william h. frey immigration and internal migration for no. 94-320 · 2017. 6. 22. · william h....

William H. Frey

Immigration and Internal Migration forU.S. States: 1990 Census Findings byPoverty Status and Race

No. 94-320

Research Reports

Population Studies CenterUniversity of michigan

\ .

William H. Frey

Immigration and Internal Migration forU.S. States: 1990 Census Findings byPoverty Status and Race

No. 94-320

Research ReportSeptember 1994

William H. Frey is Research Scientist and Associate Director for Training at the University of Michigan PopulationStudies Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.

This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1994 Joint Statistical Meetings, Toronto, August 16, 1994. Themigration data for this paper were prepared at the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan from 1990 U.S.Census files. The author acknowledges Cathy Sun for computer programming assistance, and Ron Lue-Sang forpreparing maps and graphics.

\ .

ABSTRACT

This paper presents an analysis of 1990 census migration data for US States (includingthe District of Columbia). Its text and Appendix tables provide detailed statistics on immigrationand internal migration components of 1985-90 population change for individual States, crosstabulated by race, Latino status, poverty status, and, in some cases, education attainment.

The paper's analyses focus on immigration and internal migration components as theyaffect State poverty populations. New immigrant waves are heavily focused on only a few Kportof-entryK States. As a consequence, they have begun to impact upon internal migration flowsboth into and out of these "High Immigration States," and have also altered the national system ofinternal migration patterns. This paper addresses the questions: (1) How do the magnitudes ofpoverty population out-migration from High Immigration States compare with those of otherStates? (2) Is this out-migration selective on particular social and demographic groups? and (3)Is immigration a significant determinant of internal migration of the poverty population?

The results of this analysis are consistent with the view that recent, focused immigrationis associated with poverty out-migration among longer-term State residents. At the local level,there is an apparent displacement of low income residents by immigrants which involves morethan just numbers of people. Rather, it involves a turnover of race, ethnic and skill-levelcharacteristics in the State's poverty population that can impact upon race relations, publicservice requirements, and labor force quality.

Data used: 1990 US census tabulations of full migration ("residence 5 years ago") sample.

;:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

A Migration Classification of States

Poverty Out-migration from High Immigration States

Selectivity of Poverty Out-migrants

Selectivity by Race and Latino StatusSelectivity by Education Attainment

Immigration as a Determinant of Poverty Out-migration

References

Figures and Tables

Appendix Tables

1

2

3

3

34

4

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Fii1Jlres

Figure 1

Figure 2

Migration Classification of States

Net Interstate Migration of Poverty and Non-poverty Whites

Table 1 Classification of States by Dominant Immigration and Interstate MigrationContributions to Population Change, 1985-90

Table 2 Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90, for PovertyPopulations of High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States

Table 3 Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Race-Ethnicity forHigh Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, and High OutMigration States

Tables 4-A,B Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Race-Ethnicity for Poverty Populations of High Immigration Sates, High InternalMigration States, and High Out-Migration States

Table 5 Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and EducationalAttainment for High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States

Table 6 Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 byEducational Attainment for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States,High Internal Migration States, and High Out-migration States

Table 7 Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes:Total, Whites and Blacks

Table 8 Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes:Education Attainment

Appendix Tables

Table A

TableB

TableC

TableD

Table E

Table F

TableG

TableH

Table I

Table}

Table K

Table L

TableM

TableN

Table 0

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Total Population

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Population

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Population

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-Latino Whites

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Whites

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Whites

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Blacks

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Blacks

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Blacks

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Latinos

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Latinos

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Latinos

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Asians

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Asians

Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Asians

Immigration and Internal Migration for US States:

1990 Census Findings by Poverty Status and Race

William H. Frey

Population Studies CenterThe University of Michigan

1225 South University AvenueAnn Arbor, M148104-2590

Phone: (313) 998-7141FAX: (313) 998-7415

Introduction

Recent studies of 1990 US census migration data have shown that immigration to the USis affecting internal migration patterns in unprecedented ways (Frey, 1993; 1994a; 1994c; 1994d;1994e). New immigrant waves are as large as those seen at the turn of this century and comefrom more diverse origins (Fix and Passel, 1994). Yet, they are just as heavily focused on only afew "port-of-entry" States. As a consequence, they have begun to impact upon internal migrationflows both into and out of these "High Immigration States," and have also altered the nationalsystem of internal migration patterns.

A significant feature of the new immigration-influenced internal migration is relevant to theresident low income poverty populations of High Immigration States. Because recent immigrationis heavily weighted toward minority and developing country origins, and is disproportionatelyrepresented among less well off and relatively unskilled populations (Borjas and Freeman, 1992),these immigrants are prone to compete with native workers for low-skilled jobs and will serve tobid down their wages. Moreover, the arrival, in large numbers, of immigrant ethnic minoritieschanges the cultural milieu and perceptions of social costs for whites and more established,assimilated minorities that can lead to their out-migration.

Hence, immigrant-induced out-migration does not conform to the traditional "circulation ofelites" model (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1964), which characterizes more conventional long-distancemigration patterns (Lansing and Mueller, 1964; Long, 1988). Rather out-migration from HighImmigration States tends to select, disproportionately, poorer, lesser-skilled native-born whitesand blacks. While this immigration effect on "downwardly-selective" out-migration was alreadyevident in the 1970s (see analyses of 1980 census data by Filer, 1992; Walker, Ellis and Barff,1992; and White and Imai, 1993), its scope appears to have increased over time (Frey, 1993;Frey, 1994a; Frey, 1994d).

This paper focuses specifically on how immigration affects internal migration of the USpoverty population. How does it impact on the populations of High Immigration States? Howdoes it affect the overall pattern of inter-state poverty migration? From a State's perspective, theout-flow of native-born poor migrants may partially offset the welfare and social service costs ofpoor immigrant inflows. However, the relationship might not be one-to-one in the sense thatpoverty out-migrants may be from more assimilated, higher-skilled segments of these States'populations. From the perspective of nationwide inter-state migration flows, an acceleratedimmigration "push" may increase the flows to traditional poverty magnet States, or even Statesthat lie adjacent to immigrant "ports-of-entry." Finally, these immigration-internal migration linksare relevant to recent studies of US immigration policy. Studies that show modest or mixedimpacts of immigration on native worker employment or income loss tend to overlook thepossibility of an out-migration response (Fix and Passel, 1994). Also, to the extent that the skill

1

\ .

level of immigrants leads to native worker "pushes,"a re-examination of the current immigrantpreference system may be warranted.

Analyses in this paper will employ tabulations of the full migration ("residence 5 years agoquestion") sample of the 1990 census to address the following questions:

1. How do the magnttudes of poverty population out-migration from High ImmigrationStates, compare with those for States with relatively small numbers of immigrants?

2. Is immigration-induced poverty out-migration uniquely selective on particular race andeducation attainment populations?

3. How does a State's immigration level affect its internal poverty migration when othersocial and economic migration determinants are taken into account?

The census migration data used here permit an assessment of net internal migration, andmigration from abroad for the 1985-90 period, for each State. The data were compiled for allindividuals aged 5 and above in 1990 (who were alive in 1985), by poverty status, by race andethnicity, and education attainment among persons aged 25 and over. Because of the way thedata were compiled, statistics for whites (non-Latino whites) had to be estimated (see Frey,1994d). The migration from abroad data, as reported in the census, substantially understates theillegal immigrant population (Fix and Passel, 1994; Center for Immigration Studies, 1994).Finally, the reader should be aware that the determination of poverty status is based on 1989income as reported by census respondents, and does not reflect the income status at thebeginning of the migration period.

A Migration Classification of States

This analysis will employ a typology, developed in an earlier study (Frey, 1994a), whichclassifies States on the basis of their dominant migration source of change. (See Table 1 andFigure 1.) States classed as "High Immigration States" include the six States with largest 198590 migration from abroad, where the immigration component overwhelms net internal migration(California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts). Each of these States tendsto have large existing settlements of earlier immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The sixStates classified as "High Internal Migration States" (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia,Washington, Arizona) displayed greatest net increases in their migration exchanges with otherStates over the 1985-90 period. Moreover, in each case, these internal migration gainssignificantly exceeded those of the immigration component. (This is the case for Florida, as well,despite its strong attraction for immigrants.) These internal migration magnets are located,largely, in the South Atlantic and the Pacific and Mountain divisions. Their allure lies with theirgrowing economies and, in most cases, climatic and other amenities. Finally, a third class ofStates include five "High Out-migration States" -- Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma and Iowa.These States displayed greatest out-migration in their exchanges with other States and were notrecipients of large immigration from abroad.

(Table 1 and Figure 1 here)

One distinction of these groups involved the contrast of minority-white majoritycompositions of inflows to High Immigration States versus those to High Internal Migration States.That is, the dominant immigration stream to the former States is comprised, largely, of minoritiesfrom Latin American or Asian origins -- while the migrant gains to the latter States are made upmostly of native-born whites (and, in some cases, blacks). By themselves, these differentprocesses will lead to wider disparities in their racial compositions between these two categoriesof States (see Frey, 1993). However, the present paper focuses on another distinction that exists

2

across State categories. This involves the unique "downward selectivity" of internal migrationaway from High Immigration States. This will be taken up below.

