# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The vast majority arrived by sea but some migrants have made their way over land, principally via Turkey and Albania.

Winter has not stemmed the flow of people - with 135,711 people reaching Europe by sea since the start of 2016, according to the UNHCR.

1. Which countries are migrants from?

The conflict in Syria continues to be by far the biggest driver of migration. But the ongoing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses in Eritrea, as well as poverty in Kosovo, are also leading people to look for new lives elsewhere.

2. Where are migrants going?

3. How do migrants get to Europe?

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) estimates that more than 1,011,700 migrants arrived by sea in 2015, and almost 34,900 by land.

This compares with 280,000 arrivals by land and sea for the whole of 2014. The figures do not include those who got in undetected.

The EU's external border force, Frontex, monitors the different routes migrants use and numbers arriving at Europe's borders and put the figure crossing into Europe in 2015 at more than 1,800,000.

Most of those heading for Greece take the relatively short voyage from Turkey to the islands of Kos, Chios, Lesvos and Samos - often in flimsy rubber dinghies or small wooden boats.

4. How dangerous is the journey?

According to the IOM, more than 3,770 migrants were reported to have died trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2015.

Most died on the crossing from north Africa to Italy, and more than 800 died in the Aegean crossing from Turkey to Greece.

The summer months are usually when most fatalities occur as it is the busiest time for migrants attempting to reach Europe.

But in 2015, the deadliest month for migrants was April, which saw a boat carrying about 800 people capsize in the sea off Libya. Overcrowding is thought to have been one of the reasons for the disaster.

5. Which European countries are most affected?

The figure for Germany was 587 and for the UK it was 60 applications for every 100,000 residents. The EU average was 260.

6. How has Europe responded?

Tensions in the EU have been rising because of the disproportionate burden faced by some countries, particularly the countries where the majority of migrants have been arriving: Greece, Italy and Hungary.

Another 54,000 were to be moved from Hungary, but the Hungarian government rejected this plan and will instead receive more migrants from Italy and Greece as part of the relocation scheme.

The UK has opted out of any plans for a quota system but, according to Home Office figures, 1,000 Syrian refugees were resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme in 2015. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK will accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years.

7. How many asylum claims are approved?

Although huge numbers have been applying for asylum, the number of people being given asylum is far lower.

In 2015, EU countries offered asylum to 292,540 refugees. In the same year, more than a million migrants applied for asylum - although applying for asylum can be a lengthy procedure so many of those given refugee status may have applied in previous years.

A note on terminology: The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Migrant crisis: Migration to Europe explained in seven charts

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The vast majority arrived by sea but some migrants have made their way over land, principally via Turkey and Albania. Winter has not stemmed the flow of people - with 135,711 people reaching Europe by sea since the start of 2016, according to the UNHCR. 1. Which countries are migrants from?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Low fertility rate, no in-migration will lead to S'pore's population decline - 07Sep2011

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
SINGAPORE: Singapore's resident population will decline and become extremely aged if the Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is extremely low and if there is no in-migration. This is according to a landmark study on future population growth and change for Singapore published on Wednesday by the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
It took Seema Khan and her family two years to build their family compound in North Waziristan. They had three days to get out.

"The situation was all of a sudden worse," she recalled.

Her family left their newly built home in June 2014. That's when the Pakistani military launched a US-backed offensive targeting extremists in the northwest border region. The US is funding the war with nearly $1 billion in military aid this fiscal year alone.

About a million people fled North Waziristan and the nearby Khyber region along with the Khans in 2014. They left farm fields, livestock and houses full of memories behind.

"I'm missing everything, like my house, my precious household items, and all that furniture," Khan said. "Everything which I loved, I am missing all that."

Khan, 40, sits in the two-story Islamabad apartment where four families now live. The women almost never leave.

"Being a Pashtun lady, we don't go out from our houses," said Hawla Khan, Seema's daughter.

In Waziristan, Hawla, who is in her mid-20s, says they could leave the family compound to visit relatives. But now everyone is scattered.

The Khans do miss their home. But even though they're stuck in this small apartment, they say their lives have actually gotten better since being displaced.

The benefits of relocation

"We are kind of happy here because there are the basic facilities," Seema Khan said. "In Waziristan we were lacking those kinds of facilities. ... [Here] our children are getting education and we are living in a very peaceful environment."

Five-year-old Eman Khan was wearing her school uniform and backpack when reporters arrived to her family's house. She wouldn't have been able to go to school back home. Her sister Hawla never did.

