art - immigrants in the united sate

7/28/2019 Art - Immigrants in the United Sate

1/24

Center for Immigration Studies

Immigrants in the United States 2002A Snapshot of Americas Foreign-Born Population

By Steven A. Camarota

November 2002

terforImm

igrationStudies

Backgrounder

An analysis by the Center for ImmigrationStudies of the Current Population Survey(CPS) collected in March of this year by the

Census Bureau indicates that 33.1 millionimmigrants (legal and illegal) live in the United

States, an increase of two million just since the lastCensus. The March CPS includes an extra-largesample of minorities and is considered one of thebest sources for information on persons born outsideof the United States referred to as foreign-bornby the Census Bureau.1 For the purposes of thisreport, foreign-born and immigrant are usedsynonymously.2 The questions asked in the CPS are

much more extensive than those in the decennialcensus, and therefore it can be used to provide adetailed picture of the nations population, includinginformation about welfare use, health insurancecoverage, poverty rates, entrepreneurship, and manyother characteristics. The purpose of thisBackgrounder is to examine immigrations impacton the United States so as to better inform the debateover what kind of immigration policy should beadopted in the future.

Among the reports findings:

q There is no evidence that the economic

unprecedented. Even at the peak of the greatwave of immigration in the early 20thcentury, the number of immigrants livingin the United States was only 40 percent ofwhat it is today (13.5 million in 1910).

q Immigrants account for 11.5 percent of thetotal population, the highest percentage in70 years. I f current t rends continue, by theend of this decade the immigrant share ofthe total population will surpass the all timehigh of 14.8 percent reached in 1890.

q Immigration has become the determinatefactor in population growth. The arrival of1.5 million immigrants each year, coupledwith 750,000 births to immigrant womenannually, means that immigration policy isadding over two mil lion people to the U.S.population each year, accounting for at leasttwo-thirds of U.S. population growth.

q Although immigration has a very large effecton the overall size of the U.S. population, ithas a much more modest effect on the agestructure in the United States. The nearly16 million immigrants who arrived in the


2/24


190019101920193019401950196019701980

199020002002

Table 1. Immigrantsas a Percentageof U.S. Population

13.6 percent14.7 percent13.2 percent11.6 percent8.8 percent6.9 percent5.4 percent4.7 percent6.2 percent

7.9 percent11.1 percent11.5 percent

Figure 1. Immigrant Population: 1900-2002

19.8

31.1

35

grants(inmillions)

33.1

30

25

20

force by 21 percent, while increasing thesupply of all other workers by 5 percent.

q The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is two-thirds higherthan that of natives and their children, 17.6percent versus 10.6 percent. Immigrants andtheir minor children now account for almostone in four persons living in poverty.

q The proportion of immigrant-headed

households using at least one major welfare

program is 24.5 percent compared to 16.3percent for native households.

q One-third of immigrants do not have healthinsurance 2.5 times the rate for natives.Immigrants who arrived after 1989 and theirU.S.-born children account for 95 percent (7.5million) of the 7.8 million increase in the sizethe uninsured population since 1989.

q The low educational attainment and resulting

low wages of many immigrants are the primaryreasons so many live in poverty, use welfare,and lack health insurance, not their legal statusor an unwillingness to work.

q Immigration accounts for virtually all of thenational increase in public school enrollmentover the last two decades. In 2002, there were

9.7 million school-age children fromimmigrant families in the United States.

q In 2002, 39.2 percent of immigrants 18 andolder were citizens and they comprised 6percent of all eligible voters.

q Immigrants and natives exhibit remarkably

similar rates of entrepreneurship, with about1 in 10 being self employed.


3/24


1. Immigrant Arrivals, 2000-20023

2. Immigrant Arrivals, 2000-2002,Plus Births to These Immigrants3

3. Immigrant Arrivals, 2000-2002,Plus Births to All Immigrants3

4. Growth in Foreign-BornPopulation, 2000-20024

5. Growth in Foreign-Born Population,2000-2002, Plus Births to 2000-2002 Immigrants4

6. Growth in Foreign-Born Population,2000-2002, Plus Births to All Immigrants4

Share of U.S.Pop. Growth

57.9 Percent

59.4 Percent

86.7 Percent

39.8 Percent

41.4 Percent

68.6 Percent

Births to Immigrants2000-20022

-

81

1,475

-

81

1,475

ImmigrationComponent

2,960

2,960

2,960

2,035

2,035

2,035

U.S. Pop. Growth,2000-20021

5,116

5,116

5,116

5,116

5,116

5,116

Table 2. Six Methods for Estimating Immigrations Impact onU.S. Population Growth, 2000 to 2002, Using the CPS (Thousands)

Because the CPS is primarily designed to gatherdata on people in the workforce, it does not includethose living in group quarters, such as prisons andnursing homes. However, i t is possible to arrive at atotal immigrant population of 33.1 million simply byadding the roughly 600,000 immigrants found to beliving in institutions by the preliminary 2000 Censusresults to the 32.5 million immigrants in the CPS.3

Because all children born in the United Statesto immigrants are by definition natives, the sole reasonfor the dramatic increase in the immigrant population

is new immigration. While some immigrants die andothers return home, the issuance of 800,000 to onemillion permanent residency visas annually and thesettlement of hundreds of thousands of illegal alienseach year greatly exceeds deaths and out-migration.The immigrant population in the CPS includes perhaps

eight to nine mill ion illegal aliens and 900,000 personson long-term temporary visas, such as students andtemporary workers.

In any discussion of immigrations effect onthe country it is important to keep in mind that thenumber of legal immigrants allowed in each year, theselection criteria used, and the level of resources devotedto controll ing il legal immigration are all discretionarypolicies of the federal government. Thus the numbersdiscussed in this report represent a policy choice, onethat does not have to continue into the indefinite future.

It is also important to note that given the samplingand non-sampling error that exists in any survey, theresults in thisBackgrounder for states and immigrantgroups with relatively small populations should beinterpreted with caution.


4/24


Table 3. Rank of States by Number of Immigrants (Thousands)

State1) Calif.2) N.Y.3) Fla.4) Texas

5) N.J.6) Ill.7) Ariz.8) Mass.9) Md.10)Va..11) Wash.12) Penn.13) Mich.

14) Ga.15) Colo.16) Ohio17) Nev.18) N.C.19) Conn.20) Ore

TotalPop.

34,48818,82716,34821,065

8,47012,3315,3166,3225,3267,1055,930

12,1029,892

8,2894,410

11,1912,1358,0983,3923 462

1990sImms.1

66485849

404443525841432932

282418158

114

Imm.Pop.

9,1183,9573,0082,995

1,5631,338

851793677629592569557

483445400386381359315

1990sImms.1

3,1991,4781,0811,231

612557304279288280232213228

283212133150212100145

Imm.Pop.156137136135

1321301301289493828072

72645039353319

TotalPop.

2,6421,8046,0365,525

1,0434,3903,3824,0093,9961,3154,3882,657

554

1,2581,683

634791

1,2792,799

607

State27) Kan.28) N.M.29) Ind.30) Mo.

31) R.I.32) La.33) Okla.34) S.C.35) Ky.36) Idaho37) Ala.38) Ark.39) D.C.