Poverty Out-migration from High Immigration States

To what extent did the poverty population move out of High Immigration States during the1985-90 period? The data shown in Table 2 indicate a fairly consistent pattern. That is, each ofthe six High Immigration States showed declines in their poverty population as a result of netinternal migration; and in four of the six (New York and Massachusetts excepted), the povertypopulation out-migration rates were greater than those for the non-poverty population.

(Table 2 here)

The latter observation is consistent with the unique "downwardly selective" out-migrationthat appears to be responding to large waves of poverty immigrants in these States (see columns1 and 2 in Table 2). In contrast, the poverty status selectivity patterns for the High InternalMigration States and High Out-migration States conform more closely to the "circulation of elites"model discussed earlier. That is, the net migration losses in each of the five High Out-migrationStates are more accentuated for the non-poverty than poverty populations in those States.Likewise, the net migration gains for four of the High Internal Migration States are larger for theirnon-poverty populations. (The higher poverty gains for North Carolina and Washington reflect thefact that these are destinations for "return" and spillover" poverty migrants from high ImmigrationStates.)

Finally, the last three columns in Table 2 permit an assessment of how migration fromabroad and internal migration contribute to overall change in each State's poverty population.The upper panel makes clear that in five of the six High Immigration States, internal migrationserved to substantially reduce poverty population gains. California gains approximately ninetimes as many poverty migrants from abroad as it loses via internal out-migration to other States.However, internal out-flows reduce New York's poverty gains through immigration by almost twothirds, and Texas' poverty gains from abroad by almost one-half. Moreover, in New Jersey andIllinois poverty out-migration to other States exceeds their poverty gains from abroad. Thesedisplacement patterns of poverty migrants from abroad for internal migrants to other States begsthe question of what other selectivity patterns are accompanying this displacement?

Selectivity of Poverty Out-migrants

Selectivity by Race and Latino Status

The selectivity of poverty net out-migration can be assessed from the data shown inTables 3, 4-A, and 4-8. The presumption that poverty out-migration from High ImmigrationStates was only a "white flight" phenomenon is countered by the rates shown for blacks, and, to alesser extent, Latinos and Asians. While whites showed a net out-migration of poverty migrantsfrom all six States, blacks and Latinos out-migrated from five and Asians from four. AlthoughLatinos and Asians overwhelm immigrant growth in these States, there is a smaller but consistentpattern of net internal out-migration for these groups (except in Massachusetts, and for Asians inCalifornia). Moreover, the migration pattern for each group from the High Immigration Statesconforms generally to the "downward selective" immigrant "push" pattern discussed earlier. Thiscontrasts with the "circulation of elites" model which tends to characterize each group's internalmigration patterns for High Internal Migration States and High Out-migration States.

(Tables 3, 4-A and 4-8 here)

Emphasis on aggregate population shifts, rather than rates, shows that the povertyimmigration substitution for internal out-migrants translates into a Latino and Asian substitution for

3

non-Latino whites. In California, for example, Latinos and Asians make up the dominant share ofpoverty immigrants, while non-Latino whites make up plurality of the internal out-migrants. Onlyin New York and Illinois is there a significant alteration of this pattern -- where blacks contributealmost as much as whites to the internal out-migration of the poverty population. Hence, thepoverty turnover in High Immigration States can be characterized as a displacement of "newimmigrant minorities' for whites and, to a lesser extent, blacks. It is also of interest to see thatpoverty net in-migration gains for High Internal Migration States, is dominated by the latter twogroups. Indeed, poverty blacks outnumber poverty whites in the internal migration gains forGeorgia and Virginia over the 1985-90 period.

Selectivity by Education Attainment

Are poverty net out-migrants from High Immigration States similar in educationattainment to the immigrants who are displacing them? The data in Tables 5 and 6 shed light onthis question. The net migration rates shown in Table 5 make plain that the poverty net outmigration from these States is not a proxy for migrant skill level or education attainment. That is,for each of four broad categories of education attainment (less than high school, high schoolgraduate, some college, college graduate), out-migration rates for these States' povertypopulations are generally greater in magnitude than for their non-poverty populations. This mayreflect more head-to-head competition with poor immigrants, of similar education levels, whowere forced to take less permanent types of jobs. Moreover, the higher migration responseamong poverty populations (when controlled for education) is only characteristic of movementfrom High Immigration States. In the other two categories of States, it is the non-povertypopulation which is more likely to migrate in (to High Internal Migration States) or out (from HighOut-migration States).

(Tables 5 and 6 here)

The aggregate migration data in Table 6 make plain that at least in California and Texaspoverty immigrants are decidedly less well-educated than the internal out-migrants they aredisplacing. In both of these States, the vast majority of the poverty adult immigrants (aged 25and above) have not completed high school whereas internal out-migrants are more evenlydistributed between high school dropouts and high school graduates. In New York, New Jersey,and Illinois the mismatch is not nearly as imbalanced because a larger share of those States'immigrants are at least high school graduates. Massachusetts' displacement patterns are not likethe other States', reflecting, perhaps, the draw of more educated immigrants to the State's manyinstitutions of higher learning. In sum, this review of race and education selectivity patternsshows a general displacement of poverty out-migrant whites with largely "new immigrant"minorities with lower skill levels.

Immigration as a Determinant of Poverty Out-migration

Does a State's immigration level exert an independent impact on poverty out-migration?This question is addressed in a series of regression equation where the dependent variables areState net migration levels for the period 1985-90, specific to different demographic sub-groups(by poverty status, race and education attainment). The independent variables for theseregressions include the State's 1985-90 immigration level, a geographic regional classification(dummy variables for the Northeast region, the Midwest region, the South Atlantic division, theMountain division and the Pacific division, where parts of the South, which are not included in theSouth Atlantic division, represent the omitted category); five variables reflecting the metropolitanarea's economic structure (unemployment rate of 1985, per capita income in 1985, percent ofchange in manufacturing employment and percent of change in service employment for theperiod 1985-90, and the State's AFDC level); percent of State's population that was non-Latinowhite and black in 1985 (for use in the equations for whites and blacks); percent of "newimmigrant minorities" in the State (percent Latinos and Asians); and the log of the State'spopulation size in 1985. All of the migration and population data were drawn from the 1980 and

4

:

1990 US censuses. The economic characteristics were drawn from the State and MetropolitanArea Data Book, 1991, compiled by the US Bureau of the Census.

Shown in Table 7 are the regression equations for the net migration for povertypopulations and non-poverty populations of the 51 States (including District of Columbia).Separate equations are shown for the total population, for the white population, and for the blackpopulation, aged 5 and above in 1990. A similar set of equations is shown in Table..8Jor personsaged 25 and above, classed by their levels of education attainment. The results are consistentwith expectations in showing that immigration exerts a significant negative effect on net povertymigration for each demographic subgroup except for college graduates. Moreover, theimmigration effect is not significant in explaining net migration for the non-poverty populations ofeach group except college graduates where the effect is positive (reflecting, perhaps, the "duallabor market" character of high immigration areas discussed in MOllenkopf and Castells, 1991).

(Tables 7 and 8 here)

The only other consistent finding across all of the equations except one (non-povertyblacks) is the positive effect that service growth exerts on net migration gains for poverty andnon-poverty populations, alike. The regional categories, in the race-specific comparisons, show aconsistent positive effect for the South Atlantic division on non-poverty migration. This resultsuggests that there are unmeasured economic and amenity ·puIlS" for non-poverty migrants tothis region; in contrast to the immigration "pushes" exerted on the poverty population. Thesedistinct effects are consistent with the maps shown in Figure 2. The upper map, depicting the netmigration patterns of poverty whites, shows sharp levels of out-migration from selected HighImmigration States, but a more diffuse pattern of destinations for poverty net in-migration. Incontrast, non-poverty white migration responds more sharply to "pulls" of distinct destinationStates, primarily in the South Atlantic and Mountain regions. While a more detailed migration flowanalysis is required, these maps, in conjunction with the regression results, suggest that povertyand non-poverty populations participate in somewhat different migration stream networks.

A few other regression coefficients in the Tables are worthy of note. Poverty migrantsamong the total, and white populations, respond negatively to a State's average income level -reflecting, perhaps, its relative cost of living. Poverty and non-poverty black migrants respondnegatively to unemployment in the Northeast and (for black poverty migrants only) the Midwestregions. State AFDC benefit levels do not exert significant impacts on poverty or non-povertymigration for most comparisons. (Poverty AFDC benefits exert an unanticipated negativerelationship to the net migration of poverty college graduates.)

(Figure 2 here)

In sum, these regression results are consistent with the overall analyses presented in thispaper. The recent focused immigration to a few selected "port-of-entry" States appears to beeffecting a consistent pattern of poverty out-migration among the native-born resident populationsof these States. The results of this analysis are strong and consistent enough to warrantadditional investigations into the nature of immigrant competition, or labor market mechanismsthat are contributing to this pattern. At the local level, this apparent displacement of low incomeresidents by immigrants involves more than just numbers of people. Rather, it involves a turnoverof race, ethnic and skill-level characteristics in the State's poverty population that can holdimplications for race relations, public service requirements, and the quality of the labor force.

5

REFERENCES

Borjas, George J. and Richard Freeman. 1992. Immigration and the Work Force. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.

Center for Immigration Studies. 1994. Backgrounder. 25 pp.

