Humanities desk
< May 21	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 22

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants?

What percentage of US Hispanics are either illegal immigrants or descendants of illegal immigrants? Do we have any data and/or estimates for this? Futurist110 (talk) 05:56, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"descendant of" looks pretty slippery slope, would trigger some sort of quarters of nobility debate: Does it count if you had some illegal not even hispanic great-great-grand-mother while all other ancestors are legal hispanics (just illustrative rhetorical question, do not try to answer)?

anyway, Illegal immigrant population of the United States is obviously the place to check. It states that roughly 3/4 of illegals are from hispanic countries (chiefly Mexico), that illegals are roughly 11 M, so illegal hispanics would be 8-9 M

while Demography of the United States indicates a 54 M hispanic population (not sure it include, or fully include, illegals) Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many of these are children or grandchildren of illegal immigrants, though? That would be a good benchmark to measure this since it would mean that at least one quarter of one's ancestry is of illegal immigrant descent.Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, this would heavily depend on your definition: "my ancestor was illegal at some point in his life" is not the same as "my ancestor was illegal when he got children here". Besides, I am not sure that the sex ratio and the birth rate are the same for illegals and legals; actually pretty sure they are different. Most people are more prone to have children when in a legal, stable situation; and illegals tend to return home after some time, unless the finally get authorization to stay, so I expect a significantly lower proportion. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In any case that hints at a 15-20% of illegals among hispanics. Gem fr (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The figure would be higher if US-born children and grandchildren of illegal immigrants were included, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you add a different category, you get a higher total. Census bureau looks like the place to check for more on this. Gem fr (talk) 09:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- before WW2 (and especially before the 1910-1920 Mexican revolution and the 1924 act), there often wasn't a lot of formality over long segments of the US-Mexico border. People often drifted across without going through immigration formalities, and when U.S. authorities sporadically cracked down and deported people back to Mexico, they often didn't pay too much attention to whether they were deporting illegal immigrants or U.S. citizens... AnonMoos (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Could the US citizens get back in later on? Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here's a recent news article about border informalities in remote regions even today: [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define "illegal immigration"? Immigration was handled quite differently at different points in history. It would be possible for a person to enter the United States in a legal manner in 1830, but for that same mode of entry to be illegal in 2019. Not to mention the question of whether the movement of non-Native American peoples into the Americas could be described as legal or illegal. Or even immigration. Does conquest and colonization count as immigration? --Khajidha (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I mean illegal relative to the time. In other words, if one came here illegally, or if one came here legally but overstayed one's visa and then became illegal, then this would count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is a question of questionable relevance. Arguably, nearly all Europeans came to the Americas (or at least certain parts of it) against the will of the native inhabitants - some of which had a formal system of laws. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha -- the status of those who were in the territories transferred from Mexico to the U.S. in 1848 was regulated by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo). The territories conquered by the U.S. from Mexico were rather sparsely populated by non-Indian Mexicans at the time, except in a few local areas (mainly northern New Mexico and San Antonio, Texas). AnonMoos (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's what made the Mexican Cession so attractive to the US; specifically, it was extremely easy for the US to flood this territory with US settlers. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]