Worth a look … Provides a little more statistical insight into our world economy.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/world/20070622_CAPEVERDE_GRAPHIC.html#
So the UK has 190k immigrants on a populous of 70m and the US 1.3m on a populous of 300m. So does the UK have a bigger immigration problem than the US given that anyone in the country has access to free health care and so on and so forth?
This is really interesting when you look at the Middle East under the “share of local population”. 12% of the U.S. is foreign born, which is higher than I imagined. But some of those countries are up in the 70% range. If we have concerns that an influx of population impacts our culture what happens in those countries?
Since this chart just shows the relative relationship between numbers coming in and going out, it does not factor in any one countries immigration policies. If the chart showed actual demand instead of jsut the actual number of immigrants that are let in, my guess is the green dots for the US and Europe would be 10 time bigger.
(I’m sure the US dot is big not so much because of the numbers coming in since those are fairly restricted, but because hardly anyone emigrates out of the US.)
The 12% of foreign born statistic doesn’t explain whether they are also counting US citizens who were born abroad and now living in the states. That could have added to the 12% figure.
Edited for clarity - I mean kids of US citizens who were born abroad so they automatically have US citizenship as opposed to people who are born abroad and gain US citizenship later in life.
This is really interesting when you look at the Middle East under the “share of local population”. 12% of the U.S. is foreign born, which is higher than I imagined. But some of those countries are up in the 70% range. If we have concerns that an influx of population impacts our culture what happens in those countries?
My friend who moved to Qatar said his impression is that the workers (immigrants) and the locals are quite seperate. They are completely different classes. His first few weeks in the Middle East have been weird, compared to Malaysia, where he was before. I think Malaysia was more of a mishmash/melting pot. Of course the Middle East just got rich in the last few decades and the new workers are all foreign-born, compared to SE Asia, where there has been immigration for Centuries.
I’m not getting your point? Are you saying the 190K that the UK is a larger burden than the 1.3M that the US gets? If you notice the 1.3M and 190K are annual average numbers for 2000-2005. So in that period the US gained 7.8m while the UK gained 1.14M. As a percentage of population thats 2.6 and 1.6%.
Of course none of that matters as it’s not “immigration” that’s causing the problem it’s immigration that involves people coming in without insurance or paying for it in anyway. I’d guess that “illegal” immigration into the UK is probably less than it is into the US if for no other reason than geography. Also since the UK is socialized I’m guessing that it’s paid for via taxes, which are likely taken from any and all checks legal or illegal. In the US anyone can opt out of the health care system and use the “Emergency” health care system. Since illegal immigration is a large problem here and illegals rely heavily on the emergency system it follows that immigration is probably a much greater strain on our system than the UK’s. Maybe I’m not following your point though.
~Matt