research papers on migrants

• Browse All Articles
• Newsletter Sign-Up

Immigration →

• 16 Aug 2024
• In Practice

Election 2024: What's at Stake for Business and the Workplace?

Immigration, climate change, health care, and personal freedoms are just a few of the issues that US presidential candidates—and voters—will spar over. Harvard Business School faculty members discuss the potential implications of these issues on businesses, and provide advice for maintaining civility at work.

• 06 Aug 2024

What the World Could Learn from America's Immigration Backlash—100 Years Ago

Immigration concerns are shaping elections around the world, but these fears have been around for centuries. Mining data from US history, Marco Tabellini explores how immigration has actually changed communities, and offers advice for policymakers trying to move forward.

• 06 Jun 2024
• Research & Ideas

How Younger Immigrants Gain an Edge in American Business

Immigrants often struggle to acquire both higher education and good jobs after migrating to a new country. A study by William Kerr finds that the age they arrive is key, with the teen years being ideal for achieving future success.

• 11 Apr 2024

Why Progress on Immigration Might Soften Labor Pains

Long-term labor shortages continue to stoke debates about immigration policy in the United States. We asked Harvard Business School faculty members to discuss what's at stake for companies facing talent needs, and the potential scenarios on the horizon.

• 08 May 2023

How Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Crushed Crowdfunding for Minority Entrepreneurs

When public anxiety about immigration surges, Black, Asian, and Hispanic inventors have a harder time raising funds for new ideas on Kickstarter, says research by William Kerr. What can platforms do to confront bias in entrepreneurial finance?

• 14 Feb 2023

Is Sweden Still 'Sweden'? A Liberal Utopia Grapples with an Identity Crisis

Changing political views and economic forces have threatened Sweden's image of liberal stability. Is it the end of the Scandinavian business-welfare model as we know it? In a case study, Debora Spar examines recent shifts in Sweden and what they mean for the country's future.

• 01 Nov 2022
• What Do You Think?

Why Aren’t Business Leaders More Vocal About Immigration Policy?

Immigration fuels the American economy, feeds the talent pool, and can directly affect company performance. And yet few executives and entrepreneurs have waded into the policy dialogue, says James Heskett. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 30 Mar 2021
• Working Paper Summaries

Whose Job Is It Anyway? Co-Ethnic Hiring in New US Ventures

The impact of immigration has been particularly sharp in entrepreneurship, yet there is remarkably little evidence about how immigration in the workplace connects to the creation and scaling of new firms. The economic consequences of greater workplace and entrepreneurial diversity deserve closer attention.

• 11 Jan 2021

The Political Effects of Immigration: Culture or Economics?

This paper reviews and explains the growing literature focused on the political effects of immigration, and highlights fruitful avenues for future research. When compared to potential labor market competition and other economic forces, broadly defined cultural factors have a stronger political and social impact.

• 03 Nov 2020

An Executive Order Worth $100 Billion: The Impact of an Immigration Ban’s Announcement on Fortune 500 Firms’ Valuation

President Trump’s executive order restricting entry of temporary foreign workers to the United States negatively affected the valuation of 471 publicly traded Fortune 500 firms by an estimated $100 billion. Closed for comment; 0 Comments.

• 15 Jun 2020

The Seeds of Ideology: Historical Immigration and Political Preferences in the United States

Researchers test the relationship between historical immigration to the United States and political ideology today.

• 11 May 2020

Immigration Policies Threaten American Competitiveness

At this time of crisis, America risks signaling to global innovators and entrepreneurs that they have no future here, says William R. Kerr. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 21 Apr 2020

Changing In-group Boundaries: The Role of New Immigrant Waves in the US

How do new immigrants affect natives’ views of other minority groups? This work studies the evolution of group boundaries in the United States and indicates that whites living in states receiving more Mexican immigrants recategorize blacks as in-group members, because of the inflow of a new, “affectively” more distant group.

• 06 Apr 2020

Where Do Workers Go When the Robots Arrive?

Marco Tabellini and colleagues investigate where workers go after losing their jobs to automation and Chinese imports. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 17 Feb 2020

The Impact of Technology and Trade on Migration: Evidence from the US

Labor mobility can re-equilibrate local labor markets after an economic shock. Both robot adoption and Chinese import competition between 1990 and 2015 caused large declines in manufacturing employment across US local labor markets (commuting zones, CZs). However, only robots were associated with a decline in CZ population, which resulted from reduced in-migration rather than by increased out-migration.

• 01 Jan 2020

Why Not Open America's Doors to All the World’s Talent?

SUMMING UP: The H-1B visa program is exploited by some employers to replace high-paid talent, but that doesn't mean foreign workers should be shut out of working in the United States, according to many of James Heskett's readers. Open for comment; 0 Comments.

• 19 Jun 2019

Migrant Inventors and the Technological Advantage of Nations

This study provides robust econometric evidence for how immigrant inventors shape the innovation dynamics of their receiving countries. Countries receiving inventors from other nations that specialize in patenting particular technologies are more likely to have a significant increase in patent applications of the same technology.

• 08 Jun 2019

The Gift of Global Talent: Innovation Policy and the Economy

High-skilled workers in today’s knowledge-based economy are arguably the most important resource to the success of businesses, regions, and industries. This chapter pulls from Kerr’s book The Gift of Global Talent to examine the migration dynamics of high-skilled individuals. He argues that improving our knowledge of high-skilled migration can lead to better policy decisions.

• 07 Feb 2019

Immigrant Networking and Collaboration: Survey Evidence from CIC

This study compares United States-born and immigrant entrepreneurs’ use of networking opportunities provided by CIC, the former Cambridge Innovation Center. Immigrants clearly take more advantage of networking opportunities at CIC, especially around the exchange of advice. It remains to be seen whether this generates long-term performance advantages for immigrants.

• 01 Nov 2018

Forecasting Airport Transfer Passenger Flow Using Real-Time Data and Machine Learning

Passengers arriving at international hubs often endure delays, especially at immigration and security. This study of London’s Heathrow Airport develops a system to provide real-time information about transfer passengers’ journeys through the airport to better serve passengers, airlines, and their employees. It shows how advanced machine learning could be accessible to managers.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Immigration to the United States: Recent Trends and Future Prospects +

Charles hirschman.

University of Washington

Almost 13 per cent of the American population is foreign born, and if the children of the foreign born are included, about 1 in 4 Americans can be counted as part of the recent immigrant community. Although there is lingering prejudice and popular fears of immigrants, there is growing evidence that, on balance, immigrants make a positive contribution to the American economy and society. There is little evidence that immigrants have an adverse impact on the wages and employment of native born Americans. Moreover, immigrants and their children are disproportionately represented in a broad variety of scientific and cultural fields.

1. Introduction

The United States is, once again, in the midst of an age of immigration. In 2010, there were 40 million foreign-born persons living in the United States ( Grieco et al. 2012 ). Of the 220 million international migrants in the world in 2010—defined as persons living outside their country of birth—almost one in five were residents in the United States ( UN Population Division 2013 ). An even larger number, upwards of 75 million persons in the United States—almost one quarter of the current resident American population— is part of the immigrant community, defined as foreign born and the children of the foreign born ( U.S. Bureau of the Census 2010 ). 1

In spite of lingering prejudice and discrimination against immigrants, most Americans are beginning to acknowledge the positive contributions of immigrants. These beliefs are partially rooted in the historical image of the United States as a ‘nation of immigrants.’ The story that America was populated by peoples seeking economic opportunity, fleeing injustice or oppression in their homeland, and hoping for a better life for their children has a strong grip on the American immigration. Moreover, there is a growing body of research that shows that most immigrants do assimilate to American society and that immigration has net positive impacts on the American economy, society, and culture.

In this paper, I survey the trends in immigration to the United States with a focus on the most recent period—the Post 1965 Wave of Immigration, named for the reforms in immigration law that were enacted in the late 1960s as part of the Civil Rights revolution. I also review recent research on the demographic, economic, social, and cultural impact of immigration on American society.

2. Trends in Immigration to the United States

Figure 1 shows the history of the absolute and relative levels of the foreign born population in the United States. The histogram—the solid bars—shows the numbers (in millions) of foreign born persons in the country from 1850 to 2012. The foreign born includes everyone who is born outside the United States, including students and workers residing here temporarily. This category also includes many undocumented immigrants—those residing in the country illegally. The curved line shows the ratio of foreign born persons to the total US population in each decennial census from 1850 to 2000 and the comparable figures for recent years from the American Community Survey.

Source: US Bureau of Census, Census of Population, 1850–2000 (in Gibson and Jung, 2006 ), and American Community Survey, 2010.

The absolute number of the foreign born population rose rapidly from the mid-19th century through the early decades of the 20th century—popularly known as the ‘Age of Mass Migration.’ With the cessation of large-scale immigration after 1924, the absolute numbers of foreign born declined to below 10 million by 1970. With the renewal of immigration in recent decades, the number of foreign born persons has risen dramatically and is currently around 40 million.

The visibility of the foreign born—at work, in schools, and in neighbourhoods—is measured by the proportion of foreign born to the total population, that is, the curved line in Figure 1 . It is to be noted that the contemporary presence of immigrants is actually less than it was in the early 20 th century. For most of the 19 th and early 20 th centuries, the foreign born constituted around 14 to 15 per cent of the American population. Then, during the middle decades of the 20 th century, the figure dropped precipitously to below 5 per cent in 1970. With the renewal of mass immigration after 1965, the percent foreign born is currently 13 per cent of the total population. While this figure is high relative to the period from 1950 to 1970, it is slightly below the proportion of foreign born for much of American history.

The ‘Post-1965 Immigration Wave,’ was named for the 1965 immigration law that repealed the ‘national origins quotas’ enacted in the 1920s. These quotas were considered discriminatory by the children and grandchildren of Southern and Eastern European immigrants, and the 1965 immigration legislation was part of the reforms of the Civil Rights era. The advocates of reform in the 1960s were not pushing for a major new wave of immigration; they expected a small increase in the number of arrivals from Italy, Greece, and a few other European countries, as families that were divided by the immigration restrictions of the 1920s were allowed to be reunited ( Reimrs 1985 : Chap. 3).

Family reunification and scarce occupational skills were the primary criteria for admission under the 1965 Act ( Keely 1979 ). The new preference system allowed highly skilled professionals, primarily doctors, nurses, and engineers from Asian countries, to immigrate and eventually to sponsor their families. About the same time, and largely independently of the 1965 Act, immigration from Latin America began to rise. Legal and undocumented migration from Mexico surged after a temporary farm worker programme, known as the Bracero Programme, ended in 1964 ( Massey, Durand and Malone 2002 ). There have also been major waves of immigration to the United States with the fall of regimes supported by American political and military interventions abroad, including Cuba, Vietnam, and Central America. Each of these streams of immigrant and refugee inflows has spawned secondary waves of immigration as family members have followed.

3. Characteristics of the Post-1965 Wave of Immigrants

Most of the immigrants who arrived from 1880 to 1920 during the Age of Mass Migration were from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Italy, Germany, Poland, and Russia. Many of these ‘new’ immigrants in the early 20 th century were considered to be distinctly different from the older stock of white Americans in terms of language, religion, and in their potential for assimilation into American society. Popular opposition to immigration in the early 20 th century led to the laws of the 1920s that sharply restricted immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe. There were much smaller waves of immigration from China and Japan, but even stronger opposition ended Asian immigration in the late 19 th and early 20 th century.

When the doors to immigration were opened again in the years after 1965, only small numbers of Europeans arrived. The major regions of origin in the Post-1965 Wave of Immigration are Latin America and Asia. More than 11 million—about 30 per cent of all immigrants (foreign born)—are from Mexico, one of the nearest neighbours of the United States. Another 20 per cent of immigrants are from other countries in Latin America, with the largest numbers from Central America and the Caribbean. Migrants from Puerto Rico are domestic migrants, not immigrants, since Puerto Rico is an American territory and all Puerto Ricans are American citizens at birth.

About one quarter of the foreign-born are from Asia, and the relative share of Asian immigrants has risen in recent years. One of the hallmarks of contemporary Asian immigration is its diversity—almost every country in Asia is represented in the American immigrant population. The largest Asian immigrant communities in the U. S. are from China, India, and the Philippines, but there are also considerable numbers from Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos, and Thailand.

In the 1970s and 1980s, most ‘new immigrants’ settled in the West and East coast states, and a few other selected states, including Texas, Florida, and Illinois. About 40 per cent of all immigrants lived in California and New York. In the 1990s and 2000s, immigrants increasingly began settling in new destinations including smaller towns in the Midwest and Southeast. The majority of immigrants still live in California, New York, and other traditional destinations, but industries are attracting immigrant labour to many other regions. In addition to the high tech sectors and universities that attract highly skilled immigrants, less skilled immigrants are drawn to agriculture, food processing, and manufacturing industries that are often shunned by native born workers.

The distribution of education among recent immigrants to the United States is bimodal. The largest group of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico and Central America, has less education, on average, than the native-born American population. Less education, however, is not equivalent to unskilled labour. Many immigrants without a high school degree are able to work in the skilled construction industry, nursing homes caring for the elderly, and in the service sectors in restaurants, hotels, and gardening.

At the other end of the educational continuum are the highly educated immigrant streams from Taiwan, India, Iran, and many African countries. Almost half of Asian immigrants have a university degree compared to only a third of native born Americans. Many of these highly skilled immigrants fill key niches in the high tech sector, higher education, and many professional fields.

4. Popular Fears of Too Much Immigration

Existing alongside the pride of having immigrant grandparents (or great-grandparents) in the ‘nation of immigrants,’ many Americans fear that the United States has more immigrants than the country can absorb and assimilate. There are widespread popular beliefs that immigrants take jobs that would otherwise go to native born Americans and that the wages of native born workers are depressed by the presence of immigrant workers. Beyond the economic argument, many Americans also think that the presence of immigrants, especially large numbers of immigrants from ‘third world’ countries, are a threat to American values, culture, and institutions ( Bouvier 1992 ; Brimelow 1995 ; Huntington 2004 ). These sentiments have given rise to an anti-immigrant lobby that includes political leaders, TV and radio talk-show pundits, social movement organisations, including public interest organisations that publish reports and policy briefs, as well as unauthorised militia groups that patrol the U.S. Mexican border, such as the ‘Minutemen’.

Neither the presence of large numbers of immigrants nor the exaggerated claims about the negative impact of immigration are new phenomena. In 1751, Benjamin Franklin complained about the Germans in Pennsylvania and their reluctance to learn English ( Archdeacon 1983 : 20; Jones 1992 : 39–40). Based on a campaign of fear about the political dangers of unchecked immigration, primarily Irish Catholics, the ‘Know-Nothing’Party elected six governors, dominated several state legislatures, and sent a bloc of representatives to Congress in 1855. During World War I, Americans who wanted to retain their German-American identity were forced to be ‘100 percent Americans’ and to give up their language and culture ( Higham 1988 : Chap. 8).

In the late 19 th and early 20 th centuries, Chinese and Japanese migrants who worked as railroad and agricultural labourers were targeted by nativist groups who feared that Asian immigrants would harm the economic status of native workers and contaminate the ‘racial purity’ of the nation ( Hing 1993 : 22). The passage of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was the first major step toward a closed society. After the Chinese Exclusion Act was passed, Japanese migrants became a new source of cheap labour on the West coast and Hawaii. Japanese immigration was targeted by the same groups that opposed Chinese immigrants.

Southern and Eastern European groups also faced an increasingly hostile context of reception as their numbers swelled at the turn of the twentieth century. A number of formal organisations sprang up among old line New England elites to campaign against the continued immigration of ‘undesirables’ from Europe ( Higham 1988 ; Jones 1992 : Chap. 9). After a long political struggle, Congress passed restrictive laws in the early 1920s that stopped almost all immigration except from Northwestern Europe.

5. Do Immigrants Assimilate into American Society?

In spite of the fears that immigrants are resistant to learning English and refuse to join the American mainstream, there is a large body of social science and historical research which concludes that immigrants have, by and large, assimilated to American society ( Alba 1990 , Alba and Nee 2003 ; Duncan and Duncan 1968 ; Lieberson 1980 ). This does not mean that assimilation was painless, automatic, or immediate. For the first generation of immigrants who arrived as adults, the processes of linguistic, cultural, and social change were painful and usually incomplete. Immigrants tend to settle in ethnic enclaves, prefer to speak their mother tongue, and gravitate to places of worship and social events that provide cultural continuity with their origins ( Handlin 1973 ; Portes and Rumbaut 2006 ). Many immigrants do learn English and find employment in the general economy, but few feel completely part of their new society. In the early decades of the 20 th century, evidence pointed to the slow and incomplete assimilation of the then ‘new’ immigrants ( Pagnini and Morgan 1990 ).

With the passage of time, and especially following the emergence of the second generation, there was unmistakable evidence of assimilation among the descendants of early 20 th century European immigrants. Acculturated through their attendance at American schools, the children of immigrants did not share the ambivalence of their immigrant parents. The second generation spoke fluent English and was eager to join the American mainstream. By all measures, including socio-economic status, residential mobility, and intermarriage, they left behind the ethnic world of their immigrant parents ( Alba and Nee 2003 ; Lieberson 1980 ). By the 1950s, patterns of suburbanisation broke down ethnic neighborhoods and intermarriage became more common ( Alba and Nee 2003 ; Lieberson and Waters 1988 ).

Although it is widely assumed that immigrants in the Post-1965 Immigration Wave are less likely to assimilate than those who arrived in the early 20 th century, there is growing evidence that the new immigrants, especially their children, are doing remarkably well ( Alba and Nee 2003 ; Kasinitz et al. 2008 ). On average, second generation immigrants are less likely to drop out of high school and more likely to attend college than the average native born American ( Hirschman 2001 ; White and Glick 2009 ). Intermarriage is also common: recent research estimates that one-third to one-half of second generation Hispanics and Asians marry outside of their community ( Duncan and Trejo 2007 ; Min and Kim 2009 ). The children of contemporary immigrants are on track for assimilation and upward mobility at about the same pace as the descendants of earlier waves of immigration from Europe.

6. The Impact of Immigration on America

There are widespread popular beliefs, including many influential voices within public policy circles, which argue that immigration is harmful to the economic welfare of the country, especially to native born Americans ( Borjas 1994 ; Bouvier 1992 ; Briggs 1984 ; Brimelow 1995 ). The central claim is that immigrants, because they are willing to work for lower wages, take jobs from native born American workers. Competition from immigrant workers is expected to depress wages, especially in the low-skilled labour market ( Borjas 1989 ). Finally, immigrants are thought to be an economic burden because they disproportionately receive public benefits, such as health care, schooling, and welfare without paying their fair share of taxes. These claims, however, are not supported by empirical evidence.

The definitive statement on the economic consequences of immigration was the 1997 report of the National Research Council (NRC) panel on the demographic and economic impacts of immigration, which drew on the theoretical and empirical research conducted by leading specialists in labour economics and public finance ( Smith and Edmonston 1997 ; 1998 , also see Card 1990 ; 2005 ). The major conclusion of the NRC report was that the net effects of immigration on the American economy were very modest. Immigration does expand labour supply and may increase competition for jobs and lower wages for native workers who are substitutes for immigrants, but immigration also expands total production (national income) and increases the incomes that accrue to native born workers who are complements to immigrants ( Smith and Edmondson 1997 : Chap. 4). Although some native born workers may compete for the same jobs as immigrants, many more may be complements to immigrants. This means that the arrival of unskilled immigrant labour may ‘push up’, rather than ‘push out’, many native born workers ( Haines 2000 : 202; Lieberson 1980 : Chap. 10). Moreover, many native born workers have direct or indirect income from capital through their savings, ownership of property, and as recipients of pension programmes.

The most likely reason for a lack of empirical support for the presumed negative impact of immigration is the questionable assumption that the only impact of additional workers (immigrants) on the labour market is through wage competition. The presence of immigrants has broader effects on economic growth, both locally and nationally, that leads to rising wage levels for native born workers. Among the potential mechanisms are increased national savings, entrepreneurship and small business development, a faster rate of inventive activity and technological innovation, and increasing economies of scale, both in the production and consumer markets ( Carter and Sutch 1999 ). There is a long-standing hypothesis in economic history that high levels of immigration stimulates economic growth by increasing demand for housing, urban development, and other amenities ( Easterlin 1968 ). A recent study found that immigration provided the necessary labour supply for the rapid growth of manufacturing during the American Industrial Revolution from 1880 to 1920 ( Hirschman and Mogford 2009 ).

Another major economic issue addressed by the 1997 NRC report was the impact of immigration on the governmental fiscal system—the balance between taxes paid and the value of government services received ( Clune 1998 ; Garvey and Espendshade 1998 ; Lee and Miller 1998 ; Smith and Edmonston 1997 : Chaps. 6 & 7). The NRC researchers report that the average native born household in New Jersey and California pays more in state and local taxes as a result of the presence of immigrants ( Smith and Edmonston 1997 : Chap. 6). These results are largely determined by the lower wages of immigrants and the demographic composition of immigrant households, which tend to be younger and have more children than the native born population. The largest component of local and state government budgets is schooling, and immigrant households, with more children per household than native born households, are disproportionately beneficiaries of state support for schooling.

Despite potential imbalances in the net transfer of revenues at the local and state level, an accounting of the federal fiscal system shows that immigrants (and their descendants) contribute more in taxes than they receive in benefits ( Smith and Edmonston 1997 : Chap. 7). Just as the age structure of immigrant households makes them disproportionately the beneficiaries of public education, the relative youth of immigrants also means they are less likely be beneficiaries of Social Security and Medicare (and Medicaid for many of the institutionalised elderly). Immigrants also help to relieve the per-capita fiscal burden of native born for the national debt, national security, and public goods, which are major federal expenditures that are only loosely tied to population size. An intergenerational accounting that counts the future taxes paid by the children of immigrants concludes that immigration helps, rather than hurts, the nation’s fiscal balance ( Lee and Miller 1998 ; Smith and Edmonston 1997 ; Chap. 7).

6.1 The Role of Immigration on the Advancement of Science, Technology and Higher Education

Scientific progress is a major source of modern economic growth, increasing longevity and other features of modern development that enhance the quality of life in the United States. It is frequently claimed that American economic development has been fostered by government investments in scientific and technological innovation in the industrial sector, as well as in universities and research institutes. How might immigration also affect scientific progress? Perhaps the most direct link is the migration of scientists from other countries and the high educational attainment of immigrants and their children.

Albert Einstein, perhaps the most eminent American scientist of the 20 th century, was a refugee from Nazi Germany. There are many other examples of distinguished scientists, researchers, academics, and entrepreneurs who arrived in the United States as students who pursued their talents in American universities and/or industry, including Enrico Fermi, Edward Teller, and Hans Bethe, the fathers of the atomic age, Elias Zerhouni, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Andrew Grove, Jerry Yang, and Sergey Brin, the engineering entrepreneurs who led the American transition to the digital age. From 1990 to 2004, over one-third of US scientists who had received Nobel Prizes were foreign born ( Wulf 2006 ; also see Smith and Edmonston 1977 : 384–385).

The impact of immigration on the development of science in the United States is more than the story of a relatively open door for immigrants who are exceptionally talented scientists and engineers. Over the last four decades, American universities have played an important role in training immigrants and the children of immigrants to become scientists. Foreign students have become increasingly central to American higher education, particularly in graduate education in engineering and the sciences. After graduating with advanced degrees from American universities, many foreign students return to their home countries, but a significant share is attracted to employment opportunities in American universities, laboratories, and industries. Many of the foreign students who have become permanent residents or US citizens go on to make important contributions to the development of American science and engineering.

Several recent studies have found that foreign-born scientists and engineers are playing a critical role in in American universities, laboratories, and scientific industries ( Stephan and Levin 2007 ; Sana 2010 ). Foreign-born scientists and engineers are also over-represented among members of elected honorific societies such as the National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences, and among the authors of highly cited academic papers ( Stephan and Levin 2007 ). During the last decades of the twentieth century, immigrant entrepreneurs formed a significant contingent of all founders of US high-technology start-ups, particularly in Silicon Valley ( Saxenian 2001 ). One recent study estimates that one in four technology firms started in the United States between 1995 and 2005 was founded by at least one foreign-born entrepreneur ( Wadwha et al. 2007 ).

6.2 The Impact of Immigrants on the Evolution of American Institutions

All other things being equal, most societies, communities, organisations and cultures tend to resist change, especially from outside sources. The truism that ‘people prefer that which is familiar’ is reinforced by persons with authority, power, and status, who generally shape cultural expectations to revere conformity more than innovation. This pattern, an ‘ideal type’ to be sure, is especially common in traditional rural areas, among multi-generational families, and in religious and cultural organisations.

There are, of course, many exceptions to this pattern, especially during eras of rapid technological and social change, wartime, and other times of catastrophe. The simple proposition of cultural continuity helps to explain the generally conservative nature of intergenerational socialisation and the ubiquity of ethnocentrism—beliefs that value insiders and traditional culture more than outsiders. In traditional (and in many modern) societies, immigrants are feared because they might potentially challenge the existing social arrangements as well as familiar cultural patterns.

All things have not been equal during much of American history. The United States has received about 75 million immigrants since record-keeping began in 1820. This relatively open door was due to a confluence of interests, both external and internal. As modernisation spread throughout the Old World during the 18 th and 19 th centuries, the (relatively) open frontier beckoned the landless and others seeking economic betterment. These patterns culminated in the early 20 th century, when more than one million immigrants arrived annually—a level that is only being rivaled by contemporary levels of immigration. American economic and political institutions also gained from immigration. Immigrant settlement helped to secure the frontier as well as to provide labour for nation-building projects, including transportation networks of roads, canals, and railroads. During the era of industrialisation, immigrant labour provided a disproportionate share of workers for the dirty and dangerous jobs in mining and manufacturing ( Hirschman and Mogford 2009 ).

In spite of the national tradition of mass immigration, new arrivals have rarely received a welcome reception. The conservative backlash against immigrants has been a perennial theme of American history. During the Age of Mass Migration, the negative reaction against immigrants was not simply a response from the parochial masses, but also a project led by conservative intellectuals. Long before immigration restrictions were implemented in the 1920s, there was a particularly virulent campaign against the ‘new’ immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe. Most of these immigrants were Catholics and Jews—religious and cultural traditions that were thought to be in conflict with the traditional ascendancy of white Protestants of English ancestry.

