Innocenti Insight - Children in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries: Their family, national and international context

UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre

Innocenti Insight

CHILDREN IN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

IN EIGHT AFFLUENT COUNTRIESTHEIR FAMILY, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

Innocenti Insight

CHILDREN IN IMMIGRANT FAMILIESIN EIGHT AFFLUENT COUNTRIES

THEIR FAMILY, NATIONAL AND

INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT

UNICEF

Innocenti Research Centre

The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

The UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) in Florence, Italy, was established in 1988 to strengthenthe research capability of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) and to support its advocacyfor children worldwide. The Centre (formally known as the International Child Development Centre)helps to identify and research current and future areas of UNICEF’s work. Its prime objectives are toimprove international understanding of issues relating to children’s rights and to help facilitate thefull implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in bothindustrialized and developing countries.

The Centre’s publications contribute to a global debate on child rights issues and include a widerange of opinions. For that reason, IRC may produce publications that do not necessarily reflectUNICEF policies or approaches on some topics.

The Centre collaborates with its host institution in Florence, the Istituto degli Innocenti, in selectedareas of work. Core funding for IRC is provided by the Government of Italy, while financial supportfor specific projects is also provided by other governments, international institutions and privatesources, including UNICEF National Committees.

The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and contributors and do notnecessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The designations employed in this publicationand the presentation of the material do not imply on the part of UNICEF the expression of anyopinion whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, orthe delimitation of its frontiers.

Requests for permission to reproduce or translate IRC publications should be addressed to:Communication and Partnership Unit, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, <[email protected]>.

To download this report, please go to the publications pages on our website, at<www.unicef-irc.org/publications>.

Correspondance should be addressed to:UNICEF Innocenti Research CentrePiazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, ItalyTel: (+39) 055 20 330Fax: (+39) 055 2033 [email protected]

Design and layout: Bernard & Co., Siena, ItalyPrinting: ABC Tipografia srl, Florence, ItalyCover photo: AFP/2003

© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)August 2009ISBN: 978-88-89129-93-7

ii

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements ..................................................................................................................................... v

Abbreviations .............................................................................................................................................. vi

Foreword .................................................................................................................................................... vii

Key Findings ............................................................................................................................................... ix

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Immigration Policies and Processes .................................................................................................. 7

3. Global Origins of Children in Immigrant Families .......................................................................... 13

4. Children in Immigrant Families: Looking to the Future ................................................................. 21

5. The Social Inclusion and Civil Integration of Immigrant Families ................................................ 23

6. Family Composition .......................................................................................................................... 25

7. Language ........................................................................................................................................... 29

8. Civic Participation .............................................................................................................................. 33

9. Parental Education ............................................................................................................................ 41

10. Parental Paid Employment ............................................................................................................... 45

11. Poverty and Social Transfer Support ................................................................................................ 53

12. Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 57

13. Education among Children in Immigrant Families ......................................................................... 61

14. School and Work among Adolescents and Young Adults ............................................................... 67

15. Health Status, Adjustment and Acculturation ................................................................................. 75

16. Government Policies on Children in Immigrant Families .............................................................. 81

Annex: Recent and Historical Changes in Immigrant Origins and Policiesin the Eight Affluent Countries ......................................................................................................... 85

Endnotes .................................................................................................................................................... 91

BOXES

1.1 Background on the report ............................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Defining immigrants ........................................................................................................................................................ 4

1.3 Key concepts: Inclusion and integration ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.4 A note about methodology ............................................................................................................................................. 5

1.5 A note on the data presented in this report ................................................................................................................... 6

FIGURES

3.1 Children in immigrant families as a share of all children, eight affluent countries ................................................. 13

3.2 Children in immigrant families from LMICs as a share of all children in immigrant families,eight affluent countries .................................................................................................................................................. 15

3.3 Children in immigrant families from LMICs as a share of all children in the population,eight affluent countries .................................................................................................................................................. 15

iii

4.1 Projected growth in non-western population as a share of total population,four affluent countries, 2000–2050 ............................................................................................................................... 21

6.1 Children in two-parent families, eight affluent countries ........................................................................................... 25

6.2 Children in homes with two or more siblings, seven affluent countries .................................................................. 28

7.1 Children in families from LMICs speaking a non-local language at home, three affluent countries ...................... 31

8.1 Share of children in families from LMICs with at least one parent in the country of settlement five years or more, five affluent countries ................................................................................................................... 33

8.2 Share of children living in families with parents of mixed citizenship, five affluent countries ............................... 36

8.3 Share of children born in the countries of settlement in immigrant families, seven affluent countries ................ 36

8.4 Share of children in families from LMICs who are citizens of the country of settlement, four affluent countries 39

9.1 Share of children with fathers who have completed the first stage of tertiary educationor more, eight affluent countries .................................................................................................................................. 42

9.2 Share of children with fathers completing less than upper secondary school, eight affluent countries ............... 42

9.3 Share of children with mothers completing less than upper secondary school, eight affluent countries ............. 44

10.1 Children living with fathers who are employed, eight affluent countries ................................................................. 45

10.2 Children living with fathers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries ................................................ 48

10.3 Children living with mothers who are employed, eight affluent countries .............................................................. 48

10.4 Children living with mothers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries .............................................. 51

11.1 Child poverty rates based on market income, five affluent countries ....................................................................... 54

11.2 Reduction in child poverty deriving from social transfers, five affluent countries .................................................. 55

11.3 Child poverty rate based on market income and including the effect of social transfers,five affluent countries .................................................................................................................................................... 55

12.1 Children in overcrowded housing, five affluent countries ......................................................................................... 57

12.2 Children in family-owned homes, five affluent countries .......................................................................................... 60

TABLES

1.1 The 30 countries with the largest immigrant populations, 2005 ................................................................................. 3

2.1 The 30 largest refugee-sending countries, end 2006 .................................................................................................... 8

3.1 Per cent of children in immigrant families by income category of country of origin,eight affluent countries .................................................................................................................................................. 14

3.2 Top 10 countries of origin of children in immigrant families, eight affluent countries ............................................ 16

3.3 Children in families of immigrant origin from LMICs as a percentage of total childrenin families of immigrant origin, eight affluent countries ............................................................................................ 18

6.1 Per cent of children in two-parent families, eight affluent countries ......................................................................... 26

6.2 Per cent of children in homes with two or more siblings, seven affluent countries ................................................ 27

7.1 Per cent of children speaking a non-local language at home, three affluent countries ........................................... 30

8.1 Per cent of children with at least one parent in the country of settlementless than five years, five affluent countries ................................................................................................................. 34

8.2 Per cent of children living in families with parents of mixed citizenship, five affluent countries ........................... 35

8.3 Per cent of children in immigrant families born in the country of settlement(second-generation children), eight affluent countries ............................................................................................... 37

8.4 Per cent of children who are citizens of the country of settlement, five affluent countries ..................................... 38

9.1 Fathers’ educational attainment, eight affluent countries .......................................................................................... 43

9.2 Mothers’ educational attainment, eight affluent countries ........................................................................................ 44

10.1 Per cent of children living with fathers who are employed, eight affluent countries .............................................. 46

10.2 Per cent of children living with fathers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries .............................. 47

10.3 Per cent of children living with mothers who are employed, eight affluent countries ............................................ 49

10.4 Per cent of children living with mothers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries ........................... 50

11.1 Per cent of children in poverty, five affluent countries ............................................................................................... 54

12.1 Per cent of children living in overcrowded households, five affluent countries ...................................................... 58

12.2 Per cent of children living in family-owned homes, five affluent countries .............................................................. 59

14.1 Per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds enrolled in school, five affluent countries ................................................................. 68

14.2 Per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds enrolled in secondary vocational and academic programmes,Germany and Switzerland ............................................................................................................................................. 69

14.3 School enrolment among 18- to 24-year-olds, six affluent countries (per cent) ....................................................... 71

14.4 Per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds not enrolled in school and not working, six affluent countries .............................. 72

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was authored by Donald J. Hernandez, Suzanne Macartney and Victoria L. Blanchard, all ofthe University at Albany, State University of New York at the time it was prepared. Mr. Hernandez iscurrently a Professor at the Department of Sociology of Hunter College and the Graduate Center,City University of New York, and Ms. Macartney is currently a Poverty Analyst at the US Census Bureau.

Earlier research by the authors provided an important base for the work presented in this report.Acknowledgement is given for the support provided by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation,the Foundation for Child Development, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation,the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (United States) and theCenter for Social and Demographic Analysis at the University at Albany, State University of New York.

Appreciation is given for the contributions of the country experts who developed the results thatare discussed in this report: Ilan Katz and Gerry Redmond (Australia); Thomas Kirszbaum,Yaël Brinbaum and Patrick Simon (France); Susanne Clauss and Bernhard Nauck (Germany);Letizia Mencarini, Emiliana Baldoni and Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna (Italy); Helga A. G. de Valk,Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Bosch and Gijs C. N. Beets (the Netherlands); Rosita Fibbi andPhilippe Wanner (Switzerland) and Heaven Crawley (the United Kingdom). In a spirit ofcollaboration, these experts came together to develop internationally comparable specifications forthe indicators reported here, and they undertook the substantial work required to generate theresults for their own countries, contained in the series of Innocenti Working Papers accompanyingthis publication.

Key steps in the development of the study included two expert consultations held at theUNICEF Innocenti Research Centre (IRC) involving many of the researchers and authors identifiedabove, and feedback on initial presentations of the findings by Mr. Hernandez.

The study was coordinated through January 2009 by Eva Jespersen of the IRC Social and EconomicPolicies Unit, under the overall guidance of the Director, Marta Santos Pais. Cinzia Iusco Bruschiprovided administrative and secretarial support. The report was edited by Robert Zimmerman.Additional editorial inputs and review were provided by Allyson Alert-Atterbury,Leonardo Menchini, David Parker and Otoe Yoda. Copy-editing was carried out by Emily Goodmanand proofreading by Ann Bone. The IRC Communication and Partnerships Unit helped manageproduction of the publication.

v

vi Innocenti Insight

ABBREVIATIONS

EU European Union

EU-15 Member states of the European Union before May 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark,Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal,Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom

EU-25 Member states of the European Union between May 2004 and January 2007: the EU-15,plus Cyprus, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakiaand Slovenia

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

CILS Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study

HIC high-income country

ICSEY International Comparative Study of Ethnocultural Youth

ILO International Labour Organization

LMIC low- and middle-income country

NER not elsewhere reported

PISA Programme for International Student Assessment (OECD)

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

During recent decades, most affluent countrieshave experienced large increases in the numberand diversity of immigrants. Immigrants areoften in a family-building stage of life. Theysometimes bring one or more children along,and also often bear children once they settle intheir adopted homelands. As a result, the childimmigrant population frequently exceeds theshare of the adult population. The circumstancesand future prospects of children in immigrantfamilies are important not only to the childrenthemselves and to their parents, but also to thenations in which the families have settled, andwhere the children will live for years anddecades to come.

The present Innocenti Insight draws onresearch conducted in eight advancedindustrialized countries – Australia, France,Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland,the United Kingdom and the United States.These are countries that, together, includealmost 40 per cent of all persons in the worldwho are not living in their countries of birth.The general profile of this significant share ofthe world’s immigrant population is relativelywell understood, in part because of the growingpolitical and policy interest in migrationquestions. The same, however, cannot be saidabout the segment of this populationrepresented by children. Indeed, children’ssituation and experience has been largely

missing from the migration debate and fromrelated efforts in data collection and analysis.

This Innocenti Insight was developed in closecollaboration with national expert teams to fillthis knowledge gap and to give visibility to theface of child migration. The study is based onanalysis of census data, population surveysand population registers in the eight countriesreviewed, and is supported by detailedcountry-specific literature reviews, which havebeen issued by the Centre as InnocentiWorking Papers.

The Innocenti Insight presents, for the firsttime, internationally comparable dataaddressing the number, share and familycircumstances of immigrant children in theseeight affluent nations. It contributes statisticalevidence and enables a deeper understandingof the magnitude and diversity of national andsocial backgrounds, as well as living conditionsand opportunities for migrant children indestination countries. And it provides a soundfoundation to inform social policies that canaddress factors leading to deprivation andmarginalization of immigrant children and tomore effectively promote their social inclusionand harmonious development.

The issues addressed by the Innocenti Insightare gaining momentum. In his most recentreport to the United Nations Human Rights

viiChildren in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries

FOREWORD

viii

Council, the Special Rapporteur on the HumanRights of Migrants focused on the protection ofchildren in the context of migration. Consideringthe situation of children left behind by migratingfamily members, as well as migrant childrenmoving across borders and migrant children incountries of settlement, the Special Rapporteurexpresses concern at the lack of accuratestatistical information on children in theinternational migration process. As he indicated,“Age is not a common variable of disaggregatedstatistical data on international migration, whichremains as the most difficult component ofpopulation change to measure.”1

With this in mind, the Special Rapporteurencouraged States to consider the impact ofmigration on children in the elaboration andimplementation of national developmentframeworks, poverty reduction strategies,human rights plans of action, programmes andstrategies for human rights education and theadvancement of the rights of the child. And herecommended that States share informationabout key indicators on the impact of migrationon children and about common challenges andbest practices to address protection-relatedgaps at all levels.

The Human Development Report 2009‘Overcoming Barriers: Human mobility anddevelopment’, devoted to migration, alsohighlights the central and yet distinct waysin which children are affected by the processof migration, and suggests avenuesto develop effective national policies andcross-border cooperation.

The synergy of these significant efforts will nodoubt help to bring into focus the child’s face ofmigration and galvanize attention to children’sunique experiences. We are confident that thisInnocenti Insight and the related InnocentiWorking Papers on children in immigrantfamilies in affluent societies will be a criticalcontribution to this process, very especially tothe development of further child-sensitiveresearch and to the promotion of evidence-based advocacy and policy action to safeguardthe rights of children affected by migration.

Marta Santos PaisDirectorUNICEF Innocenti Research Centre

This report presents data and analysis onchildren in eight affluent countries who are livingin immigrant families with at least one foreign-born parent. Children in the families of refugees,asylum-seekers and immigrants with irregularstatus may or may not be included, dependingon the data sources consulted. Main thematicfindings of the report include the following:

Demographic features

• Children in immigrant families account for alarge share of the overall child population inthe eight affluent countries: Italy (10 percent), United Kingdom (16 per cent), France(17 per cent), the Netherlands andthe United States (22 per cent each),Germany (26 per cent), Australia (33 percent) and Switzerland (39 per cent);

• Children in immigrant families from low-and middle-income countries (LMICs)account for a substantial share of allchildren in the destination countriesreported in this study. In Italy, theNetherlands, the United Kingdom and theUnited States, they represent more than halfof the children in immigrant families;

• In six of the countries studied for whichinformation is available, the vast majority ofchildren in immigrant families with origins inLMICs (63–87 per cent) are second-generation immigrants, that is, they wereborn in the country of settlement;

• Children in immigrant families with originsin LMICs will play an increasingly prominentrole during adulthood in the economic andsocial life of countries, partly because of thegrowth in their numbers, and partly becauseof low rates of natural demographic increasein the respective non-immigrant populations,which is leading to ageing populations inthese countries.

Country of origin and language

• The countries studied show highconcentrations of particular nationalimmigrant groups, but each country is alsohome to immigrants from numerouscountries of origin;

• The share of children in immigrant familiesfrom LMICs who speak a language at homeother than the language of the country ofsettlement ranges from 56 per cent inAustralia to 73 to 77 per cent in France andthe United States. At the same time, fewchildren speak the heritage language of theirparents at home exclusively with theirparents; most also speak the language of thecountry of settlement with their parents;

• Children in immigrant families with originsin LMICs often differ from the nativepopulation in cultural, religious, linguisticand ethnic backgrounds, thereby posingimportant challenges and opportunities forcivil integration and social inclusion.

ixChildren in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries

KEY FINDINGS

Family composition

• Children in immigrant families from LMICsare as likely as or more likely than children innative-born families to live with two parents(except in the Netherlands), and they aremore likely than children in native-bornfamilies to live in households with two ormore siblings (except in Australia);

• In the five countries for which information isavailable, at least 1 child in 10 and often1 child or more in every 4 in immigrantfamilies from specific LMICs live with at leastone parent who is a citizen of the country ofsettlement. Thus they enjoy the civic andpolitical rights associated with citizenship.

Parental background

• In Australia and the United Kingdom, andto a small extent in Italy, children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins aremore likely than children in native-bornfamilies to live with university-educatedparents; in most of the countries, they aremore likely to live with parents with limitededucational attainment;

• In about one half of the countries studied,children in immigrant families with LMICorigins are about as likely as children innative-born families to live with fathers whoare employed full- or part-time, while in theremaining countries they are much less likelyto do so. In Germany, Italy, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom, from about onethird to two fifths of children in families withLMIC origins have a mother who is activelyparticipating in the economy; this share risesto about half or more in Australia,Switzerland and the United States. The shareof immigrant children living with motherswho are working full-time is much smaller.

Poverty and housing

• After accounting for social transfers, povertyrates are found to be higher among childrenin immigrant families than among children innative-born families, by 6–7 per cent inAustralia and Germany, and by 12–13 percent in France, the United Kingdom and theUnited States. The poverty gaps separatingchildren in families with LMIC origins fromchildren in native-born families are greaterthan these figures, as children in immigrantfamilies with origins in high-incomecountries (HICs) are likely to experiencecomparatively low poverty rates;

• In Italy, overcrowding within the home isquite common among households withchildren in both immigrant and native-bornfamilies. It is also quite common in the otheraffluent countries among households withchildren in families with LMIC origins,particularly the households of familiesseeking refuge or asylum from wars, civildisturbances or persecution. In the variouscountries studied, homeownership ratesrange from 25–66 per cent among thehouseholds of children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins. The purchase of homessuggests that these families are investing intheir communities in a tangible way.

Immigrant youth

• Youth in immigrant families vary greatly intheir access to educational opportunities andeducational outcomes across countries oforigin; some immigrant groups are at aconsiderable disadvantage. Factorscontributing to this variation are familysocio-economic status, enrolment inseparate educational tracks in school, andsegregation and discrimination. Also, foryouth in immigrant families, the risk of notbeing enrolled in school and not workingvaries greatly by their country of origin. Thelack of educational and employmentopportunities among some groupsundermines social cohesion and representsa waste of human capital.

Health and social inclusion

• The findings of this research complementand are reinforced by the outcomes ofrelated research on immigrant families inaffluent countries, which have reportedthe following:

- There is considerable diversity in healthoutcomes among children in immigrantfamilies relative to children in native-bornfamilies, by country of origin andhealth indicator;

- Success in social inclusion is most evidentamong children in immigrant families whoparticipate in the cultures of both thecountry of origin and the country ofsettlement, including by becoming fluentin both languages.

Socio-economic integration and policy

• The study identifies scope for governmentpolicies in affluent countries to further fostercivil integration and social inclusion in awide range of arenas. These policies wouldbenefit not only children and parents inimmigrant families from LMICs, but also thehost societies.

x Innocenti Insight

Most affluent countries have experienced largeincreases in the number and diversity ofimmigrants during recent decades. Low- andmiddle-income countries (LMICs) have becomemore prominent in the mix of immigrantorigins. Often for the first time, the governmentsof many affluent countries are therefore seekingto include and integrate large numbers ofpersons who may differ from the nativepopulation in cultural, religious, linguistic andethnic backgrounds. Reflecting the importance ofthese trends, the European Union (EU) proposed,in 2005, the creation of an Integration Fund, withan allocation of €1.8 billion for 2007–2013, tosupport the development of national strategiesand action plans in member states aimed at theinclusion and integration of immigrants.2

Because immigrants are often older youth oryoung adults, not only do they sometimes bringalong one or more children; they also often bearchildren after they settle in their adoptedhomelands. These children of immigrants arethe focus of this report.

The goal of the report

The primary goal of this project has been toextract relevant data from eight affluentcountries and to calculate new statisticalresults that are comparable across thesecountries for children in both immigrant and

native-born families, so as to portray thenational and international context of thechildren of immigrants. Because nationalcensuses, microcensuses, surveys andregistration systems have been used on onlya limited basis until now to describe thecircumstances of children with immigrantparents, this first effort would not have beenpossible without the dedicated work andinsights of experts from these countries.

The focus of the new analyses and of thisreport is, especially, children in families withorigins in low-, lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries; the origins of these childrenare referred to collectively in this report asLMICs.3 The circumstances and futureprospects of children in immigrant families areimportant to the children themselves and theirparents, but also to the countries in which thefamilies have settled. When these childrenbecome adults, they will constitute substantialportions of the work force that will provide forthe retirement of the elderly, the voters whowill contribute to the political discourse of theirnations and the parents who will rear the nextgeneration from birth to adulthood. The currentwell-being of children with immigrant parentswill have a profound impact on the prospectsof these families and the nations in which thechildren live for years and decades to come.

1Children in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries

1INTRODUCTION

The eight countries

of immigrant settlement

The results presented here cover eight high-income countries (HICs): Australia, France,Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Switzerland,the United Kingdom and the United States.France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom are five of the sixmost populous countries in the EU15.4

Switzerland borders France, Germany andItaly. Five of the eight countries are among the11 countries worldwide with the largestnumber of immigrants, as follows:United States (first), Germany (third),

France (fifth), United Kingdom (ninth) andAustralia (eleventh), while Italy, Switzerlandand the Netherlands are ranked at 16th,26th and 28th, respectively (see Table 1.1).5

Altogether, these eight affluent counties includedwithin their borders as of about 2005 nearly 40per cent of all persons in the world who werenot living in their country of birth, or a total of 76million international immigrants.6Thus, the totalnumber of immigrants in these eight countries isnearly as large as the total population ofGermany (83 million), and larger than thepopulations of France (62 million), the UnitedKingdom (61 million) or Italy (59 million).7

2 Innocenti Insight

Box 1.1 Background on the report

This report is based on a study of children in eight affluent countries commissioned by the UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre (IRC). Despite rapid growth in immigrant populations in these countries, therewere few national estimates and no internationally comparable estimates of the number and thedemographic and socio-economic circumstances of children in immigrant families prior to the publicationof these new study results. The overall goal of the IRC project is to provide baseline information to fill thisenormous knowledge gap as a sound foundation for discussion of social policies relevant to these children.

The study has been conducted by experts in eight affluent countries who were convened by IRC. Becausedifferent approaches to measuring important concepts exist in national statistical systems, these expertscollaborated to develop a common set of measures that would provide a valid basis for internationalcomparisons. The results for the study have been calculated from the most recent population censusescarried out in Australia, Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States.a For France, the datacome from the census and a sample survey; for Germany, the data come from a microcensus, and for theNetherlands, the data come from the population registration system, plus surveys.

Because only the data for the United States have previously been used to describe the circumstances ofchildren in immigrant families, it has been necessary to reorganize data sets for each of the other sevencountries with children as the unit of analysis by creating an individual record for each child. After theserecords were created, it was necessary to attach relevant data for parents and families to each child’s recordand to recode variables to conform to the internationally comparable measures developed by the expertgroup. These data files were then analysed to develop new statistics specifically for children in immigrantfamilies compared with children in native-born families. To calculate results, experts in each country workedwith data from their own country, often in collaboration with the national statistical office.

Detailed country-specific reviews of the literature on children in immigrant families in affluent societieshave been published by IRC in a special subseries of the Innocenti Working Papers. These papers, alongwith spreadsheets containing detailed estimates of various indicators by country of immigrant origin, arepublicly available at <www.unicef-irc.org>.

It is hoped that this effort will serve as a model for a series of studies developing basic information onchildren in immigrant families in additional countries. Analyses of additional countries replicating theresults of this study would provide a valuable foundation for a better understanding of the situation ofchildren in immigrant families in a wider range of countries and for broader comparative analyses. Thereplication of these results in future studies also would provide a firm basis for analysing changesoccurring over extended periods of time that will be critical to monitoring the lives of children in immigrantfamilies and the successes or limitations of social policies.

a.The results for the United States have been calculated for this report by the authors from the census 2000 data file prepared byRuggles, Steven, et al., ‘Integrated Public Use Microdata Series’, version 3.0, Minnesota Population Center, Minneapolis, 2004,<www.ipums.org> and from US Census Bureau, ‘Current Population Survey’, Journey-To-Work and Migration Statistics Branch,Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, US Census Bureau, Washington, D.C., March 2005. Additional results calculatedfor the United States by the authors may be accessed at <www.albany.edu/csda/children>.

The children of immigrants

This report considers a range of indicators onthe children of immigrants compared with thechildren of non-immigrants. Children inimmigrant families are defined as children wholive with at least one immigrant parent, that is,a parent not born in the country of settlement,while children are classified as living in native-born families if they were born in the countryof settlement and live in families in which both

parents were born in thecountry of settlement.8Children in immigrant familiesmay themselves be first-generation immigrants, that is,they may not have been bornin the country of settlement, orthey may be second-generationchildren, that is, they may havebeen born in the country ofsettlement, but are nonethelessliving with at least one parentwho was not born in thecountry of settlement. Childrenin the third and later immigrantgenerations are children whowere born in the country ofsettlement and live with parentswho were also born in thecountry of settlement. Thisincludes, for example, childrenliving with parents who wereborn in the country ofsettlement to families in whichthe grandparents or great-grandparents immigrated fromanother country. Children inimmigrant families areadditionally classified accordingto their country of birth if theyare foreign born, or themother’s country of birth if theyare living with the mother andthe mother is foreign born, or, ifthe mother is not foreign born(or if the child is not living withthe mother), then the country ofbirth of the foreign-born father.Except incidentally, childrenwho are not living in a familygroup with at least one parentin the household are notconsidered. In all cases, theparents do not have to be thebirth parents. They may, forinstance, be adoptive parents.Likewise, one parent may be abirth parent, while the other isthe partner of the birth parent.

Social inclusion amongimmigrants with LMIC origins

Most immigrants experience at least minorchallenges as they build new lives in theiradopted homelands, but immigrants acrossvarious countries of origin may differ greatly inthe barriers they must overcome to becomesocially included or civically integrated in the


Table 1.1 - The 30 countries with the largest immigrant

populations, 2005

RankCountry Total population Immigrant population

or territory (in 1000s) Number Per cent

(in 1000s) of total

World 6,464,750 190,634 2.91 United States 298,213 38,355 12.92 Russian Federation 143,202 12,080 8.43 Germany 82,689 10,144 12.34 Ukraine 46,481 6,833 14.75 France 60,496 6,471 10.76 Saudi Arabia 24,573 6,361 25.97 Canada 32,268 6,106 18.98 India 1,103,371 5,700 0.59 United Kingdom 59,668 5,408 9.110 Spain 43,064 4,790 11.111 Australia 20,155 4,097 20.312 Pakistan 157,935 3,254 2.113 United Arab Emirates 4,496 3,212 71.414 China, Hong Kong SARa 7,041 2,999 42.615 Israel 6,725 2,661 39.616 Italy 58,093 2,519 4.317 Kazakhstan 14,825 2,502 16.918 Côte d’Ivoire 18,154 2,371 13.119 Jordan 5,703 2,225 39.020 Japan 128,085 2,048 1.621 Iran (Islamic Republic of) 69,515 1,959 2.822 Singapore 4,326 1,843 42.623 Occupied Palestinian Territory 3,702 1,680 45.424 Ghana 22,113 1,669 7.525 Kuwait 2,687 1,669 62.126 Switzerland 7,252 1,660 22.927 Malaysia 25,347 1,639 6.528 Netherlands 16,299 1,638 10.129 Argentina 38,747 1,500 3.930 Turkey 73,193 1,328 1.8

Source: United Nations, International Migration 2006, UN Population Division,Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York, 2006,<www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

a. SAR = Special Administrative Region.

society of settlement. Immigrants moving fromone affluent country to another often have higheducational qualifications and other resourcesthat allow them to make the transition withcomparative ease. However, immigrantsarriving in affluent countries from LMICs maybe confronted by greater challenges becausethey differ from the native population in

educational attainment and in cultural,religious, linguistic and ethnic background.

The social inclusion and civic integration ofimmigrant families with diverse origins arebecoming increasingly prominent issues inthe eight countries under study and in manyother affluent countries. For example, theCouncil of the European Union urges that“immigration is a permanent feature ofEuropean society” and that, with orderly, well-managed immigration, member states mayreap many benefits, including “strongereconomies, greater social cohesion, anincreased feeling of security and culturaldiversity.” The council goes on to state that“it is vital for Member States to maintain andfurther develop societies in which newcomersfeel welcome” and that “integration takesplace simultaneously at the individual, family,

Box 1.2 Defining immigrants

Following the practice of the internationaldemographic community, immigrants aredefined as persons who have moved acrossinternational borders from their country of originand taken up residence in another country.a

Given the nature of the available statistical data,persons are classified as immigrants in this studyif they are living in a country of settlement, butwere born in some other country. Populationcensus data may include only a portion ofimmigrants with irregular status.b In theUnited States, for example, it is estimated thatthe census reports data on about 90 per cent ofimmigrants with irregular status.c Registrationsystems are designed to include only personswho are registered residents of a country. Theresults in this report are drawn from populationcensuses in the cases of Australia, Italy,Switzerland, the United Kingdom and theUnited States, from the census and a relatedpopulation survey in the case of France, from amicrocensus in the case of Germany and from aregistration system, augmented by surveys and adatabase, in the case of the Netherlands.

a. Walle, Etienne van de, editor, Multilingual DemographicDictionary, English Section, 2nd ed., Orinda Editions, Liège;Multilingual Demographic Dictionary Committee,International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,Paris; Department of Economic and Social Affairs,United Nations, New York, 1982.b. This report uses the term immigrants with ‘immigrantirregular’ status. The term ‘irregular’ refers to persons whoare not formally documented through legal immigrationprocesses. The term ‘irregular’ is used here for consistencywith other UN documents instead of other terms sometimesused including ‘illegal’ or ‘undocumented’.c. Marcelli, Enrico A. and Paul M. Ong, ‘2000 Census Coverageof Foreign-Born Mexicans in Los Angeles County: Implicationsfor demographic analysis’, paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Population Association of America, Atlanta,9–11 May 2002; US Department of Homeland Security, ‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residingin the United States: 1990 to 2000’, US Department ofHomeland Security, Washington, D.C., 2003,<www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publication/Ill_Report_1211.pdf>; Passel, Jeffrey S., Jennifer Van Hook andFrank D. Bean, ‘Estimates of the Legal and UnauthorizedForeign-Born Population for the United States and SelectedStates, Based on Census 2000’, Immigration StudiesWhitepapers, Sabre Systems, Warminster, PA, 2004,<www.sabresys.com/whitepapers/EMS_Deliverable_1_020305.pdf>.

4 Innocenti Insight

Box 1.3 Key concepts: Inclusion and integration

The report of the World Summit for SocialDevelopment held in Copenhagen in 1995defines the main ingredients of integration as“inclusion, participation, and justice/socialjustice.” The report also urges that “successfulsocial integration processes encourage ‘comingtogether’ while respecting differences, andconsciously and explicitly putting great value onmaintaining diversity ... Social integrationrepresents the attempt not to make people adjustto society, but rather to ensure that society isaccepting of all people.” a

The EU generally uses the term integration. Thepolicy goal of the EU appears to be to make therights of immigrants comparable to the rights ofcitizens. Certainly, citizenship carries significantimplications for the enjoyment of full civil andpolitical rights, but also for important processesrelated to the construction of identity.

For reasons of advocacy, UNICEF prefers to makea distinction between social inclusion and civilintegration. Efforts to promote social inclusionrequire different sorts of advocacy than civilintegration. The first often calls for awareness-building among social actors, while the secondoften calls for advocacy before governments. Theuse of two terms highlights the two sets of issuesand makes them more comprehensible in therelevant context.a. United Nations, Participatory Dialogue: Toward a stable, safeand just society for all, Report no. ST-ESA/310, Department ofEconomic and Social Affairs, UN, New York, 2007,<www.un.org/esa/socdev/publications/prtcptry_dlg(full_version).pdf>, p. 1.

and general community and State levels, andoccurs in all facets of life: in fact, integrationcan easily span a generation or more.”9 Forthese reasons, this report focuses mainly onindicators reflecting the circumstances ofchildren of immigrants with LMIC origins,

and it uses these indicators as a lens to viewthe extent to which these children are or arenot becoming socially included and theextent to which they benefit from socialinclusion or face serious challenges due tosocial exclusion.


Box 1.4 A note about methodology

The data in this report on children in immigrant and native families have not been produced previously bynational statistical offices or international organizations. UNICEF IRC commissioned experts in each of theeight countries under study to conduct the research and obtain the data. National statistical offices eitherprovided access to microdata files that the experts used, or the offices conducted the analyses at therequest of the experts. Because data sets in national censuses, microcensuses, surveys and registrationsystems are not organized with children as a unit of analysis, the analyses were technically demanding. Itwas necessary to link individual children with the data on their parents, other family members andhouseholds and identify the immigrant generation of children based on the countries of birth of the childrenand their parents. The resulting data sets were analysed to derive the new information.a

Based on the data sources, the experts in each country of settlement developed detailed estimates onimmigration to their countries according to the countries of immigrant origin. The following generalapproach was used in this process.

