Title | International Migrations in Latin America and the Caribbean Edition Nº 65 May-August 2002 |
Author: | Permanent Secretariat of SELA |
INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE
CARIBBEAN:
SOCIAL DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC TRAITS
Miguel
Villa and Jorge Martínez
(ECLAC / CELADE, Santiago,
Chile)
Introduction: The complexities of international
migration
International migration is one of the most
enduring social processes throughout history and its relevance underlines
new concerns riddled with perceptions that differ from observable reality.
It is important to point out that in the past the movement of people
played a starring role in economic, social and political transformations
as it complemented the expansion of trade and the world economy,
contributed to the creation of nations and territories, fuelled
urbanization and opened up new areas of production.
During the second
half of the 19th century and the first decades of the 20th century the
bulk of migration consisted of two major contrasting flows: one included
the free movement of Europeans who played a key role in the economic
convergence of some regions of the old and new world; the other consisted
of the movement of workers of diverse origin, mostly Asian, towards
tropical regions. This at times forced movement resulted in an expansion
of social and economic inequalities at the international level. These
flows, which were fuelled by different forces, opened up opportunities,
won the approval of the countries of destination and contributed
significantly to social and cultural changes (ECLAC, 2002).
In
today's world migration is the object of contrasting views and many of the
concerns it arises stem from perceptions on its inherently conflicting
aspects. This is particularly true in receiving countries where concerns
centre on the different types of illegal immigration, asylum requests,
immigrants' integration possibilities and the need to regulate the inflow
of workers. The acknowledgment of immigrants' economic and cultural
contributions - as a reflection of their entrepreneurial capacities - or
the evaluation of the consequences the current globalization phase will
have on migrations - such as the deepening of development's inequalities-
are issues seldom discussed. On the other hand, in the countries of
origin, which are mostly developing nations, it is felt that the "escape
valve" effect the emigration of workers has on the local labour market and
the remittances emigrants send from abroad are positive elements. Still,
these countries are also concerned with the loss of skilled human
resources and, in general, the risks of human rights abuses against
migrants, often fuelled by racist or xenophobic behaviour.
The
contrasting views on migration are but a sample of this phenomenon's
current complexities. Today's globalization is different in that States -
to ensure greater fluidity in the exchange of goods and stocks - surrender
part of their power to supra-national entities and acknowledge the primacy
of universal human rights instruments, but retain their exclusive rights
regarding regulations on the entry and permanence of foreigners in their
territories. This has led some authors to argue that migration is the grip
that knocks down sovereignty (Sassen, 2001). In a recent study ECLAC
pointed out that rather than a 'globalization of migrations' we are
witnessing today a paradox: globalization formally excludes international
migration. In a world more connected than ever before and at a time when
financial, information and trade flows are liberalized, the movement of
people faces restrictive barriers. This reveals that the asymmetries of a
limited globalization risk deepening inequalities in development levels
(ECLAC, 2002)1. The
persistence of these barriers - related to border control practices that
operate even between countries members of free trade agreements - causes
the proliferation of situations of illegal entry. For many immigrants
these situations result in lack of protection and
vulnerability.
Theoretically, international migration represents a
fundamental aspect of integration processes between nations that, by
definition, require the removal of barriers. Nevertheless, the movement of
people is not explicitly acknowledged in most integration arrangements.
This is particularly evident in the agreements that establish preferential
market areas, since they assume that trade flows compete with or
substitute the flow of workers. Only when integration comprises political
and social tenants that may allow for the development of communal areas -
the best example of which is the European Union - will it be possible to
establish common rules of the game regarding the movement of people (Di
Filippo, 2000; Hovy and Zlotnik, 1995; Martínez,
2002a).
I. International Migration in
Latin America and the Caribbean
International migration's
many relevant aspects render impossible an in depth examination of each
one. As Izquierdo points out (1996) in understanding this phenomenon,
images have been more effective than a thousand words, to the point of
obliterating evidence. Therefore, the need arises to draw a general
orientation map based on empirical records regarding the major tendencies
and patterns that may be observed in the region.
1. Major
Tendencies
Latin America and the Caribbean, traditionally a
region that attracted migrants, became a source of emigration during the
last decades and the number of countries of destination has progressively
increased. It is estimated that nearly 20 million Latin American and
Caribbean nationals - that is, over 13% of the 150 million migrants
throughout the world - live outside their countries of birth (IOM-United
Nations, 2000).2 Half of the region's emigrants emigrated during the 1990s, mostly
to the U.S. During the same period, new flows of emigrants - smaller but
increasing at unprecedented rates - entered European countries.
Intra-regional migration, which accompanied the different stages of Latin
American and Caribbean countries development, retains some of its
traditional traits but has decreased due partly to the lesser
attractiveness of the major countries of destination (Argentina and
Venezuela) (ECLAC, 2002).
Keeping in mind the limited up to date
information available on migration, three major migration patterns can be
said to have prevailed in the region during the second half of the 20th
century (Villa and Martínez, 2000 and 2001). The first concerns
immigration from overseas, particularly the Old World. The second, deeply
rooted in the region's history and previous to the establishment of
boundaries, resulted from the exchange of people within the countries of
the region. Finally, the third migration pattern refers to emigration to
countries outside Latin America and the Caribbean. The growing intensity
of these later flows begins to show signs of expulsion. Even though these
three patterns coexist the quantitative importance of each has changed
throughout time.
2. A Region with an Immigration
Past
Between the second half of the 19th century and the first
of the 20th century the flow of immigrants from overseas countries was
significant in several countries, even though it fluctuated throughout
time. It played a decisive role, both in quantitative and qualitative
terms, in the configuration of national societies, particularly in
countries on the Atlantic coast, which offered favourable conditions for
the social and economic insertion of migrants, mostly form Southern Europe
and, to a lesser extent, the Near East and Asia. European immigration was
particularly strong in the areas more integrated to the international
economy that, besides possessing "empty spaces", experienced an
accelerated process of modernization. This economic expansion created jobs
offering better salaries than those prevailing in Southern European
countries, a fact that stimulated immigration and insured upward mobility.
Of the 11 million Europeans -38% Italians, 28% Spanish and 11% Portuguese-
who entered the region, half settled in Argentina and more than one third
in Brazil (Pellegrino 2001),
Following World War II Europe
experienced a vigorous economic transformation, which began in the
countries of the North and the West and later spread through integration
channels to the countries in the South. This motivated people to remain in
their country of origin. At the same time, the gap between the social and
economic development of European and Latin American and Caribbean
countries widened. Both factors resulted in a considerable decrease in
migration flows to this region and stimulated the return of migrants to
the old continent. Due to the lack of new immigration flows the European
immigration stock continued to age and this, together with mortality (and
returning migrants) led to a progressive decrease of such stock. The total
number of immigrants from overseas countries fell from almost four million
in the 1970 census to less than 2.5 million in 1990.
Even though
immigration from overseas countries has not ceased entirely -some smaller
flows are still entering the region, mostly from Asia- it has declined
during the last decades. The percentage of people from countries outside
the region within the stock of immigrants censed in Latin American
countries fell from representing three-fourths of the total in 1970 to a
little over half in 1990 (Chart 1). This evolution clearly indicates that
during the third part of the 20th century Latin America lost its
traditional attractiveness for people from other regions. Still, it must
be stressed that only some countries of the region held such
attractiveness, as demonstrated by the fact that 80% of the stock of
immigrants from outside the region that was censed in 1990 were from
Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. Other countries such as Uruguay, Cuba,
Chile and Mexico also received sizable flows of European
immigrants.3
Source: IMILA
Project,
CELADE.
3. The Sizable Exchange of Population
between
Countries of the Region
The movement of people
across national boundaries is deeply rooted in the social and economic
history of Latin American and Caribbean territories. Geographical and
cultural proximity facilitated these movements that until the early 1990s
were destined mostly to countries with more favourable labour conditions
and higher levels of social equality. This type of migration flows
responds to structural factors and is sensitive to situations of economic
expansion or contraction and social and political developments
(Pellegrino, 2001 and 1995). The abandonment or re- establishment of
democratic forms of government has particularly caused waves of immigrants
and "returns" between neighbouring countries. The decrease in the number
of immigrants from overseas and the increase in the so-called border
migration and economic integration efforts have led to a growing interest
in the study of intra-regional migration flows. Some of these movements,
closely linked to the articulation of labour markets between neighbouring
countries, represent virtual extensions of intra-national
migration.