As most Northeastern and Midwestern cities became dominated by immigrants (both first and second generations) in the late 19 th century, many elite old-stock American families and communities created barriers to protect their ‘aristocratic’ status and privileges against newcomers ( Higham 1988 ). Residential areas became ‘restricted,’ college fraternities and sororities limited their membership, and many social clubs and societies only allowed those with the right pedigrees and connections to be admitted ( Baltzell 1964 ). Barriers to employment for minorities, especially Jews, were part of the culture of corporate law firms and elite professions ( Auerbach 1975 : Chap. 2). In the early 20 th century, many elite private universities were notorious for their quotas for Jewish students and their refusal to hire Jews and other minorities ( Baltzell 1964 : 336; Karabel 2006 ). In some cases, these quotas persisted until the 1960s.

Given this history, how were immigrants and their children able to make such impressive achievements to American science, arts, and culture? Part of the solution to this puzzle is that immigrants, and especially their children, were pulled into self-employment and new sectors of the economy where there was less discrimination. As noted above, prestigious organisations that celebrated tradition tended to be closed to outsiders. The early 20 th century was an era of rapid demographic, economic, and technological change. Rapid social change creates more flexibility and openness for outsiders to be absorbed into mainstream institutions.

The market for cultural and artistic performances was greatly expanded with the growth of cities in the early 20 th century. A significant share of the urban population, the potential consumers of art and culture, were of immigrant stock. The most important development of this era was the motion picture industry—a new form of the performing arts. In the 1920s, immigrant risk-takers, primarily Eastern European Jewish immigrants, transformed the fledgling motion picture industry with the development of large Hollywood studios. Although the new Hollywood moguls sought to create movies that appealed to mass audiences and ignored any hint of ethnicity or religion, their presence may have minimised traditional prejudices and discrimination among those who worked in Hollywood. Irving Howe characterised the openness of the performing arts (and sports) to talented outsiders:

… “the (entertainment industry) brushed aside claims of rank and looked only for the immediate promise of talent. Just as blacks would later turn to baseball and basketball knowing that here at least their skin color counted for less than their skills, so in the early 1900s, young Jews broke into vaudeville because here too, people asked not, who are you? but, what can you do?”

This openness is reinforced in fields and professions where talent and accomplishment are clearly recognised and visible, including professional sports and universities. Prior to World War II, competition was restricted in many institutions with barriers to admission and hiring. Professional baseball was closed to African Americans and elite universities restricted the admission of Jews and other minorities. In spite of these tendencies, many American institutions have become more open and meritocratic over the 20 th century. Baseball and other professional sports were integrated before most other institutions, including public school education. In recent decades, American professional sports have become more global, with a growing participation of talented international players. This trend is driven, in large part, by competition. Sports fans want winning teams, and large audiences increase revenues. The owners and management of sports teams respond to market pressures by recruitment of talented players from other countries. Similar processes are at work in universities and scientific organisations. More talented researchers generate more grants, more patents, and more commercial applications of scientific discoveries. The global search for talented graduate students and researchers by elite American universities and research organisations is driven by competitive pressures that have accelerated in recent decades. Other fields where merit is relatively easy to measure, such as in classical musical performance, have also become part of a global employment market.

There are similar competitive pressures in many American corporations and business for talented employees, but there are certainly wide variations depending on the pace of technological change, international market competition, and the ability to measure merit. Traditional manufacturing sectors of the economy, automobiles for example, may focus more on continuity, advertising, and efficiency than technological innovation. Other sectors, such as the electronic and computing industry are more at the forefront of technological innovation and international competition. It seems likely that these more competitive sectors, perhaps exemplified by Silicon Valley, would be the most meritocratic and willing to hire outsiders—immigrants and foreign students who have the necessary skills.

The same processes of competition certainly affected the development of Hollywood, Broadway, and many other American performing and cultural arts. Audience preferences may have tended toward familiar cultural content, but there was undoubtedly strong market pressure for ‘quality’, however defined. There was also considerable room for innovation in artistic and cultural performance in a pluralistic society with relatively few cultural touchstones. Immigrants and their children played important roles in the development of culture and art in 20 th century America, just as they have in science and academic institutions.

My contention is that the presence of immigrants and their offspring has helped to ‘push’ American institutions in the direction of increasing openness and meritocracy. This has not always been a smooth or conflict-free process. When Jewish students appeared in large numbers in leading American universities in the early 20 th century, they were deemed rate-busters who upset the traditional college student culture, which de-emphasised too much study or serious scholarly interests.

The growing number of talented Jewish students, mostly second generation immigrants, certainly raised the standards at universities that did not discriminate. As universities began to compete for faculty and graduate students during the post-World War II era, the quota restrictions eventually disappeared ( Karabel 2006 ). Elite colleges and universities still retain legacies of non-merit based admission systems, including programmes to privilege children of alumni. There is also evidence that Asian American students have not been admitted in numbers proportional to their test scores ( Espenshade and Chung 2005 ), but these current practices are only a shadow of those of earlier times. The point is not that universities are completely meritocratic, but that they have become more meritocratic with increasing competition and acceptance of talented ‘outsiders.’

Greater openness to hiring and promotion on the basis of merit has become an integral part of many American institutions in recent years. The reputation of the United States as a land of opportunity for those with ambition and ability—a theme in many Hollywood movies—made the country a beacon for prospective immigrants. In addition to raising the international stature of the United States, the participation of talented immigrants and their children has likely made American scientific and cultural institutions more successful.

7. Conclusions

Contemporary immigration to the United States, upwards of one million new arrivals per year, is not exceptional. In fact, the relative share of immigrants—about 13 per cent—is a bit lower than the 14 to 15 per cent that characterised much of American history prior to the 1920s. Absorbing large numbers of newcomers has costs as well as benefits. The costs are immediately apparent, but some of the benefits take longer to appear. Schools, hospitals, and social service agencies may have to arrange for translation services and other special programmes for immigrants. But most of the costs of these adjustments are paid by immigrants and their families. Immigrants have given up the familiarity of home in their quest for more rewarding careers and greater opportunities for their children. Immigrants must also contend with a receiving society that is ambivalent, and sometimes hostile, to their presence.

Contemporary immigrants do adapt and assimilate to American society—probably as fast as earlier waves of immigrants. Assimilation is not instantaneous, and, for adult immigrants, the process is never complete. But for their native born children, and for those who arrive in the United States as young children, assimilation is a natural process that reflects immersion in American schools and culture.

Immigrants and their children, however, are not the same as native born Americans. In addition to the many obvious characteristics, such as language, religion, and cuisine, they generally differ on social and educational characteristics. For the contemporary period, immigrants are over-represented both among college graduates and those with less than 12 years of schooling relative to native born Americans ( Portes and Rumbaut 2006 : Chap. 4). Immigrants are also not representative of the society from which they come ( Feliciano 2005a ; 2005b ; Model 2008 ). In contrast to popular images, immigrants are not drawn from the least successful ranks of their home societies, but are generally well above average in terms of their education and other skills.

Perhaps the most important contribution of immigrants is their children. Many immigrants have made enormous sacrifices for their children’s welfare, including the decision to settle in the United States. Immigrant parents often have to work in menial jobs, multiple jobs, and in occupations well below the status they would have earned if they had remained at home. These sacrifices have meaning because immigrant parents believe that their children will have better educational and occupational opportunities in the United States than in their homelands. Immigrant parents push their children to excel by reminding them of their own sacrifices.

These high expectations for the children of immigrants generally lead to high motivations for academic and worldly success ( Hao and Bonstead-Burns 1998 ). A large body of research shows that the children of immigrants do remarkably well in American schools. Holding constant their socio-economic status, the second generation obtains higher grades in school and above average results on standardised tests, is less likely to drop out of high school, and is more likely to go to college than the children of native born Americans ( Fuligni and Witknow 2004 ; Perreira, Harris and Lee 2006 ).

In addition to measures of socio-economic assimilation, immigrants and their children are over-represented in a broad range of rare achievements, including Nobel Prize winners, top scientists, American performing artists, and other contributors to the American creative arts. They have broadened our cultural outlook and sometimes, have even defined American culture through literature, music and art.

Compared with other societies, the United States is generally regarded as unusually competitive and places a high premium on progress and innovation. This dynamic characteristic may well arise from the presence of immigrants and on the evolution of American institutions and identity. The size and selectivity of the immigrant community means that immigrants (and/or their children) are competing for entry into colleges, jobs, and access to prestigious positions and institutions. Not all institutions have been open to outsiders on an equal footing with insiders. In particular, high status organisations often give preference to persons with the right connections and social pedigree. But institutions that opened their doors to talented outsiders—immigrants and their children—probably gained a competitive advantage. Over time, greater openness and meritocratic processes may have become a force that shaped the evolution of American institutions in the arts, sports, science, and some sectors of business. In turn, the participation of outsiders may have reinforced a distinctive American character and culture that values not ‘who are you?’ but, ‘what can you do?’

Because immigrants have to constantly work at learning the system, they are intensely curious about American culture. For the most talented, this leads to a level of creativity beyond the normal boundaries that has left its imprint on American music, theater, dance, film, and many other realms of artistic endeavour. Finally, American institutions – schools, universities, businesses, sports teams, and even symphony orchestras, are meritocratic and seek talent wherever they can find it. The United States is a competitive society that values progress and success. This dynamic characteristic has partly been created through the presence of immigrants, which has pushed the country to value skills and ability over social pedigree.

The fear of cultural conservatives is that immigrants will change American character and identity. Yet, the definition of American identity is elusive. Unlike many other societies, the United States does not have an identity tied to an ancient lineage. Given the two wars against the British in early American history (in 1776 and 1812), the founders of the new American republic did not make English origins the defining trait of American identity; rather it was acceptance of the Enlightenment ideas expressed in the founding documents of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights ( Gleason 1980 ; Vecoli 1966). Even though these ideals were belied by the continuing stain of slavery, a civic identity rather than ancestry has been the distinctive feature of American ‘ peoplehood ’ from the very start. This trait combined with jus soli (birthright citizenship) 2 has slowed, if not stopped, efforts to define Americans solely on the basis of ancestral origins. Another reason for the broad definition of American identity is that the overwhelming majority of the American population, including white Americans, is descended from 19 th and 20 th century immigrants. Demographic estimates suggest that less than one-third of the American population in the late 20 th century were descended from the 18 th century American population ( Edmonston and Passel 1994 : 61, Gibson 1992 ).

Yet, there have been recurrent struggles to redefine American identity in terms of ancestry. The first naturalisation law passed by Congress in 1790 limited citizenship to whites. The broadening of American citizenship to include African Americans, American Indians, and Asian immigrants were epic battles. The short-lived, but remarkably successful ‘Know-Nothing’ political movement called itself the American Party to highlight the ancestral origins of its adherents. In the late 19 th century, as new immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe were pouring in, some old stock Americans founded organisations such as the Sons of the American Revolution, Daughters of the American Revolution, and similar groups to celebrate their ancestral pedigrees and to distance themselves from recent immigrants. The national origin quotas of the 1920s were a clear victory for those who feared dilution of the white English Protestant composition of the American population. The current anti-immigrant sentiment also expresses a fear that American identity will be lost, yet it is unclear that a universal contemporary American identity exists. Although the English language is considered to be central, English Protestant ancestry is not emphasised. There is too much diversity, even within the white population, to focus on specific ancestral origins.

In an often quoted remark, Oscar Handlin, the famous historian, observed that after searching for the place of immigrants in American history, that immigrants are American history. The American experiment in nation building is, in large part, the story of how immigrants have been absorbed into American society and how immigrants have enlarged and transformed America. Immigrants settled the frontier; they participated in constructing canals, roads and railroads, and contributed significant manpower in many American wars. Immigrants provided much of the manufacturing labour for the American industrial revolution as well as a disproportionate share of the contemporary highly skilled scientists and engineers that are central to the modern electronic and biomedical economy. Most interestingly, immigrants and the children of immigrants have been among the most important creative artists who have shaped the development of the cultural arts, including movies, theatre, dance, and music.

Immigration is, perhaps, the most distinctive feature of American identity. Immigration has had a disproportionate effect on the demographic size, ethnic diversity, culture, and character of American society. Immigrants and their children have assimilated to America, but they have also shaped American institutions in ways that have allowed strangers to participate on a relatively open playing field.

Acknowledgments

The author thanks the Malaysian Population and Family Development Board for the invitation to participate in the conference, the Malaysian American Commission for Educational Exchange for a Fulbright Fellowship to Malaysia, the Faculty of Economics and Administration, University of Malaya for hosting me as a Visiting Fulbright Professor, and Associate Professor Tey Nai Peng for his advice on my conference paper.

+ An earlier version of this paper was presented at the International Conference on Migration, Urbanisation and Development at the University of Malaya, 8 July 2013.

1 The foreign-born refers to all persons who are born outside the United States or a United States territory. The Census Bureau defines the native born (the complement of the foreign born) as persons who are American citizens at birth. The terms foreign born and immigrants are used interchangeably here, but this is not technically true because many of the foreign born are in the United States as temporary workers or students.

2 The fourteenth amendment to the Constitution (adopted in 1868) defines citizenship as consisting of: “All persons born or naturalised in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Subsequent Supreme Court rulings have interpreted the citizenship clause to include the native born children of foreign nationals.

• Alba Richard. Ethnic Identity: The Transformation of White America. New Haven: Yale University Press; 1990. [ Google Scholar ]
• Alba Richard, Nee Victor. Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2003. [ Google Scholar ]
• Archdeacon Thomas J. Becoming American: An Ethnic History. New York: The Free Press; 1983. [ Google Scholar ]
• Auerbach Jerald. Unequal Justice: Lawyers and Social Change in Modern America. New York: Oxford; 1975. [ Google Scholar ]
• Baltzell E Digby. The Protestant Establishment: Aristocracy and Caste in America. New York: Vintage Books; 1964. [ Google Scholar ]
• Borjas George J. Economic theory and international migration. International Migration Review. 1989; 23 (3):457–485. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Borjas George. The economics of immigration. Journal of Economic Literature. 1994; 32 :1667–1717. [ Google Scholar ]
• Briggs Vernon. Immigration Policy and the American Labor Force. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1984. [ Google Scholar ]
• Brimelow Peter. Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster. New York: Random House; 1995. [ Google Scholar ]
• Bouvier Leon F. Peaceful Invasions. Lanham, MD: University Press of America; 1992. [ Google Scholar ]
• Card David. The impact of the Muriel Boatlift on the Miami labor market. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 1990; 43 :245–257. [ Google Scholar ]
• Card David. Is the new immigration really so bad? Economic Journal. 2005; 115 :F300–F323. [ Google Scholar ]
• Carter Susan, Sutch Richard. Historical background to current immigration issues. In: Smith James P, Edmonston Barry., editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. pp. 289–366. [ Google Scholar ]
• Clune Michael S. The fiscal impacts of immigrants: A California case study. In: Smith James P, Edmonston Barry., editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 1998. pp. 120–182. [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan Beverly, Duncan Otis Dudley. Minorities and the process of stratification. American Sociological Review. 1968; 33 :356–364. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Duncan Brian, Trejo Stephen J. Ethnic identification, intermarriage, and unmeasured progress by Mexican Americans. In: Borjas George., editor. Mexican Immigration to the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007. pp. 229–267. [ Google Scholar ]
• Edmonston Barry, Jeffrey Passel., editors. Immigration and Ethnicity: The Integration of America’s Newest Arrivals. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press; 1994. [ Google Scholar ]
• Easterlin Richard. Population, Labor Force, and Long Swings in Economic Growth: The American Experience. New York: Columbia University Press; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Espenshade Thomas J, Chung Chang Y. The opportunity cost of admission preferences at elite universities. Social Science Quarterly. 2005; 86 (2):293–305. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feliciano Cynthia. Does selective migration matter” explaining ethnic disparities in educational attainment among immigrant children. International Migration Review. 2005a; 39 :841–871. [ Google Scholar ]
• Feliciano Cynthia. How do immigrants compare to those left behind? Demography. 2005b; 42 :131–152. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fuligni Andrew J, Witknow Melissa. The postsecondary educational progress of youth from immigrant families. Journal of Research on Adolescence. 2004; 14 :159–183. [ Google Scholar ]
• Garvey Deborah L, Espenshade Thomas J. Fiscal impacts of immigrant and native households: A New Jersey case study. In: Smith James P, Edmonston Barry., editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Research Council; 1998. pp. 66–119. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson Campbell. The contribution of immigration to the growth and ethnic diversity of the American population. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society. 1992; 136 :157–175. [ Google Scholar ]
• Gibson Campbell, Jung Kay. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign Born Population of the United States: 1850 to 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2006. (Population Division Working Paper No. 81). [ Google Scholar ]
• Gleason Philip. American identity and Americanization. In: Thernstrom Stephen., editor. Harvard Encyclopedia of American Ethnic Groups. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 1980. pp. 31–58. [ Google Scholar ]
• Grieco Elizabeth M, Acosta Yesenia D, de la Cruz G Patricia, Gambino Christine, Gryn Thomas, Larsen Luke J, Trevelyan Edward N, Walters Nathan P. The Foreign Born Population of the United States. Washington, D.C: U.S. Bureau of the Census; 2012. (American Community Survey Reports, ACS-19). [ Google Scholar ]
• Handlin Oscar. The Uprooted: The Epic Story of the Great Migrations that Made the American People. 2. Boston: Little Brown and Company; 1973. (orig pub 1951) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hao Lingxin, Bonstead-Bruns Melissa. Parent-child differences in educational expecations and the academic achievement of immigrant and native students. Sociology of Education. 1998; 71 :175–198. [ Google Scholar ]
• Haines Michael R. The population of the United States 1790–1920. In: Engerman Stanley L, Gallman Robert E., editors. The Cambridge Economic History of the United States. Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. pp. 143–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hing Bill Ong. Making and Remaking Asian America Through Immigration Policy 1850–1990. Stanford: Stanford University Press; 1993. [ Google Scholar ]
• Higham John. Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 1860–1925. 2. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press; 1988. (orig. pub. 1955) [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschman Charles. The educational enrollment of immigrant youth: A test of the segmented-assimilation hypothesis. Demography. 2001; 38 :317–336. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hirschman Charles, Mogford Elizabeth. Immigration and the American industrial revolution from 180 to 1920. Social Science Research. 2009; 38 :897–920. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Howe Irving. World of Our Fathers: The Journey of Eastern European Jews to American and the Life They Founded and Made. New York: Simon and Schuster; 1976. [ Google Scholar ]
• Huntington Samuel L. Who are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity. New York: Simon and Schuster; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Jones Madwyn Allen. American Immigration. 2. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1992. (orig pub 1960) [ Google Scholar ]
• Karabel Jerome. The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. New York: Houghton Mifflin; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Kasinitz Philip, Mollenkopf John H, Waters Mary C, Holdaway Jennifer. Inheriting the City: The Children of Immigrants Come of Age. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Keely Charles. US Immigration: A Policy Analysis. New York: The Population Council; 1979. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lee Ronald D, Miller Timothy W. The current fiscal impact of immigrants and their descendents: beyond the immigrant household. In: Smith J, Edmonston B, editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Impacts of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. pp. 183–205. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberson Stanley. A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Berkeley: University of California Press; 1980. [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberson Stanley, Waters Mary. From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 1988. [ Google Scholar ]
• Massey Douglas S, Jorge Durand, Malone Noland J. Beyond Smoke and Mirrors: Mexican Immigration in an Era of Economic Integration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2002. [ Google Scholar ]
• Min Pyong Gap, Kim Chigon. Patterns of intermarriages and cross-generation in-marriages among native born Asian Americans. International Migration Review. 2009; 43 :447–470. [ Google Scholar ]
• Model Suzanne. West Indian Immigrants: A Black Success Story. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2008. [ Google Scholar ]
• Most Andrea. Making Americans: Jews and the Broadway Musical. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2004. [ Google Scholar ]
• Pagnini Deanna L, Morgan S Philip. Intermarriage and social distance Among U.S. immigrants at the turn of the century. American Journal of Sociology. 1990; 96 :405–432. [ Google Scholar ]
• Perreira Krista, Harris Kathleen Mullan, Lee Dohoon. Making it in America: High School Completion by Immigrant and Native Youth. Demography. 2006; 43 (3):511–536. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Portes Alejandro, Rumbaut Rubén. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Third. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2006. [ Google Scholar ]
• Reimers David M. Still the Golden Door: The Third World Comes to America. New York: Columbia University Press; 1985. [ Google Scholar ]
• Sana Mariano. Immigrants and Natives in U.S. science and engineering occuaptions, 1994–2006. Demography. 2010; 47 :801–820. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Saxenian AnnaLee. Silicon Valley’s new immigrant entrepreneurs. In: Cornelius Wayne, Espenshade Thomas J, Salehyan Idean., editors. The International Migration of the Highly Skilled: Demand, Supply, and Development Consequences in Sending and Receiving Countries. San Diego: Center for U S Mexican Studies at the University of California, San Diego; 2001. pp. 197–234. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith James P, Barry Edmonston., editors. The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1997. [ Google Scholar ]
• Smith James P, Barry Edmonston., editors. The Immigration Debate: Studies on the Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Impacts of Immigration. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. [ Google Scholar ]
• Stephan Paula E, Levin Sharon G. Foreign scholars in the US: Contributions and costs. In: Stephan Paula E, Ronald G., editors. Science and the University. Ehrenberg. Madison: University of Wisconsin; 2007. pp. 150–173. [ Google Scholar ]
• UN (United Nations) Population Division. Trends in International Migrant Stock, Table 1. 2013 Retrieved 7 October 2013 from: http://esa.un.org/unmigration/migrantstocks2013.htm?mtotals .
• U.S. Bureau of the Census. Foreign-Born Population of the United States Current Population Survey – March 2009 Detailed Tables (Table 4.1) 2010 Retrieved 26 August 2010 from http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/foreign/cps2009/T4.1.xls .
• Vecoli Rudolph. The significance of immigration in the formation of an American identity. The History Teacher. 1996; 30 :9–27. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wadhwa Vivek, Saxenian AnnaLee, Rissing Ben, Gereffi Gary. America’s Immigrant Entrepreneurs: Part I. Master of Management Program, DukeUniversity School of Information; UC Berkeley: 2007. Retrieved 30 August 2009 from: ( http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~anno/Papers/Americas_new_immigrant_entrepreneurs_I.pdf ) [ Google Scholar ]
• White Michael, Glick Jennifer E. Achieving Anew: How New Immigrants Do in American Schools, Jobs, and Neighborhoods. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009. [ Google Scholar ]
• Wulf William A. Foreign-born researchers are key to US prosperity and security. The National Academies in Focus. 2006 Winter-Spring; 6 Retrieved 30 August 2009 from http://www.infocusmagazine.org/6.1/president.html . [ Google Scholar ]

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Review Article
• Open access
• Published: 14 October 2021

The plight of migrants during COVID-19 and the impact of circular migration in India: a systematic review

• Joshy Jesline   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5774-8149 1 ,
• John Romate   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0487-7849 1 ,
• Eslavath Rajkumar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3012-0391 1 &
• Allen Joshua George   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9662-9863 1  

Humanities and Social Sciences Communications volume  8 , Article number:  231 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

64k Accesses

48 Citations

16 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Social policy

As per the reports of WHO, the COVID-19, first reported in December 2019, put the whole world in an unprecedented crisis and lingering uncertainty with innumerable deaths, generalised economic depression, unemployment, quarantine, unavoidable lockdown, and travel-ban that was imposed globally as a necessity to tackle the pandemic. Among the populace, the migrants were found to be one of the most vulnerable groups in this lockdown, as their very livelihood came to a complete standstill. This review-paper aims to investigate in detail the multiple facets of adversities the migrants went through in India during the lockdown and the socio-psychological impact of circular migration. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, studies on migrant workers during COVID-19 and on circular migration were searched. Database searches on Scopus, PubMed, and PsychNet and manual searches on Google Scholar were carried out. From the initially identified 15,697 articles, 15 articles that met the inclusion criteria were chosen for review. The findings highlight the different plight of the migrants, who had the pressing need to head back home to safety despite the acute financial crisis and the travel problems. The poor quality of the relief camps with meagre rations and lack of facilities especially put the women and children in distress and generated a lot of psychosocial issues. The present study urges the mental health-care professionals to groom themselves for facing the challenges of a surge in mental illnesses by taking necessary measures. It also emphasises the need to establish a strong ethical alliance between the local population, health systems, local government mechanisms, and human rights associations in order to take a relook at the national migration policies.

Similar content being viewed by others

Torturing environments and multiple injuries in Mexican migration detention

Labour market, social welfare, and migrant remittance: COVID-19 implications in the UK

Dimensions of wellbeing and recognitional justice of migrant workers during the covid-19 lockdown in kerala, india, introduction.

The year 2019 brought with it a new pandemic, the COVID-19 that was first reported in the month of December as per the reports from World Health Organisation, and put the whole world in an unprecedented crisis, that has pushed it into a state of lingering uncertainty (WHO, 2020 ). The coronavirus disease 2019, commonly known as the COVID-19 pandemic, a corollary of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection, has led to a global public health crisis, innumerable deaths, generalised economic depression, redundancy, and quarantines (Aragona et al., 2020 ). The virus brought about a massive change to the existing systems and generated a whirlpool of hurdles that the people had never faced before or had no idea how to overcome. This eventually created overwhelming fear and mounting anxiety among the people due to the novelty of the crisis, the uncertainty it brought with it about how and when the situation will get back to normal, as well as the dread of an impending doom (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ). One of the biggest challenges was the complete lack of an effective treatment method or a preventive vaccine to overcome the virus (Rolland, 2020 ). To make matters worse, the pandemic affected people not only physically but also psychologically, economically, socially, and politically. People belonging to various socio-economic strata were affected adversely in this situation, regardless of their social status, as everyone had fallen prey to this crisis in one way or another. It is undeniably true that the life in the pandemic era effected a far-reaching change in the way people think, work and interact with one another around the world (Aragona et al., 2020 ). What is more, it has also taught the world the new normal ways of human relationships and social distancing, which are sure to linger on for quite a while (Ram, 2020 ; Rolland, 2020 ). It has also provided the world a lesson about the worthlessness of the rat race and the fragility of human life. It is certainly true that the pandemic has led the world to a paradigm shift in the attitude and behaviour of people as never before.

