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’?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

This is not about software upgrades version 1.0, 2.0. You and I would be considered immigrants albeit at a much younger age than our parents.

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.

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.