The tally for the countries other than the US in porcelainprincess’s list is 28.3 million.[/quote]
Erm, not to put too fine a point on it, but maybe your brain doesn’t work too good, so I’ll spell it out nice and slow…2003 was last year, but 2000 and 2001 were different years. 2001 is closer to 2000. All of the countries in the list have seen varying degrees of growth between 2001 and 2003, some of them very high.
Do you think, maybe, that while the US’s numbers have gone up, Canada’s and Australia’s have gone up as well? Meaning, d’uh, I don’t know, that maybe “the tally for the countries other than the US in porcelainprincess’s list” is just a teeny bit higher than 28.3 million?
Do you think, maybe, that I chose those particular figures because the various organizations did not all have figures for 2003? That a comparison between the US in 2003 and the other countries in 2001, especially in light of the explosive rise in immigration over the last few years, would be essentially meaningless?
And even so, the essential point still stands. Worldwide immigration is no longer a uniquely US phenomenon. Indeed, many countries have far higher proportionate foreign-born populations than the US does.
The numbers I gave are the figures and percentages of foreign-born in various countries. What does “migration between selected “non-us” countries” have to do with it?
PP, 4 out of the 6 countries you cite are British Commonwealth, right? What then is the definition of foreign? An American immigrant to Australia is not (under Australian law) the same as a British immigrant.
the comparison is statistically flawed since you’re comparing 1 country to a basket of countries. in terms of foreign-born residents, your numbers reflect internal movement within the basket of countries, but does not take into account internal movement within the 1 country.
for example, 25%(or more than 1 million) of the foreign born in australia are from the uk. since you are using a combined population that includes both australia and the uk, can this still be considered “foreign born” in the same sense that is used when refering to foreign born residents of the us?
[quote=“Flipper”]the comparison is statistically flawed since you’re comparing 1 country to a basket of countries. in terms of foreign-born residents, your numbers reflect internal movement within the basket of countries, but does not take into account internal movement within the 1 country.
for example, 25%(or more than 1 million) of the foreign born in australia are from the uk. since you are using a combined population that includes both australia and the uk, can this still be considered “foreign born” in the same sense that is used when refering to foreign born residents of the us?[/quote]
Ah, okay, I see what you mean. That wasn’t the main point of the construct of the “non-US” countries, which was admittedly slap-dash. Still, if you want to compare my “non-US” group as a monolith (not my intention), then “in-migration” is not very meaningful either. After all, moving from New York to Los Angeles, say, is hardly the cultural leap that going from London to Sydney is, much less from Canada to Germany or France to New Zealand.
So? Did I offer numbers? Did I compare the UK to the US? No, I didn’t think I did. I just stated that contrary to the authors comments about foreigners not being able to claim UK citizenship and get a passport he is wrong.
I eagerly await your overblown and misguided reply.
Interesting figures, but I would also question whether many of the UK’s foreign born population were not in fact Aussies, NZ, Canadians, etc.
Second, thank you for the 28 million figure for the US but it fails to take into account the 10 to 15 million ILLEGAL aliens which would actually make this figure up to 43 million, therefore, I will stand by my earlier figure.
Now, I will gracefully run for the door to get out of this conversation since immigration is one of those topics I generally try to avoid like Michael Moore movies.
Not sure what I am supposed to be answering here. I think that I am challenging your “asylum” figures and that Britain takes so many of them. There, that was it, now get to it crack crack chop chop and give me a figure for asylum seekers in Britain. I don’t think that Britain is one of the most generous nations that is just handing out passports. I could be wrong but until you show me that I am, the challenge remains.
Interesting figures, but I would also question whether many of the UK’s foreign born population were not in fact Aussies, NZ, Canadians, etc.
Second, thank you for the 28 million figure for the US but it fails to take into account the 10 to 15 million ILLEGAL aliens which would actually make this figure up to 43 million, therefore, I will stand by my earlier figure.[/quote]
There is no breakdown by country of origin for the UK on the website. It does say that 53% of the foreign-born were white, though I’m not sure exactly what there is to “question” about that. Or are non-white immigrants more valid in some way?
I have now discovered that there are various figures given on the website for US foreign-born in 2000 (I don’t know why). They go from the number I quoted previously, 28.4 million, up to 32 million. The “residual foreign born” population, an estimate which includes illegal aliens, is either 8 or 10 million, and is included in the 31 or 32 million figure for foreign-born. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/Report1.PDF (pp. 35-36).
I am not European and I do not consider myself Eurpean. I will gladly renounce my citizenship of any European state, including being *English, should it go any further to being involved in the European Union.