Filer, Randall K. 1992. ''The Effect of Immigrant Arrivals on Migratory Patterns of NativeWorkers." Pp. 245-270 in George J. Borjas and Richard B. Freeman (eds.), Immigrationand the Work Force. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Fix, Michael and Jeffrey Passel. 1994. "Immigration and Immigrants' Setting the RecordStraight." Washington, IX: The Urban Institute.

Frey, William H. 1993. "Inter-state Migration and Immigration for Whites and Minorities, 198590: The Emergence of Multi-ethnic States." Research Report No. 93-297. Ann Arbor,:MI:Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Frey, William H. 1994a. "The New White Flight." American Demographics (April), pp. 40-48.

Frey, William H. 1994b. "College Grad, Poverty Blacks Take Different Migration Paths."Research Report No. 94-303. Ann Arbor,:MI: Population Studies Center.

Frey, William H. 1994c. "Irrunigration and Internal Migration "Flight": 1990 Census Findingsfrom California." Research Report No. 94-306. Ann Arbor, MI: Population StudiesCenter, University of Michigan.

Frey, William H. 1994d. "Irrunigration and Internal Migration "Flight" from U.S. Metro Areas:1990 Census Findings by Race, Poverty and Education." Research Report No. 94-304.Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Frey, William H. 1994e. "White and Black 'Flight' from High Immigration Metro Areas:Evidence from the 1990 Census." Research Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Population StudiesCenter, University of Michigan.

Lansing, John B. and Eva Mueller. 1967. The Geographic Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor, MISurvey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.

Long, Larry. 1988. Mi~ration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: RussellSage.

Mollenkopf, John H. and Manuel Castells (eds.). 1991. Dual City: Restructuring- New York.New York: Russell Sage.

Waldinger, Roger. 1989. "Irrunigration and Urban Change." Annual Review of Sociology 15:211232.

Walker, Robert, Mark Ellis and Richard Barff. 1992. "Linked Migration Systems: Immigrationand Internal Labor Flows in the United States." Economic Geography. Vol. 68, pp. 234248.

White, Michael J. and Yoshie Imai. 1993. "The Impact of Irrunigration upon Internal Migration."Population and Environment. Vol. 15(3), pp. 189-209.

6

Migration Classification of States

• High Immigration StatesII High Internal Migration Stateso High Out Migration States

FIGURE 1

\ .

Poverty Whites - Net Interstate Migration

Non-Poverty Whites - Net Interstate Migration

Net In-Migration

• Top 5 States~ Other States

Net Out-Migration

o Top 5 StatesD Other States

FIGURE 2

, .

Table 1: Qassification of States by Dominant lnunigration and Intecstate Migration

Contributions to Population Otan~e. 1985-90

State

Contribution to 1985-90 Otan~e (1000s)Net Interstate

MiJ!;X"ationfrom Abroad Mi~tion**

I mGB IMMIGRATION STATESa

1 .--=~--23456

CaliforniaNewYodc

Texas

NewJ~yDIinois

M~

1499

614368211203156

174-821-331-194-342

-97

II mGB INTERNAL MIGRATION STATESb

123456

Florida

GeorgiaNorth Carolina

Vuginia

WashingtonArizona

390

9266

149102

80

1071303

281228

216

216

In HIGH OUT-MIGRATION STATESc

1234

5

LouisianaOhio

MichiganOklahomaIowa

3069

74

32

17

-251-141-133-128

-94

Source: Compiled from 1990 Census files at the Population Studies Center. The University ofMichigan

* 1990 State residents who resided abroad in 1985

-1985-90 In-migrants from other States minus 1985-90 Out -migrants to other States

aStates with largest 1985-90 migration ~ abroad which exceeds net interstate migrationhstates with largest 1985-90 net interstate migration and exceeds migration from abroadeStates with largest negative net interstate migration and not recipients of large migration fromabroad

Source: William H. Frey, "The New White Flight" American Demographics April, 1994

\ .

Tahle 2: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90, for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States, High Internal MigrationStates, and High Out-Migration States.

Rates of

Rates ofComponents of Poverty Population ChangeMigration from Abroad *

Internal Migration *TotalMigrationInternal

StatePovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyMigrationFrom AbroadMigration

I High Immigration States

California

14.14.3-1.50.7402,727450,777-48,050New York

7.73.1 -4.6-4.864,691156,873-92,182Texas

4.6\.9 -2.3-2.162,443122,970-60,527

New Jersey

7.42.6-10.4-1.4-15,35537,815-53,170lIlinois

4.11.6-5.3-2.7-13,42048,206-61,626Massachusetts

9.42.1 -0.3-2.241,84843,403-1,555

.f,

II HiRh-lnternal Migration States

Florida

7.02.7 5.69.6180,002100,22479,778

Georgia

2.01.4 2.75.438,39716,04522,352North Carolina

1.2\.0 4.23.940,3629,15931,203

Virginia

3.32.5 2.23.529,96818,03011,938

Washington

5.61.8 6.04.752,87225,55927,313

Arizona

5.41.8 5.36.652,71826,40726,311

III lliRh Ow-MiRratinn States

Louisiana

0.80.7 -3.2-7.5-21,0606,560-27,620

Ohio

\.40.6 0.3-\.420,59816,5834,015

Michigan

1.80.7 0.2-1.520,26618,4681,798

Oklahoma

1.6\.0 -0.2-5.46,0197,076-1,057

Iowa

2.00.5 0.8-4.37,5315,3892,142

* Rates per 100, 1990 population

Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.

Table 3: Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Race-Ethnicity for High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States.

Rates of Internal Migration * :Non-Latino Whites"

BlacksLatinosAsians

State

PovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPoverty


California

-3.90.8-1.81.2-1.1-0.2 4.52.4

New York

-4.2-4.5 -5.0-5.6 -4.8-6.5 -3.2-4.4

Texas

-5.0-2.5 -0.20.7-1.1-2.0 -5.2-4.9

New Jersey

-17.7-2.1-5.40.3-4.9-0.9 -5.77.1

Illinois

-5.3-2.7 -5.6-2.6 -3.4-1.5 -9.8-5.3

Massachusetts

-3.4-2.6 1.80.3 6.91.9 8.81.2

.',

II High-Internal Migration StatesFlorida

6.610.4 2.24.8 8.58.9 3.68.4

Georgia

2.24.9 2.86.2 17.215.9 -7.97.8

North Carolina

4.34.2 3.72.0 12.67.7 9.52.9

Virginia

1.23.2 3.54.2 8.010.4 -3.54.8

Washington

5.94.8 4.53.4 10.37.0 1.42.7

Arizona

5.97.5 7.19.4 3.92.1 5.60.5

III High Out-Migration States

Louisiana

-5.0-7.6 -1.6-5.8-12.1-13.0-11.5-23.5

Ohio

-0.1-1.4 1.0-0.8 7.2-0.6 -3.3-2.9

Michigan

-0.3-1.5 0.6-1.2 5.2-0.3 -1.9-2.7

Oklahoma

-0.3-5.3 1.5-4.9 -0.3-5.4-13.1-17.5

Iowa

0.5-4.2 6.3-5.1 7.40.2 -5.2-10.8

* Rates per 100, 1990 population

•• Estimated as: whites + "other races" - Hispanics


Tablc 4-A: Immigration and Intcrnal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Race-Ethnicity for PovertyPopulations of High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, and High Out-Migration States.

Components of Poverty Population Change:Non-Latino Whites

Blacks

TotalMigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternal

StateMigrationFrom AbroadMigrationMigration From Abroad Migration


California16,01358,588-42,575 2846,836-6,552

New York-3,56329,283-32,846-1,35328,311-29,664

Texas-32,46711,048-43,515 3,4194,285-866

New Jersey

-31,7355,903-37,638 -4,8844,034-8,918Illinois

-16,51413,179-29,693-22,0932,066-24,159Massachusetts

-2509,883-10,133 4,5463,557989,I,

II High-Internal Migration StatesFlorida

58,10911,86446,24527,32417,4819,843

Gcorgia

11,0733.3287,74515,9043,54812,356North Carolina

19,6372,47617,16113,9551,78212,173

Virginia

8,4174,7603,6579.3711,8477,524

Washington

27,4136,40821,005 2,2451,0611,184Arizona

21,8563,84618,0102,3216261,695

1Il High Out-Migration States

Louisiana-15,4371,429-16,866 -6,7811,031-7,812

Ohio5,3716,017-6464,2581,0923,166

Michigan

6,2758,358-2,083 3,7721,4852,287Oklahoma

6941,813-1,1 191,525586939

Iowa

2,8661,6371,2291,140313827


Table 5: Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Educational Attainment* for High Immigration States, High Internal MigrationStates, and High Out-Migration States.