40) N.H.41) Neb.42) Alaska43) Del.44) Maine45) Miss.46) Vt

2000-20021

673296357329

15211813011510887995553

18987036605047

2000-20021

274

1716

1230173012

815

87

5553382

Historical ComparisonWhile immigration has played an important role inAmerican history, the level of immigration and the sizeof the immigrant population have varied considerably.Figure 1 shows the number of immigrants living inthe United States over the course of the last 100 years.The 33.1 million immigrants residing in the UnitedStates in 2002 are by far the most ever recorded. Evenduring the great wave of immigration at the turn ofthe century, the immigrant population was less than

half what it is today.Table 1 shows that after growing in the earlypart of this century, the immigrant populationstabilized at around 10 or 11 million for about fourdecades. In the mid-1960s, changes in immigrationlaw and other factors caused the annual level of legalimmigration to rise steadily, from about 300,000 in

the 1960s to nearly a million today. As a result, between1970 and 1980 the number of immigrants living inthe United States grew by 47 percent or a record 4.5million people. Reflecting the continuing increase inlegal and illegal immigration, the immigrantpopulation grew by 5.7 million (40 percent) in the1980s another record and by 11.3 million (57percent) in the 1990s, again surpassing the previousrecord. The latest data indicate that this rapid growthhas continued into the first decade of the 21st century,adding another two million in just the last two years.

The foreign-born populations growth rate in everydecade since 1970 has been higher than at any othertime in history, far surpassing the 31 percent increasebetween 1900 and 1910.

Unlike in the past, the growth in the immigrantpopulation now accounts for a large share of the increasein the size of the U.S. population. Even during the


5/24


Table 4. States Ranked by Percentageof Population Made Up of Immigrants

State1) Calif.2) N.Y.3) N.J.4) Fla.

5) Nev.6) Ariz.7) Hawaii8) Texas9) D.C.10) Md.11) R.I.12) Mass.13) Ill.

14) Conn.15) Colo.16) Wash.17) Ore.18)Va.19) Alaska20) Utah

PercentImmigrants

5.54.94.94.7

4.74.23.83.83.63.23.13.13.0

3.02.72.42.42.32.01 9

State27) Iowa28) Del.29) Minn.30) N.C.

31) Penn.32) Wisc.33) Okla.34) Neb.35) Ohio36) S.C.37) Vt.38) Tenn.39) Ark.

40) La.41) Maine42) Mo.43) Ky.44) Ind.45) Wyo.46) Ala

PercentImmigrants

26.421.018.518.4

18.116.015.714.213.012.712.712.510.9

10.610.110.09.18.97.97 7

first decade of the last century, the 3.2 million increasein the size of the immigrant population accounted foronly 20 percent of the total increase in the U.S.population. In contrast, the 11.3 million-increase inthe immigrant population from 1990 to 2000accounted for 35 percent of U.S. population growthin the 1990s. And the two million increase in the sizeof the immigrant population just since the last Censusaccounted for 40 percent of the 5.1 million increase inthe U.S. population in the last two years.4

Immigration now accounts for such a large

percentage of population because the fertility of nativeswas much higher in the early 1900s. As a result, theU.S. population a century ago grew regardless ofimmigration. Today natives have only about twochildren on average, with the result that immigrationnow accounts for a very large share of population growth.Also in contrast to the past, a much higherpercentage of todays immigrants remain in

the United States rather than returning home.Because so many immigrants in the early 20thcentury eventually returned to their homecountries, immigration at that time did notadd permanently to the overall size of the U.S.population in the way that it does today.5

While the number of immigrants andthe growth rate of the immigrant population

are higher now than at any other t ime in thelast 100 years, Table 1 shows that the foreign-born percentage of the population was higherin the first few decades of the 1900s, reaching14.7 percent of the total U.S. population in1910. As a result of World War I and changesin immigration law in the early 1920s, thelevel of immigration fell significantly. The

1930 Census was the last time the percentageof immigrants was as high as it is today.

In terms of the impact of immigrantson the United States, both the percentage ofthe population made up of immigrants andthe number of immigrants are clearly

in question represent 10 percent or 30 percent of acity or states population may not be so important; itsthe raw numbers that would seem to matter most, andthe numbers are already well over twice what they werein 1910. Moreover, absent a change in policy, thenumber of immigrants will continue to grow rapidlyfor the foreseeable future.

Population GrowthThe CPS can be used to provide insight into the impact

of immigration on the size of the U.S. population. Table2 reports six different methods using the March 2002CPS to estimate the effect of immigration on U.S.population growth since the last Census. The firstcolumn in Table 2 shows the growth in the U.S.population based on a comparison of the total


6/24


Table 5. States Ranked by Increase inImmigrant Population, 1990-2002 (Thousands)

1990Census

19,767

6,4591,5241,6632,852

967278952313312

2002CPS

32,452

9,1182,9953,0083,9571,563

8511,338

677629

All States

1) Calif.2) Texas3) Fla.4) N.Y.5) N.J.6) Ariz7) Ill.8) Md.9) V

NumberIncrease

12,685

2,6591,4711,3451,105

596573386364317

PercentIncrease

64

4196813962

20641

116102

population as enumerated in the 2000 Census and theMarch 2002 population estimate prepared by theCensus Bureau. The first three rows of Table 2 use thenumber of immigrants who arrived in the United Statesin the last two years as the basis for estimating theimpact of immigration on U.S. population growth. Thismethod is possible because the CPS asks foreign-bornpersons what year they came to the United States. In2002, 3.33 million immigrants in the Survey indicatedthat they had entered the country in 2000, 2001 andthe first three months of 2002. Because those who

arrived in the first three months of 2000 should havealready been counted in the 2000 Census we reducethe 3.3 figure by 370,000 or three months worth ofimmigration to account for those who arrived in thefirst quarter of 2000. It is reasonable to view the 2.96million immigrants who arrived in the last two yearsas the basis for estimating immigrations effect onpopulation growth because this flow reflects current

U.S. immigration policy both legal immigrationand the level of resources devoted to controlling illegalimmigration.

Method One in Table 2 shows that the 2.96million figure is equal to 57.9 percent of U.S.population growth. Of course, immigrants do not justadd to the population by their presence in the United

States. Immigrants also have children. Method Twoshows that if the 81,000 births in the United States toimmigrants who arrived between 2000 and 2002 areadded to 2.96 million then immigration accountedfor 59.4 percent of population growth since the lastCensus. Method Three shows that the immigrationshare of population growth is even larger if births to allimmigrants between 2000-2002 are counted. Thenearly 1.5 million births to immigrants in the last twoyears plus the 2.96 million immigrants who arrived inthat time period is equal to 86.7 percent of U.S.

population growth.Methods Four, Five, and Six use the growth inthe foreign-born population to estimate the impact ofimmigration on U.S. population growth. Theimmigrant population grew by roughly two mill ion inthe last two years. Although the CPS shows that threemillion immigrants entered the country in the last twoyears, the foreign-born population does not grow by

this amount because each year some immigrants dieand others return home. Method Four shows that thetwo million increase in the foreign-born accounted foralmost 40 percent of population growth in the lasttwo years. Method Five shows that adding the 81,000births to immigrants who arrived in the last two yearsto the increase in the foreign-born population

accounted for 41 percent of total population

growth and M ethod Six shows that thegrowth in the foreign-born plus births to allimmigrants in the last two years accountedfor almost 69 percent of population growth.Taken together, the estimates in Table 2 makeclear that no matter what assumption is used,immigration policy has very significantimplications for U.S. population growth.

State DataTable 3 ranks the states by the size of theirimmigrant populations. It also shows thenumber of immigrantswhoreportedarriving


7/24


State

CaliforniaTexasFloridaGeorgia

ArizonaNorth CarolinaColoradoNevadaVirginiaWashingtonMarylandNew Jersey

(3)Births to

Immigrants2000-20023

47017211138

6131191127251944

(2)

Arrivals,2000-20022

59929331816

116538732778896

135

(1)

Pop. Growth,2000-20021

872659596268

24719016415114613911297

Table6. Immigrations Estimated Impact on PopulationGrowthin the Fastest-Growing States, 2000-02, Using the CPS (Thousands)

(4)2000-2002 Arrivals as a

Share of PopulationGrowth

68.7 Percent44.4 Percent53.3 Percent6.0 Percent

46.8 Percent28.1 Percent53.2 Percent21.2 Percent53.0 Percent63.4 Percent85.8 Percent

> 100 0 Percent

(5)

2000-2002 Arrivals PlusBirths to Immigrants

>100.0 Percent70.5 Percent71.9 Percent20.2 Percent

71.5 Percent44.4 Percent64.8 Percent28.5 Percent71.5 Percent81.4 Percent

100.0 Percent> 100 0 Percent

Two Methods for Estimating Immigrantions Impact onPopulation Growth

account for 28 percent of the nations total immigrantpopulation, followed by New York with 12 percent,Florida and Texas with 9 percent each, New Jersey with5 percent, and Illinois with 4 percent. Despite havingonly 40 percent of the nations total population, thesesix states account for 68 percent of the nationsimmigrant population.