IRC held meetings among the experts to determine the statistical concepts to be used for the project and todefine the table shells incorporating the concepts and delineating the specific countries of immigrant origin.The experts filled these table shells with data for their own country where data were available. Because ofsmall sample sizes, the results for some countries of origin were combined into categories labelled “notelsewhere reported”(NER). Countries of origin were also distinguished as low income, middle income(either lower middle or upper middle), or high income (HIC). The low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)were distinguished by global region (East Asia and the Pacific, Europe and Central Asia, Latin America andthe Caribbean, Middle East and North Africa, South Asia or sub-Saharan Africa). HICs were distinguished asmembers of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) or as other HICs. Twoadditional, broader categories were introduced: western Balkans (Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia,Montenegro, Serbia and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) and mainly francophone countries insub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad,Comoros, the Congo, Côte d'lvoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon,Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Niger, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe,Senegal, Seychelles and Togo). In some cases, the countries of origin within a region that were combined ina particular NER category included countries in more than one income group. In these situations, theexperts drew on other information to classify the category as mainly low income, lower middle income orupper middle income.

Empirical estimates are reported and discussed here only if the denominator for a particular ratio is basedon a sample or population of at least 100 families. Only large differences in the values of indicators acrossgroups are highlighted in this report because small differences may not be substantively important and arenot likely to be statistically significant.

As a result of the above, the statistics presented in this report are not necessarily immediately comparableto officially published figures from censuses or related surveys.

a. For an early model and results for the United States, see Hernandez and Charney, cited in note 8; Hernandez, Donald J., and KatherineDarke, ‘Socioeconomic and Demographic Risk Factors and Resources among Children in Immigrant and Native-Born Families: 1910,1960 and 1990’, pp. 19–125 in Donald J. Hernandez, ed., Children of Immigrants: Health, adjustment, and public assistance, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999; Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Denton and Suzanne Macartney, ‘Indicators of Characteristicsand Circumstances of Children Ages 0–17 in Immigrant Families by Country of Origin and in Native-Born Families by Race-EthnicityBased on Census 2000’, Center for Social and Demographic Analysis, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany, NY,2007, <www.albany.edu/csda/children> (the site provides more than 140 indicators for the United States; the 50 states, the District ofColumbia and 200 metropolitan areas); Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Denton and Suzanne Macartney, ‘Children in ImmigrantFamilies: Looking to America’s future’, Social Policy Report, vol. 22, no. 3, Society for Research in Child Development, Ann Arbor, 2008,<www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=1>.

Overview of the report

This report begins with a discussion ofhistorical changes in immigrant origins andpolicies towards immigration in the eightcountries under study. Next, results arepresented for indicators pertaining to thedemography of children in immigrantfamilies. Attention then turns to indicatorsreflecting the immigrant circumstances,family composition, language, civicparticipation, parental education, parentalwork, family poverty, housing and thetransition to adulthood among these children.Comparisons are often drawn with the

corresponding circumstances of children innative-born families.

Most of the results are presented for childrenages 0–17, thus including all children whohave not yet reached their 18th birthday.However, indicators are also presented of thetransition to adulthood among adolescents,youth and young adults in terms of schoolenrolment and work.

The report interprets and expands upon theseempirical results by drawing on the relevantliterature in the countries under study,including a brief discussion of health status,adjustment and acculturation.

6 Innocenti Insight

Box 1.5 A note on the data presented in this report

Locating and accessing suitable data for the statistical portraits of the situation of children living inimmigrant families represented a key challenge of this project. International migration is a complex andfluid phenomenon, and the characteristics and living conditions of the migrant population are difficult tocapture with most of the statistical tools in place in the countries included in this study.

The aims and design of the research in large part determined the types and sources of data suitable for theanalysis. These aims – to have a specific focus on children; to analyse differences among children living indifferent migrant family situations and to compare this group with children in native born families; and toapply standard definitions and achieve comparability across the eight countries – effectively limited theavailable data sources to population censuses and surveys with large sample sizes. Census is often themost comprehensive (official) data source that provides detailed information on the foreign population.In some countries, relevant data can also be obtained through microcensuses, thematic or routine samplesurveys and, in a few cases, population administrative registers. A major limitation is that most of thesuitable data collection is carried out infrequently (the census is conducted once every ten years).Furthermore the results require considerable time to be organized and reviewed and to be made availablefor public use. This usual time lag unfortunately does not meet the urgent need for timely and up-to-dateinformation to understand the rapidly changing characteristics of migrant populations.

The analysis undertaken for this report had to address these data challenges. The approach followed hasbeen to combine the results derived from applicable data sources from the last ten years.

The main data sources analysed for this study are the following:

Australia: Census (Basic confidential unit record file), 2001

France: Family History Survey Database, INSEE, 1999; and Census 1999

Germany: Microcensus, 2005

Italy: First National Investigation on Second-Generation Immigrants (“Itagen2”), 2006; and Census, 2001

Netherlands: StatLine Database; data combining survey and administrative data provided by StatisticsNetherlands

Switzerland: Census, 2000

United Kingdom: Census, 2001

United States: ‘Current Population Survey’ (March 2005), US Census Bureau; and Census, 2000

Where other sources of data are utilized the reference is reported in the text or in a note to the relevant tableor figures. The data sources for the first seven countries are described in detail in the accompanyingInnocenti Working Papers. The data sources for the Unites States are described in the text.

To provide a context for the statisticalindicators included in this report, this sectionpresents an overview of historical changes inimmigration policies and processes prior toWorld War II and during the decades sincewar. (See the annex for a more detaileddiscussion of this topic relative to thecountries under study.)

Immigration prior to

World War II

It is possible to identify broad trends inimmigration policies and processes across theeight countries under study. First, explicitnational policies to manage immigration were,for the most part, quite limited or non-existentbefore the late nineteenth or early twentiethcenturies. Australia stands out as an exceptionbecause of the White Australia policy, whichremained in place until the early1970s.

The borders of the United States, long knownfor its mass immigration, were essentiallyunregulated until the late nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries. During this periodpolicies were designed to stabilize the ethniccomposition of the population and restrict orban immigration from Asia, while assuring aninflow of immigrants to provide needed

labour to support the expanding economy.By the mid-1960s, a few years before theAustralian Government abandoned its policythat restricted immigration to whites,immigration policy in the United Statesreopened the doors widely to immigrants,including immigrants from Asia.

Before 1945, the level of immigration to theother six countries studied was generally lowor sporadic; in fact, these countries were oftenmainly countries of emigration, withsubstantial flows to Australia, Canada, Europe,Latin America, the United States or elsewhere.However, these countries, perhaps mostnotably the Netherlands and Switzerland,periodically provided safe haven to substantialnumbers of refugees fleeing religious orpolitical persecution. In addition, theyoccasionally met their need for workers bydrawing immigrants from other nations.France, for example, had an explicit policy ofrecruiting workers and settlers as early as themid-nineteenth century. France has, in fact,been an outlier among the European countriesin this study in that it has been a country ofimmigration since the mid-nineteenth centuryand has not been, overall, a country ofemigration except in the case of its owncolonies, mainly Algeria.


2IMMIGRATION POLICIES

AND PROCESSES

Formal categories of immigrationsince World War II

The post–World War II era brought enormouschange. Three major categories of immigrationmay be distinguished in national andinternational policies: refugee movements,labour migration and family reunification.

Refugees

International laws, conventions and guidelinesto protect refugees were under developmentbeginning in the first half of the twentiethcentury, under the auspices of the League ofNations. This process culminated after WorldWar II with the establishment of the Office ofthe United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees on 14 December 1950; the adoption,on 28 July 1951, of the United NationsConvention relating to the Status of Refugees;and, more recently, the adoption on 31 January1967 of the Protocol relating to the Status ofRefugees.10 Article 1 of the 1951 RefugeeConvention defines a refugee as a person who:

“[O]wing to well-founded fear of beingpersecuted for reasons of race, religion,nationality, membership of a particularsocial group or political opinion, isoutside the country of his nationality andis unable or, owing to such fear, isunwilling to avail himself of theprotection of that country; or who, nothaving a nationality and being outsidethe country of his former habitualresidence as a result of such events, isunable or, owing to such fear, is unwillingto return to it.” 11

At the end of 2006, the largest numbers ofrefugees worldwide originated fromAfghanistan (2.1 million), Iraq (1.5 million), theSudan (0.7 million), Somalia (0.5 million), theDemocratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi andViet Nam (0.4 million each) and the OccupiedPalestinian Territory (0.3 million) (see Table 2.1).Refugee settlement countries are foundthroughout the world, but refugees tend to fleeto neighbouring countries in the same region.12

Of the estimated 9.9 million refugeesworldwide at the end of 2006, 2.1 million(22 per cent) were living in the eight countriesunder study in this report.13 Of the eightcountries serving as home to the largestnumbers of refugees at the end of 2006, fivewere LMICs: Pakistan (1,044,462), theIslamic Republic of Iran (968,370), the

Syrian Arab Republic (702,209), Jordan(500,229) and the United Republic of Tanzania(485,295); but the other three were affluentcountries: the United States (843,498),Germany (605,406) and the United Kingdom(301,556). The number of refugees and asylum-seekers also exceeded 100,000 in France(145,996) and in the Netherlands (100,574), acountry with a much smaller population.The number of refugees and asylum-seekerswas smaller but substantial in Australia(68,948), Switzerland (48,523) and Italy (28,875).Approximately half of all refugees are women,and nearly half (44 per cent) are children(ages 0–17), including the 10 per cent who areunder age 5.14

Table 2.1 - The 30 largest refugee-sending

countries, end 2006

Country or territory of origin Total number

of refugees

Afghanistan 2,107,519Iraq 1,450,905Sudan 686,311Somalia 464,038Democratic Republic of the Congo 401,914Burundi 396,541Viet Nam 374,279Occupied Palestinian Territory 334,142Turkey 227,232Angola 206,501Myanmar 202,826Bosnia and Herzegovina 199,946Eritrea 193,745Serbia 174,027Liberia 160,548Russian Federation 159,381China 140,598Azerbaijan 126,068Sri Lanka 116,966Bhutan 108,073Iran (Islamic Republic of) 102,483Croatia 93,767Rwanda 92,966Western Sahara 90,614Ethiopia 74,026Colombia 72,796Central African Republic 71,685Ukraine 63,723Sierra Leone 42,863Chad 36,300Source: Office of the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees, Statistical Yearbook 2006: Trends indisplacement, protection and solutions, UNHCR, Geneva,December 2007.

8 Innocenti Insight

Labour migration

Labour migrants, in contrast to refugees,move across international borders to work inpaid employment. Since World War II,immigration policies in affluent countries havetypically included provision for the entry oflabour migrants, often based on explicitagreements between the countries ofsettlement and the countries of origin. TheBracero Programme in the United States, forexample, was initiated in 1942, during theWorld War II labour shortage, to admitmigrants from Mexico to work in agricultureand railroad construction and maintenance.The programme remained in place until 1965;other features of contemporary immigrationlaw in the United States continue to providefor the immigration of workers.15

Guest worker programmes in France,Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerlandfollowing World War II provided much neededlabour to fuel the post-war economic boomsof these countries, while less industrializedparts of Europe (Greece, Italy, Portugal andSpain) provided workers. The labour migrantflows were accompanied or followed by flowsof workers from nearby areas to the east, suchas Turkey and Yugoslavia, and fromdeveloping countries with historical colonialrelationships to the affluent countries.16 Whenthe first oil crisis in 1973 brought an end to theeconomic boom, the guest workerprogrammes were reduced or halted. It wasthe intent of these programmes that workerswould return to their home countries afterspecified periods of time, but this did notalways occur. Thus, temporary labourmigrants were able to become permanentresidents or even citizens.

In the midst of these earlier waves of labourmigration phenomena, two pioneeringinternational legal instruments, ILO ConventionNo. 97 (Migration for Employment) and No. 143(Migrant Workers, Supplementary Provisions)were respectively established in 1949 and 1975.

More recently, the EU has initiated a policy thatultimately will eliminate barriers to free labourmigration within the supranational border forcitizens of the EU. In describing these changes,the Directorate-General for Employment, SocialAffairs and Equal Opportunities of the EuropeanCommission highlights that the free movementof workers is a fundamental right permittingnationals of one EU member state to work inanother member state on an equal footing with

local citizens, and that a migrant worker whohas resided continuously for five years in amember state has a right to permanentresidence.17 The provisions are not yet fully ineffect; the intention is to create a free labourmarket within the EU.

Throughout the post–World War II era, there hasbeen substantial labour migration amongaffluent countries and from less industrializedcountries to more industrialized countries.Although the term ‘economic refugee’ issometimes used in popular writing to refer topersons who flee poverty in less industrializedcountries and seek work in more industrializedcountries, such persons do not have the statusof refugees under international agreements.18

However, the United Nations Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All Migrant Workersand Members of Their Families, which enteredinto force on 1 July 2003, focuses internationalattention on the need to respect the humanrights of labour migrants.19

Family reunification

The third formal category of immigrationcommon in national and international policysince World War II is family reunification, thatis, the policy of facilitating the ability of familymembers to reunite. Recalling provisions of theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,the United Nations General Assembly adopteda resolution on 27 February 1996 reaffirmingthat “all Governments, particularly those ofreceiving countries, must recognize the vitalimportance of family reunification and promoteits incorporation into national legislation inorder to ensure protection of the unity offamilies of documented migrants.”20

More recently, the Council of the EuropeanUnion adopted a relevant directive that tookeffect on 3 October 2003 and applies to all EUmember states except Denmark, Ireland andthe United Kingdom.21 The directive indicatesthe conditions for exercising the right to familyreunification by lawfully resident immigrants.For refugees, the right to family reunificationapplies to the spouses of immigrants or theminor unmarried children of immigrants orspouses. The directive also highlights thatfamily reunification is essential to makingfamily life possible and to facilitating theinclusion and integration of immigrants in theircountries of settlement. In commenting on thedirective, the European Council of Refugeesand Exiles expresses concerns on “the narrowconcept of the family unit, comprising only


spouses and minor children but not necessarilyadult children, elderly parents or other closerelatives who may depend on the refugee.”22

The United States provides for the immigrationof married sons and daughters and of siblingsof US citizens, including immigrants who havebecome naturalized citizens, while theNetherlands provides for similar immigrationby children. All of the eight countries understudy have provisions for family reunification.Thus, it is widely recognized as a humanitarianvalue that wives, husbands, children andparents have a right to be reunited with nuclearfamily members who have obtainedauthorization to reside in a country ofsettlement, while some immigration policiestake an additional step by providing forimmigrant reunification also involvingextended family members.

Family reunification policies have led tosubstantial streams of chain immigration toFrance, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland(particularly from the Balkans), the UnitedKingdom and elsewhere. Often, thesesuccessive flows of immigrants encompassfamily members who are joining the initialwaves of labour migrants. Indeed, at manyperiods, family reunification has represented themost common formal vehicle for immigrationinto the countries in this study.

Understanding immigration

since World War II

In addition to these three formal categoriesof immigration, other informal social, politicaland motivational processes are importantin explaining the immigration flows that linkspecific countries of origin and countriesof settlement.

Personal motivations for immigration

Many immigrants are motivated to leave theirhomelands in the hope of better lives forthemselves, their children and their families.This is so despite the substantial difficultiesand risks associated with moving to a newcountry that may differ in language and culturefrom the home country. Immigrants may leavetheir country of origin to escape civil conflict,warfare, religious or political persecution or theprospect of death, or to escape joblessness,severe poverty or simply to improve theireconomic prospects, or to join familymembers. The specific destinations chosen by

immigrants often involve existing networks ofparticular country-of-origin groups that havepreviously migrated and are therefore able tofacilitate additional migration.

Immigration from overseas territories

or former colonies

Immigration flows often originate from currentoverseas territories or former colonies of thecountries of settlement because of the ease ofaccess (and sometimes citizenship) associatedwith such historical relationships. Prominentexamples include immigration from Algeria toFrance, immigration from the Antilles, Aruba,Indonesia and Suriname to the Netherlands,immigration from Bangladesh, India andPakistan to the United Kingdom, andimmigration from the Philippines andPuerto Rico to the United States.

Other geopolitical connections

Immigration flows are sometimes associatedwith other geopolitical connections betweenindustrialized and developing countries,including the involvement of an affluent countryin a violent civil or international conflict in acountry of origin. Migration from South-EastAsia to France and from Afghanistan, CentralAmerica, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraq andSouth-East Asia to the United States areprominent examples. The eight affluentcountries under study also welcome substantialnumbers of refugees on humanitarian grounds.

Immigration and language

Immigrants, including refugees, may be drawnto a specific country because they speak thelanguage of that country. Immigrationinvolving a language affinity may be especiallyattractive if there are also colonial or othergeopolitical ties. Proficiency in the language ofthe settlement country may ease the admissionprocess among immigrants.

Geographical proximity

Geographic proximity can play an importantrole in the selection of an immigrantdestination because of the ease or low financialcost of migrating to a nearby country. Italy, forexample, is more likely to attract immigrantsfrom Albania or Tunisia, while the United Statesis more likely to attract immigrants from Haitior Mexico.

Immigrants with irregular status

Some immigrants enter countries by acquiringtourist or temporary work visas and then

10 Innocenti Insight

staying on after the visas have expired, whileothers arrive outside the framework of formalimmigration procedures. Estimates indicatethat undocumented immigration has increasedin several countries in recent decades. Forexample, among the estimated 10.3 millionimmigrants with irregular status in theUnited States in 2004, an average of 130,000had arrived each year during the 1980s, anaverage of 580,000 per year had arrived duringthe 1990s, and an average of 700,000 per yearhad arrived between 2000 and 2004.23

Complexities in immigration flows over time

Because immigrants may move for a complexmix of personal reasons, because the formalimmigrant categories are limited and becausethe proportions of immigrants with bothregular and irregular status may changesubstantially from time to time, ascertainingthe extent to which immigration policies arebeing realized may not be easy in a particularcountry. The following estimates for theUnited States provide an example.24

The US Department of Homeland Securityreports that 1.1 million and 1.3 millionimmigrants were admitted to the United Statesas authorized permanent residents, or greencard holders, in 2005 and 2006, respectively.Calculations for 2002–2006 show that theaverage annual number of immigrants was1.0 million by this definition. Of theseimmigrants, 16 per cent were sponsored forwork by employers, 63 per cent weresponsored for family reunification by familymembers and 21 per cent were in othercategories. However, based on previous trends,the average annual number of temporaryworkers who were admitted and who are likelyultimately to remain in the countrypermanently was 197,000, and the number ofassociated dependants at the time of entry was124,000, for a total of 321,000, which adds 32per cent to the official number of documentedimmigrants. Another 500,000 are estimated tohave entered the country without authorization.

Altogether, the actual average annual numberof immigrants between 2002 and 2006 whomay remain permanently was therefore not1.0 million but around 1.8 million (1.0 million,plus 321,000, plus 500,000). This is 80 per centmore than the official number. In addition, if itis assumed that most immigrants with irregularstatus are motivated to move because of work,then the share coming to the United States foremployment is not 16 per cent, but closer to47 per cent. Of course, many of these

immigrants may also be motivated by thedesire to join other family members and mightbe classified informally in the familyreunification category. Thus, the reality ofimmigration may be quite different from thepolicy vision.

The fluidity of immigration

In response to civil or international conflicts,changing economic circumstances and so on,immigration flows may shift greatly in variousways from one year to the next, including inthe total number of immigrants and thenumber within particular groups by origin. Theflow of refugees and asylum-seekers isespecially likely to fluctuate according torapidly changing conditions in countries oforigin. A constant feature of immigration,however, is the desire of immigrants to seek abetter life for themselves and their families,and, in so doing, they must often overcomesubstantial difficulties in the process of movingand in the longer process of finding inclusionand integration in the adopted homeland.

Children in immigrant families in the early

twenty-first century

Although there are many complexities indeveloping a precise understanding ofimmigration, immigration policies have clearlyshifted and evolved substantially in thecountries under study, contributing to thegrowing diversity in the countries of originamong immigrants since World War II.Increasing numbers and shares of immigrantshave been moving to affluent countries fromnon-western developing countries, often forwork, family reunification or both. Each of thecountries under study is grappling with thebest way to forge social relationships andfoster inclusion so as to benefit theimmigrants, their children and the nation.

To focus attention on issues related to theinclusion and integration of children and theirimmigrant families in society, census,registration or survey data collected for theyears 1999 and 2000 or later are used. Theyportray the lives of the children in immigrantfamilies compared with the lives of third-generation and later-generation children alonga variety of social and economic dimensions.The data provide a snapshot at the beginningof the twenty-first century of the cumulativeimplications, especially for children inimmigrant families, of international migrationto eight affluent countries in recent decades.The aim is to shed light on the circumstances


of children in immigrant families who live inaffluent countries. These circumstances arerelated to the extent to which these affluentcountries are experiencing success in includingthese children in the fabric of organizations,institutions and society.

Because the challenges may be especiallydaunting for immigrants from LMICs, this

study focuses primarily on children in familieswith LMIC origins, supplying recent data andthe most detailed analysis available regardingthe lives of these children, who will soonbecome part of the adult populations in theircountries of settlement.


Children in immigrant families:a large share of all children

Immigrants in affluent countries are often morelikely than the native-born population to be inthe family-building stage of life, and immigrantsfrom LMICs often have families that are largerthan families among the native population. As aresult, in the eight affluent countries in thisreport, the share of all children who have animmigrant parent is often substantially largerthan the share of the total population that isborn outside the country.

For example, one child in tenin Italy is living with at leastone immigrant parent, andthis rises to at least one in sixin France and the UnitedKingdom, about one in four inGermany, the Netherlands andthe United States, one in threein Australia, and nearly two infive in Switzerland (see Figure3.1). Thus, as they grow older,children in immigrant familieswill constitute a large share ofthe adult populations in thecountries examined inthis report.

These statistics indicate that, as has long beentrue of Australia and the United States, thesix European countries in this report may beconsidered major countries of immigration,though year-to-year fluctuations may occur.Indeed, in Germany, deaths exceeded birthsin the overall population in 2004, but netimmigration served to offset 73 per cent ofthis deficit. The share of population growthaccounted for by net immigration was29 per cent in France, 61 per cent in theUnited Kingdom and 97 per cent in Italy.


3GLOBAL ORIGINS OF CHILDRENIN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

39%

33%

26%

22%

17%

16%

10%

22%

Switzerland

Australia

Germany

Netherlands

United States

France

United Kingdom

Italy

Figure 3.1 – Children in immigrant families as a share of all children,

eight affluent countries

Source: Unless otherwise stated, the information in the tables and figures wascompiled by the authors from country data.

In the countries under study, the share ofchildren in immigrant families from HICs amongall children ranges from 4–6 per cent in France,Italy, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom andthe United States to 17 per cent in Australia,19 per cent in Switzerland and 23 per cent inGermany. These children live in families thatoriginated in western countries such as Canada,the United States and countries in Europe. Thesechildren therefore possess a western culturesimilar to the culture of most of the children innative-born families. They are mainlyidentifiable as white, although they may posechallenges to inclusion in the countries ofsettlement because of differences in languageand subtle differences in culture and customs.

Children in immigrant families with LMICorigins may live in families that not only speak adifferent language, but also differ moresubstantially in culture, customs and traditions.These children are often from Africa, Asia,Latin America and the Caribbean or Oceania andmay also differ in physical appearance from thenon-immigrant population, potentially makingthem subject to racial or ethnic discrimination inschool and the labour market.

In the countries under study, the share ofchildren in immigrant families with LMIC originamong all children is only 2–3 per cent inGermany and 5 per cent in Italy, but 8–14 per centin France, 10 per cent in the United Kingdom,10–16 per cent in Australia, 15–17 per cent inthe Netherlands, 17 per cent in theUnited States and 19 per cent in Switzerland

More broadly, net immigration to the EUincreased from a range of 0.5 million to1.0 million per year during most of the 1990s toa range of 1.5 million to 2.0 million since 2002.25

Net immigration accounted for 81 per cent ofthe population growth experienced by the EUmember states in 2004, while natural populationincrease (the excess of births over deaths)accounted for only 19 per cent of the growth.26

Since national statistical offices seldom calculatethe number or share of children in immigrantfamilies, public discourse and policydeliberations do not fully recognize how many ofthese children live in the countries under studyand how many are doing well or not so well.

The population share of children

in immigrant families

from LMICs

The specific origins of children in immigrantfamilies are usually the same as the countriesof origin of their parents. By 2006, the largestnon-EU immigrant groups residing in the EUconsisted of immigrants from Turkey(2.3 million), Morocco (1.7 million), Albania(0.8 million) and Algeria (0.6 million), all ofwhich are LMICs.27 Among all children inimmigrant families, the share of children wholive with parents with LMIC origins rangesfrom 10 to 75 per cent in the eight countries(see Table 3.1 and Figure 3.2).


Table 3.1 - Per cent of children in immigrant families by income category of country of origin,


Country All children Children in immigrant families

In native-born In immigrant Total HIC LMIC Country Total

families families origin origin income level

not specified

Australia 67.4 32.6 100 50.5 30.8 18.7 100

France 82.7 17.3 100 21.7 45.7 32.6 100

Germany 74.5 25.5 100 87.3 9.6 3.2 100

Italy 90.4 9.6 100 46.5 53.5 0.0 100

Netherlands 77.7 22.3 100 23.0 66.0 11.0 100

Switzerland 61.3 38.7 100 49.9 49.7 0.5 100

United Kingdom 83.7 16.3 100 36.8 60.6 2.6 100

United States 77.9 22.1 100 23.6 75.6 0.8 100

Note: Countries of origin are classified in income categories according the World Bank, Atlas of Global Development: A visual guide tothe world's greatest challenges, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2007.HIC: High-income countryLMIC: Low- and middle-income country

(see Figure 3.3).28 Thus, in most of thesecountries of settlement, children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins, often non-westerndeveloping countries, account for nearly onechild in ten or more.

The distribution of LMIC origins

In specific countries under study, a smallnumber of countries of origin account forlarge shares of the children who are living inimmigrant families with LMIC origins. In theUnited States, with its 3,170 kilometre borderwith Mexico, for example, about half (46 percent) the children in immigrant families fromLMICs have origins in Mexico, while no othercountry of origin accounts for more than5 per cent of these children. In four of the

other countries under study,only two countries of originaccount for more than 40 percent of the children inimmigrant families from LMICs,as follows:

� France: 69 per cent (34 per centfrom Algeria, 35 per cent fromMorocco)

� Germany: 50 per cent(31 per cent from the RussianFederation, 19 per centfromTurkey)

� Netherlands: 47 per cent(23–24 per cent each fromMorocco and Turkey)

� Switzerland: 40 per cent(29 per cent from the FederalRepublic of Yugoslavia29

[seeTable 3.2], 11 per centfromTurkey)

Two countries of origin accountfor smaller, but still substantial,shares of the children inimmigrant families from LMICsin the three remaining countriesunder study:

� United Kingdom: 35 per cent(15 per cent from India,20 per cent from Pakistan)

� Australia: 24 per cent(10 per cent from the Philippines,14 per cent from Viet Nam)

� Italy: 22 per cent (10 per centfrom Albania, 12 per cent fromMorocco)

Prominent among these countries of origin,Turkey accounts for the largest or secondlargest share of children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins in Germany, the Netherlandsand Switzerland (11–24 per cent), and it alsoaccounts for the third largest share in France(12 per cent) (see Table 3.2).

Geographical proximity and historicalrelationships play important roles in the originsof immigrants and, hence, of children inimmigrant families. In the United Kingdom, forexample, 75 per cent of children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins live in householdsfrom the former British colonial regions ofeither South Asia, 46 per cent (Bangladesh,India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), or sub-SaharanAfrica, 29 per cent (especially Ghana, Kenya,Nigeria, Somalia, South Africa and Uganda).


0% 10% 20% 30%

Low or middleincome only

Including unknownincome level

2-3%

5%

8-14%

10%

10-16%

15-17%

17%

19%

Germany

Italy

France

United Kingdom

Australia

Netherlands

United States

Switzerland

Figure 3.3 – Children in immigrant families from LMICs as a share of all

children in the population, eight affluent countries

Note: See the note to Figure 3.2.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Germany

Australia

France

Switzerland

Italy

United Kingdom

Netherlands

United States

10-13%

31-50%

46-78%

50%

54%

61-63%

66-77%

75-76%

Low or middle income only

Including unknown income level

Figure 3.2 – Children in immigrant families from LMICs as a share of all

children in immigrant families, eight affluent countries

Note: The figure shows the range of estimates obtained by calculating resultsexcluding (the portion of the bars on the left) and including (the combined bars)children in families for which the origin country income level is not available.

Table 3.2 - Top 10 countries of origin of children in immigrant families, eight affluent countries

Australia France Germanyg Italy

Origin Number Origin Number Origin Number Origin Number

1 EU15, EEA 457,240 Morocco 336,570 Germanyh 3,120,000 Switzerland 119,370and Switzerlanda

2 New Zealand 153,831 Algeria 326,525 Russian Federation 107,100 Germany 104,714

3 South-East, 150,779 Other Africae 271,503 Turkey 66,700 France 63,048South-Central Asiab

4 Other Europec 106,263 Portugal 271,188 Other Asia or 62,500 Morocco 59,300Middle East

5 East Asia 98,137 Other EU15f 123,877 Other EU15f 34,800 Albania 49,956

6 Viet Nam 62,909 Turkey 119,495 Other South-East 32,300 United Kingdom 28,682Europei

7 Africa 60,379 Tunisia 106,713 Poland 29,800 Belgium 26,196

8 Philippines 47,311 Spain 96,277 North America 22,400 Venezuela 25,087(Bolivarian Republic of)

9 Other Oceaniad 45,769 Italy 92,770 Bosnia and 18,900 Romania 24,897Herzegovina

10 Italy 45,070 Other Europec 73,337 Italy 17,600 Brazil 22,628

Note:There may be slight differences from the country studies data due to rounding or other processing effects.a. Excludes Italy. EEA = European Economic Area, which here refers to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway.b. Excludes the Philippines and Viet Nam.c. Excludes European countries already listed.d. Excludes countries in Oceania already listed.e. Excludes African countries already listed.f. Excludes EU-15 countries already listed.

In Germany, of children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins, 76 per cent have origins inEastern Europe and Central Asia (mostly from theRussian Federation and Turkey), and 18 per centhave origins in the Middle East and North Africa.

In France, to the west and south-west ofGermany, these proportions are essentiallyreversed. Among children in immigrantfamilies from LMICs, 12 per cent have originsin Eastern Europe and Central Asia, while79 per cent have origins in the Middle East andNorth Africa, especially Algeria, Morocco andTunisia. These three North African countriesshare with France both a Mediterraneancoastline and a linked colonial past. Asubstantial 8 per cent of children in immigrantfamilies from LMICs in France have origins inEast Asia and the Pacific, mainly countries thathave emerged from the former colony of

French Indochina (Cambodia, the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic and Viet Nam).

To the east and south of France and Germany,Italy, like Germany, shares borders (coastal orland) with countries in Eastern Europe, but, likeFrance, it also has a long Mediterraneancoastline. In view of this geography, it is notsurprising that the share in Italy of children inimmigrant families from LMICs that haveorigins in Eastern Europe and Central Asia, at33 per cent, and in the Middle East and NorthAfrica, at 24 per cent, lie between thecorresponding shares in France and Germany.In addition, 24 per cent in Italy also haveorigins in Latin America and the Caribbean,that is, in countries, especially Argentina, Braziland the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,where the Romance languages commonlyspoken have an affinity to Italian.


Netherlands Switzerland United Kingdom United States

Origin Number Origin Number Origin Number Origin Number

Turkey 124,970 Federal Republic 79,417 Pakistan 253,534 Mexico 5,216,718of Yugoslaviak

Morocco 123,335 Italy 71,799 India 183,483 Germany 655,305

Suriname 89,560 Germany 44,757 Ireland 139,567 Puerto Rico (US) 640,239

Antilles and Aruba 40,780 Portugal 43,209 Germany 137,600 Philippines 562,787

Germany 39,320 France 32,890 Bangladesh 115,227 Viet Nam 395,031

Indonesia 30,970 Turkey 31,261 United States 73,592 El Salvador 391,677

Former Yugoslaviaj 20,520 Bosnia and 21,323 Kenya 68,074 Canada 367,042Herzegovina

Belgium 20,200 Spain 20,773 Nigeria 54,796 United Kingdom 344,072

United Kingdom 19,075 TFYR Macedonial 19,990 Jamaica 48,353 Dominican 334,349Republic

Iraq 15,240 Austria 13,440 South Africa 47,954 India 331,153

In Switzerland, which is nestled in the mountainsbetween France, Germany and Italy, children inimmigrant families from LMICs are somewhatless likely than such children in Germany to haveorigins in Eastern Europe and Central Asia(64 versus 76 per cent), while 6–10 per cent haveorigins in five other world regions.

The sixth European country under study is theNetherlands, with Germany to the east andsouth and Belgium and then France to thesouth. The share of children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins from Eastern Europe andCentral Asia is 30 per cent in the Netherlands,and the share of children in families from theMiddle East and North Africa is also 30 per cent,values that lie between the correspondingshares in France and Germany. An additional 20per cent in the Netherlands are children infamilies from Latin America and the Caribbean,

and 9 per cent are in families from East Asia andthe Pacific. Children in immigrant families in theNetherlands from these regions are mainly inhouseholds from the former Dutch colonies ofIndonesia and Suriname.

