Backgrounder - Center for Immigration StudiesBackgrounder Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research...

1

Center for Immigration Studies

Where Immigrants LiveAn Examination of State Residency of the

Foreign Born by Country of Origin in 1990 and 2000

By Steven A. Camarota and Nora McArdle

September 2003C

ente

r fo

r Im

mig

rati

on

Stu

die

sBackgrounder

Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, D.C.Nora McArdle was an intern at the Center and is currently a graduate student at Duke University.

During the 1990s, the nation’s immigrantpopulation grew by 11.3 million — fasterthan at any other time in our history. Us-

ing newly released data from the 2000 Census, thisreport examines the changing distribution of thenation’s immigrant population by country of ori-gin at the state level. The findings show that in onesense, today’s immigration is more diverse than everbecause people now arrive from every corner of theworld. In another sense, however, diversity amongthe foreign born has actually declined significantly.One country — Mexico — and one region — Span-ish-speaking Latin America — came to dominateU.S. immigration during the decade. The reportalso found that immigrants from some countriesbecame more spread out in the 1990s, while thedispersion of others changed little.

Among the report’s findings:

• The dramatic growth in the nation’s immigrantpopulation has been accompanied by a signifi-cant decline in diversity. In 1990, immigrantsfrom the top sending country — Mexico —accounted for 22 percent of the total foreignborn. By 2000, Mexican immigrants accountedfor 30 percent of the total.

• In fact, Mexico alone accounted for 43 percentof the growth in the foreign-born populationbetween 1990 and 2000.

• In 39 states the share of the immigrant popula-tion accounted for by the top sending countryincreased. The decline in diversity was most dra-matic in Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia,Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, andAlabama.

• Even those states with little diversity amongimmigrants in 1990 experienced a continueddecline in diversity between 1990 and 2000.In Arizona, for example, immigrants fromMexico grew from 55 percent to 67 percent ofthe foreign born and in Texas, Mexicans increasedfrom 59 to 65 percent of the total.

• Looking at diversity as measured by the share ofimmigrants from just one region of the worldalso shows a significant decline in diversity.Nationally, immigrants from Spanish-speakingLatin American countries increased from 37percent to 46 percent of the total foreign-bornpopulation during the 1990s.

• Immigrants from Spanish-speaking LatinAmerica accounted for more than 60 percent ofthe growth in the foreign-born population na-tionally in the 1990s.

• In 2000, there were 33 states (including theDistrict of Columbia) in which immigrants fromSpanish-speaking Latin American countries were

2


the largest single group. Europeans were the larg-est group in 11 states, East Asian immigrants werethe largest in four states and Canadian immigrantswere the largest in three states.

• Declining diversity was mainly due to very un-even growth in the size of different immigrantgroups. For example, the number of immigrantsfrom Spanish-speaking Latin America increased byseven million and those from East Asia rose by overtwo million. In contrast, the number of immigrantsfrom Europe increased by less than 700,000 andthose from Sub-Saharan Africa increased by about400,000.

• Immigrants from some countries became muchmore dispersed during the decade. For example,the percentage of immigrants from Mexico, theDominican Republic, and El Salvador concentratedin only one state fell significantly during thedecade.

• In contrast, immigrants from Cuba became moreconcentrated, while the share of immigrants fromsuch countries as Iran, Columbia, Jamaica, andHaiti concentrated in one state remained virtuallyunchanged in the 1990s.

This report is based on newly available 2000Census long form data, which was released for publicuse in June of this year.1 One in six households re-ceives the long form questionnaire, which includesquestions on whether someone is an immigrant and inwhat country they were born. This report comparesthe results from the 1990 and 2000 Census long forms.The definitions of “immigrant” and “foreign born” inthis study are the same as that used by the CensusBureau. The foreign born are persons living in theUnited States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. Thisincludes naturalized American citizens, legal perma-nent residents (green card holders), illegal aliens, andthose on long-term temporary visas such as studentsor guest workers. Analysis done by the Census Bureau,INS, and others indicates that seven to eight millionillegal aliens and one million persons on long-term tem-porary visas, such as students and temporary workers,responded to the 2000 Census.

Because all children born in the United Statesto immigrants are by definition natives, the sole rea-

son for the dramatic increase in the immigrant popu-lation at the national level is new immigration. At thestate level, growth in the immigrant population canbe caused both by new immigration from abroad andby the arrival of immigrants from other states. Whilesome immigrants die and others return home, thegranting of permanent residency and the settlement ofhundreds of thousands of illegal aliens greatly exceedsdeaths and out-migration for immigrants from mostcountries.

Immigrant Settlement Across StatesTable 1 (starts on page 7) reports the top 15 countriesof birth for immigrants in 2000 for each state plus theDistrict of Columbia. In each state, the countries areranked based on the top sending nation in 2000. (It isimportant to note that some of the countries that werelower ranked in 1990 are no longer in the top 15 by2000. Conversely, some of the top 15 countries in 2000were not among the top 15 in 1990.) Table 2 (page13) shows the percentage of the total foreign-bornpopulation accounted for by the top sending countryin each state at the start and end of the decade. Thefirst column in Table 2 shows the share of each state’simmigrant population accounted for by the top send-ing country in 2000; the second column shows thetop country’s share in 1990. The third column showsthe percentage point change, and the fourth columnshows the percentage change in the immigrantpopulation’s diversity. (A percentage point change re-flects the increase or decrease in the share of the state’sforeign-born population represented by the top send-ing country. In contrast, the percentage change reportsthe size of the change relative to the level of diversityin 1990. In North Carolina, for example, the top coun-try accounted for 10 percent of the immigrant popu-lation in 1990 and 41 percent in 2000 — a 31 per-centage point increase. But this change also can be ex-pressed as a 295 percent change. A positive percentagepoint or percentage change indicates that there was adecline in the diversity of the state’s immigrantpopulation.

DDDDDecline in Decline in Decline in Decline in Decline in Diviviviviversity Iersity Iersity Iersity Iersity Is s s s s WWWWWidespridespridespridespridespread.ead.ead.ead.ead. Tables 1 and 2show that in most states the top sending country ac-counted for a much larger share of the total in 2000than in 1990. Overall, there were 39 states where di-versity decreased. In 24 of these states the top country

3


grew as a share of the total foreign born by at least 10percentage points. In contrast, there were only 11 statesin which the top country represented a smaller shareof the foreign born in 2000 than in 1990 — that is,where there was an increase in diversity. Of the 11that increased in diversity, there was only one in whichthe top country fell as a share of the total foreign bornby more than 10 percentage points. Thus increases indiversity were relatively rare and modest compared todecreases in diversity.

In many cases the decline was due to the topsending country in 1990 increasing its share of thetotal by 2000. However, in many states the top coun-try changed during the 1990s. In 15 of the 39 stateswhere diversity declined, the top sending countrychanged during the decade. Thus, in some cases therewas a shift in the leading sending country, while inother states there was an acceleration of an already ex-isting pattern. The most dramatic declines in diversitycan be found in Arkansas, North Carolina, Georgia,Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, Nebraska, and Alabama. Buteven in some states that had little diversity in 1990,the situation become more pronounced during thedecade. In Arizona, for example, immigrants fromMexico grew from 55 percent to 67 percent of the for-eign born and in Texas, Mexicans increased from 59 to65 percent of the total. Even in California, a state syn-onymous with immigrant diversity, Mexican immi-grants increased as a share of the total foreign bornfrom 38 to 44 percent.

The decline in diversity among immigrants iswidespread and is not confined to a few states or evenone part of the country. Of the 24 states where the topcountry’s share increased by 10 percentage points ormore, eight are in the South, seven are in the Midwestand nine are in the West. Only the Northeast didn’texperience a significant decline in diversity. But evenin that region, there were only a few states where di-versity actually increased. In New York and New Jer-sey, the states with the largest immigrant populationsin that part of the country, diversity actually declinedslightly in the 1990s.

DDDDDiviviviviversity Dersity Dersity Dersity Dersity Decline and Decline and Decline and Decline and Decline and Differifferifferifferifferential Gential Gential Gential Gential Grrrrrooooowth Rates.wth Rates.wth Rates.wth Rates.wth Rates. Thedecline in diversity reflects the very different rate ofgrowth among immigrant groups. Table 3 (Page 14)reports the growth during the 1990s for the largestsending countries in 2000. The table shows that therate of increase varied significantly by country.2 Forexample, the number of immigrants living in the United

States from Italy, Germany, Ireland, and Greece actu-ally declined during the decade. The number of im-migrants from such countries as Laos, Canada, Portu-gal, and the United Kingdom remained roughly con-stant. In sharp contrast, the number from Mexico andmost countries in the Western Hemisphere increasedsignificantly during the decade. The number of immi-grants from the former Soviet Union, Pakistan, andIndia also increased dramatically during the decade.Immigrant populations from East Asian countries suchas China, the Philippines, and Vietnam also grew verysignificantly, though not as dramatically as the num-bers from the Western Hemisphere or South Asia.Despite very significant growth among countries otherthan Mexico, that country still accounted for 43 per-cent of the total increase in the foreign-born popula-tion. This means that eventually if the trend contin-ues, Mexico will come to account for 43 percent of thetotal foreign born, perhaps within the next 15 years,assuming there is no change in immigration policy.

Different rates of increase reflect many factors:the arrival of new legal immigrants, new illegal immi-gration, rates of return migration, and deaths. For ex-ample, the dramatic decline in the number of Italianimmigrants was due to low levels of new immigrationfrom that country, coupled with very high death ratesamong the group because so many are long time resi-dents and are now quite old. America’s immigrationpolicy is primarily based on family relationships, there-fore those groups that had the most young immigrantsin 1990, who might want to bring in their relatives,tended to send the most immigrants in the 1990s.

MMMMMexico exico exico exico exico TTTTTop Sop Sop Sop Sop Sending Countrending Countrending Countrending Countrending Country in My in My in My in My in Most Sost Sost Sost Sost States.tates.tates.tates.tates. Table 2shows the top sending country for each state (the sameinformation can be found in Table 1). Nationally,Mexican immigrants increased their share of the for-eign-born population from 22 percent of the total in1990 to 30 percent by 2000. This continues a long-term trend: In 1980 Mexico, already the leading send-ing country, accounted for 16 percent of the foreign-born population. The trend of declining diversity goesback even farther; in 1970 the top sending countrywas Italy, and it represented only 10 percent of theforeign born. At the state level, Mexico was the largestsending country in 18 states in 1990; by 2000 it wasthe top sending country in 30 states. Table 2 showsthat in most places where it was not the leading coun-try in 1990 but became so during the decade, it dis-placed Germany as the top sending country. The Mexi-

4


can immigrant population is growing so rapidly be-cause it is not only the leading sending country forlegal immigration, but also because of the enormousgrowth in illegal immigration from that country. TheImmigration and Nationalization Service (INS), be-fore it was absorbed into the Department of Home-land Security, estimated that the illegal alien popula-tion from Mexico grew by nearly 2.8 million between1990 and 2000, accounting for 80 percent of the totalincrease in the illegal population.3 In fact, the INSestimates indicate that in 2000 roughly half of theMexican-born population in the United States was il-legal. Because Mexico dominates both legal and illegalimmigration to the United States, it represents a largeand rapidly growing share of the total foreign-bornpopulation.

While mostly related to immigration fromMexico, the decline in diversity was not only associ-ated with that country. In Alaska, for example, Fili-pino immigrants went from 21 to 28 percent of thetotal and in Hawaii they went from 45 to 49 percentof the total. In Montana, immigrants from Canada wentfrom 29 to 40 percent of the total and in New York,Dominican immigrants went from 8 to 11 percent ofthe total foreign born. While some of these declines indiversity are not very large, it does suggest that declin-ing diversity can occur even in the absence of large-scale immigration from Mexico.

