Throughout this chapter, I have used the place of origin as the basis for the discussion. If instead I were to use the workplace of adult significant figures, how much would immigration change the picture? The most visible change in the scatter plots would result from internal migration, not from movement between countries. Paris was the origin of 189 significant figures, already a large figure, but small compared to the 486 for which Paris was the workplace. For London, the comparable numbers are 113 and 295; for Berlin, they are 36 and 91. If the scatter plots had been based on the workplace, the concentration of dots around the great cities of Europe would have nearly denuded the rest of the map. Migration from one country to another was by no means rare among the significant figures, however. They were a remarkably mobile lot. Twelve percent of them worked mainly in a country other than the one in which they were raised. This is not a recent phenomenon. The highest proportion of migration across countries, involving 14 percent of the significant figures, occurred from 1400–1600. Even 14 percent greatly underestimates the degree of “international” mobility, because it does not count movement from, for example, Milan to Florence or Cologne to Leipzig - in the Renaissance, tantamount to moving between countries. Until 1800, this high level of international mobility had little effect on the net number of significant figures in a given country. All the countries in the European core gained about as many as they lost. In the third era 1800–1950, a clear pattern did emerge. Europeans who would become significant figures moved north and west to realize their potential. Part of the movement from the east was caused by persecution. Seven Polish and Russian Jews who became significant figures emigrated westward during the long period of persecution in late 19C, and another two dozen fled central Europe after the Nazi rise to power.[4] But even after extracting this part of the story, the period from 1800–1950 saw the Balkan countries lose a net of nine. Germany lost a net of 15 (8 moved into Germany but 23 moved out, not counting the Nazi period), while Spain, Russia, Poland, and Italy each had a net loss of 5 and what is now the Czech Republic had a net loss of 4.[5] Nearly all of the people who moved out of these countries on the periphery moved to just three places: Britain, northern France, and the United States. Britain did not end up with much of a net gain, because while 21 significant-figures-to-be moved into Britain, 16 Britons left for the New World. Only France and the United States had a substantial net gain: 31 for France and 37 for the United States. France’s net gain amounts to 8 percent of the significant figures who worked in France from 1800–1950, while America’s amounted to 10 percent. If this seems small for the United States, where immigration has played such a large role in shaping the national character, remember how the number was calculated: It is restricted to people who grew up in a foreign country and then moved to the United States to conduct their most important work. Thus it excludes all the children of first-generation immigrants, all the immigrants who came here as infants or toddlers, and all the significant figures who came to the United States after their reputations were already established, as did many German and Austrian scientists and artists fleeing the Nazis. If we include all of those categories, then about 22 percent of all the American significant figures from 1800–1950 were either immigrants or the children of immigrants.