1. The key term is "per capita than the US". When we are talking about physical resources and climate change, per capita doesn't make much sense. If the US impo

1. The key term is "per capita than the US". When we are talking about physical resources and climate change, per capita doesn't make much sense. If the US imports a million people, the US needs physical resources for a million people. Having more people already in the US doesn't automatically materialize raw physical resources. 2. You talk about per capita then switch to US having the most expensive military. Why not use per capita for costs? US is not the highest. Israel and UAE come before. It makes more sense to use per capita figures for cost. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_... 3. The US is also above Iceland, Polan, Spain, Ireland, Finland, Israel, Japan, etc. Why leave that out? This kind of bad faith discussion is really boring. 4. "the difference between the number of persons entering and leaving a country during the year, per 1,000 persons (based on midyear population)" It doesn't distinguish between permanent and non-permanent visitors. Also, it doesn't say whether illegal immigration is counted. 5. "In many of those countries, the "huge welfare states" have prerequisites ( for instance you can't just come in as an economic migrant and ask for unemployment benefits)." Thanks for making my point! The US has few such restrictions. And of course my original comment is flagged because we can't have free discussion going against the party line. > But the flying spaghetti monster forbid money goes to other people I am not going to respond to a ill-informed jab at religion.