An overview of the impact of migration on the population size and composition of Jamaica and the twin islands of Trinidad and Tobago
Introduction
According to Goldsheider (1998) migration is the “detachment from the organization of activities at one place and the movement of the total round of activities to another.” That is, people who move from one place to another while changing their usual place of residence are migrants. This definition, however, excludes people who move from one place to another without changing their place(s) of abode. For instance, vacation travelers and people whose jobs necessitate traveling from one place to another.
The categories most frequently used in the studies of migration distinguish between moves across international boundaries, (that are from one county to another international migration) and move between different places in the same country (that is internal migration). For example, a person who comes from Barbados to live in Jamaica here is called an immigrant. On the other hand, a person who leaves Jamaica to reside in Barbados is called an emigrant. Previously, those situations are within the scope of international migration (that of, emigration and immigration), whereas, internal migration speaks specifically to the changing of ones place of abode within the same the same geographically defined border. A typical example is an individual who removes from Southside, Kingston (irrespective of specificity of address) to reside permanently in Flanker, Montego Bay, St. James or from Caroni to St. Patrick in the twin islands of Trinidad and Tobago.
A component in the population dynamics of any country is external migration. However, both internal and external migrations are important components of population change. External migration has been a major contributor to the reduction in population growth. Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago are affected by internal migration in terms of the predominant rural to urban drift. External migration or the permanent change of residence from the country to another affects the population redistribution and change. Geographic mobility has played a major role in the distribution and redistribution of humans on the surface of this planet.
Both internal and external movements are largely influenced by imbalance in the development process and associated push and pull factors. The process of immigration and emigration influences migration rate. Immigrants to Jamaica and the twin islands of Trinidad and Tobago may include returning residents, deportees, Commonwealth citizens and aliens. Both processes have affected these countries’ population structure.
Why do people migrate?
Migration was defined as “moving or leaving by an individual from country of birth to another”. The reasons that would stimulate this would include:
• Economic gain and improvement
• Marriage
• Political asylum – persecution for political, trade union or religious reasons
• Refugee – to escape famine, wars and genocide
• Outlaws – running away from crimes
• Exile – being banished by the Government
• Job requirements and vocational needs
• Medical and educational
Are there different kinds of migrants?
Our group identified five (5) key groups:
• Political – this would include racial, religious and cultural migrants
• Economic – for reasons such as housing, medical, educational, standard of living, employment
• Romantic
• Criminal – running from the law, fraud, felony
• Vocational – to expand skills and knowledge with the intention of returning
What do migrants bring with them to the countries they migrate to?
We identified a number of benefits, which we saw as positive:
• Culture – food, dance, art and craft and different types of activities
• Religion – a mix of religions (for instance Trinidad and Tobago has Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Shangos, Oraisha and, of course, Obia if you choose to count that as a spiritual belief system)
• Skills
• Language – in Trinidad our English is enriched by words from India, France, Spain, Africa and some local Carib words. Amongst some small pockets we can still find French Patois, Hindi and Spanish.
• Population growth
• Different outlook on life and things in general
What do migrants need from the country they migrate to?
This was a mixture of what migrants were looking for and what they needed:
• A better standard of living
• Refugee status
• Health care
• Security from crime
• Equal opportunities in employment
• Proper education – and this might include learning both a new language and cultural norms
• To live in a healthy environment
• Freedom of expression – freedom from fear …
What reactions do migrants get from the people in the country they arrive in?
Our group highlighted four (4) areas:
• Discrimination – in employment, housing, religion, culture and racism
• Hostility – exploitation in jobs and education
• Language – problems of communication both spoken language and body language
• Resentment – against culture and behaviour
It was interesting that some in the group though it was OK for Trini’s to go to America and Canada to get better jobs but were not so happy about people from Guyana and some other countries should come and take “Trini jobs’. This apparent contradiction created quite some discussion.
Why do some people react negatively to immigrants?
We thought the following were factors to consider:
• Local people fear migrants would take their jobs
• Migrants would be prepared to work at lower wages
• Migrants take facilities (such as education and welfare benefits) that they have not contributed towards
• Migrants may get married to a local just to stay in the country
• Fear that migrants might take control
• Some might see migrants as a cause of increased crime
• Culturally, what might be considered plain talk in one country might be
• considered bad manners or aggression in the host country
EMIGRATION FROM SENDING COUNTRY
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
For Migrants • Education
• Living conditions
• Better health care (compared to your home country)
• Better careers
• Family benefits
• Difference experiences (culture, language etc)
• A new start • Severing ties (family and friends)
• Being used as cheap labour
• Discrimination (racism, hostility)
• Poor housing (living in ghetto areas)
• Poor health care (cannot afford expensive private health care)
• Language problems
For Companies • The ability to downsize at little or no cost
• The opportunity to use substitute contract labour
• Weakening of organised labour if trade union activists leave
• Skill of returning migrants
• Increased business activity in some sectors generated by travelling and sending barrels back to home country • Loss of skilled workers
• Increased labour costs in some areas if there is a scarcity of some skills
• Retraining costs
• A production slump
For Society • Foreign exchange as migrants send money back home
• Increased knowledge and skills as migrants return
• Lower unemployment as workers migrated
• Helps to build a transnational society • Possibility of “brain drain: as skilled workers left
• Breakdown of traditional values
• Problems for returnees who might find society dramatically changed
• Also gap in wealth as returnees brought back pensions and assets which put them above locals who remained
IMMIGRATION TO SENDING COUNTRY
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
For Migrants • Increased opportunities and better standard of living
• Many of the same issues as above – but in reverse • Loss of family ties
• Being used as cheap labour
• Increased costs of living – despite the potential higher standard of living
For Companies • Migrant workers are likely to provide a more flexible and cheaper workforce
• Increased profits as migrant labour is exploited • A potentially transitory workforce – workers who are prepared to migrate once may move on a go back home if things improve there
• Language and cultural differences which could create problems and add to costs of hiring and training
For Society • Increased cultural diversity in food, art, music etc
• An increasingly skilled workforce • Racial tension
• Increased crime as poor migrants try and survive (some thought this was a stereo-type and not necessarily valid)
• Increased poverty in some areas
• It could slow technological advancement as companies use cheap labour instead of developing new technology
• Costs of language training
• Loss of foreign exchange
We were also aware that what might be advantages or disadvantage at any one time would likely be influenced by the state of the economy in either country. If unemployment was high in the sending country then one set of arguments could be presented which might be reversed if unemployment was low.
