> The US has for a western country, relaxed standards for immigration

My comments will only concern skilled migration, e.g., you are a computer programmer or something STEM'ish and you want to work in a different country.

First, let's start with the "Anglo-American sphere" (my term): US/UK/CA/AU/NZ. Of those five, US is the hardest to get a working visa for skilled individuals. The rest are "points-based" system where you can apply for a working visa even before you have a job (95% sure about this -- pls correct if wrong). They are much more friendly. Also, the rules are simpler, clearer, and applied more consistently.

I know much less about other OECD-level (and G7-level) nations, but anecdotally, overall, the process is much more straight forward compared to the US. What the rules say, the rules do. Not so much in the US where they randomly delay or reject applicants without good reason. (Also: Google to find horror stories of what happens when you lose your job in US as a foreigner who does not have PR. Fucking nitemare.) You hear this much less in (to name a few): Ireland, UK, France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland. (I don't hear as much about Portugal, Spain, and Italy, but quality of life looks awesome!) All of those countries are wealthy, highly developed and have excellent quality of life. All of them welcome skilled migration and have clear programmes (you can Google about them) to get a working visa. Again, strictly anecdotal: The US immigration system is much more adversarial compared to all of the other countries that I mentioned. Oh, and I forgot to add Japan: After PM Abe changed the rules, it is way easier these days to get a skilled worker visa in Japan.

Last point:

    > European nations

I see this over and over again on HN. I want to repeat: Europe is enormous -- like continent-sized -- with ~50 countries. It doesn't say much to say "in Europe". Are we talking about Belarus, Albania, Germany, or Italy? All of them are culturally and economically much more different than anything in the US (comparing US states / regions). Immigration/healthcare/public school/public safety/retirement all looks very different in those nations. Advice: It's better to say something like: "the Nordics" or "Benelux" or "GBR/FRA/GER/ITA" (the four economic giants of Europe). The best comments are when people comment about specific European nations, like "I lived & worked in Belgium for 7 years and this happened."

>My comments will only concern skilled migration, e.g., you are a computer programmer or something STEM'ish and you want to work in a different country.

This circumvents the original predicate, which did not have such a limitation. I know many countries have priority / helpful pathways for STEM career individuals as well as capital investors, but that wouldn't apply to everyone.

Even the US has very different pathways to citizenship depending on various factors. Last time I looked into it as research in depth, there alot of common limiting factors across Europe. Their policies are much more strict once you dive into the nuance.

That said, the US immigration landscape is extremely lopsided, thats a fair point.

>Europe is enormous -- like continent-sized -- with ~50 countries.

I realize, though as a US citizen I also realize that when most US citizens say this, they mean a much smaller contingent of countries, rightly or wrongly. I'm sure Europeans dislike how loose we use the term, but as a US citizen, it usually means cold war boundary countries, so Germany and what was considered western Europe before the iron curtain fell. Thats been my experience. People also generally forget about Portugal and a few island nations. Its a safe bet most people mean the Nordics, France, Germany, the UK, Netherlands and Denmark most of the time, conceptually.

However to be specific, France, Germany, Switzerland, the Nordics, all have strict general requirements to have a path to citizenship. I don't think the average US citizen would be able to meet them.

That's a fair point. But until recently you could move to a lot of countries in Europe for an investment less than a house in California. But I accept that could be the true reason.

>That's a fair point. But until recently you could move to a lot of countries in Europe for an investment less than a house in California.

That alone is enough to put most people out of grasp of doing this, for a multitude of reasons, of which not having the capital is only part of the equation, as you would also need to have a suitable investment on the other side to put said money, not a promise. I'm sure there are other nuances involved too.

Thats before the fact that the cost of a house in California would price most people out of the equation to begin with.