# definition of an immigrant country



## drei_lengua

Hello everyone,

What is your definition of an immigrant country?  What I mean by this is that some countries are much newer than others.  For example, the United States is 230 years old whereas other countries like India and China are much much older.  I guess my point here, although it's a stretch, is that almost all countries around the world are technically immigrant countries because according to anthropologists all of us came from Africa.  So if you are living in China or India or Germany (countries picked randomly) you are just as much an immigrant.  I know that this may sound extreme but what really is the difference if your ancestors have been in a country 200 years or 1000 year or longer if at some point in history they migrated to your country?

I look forward to your thoughts?

Drei


----------



## -Epic-

I take immigrant country as a country with alot of immigration. A country can start by being an immigrant country but doesn't have to continue that way.

Tho it could be funny going to china and shouting that they are all immigrants


----------



## tomandjerryfan

I consider an immigrant country to be one that was formed in recent years and that is composed mostly of citizens who have immigrated from other countries. The United States and Canada are classic examples of immigrant countries, in my opinion, because prior to the discovery of the Americas, the native inhabitants likely didn't consider this land to be made up of separate countries, as it is considered today. We immigrated here and established a country when there was no "country" to begin with.


----------



## drei_lengua

I saw a program on Turkey and remember them talking about how Turkey about 1000 years ago (history is not my specialty so keep me honest) had people from different areas of the world who have since then blended in.  I don't think Turkey is experiencing immigration today so would this qualify as an immigrant country (technically but probably not considered one)?

Drei


----------



## PaoPao

Hi, I think that the expression "immigrant country " is wrong.  The people are the immigrant, not the countries.  I would said "a country that is made with immigrant people".  It is my opinion.


----------



## drei_lengua

PaoPao said:


> Hi, I think that the expression "immigrant country " is wrong. The people are the immigrant, not the countries. I would said "a country that is made with immigrant people". It is my opinion.


 
Hi PaoPao,
I understand what you mean but "immigrant country" is correct in English.  "immigrating country", which we would never say, would mean "a country that is immigrating."  

Drei


----------



## fenixpollo

drei_lengua said:


> I understand what you mean but "immigrant country" is correct in English.


 If you mean that the phrase "immigrant country" is a grammatically correct expression of the concept of _a country composed mostly/completely of immigrants_, then I suppose you are right.

However, I have never heard the phrase "immigrant country" used in any context to categorize countries, and I don't think it's possible to categorize some countries as "immigrant countries" and other countries as... what?  "Non-immigrant countries"?

While it's possible to compare levels or degrees of immigration from country to country, and it's sometimes even possible to make generalizations about historical waves of immigration or comment on the recency of these waves; the idea of categorizing certain countries as "immigrant countries" is a subjective label that is not useful.


----------



## Outsider

It's a continuum, obviously. Every country in the world has received immigrants. However, some have certainly had a greater influx of immigrants than others, or sufficiently closer to the present that more visible marks of immigration remain.


----------



## LARSAY

No "immigrant country" nor "immigrating country", but *immigration *country!
This said, there are indeed many countries with very little immigration, even 1000 years ago: Japan is 95% Japanese, Korea the same, Thailand, where I live now, 90% Thai, Senegal 90% ouoloff, North Africa, over 90% arabs and Berbers, etc...and how many non-Chinese in the 1,3 billion population? For centuries, Europe had no immigration at all (it looks like it's changing!). The main consequence of no or very little immigration is a non-adulterated culture, which I really prefer to the uniform culture (shall we say Americanized one) which is spreading throughout the world like a bad weed -materialism, selfishness, greed, etc.-

What has been called "immigrant countries", and rightly so, are countries where there was nothing and very little people (Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand) and where immigrants came, settled, and brought their culture (that's what make them interesting, the mixture of races and cultures)


----------



## jonquiliser

LARSAY said:


> What has been called "immigrant countries", and rightly so, *are countries where there was nothing and very little people (Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand)* and where immigrants came, settled, and brought their culture



   !?

Or do you mean there was little people *left* once the carnage was over?


----------



## alexacohen

You're right, Jonquil...
Wonder why there's not a lot of inmigrant people settling in the Antarctica.. where there is nothing and certainly very little people.


