Talk:Immigrant generations

message: === Debate? ===
Is there any debate concerning the terminology 1.5G. Some people perceive it as derogatory because of "half" is realted to the idea of incomplete. Are there any "official" discussions going on about this debate? Are there any alternative names for this group being discussed at present? Thanks.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.234.252 (talk • contribs).  
:Not that I know of, that the term is considered derogatory or that there's some debate going on with it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source for this?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I get it. A first generation immigrant is also your parents (ex. if you're an American-born Chinese and your parents are from Asia, they're still first generation because they're legal US citizens, thus making their kids the second generation, assuming they were born here). Unfortunately, if they married and had kids in Asia, and brought them here with them, the kids are not second generation and yet not as experienced or old enough like their parents to be first generation. So they're stuck in the middle, and called  1.5. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡  Refill/lol 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Relocated from [[Talk:1.5 generation]]

message: Is there any debate concerning the terminology 1.5G. Some people perceive it as derogatory because of "half" is realted to the idea of incomplete. Are there any "official" discussions going on about this debate? Are there any alternative names for this group being discussed at present? Thanks.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.234.252 (talk • contribs).  
:Not that I know of, that the term is considered derogatory or that there's some debate going on with it.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate? 

message: How about 1.x generation? X = a variable number and illustrates the fact that there are many levels of "assimiliation." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.32.234.252 (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got a source for this?  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 21:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I get it. A first generation immigrant is also your parents (ex. if you're an American-born Chinese and your parents are from Asia, they're still first generation because they're legal US citizens, thus making their kids the second generation, assuming they were born here). Unfortunately, if they married and had kids in Asia, and brought them here with them, the kids are not second generation and yet not as experienced or old enough like their parents to be first generation. So they're stuck in the middle, and called  1.5. ― LADY GALAXY ★彡  Refill/lol 01:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative term for this group 

message: Many 1.5 generation individuals are bi-cultural, combining both cultures - culture from the country of origin with the culture of the new country.  Some notable members of 1.5 generation are:  Elaine Chao (immigrated from Taiwan to U.S. at the age of eight), David Ho (immigrated from Taiwan to U.S. at the age of twelve).
*  wiktionary:sequitur 
*  nonsequitur 
*  sequitur 
What, exactly, is the  wiktionary:thesis  here?  Is the goal to list the immigration of every  celebrity?  Just what sort of an article should this be?  Should it be only  North American immigrants?
In the  wiktionary:non_sequitur  page are:
*    "Take my wife - please." --  Henny Youngman 
*    "If all the girls who attended the Yale prom were laid end to end, I wouldn't be a bit surprised." --  Dorothy Parker 
*    "A fool and his money are soon partying." --  Steven Wright 
Those are humorous, which this article is not.  Beside that, I do suspect a  grammar  problem.  Take my  paragraph,  %c2%b6, please.  If all of the celebrity immigrant articles were laid end-to-end, would we party?
 hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 21:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What? 

message: I don't feel that the term is very accurate, however. Although the examples listed point to fairly safe ages (ex. eight, ten, twelve), what if the child had immigrated from a foreign country at a very young age (ex. five or even two or three, or a year like Tila Tequila)? They most likely know very little or even nothing about their native country... No offense, but I do know quite a few people who were like that, moving at the ages of two or three or four, and that's it. Most of them cannot speak, much less read or write, their native tongues. Would they still be considered 1.5? ★Dasani★ 03:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.5 gen? 

message: There seems to be some confusion in the article, which I have started to address: the article is nominally about "first-generation immigrant" but seems often to apply more to "first-generation citizen", e.g. as in "first-generation Ruritanian". What about, for example, people who immigrate permanently to a country but do not become citizens? In many countries their children could have dual nationality, both of the adopted country and a parent's country. 
Also, it is incorrect, and in many cases offensive, to speak of "second-generation immigrants"; such people are not themselves immigrants. "Second-generation Ruritanian" is, on the other hand, correct.
These topics allow for much discussion, which highlight that the article is largely what Wikipedia calls original research, and bans. Pol098 (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: great job i tagged it a little and if no one else has sources i will start to clean up!! Bouket (talk) 07:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  First-generation immigrant vs first-generation Ruritanian 

message: i removed this dead link
* Roberge, Mark. (2005). "Who are Generation 1.5 Students?" Northern New England Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages Conference, Southern New Hampshire University.
Bouket (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  cleaniup 

message: I realize just griping and not trying to fix it isn't entirely helpful, but this article is just terrible in its reliance on opinions of editors, especially given an apparent lack of agreement on definitions. This whole "1.5G" thing in particular seems pretty fringe, and thus given undue weight (assuming it should even be included at all). --CAVincent (talk) 09:27, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: yes thats why i tagged it last week! if someone doesnt come up with sources and i dont find any ill remove it but you can remove it or fix it first if you want! Bouket (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: It seems to me that the whole subject is kinda ridiculous, since many immigrants marry citizens whose citizenship stretches back multiple generations. For example, I'm British and I married an American who can trace her ancestry in America back to the 11th generation in the 1600s. Is my daughter first generation (due to being the first of my kids born in the US), second generation (due to being the daughter of a naturalized citizen), or 12th generation (thanks to her mother)? Also, I got US citizenship after she was born, so that makes my daughter first generation again, right? So she's first, maybe second (depending on the requirements), and 12th all at the same time. At a certain point, it all becomes kinda silly. It's kinda like people of Irish descent claiming to be Irish when they've never set foot in Ireland. I reckon if you're born here, you're from here, and if you migrated here, you're an immigrant - anything else is nonsense. Ianbrettcooper (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: What about children of parents with varying immigration generations?

message: — Assignment last updated by Kdavis25 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: LIBR 1 Working with Sources

message: — Assignment last updated by Mrjackmao (talk) 06:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS