Welcome to NYC.gov | City of New YorkPopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning *Includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. New York City’s foreign‐born population

Slide 1

This 2013 edition in the series The Newest New Yorkers provides a portrait of the more than 3 million foreign‐born persons in New York City, including their characteristics, patterns of settlement, and legal pathways to admission. It continues a tradition of providing comprehensive information on the foreign‐born to policy makers, program planners, and service providers, to help them gain perspective on a population that continues to reshape the city and the surrounding region. The full publication is available at www.nyc.gov/population . There you will find interactive maps that include the settlement patterns of immigrants by their places of birth.

Slide 2

Rank Number Percent Rank Number Percent

Total, Foreign-born - 3,066,599 100.0 - 2,871,032 100.0 6.8Dominican Republic 1 380,160 12.4 1 369,186 12.9 3.0China* 2 350,231 11.4 2 261,551 9.1 33.9Mexico 3 186,298 6.1 5 122,550 4.3 52.0Jamaica 4 169,235 5.5 3 178,922 6.2 -5.4Guyana 5 139,947 4.6 4 130,647 4.6 7.1Ecuador 6 137,791 4.5 6 114,944 4.0 19.9Haiti 7 94,171 3.1 7 95,580 3.3 -1.5Trinidad and Tobago 8 87,635 2.9 8 88,794 3.1 -1.3India 9 76,493 2.5 14 68,263 2.4 12.1Russia 10 76,264 2.5 10 81,408 2.8 -6.3

2011 2000% Change 2000-2011

Foreign-born Population by Country of BirthNew York City, 2000 and 2011

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 census-Summary File 3; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning

*Includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

New York City’s foreign‐born population increased by about 7 percent, from 2.9 million in 2000

to just over 3 million in 2011. This marked a new peak. The Dominican Republic was the largest

source of the foreign‐born in 2011, with 380,200 residents, followed by China in second place

with 350,200. While these rankings have held since 1990, Dominican population growth in the

last decade was just 3 percent, compared with 34 percent for China. If these growth rates hold,

the Chinese would likely be the city’s largest immigrant group in the next few years.

Immigrants from Mexico moved into 3rd place in 2011, with a 52 percent increase over 2000. The

Mexican population, which numbered 186,300, was followed by immigrants from Jamaica (169,200) and

Guyana (139,900). Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, India, and Russia rounded out the top 10 groups.

Thus the foreign‐born in 2011 had very diverse origins, in contrast to the overwhelmingly European

origin of the foreign‐born in earlier decades.

Slide 3

Dominican Republic

12.4%

China*11.4%

Mexico6.1%

Jamaica5.5%Guyana

4.6%

Ecuador4.5%

Haiti3.1%Trinidad &

Tobago2.9%

India2.5%

Russia2.5%

All Other44.6%

Top Ten Sources of the Foreign-born PopulationNew York City and the United States, 2011

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary FilePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Total = 3,066,599

* Includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan.

New York City

Mexico28.9%

China*5.5%

India4.6%

Philippines4.5%

El Salvador3.1%Vietnam

3.1%

Cuba2.7%Korea

2.7%

Dominican Republic

2.2%

Guatemala2.1%

All Other40.5%

Total = 40,377,757

United States

The top sources of the foreign‐born population for the U.S. differed markedly from those for New York City. Mexicans dominated the U.S. immigrant population, accounting for nearly 3‐in‐10 of the nation’s 40 million foreign‐born. China was the second largest source country for the U.S., followed by India, the Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala. In contrast, the city’s immigrant population was more diverse, with Dominicans, the largest immigrant group in the city, accounting for only 12 percent of the foreign‐born. Six countries on the nation’s top 10 list––Philippines, El Salvador, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Guatemala––were not among the city’s top 10 groups.

