeg/lbi002. ISSN 1468-2702.
- ^ Peri, Giovanni (October 7, 2010). "The Effect Of Immigration On Productivity: Evidence From U.S. States" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 94 (1): 348–58. doi:10.1162/REST_a_00137. ISSN 0034-6535. S2CID 17957545.
- ^ Alesina, Alberto; Harnoss, Johann; Rapoport, Hillel (February 17, 2016). "Birthplace diversity and economic prosperity" (PDF). Journal of Economic Growth. 21 (2): 101–38. doi:10.1007/s10887-016-9127-6. ISSN 1381-4338. S2CID 34712861.
- ^ "Multiculturalism and Growth: Skill-Specific Evidence from the Post-World War II Period" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on December 20, 2016.
- ^ a b Qian, Nancy; Nunn, Nathan; Sequeira, Sandra (2020). "Immigrants and the Making of America". The Review of Economic Studies. 87: 382–419. doi:10.1093/restud/rdz003. S2CID 53597318.
- ^ Aner, Emilie; Graneli, Anna; Lodefolk, Magnus (October 14, 2015). "Cross-border movement of persons stimulates trade". VoxEU.org. Centre for Economic Policy Research. Archived from the original on October 17, 2015. Retrieved October 19, 2015.
Bratti, Massimiliano; Benedictis, Luca De; Santoni, Gianluca (April 18, 2014). "On the pro-trade effects of immigrants" (PDF). Review of World Economics. 150 (3): 557–94. doi:10.1007/s10290-014-0191-8. hdl:11393/195448. ISSN 1610-2878. S2CID 4981719.
Foley, C. Fritz; Kerr, William R. (2013). "Ethnic Innovation and U.S. Multinational Firm Activity". Management Science. 59 (7): 1529–44. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.361.36. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1684. S2CID 7275466.
Dany, Bahar; Rapoport, Hillel. "Migration, knowledge diffusion and the comparative advantage of nations". Cite journal requires
- ^ Burchardi, Konrad B.; Chaney, Thomas; Hassan, Tarek A. (January 2016). "Migrants, Ancestors, and Investment". NBER Working Paper No. 21847. doi:10.3386/w21847.
- ^ a b Basso, Gaetano; Peri, Giovanni; Rahman, Ahmed (October 2017). "Computerization and Immigration: Theory and Evidence from the United States". NBER Working Paper No. 23935. doi:10.3386/w23935.
- ^ a b Basso, Gaetano; Peri, Giovanni; Rahman, Ahmed (January 12, 2018). "The impact of immigration on wage distributions in the era of technical automation". VoxEU.org. Retrieved January 12, 2018.
- ^ Clemens, Michael A.; Lewis, Ethan G.; Postel, Hannah M. (2018). "Immigration Restrictions as Active Labor Market Policy: Evidence from the Mexican Bracero Exclusion". American Economic Review. 108 (6): 1468–87. doi:10.1257/aer.20170765. ISSN 0002-8282. PMC 6040835. PMID 30008480.
- ^ a b c Kerr, Sari Pekkala; Kerr, William R. (2011). "Economic Impacts of Immigration: A Survey" (PDF). Finnish Economic Papers. 24 (1): 1–32.
- ^ "New Report Assesses the Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration". Retrieved April 3, 2017.
- ^ "The case for immigration". Vox. Archived from the original on April 3, 2017. Retrieved April 3, 2017.
- ^ a b c "The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments". December 6, 2007. Archived from the original on July 22, 2016. Retrieved June 28, 2016.
- ^ "The Immigration Debate / Effect on Economy". San Francisco Chronicle. May 21, 2006. Archived from the original on January 14, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ James p. Smith, Chair. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration (1997) Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (CBASSE), National Academy of Sciences. p. 5
- ^ "Report to Congressional Requesters: January 2009". United States Government Accountability Office. Archived from the original on March 4, 2016. Retrieved March 16, 2013.
- ^ Card, David (April 1, 2009). "Immigration and Inequality". American Economic Review. 99 (2): 1–21. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.412.9244. doi:10.1257/aer.99.2.1. ISSN 0002-8282. S2CID 154716407.
- ^ Green, Alan G.; Green, David A. (June 1, 2016). "Immigration and the Canadian Earnings Distribution in the First Half of the Twentieth Century". The Journal of Economic History. 76 (2): 387–426. doi:10.1017/S0022050716000541. ISSN 1471-6372. S2CID 156620314.
- ^ Xu, Ping; Garand, James C.; Zhu, Ling (September 23, 2015). "Imported Inequality? Immigration and Income Inequality in the American States". State Politics & Policy Quarterly. 16 (2): 147–71. doi:10.1177/1532440015603814. ISSN 1532-4400. S2CID 155197472.
- ^ Palivos, Theodore (June 4, 2008). "Welfare effects of illegal immigration" (PDF). Journal of Population Economics. 22 (1): 131–44. doi:10.1007/s00148-007-0182-3. ISSN 0933-1433. S2CID 154625546.
- ^ Liu, Xiangbo (December 1, 2010). "On the macroeconomic and welfare effects of illegal immigration" (PDF). Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control. 34 (12): 2547–67. doi:10.1016/j.jedc.2010.06.030.
