DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 469 531 UD 035 311

AUTHOR Schmidley, Dianne TITLE Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000. Current Population Reports. INSTITUTION Bureau of the Census (DOC), Suitland, MD. Population Div. SPONS AGENCY Immigration and Naturalization Service (Dept. of Justice), Washington, DC. REPORT NO P23-206 PUB DATE 2001-12-00 NOTE 78p. AVAILABLE FROM Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001. Tel: 202-512-1800; Tel: 866-512-1800 (Toll Free); Fax: 202-512-2250; Web site: http://www.bookstore.gpo.gov. For full text: http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/foreign.html. 'PUB TYPE. Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) Reports Research (143) EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PC04 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Age Differences; Children; Citizenship; Educational Attainment; Employment; Family Income; Geographic Distribution; Health Insurance; Hispanic Americans; Homeowners; *Immigrants; Metropolitan Areas; Occupations; Population Distribution; *Population Trends; Sex Differences; Tables (Data); Welfare Services IDENTIFIERS Current Population Survey

ABSTRACT This report presents data on a wide range of geographic, demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics for the foreign- born population of the United States. Data for the native population are included for comparison. Data come from the March 2000 Current Population Survey. The core of the report is 22 sections presenting information on the following topics: trends in immigration and the foreign-born population; region of birth; country of birth; geographic distribution; metropolitan areas; length of residence; citizenship status; nativity, parentage, and foreign stockHispanic origin and race; age and sex; household size and type; families and related children; children living with foreign-born householders; educational attainment; labor force participation; occupation; earnings of full-time, year-round workers; money income of households; poverty status; means-tested program participation; health insurance; and homeownership Five appendices include: foreign-born and other terms, source and accuracy of estimates, comparison of population universes, nativity questions on the Current Population Survey, and related reports and information. (Contains 22 figures and 28 references.) (SM)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. Profile of the Foreign-Born Population

'2 in the United States: 20.00 Issued...December 2001

P23-206

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of EducatIonal Research and Imprnvemerc EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) -4 Thisdocument has been reproduced as received from the person or organization originating it Minor changes have been made to improve reproduction quality

Points of view or opinions statedin this document do not necessar ly represent official OERI position or policy

U S Department of Commerce USC-NSLSBUP EAU Economics and Statistics Administration S CENSUS BUREAU Helping You Make informed DecisiOns

2 BEST COPYAVAILABLE Acknowledgments

Dianne Schmid ley 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 Cal lis, Alfred Gottschalck, Robert Mills, and Benadette Proctor of Housing and Household Economics Division (HHES) made significant contributions to the development of the report. General direction was provided by Jorge del Pinal (POP), Assistant Division Chief for Special Population Statistics. Clerical support was provided by Jennifer Kipple. Dianne Schmid ley (POP) provided the data tabulations. Teresa Andrews and Lisa Lollock (POP) and Bonnie Damon and Bernadette Proctor (HHES) made significant contributions to the development of PPL-145, the detailed table package for this report. Alex Varson prepared material including the report and statistical table package for presentation on the Census Bureau Internet site. Campbell Gibson (POP) provided overall review of the report. One or more sections were 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), Thomas Scopp (HHES), and Ed Welniak (HHES). Linda Gordon, Office of Policy and Planning of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service also reviewed the report. Survey coordination was provided by Gregory Weyland, Demographic Surveys Division. Sampling review was provided by John Finamore, David Hornick, Fred Meier, Jana Shepherd, Aneesah Stephenson, Marie Stetser, Jeffrey Stratton, and Brandi York of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division. Penny Heiston, Jan Sweeney, and Barbara Blount of the Administrative and Customer Services Division, Walter C. Odom, Chief, provided publications and printing management, graphics design and composition, and editorial review for print and electronic media. General direction and production management were provided by Michael G. Garland, Assistant Chief, and Gary J. Lauffer, Chief, Publications Services Branch. 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 Population in the United States: 2000 Issued December 2001

P23-206 Current Population Reports Special Studies

U.S. Department of Commerce Donald L Evans, Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration Kathleen B. Cooper, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU William G. Barron, Jr., Acting Director

4 Suggested Citation Schmid ley, A. Dianne, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Series P23-206, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the aaa United States: 2000, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 2001. ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION

ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS ADMINISTRATION Kathleen B. Cooper, Under Secretary for Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU William G. Barron, Jr., Acting Director William G. Barron, Jr., Deputy Director John H. Thompson, Principal Associate Director for Programs Nancy M. Gordon, Associate Director for Demographic Programs John F. Long, Chief, Population Division Daniel H. Weinberg, Chief, Housing and Household Economics 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.

5 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 More in 2000: 1990 and 2000 12 4-1. States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1Million 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 1Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000 16 5-2. Population by Nativity and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 2000 17 6-1. Length of Residence' 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 Population by Region of Birth: 2000 19

iii U.S. Census Bureau

6 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 and Hispanic-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-Stock' Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000 29 11-1. Households by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship 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 of Related Household Members: 2000 33 13-1. Children Under Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, Nativity, and Nativity of Householder: 2000 34 14-1. Educational Attainment of the Population Age 25 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 36 14-2. Educational Attainment of the Foreign-Born Population Age 25 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000 37 15-1. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population Age 16 and Older by Nativity and Sex 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 Old by Region of Birth and Sex: 2000 39 16-1. Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 41 16-2. Major Occupation Group of Foreign-Born Workers Age 16 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000 41 17-1. Earnings of Full-Time. Year-Round Workers by Sex, Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 43 17-2. Median Earnings of Foreign-Born Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex and Region 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 iv U.S. Census Bureau

7 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 47 20-1. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Specified Benefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1999 49 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 49 20-3. Foreign-Born Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 49 21-1. Health Insurance Coverage of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in 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 Residence in 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 Householders by Region of Birth: 2000 53 Text Tables

3-1. 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 Families by 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

V U.S. Census Bureau

S ,4001 8. Notes About This Report

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, Current Population Reports, P23-206, presents data on a wide range of geographic, demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics for the foreign-born population of the United States. 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. Data for 1990 and earlier years, which are included for historical comparison, are from the decennial censuses of population. Detailed tables showing data for 2000 are presented in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 2000, PPL-145, issued in 2001. 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 the United 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 survey and 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 March 2000 CPS are about equally distributed among those that first came into the survey from December 1998 to March 1999 and from December 1999 to March 2000. While data 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 topics for the foreign-born population. These sections are preceded by Highlights and are followed by References and five appendixes: (A) Foreign Born and Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts, (B) Source and Accuracy of Estimates, (C) Comparison of Population 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 totals due 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 of this 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 1990 census 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 report may be addressed to A. Dianne Schmid ley, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington DC 20233-8800, or to the e-mail address [email protected].

1 U.S. Census Bureau 9 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 cordedshare any country has New Jersey (14.9 percent), held since the decennial cen- Arizona (1 2.9 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 (1 2.2 percent). States in March 2000 was population was from Germany. From 1960 to March 2000, the 28.4 million, based on data (However, the March 2000 pro- foreign-born population in- collected in the Current Popu- portion for Mexico is not sta- creased from 1.3 million to lation Survey. tistically different from the 8.8 million in California, from proportion shown in 1997 in In March 2000, an estimated 0.3 million to 2.8 million in P23-195.) 10.4 percent of the U.S. popu- Florida, and from 0.3 million lation was foreign born, up In 1970, 2 of the 10 leading to 2.4 million in Texas. The from 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 Dominican Republic, and El Salvador). The 5.Metropolitan Areas exact number and the exact 2.Region of Birth The foreign-born population order after Mexico are uncer- was especially concentrated in Among the 14.5 million for- tain due to sampling variabil- eign-born population from ity in the Current Population the largest metropolitan areas and in their central cities: Latin America in March 2000 Survey data. (51.0 percent or about half of 54.5 percent lived in the 9 the foreign born), 9.8 million 4.Geographic Distribution metropolitan areas of 5 million were 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. lations of 1million or more: 1.9 million were from South In March 2000, the metropoli- California (8.8 million), New America. tan areas with the largest York (3.6 million), Florida (2.8 foreign-born population were The remaining foreign born million), Texas (2.4 million), Los Angeles and New York, were from: Asia (7.2 million, New Jersey (1.2 million), and each with 4.7 million foreign or one-quarter of the total for- Illinois (1.2 million). These born. Together, these two eign-born population); Europe states accounted for 70.4 per- metropolitan areas included (4.4 million, or about one- cent of the total foreign-born 33.1 percent of the foreign- seventh of the foreign born); population. Northern America (essentially born population in the United Canada, 0.7 million); and In nine states, the foreign-born States. proportion in the population in other areas. Among the nine largest metro- March 2000 was estimated to politan areas in 2000 (those be above the national average 3.Country of Birth with total populations of of 10.4 percent: 5 million or more), Los Ange- Mexico accounted for more California (25.9 percent), les and San Francisco had the than one-quarter of the New York (19.6 percent), highest proportion foreign foreign-born population in Florida (18.4 percent),

2 U.S. Census Bureau

10 J

born at 30.0 percent each. 47.1 percent from Asia, and race, this is not true of all For metropolitan areas with 28.3 percent from Latin regions. For example, in March

1 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 and highest proportion foreign able primarily to the low fig- 89.1 percent of the foreign born at 42.7 percent. ure for the Central America born from North America (es- (21.1 percent), most of whom sentially Canada) where White 6.Length of Residence are from Mexico. non-Hispanic. Of the foreign born from Asia, 83.7 percent The median length of resi- 8.Nativity, Parentage, and were Asian and Pacific Islander dence in the United States of (not statistically different from the foreign-born population Foreign Stock the proportion White non- was 14.4 years in 2000 com- In March 2000, 55.9 million or Hispanic from Northern pared with 12.2 years in one-fifth of the U.S. popula- America), and 14.5 percent 1990. tion was of foreign stock. This were White non-Hispanic. In number included 28.4 million Length of residence in the contrast, the foreign-born foreign born, 14.8 million of United States of the foreign- population from Africa was very foreign parentage (native with born 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 Current dence was 25.0 years for the foreign born). Population Survey showed foreign-born population from 10.4 percent of the total popu- Europe, 14.3 years for those The foreign stock population lation was foreign born. The from Asia, and 13.5 years for is likely to increase in the fu- proportion was much higher those 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 much Latin 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 and 7. cent in 1970 to 20.2 percent Citizenship Status 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. population increased by Hispanic Origin and Race non-Hispanics. 191 percent, from 9.7 million Categories of ethnicity and to 28.4 million.In contrast, race are not interchangeable 10. Age and Sex the naturalized citizen foreign- with geographic regions used In 2000, the median ages of born 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 the 17.8 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, and foreign-born population varied While the foreign born from 58.7 percent were 25 to 54 greatly 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

