Canada

Recent trends in migrants' flows and stocks 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Recent trends in migrants' flows and stocks 2005, 2010, 2015, 2016, 2017 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

The authors analyse the development of migration policies. They construct an index of immigration policy to assess changes of policy over time for 1860-1930. The focus on five countries of immigration-Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Based on policy change (changes in the index were introduced only when policy changed), the index ranges over a scale of +5 to -5. A positive score denotes a pro-immigration policy A negative score denotes anti-immigration policy, A zero denotes policy neutrality, or a neutral outcome between conflicting pro- and anti-immigration policies.

The Study Group will examine how migration and consequent ethno-cultural diversity have been problematized and responded to within the health systems of Germany, the United Kingdom and Canada. The focus is on maternity services and reproductive outcomes. Preliminary work will establish a conceptual framework that has pertinence to the three countries of focus, a methodological approach with particular attention to achieving meaningful comparison and operational feasibility across settings, as well as an operational structure that enables both inter-disciplinary and cross-national collaboration and active involvement of policy-makers, practitioners and users/consumers.

This study group is part of an international research network consisting of researchers from sociology, political science, social and economic history and economics. Their work will contribute to the international social science literature on contemporary issues of migrant ethnicity around the world. Based on theoretical approaches from different disciplines and on micro data sets for Australia, Canada, Denmark and Germany interethnic marriage, citizenship and ethnic entrepreneurship will be studied and compared with earnings outcomes. From insights into the effects of ethnicity on the economic performance of individuals, ethnic clusters and the respective countries lessons will be drawn for migration policies and integration.

Project description: What happens when young people originating from conflict zones grow up in a different country? To what extent do they have a tendency to live with people coming from the same area? Does it entail a danger of propagating conflict to their host society? How could policy makers better evaluate this risk and respond adequately? This project proposes to answer these questions by studying the habits and world views of young people originating from war-torn countries but living in Finland and Canada, two countries having very different immigration histories and thus offering a good view on how immigrant communities or diasporas actually work, how they are created or sustained. Focusing on youth’s ways of seeing their own identity and their relations to their surroundings, the research intends to gain novel information valuable to policy makers and associative actors alike to face the challenge of multiculturalism. / Hankkeen julkinen kuvaus: Mitä tapahtuu, kun konfliktialueelta kotoisin olevat nuoret kasvavat eri maassa? Missä määrin nämä nuoret kiinnittyvät samalta alueelta kotoisin olevien ihmisiin? Voiko tästä seurata konflikteja vastaanottavassa yhteiskunnassa? Kuinka poliittiset toimijat voisivat arvioida konfliktin riskit ja vastata niihin riittävällä valmiudella? Tässä projektissa pyritään vastaamaan edellä esitettyihin kysymyksiin tutkimalla sodan repimiltä alueilta kotoisin olevien nuorten tapoja ja maailmankuvia Suomessa ja Kanadassa. Suomen ja Kanadan maahanmuuton historiallinen tausta poikkeaa toisistaan monella tapaa. Niiden vertaileminen tarjoaa erinomaisen lähtökohdan maahanmuuttajayhteisöjen ja diasporien muodostumisen ja ylläpitämisen tutkimiseen. Keskittymällä nuorten omaan tapaan hahmottaa identiteettiään ja suhteitaan ympäristöönsä, tutkimus pyrkii kokoamaan uudenlaista tietoa päättäjille ja järjestökentän toimijoille, jotta ne pystyisivät vastaamaan paremmin monikulttuurisuuden haasteisiin.

Mayda’s index addresses migration policies in 14 OECD countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Japan, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Sweden, Swizerland, United Kingdom, United States) between 1980 and 1995. Rather than addressing the overall policy situation for each year, the index focuses on changes in destination countries’ migration policies. The index increases by one if in that year the destination country’s immigration policy became less restrictive, decreases by one if it became more restrictive, and zero if there was no change Based on paper documents, the authors addressed the main characteristics of the migration policies of the destination countries in the sample and the timing (after 1980) of changes in their legislations. A dataset of destination countries’ migration policy changes, between 1980 and 1995, was constructed on the basis of the information in this appendix and used in the empirical analysis

The Labour Migration Policy Index (LMPI) aims to assess on a national level the mechanisms which allow employers to meet their labour needs, and which provide favourable conditions for migrant workers. The LMPI focuses on assessing the formal rules and regulations of labour migration programmes, as opposed to actual policy implementation and migration outcomes, which are more difficult to evaluate. The LMPI considers two fields of labour migration policy -- Administration and Entry Mechanisms, and Migrant Worker Entitlements. Each of these two fields is divided into two ‘macro indicators’, for example, ‘Administrative mechanisms’ and ‘Entry mechanisms’. The LMPI only assesses migration programmes in a limited number of countries. In order to ensure some geographical balance, research has been conducted on the following thirteen countries: Australia, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, Spain, the United Arab Emirates, the United Kingdom and the United States.