Slide 4

Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of OriginNew York City, 2000 and 2011

Sources: US Census Bureau: 2000 Census-Summary File 3 and 5% Public Use Microdata Sample and 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata SamplePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

2000 2011

Total, New York City 1,278,687 1,595,227Percent Naturalized 44.5 52.1

Latin America 34.2 39.4Asia 42.9 53.4Caribbean, nonhispanic 54.7 62.9Europe 55.3 65.7Africa 34.0 44.3

Naturalized

A majority (52 percent) of the foreign‐born are now naturalized citizens, up from 45 percent in 2000. Immigrants from Europe (66 percent) and the nonhispanic Caribbean (63 percent) had the highest percentage naturalized, while Latin America immigrants had the lowest (39 percent) level of naturalization. Some of these differences are related to the recent nature of immigration from different parts of the world, as in the case of Africa, where many immigrants are very recent arrivals and are not yet eligible to naturalize. Since 2000, each world area of origin has seen an increase in the percent naturalized. Partly as a result, visas to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have increased dramatically, while those given to immigrants with family ties to legal permanent residents (“green card” holders) have fallen. Visas to those with ties to permanent residents are numerically limited and entail long waiting periods, as opposed to visas for immediate relatives, which are exempt from any limit. The increase in naturalization has allowed for greater use of immediate relative visas, which paves the way for quicker immigrant entry. In light of the increase in naturalized citizens, and the quicker pathways to family reunification that it provides, the gate to immigration could open even further in the years to come.

Slide 5

Foreign-born by Neighborhood*New York City, 2007-2011

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 and 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary FilePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Foreign-born

30,000 to 39,999

20,000 to 29,999

12,000 to 19,999

9,000 to 11,999

Under 9,000

40,000 or more

(10)

(23)

(41)

(38)

(57)

(13 neighborhoods)

Bronx

Queens

StatenIsland

Manhattan

Brooklyn

98,440 3.2%

946,511 30.9%

471,136 15.4%

461,325 15.0%

1,089,187 35.5%

*"Neighborhoods," as defined in this study, are aggregations of census tracts that are subsets of New York City's 55 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs). Primarily due to these constraints, neighborhood boundaries and their associated names may not definitively represent actual neighborhoods.

New York City Total = 3,066,599 (2011 Data)

Of the city’s 3.1 million immigrants, 1.09 million lived in Queens, and another 946,500 lived in Brooklyn, together accounting for two‐thirds of the city’s immigrants. The Bronx and Manhattan were home to 471,100 (15 percent) and 461,300 (15 percent) immigrants, respectively, while 98,400 (3 percent) lived on Staten Island. Staten Island’s immigrant population increased by 26,000 persons between 2000 and 2011, a 36 percent increase, the highest of any borough. The Bronx had the largest numeric increase in the city, more than 85,000 foreign‐born, which translated into a 22 percent increase. Queens, Manhattan, and Brooklyn saw more modest increases –– between 2 percent and 6 percent. In terms of immigrants as a percentage of the population, Queens was the most heavily immigrant borough. The 1.09 million immigrants in Queens comprised 49 percent of the borough’s population, the highest proportion in the city and the highest of any county in the region. In comparison, immigrants constituted 37 percent of Brooklyn’s population, 34 percent of the population in the Bronx, 29 percent in Manhattan, and 21 percent of Staten Island’s population.

In Queens, much of the immigrant population was clustered along the “International Express”––the number 7 subway line that runs across northwest Queens. Elmhurst, which sits astride this route, had one of the highest concentrations of immigrants in the city, with a remarkable 71 percent of its population foreign‐born, the highest of any neighborhood in the city. Queens had a remarkably diverse immigrant population and was the only borough where Asians comprised a plurality among the foreign‐born. Top immigrant groups included the Chinese (who settled across northern Queens), the Guyanese (concentrated in South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill), as well as Ecuadorians and Mexicans (both of whom tended to settle in northwest Queens). Brooklyn’s immigrants also exhibited a remarkable diversity, now rivaling that of Queens. These diverse origins were arrayed in a chain of neighborhoods, forming a horseshoe pattern along the B‐Q and N subway lines. Immigrants constituted almost one‐half of the population in neighborhoods along these routes, and nearly half of the borough’s foreign‐born population. The Chinese were concentrated in the western portion of the area, along with Dominicans, Mexicans, and Ecuadorians. Jamaican, Haitian, and other nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants settled primarily in central Brooklyn, while Russians and Ukrainians were concentrated in southern Brooklyn. While Queens and Brooklyn had more immigrants than other boroughs, the neighborhood with the largest number of immigrants was Washington Heights in Manhattan (80,200), followed by Bensonhurst (77,700), and Elmhurst (77,100). Together, these three neighborhoods had more immigrants than the city of Philadelphia. Neighborhoods that rounded out the top 10 were Corona, Jackson Heights, Sunset Park, Flushing, Flatbush, Crown Heights, and Bushwick. Of the major immigrant neighborhoods, Bushwick saw the highest growth, with its immigrant population increasing by over one‐fifth between 2000 and 2007‐2011. Areas in southwest Brooklyn, eastern Brooklyn, and eastern Queens also experienced substantial gains, reflected in neighborhoods such as East New York and Sunset Park, both in Brooklyn, and South Ozone Park in Queens. East and Central Harlem in Manhattan and Concourse‐Concourse Village in the South Bronx also experienced high growth among the foreign‐born. No individual Staten Island neighborhood had an immigrant population of more than 10,000; but, the northern section of the borough was home to 41,300 immigrants, spread across a whole host of neighborhoods.

