Jump to content

Talk:Emigration from the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Minor Edit

[edit]

This article seems pretty outdated as far as sources go, but I've decided to change "quality of life," one of the pull factors for emigrating, to "family reasons" since the only country ranked higher than the U.S. on the human development index that receives major American immigrants is the one sharing a national border, as there not only many families with origins in either country but also immigrant families split between the two.Rodiggidy (talk) 19:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Rodiggidy[reply]

mmm... there is considerable disparity within the US, there are areas with low quality of life, despite the overall high ranking on the HDI. There are pockets of poverty in the US. Anyway, my main comment was that Sweden is listed 2x. Ottawakismet (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Americans not part of the U.S. Armed forces live in Iraq and Afghanistan. Each country has about 2,000 American citizens work for reconstruction projects and for petroleum corporations. The term Al-Ameriki (or "tribe of Americans" in Iraq) is an example of the American presence, and U.S. Americans are already leaving a cultural impact such as introduction of American-style democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. The rising number of U.S. expatriates established communities in oil-rich Persian Gulf nations like Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia (the Aramco foreigner residential compounds) and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). 71.102.1.101 (talk) 03:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make them emigrants, they're not staying.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:38, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm...I've pulled "quality of life" entirely. America ranks fourth on the HDI (above Canada), so it doesn't make much sense, and I can't find any sources that even appear to support this notion. It should by all means be re-added if a reliable source can be found. Swarm X 19:00, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canada??

[edit]

I don't know where to look for sources, but there's absolutely NO way that Canada is not in the list of top-40 countries...???? In fact I'd be surprised if Canada wasn't number one! MissingNo (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was rather surprised by that as well. I'm going to try and find some sources. Celynn (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A quick google search turned up this, I don't have time right now to go searching through the Canadian census to make sure that the data wasn't altered. Feel free by clicking here. Celynn (talk) 22:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone took care of it, good job. Celynn (talk) 01:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"40" main countries

[edit]

Number 40 appears to be missing. Celynn (talk) 01:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Canada is Number One

[edit]

Why would Americans want to live in a poor country like Mexico? We should all know most emigration from America is immigration to Canada, UK, or Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.103.100 (User ) 13:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and that's in the article. I don't really see the point of this. This isn't a discussion board. We aren't here to talk about the status of Mexico. Celynn (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
American retirees sometimes move to Latin American countries for the lower cost of living. Should perhaps be in the article but it isn't often permanent emigration. Rmhermen (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing aspect of this article: Tax to become a non-citizen

[edit]

Regardless of just living abroad or dual citizenship, if one wants to become a non-citizen of the US, it costs money. That is usually for the purpose of tax liability.

There are morality reasons about this, but that is not supposed to be part of the article. The tax reasons behind it could be explored, but that might be too deep & tangential.

The fact that an individual has to pay should be mentioned. Editors: Agree? I could research it more and add it myself, but I'm not that industrious.

Also, there doesn't seem much mention of citizenship, but mostly about US citizens living abroad. Within that subject is the paying of income taxes to each nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.150.70.22 (talk) 22:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with American diaspora?

[edit]

This article seems to cover the same subject as the American diaspora article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Emigration from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Emigration from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emigration from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

POV title

[edit]

The title "Emigration from the United States" inappropriately assumes the reader's POV to be from within the US. To a reader elsewhere, "Immigration from the United States" would be appropriate. The neutral POV would be simply "Migration from the United States", which makes sense wherever the reader is. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Emigration from the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Immigration to the United States which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

US citizens in Puerto Rico are not considered to be living "outside the US" under US law

[edit]

