Iranian Immigration

[RedWine]

Immigration is the act of relocating to another country or region. An immigrant is a person who intends to stay long-term (often forever), in contrast to a casual visitor or traveler.

Nationality laws usually cover immigration and citizenship.

Why people immigrate

People immigrate for the following reasons:

economic (e.g., to escape poverty, to seek prosperity).

altruism (e.g., coming to another country to work and send money back to
their families, friends, etc.)

professional (e.g., to find employment; to search for an occupation that is unavailable).

education (e.g., to attend a learning institution of higher accreditation).
persecution and oppression (e.g., to avoid death, war, bullying, genocide, and ethnic cleansing).

political (e.g., to escape dictatorship or other unfair governments; disagrees over government).

religious (e.g., they were not allowed to practice their own religion in some cases).

natural disasters (e.g., the tsunami triggered by the 2004 Indian Ocean
earthquake, and Hurricane Katrina).

personal (e.g., opinion-based; love of another country).

relationship (e.g. to be with family or a loved one).

retirement (e.g., better weather; lower living costs).

sentimental (e.g., the desire to settle in a country due to personal preference).

criminal (e.g., to avoid criminal justice; to avoid arrest)

Note that many of these refer primarily to the motive for emigration from the country of origin. It may be assumed that those who emigrate to escape a problem do so in the hope that they will not face the same problem in the destination to which they immigrate.

The majority of immigration occurs for economic reasons of one sort or another, as wage rates and living expenses vary greatly between different countries. Poor individuals of less developed countries can have far higher standards of living in more developed countries than in their originating countries. Likewise, people who are not very well off but are financially independent and living in highly developed countries can live better in a country where living standards are lower. One example of the former is immigration to the United States from Mexico and Central American counties, while an example of the latter is immigration of retired British citizens to Spain. For the poor in undeveloped countries, the economic pressure to migrate can become so high that when legal means are restricted, people immigrate illegally.

[RedWine]

Differing perspectives on immigration

Some free-market libertarians believe that a free global labor market with no restrictions on immigration would, in the long run, boost global prosperity. Major business interests have been among the strongest advocates of liberalization of immigration laws since movement of personnel is essential to the creation of true multinational corporations.[citation needed]

Another school of thought is offered by protectionists, who prefer closed labor markets or who see liberal immigration practices as a form of corporate welfare where business interests use inexpensive or free government immigration benefits, rather than corporate resources, to compensate employees. Also among those on the opposite side of the issue are nationalists who propose militarizing borders; and xenophobes who fear the presence of foreigners, though these views are not shared by all or even most immigration reductionists. Still others feel that the focus should be taken off of immigration control and placed on the importance of equal rights for immigrants to avoid what they believe to be corporate exploitation of immigrant poverty.

Some countries, such as Japan, allow for relatively little immigration. However, even in countries that allow for relatively larger levels of immigration, there is disagreement over the numbers, policies, and implementation. Those who support more restricted immigration may argue that the current levels of immigration serve to depress wages and circumvent unionisation, and contribute to unsustainable levels of population growth. Others may disagree, perhaps arguing that overly restrictive immigration policies and practices do not address the economic demand for work emanating from wealthier countries, do not protect the security or cohesiveness of the country, and may endanger the lives of legitimate refugees from political or racial oppression.

Immigration has become an increasingly controversial topic among environmental activists in recent years, especially within the Sierra Club in the United States. Some environmentalists concerned with overpopulation favor limiting immigration as a means of isolating the effects of human population growth, while others argue that overpopulation and environmental degradation are global problems that should be addressed by other methods.

Some theorists have argued that the policies of the recipient country aimed at integrating immigrants into the political, social, and economic environment are more important than the level of immigration itself.[1] This idea may explain the relative success of immigration in some countries, such as Canada.[citation needed]

The right to freedom of movement of an individual within National borders is often contained within the constitution or in a countries human rights legislation but these rights are restricted to citizens and exclude all others. Some argue that the freedom of movement both within and between countries is a basic human right and that Nationalism and immigration policies of State Governments violate the human right of freedom of movement that those same governments recognise within their own borders. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, fundamental human rights are violated when Citizens are forbidden to leave their country. (Article 13). Though of course this only assists immigrants with the first part of their immigration process and does not assist with the second, of finding a new home. States systematically capitalise on this deficiency in full rights to freedom of movement to their advantage by permitting and actively attracting the educated, skilled, and wealthy with the right to move to their country as advantageous to their economy, while declining the rights of less privilaged individuals those same rights. These policies are in direct conflict with the principle of equal opportunities that are held as an inviable standard within the borders of democratic countries.

Immigration polices that enable governments to selectively grant freedom of movement rights to targeted individuals result in a net economic gain for the host country and a net loss for the donor country, often exacerbating the environment and the global inequality of standards of living that provided the motivation for the individual to migrate in the first place. An example of this competition for the skilled is active recruitment of health workers by first world countries from the third world. Examples of the underprivilaged trying to escape their environment to make a better life are numerous and well documented in the media as illegal immigration issues on the borders of europe, USA, and in most other countries.

Barriers to immigration are not only legal, natural barriers to immigration are also very powerful. Immigrants when leaving their country also leave everything familiar, their family, friends, support network, and culture. They also need to liquidate their assets often at a large cost and incur the expense of moving. When they arrive in a new country this is often with many uncertainties including finding work, where to live, new laws, new cultural norms, language or accent issues, possible racism and other exclusionary behaviour towards them and their family. These forces are very powerful and counteract the assertion that, given free unimpeded immigration, populations would move en masse to other areas creating huge population bubbles and their associated strain on infrastructure and services.

[RedWine]

Nativism (politics)

In politics, Nativism is the fear that certain new immigrants will inject alien political, economic or cultural values and behaviors that threaten the prevailing norms and values. It usually involves restrictions on immigrants and sometimes includes policies that favor the interests of established inhabitants (i.e. "natives") over those of immigrants. The term has most often been used in the United States, but the concept is also relevant in other countries, especially ones which have experienced intensive immigration and associated rapid societal change.

Anti-immigration may be used to describe individuals, groups or movements which oppose significant levels of immigration into their countries. Anti-immigrant may refer to those who are opposed to specific migrant groups, or as a pejorative for those who are anti-immigration. The terms often have negative connotations in a political context, particularly in the West, where politicians generally avoid giving explicit support to anti-immigration platforms or describing their policies as "anti-immigrant". Nevertheless, opinion polls demonstrate that many people across the developed world are uncomfortable with, if not outright opposed to, immigration. Similarly, many other people support immigration.

[RedWine]

Right of asylum (or political asylum) is an ancient judicial notion, under which a person persecuted for his political opinions or religious beliefs in his country may be protected by another sovereign authority, either the Church as in medieval sanctuaries or a foreign country. Political asylum shouldn't be mistaken with modern refugee law, which rather deals with massive influx of population, while the right of asylum concerns individuals and is usually delivered in a case-to-case basis. However, the two may somehow overlap, since each refugee may demand to be accorded on an individual basis political asylum. This right has its roots in a longstanding Western tradition — although it was already recognized by the Egyptians, the Greeks and the Hebrews — : Descartes went to the Netherlands, Voltaire to England, Hobbes to France (followed by many English nobles during the English Civil War), etc. Each state offered protection to foreign persecuted persons. However, the development in the 20th century of bilateral extradition treaties has endangered the right of asylum, although international law considers that a state has no obligation to surrender an alleged criminal to a foreign state, as one principle of sovereignty is that every state has legal authority over the people within its borders.

Many ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Hebrews, recognized a religious "right of asylum", protecting criminals (or those accused of crime) from legal action to some extent. This principle was adopted by the early Christian church, and various rules developed for what the person had to do to qualify for protection and just how much protection it was.

