Library Index :: Immigration in America - Issues, Attitudes, and History :: Current Immigration Statistics - What Does It Cost To Get A U.s. Visa?, Foreign-born Population

Current Immigration Statistics - Foreign-born Population

Figure 3.1 illustrates the annual increase in immigration from 1996 through 2004. In the United States the period from 1996 to 2000 was one of dramatic job growth and a rapidly expanding economy, while the economy slowed and the demand for labor was weak from 2000 to 2004. Despite these economic shifts, immigration increased. The Census Bureau's Current Population Studies (CPS) revealed that 6.1 million immigrants claimed they arrived between 2000 and early 2004, compared to 5.5 million who arrived between 1996 and 2000. In Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't: The Foreign-Born Population, 2000–2004 (Washington, DC: Center for Immigration Studies, November 2004), Steven A. Camarota stated that, "[i]n contrast to past centuries, immigration levels are no longer tied to the business cycles." He noted that even when the U.S. economy was poor and unemployment was high, the high standard of living continued to attract immigrants.

Region of Birth

In 2003 the Census Bureau reported that the 33.5 million people who were born in foreign countries represented 11.7% of the U.S. population. More than half (53.3%) came from Latin America and one-quarter (25%) came from Asia. Reflecting the reversal from a century ago when the majority of immigrants were European, in 2003 just 13.7% of immigrants were from Europe. (See Figure 3.2.)

Table 3.1 provides greater detail on the place of origin of legal immigrants in the years 2001 through 2003. Total immigration numbers were fairly stable in 2001 and 2002 but dropped significantly from a little more than one million in 2002 to 705,827 in 2003. In its 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, September 2004), the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported that this 34% drop in persons granted lawful permanent residence was due primarily to increased security checks that slowed application processing.

Although the numbers of immigrants from various continents took a similar drop in 2003, a few groups increased in percentage share of total immigration. Immigrants from Africa grew from 5.7% of total immigrants to 6.9% between 2002 and 2003. In the same period immigrants from Asia increased from 32.2% to 34.7% of total immigrants. The share of immigrants from the Caribbean, Central America, and South America also increased from 2002 to 2003. The Dominican Republic was the only source of immigrants that showed an increase in actual numbers of immigrants (22,604 to 26,205) from 2002 to 2003. (See Table 3.1.)

Mexico continued to lead in total legal immigrants in 2003, although the number of immigrants dropped by almost half (47%) from 2002. At 115,864 legal immigrants in 2003, Mexico was still the source of twice as many immigrants as the next leading source—India, with 50,372 immigrants. (See Table 3.1.)

FIGURE 3.2
Foreign-born by region of birth, in percent, 2003
SOURCE: Luke J. Larsen, "Figure 1. Foreign-Born by World Region of Birth: 2003," in The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf (accessed January 24, 2005)

Where the Foreign-Born Population Chooses to Live

Two-thirds of the foreign-born population lived in the West (37.3%) or the South (29.2%) in 2003. (See Figure 3.3.) According to a U.S. Census Bureau report (Luke J. Larsen, The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551, Washington, DC, August 2004), the foreign-born from Asia and Latin America (comprising the Caribbean, Central America, and South America) were most likely to settle in the West, with the foreign-born from Central America concentrating in both the West and the South. Foreign-born residents were more likely to live in a central city of a major metropolitan area (44.4%) compared to the native population (26.9%). Just 5.3% of foreign-born residents lived in nonmetropolitan areas in 2003 while 20.2% of the native population lived away from large cities. (See Table 3.2.)

Immigrant Populations in the States

Table 3.3 shows the total number of immigrants living in each state in 2004, the number who said they arrived since 2000, and the percentage of the state's total population who were foreign-born in 2004. California's 9.5 million immigrants represented more than one-quarter (27%) of the state's total population. The 1.2 million new arrivals since 2000 accounted for 12.6% of the total

TABLE 3.1
Immigrants admitted by region and top 20 countries of birth, fiscal years 2001–03
SOURCE: "Table B. Immigrants Admitted by Region and Top 20 Countries of Birth: Fiscal Years 2001–2003," in 2003 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, September 2004, http://uscis.gov/graphics/shared/aboutus/statistics/IMM03yrbk/2003IMM.pdf (accessed February 22, 2005)

