The problem with this poll is that it has a strong bias built into it. Those with recent ancestors who immigrated (such as parents or grandparents) will be able to answer this question fairly easily. Those who do not will find this question difficult to answer unless they have good records of their family tree.

I'm not aware of any immigrants in my family tree, but I'm only aware of my ancestry two generations back, so I can't answer the poll accurately without additional research. It isn't really worth my time to do that, so I'm not going to answer the poll.

Assuming I'm not a rare exception, the way your poll is worded will therefore be biased toward recent immigrants and people who know a lot about their family tree. Without knowing how much this bias is, there's not a whole lot you can conclude from the results.

You may want to setup an additional poll, such as:

* I am an immigrant

* At least one of my parents was an immigrant

* At least one of my grandparents was an immigrant

My guess is that more people could answer that poll than your current one, and you'd therefore get less bias.

Certainly if I wanted to be more scientific about this, there is a lot I would do differently...

That said, if you go through history, there has seldom been a time when one location or one state remained the dominant force in the world for more than 3 or 4 generations (especially looking at more recent world history). So, another way of posing the hypothesis might be: Is there a "migrant" sub-population within the human species that is both willing to travel to wherever opportunities are to be found and, at the same time, increase the prosperity of those locations when they arrive?

If that's the case, it could be that a "substantial move" indicative of this migrant opportunity-seeking mentality doesn't require immigration or the crossing of nation-state boundaries at all. I wonder if there's another way to phrase this to include someone uprooting themselves from the American east coast and moving to California, for example.

Similarly there are parts of the world where crossing a border to live is nearly as easy (e.g. within the EU). What's the barrier you're trying to measure? Leaving familiar people/surroundings?

[Edit - added EU example and question]

It's a reasonable hypothesis, I'm just doubtful that the poll, worded as it is, counts as evidence of this.

Another hypothesis is that people know more about their parents and grand-parents than they do about their more distant ancestors, and that people are more likely to answer polls that are easy to answer than polls that are hard to answer. This hypothesis would also explain the results we're seeing in the poll.

Given that it is fairly easy to identify those "dominant forces" you should check whether there were any significant amounts of immigration to those places before they achieved top-dog status.

By my estimate I can see only one country that has had mass immigration and then which achieved dominant world power status fairly soon afterwards: the United States. Are these connected, probably, are they connected because the immigrants were made up of a tribe of wandering genetic entrepreneurs moving onto their next conquest, I suspect not.

I would guess at least 40 - I'm Scottish and I was raised in small village where part of my family had been for about 400 years. However, another part came from Orkney and the last mass immigration there was probably by the Vikings in the 8th or 9th centuries.

[Edit: Of course the reality can't be as simple as that - I have a slightly Asiatic appearance that is fairly common in the part of Scotland I am from - a Chinese doctor once thought I was Chinese (much to my amusement and his horror at potentially causing offence). I'm hoping for something interesting like a Orcadian Hudson's Bay man marrying an Innuit and returning home with his family... or something like that.]

I've always been amused by family trees in the old world.

I was born in brazil but my great grandfather came as a war refugee fron Sweden (he had two brothers: one stayed in Sweden and the other fled to the Us). At that time there were refugees from all over europe arriving in latin america so it is very common where I live for someone to bear family names from 2 different countries (my wife has german and portuguese last names, for example).

Hence it is very difficult to trace our family trees past a few generations (although my family was very lucky to find relatives living in the Us and Sweden recently).

Our family name was "corrected" by some over-zealous Church of Scotland minister in the 19th Century - it was originally "Sclater" and was changed to the much more common "Slater". Just to confuse things, some of my ancestors really were originally Slaters as well!

That is something we have in common then. the original spelling of my family's name is "Lannerdahl" but it was "corrected" to "Landerdahl" (these "corrections" were also very common to immigrants' names.)

Btw, what do you mean by over-zealous (sorry, I'm not familiar with Scotish history).

"over-zealous"

The minister would have been some university educated outsider who presumably thought he knew better than the locals how to spell their names. After all if you see ten families called "Slater" and one called "Sclater" you might think that the last lost simply made a spelling mistake - and what the church said was law (effectively).

