1y ago
1.11 MB
12 Pages
Last View : 1d ago
Last Download : 7m ago
Upload by : Camden Erdman

ORIGINS OF IMMIGRANTS TO TEXASIncluded in this Brief: Texas and California are theprimary destination states forrecent immigrants fromMexico. Recently in Texas, thenumbers of Asian immigrants,especially from India andChina, are increasing. The persistence of recentimmigration trends will lead togreater population diversity inTexas.Authors :Beginning in 2005, Texas has outpaced all other states inpopulation growth. While natural increase (i.e., the excess of birthsover deaths) is a major source of this growth, the number of peoplemoving to Texas has also been strong. Close to half of the state’sgrowth from 2000 through 2013 has come from people migrating toTexas. Understanding how this influx of migrants will impact thefuture size and composition of the state’s population is importantfor public and private sector decision-makers. A first step inunderstanding the impacts of migration on Texas is to identify fromwhere these recent movers originated.Movers come to Texas from other states (domesticmigration) and from other countries (international migration).Because of their diverse origins, domestic and internationalmigrants can differ substantially in educational attainment, workskills, family status, English language proficiency, and a variety ofother characteristics. In this report, we focus exclusively on theorigins of international migrants.International Migrants in the U.S.Historically, international migrants or immigrants have beenan important source of population growth in the United States.Figure 1 shows the numbers of immigrant admissions to the UnitedStates from 1820-2012 (derived from U.S. Department ofHomeland Security, 2013). In this figure, we see that after thehistorically low immigration levels of the 1930s Great Depressionera, immigration began an upward trend which continues today.Between 2000 and 2012, the U.S. received an annual average ofmore than one million immigrants. Projections by Shrestha andSteve WhiteLloyd B. Potter, Ph.D.Helen You, Ph.D.Lila Valencia, Ph.D.Jeffrey A. Jordan , Ph.D.Beverly PecotteThe Office of the State Demographeris responsible for interpreting andcommunicating information ondemographic and socioeconomicissues for the State of Texas to thepublic and the legislature.May 2015Natural Increase Versus MigrationNatural IncreasePopulation gain from natural increase is fairlysimple to characterize – it is the excess of births overdeaths. Thus, by definition, all persons added to theTexas population through natural increase in a givenyear are under one year of age and ‘originated’ in Texas. It will be years before this year’s natural increasepopulation will go to school, enter the workforce, formfamilies, or retire.MigrationBy contrast, migrants are of all ages and canoriginate anywhere in the world. Many migrants areyoung adults who enter the state’s workforce whenthey arrive. Some migrants come as family units whileothers arrive as retirees. As such, the impacts of migration can be much more rapid and much less predictable than those for natural increase.

Figure 1:Number of Annual Immigrants Admitted to the United States, FY 1820-20121Heisler (2011) suggest that if current trends continue,by the year 2027 immigration is expected to accountfor more population growth in the United States thannatural increase. As such, our contemporary andfuture population changes are closely tied toimmigration patterns.same states were the five largest recipients ofimmigrants.In this report, we focus on recent immigrants.These are persons living in the United States thatresided in another country one year ago. We look atimmigrant origins in two ways. In the first, origin isbased on the world area where the immigrants wereborn.In the second, origin is based on theimmigrants’ country of residence one year ago. The three largest immigrant receiving states in2013, California, Texas, and Florida, had verydifferent patterns of immigrant origins. California’simmigration was predominantly Asian whileFlorida’s immigrants were mainly from LatinAmerica. Texas had roughly equal numbers ofLatin American and Asian immigrants. Thesepatterns indicate a certain degree of selectivity inimmigrant destinations. Figure 3 further illustrates geographic selectivityamong recent immigrants. Among the top tenreceiving states, Florida had the highest percentof Latin American immigrants, at 61.3 percent,but also had the lowest percent of Asianimmigrants at 14.5 percent. Michigan had thelargest percentage share of Asians, at 70.8percent, and the smallest percentage of LatinAmerican immigrants at 7.4 percent. The general immigration pattern for Texas mirrorsthat for the U.S. as a whole where Asians andLatin Americans account for the majority of recentimmigrants. For Texas, 83.2 percent of its recentimmigrants were born in either Latin America orAsia.Origins and Destinations for U.S. StatesThe Figures 2 and 3 present the origins of2013 immigrants in the top 10 immigrant receivingstates in the U.S. (i.e., the ‘top 10’). These data areextracted from the American Community Survey(ACS). In this survey, people are asked where theylived one year ago. If the current residence isdifferent than the residence one year ago, the personis considered a migrant. As such, ACS migrationstatus is based on a move made within the previousyear. In Figures 2 and 3, origins are based on theimmigrant’s world area of birth. A review of thesedata reveals: In the next section we discuss Asian and LatinAmerican immigrants in more detail. We focus onnon-citizen, foreign-born persons who resided abroadone year ago. While about 5.5 percent of foreign-Recent immigrants tend to move to larger states.California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinoisare the five most populous states. In 2013, these2

