Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Article: U.S. Immigrant Pop. Hit Record 42.4 Million in 2014. By Karen Zeigler and Steven A. Camarota

Collapse
X
Collapse

  • Article: U.S. Immigrant Pop. Hit Record 42.4 Million in 2014. By Karen Zeigler and Steven A. Camarota

    U.S. Immigrant Pop. Hit Record 42.4 Million in 2014

    by


    Last week, the Census Bureau released some data from the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS). It shows that the nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) grew by 2.4 million people since 2010 and is up one million from 2013 to 2014. Last month, the Center for Immigration Studies reported on monthly Census Bureau data from the Current Population Survey, which also showed a substantial increase in immigrants.[1] The CPS is released on a timelier basis, but is a smaller survey that does not cover the immigrant population as completely as the ACS. The new data from the ACS allows for more detailed analysis by country of origin and state of residence. Both data sources show that growth in the immigrant population has rebounded after increasing more slowly from 2010 to 2013 following the Great Recession.

    Among the findings in the new data:

    • The nation's immigrant population (legal and illegal) hit a record 42.4 million in July 2014, an increase of 2.4 million since July 2010. The Census Bureau refers to all immigrants as foreign-born.

    • The new data indicates that growth in the immigrant population is accelerating. Between 2010 and 2012, growth averaged 430,000 people a year, but between 2012 and 2013 the immigrant population grew by 520,000; it grew by 1.04 million from 2013 to 2014.

    • As a share of the population, immigrants (legal and illegal) comprised 13.3 percent or about one out of eight U.S. residents in 2014, the highest percentage in 104 years. As recently as 1980, just 6.2 percent of the country was comprised of immigrants.

    • In addition to immigrants, there were 16.2 million U.S.-born minor (<18) children with at least one immigrant parent in 2014, for a total of 58.6 million immigrants and their children.[2] Immigrants and their minor children now account for more than one in six U.S. residents.

    • The sending regions with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were East Asia (up 642,000), South Asia (up 594,000), Sub-Saharan Africa (up 282,000), the Middle East (up 277,000), the Caribbean (up 269,000), and Central America (up 268,000).

    • The sending countries with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were India (up 426,000), China (up 353,000), the Dominican Republic (up 119,000), El Salvador (up 101,000), Guatemala (up 85,000), Pakistan (up 72,000), Colombia (up 70,000), Cuba (up 68,000), Honduras (up 66,000), Iraq (up 57,000), and Bangladesh (up 56,000).

    • The sending countries with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants living in the United States since 2010 were Saudi Arabia (up 93 percent); Bangladesh (up 37 percent); Iraq (up 36 percent); Egypt (up 25 percent); Pakistan, India, and Ethiopia (all up 24 percent); Nigeria and Ghana (both up 21 percent); Venezuela (up 17 percent); and China (up 16 percent).

    • Between 2010 and 2014, 5.2 million new immigrants settled in the United States. Since the Great Recession began in 2007, at least 8.7 million new immigrants have settled in the country.[3]New arrivals are offset by those who return to their home countries each year and by mortality. As a result, growth in the immigrant population is less than the number who enter.

    • Mexico had by far the largest immigrant population in the country, with 11.7 million legal and illegal Mexican immigrants living in the United States in 2014. After declining from 2010 to 2013, the number of Mexican immigrants in the United States grew by 130,000 from 2013 to 2014.

    • In contrast to most sending regions and countries, the number of immigrants from Europe and Canada declined slightly between 2010 and 2014.

    • The states with the largest numerical increases in the number of immigrants from 2010 to 2014 were Texas (up 380,000), California (up 362,000), Florida (up 315,000), New York (up 168,000), New Jersey (up 116,000), Virginia (up 95,000), Maryland (up 87,000), Pennsylvania (up 83,000), Massachusetts (up 77,000), Arizona (up 63,000), Washington (up 59,000), Georgia (up 52,000), and Minnesota (up 50,000).

    • The states with the largest percentage increases in the number of immigrants 2010 to 2014 were North Dakota (up 45 percent); Wyoming (up 42 percent); Montana (up 19 percent); Kentucky (up 15 percent); New Hampshire (up 14 percent); Minnesota (up 13 percent); West Virginia (up 13 percent); Louisiana, Utah, Nebraska, Idaho, and Delaware (all up 12 percent); and Pennsylvania (up 11 percent).