In England, King Ethelbert made the first laws regulating sanctuary in about 600 A.D. By Norman times, there had come to be two kinds of sanctuary: All churches had the lower-level kind, but only the churches the king licensed had the broader version. There were at least twenty-two churches with charters for that kind of sanctuary, including Battle Abbey, Beverley (see image, right), Colchester, Durham, Hexham, Norwich, Ripon, Wells, Winchester Cathedral, Westminster Abbey, and York Minster.

Sometimes the criminal had to get to the church itself, to be protected, and might have to ring a certain bell there, or hold a certain ring or door-knocker, or sit on a certain chair ("frith-stool"), and some of these items survive at various churches. In other places, there was an area around the church or abbey, sometimes extending as much as a mile and a half, and there would be stone "sanctuary crosses" marking the boundary of the area; some of those still exist today, too. Thus it could became a race between the felon and mediaeval law officers to the nearest sanctuary boundary, and could make the serving of justice a difficult proposition indeed.

Church sanctuaries were regulated by common law. An asylum seeker was to confess his sins, surrender his weapons, and be placed under the supervision of the head of the church or abbey where he had fled. He then had forty days to make one of two choices: surrender to secular authorities and stand trial for the crimes against him, or confess his guilt and be sent into exile (abjure the realm), by the shortest route and never return without the king's permission. Anyone who did come back could be executed by the law and/or excommunicated by the Church.

If the suspect chose to confess his guilt and abjure, he would do so in a public ceremony, usually at the gate of the church grounds. He would surrender his worldly goods to the church, and landed property to the crown. The coroner, a medieval official, would then chose a port city from which the fugitive should leave England (though the fugitive himself sometimes had this privilege). The fugitive would set out barefooted and bareheaded, carrying a wooden cross-staff as a symbol of his protection under the church. Theoretically he would stay to the main highway, reach the port and take the first ship out of England. However in practice, the fugitive could get a safe distance away, ditch the cross-staff and take off and start a new life. But there was one problem: we can safely assume the friends and relatives of the victim knew of this ploy and would do everything in their power to make sure this did not happen; or indeed that the fugitive never reached his intended port of call, a victim of vigilante justice under the pretense of a fugitive who wandered too far off the main highway while trying to "escape".

Knowing the grim options, some fugitives rejected both choices and opted for an escape from the asylum before the forty days were up. Others simply made no choice and did nothing; since it was illegal for the victims friends to break into an asylum, the church would deprive the fugitive of food and water until a choice was made.

Henry VIII changed the rules of asylum, reducing to a short list the types of crimes which were allowed to claim asylum. The mediaeval system of asylum was finally abolished entirely by James I in 1623.

During the Wars of the Roses, when the Yorkists or Lancastrians would suddenly get the upper hand by winning a battle, some adherents of the losing side might find themselves surrounded by adherents of the other side and not able to get back to their own side, so they would rush to sanctuary at the nearest church until it was safe to come out. A prime example is Queen Elizabeth Woodville, consort of Edward IV of England:

In 1470, when the Lancastrians briefly restored Henry VI to the throne, Edward's queen was living in London with several young daughters. She moved with them into Westminster for sanctuary, living there in royal comfort until Edward was restored to the throne in 1471 and giving birth to their first son Edward during that time. When King Edward died in 1483, Elizabeth (who was highly unpopular with even the Yorkists and probably did need protection) took her five daughters and youngest son (Richard, Duke of York; Prince Edward had his own household by then) and again moved into sanctuary at Westminster. To be sure she had all the comforts of home, she brought so much furniture and so many chests that the workmen had to knock holes in some of the walls to get everything in fast enough to suit her.

[RedWine]

The United Nations 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees guides national legislation concerning political asylum. Under these agreements, a refugee is a person who is outside his or her country of nationality (or place of habitual residence if stateless) who, owing to a fear of persecution on account of a protected ground, is unable or unwilling to avail himself of the protection of the state. Protected grounds include race, nationality, religion, political opinion and membership of a particular social group. The signatories to these agreements are obliged not to return or "refoul" refugees to the place where they would face persecution.

Right of Asylum in France
Political asylum is recognized in France (droit d'asile) by the 1958 Constitution. It has been restricted due to immigration policies with the December 30, 1993 law; the Debré law of April 24, 1997, the May 11, 1998 law and the December 10, 2003 law. Henceforth, critics, including the Human Rights League (Ligue des droits de l'homme - LDH) have opposed themselves to this practical abandon of a longstanding European judicial tradition.

Political asylum is also defined in France by the 1951 United Nations (UN) Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (ratified in 1952), the additional 1967 protocol; articles K1 and K2 of the 1992 Maastricht Treaty as well as the 1985 Schengen Agreement which defined the European policy on immigration. Finally, right of asylum is defined by article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

On a purely judicial level, only four conditions may be opposed to the accordance of political asylum to someone who has proven being subject to persecution in his country: the presence of the alien represent a serious threat to public order; his request should be adressed by another sovereign state; his request has already been accepted in another state; the request is an abuse on the system of political asylum.

The December 10, 2003 law has limited political asylum, giving two main restrictions:

it invented the notion of "internal asylum": the request may be rejected if the foreigner may benefit from political asylum on a portion of the territory of his state
the OFPRA (Office français pour la protection des réfugiés et apatrides - French Office for the Protection of Refugees and Stateless Persons [1]) now makes a list of allegedly "safe countries" which respect political rights and principles of liberty. In this case, the request may be automatically rejected if the demander comes from such a country.
Thus, although the right of political asylum has been conserved in France in despite of the various anti-immigration laws, it has been severely restricted. Apart of the purely judicial level, the bureaucratic process is also used to slow down and ultimately reject what might be considered as valid requests.

As a current example, since the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, tens of homeless Afghan refugees waiting to be accorded political asylum have been sleeping in a park in Paris near the Gare de l'Est train station. Although their demands haven't been yet accepted, their presence has been tolerated a while. However, since the end of 2005, NGOs notes that the police separates Afghans from other migrants during raids, and expell in charters those who have just arrived in Gare de l'Est by train and haven't had time to make the demand for asylum (a May 30, 2005 decree impose them to pay themselves a translator for helping them in official formalities)

[RedWine]

Right of asylum in the United States
Further information: Political asylum in the United States

Asylum is offered as part of the United States' obligation under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. The primary benefit for such an asylum applicant is the eligibility for a work permit (employment authorization) by simply filing an application for asylum with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). To the later dismay of a large number of these applicants, however, if their claims of persecution are not backed up by genuine evidence or proofs, the claims are eventually denied and they are placed in removal (deportation) proceedings in the Immigration Court. Since the effective date of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act voted in 1996, an applicant must apply for asylum within one year of entry or be barred from doing so unless there were certain exceptional circumstances. Some asylum cases have been also granted based on sexual orientation or gender, where cultural norms of the home country create and sustain conditions that make life unsafe or unbearable for the individual.

As of 2004, recipients of political asylum faced a wait of approximately 14 years to receive permanent resident status after receiving their initial asylee status, because of an annual cap of 10,000 green cards for this class of individuals. However, in May 2005, under the terms of a proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit, Ngwanyia v. Gonzales, brought on behalf of asylees against USCIS, the government agreed to make available an additional 31,000 green cards for asylees during the period ending on September 30, 2007. This is in addition to the 10,000 green cards allocated for each year until then. This should speed up the green card waiting time considerably for asylees. However, the issue is rendered somewhat moot, since the enactment of the REAL ID Act of 2005 (Division B of United States Public Law 109-13 (H.R. 1268 eliminated the cap on annual asylee green cards and currently an asylee who has continuously resided in the US for more than one year in that status has an immediately available visa number.