Diversity Based on Region of Origin. Diversity Based on Region of Origin. Diversity Based on Region of Origin. Diversity Based on Region of Origin. Diversity Based on Region of Origin. Diversity amongthe foreign-born can be measured in many ways. Whiletables 1 and 2 examined diversity by country, Table 4(page 15) shows the growth in the immigrant popula-tion at the national level based on the region of theworld from which they came. The table attempts tocategorize immigrants by region in a way that reflectsthe cultural or linguistic similarities between immi-grants from different countries. The Census Bureautypically groups countries only by the continent fromwhich they came. For example, immigrants from Tur-key, India, and China are all grouped together by theBureau as simply “Asian,” even though these countriesshare little in common. In contrast, Table 4 dividesAsia into East Asia, South Asia, and the Middle East(the Middle East includes North Africa). Moreover,instead of treating all immigrants from the WesternHemisphere, except Canada, as “Latin American,” asthe Census Bureau does, Table 4 groups the SpanishSpeaking countries of the Western Hemisphere intoone group. The Anglophone, Francophone, and

Lusophone countries of the region are grouped togetheras a separate region and Canada is treated as its ownregion. Africa is also divided between the north, whichis part of the Middle East, and the Sub-Saharan re-gion. Grouping countries in this way provides a moreaccurate picture of immigrants by region of the world,allowing for more meaningful comparisons betweenimmigrant groups than is possible if they were simplycategorized by continent.

Measuring diversity by region of birth revealsa similar picture to that found in Tables 1 and 2. Al-though about 5 percent of immigrants did not indi-cate their country of birth in 1990, compared to about1 percent in 2000, it is unlikely this would signifi-cantly change the results in Table 4. The results forrace and Hispanicity for those immigrants that did notprovide their country of birth indicate that their dis-tribution across regions is very similar to those immi-grants who did report where they were born.

Table 4 shows very different growth rates forimmigrants by region of the world. For example, thenumber immigrants from Spanish-speaking LatinAmerica increased by nearly seven million and thenumber from East Asia rose by over two million. Incontrast, the number from Europe increased by lessthan 700,000 and the number from Sub-Saharan Af-rica increased by fewer than 400,000. Table 5 (Page16) reports the top sending region in each state in 2000and 1990. The table indicates that in 2000, Spanish-speaking countries from Latin America were the top-sending countries in 33 states, up from 12 states in1990. In 11 of the 12 states where Spanish-speakingimmigrants were already the largest group in 1990,they increased their share of the foreign born. In addi-tion, in 21 other states immigrants from Spanish-speak-ing Latin America displaced another part of the worldas the leading sending region. While in general statesthat declined in diversity went from having Europe asthe top-sending region to Latin America, this was nottrue in every state. In Oklahoma, Georgia, Oregon,and Tennessee, East Asia was the leading sending re-gion in 1990, but by 2000 Spanish-speaking LatinAmerica was the leader.

WWWWWays to Mays to Mays to Mays to Mays to Measureasureasureasureasure De De De De Diviviviviversityersityersityersityersity..... Of course, there are limitsto how well the regions used in Tables 4 and 5 actuallymeasure diversity. The countries of some regions mayshare more in common with each other than those inother regions. For example, while Europe is a region ofgreat linguistic, religious, and economic diversity, the

5


Middle East has less religious diversity, though it isstill diverse in other ways. This may be especially truefor those individuals who actually emigrate to theUnited States. While there are certainly differencesbetween Latin American countries, Spanish-speakingLatin America is probably the most homogenous ofthe world’s regions as defined here. Despite differenceswithin regions, Tables 4 and 5 suggest that when im-migrants are grouped into regions, there has been adecline in diversity at least when measured by the sharerepresented by the top sending region. This declinetook place both at the national level and in many states.

Immigrants by StateSo far we have only examined the settlement of immi-grants by state, Tables 6, 7, and 8 look at this questionfrom the other direction. Tables 6 and 7 (pages 17 and20) show the top seven states of settlement for the 100largest countries in 1990 and 2000. Table 8 (page 23)reports the share of immigrants from the 40 largestcountries living in only one state. Examining immi-gration in this way is important because it creates abetter understanding of the distribution of immigrantgroups across the United States, and how this changedin the 1990s.

Concentrations bConcentrations bConcentrations bConcentrations bConcentrations by Country Country Country Country Countryyyyy..... The tables show greatvariation between immigrant groups. Of the countrieslisted in Table 8, there were 11 in which 20 percent orless lived in one state in 2000. Immigrants from thesecountries are spread throughout the United States.Among the most diffuse immigrants are those fromGermany, Nigeria, Canada, the former Yugoslavia, In-dia, Peru, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Of course,not all immigrants exhibit defuse settlement; there were14 nations in which more than 40 percent of the im-migrants lived in just one state. Those from Cuba,Guyana, the Dominican Republic, Iran, Trinidad &Tobago, Philippines, El Salvador, Ecuador, Guatemala,and Mexico tend to be the most concentrated. In gen-eral, European and South Asian immigrants tend tobe the most dispersed, while those from the WesternHemisphere tend to be the most concentrated. Thosefrom East Asia tend to fall in the middle of thedistribution.

Changing Concentrations in the 1990s.Changing Concentrations in the 1990s.Changing Concentrations in the 1990s.Changing Concentrations in the 1990s.Changing Concentrations in the 1990s. In terms ofthe changing distribution of immigrants by countryduring the 1990s, we also see great variation between

countries. In Table 8, about half of the countries be-came more dispersed during the decade, while the con-centration of the other half remained about the same.The largest increase in dispersion was among immi-grants from Guatemala, Mexico, Cambodia, El Salva-dor, the Dominican Republic, and Laos. Most of thecountries that became more evenly spread out acrossthe country were those that tended to be the mostconcentrated in 1990. Thus, it should not be too muchof a surprise that these highly concentrated immigrantgroups tended to become more dispersed over the last10 years. Even so, many of these countries remainamong the more concentrated in 2000, despite an in-crease in dispersion.

Table 8 also shows that not all immigrantsbecame more dispersed. Immigrants from Cuba, Po-land, and Brazil actually became somewhat more con-centrated between 1990 and 2000. In general immi-grants did become more dispersed over the last tenyears, but this was by no means a universal trend amongall immigrant groups.

ConclusionUsing the newly released 2000 Census data, this re-port has examined the changing settlement patterns ofimmigrants across America. The data show that alongwith a historically unprecedented increase in the num-ber of immigrants, there has been a significant declinein the diversity of the nation’s foreign-born popula-tion. The decline in diversity occurred not only at thenational level, but also in many states. Most states sawthe leading sending country increase its share of thetotal foreign born during the 1990s. When immigrantsare grouped by the region of the world from whichthey came, the same general pattern exists. Mexico,specifically, and Spanish-speaking Latin Americancountries in general now comprise a larger percentageof the foreign born than any other country or region ofthe world.

Of course, diversity could be defined in otherways. Race or language diversity are other possible waysof examining the issue. But these variables are highlycorrelated with country and region of origin so the re-sults are likely to be very similar. It is unlikely thereexists one best way to examine diversity among immi-grants. The data show that the top sending countryand region increased their share of the total foreignborn nationally and in many states over the last de-cade. This decline in diversity was the result of very

6


different rates of growth among immigrant groups.There is also the question of the starting point

for any comparison. While we compare 1990 to 2000,we could have compared 1980 to 2000. This does notmean the decline in diversity would necessarily be anyless dramatic. For example, Mexico, the top sendingcountry in 1980, increased it share of the total from16 percent in that year to 22 percent by 1990 and 30percent in 2000. In 1970 the top sending country —Italy — accounted for only 10 percent of the foreignborn. Thus there is 30-year decline in diversity, at leastas measured by the share represented by one country.It also should be pointed out that when mass immi-gration was beginning in the mid-nineteenth century,Ireland accounted for an even larger share of the for-eign born than Mexico does today. However, Ireland’sstanding as the top country was temporary and transi-tory. It was soon replaced by the nations that becameGermany, though it probably makes more sense to see“Germany” as a cultural-linguistic collection of coun-tries through much of this period, the way Spanish-speaking Latin America is today. Germany was laterdisplaced by Italy. For at least the last 120 years, nocountry has accounted for such a large share of theforeign born as Mexico does today.

We also examined the changing settlementpatterns of immigrants by country and found signifi-cant variations between countries. While immigrantsfrom some countries tend to be very concentrated, thosefrom other countries tend to be very dispersed. In gen-eral, European and South Asian immigrants tend tobe the most dispersed, while those from Spanish-speak-ing Latin America tend to be the most concentrated.We also found that those countries that were the mostconcentrated in 1990 tended to exhibit the largest rela-tive increase in dispersion, though they often remainedamong the most concentrated even in 2000. However,increasing dispersion was not a universal trend; the

concentration of immigrants from many countrieschanged little or not at all during the decade.

What of the costs or benefits of the decliningdiversity or the changing distribution of immigrantsby country across the United States? It seems reason-able to assume that the changing nature of immigra-tion must have some implications for American soci-ety. While outside of the scope of this study, the mostserious potential problem associated with a larger andless diverse immigrant population is that it may hinderthe assimilation and integration of immigrants by cre-ating the critical mass necessary to foster linguistic andspatial isolation. In contrast, a more diverse immigrantpopulation may increase incentives to learn English orbecome familiar with American cultural more gener-ally. The English language and American culture arethe means by which diverse groups communicate witheach other and the larger society. But if one group domi-nates in an area, then this could fundamentally reducethe need to Americanize.

On the other hand, there may be benefits toless diversity among immigrants. For example, if mostimmigrants in a state come from one cultural-linguis-tic group, then providing welfare or other governmentservices may be easier for government agencies becausethey will only have to sensitize themselves to the needsof one immigrant community in order to deliver ser-vices. In addition, natives might find it easer to live inareas of heavy immigrant settlement if there is onedominant group because they will only have to learnto become familiar with one culture. For example, anAmerican may only have to learn one foreign languagerather than several in order to be employable.

It must be pointed out that this report doesnot address the costs or benefits created by the chang-ing patterns of immigrant settlement. What it doesprovide is an detailed description of an importantchange taking place in American society.

Endnotes1 The 1 percent census data for 1990 and 2000 wereprovided by the University of Minnesota. StevenRuggles and Matthew Sobek et al. Integrated PublicUse Microdata Series: Version 3.0 Minneapolis:Historical Census Projects, University of Minnesota,2003. www.ipums.org

2 The public use file of the 1990 Census shows that amuch larger share of the foreign born population didnot record a country than in the 2000 Census. Whilethis does not have a large impact on the overall results,it may affect the results for small countries.

3 The entire INS report, including figures for Mexico,can be found at www.immigration.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/Ill_Report_1211.pdf

7


Table 1. Leading Immigrant-Sending Countries by State (1990 and 2000)

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not exactly match published numbers in every case because public use data files are slightly different from those used by theCensus Bureau.

Alaska

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. Germany4. United Kingdom5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Philippines7. Vietnam8. India9. Korea10. Former USSR11. Guatemala12. Former Yugoslavia13. Italy14. Japan15. El Salvador

2002

649,127

435,00128,21815,98015,61511,40811,299

8,4708,4578,0256,4585,7595,3025,1394,4344,254

1990

274,424

150,60615,33210,928

9,2976,1524,7324,3263,4314,1541,8731,6991,2524,0342,7931,617

Growth

374,703

284,39512,886

5,0526,3185,2566,5674,1445,0263,8714,5854,0604,0501,1051,6412,637

ArizonaAlaska

Total FB Pop.

