Desire to Move Permanently to U.S. at New Low | Hacker News Reader

Desire to Move Permanently to U.S. at New Low

news.gallup.com

206 pointskarakoram217 comments

The sub-headline adds important context:

> U.S. still top destination as desire to migrate falls worldwide

So the US is still the top destination by a wide margin. Part of the decline is attributable to a global drop in desire to migrate at all.

Recent politics is undoubtedly part of it, but if you assumed the US had fallen behind other countries you should probably read the article.

If you live in a shithole the US will obviously be an improvement by comparison. But that's not news and ultimately meaningless.

The concern is that smart, productive, capable people now have better alternatives.

What are the options you're weighing right now?

I'm quite happy where I live. Colleagues that are in academics are going to Europe and some are going to China. Software guys are staying home and getting the opportunities to come to them through offshoring.

Did you look at the charts? The U.S. dropped precipitously, while other countries mostly stayed in the same range.

The UK also dropped precipitously if we’re looking at relative decreases.

Most other countries on the chart didn’t change much because going from 4% to 5% is in the noise.

The US started at a whopping 24% and ended at a number that’s still significantly higher than other countries.

As I said, politics played a role for sure, but when I read the comments before the article I expected to read about the US falling out of favor relative to other countries, which it has not.

The point is that "desire to migrate worldwide is down" is misleading because that downward trend is almost entirely due to the US. Most other countries are the same and Canada and Japan are even up.

This. Wanting to migrate isn’t a universal binary desire, it’s conditional. There is a cohort of people that wanted to migrate to the US and when that desire changes they do not wish to migrate at all. They don’t look for alternatives migration points, so the US and UK are moving the average downward.

>and Canada and Japan are even up

Because every H1B who planned to migrate to the US but got locked out by Trump is choosing Canada as the next best thing. That makes Canada sloppy seconds after the US, not more desirable than the US, assuming everything else being equal.

The UK dropping isn't surprising because of Brexit. It makes far more sense to move to an EU country.

Only if you are from an EU country.

If you look at the chart most of the decline happened before the Brexit vote, let alone Brexit. Since the brexit vote it has dropped from 5% to 4% which is not precipitous.

No, it makes sense to get into an EU country because it gives you access to so many more countries.

My niece was thinking of working in Ireland for a while and I told her that if she happened to stay for 5 years she could get an EU passport. It's a valuable thing.

On the other hand the UK speaks English and has strong ties with a lot of ex-colonies. Very few of those people would want to learn another language (maybe their third) to move to the EU (Ireland being the possible exception).

As a first generation (just - I was six years old!) immigrant I am quite happy my parents (my dad's employer gave him a choice) picked the UK over the US, and I cannot think of anywhere that would be better for me.

Moving countries has hard - having done it a few times. Even going to places where you known people and know the system.

Also the anti-immigrant sentiment that was exposed by Brexit is holding people back.

Maybe for a white European immigrant.

Looking at the rise of parties like AfD, National Rally, PVV etc. the EU is far more hostile to non-white immigrants.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/24/nearly-quar...

>the EU is far more hostile to non-white immigrants.

EU nations accepted millions of non-white migrants, especially post 2015 open border policy.

Not really, it seems a lot more extreme in Britain. We don't have anything like that unite the kingdom rally.

Very few people vote for the people running those parties. If you look at Restore's vote share compared to the EU ones I mentioned its far higher.

Reform polls higher than Restore but it turned down Elon Musk's money because it came with the condition that they allow the best known of the Unite the Kingdom leaders to join their party. Either it is to their credit, or they realise that voters would turn against them if they let him in.

The second Unite the Kingdom rally was less than half the size of the first: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/may/16/tommy-robin... My guess is that people went to the first as an anti-illegal immigration and asylum seeker protest and and as people have realised the real aims of the people behind it support has dropped.

What about this? https://www.dw.com/en/italy-thousands-attend-anti-and-pro-mi...

I don’t think it’s so binary. Russians are white but certainly not welcome in most of Europe. Fillipinos are not white, but of christian background - very highly regarded. Many africans are of christian, yet probably not making the cut because of cultural background. And yes in some places people are still kinda freaked out by skin color (I’m from baltics and while people most recognise their biases - they are still there).

I don't think it's as much a factor of religion. Europe is mostly atheist these days.

In the UK, the racists would definitely prefer Russians over Filipinos. I can understand why this would be different in the Baltics!

Its generally nothing to do with religion, apart from hostility to Islam. Its not hostility to non-Christians, its hostility to Muslims. What those sorts of people say about Muslims is very similar to what they said about Jews a 100 years ago, or about Catholics 200 years ago. Neither of those prejudices has entirely died (I read an article by a Labour politician whose colleagues used to ask whether he was waiting for orders from Rome) but its at nothing like historical levels.

Mostly talk of religion is a cover for talking about skin colour. Its also an attempt to import American style "Christian" nationalism which i think is going to fail because the UK does not have the same history, culture, or religion as the US: https://pietersz.co.uk/2026/10/christian-nationalism.

A lot of these people are "cultural Christians" which pretty much anyone can be. The range of "cultural Christian" goes from Richard Dawkins to Anders Breivik!

> In the UK, the racists would definitely prefer Russians over Filipinos.

I'm not talking about "the racists", but normal people and how they perceive normal world as they go thru their normal day.

One can wonder why UK dropped. Hm, what could be the reason?

If you look at the charts, the UK fell sharply around 2010, a bit more around 1026 - 2020 or so, and then recovered slightly. Lots of other countries had had sharp drops at some point (e.g. Japan around 2010) but the US drop seems more significant given its a far greater number to start with. France going from 5 to 4 is not really comparable with the US going from 24 to 15 over the same period.