The pandemic brought with it lockdowns and travel-bans that were imposed by the governments all over the world as a necessity to tackle the pandemic and to rein in its outspread. However, the lockdown upset the daily routines of the people especially the working class who were put in a major financial predicament (Chander et al., 2020 ). A new normalcy of surviving in a state of constant panic came into place, with the people being asked to live in this uncertainty for a longer duration than what was anticipated in the beginning of the pandemic. A batch of novel practices came into existence as part of rigorous mitigation efforts, such as, “social distancing, household quarantine, facemasks, vigilant sanitisation and hand washing, and avoidance of public gatherings, public transportation etc.” (Rolland, 2020 ). As time passed and the situation became worse, the pandemic has slowly unmasked its harsh reality and people have started grasping this truth that the current state of the situation is going to last longer than what was presumed of it in the beginning, and this has affected them rather drastically. The transformational process of adapting to this pandemic risk as a public or global calamity, while dealing with the fear of contracting COVID-19, and managing the disease, is highly exhausting and not doable by all (Rolland, 2020 ).

The daily wagers were the worst sufferers of this lockdown. With the enforcement of the lockdown, not only were they without jobs but also were frustrated because of the cessation of their daily income on which they survived (Ram, 2020 ). Their very livelihood came to a complete standstill; as a result, they could not meet theirs as well as their families’ daily needs (Chakma, 2020 ). The migrants were found to be the most vulnerable among the working class to come under this economy fallout (Nanda, 2020 ). The situation affected people belonging to all classes; moreover, it has exposed in the bare open the blatant disparities that exist in the socio-economic and health-care facilities (Aragona et al., 2020 ). In addition, it has been found that the perils of sickness and deaths vary colossally by “social location, such as, race, social class, gender, age, ability, and geographic location” (Rolland, 2020 ). There were many reported cases of suicide and suicidal attempts especially by people from economically lower classes, as they were not able to cope with the problems stemming from the loss of job and income (Kumar and Vashisht, 2009 ; Mukhra, 2020 ; Nelson, 2020 ).

In addition, the mental strain this pandemic imposed on the common people was especially enormous. One such group that was highly and adversely affected by this crisis situation was the migrants, who had to move out to different parts of the country in search of jobs to sustain their families (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020c ). There are about 100 million internal migrant workers in India, and most of them are daily-wage labourers who have travelled out from different states like Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, etc. to other states in search of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs (Hazarika, 2020). Based on the data obtained from the National Sample Survey (NSS) 2007–2008, out of the total workforce in India, about 28.3% were migrants. According to 2011 census, about 37% of India’s total population were found to be migrants (Singh, 2021 ). This was a climb of 139 million migrants from what was reported in 2001 census (Census of India, 2011 ; Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020c ).

These migrants too were trapped in the lockdown with no jobs and no money, facing major economic setback, besides being isolated from their families due to the sudden lockdown (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ). While India’s population of 1.3 billion people could not but come to terms with the changes of imposed social distancing, millions of migrant workers in India had other daunting tasks also to confront with (Londhe, 2020 ). The concept of social distancing bears no meaning for the migrants because of the persistence of even more pressing and nagging problems of insecurity and hunger. Based on the data obtained from Census 2011, it was found that there was a rise in total number of migrants by 30% from that of 2001, whose major destinations are growth centres and states like Delhi, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala (Census of India, 2011 ; Dandekar and Ghai, 2020 ; Nanda, 2020 ). Even though, the lockdown situation affected the community at large and people were obliged to stay at home, the migrants could not even be in the comfort of being locked in with their families; instead, they were destined to be stuck in a migrant land with no means to survive (Kumar et al., 2020 ). Therefore, this community had to endure more appalling hardships than anyone else, not only financially but also socially and mentally (Aragona et al., 2020 ; Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c).

In order to alleviate the suffering of migrants it is necessary to investigate, understand, and analyse the hardships they have been undergoing. In-depth explorations of the studies in the Indian context dealing with circular migration and their psychological impact are needed to foster greater awareness among the public and to introduce new measures that can be adopted to safeguard the rights of the migrants.

This review-paper aims to study in detail the multiple facets of the predicaments the migrant workers were going through in the Indian context during the pandemic and the lockdown. Its main objective is to focus on the hardships that have led the migrants to a circular migration or reverse migration and the adversities that have been brought about by circular migration during the pandemic upon the migrants. The study also aims to shed light on the psychological toll inflicted by this pandemic on the migrants and the resultant reverse migration. Furthermore, it focuses on the means to address the issues concerning their mental health-care, and makes recommendations on the measures to protect their human rights and safeguard their lives and livelihood.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first systematic review that has specifically focused on the plight of the migrant workers during the pandemic and the issues revolving around circular migration in the Indian context. The consequences of this pandemic have put the world in a state of impending doom and therefore, there is a compelling need to address the situation especially of the migrants who are among the groups, which are most affected by the adverse outcomes of COVID-19 and subsequent restrictions on mobility. A systematic review helps to synthesise the data related to this from all available sources and to integrate them in order to efficiently reach and promote awareness among health-care professionals, policy makers, administrative staff, future researchers, and the general public. The findings of this study could therefore be used for formulating new strategies for the betterment of migrant workers.

Types of studies included

Studies on migration and circular migration of Indians during the COVID-19 crisis were considered to be included in the current systematic review, regardless of the type of study, research design, or the outcomes. However, studies on emigrants, immigrants, and migrants in other countries were excluded from the study.

Subjects of the study

The population for the study were unskilled migrant workers in India, who were among the most affected during the lockdown due to their low socio-economic status, besides being increasingly prone to mental health issues.

Search strategy

The search string used in Scopus was: TITLE-ABS-KEY (“circular migration”) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (migration) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (migrant) AND TITLE-ABS-KEY (covid) OR TITLE-ABS-KEY (covid-19); in PsychNET (Abstract: “circular migration” OR Abstract: “migration” OR Abstract: “migrant” AND Abstract: “covid” OR Abstract: “covid-19” AND Publication); and in PubMed (“circular migration” [Title/Abstract] OR “migration” [Title/Abstract] OR “migrant” [Title/Abstract]) AND “covid” [Title/Abstract]) OR “covid-19” [Title/Abstract]).

Data management

All pinpointed references were imported to Zotero, a bibliographic reference management tool, and all duplicates were removed. The de-duplicated citations in Zotero were imported to the data extraction form for coding.

Selection of studies

The first and third authors simultaneously screened the articles for the titles and abstracts and did the initial screening and data extraction independently. Articles that dealt with the plight of migrant workers during COVID-19 pandemic were included for the full text review. After the primary screening, the selected articles were reviewed for full text reading to determine their eligibility. The articles were selected if they were falling under the time-period of 2019–20 and discussed the plight of migrants during the lockdown and also addressed their psychological issues during this crisis in the Indian context. Final decision on the eligibility and the reasons for exclusion of studies were documented on the data extraction form.

Study characteristics

The final sample for the systematic review included 15 studies, which were all published in the year 2020. Most of the studies were descriptive and qualitative in nature ( n  = 12) and discussed the plight of the migrants and the various adversities encountered by them in India during the lockdown, while the others ( n  = 3) were quantitative in nature that addressed in-depth the psychological issues faced by the migrants. All the articles were based on the Indian context, and most of the articles were pan Indian in their approach, while some articles ( n  = 4) focused on conditions of migrants in their respective states or cities alone, specifically Chandigarh, Delhi, Bangalore and Kolkata. The articles discussed the various economic, social and psychological issues faced by the migrants. Some articles ( n  = 8) also elaborated on the steps taken by the government and made suggestions about policies that can be adopted to better the lives of the migrants. Among this, some studies ( n  = 3) also focused on making psychological interventions to help the migrants (Chander et al., 2020 ; Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c; Kumar et al., 2020 ).

The characteristics and main findings of these studies are summarised and presented in Table 1 .

Identification of the studies

In total, 15,697 studies were detected through database searching; among which 15 studies met the inclusion criteria and were further analysed for the present review. (The PRISMA flow diagram is shown in Fig. 1 ). Out of the 15,697 studies, 450 were from PsychNet, 14,988 were from PubMed, 229 from Scopus and 30 from Google Scholar. After the initial screening (which included the removal of duplicates), 106 articles were selected and assessed for eligibility, from which 91 studies were excluded and the final 15 were selected.

Stages involved in finalizing the articles for analysis after obtaining the data.

Distribution of migrants

Based on the data obtained in the Census 2011, it was found that the distribution of migrants to the total population across cities were, Delhi 43.1%, Mumbai, 54.9%, Kolkata 40.8%, Chennai 51.8%, Bangalore 52.3%, Hyderabad 64.3%, Ahmedabad 48.7% and Pune 64.8% (Census of India, 2011 ). As per the reports from a study, it was found that the highest number of COVID-19 cases as of 13 th April 2020 was reported in Delhi with 898 cases followed by Mumbai with 880. The share of COVID-19 cases from these metropolitan cities to the total percent was 38% (Bhagat et al., 2020 ).

Plight of migrants

All the studies focused on the various problems that the crisis has brought for the migrants, including the psychological and social issues. Out of the articles chosen for the current systematic review, the findings from a study (Kumar et al., 2020 ) on the psychological impact of the pandemic on the migrants ( n  = 98), revealed that about 63.3% of participants underwent loneliness and around 48% of them felt that there was a decrease in their social connectedness. Also, they found that roughly 50% experienced fear of death, around 58.2% individuals experienced frustration and tension, about 51% felt irritable and anxious, and three fourth of the participants were diagnosed with depression.

Statistics obtained from studies also suggested that almost only 4% of the total population of the migrants received rations that were allotted by the government, and 29% did not receive rations despite having ration cards (Farooqui and Pandey, 2020 ). Almost 90% of the migrants either faced loss of pay or a reduction in their salary (Shahare, 2020 ). International Labour Organization (ILO) estimated a decline of 22.6% in the wages of migrant workers post lockdown (Gothoskar, 2021 ). A survey conducted across 179 districts in India from May 30, 2020 to July 16, 2020 found that around 35% of the migrants went without any meal the whole day (Pandit, 2020 ).

The findings from some articles focused on circular migration and its adverse consequences ( n  = 5), while a few other articles reported the problems of discrimination faced by migrants belonging to the disadvantaged communities ( n  = 2). Some articles also emphasised the financial crisis created by this pandemic ( n  = 4), which was particularly acute for the migrants. All the studies shed light on the psychological issues faced by the migrants and among this, a few studies ( n  = 3) also suggested interventions for the migrants (Chander et al., 2020 ; Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c; Kumar et al., 2020 ). Many studies ( n  = 8) also pointed out the urgent need for revising the existing government-policies and taking new initiatives by the government for the betterment of the migrant workers.

Among the 15 studies, one study (Chander et al., 2020 ) reported visiting various spots across the city ( n  = 140), contacting around 5048 migrants and offering assistance to nearly 3944 migrants. In another study under the District Mental Health Program, Chandigarh, many migrants ( n  = 61) were attended to for their mental health issues and taken care of (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c). In the same city, another study was carried out among migrants ( n  = 98), which found that the majority of the participants were facing one or the other mental health issues and made interventions on a limited scale (Kumar et al., 2020 ).

One of the key elements and an integral factor contributing to development among the human civilisation is migration (Nanda, 2020 ). Migration happens at both individual and community levels, and occurs due to multiple reasons such as the lookout for better job opportunities, improved living conditions and for enhanced productivity and thereby greater income (Raj, 1981 ; Shahare, 2020 ). Migration takes place based on the various vital resources that are available in the ecosystem (Ram, 2020 ). The practice of migration has happened from time immemorial and can be traced from the beginning of humanity, as it first existed in the form of nomads who moved in groups from one place to another in the lookout for better resources, and later on as invasions by various rulers (Rolland, 2020 ).

Migration is regarded as a continuous process that is common to all living beings (Virupaksha, 2014 ). There are two major types of migration: one that takes place within a country across a district or a state-border, which is known as internal or national migration; and the other a migration that involves crossing international borders, which is referred to as external or international migration (Bhagat, 2020a ). Migrants associated with these types of migration are called in-migrants and out-migrants respectively (Sinha, 2005 ). Further, based on the place of origin and destination, migration can be classified into four categories: (i) rural–rural, (ii) rural–urban, (iii) urban–urban and (iv) urban–rural (Amin, 2018 ; Kishore and Kiran, 2013 ). The types of labour migration can be broadly classified as (i) Permanent, (ii) Commuting, and (iii) Circular (Haas and Osland, 2014 ). Permanent refers to the situation when the migrant does not intend to return to their native lands. Commuting refers to the regular movement between an individual’s home and work, which is characterised by the separation between the workplace and residence (Colla et al., 2017 ). Circular migration is a situation where the migrants do not stay in the migrated lands forever but instead go back to their native lands after some time, and then might move again to a different place (Gomathi, 2014 ).

In general, the migrants go to their destinations to fulfil their livelihood/career aspirations and/or to satisfy their basic requirements, but they return to their places of origin after a certain period to settle down, which is a “circular” process (Ghosh, 1985 ). “Hence circular migration is viewed as a cyclic journey of the migrants, which encompasses with their living pattern in two worlds i.e., urban insecure employment and stable homeland” (Nanda, 2020 ).

According to the National Sample Survey (NSS) and the India Human Development Survey (IHDS), the migrant labourers are mainly from rural areas and come from very poor backgrounds and belong to the lower social classes like the Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST) and Other Backward Classes (OBC) (Shahare, 2020 ). According to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the inter-state migration in pursuit of an occupation every year around the world was estimated to be around 9 million, and this is acknowledged as “temporary, contingent and non-standard” in nature with minimal access to societal perks and labour privileges (Chander et al., 2020 , p.1). The administrative and socio-cultural barriers and the language differences in addition to geographical variance further hinder the process of migration (Aragona et al., 2020 ). The migrant workers are inclined to falling prey to adverse mental health impacts of various traumas created through interfaces of multiple factors such as, “abject poverty, malnutrition, cultural bereavement, loss of religious practices and social protection systems, malalignment with a new culture, coping with language difficulties, changes in identity, substance abuse, poor access to health-care, in addition to the poor living conditions and financial constraints”, as a result of migrating to a new state (Choudhari, 2020 , p. 5).

A large majority of the migrants are daily wagers who have low-income and poor living conditions that are dilapidated, unhygienic and scarce of basic amenities like clean water supply, and electricity (Kusuma et al., 2014 ). Most of the migrants are slum-dwellers with inadequate sanitation facilities and are forced to go for open defecation because of the lack of lavatories. As the migrants are not used to the food of the lands of their migration, many of them turn towards fast food centres, which deprives them of nutritious and healthy diets (Babu et al., 2017 ). The above-mentioned factors have made them susceptible to multiple physical and mental health problems (Chander et al., 2020 ). There are no government machinery, department, board or other direct administering body to address the grievances of these migrant workers; neither do they have any rights or privileges in the regions in which they work or in the villages to which they belong (Nirmala, 2020 ).

Upon the rise of the pandemic, the migrants were among the groups of victims who were acutely affected by the lockdown (Choudhari, 2020 ). These daily wagers are said to be the weakest and socially neglected community that forms the classic nobodies among Indian citizens (Shahare, 2020 ).

The migrants were trapped in their migrated lands, far away from their families and loved ones with minimal health-care facilities, poor living conditions, besides being devoid of a job and having no money or means to survive (Ram, 2020 ). The migrants are more likely to fall prey to various traumas emanating from all three domains- social, psychological, and emotional, which stem from the dread of being discriminated and ignored by the local community around them and the grave concerns that arise about the safety and comfort of their families in their native places (Kumar et al., 2020 ).

Circular migration, as a result of the pandemic, generated severe stress, tension, despair, addiction to substance use, and self-harm behaviour among the migrants. In addition, they had greater concerns that deeply affected them, such as, “uncertainty about the duration of the lockdown; desperate longing to travel and meet their families; fear of being abandoned/deserted by their employers; insecurity about job and income; acute distress that arose from their inability to look after the health issues of children and pregnant women” (Chander et al., 2020 , p. 2)

Desire to return to their homeland

Once the lockdown was implemented, the primary concern for most of the migrants was to return safely to their families. Being isolated from the families created more stress and tension among them and caused a lot of growing anxiety about the travel possibilities.

On 19th March 2020, the Indian Railways announced the sudden suspension of passenger trains and, as a consequence, there was a mass exodus of utterly terrified migrant workers. Thousands of migrant workers across Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) were seen carrying heavy baggage and wailing children walking on national highways, boarding tractors, and shoving each other around for seats in buses to leave for their homes. The government, upon understanding the problems of jobless migrants to access food and shelter, tried to reassure them by announcing an assistance by an extended scheme under the Prime Minister’s Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY). This offered relief packages to the migrants and daily wagers with the aim of blocking any disruptions to their employment besides supporting small establishments. However, this initiative was not satisfactory, because despite these efforts of the government, a huge number of migrants spent restless nights without food, asylum and/or travel facilities (Nanda, 2020 ). Failure in the implementation of the government’s assurance to provide basic necessities such as food and water forced thousands of migrant labourers to flock to the city’s bus terminals (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c). However, not everyone could get on a bus and leave for their homelands (Ram, 2020 ).

Since most of the public transport was suspended as part of COVID-19 safety precautions, the migrants were stuck at their place of work and felt completely miserable (Chander et al., 2020 ). Even though they were aware of the risks involved in travelling back to their hometowns, both for them and their families, most of them desperately longed to get back home. They believed that it would be comforting to be with their loved ones during this time of uncertainty of impending death and was increasingly impatient to travel back home. They yearned to go back, so much so that they were even willing to put up with the discomforts of the travel quarantine norms imposed by the government (Chander et al., 2020 ).

From surveys conducted by NGOs like Stranded Workers Action Network (SWAN), it was found that due to scarcity of money and food, many of the migrants had very little to eat and some were even on the brink of starvation (Staff, 2020 ; Shahare, 2020 ). Most of these migrants suffered hunger pangs and police brutality and hundreds of people died tragically enroute to their homelands during the pandemic (Santoshini, 2020 ).

Fear of losing job

As much intense was the desire of the migrants to go back to their families, so were their worries about losing their jobs. Millions of migrant labourers employed across various sectors like construction, agriculture, manufacturing, transport and other services were stuck in their migrant locations during the lockdown. Even those migrant labourers who did not lose their jobs, as they were employed in essential services, had to suffer from wage-cuts imposed by their employers. They were therefore worried over how they would meet their regular expenses like those on food, clothing, medicines and accommodation. For those who were away from their worksite for several days together, there was absolutely no job security, and this led to a mounting panic in them. On the other hand, those who lost their jobs had the additional worries about whether and how they could return to their hometowns. Owing to the prevailing travel restrictions and the non-availability of transport facilities, there was no certainty about whether and when they would be able to travel back. The dread of being forsaken by their employers and the creeping fear of being abandoned with no job, wages or place to stay was indeed a traumatic experience for them (Chander et al., 2020 ).

Financial distress

As per the certified employment valuation, Indian industries have millions of internal migrant staff who make significant contributions to the economy of India. (Deshingkar and Akter, 2009 ; Choudhari, 2020 ). Although India’s economic growth is dependent to a great extent on the cheap labour of such migrants who work for even less than the minimum wages, they remained unrewarded and obscure in Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR), and were excluded from relief funds during the COVID-19 crisis (Shahare, 2020 ).

The International Labour Organization (2020) has observed that migrant labourers are the worst-hit by the current economic crisis. The costs of basic hygienic products necessary for individual security during the pandemic (such as detergents, soaps, sanitisers) have become prohibitively expensive and unaffordable for the migrants, because they were thrown out of their jobs and had no other sources of income (Srivastava, 2020 ). Many employers have either fired the migrant workers without any prior notice or have stopped paying them salaries. The financial crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic has inflicted severe difficulties for the lower income families in meeting the costs of food, clothing and medicines (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ). Adding to the financial woes of the migrants, the NITI Aayog (a public policy think-tank of the Government of India) reduced food subsidies from 75 to 60% in rural areas and from 50 to 40% in urban areas (Gothoskar, 2021 ). Studies done on earlier recessions (Kumar et al., 2020 ) have pointed out that the work-loss during an economic crisis often leads to “longstanding unemployment and wage impediments, deteriorating or worsening the health of unemployed workers and thereby increasing poverty” (Khanna, 2020 , p. 3–4).

Quality of the relief camps

Not all migrants could travel back to their homelands before the lockdown. All those who were left behind were allotted food and accommodation by the government (Singh et al., 2020 ). Numerous labourers had to remain in extremely tiny and congested rooms with nearly nothing to live on. Seven to eight individuals were confined in a tiny room with practically no ventilation, and no appropriate space to cook food (Shahare, 2020 ).

In majority of the relief camps there were no essential facilities such as power, light, fan, latrines and water, and most of them were absolutely packed, and the old occupants were not permitting new ones to come in. Consequently, there were a lot of fights, maltreatments and bullying among the migrant groups (Shahare, 2020 ).

The anxiety of catching the disease, as described in the words of a Dalit migrant as a personal experience account was such, “that we were scared that we might get infected with the virus because there was a COVID-19 positive patient in my neighbouring street … we did not want to stay anymore in Mumbai because we were anxious of getting the infection through using the public toilet or sharing food because we lived in a slum and we don’t have separate toilet and housing; thus we decided that now we shall return to our village” (Pankaj, 2020 , p. 5). Although the government had allotted food and shelter for the migrants, it was found that in most of the shelter homes and relief camps people did not receive sufficient quantity and quality food on time. They had to wait for three to four hours in long queues since morning for their meals. Thousands of calls related to scarcity of food were made to the police from these camps on a daily basis (Shahare, 2020 ).

Shortages in the allotted rations

The report by SWAN that was released on 15th April 2020, stated that, “only 51%, of who were surveyed, had rations left for less than one day” (Farooqui and Pandey, 2020 ). It further observed that, “two weeks into the lockdown, only 1% of the stranded workers had received rations from the government, and three weeks into the lockdown, 96% of the migrants had not received rations from the government at all, 70% had not received any cooked food, 78% had less than Rs.300 left with them and 89% had not been paid by their employers at all during the lockdown” (Shahare, 2020 , p. 6). The distribution of rations was on the basis of the person possessing a ration card, but most of the migrants did not have a permanent residence or necessary legal documents, and therefore were unable to get a ration card.

This distribution system became faulty due to the lack of an inter-state portable ration cards acceptable in all states. The impact of this problem has got aggravated, as a large section of the migrants neither have a valid ID proof nor have been registered under any special schemes set up for them. Although the government has enacted the Inter-State Migrant Workmen Act, 1979 to facilitate the lives and work of migrant labourers, it has remained ineffective due to poor implementation, as per the reports of the Standing Committee on Labour (PRS India, 2020).

An article in The New Indian Express , published on 29 March 2020, reported that about 200 migrant workers belonging to the Soliga tribe were stranded at coffee estates in a village of Kodagu (formerly known as Coorg) district in the Indian state of Karnataka and were running out of food and were living in awful conditions (Chakma, 2020 ). On the publication of this article, the government of Karnataka reached out to them and distributed rations of rice and pluses and other necessary food products like eggs, ghee and edible oil to the tribal families (Chakma, 2020 ).

The Delhi Government has developed shelter homes, quarantine homes and relief camps for the migrants and are taking care of about 600,000 individuals, besides providing food to more than 2.2 million migrants under their Free Ration Scheme, facilitated by the One Nation One Ration Card Scheme of the Government of India. Despite this, millions of migrants are still excluded from these schemes and have not received any help from the Government (Mukhra, 2020 ).

Insufficient health-care facilities

The migrant population including mothers, children, and pregnant women, were deeply apprehensive about their well-being, and had serious concerns about their health inside the shelter homes. This group at large was already predisposed to communicable diseases due to their malnutrition, socio-economic status, occupational hazards, and the poor living conditions (Choudhari, 2020 ). The deplorable conditions in the relief camps prevented them from following any basic safety precautions like practising social distancing, regular washing of hands, use of sanitiser and masks, that each individual was required to do as part of the standard procedure for fighting COVID-19. Unfortunately, practising these measures was extremely difficult or impossible in their crowded and ill-equipped camp-accommodations, and this has put the group at great risk of contracting the disease (Andrade, 2020 ; Chander et al., 2020 ). Even the symptoms of common cold, such as “fever, cough and throat pain” among the people were feared as Covid-infections, which threw everyone into a panic and caused a lot of bitter resentment amongst those living in the community (Chander et al., 2020 ).

Hardships of women in the camps

Female migrant workers confronted daunting challenges while living along with unknown men in these shelter homes. One major problem was in using the common toilets with them, which was highly unhygienic and likely to cause infections under the prevailing pandemic conditions. There was no privacy or protection available for the women during day or night. The plight of pregnant women was particularly miserable as they were greatly inconvenienced in these camps and shelter-homes. There were no facilities for regular medical check-up by doctors or for taking scans or conducting the necessary tests.

It was found in one of the surveys that nearly 42% of the pregnant migrant women did not receive any medical check-ups during the lockdown (Pandit, 2020 ). All these were highly disconcerting for the women who were forced to live in these camps (Shahare, 2020 ).

Withdrawal symptoms

Majority of the migrants use one or the other type of substances such as tobacco or alcohol. Therefore, the non-availability of these products during the lockdown has led to severe withdrawal symptoms in many of them. In a study conducted in Bangalore (Chander et al., 2020 ) a few migrants spoke out that they all have become “sober” due to non-availability of alcohol and other substances. Some of them even spoke about their withdrawal issues, which caused a lot of frustration in them and resulted in relationship problems, domestic violence, and psychiatric illnesses. Heavier alcohol usage and criminal sexual behaviour have been reported in communities of predominantly single men compared to those living with their families.

Psychological issues

The poor living conditions of the migrants the shortages for the basic necessities have caused severe mental stress to many of them, which got manifested in their lives in the form of relationship problems, substance abuse, alcoholism, sexual exploitation, domestic violence, and psychiatric illnesses (NACP III, 2007 ; Kumar et al., 2020 ). Adding further to the burden of the awful shock wave of physical distress caused by the pandemic, there was a gigantic wave of psychological issues among migrant labourers, with deaths due to suicides as its lead sign (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c). Suicidal tendencies were provoked among the migrants, as they lived constantly under severe financial worries, loneliness, anxiety, fear, and feelings of hopelessness and isolation (Choudhari, 2020 ). The constant fear of an impending doom of a completely dark future has further intensified their psychological distress and discomfort.

