United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries data was reported at 1,127,167.000 Person in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,183,505.000 Person for 2016. United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries data is updated yearly, averaging 451,510.000 Person from Sep 1900 (Median) to 2017, with 118 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,827,167.000 Person in 1991 and a record low of 23,068.000 Person in 1933. United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by US Department of Homeland Security. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G087: Immigration.

Abstract

The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) carried out the Migration and Remittances Survey in South Africa for the World Bank in collaboration with the African Development Bank. The primary mandate of the HSRC in this project was to come up with a migration database that includes both immigrants and emigrants. The specific activities included: · A household survey with a view of producing a detailed demographic/economic database of immigrants, emigrants and non migrants · The collation and preparation of a data set based on the survey · The production of basic primary statistics for the analysis of migration and remittance behaviour in South Africa.

Like many other African countries, South Africa lacks reliable census or other data on migrants (immigrants and emigrants), and on flows of resources that accompanies movement of people. This is so because a large proportion of African immigrants are in the country undocumented. A special effort was therefore made to design a household survey that would cover sufficient numbers and proportions of immigrants, and still conform to the principles of probability sampling. The approach that was followed gives a representative picture of migration in 2 provinces, Limpopo and Gauteng, which should be reflective of migration behaviour and its impacts in South Africa.

Geographic coverage

Two provinces: Gauteng and Limpopo

Limpopo is the main corridor for migration from African countries to the north of South Africa while Gauteng is the main port of entry as it has the largest airport in Africa. Gauteng is a destination for internal and international migrants because it has three large metropolitan cities with a great economic potential and reputation for offering employment, accommodations and access to many different opportunities within a distance of 56 km. These two provinces therefore were expected to accommodate most African migrants in South Africa, co-existing with a large host population.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Universe

The target group consists of households in all communities. The survey will be conducted among metro and non-metro households. Non-metro households include those in: - small towns, - secondary cities, - peri-urban settlements and - deep rural areas. From each selected household, one adult respondent will be selected to participate in the study.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Migration data for South Africa are available for 2007 only at the level of local governments or municipalities from the 2007 Census; for smaller areas called "sub places" (SPs) only as recently as the 2001 census, and for the desired EAs only back so far as the Census of 1996. In sum, there was no single source that provided recent data on the five types of migrants of principal interest at the level of the Enumeration Area, which was the area for which data were needed to draw the sample since it was going to be necessary to identify migrant and non-migrant households in the sample areas in order to oversample those with migrants for interview.

In an attempt to overcome the data limitations referred to above, it was necessary to adopt a novel approach to the design of the sample for the World Bank's household migration survey in South Africa, to identify EAs with a high probability of finding immigrants and those with a low probability. This required the combined use of the three sources of data described above. The starting point was the CS 2007 survey, which provided data on migration at a local government level, classifying each local government cluster in terms of migration level, taking into account the types of migrants identified. The researchers then spatially zoomed in from these clusters to the so-called sub-places (SPs) from the 2001 Census to classifying SP clusters by migration level. Finally, the 1996 Census data were used to zoom in even further down to the EA level, using the 1996 census data on migration levels of various typed, to identify the final level of clusters for the survey, namely the spatially small EAs (each typically containing about 200 households, and hence amenable to the listing operation in the field).

A higher score or weight was attached to the 2007 Community Survey municipality-level (MN) data than to the Census 2001 sub-place (SP) data, which in turn was given a greater weight than the 1996 enumerator area (EA) data. The latter was derived exclusively from the Census 1996 EA data, but has then been reallocated to the 2001 EAs proportional to geographical size. Although these weights are purely arbitrary since it was composed from different sources, they give an indication of the relevant importance attached to the different migrant categories. These weighted migrant proportions (secondary strata), therefore constituted the second level of clusters for sampling purposes.