I think "relative to other countries" it has fallen out of favor quite a lot. That's the story the data tell, unambiguously. What it didn't do is fall behind other countries in absolute terms, but in relative terms it did

The others are in the low single-digits. There isn’t anywhere to go, except off the list entirely.

I wonder how much the global population getting older influences the desire to migrate.

Wealthier and more connected too.

Maybe people are better informed?

When living in a country that had a very high per capita emigration rate, I realised a lot of people had a very rosy tinted view of the rest of the world and their prospects there.

1. Legal immigrants - mostly need skills or money (sometimes family ties or ancestry). They are mostly better off building a better life where they are.

2. Illegal immigrants - still need money (for people smugglers), get the worst jobs once they get there, and its a huge risk. They are also usually better off building a better life where they are.

Unless fleeing war or severe persecution most people are better off where they are these days.

Also, as someone in another comment said, the world is wealthier as a whole and there are more opportunities in many places.

> Part of the decline is attributable to a global drop in desire to migrate at all.

That's not what the article suggests at all.

The drop is calculated only from those who want to move.

Yes, it's still #1, but the drop that isn't a result of people not wanting to move. Instead, people that want to move are picking the US as the destination a lot less.

The two might be linked.

A drop in the desire to emigrate might have had a higher impact on groups who would have preferred the US, for example.

First, "might" wasn't the assertion.

Second, if you're right, that's worse.

Other countries are cracking down which makes desire to migrate less.

That subheadline is more misleading than the actual headline.

The average worldwide is down but that downward trend is largely due to the US. Canada and Japan are up and most other countries are about the same. UK is the only other own with a notable downward trend

just cite the numbers guys.

US market share of global desire to migrate

2007 - 24%

2016 - 20%

2017 - 18%

2025 - 15%

Canada is #2 and moved up from 7% to 9%

Taking the countries from the report.

2025 per capita, Est. Would-Be Migrants / Country Population, top 4 + US and UK:

Canada: 2.18

Australia: 1.47

Saudi Arabia: 1.17

Spain: 0.82

UK: 0.58

USA: 0.44

2025 per GDP, Est. Would-Be Migrants / Nominal GDP, top 5:

USA: $85.4k

Australia: $65.8k

Germany: $55.7k

Canada: $54.2k

UK: $52.6k

Yeah, as usual. Now treat the EU as one block and look at your numbers.

What's the point of normalizing per capita for the destination country?

i guess indicates the amount of "load" the destination country would have if they said yes to everyone. >1 is certainly too much

Ooups, had to run some corrections:

2025 estimated would-be migrants / destination population, top 4 +UK,US

Canada 1.93

Australia 1.29

Saudi Arabia 0.76

Spain 0.73

UK 0.51

US 0.39

2025 estimated nominal GDP / estimated would-be migrants, same countries

USA $228.5k

UK $110.8k

Spain $52.9k

Australia $51.2k

Saudi Arabia $47.4k

Canada $28.4k

The UK's downward trend has vert different timing. The sharp fall was in the early 2010s

Yes, but the US is bigger. Now do US vs rest of the world for example. Or take Europe as a continent and not many countries. We can draw arbitrary lines on maps and the bigger area will tend to have more migrants within it just because it is bigger. To make a fair assessment we probably need to do migrants per capita or migrants per square kilometers.

I did the math on the latter. Higher numbers mean more migration per km² of land, I made US 100% to allow easy relative comparison:

  United Kingdom 1076
  Germany 918
  Japan 694
  Italy 653
  Spain 519
  France 407
  United States 100
  Saudi Arabia 91
  Canada 59
  Australia 34

Now we can also do the same for per capita (which is a bit paradoxical, because that means bigger populations will get a lower index, but migration increases populations...), but that tells us where the smallest populations have to deal with the biggest number of migrants:

  Canada 494
  Australia 333
  Saudi Arabia 193
  Spain 186
  Germany 136
  France 132
  United Kingdom 131
  Italy 115
  United States 100
  Japan 73

As you can see the US is very close to the bottom on both of those lists.

Now if we wanted to make that even fairer it would probably be good to have a metric of migrants per km of built-on or habitable land or something to avoid skewing results for countries with a whole lot of inhabitable nothing in some areas. Canada and Australia are on the bottom in the first list (big countries with little population in comparison to their size) while they are on top in the per capita list.

As you can see it isn't as easy as it seems at first. What do we want to look at? Is it about land use? Is it about how big of a fraction is migrants? Or do we want to look at migrant per USD of GDP to see who would have the best/worst capacity to support migrants? Maybe we want to look at job markets?

All of that changes as you want to change the story, but what does not make sense is to just use absolute numbers based on national borders.

The decline seems to be much sharper for the US than other countries. Given the way that the current government has been arbitrarily revoking student visas, making it more difficult to get work visas, blocking green card application, etc., it seems reasonable that fewer people would want to immigrate to the US.

Let's skip the exceptionalism and go straight to the numbers next time.

The only proven method of stopping immigration to your country: make your country such a shit hole nobody wants to move to it.

> The U.S. remains the most desired destination for people who would like to leave their own countries permanently, but Gallup's latest data show it is less attractive than it once was

If you look at the charts, it seems that if the US is a shithole, then Canada is twice the shit hole, and France and Germany are twice that.

In fact, it doesn’t appear that there are any non-shitholes using this metric.

