5 ms·

Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their so

Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.

pcwalton 7y ago
Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration system nobody on either the left or the right likes). [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-leads-the-world-in-refugee-resettlement-surpassing-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...
- Mikeb85 7y ago
  200k per year isn't that much. And yes Canada is more selective. Per capita numbers (especially when absolute numbers are that low) say nothing about how selective we are.
- TheCuckedKing 7y ago
  U.S. is more selective..? Blatant lie.
- LOLNOPENOPE 7y ago
  From the same source you just shared there's a graph of refugee resettlements. Canada only is ahead of the US as of 2018. Historically Canada hasn't even been close.
- JamesBarney 7y ago
  Imagine two countries of 100,000 people. The first lets in 1,000 people per year, all of postgrad degrees. The second lets in 500 per year selected from a lottery. Which is more selective?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Canada has less selective immigration. The Canadian system is merit based and has a relatively low rate of illegal immigration. The US has 50 million hispanic Americans (about 13 million more people than the entirety of Canada). Almost all of their ancestors were not in this country 70 years ago. And many of their ancestors came to this country illegally and, thus, faced no sort of selective filter whatsoever.
teh_klev 7y ago
> and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border. Some might dispute that claim.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  To be honest, glib remarks about how the US is a second world country play well to a certain crowd, but they make the person making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking.
  - justinclift 7y ago
    Citation needed.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income Basically the only countries (excluding city states) that beat the US by a significant margin are the Scandinavian countries. Sweden is the largest of those countries at about 10.5 million people. For a point of reference, that's about the size of Georgia, the 8th largest state. If you compare US median household income to the larger European countries (Germany, France, UK, etc.), the comparison is devastating. The US has a household median income of around $43,500. Germany comes in at $33,000, with France and the UK trailing closely behind that. That's a 30% lead to the US. And, yes, those are purchasing power parity numbers. So, let me re-iterate: when you assert that the US is anything other than a first world country you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia necessary to disabuse themselves of their prejudices and foolish notions.
      - teh_klev 7y ago
        From your first comment: "glib remarks" and "making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking." > you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia Yes, thank you for insulting me a second time. And sorry, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, despite its selective citations. Median income is a single measurement, it doesn't mean an iota if your country can't provide universal healthcare, free (or inexpensive) education, social security that is a genuine safety net for those who're in desperate circumstances, etc, etc. I consider these important elements of being a first world country.
dang 7y ago
Edit: I misread the comment. Sorry! Please don't post flamebait to HN. We've had to ask you this before. We ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Hey dang, I agree with your warnings down thread. I let the person I was responding to get to me and I should have conducted myself better. Sorry. I’m having a hard time figuring out what the issue is with this particular comment, though.
  - dang 7y ago
    I went back to look for the obvious flamebait which I saw in there, and realized that it was I who had misread your comment. Argh! I'm sorry. Moderation is guesswork done in haste, because that's the only way to get through the mountain of content that piles up every day. But it's really bad to get scoldings wrong. In case you're curious, I read your comment as from a Canadian perspective, referring to the U.S. as a second-world country as a snarky swipe. Most likely I was primed to do this because I'm Canadian and have sometimes heard people talk that way. But clearly you were making an economic argument with that statement, not taking a nationalistic swipe, so there was no need for a moderation reply. Now that I read more closely, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 was the comment that actually did the thing I read into yours, so I'll post a moderation reply there.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      No worries. I definitely need to work on my tone when I get riled up (as evidenced by my remarks down thread; European chauvinism regarding the US is a pet peeve of mine), so the larger point still stands. Thanks again for what you do on here. HN is my favorite place to exchange ideas.
      - 7y ago

Canada doesn’t do better at lifting people out of poverty. They’re just more selective in who they let in and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border.

pcwalton 7y ago

Canada's immigration rate is 5.3 per year per 1000 residents (200K per year, population 37.59M). The US immigration rate is 3.6 per year per 1000 residents (1.18M per year, population 327.2M). And in absolute (not per capita!) terms, Canada resettles more refugees than the US [1]. The US is in fact more selective (probably owing to decades of legislative gridlock leaving us with an outdated bureaucratic nightmare of an immigration system nobody on either the left or the right likes). [1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-leads-the-world-in-refugee-resettlement-surpassing-the-u-s/ https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/19/canada-now-...

