Foreign born populations: how many nationalites are represented?

[nito]

Out of curiosity, does anyone have the source for the London figures? Only reason I enquire is that the data I have seen (published back in 2012) didn’t show a breakdown of country of birth anywhere near 5,000.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

In another point of mine validated by this higher threshold of yours, Ive always stated that Toronto's UN diversity boasts are dubious being that they are probably based on communities that are too small to amount to anything perceptible in real-life (eg. 5,000 people) and it looks like I was right. After increasing the cut-off to 15,000, Toronto drops from boasting 70 groups to below Los Angeles at 28 in the number of Census-derived groups. My bet is that increasing the threshold further (to 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000) will re-shuffle the rankings dramatically among the top tier cities (London, NY, Paris, LA, Toronto) and in particular, widen Toronto's gap even further relative to the top tier. It is NOWHERE NEAR being the most diverse city in the world as it is a clear step below London, NY, Paris, LA, and who knows what others once you really scrutinize the data.

No, it's just mathematical gymnastics. The higher the cut off point the more its going to insinuate that the larger metro is more diverse. You've completely stripped the size of the metro out of the equation. I could do a similar exercise that shows Tokyo to be more 'diverse' than south London but it depends on the viewer being fooled with numbers. Is a city of 100,000 people with 30,000 foreigners less diverse than a city of 200,000 people with 35,000 foreigners? I'd say, definitely NOT.

Paris with 11.9 million people (count of 36 nationalities) and LA with 17.4 million people (count of 30 nationalities) is now more diverse than Toronto with 5.5 million people (count of 28 nationalities)? Paris is a metro more than double the size of Toronto, LA is more than triple the size of Toronto. If the cutoff point is 15,000 people of 1 nationality in Toronto, the cutoff point for Paris should be 30,000 and the cutoff point for LA should be 45,000. If you end up with the same number using these differing cutoff points, then one can conclude that diversity in these 3 metros are similar.

This thread is just designed to magically show a desired conclusion. There's insights to be made from this data exercise but not the conclusions that you reached. This isn't a diversity study but one on absolute numbers.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Docere

Note that Canadian CMAs aren't as generous as US MSAs in their definiton and in the case of Toronto the CMA clearly is too restrictive. StatsCan doesn't allow for the dissolution of CMAs or for smaller CMAs to join larger ones, so Oshawa which for all practical purposes is part of the Toronto metro area is still counted separately.


Hamilton almost qualifies for joining the Toronto "MSA" - though I don't think it adds anything at 30,000. Dropping it down to 15,000, I believe Hungary, Croatia and Serbia would be added.

Hamilton's relationship to Toronto is a lot like Washington/Baltimore.

That would make it the Hamilton CMA + the Toronto CMA + the Oshawa CMA.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by isaidso

No, it's just mathematical gymnastics. The higher the cut off point the more its going to insinuate that the larger metro is more diverse. You've completely stripped the size of the metro out of the equation. I could do a similar exercise that shows Tokyo to be more 'diverse' than south London but it depends on the viewer being fooled with numbers. Is a city of 100,000 people with 30,000 foreigners less diverse than a city of 200,000 people with 35,000 foreigners? I'd say, definitely NOT.

Paris with 11.9 million people (count of 36 nationalities) and LA with 17.4 million people (count of 30 nationalities) is now more diverse than Toronto with 5.5 million people (count of 28 nationalities)? Paris is a metro more than double the size of Toronto, LA is more than triple the size of Toronto. If the cutoff point is 15,000 people of 1 nationality in Toronto, the cutoff point for Paris should be 30,000 and the cutoff point for LA should be 45,000. If you end up with the same number using these differing cutoff points, then one can conclude that diversity in these 3 metros are similar.

This thread is just designed to magically show a desired conclusion. There's insights to be made from this data exercise but not the conclusions that you reached. This isn't a diversity study but one on absolute numbers.

I disagree and your claim that this thread was "designed" to show that Toronto wasn't the most diverse city in the world is absurd.