Slide 6

Nativity of Employed* Residents by Selected Industry New York City, 2011

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

Construction Manufacturing Wholesale & Retail Trade

Transportation & Warehousing and

Utilities

Information F.I.R.E. & Rental and Leasing

Professional** Educational, Health & Social

Services

Accomodation, Food, & Other

Services***

Public Administration

Th

ou

san

ds

Native-born Foreign-born

PercentForeign-born = 67.0 55.4 47.7 57.1 19.3 36.4 37.4 46.5 58.6 28.4

46.8% of all employed* residents were foreign-born

* Persons 16 and Over Employed in the Civilian Labor Force

*** Includes Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, and Other Services (Except Public Administration)

** Includes Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste ManagementSources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample

Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning

On the economic front, immigrants comprised 47 percent of all employed residents and could be found in all major industries. Immigrants accounted for over a majority of residents employed in construction; accommodation, food, and other services; transportation, warehousing and utilities; and manufacturing. In absolute terms, more immigrants worked in educational, health and social services than any other major industry, accounting for 461,000 (47 percent) of the more than 990,000 resident workers in this category. Areas of concentration included sectors such as hospitals (80,400), home health care, and elementary and secondary schools. The next largest industry was accommodation, food and other services, where they comprised 360,300 or 59 percent of the more than 614,000 resident workers. Here are the familiar sectors of restaurants and other food service (125,600), private household workers, and workers in traveler accommodations. Immigrants were heavily represented among those who own businesses, providing a continuous injection of economic vitality that serves the neighborhoods of New York. As workers in the large baby boom cohort retire, they need to be replaced to ensure the continued prosperity of New York’s economy. If history is any indication, the economic opportunities in New York will continue to sustain the flow of immigrants into the city’s labor force.

Slide 7

Selected Economic Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011

$0 $25,000 $50,000 $75,000 $100,000

Dominican Republic

Ukraine

Mexico

Bangladesh

Russia

El Salvador

China

Italy

Trinidad and Tobago

Colombia

Korea

Ecuador

Haiti

Jamaica

New York City Average

Guyana

Pakistan

Poland

Philippines

United Kingdom

India

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Philippines

Poland

Italy

United Kingdom

India

Jamaica

Trinidad and Tobago

Guyana

Haiti

Korea

Colombia

Ukraine

China

Russia


Ecuador

El Salvador

Pakistan

Bangladesh

Mexico

Dominican Republic

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata SamplePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Median Household Income Below Poverty

The median household income for New York City stood at $49,800 with native‐born households having significantly higher income ($54,700) than their foreign‐born counterparts ($43,700), with wide variation in the incomes of foreign‐born groups. Asian Indian, U.K. and Filipino households had incomes that were well in excess of the city median while Dominican, Ukrainian, and Mexican households were at the lower end of the spectrum. By itself, household income tells only part of the story since it is the sum total of income accrued by all members of the household; thus, the number of household members with earnings affects the level of household income. Take the case of Ecuadorians, who earn less than 60 percent of the city average and have low educational attainment. Ecuadorians, however, average about two workers per household, compared with just over one worker for all households in the city. This allows Ecuadorians to attain a household income that is 93 percent of the city median. Since household income tends to be higher if there are more workers in the household, it is important to look at poverty rates, which take into account household income, household size and the age and number of children. These rates indicate that despite higher levels of household income, native‐born households have marginally higher levels of poverty, relative to their foreign‐born counterparts. Still, the highest poverty rates were present among groups with low median household income: Dominicans, Mexicans and Bangladeshis. There are some significant exceptions, however, as evidenced by immigrants from Russia and the Ukraine, who have low median household incomes (due to their smaller households), but have poverty rates at or below the city average.

