There are indeed "push" (why leave place A) and "pull" (why go to place B) factors involved in any and every act of migration. But the suggestion that we were a magnet for people who had failed miserably somewhere else and had no other options just doesn't ring true. It could be said instead that people who migrate are risk-takers, adventurers, and enterprisers looking for opportunities that match their talents and aspirations. The key is how people adapt to failure or any other adversity, wherever they are. Sure, there will always be an admixture of restless misfits among those on the move, but my reading of our history and my observations of out-migration from today's "rust belt" (the people leaving are young, talented, ambitious--not failures at all) lead me to think that migration is a positive selection process (adaptation via drastic change in environment--which change always entails a rocky period of "adjustment"), not a negative one. Failures and "losers" typically stay put, tethered by inertia or genuine lack of options. Douglas Deal Professor of History and Chair of History Department State University of New York at Oswego Oswego, NY 13126 [log in to unmask] (315)-312-5632 To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html