Reflecting the geographical proximity of originsamong the children of immigrants across thesesix European countries, more than half thechildren (55 per cent) in families from LMICshave origins in Eastern Europe and Central Asia(24 per cent) or the Middle East and North Africa(31 per cent) (see Table 3.3). The three mostimportant countries of origin are Algeria,Morocco and Turkey, which together account for42 per cent of these children in immigrantfamilies. Children in families with origins inAlgeria live mainly in France (95 per cent), andthose in families with origins in Morocco livemainly in France (61 per cent) or the Netherlands

17Global origins of children in immigrant families

g. Figures for Germany are calculated from the 1 per cent population sample provided by Microcensus 2005.h. Includes repatriates, naturalized citizens and other children in immigrant families.i. Excludes South-East European countries already listed.j. Includes present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Kosovo

(under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99).k. Includes present-day Montenegro, Serbia and Kosovo (under UN Security Council Resolution 1244/99).l. The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

(22 per cent), while those with origins in Turkeyare spread more widely, with 30 per cent inFrance and 31 per cent in the Netherlands,followed by 17 per cent in Germany, 8 per centin Switzerland and 6 per cent in theUnited Kingdom.

On the opposite side of the globe, in Australia,at the intersection of the Indian Ocean and thePacific Ocean, 55 per cent of the children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins are fromEast Asia and the Pacific (especially China,the Philippines and Viet Nam), while 32 per centare from South Asia.

In the Western Hemisphere, the United States isone of the three countries under study, alongwith France and Germany, most likely to haveimmigrants mainly from a single region:71 per cent of the children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins live in households from

Latin America and the Caribbean, while15 per cent live in households from East Asiaand the Pacific. Mexico stands out as a sourceof immigrants to the United States, but manyother Western Hemisphere countries also sendlarge numbers. Reflecting the involvement ofthe United States in the Viet Nam War, abouttwo fifths of the children with origins in EastAsia and the Pacific have origins in Cambodia,the Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Thailandand Viet Nam.

Despite the high concentration of immigrantswith origins in Latin America and the Caribbean,and because of the sheer size of the country as amagnet for immigrants, the United Statesactually has a larger number of children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins than anyof the other seven countries under study forthree of the six global regions of origin. Amongthe eight countries under study, the children in


Table 3.3 - Children in families of immigrant origin from LMICs as a percentage of total children in families

of immigrant origin, eight affluent countries

Region of origin Australia France Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland United United

Kingdom States

Total from LMICs: 30.8 45.7 9.6 53.5 66.0 49.7 60.6 75.6

East Asia and the Pacific 16.8 3.8 0.9 3.4 5.8 3.3 3.8 11.1Low income 4.2 3.8 0.2 — — 1.0 0.9 4.7Lower-middle income 12.7 — 0.2 3.4 5.8 2.2 1.8 6.3Upper-middle income — — — — — 0.1 1.1 0.1

Europe and Central Asia — 5.6 7.3 17.5 19.5 31.7 2.7 3.7Low income — — — — — 0.0 0.0 0.0Lower-middle income — — 1.4 10.2 1.6 22.0 0.3 1.4Upper-middle income — 5.6 5.9 7.3 18.0 9.8 2.3 2.3

Latin America and Caribbean — — — 12.6 12.9 5.0 4.7 54.0Low income — — — — — 0.1 0.0 1.4Lower-middle income — — — 6.7 12.8 3.6 3.5 15.5Upper-middle income — — — 5.9 0.1 1.4 1.2 37.2

Middle East and North Africa — 36.3 1.7 12.6 19.6 3.2 3.7 2.2Low income — — — — — 0.0 0.3 0.1Lower-middle income — 36.3 1.7 11.2 19.6 2.8 2.8 1.7Upper-middle income — — — 1.3 — 0.4 0.6 0.4

South Asia 10.0 — 0.1 2.7 2.6 2.8 27.9 3.2Low income 4.3 — 0.1 2.0 2.6 0.9 26.8 3.2Lower-middle income 5.7 — — 0.7 — 1.9 1.0 0.0

Sub-Saharan Africa 4.0 — — 4.7 5.5 3.4 17.1 1.8Low income — — — 3.6 3.5 2.0 13.8 1.5Lower-middle income — — — 0.5 1.2 0.8 0.3 0.1Upper-middle income 4.0 — — 0.5 0.7 0.6 3.0 0.2

Note: – no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

the United States account for 38 per cent of allchildren in families with origins in Eastern Europeand Central Asia, 77 per cent with origins inEast Asia and the Pacific and 96 per cent withorigins in Latin America and the Caribbean,while France accounts for 50 per cent from theMiddle East and North Africa and theUnited Kingdom accounts for the largestshares, at 45 per cent each, from sub-SaharanAfrica and South Asia.

Although these data demonstrate that the eightcountries under study experience highconcentrations of immigrants with particular

national and regional origins, it also is the casethat these countries are home to immigrantswith an enormous array of origins. In the fiveof the eight countries reporting highly detailedcountry of origin data based on the most recentnational population census or the nationalregistration system, the number of LMICsrepresented among the children in immigrantfamilies ranges from more than 25 forthe Netherlands and 50 for Italy, to more than90 for Switzerland, the United Kingdom and theUnited States. The total number of LMIC originswould turn out to be larger still if more detaileddata were available.


Children in immigrant families, particularlyfamilies from LMICs, will play an increasinglyprominent role during adulthood in theeconomic and social life of the eight countriesin this report, partly because of the growth intheir numbers and partly because the low ratesof natural increase among non-immigrants areleading to ageing among the nativepopulations in these countries. As a result,

ageing non-immigrant populations will cometo depend more during retirement on theeconomic productivity of workers who havebeen reared in immigrant families from LMICs,often with a non-western cultural heritage.

Recent population projections for three of theeight countries under study indicate, forexample, that the share of the population that is

non-western will roughly doublebetween about 2000 and 2050,from 9 to 25 per cent in theUnited Kingdom (here onlyEngland and Wales), 7 to18 per cent in Germany and 9to 17 per cent in theNetherlands (see Figure 4.1).Similarly, the share of the race-ethnic minority population ofthe United States is projected togrow from 31 to 50 per centbetween 2000 and 2050.30

Over the same period, thepopulations of Europeannations will also be ageingbecause of low rates of naturalincrease, particularly amongnon-immigrant populations.The elderly dependency ratioexpressed as a percentage,that is, persons aged 65 andover calculated as a per cent


4CHILDREN IN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES:LOOKING TO THE FUTURE

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

50%31%

17%

9%

25%9%

18%

7%

United States

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Germany

2050

2000

Figure 4.1 – Projected growth in non-western population as a share of total

population, four affluent countries, 2000–2050

Source: Coleman, David, ‘Immigration and Ethnic Change in Low-Fertility Countries:A third demographic transition’, Population and Development Review, vol. 32, no. 3,2006, pp. 401–446.Note: The approximate year ranges are 2001–2051 for the United Kingdom (hereincluding only England and Wales), 2000–2050 for Germany, 2004–2050 for theNetherlands and 2000–2050 for the United States.

of persons in the working ages of 15–64, willroughly double in France, Germany, Italy, theNetherlands and the United Kingdom, from21–29 per cent in 2005 to 39–66 per cent in2050,31 and, in the United States, from24 per cent in 2000 to 47 per cent in 2050.While 2050 may seem distant, it is importantto remember that children aged 0–17 in 2009,as this report is released, will be in the primeworking ages of 41–58 in 2050.

In short, the well-being and development ofchildren whose parents are immigrants,especially those from non-western developingcountries who may differ from non-immigrantsin their appearance, language, religion and

culture, will have important consequencesduring the next several decades for the eightcountries under study. As these childrenbecome adults, they will represent anincreasing share of the labour force, thepolitical community and the next generationof parents. Thus, the success of immigrantsand their children in their adopted homelandsis important not only to immigrant families,but also to all residents in the immigrantcountries of settlement, and their success willdepend on the extent to which they arewelcomed, included and integrated intothe culture, the schools and the otherinstitutions of the towns, cities and countrieswhere they live.


The social inclusion of immigrants has been along-standing issue in countries of massimmigration. At the beginning of the twentiethcentury in the United States, for example,perceived differences between immigrants andthe native born were viewed as enormous, andthe scientific community, policymakers and thepublic shared the view that the newimmigrants were likely to dilute the racial andcultural purity of native-born Americans.32

Similarly, in Australia, the White Australiapolicy, with roots in the middle of thenineteenth century, was formalized in theImmigration Restriction Act of 1901 and warmlyapplauded at the time by most sections ofsociety.33

In response to increased immigration to theUnited States at the beginning of this century,when immigrant eligibility for public benefitswas being restricted by the government, newstudies were initiated to assess thecircumstances and policies that affected theinclusion and integration of immigrants andtheir children.34

The EU is also vigorously pursuing issues ofimmigrant inclusion and integration throughthe promulgation of strong, albeit non-binding,principles and practices. The Council of theEuropean Union in 2003 deemed that it is“necessary to elaborate a comprehensive andmultidimensional policy on the integration of

legally residing third country nationals who . . .should be granted rights and obligationscomparable to those of EU citizens.”35

One year later, the council urged that:

“[S]tability and cohesion within oursocieties benefit from the successfulintegration of legally resident third-country nationals and their descendants.To achieve this objective, it is essentialto develop effective policies, and toprevent the isolation of certain groups.A comprehensive approach involvingstakeholders at the local, regional,national, and EU level is thereforeessential.” 36

In pursuing these aims, the EU has developedthe Handbook on Integration for Policy-Makersand Practitioners.37 The Council of theEuropean Union and representatives of thegovernments of the member states have alsoestablished common basic principles forimmigrant inclusion and integration policy inthe EU. These principles include the following(authors’ emphasis added):

• “Employment is a key part of the integrationprocess and is central to the participation ofimmigrants, to the contributions immigrantsmake to the host society, and to making suchcontributions visible.”


5THE SOCIAL INCLUSION AND CIVILINTEGRATION OF IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

• “Basic knowledge of the host society’slanguage, history, and institutions isindispensable to integration; enablingimmigrants to acquire this basic knowledgeis essential to successful integration.”

• “Efforts in education are critical to preparingimmigrants, and particularly theirdescendants, to be more successful andmore active participants in society.”

• “Access for immigrants to institutions, aswell as to public and private goods andservices, on a basis equal to national citizensand in a non-discriminatory way, is a criticalfoundation for better integration.”

• “The practice of diverse cultures andreligions is guaranteed under the Charter ofFundamental Rights and must besafeguarded, unless practices conflict withother inviolable European rights or withnational law.”

• “The participation of immigrants in thedemocratic process and in the formulation ofintegration policies and measures, especiallyat the local level, supports their integration.”38

Going further, the Second Annual Report onMigration and Integration of the EuropeanCommission urged that:

• “In order to successfully integrate andparticipate in all aspects of life, migrants mustbe provided with basic rights in terms ofaccess to education, housing, healthcare, andsocial services” (authors’emphasis added).39

It also noted that, “as part of the actionprogramme to combat social exclusion, theCommission has commissioned a study onaccess to decent housing for migrants andethnic minorities.”40

Returning to this issue in 2007:

“[T]he Council [of the European Union]and the Representatives of the

Governments of the Member Statesemphasize the need to continue tostrengthen the integration policies ofMember States with a view to managingdiverse societies, counteracting all formsof discrimination and intolerance,maintaining social cohesion and ensuringthat immigrants are able to reach theirfull potential and are able to participate tothe fullest extent possible in the social,economic, cultural and civic life of therelevant Member State.”41

These ideas clearly connect with issues ofsocial inclusion and social exclusion. Asdefined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights ofthe European Union:

“Social inclusion is a process whichinsures that those at risk of poverty andsocial exclusion gain the opportunitiesand resources necessary to participatefully in economic, social and cultural lifeand to enjoy a standard of living andwell-being that is considered normal inthe society in which they live. It ensuresthat they have greater participation indecision making which affects their livesand access to their fundamental rights.”42

In this context, this report presents a series ofstatistics on children in immigrant familiespertaining to various aspects of immigrantinclusion and integration, including language,civic participation, education, employment,poverty and housing. While these data do notdirectly measure inclusion and integration,they do portray the lives of children inimmigrant families, compared with the lives ofchildren in native-born families, in social,economic and civic dimensions that help inassessing inclusion and integration. This reportaugments these statistics by drawing onadditional scientific studies to shed light on theextent to which children in immigrant familiesin the eight affluent countries covered in thisstudy have access to the resources necessaryto participate fully in the societies of theiradopted homelands.


One- and two-parent families

Research on families in the United Kingdomand the United States indicates that childrenliving with two parents tend, on average, to beadvantaged in their educational successcompared with children in one-parentfamilies.43 Overall, in each country under study,children in immigrant families are about aslikely as or are more likely than children innative-born families to live with two parents,with the notable exception of the Netherlands(see Figure 6.1 and Table 6.1).

In the Netherlands, the difference is accountedfor mainly by children with origins in Angola,the Antilles and Aruba, theDemocratic Republic of the Congo,the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Ghana,Somalia and Suriname. Most of these countriesare either Caribbean countries with longtraditions of one-parent families, or Africancountries where single parents, often themothers, are fleeing with their children asrefugees to escape severe economicdisturbances or civil wars. Among the twocountries of origin accounting for 30 per cent


6FAMILY COMPOSITION

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

92%92%

88%91%

88%88%

74%83%

79%83%

75%83%

74%83%

89%75%

Italy

Switzerland

France

Australia

Germany

United Kingdom

United States

Netherlands

Native

LMIC

Figure 6.1 – Children in two-parent families, eight affluent countries

of children in the Netherlands in immigrantfamilies from LMICs (Morocco and Turkey), morethan 80 per cent live in two-parent households.

Overall, the overwhelming majority of childrenin immigrant families with LMIC origins havetwo parents in the home, and they are generallymore likely than children in native-born familiesto live in strong two-parent families.

Siblings in the home

Brothers and sisters can be a liability and anasset. In so far as parental time and finances arelimited, these resources must be spread morethinly in families with more siblings than infamilies with fewer siblings. Research in China,France and the United States indicates thatchildren in larger families tend, all else being


Table 6.1 - Per cent of children in two-parent families, eight affluent countries

Family origin Australia France Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland United United

Kingdom States

All children 76.8 87.8 80.5 92.0 86.2 89.1 76.6 76.4

In native-born families 73.5 87.7 78.6 92.0 89.4 87.5 75.3 74.4

In immigrant families 83.4 89.2 86.9 92.1 75.0 91.4 83.6 83.4

Children in immigrantfamilies by incomecategory of the country of origin:

a- All low, lower-middleand upper-middle income: 83.3 88.2 82.5 91.7 75.0 91.3 83.1 83.2

East Asia and the Pacific 81.9 92.2 — 91.2 80.9 89.1 83.8 86.3Low income 79.2 92.2 — — — 89.4 74.1 85.0Lower-middle income 82.8 — — 91.2 80.9 89.0 85.9 87.2Upper-middle income — — — — — 90.4 88.7 90.8

Europe and Central Asia — 92.1 82.7 91.5 81.0 93.5 85.0 89.2Low income — — — — — — 80.1 80.0Lower-middle income — — 85.8 92.5 73.8 94.4 85.4 89.7Upper-middle income — 92.1 82.0 90.1 81.7 91.3 85.0 89.0

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — — 89.5 57.8 85.5 71.7 81.2Low income — — — — — 69.6 — 68.8Lower-middle income — — — 86.3 57.5 85.1 68.6 75.4Upper-middle income — — — 93.2 87.2 87.6 81.0 84.2

Middle East and North Africa — 87.2 82.5 94.7 83.8 88.9 87.8 91.5Low income — — — — — — 85.8 88.0Lower-middle income — 87.2 82.5 94.8 83.8 88.4 87.7 91.4Upper-middle income — — — 93.7 — 92.4 89.2 92.4

South Asia 85.6 — — 95.9 82.6 93.7 88.2 93.4Low income 91.1 — — 96.5 82.6 91.1 88.1 93.4Lower-middle income 81.4 — — 94.0 — 94.9 90.9 94.3


b- All high income 82.9 92.9 87.4 92.6 73.8 91.6 85.2 84.2Note: — no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

equal, to experience less educational successand to complete fewer years of schooling thanchildren with fewer siblings.44

The countries studied here differ greatly in thenumber of siblings in native-born families(seeTable 6.2 and Figure 6.2). The share ofthese children with two or more siblings0–17 years of age in the home ranges from

15 per cent in Italy and 19 per cent in Germanyto 32 per cent in France and Switzerland, 36 percent in the United States and 38 per cent inAustralia. Children in immigrant families fromLMICs are more likely than children in native-born families to live in households with two ormore siblings except in Australia, where thedifference is 30 versus 38 per cent,respectively. In three of the other seven


Table 6.2 - Per cent of children in homes with two or more siblings, seven affluent countries

Family origin Australia France Germany Italy Switzerland United United

Kingdom States

All children 37.0 33.3 22.7 16.4 30.6 33.5 36.9

In native-born families 38.4 31.6 18.5 15.4 31.8 31.9 35.5

In immigrant families 34.2 49.3 33.5 19.9 28.9 41.3 41.9

Children in immigrant familiesby income category ofthe country of origin:

a- All low, lower-middle

and upper-middle income: 30.3 58.5 46.8 22.1 35.3 46.7 44.4

East Asia and the Pacific 28.2 55.1 — 19.4 20.8 30.4 37.3Low income 35.4 55.1 — — 26.9 40.6 45.8Lower-middle income 25.9 — — 19.4 18.3 23.1 31.2Upper-middle income — — — — 22.0 33.7 25.6

Europe and Central Asia — 60.1 36.6 18.2 40.0 26.1 29.2Low income — — — — — 19.0 31.3Lower-middle income — — 49.2 23.7 45.4 18.0 32.2Upper-middle income — 60.1 29.5 10.6 27.7 27.3 27.3

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — — 15.6 21.3 31.8 48.0Low income — — — — 16.8 — 47.9Lower-middle income — — — 14.0 20.6 31.1 36.2Upper-middle income — — — 17.6 23.6 34.1 53.0

Middle East and North Africa — 58.6 45.7 32.3 31.0 42.0 41.2Low income — — — — — 58.1 67.8Lower-middle income — 58.6 45.7 34.3 30.1 39.0 38.8Upper-middle income — — — 15.4 38.4 48.5 47.9

South Asia 33.2 — — 27.8 29.5 57.9 28.2Low income 30.7 — — 33.7 31.7 59.0 28.3Lower-middle income 35.0 — — 9.8 28.5 27.5 20.4

Sub-Saharan Africa 32.0 — — 25.3 36.0 40.3 46.5Low income — — — 26.4 39.0 42.9 48.6Lower-middle income — — — 29.0 35.8 47.5 44.2Upper-middle income 32.0 — — 13.3 25.1 27.5 32.1

b- All high income 35.3 30.9 31.9 17.4 22.5 33.2 34.1Note: — no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

countries under study, the differences are inthe range of 4–15 per cent, but this rises to a27 per cent difference in France (59 versus32 per cent) and a 28 per cent difference inGermany (47 versus 19 per cent). In Germany,much of the difference is accounted for bychildren in families with origins in Turkey or inlower- middle-income countries of

Eastern Europe, among whom the sharesliving with two or more siblings are,respectively, 54 and 49 per cent. In France,the shares are quite high for children infamilies from Algeria, Cambodia,the Lao People’s Democratic Republic,Morocco, Tunisia, Turkey and Viet Nam(44–63 per cent).


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Native

LMIC

32%59%

19%47%

32%47%

35%44%

32%35%

38%30%

15%22%

France

Germany

United Kingdom

United States

Switzerland

Australia

Italy

Figure 6.2 – Children in homes with two or more siblings,

seven affluent countries

The language or languages spoken by childrenand their families are especially relevant to twoof the principles of immigrant inclusion andintegration established by the Council of theEuropean Union and the representatives of thegovernments of the member states (authors’emphasis added):

• “Basic knowledge of the host society’slanguage, history, and institutions isindispensable to integration; enablingimmigrants to acquire this basic knowledgeis essential to successful integration. . . .”

• “The practice of diverse cultures andreligions is guaranteed under the Charter ofFundamental Rights and must besafeguarded, unless practices conflict withother inviolable European rights or withnational law.”45

Thus, speaking the language of the society ofsettlement is important because this language isnecessary for children enrolled in schools thatteach in this language and for parents in thelabour market, in civic participation and in otherinstitutional settings. At the same time, speakingthe language of the country of origin may becritical to maintaining the elements of cultural orreligious heritage embedded in this language.46

Most children in immigrant families learn thelanguage of the country of settlement as theymake friends, attend school and engage in

other aspects of life, and in France and theUnited States, for example, most prefer tospeak the local language rather than thelanguage of their immigrant heritage.47 Still, if,as is often the case, children learn the languageof the society of settlement more quickly thantheir parents do, the children may be calledupon to serve as linguistic intermediariesbetween parents and various institutions, suchas schools, medical care providers, socialservice agencies, the police and the courts.

This role may be essential in helpingimmigrant families negotiate and becomeincluded in the unfamiliar terrain of the societyof settlement, but it can also lead to conflictsby undermining traditional parent-child rolesand parental authority.48 These difficulties maybe exacerbated by other sources of parent-childconflict, such as disagreements about goingout with friends and, for girls, wearing make-up and jewellery, if the parent’s culture oforigin has strict rules about these behaviours.49

While some parent-child conflicts are inevitableas children seek to straddle two cultures, thefailure to develop fluency in the heritagelanguage among children may exacerbate suchconflicts by undermining family solidarity andthe transmission of core cultural values fromparents to children.

Research in Italy has addressed the importanceparents place on children maintaining the


7LANGUAGE

heritage language.50 Parents in immigrantfamilies from Egypt, Ghana, Morocco andSenegal, for example, both encourage theirchildren to speak the language of originduring family interactions and encouragethe mastery of one or more additionallanguages. Passing on elements of theculture of origin to their children is seen byimmigrant parents as reinforcing thechildren’s identity in a fashion that fosterstransmission of the value of education andallows the children to discover themselvesmore fully when they become adults.Similarly, research in the Netherlands findsthat speaking the heritage language isimportant for the general well-being ofimmigrant children and enables immigrantparents to help their children in cognitivedevelopment and schoolwork.51

In Australia, the importance of language isreflected in the fact that immigrants arefrequently referred to (though not officially)as persons with non-English-speakingbackgrounds, that is, persons from non-English-speaking countries.52 More recently,a related term that has come into commonusage (again, not officially) is ‘culturally andlinguistically diverse’, which refers topersons who are not Anglo-Australian orIndigenous, particularly ethnic or linguisticgroups that are disadvantaged in some way.Research in Australia also finds that Englishproficiency is important for education andskills development, but that speaking theheritage language at home can have aprotective effect by facilitating mutualsupport across families within the ethnic-language group.53 One study finds thatfamiliarity with English does not necessarilylead to positive adjustment in Australia, aschildren in immigrant families from Maltahave higher levels of English proficiency, butalso exhibit higher levels of stress, than dochildren in families from South America.54

Language spoken at home

Statistics for the three countries understudy for which data are available showthat the share of children in immigrantfamilies from LMICs who speak a language athome other than the language of the country ofsettlement ranges from 56 per cent in Australiato 73–77 per cent in France and the United States(seeTable 7.1 and Figure 7.1). In Australia, thisincludes nearly all children in families withorigins in China and Viet Nam (92–95 per cent).In France, the shares are especially high for

children in families with origins in Cambodiaand the Lao People’s Democratic Republic(82–83 per cent) and in Turkey (90 per cent). Inthe United States, the shares are especiallyhigh among children in families from EasternEurope and Central Asia, particularly countriesemerging from the former Soviet Union, whichare often in the range of 86–93 per cent, though


Table 7.1 - Per cent of children speaking a non-local

language at home, three affluent countries

Family origin Australia France UnitedStates

All children 12.7 11.4 18.2

In native-born families 2.6 6.1 4.8

In immigrant families 33.8 61.5 66.3

Children in immigrantfamilies by incomecategory of thecountry of origin:


and upper-middle income: 56.1 72.8 76.8

East Asia and the Pacific 69.0 78.5 62.9Low income 95.3 78.5 79.7Lower-middle income 60.2 — 50.5Upper-middle income — — 54.5

Europe and Central Asia — 90.2 73.7Low income — — 93.8Lower-middle income — — 84.3Upper-middle income — 90.2 66.5

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — 82.0Low income — — 70.8Lower-middle income — — 70.2Upper-middle income — — 87.6

Middle East

and North Africa — 69.8 64.0Low income — — 85.5Lower-middle income — 69.8 63.5Upper-middle income — — 62.3

South Asia 51.5 — 72.4Low income 51.9 — 73.0Lower-middle income 51.2 — 36.0

Sub-Saharan Africa 13.3 — 39.2Low income — — 40.0Lower-middle income — — 67.2Upper-middle income 13.3 — 14.6

b- All high income 15.7 41.3 35.8Note: — no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

not Turkey, at only 46 per cent, and for children infamilies from various Central American countries(82–91 per cent), Colombia (81 per cent) andMexico (90 per cent).

Although many children in immigrant familiesspeak the heritage language of their parents athome, few speak this language exclusivelywith the parents. In France in 1992, forexample, only 20 per cent of the parents inimmigrant families used their language oforigin exclusively in speaking with theirchildren, although the share was 26 per centamong immigrant families from Morocco and56 per cent among immigrant families fromTurkey.55 Meanwhile, the share speakingexclusively French to their children wassubstantial, at 35–37 per cent in immigrantfamilies from Algeria and Spain. Similarly, inthe Netherlands, the share always speakingDutch to their children is 29 per cent amongimmigrant families from Morocco and20 per cent among immigrant families fromTurkey, while the shares never speaking Dutchto their children among these two groups are25 and 30 per cent, respectively.56

The results for France and the Netherlandsindicate considerable diversity in the use of thelanguages of the countries of origin andsettlement by parents with their children, butthey also suggest that, in important immigrantgroups, about half the parents speak bothlanguages with their children. The statistics donot, however, indicate the fluency with whicheither the children or the parents speak theselanguages. Additional results for theUnited States indicate that nearly half of allchildren in immigrant families (46 per cent) arefluent in English and also speak anotherlanguage at home.57

Early education andbilingual fluency

Research in the United Statesindicates that children who learnEnglish after they haveestablished a facility with thelanguage of their families’country of origin, typicallyaround age 3, are able to addEnglish during the preschooland early elementary schoolyears, and that this bilingualskill leads to long-termcognitive, cultural and

economic advantages. A dual-languageapproach to teaching has been found to beeffective for English language learners, with nonegative consequences for other students. Infact, dual-language programmes are effective inimproving the academic achievements ofstudents learning English, but also providebenefits to children in native-born families, asreflected in standardized test scores and reportsby parents, teachers and school administrators.58

Studies in Germany have also found thatyoung children enrolled in care facilitiesoutside the home benefit in cognitive, social,emotional, physical and linguisticdevelopment, and that preschool contributes tothe educational accomplishments of children inimmigrant families.59

In practice, many children lose or do not fullydevelop fluency in the heritage language, andthis poor outcome is often not accompanied byoffsetting gains in the mastery of the languageof the society of settlement.60 Withoutcomparable fluency gains in the language ofthe country of settlement, negativeconsequences follow, including low self-esteem and school failure.

Research in the Netherlands finds that amajority of first-generation immigrant childrenbegin primary school with deficiencies inlanguage and mathematics, and this is oftentrue of the second generation as well. Thegreatest difficulties are experienced by the fourlargest non-western immigrant groups in theNetherlands, that is, the groups from theAntilles and Aruba, Morocco, Suriname andTurkey, but also among the newer immigrantflows from the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iraqand Eastern Europe.61

Studies in Germany and the Netherlandshighlight the importance of beginning


56%

73%

77%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

United States

France

Australia

Figure 7.1 – Children in families from LMICs speaking a non-local language

at home, three affluent countries

instruction in the local language early, inpreschool or kindergarten.62 Not surprisingly,however, as research in Australia suggests,childcare and preschool providers experiencechallenges in communicating with parentsfrom culturally diverse backgrounds.63

Nonetheless, other research indicates that it isnot essential for teachers to be fluent in thelanguage of the country of origin of thechildren’s families. For example, even whenteachers in preschool through third grade inthe United States have no experience with achild’s first language, they are able to introduceyoung learners to English and also adoptteaching practices that support thedevelopment of the language of origin.Teachers who encourage the families ofchildren to talk, read and sing with the childrenin the language of origin and to use thislanguage in everyday activities succeed infostering the development of this languageeven as the children learn English.64

Although it is a subject of debate who shouldbe responsible for instruction in the heritagelanguage, it seems important for preschoolsand schools to foster proficiency in thelanguage of the settlement society, whilefacilitating the proficiency in the heritagelanguage that will enable parents and childrento communicate effectively and share in thecultural heritage of the parents.65

Through dual-language instruction, children inimmigrant families become positioned as animportant human resource for the economies

of the societies of settlement. They will be wellqualified to serve as linguistic bridges betweenthese societies and the countries of origin oftheir immigrant parents which could becomean important advantage for societies in theincreasingly globalized marketplace.

Unfortunately, children in immigrant familiesare often less likely than children in native-bornfamilies to be enrolled in early care andeducation programmes. In Germany, forexample, a study in 2006 found an enrolmentrate of 72 per cent among the foreign borncompared with 84 per cent among nativeGerman children.66 Research in theNetherlands finds that children in immigrantfamilies often show lower enrolment rates inpreschool than children in native-bornfamilies.67 The financial costs for the parents inimmigrant families and their preference forother forms of childcare are likely to beimportant factors explaining this difference.

In the United States, census data show thatchildren in immigrant families from CentralAmerica, Mexico and South-East Asia are lesslikely than white children in native families tobe enrolled at ages 3 or 4 in nursery schools orpreschool (pre-kindergarten). Recent researchalso finds that this difference results partly orentirely from socio-economic or structuralbarriers, such as the lack of resources to pay forschool, rather than family cultural values thatmight lead parents to prefer that their childrenreceive home care instead of education by non-relatives in formal settings.68


The importance of civic participation isreflected in the following principle establishedby the Council of the European Union and therepresentatives of the governments of the EUmember states (emphasis added):

• “The participation of immigrants in thedemocratic process and in the formulation ofintegration policies and measures, especiallyat the local level, supports their integration.”69

The Council of the European Union and therepresentatives of the governments of themember states returned to this issue in 2007,highlighting “the need to continue tostrengthen the integration policies of MemberStates with a view to . . . ensuring that

immigrants are able to . . . participate to thefullest extent possible in the social, economic,cultural and civic life of the relevant MemberState” (emphasis added).70

Among the statistical indicators on children inimmigrant families developed for this report,four are relevant to civic participation: the extentto which the arrival of the parents in the countryof settlement is recent, the citizenship status ofthe parents, the immigrant generation of thechildren and the citizenship status of the children.

Timeframe of parental arrivalA necessary condition for civic participation isresidence in the country of settlement, and

immigrants who have been inan adopted homeland forlonger periods will have had agreater opportunity toparticipate in civic life.Moreover, longer periods ofresidence are also likely toreflect a greater commitmentto the society of the country ofsettlement. The vast majority ofchildren in immigrant familieswith origins in LMICs are livingwith at least one parent whohas resided in the country ofsettlement for five years ormore. The shares of such


8CIVIC PARTICIPATION

72%

78%

83%

88%

88%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Netherlands

Unites States

Australia

Switzerland

Italy

Figure 8.1 – Share of children in families from LMICs with at least one parent in

the country of settlement five years or more, five affluent countries

children among all children in immigrantfamilies range from 72 to 88 per cent amongthe five countries of settlement for which dataare available (see Table 8.1 and Figure 8.1).

The share is reportedly below 60 per cent foronly a few countries of origin, including mainlycountries in Eastern Europe and Central Asia,

and Somalia. Suchcomparatively lowshares generally reflectmajor new immigrationflows during the late1990s or early 2000s,often involving personsseeking to escapepolitical instability orlocal or internationalconflict. But overall, andin most countries oforigin, children inimmigrant families areliving with at least oneparent who has residedin the country ofsettlement for five yearsor more, which,depending on localcircumstances, can leadto correspondingopportunities toparticipate in civic life intheir adoptedhomelands.

Parentalcitizenship

Parents who are citizensof a country ofsettlement are fullmembers of the politicalcommunity, that is, theyhave the legal right toparticipate fully in allaspects of civic life,including voting inelections. Partly becauseof family reunificationprovisions ofimmigration laws thatprovide for theimmigration of spouses,substantial shares of thechildren in immigrantfamilies live with oneparent who is not acitizen of the country of

settlement and a second parent who is. Amongthe five countries under study on which dataare available, this share is lowest amongchildren in immigrant families from LMICs inAustralia, at 14 per cent (see Table 8.2 andFigure 8.2). However, the share rises to nearlyone child in five (18 per cent) in Italy, to morethan one child in four in the Netherlands


Table 8.1 - Per cent of children with at least one parent in the country of

settlement less than five years, five affluent countries

Origin Australia Italy Netherlands Switzerland United

States

All children 4.9 1.6 3.3 6.6 2.5

In native-born families 1.3 — 0.7 0.6 0.0

In immigrant families 12.2 16.3 12.3 17.1 11.3



and upper-middle income: 17.4 27.6 11.6 22.0 11.8

East Asia and the Pacific 15.1 21.7 9.7 19.7 8.6Low income 3.8 — — 11.2 7.1Lower-middle income 18.8 21.7 9.7 24.7 9.7Upper-middle income — — — 14.5 11.1

Europe and Central Asia — 38.9 13.2 20.4 22.7Low income — — — — 34.7Lower-middle income — 48.6 37.1 23.3 35.5Upper-middle income — 25.3 11.1 14.3 14.6

Latin America

and the Caribbean — 11.7 7.1 29.6 10.8Low income — — — 12.5 9.3Lower-middle income — 17.3 7.0 35.4 9.6Upper-middle income — 5.3 23.5 18.2 11.4

Middle East and North Africa — 29.1 10.3 25.5 12.5Low income — — — — 19.8Lower-middle income — 32.2 10.3 25.5 13.0Upper-middle income — 3.0 — 26.1 8.9

South Asia 18.3 45.6 27.4 23.4 20.5Low income 22.4 50.1 27.4 25.8 20.6Lower-middle income 15.2 31.7 — 22.5 14.3

Sub-Saharan Africa 25.0 18.5 15.9 24.5 20.9Low income — 20.6 16.9 27.0 21.2Lower-middle income — 14.9 16.0 24.3 15.7Upper-middle income 25.0 6.9 11.0 18.3 22.2

b- All high income 9.8 3.3 11.7 12.8 9.8Note: — no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

(26 per cent) and the United States (29 per cent)and to a high of 55 per cent in Switzerland.