During the 1970s intra-Latin American migration grew
considerably. Due to the persistence of structural factors and social and
political alterations the number of migrants tripled, reaching close to
two million in 1980 (Chart 1). On the other hand, during the eighties this
stock of immigrants registered a more modest increase as a result of the
economic crisis and the structural reforms programs that followed it
-which were felt particularly in the major countries of destination- and
of the re-establishment of civil cohabitation norms in several countries.
During that period the cumulative total of such immigrants increased to
just 2.2 million. Even though this suggests the relative stabilization of
the absolute number of intra-Latin America migrants, movements continued
to occur, this time mostly as returns to the country of origin. Moreover,
it is possible that part of traditional migration was replaced by new
types of movements, such as temporary moves that do not imply a change of
residence, as a result of the longer life-span of a growing number of the
population, a phenomenon that coincided with the region economies' new
territorial structures and more flexible labour mechanisms.
In
spite of the changes in the social, economic and political context, the
origin and destination of migration flows within Latin America did not
alter greatly between 1970 and 1990, thus revealing a consolidation of the
region's migratory map. Thus, in 1990 almost two-thirds of the Latin
Americans who resided in countries of the region other than their own
lived in Argentina and Venezuela.
Argentina has been the
traditional destination for many Paraguayans, Chileans, Bolivians and
Uruguayans who were lured by the availability of jobs in agriculture,
manufacturing, construction and services. As European immigration
decreased their presence became more noticeable. During the 1970s
Venezuela's economy, stimulated by the oil boom, attracted mostly
Colombians and people from the Southern Cone countries who were forced to
leave their homes.
Throughout the so-called lost decade of the
1980's immigration flows to Argentina and Venezuela decreased
considerably: data from the 1990s censuses reveal a reduction in the total
stock of immigrants in both countries. However, through indirect estimates
we can conclude that during those years both received considerable numbers
of immigrants from neighbouring countries.4
During the same period, some nations that traditionally had
been sources of emigration registered a significant return migration.
During the 1970s Paraguay's economic expansion spurred by vast
hydroelectric projects and by an intense colonization process stimulated
the return of Paraguayans who had settled in Argentina and immigration
from neighbouring countries, particularly Brazil. Since the mid-1990s
Chile has been receiving return migrants as well as large numbers of
immigrants from other Latin American countries, particularly Peru (CEDLA
and others, 2000; Martínez, 1997), Argentina and Ecuador. The effects of
recent economic crises, which imply a possible alteration of the
intra-regional migrations' map, will only be ascertained once the results
of the censuses of the 2000-decade are made available.
In Central
America, the serious social and political alterations of the 1970s and
1980s, together with development's traditional structural shortcomings,
caused a massive emigration. Thus, between 1973 and 1984 the stock of
Nicaraguan and Salvadorian immigrants in Costa Rica increased
considerably. This tendency continued during the following years: the
Costa Rican census for the year 2000 reveals a total of 300,000 immigrants
-which represent 8% of the country's total population- of which 75% are
from Nicaragua. The number of Nicaraguan immigrants to Costa Rica
quintupled in just sixteen years (INEC, 2001). Mexico has also been a
major destination for emigrants from Central America, mostly Guatemala and
El Salvador. A similar situation occurred with Belize, whose number of
immigrants was less large but had vast demographic, social and cultural
consequences. Still, the peace agreements signed by the major social
actors in Central American countries appear to have contributed to the
re-insertion of groups that had sought asylum and refuge in Mexico. Data
from the 2000 census in Mexico indicate that the number of immigrants from
Guatemala has decreased substantially. The repatriation of these
immigrants was not without difficulties as often it occurred precipitously
and some people were not able to settle again in their countries of origin
(Castillo, 1999).
Transit movements through Mexico, Belize and
Guatemala, on the way to the U.S., are another aspect of Central American
migration. The seasonal displacement of labour has a long and relevant
tradition in these countries, as is demonstrated by the flow of Guatemalan
workers who move periodically to the Soconusco region in Mexico's Chiapas
State (Castillo, 1990).
