[oblio]

> America, meanwhile, has decent native birth rate

No, it doesn't. It's about 1.8 and dropping, and most of the higher values in that group are from recent immigrants, which are also having fewer kids. Educated folks also have lower fertility rates.

The US is basically a mirror of Western Europe in this regard:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/226292/us-fertility-rate...

> AND a culture that's always willing to accommodate new people.

I'd argue that the biggest factors by far these days are:

1. English (very accessible due to music, movies, TV shows, etc).

2. Lots and lots of natural resources facilitating lots of businesses which aren't really feasible in say, Germany, France, Japan.

3. Large population bringing economies of scaling facilitating advanced businesses paying high salaries.

Otherwise someone who travels around the US and Western Europe, for example, will be quite surprised at the cultural convergence and immigration levels.

Most of your comment is a perception from 2-3 decades back, at least.

[graeme]

>No, it doesn't. It's about 1.8 and dropping

The OECD average is 1.67. America has a relative advantage

Here's a dataset of various countries' fertility rates: https://splash-db.eu/dataset/population-indicators/

[flerovium]

Yes, but much of the difference in the average is due to recent immigrants.

[TrapLord_Rhodo]

That's literally the point he made above... America has always been a nation of immigrants. This is a good thing, not something to be singled out and act like it's a negative.

[spaceman_2020]

Even at 1.8, it's higher than the rest of the developed world.

And America always has the option of simply opening the gates a little and fill up the gap with practically any immigrant group it wants.

[skissane]

> Even at 1.8, it's higher than the rest of the developed world.

Not true. If you look at OECD data – https://data.oecd.org/pop/fertility-rates.htm – the latest year for which the OECD has complete data is 2021, in which it records a US TFR of 1.6. The following countries all recorded higher TFRs than the US – Israel (2.9); Mexico (2.1); France, Colombia and Turkey (tied at 1.8); Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Sweden (all tied at 1.7). The US, at 1.6, was at the OECD Average (1.6), tied with Australia, Belgium, Chile, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Slovenia and the UK.

I suppose you might argue 2020 was a rather abnormal year due to COVID. Well, 2019 was pre-COVID, in which the US was still only 1.7 – just a a bit above the OECD average (which was 1.6 in 2019 too). In 2019, US fertility was tied with Australia, Costa Rica, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Ireland, New Zealand, Sweden; it was beaten by France, Colombia and Iceland (all 1.8), Turkey (1.9), Mexico (2.1), and Israel (3.0).

US fertility is not an outlier at all by developed world standards. It is somewhere between average and slightly above average. And I realise some OECD members might not be considered "developed" by everyone's standards – such as Costa Rica, Colombia, Mexico or Turkey – but the US is regularly equalled or bettered by countries which generally are accepted as such, e.g. Australia, Denmark, France, Ireland, Israel, New Zealand, Sweden.

[kevviiinn]

Xenophobia and racism prevents that

[phatfish]

Racism and xenaphobia of the native population has very little effect on migration if the reward for the migrants is enough.

If a "developed" country wanted to stop migration they would work to raise the living standards at the source. There is less chance of that happening than removing xenaphobic behaviour from the natives however.

Or the "developed" society becomes more brutal than the place the migrant are fleeing from, so they stay away out of fear.

[wahern]

> If a "developed" country wanted to stop migration they would work to raise the living standards at the source.

Biden at least nominally adopted such as policy. See, for example, "U.S. Strategy for Addressing the Root Causes of Migration in Central America", https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Root-C...

But, AFAICT, it's mostly been a quiet public-private approach that in dollar terms isn't very substantial. See, e.g., https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases...

If you look at Haiti, Venezuela, etc, it seems the limiting factor here is an unwillingness of the U.S. to leverage any political muscle, either domestically or internationally. I presume that's partly a consequence of Iraq and Afghanistan, but also probably because for some large factions, especially on the left but increasingly on the right, in American politics any form of involvement is unacceptable. It's almost like a radical ecological argument: the rest of the world is in a state of nature, and any intervention by an external agency is per se morally evil; the moral imperative is non-intervention, outcomes are irrelevant. Even those who don't hold this belief (explicitly or implicitly) at least understand the consequences: any perceived failure in intervention will be blamed on them, and nobody wants to face the ire of the religionists.