Das Projekt "The Voices of British Child Migrants: Ein neuer Zugang zur Analyse der Child Migration Schemes des 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts" knüpft an eine zentrale Frage der Subaltern Studies und der neueren Globalgeschichte an und überträgt diese auf das historische Studium einer in diesem Zusammenhang bislang kaum in den Blick genommenen Akteursgruppe – Kinder. Am Beispiel der britischen child migration schemes nach Australien und Kanada soll der Frage nach den Stimmen marginalisierter Akteure auf zwei Ebenen nachgegangen werden: (1) Die Stimmen der Kinder sollen unter kritischer Reflexion der praktischen und methodischen Beschränkungen hörbar gemacht werden. (2) Die Rolle der Stimmen von Kindern in der Geschichte der child migrants selbst soll analysiert werden. Gemeinsames Erkenntnisinteresse ist die Rolle der Stimmen von Kindern in der Geschichte und ihrer gesellschaftlichen wie wissenschaftlichen Aufarbeitung. Der Untersuchungszeitraum reicht von den child migration schemes des späten 19. Jahrhunderts bis zu ihrem Ende in den 1960er Jahren. Die Untersu-chung soll zudem einen Ausblick auf die wissenschaftliche und politische Aufarbeitung seit den 1980er Jahren werfen. Das Projekt wird erstmals theoretische und methodische Stränge der Subaltern Studies und der neueren Globalgeschichte sowie der Childhood Studies am Forschungsgegenstand der child migration schemes zusammenführen. Neben einem neuen Zugang zu Quellen aus privaten und staatlichen Archiven in Großbritannien, Australien und Kanada soll die in der bisherigen Forschung verwendete Quellenbasis erweitert werden.Das Projekt zielt auf (1) neue Erkenntnisse über die child migration schemes, indem es die Stimmen der Kinder herausarbeitet und diese in ihrem Eigenwert erkennt, auf (2) einen Beitrag im Bereich der Childhood Studies, wenn es nach der Rolle der Stimmen von Kindern in der bzw. einer Geschichte von Kindern und Kindheit fragt, und schließlich zielt es auf (3) einen Beitrag zur theoretisch-methodischen Diskussion über die Repräsentation und das „Spre-chen“ bzw. „Gehört-Werden“ marginalisierter Akteure in Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung.Bisherige Analysen von Quellen und Forschungsliteratur haben zu ersten Arbeitshypothesen geführt, die im weiteren Projektverlauf zu untersuchen sind. Darauf basierend ist insbesondere die Kindern im historischen Verlauf zugeschriebene Autorität, über ihre eigene Situation zu urteilen und zu entscheiden, differenzierter zu betrachten. Das in der Forschung verbreitete Bild einer weitestgehend linear verlaufenden Entwicklung von der Betonung der Schutz- zur Betonung der Partizipationsrechte von Kindern seit dem 19. Jahrhundert gilt es zu überdenken.

The Index addresses the admission programmes/policies for temporary and permanent high-skilled workers in 2001. The author presents two sub-indexes and one index: index of policies for temporary high-skilled workers and index for permanent high-skilled workers, and combined index of skilled immigrant competitiveness. Twelve countries are chosen, including the traditional countries of immigration (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States), the major European receiving countries (France, Germany, Italy, Norway, Spain, and United Kingdom), South Africa and Japan. A list of comparative criteria is created for admission policies: Hard numerical caps; Strict labour market test; Extensive labour protections; Enforcement mechanisms; Limited employer portability; Restriction on dependents / working spouse; Limited permanency rights. A four point scale is used with a “4” being highly controlled and a “1” being highly competitive; and there are intermediate rankings of minimally (2 points) and moderately (3 points) controlled. The rankings are based on the addition of all points for each of the elements just described above, but converted into an index with the most “controlled” country given a value of 100.

"Das Hauptziel des Projektes besteht darin, die wirtschaftliche Integration von hoch gebildeten Immigranten aus der ehemaligen Sowjetunion in vier Zielländern zu vergleichen: USA, Kanada, Deutschland und Israel. Diese vier Länder stellten die hauptsächlichen Zielländer der Immigranten aus der ehem. Sowjetunion seit ihrem Niedergang 1989 dar. Jedes Aufnahmeland repräsentiert ein unterschiedliches Immigrationsregime, das sich sowohl in der Auswahl der Zuwanderer ins Einreiseland, als auch in der Bereitstellung der Art und Höhe der Hilfe und Unterstützung der Immigranten unterscheidet. Der Fokus der Integration der Immigranten aus einem Herkunftsland in verschiedenen Zielländern bieten uns die einmalige Gelegenheit die Auswirkungen der Immigrationspolitik und den Aufnahmekontext auf die ökonomische Integration der hoch gebildeten Immigranten zu untersuchen. Die geplante Untersuchung wird Folgendes erforschen: a) wie und warum hoch gebildete Immigranten ihr Zielland auswählen; b) die Konsequenzen der Selbstauswahl der Immigranten für ihren Erfolg auf dem Arbeitsmarkt und c) die Rolle des Aufnahmekontextes jedes Landes (Sozialpolitik und Arbeitsmarkteigenschaften) in Bezug auf die ökonomische Assimilation von hoch gebildeten Immigranten. Frau Kogan führt das Projekt an der Universität Bamberg weiter."

The Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) is a unique tool which measures policies to integrate migrants. The MIPEX aims to address this by providing a comprehensive tool which can be used to assess, compare and improve integration policy. The index is a useful tool to evaluate and compare what governments are doing to promote the integration of migrants in all the countries analysed. The tool allows you to dig deep into the multiple factors that influence the integration of migrants into society and allows you to use the full MIPEX results to analyse and assess past and future changes in policy. The MIPEX includes 38 countries in order to provide a view of integration policies across a broad range of differing environments. Countries included are all EU Member States, Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Turkey and the USA. 167 policy indicators have been developed to create a rich, multi-dimensional picture of migrants’ opportunities to participate in society. MIPEX addresses 8 policy areas of integration: Labour Market Mobility, Family Reunion, Education, Political Participation, Long-term Residence, Access to Nationality, Anti-discrimination and Health. Thanks to the relevance and rigor of its indicators, the MIPEX has been recognised as a common quick reference guide across Europe. Policymakers, NGOs, researchers, and European and international institutions are using its data not only to understand and compare national integration policies, but also to improve standards for equal treatment.

Targeted policy responses for irregular migration require better knowledge about the characteristics of the irregular migrant population and dynamics of irregular migration, as well as about the effects of policy measures. Yet, quantitative data relating to irregular migration are scarce, often outdated and contested. The inadequecy of current data makes it challenging for stakeholders to develop and monitor policies. How do legal frameworks in different countries define migrant irregularity? What are the characteristics of irregular migrants in terms of age, gender, nationality or other socioeconomic variables? How can the effects of policy measures, such as regularisation, be assessed? MIrreM adresses the challenge of insufficent knowledge about irregular migration and regularisation in Europe by actively involving relevant stakeholders in every stage of this project – as co-creators of its results and as stakeholders to its mission. In a rigorous comparative and multi-level study, we will assess the policies, data needs and estimates that define migrant irregularity in 11 EU member states, the UK, Canada, the USA and five transit countries. Using several coordinated pilots we will develop new and innovative methods for measuring irregular migration and ‘regularisation scenarios’, and we will explore if and how these instruments can be transferred or scaled up to other socio-economic or institutional conditions. Based on these insights, we will develop two public databases: a) a database with estimates on irregular migrant stocks and b) a database on irregular migration flows, that will also include data on regularisations. Together with the expert groups, we will synthesize our findings into a Handbook on data on irregular migration and a Handbook on regularisation that will support evidenced-based and targeted policymaking concerning irregular migration. Finally, we will develop training resources for policymakers, practitioners, journalists and early-career researchers.

The Commitment to Development Index focuses policies that benefit people living in poorer nations. It ranks 27 of the world’s richest countries (for the period 2003-2018) on these policies. The Index comprises seven components: aid (both quantity, as a share of gross national income, and quality), trade, finance, migration, environment, security, and technology. Each component is underpinned by a series of indicators of policy effectiveness in these areas. A country receives points for policies and actions that support poor nations in their efforts to build prosperity, good government, and security. The scores across these seven components are averaged for a final score. The migration component related to migration policy is composed of: 1) an indicator on international conventions 2) indicator on integration policies taken from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX), developed by the Migration Policy Group (MPG). The indicator on international conventions assesses the extent to which countries have ratified international conventions aiming to protect migrants. Three conventions are considered: 1949 Convention concerning Migration for Employment (No. 97); 1975 Convention concerning Migrations in Abusive Conditions and the Promotion of Equality of Opportunity and Treatment of Migrant Workers (No. 143); 2000 Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children.

The MACIMIDE Global Expatriate Dual Citizenship Dataset charts the rules that existed in near all states of the world since 1960 with regard to the loss or renunciation of citizenship after a citizen of a respective state voluntarily acquires the citizenship of another state. The central variable of the Dataset is the dualcit_cat variable. This is a categorical variable whose values may be used to interpret, in broad lines, the position of a country with regards to the expatriate dual citizenship. The dualcit_cat variable reflects what consequences the legislation and legal practice of a country attaches to the voluntary acquisition of a foreign citizenship. The value of this variable depends on a number of criteria, including whether a citizen of the reference country who voluntarily obtains a foreign citizenship automatically loses – in principle – the citizenship of the origin country, and whether a citizen of the reference country can renounce that citizenship. The value assigned to dualcit_cat reflects the position of the country on the 1st of January of the reference year. Any subsequent changes in legislation will be reflected in the dualcit_cat value of the following year and included in updated versions of the Dataset. The dualcit_binary variable is a recoding of the dualcit_cat variable. This variable can be used for broad comparisons of the dual citizenship positions around the world. The possible values reflect whether the legislation of a country, in a given reference year, provides for the automatic loss of the origin citizenship (1) or not (2). All data have been centrally collected and refer to specific provisions in national law.

Since the mid-1970s, the World Population Policies Database, last updated in 2015, provides comprehensive and up-to-date information on the population policy situation and trends for all Member States and non-member States of the United Nations. Among several areas, the database shows the evolution of government views and policies with respect to internal and international migration. The migration strand covers internal migration, immigration, emigration, and return. The Database is updated biennially by conducting a detailed country-by-country review of national plans and strategies, programme reports, legislative documents, official statements and various international, Inter-governmental and non-governmental sources, as well as by using official responses to the United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development.

