> The pace of the last 10 years has been jarring

Is this satire or just solely based on feelings? The rate of legal immigration hasn't changed significantly since 1990 (35 years ago) when it had a huge spike (during Bush1); it then spiked again during Bush 2.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

afpx 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Buddy, the US currently has highest % immigrant that it has ever had, and it's getting really close to the max that a non-authoritarian government can sustain.

For comparison, here are the immigration rates for top 20 most populated countries:

India (0.3%), China (0.1%), United States (15.2%), Indonesia (0.2%), Pakistan (1.7%), Nigeria (0.6%), Brazil (0.7%), Bangladesh (1.7%), Russia (5.3%), Mexico (1.3%), Ethiopia (0.9%), Japan (2.8%), Philippines (0.1%), Egypt (10.0%), Vietnam (0.3%), DR Congo (1.0%), Iran (4.2%), Turkey (8.1%), Germany (19.8%), Thailand (5.0%)

I understand that lots of people want to live here, but we're not just going to crash our country for some extra GDP. You guys can have all the mega global corps.

	▲	delecti an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Okay, so you aren't actually talking about the immigration rate, you're talking about the percent of people who are immigrants. That has nothing to do with the "pace of the last 10 years", it comes down to the pace of the last 50 years, coupled with the selection of people you happen to see around you. And taking a break for 20 years will still leave all of those foreign-born people here, unless that was (too subtly for me) suggesting the immigrants already here leave. And who's to say that a country can't sustain a high foreign-born population without authoritarianism? Germany's is even higher, and the US maintained a comparable level for 70 years in the 1800s. That seems like a wild claim.