I think you misjudge how much the Anglophone world looks down on America, and Americans in general. We take great pride in Australia of our differences from that place. We're much more similar to the British (and them to us) than to the Americans.

... And yet there's a net brain drain to the US.

There's a brain drain to California, much of which has an even more negative view of the US than other countries.

1 in 3 people resident in Australia is an immigrant. I don't think Australia is losing the immigration game, all things considered.

The problem is, it's not a numbers game: quality matters a lot.

Importing massive amounts of unskilled labor only depresses wages and, combined with NIMBY, creates a massive housing bubble thanks to artificial shortages.

In Australia's case, it also suffers from a disproportionate brain drain of highly educated professionals since local firms simply won't compete for talent.

I hope you're not suggesting that Australia is getting low-quality immigrants. Unlike the US, Australia has a points-based immigration system where you have to meet specific, standardized criteria, which IMO is more objective than the US process. I don't know what guidance State Department staffers follow when determining who gets a visa, but the process is more opaque, and I suspect more subjective.

edit: I think the "quality" argument is overrated. Not all immigrants do ground-breaking research or start billion-dollar companies. When it comes to economic activity, quantity has a quality of its own (apologies to J. Stalin). A city/state/country with the economic activity of an extra 20% population of mediocre, healthy, tax-paying, car-buying, mortgage-paying, burger-eating blue and white-collar immigrants is better off than one without.

> I don't know what guidance State Department staffers follow when determining who gets a visa, but the process is more opaque, and I suspect more subjective.

Except for categories where there's an extremely high burden of proof for extraordinary abilities, it's simply someone's ability to get a job no American is qualified to take (and be so in demand that it commands a salary in the top percentiles for the profession).

So the market takes care of the selection.

> ... it's simply someone's ability to get a job no American is qualified to take.

Not exactly, its someone's ability to get a job that their employer cannot find a more qualified candidate after advertising the job in the local newspaper for 6 months including at least two separate Sundays.

There's more to it than that.

When you're discussing merging nations, it is in fact a numbers game.

Maybe in high tech service jobs, but not the average punter on the street. Migration from Australia is usually for greater economic opportunities, which all things considered only includes a small number of countries and a limited set of occupations.

You misunderstand immigration, as I explained in a different reply.

UK dumped EU, which didn't asked for country dissolution, not sure it would agree to join USA...

UK voters (imho) were still stinging from the economic decline and austerity measures post-2008, and were led to believe that a divorce from the EU would restore their greatness. Now that that's been demonstrated to be a delusion, and with covid-related economic collapse piling on top of Brexit consequences, UK voters might be open to a dice roll.

This is obviously my idle speculation, and I think the UK voters would never be allowed to vote on such an opportunity anyway. Still, I think if it happened it'd be great for everyone.