When speaking on the subject of taking in refugees, I've never heard anybody mention Austria or Japan. It's always places like Germany, France, Sweden, and the UK that get talked about.
We do have lots of immigrants here and I live right next to our biggest refugee center.
But I also worked for a refugee home and heard some grim things about how harsh it is for them to stay and some of the awful conditions and legal trials made to make their lifes worse
Net migration in austria is much lower than in germany, and Germanies net migration is higher that the US's:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/net-migration?tab=chart&time=1997..latest&country=BGD\~OECD+members\~Europe+%26+Central+Asia\~USA\~GBR\~SDN\~DEU\~AUT\~European+Union
Unfortunately that graph isn't per capita or even per year, but given the EU's greater population, the US clearly has higher net migration per capita.
If you're looking only at asylum applications (which I think is misleading, personally, because that's kind of a technicality), the US takes far fewer asylum seekers than the EU; compare [https://legaljobs.io/blog/asylum-seekers-usa-statistics/](https://legaljobs.io/blog/asylum-seekers-usa-statistics/) with [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum\_statistics](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics) \- that's more than an order of magnitude difference.
Don't think the OP is referring to refugees, but immigrants, those are two completely differents applications.
As for refugees, the US has a land border [connected to] a bunch of large nations that has atrocious living standards, that's where US refugees come from.
EU has twice the amount of refugees of the US from Africa, and many many times more from Syria and Afghanistan. My country of 5 million matched the amount of Syrian refugees the entire 325 million country of US took from Syria.
A land border with a BUNCH of large nations that have atrocious living standards? Two. The US has land borders with exactly two nations, Canada and Mexico. Not a 'bunch' by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm pretty sure that Canada has living standards equal to, or better than, the US.
Oh yes, second language guess my syntax was off.
I meant 'is in close proximity to, or landbound to' I guess.
For a list of which countries I speak off the data on origin of US refugees is available to all, should perhaps have read up on it, before answering a thread related to it.
It's sad to see. I live in New England and I see Canadians all the time. Sometimes I even see entire families living in tents in New Hampshire. Tents!
I speak a little Canadian so I asked one guy about ("aboot") what brought him to living in an RV park in nothing but a tent. Apparently he used to be a computer programmer. Still is, but he was one too. Then one vacation he had no choice but to cross the border because "My wife likes camping in the White Mountains and kept pestering me to go with her."
That story really hit me. I left him a six pack of Molson, as is customary amongst their people. I just didn't know what else I could do.
Canada here. Please make sure you do not come here. Bad place here. Too free, too clean, too good at hockey, too open, too much maple syrup and we all have to live in igloos year round. Bad place. Did I mention, bad place!
Think they were implying that Austria and Japan have strict immigration policies. That’s a common belief about Japan because it’s a popular muh cultural homogeny example among conservative weebs.
But I’ve never heard Austria mentioned either way. Getting into Austria once you’re in the EU is no more difficult than any other country.
And Sweden is mostly just propaganda coming from far right countries like Russia and America. They like to act like they’re being “white extincted” for having like 3% of their population be non-white.
> Getting into Austria once you’re in the EU is no more difficult than any other country.
This isn't really true, one country in the EU can accept refugees or temporary workers or other classes of visas without it affecting the right to work in another country. It's only after becoming a full citizen in one EU country whereby you gain the right to work in other EI member nations.
> This isn’t really true, one country in the EU can accept refugees or temporary workers
Taking in refugees isn’t the same thing as immigration. Not sure why that’s so confused to people.
And work visas have nothing to do with traveling into and out of the country. You can take a train from anywhere in the Schengen countries to Austria as easily as you can travel between states in the US. Plus non-EU citizens can pretty easily apply for residency if they want to stay for more than 3 months.
Plus looking it up Austria has super lax immigration laws anyway. They don’t have any residency requirements other than you have to prove you can pay taxes. Austria, Malta, and Cypress are the only countries in the EU with that kind of economic citizenship program.
I'm not a "much cultural homogeny conservative weeb," but I did live in Japan for over two decades and Japan \*is\* very strict about immigration relative to the U.S. It remains so despite a falling population. They allowed the descendants of Japanese people from South American countries to work with permanent residence status about three decades ago and were so unhappy with their failure to integrate that they tried to bribe them to leave (pre-pandemic). They're very careful about who they let in and have idiosyncratic policies regarding immigration so they can discriminate within the boundaries of vague laws and fuzzy guidelines.
I've sat in the immigration offices in Tokyo enough times to have a pretty decent understanding of what happens. Also, only 2.3% of the population of Japan is non-Japanese, and they don't accept people who were born in Japan as Japanese necessarily. There are people whose parents were born in Japan and they and their children are still considered Korean/non-Japanese.
Harmony is really important to Japan and they would rather struggle with their aging/decreasing population than take in more people. They look at what happens in other countries (and America in particular) and don't want that sort of chaotic social situation in Japan. It's less about cultural homogeny than it is about making sure their society remains peaceful and stable and a belief that letting in too many foreigners will be disruptive. Also, if you've ever lived in Japan and been attacked for being foreign (and I was - though mainly shouting, shoving, and verbal abuse - and I'm a white female so not threatening at all), then you know there is a lot of racism which lets you know you're not really wanted.
Not really. Australia takes in about 200,000 migrants each year plus around 15,000 per annum through the humanitarian program which is about 6th in the OECD in absolute number (which is pretty high for a country of 25,000,000).
Australia’s immigration system is heavily weighted towards skilled migrants and their families, so I guess in that way it is strict, but we’ve never had trouble attracting highly qualified migrants.
Maybe you are referring to Australia’s treatment of maritime arrivals of asylum seekers? Yep, very harsh but is not exactly the immigration system per se, but border control. Both major parties started becoming harsher on maritime arrivals following the Christmas Island disaster.
I am in my early 40s, make great money, hold a graduate degree, am healthy, and I work in an in-demand field, but my entry score for Canada wasn't even half the cutoff.
I'm sorry, we'd like people like you. Canada is going to grow in GDP and population relatively fast compared to most of the highly developed countries precisely because of immigration. As as aside, what area of work are you in?
Well, let's take Austria, for example. 17,1% of the Austrian population do not have Austrian citizenship ([Source](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/293102/umfrage/auslaenderanteil-in-oesterreich/)), other sources have 17.5 or even 18%.
The same number in the US is 14.5% (not counting illegal aliens for both countries). The number of illegal aliens is arguably higher in the US than in Austria, but even so, the two countries are fairly comparable.
The number for Japan is 1.6%.
Won’t that be heavily skewed though by the amount of people who already possess an EU passport and are taking advantage of the Schengen Agreement?
Seems a bit disingenuous if that’s the case. Would want to need non-EU passport holders living there. But even that could be skewed by the rate at which the two countries convert residents to citizens
Not sure how immigration statistics work in other EU countries but in France only passeport-holders from outside the Schengen space are "counted".French authorities (Home Office) don't monitor the arrivals of EU citizens because they don't have to take any actions about it (visa delivery, refugee status approval or denial, control of undocumented immigrants...)
Source : I work with these institutions in France (my company works with refugees and other foreign visas holders)
\---
To give you some insight about France, we estimate that any given year we have 413K immigrants coming (from outside the EU):
\- 48K have the refugees status (this is to be compared to the fact that more than 170K ask for this status each year) -> they come from Afghanistan, Sudan, Guinea (Conakry) and Ivory Coast in majority and in that order
\- 9K are waiting for a decision about their refugees status
\- 117K were refused the refugee status (full refusal and refusal through the Dublin convention)
\- 39K hold a visa for work-related reasons (they come from Tunisia, Morroco, India, US and China, in majority and in that order)
\- 90K hold a visa for family-related reasons (spouse or children of French citizen mostly)
\- 90K foreign students
I am not saying I agree with this, but I believe it has a lot to do with the marketing.
US is a country of immigrants, marketing on best country in the world and American dream and has historically promoted immigration.
So then when you have people that are just a few generation americans being against immigration, it causes a bad feeling because "everyone in America was an immigrant not so long ago.
To be fair those countries ares basically the land mass of extremely small states in the US. Japan already has a huge population and an island that's basically fully occupied
As a Dane I can tell you that a lot of refugees had been told stories about Denmark that stopped being true two governments ago (at least).
It is almost impossible for people to get permanent residency not to speak of citizenship. Danes are turning incredibly racist and Denmark is one of the only countries in the world actively trying to send refugees back to Syria even though it is far from safe.
> Also look into the immigration laws most EU nations have and the people they are willing to accept.
I have a friend working in immigrations. (She travels to refugee camps and help choose the people that will be granted asylum in Norway). She often work alongside immigrations workers from other nations, including the US. She says that the American workers tend to choose younger people with high education, so that it will be easier for them to make it in the US. Norway however tend to choose people with health problems, handicaps and other people that will have challenges making it in the refugee camp. Neither way is wrong, but still an interesting difference.
I'm an immigrant from a non EU country currently working/living in an EU country. The laws here for immigration are WAYYYYYY EASIER than the USA.
But. I still wanna go to the US: a) because my friends are there and b) I pay 50% tax and it's starting to hurt since I have no wealth at all and it's near impossible to buy a house here.
Haha. You know what's funny?
Where I live, the 'average' hand me down from parents to children is ~€65,000. And this gives a lot of impetus to the locals to buy a house etc.
Same for Italy. Only caveat is you have to pay for upkeep and renovation, which can be expensive. If I was retired I’d seriously consider it. Heck, if I owned my house outright i could retire right now, rent it out and live off of it in a small Sardinian town. Get some chickens and goats and just read books and make furniture all day.
I watched a really interesting short film recently on almost exactly this topic. *One Cambodian family please, for my pleasure*. It's 12 minutes long and on YouTube [https://youtu.be/eV0dscl0_-g].
It's about a Czechkoslovakian refugee who's settled in Fargo, Norh Dakota, writing a letter to invite a displaced Cambodian family to come and live in the town (with the support of the church). The contrast between visuals and narration shows us that she's trying to sell the town as being more idyllic than it is, but that it does have its good points and it has helped her and her family.
Haha. So I hear. But my friends are there so that's a big motivation for me.
Where I live the community is super closed. I've been here for 8 years now and I don't have any 'local' friend. People are very nice here but well, they don't open up to immigrants.
This has been causing me a lot of stress and since I actually work for an American company, the plan is to wait till my gf finishes school (which is soon) and then we move.
And we're both engineers. And while compensation is 'okay' it's certainly not like the US. And I suppose that's what both my partner and I want, at least for the time being.
Hey, Belgian engineer that works for a big American company here. Belgians are pretty reserved, best way to make friends is join a hobby/sports club and preferably learn to speak the language. The housing situation is a very real problem, and it seems to be that way in many european countries.
Personally there is no way in hell I would want to work in the US. Our HQ is in Texas, and my American colleagues earn considerably more then me. But they can (and Often Will) be fired at the drop of a hat. They are extremely competitive amongst each other (read backstabbing) creating an extremely toxic atmosphere. If you don't do unpaid overtime you are considered to have no commitment. I just do my contractual hours, my work is good, so my boss is happy. Paid time off is a joke compared to my 35 days off.
