6 ms·

It's a long process and people who have been vetted and through it don't deserve to be held up unless there is a good reason. I can understand if there is somet

It's a long process and people who have been vetted and through it don't deserve to be held up unless there is a good reason. I can understand if there is something amiss but to just put the entire thing on hold for "theater" is wrong. Still from what I understand the US takes in more immigrants every year than any other country. Worldwide, the United States is home to more international migrants than any other country, and more than the next four countries—Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom—combined https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states-2024 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested...

skissane 2y ago
> Worldwide, the United States is home to more international migrants than any other country, and more than the next four countries—Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom—combined That's a somewhat misleading way of presenting data. It is true that in absolute terms, the US contains more immigrants than any other country on earth. However, on a percentage of the population basis, the US is actually only around the OECD average in terms of numbers of immigrants: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/foreign-born-population.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/foreign-born-populat... – in 2019, Luxembourg was 47.30% foreign-born, Australia 29.90%, Switzerland 29.70%, Israel 21.20%, Sweden 19.50%. At 13.60%, the US was around the middle. The fact that the US comes first in absolute terms, is not because the US is unusually welcoming to immigrants, it is because (among developed countries) it is unusually populous – at 333 million people, it is over 2.5 times more populous than the 2nd most populous OECD member (Japan).
- benreesman 2y ago
  The top five countries in the world by population are China, India, United States, Indonesia, and Pakistan. As mega-population superpower/rising-power type countries go, the United states is it for the embrace of immigration. Our anti-immigration lobby is loud and politicized, but there are smart people doing policy behind the scenes no matter which bunch of belligerent blowhards are in office in a given year. We should be even more welcoming of immigration than we are, and we should clean up our act on e.g. the southern border and the humanitarian crisis that's completely avoidable there. We don't have this right yet. But when it comes down to it in realpolitik terms, populous nations are strong nations both today, and especially in 20-40 years when powers like the PRC are going to be faltering badly because of demographic collapse and we're still going strong because new blood kept the country young and vibrant.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - benreesman 2y ago
      If there’s been a straight up or down referendum by the public on sweeping limits to immigration greater than already exist, I’m unaware of it. This could be my ignorance, in which case I’d thank you for educating me via citation. And while it’s a rare tier-one politician these days that hasn’t merited the word “traitor” by selling their actual as opposed to ostensible policy to monied influence, I’m likewise unaware of any split there along lines of ostensible immigration policy proposal. I’ll likewise thank you for any correction of my ignorance there.
      - rayiner 2y ago
        Increasing immigration has never polled higher than 25% since 1965: https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-i.... But because republicans want cheap labor, we have gone from 5% foreign born population to 15% over that timeframe. Cato published a survey in 2021 finding that the overwhelming majority of Americans want a low level of immigration: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_mobile_3x/public/2021-04/4_Chart.jpg?itok=IxZhUMXo https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_mobil.... If you poll people, the median ends up being under 500,000 people per year. Which is about 1/5th of what it’s been annually under Biden.
        benreesman 2y ago
        Your first link is to a poll indicating a year-over-year spike that has by simple procedural timing not yet been subjected to public opinion in light of an important vote of any kind. Time will tell on that. Your second link is a liberal education in how partisan think tanks cook surveys to push their agenda. The Cato Institute is the de facto PR arm of Koch Industries and you insult the HN readership by even serving that at our table. Your third assertion would be interesting if substantiated and contextualized: where do I get robust information about the Biden administration breaking with previous administrations on defying the public consensus by a factor of 5? Or were net inflows substantially the same under the last three administrations hailing from both major parties? You’ve been around here a long time, and you’re clearly a very smart person, and I have a lot of respect for both. But I’ve been around longer, and I’ll kindly but firmly remind you to leave the partisan pamphleteering on the whole rest of the Internet.
