immigrants in the united states 2012

iCenter for Immigration StudiesCe

nter

for I

mm

igra

tion

Stud

ies

Immigrants in the United States A Profile of Americas Foreign-Born Population

By Steven A. Camarota

ii

Center for Immigration Studies

About the CenterThe Center for Immigration Studies, founded in 1985, is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization in Washington, D.C., that examines and critiques the impact of immigration on the United States. It pro-vides a variety of services for policymakers, journalists, and academics, including an e-mail news service, a Backgrounder series, and other publications, congressional testimony, and public briefings.

About the AuthorSteven A. Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

August 2012

Center for Immigration Studies1629 K Street, N.W., Suite 600

Washington, DC 20006Phone (202) 466-8185FAX (202) 466-8076

[email protected]

1Center for Immigration Studies

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ................................................................... 2

List of Figures and Tables ........................................................... 6

Introduction ................................................................................ 8

Data Sources and Methods ........................................................ 8

Historic Trends in Immigration .................................................... 9

Recent Trends in Immigration ..................................................... 10

State Numbers ........................................................................... 13

Immigrants by Country of Birth ................................................... 16

Population Growth ...................................................................... 18

Selected Characteristics ............................................................ 20

Labor Force and Occupations .................................................... 23

Poverty, Welfare, and the Uninsured .......................................... 26

Households, Home Ownership, and Language ......................... 34

Public Education ......................................................................... 40

Immigrant Progress Over Time ................................................... 42

Hispanics by Generation ............................................................ 50

Educational Attainment .............................................................. 55

Characteristics by State ............................................................. 59

Household Income and Home Ownership ................... 59

Public Schools ............................................................. 60

Overcrowded Households ............................................ 61

Poverty and Near Poverty ............................................ 61

Health Insurance Coverage by State ........................... 62

Welfare Use ................................................................. 64

Estimated State and Federal Income Tax .................... 64

Education Levels .......................................................... 66

State Work Force ......................................................... 67

Illegal Immigration by State ........................................................ 69

Legal Immigrants ........................................................................ 76

Conclusion ................................................................................. 78

End Notes .................................................................................. 79

Appendix .................................................................................... 85


Executive Summary

Using the latest Census Bureau data from 2010 and 2011, this paper provides a detailed picture of the more than 50 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their U.S.-born children (under 18) in the United States by country of birth, state, and legal status. One of the most important findings is that immigration has dramatically increased the size of the nations low-income population; however, there is great variation among immigrants by sending country and region. Moreover, many immigrants make significant progress the longer they live in the country. But even with this progress, immigrants who have been in the United States for 20 years are much more likely to live in poverty, lack health insurance, and access the welfare system than are native-born Americans. The large share of immigrants arriving as adults with relatively little education partly explains this phenomenon.

Overall Numbers Thenumberofimmigrants(legalandillegal)inthecountryhitanewrecordof40millionin2010,a28percent

increase over the total in 2000. See Table 2, p. 15.

Oftopsendingcountries,thelargestpercentageincreaseinthelastdecadewasforthosefromHonduras(85percent),India(74percent),Guatemala(73percent),Peru(54percent),ElSalvador(49percent),Ecuador(48percent),andChina(43percent).SeeTable5,p.18.

Labor Force InMarchof2011,theshareofworking-age(18to65)immigrantsholdingajobwasthesameasnatives68

percent. Immigrant men have higher rates of work than native-born men, while immigrant women have lower rates. SeeTable8,p.24.

Whileimmigrantstendtobeconcentratedincertainjobs,nativescomprisethemajorityofworkersinvirtuallyeveryoccupational category.For example,natives comprise52percentofmaids,73percentof janitors,66percentofconstructionlaborers,and65percentofbutchersandmeatprocessors.Table9,p.25.

Poverty

In2010,23percentofimmigrantsandtheirU.S.-bornchildren(under18)livedinpoverty,comparedto13.5percent of natives and their children. Immigrants and their children accounted for one-fourth of all persons in poverty. See Table 10, p. 27.

Thechildrenofimmigrantsaccountforone-thirdofallchildreninpoverty.Seep.26.

Amongthetopsendingcountries,povertyishighestforimmigrantsandtheiryoungchildrenfromMexico(35percent),Honduras(34percent),andGuatemala(31percent);andlowestforthosefromGermany(7percent),India(6percent),andthePhilippines(6percent).SeeTable10,p.27.

Welfare Use

In2010,36percentofimmigrant-headedhouseholdsusedatleastonemajorwelfareprogram(primarilyfoodassistanceandMedicaid)comparedto23percentofnativehouseholds.SeeTable12,p.30.

Amongthetopsendingcountries,welfareuseishighestforhouseholdsheadedbyimmigrantsfromMexico(57percent),Guatemala(55percent),andtheDominicanRepublic(54percent);andlowestforthosefromCanada(13percent),Germany(10percent),andtheUnitedKingdom(6percent).SeeTable12,p.30.


Health Insurance Coverage In2010,29percentofimmigrantsandtheirU.S.-bornchildren(under18)lackedhealthinsurance,compared

to13.8percentofnativesandtheirchildren.SeeTable11,p.28.

NewimmigrantsandtheirU.S.-bornchildrenaccountfortwo-thirdsoftheincreaseintheuninsuredsince2000.Seep.29.

Amongthetopsendingcountries,thehighestratesofuninsuranceareforthosefromGuatemala(46percent),Honduras(44percent),ElSalvador(44percent),andMexico(41percent);andlowestforthosefromCanada(9percent),Japan(8percent),andGermany(5percent).SeeTable11,p.28.

Public Schools Thereare10.4millionstudentsfromimmigranthouseholdsinpublicschools,accountingforoneinfivepublic

schoolstudents.Ofthesestudents,78percentspeakalanguageotherthanEnglishathome.SeeTable20,p.41.

Overall,oneinfourpublicschoolstudentsnowspeaksalanguageotherthanEnglishathome.SeeTable20,p.41.

Homeownership Ofimmigranthouseholds,53percentareowner-occupied,comparedto68percentofnativehouseholds.See

Table17,p.38.

RatesofhomeownershiparehighestforimmigrantsfromItaly(83percent),Germany(75percent),andtheUnitedKingdom(73percent);andlowestforthosefromGuatemala(30percent),Honduras(28percent),andtheDominicanRepublic(24percent).SeeTable16,p.37.

Housing Overcrowding In2010,13percentofimmigranthouseholdswereovercrowded,comparedto2percentofnativehouseholds.

SeeTable14,p.34.

Immigranthouseholdsaccountforhalfofallovercrowdedhouseholds.Seep.35.

Entrepreneurship Immigrantsandnativeshaveverysimilarratesofentrepreneurship11.7percentofnativesand11.5percent

ofimmigrantsareself-employed.SeeTable13,p.33.

Amongthetopsendingcountries,self-employmentishighestforimmigrantsfromKorea(26percent),Canada(24percent),andtheUnitedKingdom(17percent).ItislowestforthosefromHaiti(6percent),Honduras(5percent),andJamaica(3percent).SeeTable13,p.33.

Educational Attainment Ofadultimmigrants(25to65),28percenthavenotcompletedhighschool,comparedto7percentofnatives.

See Table 7, p. 20.

Theshareofimmigrants(25to65)withatleastabachelorsdegreeissomewhatlowerthanthatofnatives29vs.33percent.SeeTable7,p.20.

The large share of immigrantswith relatively little education is one of the primary reasons for their lowersocioeconomicstatus,nottheirlegalstatusoranunwillingnesstowork.Table25,p.49.


Atthesametimeimmigrationaddedsignificantlytothenumberofless-educatedworkers,theshareofyoung,less-educatednativesholdingajobdeclinedsignificantly.Thedeclinebeganwellbeforethecurrenteconomicdownturn.SeeTable35,p.68.

Progress Over Time Many immigrantsmake significant progress the longer they live in the country.However, on average even

immigrants who have lived in the United States for 20 years have not come close to closing the gap with natives.

ThepovertyrateofadultimmigrantswhohavelivedintheUnitedStatesfor20yearsis50percenthigherthanthatofadultnatives.SeeTable21,p.42,andFigure5,p.46.

TheshareofadultimmigrantswhohavelivedintheUnitedStatesfor20yearswholackhealthinsuranceistwicethatofadultnatives.SeeTable21,p.42,andFigure5,p.46.

TheshareofhouseholdsheadedbyanimmigrantwhohaslivedintheUnitedStatesfor20yearsusingoneormorewelfareprogramsisnearlytwicethatofnative-headedhouseholds.SeeTable22,p.44,andFigure5,p.46.

TheshareofhouseholdsheadedbyanimmigrantwhohaslivedintheUnitedStatesfor20yearsthatareowneroccupiedis22percentlowerthanthatofnativehouseholds.SeeTable22,p.44,andFigure5,p.46.

Legal Status Weestimatethat28percentofallimmigrantsareinthecountryillegally.RoughlyhalfofMexicanandCentral

Americanandone-thirdofSouthAmericanimmigrantsarehereillegally.Seep.69.

Impact on Population Size and Age Newimmigration(legalandillegal)plusbirthstoimmigrantsadded22.5millionresidentstothecountryover

thelastdecade,equalto80percentoftotalU.S.populationgrowth.SeeTable6,p.19.

Recentimmigrationhashadonlyatinyimpactonthenationsagestructure.Ifthenearly14millionimmigrantswhoarrivedin2000orlaterareexcluded,itraisestheaverageageintheUnitedStatesin2010from37.4yearsto37.6yearsroughlytwomonths.Seep.22.

State Data Amongtopimmigrant-receivingstates,povertyamongimmigrantsandtheirchildrenishighestinArizona(37

percent),NorthCarolina(29percent),andMinnesota(29percent).ItislowestinMassachusetts(17percent)Maryland(13percent),andNewJersey(13percent).SeeTable30,p.61.

Among top immigrant-receiving states, welfare use by immigrant households is highest inMinnesota (48percent),NewYork(41percent),andTexas (45percent). It is lowest inVirginia (20percent),Georgia (30percent),andNevada(25percent).SeeTable31,p.62.

Amongtopimmigrant-receivingstates,homeownershipforimmigranthouseholdsishighest inFlorida(61percent),Illinois(61percent),andMaryland(59percent).ItislowestinCalifornia(48percent),Massachusetts(47percent),andMinnesota(46percent).SeeTable32,p.63.

