Worldwide Demographics

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by eschaton

It's just saying historically there's not been a strict color line like in the U.S. In some ways, it's more akin to how race has functioned in Latin America.

There has never been a "strict color line" in the U.S., it was always culture/class. Americans can instantly discern each other's class and educational background by speech and mannerisms. It's very difficult to consistently fake a background different from the one you actually lived. I can put on nice clothes but people from wealthy families will know right away that I'm not one of them.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There has never been a "strict color line" in the U.S.

That is not obviously true.

[wwmiv]

Is there a color line in the United States? Yes.

Is it permeable? Somewhat.

Does it compare to Latin American cultures? Not really.

Obviously there is a color line in the United States, with some people having always been on one side (British, English, Scots-Irish, Scottish, German, Scandinavian, Slavic) and others being on the other (African American, Asian, Native American).

It is also permeable. Irish, Italian, Portuguese, Jews, Iranian, Spanish, Greek, Arab, etc. have all had journeys crossing the color line. In some cases more than once (for instance: Arabs went from one side to the other-ish in the early 1900s and then shifted back across in the aftermath of 9/11).

A few side notes: the color line is also not anywhere near as meaningful as it used to be (albeit still meaningful), and some relevant groups have always straddled both sides of the line (Latinos in particular).

As for Latin America, it is nothing like the United States. Mexico et al operate on a spectrum of colorism fundamentally different than the color line bifurcated “white v. not” duality of the United States. Essentially, Latin America operates the same way black culture in the United States operates—the lighter skin color, the more privileged you are within the group by the group. Same thing for every group on that side of the color line in the United States—within their group, people who are “closer” to the other side of the color line are more highly valued within the group.

Due to historical European and current U.S. hegemony and empire, the historical and ongoing process of Latin-American mestizaje, and ongoing internal disputes with indigenous cultures, for Latin Americans (not Maya, etc.), the color line is at the border with the United States. So, like every minority group in the United States, Latin Americans throughout Latin America organize themselves internally on a spectrum of “who’s the closest to looking European.” (*cough* American *cough*).

They’re all fundamentally colorist, but the further one gets from the United States the less this is true that the U.S. border is the color line, and there are also idiosyncratic factors for each country. Same for the level of immigration—countries with higher immigrant shares have a stronger color line at their “border” with the U.S. than those that do not. Mexico, Guatemala, Venezuela, et al stronger than Brazil, Argentina, Peru, et al.

Ironically, this also means that immigrants to the U.S. from those countries tend to get the shit end of the stick in both countries [they left their own country because of strong (and strengthening) colorist bias preventing their advancement in society, only to move to another country with a strong (but weakening) color line they may always be on the “wrong” side of].

This is totally different than in the United States where there’s a duality:

• on the “white” side of the color line there is very little colorism—everyone is simply “white,” whether some of their ancestors subgroups’ previously crossed the line or not (nobody today would seriously claim Americans of Italian or Irish descent aren’t white, although I’ve seen people try). In large part this is because almost every white American has ancestry from multiple backgrounds, including from people who have crossed the color line. And this is despite the large internal variation of actual skin color, from incredibly fair skin to the deepest shades of olive.

• on the “not” side of the color line, some groups have colorist cultures and some do not (some Native groups, most Asian immigrant groups, etc.). Among those that do, some groups generally favor their ethnic skin tone and features and disfavor European and African derived skin tone features (many Native groups), some generally favor more European features and skin tone (Latin Americans), and some have a bifurcated internal duality (African Americans).

• Latin Americans operate the same way re: color in their home countries as they do in the United States.

Very important note: humans are humans and it’s sad that many of us think in terms of “who is better than who [on the basis of immutable characteristics, rather than nurtured talents and studied intelligence].” At the core of it, nobody is better than anybody in terms of their innate core moral worth, even if the contributions our nurtured talents and studied intelligence (NOT immutable characteristics) can bring to society may differ in economic worth.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

There has never been a "strict color line" in the U.S., it was always culture/class. Americans can instantly discern each other's class and educational background by speech and mannerisms. It's very difficult to consistently fake a background different from the one you actually lived. I can put on nice clothes but people from wealthy families will know right away that I'm not one of them.

