User:Chrysoberyl/sandbox

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 96,694 foreign-born immigrants in the US that were born in Syria. This number comes from the 2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 1-Year Estimates and represents a miniscule 0.2% of the foreign-born population in the US of 43,738,901.

The first record of lawful permanent residents (LPRs) from Syria to enter the US was in the 1920’s with 5,307 such immigrants. Prior to that, only a total of 149 such immigrants from Syria were recorded between 1860 to 1889, and none were recorded between 1890 and 1919.

This, however, does not mean that no Syrians emigrated to the United States, but rather, as Philip Hitti explains in The Syrians in America, “Before 1899 the Syrians, as such, did not exist for the United States immigration authorities, having been hitherto classified … under ‘Turkey in Asia’; and officially to the Turkish government, emigration to America did never exist, since it was strictly prohibited and all emigrants left for ‘Egypt’ as their destination” (Hitti 62). Hitti cites the Annual Report Commissioner General Immigration, 1919, to provide the immigration numbers of people with their race designated as Syrian for years between 1899 and 1919. Although this is a different designation, the comparison to the LPR count still reflects a major shift in flow statistics. 46,884 Syrians entered from 1900 to 1909 and 39,379 Syrians entered from 1910 to 1919, with a majority (90% from 1910 to 1914) in the latter decade entering prior to the start of the Sinai and Palestine Campaign or the involvement of Ottoman Syria in World War I in January of 1915. One caveat of these counts is the difference between the Syrian identity pre-1918 before the partitioning of Ottoman Syria along with the rest of the Ottoman Empire under the Sykes-Picot Agreement and afterward under the French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon. Ottoman Syria included all of Palestine and Lebanon along with parts of modern-day Syria and Turkey. Even in 1924, Hitti still refers to Ottoman Syria as Syria, so Lebanese and Palestinians had yet discard their Syrian identity.

Factors determining the migration of these people is discussed in economical terms by both Anthony Caminetti, the Commissioner General of Immigration, and Hitti. On immigration, Caminetti states that “the bureau is convinced it was largely economic, and that unless that situation improves even the political emancipation of the … Syrians … will not deter them from emigrating” (Caminetti 48). Hitti claims, “The primary impulse for Syrian emigration can be traced, in the main, to economic causes. … Succinctly stated, Syria has always been an inhospitable place to live in and a splendid place to leave” (Hitti 49). However, while Caminetti in 1919 is more interested in limiting levels of immigration when the US government is in the aftermath of passing the Immigration Act of 1917, which instituted a literacy test, Hitti explores more of the narrative from the perspective of the immigrants themselves. Hitti also provides the exact cap of 925 Syrians per year or 3% of the Syrian population in the US in 1910 instituted by the Emergency Quota Act in 1921.

In Chapter II, Hitti contends that although much of the theory explaining immigration focuses on the American Dream, most of the immigrants he speaks with name Turkish oppression as the “chief cause of their emigration” (Hitti 51). Another political reason mentioned was escaping military duty especially for Christians, who also had the had “restrictions placed upon them because of their beliefs,” made up the majority of Syrian immigrants in this period despite being a minority population in Syria. The next reason seems to be early evidence for World Systems Theory on migration. Hitti chronicles the decline of the silk and wine industries in Syria, the former due to French manufacturers squeezing Syrian producers to the point of no profit and the latter due to insect infestation. The mercantilist, capitalist system has displaced the population of a Peripheral state, driving immigration to Core states. Hitti also mentions precursors to social capital theory and new economics of migration, where “the fabulous stories recorded in epistles of the emigrants regarding the volume of wealth in the United States and the facility with which it can be acquired spread like wildfire” and “the early emigrants … insisted on sending back their earnings to the old country and investing them in large and conspicuous red-roofed houses each one of which acted as a mute and perpetual advertisement for the United States” (Hitti 52-3). These examples reflect the social networks in social capital theory and the relative deprivation effect in the new economics of migration. This is surprising given that many of these theories of migration had not been developed in this era. According to Douglas Massey’s The Handbook of International Migration, the new economics of migration arose in 1985 to challenge the neoclassical model, World Systems Theory “emerged during the 1950’s”, and social capital theory was developed in 1977 (Massey 40). Prior to the establishment of these challenges to the neoclassical model, Hitti is already writing about these effects as being more important than economics in the book on Syrian immigrants in 1924.

