Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United ... · 2000 Profile of the Foreign-Born...

U S C E N S U S B U R E A UHelping You Make Informed Decisions

America at the Close of the 20th Century

U.S. Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000 Issued December 2001

P23-206

Demographic Programs

P23

-20

6U

S C E N

S U S B

U R

E A U

20

00

Profile o

f the Fo

reign

-Born

Pop

ulatio

n in

the U

nited

States C

urre

nt P

op

ula

tion

Rep

orts

Specia

l Studies

U.S. Department of CommerceEconomics and Statistics AdministrationU.S. CENSUS BUREAUWashington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAILPOSTAGE & FEES PAIDU.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58

Current Population Reports

Special Studies

Acknowledgments

Dianne Schmidley prepared this report under the direction of Kevin Deardorff,Chief of the Ethnic Statistics Branch, Population Division (POP). Wan He, Lisa Lollock,Angela Brittingham, Betsy Guzman, Joseph Costanzo, and Melissa Therrien(POP); and Robert Callis, Alfred Gottschalck, Robert Mills, and Benadette Proctorof Housing and Household Economics Division (HHES) made significant contributions tothe development of the report. General direction was provided by Jorge del Pinal(POP), Assistant Division Chief for Special Population Statistics. Clerical support wasprovided by Jennifer Kipple.

Dianne Schmidley (POP) provided the data tabulations. Teresa Andrews and LisaLollock (POP) and Bonnie Damon and Bernadette Proctor (HHES) made significantcontributions to the development of PPL-145, the detailed table package for this report.Alex Varson prepared material including the report and statistical table package forpresentation on the Census Bureau Internet site.

Campbell Gibson (POP) provided overall review of the report. One or more sectionswere reviewed by other staff members in Population Division and Housing and House-hold Economics Statistics Division: Jennifer Day (POP), Sandra Luckett (HHES),Charles Nelson (HHES), Thomas Palumbo (HHES), Jennifer Paluch (POP), ThomasScopp (HHES), and Ed Welniak (HHES). Linda Gordon, Office of Policy and Planning ofthe U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service also reviewed the report.

Survey coordination was provided by Gregory Weyland, Demographic SurveysDivision. Sampling review was provided by John Finamore, David Hornick, FredMeier, Jana Shepherd, Aneesah Stephenson, Marie Stetser, Jeffrey Stratton, andBrandi York of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division.

Penny Heiston, Jan Sweeney, and Barbara Blount of the Administrative andCustomer Services Division, Walter C. Odom, Chief, provided publications and printingmanagement, graphics design and composition, and editorial review for print andelectronic media. General direction and production management were provided byMichael G. Garland, Assistant Chief, and Gary J. Lauffer, Chief, Publications ServicesBranch.

Funding for this report was provided in part by the Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Service of the U.S. Department of Justice.

THIS REPORT IS DEDICATED TO EMILY LENNON

Profile of the Foreign-Born Populationin the United States: 2000 Issued December 2001


Special Studies

P23-206

U.S. Department of CommerceDonald L. Evans,

Secretary

Economics and Statistics AdministrationKathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary forEconomic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAUWilliam G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director

Suggested CitationSchmidley, A. Dianne,

U.S. Census Bureau,

Current Population Reports,

Series P23-206, Profile of the

Foreign-Born Population in the

United States: 2000,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 2001.

ECONOMICSAND STATISTICSADMINISTRATION

Kathleen B. Cooper,Under Secretary forEconomic Affairs

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,Acting Director

William G. Barron, Jr.,Deputy Director

John H. Thompson,Principal Associate Directorfor Programs

Nancy M. Gordon,Associate Directorfor Demographic Programs

John F. Long,Chief, Population Division

Daniel H. Weinberg,Chief, Housing and HouseholdEconomics Statistics Division

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov; Phone: toll-free 1-866-512-1800; DC area 202-512-1800; Fax: 202-512-2250; Mail: Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001.

iiiU.S. Census Bureau

Contents

Notes About This Report ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Highlights ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Sections

1. Trends in Immigration and the Foreign-Born Population ....................................................................... 8

2. Region of Birth ................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Country of Birth ................................................................................................................................. 12

4. Geographic Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 14

5. Metropolitan Areas ............................................................................................................................. 16

6. Length of Residence ........................................................................................................................... 18

7. Citizenship Status .............................................................................................................................. 20

8. Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock ............................................................................................... 22

9. Hispanic Origin and Race ................................................................................................................... 24

10. Age and Sex ....................................................................................................................................... 26

11. Household Size and Type ................................................................................................................... 30

12. Families and Related Children ............................................................................................................ 32

13. Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders ................................................................................ 34

14. Educational Attainment ...................................................................................................................... 36

15. Labor Force Participation .................................................................................................................... 38

16. Occupation ......................................................................................................................................... 40

17. Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers ......................................................................................... 42

18. Money Income of Households ............................................................................................................ 44

19. Poverty Status .................................................................................................................................... 46

20. Means-Tested Program Participation................................................................................................... 48

21. Health Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 50

22. Homeownership ................................................................................................................................. 52

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 54

Figures

1-1. Foreign-Born Population and Percent of Total Population for the United States: 1850 to 2000 ............ 9

1-2. Immigrants to the United States by Decade: Fiscal Years, 1821 to 1998.............................................. 9

2-1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1960 to 2000 ................................................................ 11

2-2. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: Selected Years, 1850 to 2000 ........................................ 11

3-1. Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population With 500,000 or Morein 2000: 1990 and 2000 .................................................................................................................... 12

4-1. States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000......................... 15

4-2. Foreign-Born Population for States: 2000 ........................................................................................... 15

5-1. Metropolitan Areas With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or Morein 2000: 1990 and 2000 .................................................................................................................... 16

5-2. Population by Nativity and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 2000 ...................................... 17

6-1. Length of Residence1 in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population: 1970 to 2000 ................ 18

6-2. Length of Residence in the United States for the Foreign-Born Populationby Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 19

ivU.S. Census Bureau

7-1. Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status: 1970 to 2000 ........................................................... 20

7-2. Naturalized Citizens by Length of Residence in the United States: 1970 to 2000 .............................. 21

7-3. Naturalized Citizens by Region of Birth: 2000 ................................................................................... 21

8-1. Foreign-Stock Population by Nativity and Parentage: Selected Years, 1890 to 2000 .......................... 23

9-1. Nativity and Parentage for Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000 ..................................... 25

9-2. Length of Residence in the United States and Citizenship Status for Selected Race andHispanic-Origin Groups of the Foreign-Born Population: 2000 ........................................................... 25

10-1. Age and Sex of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,and Citizenship Status: 2000 ............................................................................................................. 27

10-2. Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 2000 ............................................... 27

10-3. Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population: 1960 to 2000............................................................... 27

10-4. Total Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000............................................................................. 28

10-5. Foreign-Stock1 Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000 .............................................................. 29

11-1. Households by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, andCitizenship Status of the Householder: 2000 ..................................................................................... 30

11-2. Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 2000 ............................................. 31

12-1. Families by Type, Nativity of Householder, and Number of Related Children: 2000 ........................... 32

12-2. Married-Couple Families by Nativity of Spouses and Nativity and Age ofRelated Household Members: 2000 ................................................................................................... 33

13-1. Children Under Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, Nativity, andNativity of Householder: 2000 .......................................................................................................... 34

14-1. Educational Attainment of the Population Age 25 and Older by Nativity, Length ofResidence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 ............................................................ 36

14-2. Educational Attainment of the Foreign-Born Population Age 25 and Olderby Region of Birth: 2000 .......................................................................................... ..................... 37

15-1. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population Age 16 and Older by Nativity andSex for Selected Age Groups: 2000 .................................................................................................... 39

15-2. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population 25 to 54 Years Old by Nativity,Length of Residence in the United States, Citizenship Status, and Sex: 2000 .................................... 39

15-3. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Foreign-Born Population 25 to 54 Years Oldby Region of Birth and Sex: 2000 ....................................................................................................... 39

16-1. Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residencein the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 ............................................................................ 41

16-2. Major Occupation Group of Foreign-Born Workers Age 16 and Olderby Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 41

17-1. Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex, Nativity, Length of Residencein the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 43

17-2. Median Earnings of Foreign-Born Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex andRegion of Birth: 1999 ......................................................................................................................... 43

18-1. Median Household Income by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 .............................................................................. 45

18-2. Income of Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 ............................ 45

18-3. Median Household Income by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 1999 ...................... 45

19-1. Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................................................. 47

19-2. Poverty Rates for the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999 ............................................ 47

vU.S. Census Bureau

19-3. Selected Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, for Families by Nativity of theHouseholder, and for Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity: 1999 ............................................ 47

20-1. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by SpecifiedBenefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1999 .................................................................................. 49

20-2. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Nativity, Lengthof Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 ........................ 49

20-3. Foreign-Born Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits byRegion of Birth of the Householder: 1999 .......................................................................................... 49

21-1. Health Insurance Coverage of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residencein the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 51

21-2. Health Insurance Coverage of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999 ........................ 51

21-3. Employment-Based Health Insurance for Workers by Nativity, Length of Residencein the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 51

21-4. Employment-Based Health Insurance for Foreign-Born Workers by Region of Birth: 1999 .................. 51

22-1. Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder by Nativity, Citizenship Status,and Length of Residence in the United States: 2000 .......................................................................... 53

22-2. Homeownership Rates by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 2000 ............................. 53

22-3. Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder for Foreign-Born Householdersby Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 53

Text Tables3-1. Leading Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: Selected Years, 1850 to 1990 ................. 13

4-1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence and for Leading States:Selected Years, 1900 to 2000............................................................................................................. 14

5-1. Foreign-Born Population in Metropolitan Areas With 5 Million or More People: 2000 ......................... 17

8-1. Population by Nativity and Parentage: 2000 ...................................................................................... 22

9-1. Population by Nativity, Parentage, and Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000 .................. 24

13-1. Native and Foreign-Born Children Under Age 18 Living in Households and Familiesby Nativity of Householder: 2000 ..................................................................................................... 35

22-1. Homeownership Rates by Nativity, Region of Birth, and Age of Householder: 2000 ......................... 52

Appendixes

A. Foreign Born and Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts .................................................................. 56

B. Source and Accuracy of Estimates ...................................................................................................... 58

C. Comparison of Population Universes ................................................................................................. 67

D. Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey ......................................................................... 68

E. Related Reports and Information ........................................................................................................ 69

1U.S. Census Bureau

Notes About This Report

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, Current PopulationReports, P23-206, presents data on a wide range of geographic, demographic, social,economic, and housing characteristics for the foreign-born population of the UnitedStates. Data for the native population are included for comparison. The data in this re-port for 2000 are from the March 2000 Current Population Survey (CPS) and do not in-clude information from Census 2000 or the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Datafor 1990 and earlier years, which are included for historical comparison, are from thedecennial censuses of population. Detailed tables showing data for 2000 are presentedin Profile of the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 2000, PPL-145, issued in2001. Detailed tables showing data on the foreign-born population from decennial cen-suses are presented in Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of theUnited States: 1850 to 1990, Population Division Working Paper, No. 29, issued in 1999.

The reference date for data from the 1990 census is April 1. For data from the CPS,the reference dates vary depending on when the housing unit first came into the surveyand on the topic. Housing units (and their occupants) in the CPS are in for 4 months,out for 8 months, and then in again for 4 months. Thus housing units in the March2000 CPS are about equally distributed among those that first came into the surveyfrom December 1998 to March 1999 and from December 1999 to March 2000. Whiledata on some characteristics, including age, are updated, data on other characteristics,including length of residence in the United States and citizenship status of the foreign-born population, are not.

The core of this report is 22 sections presenting information on various topicsfor the foreign-born population. These sections are preceded by Highlights and arefollowed by References and five appendixes: (A) Foreign Born and Other Terms:Definitions and Concepts, (B) Source and Accuracy of Estimates, (C) Comparison ofPopulation Universes, (D) Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey, and(E) Related Reports and Information.

Numbers or percentages in the text, figures, and text tables may not sum to totalsdue to rounding. In general, percentages in the text are shown to one decimal place.

The Census Bureau uses 90-percent confidence intervals and 0.10 levels of signifi-cance to determine statistical validity (see Appendix B). Comparisons in the text ofthis report that do not meet this standard are described as being not significant. Cur-rent Population Survey data are weighted to population estimates based on the 1990census counts adjusted for undercoverage in 1990.

Copies of this report are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. General questions about the reportmay be addressed to A. Dianne Schmidley, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau,Washington DC 20233-8800, or to the e-mail address [email protected].

2U.S. Census Bureau

Highlights

1. Trends in International March 2000. Mexico’s propor- Hawaii (16.1 percent),Migration and the tion in 2000 is the largest re- Nevada (15.2 percent),Foreign-Born Population corded share any country has New Jersey (14.9 percent),

held since the decennial cen- Arizona (12.9 percent),The estimated foreign-born sus in 1890 when about Massachusetts (12.4 percent),population of the United 30 percent of the foreign-born and Texas (12.2 percent).States in March 2000 was population was from Germany.28.4 million, based on data From 1960 to March 2000, the

(However, the March 2000 pro-collected in the Current Popu- foreign-born population in-

portion for Mexico is not sta-lation Survey. creased from 1.3 million to

tistically different from the8.8 million in California, from

In March 2000, an estimated proportion shown in 1997 in0.3 million to 2.8 million in

10.4 percent of the U.S. popu- P23-195.)Florida, and from 0.3 million

lation was foreign born, up In 1970, 2 of the 10 leading to 2.4 million in Texas. Thefrom 7.9 percent in 1990. countries of foreign birth growth in California, Florida,

The rapid increase in the (Mexico and Cuba) were Latin and Texas caused the foreign-

foreign-born population from American or Asian. By 2000, born population to expand

9.6 million in 1970 to these two regions may have more rapidly in the West and

28.4 million in 2000 reflects accounted for 9 of the 10 top South than it did in the North-

the high level of international countries (Mexico, China, In- east and Midwest between

migration during the past gen- dia, Korea, the Philippines, 1960 and 2000.

eration. Vietnam, Cuba, the DominicanRepublic, and El Salvador). The 5. Metropolitan Areas

2. Region of Birth exact number and the exactThe foreign-born population

order after Mexico are uncer-Among the 14.5 million for- was especially concentrated in

tain due to sampling variabil-eign-born population from the largest metropolitan areas

ity in the Current PopulationLatin America in March 2000 and in their central cities:

Survey data.(51.0 percent or about half of 54.5 percent lived in the 9

the foreign born), 9.8 million metropolitan areas of 5 million4. Geographic Distributionwere from Central America (in- or more population compared

cluding Mexico), 2.8 million In March 2000, six states had with 27.3 percent of the na-

were from the Caribbean, and estimated foreign-born popu- tive population.

1.9 million were from South lations of 1 million or more:In March 2000, the metropoli-

America. California (8.8 million), Newtan areas with the largest

York (3.6 million), Florida (2.8The remaining foreign born foreign-born population were

million), Texas (2.4 million),were from: Asia (7.2 million, Los Angeles and New York,

New Jersey (1.2 million), andor one-quarter of the total foreach with 4.7 million foreign

Illinois (1.2 million). Theseeign-born population); Europe born. Together, these two

states accounted for 70.4 per-(4.4 million, or about one- metropolitan areas included

cent of the total foreign-bornseventh of the foreign born); 33.1 percent of the foreign-

population.Northern America (essentially born population in the United

Canada, 0.7 million); and In nine states, the foreign-born States.

other areas. proportion in the population inAmong the nine largest metro-

March 2000 was estimated topolitan areas in 2000 (those

3. Country of Birth be above the national averagewith total populations of

of 10.4 percent:Mexico accounted for more 5 million or more), Los Ange-

California (25.9 percent),than one-quarter of the les and San Francisco had the

New York (19.6 percent),foreign-born population in highest proportion foreign

Florida (18.4 percent),

3U.S. Census Bureau

born at 30.0 percent each. 47.1 percent from Asia, and race, this is not true of allFor metropolitan areas with 28.3 percent from Latin regions. For example, in March1 million to 5 million popula- America. The low proportion 2000, 96.0 percent of the for-tion in 2000, Miami had the from Latin America is attribut- eign born from Europe andhighest proportion foreign able primarily to the low fig- 89.1 percent of the foreignborn at 42.7 percent. ure for the Central America born from North America (es-

(21.1 percent), most of whom sentially Canada) where White6. Length of Residence are from Mexico. non-Hispanic. Of the foreign

born from Asia, 83.7 percentThe median length of resi- 8. Nativity, Parentage, and were Asian and Pacific Islanderdence in the United States of Foreign Stock (not statistically different fromthe foreign-born population

the proportion White non-was 14.4 years in 2000 com- In March 2000, 55.9 million or Hispanic from Northernpared with 12.2 years in one-fifth of the U.S. popula- America), and 14.5 percent1990. tion was of foreign stock. This were White non-Hispanic. In

number included 28.4 millionLength of residence in the contrast, the foreign-born

foreign born, 14.8 million ofUnited States of the foreign- population from Africa was very

foreign parentage (native withborn population varies greatly heterogeneous — no one race

both parents foreign born),by region of birth. In 2000, was dominant.

and 12.7 million of mixed par-the median length of resi-

entage (native with one parent In March 2000, the Currentdence was 25.0 years for the

foreign born). Population Survey showedforeign-born population from

10.4 percent of the total popu-Europe, 14.3 years for those The foreign stock population lation was foreign born. Thefrom Asia, and 13.5 years for is likely to increase in the fu- proportion was much higherthose from Latin America. (The ture as recent international mi- among Asians and Pacific Is-percent for Asia does not dif- grants form families. One indi- landers (61.4 percent) and His-fer significantly from that for cation of this is the increase in panics (39.1 percent) but muchLatin America or for the total the proportion of births to for- lower for Blacks (6.3 percent)foreign born). eign-born women residing in and for White non-Hispanics

the United States: from 6 per- (3.9 percent). Thus Asians and7. Citizenship Status cent in 1970 to 20.2 percent Pacific Islanders and Hispanics

in 1999.Between 1970 and March are much more likely to be for-2000, the total foreign-born eign born than Blacks and White

9. Hispanic Origin and Racepopulation increased by non-Hispanics.191 percent, from 9.7 million Categories of ethnicity andto 28.4 million. In contrast, race are not interchangeable 10. Age and Sexthe naturalized citizen foreign- with geographic regions used In 2000, the median ages ofborn population increased by in this report. For example, the foreign-born (38.1 years)71 percent (6.2 million to the March 2000 data show and native (34.5 years) popu-10.6 million) and the nonciti- 15.3 percent of the foreign lations did not differ greatly,zen population increased by born were born in Europe, but their age distributions dif-401 percent (3.5 million to however, 67.9 percent of the fered considerably. In the17.8 million). foreign born were White, and foreign-born population,

24.8 percent were White non-In March 2000, the proportion 10.0 percent of the people

Hispanic.of naturalized citizens in the were under 18 years old, andforeign-born population varied While the foreign born from 58.7 percent were 25 to 54greatly by region of birth: some regions of the world are years old, whereas the corre-52.0 percent from Europe, relatively homogeneous by sponding proportions in the

4U.S. Census Bureau

native population were for Northern America (2.32) households. Nearly 1 in 6 of28.3 percent and 41.7 per- and Europe (2.38). (The latter these children lived with acent. two averages are not statisti- foreign-born householder

cally different.) (foreign-born households). OfThe sex ratio (the number of

the 11.5 million children livingmales for every 100 females) 12. Families and Related in foreign-born households,of the foreign-born population

Children 8.9 million or 77.7 percentwas 100.1 compared with

were native, and 2.6 million95.0 for the native population. The average size of families were foreign born. In con-

with a foreign-born house-In 2000, the median age of trast, nearly all of the childrenholder (foreign-born families)the foreign-born population living in native householdsin 2000 was 3.72 comparedwas 50.0 years for those from were native.with 3.10 for families with aEurope, 39.2 for those fromnative householder (native Most of the children under age

Asia, and 35.3 for those fromfamilies). Foreign-born fami- 18 living in foreign-born fam-

Latin America.lies had larger average num- ily households (98.7 percent)bers of both adults, 2.47 ver- were related to the house-11. Household Size and Typesus 2.15, and of children, holder. The majority of these

In March 2000, 11.1 percent 1.25 versus 0.94. children (89.4 percent) wereof all households, or 11.6 mil- the householder’s own child,

Among married-couple fami-lion households, had a for- and the rest were other rela-

lies with a foreign-born house-eign-born householder. tives such as grandchildren,

holder in 2000, the proportion nephews, or nieces (9.3 per-The average size of house- with one or more related chil- cent). A small proportion ofholds with a foreign-born dren under age 18 ranged these children (1.3 percent)householder (foreign-born from 35.0 percent for house- were unrelated. Comparablehouseholds) was 3.26, consid- holders from Europe to figures for native householdserably larger than the average 73.4 percent for Latin Ameri- were 91.5 percent, 7.5 per-size of 2.54 for households can householders. Among cent, and 1.1 percent respec-with a native householder (na- married-couple family house- tively. (There was no statisticaltive households). Foreign- holders from Mexico, the pro- difference between foreign-born households had larger portion was 80.4 percent. born and native households inaverage numbers of children

Of the 55.3 million married- the proportions of unrelatedunder age 18 (0.99 versus

couple families in 2000, children.)0.65).

8.7 million, or 15.7 percent, Preschool age children, orWhereas native households in- included at least one foreign- those less than 6 years old,cluded an average of only born spouse. Of these represented 35.3 percent of0.03 foreign-born members in couples, 5.5 million had both children living in foreign-born2000, foreign-born house- spouses foreign born, 1.7 mil- households, compared withholds included an average of lion had a foreign-born wife 32.2 percent of children in na-1.08 native members. Native and a native husband, and tive households. Among chil-members represented one- 1.5 million had a foreign-born dren in foreign-born house-third (33.1 percent) of the husband and a native wife. holds, a major difference ex-members of foreign-born

isted in the age structure ofhouseholds. 13. Children Living With native and foreign-born chil-

Foreign-BornAverage household size dren: 41.6 percent of nativeHouseholdersamong foreign-born house- children living with foreign-

holders ranged from a high for In 2000, 72.1 million children born householders were underLatin America (3.72) to lows (under age 18) lived in the age of 6 compared with

5U.S. Census Bureau

only 13.5 percent of foreign- 66.6 percent, not significantly (4.5 percent versus 2.1 per-born children. different from 67.3 percent for cent). (The proportion of

the native population. foreign-born workers holding14. Education service jobs (19.2 percent)

Among the population age 16was not significantly different

In 2000, the proportion of the and older, the labor force par-from the proportion in preci-

population age 25 and older ticipation rate in 2000 wassion production, craft, and re-

who had completed high higher for foreign-born malespair jobs (18.7 percent).)

school or more education in (79.6 percent) than for nativeMarch 2000 was lower among males (73.4 percent). For fe- Professional and managerialthe foreign-born population males, the labor force partici- specialty occupations ac-(67.0 percent) than among the pation rate was lower among counted for 38.1 percent ofnative population (86.6 per- the foreign-born population workers from Europe andcent). (53.7 percent) than among the 38.7 percent of workers from

native population (61.6 per- Asia (not statistically differ-Among individuals with less

cent). ent), compared with 12.1 per-than a high school education,

cent of workers from Latinthose with less than a 5th For foreign-born males in

America.grade education represented 2000, labor force participationabout 1 in 5 of the foreign rates for the 25 to 54 age Operators, fabricators, and la-born but only about 1 in 20 of group did not vary by region borers accounted for 24.8 per-the native population. of birth (Figure 15-3); how- cent of workers from Latin

ever, there was some variation America, while farming, for-For the population aged 25

among females. For females estry, and fishing occupationsand older, 95.0 percent of the

born in Mexico, the labor force lay claim to another 7.8 per-foreign born from Africa had

participation rate was cent of these workers. Amongcompleted high school or

55.1 percent, compared with foreign-born workers frommore education by March

66.5 percent for all foreign- Mexico, 28.6 percent were in2000. The high school

born females. the operators, fabricators, andcompletion rates for the for-

laborers occupational group,eign born from Europe 16. Occupation and 12.9 percent were in the(81.3 percent), Asia

farming, forestry, and fishing(83.8 percent), Northern In March 2000, managerial,

occupational group.America (85.5 percent), and professional, technical, sales,South America (79.6 percent) and administrative support oc- 17. Earningswere not statistically different cupations accounted forfrom each other, but they were 45.6 percent of foreign-born In 1999, median earnings forall well above the proportion workers, compared with full-time, year-round foreign-for Mexico (33.8 percent) and 61.5 percent of native work- born male and female workersthe foreign-born average ers. Higher proportions of for- were $27,239 and $22,139,(67.0 percent). eign-born compared with na- respectively, compared with

tive workers filled service oc- $37,528 and $26,698 respec-15. Labor Force cupations (19.2 percent ver- tively, for native male and fe-

sus 13.2 percent); worked as male workers. The female-to-In March 2000, the foreign-

operators, fabricators, and la- male earnings ratio was higherborn population accounted for

borers (18.7 percent versus for foreign-born workers17.4 million, or 12.4 percent,

12.7 percent); worked in preci- (0.81) than for native workersof the total civilian labor force

sion production, craft, and re- (0.71).of 140.5 million. The labor

pair jobs (12.1 percent versusforce participation rate of the Among foreign-born male

10.5 percent); or held farming,foreign-born population was workers, 44.9 percent had

forestry, and fishing jobs

6U.S. Census Bureau

earnings less than $25,000, per foreign-born household 1999 were relatively low (andwhile 23.2 percent had earn- (1.60) was higher than the av- not significantly different fromings of $50,000 or more. erage for native households each other) for the popula-Among their native counter- (1.40). tions from Europe (9.3 per-parts, the corresponding pro- cent) and Asia (12.8 percent).

