150 Years of Immigration in America, Visualized
fastcodesign.com
fastcodesign.com
An interesting fact about immigration to the United States is how much more some regions (broadly, the north after the Civil War) than other regions (broadly, the territory of the former Confederacy after the Civil War) were favored by immigrants during the peak period of United States immigration (the end of the 1800s). All of my ancestors arrived before peak immigration--in particular, all before the founding of the immigration station at Ellis Island in New York harbor--but immigrants throughout the post-Civil-War era strongly preferred settling anywhere but in the former Confederate states.
[1] https://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/foreignborn/#decade=1950&c...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929714...
http://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2014/04/04/a-genetic-cens...
http://blog.23andme.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Bryc_ASHG...
Is that surprising? The Confederate economy was absolutely destroyed by the Civil War. From my understanding, there wasn't much work even for the Confederates let alone immigrants.
Yes, I found it surprising when I first learned the fact (in the 1970s), because immigrants were pouring into all other parts of the United States in large numbers at the time. That includes places that were wholly undeveloped wilderness and also places that were battlegrounds outside the borders of the Confederacy.
It's even more surprising to me now, after years of reflection on my visits to Hong Kong in the 1980s, because the plain lesson of history is that welcoming immigrants is an excellent way to build up a destroyed economy and to provide more work both for the new arrivals and for the people who were already in the place that welcomes immigrants. There wasn't "work" (preexisting jobs) in the places where my ancestors or the majority of immigrants settled either, but there became work to do as the new settlers arrived.
I don't know much about Reconstruction, but I assume that word got around fast that states like NY would provide a lot more opportunity than a place like GA. That said, I'm sure there were immigrants who went down there. From the little I know the Confederate States were smashed beyond recognition (not everywhere, but certainly the big cities).[1]
Also consider that Northerners who went South were looked down upon by Southerners. I assume they didn't look at immigrants in a much better light.[2]
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpetbaggers
US foreign born is 6% at the beginning. 18% at the midpoint. Then 4% at the end.
a) what caused this rapid spike and retreat? b) are there or why aren't there a million econ studies about immigration studying this time period?
Note: I got as far as Wikipedia's immigration to the US in the 1950s section, which is more a list of random unconnected facts, none of which seem to line up well enough to explain the tentpole. Maybe rising Mexican immigration and the Hungarian revolution, followed by a new system of immigration no one knew how to use... not really sure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...
http://dsl.richmond.edu/panorama/foreignborn/#decade=2010&co...
As a European, migrating to US is tough, so it's no surprise immigration from Europe is that low today. Obviously the biggest contributor today is Mexico , but the fact the Philippines arrive at the second place is surprising.China is only at the 4th rank.
Data is a bit old (2011), but this says ~50K employment GCs and ~750K based on family ties.[1]
[1]http://immigration.uschamber.com/uploads/sites/392/Summary%2...