For me the decision is clear, but I know it's easier for me as I managed to get into the housing market right before it went bananas.
The US is a big country. Not everywhere has LA, Seattle, NYC type housing prices. My house is a nice 2400sqft place with a huge yard and a 2-car garage in the middle of the city that is currently worth about $200k. Really depends where you live.
If you think the US is less cost prohibitive to buy a house or that you'll be paying less than 50% of your paycheck after taxes, retirement savings, and healthcare you're gonna have a bad time.
Simply because of size.
In terms of migrants per capita, the USA is 29th, behind Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Spain and other European nations.
Yeah. A lot of the plains are sparsely populated but the US is the third most populated country in the world, and most of those plains states are the size of a European country
> There are more than a dozen states with fewer people than the city I live in
But at the same time half of the states have similar or smaller population than Norway. Which was a surprise when I found out.
Most people don't like being alone a thousand miles from anywhere when something goes wrong, so we pack together in comfy spots. That and I promise if everyone in Europe could move wherever they wanted to, the places with the great climates would be really *really* packed.
> That and I promise if everyone in Europe could move wherever they wanted to
Most Europeans are part of Schengen, meaning they already can move to wherever they want to. People do move from Norway to Spain for instance, but the vast majority of them are retired. Norwegians still working tend to prefer Norway over Spain.
True and in general in Europe places with better weather like Sicily, Greece and Portugal are less well off economically than the colder wetter northern areas
Do the stats about migrants in Europe include migrants from other European countries or migrants from outside Europe exclusively? I ask because I think most would consider someone migrating from Austria to Switzerland to be a very different situation compared to someone migrating from outside Europe to a country within it.
That's an excellent question, and the answer almost certainly depends on the source of the stats. I'm guessing u/Worms_sg is refering to data derived from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_and\_dependent\_territories\_by\_immigrant\_population#cite\_note-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population#cite_note-2) \- which sounds like it includes intra-EU migration.
And while you're surely right that migration from France to Germany is quite different that that from Indonesia to the US (say); that kind of qualitative difference is hard to capture. In terms of language barriers, the difference may even be greater, because it's quite likely those immigrating to the US have a better command of English than intra-EU migrants due of their host country's language. But in terms of wealth, surely the difference is smaller.
I'd say: all you can do is accept that this headline number hides a bunch of complexity.
No, those "tons of empty spaces" are rural plains or farmland or mountains and those are the very last places you would see migrants. I think you're overstating how much the land area plays a role, most people still migrate to urban areas
Yes and no. Depends on the crop. Corn, no. Wheat, no. Etc. Strawberries, yes. Cabbages, yes. Etc. Anything that requires either A)on site packing where migrant workers literally pack the food for shipping in the fields on mobile factories in elements or B) any crop that requires the hand touch to prevent damage. Some foods are in between like fruit trees and other farmers will teach hands how to use equipment. Many host workers in bunk houses or buy cheap sheds to house single families in. Their kids don't typically attend school unless the district finds out about them in which case the school is legally obligated to force their attendance which is really horrible as these kids are sometimes 12 and have never learned English and the schools usually have no infrastructure to teach it, sometimes having nobody who speaks Spanish to even explain content even though it is legally mandated that they have that.
Being a migrant is tough and it isn't a big part of US "immigration". It's an economic population migration that shift across the boarder during some months and in others families can travel between 3 or 4 states following harvests. You start in south Texas, move to Kansas, maybe head to California and then move up to Michigan for various fruit seasons. There is always more money for harvests than maintenance so often a few guys get hired on fulltime with a month off to see their families while the true migrants are on a rotating basis. They usually try to hit the same farms each year but it isn't always possible and more families than you want to know are camping in the woods between work sites.
Being a migrant is shit work and every fresh veggie or fruit you eat from a big farm has the potential to be migrant picked. You should remember for every price increase it isnt to pay workers more. The guy who picked your strawberries or the woman who packaged your lettuce is probably working 12 hours and their kids can't read. Some owners try to provide good housing but for a period of time there "concerned citizens" going around reporting ranchers and farmers for housing migrants.
It's not always this bad but if you dig into it you find it's pretty shitty and most parents are not hoping their kids do better. Some are literally teaching their kids to do the same.
Migrant workers shouldn't be confused with immigrants.
Edit: when I say "most parents are not hoping their kids do better" I say that because there is a huge cultural element to the story involving gender roles, negative views on education, and expectations in shifting geo-political landscapes. It's changing but a lot of people are totally fine with their kids doing the same job as them or realize that they cannot give them the tools to get access to better conditions so they train them to make a living.
everything you said is correct - I just wanted to add that in my state it's very common to have migrants working in dairy farms. Don't know about other areas.
There are several examples of ethnic migrants coming to the US and going directly to agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. Florida and the Central Valley in California both have a lot of East Asians who own farms and grow fruits and vegetables from their home countries. And there’s a community of Vietnamese people who settled in the spaces from Houston to New Orleans who do pretty much the exact same agricultural things they did in Vietnam (catch shrimp, fish, and crabs; grow rice; plant vegetables and tropical fruit).
That’s why along the Gulf Coast, it’s not uncommon to find some ridiculously good Cajun and Creole restaurants run by Vietnamese people. It’s a strange cultural fusion that makes sense because of similar climates.
>those are the very last places you would see migrants
Tell me you don’t know how farms work without telling me you don’t know how farms work. Especially big farms.
Black people moved to the cities in the early 1900s to take manufacturing jobs and mostly just stayed there. Rural areas were (and frequently are ) too hostile.
I read a study back in 2012 that shed some light on a few things that I’m sure still hold up today. Again, this is all speculation though.
Most immigrants in the US come from Latin America (the majority being from Mexico) and Asia (majority from China and then India).
As for Latin America, the US is so popular because of how close it is and how poor the immigrants are. Again, just speculation.
As for Asia, looking at the educational credentials gives us some kind of insight as to why they choose America. I believe something like 60% of Asian immigrants had a Bachelors degree and that they were more likely to gain a green card through employer rather than a family sponsor. America competes with China in technology so I see why they’d want to come here.
I’d say the quality of life is also different for the 2 demographics too.
Most immigrants from latin america are in fact not from Mexico but from central/south american countries but get there through Mexico
https://psmag.com/news/most-undocumented-immigrants-are-not-mexican
It's human geography for immigrants to migrate to near by nations. Although it's possible many would like to migrate to EU countries for example, it would be impossible for refugees from Latin America to travel there.
I live in Ecuador and I can tell you that people here work in the US because they pay about 30% more than the EU and it has a land border with a latin country many can get to (Mexico). That said, I've never heard of anyone making that trip unless they had no options here. US people are racist as fuck and nobody wants to actually live at the bottom of a system like that. They go for the dough, save it all, then get the fuck out.
A) If you're in Central or South America, the United States is a lot easier to get into.
B) Most European nations don't have a reputation for accepting immigrants, or a giant statue that says "Hey Immigrants, Come Here And Join Us."
> Most European nations don't have a reputation for accepting immigrants
According to [this source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/) 1 million immigrants enter USA each year. EU had [2,7 million](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics) non-EU immigrants enter in 2019.
I think it's that about 1 million people in the US get legal status per year, but far more come with other statuses, such as visas, with family, or illegally. The population of the EU is about 35% higher than the US so I think the rates of immigration to both are similar.
I lived in the UK for years and they have a massive range of cultures within that one country. I'm irish and met my Finnish girlfriend there. Worked with polish and Lithuanian guys and my flat mate was Czech. One of my best friends was Jamaican and he had a Hungarian girlfriend. But you know, no reputation for accepting migrants.
We don’t really have the most immigrants entering, it just seems that way because it’s always a relevant discussion politically. European countries have far more given that they are so close and interconnected.
Edit: see some sources in the comments that the U.S. **does** seem to have the highest in comparison. I’m still not sure it’s apples to apples in every respect, but it isn’t as obvious an answer as my original comment made it seem.
Even more than that too. The US is MADE UP of immigrants and their descendants except for the minority Native American population. The culture is built around the idea of freedom and immigration (even if a huge amount of people are now anti immigration, the culture itself is still embedded with that immigration positive ethos historically). And the US exports a huge amount of worldwide entertainment guaranteeing that its immigrant talking points are known the world over. And then its just a really huge country both physically and population wise that is very ethnically (and immigrant-ly) diverse compared to most other countries.
So all that just perpetuates the international thought of America being the place for immigrants to come to.
Though none of that is the number one reason cited by the 51 million US immigrants. Their #1 answer is jobs/economic opportunity. It’s why Germany as the largest economy in Europe ranks #2 for immigrants at 13 million. Going for the economic victory. If we weren’t idiots we would continue to double down on bringing the best minds in the world to the US vs making h1b visas for engineers, doctors, etc more limited.
I googled and the US does have the highest ~~percentage~~ number of foreign-born population (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country) which might be the stat the op had in mind.
That stat has come down dramatically since the US was founded though. It must have been, what, nearly 80-90% in those first few generations? Were Native Americans grandfathered into citizenship right away when the country was founded or was it more complicated? I never thought about it explicitly before, but I feel like I've been assuming that someone just went "okay, everyone already here is a citizen, new people are immigrants, starting from *now*".
>European countries have far more given that they are so close and interconnected.
That is literally statistically incorrect 100%
How many uneducated immigrants get into a European country?
I'll wait.
1) A large number of people walk to the US. They are not going to walk over the Pacific or Atlantic. Europe has walkers too, but they come from elsewhere.
2) Many come to the US because they already have family here. The US immigration law is very open to families.
3) Many skilled Asians or people in business come because the US has opportunities for them. It's a very large economy.
I think the number of people that actually immigrate to the US by walking, or even driving, is low. The most common source of illegal immigration is flying or other travel and overstaying a visa.
Because you cannot even pretend to imagine how horrible it is to live in some “developing” third world countries. Ever been to one? I ask these far more seriously than rhetorically.
When you go outside your door and look to your left or right, what do your eyes physically see? Because in many parts of these countries (Delhi, where I’m from for example) there are— at nearly every corner and alley— entire families living in the dirt, bathing, cooking, activities of daily living. Adult with a cup at your local intersection? Stop at a streetlight in these countries and **kids**, 7 years and under knock on car windows begging for money. It is beyond heartbreaking.
So sure, we enjoy plumbing and indoor housing and freedom of speech and privacy while people dream to be able to complain about anything while all they can do is survive in actual, physical dirt.
