Jump to content


Photo

Emigration or Immigration


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1 dont have on

dont have on

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 01:21 PM

For some time now I've been ignoring a puzzling feature of the emigration and immigration fact types. Their definitions are reversed. In reports, they should read "Emigrated to" and "Immigrated from", not the other way around. With a new version imminent, it still is I hope, now is the time to address this embarrassment.

#2 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 02:00 PM

QUOTE(dont have on @ Jan 26 2009, 02:21 PM) View Post

For some time now I've been ignoring a puzzling feature of the emigration and immigration fact types. Their definitions are reversed. In reports, they should read "Emigrated to" and "Immigrated from", not the other way around. With a new version imminent, it still is I hope, now is the time to address this embarrassment.

Emigration is the act of leaving one's native country or region to settle in another. ( Leaving FROM wink.gif )
Immigration is the movement of people into a region or country different from their native origin. ( Going TO wink.gif )

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#3 Doug Couch

Doug Couch

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 44 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 03:12 PM

Ditto...RM has it correct. To leave is to emigrate (FROM). To settle into a new area is immigrate (TO). I also had them mixed up some time back, and had to look them up and revise my usage.

#4 landbrake

landbrake

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 341 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 03:33 PM

Though I agree with Kevin and Doug that RM is doing it the right way, I should note that RM allows you to change it if you prefer a different wording. Go to Lists (on the menu bar) then Fact type lists.. scroll down to Emigration and Immigration and edit them to suit your preferences.

#5 kbens0n

kbens0n

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3449 posts

Posted 26 January 2009 - 04:58 PM

QUOTE(landbrake @ Jan 26 2009, 04:33 PM) View Post

Though I agree with Kevin and Doug that RM is doing it the right way, I should note that RM allows you to change it if you prefer a different wording. Go to Lists (on the menu bar) then Fact type lists.. scroll down to Emigration and Immigration and edit them to suit your preferences.

GREAT info, Dave, about the flexibility RM allows for... regarding adjusting for Fact sentence structure! wink.gif

---
--- "GENEALOGY, n. An account of one's descent from an ancestor who did not particularly care to trace his own." - Ambrose Bierce
--- "The trouble ain't what people don't know, it's what they know that ain't so." - Josh Billings
---Ô¿Ô---
K e V i N


#6 Vyger

Vyger

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3406 posts

Posted 27 January 2009 - 04:30 AM

QUOTE(kbens0n @ Jan 26 2009, 10:58 PM) View Post

GREAT info, Dave, about the flexibility RM allows for... regarding adjusting for Fact sentence structure! wink.gif


I always thought these were reversed and I suppose it depends on your point of reference. People generally only make one reference in conversation to one event like "they Emigrated TO Canada". From a Canadian perspective they were Imigrants FROM Ireland.

While kbens0n's definations are correct the only way to record this correctly within RM would be to use both facts for a Emigration/Imigration event which would be concise. This would include the dates of leaving and of arriving.

I still use one event in the terms of they Emigrated TO, as that is the point of interest to me, it's great that RM allows the flexibility to customise this though.

We are all limited by our visions and abilities

Whilst we can borrow from the visions of others we cannot always deliver.

 

User of Family Historian 6.2.7, Rootsmagic 7.6.0, Family Tree Maker 2014 & Legacy 7.5

 

Excel to Gedcom conversion - simple getting started tutorials here

 

Root


#7 Mike Power

Mike Power

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 01:46 AM

This debate highlights, what is for me, a shortcoming of RM3 (and, it seems, also of RM4).

• It is only possible to enter one date and one place per fact.

Now obviously this is not an issue with single date events like birth, marriage, divorce, death and burial.

There are, however, many fact types where it would be of great advantage to have a dual date/ place facility. Emigration/Immigration is one of these.

To provide the full story we need to be able to say that:

John Doe emigrated/immigrated on the <mode> which left from <place> on <date> and arrived in <place> on <date>.

For me such a facility would also have application for eg, Residence, Education, Illness, Military Service, Occupation, anything that involves a period of time.

The successor to PAF, Ancestral Quest, has this facility so it is possible within the current constraints of the GEDCOM file.

#8 Romer

Romer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2064 posts

Posted 28 January 2009 - 11:34 AM

An advantage of having separate facts for both immigration and emigration would be that the ages at the time of each event would be reflected accurately in all cases. It would also make it a little cleaner in being certain to which fact the various source citations refer without having to put in extra effort to determine.

For the other facts mentioned, one can use "from _____ to _____" in the date field as a means to handle them. That entry is treated as a valid one within RootsMagic.

#9 Veteran

Veteran

    New Member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 06:07 AM

Immigrate/Emigrate usage does not depend on the "from" or "to" but on the location of the person making the statement. The statements "My great-uncle emigrated to Australia in 1945", and "My ancestor immigrated to America in 1872", both describe the same type of event. But an Australian would say your great-uncle immigrated to Australia in 1945.

To avoid confusion, simply use the word "migrated". It has the same meaning immigrated and emigrated without making assumptions about which place you are talking from. That way your great-uncle can happily migrate from Australia to South Africa in 1953 without confusing anybody.

#10 Mike Power

Mike Power

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 43 posts

Posted 16 February 2009 - 09:30 PM

Well done to "Veteran" !

His/her suggestion to simply use "migration" surely would solve the problem for most.

I still maintain that for such a fact we need to have the "dual place / date / description" facility so we can say:

John Doe migrated on the <mode> which left from <place> on <date> and arrived in <place> on <date>.

This dual detail facility should be incorporated as part of the format for New Fact Types (for optional use) as well as for any fact that involves a period of time eg:Residence, Education, Illness, Military Service, Occupation.

#11 Jonathan589

Jonathan589

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 73 posts

Posted 12 March 2009 - 03:06 PM

I agree with Mike and Veteran.

My family moved between countries and continents many times over the last few centuries. I think of emigration/immigration/migration as a firm move--even if they happen to up stakes again later--and not a temporary one like holidays or business trips. My grandparents went on many sea voyages in their lives, each taking weeks and giving rise to records in different countries that I may (or may not of course) pick up at different times.

So I use a personal fact called 'Travel' to cover all of these, but would still like a dual entry as I often pick up both ends of the journey. Frinstance I "left Montreal on the Empress of Britain on 25 Oct 1960 and arrived in Liverpool on 1 Nov 1960"