I think the US should facilitate immigration by probably expanding the H1B 10x and reducing the period for a green card and also overturn Euclid v Amber and NEPA (with state level CEQA style to follow) but the reality is that even an immigration-resistant US administration is far more popular than any other country as a destination; and that’s probably simply due to the fact that it’s the one Western economy that is still dynamic despite everything.

Stats are skewed by size and geography of the country.

>expanding the H1B 10x

One of the worst ideas I've ever seen, and completely out of touch with American workers.

Pretty sure he's also an H1B or previously a visa worker. Indeed, insanely self-serving and out of touch.

People are moving to the states not because it's a great country, it's because they're able to make money there. More money than in their home country. This of course is not an indicator of *general* attractiveness but it still makes the country itself attractive as most of the people are seeing more money as a way to have a better life.

Right. It stinks, but I can hold my nose for a whole while I make money. Pecunia non olet.

People are able to make a lot of money there because it's a great country.

I'm not sure that logic is solid. Expats move to Saudi Arabia because they can make huge amounts of money in a short time. Is, therefore, Saudi Arabia "a great country"?

compared to the US, SA salaries are quite low

Not necessarily in the industries that employ Western expats. After all, expats come because specialized labor is required, and specialized labor can command a higher salary. There are also perks like supplied accommodation (and sometimes a car) that lets one direct so much more money to savings.

The important part is the trend. US is a great country today but it was greater a decade ago.

As someone who worked in US and left it long time back, last year was the first time I could hear ambivalent views on US from my friends who work there. They are still in US as they make a lot of money but have started to consider the alternatives.

Fact is they won't move back until they make a lot of money.

How do Dubai, SA, Qatar and similar fit into that picture?

> People are moving to the states not because it's a great country, it's because they're able to make money there.

How are people with that mentality--here for the money, but don't buy into the underlying concepts--going to affect the civic structure of the U.S.?

Just look at our government. It's not going great for us.

But this government was voted for by natives at a higher rate than by naturalized citizens. It seems odd to blame them for this.

According to Blue Rose Research’s 2024 post mortem, Trump narrowly won naturalized citizens. In a way that illustrates the problem.

The countries most immigrants come from have both liberals and conservatives. Immigration can’t change the long-term political balance. What it does instead is change what kind of left or right wing candidate is viable. The Bush/Romney GOP would have been wiped out in a landslide under 2024’s demographics. But Trump was able to win Nevada and rack up the margin in diverse states like Texas and Florida with stupid policies like “no taxes on tips.” Theatrics, handouts, and patronage is how politics works in most countries immigrants come from. Trump can play that game, the old Anglo GOP couldn’t.

Over time, American politics will more begin to resemble the politics of the places the immigrants are coming from, with guys like Mamdani instead of Carter and Trump instead of Reagan.

When somebody like Mamdani (obviously not him since he's not a native) wins a presidential primary maybe I'll concede your point. All recent Democratic nominees have resembled the "normal," centrist candidates of yore; only the Republican party has adopted the intolerant, "theatrical" third-world style of politics so far (in the figure of Trump), and again, natives have always voted for him at higher rates than naturalized citizens.

As much as it pains me to concede points to Rayiner you might want to look into the Democratic caudillos in RGV, Texas

Democrats are better at the top. But the grassroots is visibly trending towards ethnic machine politics, which is very third world. A lot of grassroots-level Democratic messaging would be illegal under Singapore’s system for maintaining unity in its multiethnic society: https://amp.scmp.com/week-asia/politics/article/3329017/sing...

My point was that our current government is itself filled with people who are "here for the money, but don't buy into the underlying concepts" and it's been disastrous for the the civic structure of the country. I don't blame naturalized citizens specifically for electing our current administration, although many of them did. I suspect that some of those who didn't came here to get away from the kinds of corruption and abuse of authority we're seeing.

Probably not very much, considering the countries for which it's the easiest to pull off this type of move. Full naturalization naturally demands at least some commitment.

Here in Canada, before all this went down, the "work as a professional in the US, earn $$$$$, retire back in Canada or go back to a Canadian job with your pockets bursting with cash" was a fairly popular strategy in tech. I don't know how many people pulled it off in reality, but workers from either of our countries have/had some of the easiest pathways to working in the other one. I don't think either one is going to be very outraged at their neighbors coming over to work here.

In absolute terms, you can make more money. In relative terms, you'll spend more.

It doesn't scale linearly. You'd be underestimating how expensive it has become in most of the third world now-a-days. You'd be making 10x+ while spending a few times more. Spending also has a cap (depending on lifestyle). If you're in engineering your salary continues to grow with experience.

I don't know, man. For all intents and purposes, I live in a third world city state, Miami Florida. Everyone is angry, drivers are nuts, housing costs ~ x2 in less than a decade, etc. I haven't been to any third world countries, but I've been to Europe plenty and dread when returning back to the States. People seem to get by well, whatever I saw on the streets through my tourist glasses, the food tastes much much better and less expensive, and I wouldn't need 2 cars. Then there is the medical stuff and free education and more chill non-aggressive vibes. Same with our neighbors Canada. Here, it's a bloody deathmatch, last man standing.

For reference, I've for many years (35) lived in and around NYC/Brooklyn/New Jersey, LA, Las Vegas and Miami proper. Europe, I've been to Berlin, London, Paris, Strasbourg, Munich, and some I forget. It's a night and day difference and it baffles me that someone from there would want to live here. Cheers.

I mean that's fair. I disagree as a European though :).

If you take a good SWE salary in Munich (example 80k), and compare it to an average/solid software shop in the states that gives 200k. Expenses can comparatively quadruple and you will still have much more at the end of the month to do with as you please. You can live in so many places in the states where this salary is realistic. But only a handful of places in Europe even have salaries that could come close as a concept. Switzerland that could get you there has even higher expenses and even there only FAANG offers such salaries.