Amongtopimmigrant-receivingstates,theshareofadultimmigrantswhohavenotcompletedhighschoolishighestinTexas(46percent),Colorado(41percent),andNorthCarolina(36percent).ItislowestinVirginia(15percent),Massachusetts(15percent),andFlorida(16percent).SeeTable33,p.65.


Discussion

There are many reasons to examine the nations immigrant population. First, immigrants and their minor children now represent one-sixth of the U.S. population. Moreover, understanding how immigrants are doing is the best way to evaluate the effects of immigration policy. Absent a change in policy, between 12 and 15 million new immigrants (legalandillegal)willlikelysettleintheUnitedStatesinthenextdecade.Andperhaps30millionnewimmigrantswill arrive in the next 20 years. Immigration policy determines the number allowed in, the selection criteria used, and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. The future, of course, is not set and when formulating immigration policy, it is critically important to know the impact of recent immigration.

Itisdifficulttounderstatetheimpactofimmigrationonthesocio-demographicsoftheUnitedStates.Newimmigrationplus births to immigrants added more than 22 million people to the U.S. population in the last decade, equal to 80 percent of total population growth. Immigrants and their young children (under 18) now account for more than one in five public school students, one-fourth of those in poverty, and nearly one-third of those without health insurance, creating very real challenges for the nations schools, health care systems, and physical infrastructure. The large share of immigrants who arrive as adults with relatively few years of schooling is the primary reason so many live in poverty, use welfare programs, or lack health insurance, not their legal status or an unwillingness to work.

Despitethefactthatalargeshareofimmigrantshavefewyearsofschooling, most immigrants do work. In fact, the share of immigrant men holding a job is higher than native-born men. Moreover,immigrants make significant progress the longer they reside in the UnitedStates.Thisisalsotruefortheleasteducated.Whilemanyimmigrants do very well in the United States, on average immigrants who have been in the country for 20 years lag well behind natives in most measure of economic well-being.

At the same time that immigration policy has significantly increased the number of less-educated immigrants, there has been a dramatic deterioration in the labor market position of less-educated natives. Comparing data from the beginning ofthisdecadeshowsahugedeclineintheshareofyoungandless-educatednativesholdingajobfromtwo-thirdstojustunderhalf.Thedeclineinworkamongtheyoungandless-educatednativesbeganwellbeforetheGreatRecession.Itisdifficult to find any evidence of a shortage of less-educated workers in the United States. Some may argue that immigrants onlydojobsthatAmericandonotwant,butananalysisbyoccupationsshowsthatthevastmajorityofworkersinalmosteveryjobareU.S.-born.

Acentralquestionforimmigrationpolicyis:ShouldwecontinuetoallowinsomanypeoplewithlittleeducationincreasingpotentialjobcompetitionforthepoorestAmericanworkersandthepopulationinneedofgovernmentassistance? The primary goal of this paper is to better inform that debate.

Data Source

The data for this paper come primarily from the public-use files of the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) andtheMarch2011CurrentPopulationSurvey(CPS).Insomecases,forstate-specificinformation,wecombinetheMarch2010and2011CPStogetstatisticallyrobustresults.Inthisreport,thetermsforeign-bornandimmigrantare used synonymously. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal immigrants, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign students or guest workers.

Immigrants low socio-economic status is not attributable to their recent arrival. Their average length of residence in the United States is 19 years.


List of Figures and TablesFigure 1. Immigrants in the United States, Number and Percent, 1900-2010 .......................................................

Figure 2. Total Immigrant Population, 2000-2010 (millions) ...................................................................................

Figure 3. New Arrivals From the ACS Compared to Immigrant Unemployment Rate ...........................................

Table 1. State Immigrant Population in 2010 by Year of Arrival ..............................................................................

Table 2. Number and Growth of Immigrant Populations by State, 2010, 2000, and 1990 .....................................

Table 3. Immigrants by Region and Year of Arrival ................................................................................................

Table 4. Country by Year of Arrival in 2010 ............................................................................................................

Table 5. Top 20 Immigrant-Sending Countries, 1990, 2000, 2010 .........................................................................

Table 6. Impact of Immigration on U.S. Population Growth, 2000-2010 ................................................................

Table 7. Selected Characteristics of Immigrants and Natives ................................................................................

Figure 4. Percentage of Each Educational Category Comprised of Post-2000 Immigrants ..................................

Table 8. Immigrant and Native Labor Force Attachment .......................................................................................

Table 9. Occupational Distribution of Immigrants and Natives ..............................................................................

Table 10. Poverty and Near Poverty ......................................................................................................................

Table 11. Share Without Health Insurance ............................................................................................................

Table 12. Use of Means-Tested Programs by Household Heads Country of Birth ...............................................

Table 13. Percent Employed, 25 and Older ...........................................................................................................

Table 14. Household Income and Overcrowding ...................................................................................................

Table 15. Home Ownership by Household Head Nativity ......................................................................................

Table 16. Home Ownership by Country of Birth of Household Head ....................................................................

Table 17. Home Ownership by Country of Birth of Household Head ....................................................................

Table 18. Language Skills by Country ...................................................................................................................

Table 19. Language Skills by Region ....................................................................................................................

Table 20. Students from Immigrant and Native Households in Primary and Secondary Schools .........................

Table 21. Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage by Length of Time in the United States .................................

Table 22. Welfare Use, Home Ownership, and Income by Length of Time in the United States ...........................

Table 23. Ability to Speak English by Length of Time in the United States ...........................................................

Figure 5. Immigrants make significant progress the longer they reside in the U.S., but even established immigrants still lag well behind natives. ...............................................................................

Figure 6. Hispanic immigrants make significant progress the longer they reside in the U.S., but even established Hispanic immigrants still lag well behind natives. ................................................................

Table 24. Poverty and Income by Age ...................................................................................................................

l10

11

12

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

24

25

27

28

30

33

34

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

44

45

46

47

48


Figure 7. At almost every age immigrant income is lower than native income. .....................................................

Table 25. Income by Age for 1980s & 90s Immigrants in 2010-11 ........................................................................

Figure 8. Native-born Hispanics are significantly better off than immigrant Hispanics, but still lag well behind non-Hispanic natives, even by the third generation. (percent) ..........................................

Figure 9. Hispanic earnings and income rise across generations, but still lag well behind those of non-Hispanic natives. .........................................................................................

Table 26. Average Earnings and Share In or Near Poverty by Generation ...........................................................

Figure 10. After falling significantly in the 1990s, the share of Hispanics in or near poverty has not improved significantly since 2000, nor has the gap with non-Hispanics narrowed. .....

Table 27. Educational Attainment by Country and Region ....................................................................................

Table 28. Socio-Economic Status by Education and Time in the United States ....................................................

Table 29. Income and Size of Immigrant and Native Households by State ...........................................................

Table 30. Poverty and Near Poverty by State (thousands) ....................................................................................

Table 31. Health Insurance Coverage by State (thousands) .................................................................................

Table 32. Immigrants and Their U.S.-born Children as a Share of Total Population, Poverty Population, and Uninsured Population .....................................................................................................

Table 33. Welfare Use and Tax Liability for Immigrant- and Native-Headed Households ......................................

Table 34. Educational Attainment for Adults 25 to 65 ............................................................................................

Table 35. Employment of Immigrants and Natives in Top Immigrant-Receiving States (thousands) .....................

Table 36. Estimated Number of Illegal Aliens in the Current Population Survey, 2010-2011 (thousands) .............

Table 37. Poverty and Near-Poverty Among Illegal Immigrants ............................................................................

Table 38. Illegal Immigrant Insurance Coverage ...................................................................................................

Table 39. Welfare Use for Illegal Immigrant Households .......................................................................................

Table 40. Illegal Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born Children as a Share of the School-Age Population (Ages 5-17) .................................................................................................

Table 41. Average Income and Size of Illegal Immigrant Households ...................................................................

Table 42. Socio-Economic Status of Legal Immigrants (Adults) ............................................................................

Table A1. Foreign-Born Share by State, 2010, 2000, 1990 ...................................................................................

Table A2. Citizenship by State, 2010 .....................................................................................................................

Table A3. Public School Enrollment and Poverty for Students from Immigrant and Native Households,1990 ......

Table A4. Language Characteristics of Public School Students by State and Nativity of Household Head ..........

Table A5. Average Number of Public School Students, Immigrant and Native Households ..................................

Table A6. Housing Overcrowding by State and Nativity of Household Head ...................................................... ...

48

49

51

52

53

54

56

57

59

61

62

63

65

66

68

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

85

86

87

88

89

90


Introduction

There are many reasons to examine the nations immigrant population. First, the more than 50 million immigrants and their minor children now comprise one-sixth of U.S. residents, so how they are faring is vitally important to the United States. Moreover, understanding how immigrants are doing is the best way to evaluate the effects of immigra-tion policy. Absent a change in policy, between 12 and 15 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) will likely settle intheUnitedStatesinthenextdecade.Andperhaps30millionnewimmigrantswillarriveinthenext20years.Immigration policy determines the number allowed in, the selection criteria used, and the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. The future, of course, is not set and when deciding on what immigration policy should be, it is critically important to know what impact the immigration flow has had in recent decades.

There is no one answer to the question of whether the country has been well served by its immigration policy. To evaluate the effect of this immigration it is necessary to draw on the available data. This paper uses the latest Census Bureaudatatoprovidereaderswithinformationsotheycanmakesoundjudgmentsabouttheeffectsofimmigra-tion on American society and on what immigration policy should be in the future.

Although not explicitly acknowledged, the two most important ways of examining the immigration issue are what might be called the immigrant-centric approach and the national approach. They are not mutually exclusive, but they are distinct. The immigrant-centric approach focuses on how immigrants are faring, what is sometimes called immigrant adaptation. The key assumption underlying this perspective is not so much how immigrants are doing relative to natives, but rather how they are doing given their level of education, language skills, and other aspects of their human capital endowment. This approach also tends to emphasize the progress immigrants make over time on their own terms and the benefit of migration to the immigrants themselves. The immigrant-centric view is the way most, but not all, academic researchers approach the issue.