Rates of Internal Migration ** :Less than HS Grad

High School GradsSome CollegeCollege GradState

PovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPoverty


California

-1.3-0.6 -4.0-0.8 -3.8-0.1 -0.23.3New York

-3.3-3.9 -4.4-4.6 -6.3-5.8 -5.1-6.1

Texas

-1.7-2.1 -3.1-2.6 -3.9-2.4 -1.4-1.8

New Jersey

-4.2-1.9 -6.9-2.3 -9.9-2.2 -8.91.0

I1Iinois

-3.7-2.2 -3.8-2.6 -4.9-3.3 -2.2-2.6

Massachuetts

-0.4-1.9 -4.0-2.8 -4.4-3.4 -3.3-2.2

II High-Internal Migration States

.-'Florida 4.27.9 7.110.5 8.310.3 9.711.1 'eGeorgia

1.42.5 2.53.6 4.46.7 7.47.9

North Carolina

2.12.1 3.72.9 5.64.4 5.45.3

Virginia

0.51.4 1.21.5 0.22.8 3.15.5

Washington

4.62.7 4.73.5 7.44.8 7.16.8Arizona

2.34.8 4.57.4 7.77.6 11.07.8

III High Out-migration States

Louisiana

-1.5-3.3 -3.6-5.4 -6.6-9.7 -6.1-12.3

Ohio

0.2-0.8 0.6-0.7 0.0-1.4 -0.9-3.5

Michigan

0.2-1.2 0.2-0.9 0.6-1.3 -3.7-3.2

Oklahoma

0.7-2.0 0.1-3.5 -0.6-5.2 -4.3-10.1

Iowa

1.0-0.6 1.5-1.6 0.8-4.1 -3.6-11.7

* For Persons Aged 25 and Over

** Rates per 100, 1990 population


Table 6: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Educational Attainment for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States, HighInternal Migration States, and High Out-migration States.

Components of Poverty Population Change:Less than HS Grad

High School GradCollege Graduates

Total

MigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternal

State

MigrationFrom Abroad MigrationMigration From Abroad MigrationMigration From Abroad Migration


California106,939117,672-10,73316,68530,673-13,98829,06029,428-368

New York

15,39035,581-20,191 6,10319,907-13,80414,01018,923-4,913Texas

16,16330,833-14,670-3,4426,329-9,771 8,2299,265-1,036

New Jersey

1,7938,383-6,590-1,6334,427-6,0602,4634,686-2,223Illinois

-2,1559,479-11,634 -1,7844,821-6,6056,7367,725-989

Massachusetts

7,9778,473-496 5903,670-3,080 5,0396,071-1,032

/I High-Internal Migration States

'I'

Florida44,37425,83118,54328,45711,71916,73813,6128,0515,561

Georgia

6,7402,7074,0334,3731,6832,6903,3961,8941,502

North Carolina

7,0121,2395,7734,7809943,786 2,5001,522978

Virginia

4,1623,2149482,4301,6058253,7973,175622

Washington

8,9164,8424,0745,3441,9433,4013,9872,2981,689

Arizona

8,8446,0932,7514,3441,4662,8784,2022,0932,109

11/High Out-migration States

Louisiana-3,514704-4,218 -3,692624-4,316 -291,023-1,052

Ohio

2,3961,8635332,5891,4271,1623,3043,591-287

Michigan

2,7002,1655351,8681,5483202,9083,989-1,081

Oklahoma

1,638784854 621530917241,346-622

Iowa

1,0474575901,156328828 8421,218-376

* For Persons Aged 25 and Over


Table 7: Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes

Total, Whites and Blacksa

(Standardized Regression Coefficients)Total

WhitesBlacksState

Non-Non-Non-Attributesb

PovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPoverty

REGlO~ Northeast

-.27-.to -.12-.13 -.62*-.50*Midwest

-.11-.02 -.06-.11 -.38*.23South Atlantic

.18.29* .17.32* .16.35*Mountain

.10.12 .12.01 -.18-.09Pacific

.13.24 .17.11 -.16.09

UNEMPLOYMENT

-.16-.21 -.10-.15 -.31 *-.34*MFG GROWTI-I

.14.16 .19.22 .12-.04SERVICE GROwrn:

.39*.40* .40*.42* .23*.18INCOME

-.29*-.00 -.35*.07-.20.21AFDC

.23-.18 .19-.22 .35-.21

% WHITES

------- -.04.25% BLACKS

-------- -------- -.22-.49

% LATINOS & ASIANS

-.23*-.13 -.22.11-.13-.16

IMMIGRA nON

-.47*.07 -.52*.09-.45*-.09

POP SIZE (LOG)

.17.02 .18.01 .20.12

R2

.62.52 .67.55 .53.55

~

'Persons a2:ed 5 and above in 1990 bSee text f~r attribute definitionscOmitted category includes the remainder of the South region (other than South Atlantic)*Significant at .1 level

Table 8: Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes

Educational Attainmentb(Standardized Regression Coefficients)Less thanHS

High School GradCollege GradState

Non-Non-Non-Attributesb

PovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPoverty

REGION" Northeast

-.23-.09 -.03-.05 -.04-.15Midwest

-.12-.03 .02.01 .14-.04South Atlantic

.17.26 .23.27 .27*.24Mountain

.03.08 .12.10 .24.12Pacific

.07.11 .16.13 .52*.35

UNEMPLOYMENT

-.10-.16 -.07-.14 -.14-.24MFGGROWTII

.15.21 .17.21 .05.04SERVICE GROWTII

.35*.34* .35*.38* .39*.35*INCOME

-.22-.04 -.19-.02 -.10.06AFDe

.20-.13 .03-.16 -.36*-.24

% LATINOS & ASIANS

-.18-.07 -.13-.07 -.12-.16

IMMIGRA nON

-.48*-.15 -.59*-.10 -.14+.38*

POP SIZE (LOG)

.12.04 .20.06 .07-.11

R2

.54.43 .61.43 .56.57

apersons aged 5 and above in 1990bSee text for attribute definitions

'Omitted category includes the remainder of the South region (other than South Atlantic) ~*Significant at .1 level

Table A: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Total Population·

Migration Components

Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal

MigrationInternalMigrationInternal

StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration

Alabama

65,68429,81535,869 0.81.0Alaska

-37,58610,899-48,485 22-9.8Arizona

296,44880,271216,177 2.46.4Arkansas

36,58612,33924,247 0.61.1California

1,672,1941,498,608173,586 550.6Colorado

-21,95856,040-77,998 1.8-2.6Connecticut

18,81270,655-51,843 23-1.7Delaware

33,4027,52125,881 1.24.2District of Columbia

-30,15724,254-54,411 43-95Florida

1,461,550389,8681,071,682 3.28.9

Georgia394,67792,080302,597 155.1

Hawaii28,16148,417-20,256 4.7-2.0

Idaho-8,36211,217-19,579 12-2.1

Illinois-139,360202,784-342,144 1.9-3.2

Indiana35,59232,4643,128 0.60.1

Iowa-77,06917,303-94,372 0.7-3.7

Kansas9,18132,631-23,450 1.4-1.0

Kentucky5,93326,057-20,124 0.8-0.6

Louisiana-220,45630,198-250,654 0.8-6.4

Maine44,09110,77333,318 0.92.9

Maryland212,679111,789100,890 252.3

Massachusetts59,131155,863-96,732 2.8-1.7

Michigan

-58,69274,307-132,999 0.9-1.5Minnesota

40,53736,1754,362 0.90.1

Mississippi

-14,86812,262-27,130 05-1.1Missouri

62,10834,05128,057 0.70.6Montana

-46,9275,677-52,604 0.8-7.1Nebraska

-27,43212,518-39,950 0.9-2.7Nevada

203,09730,245172,852 2.715.6

New Hampshire

7359811,53862,060 1.16.1

New Jersey17,884211,417-193,533 2.9-2.7

New Mexico13,44424,901-11 ,457 1.8-0.8

New York-207,162613,724-820,886 3.7-4.9

North Carolina346,54565,663280,882 1.14.6

North Dakota-44,1426,805-50,947 1.2-8.6

Ohio-72,07369,106-141,179 0.7-1.4

Oklahoma-95,51932,241-127,760 1.1-4.4

Oregon123,52740,95582,572 1.63.1

Pennsylvania20,88698,575-77,689 0.9-0.7

Rhode Island33,98421,71612,268 2.313

South Carolina139,88630,545109,341 0.93.4

South Dakota-17,3725,071-22,443 0.8-35

Tennessee161,80930,347131,462 0.72.9

Texas36,722368,091-331,369 2.4-2.1

Utah-10,54525,617-36,162 1.6-2.3

Vermont21,3864,40116,985 0.83.3

Virginia376,596148,724227,872 2.64.0

Washington317,832101,562216,270 2.34.8

West Virginia-68,7164,939-73,655 0.3-4.4

Wisconsin-3,15032,704-35,854 0.7-0.8

Wyoming-53,7062,987-56,693 0.7-13.5

• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).

\ .

