For the same reason we can’t take 15min without the context of the US’s size, smaller countries having larger percentages also need to be contextualized. The raw number does have some meaning here. It’s also about annual rate of immigration.

[–] livus@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The US has been wavering between 16% and 15% for about a decade which is when I started taking an interest in this stuff. It's a fairly steady state.

My country has risen from 25% to 27% first generation migrants in that timeframe.

Per capita is a much more useful for comparing effects on total workforce etc.

It's not necessarily good or bad per se. I think there are so many variables at play, everything from type of migration, underlying birth rate of host country through to effect on housing stock and whether taxes and infrastructure can keep pace.

But yeah Biden's speech was just strange given that context.

[–] BolexForSoup@kbin.social 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It would be much more useful to look at it state-by-state as a few states are doing the heavy lifting. I say this as someone is decidedly pro-immigration. The logistics are no small matter

I live in Louisiana. Our only major experience with immigration was hurricane Katrina and they basically rebuilt our communities. I am eternally grateful.