No idea what you are talking about. Europe has a wide variety of different pension systems, many are based on stock market investments. Very few countries in Europe takes in significant numbers of migrants, generally Europe is very anti-immigrant.

> Very few countries in Europe takes in significant numbers of migrants

Yes, but that's the biggest EU countries and they take a lot of migrants. Wikipedia says 18% of Germany population are first-generation immigrants. In comparison, in US it's only 14%. For the whole EU the number is around 11%.

> generally Europe is very anti-immigrant.

From what I know about "how to legally immigrate to US" vs "how to legally immigrate to Europe", the latter is much easier. The public sentiment might be there, but the laws say the other way.

What are the numbers if you compare Germany to California, including people moving in from other states of the US?

Remember that EU has a free flow of work force, so I expect lots of those 18% will come from Netherlands or France.

In Sweden at least, immigration was always biggest from neighboring countries (e.g. Finland/Norway)

> Remember that EU has a free flow of work force, so I expect lots of those 18% will come from Netherlands or France.

What's the point for the native citizen of Netherlands or France in moving to Germany? The quality of life and salaries are similar, but the culture context is just so different between these countries. Completely different languages, different customs, etc. The numbers surely confirm that - the France is in the bottom of the list, and Netherlands are not even included. [1]

Anyway, out of ~14 million foreigners in Germany only 5 million are from other EU states, and most of them (~3 million) are from Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary).

> In Sweden at least, immigration was always biggest from neighboring countries (e.g. Finland/Norway)

There are less cultural differences between Sweden, Finland and Norway. At least they have more or less similar languages (ok, Finnish is different, but Sweden is also an official language in Finland).

1. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Popula...

Right. It also highlights the extreme situation we have with Russias brutal and illegal invasion of Ukraine.

Ukraine (oustide EU sofar) is number two on the list afger Turkey and also Russia is pretty far up.

In Germany when one talks about “migration background” one is not talking about fellow EU citizens, nor about immigrants from the US, Australia, etc.

But if you take the broader, official definition then you get something like 30% apparently:

https://www.bpb.de/kurz-knapp/zahlen-und-fakten/soziale-situ...

Is that maybe including immigrants from other EU countries? If so then that's a very misleading number to compare to the US's.

Out of ~14 million foreigners in Germany only 5 million are from other EU states, and most of them (~3 million) are from Eastern European countries (Poland, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and Hungary). [1]

Then, why is it misleading to compare Polish and Romanian immigrants to Germany with Mexican immigrants to US?

1. https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Popula...

Because California probably has lots of immigrants from other US states too, and they should be counted too to make the numbers comparable.

> From what I know about "how to legally immigrate to US" vs "how to legally immigrate to Europe", the latter is much easier.

I don't know what your experience is, but immigrating legally to the EU is not easy unless you're from a rich country like the US.

But immigrating to the US is difficult even if you're from a rich country like one in the EU.

> But immigrating to the US is difficult even if you're from a rich country like one in the EU.

If you are thinking like my Portuguese friend complaining about how "hard" it was because it took six months to immigrate to the US, you have no idea how hard it is for other people to come to the US legally.

No, I'm talking about being completely unable to immigrate because they can't find an employer to sponsor them. I'm talking about failing the H1B lottery for years and having to leave.

I'm not talking about filing paperwork taking a long time.

I agree it's harder if you're not from a developed country, but it's hard for a lot of people across the board.

Never said it is easy, it's just much easier than immigrating to the US.

Legally immigrating to the US (getting a residence permit) is either a matter of luck (lotteries), extraordinary skills, very long waiting lists, or a combination of these.

On the contrary, immigrating to the EU is "just" finding a job on the local market and applying for some paperwork. And the EU does not discriminate you on the basis of the country where you've been born.

You make it sound like that's a bad thing. If you can get a job, hold it, and obey the law, why would it be important where you have been born?

I am curious which part of their comment makes it sound bad. It seems neutral to positive to me.

