For New Zealand it's 25%, Australia 22%, the UK 14%, France 9%, Germany 12%, Canada 22%, the Netherlands 19%

Frankly 15% is about average for Western Countries

I think talking about averages is somewhat misleading. There has been a steep upward trend in the US and Europe. In the 1960s we'd be talking about less than 5% for the US and Europe so that is a big change. It's fair to say that there have been major policy changes over the past 50 years but it's misleading -- I'm not accusing you, just pointing out -- to say it's an average because that implies a steady state.

I don't think USA/EU is at 15% yet. Europe trends just a little less than the USA (at least from 2016). I was just skimming this article today (below). I may have misinterpreted it so feel free to set the record straight. See Fig 1.

Peri, G. 2016. Immigrants, Productivity, and Labor Markets. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(4): 3–30.

Canada and Australia have had very high rates for a long time. Australia's is higher though. I'm not sure why Peri chose to combine the series because they are quite different but higher than the US.

The AU/NZ (and Canada too I suppose) cases are interesting because they all have very overheated housing markets and prices are historically high relative to average wages. The USA went through a market correction and let the housing bubble burst but these markets did not. I've heard it argued that increased immigration to major housing markets is considered to be one way to keep the construction industry and house/rent prices sustainable. I'm curious if anyone has any thoughts or insight into this.

Maybe "average" was the wrong word, perhaps "unremarkable" is a better one.

Before Trump the US was proud to describe itself as a nation of immigrants (I was one for 20 years) but Americans have this myth that they take in far more immigrants than anywhere else, it's just not true

Well it does a pretty remarkable job. Recall too that the stats are foreign born as a percentage of the population (Peri, 2016 that I mentioned above).

The USA is larger than all Canada, Australia, UK and NZ combined. So, let's not pretend that the US is not taking new comers at all. We're still in the ballpark of close to 50 million people. This compares to about 7 million in Canada.

I think that percentage gives a reasonable job of looking at the impact that immigrants have on the existing system - NZ takes in far fewer immigrants than the US, but compared with their population they're taking more and would be expected to have a larger impact on society (NZ has lower taxes that the US)

If you look at countries sorted by population [0] - and my justification for that is that communities don't scale up linearly - the US, Germany, Turkey and the UK are clear outliers.

And Australia isn't necessarily a target; Australia is basically importing a new population every century - ignoring natural population growth. That sort of growth requires a bit of thinking to justify; it isn't going to be for everyone. And if it is even achievable off a high starting population (without overwhelming infrastructure, etc) is questionable.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...

> France 9%

These numbers don't reflect the complex reality in France. Most of the population descends from immigration (although only 9% directly from their parents).

It's very rare especially in big cities to meet people with only "French" origins (except in the bourgeoisie). And even those "French" origins are ethnically/culturally varied (bretagne/ch'nord/occitanie/martinique/corse...) even though many people from these places will tell you they've been colonized by France and they want to get rid of the imperialist invader.

What i just said is probably true of other countries. I just know more about France.

In the US everyone except for the native Americans are descended from immigrants .... something in the range of 99% - here in NZ it's more like 80%

China and Japan are both quite unfriendly to outsiders and ridiculous choices to compare with a country formed almost entirely of immigrants from the quite recent past.

In the past few years Japan has realised it's heading for demographic issues, it's opening up its immigration, I expect this to change quite quickly

Did it become any easier to get a permanent visa for instance ?

Japan has a long history of allowing a mass of low wage workers to come in with very bounded conditions (work limited to elderly care for instance) and it rarely translates to the worker staying in Japan ore than a few years. I don’t know if it’s what you were thinking about ?

Possibly for some

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2018/12/04/commentary/j...

Japan is actually getting quite friendly lately, as a full-time remote worker have been investigating moving there for a while.

The Japanese government is opening up, but it's gonna take some time for Japanese society to do the same. I can tell you from experience that integrating as a foreigner in Japan is...challenging.