Within the whole intra-regional Latin
American emigrant population in 1990, Colombians were the most numerous:
over 600,000 were censed in the censuses of other Latin American countries
(90% in Venezuela). Chileans and Paraguayans held the second place, with a
total of close to 280,000 emigrants (three-fourths censed in Argentina).
In spite of their magnitude in terms of absolute numbers, these migration
flows represented -except in the case of Paragua - less than 3% of the
population in the respective countries of origin. Uruguayan emigration
-mostly to Argentina- deserves separate consideration. During the 1970s it
reached an intensity equal to the mortality rate in the country of origin
(Fortuna and Niedworok, 1985). In Central America intra-regional
emigration is particularly significant in the cases of Nicaragua, El
Salvador and Guatemala.
Migration between the countries of the
English-speaking Caribbean Community is of a different nature. The
intensive circulation of people - eased by geographical conditions -
involves a relatively small percentage of changes of residence and a
higher percentage of recurrent movements (Simmons and Guengant, 1992),
some for a short period of time (with frequent returns home) and others by
stages, with stops along the way to the destination outside the
sub-region.5 Recent studies indicate that migration within the Community is
acquiring renewed dynamism, linked to higher standards of living and the
increase in the labour demand in some countries. It is estimated that
almost half of the immigrants registered in 1991 were from the same
sub-region, representing almost 4% of the total population in the
Community (Mills, 1997). In 1991 this situation varied greatly between
Caribbean countries. Most of the immigrants in Trinidad and Tobago, the US
Virgin Islands and Barbados - three of the five countries with the largest
immigrations stock - were from the sub-region, particularly in the case of
the U.S. Virgin Islands, where they represented one-third of the
population. On the other hand, immigrants in Jamaica and the Bahamas, the
other two countries with the highest stock of immigrants, were mostly from
countries from outside the sub-region (Chart 2). At the same time, the
majority of emigrants from Granada, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and
Guyana entered the rest of the sub-region, preferably Trinidad and Tobago.
In the case of the first two countries, they represented almost a fifth of
the native population. These data highlight the enormous repercussions of
intra-regional migration on the demographic dynamics of Caribbean
Community countries (Thomas-Hope, 2000).
In the non-English
speaking Caribbean, one of the most constant migration flows is that of
Haitians to the Dominican Republic. In spite of occasional tensions, the
demarcation line between both countries has not been an obstacle to such
movements. Until the mid-20th century, substantial numbers of people
migrated from Haiti's highly populated and resources scarce North Eastern
region to areas beyond the international demarcation, with higher
productive capacities mostly in agriculture. Gradually, these flows became
seasonal movements dictated by crops' dynamics in the Northern and Western
regions of the Dominican Republic (Pellegrino, 2000).
Source: Mills
(1997)
4. Latin American
and Caribbean Nationals Residing Outside their Region.
During
the last decades, as immigration from overseas diminished and
intra-regional migrations stabilized, emigration to countries outside the
region have played a starring role. Even though the countries of
destination are many -there are increasing numbers of Latin American and
Caribbean nationals in Europe (mostly the United Kingdom, the Netherlands,
Spain and Italy), Asia (basically Japan) and Australia- the great majority
of emigrants from the region make their way to the USA and, to a lesser
extent, Canada.
Even though the emigration of people from the
region, mostly Mexico and Caribbean countries, to the U.S. is a phenomenon
of old - with fluctuations resulting from economic and social and
political developments as well as changes in the US immigration law -
recently it has increased considerably. Thus, the U.S. views migration
from Latin America and the Caribbean as a very relevant social phenomenon,
to the extent that the debate on its repercussions has become a priority
issue in its relations with the countries of the region (ECLAC, 2002).