The authors created an overall index of migration policies, taking into account 38 countries in the period 1996-2014. They constructed an indicator of the restrictiveness of immigration entry policy across countries as well as a more comprehensive indicator of migration policy that also accounts for staying requirements and regulations to foster integration. Specifically, they estimate a Bayesian-state space model to combine all publicly available data sources that are informative on migration policy. Therefore, starting from some of the previously-created indexes, and from a database of over 250 indicators of migration policy, they created three sub-indexes that correspond to three categories traditionally distinguished in migration policy: (1) entry policies (including family reunification); (2) stay policies (permanent as opposed to temporary migration); and (3) integration policies (including migrant rights). They constructed three different migration policy indexes, MPIE; MPIS and MPII, of respectively entry, stay, and integration policies, that asses the restrictiveness of each of these sub-fields of migration policy, as well as a comprehensive indicator MPIC reflecting the overall stance of migration policy.

This the Citizenship Regime Inclusiveness Index (CITRIX) mainly builds on selected and partly modified indicators of the Migration and Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) strand on the Access to Nationality. It also uses the citizenship indicators of Fitzgerald et al. (2014) as well as the resources offered by DEMIG and GLOBALCIT as further cornerstones for data collection. Covering a total of 23 OECD countries from 1980 to 2014 (805 country-year observations), CITRIX zooms in on four fundamental components of citizenship regimes relating to the acquisition of nationality by immigrants and their children: (1) the residence duration requirement for ordinary naturalization; (2) the toleration of dual citizenship in naturalization; (3) further naturalization requirements, namely language and citizenship tests as well as economic and criminal record condition; and (4) the strength of jus soli.

DEMIG POLICY tracks more than 6,500 migration policy changes enacted by 45 countries around the world mostly in the 1945-2013 period. The policy measures are coded according to the policy area and migrant group targeted, as well as the change in restrictiveness they introduce in the existing legal system. The database allows for both quantitative and qualitative research on the long-term evolution and effectiveness of migration policies. DEMIG POLICY was compiled between 2010 and 2014 as part of the DEMIG project (Determinants of International Migration: A Theoretical and Empirical Assessment of Policy, Origin and Destination Effects). It tracks 6,500 migration policy changes (both immigration and emigration) in 45 countries, most of them enacted in the 1945-2013 period. DEMIG POLICY assesses for each policy measure whether it represents a change towards more restrictiveness (coded +1) or less restrictiveness (coded -1) within the existing legal system. Besides this main assessment of change in restrictiveness, every policy change is also coded according to the policy area (border control, legal entry, integration, exit), policy tool (recruitment agreements, work permit, expulsion, quota, regularization, resettlement, carrier sanctions, etc.), migrant group (low- and high-skilled workers, family members, refugees, irregular migrants, students etc.) and migrant origin (all foreign nationalities, EU citizens, specific nationalities etc.) targeted. The database has been compiled by the DEMIG team, in particular by Katharina Natter, Simona Vezzoli and Hein de Haas, and reviewed by national migration policy experts.

The Immigration Policy Index builds on and expands the dataset constructed by Peters (2015). It analyses the immigration policies of 29 countries from 1783 to 2013. The immigration policy index is a factor score based on 12 dimensions of immigration openness. Each dimension takes a score ranging from 1 to 5, with the latter indicating a more liberal policy stance toward immigrants. The final factor score covers a variety of immigration regulations and laws that seek to control immigration flows by screening potential immigrants

Cerna’s index measures openness and restrictiveness of migration policies targeting high-skilled migrants. The index covers 2007 and 2012 and provides information on 20 countries. Countries are selected on the basis of different migration histories and experiences and levels of (economic) interest groups’ involvement in policy-making. The index is disaggregated into admissions mechanism and work permit rights (made up of six indicators: numerical caps, labour market test, labour protection, employer portability, spouse’s work rights and permanent residency rights). Scores are assigned to each of the six categories from 3 (=highly restrictive), 2 (=moderately restrictive), 1 (=minimally restrictive) to 0 (=highly open). All policies are ranked on the same criteria. The individual points for the six categories are then added and converted into an index, where the most restrictive country receives a value of 100.

The authors carry out a cross-country assessment of policies aimed to attract and select high-skilled workers. To capture immigration policy systems, they choose nine policy elements that collectively capture many of the key differences between destination countries’ policy stances. These instruments reflect policy categories comprising skill-selective admission policies (shortage lists, job offer requirements, labor market tests, PBS), and post-entry policy instruments (permanency rights, financial incentive schemes). Methodologically, the authors adopt a set of statements against which a 0 or 1 can be assigned to ensure consistency when coding our policy variables.