And outside of software, doctors in the states make many multiples compared to European ones. Most blue collar workers make multiples, lawyers make multiples, pretty much any job you take you can make much more. I agree that life is better in Europe and I'd choose to live here 9/10 times, but that's down to mentality and the fact there's a reason we're less productive than you.

This is a rabbity rabbit hole, but I'll leave with that I'd rather be in Paris, Berlin or London, make less money, but be able to go downstairs to a caffe and take a walk on a side of Siene, Rhine or Thames with my dog. Then hop on a fast train and be elsewhere fast. That's living, for me, but it’s late and is a fantasy.

I agree 100%.

I've seen claims that the median full-time income is ~€4500/month in Germany. That's around $60k/year, or ~$70k/year after adjusting for purchasing power. Which is a bit more than the equivalent figure in the US.

Many jobs pay really well in the US, but many more pay poorly. The top 10% are responsible for ~50% of consumer spending, and the typical American is not that well off.

Germany, like many other European countries, relies more on exports and less on domestic demand than the US. As a natural consequence, its immigration policy favors skilled immigration to keep top wages down. If the wages grow too quickly, your exports become more expensive than those of your competitors, and the entire economy suffers. And when the economy grows, it's better to use the surplus to raise typical wages than top wages.

This is an issue of trajectories. Perception of Canada and France has not shifted significantly in the observation period; the US dropped by an unambiguous 38%. So it's not about what the US was, it's about what it's become/becoming. An example of Newton's first law, if you will.

Or at least that's how I am interpreting the parent post...

Ah yes, just what we need, more H1Bs running around taking the jobs for which there are plenty of qualified unemployed Americans. That'll do wonders for us, I'm sure!

I don't think the OP is saying that the US is a shit-hole today. The US still has a lot of people who want to move there. By their definition, it's not a shit-hole yet. They're saying that US is going in the direction of becoming a shit-hole.

Excuse me, Hole of America.

abbreviated as the A-Hole country /s

You could sell that as a red hat to orange guy fans. You can have it made in China with a Sold in USA sticker and charge 2x. They’ll never notice the irony.

I've got a bridge with a name on it to sell you, greatest deal ever, no ones seen anything like it before

You don't even really need to have the military policing the capital and national police force shooting people in the streets. A significant economic downturn is enough to reduce immigration legal and otherwise.

From the graphs, it seems that knowledge of our non-dairy pavement is filtering through to other countries. But a longer term graph would be nice; I'd like to see how the indicator reacted over more economic cycles, but I know some visa categories that had been oversubscribed on opening day for years started staying open for most of the year when the mortgage crisis hit, and I'd love to see data from previous downturns, too.

The biggest drop is from SE Asia which is rapidly developing. I assume many more people wanna stay in their home countries or move to China instead

China isn't even mentioned as a destination at all. more people migrated to India than did to China ....

Yeah I would never ever move there. I had an offer just before Corona but naaah. The only reason I applied is that they advertised it as a local job at first.

While this administration is in place I don't even want to visit, even for work purposes I refuse. Especially the toxic manosphere culture at the moment.

I've lived in 4 countries but the US is not one that appeals to me. They pay the most but cost of living is also huge and besides that money isn't the most important to me. I'm making about 60% of what I would make in the same role in my home country. But that's ok because I enjoy living here a lot more.

What matters to me is quality of life, and a good social welfare system so I don't have to worry.

I wouldn't recommend visiting the U.S. right now. There isn't the concept of fairness or due process. You don't have rights here. It is now extremely important to be a U.S. citizen. Everyone else is at the mercy of the Trump administration.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/03/ice-german-t...

Even as a US citizen you can have major issues at the border, like that guy with the grapheneos and his duress code.

In fact I think it would have worked out better if he hadn't been a US Citizen because they would have just sent him back and given him a lifetime entry ban or something.

I don't like how citizens are allowed to have their constitutional rights violated at border crossings, but that guy should have known better. The duress PIN feature is made for extreme situations where i.e. the owner of the phone is suddenly arrested and there's information on the phone that could get people they care about arrested or killed. It's for when the owner considers getting themselves criminally charged, killed, or disappeared to be a better option than giving up what's on the phone. For something routine like a border crossing, the better option is to wipe your devices prior to the crossing and throw them away if they get searched. If the guy had either done that or not given a PIN to CBP and left the phone with them, he would have gotten off scot free. Giving a duress PIN is a big choice and you have to be reasonably informed about the legal consequences of doing so in whatever jurisdiction you're in.

> The duress PIN feature is made for extreme situations where i.e. the owner of the phone is suddenly arrested and there's information on the phone that could get people they care about arrested or killed.

Why do you think that doesn't apply to the situation he was in? He was suddenly arrested (detained anyway, so his freedom was taken from him) and he, as an activist, had contacts on his phone of other activists who would have been criminally charged, killed, or disappeared.

His own constitutionally protected activism already got him marked as a terrorist in the US. That's why he was detained. His name was on a terrorist watchlist. The Customs and Border Patrol tactical terrorism response team and an FBI Atlanta joint-terrorism taskforce officer were informed he was coming. The government has been actively working to prosecute and silence him and his fellow activists. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jun/26/trump-admini...

> Giving a duress PIN is a big choice and you have to be reasonably informed about the legal consequences of doing so in whatever jurisdiction you're in.

He was illegally denied access to a lawyer or he would have been reasonable informed.

