Immigrant population of cities around the world

[Docere]

Some more place of birth and ethnic group for London:

Kenya

Indian 76,533
Black African 24,255
White British 13,439
Other Asian 5,158
Pakistani 4,344

South Africa

White British 101,425
Other White 81,516
Black African 10,455
Indian 6,131
Other Asian 1,207

Zimbabwe

Black African 77,528
White British 25,089
Indian 1,779


Hong Kong

Chinese 80,587
White British 18,312
Other Asian 9,322
Mixed/Multiple 4,927
Indian 3,271

Singapore

White British 21,849
Chinese 7,806
Mixed/Multiple 5,732
Other Asian 2,433
Indian 1,210

[Docere]

One interesting thing about "colonial Brits" is they speak closest to the Received Pronunciation ideal and have no regional aspects to their speech. Which probably makes them sound a bit odd in Britain because almost everyone who grew up in Britain (except maybe the late Queen Elizabeth and King Charles?) has some regionalisms in their speech.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

You are confusing the British, Spanish, Portuguese colonial empires with the French colonial empire (at least the 2nd colonial empire).

The 2nd colonial empire of France was never about economic exploitation. It was merely about political assertion ("a great power must have colonies and cannot be outshone by the UK"), and protection of Christian minorities (that played a large role in the French colonisation of Vietnam). The thought of exploiting (or developing from scratch) local resources only came later, ex post, to justify the costs of establishing the colonial empire (because there was a very big party in France that was hostile to colonial expansion, and these people needed to be placated by the colonial party, so the colonial party had to "prove" that the colonies were profitable to France).

It was the same for the German colonial empire: it was merely developed to assert German power and importance as a great power, not for economic reasons.

The 1st French colonial empire was entirely different, it was colonization to exploit/develop local resources and make a profit. Ironically, most of the colonies from the 1st French colonial empire are still part of France (Guadeloupe, Martinique, Réunion, French Guiana), and the only significant independent country from this 1st colonial empire is Haiti, whose immigrants in France are only a small fraction of the total of immigrants in France. And obviously also Canada and Louisiana, which don't really send migrants to France.

So: 1st French colonial empire = British/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch colonial empires --> economic motives (but this empire contributes only to a small fraction of immigrants in France).

2nd French colonial empire = German colonial empire (but totally different from British/Dutch/Belgian colonial empires) --> primarily political motives (economic exploitation merely an afterthought, and colonial historians have shown that this 2nd French colonial empire was never profitable to France, unlike the 1st one which was immensely profitable to France; the 2nd colonial empire cost more overall than what France gained from it, and it probably delayed French economic development by diverting French capital towards unproductive colonies).

But the irony of this, because history is often ironic, is that migration flows to France now are largely shaped by this 2nd colonial empire, whereas the 1st one is largely forgotten.

I don't know what history books you've read, but at least in regards to Vietnam, the primary goal of French rule was economic gain. The French took vast amounts of local land to build large plantations. They grew cash crops like rubber, rice, and coffee for export rather than growing food for local people. France took control of rich natural resources, including coal and rare minerals. The colonial government set up strict monopolies on common household items like salt, alcohol, and opium, forcing locals to buy them at high prices. Many Vietnamese people were forced to work on plantations and in mines under brutal rules. Workers faced long hours, low pay, and high death rates from disease and abuse. The French placed high taxes on the local population, including land taxes and head taxes, which drove many poor farmers into deep debt and landlessness. Local people had few civil rights, no real voice in government, and very little access to good health care or education compared to the French residents.

If that isn't exploitation of a people and a land's resources, then I don't know what is. And France didn't leave Vietnam until the 1950s, so this is very recent history.

[Docere]

It was about economic gain, but with the usual rhetoric about laudable humanitarian goals and how there was no self-interest involved (like the case of every empire?)

[muppet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

This last sentence means nothing. What is "can isolate the urban villages and towns, knitting them together like a web" supposed to mean? Just because French communes are smaller than English districts, it would make the Paris FUA larger? How so exactly?

Besides, the figure I gave you for Provins is not the % of commuters in the commune of Provins, but the % of commuters in the canton of Provins (which is as large as an English district).


