Immigration to the USA throughout history

Yeah, a lot of cases have subtle nuances. The general public just thinks "this law is bad" and when it gets struck down thinks "good, the Court agreed with me." However, it's the "why" that's important. The Arizona law had significant issues related to discrimination, unlawful searches, etc. None of those issues actually got decided. All the Court said was that the federal government has control, not the states.

Since this is a history forum, I have half a mind to talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act and how it led to modern US immigration policy. It's weird to think that the US had essentially no immigration policies until that point. It was also awkward for US Presidents because they were reaching trade agreements with China and Japan that essentially said both sides had a right to go to the other country. Then Congress would turn around and exclude Chinese and Japanese people from coming to this country. That's why there were "gentlemen's agreements" where Japan would agree not to issue visas for its people so the US wouldn't have to be in the awkward position of excluding them. Although, generally, the agreement was just ignored anyway and Japanese people continued to immigrate here.

I will leave with this. In 1896, in Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court said that "separate but equal" accommodations that segregated races were constitutional (technically, they never said it had to be "equal," but the Louisiana law in question did at least require it, so that phraseology stuck). Justice Harlan is famous for his dissent, arguing that the Equal Protection Clause forbid this kind of discrimination. Unfortunately, he also had this line:
There is a race so different from our own that we do not permit those belonging to it to become citizens of the United States. Persons belonging to it are, with few exceptions, absolutely excluded from our country. I allude to the Chinese race. But, by the statute in question, a Chinaman can ride in the same passenger coach with white citizens of the United States, while citizens of the black race in Louisiana ... are yet declared to be criminals, liable to imprisonment, if they ride in a public coach occupied by citizens of the white race.

One year later, the Supreme Court decided the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark. It said that a child of Chinese parents born on US soil would be a US citizen (based on the very clear language of the 14th Amendment that says basically that). Justice Harlan joined the dissent of Justice Fuller. It essentially argued that Chinese people could not become citizens because they were a "distinct race and religion, distinct race and religion, remaining strangers in the land, residing apart by themselves, tenaciously adhering to the customs and usages of their own country, unfamiliar with our institutions, and apparently incapable of assimilating with our people."
 
Is there data regarding the total number of immigrants in each year / each 10 year period, etc. throughout history (i.e. all who weren't born in the US)?
Sorry, didn't read through everything, but I think it's fairly common knowledge. The textbook I use for my class has immigration statistics, by decade, going back to ~1800, IIRC (it's not in front of me).
 
If something is "illegal", then it is actively prohibited by law, but if it's "unlawful", it only means it's not protected. In the US, constitutional law forbids the criminalisation of unlawful immigration, so "illegal immigrants" by definition cannot exist.

The idea is that it is illegal in the sense that the immigration happened without authorization of the receiving state.

That doesn't automatically make it criminal, since the illegal aliens can file appeals, such as to claim political asylum. I'm pretty sure the USA and other countries tend to deport illegal aliens rather than try to try them as criminals and imprison them. The exception is if the aliens actually commit crimes while in country (murder, etc..).
 
The idea is that it is illegal in the sense that the immigration happened without authorization of the receiving state.
Right, but that isn't what the word "illegal" means, and it isn't used as such in either technical or in everyday language. The only context in which it acquires this meaning is this one, debates over immigration, in which it serves an ideological purpose. We should no more accept it than we would accept the description of Soviet dissidents as "enemies of the people".
 
Panna Maria, Texas, was probably the first Polish settlement in the USA:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpb8YHF1jmc

Panna Maria in Texas - the oldest Polish settlement in the USA. Established by Silesians, who 160 years ago emigrated to distant America. Today descendants of first emigrants live here - families of Dziukowie, Moczygemby, Bednorze, Pieprzyce...

http://www.slask-texas.org/en

About the project

The website has been created as a complement to a historical exhibition 'Silesian Texans - Then and Now' that is centered around the subject of emigration of Silesians to Texas in the 19th century, as well as current Silesian descendants living in Texas who maintain contact with Silesians living in Poland. The inspiration to create this exhibition came from our personal long-term contact with descendants in Texas that are centered around the Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Sławięcic (Friends of Sławięcice Association) in agreement with the Father Leopold Moczygemba Foundation and also with many people in Poland who expressed their interest in this subject. Since the 160th Anniversary of the emigration will be celebrated this year, 2014, we endeavored to show this less-known aspect to as many people as possible - hence the idea of our exhibition. In June 2013 a social project team was assembled in order to prepare content-related and artistic composition of our materials.

Sławięcice (Slawentzitz), today district of the city of Kandrzin-Cosel (Kędzierzyn-Koźle).

Website of the "Father Leopold Moczygemba Foundation":

http://www.flmfoundation.org/

Developing, maintaining and supporting exchange programs for cultural, religious
and educational activities in Texas and Silesia, Poland.

