George Borjas writes:
We always tend to think of the U.S. as a “nation of immigrants.” About 12% of the U.S. population today is foreign-born. It is eye-opening to put this number in perspective. Just look at some of the data collected by the U.N.:
Ireland, 14.1% foreign-born
Sweden, 12.4%
United Kingdom, 9.1%
Greece, 8.8%
Spain, 11.1%
Austria, 15.1%
France, 10.7%
Germany, 12.3%
Netherlands, 10.1%
Switzerland, 22.9%
That’s percentage of the population foreign-born. The U.S. is even more of a laggard in inflows of foreign nationals as a percentage of population. Here is a graph from the OECD factbook:
Inflow of Foreign Nationals as a Percentage of Total Population among OECD Countries, 2004
[Click for full graph]
I’ve been poring over national quality of life statistics for the past two years now, and I can tell you for sure that Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada are much better places to live for the average person, in terms of QoL indicators, than the countries at the bottom the list. Part of it is that immigrants know what they’re doing: they go where the opportunity is. Part of it is that high immigrant in-flows are a vital part of a thriving economy and society.
But “a nation of the thoroughly assimilated” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
But “a nation of the thoroughly assimilated” just doesn’t have the same ring to it.
Pingback: Fey Accompli » there is a balm in Libertopia
The same report notes that 1 in every 5 migrants lives in North America. I am not sure whether using percentages of immigrants in the populations of states doesn’t skew the picture a certain way-I suppose it would depend on what you wanted to look at. It seems like Switzerland’s relatively high immigration percentage should be considered in light of it’s small native population, for instance. The general trends of migration, we should not be surprised, involve citizens of less developed nations moving to more developed ones-the reasons for this are obvious. I would have to be persuaded, however, that large immigration inflows significantly contribute to the prosperity of the countries that permit them. Why would that be the case? While it’s isn’t impossible, it doesn’t seem self-evident.
The same report notes that 1 in every 5 migrants lives in North America. I am not sure whether using percentages of immigrants in the populations of states doesn’t skew the picture a certain way-I suppose it would depend on what you wanted to look at. It seems like Switzerland’s relatively high immigration percentage should be considered in light of it’s small native population, for instance. The general trends of migration, we should not be surprised, involve citizens of less developed nations moving to more developed ones-the reasons for this are obvious. I would have to be persuaded, however, that large immigration inflows significantly contribute to the prosperity of the countries that permit them. Why would that be the case? While it’s isn’t impossible, it doesn’t seem self-evident.
Pingback: Eunomia · Who Are We?
I’m not clear on what the statistics are measuring. The EU is supposed to be a single labor market, isn’t it? So shouldn’t we measure the EU as a whole, rather than elements within?
It’s my impression that Texas and Oregon are filled with people born in other states, but they aren’t considered “foreign born” for purposes of this graph. Why should people born in the UK be considered “foreign born” if they live in Ireland? Or if they move from Germany to Switzerland?
I’m not clear on what the statistics are measuring. The EU is supposed to be a single labor market, isn’t it? So shouldn’t we measure the EU as a whole, rather than elements within?
It’s my impression that Texas and Oregon are filled with people born in other states, but they aren’t considered “foreign born” for purposes of this graph. Why should people born in the UK be considered “foreign born” if they live in Ireland? Or if they move from Germany to Switzerland?
What percentage of the number for Switzerland is guest worker?
Or 2nd or later-generation non-citizen permanent resident.
Does it include cross border-commuters with long-term employment in Switzerland?
What percentage of the number for Switzerland is guest worker?
Or 2nd or later-generation non-citizen permanent resident.
Does it include cross border-commuters with long-term employment in Switzerland?
And no hat-tip to “Terry” over at Ross’ site for the idea, Will?
And no hat-tip to “Terry” over at Ross’ site for the idea, Will?
None of the top four countries you named — Australia, NZ, Canada, Ireland — have a very poor country with a contiguous border. They all encourage high-skill immigration as opposed to cheap-labor immigration, and this is made easier by their physical distance from low-skill countries. Talking about “immigration”, full stop, as though it was one phenomenon is misleading.
None of the top four countries you named — Australia, NZ, Canada, Ireland — have a very poor country with a contiguous border. They all encourage high-skill immigration as opposed to cheap-labor immigration, and this is made easier by their physical distance from low-skill countries. Talking about “immigration”, full stop, as though it was one phenomenon is misleading.
Marcus, Right. So given that these countries don’t have a SOMEWHAT poor country on their border, it’s even MORE of a shame that our overall rates of immigration are so stingy. No?
Marcus, Right. So given that these countries don’t have a SOMEWHAT poor country on their border, it’s even MORE of a shame that our overall rates of immigration are so stingy. No?