In addition, a system of weighting or scoring the different persons by migrant type was applied to ensure that the likelihood of finding migrants would be optimised. As part of this procedure, recent migrants (who had migrated in the preceding five years) received a higher score than lifetime migrants (who had not migrated during the preceding five years). Similarly, a higher score was attached to international immigrants (both recent and lifetime, who had come to SA from abroad) than to internal migrants (who had only moved within SA's borders). A greater weight also applied to inter-provincial (internal) than to intra-provincial migrants (who only moved within the same South African province).

How the three data sources were combined to provide overall scores for EA can be briefly described. First, in each of the two provinces, all local government units were given migration scores according to the numbers or relative proportions of the population classified in the various categories of migrants (with non-migrants given a score of 1.0. Migrants were assigned higher scores according to their priority, with international migrants given higher scores than internal migrants and recent migrants higher scores than lifetime migrants. Then within the local governments, sub-places were assigned scores assigned on the basis of inter vs. intra-provincial migrants using the 2001 census data. Each SP area in a local government was thus assigned a value which was the product of its local government score (the same for all SPs in the local government) and its own SP score. The third and final stage was to develop relative migration scores for all the EAs from the 1996 census by similarly weighting the proportions of migrants (and non-migrants, assigned always 1.0) of each type. The the final migration score for an EA is the product of its own EA score from 1996, the SP score of which it is a part (assigned to all the EAs within the SP), and the local government score from the 2007 survey.

Based on all the above principles the set of weights or scores was developed.

In sum, we multiplied the proportion of populations of each migrant type, or their incidence, by the appropriate final corresponding EA scores for persons of each type in the EA (based on multiplying the three weights together), to obtain the overall score for each EA. This takes into account the distribution of persons in the EA according to migration status in 1996, the SP score of the EA in 2001, and the local government score (in which the EA is located) from 2007. Finally, all EAs in each province were then classified into quartiles, prior to sampling from the quartiles.

From the EAs so classified, the sampling took the form of selecting EAs, i.e., primary sampling units (PSUs, which in this case are also Ultimate Sampling Units, since this is a single stage sample), according to their classification into quartiles. The proportions selected from each quartile are based on the range of EA-level scores which are assumed to reflect weighted probabilities of finding desired migrants in each EA. To enhance the likelihood of finding migrants, much higher proportions of EAs were selected into the sample from the quartiles with the higher scores compared to the lower scores (disproportionate sampling). The decision on the most appropriate categorisations was informed by the observed migration levels in the two provinces of the study area during 2007, 2001 and 1996, analysed at the lowest spatial level for which migration data was available in each case.

Because of the differences in their characteristics it was decided that the provinces of Gauteng and Limpopo should each be regarded as an explicit stratum for sampling purposes. These two provinces therefore represented the primary explicit strata. It was decided to select an equal number of EAs from these two primary strata.

The migration-level categories referred to above were treated as secondary explicit strata to ensure optimal coverage of each in the sample. The distribution of migration levels was then used to draw EAs in such a way that greater preference could be given to areas with higher proportions of migrants in general, but especially immigrants (note the relative scores assigned to each type of person above). The proportion of EAs selected into the sample from the quartiles draws upon the relative mean weighted migrant scores (referred to as proportions) found below the table, but this is a coincidence and not necessary, as any disproportionate sampling of EAs from the quartiles could be done, since it would be rectified in the weighting at the end for the analysis.

The resultant proportions of migrants then led to the following proportional allocation of sampled EAs (Quartile 1: 5 per cent (instead of 25% as in an equal distribution), Quartile 2: 15 per cent (instead

This table contains 25 series, with data for years 1955 - 2013 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years). This table contains data described by the following dimensions (Not all combinations are available): Geography (1 items: Canada ...) Last permanent residence (25 items: Total immigrants; France; Great Britain; Total Europe ...).

