Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'd say it's the region with the most underestimated hispanic influence in the country. Definitely true that Chicago's large Mexican population helped funnel more folks to Milwaukee. Lots of people with relatives in Chicago and I'm sure vice versa. There's a strong Mexico to Texas to Chicago/Milwaukee pipeline, I've noticed informally talking to people around town.
I'd say it's the region with the most underestimated hispanic influence in the country. Definitely true that Chicago's large Mexican population helped funnel more folks to Milwaukee. Lots of people with relatives in Chicago and I'm sure vice versa. There's a strong Mexico to Texas to Chicago/Milwaukee pipeline, I've noticed informally talking to people around town.
Generally speaking, I feel like all Hispanic communities outside of the "traditional" border states + Florida are a bit underrated. From what I've read about the Mexican community in Chicago, they're very much connected to the Texas cultural milieu, which gives it a very different feel than the Hispanic community out in California.
the predominantly male Mexican workforce, and the “solos,” migrated into Chicago from agricultural fields throughout the Midwest and from towns and villages in Texas and the Central Mexican states of Guanajuato, Michoacán, and Jalisco.
Quote:
Mexican life in Chicago transcended the limits of metropolitan Chicago. Workers moved between Mexico, the Southwest (primarily Texas), and various parts of the Midwest. Those working in agriculture followed crops during the warm months; to save money, many spent winters working in industrial jobs in Chicago rather than traveling south
California, when it comes to ALL ethnic groups, I feel like is a bit more self-contained to California except for maybe the Jews (who are definitely East Coast oriented) and Italians (same as the Jews). Much of this is due to the fact that California in general is so far from the rest of the populated United States that social life here took a life of its own, until the mass-media age.
As for SFBA vs. Chicago, SFBA is actually one of the least Hispanic areas in California because of the influx of Asians and Anglo-Whites. However, right outside of SFBA are the agricultural regions which nowadays are definitely Hispanic. That's why I ask about the food options. Of course, it's hard to compare "food" because hell, unless you've eaten at 10 Mexican places in SFBA and compared the same exact dishes to how they are in CHI, it's all conjecture.
The SF Bay Area has slightly more Hispanic people than Asians, and has been losing white people for decades.
And compare that to the rest of California aside from Sacramento and far Northern California? Compared to the rest of California, SFBA is decidedly LESS Hispanic than 45% Hispanic LA or 32% Hispanic SD.
And compare that to the rest of California aside from Sacramento and far Northern California? Compared to the rest of California, SFBA is decidedly LESS Hispanic than 45% Hispanic LA or 32% Hispanic SD.
You said that the reason the Bay Area has a lower Hispanic population is because there's an influx of Asians and whites, as if Hispanic people are getting pushed out....which isn't true. The two groups that have been growing as a percentage in the Bay Area for the last half century are Asians and Hispanics (who are almost at equal numbers), while the white population has been dropping nonstop since 1940 (and the black population too, since the 1980s).
You said that the reason the Bay Area has a lower Hispanic population is because there's an influx of Asians and whites, as if Hispanic people are getting pushed out....which isn't true. The two groups that have been growing as a percentage in the Bay Area for the last half century are Asians and Hispanics (who are almost at equal numbers), while the white population has been dropping nonstop since 1940 (and the black population too, since the 1980s).
Ok dude. Chill out first of all, there's really no need to be defensive.
When you say "as if", you're reading too much what I am saying. You have to keep in mind the context of my post, which is "in comparison to the rest of California."
And compared to the "rest of California", the influx of Whites and Asians since San Francisco became populated (since SF was presumably 100% Hispanic before 1848) diluted the Hispanic population much quicker than the rest of California.
Just looked at the numbers, and threw in DFW because it's in the same range, and it looks like due to the inclusion of San Joaquin County in SFBA, SFBA now has the most amount of Hispanics between the three now.
I think the rankings (by CSA) go something like this now:
1) Los Angeles
2) New York City
3) Miami
4) Houston
5) San Francisco Bay Area
6) Chicago
7) Dallas-Fort Worth
Just looked at the numbers, and threw in DFW because it's in the same range, and it looks like due to the inclusion of San Joaquin County in SFBA, SFBA now has the most amount of Hispanics between the three now.
I think the rankings (by CSA) go something like this now:
1) Los Angeles
2) New York City
3) Miami
4) Houston
5) San Francisco Bay Area
6) Chicago
7) Dallas-Fort Worth
Thats true, the inclusion of Stockton leapfrogged San Francisco/San Jose over Chicago and DFW. But given the growth patterns of all three, DFW will leapfrog Chicago relatively soon. For example in 2013, the Hispanic immigration into all three was as below:
Immigrants from Central American (including Mexico):
DFW: 9,022
Chicagoland: 8,081
Bay Area: 6,979
Immigrants from South America:
Chicago: 1,343
DFW: 1,239
Bay Area: 1,147
As for total Hispanic growth, lets start with what all three were in 2010:
Bay Area (including Stockton): 1,976,423
Chicago: 1,957,080
DFW: 1,752,166
In 2013:
Bay Area: 2,174,113
Chicago: 2,072,365
DFW: 1,965,163
Growth in these three years:
DFW: 213,047
Bay Area: 197,690
Chicago: 115,285
It appears that the addition of Stockton will allow the Bay Area to keep ahead of both for a while.
It appears that the addition of Stockton will allow the Bay Area to keep ahead of both for a while.
To tack onto this, if the Bay Area adds more areas, it can be presumed it will ad a whole lot of Hispanics along with it. And there's a strong possibility that Stanislaus County will be added by the 2020 census.
To tack onto this, if the Bay Area adds more areas, it can be presumed it will ad a whole lot of Hispanics along with it. And there's a strong possibility that Stanislaus County will be added by the 2020 census.
This is where CSAs get ridiculous. Stockton is almost 100 miles from San Francisco.
I would be far more interested to see what the Urban Area's Hispanic populations area. That would be the true measure of the Hispanic influence in the Bay Area.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
