Where is developed country to developed country immigration still significant? (home, job market)

[markovian process]

Here's partly what I was thinking about with my thread. http://www.city-data.com/forum/world...immigrate.html

In general a lot of immigration is from poorer countries to richer ones, like Mexican immigration to the United States (which actually now is balanced out by Americans moving to Mexico so the net rate is zero). Historically there have been lots of examples in the New World, like Italian immigration to Argentina, Japanese immigration to Brazil, and then the immigration slowed once the poor sending country was no longer poor.

But in which cases, is rich country to rich country immigration still common? Off the top of my head, I can think of Brits going to Australia and NZ, Kiwis moving to Australia, Canucks moving to the US (often for a larger job market), as well as was mentioned in that thread, French moving to Canada. Typically, a lot of this immigration is probably job- or career oriented or retirement as expats.

Which examples are significant and still ongoing between rich countries? What is probably the most large group of migrants between two rich countries today?

[The Postman]

Westerners going to Asia, like China, Japan, Hong Kong (yes i know it's technically part of China but immigration patterns there differ), Singapore, Bangkok, India, UAE. They are usually temporary and for business though.

[Acajack]

About 5,000 people from France move to Quebec every year, which is 10% or more of all the immigrants that come to Quebec, and a fairly high rate for a province with only 8 million people.

One of the reasons for this is the economy - at times the jobless rate here in recent years has been almost half that of France. The difference is even greater for young people.

Quebec has a pretty good reputation in France and is also seen by many in France as a safe, comfortable easy place to try out a ''new world adventure''.

Of course, like many British in Australia a decent chunk of the French immigrants to Quebec end up going back home within 5 years or so.

[Rockapplan]

Westerners are everywhere, in every continents including the icy one in the deep deep south.
But we don't see people from smaller developing countries being everywhere in larger numbers.
Westerners have interests in everywhere or are interested in a lot of places. With more money, westeners can afford to invest, trade and travel to eveywhere but people in developing countries usually cannot.

[Acajack]

Did some rough immigration number crunching for a thread some time ago and it looked like this.

Annual French immigration to Canada: about 5,000 (vast majority to Quebec which has about 8 million people)

Annual British immigration to Canada: about 5,000 (vast majority to parts of Canada outside Quebec which have about 26 million people)

Annual British immigration to Australia: about 20,000 (host population of 23 million)

Annual British immigration to the U.S.: about 20,000 (host population of 300+ million)

[Acajack]

Also, the UK ranks high on the list of countries of origin for arriving immigrants to Australia (as does France for Quebec), but the UK ranks far down the list for Canada and the US on this front.

[manbury]

Italians resumed the emigration due to lack of economic opportunities at home, main destinations are Germany Switzerland France and UK.

See this post for further details:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/34302509-post7.html

[bruhms]

Brazil is not a developed country.

[Richard1098]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Also, the UK ranks high on the list of countries of origin for arriving immigrants to Australia (as does France for Quebec), but the UK ranks far down the list for Canada and the US on this front.

Net migration from the UK is significantly lower though.

[Caravelli]

Singaporeans, Malaysians, Hong Kongers to Australia, sometimes for lifestyle reasons.