Table 4 ranks states by the percentage of theirpopulations composed of immigrants. While therankings by percent immigrant are similar to thosein Table 3, there are some significant differences.

Because of their relatively small total populations,several states, such as Hawaii and Nevada, with highpercentages of immigrants, rank lower in terms ofnumber of immigrants.

Table 5 compares the 1990 Census counts ofthe immigrant population with the March 2000 CPSand ranks the top 15 states by the numerical increasein their immigrant populations. While the states that

had large immigrant populations in 1990 continue toaccount for most of the growth in the immigrant

population, Table 5 shows substantial growth in theforeign-born populations in such states as Arizona,Colorado, North Carolina, and Nevada. The table alsoshows that immigrants have become somewhat lessconcentrated in the last 12 years. In 1990 the top sixstates accounted for 73 percent of the total immigrantpopulation, but by 2002 these states accounted for 68percent of the total foreign-born population in theUnited States.

Immigration and State Population Growth

In many states across the country, congestion andovercrowding have become very significant issues andit is important to determine the extent to whichimmigration policy may be contributing to theseproblems by significantly increasing the size of statepopulations. Table 6 examines the role of immigrationin the 15 states experiencing the largest increases inpopulation. The first column in Table 6 reports

population growth between 2000 and 2002 by state.Columns 2 and 3 show the number of immigrants in


8/24


Pre-19704,109

652305

83543197

1,590476

318912

128

Table 7. Region of Birth for Immigrant Population (Thousands)1

All Countries

MexicoCanadaCent. AmericaCaribbeanS. AmericaEuropeE. Asia

S. AsiaMiddle EastSub-Saharan AfricaNot Reported/Oceania

1990-9912,449

4,254178895

1,030788

1,3511,982

855340306472

1980-897,962

2,38996

752826493606

1,771

386243120278

1970-794,604

1,35079

252521253594975

17820345

153

Number32,454

9,659713

2,1603,1082,0214,5475,752

1,746963607

1,173

Percent ofImm. Pop.

100.0

29.82.26.79.66.2

14.017.7

5.43.01.93.6

Cohorts

1 Values have been rounded to the nearest thousand.Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of March 2002 CPS. The Survey does not include persons living in groupquarters such as prisons and nursing homes.

2000-023,330

1,01455

178188290406548

29688

124142

Number9,6591,4481,4291,305

920

869819757713653636605569539

532507471439407405359

Percent ofImm. Pop.

29.84.54.44.02.8

2.72.52.32.22.02.01.91.81.7

1.61.61.51.41.31.21 1

Pre-197065213713630

344

171359

30567

3702372949

4738

1168711

26744

1970-79 1,350

187293145136

10216415779

11960937374

102494842386759

1980-89 2,389

368488276165

332264241

96195

52104189122

161689049

1252178

Year of Entry2Table 8.Top25ImmigrantCountriesofBirthin 2000 and Citizenship Rate(Thsnds.)

1

1) Mexico2) China/Taiwan/HK3) Philippines4) India5) Cuba

6) El Salvador7) Vietnam8) Korea9) Canada10) Dominican Rep.11) Germany12) Great Britain13) Haiti14) Colombia

15) Jamaica16) Russia17) Poland18) Japan19) Guatemala20) Italy21) Ecuador

1990-99 4,254

607431608213

358319215178241120104231217

199305177132185

41147

CitizenshipRate19.450.764.934.260.6

24.456.542.242.436.660.649.931.934.6

44.753.350.426.021.470.630 9

2000-02 1,014

14981

24662

605985553134674777

234740

12948

931

Pre-19704,109

65230583

543197

1590476

318912

128


9/24


1 Analysis confined to persons 18 and over in labor force who worked a full-time schedule at least part of 2001.2 Based on responses to year of entry question in the CPS.Source: Center for Immigration Studies analyses of March 2002 CPS. The Survey does not include persons living in group quarters suchas prisons and nursing homes.

EducationLess Than H.S.H.S. OnlySome CollegeBachelorsGraduate orProfessional

Median

Annual EarningsAverage Age

Natives7.6 %

32.4 %30.0 %20.2 %

9.8 %

$31,20041

All

Immigrants30.3 %24.9 %16.7 %17.7 %

10.4 %

$24,00039

Pre-197017.3 %25.6 %22.6 %18.8 %

15.6 %

$33,00053

1970-7927.6 %22.6 %18.9 %20.0 %

10.8 %

$30,00045

1980-8929.3 %25.8 %19.1 %17.2 %

8.6 %

$25,00039

1990-200234.6 %25.1 %13.1 %16.8 %

10.4 %

$20,00032

ImmigrantPct. of

Category40.6 %11.6 %8.7 %

13.0 %

15.4 %

--

Table 9. Characteristics of Immigrants and Natives in the Workforce1

Year of Entry2

Occupations

Total Workforce

Low-immigrant OccupationsManagerial and ProfessionalTechnical, Sales,

Administrative SupportFarming Managers,

Forestry and FishingPrecision Production,

Craft and Repair

High-immigrant OccupationsOperators,

Fabricators and Laborers

Pct.Imm.14.6

11.610.6

10.5

9.6

17.0

22.8

20 3

AverageWages$38,558

$44,150$51,125

$34,887

$14,461

$32,884

$23,478

$26 142

Pct. ofWorkforce

100 %

72.9 %32.4 %

27.2 %

1.0 %

12.3 %

27.1 %

14 3 %

Pct. ofImms.100 %

57.8 %23.4 %

19.5 %

0.6 %

14.3 %

42.2 %

19 8 %

Pct. ofNatives

100 %

75.5 %34.0 %

28.5 %

1.0 %

12.0 %

24.5 %

13 3 %

Pct. ofBlacks2

100 %

60.1 %22.9 %

29.1 %

0.3 %

7.8 %

39.9 %

19 9 %

Pct. ofWhites3

100 %

78.4 %36.6 %

28.1 %

1.2 %

12.5 %

21.6 %

12 2 %

Table 10. Concentration of Immigrants Across Occupationsand Other Socio-Demographic Characteristics1

Total Workers(Thsnds.)

120,900

88,19539,175

32,912

1,192

14,916

32,705

17 257


10/24


the state who arrived 2000-2002 and births toimmigrants over that time period. Column 4 uses thenumber of immigrants who arrived between 2000 and2002 to estimate immigrations impact on populationgrowth, while column 5 uses recent immigration plusbirths to immigrants over the last two years to estimateimmigrations impact on state population growth. Table6 shows that using either assumption, there are anumber of states in which immigration has had a verylarge impact on state population growth. In Texas,Florida, Arizona, Colorado, Washington, Virginia, and

Oregon, immigration accounts for half or more ofpopulation growth. The table also shows that in statessuch as California and Maryland population wouldseem to have roughly stabilized but for immigration.This is important because both states are struggling todeal with ever-expanding populations.