We felt that because most migration is economically driven, factors such as the state of the economy were bound to greatly influence patterns.
Responses to increasing migration
Given the economic nature of migration, we saw that migration tended to be from poor to rich countries. We could express this number of ways: from developing to developed countries, from south to north, from east to west, from non-industrial countries to industrial ones.
Our discussion gradually began to put migration in an international – that is global – setting. This also raised some debate on the role of international capitalism and its willingness to exploit cheap labour and take advantage of the world labour market. We has recent experience of that by the Nestles Company in Trinidad who diverted production to Jamaica at the expense of Trinidadian jobs.
We came to no firm answer (essentially because there is no simple answer) but it raised an interesting issue for our group. How could we think is it fair and reasonable to be able to migrate to the US (and some people go to great lengths to do this legally or illegally) and yet be opposed to similar migration into Trinidad from, say, Guyana? If there was free movement of labour in a CARICOM single market (as there is for capital) would this be acceptable?
DaveSmith
(Member of NATUC General Council)
According to David Levine (1990), migration has historically been central in the formation of Caribbean countries. Throughout the region migration patterns have, over time, responded to economic and political development within the islands and to the impact of international forces ranging from investment and trade regulations to changes in the characteristics of immigration policies in the receiving countries, including the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. For the purpose of this essay, migration excludes intra-migration that refers to movement within the same geographically defined region.
Like all societies of the new world, Jamaica and Trinidad owe their origin and early development to migration. At almost every stage of their history, external migration of some sort has dominated their demographic, economic and social positions. This influence has been substantial because, in view of the small sizes of their populations, migratory movements of negligible dimensions by world standards can have significant effects on their entire social structure.
By the early 17th century the slave trade became the accepted means of securing plantation labour (G. W. Roberts). It provided a cheap and ready supply of slave labour and there was no attempt to encourage reproduction among the slaves at this time. Large numbers of slaves were brought into Jamaica, which as the centre of the Asiento, played a significant role in the supply of slaves to Spanish colonies. About half a million slaves were brought into the island between 1702 and 1775 and about 73% were retained assuring a considerable increase in the slave population (G.W. Roberts). Total slaves in Jamaica increased from 45,000 in 1773 to 130,000 in 1754 and to 211,000 in 1787(G.W. Roberts). All this took place in the face of high mortality and very low fertility. High mortality was as a result of disease endemic to the region and some brought in by slaves. The highest causes of death were fevers, dysentery and yaws, while a substantial number resorted to suicide as a means of escape. Slave women were reluctant to bear children who would inevitably become slaves and so fertility was kept low. In addition slave owners did not encourage child bearing as the pregnant slave would not function properly as a work unit. Due to high mortality and low fertility, high rates of natural decrease were experienced. In Jamaica, an estimate of the natural rate of decrease throughout most of the 18th century was in excess of 2% per year (G.W Roberts). The effects of immigration far outweighed the natural decrease, so the population still increased.
In the later slave period, the slave trade declined and was eventually abolished, thus a decrease in the slave population resulted. Some factors included increasing opposition to the slave trade by humanitarian interests in Britain and fear of uprising among African born slaves. Planters had to consider alternatives, such as stimulating childbearing and improving health conditions. Though this made natural decrease lower, the cessation of immigration meant that slave populations had reduced after 1807.
Notable declines occurred during 1816 and 1834 and continued sometime after emancipation. This contributed to a reduction in the labour force of the plantations. In Trinidad, sending agents to recruit workers in Barbados solved this problem (G.W. Roberts). Between Trinidad and Guyana, total emigration from Barbados was 50,000 up to 1921(G. W. Roberts). The movement was highly sex-selective and caused a notable increase in Non-Indian male the population in Trinidad.