With the imposition of the lockdown, not all were able to go back to their homelands. Instead, they were stranded in the migrant lands with no income but only uncertainty about travelling back home, which made them mentally disturbed and agitated (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c). As all the workplaces were shut down, there was an increasing panic about whether and when they would be reopened. Even if the workplaces are reopened, there was no guarantee that all the former employees would be hired back. There was a lingering fear in the minds of these displaced workers that the recession in the aftermath of the pandemic would result in large scale firing of employees. This fear and distress accompanied the migrants who travelled to their native lands and at the same time restrained some of them from going back to their native lands (Nanda, 2020 ).

The living conditions of the migrants also induced distress and concern as they were heavily crammed up and unhygienic, which was the complete opposite of an ideal place to be in during the pandemic. The fear and agony of living in such harsh conditions and the lingering uncertainty about the future gave rise to many psychiatric issues among them, such as anxiety disorders and substance abuse. In a study on migrants, it was found that there is increased risk for the manifestation of schizophrenia and related non affective psychosis among first- and second-generation migrants (Henssler et al., 2019 ). As most of the migrants belonged to the socio-economically backward classes, they are subjected to much inequity and prejudice from the people in the migrant lands, and were never able to fit in with the new surroundings. Studies from the clinical psychology perspective have found that experiencing discrimination and social exclusion has led to increased rates of psychotic experiences among migrants (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ).

In most of the cases of the migrants, the absence of a caretaker or a family member with them has caused an unceasing feeling of loneliness and frustration (Zhou et al., 2020 ). There was also a continuous feeling of helplessness caused by their inability to meet the livelihood and health requirements of their families, living away in their homelands. This has greatly deepened their agony of being stuck far away from home (Choudhari, 2020 ).

Apart from causing harmful effects on the body, the virus has the ability to inflict longstanding psychological disorders such as “depression, anxiety, panic disorder, and psychosomatic manifestations” (Qiu et al., 2020 , p. 2). There were several reported attempts of self-harm and suicides by the migrants (Singh, 2020a , 2020b , 2020 c). The pathetic situation they are in and the ambiguity about the extent of the crisis created a panic response among the migrants and made them act out frantically. The nagging anxiety levels that were mounting among the masses day by day led them to set out on their travel on foot for several hundred miles in order to reach their destinations, their homelands, with no facility of food or shelter during the journey (Choudhari, 2020 ).

Although the mental-distress cases were escalating, it was noticed that there was a drastic decline in the number of patients (both new and follow up cases) visiting the psychiatric outpatient services after the lockdown. Apparently, the reluctance to visit the clinics was out of the fear of contracting the virus. However, the danger of ignoring any psychological treatment at a time when they are estimated to be rising holds the possibilities of adverse effects on the efficacy of treatment. In addition, the considerable decline in follow-up visits also paves way to the threat of relapse (Aragona et al., 2020 ).

Racial discrimination of the North Eastern migrants

It was reported by the Rights and Risks Analysis Group (RRAG) on 26 March 2020, that, during the time-period from 7th February 2020 to 25 th March 2020, there were twenty-two incidents (in different parts of the country) of racial discrimination and assaults against individuals from the North East (Chakma, 2020 ). They were called names such as “Corona”, “Chinese”, and “Chinki”, and were glared at, along with shouting of expletives. India’s mongoloid looking citizens were subjected to insults while they were strolling on the roads, doing their shopping or travelling in trains and buses. They were called “Covid”, and coercively isolated, even though they had negative COVID-19 certificates. They were denied entry into public places, and were driven out of eateries and shared transports.

Psychosocial issues

The high levels of anxiety and stress induced among the general public by the lockdown during this pandemic was felt more intensely among the migrants, leading to many more psychosocial issues among them. The stress generated in the migrants made them behave in socially unacceptable ways and caused panic attacks on them. Consequently, they started fleeing hastily from the migrant lands. In order to go back to their home states at the earliest, they started crowding at the local bus stands and railway stations in desperation, ignoring all lockdown rules. This reckless behaviour of violating the norms of preventive measures resulted in the perpetual vicious cycle of being exposed to infection, quarantine, distress and hostilities (Choudhari, 2020 ). Although the most pressing need for all migrants at that time was the immediate return to their homelands from the migrant lands, the reverse migration came with a lot of appalling hardships and several other related problems (Tandon, 2020 ; Wong et al., 2019 ; Chakma, 2020 ).

Issues of reverse migration

Owing to circular migration or reverse migration, there was an acute shortage of workers in the urban areas from where the migrant workers had left for their homelands (Srivastava, 2020 ). This shortage, combined with the new relaxed laws in both occupational and industrial health, compelled the available local workers to work for longer durations than what was actually expected of them, which was in fact against the Factories Act of 1948 (Rivera et al., 2020 ; Wong et al., 2019 ). As a result, there was a drastic decline in the resting hours of the workers, which in turn led to the rise in stress and burnout among them and made them more prone to mental health issues (Choudhari, 2020 ).

The phenomenon of reverse migration has a bigger effect on the indigenous communities in the migrant lands as well. Reverse migration can mop out endangered indigenous Indian communities’ inhabitants and eternally ruin the subsistence of several such communities. As there were millions of people belonging to outside communities, such as those from the North East, have migrated to the urban cities in search of work in unorganised sectors, the lockdown induced re-migration would adversely affect the urban economies for want of labourers, as well as lead to the destruction of the economy of the migrants’ homelands because of the loss of jobs and income for those families and the resultant food and hunger crisis (Chakma, 2020 ).

The problems of the migrants did not cease to exist even after their reverse migration to their homelands. On reaching back to their homelands, their problems were mainly about staying in quarantine and the difficulties associated with it (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ).

Issues with quarantine after reverse migration

As part of the travel protocol prescribed for the pandemic-times, all migrants going back to their homelands were expected to be tested for COVID-19 and were expected to stay in self-isolation or quarantine at their homeland-residences for a minimum of fourteen days. Most of the migrants come from poor backgrounds with only a single room in their houses. Under this situation, they had to spend their quarantine period outside their houses. It was reported that in the Purulia district of West Bengal, some migrants spent their quarantine period outside the village limits by sleeping under trees, inside trucks or buses, or in make-shift shelters (Chakma, 2020 ). Similarly, in the Siwan area of Bihar, the labourers who managed to arrive at their hometowns were placed in extremely small spaces behind an iron gate in an infectious condition. To their good fortune, they were rescued from there on the following day and were transported in trucks to the isolation centres of their respective panchayats (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ).

Since the panchayat-shelters were also makeshift arrangements, there were very few protective measures provided to the residents. As the migrants were crowded in these shelters in high concentration, there was a significant risk of infection. In most places, the migrant labourers were stuck in these makeshift camps for many days, with poor infrastructure and inadequate food supply (Mishra and Sayeed, 2020 ).

Since the imposition of the lockdown, the media has featured several stories of the pathetic situation of the migrant labourers in various parts of the country. In the Bareli district of Uttar Pradesh, many migrants including women and children were forcefully pushed to clean themselves up in chemical baths as a sanitisation measure (Sammadar, 2020 ).

In general, the overall condition of the migrants was inexpressibly pathetic. Their worries and adversities did not come to an end. From being stuck in the lockdown in migrant lands to going through the difficulties of reverse migration and the struggles of survival, battling through quarantine and financial crisis during the pandemic-time was a fierce combat they had to wage while trying to stay alive and safe from the risk of starvation and infection.

This paper is an attempt to assess (based on published research papers) the plight of the migrants during the Covid crisis, in terms of their economic, social and health conditions. It brought into limelight the adversities, vulnerabilities, as well as the physical and psychological distresses and discriminations faced by the migrants under the onslaught of this pandemic in the Indian context, along with the problems of the resultant circular migration. From the survey of the 15 selected studies, it was clear that most of the problems faced by the migrants were due to them having been stranded in the migrated lands due to the lockdown. They were stuck in relief camps that had poor living conditions, with no job or income and, therefore, no means to travel back to their homelands. They became vulnerable to many physical and psychological illnesses, and received hardly any medical care from the government. In addition to suffering from the lack of basic physical facilities and the scarcity in the allocated resources, they also faced social issues such as discrimination and attacks from the local people.

Owing to the unpredictable nature of the pandemic and the uncertain turns it was taking with the passage of time, there was no end in sight for the crisis, and so the migrants couldn’t expect any relief from this tragic situation they were locked down in. The government launched several initiatives for the welfare of the migrants. One of them is the “The Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan”, through which they distributed free food grains for migrant workers without ration cards for a period of 2 months. Another government program was the “Affordable Rental Housing Complexes for Migrant Workers and Urban Poor”, which provided affordable rental housing units under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PRSIndia, 2020 ). Although there were many such initiatives by the government, most of them were poorly implemented, and therefore, they became non-functional and failed to reach the entire migrant population.

Through the present study, the authors conclude that, based on the evaluation of the factors affecting the migrants, it is necessary to adopt immediate interventions for the welfare of the migrants.

Recommendations

One of the most pressing needs of the migrants is to have access to health services, which are equitable, non-discriminatory, and appropriate according to age and gender. In order to ensure maximum effectiveness, these measures must be people-centred and migrant sensitive, so as to deliver services that are culturally and linguistically appropriate because migrants are different from the people in the migrated lands, as they are subjected to different kinds of distress and exploitation.

Additionally, addressing and improving the mental health of the migrants are extremely necessary. Providing regular facilities such as in-person counselling, tele-counselling, therapies and psychosocial services is a necessity. In addition to this, systematic assessments must be conducted for early detection of and early interventions for any mental disorders among the migrants. Forming a strong ethical alliance between the local population, health systems, local government, and human rights associations to ensure the welfare of these migrants is also necessary. Furthermore, it is vitally important to prevent the spread of any fake news about the virus and to convey evidence-based accurate information to the public.

A major issue that calls for special attention is the well-being of women and children among the migrants. Women should be provided adequate services for maintaining reproductive health, maternal health, postnatal care, paediatric care and preventive/remedial measures for dealing with domestic or sexual abuse. These services must be focused on risk assessment and treatment for improving their health conditions and must not be used to screen out their health issues; nor should they be used as a tool for discrimination or for enforcing any restrictions. The migrant community must also be given priority for vaccination by the local administrations because of their particular vulnerability to the virus-infection. Furthermore, since the major cause for their health issues is the deplorable living conditions of the relief camps, the respective state governments should take the necessary steps to improve the living conditions in all relief camps.

It is essential to monitor health-care practices of the migrants and generate a repository of relevant health-care information during the pandemic period, which can be used to support future studies on the health issues of migrants during any Covid-like pandemics. Moreover, this will also facilitate sharing of health-related information between states, so as to facilitate the implementation of effective treatment strategies for migrants from various places.

A major social issue among the migrants is their fear of losing their jobs, income and housing. On these matters also it is the governments that can help, as they can take unbiased actions in case of any exploitation or labour complaints regarding their right to stay and work. It will also be of help if assistance is provided to the migrants to form associations and cooperative societies to support the livelihood of those who have returned to their native lands.

In view of the need to effectively manage the health issues of the migrants, it is necessary to give special attention to the migrants’ housing facilities, as their present unhygienic living conditions are a breeding ground for innumerable diseases. Government initiatives like The Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan, must be properly implemented. Similarly, NGOs and aid agencies should be persuaded to raise funds to construct affordable housing units, which should be made available to migrants for minimal rents (PRSIndia, 2020 ). For migrants who are not able to afford even these minimum-rental houses, the relief camps must be kept open with better facilities for a longer period.

Another social issue as explained in the SWAN report is the irregular and uneven distribution of basic necessities among the migrants (Shahare, 2020 ). Hence, there is a need for a universal and uniform mechanism for the distribution of both financial aid and essential items such as grains, medicines, and water to the migrant families. In order to ensure efficient distribution of financial aid and basic necessities among the migrants, it will be a good idea to entrust this work to the respective “panchayats” (the Indian local administrative councils operating at the village, block and district levels) to register and enrol these migrants and distribute these resources to them as per their eligibilities. Since they are already facing severe financial difficulties, subsidies must be increased as opposed to initiatives like NITI Aayog (Gothoskar, 2021 ).

A major political issue faced by the migrants is the absence of a body or agency to represent them in the respective state governments of the migrated lands. Since the migrants are only entitled to vote in their home constituency, and not in their migrated states, their political clout is limited and therefore their voices are rarely heard (Deshingkar and Akter, 2009 ). In order to present their demands and concerns to the governmental agencies, they have to be a part of a legitimate political system, which is authorised to represent them in these migrated lands.

There is an immediate need to push for a pro-migrant attitude in the general society, a better acknowledgement of the contribution of the migrants to the society, and the adoption of a proactive role in educating them and safeguarding their labour rights. This study further emphasises the urgent need to revise the national migration policies, which should help assist and protect the migrants and the returnee migrants who are either travelling from or to the areas affected by the pandemic.

Limitations

One of the main limitations of the reviewed studies was the inability to make any alterations with the brief interactive interventions with the migrants as their distress levels were much higher. These studies were restricted due to being retrospective single-centre studies and so generalising these findings across all services are difficult.

This review limited its focus to migrant workers alone and passed over the similar issues faced by the emigrants who have returned to the country post lockdown and also on the immigrants who were stuck in the country due to the lockdown rules and regulations. These two groups also have undergone trauma along the same lines as the migrant workers group and, therefore, future studies focusing on these are highly relevant and in need.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study were derived from the databases (PubMed, Scopus, PsychNet, and Google Scholar) available in the public domain.

Aragona M, Barbato A, Cavani A et al. (2020) Negative impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on mental health service access and follow-up adherence for immigrants and individuals in socio-economic difficulties. Public Health 186:52–56

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Amin S (eds) (2018) Modern migrations in western Africa. Routledge

Andrade C (2020) COVID-19: humanitarian and health care crisis in a third world country. The J Clin Psychiatry 81(3):1–1

Google Scholar  

Babu B, Kusuma Y, Sivakami M et al. (2017) Living conditions of internal labour migrants: a nationwide study in 13 Indian cities. IJMBS 3(4):328–351

Article   Google Scholar  

Bhagat B, Keshri K (2020a) Internal migration in India in internal migration in the countries of Asia. Springer, Cham, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44010-7_11

Bhagat B, Reshmi S, Sahoo H et al. (2020) The COVID-19, migration and livelihood in India: challenges and policy issues. Migr Lett 17(5):705–18

Census of India (2011) Census schedule: household. Office of the Registrar General and Census Commissioner, New Delhi

Chakma D (2020) COVID-19 in India: reverse migration could destroy indigenous communities. International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs, Copenhagen, http://www.indigenouslawyers.org/resources/covid-19-in-india-reverse-migration-could-destroy-indigenous-communities/

Chander R, Murugesan M, Ritish D et al. (2020). Addressing the mental health concerns of migrant workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: An experiential account. Int J Soc Psychiatry, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020937736

Choudhari R (2020) COVID 19 pandemic: mental health challenges of internal migrant workers of India. Asian J Psychiatr 54:102254

Colla C, Barbieri A, Ferreira C (2017) The relationship between migration and commuting at curitiba metropolitan region (CMR) and its interaction with the labour market. In 2017 International Population Conference. IUSSP, Cape Town, South Africa

Dandekar A, Ghai R (2020) Migration and reverse migration in the age of COVID-19. Econ Polit Wkly 55(19):28–31

Deshingkar P, Akter S (2009) Migration and human development in India: Human Development Research Paper (HDRP). UNDF Series. 13

Farooqui H, Pandey, S (2020) Social security for informal workers in India. CPR

Ghosh N (1985) Fundamentals of Population Geography. Sterling Publishers

Gomathi R (2014) Quality of life of migrant construction workers in Coimbatore city. Doctoral dissertation, Avinashilingam Deemed University For Women

Gothoskar S (2021) NITI Aayog’s proposal to cut food subsidies will worsen India’s rising hunger problem. The Wire. https://thewire.in/government/niti-aayogs-proposal-to-cut-food-subsidies-will-worsen-indias-rising-hunger-problem . Accessed Mar 12

Haas A, Osland L (2014) Commuting, migration, housing and labour markets: complex interactions. Urban Stud 51(3):463–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013498285

Henssler J, Brandt L, Müller M (2019) Migration and schizophrenia: meta-analysis and explanatory framework. Eur Arch Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1–11

Khanna A (2020) Impact of migration of labour force due to global COVID-19 pandemic with reference to India. J Health Manag 181–191

Kishore K, Kiran V (2013) Labor migration–a journey from rural to urban. JBM&SSR 2(5):61–66

Kumar K, Mehra A, Sahoo S et al. (2020) The psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown on the migrant workers: a cross-sectional survey. Asian J Psychiatry 53:102252

Kumar R, Vashisht P (2009) The global economic crisis: impact on india and policy responses. SSRN e Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1606482

Kusuma S, Pandav S, Babu V (2014) Socio-demographic profile of socioeconomically disadvantaged internal migrants in Delhi. J Identity Migr Stud 8:2

Londhe V (2020) The impact of COVID-19 on India’s migrant workers. Sedex. https://www.sedex.com/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-indias-migrant-workers/ . Accessed May 6 2020

Mishra A, Sayeed N (2020) Covid-19 and migrant workers: clinical psychologists’ viewpoints. L. S. S. Manickam (Ed.), COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and responses of psychologists from India. The Editor, Thiruvananthapuram, p. 43–56

Mukhra R (2020) COVID-19 sets off mass migration in India. Arch Med Res 736–738

NACP III (2007) National AIDS Control Organization, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare: GOI Targeted intervention for migrants, operational guidelines. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. Government of India

Nanda J (2020) Circular migration and COVID-19. SSRN e Journal https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683410

Nelson V (2020) Suicide prevention india foundation. Retrieved from The Wire: http://www.rfi.fr/en/international/20200514-mental-illness-suicides-on-the-rise-in-india-during-covid-19-lockdown . Accessed Jul 24 2020

Nirmala (2020) Decent work for migrant workers in india. Retrieved from UN india covid response. https://in.one.un.org/page/decent-work-for-migrant-workers-in-india/

Pandit A (2020) 1 in 4 migrants went home on foot during lockdown: Survey. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1-in-4-migrants-went-home-on-foot-during-lockdown-survey/articleshow/77474165.cmsAccessed Aug 11 2020

Pankaj (2020) The Panchshil Buddha Vihar Group: Dalit migrant life and group solidarity during the pandemic. Soc Work Groups. 312– 317

PRSIndia (2020) Summary of announcements: Aatma Nirbhar Bharat Abhiyaan. https://www.prsindia.org/report-summaries/summary-announcements-aatma-nirbhar-bharat-abhiyaan Accessed May 20 2020

Qiu J, Shen B, Zhao M (2020) A nationwide survey of psychological distress among Chinese people in the COVID-19 epidemic: implications and policy recommendations. GPSYCH 33:2

Ram R (2020) The COVID-19, migration and livelihood in india: challenges and policy issues: challenges and policy issues Migrat Lett 17(5):705–718

Raj H (1981) Fundamentals of demography. Surjeet Publications, Delhi

Rivera S, Akanbi M, O’Dwyer C et al. (2020) Shift work and long work hours and their association with chronic health conditions: a systematic review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 15(4):e0231037

Rolland S (2020) COVID‐19 pandemic: applying a multisystemic lens. Fam. Process 59(3):922–936

Sammadar R (2020) Borders of an epidemic: COVID–19 and migrant workers. Int J Commun Soc Dev 2(2):286–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516602620935679

Santoshini S (2020) What a lockdown means when home is hundreds of miles away. Christian Science Monitor 13. Retrieved from The Christian Science Monitor. https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-South-Central/2020/0413/What-a-lockdown-means-when-home-is-hundreds-of-miles-away

Shahare B (2020) Covid-19 lockdown and fate of migrant labours in Delhi. J Adv Res Humanit Soc Sci. 7(1):9–13

Singh P (2020a) Migrant crisis after lockdown in India during the COVID-19 pandemic: an invisible mental health Tsunami. Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord 22(4):0–0

Singh P (2020b) Migrant crisis after lockdown in India during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prim Care Companion CNS Disord 22(4). https://doi.org/10.4088/pcc.20com02710

Singh P, Arun P, Chavan S (2020) Efforts to minimize the impact of lockdown on migrant workers in India during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prim. Care Companion CNS Disord 22(3):0–0

Singh P (2020c) Mental health of migrant laborers in COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown: challenges ahead. Indian J Psychiatry 233-234

Singh S (2021) Explained: Indian migrants, across India. The Indian Express. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/coronavirus-india-lockdown-migran-workers-mass-exodus Accessed Mar 4 2021

Sinha K (2005) Human migration: concepts and approaches. Foldr Ert 3(4):403–414

Srivastava R (2020) Understanding circular migration in its nature and dimensions, the crisis under lockdown and the response of the state. IHDI WP IHDI WP 4:1–30

Staff W (2020) Government has created an archive of distress, a museum of misery for migrant workers. Retrieved from The Wire: https://thewire.in/rights/migrant-workers-covid-19-lockdown-crisis-swan-report . Accessed Jun 14 2020

Tandon R (2020) COVID-19 and mental health: preserving humanity, maintaining sanity, and promoting health. Asian J Psychiatr 51:102256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajp.2020.102256

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Virupaksha G (2014) Migration and mental health: an interface J Nat Sci Biol Med 5:233–239

WHO Coronavirus (COVID: 19) (2020) World Health Organisation. https://www.who.int/health-topics/coronavirus#tab=tab_1 . Accessed Jan 10 2020

Wong K, Chan H, Ngan C (2019) The effect of long working hours and overtime on occupational health: a meta-analysis of evidence from 1998 to 2018. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(12):2102

Zhou X, Snoswell L, Harding E et al. (2020) The role of telehealth in reducing the mental health burden from COVID-19. Telemed e-Health 26(4):377–379

Download references

Acknowledgements

The author(s) received no financial funding for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Central University of Karnataka, Kalaburagi, Karnataka, India

Joshy Jesline, John Romate, Eslavath Rajkumar & Allen Joshua George

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eslavath Rajkumar .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Jesline, J., Romate, J., Rajkumar, E. et al. The plight of migrants during COVID-19 and the impact of circular migration in India: a systematic review. Humanit Soc Sci Commun 8 , 231 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00915-6

Download citation

Received : 30 January 2021

Accepted : 20 September 2021

Published : 14 October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-021-00915-6

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

• Open access
• Published: 25 July 2023

Migration and health research: past, present, and future

• Shira M Goldenberg 1 &
• Florian Fischer 2  

BMC Public Health volume  23 , Article number:  1425 ( 2023 ) Cite this article

2735 Accesses

1 Citations

9 Altmetric

Metrics details

Global migration continues to rise at unprecedented rates. Migrants are an extremely heterogeneous group and face diverse health needs related to infectious diseases, sexual and reproductive health, non-communicable diseases, and healthcare access across the whole lifespan. In this editorial, we set the context and invite contributions for a collection on ‘Migration and health’ at BMC Public Health.

Peer Review reports

Human migration is essential to growing economies and represents a critical part of the social and cultural fabric of our societies [ 1 ]. Global migration continues to rise at unprecedented rates, fueled by ’push’ factors such as extreme weather events caused by climate change, conflict and violence, political instability, and poverty, as well as ‘pull’ factors including kinship networks and a desire for social and economic mobility. In 2019, the number of international migrants worldwide – people residing in a country other than their country of birth – reached its highest level, at 272 million [ 2 ].

Migrant populations are extremely diverse. The International Organization on Migration defines migrants as those who move away from their place of usual residence, whether within a country or across an international border, temporarily or permanently, and for a variety of reasons [ 3 ]. The term includes those who migrate voluntarily as well as forced migrants, and encompass refugees, asylum-seekers, those with and without formal immigration status/documentation, and those who migrate for family or economic reasons. Importantly, there is no legally or universally accepted definition for ‘migrants’, as opposed to ‘refugees,’ who are defined in legal terms in the 1951 Refugee Convention [ 4 ]. In large part owing to the nature of the drivers of migration – which include fleeing from persecution, oppression, and violence – marginalized and vulnerable populations are overrepresented among migrants, including sexual and gender minorities, women, pregnant people, and unaccompanied children and adolescents.

Migrants face a broad array of healthcare needs and inequities, including those related to infectious diseases, sexual and reproductive health, chronic diseases, mental health, and violence. While there are many social and economic benefits of migration both among those who migrate and society, migrants face disproportionate exposure to social and structural factors that increase risk of adverse health outcomes in countries of origin, during transit, and in destination communities. These include conflict, trauma, violence, and other human rights violations; exclusionary migration policies; unsafe/inadequate shelter, food, and housing; racism, discrimination, and stigma; labour market exclusion; and exclusion and barriers to healthcare and other services [ 1 , 5 , 6 ]. In destination settings, health inequities may be compounded by language barriers, difficulties navigating health and social services, lack of social support, racism and discrimination, and socio-economic marginalization [ 1 , 5 , 7 ].

The COVID-19 pandemic shone a spotlight on these health inequities and access barriers faced by migrants, and has unfortunately exacerbated many of these concerns [ 7 ]. Migrants are overrepresented in precarious employment sectors, as well as those that were hardest-hit by COVID-19 in many places (e.g., agriculture, factories), and concurrently have consistently lower access to health services in most countries; [ 8 ] this has translated to increased prevalence and transmission of COVID-19 among migrants in many settings globally [ 9 ]. COVID-19 and other health inequities faced by migrants during the pandemic have been further compromised by administrative, financial, legal, and language barriers to accessing the health system, as well as shortages in medicines and healthcare facilities – quite apart from access to disease prevention and health promotion [ 8 ]. Despite all of these challenges and their structural origins, migrants are often vilified and stigmatized on the basis of misguided and xenophobic beliefs and biases that conflate migration with disease transmission – much of which is fostered by political strategies and rhetoric. A growing body of research recognizes the ways in which social and structural factors (e.g., violence, language barriers, criminalization of migrants, health insurance access, stigma, racism, and discrimination) underpin differences in the health of migrants vs. local-born populations. More research of this nature is needed to inform sustainable and pragmatic interventions that address these “upstream” determinants, particularly as it relates to the intersections between immigration policies, racism and discrimination, and health impacts.