The other way of thinking about immigration can be called the national perspective, which is focused on the im-pact immigration has on American society. This approach emphasizes that immigration is supposed to benefit the existing population of American citizens; the benefit immigrants receive by coming here is less important. So, for example, if immigration adds significantly to the population living in poverty or using welfare programs, this is seen as a problem, even if immigrants are clearly better off in this country than they would have been back home and are noworsethannativeswiththesameeducation.Thisapproachisalsofocusedonpossiblejobcompetitionbetweenimmigrants and natives and the effect immigration has on public coffers. In general, the national perspective is the way the American public thinks about the immigration issue.

Whenthinkingabouttheinformationpresentedinthisreport,itishelpfultokeepbothperspectivesinmind.Thereis no one best way to think about immigration. By approaching the issue from both points of view, the reader may arrive at a better understanding of the complex issues surrounding immigration.

Data Sources and Methods

Data Sources. The data for this paper come primarily from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) and theMarch2011CurrentPopulationSurvey(CPS).Insomecases,forstate-specificinformationwecombinedtheMarch2010and2011CPStogetalarger,morestatisticallyrobustsample.TheACSandCPShavebecomethetwomost important sources of data on the size, growth, and socio-economic characteristics of the nations immigrant population. In this report, the terms foreign-born and immigrant are used synonymously. Immigrants are persons living in the United States who were not American citizens at birth. This includes naturalized American citizens, le-gal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and people on long-term temporary visas such as foreign studentsorguestworkerswhorespondtotheACSorCPS.1Wealsousethetermsillegalalienandillegalimmigrantinterchangeably.


The 2010 ACS is of particular value because it the first ACS weighted to reflect the results of the 2010 decennial census. (The decennial census itself no longer includes any immigration-related questions.) The public-use sample of the2010ACSusedinthisstudyhasroughly3.1millionrespondents,nearly350,000ofwhomareimmigrants.Itis by far the largest survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS includes all persons in the United States, including those in institutions such as prisons and nursing homes. Because of its size and complete coverage we also use the ACS in this report to estimate the overall number of immigrants, their year of arrival, and other statistics at the national and state level. Because it includes questions on language and public school enrollment not found in theCPS,weusetheACStoexaminetheseissuesaswell.WhiletheACSisaninvaluablesourceofinformationontheforeign-born,however,itcontainsfewerquestionsthantheCPS.

TheMarchCPS,whichisalsocalledtheAnnualSocialandEconomicSupplement,includesanextra-largesampleofminorities.WhilemuchsmallerthantheACS,theMarchCPSstillincludesabout210,000individuals,morethan26,000ofwhomareforeign-born.BecausetheCPScontainsmorequestionsitallowsformoredetailedanalysisinsomeareasthandoestheACS.TheCPShasbeeninoperationmuchlongerthantheACSandformanyyearsithasbeen the primary source of data on the labor market characteristics, income, health insurance coverage, and welfare useoftheAmericanpopulation.TheCPSisalsooneoftheonlygovernmentsurveystoincludequestionsonthebirthplace of each respondents parent, allowing for generational analysis of immigrants and their descendants.

AnotheradvantageoftheCPS,unliketheACS,isthateveryhouseholdinthesurveyreceivesaninterview(phoneor in-person) from a Census Bureau employee. The survey questions are complex and having a live person ask the questions almost certainly improves data quality. In contrast, most respondents to the ACS mail in their question-naireandneveractuallyspeaktoaCensusBureauemployee.Moreover,respondentsremainintheCPSforseveralmonthsatatimeandthis,too,meansthereissomerelationshipwiththeBureau.LiketheACS,theCPSisweightedtoreflecttheactualcompositionofthetotalU.S.population.UnliketheACS,theCPSdoesnotincludethoseininstitutionsandsodoesnotcoverthenationsentirepopulation.However,thoseininstitutionsaregenerallynotpart of the labor market nor are they typically included in statistics on health insurance coverage, poverty, income, and welfare use.

TheACSandCPSeachhavedifferentstrengths.Byusingbothinthisreportwehopetoprovideamorecompletepicture of the nations foreign-born population.However, itmust be remembered that some percentage of theforeign-born (especially illegal aliens) are missed by government surveys of this kind, thus the actual size of the population is somewhat larger than what is reported here. There is research indicating that some 5 percent of the immigrant population is missed by Census Bureau surveys.2

Historic Trends in Immigration

Immigration has clearly played an important role in American history. Figure 1 (p. 10) reports the number and percentageofimmigrantslivingintheUnitedStatesfrom1900to2010.Figure1showsverysignificantgrowthintheforeign-bornbothinabsolutenumbersandasashareofthetotalpopulationsince1970.Theimmigrantpopulationin2010wasdoublethatof1990,nearlytriplethatof1980,andquadruplethatof1970,whenitstoodat9.6million.Theincreaseinthesizeoftheimmigrantpopulationhasbeensodramatic(20.2million)inthelasttwodecadesthatjustthisgrowthisdoublethesizeoftheentireforeign-bornpopulationin1970oreven1900.Theseeminglylargegrowthof1.5millionimmigrantsfrom2009to2010shouldbeinterpretedwithcautionbecausethe 2010 data were weighted using the 2010 census.

Whilethenumberof immigrants inthecountryishigherthanatanytimeinAmericanhistory,theimmigrantshareofthepopulation(12.9percentin2010)washigher90yearsago.Intermsoftheimpactofimmigrantsonthe United States, both the percentage of the population made up of immigrants and the number of immigrants are clearly important. The ability to assimilate and incorporate immigrants is partly dependent on the relative sizes of the native and immigrant populations. On the other hand, absolute numbers also clearly matter; a large number of immigrants can create the critical mass necessary to foster linguistic and cultural isolation regardless of their percent-

10


age of the overall population. Absent a change in policy, the number and immigrant share of the population will continue to increase for the foreseeable future.

Recent Trends in Immigration

Figure 2 reports the size of the foreign-born population from 2000 to 2010 based on the ACS. The figure shows significant growth during the last decade. The figure for 2000 is from the decennial census because the ACS was not fully implemented in 2000. The ACS was not fully implemented until 2005 and did not include those in group quartersuntil2006.Figure2showsasignificantfall-offinthegrowthoftheimmigrantpopulationfrom2007to2009,withanincreaseofonly400,000overthattwo-yearperiod.

This slowing in growth likely reflects a reduction in the number of new immigrants (legal and illegal) settling in the country and an increase in out-migration. The deterioration in the U.S. economy coupled with stepped up enforce-ment efforts at the end of the Bush administration likely caused fewer immigrants to enter the country and more to leave. In a series of recent reports, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated immigration and emigration rates throughout the decade. In general, our prior research found good evidence that the level of new immigration fell at the end of the decade and that out-migration increased.3

Flow of New Immigrants. Another way to examine trends in immigration is to look at responses to the year-of-arrival question. In addition to asking respondents if they are immigrants, the ACS also asks them what year they cametotheUnitedStatestolive.Ofthe40millionimmigrantsinthecountryin2010,13.9million(99,000)respondedthattheycametotheUnitedStatesin2000orlater.Thiswouldtranslateinto1.3to1.4million new ar-rivals annually during the last decade. Some prior research indicates that 5.2 percent of immigrants are missed in the ACS.4Sotheactuallevelofnewimmigrantscouldbecloserto1.5millionayearduringthedecadejustcompleted.

Figure 1. Immigrants in the United States, Number and Percent, 1900-2010

Source: Decennialcensuses,1900to2000;AmericanCommunitySurvey,2010.

10.3

9.7 9.6

14.1

19.8

31.1

40.0

13.6%

14.7%

13.2%

11.6%

8.8%

6.9%

5.4%

4.7%

6.2%

7.9%

11.1%

12.9%

0

2 %

4 %

6 %

8 %

10 %

12 %

14 %

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Num

ber i

n M

illion

s

Year

10.313.5 13.9 14.2

11.610.3 9.7 9.6

14.1

19.8

40.0

31.1

12.9%

11.1%

7.9%

6.2%5.4%

4.7%

6.9%

8.8%

11.6%

13.2%14.7%13.6%

11


The2000censusalsoincludedayear-of-arrivalquestionandfoundthat13.2millionimmigrantsarrivedduringthepreceding decade and were still in the county in 2000. The difference between the number of new arrivals in the 1990sandthedecadejustcompletedisstatisticallysignificant.5 This makes the last decade the highest in U.S. his-tory.The1990Censusshowed8.7millionnewimmigrantsarrivedfrom1980to1990,muchlowerthanthenearly14millionwhoarrivedinthe10yearspriorto2010.Basedontheavailableevidence,nootherdecadecomescloseto the level of new immigration from 2000 to 2010.6

The finding that new immigration was higher in the 10 years prior to 2010 than in the 10 years prior to 2000 is importantbecausethetwodecadeswereverydifferentintermsofjobgrowth.Thereweretwosignificantrecessionsduringthefirstdecadeofthiscenturyplusthe9/11terroristattacks.Duringthedecadetherewasactuallyanetlossofabout400,000jobsaccordingtoaBureauofLaborStatistics(BLS)surveyofbusinesses.Incontrast,theBLSreportedanetincreaseinjobsofabout22millionfrom1990to2000.7

Figure3(p.12)reportsnewarrivalsbasedontheACSfrom2000to2010.(EachyeartheACSprovidescompletedatafortheprecedingcalendaryear,so,forexample,figuresfor2009arefromthe2010ACS.)Italsoreportstheunemployment rate for immigrants during the decade. The figure indicates that the number of new arrivals was higherinthefirstpartofthedecadethanattheendofthedecade.However,thegrowthintheforeign-bornshownin Figure 2 indicates relatively high immigration from 2002 to 2005, which seems to contradict the finding in Figure 3.ButtherearebreaksinthecontinuityofACSdata,solikethetotalsforthedecadeshowninFigure2,theresultsinFigure3shouldbeinterpretedwithcaution.Nevertheless,eventakingintoaccountthediscontinuityinthedata,itisdifficulttoreconcilesomeoftheresultsinFigures2and3.8

Moreover,Figure3by itself indicates that immigration remainedveryhigh throughout thedecade, though thenumber of new arrivals was higher in 2000 and 2001 than later in the decade. This is a reminder that immigration is a complex process; not simply a function of labor-market conditions. Factors such as the desire to be with relatives ortoenjoypoliticalfreedomsandlowerlevelsofofficialcorruptionplayasignificantroleinimmigrantsdecisionsto come to the United States. The generosity of Americas public benefits and the quality of public services can also make this country an attractive place to settle. These things do not change during a recession, even a steep one.