The decline in labourers forced a second stream of migration, known as indenture migration, to develop. Its impact on the demographic conditions and the social and economic structure in Trinidad were far-reaching. The largest number of indenture workers came from India and many went to Trinidad. Indenture migration was influenced by changing fortunes in the sugar industry and the number declined when demand for sugar decreased. The first set of migrants came from India in 1838. Between this year and 1917, when the movement was terminated, total number of East Indian immigrants in the region was 429,600 of whom 143,900 went to Trinidad and 36,400 went to Jamaica. This process of indenture migration from India was instrumental in determining the ten-fold expansion of Trinidad’s population during the century following 1844. There was a marked rise in fertility in the years following 1912 and the original imbalance of the sexes in Trinidad had been redressed (G.W. Roberts).
With the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1864, liberated Africans were brought into the region amounting to 39,300, less than one tenth the number of East Indians. Jamaica took 11,000 and Trinidad took 8,900. Other groups of immigrants came from China, Madeira and Europe (see TABLE 0).
The increments of indenture immigration were offset, in Jamaica, by emigration between the 1880s and 1921. When the French began work on the canal in the 1880s, emigrants from Jamaica went to the Isthmus in substantial numbers. Many Jamaicans remained when this effort was discontinued and were present to provide the initial force of unskilled labour when the project was resumed in 1904. On the completion of the canal in 1914, instead of returning home, Jamaicans moved on to Costa Rica to Work in the growing banana industry, on the plantations and on the constructions of railways. Another attraction for Jamaicans to emigrate came Under the Treaty of 1902, where Cuban produce was given preferential treatment in the United States. The ex-slaves of that island could not provide the additional labour needed and Jamaicans took advantage of this opportunity. Up to 1912 emigration from Jamaica to Cuba was 22,000.
There was considerable emigration from Jamaica to the United States between 1881 and 1921 totaling 46,000. Terrible economic conditions associated with disastrous hurricanes, World War II and severe depression in the sugar industry, provided incentive for emigration. The freedom of entry and easy access were also incentives up until the passing of the Quota Acts of 1921 and 1924, which brought the movement to a halt. Emigration was of a highly sex- and age- selective nature. This was reflected in the populations of 1911 and 1921 as there was a marked shortage of males within the age interval 15 to 44. It is estimated that Jamaica experienced net emigration of 146,000 between 1881 and 1921.
In the West Indies on a whole, the period from 1920 to World War II was not marked by significant outflows. There were however relatively small movements owing there origin to the development of a new industry – oil. The discovery of oil in Trinidad resulted in an economic boom. Many workers were needed to perform the work, and experienced oil men came from all over the world.
During the decades of the 1960s through to 2000 there has been negative external migration in Jamaica (see Table 1-4). This indicates that more individuals leave the country than those who enter. During the first half of the decade of the 90s, Jamaica experienced a net migration loss of 111,100. The same period of the decade of the 80s, showed a net loss of 54,774. The period following this in the 80s had an increase in the number of migrants of a little more than 50%, from 54,774 to 113,700. A decline was seen in the early 90s that continued into the second half of the 90s. The net loss for this period was 95,500. The overall total for the period 1980-1989 was 169,474, while the period 1990-1999 was 206,600. Even though there was approximately 50% increase by the end of the 1980s, a decline was evident at the start and ending of the 1990s. The period 1980-1989 saw emigration being equivalent to approximately 55% of natural increase. The total decline between the to periods was 100,200.
Table 1
Migrants from Jamaica
YEAR MIGRATION BALANCE
1844 -
1861 12,800
1871 -800
1881 5,600
1891 -24,800
1911 -43,900
1921 -77,100
1943 25,800
1960 -195,200
1970 -296,500
1982 -216,900
1991 -188,858
Source: Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica, 1994 page 68
: 1 Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica, 1999 page 66
Table 2
Quarterly Estimates of External Movements of the Population, 1984-1993
YEAR NET MIGRATION QUARTERS Net Migration
MARCH JUNE SEPT DEC Rate
1984 -10474 -8824 -5845 -9866 14061
1985 -13425 -5962 -6889 -12473 11899
1986 -20079 -13560 -8206 -10269 11956 -9.7
1987 -30903 -18171 -8925 -15438 11631 -14.3
1988 -38935 -15767 -12901 -13972 3706 -16.7
1989 -10446 -10100 -10959 -9166 19779 -5.5
1990 -24562 -15162 -12362 -15957 18919 -11.4
1991 -25912 -18497 -5608 -17563 15756 -10.8
1992 -20462 -15376 -8990 -18616 22520 -8.5
1993 -21313 -19907 -9176 -16393 24157 -8.7
1994 -18784 -19616 -11924 -14895 27651 -7.6
1995 -17669 -17632 -10516 -15035 25514 -7.1
1996 -18096 -17032 -8392 -19569 26897 -7.2
1997 -18640 -17173 -7914 -19907 26354 -7.3
1998 -20133 -18080 -8795 -19783 26525 -7.8
1999 -21000 -14609 -19281 -11286 24214 -8.1
2000 -21800 -13457 -20895 -20970 33488 -8.4
Sources of Net Migration: of Net Migration:
1. Data for 1984-1993 : Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica, page 62 of Jamaica, 1994, page 62
2. Data for 1993-1999: Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica, 1999, page 60
3. Data for 1999-2000: Demographic Statistics, 2000, pages (ii) and (viii)
Source of Net Migration Net Migration Rate:
Demographic Statistics, 2000, page 3
There are individuals who upon obtaining a visitor’s visa take up permanent residence abroad. However, the emigration figures of Jamaica do not include these. This data is not found in the immigration or naturalization figures of receiving countries. Therefore, the magnitude of illegal migration cannot be easily determined.