2003 2002 2001
Category of admission Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
    All countries 705,827 100.0 1,063,732 100.0 1,064,318 100.0
Africa 48,738 6.9 60,269 5.7 53,948 5.1
Asia 244,759 34.7 342,099 32.2 349,776 32.9
Europe 100,769 14.3 174,209 16.4 175,371 16.5
North America 250,726 35.5 404,437 38.0 407,888 38.3
    Carribbean 68,815 9.7 96,489 9.1 103,546 9.7
    Central America 54,565 7.7 68,979 6.5 75,914 7.1
    Other North America 127,346 18.0 238,969 22.5 228,428 21.5
Oceania 4,377 .6 5,557 .5 6,113 .6
South America 55,247 7.8 74,506 7.0 68,888 6.5
Unknown 1,211 .2 2,655 .2 2,334 .2
Mexico 115,864 16.4 219,380 20.6 206,426 19.4
India 50,372 7.1 71,105 6.7 70,290 6.6
Philippines 45,397 6.4 51,308 4.8 53,154 5.0
China 40,659 5.8 61,282 5.8 56,426 5.3
El Salvador 28,296 4.0 31,168 2.9 31,272 2.9
Dominican Republic 26,205 3.7 22,604 2.1 21,313 2.0
Vietnam 22,133 3.1 33,627 3.2 35,531 3.3
Colombia 14,777 2.1 18,845 1.8 16,730 1.6
Guatemala 14,415 2.0 16,229 1.5 13,567 1.3
Russia 13,951 2.0 20,833 2.0 20,413 1.9
Jamaica 13,384 1.9 14,898 1.4 15,393 1.4
Korea 12,512 1.8 21,021 2.0 20,742 1.9
Haiti 12,314 1.7 20,268 1.9 27,120 2.5
Ukraine 11,666 1.7 21,217 2.0 20,975 2.0
Canada 11,446 1.6 19,519 1.8 21,933 2.1
Poland 10,526 1.5 12,746 1.2 11,818 1.1
United Kingdom 9,601 1.4 16,181 1.5 18,436 1.7
Pakistan 9,444 1.3 13,743 1.3 16,448 1.5
Peru 9,444 1.3 11,999 1.1 11,131 1.0
Cuba 9,304 1.3 28,272 2.7 27,703 2.6
    Subtotal 481,710 68.2 726,245 68.3 716,821 67.4
Other 224,117 31.8 337,487 31.7 347,497 32.6

foreign-born population in the state. New York was a distant second with 3.8 million immigrants representing one-fifth of the population (20.3%). While Hawaii was far down the list in total number of foreign-born residents, 17.6% of the population was foreign-born.

Table 3.4 compares educational attainment, poverty status, health insurance coverage, and receipt of welfare between natives and immigrants in selected states. Among the states selected in the report published by the Center for Immigration Studies (Steven A. Camarota, Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't: The Foreign-Born Population, 2000–2004, Washington, DC, November 2004), Texas, with the third largest immigrant population, had the greatest share of immigrants without a high school diploma (49.7%), immigrants and their children living in or near poverty (59.7%), and both immigrant and native families without health insurance (44.3% and 19.1%, respectively).

While nationwide 11.7% of the native population over age twenty-one lacked a high school diploma, almost three times as many immigrants (32.8%) had not completed high school. In every state a greater share of immigrants than natives lacked high school diplomas. The educational gap between natives and immigrants was greatest in western states like California, Arizona, and Colorado. The widest gap was in Colorado, where 45.1% of immigrants had not completed high school compared to just 7.2% of natives. (See Table 3.4.) Camarota noted that this gap had "enormous implications for social and economic integration of immigrants because there is no single better predictor of one's economic and social status in America than education."

According to Camarota, "near" poverty level statistics were important because such families often did not pay income taxes and typically became eligible for means-tested programs including cash welfare, Medicaid, and the earned income tax credit. (Near poverty is defined as an income below 200% of poverty threshold. The 2004 poverty threshold for a family of four including two children was $19,157. At 200% of this figure, near-poverty level for that family was an annual income less than $38,314.) A greater share of immigrant households received some type of welfare benefits than did native households. (See Table 3.4.) Likewise the share of

FIGURE 3.3
Population by region of residence and nativity, 2003
SOURCE: Luke J. Larsen, "Figure 2. Population by Region of Residence and Nativity: 2003," in The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf (accessed January 24, 2005)

TABLE 3.2
Native and foreign-born populations, by place of residence, 2003
[Percent]
SOURCE: "Table 9. Native and Foreign-Born Populations, by Place of Residence, 2003," in A Description of the Immigrant Population, Congressional Budget Office, November 2004, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/60xx/doc6019/11-23-Immigrant.pdf (accessed March 7, 2005)

Population
Total Native Foreign-born
Metropolitan area
Inside central city 29.0 26.9 44.4
Outside central city 52.6 52.9 50.3
Nonmetropolitan area 18.4 20.2 5.3
    Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

immigrants without health insurance was more than double that of natives (30% compared to 12.9%). Camarota cited the impact of those lacking health insurance on the nation's health care system: people without insurance typically waited longer to seek care; when they finally did seek treatment, they often required greater care and the more expensive hospital emergency room care was often their only option for treatment.