I'm sorry, this is fucking ridiculous. Such a completely ahistorical understanding of Jim Crow and how it worked.

There's a reason why tons of mixed-race people (like Louisiana Creoles - including the current Pope's mother) in the late 19th and early 20th century had to migrate out of the South and cut off all ties with their family in order to swap to a white identity.

The black/white color line has faded a lot with recent generations, of course, but it's still there. In other countries, someone like Barack Obama is seen as mixed race, not a black man. But because of the legacy of one-droppism, someone needs to have significantly less than 50% black ancestry before they stop being socially perceived as being black.

The same sort of color line has never really existed with other nonwhite peoples. Fractional Native American ancestry is something many white people bragged about, even during the racial nadir. Hispanics weren't really considered nonwhite (or at least, no more nonwhite than other immigrant groups) through the early 20th century). Asian-Americans are simply too new to make these statements about, but it's worth noting that the Japanese-American population (which all migrated quite long ago - well before WW2) have largely intermarried into the white majority now and no longer exist as a distinct group.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Very important note: humans are humans and it’s sad that many of us think in terms of “who is better than who

Question: do you date ugly men/women? If the answer is "hell, no!", then you too think in terms of "who is better than who".

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The black/white color line has faded a lot with recent generations, of course, but it's still there.

What struck me a lot when I lived in the US is how Blacks and Whites don't mingle. They don't live in the same neighborhoods, don't socialize in the same groups (there are always exceptions of course), and don't marry with each other (there are very few exceptions here).

In France, apart from the most recently arrived sub-Saharan African immigrants, Black French and White French don't live in separate neighborhoods, they socialize, and they often form couples with each other. You see lots of mixed couples in France, whereas you see very few in the US. That's the most visible difference between both countries.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The same sort of color line has never really existed with other nonwhite peoples. Fractional Native American ancestry is something many white people bragged about, even during the racial nadir.

In many states it was illegal for white and Native Americans to marry. Virginia classified Native Americans as "colored" in the 1920s and thus made marriages between whites and Native Americans illegal. However, many of Virginia's elite families claimed to be descendants of Pocahontas, so that would've made them legally not white. This led to the Pocahantas exception that expanded the legal definition of white to include those with up to 1/16th native ancestry.

The general rule of thumb is that the non-white populations got it worst where they were most concentrated. For black Americans this was in the southeast and south central United States. For Mexicans this was in the states bordering Mexico. For the natives it was pretty much everywhere they existed before they were pushed into reservations.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Hispanics weren't really considered nonwhite (or at least, no more nonwhite than other immigrant groups) through the early 20th century).

Hispanic wasn't an ethnic category until the 1970s. Even today a lot of (Hispanic) people reject that Hispanic is an ethnic category. The creation of that category led to some "white" immigrants from Latin countries being other-ized into a non-white bucket. But groups like Chicanos and darker skinned Puerto Ricans were definitely discriminated against in the early 20th century. California was notorious for Chicano discrimination from the time it became a state until the mid 20th century.

Originally Posted by eschaton

Asian-Americans are simply too new to make these statements about, but it's worth noting that the Japanese-American population (which all migrated quite long ago - well before WW2) have largely intermarried into the white majority now and no longer exist as a distinct group.

Historically there was a LOT of discrimination against East Asians, and that started with Chinese immigrants that came in to work on the railroads in the 19th century. This is what prompted the Chinese Exclusion Act which completely prohibited nearly all immigration from China after it was passed. Like the above, the discrimination was worst in the places where the Chinese were concentrated, which was mostly in California and in states along the route of the transcontinental railroad.

Discrimination against Chinese also led to the most famous attempt to challenge birthright citizenship since the 14th Amendment was ratified. A guy named Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco but was denied re-entry into the U.S. after a visit to China when the border agents claimed he was a citizen of China because his parents never naturalized (they weren't legally allowed to). The result of that case established that children of immigrants born in the U.S. were indeed citizens at the time of birth.

But the vast majority of immigration from Asia occurred after the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Since weaponization of the law against races has mostly been made illegal it's hard to compare the situation of groups that came in the past 50 years to those with a longer history in the country.