The table also shows that immigration is notthe determinate factor in population growth in every

fast-growing state. In Georgia, for example, newimmigration and births to immigrant women accountfor about one-fifth of total population growth. In somestates, such as New Jersey and Illinois, the findings inthe table indicate that absent immigration, these statesmay have declined in population. This is because thereis a significant out-migration of natives from thesestates. There is, however, both anecdotal and systematic

evidence indicating that in high-immigration statessome natives leave because they are adversely affectedby immigration. In particular, less-skilled native-bornworkers may leave to avoid job competition, and someparents may leave high-immigration areas because of

the strains it creates on public schools. Therefore, it isby no means certain that these states would havedeclined in population had there been no immigration.Overall, Table 6 shows that in most, but not all, of thestates with the fastest growing populations,immigration has played a very significant role. This isimportant because where American citizens or legalimmigrants already in the country choose to live isentirely up to them. However, future immigration issomething that can be limited much more easily thanmovement within the United States by Americans. The

findings in Table 6 suggest that reducing immigrationwould be very helpful to a number of states strugglingto deal with rapidly increasing populations.

Region and Country of OriginTable 7 shows the distribution of immigrants by regionof the world, wi th Mexico and Canada treated

separately. Mexico accounts for 30 percent of allimmigrants, with 9.7 million immigrants living inUnited States, more than the number of immigrantsfrom any other region of the world. Immigrants fromMexico, Central and South America, the Caribbean,and East Asia make up the majority of immigrants,with 70 percent of the foreign-born coming from theseareas. Sub-Saharan Africa and Europe make up a

relatively small portion of the immigrant population,accounting for only 15.9 percent of all immigrants andonly 13.9 percent of immigrants who arrived since1990.

Table 8 ranks the top-25 immigrant-sendingcountries by the number ofimmigrants as of March 2002. Mexicois, of course, the largest sending

country, accounting for more than fivetimes as many immigrants as the nextlargest country, the combined totalfor China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong.As is clear from Table 8, LatinAmerican Caribbean and East Asian

< H.S.

0 5 % 10 % 15 % 20 % 25 %

Figure 2. Percentage of Each EducationalCategory Comprised of Post-1990 Immigrants1

20.7 %

5 2 %


11/24


PercentSelf-Employed

26.5 %

24.6 %20.3 %19.4 %19.2 %18.9 %15.1 %13.1 %11.8 %11.1 %

10.9 %10.6 %10.3 %10.2 %9.6 %9.4 %9.2 %7.3 %6.7 %

6.6 %6.2 %5.9 %5.2 %4.6 %3.6 %

11 8 %

Korea

IranItalyPakistan

CanadaRussia

JapanGermanyIndia

China

Great BritainEcuadorPoland

CubaUkraineVietnam

ColombiaJamaica

Guatemala

HondurasEl SalvadorMexicoPhilippines

Dominican RepublicHaiti

All Others

Table 11. Self Employment forEmployed Persons 25 and Older (Percent)

Labor Market CharacteristicsImmigrants now comprise 14.6 percent of the nationstotal workforce.6 This is somewhat higher than the

immigrant share of the total U.S. population (1.5percent) because, in comparison to natives, a slightlyhigher percentage of immigrants are of working age.Table 9 reports educational attainment and othercharacteristics of immigrants and natives in theworkforce. The table shows that in 2002, 30 percentof immigrants who worked full time at least part of theyear did not have a high school diploma, and of thosewho arrived in the 1990s, the figure is 35 percent. Incomparison, slightly less than 8 percent of natives lackeda high school education. This difference in theeducational attainment of immigrants and natives hasenormous implications for the social and economicintegration of immigrants into America society. Thereis no single better predictor of economic success than

education, and the fact that so many adult immigrantslack a high school degree means their income, povertyrates, welfare use, and other measures of economicattainment are likely to lag far behind natives. Thetable also shows that about the same percentage ofimmigrants and natives have graduate or professionaldegrees.

The large number of immigrants with low

levels of education means that immigration policy hasdramatically increased the supply of workers with lessthan a high school degree, while increasing othereducational categories more modestly. The last columnin Table 9 shows the portion of each educationalcategory composed of immigrants. While immigrantscomprise about 15 percent of the total workforce, theycomprise more than 40 percent of the high school

dropouts in the workforce. Figure 2 shows the share ofworkers in each educational category comprised ofimmigrants who arrived since 1990. The figure showsthat recent immigration has fundamentally altered thesupply of unskilled workers by increasing the numberof dropouts in the workforce by 21 percent; however

income figures reported in Table 9 show that, as a group,immigrants have lower median incomes than natives.The annual median earnings of immigrants are onlyabout 77 percent those of natives. And for the most

recent immigrants, median earnings are only 64 percentthat of natives. While as a group immigrants earnsignificantly less than natives, the income data by yearof entry suggest significant progress over time. However,the earning data also indicate that it takes a very longtime for immigrants to close the gap with natives.

Consider immigrants who arrived in the 1970s.The age data shown at the bottom of Table 9 indicate


12/24


Table 12. Poverty Rates for Natives and Immigrants

Dominican RepublicMexicoPakistanCubaHondurasColombiaGuatemalaKorea

VietnamJapanHaitiEl SalvadorGreat BritainChinaItalyRussiaUkraine

IranEcuadorJamaicaIndiaGermanyCanadaPolandPhilippinesAll Other Immigrants

All ImmigrantsAll Natives

Immigrants 18 and OverNatives 18 and Over

Children (Under 18) ofImmigrant Mothers3

Children (Under 18) ofNative Mothers4

Immigrants and TheirU.S.-Born Children (under 18)3

Natives Excluding U.S.-B Child f Immi t 4

Percent54.9 %61.5 %39.4 %49.2 %52.8 %40.9 %50.7 %32.1 %

31.4 %26.0 %47.2 %42.0 %23.6 %32.0 %37.0 %25.8 %30.7 %

31.3 %39.8 %32.2 %19.7 %21.3 %18.2 %26.3 %17.9 %34.4 %

41.5 %28.7 %

39.7 %25.4 %

53.2 %

34.8 %

43.9 %

27 7 %

Number

(Thsnds.)358

5,93298

452152221207243

25711426736414346415013178

88143171257136130124255

2,517

13,45271,527

11,67345,805

7,114

20,385

18,788

66 191

PercentAdult

Dropouts247.7 %64.8 %10.6 %33.3 %52.7 %14.9 %54.2 %10.6 %

22.3 %5.0 %

30.3 %58.6 %7.7 %

14.9 %37.3 %8.5 %9.7 %

11.2 %35.1 %25.4 %8.3 %9.1 %

15.1 %19.7 %8.4 %

18.8 %

33.0 %13.0 %

--

-

-

-

Percent25.8 %24.4 %24.1 %19.8 %19.8 %18.5 %16.2 %13.2 %

12.8 %12.3 %12.0 %12.0 %11.7 %10.6 %10.4 %10.1 %9.8 %

9.6 %8.9 %8.3 %8.2 %7.1 %6.0 %5.1 %3.8 %

14.6 %

16.1 %11.1 %

15.0 %9.3 %

23.3 %

14.7 %

17.6 %

10 6 %

Number

(Thsnds.)168

2,35160

18257

10066

100

1055468

10471

154425125

273244

10745432454

1,074

5,20827,702

4,39816,775

3,118

8,619

7,516

25 395

In Poverty In or Near Poverty1


13/24


Welfare ProgramPublic Assistance3

SupplementalSecurity Income

Food StampsMedicaidPublic or Subsidized Housing

1990-2002Immigrant

Households2.7 %

2.1 %5.3 %

22.3 %4.8 %

1970-79Immigrant

Households2.0 %

5.9 %5.3 %

21.2 %4.6 %

Pre-1970Immigrant

Households0.7 %

6.6 %4.8 %

16.2 %5.0 %

AllImmigrant

Households2.3 %

4.5 %5.7 %

21.8 %4.9 %

NativeHouseholds

1.6 %

3.9 %5.4 %

13.4 %4.6 %

Table 13. Use of Means-tested Programsby Head of Households Nativity, by Year of Entry (Percent)1

1980-89Immigrant

Households2.9 %

5.6 %7.2 %

25.2 %5.0 %

Year of Entry2

that these immigrants are, by 2002, on average olderthan natives in the workforce. Because greater workforceexperience comes with age, one would expect this totranslate into higher income. Despite this, the median

income of immigrants who arrived in the 1970s isactually slightly below that of natives, even though theyare on average older than natives and have been in theUnited States for more than 22 years. Only the cohortthat arrived before 1970 had higher incomes thannatives, which is expected given that they are mucholder than natives on average. In addition to their age,the higher income of immigrants who arrived prior to1970 may reflect the fact that most were admittedunder the pre-1965 immigration system, which tendedto produce a more educated flow of immigrants relativeto natives than do todays policies.

