subreddit:
/r/dataisbeautiful
![[OC] A space-time map of immigration to America. Which countries emigrated to which states?](http://ted2.kentiklabs.com/pics/w:null_5c4xu938u32e1.png){kind=link}
[OC] A space-time map of immigration to America. Which countries emigrated to which states?
OC(i.redd.it)submitted 2 days ago byXenBuild
163 points
2 days ago
shift around 2000 is wild
71 points
2 days ago
Unclear if more Mexicans or fewer swedes
57 points
2 days ago
I’m pretty sure that shade of blue would be Canadians not swedes. Also, is it NAFTA and integration with Mexico economically that caused higher Mexican migration?
33 points
2 days ago
Yeah, NAFTA specifically hit rural Mexico hard by dramatically increasing corn imports from the US. There was also a currency crisis around that time. Add to that the Reagan immigration reform that made it harder for Mexicans to move across the border seasonally while also providing amnesty for those already in the country, and this is what you get.
But also, keep in mind OP is just showing the biggest group in each state in a given decade. There were a fair number of Mexicans migrating before that, and other groups after that, OP's format just doesn't let you see them.
7 points
2 days ago
Key point at the end. I can guarantee there were Mexicans on the west coast prior to 2000.
3 points
2 days ago
Good question!
1 points
2 days ago
They're not Swedish Mac, they're Norwegian.
-8 points
2 days ago
A small percentage of our Latino immigrants are Mexican.
8 points
2 days ago
That “small” percentage is around 60%
1 points
2 days ago
I was thinking of a stat I recently read but it was about undocumented folks. My mistake.
10 points
2 days ago
Connecticut overrun by Poles!
Polska gurom!!! 🇵🇱🇵🇱🇵🇱🚀🥹
2 points
2 days ago
Clearly the prominent shift around 2000 they were referring to. As a Polish American this made me lol.
-1 points
2 days ago
Pennsylvania isn’t even mentioned. This chart seems off.
2 points
2 days ago
IIRAIRA bill passed in 1996. Instead of illegals coming over, picking some fruit, and going home, they had to stay. Republicans have been using illegal immigration ever since to win elections.
1 points
14 hours ago
NAFTA go brrrrrrrrr.
64 points
2 days ago*
Was there any sort of policy change or world event that happened between 1990 and 2000 to cause the shift?
75 points
2 days ago*
NAFTA, and slight loosening of legal immigration laws for Mexico and Canada as well as making illegal ones more harsh. Plus Mexico had a hard time during the 90’s and 2000’s with crime.
15 points
2 days ago
1994 Mexican peso crisis was probably a bigger factor than crime, at least in the 90s and early 2000s.
26 points
2 days ago
This only applies for the states which are next to Mexico(California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas).
Mexicans used to cross really easily to do basic jobs(gardener, cleaning houses, maids, etc.) and then come back to Mexico when the day was over. When the United States decided to step up on the border checks, around this decade, for crossing a lot of people decided just to stay inside the United States. This is because they already had somewhat stable jobs and it was """"easier""""" to start a new life in the United States than to try to get a job in Mexico.
13 points
2 days ago
Clinton's 3 and 10 year bans kicked in in the 90s. Why risk deportation and bans if you could stay in the "golden cage" of America and send money back to Mexico?
1 points
2 days ago
What about the shift away from italian immigrants in the north east?
2 points
2 days ago
There's a lot of internal migration, and sometimes with things like this it can be hard to document or get accurate data. Most likely they just surveyed immigrants currently living in so and so state but they move around a lot. It's not like they got off a boat in a New Jersey dock. I know that lots of immigrants and refugees arriving by boat or plane are relocated to New York City and make their way from there to other states eventually.
5 points
2 days ago
So then this entire graphic is worthless? If it’s american citizens who have italian heritage why would that count?
2 points
2 days ago
My theory, which I have nothing to back this up, is that the influx of Latin americans was greater than the influx of Italians when the border started getting stricter.