Census: Number of Migrants: All India data was reported at 314,541,350.000 Person in 2001. This records an increase from the previous number of 232,112,973.000 Person for 1991. Census: Number of Migrants: All India data is updated yearly, averaging 273,327,161.500 Person from Mar 1991 (Median) to 2001, with 2 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 314,541,350.000 Person in 2001 and a record low of 232,112,973.000 Person in 1991. Census: Number of Migrants: All India data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Census of India. The data is categorized under Global Database’s India – Table IN.GAG001: Census of India: Migration: Number of Migrants: by States.

Global matrices of bilateral migrant stocks spanning the period 1960-2000, disaggregated by gender and based primarily on the foreign-born concept are presented. Over one thousand census and population register records are combined to construct decennial matrices corresponding to the last five completed census rounds.For the first time, a comprehensive picture of bilateral global migration over the last half of the twentieth century emerges. The data reveal that the global migrant stock increased from 92 to 165 million between 1960 and 2000. South-North migration is the fastest growing component of international migration in both absolute and relative terms. The United States remains the most important migrant destination in the world, home to one fifth of the world™s migrants and the top destination for migrants from no less than sixty sending countries. Migration to Western Europe remains largely from elsewhere in Europe. The oil-rich Persian Gulf countries emerge as important destinations for migrants from the Middle East, North Africa and South and South-East Asia. Finally, although the global migrant stock is still predominantly male, the proportion of women increased noticeably between 1960 and 2000.

Germany Immigration: Asia data was reported at 376,968.000 Person in 2023. This records an increase from the previous number of 331,110.000 Person for 2022. Germany Immigration: Asia data is updated yearly, averaging 99,635.000 Person from Dec 1964 (Median) to 2023, with 60 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 687,848.000 Person in 2015 and a record low of 12,779.000 Person in 1968. Germany Immigration: Asia data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statistisches Bundesamt. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Germany – Table DE.G005: Migration.

The Multi-aspect Integrated Migration Indicators (MIMI) dataset is the result of the process of gathering, embedding and combining traditional migration datasets, mostly from sources like Eurostat and UNSD Demographic Statistics Database, and alternative types of data, which consists in multidisciplinary features and measures not typically employed in migration studies, such as the Facebook Social Connectedness Index (SCI). Its purpose is to exploit these novel types of data for: nowcasting migration flows and stocks, studying integration of multiple sources and knowledge, and investigating migration drivers.

The MIMI dataset is designed to have a unique pair of countries for each row. Each record contains country-to-country information about: migrations flows and stock their share, their strength of Facebook connectedness and other features, such as corresponding populations, GDP, coordinates, NET migration, and many others.

Methodology.

After having collected bilateral flows records about international human mobility by citizenship, residence and country of birth (available for both sexes and, in some cases, for different age groups), they have been merged together in order to obtain a unique dataset in which each ordered couple (country-of-origin, country-of-destination) appears once. To avoid duplicate couples, flow records have been selected by following this priority: first migration by citizenship, then migration by residence and lastly by country of birth.

The integration process started by choosing, collecting and meaningfully including many other indicators that could be helpful for the dataset final purpose mentioned above.

• International migration stocks (having a five-year range of measurement) for each couple of countries.
• Geographical features for each country: ISO3166 name and official name, ISO3166-1 alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes, continent code and name of belonging, latitude and longitude of the centroid, list of bordering countries, country area in square kilometres. Also, the following features have been included for each pair of countries: geodesic distance (in kilometres) computed between their respective centroids.

• Non-bidirectional migration measures for each country: total number of immigrants and emigrants for each year, NET migration and NET migration rate in a five-year range.

• Other multidisciplinary indicators (cultural, social, anthropological, demographical, historical features) related to each country: religion (single one or list), yearly GDP at PPP, spoken language (or list of languages), yearly population stocks (and population densities if available), number of Facebook users, percentage of Facebook users, cultural indicators (PDI, IDV, MAS, UAI, LTO). Also the following feature have been included for each pair of countries: Facebook Social Connectedness Index.

Once traditional and non-traditional knowledge is gathered and integrated, we move to the pre-processing phase where we manage the data cleaning, preparation and transformation. Here our dataset was subjected to various computational standard processes and additionally reshaped in the final structure established by our design choices.