Although immigrants who arrived decades agodid eventually close the gap with natives, the fact thatit took so long to do so means that their lifetime

earnings are significantly less than those of natives. Thishas wide-ranging implications for the immigrantsthemselves and for the Social Security system, which isbased on lifetime earnings. The program is partlyredistributive in nature. Those who have lower incomespay less in Social Security taxes, but receive paymentsupon retirement that are proportionately larger incomparison to their tax payments than is the case for

more affluent taxpayers. Thus, adding large numbersof people with substantially lower life-time earningscould significantly weaken the Social Society system inthe long-run.

In the short-run, it is often suggested thatimmigration is very helpful to society because it addsyoung workers who pay Social Security taxes. However,if there is any short-term benefit to the system it mustbe very small. While newly arrived immigrants aresomewhat younger than natives, they still age just likeanyone else. In fact, the average age of an immigrant in2002 is 39 years, four years more than the average ageof a native-born American (The age figures in Table 9are only for those in the workforce). Even if one looksat only recent immigrants, the effect on the agestructure is very small. The nearly 16 millionimmigrants who arrived in the United States since 1990have lowered the average age in the United States byonly four months.7

Table 10 shows the occupational concentrationof immigrants and natives. The upper half of the tablelists those occupations in which the immigrantcomponent is less than or roughly equal to theirproportion in the overall workforce. The lower half liststhose occupations in which immigrants comprise aproportion larger than their representation in theworkforce, henceforth referred to as low-immigrant and


14/24


Using AnyWelfare

Program58.7 %35.7 %35.3 %

32.6 %31.1 %30.9 %30.1 %29.9 %28.4 %28.2 %27.8 %25.8 %

25.0 %23.1 %20.9 %19.3 %15.5 %13.8 %13.3 %11.1 %10.2 %

9.2 %8.0 %7.3 %7.1 %

20.5 %

24 5 %

FoodStamps23.6 %8.9 %

13.5 %

5.7 %12.4 %8.5 %3.9 %6.5 %2.5 %6.3 %3.8 %0.0 %

8.3 %4.3 %5.2 %3.3 %2.4 %1.3 %3.5 %1.8 %0.2 %

0.3 %2.5 %1.8 %0.8 %4.5 %

5 7 %

Sup. Sec.Income17.3 %3.4 %

13.0 %

7.8 %10.2 %10.7 %3.6 %1.9 %4.4 %2.8 %5.3 %0.0 %

8.3 %8.5 %11.1 %4.8 %5.4 %3.2 %2.7 %0.0 %1.1 %

1.2 %2.5 %1.8 %1.1 %4.0 %

4 5 %

PublicAssistance

6.6 %3.7 %0.9 %

2.6 %3.1 %5.8 %2.1 %5.6 %1.5 %4.2 %1.5 %0.0 %

1.9 %4.3 %1.5 %2.2 %1.3 %0.0 %0.0 %0.0 %0.4 %

0.0 %0.0 %0.0 %0.0 %2.3 %

2 3 %

CountryDominican RepublicMexicoCuba

HaitiRussiaVietnamEl SalvadorHondurasColombiaGuatemalaEcuadorPakistan

UkraineIranKoreaJamaicaPhilippinesChinaItalyPolandIndia

Great BritainJapanGermanyCanadaAll Others

Imm Households

Table 14. Use of Means-Tested Programs by Head ofHouseholds Country of Origin (Percent)

Medicaid55.0 %32.9 %30.9 %

24.3 %27.6 %29.0 %25.7 %24.3 %24.0 %25.4 %25.8 %23.4 %

22.0 %22.2 %19.1 %15.6 %13.2 %12.2 %10.6 %8.8 %9.1 %

5.8 %6.5 %4.8 %6.1 %

18.0 %

21 8 %

EITCEligibility

38.4 %49.3 %18.1 %

43.9 %5.3 %29.3 %45.3 %43.0 %28.3 %32.4 %35.6 %33.0 %

18.3 %15.4 %19.7 %31.6 %16.8 %16.2 %11.9 %15.0 %17.4 %

11.2 %8.4 %9.1 %7.9 %

23.5 %

28 8 %

Public orSubsidized

Housing18.1 %4.5 %

10.9 %

11.7 %10.2 %5.9 %6.3 %6.5 %5.9 %2.8 %5.3 %2.2 %

8.3 %4.3 %6.2 %5.9 %3.2 %2.9 %4.0 %0.9 %1.1 %

4.0 %2.0 %1.5 %2.4 %4.7 %

4 9 %

high-immigrant occupations, respectively. Given thelow level of educational attainment of a large proportionof immigrants, it is not surprising that high-immigrantoccupations are those that tend to require fewer years

of education. For example, while immigrants make up23 percent of those holding non-private householdservice jobs, such as janitor, security guard, andchild-care worker, they comprise only 11 percent ofindividuals in managerial and professional jobs.

Table 10 reveals that only 25 percent of nativesare employed in occupations that have highconcentrations of immigrants. This suggests that mostnatives are not in competition with immigrants.8

However, as Table 10 shows, high-immigrantoccupations pay an average of only 53 percent of whatlow-immigrant occupations pay. Additionally,high-immigrant occupations have unemployment ratesthat tend to be significantly higher than low-immigrant


15/24


Percent

55.8 %53.7 %53.4 %50.7 %47.2 %44.7 %40.9 %36.2 %35.4 %

29.9 %28.0 %21.4 %21.0 %20.7 %19.3 %18.2 %17.3 %17.3 %

13.1 %11.8 %11.2 %9.8 %9.0 %8.4 %6.9 %

26.7 %

33.4 %12.2 %

33.1 %12.8 %

23 %9.2 %

29.9 %11.9 %

14.6 %

GuatemalaEl SalvadorMexicoHondurasPakistanEcuadorHaitiKoreaColombia

Dominican RepublicJamaicaVietnamPolandChinaCubaIndiaUkraineJapan

IranRussiaPhilippinesGreat BritainCanadaItalyGermanyAll Others

All ImmigrantsNatives

Immigrants 18 and OverNatives 18 and Over

Children of Immigrants (Under 18)1

Children of Natives (Under 18)2

Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born ChildrenNatives and Their Children

Total Population

Table 15. Immigrants Without Health Insurance

1 Includes all children (under 18) of immigrant mothers, including those born in theUnited States.

Number(Thsnds.)

227466

5,157146117161233274191

19514917599

3001772374476

3760

16059643444

1,961

10,84330,364

9,72822,970

3,0905,419

12,81828,389

41,207

occupations. By itself, this does notnecessarily mean that immigrants havelowered the wages or increasedunemployment in these occupations. What

it is does mean, however, is that anynegative effect from immigration will l ikelyfall on the 25 million native-born workerswho already have the lowest wages and thehighest unemployment. Table 10 alsoshows that 40 percent of native-born blackswork in high-immigrant occupations,compared to only 22 percent of whites. Thismeans that blacks are much more likely tobe affected by any decline in wages orbenefits result ing from immigrant-inducedincreases in the supply of labor.

