6 ms·

The US has the largest immigrant population in the world and one of the highest immigration rates among developed countries. I resent how casually blatantly fal

The US has the largest immigrant population in the world and one of the highest immigration rates among developed countries. I resent how casually blatantly false anti-US comments like this get voted up without any data to back them up, almost like it's a fad to talk-down America. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Stat...

conanbatt 6y ago
That is in spite of immigration policy, not because of it.
- neither_color 6y ago
  Which policy? The latest H1-B bill which lifts per-country caps passed unanimously in the senate and with a strong majority in the house. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1044 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1044 Certainly different people will have different opinions on what the "right" number of immigrants is but this is not an anti-immigrant country.
  - wahern 6y ago
    That's because it's designed to let in more rich Asians and less poor Latin Americans and Africans. In terms of popular political support I would say that the United States is very anti-immigrant, and has been for a very long time. The reason the U.S. continues to let in so many immigrants is because of business interests, which have always held considerable political power. And the reason the U.S. has such diversity of immigrants is because of the peculiarity of our laws (e.g. by promoting so-called chain migration, a term Trump has turned into a pejorative), which have largely stayed the same because of inertia and political deadlock, but as you pointed out this is likely to change soon. Also, the U.S. is no longer unique in terms of its large foreign born population. The U.K., for example, has roughly the same percentage. Brexit is no coincidence. Ditto for Germany. Though AFAIU German anti-immigration sentiment is mostly focused on immigrants from outside the E.U. (e.g. Turkey), whereas a large part of the sentiment in the U.K. is focused on Eastern European immigrants. Thus Angela Merkel has managed to placate voters by tacitly supporting harsher restrictions at the E.U. border, the short-lived Syrian influx notwithstanding. Brexit was driven in part by, e.g., people being pissed at low-wage Polish migrants. I'll agree that the U.S. isn't worse than other countries. And I suppose our history as being a melting pot relatively unique unto the world is still worth something. (Though many parts of Latin America also saw similar migration flows at the turn of the 18th century. There are still German speaking towns in Brazil, Welsh speaking towns in Argentina, and a curious number of ethnic Japanese all over South America.) But we don't really stand out anymore one way or the other.
    - op03 6y ago
      Well lets add a nothing is obvious layer to this cake - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/20/us/politics/election-hispanics-asians-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/20/us/politics/e...
  - ithastobe 6y ago
    This bill failed to pass in the house eventually after senate passed the initial house bill with amendments.
  - conanbatt 6y ago
    Immigration cap? Without a cap on H1B the US would have 10 or 50 times the level of incoming immigrants. Plus H1B is limited to having degrees (or a lot of work experience) in a small subset of occupations. The US could bring over 1 million doctors in one year if it were legal. H1B is only one specific case of immigration: generally speaking the developed world allows for unconstrained immigration if you have a job offer. Americans are particularly restricted in hiring foreigners, which is also one reason why it has so much illegal immigration.
ohmaigad 6y ago
Using absolute numbers probably isn't the smartest idea. Canada has more immigrants per population than USA.
- brobdingnagians 6y ago
  And that is their decision. I think it is best for each country to decide for themselves, based on their culture, objectives, history, and values. France has a way of doing it, Canada has a way of doing it, China has a way of doing it, and the US has a way of doing it. One size fits all is least applicable when it comes to nation states.
  - thefounder 6y ago
    So a country made of and built by immigrants doesn't want immigrants anymore. I think that culture has a name: hypocrisy
    - bruceb 6y ago
      There have always been limits to immigration. Almost no one is saying no immigration. Needs change. What the country needs now might not be the same as 150 years ago.
      - tzs 6y ago
        > There have always been limits to immigration. The first limit on immigration in the US was the Page act in 1875, which restricted immigration of Chinese women. Before that there were no limits.
      - thefounder 6y ago
        >> What the country needs now might not be the same as 150 years ago. Yeah, it seems now it needs to cage children to deter their pesky parents from seeking opportunities in the land of opportunity.
    - neither_color 6y ago
randmeerkat 6y ago
It is a fad to talk-down America. It’s soft power in politics, something the US has been losing for many years now. Anti-Americanism and its rise is something extensively covered in academia over the past two decades, this is just 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=anti+americanism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=anti+americ...
- RobertoG 6y ago
  I think there are two factors to this "fad": one is that USA for being the world superpower and through their media monopoly is always in the spotlight. The second is that USA spend too much time saying how wonderful they are (that if you look to history with a little objectivity is not so wonderful). Reaction to this is almost inevitable. I would like to present a trivial recent example: as you know, USA retired from the climate Paris agreement and, in general, is not doing so much like other nations despite being the worst in per capita terms. Well, it seems that the new president want to go back to the Paris agreements and is framing it like "going back to led the world" in climate change. Going back to led the world? really? I know, I know, this a sentence for internal consumption but still, how do you think it sounds in other countries? I didn't touch the little fact of invasions of third countries and military bases all around the world. So, maybe there is something to this fad? Maybe take it like feedback to correct a few things?
  - 5560675260 6y ago
    > in general, is not doing so much like other nations despite being the worst in per capita terms. Do you have sources to back any part of this statement? It would be surprising to see US doing less and being worth that, for example, Germany and its coal or China and its industrial complex. Otherwise it seems to be another example of "blatantly false anti-US comments like this get voted up without any data to back them up".
    - RobertoG 6y ago
      Actually I have to correct that because the USA is not the worst per capita (my apologies), but it's up there with the top worst (Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of smaller countries) and, of course, more important because of the size of its population (1). It seems that what it's in dispute is the "not doing so much like other nations". I would say there are two ways to look at it: pledges and historical data. I don't think is necessary to demonstrate that the USA current pledges are below the Paris agreement countries. For historical I just will take 2019 that was a specially good year for USA CO2 reductions. from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co2/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co... >>"It’s true that, according to the IEA’s February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore “led the entire world” or was a “global leader” in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did. " (1) - https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...
onion2k 6y ago
Historically America has been very pro-immigration. Very recently that appears to have changed (that's the view from the outside at least).

