How would you rate the Anglo countries on how well they assimilate immigrants/newcomers?

[Bootes Void]

Between the U.S, U.K, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, how would you rate their ability to assimilate immigrants into their culture. Here's what I think:

1. U.S
2. Canada
3. New Zealand
4. Australia
5. U.K

What do you think?

[beesley]

I would say

1. Canada
2. US
3. New Zealand

Big gap

4. UK
5. Australia

I think the American dream still is a pull factor for many, even if it is hardly realised. That being said I think the fact that immigration is a huge part of Canadian culture means they do it better almost by default, but you can correct me on that.

I think here immigrants are better integrated than is sometimes made out in terms of life and livelihood but in terms of culture, less so.

[Meclazine for Israel]

At the end of the day, the human condition reveals itself irrespective of country.

Look at the Japanese. They don't allow others to become citizens of Japan, yet they started half of WW2 because of they were not allowed to emigrate to UK, USA and Australia.

I don't think people change that much between countries that they need to be ranked.

[mileslunn]

I would say

1.  Canada
2.  Australia
3.  New Zealand
4.  US
5. UK

Despite Australia's image of being somewhat racist, immigrants tend to perform fairly well there.  I think actually how well they assimilate has in big part more how they are selected.  First three use points system so most are likely to be higher skilled ones who tend to assimilate more easily.  Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want. 

I think Canada beats Australia because multiculturalism is more entrenched in their culture than it is in Australia while UK lowest as country wasn't built on immigration like other four.  At same time I think one cannot ignore methods for selecting.  I somehow suspect if Canada's immigration was more focused on low skilled than high skilled, public opinion wouldn't be quite as positive.

[Хahar 🤔]

I think the American dream still is a pull factor for many, even if it is hardly realised. That being said I think the fact that immigration is a huge part of Canadian culture means they do it better almost by default, but you can correct me on that.

This is not necessarily directly germane to the topic at hand here, but among people like my parents (that is to say, highly skilled immigrants), Canada tends to be seen as a backup option if residency in America is not available. It's not uncommon to see people migrate first to Canada (or, less often, Australia or New Zealand) and subsequently to America. The reverse does not typically happen to people who have a choice in the matter.

[WindowPhil]

I would say

1.  Canada
2.  Australia
3.  New Zealand
4.  US
5. UK

Despite Australia's image of being somewhat racist, immigrants tend to perform fairly well there.  I think actually how well they assimilate has in big part more how they are selected.  First three use points system so most are likely to be higher skilled ones who tend to assimilate more easily.  Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want. 

I think Canada beats Australia because multiculturalism is more entrenched in their culture than it is in Australia while UK lowest as country wasn't built on immigration like other four.  At same time I think one cannot ignore methods for selecting.  I somehow suspect if Canada's immigration was more focused on low skilled than high skilled, public opinion wouldn't be quite as positive.

From a U.S perspective, Australia definitely seems more multicultural than the U.S for sure. They have an entire Public Television Channel dedicated to a catch-all multilingual population, which I wouldn't expect to see (even privately funded) in the United States. There's ones in Spanish of course, but those are only in 1 language and controversial (not to mention they're seen through a "racial justice" lens moreso than a "multiculturalism" lens, since language is tied to Hispanic-American racial identity).

Australia has a 30.0% share of immigrants in their population. Canada has 21.3% and New Zealand has 22.3%. Meanwhile the United States sits at 15.4% and the U.K sits at 14.1% (source)

My question is why the U.S is so assimilationist and against multiculturalism compared to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

It makes sense Britain is like this considering that it wasn't set up as a settler colony originally. But the U.S is really big on making sure new arrivals conform to being culturally American by the third generation.

Why is the U.S less of a salad bowl than the other 3 British settler colonies, and more focused on conformity and assimilation?

[CumbrianLefty]

I'm biased, but I really don't think the UK does *that* bad a job here.

[Hatman 🍁]

I think the American dream still is a pull factor for many, even if it is hardly realised. That being said I think the fact that immigration is a huge part of Canadian culture means they do it better almost by default, but you can correct me on that.

This is not necessarily directly germane to the topic at hand here, but among people like my parents (that is to say, highly skilled immigrants), Canada tends to be seen as a backup option if residency in America is not available. It's not uncommon to see people migrate first to Canada (or, less often, Australia or New Zealand) and subsequently to America. The reverse does not typically happen to people who have a choice in the matter.

While this may be true, we did get an influx of people from the US seeking refugee status during the first year of Trump administration. There was even one guy who marched through Minnesota during the depth of winter to get to Manitoba, and ended up losing his hand due to frost bite.