In 1999, households with aportions were 24.2 percent For the population from Latin

householder born in Asia hadand 33.0 percent, respectively. America, the poverty rate was

a median income of $51,363.21.9 percent.

Among foreign-born female This was well above the me-workers, 55.5 percent had dian income of native house- Among the foreign-born popu-earnings less than $25,000, holds as well as other foreignlation from Latin America, thewhile 12.0 percent had earn- born households. The income poverty rates ranged fromings of $50,000 or more. for European households 11.5 percent for the popula-Among their native counter- ($41,733) was not statistically tion from South America toparts, the corresponding pro- different from the native me- 25.8 percent for the popula-portions were 44.1 percent dian but was much higher tion from Mexico.and 13.2 percent, respectively. than the median income forEven though the median earn- Latin American households 20. Program Participationings of foreign-born female ($29,388).

In 1999, 2.5 million (21.2 per-workers were lower than

The higher median income of cent) of households withthose of native female work-

Asian households was mostly foreign-born householders anders, the proportions with earn-

due to a combination of three 13.5 million (14.6 percent) ofings of $50,000 or more were

factors: the high proportion of households with native house-not significantly different.

Asian foreign-born males and holders participated in one orfemale workers who held more of the following means-18. Household Incomehigh-paying managerial and tested programs providing

In 1999, the median income professional jobs (a character- noncash benefits: foodfor households with a foreign- istic they shared with male Eu- stamps, housing assistance,born householder was ropean workers); the low pro- or medicaid. The highest par-$36,048, compared with portion of householders from ticipation rates were for med-$41,383 for households with Asia age 65 and older (com- icaid — 18.6 percent of for-a native householder. Among pared with the foreign born eign-born households andforeign-born households, the from Europe); and the high 12.1 percent of native house-proportion of households with proportion of Asian women in holds.incomes below $25,000 and the labor force.

In 1999, 8.0 percent of house-with incomes of $50,000 or

holds with a foreign-bornmore was about equal — 19. Poverty Status

householder and 5.6 of house-34.5 percent and 36.2 per-

In 1999, the official poverty holds with a native house-cent, respectively. In contrast,

rate was 16.8 percent for the holder participated in one or30.2 percent of native house-

foreign-born population, com- more of the following means-holds had an income of less

pared with 11.2 percent for tested programs providingthan $25,000, and 41.6 per-

the native population. Of the cash benefits: Temporary As-cent had an income of

32.3 million individuals below sistance for Needy Families$50,000 or more.

the poverty level, 4.8 million, (TANF), General AssistanceThe lower income of foreign- or 14.7 percent, were foreign- (GA), or Supplemental Securityborn households was not ex- born. Income (SSI).plained by the number of

Among the foreign-born popu- Among foreign-born house-earners per household. The

lation, the poverty rates in holds, participation rates inaverage number of earners

7U.S. Census Bureau

noncash means-tested pro- were foreign born and higher when the householdergrams are higher for house- 54.6 percent of those who was a naturalized citizenholds with noncitizen house- were native had employment- (66.5 percent) than when theholders (24.8 percent) than for based health insurance. householder was not a citizenhouseholds with naturalized- Among foreign-born workers, (33.5 percent).citizen householders the proportions ranged from

Among the foreign-born, home-(16.9 percent). For cash 36.2 percent for residents in

ownership for naturalized citi-means-tested programs, the the United States for less than

zen householders was moreparticipation rate was 8.0 per- 10 years to 54.8 percent for

likely for those who lived in thecent for both noncitizen and those resident 20 years or

United States 10 or more years,naturalized-citizen house- more. The proportions were

compared with those who livedholds. 54.6 percent for naturalized

here less than 10 years.citizens and 37.9 percent for

21. Health Insurance noncitizens. Among the regions of birth with1 million or more foreign-born

In 1999, 66.6 percent of the 22. Homeownership householders, the homeowner-foreign-born population com-

ship rate was 63.5 percent forpared with 86.5 percent of the In 2000, the homeownership

householders from Europe,native population had health in- rate for the United States was

52.0 percent for householderssurance for all or part of the 67.2 percent. The homeown-

from Asia, and 41.2 percent foryear. (Health insurance includes ership rate for foreign-born

householders from Latingovernment insurance plans householders was 48.8 per-

America. The homeownershipsuch as medicare, medicaid, or cent, compared with 69.5 per-

rates for householders from Eu-military health care and private cent for households with a na-

rope, Asia, and Latin Americainsurance plans.) tive householder. For foreign-

under age 35 were all aboutborn households, the home-

Among workers in 1999, 25.0 percent.ownership rate was much

44.5 percent of those who

8U.S. Census Bureau

Section 1.

Trends in Immigration and theForeign-Born Population

The foreign-bornpopulation reached28 million in 2000.

The estimated foreign-bornpopulation of the United States inMarch 2000 was 28.4 million basedon data collected in the CurrentPopulation Survey1 (Figure 1-1). Pre-viously, the foreign-born populationhad expanded from 9.6 million in1970, the lowest total in this cen-tury, to 14.1 million in 1980 and to19.8 million in 1990.2

The proportion foreign born in-creased from 6.2 percent in 1980to 7.9 percent in 1990. By March2000, an estimated 10.4 percentof the U.S. population was foreignborn, the highest proportion since1930.

Historically, the foreign-born population increasedduring each decade until1930 and then declineduntil 1970.

With the exception of the1860s (which included the CivilWar) and the 1890s (which in-cluded the “closing” of the agricul-tural frontier and economic depres-sion), the number of internationalmigrants to the United States in-creased in each decade from the1820s to the 1901-1910 decade(Figure 1-2).3 Data from the Immi-gration and Naturalization Service(INS) indicate that the number ofimmigrants increased from 0.1 mil-lion in the 1820s to 8.8 million inthe 1901-1910 decade, the highesttotal on record for a single decade.Census data reflect this migrationtrend and show that the foreign-born population increased rapidlyfrom 2.2 million in 1850, the firstyear place of birth data were col-lected, to 13.5 million in 1910.4

The number of new foreign- Following a reduced flow of in-born arrivals declined between ternational migrants in the 1930s1911 and the 1920s, due first to and 1940s (due partly to economicWorld War I and then to restrictive depression and then to World Warimmigration legislation enacted in II), the U.S. foreign-born population1921 and 1924. The new legisla- dropped to 10.3 million in 1950tion established a national origin or 6.9 percent of the total popula-quota system that severely limited tion. The number of internationalimmigration and favored countries migrants to the United States in-in the Western Hemisphere and creased in the 1950s and 1960s,Northern or Western Europe.5 but remained relatively low com-

As a result of decreased migra- pared to earlier decades. As ation to the United States, the result of four decades of low immi-foreign-born population increased gration, the foreign-born popula-slowly to 14.2 million in 1930. tion dropped to 9.6 million inThe proportion foreign born in the 1970 or a record low of 4.7 per-total population, which had fluctu- cent of the total population.ated in the 13 percent to 15 per- The national origins quota sys-cent range from 1860 to 1920, tem, which was enacted in thedropped from 14.7 percent in 1920s and reaffirmed in the Immi-1910 to 11.6 percent in 1930. gration and Nationality Act of

Foreign-born and native populations.

Simply put, the foreign born are not U.S. citizens at birth. Theforeign-born population is classified by citizenship status: thosewho have become U.S. citizens through naturalization and thosewho are not U.S. citizens. Natives, as defined by the Census Bu-reau, were born in the United States, in U.S. Island Areas such asPuerto Rico, or were born in a foreign country of at least one parentwho was a United States citizen.

The foreign-born population includes immigrants, as definedabove, legal nonimmigrants (e.g., refugees and persons on studentor work visas), and persons illegally residing in the United States.

Immigrants and immigration.

Immigrants, as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act,are aliens admitted to the United States for lawful permanent resi-dence. They may be issued immigrant visas overseas by the De-partment of State or adjusted to permanent resident status in theUnited States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Immi-gration is defined here as the number of immigrants during a speci-fied period of time, such as a year or a decade.

Further information.

For a detailed discussion, see Appendix A, “Foreign Born andOther Terms: Definitions and Concepts.”

9U.S. Census Bureau

1952, was eliminated by the 1965Amendments to the Immigrationand Nationality Act of 1952. Thislegislation and subsequent legisla-tion, including the Immigration Re-form and Control Act of 1986,which permitted some illegal aliensto obtain lawful permanent resi-dence, and the Immigration Act of1990, which increased the annualcap on immigration, have contrib-uted to increased internationalmigration.

1Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS)include the civilian noninstitutionalized populationplus Armed Forces living off post or with their fami-lies on post.

2While legal immigration has been the primarysource for growth in the foreign-born populationsince 1965, the number of illegal aliens has alsoprobably increased the foreign-born population (Im-migration and Naturalization Service, 2000, pp. 239-243).

3For a detailed discussion of trends in immigra-tion to the United States, see U.S. Immigration andNaturalization Service, 1991, special section on“Trends in Immigration,” pp. 13-34. See also U.S. Im-migration and Naturalization Service, 2000, Appen-dix 1, “Immigration and Naturalization Legislation.”

4The highest number of international migrantsrecorded for a 10-year period was 10.1 million forthe years 1905-14 (INS, 2000, p. 19). However, War-ren and Kraly estimate emigration was also high dur-ing this period — approximately 3.2 million (Warrenand Kraly, 1985, p. 5). For the 1901-10 decade,when the number of immigrants was 8.8 million,they estimate emigration was 3.0 million (U.S. Immi-gration and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 238).

5Ibid., Appendix 1, “Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Legislation.”

2000199019801970196019501940193019201910190018901880187018601850

Foreign-born population (in millions)Percent of total population

Figure 1-1.

Foreign-Born Population and Percent of Total Population for the United States: 1850 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a, Table 1, and 2001, Table 1-1.

9.7

13.2

14.413.3

14.813.6

14.7

13.2

11.6

8.8

6.9

5.44.7

6.2

7.9

10.4

2.2 4.1 5.6 6.7 9.2 10.3 13.5 13.9 14.2 11.6 10.3 9.7 9.6 14.1 19.8 28.4

(For 1850-1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Figure 1-2.

Immigrants to the United States by Decade: Fiscal Years, 1821 to 1998

1991-1998

1981-1990

1971-1980

1961-1970

1951-1960

1941-1950

1931-1940

1921-1930

1911-1920

1901-1910

1891-1900

1881-1890

1871-1880

1861-1870

1851-1860

1841-1850

1831-1840

1821-1830

Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, Table 1.

0.10.6

1.7

2.6 2.32.8

5.2

3.7

8.8

5.7

4.1

0.51.0

2.5

3.3

4.5

7.3 7.6

(Numbers millions)

10U.S. Census Bureau

Section 2.

Region of Birth

One-half of the foreign- America. From 1970 to 2000,

born population is from the foreign-born population from

Latin America. Central America rose from 48.4 per-cent to 67.6 percent of the total

In 2000, 14.5 million of the born in Latin America.foreign-born population living inthe United States was born in Latin One-quarter of theAmerica, up from 8.4 million in foreign-born population1990 (Figure 2-1).1 This increase is from Asia.represented a continuation of the

In 2000, about 7.2 million of therapid growth in the foreign-born

foreign born living in the Unitedpopulation from Latin America since

States were born in Asia compared1960 when the figure was 0.9 mil-

with 5.0 million in 1990. The in-lion. From 1970, when the total

crease reflects a pattern establishedforeign-born population started to

shortly after 1965 when U.S. na-increase dramatically, to 2000, the

tional origins quotas were abol-increase in the foreign-born popula-

ished. In 1960, the foreign-borntion from Latin America accounted

population from Asia stood atfor 12.7 million, or 67.6 percent, of

0.5 million. During the 1970s thethe total increase of 18.8 million.

population more than tripled, andThe foreign-born population

then in the 1980s it nearly doubledfrom Latin America accounted for

to about 5.0 million people.51.0 percent of the foreign-born

By March 2000, the foreign-bornpopulation in 2000 (Figure 2-2). The

population from Asia constitutedproportion of the foreign-born popu-

25.5 percent of the foreign-bornlation from Latin America increased

population. The apparent differencerapidly from 9.4 percent in 1960 to

in the proportion between 2000 and19.4 percent in 1970, to 33.1 per-

1990 when the foreign-born popula-cent in 1980 and to 44.3 percent in

tion from Asia was 26.3 percent is1990.

not statistically significant. Previ-Central Americans form ously, the Asian born share of the

a growing share of the foreign-born population had in-

foreign born from Latin creased from 5.1 percent in 1960 to

America. 8.9 percent in 1970 and to 19.3 per-cent in 1980.

Among the 14.5 million foreign- Nearly one-seventh of theborn population from Latin Americain 2000, 9.8 million were from foreign born are fromCentral America (including Mexico), Europe.2.8 million were from the Caribbean, As suggested by the discussionand 1.9 million were from South of historical trends in immigration inAmerica.2 In 1970, when the Section 1, European countries wereforeign-born population from Latin the primary source of the foreign-America was 1.8 million, 0.9 million born population in the United Stateswere from Central America, 0.7 mil- until the immigration laws werelion were from the Caribbean, and changed in 1965 (Figure 2-2).0.3 million were from South

Survey data from March 2000 showthat about 15.3 percent of the for-eign born were from Europe. Slightlymore than half of the 4.3 millionEuropean foreign born came fromcountries in Southern and EasternEurope.

Through 1960, NorthernAmerica (essentially Canada) wasthe second largest source of theforeign-born population after Eu-rope.3 From 1960 to 1990, the pro-portion of the foreign-born popula-tion from Northern America droppedfrom 9.8 percent to 4.0 percent. In2000, the proportion of the foreign-born population from NorthernAmerica was 2.5 percent.

In 2000, the foreign-born popu-lation from Africa was 0.7 million,up from 0.4 million in 1990. Theforeign-born population fromOceania (mostly Australia) remainedstatistically unchanged at 0.15 mil-lion. In 1960, the foreign-bornpopulation from Africa and Oceaniaeach was 35,000.4

1 The six regions of the world used in this re-port are those defined by the United Nations andused in its annual Demographic Yearbook. These re-gions are Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, LatinAmerica, and Northern America (United Nations,1996, pp. 30-31). Region of origin is not equivalentwith race. For example, 14.5 percent of the foreignborn from Asia are non-Hispanic white. See Section9, Hispanic Origin and Race.

2 The subregions of Latin America, includingMexico as a part of Central America, are defined bythe United Nations. See footnote 1.

3 In addition to Canada, foreign countries inNorthern America include Bermuda, Greenland, andtwo tiny islands governed by France, St. Pierre, andMiquelon.

4 For census data the “Other Areas” category in-cludes people for whom place of birth was never re-ported, so fluctuations in this category through 1990are often due to reporting changes. For March 2000,the “Other Areas” category is composed of foreignborn from Africa and Oceania and a few cases fromAntarctica and At Sea. (See U.S. Census Bureau,1999.)


Figure 2-1.

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1960 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 2and Table 1-1.

20001990198019701960

Other Areas

Asia

Northern America

Europe

Latin America

7.3 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.4

0.70.8

0.90.8

1.0

0.9

0.50.1

9.79.6

14.1

19.8

28.4

1.6

7.2

14.5

1.3

5.0

8.4

1.2

2.5

4.4

0.40.8

1.8

(Numbers in millions. For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Other Areas

Asia

Northern America

Europe

Latin America

Figure 2-2.

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: Selected Years, 1850 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 2 and Table 1-1.

200019901980197019601930190018801850

92.2

6.7

1.0

86.2

10.7

3.1

86.0

11.4

2.6

83.0

9.2

5.6

2.2

75.0

9.8

9.4

5.1

0.7

61.7

8.7

19.4

8.9

1.3

39.0

6.5

33.1

19.3

2.1

22.9

4.0

44.3

26.3

2.5

15.3

2.5

51.0

25.5

5.7

(Percent distribution. For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Section 3.

Country of Birth

More than one-quarterof the foreign born isfrom Mexico.

In 2000, 7.8 million of theforeign-born population living inthe United States were born inMexico, an increase of 3.5 million,or 82.4 percent, over the 1990 fig-ure for Mexico of 4.3 million (Fig-ure 3-1). Previously, the foreign-born population from Mexicorose from 0.8 million in 1970to 2.2 million in 1980.

The foreign-born populationfrom Mexico accounted for27.6 percent of the foreign bornin 2000. Previously, the Mexicanproportion was 8.2 percent in1970, 16.7 percent in 1980, and22.7 percent in 1990. Mexico’sproportion in 2000 is the largestrecorded share any country hasheld since the decennial census in1890 when about 30 percent ofthe foreign-born population wasfrom Germany. The foreign-bornpopulation from Mexico in 2000was about six times as large as theforeign-born population from thenext highest ranked country:China.

In addition to the large increasein the foreign-born populationfrom Mexico during the periodfrom 1990 to 2000, statisticallysignificant increases in the foreign-born population occurred for sev-eral countries with 0.5 million ormore foreign-born population in2000: China,1 the Philippines,India, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador,the Dominican Republic, and thecombined countries in Europe thatwere once part of the formerSoviet Union.2

Most of the 10 leading the addition of Vietnam and China.

countries of birth of the Although the sample size in the

foreign-born population Current Population Survey is not

are in Latin America and large enough to rank most coun-tries with complete accuracy (noteAsia. the 90-percent confidence

In 1960, Mexico was the only intervals shown in Figure 3-1),

Latin American or Asian country the number of Latin American and

among the 10 leading countries of Asian countries among the

birth of the foreign-born popula- 10 leading countries of birth of

tion (Table 3-1). The number in- the foreign-born population may

creased to two in 1970 with the have reached 9 in 2000 (with the

addition of Cuba; to four in 1980 addition of India, the Dominican

with the addition of the Philippines Republic, and El Salvador).3

and Korea; and to six in 1990 with

20001990

Figure 3-1.

Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born PopulationWith 500,000 or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population.For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

United Kingdom

Soviet Union*1

Germany

Canada

DominicanRepublic*

Korea

El Salvador*

Vietnam*

Cuba*

India*

Philippines*

China*1

Mexico* 7,841 (7,364-8,318)4,298

1,391 (1,195-1,588)921

1,222 (1,038-1,407)9131,007 (839-1,174)

450

952 (784-1,121)737

863 (708-1,019)543

765 (614-916)465

701 (561-841)568

692 (548-836)348

678 (536-820)745

653 (547-759)712

624 (521-727)334

613 (511-716)640

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.1See text footnotes 1 and 2, respectively, regarding China and the Soviet Union.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 3, and Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.


3124

Historically, Europeancountries and Canadawere the leading countriesof birth of the foreign-born population.

At each census from 1850through 1960, the 10 leading coun-tries of birth of the foreign-bornpopulation were predominantlyEuropean countries and Canada.The only exceptions were Mexico

(1850-60, 1920-60) and China(1860-80). Prior to 1980, whenMexico became the leading countryof birth of the foreign-born popula-tion, the leading countries wereIreland (1850-70), Germany (1880-20), and Italy (1930-1970). The10 leading countries of birth of theforeign-born population in selectedyears are shown in Table 3-1.

1 Including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Data forHong Kong and Taiwan corresponding to the format in

Figure 3-1 are (in thousands): Hong Kong (147 for1990 and 195 (121-269) for 2000); Taiwan (244 for1990 and 325 (230-420) for 2000). The 2000 popula-tions for Hong Kong and Taiwan are not statisticallydifferent from their 1990 populations.

2 The Soviet Union as defined prior to January 1,1992, excluding Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijanwhich are included with Asia in this report. In 1992,the United States formally recognized 12 independentrepublics within the former Soviet Union. See Immigra-tion and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 10.

3 Given the uncertainty as to whether or notCuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, and the DominicanRepublic are in the top 10 in 2000, the number maybe as low as 4 (if none of the 5 is among the 10 lead-ing countries) or as high as 9 (if all 5 are among the10 leading countries).

Table 3-1.

Leading Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: (Resident population)

Selected Years, 1850 to 1990

Subject 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990

Number of 10 LeadingCountries by Region

Total ...................... 10Europe ........................ 8Northern America ........ 1Latin America .............. 1Asia ............................ -

10 Leading Countries by Rank1

(foreign-born populationin thousands)

1 ............................ Ireland............................ 962

2 ............................ Germany............................ 584

3 ............................ Great Britain............................ 379

4 ............................ Canada............................ 148

5 ............................ France............................ 54

6 ............................ Switzerland............................ 13

7 ............................ Mexico............................ 13

8 ............................ Norway............................ 13

9 ............................ Holland............................ 10

10 ............................ Italy............................ 4

1081-1

Germany1,967

Ireland1,855

Great Britain918

Canada717

Sweden194

Norway182

France107

China104

Switzerland89

Bohemia85

1091--

Germany2,663

Ireland1,615

Canada1,180

Great Britain1,168

Sweden582

Italy484

Russia424

Poland383

Norway336

Austria276

10811-

Italy1,790

Germany1,609

United Kingdom1,403

Canada1,310

Poland1,269

Soviet Union1,154

Ireland745

Mexico641

Sweden595

Czechoslovakia492

10811-

Italy1,257

Germany990

Canada953

United Kingdom833

Poland748

Soviet Union691

Mexico576

Ireland339

Austria305

Hungary245

10712-

Italy1,009

Germany833

Canada812

Mexico760

United Kingdom686

Poland548

Soviet Union463

Cuba439

Ireland251

Austria214

105122

Mexico2,199

Germany849

Canada843

Italy832

United Kingdom669

Cuba608

Philippines501

Poland418

Soviet Union406

Korea290

10

Mexico4,298

China921

Philippines913

Canada745

Cuba737

Germany712

United Kingdom640

Italy581

Korea568

Vietnam543

- Represents zero.1In general, countries as reported at each census. Data are not totally comparable over time due to changes in boundaries for some countries. Ireland. United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. China in 1990 includes Hong Kong and Taiwan.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 3 and 4.

Great Britain excludes


Section 4.

Geographic Distribution

The foreign-bornpopulation is highlyconcentrated in a fewstates.

In 2000, 6 states had estimatedforeign-born populations of 1 mil-lion or more: California (8.8 mil-lion), New York (3.6 million),Florida (2.8 million), Texas(2.4 million), New Jersey (1.2 mil-lion), and Illinois (1.2 million)(Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1). These6 states accounted for 20.0 mil-lion, or 70.4 percent, of the totalforeign-born population, but only39.3 percent of the total popula-tion. The concentration of theforeign-born population in thesesix states increased from 56.5 per-cent in 1960 to 70.4 percent in2000 while their proportion of thetotal population increased from35.2 percent in 1960 to 39.3 per-cent by 2000.

In five of these states, the pro-portion foreign born exceeded thenational average of 10.4 percent:California (25.9 percent), New York(19.6 percent), Florida (18.4 per-cent), New Jersey (14.9 percent),and Texas (12.2 percent). The pro-portion foreign born in Illinois (9.5percent) fell below the national av-erage.

Although their foreign-bornpopulation did not exceed 1 mil-lion, the proportion foreign bornwas significantly above the na-tional average in 4 other states:Hawaii (16.1 percent), Nevada(15.2 percent), Arizona (12.9 per-cent), and Massachusetts(12.4 percent) (Figure 4-2).1 Incontrast, 33 states located mostlyin the Midwest and South had anestimated proportion foreign bornof 5 percent or less in 2000.

Most of the growth in the The regional distributionforeign-born population of the foreign-bornhas occurred in California, population has changedFlorida, and Texas. sharply since 1960.

From 1960 to 2000, the foreign- The growth of the foreign-bornborn population increased from population in California, Florida, and1.3 million to 8.8 million in Califor- Texas caused the foreign-born popu-nia, from 0.3 million to 2.8 million in lation to expand more rapidly in theFlorida, and from 0.3 million to West and South than it did in the2.4 million in Texas. The combined Northeast and Midwest betweenforeign-born population in these 3 1960 and 2000 (Table 4-1). For thestates rose from 1.9 million to West and South combined, the for-14.0 million, an increase of 12.1 mil- eign-born population grew fromlion people, or 64.8 percent of the 2.9 million to 18.9 million and rosegrowth of the total foreign-born from 29.6 percent to 66.7 percentpopulation during this period. of the foreign-born population of theThese three states combined ac- United States. During the same pe-counted for 40.9 percent of the riod, the proportion of the totalgrowth in the total U.S. population population in the West and Southbetween 1960 and 2000.

