Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Rammstonna t1_j0zrfmw wrote

I see the inferior to and superior to concept is still not understood.

17

Slow-Substance-6800 t1_j0zx2di wrote

I’ve lived in both Japan and Brazil and this makes me wonder a lot.

It’s true that in recent years there are not so many people that would want to migrate to Brazil but some cities like São Paulo were a hub for immigrants, and a big percentage of my friend’s grandparents were born in different countries, me included. I’m not sure if those old folks are being counted in this because A. It was a long time ago and B. It’s very easy to get a Brazilian citizenship, so they’re all Brazilian by now.

Maybe this map is showing recent migration, or maybe it’s just not considering people that became a National of the country. Idk for sure.

Add that to the fact that a considerable number of refugees moved to Brazil like from Venezuela, Haiti and parts of Africa in recent years. Idk if they have been counted as well.

Now about Japan… if you ever walk around Tokyo and walk around São Paulo, there’s no way you think that Tokyo has more immigrants. Maybe main areas like shibuya and Shinjuku but outside of that it’s all Japanese. Although I know that there are very significant Chinese and Korean communities, idk how are they being counted based on the citizenship law. Some people (idk if the percentage is high enough to even make it but..) have been born in Japan for several generations but refuse to “become Japanese” because Japan doesn’t allow dual citizenship, therefore they would still be foreigners by this metric?

Idk the definition of a migrant, basically.

14

Willing_Animator_993 t1_j10bvdy wrote

I would presume the definition would be the people living there but born abroad? Looking this up for Japan and Brazil, it gives 2 and 0.9 percent respectively on Wikipedia, so in the ranges corresponding to the colors. May it be that SP is lot more international than rest of the country? Brazil has actually a huge population - much bigger than Japan, meanwhile Tokyo is bigger than SP. So even if SP is more international than Tokyo, that doesn't seem impossible to go with these stats, as long as the rest of Brazil would have lot less immigrants.

11

Slow-Substance-6800 t1_j11zrt6 wrote

You have a good point there. São Paulo represents a small percentage of the whole country because of how populated Brazil is, while Tokyo is represents way more.

The Extended Metropolitan Area of São Paulo, according to Wikipedia, has 33 million people. Brazil has 213 million people. SP is around 15.5% of the country.

The Greater Tokyo Area has 38 million people. Japan has 125.7 million. Over 30% of the country.

So my experiences in Tokyo are a greater representation of the overall country than my experiences in São Paulo, even if the cities are similarly sized.

5

BigHead3802 t1_j135o4b wrote

I live in São Paulo and there are a lot of immigrants here.

Peruvians, bolivians, venezuelans, haitians, arabs, chinese etc. Both my parents are immigrants.

3

pk10534 t1_j11j4rq wrote

I almost wonder if this data would be better represented by total number of migrants (not that this doesn’t have value in and of itself, of course). I just say that because while Australia would “only” need 8-9 million immigrants for them to constitute 33% of its population, the US could have 130 million migrants (almost half the global total) and it still wouldn’t be over a third of its population. It would be medium green, actually, not even dark green here. Either way, still very interesting!

5

BigHead3802 t1_j135wr3 wrote

Good point. I live in Brazil and I've met plenty of migrants here. I think a map of total number of immigrants would be more representative.

1

pk10534 t1_j14iv8g wrote

Brazil, Colombia and Peru surprised me because I know they’ve each taken in quite a few Venezuelans…I mean hasn’t Colombia taken in over a million just by itself? And that’s just from one country. But then when you factor in how large your country and my country and others are, it makes sense. But, at the same time, this data doesn’t reflect that the US has around 50 million immigrants (almost 25% of the global total) and would make you think we’re slacking lol. And I bet Brazil and others and underrepresented too

2

RareCodeMonkey t1_j0zx8qf wrote

It is a weird comparison, at least for the European Union and probably for others, as a Norwegian moving to Sweden counts as an immigrant, even that the guy may be moving just a few kilometers. But a Californian moving to Florida is not accounted as migration as that guy stays in the same country. The same happens for other big countries like China or Russia were people travelling thru time zones and cultures ends up in the same country.