[_.]

United States
Canada
New Zealand
Australia
United Kingdom

Among family and friends I know dozens of people who used Canada as a stepping stone to immigrate to the United States, even being able to attain Canadian citizenship while they were there. While Canadian assimilation levels are slightly lower than American ones, ease of access in our northern neighbor is quite high.

I'm biased, but I really don't think the UK does *that* bad a job here.

It does much better than most European countries (e.g. France) that's for sure.

[Samof94]

At the end of the day, the human condition reveals itself irrespective of country.

Look at the Japanese. They don't allow others to become citizens of Japan, yet they started half of WW2 because of they were not allowed to emigrate to UK, USA and Australia.

I don't think people change that much between countries that they need to be ranked.

True. They do have a partial exception towards the diaspora though like the Fujimori family.

[Samof94]

I would say

1.  Canada
2.  Australia
3.  New Zealand
4.  US
5. UK

Despite Australia's image of being somewhat racist, immigrants tend to perform fairly well there.  I think actually how well they assimilate has in big part more how they are selected.  First three use points system so most are likely to be higher skilled ones who tend to assimilate more easily.  Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want. 

I think Canada beats Australia because multiculturalism is more entrenched in their culture than it is in Australia while UK lowest as country wasn't built on immigration like other four.  At same time I think one cannot ignore methods for selecting.  I somehow suspect if Canada's immigration was more focused on low skilled than high skilled, public opinion wouldn't be quite as positive.

From a U.S perspective, Australia definitely seems more multicultural than the U.S for sure. They have an entire Public Television Channel dedicated to a catch-all multilingual population, which I wouldn't expect to see (even privately funded) in the United States. There's ones in Spanish of course, but those are only in 1 language and controversial (not to mention they're seen through a "racial justice" lens moreso than a "multiculturalism" lens, since language is tied to Hispanic-American racial identity).

Australia has a 30.0% share of immigrants in their population. Canada has 21.3% and New Zealand has 22.3%. Meanwhile the United States sits at 15.4% and the U.K sits at 14.1% (source)

My question is why the U.S is so assimilationist and against multiculturalism compared to Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

It makes sense Britain is like this considering that it wasn't set up as a settler colony originally. But the U.S is really big on making sure new arrivals conform to being culturally American by the third generation.

Why is the U.S less of a salad bowl than the other 3 British settler colonies, and more focused on conformity and assimilation?

Much stronger national identity I imagine.

[CumbrianLefty]

I think the American dream still is a pull factor for many, even if it is hardly realised. That being said I think the fact that immigration is a huge part of Canadian culture means they do it better almost by default, but you can correct me on that.

This is not necessarily directly germane to the topic at hand here, but among people like my parents (that is to say, highly skilled immigrants), Canada tends to be seen as a backup option if residency in America is not available. It's not uncommon to see people migrate first to Canada (or, less often, Australia or New Zealand) and subsequently to America. The reverse does not typically happen to people who have a choice in the matter.

While this may be true, we did get an influx of people from the US seeking refugee status during the first year of Trump administration. There was even one guy who marched through Minnesota during the depth of winter to get to Manitoba, and ended up losing his hand due to frost bite.

Ha ha, you find Darwin award contenders amongst all shades of political zealot.

[The Simpsons Cinematic Universe]

I know it doesn't directly relate, but I want to take a minute to complain about Canada. In Canada they have this stupid belief that the US' "melting pot" metaphor is meant to be something akin to a smelting facility where everyone is smelted into a uniform gooey mass. It's kind of an absurd take from a country that doesn't really do things that differently.

The US system is pretty good at allowing minorities to exist in separate but integrated communities until they are enticed by opportunity to assimilate further. If that is a good thing or not, I don't really know.

[King of Kensington]

Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want.

That's increasingly less the case for the US.  Latin American immigration has decreased significantly since 2010 and today more Asians than Latin Americans are immigrating to the US.  And more college graduates - the post-2010 immigration flow is more educated than the US native-born population.  So US immigration is looking more similar to Canada and Australia.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/09/24/21st-century-immigration-favors-asians-and-college-grads-as-the-us-foreign-born-share-rises/

[Tintrlvr]

Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want.

