> The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is a blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the

> The line between "skilled migrants" and "colonists" is a blurred in the earlier part of their histories, but all those countries seem to be doing well in the grand scheme of things. I think the native peoples of those countries would take issue with the idea that "skilled migrants"/"colonists" were a good thing for their nations. It seems bizarre to say we're optimizing for the economic success of the landmass and not the people currently living in it.