Many children in immigrant families withorigins in LMICs are living with a parent who isfully qualified to vote and participate in otheraspects of the civic life of one of these fivecountries of settlement, but the shares of thesechildren are notably lower among families fromsome regions of origin. In Italy, for instance,the share of such children falls from 18 per centoverall to 13–16 per cent among children infamilies with origins in East Asia and thePacific, the Middle East and North Africa, andsub-Saharan Africa and to 4 per cent among

children in families with origins in South Asia.In the Netherlands, the share falls from26 per cent overall to lower levels amongchildren in families with origins in Turkey(17 per cent), Morocco and the Syrian ArabRepublic (11 per cent each) and South Asia(5 per cent). In the United States, the share fallsfrom 29 per cent overall to 5–25 per centamong children in families from Myanmar andfrom many Eastern European countries andcountries of the former Soviet Union that aresources of refugees. Finally, in Switzerland, theoverall share of 55 per cent falls to less than40 per cent among children in families fromArmenia, countries in the western Balkans,

Haiti, a fewcountries in theMiddle East andNorth Africa,Sri Lanka andsub-SaharanAfrica.

Nonetheless, inthese countries,at least onechild in ten and,often, at leastone child in fourin families fromLMICs are eachliving with acitizen parentwho enjoys theassociated civicand politicalrights. In so faras civicparticipation byimmigrants is aprincipleestablished bythe Council ofthe EuropeanUnion and therepresentativesof thegovernments ofthe memberstates, childrenin families withorigins inselectedcountries inEastern Europe,the Middle Eastand NorthAfrica, and sub-Saharan Africa


Table 8.2 - Per cent of children living in families with parents of mixed citizenship,

five affluent countries

Family origin Australia Italy Netherlands Switzerland United States

All children 8.1 1.7 8.5 39.5 6.6

In native-born families 1.0 0.0 — 12.5 0.0


Children in immigrant families by incomecategory of the country of origin:

a- All low, lower-middle and

upper-middle income: 13.6 18.0 26.4 54.9 28.7

East Asia and the Pacific 13.1 13.9 63.8 66.4 23.2Low income 6.8 — — 57.1 21.8Lower-middle income 15.1 13.9 63.8 68.9 24.0Upper-middle income — — — 74.0 34.7


Latin America and the Caribbean — 26.7 37.1 64.9 31.3Low income — — — 33.3 32.5Lower-middle income — 33.0 36.6 66.6 30.8Upper-middle income — 20.0 84.7 62.2 31.5

Middle East and North Africa — 13.0 12.9 63.7 21.6Low income — — — — 53.4Lower-middle income — 13.5 12.9 62.8 20.8Upper-middle income — 8.7 — 70.8 19.6

South Asia 16.0 3.9 5.3 46.4 25.4Low income 14.3 3.7 5.3 58.7 25.4Lower-middle income 17.5 4.3 — 30.1 29.2

Sub-Saharan Africa 9.5 15.6 29.2 49.5 29.8Low income — 13.7 22.4 49.1 30.0Lower-middle income — 26.9 19.4 48.9 32.9Upper-middle income 9.5 18.1 78.6 55.8 26.6

b- All high income 28.1 16.2 69.3 71.2 22.8Note: The table shows the share of children each living with one parent who is a citizen of the country ofsettlement and one parent who is a foreign citizen.— no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

are sometimes less likely to be living withparents who have become integrated in civiclife through citizenship in the country ofsettlement.

Immigrant generations

Children in immigrant families who were bornin the country of settlement may be especiallylikely to participate in the civic life of thecountry of settlement because most will spendtheir entire lives in this country. Data on thecountries under study indicate that the vastmajority of children in immigrant families withorigins in LMICs are in the second immigrantgeneration, that is, born in the country ofsettlement to parents, at least one of whom ineach family has been born elsewhere(seeTable 8.3 and Figure 8.3). With theexception of Germany (which is a special casegiven the significant share of repatriates), onlyin Australia is the share as low as 22 per cent.More than three children in five in immigrantfamilies in Italy (63 per cent) are in the second

generation, and this share rises to 67 per cent inSwitzerland, 77 per cent in the United States, 83per cent in the United Kingdom and 87 per centin France and the Netherlands. These highshares reflect the fact that many immigrantsarrive in their twenties and bear most of theirchildren in the country of settlement.

In Italy, Switzerland, the United Kingdom andthe United States, the shares often fall to abouthalf or somewhat less mainly in the case ofrefugee-sending countries and regions such asAfghanistan, the western Balkans, Somalia,the former Soviet Union and the Sudan.Because immigrant and refugee parentsremain in the countries of settlement for longerperiod, they are likely to bear additionalchildren. Combined with a slower pace in theimmigration flows from these refugee-sendingcountries and regions, the share of children infamilies with these immigrant origins who aresecond generation is likely to rise quickly,surpassing 50 per cent within a few years.

Second-generation children are likely to havea strong commitment to thecountry of settlement of theirparents not only because theywere born in this country, butalso because they will likelyspend most or all of theirlives there, attending schooland learning the locallanguage and customs. Insome countries (the UnitedStates and, under certainconditions, France, Germanyand Italy), they are citizens ofthe countries of settlementby virtue of their birth inthese countries.

That the parents chose toimmigrate, that the country oforigin, particularly amongrefugees, may not welcomesome returnees, and that mostof the children are born in thecountries of settlementsuggest that many parents willhave a strong motivation toremain in and commit to theiradopted homelands. Mostchildren in immigrant familieswho were born in thecountries of settlement willhave little or no personalexperience in the countries ofbirth of their parents.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

87%

86%

83%

77%

67%

63%

22%

France

Netherlands

United Kingdom

United States

Switzerland

Italy

Australia

Figure 8.3 – Share of children born in the countries of settlement in

immigrant families, seven affluent countries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Switzerland

United States

Netherlands

Italy

Australia 14%

18%

27%

29%

55%

Figure 8.2 – Share of children living in families with parents of mixed

citizenship, five affluent countries

Note: See the note to Table 8.2.

Children in immigrant familieswho are citizens of the countryof settlement

Many children in immigrant families arecitizens of the countries to which their familiesimmigrated, particularly if the countriesprovide some form of birthright citizenship.Citizenship is a birthright in the United States

and, under certain conditions, in France,Germany and Italy. The share of children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins who arecitizens of the adopted homelands of theirfamilies is about one third in Switzerland(32 per cent), one half in Italy (49 per cent) andfour fifths in the United States (82 per cent) andAustralia (85 per cent) (seeTable 8.4 andFigure 8.4). The shares of such children who arecitizens are somewhat lower mainly among


Table 8.3 - Per cent of children in immigrant families born in the country of settlement (second-generation

children), eight affluent countries


Kingdom States

All children 25.4 8.1 19.4 6.8 18.8 29.0 12.9 16.9





and upper-middle income: 21.7 87.4 1.0 63.1 86.7 66.7 83.0 76.7


Europe and Central Asia — 86.6 0.5 50.1 88.8 61.2 64.8 53.3Low income — — — — — — 44.7 29.8Lower-middle income — — 0.5 44.4 53.4 53.6 50.1 43.0Upper-middle income — 86.6 0.5 58.0 91.8 78.2 67.1 60.1

Latin America






families from countries or regions of originwith smaller shares of people who are second-generation immigrants, that is, mainly thosecountries or regions sending recent immigrantor refugee flows.

In short, many children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins are citizens of the countriesunder study, and the vast majority of thesechildren were born in these countries. Forsome countries of origin in Africa, EasternEurope and the former Soviet Union that aresources of recent immigrant and refugee flows,children in immigrant families with LMIC

origins are less likely to be citizens or in thesecond immigrant generation in the countriesof settlement.

Civic participation: deep roots

in countries of settlement

In the countries under study providing relevantdata, not only are most children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins living with at leastone parent who has resided in the country forfive years or more, many are also living with at


Table 8.4 - Per cent of children who are citizens of the country of settlement, five affluent countries

Family origin Australia Germany Italy Switzerland United States

All children 96.4 90.1 97.2 77.5 96.6

In native-born families 99.9 99.1 100.0 98.2 100.0



a-All low, lower-middle


East Asia and the Pacific 86.9 — 26.8 73.7 85.4Low income 95.9 — — 69.1 88.1Lower-middle income 84.0 — 26.8 75.3 83.4Upper-middle income — — — 77.0 82.5


Latin America and the Caribbean — — 84.4 74.5 82.6Low income — — — 75.3 86.2Lower-middle income — — 74.6 73.3 84.4Upper-middle income — — 95.6 77.4 81.7

Middle East and North Africa — 11.2 36.4 69.2 89.1Low income — — — — 89.9Lower-middle income — 11.2 29.5 69.1 87.8Upper-middle income — — 93.5 70.7 95.1

South Asia 82.2 — 21.0 20.3 78.4Low income 83.5 — 23.0 47.9 78.3Lower-middle income 81.2 — 14.9 8.2 88.5

Sub-Saharan Africa 82.2 — 48.3 55.2 78.2Low income — — 45.0 54.7 78.2Lower-middle income — — 56.6 37.3 80.8Upper-middle income 82.2 — 63.9 84.8 75.9


least one parent who is a citizen of the country,and the vast majority of the children are in thesecond generation and are citizens in theadopted homelands of the immigrant family.These children are attending the schools andlearning the languages and traditions of the

countries of settlement. Manyare potentially bilingual,because they speak anotherlanguage at home, including56 per cent of the children inimmigrant families in Australiaand 73–77 per cent in Franceand the United States.Children who are bilingualrepresent an importanteconomic and culturalresource for their homelandsbecause they can serve aslanguage ambassadors in theincreasingly globalized

economy. Strong education programmesteaching reading and writing, as well asfluency in both languages, from the earliestyears of schooling will have benefits for thechildren and for the countries their parentshave chosen.


82%

85%

32%

49%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Australia

United States

Italy

Switzerland

Figure 8.4 – Share of children in families from LMICs who are citizens of the

country of settlement, four affluent countries

The principles of inclusion and integrationestablished by the Council of the EuropeanUnion and the representatives of thegovernments of the EU member states includethe following:

• “Efforts in education are critical in preparingimmigrants, and particularly theirdescendants, to be more successful andmore active participants in society”(emphasis added).71

Any effort to foster greater educationalattainment among immigrants must begin withan assessment of their current educationalaccomplishments. In addition, research in theUnited States has long shown that childrenwhose parents have completed fewer years ofschool tend, on average, also to completefewer years of school and to obtain jobs atlower pay when they reach adulthood.72

Parents in immigrant families often have higheducational aspirations for their children, butmay know little about the educational systemof their adopted homelands, particularly if theyhave completed comparatively few years ofschool.73 Parents with little schooling may, as aconsequence, be less comfortable with theeducation system, less able to help theirchildren with schoolwork and less able tonegotiate effectively with teachers and schooladministrators. Thus, to assess not only the

educational needs of parents, but also theeducational needs of children, one mustmeasure the educational attainment of theparents of the children.

The share of children in native-born familiesliving with fathers who have completed the firststage of tertiary education or higher ranges froma low of 10 per cent in Italy to 16 per cent inAustralia, 23 per cent in France, 28–29 per cent inthe United Kingdom and the United States and36–37 per cent in Germany, the Netherlands andSwitzerland (see Table 9.1 and Figure 9.1 nextpage). The share of children in immigrantfamilies from LMICs living with fathers who havecompleted this level of schooling is larger thanthe corresponding share among children innative-born families in Australia (31 versus16 per cent) and the United Kingdom (40 versus29 per cent), about the same in Italy (12 versus10 per cent), but substantially lower in France(12 versus 23 per cent), Germany (16 versus37 per cent), the Netherlands (17 versus36 per cent), Switzerland (22 versus 37 per cent)and the United States (20 versus 28 per cent).

Children in immigrant families with LMICorigins are about as likely as or are less likelythan children in native-born families to be livingwith a father who has completed less thanupper secondary school in the case of Australia(20 per cent in immigrant families versus26 per cent in native-born families) and Italy


9PARENTAL EDUCATION

(54 versus 58 per cent)(see Figure 9.2). In theremaining six countries understudy, the immigrant group ismuch more likely to be livingwith a father with this lowerlevel of educational attainment,at 60 versus 27 per cent inFrance, 44 versus 7 per cent inGermany, 44 versus 8 per centin Switzerland, 31 versus19 per cent in theUnited Kingdom and 45 versus12 per cent in theUnited States, with a smallerdifference of 28 versus21 per cent in the Netherlands.Perhaps surprisingly, childrenin immigrant families withLMIC origins, children inimmigrant families with HICorigins and children in native-born families are fairly similarin Australia, Italy and theNetherlands in the share livingwith a father with lowereducational attainment; thedifferences are no more than8 per cent. Perhaps equallysurprisingly, children inimmigrant families with HICorigins are more similar tochildren with LMIC origins thanto children in native-bornfamilies in France, Germanyand Switzerland in the share living with afather with lower educational attainment; thedifferences between children in families withLMIC origins and children in families with HICorigins are no more than 14 per cent. Only inthe United Kingdom and the United States arechildren in families with HIC origins moresimilar to children in native-born families thanto children in families with LMIC origins in theshare living with a father with lowereducational attainment.

Children in immigrant families with LMIC originsare, except in the case of Australia, broadlysimilar in terms of the educational attainment oftheir fathers, which is heavily weighted towardsthe bottom of the educational distributioncompared to the fathers of children in native-born families in these countries. Nonetheless,the educational attainment of the fathersaccording to country or region of origin is quitedifferent across the affluent countries understudy. For example, the shares living with fatherswho completed less than upper secondaryeducation among children in immigrant families

with LMIC origins in the Middle East andNorth Africa are 60–62 per cent in France andItaly and 39–46 per cent in Germany andthe Netherlands compared with 25 per centin Switzerland and 14–16 per cent in theUnited Kingdom and the United States.Similarly, the results for families in thesub-Saharan African group are 48 per cent inItaly, 28 per cent in Switzerland, 11 per cent in theUnited Kingdom and 7–8 per cent in Australiaand the United States. Among children infamilies with origins in Eastern Europe andCentral Asia, the shares are 76 per cent in Franceand 46–53 per cent in Germany, Italy andSwitzerland compared with 31–32 per cent in theNetherlands and the United Kingdom and14 per cent in the United States. The results arealso fairly similar for East Asia and the Pacificand for South Asia. However, for Latin Americaand the Caribbean, the direction of the shares isreversed, with the highest share, of 58 per cent,in the United States compared with 45 per centin Italy, 33 per cent in the Netherlands,22 per cent in the United Kingdom and17 per cent in Switzerland.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

29%40%

16%31%

36%24%

37%22%

28%20%

37%16%

23%12%

10%12%

Native

LMIC

United Kingdom

Australia

Netherlands

Switzerland

United States

Germany

France

Italy

Figure 9.1 – Share of children with fathers who have completed the first

stage of tertiary education or more, eight affluent countries

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Native

HIC

LMIC

France

Italy

United States

Germany

Switzerland

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Australia

27%48%

60%

58%56%

54%12%12%

45%

7%36%

44%

8%30%

44%

21%20%

33%

19%16%

31%

26%21%

20%

Figure 9.2 – Share of children with fathers completing less than upper

secondary school, eight affluent countries

In the United States, children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins across most globalregions are often more likely to be living withfathers who have completed the first stage oftertiary education or more than are thecorresponding children in the Europeancountries under study, but they are less likelyto be living with fathers with this high level ofeducation if the families have origins inLatin America and the Caribbean.

This pattern of differences across the affluentcountries under study suggests that formaland informal labour immigration from LMICs,as well as other types of immigration, bypersons with limited education, is more likelyto occur from nearby continental regions inthe case of affluent European countries andthe United States. On the other hand,immigrants from LMICs who have the highestlevels of educational attainment are morelikely to have the resources required toimmigrate over longer distances to improvetheir economic circumstances.

The primary partial exceptions are Switzerlandand the United Kingdom. The United Kingdomattracts many highly skilled immigrants frommost global regions, partly because of thebreadth of the Commonwealth, but alsoperhaps because English language skills arespread widely around the world. Switzerland,meanwhile, attracts less skilled immigrants

from only a few nearby countries and refugee-sending countries. The comparatively smallshares of children living with fathers with loweducational attainment in families with LMICorigins in Switzerland may be accounted for byimmigration laws in Switzerland that favourmore highly qualified immigrants.

The results on educational attainment amongmothers living with children are broadly similarto those among fathers in both native-bornfamilies and immigrant families, although theoverall educational attainment among mothersis somewhat lower (see Table 9.2 and Figure 9.3).Among children in immigrant families withLMIC origins, the differences in educationalattainment at a specific educational levelbetween mothers and fathers are no more than14 percentage points. This difference is similar tothe respective difference among children infamilies with origins in HICs.

Overall, there is considerable consistencyacross the affluent countries under study in theshares of children in immigrant families withLMIC and HIC origins who are living withparents with similar specific levels ofeducational attainment. The largest shares ofchildren in immigrant families are living withparents who have completed less than uppersecondary schooling. (The primary exception ischildren in immigrant families with LMICorigins in Australia and with HIC origins in


Table 9.1 - Fathers’ educational attainment, eight affluent countries


Kingdom States

% of all childrenFirst stage of tertiary or higher 18 22 33 10 34 34 31 27Upper secondarya 58 49 53 33 43 47 49 55Less than upper secondary 24 29 14 57 23 19 20 18

% in native-born familiesFirst stage of tertiary or higher 16 23 37 10 36 37 29 28Upper secondarya 59 51 56 33 43 54 52 60Less than upper secondary 26 27 7 58 21 8 19 12

% in families from LMICsFirst stage of tertiary or higher 31 12 16 12 17 22 40 20Upper secondarya 49 28 40 34 34 34 29 35Less than upper secondary 20 60 44 54 28 44 31 45

% in families from HICsFirst stage of tertiary or higher 19 10 20 10 44 35 45 39Upper secondarya 60 42 44 33 36 35 39 48Less than upper secondary 21 48 36 56 20 30 16 12a. Post-secondary, non-tertiary education is included here.

the United States.) Thissuggests that immigration tothese affluent countries isoften undertaken by personswith limited education who areseeking to improve theireconomic opportunitiesthrough immigration to anaffluent country. In so far asthe Council of the EuropeanUnion and the governments ofthe member states haveestablished the principle that“efforts in education arecritical in preparingimmigrants . . . to be moresuccessful and more activeparticipants in society,” theseresults suggest that manychildren in immigrant familiesare living with parents who would benefit fromsuch efforts in affluent countries.74

In addition, it seems likely that parents whohave had access to education in their adoptedhomelands would be in a better position tohelp their children with the children’sschoolwork. This may be especially the case

among children in families with parents fromLMICs who have limited education. It is in theinterest not only of these children and theirfamilies, but also of the broader populations inthe affluent countries that opportunities andresources be made accessible so the childrenare able to succeed in school and, later, whenthey reach adulthood, in the labour force.


Table 9.2 - Mothers’ educational attainment, eight affluent countries


Kingdom States

% of all childrenFirst stage of tertiary or higher 16 23 20 10 27 14 23 23Upper secondarya 49 44 58 36 47 59 55 60Less than upper secondary 34 33 22 54 27 28 22 18

% in native-born familiesFirst stage of tertiary or higher 15 24 22 10 29 11 21 23Upper secondarya 48 45 64 36 48 71 59 65Less than upper secondary 37 30 14 54 23 17 20 12

% in families from LMICsFirst stage of tertiary or higher 25 9 12 12 13 14 29 16Upper secondarya 50 23 32 35 32 28 35 39Less than upper secondary 25 68 56 54 34 58 36 45

% in families from HICsFirst stage of tertiary or higher 16 11 14 11 24 22 37 31Upper secondarya 55 38 39 38 48 44 47 56Less than upper secondary 29 51 47 51 28 34 16 13a. Post-secondary, non-tertiary education is included here.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Native

HIC

LMIC

France

Switzerland

Germany

Italy

United States

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Australia

30%51%

68%

17%34%

58%

14%48%

56%

54%

54%51%

12%13%

45%

23%28%

41%

20%16%

36%

37%29%

25%

Figure 9.3 – Share of children with mothers completing less than upper

secondary school, eight affluent countries

The principles of immigrant inclusion andintegration established by the Council of theEuropean Union and the representatives of thegovernments of the member states includethe following:

• “Employment is a key part of the integrationprocess and is central to the participation ofimmigrants, to the contributions immigrantsmake to the host society, and to makingsuch contributions visible” (authors’emphasis added).75

Employment among theparents of the children inimmigrant families is alsoimportant because it is theprimary source of economicsupport for children and theirfamilies and is thereforecritical to ensuring socialinclusion among the children.

Employmentamong fathers

The vast majority of children innative-born families in the eightcountries reported here areliving with fathers who areworking to support their families

(see Table 10.1 and Figure 10.1). The shares ofthese children with employed fathers rangefrom 85–86 per cent in France and Italy to88–92 per cent in Australia, Germany andthe United Kingdom and to 95–98 per cent inthe Netherlands, Switzerland andthe United States. Children in immigrantfamilies with HIC origins are about equallylikely to be living with employed fathers inAustralia, France, the Netherlands, Switzerlandand the United States (86–95 per cent), but the


10PARENTAL PAID EMPLOYMENT

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Native

HIC

LMIC

95% 94%92%

95%85% 87%

98% 95%87%

89% 86%81%

89% 90%76%

95% 87%69%

86% 87%63%

92% 81%60%

United States

Italy

Switzerland

Australia

United Kingdom

Netherlands

France

Germany

Figure 10.1 – Children living with fathers who are employed,


rates are somewhat lower in Germany(81 per cent) and Italy (85 per cent). Relative tochildren in families from LMICs, the shares ofchildren in families with origins in HICs whoare living with employed fathers are about thesame in the United States (92–94 per cent) andItaly (85–87 per cent). However, children infamilies with LMIC origins are somewhat lesslikely to be living with fathers who areemployed than are those in families with HICorigins in Australia (81 versus 86 per cent) and

Switzerland (87 versus 95 per cent), butespecially in France (63 versus 87 per cent),Germany (60 versus 81 per cent),the Netherlands (69 versus 87 per cent) andthe United Kingdom (76 versus 90 per cent).

In Germany, the Netherlands andthe United Kingdom, the lower rates ofemployment among fathers in families withLMIC origins are spread widely across globalregions; that is, the rates are comparatively


Table 10.1 - Per cent of children living with fathers who are employed, eight affluent countries


Kingdom States

All children 84.5 84.8 89.2 85.0 92.2 95.2 87.8 94.5



Children in immigrant familiesby income category of thecountry of origin:




Europe and Central Asia — 67.4 61.0 85.6 79.7 86.1 69.6 92.1Low income — — — — — — 79.8 78.6Lower-middle income — — 58.6 85.3 — 85.6 70.1 88.8Upper-middle income — 67.4 61.5 86.1 78.4 87.2 69.4 94.4

Latin America




Sub-Saharan Africa 86.5 — — 88.4 62.9 86.5 84.1 94.0Low income — — — 89.2 52.9 83.3 83.1 93.7Lower-middle income — — — 82.8 — 89.4 56.2 92.5Upper-middle income 86.5 — — 88.3 — 93.0 90.4 96.7


low in these three countries compared withthe rates in the other countries (for whichcomparable data are available) among fathersin families with origins in Eastern Europe andCentral Asia, the Middle East and North Africa,South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Thissuggests that the labour markets in thesethree countries show features that havebroadly similar consequences for manyimmigrant groups. Nonetheless, in mostcases, a large majority of the fathers in

immigrant families from most origins areactively contributing to the economies of thecountries of settlement under study here.

Fathers employed full-time

It is possible to compare the incidence of full-time employment among fathers, defined as36 hours of work per week or more, across fiveaffluent countries in this report that have


Table 10.2 - Per cent of children living with fathers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries

Family origin Australia Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland United United

Kingdom States

All children 73.0 79.2 82.0 56.6 90.6 79.3 89.0






East Asia and the Pacific 64.5 — 74.2 52.8 88.7 71.3 82.8Low income 57.0 — — — 87.0 54.0 79.0Lower-middle income 66.9 — 74.2 52.8 89.0 74.4 85.5Upper-middle income — — — — 92.6 79.2 86.3

Europe and Central Asia — 49.6 81.9 49.9 83.5 56.0 83.8Low income — — — — — 62.3 69.2Lower-middle income — 46.0 81.5 — 83.3 58.4 78.5Upper-middle income — 50.4 82.5 49.2 83.9 55.7 87.3

Latin America and the Caribbean — — 83.2 54.6 87.8 69.6 85.0Low income — — — — 85.8 — 78.6Lower-middle income — — 81.8 54.7 87.2 68.2 84.1Upper-middle income — — 84.7 — 88.9 73.0 85.5

Middle East and North Africa — 49.6 83.0 36.6 75.6 60.4 83.7Low income — — — — — 52.6 68.8Lower-middle income — 49.6 82.6 36.6 75.8 61.3 83.8Upper-middle income — — 86.4 — 74.3 59.7 86.0

South Asia 71.3 — 85.8 24.3 88.4 50.6 88.7Low income 76.2 — 89.5 24.3 80.8 49.9 88.6Lower-middle income 67.2 — 73.9 — 91.7 69.8 93.8

Sub-Saharan Africa 73.8 — 84.5 43.7 79.7 72.4 84.8Low income — — 86.3 35.5 75.1 70.8 83.6Lower-middle income — — 78.2 — 84.3 45.5 86.1Upper-middle income 73.8 — 77.8 71.7 87.3 81.3 92.5


broadly similar norms on the labour force andcollect generally comparable data (seeTable 10.2and Figure 10.2). Among children in native-bornfamilies, the shares living in families withworking fathers where the fathers are employedfull-time are 82–83 per cent in Germany, Italyand the United Kingdom, 90 per cent in theUnited States and 93 per cent in Switzerland.

In four of these countries, the share of children inimmigrant families from HICs living with fatherswho are working full-time are within a fewpercentage points of the corresponding rates innative-born families, namely, Italy (82 and82 per cent), Switzerland (90 versus 93 per cent),the United Kingdom (81 versus 82 per cent) andthe United States (88 versus 90 per cent). InGermany, the difference is substantially larger(68 versus 83 per cent). The gaps in full-timeemployment are about the same or slightly largeramong the fathers in immigrant families with

LMIC origins than among thefathers in native-born families inItaly (both 82 per cent),Switzerland (84 versus93 per cent) andthe United States (85 versus90 per cent), but substantiallylarger in Germany (49 versus83 per cent) andthe United Kingdom (60 versus82 per cent).

Thus, in the countries for whichcomparable data are available, alarge majority of children inimmigrant families are livingwith fathers who are employed.However, there is a wide gaprelative to employment rates

among fathers in native-born families in theUnited Kingdom and especially in France,Germany and the Netherlands. Correspondingdifferences occur in full-time employmentacross the countries reporting relevant results.

Employment among mothers

In the affluent countries under study, the sharesof children in native-born families who are livingwith employed mothers vary enormously, from47 per cent in Italy to 56–61 per cent in Australiaand Switzerland, 65–68 per cent in Germany andthe United Kingdom and 72–76 per cent inFrance, the Netherlands and the United States(see Table 10.3 and Figure 10.3). In five of theseaffluent countries, children in immigrant familieswith HIC origins are only 1–5 per cent less likelythan children in native-born families to be livingwith employed mothers. The gap rises to

9–17 per cent inthe Netherlands andthe United States and22 per cent in Germany.

In Australia, Italy andSwitzerland, children inimmigrant families with LMICorigins are 7–9 per cent lesslikely than children in native-born families to be living withemployed mothers; this gapexpands somewhat, to15 per cent, inthe United States. The gapwidens to 23 per cent inthe United Kingdom and35–37 per cent in France,Germany and the Netherlands.


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

United States

Switzerland

Italy

Australia

United Kingdom

Germany

Netherlands

Native

HIC

LMIC

90% 88%85%

93% 90%84%

82%82%82%

75% 75%68%

82% 81%60%

83% 68%49%

58% 63%46%

Figure 10.2 – Children living with fathers who are employed full-time,


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Native

HIC

LMIC

United States

Switzerland

Australia

Netherlands

United Kingdom

Italy

France

Germany

76%60% 61%

61% 63,%52%

58% 58%49%

73% 63%45%

65% 60%42%

47% 42%38%

72% 71%35%

67% 46%31%

Figure 10.3 – Children living with mothers who are employed,


Even in the affluent countries with the lowestemployment rates among mothers, betweenabout one third and two fifths of children infamilies with LMIC origins are living withmothers who are actively participating in theeconomy; this share rises to about one halfor more in Australia (49 per cent),Switzerland (52 per cent) and the UnitedStates (61 per cent).

Mothers employed full-time

In none of the seven affluent countries forwhich new data are reported here are morethan one half of the children in native-born orimmigrant families living with mothers whoare employed full-time (see Table 10.4 andFigure 10.4). The share among children innative-born families is 49 per cent inthe United States, but only 34 per cent in Italy,


Table 10.3 - Per cent of children living with mothers who are employed, eight affluent countries


Kingdom States

All children 55.0 70.0 62.4 46.2 67.6 60.0 62.2 72.4







Europe and Central Asia — 23.3 33.0 34.3 37.8 52.1 39.3 56.8Low income — — — — — — 31.0 49.1Lower-middle income — — 34.9 29.0 — 49.6 42.2 56.3Upper-middle income — 23.3 32.6 41.6 37.5 57.5 38.9 57.2

Latin America






19 per cent in Australia, Germany and theUnited Kingdom and 5–11 per cent in theNetherlands and Switzerland. The shares aresmaller among children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins than among children innative-born families in the United States(44 versus 49 per cent) and Germany(10 versus 19 per cent), but larger amongchildren in families with LMIC origins inAustralia (26 versus 19 per cent) andSwitzerland (25 versus 11 per cent). The results

in these countries for children in immigrantfamilies from HICs are within 5 per cent of therates among children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins.

Despite the high labour force participationreported here with respect to the mothers ofchildren in both native-born and immigrantfamilies, fewer than half the children in theUnited States are living with mothers who areworking full-time; this share falls to about one


Table 10.4 - Per cent of children living with mothers who are employed full-time, seven affluent countries

Family origin Australia Germany Italy Netherlands Switzerland United United

Kingdom States

All children 20.5 17.4 33.2 5.2 15.5 19.0 48.2






East Asia and the Pacific 28.5 — 35.7 7.9 22.0 23.7 55.0Low income 22.6 — — — 23.8 14.1 48.5Lower-middle income 30.5 — 35.7 7.9 21.1 27.8 59.9Upper-middle income — — — — 18.1 25.3 43.2

Europe and Central Asia — 10.8 22.9 6.4 28.2 16.4 42.1Low income — — — — — 11.0 28.6Lower-middle income — 8.9 19.1 — 28.5 20.0 40.9Upper-middle income — 11.2 28.0 6.4 27.6 15.8 43.1

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — 31.5 10.8 17.2 28.2 42.7Low income — — — — 36.0 — 58.25Lower-middle income — — 30.0 10.9 16.5 28.5 48.3Upper-middle income — — 33.1 — 17.9 27.4 39.8

Middle East and North Africa — 4.9 18.8 2.7 18.2 15.7 30.5Low income — — — — — 10.5 11.3Lower-middle income — 4.9 15.9 2.7 18.8 16.6 31.8Upper-middle income — — 43.3 — 13.7 14.4 27.7

South Asia 25.6 — 15.8 0.8 19.7 11.9 39.3Low income 30.1 — 15.2 0.8 19.5 11.5 39.1Lower-middle income 22.0 — 17.4 — 19.8 23.3 49.6

Sub-Saharan Africa 20.3 — 32.9 5.5 22.8 24.9 53.7Low income — — 34.3 3.8 21.6 24.6 55.2Lower-middle income — — 29.3 7.4 30.9 14.6 61.5Upper-middle income 20.3 — 26.6 5.9 15.3 27.2 37.3


fourth or less in the othercountries under study on whichdata are available. While manymothers in all groups work forincome to support theirfamilies, many work less thanfull-time, perhaps because oftheir day-to-dayresponsibilities in caring fortheir children. This isparticularly noteworthy in thecase of affluent Europeancountries in whichgovernments fund earlychildhood education and carearrangements and, if childrenare infants or toddlers, there isgovernment-guaranteed, job-protected, paid maternal orpaternal leave.76


0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Native

HIC

LMIC

United States

Australia

Italy

Switzerland

United Kingdom

Germany

Netherlands

49%43% 44%

19% 22% 26%

34% 28%25%

25%20% 25%

19% 21%18%

19% 13%10%

5% 9% 6%

Figure 10.4 – Children living with mothers who are employed full-time,


The importance of money income is reflectedin the following principle established by theCouncil of the European Union:

• “Access for immigrants to institutions, aswell as to public and private goods andservices, on a basis equal to nationalcitizens and in a non-discriminatory way is acritical foundation for better integration”(authors’ emphasis added).77

Access to many public and private goods andservices depends both on the money incomeavailable to families and their children frompaid work and on social transfers from nationalgovernments to families. Despite the highemployment rates among parents and the highrates of full-time employment among fathers,the incomes of some families are too modestto lift them out of poverty partly because theirjobs receive lower hourly wages. Socialtransfer programmes act to reduce poverty, butthe programmes vary across countries in theireffectiveness in reducing child poverty innative-born and immigrant families. The data ofthe Luxembourg Income Study focus onimmigrants (or “minorities”), who are definedin different ways in the study depending on thecountry.78 In Italy and the United States, animmigrant is a person “born outside the surveycountry”. In France, an immigrant is “born as aforeigner outside France.” In Australia andGermany, an immigrant is a “non-national,”

that is, anyone who is not a citizen of Australiaor Germany, respectively. The definition usedin the United Kingdom distinguishes the “non-White or minority” population and leads toresults that are the least comparable to otherresults in this report. These data do notdistinguish, as do the other new results inthis report, between children in immigrantfamilies from LMICs and children in immigrantfamilies from HICs.

