++Addition++John Derbyshire, who like Razib Khan epitomizes everything our approach to immigration should aim for, takes note at The Corner. I should point out, as Alex brings up in the comments, that the percentages are not of a country’s total worldwide population that lives in the US–I do not have sufficient data for that. Instead, the table shows the population living in the US as a percentage of the total population currently living in the home country.
The following table shows the the number of each country’s native populace–by place of birth, not simply by descent–that is currently residing in the US as a percentage of that country’s own resident population. Data are available here. All figures are from 2007:
|Country||US population||% in US|
|Trinidad & Tobago||225,239||21.32|
|Bosnia & Herzegovina||119,768||2.63|
Relative to size on the international stage, Western hemisphere countries to our south are not surprisingly represented most heavily. Ireland has a considerably larger portion of its native population living in the US than anywhere else in Europe, something people in New England are most aware of.
The acerbic criticism that whiterpeople newspapers like the LAT are slitting their own throats in their support of open borders should be expanded to include their foreign focus. Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, and North Korea are frequently in the news even though few people living here actually call any of those places home. To the extent that Hispanic immigrants with eighth grade educations find interest in American newspapers, it’s not because of their coverage of the Middle East “Peace Process”. Meanwhile, Mexico, which should interest everybody in the US, is short-shafted.