The immigration Reform Control Act of 1986 offered amnesty to illegal aliens. The amnesty period ended in 1988, which saw some three million illegal aliens applying through during this period. In 1990, additional amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 increased the number of immigrants allowed into the United States of America. The constant upgrading of the U.S.A.’s and Canada’s Immigration policy and the introduction of new clauses which facilitate easier sponsorship, resulted in an increase in the number of emigrants during the period 1980 – 1989.
TABLE 3 (U.S.A.), 1999
Immigrants Admitted by Major Occupation Groups
countries Prof. Speciality, technical Exec., admin. Mgmnt Sales Admin. Support Craft Operator,fabricator, labourer Farming, forestry, fishing Service No Occupation Total
Jamaica 515 121 363 500 196 313 194 1740 10791 14733
% 3.5 0.8 2.5 3.4 1.3 2.1 1.3 11.8 73.2 100
Trinidad
Tobago 240 84 92 135 101 95 9 234 3291 4281
% 5.6 2 2.1 3.1 2.4 2.2 0.2 5.5 76.9 100
Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1999 page 20 -22
The Population Structure and Migration
Most of the Jamaican migrants go to the U.S.A. and Canada. Table 6 and 7 give a summary of the number of migrants by age and sex to the U.S.A. and Canada during the periods 1991-1993 and 1982-1983. the data for 1981 was not available. A comparison can be made between the periods to establish if there are differences or similarities in the patterns. During the period 1991-1993 for both countries it is evident that the bulk of the group falls within the “below 20” age group. This is followed by the20-29 cohort. The older the cohort the less migrants seen in the group. The period 1981-1983 had a similar pattern with the bulk being within the “below 20” age group. The younger cohorts had the most migrants which would inevitably impact on the population structure of both periods. Data for 1981 was not available.
Table 4 (U.S.A)
1991 - 1993 1982 - 1983
Age Group Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio
Below 20 10,352 10,422 20,774 99.33 7,747 7,933 15,680 97.66
20-29 6,054 6,366 12,420 95.10 4,277 4,856 9,133 88.08
30-39 6,917 6,525 13,442 106.01 3,448 3,743 7,191 92.12
40-49 3,330 3,529 6,859 94.36 1,612 1,637 3,249 98.47
50-59 1,508 1,982 3,490 76.08 771 982 1,753 78.51
60-69 672 1,193 1,865 56.33 295 497 792 59.36
70+ 271 591 862 45.85 152 343 495 44.31
TOTAL 29,104 30,608 59,712 95.09 18,302 19,991 38,293 91.55
Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1982, … , 1999
* Data on Jamaica
Table 5
(Canada)
1991 - 1993 1981 - 1983
Age Group Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio
Below 20 2,642 2,853 5,495 92.60 1,665 1,819 3,484 91.53
20-29 1,977 2,220 4,197 89.05 844 839 1,683 100.60
30-39 1,906 2,050 3,956 92.98 443 431 874 102.78
40-49 572 758 1,330 75.46 129 210 339 61.43
50-59 203 525 728 38.67 118 342 460 34.50
60-69 385 810 1,195 47.53 208 509 717 40.86
TOTAL 7,685 9,216 16,901 83.39 3,407 4,150 7,557 82.10
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Statistics
• Data on Jamaica
Table 6
1994-1996
Age Group Male Female Total Sex Ratio
Below 20 9341 9725 19066 96.05
20-29 7346 4763 12109 154.23
30-39 4984 5265 10249 94.66
40-49 2544 3320 5864 76.63
50-59 1170 1955 3125 59.85
60-69 549 1105 1654 49.68
70+ 236 541 777 43.62
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Statistics
Another pattern is the number of female to male migrants with the figures favouring the females (see tables6,7). In every cohort and in both periods, females outnumbered the males. The exceptions were in the age cohorts 20-24 and 30-39 in 1981-1983 in Canada and 30-39 in the United States. The period 1994-1996 and 1984-1986 show similar trends for both countries (see tables 6 and 7). Tables 4 and 5 show the number of migrants to Canada and the U.S.A. during the period. These patterns continued throughout the later years of the decade. Females outnumber males and the bulk of the group to U.S.A. and Canada falling in the younger cohorts.
In 1988, (see table 6and 7), the island of Jamaica experienced the largest net outflow of migrants in its history. In which -38,935 (i.e. a net migration rate of –16.7 percent) lelt the country’s shores to reside in other nations (see table 3). It should be noted that in that year the island of Jamaica had experienced a natural disaster in Hurricane Gilbert which was on September 13, 1988. This may explain the mass exodus of migrants to United States and other nations as the people were undergoing economic hardships. Whereas in other times migration may have been driven by social factors as were discussed initially it appears that stimulus in 1988 was high seasonal hardships because of higher seasonal unemployment. Hence, many individuals sought economic livelihood in other places such as the United States, United Kingdom and Canada to name a few geographical locations in which had relaxed immigration policies.