"Her future will be bright," Hawla Khan said. "She will be happy. She won't be uneducated like us, because she has an opportunity here."

The family has better access to healthcare in Islamabad, too.

Asma Khan, who married into the Khan family, pointed out the dangers of childbirth in Waziristan. She knew three women who died during labor in a one-month span a few years ago.

Around the world, nearly half a million women die giving birth each year because they do so without any medically trained assistance. But that wasn't the case for the women Khan remembers.

She said the problem in her hometown is that there are no nearby female doctors who can help during life-threatening deliveries.

"When there aren't any female specialists, we get referred to male doctors," Asma Khan said. "And the male members of our family won't let us be treated by them. So, many women have lost their lives in difficult pregnancies."

For women, displacement can be an opportunity.

The Khan women aren't the only ones saying that, in some ways, their lives are better post-displacement.

Lawyer and gender rights advocate Rukhshanda Naz has interviewed more than 150 displaced women since the offensive started two years ago.

Unlike the Khan women, many she spoke to felt stifled when they lived in their home regions, afraid to leave their homes due to fear of sexual assault from militants.

"For days, they were not allowed to come out from their house," Naz said. "It was self-imposed imprisonment for women."

Leaving that environment and living in displaced persons camps or host communities, where government agencies and NGOs can provide much-needed services, has given women a chance to access literacy and skills training programs.

"When we interacted with women in different camps and in the host community, we considered displacement for women an opportunity," Naz said.

The US government funds the military operation that has forced hundreds of thousands of people from their homes.

But it also gives humanitarian aid to the people who have had to relocate. The United States is helping Pakistan rebuild critical infrastructure in the country's tribal areas, and providing emergency humanitarian aid like water and food.

In 2015, Secretary of State John Kerry pledged $250 million for the rehabilitation of the federally administered tribal areas in Pakistan. The US added more than $11 million to that in fiscal year 2016.

An uncertain future

The Khan family recently learned that the government has given tribal leaders permission to repopulate their region in North Waziristan as soon as next month.

But the family doesn't really want to return, especially the women.

The Khans are among the lucky ones: The new house they lived in for just two months before fleeing North Waziristan is still standing. But it's in bad shape. It's been ransacked and overtaken by weeds. Light fixtures have been ripped out of the ceiling and there are animal droppings everywhere.

However, they don't know if they'll be able to stay in Islamabad.

Right now, the family gets about $180 a month from the Pakistani government. Once that stops, Asma Khan doesn't know if the family could afford to stay in the city.

"We're wondering how we'll earn money," she said. "How would we pay the rent, and how would we get a job?"

It's an uncertain future, especially for women.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
When being forcibly removed from your home isn't entirely bad news

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
It took Seema Khan and her family two years to build their family compound in North Waziristan. They had three days to get out. "The situation was all of a sudden worse," she recalled. Her family left their newly built home in June 2014.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.entities[].name
Fence Jumpers | National Geographic https://youtu.be/c2lGJpTa1HU National Geographic

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Agents use multiple cameras to monitor the border fences in Arizona. ➡ Subscribe: http://bit.ly/NatGeoSubscribe About National Geographic: National Geographic is the world's premium destination for science, exploration, and adventure. Through their world-class scientists, photographers, journalists, and filmmakers, Nat Geo gets you closer to the stories that matter and past the edge of what's possible.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
Pew Research Center's Social & Demographic Trends Project

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Updated Dec. 29, 2008 to reflect new Census data.)

As a nation, the United States is often portrayed as restless and rootless. Census data, though, indicate that Americans are settling down. Only 11.9% of Americans changed residences between 2007 and 2008, the smallest share since the government began tracking this trend in the late 1940s.

A new Pew Social & Demographic Trends survey finds that most Americans have moved to a new community at least once in their lives, although a notable number - nearly four-in-ten - have never left the place in which they were born. Asked why they live where they do, movers most often cite the pull of economic opportunity. Stayers most often cite the tug of family and connections.

Both the survey and Census data indicate that the biggest differences in the characteristics of movers and stayers revolve around geography and education. In the Midwest, nearly half of adult residents say they have spent their entire lives in their hometown. That compares with fewer than a third of those who live in Western states. Cities, suburbs and small towns have more movers than stayers, while rural areas are more evenly split. Three-quarters of college graduates have moved at least once, compared with just over half of Americans with no more than a high school diploma. College graduates also move longer distances - and move more often - than Americans with a high school diploma or less, and employment plays a greater role in their decisions about where to live. By income group, the most affluent Americans are the most likely to have moved.