- redandblack 2y ago
  US can take in easily another 20-30 million immigrants over say 5-10 years - the question is always how to assimilate when there is already a distinct lack of affordable housing / schools / medical infra. There is literally no public investments in this. That said the IRA act is poring money into manufacturing which is having direct effects in those states, but require a hard look at easing infra development,
- dzhiurgis 2y ago
  How about migrant diversity? I.e. i found netherland far more diverse than uk.
  - skissane 2y ago
    In the 2021/2022 census, 16% of UK population was foreign-born. The top 5 countries of origin were India, Poland, Pakistan, Romania, and Ireland. [0] In 2022, almost 15% of the Netherlands population was foreign-born. The top 5 countries of origin were Turkey, Suriname, Morocco, Indonesia, and the Dutch Caribbean. [1] So I'm not sure, just looking at the statistics, if it is really true that one country is more diverse in terms of migrants than the other. And, putting statistics aside, do you really think a country which until recently had a second-generation immigrant Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak, both of whose parents were born in East Africa, of Punjabi descent–and his wife was born in India too), is less diverse than the Netherlands, which has not yet in its history had a Prime Minister who was not ethnically Dutch? And I think if you look at Sunak's cabinet, you will notice it was more ethnically diverse than Schoof's is, or any of Rutte's were – and the current Starmer cabinet is more ethnically diverse than Schoof's as well. [0] https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/mi... [1] https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/asylum-migration-and-integration/how-many-residents-have-a-foreign-country-of-origin- https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/asylum-migration-and-integr...
    - dzhiurgis 2y ago
      So percentages are nearly same - I feel the immigrant tail in NL is far longer
      - skissane 2y ago
        As I said, compare the current Netherlands cabinet to the current UK cabinet: Schoof cabinet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoof_cabinet#Cabinet_members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoof_cabinet#Cabinet_membe... Starmer cabinet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Cabinet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Cabinet The current UK cabinet contains senior ministers from ethnic minority background, such as David Lammy as Foreign Secretary and Shabana Mahmood as Lord Chancellor. Who are their equivalents in the Netherlands?
chiefalchemist 2y ago
Keep in mind 1) The US economy has no choice, it needs immigrants to keep the population from declining. This is why the southern border is what it is. We've trade an economic problem for an immigration problem. 2) In some - many? - cases these immigrants are a brain drain from their home country. That is, when "the best" come here instead of staying home to improve their on country, is that a net positive? We pat ourselves on the back but no one talks about how this hurts the from countries.
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  Down voted? Why? At least stand up and counter. HN ain't what it used to be. Sad really.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    I don’t know the exact algorithm, but I can give you a good idea why this might have happened. I hope you feel I’m not being critical, but rather trying to help explain that this is probably not personal… 1. Sensitive Topic 2. Rhetorical Questions and Ambiguity 3. Implied Criticism 4. Complex Sentence Structure (I’m guilty of writing in the same format as my thoughts too) 5. The Typo (“own country” instead of “on country”) This effectively describes why you were likely algorithmically downvoted.
    - chiefalchemist 2y ago
      Ok. But 0 would be: obvious (to me) facts. Fact: The US economy needs the headcount, esp since birthrates are down. Fact: When we "win" the best & the brightest, the country they came from loses. Imagine if instead of fighting the American Revolution, everyone picked up and moved to (e.g.) Canada. The US loves to brag about the win, but never comes clean on the countries that lose. These key facts are too often not mentioned in the context of this topic, because they alter the myth and change the narrative. So the solution is... DV'ing? Anywhere else, that would be funny. On HN it's sad.
      - 2y ago