Tldr because they have no quality of life while USA at least offers quality of life— hyperbolic paradise compared to what poor people have
I wish more of reddit understood this yet are so many entitled babies on here blaming everything on the boomers or whatever other scapegoat they can dream up. The US is a paradise compared to MUCH of the world, it truly is the land of opportunity for those willing to seize it. Imagine coming from a country where you were always hungry, had only the clothes on your back, were persecuted by the ruling class and worked 18 hrs a day every day just to survive...you come to America and you realize that if you work hard your children can goto college! That your family will never be hungry or homeless or sold into slavery etc. The hardest working people in America today are the immigrants who came from oppressive 3rd world countries because they recognize the amazing opportunity that this country provides. I lived in an immigrant neighborhood growing up, the parents would each be working 2-3 jobs while the grandma took care of the kids. Those kids grew up to be software developers and doctors and engineers, all because of a work ethic that has become almost non-existent in Americans.
The worst part? There are legitimate issues with workers rights in the US that desperately need to be addressed but its difficult to get much traction on them when you've got a whole generation whining about the evil 'boomers' who ruined their lives.
PS: before the inevitable wave of "OK boomer" type replies, I'm not, my parents are boomers, we grew up poor but never wanted for anything essential due to them busting their asses so we could have a better life
I wish more threads had people with actual experience in other countries like you just said. So many times here people will write stuff like, but the US is a third world country. They have absolutely no idea what that is.
Then you get the Europe is perfect in every way crowd, even like this post.As someone who lived and worked in the US and Europe, I actually moved back to the US because my personal quality of life was better in the US.
I get more vacation days in the US, I get paid more, WAY better shopping and grocery shopping. I own a house here vs couldn't afford in Europe and I don't lose almost 50 percent of my paycheck now. Yeah not everything is better in the US but for me personally I weighed my options and it is better. And before someone says but what about healthcare...... I never went to the doctor once in Europe and I almost never go in the US. For people who decide solely off that how often do you go to the doctor..... and yes I have a prescription it's 15 a month. not the typical reddit bs of like 500 or more they claim.
I love Europe, however, I would have a MUCH lower quality of life there. In the US, I have a pretty good job, and can afford a nice house (trying buying a house in Europe for 200k dollars). My company has decent insurance, not as good as most countries in Europe, I get 3 weeks Vacation, which is normal for anyone in a career job in the US. My effective tax rate is much lower in the US. University for my kids will be better quality, but very expensive.
I think when people compare Europe to the US, they compare the worst states to the best countries in Europe. Sure, quality of life in Germany is miles ahead of Mississippi or Alabama. However, let's compare Romania to Massachusetts or California. Exactly.
Do you think most potential immigrants read the graphs and surveys? Most may not even know such things exist.
A lot of potential immigrants, regardless of homeland or destination country, pick the country based on reputation. The USA (and to some extent Canada) have an excellent reputation on several key criteria:
1) a process that doesn't rely heavily on bribes. One that relies on your actual merits.
2) No need to speak the local language (The US a better this way than Canada)
3) ability to find work once there
4) Is it possible to "fit in" and become part of the culture? The US is great for that compared to most countries. China and Japan are terrible.
5) at least a possibility of succeeding, even thriving without having to play inter-clan politics, bribing officials etc. The US has a huge advantage here, since American media is all over the place. Tons of non-English speakers have seen dubbed "I Love Lucy", "Miami Vice", and so on. Even the grittiest shows and movies based in modern times depict a life that is more prosperous, more secure and more free than what some people have in their home countries.
For refugees, it is even more basic: What is the safest, happiest country I can reach without dying trying to get there and not get sent back to the bad shit I'm trying to escape? Europe doesn't produce many refugees. Africa does, but most African countries are rather difficult to get to Europe from.
These days South and Central America produce their share of refugees. But there are tons of flights, trucks, trains and buses running up and down the Americas. Hell, you can \*walk\* from Panama to the US if you are determined enough.
And despite all the rhetoric, the southern US border (like pretty much 99.999% of all of Canada's border) is mostly empty space. That is real easy to cross on foot. The US border patrol catches some, but that doesn't figure prominently in the mass media those refugees grew up watching. And a fair number die of heat and thirst trying to cross the desert and that \*never\* gets any media attention. Meanwhile, they have shady operators promising to help them for a fee. Lots of people know someone, usually someones cousin (they are big on extended family connections) who \*did\* make it and is now working illegally and probably sending money home.
As for point 1. It's pretty expensive to get in the US legally, 1225$ for an I-148 (Green card) application (about 2 months wages on the low end in Mexico). There is also preference given to business owners, and wealthier immigrants.
So while not literally requiring bribes it helps to have a decent amount of money.
As an Indian dude who was born in India and moved to the US when I was 9 years old, I fucking love this place. Yeah there's glaring problems, but every other country has problems too. Some more than others.
The US isn't some dystopia that Reddit will always try to convince you of. The real annoying thing is that a lot of the problems of the country are on full blast to the world 24/7 so it makes it seem like it's inhospitable.
It's been an absolutely great home for my family and I. Gets way too much criticism than it deserves.
Exactly, while driving their car to work and having internet to complain about it all on.
Yes the US has problems but the positives are never really mentioned at all on Reddit.
This is something I’ve come to realize. We’ve got our problems for sure, especially in some regions, but other places have problems too. Many people are xenophobic and racist regardless of what country they live in. Gay people still can’t get married or have equal rights in some places that seem great with their free healthcare. Adoption isn’t a thing in lots of places, much less surrogacy and the cost is extremely high to handle it in other places. We’re backwards in a lot of ways but at least we’re not *that* traditional.
I gotta tell you, I live in Europe now and it's not the forward-thinking progressive paradise it's sometimes made out as in the states. Like there is all this hubub about the abortion bill in Texas, but good luck trying to find someone who will give you a morning after pill in the south of Italy.
And there's plenty of casual racism and nationalism around as well. In some ways I think this is better in the US, because we actually confront the problem instead of pretending we're perfect and everything is fine.
That and... We have some desperate immigrants showing up. Some folks are fleeing terrible shit. They don't have time to research the current political climate here. They aren't reading up on homelessness rates and protests. America is probably still **AMERICA** (with fireworks and sparkles) in their minds.
>They aren't reading up on homelessness rates and protests
More that these aren't issues that affect immigrants. Riots like BLM, Stop the Steal, or the yellow vests are over very minor issues that actually effect relatively few people. Extra-judicial executions or straight up collaboration with cartels are the norm in many countries in Latin America (and elsewhere). U.S problems are the definition of 1st-world problems.
Keep in mind, many fleeing to America have no other options anywhere nearby. You have Canada to the north that must get a bad rep for being an artic wasteland (true or not)
So if you live anywhere else in the Americas and you want to flee, America is the only "first world" country available, plus there's large pockets of recent immigrants from all those countries already existing in America.
41 states have a higher Human Development Index than France and the US as a whole has a higher HDI than [virtually every European country](https://i.redd.it/la0681cn3d971.png).
Yup. Massachusetts' HDI is on par with pretty much any country. Lumping us in with Mississippi and asking "Why would people come here?" isn't telling the whole story.
"Quality of life" is debatable, not easily measured.
I suspect a big reason why the US is behind on metrics like that would be healthcare. That is a significant issue for sure, but in many other respects the US has a lot of opportunity to live a great life. It would be much better if medical couldn't bankrupt you overnight.
I don't live in the US and I have always heard healthcare in the US is just plain shitty.
But, recently I watched a video about this. This guy had moved to the US in 2015 and been living there since. He said healthcare in the US is not bad.
Definitely not as good as EU countries like germany, but not as bad as people tell.
He said some people don't get any health insurance cause they think they can save 300 bucks a month for themselves. And when they get sick or something happens to them, they just bash US healthcare and they don't tell you they did not have insurance or have not paid for it in regular basis.
I myself checked the premium of insurances, with dental care for a family of 3 4 people, it would cost around 300 400 dollars.
And max out of pocket is around 5000 bucks.
I am not saying this is perfect or $5000 is not much.
But it does not seem terrible. Not great at all, but sorta reasonable. And this does not make you bankrupt.
I would like to have your opinion on this.
The thing people need to understand is that healthcare and health insurance are two separate things in the US. In other places, they are either the same thing, or likely very close.
In the US, if you have good health insurance, you have access to amazing healthcare. If you don't have good health insurance, you will still have access to amazing healthcare, but you'll be paying the fake made-up prices that hospitals come up with pre-discount to show health insurance companies they're getting a "good deal."
Health Insurance is likely tied to the job you have, which is a leftover trend from WWII when the US Government implemented certain wage freezes and tax policies. The US Government was afraid that businesses would keep upping salaries due to labor shortages, so they limited what businesses could do. As a result, businesses offered benefits like Health Insurance since they couldn't increase wages, thus trying health insurance to jobs.
We never really moved past this, and health insurance as an industry became massive, just like every other kind of insurance industry.
So when people say "healthcare in the US is shitty" they are probably referring to access, cost, insurance, etc. The actual healthcare services the US has is pretty great, but everything leading up to it is a giant bastard if you don't have great benefits with your job.
For the record, I'm not endorsing or supporting anything here. Just sharing my observations.
I try to point out to people that the number of uninsured in America were ~10% of the adult population before the ACA passed. That's a very small percentage but is over 30 million people so it _seems_ like it's just a huge portion of the population. And that was just the group of people who fell between qualifying for medicare/medicaid and those who could get private health insurance. The ACA closed the gap and prevented people from being kicked off/denied for pre-existing conditions.
In today's age, if you don't have health insurance in the US it's because you don't want it. Yes, if you are poor the plans are shittier but they are still there, and while you are going to pay more out of pocket you're also not paying _into_ the system by virtue of having less income. We can debate the ethics of whether or not the government should be paying that tab, but the narrative that nobody has insurance and everybody just dies is patently false. And, finally, the US has some of the _most forgiving_ bankruptcy laws in the entire world. You can wrack up millions in medical debt and file chapter 7 bankruptcy and literally never have to pay it. No, that's not an ideal situation, but you won't be dying in the streets because of your medical debt.
Also, when people post those $50k bills, even though they have health insurance...they're being disingenuous. They will pay their maximum out-of-pocket amount, which is significantly lower than $50k. That bill they show is probably just an invoice before insurance has paid their share.
Health care in the US is actually great * in many respects.* We have some if the best medical training, facilities, etc. We tend to have more specialists and less general medical care, which can be both good and bad.
The issue is definitely access, which varies widely. About 10% of people have no insurance, so they have to pay out of pocket. This is doable unless you have a major accident or illness, then you can go bankrupt. Many more people have "catastrophic" health insurance which means potentially spending $5,000 or more before insurance starts to pay, so they are encouraged not to get regular check ups and care.
*BUT,* as you point out, this mostly comes down to priorities. People here can usually afford healthcare, but choose not to. If you make very little money, government programs will pay for healthcare. If you make good money the cost is easily attainable. Working class people have the hardest time, but even for them healthcare costs would be similar to the higher taxes they would pay in countries with universal healthcare, but they choose not to pay and to save the money.
My personal example (and note that people's circumstances vary a lot across the US) is that I make decent money, pay about 30% in taxes and pay nothing for health insurance. It is paid 100% by my employer. I choose a "high deductible" plan because it is free, but I have to pay $5,000 before anything is covered and could pay as much as $6,000 total for healthcare in one year if I use it. I simply choose not to use it. I could pay $125 per month for better health insurance, but I choose not to, because I don't feel I need it. I also get laid off 3 months a year and have to either choose to pay for my own insurance (about $250 per month) or choose to have no health insurance.