[seanmcdirmid]

> It's almost like a leftist ecological argument: the rest of the world is in a state of nature, and any intervention by an external agency is per se morally evil.

The USA will get flack if it meddles and if it doesn't meddle, they really shouldn't worry about world opinion at that point. More to the point, it is impossible for America to fix the rest of the world, even if that were the moral thing to do. Welcoming some immigrants from countries having problems is probably the best we can do.

[wahern]

There's a huge gap between isolationism and trying to "fix the rest of the world". But in the current political epoch nuance, pragmatism, and mercy seem to be alien concepts.

[Krisando]

> xenaphobia of the native population

People being afraid of the warrior princess is probably a good thing.

[alchemist1e9]

> Xenophobia and racism prevents that

Huh? My understanding is the US scores lowest of any country on objective measures of both.

Which country has less Xenophobia and racism? People throw out Canada often but I believe empirically that is false.

[faeriechangling]

Canada explicitly legalized racism so long as it’s done for equity purposes. In America the same laws would be unconstitutional and immigrants of all types coming to the country on a regular basis. This is a country where the median income of several immigrant groups outstrips that of the local population despite factors such as nepotism.

Define racism I suppose. Is racism inequality or inequity?

[zarzavat]

How is xenophobia measured empirically?

[DamnYuppie]

Probably by the ethnic distribution of the immigrants. Most of US immigrant are not white so I don’t understand your argument. Maybe only Canada has more diverse immigrants than the US.

[zarzavat]

What is the relationship between xenophobia and the diversity of immigrants?

Counter-example: Certain Arab gulf states, extremely large and diverse immigrant populations from all of Eurasia. Yet still super xenophobic to anyone who isn’t an Arab.

[kevviiinn]

Are you really defining diversity by skin color

[pradn]

> Lots and lots of natural resources facilitating lots of businesses which aren't really feasible in say, Germany, France, Japan.

This doesn't seem to be a big factor in the boom industries in the US: tech, finance, pharma. It does matter for construction, the biggest employer.

The US still seems like a more welcoming place than western Europe. Or at least you can take comfort in a suburban home and drive to people/institutions that are from your immigrant group.

We have an immigrant ethos that exceeds that of the UK, France, and Germany. Plus, our large number of decent universities means the masters/F1->OPT->H1B pipeline works well for many educated workers.

[oblio]

> We have an immigrant ethos that exceeds that of the UK, France, and Germany.

Again with the outdated mindset. Those countries have as many immigrants or more, per capita, as the US.

> Plus, our large number of decent universities means the masters/F1->OPT->H1B pipeline works well for many educated workers.

Those work well for drawing people in, but how well do they serve second generation immigrants or minorities? Universities in Europe are cheap or free, that's a whole lot more egalitarian.

The US speaks English, is big and has a TON of money. The US basically brute forces everything, which I guess works.

[ClumsyPilot]

> The US still seems like a more welcoming place than western Europe.

I personally know peolle that left US for UK because they found your immigration system unacceptable.

If you are from india, you might have to wait 10 years to get citizenship after fulfilling all requirements.

Uk immigration system itself is worse than that of France and many other countries.

It costs $10,000 to apply for visas for a family of 4. Thats just the money you pay to the government, assuming you never need a solicitor to help with the paperwork.

[lttlrck]

That's a side effect of the system using quotas to balance opportunity so immigration isn't overwhelmed by the most populous countries.

Of course that makes it very difficult if you are from India for example, but it doesn't make the system as a whole less welcoming.

[midoridensha]

>If you are from india, you might have to wait 10 years to get citizenship after fulfilling all requirements.

I read somewhere that the waiting line for Indian people is 180 years, not 10.

[oblio]

https://companiesmarketcap.com/largest-companies-by-revenue/

Exxon, Chevron, Marathon, Valero, Philips 66.

5 American oil and gas companies in the worldwide top 100 by revenue. A bunch of pharma & co, also dependent on cheap oil and gas.

[pertymcpert]

In the modern world, 1.8 is very solid. Easily can make up for that with immigration.

[bombcar]

At some point you run out of places for people to immigrate from unless you just empty entire countries.

[satvikpendem]

Until the US ceases to be a desirable destination for many immigrants, which could take quite a while.

[Dylan16807]

That's not something to worry about until the global population stops (rapidly) growing.