Figure 2. Total Immigrant Population, 2000-2010 (millions)

Source: 2000 decennial census; American Community Surveys, 2001 to 2010.

31.1

31.5

33.0

33.5

34.3

35.7

37.5 38.1 38.0 38.5 40

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 201020102009200820072006200520042003200220012000

31.1 31.533.0 33.5

34.335.7

37.5 38.1 38.0 38.540.0

12


Deaths and Outmigration. By definition, no one born in the United States is foreign-born and so births cannot add to the immigrant population. Moreover, each year some immigrants die and others return home. There is some debate about the size of out-migration, but together deaths and return-migration equal 1 to 1.5 percent of the im-migrantpopulationannually,or400,000to600,000eachyearoverthelastdecade.Fortheforeign-bornpopulationto grow, new immigration must exceed deaths and outmigration.

ItispossibletoestimatedeathsandoutmigrationduringthedecadejustcompletedbasedontheACSdata.Giventhe age, gender, race, and ethnic composition of the foreign-born population, the death rate over the last decade should be about seven per 1,000. (These figures include only individuals living in the United States and captured by the ACS, not any deaths that occur among illegal immigrants trying to cross the border.) This means that the numberofdeathsoverthelastdecadevariedfromabout217,000ayearatthestartofthedecadetonearly266,000bytheendofthedecade,foratotalofabout2.4milliondeathsduringthistimeperiod.

Assuming2.423milliondeathsduringthedecadeamongtheforeign-bornand13.863millionnewarrivals,andgrowthof8.847million,theimpliedlevelofemigrationshouldbeabout2.592millionduringthedecade.Theequation looks as follows: outmigration = new arrivals (growth + deaths). Filling in the numbers we get the follow-ingresult:2.592million=13.863(8.847million+2.423million).Thisimplies2.592millionimmigrantslefttheUnitedStatesduringthedecade.Netimmigrationequalsnewimmigrationminusoutmigration(13.8632.592)or 11.271 million during the last decade.

Of course, it must be emphasized that this estimate is for the entire decade and outmigration may have varied signifi-cantly from year to year. Further, these estimates do not include the arrival and departure of individuals who came andwentduringthedecade,suchasapersonwhoarrivedin2001andleftin2008.Thereisalsonoadjustmentfor

Figure 3. New Arrivals From the ACS Compared to Immigrant Unemployment Rate

Source: Immigrantarrivalsfor2000to2009arefromthepublic-usefilesoftheAmericanCommunitySurveysfrom2001to 2010, which ask about immigrants calendar year of arrival in the United States. Immigrant unemployment rates are fromtheMarch2000through2009CurrentPopulationSurveysandareforpersons16andolder.

4.0%

5.0%

6.0%

7.0%

8.0%

9.0%

10.0%

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

ACS New Arrivals Immigrant Unemployment Percent

4.9%5.0%

6.9%

1.57 1.57

1.25 1.20

1.35 1.37 1.341.23

1.14 1.14

7.5%

6.2%

5.0%

4.4% 4.4%

5.9%

9.6%ACS New Arrivals Immigrant Unemployment Percent (millions)

13


undercountinthesenumbers.Sotheestimateofslightlylessthan2.6milliondeparturesforthedecadeisalow-rangeestimate.Deaths,ontheotherhand,donotvaryverymuchandshouldgrowslowlybutsteadilyasthesizeofthe foreign-born population grows.

State Numbers

State Data. Table1(p.14)showsthenumberofimmigrantsineachstatefor2010.California,NewYork,Texas,Florida,NewJersey,Illinois,Massachusetts,Georgia,Virginia,Washington,Arizona,andMarylandhavethelargestimmigrantpopulations.Eachofthesestateshadmorethan800,000foreign-bornresidentsin2010.Californiahasthelargestimmigrantpopulation,accountingformorethanone-fourthofthenationaltotal.NewYorkandTexasarenextwithabout10percentof thenations immigrants.With9percentof thenations immigrants,Floridasforeign-bornpopulationissimilarinsize.NewJerseyandIllinoisarenextwith5and4percentofthenationsimmi-grants respectively. Table 1 shows that the immigrant population is concentrated in relatively few states. Six states ac-countfor65percentofthenationsforeign-bornpopulation,butonly40percentofthenationsoverallpopulation.

Table1alsoshowstheyearofarrivalfortheforeign-bornpopulationineachstate.Asalreadynoted,in201013.9millionhadarrivedin2000orlater.Thismeansthat26.1million(65percent)immigrantshavelivedintheUnitedStates for more than 10 years. The ACS also shows that, on average, immigrants have lived in the United States for slightlymorethan19years.9 Thus the immigrant population in the United States is comprised mostly of long-time residents. As will become clear in this report, immigrants have much higher rates of poverty, uninsurance, and wel-fareuseandlowerincomesandhomeownershiprates.However,theeconomicstatusoftheimmigrantpopulationis not because they are mostly new arrivals.

Manyofthestateswiththelargestimmigrantpopulationsarealsothosewiththehighestforeign-bornshares.How-ever,severalsmallerstates,suchasHawaiiandNevada,rankhighintermsofthepercentageoftheirpopulationsthat are foreign-born, even though the overall number of immigrants is more modest relative to larger states. Table A1(p.85)intheappendixshowstheshareofeachstatespopulationscomprisedofimmigrantsinin1990,2000,and2010.TableA2(p.86)showscitizenshipratesbystate.

Table2(p.15)reports thesizeofstate immigrantpopulations in2010,2000,and1990.Whilethe immigrantpopulationremainsconcentrated,ithasbecomelesssoovertime.In1990,Californiaaccountedfor33percentofthe foreign-born, but by 2000 it was 28 percent, and by 2010 it was 25 percent of the total. If we look at the top sixstatesofimmigrantsettlement,theyaccountedfor73percentofthetotalforeign-bornin1990,68percentin2000,and65percentin2010.

Table2alsoshowstherewere13stateswherethegrowthintheimmigrantpopulationwasmorethantwicethenationalaverageof28percentoverthelastdecade.ThesestateswereAlabama(92percent),SouthCarolina(88percent),Tennessee(82percent),Arkansas(79percent),Kentucky(75percent),NorthCarolina(67percent),SouthDakota (65percent),Georgia (63percent), Indiana (61percent),Nevada (61percent),Delaware (60percent),Virginia(60percent),andOklahoma(57percent).ItisworthnotingthatthegrowthrateinCalifornia,thestatewith the largest immigrant population growth, was only about half the national average over the last decade. Table 2 makes clear that the nations immigrant population has grown dramatically outside of traditional areas of immigrant settlementliketheGoldenState.

14


Table 1. State Immigrant Population in 2010 by Year of Arrival

State

CaliforniaNewYorkTexasFloridaNewJerseyIllinoisMassachusettsGeorgiaVirginiaWashingtonArizonaMarylandPennsylvaniaNorthCarolinaMichiganNevadaColoradoConnecticutOhioMinnesotaOregonIndianaTennesseeWisconsinHawaiiMissouriUtahSouth CarolinaOklahomaNewMexicoKansasLouisianaAlabamaKentuckyIowaRhodeIslandArkansasNebraskaIdahoD.C.DelawareNewHampshireMississippiAlaskaMaineVermontWestVirginiaSouthDakotaMontanaNorthDakotaWyomingNation

Immigrant Share of

Population

27.2%22.2%16.4%19.4%21.0%13.7%15.0%9.7%11.4%13.1%13.4%13.9%5.8%7.5%6.0%

18.8%9.8%13.6%4.1%7.1%9.8%4.6%4.5%4.5%

18.2%3.9%8.0%4.7%5.5%9.9%6.5%3.8%3.5%3.2%4.6%

12.8%4.5%6.1%5.5%13.5%8.0%5.3%2.1%6.9%3.4%4.4%1.2%2.7%2.0%2.5%2.8%

12.9%

Average Residence in

the U.S. (years)

20.7 20.1 18.0 20.1 19.319.218.9 15.0 16.7 18.1 19.7 17.0 18.2 14.919.419.5 17.7 19.919.7 15.8 18.416.014.218.6 21.8 16.316.715.915.320.616.716.913.514.614.321.314.9 15.8 18.8 17.8 16.5 22.0 15.2 18.426.1 22.7 19.7 15.0 27.0 20.2 15.1 19.1

2000-2010

2,823,9691,341,5671,509,3891,292,354629,632572,494374,605408,745378,626332,727271,974334,783298,325328,762218,726162,097199,552181,951196,391165,741128,285144,376149,035102,86278,030104,35283,934

110,87292,19071,74075,18878,17295,33371,81064,31748,11262,52543,22531,16636,87530,92523,12230,10517,31414,4799,9499,29610,6906,4158,1237,853

13,863,080

Pre-1990

4,639,9491,756,7051,439,8791,481,724703,535650,730367,149234,867283,847297,699338,866263,578251,783166,976204,564206,649151,233179,849166,264103,330127,90880,19764,34884,850117,97462,86768,84556,60756,31084,60253,95159,67236,10132,53732,14656,97333,15830,00131,05727,20821,49930,69816,20017,37622,49110,5249,0954,5239,9024,3764,724

15,237,896

Source: 2010 American Community Survey, www.census.gov. Length of residence is from the ACS public-use file.