1. Philippines2. Korea3. Mexico4. Canada5. Laos6. Former USSR7. Germany8. Vietnam9. Thailand10. Romania11. Japan12. Haiti13. El Salvador14. Panama15. Peru

2000

33,813

9,5553,7573,1062,9931,7881,065

823758738644623578503481460

1990

22,789

4,7732,6761,2812,4521,710

1271,668

225318

231,171

112361

130

Growth

11,024

4,7821,0811,825

54178

938-845533420621

-548567480420330

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. El Salvador3. Germany4. Vietnam5. Marshall Islands6. United Kingdom7. Philippines8. China/HK/Taiwan9. Mongolia10. India11. Former USSR12. Guatemala13. Laos14. Japan15. Korea

2000

74,054

31,4226,4523,4052,8612,6042,2922,0981,7111,5161,4021,3821,3221,2491,2281,167

1990

25,005

2,931246

2,6881,349

2502,002

698695n/a572134143

1,555745538

Growth

49,049

28,4916,206

7171,5122,354

2901,4001,0161,516

8301,2481,179

-306483629

Arkansas

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Philippines3. China/HK/Taiwan4. Vietnam5. El Salvador6. Korea7. Guatemala8. India9. Former USSR10. Iran11. Canada12. United Kingdom13. Japan14. Germany15. Nicaragua

2000

8,817,243

3,889,695670,560556,283408,581375,356269,346205,885197,918181,800160,456135,135131,648111,453

92,48170,001

1990

6,417,052

2,434,652484,277382,992267,883279,010197,000135,284

85,05484,739

117,184150,084135,995

97,238105,413

6,426

Growth

2,400,191

1,455,043186,283173,291140,698

96,34672,34670,601

112,86497,06143,272

-14,949-4,34714,215

-12,93263,575

California

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. Canada4. United Kingdom5. Vietnam6. Korea7. Former USSR8. India9. China/HK/Taiwan10. El Salvador11. Japan12. Philippines13. Italy14. Poland15. Laos

2000

380,841

192,42720,48515,41512,32511,63511,59410,111

9,2858,5866,0545,1414,3163,3483,2903,209

1990

139,890

32,71214,358

8,3557,9865,5117,4314,4671,7914,863

7143,4233,2551,7762,3342,082

Growth

240,951

159,7156,1277,0604,3396,1244,1635,6447,4943,7235,3401,7181,0611,572

9561,127

Colorado

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. India4. China/HK/Taiwan5. Vietnam6. Guatemala7. United Kingdom8. Korea9. Canada10. Former USSR11. Philippines12. Italy13. Nigeria14. Thailand15. Kenya

2000

88,118

27,1037,1774,5894,2523,3643,1633,1522,8842,4132,2892,1951,7381,4261,2351,048

1990

42,141

1,1555,4512,1912,5732,283

902,6452,3392,425

1901,212

404639588

48

Growth

45,977

25,9481,7262,3981,6791,0813,073

507545-12

2,099983

1,334787647

1,000

Alabama

(Table 1 continues through page 12)

8


Total FB Pop.

1. Poland2. Jamaica3. Italy4. Canada5. United Kingdom6. India7. Portugal8. Colombia9. Mexico10. Germany11. China/HK/Taiwan12. Former USSR13. Brazil14. Ecuador15. Guatemala

2000

375,006

29,86128,75726,44320,72016,19015,72214,82113,22212,99412,51311,40611,09210,72610,127

7,414

1990

277,449

20,91616,32834,97321,98716,737

6,95614,082

5,3962,720

13,9765,9088,4303,3532,3441,244

Growth

97,557

8,94512,429-8,530-1,267

-5478,766

7397,826

10,274-1,4635,4982,6627,3737,7836,170

Connecticut

Total FB Pop.

1. El Salvador2. China/HK/Taiwan3. United Kingdom4. Jamaica5. Dominican Rep.6. Ethiopia7. Mexico8. Nigeria9. Guatemala10. Germany11. France12. Guyana13. Honduras14. Trinidad & Tobago15. Vietnam

2000

70,659

13,2142,8082,6122,4092,3682,2732,1771,8151,7881,5801,4991,4511,3331,3301,330

1990

58,425

9,4271,9112,2933,0451,1251,769

7751,1851,1391,7051,0831,015

2161,547

548

Growth

12,234

3,787897319

-6361,243

5041,402

630649

-125416436

1,333-217782

District of Columbia

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. India3. China/HK/Taiwan4. Guatemala5. Germany6. United Kingdom7. Former USSR8. Philippines9. Haiti10. Korea11. Bangladesh12. Canada13. Pakistan14. Poland15. Italy

2000

41,839

8,0533,7562,8092,7922,7542,0701,9571,3981,3681,1091,108

979893878862

1990

21,370

1,0191,2461,541

321,4702,357

510724

85751n/a932183664

1,188

Growth

20,469

7,0342,5101,2682,7601,284

-2871,447

6741,283

3581,108

47710214

-326

Delaware

Total FB Pop.

1. Cuba2. Mexico3. Haiti4. Colombia5. Jamaica6. Canada7. Nicaragua8. United Kingdom9. Dominican Rep.10. Germany11. Honduras12. Peru13. Venezuela14. Philippines15. Brazil

2000

2,640,882

652,660189,819166,778157,307127,591100,922

98,02173,02969,44964,40950,59949,91947,64645,64243,082

1990

1,656,429

495,84954,41481,83765,06676,85376,51772,01760,52323,55655,62822,06922,66114,48123,457

8,682

Growth

984,453

156,811135,405

84,94192,24150,73824,40526,00412,50645,893

8,78128,53027,25833,16522,18534,400

Florida

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. India4. Korea5. Germany6. China/HK/Taiwan7. Canada8. United Kingdom9. El Salvador10. Guatemala11. Jamaica12. Colombia13. Philippines14. Pakistan15. Nigeria

2000

573,255

196,01132,81125,08422,62422,52018,60517,14115,38213,84912,35411,845

9,6649,5246,5636,492

1990

172,040

19,7485,1297,600

11,18113,494

7,7047,279

10,5721,4531,0433,4542,0044,6141,7753,538

Growth

401,215

176,26327,68217,48411,443

9,02610,901

9,8624,810

12,39611,311

8,3917,6604,9104,7882,954

Georgia

Total FB Pop.

1. Philippines2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Japan4. Korea5. Vietnam6. Micronesia7. Western Samoa8. Canada9. Germany10. Tonga11. United Kingdom12. Thailand13. Mexico14. Sweden15. Marshall Islands

2000

213,762

104,86223,08619,84016,450

6,5515,1874,8104,4543,9953,4061,6221,4351,2931,1871,151

1990

165,072

74,95716,14118,38913,054

5,717902

2,6684,2372,5091,7761,8511,2211,443

276451

Growth

48,690

29,9056,9451,4513,396

8344,2852,142

2171,4861,630

-229214

-150911700

Hawaii

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. Korea4. Canada5. India6. Former USSR7. United Kingdom8. China/HK/Taiwan9. Former Yugoslavia10. Philippines11. Vietnam12. Japan13. Poland14. Honduras15. El Salvador

2000

194,992

61,33611,921

7,9977,9797,7537,5847,3106,9776,3915,6474,0994,0303,8322,8922,767

1990

96,909

10,4339,2213,5555,8054,6522,9116,2104,7303,2813,0871,7813,6442,973

186240

Growth

98,083

50,9032,7004,4422,1743,1014,6731,1002,2473,1102,5602,318

386859

2,8922,767

Indiana

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Poland3. India4. Philippines5. Former USSR6. China/HK/Taiwan7. Korea8. Former Yugoslavia9. Germany10. Italy11. Guatemala12. Pakistan13. Canada14. United Kingdom15. Greece

2000

1,531,231

609,068139,729

86,24267,840

56,27450,38337,78735,25833,88225,25922,35521,89320,34820,32917,708

1990

939,684

274,47683,57438,23547,37026,98229,98528,81820,56541,59234,36811,163

7,67417,09421,96019,920

Growth

591,547

334,59256,15548,00720,47029,29220,398

8,96914,693-7,710-9,10911,19214,219

3,254-1,631-2,212

Illinois

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. Former Yugoslavia4. Germany5. Former USSR6. Philippines7. China/HK/Taiwan8. Vietnam9. United Kingdom10. Sudan11. India12. Japan13. Switzerland14. Korea15. Romania

2000

65,150

37,2044,4902,2902,2361,4371,4191,2831,2821,2781,1361,091

974868806780

1990

28,376

11,7163,452

841,656

452456920192852n/a32

72088

37664

Growth

36,774

25,4881,0382,206

580985963363

1,090426

1,1361,059

254780430716

Idaho

9


Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. India4. Former Yugoslavia5. Korea6. Germany7. Former USSR8. Canada9. China/HK/Taiwan10. El Salvador11. United Kingdom12. Cambodia13. Laos14. Philippines15. Guatemala

2000

85,847

19,9877,7705,4295,3955,0364,3734,3683,4443,1662,1802,0751,9851,9451,9011,512

1990

44,819

3,7472,6632,221

1362,4364,7553,7472,6992,828

5652,111

5183,095

849159

Growth

41,028

16,2405,1073,2085,2592,600

-382621745338

1,615-36

1,4671,1501,0521,353

Iowa

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. India4. United Kingdom5. Former Yugoslavia6. Korea7. China/HK/Taiwan8. Canada9. Cuba10. Vietnam11. Japan12. Philippines13. Former USSR14. France15. Bangladesh

2000

79,796

13,5776,7075,1484,4354,2764,0403,3833,2843,0232,7242,2891,9021,7751,1411,127

1990

32,559

8035,2591,3512,356

1482,1291,4961,984

588973

1,552831633396n/a

Growth

47,237

12,7741,4483,7972,0794,1281,9111,8871,3002,4351,751

7371,0711,142

7451,127

Kentucky

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. Germany4. India5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Philippines7. Canada8. Laos9. Korea10. United Kingdom11. El Salvador12. Former USSR13. Pakistan14. Japan15. Iran

2000

138,845

64,8968,5185,9155,4794,7854,7624,6004,2843,2843,0282,5772,5041,3731,3321,262

1990

61,562

14,7604,3974,9752,5843,1001,3782,5292,1852,7862,889

4521,430

4091,272

651

Growth

77,283

50,1364,121

9402,8951,6853,3842,0712,099

498139

2,1251,074

96460

611

Kansas

Total FB Pop.

1. Vietnam2. Honduras3. Mexico4. India5. Nicaragua6. Germany7. Cuba8. United Kingdom9. Canada10. Philippines11. China/HK/Taiwan12. El Salvador13. France14. Nigeria15. Former Yugoslavia

2000

110,708

16,9959,3177,3946,3755,9185,3664,8114,2283,6013,5703,2912,3181,9271,8801,630

1990

85,425

10,8847,2213,3693,4833,3784,1224,6113,4382,5202,5203,7291,0471,326

798426

Growth

25,283

6,1112,0964,0252,8922,5401,244

200790

1,0811,050

-4381,271

6011,0821,204

Louisiana

Total FB Pop.

1. Canada2. Germany3. United Kingdom4. Former Yugoslavia5. Former USSR6. Cambodia7. Korea8. Vietnam9. Philippines10. Spain11. South Africa12. Japan13. India14. Afghanistan15. Iran

2000

38,808

15,1492,7142,4652,0321,9681,0491,020

962919852679655655568481

1990

36,842

18,7842,3963,109

163273417313577866106

62492330

36 n/a

Growth

1,966

-3,635318

-6441,8691,695

632707385

53746617163325532481

Maine

Total FB Pop.