The data quality assessment phase was one of the longest and most delicate, since many values were missing and this could have had a negative impact on the quality of the desired resulting knowledge. They have been integrated from additional sources such as The World Bank, World Population Review, Statista, DataHub, Wikipedia and in some cases extracted from Python libraries such as PyPopulation, CountryInfo and PyCountry.

The final dataset has the structure of a huge matrix having countries couples as index (uniquely identified by coupling their ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 codes): it comprises 28725 entries and 485 columns.

This table contains 32 series, with data for years 1956 - 1976 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years), and was last released on 2012-02-16. This table contains data described by the following dimensions (Not all combinations are available): Unit of measure (1 items: Persons ...) Geography (32 items: Outside Canada; Great Britain; France; Europe ...).

This table contains 15 series, with data for years 1946 - 2004 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years). This table contains data described by the following dimensions (Not all combinations are available): Geography (15 items: Canada; Prince Edward Island; Nova Scotia; Newfoundland and Labrador ...).

The empirical dataset is derived from a survey carried out on 25 estates in 14 cities in nine different European countries: France (Lyon), Germany (Berlin), Hungary (Budapest and Nyiregyha´za), Italy (Milan), the Netherlands (Amsterdam and Utrecht), Poland (Warsaw), Slovenia (Ljubljana and Koper), Spain (Barcelona and Madrid), and Sweden (Jo¨nko¨ping and Stockholm). The survey was part of the EU RESTATE project (Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). A similar survey was constructed for all 25 estates.

The survey was carried out between February and June 2004. In each case, a random sample was drawn, usually from the whole estate. For some estates, address lists were used as the basis for the sample; in other cases, the researchers first had to take a complete inventory of addresses themselves (for some deviations from this general trend and for an overview of response rates, see Musterd & Van Kempen, 2005). In most cities, survey teams were hired to carry out the survey. They worked under the supervision of the RESTATE partners. Briefings were organised to instruct the survey teams. In some cases (for example, in Amsterdam and Utrecht), interviewers were recruited from specific ethnic groups in order to increase the response rate among, for example, the Turkish and Moroccan residents on the estates. In other cases, family members translated questions during a face-to-face interview. The interviewers with an immigrant background were hired in those estates where this made sense. In some estates it was not necessary to do this because the number of immigrants was (close to) zero (as in most cases in CE Europe).

The questionnaire could be completed by the respondents themselves, but also by the interviewers in a face-to-face interview.

Data and Representativeness

The data file contains 4756 respondents. Nearly all respondents indicated their satisfaction with the dwelling and the estate. Originally, the data file also contained cases from the UK.

However, UK respondents were excluded from the analyses because of doubts about the reliability of the answers to the ethnic minority questions. This left 25 estates in nine countries. In general, older people and original populations are somewhat over-represented, while younger people and immigrant populations are relatively under-represented, despite the fact that in estates with a large minority population surveyors were also employed from minority ethnic groups. For younger people, this discrepancy probably derives from the extent of their activities outside the home, making them more difficult to reach. The under-representation of the immigrant population is presumably related to language and cultural differences. For more detailed information on the representation of population in each case, reference is made to the reports of the researchers in the different countries which can be downloaded from the programme website. All country reports indicate that despite these over- and under-representations, the survey results are valuable for the analyses of their own individual situation.

This dataset is the result of a team effort lead by Professor Ronald van Kempen, Utrecht University with funding from the EU Fifth Framework.

Population in The Netherlands on 1 January by sex, age, marital status, generation and migration background.

CBS is in transition towards a new classification of the population by origin. Greater emphasis is now placed on where a person was born, aside from where that person’s parents were born. The term ‘migration background’ is no longer used in this regard. The main categories western/non-western are being replaced by categories based on continents and a few countries that share a specific migration history with the Netherlands. The new classification is being implemented gradually in tables and publications on population by origin.

