Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850

Re: Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850 – 2020

#31

Post by jameshart » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

vinay427 wrote: post #29

jedberg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Puerto Ricans get US passports and are US citizens, but they are not born in the United State. Just like people born in the Panama Canal Zone or someone like Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to an American citizen. He was born a citizen but he wasn't born in the US.

> but they are not born in the United State. Just like people born in the Panama Canal Zone or someone like Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to an American citizen I wouldn't say it's like being born in Canada, considering Puerto Rico is on the edges of what it means to be "the United States." As you noted, those born in PR are US citizens on that basis alone, and certain other elements of the US Constitution apply to…

I don't think the question of whether a place is 'in' the US comes down to any notion of whether its regional governing authority is subordinate to or a federal constituent of the national government of the United States. If you want to dispute that as a basis, then people born in DC, or on Indian land, aren't born in the United States.

People born in Puerto Rico are born in US territory, subject only to US sovereign laws, with a natural right to US citizenship, and no equivalent right to citizenship of any other sovereign country. There aren't many more cut-and-dried definitions of being born 'in the US' than that.

Remember, this article is trying to answer the question 'where were US citizens who live in particular parts of the US born?'[1].

To that question, for Texas resident American Ted Cruz, for example, we would answer 'Canada' - he counts as one of the Texans who were born outside the US, regardless of his citizenship status at birth. I personally naturalized later, but I also count myself among Americans who were born outside the US. Ted and I have that in common, if nothing else.

But Puerto Ricans who were born in Puerto Rico when it was part of the United States - i.e., any time after 1897 - were not born outside the US, so counting a Puerto Rican-born American who lives in Florida as born 'overseas' seems like a flat error to me.

[1] well, technically it's not completely clear that it's only counting US Citizens who are resident in a given state, because it is actually a survey of census data and, rather famously, the census does not actually ask you if you are a US citizen - it counts residents (and don't forget that the resident population of the US is not made up solely of 'citizens' and 'illegal immigrants'; residents also include a vast number of noncitizen resident legal immigrants). I mean, the headline claims it's a count of where 'Americans' were born, which I guess Canadians and Brazilians might dispute...

Re: Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850 – 2020

#32

Post by jameshart » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 8:58 PM UTC

xyzzyz wrote: post #17

jameshart wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that where the racism came from?

Before 20th century, very few Europeans ever saw anyone of a different race.

Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white.

But even setting aside the massive European colonial machinery, the average stay-at-home 18th or 19th century European already had plenty of ideas about what people of non-European races were like, from the stories of colonial wars, tales of explorers' encounters with savagery, and general mythology and exoticism of what the rest of the world must be like. And those opinions were not, let's say, generally very enlightened.

You can still be a racist even if you've never met someone of another race. If anything it's much easier that way.

Re: Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850 – 2020

#33

Post by xyzzyz » Sat, Feb 05, 2022, 9:55 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #32

xyzzyz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before 20th century, very few Europeans ever saw anyone of a different race.

Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white. But even setting aside the massive European colonial machinery, the average stay-at-home 18th or 19th century European already had plenty of ideas about what people of non-European races were like, from the stories of colonial wars, tales of explorers' en…

> Must have been quite difficult to become colonial rulers of half the planet, and set up and maintain the transatlantic slave trade, without seeing anyone non-white

Yes, very small fraction of Europeans was involved in that. Overwhelming majority never left their country, and often their village.

Re: Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850 – 2020

#34

Post by derbOac » Mon, Feb 07, 2022, 12:20 PM UTC

The change in immigration patterns in terms of numbers of immigrants and origins, post WWII is striking to me. I knew immigration patterns had changed but didn't realize how much, that they changed so much specifically postwar, and how heterogeneity had increased so much.

Sometimes I think immigration patterns need more attention, as indicators of other things. The number of displaced persons/refugees worldwide is very high right now, for example.

As a minor thing, it makes me wonder about current political tensions in the US. Looking at some of these figures makes me wonder if we're living in more of an unusual era relative to the last couple of centuries than I've realized. Again, not with reference to immigrants per se, but with reference to whatever is associated with such magnitude of sociodemographic pattern change.

Re: Where Are Americans Born? An Analysis of U.S. Census Data from 1850 – 2020

#35

Post by vinay427 » Tue, Feb 08, 2022, 12:01 PM UTC

jameshart wrote: post #31

vinay427 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but they are not born in the United State. Just like people born in the Panama Canal Zone or someone like Ted Cruz who was born in Canada to an American citizen I wouldn't say it's like being born in Canada, considering Puerto Rico is on the edges of what it means to be "the United States." As you noted, those born in PR are US citizens on that basis alone, and certain other elements of the US Constitution apply to…

I don't think the question of whether a place is 'in' the US comes down to any notion of whether its regional governing authority is subordinate to or a federal constituent of the national government of the United States. If you want to dispute that as a basis, then people born in DC, or on Indian land, aren't born in the United States. People born in Puerto Rico are born in US territory, subject only to US sovereign…

> I don't think the question of whether a place is 'in' the US comes down to any notion of whether its regional governing authority is subordinate to or a federal constituent of the national government of the United States. If you want to dispute that as a basis, then people born in DC, or on Indian land, aren't born in the United States.

Right, I meant this as an unrelated aside I found interesting due to some perceived irony. I don't think I made that sufficiently clear in my original comment, unfortunately.

I would generally agree with the rest of your comment as well, and that Puerto Rico should count as the US for the purposes of immigration/citizenship surveys, but I could maybe see why someone would feel otherwise based on its unique status.