[RedWine]

Exile can be a form of punishment, or a self-imposed leaving of ones homeland. It means to be away from one's home (i.e. city, state or country) while either being explicitly refused permission to return and/or being threatened by prison or death upon return.

It is common to distinguish between internal exile, i.e., forced resettlement within the country of residence, and external exile, deportation outside the country of residence.

Exile has a long tradition as a form of punishment. It has been known in Ancient Rome, where the Roman Senate had the power to exile individuals, entire families or countries (which amounted to a declaration of war).

The towns of Ancient Greece, as well used exile both as a legal punishment and in Athens as a social punishment. In Athens during the time of democracy, the process of ostracism was devised in which one man who had basically made a nuisance of himself was banished from the city without prejudice for ten years, after which he was allowed to return. Among the more famous recipients of this punishment were Themistocles, Cimon and Aristides the Just. Further, Solon the lawgiver voluntarily exiled himself from Athens after drafting the city's constitution, to prevent being pressed to change it.

In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth a court of law could sentence a noble to exile (banicja). As long as the exile (banita) remained in the Commonwealth he had a price on his head and lost the priviliges and protection granted to him as a noble. Even killing a banita was not considered a crime although there was no reward for his death. Special forms of exile were accompanied by wyświecenie (a declaration of the sentence in churches) or by issuance of a separate declaration to townfolk and peasantry (all of them increased the knowledge of the exile and thus made his capture more likely).

A more severe penalty than exile was infamy (infamia) - 'a loss of honor and respect' (utrata czci i wiary). A noble who has been infamed not only suffered from the same penalties as an exiled one, but in addition, an exiled noble (banita) who killed an infamed one (infamis) could expect his exile sentence to be revoked. In addition anybody killing an infamed noble could expect a monetary reward from the state (usually a starosta of given region), and sheltering or supporting an infamed noble were also punishable offences. Both exile and infamy could be revoked if the person had done a great service to the state. As the law system in the Commonwealth was fairly inefficient, many exiles actually stayed within the country, often employed and protected by some magnates. One of the most famous exiles of the Commonwealth was Samuel Łaszcz.

[RedWine]

Common' ppl.. vote ;) .

[RedWine]

http://www.stockholmian.com/news/persiska/2006/07july/046_encrypt.htm

[RedWine]

Since 911, the U.S. has quickly revamped policies relating to security. When the idea of Muslim profiling was raised, it caused a significant stir around the world.

Profiling

In the past, law enforcement, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have repeatedly investigated, stopped, questioned and in some cases searched individuals due to the colour of their skin, origin, gender, or sexual orientation.

Profiling is not something that sprung up after 911, dedicated to "protect" us. It violates civil liberties and generalises by appearance. This method has now increased in intensity, expanding its scope into religion and origin.

October 1, 2002, INS inspectors began land, sea and airport campaign allowing authorities to fingerprint, photograph and track visiting aliens who have traveled to Indonesia or Malaysia. Previously, INS inspectors were limited special screening visitors from Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya and Syria.

Religious Profiling

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has been busy keeping up with racial and religious profiling cases after 911. Two examples:

-- An Illinois National Guardsman and three private security personnel at O'Hare International Airport engaged in an unnecessary, unjustified, illegal and degrading search of a 22 year old United States citizen of Pakistani descent last November. Ms. Kaukab was identified and subjected to a humiliating search not because she posed any security threat, but only because her wearing of a hijab identified her as a Muslim. [1]

-- Five men, including Michael Dasrath and Edgardo Cureg, had their civil rights violated when they were forced off of Continental Flight #1218 on New Year's Eve, after a fellow passenger stated "[the] brown men are behaving suspiciously." Five civil rights lawsuits were filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the men. The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) is a co-plaintiff in three of the cases. The lawsuits were filed simultaneously in LA, MD, NJ and San Francisco. Four of the passengers are United States citizens and the fifth is a permanent legal resident.

The ACLU writes, "We bring these lawsuits because, as a nation, we long ago settled the issue of discrimination. We declared it to be wrong, immoral, and contrary to fundamental American values. We also made it illegal. We decided that every individual should be allowed to participate in every aspect of American society, including in the American economy; to eat at restaurants and stay in hotels; to travel on buses and airplanes." [2]

This treatment is not only racist, but it also violates the 4th Amendment which states that the authorities require probable cause prior to a search. Profiling also violates the 14th Amendment which ensures equal protection for everyone regardless of race.

Hate Crimes

Hate crimes are on the rise. The number of reported anti-Islamic crimes increased from 28 in 2000 to 481 in 2001. According to the FBI [3], the overall number of hate crimes increased dramatically from 8,063 in 2000 to 9,726 in 2001, signaling an increase of 20.6%.

Racially motivated bias represented the largest percentage of bias related incidents at 44.9%, followed by ethnic/national origin bias at 21.6%. Religious based bias rose to 18.8% in 2001. The FBI currently does not collect statistics on anti-Arab or anti-Sikh hate crimes. Organisers of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC)[4] and the Arab American Institute (AAI) report there have been over 200 incidents of abuse directed against Arab-Americans since 911.

Does racial and religious profiling generalise?

Those who are considered terrorists are of various ethnic and religious backgrounds and operate all around the world. High profile attacks such as 911 have brought U.S. attention on terrorists in or from the Middle East, and the U.S.State Department has identified many groups with Arab/Muslim connections - this does not mean only Arabs and Muslims are capable of terrorism.

Racial profiling of Arabs would prove difficult because Arabs may have light skin and blue eyes to olive or dark skin and brown eyes. the U.S.has, at various times, classified Arab immigrants as African, Asian, European or white.

They have roots spread over several countries such as parts or all of Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Arabs are residing in Israel, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Spain, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. The Arab world of the 7th to the 13th centuries joined the peoples of Spain and North Africa in the west with the peoples of the ancient lands of Egypt, Syria and Mesopotamia in the east.

Past Events

Take into account how America handled Pearl Harbour immediately following the bombing. Racial profiling allowed the wrangling of 120,313 Japanese-Americans persons during that period.

According to the Japanese American National Museum's [5] fact sheet, Ellis Island along with several other immigration facilities was used as a detention and internment station for enemy aliens, under the authority of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It has been estimated that as many as 8,000 aliens spent time at Ellis Island between 1941-1945. Many of them were Japanese who, though living in the U.S. for decades, were forbidden to become citizens.

Even in Canada, Japanese-Canadians were given only 24 hours notice to vacate their homes, before being sent to special sites where they were detained until proper camps were prepared for them. They were categorised as "enemy aliens" and uprooted from their homes and businesses. Their property, which included cameras, radios and watches, was confiscated for what the government considered to be "protective measures". By November of 1942 nearly 22,000 people were displaced. This was all due to racial profiling. [6]

Consider also Operation Seek and Keep where Federal agents used racial profiling against Indians and Pakistanis during a high-profile investigation into immigrant smuggling in the 1990s.:

"The purpose of Operation Seek and Keep was to dismantle a criminal network that was smuggling Indian nationals into the United States for illegal employment, thus preserving jobs for authorized U.S. workers. From a law enforcement perspective, this case has been unique in that the entire smuggling organization has been broken. International and domestic smugglers have been apprehended, closing down the smuggling pipeline. Employers who placed orders for illegal aliens and the illegal aliens are still being identified and apprehended". [7]

This operation had taken in $220 million and smuggled 12,000 people, mostly from South Asia. The operation led to the indictments of more than 30 people.

Violation of Amendment rights, media demonisation, denial of service, and an improved chance of being attacked by an angry hate monger: these "privileges" of citizenship in North America have been enjoyed by African-Americans for over a hundred years, by the Japanese-Americans during World War II, and today by
Arab-Americans. Are you prepared to believe that it is for your own good? What happens when your skin colour, your God, or your headdress becomes the scapegoat of the day?