    Data Source. On September 17, 2015, the Census Bureau released some of the data from the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS). The survey reflects the U.S. population as of July 1, 2014. The ACS is by far the largest survey taken by the federal government each year and includes over two million households.[4] The Census Bureau has posted some of the results from the ACS to its American FactFinder website.[5] It has not released the public-use version of the ACS for researchers to download and analyze. However, a good deal of information can be found at FactFinder. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this analysis comes directly from FactFinder.

    The immigrant population, referred to as the foreign-born by the Census Bureau, is comprised of those individuals who were not U.S. citizens at birth. It includes naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), temporary workers, and foreign students. It does not include those born to immigrants in the United States, including to illegal immigrant parents, or those born in outlying U.S. territories, such as Puerto Rico. Prior research by the Department of Homeland Security and others indicates that some 90 percent of illegal immigrants respond to the ACS.[6] Thus all the figures reported above are for both legal and illegal immigrants.



    End Notes

    1 See Steven A. Camarota and Karen Zeigler, "Immigrant Population Hits Record 42.1 Million in Second Quarter of 2015", Center for Immigration Studies, August 2015. The monthly data on which our August analysis was based shows a foreign population of 42.1 million in the second quarter of 2015. The ACS data is released more slowly by the Census Bureau and the 42.4 million figure is for July 2014. In recent years, the monthly CPS has shown an immigrant population in the second quarter of each year that is about 5 percent less than what the ACS shows for the same year. If this pattern holds, the 2015 ACS will show at least 44 million immigrants in the country as of July 2015.

    2 The figure for immigrants is from the 2014 ACS. The figure for children is from the public-use file of the 2014 Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement (CPS ASEC) and includes those under age 18 born in the United States with either a mother or father born outside of the United States. The ACS does not include a question about parents' birthplaces, but the CPS ASEC does ask all respondents about their parents' places of birth.

    3 The 2014 ACS shows 5.2 million immigrants living in the United States in July 2014 who indicated that they arrived in the United States in 2010 or later. (Unlike the public-use data, FactFinder does not report immigrants' detailed year of arrival; instead, results are grouped by decade.) The 2010 public-use file of the ACS showed 3.5 million immigrants in the country who arrived in 2007, 2008, or 2009. (We exclude those who indicated they came between January and July 2010.) Therefore, in total 8.7 million immigrants arrived from 2007 to 2013. The actual total is higher because the 8.7 million figure does not include those who arrived after 2007, but died or went home by 2013.

    4 Detailed information on the American Community Survey methodology, questions, and other topics on the can be found here.

    5 Much of the data for the foreign-born used in this analysis can be found on FactFinder.

    6 The Department of Homeland Security uses the ACS as the basis for its estimates of illegal immigrants. See its most recent estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population: "Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2012".

    This post originally appeared on Center For Immigration Studies. Reprinted with permission.


    About The Author

    Steven A. Camarota is the director of research at CIS.

    Karen Zeigler is a demographer at CIS.


    The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of ILW.COM.

      Posting comments is disabled.

    Categories

    Collapse

    article_tags

    Collapse

    There are no tags yet.