- ^ Chassamboulli, Andri; Peri, Giovanni (October 1, 2015). "The labor market effects of reducing the number of illegal immigrants". Review of Economic Dynamics. 18 (4): 792–821. doi:10.1016/j.red.2015.07.005. S2CID 16242107.
- ^ "The Economic Effects of Granting Legal Status and Citizenship to Undocumented Immigrants" (PDF).
- ^ Edwards, Ryan; Ortega, Francesc (November 2016). "The Economic Contribution of Unauthorized Workers: An Industry Analysis". NBER Working Paper No. 22834. doi:10.3386/w22834.
- ^ "Fear vs. Facts: Examining the Economic Impact of Undocumented Immigrants in the U.S." heinonline.org. Archived from the original on May 25, 2017. Retrieved February 9, 2017.
- ^ "CATO Institute Finds 0 Billion Benefit to Legalizing Illegal Immigrants". Archived from the original on September 12, 2009.
- ^ Riley, Jason (2008). Let Them In: The Case for Open Borders. p. 95. ISBN 978-1-59240-349-3.
- ^ "Immigration" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on July 10, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Mundra, Kusum (2010). "Immigrant Networks and the U.S. Bilateral Trade: The Role of Immigrant Income". In Epstein, Gil S.; Gang, Ira N. (eds.). Migration and Culture. Frontiers of Economics and Globalization. 8. Emerald Group. pp. 357–73. doi:10.1108/S1574-8715(2010)0000008021. ISBN 978-0-85724-153-5.
- ^ "Study Details Lives of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. Archived December 26, 2011, at the Wayback Machine". NPR. June 14, 2005.
- ^ "H-2A Temporary Agricultural Workers". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
- ^ "Georgia General Assembly: HB 87 – Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011". .legis.ga.gov. Archived from the original on May 2, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Guardian newspaper: Kansas prepares for clash of wills over future of unauthorised immigrants Archived February 8, 2017, at the Wayback Machine – Coalition of top [Kansas] businesses launch new legislation that would help undocumented Hispanics gain federal work permission. February 2, 2012
- ^ "Economic Impact of Refugees in the Cleveland Area" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on November 6, 2015. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
- ^ Cortes, Kalena E. (March 1, 2004). "Are Refugees Different from Economic Immigrants? Some Empirical Evidence on the Heterogeneity of Immigrant Groups in the United States". Rochester, NY. SSRN 524605. Cite journal requires
- ^ a b Evans, William N.; Fitzgerald, Daniel (June 2017). "The Economic and Social Outcomes of Refugees in the United States: Evidence from the ACS". NBER Working Paper No. 23498. doi:10.3386/w23498.
- ^ a b Davis, Julie Hirschfeld; Sengupta, Somini (September 18, 2017). "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved September 19, 2017.
- ^ Peri, Giovanni. "No reasons to reject refugees". SoundCloud. Retrieved January 27, 2016.
- ^ Bevelander, Pieter; Malmö, University of (May 1, 2016). "Integrating refugees into labor markets". IZA World of Labor. doi:10.15185/izawol.269.
- ^ Fairlie, Robert W.; Lofstrom, Magnus (January 1, 2013). "Immigration and Entrepreneurship". Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA). Archived from the original on August 16, 2016. Cite journal requires
- ^ Akcigit, Ufuk; Grigsby, John; Nicholas, Tom (2017). "Immigration and the Rise of American Ingenuity" (PDF). American Economic Review. 107 (5): 327–31. doi:10.1257/aer.p20171021. S2CID 35552861.
- ^ Kerr, Sari Pekkala; Kerr, William R. (2017). "Immigrant Entrepreneurship". In Haltiwanger; Hurst; Miranda; Schoar (eds.). Measuring Entrepreneurial Businesses: Current Knowledge and Challenges. doi:10.3386/w22385.
- ^ Kerr, Sari Pekkala; Kerr, William R. (April 2018). "Immigrant Entrepreneurship in America: Evidence from the Survey of Business Owners 2007 & 2012". NBER Working Paper No. 24494. doi:10.3386/w24494.
- ^ Khanna, Gaurav; Lee, Munseob (2018). "High-Skill Immigration, Innovation, and Creative Destruction". NBER Working Paper No. 24824. doi:10.3386/w24824.
- ^ Kerr, William R. (January 1, 2010). "Breakthrough inventions and migrating clusters of innovation" (PDF). Journal of Urban Economics. Special Issue: Cities and EntrepreneurshipSponsored by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation (www.kauffman.org). 67 (1): 46–60. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.006.
- ^ "Immigrants and Billion Dollar Startups" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on November 7, 2016.
- ^ Stuen, Eric T.; Mobarak, Ahmed Mushfiq; Maskus, Keith E. (December 1, 2012). "Skilled Immigration and Innovation: Evidence from Enrolment Fluctuations in US Doctoral Programmes". The Economic Journal. 122 (565): 1143–76. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2012.02543.x. ISSN 1468-0297. S2CID 19741509.
- ^ "Immigrants Play a Key Role in STEM Fields".
- ^ "Executive Office of the President: Council of Economic Advisers: Immigration's Economic Impact" (PDF). Whitehouse.gov. June 20, 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on January 12, 2009. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Elstrom, Peter (June 7, 2007). "Immigration: Google Makes Its Case". Bloomberg BusinessWeek. Archived from the original on February 1, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Fazlur R. Khan". Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Archived from the original on May 21, 2014. Retrieved May 21, 2014.