> Why do you think that doesn't apply to the situation he was in? He was suddenly arrested (detained anyway, so his freedom was taken from him) and he, as an activist, had contacts on his phone of other activists who would have been criminally charged, killed, or disappeared.

Because he knew in advance that he would be crossing the border. If your threat model includes ensuring that US border control does not view the contents of your phone, and you're returning to the US after an international flight, then you need to take appropriate precautions (i.e. wiping your phone beforehand rather than after they've taken it). It's not like the police suddenly raided his house in the middle of the night. Obviously I feel bad for the guy, but if he had acted differently he would not have been criminally charged.

This is a bit extreme.... and yes I know this admin is extreme but there are still millions who visit the US and have a perfectly normal time.

> t is now extremely important to be a U.S. citizen. Everyone else is at the mercy of the Trump administration.

The Trump administration is perfectly happy to violate the rights of American citizens too. Nobody is safe right now.

> Especially the toxic manosphere culture at the moment.

The experience of living/traveling in the US is very different from what can be seen on social medias and forums. At least in big cities in blue states.

Isn't that what the US wants? I mean, at least this ICE stuff happened doesn't seem very inviting.

The current admin definitely wants to look tough on immigration.

Opinions among actual Americans vary. Some blue states even issue driver licenses to unauthorized immigrants on the basis that it's better for them to pass the driving test than to drive without taking the test.

The administration wants to look tough on the "wrong" skin color

It's based on the state of the countries they came from, not skin color.

No thanks rayiner

Is that why white South Africans are being welcomed as refugees?

Yes. It’s also why the right loves Japan and, increasingly, China.

It's almost as if racists view certain kinds of Asians as a sort of "model minority".

Why would they view certain asians as a "model minority?" Are they deciding based on cranial measurements? Or is it because Japan, China, etc., are orderly and developed--in which case it's not about "race" at all, is it?

Because it's allowed them to dismiss the issues of institutional racism that exist in our country by claiming that because some races are more successful than others, there's no reason for American society to change. That those other races are less successful due to their inherent inferior nature.

The truth is that there is nothing inherently superior or more "orderly and developed" about the people of Japan and China than the black Americans, Hispanics, and other Asians in this country. Culture and class vary significantly within populations and nations, even small island nations like Japan. US Immigration policies have selected for unrepresentative samples from certain populations though. The costs and accessibility of getting to the US from somewhere like Mexico are nothing at all like they are for people in countries on the far side of the Earth. Other distortions arise due to circumstance and need, for example refugees and manual laborers more frequently come from some regions, and very rarely from others.

There's no point in trying to dig too deeply for gems of logic and consistency when it comes to racist ideology though. You can only be left disappointed.

You’re coming up with all this theory and labeling to avoid the simpler conclusion that the right’s views are just based on looking at the country immigrants are coming from. That’s the proof of the pudding. (Selective immigration obviously has nothing to do with that.) The right likes Japan and, increasingly, China because they are orderly and developed countries and doesn't like Bangladesh because it isn't. It’s not because they’ve concocted some rubric of cranial measurements under which one group is “model minorities” and the others aren’t.

The ICE stuff is extremely unpopular. Most of the people who voted for it did not understand they were doing so. If "the US" is the people, then no, they mostly do not want this. If "the US" is Trump, then yes, it is.

This is also the most important political question in the US right now. Are the people still sovereign?

The ICE theatrics under Noem was unpopular. The underlying policy of mass deportations has been consistently popular: https://harvardharrispoll.com/assets/uploads/2026/07/HHP_Jul... (p. 22).

"Deporting all immigrants who are here illegally" was polling at 55% approve/45% disapprove as recently as July.

The issue is that people's idea of illegal immigrants are hardened criminals living a lift of crime, whereas in reality the majority of people that are being deported are normal people that overstayed their visa, ie. the low hanging fruit. So people can be both supportive of the policy but dismayed at the implementation, which is what we are broadly seeing here.

The Harvard-Harris survey linked above asks separately about “deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes.” Support for that was at 78% in July.

There was opposition to Noem’s theatrics. But it seems like Mullen’s quieter approach has taken the heat off and most of the focus now is on the shit inflation and Iran war.

"The ICE stuff" means what ICE is actually doing, not some abstract, lawful policy that you could imagine instead. This is precisely the point. Many people who voted for Trump did not understand what they were going to get.

Actual support for Trump's immigration policy and ICE is much lower than you suggest.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fox-news-poll-majority-says...

This is not true. Maybe it's unpopular in your circles, but deporting illegal aliens is broadly popular with the American public.

Deporting illegal aliens might be popular as an abstract concept but as soon as the question is about deporting actual people that they know, their opinion changes. It’s great politics to say you’re going to do it, but bad politics and a moral atrocity to _actually_ do it.

The only ethical way to do it is better security at the border and making legal immigration and visits much easier. You can’t just snatch people who are established in communities and put them into camps without leading to a thoroughly justified moral outrage.

I think that it's possible to deport people while still treating them with dignity and respect, without keeping them in horrific conditions, without sending them to random dangerous countries they've never been to, without murdering innocent citizens and non-citizens, and while affording the people you remove legal due process.

Our current president has intentionally created a system designed to be cruel, brutal, and unfair because his supporters get off on it and because every abuse of power makes his next abuse easier, but even though some people will inevitability be upset when the illegal immigrants in their lives are removed from the country, it doesn't have to be a complete moral atrocity to enforce immigration law. The way it's being done today is a choice.

Deporting someone who broke the law is not a moral atrocity. Is it unethical to arrest and jail a bank robber who has established themselves in a community?

