A reader writes [By the way, this is just the reader's rough draft, so don't blame him for anywhere that it's not fully developed.]
Sword here again.
Every so often, propulation replacement in the USA is lamented/castigated by the iSteve commentators. The most recent time that happened, that got me thinking:
Which country is the most resitant to population replacement?
Of course, there are a lot of poor hellholes that do not attract anyone except those who have a specific reason to be in just that country (miners, diplomats, criminals in need of a failed state, etc) but that is not what we are looking for. Instead, we should limit the question to only those countries which are so well-run so that there are significant numbers of people from other ethnic groups that would be interested in living there, if they could. In order to make the discussion more productive, it is best to limit it to countries those in the top of some statistical league.
I choose the 47 countries that are in the top quartile of the wikipedia list on Human Development Index (HDI) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developed_country
These countries are:
classified as possessing a "Very high human development".
Norway, Netherlands, Ireland, Liechtenstein, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Iceland, Denmark, Belgium, Austria, France, Slovenia, Finland, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, Czech Republic, United Kingdom, Greece, Cyprus, Andorra, Estonia, Slovakia, Malta, Hungary, Poland, Lithuania, Portugal, Latvia.
Australia, New Zealand
United States, Canada
Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Israel, Singapore, United Arab Emirates, Brunei, Quatar, Bahrain,
Latin America and the Carribbean:
Chile, Argentina, Barbados
There were no African countries in this august list, the top one - Seychelles - coming in at #53.
So, what characteristics of a country would be protective against population replacement?
First, I classify borders into 4 categories:
1. Easily walkable - to pass the border requires walking, but no special outdoor skills, nor skills in evading border patrol. Many borders in Europe fit into this category.
2. Trekkable - to pass this border, one has to walk in harsh terrain, but it is doable for the average healthy adult. Mexico-USA border is in many places an example of this.
3. Transportable - no private person can walk, swim or boat past this border with vehicles commonly owned by usual people. Getting past it requires paying costly air or boat tickets, or being a stowaway. Iceland is surrounded by these borders.
4. Blocked borders - these borders are staffed with border patrol units tasked with apprehending or killing anyone attempting to pass except in designated chokepoints, and the borders are fortified with man-made hindrances that are intended to stop, impede, or make obvious any attempt at non-authorized border crossing. Examples include the border between East and West Germany, borders around the Spanish exclaves in North Africa, and the borders surrounding Israel.
Secondly, there are 3 major types of political system in these countries:
1. Two-party democracy with single-seat constituiences - USA is a prominent example. Duverger´s Law dictates that there will be 2 parties in such a system, and that makes it very difficult for an immigration restriction party to thrive and survive.
2. Multi-party democracy with proportional representation - Most of Europe follows this model. Most countries also have a restrictionist party, which is linked to the fact that the hindrances to market entry is much lower in such a political system.
3. Non-democracies - applies to some asian countries.
Division according to founding history of the country
1. Founded by recent immigration into a land inhabited by pre-industrial tribes - USA and NZ fit into this category. NZ is much better off, since it was only colonized by one major overseas group, and the native population is both more cohesive and less afflicted by social ills than the minority groups of USA. The founding myth/ethos/whathaveyou of immigration as a nation-creater makes it more difficult to get acceptance for a immigration stop.
2. Traditionally monoethnic countries - do not have any ethnic minorities of any significant size, or have been like that until fairly recently. This is obviously the best case.
3. Duoethnic countries - two relatively large ethnic groups that completely dominate over any 3rd groups. The relation between the 2 major groups can be friendly (Finland) or more hostile (Belgium) or something in between (Canada).
4. Truly multiethnic countries, with the Austrian Empire as probably the best example.
In some cases, countries move from one category to another, either as a result of a friendly split (Czechslovakia, going 3->2), or war splitting a country into many pieces (Austrian Empire, post-WWI), or a war shaving off the outer minority fringes of a country so that only the monoethnic core is left (Hungary, post-Trianon), or various mixed cases.
Division according to popularity of language
1. National language is widely spoken outside the borders of the county - USA is a good example. This makes it much easier for an illegal immigrant to keep his head down, while at the same time getting hired.
2. National language is uncommon outside the country - Iceland is probably the best example. This makes it difficult for illegal immigrants to find a job, and minimally function in a society.
What other factors are there that act as protectors against population replacement? Which if those will be still there even if the political class is OK with importing people?
This could be put into a Excel project, but one should probably have defined all other factors before doing that.
My hunch as to which countries are most resistant, in order:
2. South Korea
6. New Zealand
What is your bet/ordering?
I'm wondering if Germany isn't surreptitiously creeping up onto this list? And what about Israel? Until this century, Italy was strong on "move 'em on."