[New Brisavoine]

A few days ago someone on Twitter posted the story of this guy:



He was a war hero in France, WW1 hero. He received top military French medals.

His name was Eugene Bullard, and although his name sounds French, he was in fact Black American (perhaps some Louisiana ancestry?). He was from Columbus, Georgia, which he fled in 1906 after witnessing a White mob lynching a Black guy. The lynched Black guy was... his father.

After an adventurous life that I won't detail, he eventually arrived in France in 1913 where he was a professional boxer. When the German Empire invaded France in 1914, he immediately enlisted in the French Foreign Legion. He took part in the most gruesome battles (Somme, Champagne, Verdun), was wounded 3 times. His 3rd wound permanently damaged one of his legs, so he had to quit the (land) army. But he immediately decided to become an aviator.

In a Paris café in the spring of 1916, he met 3 White American friends, and told them about his project (becoming an aviator to return to the front). They laughed at him: "There is no damn Negro in aviation!" His answer was: "There has to be a first to everything, and I'm going to be the first."

And he was. He earned his (French) pilot's licence in May 1917. He flew 20 combat missions in August, September, and October 1917. On the fuselage of his plane was a bleeding heart pierced by a knife with this French motto: "Tout le sang qui coule est rouge" ("All blood that flows is red"). The French press nicknamed him "L'Hirondelle Noire" (the "Black Swallow").

When the USA entered the war, he immediately applied to transfer to the U.S. Army Air Service.

His application was flatly rejected.

The U.S. Army Air Service had a policy, in 1917, of not accepting Black pilots. The other American pilots flying for France in his unit, all of them White, were transferred to the U.S. Air Service. He was the only one who was not.

He survived the war, and received, as I've said, the top French military medals for his bravery. He owned a cabaret in Montmartre after the war, which was frequented by famous guests like Hemingway, Josephine Baker, Louis Armstrong (who became his friend)

He came back to the US during WW2, after having been smuggled across the French-Spanish border. In the US he received a cold welcome. No one to congratulate him. He ended his life as the guy operating the elevator at Rockefeller Center in NYC.

But someone hadn't forgotten him.

In April 1960, Charles de de Gaulle was visiting the United States. He asked the FBI to help him locate Eugene Bullard. 6 months earlier, he had been made a knight of the Légion d'honneur in Paris (in his absence), and de Gaulle wanted to give him his medal. The FBI located him within a few days.

He was wearing the elevator uniform on the day a producer from NBC came down from the studios upstairs to ask if he was the man Charles de Gaulle had been looking for. A few weeks later, NBC sent a film crew to interview him in the lobby. The studios where NBC produced The Today Show were on the floors above. He had operated the elevator that took the network executives up to those studios every morning for nearly ten years. They had never paid attention to him.

After receiving the Légion d'honneur from de Gaulle, he went back to operating the elevator. He died a year later of cancer.

He was buried in the French War Veterans' section of Flushing Cemetery, in Queens, in the uniform of the French Foreign Legion. The casket was draped with the French flag.

In 1994 — 33 years after his death — the United States Air Force formally commissioned Eugene Jacques Bullard as a Second Lieutenant, posthumously.

It was the first commission the U.S. military had ever offered him. He had been the first Black combat pilot in American history.

And the guy who recounted his story (I have summed up above the main points) wrote this (his words, not mine):
"The French had been calling him a hero since 1917.
The Americans got around to it in 1994."

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Question: do you date ugly men/women? If the answer is "hell, no!", then you too think in terms of "who is better than who".

Being “dateable” has nothing to do with innate moral worth, which was my statement. The fact that you clearly cannot your own personal separate sexual desires from moral worth is really sad.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Very important note: humans are humans and it’s sad that many of us think in terms of “who is better than who [on the basis of immutable characteristics, rather than nurtured talents and studied intelligence].” At the core of it, nobody is better than anybody in terms of their innate core moral worth, even if the contributions our nurtured talents and studied intelligence (NOT immutable characteristics) can bring to society may differ in economic worth.