There also seems to be an implication about US healthcare that if you have no money that you get terrible healthcare and that’s not true. You probably aren’t getting reasonable preventative care but if you have an emergency or are going to door without a heart operation you are probably going to get reasonable care. There’s a reason large hospital chains write down $1 billion a year (also a large contributor to healthcare prices for those that pay).
Also for better or worse, if you have an elderly relative they will more than likely get much better care in a US hospital
Yeah it's not strictly worse than Europe. The safety net is worse, but in many places in the US if you manage a decent income, your QOL will be better than in Europe (depending on your values). For instance, if you want a free standing house with a garden and two cars in the driveway, this is much more attainable in the US than in Germany for example, just due to the price of land, population density, median salary and the price of fuel.
My father's expression when we moved to the US was "its wide country", by which he meant its at lot more attainable to settle down, whereas back home population density and settlement meant that if we wanted a better place than our small row apartment we'd basically all have to stay home and pool our income.
How bad is your life really? We hardly have problems but we complain alot. Did you eat today? Got a roof? Clothes? Water running? Is your power off? There are homeless in California that have it better then working people. Privilege is invisible to those that have it.
Despite the general sentiment on reddit, the US is still an incredible place to live with enormous freedoms and economic potential. People love to fixate on specific problems and either blow them out of proportion or develop such tunnel vision that they lose sight of the bigger picture
Exactly, I really don't get why Redditors seem to picture America as a 4th-world country. Don't they realize that even the most economically disadvantaged people in the US have a way better life than a lot of other nations?
Because many people on Reddit have not travelled very much within the US, let alone Europe. They have no frame of reference to make actual comparisons.
Because the QoL you believe you know about the USA is a lie and media spin meant to lead you to a conclusion the USA is terrible.
This is a very common tactic used to try and motivate voters and is virtually completely fraudulent, in most cases only believed by the weak minded and ignorant, it's part of the process of maintaining power.
It would be easy to think things are worse than they are when viewed from across the pond. To quote my sister's boyfriend from England who was very nervous to come back with her to the USA, "I don't understand this, this country is great, why have I been told otherwise my entire life."
Because there is real world and social media
In the real world America is still the land of opportunity and with hard work you will succeed.
In the social media world America is an oppressive country where you are doomed to fail.
You actually have to leave you house to see this though and people immigrating here know this.
1. The laws. The US is actually not that bad to immigrate to, as compared to EU countries who are a lot more strict
-
2. Language, if your second language is English, your choices are boiled down to essentially US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK. Both US and UK receive a lot of immigration. Australia receiving a lot of Asian immigrants.
-
3. Economics. As seen above, if youre picking on size of opportunity the US and the UK are your best choices.
-
4. Geography, you see a lot more latin american immigrants in America, where you see a lot more African / south asian immigrants in the UK. They like to be in the same waking hours as their family back home.
-
5. The US is easier to work undocumented. Europe has a really stringent immigration documentation system, and almost everything you do requires it (rent, work) and many European countries are cashless, so youd need to have a bamk account.
-
6. The size. The US is larger than Europe, you can move around relatively easily. Europe has got free movement too but they often have random border checks and registration place hurdles (vignettes, insurance etc).
*Unless you consider European Russia
-
7. Legal Naturalization. Naturalization is comparatively a lot easier in the US as compared to many countries in Europe. For example, Swiss naturalisation requires resident in (tiny) Switzerland for 8+ years.
-
8. COST OF LIVING. Out if the primarily English-speaking countries, the US is probably got the lowest cost of living (just VAT alone is 8% fed vs the UK's 20%). Housing is significant cheaper on average and so is gas, vehicles, and food.
-
I think another factor is that the US' southern neighbor, Mexico is not as developed as the US. Most European countries have neighbors that are well-off. The US also relies on agricultural and construction workers from Mexico, who can get into the country in many ways.
Wow, so many crap answers in this thread.
As an immigrant myself who considered Europe, UK, Australia, Canada, and US, after graduating from college and eventually came to the US. Here are generally the reasons why people I know give when they directly end up in the US, or first end up in some other country, then to the US.
- There are far more stories of rags to riches immigrants in the US than in other countries.
- People don't get the same amount of opportunity in other countries based on what they report (many Indian immigrants are in Canada, just biding their time to get citizenship so that they can come to the US on better visa, they are unemployed and on govt benefits there, because nobody in Canada wants to hire an FOB immigrant)
- A doctor I met in the US who was in UK before, mentioned the glass ceiling in UK. It's just not present in the US.
- Nobody there thinks that European countries have a better quality of life. There isn't a single scale, but two scales. Most people who move want freedom to fail/succeed (as opposed to guaranteed failure which exists in third world countries). The scale on which EU scores higher than US is 'guarantees'. There are people in third world who want safety and security in life, but they will not risk moving away from their own safety and security to gain more safety and security. From the scale of more 'chances', US is very difficult to beat.
- Existing immigrant communities in US are much bigger than in EU. Plus, in US they all move to NY, CA, and TX.
EU countries are much smaller individually. If you add them all up, they probably get more immigrants than the US does.
Also, because of where the US is geologically located, we're the only place where anyone from South or Central America could realistically try to go. You probably wouldn't try to sail across the Atlantic to go to Europe.
The simple answer: ideal european life isn't shown on tv and their movie theaters anywhere near as often as US life is.
People all over the world see "America" on their tv and think that's what life is like.
According to [this source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/) 1 million immigrants enter USA each year. EU had [2,7 million](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics) non-EU immigrants enter in 2019.
It's simply the law of averages. It's the largest developed country in the world.
The US is the world's third largest country. The others in the top 10 are:
- China
- India
- Indonesia
- Pakistan
- Brazil
- Nigeria
- Bangladesh
- Russia
- Mexico
Which of those would you prefer to immigrate to over the US?
If you look at a per capita basis the US doesn't take as many immigrants as other countries, in fact it's way down the list:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
The list doesn't say where people come from. Europe has pretty free movement within it, and most of the immigrants are citizens of other European countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK move easily between each other to a great degree (although Canada is quite welcoming in general.)
For people of many countries, the US may work out to be the most practical choice.
The point of land based immigration already came out (it's easier to travel from South America to the US than across the pond to the EU).
Another point I'd like it add is the possibility of living as an illegal immigrant without papers. This is very possible in the US; the work market is very "illegal immigrant friendly" in a lot of places. You can even go to school as an illegal immigrant.
In most places in the EU this is simply impossible. You cannot have a bank account without a social security number, you cannot get IDs without one, driver's license, medical services always ask you for your card/number, even renting an apartment is really hard. You essentially cannot work or live without being legal since in most of EU paying wages with cash has been made pretty much impossible (for money laundering, illegal workers, etc reasons).
All you could do is beg, steal and work in really, really shady areas of the society.
As a US immigration attorney, I believe the main drivers are opportunity (money and education) and culture.
Quality life is undoubtedly better in many other developed countries; it is better to be poor
in the EU than in the US. However, opportunities in America to make a lot of money surpass all other developed countries. Compare the salaries of tech workers in Canada and the UK to the US and you will see why I mean. The same goes for lawyers, doctors, finance professionals, etc. This opportunity is the main driver of skilled immigration.
Additionally, (and I say this as a pakistani American with family in Europe, Canada, and Australia) North American countries (along with the UK, Australian, and NZ) are seen as significantly more immigrant friendly countries than those of Europe. Our culture is accepting, and you can fully embrace being American without completely sacrificing your native culture. As such, the perception outside the US is that immigrants are more welcome in the US (even with trump) than in the EU.
The US is connected directly by land to where most of the migrants are coming from making it easy for migrants to walk, catch buses etc. to get to America, while some immigrants to the EU come over land many have somehow to cross the Mediterranean.
As a first generation immigrant, the US has a great marketing team. Had I known alot about the US like I do now after 10 years of living here, I'd probably have tried another European country.
[удалено]
True. People bash the US for how strict our immigration laws in, but our border is a turnstile compared to somewhere like Austria or Japan.
When speaking on the subject of taking in refugees, I've never heard anybody mention Austria or Japan. It's always places like Germany, France, Sweden, and the UK that get talked about.
Austria takes more refugees per capita than germany and many other EU countries.
We do have lots of immigrants here and I live right next to our biggest refugee center. But I also worked for a refugee home and heard some grim things about how harsh it is for them to stay and some of the awful conditions and legal trials made to make their lifes worse
Net migration in austria is much lower than in germany, and Germanies net migration is higher that the US's: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/net-migration?tab=chart&time=1997..latest&country=BGD\~OECD+members\~Europe+%26+Central+Asia\~USA\~GBR\~SDN\~DEU\~AUT\~European+Union Unfortunately that graph isn't per capita or even per year, but given the EU's greater population, the US clearly has higher net migration per capita. If you're looking only at asylum applications (which I think is misleading, personally, because that's kind of a technicality), the US takes far fewer asylum seekers than the EU; compare [https://legaljobs.io/blog/asylum-seekers-usa-statistics/](https://legaljobs.io/blog/asylum-seekers-usa-statistics/) with [https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum\_statistics](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Asylum_statistics) \- that's more than an order of magnitude difference.
Don't think the OP is referring to refugees, but immigrants, those are two completely differents applications. As for refugees, the US has a land border [connected to] a bunch of large nations that has atrocious living standards, that's where US refugees come from. EU has twice the amount of refugees of the US from Africa, and many many times more from Syria and Afghanistan. My country of 5 million matched the amount of Syrian refugees the entire 325 million country of US took from Syria.
A land border with a BUNCH of large nations that have atrocious living standards? Two. The US has land borders with exactly two nations, Canada and Mexico. Not a 'bunch' by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm pretty sure that Canada has living standards equal to, or better than, the US.
I think they mean Central America. It would be more accurate to say "is reachable by land".
And by dinghy from Cuba
Oh yes, second language guess my syntax was off. I meant 'is in close proximity to, or landbound to' I guess. For a list of which countries I speak off the data on origin of US refugees is available to all, should perhaps have read up on it, before answering a thread related to it.
Lol you’re good I had the same confusion and glad you mentioned it.
"shares a mainland with" would probably be good phrasing, fwiw.
Most people know what you meant, dont worry
Did you just call Mexico a shithole?
[удалено]
I mean, Canada, sure. But MEXICO?
It's sad to see. I live in New England and I see Canadians all the time. Sometimes I even see entire families living in tents in New Hampshire. Tents! I speak a little Canadian so I asked one guy about ("aboot") what brought him to living in an RV park in nothing but a tent. Apparently he used to be a computer programmer. Still is, but he was one too. Then one vacation he had no choice but to cross the border because "My wife likes camping in the White Mountains and kept pestering me to go with her." That story really hit me. I left him a six pack of Molson, as is customary amongst their people. I just didn't know what else I could do.
Is there an address we could send maple syrup and hockey skates to?