3 U.S. Census Bureau

11 native population were for Northern America (2.32) households. Nearly 1in 6 of 28.3 percent and 41.7 per- and Europe (2.38). (The latter these children lived with a cent. two averages are not statisti- foreign-born householder cally different.) (foreign-born households). Of The, sex ratio (the number of the 11.5 million children living males for every 100 females) in foreign-born households, of the foreign-born population 12. Families and Related 8.9 million or 77.7 percent was 100.1 compared with Children were native, and 2.6 million 95.0 for the native population. The average size of families were foreign born. In con- In 2000, the median age of with a foreign-born house- trast, nearly all of the children the foreign-born population holder (foreign-born families) living in native households was 50.0 years for those from in 2000 was 3.72 compared were native. Europe, 39.2 for those from with 3.10 for families with a Most of the children under age Asia, and 35.3 for those from native householder (native families). Foreign-born fami- 18 living in foreign-born fam- Latin America. lies had larger average num- ily households (98.7 percent) 11 Household Size and Type bers of both adults, 2.47 ver- were related to the house- sus 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) were of 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 of holds 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. Comparable households) was 3.26, consid- holders from Europe to figures for native households erably 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 statistical tive households). Foreign- holders from Mexico, the pro- difference between foreign- born households had larger portion was 80.4 percent. born and native households in average numbers of children Of the 55.3 million married- the proportions of unrelated under age 18 (0.99 versus couple families in 2000, children.) 0.65). 8.7 million, or 15.7 percent, Preschool age children, or Whereas 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 of 0.03 foreign-born members in couples, 5.5 million had both children living in foreign-born 2000, foreign-born house- spouses foreign born, 1.7 mil- households, compared with holds 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 of households. 13. Children Living With native and foreign-born chil- Average household size Foreign-Born dren: 41.6 percent of native among foreign-born house- Householders children living with foreign- holders ranged from a high for In 2000, 72.1 million children born householders were under Latin America (3.72) to lows (under age 18) lived in the age of 6 compared with

4 U.S. Census Bureau

12 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 holding service jobs (19.2 percent) 14. Education Among the population age 16 was 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 was sion production, craft, and re- who had completed high higher for foreign-born males pair jobs (18.7 percent).) school or more education in (79.6 percent) than for native March 2000 was lower among males (73.4 percent). For fe- Professional and managerial the 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 of native population (86.6 per- the foreign-born population workers from Europe and cent). (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 Latin those with less than a 5th For foreign-born males in America. grade education represented 2000, labor force participation about 1in 5 of the foreign rates for the 25 to 54 age Operators, fabricators, and la- born but only about 1in 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 occupations and 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. Among completed high school or 55.1 percent, compared with foreign-born workers from more education by March 66.5 percent for all foreign- Mexico, 28.6 percent were in 2000. The high school born females. the operators, fabricators, and completion 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. Earnings were not statistically different cupations accounted for from each other, but they were 45.6 percent of foreign-born In 1999, median earnings for all 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 workers the 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 higher born population accounted for borers (18.7 percent versus for foreign-born workers 17.4 million, or 12.4 percent, 12.7 percent); worked in preci- (0.81) than for native workers of the total civilian labor force sion production, craft, and re- (0.71). of 140.5 million. The labor pair jobs (12.1 percent versus force 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

5 U.S. Census Bureau

13 I I s. earnings less than $25,000, per foreign-born household 1999 were relatively low (and while 23.2 percent had earn- (1.60) was higher than the av- not significantly different from ings 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 (1 2.8 percent). In 1999, households with a portions were 24.2 percent For the population from Latin householder born in Asia had and 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 foreign- lation from Latin America, the while 12.0 percent had earn- born households. The income poverty rates ranged from ings 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 to parts, 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 for Even though the median earn- Latin American households 20. Program Participation ings 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 with those of native female work- Asian households was mostly foreign-born householders and ers, the proportions with earn- due to a combination of three 13.5 million (14.6 percent) of ings 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 or 18. Household Income female workers who held more of the following means- high-paying managerial and tested programs providing In 1999, the median income professional jobs (a character- noncash benefits: food for 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 and foreign-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-born more 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 or 30.2 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 providing than $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 Assistance The lower income of foreign- or 14.7 percent, were foreign- (GA), or Supplemental Security born 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 in average number of earners

6 U.S. Census Bureau

14 noncash means-tested pro- were foreign born and higher when the householder grams are higher for house- 54.6 percent of those who was a naturalized citizen holds with noncitizen house- were native had employment- (66.5 percent) than when the holders (24.8 percent) than for based health insurance. householder was not a citizen households 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 more participation rate was 8.0 per- 10 years to 54.8 percent for likely for those who lived in the cent 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 lived holds. 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 with 1 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 for In 2000, the homeownership pared with 86.5 percent of the householders from Europe, rate for the United States was native population had health in- 52.0 percent for householders 67.2 percent. The homeown- surance for all or part of the from Asia, and 41.2 percent for ership rate for foreign-born year. (Health insurance includes householders from Latin householders was 48.8 per- government insurance plans America. The homeownership cent, compared with 69.5 per- such as medicare, medicaid, or rates for householders from Eu- cent for households with a na- military health care and private rope, Asia, and Latin America tive householder. For foreign- insurance plans.) under age 35 were all about born households, the home- Among workers in 1999, 25.0 percent. ownership rate was much 44.5 percent of those who

7 U.S. Census Bureau 15 Section 1. Trends in Immigration and the Foreign-Born Population r

The foreign-born population reached Foreign-born and native populations. 28 million in 2000. Simply put, the foreign born are not U.S citizens at birth. The The estimated foreign-born foreign-born population is classified by citizenship status: those population of the United States in who have become U.S. citizens through naturalization and those March 2000 was 28.4 million based who are not U.S. citizens. Nativesas defined by the Census Bu- on data collected in the Current reau, were born in the United States, in U.S. Island Areas suchas. Population Survey' (Figure 1-1).Pre- Puerto Rico, or were born in a foreign country of at least one parent viously, the foreign-born population who was a United States citizen. had expanded from 9.6 million in The foreign-born population includes immigrants, as defined 1970, the lowest total in this cen- above, legal nonimmigrants (e.g., refugees and persons on student tury, to 14.1 million in 1980 and to or work visas), and persons illegally residing in the United States. 19.8 million in 1990.2 Immigrants and immigration. The proportion foreign born in- creased from 6.2 percent in 1980 Immigrants, as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act, to 7.9 percent in 1990. By March are aliens admitted to the United States for lawful permanent resi- 2000, an estimated 10.4 percent dence. They may be issued immigrant visas overseas by the De- of the U.S. population was foreign partment of State or adjusted to permanent resident status inthe. born, the highest proportion since United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Immi- 1930. gration is defined here as the number of immigrants during a speci- Historically, the foreign- fied period of time such as a year or a decade. born population increased Further information. during each decade until For a detailed discussion, see Appendix A, "Foreign Born and 1930 and then declined Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts." until 1970. With the exception of the 1860s (which included the Civil The number of new foreign- Following a reduced flow of in- War) and the 1890s (which in- born arrivals declined between ternational migrants in the 1930s cluded the "closing" of the agricul- 1911 and the 1920s, due first to and 1940s (due partly to economic tural frontier and economic depres- World War land then to restrictive depression and then to World War sion), the number of international immigration legislation enacted in II), the U.S. foreign-born population migrants to the United States in- 1921 and 1924. The new legisla- dropped to 10.3 million in 1950 creased in each decade from the tion established a national origin or 6.9 percent of the total popula- 1820s to the 1901-1910 decade (Figure 1-2).3 Data from the Immi- quota system that severely limited tion. The number of international immigration and favored countries gration and Naturalization Service migrants to the United States in- in the Western Hemisphere and (INS) indicate that the number of creased in the 1950s and 1960s, Northern or Western Europe.' but remained relatively low com- immigrants increased from 0.1 mil- As a result of decreased migra- pared to earlier decades. As a lion in the 1820s to 8.8 million in tion to the United States, the result of four decades of low immi- the 1901-1910 decade, the highest foreign-born population increased gration, the foreign-born popula- total on record for a single decade. slowly to 14.2 million in 1930. tion dropped to 9.6 million in Census data reflect this migration The proportion foreign born in the 1970 or a record low of 4.7 per- trend and show that the foreign- total population, which had fluctu- cent of the total population. born population increased rapidly from 2.2 million in 1850, the first ated in the 13 percent to 15 per- The national origins quota sys- cent range from 1860 to 1920, tem, which was enacted in the year place of birth data were col- dropped from 14.7 percent in 1920s and reaffirmed in the Immi- lected, to 13.5 million in 1910.4 1910 to 11.6 percent in 1930. gration and Nationality Act of

8 U.S. Census Bureau

16 BEST COPY AVAILABLE A I0 ir I40

Figure 1-1. 1952, was eliminated by the 1965 Foreign-Born Population and Percent of Total Population Amendments to the Immigration for the United States: 1850 to 2000 and Nationality Act of 1952. This (For 1850-1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus legislation and subsequent legisla- Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) tion, including the Immigration Re- 1 Foreign -born population (in millions) form and Control Act of 1986, T" Percent of total population which permitted some illegal aliens to obtain lawful permanent resi- 14.7 dence, and the Immigration Act of 14.4 14.8 13.6 13.2 13.3 13.2 1990, which increased the annual cap on immigration, have contrib- 11.6 10.4 uted to increased international 9.7 migration. 8.8 79 6.9 Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) 6.2 include the civilian noninstautionalized population 5 4 plus Armed Forces living off post or with their fami- 4 lies on post. 'While legal immigration has been the primary source for growth in the foreign-born population since 1965. the number of illegal aliens has also probably increased the foreign-born population (Im- 41 5 6.79.210.3 3.5 3.914211.610.3 14.1 19.828.4 22 9796 migration and Naturalization Service, 2000, pp. 239- 1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 243). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a, Table 1, and 2001, Table 1-I . For a detailed discussion of trends in immigra- tion to the United States. see U.S Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1991, special section on 'Trends in Immigration," pp. 13-34. See also U.S. Im- Figure 1-2. migration and Naturalization Service, 2000, Appen Immigrants to the United States by Decade: dix I, "Immigration and Naturalization Legislation." The highest number of international migrants Fiscal Years. 1821 to 1998 recorded for a 10 -year period was 10.1 million for (Numbers millions) the 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 (Warren 8.8 and Kraly, 1985, p. 5). For the 1901-10 decade. when the number of immigrants was 8.8 million. 76 they estimate emigration was 3.0 million (U.S. Immi- 73 gration and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 238). 'Ibid., Appendix I, 'Immigration and Naturaliza- tion Legislation." 57 52 45 41 37 33 28 2623 25 17 10 06 0 5 0.1im 1 1821-1831-1841-1851-1861-1871-1881-1891-1901 I911.1921-1931.1941.1951-1961-1971-1981-1991- 183018401850186018701880189019001910192019301940 1950 19601970198019901998 Source- U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 2000. Table I.