Research using data from the LuxembourgIncome Study collected in 1999–2000 definespoverty as a relative concept, setting thepoverty threshold at 50 per cent of the nationalmedian household income.79 The researchcalculates child poverty based on marketincome as well as on total disposable income,which includes market income and socialtransfers. The difference between the twocalculations for a specific group represents ameasure of the extent to which social transfersact to reduce poverty in that group.80 Theresults indicate that children in immigrantfamilies experience greater market incomepoverty rates than children in native-bornfamilies in each of the countries reported here.The differences between the two groups rangefrom around 7 per cent in Australia andGermany to about 12 per cent in theUnited States and 26–28 per cent in France andthe United Kingdom (see Table 11.1 and


11POVERTY AND SOCIAL

TRANSFER SUPPORT

Figure 11.1). Taking into account socialtransfers, the differences between the twogroups of children change little in Australia andGermany (around 6–7 per cent) and in theUnited States (about 12–13 per cent). In Franceand the United Kingdom, however, socialtransfers reduce the poverty gaps separatingchildren in immigrant families and children innative-born families by about half, from 26–28to 12–13 per cent.

Thus, social transfers have broadly similareffects on poverty among children in immigrantfamilies and children in native-born familieswithin three of the countries reported here(Australia, Germany and the United States),

although the size of theeffect varies widelyacross the countries.Social transfers act toreduce poverty rates bythe smallest amount inthe United States(1–2 per cent) (see Figure11.2). The effect is severaltimes larger in Germany,at 7 per cent among bothgroups, and larger still inAustralia, at around12 per cent among bothgroups. The largesteffects of social transfersoccur in the places withthe highest marketincome poverty rates,France andthe United Kingdom,which are also the twoplaces in which theeffects of social transfersare much larger in theimmigrant group. In theUnited Kingdom, socialtransfers act to reducepoverty by 15 per centamong the native-borngroup and 30 per centamong the immigrant(or minority) group, and,in France, the reductionsare 24 per cent amongthe native-born groupand 38 per cent amongthe immigrant group.

After social transfers,then, the lowest povertyrates among thehouseholds of childrenin native-born families

occur in France and Germany (6–8 per cent),followed by Australia (13 per cent),the United Kingdom (16 per cent) and theUnited States (20 per cent) (see Figure 11.3).Among children in immigrant families, thelowest post-transfer poverty rates occur inGermany (15 per cent) and Australiaand France (19–20 per cent), followed bythe United Kingdom (29 per cent) andthe United States (33 per cent). Thus, thereare large differences across these affluentcountries in the extent to which marketincomes from paid work, combined withsocial transfers, act to assure access to publicand private goods and services.


34%

56%

22%

59%

32%

31%

30%

22%

25%

15%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

United Kingdom

France

United States

Australia

Germany

Native

Immigrant

Figure 11.1 – Child poverty rates based on market income, five affluent countries

Source: Smeeding, Timothy M., Coady Wing and Karen Robson, ‘Differences in SocialTransfer Support and Poverty for Immigrant Families with Children: Lessons from theLIS’, in Immigration, Diversity, and Education, edited by Elena L. Grigorenko and RubyTakanishi, Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 26–47.

Table 11.1 - Per cent of children in poverty, five affluent countries

Poverty measure Australia France Germany United United

Kingdom States

Market income poverty

In immigrant families 32.1 56.1 21.9 58.6 33.7In native-born families 24.9 29.9 14.7 30.5 21.9

Difference – 7.2 – 26.2 – 7.2 – 28.1 – 11.8

Market income poverty

plus social transfer poverty

In immigrant families 19.7 18.5 14.5 28.8 33.0In native-born families 13.3 6.1 8.0 15.6 19.8

Difference – 6.4 – 12.4 – 6.5 – 13.2 – 13.2

Poverty effect of

social transfers

On children in immigrant families – 12.4 – 37.6 – 7.4 – 29.8 – 0.7On children in native-born families – 11.6 – 23.8 – 6.7 – 14.9 – 2.1Source: Smeeding, Timothy M., Coady Wing and Karen Robson, ‘Differences in Social TransferSupport and Poverty for Immigrant Families with Children: Lessons from the LIS’, inImmigration, Diversity, and Education, edited by Elena L. Grigorenko and Ruby Takanish,Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 26–47.

Since these measures pertainto children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC and HICorigins taken together, and inso far as children in immigrantfamilies with origins in HICsprobably experiencecomparatively low povertyrates, the poverty rates amongchildren in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins are probablygreater than the overall ratesreported here. Finally, evenafter accounting for socialtransfers, one finds that theoverall poverty rates are higheramong children in immigrantfamilies than among childrenin native-born families by6–7 per cent in Australia andGermany and by12–13 per cent in France,the United Kingdom andthe United States.


Native

Immigrant

France

United Kingdom

Australia

Germany

United States

–24%–38%

–15%–30%

–12%–12%

–7%–7%

–2% –1%

–40% –30% –20% –10% 0%

Figure 11.2 - Reduction in child poverty deriving from social transfers,


Source: Smeeding, Timothy M., Coady Wing and Karen Robson, ‘Differences inSocial Transfer Support and Poverty for Immigrant Families with Children:Lessons from the LIS’, in Immigration, Diversity, and Education, edited byElena L. Grigorenko and Ruby Takanishi, Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 26–47.

20%

29%

15%

33%

19%

20%

16%

13%

6%

8%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Native

Immigrant

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

France

Germany

Figure 11.3 - Child poverty rate based on market income and including the

effect of social transfers, five affluent countries

The importance of housing in the context ofimmigration is illustrated by the ‘SecondAnnual Report on Migration and Integration’ ofthe European Commission, which urged that:

• “In order to successfully integrate andparticipate in all aspects of life, migrants mustbe provided with basic rights in terms ofaccess to education, housing, health care andsocial services” (authors’ emphasis added).81

The report also notes that:

• “As part of the action programme to combatsocial exclusion, the Commission hascommissioned a study on access to decenthousing for migrants and ethnic minorities”(emphasis added).82

Overcrowdedhousing

A measure of access to decenthousing is the extent to whichchildren live in overcrowdedhousing. Children living inovercrowded housing mayhave additional difficultyfinding a place to do homeworkand may also encounternegative consequences inbehavioural adjustment and

psychological health.83 Children are consideredto be living in overcrowded housing if they livein a home in which the ratio of the number ofpersons to the number of rooms is higher than1.0.84 Overcrowding by this definition amongchildren in native-born families variesenormously across the five affluent countriesunder study for which data are available, from9–11 per cent in Australia, the United Kingdomand the United States to 19 per cent in Franceand 43 per cent in Italy (see Table 12.1 andFigure 12.1).

In Australia, children in immigrant families withLMIC origins are 3 percentage points more likelythan children in native-born families to live inovercrowded housing (12 versus 9 per cent).The gap increases seven-fold, to 21–23 per cent,


12HOUSING

33%

64%

12%

60%

52%

9%

10%

11%

19%

43%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Native

LMIC

Italy

France

United States

United Kingdom

Australia

Figure 12.1 – Children in overcrowded housing, five affluent countries

in Italy (64 versus43 per cent) and theUnited Kingdom(33 versus 10 per cent),and it increases 14-fold, to41–42 per cent, in France(60 versus 19 per cent)and the United States(52 versus 11 per cent).

In Australia, the availabledata indicate that amongchildren in immigrantfamilies with LMICorigins, the share ofchildren living inovercrowded housing ishighest among childrenin families from Viet Nam(19 per cent). In France,the overcrowding ratesamong children infamilies with origins inItaly and Spain(23–24 per cent) aresimilar to the ratesamong children in thenative-born population(19 per cent), but are twoto three times greateramong children infamilies with origins inAlgeria (55 per cent),Cambodia (58 per cent),the Lao People’sDemocratic Republic(50 per cent), Morocco(63 per cent), Portugal andViet Nam (37 per centeach), Tunisia (64 per cent)and Turkey (67 per cent).In Italy, the shares are inthis same broad range(31–90 per cent) for all thespecific origins reported.

In the United Kingdom,the highest rates ofovercrowding(51–58 per cent) areexperienced by childrenin families with originsin Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh,the Congo, the Democratic Republic of theCongo, Eritrea and Sierra Leone. The rate rises to65 per cent in the case of Somalia. For children infamilies with HIC origins, meanwhile, the rates ofovercrowding are 7–15 per cent.

The differences for children in families inspecific immigrant groups in the United States

are larger. At one extreme, the overcrowdingrates are 4–13 per cent among children inimmigrant families with origins in most of theHICs that are members of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development. Therates of overcrowding jump to at least 30 percent among children in families in most otherimmigrant groups and to 50 per cent or moreamong children in families with origins in


Table 12.1 - Per cent of children living in overcrowded households,


Family origin Australia France Italy United United

Kingdom States

All children 9.4 21.5 44.7 12.6 18.3



Children in immigrantfamilies by income category of thecountry of origin:



East Asia and the Pacific 14.4 48.1 67.4 23.6 42.6Low income 18.9 48.1 — 36.3 50.2Lower-middle income 12.9 — 67.4 22.8 37.2Upper-middle income — — — 13.9 25.9

Europe and Central Asia — 67.2 61.4 30.5 29.2Low income — — — 30.1 66.2Lower-middle income — — 71.4 30.0 42.2Upper-middle income — 67.2 47.6 30.6 20.5

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — 50.9 24.9 58.4Low income — — — — 44.6Lower-middle income — — 50.8 25.4 44.8Upper-middle income — — 51.0 23.6 64.6

Middle East and North Africa — 60.0 77.2 28.9 27.3Low income — — — 35.9 64.2Lower-middle income — 60.0 80.3 28.6 27.5Upper-middle income — — 51.1 26.8 19.5




Armenia (58 per cent), Bangladesh (60 per cent),Cambodia (61 per cent), El Salvador (66 per cent),Guatemala (63 per cent), Honduras (56 per cent),the Lao People’s Democratic Republic(69 per cent), Mexico (67 per cent),Serbia and Montenegro (58 per cent),Nicaragua (58 per cent), the Republic of Moldova(52 per cent), Samoa (61 per cent),Somalia (64 per cent), the Sudan (54 per cent),

Thailand (51 per cent),Tonga (63 per cent),Uzbekistan (66 per cent)and Yemen (64 per cent).Of course, the shares ofchildren living inovercrowded housingmay be even higher inthe LMICs that thesefamilies left.

Thus, overcrowding isquite common in Italyamong children in bothimmigrant and native-born families. Amongchildren in the otheraffluent countries, it iscommon among childrenin families with LMICorigins and, frequently,in families that havesought refuge or asylumfrom civil disturbances,wars, or persecution.

Homeownership

The results onhomeownership do notnecessarily reflect thequality of housing, butthey do reflect access tohousing; they also reflectinvestment in andcommitment toneighbourhoods andcommunities by families.In each of the fiveaffluent countriesreporting new resultson rates ofhomeownership, asubstantial majority ofchildren in native-bornfamilies live in homesowned by their families,ranging from 58 per centin France to67–71 per cent in

Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom and theUnited States (see Table 12.2 and Figure 12.2).The largest gaps in homeownership separatingchildren in immigrant families with LMICorigins and children in native-born families –30–33 percentage points – occur in France(25 versus 58 per cent) and Italy (37 versus67 per cent). In the United States, the differenceis somewhat smaller, at 19 percentage points,


Table 12.2 - Per cent of children living in family-owned homes,


Family origin Australia France Italy United United

Kingdom States

All children 69.0 55.7 65.0 67.2 67.3






East Asia and the Pacific 64.9 51.9 30.8 64.7 63.5Low income 67.5 51.9 — 39.7 57.9Lower-middle income 64.0 — 30.8 69.4 67.5Upper-middle income — — — 78.6 69.8

Europe and Central Asia — 21.7 31.3 46.6 58.4Low income — — — 38.9 26.1Lower-middle income — . 19.2 42.7 44.5Upper-middle income — 21.7 48.3 47.3 67.6

Latin America

and the Caribbean — — 56.3 60.3 48.4Low income — — — — 49.2Lower-middle income — — 51.9 57.4 47.0Upper-middle income — — 61.2 69.1 49.0

Middle East

and North Africa — 23.2 29.0 55.4 66.8Low income — — — 53.8 47.0Lower-middle income — 23.2 24.5 56.3 65.5Upper-middle income — — 66.6 52.3 76.8




and the majority in both the immigrant andnative-born groups live in family-owned homes(52 versus 71 per cent). Children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins are nearly as likelyas children in native-born families to live in afamily-owned home in Australia (66 versus69 per cent) and the United Kingdom(61 versus 68 per cent).

In Australia, the homeownership rate linked tochildren in each reported immigrant group is atleast 55 per cent, and the rate rises to over77 per cent among groups of European origin.

In France, the homeownership rates rangefrom 20 to 35 per cent for many groups, butrise to more than 50 per cent in the case ofthe immigrant groups from Cambodia(53 per cent), Europe (56 per cent) andViet Nam (63 per cent).

In Italy, the rates are below 20 per cent for theimmigrant groups from Albania (14 per cent),Bosnia and Herzegovina (17 per cent), Ghana(11 per cent), Morocco (18 per cent), Senegal(18 per cent), Sri Lanka (17 per cent) and theformer Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia(11 per cent). The rates rise to 50 per cent ormore with respect to children in householdsfrom Eritrea (50 per cent), Ethiopia(60 per cent), the Islamic Republic of Iran(52 per cent), Israel (57 per cent),the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (70 per cent),the Syrian Arab Republic (52 per cent),

Thailand (60 per cent) andmost other immigrant groupsfrom the Americas, Europeand Oceania.

In the United Kingdom, mostimmigrant groups experiencehomeownership rates of50–80 per cent, but the ratesfall under 20 per cent withrespect to children in familiesfrom Afghanistan (15 per cent),Albania (18 per cent), Angola(14 per cent), Burundi(12 per cent), the Congo(18 per cent),

the Democratic Republic of the Congo(14 per cent), Djibouti (16 per cent), Eritrea(15 per cent), Guinea-Bissau (14 per cent),Rwanda (12 per cent) and Somalia (6 per cent).

In the United States, too, the homeownershiprates are 50–80 per cent among most immigrantgroups. They fall below 40 per cent only forSomalia (14 per cent) and the Sudan (22 percent) and are in the range of 25–39 per cent forAlbania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh,Bosnia and Herzegovina, Dominica,the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Samoa,Senegal, Serbia and Montenegro,and Uzbekistan.

The percentages of children living in immigrantfamilies with homeownership in the fiveaffluent countries reported here are often50 per cent or more. They are almost always atleast 30 per cent or more; in France, the overallrates are somewhat lower than in the othercountries, but are still at least 20 per centamong most immigrant groups. Althoughsubstantial shares of children in manyimmigrant groups are living with at least oneparent who has been in the country ofsettlement for less than five years, these datasuggest that many immigrants are tangiblyinvesting in their communities by purchasinghomes and showing a strong commitment tothe local neighbourhoods, towns and cities intheir adopted homelands.


52%

61%

25%

66%

37%

71%

67%

58%

69%

68%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

Native

LMIC

Australia

United Kingdom

United States

Italy

France

Figure 12.2 – Children in family-owned homes, five affluent countries

Regarding formal education, the Council of theEuropean Union and the representatives of thegovernments of the member states haveestablished the following principle:

• “Efforts in education are critical to preparingimmigrants, and particularly theirdescendants, to be more successful andmore active participants in society” (authors’emphasis added).85

Because many immigrants seek a better life forthemselves and their children in their settlementsocieties, it is not surprising that research in theUnited States, for example, indicates thatparents in immigrant families often have higheducational aspirations for their children.86

Similarly, research in Germany finds that theeducational aspirations of students in schoolswith high concentrations of immigrants arehigher than those of students in schools withouthigh concentrations of immigrants.87 In France,too, research shows that parents in immigrantfamilies and their children have higheraspirations than the native French population atthe same socio-economic level.88

Educational progress

and achievement

In Australia, most large-scale studies of schooloutcomes show little difference between

children in immigrant families and children innative-born families, including studies ofreading and mathematics skills at ages 8–9, ofreading comprehension at age 14 and of schooldropout rates at ages 16–17.89 Similar resultshave been found in an analysis of theAustralian data from the Programme forInternational Student Assessment (PISA) of theOECD, which found that educational outcomesat age 15 were not statistically different amongchildren in immigrant families and children innative-born families, both before and aftercontrolling for socio-economic status.

Meanwhile, the PISA found that children inimmigrant families in Germany generallyperformed less well than children in native-born families.90 These findings are consistentwith other studies done in Germany. It wasfound 20 years ago that children in immigrantfamilies were disadvantaged in the Germanschool system. More recent studies show thatchildren in immigrant families are delayed instarting school and are more likely to repeatclasses than children in native-born families. Infact, the PISA German national study indicatesthat children in immigrant families who are ingrades 1–3 are four times more likely thannative-born German children to repeat a grade.In at least one region of Germany, children inimmigrant families have worse grades thanchildren in native-born families, and the gap ingrades increases over time.


13EDUCATION AMONG CHILDRENIN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

Research in France also finds that nearly halfthe children in immigrant families repeat oneor more grades in elementary school, which istwice the corresponding share of children innative-born families, and, in the first year ofmiddle school, children in immigrant familieshad much lower success rates on national teststhan students in native French families.91

Recent research by the Ministry of Education,Universities and Research in Italy finds similarresults.92 Students in immigrant familiesexperience less success in school thanstudents in native Italian families, and the gapin promotion from one grade to the nextsteadily expands from elementary school tosecondary school.

Children in immigrant families inthe Netherlands also lag behind students innative-born families.93 The lowest test scores arefound among children in families with originsin Turkey, followed by those in immigrantgroups from Morocco and Suriname. Childrenin some refugee groups, however, show moresuccess in school than children in otherimmigrant groups, particularly in the secondgeneration, including children in refugee familiesfrom Eastern Europe and from Afghanistan,the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq.

In Switzerland, the PISA finds that studentswho grow up speaking a non-local languageshow lower (that is, poorer) test scores inreading and mathematics than do children withSwiss origins.94 The results of the programmeassessment also indicate that first-generationimmigrant children have lower test scores thando second-generation children, who have lowerscores than do the third and later generations.Overall, a study published in Switzerland usingthe data of the assessment found that the testscore gap separating children in immigrantfamilies and children in non-immigrant familiesis smaller in Australia and Canada than inSwitzerland, but wider in France, Germany andthe Netherlands.

In the United Kingdom, a recent study indicatesthat children in families with origins in China,India, the Islamic Republic of Iran and Sri Lankaperform better in school than the typicalstudent, while school performance issubstantially worse than average amongchildren in families with origins in Bangladesh,Jamaica and Pakistan, but especially Portugal,Somalia and Turkey.95

A recent study in the United States also findsdifferences across immigrant groups.96 Forexample, mathematics test scores among

children in the first and second generation infamilies with origins in China were higher thanthose among whites in native-born families, andreading test scores were higher among thesecond generation. On the other end, amongfirst- and second-generation children in familieswith origins in Mexico, mathematics and readingtest scores were lower than the test scoresamong whites in native-born families.

Socio-economic statusand school success

Children with parents who are more highlyeducated or in families with higher incomes aremore likely to be successful in school forvarious reasons, including because the parentsare better prepared to help children withschoolwork, more knowledgeable about theeducation system, more able to negotiate withschoolteachers and administrators on behalf oftheir children, and better positioned to pay forgoods and services that foster their children’scognitive development, such as additionaleducational materials, lessons, visits tomuseums and other cultural events andparticipation in other activities tending toexpand comprehension. Because children inimmigrant families from economicallyadvanced countries tend to live with highlyeducated parents who earn higher incomes,while children in families from poor countriestend to live with parents who have completedfewer years of schooling and earn less, socio-economic differences may account for asubstantial portion of the differences ineducational outcomes relative to children innative-born families.

Several studies in France have assessed theextent to which less favourable schooloutcomes among students in immigrantfamilies may be accounted for by lowerparental socio-economic status.97 The researchsuggests that differences in school outcomes inthe earlier years of education may beaccounted for by differences in family socio-economic status, but this is no longer the caseby the end of the educational process whenchildren leave the school system.

In Italy, a study carried out in nine cities foundthat overall scholastic achievement wasinfluenced by social class among students innative-born families and students in immigrantfamilies, and that social class explains part ofthe differences in educational outcomesbetween the two groups.98 Other studies also


indicate that differences in social class in Italyare important in accounting for the under-representation of students in immigrantfamilies in the academic track in secondaryeducation (which, in general, prepares studentsfor university) compared with the technical andvocational tracks.

Research in the United States among children inthe 8th and 10th grades indicates that parentalsocio-economic status accounts for little of theAsian immigrant advantage in grade pointaverages and mathematics test scores, and littleof the disadvantage in reading test scoresrelative to whites in native-born families.99

However, among second-generation Asians,parental educational attainment and familyincome account for 36 per cent of the advantagein grade point average, 46 per cent of theadvantage in mathematics test scores and62 per cent of the advantage in reading testscores. Among both first- and second-generationHispanics, family socio-economic statusaccounts for at least 90 per cent of thedisadvantage in grade point average,53–62 per cent of the disadvantage inmathematics test scores and about 50 per centof the disadvantage in reading test scores. Astudy among children in southern Florida andsouthern California also found that socio-economic status has a strong influence onschool achievement among second-generationchildren.100

More broadly, a recent review of literaturepertaining to European countries concludesthat socio-economic background may explainat least half, and in some cases all, theeducational gaps between various immigrantand native groups, including immigrant groupswith origins in Morocco, Pakistan and Turkeythat live in France, Germany, the Netherlandsand the United Kingdom.101

School tracking, segregationand discrimination

The causes of the differences in educationaloutcomes among various immigrant andnative groups are diverse and complex.Because the European Commission urges thatthe basic rights of immigrants for access toeducation be recognized and because thenature and quality of education differ acrosstypes of schools and across locations in variouscountries, it is useful to summarize studies onschool tracking and segregation by locationand among schools and on discrimination

within education systems against children inimmigrant families.

School tracking

In France, guidance on assigning students toeducational tracks focuses on proficiency inFrench rather than educational achievement.102

If special schooling is deemed necessary, thestudent is enrolled in two classes, a specialclass of reduced size and a standard class, andthe student transfers between them as andwhen language proficiency improves. But thetransition from a special class to a standardclass is problematic. Though some of theavailable data are incomplete, it seems that thetime that elapses before transfer to a standardclass is excessive. Thus, although perceptionsmay not always be accurate, 17 per cent ofchildren in immigrant families of Portugueseorigin believe themselves to have been unfairlytracked. The corresponding share rises to25 per cent among children in families ofNorth African origin; it reaches 42 per cent ifthe children were steered to a vocational track.

A study in Mannheim, Germany, found thatchildren in foreign-born families tend to obtainlower grades in German and mathematics thanother children, leading to more frequentguidance towards the Hauptschule, the leastintensive secondary-school track, and lessfrequent guidance towards the more intensiveGymnasium and Realschule.103 Another studyin Germany found that, in 2004, youth inimmigrant families were less likely to havethe opportunity for vocational trainingand apprenticeships.

In the Netherlands, too, children in immigrantfamilies have apparently been guided todifferent educational tracks than other children,although the differences have at times led toplacement above the students’ academicpotential and sometimes to placement belowthis potential.104 Early research suggests thatstudents currently may more often, on average,be tracked to a level below their potential, butadditional research is required to drawdefinitive conclusions.

Research in Switzerland finds that the share ofstudents in immigrant families tracked to thebasic curriculum in lower secondary schoolrather than to the advanced curriculumincreased from 45 to 49 per cent between 1980and 2005, while the corresponding share innative-born families declined from 35 to25 per cent. Related research finds that studentsin immigrant families who show average school


performance are much less likely thancorresponding students in native-born familiesto be guided to the advanced curriculum; in fact,the merit principle was ignored in two thirds ofthe tracking assignments.105

Geographical and school segregation

Because specific schools differ in the quality ofthe education provided, as has been found inFrance, for example, the concentration ofchildren in immigrant families in selectedschools may have deleterious (or salutary)consequences, regardless of whether thissegregation is unintended or the result of explicitdiscrimination.106 In France, a government studyfound that, in 1998–1999, children in immigrantfamilies accounted for 22 per cent of thestudents in schools in areas with multipleproblems that had therefore been classified aspriority education areas (zones d’éducationprioritaires), but students in foreign-bornfamilies accounted for only 5 per cent of thestudents in schools not included in thisclassification. Another study found much higherlevels of segregation among students withNorth African, sub-Saharan African and Turkishfamily backgrounds. Although the positivediscrimination associated with providingadditional resources to schools in priorityeducation areas was intended to reduceinequality in educational outcomes acrossschools, the effectiveness of this strategyremains uncertain.

School segregation is common in both theNetherlands and the United Kingdom. In theNetherlands, school segregation is associatedwith both urban concentration and the right tochoose the school a student will attend.107

Across the Netherlands, but concentratedmainly in the four largest cities, 6 per cent ofprimary schools have enrolments of students inimmigrant families at 50 per cent or more, and73 per cent of the classmates of students inimmigrant families are other students inimmigrant families, whereas, on average,native-born children attend schools in whichchildren of immigrant origin account for only27 per cent of the student body.

In the United Kingdom, as a consequence ofthe concentration of immigrant families inurban areas, students in immigrant familiesrepresent 40 per cent or more of the studentsin schools that account for only 8 per cent ofthe total student population.108

Research in the United States finds that childrenwith limited proficiency in English (which may

be taken as a proxy for immigrant status) arehighly concentrated in a small number ofschools.109 Nearly 70 per cent of such studentsare enrolled in 10 per cent of schools. Schoolswith high concentrations of these students areoften located in urban areas, and the studentsin these schools are often economicallydisadvantaged. Research indicates that teachersin schools with high concentrations of limitedEnglish proficient students are more likely thanteachers in others schools to have provisional,emergency, or temporary certification, and newteachers are substantially more likely to beuncertified. On the other hand, these schoolsare more likely to have in-service trainingamong teachers for limited English proficientstudents and to offer important services,including support and enrichment programmes.School segregation in the United States flowsfrom the residential concentration ofimmigrants in particular localities andneighborhoods. A study in southern Florida andsouthern California found that children inimmigrant families perform consistently worseon mathematics and reading tests if they attendminority inner-city schools.110

Stereotyping and discrimination

Stereotyping and discrimination may havenegative consequences in educationaloutcomes among specific immigrant groups ina range of countries. For example, althoughnationwide studies in Australia find rathersmall differences between children inimmigrant families and children in native-bornfamilies in reading and mathematics testscores, smaller scale studies find that childrenin families in some immigrant groups sufferfrom racism practised by teachers and otherstudents, suggesting the need for new studiesof school achievement that focus on specificimmigrant origins.111

Research in Switzerland suggests that thestereotypes teachers have regarding studentsin immigrant families may contribute to theoverrepresentation of these students in specialclasses for children with learning difficulties,and physical or mental disabilities.112 Youth inthe immigrant community are four times morelikely than native-born Swiss youth to have noeducation beyond compulsory schooling. Inaddition, youth with Swiss-born parents aretwice as likely as youth with immigrant originsand identical educational qualifications toobtain apprenticeships after completing school.The research found that employers tend toselect candidates based on stereotypes that aredetrimental to youth in immigrant families.Using the practice testing methodology of


the International Labour Organization, anotherstudy found that applications for employmentare treated in a discriminatory fashion in30 per cent of the cases if the applications

describe young men in families with originsinTurkey and 39 per cent of the cases if theapplications describe Albanian-speakingimmigrants from the formerYugoslavia.113


In addition to the earlier cited provisionconcerning education, regarding employment,the Council of the European Union hasestablished the principle that:

• “Employment is a key part of the integrationprocess and is central to the participation ofimmigrants, to the contributions immigrantsmake to the host society, and to makingsuch contributions visible” (authors’emphasis added).114

This section presents new results on thecurrent school enrolment and work status ofadolescents in the 15–17 age group and youthand young adults in the 18–24 age group. Incontrast to the general usage throughout thisreport, results are not presented here in termsof children in immigrant families and childrenin native-born families. Instead, the distinctionis highlighted between adolescents in the15–17 age group who were not born in thecountry of settlement and adolescents in thesame age group who were born in the countryof settlement. Thus, the distinction now drawnis based on birth – or not – in the country ofsettlement. One set of adolescents examinedwas not born in the country of settlement; theyare first-generation immigrants. The other setof adolescents examined was born in thecountry of settlement; they may be in thesecond immigrant generation, or they may bein native-born families.

Similarly, in this section, a distinction is madebetween youth and young adults aged 18–24who were not born in the country ofsettlement and youth and young adults in thesame age group who were born in the countryof settlement. Thus, results are presented onone set of youth and young adults who arefirst-generation immigrants. The other set ofyouth and young adults discussed may be inthe second immigrant generation, or they maybe in native-born families.

In so far as the adolescents and young adults inthe first-generation, foreign-born group are ator beyond the threshold of adulthood, theysoon will become or already are parents of thenext generation of children in immigrantfamilies. Their final years of school and theirearly work experiences will have lastingconsequences not only for them throughouttheir lives, but also for the well-being anddevelopment of their children.

These results offer important insightsregarding the extent to which adolescents andyoung adults who are first-generationimmigrants are experiencing social inclusion orsocial exclusion. It should be noted, however,that many of these immigrants may have cometo the countries of settlement recently, perhapsspecifically to receive advanced education, andthey may therefore return to their countries oforigin when they have completed their


14SCHOOL AND WORK AMONGADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS

education. The results for specific topics reflectthe availability of data on the various affluentcountries in this study. As in other sections ofthis report, the results are presented accordingto the income level of the countries andregions of origin.

Adolescentsin school

The vast majority ofadolescents 15–17 bornin the country ofsettlement are in schoolin Australia, Italy andthe United Kingdom(85–86 per cent),Switzerland (91 per cent)and the United States(97 per cent). Immigrantadolescents with LMICorigins are less likely tobe enrolled than thesesettlement-country-bornadolescents by14 per cent in Italy,12 per cent in Switzerlandand 4 per cent inthe United States, butmore likely to be enrolledby 10 per cent in Australiaand 7 per cent inthe United Kingdom(seeTable 14.1).

By global region oforigin, the shares ofimmigrant adolescents15–17 from LMICs whoare enrolled are generallywithin a few percentagepoints of thecorresponding sharesamong the overallpopulation with LMICorigins that are enrolled.Among adolescents bornin the countries ofsettlement andimmigrant adolescentsfrom LMICs, there is littlegender difference withincountries and withinLMIC global origins, withone exception. In Italy,adolescent immigrantgirls are more likely than

adolescent immigrant boys to be enrolled if theyare from Europe and Central Asia (71 versus59 per cent), especially Albania (67 versus48 per cent); South Asia (73 versus 64 per cent),especially India (80 versus 64 per cent); andsub-Saharan Africa (78 versus 71 per cent).


Table 14.1 - Per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds enrolled in school,


Family origin Australia Italy Switzerland United UnitedKingdom States

All adolescents 15–17 86.3 85.2 88.6 85.3 96.3

Born in the

settlement country 84.5 85.6 91.1 85.0 96.6

Not born in the

settlement country 89.2 74.6 84.2 90.9 93.6

15- to 17-year-olds in immigrantfamilies by income categoryof the country of origin:



East Asia and the Pacific 94.7 75.0 85.7 95.9 96.9Low income — — 86.6 96.9 97.0Lower-middle income 93.8 75.0 85.2 95.6 96.7Upper-middle income — — — 95.7 —

Europe and Central Asia — 64.6 76.9 89.6 96.5Low income — — — — —Lower-middle income — 57.4 74.5 93.1 95.8Upper-middle income — 81.6 81.8 88.7 97.1

Latin America

and the Caribbean — 88.0 86.9 90.9 90.5Low income — — 86.8 — 94.6Lower-middle income — 88.4 85.2 90.9 94.1Upper-middle income — 86.9 90.3 90.9 88.5

Middle East

and North Africa — 63.0 87.5 93.3 96.3Low income — — — 87.4 —Lower-middle income — 62.6 87.0 93.5 96.3Upper-middle income — 88.7 91.1 96.2 —

South Asia 95.9 68.2 82.0 88.8 98.2Low income 97.0 68.1 87.3 88.4 98.2Lower-middle income 95.1 68.7 77.2 93.9 —

Sub-Saharan Africa 93.0 74.4 84.1 93.4 96.9Low income — 70.9 83.1 95.2 96.6Lower-middle income — 86.0 80.6 92.6 —Upper-middle income 93.0 91.2 90.7 88.8 —


Adolescents enrolled in theacademic or vocational track

Two countries report the share of adolescentsaged 15–17 enrolled in the academic andvocational tracks. The results for Germany arereported as a share of adolescents in the agegroup who are enrolled in school, while theresults for Switzerland are reported as a share

of all adolescents in the same age group.Among immigrant adolescents from LMICs, theshare enrolled in the academic track is 84 percent in Germany, but much lower, 59 per cent,in Switzerland (see Table 14.2). The sharesenrolled in the academic track amongadolescents born in the country of settlementare similar to the shares among immigrantadolescents in both Germany (82 versus85 per cent) and Switzerland (58 versus

62 per cent). In bothcases, this should notseem surprising. InGermany, the latteradolescents are mainlyin Spätaussiedler(repatriate ethnicGerman) families fromCentral Asia and theRussian Federation(Volga Germans) or inthe well-establishedimmigration flow fromTurkey. In Switzerland,they are frequently theoffspring in families ofrecent immigrantsprivileged because oftheir labourqualifications.