These people knowingly and deliberately broke the law, and they continue to deliberately elude enforcement. The problem is that we've been too soft on enforcement, leading to millions upon millions of them assuming they are exempt from the law.

Deporting someone that arrived here 20 years ago, who has a family, whose spouse might be an American citizen, who might have American citizen kids, grandkids, friends, employers, they might own a company and contribute to the economy, etc absolutely is a moral atrocity. Violating border crossing laws is not a crime that is worth upending so many lives. It’s a misdemeanor and the fact that you have to elevate it to a bank robbery to make it seem reasonable tells you everything you need to know. Not all crimes are worth ruining lives over.

I am in favor of deporting people that have not been here long, but there has to be a way to fine people and get them documented after a certain amount of time.

You can say the exact same thing about a bank robber "who has a family, whose spouse might be an American citizen, who might have American citizen kids, grandkids, friends, employers, they might own a company and contribute to the economy".

Entangling yourself into society doesn't absolve you of crimes.

Illegal entry is a felony. Unlawful presence is a misdemeanor which carries the penalty of deportation. Trying to downplay it and liken it to minor infractions tells me everything I need to know.

I am in favor of deporting all illegal aliens. Apply the law equally.

> The ICE stuff is extremely unpopular.

You'd be surprised to learn that ICE is quite popular. For example 73% of Republicans approve of the job ICE is doing --- see page 14 of this NPR/PBS/Marist poll: https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/NPR...

Why would anyone be surprised Republicans approve? They voted for it, it was like the main thing they wanted... But despite voting for it still 21% disapprove.

It's what a huge proportion of the US population wants, yes. And many of the people who are in the US and who are counted in the number of people in the US are themselves immigrants or closely socially connected to recent immigrants - one of the justifications for blanket immigration restrictionism is precisely that once an immigrant is physically in the country, they start affecting the democratic political process that decides what policies will be, including further immigration policy.

> huge proportion of the US population wants

Thinks they want (where "think" is doing some massive heavy lifting because it's simply factual that wide swaths of voters have demonstrably exercised very little "thinking".)

It's absolutely what some powerful and well-funded people are actively pursuing.

https://www.project2025.observer/

They want a Autocratic Theocracy AKA God's Chosen One-ocracy (and take a wild guess at which demographic gets to decide who the chosen one is...)

I mean, there is a big grey area between immigrants here who are:

undocumented and here temporarily (most people oppose this),

undocumented and here permanently (the left is split on this, the right is mostly against it),

documented and here temporarily (most people are fine with this, especially tourists),

documented and here temporarily with an option to become permanently (many oppose this because it's impacting employment, especially with H-1B abuse),

documented and here permanently with no intention of becoming citizens (many people on the right don't like this for assimilation reasons),

documented and here permanently an a path to citizenship (most people support this except the extreme right),

former immigrants who are now citizens (nearly everyone supports these people).

The problem is that all of this is put under a single umbrella called "immigration," but it includes so many sub-issue like rule of law and assimilation preferences that you can't have a serious debate on it.

The other thing making it difficult to have a serious debate about is that one portion of the population keeps getting asked to moderate their positions on immigration (in all its facets) while there is little to no similar pressure on the opposing group. To put it another way: why should I move towards the center (from my "left" position) when I see the right continue to push immigration policy to the extremes?

I'm trying to get out of the US but every other country is also having their own anti-immigration moment right now.

Also, these things work reciprocally. The more difficult the US is in admitting immigrants, the more pressure their citizens get too.

I remember when I went to Australia, I could stay a year but American backpackers only 6 months because that's what Australians got in the US.

Even today there's almost no place in the world that is as accepting to immigrants as compared to the US.

That depends on what you mean by accepting. Culturally or legally? Legally the immigration process to the US has always been one of the hardest and the bureaucracy around it is a nightmare.

Culturally and legally, as compared to any similarly developed nation.

You couldn't be more wrong then. Just among the countries I've looked into: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Germany, and Spain all have a much easier immigration process. The US is notorious for their long nonsensical immigration process.

Canada, Australia, and Germany have a pretty similar immigration process. Australia is the easiest out of the three, but they still only accept 1 immigrant per 10 we accept in the US, so I struggle to see how that's "easier." Germany is harder by every measure, and Canada is pretty similar in "difficulty" by most measures.

New Zealand and Spain you really couldn't be more wrong. Just for starters, both countries combined accept only ~50k immigrants per year (the US is 20x that).

If you calculate the "expected value" for a migrant from anywhere in the world, the best bet you can make will predict that they'll end up migrating into the US. From this metric, I'd judge that the US is the "easiest" destination.

Btw, I say this as an immigrant in the USA ;)

Your definition is easiest is so tortured that you definitely belong in the US.

Sounds like you definitely don't belong in the US with that attitude!

I can name quite a few in South America alone. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, etc.

"Accepting" is different from "tolerating with a few instances of hate crimes and likelihood of incarceration". You have to include non-white people in the acceptance criteria.

>I can name quite a few in South America alone. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, etc.

And which of those are as desirable for foreigners to come work in, as the US?

It's easy to be super open to migration when you have little migration to begin with and the one you get is mostly wealthy foreigners coming to invest/buy properties and vacation/retire/remote-work there.

Those are the undesirable migrants, who call themselves "expats" rather than immigrants because they view themselves as not of that place. The desirable immigrants are the ones who show up with the hopes of becoming full citizens, they integrate into the country and culture, obey laws at a higher rate than citizens, and raise a family who themselves will be full citizens. Retirees bringing their money is fine and all, but if they're just going to treat the country as a vacation and retirement home then I don't see how that helps the country really.