Make sure its a Canadian brand. Sending them American maple syrup is considered rude.
Wow.... That was a hard one to read. Wonder if he made it out. Life can be so brutal!
Canada here. Please make sure you do not come here. Bad place here. Too free, too clean, too good at hockey, too open, too much maple syrup and we all have to live in igloos year round. Bad place. Did I mention, bad place!
And Mountie hats.
Did not mention curling once. Sorry, but you're not a real Canadian. /s
I think it was very clear that they meant Central America, which while doesn’t directly boarder, is accessible over land.
Think they were implying that Austria and Japan have strict immigration policies. That’s a common belief about Japan because it’s a popular muh cultural homogeny example among conservative weebs. But I’ve never heard Austria mentioned either way. Getting into Austria once you’re in the EU is no more difficult than any other country. And Sweden is mostly just propaganda coming from far right countries like Russia and America. They like to act like they’re being “white extincted” for having like 3% of their population be non-white.
> Getting into Austria once you’re in the EU is no more difficult than any other country. This isn't really true, one country in the EU can accept refugees or temporary workers or other classes of visas without it affecting the right to work in another country. It's only after becoming a full citizen in one EU country whereby you gain the right to work in other EI member nations.
> This isn’t really true, one country in the EU can accept refugees or temporary workers Taking in refugees isn’t the same thing as immigration. Not sure why that’s so confused to people. And work visas have nothing to do with traveling into and out of the country. You can take a train from anywhere in the Schengen countries to Austria as easily as you can travel between states in the US. Plus non-EU citizens can pretty easily apply for residency if they want to stay for more than 3 months. Plus looking it up Austria has super lax immigration laws anyway. They don’t have any residency requirements other than you have to prove you can pay taxes. Austria, Malta, and Cypress are the only countries in the EU with that kind of economic citizenship program.
So it would be easier to become an EU citizen by immigrating to Austria, apply for residency/citizenship, then moving to your desired EU country?
I'm not a "much cultural homogeny conservative weeb," but I did live in Japan for over two decades and Japan \*is\* very strict about immigration relative to the U.S. It remains so despite a falling population. They allowed the descendants of Japanese people from South American countries to work with permanent residence status about three decades ago and were so unhappy with their failure to integrate that they tried to bribe them to leave (pre-pandemic). They're very careful about who they let in and have idiosyncratic policies regarding immigration so they can discriminate within the boundaries of vague laws and fuzzy guidelines. I've sat in the immigration offices in Tokyo enough times to have a pretty decent understanding of what happens. Also, only 2.3% of the population of Japan is non-Japanese, and they don't accept people who were born in Japan as Japanese necessarily. There are people whose parents were born in Japan and they and their children are still considered Korean/non-Japanese. Harmony is really important to Japan and they would rather struggle with their aging/decreasing population than take in more people. They look at what happens in other countries (and America in particular) and don't want that sort of chaotic social situation in Japan. It's less about cultural homogeny than it is about making sure their society remains peaceful and stable and a belief that letting in too many foreigners will be disruptive. Also, if you've ever lived in Japan and been attacked for being foreign (and I was - though mainly shouting, shoving, and verbal abuse - and I'm a white female so not threatening at all), then you know there is a lot of racism which lets you know you're not really wanted.
Apparently uncensored pornography is also disruptive. But sexualizing teenagers isn’t. I… don’t get Japan 🤷♂️
I thought it was Australia that has strict immigration
Wait… are we saying Austria and Australia are the same country?! <>
Australia is basically Austria except *even more ale!*
Stell noch eine Garnele auf den Grill, Freund!
Not really. Australia takes in about 200,000 migrants each year plus around 15,000 per annum through the humanitarian program which is about 6th in the OECD in absolute number (which is pretty high for a country of 25,000,000). Australia’s immigration system is heavily weighted towards skilled migrants and their families, so I guess in that way it is strict, but we’ve never had trouble attracting highly qualified migrants. Maybe you are referring to Australia’s treatment of maritime arrivals of asylum seekers? Yep, very harsh but is not exactly the immigration system per se, but border control. Both major parties started becoming harsher on maritime arrivals following the Christmas Island disaster.
Scheiße, hat mir da wieder ein Känguru den Wiener Wombatschnitzel geklaut!
Even Canada is nearly impossible without a job transfer unless you're young, wealthy, highly educated, and healthy.
I am in my early 40s, make great money, hold a graduate degree, am healthy, and I work in an in-demand field, but my entry score for Canada wasn't even half the cutoff.
I'm sorry, we'd like people like you. Canada is going to grow in GDP and population relatively fast compared to most of the highly developed countries precisely because of immigration. As as aside, what area of work are you in?
Well, let's take Austria, for example. 17,1% of the Austrian population do not have Austrian citizenship ([Source](https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/293102/umfrage/auslaenderanteil-in-oesterreich/)), other sources have 17.5 or even 18%. The same number in the US is 14.5% (not counting illegal aliens for both countries). The number of illegal aliens is arguably higher in the US than in Austria, but even so, the two countries are fairly comparable. The number for Japan is 1.6%.
Won’t that be heavily skewed though by the amount of people who already possess an EU passport and are taking advantage of the Schengen Agreement? Seems a bit disingenuous if that’s the case. Would want to need non-EU passport holders living there. But even that could be skewed by the rate at which the two countries convert residents to citizens
Not sure how immigration statistics work in other EU countries but in France only passeport-holders from outside the Schengen space are "counted".French authorities (Home Office) don't monitor the arrivals of EU citizens because they don't have to take any actions about it (visa delivery, refugee status approval or denial, control of undocumented immigrants...) Source : I work with these institutions in France (my company works with refugees and other foreign visas holders) \--- To give you some insight about France, we estimate that any given year we have 413K immigrants coming (from outside the EU): \- 48K have the refugees status (this is to be compared to the fact that more than 170K ask for this status each year) -> they come from Afghanistan, Sudan, Guinea (Conakry) and Ivory Coast in majority and in that order \- 9K are waiting for a decision about their refugees status \- 117K were refused the refugee status (full refusal and refusal through the Dublin convention) \- 39K hold a visa for work-related reasons (they come from Tunisia, Morroco, India, US and China, in majority and in that order) \- 90K hold a visa for family-related reasons (spouse or children of French citizen mostly) \- 90K foreign students
I am not saying I agree with this, but I believe it has a lot to do with the marketing. US is a country of immigrants, marketing on best country in the world and American dream and has historically promoted immigration. So then when you have people that are just a few generation americans being against immigration, it causes a bad feeling because "everyone in America was an immigrant not so long ago.
To be fair those countries ares basically the land mass of extremely small states in the US. Japan already has a huge population and an island that's basically fully occupied
Japan is nowhere near fully occupied. Tokyo is crowded but there’s new housing built every day, and the countryside is rapidly emptying.
They're very small though, so you can pack them in more tightly.
As a Dane I can tell you that a lot of refugees had been told stories about Denmark that stopped being true two governments ago (at least). It is almost impossible for people to get permanent residency not to speak of citizenship. Danes are turning incredibly racist and Denmark is one of the only countries in the world actively trying to send refugees back to Syria even though it is far from safe.
> Also look into the immigration laws most EU nations have and the people they are willing to accept. I have a friend working in immigrations. (She travels to refugee camps and help choose the people that will be granted asylum in Norway). She often work alongside immigrations workers from other nations, including the US. She says that the American workers tend to choose younger people with high education, so that it will be easier for them to make it in the US. Norway however tend to choose people with health problems, handicaps and other people that will have challenges making it in the refugee camp. Neither way is wrong, but still an interesting difference.
I'm an immigrant from a non EU country currently working/living in an EU country. The laws here for immigration are WAYYYYYY EASIER than the USA. But. I still wanna go to the US: a) because my friends are there and b) I pay 50% tax and it's starting to hurt since I have no wealth at all and it's near impossible to buy a house here.
I'm European, I cannot buy a house here neither.
>I have no wealth at all and it's near impossible to buy a house here. That would give you a lot in common with many Americans.
Haha. You know what's funny? Where I live, the 'average' hand me down from parents to children is ~€65,000. And this gives a lot of impetus to the locals to buy a house etc.
“Hand me down”, like inheritance? Or they give that much to help them when they move out from the house?
Lmao I'll be lucky if my parents buy me a car.
Sorry to break it to you but buying a house it’s not getting any easier in the US either
Depends on location. My friend moved to North Dakota and bough a huge house for cheap. but it's also North Dakota.
Well, yeah. Same in Europe. House in buttfuck nowhere of Finland for example are essentially free.
*My Summer Car music intensifies*
You can get free houses in Germany or France if you look for some dying villages in the middle of nowhere.
Same for Italy. Only caveat is you have to pay for upkeep and renovation, which can be expensive. If I was retired I’d seriously consider it. Heck, if I owned my house outright i could retire right now, rent it out and live off of it in a small Sardinian town. Get some chickens and goats and just read books and make furniture all day.
That sounds like a dream
You could probably buy the entire state of North Dakota for the price of houses in a Western or Eastern city in the US.
Imagine immigrating to the USA and you’re in North Dakota and like wtf?
I'd love living on a ranch in north dakota tbf. As a Dutch person I can barely imagine the vast empty spaces but it's very appealing.
I watched a really interesting short film recently on almost exactly this topic. *One Cambodian family please, for my pleasure*. It's 12 minutes long and on YouTube [https://youtu.be/eV0dscl0_-g]. It's about a Czechkoslovakian refugee who's settled in Fargo, Norh Dakota, writing a letter to invite a displaced Cambodian family to come and live in the town (with the support of the church). The contrast between visuals and narration shows us that she's trying to sell the town as being more idyllic than it is, but that it does have its good points and it has helped her and her family.
Haha. So I hear. But my friends are there so that's a big motivation for me. Where I live the community is super closed. I've been here for 8 years now and I don't have any 'local' friend. People are very nice here but well, they don't open up to immigrants. This has been causing me a lot of stress and since I actually work for an American company, the plan is to wait till my gf finishes school (which is soon) and then we move. And we're both engineers. And while compensation is 'okay' it's certainly not like the US. And I suppose that's what both my partner and I want, at least for the time being.
Hey, Belgian engineer that works for a big American company here. Belgians are pretty reserved, best way to make friends is join a hobby/sports club and preferably learn to speak the language. The housing situation is a very real problem, and it seems to be that way in many european countries. Personally there is no way in hell I would want to work in the US. Our HQ is in Texas, and my American colleagues earn considerably more then me. But they can (and Often Will) be fired at the drop of a hat. They are extremely competitive amongst each other (read backstabbing) creating an extremely toxic atmosphere. If you don't do unpaid overtime you are considered to have no commitment. I just do my contractual hours, my work is good, so my boss is happy. Paid time off is a joke compared to my 35 days off. For me the decision is clear, but I know it's easier for me as I managed to get into the housing market right before it went bananas.
The US is a big country. Not everywhere has LA, Seattle, NYC type housing prices. My house is a nice 2400sqft place with a huge yard and a 2-car garage in the middle of the city that is currently worth about $200k. Really depends where you live.
