BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Audrey Singer, Visiting Fellow The Brookings Institution

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION

CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY

Center on Urban and Metropolitan PolicyAudrey Singer, Visiting Fellow

The Brookings Institution

El Incremento de Nuevas Vías de Entrada de Inmigrantes: Flujos Históricos y Tendencias Recientes de Asentamiento

Seminario Permanente sobre Migración El Colegio de la Frontera Norte

June 11, 2004



Immigration Trends from Census 2000

More immigrants entered the United States in the 1990s than in any previous decade

Immigrants are settling in many new places with little history of immigration

The challenges of incorporating immigrants will be a growing issue in many places in the United States



The share of the U.S. population that is foreign-born is lower at the end of the 20th century than at the start

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%Population Percentage of Population

Number of foreign-born and share of population, United States,1900-2000

Source: Lindsay and Singer, “Changing Faces: Immigrants and Diversity in the Twenty-First Century,” June 2003



Foreign Born

Population

Share Foreign

Born1 New York 2,871,032 35.9 2 Los Angeles 1,512,720 40.9 3 Chicago 628,903 21.7 4 Houston 516,105 26.4 5 San Jose 329,757 36.8 6 San Diego 314,227 25.7 7 Dallas 290,436 24.4 8 San Francisco 285,541 36.8 9 Phoenix 257,325 19.5

10 Miami 215,739 59.5

1900 2000

Few cities maintained their status as gateways throughout the 20th century

Foreign Born Population

Share Foreign

Born1 New York 1,270,080 37.0 2 Chicago 587,112 34.6 3 Philadelphia 295,340 22.8 4 Boston 197,129 35.1 5 Cleveland 124,631 32.6 6 San Francisco 116,885 34.1 7 St. Louis 111,356 19.4 8 Buffalo 104,252 29.6 9 Detroit 96,503 33.8

10 Milwaukee 88,991 31.2



13%

34%

3%50%

EuropeAsiaLatin AmericaAfrica

1900-1920 1980-2000

86%

4%

10%

Source countries have reversed—from primarily European to primarily non-European



The nation’s primary Gateway States are shifting

From Northeastand Southwest

To Southeastand Mountain West



1 Los Angeles 3,449,444 36.22 New York 3,139,647 33.73 Chicago 1,425,978 17.24 Miami 1,147,765 50.95 Houston 854,669 20.56 Orange County 849,899 29.97 Washington DC 832,016 16.98 Riverside-San Bernardino 612,359 18.89 San Diego 606,254 21.510 Dallas 591,169 16.8

PERCENTNUMBER

Metropolitan Washington ranks 7th in number of foreign-born residents

Source: US Census Bureau

Top Ten Immigrant Populations by Metropolitan Area, 2000



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Perc

ent

Buffalo

Cleveland

Detroit

Milwaukee

Pittsburgh

St. Louis

Former Gateways attracted large numbers of immigrants in the early 1900s but no longer do



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Perc

ent

Boston

Chicago

New York

San Francisco

Continuous Gateways are long-established and continuing destinations for immigrants



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Years

Perc

ent

Houston

Los Angeles

Miami

Post-World War II Gateways began attracting immigrants during the second half of the 20th century



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Perc

ent

Dallas

Washington DC

Atlanta

Ft. Worth

Emerging Gateways experienced rapid immigrant growth over the past 20 years



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Year

Per

cent

San Jose Portland

Seattle Phoenix

Denver Tampa

Re-emerging Gateways waned as destinations in the middle part of the century, but have rebounded recently



Three factors help classify metropolitan gateways for immigration:

SIZE of the metropolitan area and of the foreign-born population

RATE of GROWTH and PERCENT foreign-born population

DOMINANCE, PERSISTANCE, and HISTORY of the settlement of the foreign born



Former (8)BaltimoreBuffaloClevelandDetroitMilwaukeePhiladelphiaPittsburghSt. Louis

Continuous (9)BostonChicago Jersey CityNewarkNew York Bergen-Passaic NJ Middlesex-Somerset NJ Nassau-Suffolk, NY San Francisco

Post-WWII (7)Fort Lauderdale HoustonLos Angeles Orange County Riverside-San BernardinoSan DiegoMiami

Emerging (7)Atlanta DallasFort WorthLas VegasOrlandoWashington, DCWest Palm Beach

Re-Emerging (9)DenverMinneapolis-St. PaulOaklandPhiladelphiaPhoenixPortlandSacramentoSan JoseSeattleTampa

Five types of metropolitan immigrant gateways in 2000



Former (8)BaltimoreBuffaloClevelandDetroitMilwaukeePhiladelphiaPittsburghSt. Louis

Continuous (9)BostonChicago Jersey CityNewarkNew York Bergen Passaic NJ Middlesex-Somerset NJ Nassau-Suffolk, NY San Francisco

Post-WWII (7)Fort Lauderdale HoustonLos Angeles Orange County Riverside-San BernardinoSan DiegoMiami

Emerging (7)Atlanta DallasFort WorthLas VegasOrlandoWashington, DCWest Palm Beach

Re-Emerging (9)DenverMinneapolis-St. PaulOaklandPhiladelphiaPhoenixPortlandSacramentoSan JoseSeattleTampa

Pre-emerging (5)AustinCharlotteGreensboro-Winston SalemRaleigh-DurhamSalt Lake City

Five types of metropolitan immigrant gateways in 2000 (plus one more)