The Census Bureau's Current Population Survey indicates that the number of people who moved between 2007 and 2008, 34 million, was the lowest since 1959-60, when the population of the U.S. was 41% smaller than it is now. The annual migration rate, which held at about 20% through the mid-1960s, has drifted downward since then to its current low of 11.9%.

Analysts say the long-term decline in migration has occurred because the U.S. population is getting older and most moves are made when people are young. Another brake on moving is the rise of two-career couples, because it is more difficult to coordinate a relocation when two jobs are involved. On top of these long term trends, the current economic downturn has led to a further decline in migration, because jobs are typically one of the key magnets that induce people to move.

The Pew Social & Demographic Trends survey of 2,260 adults, which was conducted Oct. 3-19, 2008, asked respondents why they have stayed in their hometowns or have moved to their current community. This report combines the survey findings with Census Bureau data on migration patterns between states and regions.

The survey also posed questions to U.S.-born movers about the "place in your heart you consider to be home," and to foreign-born respondents about "the country in your heart you consider to be home."

Home means different things to different people. Among U.S.-born adults who have lived in more than one community, nearly four-in-ten (38%) say the place they consider home isn't where they're living now. But there's a wide range of definitions of "home" among Americans who have lived in at least one place besides their original hometown: 26% say it's where they were born or raised; 22% say it's where they live now; 18% say it's where they have lived the longest; 15% say it's where their family comes from; and 4% say it's where they went to high school.

As for foreign-born adults, a majority say that the U.S. is home, while nearly four-in-ten reserve that designation for their country of birth. Not surprisingly, the longer an immigrant lives in this country, the more likely the U.S. is considered "home."

Among all respondents to the Pew Research Center survey, 57% say they have not lived in the U.S. outside their current state: 37% have never left their hometown and 20% have left their hometown (or native country) but not lived outside their current state.

The Pew survey finds that stayers overwhelmingly say they remain because of family ties and because their hometowns are good places to raise children. Their life circumstances match those explanations. Most stayers say at least half a dozen members of their extended families live within an hour's drive; for 40%, more than 10 relatives live nearby. A majority of stayers also cite a feeling of belonging as a major reason for staying put.

Movers are far less likely to cite those kinds of ties. Fewer than four-in-ten say a major reason they moved to their current community has to do with family or child-rearing. Most movers have five or fewer extended-family members living within an hour's drive of them, and 26% have none. The most popular reason that movers choose a new community, selected by a 44% plurality, is job or business opportunities, according to the Pew survey. About the same share of stayers (40%) cite job or business opportunities as a major reason for staying, but far more stayers choose reasons related to family and friends.

Movers are more likely than stayers to say that it is likely they will move in the next five years. But despite those and other differences, equal shares of movers and stayers - about six-in-ten - rate their communities overall as good to excellent.

About the Survey

Results for this survey are based on telephone interviews conducted with a nationally representative sample of 2,260 adults living in the continental United States. A combination of landline and cellular random digit dial (RDD) samples was used to represent all adults in the continental United States who have access to either a landline or cellular telephone. A total of 1,502 interviews were completed with respondents contacted by landline telephone and 758 from those contacted on their cellular phone. The data are weighted to produce a final sample that is representative of the general population of adults in the continental United States.

Interviews conducted Oct. 3-19, 2008

2,260 interviews

Margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2.3 percentage points for results based on the total sample at the 95% confidence level.

Note on terminology: Whites include only non- Hispanic whites. Blacks include only non-Hispanic blacks. Hispanics are of any race.

Survey interviews conducted under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Interviews conducted in English or Spanish.
Read the full report for more details.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
(Updated Dec. 29, 2008 to reflect new Census data.) As a nation, the United States is often portrayed as restless and rootless. Census data, though, indicate that Americans are settling down. Only 11.9% of Americans changed residences between 2007 and 2008, the smallest share since the government began tracking this trend in the late 1940s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Neither our doors nor our minds have opened much since WWII

In 1903, the poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus was engraved onto the base of the Statue of Liberty. You may not know the sonnet by name, but you know the its final lines:

"Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Despite the fact that the United States of America is a nation of immigrants, public opinion around welcoming them has been historically cool. In the video above, GOOD takes you on a tour of global catastrophes that have resulted massive swathes of displaced people, from World War II to the expansion of the Soviet Union following the rise to power of Nikita Khrushchev to the Sino-Vietnamese War and on to the Mariel Boatlift incident in Cuba. Then in the mid-1980s, sentiment about taking in refugees was measured at around the same time the Cartegna Declaration was signed to protect refugees in Latin America. Next comes the U.S. military invention in a civil conflict in Haiti that displaced thousands, and most recently the Syrian Civil War, which has resulted in literally millions of people seeking refuge across the globe.