The London FUA is also made up of several separate cores. There is the central core of London, and then there are satellite cores:
St Albans
Harlow
Southend-on-Sea
Tunbridge Wells
Woking

Southend-on-Sea is 35 miles from London.

Any district that sends more than 15% of its workforce to Southend-on-Sea is included in the London FUA. So there is your "chain reaction" too!


Woking is treated as an urban core, satellite of the London urban core. Any district sending more than 15% of its workforce to Woking is included in the London FUA.

Brentwood is part of the commuter belt of London (it sends more than 15% of its workforce to either London or the other urban cores), so it is part of the London FUA.


That's something you've invented in your head. The principle of the FUA is precisely to be detached from administrative boundaries. Whether Slough is one English district, or 12 independent French communes, makes no difference. The 12 independent French communes would be treated as just ONE urban area, and then the % of commuters from this urban area to London would be determined (for example, the urban core of Melun is made up of 5 communes: Dammarie-Les-Lys, Le Mée-Sur-Seine, Melun, Rubelles, and Vaux-Le-Pénil, and statisticians then determine whether these 5 communes combined send more than 15% of their workforce to the central core of Paris, not whether each one individually sends 15% to the central core of Paris).

If Slough is not part of the London FUA, that has nothing to do with how it's administratively ruled, it's only because Slough sends less than 15% of its workforce to the London core and other satellite cores of London.

Ah well done -examples of bona-fide places rightfully included in London's FUA, as evidence as to why the ones excluded shouldn't be. Slough sends over 20% of its workforce into London https://fryford.github.io/dvc193/indexv3.html

It still stands that if Slough was included, Reading would be too and so on.


Paris's communes are so small they get to accumulate to make the threshold. Anything that doesnt, but is caught between the two will also get counted. This avoids a swiss cheese effect, but thus extends the count and reach, especially when the enclaves are so small. If 3 of the 5 communes in a town make the threshold, and the 1 in between doesn't but is sandwiched, they all get counted. Whereas a London version of the exact same town, united under one local authority encompassing the whole urban area plus surrounding countryside, will not as the overall threshold will become too low.

The Couronne affect still stands, making commute connections between nodes far more common in Paris due to the small size and thus choice of communes to hitch to. Sure London has examples -the same algorithm, but Paris really is much more of a web, than can be connected by units 30x smaller than London gets to work around.

Paris plays with nearly 1,800 units averaging 4 sq miles. London plays with only 13 of 120 sq miles. Additionally, if any of London's gets too big, they become 'cities' in their own rights, with their accordant commuters to exclude. Literally the opposite effect.

I'll keep saying it -the fact the base units counting FUAs are so wildly inconsistent between cities, creates distortions. It becomes a sliding scale.

[Docere]

Here's a way to stop (some of?) the thread diversion...

https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showthread.php?t=266449

[muppet]

Originally Posted by Docere

One interesting thing about "colonial Brits" is they speak closest to the Received Pronunciation ideal and have no regional aspects to their speech. Which probably makes them sound a bit odd in Britain because almost everyone who grew up in Britain (except maybe the late Queen Elizabeth and King Charles?) has some regionalisms in their speech.

I would hesitate to say that with the South Africans and Zimbabweans who have their own thick accents. The closest to English colonial would be the White Kenyans who've been there for over a century, but they have the 'South African' twang underlying, which is a new accent.

• Video Link

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

I don't know what history books you've read, but at least in regards to Vietnam, the primary goal of French rule was economic gain.

Not at all. The reason why France colonized Vietnam goes back to French missionary work in the 18th century. Those French missionaries managed to convert many Vietnamese to Catholicism. Later in the 19th century, they were persecuted by the Nguyen dynasty, and some French priests were even executed, which pushed the Catholic Church to lobby the French government to protect the Catholics in Vietnam. It's hard to imagine now because France became a secularized country in 1905, but in the 19th century France was the champion of the Catholic cause throughout the world.