1. El Salvador2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Korea4. India5. Philippines6. Former USSR7. Jamaica8. Mexico9. Vietnam10. United Kingdom11. Germany12. Nigeria13. Trinidad & Tobago14. Iran15. Guatemala

2000

531,359

37,98034,16631,25428,08823,27621,34820,80419,79716,15916,13515,56614,52812,46611,73410,212

1990

308,706

13,86518,27720,40917,54712,473

8,80011,875

3,9397,376

12,53615,881

5,3066,7107,1253,340

Growth

222,653

24,11515,88910,84510,54110,80312,548

8,92915,858

8,7833,599

-3159,2225,7564,6096,872

Maryland

Total FB Pop.

1. Portugal2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Dominican Rep.4. Brazil5. Former USSR6. Canada7. Haiti8. Vietnam9. Italy10. India11. United Kingdom12. El Salvador13. Ireland14. Germany15. Colombia

2000

772,653

75,38253,49541,55138,56638,56138,04333,64031,80530,20826,79025,65821,10317,91814,71214,628

1990

573,040

72,01531,04719,04410,83019,02652,91018,71613,02138,41311,81527,217

6,90920,76413,894

6,492

Growth

199,613

3,36722,44822,50727,73619,535

-14,86714,92418,784-8,20514,975-1,55914,194-2,846

8188,136

Massachusetts

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. India4. Iraq5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Germany7. United Kingdom8. Lebanon9. Former Yugoslavia10. Korea11. Italy12. Poland13. Former USSR14. Philippines15. Vietnam

2000

526,459

62,28953,70439,47027,17624,30723,68520,92117,07217,01717,00416,51716,29615,21812,41210,053

1990

352,312

13,15153,80713,01313,99410,53623,99524,13111,04110,838

8,31918,47519,15610,567

9,6325,053

Growth

174,147

49,138-103

26,45713,18213,771

-310-3,2106,0316,1798,685

-1,958-2,8604,6512,7805,000

Michigan

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Laos3. Vietnam4. Korea5. Former USSR6. Canada7. Thailand8. India9. China/HK/Taiwan10. Philippines11. Somalia12. Germany13. Nigeria14. United Kingdom15. Ethiopia

2000

261,030

45,55726,28113,40613,31211,82610,39910,229

8,9688,4878,1567,9955,6755,5234,5304,435

1990

115,097

3,83315,153

6,7763,9264,393

10,4073,6662,7874,5713,410

n/a8,075

7814,7301,082

Growth

145,933

41,72411,128

6,6309,3867,433

-86,5636,1813,9164,7467,995

-2,4004,742

-2003,353

Minnesota

10


Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. Germany4. China/HK/Taiwan5. Korea6. United Kingdom7. Canada8. India9. Philippines10. Honduras11. Cuba12. Thailand13. Colombia14. Nicaragua15. Ireland

2000

40,134

8,4013,3862,6312,4812,3662,2291,9981,7991,5361,3501,148

706695590516

1990

20,997

7291,9951,9921,179

7472,0581,3561,3741,113

165249153

2781

306

Growth

19,137

7,6721,391

6391,3021,619

171642425423

1,185899553668509210

Mississippi

Total FB Pop.

1. Canada2. United Kingdom3. Germany4. El Salvador5. France6. Mexico7. Netherlands8. Sweden9. Malaysia10. Korea11. Philippines12. China/HK/Taiwan13. Singapore14. Poland15. Norway

2000

14,607

5,7801,248

798571506505483414413389344252252230206

1990

13,724

4,0091,0411,333

n/a116225169447

7326369448n/a244397

Growth

883

1,771207

-535571390280314-33406

63-25

-196252-14

-191

Montana

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Vietnam4. Germany5. India6. Former Yugoslavia7. Canada8. Philippines9. Former USSR10. United Kingdom11. Korea12. Italy13. Iran14. Japan15. Haiti

2000

151,108

30,5739,4768,1648,0387,5986,8586,5026,2965,5495,1474,9572,5372,1302,0112,006

1990

82,769

4,6424,8573,9608,7792,6641,5184,1443,6382,5615,1833,4892,6731,3072,383

237

Growth

68,339

25,9314,6194,204

-7414,9345,3402,3582,6582,988

-361,468

-136823

-3721,769

Missouri

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. Germany4. Guatemala5. Former USSR6. China/HK/Taiwan7. Korea8. India9. El Salvador10. Canada11. Former Yugoslavia12. United Kingdom13. Iraq14. Philippines15. Honduras

2000

75,702

28,9966,0763,2413,2172,9632,7102,3661,9621,7331,6891,4831,4621,3681,109

812

1990

26,294

3,893689

2,431n/a

2,0031,391

9201,022

237982109

1,84038

890204

Growth

49,408

25,1035,387

8103,217

9601,3191,446

9401,496

7071,374

-3781,330

219608

Nebraska

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Philippines3. El Salvador4. Canada5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Korea7. Cuba8. United Kingdom9. Germany10. Guatemala11. Vietnam12. Japan13. Thailand14. Nicaragua15. Argentina

2,000

305,573

142,68533,04612,24311,845

8,8457,5517,2067,1686,0235,5074,3734,3162,7382,6442,467

1990

103,962

32,1807,3392,9966,7443,4933,2044,4005,1384,6541,0692,8361,7151,6061,113

561

Growth

201,611

110,50525,707

9,2475,1015,3524,3472,8062,0301,3694,4381,5372,6011,1321,5311,906

Nevada

Total FB Pop.

1. Canada2. Dominican Rep.3. United Kingdom4. India5. Germany6. China/HK/Taiwan7. Former Yugoslavia8. Colombia9. Brazil10. Korea11. Vietnam12. Greece13. Philippines14. Italy15. Former USSR

2000

53,135

12,3213,4543,1402,9732,6232,3752,2622,2322,0571,9561,3291,1401,0711,0551,001

1990

40,182

12,859637

3,8511,1932,9561,042

43409157770104

1,275491802503

Growth

12,953

-5382,817

-7111,780

-3331,3332,2191,8231,9001,1861,225

-135580

253498

New Hampshire

Total FB Pop.

1. India2. Dominican Rep.3. Colombia4. China/HK/Taiwan5. Philippines6. Mexico7. Poland8. Italy9. Cuba10. Korea11. Former USSR12. Peru13. Ecuador14. Portugal15. Germany

2000

1,481,157

117,687106,120

79,90271,03570,67064,61459,18258,69952,51550,09247,68743,43643,22435,27334,154

1990

959,127

52,67235,17940,35434,32838,04312,67939,44169,44961,28027,94923,19219,91120,18634,59843,421

Growth

522,030

65,01570,94139,54836,70732,62751,93519,741

-10,750-8,76522,14324,49523,52523,038

675-9,267

New Jersey

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. Germany4. United Kingdom5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Philippines7. India8. Vietnam9. Switzerland10. Japan11. Guatemala12. Korea13. Former USSR14. Italy15. Former Yugoslavia

2000

146,347

103,1534,7493,9713,8172,3232,3002,0361,6791,4061,3881,3241,1931,1601,1011,099

1990

78,669

48,4142,3343,4563,1711,110

891789945114

1,101852

1,032300741

63

Growth

67,678

54,7392,415

515646

1,2131,4091,247

7341,292

287472161860360

1,036

New Mexico

Total FB Pop.

1. Dominican Rep.2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Former USSR4. Jamaica5. Mexico6. Italy7. Guyana8. Ecuador9. Haiti10. India11. Colombia12. Poland13. Trinidad & Tobago14. Korea15. Philippines

2000

3,804,431

415,026292,717233,724214,993170,386147,372130,154127,451123,737117,889112,484

97,64397,07391,56874,061

1990

2,822,756

235,790188,985103,938143,298

43,570189,759

76,53665,67885,08669,12983,57089,13663,22671,38949,275

Growth

981,675

179,236103,732129,786

71,695126,816-42,38753,61861,77338,65148,76028,914

8,50733,84720,17924,786

New York

11


Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. Vietnam4. China/HK/Taiwan5. United Kingdom6. India7. Canada8. Korea9. El Salvador10. Philippines11. Former USSR12. Laos13. Honduras14. Guatemala15. Japan

2000

436,513

179,23618,55816,08314,77714,70614,34312,72811,14610,388

7,9556,9166,4566,3205,4664,773

1990

115,380

8,75111,994

3,9755,5628,3885,8566,8555,304

9063,492

7471,524

315270

4,044

Growth

321,133

170,4856,564

12,1089,2156,3188,4875,8735,8429,4824,4636,1694,9326,0055,196

729

North Carolina

Total FB Pop.

1. India2. Mexico3. Germany4. China/HK/Taiwan5. Former USSR6. Canada7. Former Yugoslavia8. United Kingdom9. Korea10. Italy11. Philippines12. Vietnam13. Japan14. Romania15. Poland

2000

339,645

26,07223,21621,56621,16120,83418,91115,56814,05212,16411,08210,394

9,0708,8877,7117,173

1990

255,129

12,0094,293

24,51810,67010,75215,04215,25718,104

6,56618,275

6,6003,2837,2484,9198,575

Growth

84,516

14,06318,923-2,95210,49110,082

3,869311

-4,0525,598

-7,1933,7945,7871,6392,792

-1,402

Ohio

Total FB Pop.

1. Canada2. Somalia3. India4. Vietnam5. Kenya6. Germany7. Former USSR8. Former Yugoslavia9. China/HK/Taiwan10. Iran11. Mexico12. United Kingdom13. Tonga14. Italy15. Norway

2000

10,933

3,2531,2681,014

685633582547456381380304254184178152

1990

9,510

3,110n/a135270n/a830560n/a135

65170440n/a65

555

Growth

1,423

1431,268

879415633

-248-13456246315134

-186184178

-403

North Dakota

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. Germany4. Canada5. China/HK/Taiwan6. India7. United Kingdom8. Guatemala9. Philippines10. Korea11. Japan12. Thailand13. Indonesia14. Laos15. Iran

2000

133,216

58,1459,5626,7315,5775,0614,8604,5313,7533,6613,5671,9871,9101,5771,5511,551

1990

63,472

15,1585,1335,2722,3522,7452,3843,084

2791,6862,7121,737

689336856

1,057

Growth

69,744

42,9874,4291,4593,2252,3162,4761,4473,4741,975

855250

1,2211,241

695494

Oklahoma

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Former USSR3. Vietnam4. Canada5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Korea7. United Kingdom8. Germany9. Philippines10. India11. Japan12. Guatemala13. Romania14. El Salvador15. Laos

2000

296,997

117,29717,76717,46217,18510,69210,59510,569

8,9307,7826,5636,1244,6564,6532,8272,602

1990

137,279

29,7053,7107,295

16,3836,4745,4127,1928,4264,2271,9893,733

4401,422

4902,827

Growth

159,718

87,59214,05710,167

8024,2185,1833,377

5043,5554,5742,3914,2163,2312,337

-225

Oregon

Total FB Pop.

1. Former USSR2. India3. Italy4. China/HK/Taiwan5. Korea6. Mexico7. Germany8. Vietnam9. United Kingdom10. Philippines11. Canada12. Poland13. Jamaica14. Dominican Rep.15. Greece

2000

497,050

44,99838,76728,75228,28727,42724,30624,23023,11019,64815,19915,10411,53010,036

9,0788,693

1990

364,949

20,48418,01340,38116,79516,250

6,19427,99813,02925,544

8,27712,50413,637

6,5481,8848,987

Growth

132,101

24,51420,754

-11,62911,49211,17718,112-3,76810,081-5,8966,9222,600

-2,1073,4887,194

-294

Pennsylvania

Total FB Pop.