My ugly is the next person’s average and their ugly is the person after that’s beautiful and that person’s beautiful is my average. There is no such thing as a universal beauty ideal, so it is irrelevant.

[New Brisavoine]

Dating is not just about sex... (at least I hope for you)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Dating is not just about sex... (at least I hope for you)

You heavily implied that, for you, it was. And for most people it is at least a component.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Hispanic wasn't an ethnic category until the 1970s. Even today a lot of (Hispanic) people reject that Hispanic is an ethnic category. The creation of that category led to some "white" immigrants from Latin countries being other-ized into a non-white bucket. But groups like Chicanos and darker skinned Puerto Ricans were definitely discriminated against in the early 20th century. California was notorious for Chicano discrimination from the time it became a state until the mid 20th century.

"Chicano" means someone of Mexican descent who was born in the US. There are more US-born Mexican-Americans than ever, but not many people these days identify themselves as Chicano. There was certainly discrimination against Chicanos, which became a cause celebre in the late 1960s in California and other areas, but there was even more discrimination against immigrants who were born in Mexico.

As for the term "Hispanic," Mexican-Americans in California use "Latino" instead. Many Latinos here who used to identify themselves as white chose the "Hispanic or Latino" category in the 2020 census.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Actually there are very few Black people in Marseille. You're confusing Marseille and Paris. Black Caribbeans migrate to Paris, not Marseille where there are extremely few of them. And sub-Saharan Africans also don't migrate to Marseille for some reason (with only the exception of people from the Comoros Islands and Mayotte, for reasons that remain mysterious).

I used to spend a month or so every year in Marseille, and I found that there were a large number of black people (nothing of course compared to the number of Algerians). Those northern suburbs near the airport, mostly filled with underprivileged people from Northern Africa, were considered no-go zones, according to my Marseille friends.

Marseille is home to the largest Comorian diaspora in the world, with an estimated population of 50,000 to 120,000 residents of Comorian descent, earning it the nickname "the other capital of the Comoros."

[craigs]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Question: do you date ugly men/women? If the answer is "hell, no!", then you too think in terms of "who is better than who".

That is like saying that men who only date women think that "women are better than men."

It is reasonable to assume that bigots likely won't be attracted to individuals from groups they consider inferior, and/or will refrain from acting on such an attraction should they feel it. However, it is not reasonable to deny that there is a critical difference between group-based bigotry, which is the explicit and unambiguous context of his post, and individuals finding other individuals attractive for dating purposes.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Marseille is home to the largest Comorian diaspora in the world, with an estimated population of 50,000 to 120,000 residents of Comorian descent, earning it the nickname "the other capital of the Comoros."

Real number: 11.018 Comorran immigrants in the Marseille metro area at the 2022 census. In a metro area of 1.9 million people.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What struck me a lot when I lived in the US is how Blacks and Whites don't mingle. They don't live in the same neighborhoods, don't socialize in the same groups (there are always exceptions of course), and don't marry with each other (there are very few exceptions here).

In France, apart from the most recently arrived sub-Saharan African immigrants, Black French and White French don't live in separate neighborhoods, they socialize, and they often form couples with each other. You see lots of mixed couples in France, whereas you see very few in the US. That's the most visible difference between both countries.

Yeah, this is clearly all nonsense.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

Real number: 11.018 Comorran immigrants in the Marseille metro area at the 2022 census. In a metro area of 1.9 million people.

as written in 2012:
Selon le dernier recensement, plus de 80.000 personnes d’origine comorienne vivraient à Marseille.

Des chiffres qui datent de 2004, impossibles à évaluer, huit ans plus tard. En cause, la diversité des situations. Car, si la plupart bénéficient de la double nationalité, certains sont aussi sans-papiers.

https://www.slateafrique.com/92217/marseille-capitale-comorienne
https://www.slateafrique.com/90841/marseille-capitale-des-comores

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In France, apart from the most recently arrived sub-Saharan African immigrants, Black French and White French don't live in separate neighborhoods, they socialize, and they often form couples with each other. You see lots of mixed couples in France, whereas you see very few in the US. That's the most visible difference between both countries.