    Latest Articles

    Collapse

    • Article: Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence By Karolina Walters
      ImmigrationDaily
      Immigration Judges’ Union Fights for Judicial Independence by Karolina Walters The National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ), the union that represents the nation’s immigration judges, is challenging the government’s decision to remove an immigration judge from a well-known case and replace him with a judge who immediately ordered the immigrant in the case deported. NAIJ’s grievance addresses the treatment of one immigration judge, but its resolution will have implications for judicial independence throughout the entire immigration court system. The grievance was filed on behalf of Philadelphia-based immigration judge Steven A. Morley, who was presiding over the case of Mr. Reynaldo Castro-Tum. Castro-Tum’s case rose to national importance earlier this year when Attorney General Jeff Sessions chose to refer the case to himself to reconsider the Board of Immigration Appeals’ previous decision in the case. In reconsidering the decision, Sessions effectively eliminated judges’ use of administrative closure, a docket management tool. Sessions sent Castro-Tum’s case back to Judge Morley, noting that the immigration court order Castro-Tum removed if he did not appear at his next hearing. Castro-Tum did not appear at the next hearing. However, Judge Morley continued the case to resolve whether Castro-Tum received adequate notice of the hearing. Due process requires, at a minimum, that an individual be given notice of proceedings and an opportunity to be heard by a judge. But before the next hearing could take place, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) replaced Judge Morley with an Assistant Chief Immigration Judge who ordered Castro-Tum removed when he did not appear at court again. In their grievance, NAIJ asserts that the decision to remove Judge Morley from Castro-Tum’s case and reassign many other cases from his docket resulted in unacceptable interference with judicial independence. The grievance specifically claims that EOIR’s actions violate immigration judges’ authority under the regulations to exerci...
      08-17-2018, 11:12 AM
    • Article: Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico By Sophia Genovese
      ImmigrationDaily
      Indirect Refoulement: Why the US Cannot Create a Safe Third Country Agreement with Mexico by Sophia Genovese The Trump Administration is seeking to create and implement a safe third country agreement with Mexico . Under this agreement, asylum seekers arriving at the US border who have travelled through Mexico would be denied the ability to file their asylum claims in the US. Such an agreement would trample on the rights of asylum-seekers, violating both international and US asylum law. In particular, the US would be violating the international principle of non-refoulement , which provides that no State “shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his [or her] life or freedom would be threatened,” where Mexico has a proven track record of being anything but safe for asylum seekers . The US has also codified Article 33(1) of the Refugee Convention into Section 208(a)(2)(A) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which provides that it will not return an asylum seeker to his or her country of origin, but may, at the determination of the Attorney General, remove the asylum seeker to a “safe third country… where the [asylum seeker] would have access to a full and fair procedure for determining a claim to asylum or equivalent temporary protection.” Although Mexican officials have not yet indicated whether they would sign a safe third country agreement with the US, asylum advocates should proactively seek to prevent such a devastating policy with a country that lacks adequate asylum protections. As reported by Human Rights First and Amnesty International , 75 percent of asylum seekers apprehended and detained by the National Institute of Migration (INM), the Mexican immigration enforcement agency, were not informed of their right to seek asylum. Even if asylum seekers are able to make their claims, only 30% of the asylum proceedings are ever concluded , and even fewer are granted, leaving many bona fide asylum seekers stranded without a resolution. The treatment of unaccompanied minors’ asylum claims in Mexico are even more dismal. Of the 35,000 minors apprehended by the INM in the first half of 2016, only 138 were able to apply for asylum , of which only 77 were granted protection. Beyond the failing asylum system in Mexico, asylum seekers are also in extreme danger of kidnapping, murder, rape, trafficking, and other crimes by INM officers and civilians. A safe third country agreement with Mexico would violate the United States’ international obligations under the 1967 Optional Protocol to the Refugee Convention, to which we are a signatory, which adopts by incorporation the obligations outlined in the 1951 Refugee Convention, to which the US is not a signatory. Take the example of an asylum-seeker, Mrs. H, who is fleeing politically-motivated violence in Honduras. Her husband, Mr. H, was a vocal political activist who opposed the National Party and members of the Honduran government. Mr. H began to receive death threats due to his political beliefs and reported such threats to the authorities. The authorities, however, di...
      08-16-2018, 02:32 PM
    • Article: Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence By Eugene Goldstein, Esq.
      ImmigrationDaily

      Flawed Statistics Undermine USCIS/ICE/SEVP’s Restriction of D/S for Unlawful Presence

      by


      On August 9, 2018 USCIS published a “Policy Memorandum” restricting the 20-year-old calculation of Duration of Status (D/S) for F-1, J-1 and M-1 entrants (and their derivative families). https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/...immigrants.pdf

      USCIS also published an announcement (hereinafter “announcement”) “USCIS Issues Revised Guidance on Unlawful Presence for Students and Exchange Visitors https://www.uscis.gov/news/uscis-iss...hange-visitors , and a general discussion “Unlawful Presence and Bars to Admissibility” ...

