America Is One of the Least “Generous” Countries on Immigration | Cato @ Liberty

Strange to compare US and other OECD countries with Gulf states which only have guest workers, with no or extremely limited pathway to permanent residency or citizenship. False comparison that undermines their arguments. A two-year time series is also misleading:

During his State of the Union speech, President Trump will tout his plan for draconian restrictions on legal immigrants. Supporters, like House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), justify the plan by claiming that America is “by far the most generous nation in the world for legal immigration.” Not only is “by far” clearly false, but when you consider its wealth, America is already among the least generous to immigrants around the world.

The United States ranks in the bottom third of wealthy countries in terms of net new immigration as a share of total population from 2015 to 2017 as well as total foreign-born residents as a share of total population, according to figures  from the United Nations. Trump’s plan would make America even more closed than it already is.

The United Nations data contains information on the foreign-born populations in all countries (or semi-independent provinces) around the world.* U.S. immigration is decidedly unimpressive compared to all countries. Although America does have the highest total number of foreign-born residents in the world, a fair comparison requires controlling for the size of its current population. After all, a million new people entering India with a population of 1.3 billion would have very different effects than a million new people entering Estonia with a population of 1.3 million.

With this in mind, it is clear that America is nowhere near “the most generous country in the world” on immigration. Of the 232 jurisdictions that the UN includes, America ranks just 64th overall. Focusing on the rate of new immigrants as a share of total population, the United States had only the 49th highest net immigration rate from 2015 to 2017 (inflows minus outflows of foreign residents divided by total population). This places the United States rank in the 72nd and 79th percentiles in the world, respectively.

This assessment is still misleading, however, because it compares the United States to countries that very few immigrants would want to immigrate to. The United States’ ranking among more prosperous countries is even less inspiring. Of the 50 countries or provinces which had, according to the United Nations, a gross domestic product (GDP) of at least $20,000 per capita in 2015, the United States has the 34th highest share of foreign-born residents as well as the 34th highest net immigration rate (Table 1). This places the United States rank in the 32nd percentile on both measures.

The 50 most prosperous countries have double both the average foreign-born share and average immigration rate of the United States. Those countries at or above the 50th percentile have an average foreign-born share three times the U.S. share and an immigration rate four times as high as the U.S. rate. The United States is far from generous: it is downright stingy to immigrants. Figure 1 provides the net immigration rate from 2015 to 2017 for the United States and the 33 countries that rank higher than it.

Figure 1: Countries With Highest Net Per Capita Immigration From 2015 to 2017 and a Per Capita GDP Above $20,000 in 2015

 

Sources: United Nations (Foreign Populations); United Nations (Total Populations); United Nations (GDP Per Capita) 

This still considerably overstates America’s generosity because such a large share of America’s foreign-born population is here illegally: almost a quarter. This appears to be one of the highest shares in the world. Many of America’s immigrants are already defying America’s attitude toward them. In other words, U.S. law is not only hostile toward new immigrants. It is hostile toward its existing foreign-born residents.

By almost any reasonable standard, America is already one of the least generous countries in the world toward legal immigrants. If the United States does implement the White House’s immigration framework, it would be moving its nation’s immigration system in the opposite direction of the rest of the world. Other developed economies are opening their borders to more immigrants than ever, while the United States would have sent its immigration rate back to its lowest level since World War II.

America, however, doesn’t need to be “generous” toward immigrants at all. It is in the country’s self-interest not to prohibit foreigners from living and working in America. Allowing people to freely move and work where they want is not charity. It is an expansion of the free market and allows people to contribute to the economic prosperity of the country and expandthe pie for everyone. The president’s plan would make America both less generous and less prosperous.