The Multiculturalism Policy Index assesses the government commitment to the multicultural accommodation of newcomers. It is designed to monitor the evolution of multicultural policies across 21 Western countries. The Multiculturalism Policy Index is distinctive in focusing exclusively on multicultural policies designed to recognize, accommodate and support the cultural differences of minority groups. To capture change over time, the Index provides all three indices at three points in time: 1980, 2000 and 2010. Multicultural Policy Index is based on eight indicators: (i) constitutional, legislative or parliamentary affirmation of multiculturalism, at the central and/or regional and municipal levels; (ii) the adoption of multiculturalism in school curriculum; (iii) the inclusion of ethnic representation/sensitivity in the mandate of public media or media licensing; (iv) exemptions from dress codes, either by statute or by court cases; (v) allowing of dual citizenship; (vi) the funding of ethnic group organizations to support cultural activities; (vii) the funding of bilingual education or mother-tongue instruction; (viii) affirmative action for disadvantaged immigrant groups On each indicator, countries are scored as 0 (no such policy), 0.5 (partial) or 1.0 (clear policy). The scores are then aggregated, with equal weighting for each area (‘recognition’ (Indicators 1–3), ‘accommodation’(Indicators 4–5) and ‘support’ (Indicators 6–8), and producing a country score ranging from 0 to 8.

Le projet de recherche pluridisciplinaire en sciences sociales « La Fabrique des Savoirs Migratoires » (sociologie, géographie, démographie, psychologie-sociale et anthropologie) porte sur l'étude des mécanismes de production des savoirs migratoires, tels qu’ils s’élaborent dans les mobilités et les activités des populations transmigrantes et transfrontalières dans deux régions du monde (Amérique du Nord et Centrale, Maghreb-Machrek) L'objectif du projet est d'étudier le phénomène des migrations internationales dans ses dynamiques sociales, selon des vecteurs spatiaux, économiques et temporels, interrogeant par la même les présupposés d’une société de la connaissance qui s’impose dans le discours des organismes internationaux. Si l’on reconnaît assez aisément le phénomène migratoire aux deux premiers vecteurs, notamment du fait de la transnationalisation des espaces et des échanges économiques, la dimension temporelle du phénomène apparaît moins évidente. Après plusieurs décennies de circulations migratoires réitérées dans ces deux zones du monde, on ne peut manquer d’apercevoir les premiers éléments qui donnent à ce fait social une épaisseur temporelle conséquente, d’un bout à l’autre de la chaîne des générations migrantes. La recherche n’a donc plus à établir un fait social, mais doit bien plutôt s’interroger sur le type de socialité qui se produit dans les sociétés observées. Les migrations internationales participent-elles d’un ordre social liquide (Bauman), sans supports pour l’individu (Castells), désinstitutionnalisé (Dubet), ou bien désignent-elles un autre type de sociabilité, ni liquide ni solide, qui resterait à définir mais qui n’en serait pas moins, en première hypothèse, le produit d’un art, d’une technique sociale du bricolage, plus spécifiquement propres aux aires géographiques choisies ? Le projet se donne des jalons pratiques et une épistème comme fil conducteur. Sur ce dernier point, on pourrait situer schématiquement les postures sociologiques en deux pôles. D'un côté du spectre, ceux qui soulignent le caractère situé et local de l'action, la capacité des acteurs ainsi que la reconfiguration incessante du lien social. Les relations sociales y apparaissent comme toujours dépendantes d'arrangements ou de rapports de force locaux, elles semblent contingentes et historiquement variables. À l'opposé sont des approches qui s'attachent à la question de la permanence et de la reproduction de structures sociales dont il apparaît qu'elles exercent des contraintes fortes sur les possibles. Cette tension entre des épistémès (mais aussi les politiques qui les sous-tendent) traverse l'ensemble des sciences sociales établissant parfois des barrières infranchissables entre des mondes théoriques qui se vivent comme hautement incompatibles. Les études sur les migrations sont indiscutablement concernées de façon cruciale par cette tension. Notre proposition serait ici de tenter d'établir un chemin entre ces deux mondes, celui de Latour et celui de Bourdieu, par exemple, pour le bénéfice de la question migratoire. Il serait alors question de tenter de cerner le degré de malléabilité des mondes sociaux migratoires, par l’observation des savoirs qui se configurent dans les trois axes thématiques sélectionnés (les vecteurs ou les jalons pratiques), l’espace, l’économique et le temps. Nous avons donc choisi d'articuler trois démarches analytiques de la migration : la première, porte sur les dynamiques spatiales liées à la mobilité internationale des populations (qu'elles soient transfrontalières ou transnationales); la seconde, à partir des espaces et/ou des sites du travail, consiste à analyser les stratégies de la mobilité et de la migration qui structurent les marchés du travail enfin; la troisième s'attache à lire la migration dans ses temporalités familiales et sociales. Cette étude sera menée sur deux aires géographiques : d'une part l'Amérique du Nord et Centrale et, d'autre part, l'aire Maghreb-Machrek.

The Immigration Policies in Comparison (IMPIC) database includes data on migration policies for 33 OECD countries and the period 1980-2010. The IMPIC defines immigration policy as “government’s statements of what it intends to do or not do (incl. laws, regulations, decisions, or orders) in regards to the selection, admission, settlement and deportation of foreign citizens residing in the country”. The index covers: 1) labour migration; 2) family reunification; 3) refugees and asylum; 4) co-ethnics (e.g., easy access to co-ethics -e.g., children of emigrants). A total of 69 indicators are identified for the four policies fields. Indicators are coded between 0 (more liberal policies) and 1 (more restrictive polices) capturing the extent to which ‘a regulation limits or liberalises the rights and freedoms of immigrants.