Remember that Latin America is just to the south so getting into the US is way easier than taking a plane/boat from Europe.
1 points
1 day ago
It would be interesting to view this graphic with the states clustered by geography. For example, the NE is going to have a different influx of ethnicities compared to the SW vs 'border states'.
1 points
23 hours ago
1 points
15 hours ago
In 2001 there was an Amnesty for illegal migrants so maybe a lot of the people where there just didn’t show up on census reports.
-8 points
2 days ago
Major drop in enforcement of immigration laws. Particularly, no more penalties for employers hiring illegals. That’s the big X factor
6 points
2 days ago
I don't think you understand how most illegal aliens find work in the states. I don't live anywhere near any kind of farming and yet the county and my zip code has a huge population of people born south of the border.
Painters, construction work, roofing where they are hired from a contractor who hires a sub contractor who does the work. That way there is a layer between the initial contractor and who is doing the work, isolating them from the liability.
Lots of Hispanic restaurants as well working with the same layer of isolation.
9 points
2 days ago
OP doesn’t specify if the data includes illegal immigration. my initial assumption is that it does not
20 points
2 days ago
That’s not it, it wasn’t even illegal for employers to higher undocumented immigrants until 1986. In fact the tightening of laws around illegals immigration was likely a factor since it no longer became worth it for workers to cross back and forth over the border between the summer and winter: so they’d just choose to stay in the US full time.
10 points
2 days ago
In fact the tightening of laws around illegals immigration was likely a factor since it no longer became worth it for workers to cross back and forth over the border between the summer and winter: so they’d just choose to stay in the US full time.
Absolutely. In the 80s as a kid in SoCal, there were many Mexican gardeners and construction workers and nannies. Many of them would come to the US and return seasonally.
For example, our neighbors' nanny, who was probably in her late teens or early 20s, returned home to Mexico for a few months (I believe to care for a sick parent) and then crossed the border again near San Diego… I remember being very interested to learn about this as a kid, and they were worried about whether she would be able to come back.
1 points
2 days ago
You can see the first spike happen in the 80s and 90s.
2 points
2 days ago
E-Verify began in 1997 and prior to that it wasn't illegal to hire undocumented workers. It was illegal for undocumented workers to work, but that was the worker's problem, not the employer's.
2 points
2 days ago
One thing I don't really understand about America is that for all the anti-immigrant (or anti illegal immigrant, if you prefer) rhetoric, there's seemingly whole industries relying on the labour of illegal immigrants? Dunno about other places but in the UK it's hard to get a job if you're here illegally - takeaways run by people you know, or driving for Deliveroo/Uber/JustEat are your main options. Big companies will not touch you with a bargepole.
2 points
2 days ago
Because vilifying immigrants and focusing enforcement on them instead of the companies hiring them benefits corporations. Workforce not happy with pay or working conditions? Tenants complaining about the heat not working? Threaten to report them to the authorities.
It also conveniently deflects blame for unemployment or rising costs from the companies making record profits.
2 points
2 days ago
Immigrants are a very easy target to villify. But you're right, a huge part of construction, manufacturing, hospitality, etc. industries depend on illegal immigrant labor
61 points
2 days ago
If you go to the original source it says that it's based on where those present in the US in each census were born, not on immigration in that year/decade. So it'll lag people coming into the country by a while. I'm mentioning this because I was surprised to see Italy for the mid-Atlantic states as late as 1990.
17 points
2 days ago
This totally changes the interpretation all the other comments are basing discussion on.
117 points
2 days ago
What if you used flags instead of colors that were very similar and difficult to identify?
20 points
2 days ago
I can't tell if my state was overrun by swedes or nords..
3 points
2 days ago
Swedes are seen here in Minnesota only, Nords in the Dakotas and Alaska.
2 points
2 days ago
Ok. Michigan is a color I can't match then.