[EverGreen]

USA all the way.

[abadani69]

Abadan all the way. Har ki khasty citizenship e abadan begire biyad pishe khodam :D

[RedWine]

Illegal immigration refers to a immigration of people across national borders —in violation of the immigration laws of the country of destination. In politics, the term implies a larger social problem with consequences in other areas of government, such as economy, social welfare, education, healthcare, and costs of government services.

For nationalists (also so-called "natives") or voters illegal immigration connotes a perceived threat to traditional culture as well as having societal and real costs that exceed the possible benefits.
There are various terms used to describe a person who either enters a country illegally, or who enters legally but subsequently violates the terms of their visa, permanent resident permit, or refugee permit. The status and rights of such individuals are a controversial topic of debate due to the economic vitality, job availability, and environmental costs of illegal immigration, as well as nationalism, racism, and moral concerns.

Due to the contentiousness of immigration issues, the selection of language to describe certain types of immigrants is a sensitive matter. Terms that refer to immigrants who choose to cross the border, or overstay a visa, and who do not have residency permits to live or work in the new country, include:

alien
migrant
criminal alien
foreign national
illegal immigrant/ migrant/ alien
undocumented immigrant/ migrant/ alien / worker
undocumented resident
The terms "illegal immigrant" and "illegal alien" are commonly used phrases that refer to the illegality of the action of migration without legal authorization. The term "illegal alien" is conferred legitimacy by its official use in federal statutes. An illegal alien is a foreign national who resides in another country unlawfully, either by entering that country at a place other than a designated port-of-entry or as result of the expiration of a non-immigrant visa. Alternative terms include "illegal immigrant" and the terms "undocumented immigrant", "undocumented worker", and "paperless immigrant".

Those more supportive of the illegal immigrant community tend to replace illegal with undocumented, arguing that it is offensive to describe any human as illegal, whether or not their behavior is illegal. Undocumented worker is often used by supporters to refer to all undocumented individuals, including children and those who do not work. While alien is a term with a specific legal meaning, some argue that the term alien carries with it the negative connotations of extraterrestrials and other meanings of the word alien and is criticized by the pro-illegal immigrant community. George Lakoff, a University of California linguist and progressive strategist, has argued that "the terms 'aliens' and 'illegals' provoke fear, loathing and dread" and should thus be avoided.Meanwhile, border patrol agents and those supporting stronger border controls tend to use illegal alien or the shorter illegals. Illegal immigrant is generally accepted as a neutral term suitable for use in mainstream media according to the AP Stylebook, although the National Association of Hispanic Journalists recommends undocumented immigrant.

[RedWine]

The international migration of people is largely driven by persons who leave perceived relative poverty and poor living conditions in their own country, or political oppression, in hopes of acquiring a better life in a new country. Nations experiencing extremes of weather, high levels of unemployment, civil war or violent political conflict, will often experience periods of emigration. Poor conditions may be a result of nations that lag in stability, security, technological skills, organizational ability, lack resources, knowledge, or political will or cohesion to build a better educated work force or a better economy.

Some immigrate to fill jobs offered by agribusiness, construction, entertainment or other typical low skilled jobs but also high paid jobs. Some immigrate to fill a relative shortage of persons with either a particular skill or training. Many immigrants desire to secure free welfare, free education and free healthcare typically offered by many developed countries for their own citizens or are able to receive these when they arrive. Some corporations seek cheaper labor. Sometimes high unemployment in less-developed nations will cause people to immigrate to find work elsewhere, due to the general imbalance in the world of trade and employment opportunities. Some are trying to escape civil wars, repression, military servitude (such as conscription, or National Service), and sexism in their native country. Advocates of free immigration characterize nearly all migrants as legitimate, implying that the real costs and benefits imposed on the rest of the population are unimportant. Conversely, advocates of restrictions believe it is a given right of citizens to defend and maintain their traditional culture and standard of living without allowing unrestricted immigration. Immigrants are often divided into political migrants and economic migrants. Those who migrate for personal reasons are generally classed as economic migrants, even if living in the new country occasionally greatly reduces their earning potential.

[EverGreen]

Sia bia ye toure USA barat bezaram beri club mlubasho, bar o inchizaro behet neshoon bedam oonvaght khodet motevaje mishi ke US is the best. :D :lol:

[RedWine]

Sia bia ye toure USA barat bezaram beri club mlubasho, bar o inchizaro behet neshoon bedam oonvaght khodet motevaje mishi ke US is the best. :D :lol:

ino midunam N jan !!! montaha man biam unja barayeh hamisheh bahas maliat ziad bedam. hahahahaha... injaha ta 60% ham kamtar midam va gher midam. hahaha

vali N jan mamnun keh enghadar beh fkre mani azizam. hahahaha

[EverGreen]

lol avazesh sale badesh hamoon maliata behet bar migarde. bikhiale maliat sho. bia bechasb be toure USA. :D

[RedWine]

lol avazesh sale badesh hamoon maliata behet bar migarde. bikhiale maliat sho. bia bechasb be toure USA. :D


bezar baz neshasteh keh shodam, 2 taei mirim miami beach,unja doraneh khosheh baz neshastegi ro hamraheh khanumhayeh javan beh sar mikonim. hahaha

[EverGreen]

looooooool to 70 salegi akhe ki bahat rah miad? :D :lol:

bia alan berim, to boro dokhtar bazi manam beram casino ye zare pool bezanam biam. :D :lol:

[RedWine]

Nima baz dame to garm keh enghadar vafa dari va adam foroush nisti ! in moshkelieh keh alan iranian community dareh ! keh aksaran adam forushan !! vali khob... dudesh touyeh cheshme khodeshun mireh !!!

[abadani69]

adam foroosh, daste tu roo shode baram ghesehato balad shodam,man adame khoobi boodam,bekhatere tu bad shodam :D

[RedWine]

اعتياد به مواد مخدر و دشواری های ناشی از آن اگر نه به گستردگی ايران، اما در خارج از کشور هم ديده می شود.
در آلمان دستيابی به آماری از ميزان معتادان دشوار است و داشتن تبعيت آلمان ايرانيان آنها را در رده بندی ديگری قرار می دهد.

اطلاع از تعداد معتادان تنها در صورت راه يابی آنها به مراکز درمانی ترک اعتياد امکان پذير است. دفاتر مشاوره حقوقی - اجتماعی مهاجرين هم اغلب بطور غير مستقيم در جريان مشکلات خانوادگی و يا اقامتی از اعتياد فردی در خانواده اطلاع پيدا می کنند.

در طی سال گذشته درميان مراجعين به يک دفتر مشاوره در آلمان در ۲۰ مورد اعتياد به ترياک در ميان ايرانيانی که از ميانگين سنی ۳۰تا ۶۲ سال برخوردار بودند، تنها ۳ زن وجود داشت و ۱۸ نفر از اين عده در ايران معتاد شده بودند. با وجود وقفه در سالهای اول ورود به آلمان به محض دسترسی به مواد مخدر، مصرف آنرا دوباره آغاز کرده اند.

دسترسی به مواد مخدر بخصوص ترياک در آلمان دشوار نيست و اغلب از طريق آشنايان صورت می گيرد. هزينه آن به تفاوت گرمی ۷ تا ۶ يورو است و هزينه روزانه آن برای کسی که ميزان مصرف بالائی ندارد، بين ۱۰ تا ۳۰ يورو است.

