To me cores represent a percieved "national right" that wouldn't necessarily be reflected by population numbers. For instance, at the start of the game, the US feels that it has the right and destiny to expand west to the pacific and will have cores all the way west, even though most of the population in those provinces will be native american or mexican. Some, in fact, won't have any american POPs. This is contrasted to, say, the Phillippines, which the US may get control of in a war with spain, but obtaining control over the Phillippines is never going to be a major part of the American psyche like spreading west was.
I disagree, I think that you can just as readily model cores in the USA's westward expansion because the lands into which they immigrated were not heavily populated by native americans and/or mexicans, thus the national POP of Americans would quickly become the majority (provided the government had an immigration policy that was in keeping with Manifest Destiny).
Originally Posted by Nooki
The difference would be that the irish moved to america by their own free will whilst the french people of Alsace were forced to be part of the German state.
I would contentiously argue that Germany should NOT have cores on Alsace. Think about what having a Core does in terms of gameplay, it improves production, lowers badboy from taking it and reduces revolt risk. It would be ahistorical for Germany to annex part of France, even if they had a perceived right to it, and then suddenly have the French citizens work at full efficiency, have the great powers object any less then if they'd annexed say Normandy, and for the people of Alsace to have any less reason to take up arms against the Germans.
Why the Germans would be motivated to take Alsace, however, is that the German minority could be advanced to a majority over time and thus, become a core. This make Alsace a more viable conquest then say Normandy.