Iranian Immigration

[Rasputin]

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.

[Rasputin]

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.

[Rasputin]

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.

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

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.

[Rasputin]

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.

[Rasputin]

Common' ppl.. vote .

[Rasputin]

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

[Rasputin]

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

[Rasputin]

[Rasputin]

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.