زن چهره دلنشينی دارد و مادر ۲ فرزند. ۱۱ سال معتاد به ترياک بوده و به تازگی ترک کرده است. وقتی از اعتيادش حرف می زند چشمانش پر از اشک می شود. می گويد:" من خيلی زود با ترياک آشنا شدم . بچه که بودم برای درمان گوش درد از آن استفاده می کردند. بزرگتر که شدم آدم خجالتی بودم و وقتی در جمع دوستان می ديدم که شوهرم و ديگران با استفاده از مواد مخدر روحيه بهتری پيدا می کنند اول تعجب می کردم، اما کم کم برای من که آدم خجالتی بودم امکانی شد که با آن بتوانم با ديگران رابطه برقرار کنم. در ايران ترياک به من به نوعی شهامت می داد.

بعد هم به آلمان آمديم در سالهای اول، من مصرف نمی کردم، اما بعد از ۲ سال با آمدن همسرم و دسترسی پيدا کردن من به مواد مخدر شروع کردم .بعد از مدتی احساس می کردم که حال بدی دارم. احساس افسردگی می کردم. بعد به جائی رسيدم که ديگر نمی توانستم اين نوع زندگی را تحمل کنم وترک کردم. در حال حاضر در يک گروه هستم که آنها هم ترک کردند و اين گروه خيلی کمکم می کند."




امکانات دولتی که برای ترک اعتياد وجود دارد، هميشه مورد استقبال قرار نمی گيرد. وزارت بهداری آلمان برنامه هائی برای ترک اعتياد دارد که معمولا به شکل درمان گروهی است. در درمان اعتياد که امکانات مجانی در اختيار معتادين قرار می گيرد، مشکل برقراری رابطه، تفاوت های فرهنگی و مسئله زبان است. آنچه در بهبودی کامل شخص معتاد و عدم بازگشت دوباره او اهميت دارد، شرايط بعدی زندگی اوست که همراهی و همياری نزديکان را می طلبد و همينطور فاصله گرفتن از فضای آلوده گذشته او.

يادآوری اين نکته که نظر متخصصين در درمان اعتياد است، ضروری است که مدت های طولانی بعد از ترک اعتياد همچنان خطر بازگشت وجود دارد و در نتيجه توجه و حمايت از کسی که اعتياد را ترک کرده است لازم است .

"عباس " از کسانی است که از برنامه های دولتی ترک اعتياد استفاده نمی کند. او ۵ سال است که به ترياک معتاد است و همسرش به همين دليل از او جدا شده است. او دليل عدم استفاده از اين امکانات را خجالت از اينکه ديگران، بخصوص ايرانيان در جريان اعتياد او قرار بگيرند ذکر می کند.

"ولفگانگ اشترکربورکر" روانشناسی است که در يک مرکز ترک اعتياد کار می کند. او در مورد روش های درمانی می گويد: "اين روش ها متفاوت هستند و به وضعيت بيمار بستگی دارد. گروهی در يک مرکز توان بخشی تحت درمان قرار می گيرند و بعضی به شکل فردی روان درمانی ميشوند و گاه درمان بشکل بستری شدن در بيمارستان صورت می گيرد.


زندگی با اين افراد آدم را بيمار می کند. جوری که انگار به زندگی با آنها وابسته می شوی و همينطور در آن فرو می روی. اعتياد بر همه ابعاد زندگی خانوادگی سايه می اندازد.


همسر يک مرد معتاد

ما در کنار درمان فرد معتاد برنامه هائی هم برای خانواده های آنها داريم که با تشکيل سمينارهائی برای آگاهی رسانی به آنها صورت می گيرد و يا به صورت تشکيل گروه های کار در تمام آخر هفته انجام می شود. همراهی و همکاری خانواده ها در ترک اعتياد نقش مهمی دارد. مسئله اعتياد در خانواده های مهاجر هم متاسفانه زياد شده است و دولت ناگزير، بودجه ای برای مبارزه با آن در نظر گرفته است . در مورد مهاجرين علت ابتلا معمولا دشواری هائی است که آنها از سر گذرانده اند. بطور مثال مورد خشونت واقع شدن و تجربيات سخت، آنها را به مصرف مواد مخدر سوق می دهد. گروهی هم قبل از مهاجرت به آن مبتلا بوده اند."

خانواده فرد معتاد بطور مستقيم تحت تاثير قرار می گيرند. اين تاثير، هم در رفتار فرد معتاد با خانواده خود را نشان می دهد و هم بر بودجه خانواده به شکل جدی سنگينی می کند.

زنی در دادگاه خانواده علت طلاق و اينکه می خواهد سرپرستی بچه ها را به تنهائی به عهده بگيرد را اعتياد همسرش به مواد مخدر ذکر می کند. او می گويد که همسرش بارها و بارها نه تنها خرج خانه را، که تمامی وسائل زندگی شان را هم خرج مواد مخدر کرده است.

زن ديگری که همسرش معتاد به ترياک بوده است می گويد: "زندگی با اين افراد آدم را بيمار می کند. جوری که انگار به زندگی با آنها وابسته می شوی و همينطور در آن فرو می روی. اعتياد بر همه ابعاد زندگی خانوادگی سايه می اندازد. خانواده هم تحت تاثير شرايط روحی فرد معتاد در حال نوسان است. او از نظر اجتماعی سقوط می کند . من تا مدتها به همسرم به چشم يک خلافکار نگاه می کردم. آنها پرخاشگر می شوند و تعادل روحی خود را از دست می دهند. در زمينه مسائل جنسی دچار مشکل می شوند، نظم زندگی بهم می ريزد و آنها نمی توانند مسئوليت قبول کنند. بدتر از همه اينکه نوعی فضای بی اعتمادی بوجود می آيد."


برای من که آدم خجالتی بودم امکانی شد که با آن بتوانم با ديگران رابطه برقرار کنم .در ايران ترياک به من به نوعی شهامت می داد.


زن معتاد

در هم آميختن مشکلات روحی معتادان با اعتياد آنها کار روان درمانی را دشوار می کند. اين مشکل بخصوص با اختلافات فرهنگی در آلمان و چگونگی برخورد فرهنگ های مختلف با مسئله اعتياد وضع را بغرنج تر می کند.

"کلوديا هارتمن " روانشناس و روانکاو است و در طی کار خود با بيمارانی که ضمن افسردگی اعتياد هم داشته اند، در تماس بوده است.

او در صحبت های خود بطور ويژه به مهاجران ايرانی نظر دارد: "در ميان مهاجران ايرانی که به مواد مخدر اعتياد دارند، مصرف ترياک بيشتر ديده می شود. در مورد کسانی که مثلا به الکل اعتياد دارند اين موضوع زودتر برملا می شود، اما در موارد مبتلايان به ترياک دشوارتر است چون آنها به نوعی، آرام و ساکت برخورد می کنند. اما وابستگی در آنها خيلی بيشتر است. آنها هم از نظر جسمی و هم از نظر روحی خيلی وابسته می شوند و عوارض جانبی آن خيلی زياد است. درمان افسردگی و يا ديگر بيماری های روحی در صورت وجود اعتياد امکان ندارد."

اعتياد مهاجرين اگر در مواردی به خلافکاری هائی منجر بشود سخت گيری های بيشتری را از سوی دولت آلمان متوجه فرد معتاد می کند. اين خلافکاری ها اگر به سوء سابقه منجر شود، می تواند بر وضعيت اقامتی او اثر بگذارد. به علاوه اين موضوع در برخورد کلی به مسئله مهاجرين هم اثر منفی می گذارد.

درمان اعتياد بدون خواست و همراهی معتادين امکان ندارد و در اين راستا همکاری خانواده ها و اطلاع رسانی و کار فرهنگی پيوسته ضروری است.

[EverGreen]

Nima baz dame to garm keh enghadar vafa dari va adam foroush nisti ! in moshkelieh keh alan iranian community dareh ! keh aksaran adam forushan !! vali khob... dudesh touyeh cheshme khodeshun mireh !!!