1. Portugal2. Dominican Rep.3. Guatemala4. Cape Verde5. Colombia6. Italy7. Canada8. United Kingdom9. Cambodia10. Former USSR11. Poland12. Philippines13. China/HK/Taiwan14. Germany15. Haiti

2000

126,046

23,35716,172

8,3907,0076,3724,9794,1993,7603,1802,8072,6542,5922,4552,1522,138

1990

94,357

23,7025,9802,9373,7944,9225,7205,8454,3492,3761,8781,3631,1792,0471,661

649

Growth

31,689

-34510,192

5,4533,2131,450

-741-1,646

-589804929

1,2911,413

408491

1,489

Rhode Island

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. India4. United Kingdom5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Philippines7. Canada8. Costa Rica9. Vietnam10. Korea11. Colombia12. Guatemala13. Former USSR14. Peru15. Japan

2000

116,571

30,5248,8576,5976,4836,2116,1165,6833,3003,0482,7812,7621,9151,7541,5621,417

1990

47,859

1,6536,4472,1244,8121,1103,0843,168

162783

1,704522195564120

1,773

Growth

68,712

28,8712,4104,4731,6715,1013,0322,5153,1382,2651,0772,2401,7201,1901,442

-356

South Carolina

Total FB Pop.

1. Ethiopia2. Canada3. Germany4. Mexico5. Former USSR6. Colombia7. India8. United Kingdom9. Philippines10. Former Yugoslavia11. Sudan12. Korea13. Iran14. Thailand15. El Salvador

2000

14,705

2,8061,5291,032

857813738689566550517467454413395394

1990

7,298

104980574136562

1097

306247n/an/a298

58132n/a

Growth

7,407

2,702549458721251728592260303517467156355263394

South Dakota

12


Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Germany3. India4. Canada5. United Kingdom6. China/HK/Taiwan7. Korea8. Philippines9. El Salvador10. Japan11. Vietnam12. Former USSR13. Haiti14. Iraq15. Iran

2000

167,999

51,1747,9997,1296,9186,4036,1245,8534,1864,0924,0433,8823,5133,3672,8292,743

1990

57,564

2,0196,1352,9614,1524,3862,5772,6072,511

452,9401,542

57321

3271,440

Growth

110,435

49,1551,8644,1682,7662,0173,5473,2461,6754,0471,1032,3402,9403,3462,5021,303

Tennessee

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. China/HK/Taiwan4. Tonga5. Germany6. United Kingdom7. Former USSR8. Vietnam9. Peru10. Guatemala11. Philippines12. El Salvador13. Netherlands14. Former Yugoslavia15. Korea

2000

159,237

64,9217,1966,2505,7555,4335,2394,5894,5244,2603,5893,5813,4492,9282,4232,379

1990

56,834

8,3655,7492,6481,7125,9953,677

5662,238

568275

1,149331

2,07796

1,233

Growth

102,403

56,5561,4473,6024,043

-5621,5624,0232,2863,6923,3142,4323,118

8512,3271,146

Utah

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Vietnam3. El Salvador4. India5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Philippines7. Canada8. Germany9. Korea10. United Kingdom11. Honduras12. Pakistan13. Nigeria14. Guatemala15. Colombia

2000

2,885,734

1,870,787104,356

98,24778,17267,36645,66540,24740,04134,46934,38531,43028,71422,42121,54018,567

1990

1,497,287

888,02653,87145,91731,95338,14125,92921,38034,39822,68027,917

9,7957,5639,343

10,00912,426

Growth

1,388,447

982,76150,48552,33046,21929,22519,73618,867

5,64311,789

6,46821,63521,15113,07811,531

6,141

Texas

Total FB Pop.

1. Canada2. United Kingdom3. Former Yugoslavia4. Vietnam5. China/HK/Taiwan6. Germany7. Japan8. Korea9. India10. Ecuador11. France12. Marshall Islands13. Austria14. Former Czech.15. Argentina

2000

25,629

8,1463,2182,5541,8521,3821,278

716599443417365347287287260

1990

17,271

6,6121,443

26125505

1,608231203214 n/a292 n/a250

6710

Growth

8,358

1,5341,7752,5281,727

877-330485396229417

73347

37220250

Vermont

Total FB Pop.

1. El Salvador2. Korea3. Philippines4. Mexico5. Vietnam6. India7. China/HK/Taiwan8. Germany9. United Kingdom10. Peru11. Pakistan12. Guatemala13. Bolivia14. Canada15. Iran

2000

584,982

55,29339,34636,54835,21031,47929,66523,52221,14821,04916,66115,95015,09513,31613,06710,979

1990

307,506

21,00323,38522,416

7,90519,48511,68212,32716,53616,494

4,3504,4043,5675,4789,3038,325

Growth

277,476

34,29015,96114,13227,30511,99417,98311,195

4,6124,555

12,31111,54611,528

7,8383,7642,654

Virginia

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. Philippines4. Former USSR5. Vietnam6. Korea7. China/HK/Taiwan8. Germany9. United Kingdom10. Cambodia11. India12. Japan13. Thailand14. Laos15. Poland

2000

614,524

149,28148,66646,38243,84641,63636,81135,87619,40517,21917,16015,50014,912

8,4195,8915,637

1990

317,337

44,49343,89327,621

4,87816,22420,78418,43219,25116,638

7,8783,711

12,7263,5495,1122,415

Growth

297,187

104,7884,773

18,76138,96825,41216,02717,444

154581

9,28211,789

2,1864,870

7793,222

Washington

Total FB Pop.

1. Germany2. China/HK/Taiwan3. India4. Philippines5. Mexico6. Canada7. Italy8. Korea9. Pakistan10. United Kingdom11. Japan12. Greece13. Lebanon14. Spain15. Bulgaria

2000

17,189

1,7491,6951,6211,5311,2041,002

948929747638610474474438420

1990

15,891

1,5301,0261,333

955154954

1,401509383

1,644519215303291

94

Growth

1,298

219669288576

1,05048

-453420364

-1,00691

259171147326

West Virginia

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Laos3. Germany4. China/HK/Taiwan5. India6. Canada7. Former USSR8. Korea9. Thailand10. United Kingdom11. Vietnam12. Philippines13. Poland14. Italy15. Japan

2000

190,731

57,63815,76211,881

7,7167,6887,4296,5836,3656,2055,3555,0134,5913,9503,2442,681

1990

116,749

9,99012,18316,226

4,0712,5315,4674,9402,8113,3645,3841,9762,4584,9923,9561,542

Growth

73,982

47,6483,579

-4,3453,6455,1571,9621,6433,5542,841

-293,0372,133

-1,042-712

1,139

Wisconsin

Total FB Pop.

1. Mexico2. Canada3. Germany4. United Kingdom5. France6. Argentina7. Japan8. South Africa9. Sweden10. Australia11. India12. Brazil13. Philippines14. Portugal15. Papua New Guinea

2000

10,577

4,7851,529

706522521409387372205187149135131130130

1990

8,423

2,139968

1,0081,108

119 n/a219

48533439

n/a9099

n/a

Growth

2,154

2,646561

-302-586402409168324152153110135

4131

130

Wyoming

13


Table 2. Top Immigrant Sending Country in2000 and 1990, Ranked by Change in Diversity

State1. Arkansas2. North Carolina3. Georgia4. Indiana5. Tennessee6. Utah7. Nebraska8. Alabama9. Iowa10. Wisconsin11. Colorado12. Mississippi13. Kansas14. South Carolina15. Missouri16. Oregon17. Oklahoma18. Wyoming19. Delaware20. Washington21. Nevada22. South Dakota23. Idaho24. Illinois25. Montana26. Alasaka27. Minnesota28. New York29. Virginia30. Arizonia31. Louisiana32. California33. Dist. of Columbia34. New Mexico35. New Jersey36. Texas37. Maryland38. Hawaii39. Kentucky40. West Virginia41. North Dakota42. Vermont43. Florida44. Pennsylvania45. Ohio46. Massachusetts47. Michigan48. Maine49. Rhode Island50. New Hampshire51. Connecticut

Percentage -Point Change

3231232120262418131627112313101820208

10166

1611107432

123639161410

-3-7-5-2-2-3-3

-12-7-9-5

PercentageChange

297 %295 %197 %191 %185 %177 %159 %138 %120 %117 %116 %114 %95 %94 %91 %83 %83 %78 %75 %74 %51 %42 %38 %36 %36 %35 %32 %30 %24 %22 %21 %16 %16 %15 %10 %9 %8 %8 %5 %

-1 %-9 %

-17 %-17 %-18 %-20 %-23 %-23 %-23 %-26 %-28 %-37 %

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not exactly match published numbers in every case because public use data files are slightly different fromthose used by the Census Bureau. Percentages may not match due to rounding.

% of Imm.Population

42 %41 %34 %31 %30 %41 %38 %31 %23 %30 %51 %21 %47 %26 %20 %39 %44 %45 %19 %24 %47 %19 %57 %40 %40 %28 %17 %11 %9 %

67 %15 %44 %19 %70 %8 %

65 %7 %

49 %17 %10 %30 %32 %25 %9 %8 %

10 %12 %39 %19 %23 %8 %

SendingCountryMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoMexicoEthiopiaMexicoMexicoCanadaPhilippinesMexicoDominican Rep.El SalvadorMexicoVietnamMexicoEl SalvadorMexicoIndiaMexicoEl SalvadorPhilippinesMexicoGermanyCanadaCanadaCubaFormer USSRIndiaPortugalMexicoCanadaPortugalCanadaPoland

2000% of Imm.

Population11 %10 %12 %11 %11 %15 %15 %13 %11 %14 %23 %10 %24 %14 %11 %22 %24 %25 %11 %14 %31 %13 %41 %29 %29 %21 %13 %8 %8 %

55 %13 %38 %16 %62 %7 %

59 %7 %

45 %16 %10 %33 %38 %30 %11 %10 %13 %15 %51 %25 %32 %13 %

SendingCountryMexicoGermanyMexicoMexicoGermanyMexicoMexicoGermanyGermanyGermanyMexicoUnited KingdomMexicoGermanyGermanyMexicoMexicoMexicoUnited KingdomMexicoMexicoCanadaMexicoMexicoCanadaPhilippinesLaosDominican Rep.KoreaMexicoVietnamMexicoEl SalvadorMexicoItalyMexicoKoreaPhilippinesGermanyUnited KingdomCanadaCanadaCubaItalyGermanyPortugalCanadaCanadaPortugalCanadaItaly

1990

14


Country1. Mexico2. China/HK/Taiw.3. India4. Former USSR5. Philippines6. Vietnam7. Dominican Repub.8. El Salvador9. Korea10. Guatemala11. Colombia12. Haiti13. Jamaica14. Honduras15. Ecuador16. Cuba17. Former Yugoslavia18. Pakistan19. Brazil20. Peru21. Canada22. Poland23. Guyana24. Nigeria25. Trinidad & Tobago26. Iran27. Nicaragua28. Thailand29. Japan30. Romania31. Argentina32. United Kingdom33. France34. Cambodia35. Laos36. Portugal37. Germany38. Ireland39. Greece40. Italy

20009,161,4191,492,5321,018,393

890,5301,394,675

986,198710,985824,692857,387468,583500,413408,731513,228253,615281,137878,085274,602218,777211,260268,896843,880480,492200,837137,440194,083282,326232,039168,158345,566141,901131,018674,211145,724141,055196,079221,282712,175161,801163,645473,756

19904,224,744

920,054448,608394,680910,396532,401340,183461,733555,942220,028284,118218,694332,481104,016137,885735,467139,63584,78281,960

143,649741,688390,570118,10255,377

115,555209,289166,588105,872287,31894,64592,331

641,360118,512119,358177,076213,635716,969170,293174,025579,708

NumericalIncrease

4,936,675572,478569,785495,850484,279453,797370,802362,959301,445248,555216,295190,037180,747149,599143,252142,618134,967133,995129,300125,247102,19289,92282,73582,06378,52873,03765,45162,28658,24847,25638,68732,85127,21221,69719,0037,647

-4,794-8,492

-10,380-105,952

Growth Rate117 %62 %

127 %126 %53 %85 %

109 %79 %54 %

113 %76 %87 %54 %

144 %104 %19 %97 %

158 %158 %87 %14 %23 %70 %

148 %68 %35 %39 %59 %20 %50 %42 %5 %

23 %18 %11 %4 %

-1 %-5 %-6 %

-18 %

Table 3. Growth in Immigrant Population for LeadingCountries in 1990 and 2000, Ranked by Numerical Increase

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not exactly match published numbers in every case because public use data files areslightly different from those used by the Census Bureau.