Let's hope millions of Americans never need to knock on international doors for aid, because we haven't been paying very close attention to the Golden Rule throughout the 20th and 21st centuries.

Music: NYM - Seven Hills
Produced and Written by Gabriel Reilich

Graphics by Jake Infusino

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Evolution Of American Public Opinion Towards Refugees

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 1903, the poem "The New Colossus" by Emma Lazarus was engraved onto the base of the Statue of Liberty. You may not know the sonnet by name, but you know the its final lines: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The issue of immigration sits on the fault lines of culture, politics, and economics, pushed to and fro by conflicting and often irreconcilable forces. At worst, national immigration policies lurch forward like Frankenstein's monster, stitched together from random bits of idealism, compromise, belligerence, and denial. Even those that do a good job of serving national priorities today can miss the long-term economic picture entirely.

There's a The Global Economic Picture: Brain Drain Race going on between the world's economic leaders--a scramble to snap up the "best and the brightest" immigrants from poor and emerging nations. Some countries, like the UK, are busy implementing policies that better position them to win this race than others. Others, like the United States, continue to attract highly skilled* immigrants for the time being, while failing to adopt clever new policies to keep up with the competition. Economist Daniel Altman, a former economic advisor on immigration to the British government and author of Outrageous Fortunes: The Twelve Surprising Trends That Will Reshape the Global Economy, believes that this competition can be a
losing proposition for rich and poor countries alike.

For poorer countries, the consequences can be devastating: brain drain can permanently undermine their hopes for political stability and economic growth. The ongoing exodus of their most talented and educated citizens can prevent the growth of a stable middle class. Without this anchoring demographic, a nation is unlikely to develop the infrastructure it needs to compete (or even participate) in the global economy.

Why the Winners Lose, Too: World markets continue to integrate at a dizzying pace. For the leaders, emerging nations are potential partners in trade, consumers, and suppliers of key resources. Taking the example of the BRICs (Brazil, Russia, India, China), once-emerging nations can become powerful economic drivers themselves. In this new ecosystem, there is no such thing as isolationism - the fates of all nations are economically intertwined.

While international consensus - on anything - is devilishly difficult to achieve, Altman argues that leading nations need to take the long view in deciding immigration policy, rather than engaging in politically motivated internal squabbles or shortsighted international competition. He proposes some hybrid of open-door policies for needed workers and incentives for a significant percentage of those workers to contribute to their host countries by returning home. To be successful, such policies would have to be international in scope, mutually agreed upon and inviolable - otherwise the brain drain race would simply start all over again.
Altman's Caveat to the Idea of "Smarter" Immigration Policies: We're not that great at figuring out who is going to contribute most to our economies in the long term. It may be that, yes, you have a PhD today and you speak English really well and you're going to make an immediate contribution to this economy. That is great, but what will your children and your children's children do if indeed they stay in this economy? That is something that we're not that great at forecasting. We had waves of very unskilled immigration all throughout the 20th century and at the time there was massive opposition to this immigration because these were unskilled people like the people who come in such great numbers from all around the world today, many of them illegally, to the country. The fact is that those people worked hard. They sent their kids to school. Those kids and their kids are some of the upright professionals in our society today. Would we have predicted that 50, 70 years ago? Not necessarily, so we have to be very careful when we say these are the cherries that we actually want to pick.
Weigh In! How can America Design a Smarter Immigration Policy? [Nota Bene : Big Think welcomes spirited debate, but racist and/or xenophobic comments will be removed].

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

*The UK changed the name of its "Highly Skilled Migrant Program" to the "Tier One Immigration Program." There's really no inoffensive way to say this, is there?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Brain Drain Game: Why Everybody Loses.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The issue of immigration sits on the fault lines of culture, politics, and economics, pushed to and fro by conflicting and often irreconcilable forces. At worst, national immigration policies lurch forward like Frankenstein's monster, stitched together from random bits of idealism, compromise, belligerence, and denial.