Total Immigrant Population

10,150,4294,297,6124,142,0313,658,0431,844,5811,759,859983,564942,959911,119886,262856,663803,695739,068719,137587,747508,458497,105487,120469,748378,483375,743300,789288,993254,920248,213232,537222,638218,494206,382205,141186,942172,866168,596140,583139,477134,335131,667 112,178 87,09881,73471,86869,74261,42849,31945,66627,560 22,511 22,23820,03116,63915,843

39,955,854

1990-1999

2,686,5111,199,3401,192,763883,965511,414536,635241,810299,347248,646255,836245,823205,334188,960223,399164,457139,712146,320125,320107,093109,412119,55076,21675,61067,20852,20965,31869,85951,01557,88248,79957,80335,02237,16236,23643,01429,25035,98438,95224,87517,65119,44415,92215,12314,6298,6967,0874,1207,0253,7144,1403,266

10,854,878

Year of Arrival

15


Table 2. Number and Growth of Immigrant Populations by State, 2010, 2000, and 1990

State

AlabamaSouth CarolinaTennesseeArkansasKentuckyNorthCarolinaSouthDakotaGeorgiaIndianaNevadaDelawareVirginiaOklahomaMarylandMississippiMissouriIowaNebraskaLouisianaPennsylvaniaMinnesotaWashingtonTexasWyomingUtahKansasOhioNorthDakotaNewMexicoFloridaIdahoColoradoAlaskaConnecticutWisconsinArizonaOregonNewHampshireMassachusettsNewJerseyMaineMontanaVermontHawaiiWestVirginiaIllinoisCaliforniaRhodeIslandMichiganD.C.NewYorkNation

2010

168,596218,494288,993131,667140,583719,13722,238942,959300,789508,45871,868911,119206,382803,69561,428232,537139,477112,178172,866739,068378,483886,262

4,142,03115,843222,638186,942469,74816,639205,141

3,658,04387,098497,10549,319487,120254,920856,663375,74369,742983,564

1,844,58145,66620,03127,560248,21322,511

1,759,85910,150,429

134,335587,74781,734

4,297,61239,955,854

1990

43,53349,96459,11424,86734,119

115,077 7,731

173,12694,263104,828 22,275 311,80965,489313,49420,38383,63343,31628,19887,407369,316113,039322,144

1,524,4367,64758,60062,840259,6739,38880,514

1,662,60128,905142,43424,814279,383121,547 278,205 139,30741,193573,733966,61036,29613,77917,544162,704 15,712 952,272

6,458,82595,088355,393 58,887

2,851,861 19,767,316

Numeric Growth

2000-2010

80,824102,516129,98957,97760,312289,1378,743

365,686114,255191,86526,970340,84074,635285,38021,52081,34148,39237,54056,981230,777118,020271,805

1,242,3894,63863,97452,207130,4694,52555,535987,21523,018

127,20212,149117,15361,169200,48086,04115,588

210,581368,2548,9753,6354,31535,9843,121

230,8011,286,174

15,05864,1588,173

429,4798,847,965

Percent Growth

2000-2010

92.1%88.4%81.8%78.7%75.1%67.2%64.8%63.3%61.3%60.6%60.1%59.8%56.7%55.1%53.9%53.8%53.1%50.3%49.2%45.4%45.3%44.2%42.8%41.4%40.3%38.7%38.5%37.4%37.1%37.0%35.9%34.4%32.7%31.7%31.6%30.6%29.7%28.8%27.2%24.9%24.5%22.2%18.6%17.0%16.1%15.1%14.5%12.6%12.3%11.1%11.1%28.4%

Percent Growth

1990-2010

287.3%337.3%388.9%429.5%312.0%524.9%187.6%444.7%219.1%385.0%222.6%192.2%215.1%156.4%201.4%178.0%222.0%297.8%97.8%

100.1%234.8%175.1%171.7%107.2%279.9%197.5%80.9%77.2%154.8%120.0%201.3%249.0%98.8%74.4%109.7%207.9%169.7%69.3%71.4%90.8%25.8%45.4%57.1%52.6%43.3%84.8%57.2%41.3%65.4%38.8%50.7%

102.1%

Source: 1990and2000decennialcensusesand2010AmericanCommunitySurvey.

2000

87,772115,978159,00473,69080,271430,00013,495577,273186,534316,59344,898570,279131,747518,31539,908151,19691,08574,638

115,885508,291260,463614,457

2,899,64211,205158,664134,735339,27912,114149,606

2,670,82864,080369,90337,170369,967193,751656,183289,70254,154772,983

1,476,32736,69116,39623,245212,22919,390

1,529,0588,864,255119,277523,58973,561

3,868,13331,107,889

Numeric Growth

1990-2010

125,063168,530229,879106,800106,464604,06014,507769,833206,526403,63049,593599,310140,893490,20141,045148,90496,16183,98085,459369,752265,444564,118

2,617,5958,196

164,038124,102210,075

7,251124,627

1,995,44258,193354,67124,505207,737133,373578,458236,43628,549409,831877,9719,3706,25210,01685,5096,799

807,5873,691,604

39,247232,35422,847

1,445,75120,188,538

16


Immigrants by Country of Birth

Tables3,4,and5reportimmigrantfiguresbyregionandcountryofbirth.10Table3showsregionsoftheworldby year of arrival.11 Mexico was by far the top sending country in the last decade, with more than four million im-migrantsfromthatcountryarrivingbetween2000and2010.Overall,53percentofimmigrantscamefromLatinAmerica(Mexico,CentralAmerica,SouthAmerica,andtheCaribbean).Table4reportsthetopimmigrant-sendingcountriesin2010.Intermsofsendingthemostimmigrants,Mexico,India,China,thePhilippines,ElSalvador,andGuatemalasentthemostduringthedecade.TheformerSovietUnionwouldalsorankamongthetopsendingcountries as well if it were still intact.

Table4alsoreportstheshareofimmigrantsfromeachcountrywhoarrivedinthelastdecade.Thusthetablereadsasfollows:34.5percentofMexicanimmigrantsin2010indicatedinthesurveythattheyarrivedin2000orlater.ForimmigrantsfromcountriessuchasIndia,Guatemala,Honduras,andBrazil,roughlyhalfarrivedduringthelastdecade.Incontrast,forcountrieslikeCanadaandVietnam,fewarerecentarrivals.Table5(p.18)showsthetopsendingcountriesin2010andthosesamecountriesin2000and1990.Table5showsthatamongthetopsendingcountries, those with the largest percentage increase in their immigrant populations in the United States from 2000 to2010wereHonduras(85percent),India(74percent),Guatemala(73percent),Peru(54percent),ElSalvador(49percent),Ecuador(48percent),andChina(43percent).Thiscomparestoanoverallgrowthrateof28percentduringthedecadejustcompleted.

Table 3. Immigrants by Region and Year of Arrival

MexicoEastAsiaEuropeCaribbeanCentral AmericaSouth AmericaSouth AsiaMiddleEastSub-Saharan AfricaCanadaAustralia/Oceana/OtherTotal

Total

11,746,5397,567,6224,917,4293,739,1212,989,4332,757,4492,417,0591,471,2111,307,588785,595217,829

39,916,875

2000-2010

4,050,0772,449,3181,212,3061,130,3301,181,8301,117,6201,145,531578,767687,706214,28289,725

13,857,492

1980-1989

2,209,1891,734,919589,899 782,122 701,502 500,860343,943253,381171,06876,69934,988

7,398,570

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the 2010 American Community Survey public-use file. Totals do not exactly match Tables, 1, 2, and 5. See end note 10 for explanation. Regionsaredefinedinendnote11.

Pre-1980

1,879,0261,394,3031,894,798917,670318,380429,231225,006298,949 100,072 336,46940,218

7,834,122

1990-1999

3,608,2471,989,0821,220,426908,999 787,721 709,738702,579340,114348,742158,14552,898

10,826,691

Year of Arrival

17


Table 4. Country by Year of Arrival in 2010

Country

Mexico China/HK/Taiwan India PhilippinesVietnamElSalvador Cuba KoreaDominicanRepublicUnitedKingdomGuatemala Canada Jamaica Colombia GermanyHaitiHondurasPolandEcuadorPeruRussia1

Italy Iran Brazil Japan Ukraine FormerYugoslaviaPakistanGuyanaNicaragua Trinidad & Tobago Thailand NigeriaVenezuelaEthiopia Argentina Cambodia Iraq Bangladesh Romania France EgyptIsrael/PalestineGhana Lebanon Turkey Indonesia Kenya Somalia Burma South Africa Bolivia Australia Albania Liberia Nepal Morocco Bulgaria Sudan Saudi Arabia Cameroon Total

Total

11,746,5392,167,8491,796,4671,766,5011,243,785 1,207,128 1,112,0641,086,945879,884801,331797,262785,595650,761648,348611,813596,440518,438470,030454,921430,665427,932366,459358,746344,714324,373317,946313,011298,650255,103246,687223,666223,182 205,280 181,574173,600 170,512 162,043160,145158,556153,918144,376140,574128,065124,161117,919 102,025 98,88783,82981,92379,92578,61676,89372,98971,98466,67565,52163,91062,13647,96042,90442,240

39,916,875

1990-1999

3,608,247609,730506,255436,182445,947342,011 210,858 250,466258,936143,511193,802158,145159,059170,79973,260155,671154,181142,749121,098123,549196,24325,96568,13693,56357,979151,893141,306102,04366,59750,35866,92248,59160,85547,94641,22425,601 17,810 38,97762,65847,91226,04133,84426,38838,03122,86522,10929,05819,87830,19513,17623,297 17,255 12,772 29,03620,69211,09414,20019,78015,5845,2314,700

10,826,691

1980-1989

2,209,189421,544248,045401,675307,188320,276157,545258,481176,634125,375158,32576,699184,849121,96152,837142,19172,62796,38073,81783,61738,29624,69486,83643,04138,26929,422 20,711 52,75381,879

100,575 53,58156,96635,63519,264 22,822 23,11091,39615,74418,26731,50114,57422,216 27,807 15,60433,01413,65313,4836,6803,04210,99915,20617,4979,4861,3287,924 1,228 8,2981,9632,6973,0462,301

7,398,570

Pre-1980

1,879,026310,018186,017386,770209,601 110,115 384,181233,187153,343353,47162,344336,469152,123113,147377,32489,98036,987119,42877,906 52,520 45,043

278,757 105,275 24,513100,69831,73371,49724,42739,93136,68452,45640,35917,42115,4819,30645,55518,13724,7105,259

22,717 52,40131,59933,8959,78234,25920,67018,4904,2822,8417,485

12,120 13,46517,2943,5234,524

752 7,6023,5451,830

705 619

7,834,122

Share Who Arrived in 2000 or Later

34.5%38.1%47.7%30.7%22.6%36.0%32.3%31.7%33.1%22.3%48.0%27.3%23.8%37.4%17.7%35.0%49.1%23.7%40.0%39.7%34.7%10.1%27.5%53.3%39.3%33.0%25.4%40.0%26.1%23.9%22.7%34.6%44.5%54.5%57.7%44.7%21.4%50.4%45.6%33.6%35.6%37.6%31.2%48.9%23.6%44.7%38.3%63.2%56.0%60.4%35.6%37.3%45.8%52.9%50.3%80.0%52.9%59.3%58.1%79.1%82.0%34.7%

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the 2010 American Community Survey public-use file. Totals do not exactly match Tables, 1, 2, and 5. See end note 10 for explanation.1IncludesthosewhoindicatedUSSRandUSSRnotspecified.