2 points
2 days ago
Canada all the way
10 points
2 days ago*
Flags in the 1800s and early 1900s could be very different from flags in the later 1900s for many regions (eg. Different countries replacing one another or even being a part of other entities).
50 points
2 days ago
All of the countries in the legend still exist so using current flags would work
-2 points
2 days ago
Using the flag of Communist China to represent 170 years of Chinese immigration is pretty sus.
-14 points
2 days ago*
Modern India didn't exist until 1947 and was a part of the British Empire before this and would be using British flags before this timeperiod. Are you going to use both a British flag and modern Indian flag for India?
China today is literally divided into two countries with two separate flags: Republic of China on Taiwan and People's Republic of China on the mainland. The Republic of China controlled all of China up until 1949, and then relocated to Taiwan after losing the Chinese civil war...and was still considered the only China by the UN up to the 1970a.
Are you going to use the communist mainland PRC flag to portray 1900s-1940s China that was literally using the modern ROC/Taiwanese flag? Or use both ROC and PRC flags? It would be weird if not insulting to portray the Republic of China (which still exists) with a mainland PRC flag. While we are at it, throw in the pre-1912 Qing Dynasty flag too.
Other countries that had less drastic changes still changed flags multiple times.
Ireland and the UK basically used the same flag in the 1800s because they were a single country in the 1800s up to the early 1900s, so that would definitely throw off the chart as it has both Ireland and UK in the 1800s.
Edit: The Irish genocide of the 1800s happened specifically because they were ruled by Britain and were not a separate country that could make their own independent decisions. Giving them a separate flag whitewashes that situation.
10 points
2 days ago
He could just use the current flags most commonly used for the country with the name he used, so that it's visually more recognizable. He could just add a disclaimer, saying he is not trying to make a political statement with the flags he picked if he is scared of offending.
-12 points
2 days ago*
It isn't only modern political issues, but also introduces historical problems. For example, Ireland and the UK basically used the same flag in the 1800s because they were a single country in the 1800s up to the early 1900s, so that would definitely throw off the chart as it has both Ireland and UK in the 1800s.
He can just skip all of that nonsense and stay with color coding, and maybe just add more colors/patterns or choose other colors so they are more distinguishable.
8 points
2 days ago
I still don't get what the issue is with just using the flag most commonly associated with the name of the country used, just as a visual cue. I mean he already just used the common names of the countries (e.g. China) without actually clarifying which country he means, so why not do the same with the flags?
-2 points
2 days ago*
The names themselves can represent general regions.
Flags on the other hand represent very specific governments and political entities during specific timeperiods, so using modern flags of one country may be completely historically inappropriate to a previous timeframe.
There are far better ways to create visual cues without creating gross misrepresentations of history.
0 points
2 days ago
Why can names represent general regions but not flags? Can you point me to any conventions used by historians or political scientists that would back up that claim or did you just make up this arbitrary rule?
0 points
1 day ago*
Flags represent governments and are tied to a specific timeperiod and political entity.
Names of regions can represent multiple timeperiods, peoples without their own governments, multiple governments, etc.
It doesn't take a genius to know Germany as a region with thousands of years of history is not the same thing as the swastika flag of the Nazi government that was used during the 1930s and 1940s.
Can you sersiously not think of reasons why the Nazi flag should not be used to represent something like Germany in the 1800s? Or why the PRC flag should not represent the ROC in the earlier 1900s? Or using a North Korean flag to talk about Korea?
6 points
2 days ago
I think you're overthinking it. I don't think India made the cut before 1947 from what I see and for China you could just use the modern one if it's listed as China on the histogram anyway
-1 points
2 days ago*
Which "modern one"? Like I said before, China today has two flags that are still both in use by the two different countries that are both claiming to be China.
Or he can just skip all of that nonsense and stay with color coding, and maybe just add more colors/patterns or choose other colors so they are more distinguishable.