9 lJ S Census Bureau

BEST 17 COPYAVAILABLE Section 2. Region of Birth

!Nik,' 44, I One-half of the foreign- America. From 1970 to 2000, Survey data from March 2000 show born population is from the foreign-born population from that about 15.3 percent of the for- Latin America. Central America rose from 48.4 per- eign born were from Europe. Slightly cent to 67.6 percent of the total more than half of the 4.3 million In 2000, 14.5 million of the born in Latin America. European foreign born came from foreign-born population living in countries in Southern and Eastern the United States was born in Latin One-quarter of the Europe. America, up from 8.4 million in foreign-born population Through 1960, Northern 1990 (Figure 2-1).' This increase is from Asia. America (essentially Canada) was represented a continuation of the In 2000, about 7.2 million of the the second largest source of the rapid growth in the foreign-born foreign born living in the United foreign-born population after Eu- population from Latin America since States were born in Asia compared rope.' From 1960 to 1990, the pro- 1960 when the figure was 0.9 mil- with 5.0 million in 1990. The in- portion of the foreign-born popula- lion. From 1970, when the total crease reflects a pattern established tion from Northern America dropped foreign-born population started to shortly after 1965 when U.S. na-, from 9.8 percent to 4.0 percent.In increase dramatically, to 2000, the tional origins quotas were abol- 2000, the proportion of the foreign- increase in the foreign-born popula- ished. In 1960, the foreign-born born population from Northern tion from Latin America accounted population from Asia stood at America was 2.5 percent. for 12.7 million, or 67.6 percent, of 0.5 million. During the 1970s the In 2000, the foreign-born popu- the total increase of 18.8 million. population more than tripled, and lation from Africa was 0.7 million, The foreign-born population then in the 1980s it nearly doubled up from 0.4 million in 1990. The from Latin America accounted for to about 5.0 million people. foreign-born population from 51.0 percent of the foreign-born By March 2000, the foreign-born Oceania (mostly Australia) remained population in 2000 (Figure 2-2). The population from Asia constituted statistically unchanged at 0.15 mil- proportion of the foreign-born popu- 25.5 percent of the foreign-born lion.In 1960, the foreign-born lation from Latin America increased population. The apparent difference population from Africa and Oceania rapidly from 9.4 percent in 1960 to in the proportion between 2000 and each was 35,000.4 19.4 percent in 1970, to 33.1 per- 1990 when the foreigr?-born popula- cent in 1980 and to 44.3 percent in The six regions of the world used in this re- tion from Asia was 26.3 percent is 1990. port are those defined by the United Nations and not statistically significant. Previ- used in its annual Demographic Yearbook. These re- gions are Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Latin Central Americans form ously, the Asian born share of the America, and Northern America (United Nations. foreign-born population had in- 1996, pp. 30-31). Region of origin is not equivalent a growing share of the with race. For example, 14.5 percent of the foreign foreign born from Latin creased from 5.1 percent in 1960 to born from Asia are non - Hispanic white. See Section 8.9 percent in 1970 and to 19.3 per- 9, Hispanic Origin and Race. America. The subregions of Latin America. including cent in 1980. Mexico as a part of Central America, are defined by Among the 14.5 million foreign- the United Nations. See footnote I. Nearly one-seventh of the ' In addition to Canada, foreign countries in born population from Latin America Northern America include Bermuda, Greenland, and in 2000, 9.8 million were from foreign born are from two tiny islands governed by France, St. Pierre, and Miquelon. Central America (including Mexico), Europe. 4 For census data the 'Other Areas' category in- 2.8 million were from the Caribbean, cludes people for whom place of birth was never re- As suggested by the discussion ported, so fluctuations in this category through 1990 and 1.9 million were from South of historical trends in immigration in are often due to reporting changes. For March 2000, America., In 1970, when the the 'Other Areas' category is composed of foreign Section 1, European countries were born from Africa and Oceania and a few cases from foreign-born population from Latin the primary source of the foreign- Antarctica and At Sea. (See U.S. Census Bureau, 1999.) America was 1.8 million, 0.9 million born population in the United States were from Central America, 0.7 mil- until the immigration laws were lion were from the Caribbean, and changed in 1965 (Figure 2-2). 0.3 million were from South

10 U.S. Census Bureau 18 Ar lei

Figure 2-1. Figure 2-2. Foreign-Born Population by Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: Region of Birth: 1960 to 2000 Selected Years, 1850 to 2000 (Numbers in millions. For 1960-90, resident (Percent distribution. For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces population plus Armed Forces living off post living off post or with their families on post) or with their families on post) 1.0 0.7 28.4 2.6 5,7 Other Areas

Other Areas 10.711.4

25 5 Asia Asia

Latin America Latin America

Northern America Northern America

92.286.286.083.075.061.739.022.9 15.3 Europe Europe

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

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

11 S Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE 9 Section 3. Country of Birth :,

More than one-quarter Most of the 10 leading the addition of Vietnam and China. of the foreign born is countries of birth of the Although the sample size in the from Mexico. foreign-born population Current Population Survey is not are in Latin America and large enough to rank most coun- In 2000, 7.8 million of the tries with complete accuracy (note foreign-born population living in Asia. the 90-percent confidence the United States were born in In 1960, Mexico was the only intervals shown in Figure 3-1), Mexico, an increase of 3.5 million, Latin American or Asian country the number of Latin American and or 82.4 percent, over the 1990 fig- among the 10 leading countries of Asian countries among the ure for Mexico of 4.3 million (Fig- birth of the foreign-born popula- 10 leading countries of birth of ure 3-1). Previously, the foreign- tion (Table 3-1). The number in- the foreign-born population may born population from Mexico creased to two in 1970 with the have reached 9 in 2000 (with the rose from 0.8 million in 1970 addition of Cuba; to four in 1980 addition of India, the Dominican to 2.2 million in 1980. with the addition of the Philippines Republic, and El Salvador)) The foreign-born population and Korea; and to six in 1990 with from Mexico accounted for 27.6 percent of the foreign born in 2000. Previously, the Mexican Figure 3-1. proportion was 8.2 percent in Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population 1970, 16.7 percent in 1980, and With 500,000 or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000 22.7 percent in 1990. Mexico's (Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals proportion in 2000 is the largest in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. recorded share any country has For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) held since the decennial census in El 2000 1890 when about 30 percent of 1990 the foreign-born population was 7,841 (7,364-8,318) Mexico* from Germany. The foreign-born 4 298 1,391 (1,195-1,588) population from Mexico in 2000 China*'. 921 was about six times as large as the 1,222 (1,038-1,407) Philippines* foreign-born population from the 913 next highest ranked country: 1,007 (839-1,174) India* China. 450 952 (784-1,121) In addition to the large increase Cuba* in the foreign-born population 737 863 (708-1,019) Vietnam* from Mexico during the period 543 from 1990 to 2000, statistically 765 (614-916) El Salvador* significant increases in the foreign- 465 born population occurred for sev- Korea 701 (561-841) eral countries with 0.5 million or 568 Dominican 692 (548-836) more foreign-born population in Republic* 2000: China,' the Philippines, 348 678 (536-820) Canada India, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, 745 the Dominican Republic, and the 653 (547-759) Germany combined countries in Europe that 712 624 (521-727) were once part of the former Soviet Union *' Soviet Union) 334 United Kingdom 613 (511-716) 640 Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant. 'See text footnotes I and 2, respectively, regarding China and the Soviet Union. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 3, and Tables 3 -I, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.

12 U.S. Census Bureau

1) (1850-60, 1920-60) and China Figure 3 -I are (in thousands): Hong Kong (147 for Historically, European 990 and 195 (121-269) for 2000); Taiwan (244 for countries and Canada (1860-80). Prior to 1980, when 1990 and 325 (230-420) for 2000). The 2000 popula- Mexico became the leading country tions for Hong Kong and Taiwan are not statistically were the leading countries different from their 1990 populations. of birth of the foreign- of birth of the foreign-born popula- The Soviet Union as defined prior to January 1, tion, the leading countries were 1992, excluding Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan born population. which are included with Asia in this report. In 1992, Ireland (1850-70), Germany (1880- the United States formally recognized 12 independent At each census from 1850 20), and Italy (1930-1970). The republics within the former Soviet Union. See Immigra- tion and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 10. through 1960, the 10 leading coun- 10 leading countries of birth of the Given the uncertainty as to whether or not tries of birth of the foreign-born foreign-born population in selected Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, and the Dominican Republic are in the top 10 in 2000, the number may population were predominantly years are shown in Table 3-1. be as low as 4 (if none of the 5 is among the 10 lead- European countries and Canada. ing countries) or as high as 9 (if all 5 are among the 10 leading countries). The only exceptions were Mexico ' Including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Data for Hong Kong and Taiwan corresponding to the format in

Table 3-1. Leading Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: Selected Years, 1850 to 1990 (Resident population)

Subject 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990

Number of 10 Leading Countries by Region

Total 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 Europe 8 8 9 8 8 7 5 3

Northern America 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Latin America 1 1 1 2 2 2 Asia 2 4 10 Leading Countries by Rank' (foreign-born population in thousands)

1 Ireland Germany Germany Italy Italy Italy Mexico Mexico 962 1,967 2,663 1,790 1,257 1,009 2,199 4,298 2 Germany Ireland Ireland Germany Germany Germany Germany China 584 1,855 ,1,615 1,609 990 833 849 921 3 Great BritainGreat Britain Canada United Kingdom Canada Canada Canada Philippines 379 918 1,180 1,403 953 812 843 913 4 Canada Canada Great Britain Canada United Kingdom Mexico Italy Canada 148 717 1,168 1,310 833 760 832 745 5 France Sweden Sweden Poland PolandUnited KingdomUnited Kingdom Cuba 54 194 582 1,269 748 686 669 737 6 Switzerland Norway Italy Soviet Union Soviet Union Poland Cuba Germany 13 182 484 1,154 691 548 608 712 7 Mexico France Russia Ireland Mexico Soviet Union Philippines United Kingdom 13 107 424 745 576 463 501 640 8 Norway China Poland Mexico Ireland Cuba Poland Italy 13 104 383 641 339 439 418 581 9 HollandSwitzerland Norway Sweden Austria Ireland Soviet Union Korea 10 89 336 595 305 251 406 568 10 Italy Bohemia AustriaCzechoslovakia Hungary Austria Korea Vietnam 4 85 276 492 245 214 290 543