A foothold was established in Cochinchina by Napoleon III, the most Christianized part of Vietnam, both to protect the Catholics there and to reply to Britain which had established a foothold in Singapore (the so-called "flag policy", not to be "outshone" by Britain), and from there it expanded northward over the years.

It is MUCH LATER (like 50 years later) that the French authorities developed the plantations you're talking about (in order to balance the budget of French Indochina, which was always in the red, because it cost France more to manage than the profit that was made there).

The rubber plantations developed after the automobile industry was born (Michelin tires), and the automobile industry was born more than 40 years after the establishment of the first protectorate in French Cochinchina. Napoleon III could not even imagine that rubber would one day be a commodity in high demand.

For Napoleon III, the goals in establishing a protectorate in Cochinchina (Saigon area) were:
1- protect the Vietnamese Catholics and the French priests, in order to satisfy the Catholic party in France (since the Catholic party was one of the main supporters of Napoleon III's rule in France). For the same reason, Napoleon III kept a French army in Rome to prevent the newly born Italy from conquering the Papal States. This was done to satisfy the Catholic party in France.

2- reply to the British who had established sovereignty over Singapore, remind Europe that France was an equal power to Britain, and not let the British control all of Asia alone

3- establish a coal base for navigation to China

Those were the 3 aims. There was 0 idea of economic exploitation of Vietnam at that stage.

[Docere]

One reason why New York has quite a bit larger foreign born population in its region than does London is because it includes a sizeable "inner ring" that's also very diverse. While London "drops off" much quicker beyond the city proper. London doesn't really have a "North Jersey" equivalent besides a few pockets like Slough.

Note this report covers quite a bit beyond the MSA.

https://www.nyc.gov/assets/planning/newest-new-yorkers-2026/Ch6.html

[Docere]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Not at all. The reason why France colonized Vietnam goes back to French missionary work in the 18th century. Those French missionaries managed to convert many Vietnamese to Catholicism. Later in the 19th century, they were persecuted by the Nguyen dynasty, and some French priests were even executed, which pushed the Catholic Church to lobby the French government to protect the Catholics in Vietnam. It's hard to imagine now because France became a secularized country in 1905, but in the 19th century France was the champion of the Catholic cause throughout the world.

A foothold was established in Cochinchina by Napoleon III, the most Christianized part of Vietnam, both to protect the Catholics there and to reply to Britain which had established a foothold in Singapore (the so-called "flag policy", not to be "outshone" by Britain), and from there it expanded northward over the years.

It is MUCH LATER (like 50 years later) that the French authorities developed the plantations you're talking about (in order to balance the budget of French Indochina, which was always in the red, because it cost France more to manage than the profit that was made there).

The rubber plantations developed after the automobile industry was born (Michelin tires), and the automobile industry was born more than 40 years after the establishment of the first protectorate in French Cochinchina. Napoleon III could not even imagine that rubber would one day be a commodity in high demand.

For Napoleon III, the goals in establishing a protectorate in Cochinchina (Saigon area) were:
1- protect the Vietnamese Catholics and the French priests, in order to satisfy the Catholic party in France (since the Catholic party was one of the main supporters of Napoleon III's rule in France). For the same reason, Napoleon III kept a French army in Rome to prevent the newly born Italy from conquering the Papal States. This was done to satisfy the Catholic party in France.

2- reply to the British who had established sovereignty over Singapore, remind Europe that France was an equal power to Britain, and not let the British control all of Asia alone

3- establish a coal base for navigation to China

Those were the 3 aims. There was 0 idea of economic exploitation of Vietnam at that stage.

Interesting how "asserting power" can be isolated completely from economics.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Docere

It was about economic gain

If only... You overestimate the intelligence of French policy makers. And you confuse the British and the French. Two different people, two different mentalities. The mercantile and pragmatic Anglo-Saxons vs the idealistic and romantic French.

I mean, if the French in the 19th century were only interested in economic exploitation, why on Earth would they have invaded and colonized Algeria, a dirt poor country with almost no ressources and only rocks and dry rivers, and not Egypt with was the richest territory south of the Med, which produced the cotton that European cotton mills needed?

And why would the French have focused their effort in West Africa on dirt poor and barren Senegal and Mali, and not on the rich Niger delta (which later became Nigeria)?