- ^ "Sears Tower – Fazlur Khan – Structural Artist of Urban Building Forms". Archived from the original on February 26, 2015. Retrieved May 21, 2014.
- ^ "Willis Tower – The Skyscraper Center". Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. Archived from the original on December 30, 2013.
- ^ a b c d e "IZA – Institute for the Study of Labor". www.iza.org. Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
- ^ Ayres, Ian; Siegelman, Peter (January 1, 1995). "Race and Gender Discrimination in Bargaining for a New Car". American Economic Review. 85 (3): 304–21. Archived from the original on April 3, 2016.
- ^ Doleac, Jennifer L.; Stein, Luke C.D. (November 1, 2013). "The Visible Hand: Race and Online Market Outcomes". The Economic Journal. 123 (572): F469–F492. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12082. ISSN 1468-0297. S2CID 154984687.
- ^ a b Warren, Patricia Y.; Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald (May 1, 2009). "Racial profiling and searches: Did the politics of racial profiling change police behavior?". Criminology & Public Policy. 8 (2): 343–69. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00556.x. ISSN 1745-9133.
- ^ a b Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2008/09 Archived October 22, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, p.p 8, 22
- ^ a b West, Jeremy (February 2018). "Racial Bias in Police Investigations" (PDF). Working Paper.
- ^ a b Donohue III, John J.; Levitt, Steven D. (January 1, 2001). "The Impact of Race on Policing and Arrests". The Journal of Law & Economics. 44 (2): 367–94. doi:10.1086/322810. JSTOR 10.1086/322810. S2CID 1547854.
- ^ a b Abrams, David S.; Bertrand, Marianne; Mullainathan, Sendhil (June 1, 2012). "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?". The Journal of Legal Studies. 41 (2): 347–83. doi:10.1086/666006. ISSN 0047-2530. S2CID 2338687.
- ^ a b Mustard, David B. (April 1, 2001). "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts". The Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (1): 285–314. doi:10.1086/320276. ISSN 0022-2186. S2CID 154533225.
- ^ a b c Anwar, Shamena; Bayer, Patrick; Hjalmarsson, Randi (May 1, 2012). "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 127 (2): 1017–55. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs014. ISSN 0033-5533.
- ^ a b Daudistel, Howard C.; Hosch, Harmon M.; Holmes, Malcolm D.; Graves, Joseph B. (February 1, 1999). "Effects of Defendant Ethnicity on Juries' Dispositions of Felony Cases1". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29 (2): 317–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01389.x. ISSN 1559-1816.
- ^ a b c Depew, Briggs; Eren, Ozkan; Mocan, Naci (2017). "Judges, Juveniles, and In-Group Bias" (PDF). Journal of Law and Economics. 60 (2): 209–39. doi:10.1086/693822. S2CID 147631237.
- ^ Milkman, Katherine L.; Akinola, Modupe; Chugh, Dolly (November 1, 2015). "What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 100 (6): 1678–1712. doi:10.1037/apl0000022. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 25867167.
- ^ Espenshade, Thomas J.; Radford, Alexandria Walton (November 2009). Espenshade, T.J. and Radford, A.W.: No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. (eBook, Paperback and Hardcover). press.princeton.edu. ISBN 9780691141602. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
- ^ Ondrich, Jan; Ross, Stephen; Yinger, John (November 1, 2003). "Now You See It, Now You Don't: Why Do Real Estate Agents Withhold Available Houses from Black Customers?" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 85 (4): 854–73. doi:10.1162/003465303772815772. ISSN 0034-6535. S2CID 8524510.
- ^ "Housing Discrimination against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012: Full Report". www.urban.org. Retrieved April 23, 2016.
- ^ Riach, P. A.; Rich, J. (November 1, 2002). "Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place". The Economic Journal. 112 (483): F480–F518. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00080. ISSN 1468-0297. S2CID 19024888.
- ^ a b c Zschirnt, Eva; Ruedin, Didier (May 27, 2016). "Ethnic discrimination in hiring decisions: a meta-analysis of correspondence tests 1990–2015". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 42 (7): 1115–34. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2015.1133279. ISSN 1369-183X. S2CID 10261744.
- ^ Bertrand, Marianne; Mullainathan, Sendhil (2004). "Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination" (PDF). American Economic Review. 94 (4): 991–1013. doi:10.1257/0002828042002561.
- ^ Pager, Devah; Western, Bruce; Bonikowski, Bart (October 1, 2009). "Discrimination in a Low-Wage Labor Market A Field Experiment". American Sociological Review. 74 (5): 777–99. doi:10.1177/000312240907400505. ISSN 0003-1224. PMC 2915472. PMID 20689685.
- ^ Ofari, Earl (November 25, 2007). "The black-Latino blame game". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Quinones, Sam (October 18, 2007). "Gang rivalry grows into race war". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Racial Tension Rising in Dallas Against Korean Community". The Chosun Ilbo. January 31, 2012. Archived from the original on February 10, 2016.
