The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways Audrey Singer
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways Audrey Singer Findings “Traditional An analysis of immigration to metropolitan areas during the 20th century using U.S. Census data reveals that: gateways have ■ The U.S. foreign-born population grew 57.4 percent in the 1990s; by 2000 nearly one- third of U.S. immigrants resided outside established settlement states. Thirteen states primarily in the West and Southeast—including many that had not previously been major become former destinations for immigrants—saw foreign-born growth rates more than double the national average. These states included, Colorado, Georgia, Nevada, and North Carolina. gateways; new ■ Historical settlement patterns along with recent influxes of immigrants have produced six major types of U.S. immigrant “gateways.” Former gateways, like Cleveland and Buf- falo, attracted immigrants in the early 1900s but no longer do. Continuous gateways such gateways have as New York and Chicago are long-established destinations for immigrants and continue to receive large numbers of the foreign-born. Post-World War II gateways like Los Angeles and Miami began attracting immigrants on a grand scale during the past 50 years. Atlanta, emerged; and Dallas, and Washington, D.C., meanwhile, stand out as emerging gateways with fast immi- grant growth during the past 20 years. Seattle and the Twin Cities—places that began the 20th century with strong immigrant pulls—waned as destinations during the middle of the even newer century, but are now re-emerging as important immigrant gateways. Finally, Salt Lake City and Raleigh-Durham are very recent immigrant destinations, having attracted significant numbers of immigrants in the 1990s alone. These are the pre-emerging gateways. ones may still ■ Newly emerging immigrant gateways experienced rapid growth of both the foreign- and native-born between 1980 and 2000, while the more established gateways expe- develop.” rienced slower percentage growth of both—albeit from a larger base population. The continuous gateways, for example, would have lost population or stagnated absent the arrival of the foreign-born. By contrast, emerging and pre-emerging gateways exhibited strong population growth while also watching their foreign-born populations surge by as much as 817 percent (Atlanta) and 709 percent (Raleigh-Durham) over the two decades. ■ By 2000 more immigrants in metropolitan areas lived in suburbs than cities, and their growth rates there exceeded those in the cities. Most notably, immigrants in emerging gateways are far more likely to live in the suburbs than in central cities. ■ Recent arrivals to the newest immigrant gateways tend to come from Asia or Mex- ico, are poorer than the native-born population, and have low English proficiency and lower rates of U.S. citizenship. By contrast, continuous and post-World War II gateways have longer-residing immigrant populations, immigrant poverty rates similar to those of the native population, and relatively higher rates of naturalization, although English proficiency remains low. February 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 1 Introduction handful of metropolitan areas. This Background explains why current research remains he United States is in the focused on the largest contemporary he U.S. has a long and varied midst of a wave of unprece- immigrant-receiving metropolitan history of immigration; its dented immigration. Immi- areas: New York, Los Angeles, 20th-century flows can be grants comprised 11.1 Chicago, Houston, and Miami.1 How- seen in Figure 1, which Tpercent of the U.S. population in ever, a new research agenda is sug- Tdepicts both the number of immi- 2000. During the 1990s alone, the for- gested by the fact that metropolitan grants and the share of the population eign-born population grew by 11.3 areas with few immigrants in 1980— that is foreign-born by decade. In million, or 57.4 percent, bringing the such as Atlanta, Dallas, Fort Worth, 2000, the number of immigrants in Census 2000 count of immigrants to and Las Vegas—are now seeing the U.S. reached 31.1 million—a pop- 31.1 million. The rapidity of this extraordinary growth in their immi- ulation three times larger than that in influx, coupled with its sheer size, grant populations. Among these four 1900. At the same time, the 11.1 per- means that American society will con- metropolitan areas, all saw their immi- cent portion of the population that is front momentous social, cultural, and grant populations more than quadru- currently foreign-born remains propor- political change during the coming ple during the past 20 years. tionally smaller than the 13.6-percent decades and generations. This paper analyzes the new geogra- 1900 figure. Perhaps most importantly, immi- phy of immigration during the 20th Across the last century immigration