In August 2002, Michael Fix and Laureen Laglagaron from the Urban Institute – an independent non-partisan organization that analyzes problems and policies in America and other countries – published a special report titled Social Rights and Citizenship: An International Comparison.” The report examined immigration policies in liberal democratic states such as Australia, the United States, and Canada. It analyzed general trends in these policies.
The report Social Rights and Citizenship” discusses the various access provided in different countries, including Australia and the United States. These include permanent status, rationing benefits, indirect bars to benefits, restrictions to contributory benefit, public sector employment, private sector employment, and self-employment. The report also covers anti-discrimination policies and provides policy recommendations (Fix and Laglagaron 2002).
Australia and the United States offer incredible open access to immigrants, including extensive labor market rights for legal non-citizens. Typically, migrants are characterized by comparatively low education levels, ethnic and racial minority status, non-citizen status, and comprise a significant portion of the labor force. These immigrant countries recognize the importance of promoting policies that provide social rights such as ration benefits for citizenship. Both Australia and the United States offer employment opportunities for immigrants along with non-contributory social welfare programs like cash transfers, healthcare, and housing assistance. Additionally, they provide contributory social insurance programs such as unemployment insurance and pension programs as well as selected social investment programs like elementary and secondary education, job training opportunities, and grants for higher education (Fix & Laglagaron 2002).
Citizenship in both countries can be obtained through either entering as a legal permanent resident or converting from landed immigrant status. In order for a legal immigrant to be naturalized, a minimum of two years is required. However, in the United States, it takes five years of permanent residency status (Fix and Laglagaron 2002). In Australia, immigrants who wish to file for citizenship must pass a test. The test is not mandatory for individuals under 18 or over 60 years old, those with hearing and sight impairments, and those with permanent physical or mental incapacity. Those who are required to take the test must pass it while also being a permanent resident who has satisfied the residence requirement and possess good character. There are exemptions for the residence requirement if they served in the permanent forces of Australia for three months; six months in either navy, army or air force; or were discharged from service due to medical unfitness (2006).
In the United States, the naturalization process is reserved for lawful permanent residents or those with a green card.” However, there are exceptions to this rule. For example, if the applicant is under 18 years of age, has served in the U.S. Army during wartime, suffers from physical or mental impairment, is 50 years of age and has lived in the U.S. for at least 20 years, or is 55 years of age and has been a permanent resident for at least 15 years.
For all other applicants, they must satisfy several general requirements: a residence requirement of five years; three months physical presence before filing for naturalization; literacy and proficiency in English; basic knowledge on U.S. history and government; and possessing good moral character (2008).
In Australia, not only do immigrants benefit from the immigration and citizenship policies, but so does the Australian business sector. According to Minister Peter McGauran of the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Indigenous Affairs, cultural diversity in the workforce can help export companies understand overseas markets and achieve a competitive edge in international trade. Australia is a host country to people from approximately 200 countries. The minister added that cultural and linguistic diversity can be an opportunity for business leaders in Australia to understand and gain from this diversity (2005).
In the United States, a research study conducted by the Federal Reserve Bank proved that immigration can be disadvantageous in the short run but beneficial in the long run. For instance, an immigrant with comparatively low education is equivalent to $13,000 in costs per year. However, once they achieve at least a two-year college education, they will generate $198,000 in taxes. Jorge Santibañez, a researcher from Northern Mexico Border College, stated that operations against illegal migration do not prevent immigration.
In 1996, there were about 916,000 legal immigrants in the U.S., while 300,000 were illegal. In the 1997 U.S. population breakdowns; 59% were Anglo while 41% were Hispanic, African-American and Asian-American. George Borjas – a professor at Harvard University’s School of Government – added that the number of Hispanic immigrants is likely to increase over time (Vinas 1997).