Wow first time I've ever met anyone that wasn't within the immediate family with that last name (Slater that is) I wonder if we were also affected by that...

My mother is not only an immigrant to the US but when she was an under-aged teenager (either 16 or 17), she escaped East Germany with forged papers, with her infant niece in tow to return the child to it's rightful mother who had been denied the right to take the baby home after a visit. She claimed the baby was hers. I have heard that the only reason it worked is because the baby threw up on one of the border guards while they were checking her crappy forged papers.

My mom was also self-employed for many years (something people here would call a "lifestyle business", not a "start up"). I definitely think my family background is part of why I have a fairly high tolerance for risk while being routinely misread and not really seen that way. Time will tell whether or not that will lead to successfully developing an independent income so I can leave my day job.

The stories (much more than the raw numbers) are what make this poll fun. Thank you for contributing!

No problem. I'm actually rather fond of telling my story. I try to not overindulge. It leads to trouble.

Take care.

No offense, But this is a great story for a film.

Not offended at all. Should I ever get famous enough for Hollywood to want to do a film about my life, I will let them know you think that tidbit belongs in the film. ;-)

Take care.

My great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather immigrated to New York from France in 1685 to escape the religious persecutions of King Louis XIV. I think that makes me 10 generations removed from immigration. There's a town in Normandy, France that bears our name (Caudebec was our French name before immigrating): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caudebec-en-Caux and a small town in New York that bears our Americanized name (Cuddeback after immigrating): http://g.co/maps/p2qm

Another fairly strong component of my ancestry is Cherokee Indian (native American). I don't know nearly as much about that part of my lineage, but I've read that the first traces of Cherokee are from about 3500 years ago. So anyways, my family has been in the US since before it was a country.

But you know that every single one of your 256 great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandfathers were at least second generation immigrants?

I'm sorry, but I find that hard to believe.

No, I certainly don't know my complete family tree, especially on my mothers side. I didn't mean to imply that I did.

Tricky one for me.

We've managed to trace our family tree back 12 generations through family documents, etc. and our family are still in Ireland (where I'm from).

From what we know though our family have had a presence in Ireland for over 500 years on both sides.

It's actually remarkable when you consider the earliest record of our surname in Ireland is in the 13th century.

If you go back 12 generations you have 2^12 = 4 096 ancestors. Seems rather unlikely that every single one of them is Irish. If you go back 20 generations you'd have 2^20 = 1 048 576 ancestors, which is probably larger then the population of Ireland by that time.

While it's true there's likely an immigrant in the bunch, it's also very unlikely that all 4096 or 1048576 ancestors are distinct. The tree is bound to overlap.

This is also known as the Ancestors Paradox

Good point!

The farther back you go the less likely it is that they would be immigrants. Back in the day when people had to walk or ride to where they wanted to go...

Except that if you go back that far, not all of the ancestors are likely to be distinct.

Well I can beat that by about 600 years. The first mention of my family is around 6/700CE. We were followers of St.Cainnech http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cainnech_of_Aghaboe

Myself, I've emigrated to the UK, twice. But now I'm back in Dublin.

Go back far enough and countries pop in and out of existance.

Were there several countries in Ireland back then? Kings of Lenister/Munster/Meath, etc.? We'll get our cow back, etc.

Let's just say that my family name has been attested in the same geographical location for over 2000 years... ;)

Also, what about families that have changed countries without moving? For example, I live in Croatia, but was born in Yugoslavia. My grandfather was born in Austria-Hungary empire and died in Croatia, never moving across a border in his life.

Also, I would move and emigrate on a moment's notice, but these days it's much more difficult than it used to be...

Interesting question. However I find it worrying that this clearly written spec seems to be misinterpreted quite a bit in the comments. I worry that it means you can't trust the results at all. Or maybe people just like talking about their most distantly traceable ancestors.

I worry that people who don't know if one of their ancestors was an immigrant have answered incorrectly.