Slide 8

Selected Housing Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Mexico

Dominican Republic

El Salvador

Ecuador

Korea

Bangladesh

Colombia

Pakistan

Russia

Poland


Haiti

Ukraine

Trinidad and Tobago

India

United Kingdom

Jamaica

Philippines

China

Guyana

Italy

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

United Kingdom

Italy

Ukraine

Russia

Korea

Jamaica

Poland

Trinidad and Tobago

Philippines


Guyana

India

Colombia

Dominican Republic

China

Haiti

Ecuador

El Salvador

Pakistan

Mexico

Bangladesh

Owner-Occupied Households Overcrowded Households

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata SamplePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Overcrowded housing units, as defined by federal standards, are units with more than one person per room. Citywide, 9 percent of all households were overcrowded. Few differences by nativity are as striking, with overcrowding among immigrant households (14 percent) nearly three times that of the native‐born (5 percent). This is related to larger immigrant households and the housing available to recently‐arrived immigrants. Bangladeshis (45 percent), Mexicans (42 percent), and Pakistanis (39 percent) had levels of overcrowding that were extraordinarily high; all had very large households (in excess of 4 persons per household, compared to a city average of 2.7), large numbers of recently‐arrived immigrants, and low levels of home ownership. The relationship between home ownership and overcrowding is by no means straightforward, however. While some groups such as Italians, Jamaicans, Filipinos and immigrants from the U.K. have high levels of home ownership and low levels of overcrowding, above average home ownership does not always moderate levels of overcrowding. For example, 44 percent of Chinese households were owner‐occupied, yet overcrowding stood at 18 percent; Indians and Haitians also had high levels of, both, home ownership and overcrowding.

Slide 9

Family Preferences

19.8%

Immediate Relatives

44.7%

Employment Preferences

15.0%

Diversity4.4%

Refugees/Asylees13.2%

Other2.9%

Family Preferences

27.1%

Immediate Relatives

42.5%

Employment Preferences

9.3%

Diversity7.0%

Refugees/Asylees12.8%

Other1.4%

Immigrants Admitted by Class of Admission New York City and United States, 2002-2011

Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; Fiscal Years 2002-2011 (including Special Tabulations for New York City)

Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning

United StatesNew York City

Total = 10,510,852Total = 1,031,668

Tracking the flow of legal permanent residents (LPRs or “green card” recipients) to the city in the last decade provides information on the legal pathways immigrants use to enter the U.S. These data on the flow of immigrants are distinct from data on the total foreign‐born population that resides in the city as of a particular point in time. The visa allocation system for immigrants seeking admission to the U.S. is divided into four major categories: family‐related immigration, employment preferences, diversity visas, and refugees/asylees. Family‐related immigrants are divided into kin that are subject to numerical limits (family preferences) and those who are not (immediate relatives). Family preferences include adult children of American citizens, the spouses, minor children and parents of legal permanent residents, and brothers/sisters of American citizens; obtaining these visas often entails a long waiting period. Immediate relatives –– the spouses, minor children, and parents of American citizens –– are exempt from numerical limits and can usually enter without much of a wait. With respect to diversity visas, countries with small numbers of immigrants in the U.S. are eligible to draw visas from the diversity visa lottery. Finally, persons with a well founded fear of persecution may apply in their home countries for entry as a refugee, or as an asylee if already on U.S. soil.

Seven of every ten immigrants to New York City enter as a family‐related immigrant, with the largest group consisting of immediate relatives for both the city and the nation. This was not always the case: In the past, immigrants to the city were more likely to use the family preferences. Employment as a path to admission is more common at the national level than in the city, while the city is more likely to be a beneficiary of those with diversity visas. Finally, despite a decline in the number of refugees from the former Soviet Union, the large influx of Chinese asylees has kept the city’s share of refugees/asylees close to that of the nation.