This is something that needs to be addressed. User @Mercy: seems to want to hide the fact that Puerto Ricans are US citizens, and wants to look at practical circumstances, rather than real and official circumstances. This article is clearly abou US citizens living abroad. The INA (US immigration and nationality law) has made it very clear that Puerto Rico (when it comes to citizenship, nationality, residence) is part of the "United States" as it defines it. It would be very confusing to state the number of Americans (meaning US citizens) from the 50 states and DC who live in Puerto Rico, as it can give the impression that Puerto Ricans are not US citizens, which they ARE. This article is not talking about cultural, sociological and ethnic Americans, but OFFICIAL US citizens, living abroad. A US citizen who lived in PR would, legally speaking, NEVER be considered a foreigner, even if they may be completely different culturally, and with regards to their way of life. They are all US citizens, and this encyclopedia should indicate this, and give the RIGHT impression. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mercy11: Sorry, tagged wrong username. Please read this talk page. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymous MK2006: you removed cited text from this article. You aren't allowed to do that. Your action was intended to reflect your own personal political ideology. You have removed the same text 3 times. At Wikipedia we don't go by the chitchat ideological opinions of editors but by verifiable facts from secondary sources. Those verifiable secondary source facts is what was there previously, but which you removed because they didn't agree with your personal political ideology. Please do not remove the cited text from this article again. (As an FYI, I am not begging "please"; I am warning you "please") If you remove the cited text again, there will be no other alternative left than to bring your actions before the WP admin committee. That could result in your being blocked from editing WP or banned from editing Puerto Rico-related articles. I suggest you edit without political POV or other biases. Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercy11: Sorry, I wasn't aware of the seriousness of removing cited text. However, as we are in dispute over a topic, can you please clarify to me why you think that it should be acceptable to say that American citizens "emigrate to Puerto Rico" when Puerto Ricans are already US citizens, and the INA treats PR as part of the US, for immigration and nationality purposes (I would like the INA page, however, I currently editing on my mobile). I'm not sure if anyone can dispute that fact. However, I can assure you that I am not trying to push any political opinion, but make people more aware of PR's relationship with the US, and not mistaken PR with an independent country. However, if you saw my edits as POV, then I am truly sorry. Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 08:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Anonymous MK2006: Yes, it is serious to remove cited text. There are some very rare cases when you can be done but, in general, it's taboo to do otherwise. Go to WP:CITE for more information.
IAE, you asked a question that is irrelevant ("why should it be acceptable to say that American citizens 'emigrate to Puerto Rico' when Puerto Ricans are already US citizens?"). It is irrelevant because it bears no relation to the restoration of the cited text material. It is irrelevant to the restoration for 2 reasons: (1) The table in the infobox doesn't literally state those words. And even as you think this is what it implies, it doesn't imply that. You are not interpreting it correctly, which brings us to Point #2. (2) You seem to be assuming the 188,954 Americans listed there refers to 188,954 Puerto Ricans who left the mainland to go live in PR. It doesn't say that, so you cannot assume that, and these could had been 188,954 blond American, non-Puerto Ricans, who left the mainland to go live in Puerto Rico so they could work at: the US District Court, at the American Airlines hub in San Juan, at the Macys senior management team at Plaza del Caribe, at ICE Aguadilla, at the Guaynabo Federal prison, at the US GPO in Hato Rey, at Fort Buchanan, etc, etc, etc. I think I have made my point. To be truthful, the cite does not indicate if it indeed refers to this latter group of Americans either. After all, it would probably be difficult to think that the US has sent a population the size of the city of Ponce to work in Puerto Rico. In that case, it could be argued that the 188,954 refers to a mix of Americans who were sent to work in PR and Puerto Ricans who went back to the Island to settle there. Either way, we do not know. But the important thing is that either way, it doesn't matter because, regardless of assumption(s) made, what matters is that the material is sourced, and what matters is that the material was restored because it is sourced, not because it is acceptable or not to say "emigrate to Puerto Rico".
The cited material is part of an infobox table that gives the number of Americans that have settled in other places outside of the United States. As in the case of the other places in that table (Mexico, India, Germany, etc.) this refers to Americans (*) who have settled in places other than the United States (*).
Now, you seem to be assuming that the 188,954 Americans who moved to live in PR refers to 188,954 Puerto Ricans who left the US mainland that year to settle in Puerto Rico. However, I make no such assumption. Some of those in those lists who emigrated may have been Americans by birth (say, an American born in North Platte, Nebraska, to descendants of the 1866 North Platte settlers, who in 2016 went on vacation to China, met a Chinese girl there, and got married and relocated to China), while other Americans in that list may have been naturalized Americans (say, a young, bright student from India graduates from a US university with a PhD., is offered a job in the US, works 10 years and becomes a naturalized American citizen, but then decides to emigrate to his homeland India to live off his pension). In any event, the point is that when an American (say, the guy from North Platte) decides to move to PR, just as if he moved to India, Mexico, Germany, or what have you, that's considered an American who emigrated to PR. It is OK for you (or me or anyone) to disagree with this view (based on citizenship of any other allegation) but neither your opinion nor mind matters; what matters is that there is a WP:RS, the El Pais newspaper, who published that
I suggest that, for now, you only edit articles that contain information which is likely to be less controversial than that found in articles about politics, migration, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Hong Kong, etc. After about 6 months, once you have become familiar with policies and have learned how to enter cites, then you can return to more controversial articles. It's not a mandate nor a WP policy, just my suggestion.
(*) You seem to be zeroing in too much on Puerto Rico this, and Puerto Rico that, and US citizens this and US citizens that, to your own peril. When reading articles about the US, you should get used Don't get hung up by "Americans vs. American citizens", nor by "United States vs. continental US plus PR". Articles in Wikipedia aren't written from the perspective that "United States" implies the mainland plus the territories. They are written (don't ask me why, I didn't write the majority of them) from the perspective that "US" means the 50 states and DC. When statistics, etc., about the territories are to be added to an US article, then territories are added, but including a qualifier that the article (intentionally) includes the territories. (**) You know there is are differences sometimes and there are no differences at other times. And so do I. You know PR is sometimes treated like a state, and sometimes it is not. And so do I. But if you get hung up on those details, or if you start getting into the legalese of those terms, you will not be making much progress in the encyclopedia because every other editor will likely be challenging or reverting your edits.
(**) If, in an effort to write articles from the perspective that "United States" implies the mainland plus the territories, you feel the urge to change the long-standing practice of writing articles from the perspective that US means the 50 states plus DC, I suggest you resist that temptation as the bulk of editors at Wikipedia are Americans, and their Wikiproject guards their articles pretty closely. You would be best joining their WikiProject first before attempting such changes. Mercy11 (talk) 01:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercy11: Thank you. There's just one thing that you misunderstood: I didn't believe that the 188,954 Americans who moved to PR were Puerto Ricans from the mainland, but all sorts of Americans from the mainland (Anglo Americans, Chinese Americans, etc). I will stick to less controversial articles on WP, and, once I get more experienced with advanced editing, consider looking at more controversial ones. Anyways, you're right that I shouldn't edit any articles that include cited information. I just thought that there was a lack of understanding about PR and US territories among the general public, so that's why I felt the need to include PR/the territories in articles.
Anyhow, thanks for your comment, and hope to work constructively with you in the future:-) Anonymous MK2006 (talk) 06:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico in sidebar?

