Category talk:Canadian immigrants to the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This category was nominated for deletion, renaming or merging with another category on 2007 February 19. The result of the discussion was keep.

So if we are going to restrict this category to people who have becomes naturalised US citizens, then we can start taking Canadian-born people out of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States because one will be a sub-cat of the other? Kevlar67 00:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States is a sub-cat of Category:Immigrants to the United States, which is, in turn, a sub-cat of Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States. I don't get it. I think of a naturalized citizen as a type of immigrant, so the category hierarchy is backwards to me. An immigrant to the US may or may not become a naturalized citizen; I would argue that a permanent resident is still an immigrant. However, to answer your query more directly, I would agree that Canadian-born people who are U.S. citizens should be moved to this cat. in order to maintain consistency with the current structure. (And given the result of the Cfd, I guess they also get listed in Category:Canadian Americans.--Vbd 08:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Note also that there is still the Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States, which is for Canadians who have not become U.S. citizens. Again, the logic eludes me, but the Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States is also a sub-cat of the expat cat.--Vbd 08:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because in common parlance, especially in North America, there isn't a strict separation between immigrants and expats. But since we are trying to convey some vary specific information (who is a citizen of the US and who isn't) we need to use these term more selectively than they are used in common conversation. In my opinion "immigrants" should be restricted to naturalised citizens, and "expats" to non-citizens, otherwise we have no way of separating citizens and non-citizens. Make sense? Kevlar67 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Your distinction makes sense, but the hierarchy is still screwy. Maybe the subcat Category:Canadian expatriates in the United States needs to be moved to the Category:Canadian Americans page, so that it is parallel to Category:Canadian immigrants to the United States. You added the clarifying language on the Category:Canadian Americans page (thanks!), but finding the expat category is not intuitively obvious. Also, if we are conceptualizing the immigrant and expat categories as binary, then I don't think the former should remain as a sub-cat of the latter. --Vbd 21:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I assume dual citizenship holders fall under "immigrants." ;-)

I think you are a correct regarding the sub-catagorisation, however, there is some talk of getting rid of "Canadian Americans" or renaming it "Americans of Canadian decent". It that case "Canadian immigrants to Canada", and "Canadian expatriates in the US" wouldn't make sense as sub-cats. So I'm waiting to see. Kevlar67 04:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

What "talk" are you refering to? I nominated Category:Canadian Americans as a CFD last month, but no consensus was reached. At this point, I think moving the expat cat. so that it is a subcat. of "Canadian Americans" would be a good first step (I'm not sure if simply moving a category requires going through the CFD process). Then it and the "Canadian immigrants" can be appropriately populated. I think an "Americans of Canadian descent" could work; I have already moved some names into Category:Americans of French Canadian descent. Cheers!--Vbd 05:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)