In recent years, migration policies in a number of settings have become increasingly xenophobic and restrictive – for example, in the United States, both Republican and Democratic administrations have implemented draconian and restrictive laws aiming to prevent entry and processing of asylum-seekers, all of which are deeply antithetical to public health and human rights principles and commitments. Such policies are in stark contrast to commitments and aspirations laid out in key global policy instruments, including the Global Compact on Migration [ 10 ] and target 10.7 of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in which Member States committed to cooperate internationally to facilitate safe, orderly and regular migration. Within this policy climate, it is essential to produce research that evaluates the impact of such policies and practices on migrant health outcomes, access to care, and related human rights concerns.

Against this backdrop, the aim of the ‘Migration and health’ collection at BMC Public Health is to bring together research on the health inequities and care access faced by diverse migrant populations around the globe, as well as to feature research highlighting strategies for improving the health of migrants through promising evidence-based interventions. We encourage articles that advance our understanding of the myriad health needs faced by diverse migrant populations globally, including those related to infectious diseases, sexual and reproductive health, non-communicable diseases, mental health, and health care access. Contributions that consider changes in the health status, needs, and determinants of health among migrants across the stages of migration – from countries of origin to the transit stage and receiving communities – are especially encouraged, as are those that examine or identify evidence-based strategies to intervene upon the social and structural drivers of migrant health inequities.

Data availability

Orcutt M, Spiegel P, Kumar B, Abubakar I, Clark J, Horton R. Lancet Migration: global collaboration to advance migration health. The Lancet. 2020;395:317–9.

Article   Google Scholar  

United Nations. Migration. United Nations. 2023. https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/migration (accessed June 2, 2023).

Key Migration Terms. International Organization for Migration. https://www.iom.int/key-migration-terms (accessed June 2, 2023).

UN General Assembly. Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations; 1951.

Google Scholar  

Machado S, Goldenberg S. Sharpening our public health lens: advancing im/migrant health equity during COVID-19 and beyond. Int J Equity Health. 2021;20:57.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Juárez SP, Honkaniemi H, Dunlavy AC, et al. Effects of non-health-targeted policies on migrant health: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Global Health. 2019;7:e420–35.

Orcutt M, Patel P, Burns R, et al. Global call to action for inclusion of migrants and refugees in the COVID-19 response. The Lancet. 2020;395:1482–3.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Kluge HHP, Jakab Z, Bartovic J, D’Anna V, Severoni S. Refugee and migrant health in the COVID-19 response. Lancet. 2020;395:1237–9.

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Wiedmeyer M, Goldenberg S, Peterson S, et al. SARS-CoV-2 testing and COVID-19–related primary care use among people with citizenship, permanent residency, and temporary immigration status: an analysis of population-based administrative data in British Columbia. Can J Public Health. 2023. https://doi.org/10.17269/s41997-023-00761-w . published online April 4.

United Nations, GLOBAL COMPACT FOR SAFE, ORDERLY AND REGULAR, MIGRATION. 2018; published online July 13. https://refugeesmigrants.un.org/sites/default/files/180713_agreed_outcome_global_compact_for_migration.pdf .

Download references

Acknowledgements

SG is partially supported by the U.S. NIH (R01 DA028648).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, San Diego State University, 9500 Campanile Drive, 92182-4162, San Diego, CA, USA

Shira M Goldenberg

Institute of Public Health Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Charitéplatz 1, 10117, Berlin, Germany

Florian Fischer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

SG conceptualized and wrote the manuscript. FF edited and reviewed the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shira M Goldenberg .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Goldenberg, S.M., Fischer, F. Migration and health research: past, present, and future. BMC Public Health 23 , 1425 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16363-7

Download citation

Received : 13 June 2023

Accepted : 21 July 2023

Published : 25 July 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16363-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

BMC Public Health

ISSN: 1471-2458

• General enquiries: [email protected]

• Search Menu
• Sign in through your institution
• Advance articles
• Editor's Choice
• Special Issues
• Author Guidelines
• Submission Site
• Open Access
• Why Publish?
• About Migration Studies
• Editorial Board
• Call for Papers
• Advertising and Corporate Services
• Journals Career Network
• Self-Archiving Policy
• Dispatch Dates
• Journals on Oxford Academic
• Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

1. introduction, 2. studies of migration studies, 3. methodology, 4. metadata on migration studies, 5. topic clusters in migration studies, 6. trends in topic networks in migration studies, 7. conclusions, acknowledgements.

• < Previous

Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field

• Article contents
• Figures & tables
• Supplementary Data

Asya Pisarevskaya, Nathan Levy, Peter Scholten, Joost Jansen, Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field, Migration Studies , Volume 8, Issue 3, September 2020, Pages 455–481, https://doi.org/10.1093/migration/mnz031

• Permissions Icon Permissions

Migration studies have developed rapidly as a research field over the past decades. This article provides an empirical analysis not only on the development in volume and the internationalization of the field, but also on the development in terms of topical focus within migration studies over the past three decades. To capture volume, internationalisation, and topic focus, our analysis involves a computer-based topic modelling of the landscape of migration studies. Rather than a linear growth path towards an increasingly diversified and fragmented field, as suggested in the literature, this reveals a more complex path of coming of age of migration studies. Although there seems to be even an accelerated growth for migration studies in terms of volume, its internationalisation proceeds only slowly. Furthermore, our analysis shows that rather than a growth of diversification of topics within migration topic, we see a shift between various topics within the field. Finally, our study shows that there is no consistent trend to more fragmentation in the field; in contrast, it reveals a recent recovery of connectedness between the topics in the field, suggesting an institutionalisation or even theoretical and conceptual coming of age of migration studies.

Migration studies have developed rapidly as a research field in recent decades. It encompasses studies on all types of international and internal migration, migrants, and migration-related diversity ( King, 2002 ; Scholten, 2018 ). Many scholars have observed the increase in the volume of research on migration ( Massey et al., 1998 ; Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Scholten et al., 2015 ). Additionally, the field has become increasingly varied in terms of links to broader disciplines ( King, 2012 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ) and in terms of different methods used ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ). It is now a field that has in many senses ‘come of age’: it has internationalised with scholars involved from many countries; it has institutionalised through a growing number of journals; an increasing number of institutes dedicated to migration studies; and more and more students are pursuing migration-related courses. These trends are also visible in the growing presence of international research networks in the field of migration.

Besides looking at the development of migration in studies in terms of size, interdisciplinarity, internationalisation, and institutionalisation, we focus in this article on the development in topical focus of migration studies. We address the question how has the field of migration studies developed in terms of its topical focuses? What topics have been discussed within migration studies? How has the topical composition of the field changed, both in terms of diversity (versus unity) and connectedness (versus fragmentation)? Here, the focus is not on influential publications, authors, or institutes, but rather on what topics scholars have written about in migration studies. The degree of diversity among and connectedness between these topics, especially in the context of quantitative growth, will provide an empirical indication of whether a ‘field’ of migration studies exists, or to what extent it is fragmented.

Consideration of the development of migration studies invokes several theoretical questions. Various scholars have argued that the growth of migration studies has kept pace not only with the growing prominence of migration itself but also with the growing attention of nation–states in particular towards controlling migration. The coproduction of knowledge between research and policy, some argue ( Scholten, 2011 ), has given migration research an inclination towards paradigmatic closure, especially around specific national perspectives on migration. Wimmer and Glick Schiller (2002 ) speak in this regard of ‘methodological nationalism’, and others refer to the prominence of national models that would be reproduced by scholars and policymakers ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Favell, 2003 ). More generally, this has led, some might argue, to an overconcentration of the field on a narrow number of topics, such as integration and migration control, and a consequent call to ‘de-migranticise’ migration research ( Dahinden, 2016 ; see also Schinkel, 2018 ).

However, recent studies suggest that the growth of migration studies involves a ‘coming of age’ in terms of growing diversity of research within the field. This diversification of migration studies has occurred along the lines of internationalisation ( Scholten et al., 2015 ), disciplinary variation ( Yans-McLaughlin, 1990 ; King, 2012 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ) and methodological variation ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ). The International Organization for Migration ( IOM, 2017 : 95) even concludes that ‘the volume, diversity, and growth of both white and grey literature preclude a [manual] systematic review’ of migration research produced in 2015 and 2016 alone .

Nonetheless, in this article, we attempt to empirically trace the development of migration studies over the past three decades, and seek to find evidence for the claim that the ‘coming of age’ of migration studies indeed involves a broadening of the variety of topics within the field. We pursue an inductive approach to mapping the academic landscape of >30 years of migration studies. This includes a content analysis based on a topic modelling algorithm, applied to publications from migration journals and book series. We trace the changes over time of how the topics are distributed within the corpus and the extent to which they refer to one another. We conclude by giving a first interpretation of the patterns we found in the coming of age of migration studies, which is to set an agenda for further studies of and reflection on the development of this research field. While migration research is certainly not limited to journals and book series that focus specifically on migration, our methods enable us to gain a representative snapshot of what the field looks like, using content from sources that migration researchers regard as relevant.

Migration has always been studied from a variety of disciplines ( Cohen, 1996 ; Brettell and Hollifield, 2014 ), such as economics, sociology, history, and demography ( van Dalen, 2018 ), using a variety of methods ( Vargas-Silva, 2012 ; Zapata-Barrero and Yalaz, 2018 ), and in a number of countries ( Carling, 2015 ), though dominated by Northern Hemisphere scholarship (see, e.g. Piguet et al., 2018 ), especially from North America and Europe ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ). Taking stock of various studies on the development of migration studies, we can define several expectations that we will put to an empirical test.

Ravenstein’s (1885) 11 Laws of Migration is widely regarded as the beginning of scholarly thinking on this topic (see Zolberg, 1989 ; Greenwood and Hunt, 2003 ; Castles and Miller, 2014 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 ). Thomas and Znaniecki’s (1918) five-volume study of Polish migrants in Europe and America laid is also noted as an early example of migration research. However, according to Greenwood and Hunt (2003 ), migration research ‘took off’ in the 1930s when Thomas (1938) indexed 191 studies of migration across the USA, UK, and Germany. Most ‘early’ migration research was quantitative (see, e.g. Thornthwaite, 1934 ; Thomas, 1938 ). In addition, from the beginning, migration research developed with two empirical traditions: research on internal migration and research on international migration ( King and Skeldon, 2010 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 : 2).

In subsequent decades, studies of migration studies describe a burgeoning field. Pedraza-Bailey (1990) refers to a ‘veritable boom’ of knowledge production by the 1980s. A prominent part of these debates focussed around the concept of assimilation ( Gordon, 1964 ) in the 1950s and 1960s (see also Morawska, 1990 ). By the 1970s, in light of the civil rights movements, researchers were increasingly focussed on race and ethnic relations. However, migration research in this period lacked an interdisciplinary ‘synthesis’ and was likely not well-connected ( Kritz et al., 1981 : 10; Pryor, 1981 ; King, 2012 : 9–11). Through the 1980s, European migration scholarship was ‘catching up’ ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 : 14) with the larger field across the Atlantic. Substantively, research became increasingly mindful of migrant experiences and critical of (national) borders and policies ( Pedraza-Bailey, 1990 : 49). King (2012) also observes this ‘cultural turn’ towards more qualitative anthropological migration research by the beginning of the 1990s, reflective of trends in social sciences more widely ( King, 2012 : 24). In the 1990s, Massey et al. (1993, 1998 ) and Massey (1994) reflected on the state of the academic landscape. Their literature review (1998) notes over 300 articles on immigration in the USA, and over 150 European publications. Despite growth, they note that the field did not develop as coherently in Europe at it had done in North America (1998: 122).

We therefore expect to see a significant growth of the field during the 1980s and 1990s, and more fragmentation, with a prominence of topics related to culture and borders.

At the turn of the millennium, Portes (1997) lists what were, in his view, the five key themes in (international) migration research: 1 transnational communities; 2 the new second generation; 3 households and gender; 4 states and state systems; and 5 cross-national comparisons. This came a year after Cohen’s review of Theories of Migration (1996), which classifies nine key thematic ‘dyads’ in migration studies, such as internal versus international migration; individual versus contextual reasons to migrate; temporary versus permanent migration; and push versus pull factors (see full list in Cohen, 1996 : 12–15). However, despite increasing knowledge production, Portes argues that the problem in these years was the opposite of what Kritz et al. (1981) observe above; scholars had access to and generated increasing amounts of data, but failed to achieve ‘conceptual breakthrough’ ( Portes, 1997 : 801), again suggesting fragmentation in the field.

Thus, in late 1990s and early 2000s scholarship we expect to find a prominence of topics related to these five themes, and a limited number of “new” topics.

In the 21st century, studies of migration studies indicate that there has been a re-orientation away from ‘states and state systems’. This is exemplified by Wimmer and Glick Schiller’s (2002) widely cited commentary on ‘methodological nationalism’, and the alleged naturalisation of nation-state societies in migration research (see Thranhardt and Bommes, 2010 ), leading to an apparent pre-occupation with the integration paradigm since the 1980s according to Favell (2003) and others ( Dahinden, 2016 ; Schinkel, 2018 ). This debate is picked up in Bommes and Morawska’s (2005) edited volume, and Lavenex (2005) . Describing this shift, Geddes (2005) , in the same volume, observes a trend of ‘Europeanised’ knowledge production, stimulated by the research framework programmes of the EU. Meanwhile, on this topic, others highlight a ‘local turn’ in migration and diversity research ( Caponio and Borkert, 2010 ; Zapata-Barrero et al., 2017) .

In this light, we expect to observe a growth in references to European (and other supra-national) level and local-level topics in the 21t century compared to before 2000.

As well as the ‘cultural turn’ mentioned above, King (2012 : 24–25) observes a re-inscription of migration within wider social phenomena—in terms of changes to the constitutive elements of host (and sending) societies—as a key development in recent migration scholarship. Furthermore, transnationalism, in his view, continues to dominate scholarship, though this dominance is disproportionate, he argues, to empirical reality. According to Scholten (2018) , migration research has indeed become more complex as the century has progressed. While the field has continued to grow and institutionalise thanks to networks like International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe (IMISCOE) and Network of Migration Research on Africa (NOMRA), this has been in a context of apparently increasing ‘fragmentation’ observed by several scholars for many years (see Massey et al., 1998 : 17; Penninx et al., 2008 : 8; Martiniello, 2013 ; Scholten et al., 2015 : 331–335).

On this basis, we expect a complex picture to emerge for recent scholarship, with thematic references to multiple social phenomena, and a high level of diversity within the topic composition of the field. We furthermore expect increased fragmentation within migration studies in recent years.

The key expectation of this article is, therefore, that the recent topical composition of migration studies displays greater diversity than in previous decades as the field has grown. Following that logic, we hypothesise that with diversification (increasingly varied topical focuses), fragmentation (decreasing connections between topics) has also occurred.

The empirical analysis of the development in volume and topic composition of migration studies is based on the quantitative methods of bibliometrics and topic modelling. Although bibliometric analysis has not been widely used in the field of migration (for some exceptions, see Carling, 2015 ; Nestorowicz and Anacka, 2018 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ; Sweileh et al., 2018 ; van Dalen, 2018 ), this type of research is increasingly popular ( Fortunato et al., 2018 ). A bibliometric analysis can help map what Kajikawa et al. (2007) call an ‘academic landscape’. Our analysis pursues a similar objective for the field of migration studies. However, rather than using citations and authors to guide our analysis, we extract a model of latent topics from the contents of abstracts . In other words, we are focussed on the landscape of content rather than influence.

3.1 Topic modelling

Topic modelling involves a computer-based strategy for identifying topics or topic clusters that figure centrally in a specific textual landscape (e.g. Jiang et al., 2016 ). This is a class of unsupervised machine learning techniques ( Evans and Aceves, 2016 : 22), which are used to inductively explore and discover patterns and regularities within a corpus of texts. Among the most widely used topic models is Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA). LDA is a type of Bayesian probabilistic model that builds on the assumption that each document in a corpus discusses multiple topics in differing proportions. Therefore, Document A might primarily be about Topic 1 (60 per cent), but it also refers to terms associated with Topic 2 (30 per cent), and, to a lesser extent, Topic 3 (10 per cent). A topic, then, is defined as a probability distribution over a fixed vocabulary, that is, the totality of words present in the corpus. The advantage of the unsupervised LDA approach that we take is that it does not limit the topic model to our preconceptions of which topics are studied by migration researchers and therefore should be found in the literature. Instead, it allows for an inductive sketching of the field, and consequently an element of surprise ( Halford and Savage, 2017 : 1141–1142). To determine the optimal number of topics, we used the package ldatuning to calculate the statistically optimal number of topics, a number which we then qualitatively validated.

The chosen LDA model produced two main outcomes. First, it yielded a matrix with per-document topic proportions, which allow us to generate an idea of the topics discussed in the abstracts. Secondly, the model returned a matrix with per-topic word probabilities. Essentially, the topics are a collection of words ordered by their probability of (co-)occurrence. Each topic contains all the words from all the abstracts, but some words have a much higher likelihood to belong to the identified topic. The 20–30 most probable words for each topic can be helpful in understanding the content of the topic. The third step we undertook was to look at those most probable words by a group of experts familiar with the field and label them. We did this systematically and individually by first looking at the top 5 words, then the top 30, trying to find an umbrella label that would summarize the topic. The initial labels suggested by each of us were then compared and negotiated in a group discussion. To verify the labels even more, in case of a doubt, we read several selected abstracts marked by the algorithm as exhibiting a topic, and through this were able to further refine the names of the topics.

It is important to remember that this list of topics should not be considered a theoretically driven attempt to categorize the field. It is purely inductive because the algorithm is unable to understand theories, conceptual frames, and approaches; it makes a judgement only on the basis of words. So if words are often mentioned together, the computer regards their probability of belonging to one topic as high.

3.2 Dataset of publications

For the topic modelling, we created a dataset that is representative of publications relevant to migration studies. First, we identified the most relevant sources of literature. Here we chose not only to follow rankings in citation indices, but also to ask migration scholars, in an expert survey, to identify what they considered to be relevant sources. This survey was distributed among a group of senior scholars associated with the IMISCOE Network; 25 scholars anonymously completed the survey. A set of journals and book series was identified from existing indices (such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus) which were then validated and added to by respondents. Included in our eventual dataset were all journals and book series that were mentioned at least by two experts in the survey. The dataset includes 40 journals and 4 book series (see Supplementary Data A). Non-English journals were omitted from data collection because the algorithm can only analyse one language. Despite their influence on the field, we also did not consider broader disciplinary journals (for instance, sociological journals or economic journals) for the dataset. Such journals, we acknowledge, have published some of the most important research in the history of migration studies, but even with their omission, it is still possible to achieve our goal of obtaining a representative snapshot of what migration researchers have studied, rather than who or which papers have been most influential. In addition, both because of the language restriction of the algorithm and because of the Global North’s dominance in the field that is mentioned above ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ), there is likely to be an under-representation of scholarship from the Global South in our dataset.

Secondly, we gathered metadata on publications from the selected journals and book series using the Scopus and Web of Science electronic catalogues, and manually collecting from those sources available on neither Scopus nor Web of Science. The metadata included authors, years, titles, and abstracts. We collected all available data up to the end of 2017. In total, 94 per cent of our metadata originated from Scopus, ∼1 per cent from Web of Science, and 5 per cent was gathered manually. One limitation of our dataset lies in the fact that the electronic catalogue of Scopus, unfortunately, does not list all articles and abstracts ever published by all the journals (their policy is to collect articles and abstracts ‘where available’ ( Elsevier, 2017 )). There was no technical possibility of assessing Scopus or WoS’ proportional coverage of all articles actually published. The only way to improve the dataset in this regard would be to manually collect and count abstracts from journal websites. This is also why many relevant books were not included in our dataset; they are not indexed in such repositories.

In the earliest years of available data, only a few journals were publishing (with limited coverage of this on Scopus) specifically on migration. However, Fig. 1 below demonstrates that the numbers constantly grew between 1959 and 2018. As Fig. 1 shows, in the first 30 years (1959–88), the number of migration journals increased by 15, while in the following three decades (1989–2018), this growth intensified as the number of journals tripled to 45 in the survey (see Supplementary Data A for abbreviations).

Number of journals focussed on migration and migration-related diversity (1959–2018) Source: Own calculations.

Within all 40 journals in the dataset, we were able to access and extract for our analysis 29,844 articles, of which 22,140 contained abstracts. Furthermore, we collected 901 available abstracts of chapters in the 4 book series: 2 series were downloaded from the Scopus index (Immigration and Asylum Law in Europe; Handbook of the Economics of International Migration), and the abstracts of the other 2 series, selected from our expert survey (the IMISCOE Research Series Migration Diasporas and Citizenship), were collected manually. Given the necessity of manually collecting the metadata for 896 abstracts of the chapters in these series, it was both practical and logical to set these two series as the cut-off point. Ultimately, we get a better picture of the academic landscape as a whole with some expert-approved book series than with none .

Despite the limitations of access, we can still have an approximate idea on how the volume of publications changed overtime. The chart ( Fig. 2 ) below shows that both the number of published articles and the number of abstracts of these articles follow the same trend—a rapid growth after the turn of the century. In 2017, there were three times more articles published per year than in 2000.

Publications and abstracts in the dataset (1959–2018).

The cumulative graph ( Fig. 3 ) below shows the total numbers of publications and the available abstracts. For the creation of our inductively driven topic model, we used all available abstracts in the entire timeframe. However, to evaluate the dynamics of topics over time, we decided to limit the timeframe of our chronological analyses to 1986–2017, because as of 1986, there were more than 10 active journals and more articles had abstracts. This analysis therefore covers the topical evolution of migration studies in the past three decades.

Cumulative total of publications and abstracts (1959–2017).

Migration studies has only internationalised very slowly in support of what others have previously argued ( Bommes and Morawska, 2005 ; Piguet et al., 2018 ). Figure 4 gives a snapshot of the geographic dispersion of the articles (including those without abstracts) that we collected from Scopus. Where available, we extracted the country of authors’ university affiliations. The colour shades represent the per capita publication volume. English-language migration scholarship has been dominated by researchers based, unsurprisingly, in Anglophone and Northern European countries.

Migration research output per capita (based on available affiliation data within dataset).

The topic modelling (following the LDA model) led us, as discussed in methods, to the definition of 60 as the optimal number of topics for mapping migration studies. Each topic is a string of words that, according to the LDA algorithm, belong together. We reviewed the top 30 words for each word string and assigned labels that encapsulated their meaning. Two of the 60 word strings were too generic and did not describe anything related to migration studies; therefore, we excluded them. Subsequently, the remaining 58 topics were organised into a number of clusters. In the Table 1 below, you can see all the topic labels, the topic clusters they are grouped into and the first 5 (out of 30) most probable words defining those topics.

Topics in migration studies

After presenting all the observed topics in the corpus of our publication data, we examined which topics and topic clusters are most frequent in general (between 1964 and 2017), and how their prominence has been changing over the years. On the basis of the matrix of per-item topic proportions generated by LDA analysis, we calculated the shares of each topic in the whole corpus. On the level of individual topics, around 25 per cent of all abstract texts is about the top 10 most prominent topics, which you can see in Fig. 5 below. Among those, #56 identity narratives (migration-related diversity), #39 migration theory, and #29 migration flows are the three most frequently detected topics.

Top 10 topics in the whole corpus of abstracts.

On the level of topic clusters, Fig. 6 (left) shows that migration-related diversity (26 per cent) and migration processes (19 per cent) clearly comprise the two largest clusters in terms of volume, also because they have the largest number topics belonging to them. However, due to our methodology of labelling these topics and grouping them into clusters, it is complicated to make comparisons between topic clusters in terms of relative size, because some clusters simply contain more topics. Calculating average proportions of topics within each cluster allows us to control for the number of topics per cluster, and with this measure, we can better compare the relative prominence of clusters. Figure 6 (right) shows that migration research and statistics have the highest average of topic proportions, followed by the cluster of migration processes and immigrant incorporation.

Topic proportions per cluster.

An analysis on the level of topic clusters in the project’s time frame (1986–2017) reveals several significant trends. First, when discussing shifts in topics over time, we can see that different topics have received more focus in different time frames. Figure 7 shows the ‘age’ of topics, calculated as average years weighted by proportions of publications within a topic per year. The average year of the articles on the same topic is a proxy for the age of the topic. This gives us an understanding of which topics were studied more often compared with others in the past and which topics are emerging. Thus, an average year can be understood as the ‘high-point’ of a topic’s relative prominence in the field. For instance, the oldest topics in our dataset are #22 ‘Migrant demographics’, followed by #45 ‘Governance of migration’ and #46 ‘Migration statistics and survey research’. The newest topics include #14 ‘Mobilities’ and #48 ‘Intra-EU mobility’.

Average topic age, weighted by proportions of publications (publications of 1986–2017). Note: Numbers near dots indicate the numeric id of topics (see Table 1 for the names).

When looking at the weighted ‘age’ of the clusters, it becomes clear that the focus on migration research and statistics is the ‘oldest’, which echoes what Greenwood and Hunt (2003 ) observe. This resonates with the idea that migration studies has roots in more demographic studies of migration and diversity (cf. Thornthwaite, 1934 ; Thomas, 1938 ), which somewhat contrasts with what van Dalen (2018) has found. Geographies of migration (studies related to specific migration flows, origins, and destinations) were also more prominent in the 1990s than now, and immigrant incorporation peaked at the turn of the century. However, gender and family, diversity, and health are more recent themes, as was mentioned above (see Fig. 8 ). This somewhat indicates a possible post-methodological nationalism, post-integration paradigm era in migration research going hand-in-hand with research that, as King (2012) argues, situates migration within wider social and political domains (cf. Scholten, 2018 ).

Diversity of topics and topic clusters (1985–2017).

Then, we analysed the diversification of publications over the various clusters. Based on the literature review, we expected the diversification to have increased over the years, signalling a move beyond paradigmatic closure. Figure 9 (below) shows that we can hardly speak of a significant increase of diversity in migration studies publications. Over the years, only a marginal increase in the diversity of topics is observed. The Gini-Simpson index of diversity in 1985 was around 0.95 and increased to 0.98 from 1997 onwards. Similarly, there is little difference between the sizes of topic clusters over the years. Both ways of calculating the Gini-Simpson index of diversity by clusters resulted in a rather stable picture showing some fluctuations between 0.82 and 0.86. This indicates that there has never been a clear hegemony of any cluster at any time. In other words, over the past three decades, the diversity of topics and topic clusters was quite stable: there have always been a great variety of topics discussed in the literature of migration studies, with no topic or cluster holding a clear monopoly.

Average age of topic clusters, weighted by proportions (publications of 1986–2017).