conanbatt 6y ago

That is in spite of immigration policy, not because of it.

neither_color 6y ago
Which policy? The latest H1-B bill which lifts per-country caps passed unanimously in the senate and with a strong majority in the house. https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1044 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/1044 Certainly different people will have different opinions on what the "right" number of immigrants is but this is not an anti-immigrant country.
- wahern 6y ago
  That's because it's designed to let in more rich Asians and less poor Latin Americans and Africans. In terms of popular political support I would say that the United States is very anti-immigrant, and has been for a very long time. The reason the U.S. continues to let in so many immigrants is because of business interests, which have always held considerable political power. And the reason the U.S. has such diversity of immigrants is because of the peculiarity of our laws (e.g. by promoting so-called chain migration, a term Trump has turned into a pejorative), which have largely stayed the same because of inertia and political deadlock, but as you pointed out this is likely to change soon. Also, the U.S. is no longer unique in terms of its large foreign born population. The U.K., for example, has roughly the same percentage. Brexit is no coincidence. Ditto for Germany. Though AFAIU German anti-immigration sentiment is mostly focused on immigrants from outside the E.U. (e.g. Turkey), whereas a large part of the sentiment in the U.K. is focused on Eastern European immigrants. Thus Angela Merkel has managed to placate voters by tacitly supporting harsher restrictions at the E.U. border, the short-lived Syrian influx notwithstanding. Brexit was driven in part by, e.g., people being pissed at low-wage Polish migrants. I'll agree that the U.S. isn't worse than other countries. And I suppose our history as being a melting pot relatively unique unto the world is still worth something. (Though many parts of Latin America also saw similar migration flows at the turn of the 18th century. There are still German speaking towns in Brazil, Welsh speaking towns in Argentina, and a curious number of ethnic Japanese all over South America.) But we don't really stand out anymore one way or the other.
  - op03 6y ago
    Well lets add a nothing is obvious layer to this cake - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/20/us/politics/election-hispanics-asians-voting.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/12/20/us/politics/e...
- ithastobe 6y ago
  This bill failed to pass in the house eventually after senate passed the initial house bill with amendments.
- conanbatt 6y ago
  Immigration cap? Without a cap on H1B the US would have 10 or 50 times the level of incoming immigrants. Plus H1B is limited to having degrees (or a lot of work experience) in a small subset of occupations. The US could bring over 1 million doctors in one year if it were legal. H1B is only one specific case of immigration: generally speaking the developed world allows for unconstrained immigration if you have a job offer. Americans are particularly restricted in hiring foreigners, which is also one reason why it has so much illegal immigration.

