Immigration Reform not happening under Obama

[Barrister]

But for all that I think you're agreeing with me - Canada and Australia have much higher rates of immigration than the US does.

Does that include illegal immigration?

And no, Canada and Australia do not have higher "rates" of immigration at all.

In fact, one could see this simply by reading the article you posted:

As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than any other country in the world.[1] In 2006, the number of immigrants totaled 37.5 million.

You're confusing the rate of immigration (which is a per capita figure) with total immigration.

The US lets in more immigrants than any other country as a total number, but lets in fewer per capita than Canada and Australia.

[Berkut]

The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate

A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity

in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.

[Eddie Teach]

Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.

[ulmont]

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

Per capita makes a lot of sense for the assimilation reasons that Barrister mentioned earlier.  You aren't seriously going to say that if Liechtenstein took in 70,000 immigrants in a year (twice its population) that it would not stress Liechtenstein significantly more than for the US to take in 70,001 (a higher absolute rate)?

[Malthus]

The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate

A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity

in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.

Heh, this makes no sense at all.

"The US has ten times the rate of death of Canada!!!!oneone" is a totally meaningless figure, in the absense of the fact that the US has ten times the population of Canada. 

[ulmont]

Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.

Including the "net migration" (net immigration or emigration) rate per the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html

[Barrister]

The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate

A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity

in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.

Your post is so full of fury I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say.   

Are you trying to say my terminology was misleading or confusing?  Fine - I will cheerfully correct my prior post to reflect I was only talking about per capita rates of immigration.

Are you trying to say that looking at per capita rates of immigration is the wrong thing to look at?  I have to respectfully disagree with you if you are.

[Berkut]

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

Per capita makes a lot of sense for the assimilation reasons that Barrister mentioned earlier.  You aren't seriously going to say that if Liechtenstein took in 70,000 immigrants in a year (twice its population) that it would not stress Liechtenstein significantly more than for the US to take in 70,001 (a higher absolute rate)?

So you are saying that India can absorb 3 times as much immigration as the US, since they have 3x as many people?

[The Minsky Moment]

Canada and the US both let in very significant numbers of immigrants.  Not clear what the competition here is supposed to be about

Net migration rate per capita is a relevant consideration in measuring "burden" but not the only one.  The total raw number is also relevant on the assumption that each has to be processed administratively in some respect, and the administrative capacity of a country is not necessarily directly proportional to total population.

[Berkut]

The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate

A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity

in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.

Heh, this makes no sense at all.

"The US has ten times the rate of death of Canada!!!!oneone" is a totally meaningless figure, in the absense of the fact that the US has ten times the population of Canada. 

Except that one does in fact expect that all things being equal, the rate of death should compare, since the RATE that people die is in fact a function of how many people there are.

The rate at which people immigrate into other countries, or the amount that a country should allow to immigrate is NOT a function of the number of people already there. Obviously. In fact, it is completely independent.

[Eddie Teach]

Rates of demographic statistics tend to be per capita. Birth rate, death rate, murder rate, etc.

Including the "net migration" (net immigration or emigration) rate per the CIA world factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2112rank.html

We're 25th out of 181. I think it's fair to say we have a high immigration rate. (Australia and Canada are 15th and 18th).

Not a bit surprised that UAE is leading the list.

[Barrister]

So you are saying that India can absorb 3 times as much immigration as the US, since they have 3x as many people?

Comparing India and the US is pretty tricky, since India is still only a developing country, and is a country with no real history or experience with immigration.

Comparing Canada, Australia, and the US is fairly straightforward however.

[Barrister]

The rate at which people immigrate into other countries, or the amount that a country should allow to immigrate is NOT a function of the number of people already there. Obviously. In fact, it is completely independent.

I would agree with Minsky's post directly above yours.  Immigration is fairly closely tied to the overall population, although the correlation is not perfect.  To say that immigration and tht total population are "completely independent" is, well, wrong.

[Berkut]

The term "rate of immigration" does not imply per capita at all. It simply implies the rate

A quantity measured with respect to another measured quantity

in this case immigration per unit time, ie per year. You are tossing in the per capita, which means nothing, just because.

We might as well compare immigration compared to empty space, and conclude Canada is woefully behind the curve, but that would also be a foolish measure, but no more so than comparing per capita.

So no - the rate of immigration for the US is higher than any other country. Period. If you want to add extraneous variables like the total population, go right ahead, but refrain from playing the game where you add in extraneous variables, draw a conclusion, then kind of forget those extraneous variable later so you can bandy about completely different conclusions as if they were the same thing.

Your post is so full of fury I'm not actually sure what you're trying to say.  

Are you trying to say my terminology was misleading or confusing?  Fine - I will cheerfully correct my prior post to reflect I was only talking about per capita rates of immigration.

Are you trying to say that looking at per capita rates of immigration is the wrong thing to look at?  I have to respectfully disagree with you if you are.

I am saying your terminology is misleading, yes - because it is.

Now you are moving into ad homs and trotting out the "Oh Berkut is banging on his keyboard" schtick - very nice response - are you trying to move into the Fireblade/Jaron mode of argument? Maybe you could comment on my wife while you are at it, or point out that I was unemployed once.

And you can disagree all you like, but simply disagreement is not an argument, and you have not even tried to respond to my point that per capita immigration rates mean nothing, other than as ammunition for your little bizarre pissing contest.

No country should sit down and say "Gosh, our population is X, so we should allow Y immigrants in!" It has very little to do with it, otherwise we should all be noting how many people China and India allow in...oh wait, they are both net emigrant coutries.

[Slargos]

The CIA numbers look "off".

Last year's net migration was around 5.5/1000 for Sweden.

Indications are it will be higher this year.