Although we have been discussing migration as it relates to economic and by extension social hardships, it must be noted that migrants were mostly females in the various age cohorts as well as individuals who were of no occupation (see tables 5,6 and 7) that undoubtedly explains the reductions in fertility over the past two decades. Jamaica has experienced a remarkable reduction in total fertility rates in the past three (3) decades. The total fertility rates have declined from 4.5 per woman in the mid-1970s to 2.8 children per woman in 1997 according to the Jamaica Reproductive Health Survey (1997). According to the Family Planning Survey (1997) the total fertility rate in Jamaica in 1983 was 3.5 and fell to 2.9 in 1989. This is due partly to the mass exodus of females in 1988 as was previously discussed. We observed that the mass of the migrants in Jamaica were in the age cohorts of 15-49 in which lie the reproductive years of women, it follows that with fewer women in the population after 1988 and since 1974 this explains the lowering of the total fertility rate from 4.5 in 1974 to 2.8 in 1997(see Fertility Graph, below).
Source: Jamaica Reproductive Health Survey, 1997
Table 7 (U.S.A)
1994 - 1996 1984 - 1986
Age Group Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio
Below 20 9,341 9,725 19,066 96.05 11,205 11,901 23,106 94.15
20-29 7,346 4,763 12,109 154.23 6,542 7,326 13,868 89.30
30-39 4,984 5,265 10,249 94.66 5,469 5,849 11,318 93.50
40-49 2,544 3,320 5,864 76.63 2,615 2,831 5,446 92.37
50-59 1,170 1,955 3,125 59.85 1,212 1,518 2,730 79.84
60-69 549 1,105 1,654 49.68 454 809 1,263 56.12
70+ 236 541 777 43.62 173 447 620 38.70
TOTAL 26,170 26,674 52,844 98.11 27,670 30,681 58,351 90.19
Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1982, … , 1999
1994 - 1996
1984 - 1986
Age Group Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio
Below 20 2,389 2,545 4,934 93.87 1,703 1,819 3,522 93.62
20-29 837 988 1,825 84.72 1,060 1,547 2,607 68.52
30-39 1,048 1,109 2,157 94.50 643 1,356 1,999 47.42
40-49 358 428 786 83.64 230 557 787 41.29
50-59 132 234 366 56.41 111 374 485 29.68
60-69 104 275 379 37.82 161 462 623 34.85
TOTAL 4,868 5,579 10,447 87.26 3,908 6,115 10,023 63.91
Source: Citizenship and Immigration Statistics
The data for 1999 was available for the U.S.A. and 1997 and 1998 for Canada, therefore, no comparison could be made for the periods 1997-1999 and 1987-1989. As a result of this analysis of the year 1988 for the U.S.A. will be done to indicate whether the patterns continued in the latter part of the decade. There was a 15.1% decline in emigration 1998 compared with the previous year. Table 6 shows the number of migrants to U.S.A. in 1998 by age and sex.
Table 8 (U.S.A)
1998 1988
Age Group Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio Males Females TOTAL Sex Ratio
Below 20 2,865 2,888 5,753 99.20 4,186 4,269 8,455 98.06
20-29 1,216 1,337 2,553 90.95 2,401 2,390 4,791 100.46
30-39 1,415 1,666 3,081 84.93 1,922 1,868 3,790 102.89
40-49 808 1,174 1,982 68.82 998 942 1,940 105.94
50-59 366 655 1,021 55.88 453 616 1,069 73.54
60-69 158 316 474 50.00 245 405 650 60.49
70+ 57 155 212 36.77 80 191 271 41.88
TOTAL 6,885 8,191 15,076 84.06 10,285 10,681 20,966 96.29
Source: Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Service 1988, 1998
The most basic characteristic of a population are age and sex. The proportion of male and female migrants in each cohort has had considerable impact on the demographic and socioeconomic situation of the Jamaican population during the decade of the 1980s and 1990s and will inevitably impact on the future.
Approximately two in every 100 persons that emigrated during the period 1980-1989 were from the 30-39 age group. This group suffered the greatest loss even though they were the third largest category of the total number of emigrants. However, the bulk of the group falls within the 10-29 age group. It is believed that many of those who emigrate are in fact those who have a number of years of experience, subsequently the replacement of those workers by less experienced and newly trained workers. Dr. Patricia Anderson, head of the Sociology and Social Work department at the University of the West Indies, developed a man power balance sheet that “allows a quantitative appreciation of the extent to which the Jamaican labour force is constantly exchanging new workers for old, more experienced for less experienced”. There are signs of an exodus of upper to middle class professionals to North America. Emigrants are predominantly females, who contribute 53% of the total number of migrants during the 1980s. this also impact on the population structure in that the rate of fertility will reduce. The patterns are similar in the 90s. the median age for Jamaican migrants to the U.S.A. is 27 years, 25 years for males and 27 years for females. The Jamaican population was considered relatively young in 2000, having a large amount of the people in the younger age group. However, the population base has been narrowing over the period, indicative of an aging population. The population of a country can fall in one of three general profile of age-sex composition. An expansive profile shows rapid growth with large numbers of people in the younger ages. The population pyramid would have a very large base and a narrow apex. This reflects a high growth potential, with high fertility and high mortality.