skissane 2y ago

> Worldwide, the United States is home to more international migrants than any other country, and more than the next four countries—Germany, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom—combined That's a somewhat misleading way of presenting data. It is true that in absolute terms, the US contains more immigrants than any other country on earth. However, on a percentage of the population basis, the US is actually only around the OECD average in terms of numbers of immigrants: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/foreign-born-population.html https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/foreign-born-populat... – in 2019, Luxembourg was 47.30% foreign-born, Australia 29.90%, Switzerland 29.70%, Israel 21.20%, Sweden 19.50%. At 13.60%, the US was around the middle. The fact that the US comes first in absolute terms, is not because the US is unusually welcoming to immigrants, it is because (among developed countries) it is unusually populous – at 333 million people, it is over 2.5 times more populous than the 2nd most populous OECD member (Japan).

benreesman 2y ago
The top five countries in the world by population are China, India, United States, Indonesia, and Pakistan. As mega-population superpower/rising-power type countries go, the United states is it for the embrace of immigration. Our anti-immigration lobby is loud and politicized, but there are smart people doing policy behind the scenes no matter which bunch of belligerent blowhards are in office in a given year. We should be even more welcoming of immigration than we are, and we should clean up our act on e.g. the southern border and the humanitarian crisis that's completely avoidable there. We don't have this right yet. But when it comes down to it in realpolitik terms, populous nations are strong nations both today, and especially in 20-40 years when powers like the PRC are going to be faltering badly because of demographic collapse and we're still going strong because new blood kept the country young and vibrant.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - benreesman 2y ago
    If there’s been a straight up or down referendum by the public on sweeping limits to immigration greater than already exist, I’m unaware of it. This could be my ignorance, in which case I’d thank you for educating me via citation. And while it’s a rare tier-one politician these days that hasn’t merited the word “traitor” by selling their actual as opposed to ostensible policy to monied influence, I’m likewise unaware of any split there along lines of ostensible immigration policy proposal. I’ll likewise thank you for any correction of my ignorance there.
    - rayiner 2y ago
      Increasing immigration has never polled higher than 25% since 1965: https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-immigration.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/647123/sharply-americans-curb-i.... But because republicans want cheap labor, we have gone from 5% foreign born population to 15% over that timeframe. Cato published a survey in 2021 finding that the overwhelming majority of Americans want a low level of immigration: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_mobile_3x/public/2021-04/4_Chart.jpg?itok=IxZhUMXo https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/styles/aside_mobil.... If you poll people, the median ends up being under 500,000 people per year. Which is about 1/5th of what it’s been annually under Biden.
      - benreesman 2y ago
        Your first link is to a poll indicating a year-over-year spike that has by simple procedural timing not yet been subjected to public opinion in light of an important vote of any kind. Time will tell on that. Your second link is a liberal education in how partisan think tanks cook surveys to push their agenda. The Cato Institute is the de facto PR arm of Koch Industries and you insult the HN readership by even serving that at our table. Your third assertion would be interesting if substantiated and contextualized: where do I get robust information about the Biden administration breaking with previous administrations on defying the public consensus by a factor of 5? Or were net inflows substantially the same under the last three administrations hailing from both major parties? You’ve been around here a long time, and you’re clearly a very smart person, and I have a lot of respect for both. But I’ve been around longer, and I’ll kindly but firmly remind you to leave the partisan pamphleteering on the whole rest of the Internet.
redandblack 2y ago
US can take in easily another 20-30 million immigrants over say 5-10 years - the question is always how to assimilate when there is already a distinct lack of affordable housing / schools / medical infra. There is literally no public investments in this. That said the IRA act is poring money into manufacturing which is having direct effects in those states, but require a hard look at easing infra development,
dzhiurgis 2y ago
How about migrant diversity? I.e. i found netherland far more diverse than uk.
- skissane 2y ago
  In the 2021/2022 census, 16% of UK population was foreign-born. The top 5 countries of origin were India, Poland, Pakistan, Romania, and Ireland. [0] In 2022, almost 15% of the Netherlands population was foreign-born. The top 5 countries of origin were Turkey, Suriname, Morocco, Indonesia, and the Dutch Caribbean. [1] So I'm not sure, just looking at the statistics, if it is really true that one country is more diverse in terms of migrants than the other. And, putting statistics aside, do you really think a country which until recently had a second-generation immigrant Prime Minister (Rishi Sunak, both of whose parents were born in East Africa, of Punjabi descent–and his wife was born in India too), is less diverse than the Netherlands, which has not yet in its history had a Prime Minister who was not ethnically Dutch? And I think if you look at Sunak's cabinet, you will notice it was more ethnically diverse than Schoof's is, or any of Rutte's were – and the current Starmer cabinet is more ethnically diverse than Schoof's as well. [0] https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/migrants-in-the-uk-an-overview/ https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/mi... [1] https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/asylum-migration-and-integration/how-many-residents-have-a-foreign-country-of-origin- https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/dossier/asylum-migration-and-integr...
  - dzhiurgis 2y ago
    So percentages are nearly same - I feel the immigrant tail in NL is far longer
    - skissane 2y ago
      As I said, compare the current Netherlands cabinet to the current UK cabinet: Schoof cabinet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoof_cabinet#Cabinet_members https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schoof_cabinet#Cabinet_membe... Starmer cabinet: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Cabinet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starmer_ministry#Cabinet The current UK cabinet contains senior ministers from ethnic minority background, such as David Lammy as Foreign Secretary and Shabana Mahmood as Lord Chancellor. Who are their equivalents in the Netherlands?

chiefalchemist 2y ago

Keep in mind 1) The US economy has no choice, it needs immigrants to keep the population from declining. This is why the southern border is what it is. We've trade an economic problem for an immigration problem. 2) In some - many? - cases these immigrants are a brain drain from their home country. That is, when "the best" come here instead of staying home to improve their on country, is that a net positive? We pat ourselves on the back but no one talks about how this hurts the from countries.

chiefalchemist 2y ago
Down voted? Why? At least stand up and counter. HN ain't what it used to be. Sad really.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  I don’t know the exact algorithm, but I can give you a good idea why this might have happened. I hope you feel I’m not being critical, but rather trying to help explain that this is probably not personal… 1. Sensitive Topic 2. Rhetorical Questions and Ambiguity 3. Implied Criticism 4. Complex Sentence Structure (I’m guilty of writing in the same format as my thoughts too) 5. The Typo (“own country” instead of “on country”) This effectively describes why you were likely algorithmically downvoted.
  - chiefalchemist 2y ago
    Ok. But 0 would be: obvious (to me) facts. Fact: The US economy needs the headcount, esp since birthrates are down. Fact: When we "win" the best & the brightest, the country they came from loses. Imagine if instead of fighting the American Revolution, everyone picked up and moved to (e.g.) Canada. The US loves to brag about the win, but never comes clean on the countries that lose. These key facts are too often not mentioned in the context of this topic, because they alter the myth and change the narrative. So the solution is... DV'ing? Anywhere else, that would be funny. On HN it's sad.
    - 2y ago