Ghorbanat Sia jan.

vali khob Iranian dige Sia jan. chikareshoon mishe kard. Ta be ye jaee miresan dige baghiaro adam hesab nemikonan. vali it's ok kheilia deleshoon mikhad ke beran jai ke Irani toosh ziade. Beran bebinan hamvataneshoon che goli be sareshoon mizane.

jone Sia KS o kheili maskhare mikonan oonai ke be ghole khodeshoon to behtarin jaye LA zendegi mikonan. vali khodaeesh man yeki KS o ba jaie digei avaz nemikonam be khatere hamin moozoo.

Irani Sia jan adam foroosh nabashe ke poolash az paroo bala nemire ke. (albate manzooram baziashoone)

[RedWine]

Ghorbanat Sia jan.

vali khob Iranian dige Sia jan. chikareshoon mishe kard. Ta be ye jaee miresan dige baghiaro adam hesab nemikonan. vali it's ok kheilia deleshoon mikhad ke beran jai ke Irani toosh ziade. Beran bebinan hamvataneshoon che goli be sareshoon mizane.

jone Sia KS o kheili maskhare mikonan oonai ke be ghole khodeshoon to behtarin jaye LA zendegi mikonan. vali khodaeesh man yeki KS o ba jaie digei avaz nemikonam be khatere hamin moozoo.

Irani Sia jan adam foroosh nabashe ke poolash az paroo bala nemire ke. (albate manzooram baziashoone)

Nima jan..

Moshkel tanha masaeleh pouli nist !! moshkel masaeleh akhlaghi hast. choun vaghti keh kasi bad 'tarbiat' shodeh,vaghtikeh kasi bad 'bozorg' shodeh,nemisheh kheili ham entezar dasht keh kasi basheh keh betuneh dar kenareh hamvatanesh basheh !

Moteasefaneh alan L.A shodeh mahali barayeh injur adamha ! albateh keh touyeh Europe ham in moshkel hast vali choun dar Europe,yek seri zavabet voujud dareh,beh hamin khater in jaryanat kamtar dideh misheh !

Man yadameh salhayeh 1981-84 ,iranian community dar California kheili kuchak boud ! 90% adamha hamdigar ro mishenakhtan vali bia alan ro bebin !! man last March L.A boudam... chizhaei dar chand rouz didam keh beh Khoda narahat konandeh va besiar zanandeh boud !!!

Poul ham shodeh yek moshkel !!! un zamanha sharayet in boud keh bacheh ha az tarbiate khoubi irani mahroum naboudand, ehteram migozashtan beh bozorgtarashoun vali alan negah kon beh javunhayeh zire 25 saleh moghimeh U.S.A !!!! Har ki ro mibini,naleh va shekayat mikoneh az in jaryan keh in javunha beh rahi daran keshideh mishavand keh khodeshun aval zararesho khahand did !!

Khosh bakhtaneh group hayeh kuchaki az iraniha hastan keh digeh close kardan va iranihayeh digeh ro keh balatar behet goftam,rah nemidahand beineh khodeshoun,choun alaveh bar zarbeh zadan beh khodeshun,majbur mikonan keh iranihayeh digeh az tarbiateh vaghei va az un farhangeh vagheie irani dur bashan !

In masael,vaghean ''tof-e sarbalast'' !! ma hanuz moshkel ba akhlagh va tarbiat darim,tazeh do ghort va nim ham baghi hastim keh chera folani intori kard va chera folani ino goft !!! in chiza dardeh va khejalat avareh !!

[EverGreen]

Nima jan..

Moshkel tanha masaeleh pouli nist !! moshkel masaeleh akhlaghi hast. choun vaghti keh kasi bad 'tarbiat' shodeh,vaghtikeh kasi bad 'bozorg' shodeh,nemisheh kheili ham entezar dasht keh kasi basheh keh betuneh dar kenareh hamvatanesh basheh !

Moteasefaneh alan L.A shodeh mahali barayeh injur adamha ! albateh keh touyeh Europe ham in moshkel hast vali choun dar Europe,yek seri zavabet voujud dareh,beh hamin khater in jaryanat kamtar dideh misheh !

Man yadameh salhayeh 1981-84 ,iranian community dar California kheili kuchak boud ! 90% adamha hamdigar ro mishenakhtan vali bia alan ro bebin !! man last March L.A boudam... chizhaei dar chand rouz didam keh beh Khoda narahat konandeh va besiar zanandeh boud !!!

Poul ham shodeh yek moshkel !!! un zamanha sharayet in boud keh bacheh ha az tarbiate khoubi irani mahroum naboudand, ehteram migozashtan beh bozorgtarashoun vali alan negah kon beh javunhayeh zire 25 saleh moghimeh U.S.A !!!! Har ki ro mibini,naleh va shekayat mikoneh az in jaryan keh in javunha beh rahi daran keshideh mishavand keh khodeshun aval zararesho khahand did !!

Khosh bakhtaneh group hayeh kuchaki az iraniha hastan keh digeh close kardan va iranihayeh digeh ro keh balatar behet goftam,rah nemidahand beineh khodeshoun,choun alaveh bar zarbeh zadan beh khodeshun,majbur mikonan keh iranihayeh digeh az tarbiateh vaghei va az un farhangeh vagheie irani dur bashan !

In masael,vaghean ''tof-e sarbalast'' !! ma hanuz moshkel ba akhlagh va tarbiat darim,tazeh do ghort va nim ham baghi hastim keh chera folani intori kard va chera folani ino goft !!! in chiza dardeh va khejalat avareh !!

Daghighan bahat movafegham Sia jan.

[RedWine]