Such migration contributes to increase the so-called "Latino" or
"Hispanic" population in the U.S., which according to the 2000 census has
reached 35.5 million. This group of immigrants and native Latinos
represents the largest ethnic minority in the U.S. (Grieco and Cassidy,
2001)
In the period between the 1980 and 1990 censuses the number
of Latin American and Caribbean nationals censed in the U.S. doubled,
reaching a total of almost 8.4 million, which represented 43% of the total
foreign population in the U.S. in the year 1990.6 This increase was accompanied by a diversification of the
countries of origin, as revealed by the immigration flows from Central and
South America (Chart 3 and Table 1). Thus, slightly more than half of the
above total of immigrants was from Mexico, one-fourth from Caribbean
countries (mostly Cuba, Jamaica and Dominican Republic) and the other
fourth from Central and South American nations, in equal percentages. Even
though Mexicans represented the largest number of immigrants -the 4
millions censed in 1990 doubled the 1980 total- during the 1980s people
from El Salvador comprised the fastest growing immigrants' stock (470,000
people in 1990). Their total number in the U.S. quintupled over a period
of ten years. During the same decade the number of immigrants from
Nicaragua and Guatemala more than tripled; from Honduras, Peru and Guyana
multiplied by 2.8; the number of immigrants from Haiti, Bolivia and
Paraguay doubled. The number of Cubans increased just slightly, however
the 740,000 Cuban immigrants represented the second largest group from
Latin America and the Caribbean and registered the highest percentage of
people who became U.S. citizens.
Source :IMILA Project,
CELADE. Data corresponding to the year 2000 was taken from the
Current
Population Survey.
Table 1 | ||||||||
UNITED STATES: POPULATION BORN IN LATIN AMERICAN | ||||||||
AND CARIBBEAN COUNTRIES | ||||||||
CENSED IN 1970, 1980 AND 1990 | ||||||||
Region and country of birth | 1970 Population |
Relative distribution % | 1980 Population |
Relative distribution % | 1990 Population |
Relative distribution % | Annual growth
rate between censuses
(%) 1970-1980 1980-1990 | |
TOTAL REGION | 1 725 408 | 100.0 | 4 383 000 | 100.0 | 8 370 802 | 100.0 | 8.7 | 6.3 |
LATIN AMERICA | 1 636 159 | 94.8 | 3 893 746 | 88.8 | 7 573 843 | 90.5 | 8.2 | 6.4 |
SOUTH AMERICA | 234 233 | 13.6 | 493 950 | 11.3 | 871 678 | 10.4 | 7.1 | 5.5 |
Argentina | 44 803 | 2.6 | 68 887 | 1.6 | 77 986 | 0.9 | 4.2 | 1.2 |
Bolivia | 6 872 | 0.4 | 14 468 | 0.3 | 29 043 | 0.3 | 7.1 | 6.7 |
Brazil | 27 069 | 1.6 | 40 919 | 0.9 | 82 489 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 6.7 |
Colombia | 63 538 | 3.7 | 143 508 | 3.3 | 286 124 | 3.4 | 7.7 | 6.6 |
Chile | 15 393 | 0.9 | 35 127 | 0.8 | 50 322 | 0.6 | 7.8 | 3.6 |
Ecuador | 36 663 | 2.1 | 86 128 | 2.0 | 143 314 | 1.7 | 8.1 | 5.0 |
Paraguay | 1 792 | 0.1 | 2 858 | 0.1 | 4 776 | 0.1 | 4.6 | 5.0 |
Peru | 21 663 | 1.3 | 55 496 | 1.3 | 144 199 | 1.7 | 8.8 | 8.9 |
Uruguay | 5 092 | 0.3 | 13 278 | 0.3 | 18 211 | 0.2 | 8.9 | 3.1 |
Venezuela | 11 348 | 0.7 | 33 281 | 0.8 | 35 214 | 0.4 | 9.8 | 0.6 |
MESOAMERICA | 873 624 | 50.6 | 2 530 440 | 57.7 | 5 391 943 | 64.4 | 9.7 | 7.2 |
Costa Rica | 16 691 | 1.0 | 29 639 | 0.7 | 39 438 | 0.5 | 5.6 | 2.8 |
El Salvador | 15 717 | 0.9 | 94 447 | 2.2 | 465 433 | 5.6 | 14.3 | 13.3 |
Guatemala | 17 356 | 1.0 | 63 073 | 1.4 | 225 739 | 2.7 | 11.4 | 11.3 |