I think the way to reduce confusion would be to label the options as "1 generations (One of my parents was an immigrant)", "2 generations (One of my grandparents.. )", "3 generations (One of my great-grandparents was an immigrant)", etc.

5 generations isn't all that far back. Depending on your age, it puts you mid to late 19th century, and there's a fair number of Americans that can say with reasonable certainty that they have no immigrant ancestors since that time.

Much less residents of older countries, which can probably go back a whole lot further than that.

Moved from one southern state of India to another about 600 years ago. If you're talking about moving between countries, I'd have to find out when humans moved to India.

I did study in the US and then came back, so what does that make me :) ? Oh, I'm trying to do my own startup now.

Interesting - I am from another southern state of India, and am unable to trace it back to anywhere that isn't in the same 'state'. However, 600 years ago they were mostly just smaller kingdoms with similar cultures, rather than 'states' as such. Wonder if moving across them would be considered 'immigration'

Humans moved to India 40,000 years ago.

If you don't mind, let me guess: You are from an Iyengar family. Your ancestors emigrated from Tamilnadu to Karnataka?

Correct-aa? :)

blr doesn't mean I'm settled in blr just that I'm working here :) so wrong states...

Although that means if I count my move to blr, that's 0 on this poll.

Well, that's certainly the hardest poll question I've ever seen on HN. Let me get back to you.

I think for the purpose of that question you are immigrant yourself (left your comfort zone and moved for unlimited time).

It's funny. I first answered "3" because that would be the correct answer if I were in my home country. Then I recalled that I've been living in Japan for 8 years, so I'm a sort of immigrant and should answer "0".

The thing is, Japan is far from being an immigrant country like US, Canada or Brazil. For instance, you don't automatically get permanent residence even if you're married to a Japanese citizen. Even ethnic Koreans who were born here, have Japanese blood and speak only Japanese have a different status. There's no such thing as anti-discrimination laws, etc.

You don't get automatic permanent residence in the US just for marrying a US citizen either. There is several years and several thousand dollars of paperwork and process to go through, even when you're coming from someplace like Canada.

Ancestry.com is offering free access to their immigration and travel records this weekend only (this ends tonight).

Search here: http://www.ancestry.com/ancestry.com/dynamic/immigration

(I have no connection, financial or otherwise, to Ancestry.com)

Eventually settled? I was born in Ireland, moved to Canada at 6, currently in the US. I have lived in 3 other countries. My grandmother, of Irish descent, reverse emigrated from the USA to Ireland. I need a -1 choice.

I'm a descendant of slaves so my family tree gets tricky once I get (back) to my great grandparents (who were alive during the U.S. Civil War). Best guess is 5th generation.

Same here for me, but it takes at least one more generation to get back to the U.S. Civil War.

In many cases it's more like a willingness to pick up and leave your discomfort zone.

And there are other ways of doing that besides emigrating between nations, like leaving home for college in a different time zone at 16 years old and despite your parents forbidding it.

Might be a self-selecting group of people who respond to this poll. I bet immigrants or recent immigrants are more likely to open the poll because it will be of interest/relevant, skewing the results.

I somehow managed to hit both ends of this scale. Pick any branch of my family and you can trace them back to pretty much the 3rd boat to come across the Atlantic.

And, I'm in the process of emigrating to England.

Hmm...

If I knew my full family tree, I'd probably find a closer immigrant, but 13 generations back my great..great grandfather was on the Mayflower. Not a great data point for this survey though: he was an indentured servant, and the whole Pilgrim voyage represented more of an attempt to preserve their comfort zone at all costs.

The poll doesn't fit me exactly. I made the count along my maternal line and chose the appropriate choice, but I have lived overseas for two three-year stays, so I know something of the immigrant experience and definitely know a radically different culture and language. And my wife is an immigrant (so she is at 0 generations by the poll rules) and that influences my daily life quite a lot.

My son, also an HN participant, and a would-be start-up founder, has similarly lived overseas even though he now lives in his country of birth, and he plans to move in another few years to another country none of us have ever lived in.