The author developed a set of indicators on immigration policies. Data covers 19 countries from the late 18th century through the early 21st century. This is one of the few datasets on immigration policy and is the only one to cover the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Immigration policy is an amalgam of several policies, including policies that regulate who gains entry to the state (border regulations), what rights immigrants receive (immigrant rights) and how the border is enforced (enforcement). Within each of these three categories, states have used numerous policy substitutes, that can be sorted in 12 dimensions. Eight of the dimensions regulate entrance to the state, of which four, work prohibitions, family reunification, refugee and asylee policy, could also be considered rights; two cover immigrant rights and two cover enforcement. Each dimension was coded from 1 to 5, with greater restrictions taking lower values. To combine these different policies into a single measure, the author used principal components analysis. The analysis revealed that these dimensions created two different factors: immigration policy and rights of immigrants. The first factor, immigration policy, places more weight on nationality, skill, recruitment, quotas, enforcement and deportation policies than the second, rights of immigrants, which places more weight on family reunification, refugee, asylee, citizenship, rights and work prohibition policies.

The Inquiry gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The Twelfth Inquiry consists of multiple-choice questions, organized in three thematic modules: Module I on population ageing and urbanization; Module II on fertility, family planning and reproductive health; and Module III on international migration. In 1994, Member States attending the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) in Cairo agreed that “population-related goals and policies are integral parts of cultural, economic and social development” and recommended that actions be taken “to measure, assess, monitor and evaluate progress towards meeting the goals of its Programme of Action”. The year 2019 will mark the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Cairo conference and adoption of the ICPD Programme of Action, which continues to provide crucial guidance for addressing the fundamental development challenges facing the world today. Population issues are also at the core of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development adopted in 2015. The United Nations Inquiry among Governments on Population and Development (the “Inquiry”) gathers critically important data for monitoring the implementation of the ICPD Programme of Action and other international agreements, including the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The Inquiry, mandated by the General Assembly in its resolution 1838 (XVII) of 18 December 1962, has been conducted by the Secretary-General at regular intervals since 1963. The most recent Inquiry, the Eleventh, was implemented in 2014.

Les phénomènes de mobilité et de déplacement s’affirment comme des caractéristiques majeures de nos sociétés contemporaines. Pour autant, loin d’être fluides, homogènes ou linéaires, ces déplacements sont ponctués de temps, plus ou moins longs, d’attente. Qu’ils aient pour origine des raisons techniques, administratives ou politiques, de tels moments trouvent bien souvent une traduction spatiale : des territoires accueillent ces sociétés en attente. Le projet TERRIAT examine ces territoires de l’attente et la multiplicité de formes qu’ils revêtent, en établir leurs dimensions, comprendre leurs statuts juridiques, leurs articulations avec l’espace environnant, leurs temporalités spécifiques, ainsi que la variété des jeux économiques et sociaux qui s’y déploient. Ce projet se propose de défricher plus particulièrement trois champs d’études, qui s’offrent comme autant d’opportunités pour expérimenter un changement de focale analytique, non plus mobilisée par l’observation des mobilités, des déplacements et autres migrations, mais par les temps d’arrêt, de pause et d’attente qui ponctuent ces flux. - Typologie des territoires de l’attente : il s’agit ici d’analyser les configurations territoriales des situations d’attente en comparant deux modalités de l’attente : celle dramatique et exceptionnelle des émigrants, migrants et réfugiés, et celle plus ordinaire qui prend place dans les brèches qui s’ouvrent dans le quotidien des sociétés. Il s’agit également de dresser une typologie des territoires qui abritent des situations d’attente : depuis le camp – spécialement dessiné et destiné à cette fonction – jusqu’à la voie rapide urbaine embouteillée, sans oublier non plus les paysages de la clandestinité. - Economie de l’attente : il s’agit ici de s’interroger sur l’ordinaire des jours ou des heures dans un lieu d’attente : quelles activités sociales ou économiques naissent dans ces lieux confinés où est éprouvée l’expérience d’un « temps élastique » ? Entre la prostitution et la vente ambulante, il importe de décrire et comprendre les formes spatiales de la « débrouillardise ». Un pan important du questionnement concerne l’étude des transformations des pratiques et identités sociales dans ces territoires de l’attente. - Mémoires et identités: loin d’être des «non-lieux », ces territoires, où des individus partagent une attente commune, peuvent au contraire être des lieux de formation d’identités. Plus tard, certains deviendront des lieux de mémoire, comme Ellis Island aux Etats-Unis, témoignant de l’importance de ces lieux dans la formation identitaire des immigrants.