Honduras | 27 978 | 1.6 | 39 154 | 0.9 | 108 923 | 1.3 | 3.3 | 9.4 |
Mexico | 759 711 | 44.0 | 2 199 221 | 50.2 | 4 298 014 | 51.3 | 9.7 | 6.5 |
Nicaragua | 16 125 | 0.9 | 44 166 | 1.0 | 168 659 | 2.0 | 9.3 | 11.7 |
Panama | 20 046 | 1.2 | 60 740 | 1.4 | 85 737 | 1.0 | 10.1 | 3.4 |
CARIBBEAN AND OTHERS | 617 551 | 35.8 | 1 358 610 | 31.0 | 2 107 181 | 25.2 | 7.5 | 4.3 |
Cuba | 439 048 | 25.4 | 607 814 | 13.9 | 736 971 | 8.8 | 3.2 | 1.9 |
Barbados | - | - | 26 847 | 0.6 | 43 015 | 0.5 | 4.6 | |
Guyana | - | - | 48 608 | 1.1 | 120 698 | 1.4 | 8.5 | |
Haiti | 28 026 | 1.6 | 92 395 | 2.1 | 225 393 | 2.7 | 10.7 | 8.4 |
Jamaica | 68 576 | 4.0 | 196 811 | 4.5 | 334 140 | 4.0 | 9.7 | 5.2 |
Dominican Rep. | 61 228 | 3.5 | 169 147 | 3.9 | 347 858 | 4.2 | 9.4 | 6.9 |
Trinidad and Tobago | 20 673 | 1.2 | 65 907 | 1.5 | 115 710 | 1.4 | 10.4 | 5.5 |
Others | - | - | 151 081 | 3.4 | 183 396 | 2.2 | 1.9 | |
Source: IMILA Project, CELADE. |
The information
supplied by the U.S. Current Population Survey -a source that is subject
to sample-related errors and that is consulted to complement data from the
not yet available 2000 censuses- indicates that in the year 2000 the total
number of Latin American and Caribbean immigrants reached 14.5, from 13.1
million in 1997. These numbers represent a little over half the total
stock of immigrants in the U.S., thus between 1990 and 1997 the number of
immigrants from the region increased by 54% (Schmidley and Gibson, 1999)
and by 73% between 1990 and 2000 (Lollock, 2000). According to this
source, in the year 2000 the almost 8 million Mexicans represented 54% of
all Latin American and Caribbean immigrants in the U.S., followed by
Cubans, Dominicans and Salvadorians, with a little less than 1 million
each (www.census.gov). In some countries of the region, this increase in
Latin American and Caribbean emigration to the U.S. is counterbalanced by
a growing number of people returning home. For example, according to data
from the 2000 Mexican census, the stock of people born abroad reached
520,000 -50% more than in 1990- most of them below the age of 20 and born
in the U.S.
What is the number of immigrants from the region who
entered the USA illegally? The lack of appropriate data makes any
quantification of this phenomenon a matter of speculation. However, based
on past records gathered by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service we can estimate that in 1996 almost one fifth of the foreign
population (approximately 5 million people) comprised illegal immigrants,
with Mexicans representing 54% of the total, followed by people from El
Salvador and Guatemala (each with percentages below 10%) (INS,
2000).
Even though the limited information available does not allow
for accurate estimates, it is possible that in the year 2000 Latin
American and Caribbean emigration to countries outside the region other
than the U.S. reached a total of just over 2 million (Table A.2). Canada
is the major destination. In 1996 the number of immigrants from the region
increased to 525,000 from approximately 320,000 in 1986. Even though the
number of people from the Caribbean (mostly Jamaica, Guyana, Trinidad and
Haiti) represented half the total number of immigrants, people from
Central America (mostly El Salvador) comprised the fastest growing group.
In 1996, the total number of immigrants from this group grew to almost
70,000 from less than 19,000 in 1986.
