I believe the term Jackknifed Juggernaut may be groping for here is, “Lawyered.” 
Perhaps you should first explain what the composition of Canadian immigration has to do with this conversation, besides intentionally muddying the waters to distract everyone from the real question asked by the OP. Obviously, my assertion wasn’t referring to every single immigrant. It was a generalization through my own observations, and in response to the article that Spoons introduced, which also didn’t prove anything one way or the other…except to plainly state that “Canada trails the US as the most desired global location”. Maybe ‘ignorant’ has a different meaning in Canada.:rolleyes:
So I’ll ask the question in a more straightforward manner: Can anyone here provide any evidence that, amongst people seeking to permanently relocate away from the country in which they currently reside, more would prefer Canada over the US? Because the article and study in question show otherwise.
In a public vote between 2 candidates, a 14% difference is better known as a landslide.
Thanks
Yes, I will agree that the US is not the first choice of some immigrants to Canada. The fact that some Canadian immigrants are from the US proves this.
I concede that elderly was not the right term. But this is really nitpicking, as they are referred to as ‘older’ in the article.
I never suggested that the researchers were Canadian, just that a Canadian newspaper chose this particular study.
This, again, not only proves nothing, but doesn’t add any relevant data at all.
It’s a statement based on experience. I never intended it to be taken literally, but it’s more realistic than “You’re delusional if you think the US is on top of the list”. Considering that the US is always included in this type of debate, and no other country is, I have a better case than anyone else here.
What the hell are you talking about?
That’s an expression of bias, not fact, and doesn’t really apply to the argument. The US has a lion’s share of world media, so other countries are bombarded with our news or products (Facebook, McDonald’s, Lady Gaga, NPR, tons of other stuff) on a fairly regular basis. You can’t say the same about any other country’s media penetration into the US.
But more relevantly, most members of this board (and indeed, general interest message boards overall) reside in the US.
An American who thinks America is the best country to live in has most likely never left the country, listens to too much patriotic propaganda, and definitely has not done their homework. Or they own a corporation and are in the top 1% 
“We live in hard times, not end times.” - Jon Stewart
TODAY!
Tough question. Looking at the OP’s criteria, the USA beats any other country on numbers 1 and 3, but I’m not sure about number 2.
I think that the American economy, American inventions, and, probably, American culture have made the world a better place, but the way number 2 is phrased makes it seem like the OP wants a country that intentionally uses its power to improve the world. When I look at the way the USA intentionally changes the world, a.k.a. its foreign policy, I see something that is for the most part selfish and destructive. The Vietnam and Iraq wars were started due to the influence of zealots in the USA pushing their agenda to garner more power for ourselves. We’ve supported (sometimes installed) dozens of dictators around the world to maintain our influence and support our economy. Some of the wars we’ve participated in have benefited the world as a whole (WWII, Korea, Gulf, Afghanistan) but I don’t believe that the USA participated in these wars magnanimously. Basically, we entered them out of the same selfish reasons, but they happened to have good results. But then again, are there any countries that base their foreign policy on anything other than selfishness?
You had 4 very good points, then you had to fuck it up with that last one. At least the missionaries were sent by the churches, not by the government, at least not directly.
Religion was our most shameful export.
But I agree that all in all, the U.S. is still #1.
There are not two candidates. There are many. In addition to the US and Canada, there are Australia, New Zealand, the UK, France, Germany, Spain, and any number of other countries that welcome immigrants.
I’m still waiting for a reputable cite that proves your original assertion: “People who immigrate to Canada only do so when they’ve unsuccessfully exhausted every means to try to get to the US first.”
So are you still trying to argue that ALL people who immigrate to Canada “only do so when they’ve unsuccessfully exhausted every means to try to get to the US first”?
I agree. Anecdotes are not data on this board, as we so often say, but speaking from experience, I know no immigrants personally who came to Canada only after being rejected by the United States. And given that close to one out of every five people resident in Canada is foreign-born (cite to 2006 figures), the chances of me knowing immigrants are very good indeed.