Figure 2:Figure 3:Number of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants by World Area of Birth in the Top 10 ImmigrationReceiving States, 2013Percent of Non-Citizen Immigrants by World Area of Birth in the Top 10 ImmigrationReceiving States, 2013Source: 1-Year ACS PUMS 20133

Figure 4:Numbers of Non-Citizen Immigrants from Mexico in the Top 10 Receiving States, 2013Source: 1-Year ACS PUMS 2013born immigrants are U.S. citizens, these were notincluded because it is likely that many of thesepersons are not recent immigrants in the usualsense. For example, the ACS PUMS data indicatethat, on average, Latin-American born citizenimmigrants entered the United States 24.6 years agoand had been U.S. citizens for an average of 15.2years. Thus, it is likely many of these foreign-borncitizen immigrants were either visiting abroad in theprevious year or were return migrants rather than first-time immigrants.lived one year ago. Figure 4 has the top 10destination states for non-citizen immigrants movingfrom Mexico, the primary Latin American sendingcountry.Figure 5 and 6 present the top 10destination states for India and China, thepredominant Asian sending nations.Asian and Latin American Immigrants in U.S.StatesFigures 4, 5, and 6 examine the twopredominant immigrant groups – Asians and LatinAmericans – in more detail. In these figures, migrantorigin is based on the country where the immigrant4 Figure 4 shows that Texas and California are theprimary destination states for recent immigrantsfrom Mexico.Together, these two statesaccounted for almost half (48.3 percent) of allMexican immigrants to the United States in 2013. In Figure 5, we find that California is the stateattracting the greatest number of recent Indianimmigrants in 2013. Texas and New Jersey are,respectively, the second and third most populardestinations for Indian immigrants.

Figure 5: Numbers of Non-Citizen Immigrants from India in the Top 10 Receiving States, 2013Source: 1-Year ACS PUMS 2013Figure 6: Numbers of Non-Citizen Immigrants from China* in the Top 10 Receiving States, 2013*China, Hong Kong, Paracel Islands and Taiwan5

recession.Unless otherwise noted, all ACSmigration data are for the population 1 year of ageand older. As before, immigrants are persons whomoved from a foreign country within the previousyear.When Chinese immigrants are examined inFigure 6, we see that once again California isthe predominant destination. New York is thesecond largest recipient of Chinese immigrantsand Texas is the third most common destination.Overall, in 2013, California was the favoritedestination for both Indian and Chinese immigrantswhile Texas was the primary destination for Mexicanimmigrants.Recent Immigration Patterns in TexasThis section focuses on recent immigrationto Texas. In Figures 7 and 8, we show the worldareas of birth for recent, non-citizen immigrants toTexas. These data are a time-series based on theACS PUMs 1 Year data from 2005 to 2013. Due todata compatibility issues with earlier ACS PUMsdata, 2005 was chosen as the beginning year.Given the strong association between migration andeconomic patterns, we made sure to captureimmigration data before and after the 2007-2009 Between 2005 and 2013, the majority of recentTexas immigrants were born in Latin America.Figure 7 indicates that immigrants born in LatinAmerica have ranged from 87,098 in 2006 to51,026 in 2010. After Though people born in Latin America arethe predominant group of recent immigrants toTexas, the time-series shows a decline in boththeir numbers and their shares. As can be seenin Figure 7, the number of Latin Americanimmigrants peaked in 2006, at 87,098 butdeclined to 54,098 by 2013. Figure 8 shows thatLatin-American immigrants accounted for 69.4percent of Texas immigrants in 2005 but declinedto 42.9 percent in 2013.Figure 7: Numbers of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants to Texas by World Area of Birth, 2005-2013Source: 1-Year ACS PUMS 2005-20136