Slide 10

Bangladesh19.0%

Uzbekistan13.5%

Ukraine9.2%

Egypt5.1%

Ghana4.2%

All Others49.0%

Top Five Sources of Immigrants Admitted by Class of AdmissionNew York City, 2002-2011

Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002-2011Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning

China*54.6%

Serbia & Montenegro

4.0%

Russia3.6%

Ukraine3.2%

Albania3.0%

All Others31.5%

Refugees/Asylee Visas

Total = 131,735

Total = 72,014

Diversity Visas

China*11.9%

India7.9%

Philippines7.5%

Korea7.1%

Ecuador5.7%

All Others59.9%

EmploymentVisas

Total = 95,914


The ceiling on the annual allotment for asylees was lifted in 2005 to clear a large backlog, resulting in a big increase in the number of asylees admitted, especially from China. Asylees from China comprised over one‐half of all asylees to the city in the last decade –– and 40 percent of the overall flow from China. The growth in asylees made China the top source of newly admitted immigrants to the city. A number of countries have seen increases due to the use of diversity visas. These visas have helped Bangladesh move to the number three spot, behind China and the Dominican Republic, on the list of newly admitted immigrants. Another example is Ghana, which has established a sizable immigrant beachhead in the city as a result of diversity immigration. These flows are likely to burgeon in the next decade as diversity entrants reunify with their kin. The same applies to immigrants from Uzbekistan. Unlike their counterparts from the former Soviet Union that saw a decline in immigration, the flow from Uzbekistan increased over the past decade because of diversity immigrants. With respect to employment visas, four of the top five countries using employment as a path to entry were from Asia. The Chinese accounted for the most employment visas, including more than 2,000 who entered under a visa category that required an investment of at least $500,000 to create or preserve jobs.

Slide 11

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Total Under 18 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+

1,775,171 TotalPopulation:

Age

852,085 2,574,783 2,030,875 1,011,996


8,244,910

Age by Race/Hispanic OriginNew York City, 2011

Hispanic

Black, nonhispanic

Multiracial, nonhispanic

Asian and other, nonhispanic

White, nonhispanic

The ceiling on the annual allotment for asylees was lifted in 2005 to clear a large backlog, resulting in a big increase in the number of asylees admitted, especially from China. Asylees from China comprised over one‐half of all asylees to the city in the last decade –– and 40 percent of the overall flow from China. The growth in asylees made China the top source of newly admitted immigrants to the city. A number of countries have seen increases due to the use of diversity visas. These visas have helped Bangladesh move to the number three spot, behind China and the Dominican Republic, on the list of newly admitted immigrants. Another example is Ghana, which has established a sizable immigrant beachhead in the city as a result of diversity immigration. These flows are likely to burgeon in the next decade as diversity entrants reunify with their kin. The same applies to immigrants from Uzbekistan. Unlike their counterparts from the former Soviet Union that saw a decline in immigration, the flow from Uzbekistan increased over the past decade because of diversity immigrants. With respect to employment visas, four of the top five countries using employment as a path to entry were from Asia. The Chinese accounted for the most employment visas, including more than 2,000 who entered under a visa category that required an investment of at least $500,000 to create or preserve jobs.

Slide 12

2000-2010

Thousands

Sources: Adjusted U.S. Decennial Census data 2000-2010;Census Bureau Population Estimates, 2010-2012;

New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; United States Department of Homeland Security

as revised by Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Population Change

Natural Increase

Net Migration

Net InternationalMigration

Net DomesticMigration

Estimated Components of Population Change (Annualized) New York City, 2000–2010 and 2010-2012

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

-150 -100 -50 0 50 100

2010-2012

Thousands

The role of domestic migration may be changing. The inflow of domestic migrants has increased and the outflow from the city has declined, greatly reducing the net outflow of persons to the rest of the nation. Two‐thirds of all migrants coming to New York City now originate from other parts of the nation, compared with one‐half in 2000. The most recent data suggest that we are potentially in the midst of yet another phase in the city’s demographic history. It is one where, as noted above, domestic migration plays a heightened role, as evidenced by more modest losses to the rest of the nation, but also where there are smaller gains through international migration. This relative balance of domestic losses and international gains, while present in just the last few years, may represent a reversal of a longstanding pattern of net losses through migration. Patterns of neighborhood succession have moved beyond generalizations about foreign‐for‐native replacement due to the in‐movement of young, non‐family households with domestic origins. It is interesting to note that the neighborhood with the largest growth in foreign‐born persons over the last decade –– Bushwick, Brooklyn –– is also a major destination for young, non‐family households from other parts of the nation.

