6 ms·

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

51 points by sandslash 5y ago

Dwolb 5y ago
Who is their SEO marketer? The main page’s headline “Your Connecticut Personal Injury & Immigration Lawyers” so I guess we’re looking at some pretty upper funnel content. Kudos for at least making it interesting.
- earthscienceman 5y ago
  Seriously egrigous on mobile. I was greeted by a chat not and an overlay. So bad i though I'd clicked the wrong link
derbOac 5y ago
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.
irrational 5y ago
It is interesting to see where immigrants settled in the 1800s. Primarily the North and West. Extremely few in the South. I assume this is related to slavery. These are also the most racist states. I’ve always assumed that was related to slavery, which it probably primarily is, but now I’m wondering if a bit of it can also be connected to the paucity of immigrants.
- readthenotes1 5y ago
  In summary: racism and slavery aren't the answers to all historical questions. Iirc, most of the immigrants of the 1800s came from northern Europe. Most will be happier with a similar climate. The growth of the South East didn't really take hold until air conditioning was popularized in the 1950s. Racism is endemic throughout North America (especially if you consider indigenous/native, or Irish a race). Slavery enabled larger farms in the inhospitable climate of the southeast and caribbean, but the existence of slavery there did not magically suppress immigration, the climate and subsequent economy did.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nwiswell 5y ago
    The reverse is probably true, however. If there had been more immigration to the South over these two centuries, bigoted attitudes would have likely been less tenacious.
    - t-3 5y ago
      Possibly, but a big factor in immigration is jobs. The north has been industrialized for a long time, so there was opportunity there for immigrants. The south, focused on agriculture, wouldn't be an attractive place to settle unless you were already wealthy enough to buy land (and slaves to work the land, in those days).
    - readthenotes1 5y ago
      Given the large protests against desegregation in schools in Boston Mass, the formation of ethnic gangs in NYC, etc. I'd say you are very wrong.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    >Racism is endemic throughout North America Where do you think racism isn't endemic?
mensetmanusman 5y ago
In case people didn’t know, last year half the states had more deaths than births.
yuppie_scum 5y ago
How are they putting Connecticut next to Maryland on this infographic smh
- ashgreat 5y ago
  Totally with you on this. I think the grid they used for the state facets is overly simplified. I use geofacets package from R to create such maps: https://dataviz.school/posts/2020-12-02-election-donuts-pics/ https://dataviz.school/posts/2020-12-02-election-donuts-pics...
jameshart 5y ago
> Since the 1960s, Florida has seen one of the largest increases in immigrants from outside the US of any state > Most of these newcomers are from the Caribbean–particularly Cuba and Puerto Rico. That seems worthy of a factcheck.... Pretty sure Puerto Ricans have been being born inside the United States since 1898. Although technically it took until 1917 before they were recognized as such.
- jedberg 5y ago
  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.
  - vinay427 5y ago
    > 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 Puerto Rico as well. Perhaps ironically, this seems to not allow PR the same sovereignty that the 50 states enjoy over the federal government. In an edge case like this, some disagreement is expected and there might be a more nuanced characterization of this situation.
    - jameshart 5y ago
      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...
jedberg 5y ago
The creator of the charts posted them on reddit and explained the data and methods a bit more: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/skhtz7/oc_birthplace_of_us_residents_by_state_1850_2020/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/skhtz7/oc_...

51 points by sandslash 5y ago

Who is their SEO marketer? The main page’s headline “Your Connecticut Personal Injury & Immigration Lawyers” so I guess we’re looking at some pretty upper funnel content. Kudos for at least making it interesting.

earthscienceman 5y ago
Seriously egrigous on mobile. I was greeted by a chat not and an overlay. So bad i though I'd clicked the wrong link

derbOac 5y ago

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.

irrational 5y ago

It is interesting to see where immigrants settled in the 1800s. Primarily the North and West. Extremely few in the South. I assume this is related to slavery. These are also the most racist states. I’ve always assumed that was related to slavery, which it probably primarily is, but now I’m wondering if a bit of it can also be connected to the paucity of immigrants.

readthenotes1 5y ago
In summary: racism and slavery aren't the answers to all historical questions. Iirc, most of the immigrants of the 1800s came from northern Europe. Most will be happier with a similar climate. The growth of the South East didn't really take hold until air conditioning was popularized in the 1950s. Racism is endemic throughout North America (especially if you consider indigenous/native, or Irish a race). Slavery enabled larger farms in the inhospitable climate of the southeast and caribbean, but the existence of slavery there did not magically suppress immigration, the climate and subsequent economy did.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nwiswell 5y ago
  The reverse is probably true, however. If there had been more immigration to the South over these two centuries, bigoted attitudes would have likely been less tenacious.
  - t-3 5y ago
    Possibly, but a big factor in immigration is jobs. The north has been industrialized for a long time, so there was opportunity there for immigrants. The south, focused on agriculture, wouldn't be an attractive place to settle unless you were already wealthy enough to buy land (and slaves to work the land, in those days).
  - readthenotes1 5y ago
    Given the large protests against desegregation in schools in Boston Mass, the formation of ethnic gangs in NYC, etc. I'd say you are very wrong.
- WillPostForFood 5y ago
  >Racism is endemic throughout North America Where do you think racism isn't endemic?

mensetmanusman 5y ago

In case people didn’t know, last year half the states had more deaths than births.

yuppie_scum 5y ago

How are they putting Connecticut next to Maryland on this infographic smh

ashgreat 5y ago
Totally with you on this. I think the grid they used for the state facets is overly simplified. I use geofacets package from R to create such maps: https://dataviz.school/posts/2020-12-02-election-donuts-pics/ https://dataviz.school/posts/2020-12-02-election-donuts-pics...

jameshart 5y ago

> Since the 1960s, Florida has seen one of the largest increases in immigrants from outside the US of any state > Most of these newcomers are from the Caribbean–particularly Cuba and Puerto Rico. That seems worthy of a factcheck.... Pretty sure Puerto Ricans have been being born inside the United States since 1898. Although technically it took until 1917 before they were recognized as such.

jedberg 5y ago
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.
- vinay427 5y ago
  > 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 Puerto Rico as well. Perhaps ironically, this seems to not allow PR the same sovereignty that the 50 states enjoy over the federal government. In an edge case like this, some disagreement is expected and there might be a more nuanced characterization of this situation.
  - jameshart 5y ago
    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...

jedberg 5y ago

The creator of the charts posted them on reddit and explained the data and methods a bit more: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/skhtz7/oc_birthplace_of_us_residents_by_state_1850_2020/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/skhtz7/oc_...