Persons born in Asia are the second mostpopulous group of Texas immigrants in the timeseries. In contrast to those of Latin Americanorigin, the size and percentage shares of Asianshave increased in recent years. Where therewere 21,092 immigrants of Asian origin in 2005,this number increased to 50,969 by 2013. Withthis, the Asian share of total immigration grewfrom 17.3 percent in 2005 to 40.4 percent in2013. Of the smaller immigrant groups, those born inEurope have held relatively steady throughoutthis time period. Those born in the Africa andOther category have fluctuated up and down.Taken together, the largest number of Europeanand African and Other groups occurred in 2013,with 21,163 immigrants which represented 16.8percent of all immigration. The largest share forthe European and the African and Other groupsoccurred in 2011 with 17.1 percent of allimmigrants.Overall, the time-series suggest that the recession of2007-2009 coincided with a decline in totalimmigration to Texas. Total immigration peaked in2006 at 130,392 persons and declined to 100,868 by2010. In 2013, total immigration had recovered to126,230 which is greater than the 2005 base of121,982 but less than the peak of 130,392 in 2006.This pattern is largely attributable to changes in theimmigration flows of the Latin American-origin group.Though this group experienced something of a postrecession rebound in 2011, by 2013, Latin Americanimmigration had fallen to its lowest level in the nineyear time series. The decline in the Latin Americanborn immigrants has been countered by the increasein Asian-born immigrants. In 2005, Latin Americanborn immigrants to Texas outnumbered Asian-bornimmigrants by 63,527 persons. By 2013, LatinAmerican-born immigrants outnumbered Asian-bornimmigrants by only 3,129 persons.Figure 8: Annual Shares of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants to Texas by World Area of Birth, 2005-20137

Figures 9-12 present recent immigration datafor Texas based on the country of origin. Thesefigures show the country where the immigrant livedone year ago. As before, these data are a 20052013 time-series derived from the ACS PUMs 1Year data files. Figure 9 shows the top fivecountries of origin based on an average of theannual 2005-2013 immigration flows. Figures 10and 11 focus in more detail on Mexico which has along history of emigration to Texas. Figure 12provides a gauge of diversity for recent immigrantsto Texas. In Figure 9 we see that among the top fivesending nations , Mexico is the dominant countryof origin for all nine time periods, sending anaverage of around 6.6 times more immigrantsthan India, the second largest sender and 13.1times more immigrants than China, the thirdlargest sender. Two other Latin American countries, El Salvadorand Honduras are the 4th and 5th largestsenders among the top five countries of originFigure 9: Numbers of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants to Texas from the Top 5 Countries of Origin, 2005-20138

When the All Other Countries2 category in Figure9 is examined, we find it has increased from36,448 in 2005 to 64,135 in 2013. This showsthat contemporary Texas immigrants havebecome a much more diverse group. Overall, Figure 9 shows a decline in the numberof Mexican immigrants and an increase in Indianand Chinese immigrants. There were about halfas many Mexican immigrants in 2013 as therewere in 2005. There were about two times moreIndian immigrants in 2013 as 2005 and morethan three times more Chinese immigrants in2013 than in 2005. declines in both the size and the proportion ofMexican immigrants. In 2005, Mexico sent 56.9percent of all immigrants to Texas. By 2013, theMexican share of immigration had declined to27.1 percent. During the nine year time series,peak Mexican immigration occurred in 2006, at71,648 persons. In 2013, there were 34,204Mexican immigrants, the smallest numberbetween 2005 and 2013. As such, the number ofMexican immigration to Texas in 2013 was 53.2percent smaller than in 2006.The ACS data indicate a shift in Texas’ traditionalimmigration patterns where Latin American countries,principally Mexico, have been the primary sendingnations. More recently, the numbers of Mexicanimmigrants have sharply declined. Even with thisdecline, the overall numbers of immigrants to TexasFigure 10 focuses on Mexico which hashistorically been the primary country of origin forTexas immigrants.Here we see dramaticFigure 10:Percent and Number of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants to Texas from Mexico and All OtherCountries, 2005-20139