The U.S. has been moving quite fast towards more interracial relationship but I still think it's far more common for minority groups to couple with white Europeans in Europe than for minorities in the U.S. to couple with white Americans. In France and the U.K. especially it seems very common for first or second generations from Asia and Africa to couple with white French or white British.

France doesn't track racial data so it's impossible to quantify, but it seems pretty obvious that there's a very high level of interracial coupling there compared to the United States. A friend of mine is French-born with a white and black parent. His wife is black American but he's often commented that in France racial minorities are encouraged to couple with white French instead of other racial minorities.

The U.K. does track racial data and from an American perspective it seems more like France in terms of attitudes towards racial and interracial coupling. As of the most recent U.K. census, 2.7% of the population identifies as "British Mixed" versus 4.09% in the United States identifying as mixed. That might seem like the U.S. has more common interracial mixtures, but that would be incorrect to conclude. The U.K. is overall much whiter than the U.S. The U.K. is about 83% white according to its last census (77% British/Irish white) or 17% non-white. The U.S. is 58% white, non-Hispanic or 42% non-white (or white Hispanic). This means that close to 20% of the U.K.'s non-white population is "mixed" versus less than 10% of the U.S.'s non-white population. In fact, there are nearly as many people in the U.K. who identify as mixed (2.7%) as there are people who identify as black (3.7%).

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

What struck me a lot when I lived in the US is how Blacks and Whites don't mingle. They don't live in the same neighborhoods, don't socialize in the same groups (there are always exceptions of course), and don't marry with each other (there are very few exceptions here).

All of which are much less true than they were a few generations back. Ironically, residential segregation is much lower in the Southeast than the rest of the country (despite the legacy of Jim Crow). It needs to be said, though, the difference is in part spurred by education. In the Southeast, a lot of white people send their kids to private schools (particularly evangelical ones), meaning the public schools in mixed areas are black by default. In contrast, elsewhere in the country, more people want to send their kids to public schools. However, because there's a racial test score gap, if you select for the areas with the "best public schools" you'll end up selecting for places with few Black (or Hispanic) people, and mostly white (or Asian) people.

In terms of intermarriage, I think looking at the official statistics is a bit misleading, because of the high amount of people having relationships and children out of wedlock. That said, black people are least likely overall to be involved in interracial relationships. This is driven by a mixture of both broader bias against dating black people by nonblack Americans, along with a desire by many black people (particularly black women) to not date outside their race).

Other racial groups (mostly Hispanics and Asians) don't show the same dynamics when it comes to intermarriage, and typically have something like 50% outmarriage rates once you discount first generation immigrants.

Originally Posted by New Brisavoine

In France, apart from the most recently arrived sub-Saharan African immigrants, Black French and White French don't live in separate neighborhoods, they socialize, and they often form couples with each other. You see lots of mixed couples in France, whereas you see very few in the US. That's the most visible difference between both countries.

Yeah, my understanding is the same thing is largely true in the UK. There was a big migration of Afro-Caribbean folks in the 1960s, but they intermarried so heavily with the white majority that most British people of Caribbean ancestry are now half or even three quarters white. Modern black British people are overwhelmingly newer migrant groups (like Nigerians) but are also intermarrying into the majority very quickly from the second generation onward.

I've always said if the U.S. could somehow solve the racism problem, it would ironically functionally end Black culture as its own thing within a few generations for just this reason. Much the same thing happened with Jews in America as antisemitism lessened, as outside of those from Conservative/Orthodox background or recent Israeli extraction, most young American Jews are now of mixed ancestry with one non-Jewish parent.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

In many states it was illegal for white and Native Americans to marry. Virginia classified Native Americans as "colored" in the 1920s and thus made marriages between whites and Native Americans illegal. However, many of Virginia's elite families claimed to be descendants of Pocahontas, so that would've made them legally not white. This led to the Pocahantas exception that expanded the legal definition of white to include those with up to 1/16th native ancestry.

At the same time, it was official government policy for much of this period to "breed the native out" in hopes that Indian schools and the like would cause them to just blend into the white population over time.