> they integrate into the country and culture, obey laws at a higher rate than citizens

Which % are those?

>but if they're just going to treat the country as a vacation and retirement home then I don't see how that helps the country really

They help the existing property/business owners by making them wealthier, which let's be real is all governments care about.

Canada, on the other hand, favours high skill immigration right now,

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/article/canada-adding-new-ex...

What countries have you tried to move to that rejected you & why?

I haven't been rejected to any. I'm just monitoring changing requirements and sentiment in other countries, primarily Asia and parts of Europe. If you have suggestions for countries I'm open to them.

Gallup does this survey regularly, and I think perhaps the most interesting thing on the chart is how few people in south and east asia (around 10%) want to leave even if they had the opportunity to do so. I think that says something about the psychology of people who do leave their countries.

It’s also possible that life in those countries used to be worse a decade or two back, so people left to seek opportunities elsewhere. And it’s possible that now life in some of those countries is good enough and provides good opportunities that there are not as many reasons to leave.

Plus, it’s objectively harder to get a work visa to the US now.

Not just that but the people who change their opinion the most are generally those with excellent education and job opportunities elsewhere.

They could also have phrased that as "Ability to move Permanently to U.S. for those who want to is at New Low"

I’d say majority of the population that this is looking at falls into 3 categories : developing to developed nation, developed to developed, developing to developing.

Most people from developing to developed probably still are interested. Their interests may have shifted to better visa opportunities.

But those from developed to developed has probably decreased cause of job security problems globally in developed countries. People probably don’t want to leave their current state in this market.

The developing to developing is probably the same.

The only way I’d ever set foot in the US is if Brazil decided to extradite me. Luckily, we don't extradite our own citizens.

oh no what is usa going to do now.

1/4 of my building complex in Miami is Brazilian, the rest is from other LatAm countries and Russians and Ukrainians. Barely any natives. Tower(s) of Babel. I guess our favelas are a bit safer... yet.

I can understand why, because I am in the same situation, working by working visa here. Immigration to the US is only possible for highly motivated people in the US, but unfortunately it doesn't intersect with the best people, so they migrate to other countries that have good immigration policies for high-skill workers.

So far getting green cards is almost closed for software engineers. Because to get it from H1B/L1 visas, you need to pass a market test, but it isn't possible right now. So, the only available option is EB2-NIW, but it is a lottery. I only hope that companies will start to hire more outside the US

I'm a naturalized US citizen who came here on a work visa originally so I get it.

We are however in very different times. In the 2010s, they couldn't employ enough software engineers. Now? There's permanent layoffs. Every year all these companies now lay off 5-10% of their employees. It's become the "up or out" culture of Corporate America.

The only reason they do this is to suppress wages. They want to claw back the gains of the 2010s. Every sufficiently sized company reaches a point where the only way they can continue to grow profits is to cut costs and raise prices. Labor is a huge cost.

Despite supposed protections, it's clear that people on work visas get paid less. There's an inherent lack of mobility and the consequences of getting fired or laid off and not being able to find a job are extreme: depending on what type of visa you have you may have to leave the country within as little as 10 days (but typically 60).

So I think companies should lose their ability to not only sponsor green cards but also hire nonresidents if they engage in layoffs for a certain period. I'm thinking 2-3 years.

The employment situation for software engineers is now dire, unlike a decade ago, so it actually makes sense to curtail foreign employment.

I'm surprised that "Northern America" was only 4% in 2024. It feels like a huge percentage of Canadians used to move to America. Maybe everybody who wanted to move already has?

The Canadians that I know who have been living in the USA are all making plans to or have already returned to Canada. Some of them have been here for 20+ years, became American Citizens, the whole deal. And now they just want to get off the crazy train.

I have to imagine that their sentiment is not unique.

All of the Canadians that I know that moved to the US have moved back. I'm sure there are still plenty that live there but in my circle that's pretty much over.

Heritage Foundation wants to reduce the US population by 11 million people by 2029

imaging what's going down just before/during the Olympics which I am 99% certain will be boycotted by then

I moved recently. I previously moved to the UK fifteen years ago. It's great here, people are very welcoming to immigrants and have been kind all over NY, Georgia, and Miami.

- NY has a great tech scene, it feels slightly healthier than SF but FAR more ambitious and supportive than London does. Also London investors are incredibly flaky.

- Street violence is an issue (in NYC), but phone theft and terrorism are not.

- My gym has a good out-of-the-gym social scene which has made it easy to meet people.

NYC is a much different feeling than the rest of the US. 70% of residents are either first- or second-gen immigrants, and you can find people from every corner of the world here. It's one of the few places where the American ideal yet lives on.

Having dealt with the us immigration system, and even in an easy case, it’s not an easy thing to do.

Hopefully people get more informed on how hard it is to apply and don’t waste their lives on it, as a lot of them won’t get legal residency, or it might take several long years.

And this applies in general to most countries, specialized educated professionals are wanted, not poor people.

The irony is that restrictive immigration policies designed to keep out "low quality" immigrants are only going to stop the flow of skilled ones who have better options at home or elsewhere. People who are desperate will continue to immigrate no matter what.

Skilled immigrants are so often loyal to immigrants as a class, or to other people from their specific foreign religious or ethnic group, that keeping them out of the country even though they have high value on paper is still worthwhile so that they don't have the opportunity to advocate for immigration policies that are more friendly to further low-quality immigrants.

Desire to Migrate to the U.S. Across Regions, 2024 vs. 2025

X.1 2024 2025 Change

% % (pct. pts.)