Well, I'm pretty I'm sure at least 6th generation Dutch. The patrilineal line I know better and goes back further. On the other hand, I don't live in The Netherlands. I went to an English university, Scottish and American schools, and now work for an American company in the Middle East and Africa.

My parents have barely lived in The Netherlands since early adulthood, so I guess I'm a second generation permanent expat.

I think you'll find a lot of non-immigrant expatriates as well because with modern travel & communications options, moving countries is no longer the huge deal it was in the past.

The most recent of my ancestors to have immigrated to the US (I'm American) was Alexander Kerr (b 1694, Roxburghshire, Scotland) although there is some question as to whether or not he was the father of my 6th great-grandfather, John Kerr (b 1728, Williamsburg, VA). He was a Jacobite, convicted of treason in 1715 and given a choice of either hanging or America, so it's not like an abundance of entrepreneurial spirit drove him to emigrate.

Of course, there may be more recent immigrants in my family tree. I don't know where all of the branches go.

I'm chilean and my great-great-grandfather, John Carpenter, arrived in Chile in 1860 - 1880. He was British and all the research I've done suggests that he was a Quaker from the south of England.

When is one be considered an immigrant? Is it: 1) simply living in a land that one was not born in immigration; or 2) giving up one's citizenship at birth for another?

Going by the first definition, I've lived in 2 foreign countries for lengthy periods, so have I immigrated twice? But I still am a citizen of where I was born (India) and I do intend to eventually move back to home country, so am I not an immigrant at all?

There's a bit of a gray area between "expatriate" and "immigrant", though not everyone makes the distinction. I don't think it has to do with citizenship specifically; someone who moves to the U.S. and stays there the rest of their lives, but never actually becomes a citizen (you can live indefinitely with a green card) would still be an immigrant to the US. Someone whose company sends them on a temporary 3-year posting to the U.S., though, typically wouldn't be considered an immigrant, but an expatriate. Times in between "3 years" and "rest of your life" are trickier.

I think immigration is very much in the eye (and heart) of the beholder. For example, I know of a good number of Brits living in Australia who would not consider themselves immigrants. I also know of people from the deep south of the U.S. who now live in NYC and probably do think of themselves as immigrants, of a sort.

I have traced all 16 of my great-great-grandparents and more than 20 of my 3G grandparents, and I haven't found evidence that any of them were born outside North America. But I agree with the commenter who said that it doesn't matter to my own entrepreneurial or adventure-seeking tendencies. I think one or two generations might have an actual effect, but beyond that you're just playing with statistics.

I am now an expat so pretty close to being an immigrant but in my family there are no immigrants at least 5 generations back. The only half-exceptions are my parents who now each have different nationality because our (their?) state split into two. Also my grandma moved inside the state to a region speaking completely different language so she could be considered an immigrant.

Given that the number of ancestors for every one of us grow exponentially with each generation, I think the significance and value of a 'yes' answer to this poll dilutes equally quickly with the number of generations.

I mean, it's quite difficult not to find a single inmigrant in 16 (4th generation) or 32 (5th generation) ancestors, and I don't think it matters much anyway.

The closest that is known in my family tree would be two generations, when my fathers father came over from England around the time after WWI (exact records we never knew, since dad didnt' care about genology until it was too late, and I was three when his dad passed on). Two of the other branches have Scot last names, and we traced one back to the highlands around the early 18th century so I'd estimate that's at least ten or so generations?

On my soon-to-be wives side, she's actually an immigrant herself (from the United States to Canada), but her family has been in the mid Atlantic area of the US since the 1840's. was told it's around eight generations or so.

In fact outside of myself and her, our family trees seem to find a place, and then stay there for generations. Rarely any moving at all.

I'm originally from Maine. My family goes back to the 1600s on both sides. My great*7 grandfather on my mother's side moved from Boston to Maine in 1690 and married a local girl. The number of generations is low because because there were 35 years between generations. The first immigrant on my father's side arrived in 1630 at the age of 12 from Wales. Family lore has it that he started King Philips War by killing one of the Indians raiding his isolated homestead. Isolated because he, a non-Puritan, was not allowed to live in town.