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

13 U.S. Census Bureau 21 Section 4. Geographic Distribution

The foreign-born Most of the growth in the The regional distribution population is highly foreign-born population of the foreign-born concentrated in a few has occurred in California,population has changed states. Florida, and Texas. sharply since 1960. In 2000, 6 states had estimated From 1960 to 2000, the foreign- The growth of the foreign-born foreign-born populations of 1mil- born population increased from population in California, Florida, and lion or more: California (8.8 mil- 1.3 million to 8.8 million in Califor- Texas caused the foreign-born popu- lion), New York (3.6 million), nia, from 0.3 million to 2.8 million in lation to expand more rapidly in the Florida (2.8 million), Texas Florida, and from 0.3 million to West and South than it did in the (2.4 million), New Jersey (1.2 mil- 2.4 million in Texas. The combined Northeast and Midwest between lion), and Illinois (1.2 million) foreign-born population in these 3 1960 and 2000 (Table 4-1). For the (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1). These states rose from 1.9 million to West and South combined, the for- 6 states accounted for 20.0 mil- 14.0 million, an increase of 12.1 mil-eign-born population.grew from lion, or 70.4 percent, of the total lion people, or 64.8 percent of the 2.9 million to 18.9 million and rose foreign-born population, but only growth of the total foreign-born from 29.6 percent to 66.7 percent 39.3 percent of the total popula- population during this period. of the foreign-born population of the tion. The concentration of the These three states combined ac- United States. During the same pe- foreign-born population in these counted for 40.9 percent of the riod, the proportion of the total six states increased froin 56.5 per- growth in the total U.S. population population in the West and South cent in 1960 to 70.4 percent in between 1960 and 2000. 2000 while their proportion of the total population increased from Table 4-1. 35.2 percent in 1960 to 39.3 per- Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence cent by 2000. In five of these states, the pro- and for Leading States: Selected Years, 1900 to 2000 portion foreign born exceeded the (For 1900-90 resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) national average of 10.4 percent: California (25.9 percent), New York Subject 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 (19.6 percent), Florida (18.4 per- Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence (in thousands) cent), New Jersey (14.9 percent), United States 10,341 14,204 9,738 9,619 14,080 19,767 28,379 and Texas (1 2.2 percent). The pro- Northeast 4,763 7,202 4,575 4,120 4,506 5,231 6,420 Midwest 4,158 4,360 2,277 1,874 2,114 2,131 3,036 portion foreign born in Illinois (9.5 South 574 819 963 1,316 2,895 4,582 7,596 percent) fell below the national av- West 846 1,824 1,924 2,310 4,565 7,823 11,327 erage. Percent Foreign Born in Total Population for Regions Although their foreign-born United States 13.6 11.6 5.4 4.7 6.2 7.9 10.4 population did not exceed 1mil- Northeast 22.6 20.9 10.2 8.4 9.2 10.3 12.3 Midwest 15.8 11.3 4.4 3.3 3.6 3.6 4.8 lion, the proportion foreign born South 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.1 3.8 5.4 7.9 was significantly above the na- West 20.7 15.3 6.9 6.6 10.6 14.8 18.1 tional average in 4 other states: Six Leading States by Rank (foreign-born population in thousands) Hawaii (16.1 percent), Nevada 1 NY NY NY NY CA CA CA 1,900 3,262 2,289 2,110 3,580 6,459 8,781 (1 5.2 percent), Arizona (1 2.9 per- 2 PA IL CA CA NY NY NY cent), and Massachusetts 985 1,242 1,344 1,758 2,389 2,852 3,634 3 IL PA IL NJ FL FL FL (12.4 percent) (Figure 4-2).'In 967 1,240 686 635 1,059 1,663 2,768 contrast, 33 states located mostly 4 MA CA NJ IL TX TX TX in the Midwest and South had an 846 1,074 615 629 856 1,524 2,443 5 MI MA PA FL IL NJ NJ estimated proportion foreign born 542 1,066 603 540 824 967 1,208 of 5 percent or less in 2000. 6 WI MI MA MA NJ IL IL 516 853 S76 495 758 952 1,155

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

14 U.S. Census Bureau

22 a Figure 4-1. combined rose from 46.3 percent to States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million 57.8 percent. The changes between or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000 1960 and 2000 in the six states (Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses with the largest foreign-born popula- for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, tions reflect these regional changes civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living 2000 (Table 4-1). Pennsylvania and Mas- off post or with their families on post) I 11990 sachusetts, among the top six 8,871 (8,272-9,290) California* states in 1960, were replaced by 6,459 Florida and Texas.2 3,634 (3,406-3,862) New York* 2,852 Historically, the foreign- 2,768 (2,550-2,985) Florida* 1,663 born population was 2,443 (2,188-2,698) highly concentrated in the Texas* 1,524 Northeast and Midwest. 1,208(1,086-1,330) New Jersey* 967 In 1900 and 1930, more than 1,155 (1,010-1,300) Illinois* 80 percent of the foreign-born 952 population of the United States 'Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 census of population, and 2001, Table 4-IA. lived in the Northeast and Mid- west, and in 1930, 50.7 percent lived in the Northeast alone. New York had a foreign-born population Figure 4-2. of 3.3 million in 1930, more than Foreign-Born Population for States: 2000 twice the foreign-born population (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces of any other state and the highest living off post or with their families on post) Percent foreign born (number of states in parentheses) census figure for any state until Under 5.0 (27) 1980, when the foreign-born popu- 5.0 to 9.9 (14) lation of California was 3.6 million. 10.0 to 14.9 (4 plus DC) 15.0 to 19.9 (4) [A The proportion foreign born appears to be 20.0 or more (1) above the national figure in Washington, DC (10.6 percent); however, the apparent difference is not sta- Northeast tistically significant. It should be noted that the West Midwest 12.3% 4.8% sample size is not large enough to identify many 18 1% substantively important differences involving areas WA NH ND VT3.9 )ME with relatively small populations. See Appendix B. 74 1 5 MN MT '-3 '2 2 The change in the foreign-born population 5 1 from 1960 to 2000 was statistically significant for OR 08 SD MA both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. However, the 78 ID 13 3.6 12.4 foreign-born population in Massachusetts was sig- 53 IA WY nificantly larger in 2000 than in 1960, whereas the NE 39 RI 10 3.7 CT7.8 foreign-born population in Pennsylvania was signifi- NJ8.7 cantly smaller in 2000 than in 1960. 14.9 UT KS 5.5 5,7 DE 98 MD 4.7 9.0

Eig DC NM 10.6 58 South 7.9%

United States 10.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 4-1A.

15 U.S. Census Bureau BESTC PYAVAILABLE 23 Section 5. Metropolitan Areas

X

The foreign-born populations of 5 million or more), As shown in the left side of Fig- population is highly Los Angeles and San Francisco had ure 5-2, 94.9 percent of the foreign- concentrated in a few the highest proportion foreign born born population lived in metropoli- large metropolitan areas. (Table 5-1).3 For metropolitan areas tan areas in 2000 compared with with 1million to 5 million popula- 79.3 percent of the native popula- In March 2000, the metropoli- tion in 2000, Miami had the highest tion. The difference was accounted tan areas with the largest foreign- proportion foreign born at 42.7 per- for entirely by the differences in the born populations were Los Angeles cent. proportions in central cities: and New York each with 4.7 million 45.1 percent of the foreign-born foreign-born persons (Figure 5-1).' The foreign-born population versus 27.5 percent of Together, these two metropolitan population is more the native population. The propor- areas included 9.4 million, or concentrated than the tion living outside central cities in 33.1 percent, of the foreign-born native population in metropolitan areas was slightly population of 28.4 million. In con- metropolitan areas and in lower among the foreign-born popu- trast, they included only 13.3 per- their central cities. lation than among the native popu- cent of the total population.In lation: 49.8 percent versus 51.9 per- three additional metropolitan ar- The concentration of the foreign- cent respectively. eas, the foreign-born population born population in metropolitan ar- The foreign-born population was was 1million or more in 2000: eas and in their central cities is especially concentrated in the larg- San Francisco (2.0 million), Miami shown from two perspectives in est metropolitan areas and in their (1.6 million), and Chicago (1.1 mil- Figure 5-2. The numbers on the left central cities: 54.5 percent lived in lion).2 Together with Los Angeles side show the proportionate distri- the 9 metropolitan areas of 5 million and New York, these 5 metropoli- butions of the total population, the or more population in 2000 com- tan areas included 14.1 million, or native population, and the foreign- pared with 27.3 percent of the na- 49.8 percent of the foreign-born born population by type of resi- tive population. While a much higher population, but only 20.5 percent dence. The bar chart on the right proportion of the foreign-born popu- of the total population. side shows the proportion foreign lation than of the native population Among the 9 largest metropoli- born in each category of the popula- lived in metropolitan areas of 5 mil- tan areas in 2000 (those with total tion by type of residence. lion or more population in 2000, the proportions were not significantly different in metropolitan areas of Figure 5-1. Metropolitan Areas With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 million up to 5 million population (about 24 percent each). The propor- 1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000 tions were lower for the foreign- (Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional born population than for the native population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post. 2000 population in metropolitan areas Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1) 1990 with less than 1million population (16.8 percent versus 27.6 percent) Los Angeles-Riverside- 4,708 (4,445-4,972) Orange County, CA CMSA* and in nonmetropolitan areas (5.1 percent versus 20.7 percent). New York-Northern New Jersey 4,690 (4,427-4,954) Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA* 3,657 More than one-quarter of San Francisco-Oakland- 2,007 (1,795-2,220) the central-city population San Jose, CA CMSA* of the largest metropolitan Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, 1,647 (1,477-1,816) areas are foreign born. FL CMSA* As shown on the right side of Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, 1,070 (932-1,208) Figure 5-2, the proportion of the IL-IN-WI CMSA* 1915 population foreign born was much

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

16 U.S. Census Bureau

24 r"

(12.1 percent) than in nonmetropoli- The proportion of the population metropolitan areas with 5 million or tan areas (2.7 percent) in 2000. The foreign born was higher in central more population (25.8 percent). proportion foreign born ranged from cities (16.0 percent) than outside 18.8 percent in metropolitan areas central cities in metropolitan areas Official names of metropolitan areas are pro- vided in Figure 5-1 and Table 5 -I but are shortened with 5 million or more population to (10.0 percent). The foreign-born in the text for readability. The general concept of a 6.6 percent in metropolitan areas proportion of the population was metropolitan area (MA) is one of a large population nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have with less than 1million population. highest in central cities of a high degree of economic and social integration with that nucleus. Some MAs are defined around two or more nuclei. The Office of Management and Budget, with technical assistance from the Census Bureau, uses Table 5-1. published standards to define MAs for use by Federal Foreign-Born Population in Metropolitan Areas With agencies. The standards provide for the classification of an MA as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or as a 5 Million or More People: 2000 consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CSMA) with (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their component primary metropolitan statistical areas (PMSAs). See Office of Management and Budget, 1990 families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1) and 1993. Percent For the Chicago metropolitan area, the lower bound on the 90-percent confidence interval is less Metropolitan area foreign born than 1 million. Dallas metropolitan area had a population esti- New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA 22.8 mate for which the lower bound of the 90-percent con- Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA 29.6 fidence interval fell below S million. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA 12.3 Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-CMSA 11.9 San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA 28.3 Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA 5.1 Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA 7.4 Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA 12.5 Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX CMSA 12.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 5-2A.

Figure 5-2. Population by Nativity and Metropolitan- Total Nonmetropolitan Residence: 2000 Metro areas In central cities (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their Outside central cities families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)

1 Nonmetro areas

Percent distribution by type of residence Percent foreign born by type of residence Total Native Foreign born 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total population 104 80.9 79.3 94.9 Metropolitan areas 12 I 29.3 27.5 45.1 In central cities 160 51.6 51.9 49.8 Outside central cities 100

54.5 51.7 78.2 1 million or more population 149 18.9 16.8 37.0 In central cities 202 35.6 34.9 41.2 Outside central cities 120 30.1 27.3 54.5 5 million or more population 188 10.9 9.0 27.2 In central cities 25.8 19.2 18.2 27.3 Outside central cities 148

24.4 24.5 23.7 1 million up to 5 million population 100 8.0 7.8 9.8 In central cities 12 7 16.4 16.7 13.9 Outside central cities 88 26.4 27.6 16.8 Less than 1million population 66 10.4 10.6 8.2 In central cities 81 16.1 16.9 8.6 Outside central cities 55 19.1 20.7 5.1 Nonmetropolitan areas 27

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 5-1A.