Lack of health insurance was a persistent and pressing challenge for low-income adults. In 2003 low-income adults accounted for half of the uninsured population.

TABLE 3.3
Immigrant populations by state, 2004
[Numbers in thousands]
SOURCE: Steven A. Camarota, "Table 1. State Immigrant Populations (Thousands)," in Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't: The Foreign-Born Population, 2000–2004, Center for Immigration Studies, November 2004, http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.pdf (accessed February 2, 2005)

State Total immigrant
population
Post-2000
arrivals*
Immigrant share of
state population
California 9,542 1,272 27.0%
New York 3,844 527 20.3%
Texas 3,328 643 15.2%
Florida 3,069 488 18.1%
New Jersey 1,544 247 18.0%
Illinois 1,382 207 10.9%
Arizona 922 200 16.5%
Massachusetts 845 206 13.3%
Maryland 728 184 13.3%
Virginia 703 172 9.5%
Washington 702 135 11.5%
Georgia 650 170 7.6%
North Carolina 641 200 7.8%
Michigan 548 101 5.5%
Pennsylvania 534 107 4.4%
Colorado 434 93 9.7%
Ohio 399 112 3.5%
Connectictu 376 53 11.0%
Oregon 363 49 10.2%
Nevada 355 57 15.8%
Minnesota 283 63 5.6%
Wisconsin 253 82 4.7%
Tennessee 238 96 4.0%
Indiana 224 55 3.6%
Hawaii 220 32 17.6%
Missouri 211 59 3.8%
Utah 176 24 7.5%
Kansas 158 41 5.9%
Oklahoma 140 19 4.1%
New Mexico 138 32 7.4%
Rhode Island 132 22 12.5%
South Carolina 128 39 3.1%
Iowa 113 34 3.9%
Kentucky 104 41 2.5%
Louisiana 96 13 2.2%
Nebraska 88 29 5.1%
Alabama 88 27 2.0%
New Hampshire 69 16 5.5%
Arkansas 69 13 2.6%
D.C. 68 18 12.3%
Mississippi 59 15 2.1%
Idaho 59 17 4.3%
Delaware 53 10 6.5%
Alaska 50 7 7.7%
Maine 41 9 3.2%
Vermont 22 2 3.6%
North Dakota 15 5 2.4%
West Virginia 14 9 0.8%
South Dakota 11 2 1.5%
Montana 10 1 1.1%
Wyoming 10 2 2.0%
Total 34,244 6,057 11.9%
*Based on year of arrival question.

While Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP) were major sources of coverage for low-income children, most of the adults did not work in jobs where employer-sponsored insurance was offered, or they could not afford coverage. A study by the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation (Health Coverage for

TABLE 3.4
Characteristics of immigrants and natives for selected states, 2004
SOURCE: Steven A. Camarota, "Table 3. Characteristics of Immigrants and Natives for Selected States," in Economy Slowed, But Immigration Didn't: The Foreign-Born Population, 2000–2004, Center for Immigration Studies, November 2004, http://www.cis.org/articles/2004/back1204.pdf (accessed February 2, 2005)