The Jamaican population in former years would fit more closely in this profile. However, the changes in the population composition with the high number of migrants from the younger cohort and being replaced by low level immigration of returning residents, deportees Commonwealth citizens and aliens suggest that our population structure is becoming a more constructive frame. The constructive profile has a bulge in the working age group. It reflects slower growth with smaller numbers of people in the younger ages. The third profile is stationary, roughly equal numbers of people in all age ranges. This reflects low birth rates and very low death rates.
Implications for the Future
In an attempt to access the implications of the current migration patterns for future population change, it is imperative that we look at the most recent emigration patterns. However, the data for 1999 and 2000 for U.S.A. was not available. In contrast, data was available for permanent residents admitted to Canada by age and sex for 1999 and 2000. It must be mentioned that this data would not include those who emigrated using a visitor’s visa. Table 7 represents this data. The data shows that for the two youngest age groups there is a slight decline in the totals between 1999 and 2000. However, there is a slight increase in the total for other age groups. There has also been a slight increase in the total for the year 2000.
The net external movement for the year 2000 was 21,800, an increase of 800 from the previous year. Immigration laws for U.S.A. and Canada have become more restrictive. Ottawa amended the Immigration Act in June 1995, tightening the refugee and immigration process. In addition they stepped up the deportation of non- Canadians convicted of serious offenses in Canada regardless of their status within the system. Quite a few arrive in Jamaica penniless, homeless and friendless. This group cannot replace the workers who emigrate as they are also unskilled. Legal admission to the U.S.A. is sought through the U.S. consulate in Jamaica. Prospective migrants are required to prove that they do not have any infectious disease or criminal record as well as other things. The immigration laws normally facilitate relatives of U.S. citizens, refugees and people with skills needed in the U.S. However, they also serve to restrict the number and type of emigrants entering their country. Even though measures have been put in place to reduce the number of emigrants there has been a steady increase in recent years. The current patterns suggest that there will continue to be a narrowing of the base of the pyramid which means that the Jamaican population will be out of the realm of moderately young to aging. The fertility rate is still high, however, the greater portion of migrants continue to be in the younger cohorts.
Table 9 (Canada)
on migrants from TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
1981 1982 1983 1986
AGE MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio
0 - 4 18 18 100.00 15 19 78.95 4 6 66.667 14 22 63.636
5 - 9 39 327 11.93 27 18 150.00 12 5 240.00 27 20 135.00
10 - 14 42 48 87.50 37 38 97.37 20 24 83.33 36 20 180.00
15 -19 61 87 70.11 78 81 96.30 46 73 63.01 57 55 103.64
20 - 24 56 88 63.64 60 92 65.22 58 105 55.24 58 88 65.91
25 - 29 45 65 69.23 45 80 56.25 33 53 62.26 61 70 87.14
30 - 34 38 39 97.44 39 33 118.18 30 33 90.91 32 42 76.19
35 - 39 24 16 150.00 15 27 55.56 12 17 70.59 24 40 60.00
40 - 44 11 15 73.33 11 22 50.00 4 8 50.00 29 27 107.41
45 - 49 14 23 60.87 12 17 70.59 14 26 53.85 10 22 45.45
50 - 54 9 29 31.03 9 29 31.03 6 12 50.00 13 21 61.90
55 - 59 15 36 41.67 15 27 55.56 11 31 35.48 17 27 62.96
60 - 64 20 30 66.67 16 40 40.00 22 36 61.11 18 23 78.26
65 + 16 24 66.67 20 32 62.50 30 30 100.00 25 36 69.44
408 845 48.28 399 555 71.89 302 459 65.80 421 513 82.07
SOURCE : CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
Table 10 (Canada)
on migrants from TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
1990 1991 1992 1993
AGE MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio
0 - 4 62 46 134.78 36 40 90.00 43 24 179.17 39 37 105.41
5 - 9 103 102 100.98 92 101 91.09 178 171 104.09 167 189 88.36
10 - 14 88 87 101.15 90 103 87.38 166 139 119.42 181 208 87.02
15 -19 98 91 107.69 75 87 86.21 111 112 99.11 136 142 95.77
20 - 24 135 165 81.82 200 213 93.90 213 288 73.96 193 246 78.46
25 - 29 257 245 104.90 315 290 108.62 457 492 92.89 391 432 90.51
30 - 34 162 196 82.65 149 202 73.76 296 382 77.49 316 359 88.02
35 - 39 98 122 80.33 118 141 83.69 190 201 94.53 193 230 83.91
40 - 44 58 59 98.31 53 77 68.83 110 116 94.83 112 122 91.80
45 - 49 41 43 95.35 52 67 77.61 61 87 70.11 77 91 84.62
50 - 54 28 57 49.12 23 49 46.94 33 66 50.00 39 56 69.64
55 - 59 27 69 39.13 42 71 59.15 52 73 71.23 30 56 53.57
60 - 64 47 77 61.04 34 65 52.31 39 64 60.94 24 41 58.54
65 + 102 144 70.83 79 101 78.22 61 96 63.54 32 62 51.61
1,306 1,503 86.89 1,358 1,607 84.51 2,010 2,311 86.98 1,930 2,271 84.98
SOURCE : CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
Table 11
on migrants from TRINIDAD & TOBAGO
1994 1995 1996
AGE MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio MALES FEMALES Sex Ratio
0 - 4 28 21 133.33 33 30 110.00 28 23 121.74
5 - 9 91 79 115.19 95 89 106.74 56 68 82.35
10 - 14 138 133 103.76 174 135 128.89 129 134 96.27
15 -19 144 121 119.01 151 158 95.57 136 111 122.52
20 - 24 73 134 54.48 98 117 83.76 70 84 83.33