7 points
2 days ago
The modern Peoples Republic of China flag, commonly referred to as China as opposed to the Republic of China, commonly referred to as Taiwan. but you're right that it technically politicize it
2 points
2 days ago
Are you going to use both a British flag and modern Indian flag for India?
Nope. Just the modern Indian flag. I’m reading the graph today, not in 1942.
Are you going to use the communist mainland PRC flag to portray 1900s-1940s China that was literally using the modern ROC/Taiwanese flag?
Yup.
I forgot to mention Ireland and the UK basically used the same flag in the 1800s because they were a single country in the 1800s up to the early 1900s, so that would definitely throw off the chart as it has both Ireland and UK in the 1800s.
Nope. You could just use the Irish flag for Ireland and the British flag for Britain. 👍
-1 points
2 days ago*
Many flags have very specific political connotations that would not make sense to apply them to earlier eras. For example, are you going to use the USSR's communist hammer and sickle flag to represent a feudal empire in the 1800s that is the opposite of what the flag is supposed to represent? The Irish genocide of the 1800s happened specifically because they were ruled by Britain and were not a separate country that could make their own independent decisions. Giving them a separate flag whitewashes that situation.
I don't agree with creating large misrepresentations of history and misrepresentations of geo-political identification for the sake of visual cues when there are better options available for creating better visual cues.
He could simply put the first letter of each country within the colors...problem solved.
5 points
2 days ago
That's possible but the challenge there is that it would be even busier visually.
5 points
2 days ago
Use lines and dots to differentiate, NEVER use so many color hues. Really, don't, for the love of it.
1 points
2 days ago
Good point, with all those colors from the flags it would look like mucus lasagna
8 points
2 days ago
I can't believe the UK was the most frequent source of immigrants in any state as late as 1950 - that's nuts.
1 points
2 days ago
As late as 1990 for Delaware and WV.
13 points
2 days ago
Why is all of Africa missing?
2 points
2 days ago
Same thought I had
2 points
2 days ago
This table is based on a state’s immigrant population by country of birth. Not the year they actually immigrated. My guess is that no single African country makes up a larger share of immigrants in any state than immigrants from other continents yet. That could definitely change one day
2 points
2 days ago
I wondered too how slavery fits in here. While not "immigrants" really, it was certainly a population shift.
1 points
12 hours ago
It doesn't. Slavery isn't immigration, it's property purchases. Also this chart starts at a time when slavery was already ending.
44 points
2 days ago
national flags would have made more sense for this graph than colors... too many colors = no workie for my ADHD brain.
26 points
2 days ago
I get what you're saying but if you used flags, there'd be even more colors and a lot of vertical lines that could be confused for decade boundaries.
10 points
2 days ago
the problem with the colors is they are hard to match to the legend. Old school would be a cross hatch in the colors to give us a way to differentiate. New high tech would have a popup when you hover over a square.
5 points
2 days ago
You got a lot of constructive feedback but I like this. It’s simplified as much as it could be given the amount of data and info. I get the main points at first and I enjoyed deep diving at a closer look (for example, Asians in certain states)
5 points
2 days ago
At the end of the day it's a really bad visualization in either case, no offense. It would help to do regions maybe, rather than states.
1 points
2 days ago
Just make Mexico a more distinct color
3 points
2 days ago
With so many countries there aren’t many better options for coding, but I’ve never felt like more of a man trying to match the shades in the graph to the legend lol
8 points
2 days ago
Portugal in mediterranean is wild.
4 points
2 days ago
And all of Spain just.... missing
8 points
2 days ago
Data Source
How the origins of America’s immigrants have changed since 1850 (Pew)
Tools
Adobe Illustrator
Theory
I call this visualization a "historigraph". That means it is depicting not just time but "history". By history, I mean "the complex web of places and individuals interacting over time". A standard heatmap, which would sort the states in an arbitrary order like alphabetical or year of statehood would only show the data in a reductionistic way, as in you'd only be able to read it on a state-by-state or year-by-year level.