My children are either first or second generation depending on how you count. Their mother was born in Brazil, bur their grandmother was born in California. Some of her cousins were in the Japanese concentration camps in CA.

5, and that takes us back to the late 18th century.

In the center of the US, and there is actually quite a lot of moving around, just no overseas travel. (Go back farther and we find native americans, some possible Melungeons, a witch burned at Salem, and Scottish refuges from a civil war.) There are several who traveled in from the east coast, but from established families.

I'm not so certain your thesis has value going back that far. When one ancestor arrived in the state, from New York (he and his family were not immigrants) the state was a territory and almost completely unsettled. And he was most definitely entrepreneurial. Founded the oldest newspaper west of the Mississippi in the middle of the wilderness.

This poll may not be intended to be US centric but I think the interest in it mostly is.

Well, if the migrant sub-population of humans tends to seek out opportunities, then it would make sense that the poll might seem US centric as it has been the most prosperous state over the last 50-60 years. That said, if such a migrant sub-population does exist, it would also be interesting to know if they are still arriving/settling in the US, or whether they have a new destination in mind...

In that case you should be also asking why people emigrated. I emigrated from the UK to the US and although I now consider myself an aspiring entrepreneur I emigrated entirely for personal reasons.

The description doesn't match the poll options. Or perhaps the term "first person" is ambiguous. I think you mean the "last" person, as in most recent right? As in looking for the smallest number of generations back before one ancestor immigrated.

It seems by the comments people are focusing more on the the "chronologically first known" immigrant in their family trees.

I answered 0, but in my known family tree the first (as in least recent) immigration occurred around 30 generations ago, (have to dig out the papers to get the exact number).

I suggest rewording it so instead of "first" you say "most recent" or "least recent" depending on what you actually mean.

5+ and 0. about two years ago i traced back to a family of three who arrived in new amsterdam from france in 1621. it was an unexpected thrill to know my family tree from so far back... and then i went and moved to argentina : )

Note that there can be other explanations than "willingness to pick up and leave your comfort zone completely". Immigrants may have a much higher "need"/want to: show their worth, climb to another social class, escape from the confines/limitations of the "ghettos" (psychological as they may be) typically associated with immigrants of same origin, etc. IOW, it just may be that the pain of working on a startup is more bearable than something else, and therefore an acceptable "escape route" ... And, FWIW, I voted "0" :)

As programmers love edge cases: what should a Kenyan with a purely Kenyan heritage answer, in light of the the dominant theory that humankind originated somewhere in that neighborhood? ;)

10 generations back to 1680 or so. Started a ship's chanderly on the Jersey Shore having read a broadside posted by William Penn---usual promise of a brave new world :)

My father was the first one to migrate to the States pursuing academia because he found that it was a path he couldn't pursue to a degree of his liking in our country of birth. Having said that, I chose option b as an alternative wasn't necessarily present that I felt was close to my situation. At 15, 4 years after his initial migration, I moved to the States. Do I qualify as an immigrant myself? It has been 13 years since I migrated.

Double immigrant here. I am 0 generation in US and 2 generations back in Burma. Grandparents moved (more like escaped from Japanese invasion) from China to Burma.

Remind me of an old friend from the village I used to spend my childhood holidays. His family used to consider members from some other family as "foreigners". Actually, the "foreigners" lived in the village for slightly less than 150 years :) By contrast, my friend's family (and most other local families) were living in the area for at least 400 years, often up to 800 years for some (when documents exist).

Depends on which direction in my family tree you go, but my great-grandma on my maternal-Grandma's side (her mom) was born in Lithuania. Most other forks of the family tree are four generations back.

We still have some family (cousins) that went to Israel post-Holocaust, but most of the family is in the US.

My wife's grandfathers were both born in Europe though, but generationally they are parallel with my great-grandparents.

0.5? Born outside the US but I'm a naturalized citizen since my mother is a citizen. My father is an immigrant (and yes he has his own startup).

12 generations (1634 France) and I can name them all.