Eh, such generalizations, I've lived and worked in very racist homogenous societies for years and still never struggled to find local friends.

There's always cool folks to befriend, unless the insinuation here is no foreigner should move to Japan until a hundred million people change their ways?

My opinion is _we_ all should change, and waiting for that to happen may take a while.

True, but still hardly any kind of extremism.

Except for a very small minority, aren't you all immigrants in the US? Or is there a rule for when immigrants can label themselves 'natives'?

American here. The way we use the word "immigrant" is that if you were born here and grew up here, you are not considered an immigrant.

Unless you're not white, in which case you're called an "anchor baby" or "second-generation immigrant".

This is how Europeans (and maybe not only us) commonly think about Americans, all immigrants from Europe first, from the rest of the world next. However probably it's not how they think about themselves. I'd like to hear from them.

Close to 100% of Americans are descended from people who were foreign born.

> The sheer novelty of Dooley’s existence has proven irresistible to journalists

This is the real problem. It doesn't matter if your ideas are good or even popular, if they're controversial enough the news media will magnify them for you.

Please don't take HN threads further into ideological flamewar. That just leads to predictable, tedious...flamewars.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Giving everyone equal rights and opportunities is a supposedly founding principle of your "democracy".

It's not 'my' democracy - I and my ancestors remained in Europe. And lets not engage in revisionist history - that founding principle was explicitly limited to "free White persons of good character" [1]. While the at once ineffective and cruel manner the US enforces its borders leaves much to be desired, that doesn't make the very concept of controlling immigration unjust. There are countries other besides the US to immigrate to.

As for your comparison with Nazi Germany, perhaps it would have more weight if the US was incredibly restrictive with immigration (and, as always in these matters, ignoring that people weren't scrambling to get into Nazi Germany..) But as it stands, not only does the US have the largest rate of immigration in the world [2] (though not per-capita), but it also grants citizenship to anyone born there - a practice almost exclusive to the Americas [3].

I'm sorry if this reply seems harsh, but I find it utterly mind-boggling how you could compare the Nazi ethno-state, to a country where the majority ethnicity is voluntarily becoming a minority. They are going from 87% white in 1970 [4], to minority-white in 2044 [5]. That's in 74 years, a single lifespan, from overwhelming majority, to minority. Literally the opposite of what Nazi Germany was doing. But if this is comparable to ethnic cleansing, then what does that make almost all other countries? Some sort of ultra-nazis?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_State...

[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/22/us/white-americans-minori...

Glad we agree on some points. Also your reply does not sound harsh to me but rather like healthy skepticism.

> if the US was incredibly restrictive with immigration

This is the case! Take a look at ICE raids on workplaces/housing. Look at police and fascist militias preventing migrants passing the southern border from getting help (eg. destroying survival necessities such as water buckets left by humanitarian non-profits). Look at the for-profit business of locking up people (the prison industrial complex) making shit-tons of money on migrant retention centers.

I mean if millions of people are demanding now to #AbolishICE, it's precisely because the US has a very harsh policy against immigrants.

> But if this is comparable to ethnic cleansing, then what does that make almost all other countries? Some sort of ultra-nazis?

Did i say the US government was currently doing ethnic cleansing on its own soil? Sorry that was not my intention. There's plenty subtler ways to destroy people's lives than outright genocide.

I chose the word carefully - the US is definitely, as you say, very cruel with immigration enforcement (due to all the reasons you pointed out), but it is not restrictive, due to the large legal immigration.

For example, if they allowed everyone in the world to immigrate, except for 10 guys, but they enforced the border using flamethrowers against those 10 guys, then they would be cruel, but not restrictive.

As for implying that you said the US was engaged in anything similar to genocide, that was not my intention either, sorry. The sentiment was more that, if you were to compare the US to Nazi Germany, then almost every other country would compare even closer (on the topic of immigration, at least).