Table B: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Poverty Population*




StateMigration From Abroad MigrationFrom AbroadMigration

Alabama

19,6495,00014,649 0.823Alaska

-9,8901,081-10,971 2.7.-27.0Arizona

52,71826,40726,311 5.45.3Arkansas

12,5942,35710,237 0.62.6California

402,727450,777-48,050 14.1-1.5Colorado

11,20212,319-1,117 3.7-0.3Connecticut

-1,18315,010-16,193 7.9-8.5Delaware

2,2731,310963 2.61.9District of Columbia

3,7324,617-885 5.3-1.0Florida

180,002100,22479,778 7.05.6

Georgia38,39716,04522,352 2.02.7

Hawaii-4797,135-7,614 9.1-9.7

Idaho7,1543,6273,527 3.23.1

Illinois-13.42048,206-61,626 4.1-5.3

Indiana11,2176,0185,199 1.21.0

Iowa7,5315,3892,142 2.00.8

Kansas8,5457,3591,186 3.00.5

Kentucky13,0884,2158,873 0.71.4

Louisiana-21,0606,560-27,620 0.8-3.2

Maine4,8931,1493,744 1.03.2

Maryland12,07115,745-3,674 4.6-1.1

Massachusetts41,84843,403-1,555 904-0.3

Michigan20,26618,4681,798 1.80.2

Minnesota24,28212,17912,103 3.23.1

Mississippi6,3282,2184,110 0.40.7

Missouri24,1667,59716,569 1.32.8

Montana9131,543-630 1.4-0.6

Nebraska3,3562,2471,109 1.5 .0.7

Nevada21,0426,64014,402 6.313.6

New Hampshire1,8031,528275 2.50.4

New Jersey-15,35537,815-53,170 704-lOA

New Mexico7,0286,656372 2.50.1

New York64,691156,873-92,182 7.7-4.6

North Carolina40,3629,15931,203 1.24.2

North Dakota-1,0451,090-2,135 104-2.7

Ohio20,59816,5834,015 1.40.3

Oklahoma6,0197,076-1,057 1.6-0.2

Oregon35,62314,97120,652 4.96.8

Pennsylvania32,71827,2255.493 2040.5

Rhode Island8,6976,3272,370 7.72.9

South Carolina12,9563,2579,699 0.72.1

South Dakota638797-159 0.9-0.2

Tennessee24,3815,32119,060 0.82.9

Texas62,443122,970-60,527 4.6-2.3

Utah17,5167,5789,938 4.66.0

Vermont3,6135063,107 1.16.5

Virginia29,96818,03011,938 3.32.2

Washington52,87225,55927,313 5.66.0

West Virginia3,5491,2472,302 0.40.7

Wisconsin30,30511,94218,363 2.74.1

Wyoming-5,365622-5,987 1.3-13.0

* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).

, .

Table C: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Popula~ion Change:

Non-poverty Population·





Alabama

45,25322,85022,403 0.80.7Alaska

-30,6039,113-39,716 2.1-9.1Arizona

236,88451,413185,471 1.86.6Arkansas

26,6919.09817,593 051.0California

1,191,259l,ol8,696172,563 430.7Colorado

-33,95241,622-75,574 1.6-2.9Connecticut

26,25053,328-27,078 1.9-1.0Delaware

28,0925,99922,093 1.14.0

District of Columbia-40,04018,194-58,234 4.1-13.0

Florida1,281,939281,0191.000,920 2.79.6

Georgia

341,30471,943269,361 1.45.4Hawaii

17,90938,962-21,053 4.3-2.3Idaho

-13,386UJ37-20,423 0.9-2.6Illinois

-94,151149,395-243,546 1.6-2.7Indiana

10,88423,306-12,422 05-0.3Iowa

-84,16210,010-94,172 0.5-4.3Kansas

-5,28221,502-26,784 1.1-1.4

Kentucky-17,22219,211-36,433 0.7-1.3

Louisiana-196,74921,622-218,371 0.7-7.5

Maine38,3318,49529,836 0.93.0

Maryland

210,07893,492116,586 2.42.9Massachusetts

-6,254104,219-110,473 2.1-2.2

Michigan-56,33952,785-109,124 0.7-1.5

Minnesota18,16422,207-4,043 0.6-0.1

Mississippi-21,4829,152-30,634 05-1.8

Missouri38,73624,10314,633 0.60.4

Montana-43,8023,854-47,656 0.6-7.8

Nebraska-28,2419,662-37,903 0.8-3.0

Nevada181,16423,138158,026 2.416.1

New Hampshire

68,4319,36659,065 1.06.3

New Jersey

74,627168,976-94,349 2.6-1.4New Mexico

8,49217,314-8,822 1.6-0.8New York

-247,418442,253-689,671 3.1-4.8North Carolina

251,86751,269200,598 1.03.9North Dakota

-455794,911-50,490 1.0-10.4Ohio

-68,59949,768-118,367 0.6-1.4Oklahoma

-106,14823,168-129,316 1.0-5.4

Oregon

91,41424,12267,292 1.13.0

Pennsylvania

-15,81865,737-81,555 0.7-0.8Rhode Island

15,33814,453885 1.80.1South Carolina

103,77523,78079,995 0.93.0South Dakota

-17,8463,950-21,796 0.8-4.2Tennessee

125,07522,908102,167 0.62.7Texas

-28,759233,617-262,376 1.9-2.1Utah

-31,72117,080-48,801 1.3-3.6Vermont

12,4423,3839,059 0.72.0

Virginia302,471125,692176,779 2535

Washington257,72272,540185.182 1.84.7

West Virginia-70,8693,236-74,105 0.2-5.5

Wisconsin-29,62818,959-48,587 0.5-1.2

Wyoming-46,5022.131-48,633 0.6-13.4

• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.

Table D: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Non-Latino Whites·


Rates per 1()() 1990 PopulationTotal



Alabama

61,64416,74144,903 0.61.6Alaska

-42,0285,339-47,367 12-10.7Arizona

220,78729,147191,640 1.173Arkansas

39,6506:17032,680 0.41.8California

376,390269/169106,721 1.70.7Colorado

-42,51729,833-72,350 12-2.9Connecticut

-29,02326,148-55,171 1.0-2.1Delaware

23,1742:19820,176 0.64.1District of Columbia

3,1747,352-4,178 4.6-2.6Florida

979,98699,211880,775 1.19.9

Georgia

239,45737,260202,197 0.94.8Hawaii

8,10911,332-3,223 3.8-1.1Idaho

-12,9855,513-18,498 0.6-2.1Illinois

-185,36466,836-252,200 0.8-3.1Indiana

20,46017,6302,830 0.40.1Iowa

-85,1627,627-92,789 03-3.7Kansas

-9,06015,016-24,076 0.7-1.2

Kentucky-1,53715,193-16,730 0.5-0.5

Louisiana-174,06913,757-187,826 0.5-7.2

Maine40,7848,55532,229 0.82.9

Maryland

70,51440,42830,086 1.31.0Massachusetts

-57,95857,311-115,269 1.2-2.3

Michigan-77,11040,468-117,578 0.6-1.6

Minnesota6,31215,909-9,597 0.4-0.2

Mississippi

1,0986,744-5,646 0.4-0.4Missouri

50,07818,09231,986 0.40.8Montana

-46,2994,114-50,413 0.6-7.0Nebraska

-30,6777,461-38,138 0.5-2.8Nevada

149,2219,486139,735 1.115.6

New Hampshire67,4457,51059,935 0.86.0

New Jersey-134,09851,324-185,422 1.0-3.5

New Mexico9,08911,498-2,409 1.4-0.3

New York-387,179135,653-522,832 1.2-4.5

North Carolina263,52231,875231,647 0.74.9

North Dakota-44,3344,768-49,102 0.8-8.4

Ohio-96,54435,942-132,486 0.4-1.5

Oklahoma-101,59616,302-117,898 0.6-4.5

Oregon93,68217,09476,588 0.73.1

Pennsylvania-31,66541,078-72,743 0.4-0.7

Rhode Island13,3616,6026,759 0.80.8

South Carolina119,12717,187101,940 0.84.5

South Dakota-17,7193,636-21,355 0.6-3.4

Tennessee133,34717,010116,337 0.43.1

Texas-159,69294,598-254,290 1.0-2.6

Utah-17,09715,029-32,126 1.0-2.2

Vermont19,2883,38815,900 0.73.1

Virginia219,77967,851151 :128 1.53.5

Washington235,07444,282190,792 1.14.8

West Virginia-66,6752,980-69,655 0.2-4.3

Wisconsin-30.59913,054-43,653 0.3-1.0

Wyoming-50,7332,031-52,764 0.5-13.5

• Estimated as in text table 3; includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom I

;:, .