And Toronto has pretty much the same number of nationalities represented as L.A. (so it's hard to say one is more diverse than the other) and far more than Chicago (even though it's metro is 30-50% bigger), so it's hard to say Toronto is getting "shafted." It does consistently very, very well.

Tokyo wouldn't be a contender at all on this list, because it's not at all ethnically diverse.

[mhays]

Not intentional sure, but it still favors larger cities. Doing the same analysis based upon percentages would be more informative about foreign-born diversity.

If it was "what cities have the most large immigrant communities" then simple counts would be more appropriate.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mhays

Not intentional sure, but it still favors larger cities. Doing the same analysis based upon percentages would be more informative about foreign-born diversity.

If it was "what cities have the most large immigrant communities" then simple counts would be more appropriate.

Yup. Percent is more indicative of how prevalent immigrants are in a geographic area.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Bikemike

Thanks Docere. The 15,000 threshold seems much more reasonable than a 5,000 one, which is far too low. I would actually prefer 20,000 or even 30,000 because you really need a critical mass of immigrants to experience a truly "self-sufficient" community where a larger spectrum of an immigrant group's culture can more fully manifest.

Your new list also validates my personal observation of Chicago's food scene, an opinion that got me in trouble with a GANG of biased, livid Chicago boosters a little while ago. That while the city boasts top-notch one-a-year (once-a-lifetime for some) haute cuisine, its RELATIVELY low diversity compared with LA or NY limits its EVERY-DAY selection of good ethnic food. This list, while imperfect for the reasons stated before, do a good job of validating my subjective experiences with select metros I have spent time in. Washington Post food writer Tom Sietsema seems to agree. Due to LA's demographic strengths, more than almost any other metro in the country, local restauranteurs don't need to simplify their food for anyone.

In another point of mine validated by this higher threshold of yours, Ive always stated that Toronto's UN diversity boasts are dubious being that they are probably based on communities that are too small to amount to anything perceptible in real-life (eg. 5,000 people) and it looks like I was right. After increasing the cut-off to 15,000, Toronto drops from boasting 70 groups to below Los Angeles at 28 in the number of Census-derived groups. My bet is that increasing the threshold further (to 20,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000) will re-shuffle the rankings dramatically among the top tier cities (London, NY, Paris, LA, Toronto) and in particular, widen Toronto's gap even further relative to the top tier. It is NOWHERE NEAR being the most diverse city in the world as it is a clear step below London, NY, Paris, LA, and who knows what others once you really scrutinize the data.

But in the end diversity is an unscientific thing to measure, because ethnic groupings are an unscientific thing to classify. You will never find a perfectly scientific way to measure indiscrete things like cultural affinity.

No, diversity is not measured by how many different countries a minimum number of people being born in reside in that city. Even if you wanted to use that made-up metric, you would have to adjust for population. So instead of say 15,000 people from a country, it would be for example 0.3% of the total population. So your assertion that Toronto is less diverse than another metro simply because it has fewer countries where an arbitrary number of people came from is wrong.

[fflint]

This thread was not initially about 'diversity.' In the very first post, the OP was very specific: "Using 5,000 born in a country as a cutoff - how many countries are represented in the foreign born populations of various cities."

The threshold got bumped up and up again, but from the very start the idea was more about the breadth of large immigrant communities in a given metropolitan area. It was not about Toronto, and it was not about something ill-defined like 'diversity.'

[Docere]

If we use a 5000 cutoff for Vancouver (24 countries) and 30,000 (I think it was 19 countries or was it 21 countries, I can't remember) for L.A. MSA, Vancouver is more "diverse"! Who knew?

[fflint]

"Diversity" is a term bandied about so often, and in so many different contexts, that is all but meaningless.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Docere

Vancouver is more "diverse"! Who knew?

Who knew? Anyone who has spent time in both cities.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

Who knew? Anyone who has spent time in both cities.

