Page 56 - Freedom in the world_Neat

some frustration with America’s new security measures, large numbers of Muslims continue
to come seeking political freedom and economic opportunity, just as other immigrants
have done since the country’s founding.

Conclusion

Since 1965, the United States has had a relatively liberal immigration policy that prioritizes
family reunification and permanently resettles a greater number of refugees each year than
any other country in the world.97 Unlike in a number of European countries, where the
right to family reunification was first implemented only in 2005 in compliance with a new
European Union directive, a large number of refugees and an estimated 60 percent of all
legal immigrants reunite with family members in the United States.98 In 2006, for
example, 63 percent of the grants of lawful permanent residence in the United States were
based on family relations with a U.S. citizen or permanent legal resident.99
Furthermore, the REAL ID Act of 2005 eliminated the annual cap of 10,000 asylum
seekers permitted to change status to legal permanent residence in the United States,
while a number of European countries have tightened their asylum systems in the last few
years. In 2003, right-wing parties and candidates campaigned on anti-asylum platforms in
Denmark, Austria, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. Austria may have implemented
the most stringent rules, deporting most asylum seekers whose cases were being appealed
and refusing to accept asylum applications at land borders.100 Sweden remains an
exception, and is a highly sought destination for refugees; it took in 9,000 Iraqis in
2006—almost half of the entire 22,000 seeking asylum in the industrialized world.
The different approaches to the asylum issue in Europe and the United States reflect a
more general divergence in the roles immigrants play and the sentiments they arouse in
each society. Despite the prevalence of immigrant-dominated neighborhoods, ethnic
enclaves, and clear socioeconomic gaps in the United States, American immigrants are
largely assimilated into the national culture, and especially the national economy. This is
not the case in many European countries. The socioeconomic differences between
immigrants and natives are often more profound in Europe, with immigrants experiencing
far higher levels of unemployment than their counterparts in the United States. These
conditions generate higher levels of resentment among native-born residents, politicians,
and the immigrants themselves.101
Still, in the aftermath of 9/11 and a series of subsequent terrorist attacks and plots in the
United Kingdom, Germany, and Spain, the United States and Europe are confronting many
of the same challenges. The immigration policies of the European Union and its member
states, like those of the United States, are being reshaped around the need to provide
secure borders, prevent future attacks, maintain the rule of law, attract skilled labor, ensure
economic growth, and preserve national cultures and identities. Each country has weighed
these often conflicting priorities for itself. For example, recent changes to immigration law
in Germany, where significant terrorist plots have been detected, established vague criteria
for deportation and require that all immigrants undergo a check by the country’s security
service before being granted citizenship. Recruitment of foreign workers has been halted
altogether. The United Kingdom, on the other hand, launched a revamped highly-skilled-
migrants program in 2003.

Page 56 of 168