Why did much less immigrants historically settle in the Southern US than in other parts of the US?

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,281
SoCal
There is no support for such a statement: "post 1965 most of the immigrants were intentionally moved into Black innercity areas. "

In fact, Latinos have been spread throughout urban, suburban, and rural areas in the last fifty years.
Well, AFAIK, parts of the Los Angeles and Bay Area metropolitan areas initially had a larger black presence before Hispanics drove a lot of the blacks out of these neighborhoods.
 
Oct 2019
19
Malabo Accra Kumasi Port Au Prince Carrefour
There is no support for such a statement: "post 1965 most of the immigrants were intentionally moved into Black innercity areas. "

In fact, Latinos have been spread throughout urban, suburban, and rural areas in the last fifty years.
Yes, Hispanic immigrants were mostly moved into the areas were there were substantial black populations which is why they are STILL IN THOSE AREAS in 2019 for the most part, though there has bit a marginal spread to some other areas. It was done intentionally. Theres various studies about the impacts of legal and illegal hispanic immigration and the negative impact on the black communities economically and through crime.

Chicago is a pretty popular example.

Several California ares that used to be Black Majority were replaced years ago.

it goes on and on.

I should also mention it's not just inner cities, it's basically nearly every area with a substantial black population now or in the past.
 
May 2019
202
Salt Lake City, Utah
Read Afro Republican what I wrote: "There is no support for such a statement: "post 1965 most of the immigrants were intentionally moved into Black innercity areas. "

You can assert, yes, but you can't prove 'intentionally' or 'most . . . into Black innercity areas."
 
Jun 2011
312
The Old Dominion
Richmond and Galveston were also Southern port cities--as were Savannah and Virginia Beach.
Just to be clear, the "port" of Richmond is a short straight place along the west bank of the James River just short of the fall line, all of about 5000 feet of riverfront, where one might park a modest sized commercial motor vessel . . . it has always been limited by the ability of shipping to maneuver to head back down the James. Prior to 1910, what is now the "Richmond Marine Terminal" was actually in the city of Manchester.

And Virginia Beach as a "Port"? Well, if you count Rudee Inlet on the Atlantic side, a nice place to park your personal boat or from which to operate a headboat, and there's Lynnhaven Inlet on the Chesapeake side with the same attributes plus a smattering of commercial fishing traffic . . . No, Virginia Beach is not a port, and never has been in terms of a commercial operations. It is a nice sandy beach that extends north from the North Carolina line to Cape Henry and then generally west all the way to the Norfolk city line (actually to Joint Expeditionary Base - Little Creek, or, as known in the vernacular, Little Creek Amphib Base).

Perhaps you mean the the Hampton Roads cities, Norfolk, Hampton, and Newport News as port cities, no argument there.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Sep 2012
1,143
Tarkington, Texas
Galveston had a rail line into what is now Houston. The port settlement was large enough to raise a couple of Companies for service in the ACW. New Orleans in comparison had many Militia Regiments (two were Spanish Regiments). The whole Midwest and most of the Ohio watershed shipped their goods through New Orleans.

Pruitt
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,605
Dispargum
Yes, Hispanic immigrants were mostly moved into the areas were there were substantial black populations which is why they are STILL IN THOSE AREAS in 2019 for the most part, though there has bit a marginal spread to some other areas. It was done intentionally. Theres various studies about the impacts of legal and illegal hispanic immigration and the negative impact on the black communities economically and through crime.

Chicago is a pretty popular example.

Several California ares that used to be Black Majority were replaced years ago.

it goes on and on.

I should also mention it's not just inner cities, it's basically nearly every area with a substantial black population now or in the past.
Read Afro Republican what I wrote: "There is no support for such a statement: "post 1965 most of the immigrants were intentionally moved into Black innercity areas. "

You can assert, yes, but you can't prove 'intentionally' or 'most . . . into Black innercity areas."
Afro Republican, this is the time when you give us a link to one or more of these studies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist
Oct 2019
68
United States
I can't say for certain, but my hunch is that most immigrants to the US were temporary. America was a speculator's enterprise, like in a gold rush, and Europeans came here to make their buck with the aim of going back home. There was no industry to extract money from in the South or West, therefore immigrants clustered in the North and those who naturalized fanned out as they may. That's what one of my paternal lines in fact did. He and his brother came here to escape conscription in the Franco-Prussian War, one of them stayed and took root in Missouri, the other went back home some years after the war cash in hand.
 
Sep 2012
1,143
Tarkington, Texas
The vast majority did not go "home". My ancestors went from Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina and Georgia ever Westward. I don't count the Mahoney that served in an Irish Regiment from New York City. He moved to Virginia! It ended in Southwest Louisiana. If Dad had not been in the Air Force I would have been born in Lake Charles or Sulphur. I had a fine house in Sulphur until I lost it in a sheriff's sale. Now I live with my daughter in Southeast Texas.

You go where the work is and if you did well you raise your children there and they go find a job.

Pruitt
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStarkey

tomar

Ad Honoris
Jan 2011
13,919
For immigrants of Hispanic decent post 1965 most of the immigrants were intentionally moved into Black innercity areas.Which later included the south.
How would it be "intentional" in a country where anyone may move wherever they please whenever they please ? What specific measures made it intentional ?

I would think that it is a rather "natural phenomenon".. Most "hispanics" were poor, so naturally they moved into poorer neighborhoods, which were the only ones they could afford... It so happened that many of the poorer neighborhoods were "black" since statistically "blacks" earn less than other populations in the US

RankRaceMedian household income (2016 US$)
1Indian128,000[1]
2East Asian85,349[1]
3White67,865[1]
4Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander50,987[1]
5Hispanic or Latino (of any race)46,882[1]
6American Indian and Alaska Native39,719[1]
7Black or African American30,555[1]


 
  • Like
Reactions: Zip
Oct 2019
68
United States
The vast majority did not go "home".
I don't know about vast, the rate of return varies with nationality, and they go up as transport became faster. I've seen return rates of Italians as high as 68% for one year, this paper has 49%. Similar numbers go for Slavs. You'll have to forgive me if I can't find more data, return migration research is scanty, but it was what I was taught generally the rule for Industrial era migrants.
You go where the work is and if you did well you raise your children there and they go find a job.
Not necessarily, humans are also irrational, sentimental, social animals with far more needs and desires than money. Also, I'm not sure how many came here with families.