- ^ "Race relations | Where black and brown collide". The Economist. August 2, 2007. Archived from the original on March 8, 2016. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Riot Breaks Out At Calif. High School, Melee Involving 500 People Erupts At Southern California School". Cbsnews.com. Archived from the original on August 1, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Paper Chase: Race riot put down at California state prison". Jurist.law.pitt.edu. December 31, 2006. Archived from the original on March 7, 2010. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Racial segregation continues in California prisons Archived August 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Harris, Paul (March 18, 2007). "A bloody conflict between Hispanic and black American gangs is spreading across Los Angeles". London: Observer.guardian.co.uk. Archived from the original on July 9, 2008. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Hutchinson, Earl Ofari (January 5, 2007). "The Hutchinson Report: Thanks to Latino Gangs, There's a Zone in L.A. Where Blacks Risk Death if They Enter". blackamericaweb.com. Black America Web. Archived from the original on January 17, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
- ^ Dyer, Ervin (December 31, 1969). "African immigrants face bias from blacks". Post-gazette.com. Archived from the original on October 10, 2011. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ a b Villarreal, Andrés; Tamborini, Christopher R. (2018). "Immigrants' Economic Assimilation: Evidence from Longitudinal Earnings Records". American Sociological Review. 83 (4): 686–715. doi:10.1177/0003122418780366. PMC 6290669. PMID 30555169.
- ^ a b Duncan, Brian; Trejo, Stephen J (2011). "Tracking Intergenerational Progress for Immigrant Groups: The Problem of Ethnic Attrition". American Economic Review. 101 (3): 603–08. doi:10.1257/aer.101.3.603. S2CID 46552371.
- ^ Alba, Richard; Islam, Tariqul (January 1, 2009). "The Case of the Disappearing Mexican Americans: An Ethnic-Identity Mystery". Population Research and Policy Review. 28 (2): 109–21. doi:10.1007/s11113-008-9081-x. JSTOR 20616620. S2CID 154929099.
- ^ Duncan, Brian; Trejo, Stephen (2017). "The Complexity of Immigrant Generations: Implications for Assessing the Socioeconomic Integration of Hispanics and Asians". ILR Review. 70 (5): 1146–75. doi:10.1177/0019793916679613. PMC 5602570. PMID 28935997.
- ^ "Achieving the American Dream: Cultural Distance, Cultural Diversity and Economic Performance | Oxford Economic and Social History Working Papers | Working Papers". www.economics.ox.ac.uk. Archived from the original on August 7, 2016. Retrieved May 18, 2016.
- ^ Abramitzky, Ran; Boustan, Leah; Eriksson, Katherine (2020). "Do Immigrants Assimilate More Slowly Today Than in the Past?". American Economic Review: Insights. 2 (1): 125–41. doi:10.1257/aeri.20190079. PMC 7508458. PMID 32968736.
- ^ Charles H. Lippy, Faith in America: Organized religion today (2006) ch 6 pp. 107–27
- ^ a b Massey, Douglas S.; Higgins, Monica Espinoza (September 2011). "The Effect of Immigration on Religious Belief and Practice: A Theologizing or Alienating Experience?". Social Science Research. 40 (5): 1371–89. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2010.04.012. PMC 3629734. PMID 23606773.
- ^ "The Religious Affiliation of U.S. Immigrants: Majority Christian, Rising Share of Other Faiths". Pew Research Center. May 17, 2013. Archived from the original on August 5, 2013.
- ^ Collomp, Catherine (October 1988). "Unions, civics, and National identity: organized Labor's reaction to immigration, 1881–1897". Labor History. 29 (4): 450–74. doi:10.1080/00236568800890311.
- ^ a b Mink, Gwendolyn (1990). Old Labor and New Immigrants in American Political Development: Union, Party, and State, 1875–1920. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ISBN 978-0-8014-9680-6.
- ^ Lane, A.T. (January 1984). "American trade unions, mass immigration and the literacy test: 1900–1917". Labor History. 25 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1080/00236568408584739.
- ^ "Today in History: August 22". Library of Congress:American Memory. January 19, 2011.
- ^ Gutiérrez, David Gregory (1995). Walls and Mirrors: Mexican Americans, Mexican Immigrants and the Politics of Ethnicity. San Diego: University of California Press. pp. 97–98. ISBN 978-0520916869.
UFW report undocumented.
- ^ Irvine, Reed; Kincaid, Cliff. "Why Journalists Support Illegal Immigration". Accuracy in the Media. Archived from the original on December 3, 2015. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
- ^ Wells, Miriam J. (1996). Strawberry Fields: Politics, Class, and Work in California Agriculture. New York: Cornell University Press. pp. 89–90. ISBN 978-0801482793.
- ^ Baird, Peter; McCaughan, Ed (1979). Beyond the Border: Mexico & the U.S. Today. North American Congress on Latin America. p. 169. ISBN 978-0916024376.
- ^ Farmworker Collective Bargaining, 1979: Hearings Before the Committee on Labor Human Resources Hearings held in Salinas, Calif., April 26, 27, and Washington, D.C., May 24, 1979
- ^ "PBS Airs Chávez Documentary" Archived March 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, University of California at Davis – Rural Migration News.
- ^ Etulain, Richard W. (2002). Cesar Chavez: A Brief Biography with Documents. Palgrave Macmillan. p. 18. ISBN 978-0312294274.
cesar chavez undocumented.
- ^ Arellano, Gustavo. "The year in Mexican-bashing". OC Weekly. Archived from the original on June 9, 2014. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
- ^ Navarrette, Jr., Ruben (March 30, 2005). "The Arizona Minutemen and César Chávez". San Diego Union Tribune. Archived from the original on August 5, 2009.