----------



## TRG

LARSAY said:


> No "immigrant country" nor "immigrating country", but *immigration *country!
> This said, there are indeed many countries with very little immigration, even 1000 years ago: Japan is 95% Japanese, Korea the same, Thailand, where I live now, 90% Thai, Senegal 90% ouoloff, North Africa, over 90% arabs and Berbers, etc...and how many non-Chinese in the 1,3 billion population? For centuries, Europe had no immigration at all (it looks like it's changing!). The main consequence of no or very little immigration is a non-adulterated culture, which I really prefer to the uniform culture (shall we say Americanized one) which is spreading throughout the world like a bad weed -materialism, selfishness, greed, etc.-
> 
> What has been called "immigrant countries", and rightly so, are countries where there was nothing and very little people (Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand) and where immigrants came, settled, and brought their culture (that's what make them interesting, the mixture of races and cultures)



So, if the American (by which I assume you mean U.S.A.) culture which you equate to "materialism, selfishness, and greed" had been around much longer, say a thousand years, then it would it ok with you?  I haven't traveled much outside the U.S., but I must assume from what you say that people outside the U.S. do not share these traits with Americans. True?


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> If you mean that the phrase "immigrant country" is a grammatically correct expression of the concept of _a country composed mostly/completely of immigrants_, then I suppose you are right.
> 
> However, I have never heard the phrase "immigrant country" used in any context to categorize countries, and I don't think it's possible to categorize some countries as "immigrant countries" and other countries as... what?  "Non-immigrant countries"?



There are countries whose theoretical basis of statehood, embodied in their constitutions and laws, defines the citizenship as an exclusive inherited privilege, awarded to people outside the recognized ethnic group(s) only in the most exceptional circumstances. All others are forever treated as foreigners, even if they've lived inside the country for years or decades with some sort of temporary residence permit, and even if they were born inside the country to non-citizen parents. These countries can be viewed as non-immigrant for all practical purposes. In fact, many (most?) European countries were like that until fairy recently. For example, until a few years ago, German citizenship was awarded only to ethnic Germans, with very few exceptions. 

There is certainly a huge contrast between such countries and those like, say, U.S. or Canada, whose policy is to award citizenship every year to huge numbers of people coming from all around the world and which  automatically treat everyone born inside the country as a citizen.


----------



## Outsider

Athaulf said:


> There are countries whose theoretical basis of statehood, embodied in their constitutions and laws, defines the citizenship as an exclusive inherited privilege, awarded to people outside the recognized ethnic group(s) only in the most exceptional circumstances. All others are forever treated as foreigners, even if they've lived inside the country for years or decades with some sort of temporary residence permit, and even if they were born inside the country to non-citizen parents. These countries can be viewed as non-immigrant for all practical purposes.


We might also call those "immigrant countries in denial".


----------



## Athaulf

Outsider said:


> We might also call those "immigrant countries in denial".



Some of them, yes. In Germany, there used to be (still are?) de facto second- and even third-generation immigrants who were still formally treated as "guests" with temporary residence and work permits. On the other hand, some countries (e.g. Japan) truly have negligible rates of immigration.


----------



## ireney

Greece is still one of those countries Athaulf described I'm ashamed to say. I hadn't posted so far because I wasn't  sure what the first post asks to tell you the truth. Should all the Greeks be considered immigrants since we know others (called Helladic or Aegean civilisations) lived in the "Greek" peninsula and islands before the Greeks came here? Perhaps but that's taking the definition of "immigrants" a bit too far if you ask me. I do understand that it's a good argument since the "we got here first" carries less weight than the "we were born here and so did our ancestors" but I don't think that makes the use of "immigrant countries" for all countries a valid term.

Anyway, hardly anyone was immigrating to Greece before the '90s and that, coupled with mainly the slow moving, conservative minded bureaucracy means that we've yet to realise we are, up to an extent, an immigrant country and treat immigrants fairly. In fact we are downright unfair to them.


----------



## Brioche

Immigrant countries are/were those countries which started off as European colonies.

USA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina are examples. 

Many of those countries had schemes to attract new settlers, and offered "assisted passages" and other incentives. The countries wanted new citizens to build and develop their wide open spaces. 

The countries in modern Europe which are experiencing an influx of immigrants don't see themselves as "virgin territory" or "wild fontiers" in need of opening up.  Many of them see themselves as pretty full already.

Still, there are a few demographic time-bombs in the developed world. Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Latvia and Ukraine have extremely low fertility rates, and cannot survive as societies. Who'll pay the bills and run the nursing homes, when half the population is over 65?

Current scientific thought is that humans evolved in Africa. However, I think it would be silly to call everyone a "Kenyan", and equally silly to call everyone an "immigrant". Think of the etymology of the word. It comes from the Latin migrare = to move. The e-migrant moves from a place, and the im-migrant moves to a place.

The word "native" comes from the Latin nascor =to be born. 

So if you're born _here_, you're a native. If you were born _there_, and moved _here_, you're an immigrant.


