Date post: | 26-Mar-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | seth-oconnell |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 1 times |
Immigration Goes NationwideImmigration Goes NationwideRecent immigrant dispersal has created Recent immigrant dispersal has created
national policy interestnational policy interest
William H. Frey
The University of Michigan and the Brookings Institution
Briefing,”Immigration Policy: Federal Debates and Local Realities”, US Capitol Building, March 24,
2006
Immigrants in the US, 1900 - 2005
14.2
9.6
35.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Source: US Census sources
in millions
Immigrant Share of US Population
4.7
12.1
14.7
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Source: US Census sources
Big Six States: Share of Immigrant Gains
61
Big Six Rest of US
54
1990-2000 2000-2005
Source: William H. Frey
0
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
1990 2005
Rest of US
Illinois
New Jersey
Texas
Florida
New York
California
Immigration Spreads Beyond Traditional Magnet States
19.7 m
35.1 m
Source: William H. Frey
Source: William H.Frey
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
NorthCarolina
Tennessee Georgia Nevada Arizona Iowa Nebraska Colorado
Immigrant Growth, 1990-2005
Fast Growing "New Immigrant" Destinations 1990-2005
State Immigrant Growth, 1990-2005
200% or more growthBtn 100% and 199% growthTraditional immigrant gatewayAll other states
Source: William H. Frey
States with at least 5% Immigrants
17
26
29
0 10 20 30 40
1990
2000
2005
Source: William H. Frey
Immigrant Concentrations in States
15% or more
10-14%
5-9%
Less than 5%
1990 2005
Source: William H. Frey
States with Most Undocumented Immigrants
?
?
Source: Jeffery Passel, Pew Hispanic Center
Hispanics and AsiansRecent Immigrants vs Native Born 2005
52%
22%
26%
Hispanics Asians Other
14%
4%
82%
Recent Immigrants Native Born
Source: William H. Frey
Hispanic and Asian Adults by Generation
57%13%
30%
Foreign Born 2nd Gen 3rd+Gen
79%
13%
8%
Hispanics Asians
Source: William H. Frey
Growth Rates , 2000-2010
2.8
33.3
12.9
34.1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Hispanics Asians Blacks Whites
Source: William H. Frey
At Least 5% Hispanic
States Counties
1990 16 538
2005 28 907
Source: William H. Frey
Source: William H. Frey
STATES: Fastest Hispanic Growth 2000-04
% Growth
1. Arkansas 37.7 2. South Dakota 37.3 3. South Carolina 35.7 4. Georgia 35.7 5. North Carolina 35.0 6. Tennessee 33.4 7. Nevada 32.7 8. New Hampshire 32.7 9. Maine 32.0
Source: William H. Frey
Metros: Fastest Hispanic Growth, 2000-04
1. Cape Coral-Ft Myers, FL 55.4 2. Charlotte 49.8 3. Raleigh 46.7 4. Nashville 44.9 5. Indianapolis 44.3 6. Atlanta 41.0 7. Naples, FL 38.7 8. Lakeland, FL 38.3 9. Sarasota, FL 38.010. Las Vegas 35.1
Source: William H. Frey
States: Fastest Asian growth, 2000-04
1. Nevada 35.2 2. New Hampshire 32.5 3. Delaware 27.4 4. Georgia 26.8 5. Florida 24.4 6. Connecticut 24.4 7. North Carolina 24.2 8. Arizona 24.2 9. Arkansas 23.010. New Jersey 21.7
Source: William H. Frey
Metros: Fastest Asian Growth, 2000-04
1. Las Vegas 38.5 2. Riverside 31.1 3. Orlando 30.2 4. Atlanta 28.5 5. Stockton, CA 28.4 6. Tampa-St.Pete 28.4 7. Austin 28.2 8. Phoenix 27.0 9. Sacramento 25.610. Dallas 24.8
Source: William H. Frey
Suburban Co. Growth, 2000-04Hispanic and Asian Contributions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Williamson Co.TX
Loudon Co. VA
Kendall Co. IL
Forsyth Co. GA
Douglas Co. CO
Hispanic Asian
34%
37%
27%
20%
15%
Source: William H. Frey
Metro Growth, 2000-04Hispanic and Asian Contributions
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Houston
Dallas
Phoenix
Orlando
Las Vegas
Hispanic Asian
72%
68%
56%
54%
53%
Source: William H. Frey
Central County Changes, 2000-04Race-Ethnic Contributions
-50,000
-40,000
-30,000
-20,000
-10,000
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
Queens, NY Wayne Co, MI King Co. WA
Hispanics
Asians
Blacks
Whites
Source: William H. Frey
TraditionalMagnets
NewDestination States
2005 Shares
Immigrants 20% 9%
Hispanics 26% 11%
Asians 7% 2%
2000-04 Growth
Immigrants 10% 33%
Hispanics 15% 26%
Asians 16% 28%
Source: William H. Frey
Shares versus Growth
Source: William H. Frey
Year of Immigrant Arrival: Traditional Magnets versus New Destinations*
Traditional Magnets
1990-991980-89
before 1980
2000-05
*Traditional Magnets are California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and New Jersey. New Destinations are North Carolina, Tennessee, Georgia, Nevada, Arizona, Iowa, Nebraska, and Colorado.
New Destinations
1990-99
1980-89
before 19802000-05
20%31%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Under 15
15-39
40-64
65 +
Hispanic Asian Others
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Under 15
15-39
40-64
65 +
Hispanic and Asian Shares by Age Group
Source: William H. Frey
3%
6%
12%
12%
California Georgia
27%
37%
54%
57%
Immigrants vs Natives: 2005
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hispanics: BlueCollar Workers
Blue CollarWorkers*
Hispanics: Povertyand Near Poverty
Poverty and NearPoverty**
Immigrants in New Destinations.
Immigrants in Traditional Magnets
US Native Born
Source: William H. Frey
GT 40%Other
Source: Jeffery Passel, Pew Hispanic Center
Where Undocumented Dominate Foreign Born
Desired US Immigration Levels
5.2 6.2
47.156.8
14.17.8
33.6 29.3
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Traditional MagnetStates
New DestinationStates
Present
Increased
Decreased
Don't Know
Source: William H. Frey analysis of CBS News Poll, July 29-Aug 2, 2005
3 Year Work Permits for Illegal Immigrants?
6.4 3.4
54.571.9
39.124.7
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
TraditionalMagnet States
New DestinationStates
Allowed
Not Allowed
Don't Know
Source: William H. Frey analysis of CBS News Poll, July 29-Aug 2, 2005
Hispanics: 2004 Total vs Voter Shares
45
3733
2923
20 19
34
2216
12 10 9 10
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
NewMexico
Texas California Arizona Nevada Colorado Florida
Total
Voters
Source: William H.Frey
Useful Websites
Source: William H. Frey
www.CensusScope.org
www.frey-demographer.org