overwhelming majority of their citizens are
either immigrants themselves or the descen-
dents of immigrants. Until recently, virtually
all immigrants migrated towards what they
believed to be greater economic opportunities.
These historic patterns have changed in the
past twenty-five years, in two key ways. First,
both source and destination regions have
multiplied, and immigration now is more
global in scope than at any time in the past
(Castles and Miller, 2003). Second, in marked
contrast to past periods, a small but highly
significant number of today’s immigrants are
wealthy. These ‘designer immigrants’ are es-
pecially concerned with political issues (i.e.
stability) and lifestyle. They are sought by
many countries for their entrepreneurial skill
and capital, and have significantly changed the
way in which immigrants are perceived in the
places in which they settle (Skeldon, 1994;
Mitchell, 2004a).
According to the influential report of the
UN Global Commission on International Mi-
gration (GCIM, 2005), there are nearly 200
million people in the world who have been
living, for at least one year, outside their coun-
try of birth, which translates to roughly 3 per
cent of the global population. According to the
GCIM (p. 2), ‘The Commission concludes
that the international community has failed
to capitalize on the opportunities and to meet
the challenges associated with international
migration.’ In particular, the GCIM con-
cluded that the reception policies of destin-
ation countries do not enable immigrants to
integrate efficiently.
Immigrants, wherever they settle, are usu-
ally culturally different from their receiving
societies. Often, they are ‘visible minorities’
(i.e. of a different skin colour than the domin-
ant population). The reception of immigrants
varies widely between countries, but three
types of responses are typical: isolation,
assimilationandpluralism. Some societies
believe that immigrants are necessary to fulfil
certain functions – for example, when they
face labour shortages – but that they should
remain separate from the dominant popula-
tion and, ideally, leave when no longer
needed. This was the case, for example, in
many Western countries in the period follow-
ing the Second World War, and it is true of
countries such as Japan and Singapore today
(Yeoh, 2006). Countries that ascribe to this
view make it difficult for immigrants to acquire
full legalrightsand, especially,citizenship.
Others, such as France and, to a more limited
extent, the USA, expect immigrants to
conform, or assimilate, to a predefined
nationalculture. In this case, full legal rights
and citizenship are often granted in stages, in
step with the assimilation process. Finally, a
few countries, notably Australia and Canada,
have enacted legislation enshrining the con-
cept ofmulticulturalism, a policy that fos-
ters the coexistence of many forms of cultural
expression. These countries typically allow
immigrants to become citizens quickly and,
acknowledging the complexities ofidentity,
allow individuals to hold dual or multiple
legal citizenship(s). Note, though, that the
differences between these policies are easily
overstated, and that countries rarely follow
single immigration policies that are applied to
all groups equally. Also, recall that the GCIM
has concluded, generally, that reception
policies are inadequate.
Traditionally, immigration has been ana-
lysed in straightforward terms as a push–pull
process: people leave a country to escape
problems, such aspovertyor politicalcon-
flict, and are drawn to particular places that
offer them a better life. In this conception,
people are treated as rational individuals who
are willing to cast aside their old identities and
loyalties and embrace new ones if they believe
it is to their advantage. Settlement is seen as a
unidirectional, progressive process, where im-
migrants eventually become indistinguishable
from the society that receives them – they
become assimilated. This interpretation arose
out of the research of thechicago schoolin
the early twentieth century and continues to
affect immigration research. However, recent
work, drawing on different understandings of
history, culture and identity, offers an alternate
perspective. First, migration is seen as a col-
lective process that occurs sequentially and in
both directions. Immigrants rarely sever the
links between their previous and present
places and social contacts, and life in the new
country is linked to life in the old (cf.chain
migration). As a result, immigrant culture
becomes a me ́lange of practices, and identities
are in flux rather than fixed, or in an inexor-
able progression from old to new. More and
more, immigration studies are adopting the
view of cultures asdiasporic– as scattered,
but connected across vast distances. This real-
ization has led to the concept oftransnation-
alism, the idea that many people live in
societies that stretch across – and perhaps
even transcend – national boundaries (see
Appadurai, 1996; Van Hear, 1998).
These new understandings of the immigra-
tion process are particularly salient given theGregory / The Dictionary of Human Geography 9781405132879_4_I Final Proof page 372 31.3.2009 7:05pmIMMIGRATION