2000-2010

4,050,077826,557856,150541,874281,049434,726359,480344,811290,971178,974382,791214,282154,730242,441108,392208,598254,643111,473 182,100 170,979148,35037,04398,499183,597127,427104,89879,497119,42766,69659,070 50,707 77,26691,36998,883100,24876,24634,70080,71472,372 51,788 51,36052,91539,97560,744 27,781 45,59337,85652,98945,84548,26527,99328,67633,43738,09733,53552,44733,81036,84827,84933,92234,620

13,857,492

Year of Arrival

18


Population Growth

TheACSandCPScanbeusedtoprovideinsightintotheimpactofimmigrationonthesizeoftheU.S.population.Table6reportssixdifferentmethodsusingthe2010ACSandCPStoestimatetheeffectofimmigrationonU.S.population growth since the last census. The first column in the table shows that between April 2000 (the control datafortheCensus)andJuly2010(thecontroldatafortheACS)theU.S.populationgrew27.9million.ThefirstthreerowsofTable6usethenumberofimmigrantswhoarrivedintheUnitedStatesinthelastdecadetoestimatethe impactof immigrationonU.S.populationgrowth.As already indicated, in201013.9million immigrantsindicated that they had entered the country in 2000 or later. Because those who arrived in the first three months of2000shouldalreadyhavebeencountedinthe2000censuswereducethisfigureby390,000,orthreemonthsworth of new immigration, to account for those who arrived in the first quarter of 2000.12 It is reasonable to view the13.47millionimmigrantswhoarrivedoverthistimeperiodasthebasisforestimatingimmigrationseffectonpopulationgrowthbecausethisflowreflectscurrentU.S.immigrationpolicybothlegalimmigrationandthelevel of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration.

Ofcourse,immigrantsdonotjustaddtothepopulationbytheirpresenceintheUnitedStates.Basedonthe2010CPS,therewere8.98millionbirthstoimmigrantsintheUnitedStatesoverthelastdecade.13 The first row of Table 6addsthe13.47millionnewarrivalstothe8.98millionbirthsforatotalof22.45millionadditionstotheU.S.populationfromimmigration.Thisequals80.4percentofU.S.populationgrowthfromApril2000toJuly2010.Notallbirthsduringthedecadetoimmigrantsweretothosethatarrived2000to2010.Method2reportsthat,ofthe8.98millionbirthsduringthedecade,slightlylessthan2.3millionweretoimmigrantswhoarrivedduringthedecade.Ifweaddthisnumbertonewarrivalsweget15.73millionadditionstotheU.S.population,or56.3percent

Table 5. Top 20 Immigrant-Sending Countries, 1990, 2000, 2010

Mexico China/HK/TaiwanIndia PhilippinesVietnamElSalvadorCuba KoreaDominicanRepublicGuatemalaCanada UnitedKingdomJamaicaColombia GermanyHaitiHondurasPolandEcuadorPeruNational Total

2010

11,711,1032,166,5261,780,3221,777,5881,240,5421,214,0491,104,6791,100,422879,187830,824798,649669,794659,771636,555604,616587,149522,581475,503443,173428,547

39,955,854

2000

9,177,4871,518,6521,022,5521,369,070988,174817,336872,716864,125687,677480,665820,771677,751553,827509,872706,704419,317282,852466,742298,626278,186

31,107,889

1990

4,298,014921,070450,406912,674543,262465,433736,971568,397347,858225,739744,830640,145334,140286,124711,929225,393108,923388,328143,314144,199

19,767,316

Source: 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses and the 2010American Community Survey. The top 20 countries are for 2010 and compared to those same countries in 2000 and 1990.

ask steve about ranking

19


ofpopulationgrowth.InMethod3wejustusenewarrivals,whichaccountedfor48.2percentoftotalpopulationgrowth.

Methods4through6usenetimmigrationtoestimatetheimpactofimmigrationonpopulationgrowth.Asdis-cussed in the section on deaths and outmigration, our rough estimate is that net immigration during the decade was 11.27 million. This is the difference in the number arriving and the number leaving. If we add net immigration to totalimmigrantbirthsduringthedecadeitequals20.24millionor72.5percentofpopulationgrowth,asshowninMethod4.Method5addsjustbirthstonewarrivalsduringthedecadetonetimmigrationforatotaladditionof13.5million,whichequals48.4percentofpopulationgrowth.Netimmigrationbyitselfequals40.4percentofpopulationgrowth,asshowninMethod6.

It may be worth noting that growth in the immigrant population of roughly 8.8 million (see Figure 1) is not an accurate way of assessing the impact of immigration on population size because it includes deaths, which are not a function of immigration policy and are not connected with new arrivals.14Table6makesclearthatwhethernewimmigration or net immigration is used to estimate the impact, immigration policy has very significant implications for U.S. population growth.

ThesamedatausedinTable6notonlyprovideanestimateofimmigrationsimpactonpopulationgrowth,theyhave other uses as well. If we wished to allow the current level of immigration, but still wished to stabilize the U.S. population by reducing native fertility, we can roughly estimate what it would take based on the table. In 2010 there wereabout36.2millionchildrenlivinginthecountrywhowereborntonativesduringthedecade.Asshownabove,immigration added 22.5 million to the U.S. population. To offset these additions it would have required 22.5 mil-lionfewerbirthstonatives,orroughlya62percentreductioninnativefertility.Sincethenative-bornpopulationalready has slightly below replacement-level fertility, to advocate a nearly two-thirds reduction in their fertility to accommodate immigration seems grossly impractical.

Table 6. Impact of Immigration on U.S. Population Growth, 2000-2010

Method

1.NewArrivalsPlusBirthstoAllImmigrants2.NewArrivalsPlusBirthstoNewArrivals3.NewArrivalsOnly4.NetImmigrationPlusBirthstoAllImmigrants5.NetImmigrationPlusBirthstoNewImmigrants6.NetImmigrationOnly

Immigration Component

13,472,08013,472,08013,472,08011,271,43811,271,43811,271,438

Births to Immigrants 2000-2010

8,981,0972,256,675

n/a8,981,0972,256,675

n/a

Addition to Population

from Immigration

22,453,177 15,728,755 13,472,08020,244,17713,519,75511,263,080

U.S. Population Growth 2000-

20101

27,927,78327,927,78327,927,78327,927,78327,927,78327,927,783

Immigrations Share of

Total U.S. Population

Growth

80.4%56.3%48.2%72.5%48.4%40.4%

Source: Arrival data and net immigration are based on the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) public-use file. Birth figuresarefromtheMarch2010CurrentPopulationSurvey(CPS)public-usefile. 1 This population growth figure compares the population in the 2000 census to the population in the 2010 ACS public-use file.

20


Selected Characteristics

Educational Attainment. Table 7 reports the education levels of immigrants and natives. The top of the table re-portsfiguresforallpersonsages25to65.Basedonthe2011CPS,about28percentofimmigrants25to65havenot completed high school, compared to about 7 percent of natives. This difference in the educational attainment of immigrants and natives has enormous implications for the social and economic integration of immigrants into American society. There is no single better predictor of economic success in modern America than ones education level. As we will see, the fact that so many adult immigrants have little education means their income, poverty rates, welfare use, and other measures of economic attainment lag well behind natives.

The table also shows that a slightly larger share of natives have a bachelors degree than immigrants, and the share withapost-graduatedegreeisalmostidenticalforthetwogroups.Historically,immigrantsenjoyedasignificantadvantageintermsofhavingatleastacollegeeducation.In1970,forexample,18percentofimmigrantshadatleasta college degree compared to 12 percent of natives.15 This advantage at the top end has now entirely disappeared.

Table 7. Selected Characteristics of Immigrants and Natives Education Levels

LessthanHighSchoolHighSchoolOnlySome CollegeBachelors or More Bachelors GraduateorProfessional

LessthanHighSchoolHighSchoolOnlySome CollegeBachelors or More Bachelors GraduateorProfessional

MedianAnnualEarningsperWorker3

ShareinPoorestWageDecile(bottom10th)3

ShareinPoorestWageQuartile(bottom25%)3

MedianHouseholdIncome4

AverageHouseholdSize4

MedianIncomeDividedbyAverageHouseholdSizeAverage Age

Natives

7.2%30.1%29.8%32.8%21.7%11.2%

6.1%29.0%31.6%33.2%21.9%11.3%

$43,7018.6%

22.5%$50,293

2.40$20,955

36.6

All Immigrants

28.1%26.0%16.9%29.0%18.0%10.9%

25.7%26.3%18.3%29.6%18.1%11.5%

$34,02117.5%37.7%

$43,7393.14

$13,93042.4

Arrived After 20001

28.2%26.0%14.3%31.4%19.4%12.0%

27.8%27.6%15.7%28.8%17.5%11.3%

$28,25624.9%49.6%

$38,1533.17

$12,03631.6

All Persons Ages 25-65

Those in the Labor Force (18+)2

Other Characteristics

Source:Withtheexceptionofthefiguresforaverageandmedianage,allfiguresarefromCenterforImmigrationStudiesanalysisof theMarch2011CurrentPopulationSurveypublic-usefile.Medianagefiguresare fromAmerican FactFinder, 2010 American Community Survey (ACS), Table S0501. Average age is from the 2010 ACS public-use file.1 Figures are for individuals who indicated that they came to the United States in 2000 or later. 2 Figures are for individuals 18 and older who are in the labor force. 3Medianearningsareforthoseemployedfull-timeandyear-round.Quartileanddecilefiguresareforaverageweekly wages in 2010 for adults who indicated that they were employed full-time and year-round. 4 Immigrant and native households based on nativity of household head. Income is from all sources.

21


The middle of the Table 7 reports the education only for adults in the labor force.16 The figures are not entirely the same because those who are in the labor force age 18 and older differ somewhat from the entire population ages 25 to65intheireducationalattainment.Forexample,theleasteducatednativesinparticulararemuchlesslikelytobeworking or looking for work. This means that they are less likely to be in the labor force. The right side of the table reports figures for those immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later.