- ^ "Chavez Employs Senate Hearing To Urge National Lettuce Boycott - The Washington Post".
- ^ Page, Susan (June 29, 2007). "Hispanics turning back to Democrats for 2008". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Fung, Margaret (November 9, 2006). "AALDEF Exit Poll of 4,600 Asian American Voters Reveals Robust Support for Democratic Candidates in Key Congressional and State Races". aaldef.org. American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Archived from the original on August 7, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
- ^ "USC Knight Chair in Media and Religion". Uscmediareligion.org. September 16, 2008. Archived from the original on February 26, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ a b Facchini, Giovanni; Mayda, Anna Maria; Mishra, Prachi (2011). "Do interest groups affect US immigration policy?". Journal of International Economics. 85 (1): 114–28. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.682.1264. doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.05.006. S2CID 154694541.
- ^ Facchini, Giovanni; Steinhardt, Max Friedrich (2011). "What drives U.S. immigration policy? Evidence from congressional roll call votes" (PDF). Journal of Public Economics. 95 (7–8): 734–43. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.02.008. ISSN 0047-2727. S2CID 6940099.
- ^ "Polling And Experts Make Clear: Latino Voters Showed Up & Saved The Senate For The Democrats". Nclr.org. November 4, 2010. Archived from the original on March 20, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ An Irish Face on the Cause of Citizenship, Nina Bernstein, March 16, 2006, The New York Times. "Archived copy". Archived from the original on April 30, 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2011.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ National Council of La Raza, Issues and Programs » Immigration » Immigration Reform, "Archived copy". Archived from the original on April 13, 2011. Retrieved April 19, 2011.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ "Loaded rhetoric harms immigration movement", Bridget Johnson, USA Today, February 5, 2006
- ^ Mexican aliens seek to retake 'stolen' land, The Washington Post, April 16, 2006.
- ^ Ethnic Lobbies and US Foreign Policy, David M. Paul and Rachel Anderson Paul, 2009, Lynne Rienner Publishers
- ^ "Hispanic vote tilts strongly to Obama in win Archived November 11, 2014, at the Wayback Machine," Reuters, November 7, 2012.
- ^ Peter Wallsten (November 17, 2012). "New super PAC hopes to give cover to pro-immigration Republicans". Washington Post.
- ^ "New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez: Comments like Romney's set 'us back as a party' Archived March 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine", Yahoo News, November 15, 2012
- ^ Jamieson, Dave (June 19, 2013). "Senator Sounds Alarm On Teen Unemployment". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on June 17, 2015. Retrieved June 15, 2015.
- ^ Thibodeau, Patrick (May 1, 2015). "Meet Bernie Sanders, H-1B skeptic". Computerworld. Archived from the original on June 17, 2015. Retrieved June 15, 2015.
- ^ Bier, Daniel (July 30, 2015). "Bernie Sanders on Immigrants: Silly, Tribal and Economically Illiterate". Newsweek.com. Archived from the original on July 26, 2016. Retrieved July 27, 2016.
- ^ Massimino, Cory (August 3, 2015). "Bernie Sanders is wrong on open borders; they'd help boost the economy - Cory Massimino". the Guardian. Archived from the original on April 9, 2017.
- ^ Tanfani, David S. Cloud, Joseph (April 7, 2018). "Mattis authorizes up to 4,000 National Guard troops for U.S. border with Mexico". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 2, 2018.
- ^ Schrank, Delphine. "Last big group of caravan asylum seekers cross into U.S." U.S. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
- ^ "Trump Administration Moves To Reshape Who Qualifies For Asylum". NPR.org. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
- ^ a b Gunadi, Christian (2020). "Immigration and the Health of U.S. Natives". Southern Economic Journal. 86 (4): 1278–1306. doi:10.1002/soej.12425. ISSN 2325-8012. S2CID 214313284.
- ^ Mohanty, Sarita A.; Woolhandler, Steffie; Himmelstein, David U.; Pati, Susmita; Carrasquillo, Olveen; Bor, David H. (August 1, 2005). "Health Care Expenditures of Immigrants in the United States: A Nationally Representative Analysis". American Journal of Public Health. 95 (8): 1431–38. doi:10.2105/ajph.2004.044602. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 1449377. PMID 16043671.
- ^ Brown, Richard, et al. (1998) "Access to Health Insurance and Health Care for Mexican American Children in Immigrant Families" In Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco, ed. Crossings: Mexican Immigration in Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and Harvard University Press pp. 225–47
- ^ in fact, Simon, Juliana (1995) "Immigration: The Demographic and Economic Facts". Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute and National Immigration Forum (available here "Archived copy". Archived from the original on July 1, 2010. Retrieved July 1, 2010.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)) finds that estimates of the cost of public health care provided to undocumented immigrants that have been used by the press have been extremely inflated
- ^ Simon (1995)
- ^ Kim, T; Draucker, CB; Bradway, C; Grisso, JA; Sommers, MS (2017). "Somos Hermanas Del Mismo Dolor (We Are Sisters of the Same Pain): intimate partner sexual violence narratives among Mexican immigrant women in the United States". Violence Against Women. 23 (5): 623–42. doi:10.1177/1077801216646224. PMID 27130923. S2CID 43738091.