Data available from 1996 to 2022.

Status of the figures: All figures in the table are final.

Changes per 13 January 2023: None, this table was discontinued.

When will new figures be published? No longer applicable. This table is succeeded by the table Population; sex, age, country of origin, country of birth, 1 January. See section 3.

Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data was reported at 53,287.000 Person in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 56,478.000 Person for 2015. Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data is updated yearly, averaging 54,446.000 Person from Sep 1986 (Median) to 2016, with 31 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 74,606.000 Person in 2006 and a record low of 30,943.000 Person in 1999. Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by US Department of Homeland Security. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.G086: Immigration.

UK residents by broad country of birth and citizenship groups, broken down by UK country, local authority, unitary authority, metropolitan and London boroughs, and counties. Estimates from the Annual Population Survey.

Authors: Francisco Pulgar, Daniel HernándezThis data files are a basic analysis of the data published by the Departamento de Estranjería y Migración de Chile [1]. Also this data is combined with indicators published by the World Bank Develpment Indicators [2].[1] http://www.extranjeria.gob.cl/estadisticas-migratorias/[2] https://www.kaggle.com/worldbank/world-development-indicatorsThe files in this fileset include:in.tar.bz2: the input files to analyzescript.py: an Spark Python3 script that analyses the data.immigrantsByCountry.csv: a CSV table with the number of immigrants and the country code.indicatorsJoin.txt.gzip: a file created for debugging.comparisons.csv: a CSV table with the maximum between the numbers in the last two columns, the code of an indicator X, the name of the indicator X, the number of immigrants coming from a country where X is greater than in Chile, and the number of immigrants where X is lesser than in Chile. The sum of the numbers in the last two columns is lesser than the total of immigrants (i.e., 1497519) when there are countries where X is not available. To run the script first decompress the input data in a folder and create another folder to save the output data. You have to edit the script to change the locations of these folders.plot*.png: Plot of indicators normalized by immigrants.

Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data was reported at 13,735,616.000 Person in 03-01-2011. This records an increase from the previous number of 9,189,438.000 Person for 03-01-2001. Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data is updated decadal, averaging 9,189,438.000 Person from Mar 1991 (Median) to 03-01-2011, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13,735,616.000 Person in 03-01-2011 and a record low of 6,960,431.000 Person in 03-01-1991. Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. The data is categorized under India Premium Database’s Demographic – Table IN.GAG001: Census of India: Migration: Number of Migrants: by States.

European countries are experiencing population decline and the tacit assumption in most analyses is that the decline may have detrimental welfare effects. In this paper we use a survey among the population in the Netherlands to discover whether population decline is always met with fear. A number of results stand out: population size preferences differ by geographic proximity: at a global level the majority of respondents favors a (global) population decline, but closer to home one supports a stationary population. Population decline is clearly not always met with fear: 31 percent would like the population to decline at the national level and they generally perceive decline to be accompanied by immaterial welfare gains (improvement environment) as well as material welfare losses (tax increases, economic stagnation). In addition to these driving forces it appears that the attitude towards immigrants is a very strong determinant at all geographical levels: immigrants seem to be a stronger fear factor than population decline.

Sweden Number of Immigrants: Female: Ghana data was reported at 66.000 Person in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 72.000 Person for 2016. Sweden Number of Immigrants: Female: Ghana data is updated yearly, averaging 61.500 Person from Dec 2000 (Median) to 2017, with 18 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 82.000 Person in 2011 and a record low of 27.000 Person in 2001. Sweden Number of Immigrants: Female: Ghana data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Statistics Sweden. The data is categorized under Global Database’s Sweden – Table SE.G009: Number of Immigrants: by Sex and Country.

People who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada. Please note that in these datasets, the figures have been suppressed or rounded to prevent the identification of individuals when the datasets are compiled and compared with other publicly available statistics. Values between 0 and 5 are shown as “--“ and all other values are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. This may result to the sum of the figures not equating to the totals indicated.