The next era in Syrian migration to the US is dominated by the heavily exclusionary policies implemented by the US government. As mentioned by Hatti, World War I heavily slashed Syrian immigration and it did not recover in the interwar period due to the quotas set in 1921. The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 abolished national-origin quotas, which Hitti had referenced as the reason for predicting that Syrian immigration would decline despite immense push factors. This prediction would be verified with as in every decade between 1920 and 1969, no more 9,250 Syrians or 10 times the yearly quota entered the US. Since the end of the quotas, Syrian immigration has been increasing every decade, but it still makes up a very small portion of the total immigrants obtaining LPR. According to Jie Zong in “Profile of Syrian Immigrants in the United States”, one significant difference in post-1965 Syrian immigration to the US was that it predominantly Muslim rather than Christian.

In the 21st century, the main driving of emigration from Syria has been the Syrian Civil War. However, very few of 5,582,018 registered refugees from Syria have been admitted as refugees in the US and even less have been given LPR status. The number of Syrian refugees entering the US had been negligible until 2015, nearly four years since the start of the war. However, despite the continuation of the war as a push factor, it is unlikely for these levels of refugee admissions to continue or increase because according to the US Department of State Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year 2018, the proposed ceiling for FY2018 is 45,000 for total refugees (47% decrease from those admitted in FY2016) and 17,500 for the Near East/South Asia (51% decrease from those admitted in FY2016). Furthermore, as of February 19th, 2018, “the entry into the United States of nationals of Syria … is hereby suspended,” pursuant to Proclamation 9645 and Executive Order 13780 (Proclamation No. 9645, 2017).

Not only does this order affect refugees from Syria while active, but also new LPRs from Syria. New LPRs who were born in Syria were increasing annually from 2009 to 2016, a timeframe encompassing the war. However, we did not see the same amplitude of increase that we saw in new LPRs whose country of last residence was Syria in 2010 and 2011, as shown in the figure below. There is not much documented explanation for the difference, but the new LPR trend for those born in Syria follows the refugee trend more closely (a more muted response to the war), so it is important acknowledge the difference and limits our ability to use the two statistics interchangeably in any analysis.

As discussed above, a significant number of Syrians obtaining LPR status were admitted as refugees (30% in the refuges and asylees category compared to 13% for all LPRs). Although the largest class of admission is still immediate relatives of citizens, the portion is less than that for all LPRs (39% vs. 48%). Employment-based preferences and diversity lottery admissions are also less numerous for Syrians (5% vs. 12% and 2% vs. 4%, respectively), while the family-sponsored class is more numerous (24% vs. 20%). However, when compared to new LPRs born in Asia, the immediate relative of citizens and family-sponsored categories are the same rounded to the nearest percent. Nonetheless, the new LPRs born in Syria still have significant differences to all LPRs born in Asia in the refugees and asylees category, and the employment-based category (30% vs. 14% and 5% vs. 18%, respectively). The most unique statistics about Syrians’ means of entry are the significantly high level of refugees and the significantly low level of employment-based entries.

The state with the most Syrian immigrants by a wide margin was California with 30% of the national number. Other states with 2,000 or more Syrian include: New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Michigan, Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Massachusetts, and Ohio.

Nearly half of the employed Syrian immigrant population work management, business, science, or arts occupations, which is significantly higher than the respective proportion in native-born and general foreign-born populations, as shown below. They are also less likely to be employed in the service industry and nearly absent in natural resources, construction, or maintenance jobs. The higher level in management, business, science, and arts could be reflected in higher levels of education, as those occupations generally require bachelor’s degrees. According to Zong, “Syrians (39 percent) were more likely in 2014 than both the native and foreign-born populations to have a bachelor’s degree (30 percent and 29 percent, respectively)” (Zong 5). Despite these trends, very few Syrian immigrants are granted LPR status based on employment preferences, the typical channel for immigrants with higher educational attainment, so many of these degree-carriers could actually be refugees.

Syrian immigrants tend to be older than both the foreign-born and native-born populations (20% over 65 vs. 15% and 15%, respectively). Like the foreign-born population generally, they are less likely to be under 24 than the native-born population, as shown in the figure below.

Human Migration

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * The article manages to stay relevant to human migration without off-topic distractions.


 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear biased toward a particular position?
 * The article is mostly neutral without advocating for any position on migration. However, the wording in the section on World Systems Theory may skew toward a skeptical view of that position.
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * Most of the statistics are from OECD or UN sources which represent the Neoclassical Economics viewpoint.


 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * The few citations I checked had functional links and generally reflected the claims.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * The migration statistics section is missing references when it comes to each countries list.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * Some of the information from the OECD and World Bank in the migration statistics section is outdated, and statistics backing theories other than neoclassical economics is missing.
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * The most recent talk is about fixing external links.
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * The article is rated C-class and is a part of the follow WikiProjects: Archaeology, Anthropology, Human Genetic History, History, Ethnic groups, Economics, and Human rights.
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * We discussed social capital theory, cumulative causation, and some non-Western contemporary examples that are not mentioned. The Osmosis Theory is not something that we discussed in class.