Table 1: Immigration and Immigrant Population Ranking for Countries with Greater Than $20,000 Per Capita Gross Domestic Product

  Increase in Foreign-Born* From 2015-17 As a Share of Total Population Total Foreign-Born* Residents as a Share of Total Population
  Country Rate Country Share

1

Kuwait

6.5%

United Arab Emirates

90.8%

2

Turks and Caicos

5.3%

Kuwait

79.4%

3

Saudi Arabia

4.5%

Sint Maarten

72.9%

4

United Arab Emirates

3.5%

Turks and Caicos

71.4%

5

British Virgin Islands

2.7%

Qatar

69.4%

6

Sint Maarten

2.5%

British Virgin Islands

66.3%

7

Germany

2.4%

Liechtenstein

66.0%

8

Liechtenstein

2.4%

China, Macao SAR

58.8%

9

Austria

1.9%

Monaco

55.5%

10

Macao SAR

1.8%

Bahrain

52.7%

11

Sweden

1.5%

Andorra

52.6%

12

Singapore

1.4%

Singapore

47.4%

13

Brunei Darussalam

1.4%

Luxembourg

46.6%

14

Australia

1.4%

Cayman Islands

40.6%

15

Qatar

1.4%

Hong Kong SAR

39.8%

16

Bahrain

1.3%

Saudi Arabia

38.6%

17

Ireland

1.2%

Anguilla

38.2%

18

Switzerland

1.1%

Aruba

34.8%

 

Average

1.1%

Average

30.9%

19

Denmark

1.1%

Bermuda

30.6%

20

Cayman Islands

1.0%

Switzerland

30.1%

21

Norway

1.0%

Australia

29.6%

22

Iceland

0.8%

Brunei Darussalam

26.0%

23

Canada

0.8%

New Caledonia

24.5%

24

Anguilla

0.7%

Israel

24.3%

25

Malta

0.7%

Curaçao

24.3%

26

United Kingdom

0.7%

New Zealand

23.1%

27

Bahamas

0.6%

Canada

21.9%

28

New Caledonia

0.6%

Austria

19.1%

29

Luxembourg

0.6%

Sweden

17.9%

30

Hong Kong SAR

0.6%

Ireland

17.2%

31

New Zealand

0.6%

Cyprus

16.3%

32

Monaco

0.6%

Bahamas

16.0%

33

Finland

0.5%

San Marino

15.9%

34

United States

0.5%

United States

15.6%

35

Curaçao

0.5%

Norway

15.4%

36

Netherlands

0.4%

Germany

14.9%

37

Slovenia

0.3%

United Kingdom

13.5%

38

Aruba

0.2%

Spain

12.8%

39

San Marino

0.2%

Iceland

12.7%

40

Italy

0.2%

France

12.3%

41

Belgium

0.1%

Netherlands

12.1%

42

Spain

0.1%

Slovenia

11.8%

43

Japan

0.1%

Denmark

11.5%

44

Republic of Korea

0.0%

Belgium

11.2%

45

Greenland

0.0%

Greenland

10.7%

46

France

0.0%

Malta

10.6%

47

Cyprus

-0.3%

Italy

9.9%

48

Bermuda

-0.3%

Finland

6.3%

49

Israel

-0.6%

Republic of Korea

2.3%

50

Andorra

-1.3%

Japan

1.8%

Sources: United Nations (Foreign Populations); United Nations (Total Populations); United Nations (GDP Per Capita)

via America Is One of the Least “Generous” Countries on Immigration | Cato @ Liberty

L’ancien chef de La Meute réplique aux propos de Trudeau | Le Devoir

Hard to know what is the best strategy: call them out and risk giving them more oxygen or ignoring them in the hope that their messages will be less heard.

But in general, whether calling people “deplorables” or “nonos” is likely unproductive; better to call out and contest their statements then label people:

Les propos tenus lundi soir à Québec par Justin Trudeau font tiquer La Meute. Le premier ministre, qui a traité les membres du groupe nationaliste identitaire de « nonos », a été copieusement insulté par l’un des adhérents de premier plan de l’organisation, mardi.

Le premier ministre n’a pas manifesté de regret d’avoir déclenché l’escalade verbale qui se lit dans un message publié sur la page Facebook publique du regroupement par Sylvain « Maïkan » Brouillette, qui taxe Justin Trudeau — sans le nommer — de « trou de cul ».

Le membre du groupe aux positions proches de l’extrême droite a affublé le chef libéral de cette épithète sous prétexte qu’il « a fait des associations et des amalgames révoltants » entre La Meute et le drame de la mosquée de Québec survenu le 29 janvier 2017.

