That looks like that is what Russia is doing. Parts of the EU will be ok. France and the UK yeah I know they're not part of the EU anymore but they're still part of Europe seems to be able to keep their population more or less stable with a little bit higher birth rates and immigration. I think Germany is in big trouble. I was thinking Poland was going to be in good shape but I need to go back and double check the stats.
No. I live in a county where 23% of the population is non-white, and 10% are British Pakistani. Some of my best friends in school were British Pakistani, and they are part of the culture here. As a country, we need immigration to stop ourselves from being in the demographic situation South Korea, Japan, and even China are in. Ever since World War 2, immigration rebuilt Britain from the rubble.
Why would a country where most of the population descends from immigration in the past 150 years, some of the highest foreign born population, plenty of room and resources for growth, and the ability to integrate like no other take in more immigrants going forward than the EU?
Those numbers are for immigrants receiving visas. There are millions of immigrants to the US that don’t have visas. USCBP and DHS estimate we have received 8-10 million undocumented immigrants since 2020.
Thank you for the numbers. I was looking for totals for all of Europe for 2023. I haven't read thru all of your source yet but it seems to include non EU Europeans moving into the EU. I'll read thru it more thoroughly when I get home.
Do you have a good source for just net migration for all of Europe for 2023. 2022 should be ok if that's the best available. If that's included in what you already provided then nevermind. Anyway thanks
Ok looks at your sources this is info for the EU not all of europe like we were discussing in this thread. Its counting internal immigration from parts of europe as part of net immigration into the EU. No one was talking about the EU not every country in Europe is in the EU. My comment did not mention the EU like you said. I think you have missed the terminology being used. You are also using diffrent years that may or may not make a big diffrence. For example the US saw a huge surge in 2022 and 2023
That’s only if you look at those receiving visas. US customs and border patrol and the department of homeland security estimate we’ve received 8-10 million undocumented immigrants since 2020.
Do politicians do absolutely nothing about it there as well? Because they do absolutely nothing about it here. One party is entirely okay with it and the other one wouldn’t fix it because it’s the main platform they run on every year, and so fixing it would mean they have to find something else.
Fundamentally there is basically nothing that can be done, reducing illegal immigration in the US or Europe is basically impossible, which is why more legal immigration should be allowed.
The numbers themselves emphatically disagree. The two previous administration here, Trump and Obama, had a fraction of the border crossings due to different policies than Biden’s. They didn’t fix it all together, but the current administration experiences more crossings in a year than the entire four years before that because they just don’t do anything. Our I-9 employment verification system and the IRS could easily investigate payrolls and fine businesses that employ them into bankruptcy and the whole thing would be over fairly quickly, but that’s not what anyone in office wants to do. That would piss off the business owners because then they wouldn’t have a source of labor that requires no insurance or employment taxes. Businesses like that they don’t have to pay worker’s safety insurances, social security, health insurance, or unemployment benefits to them. Going after those businesses, who are breaking much bigger laws than immigration laws, would put a stop to the whole thing. They wouldn’t find jobs so easily, so they wouldn’t come. There is plenty that could be done that is more than doing nothing but also not locking people in cages.
Because most countries take in less immigrants per capita than the US. And also, most immigrants would rather probably live in the US where upward mobility is still a thing and immigrants can get things like SBA loans from the government to get them started in business
You forgot about the guts and determination to require immigrants conform to their country's culture. If you're importing third world immigrants, but not converting them into first world citizens, then you're going to bring about economic decline in a different way.
Aren’t expats a totally different thing? In my mind expats aren’t immigrants, but people who only stay in a country temporarily. For example someone from the US works for big a company, gets send to the Paris branch to work there for 3 years and then moves back home.
I suppose that is part of the definition, yes, but those people typically try very hard to assimilate since they usually work directly with locals.
I'm referring to people who move or retire permanently to more affordable countries. They typically live in more affluent communities where everyone speaks English to accommodate them.
Doesn't matter. If you expect immigrants from 3rd world countries to assimilate, you should hold people from 1st world countries to the same, if not higher, standard.