Founded In Panna Maria, Texas

The leader of those people was Leopold Moczygemba (born in 1824 in Gross Pluschnitz, Kreis Gross Strehlitz):



Moczygemba family from Texas visits Moczygemba family who still live in Upper Silesia (since 4:37 of the video linked below):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFfh1DDZlfI#t=277

The video is filmed (and the meeting takes place) in Płużnica Wielka (in German: Gross Pluschnitz, Kreis Gross Strehlitz).

==========================================

Silesians from Texas visit Poland. Some of them still speak Polish:

Since 0:28 of the video: "(...) Szkoda że jo nie przywiezła te, jo miała te family tree, my się ani nie wspomniało wiesz (...)"


Link to video.

From this video below (since 0:40 of the video):

350 years ago, Kordecki was the one who was protecting Czestochowa from the Swedish army. Why did we call the first Polish place in Texas Panna Maria? Because of this faith, that the Blessed Mother would take care of us. This is not Moczygemba, Varsovia Ville or whatever, but Panna Maria...


Link to video.

==========================================

Talking about themselves:

In English:


Link to video.

And also:


Link to video.

She is talking in their local "Silesian Texan" dialect, but I understand everything:

"Hi everyone. Joł jest Dorka, joł jest Dorota. I am Dorothy Pawelek. Jo się urodziła w Teksasie, moi ojcowie byli Aleksander Pollock and Anna Moczygemba-Pollock. Oni mieli siedem dzieci a jo była ta najmodszo. Jok jo było 23 lot staro, joł się wydała do Alojza Pawelka. I my mieli jedna dziołcha, się nazywał Susan a ona ma dziołszka się nazywa Eden. Jok jo była piećdziesiot dziewieć lot staro, jo owdowiała i tera mieszkom sama. Jok ja była mała dziołszka w doma, to my ino rzędziły po polsku. Ale to nie było za tyla do mojej mamy, oni chcieli co by jo się nauczyła czytać i pisać po polsku. I my mieli siostry Felicjanki, ale one nos ino uczyły po angielsku, ale ci co chcieli się nauczyć po polsku czytać i pisać, łone nos uczyły przed szkołą abo po szkole. W roku osiemdziesiąt dziewięć jo pojechoła pierszy roz do tej kochanej Polski. Bardzo mi się tam podobało. I tera wiem skąd moi starzyki przyszli. Od ojca strony przyszli z Grodziska a od mamy strony przyszli z Płużnica. Tera jak jadę do Polski to się czuja że jadę do dom. Ja jest bardzo rada iż wy mocie ta wystawa z Teksasu. Tera wiecie co mie tu robiemy i wy robiemy w Teksasie. Serdecznie pozdrawiam Was wszystkich, musicie wiedzieć iże tako Dorka w Teksasie bardzo psza jest. Do zobaczenio w Teksasie albo w Polsce. Do widzienia."

Translation:

"Hi everyone. I am Dorka, I am Dorota. I am Dorothy Pawelek. I was born in Texas, my parents were Alexander Pollock and Anna Moczygemba-Pollock. They had seven children and I was the youngest of them. When I was 23 years old, I married Alojzy Pawelek. And we had one daughter, her name was Susan, and she has a little daughter, her name is Eden. When I was 59 years old, I widowed and now I live alone. When I was a small girl then at home we were only talking in Polish. But that was not enough for my mother, parents wanted me also to learn how to read and write in Polish. And we had Felician Sisters, but they were only teaching us English, but in case of those who wanted to learn reading and writing in Polish, they were giving us lessons either before school or after school. In 1989 I visited this beloved Poland for the first time. I liked being there very much. And now I know from where my ancestors came. My paternal ancestors came from Grodzisko while maternal ancestors from Płużnica. Now each time when I visit Poland, I feel like I was visiting my home. I am very happy that you have this exhibition from Texas. Now you know what we are doing here in Texas and what you can do. Kind regards to all of you, you must know that such a cool Dorka lives in Texas. See you later in Texas or in Poland. Goodbye."

This map shows Silesian cities, towns and villages from which Poles emigrated to Texas in the 1850s - 1870s:

http://www.slask-texas.org/en/materialy/materialy-mapy.html

My paternal ancestors came from Grodzisko while maternal ancestors from Płużnica.

Here is where Dorothy Pawelek's ancestors came from (area between Oppeln and Gleiwitz):



Opole = Oppeln
Strzelce Opolskie = Gross Strehlitz
Toszek = Tost
Gliwice = Gleiwitz
Dobrodzień = Guttentag
Lubliniec = Lublinitz
Olesno = Rosenberg
Ozimek = Malapane

Rzeka Odra - Oder River
 
If something is "illegal", then it is actively prohibited by law, but if it's "unlawful", it only means it's not protected. In the US, constitutional law forbids the criminalisation of unlawful immigration, so "illegal immigrants" by definition cannot exist.
Interesting, didn't know that.
However, since deportation is always a possible response to unlawful immigration, "it only means it's not protected" doesn't strike me as a satisfactory description. When I think of merely not protected, I think of things like not being able to sue. Of not being able to count on the state with regard to my unlawful action to do something in my favor. I do not think of the state forcefully changing my location by possibly thousands of miles.

