Show HN: Map of immigration to the U.S. since 1820
metrocosm.com
metrocosm.com
Some predictable phenomena (Cubans being the most common migrant group in Florida from 1970 onwards, Mexicans being the most common migrants in Texas and the West Coast initially and then most places) and some weird ones (why were Laotians so common in Minnesota in 1990, and why is the Ethiopian diaspora the largest in South Dakota as of 2013?)
Good chance this is actually a lot of Hmong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Hmong_in_Minnea...
(source: went to school in the 90s in Minnesota, like 30% of my classmates were Hmong)
Similar deal with Somali in Minneapolis - once there's critical mass of a given group in a given city, it increases the immigration pull because there's a support network. Right: if you do local stuff in Minneapolis, it's trivial to get paperwork in Somali, or find a Hmong translator.
In the UK the smaller diasporas all seem to end up concentrated in London. My favourite exception to this is Ugandan Asians fleeing Idi Amin, the majority of whom chose to settle in Leicester, a city many of them first heard of through adverts Leicester City Council took out in the Ugandan press addressed to "the many families in Uganda considering coming to Leicester" urging them not to come; they've been one of the UK's most successful minority groups ever since.
http://tcdailyplanet.tumblr.com/post/7081807388/ask-a-somali...
TL;DR - Lutherans
He thought the Hmong had fought hard against communism and would be massacred by the Viet Cong after the American pullout. So he lobbied hard for Hmong immigration opportunities to the States he knew best, which tended to be Northern and Western.
For this reason, delicious Hmong produce is available in improbable locations, such as the Helena, Montana farmer's market.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Daniels#Refugee_advocate
This also suggested me that it would be cool to have the states borders that change as well, as time progresses.
After watching, I'm convinced that a good old line chart would have been a better representation of the data. Perhaps with some added dynamic behaviour.
My counter would be that there is more to data visualization than the quantity of information communicated. If that weren't the case, all data would be shown as numbers in spreadsheets.
This data involves population counts spanning several orders of magnitude, for 72 countries over 20 time periods. It could be shown in a chart, but one that would require some patience to figure out.
An animated map requires no reading of axis labels, no analysis of abstract lines or shapes. The meaning of everything is plainly evident. And for the minute it takes to watch, the information content is actually very high.
They are taken into account in the same site's visualisation of New Yorkers: http://metrocosm.com/where-new-yorkers-come-from/
No, importation of slaves to the U.S. was banned in 1808. Most slaves were native-born, to slaves and descendants of slaves.
I'm sure many slaves were slave-born in that period, but it seems they were still importing people from Africa en masse.
>Of the more than 10 million enslaved Africans to eventually reach the Western Hemisphere, just 388,747—less than 4 percent of the total—came to North America.
This is an excellent infographic showing the travels of the ships of the time via their shipslogs. http://www.slate.com/articles/life/the_history_of_american_s...
Similarly, trade between the CSA and the U.K. was "banned" as well, but there were successful blockade runners.
> The African captives, who had been kidnapped in Sierra Leone and illegally sold into slavery and shipped to Cuba
There is a chart showing the major immigration flows as a percentage of U.S. population.
Why do come countries brighten in some years but then dim later on?
Edit: ah I see the associated blog post has a little more info, especially about the brightness question. http://metrocosm.com/animated-immigration-map/
Doesn't seem like removing a tooltip should make the difference, but it allowed me to simplify the map, remove jquery, and make a few other simplifications to the code.
If I were to make it over again, I would use WebGL for the particles next time instead of Canvas, and performance problems wouldn't be an issue.
I starts 30 years later but has data on county level.
It's hard to get accurate numbers, but there definitely was a substantial number of emigrants.
http://www.cslf.gouv.qc.ca/bibliotheque-virtuelle/publicatio...
Looking at the absolute number of immigrants per year skews things a bit in Canada's favour; the low barrier to movement means that there's relatively more Canadians who live in the USA for short durations.
I'm sure that Canada is a much smaller proportion of the stock of immigrants than than its proportion of the annual inflow.
As a collateral effect, even Vancouver's population skyrocketed growing from around 13,700 in 1891 to over 100,000 in 1911.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Vancouver#Popu...
The ties between all 3 North American countries have to be pretty deep at this point.
The light blue counties are the ones with German being the most commonly reported ancestry during the 2000 census.
Personal note: Being from the Dakotas originally, it's interesting seeing some of my great-grandparents' backgrounds nearby: Native American, German, Norwegian, Finnish (further away), plus a few others that aren't nearby.
German used to be everywhere, being heard in the streets, with large numbers of German-language newspapers and cultural clubs. The Germans, being Germans, liked to organize themselves into clubs.