17 U.S. Census Bureau 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.' 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 of the foreign-born population was than in 1970. migrants from Cuba in the 1960s 14.4 years (Figure 6-1).' This is and 1970s.4 The median lengths slightly higher than in 1990 Length of residence by 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 wasinternational migration. and South America, 12.9 years and 20.3 years.' 13.0 years, respectively, were not In 2000, the median length of In general, changes between statistically different from each residence in the United States of the 1970 and 2000 in the percent other and were the lowest in Latin foreign-born population was distribution of the foreign-born America.' 14.3 years for the population from population 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, nor death) of nearly all migrants who years and 25.0 years, respectively, are they significantly different from came to the United States before and did not differ significantly. the median length of residence of 1930 when international migration The median length of residence for 14.4 years for the total foreign-born previously had been at relatively the foreign born from Europe population. The median length of high levels, as discussed in Section (25.0) was much higher than the residence of the population from 1. 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).° low the medians for the populations

Figure 6-1. Length of Residence) 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)

Percent distribution by length of residence (in years) Median length

I of residence Less than I 5 to 9 II= 10to 14 115to19 20 or more Year (in years) 2000 14.4 1990 12.2

1980 14.1 1970 20.3

'Census 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

18 u s Census Bureau BM WRY r oincletVAILABLE11 While 32.2 percent of the for- 6.6 percent of the foreign born from During the period 1988-1998, 214.757 Hai- tians were admitted for legal permanent residence eign-born population had resided in Latin America came to live in the to the United States. The entry of these immigrants the United States for 20 years or United States before 1965. has probably lowered the length of residence of the foreign born from the Caribbean. (See U.S. Immigra- more, 55.5 percent of the foreign tion & Naturalization Service, 2000.) born from Europe and 57.7 percent 'There is no statistical difference between I 2.9 ' The median is the value which divides the and 14.4; there is no statistical difference between of the foreign born from Northern ranked population into two groups of equal size. I 3.0 and 14.4. America were in this category (not Because reporting on year of entry (which is Due to the small sample, the median length of used to obtain data on length of residence) is subject residence for the foreign born from Northern America statistically different). Of the foreign to misstatement, small differences in length of resi- (24.8) does not differ statistically from that for the born from Europe 35.8 percent had dence do not warrant emphasis. For example, the total foreign-born population (14.4), Asia (14.3), or specific question, When did you come to live in the Latin America (13.5). been living in the United States for United States?: may be interpreted by some respon- Recent INS data show that international migra- at least 35 years. Stated differently, dents to mean the year in which they obtained per- tion from the countries of the former Soviet Union dur- manent legal residence in the United States. ing the 1990s was significantly higher than during the 35.8 percent of the European Comparisons involving Africa and Oceania and I 980s 1444,614 and 57,972, respectively). Also, foreign born came to live in the Northern America are limited due to the small 23,349 (30.6 percent) of all refugee arrivals in 1998 sample size of the CPS for foreign born from each of were from the countries of the former Soviet Union. United States before 1965.' Only these regions. See Appendix B. (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)

Percent distribution by length of residence On years) Median length Population of residence (inmillions) IIIIILessthan 5 I I5 to 9 10 to 14 IS to 19 20 or more (in years)

Total, 28.4 175 32.2 14.4

Europe 4 4 16.8 12 5 I 9.6 Asia 7.2 179 17.2 225 065 395 I 2145.03 Africa 0.7 169 14.2 10.2 Latin America 14.5 192 17.8 27.9 13.5 Caribbean 2.8 162 14.4 38.6 17.6 Central America 9.8 20 2 i9.1 25,1 12.9 Mexico 7.8 20 8 18,3 26.4 12.8 Other 1.9 18 1 224 19.8 South America 1.9 184 1 SA 26.8 13.0 Northern America 0.7 81 6.3 57 7 24.8

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

19 BEST COPY AVAILABLE U.S. Census Bureau Section 7. Citizenship Status

The proportion of citizens in the foreign-born popula- Differences in the proportion naturalized citizens in the tion is attributable to the propor- naturalized by region of birth are ex- foreign-born population tionate declines in citizenship plained only partly by differences in has declined since 1970. within each length-of-residence length of residence in the United category. Changes in the distribu- States. For example, in March 2000, While the total foreign-born tion of the foreign-born population proportions naturalized among the population increased by 191 per- by length of residence in the Mexico foreign born whose length cent (from 9.7 million to 28.4 mil- United States are a secondary fac- of residence in the United States lion) between 1970 and 2000, the tor. (The median length of resi- was 5 to 9 years, 10 to 14 years, numbers of naturalized citizens dence of the foreign-born popula- 15 to 19 years, or 20 years or more and noncitizens in the foreign-born tion dropped from 20.3 years in were lower than corresponding rates population increased at very differ- 1970 to 14.4 years in 2000, as dis- for the total foreign-born popula- ent rates (Figure 7-1).' Naturalized cussed in Section 6.) tion. The respective length of resi- citizens increased by 71 percent As noted above, the proportion dence figures for Mexico and the to- (from 6.2 million to 10.6 million), of naturalized citizens dropped tal foreign born were 6.2 percent while noncitizens rose by from 63.6 percent in 1970 to versus 13.2 percent, 14.2 percent 401 percent (from 3.5 million to 37.4 percent in 2000, or by versus 29.4 percent, 28.9 percent 17.8 million). As a result of the 26.2 percentage points. Declines versus 51.2 percent, and 47.0 per- more rapid growth of noncitizens, in proportions of naturalized citi- cent versus 71.1 percent. the proportion of naturalized citi- zens in the length-of-residence cat- zens in the foreign-born popula- egories account for 17.9 percent- Figure 7-1. tion dropped from 63.6 percent in age points of the decrease, and Foreign-Born Population by 1970 to 50.1 percent in 1980, to the changes in the distribution by Citizenship Status: 40.5 percent in 1990, and to length of residence account for 1970 to 2000 37.4 percent in 2000.2 8.3 percentage points of the de- (In millions. For 1970-90, resident population. crease.' For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population The proportion of plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) naturalized citizens has The proportion of 28.4- Total declined in each length- naturalized citizens varies of-residence category. greatly by region of birth. The proportion of naturalized The proportion of naturalized 19.8 citizens in the foreign-born popula- citizens among the foreign-born 17.8- Noncitizens 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- 14.1 population, but for every category rope, 47.1 percent for the popula- 11.S of length of residence in the Unitedtion 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- 3.0 Naturalized siding in the United States for marily to the low figure for the citizens 10 to 14 years (57.5 percent to population from Central America 1970 1980 1990 2000 29.4 percent). Most of the decline (21.1 percent), most of whom are Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 11, in the proportion of naturalized from Mexico. and 2001. Table 7 I.

20 U.S. Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE

) A Figure 7-2. Some individuals who are foreign born may Naturalized Citizens by Length of Residence Percent of erroneously report themselves as U.S. citizens. The in the United States: 1970 to 2000 foreign-born naturalization process requires the foreign-born population applicant reside continuously in the United States for (For 1970-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional 5 years (or less for special categories of immigrants) population plus. Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) 1970 following admission as a legal permanent resident. 1980 See also Section 6, footnote I, concerning limitations 1990 of data on length of residence in the United States. 2 Evidence from the Current Population Survey 2000 indicates the decades-long decline in the proportion of naturalized citizens may have ended. The March 89.6 1997 proportion was 35.1 percent, statistically dif- 84 9 ferent from and lower than the March 2000 figure of 37.4 percent. For censuses prior to 1970, data on citizenship status of the foreign-born population are 72 5 73 71 available for 1890-1950. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, 1 Table 11).

1IkA 2 The 1970 distribution of the foreign-born 63.6 population by length of residence combined with the 57 5 57 6 2000 proportions of naturalized citizens would have produced a decline in the proportion of naturalized 51 2 50 5 49 4 citizens from 63.6 percent to 45.8 percent. The re- verse combination (the 2000 distribution by length 44 1 of residence combined with the 1970 proportions of 405 40 7 naturalized citizens) would have produced a decline 37 4 from 63.6 percent to 55.4 percent. 31 428 2 29 4 23 3

12 2 132 7765510 5

x Total Under 5 yearsS to 9 years10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years 20 years and over Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1973, Table 17; 1985, Table 2; 1993a, Table 1; 1999b, Figure 7-2; and 2001, Table 7-1.

Figure 7-3. Naturalized Citizens by Region of Birth: 2000 (Percent of foreign-born population. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Foreign-born population (in millions)

Total I 28.4 374 Europe 4.4 52.0

Asia 7.2 47 1 Africa 0.7 37 0 Latin America 14.5 283 Caribbean 2.8 465

Central America 9.8 21 1 Mexico 7.8 20 3 Other 1.9 24 3 South America 1.9 38 6

Northern America 0.7 43 1

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

21 U.S. Census Bureau

29 Section 8. Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock r 'N& One-fifth of the total U.S. population is of The terms native population and foreign-born population, which foreign stock. were defined in Section 1, concern the nativity of the population. Information on the birthplace of parents may be used to classify In 2000, 55.9 million, or the native population by parentage: native of native parentage 20.4 percent, of the population (both parents native), native of foreign parentage (both parents for- was of foreign stock (Table 8-1). In eign born), and native of mixed parentage (one parent native and addition to a foreign-born popula- one parent foreign born). tion of 28.4 million, the native The term foreign stock includes the foreign-born population and population of foreign or mixed par- the native population of foreign or mixed parentage. The foreign entage was 27.5 million (not sig- stock may thus be thought of as the combination of first and sec- nificantly different). The popula- ond generation U.S. residents. Just as the native population and for- tion of foreign or mixed parentage eign-born population comprise the total population, the native included 14.8 million of foreign population of native parentage and the foreign-stock population parentage and 12.7 million of also comprise the total population. mixed parentage. Among the population of mixed parentage, 6.8 million had a foreign-born fa- 16.5 percent of the population in the attrition (through mortality) of ther, and 5.9 million had a foreign- descendants of migrants who born mother.' 1970, the last year in which data on parentage were collected in the came to the United States early in The proportion of the decennial census.' By 2000, the the twentieth century and with the population of foreign population of foreign stock had high level of international migra- stock has increased risen to 55.9 million, or 20.4 per- tion during the past 30 years, the since 1970. cent of the population, reflecting population of foreign or mixed par- the high level of international entage should grow more rapidly In 1960, 34.1 million, or migration since 1970. in the future.' 19.0 percent, of the population The growth in the population of From 1960 to 2000, the popu- was of foreign stock (Figure 8-1). foreign stock since 1970 is due lation of mixed parentage in- The population of foreign stock mostly to the growth in the creased by 2.5 million (from dropped to 33.6 million, or foreign-born population. From 10.2 million to 12.7 million).5 The 1970 to 2000, the for- portion with foreign-born fathers Table 8-1. eign-born population in- increased by 0.3 million (from Population by Nativity and creased by 18.8 million 6.5 million to 6.8 million), while Parentage: 2000 (from 9.6 million to the portion with foreign-born (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 28.4 million), while the mothers increased by 2.1 million living off post or with their families on post) population of foreign or (from 3.8 million to 5.9 million Number mixed parentage rose by (not significantly different from Nativity and parentage (in millions) Percent only 3.5 million (from 2.5 million)). Total population 274.1 100.0 24.0 million to 27.5 mil- The proportion of the Native 245.7 89.6 lion). The slower growth population of foreign Native parentage 218.2 79.6 in the population of for- Foreign or mixed parentage 27.5 10.0 stock is below historical Foreign parentage 14.8 5.4 eign or mixed parentage Mixed parentage 12.7 4.6 reflects the relatively old levels. Father foreign born 6.8 2.5 age structure of this Mother foreign born 5.9 2.2 While the proportion of the Foreign born 28.4 10.4 population in 1970, population of foreign stock rose Native of native parentage 218.2 79.6 which in turn reflects the from 16.5 percent in 1970 to Foreign stock 55.9 20.4 preceding decades of 20.4 percent in 2000, it is well Foreign or mixed parentage 27.5 10.0 Foreign born 28.4 10.4 relatively low interna- below the level of the 1890 to tional migration.3 With Source' U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Table 4- I A. 1930 period (Figure 8-1). The