Perhaps this is just something that makes unlawful immigration special compared to other unlawful acts and which causes the confusion.
 
The state doesn't deport unlawful migrants as a punishment for transgressions, even if the practice of deportation may feel like a punishment. It deports them because states regard the right to decide whether or not non-citizens reside within their borders as an important aspect of sovereignty, and may feel compelled to pointedly exercise that right. Equally, however, a state may not: California has pretty much decided that it isn't going to deport unlawful migrants as a matter of routine, even though these migrants remain unlawful and it remains within its right to do so.
 
States can't actually do the deportation themselves, but states have differing views about whether to alert ICE about deportations. California probably says nothing, while Virginia routinely alerts the federal government if anyone is ever sent to jail (usually pending trial).
 
But in any case, the largest ancestry group in the USA is not "German".

The largest ancestry group in the USA (as of 2000 census) is "Not reported":



So probably Pangur Ban is right (especially that "American" ancestry are also mostly English surnames).

Check detailed data in the attached file:

I had forgotten about that thread.

The interesting thing is that surnames reflect agnatic lines, ancestry reporting reflects what people think is notable about their 'origin'. Neither of which give any insight into the net contribution of particular old world regions. We all have 8 great-grandparents, 16 great-great-grandparents, and so on. It's a nonsense to assign a particular ancestry to a 'typical white American'. Elis-Islandism aside, surnames will be a more reliable guide to origin than 'reported ancestry', unless you can say that agnatic lines are unrepresentative for some reason; the agnatic line could under-represent due to high male death rates in the civil war at a time prior to heavy non-British Isles immigration, or heavier concentration of male migration from specific European countries.
 
In 1980 census the largest self-reported ancestry group in the USA was English (49,598,035 out of 226,545,805 reported English ancestry). However, in 1990 census German and Irish self-reported ancestries became more numerous, and English vastly declined - just 32,651,788 out of 248,709,873 reported English ancestry in 1990. Irish ancestry also declined - from 40,165,702 who reported Irish ancestry in 1980 to 38,735,539 in 1990.

Is there any explanation why people became less willing to report English and Irish ancestries? On the other hand, German ancestry vastly increased in 1990 (compared to 1980), but then declined again in 2000.

===========================================

Could the fact that in the list of exemplary answers English was before German in 1980, while in 1990 German was given as first example and English wasn't listed among examples at all, have an influence on results?:

http://www.census.gov/population/ancestry/about/faq.html

1980 census ancestry question:



1990 census ancestry question:

 
I imagine the number reporting themselves as simply 'American' probably went up.

This was also the case. And it seems that the number of people not reporting any ancestry perhaps went up too.

Below some more maps (note that regions with high "American" ancestry also have high "Unspecified" ancestry):





 

Attachments

  • American.jpg
    American.jpg
    102.6 KB · Views: 419
  • Unspecified.jpg
    Unspecified.jpg
    97.3 KB · Views: 496
  • Foreign English.png
    Foreign English.png
    485.8 KB · Views: 798
I imagine the number reporting themselves as simply 'American' probably went up.

That's what I was going to say. The decline in people saying "Irish" looks like a statistical fluke more than anything else. The decline in "English" is people don't really see themselves as English anymore and tend to think English heritage just means you're American.

This is particularly true in the South where it is predominantly Scots-Irish and English but they usually just say "American."
 
The decline in "English" is people don't really see themselves as English anymore and tend to think English heritage just means you're American.

Don't forget about the "Unspecified ancestry" group, which is actually the largest ancestry group in the USA.

Most of these people are perhaps (?) from families which live in the USA for many generations, and they don't remember their origin?

See the map of "Unspecified" ancestry by county that I posted above.

Most of these seem to be areas with two characteristics: 1) largely colonized until 1860 and 2) which received little immigration later?

Map of population density in the USA in year 1850:





And here in 1860:

 
The first census in which question about ancestry was asked was that of 1980.

Here is how the numbers for several ancestry groups were changing from 1980 to 2010:

American ancestry (self-reported):

1980 - 13,30 million
1990 - 12,40 million
2000 - 20,19 million
2010 - 19,98 million

English ancestry (self-reported):

1980 - 49,60 million
1990 - 32,65 million
2000 - 24,51 million
2010 - 25,93 million




The increase in "American" ancestry does not compensate for entire loss in "English".

Especially between 1980 and 1990 we can see, that both "American" and "English" ancestries declined in numbers (!).
 
Top Bottom