There are no economic calculations behind these moves. It's purely a succession of random events, decisions by local military leaders without really asking for orders from Paris. There is not a general master plan conceived by some sort of strategic genius in Paris that would have looked at a map and said "let's see, what are the richest, most profitable areas on this planet to conquer".

And the few successful French colonies happened a bit by chance, usually due to private initiatives. For instance in Africa the French authorities concentrated most of their efforts on Senegal and Mali (to this day I have still not understood why), and the colony that turned out to be the most profitable and successful, i.e. Côte d'Ivoire, was disregarded and neglected by Paris for many years, and it became French almost by accident in 1890, because of the private initiatives of no more than 3 or 4 merchants from Bordeaux, who almost single-handedly built alliances with various natives chiefs there and turned the territory into a French sphere of influence, until eventually the government in Paris had no other choice but to establish sovereignty there in 1890 for fear that the Brits, who already controlled the Gold Coast, would 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵 the Ivory Coast from the hands of those Bordeaux merchants too, which would have been felt as a national humiliation in France.

[Crawford]

Yeah, the French were obviously different than all the other colonizers. LOL.

[Docere]

[deleted]

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by muppet

Ah well done -examples of bona-fide places rightfully included in London's FUA, as evidence as to why the ones excluded shouldn't be. Slough sends over 20% of its workforce into London https://fryford.github.io/dvc193/indexv3.html

Then if it now sends more than 15% of its workforce into London, it will be included in the new definition of the London FUA. What are you complaining about? The Spanish FUAs have recently been enlarged to account for newer data for commuting flows (from the 2020s censuses).

Originally Posted by muppet

Paris's communes are so small they get to accumulate to make the threshold. Anything that doesnt, but is caught between the two will also get counted. This avoids a swiss cheese effect, but thus extends the count and reach, especially when the enclaves are so small. If 3 of the 5 communes in a town make the threshold, and the 1 in between doesn't but is sandwiched, they all get counted.

Any example of that, or you've just invented it in your head? I've seen the commuter data from the 2011 census at the canton level (each canton comprises at least a dozen communes), and they all had % of commuters to Paris that were largely above 15%. Your "Swiss cheese" theory is just an invention of yours.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yeah, the French were obviously different than all the other colonizers. LOL.

I said the 1st French colonial empire was similar to the British/Spanish/Portuguese/Dutch empires, but the 2nd French colonial empire was more similar to the German colonial empire. I thought we were here to learn and discover things. If you come here with preconceived ideas and do not accept any other opinion, and prefer to mock rather than learning new things, then end of this discussion for me.

[New Brisavoine]

+ Miami.



In percentage of the total population:

[muppet]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Then if it now sends more than 15% of its workforce into London, it will be included in the new definition of the London FUA. What are you complaining about? The Spanish FUAs have recently been enlarged to account for newer data for commuting flows (from the 2020s censuses).


Any example of that, or you've just invented it in your head? I've seen the commuter data from the 2011 census at the canton level (each canton comprises at least a dozen communes), and they all had % of commuters to Paris that were largely above 15%. Your "Swiss cheese" theory is just an invention of yours.

Yep its the Enclave Rule, that falls under the "Assigning municipalities surrounded by a single FUA to that FUA".

https://data-explorer.oecd.org/vis?bp=true&df




So the 1,929 communes and LAUs surrounding Paris, contiguously over 12,070 sq km all send in over 15% into the city? Not a hole in sight?

Like this, but with 650 more communes:

[Docere]

^ There's a new thread for this...

[Docere]

Well I spent far too much time yesterday going through those country of birth by ethnic group figures. Wikipedia covers it quite well and includes the breakdowns for several countries.

Germans in the United Kingdom:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germans_in_the_United_Kingdom

"While those born in Germany constitute one of the UK's foreign-born groups, many are British nationals, rather than German nationals, who were born in Germany to British military personnel based there."

Singaporean-born in the UK are made up mostly of "colonial Brits."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singaporeans_in_the_United_Kingdom

[muppet]

well tbf I'll answer if they answer