22 11 S. Census Bureau

BEST COPYAVAILABLE Ar. \MOE 1- proportion increased from 33.2 population, as shown below. In 1890196019702000 percent in 1890 to 35.3 percent in 1890, when 18.4 percent of the Foreign or mixed 1910 and then dropped back to population was native of foreign or parentage 18.4%13.6%11.8%10.0% 32.8 percent in 1930. mixed parentage and 14.8 percent Foreign born 14.8% 5.4% 4.7%10.4% The relative sizes of the popu- of the population was foreign Ratio 1.2 to2.5 to1.1 to1.0 to 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 lation of foreign or mixed parent- born, the ratio was 1.2 to 1.By age and the foreign-born popula- 1960, the ratio had increased to tion have fluctuated, reflecting the 2.5 to 1.0. From 2.5 to 1.0 again ' Among the foreign horn population, 27.3 mil- timing of periods of large-scale in 1970, the ratio fell sharply to lion had parents born in the same country, and only I.1 million had par ents born in different countries immigration and subsequent 1.0 to 1.0 in 2000, slightly lower Among the population of foreign parentage, 13.0 childbearing of the foreign-born than the ratio in 1890. million had parents born in the same country, and only 18 million had parents born in different coun- tries. The question on nativity or birthplace of par Figure 8-1. ents, which was included in censuses from 1870 to 1970. was replaced in 1980 with a question on an- Foreign-Stock Population by Nativity and Parentage: cestry that was based on self-identification, with no restrictions on how many generations removed from Selected Years, .1.590 to 200() their ancestors' country or countries of origin. (For 1890-1970, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus In 1970, the native population of foreign or Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) mixed parentage had a median age of 47.3, and 16 3 percent was 65 years old and over (U.S. Census Bureau, 1973, Table IT Number (in millions) 55.9 10ne indication of future growth is the rapid increase in the number of births in the United States to foreign horn women residing in the United States. from 223.000 (6.0 percent of total births) in 1970 to 40.3 797.300 i20.2 percent of total births) in 1999- 'US National Center for Health Statistics, 1975, Table 1- 36.7 34.1 33.6 61, and NCHS unpublished data 20011 These chil- 32.5 14.8 dren have U.S. citizenship at birth and are part of the native population. 26.0 Data published from the 1970 census did not Foreign stock 20 8 distinguish between the native populations of for 15.8 175 24 0 eign parentage and mixed parentage. Mixed parentage -1 129 10.7 14 1 Foreign parentage 8 1

Foreign born 9.2

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1960 19701 2000

Percent of total population

35.3 34.7 Foreign stock 33.2 34.3 32.8 Mixed parentage

70.4 Foreign parentage 13.0 14.1 I 14.0 14.9 14.3 16.5 5.4 7.9 11.8

Foreign born 14.8 13.6 14.7 13.2 11.6 5.4 4.7 10.4 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1960 19701 2000

Data riot available separately for foreign parentage and mixes parentage. Source:11.S. Census Bureau.I 999a, Table 12. and 2001. Table 4 -IA.

23 H.S. Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAiLABLE Section 9. Hispanic Origin and Race

Hispanics and race groupsThe foreign-born differ sharply in their population by region of The racial categories used in percent foreign born. birth is not identical with this section are drawn from the March 2000 Current Population In March 2000, the Current race or ethnicity. Survey and include the follow- Population Survey showed 10.4 per- As reflected in the March 2000 ing: White; Black; American In- cent of the total population was for- Current Population Survey, the dian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and eign born (Figure 9-1).' The propor- foreign-born populations from Asian and Pacific Islander. The tion was much higher among Asians Europe, Northern America (essen- ethnic categories used include and Pacific Islanders (61.4 percent) tially Canada), and Asia were Hispanic origin and not of His- and Hispanics (39.1 percent) but somewhat homogeneous by race panic origin. The population in lower for Blacks (6.3 percent) and and Hispanic origin.In 2000, a race category may be Hispanic for White non-Hispanics (3.6 per- 96.0 percent of the foreign born or not Hispanic, and the popula- cent). from Europe and 89.1 percent of tion of Hispanic origin may be of About half of the foreign the foreign born from Northern any race. There are four race or born are Hispanic. America were White non-Hispanic. Hispanic groups identified for Of the foreign born from Asia, discussion in this section: Hispanics accounted for 83.7 percent were Asian and Pa- Blacks, Asians and Pacific Island- 12.8 million, or 45.2 percent, of the cific Islander (not statistically dif- ers, Hispanics, and White non- foreign-born population according ferent from the proportion White Hispanics. to the March 2000 survey (Table non-Hispanic from Northern Categories of ethnicity and 9-1). The Asian and Pacific Islander America), and 14.5 percent were race are not interchangeable with the geographic regions foreign-born population was 6.7 mil- White non-Hispanic. In contrast, used throughout this report. For lion or 23.6 percent of the total, not the foreign-born population from example, the March 2000 data statistically different from the White Africa was very heterogeneous show 15.3 percent of the foreign non-Hispanic figures of 7.0 million no one race was dominant. born were born in Europe, how- or 24.8 percent. Blacks had the low- Of the foreign-born population ever, 67.9 percent of the foreign est number and proportion foreign from Latin America, 86.2 percent born at 2.2 million people and born were White, and 24.8 per- were Hispanic, 11.4 percent were 7.8 percent. cent were White non-Hispanic. Black, and 2.9 percent were both These and other differences are Black and Hispanic. The Black discussed in the text. population from Latin America was primarily from the Caribbean

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)

Native Total Foreign or population Total Native parentage mixed parentage Foreign born Foreign stock Number Percent Number PercentNumber PercentNumber PercentNumber PercentNumber Percent Total' 274.1 100.0 245.7 100.0 218.2 100.0 27.5 100.0 28.4 100.0 55.9 100.0 Black 35.5 13.0 33.3 13.5 31.9 14.6 1.4 5.0 2.2 7.8 3.6 6.4 Asian 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 17.2

Hispanic 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 39.7 White 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 The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote Iin text. Source. U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Table 9-I A.

24 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPYAVAILABLE (78.1 percent). Of the foreign born 37.4 percent were naturalized citi- ' The four race and Hispanic groups discussed from the Caribbean, 55.6 percent zens (Figure 9-2). White non- in this section do not represent a mutually exclusive Hispanic foreign born had the high- and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total were Hispanic, 45.7 percent were population. The populations in these four categories Black (not statistically different), est rates21.2 median years of resi- add to 99.6 percent of the total population. The American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic and 8.0 percent indicated they dence and 50.3 percent naturalized. population 10.9 percent of the total population) is nor were both Black and Hispanic. Asian and Pacific Islander foreign included, and individuals who are both Black and Asian and Pacific Islander and Hispanic 10.5 percent born had a median length of resi- of the total population) are each included in two of Length of residence and dence of 13.6 years, and 45.7 per- the four categories shown. rin brief. 99.6 percent citizenship status differ plus 0.9 percent minus 0.5 percent equals 100.0 per- cent reported they were naturalized cent.) by race and ethnicity citizens.' Foreign-born Hispanics The length of residence of foreign-born Asians and Pacific Islanders was not significantly different among the foreign born. had a median length of residence of from the length of residence for all foreign-born people. In 2000, the median length of 13.2 years (not statistically different residence in the United States of the from the median for Asians and Pa- foreign born was 14.4 years, and cific Islanders), but only 25.7 per- cent were naturalized citizens.

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) Percent distribution by nativity and parentage Native Percent Population of foreign (inmillions) Native parentage Foreign or mixed parentage 1 Foreign born stock, Total, 274.1 . 10.420.4 Black 35.5 6.3 10.1 Asian and Pacific Islander 10.9 61.487.9 Hispanic origin (of any race) 32.8 39.167.6 White non-Hispanic 193.6 3.610.9

The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote Iin text. gncludes 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 9-2. 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) Median Percent distribution by length of residence length of Percent Population residence naturalized Less than 5 5-9 1 10-14 I 115-19 20 or more (in millions) I I (in years) citizens Total, 28.4 22.0 14.4 37.4 Black 2.222.2 13.9 38.7 Asian and Pacific Islander 6.722.7 13.6 45.7 Hispanic origin (of any race)12.8 22.8 13.2 25.7 White non-Hispanic 7.0 19.9 21.2 50.3

The four race and Hispanic groups shown are riot a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnoteI in text. Source: US Census Bureau, 2000, Taole 9-1B

