If he was born and raised here that would make him second generation

Nope. "First generation" is the first generation born in the country in question. The parents of the first generation are immigrants.

But I've seen the term used incorrectly a lot -- as a synonym for 'immigrant'. Maybe it's acquired that meaning by now.

Odessa Texas! Anyone seen Friday Night Lights?

"First generation" is the first generation born in the country in question.

That's not how the term's commonly used in the U.S. See FAQ.

Japanese Americans have special names for each of its generations in the United States. The first generation born in Japan or Okinawa, is called Issei. The second generation is Nisei, third is Sansei, fourth is Yonsei, and fifth is Gosei. The term Nikkei was coined by Japanese American sociologists and encompasses the entire population across generations. [Link]

The Nisei Japanese Americans... (lit. second generation) are American-born citizens of the United States of Japanese ancestry... [Link]

"First generation" is the first generation born in the country in question.

Hmmm. I've alyways known it (and this site has always used it) to refer to the "first generation" that arrived onto U.S. shores. Just semantics I guess. Anyways, back to Thakker.

Yeah, I believe one major reason "first generation" is used for the generation which immigrated is because the alternative doesn't acknowledge the especially strong dual nationality identity that immigrants have. For example, if those born in the U.S. are first generation Indian Americans, what does that make immigrants? The 0 generation? If you accept the proposition that those who are born in the U.S. are first generation, then you deny the immigrant generation the status of being Indian Americans. They would instead simply be Indians living in the U.S.

For example, if those born in the U.S. are first generation Indian Americans, what does that make immigrants?

Immigrants. If they become Americans, then naturalized Americans.

Keith Stuart Richman (Republican)

I think thats funny. :-)

what's up with his haircut?

He looks hella tough in that photo, like he's all, "Go ahead. Just try and slip a fraudulent Annual Report past me."

Except for the one curled up lock of hair. heh.

Through the power of the share, investors of conscience can channel resources toward businesses that benefit the economy, society, and the environment and away from those that do harm. When many investors act in concert, the power of the share can make itself felt on a global scale.

Interesting, just as this old acquaintance officially announces his candidacy for Congress.

to carry my thought further - i looked through the prospectus of an 'ethical funds' income fund - more than a few banks in there who in turn hold funds comprising the likes of philip-morris and such. so much for ethical - so the "ethical" is not really about making the world a better place, but about feeling like you're making the world a better place. "i'm a powerless, middle-class, middle-brow schmoette in a dead-end job pulling 70k, but i'll pretend i like living like this because i spurn the $ that comes with the corrupt life. let me eat designer granola "whole oats" and give a dollar to that nice vegetarian beatle to save the seals and get a massage with naturally harvested desert-moon coral flakes from the guatemalan archipelago collected by a woman who was born with two left feet". so my point is that it's easy being green.

manish, Abhi:
Despite your FAQ, this site's use of "first-generation American" is not in concert in how the term is traditionally used in the media, in letters. As Ikram and the article states corectly, the first generation American is the son/daughter who is born in this country. You use the terms "second-gen" to separate yourself from your parents/recent immigrants and it's understandable but not accurate. I don't intend to get in a "political" debate, but it's semantical and important.

"Immigrants. If they become Americans, then naturalized Americans."

The American/Indian either/or mode of identity is somewhat lacking in its descriptive powers. Are you saying that the day that an Indian national becomes an American citizen, he or she exchanges his or her Indian label for the American one? At what magical point, if not at the point of citizenship switch, does this take place? I think the problem here is that nationality alone cannot adequately describe someone. If you were raised in the U.S. as someone of Indian origin, but move at the age of 20 to France, what exactly are you? You're ethnically Indian, culturally American and legally (in terms of nationality) British. The mutually exclusive model which doesn't allow for the description of first-generation Indian Americans as such would classify the person above as merely a naturalized Briton. This situation is somewhat more complicated than that of an Indian who immigrates to the U.S., but the same logic applies.

this site's use of "first-generation American" is not in concert in how the term is traditionally used in the media, in letters

Link? We use the prevalent terminology among Asian Americans.

the first generation American is the son/daughter who is born in this country

The reason that fell out of favor among Asian Americans is that it defines immigrants who have been here 30 years, the majority of their lives, as not-American.