It gradually died out, as immigrants stopped teaching it to their children. Usually the children of immigrants learned the language at home, but they didn't usually pass it on to their children. World Wars I and II did a huge amount to suppress German culture and language, but it would have eventually died out anyways.
By World War II, German was still common enough that the Army was able to find large numbers of German interpreters among the young men who had spoken it with their parents.
My grandmother knew German as a child, but the language in the family had switched to English by the time she was about 10 years old. Once she was grown, she wasn't married to a German speaker, and hadn't spoken it in years anyway, so none of her descendants learned it. By the time I talked to her about it in her 80s, the only German she could remember were a few lines of some children's poem she recited when she was a child.
I suspect that this will eventually happen to Spanish, although the continued migration of Spanish-speaking immigrants will slow down the process. Eventually, the non-Spanish-speaking descendants will greatly outnumber those who speak Spanish, and the language will slowly decline.
I wouldn't be so sure for that one, the thing is unlike German, there is a country with 120M of Spanish Speaking people a few miles away, as Mexico's GDP keeps growing, US economy will become even more dependent of Mexico's trade. My point is people will get more proficient at Spanish over time, not less.
Edit: it's actually the other way around. German is the most common ancestry for white people in America.
I can readily believe that more immigrants arrived from Germany than from the British Isles, but it's also possible that by the time those German immigrants showed up they were outnumbered by the descendants of the earlier immigrants from the British Isles, perhaps even just immigrants from England itself.
I've never seen any sort of analysis like this, though.
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_Unit...:
Fifteen largest ancestries in the United States as self reported
in the 2000 Census:[58]
Rank Ancestry Number Percent of total
population
— U.K. (1801–1922) 66,224,627[59] 23.3%[59]
1 German 42,841,569 15.2%
2 Irish 30,524,799 10.8%
3 African 24,903,412 8.8%
4 English 24,509,692 8.7%
5 American 20,188,305 7.2%
6 Mexican 18,382,291 6.5%
7 Italian 15,638,348 5.6%
8 Polish 8,977,235 3.2%
9 French 8,309,666 3.0%
10 American Indian
and
Alaskan Native 7,876,568 2.8%
11 Scottish 4,890,581 1.7%
12 Dutch 4,541,770 1.6%
13 Norwegian 4,477,725 1.6%
14 Scotch-Irish 4,319,232 1.5%
15 Chinese 4,010,114 1.4%He rode the bus to work and it wasn't uncommon for women mostly to come up to him and physically attack him wondering why he wasn't in the armed forces.
I asked my grandmother once why she didn't teach either of her children to speak German. She told me that it was on purpose, they were ashamed and didn't want to make them targets.
There really was no "Germany" back then, just German speaking states, which fought wars against each other, had different religions and so on. The reason they united was basically because they hated Napoleon more than each other.
The footnotes on page 11 give a good explanation.
For the most part, Austria, Hungary, and Poland are broken out separately according to their present borders, even for the periods when they weren't separate countries.
How was the data gathered? Depending on what you asked a Hungarian from 1850, you might have gotten 3 different countries.
Where are you from? Austria.
What nationality are you? Hungarian.
What state are you from? Germany.
Where are you from?
1853: Lemberg in the Habsburg Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, the first city in Europe with street lights! I'm Galician.
1923: Lwow in Poland, the city that bravely defended against the Red Army! I'm Polish.
1953: Lviv of USSR! I am a Soviet citizen.
1993: Lviv of Ukraine! I am Ukrainian.
And this doesn't include some shorter term changes such as Distrikt Galizien in 1943.
My grandmother tells me the story of how mad she was when she started going to kindergarten/1st grade and she couldn't speak English yet.
(edit: clarification)
Also, countries like Ireland, Germany, and Italy weren't really "developed" prior to the 20th century (and to be fair, neither was the US). Germany and Italy weren't even united countries until late in the 19th century and Ireland was a British possession until the early 20th. It's possible Europeans are just staying where they are because conditions in their home countries have improved. Or, more likely, they are emigrating to richer EU countries because the Schengen agreement makes this much easier. Another factor is that a big draw for European immigrants in the 19th century was the large amount of unclaimed farmland out west. This is no longer the case now.
As for immigration from non-Western countries, they are coming over in larger numbers now because they are actually allowed to. Prior to 1965, quotas heavily favored Western European countries over the rest of the world[1].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
They started work visas in the 90's which let ppl from everywhere in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10
And it gets even more complicated:
https://twitter.com/galka_max/status/727895094255190016?ref_...
I'm sure there is a better solution. Would love to hear if anyone knows.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/11/20/what-we-know...
And net inflow of illegals from Central America that cross Mexico is very high and has been rising as illegal inflows from Mexico fall.