Slide 13

China*6%

Dominican Republic

5%

Jamaica3%

Italy2%

Haiti2%

All Other Foreign-born29%

Native-born54%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata SamplePopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning

Population 65 Years and Older by NativityNew York City, 2011

Foreign-born46%

Total 65 and over = 1,010,156

N-born63%

F-born37%

Total Population = 8,244,426


While immigrants account for 37 percent of the general population, they constitute 46 percent of all persons 65 years and over. The foreign‐born population ages 65 and over are comprised primarily of aging immigrant cohorts that entered in the post‐1965 immigration era. This has resulted in a new phase of unprecedented diversity for the city’s older population. This is best seen in the top five foreign‐born groups –– China, Dominican Republic, Jamaica, Italy, and Haiti. The elderly population is projected to increase by around 400,000 by 2040. As those in the present, heavily immigrant younger age cohorts eventually enter the older age groups, the number and share of the foreign‐born in the older age groups will continue to increase. Models that are currently used to provide services to older New Yorkers will need to be adjusted to accommodate the needs of people from a multitude of backgrounds. The continued flow of working age immigrants could help ameliorate the costs associated with increased services to the myriad communities that are/will be represented in the burgeoning older population.

Slide 14

MercerMonmouth

SullivanUlster

OrangePutnam

Dutchess

Litchfield

New Haven

Fairfield

Rockland

Westchester

Nassau

Suffolk

Sussex

Warren

Hunterdon

Ocean

Middlesex

Somerset

Morris

Passaic

Bergen

Essex

UnionNYC

Hudson

Total Foreign-born PercentPopulation Population Foreign-born

NY Metro. Region 22,342,470 5,986,283 26.8New York City 8,244,910 3,066,599 37.2Inner Counties 8,554,344 2,246,217 26.3Outer Counties 5,543,216 673,467 12.1

Percent Foreign‐born

25.0 or more

20.0 to 24.9

10.0 to 19.9

Less than 10.0

Inner CountyBoundary

New York City


Percent Foreign-born by CountyNew York Metropolitan Region, 2011

The 31 county New York Metropolitan Region is home to nearly 6 million immigrants, who account for over one‐quarter of the region’s 22.3 million people. We are entering a new era where the entire region has become reliant on immigration. In earlier decades, counties adjacent to the city were secondary destinations of settlement, as many post‐1965 immigrants left the city to make their home in the suburbs. The counties surrounding the city are now primary destinations of settlement, as many newly arrived immigrants bypass the city and settle directly in other parts of the region. While New York City was still home to a majority of the region’s foreign‐born population, the inner suburban counties accounted for 38 percent, while the outer counties settled over 11 percent. Counties closest to New York City were disproportionately foreign‐born. Hudson County, across the river from New York City, was 40 percent foreign‐born—higher than any county in the region, except for Queens. The inner ring counties of Middlesex, Bergen, Passaic, and Union were around 30 percent or more foreign‐born, while in the outer ring, the immigrant share of the population was highest in Mercer (20 percent) and Suffolk (14 percent) counties. Immigration will play an increasingly important role in the region, with the number of foreign‐born residents rising to levels seen in many of New York City’s neighborhoods. While this is already the case in many smaller cities in the region that have an older, rental housing stock of small multi‐unit buildings, immigrants are increasingly spreading out beyond these cores.

Slide 15

Percent White Nonhispanic by SubregionNew York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1970 1980 1990 2000 2011

Per

cen

t

Outer Counties

Inner Counties

New York Metropolitan

Region

New York City


One barometer of the impact of immigration can be seen in changes that have occurred in the race and Hispanic composition of the entire region. The post‐1965 shift in the sources of immigration from Europe to Asia, Latin America, and the nonhispanic Caribbean has manifested itself, not only in a shift in New York City’s race and Hispanic composition, but in the composition of the entire region. White nonhispanics constituted 77 percent of the region’s population in 1970; today the figure is just over one‐half. In the past decade, the decline in the share of whites in the region has been more pronounced outside of New York City.

Slide 16

DCP Population Division Web site: www.nyc.gov/population

Documents

Welcome to NYC.gov | City of New YorkPopulation Division-New York City Department of City Planning *Includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. New York City’s foreign‐born population