The index addresses the legal rights (civil and political, economic, social, residency, and family reunion rights) granted to migrant workers admitted under labour immigration programs in high- and middle-income countries to admitting migrant workers. Labor immigration programs are defined as policies for regulating the number, skills, and rights of migrants who are admitted for the primary purpose of work. It includes 104 programmes in force for the year 2009. Migrant rights refer to the legal rights (defined here as the rights granted by national laws and policies) granted to migrant workers on admission under a particular labour immigration program. So the indicators measure rights “in laws and regulations” rather than “in practice”. The dataset includes all high-income countries with a population exceeding two million, and, to ensure broad geographic coverage, a selection of upper- and lower- middle-income countries. In total, the sample comprises 46 countries including 34 high-income countries.

The index analyses naturalization policies in twenty-six Western immigrant-receiving democracies in order to show how different countries deal with newcomers (year of reference: 2009). The index looks at five aspects of a country’s citizenship and naturalization policies. First, it considers whether a country grants automatic citizenship only to children of citizens (ius sanguinis) or only to those who are born within the country’s border (ius soli). Second, every naturalization policy stipulates that immigrants have to have lived at least a certain number of years within the borders of the country before they can apply for citizenship. Third, it looks at whether passing a language test is part of the naturalization requirements. These tests vary significantly in difficulty. Fourth, in some countries immigrants cannot be naturalized without passing a citizenship test, while in other countries such a test does not exist. Moreover, these tests vary in nature. Fifth, and finally, it includes whether immigrants are required to give up their former nationality or nationalities before they can become citizens. These five scores are combined in an index that ranges from 0 to 15. Overall, this summary score should give a valid indication of the exclusiveness, or ‘ethnicness’, of a country’s naturalization policy.

This set of indicators compares several dimensions of migration policies as of early 2009. For a selected set of 28 countries, both developed and developing, the indicators address admission criteria, policies on integration and treatment of migrants, and efforts to enforce those policies. Irregular migration is a particular area of focus. The analysis distinguishes between different entry regimes, namely: labour migrants (high or low skilled, with a permanent or a temporary permit), those who move with a family-related visa, humanitarian migrants (asylum seekers and refugees), international visitors and international students. The indicators cover three main areas of policy interest: admission, treatment, and enforcement. Most of the 84 questions were multiple-choice, but there were also open-ended questions to allow comments and explanations. The data is drawn from an assessment by country experts as well as by desk-research of Human Development Report Office staff. Information was collected in two parallel and complementary efforts during early 2009: through a questionnaire answered by International Organization for Migration (IOM) country-level staff and other world-wide migration experts, and through internal desk-web research

The index is based on three types of entry visa restrictions: visa required, visa not required for short stays and visa not required. The author identifies country pairs which changed their visa regime during 1998–2010. This immigration policy index is constructed for all countries and territories in the world for both March 1998 and November 2009. This index is heterogeneous across destination and origin countries as well as over time.

The International Migration Policy And Law Analysis (IMPALA) Database is a cross-national, cross-institutional, cross-disciplinary project on comparative immigration policy. The pilot database version covers 10 years and 9 country cases including Australia, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. It covers The focus is admission policy, although the authors include also acquisition of citizenship, which is generally understood as being part of ‘immigrant policies’, namely what happens after admission. The project classifies and measures tracks of entry associated with five migration categories: economic migration, family reunification, asylum and humanitarian migration, and student migration, as well as acquisition of citizenship. It is the product of an international collaboration between researchers from George Mason University, Harvard University, London School of Economics and Political Science, Paris School of Economics, University of Amsterdam, University of Luxembourg, and University of Sydney.

The Index addresses the factors shaping the granting of rights of individual equality and recognition of cultural differences by nation-states to immigrants. The index considers rights in the eight thematic fields of nationality acquisition, family reunification, expulsion, anti-discrimination, public-sector employment for non-nationals, political rights for non-nationals, cultural rights in education, as well as other cultural and religious rights. Theoretically, these rights for immigrants are classified according to two dimensions that partly cross-cut the eight thematic fields. The first dimension captures the inclusiveness of a country's understanding of citizenship. The second dimension shows how countries deal with cultural and religious diversity. The index is based on 44 policy indicators, 21 pertaining to the individual equality dimension and 23 to the cultural difference dimension. All indicators are coded on a scale running from -1 (most restrictive) to +1 (most inclusive), and the same, therefore, also holds for the averaged scores. The project is based on original data drawn from policy documents, legal texts, secondary literature, internet websites, and expert information. The qualitative information from these sources is transformed into ordinal codes, classifying policies as more or less restrictive in terms of the extent and accessibility of rights for immigrants. In the first phase of the project data have been gathered for ten North-Western European countries for four measurement years: 1980, 1990, 2002, and 2008. In a second phase, data was collected for four classical anglo-saxon settler countries as well as for additional Eastern and Southern European countries, Middle Eastern, East Asian, African and South American countries. As a result, data is now available for 29 countries for the year 2008.