Table E: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Poverty Whites·



MigrationIntemaIMigrationIntemaI

StateMigra~ion _From Abl'Oll~ ~grationFrom AbroadMigration

Alabama

14,9121,51713,395 0542Alaska

-9,599261 .-9,860 0.7-27.3Arizona

21,8563,84618,010 135.9Arkansas

1l,09186210,229 034.1California

16,01358,588-42,575 5.4-3.9Colorado

1,6553,932-2,277 1.9-1.1Connecticut

-11,9542,612-14,566 2.7-14.9Delaware

899163736 0.62.8District of Columbia

3,3418652,476 8.022.8Florida

58,1091l,86446,245 1.76.6

Georgia

11,0733,3287,745 0.92.2Hawaii

-1,766817-2,583 4.3-13.5Idaho

3,9041,0892,815 1.12.8Illinois

-16,51413,179-29,693 2.4-5.3Indiana

6,8592,3864,473 0.61.2Iowa

2,8661,6371,229 0.705Kansas

2,9851,8571,128 1.00.6

Kentucky

10,1501,9558,195 0.415Louisiana

-15,4371,429-16,866 0.4-5.0Maine

4,6357833,852 0.73.4

Maryland

-3,0853,675-6,760 2.3-4.3Massachusetts

-2509,883-10,133 3.3-3.4

Michigan

6;2758,358-2,083 1.3-0.3Minnesota

5,4372,8032,634 0.80.8

Mississippi

4,7095234,186 0.322Missouri

19,8132,57717,236 0.63.9Montana

520989-469 0.9-0.4Nebraska

1,588883705 0.70.6Nevada

9,3098038,506 1.112.1

New Hampshire

1,002701301 1.20.5

New Jersey

-31,7355,903-37,638 2.8-17.7New Mexico

7201,098-378 0.9-0.3New York

-356329;283-32,846 3.7-4.2North Carolina

19,6372,47617,161 0.64.3North Dakota

-1,446664-2,110 0.9-2.7Ohio

5,3716,017-646 0.7-0.1Oklahoma

6941,813-1,119 05-0.3

Oregon

22,6514,59618,055 1.87.0

Pennsylvania

9,4856,7942,691 0.80.3Rhode Island

1,679807872 1.315South Carolina

6,8911,0375,854 0.63.2South Dakota

459517-58 0.6-0.1Tennessee

18,2522,24716,005 053.6Texas

-32,46711,048-43,515 1.3-5.0Utah

12,4233,2519,172 2.36.4Vermont

3,1002932,807 0.66.0

Virginia

8,4174,7603,657 151.2

Washington

27,4136,40821,005 1.85.9

West Virginia

2,9735772,396 0.20.8Wisconsin

10.3132,5067,807 0.82.3

Wyoming

-5,103300-5,403 0.7-13.3

• Estimated as in text table 3; includes pe~ons age 5 and above in 1990.

;:\ .

Table F: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Non-poverty Whites·




StateMigratio~omf.broa( MigrationFrom AbroadMigration

Alabama

46,04514,54431,501 0.613Alaska

-34,1984,706-38,904 12-9.9Arizona

194,32924,397169,932 1.17.5Arkansas

30,6155,88724,728 0.41.6California

317,137205,294111,843 1.40.8Colorado

-43,14125,043-68,184 1.1-3.1Connecticut

-8,89322,648-31,541 0.9-1.3Delaware


-9,7105,844-15,554 4.5-11.9Florida

922,67685,079837,597 1.110.4

Georgia

219,36232,339187,023 0.94.9Hawaii

5889,739-9,151 3.8-3.5Idaho

-14,2744,180-18,454 0.6-2.5Illinois

-142,86352,136-194,999 0.7-2.7Indiana

1,75813,910-12,152 0.3-0.3Iowa

-85,9605,350-91,310 0.2-4.2Kansas

-12,87411,753-24,627 0.7-1.4

Kentucky

-16,71512,162-28,817 0.5-1.1Louisiana

-155,63211,658-167,290 0.5-7.6Maine

36,2156,93529,280 0.73.0

Maryland

80,79735,71145,086 1.21.6Massachusetts

-70,88444,320-115,204 1.0-2.6

Michigan

-66,54230,641-97,183 0.5-1.5Minnesota

4,92912,333-7,404 0.4-0.2

Mississippi

-5,9645,959-11,923 0.5-0.9Missouri

32,09014,74517,345 0.40.5Montana

-42,9812,987-45,968 0.5-7.7Nebraska

-29,2466,330-35,576 0.5-3.0Nevada

140,2048,587131,617 1.116.2

New Hampshire

63,4016,43456,967 0.76.3

New Jersey

-63,35344,180-107,533 0.9-2.1New Mexico

9,7319,989-258 1.40.0New York

-368.442102,742-471,184 1.0-4.5North Carolina

203,82026,648177,172 0.64.2North Dakota

-44,9903,546-48,536 0.7-10.1Ohio

-81,45528,603-110,058 0.4-1.4Oklahoma

-102,41213,711-116,123 0.6-5.3

Oregon

75,86211,85964,003 0.63.0

Pennsylvania

-39,28932,402-71,691 0.4-0.8Rhode Island

3,9185,409-1,491 0.7-0.2South Carolina

92,70714,03078,677 0.74.0South Dakota

-17,7892,972-20,761 0.6-4.0Tennessee

107,11113,87693,235 0.42.9Texas

-129,04880,209-209,257 0.9-2.5Utah

-32,43811,285-43,723 0.9-3.4Vermont

11,6102,8408,170 0.62.0

Virginia

186,24160,762125,479 1.53.2

Washington204,99036,332168,658 1.04.8

West Virginia-67,3832,256-69,639 0.2-5.4

Wisconsin-35,78010,043-45,823 0.3-1.2

Wyoming

-43,9551,584-45,539 0.5-13.4

• Estimated as in text table 3: includes persons age 5 and above in \990.

, .

Table G: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Blacks·





Alabama

-2,7915,541-8,332 0.6-0.9Alaska

1,334929405 4.82.1Arizona

12,os32,8429,211 2.99.3Arkansas

-7,4931,438-8,931 0.4-2.6California

56,43034,79421,636 1.71.1Colorado

6,9494,8652,084 4.11.8Connecticut

7,6237,952-329 32-0.1Delaware


-38,1995,528-43,727 1.5-11.8Florida

115,85258,84357,009 3.73.6

Georgia

100,89420,06780,827 1.35.1Hawaii

2,1392,453-314 10.5-1.3Idaho

631226405 6.912.3Illinois

-51,8338,287-60,120 0.5-3.9Indiana

1,1542,161-1,007 0.6-0.3Iowa

602866-264 2.1-0.6Kansas

5,0713,9781,093 3.10.9

Kentucky

3433,991-3,648 1.7-1.5Louisiana

-41,4084,645-46,053 0.4-3.9Maine

748433315 9.56.9

Maryland

82,53922,57359,966 2.15.5Massachusetts

18,07115,6362,435 5.80.9

Michigan

-9,9334,667-14,600 0.4-1.3Minnesota

14,4271,90212,525 2.315.2

Mississippi

-17,4772,Q45-19,522 0.2-2.4Missouri

1573,519-3,362 0.7-0.7Montana

-375130-505 7.2-28.1Nebraska

4571,014-557 2.0-1.1Nevada

11,5301,38710,143 2.014.5

New Hampshire

1,034438596 6.99.4

New Jersey

14,04924,133-10,084 2.5-1.1New Mexico

1711,458-1,287 5.4-4.8New York

-26,869123,826-150,695 4.7-5.8North Carolina

51,83012,81539,015 1.02.9North Dakota

-71708-779 24.0-26.4Ohio

-1,7275,313-7,040 0.5-0.7Oklahoma

1,2753,968-2.693 1.9-1.3

Oregon

2,3276841,643 1.74.0

Pennsylvania

-3,2527,794-11,046 0.8-1.1Rhode Island

3,4912,521970 7.42.9South Carolina

11 ,5336,1915,342 0.70.6South Dakota

138361-223 13.5-8.3Tennessee

15,5294,23211,297 0.61.6Texas

34,54025,6198,921 1.40.5Utah

1,058544514 5.65.3Vermont

45188363 4.719.2

Virginia

71,85217,97953,873 1.75.1

Washington

12,2755,4956,780 4.25.1

West Virginia-2,768384-3,152 0.8-6.2

Wisconsin8.6001,1447,456 0.53.5

Wyoming

-56695-661 3.2-22.2


" .

Table H: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Poverty Blacks·


Rates per 100 1·990 PopulationTotal



Alabama

2,5371,0311,506 030.5Alaska

-47852-530 32-32.9Arizona

2,3216261,695 2.67.1Arkansas

-209326-535 02-0.4

California2846,836-6,552 1.8-1.8

Colorado1,422902520 3.72.1

Connecticut

-2581,145-1,403 2.7-3.2Delaware

212233-21 1.2-0.1District of Columbia

-2,020872-2,892 1.3-4.2Florida

27,32417,4819,843 3.92.2

Georgia

15,9043,54812,356 0.82.8Hawaii

-680134-814 8.5-51.5Idaho

27692184 13.727.5Illinois

-22,0932,066-24,159 05-5.6Indiana

1,313324989 0.31.0Iowa

1,140313827 2.46.3Kansas

1,8735021,371 1.54.2

Kentucky

1,447645802 0.91.1Louisiana

-6,7811,031-7,812 0.2-1.6Maine

564016 6.02.4

Maryland

4,7782,5832,195 1.61.3Massachusetts

4,5463,557989 6.51.8

Michigan

3,7721,4852,287 0.40.6Minnesota

7,4865366,950 2.026.4

Mississippi

313450-137 0.10.0Missouri

-242842-1,084 0.6-0.8Montana

481632 3.57.0Nebraska

646131515 0.93.7Nevada

1,7942761,518 1.910.7

New Hampshire

-5283-135 11.6-18.9

New Jersey

-4,8844,034-8,918 2.4-5.4New Mexico

710287423 4.36.3New York

-1,35328,311-29,664 4.7-5.0North Carolina

13,9551,78212,173 0.53.7North Dakota

603327 8.97.3Ohio

4,2581,0923,166 0.41.0Oklahoma

1,525586939 0.91.5

Oregon

1,249324925 3.08.7

Pennsylvania

1,1321,754-622 0.7-0.2Rhode Island

582708-126 9.4-1.7South Carolina

4,5307413,789 0.31.4South Dakota

-725-32 6.0-7.7Tennessee

3,3937102,683 0.31.3Texas

3,4194,285-866 0.8-0.2Utah

780114666 4.325.2Vermont

15621135 5.938.2

Virginia9,3711,8477,524 0.93.5

Washington2,2451,0611,184 4.14.5

West Virginia

136157-21 0.9-0.1Wisconsin

8,5753788,197 0.510.6

Wyoming

-7231-103 4.9-16.2

* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.