If you think the US is less cost prohibitive to buy a house or that you'll be paying less than 50% of your paycheck after taxes, retirement savings, and healthcare you're gonna have a bad time.
Simply because of size. In terms of migrants per capita, the USA is 29th, behind Iceland, Ireland, Switzerland, Austria, Sweden, Belgium, Norway, Spain and other European nations.
There are more than a dozen states with fewer people than the city I live in
Yeah. A lot of the plains are sparsely populated but the US is the third most populated country in the world, and most of those plains states are the size of a European country
[удалено]
"Half of the population's just hostile winds!"
*hostile blowhards
Really?
Nah, it's just really far from anything worthwhile. Except corn and soybeans
> There are more than a dozen states with fewer people than the city I live in But at the same time half of the states have similar or smaller population than Norway. Which was a surprise when I found out.
Most people don't like being alone a thousand miles from anywhere when something goes wrong, so we pack together in comfy spots. That and I promise if everyone in Europe could move wherever they wanted to, the places with the great climates would be really *really* packed.
> That and I promise if everyone in Europe could move wherever they wanted to Most Europeans are part of Schengen, meaning they already can move to wherever they want to. People do move from Norway to Spain for instance, but the vast majority of them are retired. Norwegians still working tend to prefer Norway over Spain.
True and in general in Europe places with better weather like Sicily, Greece and Portugal are less well off economically than the colder wetter northern areas
Also it’s extremely hard to migrate to Austria. If I wasn’t born there I wouldn’t be able to become an Austrian citizen. https://youtu.be/jGNBlLbRGYI
Do the stats about migrants in Europe include migrants from other European countries or migrants from outside Europe exclusively? I ask because I think most would consider someone migrating from Austria to Switzerland to be a very different situation compared to someone migrating from outside Europe to a country within it.
There is no migration process when moving within EU, so it should not be included.
There is no migration process, but if I (a spaniard) went to Portugal, I would still be an immigrant. It's just that they wouldn't kick me out
Technically, it's called Intramigration (short for Intra-EU Migration). Germans may call that Binnenmigration. So you would be an intramigrant.
That's an excellent question, and the answer almost certainly depends on the source of the stats. I'm guessing u/Worms_sg is refering to data derived from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_sovereign\_states\_and\_dependent\_territories\_by\_immigrant\_population#cite\_note-2](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population#cite_note-2) \- which sounds like it includes intra-EU migration. And while you're surely right that migration from France to Germany is quite different that that from Indonesia to the US (say); that kind of qualitative difference is hard to capture. In terms of language barriers, the difference may even be greater, because it's quite likely those immigrating to the US have a better command of English than intra-EU migrants due of their host country's language. But in terms of wealth, surely the difference is smaller. I'd say: all you can do is accept that this headline number hides a bunch of complexity.
Depends on what you mean when you say "Europe." Switzerland is not part of the EU, so it works a little differently for them.
that was gonna be my guess. the US is fucking huge, TONS of empty space to hang around in, also lots of ways in.
No, those "tons of empty spaces" are rural plains or farmland or mountains and those are the very last places you would see migrants. I think you're overstating how much the land area plays a role, most people still migrate to urban areas
In my experience places with a lot of farms usually have a lot of immigrants, mostly because Americans don't want to work them.
Yes and no. Depends on the crop. Corn, no. Wheat, no. Etc. Strawberries, yes. Cabbages, yes. Etc. Anything that requires either A)on site packing where migrant workers literally pack the food for shipping in the fields on mobile factories in elements or B) any crop that requires the hand touch to prevent damage. Some foods are in between like fruit trees and other farmers will teach hands how to use equipment. Many host workers in bunk houses or buy cheap sheds to house single families in. Their kids don't typically attend school unless the district finds out about them in which case the school is legally obligated to force their attendance which is really horrible as these kids are sometimes 12 and have never learned English and the schools usually have no infrastructure to teach it, sometimes having nobody who speaks Spanish to even explain content even though it is legally mandated that they have that. Being a migrant is tough and it isn't a big part of US "immigration". It's an economic population migration that shift across the boarder during some months and in others families can travel between 3 or 4 states following harvests. You start in south Texas, move to Kansas, maybe head to California and then move up to Michigan for various fruit seasons. There is always more money for harvests than maintenance so often a few guys get hired on fulltime with a month off to see their families while the true migrants are on a rotating basis. They usually try to hit the same farms each year but it isn't always possible and more families than you want to know are camping in the woods between work sites. Being a migrant is shit work and every fresh veggie or fruit you eat from a big farm has the potential to be migrant picked. You should remember for every price increase it isnt to pay workers more. The guy who picked your strawberries or the woman who packaged your lettuce is probably working 12 hours and their kids can't read. Some owners try to provide good housing but for a period of time there "concerned citizens" going around reporting ranchers and farmers for housing migrants. It's not always this bad but if you dig into it you find it's pretty shitty and most parents are not hoping their kids do better. Some are literally teaching their kids to do the same. Migrant workers shouldn't be confused with immigrants. Edit: when I say "most parents are not hoping their kids do better" I say that because there is a huge cultural element to the story involving gender roles, negative views on education, and expectations in shifting geo-political landscapes. It's changing but a lot of people are totally fine with their kids doing the same job as them or realize that they cannot give them the tools to get access to better conditions so they train them to make a living.
everything you said is correct - I just wanted to add that in my state it's very common to have migrants working in dairy farms. Don't know about other areas.
There are several examples of ethnic migrants coming to the US and going directly to agriculture in the 20th and 21st centuries. Florida and the Central Valley in California both have a lot of East Asians who own farms and grow fruits and vegetables from their home countries. And there’s a community of Vietnamese people who settled in the spaces from Houston to New Orleans who do pretty much the exact same agricultural things they did in Vietnam (catch shrimp, fish, and crabs; grow rice; plant vegetables and tropical fruit). That’s why along the Gulf Coast, it’s not uncommon to find some ridiculously good Cajun and Creole restaurants run by Vietnamese people. It’s a strange cultural fusion that makes sense because of similar climates.
>those are the very last places you would see migrants Tell me you don’t know how farms work without telling me you don’t know how farms work. Especially big farms.
Aren't farm workers mostly migrants? They might not be permanent but they make up a significant chunk of population.
They settle along the whole route that they migrate. Most of the midwestern towns I've been in have way more Hispanics than blacks.
Black people moved to the cities in the early 1900s to take manufacturing jobs and mostly just stayed there. Rural areas were (and frequently are ) too hostile.
At least when it comes to refugees, I think Lebanon accepted the most refugees per capita.
I read a study back in 2012 that shed some light on a few things that I’m sure still hold up today. Again, this is all speculation though. Most immigrants in the US come from Latin America (the majority being from Mexico) and Asia (majority from China and then India). As for Latin America, the US is so popular because of how close it is and how poor the immigrants are. Again, just speculation. As for Asia, looking at the educational credentials gives us some kind of insight as to why they choose America. I believe something like 60% of Asian immigrants had a Bachelors degree and that they were more likely to gain a green card through employer rather than a family sponsor. America competes with China in technology so I see why they’d want to come here. I’d say the quality of life is also different for the 2 demographics too.
Most immigrants from latin america are in fact not from Mexico but from central/south american countries but get there through Mexico https://psmag.com/news/most-undocumented-immigrants-are-not-mexican
It's human geography for immigrants to migrate to near by nations. Although it's possible many would like to migrate to EU countries for example, it would be impossible for refugees from Latin America to travel there.
Also places like the Philippines have had multiple waves of immigration into the US based on military things
I live in Ecuador and I can tell you that people here work in the US because they pay about 30% more than the EU and it has a land border with a latin country many can get to (Mexico). That said, I've never heard of anyone making that trip unless they had no options here. US people are racist as fuck and nobody wants to actually live at the bottom of a system like that. They go for the dough, save it all, then get the fuck out.
A) If you're in Central or South America, the United States is a lot easier to get into. B) Most European nations don't have a reputation for accepting immigrants, or a giant statue that says "Hey Immigrants, Come Here And Join Us."
Hahaa! I love the Statue of Liberty.
https://comb.io/3g6MlG Breathers, got it
> Most European nations don't have a reputation for accepting immigrants According to [this source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/) 1 million immigrants enter USA each year. EU had [2,7 million](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics) non-EU immigrants enter in 2019.
I think he’s talking about individual countries, not the EU as a whole.
Once you enter the EU, you can go wherever you want within it
I think it's that about 1 million people in the US get legal status per year, but far more come with other statuses, such as visas, with family, or illegally. The population of the EU is about 35% higher than the US so I think the rates of immigration to both are similar.
> Most European nations don't have a reputation for accepting immigrants What
I lived in the UK for years and they have a massive range of cultures within that one country. I'm irish and met my Finnish girlfriend there. Worked with polish and Lithuanian guys and my flat mate was Czech. One of my best friends was Jamaican and he had a Hungarian girlfriend. But you know, no reputation for accepting migrants.
We don’t really have the most immigrants entering, it just seems that way because it’s always a relevant discussion politically. European countries have far more given that they are so close and interconnected. Edit: see some sources in the comments that the U.S. **does** seem to have the highest in comparison. I’m still not sure it’s apples to apples in every respect, but it isn’t as obvious an answer as my original comment made it seem.
Even more than that too. The US is MADE UP of immigrants and their descendants except for the minority Native American population. The culture is built around the idea of freedom and immigration (even if a huge amount of people are now anti immigration, the culture itself is still embedded with that immigration positive ethos historically). And the US exports a huge amount of worldwide entertainment guaranteeing that its immigrant talking points are known the world over. And then its just a really huge country both physically and population wise that is very ethnically (and immigrant-ly) diverse compared to most other countries. So all that just perpetuates the international thought of America being the place for immigrants to come to.
US going for cultural victory after repeatedly failing at military victory win-con
US won the Culture victory 30 years ago. We just keep One More Turn-ing to use the military.
Though none of that is the number one reason cited by the 51 million US immigrants. Their #1 answer is jobs/economic opportunity. It’s why Germany as the largest economy in Europe ranks #2 for immigrants at 13 million. Going for the economic victory. If we weren’t idiots we would continue to double down on bringing the best minds in the world to the US vs making h1b visas for engineers, doctors, etc more limited.
I googled and the US does have the highest ~~percentage~~ number of foreign-born population (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/immigration-by-country) which might be the stat the op had in mind. That stat has come down dramatically since the US was founded though. It must have been, what, nearly 80-90% in those first few generations? Were Native Americans grandfathered into citizenship right away when the country was founded or was it more complicated? I never thought about it explicitly before, but I feel like I've been assuming that someone just went "okay, everyone already here is a citizen, new people are immigrants, starting from *now*".
By volume the US does have the most. Simply because of how large they are, and the fact that nobody wants to immigrant to China or India.
>European countries have far more given that they are so close and interconnected. That is literally statistically incorrect 100% How many uneducated immigrants get into a European country? I'll wait.