Several European countries
have also received immigrants from Latin America and the Caribbean. The
highest numbers of immigrants from the region are in the United Kingdom,
the Netherlands, Spain and Italy. People born in the Caribbean Community
are an important minority in the UK, even though their number fell from
625,000 in 1980 to less than 500,000 in 1991 (data from OPCS Labour Force
Surveys and Census, quoted by Thomas-Hope, 2000)7. It is estimated that in the year 2000 the number of immigrants
from the region in the Netherlands reached 150,000, mostly from the
Netherlands Antilles (www.satline.cbc.nl). On the other hand, immigrants
to Spain are mostly from Latin America. In the year 2000 their number grew
to over 150,000 from 50,000 in 1981 (Palazón, 1996) (estimates based on
data from the migration regularization carried out recently in Spain,
www.mir.es).8 Similarly, a vast majority of the 116,000 immigrants from the
region living in Italy during the year 2000 were from Latin American
countries (www.istat.it).9 During the same year a little over 70,000 Latin American and
Caribbean nationals were censed in Australia (mostly Chileans,
www.immi.gov.au) and a similar number in Israel (mostly from Argentina,
www.cbs.gov.il). Finally, data from the Immigration Office of Japan's
Ministry of Justice (http://jim.jcic.or.jap/stat/stats/21MIG22.html)
indicates that in the year 2000 over 300,000 of the non-native residents
were from Latin America, more than 80% from Brazil and 14% from
Peru.
The analysis of regional emigration to such a vast number of
destinations requires that we take into account not only the impetus
originated by the migrant networks that began operating in several
European countries during the seventies, but also the fact that the
increase in migration flows was due also to the return of those who had
emigrated overseas and those who acquired the citizenship of the countries
of origin of their parents or ancestors (differed return). Similarly, it
is possible that a large number of the people born in Brazil and Peru who
are residing in Japan are descendants of Japanese immigrants (Nisei) who
had settled in those countries decades ago.
From a strictly
demographic point of view it is possible to argue that the evolution of
extra-regional migration reveals that the region has become a net exporter
of people. Yet, even though most of the countries of the region register a
negative migration balance and in several countries, particularly El
Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua this increased considerably during the
1970s, estimates for the region as a whole reveal much smaller numbers
(Villa and Martínez, 2001). Thus, during the 1980s the average net
(negative) migration rate for Latin America was only two over thousand.
National population estimates assume that such rate decreased gradually,
reaching a (negative) rate of one over thousand during the second five
years of the 1990s (CELADE, 1998).10
1 The free mobility of people is
limited to one region of the world (the European Union). It is also the
object of case by case negotiations within international agreements linked
to the temporary movement of people with skills required for specific
economic activities (or business or services) (ECLAC, 2002).
2 These estimates do not include
an unspecified number of people who migrate and work illegally or those
who move for short periods of time or participate in circular or return
movements (ECLAC, 2002).
3 In the non-Spanish speaking
Caribbean countries immigrants originate from the colonial powers of old
(UK, France and the Netherlands) and from India.
4 The use of inter-census
survivor relations by gender and age for the period 1980-1990 produced a
net immigration balance of 147,000 in Argentina and 60,000 in
Venezuela.
5 An
example of this is the Bahamas, which, besides receiving a large number of
immigrants seeking permanent residence is a transition stopover for many
people from other Caribbean countries, particularly Haiti.
6 The sharp increase in the
stock of Latin American and Caribbean nationals in the U.S. during the
1980s was due partly to the amnesty granted through the Migration Control
and Reform Law adopted by that country in 1986.
7 The flow of Caribbean
nationals to the UK was very strong until 1962, when that country decided
to end the free admission policy for Caribbean Community
nationals.
8 People
from Ecuador (29,000), Peru (28,000), the Dominican Republic (27,000),
Colombia (25,000), Argentina (19,000) and Cuba (17,000) represented the
bulk of this last group (
www.elpais.es).
9 The largest groups comprised
Peruvians (33,000), Brazilians (19,000), and Ecuadorians
(10,000).
10 These
rates are one-tenth below the natural growth rate of the population of the
region and represent a net annual loss of 560,000 people for the period
1980-1995 (CELADE, 1998).
http://www.sela.org/
sela@sela.org
SELA,
Permanent Secretariat
Torre Europa, Fourth floor, Urb. Campo Alegre, Av
Francisco de Miranda,
Caracas 1060- Venezuela
Tlf: (58) (212)
955.71.11 Fax: (58) (212) 951.52.92