Figure 11:Diversity Index for the Country of Origin of Recent Non-Citizen Immigrants to Texas, 2005-2013have increased each year since 2011 and the126,230 immigrants in 2013 is the second highestnumber in the 2005-2013 time series. Two thingshave offset the decline in Mexican immigrants: (1)the numbers of Asian immigrants, especially fromIndia and China, are increasing; and, (2) Texas hasbegun to attract more immigrants from a wider rangeof countries than in the past. Together, these trendshave caused an increase in the diversity of Texasimmigrants.In Figure 11, the Index of Diversity3 is used todemonstrate the increasing heterogeneity of Texasimmigrants. With this index, 0.00 represents nodiversity and 1.00 represents maximum diversity.Diversity increases as the number of sendingcountries increases and as the numbers ofimmigrants from each country become more equalin size.10 During the 2005-2013 time series, immigrantdiversity was least in 2005 (0.67) and greatest in2013 (0.90). Immigrant diversity steadily increased between2005 and 2013 with the exception of 2011 whenthere was a post-recession resurgence inMexican immigration. While Texas’ immigration diversity has beenrelatively low in the past, the 2013 diversity indexof 0.90 more closely resembles that of other highimmigration states such as California (0.93),Florida (0.92), and New York (0.95). With the continuation of recent trends, Texas canexpect to experience not only sustained growthfrom immigration but also an increasingly diverseimmigrant population.

persistence of recent immigration trends will lead togreater population diversity in Texas. In short,recent patterns suggest that 21st centuryimmigration to Texas will increase both the size andthe heterogeneity of the state’s population.The Census Bureau’s AsianWorld Area of BirthMany of us tend to think of Asia as the countries comprising the West Pacific Rim. However, the Census Bureau’s definition is more encompassing. Following are the countries theBureau considers to be Asian:Notes1The data presented in Figure 1 are only fordocumented immigrants who receive lawfulpermanent residence.The years in Figure 1represent when lawful permanent residence isgranted and are not necessarily the year of entry.As a result, the 1991 peak represents a largenumber of earlier immigrants who were grantedlawful permanent residence granted underprovisions of the Immigration Reform and ControlAct of 1986 (Schmidley and Gibson 1999).Afghanistan, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahrain,Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei, Cambodia, China,Cyprus, East Timor, Georgia, Hong Kong, India,Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Korea, Kazakhstan, Kyrgystan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon, Macau, Malaysia, Maldives, Mongolia, Myanmar (Burma), Nepal, North Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Paracel Islands, Philippines, Qatar, SaudiArabia, Singapore, South Korea, Spratley Islands, Sri Lanka, Syria, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Turkey, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Yemen, Asia notspecified.(U.S. Census Bureau 2014)2Between 2005 and 2013, “All Other Countries”contributed a little over 40 percent of the totalimmigration to Texas. The primary sending placesfor other countries were: South Central Asia or Asia- Not Specified; Canada; Western Asia - NotSpecified; Korea; Philippines; South America - NotSpecified; Guatemala; Vietnam; Western Africa Not Specified; and Eastern Africa - Not Specified.3The Index of Diversity is from Gibbs and Martin’s(1962) derivation based on the Simpson Index:SummarySince 2005, Texas has outpaced all otherstates in annual population growth. Almost half ofthis growth occurred because of people moving toTexas. Close to one in six of these moversimmigrated to Texas from another country. Texas,with the nation’s second largest population, attractedthe second highest number of immigrants between2005 and 2013. Although immigration to Texasexperienced a strong decline during the 2007-2009recession, it has been on the rise since 2010. Thisrebound occurred even as Mexican immigration toTexas fell sharply. The recent decline in Mexicanimmigration has been partially offset by an increasein the number of non-Latin American immigrants,particularly those of Asian-origin.As aconsequence, total immigration to Texas in 2013reached 126,230, the second highest level duringthe 2005-2013 time period. Given the state’s highrate of natural increase, a continuation of recentimmigration trends will ensure strong populationgrowth into the foreseeable future. Additionally, thewhere is the proportion of total immigrants from aparticular country and is the number of countries.An index value of 0 represents no diversity (perfecthomogeneity) and an index value of 1 representsmaximum diversity (perfect heterogeneity).ReferencesGibbs, Jack P. and Walter T. Martin. 1962.“Urbanization, Technology, and the Division ofLabor.” American Sociological Review, 27(5): pp.667-677.Schmidley, A. Diane and Cambell Gibson. 1999.“Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the UnitedStates: 1997”. Current Population Reports, SeriesP23-195, U.S. Census Bureau (Available: /2015).11