      08-15-2018, 12:57 PM
    • Article: Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada By Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia
      ImmigrationDaily
      Update On Express Entry Immigration To Canada by Edward C. Corrigan and Selvin Mejia On January 1, 2015 the Federal Conservatives introduced significant changes to Canada’s economic immigration program. Formerly called the Skilled Worker program the new program was re-branded as Express Entry which included Skilled Workers, the Federal Skilled Trades program, and the In-Canada Experience Program. Canada modelled its revamped economic immigration program on New Zealand’s. There is also an Atlantic Immigration program. In addition there is a separate Live-In Caregiver program where individuals can apply for Permanent Residence after two years employment in this category. EXPRESS ENTRY The initial object of the changes was to create a list of Applicants where the Federal Government could select the best and the brightest from the list of Applicants. The Express Entry was supposed have applicants who had an approved Labour Market Impact Assessment (LMIA) and a valid job offer from an approved Canadian Employer. Under the Comprehensive Ranking System (CRS) candidates were award 600 points for having an approved job offer. Applicants would have achieved a point score of around 1,000 with the 600 points for having a valid offer of employment under the CRS. The provinces in Canada were also allowed to select Applicants according to their economic needs and these applicants that were selected through the respective provincial nominee programs by a province were awarded 600 points to be added to their score. Ontario also has a program where graduates from an Ontario University with a Master’s or who were in a PhD. program would be approved and awarded 600 points which virtually assured that they would be approved and provided with an invitation to apply. There is a quota that governs this graduate program. LABOUR MARKET IMPACT ASSESSMENTS Things did not go according to plan with Federal Express Entry. Very few Applicants were able to attai...
      08-14-2018, 12:50 PM
    • Article: USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy By Cyrus D. Mehta
      ImmigrationDaily
      USCIS Finalizes Unlawful Presence Policy Putting F, J and M Nonimmigrants In Great Jeopardy by Cyrus D. Mehta The USCIS finalized its unlawful presence policy for F, J and M nonimmigrants on August 9, 2018. The final policy makes no significant changes from the draft policy of May 10, 2018. My earlier blog noted the flaws in the draft policy, which persist in the final policy. The final policy incorrectly breaks down the distinction between violating status and being unlawfully present in the US. As of August 9, 2018, F, J and M nonimmigrants who have failed to maintain nonimmigrant status will start accruing unlawful presence. Individuals who have accrued more than 180 days of unlawful presence during a single stay, and then depart, may be subject to 3-year or 10-year bars to admission, depending on how much unlawful presence they accrued before they departed the United States. See INA § 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I) & (II) . Individuals who have accrued a total period of more than one year of unlawful presence, whether in a single stay or during multiple stays in the United States, and who then reenter or attempt to reenter the United States without being admitted or paroled, are permanently inadmissible. See INA § 212(a)(9)(C)(i)(1). Prior to August 9, 2018, foreign students (F nonimmigrants) and exchange visitors (J nonimmigrants) who were admitted for, or present in the United States in, Duration of Status started accruing unlawful presence on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigrant benefit or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. F and J nonimmigrants, and foreign vocational students (M nonimmigrants), who were admitted until a specific date certain accrued unlawful presence on the day after their Form I-94 expired, on the day after USCIS formally found a nonimmigrant status violation while adjudicating a request for another immigration benefit, or on the day after an immigration judge ordered the applicant excluded, deported, or removed (whether or not the decision was appealed), whichever came first. This will no longer be the case. Under the new policy effective August 9, 2018, any status violation will start the accrual of unlawful presence. The nonimmigrant will not be provided with any formal notice of a status violation, and any violation from the past that has been discovered would have already started the accrual of unlawful presence. According to the pol...
      08-14-2018, 10:51 AM
    • Article: PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases By Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III
      ImmigrationDaily
      PERM Book Practice Tip - Maintenance of Status in PERM Cases by Joel Stewart, Editor PERM Book III Before beginning a PERM case, an employer must always check the immigration history of the foreign national to confirm that he or she is eligible to receive permanent residency, and whether the applicant may expect to apply by Adjustment of Status or by Consular Processing. Focus must be placed on determining that the foreign national has always maintained status in the United States – whether it by as a temporary visitor for pleasure, business, as a student or in an authorized category of work. In addition to the Resume and Diplomas of the foreign worker, it is recommended to ask the worker to provide a time line to prove maintenance of status. This can be done by establishing an unbroken line of authorized stay and status in the US, and by confirming that the applicant has not worked without authorization by proving the monthly income from the time of first entering the United States. The issue of maintenance of status is more acute for vi...
      08-13-2018, 02:21 PM
    Working...
    X