Norway also went out of its way to avoid the very large immigration influx that eg Sweden allowed. They have a careful, rigid immigration approach (for obvious reasons, they'd be flooded instantly by immigration if they allowed it). Their immigration for 2017 was the lowest number for the last decade and it has been declining persistently since 2011. They're locking things down.
The US doesn't use a merit or equivalent based immigration system, as most developed countries do, including Norway and other nations such as Canada or Australia. That means if you are a low skill or low wage worker, you can actually get into the US. It's one of the few developed nations that allows such a thing.
Edit for trhway's comment below (I'm throttled on my replies):
I said nothing about absolute figures, I'm aware of the population difference between the two. One would naturally adjust what a 'large influx' means based on the population figures per country.
Show me the vast count of refugees that Norway took in versus Sweden. In just 4-5 years, Sweden took in 600,000 people, many of them from countries like Syria. While Sweden was doing that, Norway remained locked down by comparison (as did Finland).
Norway's very tight immigration policies would never allow that mass influx of refugees to happen. I don't necessarily blame them, they have an extraordinary situation for themselves. They're not interested in flooding their country with low wage / low skill persons that would dilute their very wealthy welfare state heavily through cost addition (without the off-setting tax base gain you get from skilled immigration). It's a cultural choice. Sweden is now seeing blow-back from the choices they made, in the rise of anti-immigration far right political parties there and a rejection of their former immigration policies.
Norway is one of the most desirable countries on earth to live. It has one of the highest standards of living. Its people are among the richest that have ever existed in history. You know why they aren't drowning in immigration? That's their tight immigration policies in action. Otherwise, it'd be a million people a year pouring in.
what are you talking about?! Have you tried to Google? Sweden has 2x population of Norway and 1.4M immigration population which makes it under 15%.
>Show me the vast count of refugees that Norway took in versus Sweden.
With regard to specifically refugees - both countries mostly have refugees from Middle East and Africa - Norway has 160K total refugee population, Sweden - 230K. Thus one can say that Sweden even less refugee friendly than Norway.
>In just 4-5 years, Sweden took in 600,000 people, many of them from countries like Syria. While Sweden was doing that, Norway remained locked down by comparison (as did Finland).
sorry, man, you just have to at least to google before posting.
That's just not true. I'm not skilled. I don't have a degree. I did happen to meet a Norwegian some years back and marry him. In addition, folks from the EU can come over and work. There is a strong immigrant workforce doing non-skilled work. Bartenders, janitors, factory work, and so on.
The US system has its downsides. The Norwegian system is pretty straighforward with what is expected of folks - or at least that has been my experience. The US has a lottery for some things, and the wait time for green cards is ridiculous. While some of the politicians in power aren't so immigrant happy (They recently increased the qualifacations for permanent residency and a bit on citizensip), at least the king promotes messages of inclusiveness. Trump, on the other hand, doesn't.
That is a myth (or propaganda). Norway immigration population stands at 16.8%. For example the US immigration population is under 15%.