That's increasingly less the case for the US.  Latin American immigration has decreased significantly since 2010 and today more Asians than Latin Americans are immigrating to the US.  And more college graduates - the post-2010 immigration flow is more educated than the US native-born population.  So US immigration is looking more similar to Canada and Australia.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/09/24/21st-century-immigration-favors-asians-and-college-grads-as-the-us-foreign-born-share-rises/

I think the point was more about immigration laws than actual immigration, and it's true that the US has immigration laws that favor family unification and other connections to people already in the US over skills. The reality may be that immigration laws don't affect what types of people immigrate very much, though, if immigrants to the US and Canada are not that different.

In particular, it's hard to compare this point because the largest group of lower-skilled immigrants in the US are Central American immigrants, who mostly arrive by land and would have to cross the US to reach Canada so of course mostly just stay in the US but might go to Canada if it were equally convenient; comparable lower-skill groups who have to fly to either the US or Canada are not much different in the US vs. Canada.

[King of Kensington]

If anything Asians in the US are less working class than Asians in Canada.  That's certainly true for South Asians.  Indian Americans are overwhelmingly professionals, while Sikhs - the largest South Asian subgroup in Canada - have a large blue collar component and don't have exceptional levels of educational attainment.

East Asians seem more similar socioeconomically. 

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Comparing four New World countries to an Old World one is a little silly.

[King of Kensington]

Comparing four New World countries to an Old World one is a little silly.

You're free not to take part, you know.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Comparing four New World countries to an Old World one is a little silly.

You're free not to take part, you know.

I apologise if my tone was sharper than intended

I do think you can compare this sort of thing with societies that are comparable. So certainly with the four New World countries listed. Similarly, we can fairly compare the Old World one with other European societies. Mixing the two is (hah!) a little problematic. Blut und boden versus shining cities built on hills of native bones.

[Derpist]

1. New Zealand
2. Canada
3. United States
4. Australia
5. United Kingdom

[morgieb]

I'm biased, but I really don't think the UK does *that* bad a job here.

Compared to most parts of the world most of the countries do a pretty decent job, I think.

[ingemann]

I'm biased, but I really don't think the UK does *that* bad a job here.

UK do a crappy job at it, but I’m not sure that they’re fundamental worse at it than the other countries. Honestly I think it really depend on where the immigrants comes from more than how good a job the country does.

While the perspective of how good they are assimilate people depend more on how much they don’t talk about any of the problems. Australia as example have been great at assimilating immigrants, but because Australians aren’t afraid of being honest about the problems they meet with some groups and aren’t afraid of embracing solutions liberals hates, they get a reputation for not being good at assimilate people.

[Geoffrey Howe]

From everything I have seen, people are much more comfortable with immigration when they feel they can control it. You can see this a bit in Britain, and I believe something similar happened in Australia.

As for Canada,

Anglo-Canada has been largely exempt from anti-immigrant backlash for three reasons in my opinion:

1) Our geography isolates us from the sort of immigration that drives backlashes. We border the United States. If we had a failed state a short boat ride away like the Italians, I'm sure our attitudes would be different.

2) Our immigration policy is surprisingly restrictive. We slect for the sort of immigrants who are unlikely to cause a backlash. Immigrants to Canada tend to be fairly well educated, speak the language, and find work quickly, which reduces resentment.

3) Canadians are xenophobic, but due to our highly regionalized cultures, our xenophobia is frequently directed at other regions of Canada. In the Maritimes you frequently hear grumbling about "come from aways" taking the jobs and straining the healthcare system. People aren't talking about Pakistanis or Syrians when they say that. They're talking about white people from Ontario.

[Samof94]

Latter two (although UK with Brexit and new system moving to points system) focus more on low skilled to fill jobs Americans and Brits don't want.

That's increasingly less the case for the US.  Latin American immigration has decreased significantly since 2010 and today more Asians than Latin Americans are immigrating to the US.  And more college graduates - the post-2010 immigration flow is more educated than the US native-born population.  So US immigration is looking more similar to Canada and Australia.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2018/09/24/21st-century-immigration-favors-asians-and-college-grads-as-the-us-foreign-born-share-rises/

I think the point was more about immigration laws than actual immigration, and it's true that the US has immigration laws that favor family unification and other connections to people already in the US over skills. The reality may be that immigration laws don't affect what types of people immigrate very much, though, if immigrants to the US and Canada are not that different.

In particular, it's hard to compare this point because the largest group of lower-skilled immigrants in the US are Central American immigrants, who mostly arrive by land and would have to cross the US to reach Canada so of course mostly just stay in the US but might go to Canada if it were equally convenient; comparable lower-skill groups who have to fly to either the US or Canada are not much different in the US vs. Canada.

That element is absent from the other countries in the same way.!