-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

Former Continuous Post WWII Emerging Re-emerging

1970

1980

1990

2000

Continuous and Post-WWII Gateways still dominate, but Emerging and Re-Emerging are growing faster



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Former Continuous Post WWII Emerging Re-Emerging Pre-Emerging

Per

cent

% Change in Total Population % Change in Population without Foreign-Born

Population growth in Continuous and Post-WWII Gateways depends more on immigration than in Emerging Gateways



Characteristics vary by gateway type…

Suburban settlement patterns

National origins

English language proficiency



The share of overall population that is foreign-born tends to be higher in central cities than in suburbs…

34%21%36%New York

36%34%40%Los Angeles

51%41%60%Miami

17%15%22%Chicago

METROSUBURBSCITY



9.8

6.9

4.9

12.9

7.7

5.0

2000

1990

1980

Suburbs

Cities

…but growth during the 1980s and 1990s was greater in suburban areas, yielding more immigrants in absolute terms

Foreign Born in Cities and Suburbs, 45 metro areas (in millions)



Share of Foreign-Born Population That Live in the Suburbs by Gateway Type, 1970-2000

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

60.0

65.0

70.0

75.0

80.0

85.0

1970 1980 1990 2000

Pe

rce

nt

Emerging

Former

Post-WWII

Re-emerging

Pre-emerging

Continuous

Immigrants in Emerging Gateways are more likely to live in the suburbs



Commercial enclave in a Continuous Gateway, Washington Heights, NYC



Commercial enclave in a Pre-Emerging Gateway, Winston-Salem, North Carolina



Commercial enclave in an Emerging Gateway, Seven Corners, Virginia



National origins also vary by gateway type…



UNITED STATESTotal Foreign Born = 31,107,889

Mexico30%

Remaining Foreign Born

57%

India3%

China3%Vietnam

3%

Philippines4%

The five largest country of origin groups in the U.S. include Mexico and four Asian countries



CHICAGOTotal Foreign Born = 1,425,978

Remaining Foreign Born

37%

Korea2%

Philippines4% India

5%

Mexico42%

Poland10%

LOS ANGELESTotal Foreign Born = 3,449,444

El Salvador

7%

Mexico45%

Philippines

6%

Guatemala4%

Korea4%

Remaining Foreign

Born37%

PITTSBURGHTotal Foreign Born = 62,286

Italy13%

India10%

Germany7%

China5%

United Kingdom

6%

Remaining Foreign

Born59%

WASHINGTONTotal Foreign Born = 832,016

Korea6%

El Salvador13%

India5%

Vietnam4%

Mexico4%

Remaining Foreign

Born67%



Emerging, Pre-Emerging and Former gateways have the largest shares of most recent Mexican immigrants

14.01%

20.04%

25.87%

18.70%

17.57%

13.22%

17.89%

14.43%

19.79%

21.23%

16.51%

19.10%

13.79%

13.87%

22.13%

22.01%

16.95%

23.45%

22.98%

24.92%

19.85%

37.96%

24.85%

16.74%

32.79%

29.39%

41.61%

30.51%

Former

Continuous

Post WWI

Emerging

Re Emerging

Pre Emerging

Non Gateway

1965 or earlier 1966-1975 1976-1985 1986-1990 1991-1995 1996-2000



Los Angeles has 1.5 million Mexican-born residents, triple the number in Chicago, and ten times New York

Los Angeles 1,525,200 44.0Chicago 582,636 40.7Houston 424,967 50.2Orange County 386,871 45.6Riverside/San Bernadino 384,815 63.1Dallas 342,376 61.4Phoenix 296,594 64.3San Diego 291,792 48.3El Paso 168,931 91.2McAllen/Edinburg 158,408 95.1New York 143,486 4.6Oakland 142,301 24.7San Jose 139,550 24.3Fresno 136,116 68.8Las Vegas 133,506 49.2Atlanta 121,512 28.7Denver 117,157 49.0San Antonio 114,571 69.6

Metropolitan areas with the largest Mexican immigrant populations, 2000Percent of

all immigrantsNumber



Immigrants in the traditional Southwestern settlement states are majority MexicanMetropolitan areas with the highest percentage Mexican immigrant populations, 2000

McAllen/Edinburg 158,408 95.1El Paso 168,931 91.2Bakersfield 80,477 75.5San Antonio 114,571 69.6Fresno 136,116 68.8Phoenix 296,594 64.3Riverside/San Bernadino384,815 63.1Ventura 96,076 61.6Tucson 62,101 61.5Dallas 342,376 61.4Albuquerque 33,077 58.1Fort Worth 110,298 57.0Austin 88,922 56.1Stockton 56,786 50.6Houston 424,967 50.2Las Vegas 133,506 49.2Denver 117,157 49.0San Diego 291,792 48.3

NumberPercent of

all immigrants



82.6

73.6

65.3

70.7

72.5

65.8

34.2

27.5

29.3

34.7

26.4

17.4

0 25 50 75 100

Former

Continuous

Post W.W.II

Emerging

Re-Emerging

Pre-Emerging

Does not speak Englishwell

Speaks English "well"

English language skills are most limited in Post-WWII and Pre-Emerging Gateways



Six Implications for Local Leaders

Understand local immigration dynamics

Bring cultural and language sensitivity to service delivery

Build English language capacity

Provide workforce support

Create linkages to mainstream institutions

Encourage civic engagement



Documents

BROOKINGS INSTITUTION CENTER ON URBAN AND METROPOLITAN POLICY Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy Audrey Singer, Visiting Fellow The Brookings Institution