Subsequently, we focussed on trends in topic networks. As our goal is to describe the general development of migration studies as a field, we decided to analyse topic networks in three equal periods of 10 years (Period 1 (1988–97); Period 2 (1998–2007); Period 3 (2008–17)). On the basis of the LDA-generated matrix with per-abstract topic proportions (The LDA algorithm determines the proportions of all topics observed within each abstract. Therefore, each abstract can contain several topics with a substantial prominence), we calculated the topic-by-topic Spearman correlation coefficients in each of the time frames. From the received distribution of the correlation coefficients, we chose to focus on the top 25 per cent strongest correlations period. In order to highlight difference in strength of connections, we assigned different weights to the correlations between the topics. Coefficient values above the 75th percentile (0.438) but ≤0.5 were weighted 1; correlations above 0.5 but ≤0.6 were weighted 2; and correlations >0.6 were weighted 3. We visualised these topic networks using the software Gephi.

To compare networks of topics in each period, we used three common statistics of network analysis: 1 average degree of connections; 2 average weighted degree of connections; and 3 network density. The average degree of connections shows how many connections to other topics each topic in the network has on average. This measure can vary from 0 to N − 1, where N is the total number of topics in the network. Some correlations of topics are stronger and were assigned the Weight 2 or 3. These are included in the statistics of average weighted degree of connections, which shows us the variations in strength of existing connections between the topics. Network density is a proportion of existing links over the number of all potentially possible links between the topics. This measure varies from 0 = entirely disconnected topics to 1 = extremely dense network, where every topic is connected to every topic.

Table 2 shows that all network measures vary across the three periods. In Period 1, each topic had on average 21 links with other topics, while in Period 2, that number was much lower (11.5 links). In Period 3, the average degree of connections grew again, but not to the level of Period 1. The same trend is observed in the strength of these links—in Period 1, the correlations between the topics were stronger than in Period 3, while they were the weakest in Period 2. The density of the topic networks was highest in Period 1 (0.4), then in Period 2, the topic network became sparser before densifying again in Period 3 (but not to the extent of Period 1’s density).

Topic network statistics

These fluctuations on network statistics indicate that in the years 1988–97, topics within the analysed field of migration studies were mentioned in the same articles and book chapters more often, while at the turn of the 21st century, these topic co-occurrences became less frequent; publications therefore became more specialised and topics were more isolated from each other. In the past 10 years, migration studies once again became more connected, the dialogues between the topics emerged more frequently. These are important observations about topical development in the field of migration studies. The reasons behind these changes require further, possibly more qualitative explanation.

To get a more in-depth view of the content of these topic networks, we made an overview of the changes in the topic clusters across the three periods. As we can see in Fig. 10 , some changes emerge in terms of the prominence of various clusters. The two largest clusters (also by the number of topics within them) are migration-related diversity and migration processes. The cluster of migration-related diversity increased in its share of each period’s publications by around 20 per cent. This reflects our above remarks on the literature surrounding the integration debate, and the ‘cultural turn’ King mentions (2012). And the topic cluster migration processes also increased moderately its share.

Prominence and change in topic clusters 1988–2017.

Compared with the first period, the topic cluster of gender and family studies grew the fastest, with the largest growth observed in the turn of the century (relative to its original size). This suggests a growing awareness of gender and family-related aspects of migration although as a percentage of the total corpus it remains one the smallest clusters. Therefore, Massey et al.’s (1998) argument that households and gender represented a quantitatively significant pillar of migration research could be considered an overestimation. The cluster of health studies in migration research also grew significantly in the Period 2 although in Period 3, the percentage of publications in this cluster diminished. This suggests a rising awareness of health in relation to migration and diversity (see Sweileh et al., 2018 ) although this too remains one of the smallest clusters.

The cluster on Immigrant incorporation lost prominence the most over the past 30 years. This seems to resonate with the argument that ‘integrationism’ or the ‘integration paradigm’ was rather in the late 1990s (see Favell, 2003 ; Dahinden, 2016 ) and is losing its prominence. A somewhat slower but steady loss was also observed in the cluster of Geographies of migration and Migration research and statistics. This also suggests not only a decreasing emphasis on demographics within migration studies, but also a decreasing reflexivity in the development of the field and the focus on theory-building.

We will now go into more detail and show the most connected topics and top 10 most prominent topics in each period. Figures 11–13 show the network maps of topics in each period. The size of circles reflects the number and strength of links per each topic: the bigger the size, the more connected this topic is to the others; the biggest circles indicate the most connected topics. While the prominence of a topic is measured by the number of publications on that topic, it is important to note that the connectedness the topic has nothing necessarily to do with the amount of publications on that topic; in theory, a topic could appear in many articles without any reference to other topics (which would mean that it is prominent but isolated).

Topic network in 1988–97. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Topic network in 1998–2007. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Topic network in 2008–2017. Note: Numbers indicate topics' numerical ids, see Table 1 for topics' names.

Thus, in the section below, we describe the most connected and most prominent topics in migration research per period. The degree of connectedness is a useful indicator of the extent to which we can speak of a ‘field’ of migration research. If topics are well-connected, especially in a context of increased knowledge production and changes in prominence among topics, then this would suggest that a shared conceptual and theoretical language exists.

6.1 Period 1: 1988–97

The five central topics with the highest degree of connectedness (the weighted degree of connectedness of these topics was above 60) were ‘black studies’, ‘mobilities’, ‘ICT, media and migration’, ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, and ‘intra-EU mobility’. These topics are related to geopolitical regions, ethnicity, and race. The high degree of connectedness of these topics shows that ‘they often occurred together with other topics in the analysed abstracts from this period’. This is expected because research on migration and diversity inevitably discusses its subject within a certain geographical, political, or ethnic scope. Geographies usually appear in abstracts as countries of migrants’ origin or destination. The prominence of ‘black studies’ reflects the dominance of American research on diversity, which was most pronounced in this period ( Fig. 11 ).

The high degree of connectedness of the topics on ICT and ‘media’ is indicative of wider societal trends in the 1990s. As with any new phenomenon, it clearly attracted the attention of researchers who wanted to understand its relationship with migration issues.

Among the top 10 topics with the most publications in this period (see Supplementary Data B) were those describing the characteristics of migration flows (first) and migration populations (third). It goes in line with the trends of the most connected topics described above. Interest in questions of migrants’ socio-economic position (fourth) in the receiving societies and discussion on ‘labour migration’ (ninth) were also prevalent. Jointly, these topics confirm that in the earlier years, migration was ‘studied often from the perspectives of economics and demographics’ ( van Dalen, 2018 ).

Topics, such as ‘education and language training’ (second), community development’ (sixth), and ‘intercultural communication’ (eighth), point at scholarly interest in the issues of social cohesion and socio-cultural integration of migrants. This lends strong support to Favell’s ‘integration paradigm’ argument about this period and suggests that the coproduction of knowledge between research and policy was indeed very strong ( Scholten, 2011 ). This is further supported by the prominence of the topic ‘governance of migration’ (seventh), reflecting the evolution of migration and integration policymaking in the late 1980s and beginning of the 1990s, exemplified by the development of the Schengen area and the EU more widely; governance of refugee flows from the Balkan region (also somewhat represented in the topic ‘southern-European migration’, which was the 10th most prominent); and governance of post-Soviet migration. Interestingly, this is the only period in which ‘migration histories’ is among the top 10 topics, despite the later establishment of a journal dedicated to the very discipline of history. Together these topics account for 42 per cent of all migration studies publications in that period of time.

6.2 Period 2: 1998–2007

In the second period, as the general degree of connectedness in the topic networks decreased, the following five topics maintained a large number of connections in comparison to others, as their average weighted degree of connections ranged between 36 and 57 ties. The five topics were ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, ‘black studies’, ‘Asian migration’, ‘religious diversity’, and ‘migration, sexuality, and health’ ( Fig. 12 ).

Here we can observe the same geographical focus of the most connected topics, as well as the new trends in the migration research. ‘Asian migration’ became one of the most connected topics, meaning that migration from/to and within that region provoked more interest of migration scholars than in the previous decade. This development appears to be in relation to high-skill migration, in one sense, because of its strong connections with the topics ‘Asian expat migration’ and ‘ICT, media, and migration’; and, in another sense, in relation to the growing Muslim population in Europe thanks to its strong connection to ‘religious diversity’. The high connectedness of the topic ‘migration sexuality and health’ can be explained by the dramatic rise of the volume of publications within the clusters ‘gender and family’ studies and ‘health’ in this time-frame as shown in the charts on page 13, and already argued by Portes (1997) .

In this period, ‘identity narratives’ became the most prominent topic (see Supplementary Data B), which suggests increased scholarly attention on the subjective experiences of migrants. Meanwhile ‘migrant flows’ and ‘migrant demographics’ decreased in prominence from the top 3 to the sixth and eighth position, respectively. The issues of education and socio-economic position remained prominent. The emergence of topics ‘migration and diversity in (higher) education’ (fifth) and ‘cultural diversity’ (seventh) in the top 10 of this period seem to reflect a shift from integrationism to studies of diversity. The simultaneous rise of ‘migration theory’ (to fourth) possibly illustrates the debates on methodological nationalism which emerged in the early 2000s. The combination of theoretical maturity and the intensified growth in the number of migration journals at the turn of the century suggests that the field was becoming institutionalised.

Overall, the changes in the top 10 most prominent topics seem to show a shifting attention from ‘who’ and ‘what’ questions to ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions. Moreover, the top 10 topics now account only for 26 per cent of all migration studies (a 15 per cent decrease compared with the period before). This means that there were many more topics which were nearly as prominent as those in the top 10. Such change again supports our claim that in this period, there were more intensive ‘sub-field’ developments in migration studies than in the previous period.

6.3 Period 3: 2008–17

In the last decade, the most connected topics have continued to be: ‘migration in/from Israel and Palestine’, ‘Asian migration’, and ‘black studies’. The hypothetical reasons for their central position in the network of topics are the same as in the previous period. The new most-connected topics—‘Conflicts, violence, and migration’, together with the topic ‘Religious diversity’—might indicate to a certain extent the widespread interest in the ‘refugee crisis’ of recent years ( Fig. 13 ).

The publications on the top 10 most prominent topics constituted a third of all migration literature of this period analysed in our study. A closer look at them reveals the following trends (see Supplementary Data B for details). ‘Mobilities’ is the topic of the highest prominence in this period. Together with ‘diasporas and transnationalism’ (fourth), this reflects the rise of critical thinking on methodological nationalism ( Wimmer and Glick Schiller, 2002 ) and the continued prominence of transnationalism in the post-‘mobility turn’ era ( Urry (2007) , cited in King, 2012 ).

The interest in subjective experiences of migration and diversity has continued, as ‘identity narratives’ continues to be prominent, with the second highest proportion of publications, and as ‘Discrimination and socio-psychological issues’ have become the eighth most prominent topic. This also echoes an increasing interest in the intersection of (mental) health and migration (cf. Sweileh et al., 2018 ).

The prominence of the topics ‘human rights law and protection’ (10th) and ‘governance of migration and diversity’ (9th), together with ‘conflicts, violence, and migration’ being one of the most connected topics, could be seen as a reflection of the academic interest in forced migration and asylum. Finally, in this period, the topics ‘race and racism’ (fifth) and ‘black studies’ (seventh) made it into the top 10. Since ‘black studies’ is also one of the most connected topics, such developments may reflect the growing attention to structural and inter-personal racism not only in the USA, perhaps reflecting the #blacklivesmatter movement, as well as in Europe, where the idea of ‘white Europeanness’ has featured in much public discourse.

6.4 Some hypotheses for further research

Why does the connectedness of topics change across three periods? In an attempt to explain these changes, we took a closer look at the geographical distribution of publications in each period. One of the trends that may at least partially explain the loss of connectedness between the topics in Period 2 could be related to the growing internationalisation of English language academic literature linked to a sharp increase in migration-focussed publications during the 1990s.

Internationalisation can be observed in two ways. First, the geographies of English language journal publications have become more diverse over the years. In the period 1988–97, the authors’ institutional affiliations spanned 57 countries. This increased to 72 in 1998–2007, and then to 100 in 2007–18 (we counted only those countries which contained at least 2 publications in our dataset). Alongside this, even though developed Anglophone countries (the USA, Canada, Australia, the UK, Ireland, and New Zealand) account for the majority of publications of our overall dataset, the share of publications originating from non-Anglophone countries has increased over time. In 1988–97, the number of publications from non-Anglophone European (EU+EEA) countries was around 13 per cent. By 2008–17, this had significantly increased to 28 per cent. Additionally, in the rest of the world, we observe a slight proportional increase from 9.5 per cent in the first period to 10.6 per cent in the last decade. Developed Anglophone countries witness a 16 per cent decrease in their share of all articles on migration. The trends of internationalisation illustrated above, combined with the loss of connectedness at the turn of the 21st century, seem to indicate that English became the lingua-franca for academic research on migration in a rather organic manner.

It is possible that a new inflow of ideas came from the increased number of countries publishing on migration whose native language is not English. This rise in ‘competition’ might also have catalysed innovation in the schools that had longer established centres for migration studies. Evidence for this lies in the rise in prominence of the topic ‘migration theory’ during this period. It is also possible that the expansion of the European Union and its research framework programmes, as well as the Erasmus Programmes and Erasmus Mundus, have perhaps brought novel, comparative, perspectives in the field. All this together might have created fruitful soil for developing unique themes and approaches, since such approaches in theory lead to more success and, crucially, more funds for research institutions.

This, however, cannot fully explain why in Period 3 the field became more connected again, other than that the framework programmes—in particular framework programme 8, Horizon 2020—encourage the building of scientific bridges, so to speak. Our hypothesis is thus that after the burst of publications and ideas in Period 2, scholars began trying to connect these new themes and topics to each other through emergent international networks and projects. Perhaps even the creation and work of the IMISCOE (2004-) and NOMRA (1998-) networks contributed to this process of institutionalisation. This, however, requires much further thought and exploration, but for now, we know that the relationship between the growth, the diversification, and the connectedness in this emergent research field is less straightforward than we might previously have suggested. This begs for further investigation perhaps within a sociology of science framework.

This article offers an inductive mapping of the topical focus of migration studies over a period of more than 30 years of development of the research field. Based on the literature, we expected to observe increasing diversity of topics within the field and increasing fragmentation between the topics, also in relation to the rapid growth in volume and internationalisation of publications in migration studies. However, rather than growth and increased diversity leading to increased fragmentation, our analysis reveals a complex picture of a rapidly growing field where the diversity of topics has remained relatively stable. Also, even as the field has internationalised, it has retained its overall connectedness, albeit with a slight and temporary fragmentation at the turn of the century. In this sense, we can argue that migration studies have indeed come of age as a distinct research field.

In terms of the volume of the field of migration studies, our study reveals an exponential growth trajectory, especially since the mid-1990s. This involves both the number of outlets and the number of publications therein. There also seems to be a consistent path to internationalisation of the field, with scholars from an increasing number of countries publishing on migration, and a somewhat shrinking share of publications from Anglo-American countries. However, our analysis shows that this has not provoked an increased diversity of topics in the field. Instead, the data showed that there have been several important shifts in terms of which topics have been most prominent in migration studies. The field has moved from focusing on issues of demographics, statistics, and governance, to an increasing focus on mobilities, migration-related diversity, gender, and health. Also, interest in specific geographies of migration seems to have decreased.

These shifts partially resonated with the expectations derived from the literature. In the 1980s and 1990s, we observed the expected widespread interest in culture, seen in publications dealing primarily with ‘education and language training’, ‘community development’, and ‘intercultural communication’. This continued to be the case at the turn of the century, where ‘identity narratives’ and ‘cultural diversity’ became prominent. The expected focus on borders in the periods ( Pedraza-Bailey, 1990 ) was represented by the high proportion of research on the ‘governance of migration’, ‘migration flows’, and in the highly connected topic ‘intra-EU mobility’. Following Portes (1997) , we expected ‘transnational communities’, ‘states and state systems’, and the ‘new second generation’ to be key themes for the ‘new century’. Transnationalism shifts attention away from geographies of migration and nation–states, and indeed, our study shows that ‘geographies of migration’ gave way to ‘mobilities’, the most prominent topic in the last decade. This trend is supported by the focus on ‘diasporas and transnationalism’ and ‘identity narratives’ since the 2000s, including literature on migrants’ and their descendants’ dual identities. These developments indicate a paradigmatic shift in migration studies, possibly caused by criticism of methodological nationalism. Moreover, our data show that themes of families and gender have been discussed more in the 21st century, which is in line with Portes’ predictions.

The transition from geographies to mobilities and from the governance of migration to the governance of migration-related diversity, race and racism, discrimination, and social–psychological issues indicates a shifting attention in migration studies from questions of ‘who’ and ‘what’ towards ‘how’ and ‘why’. In other words, a more nuanced understanding of the complexity of migration processes and consequences emerges, with greater consideration of both the global and the individual levels of analysis.

However, this complexification has not led to thematic fragmentation in the long run. We did not find a linear trend towards more fragmentation, meaning that migration studies have continued to be a field. After an initial period of high connectedness of research mainly coming from America and the UK, there was a period with significantly fewer connections within migration studies (1998–2007), followed by a recovery of connectedness since then, while internationalisation has continued. What does this tell us?

We may hypothesise that the young age of the field and the tendency towards methodological nationalism may have contributed to more connectedness in the early days of migration studies. The accelerated growth and internationalisation of the field since the late 1990s may have come with an initial phase of slight fragmentation. The increased share of publications from outside the USA may have caused this, as according to Massey et al. (1998) , European migration research was then more conceptually dispersed than across the Atlantic. The recent recovery of connectedness could then be hypothesised as an indicator of the field’s institutionalisation, especially at the European level, and growing conceptual and theoretical development. As ‘wisdom comes with age’, this may be an indication of the ‘coming of age’ of migration studies as a field with a shared conceptual and theoretical foundation.

The authors would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback, as well as dr. J.F. Alvarado for his advice in the early stages of work on this article.

This research is associated with the CrossMigration project, funded by the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement Ares(2017) 5627812-770121.

Conflict of interest statement . None declared.

Bommes M. , Morawska E. ( 2005 ) International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Brettell C. B. , Hollifield J. F. ( 2014 ) Migration Theory: Talking across Disciplines . London : Routledge .

Caponio T. , Borkert M. ( 2010 ) The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Carling J. ( 2015 ) Who Is Who in Migration Studies: 107 Names Worth Knowing < https://jorgencarling.org/2015/06/01/who-is-who-in-migration-studies-108-names-worth-knowing/#_Toc420761452 > accessed 1 Jun 2015.

Castles S. , Miller M. J. ( 2014 ) The Age of Migration: International Population Movements in the Modern World , 5th edn. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan .

Cohen R. ( 1996 ) Theories of Migration . Cheltenham : Edward Elgar .

Dahinden J. ( 2016 ) ‘A Plea for the “De-migranticization” of Research on Migration and Integration,’ Ethnic and Racial Studies , 39 / 13 : 2207 – 25 .

Elsevier ( 2017 ) Scopus: Content Coverage Guide . < https://www.elsevier.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/69451/0597-Scopus-Content-Coverage-Guide-US-LETTER-v4-HI-singles-no-ticks.pdf > accessed 18 Dec 2018.

Evans J. A. , Aceves P. ( 2016 ) ‘Machine Translation: Mining Text for Social Theory,’ Annual Review of Sociology’ , 42 / 1 : 21 – 50 .

Favell A. ( 2003 ) ‘Integration Nations: The Nation-State and Research on Immigrants in Western Europe’, in Brochmann G. , ed. The Multicultural Challenge , pp. 13 – 42 . Bingley : Emerald .

Fortunato S. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘Science of Science’ , Science , 359 / 6379 : 1 – 7 .

Geddes A. ( 2005 ) ‘Migration Research and European Integration: The Construction and Institutionalization of Problems of Europe’, in Bommes M. , Morawska E. (eds). International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity , pp. 265 – 280 . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Gordon M. ( 1964 ) Assimilation in American Life . New York : Oxford University Press .

Greenwood M. J. , Hunt G. L. ( 2003 ) ‘The Early History of Migration Research,’ International Regional Sciences Review , 26 / 1 : 3 – 37 .

Halford S. , Savage M. ( 2017 ) ‘Speaking Sociologically with Big Data: Symphonic Social Science and the Future for Big Data Research,’ Sociology , 51 / 6 : 1132 – 48 .

IOM ( 2017 ) ‘Migration Research and Analysis: Growth, Reach and Recent Contributions’, in IOM, World Migration Report 2018 , pp. 95 – 121 . Geneva : International Organization for Migration .

Jiang H. , Qiang M. , Lin P. ( 2016 ) ‘A Topic Modeling Based Bibliometric Exploratoin of Hydropower Research,’ Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews , 57 : 226 – 37 .

Kajikawa Y. , et al.  ( 2007 ) ‘Creating an Academic Landscape of Sustainability Science: An Analysis of the Citation Network,’ Sustainability Science , 2 / 2 : 221 – 31 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2010 ) ‘Mind the Gap: Integrating Approaches to Internal and International Migration,’ Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 36 / 10 : 1619 – 46 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2002 ) ‘Towards a New Map of European Migration,’ International Journal of Population Geography , 8 / 2 : 89 – 106 .

King R. , Skeldon R. ( 2012 ) Theories and Typologies of Migration: An Overview and a Primer . Malmö : Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare (MIM ).

Kritz M. M. , Keely C. B. , Tomasi S. M. ( 1981 ) Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movements . New York : The Centre for Migration Studies .

Lavenex S. ( 2005 ) ‘National Frames in Migration Research: The Tacit Political Agenda’, in Bommes M. , Morawska E. (eds) International Migration Research: Constructions, Omissions and the Promises of Interdisciplinarity , pp. 243 – 263 . Aldershot : Ashgate .

Martiniello M. ( 2013 ) ‘Comparisons in Migration Studies,’ Comparative Migration Studies , 1 / 1 : 7 – 22 .

Massey D. S. , et al.  ( 1993 ) ‘Theories of International Migration: A Review and Appraisal,’ Population and Development Review , 19 / 3 : 431 – 66 .

Massey D. S. ( 1994 ) ‘An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case,’ Population and Development Review , 20 / 4 : 699 – 751 .

Massey D. S. , et al.  ( 1998 ) Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End of the Millennium . Oxford : Clarendon .

Morawska E. ( 1990 ) ‘The Sociology and Historiography of Immigration’, In Yans-McLaughlin V. , (ed.) Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Nestorowicz J. , Anacka M. ( 2018 ) ‘Mind the Gap? Quantifying Interlinkages between Two Traditions in Migration Literature,’ International Migration Review , 53/1 : 1 – 25 .

Pedraza-Bailey S. ( 1990 ) ‘Immigration Research: A Conceptual Map,’ Social Science History , 14 / 1 : 43 – 67 .

Penninx R. , Spencer D. , van Hear N. ( 2008 ) Migration and Integration in Europe: The State of Research . Oxford : ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society .

Piguet E. , Kaenzig R. , Guélat J. ( 2018 ) ‘The Uneven Geography of Research on “Environmental Migration”,’ Population and Environment , 39 / 4 : 357 – 83 .

Portes A. ( 1997 ) ‘Immigration Theory for a New Century: Some Problems and Opportunities,’ International Migration Review , 31 / 4 : 799 – 825 .

Pryor R. J. ( 1981 ) ‘Integrating International and Internal Migration Theories’, in Kritz M. M. , Keely C. B. , Tomasi S. M. (eds) Global Trends in Migration: Theory and Research on International Population Movements , pp. 110 – 129 . New York : The Center for Migration Studies .

Ravenstein G. E. ( 1885 ) ‘The Laws of Migration,’ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society , 48 : 167 – 235 .

Schinkel W. ( 2018 ) ‘Against “Immigrant Integration”: For an End to Neocolonial Knowledge Production,’ Comparative Migration Studies , 6 / 31 : 1 – 17 .

Scholten P. ( 2011 ) Framing Immigrant Integration: Dutch Research-Policy Dialogues in Comparative Perspective . Amsterdam : Amsterdam University Press .

Scholten P. ( 2018 ) Mainstreaming versus Alienation: Conceptualizing the Role of Complexity in Migration and Diversity Policymaking . Rotterdam : Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam .

Scholten P. , et al.  ( 2015 ) Integrating Immigrants in Europe: Research-Policy Dialogues . Dordrecht : Springer .

Sweileh W. M. , et al.  ( 2018 ) ‘Bibliometric Analysis of Global Migration Health Research in Peer-Reviewed Literature (2000–2016)’ , BMC Public Health , 18 / 777 : 1 – 18 .

Thomas D. S. ( 1938 ) Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials . New York : Social Science Research Council .

Thornthwaite C. W. ( 1934 ) Internal Migration in the United States . Philadelphia, PA : University of Pennsylvania Press .

Thränhardt D. , Bommes M. ( 2010 ) National Paradigms of Migration Research . Göttingen : V&R Unipress .

Urry J. ( 2007 ) Mobilities . Cambridge : Polity .

van Dalen H. ( 2018 ) ‘Is Migration Still Demography’s Stepchild?’ , Demos: Bulletin over Bevolking en Samenleving , 34 / 5 : 8 .

Vargas-Silva C. ( 2012 ) Handbook of Research Methods in Migration . Cheltenham : Edward Elgar .

Wimmer A. , Glick Schiller N. ( 2002 ) ‘Methodological Nationalism and beyond: Nation-State Building, Migration and the Social Sciences,’ Global Networks , 2 / 4 : 301 – 34 .

Yans-McLaughlin V. ( 1990 ) Immigration Reconsidered: History, Sociology, and Politics . Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Zapata-Barrero R. , Yalaz E. ( 2018 ) Qualitative Research in European Migration Studies . Dordrecht : Springer .

Zapata-Barrero R. , Caponio T. , Scholten P. ( 2017 ) ‘Theorizing the “Local Turn” in a Multi-Level Governance Framework of Analysis: A Case Study in Immigrant Policies,’ International Review of Administrative Sciences , 83 / 2 : 241 – 6 .

Zolberg A. R. ( 1989 ) ‘The Next Waves: Migration Theory for a Changing World,’ International Migration Review , 23 / 3 : 403 – 30 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts

Citing articles via.

• Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

• Online ISSN 2049-5846
• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications

• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Immigration Trends

Latinos’ views on the migrant situation at the u.s.-mexico border.