ohmaigad 6y ago

Using absolute numbers probably isn't the smartest idea. Canada has more immigrants per population than USA.

brobdingnagians 6y ago
And that is their decision. I think it is best for each country to decide for themselves, based on their culture, objectives, history, and values. France has a way of doing it, Canada has a way of doing it, China has a way of doing it, and the US has a way of doing it. One size fits all is least applicable when it comes to nation states.
- thefounder 6y ago
  So a country made of and built by immigrants doesn't want immigrants anymore. I think that culture has a name: hypocrisy
  - bruceb 6y ago
    There have always been limits to immigration. Almost no one is saying no immigration. Needs change. What the country needs now might not be the same as 150 years ago.
    - tzs 6y ago
      > There have always been limits to immigration. The first limit on immigration in the US was the Page act in 1875, which restricted immigration of Chinese women. Before that there were no limits.
    - thefounder 6y ago
      >> What the country needs now might not be the same as 150 years ago. Yeah, it seems now it needs to cage children to deter their pesky parents from seeking opportunities in the land of opportunity.
  - neither_color 6y ago

randmeerkat 6y ago

It is a fad to talk-down America. It’s soft power in politics, something the US has been losing for many years now. Anti-Americanism and its rise is something extensively covered in academia over the past two decades, this is just 2020: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=anti+americanism&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2020&q=anti+americ...

RobertoG 6y ago
I think there are two factors to this "fad": one is that USA for being the world superpower and through their media monopoly is always in the spotlight. The second is that USA spend too much time saying how wonderful they are (that if you look to history with a little objectivity is not so wonderful). Reaction to this is almost inevitable. I would like to present a trivial recent example: as you know, USA retired from the climate Paris agreement and, in general, is not doing so much like other nations despite being the worst in per capita terms. Well, it seems that the new president want to go back to the Paris agreements and is framing it like "going back to led the world" in climate change. Going back to led the world? really? I know, I know, this a sentence for internal consumption but still, how do you think it sounds in other countries? I didn't touch the little fact of invasions of third countries and military bases all around the world. So, maybe there is something to this fad? Maybe take it like feedback to correct a few things?
- 5560675260 6y ago
  > in general, is not doing so much like other nations despite being the worst in per capita terms. Do you have sources to back any part of this statement? It would be surprising to see US doing less and being worth that, for example, Germany and its coal or China and its industrial complex. Otherwise it seems to be another example of "blatantly false anti-US comments like this get voted up without any data to back them up".
  - RobertoG 6y ago
    Actually I have to correct that because the USA is not the worst per capita (my apologies), but it's up there with the top worst (Canada, Australia, Saudi Arabia and a bunch of smaller countries) and, of course, more important because of the size of its population (1). It seems that what it's in dispute is the "not doing so much like other nations". I would say there are two ways to look at it: pledges and historical data. I don't think is necessary to demonstrate that the USA current pledges are below the Paris agreement countries. For historical I just will take 2019 that was a specially good year for USA CO2 reductions. from https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co2/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/us-leads-world-reducing-co... >>"It’s true that, according to the IEA’s February 2020 report, the U.S. achieved a greater absolute reduction in CO2 emissions than any other country, in 2019. However, claims that the U.S. therefore “led the entire world” or was a “global leader” in CO2 emissions were belied by the fact that other countries (including Germany, Japan, and likely others) achieved a superior rate of reduction in CO2 emissions. Although not a country, the European Union achieved both a larger absolute reduction and a greater rate of reduction in CO2 emissions than the US did. " (1) - https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by...

onion2k 6y ago

Historically America has been very pro-immigration. Very recently that appears to have changed (that's the view from the outside at least).