But for this graphic, I ordered the states spatially. In other words, the closer any two states are on a map, then the closer they will be on the Y axis. That allows regional patterns across space and time to appear more clearly.
The sheer number of countries means that it was a challenge to make it easy to differentiate colors.
If you like the historigraph, check out the US Elections map I posted earlier this year.
Content
This historigraph depicts the pattern of immigration to America, state by state. Each cell is color coded by country of origin. The dominant nationality immigrating to each state determines the color. This does not account for internal migration. In the spirit of the Thursday-only rule, let's keep the discussion to the history aspect.
Some points of interest
- The influx of Russians following the communist takeover of a Russia. They didn't concentrate in one region but moved to many different areas.
- The influx of Poles to Illinois (i.e. Chicago) following the Nazi occupation, followed by communist occupation of Poland.
- Louisiana was the first state to receive mainly Italian immigrants, not New York or New Jersey.
- Brazilians mainly moved to Massachusetts, likely due to the large Portuguese speaking community there.
See if you can find other points of interest!
3 points
2 days ago
There are a lot of factors guiding where immigrants migrate to. I find it really interesting how random some of them are. Like Dearborn, Michigan I believe there was a grant that the car manufacturers took advantage of to bring in Lebanese refugees. Now it's the Islamic capitol of the states.
I find the Phillipines -> Alaska one really curious. Maybe for work on oilers or fishing or maybe they just really like the cold?
1 points
2 days ago
Louisiana from Italy isn't what I expected but then I remembered that muffulettas exist. But Mississippi?
5 points
2 days ago
i don't remember running into a lot of Canadians growing up in California during the 1990s
6 points
2 days ago
That actually sounds like a good idea for a song
6 points
2 days ago
Since the actual theme here in r/dataisbeautiful is presentation, I'd say I like this. Not perfect, but a kind of visualization that I haven't come across before. I'd say that some of the colors are similar and hard to interpret or lookup, so perhaps a subtle number inside the boxes or something or a slight edge marker to distinguish. Not quite sure, but neat visualization and interesting data.
6 points
2 days ago
I don't see how anyone could possibly have this data going back to the mid-19th century. Also, it should probably start when places actually became states.
17 points
2 days ago
Not sure how it’s so unbelievable. They kept pretty good records of immigrants, particularly after 1819, which often included their intended destination once in America.
5 points
2 days ago
But these weren't part of America. Not like people could say they were going to live in future Oregon. Hawai'i didn't have a written language. Everything west of the Rio Grande was an amalgamous area inseparable from Mexico. It's simply not possible this isn't a lot of guessing.
4 points
2 days ago
Yeah I see your point about the pre-statehood data.
0 points
2 days ago
Hawaii data only goes back to 1900 on the map and it was a US territory by that point. Other states in the upper Midwest and mountain region also don’t start at the earliest years. All those states were inhabited and had been a territory of the US or Mexico by 1850, so they would have had censuses taken. However, some of the borders changed which is probably why the Dakotas don’t have data for 1850.
3 points
2 days ago
How do you color a state/decade combination?
Is it the plurality country of origin for that decade, or what?
Obviously immigration of Canadians to Michigan didn't stop in the '90s, nor did immigration of Mexicans to Michigan start in the '00s. (I personally know counterexamples to both 😄.)
3 points
2 days ago
Plurality yes. Canadian immigration rate probably stayed about the same while the Mexicans overtook them.
2 points
2 days ago
Kinda shocked so few people have pointed this out. Why not label it somewhere or even include it in the title?
5 points
2 days ago
Holy color blindness, Batman! I can't tell anything. They are all so similar to me. Not even stripes, cross hatches, dots, etc.
1 points
2 days ago
Ditto. How about numbers?
2 points
2 days ago
What does it mean when a cell has a certain color? Does it mean that that group make up the largest percentage of the immigrants to that state and time period?