See above. When every fifth person is an immigrant, it has everything to do with the digression you began.
I agree that we’ve digressed from the question asked by the OP. But you began this digression; moreover, you did so with a bold assertion: "“People who immigrate to Canada only do so when they’ve unsuccessfully exhausted every means to try to get to the US first.” You have, so far, provided no proof that your assertion is true.
Hell, I’m the one digging up cites to prove my point. Maybe you can find some to prove yours.
Really. Let’s recap: “People who immigrate to Canada only do so when they’ve unsuccessfully exhausted every means to try to get to the US first.” Hmmm. “People” indicates to me that it’s all people. Otherwise, you would have said something like, “most people,” or “many people,” or “some people.” Or you might have said something similar to “I believe that people who immigrate to Canada…” But you didn’t. You went for the sentence-starting, all-inclusive “people.”
And you did not indicate in post 71 that it was a generalization based on your own observations. You can certainly generalize, and you can use your own observations. But in post 71, you neither stated that you were generalizing, nor basing your conclusion on your own observations. I would suggest that your conclusion as originally stated in post 71 is invalid unless you observed and perhaps also interviewed immigrants to Canada–some of whom, as we proved above, selected Canada as their first choice of destination, and thus likely never even tried to get into the US. As such, they never needed to “exhaust every means to get into the US first,” (your words).
Note that you are certainly entitled to your opinion in this matter; what bothers me is that you stated it as a fact, but you are unable to prove that fact. I’m the one providing cites that your assertion is wrong.
No, I believe you provided your assertion first. You stated “People who immigrate to Canada only do so when they’ve unsuccessfully exhausted every means to try to get to the US first” in post 71 to this thread; and I didn’t respond by citing the Globe and Mail until post 74.
Maybe it does. Here, it means “unaware” or “unknowing.” What does it mean in the United States?
You’re moving the goalposts. I’ve already conceded that more people (in raw numbers and percentages) want to move to the US. But this was not your original assertion. You said–aw, hell, I’m tired of copying and pasting it. You know what you said. By now, everybody here does.
Phew! Thank you! Yes, I would suggest that this is Jackknifed Juggernaut’s opinion (which he is certainly entitled to); but my problem is that he presented it as fact. It is not, as I have proven.
Finland has been number 2 on my personal list. Plus any country that can produce a guy like Simo Häyhä kicks butt.
#1 Don’t forget the US civil war. That would reset you to 1865 for stable for the whole country and continuous for the south. This puts the US behind Bolivia.
#5 That’s in the bad category, not the good category. “Trailblazer for religious tolerance is what you ought to have gone with.”
You’re desirable in so many ways.
I’ll be a data point. I emigrated to Canada from the US, and I’m glad I did. Wish there was more surf, but that’s geoscience, not politics.
Wrong! Both last year, and this, I was swimming in Lake Huron in May, thank you very much!
And I didn’t see ‘warm sunny days’, in the criteria for ‘greatest nation’. I mean, Russia vs Canada, is kind of a wash surely, when we’re talking weather.
I’m going with Canada, not only because it’s my home, but because it’s so awesome. I mean, we invented Peacekeeping, for the world. How’s that for creative use of armed forces?
I think maintaining a lower profile than ‘world power’ is both useful and advantageous, in today’s world.
(Part of my thinks we are watching the fall of Rome, south of the border!)
You realize, I hope, that your own observations really aren’t of a lot of value in deciding why 250,000 people you don’t know and have never met decided to move to a country you don’t seem to know a lot about.
The heck with “every one” - the vast majority of Canadian immigrants did not make an attempt to go to the USA first.