The Index captures citizenship rights in eighteen OECD countries. The index is based on four indicators: allowance of dual citizenship; acceptance of birthright citizenship; absence of a language requirement; number of years required prior to naturalization. The index is constructed as follows. first, authors created three categories for the residency requirement coded 0 for countries that require more than ten years, 1 for countries that require between five and ten years, and 2 for countries that require fewer than five years. Then they created an additive index as residency+2*dual citizenship+2*citizenship by birth+2*no language requirement

Western Union commissioned the Economist Intelligence Unit to compile a migration index that ranks 61 countries by how attractive and accessible they are for migrants (the Global Migration Barometer), with a separate assessment of their need for migrants. The Economist Intelligence Unit developed the methodology behind the index, collected the data and scored the countries, with input from Western Union and an independent panel of migration experts. The index has been produced for 61 developed and emerging markets using a standard analytical framework. The model used to generate the index employs indicators that reflect the standard of living and economic development of a country, legislative policy and attitudes towards migration, and demographics and social welfare commitments. Many of the 32 indicators used to generate the index are based on quantitative data and have been drawn from national and international statistical sources. The others are qualitative in nature and have been produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit. Each of the indicators has been adjusted and weighted to produce a score of 0 to 100, where 100 represents the highest attractiveness, accessibility or need for migrants.

The Asylum Policy Index addressed the change in the nature (restrictiveness) of policies for asylum seekers in 19 OECD countries. It focuses on the changes in asylum and related policies in these countries between 1999 and 2006. The index is based almost entirely on legislation rather than on general impressions about the toughness of asylum policy. Taking 1997 as a baseline, the score decreases by -1 if the policy adopted is open to asylum seekers, or increases by 1 if the policy is restrictive. It is important to stress that this is a crude measure of policy change that does not reflect differences across countries in the finer details of policy change or in its enforcement. Nor is it an absolute measure of toughness but merely the difference in policy stance as compared with the beginning of 1997. The 15 components of policy are divided into three groups, each consisting of five components. Those representing the ability of asylum seekers to gain access to the country’s territory are labelled access; those representing the toughness of the country’s refugee status determination procedure are labelled processing; and those relating to the welfare of asylum seekers during and after processing are labelled welfare. The asylum policy index discussed in the text was constructed from annual country reports on policy developments given in three sources. These are: the OECD’s annual publication International Migration Outlook (Paris: OECD) (formerly Trends in International Migration), the country reports of the European Council on Refugees and Exiles (2006), and the country reports of the US Committee for Refugees and Immigrants.

Ortega and Peri focus on the tightness of immigration reforms over time, and they provide quantitative measures of immigration policy restrictions (or tightness) along several dimensions’. By analyzing policy change, Ortega and Peri classify laws based on whether they tighten the requirements of entry or stay in the country, separating laws that concern asylum seekers from laws dealing with other types of immigrants’. The authors analyse policies linked to both ‘asylum’ and ‘non-asylum’. While the authors main interest is on immigrants’ admission, they also include ‘stay’. Ortega and Peri build three separate indices of ‘tightness’ of immigration law reforms. The first index includes only those measures tightening or loosening the entry of non-asylum immigrants, while the second includes measures tightening or relaxing provisions concerning the entry and/or the stay of non-asylum immigrants. The third is an index that includes changes in immigration policy concerning the entry and/or the stay of asylum seekers only.

Die Studiengruppe im Programm „Migration und Integration“ der VW Stiftung untersucht, wie MigrantInnen ihr kulturelles Kapital in der Statuspassage in den Arbeitsmarkt verwerten. Um der Bedeutung von Bildungs- und Aufenthaltstiteln für die Arbeitsmarktintegration gerecht zu werden, vergleicht sie vier Statusgruppen, die systematisch hinsichtlich der Höhe und des Erwerbs ihres Bildungstitels im In- oder Ausland und bzgl. der Gleich- bzw. Nachrangigkeit ihres Aufenthaltstitels variieren. Auf der Grundlage von 206 narrativen Interviews wird mit der Dokumentarischen Methode rekonstruiert, wodurch der Verlauf der Statuspassage in den Arbeitsmarkt strukturiert ist. Neben Handlungsorientierungen gehen auch meso- und makrosoziale Kontexte (berufspezifische Felder, Netzwerke, symbolische Exklusion, institutionelle Regelungen etc.) sowie typische Verlaufsmuster in die Ergebnisse ein. Die Studiengruppe untersucht jede Statusgruppe im meso- und makrosozialen Kontext Deutschlands wie auch je eines Vergleichslands (Kanada, Großbritannien, Türkei).

The Barrier to Naturalization Index focuses specifically on the naturalization process and jus soli. It takes twelve requirements of the naturalization process into account: (1) good conduct, (2) willingness to integrate, (3) language skills, (4) dual nationality, (5) application complexity, (6) application fees, (7) state discretion in granting citizenship, (8) residency requirements, (9) jus sanguinis laws preventing jus soli naturalization of children, (10) jus sanguinis concerning children of parents born in country (double jus soli), (11) women allowed to maintain citizenship after marrying a foreigner, and (12) mothers when married to a foreigner being able to transfer citizenship to their children. It purposely excludes entry requirements, unemployment, and other variables. Data were taken from the naturalization laws of each country and reports from foreign country consulates in the United States. For the index, components were grouped into four categories with a weighing scheme. The total index was constructed as a percentage of the maximum score of the highest-scoring country, so it varied from 0 to 1.