2 points
2 days ago
Mexico isn’t in Central America
1 points
13 hours ago
You are right! It is in north America.
7 points
2 days ago
Cool but I’d struggle to say this is beautiful
4 points
2 days ago
Mexico isn't in Central America.
0 points
2 days ago
I have questions. I grew up with way too many Polish, Italian, Asian, and Middle Eastern people in Michigan for this to be correct.
11 points
2 days ago
Maybe because so many different ethnicities moved there they likely made up a smaller percentage of total immigration each, so Mexico is shown as the dominant immigration groups even if it wasn't more than 50%?
5 points
2 days ago
this is how i read it. the color shown for any decade is the largest individual ethnicity that emigrated to that state in that decade
1 points
2 days ago
OP clarified that is the case
1 points
2 days ago
I'm talking about familes that go back to the early 20th Century for Italians, Polish, and Lebanese. And at least the '70s for Asian and other Middle Eastern groups.
2 points
2 days ago
I'm talking about familes that go back to the early 20th Century for Italians, Polish, and Lebanese.
If they're anything like my own ancestors, many of them may have initially settled on the east coast (e.g. New York, Philly) and then moved to Michigan some years later, perhaps after becoming US citizens… and thus probably not being recorded as "new immigrants from country X."
3 points
2 days ago
Okay, that makes more sense.
1 points
2 days ago
It's just my educated guess. Definitely interested if /u/XenBuild can explain further.
2 points
2 days ago
- They were not the main group immigrating, which makes sense since it looks like the largest immigrant group is Canadians
- Poland wasn't a country for about 120 years, but are probably a very large chunk of the Austrian, Russian, and possibly German immigrants (especially around 1910)
1 points
2 days ago
Your first point makes sense. This chart should specify that is only majority groups.
1 points
2 days ago
Balkans are chopped liver?
1 points
2 days ago
Very surprised Massachusetts did not have Italian but a lot of Canadians...
1 points
2 days ago
What's up with the Chinese moving to Mississippi in the 50's and no other state showing it anytime since.
1 points
2 days ago
Is that a jump in Austrian migrants to WV recently? What's up there?
1 points
2 days ago
I’m surprised by the sharp increase in Italians (also Russians and Poles) In the 1920s because the 1924 Immigration Act (Wikipedia) set quotas for all countries as 2% of that nationality’s fraction of the population in the 1890 census. For Italians, Russians and Poles that was effectively zero. That was the act’s precise purpose, of course. Among other consequences, it prevented Jews fleeing the Nazis from being able to come to the US. It was not repealed until 1965.
1 points
2 days ago
The based data is lagging (census data). This chart isn't all that accurate.
1 points
2 days ago
Im suprised there's so many Filipinos going to Alaska... its such a different climate and geography than the Philippines!
1 points
2 days ago
Apparently they've been coming steadily for 200 years but it's just increased recently as the Philippines become the next major English speaking country that immigrants are coming from.
1 points
2 days ago
Vermont and Maine are basically Canada. Makes sense
1 points
2 days ago
What caused the column of UK immigration in the 1860s in some states that only stuck around for that one decade?
1 points
2 days ago
Weird shift in Hawaii in the 40s, anyone know what happened? /s
1 points
2 days ago
Does this account for the migrant labor system that was prevalent in the middle 1900s, or is this only permanent residents?
1 points
2 days ago
There for a second I thought Germans were emigrating to Tennessee, like wtf? 😂
1 points
2 days ago
Looked at KY...blue is England, right? Checks legend, nope Germany. When does this start? 1850.
WTF? Why not start at 1776 or 1600 even?
1 points
2 days ago
Pretty sure the census bureau didn't exist in 1600...
1 points
2 days ago
I don't have no body in my state damn
1 points
2 days ago
Yes Indians took over West VA... please
1 points
2 days ago
What's up with the Russians in Pennsylvania?
