Just googled Kristina Keneally. You're living out very relevant info.

Born to and raised by Australian mother. Then married Australian man before moving to Australia.

I think the blood and subsequent marriage connection helped immensely in how she is viewed. I think that would be the same for most other Euro nations. At least one parent of the land along with partner from the land and residing in the land for 30+ years.

> Born to and raised by Australian mother

I really don't think most people care about the fact she has an Australian mother. In fact, I myself had forgotten that fact. If she hadn't, I don't think it would really make a difference to how she is viewed in Australia. (My mother was born in Scotland but calling myself “Scottish” feels weird, like the real Scots are going to call me out for being a fake one.)

Virginia Roberts Giuffre has been called an "Australian" by the Australian media (e.g. [0]) even though as far as I am aware she has no Australian ancestry. She is also married to an Australian man but I think you are putting more emphasis on that fact than what counts. Most Australians, if they think of her as an Australian, it is because she has adopted this country as her homeland through immigration, not because she married an Australian. If she married an Australian but stayed in the US, nobody would think of her as Australian. If she had moved here as a single person, or with a non-Australian husband, people probably still would.

In somewhat of the reverse, the British politician Patricia Hewitt was born in Australia and grew up here, but I'd probably think of her as British first and Australian very much second. The country in which she has lived the bulk of her adult life, and in which she has had her political career, is more significant in identifying her than where she was born and raised.

[0] https://www.watoday.com.au/national/western-australia/virgin...

Australia, like the US, is an immigrant nation, you can move there from anywhere and be considered an Australian within a generation.

In which case the real difference here is not where one is immigrating from (America or elsewhere), but rather where one is immigrating to: an immigrant-dominated society like Australia, Canada, New Zealand, US, maybe Argentina too; or one dominated by people whose ancestors have lived there for countless centuries, such as most European, Middle Eastern, African or Asian countries.

The original quote we were discussing, "Immigrants to America tend to become American; emigrants to other countries from America tend to stay American" is mistaken because it is viewing it primarily in terms of Americanness, instead of the nature of the society receiving the immigrant

There aren't all that many immigrant nations like the US though. Canada, Australia, New Zealand, that's pretty much it? Maybe Singapore or the UK at a stretch.

I agree there aren't many. It still is myopic to view this as something specific to America, as opposed to a generic quality possessed by all immigrant-dominated societies, and the fact that there are only a few such societies doesn't change that. Many (obviously not all) American authors do tend to view it in that myopic US-centric way. America is never as exceptional as some Americans think.

Most of the Caribbean (save Cuba/DR?), Taiwan, Mauritius, Seychelles, Maldives, Argentina, Chile, maybe Uruguay/Costa Rica/Panama. Singapore doesn't seem like a stretch. The UK doesn't really count. Granted, most of these are pretty small.