- ^ National Institutes of Health. Medical Encyclopedia Archived October 1, 2008, at the Wayback Machine Accessed September 25, 2006
- ^ Tuberculosis in the United States, 2004 Archived April 23, 2009, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ "CDC - Tuberculosis (TB)". Archived from the original on December 25, 2007. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ "Tuberculosis among US Immigrants". Cdc.gov. Archived from the original on May 11, 2011. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Dunham, Will (October 29, 2007). "AIDS virus invaded U.S. from Haiti: study". Reuters. Archived from the original on December 21, 2008. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Bowdler, Neil (October 30, 2007). "Key HIV strain 'came from Haiti'". BBC News. Archived from the original on May 21, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "Mexican Migrants Carry H.I.V. Home". The New York Times. July 17, 2007. Archived from the original on September 24, 2015. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
- ^ "Lifting Of HIV Ban Leaves Many Immigrants In Limbo". NPR. October 10, 2009. Archived from the original on April 21, 2010. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ "What Happens to the "Healthy Immigrant Effect"". Archived from the original on February 11, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ notably, National Research Council. (1997) "From Generation to Generation: The Health and Well-Being of Children in Immigrant Families". Washington D.C.: National Academy Press (Available here )
- ^ Stimpson, Jim P.; Wilson, Fernando A.; Eschbach, Karl (March 2010). "Trends in health care spending for immigrants in the United States". Health Affairs (Project Hope). 29 (3): 544–50. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2009.0400. ISSN 1544-5208. PMID 20150234. S2CID 2757401.
- ^ a b Gomez, Alan (January 31, 2018). "Trump painted a dark picture of immigrants, despite the facts". USA Today. Retrieved February 1, 2018.
All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S.
- ^ Kubrin, Charis (2018). Theoretical Perspectives on the Immigration-Crime Relationship. Rochester, NY. SSRN 3082442.
- ^ Wadsworth, Tim (June 1, 2010). "Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000". Social Science Quarterly. 91 (2): 531–53. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00706.x. ISSN 1540-6237.
- ^ Stowell, Jacob I.; Messner, Steven F.; Mcgeever, Kelly F.; Raffalovich, Lawrence E. (August 1, 2009). "Immigration and the Recent Violent Crime Drop in the United States: A Pooled, Cross-Sectional Time-Series Analysis of Metropolitan Areas". Criminology. 47 (3): 889–928. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2009.00162.x. ISSN 1745-9125.
- ^ Ferraro, Vincent (February 14, 2015). "Immigration and Crime in the New Destinations, 2000–2007: A Test of the Disorganizing Effect of Migration". Journal of Quantitative Criminology. 32 (1): 23–45. doi:10.1007/s10940-015-9252-y. ISSN 0748-4518. S2CID 144058620.
Stansfield, Richard (August 2014). "Safer Cities: A Macro-level analysis of Recent Immigration, Hispanic-owned Businesses, and Crime Rates in the United States". Journal of Urban Affairs. 36 (3): 503–18. doi:10.1111/juaf.12051. S2CID 154982825.
- ^ Reid, Lesley Williams; Weiss, Harald E.; Adelman, Robert M.; Jaret, Charles (December 2005). "The immigration–crime relationship: Evidence across US metropolitan areas". Social Science Research. 34 (4): 757–80. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2005.01.001.
- ^ Akins, S.; Rumbaut, R. G.; Stansfield, R. (June 10, 2009). "Immigration, Economic Disadvantage, and Homicide: A Community-level Analysis of Austin, Texas". Homicide Studies. 13 (3): 307–14. doi:10.1177/1088767909336814. S2CID 144273748.
- ^ Vaughn, Michael G.; Salas-Wright, Christopher P.; DeLisi, Matt; Maynard, Brandy R. (November 29, 2013). "The immigrant paradox: immigrants are less antisocial than native-born Americans". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 49 (7): 1129–37. doi:10.1007/s00127-013-0799-3. ISSN 0933-7954. PMC 4078741. PMID 24292669.
- ^ Chalfin, Aaron (May 2015). "The Long-Run Effect of Mexican Immigration on Crime in US Cities: Evidence from Variation in Mexican Fertility Rates". American Economic Review. 105 (5): 220–25. doi:10.1257/aer.p20151043. S2CID 29504806.
- ^ Green, David (May 1, 2016). "The Trump Hypothesis: Testing Immigrant Populations as a Determinant of Violent and Drug-Related Crime in the United States". Social Science Quarterly. 97 (3): 506–24. doi:10.1111/ssqu.12300. ISSN 1540-6237. S2CID 148324321.
- ^ Light, Michael T.; Miller, TY (2018). "Does Undocumented Immigration Increase Violent Crime?". Criminology. 56 (2): 370–401. doi:10.1111/1745-9125.12175. ISSN 1745-9125. PMC 6241529. PMID 30464356.
- ^ Miles, Thomas J.; Cox, Adam B. (October 21, 2015). "Does Immigration Enforcement Reduce Crime? Evidence from Secure Communities". The Journal of Law and Economics. 57 (4): 937–73. doi:10.1086/680935. S2CID 8406495.
- ^ Baker, Scott R. (2015). "Effects of Immigrant Legalization on Crime". American Economic Review. 105 (5): 210–13. doi:10.1257/aer.p20151041.
- ^ "Sanctuary cities do not experience an increase in crime". Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2016. Retrieved October 3, 2016.