U.S. Hispanics are less likely than other Americans to say increasing deportations or a larger wall along the border will help the situation.

Key facts about recent trends in global migration

The number of international migrants grew to 281 million in 2020; 3.6% of the world’s people lived outside their country of birth that year.

What’s happening at the U.S.-Mexico border in 7 charts

The U.S. Border Patrol reported more than 1.6 million encounters with migrants along the U.S.-Mexico border in the 2021 fiscal year.

Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population

A record 22 million Asian Americans trace their roots to more than 20 countries in East and Southeast Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

Facts on U.S. immigrants, 2018

Key statistics about immigrants in the United States from 1980 to 2018.

Unauthorized immigrant population trends for states, birth countries and regions

In 2017, an estimated 10.5 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States, down from a peak of 12.2 million in 2007. Explore trends in the unauthorized immigrant population for U.S. states, as well as for birth countries and regions, based on Pew Research Center estimates.

Estimates of U.S. unauthorized immigrant population, by metro area, 2016 and 2007

Sortable table of estimates of unauthorized immigrant populations in 182 U.S. metropolitan areas, derived from a sample of census data.

U.S. unauthorized immigrant population estimates by state, 2016

Pew Research Center estimates that 10.7 million unauthorized immigrants, the lowest level in a decade, lived in the U.S. in 2016

Immigrant share in U.S. nears record high but remains below that of many other countries

Nearly 14% of the U.S. population is foreign-born. That’s the highest share of foreign-born people in the country since 1910, but it’s far from the highest in the world.

International migrants by country

Explore detailed tables on the number and share of immigrants and emigrants by country.

REFINE YOUR SELECTION

• D’Vera Cohn (25)
• Jeffrey S. Passel (25)
• Phillip Connor (24)
• Jens Manuel Krogstad (17)
• Mark Hugo Lopez (12)
• Ana Gonzalez-Barrera (9)
• Rakesh Kochhar (7)
• Eileen Patten (5)
• Gustavo López (5)
• Jynnah Radford (5)
• Neil G. Ruiz (5)
• Paul Taylor (5)
• Roberto Suro (5)
• Abby Budiman (4)
• Daniel Dockterman (3)
• Gretchen Livingston (3)
• Luis Noe-Bustamante (3)
• Michael Suh (3)
• Monica Anderson (3)
• Tom Rosentiel (3)
• Adam Nekola (2)
• Anna Brown (2)
• Antonio Flores (2)
• Ariana Rodriguez-Gitler (2)
• George Gao (2)
• Renee Stepler (2)
• Richard Fry (2)
• Seth Motel (2)
• Shirin Hakimzadeh (2)
• Alissa Scheller (1)
• Andrea Caumont (1)
• Anusha Natarajan (1)
• Arturo Gonzalez (1)
• Audrey Singer (1)
• B. Lindsey Lowell (1)
• Bruce Drake (1)
• C. Soledad Espinoza (1)
• Christine Tamir (1)
• Felisa Gonzales (1)
• Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz (1)
• Frank D. Bean (1)
• Gabriel Velasco (1)
• Jacob Poushter (1)
• Jennifer Van Hook (1)
• John Gramlich (1)
• Karen Woodrow-Lafield (1)
• Katayoun Kishi (1)
• Lauren Mora (1)
• Michael T. Light (1)
• Mohamad Moslimani (1)
• Peter Bell (1)
• Pew Research Center Staff (1)
• Rebecca Hinze-Pifer (1)
• Rich Morin (1)
• Ruth Igielnik (1)
• Sonya Tafoya (1)

Research Teams

• Race and Ethnicity (96)
• Global Migration and Demography (47)
• Global (43)
• Social Trends (24)
• Religion (7)
• Politics (5)
• Internet and Technology (4)
• Data Labs (1)
• Journalism (1)
• Methods (1)
• Pew Research Center (1)
• Science (1)

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Advertisement

The Good and the Bad: Do Immigrants’ Positive and Negative Evaluations of Life After Migration Go Hand in Hand?

• Open access
• Published: 14 October 2022
• Volume 24 , pages 1091–1111, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Nella Geurts   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-6252-3638 1 &
• Marcel Lubbers   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6295-6356 2  

6324 Accesses

4 Citations

4 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Research on migration and integration has informed us about the systemic inequalities and disadvantages that migrants face in the residence country. Less is known about migrants’ positive experiences, and whether these co-exist with negative experiences. This study’s contribution lies in exploring to what extent positive and negative evaluations go hand in hand and among whom in what way. By coding and analysing open-ended questions of the New Immigrants Survey, we explore this among 955 immigrants from Bulgaria, Poland, Spain and Turkey who have been in the Netherlands for around 5 years. Results illustrate that these migrants most often positively evaluate matters in the economic domain, whereas the domain that is most often negatively evaluated concerns (being apart from) family. Which positive and negative evaluations are mentioned simultaneously differs among migrants, where migrants from Spain more often combine a negative evaluation of the Dutch whether with a positive evaluation of the Dutch being friendly. Migrants with a temporary intention to stay are more likely to combine a positive evaluation of the economic domain with negative experiences in the integration domain. This study hereby illustrates that the current emphasis in migration research on “the bad” overlooks positive matters that migrants experience simultaneously.

Similar content being viewed by others

Happiness and Migration

Emigration, remittances, and the subjective well-being of those staying behind

Happiness Insights into Migration Policy and Choice Behavior of Immigrants

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Decennia of migration and integration studies have informed us about the key problems that immigrants encounter after migration to a new residence country (Alba & Foner, 2014 ; Diehl et al., 2016 ; Schunck, 2014 ). The socio-economic position of immigrants has been problematized since relatively many immigrants are unemployed, and if employed relatively often in the lower echelons of the labour market, with lower levels of labour market security and lower earnings than the native population (Fleischmann & Dronkers, 2010 ; Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2017 ; Kogan, 2004 ). Similarly, the social relations that immigrants develop have been problematized (Hao & Kawano, 2001 ; Martinovic et al., 2009 ). In the situation that immigrants are forced to or choose to live in neighbourhoods with large shares of co-ethnics and mainly engage with co-ethnics, it is thought they lack social resources that are relevant to be included in the residence country. These issues in the socio-economic and social domain are related to socio-cultural integration (Ersanili & Koopmans, 2010 ; Fokkema & De Haas, 2015 ). In this field of research, it is problematized that immigrants’ identification with the residence country may be limited and that certain core democratic or cultural values are not subscribed to by immigrants (Dollmann, 2021 ; Van Doorn et al., 2013 ; Verdier et al., 2012 ; Vollebergh et al., 2017 ). Media and politicians in Western Europe often stress these issues and incompatibilities surrounding migrants and most scientific research studies and reports on the systemic inequalities between immigrants and the native populations. It is however less well known whether immigrants themselves also perceive these matters as the main problems of life after immigration to the residence country. Mainly qualitative research has illustrated migrants’ “messy reality” and diverse experiences of integration and life in the residence country (Eijberts & Ghorashi, 2017 ; Erdal, 2013 ; Geurts et al., 2021 ), but insights in these experiences among larger groups of immigrants and thus the generalizability of these findings are lacking. This study offers these insights by taking an explorative approach in which (combinations of) migrants’ positive and negative evaluations of life after immigration are studied. In doing so, this study provides future directions for hypotheses on how the intersections of both negative and positive evaluations affect migrants’ integration processes in Western Europe.

Firstly, this paper provides evidence for the extent to which immigrants who lived for on average 5 years in the Netherlands perceive certain matters about their life in this residence country to be negative. We complement this perspective of what is “bad” about life in the residence country with the perspective of what is “good”, again from the immigrants’ own point of view. Even though the mirror of explanations of little success is the explanation of more success, most integration research less often explicitly focuses on what goes well. This study uses open-ended questions as part of a large-scale survey to obtain insight in what migrants themselves mention to be positive and negative evaluations of life in the residence country, which adds to our understanding of migrants’ lived experiences in Western Europe. Our first research question is therefore: To what extent and in what domains do recent immigrants have positive and negative experiences of life in the Netherlands?

Besides describing the good and the bad as experienced by immigrants, this paper will secondly address to what extent these positive and negative evaluations of life in the Netherlands co-exist. Immigrants who are positive about what immigration has brought them probably also face issues in the new country they live in. Immigrants who are negative about certain aspects of their life in the new country may be (more likely to be) positive on other aspects (Eijsberts & Ghorashi, 2015). Yet we do not know to what extent such positive and negative evaluations (in certain domains) go hand in hand since earlier research hardly addressed such positive and negative evaluations simultaneously. Our second research question therefore reads: To what extent do recent immigrants simultaneously have positive and negative experiences of life in the Netherlands? This study is, as far as we know, the first to acknowledge this possible interplay and “messy reality” using migrants’ own experiences through the use of large-scale data and in doing so is able to assess to what extent such simultaneous experiences are present across several social groups.

Finally, we study a set of possible individual drivers of such combinations of positive and negative experiences. Previous migration research highlights reasons for immigrants to migrate, from which we can derive potential positive experiences that migration will bring (Castles, 1998 ; Engbersen et al., 2013 ; Kanas & Steinmetz, 2021 ; Massey et al., 1993 ); economic migrants will try to improve their economic position; family migrants can be expected to be optimistic to be (re-)united with family; and immigrants who moved away from a country of which they disapprove of the political or cultural climate, or flee because they need protection, are expected to be more positive about the living situation in the new country. Next to migration motive, we expect variation among immigrants in the extent to which certain aspects of the good and the bad go hand in hand, for example, based on immigrants’ intention to stay (De Haas & Fokkema, 2011 ), educational level (Buzdugan & Halli, 2009 ) and gender (Ala-Mantila & Fleischmann, 2018 ). We acknowledge that this is just a selection of factors that may provide insights into what combinations on positive and negative experiences are most prominent. The research we conduct here is therefore mostly explorative, to see what combinations among whom are (more) likely to be experienced. As such, our final research question reads: To what extent are migration motive, intention to stay, origin country, educational level and gender related to experiencing certain negative and positive experiences of life simultaneously?

Based on answers to open-ended questions of what is perceived as positive and negative about life in the Netherlands among 955 immigrants from Bulgaria, Poland, Spain and Turkey, we thus provide evidence whether and how immigrants combine positive and negative evaluations of life after migration. Like many other immigration countries, the Netherlands has witnessed political and societal debate about the volume of migration and about problems that would concentrate among the immigrant population. Related to the origin countries included here, policy in specific focuses on abuses that labour migrants face in the Netherlands. Perhaps different from some other countries, where the dominant discourse may be that immigrants are needed to fill labour market shortages, the positive side of immigration is less often discussed in the Dutch context, which is illustrated by news articles on immigration often having a negative tone (Van Klingeren et al., 2015 ). The Netherlands is therefore a relevant context to explore and answer the three research questions among recent migrants, which will contribute to our understanding of the formative period after migration. Indeed, the biggest changes in immigrants’ lives in a new country arguably happen in the first years after migration (Diehl et al., 2016 ). In doing so, we moreover contribute to previous migration, integration and participation literature in two ways: we firstly argue for the need to acknowledge migrants’ simultaneous negative and positive evaluations of life after migration and explore to what extent this is the case. Secondly, we study to what extent there are differences in for whom certain negative and positive evaluations go hand in hand by exploring patterns across several key characteristics to contribute to our understanding of the interrelationship between these positive and negative evaluations of life after migration. An overview of these combinations can inform us on what hinders (or moderates) anticipated outcomes of such negative and/or positive evaluations.

Recent Migration and the Relation Between Origin and Residence Country

Migration has become more dynamic and transnational in the last decennia (Engbersen et al., 2013 ). The opportunities for contact with the country of origin, either in terms of contacts with friends and family or keeping updated of what is going on in the country of origin, expanded rapidly (Schunck, 2014 ). Still, the situational differences between origin and residence countries have a major impact on for who it is possible and likely to migrate, and based on what reason.

Traditionally, migration is considered to be a cost–benefit calculation (Borjas, 1994 ; Constant & Massey, 2003 ; Dustmann et al., 2010 ). Immigrants have expectations about improvement of their living situation by moving to a new residence country. For people who left the origin country to work elsewhere, this is most straightforward in economic terms. Contexts that do not offer (the preferred) employment and opportunities for sufficient earnings are push-factors. Migration may also be motived by expectations about better career opportunities elsewhere (Borjas, 1989 ). Migration from contexts with little labour opportunities to areas with little unemployment remains a major migration pattern. With increasing restrictions on labour market migration from immigrants outside the EU, it has been argued that study-migration may offer a new route (Luthra & Platt, 2017 ). However, study immigrants, mostly entering universities, have a rather different socio-economic outlook than the on average more low-skilled labour market entries from a large share of economic immigrants.

More recently, the migration literature has shown that because of the large variety of factors that play a role in migration decisions, an aspirations-capabilities perspective fits reality better (De Haas, 2011 ). From this perspective, it is more evident that migration will result in simultaneously positive and negative evaluations. The focus on immigrants’ agency in this model implies that immigrants may evaluate their experiences in the residence country differently, depending on the reasons that they provided for moving and accounting for immigrants’ relationships to the origin and residence country at the same time. All origin countries addressed in this study had a higher level of unemployment at the time, a lower GDP per capita and lower average earnings than the Netherlands. Moreover, Bulgaria, Poland and Spain are (and were already in 2013) members of the European Union, creating opportunities for free movement between these countries and the Netherlands. This is different for migrants from Turkey who have to apply for a visa, where economic reasons seldomly provided a permission for migration. Migration from Turkey is predominantly family-motivated. In the 1980s and 1990s, when recruitment of workers as arranged in the 1960s and 1970s was no longer needed in the Netherlands, migration was dominated by family-re-unification (Bayrakdar & Guveli, 2020 ). Also today, non-EU migration for reasons of labour has become increasingly difficult in many of the European countries and family-related migration takes up a large share of migration. Migrants who moved to the Netherlands in 2012/2013 from the origin countries we study here—Bulgaria, Poland, Spain and Turkey—were at the time not in a situation of conflict and did not qualify for a refugee status in the Netherlands. They are not likely to belong to the immense group of people worldwide, fleeing from conflict and repression. Next to asylum applications, immigrants may choose to work, study, join a family or partner in a new residence country and not stay in the origin country because they disapprove of the political or cultural situation in the country of origin.

Positive and Negative Evaluations of Domains of Integration

In the literature on integration, different domains are distinguished (Ager & Strang, 2008 ). Often these are summarized into economic, social and cultural domains of integration or participation (sometimes, political integration is defined as a fourth domain) (Entzinger & Biezeveld, 2003 ; Phalet & Swyngedouw, 2003 ; Schunck, 2014 ). In this literature immigrants’ positions in these domains are frequently compared to the position of natives (e.g. Heath et al., 2008 ; Heath & Li, 2017 ). From that comparison, it often follows that immigrants are less well-off economically (e.g. Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2017 ; Li & Heath, 2020 ) are socially oriented predominantly to co-ethnics (e.g. Martinovic et al., 2009 ) and less culturally oriented to the residence country than natives (e.g. Ersanili & Koopmans, 2010 ). However, an important question is what a relevant group of comparison is (Tolsma et al., 2012 ). In the period just after migration, it seems more likely that immigrants compare their situation to their life before migration instead of (only) comparing it to the position of the native population in the residence country. Even when immigrants may be in disadvantaged positions according to the standards of the residence country, they still may perceive and evaluate their position in a positive way, for example, because it is an improvement compared to life in the origin country. We, therefore, argue it is key to bring in migrants’ perceptions, as it may paint a different picture than drawn in previous research comparing migrants to natives.

Studies have highlighted the huge diversity of outcomes in integration and participation brought about by a diverse set of factors, including individual-level characteristics of immigrants. Such individual drivers are likely to affect migrants’ (positive and negative) experiences in the residence country (Black et al., 2011 ; Hendriks, 2015 ; Nisic & Melzer, 2016 ). In this article, we explore to what extent these known key individual-level drivers of integration outcomes also affect the extent to which negative and positive evaluations of life after migration go hand in hand. Immigrants may be likely to focus their life, and thus experiences, on a domain that is linked to their migration motive, a driver that is expected to be strongly included in immigrants’ evaluation of their situation in the residence country. Immigrants who (mainly) migrated for work will be more likely to mention both positive and negative features of the work domain. Family migrants are expected to have positive and negative evaluations mostly of the social domain. Political migrants and those who wanted to stay in the Netherlands because they simply wanted to live there for a while are expected to mention positive and negative aspects of the socio-cultural aspects of life in the Netherlands.

Another known key driver of migrants’ integration processes is immigrants’ intention to stay (Chabé-Ferret et al., 2018 ; Geurts and Lubbers, 2017 ), which is often related to linear cost–benefit theories. The assumption is that immigrants who intend to stay make more investments in resources and capital relevant in the residence country (Chabé-Ferret et al., 2018 ). Immigrants whose intention is to stay longer in the residence country may be a select group of immigrants who have more positive experiences in the residence country (Adda, Dustman & Mestres, 2006 ; Wachter & Fleischmann, 2018 ). Immigrants who intend to stay may also be likely to ignore and downplay negative experiences. Migrants who are not willing to stay may be open to express positive experiences but at the same time, their negative evaluations may support their decision to leave as they intended to do. We moreover study gender and educational level differences in combinations people experience in positive and negative evaluations. Gender and level of education have been studied widely as key indicators of integration (e.g. Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2017 ; Heath & Li, 2017 ). In cases where immigration follows a more traditional pattern where men move first and women join later, it may hold that women are more focused on the social domain and men on the economic domain. As for education, theories on the integration paradox have shown that higher-educated immigrants experience higher levels of (group) discrimination than lower-educated immigrants and are in general more aware and critical towards the residence country (Tolsma et al., 2012 ; Geurts et al., 2020 ). Therefore, when immigrants are asked to express themselves about what is negative about their life after immigration, higher-educated immigrants may more often mention spontaneously that discrimination is an issue or mention other negative evaluations, with less or no expression of positive evaluations. Where previous research has to a certain extent illustrated the role of such characteristics for experiences of life in the residence country, this study will explore whether these characteristics are related to combining certain positive and negative experiences simultaneously.

We analysed immigrants included in the fourth wave of the New Immigrants Survey (NIS2NL) survey data, conducted in early 2018, as this wave included open-ended questions on positive and negative experiences of life in the Netherlands. NIS2NL is specifically designed to analyse early integration processes after migration (Lubbers et al., 2018 ). This survey includes recent migrants from Bulgaria, Poland, Spain and Turkey who were registered as a new citizen of the Netherlands around 2012/2013. Footnote 1 Statistics Netherlands drew a random sample of immigrants from these countries from the Dutch municipality registers. In September 2013, this sample of migrants older than 18 years old was invited to participate in a written or online survey. Invitations and questionnaires were translated into the migrants’ mother tongue. Migrants were sampled within 18 months after their registration in a Dutch municipality. The first wave was collected in November 2013 and March 2014 (mean response rate of 32.3%), after which the second and third waves followed after about 15 months each (with a mean response rate of 58.7 and 68.2%, respectively). Respondents who took part in wave 3, who agreed to participate in another wave and were still living in the Netherlands according to statistics Netherlands were approached for the fourth wave in January 2018. This resulted in a sample of 996 migrants. The response rates for the fourth wave were 73.2% for migrants for Poland, 80.9% for migrants from Turkey, 83.3% for migrants from Bulgaria and 84.2% for migrants from Spain.

Any study on what immigrants experience as positive or negative in a setting in which they are surveyed has to acknowledge selection and temporality. In this study, immigrants who lived for over 5 years in the Netherlands are asked about their evaluations of life after immigration in the residence country. Those who are surveyed may be a selection of immigrants who are relatively positive about life after immigration because they did not leave the residence country in the first 5 years after immigration (as statistics from the Netherlands have shown that on average 50% of the immigrants return to the origin country or move elsewhere in a 5-year window). Still, these immigrants who are still in the residence country after 5 years can vary in their outlooks and experiences.

The dropout between the four waves of the NIS2NL survey will be selective as it is thus affected by return migration or migration elsewhere. With respect to dropouts between earlier waves, it appears that migrants who had a Dutch partner had a higher Dutch language proficiency, were employed, were highly educated, experienced less group discrimination or had a permanent intention to stay were less likely to dropout. This dropout between earlier waves is therefore selective, where a dropout could be interpreted as an indication of too many negative experiences/too little positive experiences in the residence country. In a way, this results in a sample in the fourth wave that represents the settling migrant population in the Netherlands, as the group that remains in the Netherlands is different from those who does not. Although this dropout is thus selective, we argue these are common selection processes which also apply to results of previous studies on integration processes among longer residing migrants.

Operationalization

Subjective evaluation of life in the netherlands.

This paper studies both the negative and positive experiences of migrants’ life in their residence country. We do so based on two open-ended items which were the final questions of the survey: “What are the positive aspects of your life in the Netherlands?” and “What are the negative aspects of your life in the Netherlands?”. Footnote 2 Respondents were able to share their answers in their own language of preference, answers were translated to Dutch.

For both items, we applied thematic open coding to cluster answer categories into a range of domains in life (Allahyari et al., 2017 ; Popping, 2015 ). Coding has been conducted by two researchers, coding each case by hand to contribute to the reliability of the coding. Most respondents provided one or two words to formulate their answer (e.g. on what is negative: “taxes”; “difficult language”; and “rain”). Subjects that tap into an overarching theme were later merged, e.g. work, income, costs of living and taxes were merged into the economic domain. Some domains were mentioned both on the positive and the negative side of life (such as issues surrounding family, the economic situation and the evaluation of Dutch people) whereas others did not (including climate and language matters). Table 1 offers an overview of the domains distinguished and the number of respondents in each domain. Appendix A1 and A2 present a more detailed overview of the distinguished domains, key words and which sub-domains are included in each respective category. If multiple answers (in different domains) were given, these answers were each categorized in the respective cluster, meaning that one respondent can be part of multiple domains distinguished. For example, if a respondent responded to the second open-ended item that one experiences Dutch people to be intolerant and that one’s labour market position does not match one’s expectations, this respondent is coded as having a negative experience in both the ‘Dutch people’ and the ‘economic’ domain.

Independent Variables of Interest

To understand to what extent there is variance among migrants with respect to whether certain positive and negative experiences go together, we include several characteristics that are used as predictors of interest. First, migrants’ highest obtained educational level attained in either one’s country of origin (measured on a country-specific scale), the Netherlands, or another country is included. All education items were standardized into the International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) scale of 2011 (UNESCO, 2012), which ranges from (0) pre-primary education to (8) doctoral or equivalent. We included this linearly. We further included migrants’ gender being either (0) man or (1) woman. Next, we include migration motive (measured at wave 1), divided in line with previous research (Van Tubergen & Van de Werfhorst, 2007 ) into (1) economic, (2) family, (3) in education or (4) other or no specific reason. Finally, we included migrants’ intention to stay categorized into (1) temporary, (2) circular, (3) permanent and (4) do not know and the origin country.

Overall, missing values on these variables were limited (4.1% in total) and we therefore chose to listwise delete these respondents, resulting in a final sample of 955. Descriptive statistics of the independent variables included in this study are presented in Table 2 . To provide further insight in the sample, we presented additional descriptive statistics per origin group in Appendix A3.

Analysis and Results

Analytical strategy.

To inform our research questions, our analyses include three steps. The first two provide descriptive evidence, where the last step uses regression analyses to estimate relationships. In the first step, we show the shares of respondents that mention positive and negative experiences in the distinguished domains. To improve readability and ensure enough power in the multivariate analyses later on, only domains are presented that include more than 10% of the sample. Next, we are interested in the extent to which these negative and positive experiences in various domains go hand in hand. We therefore present the share of respondents that mentioned both a negative and a positive aspect of life in the Netherlands. Again, only those domains that include more than 10% of the sample are presented. Finally, in order to explore whether there are differences among migrants to what extent positive and negative experiences in the Netherlands are combined, we use logistic regression analyses where the outcome of interest are different combinations of positive and negative experiences in two domains. These multivariate logistic regression analyses allow for testing which individual factors relate to outcomes that are dichotomous (Sieben & Linssen, 2009 ), in this case combining certain negative and positive evaluations (= 1) or not (= 0). Table 4 presents the analyses on various combinations of domains that include more than 10% of the sample who expresses a specific combination of domains, which are the largest combinations of negative and positive domains present. Tables A4 and A5 in the appendix present similar analyses for different combinations of positive and negative evaluations as the outcome, presenting the analyses on combinations including less than 10 per cent of the sample, but more than 7.5%. Any effect that has a p value lower than 0.05 is considered statistically significant, the amount of stars illustrate the strength of significance. The various models presenting the results of these different outcomes are labelled as M1 to M19. In the Appendix, Tables A6 and A7 present the explained variance and the odds ratios for each effect in the respective models.

The Frequency of Positive and Negative Experiences

Figure  1 illustrates that more than 53% of the recent migrants in the Netherlands consider aspects in the economic domain as something positive. Almost 40% of the respondents mention experiences around having a better life in the Netherlands positively. The third most frequently mentioned domain concerns the Netherlands being well-organized, as mentioned by 30.1%. Domains that were evaluated positively as well, but mentioned less often are: Dutch people being friendly (25%), having opportunities in the Netherlands (21.8%), having family around (16.1%) and other reasons such as the infrastructure (16.4%).

Share of total number of respondents that mention positive (green bars) and/or negative experiences (orange bars) in certain domains ( N  = 955)

With respect to domains that are most frequently mentioned when sharing negative aspects of life in the Netherlands, missing family is mentioned most often (34.1%). Next, negative evaluations of the climate in the Netherlands are mentioned by 26.2% of the sample. Negative experiences in the economic domain are mentioned by 22% of the sample. Other domains that came to the fore, yet mentioned less often as the three domains discussed are: experiencing too much distance to the home country (19.3%), having issues with (learning the) language (14.5%), struggling with integration into the Dutch society (13%), experiencing Dutch people to be direct and rude (12.2%) and feeling lonely in the Netherlands (10.1%).

We moreover explored to what extent these patterns presented above differ across key individual drivers. For example, Fig.  2 presents the most frequently positive and negative domains mentioned for both men and women. Among various domains, there seem little differences between men and women in the extent to which experiences in certain domains are mentioned. Significant exceptions are the domain of family mentioned positively (among men: 10.9%, among women: 20.4%). Moreover, almost 34% of men mentioned the organized domain whereas this is the case for less than 28% of women. With respect to negative evaluations, there is only a significant difference between men and women in the frequency of mentioning matters in the family domain (among men: 27.7%, among women: 37.8%). In additional descriptive statistics, Figures A1 and A2 illustrate differences across migration motives and origin groups in the frequency of mentioning these positive and negative evaluations.

