I daresay that Australia and New Zealand are places that white people invaded and then put up barriers to stop too many other people (of any colour) coming to live there.
> There's a real racial asymmetry in the world between whites and nonwhites in terms of building countries people wish to live in.
I think your framing is incorrect - the asymmetry is far more to do with money and power than a shade of skin.
There's only two white countries in the Americas, the United States and Canada, which got that way by being Anglo settler-colonies whose governments were founded by white, mostly-English people who conquered the land from a relatively sparse native American population and did not intermix with that population in great numbers.
Every other country in the Americas was originally founded by Spanish or Portuguese or other non-Anglo European colonial powers, who generally had much larger native American populations, and did have substantial population intermixing; which is why today people in the US and Canada consider the entire racial category "Latino" - which was formed by exactly that admixture event - to be nonwhite, even though in Latin America itself individuals vary widely in exactly what proportions of white, native American, and black ancestry they have.
There are people, often native American nationalists or far-leftists sympathetic to native American nationalists because they are nonwhite, who do support remigration of whites from the United States and Canada. The most fundamental problems with this argument are that 1) the number of white people in these countries is much larger than the number of actual indigenous people and has already demographically swamped the indigenous many centuries ago; and 2) there was never any native American government with anywhere near the state capacity to even have immigration laws, let alone enforce them, at any point in history. Modern levels of state capacity are basically an invention of Western European technological modernity and came out of the same half-millenium-old process of historical development that lead to the conquest of North America by non-admixed whites to begin with. The very land areas recognized by international law that we label the United States and Canada are themselves white creations; there's zero indigenous American political or cultural continuity involved with them (which is indeed a major political grievance of native Americans and their political allies). There's no prior indigenous state that could be returned to after the expulsion of whites, if that were even physically tractable.
This of course means that all of those latter countries need to import millions of people from the other countries because this is bound to increase the quality of the good country, somehow.
You certainly see a lot of tourists and expats. And it is easy to see the worst behaving ones especially in parts of Asia.
I daresay that Australia and New Zealand are places that white people invaded and then put up barriers to stop too many other people (of any colour) coming to live there.
> There's a real racial asymmetry in the world between whites and nonwhites in terms of building countries people wish to live in.
I think your framing is incorrect - the asymmetry is far more to do with money and power than a shade of skin.
I meant from the Americas
There's only two white countries in the Americas, the United States and Canada, which got that way by being Anglo settler-colonies whose governments were founded by white, mostly-English people who conquered the land from a relatively sparse native American population and did not intermix with that population in great numbers.
Every other country in the Americas was originally founded by Spanish or Portuguese or other non-Anglo European colonial powers, who generally had much larger native American populations, and did have substantial population intermixing; which is why today people in the US and Canada consider the entire racial category "Latino" - which was formed by exactly that admixture event - to be nonwhite, even though in Latin America itself individuals vary widely in exactly what proportions of white, native American, and black ancestry they have.
There are people, often native American nationalists or far-leftists sympathetic to native American nationalists because they are nonwhite, who do support remigration of whites from the United States and Canada. The most fundamental problems with this argument are that 1) the number of white people in these countries is much larger than the number of actual indigenous people and has already demographically swamped the indigenous many centuries ago; and 2) there was never any native American government with anywhere near the state capacity to even have immigration laws, let alone enforce them, at any point in history. Modern levels of state capacity are basically an invention of Western European technological modernity and came out of the same half-millenium-old process of historical development that lead to the conquest of North America by non-admixed whites to begin with. The very land areas recognized by international law that we label the United States and Canada are themselves white creations; there's zero indigenous American political or cultural continuity involved with them (which is indeed a major political grievance of native Americans and their political allies). There's no prior indigenous state that could be returned to after the expulsion of whites, if that were even physically tractable.
This of course means that all of those latter countries need to import millions of people from the other countries because this is bound to increase the quality of the good country, somehow.