Table 4-1.

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residenceand for Leading States: Selected Years, 1900 to 2000(For 1900-90 resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plusArmed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Subject 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence (in thousands)United States ........ 10,341 14,204 9,738 9,619

Northeast .................... 4,763 7,202 4,575 4,120Midwest ...................... 4,158 4,360 2,277 1,874South .......................... 574 819 963 1,316West ............................ 846 1,824 1,924 2,310

Percent Foreign Born in Total Population for RegionsUnited States ........ 13.6 11.6 5.4 4.7

Northeast .................... 22.6 20.9 10.2 8.4Midwest ...................... 15.8 11.3 4.4 3.3South .......................... 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.1West ............................ 20.7 15.3 6.9 6.6

Six Leading States by Rank (foreign-born population in thousands)1 .......................... NY NY NY NY............................ 1,900 3,262 2,289 2,110

2 .......................... PA IL CA CA............................ 985 1,242 1,344 1,758

3 .......................... IL PA IL NJ............................ 967 1,240 686 635

4 .......................... MA CA NJ IL............................ 846 1,074 615 629

5 .......................... MI MA PA FL............................ 542 1,066 603 540

6 .......................... WI MI MA MA............................ 516 853 576 495

14,0804,5062,1142,8954,565

6.29.23.63.8

10.6

CA3,580

NY2,389

FL1,059

TX856

IL824

NJ758

19,7675,2312,1314,5827,823

7.910.33.65.4

14.8

CA6,459

NY2,852

FL1,663

TX1,524

NJ967

IL952

28,3796,4203,0367,596

11,327

10.412.34.87.9

18.1

CA8,781

NY3,634

FL2,768

TX2,443

NJ1,208

IL1,155

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 13, and 2001, Table 4-1A.


combined rose from 46.3 percent to57.8 percent. The changes between1960 and 2000 in the six stateswith the largest foreign-born popula-tions reflect these regional changes(Table 4-1). Pennsylvania and Mas-sachusetts, among the top sixstates in 1960, were replaced byFlorida and Texas.2

Historically, the foreign-born population washighly concentrated in theNortheast and Midwest.

In 1900 and 1930, more than80 percent of the foreign-bornpopulation of the United Stateslived in the Northeast and Mid-west, and in 1930, 50.7 percentlived in the Northeast alone. NewYork had a foreign-born populationof 3.3 million in 1930, more thantwice the foreign-born populationof any other state and the highestcensus figure for any state until1980, when the foreign-born popu-lation of California was 3.6 million.

1 The proportion foreign born appears to beabove the national figure in Washington, DC (10.6percent); however, the apparent difference is not sta-tistically significant. It should be noted that thesample size is not large enough to identify manysubstantively important differences involving areaswith relatively small populations. See Appendix B.

2 The change in the foreign-born populationfrom 1960 to 2000 was statistically significant forboth Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. However, theforeign-born population in Massachusetts was sig-nificantly larger in 2000 than in 1960, whereas theforeign-born population in Pennsylvania was signifi-cantly smaller in 2000 than in 1960.

20001990

Figure 4-1.

States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 census of population, and 2001, Table 4-1A.

8,871 (8,272-9,290)6,459

3,634 (3,406-3,862)2,8522,768 (2,550-2,985)

1,6632,443 (2,188-2,698)

1,5241,208 (1,086-1,330)

9671,155 (1,010-1,300)

952Illinois*

New Jersey*

Texas*

Florida*

New York*

California*

Figure 4-2.

Foreign-Born Population for States: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Percent foreign born

(number of states in parentheses)Under 5.0 (27)5.0 to 9.9 (14)10.0 to 14.9 (4 plus DC)15.0 to 19.9 (4)20.0 or more (1)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 4-1A.

CA25.9

AZ12.9 NM

5.8

TX12.2

OK3.2 AR

1.8

LA2.6

MS0.9

AL1.6

GA4.4

FL18.4

KS5.7

NE3.7

SD1.3

ND1.5MT

0.8

WY1.0

CO9.8

UT5.5

NV15.2

OR7.8

WA7.4 MN

5.1

IA3.9

MO3.0

IL9.5

IN2.4

OH2.5

MI5.1

WI3.6

PA2.9

WV0.9

KY 2.5

TN 1.8NC4.4

SC1.6

VA7.7

NY19.6

ME2.2

NH3.9VT

3.5

MA12.4

NJ14.9

MD9.0

CT8.7

RI7.8

HI16.1

AK4.2

ID5.3

DE4.7

DC10.6

Northeast12.3%

South7.9%

United States10.4%

West18.1%

Midwest4.8%


Section 5.

Metropolitan Areas

The foreign-born populations of 5 million or more),

population is highly Los Angeles and San Francisco had

concentrated in a few the highest proportion foreign born

large metropolitan areas. (Table 5-1).3 For metropolitan areaswith 1 million to 5 million popula-

In March 2000, the metropoli- tion in 2000, Miami had the highesttan areas with the largest foreign- proportion foreign born at 42.7 per-born populations were Los Angeles cent.and New York each with 4.7 million

1 The foreign-bornforeign-born persons (Figure 5-1).Together, these two metropolitan population is moreareas included 9.4 million, or concentrated than the33.1 percent, of the foreign-born native population inpopulation of 28.4 million. In con- metropolitan areas and intrast, they included only 13.3 per- their central cities.cent of the total population. In

The concentration of the foreign-three additional metropolitan ar-born population in metropolitan ar-eas, the foreign-born populationeas and in their central cities iswas 1 million or more in 2000:shown from two perspectives inSan Francisco (2.0 million), MiamiFigure 5-2. The numbers on the left(1.6 million), and Chicago (1.1 mil-

lion).2 side show the proportionate distri- Together with Los Angelesbutions of the total population, theand New York, these 5 metropoli-native population, and the foreign-tan areas included 14.1 million, orborn population by type of resi-49.8 percent of the foreign-borndence. The bar chart on the rightpopulation, but only 20.5 percentside shows the proportion foreignof the total population.born in each category of the popula-Among the 9 largest metropoli-tion by type of residence.tan areas in 2000 (those with total

As shown in the left side of Fig-ure 5-2, 94.9 percent of the foreign-born population lived in metropoli-tan areas in 2000 compared with79.3 percent of the native popula-tion. The difference was accountedfor entirely by the differences in theproportions in central cities:45.1 percent of the foreign-bornpopulation versus 27.5 percent ofthe native population. The propor-tion living outside central cities inmetropolitan areas was slightlylower among the foreign-born popu-lation than among the native popu-lation: 49.8 percent versus 51.9 per-cent respectively.

The foreign-born population wasespecially concentrated in the larg-est metropolitan areas and in theircentral cities: 54.5 percent lived inthe 9 metropolitan areas of 5 millionor more population in 2000 com-pared with 27.3 percent of the na-tive population. While a much higherproportion of the foreign-born popu-lation than of the native populationlived in metropolitan areas of 5 mil-lion or more population in 2000, theproportions were not significantlydifferent in metropolitan areas of1 million up to 5 million population(about 24 percent each). The propor-tions were lower for the foreign-born population than for the nativepopulation in metropolitan areaswith less than 1 million population(16.8 percent versus 27.6 percent)and in nonmetropolitan areas(5.1 percent versus 20.7 percent).

More than one-quarter ofthe central-city populationof the largest metropolitanareas are foreign born.

As shown on the right side ofFigure 5-2, the proportion of thepopulation foreign born was muchhigher in metropolitan areas

20001990

4,708 (4,445-4,972)

1,251

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha,IL-IN-WI CMSA*

Miami-Ft. Lauderdale,FL CMSA*

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA*

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA*

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA* 3,945

4,690 (4,427-4,954)3,657

1,647 (1,477-1,816)

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 16 and 2001, Table 5-2A.

915

1,073

2,007 (1,795-2,220)

1,070 (932-1,208)

Figure 5-1.

Metropolitan Areas With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)


(12.1 percent) than in nonmetropoli- The proportion of the populationtan areas (2.7 percent) in 2000. The foreign born was higher in centralproportion foreign born ranged from cities (16.0 percent) than outside18.8 percent in metropolitan areas central cities in metropolitan areaswith 5 million or more population to (10.0 percent). The foreign-born6.6 percent in metropolitan areas proportion of the population waswith less than 1 million population. highest in central cities of

metropolitan areas with 5 million ormore population (25.8 percent).

1 Official names of metropolitan areas are pro-vided in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 but are shortenedin the text for readability. The general concept of ametropolitan area (MA) is one of a large populationnucleus, together with adjacent communities that havea high degree of economic and social integration withthat nucleus. Some MAs are defined around two ormore nuclei. The Office of Management and Budget,with technical assistance from the Census Bureau, usespublished standards to define MAs for use by Federalagencies. The standards provide for the classificationof an MA as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or as aconsolidated metropolitan statistical area (CSMA) withcomponent primary metropolitan statistical areas(PMSAs). See Office of Management and Budget, 1990and 1993.

2 For the Chicago metropolitan area, the lowerbound on the 90-percent confidence interval is lessthan 1 million.

3 Dallas metropolitan area had a population esti-mate for which the lower bound of the 90-percent con-fidence interval fell below 5 million.

Table 5-1.

Foreign-Born Population in Metropolitan Areas With5 Million or More People: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with theirfamilies on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)

PercentMetropolitan area foreign born

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA ..................................Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA ........................................................Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA........................................................................Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-CMSA ...............................................................San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA .................................................................Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA ..........................................Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA ...............................................................................Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA ......................................................Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX CMSA .........................................................................................

22.829.612.311.928.3

5.17.4

12.512.8



Figure 5-2.

Population by Nativity and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)

10.412.1

16.010.0

14.920.2

12.018.8

25.8

14.810.0

12.78.8

6.68.1

5.52.7

Total populationMetropolitan areas

In central citiesOutside central cities

1 million or more populationIn central citiesOutside central cities

5 million or more populationIn central citiesOutside central cities

1 million up to 5 million populationIn central citiesOutside central cities

Less than 1 million populationIn central citiesOutside central cities

Nonmetropolitan areas

Total Native Foreign born100.0 100.0 100.080.9 79.3 94.929.3 27.5 45.151.6 51.9 49.854.5 51.7 78.218.9 16.8 37.035.6 34.9 41.230.1 27.3 54.510.9 9.0 27.219.2 18.2 27.324.4 24.5 23.7

8.0 7.8 9.816.4 16.7 13.926.4 27.6 16.810.4 10.6 8.216.1 16.9 8.619.1 20.7 5.1

Percent distribution by type of residence Percent foreign born by type of residence

TotalMetro areasIn central citiesOutside central citiesNonmetro areas


Section 6.

Length of Residence

The median length of United States for 20 years or more from all other world regions of

residence of the foreign- dropped from 50.4 percent in birth.3

born population is about 1970 to 32.2 percent in 2000. The Among the foreign-born popu-

14 years. proportions residing in the United lation from Latin America, the me-States less than 5 years, 5 to 9 dian was highest for those from

In 2000, the median length of years, 10 to 14 years, and 15 to the Caribbean, 17.6 years, reflect-residence in the United States of 19 years were all higher in 2000 ing the relatively large number ofthe foreign-born population was than in 1970. migrants from Cuba in the 1960s14.4 years (Figure 6-1).1 This is and 1970s. The median lengthsLength of residence by

4

slightly higher than in 1990 of residence of the population(12.2 years), virtually equal to region of birth reflects from Central America (about four-1980 (14.1 years), and much lower historical patterns of fifths of whom are from Mexico)than in 1970 when the median was international migration. and South America, 12.9 years and20.3 years.2 13.0 years, respectively, were not

In 2000, the median length ofIn general, changes between statistically different from each

residence in the United States of the1970 and 2000 in the percent other and were the lowest in Latin

foreign-born population wasdistribution of the foreign-born America.5

14.3 years for the population frompopulation by length of residence The median lengths of resi-

Asia and 13.5 years for the popula-reflect the relatively high level of dence in 2000 of the foreign-born

tion from Latin America (Figure 6-2).international migration during this populations from Northern

These two medians are not signifi-period and the attrition (through America and Europe were 24.8

cantly different from each other, nordeath) of nearly all migrants who years and 25.0 years, respectively,

are they significantly different fromcame to the United States before and did not differ significantly.

the median length of residence of1930 when international migration The median length of residence for

14.4 years for the total foreign-bornpreviously had been at relatively the foreign born from Europe

population. The median length ofhigh levels, as discussed in Section (25.0) was much higher than the

residence of the population from1. The proportion of the foreign- median for the total foreign-born

Africa was 10.2 years in 2000, be-born population residing in the population (14.4).6

low the medians for the populations

1Census data for 1970-90 do not include persons who did not report length of residence information.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 10, and 2001, Table 6-1.

Figure 6-1.

Length of Residence1 in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population: 1970 to 2000(For 1970-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Year

1970

1980

1990

2000

Percent distribution by length of residence (in years)

Less than 5 15 to 195 to 9 20 or more10 to 14

14.4

12.2

14.1

20.3

22.0

24.7

23.7

18.5

17.5 15.9 12.3 32.2

19.2 13.9 10.7 31.5

15.8 12.8 9.4 38.2

12.2 10.5 8.5 50.4

Median length of residence

(in years)


While 32.2 percent of the for-eign-born population had resided inthe United States for 20 years ormore, 55.5 percent of the foreignborn from Europe and 57.7 percentof the foreign born from NorthernAmerica were in this category (notstatistically different). Of the foreignborn from Europe 35.8 percent hadbeen living in the United States forat least 35 years. Stated differently,35.8 percent of the Europeanforeign born came to live in theUnited States before 1965.7 Only

6.6 percent of the foreign born fromLatin America came to live in theUnited States before 1965.

1 The median is the value which divides theranked population into two groups of equal size.

2 Because reporting on year of entry (which isused to obtain data on length of residence) is subjectto misstatement, small differences in length of resi-dence do not warrant emphasis. For example, thespecific question, “When did you come to live in theUnited States?,” may be interpreted by some respon-dents to mean the year in which they obtained per-manent legal residence in the United States.

3 Comparisons involving Africa and Oceania andNorthern America are limited due to the smallsample size of the CPS for foreign born from each ofthese regions. See Appendix B.

4 During the period 1988-1998, 214,757 Hai-tians were admitted for legal permanent residenceto the United States. The entry of these immigrantshas probably lowered the length of residence of theforeign born from the Caribbean. (See U.S. Immigra-tion & Naturalization Service, 2000.)

5 There is no statistical difference between 12.9and 14.4; there is no statistical difference between13.0 and 14.4.

6 Due to the small sample, the median length ofresidence for the foreign born from Northern America(24.8) does not differ statistically from that for thetotal foreign-born population (14.4), Asia (14.3), orLatin America (13.5).

7 Recent INS data show that international migra-tion from the countries of the former Soviet Union dur-ing the 1990s was significantly higher than during the1980s (444,614 and 57,972, respectively). Also,23,349 (30.6 percent) of all refugee arrivals in 1998were from the countries of the former Soviet Union.(See U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 2000,and 1991.)

Figure 6-2.

Length of Residence in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population(in millions)

0.71.91.97.89.82.8

14.50.77.24.4

28.4Total1

EuropeAsiaAfricaLatin America

CaribbeanCentral America

MexicoOther

South AmericaNorthern America

Medianlength

of residence(in years)

14.425.014.310.213.517.612.912.813.213.024.8

1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 6-1.

Less than 5 15 to 195 to 9 10 to 14

Percent distribution by length of residence (in years)

20 or more

22.0 17.5 15.9 12.3 32.2

16.8 12.5 9.6 5.6 55.521.5 17.9 17.2 16.6 26.937.1 16.9 14.2 11.5 20.3

22.5 19.2 17.8 12.6 27.916.9 16.2 14.4 13.9 38.6

23.4 20.2 19.1 12.2 25.1

23.9 20.8 18.3 10.7 26.421.4 18.1 22.4 18.3 19.826.3 18.4 15.8 12.7 26.821.1 8.1 6.3 6.8 57.7


Section 7.

Citizenship Status

The proportion of citizens in the foreign-born popula-

naturalized citizens in the tion is attributable to the propor-

foreign-born population tionate declines in citizenship

has declined since 1970. within each length-of-residencecategory. Changes in the distribu-

While the total foreign-born tion of the foreign-born populationpopulation increased by 191 per- by length of residence in thecent (from 9.7 million to 28.4 mil- United States are a secondary fac-lion) between 1970 and 2000, the tor. (The median length of resi-numbers of naturalized citizens dence of the foreign-born popula-and noncitizens in the foreign-born tion dropped from 20.3 years inpopulation increased at very differ- 1970 to 14.4 years in 2000, as dis-ent rates (Figure 7-1).1 Naturalized cussed in Section 6.)citizens increased by 71 percent As noted above, the proportion(from 6.2 million to 10.6 million), of naturalized citizens droppedwhile noncitizens rose by from 63.6 percent in 1970 to401 percent (from 3.5 million to 37.4 percent in 2000, or by17.8 million). As a result of the 26.2 percentage points. Declinesmore rapid growth of noncitizens, in proportions of naturalized citi-the proportion of naturalized citizens in the length-of-residence cat-zens in the foreign-born popula- egories account for 17.9 percent-tion dropped from 63.6 percent in age points of the decrease, and1970 to 50.1 percent in 1980, to the changes in the distribution by40.5 percent in 1990, and to length of residence account for37.4 percent in 2000.2 8.3 percentage points of the de-

crease.The proportion of3

naturalized citizens has The proportion ofdeclined in each length- naturalized citizens variesof-residence category. greatly by region of birth.

The proportion of naturalized The proportion of naturalized

citizens in the foreign-born popula- citizens among the foreign-born

tion declined from 1970 to 2000, population in 2000 was 52.0 per-

not only for the total foreign-born cent for the population from Eu-

population, but for every category rope, 47.1 percent for the popula-

of length of residence in the United tion from Asia, and 28.3 percent

States (Figure 7-2). As measured for the population from Latin

by percentage-point change, the America (Figure 7-3). The low pro-

declines were most pronounced portion for the population from

for the foreign-born population re- Latin America is attributable pri-

siding in the United States for marily to the low figure for the

10 to 14 years (57.5 percent to population from Central America

29.4 percent). Most of the decline (21.1 percent), most of whom are

in the proportion of naturalized from Mexico.

Differences in the proportionnaturalized by region of birth are ex-plained only partly by differences inlength of residence in the UnitedStates. For example, in March 2000,proportions naturalized among theMexico foreign born whose lengthof residence in the United Stateswas 5 to 9 years, 10 to 14 years,15 to 19 years, or 20 years or morewere lower than corresponding ratesfor the total foreign-born popula-tion. The respective length of resi-dence figures for Mexico and the to-tal foreign born were 6.2 percentversus 13.2 percent, 14.2 percentversus 29.4 percent, 28.9 percentversus 51.2 percent, and 47.0 per-cent versus 71.1 percent.

Figure 7-1.Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status: 1970 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 11, and 2001, Table 7-1.

2000199019801970

28.4

19.8

14.1

9.7

17.8

11.8

7.0

3.5

10.68.07.16.2

Total

Noncitizens

Naturalized citizens

(In millions. For 1970-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


1 Some individuals who are foreign born mayerroneously report themselves as U.S. citizens. Thenaturalization process requires the foreign-bornapplicant reside continuously in the United States for5 years (or less for special categories of immigrants)following admission as a legal permanent resident.See also Section 6, footnote 1, concerning limitationsof data on length of residence in the United States.

2 Evidence from the Current Population Surveyindicates the decades-long decline in the proportionof naturalized citizens may have ended. The March1997 proportion was 35.1 percent, statistically dif-ferent from and lower than the March 2000 figure of37.4 percent. For censuses prior to 1970, data oncitizenship status of the foreign-born population areavailable for 1890-1950. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999,Table 11).

3 The 1970 distribution of the foreign-bornpopulation by length of residence combined with the2000 proportions of naturalized citizens would haveproduced a decline in the proportion of naturalizedcitizens from 63.6 percent to 45.8 percent. The re-verse combination (the 2000 distribution by lengthof residence combined with the 1970 proportions ofnaturalized citizens) would have produced a declinefrom 63.6 percent to 55.4 percent.

Figure 7-2.

Naturalized Citizens by Length of Residencein the United States: 1970 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1973, Table 17; 1985, Table 2; 1993a, Table 1; 1999b, Figure 7-2;and 2001, Table 7-1.


20 yearsand over

15 to 19 years10 to 14 years5 to 9 yearsUnder 5 yearsTotal

Percent offoreign-bornpopulation

1970198019902000

63.6

50.5

40.537.4

12.210.5

7.65.5

31.428.2

23.3

13.2

57.5

44.140.7

29.4

72.5

57.6

49.451.2

89.684.9

73.571.1

Figure 7-3.

Naturalized Citizens by Region of Birth: 2000

Foreign-born population(in millions)

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

28.4Total1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 7-1.

37.4

52.0

47.1

37.0

28.3

46.5

21.1

20.3

24.3

38.6

43.1

(Percent of foreign-born population. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Section 8.

Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock

One-fifth of the totalU.S. population is offoreign stock.

In 2000, 55.9 million, or20.4 percent, of the populationwas of foreign stock (Table 8-1). Inaddition to a foreign-born popula-tion of 28.4 million, the nativepopulation of foreign or mixed par-entage was 27.5 million (not sig-nificantly different). The popula-tion of foreign or mixed parentageincluded 14.8 million of foreignparentage and 12.7 million ofmixed parentage. Among thepopulation of mixed parentage,6.8 million had a foreign-born fa-ther, and 5.9 million had a foreign-born mother.1

The proportion of thepopulation of foreignstock has increasedsince 1970.

In 1960, 34.1 million, or19.0 percent, of the populationwas of foreign stock (Figure 8-1).The population of foreign stockdropped to 33.6 million, or

16.5 percent of the population in1970, the last year in which dataon parentage were collected in thedecennial census.2 By 2000, thepopulation of foreign stock hadrisen to 55.9 million, or 20.4 per-cent of the population, reflectingthe high level of internationalmigration since 1970.

The growth in the population offoreign stock since 1970 is duemostly to the growth in theforeign-born population. From

1970 to 2000, the for-eign-born population in-creased by 18.8 million(from 9.6 million to28.4 million), while thepopulation of foreign ormixed parentage rose byonly 3.5 million (from24.0 million to 27.5 mil-lion). The slower growthin the population of for-eign or mixed parentagereflects the relatively oldage structure of thispopulation in 1970,which in turn reflects thepreceding decades ofrelatively low interna-tional migration.3 With

the attrition (through mortality) ofdescendants of migrants whocame to the United States early inthe twentieth century and with thhigh level of international migra-tion during the past 30 years, thepopulation of foreign or mixed paentage should grow more rapidlyin the future.4

From 1960 to 2000, the popu-lation of mixed parentage in-creased by 2.5 million (from10.2 million to 12.7 million).5 Theportion with foreign-born fathersincreased by 0.3 million (from6.5 million to 6.8 million), whilethe portion with foreign-bornmothers increased by 2.1 million(from 3.8 million to 5.9 million(not significantly different from2.5 million)).

The proportion of thepopulation of foreignstock is below historicallevels.

While the proportion of thepopulation of foreign stock rosefrom 16.5 percent in 1970 to20.4 percent in 2000, it is wellbelow the level of the 1890 to1930 period (Figure 8-1). The

e

r-

Table 8-1.Population by Nativity andParentage: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forcesliving off post or with their families on post)

Nativity and parentageNumber

(in millions) Percent

Total population ...................Native ......................................

Native parentage ..................Foreign or mixed parentage ..

Foreign parentage ............Mixed parentage ................. Father foreign born ......... Mother foreign born ....

Foreign born ............................

Native of native parentage ........Foreign stock ...........................

Foreign or mixed parentage ..Foreign born .........................

274.1245.7218.2

27.514.812.7

6.85.9

28.4

218.255.927.528.4

100.089.679.610.0

5.44.62.52.2

10.4

79.620.410.010.4


The terms native population and foreign-born population, whichwere defined in Section 1, concern the nativity of the population.Information on the birthplace of parents may be used to classifythe native population by parentage: native of native parentage(both parents native), native of foreign parentage (both parents for-eign born), and native of mixed parentage (one parent native andone parent foreign born).

The term foreign stock includes the foreign-born population andthe native population of foreign or mixed parentage. The foreignstock may thus be thought of as the combination of first and sec-ond generation U.S. residents. Just as the native population and for-eign-born population comprise the total population, the nativepopulation of native parentage and the foreign-stock populationalso comprise the total population.


proportion increased from 33.2 population, as shown below. Inpercent in 1890 to 35.3 percent in 1890, when 18.4 percent of the1910 and then dropped back to population was native of foreign or32.8 percent in 1930. mixed parentage and 14.8 percent

The relative sizes of the popu- of the population was foreignlation of foreign or mixed parent- born, the ratio was 1.2 to 1. Byage and the foreign-born popula- 1960, the ratio had increased totion have fluctuated, reflecting the 2.5 to 1.0. From 2.5 to 1.0 againtiming of periods of large-scale in 1970, the ratio fell sharply toimmigration and subsequent 1.0 to 1.0 in 2000, slightly lowerchildbearing of the foreign-born than the ratio in 1890.