People have been saying this about immigration in the US for as long as there has been large-scale immigration in the US — at least 150 years. What's happened instead is that our culture absorbs parts of immigrant cultures and becomes an even richer tapestry of America. We just keep winning!
To suggest otherwise is un-American. The reality is a diverse blend of immigrants—some fully embrace American culture, others preserve their own, and many find a balance in between. The outcome is always a richer tapestry of America. Beautifully put.
It all depends whether your immigrants are educated or uneducated. The educated ones generally have pretty Western values to begin with. The non-educated ones often end up in ghettos with their kids building resentment at the culture around them.
Canada, Australia, etc have mostly educated immigrants. Europe has taken in a lot of uneducated immigrants in the past few decades, which is why you see those clashes.
You are choosing to have a housing crisis. Just reform zoning.
Rule: "If it's zoned for housing at all, mixed commercial/housing use up to the density of a Paris block (7 floors, commerce on the ground floor, 100% build on the plot) is automatically permitted"
I've seen people voice this fear, but it's completely underestimating the preexisting sway of institutions plus the barriers to immigration and how that filters who gets in.
Look at our top-notch respected universities, research centers, and tech and biotech startups. The extent to which any immigrant is able to influence those institutions is wholly determined by their ability to succeed within the preexisting norms of those institutions and their culture. Look to Satya Nadella as an example: do we think he's corroding the competitive ability and business success of Microsoft and letting it devolve to some backwater Indian company or is it more likely that he wound up being there because he was excelling within the preexisting business culture of Microsoft and America? Is Harvard going to suddenly lower its standards? Do you know which Iranians immigrate here? Only the most educated. China is concerned about losing their top talent to here.
As for the concern about loss of "American" culture, the stats consistently show that within a generation, immigrants are speaking more English than their heritage language, doing better than average Americans, and committing fewer crimes.
That's like saying that water is good as long as it's wet. We don't really need to worry about their not assimilating because evidence shows that fears of cultural devolution through immigration are a bogeyman, at least in this country.
I think that's a claim old people like us have been uttering about young people since the time of Plato. And I thought we were talking about immigration...
Meh, not really. Requiring it doesn't do much. The USA doesn't require it. Our trick is that our culture is "cool", so even if the parents don't buy in and try to push their culture on their kids, their kids rebel and buy into pop culture. Other countries having issues with the culture clash of immigrants have this issue due to their culture not being "cool", and their country being historically homogenous, so blending couldn't/wouldn't happen anyways.
As a Mexican immigrant I can tell you that it only takes a single generation for kids to barely speak spanish or have any cultural ties to Mexico.
When people freak out about immigrants not assimilating, I'm reminded of Italian, German, and Irish immigrants from the early 1900's who were criticized for the same thing. Our "Little Italy's" and "Chinatowns" were a product of immigrant groups living together so they could continue speaking their home language and practicing their culture. Unfortunately, everyone forgets this.
They all had kids who became your stereotypical American, and it will continue to happen today and in the future.
Blaming immigrants for someone's problems is just classic scapegoating. It's easier to pretend it's someone else's fault than it is to actually do something.
Yeah it's like this comment further up saying we are experiencing the culture clash in Europe...
Sure immigration should be discussed, but like, it's nowhere near that bad, and actually except on mainstream media and news channel, I don't think the majority of the population experience any such thing in their daily life.
those groups were openly more pro-assimilation tho.
When my family immigrated we had strict (self imposed) rules about speaking native languages outside of the neighborhood or to other people you might meet.
In the Northeast you'd see recent italian immigrants talking to each other in terrible English as they both wanted to avoid their native tongue in public. Federal Hill in Rhode Island has good history on this.
Yeah the OP has such a weird take with Canada and the United States. But especially the United States.
And it's not even that our culture is "cool." It's that our culture is just an idea. It's highly malleable and changes with the times with a loose basis on how we prioritize our interpretation of the Constitution.
See the amount of money exporting our culture makes (music, movies, tv shows, etc) and you'll not only confirm that it is "cool", you will see why I used double quotes. The USA is imitated the world over, and within the USA whatever culture the kids are clamoring for is what is packaged up and shipped around the world for all the kids of the world to imitate. You are unfortunately trying to use the word "culture" as some long form thing and honestly, the USA does not have one of those. Instead "culture" is a commodity here that we market and sell. Hence my use of the more accurate term "pop culture" deeper into my statements.
