5 ms·

Your data for the US is far off every source I can find. Per the UN, ~20% of all immigrants globally reside in the US. On an annual basis: The US brings in 10

Your data for the US is far off every source I can find. Per the UN, ~20% of all immigrants globally reside in the US. On an annual basis: The US brings in 100-200k refugees. Total immigration is 1.0-1.1M. The US grants citizenship to 700-800k immigrants.

arcticbull 6y ago
The data I provided for you is per capita. The US has set a target cap of 18,000 refugees next year [1] vs Canada's now world-leading (per capita) 28-33,000 [2] You are correct that I was off re: 140,000 (that's the quota for employment based green cards), the number is ~1M total and I have edited my post to reflect. This is based on the total number of green cards available, as they are the only "immigrant" visa. Every other class is considered to be non-immigrants -- temporary workers, or visitors. However, the fact 20% of the world's immigrants reside in America doesn't mean nearly as much on a per capita basis. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/refugee-cap-historic-low/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/refugee-cap-historic... [2] 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-...
- grumple 6y ago
  > However, the fact 20% of the world's immigrants reside in America doesn't mean nearly as much on a per capita basis. What? We have 5% of the world's population and 20% of its immigrants, 4 times second place, but that's not enough for you? Wild moving of the goalposts.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    I have not moved the goalposts. I never mentioned the total number of immigrants already in the country. That number is pretty close to 98.4% of course, since the number of First Nations or Native Americans is 5 million. Everything in my post is focused on the rate of new immigrants per year.
    - room500 6y ago
      The UN classifies a migrant as a person that has moved across an international border [1]. If you are born and live in America, you are not a migrant by definition. So I am not sure where you are getting your 98.4% number. While immigration policies can always be improved, your initial statement was that America is "anti-immigrant." This is hard to reconcile with the actual immigration numbers. From the UN [2]: "The United States of America has been the main country of destination for international migrants since 1970.15 Since then, the number of foreign-born people residing in the country has more than quadrupled – from less than 12 million in 1970, to close to 51 million in 2019." We can debate whether the number should be increased or decreased. But it is unfair to classify a country as "anti-immigrant" when it is leading the world in immigration. Even on a per-capita basis, America is way up there (look at the map on page 23 [2]) [1] https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.html https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.... [2] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- djrogers 6y ago
  I'm not sure you're using the term 'per capita' in the way it's intended or normally understood. If Canada allowed 28-33000 refugees per capita, that would effectively mean every person in the world could move to Canada.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    My multipliers were per capita. Canada brings in 2X the US refugee count per year in absolute numbers, but is 1/10th the size, so ~20X per capita migration rate of refugees. Napkin numbers of course. My parenthetical section indicated that Canada's numbers are world-leading per capita, not in absolute numbers. Apologies if that was unclear.

arcticbull 6y ago

The data I provided for you is per capita. The US has set a target cap of 18,000 refugees next year [1] vs Canada's now world-leading (per capita) 28-33,000 [2] You are correct that I was off re: 140,000 (that's the quota for employment based green cards), the number is ~1M total and I have edited my post to reflect. This is based on the total number of green cards available, as they are the only "immigrant" visa. Every other class is considered to be non-immigrants -- temporary workers, or visitors. However, the fact 20% of the world's immigrants reside in America doesn't mean nearly as much on a per capita basis. [1] https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/refugee-cap-historic-low/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/refugee-cap-historic... [2] 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-...

grumple 6y ago
> However, the fact 20% of the world's immigrants reside in America doesn't mean nearly as much on a per capita basis. What? We have 5% of the world's population and 20% of its immigrants, 4 times second place, but that's not enough for you? Wild moving of the goalposts.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  I have not moved the goalposts. I never mentioned the total number of immigrants already in the country. That number is pretty close to 98.4% of course, since the number of First Nations or Native Americans is 5 million. Everything in my post is focused on the rate of new immigrants per year.
  - room500 6y ago
    The UN classifies a migrant as a person that has moved across an international border [1]. If you are born and live in America, you are not a migrant by definition. So I am not sure where you are getting your 98.4% number. While immigration policies can always be improved, your initial statement was that America is "anti-immigrant." This is hard to reconcile with the actual immigration numbers. From the UN [2]: "The United States of America has been the main country of destination for international migrants since 1970.15 Since then, the number of foreign-born people residing in the country has more than quadrupled – from less than 12 million in 1970, to close to 51 million in 2019." We can debate whether the number should be increased or decreased. But it is unfair to classify a country as "anti-immigrant" when it is leading the world in immigration. Even on a per-capita basis, America is way up there (look at the map on page 23 [2]) [1] https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.html https://www.un.org/en/sections/issues-depth/migration/index.... [2] https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf https://www.un.org/sites/un2.un.org/files/wmr_2020.pdf
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
djrogers 6y ago
I'm not sure you're using the term 'per capita' in the way it's intended or normally understood. If Canada allowed 28-33000 refugees per capita, that would effectively mean every person in the world could move to Canada.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  My multipliers were per capita. Canada brings in 2X the US refugee count per year in absolute numbers, but is 1/10th the size, so ~20X per capita migration rate of refugees. Napkin numbers of course. My parenthetical section indicated that Canada's numbers are world-leading per capita, not in absolute numbers. Apologies if that was unclear.