1890 1960 1970 2000

Foreign or mixed parentage 18.4% 13.6% 11.8% 10.0%

Foreign born 14.8% 5.4% 4.7% 10.4%Ratio 1.2 to 2.5 to 1.1 to 1.0 to

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1 Among the foreign-born population, 27.3 mil-lion had parents born in the same country, and only1.1 million had parents born in different countries.Among the population of foreign parentage, 13.0million had parents born in the same country, andonly 1.8 million had parents born in different coun-tries.

2 The question on nativity or birthplace of par-ents, which was included in censuses from 1870 to1970, was replaced in 1980 with a question on an-cestry that was based on self-identification, with norestrictions on how many generations removed fromtheir ancestors’ country or countries of origin.

3 In 1970, the native population of foreign ormixed parentage had a median age of 47.3, and16.3 percent was 65 years old and over (U.S. CensusBureau, 1973, Table 1).

4 One indication of future growth is the rapidincrease in the number of births in the United Statesto foreign-born women residing in the United States,from 223,000 (6.0 percent of total births) in 1970 to797,300 (20.2 percent of total births) in 1999. (U.S.National Center for Health Statistics, 1975, Table 1-61; and NCHS unpublished data 2001). These chil-dren have U.S. citizenship at birth and are part of thenative population.

5 Data published from the 1970 census did notdistinguish between the native populations of for-eign parentage and mixed parentage.

Figure 8-1.

Foreign-Stock Population by Nativity and Parentage: Selected Years, 1890 to 2000

200019701196019301920191019001890

1Data not available separately for foreign parentage and mixed parentage.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a, Table 12, and 2001, Table 4-1A.


9.2 10.3 13.5 13.9 14.2 9.7 9.6 28.4

8.110.7

12.915.8 17.5

14.124.0

14.8

3.4

5.0

6.07.0

8.5

10.2

12.7

20.8

26.0

32.536.7

40.3

34.1 33.6

55.9Number (in millions)

200019701196019301920191019001890

14.8 13.6 14.7 13.2 11.6 5.4 4.7 10.4

13.0 14.0 14.1 14.9 14.3

7.9 11.85.4

5.5 6.6 6.5 6.77.0

5.74.6

33.2 34.3 35.3 34.732.8

19.016.5

20.4

Percent of total population

Mixed parentage

Foreign parentage

Foreign born

Foreign stock

Mixed parentage

Foreign parentage

Foreign born

Foreign stock


Section 9.

Hispanic Origin and Race

Hispanics and race groups The foreign-borndiffer sharply in their population by region ofpercent foreign born. birth is not identical with

race or ethnicity.In March 2000, the CurrentPopulation Survey showed 10.4 per- As reflected in the March 2000cent of the total population was for- Current Population Survey, theeign born (Figure 9-1).1 The propor- foreign-born populations fromtion was much higher among Asians Europe, Northern America (essen-and Pacific Islanders (61.4 percent) tially Canada), and Asia wereand Hispanics (39.1 percent) but somewhat homogeneous by racelower for Blacks (6.3 percent) and and Hispanic origin. In 2000,for White non-Hispanics (3.6 per- 96.0 percent of the foreign borncent). from Europe and 89.1 percent of

About half of the foreign the foreign born from Northern

born are Hispanic. America were White non-Hispanic.Of the foreign born from Asia,

Hispanics accounted for 83.7 percent were Asian and Pa-12.8 million, or 45.2 percent, of the cific Islander (not statistically dif-foreign-born population according ferent from the proportion Whiteto the March 2000 survey (Table non-Hispanic from Northern9-1). The Asian and Pacific Islander America), and 14.5 percent wereforeign-born population was 6.7 mil- White non-Hispanic. In contrast,lion or 23.6 percent of the total, not the foreign-born population fromstatistically different from the White Africa was very heterogeneous —non-Hispanic figures of 7.0 million no one race was dominant.or 24.8 percent. Blacks had the low- Of the foreign-born populationest number and proportion foreign from Latin America, 86.2 percentborn at 2.2 million people and

were Hispanic, 11.4 percent were7.8 percent.

Black, and 2.9 percent were bothBlack and Hispanic. The Blackpopulation from Latin America wasprimarily from the Caribbean

The racial categories used inthis section are drawn from theMarch 2000 Current PopulationSurvey and include the follow-ing: White; Black; American In-dian, Eskimo, and Aleut; andAsian and Pacific Islander. Theethnic categories used includeHispanic origin and not of His-panic origin. The population ina race category may be Hispanicor not Hispanic, and the popula-tion of Hispanic origin may be ofany race. There are four race orHispanic groups identified fordiscussion in this section:Blacks, Asians and Pacific Island-ers, Hispanics, and White non-Hispanics.

Categories of ethnicity andrace are not interchangeablewith the geographic regionsused throughout this report. Forexample, the March 2000 datashow 15.3 percent of the foreignborn were born in Europe, how-ever, 67.9 percent of the foreignborn were White, and 24.8 per-cent were White non-Hispanic.These and other differences arediscussed in the text.

Table 9-1.

Population by Nativity, Parentage, and Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

NativeTotal Foreign or

population Total Native parentage mixed parentage Foreign born Foreign stock

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total1 .............................. 274.1 100.0 245.7 100.0 218.2 100.0 27.5 100.0 28.4 100.0 55.9 100.0Black .................................... 35.5 13.0 33.3 13.5 31.9 14.6 1.4 5.0 2.2 7.8 3.6 6.4Asian and Pacific Islander ..... 10.9 4.0 4.2 1.7 1.3 0.6 2.9 10.5 6.7 23.6 9.6 17.2Hispanic origin (of any race) . 32.8 12.0 20.0 8.1 10.6 4.9 9.3 33.9 12.8 45.2 22.2 39.7White non-Hispanic ............... 193.6 70.6 186.6 75.9 172.5 79.0 14.1 51.4 7.0 24.8 21.2 37.9

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 9-1A.


(78.1 percent). Of the foreign born 37.4 percent were naturalized citi-from the Caribbean, 55.6 percent zens (Figure 9-2). White non-were Hispanic, 45.7 percent were Hispanic foreign born had the high-Black (not statistically different), est rates - 21.2 median years of resi-and 8.0 percent indicated they dence and 50.3 percent naturalized.were both Black and Hispanic. Asian and Pacific Islander foreign

Length of residence and born had a median length of resi-dence of 13.6 years, and 45.7 per-

citizenship status differ cent reported they were naturalizedby race and ethnicity citizens.2 Foreign-born Hispanicsamong the foreign born. had a median length of residence of

13.2 years (not statistically differentIn 2000, the median length offrom the median for Asians and Pa-residence in the United States of thecific Islanders), but only 25.7 per-foreign born was 14.4 years, andcent were naturalized citizens.

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.2Includes the foreign-born population and the native population of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Table 9-1A.

Figure 9-1.

Nativity and Parentage for Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

193.6

32.810.9

35.5274.1

Percent distribution by nativity and parentage

Native parentage Foreign bornForeign or mixed parentage

20.410.187.967.610.9

Percent of foreign

stock2

Total1

BlackAsian and Pacific IslanderHispanic origin (of any race)White non-Hispanic

79.689.912.132.489.1

10.03.9

26.628.5

7.3

10.46.3

61.439.1

3.6

NativePopulation(in millions)

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Table 9-1B.

Figure 9-2.

Length of Residence in the United States and Citizenship Status for Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups of the Foreign-Born Population: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

7.0

12.86.7

2.228.4

Percent distribution by length of residence

14.413.913.613.221.2

Medianlength ofresidence(in years)

37.438.745.725.750.3

Percentnaturalized

citizens

Total1

BlackAsian and Pacific IslanderHispanic origin (of any race)White non-Hispanic

Population(in millions) Less than 5 15-195-9 20 or more10-14

22.022.222.722.819.9

17.516.3

18.720.3

12.0

15.918.7

17.517.8

10.6 6.911.918.0 23.1

12.315.1

32.227.6

27.350.6

1 The four race and Hispanic groups discussedin this section do not represent a mutually exclusiveand exhaustive set of categories adding to the totalpopulation. The populations in these four categoriesadd to 99.6 percent of the total population. TheAmerican Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanicpopulation (0.9 percent of the total population) is notincluded, and individuals who are both Black andAsian and Pacific Islander and Hispanic (0.5 percentof the total population) are each included in two ofthe four categories shown. (In brief, 99.6 percentplus 0.9 percent minus 0.5 percent equals 100.0 per-cent.)

2 The length of residence of foreign-born Asiansand Pacific Islanders was not significantly differentfrom the length of residence for all foreign-bornpeople.


Section 10.

Age and Sex

Three-fifths of the (95.0). Among the foreign-born

foreign born are 25 to population the sex ratio was

54 years of age. higher for noncitizens (105.7) thanfor naturalized citizens (91.6). The

In 2000, the median ages of sex ratio was also higher for thosethe foreign-born population whose length of residence in the(38.1 years) and the native popula- United States was less thantion (34.5 years) did not differ 10 years (103.2) compared withgreatly; however, there were major those who had lived in the Uniteddifferences in age distributions of States 20 years or more (89.5).the two groups (Figure 10-1). Only10.0 percent of the foreign born The age structure of thewere under age 18 compared with foreign-born population28.3 percent of natives. In con- varies by region of birth.trast, the proportion of the foreign-

The resurgence of U.S. interna-born population ages 25-54 was

tional migration between 1970 and58.7 percent, compared with

2000 resulted in a younger41.7 percent for the native popula-tion.1 foreign-born population at the end The proportions of the popu-

of the period. Due to an influx oflation age 55 and older were similar,young adults, the median age of20.2 percent for the foreign bornthe foreign-born population de-and 20.5 percent for natives.clined from 52.0 in 1970 to 38.1Foreign-born naturalized citi-in 2000 (Figure 10-3). In contrast,zens were older (median age 47.5)the entire U.S. population contin-than the noncitizen foreign bornued to grow older with its median(median age 33.0). The proportion

age 65 and older among natural- age rising from 28.1 in 1970 to

ized citizens (20.6 percent) was 35.1 in 2000.

much higher than among the non- In 2000, the median age of the

citizen population (5.2 percent). foreign-born population ranged

As would be expected, the age from 50.0 for Europe, to 39.2 forstructure of the foreign-born popu- Asia and 35.3 for Latin Americalation differed greatly by length of (Figure 10-2). The proportions ageresidence in the United States. 25 to 54 from Asia (61.3 percent)The median age ranged from 28.4 and Latin America (60.9 percent)for those resident in the United were much higher than the propor-States less than 10 years to tions from Europe (45.8 percent).2

52.8 years for those resident in the Similarly, the proportions ageUnited States 20 years or more. 65 and older from Latin AmericaThe proportions 65 and older were (6.7 percent) and Asia (9.5 per-3.2 percent and 25.2 percent, recent) were much lower than thespectively. proportion for Europe (27.6 per-

The sex ratio (males per 100 cent). The differences in age struc-females) in 2000 was higher in the ture by region of birth reflect dif-foreign-born population (100.1) ferences in the timing of interna-than in the native population tional migration.

The foreign-stockpopulation was youngerin 2000.

The addition of millions ofyoung foreign-born adults also ledto a subsequent increase in thenumber of children, most of themnatives at birth.3 Figures 10-4 and10-5 show the effects on the age-sex structure of four decades oflow international migration prior to1970 followed by three decades oflarge-scale international migration.

In 1970, 20.8 percent of theforeign-stock population was age65 and older compared with7.7 percent of the native popula-tion of native parentage. On theother hand, 51.0 percent of the na-tive population of native parentagewas under age 25 (most of thembaby boomers born between 1946and 1964), compared with20.2 percent of the foreign stock.

As a result of their older age dis-tribution, the foreign stock in 1970made up 34.7 percent of the popu-lation age 65 and older and 7.3 per-cent of the population under age 25.By 2000, the proportions of foreignstock in these two age groups hadchanged to 26.5 percent and21.0 percent, respectively. Abouttwo-thirds (72.5 percent) of theforeign-stock population ages 25-54in 2000 were foreign born com-pared with about one-third(34.7 percent) in 1970.

1 The 25 to 54 age group is important for laborforce analysis because three factors are optimal:Most are full-time workers; most have completedschooling, and most are not eligible to retire. SeeSection 15.

2 There is no statistical difference between theproportions for Asia and Latin America.

3 For a discussion of the concept of foreignstock, see Section 8. See Section 13 for a discussionof the children of the foreign born.


Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 7, and 1999b, Tables 10-1A and 10-2A.

Figure 10-1.

Age and Sex of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Percent distribution by age

17.81.1

9.28.0

11.2

28.4245.7274.1Total

NativeForeign born

Length of residence in U.S.Less than 10 years10 to 19 years20 years or more

Citizenship statusNaturalized citizenNot a citizen

Under 18 55-6418-24 65 and over

25-54Median

age(years)

35.134.538.1

28.437.052.8

47.533.0

95.695.0

100.1

103.2109.189.5

91.6105.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 10-1A, 10-1B, and 10-1C.

Sex ratio(males

per 100

females)

26.4 9.7 43.5 8.5 11.928.3 9.5 41.7 8.5 12.010.0 11.1 58.7 9.2 11.0

20.5 18.8 53.7 3.83.26.8 11.1 71.0 5.6 5.6

1.654.1 19.1 25.2

3.5 4.4 57.0 14.6 20.6

13.9 15.1 59.7 6.0 5.2

Figure 10-2.

Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


0.71.91.97.89.82.8

14.50.77.24.4

28.4Total1



MexicoOther


1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 10-1D.


Medianage

(years)38.150.039.237.235.341.533.032.635.138.247.4

100.194.791.7

140.1103.884.8

112.6118.193.091.895.5

Sex ratio(males

per 100

females)10.0 11.1 58.7 9.2 11.0

5.7 6.5 45.8 14.4 27.69.1 10.5 61.3 9.6 9.5

12.1 8.7 69.0 7.6 2.6

11.6 13.1 60.9 7.6 6.79.3 7.4 58.0 11.8 13.6

12.3 15.3 62.0 6.0 4.513.0 15.1 61.8 5.5 4.6

9.3 15.9 62.8 7.9 4.211.8 10.3 60.1 9.5 8.2

7.6 5.3 49.4 14.4 23.3

Under 18 55-6418-24 65 and over

25-54

Figure 10-3.

Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population: 1960 to 2000(For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


9.79.6

14.119.828.42000

1990198019701960


Medianage

(years)

38.137.339.952.057.2

100.195.887.884.495.6

Sex ratio(males

per 100

females)

7.17.5

14.0 43.6 24.3 11.015.0 41.9 22.0 13.6

8.8 14.7 33.6 21.6 21.26.3 8.8 25.9 27.0 32.05.2 5.2 19.5 37.5 32.6

Under 15 45-6415-24 65 and over

25-44


Figure 10-4.

Total Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+

Millions Millions

1970

AgeMales Females

Millions Millions

AgeMales Females

Foreign stock1

Native of native parentage

Total population: 203.2 million2

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+

2000


1Foreign born plus natives of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8 for definition.2Resident population.3Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with families on post.Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 1973, Table 1; 2001, Table 10-1A.


Figure 10-5.

Foreign-Stock1 Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+

Millions Millions

1970

AgeMales Females

Millions Millions

AgeMales Females

Foreign bornNative of foreign or mixed parentage


3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-7980-8485+

2000


1Foreign born plus natives of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8 for definition.2Resident population.3Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with families on post.Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 1973, Table 1; 2001, Table 10-1A.


Section 11.

Household Size and Type

On average, foreign-bornhouseholds are largerthan native households.

In 2000, 11.6 million, or11.1 percent, of the 104.7 millionhouseholds in the United States hada foreign-born householder (Figure11-1). The average foreign-bornhousehold (3.26) was larger thanthe average native household (2.54).Foreign-born households also had alarger average number of childrenunder 18 (0.99 versus 0.65).Among households with a foreign-born householder, average house-hold size was largest where lengthof residence in the United Stateswas 10 to 19 years (3.70). Averagehousehold size was also largerwhere the householder was not acitizen (3.44).

The foreign-born proportion ofhouseholds (11.1 percent) exceedsthe foreign-born proportion of thetotal population (10.4 percent), eventhough average household size is

larger among foreign-born house-holds than among native house-holds. This apparent contradictionoccurs because household nativityis based on the nativity of thehouseholder. A substantial propor-tion of members of foreign-bornhouseholds, especially children, arenative (with U.S. citizenship at birth)rather than foreign born.

One-third of themembers of foreign-bornhouseholds are native.

The average size of nativehouseholds (2.54) in 2000 included2.50 native members and only 0.03foreign-born members. The averagesize of foreign-born households(3.26) included 2.18 foreign-bornmembers and 1.08 native members.Native members thus represented33.1 percent of all members of for-eign-born households. In absolutenumbers, 12.6 million natives livedin the 11.6 million foreign-born

A household is a person orgroup of people who occupy ahousing unit. The house-holder is usually the house-hold member or one of thehousehold members in whosename the housing unit isowned or rented. A family ismade up of two or morepeople living together who arerelated by birth, marriage, oradoption, one of who is thehouseholder.

Households are classifiedas foreign born or nativebased on the nativity of thehouseholder, regardless of thenativity of other householdmembers. For simplicity, ahousehold with a nativehouseholder is referred to as anative household, and ahousehold with a foreign-bornhouseholder is referred to as aforeign-born household.

Figure 11-1.

Households by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households(in millions)

Percent distribution of households by type

6.35.4

4.93.33.4

11.693.1

104.7TotalNativeForeign born

Length of residence in U.S.Less than 10 years10 to 19 years20 years and over


Married couple

Male householder

Male householder1

Female householder

Female householder2

Nonfamily householdsFamily households Averagehousehold

size

2.622.543.26

3.253.702.97

3.053.44

1Male householder, no spouse present. 2Female householder, no spouse present. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 11-1A.

52.852.158.7

54.0

62.959.0

60.357.3

3.8 12.1 14.0 17.23.5 12.0 14.2 18.1

6.2 12.7 11.9 10.6

8.6 11.3 17.2 8.9

7.5 13.9 9.5 6.23.8 12.8 9.8 14.7

4.6 12.1 9.5 13.57.6 13.1 13.9 8.0


households in 2000 compared with 2000. Married-couple families,only 3.0 million foreign born living which generally have the highest av-in the 93.1 million native house- erage number of members amongholds. the different household types, repre-

The distribution of households sented 58.7 percent of foreign-bornby size differs sharply between forhouseholds versus 52.1 percent ofeign-born and native households. native households.Among foreign-born households, Household size varies byabout the same proportion had one

region of birth of themember (17.7 percent) as had fivehouseholder.or more members (21.0 percent).

Among native households, 26.5 per- Of the 11.6 million householdscent had one member and only in 2000 with a foreign-born house-9.0 percent had five or more mem- holder, 5.6 million, or 48.0 per-bers. cent, of the householders were

Family households, which in- from Latin America (Figure 11-2).clude married-couple families, male- An additional 2.8 million house-householder families (no wife holders were from Asia, and 2.2present), and female-householder million were from Europe. Averagefamilies (no husband present), repre- household size among thesesented 77.6 percent of foreign-born foreign-born households rangedhouseholds, compared with from 3.72 with householders from67.7 percent of native households in Latin America to 2.32 with

householders from NorthernAmerica (essentially Canada).1 Av-erage household size among for-eign-born households with house-holders from Mexico was 4.21compared with 3.26 for all foreign-born households. The higher fig-ure for households with a house-holder from Mexico reflects ahigher proportion of married-couple families (65.4 percent ver-sus 58.7 percent for all foreign-born households) and a lower pro-portion of householders age 65and older (6.6 percent versus14.4 percent).2

1The average household size for householdersfrom Northern America was not significantly differentfrom that of householders from Europe.

2Elderly householders are less likely to havechildren still living at home. Data on fertility fromthe 1990 census show that among women 35 to 44years old, the average numbers of children ever bornwere 2.3 for all foreign-born women and 3.3 for for-eign-born women from Mexico (U.S. Census Bureau,1993a, Table 1).

Figure 11-2.

Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Percent distribution of households by type

0.30.70.72.83.51.35.60.32.82.2

11.6Total3



MexicoOther


Married couple

Male householder

Male householder1

Female householder

Female householder2

Nonfamily householdsFamily householdsAverage

household size

3.262.383.183.083.723.014.094.213.603.192.32

1Male householder, no wife present. 2Female householder, no husband present. 3Includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 11-1D.

58.7 6.2 12.7 11.9 10.655.3 3.4 7.5 14.5 19.263.5 5.8 8.5 12.0 10.250.3 8.6 9.1 22.3 9.858.0 7.6 17.8 9.6 7.0

45.0 5.8 24.1 12.1 13.163.2 8.5 15.9 8.1 4.265.4 8.3 14.6 8.1 3.5

54.4 9.3 21.2 8.2 7.0

55.8 6.6 16.0 12.2 9.5

57.7 3.3 5.2 15.9 17.9


Section 12.

Families and Related Children

Family size differsbetween foreign-bornand native families.

In 2000, 9.0 million, or12.5 percent, of the 72.0 millionfamily households in the UnitedStates had a foreign-born house-holder (Figure 12-1). The averagesize of foreign-born families was3.72 compared with 3.10 for na-tive families. Foreign-born familieshad larger average numbers bothof adults (age 18 and older), 2.47versus 2.15, and of children (underage 18), 1.25 versus 0.94.

Of the 9.0 million families in2000 with a foreign-born house-holder, 6.8 million were married-couple families, 1.5 million werefamilies with a female householder(no husband present), and 0.7 mil-lion were families with a malehouseholder (no wife present). Ofthe 63.0 million families with

native householders, 48.5 millionwere married-couple families,11.2 million were female house-holder families, and 3.3 millionwere male householder families.Married-couple families repre-sented 75.6 percent of all foreign-born families and 77.0 percent ofall native families, not significantlydifferent from each other. Averagefamily size was 3.85 for married-couple families with a foreign-bornhouseholder and 3.15 for their na-tive householder counterparts.

Three-fifths of married-couple families with aforeign-born householderhave one or more relatedchildren.

Among married-couple familiesin 2000, 61.3 percent of thosewith a foreign-born householderhad one or more related children

A family is made up oftwo or more people living to-gether who are related bybirth, marriage, or adoption,one of whom is the house-holder. Related children arechildren under age 18 livingin the household and relatedto the householder such asown children, grandchildren,nieces and nephews. Fami-lies are classified as foreignborn or native based on thenativity of the householder,regardless of the nativity ofother family members. Forsimplicity, a family with a na-tive householder is referredto as a native family, and afamily with a foreign-bornhouseholder is referred to asa foreign-born family.

Figure 12-1.

Families by Type, Nativity of Householder, and Number of Related Children: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Percent distribution of families by number of related children under 18 years old

1.511.212.7

0.73.34.0

6.848.555.3

9.0

63.072.0Total families

Native householderForeign-born householder

Married-couple familiesNative householderForeign-born householder

Male householder, no wife presentNative householderForeign-born householder

Female householder, no husband presentNative householderForeign-born householder

None 3 or more1 2Averagefamilysize3.173.103.72 3.243.153.85

3.012.973.35

2.792.693.25

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 12-1A.

48.349.539.2

52.354.238.7

46.244.454.3

31.130.834.2

21.521.2

23.7

17.9 19.1 10.7

19.4 10.919.0 10.3

22.0 15.2

17.3 18.5 10.022.1 23.2 16.1

32.334.1

24.4

15.715.914.5

5.85.66.9

33.734.1

30.7

22.022.2

20.2

13.112.914.9


under age 18 compared with45.8 percent of those with a nativehouseholder (Figure 12-1). Theproportions for married-coupleforeign-born families were higherthan for married-couple nativefamilies with one or two children(45.2 percent versus 35.8 percent)and with three or more children(16.1 percent versus 10.0 percent).

Among the 1.5 million foreign-born families with a female house-holder (no husband present),14.9 percent had three or more re-lated children, not statistically dif-ferent from 12.9 percent amongthe 11.2 million native familieswith a female householder.

Nearly 1 of 6 married-couple families includesat least one foreign-bornspouse.

Of the 55.3 million married-couple families in 2000, 8.7 mil-lion, or 15.7 percent, included atleast one foreign-born spouse

(Figure 12-2). The average size(3.95) of these families was larg-est in the 5.5 million families inwhich both spouses were foreignborn.

The average size of married-couple families with bothspouses foreign born (3.95) in-cluded 2.79 foreign-born mem-bers and 1.16 native members.Native members thus represented29.3 percent of all members ofthese families. For married-couple families with husband for-eign born and wife native,67.7 percent of family memberswere native, not significantly dif-ferent from the 66.0 percent offamily members who were nativein married-couple families withspouses’ nativities reversed (hus-band native and wife foreignborn). In married-couple familieswith both spouses native, virtu-ally all members were native;only 0.1 percent were foreignborn.

One-quarter of married-couple families with ahouseholder from LatinAmerica had three ormore related children.