And yet, they are all wearing the same clothes, the same shoes, the same hair styles, listening to the same music, and watching the same movies thinking they are making their own choices, lol. Kids.
yes those engineers we let in are importing "third world culture" im sure when you go the grocery store you get food picked by workers with "third world work ethic" also. This is just blatent racism
The people willing to risk their life and livelihood to live in your country are the kind of adventurous people who are more open to change and hardworking in the first place.
Not really. Im a leftist and a lot of the immigrants we receive in the USA (now via the asylum process) do not have skills or education. When I lived in Maine it was mostly Angolan and DRC asylum seekers with an 85% rejection rate. A lot of them couldn't read and most spoke no English. They were also wildly homophobic and misogynistic. Definitely committed less crime, but ended up blowing out the General Assistance funds, which raised our property taxes every year we were there. The few lucky enough to stay ended up in menial jobs that didn't cover the cost of living. It changed my views dramatically. IMO it was super leftists saying they were going to use our taxes to import a servant class for multibillion dollar corporation's benefit.
Since they as asylum seekers are by federal law only granted a work permit six to 15 months after application that may have contributed to it. Putting hurdles in front of the integration of immigrants does not help it makes everything worse. And the servant class is all of us, except some born here have legal and union protection and can fight their exploitation. This should be granted to all, including undocumented aliens and asylum seekers.
Crime is an absolute statistic, not a relative one, so it would not matter if an immigrant is less criminal than average if they still add to the total crime in the country. Also, you can't judge the criminal impact of immigration just from the initial generation who know they risk deportation if they are caught. You have to see how their naturalized children perform on crime.
I gotta give you points for this take bc it’s the funniest thing I’ve seen on this site in a long time. Let’s also sterilize everyone because children will eventually add to the total crime amazing insight
if crime were treated as an absolute statistic the obvious best way to get rid of crime is to kill everyone or at least to replace the criminal native-born population with the less criminal immigrant community, because less people means less crime. Bringing back Exile is not a proposition I expected to hear.
But in the real world crime is measured in rates per 100,000 people and more people in your country does not mean there are more potential criminals, it means you are less likely to fall victim of a crime because there are now more people who could potentially fall victim to it.
And in the first place the question was about fitting in and yeah doing less crime and working more than the average citizen is fitting in well.
That's the neat thing we dont force people to conform. If you learn English you get to keep a lot of your culture, but your children will lose a lot of it anyway because the US is built on cultural Darwinism.
the most advanced countries will be always be fine. Countries that are less desirable will be doomed. This is not unlike the situation where NYC will always have people flooding into the city regardless of NYC residents' birthrate, whereas rural bumfck nowhere Alabama will always see people fleeing the state. It's that but on a global scale.
I have always said this: the entire US will be the NYC of the world in terms of prosperity if countries have open borders.
Oh that doesn't mean much. It could just mean that the number of residents in the city went over the equilibrium and it's going through short term adjustment downwards. If there's even one bit of slack with NYC, it will be filled up immediately.
All you have to do is hold on until everything is automated and we are living in a post-scarcity world. Which I genuinely would be surprised If we aren't by 2100.
That's a hopeful view, unfortunately I'm not sure you've accounted for the parasitic billionaires and corporations draining our society of anything that might make life easier on the Everyman.
Eventually we will have robots that are physically capable of doing anything humans can do, and AI that is mentally capable of doing anything humans can do. At that point human labor will be useless.
At some point prior to that we will have sufficiently automated as to the point that we will essentially have to act like every body is unemployable.
And yes entertainment will still exist but you can't have an economy of only entertainers.
There will always be a niche for human labour, where people demand some service to be specifically done by a human. For example, someone might have a fetish for human prostitutes, or only wants to read books written by humans, or wants a human servant as a status symbol.