No one ever seriously proposed this for black Americans.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Hispanic wasn't an ethnic category until the 1970s. Even today a lot of (Hispanic) people reject that Hispanic is an ethnic category. The creation of that category led to some "white" immigrants from Latin countries being other-ized into a non-white bucket. But groups like Chicanos and darker skinned Puerto Ricans were definitely discriminated against in the early 20th century. California was notorious for Chicano discrimination from the time it became a state until the mid 20th century.

There was a brief period "Mexican" was called a race on the 1930 census too.

Still, the status of Latinos historically in the U.S. has been quite different from Blacks, Natives, or Asians. There were never any official Jim Crow laws on the books anywhere which excluded Latinos (California once excluded Asians from regular public schools, for example, but Latinos could attend them with black and white students. Similarly, in Texas, Tejanos were not subject to the official Jim Crow laws. Nor were there ever laws restricting citizenship or voting.

Of course, there were many examples of lower-level discrimination. The property rights of the historic Spanish-speaking landowners were routinely broken by American settlers after the Mexican Cessation. Dirty, corrupt county governments set up undemocratic machines to stop Hispanic involvement throughout the Southwest. And there were reactionary nativist responses to perceived threats, like the Zoot Suit Riots and Operation Wetback. That said, compared to other "nonwhites" in U.S. history, Latinos were treated more like Jews or various "White Ethnics" who came in waves during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Historically there was a LOT of discrimination against East Asians, and that started with Chinese immigrants that came in to work on the railroads in the 19th century. This is what prompted the Chinese Exclusion Act which completely prohibited nearly all immigration from China after it was passed. Like the above, the discrimination was worst in the places where the Chinese were concentrated, which was mostly in California and in states along the route of the transcontinental railroad.

Yes, the U.S. treatment of Asian-Americans (particularly Chinese-Americans) was quite awful. People don't realize, for example, that "Chinatowns" mostly didn't develop organically like other ethnic enclaves, but defensively. Early Chinese migrants tended to set up in small numbers in rural areas and in small towns, but as hostility rose during the racial nadir, they had to flee to urban enclaves for self-defense (similar to what happened with the first wave of black migration to the north). Much of the early history of Chinese-American migrants has been lost though, in part because 9 men came for every woman, meaning this population largely aged in place and died.

Regardless, the fact remains that pretty much as soon as institutional discrimination against Asian-Americans lessened, they started intermarrying with the white majority. Again, the U.S. developed a not insubstantial Japanese community in the West in the early 20th century, and outside of Hawaii, this community is essentially dead now, due to outmarriage. The color line just doesn't exist for Asian-Americans as it does for African-Americans.

[New Brisavoine]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

as written in 2012:
Selon le dernier recensement, plus de 80.000 personnes d’origine comorienne vivraient à Marseille.

This simply doesn't exist. The French censuses only count immigrants (persons born abroad without French citizenship at birth). They do not count the children of immigrants born in France. So this "80,000" figure is just an invention.

If there were "80,000 people of Comoran ancestry in Marseille", when the census counted only 7,900 Comoran immigrants in the Marseille metro area in 2012 (and less than that in Marseille proper), then that means surely other immigrant groups would have to have their numbers multiplied by 10 to get the number of people "of foreign origin", and then Marseille metro area would not have 1.9 million people, but more like 4 million. Magic really!

All immigrant groups tend to exaggerate their numbers. I see the same in Paris (like the Lebanese embassy estimating 100,000 Lebanese live in Greater Paris, when in reality there are only 20,000 as per the census). People often have a hard time accepting the results of the census (either because they are far right and don't accept that the number of immigrants is lower than they imagine, or because they belong to immigrant groups who exaggerate their numbers and cannot accept the census figures which show they are less numerous than they imagine).

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Des chiffres qui datent de 2004, impossibles à évaluer, huit ans plus tard. En cause, la diversité des situations. Car, si la plupart bénéficient de la double nationalité, certains sont aussi sans-papiers.

The census counts EVERYBODY, legal or illegal immigrants, residents of apartments as well as people sleeping in the street. As for citizenship, it has no effect on the statistical definition of the immigrant. A Comoran immigrant who acquires French citizenship remains a Comoran immigrant for INSEE.