Scheduling Update....

Blogging may be light in the next few days as I will be attending an immigration conference in Spain.

We always tend to think of the U.S. as a "nation of immigrants." About 12% of the U.S. population today is foreign-born. It is eye-opening to put this number in perspective. Just look at some of the data collected by the U.N.:

Ireland, 14.1% foreign-born
Sweden, 12.4%
United Kingdom, 9.1%
Greece, 8.8%
Spain, 11.1%
Austria, 15.1%
France, 10.7%
Germany, 12.3%
Netherlands, 10.1%
Switzerland, 22.9%

It's not just the relative size of the immigrant population in these countries that is remarkable. Equally interesting is that these countries became immigrant nations in a very short time--with little prior experience handling large population inflows. Combine this with an explosive mix of ethnic and cultural conflicts, and very generous welfare systems. No wonder the immigration debate in Europe is at least as heated as it is in the United States.

Comments

[Robert Hume]

And the percent foreign born in:
China, India, Japan, South Korea, Africa, Mexico, Guatamala, ...? Are there no needs for unskilled labor, or high-tech engineers in these countries?

[Corey]

I'm surprised you left out Canada. I had to look it up, being a Canadian living in the US myself.

It surprises me that more Americans don't look north to see how this can be done. Usually Americans see Canadians as very much like themselves, which is largely true. Surely it would help the debate to check out a country that has had long-term sustained immigration and integration and see if anything could be done differently here?

I guess not. The pattern here is always the same. Americans know best and there's no reason to look at backward socialisms like Canada, eh?

*sigh*

[alex]

What that data doesn't tell you is how much of that immigration is between (wealthier) EU countries. I doubt that Danes living in Sweden or Germans living in France would have much of an economic impact, since those countries are comparable in terms and wealth and social benefits.

Since the EU allows a citizen of any (established) member country to live and work in any other country, there might be a high level of that sort of immigration, just as people between frequently move between American states.

[tj]

The interesting thing about the UK and possibly Ireland is the commitment to assimilation programs. You won't find immigrants who can't communicate in English. I've read that newcomers are also indoctrinated in the political and cultural norms of their host nation. This may be easier to fund in a socialist nation of course.

I assume Canada has similar programs but Canada seems to be a little too willing to adopt features of immigrant cultures that conflict with the ideals of a democratic society. Specifically, the fact that Canada was willing to allow Muslims to rule their ethnic enclaves according to Sharia law. I think Muslim women were successful at fighting this oppression. At least, I hope they were...

[Mr. Noah]

There are several differences between the U.S. and those other countries.

1. The U.S. has had a large percentage of foreign-born population for over a hundred years. Nearly everyone in the U.S. is descended from legal immigrants.

2. Immigrants to those other countries are probably more likely to already speak the host country's language - Algerians in France, British in Ireland, etc.

In light of these facts, the U.S.'s historic ability to assimilate large immigrant population seems as amazing as ever.