[edit]

Should Puerto Rico be in the infobox if it's a U.S. territory, wouldn't that be internal migration, not emigration? --Chelston-temp-1 (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question. Since nobody has replied to it, I'm going to delete it. Fephisto (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I have to admit, that it was in there kind of upsets me a little bit. It reminds me of all those news clips calling Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor as “the daughter of immigrant parents.” Fephisto (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Africa

[edit]

Not a single African countries in the introduction when there are thousands in Egypt, South Africa and Nigeria Nlivataye (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancy in emigrants to Colombia

[edit]

Colombia is featured as having 100,000+ emigrants on map despite the text stating only 21,000. The map does not cite a source (but is more recent) but the text does. Teddy Oakey (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

[edit]

Under Religion and Languages in the stat box, it just lists those of the population of the US, which is obviously way off the topic of this article: the high numbers of emigrants to Mexico, Canada, and Israel are likely to skew the numbers towards Catholicism, nonreligiosity, and Judaism, for example. Finding out the religions and languages of all these people is bound to be nearly impossible, but it shouldn’t just say “Religion”: it should say “Religion of the United States”. or it should be left out entirely Jay Schro (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics > Estimates by Country discrepancies

[edit]

In this section of the article, Norway is listed twice (32nd place with 19,000 and 47th place with 8,013) as well as Portugal (44th with 9,794 and 61st with 4,768). CheeseSchmuckius (talk) 09:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Emigration_from_the_United_States&oldid=1258911291"