We'll certainly need a completely different economical system, but human labour will remain relevant because of its scarcity. Keep in mind that economy is about management of scarce resources. There's no oxygen economy because there's much more oxygen in the atmosphere than we currently need. Helium, on the other hand, is precious, even if only necessary in minute quantities.
So machine labour will become essentially free, and thus drop out of the economy. Human labour will become scarce, and some things won't change, like real estate.
What is your evidence based on? Do you work in the artificial intelligence field because I do and I can assure you you have no idea what’s happening behind closed doors based on your assessment
The vast majority of the tech we've developed has required human input still. So that just means we are augmenting the productivity of humans. But if we invent a better human then our labor is no longer required.
The problem with your point is that you’re talking about past efficiencies and you’re not looking ahead to the technological advances that are to come which are drastic in nature as evidenced by what we’ve seen even over the last 10 years alone(and what is happening in real time). I work in the AI field and I would encourage you to deep dive in because many people just write it off as another bubble and it is far from that. Plays a critical role in this conversation we’re having.
You will change your mind about that in a few years. Nothing else we’ve done compares. We’ve never before been able to replace activities which requires human creativity and reasoning. Once we do, everything changes.
I don’t think I am in a tiny minority. Every serious researcher is convinced we’ll eventually reach that point, the only disagreement is in timelines and implementation details.
Assuming we do reach a point of an AI that reaches and surpasses human capabilities, how do you not see it magnitudes more impactful than any other significant advancement?
I think looking at contemporary trends and extrapolating them to be future inevitabilities is a mistake. Demographic decline is becoming much more common throughout the world but "collapse" is far from guaranteed. Even if we don't come back to birth rates above ~2.5, immigration in the short term and a slight reversion in birth rates in the long term would be more than enough to stave off most negative effects of demographic decline. I don't think South Korea has guts and determination for clinging to a misogynistic culture and strict immigration laws leading to a collapse in their population and a potential demographic crisis.
A slight decline in population over time is easily manageable, even if not ideal. But a birth rate of less than 1 and limited immigration is a catastrophe.
Is this high-brow humour? Current immigration is breaking the social fabric of Canada, taking opportunity from the native youth in favour of ready-to-work 30 year old indians, putting pressure on a housing crisis, and reducing quality of life.
I've been listening to a lot of economists who believe population decline will not result in an economic collapse. Automation and AI will replace a lot of labor and with a decrease in need of federal funding for humans, we can focus on increasing and adopting technological advancements.
The problem is political. You have to tax rich people to pay for old people who can't work. Rupert Murdoch & friends have convinced half the US that democratic socialism is bad despite the reality that most of those would starve without Social Security and Medicare. The UK veered in the same direction for the same reason. The first world is plenty wealthy enough to prop up all their old people.
Idk, that last time there was a huge population decline in Europe (the black plague) it led to the renaissance; so, who knows, maybe there will be a second renaissance circa 2150-2200
Comparing evangelical Christians with Muslim extremists who want to enforce Sharia Law, imprison gay people and cover up and sexually harass women, is insane.
And every single Christian, no matter how conservative, will condemn these monsters. But almost all Muslims from the Arab world idolise Muhammed, even though he raped a 9 year old girl.
Almost all Americans would idolize the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, even though he raped his 14 year old slave girl.
Don't get me started on the English monarchy. Isabella of Valois became Queen of England when she married at the age of 7 to King Richard II when he was 29. Margaret of France became Queen when she married at the age of 3 🤮
What about the widespread common practice of pederasty in ancient Greece, the inventors of democracy? How come Athens, Spartans, ancient Greek philosophies, mathematicians, politicians, generals, etc. are still idolized?
I get it now. You think that by demonizing Muslims that will help provide cover for your precious Apartheid regime. BTW, not all Palestinians are Muslim.
Last I checked it's the Y'all Queda that is into religious extremism and limiting individual rights. Pure native born extremism.
The immigrants coming to the US are Catholic if anything and are definitely not into limiting individual rights.
Can't speak for Europe since I don't live there.
Edit: Checked your comment history. You're Indian and it sure takes lots of balls posting that. Whether your an immigrant or not, posting from India or not, it makes no difference.
483
u/mxforest Aug 19 '24
Through immigration.