The shares of adolescentsenrolled in the academictrack vary enormouslyacross immigrant LMICorigins in Switzerland,from 66–75 per cent formost global regions to55 per cent for Europeand Central Asia. Thelowest reported sharesamong immigrantadolescents occur amongthe groups fromBosnia and Herzegovina,Croatia, the formerYugoslav Republic ofMacedonia andthe Federal Republicof Yugoslavia(52–53 per cent).115

Gender differences aresmall to negligible amongimmigrant groups frommany specific countries,but they are larger and tothe advantage of girls by10–20 per cent inSwitzerland amongimmigrant adolescents


Table 14.2 - Per cent of 15- to 17-year-olds enrolled in secondary vocational

and academic programmes, Germany and Switzerland

Family origin Germany Switzerland

Academic Vocational Academic Vocational

All adolescents aged 15–17 82.3 17.7 59.2 29.4

Born in the settlement country 81.6 18.4 57.7 33.3

Not born in the settlement country 85.4 14.6 61.7 22.5

15- to 17-year-olds in immigrant families byincome category of the country of origin:


and upper-middle income: 83.6 16.4 59.4 20.2

East Asia and the Pacific — — 66.4 19.3Low income — — 68.6 18.0Lower-middle income — — 65.2 20.0Upper-middle income — — — —

Europe and Central Asia 82.0 18.0 54.6 22.3Low income — — — —Lower-middle income — — 52.1 22.3Upper-middle income 82.0 18.0 59.6 22.2

Latin America and the Caribbean — — 71.7 15.2Low income — — 79.3 7.4Lower-middle income — — 70.2 14.9Upper-middle income — — 73.7 16.6

Middle East and North Africa — — 74.9 12.6Low income — — — —Lower-middle income — — 75.1 11.9Upper-middle income — — 72.3 18.8

South Asia — — 68.7 13.3Low income — — 72.5 14.8Lower-middle income — — 65.2 12.0

Sub-Saharan Africa — — 69.2 14.9Low income — — 70.7 12.4Lower-middle income — — 66.5 14.1Upper-middle income — — 69.1 21.6

b- All high income 85.6 14.4 63.8 24.6Note: The data for Germany are calculated as a percentage of all enrolled adolescents in theage group. The data for Switzerland are calculated as a percentage of all adolescents in the agegroup.— no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

from Algeria, the Czech Republic, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Morocco and Tunisia.The shares enrolled in the academic track inGermany are similar across reportedimmigrant origins, at 81 to 86 per cent foradolescents from the Russian Federation,Turkey and HICs. In Germany, adolescentimmigrant girls are also somewhat advantagedin the share enrolled in the academic track,with differences of 3 to 8 per cent.

The vocational track does not usually provideaccess to university (in Switzerland, it providesaccess to some post-secondary, non-tertiaryschools), but it can provide an avenue to skilledjobs that pay relatively well. The only countriesin this report that provide data on this issue forboth immigrant adolescents and adolescentsborn in the settlement country are Germany andSwitzerland. In Germany, the shares enrolled inthe vocational track are similar amongadolescents born in Germany and adolescentsborn in LMICs (18 versus 15 per cent), but inSwitzerland, the shares enrolled in thevocational track are 33 per cent amongadolescents born in Switzerland and a muchsmaller 22 per cent among adolescents born inLMICs. Among LMIC immigrant adolescents inGermany and Switzerland, boys are more likelythan girls to be enrolled in the vocational track.

Youth and young adults(18- to 24-year-olds) in school

Young people who continue in school into lateadolescence and young adulthood are generallypursuing advanced education that may help toassure they will have access to good jobs thatoffer substantial economic returns. In the fivecountries under study on which relevant data onthis issue are available, the share in schoolamong 18- to 24-year-olds born in the country ofsettlement ranges from 28 to 31 per cent inAustralia and the United Kingdom to 41 per centin Italy, 46 per cent in the United States and51 per cent in Germany (see Table 14.3).

The shares of immigrant youth and young adultsfrom LMICs are lower than the correspondingshares of youth and young adults born in thecountry of settlement by 13–20 per cent inGermany, Italy and the United States, but muchhigher, by 35 per cent, in Australia and by16 per cent in the United Kingdom. It should benoted that some youth and young adults fromLMICs are in these countries temporarily topursue university education; the share of suchpeople may be especially large in Australia andthe United Kingdom.

The lowest enrolment rates among immigrantyouth and young adults from LMICs in Franceand Germany occur among people with originsin Turkey (20–21 per cent), while, in Italy, thelowest enrolment rates (6–16 per cent) occuramong immigrant youth and young adults fromAlbania, Bangladesh, Cuba, Egypt, Ghana,Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan,the Republic of Moldova, Romania,Senegal, Slovakia, Sri Lanka,the formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia andTunisia. Enrolment rates in the United Kingdomamong most immigrant youth and young adultsfrom LMICs are 40 per cent or higher, but therates fall to 13–26 per cent among youth andyoung adults from the Czech Republic, Fiji,Namibia, Pakistan, Slovakia, South Africa andthe formerYugoslav Republic of Macedonia.In the United States, too, most of the relevantenrolment rates are 40 per cent or higher,although they are in the lower range of16–27 per cent among immigrant youth andyoung adults from El Salvador, Guatemala,Honduras and Mexico. Immigrant youth andyoung adults from these countries have feweropportunities than youth and young adults bornin other countries or in the country of settlementto benefit from advanced education as they seeksuccess in their adopted homelands or theadopted homelands of their families.

The differences in school enrolment ratesbetween men and women in the youth andyoung adult group are in many cases no morethan 10 per cent.

Youth and young adults not inschool and not working

Young people aged 18–24 who are not inschool and not working are thereby notincluded in the two major sets of activities thatdominate these critical years of youth and earlyadulthood in all affluent countries. Such youngpeople are more likely than their peers who areactively engaged in school or work toexperience substantial social exclusion duringthe later years of adulthood.

In the six countries under study on which dataare available, the shares of immigrant youthand young adults from LMICs who are neitherin school nor at work differ substantially, from8 per cent in Australia to 21–26 per cent inFrance, the United Kingdom andthe United States and a high of 35–41 per centin Germany and Italy (see Table 14.4). Only inAustralia is the share lower among young


people born in the country of settlement(by 8 per cent). In the other four countriesreporting results on young people born in thecountry of settlement, that is, excluding France,immigrant youth and young adults from LMICsare more likely than youth and young adultsborn in the country of settlement not to be inschool or at work, with gaps of 7–10 per cent inItaly, the United Kingdom and the United Statesand 23 per cent in Germany.

In France, 39 per cent of young immigrants inthis age group from Turkey are not in school and

not working. The corresponding share is higher,at 55 per cent, in Germany. The correspondingshares in Italy and the United Kingdom are30 and 36 per cent, respectively. Young people inmany other immigrant groups are even morelikely not to be in school or at work in Italy, withshares of 40–49 per cent among the immigrantgroups from Bangladesh, Egypt, Hungary,Jordan, Mauritius, Morocco, Nigeria, Poland,the Republic of Moldova, Slovakia,the Syrian Arab Republic, Thailand and Ukraineand 56–64 per cent among the groups fromAlgeria, Cuba and Tunisia.


Table 14.3 - School enrolment among 18- to 24-year-olds, six affluent countries (per cent)

Family origin Australia France Germany Italy United UnitedKingdom States

All 18- to 24-year-olds 35.8 n.a. 49.7 40.3 30.1 44.6

Born in the settlement country 30.8 n.a. 50.6 41.0 28.2 45.9

Not born in the settlement country 42.8 46.9 36.0 25.8 48.0 36.9



and upper-middle income: 66.2 36.9 35.3 20.7 44.6 33.1

East Asia and the Pacific 65.5 42.5 — 23.4 74.4 60.0Low income 57.7 42.5 — — 60.7 59.7Lower-middle income 67.9 — — 23.4 72.7 59.4Upper-middle income — — — — 86.9 79.9

Europe and Central Asia — 19.5 34.3 15.7 43.1 55.1Low income — — — — 71.4 68.8Lower-middle income — — 36.0 13.6 52.9 52.0Upper-middle income — 19.5 33.9 20.0 41.0 56.5

Latin America and the Caribbean — — — 37.4 51.4 23.6Low income — — — — — 60.0Lower-middle income — — — 35.7 49.9 36.2Upper-middle income — — — 40.9 55.9 17.3

Middle East and North Africa — 40.8 36.1 13.6 53.6 57.6Low income — — — — 37.4 35.9Lower-middle income — 40.8 36.1 12.8 52.8 60.4Upper-middle income — — — 52.4 64.2 50.6

South Asia 71.0 — — 16.1 28.8 57.0Low income 66.1 — — 16.3 27.2 56.9Lower-middle income 73.2 — — 15.5 48.1 61.6

Sub-Saharan Africa 51.5 — — 24.8 49.7 60.9Low income — — — 21.3 60.1 62.4Lower-middle income — — — 45.2 54.9 43.7Upper-middle income 51.5 — — 32.0 28.4 58.7

b- All high income 36.0 27.2 39.8 34.5 51.8 54.0Note: n.a. = data not available.— no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

In the United Kingdom, the shares of youngpeople not working and not in school reach onefourth or more (25–38 per cent) amongimmigrant groups from Albania, Belarus,Burundi, the Congo, Croatia, the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo, Ethiopia, India, Iraq,Jamaica, Lebanon, the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,Rwanda, Somalia and Turkey, and reach higherlevels (39–46 per cent) among immigrantgroups from Afghanistan, Bangladesh,Morocco, Pakistan and Yemen.

The shares in the United States reach or exceedone fourth (25–34 per cent) among immigrant

groups from Belize, Cuba,the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Grenada,Guatemala, Honduras, Jordan, Lebanon,Mexico, Serbia and Montenegro,the Syrian Arab Republic and Yemen and reacha high of 51 per cent in the group from Samoa.

Among young people born in the country ofsettlement, gender differences in the sharesneither in school nor at work are fairly small,in the range of 1–4 per cent, in the countriesunder study, although the differences aresometimes much larger among selected ethnicminorities, most notably an excess among


Table 14.4 - Per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds not enrolled in school and not working, six affluent countries

Family origin Australia France Germany Italy United UnitedKingdom States

All 18- to 24-year-olds 15.1 n.a. 19.4 28.5 16.3 17.2

Born in the settlement country 16.3 n.a. 18.2 28.1 16.2 16.0

Not born in the settlement country 13.4 8.6 38.2 35.9 17.9 24.4



and upper-middle income: 8.3 20.9 41.1 34.9 24.4 26.3

East Asia and the Pacific 9.5 8.2 — 26.2 7.4 13.7Low income 11.7 8.2 — — 12.2 15.4Lower-middle income 8.8 — — 26.2 7.8 12.6Upper-middle income — — — — 3.3 6.7

Europe and Central Asia — 39.4 41.3 35.1 23.5 14.5Low income — — — — 13.6 14.7Lower-middle income — — 34.5 35.9 17.4 16.4Upper-middle income — 39.4 42.8 33.6 24.8 13.3

Latin America and the Caribbean — — — 30.3 18.4 30.5Low income — — — — — 18.0Lower-middle income — — — 31.2 20.2 24.0Upper-middle income — — — 28.5 12.9 33.6

Middle East and North Africa — 17.7 42.9 44.1 27.7 18.4Low income — — — — 40.2 29.7Lower-middle income — 17.7 42.9 44.4 28.2 16.4Upper-middle income — — — 29.1 20.1 25.0

South Asia 6.5 — — 34.4 38.8 19.0Low income 8.5 — — 34.4 40.4 19.1Lower-middle income 5.5 — — 34.3 19.5 11.0

Sub-Saharan Africa 9.5 — — 31.6 14.7 15.4Low income — — — 32.5 16.0 15.9Lower-middle income — — — 23.9 20.7 20.1Upper-middle income 9.5 — — 32.2 11.7 9.6

b- All high income 13.5 11.8 29.7 37.4 10.0 15.6Note: n.a. = data not available.— no cases or too few cases to report, or value less than 0.1%.

young German women in Australia and amongyoung Black men in the United Kingdom.However, the shares neither in school norworking differ substantially by gender amongimmigrant young people from LMICs, except inAustralia. Among this group, young women are15–20 per cent more likely than young men notto be in school or working in France, Germany,the United Kingdom and the United States. Thedifference is larger, 29 per cent, in Italy.

The shares neither in school nor workingamong immigrant youth and young adultsfrom LMICs are, except for Australia, in therange of 12–30 per cent for men, but in therange of 29–49 per cent for women. Thesegender differences exist, at least in part,because of the family responsibilitiesassociated with caring for young children in thehome, but may also be associated with socio-economic status (for example, the ability to payfor day care) and cultural differences withinethnic minority or immigrant groups, amongwhich women may sometimes tend to remainout of education and work.

The shares of young immigrant men who areneither in school nor working rises to25 per cent only among young immigrantsfrom a few countries of origin. In Germany, thisapplies to the immigrant groups from theRussian Federation (27 per cent) and Turkey(35 per cent). In Italy, it applies to the groupsfrom Algeria, Argentina, Chile,the Dominican Republic, Ethiopia, Mauritius,the Republic of Moldova, Somalia, Ukraine andthe Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela(25–30 per cent). In the United Kingdom, youngimmigrant men show shares in this range orhigher (28–40 per cent) in the groups from

Afghanistan, Albania, Burundi, Croatia, Iraq,Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Somalia and Turkey. Inthe United States, the corresponding share(25–28 per cent) applies to immigrant groupsfrom Cuba, the Czech Republic and theDominican Republic. The share rises to55 per cent among the immigrant groupfrom Samoa.

The rates of young people neither in school norworking are higher among young immigrantwomen than among young immigrant menacross most countries or regions of origin.The rate is a particularly high 40 per cent ormore among young immigrant women fromTurkey (66 per cent) in Germany, from Europeand Central Asia (51 per cent), the Middle Eastand North Africa (66 per cent) and South Asia(56 per cent) in Italy and, inthe United Kingdom, from Bangladesh(59 per cent), Morocco (52 per cent), Pakistan(68 per cent) and Yemen (66 per cent).The shares are much lower, but still substantial,at 20 per cent or more, among youngimmigrant women in many origin groups inFrance, Germany and Italy. Inthe United Kingdom and the United States, thesame is true of immigrant women in manyorigin groups from Eastern Europe andCentral Asia and from sub-Saharan Africa.

The participation in school and the labour forceamong young immigrant women may not beindicative of social exclusion, because, forexample, the women might be fully engaged inrearing young children at home. The high ratesnonetheless represent a potential concern,particularly if viewed in conjunction with thehigh rates experienced by many youngimmigrant men.


The health of children in immigrant familiesand the extent to which these childrensuccessfully adapt and acculturate in thesettlement society are important, wide-rangingtopics. Information is not collected on thesetopics in the data sets analysed for this report.Few national surveys include such information,and few data-collection systems have thecapacity to distinguish first-, second-, third- orlater-generation children. Although acomprehensive review of studies that havebeen conducted on these topics is not possiblein this report, a summary is presented below ofrelevant studies in selected countries tohighlight key emerging issues and conclusions.However, one should not generalize on thebasis of the conclusions because children inimmigrant families from various countries oforigin and within a same country of origin differgreatly, and the available evidence is limited.

Physical health

An overview of the information available on theUnited States suggests that, at least in a smallnumber of major dimensions, children inimmigrant families show better health andadjustment than do children in native-bornfamilies.116 This advantage tends to deterioratewith longer residence in the United States andfrom one generation to the next. At the same

time, children in immigrant families may also beat higher risk for particular health conditions.

Regarding health in the United States, previousresearch has found that:

“[C]hildren in immigrant familiesexperience fewer specific acute andchronic health problems than do U.S.-bornchildren in U.S.-born families, according toparent reports, including acute infectiousand parasitic diseases; acute ear infections;acute accidents; chronic respiratoryconditions such as bronchitis, asthma, andhay fever; and chronic hearingimpairments . . . First-generationimmigrant adolescents also report lowerlevels of neurological impairment, obesity,and asthma, and fewer health riskbehaviors such as early sexual activity; useof cigarettes, alcohol, marijuana, or harddrugs; delinquency; and use of violence . . .Similarly, second-generation infants areless likely to have low birth weight or todie in the first year of life than are third-and later-generation infants . . . ”

“Not all indications are favorable,however . . . Tuberculosis, hepatitis B,parasitic infections, and elevated levels oflead in the blood are also of particularconcern for children in immigrantfamilies from certain high-risk countriesof origin.”


15HEALTH STATUS, ADJUSTMENTAND ACCULTURATION

“The paradoxical finding that children inimmigrant families have better healththan U.S.-born children in U.S.-bornfamilies on most available measures –despite their overall lower socio-economic levels, higher poverty rates,and racial or ethnic minority status –suggests that strong family bonds amongimmigrants may act to sustain culturalorientations leading to healthful behavior,or that other unknown social and culturalfactors may serve to protect them. . . .The apparent deterioration of the healthof children in immigrant families thelonger they reside in the United Statesand from one generation to the nextsuggests that protective aspects ofimmigrant culture may fade asassimilation into mainstream Americanculture occurs, allowing deleteriouseffects of low socio-economic status, highpoverty, and racial or ethnic stratificationto emerge.” 117

In Australia, as in some other countries, there islittle data on the physical health of children inimmigrant families because routine healthdata-collection systems do not obtaininformation about immigrant status or countryof origin. One source of relevant data indicatesthat premature births are less likely amongimmigrant mothers than among mothers innative-born Australian families in NewSouth Wales if the immigrant mothers wereborn in China, India, Indonesia, theNetherlands, the Republic of Korea, Viet Namand perhaps other countries as well, but thereverse is true of mothers born in Fiji.118

In the Netherlands, young people up to age 24in immigrant families of non-western origin aresomewhat less likely than native-born Dutchyouth to report their health as good orexcellent.119 Research finds that young peoplein immigrant families with origins in theAntilles and Aruba or Suriname are more likelythan native-born Dutch young people to beoverweight, and that the difference is stilllarger in the case of young people in familieswith origins in Morocco or Turkey. Studies alsoshow, however, that youth in non-westernimmigrant groups are less likely than native-born Dutch youth to consume alcohol,particularly if they have origins in Morocco orTurkey, and that levels of cannabis use andoverall drug use are also lowest among theselast two groups. Perinatal mortality is a quarterto a third higher among non-westernimmigrant groups than among native-bornDutch.120 These differences are related to the

higher prevalence of sexually transmittedinfections and teenage pregnancies amongimmigrant groups from the Antilles and Arubaand to substandard medical care among theimmigrant group from Suriname. Nonetheless,mortality rates among immigrant children andyoung people ages 5 to 24 are about half therates among their native-born Dutch peers.

In Germany, too, few studies on health havebeen conducted among children and youth inimmigrant families. The existing researchindicates that these children and youth are lesslikely to use medical services than theirGerman counterparts.121 Only around halfparticipate in early diagnostic tests comparedwith 85 per cent among Germans in native-born families. In Berlin, children in immigrantfamilies are more likely to be overweight.

In Switzerland, youth in native-born familiesare more likely than youth in foreign-bornfamilies to consume hashish and alcohol.122

Overall, the limited data available on thesecountries of settlement indicate that there isconsiderable diversity in the health of childrenin immigrant families compared with childrenin native-born families, depending on thecountry of origin and the particular healthindicator. Nonetheless, it is paradoxical thatchildren in immigrant families often experiencelevels of health that exceed the levels amongthe native-born population despite the morefrequently limited socio-economic resources ofthese families.

Psychological adjustment

Information is also quite limited in the countriesunder study on psychological adjustmentamong children in immigrant families.Fortunately, however, a group of psychologistsfrom 13 countries has conducted theInternational Comparative Study ofEthnocultural Youth (ICSEY), which includes sixof the countries discussed in this report.123

Key findings are now highlighted from ICSEYand from additional research carried out inseveral of the countries under study.

The aim of the ICSEY project was to studyacculturation, identity and adaptation among32 immigrant groups in 13 countries andcompare the results with samples among thenational groups in these countries. Theimmigrant youth sample consists of 5,000adolescents aged 13–18 who are either first orsecond generation. In addition to Australia,


France, Germany, the Netherlands,the United Kingdom and the United States,the ICSEY study also includes Canada, Finland,Israel, New Zealand, Norway, Portugaland Sweden.

In the study, psychological adaptation reflectsmeasures of life satisfaction, self-esteem andpsychological problems measured in terms ofanxiety, depression and psychosomaticsymptoms. Overall, youths in immigrantfamilies had slightly fewer psychologicalproblems than their peers in the nationalsamples, but did not differ in levels of lifesatisfaction and self-esteem.124

Recent research in Australia indicates thatoverall levels of mental illness among childrenin immigrant families are similar to or lowerthan levels among other children, includinglower rates of neurotic and psychoticsymptoms. A longitudinal study in Brisbanefound that the children of immigrants initiallyhave better mental health than other children,but that the levels converge over time.125 Asurvey in Germany, in contrast, found thatchildren in immigrant families are somewhatmore likely than children in non-immigrantfamilies to have emotional problems (such asexcessive anxiety or depression).126 A smallstudy in Norway indicates that adolescents inimmigrant families are more likely than theirpeers in native-born families to experiencedepressive symptoms.127 Results for the UnitedStates are mixed, and a broad review ofrelevant studies, including studies outside theUnited States, shows mixed results as well.128

Sociocultural adjustment

Sociocultural adaptation in the ICSEY studyexamines school adjustment and behaviouralproblems, that is, antisocial behaviour in theschool or community. Overall, youth inimmigrant families in the study reported betterschool adjustment and fewer behaviouralproblems than youth in native-born families.129

Country-specific results on school success arediscussed elsewhere in this report, butadditional national-level studies indicate thefollowing points.

Official statistics and large-scale studies inAustralia find that children in immigrantfamilies show higher crime rates than the nativegroup.130 The most comprehensive studyto date, in New South Wales, also indicatesthat youth with non-English-speaking

backgrounds are overrepresented in the juvenilejustice system. However, the same analysisappears to confirm that this overrepresentationis caused by discrimination in the juvenilejustice system rather than higher rates ofcriminal behaviour. Similarly, ICSEY researchersreport studies suggesting that youth inimmigrant families are overrepresented in crimestatistics, but that self-reported delinquencysuggests there are no differences betweenthese youth and others, although there appearto be differences in the severity of the crimes:these youth commit fewer acts of pettydelinquency, but more acts of violentdelinquency than youth in native-born families.

In Germany, children who are foreign citizensreportedly fight and steal more often thanchildren who are German citizens (17 versus14 per cent), and official statistics indicate that14- to 24-year-old youth and young adults whoare foreign citizens are more likely to be involvedin criminal activity (13 versus 12 per cent), whileself-reported data indicate that adolescents inimmigrant families are more likely to commitrobbery, extortion and assault.131

A small study in Norway also finds that boys inimmigrant families are more likely than boysin native-born families to be identified by peersas bullies, while girls in immigrant families areless likely to be identified as bullies.132

In France, ethnic minority youth, especiallyyouth in families with origins in North Africa,are overrepresented in the prison population.133

In the Netherlands, first- and second-generationminors in any of the four largest immigrantgroups (from the Antilles and Aruba, Morocco,Suriname and Turkey) run a significantly higherrisk of being suspected of a crime than minorsin the native-born population.134

In Switzerland, police and judicial statisticsindicate that foreign youth are more likely thannative youth to be suspected of involvement inviolent offences, especially if they are in recentimmigrant flows from Turkey or the countriesof the former Yugoslavia. The findings derivedfrom self-reporting in studies are similar. Astudy in the French-speaking canton of Vaudalso shows higher delinquency rates amongforeign adolescents than native-born Swissadolescents for 9 of 22 types of deviantbehaviour, including absenteeism, runningaway from home, shoplifting, car theft, theftfrom a vehicle, bodily injury and drug dealing,although the difference between adolescents ofSwiss and foreign origin is small relative to the


overall increase in deviant behaviour since1992. A recent government report noted thelack of criminal data at the federal level thatcould be used to monitor delinquency amongyouth, including youth in immigrant families.135

In the United States, self-reported data in onestudy on adolescents have been collected foras many as 11 delinquent acts, such as paintinggraffiti, damaging property, shoplifting,running away from home, stealing a car, sellingdrugs and burglary. Data have also beencollected for as many as nine violentbehaviours or the use of weapons, includingfighting, threatening with a knife or gun,shooting or stabbing someone and using aweapon in a fight. The results indicate that first-generation adolescents are less likely thansecond and later generations to performdelinquent or violent acts. In addition,beginning with the first generation, thelikelihood grows across generations thatadolescents with origins in Afro-Caribbeanpopulations or in Central and South America,Mexico or Puerto Rico will perform these acts.The same is often true across generationalgroups, particularly between the firstgeneration and later generations, amongadolescents with origins in Canada, China,Cuba, European countries, the Philippines andViet Nam.136

Acculturation, identity andadjustment

Overall, the ICSEY study finds that adolescents inimmigrant families are generally well adaptedand are similar to their peers in native-bornfamilies in psychological adaptation, but thatthey are generally better in socioculturaladaptation, although there are variations acrossgroups and countries.137 The researchers notethat the overall conclusion is consistent with thefindings of studies conducted inthe United States in the late 1990s.138

But not all adolescents in immigrant familiesadjust equally well. To study the reasons forsuch differences, the ICSEY project focused onthe acculturation profiles of individuals andgroups and on national policies. At the level ofindividuals, “‘psychological acculturation’refers to the changes an individual experiencesas a result of being in contact with othercultures or participating in the acculturationone’s cultural or ethnic group is undergoing.”139

Based on a series of questions to adolescentson their acculturation attitudes, ethnic and

national identities, language, social contactsamong peers, family relationship variables andperceived discrimination, the ICSEY projectidentified four acculturation profiles:integration, ethnic, national and diffuse.140

Adolescents fitting the integration profilereported high involvement in their ethnic andnational cultures and scored well on their ethnicand national identities. They scored well onnational language proficiency, but average onethnic language proficiency, suggesting thatthere was a rather balanced use of the twolanguages. They also had peer contacts with boththeir own ethnic group and national groups.

Adolescents fitting the ethnic profile wereclearly oriented toward their own ethnic group,scoring well on ethnic identity, ethnic languageproficiency and use, and ethnic peer contacts.They had substantially higher than averagesupport for family relationship values andwere embedded mainly in their own culturalmilieu; they had little involvement in thebroader society.

Adolescents fitting the national profile werestrongly oriented toward the society in whichthey were living and scored well on nationalidentity and low on ethnic identity. These youthwere proficient in the national language,mainly used this language, had peer contactsmainly with the national group and showedlow support for family obligations.

Adolescents with a diffuse profile hadsomewhat contradictory patterns. They reportedhigh proficiency in and use of the ethniclanguage, but low ethnic identity. They had lowproficiency in the national language andsomewhat low national identify and nationalpeer contacts. These adolescents appeared tolack a clear direction or purpose in their livesand were often socially isolated.

In the ICSEY study, adolescents with the ethnic,national, or diffuse profiles each accounted forabout one fifth of the total, while the largestgroup, approaching two fifths of theadolescents, consisted of those with theintegration profile.141

Overall, adolescents with the integration profilewere most likely to experience both positivepsychological adaptation and positivesociocultural adaptation, where psychologicaladaptation includes both psychological well-being (positive self-esteem and lower levels ofmental health problems, including anxiety,depression and psychosomatic symptoms) and


high levels of satisfaction with their lives, whilesociocultural adaptation reflects adjustment inschool and low levels of behavioural problems(antisocial behaviour). Adolescents with thediffuse profile experienced the lowest levels ofpsychological and sociocultural adaptation.The remaining two groups showedintermediate levels. The ethnic profileadolescents scored higher on psychologicaladaptation, and the national profile adolescentsscored higher on sociocultural adaptation.Thus, the integration profile is the mostadaptive of the four profiles in theacculturation of adolescents.142

Based on similarities and differences betweenchildren and parents in the pace of learningAmerican customs and the English languageand in the extent of their involvement withtheir ethnic communities, a major studyconducted in southern California and southernFlorida by two sociologists, the Children ofImmigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS),distinguishes three basic types of acculturation:selective, consonant and dissonant.143

Selective acculturation occurs when both thechildren and the parents are embedded in a co-ethnic community that is sufficiently large andinstitutionally diverse to allow for a slowercultural shift and the partial retention of thelanguage and norms of origin of the parents –including fluent bilingualism among children –and the preservation of parental authority, butwith little or no intergenerational conflict. Thistype of acculturation corresponds fairly closelyto the ICSEY integration profile because of thelatter’s balance in the use of the heritage andnational languages and average commitmentto family values.

Consonant acculturation occurs when parentsand children learn the new culture and lose theheritage culture at about the same pace. Thereis a rapid shift to English monolingualismamong children and a shared generationalsearch for integration into the Americanmainstream. This type of acculturation is mostsimilar to the ICSEY national profile because ofthe latter’s predominant use of the nationallanguage and focus on national rather thanethnic identity.

Dissonant acculturation occurs when childrenlearn American ways and the English languagemore rapidly than their parents, whilesimultaneously losing the culture of origin. Thiscan lead to a loss of parental authority and areversal of parental and child roles; parentsbecome dependent on their children in

functioning in the settlement society. This typeof acculturation does not map easily onto theICSEY profiles because it involves acomparatively rapid shift by children into thenational language and culture and the loss ofthe heritage culture, while, in the ICSEY ethnicand diffuse profiles, the adolescent is orientedtoward ethnic language and away from thenational language.

Based on the CILS, which followed studentsfrom eighth or ninth grade through the lastyear of secondary school in twelfth grade, theresearchers concluded that selectiveacculturation

“[I]s closely intertwined with preservationof fluent bilingualism and linked, in turn,with higher self esteem, highereducational and occupationalexpectations, and higher academicachievement. . . . Children who learn thelanguage and culture of their newcountry without losing those of the oldhave a much better understanding oftheir place in the world. They need notclash with their parents as often or feelembarrassed by them because they areable to bridge across generations andvalue their elders’ traditions and goals.Selective acculturation forges anintergenerational alliance for successfuladaptation that is absent among youthswho have severed bonds with their pastin the pursuit of acceptance by theirnative peers.” 144

Thus, the international ICSEY study and theCILS in the United States find that adolescentswho identify with and participate in thecultures of both the society of origin and thesociety of settlement and who become fluent inboth languages, adjust in the settlementsociety more successfully than do adolescentswith other acculturation profiles or typesof acculturation.

The question arises, then: To what extent havevarious countries adopted policies anddeveloped programmes that are most likely tofoster successful adaptation among children inimmigrant families? Among the six countries inthe present study that are included in theICSEY research, only Australia is classified aspromoting cultural diversity as a national goal,that is, pursuing policies and programmesthat support cultural pluralism by aiming tomaintain heritage cultures and facilitatecontacts among members of variousethnocultural groups within the society.


Two of the countries under study, France andGermany, pursue policies for a culturallyhomogeneous society and ignore or rejectcultural diversity as a path to facilitate lifetogether among individuals and groups,while the public policies of the Netherlands,the United Kingdom and the United States

are intermediate.145 Because public policiesencouraging cultural pluralism may fosterselective acculturation and the development ofintegration profiles, most of these countries couldimprove their policies and programmes to fostermore appropriate psychological and socioculturaladaptation among immigrant youth.


Because the nature and success of governmentpolicies that might foster social inclusion andcivil integration of children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins are not explicitlyreviewed in this report, the results do notprovide a basis for detailed recommendationsfor improving these policies. However, the newresults presented and findings summarizedfrom the literature shed considerable light onareas in which the circumstances of children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins reflectless than full social inclusion and civilintegration in some immigrant groups and insome affluent countries.

On this basis, a summary overview is offered ofareas where improvement is possible among atleast some immigrant groups in some affluentcountries and, often, among many groups inmany affluent countries. It is emphasized at theoutset that children in immigrant familiesbenefit from the important strengths andsubstantial resources they and their parentsbring to the countries under study; thus, forexample, most children in all immigrant groupslive in stable two-parent families.