25 S Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE 33 Section 10. Age and Sex I Three-fifths of the (95.0). Among the foreign-born The foreign-stock foreign born are 25 to population the sex ratio was population was younger 54 years of age. higher for noncitizens (105.7) than in 2000. for naturalized citizens (91.6). The In 2000, the median ages of sex ratio was also higher for those The addition of millions of the foreign-born population whose length of residence in the young foreign-born adults also led (38.1 years) and the native popula- United States was less than to a subsequent increase in the tion (34.5 years) did not differ 10 years (103.2) compared with number of children, most of them greatly; however, there were major those who had lived in the United natives at birth.' Figures 10-4 and differences in age distributions of States 20 years or more (89.5). 10-5 show the effects on the age- the two groups (Figure 10-1). Only sex structure of four decades of 10.0 percent of the foreign born The age structure of the low international migration prior to were under age 18 compared with foreign-born population 1970 followed by three decades of 28.3 percent of natives.In con- varies by region of birth. large-scale international migration. trast, the proportion of the foreign- In 1970, 20.8 percent of the The resurgence of U.S. interna- born population ages 25-54 was foreign-stock population was age tional migration between 1970 and 58.7 percent, compared with 65 and older compared with 2000 resulted in a younger 41.7 percent for the native popula- 7.7 percent of the native popula- tion.' The proportions of the popu- foreign-born population at the end tion of native parentage. On the lation age 55 and older were similar, of the period. Due to an influx of other hand, 51.0 percent of the na- 20.2 percent for the foreign born young adults, the median age of tive population of native parentage and 20.5 percent for natives. the foreign-born population de- was under age 25 (most of them Foreign-born naturalized citi- clined from 52.0 in 1970 to 38.1 baby boomers born between 1946 zens were older (median age 47.5) in 2000 (Figure 10-3).In contrast, and 1964), compared with than the noncitizen foreign born the entire U.S. population contin- 20.2 percent of the foreign stock. (median age 33.0). The proportion ued to grow older with its median As a result of their older age dis- age 65 and older among natural- age rising from 28.1 in 1970 to tribution, the foreign stock in 1970 ized citizens (20.6 percent) was 35.1 in 2000. made up 34.7 percent of the popu- much higher than among the non- In 2000, the median age of the lation age 65 and older and 7.3 per- citizen population (5.2 percent). foreign-born population ranged cent of the population under age 25. As would be expected, the age from 50.0 for Europe, to 39.2 for By 2000, the proportions of foreign structure of the foreign-born popu- Asia and 35.3 for Latin America stock in these two age groups had lation differed greatly by length of (Figure 10-2). The proportions age changed to 26.5 percent and residence in the United States. 25 to 54 from Asia (61.3 percent) 21.0 percent, respectively. About The median age ranged from 28.4 and Latin America (60.9 percent) two-thirds (72.5 percent) of the for those resident in the United were much higher than the propor- foreign-stock population ages 25-54 States less than 10 years to tions from Europe (45.8 percent).2 in 2000 were foreign born com- 52.8 years for those resident in theSimilarly, the proportions age pared with about one-third United States 20 years or more. 65 and older from Latin America (34.7 percent) in 1970. The proportions 65 and older were (6.7 percent) and Asia (9.5 per- 3.2 percent and 25.2 percent, re- cent) were much lower than the ' The 25 to 54 age group is important for labor force analysis because three factors are optimal: spectively. proportion for Europe (27.6 per- Most are full-time workers: most have completed The sex ratio (males per 100 schooling, and most are not eligible to retire. See cent). The differences in age struc- Section 15. females) in 2000 was higher in the ture by region of birth reflect dif- 'There is no statistical difference between the foreign-born population (100.1) proportions for Asia and Latin America. ferences in the timing of interna- 'For a discussion of the concept of foreign than in the native population tional migration. stock, see Section 8. See Section 13 for a discussion of the children of the foreign born.

26 U.S. Census Bureau

34 iL I

Figure 10 -I. Age and Sex of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 (Civilian nonmstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Sex ratio Percent distribution by age (males Median per Population 18-24 IIIII Under 18 I I En25-54 I I 55-64 65 and age 100 (in millions) over (years) females) Total 274.1 35.1 95.6 Native 245.7 34.5 95.0 Foreign born 28.4 38.1 100.1 Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 1 1.2 28.4 103.2 10 to 19 years 8.0 37.0 109.1 20 years or more 9.2 52.8 89.5 Citizenship status Naturalized citizen 1.1 44 146 , 47.5 91.6 Not a citizen 17.8 15 1 6.0 33.0 105.7

SourceU.S Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 10A, 10-1B. and 10-1C

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) Sex ratio Percent distribution by age (males Median per Under 18 18-24 25-54 I 1 55-64 65 and Population I age 100 (in millions) over (years) females)

Total I 28.4 11 1 9.2 38.1 100.1 Europe 4.4 65 50.0 94.7 Asia 7.2 10 5 "f39.2 91.7 Africa 0.7 8 7 76 37.2 140.1

Latin America 14.5 13 1 7.6 < 35.3 103.8 Caribbean 2.8 74 4 . 112 41.5 84.8 Central America 9.8 153 `:1' ..-91 '992" 's 4 6 0 33.0 112.6

Mexico 7.8 151 'es ' S.5 ° 32.6 118.1 Other 1.9 ' 15 9 - > s "' 7 9 35.1 93.0 South America 1.9 . 10 3 95 38.2 91.8 Northern America 0.7 5 3 N 144 47.4 95.5

Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: US. Census Bureau. 2001. Table 10-ID

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) Sex ratio Percent distribution by age (males Median per Population Under 15 I I 15-24 25-44 45-64 65 and age 100 (in millions) over (years) females) 2000 28.4 7.1 38.1 100.1 1990 19.87.5 37.3 95.8 1980 14.1 8.8 14 7 /11.1111=1111111 39.9 87.8 1970 9.66.3 8.8 1.11.0101111.111M1 52.0 84.4 1960 9.75.2 57.2 95.6

Source' U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Table 7 andI 999b Tables 10-1A and 10-2A.

27 /5. r emus Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE r 4,

Figure 10-4.

Total Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000 Foreign stock' Native of native parentage 1970 Males Age Females 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 -- 40 -44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14

59 1 0-4 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Millions Millions Total population: 203.2 million2

2000 Males Age Females 85+ 80-84 75.79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45.49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 ' 10-14 5-9 0-4 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Millions Millions Total population: 274.1 million3

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

28 U.S. Census Bureau

36 Figure 10-5.

Foreign-Stock' Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000 Foreign born Native of foreign or mixed parentage 1970 Males Age Females 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 I.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Millions Millions Total population: 33.6 million2

2000 Males Age Females 85+ 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 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 Millions Millions Total population: 55.9 million3

'Foreign born plus natives of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8 for definition. 'Resident population. 'Civilian 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.

29 U.S. Census Bureau

37 Section 11. Household Size and Type

On average, foreign-born larger among foreign-born house- households are larger A household is a person or holds than among native house- than native households. group of people who occupy a holds. This apparent contradiction housing unit. The house- occurs because household nativity In 2000, 11.6 million, or holder is usually the house- is based on the nativity of the 11.1 percent, of the 104.7 million hold member or one of the householder. A substantial propor- households in the United States had household members in whose tion of members of foreign-born a foreign-born householder (Figure name the housing unit is households, especially children, are 11-1). The average foreign-born owned or rented. A family is native (with U.S. citizenship at birth) household (3.26) was larger than made up of two or more rather than foreign born. the average native household (2.54). people living together who are Foreign-born households also had a related by birth, marriage, or One-third of the larger average number of children adoption, one of who is the members of foreign-born under 18 (0.99 versus 0.65). householder. households are native. Among households with a foreign- Households are classified The average size of native born householder, average house- as foreign born or native households (2.54) in 2000 included hold size was largest where length based on the nativity of the 2.50 native members and only 0.03 of residence in the United States householder, regardless of the foreign-born members. The average was 10 to 19 years (3.70). Average nativity of other household size of foreign-born households household size was also larger members. For simplicity, a (3.26) included 2.18 foreign-born where the householder was not a household with a native members and 1.08 native members. citizen (3.44). householder is referred to as a Native members thus represented The foreign-born proportion of native household, and a 33.1 percent of all members of for- households (11.1 percent) exceeds household with a foreign-born eign-born households. In absolute the foreign-born proportion of the householder is referred to as a numbers, 12.6 million natives lived total population (10.4 percent), even foreign-born household. in the 11.6 million foreign-born though average household size is

Figure 1 1-1. 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)

Percent distribution of households by type

Family households Nonfamily households Average Households Married Male Female Male 0--1 Female household (in millions) couple I I householder, householder, householder householder size Total 104.7 2.62 Native 93.1 2.54 Foreign born 11.6 3.26 Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 3.4 3.25 10 to 19 years 3.3 3.70 20 years and over 4.9 2.97 Citizenship status Naturalized citizen 5.4 3.05 Not a citizen 6.3 3.44

'Male householder, no spouse present. =Female householder, no spouse present. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables1 1-1A.

30 Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE sas

households in 2000 compared with 2000. Married-couple families, householders from Northern only 3.0 million foreign born living which generally have the highest av- America (essentially Canada).' Av- in the 93.1 million native house- erage number of members among erage household size among for- holds. the different household types, repre- eign-born households with house- The distribution of households sented 58.7 percent of foreign-born holders from Mexico was 4.21 by size differs sharply between for- households versus 52.1 percent of compared with 3.26 for all foreign- eign-born and native households. native households. born households. The higher fig- Among foreign-born households, Household size varies by ure for households with a house- about the same proportion had one holder from Mexico reflects a member (1 7.7 percent) as had five region of birth of the higher proportion of married- or more members (21.0 percent). householder. couple families (65.4 percent ver- Among native households, 26.5 per- Of the 11.6 million households sus 58.7 percent for all foreign- cent had one member and only in 2000 with a foreign-born house- born households) and a lower pro- 9.0 percent had five or more mem- holder, 5.6 million, or 48.0 per- portion of householders age 65 bers. cent, of the householders were and older (6.6 percent versus Family households, which in- from Latin America (Figure 11-2). 14.4 percent).2 clude married-couple families, male- An additional 2.8 million house- The average household size for householders householder families (no wife holders were from Asia, and 2.2 from Northern America was not significantly different present), and female-householder million were from Europe. Average from that of householders from Europe. `Elderly householders are less likely to have families (no husband present), repre- household size among these children still living at home. Data on fertility from sented 77.6 percent of foreign-born foreign-born households ranged the 1990 census show that among women 35 to 44 years old. the average numbers of children ever born households, compared with from 3.72 with householders from were 2 3 for all foreign -born women and 3.3 for for 67.7 percent of native households in Latin America to 2.32 with eign-born women from Mexico (11.S. Census Bureau, 1993a, Table 11

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

Family households Nonfamily households Average HouseholdsEm.Married Male Female Male Female household On millions) couple householder' householder, 1householder householder size Total 11.6 62 d 11.9 3.26 Europe 2.2 34^ 143 e 2.38 Asia 2.8 58 120 1, 3.18 Africa 0.3 86 , 22 3 3.08 Latin America 5.6 t1 76 9.6 5i3.72 Caribbean 1.3 58 121 3.01

Central America 3.5 85 = k'± 8.1 4.09 Mexico 2.8 . 83 8.1 4.21 Other 0.7 93 t t " 8.2 3.60 South America 0.7 66 122 3.19 Northern America 0.3 33 159 2.32

'Male householder. no wife present rEernale householder, no husband present. 'includes areas not shown separately

Source' U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, TableI I- ID.

