3 ms·

It often doesn't make sense: the nicest countries in Europe won't allow you to become an immigrant there, because they're hyper xenophobic and or extremely raci

It often doesn't make sense: the nicest countries in Europe won't allow you to become an immigrant there, because they're hyper xenophobic and or extremely racist. They have very tall barriers to entry that are intentional. They usually call it protecting their culture, it's really just plain old xenophobia and racism. The nicest European countries are fragile and can't handle immigration well at all. Just ask Sweden how their next 30 or so years are starting to look. France has entirely failed for decades at integrating their immigration populations, despite their vaunted welfare state. They're very mediocre at functional integration, whereas the US is the greatest by-design melting pot in world history. Try immigrating into affluent nations like Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway, Finland, etc. They make it far more difficult than it is to come to the US (unless you're a top tier immigrant in terms of skill/wealth). The nicest countries love to use points systems or the equivalent to keep poorer, lower skilled people out. Canada for example is 2% black and 3% Latin American. Anyone think that's an accident? There are roughly 3/4 of a billion Latin Americans in the Americas and somehow Canada is merely 3% Latin American. The huge Latin American immigration wave the US has seen over the past 40-50 years has been nearly entirely blocked by Canada. It's by design, they're xenophobic like the Europeans are, and they do everything they can to keep poor people out. People will say: just look how amazing Norway or Germany are. It's a nice fantasy, because good luck becoming a citizen (maybe for the privileged HN crowd there's a chance). Japan is amazing? Yeah ok, go try becoming a citizen there. Try integrating, try becoming Japanese (you can't). So what the hell is the point of saying: xyz is so wonderful - if they're excluding by design and won't let you join? Gee, Stanford, MIT and Harvard are amazing, every college should be like that. The US remains moderately accessible, most of its peers are the exact opposite.

vkou 3y ago
Canada[1] is 15% Asian (India, China, etc), 4.3% Black, 1.9% arab, 1.6% latin american. The US is 12% black, 18% latin american, 6% Asian. And let me tell you, that 12% black number isn't the product of a liberal immigration policy. The numbers aren't actually too different, and if you were to switch the two countries' geographies, I'd expect the US latin american numbers to significantly drop, and Canada's to significantly rise. The Canadian immigration system is actually pretty reasonable. Points for being young, for having useful skills, points for demonstrating mastery of the language, points for having relatives. And a clear process for international students studying in Canada to naturalize. The US is the one that yanks you around by your britches, with decades-long waiting lists and visa lotteries for people who are already living and working in the country. [1] Country-of-origin breakdown for recent immigrants to Canada[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171597/new-immigrants-canada-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171597/new-immigrants-c... - 32% India, 8% China, 4.3% Philipines, 3.8% Nigeria. The first European country to make the list is France, at 3.2%, followed by the US, Brazil, Iran, Korea, Pakistan, all at 2-3%. [2] Similar breakdown for the US - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20most%20common,Cuba%20(3%20percent%20apiece) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested.... - 14% Mexico[3], 13% India, 7% China, 4% Phillipines, 3% Dominican Republic. [3] Given these numbers, I think its reasonable to hypothesize that if Canada had border proximity, and strong cultural ties to Mexico, I'm sure that it's lat-am immigration numbers might look similar to what the US has.
danans 3y ago
> The US remains moderately accessible, most of its peers are the exact opposite. I agree completely. But that's good and practically necessary for the US, since it is highly reliant on immigrants at all levels of skill for their labor. Immigration even underpins the basic functioning of the healthcare system, and not just for doctors and nurses. Cleaning hospitals is a critical job for the healthcare system, and janitorial workers are 20% Latino. However, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty that can be learned from the administration of healthcare systems elsewhere. Germany, like the US, has a market based health insurance system organized through employers, but unlike the US, carrying insurance is required by law [1]. Furthermore, Germany has universal public coverage for medically necessary care, and controls the price of prescription drugs [2]. That doesn't make Germany's system perfect by a long shot, but it manages to achieve a much lower healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP while maintaining universal coverage for basic healthcare and even offering patients longer average hospital stays than the US does. 1. https://sites.gsu.edu/gsuglobalhealth/2021/02/15/competition-of-the-21st-century-united-states-vs-germany-which-healthcare-system-is-superior/#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20the%20German,for%20switching%20from%20public%20to https://sites.gsu.edu/gsuglobalhealth/2021/02/15/competition... 2. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/drug-price-moderation-germany-lessons-us-reform-efforts https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...
mcpackieh 3y ago
> Europe won't allow you to become an immigrant there, because they're hyper xenophobic and or extremely racist. [...] They usually call it protecting their culture, it's really just plain old xenophobia and racism. > Just ask Sweden how their next 30 or so years are starting to look. France has entirely failed for decades at integrating their immigration populations, despite their vaunted welfare state. You seem to be contradicting yourself. The way you put it, European countries are simultaneously closed to immigration and irrationally racist for being this way, and at the same time they're on doomed trajectories due to immigration. If the latter is true, that would be a non-racist justification for anti-immigration policies, but if they were as anti-immigration as you claim those faltering social conditions due to immigration wouldn't exist in the first place. Compare immigration to France and Japan. It's clear which of these countries is actually hostile to immigrants.
- parineum 3y ago
  Not to take sides, but there's not a contradiction there. The immigration of refugees has been a topic of discussion for some time now (Brexit). Standard immigration is still difficult in most of the EU but there has been an influx of refugees who are primarily poor. I don't agree with the characterization that the policies are due to racism though.
  - mcpackieh 3y ago
    > I don't agree with the characterization that the policies are due to racism though. Right, it's a clear contradiction. If European countries were "hyper xenophobic and or extremely racist" they would be turning away and deporting those refugees. They're not doing that though, so the characterization of European countries as xenophobic and racist doesn't fit the facts.
    - oytis 3y ago
      The contradiction is between government policies and the society. Government (I am speaking of Germany which I know of, I expect France and Nordics be similar mutatis mutandis) clearly understands that they need immigrants, but the society is inherently nativist (if xenophobic is too strong of a word), and not willing to accept/integrate them.

