Poll: How many generations removed are you from immigration?

92 points by jballanc ↗ HN
I originally ran this poll a little over 2 years ago (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=688053), so I thought it might be interesting to run it again...

Here's how this works: Go back along your family tree until you reach the first immigrant. That is, the first person who eventually settled in a country other than the one they were born in, regardless of country (i.e. this is not intended to be US-immigrant-centric).

Choose only the one answer which corresponds to the most recent immigration. So, for example, if your father is the 3rd generation since immigration but your mother is, herself, an immigrant you would choose "1 generation". The hypothesis we're testing is that the sort of entrepreneurial, adventure-seeking personality that is overrepresented on HN correlates with a willingness to pick up and leave your comfort zone completely.

136 comments

[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 213 ms ] thread
Not sure after the fifth generation as my from there my fathers, fathers, fathers, father had lost his memory. From my mothers side and all of the mothers in my family tree and as far as I know their background are from Finland over 10 generations ago. Which is before the first Swedish era when Sweden conquered Finland for a while. So I can pretty much say I'm quite native here.
Moved from one southern state of India to another about 600 years ago. If you're talking about moving between countries, I'd have to find out when humans moved to India.

I did study in the US and then came back, so what does that make me :) ? Oh, I'm trying to do my own startup now.

Interesting - I am from another southern state of India, and am unable to trace it back to anywhere that isn't in the same 'state'. However, 600 years ago they were mostly just smaller kingdoms with similar cultures, rather than 'states' as such. Wonder if moving across them would be considered 'immigration'
Humans moved to India 40,000 years ago.

If you don't mind, let me guess: You are from an Iyengar family. Your ancestors emigrated from Tamilnadu to Karnataka?

Correct-aa? :)

blr doesn't mean I'm settled in blr just that I'm working here :) so wrong states...

Although that means if I count my move to blr, that's 0 on this poll.

I'm a 0 generation immigrant, and 0 generation re-migrant.

But given the age I immigrated at, It's more akin to being a 0 generation dual-immigrant.

If I knew my full family tree, I'd probably find a closer immigrant, but 13 generations back my great..great grandfather was on the Mayflower. Not a great data point for this survey though: he was an indentured servant, and the whole Pilgrim voyage represented more of an attempt to preserve their comfort zone at all costs.
Tricky one for me.

We've managed to trace our family tree back 12 generations through family documents, etc. and our family are still in Ireland (where I'm from).

From what we know though our family have had a presence in Ireland for over 500 years on both sides.

It's actually remarkable when you consider the earliest record of our surname in Ireland is in the 13th century.

If you go back 12 generations you have 2^12 = 4 096 ancestors. Seems rather unlikely that every single one of them is Irish. If you go back 20 generations you'd have 2^20 = 1 048 576 ancestors, which is probably larger then the population of Ireland by that time.
While it's true there's likely an immigrant in the bunch, it's also very unlikely that all 4096 or 1048576 ancestors are distinct. The tree is bound to overlap.
Except that if you go back that far, not all of the ancestors are likely to be distinct.
The farther back you go the less likely it is that they would be immigrants. Back in the day when people had to walk or ride to where they wanted to go...
Go back far enough and countries pop in and out of existance.

Were there several countries in Ireland back then? Kings of Lenister/Munster/Meath, etc.? We'll get our cow back, etc.

I somehow managed to hit both ends of this scale. Pick any branch of my family and you can trace them back to pretty much the 3rd boat to come across the Atlantic.

And, I'm in the process of emigrating to England.

Hmm...

I'm chilean and my great-great-grandfather, John Carpenter, arrived in Chile in 1860 - 1880. He was British and all the research I've done suggests that he was a Quaker from the south of England.
12 generations (1634 France) and I can name them all.
Well, I'm pretty I'm sure at least 6th generation Dutch. The patrilineal line I know better and goes back further. On the other hand, I don't live in The Netherlands. I went to an English university, Scottish and American schools, and now work for an American company in the Middle East and Africa.

My parents have barely lived in The Netherlands since early adulthood, so I guess I'm a second generation permanent expat.

I think you'll find a lot of non-immigrant expatriates as well because with modern travel & communications options, moving countries is no longer the huge deal it was in the past.

Grandmother on my Dad's side came from Ireland. Some of my direct ancestors came over from Scotland in the 1600's, though.
I'm a descendant of slaves so my family tree gets tricky once I get (back) to my great grandparents (who were alive during the U.S. Civil War). Best guess is 5th generation.
(comment deleted)
Same here for me, but it takes at least one more generation to get back to the U.S. Civil War.
Well, that's certainly the hardest poll question I've ever seen on HN. Let me get back to you.
I think for the purpose of that question you are immigrant yourself (left your comfort zone and moved for unlimited time).
It's funny. I first answered "3" because that would be the correct answer if I were in my home country. Then I recalled that I've been living in Japan for 8 years, so I'm a sort of immigrant and should answer "0".

The thing is, Japan is far from being an immigrant country like US, Canada or Brazil. For instance, you don't automatically get permanent residence even if you're married to a Japanese citizen. Even ethnic Koreans who were born here, have Japanese blood and speak only Japanese have a different status. There's no such thing as anti-discrimination laws, etc.

You don't get automatic permanent residence in the US just for marrying a US citizen either. There is several years and several thousand dollars of paperwork and process to go through, even when you're coming from someplace like Canada.
When is one be considered an immigrant? Is it: 1) simply living in a land that one was not born in immigration; or 2) giving up one's citizenship at birth for another?