----------



## drei_lengua

Brioche said:


> Immigrant countries are/were those countries which started off as European colonies.
> 
> USA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina are examples.
> 
> Many of those countries had schemes to attract new settlers, and offered "assisted passages" and other incentives. The countries wanted new citizens to build and develop their wide open spaces.
> 
> The countries in modern Europe which are experiencing an influx of immigrants don't see themselves as "virgin territory" or "wild fontiers" in need of opening up. Many of them see themselves as pretty full already.
> 
> Still, there are a few demographic time-bombs in the developed world. Italy, Japan, Bulgaria, Latvia and Ukraine have extremely low fertility rates, and cannot survive as societies. Who'll pay the bills and run the nursing homes, when half the population is over 65?
> 
> Current scientific thought is that humans evolved in Africa. However, I think it would be silly to call everyone a "Kenyan", and equally silly to call everyone an "immigrant". Think of the etymology of the word. It comes from the Latin migrare = to move. The e-migrant moves from a place, and the im-migrant moves to a place.
> 
> The word "native" comes from the Latin nascor =to be born.
> 
> So if you're born _here_, you're a native. If you were born _there_, and moved _here_, you're an immigrant.


 
I am well aware what the term immigrant means and indicated in my initial post that using the term "immigrant" to almost everyone would be an extreme definition.  However, I believe that good discussions start with a liberal definition or extreme stance.  Let's not get hung up on the word "immigrant" itself though.  Anthropologists have said that we are from Africa.  If this is indeed true, and we don't today live in Africa, then we are all foreigners to where we live today.  Yes, an extreme statement and maybe even deemed "silly".  I have enjoyed the comments thus far especially the one about modern-day Greeks.  We all have various definitions of people who have moved from one place to another and whose ancestors have moved from one place to another.  For this post let's know get hung up on the word "immigrant", rather, if you were to trace your genes all the way back, where did the people of your country come from?  What gives certain people living inside of a country certain rights over others?  Would it be because a person was born in this country, their parents born in the country, grandparents, etc.?  Would it be ethnicity?  How far back can you go to justify certain rights of people living in a given country?

Keep up the interesting discussion.  

Drei


----------



## Outsider

drei_lengua said:


> For this post let's know get hung up on the word "immigrant", rather, if you were to trace your genes all the way back, where did the people of your country come from?


All sorts of places. Probably a lot more than we expect. Of course, it also depends on how far back one wishes to go.

On the other hand, I don't agree with the distinction that Brioche made between a) "countries which started off as European colonies", and b) countries which "don't see themselves as 'virgin territory' or 'wild fontiers' in need of opening up", but rather as "pretty full already". I'd bet that native Americans, native Brazilians or Australian aborigines would pick category b) for themselves, when the European colonization began.

Brioche also said that being born in a country obviously makes one a native of it. Unfortunately, it doesn't always make one a citizen...


----------



## Joca

Well, maybe we should not forget that until recently (sic) all human beings were nomads. They didn't belong anywhere, really. It was the "discovery" of agriculture that first made humans settle down. 

Just an observation.


----------



## Brioche

Outsider said:


> Brioche also said that being born in a country obviously makes one a native of it. Unfortunately, it doesn't always make one a citizen...



There are very few countries which give citizenship purely on the basis of birth in the country. The USA and Canada still do.

It was the case in Australia until 1986. Now those born in Australia are citizens if they have a parent who is a citizen, or legal permanent resident. So if person on a tourist visa or student visa gives birth here, or if a mother comes here for medical treatment, &c, the baby is not a citizen.

Similar rules have applied in UK since 1983, and in Ireland since 2005.

I'm pretty sure that Ireland was, until 2005, the only country in the EU which gave automatic citizenship to anyone born in the country.


----------



## Outsider

I think that's how it was in Portugal, too, until a few decades ago. If you were born in the country, you automatically gained citizenship. But we had to make our laws stricter when we joined the E.U.


----------



## little_vegemite

Brioche said:


> Immigrant countries are/were those countries which started off as European colonies.
> 
> USA, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Argentina are examples.
> 
> Many of those countries had schemes to attract new settlers, and offered "assisted passages" and other incentives. The countries wanted new citizens to build and develop their wide open spaces.
> 
> ---
> I wouldn't say that Australia was an "immigrant country" before the 70's as such, because Australia had what was called the "white australia policy" which meant that only british citizens/anglo-saxon origin people could immigrate easily into the country - and as Australia was (and still is) part of the commonwealth then that immigration was rather 'resettling'. I think what makes an 'immigrant country' is one where there has been that large influx of immigrants from all over the world with different languages and culture - which is what happened in Australia in the 70's when Gough Whitlam was prime minister and which continues to take place (any australians who know their history better than me correct me if I have made a really big mistake) - but initially it was a very 'british' origin country, though yes technically a lot of people may have been "immigrants".


----------