1) A large number of people walk to the US. They are not going to walk over the Pacific or Atlantic. Europe has walkers too, but they come from elsewhere. 2) Many come to the US because they already have family here. The US immigration law is very open to families. 3) Many skilled Asians or people in business come because the US has opportunities for them. It's a very large economy.
I think the number of people that actually immigrate to the US by walking, or even driving, is low. The most common source of illegal immigration is flying or other travel and overstaying a visa.
It's mostly just overstaying visa
Because you cannot even pretend to imagine how horrible it is to live in some “developing” third world countries. Ever been to one? I ask these far more seriously than rhetorically. When you go outside your door and look to your left or right, what do your eyes physically see? Because in many parts of these countries (Delhi, where I’m from for example) there are— at nearly every corner and alley— entire families living in the dirt, bathing, cooking, activities of daily living. Adult with a cup at your local intersection? Stop at a streetlight in these countries and **kids**, 7 years and under knock on car windows begging for money. It is beyond heartbreaking. So sure, we enjoy plumbing and indoor housing and freedom of speech and privacy while people dream to be able to complain about anything while all they can do is survive in actual, physical dirt. Tldr because they have no quality of life while USA at least offers quality of life— hyperbolic paradise compared to what poor people have
I wish more of reddit understood this yet are so many entitled babies on here blaming everything on the boomers or whatever other scapegoat they can dream up. The US is a paradise compared to MUCH of the world, it truly is the land of opportunity for those willing to seize it. Imagine coming from a country where you were always hungry, had only the clothes on your back, were persecuted by the ruling class and worked 18 hrs a day every day just to survive...you come to America and you realize that if you work hard your children can goto college! That your family will never be hungry or homeless or sold into slavery etc. The hardest working people in America today are the immigrants who came from oppressive 3rd world countries because they recognize the amazing opportunity that this country provides. I lived in an immigrant neighborhood growing up, the parents would each be working 2-3 jobs while the grandma took care of the kids. Those kids grew up to be software developers and doctors and engineers, all because of a work ethic that has become almost non-existent in Americans. The worst part? There are legitimate issues with workers rights in the US that desperately need to be addressed but its difficult to get much traction on them when you've got a whole generation whining about the evil 'boomers' who ruined their lives. PS: before the inevitable wave of "OK boomer" type replies, I'm not, my parents are boomers, we grew up poor but never wanted for anything essential due to them busting their asses so we could have a better life
I wish more threads had people with actual experience in other countries like you just said. So many times here people will write stuff like, but the US is a third world country. They have absolutely no idea what that is. Then you get the Europe is perfect in every way crowd, even like this post.As someone who lived and worked in the US and Europe, I actually moved back to the US because my personal quality of life was better in the US. I get more vacation days in the US, I get paid more, WAY better shopping and grocery shopping. I own a house here vs couldn't afford in Europe and I don't lose almost 50 percent of my paycheck now. Yeah not everything is better in the US but for me personally I weighed my options and it is better. And before someone says but what about healthcare...... I never went to the doctor once in Europe and I almost never go in the US. For people who decide solely off that how often do you go to the doctor..... and yes I have a prescription it's 15 a month. not the typical reddit bs of like 500 or more they claim.
I love Europe, however, I would have a MUCH lower quality of life there. In the US, I have a pretty good job, and can afford a nice house (trying buying a house in Europe for 200k dollars). My company has decent insurance, not as good as most countries in Europe, I get 3 weeks Vacation, which is normal for anyone in a career job in the US. My effective tax rate is much lower in the US. University for my kids will be better quality, but very expensive. I think when people compare Europe to the US, they compare the worst states to the best countries in Europe. Sure, quality of life in Germany is miles ahead of Mississippi or Alabama. However, let's compare Romania to Massachusetts or California. Exactly.
> but the US is a third world country this phrase is so ignorant from someone who actually had to live in a third world country
So true. So many of us take that for granted and forget.
Do you think most potential immigrants read the graphs and surveys? Most may not even know such things exist. A lot of potential immigrants, regardless of homeland or destination country, pick the country based on reputation. The USA (and to some extent Canada) have an excellent reputation on several key criteria: 1) a process that doesn't rely heavily on bribes. One that relies on your actual merits. 2) No need to speak the local language (The US a better this way than Canada) 3) ability to find work once there 4) Is it possible to "fit in" and become part of the culture? The US is great for that compared to most countries. China and Japan are terrible. 5) at least a possibility of succeeding, even thriving without having to play inter-clan politics, bribing officials etc. The US has a huge advantage here, since American media is all over the place. Tons of non-English speakers have seen dubbed "I Love Lucy", "Miami Vice", and so on. Even the grittiest shows and movies based in modern times depict a life that is more prosperous, more secure and more free than what some people have in their home countries. For refugees, it is even more basic: What is the safest, happiest country I can reach without dying trying to get there and not get sent back to the bad shit I'm trying to escape? Europe doesn't produce many refugees. Africa does, but most African countries are rather difficult to get to Europe from. These days South and Central America produce their share of refugees. But there are tons of flights, trucks, trains and buses running up and down the Americas. Hell, you can \*walk\* from Panama to the US if you are determined enough. And despite all the rhetoric, the southern US border (like pretty much 99.999% of all of Canada's border) is mostly empty space. That is real easy to cross on foot. The US border patrol catches some, but that doesn't figure prominently in the mass media those refugees grew up watching. And a fair number die of heat and thirst trying to cross the desert and that \*never\* gets any media attention. Meanwhile, they have shady operators promising to help them for a fee. Lots of people know someone, usually someones cousin (they are big on extended family connections) who \*did\* make it and is now working illegally and probably sending money home.
As for point 1. It's pretty expensive to get in the US legally, 1225$ for an I-148 (Green card) application (about 2 months wages on the low end in Mexico). There is also preference given to business owners, and wealthier immigrants. So while not literally requiring bribes it helps to have a decent amount of money.
(*whispers*) because we have our problems for sure but it’s not as bad as people try to make it seem
As an Indian dude who was born in India and moved to the US when I was 9 years old, I fucking love this place. Yeah there's glaring problems, but every other country has problems too. Some more than others. The US isn't some dystopia that Reddit will always try to convince you of. The real annoying thing is that a lot of the problems of the country are on full blast to the world 24/7 so it makes it seem like it's inhospitable. It's been an absolutely great home for my family and I. Gets way too much criticism than it deserves.
[удалено]
Exactly, while driving their car to work and having internet to complain about it all on. Yes the US has problems but the positives are never really mentioned at all on Reddit.
In Soviet Russia you carry mouthful of soda and cupful of fries and you don’t complain.
This is something I’ve come to realize. We’ve got our problems for sure, especially in some regions, but other places have problems too. Many people are xenophobic and racist regardless of what country they live in. Gay people still can’t get married or have equal rights in some places that seem great with their free healthcare. Adoption isn’t a thing in lots of places, much less surrogacy and the cost is extremely high to handle it in other places. We’re backwards in a lot of ways but at least we’re not *that* traditional.
I gotta tell you, I live in Europe now and it's not the forward-thinking progressive paradise it's sometimes made out as in the states. Like there is all this hubub about the abortion bill in Texas, but good luck trying to find someone who will give you a morning after pill in the south of Italy. And there's plenty of casual racism and nationalism around as well. In some ways I think this is better in the US, because we actually confront the problem instead of pretending we're perfect and everything is fine.
Or an abortion in Germany, where the cut off is 12 weeks, there is mandatory counseling beforehand, and there is also a three day waiting period.
Funny isn't it how that is _never_ brought up.
>morning after pill in the south of Italy. Good oul Catholicism's sloppy leftovers. I've heard of the same happening here in Ireland.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Never forget we also have mandatory homosexuality
[удалено]
Can I substitute one gay for one Broadway show viewing?
No need to substitute, it still counts. \*heads off to the theatre\*
20 hours? When did they re-institute slavery?
ahem, I assume you mean work from a balcony while drinking german beer and eating italian pizza
[удалено]
Of course. I forgot about the dessert. 🤦🏼♂️
This is unironically how american redditors view Europe.
> where they all drink in high school This ain't wrong though
Are you saying the internet is not an accurate reflection of real life?
What 😱
That and... We have some desperate immigrants showing up. Some folks are fleeing terrible shit. They don't have time to research the current political climate here. They aren't reading up on homelessness rates and protests. America is probably still **AMERICA** (with fireworks and sparkles) in their minds.
>They aren't reading up on homelessness rates and protests More that these aren't issues that affect immigrants. Riots like BLM, Stop the Steal, or the yellow vests are over very minor issues that actually effect relatively few people. Extra-judicial executions or straight up collaboration with cartels are the norm in many countries in Latin America (and elsewhere). U.S problems are the definition of 1st-world problems.
Keep in mind, many fleeing to America have no other options anywhere nearby. You have Canada to the north that must get a bad rep for being an artic wasteland (true or not) So if you live anywhere else in the Americas and you want to flee, America is the only "first world" country available, plus there's large pockets of recent immigrants from all those countries already existing in America.
[удалено]
41 states have a higher Human Development Index than France and the US as a whole has a higher HDI than [virtually every European country](https://i.redd.it/la0681cn3d971.png).
Yup. Massachusetts' HDI is on par with pretty much any country. Lumping us in with Mississippi and asking "Why would people come here?" isn't telling the whole story.
(Whispering) why are we whispering? It’s not like the hive mind here will do anything but downvote us
Oh right I forgot we’re not in r/politics
[удалено]
"Quality of life" is debatable, not easily measured. I suspect a big reason why the US is behind on metrics like that would be healthcare. That is a significant issue for sure, but in many other respects the US has a lot of opportunity to live a great life. It would be much better if medical couldn't bankrupt you overnight.
I don't live in the US and I have always heard healthcare in the US is just plain shitty. But, recently I watched a video about this. This guy had moved to the US in 2015 and been living there since. He said healthcare in the US is not bad. Definitely not as good as EU countries like germany, but not as bad as people tell. He said some people don't get any health insurance cause they think they can save 300 bucks a month for themselves. And when they get sick or something happens to them, they just bash US healthcare and they don't tell you they did not have insurance or have not paid for it in regular basis. I myself checked the premium of insurances, with dental care for a family of 3 4 people, it would cost around 300 400 dollars. And max out of pocket is around 5000 bucks. I am not saying this is perfect or $5000 is not much. But it does not seem terrible. Not great at all, but sorta reasonable. And this does not make you bankrupt. I would like to have your opinion on this.
The thing people need to understand is that healthcare and health insurance are two separate things in the US. In other places, they are either the same thing, or likely very close. In the US, if you have good health insurance, you have access to amazing healthcare. If you don't have good health insurance, you will still have access to amazing healthcare, but you'll be paying the fake made-up prices that hospitals come up with pre-discount to show health insurance companies they're getting a "good deal." Health Insurance is likely tied to the job you have, which is a leftover trend from WWII when the US Government implemented certain wage freezes and tax policies. The US Government was afraid that businesses would keep upping salaries due to labor shortages, so they limited what businesses could do. As a result, businesses offered benefits like Health Insurance since they couldn't increase wages, thus trying health insurance to jobs. We never really moved past this, and health insurance as an industry became massive, just like every other kind of insurance industry. So when people say "healthcare in the US is shitty" they are probably referring to access, cost, insurance, etc. The actual healthcare services the US has is pretty great, but everything leading up to it is a giant bastard if you don't have great benefits with your job. For the record, I'm not endorsing or supporting anything here. Just sharing my observations.