You seem to be using the terminology in the legalistic sense of natural-born citizenship. That's not of interest to me as a naming scheme-- we're using it as a rough measure of cultural affinity.

The terminology you describe would make my kids first-generation Americans, as I was born overseas and came here at a young age. So my parents would be -1th gen and I as 0th gen would be presumed to have less in common with my demographic cohort. It's just not useful.

The issei (1st gen)/nisei (2nd gen) model is the way to go here and is in fact the de facto terminology among Asian Americans.

At what magical point, if not at the point of citizenship switch, does this take place?

The day you take your oath of American citizenship is the day you have to get a visa to go to India regardless if you think/feel/sing in Hindi/Telegu/Tamil/Marathi.

If you were raised in the U.S. as someone of Indian origin, but move at the age of 20 to France, what exactly are you?

An Indian-American in France.

we're using it as a rough measure of cultural affinity

Exactly, but that's not how it's been traditionally used.

So my parents would be -1th gen and I as 0th gen.

but that's not how it's been traditionally used.

Can you show me some examples, and is it relevant given the Asian American context? We're not talking Eastern European immigration in the 1800s here.

You and I would be considered immigrants albeit at a much younger age than our parents.

W.r.t. cultural affinity, that's a useless taxonomy. Having come over as a young kid, I usually have more in common with someone born here than someone raised in the motherland.

not getting into the first/second/whatever generation discussion

heck he does look like an apprentice wanna be..

we need a show down between raj bhakta and mehul..

my vote : bow tie bhakta

hands down...

the third generation chick pea ;)

First-Generation: If you immigrated to the West as an adult.
Second-Generation: If you were born in the West or you were a minor when your parents came over here.

*or you were a minor when your parents came over here.

.....And brought you with them, of course.

Even the dictionary has conflicting meanings for "first gen", although the primary definition refers to immigrants.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=first-generation

first-gen·er·a·tion (fûrstjn-rshn)
adj.
Of or relating to a person who has left one country and settled in another.
Of or relating to a person or persons whose parents are immigrants.
Of, relating to, or being the first form or version available to users: first-generation computer software; first-generation camcorders.

I hazard a guess that since language evolves and ultimately depends on usage, the 2nd generation = grew up here (birth aside) will eventually take over, b/c we (and Japanese Americans and similarly concerned folks) use the phrase a lot more than media stylists. style books are not infrequently out of step with the general use of language.

The terminology you describe would make my kids first-generation Americans, as I was born overseas and came here at a young age. So my parents would be -1th gen and I as 0th gen would be presumed to have less in common with my demographic cohort. It's just not useful.

No. Under the traditional meanings, you are an immigrant. Your parents are also immigrants. If your parents had additional children after arrival, they would be 'first generation'. Same with any children you may have. It's perfectly useful in delineating between those born here and those born abroad.

Maybve the term began to be misused because people became uncomfortable calling themselves 'immigrants'. In Canada, the gvt has even begun using the euphemism 'newcomer'! Perhaps they associate the word immigrant with 'dirty', 'filthy' or 'tired .. poor .. huddled masses' and 'wretched refuse of [the] teeming shore'

As noted above, you'll find both meanings in the dictionary.

(I've also noticed people on this site using the term '1.5 generation'. Another term used to seem less 'foreign'?)

Anyway, as Saheli notes, language evolves. Nobody says 'negro' anymore. The Manish-ist meaning of 1st generation will probably predominate. But a new term will arise to describe people born here. I've heard the term 'born-Canadian' occasionally, to distinguish us from the foreign born. Is the term 'native born' used in the US much? 'American-born'?