Southeast Asia 18% 12% -6

Latin America and the Caribbean 33% 28% -5

Australia-New Zealand 11% 7% -4

Sub-Saharan Africa 27% 24% -3

Northern America 4% 2% -2

European Union 7% 6% -1

Former Soviet States 13 12 -1

South Asia 7 7 0 <---- NO CHANGE

Middle East and North Africa 9% 9% 0 <---- NO CHANGE

East Asia 13% 15% 2 <---- INCREASE

> U.S. still top destination as desire to migrate falls worldwide

> But despite these changes, many people worldwide — an estimated 900 million — would like to move, including about 134 million who would prefer to move to the U.S.

Important caveats.

The sample size was 100.

Looks like Matthew Yglesias's dream of 1 billion Americans is impossible now.

"1 billion Americans" is different than "filling America with 1 billion people." Decades from now, people like Yglesias will be living in the wreckage of their idealistic beliefs about nationhood and they'll be like "but true mass immigration has never been tried."

Shows a lot what Europe thinks of the US. I'm surprised though that people from South Asia who would like to move permanently to another country also have a low vote for the US.

Anglophone and still capable economy with pretty strong mobility for knowledge workers. It’s a no-brainer. No other place offers this. China is more dynamic an economy but you’ll be pretty second-class there as a S. Asian based on the experiences of my friends who work there.

The European Union desire to migrate to the US went from 7% to 6%. The article mentions two countries were ranked higher:

> Within the European Union, Spain, at 11%, and Switzerland, at 8%, rank ahead of the U.S., at 6%.

So I think this really shows that EU members don’t have a lot of desire to migrate anywhere. The drop from 7% to 6% is inline with the global decrease in migration desire. I don’t think there’s as much to read into this about sentiment change toward the US.

And in other regions the desire to migrate to the US went down a lot more than in Europe. So this is not about what Europeans think about the US at all.

Although recent US international politics did stain the US image in Europe substantually. Just the most recent betrayal against Ukraine is a good example of why.

How can people today even think they can "move to the U.S. permanently"? U.S. is even considering stripping citizenship from its own citizens. It's very impermanent.

USA makes it very hard to immigrate legally so probably many people don't express "desire" to immigrate there because that's not even an option for them.

Gallup's question is: "Ideally, if you had the opportunity, would you like to move permanently to another country?"

This makes more sense because moving to a place like Japan permanently (from what I know) is very difficult. Or, at least, moving there and getting to act like a real citizen. Unless you marry a Japanese person, I don't think your children are ever considered Japanese citizens either. (And same with their children and so on)

a big maga contingent wanted high interest rates to lower desire to for immigration into country also rollback lax visa and dei policies.

they got their wish.

It's a disaster here. It should be of zero surprise that people don't want to move here (let alone invest their future).

It’s not, however immigrating legally is very hard due to the high demand.

More of this. There seems to be a lot of resentment that people dream of living in the US all their lives, but then when they finally arrive the red carpet sometimes isn't rolled out for them, and many people aren't happy they're here.

It's better for them to lose the fantasy. It's a brain drain on the world, and an excuse for the US not to educate its own properly.

It's clear that US has no interest in educating its citizens properly. At least not the masses. The wealthy will continue to privately educate their children while the rest of country has to be kept ignorant enough to keep voting against their own interests.

idunno. Nothing is ever gonna replace america.

America's cultured is ingrained in everyone. You have 2-3 more runs of trumpian presidents before it's gg

Even before Trump I could never imagine moving to the US and I have dual citizenship. You will pry my 30 days of vacation, missing concept of sick days, socialized healthcare out of my cold dead hands.

Trump only made it worse.

Good, very good.

Like most things there’s broader context:

1. The US is still the top desired place to move by a large margin

2. There a variety of evidence to suggest that this also splits by tier of talent. For the best of the best the desire to move to the US remains strong. What has clearly attenuated is the lower tiers, with the crackdown on H1Bs and other areas there’s clearly fewer lower tier talent folks flooding in. That’s impacting tech masters degree mill type folks. but ultimately not a terrible thing as that system has been broken for a while.

It’s always good when we all don’t want the same things. I expect to see a lot more doom and gloom headlines of the midterm elections go as predicted, but anticipate quality of life increasing for us non billionaires as well.

Can I have your spot then?

Depends, how long are you willing to stay in detainment?

0, assumed he went through the legal process.

That will be $100k please and thank you

Yes, I could easily get into the USA (or indeed practically anywhere in the world) but I live in Scotland because that's what I prefer.

You fire ahead and take my spot.

Passport and visa please, thanks.

"Papers please."

That used to be a joke about the Soviet Union. Perhaps before your time.

What does this have to do with it?

Numbers quoted without context.

What if it now competes among a greater number of countries, or the low is because other countries got better, not because the US got worse?

But hey, it drives the clicks!

still on top, nuff said.

Multi-polar something something

Perhaps for once people realize its a shit show everywhere

> In the U.S., notably, the heightened desire to move abroad is concentrated among women younger than 45. In 2025, 40% of U.S. women aged 15 to 44 say they would move permanently to another country if they had the opportunity, up from 10% in 2014. The trend first rose sharply in 2016 and continued across multiple years, suggesting a broader shift in outlook rather than a short-term political effect.

Bad news for the conservative natalists, quiverfulls, and etc.

In other news, desire to move permanently FROM the U.S. at a new high.

Its actually down slightly from its peak in 2024 according to the article.

Rosie O'Donnell hasn't been missed by anyone. Feel free to follow her.

This is excellent for us Americans. As LLMs and Robotics scale, the need for immigration will continue to drop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com