In 2000, 61.3 percent ofmarried-couple families with aforeign-born householder had oneor more related children under age18. The proportion ranged from35.0 percent with householdersfrom Europe to 73.4 percent withhouseholders from Latin America.Among married-couple families withhouseholders from Mexico, the pro-portion was 80.4 percent.

While 16.1 percent of all married-couple families with a foreign-bornhouseholder had three or more re-lated children, the proportionranged from 5.1 percent with house-holders from Europe to 24.4 percentwith householders from LatinAmerica. Among married-couplefamilies with householders fromMexico, 31.9 percent had three ormore related children.

Figure 12-2.

Married-Couple Families by Nativity of Spouses and Nativity and Age of Related Household Members: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Families(in millions)

Average number of family members

46.7

1.7

1.5

5.5

55.3Total married-couple families

Foreign born Foreign born

Foreign born Native

Native Foreign born

Native1 Native1

Under age 18 Age 18 and overAge 18 and over Under age 18

1The proportion of foreign-born family members in married couple households where both spouses are native appears to be negligible. Due to sample size the number cannot be determined.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b, Table 12-4.

Native Foreign born

3.95

3.40

3.29

3.15

3.24

0.87

0.97

1.08

0.98

0.89 2.010.04

0.30

0.18

2.27

1.200.04

1.08

0.36 2.44

1.220.01

1.09

Husband Wife


Section 13.

Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders

Nearly 1 in 6 childrenlives with a foreign-bornhouseholder, and most ofthese children are native.

In March 2000, 72.1 millionchildren (under age 18) lived inhouseholds.1 Of the 11.5 millionchildren living in households witha foreign-born householder,8.9 million, or 77.7 percent, werenative, and 2.6 million were for-eign born (Table 13.1).2 The re-maining children in households(60.6 million) lived with a nativehouseholder. Nearly all of the chil-dren living with native household-ers were native (60.4 million, or

99.6 percent), but a small number Children living in foreign-(240,000) were foreign born.3 born households areThe vast majority of younger than children inchildren living in native households.households with a foreign- Preschool age children, orborn householder are those less than 6 years old, repre-related to the householder. sented 35.3 percent of children liv-

ing in households with a foreign-In March 2000, 98.9 percent of born householder, compared with

the 72.1 million children under age 32.2 percent of children living in18 lived in family households. households with a native house-Among the 11.4 million children holder.living in family households with a Among children in foreign-bornforeign-born householder, 98.7 households, a major difference ex-percent were related to the house- isted in the age structure of nativeholder, and 1.3 percent were unre- and foreign-born children:lated. (Figure 13.1).4 The majority 41.6 percent of native children liv-of these children were the ing with foreign-born householdershouseholder’s own child (89.4 per- were under the age of 6, comparedcent), but some were other rela- with only 13.5 percent of foreign-tives of the householder, such as born children.5

grandchildren, nephews, or nieces(9.3 percent). Within foreign-born Children of the foreignfamily households, similar propor- born are more likely totions of both foreign-born and na- live in poverty.tive children were the house-

As discussed in Section 19,holder’s own child.children living in a family with aFor children in family house-foreign-born householder wereholds with a native householder,more likely to be living in poverty.91.5 percent were the household-For example, the poverty rate forer’s own child, and an additionalrelated children under age 18 in7.4 percent were other relatives offamilies living with foreign-bornthe householder. The remaininghouseholders was 24.0 percent1.1 percent were not related to the(2.7 million of 11.2 million),householder.

Children of the foreignborn may be either native orforeign born. Native childrenare those who were born inthe United States or one ofits Island Areas such asPuerto Rico, or who wereborn abroad to a U.S. citizenparent. Foreign born childrenare those who were bornabroad to parents who werenot U.S. citizens. For furtherinformation see Section 8 andAppendix A.

Source: Table 13-1.

Figure 13-1.

Children Under Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, Nativity, and Nativity of Householder: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

59.9

2.58.9

11.471.3

Own children

Unrelated children

Other related children

All children in all family householdsChildren in foreign-born family households

Native children in foreign-born family householdsForeign-born children in foreign-born family households

Children in native family households

91.189.489.987.691.5

7.79.38.9

10.97.4

1.21.3

1.1

Children(in millions)

1.21.5

Percent distribution of children by relationship to the householder


compared with 14.9 percent forchildren living in families with na-tive householders.6 Families withthree or more related children liv-ing with a foreign-born house-holder had a much higher rate ofpoverty (32.8 percent) than

families with three or more chil-dren living with a native house-holder (20.6 percent).

1 The child population in this section excludesthe very small number of people under age 18 inhouseholds who were a householder or the spouse ofa householder. See also, Section 12.

2 For the definition of nativity, see the text box.3 There is no statistical difference between

60.6 million and 60.4 million.4 Related by birth, marriage, or adoption.5 This difference reflects the fact that children

born in the United States are classified as native, re-gardless of the birthplace or citizenship status of ei-ther parent.

6 Poverty is calculated for the related childpopulation under age 18 living in family households.

Table 13-1.

Native and Foreign-Born Children Under Age 18 Living in Households and Familiesby Nativity of Householder: 2000(Numbers in thousands)

All children Native children Foreign-born children

Item

TotalUnderage 6

UnderTotal age 6

UnderTotal age 6

Percentof all

children

ALL HOUSEHOLDSTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Not in family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Unrelated child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NATIVE HOUSEHOLDS

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



FOREIGN-BORN HOUSEHOLDSTotal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



72,11671,29170,46964,965

5,504822825

70,4691,647

60,63859,90159,22654,785

4,442675737

59,2261,412

11,47811,38911,24210,180

1,062147

88

11,242235

23,57423,32423,09920,784

2,316225250

23,099475

19,51819,30719,13917,320

1,819168211

19,139379

4,0564,0183,9603,464

4965839

3,96097

69,31768,52967,76462,560

5,204765788

67,7641,553

60,39859,66459,00854,590

4,418656734

59,0081,390

8,9198,8668,7567,970

787110

53

8,756163

23,16122,91922,69820,435

2,263220243

22,698463

19,45019,23919,07117,252

1,819168211

19,071379

3,7113,6803,6273,184

4445331

3,62784

2,7992,7612,7052,405

2995638

2,70594

240238218195

2419

3

21822

2,5582,5232,4862,211

2753735

2,48672

413406401348

5358

40113

68686868

---

68-

345338333280

5358

33313

3.93.93.83.75.46.84.6

3.85.7

0.40.40.40.40.52.80.4

0.41.6

22.322.222.121.725.925.239.8

22.130.6

- Represents zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.


Section 14.

Educational Attainment

Educational levels among education was 26.0 percent for College education levelsthe foreign-born and both the foreign-born and native differ by sex.native populations differ populations. A small difference

Educational distributions by sexonly below the college existed in the proportion of the

differed somewhat among theforeign-born and native populationlevel. foreign-born population. The pro-with a graduate degree (9.7 per-portion of the foreign-born popula-In 2000, the proportion of the cent and 8.4 percent, respectively).tion age 25 years and older whopopulation age 25 and older who Among individuals with less thanhad completed high school or morehad completed high school or a high school education (33.0 per-education was about 67.0 percentmore education was lower among cent for the foreign-born populationfor men and for women; however,the foreign-born population and 13.4 percent for the nativethe proportion with a bachelor’s de-(67.0 percent) than among the population), the distributions bygree or more education was highernative population (86.6 percent) educational attainment differedfor men (28.6 percent) than for(Figure 14-1). Among the foreign sharply. Among the foreign-bornwomen (23.1 percent). This differ-born, 76.2 percent of the natural- population, the proportions withence was mostly among the propor-ized citizens compared with less than a 5th grade education, ations with a graduate degree or59.8 percent for those who were 5th to 8th grade education, and ahigher: 12.6 percent for men andnot citizens had completed high 9th to 11th grade education were6.8 percent for women.school. 7.2 percent, 15.0 percent, and

For the native population,The difference between the for- 10.8 percent, respectively. The cor-86.7 percent of men and 86.5 per-eign born (67.0 percent) and na- responding figures for the nativecent of women (not statistically dif-tive (86.6 percent) educational population were 0.7 percent,ferent) age 25 and older had com-rates of high school completion 4.0 percent, and 8.7 percent.pleted high school or more educa-and beyond was confined to the Among individuals with less thantion. The proportion with aproportions who were high school a high school education, those withbachelor’s degree or more educationgraduates only or who had some less than a 5th grade education rep-was higher for men (27.7 percent)college but less than a bachelor’s resented about 1 in 5 of the foreign-than for women (23.6 percent). Thedegree. The proportion with born, but only about 1 in 20 of theproportion with a graduate degreea bachelor’s degree or more native population.

Figure 14-1.

Educational Attainment of the Population Age 25 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


12.69.8

9.06.66.8

22.4152.8175.2Total

NativeForeign born



Less than high school graduate

Bachelor's degreeor more

High schoolgraduate

Some college, less than bachelor's degree

Percent high schoolgraduateor more

84.486.667.0

67.064.568.7

76.259.8


15.9

13.433.0

33.1 25.4 25.6

34.3 26.7 25.625.0 16.2 25.8

33.0 24.0 14.0 29.035.5 26.4 15.1 23.031.3 24.7 18.6 25.4

23.8 26.4 19.1 30.7

40.2 23.9 13.9 22.0

Percent of total


was also higher for men (9.6 per- grade education were 3.9 percentcent) than for women (7.3 percent).1 for the foreign born and 0.2 percent

for the natives.Educational differencesexist among the Most African foreign bornpopulation ages 25 have completed highto 34 years. school.

Among adults, educational at- Among the population age 25

tainment often differs by age.2 Be- and older in 2000, 94.9 percent of

cause of this, it is useful to limit the the foreign born from Africa had

comparison of educational attain- completed high school or more edu-

ment to the population ages 25 to cation (Figure 14.2). The high school

34, the youngest age group in completion rates for the foreign

which a large share of individuals born from Europe (81.3 percent),

had completed their formal educa- Asia (83.8 percent), Northern

tion.3 America (85.5 percent), and South

In 2000, the proportion ages 25 America (79.6 percent) were not sta-

to 34 that had completed high tistically different from each other,

school or more education was lower but they were all well above the for-

among the foreign-born population eign born average of 67.0 percent.

(68.3 percent) than among the na- The Latin American average was

tive population (92.0 percent). The much lower (49.6 percent).

proportion with a bachelor’s degree Within the Latin American for-

or more education was 24.6 percent eign-born population, South America

for the foreign-born population and registered the highest proportion of

30.2 percent for the native popula- high school completions (79.6 per-

tion. Conversely, the proportions of cent) while Mexico had the lowest

the population with less than a 5th (33.8 percent). Of the foreign-born

population age 25 and older fromMexico, 66.2 percent had less thana high school education. Thosewith less than a 5th grade educationcomprised 16.5 percent of the Mexi-can-born population, 31.9 percenthad a 5th to 8th grade education,and 17.9 percent had a 9th to 11thgrade education, not statisticallydifferent from the proportion withless than a 5th grade education.The median educational level of theforeign-born population fromMexico was about 8th grade.

1There is no statistical difference in the propor-tions of foreign-born and native women with abachelor’s degree or more education (23.1 percentcompared with 23.6 percent) or with graduate de-grees (6.8 percent compared with 7.3 percent). Simi-larly, there is no statistical difference in the propor-tions of foreign-born and native men with abachelor’s degree or more education (28.6 percentcompared with 27.7 percent).

2For an in-depth discussion of the age distribu-tion of the foreign-born and native populations, seeSection 10.

3The discussion of education levels for the popu-lation 25 to 34 years old is limited to a comparison offoreign-born and native populations. The sample isnot large enough to identify small, but substantivelyimportant, differences between foreign-born men andwomen in the 25 to 34 age group.

Figure 14-2.

Educational Attainment of the Foreign-Born Population Age 25 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


0.61.51.55.67.12.3

10.90.65.83.8

22.4Total1



MexicoOther


Percenthigh schoolgraduateor more

67.081.383.894.949.668.137.333.850.879.785.5


Less than high school graduate

Bachelor's degreeor more

High schoolgraduate

Some college, less than bachelor's degree

Percent of total

33.018.716.25.150.431.962.7

66.249.2

20.314.5

25.0 16.2 25.828.7 19.7 32.9

21.8 17.1 44.923.3 22.3 49.3

24.9 13.5 11.230.0 18.9 19.3

21.8 10.0 5.5

20.3 9.3 4.227.8 12.5 10.5

31.6 22.1 25.927.0 22.3 36.2


Section 15.

Labor Force Participation

The foreign-bornpopulation accounts for12.4 percent of thecivilian labor force.

In March 2000, the foreign-bornpopulation accounted for 17.4 mil-lion, or 12.4 percent, of the totalcivilian labor force of 140.5 million.1

The labor force participation rate ofthe foreign-born population was66.6 percent, not significantly differ-ent from 67.3 percent for the nativepopulation.

The civilian labor force isthe civilian noninstitutionalpopulation age 16 years andolder who are employed (havea job) or who are unemployed(without a job, available forwork, and actively seekingwork or on layoff). The laborforce participation rate is theproportion of the civilian popu-lation 16 years old and older inthe labor force. The unemploy-ment rate is the proportion ofthe civilian labor force that isunemployed.

The patterns of laborforce participation ratesby sex differ between theforeign-born and nativepopulations.

The labor force participation ratein 2000 was higher for foreign-bornmen (79.6 percent) than for nativemen (73.4 percent), as shown in Fig-ure 15-1. The difference is due pri-marily to differences in age structureand not to differences in age-spe-cific labor force participation rates.Men 25 to 54 years old, who hadthe highest participation rates,represented 64.6 percent of

foreign-born males 16 years old andolder, compared with 56.7 percentof native males 16 years old andolder. Men 65 years old and older,who had the lowest participationrates, represented 10.4 percent offoreign-born males 16 years old andolder, compared with 14.3 percentof native males 16 years old andover. For men 25 to 54 years oldthe labor force rates by nativity werestatistically different, but the differ-ences were very small. For men 65years old and older, the labor forceparticipation rates by nativity werevirtually equal.

For women, the labor force par-ticipation rate was lower amongthe foreign-born population(53.7 percent) than among the na-tive population (61.6 percent). Incontrast to males, the differencefor females was due to differencesin age-specific labor force partici-pation rates and not to differencesin age structure. In the 25-to-54age group, which accounts formost of the labor force, the partici-pation rates were 66.5 percent forforeign-born women and 79.4 per-cent for native women.

Labor force participationrates for foreign-bornwomen 25 to 54 yearsold differ sharply bycitizenship status.

Among foreign-born men, laborforce participation rates in the 25-to-54 age group did not differ greatlyby length of residence in the UnitedStates (Figure 15-2). Among for-eign-born women, the labor forceparticipation rate was lowest forthose with length of residence lessthan 10 years (56.1 percent), and itwas lower among those who werenot citizens (60.1 percent) thanamong those who were naturalizedcitizens (77.4 percent).

For foreign-born men in 2000,labor force participation rates forthe 25-to-54 age group did not varyby region of birth (Figure 15-3);however, there was some variationamong women. For women born inMexico, the labor force participationrate was 55.1 percent comparedwith 66.5 percent for all foreign-born women.

The unemployment rateis higher for the foreign-born labor force than forthe native labor force.

In March 2000, the overall unem-ployment rate was 4.4 percent. Theunemployment rate was higheramong the foreign-born labor force(4.9 percent) than among the nativelabor force (4.3 percent).2 Amongmales, the unemployment rateswere not statistically different(4.5 percent for the foreign-born la-bor force and 4.4 percent for the na-tive labor force). However, the un-employment rate was higher for for-eign-born female labor force partici-pants (5.5 percent) than for their na-tive counterparts (4.2 percent). Theunemployment rate varied by regionof birth from 2.3 percent for Euro-pean and 3.5 percent for Asian for-eign-born workers to 7.3 percent forMexican and 7.2 percent for Carib-bean foreign-born workers.3

1Labor force data for March 2000 differ slightlyfrom data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis-tics (BLS) due to the use by BLS of a composite estima-tion procedure that reduces sampling error, especiallyin estimates of month-to-month change. In addition,the data in this section differ from annual-average dataand from seasonally adjusted data published by BLS.(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000, especially pp.172 and 195-197).

2There is no statistical difference between the to-tal unemployment rate and the rates for native females,the foreign born, the male foreign born, and the femaleforeign born.

3There is no statistical difference between Euro-pean and Asian unemployment rates; there is no statis-tical difference between the Mexican and Caribbeanrates.


0.50.62.53.10.64.21.90.97.8

0.40.41.21.60.72.71.60.75.5

5.02.8

2.3

2.8

2.7

7.8

45.2

53.1

3.12.4

1.9

1.9

1.7

5.5

41.5

47.0

2.30.26.60.9

45.37.86.31.13.80.3

64.210.3

Figure 15-1.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population Age 16 and Older by Nativity and Sex for Selected Age Groups: 2000(Percent of the civilian noninstitutional population)

16 years old and over

16 to 19 years

20 to 24 years

25 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 years and over

Males FemalesLabor force(in millions)

Labor force(in millions)

79.673.4

46.849.6

80.380.6

92.891.2

75.166.1

18.318.6

Foreign bornNative


53.761.6

32.350.349.1

75.466.5

79.450.2

53.67.910.21.7

0.15.80.7

41.55.56.20.53.60.2

58.97.1

Figure 15-2.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population 25 to 54 Years Old by Nativity,Length of Residence in the United States, Citizenship Status, and Sex: 2000(Percent of civilian noninstitutional population)



Figure 15-3.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Foreign-Born Population 25 to 54 Years Old by Region of Birth and Sex: 2000(Percent of the civilian noninstitutional population)

Total1

EuropeAsiaLatin America Caribbean Central America Mexico Other South America



1Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 15-3D.

TotalNative

Foreign born

Length of residence in the United StatesLess than 10 years

10 to 19 years20 years or more

Citizenship statusNaturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Tables 15-3A, 15-3B, 15-3C.

77.6

79.466.5

56.170.4

75.2

77.4

60.1

91.4

91.2

92.8

91.195.1

92.0

95.3

92.4

92.893.191.4

93.590.8

94.5

94.794.4

91.7

66.573.8

68.963.4

73.958.1

55.168.5

73.0


Section 16.

Occupation

Occupational distributionof foreign-born workersdiffers sharply from thatof native workers.

In March 2000, managerial andprofessional specialty occupationsaccounted for 24.7 percent offoreign-born workers compared with30.9 percent of native workers (Fig-ure 16-1).1 Technical, sales, and ad-ministrative support occupations ac-counted for an additional 20.9 per-cent of foreign-born workers com-pared with an additional 30.6 per-cent of native workers.2 As a result,these two occupational groups to-gether accounted for 45.6 percentof foreign-born workers comparedwith 61.5 percent of native workers.Higher proportions of foreign-bornworkers than of native workers filledservice occupations (19.2 percentversus 13.2 percent); worked as op-erators, fabricators, and laborers(18.7 percent versus 12.7 percent);worked in precision production,craft, and repair jobs (12.1 percentversus 10.5 percent); or held farm-ing, forestry, and fishing jobs(4.5 percent versus 2.1 percent).3

Naturalized-citizenworkers and nativeworkers have similaroccupational distributions.

The differences in occupationaldistributions between foreign-bornand native workers describedabove are reflected in differencesamong foreign-born workers bylength of residence in the UnitedStates and by citizenship status(Figure 16-1). In 2000, managerialand professional specialty occupa-tions accounted for 32.6 percentof foreign-born workers who hadlived in the United States for20 years or more compared with20.2 percent for those who had

lived in the United States less than10 years. In contrast, operators,fabricators, and laborers ac-counted for 13.9 percent of for-eign-born workers who had livedin the United States 20 years ormore compared with 22.7 percentfor those who had lived in theUnited States less than 10 years.4

Among foreign-born workers in2000, managerial and professionalspecialty occupations accountedfor 33.6 percent of workers whowere naturalized citizens versus19.0 percent of workers who werenot citizens. In contrast, operators,fabricators, and laborers ac-counted for 13.3 percent ofnaturalized-citizen workers versus22.1 percent of workers who werenot citizens.

While the occupational distribu-tion of naturalized-citizen workersdiffered from that of workers whowere not citizens, as well as fromthat of workers who were native, itmore closely resembled that of na-tive workers. In 2000, the propor-tions in each of the six summary

occupational groups for natural-ized-citizen workers and nativeworkers were statistically differentfrom each other in most cases, butthe differences were relativelysmall.

Occupational distributionsof foreign-born workersdiffer greatly by regionof birth.

As would be expected given dif-ferences in length of residence, citi-zenship status, and educational at-tainment by region of birth of theforeign-born population, there aremajor differences in occupationaldistributions (Figure 16-2). In 2000,professional and managerial spe-cialty occupations accounted for38.1 percent of workers from Eu-rope and 38.7 percent of workersfrom Asia compared with 12.1 per-cent of workers from Latin America.5

(The proportions of the foreign-bornpopulation age 25 years old andolder with a bachelor’s degree ormore education were 32.9 percentfrom Europe, 44.9 percent fromAsia, and 11.2 percent from LatinAmerica.) Among foreign-born work-ers from Latin America, the propor-tions in managerial and professionalspecialty occupations ranged from23.2 percent for workers from SouthAmerica and 22.6 percent for work-ers from the Caribbean to 6.3 per-cent of workers from Mexico.6 In2000, operators, fabricators, and la-borers, who accounted for 18.7 per-cent of foreign-born workers, ac-counted for 24.8 percent of workersfrom Latin America and for 11.2 per-cent of all other foreign-born work-ers. Farming, forestry, and fishingoccupations, which accounted for4.5 percent of foreign-born workers,accounted for 7.8 percent of work-ers from Latin America and for

The occupational classifica-tion system used here and bythe Bureau of Labor Statisticsis the one used in the 1990census and is based largely onthe 1980 Standard Occupa-tional Classification (SOC). Thissystem includes 501 detailedoccupational categories, whichcan be combined into the 6summary occupational groupsdiscussed in this section. Thedata on occupation are for theemployed civilian populationage 16 years old and older (asdiscussed in Section 15 on la-bor force) who are referred toin this section as workers.


1.0 percent of all other foreign-bornworkers. Among foreign-born work-ers from Mexico, 28.6 percent werein the operators, fabricators, and la-borers occupational group, and12.9 percent were in the farming,

forestry, and fishing occupationalgroup.

1 See Section 15, footnote 1, concerning laborforce data for March 2000.

2 There is no statistical difference between30.6 and 30.9 percent.

3 There is no statistical difference between19.2 percent and 18.7 percent.

4 There is no statistical difference between 20.2and 22.7.



Figure 16-1.

Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population)

Workers(in millions)

106.5

5.45.45.7

16.5117.8134.3Total

NativeForeign born




Managerial and professional specialtyTechnical, sales, and administrative supportService occupationsPrecision production, craft, and repairOperators, fabricators, and laborersFarming, forestry, and fishing

30.1 29.4 13.9 10.7 13.4 2.430.9 30.6 13.2 10.5 12.7 2.1

24.7 20.9 19.2 12.1 18.7 4.5

20.2 17.8 21.8 11.7 22.7 5.9

21.5 21.2 20.6 13.5 19.2 4.032.6 23.8 15.1 11.1 13.9 3.5

33.6 25.8 15.4 10.0 13.3 1.919.0 17.6 21.6 13.4 22.1 6.2

Percent distribution by major occupation group

Figure 16-2.

Major Occupation Group of Foreign-Born Workers Age 16 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population)


0.41.21.34.55.81.68.50.44.32.3

16.5Total1



MexicoOther


1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 16-1D.

Managerial and professional specialtyTechnical, sales, and administrative supportService occupationsPrecision production, craft, and repairOperators, fabricators, and laborersFarming, forestry, and fishing

24.7 20.9 19.2 12.1 18.7 4.5

38.1 23.9 15.0 12.2 10.2 0.638.7 27.5 15.0 5.9 12.0 0.8

36.5 22.1 19.6 4.2 17.1 0.512.1 16.5 22.9 15.9 24.8 7.822.6 25.1 22.6 9.0 19.9 0.87.0 12.7 22.9 18.3 28.1 11.16.3 11.2 21.8 19.2 28.6 12.99.4 17.7 26.7 15.2 26.5 4.523.2 24.0 23.0 13.7 15.2 0.9

46.3 24.9 8.3 9.3 9.5 1.7

Percent distribution by major occupation group


Section 17.

Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers

Earnings of full-time,year-round workers arelower for foreign-bornworkers than for theirnative counterparts.

In 1999, median earnings forall full-time, year-round workersage 16 and older (shortened to“workers” in the remainder of thetext of this section) were $36,572for men and $26,380 for women.1

Median earnings for foreign-bornmale and female workers were$27,239 and $22,139, respec-tively, compared with $37,528 and$26,698 respectively, for nativemale and female workers (Figure17-1). The female-to-male earningsratio was higher for foreign-bornworkers (0.81) than for nativeworkers (0.71).