Interesting, thanks for asking. To me the thread's context was that some European countries are "importing" migrants to bolster their pension schemes and that this is a bad thing (why?) An argument about immigration ensued and those often rub me the wrong way, being an immigrant and stuff. The part of "the public sentiment [for stricter immigration controls] is there, but the laws say the other way" is triggering me, too, because it alludes to some kind of "silent majority" which around these parts (ie. Germany) is usually brought up by loud minorities from the far right. I'm not denying that xenophobia is on the rise (here and everywhere) but it is not the sentiment of "the public". Combined with a description that seemed to lament the apparent lack of stricter controls led me to question why it would be important where you are born if you obey the law. Thinking of that, why would it be important if you don't?

Anyhow, revisiting the thread I can see that the post I answered to could be meant differently. I thank you for that and would like to advance my apologies to the OP in that case.

> The part of "the public sentiment [for stricter immigration controls] is there, but the laws say the other way"

...was a response to this quote from original OP:

> generally Europe is very anti-immigrant

and there is "might be there" not "is there" in my post. I just don't really know the public sentiment in Europe enough to argue with original OP, so referred to the laws instead, to show that Europe is not anti-immigrant.

> Combined with a description that seemed to lament the apparent lack of stricter controls led me to question why it would be important where you are born if you obey the law.

It's not! To the contrary, my description was meant to show how harsh US immigration system is compared to the EU's.

> would like to advance my apologies to the OP in that case.

Please, nevermind. Your question was okayish in the context of the thread, plus I'm not the kind of person that can be offended by an Internet discussion.

Thank you for your reply! It is hard to uphold a conversation on HN over a longer time, so I appreciate your reply very much.

> Wikipedia says 18% of Germany population are first-generation immigrants.

Are they counting EU citizens living in Germany?

Europe isn't importing immigrants to prop up the pensions…

How do you know?

I am sure Merkel accepted the Arab Spring refugees out of the goodness of her heart.

Not out of goodness of heart, but out of ideological conviction and obligation to international refugee conventions

Please. Powerful countries ignore international conventions at their leisure. Germany included.

Even if the will to have younger blood to fuel the economy is a driver for such a move, it has nothing to do with propping up pensions: in an aging population you'll need people working in your country if you want to keep things running, no matter how your pensions are being paid…

She desperately wanted to avoid "bad scenes" at German borders.

IDK if the book of journalist Robin Alexander "Die Getriebenen" (the driven ones, AKA top German politicians driven by events) was ever translated into English, but that guy had daily access to the Chancellory and describes the situation to a T.

Merkel built her career on media appeasement and an illusion that Germany is in such good hands that nothing untoward can happen to it. It sort-of worked until 2015, when the outside world could not be kept at bay anymore.

Angela Merkel built her career in the GDR under Soviet rule, in case this fact or the eviction of hundreds of thousands of families from their homes in Germany to house those immigrants is of interest to you.

I think she actually did, that and her Christian beliefs. Not all of politics is cynical, sometimes politicians are selfish and unreasonable and act on their principles. There were more fiscally prudent ways for Germany to increase its population for various political and economic ends if Merkel so chose to use them.

Yes it is.

Portuguese here, yes we most definitely are. It’s been of the arguments to support immigration by the previous government since they usually are always net contributors to Segurança Social (Social Security).

It's not because a politician say something that it's true, you should know better ;).

The reason why governments promote immigration is because they want to increase the workforce (and in the case of Portugal, replace all the emigrants from Portugal). As the population is aging, if you want to keep cheap labor you need new arms to work, no matter who pays for the pensions.

Workers pay for pensions. What distinction are you trying to make?

If you have pension funds that invest on the global financial market, then pensions are being paid by workers worldwide through the companies profits. So the amount of money you get for pension can remain or even increase even if your national population collapses.

But the supply of workers needed to provide the basic goods your aging population needs (including healthcare) shrinks and if you don't accept immigrants you end up with labor shortage (Or you raise the salaries for these jobs, but then the rest of your economy disappears because there's no one working there anymore).

This happens in any pension system you design. If you invest your retirement savings in stocks, you're not magically wealthy: you're just finding another mechanism to have younger workers pay for older retirees. And if the stocks you buy are heavily invested in foreign countries with authoritarian governments and low birth rates, you're trading one problem for different ones.

It is not the pension system per se, but the national debt that is the pyramid scheme requiring a growing population.