America didn't used to be the country that offered those opportunities.
Yet people built it and made it that way.
Nothing is static people csn change anything
These people need to do that in their own countries.
Yet people built it and made it that way.
Nothing is static people csn change anything
These people need to do that in their own countries.
The company remained for many generations but most (not all) individual British people stationed themselves in India and retired 'home' to England where to whence the money flowed.
Many European countries regarded their "colonies" as places to exploit for resources, places to be travelled to for work for many years, places they didn't regard as 'home'.
There's more to "colonisation" than just simple migration.
Even in Australia the early colonisation was by settler families that were part of larger stay at home families, the black sheep, wayward sons, and fortune seeking adventurers .. in Australia convicts and servant families remained, ultimately a good proportion of the underwritten (from home) settlers stayed .. but initially at least many heads of these families "returned home" to England.
In a similar manner modern USofA has many institutional "colonies" around the globe, bases they've established and never left, these rarely have permanently settled multi generational families.
they are typically the top performing GDP countries of their region with some of the best quality of life for their citizens
That's false. By definition none would have come if there wasn't opportunity. You don't need to be a geography student to see that it wasn't just irreligious opportunity.
Gold rush and stuff is just a bonus, the big money is in cattle and agriculture.