That one earns you a warning, Haberdash. It is against the rules to directly insult another poster. If you absolutely must please do so in the BBQ Pit.
I think my explanation is more likely true, but fair enough, I can’t prove it.
Allende’s Chile wasn’t. If that counts.
According to this, they mainly emigrate to other capitalist democracies: the U.S., the UK, and Canada. If capitalist democracy was worse than communist dictatorship, one would expect them to head for communist dictatorships, right?
No, I’m mocking the idea that the emigration rate tells you much about the merits of a socioeconomic system. People don’t leave Jamaica because it’s a capitalist country, they leave because it’s a (relatively) poor country near a very rich one, and because Jamaicans have more opportunities to emigrate than, say, Malians.
Not with a sample this small, no. That the very rich countries are democratic and capitalist probably means something, though. Exactly what is hard to say, since the most successful nations would be less likely to have communist revolutions.
I don’t think you can judge much about a country from small differences in emigration rates, but if one country has net immigration and the other has net emigration it’s a pretty good indication of which country is the better place.
Sure. Not sure how that applies here usefuly though. In Cuba’s neighborhood you basically have some very wealthy people immigrating to enjoy sun, low taxes and cheap labour then you have a bunch of poor people emigrating to escape poverty.
Small island nations in particular appear to fare particularly badly in terms of net migration. The bottom 20 (small island nations bolded):
Tuvalu
Republic of the Congo
Guam
Lesotho
Virgin Islands
El Salvador
Saint Pierre and Miquelon
Sao Tome and Principe
Puerto Rico
Somalia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Guyana
Moldova
Samoa
Maldives
Nauru
Tonga
Federated States of Micronesia
**American Samoa **
Syria
Only 24% of nations are islands.
Perhaps they fear global warming is going to eliminate their homelands. And it probably will, in some cases. Of course, hope of earning more money elsewhere is almost certainly a much stronger motive for emigration.
And then again, there’s a number of island nations in the top 20, so maybe I have no point:
Lebanon
Qatar
Zimbabwe
British Virgin Islands
Jordan
Libya
Cayman Islands
Singapore
Bahrain
United Arab Emirates
Anguilla
Turks and Caicos
Cyprus
Aruba
San Marino
Luxembourg
Norway
Spain
Isle of Man
Yes and no. I would expect the very poorest countries to have pretty low migration rates in normal times. Very poor people are often too downtrodden or uneducated to realize how bad their conditions are, and too uneducated and malnourished to make a productive worker in a richer country. For example, India has huge differences in development between states (it’s highest state HDI is equivalent to Russia, it’s lowest to Burundi). emigrants tend to come disproportionately from the most advanced states, not the least. likewise, France is not full of Malian and Nigerois immigrants.
IF you can afford it (from your cite):
That’s $290 where the average monthly wage is $20. And, of course:
By contrast, most of the Italian immigration to the US in the late 19th and early 20th century was disproportionately from Sicily and southern Italy in general, which were economically depressed at that time. This is why “Italian-American” pop culture is disproportionately Sicilian and southern-Italian in origin. E.g. pizza, putting oregano on everything, rumors of mob connections, etc.
Right - just like the Sultan of Dubai is administering his oil wells.
Regards,
Shodan
I spot a few tax havens in that list (e.g. Caymans, Luxembourg, Isle of Man), so money is still a factor.
“Spain” is probably just all the British retirees moving to where it’s warm and sunny - it’s basically the UK version of Florida.
It’s not the emigration rate that is a reflection on Cuban communism; it’s the restrictions on emigration that the Cuban government put on their citizens that is terrible. It was contrary to international law (the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights), and clearly indicated that the state was more important than the citizens.
So what? Free individuals get to decide for themselves where they want to live.
Well I guess Castro wanted doctors more than he wanted a free country.
Right, just like South Carolina planters in 1845 wanted fieldhands more than they wanted a free country. Exactly like that, in fact.
Still “not defending Castro?”
I stated a pretty obvious point. You realize I am a different poster than the person you called a defender before, right?