25 - 29 151 215 70.23 133 159 83.65 113 146 77.40
30 - 34 155 142 109.15 160 180 88.89 166 189 87.83
35 - 39 87 133 65.41 116 108 107.41 116 119 97.48
40 - 44 52 75 69.33 80 85 94.12 69 86 80.23
45 - 49 46 56 82.14 62 69 89.86 39 67 58.21
50 - 54 30 53 56.60 50 81 61.73 35 54 64.81
55 - 59 31 38 81.58 42 57 73.68 33 43 76.74
60 - 64 18 34 52.94 36 37 97.30 18 21 85.71
65 + 31 28 110.71 26 46 56.52 15 28 53.57
1,075 1,262 85.18 1,256 1,351 92.97 1,023 1,173 87.21
SOURCE : CITIZENSHIP & IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
During the decades of the 1970s through to 2000, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago have experienced negative external migration. As such, more individuals have been leaving the country than those entering in the same period. During the first half of the decade of the 90’s, Trinidad experienced a net migration loss of 30535. Whereas in the decade of the 80’s, migration shows a net loss of 17,033 but in 1982 and 1983, there was a net migration gain of +3,654 and +1,053 respectively. The second half of the 80’s had an increase in the number of migrants of a more than 100%, the statistics specify that it increased to –97,971. This was due to a drastic increase in outward migration from 11040 in the previous year to 44991 in 1988). This occurred because of many exterior factors, as emigration from Trinidad rose to the highest level ever recorded in history as stated above from 11040 to 44991. What caused this excessive increase? These causes were attributed to the down term in investment, where investors did not see fit to invest in certain sectors of the economy because there was no or little gain. This also affected money supply, which further lead to the devaluation of the Trinidadian dollar and resulted with people being faced with more problems, particularly economic hardship. The extent of economic hardship was felt through the significant rise in unemployment, disparities in income, lower standard of living, high cost of living and massive redundancies that occurred. Not surprisingly, petroleum exports, manufacturing and construction sectors declined in this period. A steady decline in Trinidad’s population was observed in the early 90’s and this continued into the second half of the 90’s.
The emigration figures for Trinidad were understated, as many individuals who were living abroad are not included into the emigration figure, since many obtained visitors visas and then acquired permanent residence over there. Unfortunately, this data has not been accounted for in the immigration or naturalization figures of the receiving countries. There seem to be a definite trend for most of the migrants to go the U.S.A or Canada, because of the many opportunities and advantages these countries have.
During the period 1960–1969 it was seen that the total migrants to the U.S.A from Trinidad was –17,615. With the first half of the decade having –2,113 migrants and the latter half –15,502, the latter half however had a greater impact. There were many reasons why this occurred, but the main reason is attributed to a down term in investment, employment and foreign exchange.
The figures for the 70’s show that immigration in this period had exceeded migration for the previous decade by more than 100%, this happened as a consequence of the rise in the world oil prices.
It should be noted that the majority of migrants who left Trinidad were females (see Table 10-12). Most individuals were of no occupation, non–professional and persons who normally worked in the farming/ service industry, and only a few were professional or worked in industry sector.
Migration undoubtedly affects fertility. The data show that majority of the migrants were females, as such the fertility rates of women in the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago were affected. The fertility rates have considerably decreased over the years to the present (2.7 children per woman as reported for the first half of the decade of the 90’s). This is partly due to fact that most of the women who migrated from Trinidad and Tobago are between the age cohorts 15 and 49. Therefore, they are of the reproductive or childbearing years and thus does have an impact that is negative on the population of Trinidad.
In Trinidad, internal migration plays a role in population distribution rather than outward migration, since most persons living in Trinidad migrate more internally than actually outwardly. For instance: in 1970, Port of Spain in-migration rate was 19.37 and turnover rate 116.27, while San Fernardo in-migration rate was 32.93 and turnover rate 92.35 (see Appendix I).
Internal migration significance is enhanced because of: i) A good education system with a high literacy rate of almost 100% ii) Employment opportunities. iii) Economic stability iv) Culture and family ties. v) High human development.
There was a slight increase in the enrolment ratio of primary education in Trinidad and Tobago (91% (1990) – 93% (1998)). It was also seen that percentage of grade 1 students reaching grade 5 was 96% for both years 1996 and 1997.
Modernization and westernization has placed a bias on urban development and promotion, through the government or planning institutions. This partiality has made individuals biased towards the urban sector, and so 65% of the population lives in the urban sector. Even the urban growth rate was at 1.6% unlike its the rural counterpart.