15


Table 4. Growth in Immigrant Populations in theUnited States by Regions of the World, 1990 and 2000

Country1. Latin Amer. (Spanish-Speaking)2. East Asia3. Europe4. Non-Spanish Western Hemp.5. South Asia6. Middle East7. Canada8. Sub-Saharan Africa9. Oceana/Not Indicated

Totals

200014,203,4045,764,5875,046,5431,746,1081,370,2911,081,851

843,880610,084329,201

30,995,949

NumericialIncrease

6,979,3582,044,220

695,874716,583802,132341,555102,192387,079

-659,036

11,409,957

Growth Rate97 %55 %16 %70 %

141 %46 %14 %

174 %-67 %

58 %

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not exactly match published numbers in every case because public use data files areslightly different from those used by the Census Bureau.

19907,224,0463,720,3674,350,6691,029,525

568,159740,296741,688223,005988,237

19,585,992

16


State1. Arkansas2. Colorado3. Oklahoma4. Kansas5. North Carolina6. Wyoming7. Utah8. Georgia9. Oregon10. Idaho11. Nevada12. Arizona13. Alabama14. Nebraska15. Tennessee16. Illinois17. Alaska18. New Mexico19. District of Columbia20. California21. Texas22. Florida23. Kentucky24. Mississippi25. Hawaii26. Louisiana27. Maryland28. New York29. Virginia30. South Carolina31. Indiana32. Washington33. New Hampshire34. Vermont35. New Jersey36. Minnesota37. Iowa38. Montana39. Massachusetts40. North Dakota41. Delaware42. Rhode island43. West Virginia44. Missouri45. Maine46. Connecticut47. Wisconsin48. Michigan49. Pennsylvania50. Ohio51. South Dakota

Percentageof Total

56 %56 %51 %53 %53 %49 %53 %46 %44 %60 %59 %71 %41 %49 %39 %46 %52 %74 %39 %55 %74 %57 %28 %35 %82 %35 %24 %30 %30 %40 %39 %34 %30 %36 %34 %34 %30 %40 %34 %30 %30 %36 %34 %27 %39 %39 %35 %30 %37 %37 %25 %

Percentageof Total

30 %32 %27 %30 %31 %27 %31 %25 %25 %44 %44 %58 %30 %38 %29 %36 %43 %66 %33 %49 %68 %51 %25 %32 %80 %33 %23 %30 %30 %40 %40 %36 %32 %38 %36 %37 %33 %44 %42 %38 %39 %46 %45 %39 %51 %52 %48 %43 %51 %53 %45 %

Table 5. Top Sending Region of the World byState 1990 and 2000, Ranked by Change in Diversity

PercentagePoint Change

2624242322222221191615131111101098666633221000

-1-2-2-2-2-3-3-4-8-8-9

-10-11-12-12-13-13-13-14-16-20

Note: For purposes of this study, Spanish-speaking countries of the Western Hemisphere are grouped together. Anglophone,Francophone, and Lusophone countries are also grouped together as a separate region. Percentages may not match due to rounding.Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data.

Sending CounryLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaEuropeEuropeLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)CanadaEuropeCanadaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeEuropeLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)CanadaEuropeLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeEuropeEuropeEurope

2000 1990

Sending CountryEuropeEuropeEast AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeEast AsiaEast AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)EuropeEuropeEast AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)Latin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaEuropeEast AsiaLatin Amer. (Spanish-Spkg.)East AsiaEuropeEast AsiaEuropeEuropeEast AsiaCanadaCanadaEuropeEast AsiaEast AsiaEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeCanadaEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEuropeEurope

17

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Country of Origin1. Mexico2. China/HK/Taiwan3. Philippines4. Canada5. Cuba6. Germany7. United Kingdom8. Italy9. Korea10. Vietnam11. El Salvador12. India13. Former USSR14. Poland15. Dominican Republic16. Jamaica17. Japan18. Colombia19. Guatemala20. Haiti21. Portugal22. Iran23. Laos24. Greece25. Ireland26. Nicaragua27. Peru28. Former Yugoslavia29. Ecuador30. Cambodia31. France32. Guyana33. Trinidad & Tobago34. Hungary

Table 6. Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 1990Total Immigrantsin United States

4,224,744920,054910,396741,688735,467716,969641,360579,708555,942532,401461,733448,608394,680390,570340,183332,481287,318284,118220,028218,694213,635209,289177,076174,025170,293166,588143,649139,635137,885119,358118,512118,102115,555109,739

1.State

CACACACAFL

CACANYCACACACANYNYNYNYCANYCANYMACACANYNYFL

CANYNYCACANYNYNY

TotalImmigrants

2,434,652382,992484,277150,084495,849105,413135,995189,759197,000267,883279,01085,054

103,93889,136

235,790143,29897,23883,570

135,28485,08672,015

117,18474,22842,65653,46572,01737,85928,80765,67858,00126,56676,53663,22621,430

2.State

TXNYHIFLNJNYNYNJNYTXTXNYCA

ILNJFL

NYFL

NYFL

CANYMN

ILMACANY

ILNJ

MANYNJFL

CA

TotalImmigrants

888,026188,98574,95776,51761,28092,43168,33069,44971,38953,87145,91769,12984,73983,57435,17976,85326,62765,06617,48081,83738,64615,48515,15319,92020,76457,75426,86320,56520,18610,86818,00410,16910,97818,673

3.State

ILTX

NY NYNYFL

FL CA

IL VA NY NJ IL

NJ FL NJ HI NJ IL

MA NJTXWI

CA CANYFL

CACA

WA FL FLMD NJ

TotalImmigrants

274,47638,14149,27557,75453,00555,62860,52347,25728,81819,48538,40052,67226,98239,44123,55622,05218,38940,35411,16318,71634,59810,31012,18315,83618,5528,057

22,66118,36118,6447,878

10,0438,5596,710

10,292

4.State

AZNJIL

MICANJNJPANJ

WAVAIL

FLCAMACT

WACAFLNJRI

VATXMANJTXNJ

OHFLTXNJ

MDNJFL

TotalImmigrants

150,60634,32847,37053,80750,02843,42134,84840,38127,94916,22421,00338,23523,19229,05719,04416,32812,72631,09310,09414,70023,7028,3259,627

13,86314,3325,582

19,91115,25710,7885,4726,1275,1646,5698,927

5.State

FLMANJ

MAILIL

TXMAVANYMDTXNJFLRI

MDNJTXTXCTNYMDWANJIL

NJTXMIIL

PATX

CACAOH

TotalImmigrants

54,41431,04738,04352,91012,31541,59227,91738,41323,38515,04513,86531,95323,19225,2095,980

11,87512,62312,42610,009 3,27014,1837,1255,112

13,13313,7253,6054,586

10,838 6,531 4,264 5,201 4,550 6,493 8,575

6.State

NMIL

WAWATXTXMACTTXPANJPAPACTCACATXIL

NJMDCTFLIL

PAFLLA

MDNJTXVAVATXTXIL

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not exactly match published numbers in every case because public use data files are slightly different from those used by the Census Bureau.

TotalImmigrants

48,41429,98527,62143,89311,71834,39827,21734,97322,68013,02913,85318,01320,48420,9163,684

11,27710,5347,6385,3443,064

14,0824,9394,7948,9877,8243,3784,3849,9892,4503,1923,6961,7013,6365,604

7.State

WAWATXCTMAPAPAIL

WAMAFL

MDMAMI

MDMA IL

MA MA

IL PA

ILGAFLPAMDVAFLCTMNPAMNMAPA

TotalImmigrants

44,493 18,432 25,929 21,987 5,069 27,998 25,544 34,368 20,784 13,021 10,045 17,547 19,026 19,156 2,142 8,161 9,636 6,492 5,217 2,907 4,476 4,518 4,172 8,233 7,614 3,049 4,350 5,416 2,344 3,176 3,685 1,330 3,475 5,301

18

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Table 6. (cont.) Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 1990


Country of Origin35. Thailand36. Honduras37. Israel/Palestine38. Romania39. Netherlands40. Argentina41. Lebanon42. Austria43. Former Czech.44. Pakistan45. Panama46. Brazil47. Spain48. Egypt49. Chile50. Nigeria51. Sweden52. Turkey53. Indonesia54. Iraq55. Costa Rica56. Norway57. Barbados58. Australia59. Venezuela60. Switzerland61. Syria62. Denmark63. Ethiopia64. South Africa65. Belgium66. Malaysia67. Belize

Total Immigrantsin United States

105,872 104,016 103,484 94,645 94,471 92,331 87,997 86,801 85,401 84,782 83,325 81,960 77,911 67,832 56,914 55,377 54,562 54,153 47,552 43,924 42,709 42,368 42,287 41,443 41,281 38,454 37,382 37,303 35,643 34,652 33,721 32,309 30,151

1.State

CACACANYCACANYNYNYNYNYNYFL

CACATXCACACAMI

CACANYCAFL

CACACACACACACACA

TotalImmigrants

42,592 24,952 29,654 22,768 25,662 26,025 1,975 20,014 16,697 18,577 27,794 13,842 14,689 16,896 15,303 9,343 11,329 13,152 24,175 13,994 13,734 5,964 27,301 12,626 14,481 11,020 13,397 10,564 10,080 9,939 6,523 8,261 13,051

2.State

NYFL

NYCAMI

NYNJCACACACACACANYNYCANYNYNYCANYWAMANYNYNYNYFL

MDNYNYNYNY

TotalImmigrants

5,892 22,069 26,677 18,422 8,384 18,461 1,307 11,155 12,629 14,671 12,179 12,956 13,496 16,003

9,672 6,426 4,965 10,980 2,865 12,888 7,296 5,625 3,332 3,747 5,118 5,185 3,454 3,037 3,618 3,242 5,408 3,711 8,284

3.State

TX NYNJ IL

NY FLMD FL

IL ILFL

MANY NJFL

NY FL NJ TX

ILFL

NY FL FL

CA NJ NJ NYVAFL

FL TX IL

TotalImmigrants

5,599 19,083 7,590 9,909 7,150 13,820 1,167 7,835 6,801 7,674 11,659 10,830 12,323 10,363

9,621 6,078 4,656 5,295 1,822 7,872 6,130 5,528 2,907 2,371 4,619 2,482 3,095 2,731 3,033 2,584 3,069 3,452 2,520