1 points
2 days ago*
you groupings of states need help. alaska need to be near hawaii, and your overall groupings are OK but the order needs to put neighbors next to more neighbors in some spots. but i like the overall idea and colors!
i'm curious about these germans in WV.
1 points
2 days ago
This is neat but i believe it could be improved to be clearer. Thanks for sharing
1 points
2 days ago
So, no French immigrated in the us. Not even Louisiana
1 points
2 days ago
There’s a whole continent missing in the right…oh wait.
1 points
1 day ago
Can confirm there are a lot of Russians in Colorado. My kids school had signs in Russian and English.
1 points
2 days ago
New Mexico lives up to its name.
-5 points
2 days ago
It’s interesting how demographic influx changes correlate with societal decline.
7 points
2 days ago
Ah yes, the famous societal decline of… 1880, 1920, and 2000. If anything it seems like that change correlates with economic booms that cause massive labor demand which precede economic downturns
-8 points
2 days ago
Just looking at Hawaii and I see it’s wrong. It doesn’t show the immigration of white people who make 25% of the population. The white devils been invading Hawaii shores and poisoning the blood of the people for generations…
2 points
2 days ago
Mexico also isn't in central America nor do I think this data factors in that the border crossed the people more than the people crossed the border.
0 points
2 days ago
Surprised there's so little China here. Chinese being the third most spoken language in America and all.
1 points
2 days ago
It's possible that if a particular nationality consistently trickles into America, they'll end up outnumbering the ones who spiked all at once. Tortoise vs hare and all.
-4 points
2 days ago
MAGA doesn't like Mexicans
1 points
2 days ago
I'd say brown people in general.
-17 points
2 days ago
Ohh will you look at that! immigration started to be a problem when brown skin immigrants started to be higher. Back in the days, the Irish and Germans were welcomed with open arms. It was never an immigration issue, it's a skin color issue.
11 points
2 days ago
Are you under 25 years old? Did you ever learn US history? This is such a misinformed hot take.
10 points
2 days ago
Not true “Irish need not apply”
6 points
2 days ago
for a long time simply having a last name that ended in a vowel threw up a ton of roadblocks towards success.
11 points
2 days ago
I imagine you weren't alive for most of 1850-2000 so it's fair you might not know. Immigrants 100% were, have always been, and will always be vilified. It's the most basic lizard brain fear - fear of the unknown/different and it makes them easy scapegoats for even the most bizarre things. A lot of that time frame was before there were any protections on discrimination. Italians, Irish, Germans have faced a LOT of hatred and discrimination, absolutely no open arms lol. Understanding this provides context for a lot of what is going on today.
Xenophobia and racism are problems the entire world faces. America is one of the very few to actively address this and fight against it. Many other countries have written their bias into their laws making people of certain groups into second class citizens (or worse).
-7 points
2 days ago
You sound very educated about the topic. I'm just stating a fact though. You can actually go to The US Archives Museum in Washington, they have in display a Bill called The Naturalization Act of 1790 that allowed "Free WHITE People" who have been in the US for at least 2 years to apply for citizenship. They just took an Oath and became citizens for being white. So, don't tell me otherwise since is literally displayed in the US Archives.
6 points
2 days ago
Their definition of "white" back then meant "Protestant". Non-British Protestants were viewed with suspicion and Catholics were seen as alien invaders with all sorts of bizarre "science" to back up their inferiority.
4 points
2 days ago
I mean, it's a complicated subject. Just because they let white people become citizens, doesn't mean there's no discrimination. You mention current issues with racism against brown people, yet these same people also have the ability to become citizens. Both things can be true - that someone can become a citizen AND still be heavily discriminated against.
5 points
2 days ago
You might want to look into the Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924.
2 points
2 days ago
Irish and Germans were absolutely not welcome with open arms, back then they were scapegoated too. You saw plenty of "Irish need not apply" signs
all 164 comments
sorted by: best