;:

Table I: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Non-poverty Blacks·





Alabama

-4,7913,826-8,617 0.7-1.5Alaska

78174437 4.80.2Arizona

8,4201,9976,423 2.99.4Arkansas

-6,238977-7,215 05-3.8California

43,22725,66317,564 1.71.2Colorado

4,1783,5%582 4.20.7Connecticut

8,2246,5201,704 3.40.9Delaware


-31,6604,392-36,052 15-12.5Florida

90,18239,40950,773 3.74.8

Georgia

82,08515,28866,797 1.46.2Hawaii

3802,101-1,721 12.1-9.9Idaho

16011347 4.92.0Illinois

-21,9775,603-27,580 05-2.6Indiana

4871,538-1,051 0.6-0.4Iowa

-949359-1,308 1.4-5.1Kansas

4042,624-2,220 3.1-2.6

Kentucky

-3,9892,762-6,751 1.8-4.5Louisiana

-33,6533,093-36,746 0.5-5.8Maine

132307-175 10.5-6.0

Maryland

79,83819,30560,533 2.26.9Massachusetts

12,01911,3306895.70.3

Michigan

-6,6742,886-9,560 0.4-1.2Minnesota

5,6371,2094,428 2.38.6

Mississippi

-14,8791,418-16,297 0.3-3.7Missouri

1,2152,359-1,144 0.7-0.3Montana

-25672-328 6.3-28.9Nebraska

-326828-1,154 2.4-3.3Nevada

8,8541,0417,813 2.015.1

New Hampshire

817306511 6.210.3

New Jersey

21,10019,2451,855 2.60.3New Mexico

-7411,037-1,778 5.6-9.6New York

-15,25992,367-107,626 4.8-5.6North Carolina

28,6199,74718,872 1.02.0North Dakota

-268586-854 26.6-38.8Ohio

-1,8993,903-5,802 0.6-0.8Oklahoma

-3,5812,820-6,401 2.1-4.9

Oregon

1,251306945 1.135

Pennsylvania

-5,2745,183-10,457 0.8-1.5Rhode Island

2,2341,723511 7.12.1South Carolina

5,1454,671474 0.70.1South Dakota

99316-217 16.4-11.3Tennessee

9,4073.0036,404 0.61.4Texas

28,60519,6318,974 1.60.7Utah

41385-344 6.1-5.4Vermont

984949 3.83.8

Virginia

47,83815,01032,828 1.94.2

Washington7,3184,0413,277 4.23.4

West Virginia-3,321152-3,473 05-10.8

Wisconsin137693-556 05-0.4

Wyoming

-47464-538 3.2-26.7


Table J: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Latinos'"





Alabama

2,8422,17966310.432Alaska

4171,381-964 8.9-6.2Arizona

52,73438,02314,711 632.4Arkansas

3,2661,6611,605 9.692California

730,556754,759-24,203 11.3-0.4Colorado

7,29111,363-4,072 3.0-1.1Connecticut

28,58526,2122,373 14.513Delaware


3,8798,128-4,249 27.8-14.5Florida

329,280205,937123,343 14.38.5

Georgia32,50317,02115,482 18.817.1

Hawaii1,6952,700-1,065 4.0-1.5

Idaho3,6894,141-452 93-1.0

Illinois60,06474,820-14,756 9.6-1.9

Indiana6,5843,7952,789 4.53.3

Iowa2,2511,799452 6.71.7

Kansas8,9525,8913,061 7.53.9

Kentucky3,2052,252953 12.553

Louisiana-3,5396,073-9,612 7.3-11.5

Maine1,328511817 8313.3

Maryland30,88521,9068,979 20.28.3

Massachusetts59,66150,2129,449 20.73.9

Michigan8,6197,1251,494 4.30.9

Minnesota7,0992,8624,237 6.710.0

Mississippi

252847-595 6.4-4.5Missouri

5,6063,6711,935 6.83.6Montana

-376520-896 4.9-8.5Nebraska

1,5831,685-102 5.5-0.3Nevada

32,63513,28819,347 12.318.0

New Hampshire2,4921,4561,036 14.410.2

New Jersey

67,47479,301-11,827 12.1-1.8New Mexico

3,0769,366-6,290 1.8-1.2New York

83,621203,543-119,922 10.4-6.1North Carolina

16,8688,8737,995 14.613.1North Dakota

23409-386 10.7-10.1Ohio

8,4157,2711,144 6.21.0Oklahoma

2,7494,933-2,184 6.7-3.0

Oregon

16,35911,0955,264 11.65.5

Pennsylvania30,48922,1578,332 11.44.3

Rhode Island12,3278,6183,709 22.19.5

South Carolina5,5113,0862,425 12.19.5

South Dakota-55252-307 5.5-6.6

Tennessee5,5052,1523,353 7.712.0

Texas119,861190,977-71,116 5.0-1.9

Utah2.9084,467-1,559 6.2-2.2

Vermont726315411 9.011.8

Virginia46,84330,96215,881 22.211.4

Washington31,91417,59714,317 9.88.0

West Virginia

112349-237 4.7-3.2Wisconsin

6,9296,140789 8.11.0

Wyoming-2,431362-2,793 1.6-12.6

* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).

,:, .

Table K: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Poverty Latinos·




StateMigration From~broac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration

Alabama

565462103 12.92.9Alaska

22298-276 17.7-16.4Arizona

24,80818,6436,165 11.83.9Arkansas

1,108374734 8.817.4California

261,439276,479-15,040 20.2-1.1Colorado

5,5554,2421,313 4.915Connecticut

9,6609,6273320.50.1Delaware

722460262 19.110.9District of Columbia

1,6682,011-343 36.4-6.2Florida

87,81964,76623,053 23.985

Georgia

8,4745,6142,860 33.817.2Hawaii

-139375-514 4.3-5.9Idaho

2,5971,963634 15.65.0Illinois

16,46421,471-5,007 14.6-3.4Indiana

1,0981,061378.10.3Iowa

853477376 9.47.4Kansas

1,8791,8621713.10.1

Kentucky

40438123 12.00.7Louisiana

1131,932-1,819 12.9-12.1Maine

63594 8.005

Maryland

5,7154,6931,022 39.68.6Massachusetts

26,14020,5575,583 25.66.9

Michigan

4,3852,5271,858 7.15.2Minnesota

3,6799692,710 9.927.7

Mississippi

186196-10 6.6-0.3Missouri

1,5691,030539 12.16.3Montana

114170-56 5.9-1.9Nebraska

601499102 8.01.6Nevada

8,1794,2833,896 23.721.6

New Hampshire

37828989 23.67.3

New Jersey

14,44920,130-5,681 17.2-4.9New Mexico

5,4054,576829 3.30.6New York

38,35665,160-26,804 11.7-4.8North Carolina

3,3952,1381,257 21.512.6North Dakota

915833 7.14.0Ohio

4,9633,0551,908 11.67.2Oklahoma

1,5171,575-58 8.0-0.3

Oregon

6,6545,2011,453 20.45.7

Pennsylvania

13,48010,2963,184 16.35.0Rhode Island

4,5603,1211,439 29.313.5South Carolina

630631-118.10.0South Dakota

704228 4.22.8Tennessee

909514395 11.38.7Texas

77,38191,186-13,805 7.6-1.1Utah

2,2791,663616 11.24.1Vermont

13838100 10.627.9

Virginia

7,0745,8791,195 39.28.0

Washington

12,6277,9254,702 17.310.3

West Virginia

19614650 8.62.9Wisconsin

3,4982,3231,175 12.66.4

Wyoming

-214149-363 33-8.0


:\ .

Table L: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change

Non-Poverty Latinos'"





Alabama

1,9621,503459 932.9Alaska

168949-781 73-6.0Arizona

27,41318,5108,903 432.1Arkansas

1,878934944 7.67.7California

454,979464,471-9,492 8.9-0.2Colorado

1,6946,516-4,822 2.4-1.7Connecticut

17,80516,0131,792 12.61.4Delaware


1,7665,781-4,015 25.7-17.9Florida

239,784137,343102,441 11.98.9

Georgia21,73610,72811,008 15515.9

Hawaii8822,195-1,313 3.8-2.3

Idaho1,0182,111-1,093 6.8-3.5

Illinois43,25352,242-8,989 8.4-1.5

Indiana4,6642,3092,355 333.4

Iowa1,1281,095335.30.2

Kansas5,5993,4132,186 5.63.6

Kentucky1,1671,333-166 10.9-1.4

Louisiana-4,7733,570-8,343 5.6-13.0

Maine1,063350713 7.114.4

Maryland24,65416,6817,973 17.885

Massachusetts30,79027,8702,920 18.31.9

Michigan3,8584,175-317 3.3-0.3

Minnesota2,9551,5701,385 5.145

Mississippi

-397545-942 5.9-10.1Missouri

3,2032,206997 5.12.3Montana

-459321-780 45-10.9Nebraska

8951,107-212 4.7-0.9Nevada

24,2498,81015,439 10.017.6

New Hampshire2,3151,1301,185 13.313.9

New Jersey

53,21058,037-4,827 11.0-0.9New Mexico

-1,3754,478-5,853 1.2-1.6New York

47,023134,241-87,218 10.0-6.5North Carolina

9.5356,0733,462 13.57.7North Dakota

-188313-501 11.3-18.0Ohio

3,4203,961-541 4.6-0.6Oklahoma

2613,005-2,744 5.9-5.4

Oregon9,3075,6263,681 8.455

Pennsylvania14,32310,4863,837 8.63.2

Rhode Island6,9675,2231,744 19.665

South Carolina3.5252,1651,360 11.17.0

South Dakota-161194-355 5.9-10.7

Tennessee3,4951,3952,100 6.610.0

Texas44,75295,038-50,286 3.7-2.0

Utah4182,702-2,284 4.9-4.2

Vermont301178123 6.74.6

Virginia36,49224,26212,230 20.510.4

Washington18,1749,2618,913 7.27.0

West Virginia-345138-483 2.6-9.3

Wisconsin2,9743,364-390 6.1-0.7

Wyoming-2,022193-2,215 1.1-13.1

* Includes persons age 5 and above In 1990.