vkou 3y ago

Canada[1] is 15% Asian (India, China, etc), 4.3% Black, 1.9% arab, 1.6% latin american. The US is 12% black, 18% latin american, 6% Asian. And let me tell you, that 12% black number isn't the product of a liberal immigration policy. The numbers aren't actually too different, and if you were to switch the two countries' geographies, I'd expect the US latin american numbers to significantly drop, and Canada's to significantly rise. The Canadian immigration system is actually pretty reasonable. Points for being young, for having useful skills, points for demonstrating mastery of the language, points for having relatives. And a clear process for international students studying in Canada to naturalize. The US is the one that yanks you around by your britches, with decades-long waiting lists and visa lotteries for people who are already living and working in the country. [1] Country-of-origin breakdown for recent immigrants to Canada[2] - https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171597/new-immigrants-canada-country/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/1171597/new-immigrants-c... - 32% India, 8% China, 4.3% Philipines, 3.8% Nigeria. The first European country to make the list is France, at 3.2%, followed by the US, Brazil, Iran, Korea, Pakistan, all at 2-3%. [2] Similar breakdown for the US - https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states#:~:text=What%20are%20the%20most%20common,Cuba%20(3%20percent%20apiece) https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested.... - 14% Mexico[3], 13% India, 7% China, 4% Phillipines, 3% Dominican Republic. [3] Given these numbers, I think its reasonable to hypothesize that if Canada had border proximity, and strong cultural ties to Mexico, I'm sure that it's lat-am immigration numbers might look similar to what the US has.

danans 3y ago

> The US remains moderately accessible, most of its peers are the exact opposite. I agree completely. But that's good and practically necessary for the US, since it is highly reliant on immigrants at all levels of skill for their labor. Immigration even underpins the basic functioning of the healthcare system, and not just for doctors and nurses. Cleaning hospitals is a critical job for the healthcare system, and janitorial workers are 20% Latino. However, that doesn't mean there isn't plenty that can be learned from the administration of healthcare systems elsewhere. Germany, like the US, has a market based health insurance system organized through employers, but unlike the US, carrying insurance is required by law [1]. Furthermore, Germany has universal public coverage for medically necessary care, and controls the price of prescription drugs [2]. That doesn't make Germany's system perfect by a long shot, but it manages to achieve a much lower healthcare spend as a percentage of GDP while maintaining universal coverage for basic healthcare and even offering patients longer average hospital stays than the US does. 1. https://sites.gsu.edu/gsuglobalhealth/2021/02/15/competition-of-the-21st-century-united-states-vs-germany-which-healthcare-system-is-superior/#:~:text=The%20benefits%20of%20the%20German,for%20switching%20from%20public%20to https://sites.gsu.edu/gsuglobalhealth/2021/02/15/competition... 2. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2020/jan/drug-price-moderation-germany-lessons-us-reform-efforts https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/issue-briefs/2...

mcpackieh 3y ago

> Europe won't allow you to become an immigrant there, because they're hyper xenophobic and or extremely racist. [...] They usually call it protecting their culture, it's really just plain old xenophobia and racism. > Just ask Sweden how their next 30 or so years are starting to look. France has entirely failed for decades at integrating their immigration populations, despite their vaunted welfare state. You seem to be contradicting yourself. The way you put it, European countries are simultaneously closed to immigration and irrationally racist for being this way, and at the same time they're on doomed trajectories due to immigration. If the latter is true, that would be a non-racist justification for anti-immigration policies, but if they were as anti-immigration as you claim those faltering social conditions due to immigration wouldn't exist in the first place. Compare immigration to France and Japan. It's clear which of these countries is actually hostile to immigrants.

parineum 3y ago
Not to take sides, but there's not a contradiction there. The immigration of refugees has been a topic of discussion for some time now (Brexit). Standard immigration is still difficult in most of the EU but there has been an influx of refugees who are primarily poor. I don't agree with the characterization that the policies are due to racism though.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > I don't agree with the characterization that the policies are due to racism though. Right, it's a clear contradiction. If European countries were "hyper xenophobic and or extremely racist" they would be turning away and deporting those refugees. They're not doing that though, so the characterization of European countries as xenophobic and racist doesn't fit the facts.
  - oytis 3y ago
    The contradiction is between government policies and the society. Government (I am speaking of Germany which I know of, I expect France and Nordics be similar mutatis mutandis) clearly understands that they need immigrants, but the society is inherently nativist (if xenophobic is too strong of a word), and not willing to accept/integrate them.