Share of men and women that mention positive (green bars) and/or negative experiences (orange bars) in certain domains ( N  = 955)

Which Positive and Negative Experiences Go Hand in Hand?

Next, we are interested in exploring to what extent negative and positive experiences of life in the Netherlands can be experienced simultaneously. In Table 3 , the share of respondents is presented based on mentioning a negative experience in a certain domain (ranging from the economic domain to experiencing distance to the home country) who also mentioned a positive experience in another domain. The positive domains mentioned are in line with the ones presented in Fig.  1 .

In general, Table 3 illustrates that negative and positive experiences go hand in hand among quite a share of the respondents. Results for example illustrate that among those who mentioned missing family as a negative aspect of life in the Netherlands, in most of the domains on the positive side, over 34% has mentioned that domain too. For example, 34.4% of those who considered missing family a negative aspect of life in the Netherlands mentioned the opportunities as something positive. The general pattern that arises thus suggests that positive and negative aspects of life in the Netherlands are present at the same time. Seemingly, some negatively evaluated domains are more likely to be combined with positive evaluations than others. It shows that among migrants who negatively evaluated the family and climate domain, around 30 to 40% also share positive evaluations in various domains. This contrasts the patterns among migrants who negatively evaluated domains of integration, loneliness and Dutch people as the share of those who also share positive evaluations only ranges from 10 to 20%.

Differences across domains that represent positive aspects of life in the Netherlands are seemingly small. Put differently, results do not show that mentioning the language domain negatively is more likely to go together with mentioning positive domain A versus positive domain B. Instead, we find that among those who consider language a negative aspect of life, the likelihood of mentioning a positive aspect is similar across all domains (ranging from 17.2% for the better life domain to 22.1% for the “other” domain). Whilst several negative and positive evaluations can thus be combined, results do not point towards certain domains being more likely to be mentioned at the same time.

Which Migrants are More Likely to Combine Certain Positive and Negative Experiences?

Table 4 presents the results of logistic regression analyses on the likelihood of mentioning both a negative and positive aspect of life in the Netherlands in certain domains. Table 4 presents the results of the largest combinations of categories (at least 10% of the sample). Tables A4 and A5 in the appendix present results of outcomes on combinations include less than 10, but more than 7.5% of the sample.

Table 4 shows that educational level is hardly associated with being more or less likely to mention a certain combination of positive and negative evaluations of life in the Netherlands. One exception is that higher-educated migrants are more likely to mention positive aspects in the organized domain and negative aspects with respect to family in the Netherlands (versus not being part of this combination). In addition, Table A4 suggests that higher-educated are more likely to combine negative experiences in the economic domain with positive experiences in for example the better life and Dutch people domains compared to not combining these experiences.

With respect to gender, we find no differences between men and women in the likelihood of combining certain positive and negative aspects of life in the Netherlands. In the appendix, results show that women are more likely than men to combine both positive and negative aspects in the domain of family as well as more likely to mention positive experiences with respect to opportunities yet negative experiences in the family domain, compared to not having mentioned both experiences.

Respondents’ migration motive mainly illustrates differences between those with an economic migration motive and those with a family migration motive. Compared to migrants with an economic motive, those with a family migration motive are less likely to mention positive and negative aspects in the economic domain versus not mentioning both, as well as being less likely to experience positive aspects in the organized domain and negative aspects in the climate domain (compared to not combining both). Results in the appendix moreover show that migrants with a family motive, versus an economic motive, are less likely to mention positive aspects of Dutch people and negative aspects in the economic domain as well as less likely to mention positive aspects in the organized domain and negative aspects in the economic domain. Seemingly, migrants with an economic motive are thus more likely to experience negative aspects in the economic domain and at the same time experience positive aspects in other domains. The appendix moreover shows that compared to migrants with an economic motive, those with an education motive are more likely to mention positive aspects in the economic domain and simultaneously mention negative aspects in the integration and Dutch people domain (compared to not mentioning both of these domains). This finding again underlines that those with an economic migration motive are more likely to experience negative aspects in the economic domain and combine it with positive experiences in other domains.

Looking at migrants’ intention to stay, results show that migrants with a temporary intention to stay, compared to having a permanent intention to stay, are more likely to indicate positive experiences in the economic domain combined with negative experiences in the climate domain as well as the domain of experiencing distance to the home country (versus not combining these experiences). In the appendix, findings underline that those with a temporary intention to stay are more likely than those with a permanent intention to stay to mention positive aspects in the economic domain and negative aspects in the integration domain (compared to not mentioning both evaluations). Yet, those with a temporary intention to stay are less likely to combine negative aspects in the economic domain with negative experiences in the language domain (compared to not combining these domains). Finally, those with a circular intention to stay are less likely than those with a permanent intention to combine a positive experience in the better life domain with a negative aspect in the economic domain (versus not combining them).

Finally, we find various significant differences across origin groups. In Table 4 , results show that compared to migrants from Poland, migrants from Turkey, Bulgaria and Spain are more likely to experience positive experiences in the better life domain and negative experiences in the climate domain as well as mention positive aspects in the organized domain and negative experiences in the climate domain. Moreover, migrants from Poland are less likely to combine positive experiences in the economic domain with negative experiences in the distance to the home country domain compared to migrants from Turkey, Bulgaria and Spain. Seemingly, the negative experiences in the domain of the weather in the Netherlands play a major role among especially migrants from Spain as when changing the reference category to Spain, all other origin groups are significantly less likely to be included in a combination where the climate is evaluated negatively.

Conclusion and Discussion

Decennia of scientific research on migration and integration have given insights in migrants’ diverse issues associated with life after migration and the disadvantages migrants face compared to native populations. These insights are key for our current understanding of how immigrants’ fare in residence countries. Moving beyond objective indicators and comparisons, this study contributes to this understanding by putting migrants’ perspective first (De Haas, 2011 ). This helps us to get a better understanding in what may counterbalance migrants’ negative outcomes after immigration, what the reference for comparison is and how positive outcomes may still go together with critical assessment of what does not go right. Next to “the bad” such as experienced inequalities, disadvantages and discrimination, this study thus questioned to what extent “the good” can be experienced by migrants at the same time. In doing so, we stressed migrants’ lived experiences of the messy reality including both negative and positive evaluations of domains in life in the residence country, which provides a more comprehensive picture of migrants’ daily life than when emphasizing “the bad” only, which has been stressed in qualitative research earlier (Eijsberts & Ghorashi, 2017; Erdal, 2013 ). Based on open answers in a survey among 955 immigrants, this study has offered three insights with respect to this question: which positive and negative evaluations are shared by migrants themselves, to what extent positive and negative evaluations in certain domains are mentioned simultaneously and for whom it is more likely to mention certain negative and positive evaluations simultaneously. In this final step, we analysed to what extent these patterns vary across migrants’ migration motive, intention to stay, origin country, gender and educational level which are seen as key indicators of various domains of participation (e.g. Ala-Mantila & Fleischmann, 2018 ; Buzdugan & Halli, 2009 ; De Haas & Fokkema, 2011 ; Fokkema & De Haas, 2015 ; Kanas & Steinmetz, 2021 ; Wachter & Fleischmann, 2018 ).

First, our results illustrate that when asked about life in the Netherlands, a majority of migrants share negative and positive evaluations in a range of domains, from matters related to one’s economic position and family to matters of integration and the climate in the residence country. The range of negative evaluations that is shared tap into the main domains of integration that are often studied using objective indicators, such as migrants’ economic position and opportunities, (the lack of) social relationships and cultural integration such as language acquisition (Ager & Strang, 2008 ). Perhaps notably missing in both the positive and negative evaluations mentioned is political participation, which may be explained by the recent migration status which limit opportunities for such participation.

Second, we found that a large share of migrants reports both negative and positive evaluations of life in the Netherlands. Interestingly enough, results did not suggest that specific domains that were negatively evaluated were more easily or more likely combined with specific domains that were positively evaluated. In general, evaluating a certain domain as negative is combined with a positive evaluation of a number of domains, all to around the same extent. Yet, results did suggest that those who shared negative evaluations in the domain of family and climate combine these relatively often with positive evaluations (of any domains). This differs from those who negatively evaluated domains of integration, loneliness and Dutch people, of whom the share of migrants mentioning any positively evaluated matter was substantively lower. Put differently, certain negative experiences (such as issues related to integration and the native population) are more difficult to go together with positive experiences in the residence country than others.

Finally, the extent to which positive and negative evaluations are combined differs among migrants. Especially migration motive, intention to stay and origin country play a part in which domains positive and negative evaluations are experienced at the same time. With respect to migrants’ motive, we for example find that migrants with a study motive are more likely to combine a positive evaluation of the economic domain with a negative evaluation of integration and Dutch people than migrants with an economic migration motive. Compared to those with a permanent intention to stay, migrants with a temporary intention to stay are more likely to evaluate the economic domain more positively and combine it with a negative evaluation of the climate, the distance to the home country and the integration process. We also found various differences across origin groups. These are partly related to the dominant migration motives or demographics that characterize immigrants from specific origins, but are also clearly linked to specific origin country characteristics: the climate, how life is organized, the labour market and the socio-political situation. For example, migrants from Spain were more likely to combine negative evaluations of the climate with positive evaluations of other domains compared to other origin groups. Seemingly such individual drivers, which also cover origin country to residence country relations and differences, are important for which and to what extent negative and positive evaluations are experienced at the same time. These findings build on previous research illustrating that such individual-level explanations matter for experiences of life in the residence country in general (e.g. Diehl et al., 2016 ; Kanas & Steinmetz, 2021 ; Wachter & Fleischmann, 2018 ), to which our study adds that these drivers can affect how various experiences are combined simultaneously as well.

The observation that migrants have various positive and negative evaluations of life in the residence country at the same time benefits from further exploration in future research. Respondents were in general rather brief in the open answers. This might have been due to the fact that these open-ended questions were the final questions of a longer standardized questionnaire. A survey targeting a large group of immigrants developed to collect answers to open-ended questions and experimenting with stimulation to fill out the questions may be an interesting tool to get better insights in the phenomena, providing respondents with the opportunity to express their initial thoughts in a first question and to stimulate them to think further on the topic in follow-up questions. The more quantitative approach taken in this study builds on previous qualitative research (Eijberts & Ghorashi, 2017 ) and offers the opportunity to make generalizations of these experiences and analyse among whom certain experiences are more likely, based on text analyses. The theme extraction performed can be further developed by adding automated cluster techniques, which is in particular interesting to generate combinations of positive and negative answers, when much and different sources of text need to be analysed (Allahyari et al., 2017 ; Jackson & Trochim, 2002 ). In addition, answering these research questions benefits from examination across other migrant groups who are for example longer-established in the residence country are part of the second generation or who have obtained refugee status. Supposedly, the type, amount and combinations of negative and positive matters experienced will change over time and these are likely to differ between those who were born in the residence country and those who were not.

Another interesting avenue for future research would be to study the consequences of experiencing certain negative and positive matters in the residence country simultaneously, as it may inform the understanding of migrants’ behaviour and choices that are difficult to fully grasp by studying “the bad” alone. For example, previous research has posed questions on why certain migrants stay put with a job when it does not match their educational qualifications or why some migrants do not report discrimination. By acknowledging the positive matters that migrants experience at the same time, such questions may be (better) understood. Deciding to stay in spite of experiencing discrimination or being overeducated for a job can for example be explained by migrants experiencing a general improvement in circumstances compared to life in the origin country. As such, this study yields and poses new hypotheses on the importance of “the good” and “the bad” and how this relates to various outcomes of migrants’ integration and participation in the residence country. Future studies could explore these hypotheses on several behavioural outcomes.

Altogether, this study has illustrated that besides negative experiences, migrants mention a range of positively evaluated matters of life in the residence country simultaneously. This informs previous migration research studying mainly the disadvantages and issues migrants face after immigration. Such studies would profit from the inclusion of migrants’ lived reality that consists of various negative and positive experiences at the same time. Although migrants’ negative experiences such as facing discrimination or experiencing employment issues should be studied and understood, this study illustrates that such an emphasis on only “the bad” veils various positive experiences that can be experienced at the same time. Acknowledging “the good” in addition to “the bad” therefore draws a more comprehensive picture of migrants’ experiences and relatedly may inform understanding migrants’ behaviour and choices to act and react in a certain way. This study sheds light on these matters by illustrating that positive and negative evaluations of life in the residence country often go hand in hand. For future quantitative research, these positive experiences may be the relevant moderators to understand various outcomes for immigrants, in particular in these dynamic years right after migration. Addressing the positive and negative conjointly thus increases our understanding of migrants’ experiences, choices and behaviour.

At the time of data collection, ethical approval was not necessary for such a non-interventional study.

Unfortunately, migrants from Turkey were shown the question on positive evaluations twice instead of the question on negative evaluations. Many still shared negative experiences as they assumed this was the intention. Additional analyses without these respondents illustrated that the presented patterns and conclusions remain similar. For reasons of power and interest, we present the analyses with migrants from Turkey included.

Adda, J., Dustmann, C., & Mestres, J. (2006). A dynamic model of return migration. Essays on Temporary Migration, 3 , 13–45.

Google Scholar  

Ager, A., & Strang, A. (2008). Understanding integration: A conceptual framework. Journal of refugee studies , 21 (2), 166–191.

Ala-Mantila, M., & Fleischmann, F. (2018). Gender differences in labour market integration trajectories of recently arrived migrants in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44 (11), 1818–1840.

Article   Google Scholar  

Alba, R., & Foner, N. (2014). Comparing immigrant integration in North America and Western Europe: How much do the grand narratives tell us? International Migration Review, 48 , S263–S291.

Allahyari, M., Pouriyeh, S., Assefi, M., Safaei, S., Trippe, E. D., Gutierrez, J. B., & Kochut, K. (2017). A brief survey of text mining: Classification, clustering and extraction techniques. arXiv preprint arXiv:1707.02919 .

Bayrakdar, S., & Guveli, A. (2020). Understanding the benefits of migration: Multigenerational transmission, gender and educational outcomes of Turks in Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 47 (13), 1–22.

Black, R., Bennett, S. R., Thomas, S. M., & Beddington, J. R. (2011). Migration as adaptation. Nature, 478 (7370), 447–449.

Borjas, G. J. (1989). Economic theory and international migration. International migration review , 23 (3), 457–485.

Borjas, G. J. (1994). The economics of immigration. Journal of Economic Literature, 32 (4), 1667–1717.

Buzdugan, R., & Halli, S. S. (2009). Labor market experiences of Canadian immigrants with focus on foreign education and experience. International Migration Review, 43 (2), 366–386.

Castles, S. (1998). The age of migration: International population movements in the modern world . Macmillan International Higher Education.

Chabé-Ferret, B., Machado, J., & Wahba, J. (2018). Remigration intentions and migrants’ behavior. Regional Science and Urban Economics,  68 , 56–72.

Constant, A., & Massey, D. S. (2003). Self-selection, earnings, and out-migration: A longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany. Journal of Population Economics, 16 (4), 631–653.

De Haas, H., & Fokkema, T. (2011). The effects of integration and transnational ties on international return migration intentions. Demographic Research, 25 , 755–782.

De Haas, H. (2011). The Determinants of International Migration: Conceptualizing Policy, Origin and Destination Effects . IMI Working Paper No 32. Oxford: International Migration Institute.

Diehl, C., Lubbers, M., Mühlau, P., & Platt, L. (2016). Starting out: New migrants’ socio-cultural integration trajectories in four European destinations. Ethnicities , 16 (2), 157–179.

Dollmann, J. (2021). The political integration of immigrants: How pre- and postmigration contexts matter. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14 , 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-021-00867-5

Dustmann, C., Glitz, A., & Vogel, T. (2010). Employment, wages, and the economic cycle: Differences between immigrants and natives. European Economic Review, 54 (1), 1–17.

Eijberts, M., & Ghorashi, H. (2017). Biographies and the doubleness of inclusion and exclusion. Social Identities, 23 (2), 163–178.

Engbersen, G., Leerkes, A., Grabowska-Lusińska, I., Snel, E., & Burgers, J. (2013). A typology of labour migration. On the differential attachments of migrants from Central and Eastern Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39 (6), 959–981.

Erdal, M. B. (2013). Migrant transnationalism and multi-layered integration: Norwegian-Pakistani migrants’ own reflections. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39 (6), 983–999.

Ersanilli, E., & Koopmans, R. (2010). Rewarding integration? Citizenship regulations and the socio-cultural integration of immigrants in the Netherlands, France and Germany. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 36 (5), 773–791.

Entzinger, H., & Biezeveld, R. (2003). Benchmarking in immigrant integration . Rotterdam: European Research Centre on Migration and Ethnic Relations.

Fleischmann, F., & Dronkers, J. (2010). Unemployment among immigrants in European labour markets: An analysis of origin and destination effects. Work, Employment and Society, 24 (2), 337–354.

Fokkema, T., & De Haas, H. (2015). Pre-and post-migration determinants of socio-cultural integration of African immigrants in Italy and Spain. International Migration, 53 (6), 3–26.

Geurts, N., & Lubbers, M. (2017). Dynamics in intention to stay and changes in language proficiency of recent migrants in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 43 (7), 1045–1060.

Geurts, N., Lubbers, M., & Spierings, N. (2020). Structural position and relative deprivation among recent migrants: A longitudinal take on the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 46 (9), 1828–1848.

Geurts, N., Davids, T., & Spierings, N. (2021). The lived experience of an integration paradox: why high-skilled migrants from Turkey experience little national belonging in the Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 47 (1), 69–87.

Gorodzeisky, A., & Semyonov, M. (2017). Labor force participation, unemployment and occupational attainment among immigrants in West European countries. PLoS ONE, 12 (5), e0176856.

Hao, L., & Kawano, Y. (2001). Immigrants’ welfare use and opportunity for contact with co-ethnics. Demography, 38 (3), 375–389.

Heath, A., & Li, Y. (2017). The socio-economic integration of ethnic minorities. Social Inclusion , 5 (1), 1–4.

Heath, A. F., Rothon, C., & Kilpi, E. (2008). The second generation in Western Europe: Education, unemployment, and occupational attainment. Annual Review of Sociology, 34 , 211–235.

Hendriks, M. (2015). The happiness of international migrants: A review of research findings. Migration Studies, 3 (3), 343–369.

Jackson, K. M., & Trochim, W. M. (2002). Concept mapping as an alternative approach for the analysis of open-ended survey responses. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (4), 307–336.

Kanas, A., & Steinmetz, S. (2021). Economic outcomes of immigrants with different migration motives: The role of labour market policies. European Sociological Review, 37 (3), 449–464.

Kogan, I. (2004). Last hired, first fired? The unemployment dynamics of male immigrants in Germany. European Sociological Review, 20 (5), 445–461.

Li, Y., & Heath, A. (2020). Persisting disadvantages: a study of labour market dynamics of ethnic unemployment and earnings in the UK (2009–2015). Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 46 (5), 857–878.

Lubbers, M., Gijsberts, M., Fleischmann, F., & Maliepaard, M. (2018). The new immigrant survey–the Netherlands (NIS2NL). The codebook of a four wave panel study . NWO-Middengroot, file, (420-004).

Luthra, R. R., & Platt, L. (2017). The changing face of Pakistani migration to the United Kingdom. AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community, 15 (1–2), 15–56.

Martinovic, B., Van Tubergen, F., & Maas, I. (2009). Changes in immigrants’ social integration during the stay in the host country: The case of non-western immigrants in the Netherlands. Social Science Research, 38 (4), 870–882.

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1993). Theories of international migration: A review and appraisal. Population and Development Review , 19 (3), 431–466.

Nisic, N., & Melzer, S. M. (2016). Explaining gender inequalities that follow couple migration. Journal of Marriage and Family, 78 (4), 1063–1082.

Phalet, K., & Swyngedouw, M. (2003). Measuring immigrant integration: The case of Belgium. Studi Emigrazione , 40 (152), 773–804.

Popping, R. (2015). Analyzing open-ended questions by means of text analysis procedures. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/bulletin De Méthodologie Sociologique, 128 (1), 23–39.

Schunck, R. (2014). Immigrant integration. In R. Schunck (Ed.), Transnational activities and immigrant integration in Germany (pp. 9–42). Springer.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Sieben, I., & Linssen, L. (2009). Logistische regressie analyse: een handleiding. Retrieved from www.ru.nl/publish/pages/771745/logistischeregressie.pdf . Accessed 12 Oct 2022.

Tolsma, J., Lubbers, M., & Gijsberts, M. (2012). Education and cultural integration among ethnic minorities and natives in the Netherlands: A test of the integration paradox. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies , 38 (5), 793–813.

Van Doorn, M., Scheepers, P., & Dagevos, J. (2013). Explaining the integration paradox among small immigrant groups in the Netherlands. Journal of International Migration and Integration, 14 (2), 381–400.

Van Klingeren, M., Boomgaarden, H. G., Vliegenthart, R., & De Vreese, C. H. (2015). Real world is not enough: The media as an additional source of negative attitudes toward immigration, comparing Denmark and the Netherlands. European Sociological Review , 31 (3), 268–283.

Van Tubergen, F., & Van De Werfhorst, H. (2007). Postimmigration investments in education: a study of immigrants in the Netherlands. Demography , 44 (4), 883–898.

Verdier, T., Manning, A., Bisin, A., & Algan, Y. (2012). Cultural integration of immigrants in Europe . Oxford University Press.

Vollebergh, W., Veenman, J., & Hagendoorn, L. (2017). Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration. Routledge.

Wachter, G., & Fleischmann, F. (2018). Settlement intentions and immigrant integration: The case of recently arrived EU-immigrants in the Netherlands. International Migration, 56 (4), 154–171.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Sociology, Radboud University, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Nella Geurts

Department of Interdisciplinary Social Science/ERCOMER, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands

Marcel Lubbers

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nella Geurts .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 50 KB)

Rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Geurts, N., Lubbers, M. The Good and the Bad: Do Immigrants’ Positive and Negative Evaluations of Life After Migration Go Hand in Hand?. Int. Migration & Integration 24 , 1091–1111 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00993-8

Download citation

Accepted : 28 September 2022

Published : 14 October 2022

Issue Date : September 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00993-8

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Migrants’ perceptions
• Discrimination
• Integration
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

ACLU Announces Roadmap to Protect and Expand Immigrants’ Rights Under a Harris Administration

WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released the Harris on Immigration: A New Opportunity to Reform Our Immigration System memo today, outlining Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris’s expected commitments and policy recommendations on immigration and how the ACLU will ensure Harris protects and expands immigrants’ rights if she is elected. The release of the memo comes as Harris hits the campaign trail as the new presumptive Democratic nominee and is part of ACLU’s 2024 election policy memo series exploring likely policies from a potential Trump or Harris administration.

Policy recommendations within the memo include executive action to deliver critical protections for longtime residents who have become integral to the fabric of our nation. The memo also outlines the additional actions that can and should be taken to restore our asylum system and expand immigrants’ rights should Harris become president, and outlines how the ACLU and its nationwide network of attorneys and advocates will work towards these goals in the courts, Congress, and communities across the country.

“A Harris administration could provide a critical opportunity to ensure a balanced and humane approach to U.S. immigration policy that recognizes the contributions of immigrants to our communities,” said Maribel Hernández Rivera, director of policy and government affairs for border and immigration at the ACLU. “Poll after poll, including research from the ACLU, shows that Americans support fair, orderly, and efficient policies that improve border management while offering a pathway to citizenship for our longtime neighbors — and a Harris administration should deliver on the will of the American people.”

“If elected, a Kamala Harris administration has an opportunity to chart a new course on U.S. immigration policy and ensure a pathway to citizenship for longtime residents, while doing the critical work to restore our nation’s asylum system,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “As we have under every administration in the last two decades, we will continue to challenge the government when it violates the constitution and laws, as with prolonged immigration detention, detention of people in abusive conditions of confinement, anti-asylum bans, and immigration proceedings that violate due process and basic standards of fairness.”

The ACLU’s roadmap released today outlines our plan to push for balanced and humane immigration reforms and to expand other immigrants’ rights in every state across the country:

• Among other policy recommendations within the ACLU’s memo, one of the most significant and powerful ways for a Harris administration to reform our immigration system is by delivering on a pathway to citizenship for residents who already contribute to our communities and economy. The ACLU will call on a future Harris administration to exercise executive power to expand pathways for people inside and outside the United States to safely seek lawful status.
• Recent reports indicate that a Harris administration would re-introduce the 2024 Senate Border Act — which would have permanently decimated asylum protections — and continue the anti-asylum policies of the Biden administration. The ACLU has previously challenged the Biden administration’s illegal asylum restrictions — as we did with the Trump administration’s asylum bans — and if Harris does not change course, we will hold her to account as well.
• A future Harris administration should also cease federal participation in state and local anti-immigrant programs that go against our nation’s values and moral commitments. That includes ending federal participation in Texas’ deadly Operation Lone Star program, and finally dismantling the 287(g) program that deputizes state and local law enforcement to act as immigration agents. The ACLU will demand that a Harris administration take strong action against state and municipal governments that illegally attempt to engage in immigration enforcement, including by challenging them in court, and will continue to leverage its network of attorneys to challenge anti-immigrant state laws.
• The ACLU memo also makes the case for why Harris should act on the promises she made in 2019 to decrease immigration detention and in turn , take aggressive executive action to dismantle the mass detention machine that she rightly condemned in the past.

The Harris on Immigration memo marks the fourth of six memos the ACLU is releasing on the Democratic nominee. In addition to immigration, the memos will focus on the criminal legal system and surveillance, and have previously covered abortion, LGBTQ rights, and voting rights. This series follows seven memos the ACLU released on policies of a potential second Trump administration. New memos will be released through August and will be available here .

Stay Informed

Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release

• Immigrants' Rights

Related Content

New Report Exposes Rampant Abuse in Louisiana ICE Detention Facilities

How a Harris Administration Could Chart a New Course for Immigration Reform

ACLU, NWIRP in Court to Challenge USCIS’s Secretive and Harmful “Extreme Vetting” Program for Green-Card and Citizenship Applicants

New ACLU Report Examines Secretive Policy Used to Delay and Deny Immigrants’ Green Card and Citizenship Applications