*The UK is part of the EU. Nowhere in the EU papers does it say that England is part of the European Union. England is part of the UK and is totally ignored by the EU on purpose or by default. See the map drawn by the EU which labels the UK into regions with Scotland and Wales, but no England.
Joking aside, I am serious. I will disassociate myself from the EU as much as I can and I will not be a European Citizen. The main reason I am here (in Taiwan) is because of this. I feel that strongly about it.
[quote]I think that I am challenging your “asylum” figures and that Britain takes so many of them.
[/quote]
But I didn’t offer any,unless I sleepwalked last night and posted something during that dazy period.
I didn’t say it was. I was just contradicting the authors statement that foreigners cant become British citzens. He is wrong. I find it difficult to comprehend that he can complain about people not knowing about the US in a statement written by himself when he himself comments on something he obviously knows nothing about ie British passport policy.
Fred, I know you too well. I already know you have your own set of figures which will inevetably be different to mine. Then we will argue about it. Then we will go around in circles and then I will have to go to work.
My understanding is that since 1965, the US has been letting in about 750,000 to 1 million legal immigrants per year. We have 40 years so 30 to 40 million. Then, there would be the 10 to 15 million illegal aliens. Okay, you have put that at 8 to 10 million, but one of the figures here was given at 33.5 million. Let me check on this, but I was quite sure it was closer to 40 million.
Also, have you included the long-term permanent resident population of 10 to 12 million? Illegal aliens 8 to 10 million and then the 30 to 33 million foreign-born citizens? Together, this would reach my figure and so therefore I would say that I am not way off by giving a figure of 40 million.
The results are consistent with estimates derived by other
researchers. For 2002, the OIS estimates of the LPR
population and population eligible to naturalize are 11.4
million and 7.8 million, respectively compared with 12.2
million and 7.9 million, respectively, according to estimates
by Jeffrey Passel (Fix, Passel and Sucher, 2003). For 2000,
the OIS estimate of the LPR population for the 50 states and
the District of Columbia was 10.8 million compared to an
estimate of 10.2 million provided by Robert Warren based
on the methodology employed for estimates of the
unauthorized immigrant population in 2000 (Warren, 2003).
LPR population admitted 1973-2002
I’ll say this slowly…according to the US census website the US population contained either 28 or 32 million foreign-born. This includes illegal aliens.
I’m not all that interested in what your “understanding” is, and statistics are wiggly things at the best of times, and illegal aliens are tough to count by their very nature, but I think even dear old Derrida would agree that “foreign-born” means people who were born somewheres else.
So, that would imply that when the US census website says that there were 32 million foreign-born in the year 2000, then there were probably about, oh, 32 million foreign-born in the year 2000. Give or take.
And spread what they learned about the gift of freedom to their land. You just explained Bush’s theory of world stability: EXPORT LIBERTY … It transforms nations. How many of those Chinese studnets of the past 100 years studying in America didn’t like America, but took its principles back to their home and challenged the despotism of their country?
Anyone remember Tienanmen Square? The replica of Lady Liberty?
Would stuff like this happen if people didn’t return to their home country?
I know dozens of people that prefer to live in their own country after living in America. This piont of your doesn’t actually go anywhere. The point is what they do when they leave and go back.
A few figures for you. These figures refer to Immigrants of non - European countries and Non commonwealth countries. They don’t account for illegal immigrants.
While I am not comparing, and never was comparing the figures against the US, the size of the UK (it is twelve times more crowded than the US), the population (52 million) and the overall land mass of the UK compared to the US must be drawn into question.
The natural increase for the UK was 83000 last year, but immigration was 150000.
At 2 million a decade for a population of only 50 million, thats quite alot.
The most recent figure was 33 million in 2003 as given by CNN but (thanks for your condescension PP) I am having great difficulty on some of these sites determining WHO is to be counted. Does foreign born mean everyone or only American citizens? Is this spelled out clearly? If so, I have not seen it in the reports but I will take your view and then let’s stick with 33 million. Not nearly 40 million as I claimed but close enough that I will be happy to stick with that. So we have 33 million foreign born and how does this compare with what everyone else has if you subtract fellow EU citizenry (say from France living in UK)? I would say it is pretty close to being equal to all other countries combined. This was my point all along and I will be happy to stick with that as well. The US has certainly one of the most liberal immigration policies of any country and whether we benefit or suffer from that is a moot point in this debate. The fact is that we take in a large number of foreign people.
:bravo: 