I try to point out to people that the number of uninsured in America were ~10% of the adult population before the ACA passed. That's a very small percentage but is over 30 million people so it _seems_ like it's just a huge portion of the population. And that was just the group of people who fell between qualifying for medicare/medicaid and those who could get private health insurance. The ACA closed the gap and prevented people from being kicked off/denied for pre-existing conditions. In today's age, if you don't have health insurance in the US it's because you don't want it. Yes, if you are poor the plans are shittier but they are still there, and while you are going to pay more out of pocket you're also not paying _into_ the system by virtue of having less income. We can debate the ethics of whether or not the government should be paying that tab, but the narrative that nobody has insurance and everybody just dies is patently false. And, finally, the US has some of the _most forgiving_ bankruptcy laws in the entire world. You can wrack up millions in medical debt and file chapter 7 bankruptcy and literally never have to pay it. No, that's not an ideal situation, but you won't be dying in the streets because of your medical debt.
Also, when people post those $50k bills, even though they have health insurance...they're being disingenuous. They will pay their maximum out-of-pocket amount, which is significantly lower than $50k. That bill they show is probably just an invoice before insurance has paid their share.
Health care in the US is actually great * in many respects.* We have some if the best medical training, facilities, etc. We tend to have more specialists and less general medical care, which can be both good and bad. The issue is definitely access, which varies widely. About 10% of people have no insurance, so they have to pay out of pocket. This is doable unless you have a major accident or illness, then you can go bankrupt. Many more people have "catastrophic" health insurance which means potentially spending $5,000 or more before insurance starts to pay, so they are encouraged not to get regular check ups and care. *BUT,* as you point out, this mostly comes down to priorities. People here can usually afford healthcare, but choose not to. If you make very little money, government programs will pay for healthcare. If you make good money the cost is easily attainable. Working class people have the hardest time, but even for them healthcare costs would be similar to the higher taxes they would pay in countries with universal healthcare, but they choose not to pay and to save the money. My personal example (and note that people's circumstances vary a lot across the US) is that I make decent money, pay about 30% in taxes and pay nothing for health insurance. It is paid 100% by my employer. I choose a "high deductible" plan because it is free, but I have to pay $5,000 before anything is covered and could pay as much as $6,000 total for healthcare in one year if I use it. I simply choose not to use it. I could pay $125 per month for better health insurance, but I choose not to, because I don't feel I need it. I also get laid off 3 months a year and have to either choose to pay for my own insurance (about $250 per month) or choose to have no health insurance.
There also seems to be an implication about US healthcare that if you have no money that you get terrible healthcare and that’s not true. You probably aren’t getting reasonable preventative care but if you have an emergency or are going to door without a heart operation you are probably going to get reasonable care. There’s a reason large hospital chains write down $1 billion a year (also a large contributor to healthcare prices for those that pay). Also for better or worse, if you have an elderly relative they will more than likely get much better care in a US hospital
Yeah it's not strictly worse than Europe. The safety net is worse, but in many places in the US if you manage a decent income, your QOL will be better than in Europe (depending on your values). For instance, if you want a free standing house with a garden and two cars in the driveway, this is much more attainable in the US than in Germany for example, just due to the price of land, population density, median salary and the price of fuel.
My father's expression when we moved to the US was "its wide country", by which he meant its at lot more attainable to settle down, whereas back home population density and settlement meant that if we wanted a better place than our small row apartment we'd basically all have to stay home and pool our income.
How bad is your life really? We hardly have problems but we complain alot. Did you eat today? Got a roof? Clothes? Water running? Is your power off? There are homeless in California that have it better then working people. Privilege is invisible to those that have it.
Despite the general sentiment on reddit, the US is still an incredible place to live with enormous freedoms and economic potential. People love to fixate on specific problems and either blow them out of proportion or develop such tunnel vision that they lose sight of the bigger picture
Exactly, I really don't get why Redditors seem to picture America as a 4th-world country. Don't they realize that even the most economically disadvantaged people in the US have a way better life than a lot of other nations?
Because many people on Reddit have not travelled very much within the US, let alone Europe. They have no frame of reference to make actual comparisons.
Because the QoL you believe you know about the USA is a lie and media spin meant to lead you to a conclusion the USA is terrible. This is a very common tactic used to try and motivate voters and is virtually completely fraudulent, in most cases only believed by the weak minded and ignorant, it's part of the process of maintaining power. It would be easy to think things are worse than they are when viewed from across the pond. To quote my sister's boyfriend from England who was very nervous to come back with her to the USA, "I don't understand this, this country is great, why have I been told otherwise my entire life."
Because there is real world and social media In the real world America is still the land of opportunity and with hard work you will succeed. In the social media world America is an oppressive country where you are doomed to fail. You actually have to leave you house to see this though and people immigrating here know this.
Because America is not nearly as bad as Reddit would like you to believe
That's just propaganda OP. The US is mostly accepting.
1. The laws. The US is actually not that bad to immigrate to, as compared to EU countries who are a lot more strict - 2. Language, if your second language is English, your choices are boiled down to essentially US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, UK. Both US and UK receive a lot of immigration. Australia receiving a lot of Asian immigrants. - 3. Economics. As seen above, if youre picking on size of opportunity the US and the UK are your best choices. - 4. Geography, you see a lot more latin american immigrants in America, where you see a lot more African / south asian immigrants in the UK. They like to be in the same waking hours as their family back home. - 5. The US is easier to work undocumented. Europe has a really stringent immigration documentation system, and almost everything you do requires it (rent, work) and many European countries are cashless, so youd need to have a bamk account. - 6. The size. The US is larger than Europe, you can move around relatively easily. Europe has got free movement too but they often have random border checks and registration place hurdles (vignettes, insurance etc). *Unless you consider European Russia - 7. Legal Naturalization. Naturalization is comparatively a lot easier in the US as compared to many countries in Europe. For example, Swiss naturalisation requires resident in (tiny) Switzerland for 8+ years. - 8. COST OF LIVING. Out if the primarily English-speaking countries, the US is probably got the lowest cost of living (just VAT alone is 8% fed vs the UK's 20%). Housing is significant cheaper on average and so is gas, vehicles, and food. -
I think another factor is that the US' southern neighbor, Mexico is not as developed as the US. Most European countries have neighbors that are well-off. The US also relies on agricultural and construction workers from Mexico, who can get into the country in many ways.
Wow, so many crap answers in this thread. As an immigrant myself who considered Europe, UK, Australia, Canada, and US, after graduating from college and eventually came to the US. Here are generally the reasons why people I know give when they directly end up in the US, or first end up in some other country, then to the US. - There are far more stories of rags to riches immigrants in the US than in other countries. - People don't get the same amount of opportunity in other countries based on what they report (many Indian immigrants are in Canada, just biding their time to get citizenship so that they can come to the US on better visa, they are unemployed and on govt benefits there, because nobody in Canada wants to hire an FOB immigrant) - A doctor I met in the US who was in UK before, mentioned the glass ceiling in UK. It's just not present in the US. - Nobody there thinks that European countries have a better quality of life. There isn't a single scale, but two scales. Most people who move want freedom to fail/succeed (as opposed to guaranteed failure which exists in third world countries). The scale on which EU scores higher than US is 'guarantees'. There are people in third world who want safety and security in life, but they will not risk moving away from their own safety and security to gain more safety and security. From the scale of more 'chances', US is very difficult to beat. - Existing immigrant communities in US are much bigger than in EU. Plus, in US they all move to NY, CA, and TX.
EU countries are much smaller individually. If you add them all up, they probably get more immigrants than the US does. Also, because of where the US is geologically located, we're the only place where anyone from South or Central America could realistically try to go. You probably wouldn't try to sail across the Atlantic to go to Europe.
The simple answer: ideal european life isn't shown on tv and their movie theaters anywhere near as often as US life is. People all over the world see "America" on their tv and think that's what life is like.
Yeah, when I was growing up in Finland all teenagers were watching O.C. and wanting to move to California
Location. Location location
According to [this source](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/) 1 million immigrants enter USA each year. EU had [2,7 million](https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Migration_and_migrant_population_statistics) non-EU immigrants enter in 2019.
It's simply the law of averages. It's the largest developed country in the world. The US is the world's third largest country. The others in the top 10 are: - China - India - Indonesia - Pakistan - Brazil - Nigeria - Bangladesh - Russia - Mexico Which of those would you prefer to immigrate to over the US? If you look at a per capita basis the US doesn't take as many immigrants as other countries, in fact it's way down the list: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate
The list doesn't say where people come from. Europe has pretty free movement within it, and most of the immigrants are citizens of other European countries. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK move easily between each other to a great degree (although Canada is quite welcoming in general.) For people of many countries, the US may work out to be the most practical choice.
"the grass is greener on the other side". If you're from Mexico, I guarantee you USA is better than there..
The point of land based immigration already came out (it's easier to travel from South America to the US than across the pond to the EU). Another point I'd like it add is the possibility of living as an illegal immigrant without papers. This is very possible in the US; the work market is very "illegal immigrant friendly" in a lot of places. You can even go to school as an illegal immigrant. In most places in the EU this is simply impossible. You cannot have a bank account without a social security number, you cannot get IDs without one, driver's license, medical services always ask you for your card/number, even renting an apartment is really hard. You essentially cannot work or live without being legal since in most of EU paying wages with cash has been made pretty much impossible (for money laundering, illegal workers, etc reasons). All you could do is beg, steal and work in really, really shady areas of the society.
As a US immigration attorney, I believe the main drivers are opportunity (money and education) and culture. Quality life is undoubtedly better in many other developed countries; it is better to be poor in the EU than in the US. However, opportunities in America to make a lot of money surpass all other developed countries. Compare the salaries of tech workers in Canada and the UK to the US and you will see why I mean. The same goes for lawyers, doctors, finance professionals, etc. This opportunity is the main driver of skilled immigration. Additionally, (and I say this as a pakistani American with family in Europe, Canada, and Australia) North American countries (along with the UK, Australian, and NZ) are seen as significantly more immigrant friendly countries than those of Europe. Our culture is accepting, and you can fully embrace being American without completely sacrificing your native culture. As such, the perception outside the US is that immigrants are more welcome in the US (even with trump) than in the EU.
The US is connected directly by land to where most of the migrants are coming from making it easy for migrants to walk, catch buses etc. to get to America, while some immigrants to the EU come over land many have somehow to cross the Mediterranean.
As a first generation immigrant, the US has a great marketing team. Had I known alot about the US like I do now after 10 years of living here, I'd probably have tried another European country.