Among foreign-born male work-ers, 44.9 percent had earnings lessthan $25,000 while 23.2 percenthad earnings of $50,000 or more.Among their native counterparts,the corresponding proportionswere 24.2 percent and 33.0 per-cent, respectively.

Among foreign-born femaleworkers, 55.5 percent had

earnings less than $25,000, while12.0 percent had earnings of$50,000 or more. Among their na-tive counterparts, the correspond-ing proportions were 44.1 percentand 13.2 percent, respectively.2

Even though the median earningsof foreign-born female workerswere lower than those of nativefemale workers, the proportionswith earnings of $50,000 or morewere not significantly different.

Earnings of foreign-bornworkers who arenaturalized citizensare higher than theearnings of other foreign-born workers.

The median earnings of foreign-born male workers in 1999 were$21,600 for those living in theUnited States less than 10 yearsand $35,778 for those living in theUnited States 20 years or more.The corresponding figures forforeign-born female workers were$17,330 and $27,221.

For foreign-born male workers,median earnings in 1999 were$36,157 for naturalized citizensand $22,276 for workers whowere not citizens. The correspond-ing figures for foreign-born femaleworkers were $27,697 and$18,236, respectively.

Median earnings ofworkers from Europe andAsia exceed the medianearnings of workers fromLatin America.

Among foreign-born workersfrom the regions shown in Figure17-2, those from Europe and Asiagenerally had the highest earnings.

The median earnings of workersfrom Latin America were wellbelow the median earnings of allforeign-born workers.

For men from Europe and Asia,the median earnings were $44,990and $36,911, respectively, whilefor women, median earnings were$28,319 and $29,662, respec-tively.3 In comparison, the medianearnings for workers from LatinAmerica were $20,974 for menand $17,213 for women. Thefemale-to-male earnings ratio washigher for foreign-born workersfrom Latin America (0.82) and Asia(.80) than for foreign-born workersfrom Europe (0.63).4

Median earnings for workersfrom the Caribbean ($26,971 formen and $21,255 for women) andfrom South America ($27,502 formen and $23,080 for women)were not statistically different fromeach other. The median earningsof Mexican-born female workers($15,149) were below the respec-tive medians for both male and fe-male workers from the Caribbeanand South America and Mexican-born men ($19,181) but not differ-ent from earnings for female work-ers from other Central Americancountries ($15,857).5

1There was no statistical difference in the earn-ings of foreign-born men and native women.

2There was no statistical difference in the pro-portion of native females and foreign-born malesearning less than $25,000.

3The apparent differences in median earnings offemale workers from Europe and Asia were not sta-tistically different.

4Male/female earnings ratios for foreign-bornworkers from Asia and Latin America are not signifi-cantly different, however, a Latin American workerearns about $0.51 for every $1.00 an Asian workerearns.

5There was no statistical difference in the earn-ings of Mexican born male workers and female work-ers from the Caribbean or South America.

Earnings include moneywage or salary income beforedeductions from work per-formed as an employee, netincome from farm and non-farm self employment forworkers. In this report, afull-time year-round worker isa person age 16 or older whoworked 35 or more hours perweek for 50 or more weeksduring the calendar year.


Figure 17-1.

Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex, Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


4.83.0

2.52.72.6

7.849.457.2Total

NativeForeign born



Less than $10,000

$50,000-$74,999

$10,000-$24,999

$25,000-$49,999

Medianearnings

$36,572$37,528$27,239

$21,600$26,319$35,778

$36,157$22,276

Percent distribution of workers by earnings

$75,000and over

3.02.84.4

6.23.9

3.3

2.3

5.9

24.021.4

40.5

50.842.6

27.6

26.749.0

41.3 18.6 13.142.8 19.5 13.5

31.9 13.1 10.1

25.4 10.0 7.634.8 10.7 8.0

35.6 18.9 14.6

38.1 18.4 14.528.1 9.8 7.2

Men

2.32.1

1.71.41.3

4.435.940.2Total

NativeForeign born



Medianearnings

$26,380$26,698$22,139

$17,330$21,573$27,221

$27,697$18,236


5.35.27.1

10.57.4

4.3

4.79.3

40.038.9

48.4

57.150.4

40.2

38.757.2

41.7 9.3 3.742.7 9.5 3.7

32.5 8.3 3.7

25.2 5.2 2.033.2 6.4 2.6

37.4 12.3 5.8

40.0 11.8 4.825.8 5.1 2.6

Women

0.40.52.53.00.64.12.01.07.8

0.40.30.81.20.52.11.30.64.4

Figure 17-2.

Median Earnings of Foreign-Born Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex and Region of Birth: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Total1

EuropeAsiaLatin America


MexicoOther

South America

Men WomenWorkers

(in millions)Workers

(in millions)


$27,239$44,990

$36,911$20,974

$26,971$19,499$19,181

$27,502$20,801

$22,139$28,319$29,662

$17,213$21,255

$15,346$15,149$15,857

$23,080

Female-to-maleearnings

ratio

0.810.630.800.820.790.790.790.760.84


Section 18.

Money Income of Households

Income is lower amongforeign-born householdsthan among nativehouseholds.

In 1999, median income for allhouseholds was $40,816.1 Themedian income for householdswith a foreign-born householderwas $36,048 compared with$41,383 for households with a na-tive householder (Figure 18-1).Foreign-born households with in-comes below $25,000 and with in-comes of $50,000 or more wereabout equal — 34.5 percent and36.2 percent, respectively. In con-trast, 30.2 percent of nativehouseholds had an income of lessthan $25,000, and 41.6 percenthad an income of $50,000 or more.

The lower income of foreign-born households was not explainedby differences in household size orthe numbers of earners per house-hold. For example, in 1999 medianincome of two-member householdswas $33,231 when the householderwas foreign born and $44,184 whenthe householder was native. Thecorresponding medians were$45,233 and $61,364 respectivelyfor four-member households.

As discussed in Section 11, theaverage size of foreign-born house-holds in 2000 was considerablylarger than that of native house-holds (3.26 versus 2.54). The aver-age number of earners in 1999 perforeign-born household was 1.60compared with 1.40 for nativehouseholds.2 The higher averagenumber of earners in foreign-bornhouseholds reflects the higher ratioof adults age 18 or older per for-eign-born household — 2.27 versus1.88 for native households. Al-though there was some variation inthe number of earners per

household by region of birth of thehouseholder, the variation had noapparent affect on household in-come differences.3

Among foreign-born households,median income in 1999 ranged from$40,178 when the householder’slength of residence in the UnitedStates was 20 years or more to$30,604 when the householder’slength of residence was less than10 years (Figure 18-1). Medianhousehold income was considerablyhigher when the householder was anaturalized citizen than when thehouseholder was not a citizen:$43,947 versus $31,199.

Region of birth isconnected to householdincome.

In 1999, households with ahouseholder born in Asia had a

median income of $51,363 (Figure18-2). This was well above the me-dian income of native householdsas well as of other foreign-bornhouseholds. The median incomefor households with a European-born householder ($41,733) wasnot statistically different from thenative median but much higherthan the median for householdswith a Latin American-born house-holder ($29,388).

The higher median income ofhouseholds with an Asian-bornhouseholder is mostly due to acombination of three factors. First,a high proportion of Asian foreign-born workers (both men andwomen) held higher-paying man-agement and professional jobs, acharacteristic shared with male Eu-ropean foreign-born workers.4 Sec-ondly, compared with the Europeanforeign born, a relatively low pro-portion of householders from Asiawere age 65 or older and thuswere much more likely to be laborforce participants and contributingearnings from employment.5

Thirdly, about 70 percent offoreign-born Asian women were inthe labor force, resulting in manydual-earner households.

Married-couplehouseholds have thehighest income.

Among both foreign-born andnative households in 1999,married-couple family householdshad higher incomes ($44,152 and$58,382 respectively), than didother household types.6 Familyhouseholds with female house-holders (with no spouse present)had much lower median incomesthan married-couple family house-holds. The median income forthese households was $24,776

Data on income are basedon money income received(excluding capital gains) be-fore deductions for incometaxes, social security, uniondues, medicare deductions,etc. Money income does notinclude the value of noncashbenefits such as foodstamps, medicare, medicaid,public housing, and em-ployer-provided fringe ben-efits. Noncash benefits arediscussed in Sections 20 and21. Earners include wage andsalary workers and nonfarmand farm self-employed work-ers. For definitions of house-holds, see Section 11. Dataon income are for the 1999calendar year and are basedon the composition of house-holds as of March 2000.


when the female family house-holder was foreign born, comparedwith $26,338 when the house-holder was native.7

1 Income rounded to dollars.2 Earners include wage and salary workers and

nonfarm and farm self-employed workers.

3 For example, households with Mexican-bornhouseholders had an earner ratio of 1.86 and a lowermedian income compared with European-born house-holders who had a ratio of 1.26 and a high medianincome.

4 About 38 percent of foreign-born men andwomen from Asia, as well as European-born men,occupied managerial and professional specialty jobswhich require higher levels of education and paymore on average than other jobs. See Section 16, Oc-cupation, and Section 17, Earnings of Year-Round,

Figure 18-1.

Median Household Income by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


6.35.4

4.93.33.3

11.693.0

104.7TotalNativeForeign born



$36,048

$40,178

$43,947


$29,388

Figure 18-2.

Income of Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


0.30.70.72.83.51.35.60.32.82.2

11.6Total1



MexicoOther



$31,199

$36,555$30,604

$40,816$41,383

$36,048

$41,733

$51,363$36,371

$28,701$27,993

$27,345$29,855

$40,480

$46,799

Figure 18-3.

Median Household Income by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Foreign-born householder Native householderHouseholds(in millions)


1.21.42.6

1.50.76.89.011.6

16.813.330.1

11.23.3

48.563.093.1

1No spouse present.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 18-2.

All households Family householdsMarried coupleMale householder1

Female householder1

Nonfamily householdsMale householderFemale householder

$41,383

$51,179$58,382

$42,936$26,338

$24,531$30,733

$20,042

$36,048$39,897

$44,152$36,831

$24,776

$25,029$31,022

$18,025

Full-Time Workers. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables16-A1, 16-D1.)

5 This included 27.6 percent of the Europeanforeign-born population and 9.5 percent of the for-eign born from Asia.

6 Nativity of married couples refers to thehouseholder only.

7 The incomes of foreign-born and native femalefamily households are not statistically different.


Section 19.

Poverty Status

The poverty rate is higheramong the foreign-bornpopulation than amongthe native population.

In 1999, the poverty rate, whichwas 11.8 percent for the total popu-lation, was 16.8 percent for theforeign-born population and11.2 percent for the native popula-tion (Figure 19-1). Of the 32.3 mil-lion individuals below the povertylevel, 4.8 million, or 14.7 percent,were foreign-born. Among theforeign-born population, the povertyrate ranged from 9.9 percent forthose who had lived in the UnitedStates for 20 years and longer to23.5 percent for those who hadlived in the United States for lessthan 10 years. The poverty rate

was 9.1 percent for naturalized citi-zens, compared with 21.3 percentnoncitizens.

Among both males and females,the poverty rate in 1999 was higherfor the foreign-born population thanfor the native population (Figure19-3). For the population under age18, the poverty rate for the foreignborn (29.4 percent) was about twiceas high as the poverty rate for theirnative counterparts (16.4 percent).For people 65 years and older, pov-erty rates were much lower:13.8 percent for the foreign-bornpopulation compared with 9.3 per-cent for the native population.1

Poverty rates of theforeign-born populationdiffer by region of birth.

The poverty rates for the popu-lation born in Europe (9.3 percent)and in Asia (12.8 percent), whichwere not significantly differentfrom each other, were about halfas high as the poverty rate for thepopulation born in Latin America(21.9 percent). (Figure 19-2).Among the foreign-born popula-tion from Latin America, the pov-erty rates ranged from 11.5 per-cent for the population from SouthAmerica to 25.8 percent for thepopulation from Mexico.

The poverty rates offamilies differ by nativityand type.

In 1999, when the overall pov-erty rate for families was 9.3 per-cent, the poverty rate was 15.7 per-cent for families with foreign-bornhouseholders, almost twice the pov-erty rate of 8.3 percent for familieswith native householders. For

families with a foreign-born house-holder, poverty rates in 1999 rangedfrom 9.5 percent for families with norelated children under age 18 to32.8 percent for families with threeor more related children under 18years old. The corresponding ratesfor families with a native house-holder were 3.9 percent and20.6 percent. Foreign-born familieswith a female householder, no hus-band present, had a higher povertyrate than married-couple familieswith a foreign-born householder(31.0 percent, compared with12.4 percent).

Poverty rates are high forchildren living in familieswith a foreign-bornhouseholder, regardlessof the child’s nativity.

In 1999, the poverty rate for re-lated children age under age 18 infamilies with foreign-born house-holders was 24.0 percent (2.7 mil-lion of 11.2 million). For the chil-dren who were foreign born, thepoverty rate was 29.9 percent(0.7 million of 2.5 million). Forthe children who were native, thepoverty rate was 22.3 percent(1.9 million of 8.8 million chil-dren).2 Native children accountedfor 72.4 percent of the related chil-dren under age 18 living belowthe poverty level in families withforeign-born householders.

1 The poverty rate for natives under age 18 wasnot significantly different from the rate for foreign-born people 65 years old and older.

2 The poverty rate for related children under age18 in families with a foreign-born householder(24.0 percent) reflects the average rate for both for-eign-born (29.9 percent) and native (22.3 percent)children and is statistically different from neither.

The poverty definition usedby the federal government forstatistical purposes is basedon a set of money incomethresholds that vary by familysize and composition and donot take into account noncashbenefits or taxes. The averagethreshold in 1999 for a four-person family was $17,029.The poverty status (in povertyor not in poverty) of a family isassigned to each member ofthe family. Poverty status isnot defined for individuals un-der 15 years old who are notrelated to anyone in the house-hold (e.g., foster children). Fora discussion of alternative defi-nitions of poverty, see U.S.Census Bureau, Current Popu-lation Reports, P60-201.


Figure 19-1.

Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999(Populations as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)


17.710.6

9.28.0

11.2

28.3245.1273.5Total

NativeForeign born



16.8

9.9

9.1


21.9

Figure 19-2.

Poverty Rates for the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)


0.71.91.97.89.82.8

14.40.77.24.4

28.3Total1



MexicoOther


1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b, Table 19-1D.

21.3

15.223.5

11.8

11.2

16.89.3

12.8

13.2

20.624.2

25.817.8

11.57.4

Figure 19-3.

Selected Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, for Families by Nativity of the Householder, and for Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)

Foreign born NativeMillionsMillions

4.1

1.8

1.3

3.1

2.8

14.2

14.2

28.3

39.3

17.0

12.5

29.5

68.9

125.7

119.5

245.1

1Includes Individuals who live alone, or who are unrelated to anyone in the household. 2Nativity reflects the status of the householder. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 19-1A, 19-2A, 19-3A, and 19-4A.

Population

Total

Males

Females

Under age 18

65 years old and over

Males 65 years old and over

Females 65 years old and over

Unrelated individuals1

11.2

9.8

12.6

16.49.3

6.3

11.5

18.4

16.8

15.2

18.3

29.4

13.8

12.4

14.9

25.9

1.5

6.8

1.4

2.0

2.1

3.5

9.0

11.2

48.5

6.5

12.0

13.3

31.2

63.0Families2

Total

With no related children under age 18

With one related child under age 18

With two related children under age 18

With three or more related children under age 18

Married-couple families

Female-householder families, no husband present

2.5

8.8

11.2

0.2

59.0

59.2

Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity of Householder

Total

Native related children under age 18

Foreign-born related children under age 18

8.3

3.9

10.9

10.6

20.6

3.8

27.4

15.7

9.5

14.2

16.6

32.8

12.4

31.0

24.0

22.3

29.9

14.9

14.9

11.6


Section 20.

Means-Tested Program Participation

The participation rate inmeans-tested programsis higher among foreign-born households.

In 1999, 2.5 million, or 21.2 per-cent, of households with foreign-born householders participated inone or more of the following means-tested programs providing noncashbenefits: food stamps, housing as-sistance, or medicaid. The corre-sponding figures for householdswith native householders were13.5 million, or 14.6 percent (Figure20-1). For participation in one ormore means-tested programs pro-viding cash benefits — TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families(TANF), General Assistance (GA), orSupplemental Security Insurance(SSI) — the corresponding figureswere 0.9 million, or 8.0 percent, forforeign-born households, and5.2 million, or 5.6 percent, fornative households.

Participation rates in 1999 formedicaid and TANF/GA were higherfor foreign-born households than fornative households. The highest par-ticipation rates were for medicaid —18.6 percent of foreign-born house-holds and 12.1 percent of nativehouseholds.

Among foreign-bornhouseholds, participationrates in noncash programsvary by citizenship statusand length of residence.

The participation rate in noncashprograms in 1999 was 24.8 percentfor noncitizen households comparedwith 16.9 percent for naturalized-citizen households (Figure 20-2).For cash programs, the rates were8.0 percent for both noncitizen andnaturalized-citizen households.

Among foreign-born households,the participation rate in noncashprograms was lowest when thehouseholder’s length of residence inthe United States was 20 years orlonger (17.0 percent).

Participation rates amongforeign-born householdsvary sharply by region ofbirth of the householder.

In 1999, the participation ratesin means-tested noncash programsfor households with householdersfrom Europe (10.1 percent) and fromAsia (16.7 percent) were one-thirdand one-half, respectively, of therate for households with household-ers from Latin America (29.5 per-cent) (Figure 20-3). The participa-tion rate in cash programs forhouseholds with householders fromEurope (4.7 percent) was one-halfthe rate for households with house-holders from Latin America (9.6 per-cent).1

Female family house-holders, with no husbandpresent, have the highestparticipation rates inmeans-tested programs.

In 1999, the participation ratesin noncash programs for familyhouseholds with female household-ers, no husband present, were notsignificantly different for foreign-born households (39.7 percent) andnative households (40.4 percent),but each of these figures was largerthan the corresponding figure forother types of family households.2

Likewise, the participation rates incash programs for female familyhouseholders, no husband present,were not significantly different forforeign-born households (19.2 per-cent) and native households(18.2 percent), though again, theserates were higher than those ofother family households.

Participation rates in noncashprograms in 1999 were lowest fornative married-couple family house-holds. The rates for married couplefamily households were 19.6 per-cent for foreign-born householdsand 8.6 percent for native house-holds. For cash programs, the ratesfor married couple family house-holds were 6.2 percent and 2.7 per-cent respectively.

1The participation rate for households withhouseholders from Asia (8.8 percent) was not statis-tically different from households with householdersfrom Europe or Latin America.

2In contrast to data on poverty for families,which do not include any nonfamily members livingwith families (i.e., individuals not related to thehouseholder by birth, marriage, or adoption), data onmeans-tested programs for family households in-clude nonfamily members. In March 2000, the 72.0million family households in the United States in-cluded 228.6 million family members and 4.5 mil-lion nonfamily members. See Section 11 and Section12 for more information about families and house-holds. The nativity designation of the household isbased on the nativity status of the householder.

Means-tested programsprovide cash and noncash as-sistance to portions of thelow-income population. Theprograms require the incomeand/or assets of an indi-vidual or family to be belowspecified thresholds in orderto qualify for benefits. Thenoncash programs includedhere are food stamps, hous-ing assistance, and medicaid.The cash programs includedhere are Temporary Assis-tance for Needy Families(TANF), General Assistance(GA), and Supplemental Secu-rity Income (SSI).


6.3

5.4

4.9

3.3

3.4

11.6

93.1

104.7

Figure 20-1.

Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Specified Benefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Percent receiving benefits Percent receiving benefitsNumber

(in millions)Number

(in millions)

1Includes households receiving benefits from one or more of the three programs listed.2Includes households receiving benefits from TANF or general assistance and/or from Supplemental Security Income.3Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1A and 20-1B.

2.2

0.6

0.8

2.5

11.2

3.9

5.0

13.5

Selected Noncash Benefits

Total1

Food stamps

Housing assistance

Medicaid

0.6

0.4

0.9

3.6

2.0

5.2Selected Cash Benefits

Total2

TANF3 or General Assistance

Supplemental Security Income

14.6

5.3

4.2

12.1

21.2

6.74.9

18.6

5.6

2.1

3.9

Foreign-born households (11.6 million) Native households (93.1 million)

Percentage of households receiving specified benefits

Foreign-born householdsNative households

8.0

3.2

5.3

Figure 20-2.

Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


Total

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years and over

14.6

8.0

22.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1A, 20-1B, 20-1C, 20-2A, 20-2B, and 20-2C.

Figure 20-3.

Foreign-Born Households Receiving SelectedMeans-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


0.3

0.7

0.7

2.8

3.5

1.3

5.6

0.3

2.8

2.2

11.6Total1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1D and 20-2D.

7.4

21.25.6

15.35.9

Percentage of households receiving Selected noncash benefitsSelected cash benefits

Percentage of households receiving Selected noncash benefitsSelected cash benefits

25.69.0

17.07.7

16.98.0

21.28.0

10.14.7

16.78.8

13.15.0

29.59.6

31.612.3

30.59.0

30.99.2

28.97.8

21.37.8

4.51.6

Citizenship statusNaturalized citizen

Not a citizen 24.88.0


Section 21.

Health Insurance

One-fifth of thepopulation with nohealth insurance isforeign born.

In 1999, 84.5 percent of thetotal population had health insur-ance for all or at least part of theyear. The proportion was loweramong the foreign-born populationthan among the native population:66.6 percent versus 86.5 percent(Figure 21-1).1 Of the 42.6 millionindividuals with no health insur-ance during 1999, 9.5 million, or22.2 percent, were foreign born.

Among the foreign-born popu-lation, the proportion with healthinsurance in 1999 ranged from54.5 percent for residents in theUnited States less than 10 yearsto 81.8 percent among thoseresident 20 years or more. The

proportion with health insurancewas 82.1 percent for naturalizedcitizens compared with 57.4 per-cent for noncitizens. Foreign-bornmales were less likely to be in-sured (64.4 percent) than foreign-born females (68.9 percent).

The proportion of the foreign-born population with health insur-ance varied by region of birth (Fig-ure 21-2). For the populationsfrom Europe and Asia, the propor-tions in 1999 were 86.3 percentand 75.7 percent respectively. Forthe total population from LatinAmerica, the proportion was54.3 percent; it ranged from69.3 percent and 67.3 percent,respectively, for the populationsfrom the Caribbean and SouthAmerica (not significantly differentfrom each other) to 47.4 percentfor the population from Mexico.Health insurance coverage forchildren in foreign-born house-holder families varied by thehouseholder’s place of birth andranged from 85.4 percent and83.1 percent, respectively, for thepopulation born in Europe andAsia (not significantly differentfrom each other) to 67.9 percentfor the population from LatinAmerica.

The proportion offoreign-born workerswith employment-basedhealth insurance is lowerthan for native workers.2

In 1999, 44.5 percent offoreign-born workers and 54.6 per-cent of native workers had

employment-based health insur-ance (Figure 21-3). Among for-eign-born workers, the proportionranged from 36.2 percent for resi-dents in the United States lessthan 10 years to 54.8 percent forthose resident 20 years or more.The proportion was 54.6 percentfor naturalized citizens comparedwith 37.9 percent for noncitizens.By region of birth, the proportionswere 57.3 percent of workers fromEurope, 53.2 percent for workersfrom Asia, and 35.2 percent forworkers from Latin America (Figure21-4).3 For workers from Mexico,the proportion with employment-based health insurance was30.5 percent. Male foreign-bornworkers were more likely to haveemployment-based health insur-ance than female foreign-bornworkers, 46.9 percent comparedto 41.0 percent.

1 The proportions with health insurance underprivate insurance plans were 53.1 percent for theforeign-born population and 73.1 percent for thenative population.

2 Employment-based insurance refers to cover-age offered through one’s own employment andexcludes coverage through another person’s policy.

3 There is no statistical difference between57.3 percent and 53.2 percent.

4 State Children’s Health Insurance Plans.5 Military health care includes CHAMPUS (Com-

prehensive Health and Medical Plan for UniformedServices)/Tricare, CHAMPVA (Civilian Health andMedical Program of the Department of VeteransAffairs), Veterans’, and military health care.

6 U.S. Census Bureau, 1998c, p. 12.

Health insurance includesprivate insurance plans andgovernment insurance plans.Private insurance plans in-clude those offered throughemployment (either one’sown and/or a relative’s) andthose purchased privately.Government insurance plansinclude medicare, medicaid,S-CHIP4, and military healthcare.5 Individuals may be cov-ered by more than one typeof health insurance duringthe year. There is some evi-dence that health insuranceis underreported.6


Figure 21-3.

Employment-Based Health Insurance for Workers by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999(Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


10.7

7.0

5.8

5.7

6.1

17.7

131.3

149.0Total

Native

Foreign born

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

17.8

10.6

9.2

8.0

11.2

28.4

245.7

274.1Total

Native

Foreign born

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or moreCitizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

1Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one’s own employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 21-3A, 21-3B, and 21-3C.

Figure 21-4.