Language

Inclusion and integration of immigrantsfrequently entail learning the language spokenin the society of settlement, but it is also

important for parents in immigrant familiesand for their children’s healthy identitydevelopment to speak their language of origin,so as to maintain and reinforce key features ofthe culture and religion of the country of origin.In fact, comparative research on adolescentsspanning 13 affluent countries and longitudinalresearch in the United States suggest thatsociocultural and psychological adaptation areachieved most effectively if the acculturationfosters proficiency in both languages of thesettlement country and the origin country.

Additional research indicates that children wholearn more than one language benefit fromenhanced cognitive development. Moreover,when fluently bilingual children become adultsand enter the labour force, they may serve as animportant bridge linking settlement and origincountries, providing a potentially valuableresource for settlement countries in theincreasingly globalized economy. Governmentpolicies fostering dual language learning andbilingualism may therefore be quite beneficialboth to the social inclusion and civil integrationof children in immigrant families with LMICorigins and to the broader society.

Civic participation

Inclusion and integration of immigrants areoften strongly associated with participation in


16GOVERNMENT POLICIES ON CHILDRENIN IMMIGRANT FAMILIES

the democratic process. In the affluentcountries on which data are available in thisstudy, many children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins are living with parents whoare citizens of the settlement society. Equallyimportant, most of these children are born inthe settlement society and are likely to be life-long residents. In some settlement societies,most children in immigrant families with LMICorigins are also citizens of the adoptedhomeland of their families and therefore sharethe rights of citizenship experienced by thenon-immigrant native born.

These facts of birth and citizenship among theparents and children in immigrant familiesimply not only an opportunity for, but also asignificant likelihood of civic engagement bymany of these children and their parents.However, affluent countries differ enormously inthe policies and practices they apply regardingnaturalization, citizenship and other aspects ofcivic participation among immigrants. In so faras individual countries adopt policies that fostercivic participation, they will foster the inclusionand integration of the parents and children inimmigrant families, thereby promoting socialcohesion in these countries.

Education and schools

Education is critical to parents and children inimmigrant families for social inclusion, civilintegration and active participation in thelabour force and other aspects of thesettlement society. However, many children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins are livingwith parents whose educational attainment islimited. In addition, despite the higheducational aspirations that parents often havefor their children and that children have forthemselves, the available research suggeststhat the educational opportunities open tomany children in immigrant families with LMICorigins are circumscribed by the limited socio-economic resources of their families, but alsoby school tracking, geographical segregation inschooling, stereotyping and discrimination.

A wide range of government policies couldpromote access to education and thus theinclusion and integration of immigrants.Schooling begins with early education inaffluent countries, but children in someimmigrant groups have low enrolment ratesbecause of socio-economic barriers.Government policies should be designed toincrease access to early education amongchildren in immigrant families with LMIC

origins. This may require active outreach toimmigrant communities and families withlimited fluency in the local language. Earlyeducation programmes might also be designedspecifically to maintain and develop bilingualspeaking and literacy skills. Two-generationfamily literacy programmes might also bebeneficial by providing the children and theirparents with the opportunity to work togetherto learn the local language and to developstrategies for building literacy into their homesand daily lives.

The education of children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins continues in primary andsecondary school and beyond. The possiblenegative effects of tracking, segregation,stereotyping and discrimination on educationaloutcomes should be explored and redressedthrough explicit changes in policies andprogrammes. The social inclusion of childrenwho arrive as immigrants at older ages mightalso be facilitated through the development ofexpanded programmes specifically addressingeducational need. Greater access for parents inimmigrant families who have limited educationalattainment and who might return to school orobtain vocational training as adults would fosterimproved employment opportunities andincome from work, leading to a better chance ofsuccess in school for their children.

Policies aimed at enhancing educational accessand success among children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins and their parentswould pay a large dividend in social inclusionand economic productivity that would benefitchildren, their parents and society.

Employment

Paid employment is a primary form of socialinclusion and is also the major source ofeconomic support for all children and families,including immigrants. Most children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins are livingwith fathers and often also mothers who areworking to support themselves and theirchildren. Indeed, a key motivation amongmany people who immigrate to affluentsocieties is to improve their economicprospects. Still, children in immigrant familiesin some country-of-origin groups are living inhouseholds with much lower rates of parentalemployment than among the households ofchildren in native-born families. Parents inimmigrant families who want to work butcannot find appropriate employment may thusbe living with their children at the economicmargins of society.


The transition to working in the settlementsociety by children in immigrant families withLMIC origins who have been educated in thesettlement society, and by adolescents andyoung adults who have immigrated is critical tofull social inclusion. However, the new resultsin this report and the literature summarizedhere suggest that some youths and youngadults in immigrant groups are especially likelyto be neither in school nor working. Publicpolicies to assure access to employment areessential if these people are to becomeeconomically and socially included in thesettlement society. Without effective policies,these potential workers who are not in schoolor at work represent, for the larger society, thewaste of a valuable resource.

Poverty and social transfers

Social inclusion requires access to public andprivate goods and services. Children in familieswith low incomes may lack the resources neededfor decent housing, food, clothing, books andother educational resources. These children alsotend to experience negative developmentaloutcomes, including less success in school,lower educational attainment and lower earningsduring adulthood.

Children in immigrant families in the countriesunder study experience poverty rates that areone half to three times higher than the ratesamong children in native-born families. If datawere available on children in immigrant familieswith LMIC origins, the gaps in poverty rateswould appear even wider. Social transfersreduce poverty among children in immigrantand native-born families, and they often lead togreater relative reductions in poverty amongchildren in immigrant families. The size of theseeffects varies greatly across affluent countries,however, ranging from substantial to negligible.Among the five countries on which results arereported, the poverty rates among children inimmigrant families range from 15 to33 per cent. Clearly, there is substantial roomfor government policies to reduce povertyamong children in immigrant families in thesecountries and many others.

Housing

Successful inclusion requires access tohousing. One measure of access to decenthousing is the rate of overcrowding in theplaces in which children live. In four of the fiveaffluent countries for which data have been

obtained, because of high poverty rates, otherfeatures in the available housing and relatedgovernment policies, children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins are affected by ratesof overcrowding that are far greater than therates affecting children in native-born families.

Another measure of access to housing is therate of homeownership. Although children inimmigrant families with LMIC origins aresubstantially less likely than children in native-born families to live in family-owned homes inthree of the five affluent countries for whichrelevant data have been obtained, between onefourth and two thirds of these children do livein homes owned by their families.

The rates of overcrowding in housing suggestthat there is a lack of access to this importantresource among many children in immigrantfamilies with LMIC origins. The secondmeasure, homeownership, suggests that manychildren in immigrant families with LMICorigins are living with families that have theopportunity to purchase their own homes, andthis is evidence that these families are making atangible commitment to local neighbourhoods,towns and cities.

Concluding thoughts about

the future

Population projections indicate that the native-born populations in affluent countries areageing and that there is rapid growth in theshare of people in these populations whohave a non-western cultural heritage. Thisunprecedented shift in the composition ofaffluent countries is being driven byimmigration, frequently from LMICs, bypeople who often differ from the nativepopulations in cultural, religious, linguisticand ethnic background.

The children of these immigrants represent anincreasingly large share of all children inaffluent countries and will, during comingdecades, be more prominent in society asworkers, voters and parents. It is critical to thesocial inclusion and civil integration of thesechildren and families, and to the socialcohesion of the broader society, that thesechildren not be victims of discrimination andintolerance. Government polices shouldtherefore help ensure that these children reachtheir full potential to participate in the affluentcountries that their parents have adopted.


This annex provides a more detailed discussionof recent and historical changes that haveoccurred in the origins of immigrants and inimmigration policies in the countries that arethe focus of this report.

The economically advanced countries understudy have typically experienced significantgrowth in immigration since the end ofWorld War II, especially and most recentlyfrom non-western developing countries.This is the case not only in Australia andthe United States, which have centuries-longhistories of mass immigration (mainly fromEurope). Western European countries, whichhave, historically, sometimes experienced netemigration and sporadic immigration (mainlyfrom within Europe), have also beenexperiencing a substantial rise in immigrationfrom non-European developing countriessince World War II.

This section begins with a discussion of thechanging origins of immigrants and the shiftingpolicies in Australia and the United States,most clearly founded or enlarged on the basisof immigration. That is followed by anexamination of the six other countries in orderof the absolute size (rather than the share) ofthe relevant immigrant populations.

United States

Of the eight countries, the United States hasthe longest history of mass immigration inmodern times. There have been threeespecially prominent waves of immigration.146

The first wave consisted mainly of immigrantsfrom north-west Europe. It lasted from thesettlement of the colonies in the earlyseventeenth century through the middle of thenineteenth century.

The second wave occurred between the latenineteenth century and the early twentiethcentury and saw a shift to south-east Europe asa source of immigration. Immigrants withsouth-east European origins exceeded innumber those with north-west Europeanorigins only in the three decades spanning1891–1920, and the share of all immigrantswith south-east European origins reached nomore than 55 per cent during these decades.As this second great wave of immigrationreceded, 88 per cent of all immigrants to theUnited States had origins in Canada or Europe.

Few restrictions were placed on immigrationby the government during most of this period.However, the non-domestic slave trade wasmade illegal in 1808, and immigration fromChina was suspended by the Chinese ExclusionAct of 1882. Subsequently, immigration from


ANNEX

RECENT AND HISTORICAL CHANGESIN IMMIGRANT ORIGINS AND POLICIESIN THE EIGHT AFFLUENT COUNTRIES

Japan was severely limited in 1907 through avoluntary agreement between the Governmentof the United States and the JapaneseGovernment, and the Immigration Act of 1917was enacted, barring immigration from Asia.Subsequent immigration quotas, the two worldwars and the Great Depression led to a sharpdecline in immigration, which reached a lowpoint during the 1930s.147

Following a series of smaller changes,amendments to immigration law in 1965opened the United States to renewedimmigration which gave preference to familyreunification and to immigrants with specificoccupations; new provisions on refugees wereimplemented beginning in 1970.148

The third major wave of immigration, from 1965to the present, has involved immigrants drawnmainly from Asia and Latin America, including alarge inflow of refugees from South-East Asiathat was associated with the Viet Nam War.149

In fact, by the 1980s, only 13 per cent of allimmigrants were from Canada or Europe;37 per cent were from Asia and 47 per cent fromLatin America. This represented a completereversal of the situation in 1911–1920, when only12 per cent of all immigrants had not come fromCanada or Europe. Because of the post-1965resurgence in immigration, the share of thepopulation that was immigrant more thandoubled, from 5.4 per cent in 1960 to12.8 per cent in 2005, which approached the14.7 per cent peak in 1910 of the previous majorwave of immigration.150

The immigration categories of familyreunification and the admission of dependantscontinue to account for the largest number ofdocumented immigrants, followed byemployment-sanctioned immigration andrefugee immigration. In addition, from 2002 to2006, about 27 per cent of immigrants wereimmigrants with irregular status.151 The UnitedStates has no formal policy on the inclusion ofimmigrants beyond naturalization andcitizenship policies.

Australia

The history of immigration to Australia follows adifferent path, but is similar in broad outline tothe history in the United States. Immigration toAustralia has been continuous since 1788.152 Thefirst distinguishable wave of immigration spans150 years, from earliest settlement to the end ofWorld War II, when most immigrants to Australiaarrived from Ireland and the United Kingdom.Following the war, Australia accepted large

numbers of refugees and other immigrantsfrom Europe, although immigration wasreduced during the early 1970s.

For most of its history, Australia has had apolicy of preference for immigrants from theUnited Kingdom, but the White Australia policywas abandoned in the 1970s.153 By the end ofthe 1970s, immigration had increased againthrough successive waves of immigrants fromLebanon, then China, Indonesia and Viet Namand, most recently, refugee-sending countries,including Ethiopia, the Islamic Republic of Iran,Iraq, Somalia and Yugoslavia.154 Otherimportant sources of immigration from 2002 to2006 included Afghanistan, India, Malaysia,Pakistan, the Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka,the Sudan, Thailand and Zimbabwe.155

Although new countries emerged as importantsources of immigration beginning in the late1970s, immigrants from English-speakingcountries, mainly New Zealand and theUnited Kingdom, have been the largest sourcesof immigration throughout the recent period.156

Despite the post-1970 shift in flows away fromimmigrants with Western European originstowards immigrants from other regions of theworld. By 2006, immigrants accounted for23.9 per cent of the Australian population.157

Inclusion policy in Australia has long had the aimof assimilation, but this shifted towards a policyof integration after the late-1960s and later, in1989, towards a policy of multiculturalism, whichsupports cultural maintenance, productivediversity and social justice.158 Multiculturalismhas subsequently been somewhat narrowedthrough additional restrictions placed onimmigration and naturalization.159

Germany

Following the United States among the eightaffluent countries examined, Germany has thesecond-largest immigrant population, at10.1 million compared with 38.4 million inthe United States.

Germany was losing population throughemigration in the nineteenth century, but, at theturn of the twentieth century, significantnumbers of immigrants were recruited from theregion of Germany that would later becomePoland. Moreover, during World War II, millionsof men from German-occupied territories wereforced to work in factories in Germany.160 Duringthe five years from 1945 to 1949, about 12 millionGerman refugees returned from Czechoslovakia,Hungary, Poland and Yugoslavia.


The immigration of ethnic German repatriates(Spätaussiedler) from Eastern Europe andother regions increased sharply beginning atthe end of the 1980s and reached a peak in1990. Thereafter, the government pursuedpolicies to reduce the annual inflow, includinga quota system and aid to ethnic Germancommunities in countries of origin. The aim ofthe aid was to raise standards of living so as toentice these ethnic Germans to remain in theircountries of origin. Ethnic German repatriates,particularly those who have arrived in Germanysince the mid-1990s, face substantialchallenges in economic and social inclusion, inpart because many have limited proficiency inGerman. It is difficult to assess thecircumstances of these people because officialstatistics often do not count them separately;they have a right to citizenship on demand andeasily disappear statistically into the native-born German population.161 The data presentedin this report do distinguish ethnic Germansborn in other countries.

The second major immigration flow, whichconsists of non-German immigrants, began inthe second half of the 1950s with therecruitment of guest workers admitted to helpwith the post-war economic recovery. Theprogramme grew after the Berlin Wall wasconstructed in 1961, but was halted in 1973 asGermany entered an economic recessionresulting at least partly from the 1973 oil crisis.By 1973, the largest numbers of foreigners inGermany were from Turkey (23 per cent),Yugoslavia (17 per cent), Italy (16 per cent),Greece (10 per cent) and Spain (7 per cent).These immigrant workers were drawnespecially from the poorer countries ofsouthern Europe and Turkey. Though someguest workers returned to their countries oforigin, many obtained permits for longer termor permanent residence in Germany, andfamily reunification policies brought additionalimmigrants to the country. By 1988, foreignersaccounted for 7 per cent of the population.162

Following the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989,temporary labour was again drawn toGermany, especially from the poorer countriesof Central and Eastern Europe, including theCzech Republic, Hungary, Poland and theformer Yugoslavia. More recently, immigrationhas occurred in the context of new rulesfostering free labour migration within the EUand the growth in the number of refugees andasylum-seekers.163 Recent estimates indicatethat immigrants account for about 12.3 per centof the population of Germany, nearly the sameas the 12.8 per cent in the United States.164

The largest sources of immigrants enteringGermany in 2000–2003 included Hungary, Italy,Poland, Romania, the Russian Federation,Turkey and the United States.165

France

France has had an explicit immigration policysince the mid-nineteenth century with the goalsof recruiting migrant workers and attractingpermanent settlers to offset a low rate ofnatural population increase and ensure overallpopulation stability or growth.166

After World War II, foreign labour was recruitedfrom Italy, North Africa, Portugal and Spain. In1974, following the oil crisis, France sharplyreduced unskilled labour migration.Meanwhile, through an agreement betweenAlgeria – a French colony until 1962 – andFrance, the number of French Muslims fromAlgeria living in France grew from 350,000 in1962 to 800,000 in 1982.167

With changes in the political landscape andlegislation, the annual number of immigrantssettling in France declined from 102,400 in 1990to 55,600 in 1996 and then climbed to 141,000 in2001. Family reunification is the primary sourceof immigration, followed by students, temporaryemployment and asylum. France is home toEurope’s largest Islamic community and hasrecently engaged in promoting the integration ofMuslims, even though ‘Islamophobia’ is stillwidespread and the credo of secularism (laïcité)may create specific problems in theaccommodation of French Islam.168

The principle of equality has been favoured inthe Constitution since the French Revolution, butthe principle has remained generally formal. Theissue of the equal treatment of diverse groupsrepresents a major challenge. Information onethnicity and race is not collected in officialstatistics; until recently, the same has been trueof information on the second immigrantgeneration.169 Recent riots in France involvingMuslim youth have, however, raised publicawareness of the situation of immigrants anddiversity. Only recently have efforts been madeto collect data on ethnicity and race.170

Among the immigrants who entered France in2004, nearly two thirds (64 per cent) were fromAfrica, and, reflecting historical colonialrelationships, more than half of these were fromAlgeria (20 per cent) and Morocco (16 per cent).An additional 14 per cent were from Turkey, and3 per cent were from Asia. About 9 per centwere from the Americas, including seven tenths


(of the 9 per cent) from Central and SouthAmerica, and a similar 10 per cent were fromvarious European countries.171 Recent estimatesindicate that immigrants account for almost11 per cent of the French population, nearly ashigh as the 12–13 per cent in Germany and theUnited States and much less than the23.9 per cent in Australia.172

United Kingdom

The United Kingdom, with 5.4 millionimmigrants, ranks ninth among nations as ahome to people not living in the country oftheir birth.173 However, not until recently, inthe mid-1980s has the United Kingdomexperienced net immigration. Prior to the1980s, emigrants from the United Kingdomwere especially likely to settle in Australia,New Zealand and Spain.174

The United Kingdom had no restrictions onimmigration until the Aliens Act of 1905 wasadopted to deny access to foreigners fromoutside the British Empire who were deemed tobe undesirable (such as paupers, lunatics,vagrants and prostitutes) and to limit Jewishimmigration. Since that time, immigration ruleshave become more stringent for some groups,while ensuring relatively easy access for others.

Access has been easy for Irish nationals andresidents of the British Isles, and it has becomeeasier for immigrants from other EU memberstates. But, following substantial immigrationfrom former colonies of the United Kingdom,the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962introduced restrictions on immigration thatwere intended to halt ‘coloured immigration’from the colonies, including India, Jamaica andother Caribbean islands and Pakistan.175

The immediate effect of the 1962 legislationwas, however, to increase immigration fromSouth Asia because fear that additionalrestrictions would be implemented led togreater use of the provisions for familyreunification by persons already living in theUnited Kingdom. The subsequent ImmigrationAct of 1971 favoured persons of ‘British stock’,notably immigrants from Australia, Canada,New Zealand and South Africa. Thus, the historyof immigration policy diverged from that inAustralia and the United States at this time,because, while Australia and the United Stateswere opening their borders to Asians and othernon-white groups during the 1960s and 1970s,the immigration policy in the United Kingdomwas moving in the opposite direction.Nonetheless, in 2000–2006, the top 10 countries

of origin of immigrants to the United Kingdomoften included not only Turkey but also the low-income, non-European countries of Bangladesh,India, Pakistan and Somalia.176 Since 1990, muchpolicy attention has focused on managing theflows associated with requests for asylum, aswell as labour immigration.177

The increasing ethnic diversity arising fromimmigration has been associated with greaterpublic attention to important policy issuesrevolving around immigration and race. In2001, the shares of ethnic minorities, thataccounted for 6.9 per cent of the population,were reportedly as follows: Bangladeshi(0.5 per cent of the 6.9 per cent), Black African(0.85 per cent), Black Caribbean (1.0 per cent),Chinese (0.4 per cent), Indian (1.8 per cent),Pakistani (1.3 per cent) and other Asian, otherBlack and other ethnic minority (a total of1.0 per cent).178 Following riots in 2001involving ethnic minorities, immigrantinclusion policy has shifted focus frommulticulturalism to community cohesion, whichseeks to improve contact across cultures andpromote a sense of citizenship, while a strategyinitiated in 2005 seeks to foster equalopportunities for ethnic minorities andcohesion among different communities.179

Recent data indicate that immigrants account for9.1 per cent of the population, a few percentagepoints less than the 11–13 per cent found inFrance, Germany and the United States. Ifunofficial government estimates that 500,000immigrants with irregular status were living inthe United Kingdom in 2005 are roughly correct,then approximately 8 per cent of all immigrantsin the United Kingdom are immigrants withirregular status, and about 10 per cent of thepopulation consists of immigrants.180

Italy

Italy ranks 16th among countries in the numberof immigrants within its borders. The totalnumber of immigrants in Italy (2.5 million) isabout half the total for the United Kingdom(5.4 million). Immigrants as a share of thepopulation in Italy are about half thecorresponding share in the United Kingdom(4.3 versus 9.1 per cent).181 Italy, like theUnited Kingdom, did not become a country ofnet immigration until the mid-1970s to the mid-1980s, but, unlike the United Kingdom,immigration to Italy before the 1970s wasextremely limited.182 Thus, Italy provided alarger number of immigrants tothe United States than any other Europeancountry during the second great wave of


immigration to that country. Italy, along with theother comparatively poor countries of Portugaland Spain in southern Europe, was an importantsource of immigrant labour for northernEuropean countries after World War II.183

Immigrants with regular status in Italy in 2000were drawn especially from Albania, China,Morocco, the Philippines and Romania, whichtogether accounted for 38 per cent of newresidence permits in that year. Many immigrantswith irregular status arrive in Italy from Braziland Poland. They often arrive via Italy’s longcoasts, mainly from Albania, Morocco, Romaniaand Tunisia. Substantial numbers seek asylum inItaly. For example, in 2000, Italy reported272,000 authorized admissions and 24,500applications for asylum. By that year, Albaniaand Morocco together accounted for more than20 per cent of the foreign-born population.

Immigration has been fuelled in part by regionalconflicts in the Balkans, along the Mediterraneanrim and elsewhere within the broader region.Italy is a favoured destination because of theease of access its long sea coasts provide, aswell as its economic opportunities and itslocation as a bridge to other EU countries.184

Switzerland

Switzerland is ranked 25th in the size of itsimmigrant population. It is the least populousof the eight countries considered in this report,but it has the second largest share ofimmigrants in the population (22.9 per cent),slightly behind Australia (23.9 per cent).185

Switzerland has long been a linguisticallydiverse country; there are four official nationallanguages (French, German, Italian andRomansh). The governmental structure ishighly decentralized, and it was not until 1925that the responsibility for immigration wasshifted from each individual canton to thefederal government through the addition of anew article to the Constitution.186

At the crossroads of northern and southernEurope, Switzerland has long been adestination for immigrants who were often alsorefugees. In the sixteenth century, Huguenotsfrom France immigrated to Switzerland seekingrefuge from persecution for their religiousbeliefs. In the late nineteenth century, Germanintellectuals moved to Switzerland followingthe failed liberal revolution of 1848–1849, andmany Italians were recruited to Switzerlandduring the late nineteenth and early twentiethcenturies to work on railroads and otherinfrastructure projects. In 1914, 14.7 per cent of

the population consisted of foreigners, thesame share accounted for by immigrants in theUnited States in 1910.187

Following World War II and until 1974, a guestworker policy brought immigrants from thepoorer southern European countries of Italy,Portugal and Spain during the 1950s and 1960sand then from Turkey and Yugoslavia during the1970s. Although the guest worker policyprovided for the rotation of workers back totheir countries of origin, many migrant workersbecame permanent residents. By the end of1970, 17 per cent of all children in Switzerlandwere foreign citizens.

Several waves of asylum-seekers have alsocome to Switzerland, including asylum-seekersfrom Hungary after the uprising in 1956,Czechoslovakia in 1968, Chile in the mid-1970s,Cambodia and Viet Nam in 1979–1982 and, sincethe 1980s, Turkey, Yugoslavia and variouscountries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East.As of 2000, the share of foreigners in thepopulation was among the highest in Europe.188

Netherlands

The Netherlands is ranked 27th in the size of itsimmigrant population, slightly behindSwitzerland at 25th.189 With a total populationmore than twice as large, the share of thepopulation represented by immigrants issomewhat less than half as large in theNetherlands as in Switzerland (10.0 versus22.9 per cent), but about the same as in theother countries under study (9–13 per cent),except Australia (23.9 per cent).

The Netherlands, like Switzerland, has a longhistory as a haven for refugees, including theHuguenots who fled France in the sixteenthcentury, Belgians who fled their country duringWorld War I and Jews from Austria andGermany in the 1930s.190

Following a period of emigration afterWorld War II to Australia, Canada andthe United States, three immigration flowsdeveloped.191 One is immigration from formerDutch colonies, including the Antilles andAruba, Indonesia and Suriname. Between 1945and 1965, 300,000 persons, including180,000 Eurasians, immigrated from Indonesiato the Netherlands.192 Immigration from theAntilles and Aruba has been relatively easybecause they remain part of the Netherlands,while immigration from Suriname rose aroundthe time of its independence (1975), and theSurinamese kept Dutch nationality until 1980.193


The second type of immigration involves guestworkers who, from the end of World War II to1974, came primarily from the poorer countriesof southern Europe and Eastern Europe,including Italy, Morocco, Spain, Turkey andYugoslavia. Labour migrants were supposed tostay only temporarily, but they often becomepermanent residents. Many were joined bytheir families in the Netherlands or soughtpartners in their countries of origin andbrought them to the Netherlands (familyreunification and family formation).

The third type of immigration is represented byrefugees, who were few in number between1945 and the early 1980s, but who thenincreased substantially to peak at 52,000applications in 1994 and 45,000 in 1998.194

From 1997 to 2002, the top 10 sources ofimmigrants included Afghanistan, the Antillesand Aruba, China, Iraq, Morocco, Suriname andTurkey.195 In more recent years, immigrationfrom new EU member states such as Bulgariaand Poland has increased substantially and is

currently outnumbering immigration from, forexample, Morocco and Turkey.

Prior to the end of the 1990s, the Netherlandswas generally viewed to be multicultural, and,beginning in the 1980s, terms such as‘emancipation’ and ‘combating disadvantage’were common in discussions of minoritypolicy. But, since then, the focus has shifted toinclusion and integration aimed at full andequal participation, mutual acceptance andnon-discrimination. This includes the idea thatimmigrants ultimately will become includedand integrated into society and understand thenorms and values of the broadly tolerant Dutchcommunity.196 Issues of inclusion andintegration have become especially urgent inrecent years and the national debate andrelated policies on immigration, inclusion andintegration issues have toughened.197

The source documents cited in this annex andthe main text provide further detail and contexton the historical and recent trends inimmigration and immigration policiessummarized here.


ENDNOTES

FOREWORD

1 United Nations Human Rights Council, Report of theSpecial Rapporteur on the Human Rights of Migrants,Jorge Bustamante, document no. A/HRC/11/7, 14 May2009, presented to the UN Human Rights Council,11th session, 2 June 2009.

CHAPTER 1

2 European Commission, A Common Framework for theIntegration of Third-Country Nationals, Justice andHome Affairs, European Commission, 2007,<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/integration/fsj_immigration_integration_en.htm#part_1>,accessed 25 August 2009.

3 Countries are classified according to the World BankAtlas as low, lower middle, upper middle, or highincome. See World Bank, Atlas of GlobalDevelopment: A visual guide to the world's greatestchallenges, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 2007.

4 EU15 refers to the member states of the EU beforeMay 2004: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland,France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg,the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden and theUnited Kingdom.

5 The eight affluent countries under study here wereselected for this project from among the two dozenhigh-income countries of the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development (OECD)based on three factors: the size of their immigrantpopulations, the existence and availability ofappropriate national data representing a range ofimmigrant origins and destinations, and the availabilityand interest of scholars within each country toparticipate by analysing data for their own countries ina fashion allowing maximum comparability acrosscountries. These eight nations include five of the sixWestern European countries with at least 1.6 millionimmigrants (the other country not included here isSpain). The three Western European countries with thenext largest numbers of immigrants are Austria(1.2 million), Sweden (1.1 million) and Greece(1.0 million). The study also includes two of the five HICsin the OECD outside Europe, that is Australia andthe United States (but not Canada, Japan orthe Republic of Korea).

6 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2006,<www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

7 United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2006revision – Highlights, working paper ESA/P/WP.202,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, United Nations, New York, 2007.

8 Hernandez, Donald J., and Evan Charney, editors,From Generation to Generation: The health and well-being of children in immigrant families, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.

9 Council of the European Union, Immigrant IntegrationPolicy in the European Union: Council conclusions,press release no. 321, 2618th Council Meeting, Justiceand Home Affairs, Brussels, 19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf>, p. 15.

CHAPTER 2

10 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, History of UNHCR, UNHCR, Geneva, 2009,<www.unhcr.org/pages/49c3646cbc.html>; Office of theUnited Nations High Commissioner for Refugees,Convention and Protocol relating to the Status ofRefugees, UNHCR, Geneva, 2007, <www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf>.

11 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, Convention and Protocol relating to the Statusof Refugees, UNHCR, Geneva, 2007, <www.unhcr.org/protect/PROTECTION/3b66c2aa10.pdf>. p. 16.

12 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, 2007 Global Trends: Refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and statelesspersons, UNHCR, Geneva, June 2008,<www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4852366f2.pdf>.

13 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, Statistical Yearbook 2006: Trends indisplacement, protection and solutions, UNHCR,Geneva, December 2007.

14 Ibid.; Office of the United Nations High Commissionerfor Refugees, 2007 Global Trends: Refugees, asylum-seekers, returnees, internally displaced and statelesspersons, UNHCR, Geneva, June 2008,<www.unhcr.org/statistics/STATISTICS/4852366f2.pdf>.

15 Romo, Ricardo, ‘Mexican Americans: Their civic andpolitical incorporation’, in Origins and Destinies:Immigration, race, and ethnicity in America, edited bySilvia Pedraza and Rubén G. Rumbaut, WadsworthPublishing, Belmont, CA, 1996, pp. 84–97.

16 Zolberg, Aristide R., and Long Litt Woon, ‘Why Islam IsLike Spanish: Cultural incorporation in Europe and theUnited States’, Politics & Society, vol. 27, no. 1, 1999,pp. 5–38.

17 European Commission, Enlargement: Transitionalprovisions, Directorate-General for Employment,Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, EuropeanCommission, 2008,<http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=466&langId=en>, accessed 25 August 2009.

18 Office of the United Nations High Commissioner forRefugees, The 1951 Refugee Convention: Questions &answers, Media Relations and Public InformationService, UNHCR, Geneva, 2007,<www.unhcr.org/basics/BASICS/3c0f495f4.pdf>;Sanger, David E., ‘Japan to Deport Chinese “EconomicRefugees”’, New York Times, 12 September 1989,<www.nytimes.com/1989/09/12/world/japan-to-deport-chinese-economic-refugees.html>.

19 United Nations, International Convention on theProtection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers andMembers of Their Families, General Assembly, 69thPlenary Meeting, New York, 18 December 1990,document no. A/RES/45/158,<www.un.org/documents/ga/res/45/a45r158.htm>.

20 United Nations, Respect for the Right to UniversalFreedom of Travel and the Vital Importance of FamilyReunification, General Assembly resolution,document no. A/RES/50/175, United Nations,NewYork, 27 February 1996, <www.un.org/gopher-data/ga/recs/50/res50-en.175>


21 Council of the European Union, Council Directive2003/86/EC.

22 European Council on Refugees and Exiles, ECREInformation Note on the Council Directive 2003/86/EC of22 September 2003 on the Right to Family Reunification,ECRE, pp. 3–4, London, 2003.

23 Passel, Jeffrey S., ‘Unauthorized Migrants: Numbersand characteristics’, report, 14 June 2005,Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, D.C.,<http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/46.pdf>.

24 Migration Policy Institute, Annual Immigration to theUnited States: The real numbers, Immigration Facts,no. 16, May 2007, MPI, Washington, D.C.,<www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_USImmigration_051807.pdf>.

CHAPTER 3

25 European Commission, Third Annual Report onMigration and Integration, Communication from theCommission to the Council, the European Parliament,the European Economic and Social Committee andthe Committee of the Regions, no. COM(2007) 512final, 11 September 2007, European Commission,<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/docs/com_2007_512_en.pdf>.

26 See Eurostat, European Demography: EU25population up by 0.5% in 2004, Eurostat news releaseno. 136/2005, 25 October 2005, Eurostat Press Office,Statistical Office of the European Communities,Luxembourg, <www.iesf.es/fot/Eurostat-NewsRelease%20-2004.pdf>.

27 European Commission, Third Annual Report onMigration and Integration, Communication from theCommission to the Council, the European Parliament,the European Economic and Social Committee andthe Committee of the Regions, no. COM(2007) 512final, 11 September 2007, European Commission,<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/fsj/immigration/docs/com_2007_512_en.pdf>.

28 We report ranges in the case of some countries becausethe countries of origin of the children in immigrantfamilies are not always exhaustively reported in theavailable data.

29 In 2000, the year of the census in Switzerland uponwhich this information is based, the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia included the Republic of Montenegro,the Republic of Serbia and the autonomous provincesof Kosovo and Vojvodina.

CHAPTER 4

30 US Census Bureau, ‘U.S. Interim Projections by Age,Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 2000–2050’, 2004,<www.census.gov/ipc/www/usinterimproj>.

31 Ibid.; Eurostat, International Day of Older Persons:EU25 population aged 65 and over expected todouble between 1995 and 2050, Eurostat newsrelease, no. STAT/06/129 (29 September 2006),Eurostat Press Office, Statistical Office of theEuropean Communities, Luxembourg.