براساس* يافته*هاي* گروه* تحقيقات* جمعيتي* سالانه* 3 ميليون* نفر از ساكنان* كشورهاي* در حال* توسعه* به* ممالك* صنعتي* مهاجرت* مي*كنند و تقريباص نيمي* از اين* مهاجرت*ها 4\1 ميليون* نفر به* كشورهاي* اروپايي* انجام* مي*شود. اما با اين* حال* اروپا همچنان* مواجه* با از دست* دادن* بي*سابقه* جمعيت* است*.
براساس* اين* تحقيق*، انگلستان* با جمعيتي* بالغ* بر 4\60 ميليون* نفر، پنجمين* كشور مهاجرپذير به* شمار مي*رود و سالانه* جمعيتي* معادل* 223 هزار و 145 نفر به* اين* كشور مهاجرت* مي*كنند.
ايالات* متحده* كه* مدت*ها است* سياست*هاي* جذب* مهاجر را بشدت* دنبال* مي*كند، با جذب* 1 ميليون* مهاجر در سال* در اين* تحقيق* درصدر كشورهاي* مهاجر پذير قرار دارد.
كانادا، استراليا و امارات* متحده* عربي* كه* نسبت* به* ديگر كشورهاي* خاورميانه* از شرايط* بهتر اقتصادي* سود مي*برند، در اين* تحقيق* به* عنوان* ديگر مقصدهاي* مهاجران* شناخته* شده*اند.
براساس* يافته*هاي* ( يك* گروه* محقق* در واشنگتن*، چين*، هند و مكزيك* بيشترين* مهاجران* را به* ديگر كشورها مي*فرستند و در اين* رده*بندي* ايران* در مقام* پنجم* قرار دارد.
,كارل* هاب*, يكي* از محققان* اين* گروه* معتقد است*: عامل* اصلي* ترغيب* مهاجران* به* ترك* كشورهايشان* هميشه* ,اميد به* يافتن* زندگي* بهتر, بوده* است*.او مي*گويد: برخي* براي* گريز از فقر و برخي* ديگر هم* براي* فرار از ناآرامي*هاي* مدني* و يا سياسي* كشورهاي* خود را ترك* مي*كنند.
به* گفته* او يك* خانواده* متوسط* هندي*، بطور متوسط* در سال* 2هزار و 200 دلار در آمد دارد در حالي* كه* اگر اين* خانواده* به* اروپا مهاجرت* كنند و تنها با داشتن* مهارت* كار با كامپيوتر مي*توانند سالانه* 50 هزار دلار در آمد كسب* كنند و حتي* بدون* داشتن* هرگونه* مهارتي* راننده* تاكسي* شوند.
آمار به* دست* آمده* در اين* تحقيق* مبتني* بر اطلاعات* حاصله* از دولت*هاي* محلي*، سازمان* ملل* و سازمان* كمك*هاي* جهاني* بوده* است*.
مهاجرت* به* عنوان* يك* مساله* مهم* سياسي* در انگلستان* به* شمار مي*رود و دولت* با اتخاذ سياست*هاي* گوناگون* سعي* در محدود كردن* پذيرش* مهاجران* به* اين* كشور دارد.
ايالات* متحده* همچنين* اخيراص بحث* پيرامون* راه*حل*هايي* براي* محدود كردن* 11 تا 12 ميليون* مهاجر سالانه* به* اين* كشور را دارد كه* بطور غيرقانوني* عموماص از مرزهاي* كشورهايي* چون* مكزيك* و امريكاي* لاتين* به* اين* كشور وارد مي*شوند.
براساس* اين* تحقيق* با اين* حال* جمعيت* امريكا از حدود 300 ميليون* نفر تا سال* 2050 به* حدود 420 ميليون* نفر افزايش* خواهد يافت*.براساس* پيش*بيني* سازمان* ملل* ، ژاپن* با جمعيتي* بالغ* بر 128 ميليون* نفر تا سال* 2050، 16 ميليون* نفر از جمعيت* خود را طي* مهاجرت*هاي* اين* افراد از دست* خواهد داد و كره*جنوبي* هم* با جمعيتي* بالغ* بر 48 ميليون* نفر 3 ميليون* مهاجر به* ديگر كشورها خواهد فرستاد.
محققان* بر اين* باورند مهاجرت* جمعيت* در اروپا و آسيا به* بحراني* اقتصادي* منجر شود چون* در اين* صورت* تعداد كارگران* و مصرف*كنندگان* براي* رشد اقتصاد و حمايت* از بازنشستگان* كافي* نخواهد بود.با اين* حال* در شرايطي* كه* اروپا رشد منفي* جمعيت* را شاهد است* به* گفته* ,هلن* پيتر كوهلر, استاديار جامعه*شناسي* دانشگاه* پنسيلوانيا، حتي* وجود مهاجرت* به* ؤبات* جمعيت* نيز كمك* نخواهد كرد و اروپا همچنان* شاهد رشد منفي* جمعيت* خواهد بود.
ترجمه*: مريم* ذوالفقار

[RedWine]

برای خيلی از دختر و پسرهای مهاجرافغان مقيم ايران پيش آمده که وقتی با يک دوست ايرانی رابطه ايجاد می کنند و بعد از مدتی اين دوست می فهمه که اونها افغان هستند در اکثر اوقات اولين سوالی که همراه با تعجب زياد هم پرسيده می شه اينه که جدی می گی واقعا افغانی هستی؟ ولی اصلا بهت نمی ياد!
جوونهای افغان هم هميشه در جمع های خودشون می گن تصوری که دوستان ايرانی از يک افغان دارند تصاويری هست که اکثر اوقات از تلويزيون ايران پخش شده ،کودکانی با سر روی خاکی، خانه های خرابه و جنگ و ويرانی ومردان وزنانی با پوشش های طالبانی ، که همه اينها تاثير زيادی در شناخت تقريبا ناقص خيلی از دوستان در ايران گذاشته.

البته که شناخت افغانستان به عنوان يک همسايه با اين اطلاع رسانی ضعيف واقعا هم شايد مشکل باشه و تصويری جز جنگ رو تداعی نکنه. اما دنيای يک مهاجر افغان در ايران هم زياد دنيای روشنی برای ديگران نيست. پس شايد بد نباشه کمی از زبان اين مهاجران بشنويم.

خاطرات گذشته بخشی از زندگی

مهاجرت برای جوان افغانی دو بخش داره. يکی دسته ای که در ايران متولد شدن و به غير از داستان های بزرگتر ها اصلا خاطره ای از افغانستان ندارند و با اين خاطره ها به کشور نديده افتخار می کنن وديگر بچه هايی که در کودکی به ايران مهاجر شدن و خاطرات کم رنگی رو در ذهنشون ثبت کردن که هيچ وقت هم فراموش نمی کنن.

فرشته بيست ساله در ايران متولد شده، می گه خاطرات پدر و مادراز دانشگاهها، لباسهای فرم و شاد دخترها در مدارس، کنسرتهای احمدظاهر خواننده بزرگ افغانی در شب های جشن، خانه های کاه گلی روی کوهها، هوای پاک کابل، زيبايی تفريحگاههای اطراف شهر، جشن های گل سرخ مزار در عيد نوروزهمه و همه اون رو هميشه به ياد کشورش ميندازن.
تاليا شش سالش بوده که به ايران اومده. يعنی دقيقا در سالهای حضور طالبان. اون می گه:" هميشه ياد خونه های آپارتمانی خودمون در تخنيکم کابل می افتم.پدرم مهندس بود مادرم استاد دانشگاه.بوی غذاهای کودکستان هنوز به مشامم می رسه و دوستانم رو اصلا نمی تونم فراموش کنم.قشنگ ترين خاطرات من مال افغانستانه."

تاليا در مورد اسمش می گه : " تاليا در اصل از اسامی حضرت خضر بوده. من چون در زمان جنگ های داخلی در افغانستان متولد شدم، مادرم اين اسم رو برام گذاشت تا زنده بمونم و از خطرات به سلامت بگذرم."

داشته ها و نداشته های کودکانه

وقتی يک کودک يا نوجوان مهاجر در ايران يا شايد هر کشور ديگه خودش رو با شهروندان عادی مقايسه می کنه احساس خيلی از نداشتن ها آزارش می ده و در عوض چيزهايی داره که شايد ديگران نتونن درک کنن.

ميترا پانزده سالشه وبه نداشته های خودش اشاره می کنه:" اونها وطن دارن، ما حس بی وطنی می کنيم.به خاطر در آمد خوب پدرهاشون خيلی از امکانات رو دارن که ما از داشتنش محروميم. اين بچه ها اتاق شخصی دارن. ما اگر هم داشته باشيم مستاجريم. و مثلا من هيچ وقت اجازه ندارم اتاقم رو مطابق ميلم تزئين کنم. پدرم می گه اگر ميخ به ديوار بکوبی صاحبخانه ناراحت می شه."

ميترا می گه:" اما بزرگتر از اين غصه ها اينه که مادر من در افغانستان دکتر بوده، اما امروز نمی تونه حتی يک شغل ساده اداری داشته باشه و من خيلی ناراحت می شم وقتی جايی مجبورم بگم شغل مادر من خانه داريه."

پسران مهاجر و دنيايی سخت تر از ديگران

پسرانی که در مهاجرت بزرگ می شن هميشه عنوان می کنن که نسبت به دخترها سختی های بيشتری پيش روی دارن. حبيب بيست و هشت سالشه :" شش ساله بودم که مهاجر شدم.ديپلم گرفتم ولی به دليل مشکلات اقتصادی نتونستم ادامه تحصيل بدم. يک پسر مهاجر مجبوره علاوه بر درس به خاطر بقای خانواده کار کنه ."

