Posted May 20, 2010, 12:07 AM
|
 |
if I sang out of tune
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: London
Posts: 6,528
|
|
I think in terms of percentages they did. London has only just superseded the medieval record of foreign born (one third), and not yet of the Roman times though, where the majority of inhabitants were from the empire.
Of course in terms of bulk numbers nowhere can compete with today's figures as after all, all our cities are much bigger. Also arrivals are from further afield due to modern travel.
NYC at its height of its immigration heyday was only 40% foreign born I may add, something many cities, many times over in history have had more of. But we get it, NYC has been a great migrant magnet for over a century, and the biggest one in that time (though its recently been superceded).
however its immigrant rise is definitely not an unprecedented event in history, and many cities much earlier have followed the same paths - unless of course you choose to stipulate certain aspects of that immigrant wave (eg ignoring percentages, and only from separate continents, and only in numbers over 100,000)
|