Not sure after the fifth generation as my from there my fathers, fathers, fathers, father had lost his memory. From my mothers side and all of the mothers in my family tree and as far as I know their background are from Finland over 10 generations ago. Which is before the first Swedish era when Sweden conquered Finland for a while. So I can pretty much say I'm quite native here.

While not 100%, a strong portion of my heritage is Native American (Iroquois). I cannot answer your poll accurately, you insensitive clod.

My mother's family can be traced back to John Penn, but my dad's parents were born in Poland and Russia, so I'll just go with that ;)

The most recent immigration would be from my mother's side. My maternal great-grandparents came from the tiny Caribbean nation of Nevis/St. Kitts in the early 1900's. They were the descendants of slaves who worked the sugar plantations there. They made the trip north and settled in New York, which had better opportunities for education and employment.

On my father's side, 4 generations, my great grandmother was born here in the US, but her parents came from Germany. Interestingly she never spoke English, only German, in an all German community in Kansas. 

On my mother's side, 1000s of generations in what is now called Oklahoma. The US formed around them as the illegal immigrants from Europe swarmed in. 

My mom is a Canadian immigrant to the U.S. (fled as a young teenager).

I found out a few years ago that I am technically a Canadian citizen as well (they passed a law granting citizenship to people born of Canadian parents, regardless of the location of their birth). This will hopefully make my long-term eventual moving to Vancouver easier.

My wife's mother emigrated from Canada as a child and even though her mother had to renounce citizenship at one point, my wife fell under the law to which you refer.

We went ahead and went through the process to get her citizenship recognized and were successful in doing it. It's a pretty easy process, though a little time consuming. We thought we best do it until they change their minds! If you may want to move to Canada I'd suggest you go ahead and put in your paperwork. It won't cost you much time, depending on what documentation you need to get from your mother.

Yeah, after finding out about it, I did submit the paperwork. I'm presently waiting for everything to get approved (they said the lead time was about a year).

Usually when people flee a country, it's associated with a calamitous situation affecting at least a large part of the country. Its probably more appropriate to say 'left'.

Sorry, I didn't mean to infer that she left because of some over-arching national issue. At 14, she took her six sisters and ran away from home to escape an abusive father. They wound up in the U.S.

That's complicated. My grandparents come from a region that at the time of their birth belonged to the precursor of country I now live in, but that region changed state "membership" during WW2 a few times, and isn't in my own country these days.

So either 2 or a probably much higher number, depending on how you count. (I haven't voted yet).

0. I immigrated within the EU, though. If "not an immigrant" had been a choice I would have probably picked it; other than a language difference - eased a lot by the fact that I moved to a country where EN is a vehicular language - I encountered no cultural, social or bureaucratic (eg. visa) barriers whatsoever.

One of my grandparents was an orphan, so on one side, the paper-trail ends there.

On my mother's side of the family, we go back to the 14th century french nobility, so I'm not sure how I should look at it, since back-then - the country where I currently live (Belgium) didn't even exist.

So - very tricky question!

All of my great-great-great-great-grandparents were immigrants, except the one that was Native American.

Correlation does not equal causation, though, so your poll won't prove anything, even though right now it looks like you're losing, with as many >=5 responses as 0.

I had to choose "2 generations" because my maternal grandfather came over from Russia ~1901. However, my paternal great-grandfather was a full-blooded Native American.

I'm not sure this poll can be that insightful as there are simply too many nuances to be considered.

0.75 my dad was born in Wisconsin but my mother was born in Germany. Her mother was German and insisted that her children be born there despite the fact she was already married to a GI who was originally stationed there but then returned to the US.

I'm about 8 generations on my father's side removed from immigration. And about 6 on my mother's side. At least as good as any of us can determine. A few of the records are incomplete on my father's father's father's father's mother's side.

My parents got a book documenting my family tree back to the end of the 16th century, which was the first moment someone with my surname was mentioned anywhere. So that means that my family has been Dutch for at least the past 400 years.

Well... things are little more complicated here in Europe after World War 2, especially here in Central Europe. Borders changed. A lot. People were moved out of their countries. It's hard to call people "immigrants" in those cases.