عده ای از پسران افغان که نتونستن ادامه تحصيل بدن امروز می گن در ازدواج با دخترهای تحصيلکرده افغان دچار مشکل هستند چون اين دخترها مشکل پسند شدن. و درنقطه مقابل خيلی از پسرهايی هم که به دانشگاه رفتن هنوز اسير سنت های خانوادگی هستن و به طور مثال خانواده ها می خوان دختر مورد علاقه خودشون رو به پسر تحصيلکرده افغان برای ازدواج تحميل کنند.

[RedWine]

The Republic of Iran has captured the world's attention. The hard-liner President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the international community's subsequent focus on a nuclear weapons program, combined with the country's involvement in the ongoing crises in the Middle East, have all contributed to keeping Iran firmly in the spotlight.

Although Iran has been seemingly isolated from much of the outside world since the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979, its borders have by no means been closed. To the contrary, the country has produced and hosted abundant flows of emigration and immigration, a steady coming and going mainly driven by key political events.

However, what makes Iran's migration story unique is that it has experienced simultaneous emigration and immigration to extreme degrees. In its recent history, Iran has laid claim to producting the highest rates of brain drain in the world while simultaneously topping the list as the world's largest refugee haven, mainly for Afghans and Iraqis. Iran also exhibits one of the steepest urban growth rates in the world, largely driven by internal migration from rural areas.

Historical Migration Patterns

A bridge in both the geographical and cultural sense of the word, Persia (Iran's name until 1934 when it was changed as part of Reza Shah's modernization efforts), has long connected the great civilizations of Asia, the Near East and the Mediterranean, helping to lay the foundations of the modern world.

Indo-European Aryan tribes and the Medes ruled the region from Pakistan to the Aegean coast of Turkey from 648 BC until the fourth century BC, when Alexander the Great conquered Persia. Other invaders — the Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, and Turks — followed, each leaving their mark on Persian culture through their philosophical, artistic, scientific, and religious contributions.

This mosaic of diverse ethnic groups is still visible in Iran today, where Persians compose only 51 percent of the population. Other groups include the Azeris (24 percent), Gilaki and Mazandaranis (eight percent), Kurds (seven percent), Arabs (three percent), Lurs (two percent), Baluchs (two percent), and Turkmens (two percent).

Emigration movements are also part of Iranian history. The Parsis, Persians who followed the Zoroastrian faith, fled to western India after the Arab conquest in AD 936. In the mid-19th century, shortly after the founding of Baha'ism, followers of the faith sought refuge in the Ottoman Empire after facing persecution in Iran.

In the later part of the 19th century and in the early 20th century, high-profile Iranian intellectuals were forced to leave the country as a result of their agitation for reform during the period leading up to Iran's Constitutional Revolution of 1905-1911.

Immigration to Iran, most notably by Afghans, dates back to at least the end of the 19th century. The rise of Sunni Pashtuns in Afghanistan triggered the exodus of numerous Shia Hazaras, an ethnic and religious minority, to Iran. Afghans who settled and integrated into Iranian society in the 19th and early 20th centuries were naturalized as Iranian citizens and came to be classified as an ethnic group known as Khavari or Barbari.

Nonetheless, the events both proceeding and immediately following the Islamic Revolution of 1978-1979, which ousted the Pahlavi dynasty and the monarch, Mohammad Reza Shah, in favor of an Islamic theocracy, undeniably prompted the largest collective emigration from Iran (see sidebar for more on the revolution).

[RedWine]

Three Waves of Emigration

Emigration since 1950 can be organized into three major waves that roughly correspond to socioeconomic status and motivations for migration, including both forced and voluntary departures. Despite some degree of overlap, the three phases provide a framework for conceptualizing the global Iranian diaspora.

The first significant phase of emigration from Iran, beginning in 1950 and lasting until the 1979 revolution, was triggered by Iran’s slow economic recovery and resumption of oil production after World War II. Revenue from oil exports permitted a relatively sudden change in Iranian society from traditionalism to modernization, motivating middle- and upper-class families to send their children abroad for higher education as a means of ensuring socioeconomic security and political access upon return.

In the 1977-1978 academic year, about 100,000 Iranians were studying abroad, of whom 36,220 were enrolled in US institutes of higher learning; the rest were mainly in the United Kingdom, West Germany, France, Austria, and Italy. In the 1978-1979 academic year, the number of Iranian students enrolled in the United States totaled 45,340, peaking at 51,310 in 1979-1980. According to the Institute of International Education, more Iranian students studied in the United States at this time than students from any other country.

After the revolution, not only did many of these students opt to remain in the West, but many of their relatives joined them.

Also included in this first period were families closely associated with the monarchy as members of the government, military personnel, or bankers. These royalist sympathizers fled during the early stages of the revolution, often with significant liquidated assets in hand.

[RedWine]

Table 1. Iranian Immigrants Admitted to the United States, Canada, Germany,
the UK and Sweden: 1961 to 2005

1961-1970 1971-1980 1981-1990 1991-2000 2001-2005


USA 10,291 46,152 154,857 112,597 55,098

Germany 7,298* 14,173 67,022 24,131 6,024**

Canada 620 3,455 20,700 41,329 25,350**

Sweden*** 384 3,249 38,167 16,804 6,086

UK --- --- --- 12,665 8,640


Notes:
*excludes 1961
**excludes 2005
*** In some years Swedish data was based on Iranian immigrants by place of birth while in other years it was based on place of last residence

Sources:
US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics; Federal Statistical Office of Germany; Sweden Statistics; Statistics Canada; UK Home Office

[RedWine]

Finally, another population that fled in the initial phase were members of religious minorities, such as the Baha'is, and religio-ethnic groups, such as the Jews, Armenians, and Assyrians. Anticipating persecution, a disproportionate number of these marginalized populations left as soon as cracks appeared in the Pahlavi regime.

A second phase of emigration took place after the revolution. Socialist and liberal elements were the first to leave, followed by young men who fled military service and the Iran-Iraq War, followed by young women and families, escaping overly confining gender restrictions. Having a daughter was a decisive factor in a family's decision to flee since the post-revolution era forced women to wear the veil, offered decreased educational possibilities, and enforced obedience to male kin.

Because the second wave included large numbers of professionals, entrepreneurs, and academics, it accelerated the "brain drain," a term used to describe the emigration of a country's most educated and highly skilled for better opportunities in another country.

According to the Ministry of Culture and Higher Education, right before the revolution and subsequent closure of all the universities in 1980, there were 16,222 professors teaching in Iran's higher education institutions. When the universities reopened in 1982, this figure had plummeted to 9,042.

Similarly, the Iran Times estimated that one out of every three (5,000) physicians and dentists left after the revolution. In addition to the reduction of manpower, studies estimate that the flight of capital from Iran shortly before and after the revolution is in the range of $30 to $40 billion.

It is important to note that many members of both the first and second emigration waves did not consider their departure permanent. To the contrary, many locked up their homes, packed a few suitcases, and viewed leaving as a temporary sojourn from their lives back in Iran, which would resume when the revolutionary government was overturned. However, with time, the possibility of a permanent return has grown increasingly unlikely.

Finally, a more recent third wave of emigration has surfaced over the last decade, from roughly 1995 to the present. This wave consists of two very distinct populations — highly skilled individuals leaving universities and research institutions, a continuation of a previous trend, and working-class labor migrants and economic refugees, sometimes with lower education levels and less transferable skills than previous emigrants.

In the year 2000 alone, Iranians submitted 34,343 asylum applications, the highest rate since 1986. Unlike the two previous waves, this wave was caused by Iran's economic crisis, deteriorating human rights record, diminishing opportunities, and the enduring tension between reformist and conservative factions.