- ^ "Open Collections Program: Immigration to the US, Dillingham Commission (1907-1910)". Archived from the original on January 25, 2013.
- ^ a b c Moehling, Carolyn; Piehl, Anne Morrison (November 1, 2009). "Immigration, crime, and incarceration in early twentieth-century america". Demography. 46 (4): 739–63. doi:10.1353/dem.0.0076. ISSN 0070-3370. PMC 2831353. PMID 20084827.
- ^ West, Jeremy. "Racial Bias in Police Investigations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 7, 2016.
- ^ Armenta, Amanda (2016). "Radicalizing Crimmigration: Structural Racism, Colorblindness, and the Institutional Production of Immigrant Criminality". Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 3.
- ^ a b c d e f García Hernández, César Cuauhtémoc (2013). "Creating Crimmigration". Brigham Young University Law Review 1457.
- ^ a b c Alexander, Michelle (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindnes. The New Press.
- ^ a b c d e García Hernández, César Cuauhtémoc (2017). "Abolishing Immigration Prisons". Boston University Law Review. 97: 17–05.
- ^ a b c Chacón, Jennifer (2010). "A Diversion of Attention? Immigration Courts and the Adjudication of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights". Duke Law Journal. 59: 1563–1633.
- ^ Crane, Michael (2004). The Political Junkie. SP Books. p. 319. ISBN 978-1561718917. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016.
- ^ Rymer, Nataliya (March 17, 2014). "Leaders in Higher Education Call for Immigration Reform". The National Law Review. ISSN 2161-3362. Archived from the original on July 14, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2014.
- ^ Foley, Elise (February 3, 2014). "The Man Who Kept Immigration Reform Alive". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on September 11, 2014. Retrieved June 15, 2014.
- ^ "Gender and Racial Differences in Peer Effects of Limited English Students: A Story of Language or Ethnicity?". www.iza.org. Archived from the original on January 28, 2016. Retrieved January 21, 2016.
- ^ "15 Genius Skyscraper Engineers You've Probably Never Heard Of". amp.interestingengineering.com.
- ^ "Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2011" (PDF). National Science Foundation. 2013. p. 22.
- ^ "Ch. 2 Higher Education in Science and Engineering" (PDF). National Science Foundation. 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 27, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2018.
- ^ a b c d William A. Wulf, President, National Academy of Engineering, Speaking before the 109th US Congress, September 15, 2005
- ^ a b c d e f g h 'Foreign and Foreign-Born Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues', Office of Scientific and Engineering Personnel, 1988. online text
- ^ Walker, 'Incentivizing Replacement of Native Talent in the Upper Echelons of Science and Technology', Flattening the United States. 2004.
- ^ a b Anderson, 'The Multiplier Effect', International Educator. 2004.
- ^ Vilcek, J.; Cronstein, B.N (2006). "A prize for the foreign-born". FASEB Journal. 20 (9): 1281–83. doi:10.1096/fj.06-0702ufm. PMID 16816100. S2CID 31328895.
- ^ Unpublished National Science Foundation tabulation of the 1993 Survey of Doctoral Recipients and the 1993 National Survey of College Graduates. Foreign-Born includes naturalized U.S. citizens, permanent residents and workers on temporary visas (including H-1B visas).
- ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on March 25, 2017. Retrieved July 7, 2018.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
- ^ Mary E. Williams, Immigration. (San Diego: GreenHaven Press, 2004). p. 85.
- ^ Rita James Simon and Mohamed Alaa Abdel-Moneim, Public opinion in the United States: studies of race, religion, gender, and issues that matter (2010) pp. 61–62
- ^ "Worldviews 2002 Survey of American and European Attitudes and Public Opinion on Foreign Policy: US Report" Archived August 2, 2014, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ New Poll Shows Immigration High Among US Voter Concerns[permanent dead link]
- ^ a b "Summary" (PDF). NPR. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 28, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ Espenshade, Thomas J. and Belanger, Maryanne (1998) "Immigration and Public Opinion." In Marcelo M. Suarez-Orozco, ed. Crossings: Mexican Immigration in Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies and Harvard University Press, pp. 365–403
- ^ "Legal vs. Illegal Immigration Archived September 11, 2011, at the Wayback Machine". Public Agenda. December 2007.
- ^ Riffkin, Rebecca (July 16, 2015). "Racism Edges Up Again as Most Important U.S. Problem". Gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ McCarthy, Justin (March 17, 2015). "In U.S., Worries About Terrorism, Race Relations Up Sharply". Gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Saad, Lydia (January 19, 2015). "U.S. Mood on Economy Up, Race Relations Sharply Down". Gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Jones, Jeffrey M. (February 17, 2014). "In U.S., Border Security, Immigrant Status Equally Important". Gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Newport, Frank; Wilke, Joy (June 19, 2013). "Immigration Reform Proposals Garner Broad Support in U.S." Gallup.com. Gallup Inc. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Gramlich, John (November 29, 2016). "Trump voters want to build the wall, but are more divided on other immigration questions". PewResearch.org. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Rainie, Lee; Brown, Anna (October 7, 2016). "Americans less concerned than a decade ago over immigrants' impact on workforce". PewResearch.org. Pew Research Center. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Cooper, Betsy; Cox, Daniel; Lienesch, Rachel; Jones, Robert P. "How Americans View Immigrants, and What They ... | PRRI". PRRI.org. Public Religion Research Institute. Retrieved November 17, 2017.