grants’ settlement patterns are shift- century and highlights how immigrant ebbed and flowed. The immigrant pop- ing. Specifically, significant flows of destinations in the 1980s and 1990s ulation steadily increased during the the foreign-born are shifting from differ from earlier settlement patterns. first three decades of the twentieth more traditional areas to places with The first part of the analysis uses his- century. Subsequently, immigration little history of immigration. More torical U.S. Census data to develop a stalled in the late 1930s during the than two-thirds of America’s immi- classification of urban immigrant worldwide depression. Through the grants lived in just six states in 2000— “gateways” that describes the ebb and next four decades restrictive immigra- California, New York, Texas, Florida, flow of past, present, and likely future tion policies instituted during World New Jersey or Illinois. However, the receiving areas. The remainder of the War II kept legal immigration levels share of the nation’s immigrant popu- analysis examines contemporary trends low. These lower levels of immigration lation living in those states declined to explore the recent and rapid settle- combined with elevated fertility rates significantly for the first time during ment of the immigrant population in and the resulting “baby boom” the course of the 1990s—from 72.9 America’s metropolitan gateways. Met- depressed the proportion of the percent of the total in 1990 to 68.5 ropolitan areas that have seen little nation’s population that was foreign- percent in 2000. Thanks to “hot” job immigration to date may represent a born during the 1950s and 1960s. But markets in their construction, services, new policy context for immigrant set- then the Immigration and Nationality manufacturing, and technology sec- tlement and incorporation. This paper Amendments of 1965 (which went tors, for example, states like North takes an important first step in under- into effect in 1968) repealed national Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada gained standing how these changes are alter- origin quotas, opening up immigration immigrants—who moved both from ing a range of receiving areas by from regions other than Europe. This within the U.S. and directly from examining the demographic, spatial, policy change, together with the abroad—at rates not previously wit- economic, and social characteristics of mobility fostered by economic growth nessed. Notably, many of the areas the immigrants that reside in them. in many developing nations, combined with the highest growth during the In sum, the findings that follow to produce an immigration boom dur- 1990s have little 20th-century history confirm that the U.S. experienced ing the 1980s and 1990s. The immi- of receiving immigrants. The impact unparalleled immigration in the 1990s grant population of the U.S. more particularly at the metropolitan level that transformed many new destina- than doubled during those twenty has been great, as many cities and tions into emerging gateways and years—growing from 14.1 million to suburbs have had to adjust to new changed the character of more estab- 31.1 million. populations that place immediate lished ones. Most large metropolitan Not only did the tempo of immigra- demands on schools and health care areas across the country now need to tion speed up, but the source coun- systems, particularly with regard to meet the challenges of incorporating tries also shifted from Europe in the language services. new immigrants with diverse back- first three-quarters of the century to In terms of absolute numbers, the grounds and needs. Latin America, the Caribbean, Asia, bulk of immigrants are still going to a and Africa in the last quarter. During 2 February 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series Methodology Figure 1. Total Foreign-Born and Percent Foreign-Born in the United States, 1900–2000 his study uses decennial cen- sus data for the years 1900 to 2000 to describe the changing 35 16% geography of immigration to 14.7% Foreign-Born Population (Millions) TAmerica over the entire 20th century. 13.6% 13.2% 30 Percent of Total Population 14% First, a typology of immigrant “gate- tion a 11.6% 11.1% l way” types is determined by examining 12% u illions 25 historical immigration flows over the M 8.8% 10% l Pop a decades to the nation’s largest central 20 7.9% 6.9% 8% cities, because cities dominated urban tion in a 6.2% l 15 areas in the earlier part of the century. u 5.4% 4.7% 6% cent of Tot Then, this typology of gateways Pop 10 r 4% Pe anchors an examination of more recent immigrant settlement trends in 5 2% 10.3 13.5 13.9 14.2 11.6 10.3 9.7 9.6 14.1 19.8 31.1 45 U.S. metropolitan areas, including 0 0% their suburbs. 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 The 45 selected metropolitan areas represent a variety of experiences and conditions.