Self Employment

One of the most common perceptions ofimmigrants is that they are uniquely ordistinctly entrepreneurial. Table 11examines the self-employment rates ofimmigrants and natives, ranked by sendingcountry. Consistent with other research,Table 11 shows that immigrants and nativesexhibit remarkably similar levels of

entrepreneurship. The table shows thatabout 10 percent of immigrants and 11percent of natives are self-employed.Turning to self-employment incomereported at the bottom of Table 11, we seethat the average self-employment income(revenue minus expenses) for bothimmigrants and natives is very similar.

While immigrants overall are not moreentrepreneurial than natives, immigrantsfrom some countries are significantly morelikely than natives to be self-employed.Those from Korea, Iran, Italy, Pakistan,Canada Russia and Japan are more likely


16/24


Number withImmigrant

Mothers(thousands)

1,132464309262130140137

Percent withImmigrant

Mothers

43.5 %26.1 %25.1 %25.7 %27.1 %16.9 %30.0 %

Number withImmigrant

Mothers(thousands)

3,2461,126936744330328314

Percent withImmigrant

Mothers

44.6 %25.4 %28.1 %25.6 %23.6 %14.5 %29.2 %

1) Calif.2) Texas3) N.Y.4) Fla.5) N.J.6) Ill.7) Ariz.

School-age (5-17) Pop. Young Children (0-4)

Table 16. Immigrations Contributionto the School-Age Population1

one simply must look elsewhere to make an argumentfor or against current immigration.

PovertyBased on the March 2002 CPS, 16.1 percent ofimmigrants compared to 11.1 percent of natives livedin poverty in 2001 (poverty statistics are based onannual income in the year prior to the survey). Likethe income figures discussed above, over timeimmigrants do make significant progress. The povertyrate is 19.9 percent for immigrants who indicated theyentered between 1990 to 2002, 13.8 percent for 1980simmigrants, and 11.7 percent for 1970s immigrants.Table 12 reports poverty rates for persons from thetop-25 immigrant-sending countries. The data indicatethat there is an enormous variation in poverty ratesamong immigrants from different countries. Forexample, the 25.8 percent poverty rate for Dominicansis more than five times that of persons from Poland or

the Philippines. The last column in Table 12 showsthe proportion of persons 21 years of age and olderfrom each country who have not completed high school.These educational data indicate that those countriesthat have the highest percentage of adults without ahigh school education also tend to have the highestpoverty rates.

The higher incidence of poverty amongimmigrants as a group has significantly increased theoverall size of the population living in poverty.Immigrants accounted for almost 16 percent of all

persons living in poverty. While this is a largepercentage, it would be even larger if the U.S.-bornchildren (under age 18) of immigrants, who areincluded in the poverty figures for natives, are countedwith their parents. The poverty rate for children reflectstheir parents income, therefore it is reasonable to viewpoverty among the U.S.-born young children ofimmigrants as attributable to their immigrant parents.The bottom portion of Table 12 shows that the povertyrate for immigrants and their U.S.-born childrentogether is 17.6 percent.

Of the 25.4 million natives living in poverty,2.3 million (9 percent) are the U.S.-born children(under 18) of immigrant mothers. If the native-bornchildren of immigrants are excluded, poverty among

natives drops from 11.1 percent to 10.6 percent. Andif the 5.2 million immigrants in poverty are alsoexcluded, along with their U.S.-born children, theoverall number of people living in poverty drops by7.5 million. This means that immigrants and theirU.S.-born children account for 22.8 percent of the 32.9million people living in poverty in the United States.


17/24


18/24


1990-99Immigrants

2,0371,658

850517561

PercentImmigrant

25.4 %30.4 %28.5 %40.1 %15.0 %

No. ofImmigrants

5,3255,1511,9541,5331,316

CSMANew YorkLos AngelesSan FranciscoMiamiChicago

Table 18. Top 10 Consolidated Metropolitan StatisticalAreas with the Largest Immigrant Populations (Thsnds.)

2000-02Immigrants

462376149168114

Among persons under age 18 living in poverty, 26.6percent are the children of immigrants.

In addition to poverty, Table 12 also reportsthe percentage of immigrants and natives living in or

near poverty, with near poverty defined as income lessthan 200 percent of the poverty threshold. As is thecase with poverty, near poverty is much more commonamong immigrants rather than natives. Table 12 showsthat 41.5 percent of immigrants compared to 28.7percent of natives live in or near poverty. Among thechildren of immigrants (under 18), 53.2 percent livein or near poverty, in contrast to 34.8 percent of thechildren of natives. If the native-born children ofimmigrants are excluded from the figures for natives,the rate of poverty/near poverty among natives dropsfrom 28.7 percent to 27.7 percent. The rate of poverty/near poverty for immigrants and their U.S.-bornchildren is almost 44 percent. If the 13.5 millionimmigrants in or near poverty are excluded, along with

their U.S.-born children (5.33 million), then the overallnumber of people living in or near poverty in the UnitedStates drops by 18.8 million. This means thatimmigrants and their U.S.-born children account for22.1 percent of the poor and near poor in the UnitedStates.

Welfare Use

Table 13 shows the percentage of immigrant- andnative-headed households in which at least one memberof the household receives public assistance (including

Temporary Assistance to Needy Families and state-administered general assistance programs);Supplemental Security Income (SSI), which is for low-income elderly and disabled persons; Food Stamps;

Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes);and subsidized or government-owned housing. Table13 indicates that even after the 1996 welfare reforms,which curtailed eligibility for some immigrants,immigrant welfare use remains higher than that ofnatives for most programs and entering cohorts after1970. In fact, the year of entry data suggest that insome cases immigrant welfare use actually rises overtime as they assimilate into the welfare system.

As was the case with lower income and higherpoverty rates, the higher welfare use rates by immigranthouseholds are at least partly explained by the largeproport ion of immigrants with few years of schooling.Less-educated people tend to have lower incomes andhigher levels of unemployment and poverty. Therefore,

it is not surprising that immigrant use of welfareprograms is significantly higher than that of natives.While immigrants welfare use is higher than

natives, Table 13 shows that most households,immigrant or native, do not use means-tested programs.On the other hand, even though most of the populationdoes not use welfare, for 2001 the total costs of justthe first four programs listed in Table 13 was more

than $90 bi llion, and Medicaid alone costs anadditional $210 billion. Moreover, there are othermeans-tested programs not listed in the table that are

C f I i i S di


19/24


Table 19. Distribution of Immigrantsand Natives Across Central Cities,Suburban, and Rural Areas (Pct.)1

linked to those reported in Table 13. For example, 15percent of immigrant households reported having atleast one child receiving subsidized school lunches,compared to only 6 percent of native households.

Finally, there is the question of whether native use ofwelfare is the proper yardstick by which to measureimmigrants. Some may reasonably argue that becauseimmigration is supposed to benefit the United States,our admission criteria should, with the exception ofrefugees, select only those immigrants who areself-sufficient.