Overall,16percentofthoseinthelaborforceareimmigrantsandthisissomewhathigherthantheir12.9percentshare of the total U.S. population because, in comparison to natives, a slightly higher percentage of immigrants are of working age. The large number of immigrants with low levels of education means that immigration policy has dramatically increased the supply of workers with less than a high school degree, while increasing other educational categories more moderately. This is important because it is an indication of which American workers face the most jobcompetitionfromforeignworkers.

Whileimmigrantscomprise16percentofthetotaladultworkforce,theycomprisemorethan44percentofadultsinthelaborforcewhohavenotcompletedhighschool.Figure4showshowrecentlyarrivedimmigrantshaveincreasedthe supply of different types of workers. It reports the number of immigrants who arrived in 2000 or later divided by the total number of workers in each educational category (immigrant and native). Thus, the figure shows that post-2000immigrantshaveincreasedthesupplyofhighschooldrop-outworkersby17.3percent,comparedto3to5percentinothereducationalcategories.Thismeansthatanyeffectimmigrationmayhaveonthewagesorjobopportunities of natives will disproportionately affect the least educated native-born workers.

Income of Immigrants and Natives.Inthispaperwereportfiguresforbothearningsandincome.Earningsareincomefromwork,whileincomecanbefromanysourcesuchasworking,investments,orrentalproperty.Giventhe large proportion of immigrants with few years of schooling, it is not surprising that the income figures reported at the bottom of Table 7 show that, as a group, immigrants have lower median earnings than natives.17(EarningsfromtheCPSarebasedonannualincomefromworkinthecalendaryearpriortothesurvey.)Theannualmedianearnings of immigrants who work full-time and year-round are only about 78 percent that of natives. And for the mostrecentimmigrants,medianearningareonly65percentthatofnatives.Anotherwaytothinkaboutimmigrantsand natives in the labor market is to examine the share of immigrants and natives who work for low wages. If we look at the 10 percent of full-time, year-round workers with the lowest weekly wages, we find that 17.5 percent of

Figure 4. Percentage of Each Educational Category Comprised of Post-2000 Immigrants1

5.2 %

2.9 %

4.3 %

5.2 %

Less than High School

High School Only

Some College

Bachelor's

Graduate or

Professional

17.3%5.2%

5.2%

4.3%

2.9%

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analysis ofMarch2011CurrentPopulationSurvey. 1 Figures are for persons 18 and older in the labor force who indicated in the survey they arrived in 2000 or later.

22


immigrantsareinthisbottomwagedecilecomparedto8.6percentofnatives.Ifweexaminetheweeklywagesforthepoorestfourthofthelabormarket,37.7percentofimmigrantsfallintothebottomquartile,comparedto22.5percent of native-born full-time, year-round workers.

Household Income. Another way to think about the relative position of immigrants compared to natives is to look at household income. The bottom of Table 7 reports that the median household income of immigrant-headed householdsis$43,739,whichis87percentthatofthehouseholdincomeofnatives$50,293.(Income,unlikeearningsorwages,isfromallsources,notjustincomefromworking.)Inadditiontohavinglowerincomes,im-migranthouseholdsare31percentlargeronaveragethannativehouseholds3.14personsversus2.4persons.Asaresult,thepercapitahouseholdmedianincomeofimmigrantsisonly66percentthatofnatives$13,930versus$20,955.Thisisimportantnotonlyasameasureoftheirrelativesocio-economicstanding,butalsobecauseit has fiscal implications. Lower household income means that, in general, immigrant households are likely to pay somewhat less in taxes than native households. This is especially true for progressive taxes, such as state and federal income taxes, which take into account income and the number of dependents. Larger household size also means that, in general, immigrant households will use somewhat more in services than native households. Since households are the primary basis on which taxes are assessed and public benefits are distributed in the United States, the lower income and larger size of immigrant households has implications for public coffers.

Age of Immigrants.ThebottomofTable7showsthatin2010theaverageageofanimmigrantwas42.4yearscomparedto36.6yearsfortheaveragenative.TheaverageoverallageintheUnitedStateswas37.4.Thefactthatimmigrants have a higher average age is a reminder that although immigrants may arrive relatively young, they age overtimelikeeveryoneelse.Partlyforthisreason,thebeliefthatimmigrationwillhelpfixtheproblemofanagingsociety is largely misplaced. Of course, those who argue that immigration will fundamentally change the age struc-ture generally have in mind new arrivals. Table 7 shows that in 2010 the average age of immigrants who arrived in 2000orlaterwassomewhatyoungerthanthatofnatives31.6yearscomparedto36.6yearsfornatives.Ifwelookat the most recent arrivals we also see they tend to be relatively young. In 2010 those immigrants who indicated they arrivedin2009orthefirsthalfof2010hadanaverageageof29.8years.Thisconfirmsthecommonbeliefthatim-migrants are younger than natives at arrival, but the difference with natives is modest. More important, the impact on the aging of our society is small.

WecanestimatetheoverallimpactontheagestructureofAmericansocietybysimplycalculatingtheaverageagein the United States with and without recent immigrants. Again, the average age in the United States in 2010 for theentirepopulation(immigrantandnative)was37.35years.Ifall13.9millionimmigrantswhoarrivedin2000orlaterareremovedfromthedata,theaverageageintheUnitedStateswouldbe37.62years.Thus,includingpost-2000 immigrants does lower the average age, but only by .27 years. Immigration over the last 10 years, which has been numerically the highest in American history, had a very modest impact on the average age in the United States.

Ifweremovefromthe2010ACSthe13.9millionnewlyarrivedimmigrantsplusthemorethantwomillionchil-dren that these immigrants have given birth to in the United Sates in the last decade, the average age in the United Stateswouldbe37.87years.SothefullimpactofrecentimmigrationwastoreducetheaverageageintheUnitedStatesbyabout.52years.Again,theimpactismodest.Post-2000immigrationplusbirthstothesenewimmigrantsadded16millionnewpeopletotheU.S.population.Butinacountryofmorethan300millionitissimplynotenough to significantly lower the average age in the United States.

Itcouldbearguedthatthebenefittotheagestructuremighttakemorethanjust10yearsofhighimmigration.Ina 2005 study, the Center for Immigration Studies examined the impact of immigration on the aging of American society as well as the Social Security system. Consistent with other research, we found that immigration has only a smallimpactontheproblemofanagingsocietynowandinthefuture.Whileimmigrantsdotendtoarriverelativelyyoungandhavehigherfertilityratesthannatives,immigrantsagejustlikeeveryoneelseandthedifferenceswithna-tives are not large enough to fundamentally alter the nations age structure.18 A Census Bureau report in 2000 came to a similar conclusion. Among other things, that report looked at the impact of different levels of immigration over

23


the next century, and concluded that immigration is a highly inefficient means for increasing the percentage of the population who are of working-age in the long-run.19

Ina2007reporttheCenterforImmigrationStudiesgeneratedpopulationprojectionsandexaminedtheimpactofdifferentlevelsofimmigrationonthesizeandagingofAmericansociety.Wefoundthatalthoughthecurrentlevelofimmigrationwilladd105milliontotheU.S.populationby2060,ithasonlyasmallimpactontheshareofthepopulation that will be of working age.20 There is a clear consensus among demographers, the people who study human populations, that immigration has a positive, but small, impact on the aging of society. A simple analysis of the ACS data confirms this conclusion.

Labor Force and Occupations

Labor Force Attachment. Table8(p.24)showstheshareofimmigrantandnative-bornmenandwomenholdingajoborinthelaborforcebasedontheMarch2011CPS.Thoseinthelaborforcehaveajoborarelookingforajob.21Thetopofthetablereportsfiguresforpersons18to65andthelowerportionofthetableprovidesthesamefiguresforthoseintheprimaryworkingyearsof25to55whenratesofemploymenttendtobethehighest.Thetableshowsthatimmigrantsandnatives(18to65)overallhavevirtuallyidenticalratesofemploymentandlaborforceparticipation.However,maleimmigrantshavehigherratesofemploymentandlaborforceparticipationthannative-born men, while female immigrants have lower rates than their native-born counterparts.

For those in the prime years of 25 to 55, Table 8 shows that the overall rate for natives of employment and labor force participation are somewhat higher than for immigrants. But male immigrants 25 to 55 are still more likely to haveajobthanarenative-bornmen,whilelaborforceparticipationisthesameforbothgroups.Incontrast,native-born women in the primary employment years are much more likely to work than foreign-born women. As will become clear in this report, immigrants income, health insurance coverage, home ownership, and other measure of socio-economic status lag well behind that of natives. But Table 8 shows that these problems are not caused by immigrants being unwilling to work. Immigrant men in particular have a strong attachment to the labor market.

Occupational Distribution. Table9(p.25)showstheoccupationalconcentrationofimmigrantsandnatives.Theoccupational categories are ranked based on immigrant share, which is shown in the first column. The numbers in the second and third columns show those employed and unemployed in each occupation. The table shows several important facts about U.S. immigration. First, there are millions of native-born Americans employed in occupations thathavehighconcentrationsofimmigrants.Whileimmigrantscertainlyareconcentratedinparticularoccupa-tions,itssimplynotcorrecttosaythatimmigrantsonlydojobsnativesdontwant.Therearemorethan20millionnative-bornAmericansintheoccupationalcategoriesoffarming/fishing/forestry,buildingcleaning/maintenance,construction, production, and food service and preparation. More than four million of these natives are unemployed andtheyreportoneoftheseoccupationsastheirlastjob.ThesecondinterestingfindinginTable9isthatinthesetopimmigrantoccupationsunemploymentfornativesaveragedalmost16percentin2010comparedto9.5percentnationally.

ItishardtoarguethattherearenoAmericanswillingtoworkinthesehigh-immigrantprofessions.Perhapsthenative-born workers are not where employers want, or there is some other reason businesses find these unemployed nativesunacceptable,butonitsfaceTable9indicatesthatthereisquitealotofun-utilizedlaborofthiskindintheUnited States.

Itwouldbeamistaketothinkthateveryjobtakenbyanimmigrantisajoblostbyanative.Manyfactorsimpactunemployment rates across occupations. But it would also be a mistake to assume that dramatically increasing the number of workers in these occupations as a result of immigration policy has no impact on the employment pros-pects of natives.