In Australia, skilled immigrants have played a significant role in business. Immigration has also helped the country increase its population since the end of World War II, with more than 5.7 million immigrants moving to Australia, accounting for 40% of population growth. The population became more diverse as people from parts of Europe and Asia migrated to Australia, with New Zealand being the highest contributor of immigrants. Family migration increased in 1980. The Howard Coalition government emphasized the need for skill migration focusing on migrants’ employability, work experience, English proficiency, and age under the same policy. Opportunities for migrant students also increased (Khoo 2002).
In the United States, however, there is a growing concern regarding the ethics of immigration reform. In February 2007, a panel discussion entitled Love Thy Neighbor? Ethical Underpinnings and Racial Politics of Immigration Reform” was held among professors and directors from different sectors. According to the debate, “economic uncertainty and social transformation” have changed how Americans perceive national and racial identities, especially towards immigrants and neighboring countries. Policymakers and public leaders have mostly ignored the “racial dynamics of immigration,” instead focusing heavily on the effects of immigrant populations on the US economy and employment. Naomi Mezey, a law professor at Georgetown University, stated that anti-immigrant minorities such as anti-Chinese campaigns are beginning to become popular movements. However, these movements are mostly led by recent immigrants themselves. There is an increasing fear that is developing against immigrants who are willing to work for low salaries because they could be seen as an economic threat (Duncan 2007).
Americans argue that too many people migrating to the U.S. is a threat. Since 1981, Haitians have sought asylum and refugee status, but only six out of 21,000 were granted that chance. Susan Benesch, former director of the refugee program at Amnesty International US, argued that starving is not a form of suffering that qualifies you to enter another country or to stay in that country and eat under asylum law.” She added that while the ethical part of U.S. immigration law is the asylum and refugee law, questions about national security hinder the moral obligation to help foreigners in need.
Immigration policies cover issues related to legal or illegal immigrants as well as wage-labor employment. According to Steven Camarota, director of research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, there are an estimated 38 million immigrants in America – meaning one out of every eight people is an immigrant. Ann Matter, dean of the University of Pennsylvania commented on immigration opinions raised being based solely on personal experience rather than reason (Duncan 2007).
Although liberal democracies like Australia and the United States offer open access to immigrants, there are still other benefits that entrants cannot fully avail themselves of. The report on Social Rights and Citizenship has specific recommendations for immigration policies in both countries, such as: access to social benefits should not be based on citizenship; rights to residence, labor market security, or naturalization should be protected; employment should promote integration of permanent residents; and anti-discrimination policies should ensure private employment and equality (Fix and Laglagaron 2002).
Reference
(2005). Immigration Benefits Australia.” Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.workpermit.com/news/2005_04_01/australia/immigration_benefits.htm.
(2006). How do I become an Australian Citizen?” Retrieved on May 10, 2008, from http://www.citizenship.gov.au/applying/application-process/general/eligibility.htm.
(2008) About UI.” Retrieved May 9, 2008, from http://www.urban.org/about/index.cfm.
(2008). What are the requirements for becoming a naturalized United States citizen?” Retrieved on May 10, 2008, from http://immigrationlaw.freeadvice.com/citizenship/naturalization_requirements.htm.
Duncan, A. (2007). Scholars Discuss Ethics of U.S. Immigration Reform.” Retrieved May 10, 2008 from http://www.law.virginia.edu/html/news/2007_spr/immigration_reform.htm.
Fix, M. and L. Laglagaron (2002) conducted an international comparison on social rights and citizenship, which was published by the Urban Institute in a report spanning from pages 1 to 53. The report can be retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410545_SocialRights.pdf and was accessed on May 10th, 2008.
Khoo, S.-E. (2002). Immigration Issues in Australia.” Retrieved May 10, 2008, from http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-105657375.html.
Vinas, A. (1997) conducted a study that proves immigration benefits the United States. The source can be retrieved from http://www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/old_1997/dec97/1297imm3.htm, accessed on May 10th, 2008.