Well tell those of us who haven't obviously spent as much time in Van and LA as you how Van is clearly the more diverse of the two.

Seriously I hate these "I've been there and I know" arguments on online discussion boards.

[New Brisavoine]

I think that these lists based on the absolute numbers of natives of various countries of the world are more indicative of the pull, or attraction, of cities in the world than of their diversity.

So with this, we can conclude that for example Paris exerts a bigger pull in the world than Toronto, across a larger and more diverse array of countries than Toronto, even though Toronto might be termed more diverse based on the fact it has a higher share of immigrants in its total population.

I'll review the Los Angeles figures tomorrow.

PS: Talking of Paris, the January 2013 census figures were released yesterday and they show a big immigrant increase in the Paris Region in the year 2012. We'll have the figures by countries and territories next July.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

I think that these lists based on the absolute numbers of natives of various countries of the world are more indicative of the pull, or attraction, of cities in the world than of their diversity.

So with this, we can conclude that for example Paris exerts a bigger pull in the world than Toronto, across a larger and more diverse array of countries than Toronto, even though Toronto might be termed more diverse based on the fact it has a higher share of immigrants in its total population.

Paris may well have 'a bigger pull in the world' primarily because it is physically proximate to many, many more countries than is Toronto. However, considering how far Toronto is from Europe, Africa and Asia one could easily conclude from its high proportion of foreign-born residents that it has more 'pull' than does a city much closer to major sources of international immigration like Paris is.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by fflint

However, considering how far Toronto is from Europe, Africa and Asia one could easily conclude from its high proportion of foreign-born residents that it has more 'pull' than does a city much closer to major sources of international immigration like Paris is.

Does that make a difference in today's world of aviation? If an African immigrant is willing to migrate, going to Paris or Toronto makes no real difference. What's difficult is migrating to the 1st world (visas, borders, etc), not the actual distance needed to reach destination. We're not in the days of ocean steamers anymore!

Besides, I'd say it's way more difficult for most migrants to move to Paris rather than to Toronto, because French immigration laws are very strict and do their best to prevent would-be migrants from reaching France, whereas Canada has an open-door policy. So the fact that Paris has more immigrants than Toronto despite much more draconian immigration laws is a testimony to the force of attraction of the city (that's particularly true for the African and Asian immigrants, for whom it's really hell to get a "green card" to move and stay in France).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Besides, I'd say it's way more difficult for most migrants to move to Paris rather than to Toronto, because French immigration laws are very strict and do their best to prevent would-be migrants from reaching France, whereas Canada has an open-door policy.

Yeah, the pull is national, not city-specific. Canada, relative to France, is vastly more welcoming to migrants, and Toronto is the primate city of Canada (esp. the primate English speaking city).

Toronto draws proportionally more immigrants than Paris because of national policy rather than city-specific reasons. Cities don't set immigration policies.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by Docere

Well tell those of us who haven't obviously spent as much time in Van and LA as you how Van is clearly the more diverse of the two.

No. You should travel and see the world yourself, like the rest of us.

[NorthernDancer]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

So with this, we can conclude that for example Paris exerts a bigger pull in the world than Toronto

Paris had a very, very, very long head-start on Toronto. If you measure them at the same relative point in their history I doubt you'd reach the same conclusion.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by NorthernDancer

No. You should travel and see the world yourself, like the rest of us.

I've been to both cities multiple times and it was pretty evident to me that L.A. is a far more diverse city.

Where are the Mexicans and Central Americans in Vancouver? Armenians? Thais? Cambodians?

L.A. also has the largest Filipino, Korean and Vietnamese communities on the continent, and it's not as if L.A. lacks a significant Chinese community.

So please explain again how Vancouver is "obviously" the more diverse city.

[fflint]

He is going by percentages, rather than raw numbers, because that approach produces the result he prefers.

Meanwhile, the staggering difference in population size between the two areas makes comparisons apples-to-oranges. Consider greater Los Angeles is so populous that it contains more Asian-Americans than the entire population of greater Vancouver.