Why are there so few South Americans in the US despite geographical closeness?

[PacoMartin]

[quote=seixal;45725554]I think that there are quite a few different definition for "Latino". IMHO it makes the most sense when used to describe languages having Latin a common ancestor., like the so-called Romance languages do. /QUOTE]


If we had to do it all over, I would prefer the words Hispanophone, Lusophone and Francophone.

The -ic suffix in English has too many undesirable secondary meanings that are not there with the -ophone suffix. The word hispanic is unfortunately too close to the ethnic slur "sp-ic". "Latino" is confusing as it could apply to Italians and French as well as Romanians.

[Return2FL]

??

Icelandic, Gaelic, Baltic, Arabic, Germanic, Judaic. I'm sure there's more and none have negative connotations.

[naners1]

Originally Posted by EVANGELISTTI

I think because Mexico, Peru and others Spanish American countries always had huge population native American so they didn’t need much foreigner workers.
.

You are being too rudimentary.

In the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a shortage of labor in Peru, the mining industry was growing and needed laborers. The mining companies ended up importing European laborers. Many peasants came from England, Italy, China to work in the mines.
Peruvians did not want to work in the mines, they much prefer to tend their crops and their animals in the field as they had done for millennia, no matter how much money it was offered to them. They never had to sell their labor in exchange for food and shelter. (However Modern times have changed them)
AMERICANA: "La inmigración china en el Perú y la asianófila Dora Mayer" por Katalin Jancsó
https://issuu.com/catkind23/docs/538...rantes_y_el_pr