Educational attainment In or near povertyb Without health insurance Households receiving welfared
Percent without a Immigrants high school degreea Immigrants and their childrenc Natives and their children Immigrants and their childrenc Natives and their children Immigrant-headed households Natives-headed households
Immigrants Natives Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
Percent Number
(thousands)
New York. 26.8% 10.3% 40.8% 1,977 28.38% 3,995 26.1% 1,267 11.3% 1,599 32.1% 534 19.0% 1,084
New Jersey 21.4% 9.7% 33.3% 657 20.08% 1,326 26.0% 512 10.4% 689 16.9% 109 10.6% 273
Massachusetts 28.8% 10.1% 37.7% 394 22.78% 1,210 22.5% 235 8.4% 447 22.4% 84 13.7% 294
Illinois 30.3% 10.5% 38.4% 713 28.1% 3,020 29.0% 539 11.9% 1,279 15.4% 88 12.8% 547
Florida 27.7% 10.5% 44.4% 1,706 29.2% 3,806 30.7% 1,180 14.5% 1,892 24.3% 336 13.3% 744
Texas 49.7% 14.3% 59.7% 2,818 34.0% 5,814 44.3% 2,095 19.1% 3,279 29.8% 402 16.4% 1,100
Georgia 25.2% 13.8% 38.2% 335 27.3% 2,095 30.1% 264 14.9% 1,145 15.0% 38 15.8% 481
Maryland 26.8% 10.3% 37.5% 357 21.4% 972 31.3% 300 10.2% 461 16.6% 51 10.5% 190
Virginia. 21.3% 10.6% 29.4% 267 22.1% 1,428 28.0% 255 10.9% 707 8.1% 23 12.3% 319
North Carolina 41.7% 17.0% 59.0% 477 34.8% 2,581 43.8% 355 14.4% 1,068 19.7% 46 19.0% 583
California 37.4% 8.3% 46.9% 6,133 24.7% 5,485 28.2% 3,692 12.6% 2,807 31.4% 1,217 13.8% 1,215
Arizonia 43.0% 9.1% 59.3% 784 29.9% 1,269 34.2% 454 11.7% 497 31.2% 119 14.3% 248
Colorado 45.1% 7.2% 44.5% 272 23.4% 903 39.1% 239 13.8% 534 25.0% 41 13.2% 209
    Nation 32.8% 11.7% 45.0% 20,448 28.4% 68,915 30.0% 13,646 12.9% 31,315 25.7% 3,638 15.9% 15,524
aPersons 21 years of age and older.
bIn or near poverty defined as under 200 percent of the official poverty threshold.
cIncludes U.S.-born children of immigrant mother under age 18.
dAt least one person in household uses AFDC/TANF (Aid to Families with Dependent Children/Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), general assistance, food stamps, SSI (Supplemental Security Income), public/subsidized housing, or Medicaid.

FIGURE 3.4
Native and foreign-born populations, by age and sex, 2003
SOURCE: Luke J. Larsen, "Figure 4. Native and Foreign-Born Populations by Age and Sex: 2003," in The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf (accessed January 24, 2005)

Low-Income Adults: Eligibility and Enrollment in Medicaid and State Coverage, Washington, DC: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured, 2002) revealed that of the 5.3 million low-income persons eligible for these programs, 75% were citizens and 25% were noncitizens. The breakdown of citizens and noncitizens was almost the same for the 12.8 million persons ineligible for Medicaid and state coverage. This result suggested that noncitizens accounted for about one-quarter of the low-income adult population and they were equally balanced with citizens in the eligible and ineligible groups.

Foreign-Born and Natives Compared by Age

Figure 3.4 illustrates the difference in age groups among the foreign-born and natives. In 2003 the majority of the foreign-born (55.9% of males and 50.9% of females) were between the prime working ages of 20 and 44. Among the native population, just 34.2% of males and 33.9% of females were in this age range. Over age 65 there was little difference between foreign-born (11.5%) and native (12.1%). The other obvious difference was among the children. Just 8.9% of the foreign-born were age 18 and under compared to 27.8% of the native born. The Census Bureau noted that the small proportion of foreign-born children could be explained by the fact that most young children of immigrant parents were born in the United States and were counted as natives.

Individual and Family Incomes

In 2002, 30.5% of foreign-born, full-time, year-round workers and 16.5% of such native workers had annual incomes of less than $20,000. The share of Central American workers in this earning category was 45.3%. On the opposite end of the spectrum, 37.3% of Asian workers and 35.1% of European workers earned in excess of $50,000 compared to 30.2% of native workers. (See Figure 3.5.) When the Census Bureau compared household FIGURE 3.5
Individual earnings of year-round full-time workers by nativity and by world region of birth, 2002
SOURCE: Luke J. Larsen, "Figure 10. Individual Earnings of Year-Round Full-Time Workers by Nativity and by World Region of Birth: 2002," in The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003, Current Population Reports, P20-551, U.S. Census Bureau, August 2004, http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/p20-551.pdf (accessed January 24, 2005)
incomes, more than half (53.8%) of Asian families had annual incomes in excess of $50,000 compared to 44% of native families.

User Comments Add a comment…