CHAPTER 5

32 US Immigration Commission, Emigration Conditionsin Europe, vol. 4 in Reports of the ImmigrationCommission, US Government Printing Office,Washington, D.C., 1911; Hernandez, Donald J., andKatherine Darke, ‘Socioeconomic and DemographicRisk Factors and Resources among Children inImmigrant and Native-Born Families: 1910, 1960 and1990’, in Children of Immigrants: Health, adjustment,and public assistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999.

33 Department of Immigration and Citizenship, ‘Abolition ofthe “White Australia” Policy’, fact sheet no. 8, NationalCommunications Branch, Department of Immigrationand Citizenship, Canberra, 2007,<www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/08abolition.htm>.

34 See, for example, Hernandez, Donald J., andEvan Charney, editors, From Generation to Generation:The health and well-being of children in immigrantfamilies, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,1998; Hernandez, Donald J., editor, Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and public assistance,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999;Fix, Michael, Demetrios G. Papademetriou and BetsyCooper , ‘Leaving Too Much to Chance: A roundtable onimmigrant integration policy’, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2005, <www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/LeavingTooMuch_Report.pdf>.

35 Council of the European Union, ‘ThessalonikiEuropean Council, 19 and 20 June 2003: Presidencyconclusions’, Polgen 55, no. 11638/03, 1 October 2003,Council of the European Union, Brussels,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/76279.pdf>, p. 8.

36 Council of the European Union, Conseil EuropéenBruxelles, 04 et 05 novembre 2004: Conclusions de laprésidence, report no. D/04/5 (5 November 2004),Council of the European Union, Brussels, p. 14.

37 European Commission, Handbook on Integration forPolicy-Makers and Practitioners, 2nd ed., Directorate-General for Justice, Freedom and Security, EuropeanCommunities, Brussels, 2007,<http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/doc_centre/immigration/integration/doc/2007/handbook_2007_en.pdf>.

38 Council of the European Union, Immigrant IntegrationPolicy in the European Union: Council conclusions,press release, 2618th Council Meeting, Justice andHome Affairs, Brussels, 19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf>, pp. 17–18.

39 European Commission, Second Annual Report onMigration and Integration, Commission staff workingdocument no. SEC(2006) 892, 30 June 2006,Commission of the European Communities, Brussels,<http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st11/st11526.en06.pdf>, p. 6.

40 Ibid., note 20.

41 Council of the European Union, Provisional Version(only “Home Affairs” items): Main results of theCouncil, press release no. 10267/07 (Presse 125),2807th Council Meeting, Justice and Home Affairs,Luxembourg, 12–13 June 2007,<www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jun/jha-12-13-june-07-concl-day-one.pdf>, p. 23.


42 Council of the European Union, Joint Report by theCommission and the Council on Social Inclusion,document no. 7101/04, 5 March 2004, Council of theEuropean Union, Brussels, p. 8.

CHAPTER 6

43 Cherlin, Andrew J., ‘Going to Extremes: Familystructure, children’s well-being and social science’,Demography, vol. 36, no. 4, 1999, pp. 421–428;McLanahan, Sara, and Gary D. Sandefur, Growing Upwith a Single Parent: What hurts, what helps, HarvardUniversity Press, Cambridge, 1994; Hernandez,Donald J., Nancy A. Denton and Suzanne Macartney,‘Children in Immigrant Families: Looking to America’sfuture’, Social Policy Report, vol. 22, no. 3, 2008, Societyfor Research in Child Development, Ann Arbor, MI<www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=1>.

44 Blake, Judith, ‘Number of Siblings and EducationalMobility’, American Sociological Review, vol. 50, no. 1,1985, pp. 84–94; Blake, Judith, Family Size andAchievement, University of California Press, Berkeley,1989; Vallet, Louis-André, and Jean-Paul Caille,Les Élèves étrangers ou issus de l’immigration dansl’école et le collège français: Une étude d’ensemble,Les Dossiers d’Education et Formations, no. 67, Directionde l'évaluation et de la prospective, Ministère del’Education nationale, Paris, 1996; Hernandez, Donald J.,Nancy A. Denton and Suzanne Macartney, ‘Children inImmigrant Families: Looking to America’s future’, SocialPolicy Report, vol. 22, no. 3, 2008, Society for Researchin Child Development, Ann Arbor, MI,<www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=1>; Poston, Dudley L. Jr., andToni Falbo, ‘Scholastic and Personality Characteristics ofOnly Children and Children with Siblings in China’,International Family Planning Perspectives, vol. 16,no. 2, June 1990, pp. 45–54.

CHAPTER 7


46 Alba, Richard, and Victor Nee, Remaking the AmericanMainstream: Assimilation and contemporaryimmigration, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 2003.

47 Rumbaut, Rubén G., ‘Passages to Adulthood:The adaptation of children of immigrants in southernCalifornia’, in Children of Immigrants: Health,adjustment, and public assistance, edited byDonald J. Hernandez, National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 478–545; Portes, Alejandro,and Rubén G. Rumbaut, Legacies: The story of theimmigrant second generation, University of CaliforniaPress, Berkeley, and Russell Sage Foundation, New York,2001; Simon, Patrick, ‘Pratiques linguistiques etconsommation médiatique’, in Michèle Tribalat,De l’immigration à l'assimilation: Enquête sur lespopulations étrangères en France, EditionsLa Découverte, Paris, 1996, pp. 188-213; Filhon,Alexandra, Langues d’ici et d’ailleurs: Transmettrel’arabe et le berbère en France, Les Cahiers de l’INED,no. 163, National Institute for Demographic Studies,Paris, 2009.

48 Park, Lisa Sun-Hee, ‘Between Adulthood andChildhood: The boundary work of immigrantentrepreneurial children’, Berkeley Journal ofSociology, vol. 45, 2001, pp. 114–135; Park,Lisa Sun -Hee, ‘Asian Immigrant EntrepreneurialChildren’, in Contemporary Asian AmericanCommunities, edited by Linda Trinh Võ and Rick Bonus,Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 2002,pp. 161–174; Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut,Legacies: The story of the immigrant secondgeneration, University of California Press, Berkeley, andRussell Sage Foundation, NewYork, 2001; Sung, BettyLee, The Adjustment Experience of Chinese ImmigrantChildren in New York City, Center for Migration Studies,New York, 1987; Valenzuela, Abel Jr., ‘Gender Roles andSettlement Activities among Children and TheirImmigrant Families’, American Behavioral Scientist,vol. 42, no. 4, 1999, pp. 720–742; Zhou, Min, and CarlLeon Bankston III, Growing Up American: HowVietnamese children adapt to life in the United States,Russell Sage Foundation Press, NewYork, 1998.

49 Crawley, Heaven, ‘The situation of children inimmigrant families in the United Kingdom’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-18, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.

50 Mencarini, Letizia, Emiliana Baldoni and GianpieroDalla Zuanna, ‘The Situation of Children in ImmigrantFamilies in Italy: Changes and challenges’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-15, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.

51 de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Boschand Gijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in Immigrant Families inthe Netherlands: A statistical portrait and a review ofthe literature’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-16,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

52 Katz, Ilan, and Gerry Redmond, ‘Review of theCircumstances among Children in Immigrant Familiesin Australia’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-12,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

55 Kirszbaum, Thomas, Yaël Brinbaum and Patrick Simon,‘The Children of Immigrants in France: The emergenceof a second generation’, Innocenti Working Paper,no. 2009-13, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2009.

56 de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Bosch andGijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in Immigrant Families in theNetherlands: A statistical portrait and a review of theliterature’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-16,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

57 Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Denton andSuzanne Macartney, ‘Indicators of Characteristics andCircumstances of Children Ages 0–17 in ImmigrantFamilies by Country of Origin and in Native-BornFamilies by Race-Ethnicity Based on Census 2000’,Center for Social and Demographic Analysis,University at Albany, State University of New York,Albany, NY, 2007, <www.albany.edu/csda/children/>.


58 Espinosa, Linda M., ‘English-Language Learners as TheyEnter School’, in School Readiness and the Transition toKindergarten in the Age of Accountability, edited byRobert C. Pianta, Martha J. Cox and Kyle L. Snow, PaulH. Brookes, Baltimore, 2007, pp. 175–196;Espinosa, Linda M., ‘Challenging Common Myths aboutYoung English Language Learners’, FCD Policy Brief,Advancing PK-3, no. 8, January 2008, Foundation forChild Development, New York; Hernandez, Donald J.,Nancy A. Denton and Suzanne Macartney, ‘Children inImmigrant Families: Looking to America’s future’, SocialPolicy Report, vol. 22, no. 3, 2008, Society for Researchin Child Development, Ann Arbor, MI<www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=1>.

59 Clauss, Susanne, and Bernhard Nauck, ‘The Situationamong Children of Migrant Origin in Germany’,Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-14, UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

60 Ibid.; de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M.Bosch and Gijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in ImmigrantFamilies in the Netherlands: A statistical portrait and areview of the literature’, Innocenti Working Paper,no. 2009-16, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2009; Portes, Alejandro, and RubénG. Rumbaut, Legacies: The story of the immigrantsecond generation, University of California Press,Berkeley, and Russell Sage Foundation, New York,2001; Tienda, Marta, ‘Fragile Futures: Immigrantchildren and children of immigrants’, inDonald J. Hernandez, Nancy A. Denton and SuzanneMacartney, ‘Children in Immigrant Families: Lookingto America’s future’, Social Policy Report, vol. 22,no. 3, 2008, Society for Research in ChildDevelopment, Ann Arbor, MI, pp. 16–17,<www.srcd.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=232&Itemid=1>.


62 Ibid.; Clauss, Susanne, and Bernhard Nauck,‘The Situation among Children of Migrant Origin inGermany’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-14,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.


64 Espinosa, Linda M., ‘English-Language Learners as TheyEnter School’, in School Readiness and the Transition toKindergarten in the Age of Accountability, edited byRobert C. Pianta, Martha J. Cox and Kyle L. Snow, PaulH. Brookes, Baltimore, 2007, pp. 175–196;Espinosa, Linda M., ‘Challenging Common Myths aboutYoung English Language Learners’, FCD Policy Brief,Advancing PK-3, no. 8, January 2008, Foundation forChild Development, New York.



67 de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Bosch andGijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in Immigrant Families in theNetherlands: a statistical portrait and a review of theliterature’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-16,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

68 Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Denton and SuzanneMacartney, ‘Indicators of Characteristics andCircumstances of Children Ages 0–17 in ImmigrantFamilies by Country of Origin and in Native-BornFamilies by Race-Ethnicity Based on Census 2000’,Center for Social and Demographic Analysis,University at Albany, State University of New York,Albany, NY, 2007, <www.albany.edu/csda/children/>;Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Denton andSuzanne Macartney, ‘Early Education Programs:Differential access among young children innewcomer and native families’, in The NextGeneration: Children of immigrants in Europe andNorth America, edited by Mary Waters and RichardAlba,forthcoming.

CHAPTER 8


70 Council of the European Union, Provisional Version(only “Home Affairs” items): Main results of theCouncil, press release no. 10267/07 (Presse 125),2807th Council Meeting, Justice and Home Affairs,Luxembourg, 12–13 June 2007,<www.statewatch.org/news/2007/jun/jha-12-13-june-07-concl-day-one.pdf>, p. 23.

CHAPTER 9

71 Council of the European Union, Immigrant IntegrationPolicy in the European Union: Council conclusions,press release, 2618th Council Meeting, Justice andHome Affairs, Brussels, 19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf>, p. 18.

72 Blau, Peter M., and Otis Dudley Duncan,The AmericanOccupational Structure, Wiley, New York, 1967;Featherman, David L., and Robert M. Hauser,Opportunity and Change, Academic Press, New York,1978; Sewell, William H., Robert M. Hauser andWendy C. Wolf, ‘Sex, Schooling and OccupationalStatus’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 86, no. 3,November 1980, pp. 551–583.

73 Hernandez, Donald J., and Evan Charney, editors,From Generation to Generation: The health and well-being of children in immigrant families, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998; Kao, Grace,‘Psychological Well-Being and EducationalAchievement among Immigrant Youth’, in Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez, National


Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999 pp. 410–477;Rumbaut, Rubén G., ‘Passages to Adulthood: Theadaptation of children of immigrants in southernCalifornia’, in Children of Immigrants: Health,adjustment, and public assistance, edited by DonaldJ. Hernandez, National Academy Press, Washington,D.C., 1999, pp. 478–545.

74 The quotation is from Council of the European Union,Immigrant Integration Policy in the European Union:Council conclusions, press release, 2618th CouncilMeeting, Justice and Home Affairs, Brussels,19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf>, p. 18.

CHAPTER 10


76 Organisation for Economic Co-operation andDevelopment, Starting Strong II: Early childhoodeducation and care, OECD, Paris, 2001.

CHAPTER 11

77 Council of the European Union, Immigrant IntegrationPolicy in the European Union: Council Conclusions,press release, 2618th Council Meeting, Justice andHome Affairs, Brussels, 19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/jha/82745.pdf>, p. 18.

78 Smeeding, Timothy M., Coady Wing andKaren Robson, ‘Differences in Social Transfer Supportand Poverty for Immigrant Families with Children:Lessons from the LIS’, in Immigration, Diversity, andEducation, edited by Elena L. Grigorenko and RubyTakanishi, Routledge, London, 2009, pp. 26–47.

79 Ibid. See also Hernandez, Donald J., Nancy A. Dentonand Suzanne Macartney, ‘Indicators of Characteristicsand Circumstances of Children Ages 0–17 inImmigrant Families by Country of Origin and inNative-Born Families by Race-Ethnicity Based onCensus 2000’, Center for Social and DemographicAnalysis, University at Albany, State University ofNew York, Albany, NY, 2007,<www.albany.edu/csda/children/>; Smeeding,Timothy M., and Barbara Boyd Torrey, ‘Poor Childrenin Rich Countries’, Science, vol. 242, no. 4880, 1988,pp. 873–877; UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,‘Child Poverty in Rich Countries, 2005’, InnocentiReport Card, no. 6, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2005.

80 For recent information on income inequality andpoverty across countries in the Organisation forEconomic Co-operation and Development, see OECD,Growing Unequal? Income distribution and poverty inOECD countries, OECD, Paris, 2008,<www.oecd.org/document/53/0,3343,en_2649_33933_41460917_1_1_1_1,00.html>.

CHAPTER 12

81 European Commission, ‘Second Annual Report onMigration and Integration’, Commission Staff workingdocument, no. SEC (2006) 892, (June 2006), Commissionof the European Communities, Brussels, p. 6.

82 Ibid., p. 6.

83 Evans, Gary W., Susan Saegert and Rebecca Harris,‘Residential Density and Psychological Health amongChildren in Low-Income Families’, Environment andBehavior, vol. 33, no. 2, 2001, pp. 165–180; Saegert,Susan, ‘Environment and Children’s Mental Health:Residential density and low income children’, in Issuesin Child Health and Adolescent Health, vol. 2 ofHandbook of Psychology and Health, edited byAndrew F. Baum and Jerome E. Singer, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 1982, pp. 247–271.

84 US Census Bureau, ‘Housing of Lower-IncomeHouseholds’, statistical brief no. SB/94/18, US CensusBureau, Washington, D.C., 1994.

CHAPTER 13


86 Hernandez, Donald J. and Evan Charney, editors,From Generation to Generation: The health and well-being of children in immigrant families, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998; Kao, Grace,‘Psychological Well-Being and EducationalAchievement among Immigrant Youth’, in Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 410–477;Rumbaut, Rubén G., ‘Passages to Adulthood: Theadaptation of children of immigrants in southernCalifornia’, in Children of Immigrants: Health,adjustment, and public assistance, edited byDonald J. Hernandez, Washington, D.C.: NationalAcademy Press, 1999, pp. 478–545; Heath, Anthony F.,Catherine Rothon and Elina Kilpi, ‘The SecondGeneration in Western Europe: Education,unemployment, and occupational attainment’, AnnualReview of Sociology, vol. 34, 2008, pp. 211–235.






91 Kirszbaum, Thomas, Yaël Brinbaum, and PatrickSimon, ‘The Children of Immigrants in France: Theemergence of a second generation’, Innocenti WorkingPaper, no. 2009-13, UNICEF Innocenti ResearchCentre, Florence, 2009.

92 Mencarini, Letizia, Emiliana Baldoni and GianpieroDalla Zuanna, ‘The Situation of Children in ImmigrantFamilies in Italy: Changes and challenges’ InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-15, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.


94 Fibbi, Rosita, and Philippe Wanner, ‘Children inImmigrant Families in Switzerland: On a path betweendiscrimination and integration’, Innocenti WorkingPaper, no. 2009-17, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2009.

95 Crawley, Heaven, ‘The Situation of Children inImmigrant Families in the United Kingdom’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-18, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.

96 Kao, Grace, ‘Psychological Well-Being and EducationalAchievement among Immigrant Youth’, in Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 410–477.


98 Mencarini, Letizia, Emiliana Baldoni and GianpieroDalla Zuanna, ‘The Situation of Children in ImmigrantFamilies in Italy: Changes and challenges’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-15, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.

99 Kao, Grace, ‘Psychological Well-Being and EducationalAchievement among Immigrant Youth’, in Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 410–477.

100 Portes, Alejandro, and Rubén G. Rumbaut, Legacies:The story of the immigrant second generation,University of California Press, Berkeley, and RussellSage Foundation, New York, 2001.

101 Heath, Anthony F., Catherine Rothon and Elina Kilpi,‘The Second Generation in Western Europe:Education, unemployment, and occupationalattainment’, Annual Review of Sociology, vol. 34,2008, pp. 211–235.

102 Brinbaum, Yaël, and Annick Kieffer, ‘D’une générationà l’autre; les aspirations éducatives des famillesimmigrées: ambition et persévérance’, Education etformations, no. 72, 2005, pp. 53–75.


104 de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Boschand, Gijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in Immigrant Families inthe Netherlands: A statistical portrait and a review ofthe literature’, Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-16,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.




108 Crawley, Heaven, ‘The Situation of Children inImmigrant Families in the United Kingdom’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-18, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009.

109 Cosentino de Cohen, Clemencia, Nicole Deterding andBeatriz Chu Clewell, ‘Who’s Left Behind? Immigrantchildren in high and low LEP schools’, report,September 2005, Program for Evaluation and EquityResearch, Urban Institute, Washington, D.C.,<www.urban.org/publications/411231.html>.




113 Ibid.

CHAPTER 14

114 Council of the European Union, Immigrant IntegrationPolicy in the European Union: Council conclusions,press release, 2618th Council Meeting, Justice andHome Affairs, Brussels, 19 November 2004,<http://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressData/en/

jha/82745.pdf>, p. 17.

115 In 2000, the year of the census in Switzerland uponwhich this information is based, the Federal Republicof Yugoslavia included the Republic of Montenegro,the Republic of Serbia and the autonomous provincesof Kosovo and Vojvodina.

CHAPTER 15

116 Hernandez, Donald J., and Evan Charney, editors,From Generation to Generation: The health and well-being of children in immigrant families, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1998.

117 Ibid., pp. 107–108.




120 Alderliesten, Marianne E., et al., ‘Ethnic Differences inPerinatal Mortality: A perinatal audit on the role ofsubstandard care’, European Journal of Obstetrics,Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, vol. 138, no. 2,June 2008, pp. 164–170.

121 Clauss, Susanne and Bernhard Nauck, ‘The Situationamong Children of Migrant Origin in Germany’,Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-14, UNICEFInnocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.


123 Berry, John W., et al., editors, Immigrant Youth inCultural Transition: Acculturation, identity, andadaptation across national contexts, LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006.

124 Sam, David L., et al., ‘Psychological and SocioculturalAdaptation of Immigrant Youth’, in John W. Berry et al.,ibid., pp. 117–142.



127 Fandrem, Hildegunn, David L. Sam and Erling Roland,‘Depressive Symptoms among Native and ImmigrantAdolescents in Norway: The role of gender andurbanization’, Social Indicators Research, vol. 92,no. 1, 2009, pp. 91–109.

128 For example, see Harris, Kathleen Mullan, ‘The HealthStatus and Risk Behaviors of Adolescents inImmigrant Families’, in Children of Immigrants:Health, adjustment, and public assistance, edited byDonald J. Hernandez, National Academy Press,Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 286–347; Kao, Grace,‘Psychological Well-Being and EducationalAchievement among Immigrant Youth’, in ibid.,pp. 410–477; Dimitrova, Radosveta, ‘The ImmigrantChild: Psychological and sociocultural adjustment tothe Italian host culture’, VDM Verlag, 2009.

129 Sam, David L., et al., ‘Psychological and SocioculturalAdaptation of Immigrant Youth’, in John W. Berry et al.,editors, Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition:Acculturation, identity, and adaptation acrossnational contexts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, 2006, pp. 117–142.



132 Fandrem, Hildegunn, et al., ‘Bullying and Affiliation:A study of peer groups in native and immigrantadolescents in Norway’, European Journal ofDevelopmental Psychology, vol. 6, June 2009;Fandrem, Hildegunn, Dagmar Strohmeier andErling Roland, ‘Bullying and Victimization amongNorwegian and Immigrant Adolescents in Norway:The role of proactive and reactive aggressiveness’,Journal of Early Adolescence, March 2009.

133 Kirszbaum, Thomas, Yaël Brinbaum and Patrick Simon,‘The Children of Immigrants in France: The emergenceof a second generation’, Innocenti Working Paper, no.2009-13, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence, 2009.



136 Harris, Kathleen Mullan, ‘The Health Status and RiskBehaviors of Adolescents in Immigrant Families’, inChildren of Immigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 286–347.

137 Sam, David L., et al., ‘Psychological and SocioculturalAdaptation of Immigrant Youth’, in John W. Berry et al.,editors, Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition:Acculturation, identity, and adaptation acrossnational contexts, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Mahwah, NJ, 2006, pp. 117–142.

138 Fulgini, Andrew J., ‘The Adjustment of Children fromImmigrant Families’, Current Directions inPsychological Science, vol. 7, no. 4, 1998, pp. 99–103;Harris, Kathleen Mullan, ‘The Health Status and RiskBehaviors of Adolescents in Immigrant Families’, inChildren of Immigrants: Health, adjustment, andpublic assistance, edited by Donald J. Hernandez,National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1999,pp. 286–347; Kao, Grace, ‘Psychological Well-Beingand Educational Achievement among ImmigrantYouth’, in ibid., pp. 410–477; Rumbaut, Rubén G.,‘Passages to Adulthood: The adaptation of children ofimmigrants in southern California’, in Children ofImmigrants: Health, adjustment, and publicassistance, National Academy Press, Washington,D.C., 1999, pp. 478–545; Zhou, Min, ‘SegmentedAssimilation: Issues, controversies, and recentresearch on the new second generation’, InternationalMigration Review, vol. 31, no. 4, 1997, pp. 975–1008.

139 Graves, Theodore D., ‘Psychological Acculturation in aTri-ethnic Community’, Southwestern Journal ofAnthropology, vol. 23, 1967, pp. 337–350, cited inDavid L. Sam, ‘Acculturation: Conceptual backgroundand core components’, in The Cambridge Handbookof Acculturation Psychology, edited by David L. Samand John W. Berry, Cambridge University Press,Cambridge, UK, p. 14.

140 Phinney, Jean S., et al., ‘The Acculturation Experience:Attitudes, identities, and behaviors of immigrant youth’,in Immigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation,identity, and adaptation across national contexts,edited by John W. Berry et al., Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006, pp. 71–116.


141 Ibid.

142 Sam, David L., et al., ‘Psychological and SocioculturalAdaptation of Immigrant Youth’, in ibid., pp. 117–142.


144 Ibid., p. 274.

145 Berry, John W., et al., ‘Design of the Study: Selectingsocieties of settlement and immigrant groups’, inImmigrant Youth in Cultural Transition: Acculturation,identity, and adaptation across national contexts,edited by John W. Berry et al., Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates, Mahwah, NJ, 2006, pp. 15–45.

ANNEX

146 Heer, David, Immigration and America’s Future:Social science findings and the policy debate,Westview Press, Boulder, 1996; Muller, Thomas, andThomas J. Espenshade,The Fourth Wave: California’snewest immigrants, Urban Institute Press,Washington, D.C., 1985; Pedraza, Silvia, ‘Origins andDestinies: Immigration, race, and ethnicity inAmerican history’, in Origins and Destinies:Immigration, race, and ethnicity in America, edited bySilvia Pedraza and Rubén G. Rumbaut, WadsworthPublishing, Belmont, CA, 1996, pp. 1–20.

147 Heer, David, Immigration and America’s Future: Socialscience findings and the policy debate, WestviewPress, Boulder, 1996.

148 Pedraza, Silvia, ‘Origins and Destinies: Immigration,race, and ethnicity in American history’, in Origins andDestinies: Immigration, race, and ethnicity inAmerica, edited by Silvia Pedraza and RubénG. Rumbaut, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA,1996, pp. 1–20.

149 Heer, David, Immigration and America’s Future: Socialscience findings and the policy debate, WestviewPress, Boulder, CO, 1996.

150 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006,<www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>; US Census Bureau,Historical Statistics of the United States: Colonialtimes to 1970, Part 1, US Census Bureau,Washington, D.C., 1975.

151 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Annual Immigration to theUnited States: The real numbers’, Immigration Facts,no. 16, May 2007, MPI, Washington, D.C.,<www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/FS16_USImmigration_051807.pdf>.


153 Inglis, Christine, ‘Australia’s Continuing Transformation’,Country Profiles, Migration Information Source,Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=242>.


155 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Country and ComparativeData: Australia’, MPI Data Hub, MPI, Washington, D.C.,2008, <www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm> (accessed 25 August 2009).


157 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Country and ComparativeData: Australia’, MPI Data Hub, MPI, Washington, D.C.,2008, <www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm> (accessed 25 August 2009).

158 Inglis, Christine, ‘Australia’s Continuing Transformation’,Country Profiles, Migration Information Source,Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=242>.


160 Oezcan, Veysel, ‘Germany: Immigration in transition’,Country Profiles, Migration Information Source,Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=235>.

161 Ibid.

162 Ibid.

163 Ibid.

164 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006, <www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

165 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Country and ComparativeData: Australia’, MPI Data Hub, MPI, Washington, D.C.,2008, <www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm> (accessed 26 May 2009).

166 Noiriel, Gérard, Le Creuset Français: Histoire del’immigration, 19ème–20ème siècles, Le Seuil, Paris,1988; Zolberg, Aristide R., and Long Litt Woon,‘Why Islam Is Like Spanish: Cultural incorporation inEurope and the United States’, Politics & Society,vol. 27, no. 1, 1999, pp. 5–38.

167 Algerians, who were considered French nationalsbecause of the colonial relationship, were known asFrench Muslims from Algeria at the time. SeeHamilton, Kimberly, Patrick Simon with Clara Veniard,‘The Challenge of French Diversity’, Country Profiles,Migration Information Source, Migration PolicyInstitute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=266>.

168 Amiraux, Valérie, ‘L’Institutionnalisation du CulteMusulman en Europe: Perspectives comparées’, inMusulmans de France et d’Europe, edited byRémy Leveau and Khadija Mohsen-Finan, CNRSEditions, Paris, 2005, pp. 82–97; Bowen, John R.,Why the French Don’t Like Headscarves: Islam, thestate, and public space, Princeton University Press,Princeton, 2008.


169 Simon, Patrick, ‘The Choice of Ignorance: The debateon ethnic and racial statistics in France’, French Politics,Culture & Society, vol. 26, no. 1, 2008, pp. 7–31.

170 Hamilton, Kimberly, and Patrick Simon, withClaraVeniard, ‘The Challenge of French Diversity’,Country Profiles, Migration Information Source,Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=266>.

171 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Country and ComparativeData: France’, MPI Data Hub, MPI, Washington, D.C.,2008, <www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm> (accessed 26 May 2009).

172 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006, <www.un.org/esa/

population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/

2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

173 Ibid.

174 Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan, Francesca HopwoodRoad and Maria Latorre., ‘United Kingdom:A reluctant country of immigration’, Country Profiles,Migration Information Source, Migration PolicyInstitute, Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=736>.

175 Ibid.

176 Migration Policy Institute, ‘Country and ComparativeData: United Kingdom’, MPI Data Hub, MPI,Washington, D.C., 2008,<www.migrationinformation.org/datahub/countrydata/data.cfm> (accessed 26 May 2009).

177 Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan, Francesca HopwoodRoad and Maria Latorre, ‘United Kingdom: A reluctantcountry of immigration’, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/

Profiles/display.cfm?ID=736>.

178 Crawley, Heaven, ‘The Situation of Children inImmigrant Families in the United Kingdom’, InnocentiWorking Paper, no. 2009-18, UNICEF InnocentiResearch Centre, Florence, 2009; Dustmann, Christian,and Nikolaos Theodoropoulos, ‘Ethnic MinorityImmigrants and Their Children in Britain’, CReAMDiscussion Paper, no. 10/06, Centre for Research andAnalysis of Migration, Department of Economics,University College London, London, 2006.

179 Sriskandarajah, Dhananjayan, Francesca HopwoodRoad and Maria Latorre, ‘United Kingdom: A reluctantcountry of immigration’, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=736>.

180 Ibid.; United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006, <www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

181 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006, <www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

182 Hamilton, Kimberly, ‘Italy’s Southern Exposure’, withMaia Jachimowicz, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2003,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=121>; Sriskandarajah,Dhananjayan, Francesca Hopwood Road and MariaLatorre, ‘United Kingdom: A reluctant country ofimmigration’, Country Profiles, Migration InformationSource, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.,2005, <www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=736>; Mencarini, Letizia, EmilianaBaldoni and Gianpiero Dalla Zuanna, ‘The Situation ofChildren in Immigrant Families in Italy: Changes andchallenges’ Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-15,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

183 Hamilton, Kimberly, ‘Italy’s Southern Exposure’, withMaia Jachimowicz, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2003,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=121>.

184 Ibid.

185 Inglis, Christine, ‘Australia’s Continuing Transformation’,Country Profiles, Migration Information Source,Migration Policy Institute, Washington, D.C., 2004,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=242>; United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006,<www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

186 Efionayi, Denise, Josef Martin Niederberger andPhilippe Wanner, ‘Switzerland Faces CommonEuropean Challenges’, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=284>.

187 Ibid.

188 Ibid.; Wanner, Philippe, ‘A Statistical Portrait ofChildren in Migrant Families in Switzerland:Discussion of the tables and indicators’, draft report,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2007.

189 United Nations, International Migration 2006,Population Division, Department of Economic andSocial Affairs, UN, New York, 2006.<www.un.org/esa/population/publications/2006Migration_Chart/2006IttMig_chart.htm>.

190 Van Selm, Joanne, ‘The Netherlands: Death of afilmmaker shakes a nation’, Country Profiles,Migration Information Source, Migration PolicyInstitute, Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=341>.



192 Van Selm, Joanne, ‘The Netherlands: Death of afilmmaker shakes a nation’, Country Profiles,Migration Information Source, Migration PolicyInstitute, Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=341>.

193 de Valk, Helga A. G., Kris R. Noam, Alinda M. Bosch andGijs C. N. Beets, ‘Children in Immigrant Families in theNetherlands: A statistical portrait and a review of theliterature’ Innocenti Working Paper, no. 2009-16,UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, Florence, 2009.

194 Ibid.

195 Van Selm, Joanne, ‘The Netherlands: Death of afilmmaker shakes a nation’, Country Profiles, MigrationInformation Source, Migration Policy Institute,Washington, D.C., 2005,<www.migrationinformation.org/Profiles/display.cfm?ID=341>.

196 Ibid.

197 Duyvendak, Jan Willem, Rally Rijkschroeff and TreesPels, Aanvullend bronnenonderzoek Verwey-JonkerInstituut, ten behoeve van de Tijdelijke CommissieOnderzoek Integratiebeleid, Sdu Uitgevers,Publications of the Universiteit van Amsterdam, 2004.


UNICEF Innocenti Research CentrePiazza SS. Annunziata, 1250122 Florence, ItalyTel.: (+39) 055 20 330Fax: (+39) 055 2033 [email protected]

USD 20.00ISBN: 978-88-89129-93-7

Sales No. E.09.XX.21

© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)

August 2009

IRC stock number: 576U

During recent decades, most affluent countries haveexperienced large increases in the number anddiversity of immigrants. Accordingly, it is projectedthat children in immigrant families today will beincreasingly prominent as workers, voters and parentsover the coming years. The social, economic and civicintegration of these children is of critical policyrelevance, yet there is little statistical evidenceavailable on this segment of the immigrant population.

Children in Immigrant Families in Eight AffluentCountries presents internationally comparable datafor this group of children, drawing on researchconducted in eight advanced industrialized countries– Australia, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands,Switzerland, the United Kingdom andthe United States – that together include almost40 per cent of all persons in the world living outsidetheir countries of birth.

The study provides detailed information on thesituation of these children over a broad range ofdimensions, including family composition,educational background and working status ofparents, and housing conditions, school and labourmarket participation and poverty status of children,presenting statistics broken down by region and GDPlevel of the country of origin.

Overall, the findings indicate areas of success in thesocial inclusion and civic integration of children inimmigrant families in different countries. They alsohighlight areas in which the circumstances of thechildren, particularly those from low- and middle-income countries, call for further improvement.Governments are urged to ensure that their policiesfacilitate full participation of these children, forexample by adopting and promoting policies thatfoster civic participation, promote access to educationand employment, ensure access to appropriatehousing and reduce poverty.

Documents

Innocenti Insight - Children in Immigrant Families in Eight Affluent Countries: Their family, national and international context