| > It's a facts based argument and I'm the only one in this discussion so far that is actually using facts. Your facts-based argument is that people in Detroit would move to Canada if the immigration policy was relaxed? I see no facts at all around that assertion, which is the one I was calling simplistic. > What does bordering have to do with Canada's regressive immigration policies that prevent low skilled, low education persons from immigrating into the country? You said (paraphrasing): >> Why are there no hispanic people in Canada, relative to the US I said: >> Because it's not bordered by Mexico (And, by the way, Mexico is the #1 source of immigrants for the US). > The US isn't bordered by Pakistan, India, Vietnam, China, Philippines, or El Salvador. Six of the top 10 immigration countries for the US. Out of those 6 countries, one would qualify as contributing to the Hispanic or Black population in the US (the groups we were discussing). Out of the top 10, none are from countries in Africa or the Caribbean (which we might also consider to be a "black" population). So we can agree then, that the US's diversity w.r.t. black people has nothing to do with immigration? > See: population growth over time in Nevada, Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, etc. Silicon Valley exists precisely because the US works that way. Those are also states that have heavy immigrant populations because they're attractive for skilled workers or close to natural entry points. You'll have to cite a source stating that the growth in those populations is from internal movement. The US as a whole is fairly close to replacement rate births, so we would actually expect populations to remain stable. |
My facts based argument goes back to the original parent discussion that you joined, which is: the US is considerably more diverse than Canada and that that is due to very different immigration policies over time. I've overwhelmingly backed that up.
Would poor people have immigrated out of Detroit and into Canada as Detroit collapsed, seeking a drastically superior social safety net, free universal healthcare, etc.? Hell yes they obviously would have.
> You'll have to cite a source stating that the growth in those populations is from internal movement.
You can't actually believe the US has historically lacked for internal movement (in fact it's only very recently that that has been the case).
California's population in 1960 was 16 million. The US total hispanic population in 1960 was 6.x million. As recently as 1970, California's white population was nearly 80%. In 1970, 16 million of California's 20 million people were white - how did they get there? Millions of people moved to California from other states, famously, in the post WW2 era.
Las Vegas, which makes up a quarter of Nevada's population, is 44% white, 11% black and 7% asian today. How do you think those people all got there? The Las Vegas population figure was 8,422 in 1940.
I'm certain I don't need to cover Arizona (boomed internally similarly to Nevada), Texas and Florida. Florida has very famously seen vast internal US migration as older people flooded the state over decades.