- ^ Bowman, Karlyn; O'Neil, Eleanor; Sims, Heather. "Welcome to America? Public Opinion on Immigration Issues" (PDF). AEI Political Report. AEI. Retrieved November 24, 2017.
- ^ "Migrant children separated from family show signs of PTSD: report". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
- ^ PUBLIC POLL FINDINGS AND METHODOLOGY
- ^ Boorstein, Michelle (June 13, 2018). "Catholic bishops call Trump's asylum rules 'immoral,' with one suggesting 'canonical penalties' for those involved" – via www.washingtonpost.com.
- ^ "Immigration - OU Torah".
- ^ "Ask the Rabbis - What Does Judaism Say about Immigration?". January 14, 2013. Archived from the original on June 23, 2018. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
- ^ "A Torah Perspective on National Borders and Illegal Immigration". www.chabad.org.
- ^ "Chinese Exclusion Act". History.com.
- ^ "The Immigration Act of 1924 (The Johnson-Reed Act)".
- ^ "First of 60,000 refugees from Bhutan arrive in U.S". CNN. March 25, 2008. Archived from the original on March 3, 2016.
- ^ "Asylum Trends 2014" (PDF). UNHCR. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 22, 2015. Retrieved June 17, 2015.
- ^ "Refugee Admissions Program for East Asia" (PDF). Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration. Archived from the original (PDF) on May 28, 2011. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
- ^ "A New Era Of Refugee Resettlement". Ilw.com. October 11, 2006. Archived from the original on June 19, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
- ^ U.S. Goals for Iraqi Refugees are Inadequate Archived September 28, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, Refugees International
- ^ "Resettlement programme for refugees from Bhutan passes 50,000 mark Archived March 5, 2016, at the Wayback Machine". UNHCR. August 17, 2011
- ^ "Office of Refugee Resettlement: Programs Archived July 27, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". United States Department of Health and Human Services.
- ^ Haines, David W. (2010). Safe Haven?: A History of Refugees in America. Kumarian Press. p. 177. ISBN 978-1-56549-394-0.
- ^ Rupp, Kelsey (February 6, 2018). "New immigration policy leaves asylum seekers in the lurch". TheHill. Retrieved May 5, 2018.
- ^ "UK to take 20,000 Afghan refugees over five years under resettlement plan". The Guardian. August 17, 2021.
- ^ Gania, Edwin T. (2004). U.S. Immigration Step by Step. Sphinx. p. 65. ISBN 978-1-57248-387-3.
- ^ Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 240A online Archived November 24, 2013, at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Ivan Vasic, The Immigration Handbook (2008) p. 140
- ^ a b Sherman, Amy (July 28, 2015). "Donald Trump wrongly says the number of illegal immigrants is 30 million or higher". PolitiFact. Archived from the original on November 17, 2016.
- ^ a b c Jens Manuel Krogstaf, Jeffrey S. PAssel & D'Vera Cohn, 5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S. Archived April 28, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Pew Research Center (April 27, 2017).
- ^ a b Faye Hipsman, Bárbara Gómez-Aguiñaga, & Randy Capps, Policy Brief: DACA at Four: Participation in the Deferred Action Program and Impacts on Recipients Archived May 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Migration Policy Institute (August 2016).
- ^ Jeanne Batalova, Sarah Hooker & Randy Capps, DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action Archived May 25, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, Migration Policy Institute (August 2014), p. 3.
- ^ Merelli, Annalisa. "A contradiction in US policy is putting children of skilled professionals at risk of deportation".
- ^ a b c d Randy Capps, Heather Koball, James D. Bachmeier, Ariel G. Ruiz Soto, Jie Zong & Julia Gelatt, Deferred Action for Unauthorized Immigrant Parents: Analysis of DAPA's Potential Effects on Families and Children Archived April 28, 2017, at the Wayback Machine (February 2016), Migration Policy Institute.
- ^ Julie Hirschfeld Davis, "Obama's Immigration Decision Has Precedents, but May Set a New One Archived January 20, 2017, at the Wayback Machine, New York Times (November 20, 2014).
- ^ State of Texas v. United States, 809 F.3d 134 (5th Cir. 2015).
- ^ Matt Ford, A Ruling Against the Obama Administration on Immigration Archived November 12, 2015, at the Wayback Machine, The Atlantic (November 10, 2015).
- ^ Adam Liptak & Michael D. Shear, Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan Archived June 25, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, New York Times (June 23, 2016).
- ^ United States v. Texas, 136 S. Ct. 906 (U.S. 2016 (per curiam)).
- ^ "Policy Memorandum" (PDF). November 15, 2013. Archived (PDF) from the original on February 19, 2015. Retrieved June 2, 2015.
- ^ a b York, Harlan (November 15, 2013). ""Parole in Place" for Immigrant Relatives of Military-What To Know". Archived from the original on June 14, 2015. Retrieved June 4, 2015.
- ^ Kate M. Manuel (March 17, 2016). "Aliens' Right to Counsel in Removal Proceedings: In Brief" (PDF). Congressional Research Service.
- ^ a b Immigration judge removed from cases after perceived criticism of Sessions
- ^ Immigration Court Judges Are Skeptical of Jeff Sessions' Backlog-Busting Plan
- ^ Boston Globe editorial board (September 21, 2018).