Thank you for the civil response. (Two posts in a row!)
Correct. I would have preferred the data that way. But, I found it interesting nevertheless because it provides information nevertheless on the magnitude of the issue. There are an awful lot of people from certain countries who don’t like living in systems built by their parents and their parents’ parents, and who want to live in systems built by the parents and parents’ parents of other people.
This webpage is blocking part of your first graph.
The part being blocked shows that in 2017 the US was hosting 49.8 million international migrants. Germany was hosting 12.2 million.
For 2017:
Country____Population_______International migrants as a percent of total
Germany ___82.1 million________14.9%
US_______ 325.1 million________15.3%
In 2000 the percentage for the US was 12.3% vs Germany’s 10.9%.
I should have added the obligatory “click to embiggen.” Sorry. And thanks for the percentages.
Now, for the US and Germany there are differences in where the migrants originate. I think that probably matters. People bring their culture with them to a large extent, and there are differing degrees of assimilation. (If everyone was the same, there’d be nobody talking about benefits to diversity.)
My guess is that Germany’s recent large batch of immigrants include some of the same bad apples that we are told are nonexistent who have taken to lobbing grenades at synagogues in Sweden. In the US we don’t have folks with those tendencies in the same proportions. Not coincidentally, taking down with Christmas bombing plots has become a growth industry in Europe. My guess is that the ramifications for the economy are very different in Germany (and other parts of Europe) than in the US.
The main difference between Germany and the US was that Germany did not do comprehensive screening before immigrants were allowed entry. And Germany applied pressure on all other EU countries to accept unscreened immigrants which has caused problems in the EU itself.
How could EU countries screen an immigrant standing in their country? Only the immigrants know for sure where they are from, what education they have received, what jobs they have held, whether they have a criminal record, or whether they are a religious fanatic.
And the matter was handled in a way that invited the next uncontrolled rush to Europe’s borders. Now Europe is bribing Turkey to keep the immigrants there.
The US uses a system of comprehensive screening which has worked well for us. Except for the illegal immigrants who enter with no screening whatsoever. There are bad apples in latin America too. (Drug lords and their army of employees) And at times the Democrats argue vehemently that those illegal immigrants should never be deported, which is an invitation to others in Mexico, Central America, and wherever, to rush to the US border. President Trump campaigned against illegal immigration and after he was sworn into office, illegal immigration slackened dramatically.
The Germany and the EU has brought most of their immigrant problems on themselves.
I’m not sure how good our vetting is. The wife in the husband and wife team that shot up San Bernardino had posted anti-American material on social media and that wasn’t enough to keep her out. I happened to know an individual who was trying to get a green card and eventually citizenship who was very open about disliking the US, as in flat out stating “I don’t like this country.” But that apparently falls under the delightful rubric of “cultural differences.” It doesn’t seem that a repeatedly stated dislike of the US is considered a good enough reason to keep someone out these days. See something say something requires the person to be actively working in mayhem. Reporting them otherwise just makes you a racist in 2017.
Fortunately he doesn’t seem violent, but my guess is a lot of the assholes who go and try to blow something up don’t seem violent to a lot people who know them for too.
I believe that we had much less vetting before 2001 and have been slowing increasing it since then. It seems that President Trump is tightening that vetting even more and he will get some flak for it.
I doubt that there has ever been or ever will be perfect vetting.
But what we have is much much better than no vetting at all.
President Trump has already caught a lot of flak. He pointed out that it was very difficult to vet travelers from certain countries and halted travel from those countries until a better vetting system could be established. There were immediate cries of religious discrimination and lawsuits were filed.
Police officers violate the 4th amendment to the US Constitution when they use road blocks to search for drunk drivers. But the US Supreme Court justifies those road blocks on the grounds that it is a public safety issue. I read that police officers stop about one hundred drivers to catch 1 or 2 legally drunk drivers. Drivers who may or may not represent some real immediate danger to the public. (Remember they are not stopping these drivers for any perceived impairment.)
So public safety is paramount except when it is not.
With that as a given, I don’t expect that we will ever have the best vetting possible. But it will be better than nothing.
I see that a day after I put up this post, some asshat decided to demonstrate that Christmas attacks is a thing in Australia too. I find it interesting that while there are reports he is originally from Afghanistan and has made comments about being aggrieved about the treatment of Muslims, the police in Australia are not certain about his motive. I’ve noticed that this year that also became a thing – try desperately to find some reason for whatever the latest atrocity happens to be, as long as its not the one the jihadi stated.
The charts would be more informative if shown as percentages of population.
For example U.S. immigration is ~10% of population, whereas Germany’s is over 14%.
Longtooth,
Thank you for the civil response. (Two posts in a row!)