Mikeb85 7y ago
200k per year isn't that much. And yes Canada is more selective. Per capita numbers (especially when absolute numbers are that low) say nothing about how selective we are.
TheCuckedKing 7y ago
U.S. is more selective..? Blatant lie.
LOLNOPENOPE 7y ago
From the same source you just shared there's a graph of refugee resettlements. Canada only is ahead of the US as of 2018. Historically Canada hasn't even been close.
JamesBarney 7y ago
Imagine two countries of 100,000 people. The first lets in 1,000 people per year, all of postgrad degrees. The second lets in 500 per year selected from a lottery. Which is more selective?
toasterlovin 7y ago
I'm not sure how you come to the conclusion that Canada has less selective immigration. The Canadian system is merit based and has a relatively low rate of illegal immigration. The US has 50 million hispanic Americans (about 13 million more people than the entirety of Canada). Almost all of their ancestors were not in this country 70 years ago. And many of their ancestors came to this country illegally and, thus, faced no sort of selective filter whatsoever.

teh_klev 7y ago

> and don’t have a huge second world country at their southern border. Some might dispute that claim.

toasterlovin 7y ago
To be honest, glib remarks about how the US is a second world country play well to a certain crowd, but they make the person making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking.
- justinclift 7y ago
  Citation needed.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income Basically the only countries (excluding city states) that beat the US by a significant margin are the Scandinavian countries. Sweden is the largest of those countries at about 10.5 million people. For a point of reference, that's about the size of Georgia, the 8th largest state. If you compare US median household income to the larger European countries (Germany, France, UK, etc.), the comparison is devastating. The US has a household median income of around $43,500. Germany comes in at $33,000, with France and the UK trailing closely behind that. That's a 30% lead to the US. And, yes, those are purchasing power parity numbers. So, let me re-iterate: when you assert that the US is anything other than a first world country you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia necessary to disabuse themselves of their prejudices and foolish notions.
    - teh_klev 7y ago
      From your first comment: "glib remarks" and "making them look like a biased hack to anybody who engages in serious thinking." > you look like an idiot who is too lazy to spend the the 5 minutes on Wikipedia Yes, thank you for insulting me a second time. And sorry, I don't regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, despite its selective citations. Median income is a single measurement, it doesn't mean an iota if your country can't provide universal healthcare, free (or inexpensive) education, social security that is a genuine safety net for those who're in desperate circumstances, etc, etc. I consider these important elements of being a first world country.

dang 7y ago

Edit: I misread the comment. Sorry! Please don't post flamebait to HN. We've had to ask you this before. We ban accounts that do it. I don't want to ban you, so please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and fix this.

toasterlovin 7y ago
Hey dang, I agree with your warnings down thread. I let the person I was responding to get to me and I should have conducted myself better. Sorry. I’m having a hard time figuring out what the issue is with this particular comment, though.
- dang 7y ago
  I went back to look for the obvious flamebait which I saw in there, and realized that it was I who had misread your comment. Argh! I'm sorry. Moderation is guesswork done in haste, because that's the only way to get through the mountain of content that piles up every day. But it's really bad to get scoldings wrong. In case you're curious, I read your comment as from a Canadian perspective, referring to the U.S. as a second-world country as a snarky swipe. Most likely I was primed to do this because I'm Canadian and have sometimes heard people talk that way. But clearly you were making an economic argument with that statement, not taking a nationalistic swipe, so there was no need for a moderation reply. Now that I read more closely, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21495051 was the comment that actually did the thing I read into yours, so I'll post a moderation reply there.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    No worries. I definitely need to work on my tone when I get riled up (as evidenced by my remarks down thread; European chauvinism regarding the US is a pet peeve of mine), so the larger point still stands. Thanks again for what you do on here. HN is my favorite place to exchange ideas.
    - 7y ago