In addition to welfare programs, Table 13reports eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit(EITC). Persons receiving the EITC pay no federalincome tax and instead receive cash assistance from thegovernment based on their earnings and family size.The figures for the EITC probably overstate receipt ofthe EITC for both immigrants and natives because theyare imputed by the Census Bureau based on income

and family size. All persons who file a return shouldreceive the EITC the IRS will process itautomatically for you if you qualify. Even illegal alienscan receive the EITC.9 With an annual cost of over$30 billion, the EITC is the nations largestmeans-tested cash assistance program for workers withlow incomes. Table 13 shows that eligibility for theEITC among immigrant-headed households is almost

double the rate of natives.While on the whole immigrant households have

higher welfare use rates, this is not true for immigrantsfrom all countries. Table 14 shows that immigrantsfrom those countries with higher education levels tendto have lower welfare use rates. From the list of countriesin Table 14, it is also clear that refugee-sendingcountries, such as Russia and Vietnam, tend to have

higher rates of welfare use because, as refugees,they have greater access to welfare programs. Onthe other hand, Mexican and Dominicanhouseholds have welfare use rates that are as highor higher than Russian or Vietnameseimmigrants and virtually none of these

In addition to being more likely to receivewelfare overall, the average payments received byimmigrant households on public assistance, SSI, or foodstamps is larger than those of natives. However, this is

not true for Medicaid. The actuarial value of Medicaidis lower for immigrant households ($7,524) using theprogram than for native households ($7,880). Thispartly reflects the fact that in some immigranthouseholds it is only the U.S.-born children who areeligible for Medicaid. In low-income native households,on the other hand, all members are typically eligible.However, it is very important to realize that thesomewhat higher dollar value for native householdsusing Medicaid is only for those who make use of theprogram. If the costs of the program are averaged outover all immigrant households, then the average costof M edicaid received by immigrants is $1,935,significantly higher than the $1,375 for nativehouseholds. This is because, as the table shows,

immigrants are much more likely to receive the programin the first place. Thus the slightly lower average valuefor immigrant households using Medicaid is not enoughto offset their much higher use rates.

This is also true for the combined value of thefour programs (including Medicaid) for which data areavailable; the costs of public/subsidized housing is notincluded. The $9,104 received by immigrant

households is lower than the $9,327 received by natives.However, because only 16.3 percent of nati vehouseholds receive welfare, compared to 24.5 percentof immigrant households, the average value of welfarereceived by immigrant households is $2,425 comparedto $1,728 for natives. In other words, immigranthouseholds use of major welfare programs is 50 percenthigher than that of natives 24.5 percent versus 16.3

C t f I i ti St di


20/24


percent. However, the value of what immigrantsactually receive is only 40 percent higher than that ofnatives $2,425 versus $1,728. The large share ofimmigrant households who continue to use means-

tested programs indicates that if the intent of welfarereform was to save American taxpayers money or toreduce immigrant dependence on the government, thenthe goal has largely been unmet.

Health InsuranceAccording to the Census Bureau, since 1989 thepopulation without health insurance has grown by 7.8million and stood at 41.2 million in 2001. (Figuresfor 2001 are based on the March 2002 CPS.) Thisgrowth has been driven largely by immigration.Immigrants who arrived after 1989 account for 6.9million or 77 percent of the growth in the uninsured.Moreover, there where nearly 600,000 children born

to post-1990 immigrants who lack insurance, meaningthat new immigrants and their U.S.-born childrenaccounted for over 95 percent of the growth in theuninsured population. Thus, it is reasonable to say thatthe nations health insurance crisis is being caused byour immigration policy.

Table 15 reports the percentage of immigrantsand natives who were uninsured for all of 2001. The

table shows that lack of health insurance is a significantproblem for immigrants from many different countries,including countries that tend to have lower povertyrates and higher education levels. The lower portion ofTable 15 reports the percentage of immigrants and theirU.S.-born children (under 18) who are uninsured.Almost 30 percent of immigrants and their childrenlack health insurance, compared to 12 percent of

natives. The large percentage of immigrants and theirchildren without insurance has significantly increasedthe overall size of the uninsured population. Immigrantsand their U.S.-born children account for 12.8 mil lionor almost 31 percent of uninsured persons in thecountry double their 15 2 percent of the share of the

in an economy that increasingly demands educatedworkers, manyimmigrants hold jobs that do not offerhealth insurance, and their low incomes make it verydifficult for them to purchase insurance on their own.

A larger uninsured population cannot help butstrain the resources of those who provide services tothe uninsured already here. Moreover, Americans withinsurance have to pay higher premiums as health careproviders pass along some of the costs of treating theuninsured to paying customers. Taxpayers also areaffected as federal, state, and local governments struggleto provide care to the growing ranks of the uninsured.There can be no doubt that by dramatically increasingthe size of the uninsured population, our immigrationpolicy has wide-ranging effects on the nations entirehealthcare system.

School-Age Children

In the last few years, a good deal of attention has beenfocused on the dramatic increase in enrollmentexperienced by many school districts across the country.All observers agree that this growth has strained theresources of many school districts. While it has beensuggested that this increase is the result of the childrenof baby boomers reaching school age (the baby boomecho), i t is clear from the CPS that immigration policy

accounts for the dramatic increase in school enrollment.Table 16 shows that there are 9.7 million school-agechildren of immigrants (ages 5 to 17) in the UnitedStates, accounting for 18.3 percent of the total schoolage population. While fewer than one-third of thesechildren are immigrants themselves, the use of publiceducation by the U.S.-born children of immigrants isa direct consequence of their parents having been

allowed into the country. The children of immigrantsaccount for such a large percentage of the school-agepopulation because a higher proportion of immigrantwomen are in their childbearing years, and immigrantstend to have more children than natives. In addition,theeffectof immigrationonpublic schoolswill beeven



21/24


problem for public education if tax revenue increasesproportionately. But as we have seen, immigrantsgenerally have lower incomes than natives, so their taxcontributions are unlikely to entirely offset the costs

they impose on schools. This is especially true becauseof the higher costs associated with teaching childrenwhose first language is not English.

The absorption capacity of American publiceducation is clearly an important issue that needs tobe taken into account when formulating a sensibleimmigration policy. Table 16 suggests that the failureto consider this question may have significantconsequences for Americas schools.

Immigrant Characteristics by StateTable 17 reports characteristics for immigrants byregion of the country and for selected states. The firsttwo columns report the percentage of adult immigrants

and natives who lack a high school education. The tableshows that in every part of the country the share ofadult immigrants without a high school education issignificantly higher than that of natives. The largestgap is found in Western states, where more than fourtimes as many immigrants as natives are high schooldropouts as natives. This huge gap has enormousimplications for the social and economic integration of

immigrants because, as already noted, there is no singlebetter predictor of ones economic and social status thaneducation.

The next four columns in the table report thepercentage and number of immigrants and theirU.S.-born children (under 18) and natives and theirchildren who live in or near poverty. Immigrants andtheir U.S.-born children have much higher rates of

poverty and near poverty than natives in all parts ofthe country. As a share of all persons in or near poverty,immigrants and their children account for more thanone-half (55 percent) of the poor and near poor inCalifornia and roughly one-third in New York, NewJersey Florida Texas and Arizona

U.S.-born children. As Table 17 shows, if immigrantsand their children are not counted in California, theuninsured rate would be 13.1 percent in that state precisely the rate for natives. But, because of

immigration the actual state uninsured rate is 20percent, making it one of the highest in the country.In New York, immigrants and their children representnearly half (48 percent) of the uninsured; in Florida,42 percent; in Texas, 39 percent; in New Jersey, 44percent; in Illinois, 27 percent; in Massachusetts, 29percent; and in Arizona, 42 percent.

The last section of Table 17 shows thepercentage of immigrant and native households usingat least one of the major welfare programs. Notsurprisingly, with the exception of Ill inois, immigranthousehold use of welfare is higher than that of nativesin every region or state. As a result of their higher userates, immigrant households account for a verysignificant percentage of the welfare caseloads in these

states. In California, for example, immigranthouseholds account for 47 percent of all householdsusing at least one major welfare program; in New York,its a third and in Florida, Texas, New Jersey, andArizona immigrant households account for at least afourth of all households receiving welfare.