Correct. I would have preferred the data that way. But, I found it interesting nevertheless because it provides information nevertheless on the magnitude of the issue. There are an awful lot of people from certain countries who don’t like living in systems built by their parents and their parents’ parents, and who want to live in systems built by the parents and parents’ parents of other people.
Mike Kimel,
This webpage is blocking part of your first graph.
The part being blocked shows that in 2017 the US was hosting 49.8 million international migrants. Germany was hosting 12.2 million.
For 2017:
Country____Population_______International migrants as a percent of total
Germany ___82.1 million________14.9%
US_______ 325.1 million________15.3%
In 2000 the percentage for the US was 12.3% vs Germany’s 10.9%.
JimH,
I should have added the obligatory “click to embiggen.” Sorry. And thanks for the percentages.
Now, for the US and Germany there are differences in where the migrants originate. I think that probably matters. People bring their culture with them to a large extent, and there are differing degrees of assimilation. (If everyone was the same, there’d be nobody talking about benefits to diversity.)
My guess is that Germany’s recent large batch of immigrants include some of the same bad apples that we are told are nonexistent who have taken to lobbing grenades at synagogues in Sweden. In the US we don’t have folks with those tendencies in the same proportions. Not coincidentally, taking down with Christmas bombing plots has become a growth industry in Europe. My guess is that the ramifications for the economy are very different in Germany (and other parts of Europe) than in the US.
Mike Kimel,
The main difference between Germany and the US was that Germany did not do comprehensive screening before immigrants were allowed entry. And Germany applied pressure on all other EU countries to accept unscreened immigrants which has caused problems in the EU itself.
How could EU countries screen an immigrant standing in their country? Only the immigrants know for sure where they are from, what education they have received, what jobs they have held, whether they have a criminal record, or whether they are a religious fanatic.
And the matter was handled in a way that invited the next uncontrolled rush to Europe’s borders. Now Europe is bribing Turkey to keep the immigrants there.
The US uses a system of comprehensive screening which has worked well for us. Except for the illegal immigrants who enter with no screening whatsoever. There are bad apples in latin America too. (Drug lords and their army of employees) And at times the Democrats argue vehemently that those illegal immigrants should never be deported, which is an invitation to others in Mexico, Central America, and wherever, to rush to the US border. President Trump campaigned against illegal immigration and after he was sworn into office, illegal immigration slackened dramatically.
The Germany and the EU has brought most of their immigrant problems on themselves.
JimH,
I’m not sure how good our vetting is. The wife in the husband and wife team that shot up San Bernardino had posted anti-American material on social media and that wasn’t enough to keep her out. I happened to know an individual who was trying to get a green card and eventually citizenship who was very open about disliking the US, as in flat out stating “I don’t like this country.” But that apparently falls under the delightful rubric of “cultural differences.” It doesn’t seem that a repeatedly stated dislike of the US is considered a good enough reason to keep someone out these days. See something say something requires the person to be actively working in mayhem. Reporting them otherwise just makes you a racist in 2017.
Fortunately he doesn’t seem violent, but my guess is a lot of the assholes who go and try to blow something up don’t seem violent to a lot people who know them for too.
Mike Kimel,
I believe that we had much less vetting before 2001 and have been slowing increasing it since then. It seems that President Trump is tightening that vetting even more and he will get some flak for it.
I doubt that there has ever been or ever will be perfect vetting.
But what we have is much much better than no vetting at all.
President Trump has already caught a lot of flak. He pointed out that it was very difficult to vet travelers from certain countries and halted travel from those countries until a better vetting system could be established. There were immediate cries of religious discrimination and lawsuits were filed.
Police officers violate the 4th amendment to the US Constitution when they use road blocks to search for drunk drivers. But the US Supreme Court justifies those road blocks on the grounds that it is a public safety issue. I read that police officers stop about one hundred drivers to catch 1 or 2 legally drunk drivers. Drivers who may or may not represent some real immediate danger to the public. (Remember they are not stopping these drivers for any perceived impairment.)
So public safety is paramount except when it is not.
With that as a given, I don’t expect that we will ever have the best vetting possible. But it will be better than nothing.
Mike Kimel,
I read the 4th amendment, but incorrectly wrote the 6th amendment in my last comment.
I see that a day after I put up this post, some asshat decided to demonstrate that Christmas attacks is a thing in Australia too. I find it interesting that while there are reports he is originally from Afghanistan and has made comments about being aggrieved about the treatment of Muslims, the police in Australia are not certain about his motive. I’ve noticed that this year that also became a thing – try desperately to find some reason for whatever the latest atrocity happens to be, as long as its not the one the jihadi stated.