4.State

FLTXFLMIFLNJCA

ILFLTXTXNJNJFLNJ

MDIL

MAFL

NYNJFLNJTXTXFLIL

WATXTXMIIL

FL

TotalImmigrants

4,676 9,795 6,018 5,763 5,674 7,790 703 5,619 6,643 7,563 4,621 10,166 10,558 2,903

4,318 5,306 4,554 2,748 1,395 1,831 3,782 3,327 1,624 2,093 2,766 2,321 2,283 1,581 2,859 2,228 2,346 1,371 1,465

5.State

ILLAIL

FLNJTXVANJNJNJVAFLTXTXTXGAWAFL

ORTXTXNJCA

ILNJTXMANJDCNJIL

OHTX

TotalImmigrants

3,957 7,221 4,800 5,655 4,852 4,560 687 5,094 6,265 6,135 2,643 8,682 3,214 2,298

2,081 3,538 3,204 2,418 1,265 1,193 2,158 2,260 1,210 1,557 2,488 1,393 2,013 1,491 1,769 1,650 1,536 1,226 1,149

6.State

MNNJTXOHWA

ILTXPAPAVANJCTMDMDVANJ

MNMI

WANJ

MAIL

PANJ

MAIL

PAIL

GAMANJFLLA

TotalImmigrants

3,666 4,943 3,734 4,919 3,390 2,907 635 4,724 5,728 4,404 2,445 3,353 2,017 1,916

1,950 3,291 2,706 1,858 1,206 555 1,365 2,070 1,193 1,529 1,735 1,371 1,962 1,425 1,740 1,460 1,439 950 828

7.State

WAMAMANJIL

MDMNOHOHFL

GATXMA

ILMD

ILMAVAMIAZIL

MNCTVAMDOHFLWINY

ILTXNJNJ

TotalImmigrants

3,549 2,800 2,828 4,263 3,318 2,119 542 4,189 5,058 3,239 2,139 3,270 1,728 1,863

1647 1,719 2,192 1,815 985 515 777 1,925 1,170 1,317 1,012 975 1,614 1,242 1,722 1,269 1,399 928 429

19

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

3.State

IL NYVANYTXNJCANJIL

MAMDORFL

NYCTNJ

MNIL

MATXMAUTUTMDCACAFL

OHNJCATXTXNY

TotalImmigrants

2,568 3,568 4,494 1,809 592 1,454 2,643 1,760 1,080 1,714 776 391 1,903 799 461 1,357 1,186 960 342 808

548 656 1,712 1,167 2,286 692 652 557

712 324

618 476 671

TotalImmigrants

2,272 2,957 1,401 1,333 414 960 2,461 1,377 782 1,257 735 272 879 667 267 763 761 877 229 615

430 477 431 703 899 579 600 517

702 300

593 307 595

4.State

TXFLTXMNCATXFLIL

MAFLNJHI

VATXNYNYMDMI

MDIL

TXWAAKCAFLVAIL

FLMATXMANJNJ

5.State

MIMDNJMI

MDVATXVAPATXTXTXNJHI

MDFLNJVANJNJNJ

MOAZVANJFLNJIL

CAMD

ILCAVA

TotalImmigrants

1,959 2,561

587 1,312 384 618 1,392 1,095 612 671 580 165 754 653 182 712 709 774 214 430

404 266 263 687 274 513 460 501

537 290

564273

489

6.State

OHNJIL

MAGAOHMACAOHCTCAMDMAVACAMDFL

OHCAMI

CAVATXTXPAMDMI

ORVANJ

MDMDTX

TotalImmigrants

1,855 1,419

546 1,188 334 614 674 1,094 543 429 262 75 672 576 138 704 547 557 165 336

287213226635164358437494489204445271431

7.State

NJIL

CONJPAMDMDTXMDPAMANVTXFLNJIL

TXFLIL

VAPAPAFL

MNTXOHOHNYGANCNJCTMA

TotalImmigrants

1,715 1,071

477 913 314 587 577 1,083 521 211 211 59 618 524 138 537 536 492 87 324

211 153 188 542 139 337 261 402

451 180

445253

303

Table 6. (cont.) Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 1990


Country of Origin68. Jordan69. Bolivia70. Afghanistan71. Finland72. Bahamas73. Bangladesh74. Uruguay75. Ghana76. Burma77. Dominica78. Grenada79. Fiji80. Morocco81. New Zealand82. Cape Verde83. Kenya84. Sri Lanka85. Saudi Arabia86. St. Vincent87. Singapore88. Antigua-Barbuda89. Western Samoa90. Tonga91. Liberia92. Malta93. Cyprus94. Bulgaria95. Kuwait96. Bermuda97. St. Kitts-Nevis98. Uganda99. St. Lucia100. Sierra Leone

Total Immigrantsin United States

30,030 29,145 28,328 21,780 21,562 21,132 21,074 20,118 19,508 18,115 16,457 16,354 15,784 15,617 15,136 13,788 13,565 13,046 12,173 12,138 11,767 11,140 10,530 10,482 9,967 9,379 8,762 8,373 7,833 7,497 7,434 7,424 6,545

1.State

CACACACAFL

NYNYNYCANYNYCANYCAMACACACANYCANYCACANYMI

NYCACAFL

NYCANYMD

TotalImmigrants

7,749 6,422 12,524 4,302 13,751 9,236 5,607 5,939 10,135 9,122 11,693 14,169 3,950 5,319 9,927 3,237 3,365 2,627 10,085 4,769 7,178 5,386 5,490 1,975 2,798 3,413 2,353 1,496 1,055 3,756

965 4,608 1,225

2.State

NYVANYFL

NYCANJ

MDNYNJFL

WACAWA

RITXNYNYFL

NYFLHIHINJNYNJNYTXNYFL

NYFL

CA

TotalImmigrants

3,309 5,478 4,539 2,987 2,443 3,027 4,567 2,574 2,846 3,866 1,077 639 2,895 981 3,794 1,942 1,615 1,023 518 1,602 1,626 2,668 1,776 1,307 2,551 1,287 1,645 719

949 1,495

860 671 808

20

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Country of Origin1. Mexico2. China/HK/Taiw.3. Philippines4. India5. Vietnam6. Former USSR7. Cuba8. Korea9. Canada10. El Salvador11. Germany12. Dominican Rep.13. United Kingdom14. Jamaica15. Colombia16. Poland17. Italy18. Guatemala19. Haiti20. Japan21. Iran22. Ecuador23. Peru24. Former Yugoslavia25. Honduras26. Nicaragua27. Portugal28. Pakistan29. Brazil30. Guyana31. Laos32. Trinidad & Tobago33. Thailand34. Greece

Table 7. Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 2000Total Immigrantsin United States

9,161,419 1,492,532 1,394,675 1,018,393 986,198 890,530 878,085 857,387 843,880 824,692 712,175 710,985 674,211 513,228 500,413 480,492 473,756 468,583 408,731 345,566 282,326 281,137 268,896 274,602 253,615 232,039 221,282 218,777 211,260 200,837 196,079 194,083 168,158 163,645

1.State

CACACACACANYFL

CACACACANYCANYFLIL

NYCAFL

CACANYFL

NYFLFL

MANYFL

NYCANYCANY

TotalImmigrants

3,889,695 556,283 670,560 197,918 408,581 233,724 652,660 269,346 135,135 375,356 92,481 415,026 131,648 214,993 157,307 139,729 147,372 205,885 166,778 111,453 160,456 127,451 49,919 50,801 50,599 98,021 75,382 44,737 43,082 130,154 63,574 97,073 64,889 35,980

2.State TXNYHI

NYTXCANJNYFLTXNYNJFLFL

NY NYNJFL

NYNYNYNJCA

ILCACACACAMAFL

MNFL

MNNJ

TotalImmigrants

1,870,787 292,717 104,862 117,889 104,356 181,800 52,515 91,568 100,922 98,247 67,544 106,120 73,029 127,591 112,484 97,643 58,699 35,499 123,737 33,383 18,261 43,224 49,444 35,258 42,614 70,001 35,778 30,640 38,566 17,034 26,281 27,989 10,229 18,360

3.State

ILNJNYNJ

WAIL

CANJNYNY FLFL

NYNJ

NJ NJCANYMAHI

TXFLNJCANYNYNJTXCANJWINJ

WAIL

TotalImmigrants

609,068 71,035 74,061 117,687 41,636 56,274 40,644 50,092 58,548 69,191 64,409 69,449 61,627 30,010 79,902 59,182 39,932 26,722 33,640 19,840 13,557 27,326 43,436 28,421 37,530 11,525 35,273 28,714 23,577 14,402 15,762 12,738 8,419 17,708

4.State

AZTXNJIL

FLNJNYVAMIVA

TXMATXCT

CA CTFLIL

NJWAMDCANYMITXTXRIIL

NYCATXMDNYMA

TotalImmigrants

435,001 67,366 70,670 86,242 33,260 47,687 37,749 39,346 53,704 55,293 40,041 41,551 34,385 28,757 29,105 29,861 31,088 22,355 29,620 14,912 11,734 24,340 40,190 17,017 31,430 11,180 23,357 21,893 20,857 6,546 10,452 12,466 7,807 13,938

5.State

GAMA

ILTXGAPATXIL

WAMD NJRINJ

MD TX FLMATXILIL

VACTVAOHNJLANYNJNJ

MDNCCA

ILCA

TotalImmigrants

196,011 53,495 67,840 78,172 32,811 44,998 15,581 37,787 48,666 37,980 34,154 16,172 31,206 20,804 18,567 24,764 30,208 21,540 7,602 13,833 10,979 10,127 16,661 15,568 17,779 5,918 16,596 19,257 20,519 4,877 6,456 7,489 6,809 13,820

6.State

COIL

WAMI

MAWA

ILWATXNJ ILPAMAMA

MA CAPANJCTTXFLIL

TXNJLAVACTVACTGAWATXTXFL

TotalImmigrants

192,427 50,383 46,382 39,470 31,805 43,846 9,547 36,811 40,247 25,547 33,882 9,078 25,658 13,749 14,628 24,628 28,752 16,841 7,019 13,174 8,927 9,288 11,612 15,372 9,317 4,176 14,821 15,950 10,726 4,012 5,891 5,418 6,557 9,636

7.State

FLWATXPAVAMANVTXMAFL

PACTVAGA CT MICTVAPAFLIL

MAMDFLVANJFLFLTXTXMI

MAWIPA

TotalImmigrants

189,819 35,876 45,665 38,767 31,479 38,561 7,206 34,469 38,043 24,685 24,230 6,974 21,049 11,845 13,222 16,296 26,443 15,095 5,508 11,295 5,392 4,711 6,396 12,569 7,802 3,565 5,398 8,832 7,175 3,569 5,707 5,388 6,205 8,693


21

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Country of Origin35. Ireland36. France37. Romania38. Cambodia39. Nigeria40. Argentina41. Israel/Palestine42. Panama43. Bangladesh44. Egypt45. Venezuela46. Lebanon47. Netherlands48. Hungary49. Iraq50. Former Czech.51. Chile52. Spain53. Indonesia54. Turkey55. Ethiopia56. Costa Rica57. Ghana58. Bolivia59. South Africa60. Australia61. Austria62. Malaysia63. Sweden64. Barbados65. Syria66. Jordan67. Afghanistan

Table 7. (cont.) Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 2000Total Immigrantsin United States

161,801 145,724 141,901 141,055 137,440 131,018 109,255 109,060 106,717 106,605 102,199 97,979 94,125 93,128 91,180 85,136 78,008 77,315 72,618 71,315 69,966 67,328 64,448 61,452 61,238 59,685 57,582 53,227 51,896 50,885 50,151 49,650 48,475