Although not included in the table, anotherimportant measure of immigrant integration is

citizenship. The citizenship for immigrants 18 years ofage and older is as follows: in New York, 45 percent ofadult immigrants are citizens and they comprise 13.6percent of eligible voters; in New Jersey, 40.3 percentare citizens and they comprise 10.2 percent of eligiblevoters; in Massachusetts, 37.2 percent are citizens andthey comprise 6.2 percent of eligible voters; in Illinois,40 percent are citizens and they comprise 5.8 percent

of eligible voters; in Florida, 43.8 percent are citizensand they comprise 11.1 percent of eligible voters; inTexas, 30.7 percent are citizens and they comprise 6.3percent of voters; in Georgia, 34.2 percent are citizensand they comprise 2.6 percent of eligible voters; inCalifornia 38 4percent arecitizensand they comprise



22/24


surveys such as the CPS. Thus, the above figuresprobably overstate the share of immigrants who arecitizens and their percentage of the total electorate.

Metropolitan Statistical AreasTable 18 reports figures for the nations top 10immigrant-receiving Consolidated Metropoli tanStatistical Areas (CMSA). While the Los Angeles andNew York CM SAs have the largest immigrantpopulations, the Miami CMSA ranks first in terms ofthe percentage of immigrants. These 10 metropolitan

areas account for nearly 59 percent of all immigrantsliving in the United States, but only 31 percent of thenations entire population. These cities continue toattract a large share of new immigrants. Of immigrantswho arrived 1990-2002, 59 percent settled in these10 CMSAs. Immigration has added significantly to thesize of the population in all 10 CMSAs. Consider thecase of the Washington-Baltimore CMSA: The morethan 700,000 immigrants who arrived between 1990and 2002 accounted for virtually all of the populationgrowth over the last 12 years in that metro area. Forcommunities in these metropolitan areas concernedabout congestion, traffic, and sprawl, the massiveincrease in population created by U.S. immigrationpolicy almost certainly has a direct bearing on these

issues. Table 19 examines the distribution ofimmigrants and natives between the nations centralcities, suburban, and rural areas. With 43.1 percent ofimmigrants living in the nations central cities comparedto 25.6 percent of natives, immigrants are clearly muchmore likely than natives to live in central cities. Butcontrary to the general impression, most immigrants

do not live in the nations central cities. In fact,immigrants are just as likely as natives to live in thesuburbs. As Table 19 shows, the primary differencebetween the two groups is that natives are much more

likely to live in rural areas while immigrants are morelikely to live in central cities. The large number ofimmigrants who live in suburban areas may be apositive sign that immigrants are successfully integrating

into American society and obtaining a middle classstandard of living. On the other hand, it is in suburbanareas where the problems of sprawl and congestion aremost acutely felt. Thus, the nearly 16.5 millionimmigrants who have settled in suburbia are likely tohave contributed to these problems.

ConclusionWhile immigration continues to be the subject ofintense national debate, with 1.5 million immigrantsarriving each year and half of post-1970 immigrantsand their U.S.-born children living in or near povertyand one-third having no health insurance, immigrationis creating enormous challenges for the nations schools,health care system, and physical infrastructure. Settingaside the lower socio-economic status of immigrants,no nation has ever attempted to incorporate more than33 million newcomers into its society. Whatever onethinks of contemporary immigration, it is criticallyimportant to understand that its effect on Americarepresents a choice. Selection criteria can be altered, ascan the total number of people allowed into the country

legally. Moreover, the level of resources devoted toreducing illegal immigration can also be reduced orincreased. The goal of thisBackgrounder has been toprovide information about the impact of immigrationon American society to better inform the policydiscussion about what kind of immigration policyshould be adopted in the future. If there is no changein immigration policy, it is almost certain that at least

15 million new legal and illegal immigrants will settlein the United States in this decade alone. Thusimmigrations impact will continue to grow if currenttrends are allowed to continue.



23/24


End Notes1 The survey is considered such an accurate source ofinformation on the foreign-born because, unlike the

decennial census, each household in the CPS receivesan in-person interview from a Census Bureau employee.The 217,000 persons in the Survey, 23,000 of whomare immigrants, are weighted to reflect the actual sizeof the total U.S. population.

2 The definition of foreign-born in this study is thesame as that used by the Census Bureau. The foreign-

born are persons living in the United States who werenot U.S. citizens at birth. This includes persons whoare naturalized American citizens, legal permanentresidents (green card holders), illegal aliens, and peopleliving in the United States on long-term temporaryvisas such as students or guest workers. I t does notinclude those born abroad of American citizen parents.

3 We add the 600,000 foreign-born individuals livingin group quarters to the 32.5 million in the March2002 CPS so that we can make meaningful comparisonswith the 2000 Census. The 600,000 figure is a veryconservative estimate of the foreign-born populationmissed by the CPS. The 2000 Census, for example,found 1.1 mil lion more foreign-born individuals, than

the (reweighted) March 2000 CPS. This indicates thatthe CPS may miss more than one million foreign-bornindividuals. See Census Bureau publication P23-206Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the UnitedStates: 2000 (page 67) for a discussion of the differencein population universes of the Census and CPS andtheir implications for coverage of the foreign-born. Alsosee Census Bureau Population Division Working Paper

No. 66 available at http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0066.html#tota. (AppendixA has comparison of 2000 Census and the March 2000reweighted CPS).

4Based on comparison of the 2000 Census with the

5See Robert Warren and Ellen Percy Kraly, 1985, TheElusive Exodus: Emigration form the United States.

Occasional Paper #8. Population Reference Bureau,Washington, D.C.

6This figures refers to persons aged 18 or older whoworked full-time hours for at least part of 2001. Ifpart-time workers are also included, then immigrantscomprise a somewhat smaller share of the labor force.

7The Census Bureau has actually prepared estimateson the share of the total U.S. population that will be ofworking age with or without immigration. The Bureaustates that immigration is a highly inefficient meansfor increasing the proportion of the population whoare workers in the long run. According to the report, ifimmigration remains high, 60 percent of the populationwill be of working-age in 2050, compared to 58 percentif there is no immigration. See Methodology andAssumptions for the Population Projections of theUnited States: 1999 to 2100, Population Division.U.S. Bureau of the Census. Working Paper No. 38.Frederick W. Hollmann, Tammany J. Mulder, andJeffrey E. Kallan. Table E (page 29) shows the variousmigration assumptions used in the Census Bureaus

population projections. Table F (page 29) reports theresults of these assumptions.

8 There are a number of specific occupations includedin the upper portion of Table 10 that do have a largeconcentration of immigrants, such as medical doctor.The effect of immigrants on these specific occupationsis likely to be significant.

9 For a full discussion of how illegal aliens are able totake advantage of the EITC, see the recent CISBackgrounder Giving Cover to Illegal Aliens: IRS TaxID Numbers Subvert Immigration Law, by MartiDinerstein Available online at www cis org/articles/

Backgrounder


24/24

2

4

Ce

nterforImmigra

tionStudies

Immigrants in the

United States 2002A Snapshot of America'sForeign-Born Population

An analysis by the Center for Immigration Studies of

the Current Population Survey (CPS) collected inMarch of this year by the Census Bureau indicates

that 33.1 million immigrants (legal and illegal) live in theUnited States, an increase of two million just since the lastCensus. The March CPS includes an extra-large sample ofminorities and is considered one of the best sources forinformation on persons born outside of the United States referred to as foreign-born by the Census Bureau. Forthe purposes of this report, foreign-born and immigrantare used synonymously. The questions asked in the CPS aremuch more extensive than those in the decennial census,and therefore it can be used to provide a detailed pictureof the nations population, including information about

welfare use, health insurance coverage, poverty rates,entrepreneurship, and many other characteristics. Thepurpose of this Backgrounder is to examine immigrationsimpact on the United States so as to better inform thedebate over what kind of immigration policy should beadopted in the future.

NON-PROFIT

U.S.POSTAGE

PAID

PERMIT#6117

WASHINGTON,DC

CenterforImmigrationStudies

1522KStreetNW,Suite820

Washington,DC20005-1202

(202)466-8185

[email protected]

www.cis.org

Backgrounder

13-02

art - immigrants in the united sate

Documents