Dans le discours qu’il a livré dans la Vieille Capitale lors de la cérémonie de commémoration de l’attentat qui a fait six victimes, Justin Trudeau a pesté contre les « racistes », ces « nonos qui se promènent avec les pattes de chiens sur le t-shirt ».

C’est ce qui lui a valu la réplique de Sylvain « Maïkan » Brouillette — qui, selon ce que rapportait Vice News en décembre dernier, a abandonné son poste de chef de bande pour redevenir simple membre de La Meute. Il a été impossible de déterminer quelle est sa position hiérarchique actuelle.

« Un nono c’est quelqu’un qui voit une patte de chien au lieu de voir l’emblème du Québec surmonté de ses valeurs de démocratie, de làïcité (sic), de liberté et d’égalité », écrit-il dans sa tirade coiffée du titre « C’est quoi un nono ? ».

« Celui qui fait des associations et des amalgames révoltants entre la Meute et le drame de la grande mosquée de Québec est non seulement un nono, mais un trou de cul », peut-on lire sur la page Facebook qui compte près de 17 000 abonnés.

L’auteur du message soutient également qu’« un nono ce n’est pas quelqu’un qui s’affirme pour défendre ses valeurs », mais bien « quelqu’un qui acceuille (sic) en héro (sic) dans son bureau un criminel comme Joshua Boyle ».

Il fait référence à l’audience qu’a accordée Justin Trudeau dans son bureau du parlement à l’ancien otage des talibans en Afghanistan qui a été rapatrié au Canada en octobre dernier, et qui est depuis sous le coup de multiples accusations criminelles.

Il réserve aussi dans cette publication quelques mots à l’intention de Philippe Couillard. Sans le nommer, il accuse le premier ministre du Québec d’être un « nono » — dans son cas, pour avoir comparé « la colonisation du Canada avec l’immigration moderne ».

Dans son allocution devant la foule réunie pour souligner le premier anniversaire de la tragédie, le premier ministre québécois s’est demandé pourquoi certains citoyens se sentaient plus Québécois que d’autres alors que leurs ancêtres sont aussi des immigrants.

« On est tous venus d’ailleurs rejoindre les Premières Nations, il n’y a que la date qui change. Et cette date ne détermine pas notre niveau de citoyenneté », a fait valoir Philippe Couillard, lundi soir, à Québec.

Trudeau ne regrette pas

Du côté d’Ottawa, Justin Trudeau n’a exprimé mardi aucun regret d’avoir eu recours au terme « nonos ». En marge d’une annonce, il a au contraire promis qu’il serait « toujours là pour dénoncer ceux qui ne sont pas en train de bâtir une société meilleure et plus ouverte à tous ».

Il a argué qu’il y avait « encore des gens intolérants à l’intérieur de notre société », et qu’il en allait de sa « responsabilité » comme premier ministre de « dire clairement quand des propos sont haineux, quand des déclarations ou des gestes sont inacceptables dans cette société ».

Le député conservateur Pierre Paul-Hus ne partage pas cette lecture ; selon lui, de tels propos sont indignes de la fonction qu’occupe Justin Trudeau. « Traiter ces gens-là de nonos, je trouve que ce n’est pas des mots qui devraient sortir de la bouche d’un premier ministre », a-t-il dit.

via L’ancien chef de La Meute réplique aux propos de Trudeau | Le Devoir

USA: Here’s the economic impact of immigration in each state in 2018

Nice map which has some overlaps with support for immigration (e.g West and East Coast) and opposition to immigration (e.g., Florida and Texas) in terms of states that voted for Trump:

As the national conversation about Dreamers, DACA, and Trump’s Wall continues, WalletHub decided to sit down and map out the economic impact of immigration on the United States. They looked at 19 metrics including median household income of foreign-born populations, immigrant-owned businesses, homeownership rates, and Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants or their children.

The TL; DR of the report is that the states that traditionally have high levels of immigration (California, New York, New Jersey) also reap the greatest economic benefit.  In California, 27% of residents are foreign-born, which is 17.2 times higher than in West Virginia, the lowest at 1.57%. Unsurprisingly, immigrants make very little economic impact on West Virginia. Check out the full report here to start doling out facts and figures along with the many opinions about immigration.

Source: WalletHub

via Here’s the economic impact of immigration in each state in 2018