That I certainly will not try to defend because I don’t think it’s true. Canada is simply not as well known a destination, it’s not easily gotten into, and the horrible weather turns a lot of people off. Also importantly, since Canada has a smaller population, the number of people abroad with connections here is smaller, so it’s a self-perpetuating cycle; people are likelier to emigrate to a place where they have family already, and so that makes it a lot likelier that a prospective newcomer has family in the USA. But that’s not the same as claiming people who go to Canada only do so because they can’t get into the USA. That doesn’t really even make a lot of sense.
As Spoons points out, as long as we’re talking anecdotes, I’ve *never *met a new Canadian who tried to get into the USA first and only came here because they didn’t work. (And people love to tell their immigration stories.) When you live in the Toronto area you meet tons of them; Canada is one of the most immigrant-heavy places in the world as a percentage of the population, and Toronto is the epicentre of immigration.
I don’t get it. The USA had a continuously operating constitutionally directed government from before the Civil War to after it. They didn’t even delay elections. In terms of “stability” the vast majority of the country never heard a shot fired in anger. If “stability” counts then Canada can’t count back to 1867 because we had a rebellion after that.
Yes, some Southern states disagreed. But they lost, so that matter was settled to the satisfaction of the constitutionally arranged government.
I wouldn’t count the posse comitatus dorks, or the War of the Regulation or any other localized insurrection, but a full-on civil war seems different, whether you win or lose. I would argue that if you’re having a civil war, that more-or-less violates the stable condition. For example, I would have no problem with restarting England’s clock after Cromwell, around 1630.
Wikipedia takes a stab at the question with a list of sovereign states by date of formation, which is very interesting. The US gets to be counted from 1781 when the British surrendered.
There’s a sortable list with the column ‘date of last subordination’ (which sounds a bit kinky), which has the UK at 843 (although both 1066 and the 1600’s sound relevant), Sweden, Bhutan and Nepal would all be contenders for being older than the US. If you accept the civil war = unstable argument, then most of Latin America is in.
I’d assume that to be true with the vast majority of immigrants in most countries, or at least in most immigration-heavy countries. I don’t think most people looking to emigrate make a list of desirable countries in decreasing order and then apply to each one of them, going down the list only when they get rejected. For the most part they already know people in their target country, or they’re already living there on a student visa.
Yes, it’s worth mentioning that immigrating to Canada isn’t especially easy to do. It requires a lot of time and effort. Jackknifed Juggernaut seemed to be under the impression that prospective immigrants who’ve been rejected by the US can simply apply to Canada and get in. That’s not how it works.
Now as for what is the “greatest” country in the world, I don’t know, but I’ve noticed that people like to nominate their own. Going with the OP’s criteria, the US is certainly influential, but I’m unsure in what measure they use this power and influence to bring positive changes to the world. The US uses its power to improve its own conditions (or the conditions of its leaders, anyway); not necessarily for altruistic purposes. Still, they do a lot of good in the world (after all, what is good for the world will be good for the US, in most cases), but they also do evil. They may still come out in front, but I don’t know how I’d quantify that.
Again, that comment was never the primary purpose of my post. It’s funny how of all the unsupported opinions shared in this thread, most of them anti-US, that my comment is the one that Canadians are focusing on. Again, this thread has been all opinion-driven from the beginning. I didn’t see anyone object to Post 61, for example, which is why I had to chime in to begin with.
First of all, your observations don’t count either, since once they’re there, people tend not to admit such things, for pride and patriotism .
Contrary to your observations, almost every single Canadian family I know (and there are dozens) tried to leave India for the US first. Canada was always the second or third choice. I admit, this is going back at least 2 decades for most of them. Now that they reside there, they of course say they prefer Canada to the US, so this is all consistent with your observations as well. This was the source of my comment, and I should have stated that from the beginning. If this struck a nerve to Canadians, I hereby apologize. Heck, if I ever had to leave the US, Canada would definitely be my first choice.
Tuvalu, actually. I know, right?
In all seriousness, I can’t believe what a pointless, useless, insupportable argument this is.