3 ms·

> 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 Car

> 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...
    - vinay427 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. 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.

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...
  - vinay427 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. 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.