BF2S Forums If the U.S. is such a shitty place to live

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Shitness of original country and ability to get to new country are probably bigger factors. Crappy countries near to total hell-holes would likely have higher immigration per capita than nice places that are surrounded by other nice places.

That's why immigration per capita is a very bad way to measure desirability of a country. You get wierd results like Iceland and Scandinavia being very undesireable, but Saudia Arabia being one of the most desirable places in the world.

Our population is still primarily a Euro-American one. They didn't all get here by walking. European country of origin is still about the same as Mexican country of origin here.

Not really.  While it is true that nearly all Americans can trace their origins to immigration and white ethnicities make up most of our population, the majority of modern immigration is from Mexico, South America, South Asia, Africa, and East Asia.  Most of the countries of origin are poor, or at least much poorer than the U.S.

The same is true for most First World nations.  The largest immigrant group in the U.K. is Indians.  The largest immigrant group in France is North Africans.  The largest immigrant group in Canada are South Asians.

Most immigration occurs due to economic interests.  Ever since the early 1900s, most immigration to America is focused on economic opportunity in the same way that it is for all other major First World nations.  Proximity does play a big part in who chooses to come to your country as well.

All immigration is based on economic opportunity.

Isn't most statistic based on the % of the total population? If so the more people you have the less the number become. That's why you see most countries with somewhat low population towards big one stands out. because it would be a bit higher than normal.

Those numbers are so old too, would be nice to see some new numbers.

Kmarion wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Our population is still primarily a Euro-American one. They didn't all get here by walking. European country of origin is still about the same as Mexican country of origin here.

Not really.  While it is true that nearly all Americans can trace their origins to immigration and white ethnicities make up most of our population, the majority of modern immigration is from Mexico, South America, South Asia, Africa, and East Asia.  Most of the countries of origin are poor, or at least much poorer than the U.S.

The same is true for most First World nations.  The largest immigrant group in the U.K. is Indians.  The largest immigrant group in France is North Africans.  The largest immigrant group in Canada are South Asians.

Most immigration occurs due to economic interests.  Ever since the early 1900s, most immigration to America is focused on economic opportunity in the same way that it is for all other major First World nations.  Proximity does play a big part in who chooses to come to your country as well.

From 1990-2000 (according to the last census) there were 309,175 Mexicans that became naturalized. During that same time there were 291,455 Europeans naturalized. That's not that far off.

It is true that most immigrants come from poorer countries. I was not disputing that. That's common sense that also applies to immigrants migrating to Western Europe. Implying that the proximity and relative economic disparity is the only reason is not entirely accurate neither. We still get a large chunk of immigrants coming from Europe.

and there are 7 times as many Europeans, making the relative immigration rate from Mexico 7 times higher than that of Europe.

I didn't say they were the only factors, I said they were bigger factors. There's also percieved similarity between the migrants home/prefered culture and the place they are going to. Also things like population density relative to resources, fluctuations in economic situations, wars, natural disasters, language, immigration policies, pre-existance of ethnic minority groups in the country, etc.

Overall, you can't look at immigration numbers and make any sort of claim about a country's 'desireability'. There are far too many other factors that need considering.

Kmarion wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

From 1990-2000 (according to the last census) there were 309,175 Mexicans that became naturalized. During that same time there were 291,455 Europeans naturalized. That's not that far off.

It is true that most immigrants come from poorer countries. I was not disputing that. That's common sense that also applies to immigrants migrating to Western Europe. Implying that the proximity and relative economic disparity is the only reason is not entirely accurate neither. We still get a large chunk of immigrants coming from Europe.

and there are 7 times as many Europeans, making the relative immigration rate from Mexico 7 times higher than that of Europe.

I didn't say they were the only factors, I said they were bigger factors. There's also perceived similarity between the migrants home/prefered culture and the place they are going to. Also things like population density relative to resources, fluctuations in economic situations, wars, natural disasters, language, immigration policies, pre-existence of ethnic minority groups in the country, etc.

Overall, you can't look at immigration numbers and make any sort of claim about a country's 'desireability'. There are far too many other factors that need considering.

Of course there are plenty of other factors.. but it's stupid to ignore obvious things like the amount of people actually coming here to live. Look closely at what I said. I know there are more Europeans than Mexicans. I never claimed otherwise. I've acknowledged things like economic conditions and proximity. (Note the italic "only") However you have failed to explain why there is still such a large amount of Europeans (as a whole) coming to America to live.. please, do tell.

It's due to The USA's low relative population density vs resources and the existance of a wide range of different pre-existing cultural groups. The US still hasn't reached an equilibrium with Europe in terms of populace v land/resources. Also over half of Euorpeans speak English, so they can go to the US without learing a new language, whereas moving within Europe (or from the US to Europe) typically requires the need to learn a new language, which is a pain in the arse.

To the OP: I recall a study that regions with messed up day light cycles (Alaska or Greenland, for example) or long, gray winters have a higher suicide rate. I count 1, maybe 2 countries on your original list, Macbeth, that do not fit this criteria. All the others? Very long winters that don't get much sunlight or places where the sun can stay up in the sky for days, weeks or even months at a time.

For the countries on the list that don't fit the criteria:
1) Portugal - no idea, can't think of anything.
2) New Zealand - probably because the economic situation in NZ is rather bleak (so say my New Zealand friends). Lots of farmers and little to no industrial development... it's certainly a developed country, but not in the sense of Australia or the US. Again, I've never been there, this is just a theory based on what I've been told about the country.

Looking at the actual link, though, the top 5 are all former communist countries and we all know how great the economic and social development was in the USSR. Japan? Well the Japanese have a tradition of ritualistic suicide. Guyana? No idea. Probably lack of jobs and other such things. Ukraine? Again, USSR. South Korea? Another country with ritualistic suicide. Sri Lanka just came out of a long and brutal civil war - I wouldn't be surprised if that depressed a lot of folks. Finally, Hungary - I've been there and that can be a pretty bleak place. Beautiful countryside in the spring and summer, but economically? It sucks.

So we have lots of countries with all rather poor economic development over the past 50 years and then two countries where suicide is ritualistic and one that is unexplained. Question answered. I doubt it has anything to do with Galt's post about conservative vs. liberal.

=NHB=Shadow wrote:

also which country is really chill with asians cause i dont like white people baggin on me all the time, if their black its okay.

lol wut?

move to london/NYC and live in chinatown in that case.

DST, not EE. GTFO