Employment-Based Health Insurance for Foreign-Born Workers by Region of Birth: 1999(Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


0.4

1.2

1.3

4.9

6.2

1.7

9.2

0.4

4.6

2.5

17.7Total2

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

28.4Total1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one’s own employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy.2Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21-3D.

Figure 21-1.

Health Insurance Coverage of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)



Figure 21-2.

Health Insurance Coverage of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


1Total includes regions not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21-1D.

44.5

57.3

53.2

49.9

35.2

46.7

30.9

30.5

32.3

41.3

60.8

53.4

54.6

44.5

36.2

42.8

54.8

54.6

37.9

66.6

86.3

75.7

69.7

54.3

69.3

47.6

47.4

48.3

67.3

88.4

84.5

86.5

66.6

54.5

66.4

81.8

82.1

57.4


Citizenship status

Percent with insurance






Section 22.

Homeownership

Homeownership rates aresimilar for naturalizedcitizen households andnative households.

In March 2000, the homeown-ership rate for the United States was67.2 percent (Figure 22-1). The ratewas much higher for native house-holds (69.5 percent) than for house-holds with a foreign-born house-holder (48.8 percent). Among for-eign-born households, the rate washigher when the householder was anaturalized citizen (66.5 percent)than when the householder was nota citizen (33.5 percent).Naturalized-citizen householdershad a rate not very different fromthat of native householders.

Among the foreign born, thehomeownership rate for naturalized-citizen householders who had beenin the United States for 10 or moreyears was 68.1 percent comparedwith 42.3 percent for those who hadlived here less than 10 years. Com-parable rates for noncitizens were

43.1 percent and 22.6 percent, re-spectively (Figure 22-1).1

Homeownership ratesincrease as the age of thehouseholder increases.

For both native and foreign-bornhouseholders, homeownership wasmore likely when the householderwas older although the rates for na-tive householders were higher foreach age category shown in Table22-1. Native householders youngerthan age 35 had a homeownershiprate of 42.8 percent. Those in ages35 to 64 had a rate of 75.7 percent,and those 65 years and older had arate of 81.6 percent. A similar pat-tern occurred for foreign-bornhouseholders where the homeown-ership rate for those younger thanage 35 was 25.8 percent, comparedwith 55.8 percent for those ages 35to 64, and 67.4 percent for thoseages 65 years and older.

Homeownership rates arehighest for foreign-bornhouseholders from Europe.

Among the regions of birth with1 million or more foreign-bornhouseholders, the homeownershiprate ranged from 63.5 percent forhouseholders from Europe, to52.0 percent for householders from

Asia, and 41.2 percent for house-holders from Latin America (Figure22-3). These differences are partiallyexplained by age differences.

Householders from Europe hadthe highest median age of 54.8years, compared with 42.7 yearsfor Asian householders and 39.7years for Latin American house-holders. Since homeownershiprates increase with age, and Euro-pean householders are relativelyolder than Asian and Latin Ameri-can householders, and Asianhouseholders in turn are older thanLatin American householders, it ap-pears age differences may explainsome of the regional differences.

The homeownership rates forhouseholders under age 35 fromEurope, Asia, and Latin Americaranged from 25 percent to 30 per-cent.2 For those 65 years or older,householders from Europe had thehighest rate (76.5 percent), com-pared with 59.5 percent for thosefrom Asia and 55.9 percent forthose from Latin America.3

1 The homeownership rate for naturalized citizenswith a length of residence of less than 10 years(42.3 percent) is not statistically different from thecomparable rate for noncitizens with a length of resi-dence of 10 years or more (43.1 percent).

2 The proportions for Asia (29.6 percent) and LatinAmerica (24.5 percent) were not statistically different.

3 The proportions for Asia and Latin America werenot statistically different.

The members of a house-hold, as defined in Section11, live in an occupied hous-ing unit (e.g., a house, con-dominium, cooperative, mo-bile home, tent, or house-boat). The homeownershiprate is the percentage ofhouseholders in which theowner or a co-owner is amember of the household,whether or not the housingunit is mortgaged or not oth-erwise fully paid for. House-holds are classified as foreignborn or native based on thenativity of the householder,regardless of the nativity ofother household members.

Table 22.1.

Homeownership Rates by Nativity, Region of Birth, and Age ofHouseholder: 2000

Less than 35 to 64 65 years old

All 35 years old years old or older

Native 69.5 42.8 75.7 81.6Foreign born1 48.8 25.8 55.8 67.4

Europe 63.5 25.9 66.2 76.5Asia 52.0 29.6 62.4 59.5Latin America 41.2 24.5 48.9 55.9

1Includes all foreign born.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 22-2D.


0.30.70.72.83.61.35.60.32.82.2

11.6

3.2

3.0

6.3

5.1

0.3

5.4

11.6

93.1

104.7

Figure 22-1.

Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder by Nativity, Citizenship Status, and Length of Residence in the United States: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Figure 22-2.

Homeownership Rates by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Homeownership rate Median age of householder

Foreign-born householder Native householder




Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-1A, 22-1B, 22-1C, 22-2A, 22-2B, and 22-2C.

Figure 22-3.

Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder for Foreign-Born Householders by Region of Birth: 2000(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Total1

EuropeAsiaAfricaLatin America Caribbean Central America Mexico Other South AmericaNorthern America

Homeownership rate Median age of householderHouseholds(in millions)

1Total includes regions not shown separately.Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-1D and 22-2D.

1.2

1.4

2.6

1.5

0.7

6.8

9.0

11.6

16.8

13.3

30.1

11.2

3.3

48.5

63.0

93.1


48.8

63.5

52.038.2

41.2

42.639.4

40.933.2

47.463.0

42.9

54.8

42.7

41.339.7

45.8

37.637.2

42.4

52.7

39.0

Total

Native

Foreign born

Naturalized citizen

Less than 10 years

10 or more years

Not a citizen

Less than 10 years

10 or more years

Total

Family households

Married-couple family

Male householder, no wife present

Female householder, no husband present

Nonfamily households

Male householder

Female householder

67.2

69.5

48.8

66.5

42.3

68.1

33.5

22.6

43.1

46.847.3

42.9

50.3

36.1

51.1

37.9

33.2

42.4

48.8

54.2

59.8

35.937.3

29.9

20.6

40.3

69.5

77.5

85.2

62.3

48.8

52.8

48.0

56.5

Foreign-born householderNative householder


References

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.2000. Employment and Earn-ings, Vol. 48, No. 4 (April). U.S.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973.National Origin and Language.1970 Census of Population.PC(2)-1A. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

_____. 1980. The Methods and Ma-terials of Demography. ByHenry S. Shryock, Jacob S.Siegel, and Associates. Fourthprinting (rev.). Two volumes.Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

_____. 1985. Foreign-Born Popula-tion in the United States Micro-fiche. 1980 Census of Popula-tion.

_____. 1993a. The Foreign-BornPopulation in the United States.1990 Census of Population.1990 CP-3-1. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Of-fice.

_____. 1993b. U.S. Population Esti-mates by Age, Sex, Race, andHispanic Origin: 1980-1991. ByFred Hollmann. Current Popula-tion Reports, Series P25-1095.Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

_____. 1998a. How Well Does theCurrent Population Survey Mea-sure the Foreign-Born Popula-tion in the United States? By A.Dianne Schmidley and J. Gre-gory Robinson. Population Divi-sion Working Paper No. 22.

_____. 1998b. Health InsuranceCoverage: 1997. By Robert L.Bennefield. Current PopulationReports, Series P60-202. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

_____. 1999a. Historical CensusStatistics on the Foreign-BornPopulation of the United States:1850 to 1990. By CampbellGibson and Emily Lennon.Population Division WorkingPaper No. 29.

____. 1999b. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the UnitedStates: 1997. By DianneSchmidley and CampbellGibson. Current Population Re-ports, Series P23-206. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

_____. 2000a. Money Income in theUnited States: 1999. By CarmenDeNavas and Robert Cleveland.Current Population Reports, Se-ries P60-209. Washington, DC:U.S. Government Printing Of-fice.

_____. 2000b. Poverty in the UnitedStates: 1999. By Joseph Dalakerand Bernadette Proctor. CurrentPopulation Reports, Series P60-210. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov-ernment Printing Office.

_____. 2001. The Foreign-BornPopulation of the United States:March 2000. PPL-145. DetailedTables. Population Division.

U.S. Department of Labor, SocialSecurity Administration, U.S.Small Business Administration,and Pension Benefit GuarantyCorporation. 1994. Pension andHealth Benefits of AmericanWorkers: New Findings from theApril 1993 Current PopulationSurvey.

U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza-tion Service. 1991. StatisticalYearbook of the Immigrationand Naturalization Service,1990. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

_____. 1998. Statistical Yearbook ofthe Immigration and Natural-ization Service, 1997. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Print-ing Office.

_____. 1999. Legal Immigration,Fiscal Year 1998. Office ofPolicy and Planning, AnnualReport, No. 1.

_____. 2000. 1998 Statistical Year-book of the Immigration andNaturalization Service. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

U.S. National Center for Health Sta-tistics. 1975. Volume I, Natality,1970. Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office.

_____. 2000. Unpublished tabula-tions for 1999.

U.S. Office of Management andBudget. 1977. Race and EthnicStandards for Federal Statisticsand Administrative Reporting.Directive No.15. Washington,DC.

_____. 1990. Revised Standards forDefining Metropolitan Areas inthe 1990’s. Federal Register,Vol. 55, No. 62 (March 30),pp. 12154-12160.

_____. 1993. Revised StatisticalDefinitions for Metropolitan Ar-eas (MAs). OMB Bulletin No. 93-17.

_____. 1997. Revisions to the Stan-dards for the Classification ofFederal Data on Race and Eth-nicity. Federal Register, Vol. 62,No. 210 (October 30), pp.58782-58790.

United Nations. 1996. 1995 Demo-graphic Yearbook. Departmentfor Economic and Social Infor-mation and Policy Analysis, Sta-tistics Division. New York, NY.


United Nations. 1998. Recommen-dations On Statistics on Interna-tional Migration. Departmentfor Economic and Social Infor-mation and Policy Analysis, Sta-tistics Division. New York, NY.

United States. Congress. House.1978. Legal and Illegal Immigra-tion to the United States. Reportprepared by the U.S. House ofRepresentatives Select Commit-tee on Population, Ninety-fifthCongress, second session. U.S.Government Printing Office.Washington DC.

Warren, Robert J. and Ellen PercyKraly. 1985. The Elusive Exodus:Emigration from the UnitedStates. Population Trends andPublic Policy Occasional PaperNo. 8, Population ReferenceBureau. Washington, DC.


Appendix A.

Foreign Born and Other Terms:Definitions and Concepts

The term foreign born andother related terms are discussedbelow. For additional information,see the References preceding Sec-tion A.1

Foreign Born

U.S. Census Bureau publica-tions, including P23-206 (this re-port) define the term foreignborn as people residing in theUnited States on census day or ona survey date who were not U.S.citizens at birth.2 The term nativerefers to people residing in theUnited States who were U.S. citi-zens in one of three categories:

(1) People born in one of the fiftystates and the District of Co-lumbia;

(2) People born in U.S. Island Areassuch as Puerto Rico or Guam;

(3) People who were born abroadto at least one parent who wasa U.S. citizen.

The classification of the resi-dent population of the UnitedStates by native and foreign born(based on citizenship status) isshown in Figure A-1 and reflectsthe definitions presented above.

Born in the United Statesand Born Abroad

Generally, census publicationsuse the terms born in the UnitedStates and born abroad when re-ferring to place of birth or the na-tivity of the U.S. resident popula-tion. These terms are not used in-terchangeably with the terms na-tive and foreign born in censusreports including this report, Pro-file of the Foreign-Born Populationin the United States, 2000 (P23-206). Whereas the foreign-bornand native populations are deter-mined by citizenship status at

birth, the population born in theUnited States and the populationborn abroad are determined byplace of birth, regardless of citi-zenship status. The populationborn abroad consists of the nativepopulation in categories (2) and (3)above, plus the foreign-born popu-lation. The Census Bureau doesnot use the term “native born” incensus publications.

Immigration andRelated Terms

The terms immigration andimmigrant, or international mi-gration and international mi-grant have many and variedmeanings.3 In P23-206, the termsimmigration and immigrant usuallyrefer to administrative and statisti-cal data from reports issued by theImmigration and NaturalizationService (INS). The terms interna-tional migrant and internationalmigration refer to the movementof all persons to and from the

United States including that of theU.S. Armed Forces.4 The CensusBureau uses the terms immigrantand immigration as well as interna-tional migrant and internationalmigration in reference to the popu-lation components of change inpopulation estimates methodol-ogy.5

Some foreign-born individualsare known to reside in the UnitedStates illegally.6 Statistics shownin P23-206 for the foreign-bornpopulation undoubtedly includesome information about these indi-viduals. The Census Bureau doesnot ask questions in decennial cen-suses or the Current PopulationSurvey about the immigration sta-tus of respondents with the excep-tion of a question about citizen-ship status.

After migration to the UnitedStates, some foreign-born resi-dents become naturalized citizens.This process usually requires aminimum of 5 years of residence

Figure A-1.

Classification of the Population of the United States by Nativity and Place of Birth: 2000

Born in the United States (50 states and DC)88.4%

Born in Island Areas of the United States (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), or born abroad with at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen1.2%

Foreign born10.4%

Native population (residents with U.S. citizenship at birth)Foreign-born population (residents without U.S. citizenship at birth)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1-1.

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)


in the United States but there aresome exceptions, particularly forunderage children. The Census Bu-reau asks questions about citizen-ship status in censuses and theCurrent Population Survey, but in-formation provided by respon-dents is self reported and may notreflect the formal acquisition ofcitizenship. Citizenship statusdata used in P23-206 is self-reported.

1For a comprehensive discussion of demo-graphic concepts and definitions, see U.S. CensusBureau, 1980. For a complete listing of U.S. CensusBureau decennial census reports, see U.S. Census Bu-reau, 1999a. For more information about terminol-ogy used by the Immigration and Naturalization Ser-vice, see Immigration and Naturalization Service,2000, pp. 239-243, and A.3-2 to A.3-14 as well asearlier volumes listed in the References section ofP23-206 (this report).

2The basic rule for where to enumerate a personin U.S. censuses is his or her usual place of resi-dence. This is the place where the person lives orsleeps most of the time or the place the person con-siders to be his or her usual home. This includes citi-zens of foreign countries who have established regu-lar living arrangements (such as living in a house,apartment, or dormitory) while working or studyingin the United States. P23-206 uses information from

the Current Population Survey conducted March 2000and the 1990 and earlier censuses. P23-206 doesnot contain data collected in the 2000 decennial cen-sus.

3Generally, immigrant and immigration are legalterms and international migration and internationalmigrants are demographic terms, but this is not al-ways the case. See U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and1993b. For a discussion of the history of theseterms through the end of the 1970s, see UnitedStates, Congress, 1978.

4Since definitions may differ across time, thereader is advised to refer directly to the Immigrationand Naturalization Service publications cited in P23-206, Section 1. “Foreign-Born Population Trends,”footnotes 2-6.

5See U.S. Census Bureau, 1993b, page xvi.6See Section 1. “Foreign-Born Population

Trends,” footnote 2.


Appendix B.

Source and Accuracy of Estimates

Source of Data

Estimates in this report comefrom data obtained from the Cur-rent Population Survey (CPS) con-ducted in March of 2000. The U.S.Census Bureau conducts the sur-vey every month, although this re-port uses only March data for itsestimates. Also, some estimatescome from decennial census datafor years 1850 through 1990 andfrom the administrative records ofthe Immigration and NaturalizationService. These estimates are notderived from Census 2000 data.The March survey uses two sets ofquestions, the basic CPS and thesupplements.

Basic CPS. The basic CPS col-lects primarily labor force dataabout the civilian noninstitutionalpopulation. Interviewers ask ques-tions concerning labor force par-ticipation about each member 15years old and over in every samplehousehold. The basic CPS also in-cludes questions on country ofbirth, citizenship, and year of entryinto the United States.

The CPS sample used in this re-port was selected from the 1990decennial census files with cover-age in all 50 states and the Districtof Columbia. The sample is con-tinually updated to account fornew residential construction. TheUnited States was divided into2,007 geographic areas. In moststates, a geographic area consistedof a county or several contiguouscounties. In some areas of New En-gland and Hawaii, minor civil divi-sions are used instead of counties.A total of 754 geographic areaswere selected for sample. About50,000 occupied households areeligible for interview every month.Field representatives are unable to

obtain interviews at about 3,200of these units. This occurs whenthe occupants are not found athome after repeated calls or areunavailable for some other reason.

Since the introduction of theCPS, the Census Bureau has rede-signed the CPS sample severaltimes. These redesigns have im-proved the quality and accuracy ofthe data and have satisfied chang-ing data needs. The most recentchanges were completely imple-mented in July 1995.

March 2000 supplement. Inaddition to the basic CPS ques-tions, field representatives askedsupplementary questions in Marchabout poverty status, money in-come received in the previous cal-ender year, educational attainment,household and family characteris-tics, marital status, geographicmobility, the foreign-born popula-tion, health insurance, and non-cash benefits.

To obtain more reliable data forthe Hispanic population, the MarchCPS sample was increased byabout 2,500 eligible housing units.These housing units were inter-viewed the previous Novemberand contained at least one sampleperson of Hispanic origin. In addi-tion, the sample included personsin the Armed Forces living off postor with their families on post.

Estimation procedure. Thesurvey’s estimation procedure ad-justs weighted sample results toagree with independent estimatesof the civilian noninstitutionalpopulation of the United Statesby age, sex, race, and Hispanic/non-Hispanic origin, and state ofresidence. The adjusted estimate iscalled the post-stratification ratioestimate. The independent esti-mates were calculated based on

information from four primarysources:• The 1990 Decennial Census of

Population and Housing.

• An adjustment for undercover-age in the 1990 census.

• Statistics on births, deaths, im-migration, and emigration.

• Statistics on the size of theArmed Forces.

The independent population es-timates used for 1994 to presentwere based on updates to controlsestablished by the 1990 decennialcensus. Before 1994, independentpopulation estimates from the lat-est available decennial census datawere used. For more details on thechange in independent estimates,see the section entitled “Introduc-tion of 1990 Census PopulationControls” in an earlier report(Series P60, No. 188).

The estimation procedure forthe March supplement included afurther adjustment so husbandand wife of a household receivedthe same weight. The independentpopulation estimates includesome, but not all, undocumentedimmigrants.

Accuracy of the Estimates

Since the CPS estimates comefrom a sample, they may differfrom figures from a complete cen-sus using the same questionnaires,instructions, and enumerators. Asample survey estimate has twopossible types of error: samplingand nonsampling. The accuracy ofan estimate depends on bothtypes of error, but the full extentof the nonsampling error is un-known.

Consequently, one should beparticularly careful when interpret-ing results based on a relatively


small number of cases or on smalldifferences between estimates.The standard errors for CPS esti-mates primarily indicate the mag-nitude of sampling error. They alsopartially measure the effect ofsome nonsampling errors in re-sponses and enumeration but donot measure systematic biases inthe data. (Bias is the average overall possible samples of the differ-ences between the sample esti-mates and the true value.)

Nonsampling variability.Several sources of nonsamplingerrors include the following:

• Inability to get informationabout all sample cases.

• Definitional difficulties.

• Differences in the interpretationof questions.

• Respondents’ inability or un-willingness to provide correctinformation.

• Respondents’ inability to recallinformation.

• Errors made in data collectionsuch as recording and codingdata.

• Errors made in processing thedata.

• Errors made in estimatingvalues for missing data.

• Failure to represent all unitswith the sample (undercover-age).

CPS undercoverage results frommissed housing units and missedpersons within sample house-holds. Overall CPS undercoverageis estimated at 8 percent. CPS un-dercoverage varies with age, sex,and race. Generally, undercoverageis larger for males than for femalesand larger for Blacks and otherraces combined than for Whites.As described previously, ratio esti-mation to independent age-sex-race-Hispanic population controlspartially corrects for bias due toundercoverage. However, biasesexist in the estimates to the extent

that missed persons in missedhouseholds or missed persons ininterviewed households have dif-ferent characteristics from those ofinterviewed persons in the sameage-sex-race-Hispanic origingroup.

A common measure of surveycoverage is the coverage ratio, theestimated population before post-stratification divided by the inde-pendent population control. TableA shows CPS coverage ratios forage-sex-race groups for a typicalmonth. The CPS coverage ratioscan exhibit some variability frommonth to month. Other Census Bu-reau household surveys experiencesimilar coverage.

For additional information onnonsampling error including thepossible impact on CPS nativitydata when known, refer to Statisti-cal Policy Working Paper 3, AnError Profile: Employment as Mea-sured by the Current PopulationSurvey, Office of Federal StatisticalPolicy and Standards, U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, 1978, Techni-cal Paper 63, The Current Popula-tion Survey: Design andMethodology, U.S. Census Bureau,U.S. Department of Commerce, andPopulation Division Working PaperNo. 22, “How Well Does the Cur-rent Population Survey Measurethe Foreign-Born Population in theUnited States?” by DianneSchmidley and J. GregoryRobinson.

Comparability of data. Dataobtained from the CPS and othersources are not entirely compa-rable. This results from differencesin interviewer training and experi-ence and in differing survey pro-cesses. This is an example of non-sampling variability not reflectedin the standard errors. Use caution

Table A.

CPS Coverage Ratios

Non-Black Black All persons

Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total

0-14 0.929 0.964 0.850 0.838 0.916 0.943 0.929

15 0.933 0.895 0.763 0.824 0.905 0.883 0.895

16-19 0.881 0.891 0.711 0.802 0.855 0.877 0.866

20-29 0.847 0.897 0.660 0.811 0.823 0.884 0.854

30-39 0.904 0.931 0.680 0.845 0.877 0.920 0.899

40-49 0.928 0.966 0.816 0.911 0.917 0.959 0.938

50-59 0.953 0.974 0.896 0.927 0.948 0.969 0.959

60-64 0.961 0.941 0.954 0.953 0.960 0.942 0.950

65-69 0.919 0.972 0.982 0.984 0.924 0.973 0.951

70+ 0.993 1.004 0.996 0.979 0.993 1.002 0.998

15+ 0.914 0.945 0.767 0.874 0.898 0.927 0.918

0+ 0.918 0.949 0.793 0.864 0.902 0.931 0.921


when comparing results from dif-ferent sources.

A number of changes weremade in data collection and esti-mation procedures beginning withthe January 1994 CPS. The majorchange was the use of a new ques-tionnaire. The questionnaire wasredesigned to:• Measure the official labor force

concepts more precisely.

• Expand the amount of dataavailable.

• Implement several definitionalchanges.

• Adapt to a computer-assistedinterviewing environment.

The March supplemental in-come questions were also modi-fied for adaptation to computer-as-sisted interviewing, although therewere no changes in definition andconcepts. Due to these and otherchanges, one should use cautionwhen comparing estimates fromdata collected in 1994 and lateryears with estimates from earlieryears. See Appendix C, P60-188on “Conversion to a ComputerAssisted Questionnaire” for a de-scription of these changes and theeffect they had on the data.

Caution should also be usedwhen comparing estimates in thisreport (which reflects 1990 census-based population controls) withestimates from the March 1993CPS and earlier years (which reflect1980 census-based populationcontrols).1 This change in popula-tion controls had relatively littleimpact on summary measuressuch as means, medians, and per-cent distributions. It did have asignificant impact on levels. For

example, use of 1990-based popu-lation controls results in about a1-percent increase in the civiliannoninstitutional population and inthe number of families and house-holds. Thus, estimates of levels fordata collected in 1994 and lateryears will differ from those for ear-lier years by more than what couldbe attributed to actual changes inthe population. These differencescould be disproportionatelygreater for certain subpopulationgroups than for the total popula-tion.

During the period April 1994through June 1995, the U.S. Cen-sus Bureau systematically intro-duced a new sample design for theCPS based on the results of the1990 decennial census. During thisphase-in period, CPS estimateswere being made from two distinctsample designs: the old 1980sample design and the new 1990sample design. The March 1995CPS consisted of 55 percent new(1990) sample and 45 percent old(1980) sample. The data based onthe March 1996 CPS were the firstestimates based entirely on house-holds selected from the 1990 cen-sus-based sample design.

One of the effects of the intro-duction of the 1990 census sampledesign is the change in the defini-tion of metropolitan and nonmet-ropolitan areas. The 1990 censussample design incorporates thegeographic definitions officially re-leased in 19932; the 1980 censussample design incorporates thegeographic definitions released in1983. While most CPS estimateshave been unaffected by this

mixed sample, geographicestimates are subject to greater er-ror and variability. Users shouldexercise caution when comparingestimates across years for metro-politan and nonmetropolitan cat-egories.

Note when using small esti-mates. Summary measures (such asmedians and percent distributions)are shown only when the base is100,000 or greater. Because of thelarge standard errors involved, sum-mary measures would probably notreveal useful information when com-puted on a smaller base. However,estimated numbers are shown eventhough the relative standard errorsof these numbers are larger thanthose for corresponding percent-ages. These smaller estimates per-mit combinations of the categoriesto suit data users’ needs.