Do we know what the distribution would be for the population at-large? Seems like this survey, even for casual, entertainment purposes,, isn't of much value without knowledge of the population we'd want to compare to.

> a willingness to pick up and leave your comfort zone completely

This is another bias. For many people, such as myself, immigration is not "leaving one's comfort zone". For some it might even be their comfort zone.

My grandfather was Canadian, and his family moved to America when he was a kid. I'm now an American Expat living in Thailand, so I guess I'm both 0 generations and 2 generations removed on this scale :)

My great great great grandfather came to the US from Dublin. Since he was a Campbell, somewhere back in his line someone undoubtedly came from Scotland, but we've not been able to track it.

My family has been in what is now Canada since not long after our family was forced out of Scotland by the English. I myself am 7 generations removed from immigration.

I'm a five now, but if you asked me two years ago, I'd be a 0.

I'm an 'immigrant', but I guess I don't feel like one for whatever reason, because it'd be pretty easy to pick up and move back to the US.

On the US side, let's see... probably 4?

4 I think.

Parents (West) Dutch. Grandparents (South --> West) Dutch. ^Grandparents (South) Dutch. ^^Grandparents (South) Dutch. ^^^Grandparents German/Belgian/Dutch

I'm what you could call a round-trip immigrant.

My parents immigrated to France from the US (not the most common route) - and I just recently moved back to California.

My great-grandparents were born in Italy, my father is of Scotch-Irish decent, my mother's father is British - and I'm 100% American :)

I'm a 0 generation immigrant, and 0 generation re-migrant.

But given the age I immigrated at, It's more akin to being a 0 generation dual-immigrant.

Lots - indications are that variations on my surname have been around since the Norman conquest in 1066..

First Nations (Native American) on my father's side (so, 1,000?) — and 4 generations on my mother's.

please excuse my ignorance: why the choice of "first nations" as a name vs "native americans" ?

I can imagine why other wordings can be considered bad, but as a non-american I'm unaware of negative/imprecise connotations to the latter expression.

It's a Canadian thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

Immigration happened sometime during the Middle Ages from Sweden, so quite a few generations ago.

My family put together our genealogy in the early 1970's, so this one is easy: 5 generations.

Both my paternal / maternal grand fathers were from China. Im a Malaysian now.

French Hugenot (prodestant refugees from France) is the closest I've gotten.

Same here. I'm 10 generations removed, so you might be about the same.

Me too, from paternal grandmother's line back to Jamestown in 1701.

I am 3, but my kids are 1.

Interesting experiment. Please report your findings when you're done.

My great-great-grandfather was abandoned so I'm guessing 5 or more.

I'm an immigrant! I win!

Belize is my mother's country of birth but I'm British.

10 or 12, but that is only because I am in the U.S.

Hands up who considers themselves a 'migrant'.

2 generations on my mothers side.

14 generations. Mayflower.

Needs another poll answer next time - 'Never in recorded history'.

Or at least, '25+ generations'.

Wow where do you live?

Canada. Not me though. Sorry.

There's a guy in here from India who lived roughly where his family always has. To me, never having seen anything older than Montreal, that's just inconceivable. Can a hundred generations of children really grow up playing in the same places? Don't places get experienced out?

There's always a distance between me and the stories my ancestors tell because they were in different places, doing different things. The idea of your great-grandfather playing in the same barn you did as a kid, going to the same school... It's weird to contemplate.

Depends what you are used to - as I mentioned above my family had been living in the same small village for about 400 years or so - which by European standards isn't that odd. Some people can trace their families back much further than that (well over a thousand years).

Not from the USA. My fathers family has a history of 700 years in former Prussia, 1200 years in what can be called Germany. My mothers family has a history of 500 years in Germany.

BUT: My eye color is blue, the gene came into existance at the Mediterranian Sea 10.000 years ago. My blood type is B-, the gene came into existance at the Himalaya 10.000 years ago. Thats a distance of 6.000km these genes migrated.

Grandmother on my Dad's side came from Ireland. Some of my direct ancestors came over from Scotland in the 1600's, though.