24


Table 8. Immigrant and Native Labor Force Attachment

All ImmigrantsAllHispanicImmigrantsAll NativesWhite BlackHispanicsImmigrant MenHispanicMenNative MenWhiteMen Black MenHispanicMenImmigrant WomenHispanicWomenNative WomenWhiteWomenBlackWomenHispanicWomen

All ImmigrantsAllHispanicImmigrantsAll NativesWhite BlackHispanicImmigrant MenHispanicMenNative MenWhiteMen Black MenHispanicMenImmigrant WomenHispanicWomenNative WomenWhiteWomenBlackWomenHispanicWomen

Holding a Job

67.7%66.4%67.6%70.5%56.6%61.8%78.1%78.9%70.4%74.0%54.1%64.5%57.0%51.7%65.0%67.1%58.8%59.0%

71.6%69.4%74.4%76.9%63.6%70.5%82.7%82.5%78.1%81.3%61.7%74.7%59.9%53.9%70.8%72.6%65.2%66.4%

In Labor Force1

75.2%75.1%74.5%76.3%67.8%71.2%86.7%88.8%78.7%81.1%68.0%75.7%63.3%59.0%70.5%71.6%67.5%66.6%

79.1%78.0%81.1%82.6%75.0%79.2%86.2%92.3%86.2%88.2%76.2%84.8%66.3%69.4%76.3%77.0%74.1%76.3%

Ages 18 to 65

Ages 25 to 55

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the March 2011 Current PopulationSurvey(CPS)public-usefile.1Thoseinthelaborforceareeitherholdingajoborlookingforajob.

25


Table 9. Occupational Distribution of Immigrants and Natives

Farming, Fishing, and ForestryFarmWorkersNon-SupervisorsBuilding/CleaningandMaintenanceMaidsandHousekeepingCleanersJanitorsandBuildingCleanersConstruction Construction LaborersProductionButchers,Meat/Poultry/FishProcessingFoodPreparationandServingWaiter/WaitressComputer and MathematicalComputerProgramers/DevelopersLife,Physical,andSocialSciencePersonalCareandServiceHealthcareSupportArchitectureandEngineeringTransportation and Material MovingTaxiDriversandChauffeursHealthcarePractitionersandTechnicalPhysiciansandSurgeonsNursesFinancial SpecialistsInstallation,Maintenance,andRepairSalesandRelatedOccupationsArts,Design,Entertainment,MediaReporters/JournalistsManagement:Business/Science/ArtsFarmers/RanchersOffice and Administrative Support Business Operations SpecialistsEducation,Training,andLibraryCommunity and Social ServicesSocialWorkersExtractionProtectiveServiceOccupationsLegal Occupations LawyersTotal Civilian Labor Force

Immigrants

573,081538,559

2,175,041807,040724,117

2,132,969642,673

2,216,750 101,802

2,048,077391,677819,170443,905278,991

1,083,195692,798487,885

1,707,991151,337

1,163,621233,794418,183488,251695,358

2,231,131354,8637,898

1,728,79936,658

2,267,057363,445905,171227,54877,38320,529243,042121,08465,441

25,005,318

Native Unemployment

Rate

16.2%17.2%14.9%16.0%12.8%20.4%26.6%13.6%11.6%14.6%13.3%5.6%5.2%4.1%9.4%8.6%6.5%13.4%10.3%2.6%0.7%1.9%5.4%8.7%

10.8%9.5%5.9%5.5%2.5%9.9%7.0%4.1%4.3%4.3%10.3%6.6%4.3%2.5%9.5%

Natives

636,341468,6374,221,363 858,851 1,981,3156,597,2031,253,8167,241,519185,4027,045,4731,955,6322,822,585 940,5131,001,3444,400,1003,118,2952,215,0677,777,738222,6936,700,857631,8262,441,1592,900,8814,434,293

15,016,8812,531,974

75,97612,559,885

598,76419,236,7463,228,1038,162,7912,248,403736,917212,926

3,157,3531,591,7531,010,655

129,059,847

Immigrant Share

47.4%53.5%34.0%48.4%26.8%24.4%33.9%23.4%35.4%22.5%16.7%22.5%32.1%21.8%19.8%18.2%18.1%18.0%40.5%14.8%27.0%14.6%14.4%13.6%12.9%12.3%9.4%

12.1%5.8%

10.5%10.1%10.0%9.2%9.5%8.8%7.1%7.1%6.1%16.3%

Number of Natives

Unemployed

103,175 80,750 627,579137,767254,304

1,344,705333,613986,71121,590

1,030,986259,908157,77948,60640,721412,991267,066143,075

1,045,21222,861

172,750 4,41946,626157,365387,957

1,626,164241,3414,474

690,45415,054

1,896,005225,480336,12196,34331,34321,926209,82668,499 25,007

12,290,231

Number of Immigrants Who

Arrived 2005-2011

112,058 108,280 345,875126,979107,356331,550119,462266,22518,962435,30179,366171,942111,30961,257155,43376,43559,714

211,010 11,828 108,65026,39539,40743,66469,094263,82948,831 2,181

167,4214,379

235,85748,616156,373 18,785 3,6891,64725,1199,9994,126

3,424,685

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analysis of the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) public-use file. Figuresareforpersons16+inthelaborforce.Personsinthelaborforceareworkingorlookingforwork.

26


Poverty, Welfare, and the Uninsured Poverty Among Immigrants and Natives. The first column in Table 10 reports the poverty rate for immigrants by country and the second column shows the figures when their U.S.-born children under age 18 are included.22 BasedontheMarch2011CPS,19.9percentofimmigrantscomparedto13.5percentofnativeslivedinpovertyin 2010.23(PovertystatisticsfromtheCPSarebasedonannualincomeinthecalendaryearpriortothesurveyandreflect family size). The higher incidence of poverty among immigrants as a group has increased the overall size of the populationlivinginpoverty.In2010,16.5percentofthoseinpovertyinthecountrywereimmigrants.

In some reports the U.S.-born children of immigrants are counted with natives. But it makes more sense to include these children with their immigrant parents because the poverty rate of minor children reflects their parents income. OverallintheUnitedStatesthereare54.1millionimmigrantsandU.S.-bornchildren(under18)witheitheranimmigrant father or mother. In the analysis of poverty and insurance coverage in this report we focus on the 51.8 million immigrants and their children (under 18) with an immigrant father and mother or only an immigrant fa-ther. Those with only an immigrant mother and a native-born father are counted with natives. In this way, we avoid overstating the impact of immigration. If we added those with only an immigrant mother to the poverty totals, poverty associated with immigrants would increase slightly.

The second column in Table 10 includes the U.S-born children (under 18) of immigrant fathers. Table 10 shows thatthepovertyrateforimmigrantsandtheirU.S.-bornchildrenwas23percentcomparedto13.5percentforna-tives and their young children. (The figures for natives exclude the U.S.-born minor children of immigrant fathers.)

The data by country and region indicate that there is an enormous variation in poverty rates among immigrants from different countries.24Forexample,the34.8percentofMexicanimmigrantsandtheirU.S.-bornchildrenlivinginpovertyismanytimestherateassociatedwithimmigrantsfromcountriessuchasIndiaandthePhilippines.

Ofthe46.2millionpeopleintheUnitedStateslivinginpovertyin2010(basedon2011data),11.9million,or25.8 percent, are immigrants or the U.S.-born children (under 18) of immigrant fathers. Among persons under age 18livinginpoverty,31.1percentareeitherimmigrantsortheyoungchildrenofimmigrantfathers.Immigrationpolicy has significantly added to the population in poverty in the United States.

In or Near Poverty. In addition to poverty, Table 10 reports the percentage of immigrants and natives living in ornearpoverty,withnear-povertydefinedasincomelessthan200percentofthepovertythreshold.Examiningthose with incomes under 200 percent of poverty is an important measure of socio-economic status because those under this income generally do not pay federal or state income tax and typically qualify for a host of means-tested programs. As is the case with poverty, near poverty is much more common among immigrants than natives. Table 10showsthat43.6percentofimmigrants,comparedto31.1percentofnatives,liveinornearpoverty.(Likethefigures for poverty, the figures for natives exclude the U.S.-born minor children of immigrant fathers.) If the U.S.-bornchildrenofimmigrantsareincludedwiththeirimmigrantparents,theimmigrantrateis47.6percent.Amongtheyoungchildrenofimmigrants(under18),59.2percentliveinornearpoverty,incontrastto39.3percentofthechildrenofnatives.Intotal,24.7millionimmigrantsandtheiryoungchildrenliveinornearpoverty.Asashareofallpersonsinornearpoverty,immigrantsandtheiryoungchildrenaccountfor23.8percent.

Without Health Insurance. Table 11 (p. 28) reports the percentage of immigrants and natives who were uninsured forallof2010.(TheCPSasksabouthealthinsuranceinthecalendaryearpriortothesurvey.)Thetableshowsthatlack of health insurance is a significant problem for immigrants from many different countries and regions. Overall, 34.1percentoftheforeign-bornlackhealthinsurancecomparedto13.8percentofnatives.(Likethefiguresforpov-erty, Table 11 excludes the U.S.-born minor children of immigrant fathers from the figures for natives.) Immigrants accountfor26.1percentofalluninsuredpersonsintheUnitedStates,comparedtotheir12.5percentofthetotalpopulationinthe2011CPS.(Thisisslightlylessthanthe12.9percentshowninthe2010ACS.)Iftheyoung(un-der 18) U.S.-born children of immigrant fathers are included with their parents, the share without health insurance

27


31.1%46.4%51.9%25.2%25.2%

59.2%39.3%33.9%

13.5%21.5%27.8%11.8%9.7%

32.1%19.2%15.1%

Table 10. Poverty and Near Poverty

Mexico HondurasGuatemalaDominicanRepublicHaitiCuba EcuadorElSalvadorLaos VietnamColombia JamaicaIran USSR/RussiaChina PeruPakistanKoreaJapanCanada PolandUnitedKingdomGermanyIndia Philippines

MiddleEastCentralAmerica(ExcludesMexico)Sub-Saharan Africa Caribbean South America EastAsiaEuropeSouth Asia

All ImmigrantsHispanic Black AsianWhite

All Natives3

Hispanic Black AsianWhite

Children of Immigrants (

28


Table 11. Share Without Health Insur

immigrants in the united states 2012

Documents

immigration studiesabout

immigration studiescenter

immigration studies1629

impact of immigration

illegal immigration

immigration studies

estimated state

state numbers