Conclusion
George Beckford (Caribbean Economy 1, pp.7) states that, “The present characteristics and attitudes of the population of the Caribbean have undoubtedly been very greatly influenced by our population history. Population history of the Caribbean was almost entirely a history of Migration.”
In general, migration has influenced tremendously the population size in terms of external migration, it is observed that for both countries more women are migrating than men. For example in Jamaica between 1982 and 1998, approximately 110,000 female migrated from the country while a little over 84,000 males migrated within the same periods. The implication is that there is a loss of approximately 297,000 children, hence the fertility rate will be adversely affected, it means the birth rate will be drastically reduced. This will further result in a reduction in the population size of the countries. Subsequently, Internal migration affects the composition and structure of the population.
There has been a movement of people from certain parishes such as Kingston and St. Ann to other parishes such as St. Andrew and St. James where there are drastic increases in the population. This is because of deurbanization, through infrastructure change such as the construction of houses in these areas.
The decade of the 90’s saw reduction in the number of migrants. Both halves of the period had a decline following the increase in the previous decade. This reduction can be attributed to the restriction in the immigration laws of the U.S.A., Canada, and the U.K. However, the number of illegal migrants is not part of the net external movement data, which suggests that the figures may not be a true reflection of the total number of emigrants. The age and sex composition of emigrants are between the 0-30 age group, with majority females who are within the fertility age. A part of this group also falls in the working age population, which will inevitably affect the labour force.
Emigration has contributed considerably to the reduction of the population size and has served as a balance with the high rate of natural increase. In contrast, a number of changes to immigration policies of the U.S.A., Canada and the U.K. that restrict the number of emigrants and permit the exodus of convicted criminals (Jamaicans) will result in overpopulation of the Jamaican society in years to come.
According to Ravenstein (1889) Push – Pull theory, pull factors (to better oneself materially) are more importantly than push factors.
According to Harrison (Tourism and the Less Developed Countries, 1992), “If political instability occurs, the developing nations’ ability to cope is far less. International loans for industry become impossible to finance.” Therefore, in Jamaica, in 1980, the General Elections according to many Gleaner columnists, were the worst in the history of the nation as bloodshed was equal to nothing of its predecessors. This explains why the net migration balance was so alarming high (-216900) and equally alarming was the figure in 1970 (-296,500). As both periods were earmark of political instability that of socialism through the Michael Manley administration.
For Jamaica the building of the Panama Canal, World War 1 & 2 , Industrialization , cheaper transportation were the main factors contributing to migration.
The migrant population from Jamaica to the U.S.A. is estimated at 2.5 million. One could imagine the socio/economic implication these people would have on our country infrastructure such as, education, housing, health, etc. if they had not have the outlet of migration. Migration of these people has created opportunities for others, in terms of employment, ownership of business, housing and land.
With a migrant population base of 2.5 million Jamaicans in the U.S., the potential for large numbers of people continuing to migrate from Jamaica is still great, as under the revised Immigration and Nationality act of 1952, U.S. citizens can file for close relatives.
Therefore, migration shall continue to exist in Jamaica a place riddle with crime and violence, corruption, injustices unless the Government curtails indiscipline and expand the economic base of the Country against the background of equal opportunities for all irrespective of class, religion, sex or residence. Whereas, in the twin islands of Trinidad and Tobago external migration although place a role in population size and composition this is mainly due to world depression in oil prices that normally bring about this phenomenon. What was observed in the twin island was that more and more peoples are migration internally because of the expansion in investment in the oil fields in the south coast.
BIBILIOGRAPHY
Beardshaw, John (1992) Economics, A Student’s Guide ; Third Edition, ELBS
Beckford, George (1975),Caribbean Economy: Dependence and Backwardness Mona, Jamaica: Institute of Social and Economic Research, U.W.I
Haralambus, M and Holborn, M (1997), Sociology: Themes and Perspective;
London; University Tutorial Press
Harrison, David (1992), Tourism and the less Developed Countries; Belhaven Press
Lawrence, K.O (1971) , Immigration into the West Indies in the 19th Century Chapters in Caribbean History; 3, Caribbean Universities Press
Levine, David (1990)
Roberts, G.W, Current of External Migration Affecting the West Indies; A Summary,Review Interamaericana, pp. 307- 319
Roberts, G.W. and Byrne ( July, 1966), E. Summary Statistics on Indentured and Associated Migration Affecting the West Indies, 1834 – 1918, Population Studies, Vol. 20, No. 1 pp. 125 – 134
Namboodiri, Krishnan, A Primer of Population Dynamics; Plenum Press, New York
Http://www.Worldbank.org/data/
Journals - Annual Abstract of Statistics, 1992
- Citizenship and Immigration Statistics 1979 – 1999
- Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and Naturalization Services 1999
(pages 20 – 22 U.S Department of Justice)
- Statistical Yearbook of Jamaica, STATIN , 1960 – 2000
- Demographic Statistics, STATIN, 1970 – 2000
- Planning Institute of Jamaica 1999, 1998, Jamaica Survey of Living Conditions Reports
Jamaica Ministry of Health, Maternal and Child Health Primary health Care Unit (1982 – 1986), Strengthening the Integrated family planning programme in primary health care.