Take care in the interpretation ofsmall differences. For instance, evena small amount of nonsampling er-ror can cause a borderline differenceto appear significant or not, thusdistorting a seemingly valid hypoth-esis test.

Sampling variability. Samplingvariability is variation that occurredby chance because a sample wassurveyed rather than the entirepopulation. Standard errors, as cal-culated by methods described in thesection titled “standard errors andtheir use,” are primarily measures ofsampling variability, but they mayinclude some nonsampling error.

Standard errors and theiruse. A number of approximationsare required to derive, at a moderatecost, standard errors applicable tothe estimates in this report. Insteadof providing an individual standarderror for each estimate, two param-eters, “a” and “b,” are provided tocalculate standard errors for eachestimate.

1For detailed information on the 1990 sampleredesign, see the Department of Labor, Bureau ofLabor Statistics report, Employment and Earnings,Volume 41, Number 5, May 1994.

2For additional information on the new metro-politan area definitions, see Revised Statistical Defi-nitions for Metropolitan Areas (MAs), Office of Man-agement and Budget, Bulletin No. 93-17, June 30,1993.


Table B provides standard errorparameters for native and foreign-born persons. Multiply the param-eters in Table B by the factors inTables C and D to get region,state, and nonmetropolitan param-eters. The sample estimate and itsstandard error enable one to con-struct a confidence interval. Aconfidence interval is a range thatwould include the average result ofall possible samples with a knownprobability. For example, supposeall possible samples were surveyedunder essentially the same generalconditions and using the samesample design. If an estimate andits standard error were calculatedfrom each sample, then approxi-mately 90 percent of the intervalsfrom 1.645 standard errors belowthe estimate to 1.645 standard er-rors above the estimate would in-clude the average result of all pos-sible samples.

A particular confidence intervalmay or may not contain the aver-age estimate derived from allpossible samples. However, onecan say with specified confidencethat the interval includes the aver-age estimate calculated from allpossible samples. Standard errorsmay also be used to perform hy-pothesis testing. This is a proce-dure for distinguishing betweenpopulation parameters usingsample estimates. One commontype of hypothesis appearing inthis report is that two populationparameters are different. An ex-ample of this would be comparingthe median age of natives to themedian age of foreign-born per-sons.

Tests may be performed at vari-ous levels of significance. The sig-nificance level of a test is the prob-ability of concluding that the

characteristics are different when,in fact, they are the same. Allstatements of comparison in thetext were tested at the 0.10 levelof significance. Thus, if the abso-lute value of the estimated differ-ence between characteristics wasgreater than or equal to 1.645times the standard error of thedifference, then the conclusionwas that the characteristics weredifferent.

The Census Bureau uses 90-percent confidence intervals and0.10 levels of significance to deter-mine statistical validity. Consultstandard statistical textbooks foralternative criteria.

Standard errors of esti-mated numbers. The approxi-mate standard error, sx, of an esti-mated number shown in this re-port can be obtained using the for-mula:

Here x is the size of the esti-mate, and a and b are the param-eters in Table B associated with theparticular type of characteristic.When calculating standard errorsfrom cross-tabulations involvingdifferent characteristics, use theset of parameters for the charac-teristic which will give the largeststandard error.

IllustrationSuppose the March 2000 CPS

estimates the number of peopleliving in the United States whowere born in Central America to be9,789,000, and a calculation of thestandard error and a 90 percentconfidence interval for that esti-mate are desired. Using Formula(1) and the appropriate parametersfrom Table B gives

Number, x 9,789,000a parameter -0.000041b parameter 11,054Standard error 322,92290% conf. int. 9,258,000 to

10,320,000

The standard error is calculatedas

The 90-percent confidence in-terval is calculated as 9,789,000 ±1.645×322,922.

A conclusion that the averageestimate derived from all possiblesamples lies within a range com-puted in this way would be correctfor roughly 90 percent of all pos-sible samples.

Standard errors of esti-mated percentages. The reliabil-ity of an estimated percentage,computed using sample data fromboth numerator and denominator,depends on both the size of thepercentage and its base. Estimatedpercentages are relatively more re-liable than the corresponding esti-mates of the numerators of thepercentages, particularly if thepercentages are 50 percent ormore. When the numerator and de-nominator of the percentage are indifferent categories, use the pa-rameter from Table B indicated bythe numerator. The approximatestandard error, sx,p, of an estimatedpercentage can be obtained by us-ing the formula

Here x is the total number ofpersons, families, households, orunrelated individuals in the base ofthe percentage, p is the percent-age (0 < p < 100), and b is the pa-rameter in Table B associated with


the characteristic in the numeratorof the percentage.

IllustrationSuppose we estimate the per-

centage of naturalized citizens age15+ to be 97.6 percent, and thestandard error and confidence in-terval for this percentage are de-sired. The total number of natural-ized citizens is 10,622,000. UsingFormula (2) and the appropriateparameter from Table B gives

Percentage, p 97.6Base, x 10,622,000b parameter 6,774Standard error 0.490% conf. int. 96.9 to 98.3


The 90-percent confidence in-terval is calculated as 97.6 ±1.645×0.4.

Standard error of a differ-ence. The standard error of thedifference between two sample es-timates is approximately equal to

where sx and sy are the stan-dard errors of the estimates, x andy. The estimates can be numbers,proportions, ratios, etc. This willrepresent the actual standard errorquite accurately for the differencebetween estimates of the samecharacteristic for two differentgroups or for the difference be-tween separate and uncorrelatedcharacteristics in the same group.

However, if there is a high positive(negative) correlation between thetwo characteristics, the formulawill overestimate (underestimate)the true standard error.

IllustrationSuppose from the March 2000

CPS, 34.3 percent of the152,836,000 natives in the UnitedStates ages 25 and older are highschool graduates. Also, supposethat 23.9 percent of the12,606,000 noncitizens in theUnited States ages 25 and olderare high school graduates, and thestandard error and a 90 percentconfidence interval for the differ-ence between the percentages ofnatives and noncitizens who arehigh school graduates are desired.Use Formulas (2) and (3) and theappropriate parameters from TableB to get

The standard error of the differ-ence is calculated as

The 90-percent confidence in-terval around the difference iscalculated as 10.4 ± 1.645×0.7.Since this interval does not includezero, we can conclude with 90-per-cent confidence that the percent-age of natives in the United Stateswho are high school graduates ishigher than the percentage of non-citizens who are high schoolgraduates.

Standard Error of a Median.The sampling variability of an

estimated median depends on theform of the distribution and thesize of the base. One can approxi-mate the reliability of an estimatedmedian by determining a confi-dence interval about it. (See thesection titled “standard errors andtheir use” for a general discussionof confidence intervals.)

Estimate the 68-percent confi-dence limits of a median based onsample data using the followingprocedure.

1. Determine, using formula (2),the standard error of the esti-mate of 50 percent from thedistribution.

2. Add to and subtract from 50percent the standard error de-termined in step 1.

3. Using the distribution of thecharacteristic, determine upperand lower limits of the 68-per-cent confidence interval by cal-culating values correspondingto the two points established instep 2.

Use the following formula to cal-culate the upper and lower limits.

whereXpN = estimated upper and lower

bounds for the confidenceinterval (0 < p < 1). Forpurposes of calculating theconfidence interval, ptakes on the values deter-mined in step 2. Note thatXpN estimates the medianwhen p = 0.50.

N = for distribution of num-bers: the total number ofunits (persons, house-holds, etc.) for the charac-teristic in the distribution.

Description x y difference

Percentage, p 34.3 23.9 10.4

Base, x 152,836,000 12,606,000 -

b parameter 2,369 3,080 -

Standard error 0.2 0.7 0.7

90% conf. int. 34.0 to 34.6 22.7 to 25.1 9.2 to 11.6


Thus, a 68-percent confidenceinterval for the median income isfrom $32,300 to $33,500.

(4) The standard error of the me-dian is, therefore

Standard Error of a Ratio.Certain estimates may be calcu-lated as the ratio of two numbers.The standard error of a ratio, x/y,may be computed using

The standard error of the nu-merator, sx, and that of the denomi-nator, sy, may be calculated usingformulas described earlier. In for-mula (5), r represents the correlationbetween the numerator and the de-nominator of the estimate.

For one type of ratio, the de-nominator is a count of families orhouseholds and the numerator is acount of persons in those families orhouseholds with a certain character-istic. If there is at least one personwith the characteristic in every fam-ily or household, use 0.7 as anestimate of r. An example of thistype is the mean number of childrenper family with children.

For all other types of ratios, r isassumed to be zero. If r is actuallypositive (negative), then this proce-dure will provide an overestimate(underestimate) of the standard er-ror of the ratio. Examples of thistype are the mean number of chil-dren per family and the povertyrate.

Note: For estimates expressed asthe ratio of x per 100 y or x per1,000 y, multiply formula (5) by 100

Naturalized citizens 15+Earnings levels (working full-time and year-round) Cumulative total

Under $10,000 or loss 181,000 181,000$10,000 to $19,999 1,007,000 1,188,000$20,000 to $34,999 1,588,000 2,776,000$35,000 to $49,999 997,000 3,773,000$50,000 or more 1,336,000 5,109,000

Total 5,109,000Median income $32,917

= for distribution of percent-ages: the value 1.0.

p = the values obtained in step2.

A1, A2 = the lower and upperbounds, respectively, ofthe interval containing XpN.

N1, N2 = for distribution of num-bers: the estimated num-ber of units (persons,households, etc.) with val-ues of the characteristicgreater than or equal to A1

and A2, respectively.

= for distribution of percent-ages: the estimated per-centage of units (persons,households, etc.) havingvalues of the characteristicgreater than or equal to A1

and A2, respectively.

4. Divide the difference betweenthe two points determined instep 3 by two to obtain thestandard error of the median.

IllustrationSuppose we wish to use the fol-

lowing distribution to calculate thestandard error of the median earn-ings of naturalized citizens 15+years old who work full-time andyear-round.(1) Using b = 3,190 from Table B

and formula (2), the standard

error of 50 percent on a base of5,109,000 is about 1.2 percent.

(2) To obtain a 68 percent confi-dence interval for an estimatedmedian, add to and subtractfrom 50 percent, the standarderror found in step 1. Thisyields limits of 48.8 and51.2 percent.

(3) The lower and upper limits forthe interval in which the me-dian falls are $20,000 and$35,000, respectively.

Then, by adding the totals inthe different income ranges, theestimated number of naturalizedcitizens 15+ working year-roundand full-time and with earningsgreater than or equal to $20,000and $35,000 are 3,921,000 and2,333,000, respectively.

Using formula (4), the upperlimit for the confidence interval ofthe median is about

Similarly, the lower limit is about


or 1,000, respectively, to obtain thestandard error.

IllustrationSuppose the standard error and

90-percent confidence interval forthe ratio of native males residing inthe United States to foreign-bornmales residing in the United Statesare desired, when the estimatednumbers of foreign born and nativemales are 14,200,000 and119,733,000, respectively. UsingFormulas (1) and (5) and the param-eters in Table 2, the standard errorof this ratio is as follows

Using formula (5) with r = 0, theestimate of the standard error is

The 90-percent confidence in-terval is calculated as 8.43 ±1.645×0.17.

Computation of Standard Er-rors for State Estimates. Table Bgives standard error parametersfor characteristics at the nationallevel. To calculate standard errorsat the state level, regional level(Northeast, Midwest, South, andWest), and the nonmetropolitanlevel, the parameters in Table Bmust first be multiplied by theappropriate factor from Table Cand Table D.

IllustrationSuppose the standard error and

90-percent confidence interval for

Description x y ratio

Estimate 119,733,000 14,200,000 8.43a parameter -0.000039 -0.000051 -b parameter 5,211 6,774 -Standard error 254,608 293,099 0.1790% conf. int. - - 8.15 to 8.71

the total foreign born in Florida arecalculated, when the estimatednumber is 2,351,000 people.3

Use Formula (1) and the appro-priate parameters from Table B andTable C to get

Number, x 2,351,000

a parameter -0.000025b parameter 6,774State factor (Florida) 0.97a parameter (-0.000025 x 0.97) -0.000024b parameter (6,774 x 0.97) 6,571Standard error 123,75790% conf. int. 2,147,000 to

2,555,000


The 90-percent confidence in-terval is calculated as 2,351,000 ±1.645×123,757.

Technical Assistance

If you require assistance oradditional information, pleasecontact Jeffrey Stratton of theDemographic Statistical MethodsDivision via e-mail atDSMD_S&[email protected].

3This estimate of 2,351,000 for the foreign-bornpopulation of Florida comes from the 1997 MarchCPS.


Table B.Standard Error Parameters for Native and Foreign-Born Characteristics: March 2000

Natives Foreign born

Characteristic a b a b

Age

Total .................................................... -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774Under 15 years .................................... -0.000086 5,211 -0.000112 6,77415 years and over ................................ -0.000024 5,211 -0.000032 6,774

15 to 24 years ................................. -0.000136 5,211 -0.000177 6,77425 to 34 years ................................. -0.000139 5,211 -0.000181 6,77435 to 44 years ................................. -0.000117 5,211 -0.000152 6,77445 to 64 years ................................. -0.000087 5,211 -0.000113 6,77465 years and over ........................... -0.000160 5,211 -0.000208 6,774

Median age (years) ............................... (NA) 5,211 (NA) 6,774

Sex

Male .................................................... -0.000039 5,211 -0.000051 6,774Female ................................................. -0.000037 5,211 -0.000048 6,774

Race and Hispanic Origin

Some Household MembersTotal/White ...................................... -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774Black ............................................... -0.000212 7,486 -0.000212 7,486Asian or Pacific Islander .................. -0.000550 7,486 -0.000550 7,486Hispanic origin ................................ -0.000229 7,486 -0.000229 7,486

All Household MembersTotal/White ...................................... -0.000023 6,332 -0.000030 8,232

Black ................................................... -0.000312 11,039 -0.000312 11,039Asian or Pacific Islander ....................... -0.000811 11,039 -0.000811 11,039Hispanic origin .................................... -0.000337 11,039 -0.000337 11,039

Educational Attainment ............................ -0.000011 2,369 -0.000015 3,080

Labor Force Status

In the civilian labor force ..................... -0.000018 2,985 -0.000023 3,881Employed ............................................ -0.000018 2,985 -0.000023 3,881Unemployment .................................... -0.000018 2,957 -0.000023 3,844Not in the labor force .......................... 0.000006 829 0.000008 1,078

Income in 1999

Individual ............................................ -0.000012 2,454 -0.000016 3,190Household ........................................... -0.000011 2,241 -0.000014 2,913

Received Public Assistance ....................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494Received AFDC .................................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494

Poverty Status .......................................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494

Tenure ...................................................... -0.000029 7,791 -0.000037 10,128

Country of Birth

Mexico, North/Central America ............ (NA) (NA) -0.000041 11,054Europe ................................................. (NA) (NA) -0.000024 6,351Asia, Africa, Oceania ............................ (NA) (NA) -0.000038 10,351United States ....................................... -0.000021 5,556 (NA) (NA)

NA Not applicable.


Table C.State Factors

State Factor

Alabama ........................... 1.01Alaska .............................. 0.15Arizona ............................ 0.97Arkansas .......................... 0.59California ......................... 1.29

Colorado .......................... 0.93Connecticut ...................... 1.00Delaware .......................... 0.22Dist. of Col. ...................... 0.16Florida .............................. 0.97

Georgia ............................ 1.40Hawaii .............................. 0.35Idaho ................................ 0.27Illinois .............................. 1.00Indiana ............................. 1.38

Iowa ................................. 0.71Kansas .............................. 0.65Kentucky .......................... 0.92Louisiana .......................... 0.95Maine ............................... 0.37

Maryland .......................... 1.38Massachusetts .................. 0.81Michigan .......................... 0.93Minnesota ........................ 1.11Mississippi ....................... 0.64Missouri ........................... 1.37

State Factor

Montana ........................... 0.20Nebraska .......................... 0.42Nevada ............................. 0.44New Hampshire ................ 0.38New Jersey ....................... 0.82

New Mexico ..................... 0.40New York .......................... 0.89North Carolina .................. 0.94North Dakota .................... 0.16Ohio ................................. 1.02

Oklahoma ......................... 0.73Oregon ............................. 0.86Pennsylvania .................... 0.96Rhode Island .................... 0.30South Carolina .................. 1.01

South Dakota .................... 0.17Tennessee ........................ 1.34Texas ............................... 1.21Utah ................................. 0.43Vermont ........................... 0.18

Virginia ............................ 1.48Washington ...................... 1.47West Virginia .................... 0.39Wisconsin ......................... 1.23Wyoming .......................... 0.12

Table D.Region andNonmetropolitan Factors

Characteristic Factor

Region .............................Northeast ................. 0.85Midwest ................... 1.03South ....................... 1.08West ......................... 1.09

Nonmetropolitan characteristics ............... 1.50


Appendix C.

Comparison of Population Universes

The population universes in theMarch Current Population Survey(CPS) and in the decennial censusof population are not totally com-parable. While the universe for thecensus of population is the entireresident population of the UnitedStates, the universe for the MarchCPS is the civilian noninstitutionalpopulation plus Armed Forces liv-ing off post or with their familieson post.1 The coverage of the non-institutional group quarters popu-lation in the CPS is limited primar-ily to individuals living in collegedormitories who generally are re-ported with their parental house-holds and not in group quarters;however, relatively few foreign-born students would be reportedin this way. As a result, theforeign-born population in the1990 census corresponding to theCPS universe is essentially theforeign-born population of19.3 million living in households,which is about 0.5 million lessthan the total foreign-born popula-tion of 19.8 million in the 1990census.

Foreign-Born Population in the CPS and in theCensus of Population

(Numbers in thousands)

Foreign-born population

Totalpopulation Number Percent of total

March 2000 CPS

Civilian noninstitutional populationplus Armed Forces living off postor with their families on post ................... 274,087 28,379 10.4

1990 Census of Population

Total population .................................... 248,710 19,767 7.9In households .............................................. 242,050 19,279 8.0In group quarters ........................................ 6,660 489 7.3

In institutions .......................................... 3,312 242 7.3In other group quarters ........................... 3,348 247 7.4

College dormitories ............................... 1,971 123 6.2Military quarters .................................... 595 24 4.1Other .................................................... 783 100 12.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, special tabulations from the 1990 census and the March 2000 Current Popu-lation Survey.

1In addition, data from the 1990 census and theMarch 2000 CPS are not totally comparable becausethe CPS data are inflated to independent populationcontrols reflecting an adjustment for undercoveragein the 1990 census. See Appendix B, Source and Ac-curacy of the Estimates, and U.S. Census Bureau,2001.


Appendix D.

Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey

(The following questions are asked about every member of every household in the CPS sample.Information is also collected for persons joining the household at a later date.)

The next few questions ask about each household member’s country of birth.

NATVTY In what country (were/was) ................. born? (Enter Code) ________

MNTVTY In what country was .................’s mother born? __________

FNTVTY In what country was .................’s father born? __________

(screens with country codes not shown)______________________________________________________________________________

AUTOMATED SKIP PATTERN:

If NATVTY = US (1) --> END sequence for this personIf NATVTY = PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYRIf MNTVTY and FNTVTY = US (1), PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYRALL OTHERS --> go to CITIZN

______________________________________________________________________________CITIZN (Are/Is) . . . a CITIZEN of the United States?

(1) YES --> go to CITTYPA(2) NO --> go to INUSYR(3) DK* --> go to INUSYR(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

______________________________________________________________________________CITTYPA (Were/Was) . . . born a citizen of the United States?

(1) Yes --> go to INUSYR(2) No --> go to CITTYPB(3) DK* --> go to CITTYPB(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

CITTYPB Did . . . become a citizen of the United States through naturalization?

(1) Yes --> go to INUSYR(2) No --> go to INUSYR(3) DK* --> go to INUSYR(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

_____________________________________________________________________________ INUSYR When did . . . come to live in the United States?

(1) YEAR 19_____(2) DK*(3) R*

______________________________________________________________________________

* PR= Puerto Rico; OA= Outlying Area; DK= Don’t Know; R= Refused.


From the U.S.Immigration andNaturalization Service(INS)

1998 Statistical Yearbook of theImmigration and NaturalizationService (2000) is the most recentannual yearbook providing com-prehensive data on immigration,naturalization, and other topics forfiscal year 1998. The publicationincludes historical data on interna-tional migration. For additionalinformation, including data fromthe report cited above, see the INSInternet site:http://www.ins.usdoj.gov.

From the U.S. CensusBureau


Profile of the Foreign-BornPopulation in the United States:2000, PPL-145 (2001) is a compre-hensive set of detailed statisticaltables and is the source of all thedata from the March 2000 CurrentPopulation Survey (CPS) included inProfile of the Foreign-Born Popula-tion in the United States: 2000,P23-206 (this report).

In 1999, the U.S. Census Bu-reau released a comprehensive re-port Profile of the Foreign-BornPopulation in the United States:1997, P23-195. This earlier reportused data from the March 1997CPS and included a set of detailedstatistical tables, PPL-115.

Previous sets of CPS detailedtables on the foreign-born popula-tion, which are less comprehensivethan either PPL-145 or PPL-115, in-clude: The Foreign-Born Populationin the United States: March 2000,PPL-135 (2001), and The Foreign-Born Population in the UnitedStates: March 1999, PPL-123

(2000). Similar detailed tables arealso available for March 1995,1996, 1997, and 1998.

The data on the foreign-bornpopulation in these reports notedabove are based on national sur-vey data for the 1995 to 2000 pe-riod. For a detailed evaluation ofthese data, see How Well Does theCurrent Population Survey Measurethe Foreign-Born Population in theUnited States?, Population DivisionWorking Paper No. 22 (1998).

Recent population estimates

The Census Bureau producesannual estimates of populationchange and of the components ofpopulation change (births, deaths,net international migration, andnet domestic migration) since the1990 census for the United States,regions and divisions of the UnitedStates, states, and counties. Theseestimates are available only on theCensus Bureau’s Internet site:http://www.census.gov.

On this Internet site, go toPeople, select Estimates, andthen select State (which includesdata for the United States, regions,and divisions) or County. Esti-mates of the components of popu-lation change are currently avail-able for April 1, 1990, to July 1,1999, and for July 1, 1998, to July1, 1999. In 1999, the Census Bu-reau introduced annual populationestimates by nativity (native andforeign-born resident populations)at the national level. These esti-mates are currently available foryears 1990 to 1999.

Decennial census data

Historical Census Statistics onthe Foreign-Born Population ofthe United States: 1850 to 1990,Population Division Working Paper

No. 29 (1999), is the source of allthe decennial census data includedin Profile of the Foreign-Born Popu-lation in the United States: 2000,P23-206 (this report).

The Foreign-Born Population inthe United States, 1990 Census ofPopulation, 1990 CP-3-1 (1993)presents data on the demographic,social, economic, and housingcharacteristics of the foreign-bornpopulation of the United States asa whole by region and country ofbirth of the foreign-born popula-tion. These data are shown downto the state level in Subject Sum-mary Tape File (SSTF) 1, TheForeign-Born Population in theUnited States, which is availablealso on CD-ROM.

Social and Economic Character-istics, 1990 Census of Population,1990 CP-2 (1993) presents data onthe citizenship status, year of en-try, and region and country of birthof the foreign-born population.1990 CP-2-1 includes data for theUnited States, regions and divi-sions of the United States, andstates. 1990 CP-2-2 through 1990CP-2-52 (one report for each stateand for the District of Columbia)include data for states, counties,and places of 10,000 or morepopulation (with less detail forplaces of 2,500 to 9,999 popula-tion). 1990 CP-2-1B and CP-2-1Cinclude data for metropolitan areasand urbanized areas, respectively.

Census 2000 sample data (in-cluding statistics on the foreignborn) are scheduled to be releasedby the Census Bureau as early asMarch 2002. Data products in-clude: Demographic Profile (provid-ing demographic, social, eco-nomic, and housing characteristicspresented in three separatetables); Congressional DistrictDemographic Profile (providing

Appendix E.

Related Reports and Information


demographic, social, economic,and housing characteristics pre-sented in three separate tables forCongressional Districts only);Summary File 3 (SF3) (populationcounts for ancestry groups and se-lected population and housingcharacteristics) (planned releasedate: July-September 2002); otherforthcoming decennial products

scheduled for release in 2002 and2003 include: Summary File 4(SF4); Quick Tables; GeographicComparison Tables; Public UseMicrodata Sample (PUMS) Files; Ad-vanced Query Function; Census2000: Summary Social, Economic,and Housing Characteristics; Con-gressional District Data SummaryFile. The Census 2000 Web site:http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/

products.html highlights these andother Census 2000 data products.

On the Internet

A wide range of informationfrom the Census Bureau, includingdata on some of the topics in-cluded in this report, is availableon the Census Bureau’s Internetsite: http://www.census.gov.

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United ... · 2000 Profile of the Foreign-Born...

Documents

Transcript of Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United ... · 2000 Profile of the Foreign-Born...