1.State

NYCANYCATXCANYNYNYCAFL

CACACAMI

CAFLFL

CANYCAFL

NYVACACACACACANYCACACA

TotalImmigrants

46,302 31,522 28,634 47,083 22,421 27,528 31,227 28,293 50,508 24,047 47,646 30,911 24,609 17,396 27,176 13,949 18,132 14,460 32,734 14,241 12,410 12,837 13,966 13,316 15,152 17,480 8,672 12,198 12,564 29,446 17,204 12,227 21,804

2.State

CANYCAWACAFL

CAFL

CANYNYMI

NY NYCANYNYCANYCAVACANJCAFL

NYNYNYNYFL

NYNYNY

3.State

MAFLIL

MANYNYNJCANJNJNJ

MAMIFLILIL

CANYTXNJ

WANJ

MDMDTXTXFLTXFL

MAIL

TXVA

4.State

NJTXMITXMDTXFLTXTXVATXOHFL

NJNYFLNJNJ

WATXMDNYVANYNYFLIL

MNIL

NJNJMI

GA

TotalImmigrants

12,853 10,459 9,733 8,091 14,528 9,938 8,315 8,392 4,821 5,863 6,027 5,362 5,684 7,976 3,588 7,106 5,935 8,952 2,658 3,520 5,213 7,883 5,573 7,235 4,337 2,506 3,880 2,303 3,599 2,726 4,351 4,498 1,977

5.State

ILNJFLPAIL

NJIL

GAMITXCAFLTX

OHPANJVATXMDMAMNTXCAFL

GANJNJPAMAPAPANJ

CO

TotalImmigrants

11,465 7,713 7,938 7,964 7,221 8,434 5,413 4,496 4,720 4,079 4,430 4,378 4,733 7,061 2,904 5,725 3,818 4,098 2,437 2,798 4,435 4,727 4,467 6,471 2,937 2,438 3,833 1,827 3,058 2,294 3,668 4,194 1,563

6.State

FLIL

OHVAGAMDMANJFLFLIL

NJWA ILTNPATXVAORVATXNCGANJIL

PAMINJTXMDFLIL

MD

TotalImmigrants

10,201 7,154 7,711 4,457 6,492 5,413 3,615 3,703 3,966 4,059 2,965 3,911 3,994 4,378 2,829 4,162 3,520 3,269 2,372 2,686 3,987 3,775 3,431 3,026 2,394 2,338 2,847 1,820 2,626 1,247 2,478 4,173 1,381

7.State

PAMANJ

MNNJCTMDWAMDPAMDNY

ILPAVAWINCGA

ILPAGASC

ILTXMDWATXFLNJTXTXVANJ

TotalImmigrants

6,126 5,366 5,753 4,346 5,925 3,252 3,198 3,093 3,432 3,848 2,425 3,910 3,678 4,155 2,328 2,585 2,219 1,799 2,306 2,559 3,089 3,300 3,273 2,602 2,006 1,956 2,492 1,706 2,258 1,247 2,396 1,767 1,253


TotalImmigrants

20,301 18,403 22,493 17,160 18,730 27,236 29,610 16,057 13,692 18,366 10,047 17,072 7,371 16,731 25,074 11,608 14,174 12,700 5,094 11,847 8,305 12,797 9,484 9,779 5,399 7,849 7,900 10,733 3,989 3,909 5,206 5,454 7,166

TotalImmigrants

17,918 12,335 11,109 12,616 15,505 17,864 8,608 13,996 6,276 16,975 7,062 6,831 5,978 8,630 11,081 8,991 12,078 9,426 2,837 10,815 5,620 9,812 8,214 7,528 4,786 2,696 5,613 4,256 3,929 3,665 4,466 5,148 3,647

22

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Country of Origin68. Kenya69. Switzerland70. Morocco71. Liberia72. Belgium73. Bulgaria74. Somalia75. Burma76. Belize77. Denmark78. Norway79. Grenada80. Albania81. Fiji82. Uruguay83. Sri Lanka84. Bahamas85. Saudi Arabia86. Tonga87. Cape Verde88. Sierra Leone89. Finland90. Singapore91. Sudan92. Yemen93. New Zealand94. Dominica95. Eritrea96. St. Vincent97. Kuwait98. Antigua-Barbuda99. Western Samoa100. Cameroon

Table 7. (cont.) Top Seven States of Settlement for the Top-100 Immigrant-Sending Countries in 2000Total Immigrantsin United States

43,745 40,798 39,855 39,508 36,485 35,947 34,465 32,353 32,288 31,445 31,179 30,877 30,686 29,331 26,669 26,404 25,377 24,645 24,541 22,844 22,207 21,778 21,332 20,996 19,911 19,837 18,828 18,728 18,463 18,043 18,013 15,883 13,236

1.State

TXCANYMDCACAMNCACACACANYNYCANJCAFLVACAMAMDCACAVANYCANYCANYCANYCAMD

TotalImmigrants

6,967 8,859 6,010 5,478 6,264 6,039 7,995 18,057 12,453 9,444 4,306 24,996 8,988 23,708 5,190 8,150 16,567 3,312 11,477 12,759 5,782 4,491 5,197 3,900 8,572 6,634 9,412 6,049 13,867 3,229 9,735 6,073

3,632

2.State

CANYFL

NYNYNYGANYNYFL

WAFL

MAWAFL

NYNYTXUTRI

VAFLTX

WAMI

WAFLTXFLTXFLHI

VA

3.State

NYFL

CANJILIL

CAPAIL

NYFLVAMI

NYNYTXGACAHI

CNPAMANYMDCATXTX

WACTNYNJUTTX

4.State

GATXMAMNTXFL

OHTXFLIL

TXNJCTMI

CAMANJ

OHMONJNJNYAZCAOH

ILNJ

MNPAPAGAMNNY

TotalImmigrants

2,484 1,896 3,660 3,356 2,344 3,239 3,290 1,254 2,941 1,501 2,632 633 2,965 658 3,151 1,450 995 2,200 607 936 2,065 1,290 1,124 1,491 855 1,031 1,032 1,397 429 1,092 755 755 1,012

5.State

NJNJVAGAMI

WAVAMDTX

WANYTXFL

ORMAMDMIFLAZNYTXTXNJID

NCVARI

MDCAFL

MAWAMN

TotalImmigrants

2,406 1,815 3,318 3,185 2,051 1,828 2,596 1,111 1,052 1,221 2,630 390 1,950 621 1,735 1,410 737 1,350 533 379 1,519 1,106 990 1,136 689 870 577 1,328 370 1,056 430 656 878

6.State

MAWANJPAMAMI

WAMALAVAPAGA

ILNMPANJ

MDNJNVFL

NYORGAMNVAORMAVAGANCVATXGA

TotalImmigrants

2,367 1,509 3,004 2,167 1,910 1,457 2,118 901 581 1,130 1,739 302 1,481 428 1,127 1,252 566 1,308 506 344 1,066 755 810 1,065 462 831 552 968 247 986 364 589 866

7.State

ILNM

ILNCFL

GATXIL

WIMIUTCAPA

MOTXIL

NCMI

SCORGACTIL

NCCTUTMDNYNJ

MAPAOHAZ

TotalImmigrants

2,146 1,406 1,591 2,072 1,895 1,455 1,668 849 449 1,106 1,426 270 1,414 330 1,092 990 434 1,126 421 227 1,032 664 799 1,034 333 770 447 659 234 847 322 285 759


TotalImmigrants

5,643 5,321 5,937 4,993 4,850 5,197 4,378 2,712 6,911 2,133 3,893 2,170 3,698 1,741 5,019 4,427 2,284 3,109 5,755 7,007 3,815 4,413 2,692 1,856 5,602 1,591 3,003 2,226 1,497 2,466 3,485 4,810 1,501

TotalImmigrants

2,889 2,703 5,023 4,331 2,829 4,244 3,561 1,648 4,033 1,521 3,167 1,079 3,356 777 4,281 1,781 1,084 2,726 3,406 1,002 2,184 1,506 2,025 1,558 1,965 1,309 1,112 2,004 553 1,541 937 1,082 1,157

23


Table 8. Percentage of Immigrants in Top State of Settlement,1990 and 2000 Ranked by Increase in Dispersion

Country1. Guatemala2. Mexico3. Cambodia4. El Salvador5. Dominican Republic6. Laos7. Vietnam8. Peru9. Argentina10. Philippines11. Trinidad & Tobago12. China/HK/Taiwan13. Korea14. Canada15. Romania16. Honduras17. Ecuador18. Former Yugoslavia19. Greece20. Ireland21. Pakistan22. Japan23. Italy24. Germany25. Nicaragua26. Thailand27. United Kingdom28. Jamaica29. Nigeria30. France31. Former USSR32. India33. Guyana34. Portugal35. Iran36. Colombia37. Haiti38. Brazil39. Poland40. Cuba

Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of 1990 and 2000 Public Use Micro data files.Figures may not match published numbers in every case because public use data files are slightlydifferent from those used by the Census Bureau. Percentages may not match due to rounding.

Percentageof Total

44 %42 %33 %46 %58 %32 %41 %19 %21 %48 %50 %37 %31 %16 %20 %20 %45 %18 %22 %29 %20 %32 %31 %13 %42 %39 %20 %42 %16 %22 %26 %19 %65 %34 %57 %31 %41 %20 %29 %74 %

Percentage ofTotal61 %58 %49 %60 %69 %42 %50 %26 %28 %53 %55 %42 %35 %20 %24 %24 %48 %21 %25 %31 %22 %34 %33 %15 %43 %40 %21 %43 %17 %22 %26 %19 %65 %34 %56 %29 %39 %17 %23 %67 %

PercentagePoint Change

1716161411109775554444333222221111100000

-1-2-2-3-6-7

Top StateCACACACANYCACAFL

CACANYCACACANYFL

NYNYNYNYNYCANYCAFL

CACANYTXCANYCANYMACAFLFLFLIL

FL

2000 1990

Top StateCACACACANYCACACACACANYCACACANYCANYNYNYNYNYCANYCAFL

CACANYTXCANYCANYMACANYNYNYNYFL

24

Cen

ter for Im

mig

ration

Stu

dies

Where Immigrants LiveAn Examination of State Residency

of the Foreign Born by Country of Originin 1990 and 2000

By Steven A. Camarota and Nora McArdle

During the 1990s, the nation’s immigrant population grew by11.3 million — faster than at any other time in our history.Using newly released data from the 2000 Census, this report

examines the changing distribution of the nation’s immigrant popula-tion by country of origin at the state level. The findings show that in onesense, today’s immigration is more diverse than ever because people nowarrive from every corner of the world. In another sense, however, diver-sity among the foreign born has actually declined significantly. One coun-try — Mexico — and one region — Spanish-speaking Latin America —have come to dominate U.S. immigration during the decade. The reportalso found that immigrants from some countries became more spreadout in the 1990s, while the dispersion of others changed little.

NO

N-P

RO

FIT

U.S.

PO

STAG

EPA

IDPE

RM

IT #

6117

WAS

HIN

GTO

N, D

C

Cent

er fo

r Im

mig

ratio

n St

udie

s15

22 K

Stre

et N

W, S

uite

820

Was

hing

ton,

DC

200

05-1

202

Backgrounder

12-03Center for Immigration Studies1522 K Street NW, Suite 820Washington, DC 20005-1202

(202) 466-8185 • Fax (202) [email protected] • www.cis.org

Date post:	15-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

Backgrounder - Center for Immigration StudiesBackgrounder Steven A. Camarota is Director of Research...

Documents