So, the map is interesting and correct, but it would add even more information to see kilometers travelled or some other metric that takes distance into account.

4

curiossceptic t1_j112iwg wrote

Why is that a weird comparison?

Moving to a different country, with a different language, political structure, culture, history etc. cannot be compared with migration within a country.

Furthermore, distance travelled doesn’t necessarily reflect larger changes, eg California stretches over 1600km from North to South, yet you are still in the same state, speaking the same language etc. Traveling 200 km, which is roughly the distance between LA and San Diego, in Switzerland or Belgium will make you end up not only in a different subnational administrative division (i.e a different state) but also in a completely different language region.

13

RareCodeMonkey t1_j12r44g wrote

>Moving to a different country, with a different language, political structure, culture, history etc. cannot be compared with migration within a country.

It is way more similar Sweden to Norway than California to Florida.

> also in a completely different language region.

Not really. The laguage is different but very similar as countries share history and until a hundred years ago any village would have been able to talk to all the villages around it indepdendenly of which country they were in. Language changed gradually from village to village.

Any Spanish speaker can read many words and sentences in French, Italian or Romanian as they share much in common. Swedish and English have a lot in common, Spanish and Portuguese the same, Norwegian and Swedish are extremely similar like Danish (even that nobody really understand the Danish when they speak).

Even culture in the South of Spain is more similar to the one in the North of Africa than to the one in the North of Europe, as there is shared history and both are Mediterranean locations.

In my view, Chinese and French are really completely different. Finnish and Swedish are completely different, even that they are phisically very close (but many Finnish people speaks Swedish because again they live close by).

Countries are administrative regions for legal purposes, but culture is more permeable than that.

You are right that migration between countries means something, I just think that it is misleading in many cases at least in Europe (and probably other parts of the world) as there is a strong shared history.

−1

Pepinorojo t1_j17qklu wrote

As a Spanish that have lived in Norway among many other countries, I couldn’t agree more. I can see a lot of “shared” values between Spain and Italy, France or even Netherlands, but I can’t see many with Nordic countries.

2

JohnGalt123456789 t1_j11l3s1 wrote

Very interesting, but… I have some objections. There is essentially zero immigration to KSA, but there are piles of expats working hard for the Saudis. Those should not count as “migrants”.

2

BostonOnFire t1_j0zpjor wrote

No way Poland is accurate.

1

emptybagofdicks t1_j10p9i3 wrote

I'm sure the data is not recent enough to account for the Ukrainian refugees.

2

kicia-kocia t1_j10td4l wrote

It might also account only for permanent residents as opposed to refugees/refugee claimants/ temporary immigrants (such as seasonal workers, or in general workers without a permanent status, temporary visitors, international students etc).

I imagine most Ukrainians in Poland don't have a permanent status. Though i might be wrong.

2

HereItsDani t1_j10yifn wrote

Why is French Guiana a different color than France altho is actually France?

1

[deleted] t1_j12qzd3 wrote

[deleted]

1

coolamericano t1_j15906o wrote

I think you may have misinterpreted what this means. Red places are by and large the places so miserable (like Afghanistan and Somalia) that nobody wants to move there.

1

TisButA-Zucc t1_j16ki5h wrote

No one wants to travel to a country, must be heaven on earth then I'm sure.

1

Gussy_Fring t1_j1m7nw7 wrote

Sooooo wrong. Come to India and I'll show you my state Assam which is more than 50% filled with illegal bangladeshi miyas.

1

Altruistic-Cherry-92 t1_j1flr0f wrote

The madness is Chile, an underdeveloped country, in political and economic crisis, which grows less than Haiti, with corrupt and mediocre politicians, with a government of incapable socialists and communists, with a huge bureaucracy, which accepts and accepts immigrants. And next year will be worse. Do not come friend. Chile is very bad.

0