\ .

Table M: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Asians·





Alabama

3,9895,354-1,365 265-6.8Alaska

2,6913,250-559 18.6-3.2Arizona

10,87410,25961520.712Arkansas

1,1632,270-1,107 20.3-9.9California

508,818439,38669,432 16.82.6Colorado

6,3199,979-3,660 18.4-6.8Connecticut

11,62710,3431,284 23.22.9Delaware

2,0041,64735720.645District of Columbia

9893,246-2,257 29.9-20.8Florida

36,43225,87710,555 18.575

Georgia

21,82317,7324.091 26.16.0Hawaii

16,21831,872-15,654 5.0-2.5Idaho

3031,337-1,034 15.9-12.3Illinois

37,77352,841-15,068 20.1-5.7Indiana

7,3948,878-1,484 26.4-4.4Iowa

5,2407,011-1,771 32.1-8.1Kansas

4,2187,746-3,528 27.4-12.5

Kentucky3,9224,621-699 29.3-4.4

Louisiana-1,4405,723-7,163 15.8-19.7

Maine1,2311,274-4320.6-0.7

Maryland

28,74126,8821,859 21.115Massachusetts

39,35732,7046,653 25.45.2

Michigan

19,73222,047-2,315 23.7-2.5Minnesota

12,69915,502-2,803 23.5-4.2

Mississippi1,2592,626-1,367 22.5-11.7

Missouri6,2678,769-2,502 24.1-6.9

Montana123913-790 24.4-21.1

Nebraska1,2052,358-1,153 20.9-10.2

Nevada9,7116,0843,627 17.310.3

New Hampshire2,6272,13449326.46.1

New Jersey

70,45956,65913,800 22.95.6New Mexico

1,1082,579-1,471 19.7-11.2New York

123,265150,702-27,437 23.5-4.3North Carolina

14,32512,1002,225 26.24.8North Dakota

240920-680 32.1-23.7Ohio

17,78320,580-2,797 25.0-3.4Oklahoma

2,0537,038-4,985 23.3-16.5

Oregon11,15912,082-92319.4-1.5

Pennsylvania25,31427,546-2,232 22.2-1.8

Rhode Island4,8053,97583025.15.2

South Carolina3,7154,081-366 20.5-1.8

South Dakota264822-558 27.5-18.7

Tennessee7,4286,95347524.71.7

Texas42,01356,897-14,884 19.6-5.1

Utah2,5865,577-2,991 18.9-10.1

Vermont921610311 22.111.3

Virginia

38,12231,9326,190 21.74.2

Washington

38,56934,1884,381 17.62.3

West Virginia

6151,226-611 17.7-8.8Wisconsin

11,92012,366-44627.4-1.0

Wyoming

24499-475 20.0-19.1


\ .

Table N: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Poverty Asians·





Alabama

1,6351,990-355 51.2-9.1Alaska

165470-305 40.1-26.0Arizona

3,7333,29244142.15.6Arkansas

604795-191 44.2-10.6California

124,991108,87416,117 30.245Colorado

2,5703,243-673 39.4-8.2Connecticut

1,3691,626-257 47.3-7.5Delaware

440454-14 58.6-1.8District of Columbia

743869-126 48.2-7.0Florida

6,7506,11363734.43.6

Georgia

2,9463,555-609 46.3-7.9Hawaii

2,1065,809-3,703 11.9-7.6Idaho

377483-106 325-7.1Illinois

8,72311,490-2,767 40.6-9.8Indiana

1,9472,247-300 49.5-6.6Iowa

2,6722,962-290 53.1-5.2Kansas

1,8083,138-1,330 53.9-22.8

Kentucky

1,0871,234-147 49.7-5.9Louisiana

1,0452,168-1,123 22.2-11.5Maine

139267-128 36.9-17.7

Maryland

4,6634,794-131 46.9-1.3Massachusetts

11,4129,4062,006 41.08.8

Michigan

5,8346,098-264 44.4-1.9Minnesota

7,6807,871-191 40.6-1.0

Mississippi

1,1201,0497128.92.0Missouri

3,0263,148-122 48.3-1.9Montana

231368-137 48.3-18.0Nebraska

521734-213 34.7-10.1Nevada

1,7601,278482 36.013.6

New Hampshire

47545520 52.82.3

New Jersey

6,8157,748-933 47.3-5.7New Mexico

193695-502 32.2-23.3New York

31,25134,119-2,868 37.5-3.2North Carolina

3,3752,76361243.19.5North Dakota

250335-85 49.8-12.6Ohio

6,0066,419-413 50.9-3.3Oklahoma

2,2833,102-819 49.7-13.1

Oregon

5,0694,85021941.11.9

Pennsylvania

8,6218,38124038.41.1Rhode Island

1,8761,69118544.14.8South Carolina

90584857 39.72.7South Dakota

116213-97 44.7-20.3Tennessee

1,8271,850-2344.7-0.6Texas

14,11016,451-2,341 36.5-5.2Utah

2.0342,550-516 43.0-8.7Vermont

21915465 39.916.8

Virginia

5,1065,544-438 44.1-35

Washington

10,58710,16542234.01.4

West Virginia

244367-123 36.6-12.3Wisconsin

7,9196,7351,184 40.37.1

Wyoming

24142-118 35.7-29.6


Table 0: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:

Non-poverty Asians·





Alabama

2P372!}77-940 19.2-6.1

Alaska2,6462,714-68 17.0-0.4

Arizona6,7226,509213 16.105

Arkansas4361,300-864 14.4-9.6

California375!}16323,26852,648 14.62.4

Colorado3,3176,467-3,150 14.5-7.1

COMecticut9,1148,147967 21.125

Delaware1,6231,188435 16.76.1

District of Columbia-4362,177-2,613 26.9-32.3

Horida29,29719,18810,109 16.08.4

Georgia

18,12113,5884,533 23.37.8Hawaii

16,05924,927-8,868 4.3-1.5Idaho

-290633-923 9.7-14.2Illinois

27,43639,414-11,978 17.3-5.3Indiana

3!}755,549-1,574 20.8-5.9Iowa

1,6193,206-1,587 21.9-10.8Kansas

1,5893,712-2,123 17.8-10.2

Kentucky

2,3152!}54-639 23.7-5.1Louisiana

-2,6913,301-5,992 13.0-23.5Maine

92190318 17.60.4

Maryland

24,78921,7952,994 18.92.6Massachusetts

21,82120,6991,122 21.31.2

Michigan

13,01915,083-2,064 19.8-2.7MiMesota

4,6437,095-2,452 15.7-5.4

Mississippi

-2421,230-1,472 16.7-20.0Missouri

2,2284,793-2,565 17.2-9.2Montana

-106474-580 17.0-20.8Nebraska

4361,397-961 16.1-11.1Nevada

7,8574,7003,157 15.010.1

New Hampshire

1,8981,496402 22.56.0

New Jersey

63,67047,51416,156 20.97.1New Mexico

8771,810-933 16.9-8.7New York

89,260112,903-23,643 21.1-4.4North Carolina

9,8938,8011,092 23.52.9North Dakota

-133466-599 23.8-30.6Ohio

11,33513,301-1,966 19.8-2.9Oklahoma

-4163,632-4,Q48 15.7-17.5

Oregon4,9946,331-1,337 13.2-2.8

Pennsylvania

14,42217,666-3,244 18.3-3.4Rhode Island

2,2192,098121 19.11.1South Carolina

2,3982!}14-516 17.4-3.1South Dakota

5468-463 20.8-20.6Tennessee

5,0624,634428 20.41.9Texas

26,93238,739-11,807 16.2-4.9Utah

2582,708-2,450 11.8-10.7Vermont

433316117 15.55.7

Virginia

31,90025,6586,242 19.64.8

Washington

27,24022,9064,334 14.32.7

West Virginia

180690-510 12.4-9.1Wisconsin

3,0414,859-1,818 18.4-6.9

Wyoming

-51290-341 14.8-17.5


\ .

william h. frey immigration and internal migration for no. 94-320 · 2017. 6. 22. · william h....

Documents