International migration: where do people go and where from?

by , under All categories, Enrique

CommentBelow is an interesting story on the Guardian with a link to the original OECD report on global immigration and emigration. According to the OECD report, the most popular destination for immigrants was the United States.  The country with the highest amount of per-capita emigrants was Romania.

The figures are from 2008-09, a period when global markets slipped into deep recession triggered by the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy.

Compared with preliminary figures for 2010, migration to Finland totalled 24,600, which is 7.9% lower than in the previous year (26,700). Compared with 2008, migration to Finland fell by 8%.

Irrespective of the global downturn, migration movements have not fallen as much as some would expect. This is partly due to demographic trends (aging workforce) in OECD courties. Moreover, humanitarian migration is less affected by economic downturns.

An editorial in the OECD report gives special mention to the rise of right-wing populist parties in Europe.  It lists the following recommendations on how to deter this trend:

First, it is important to get the facts out in the public domain. Migration, both legal and irregular, cannot be considered to be out-of-control and governments have shown that slowly but surely, they can improve its management.

Second, labour migration management needs to be reinforced by a broadening of co-operation between OECD countries and origin countries, as well as between governments and employers. The latter need to respect the rules and recruit legally from abroad, rather than illegally off-the-street, if they cannot easily fill a job vacancy.

Third, integration efforts should be strengthened further. Although most immigrants are well-integrated, it would be false to claim that there are no problems.

Finally, it is important that everybody has a fair chance in society to make their way. Employers should not exclude candidates for employment who are immigrants or children of immigrants because of where they live or how their origin group is perceived.

While all of these points are important points, I give special mention to leadership by government officials, politicians and the local media to challenge urban myths being spread by anti-immigration groups.

Far-reaching words like “acceptance” and “equal opportunities” should form a common part of our daily vocabulary instead of words like “out-of-control immigration” and “immigrants fuel crime and steal our jobs.”


The US is the top destination for permanent immigrants according to a report published today. The international migration outlook 2011 released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) highlights the top 25 countries with the highest number of immigrants into OECD countries and also shows where they come from.

Read whole story.

    • Enrique

      –Did usa accept 1 412 546 migrants in 2010?

      Immigrants are classified as permanent and temporary. The former totalled in 2009 1.13 million and the latter 1.419 million. So, as you can see, that is a lot of immigrants compared with the 24,600 (prelminary) that came to Finland. The PS, Homma and Scripta would flourish in the United States.

      If you look at why they United States didn’t implode from all this immigration is because they know how to make it work. One way of NOT making it work is demonizing, bashing Muslims and accusing immigrants of being criminals, rapists and (Kari Rajamäki loves this word) social welfare shoppers.

      Immigrants rock, Hannu! There were over a million from Finland and thanks to them they gave a lot to the United States, Canada and other countries they went to. So please don’t bash immigrants and refugees irrespective of where they are from. It is not only wrong but unfair.

  1. Hannu

    Hmm. so incoming was 1,13 million or total in usa totalled 1,13 million? How many exactly come in?
    That is anyway way less than compared by americanized amount of incomers in finland what is 1 412 546 (57,42059161*24.600)

    “There were over a million from Finland”

    Lie again, there werent.

    “If you look at why they United States didn’t implode from all this immigration is because they know how to make it work.”

    Ask that about indians.

    • Enrique

      Hannu, I don’t understand what you are accusing me of. If you disagree with the figures, write to the OECD.

      The Amerindians… It is sad what happened to them. That was the consequence of racism that settlers brought from Europe. However, please don’t shed crocodile tears for the Amerindians.

  2. Method

    The immigration rate / 1000 inhabitants seems to be pretty much the same in Finland as it is in USA.

    Can you really compare Finland to USA and make any meaningful point? I don’t think so. If there’s a federation to made from EU, you could compare USA to EU, but Finland. No. USA and Finland are very different type of countries, based on very different type of grounds.

  3. Method

    The numbers / 1000 inhabitants

    Total immigration

    Finland: 3.1 average
    USA : 3.8 average

    Asylum seekers

    Finland 0.7 average
    USA 0.1 average

    Seems like, the USA isn’t that popular for asylum seekers.

  4. JusticeDemon


    Your figure is only meaningful if the procedures for seeking international humanitarian protection are comparable in Finland and the USA. A person seeking refuge from civil war or environmental catastrophe is required to seek asylum in Finland, even where there is no fear of individual persecution involved. This greatly inflates the official figures for asylum seekers in Finland.

  5. Hannu

    Justicedemon so USA dont let any in or how its different, im under assumption that since what you say we are under “agreements” and i assume usa in under agreements too,