Shrestha, Laura B. and Elayne J. Heisler. 2011.“The Changing Demographic Profile of the UnitedStates.” Congressional Research Service.(Available: 20110331.pdf 10/22/2013)U.S. Department of Homeland Security. 2013.“Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2012.” Office ofImmigration Statistics. (Available: s/ois yb 2012.pdf 07/14/2014).U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. “2007-2011 ACSCounty-to-County Migration FilesDocumentation.” (Available: nty-to-

the predominant destination. New York is the second largest recipient of Chinese immigrants and Texas is the third most common destination. Overall, in 2013, California was the favorite destination for both Indian and Chinese immigrants while Texas was the primary destination for Mexican immigrants. Recent Immigration Patterns in Texas

Related Documents:

than non - immigrants. 46% of immigrants do not have a school leaving certificate, compared to 21% of non - immigrants. Only 38% of immigrants have qualifications higher than a high school diploma compared to 46% of non - immigrants. The propor

Chapter 7 Immigrants and Urbanization SECTION 1 The New Immigrants . Chapter 7 Section-3 Immigrants and the Machine Many captains, bosses 1st - or 2nd-generation Americans Machines help immigrants with naturalization, jobs, housing The Role of the Political Boss

Immigrant Benefit Classifications U.S. Citizens "Qualified" immigrants Entering the U.S. before 8/22/96 Entering the U.S. on or after 8/22/96 "Not Qualified" immigrants PRUCOL (Permanently Residing Under Color of Law) Other lawfully present non-citizens Undocumented immigrants 4

Texas Math Course 1 (Grade 6) Texas Math Course 2 (Grade 7) Texas Math Course 3 (Grade 8) Texas Grade 6 iScience Texas Grade 7 iScience Texas Grade 8 iScience Texas Biology Texas Chemistry Texas Integrated Physics and Chemistry Texas Physics MK14M03416

Missouri City, Texas San Antonio City San Antonio, Texas San Antonio Surf Kyle, Texas SG1 Soccer Club Katy, Texas Sting Austin Austin, Texas Sting Corpus Corpus Christi, Texas Sting San Antonio San Antonio, Texas TEXAS Ajax SC New Braunfels, Texas Alamo City SC San Antonio, Texas Albion Hurr

TEXAS . Brown Mackie College Dallas/Fort Worth . TEXAS . Salon Boutique Academy . TEXAS . Cornerstone Christian Academy . TEXAS . ProFlight Aviation Services LLC . TEXAS . Central Texas Christian School . TEXAS . East Texas Christian School . TEXAS . JAMIE'S HOUSE CHARTER SCHOOL . TEXAS . Wharton County Junior College . Lee-Scott Academy .

"The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in fiscal 2005 would have been a loss to our gross state product of 17.7 billion. Undocumented immigrants produced 1.58 billion in state revenues, which exceeded the 1.16 billion in state services they received.

Archaeological illustration. [Cambridge manuals in archaeology] 930.1 ADKI Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989 (2002 [printing]) Strier, Karen B. Primate behavioral ecology (Fifth edition.) 599.815 STRI London; New York: Routledge, 2017 Biology Biochemical Society (Great Britain), Estrela, Pedro Essays in biochemistry : volume 60, issue 1, Biosensor technologies for detection of .