Going by the first definition, I've lived in 2 foreign countries for lengthy periods, so have I immigrated twice? But I still am a citizen of where I was born (India) and I do intend to eventually move back to home country, so am I not an immigrant at all?

There's a bit of a gray area between "expatriate" and "immigrant", though not everyone makes the distinction. I don't think it has to do with citizenship specifically; someone who moves to the U.S. and stays there the rest of their lives, but never actually becomes a citizen (you can live indefinitely with a green card) would still be an immigrant to the US. Someone whose company sends them on a temporary 3-year posting to the U.S., though, typically wouldn't be considered an immigrant, but an expatriate. Times in between "3 years" and "rest of your life" are trickier.
I think immigration is very much in the eye (and heart) of the beholder. For example, I know of a good number of Brits living in Australia who would not consider themselves immigrants. I also know of people from the deep south of the U.S. who now live in NYC and probably do think of themselves as immigrants, of a sort.
My mother's family can be traced back to John Penn, but my dad's parents were born in Poland and Russia, so I'll just go with that ;)
In many cases it's more like a willingness to pick up and leave your discomfort zone.

And there are other ways of doing that besides emigrating between nations, like leaving home for college in a different time zone at 16 years old and despite your parents forbidding it.

Both my paternal / maternal grand fathers were from China. Im a Malaysian now.
Might be a self-selecting group of people who respond to this poll. I bet immigrants or recent immigrants are more likely to open the poll because it will be of interest/relevant, skewing the results.
I blame my parent for having reproduced in such low-class, ethically disintegrate environment. They molested me and thought it was "okay" "just an act of love".

If they couldn't even look after for its mental integrity it shouldn't have reproduced. Chances are the newborn child will get consumed to please the "parent" sexually, emotionally, or whatever means possible.

I blame my parent for having reproduced in such low-class, ethically disintegrate environment. They molested me and thought it was "okay" "just an act of love".

If they couldn't even look after for its mental integrity it shouldn't have reproduced. Chances are the newborn child will get consumed to please the "parent" sexually, emotionally, or whatever means possible.

That's complicated. My grandparents come from a region that at the time of their birth belonged to the precursor of country I now live in, but that region changed state "membership" during WW2 a few times, and isn't in my own country these days.

So either 2 or a probably much higher number, depending on how you count. (I haven't voted yet).

10 generations back to 1680 or so. Started a ship's chanderly on the Jersey Shore having read a broadside posted by William Penn---usual promise of a brave new world :)
Given that the number of ancestors for every one of us grow exponentially with each generation, I think the significance and value of a 'yes' answer to this poll dilutes equally quickly with the number of generations.

I mean, it's quite difficult not to find a single inmigrant in 16 (4th generation) or 32 (5th generation) ancestors, and I don't think it matters much anyway.

Interesting question. However I find it worrying that this clearly written spec seems to be misinterpreted quite a bit in the comments. I worry that it means you can't trust the results at all. Or maybe people just like talking about their most distantly traceable ancestors.

I worry that people who don't know if one of their ancestors was an immigrant have answered incorrectly.

I think the way to reduce confusion would be to label the options as "1 generations (One of my parents was an immigrant)", "2 generations (One of my grandparents.. )", "3 generations (One of my great-grandparents was an immigrant)", etc.

5 generations isn't all that far back. Depending on your age, it puts you mid to late 19th century, and there's a fair number of Americans that can say with reasonable certainty that they have no immigrant ancestors since that time.

Much less residents of older countries, which can probably go back a whole lot further than that.

My family has been in what is now Canada since not long after our family was forced out of Scotland by the English. I myself am 7 generations removed from immigration.
I would guess at least 40 - I'm Scottish and I was raised in small village where part of my family had been for about 400 years. However, another part came from Orkney and the last mass immigration there was probably by the Vikings in the 8th or 9th centuries.

[Edit: Of course the reality can't be as simple as that - I have a slightly Asiatic appearance that is fairly common in the part of Scotland I am from - a Chinese doctor once thought I was Chinese (much to my amusement and his horror at potentially causing offence). I'm hoping for something interesting like a Orcadian Hudson's Bay man marrying an Innuit and returning home with his family... or something like that.]

I've always been amused by family trees in the old world.

I was born in brazil but my great grandfather came as a war refugee fron Sweden (he had two brothers: one stayed in Sweden and the other fled to the Us). At that time there were refugees from all over europe arriving in latin america so it is very common where I live for someone to bear family names from 2 different countries (my wife has german and portuguese last names, for example).

Hence it is very difficult to trace our family trees past a few generations (although my family was very lucky to find relatives living in the Us and Sweden recently).

Our family name was "corrected" by some over-zealous Church of Scotland minister in the 19th Century - it was originally "Sclater" and was changed to the much more common "Slater". Just to confuse things, some of my ancestors really were originally Slaters as well!
That is something we have in common then. the original spelling of my family's name is "Lannerdahl" but it was "corrected" to "Landerdahl" (these "corrections" were also very common to immigrants' names.)

Btw, what do you mean by over-zealous (sorry, I'm not familiar with Scotish history).

"over-zealous"

The minister would have been some university educated outsider who presumably thought he knew better than the locals how to spell their names. After all if you see ten families called "Slater" and one called "Sclater" you might think that the last lost simply made a spelling mistake - and what the church said was law (effectively).

Wow first time I've ever met anyone that wasn't within the immediate family with that last name (Slater that is) I wonder if we were also affected by that...