31 L.S. I orison Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE Section 12. Families and Related Children II ...tme°11iii,1117411

Family size differs native householders, 48.5 million between foreign-born A family is made up of were married-couple families, 11.2 million were female house- and native families. two or more people living to- holder families, and 3.3 million gether who are related by In 2000, 9.0 million, or were male householder families. birth, marriage, or adoption, 12.5 percent, of the 72.0 million Married-couple families repre- family households in the United one of whom is the house- sented 75.6 percent of all foreign- States had a foreign-born house- holder. Related children are born families and 77.0 percent of holder (Figure 12-1). The average children under age 18 living all native families, not significantly size of foreign-born families was in the household and related different from each other. Average 3.72 compared with 3.10 for na- to the householder such as family size was 3.85 for married- tive families. Foreign-born families own children, grandchildren, couple families with a foreign-born had larger average numbers both nieces and nephews. Fami- householder and 3.15 for their na- of adults (age 18 and older), 2.47 lies are classified as foreign tive householder counterparts. versus 2.15, and of children (under born or native based on the age 18), 1.25 versus 0.94. nativity of the householder, Three-fifths of married- Of the 9.0 million families in regardless of the nativity of couple families with a 2000 with a foreign-born house- other family members. For foreign-born householder holder, 6.8 million were married- simplicity, a family with a na- have one or more related couple families, 1.5 million were tive householder is referred children. families with a female householder to as a native family, and a (no husband present), and 0.7 mil- Among married-couple families family with a foreign-born in 2000, 61.3 percent of those lion were families with a male householder is referred to as householder (no wife present). Of with a foreign-born householder a foreign-born family. the 63.0 million families with had one or more related children

Figure 12-1. Families by -Fype, 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

Average family Households None 1 I 2 3 or more (in millions) size Total families 72.0 48.3 21.5 10.93.17 Native householder 63.0 49.5 21.2 10.33.10 Foreign-born householder 9.0 39.2 23.7 3.72

Married-couple families 55.3 3.24 Native householder 48.5 3.15 Foreign-born householder 6.8 3.85 Male householder, no wife present 4.0 46.2 32.3 VzOkar1.15.82.79 Native householder 3.3 44.4 34.1 $doitql 5.62.69 Foreign-born householder 0.7 54.3 24.4 3.25

Female householder, no husband present 12.7 13.13.01 Native householder 11.2 12.92.97 Foreign-born householder 1.5 14.93.35

Source: U.S Census Bureau. 2001, Tables 12.1A

32 u.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE under age 18 compared with (Figure1 2 -2). The average size One-quarter of married- 45.8 percent of those with a native (3.95) of these families was larg- couple families with a householder (Figure1 2 -1). The est in the 5.5 million families in householder from Latin proportions for married-couple which both spouses were foreign America had three or foreign-born families were higher born. more related children. than for married-couple native The average size of married- families with one or two children couple families with both In 2000, 61.3 percent of (45.2 percent versus 35.8 percent) spouses foreign born (3.95) in- married-couple families with a and with three or more children cluded 2.79 foreign-born mem- foreign-born householder had one (16.1 percent versus 10.0 percent). bers and 1.16 native members. or more related children under age Among the 1.5 million foreign- Native members thus represented 18. The proportion ranged from born families with a female house- 29.3 percent of all members of 35.0 percent with householders holder (no husband present), these families. For married- from Europe to 73.4 percent with 14.9 percent had three or more re- couple families with husband for- householders from Latin America. lated children, not statistically dif- eign born and wife native, Among married-couple families with ferent from 12.9 percent among householders from Mexico, the pro- 67.7 percent of family members the 11.2 million native families portion was 80.4 percent. were native, not significantly dif- with a female householder. While 16.1 percent of all married- ferent from the 66.0 percent of Nearly 1 of 6 married- couple families with a foreign-born family members who were native householder had three or more re- couple families includes in married-couple families with lated children, the proportion at least one foreign-born spouses' nativities reversed (hus- ranged from 5.1 percent with house- spouse. band native and wife foreign holders from Europe to 24.4 percent born).In married-couple families Of the 55.3 million married- with householders from Latin with both spouses native, virtu- America. Among married-couple couple families in 2000, 8.7 mil- ally all members were native; families with householders from lion, or 15.7 percent, included at only 0.1 percent were foreign Mexico, 31.9 percent had three or least one foreign-born spouse born. more 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) Average number of family members

Native Foreign born

I iUnder age 18MINI Age 18 andover Families =Under age18 Age 18 and over (in millions) 0.04 Total married-couple families 55.3 0.89 3.24 Husband Wife Foreign born Foreign born 5.5 3.95 .01 Foreign born Native 1.5 1.08 111.111111111111111111111111 3.40 0.04 Native Foreign born 1.7 0 97 111011111111.1111.111111' 3.29

Native' Native 46.7 0.87 3.15

The 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.

33 U.S. census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 41 Section 13. Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders

Nearly 1 in 6 children 99.6 percent), but a small number Children living in foreign- lives with a foreign-born (240,000) were foreign born.' born households are householder, and most ofThe vast majority of younger than children in these children are native.children living in native households. In March 2000, 72.1 million households with a foreign- Preschool age children, or children (under age 18) lived in born householder are those less than 6 years old, repre- households.' Of the 11.5 million related to the householder. sented 35.3 percent of children liv- children living in households with ing in households with a foreign- a foreign-born householder, In March 2000, 98.9 percent of born householder, compared with 8.9 million, or 77.7 percent, were the 72.1 million children under age 32.2 percent of children living in native, and 2.6 million were for- 18 lived in family households. households with a native house- eign born (Table 13.1).2 The re- Among the 11.4 million children holder. maining children in households living in family households with a Among children in foreign-born (60.6 million) lived with a native foreign-born householder, 98.7 households, a major difference ex- householder. Nearly all of the chil- percent were related to the house- isted in the age structure of native dren living with native household- holder, and 1.3 percent were unre- and foreign-born children: ers were native (60.4 million, or lated. (Figure 13.1).4 The majority 41.6 percent of native children liv- of these children were the ing with foreign-born householders householder's own child (89.4 per- were under the age of 6, compared cent), but some were other rela- Children of the foreign with only 13.5 percent of foreign- tives of the householder, such as born children.' born may be either native or grandchildren, nephews, or nieces foreign born. Native children (9.3 percent). Within foreign-born Children of the foreign are those who were born in family households, similar propor- born are more likely to the United States or one of tions of both foreign-born and na- live in poverty. its Island Areas such as tive children were the house- Puerto Rico, or who were holder's own child. As discussed in Section 19, born abroad to a U.S. citizen For children in family house- children living in a family with a parent. Foreign born children holds with a native householder, foreign-born householder were are those who were born 91.5 percent were the household- more likely to be living in poverty. abroad to parents who were er's own child, and an additional For example, the poverty rate for not U.S. citizens. For further 7.4 percent were other relatives of related children under age 18 in information see Section 8 and the householder. The remaining families living with foreign-born Appendix A. 1.1 percent were not related to the householders was 24.0 percent householder. (2.7 million of 11.2 million),

Figure 13-1. Children Linder Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, Nativity, and Nativity or Householder: 2000 (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Percent distribution of children by relationship to the householder Children I= Own Other related I Unrelated I (in millions) children children children All children in all family households 71.3 .2 Children in foreign-born family households 11.4 .3 Native children in foreign-born family households 8.9 .2 Foreign-born children in foreign-born family households2.5 Children in native family households 59.9

Source Table 13-1

34 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE compared with 14.9 percent for For the definition of nativity, see the text box. families with three or more chil- 'There is no statistical difference between children living in families with na- dren living with a native house- 60.6 million and 60.4 million. tive householders.6 Families with Related by birth, marriage, or adoption. holder (20.6 percent). 5This difference reflects the fact that children three or more related children liv- born in the United States are classified as native, re- ing with a foreign-born house- The child population in this section excludes gardless of the birthplace or citizenship status of ei- the very small number of people under age 18 in ther parent. holder had a much higher rate of households who were a householder or the spouse of Poverty is calculated for the related child poverty (32.8 percent) than a householder. See also, Section 12. population under age 18 living in family households.

Table 13-1. Native and Foreign-Born Children Under Age 18 Living in Households and Families by Nativity of Householder: 2000 (Numbers in thousands)

All children Native children Foreign-born children

Item Percent Under Under Under of all Total age 6 Total age 6 Total age 6 children

ALL HOUSEHOLDS Total 72,116 23,574 69,317 23,161 2,799 413 3.9 In family households 71,291 23,324 68,529 22,919 2,761 406 3.9 In families 70,469 23,099 67,764 22,698 2,705 401 3.8 Own child 64,965 20,784 62,560 20,435 2,405 348 3.7 Other related child 5,504 2,316 5,204 2,263 299 53 5.4 Not in families 822 225 765 220 56 5 6.8 Not in family households 825 250 788 243 38 8 4.6 Related child 70,469 23,099 67,764 22,698 2,705 401 3.8 Unrelated child 1,647 475 1,553 463 94 13 5.7 NATIVE HOUSEHOLDS Total 60,638 19,518 60,398 19,450 240 68 0.4 In family households 59,901 19,307 59,664 19,239 238 68 0.4 In families 59,226 19,139 59,008 19,071 218 68 0.4 Own child 54,785 17,320 54,590 17,252 195 68 0.4 Other related child 4,442 1,819 4,418 1,819 24 0.5 Not in families 675 168 656 168 19 2.8 Not in family households 737 211 734 211 3 0.4 Related child 59,226 19,139 59,008 19,071 218 68 0.4 Unrelated child 1,412 379 1,390 379 22 1.6 FOREIGN-BORN HOUSEHOLDS Total 11,478 4,056 8,919 3,711 2,558 345 22.3 In family households 11,389 4,018 8,866 3,680 2,523 338 22.2 In families 11,242 3,960 8,756 3,627 2,486 333 22.1 Own child 10,180 3,464 7,970 3,184 2,21 i 280 21.7 Other related child 1,062 496 787 444 275 53 25.9 Not in families 147 58 110 53 37 5 25.2 Not in family households 88 39 53 31 35 8 39.8 Related child 11,242 3,960 8,756 3,627 2,486 333 22.1 Unrelated child 235 97 163 84 72 13 30.6

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

35 U.S. Census Bureau

43 Section 14. Educational Attainment dir AI I .,411111 Educational levels among education was 26.0 percent for College education levels the foreign-born and both the foreign-born and native differ by sex. populations. A small difference native populations differ Educational distributions by sex only below the college existed in the proportion of the foreign-born and native population differed somewhat among the level. with a graduate degree (9.7 per- foreign-born population. The pro- In 2000, the proportion of the cent and 8.4 percent, respectively). portion of the foreign-born popula- population age 25 and older who Among individuals with less thantion age 25 years and older who had completed high school or a high school education (33.0 per- had completed high school or more more education was lower among cent for the foreign-born population education was about 67.0 percent for men and for women; however, the foreign-born population and 13.4 percent for the native (67.0 percent) than among the population), the distributions by the proportion with a bachelor's de- native population (86.6 percent) educational attainment differed gree or more education was higher (Figure 14-1). Among the foreign sharply. Among the foreign-born for men (28.6 percent) than for born, 76.2 percent of the natural- population, the proportions with women (23.1 percent). This differ- ized citizens compared with less than a 5th grade education, a ence was mostly among the propor- 59.8 percent for those who were 5th to 8th grade education, and a tions with a graduate degree or not citizens had completed high 9th to llth grade education were higher: 12.6 percent for men and 6.8 percent for women. school. 7.2 percent, 15.0 percent, and The difference between the for- 10.8 percent, respectively. The cor- For the native population, 86.7 percent of men and 86.5 per- eign born (67.0 percent) and na- responding figures for the native tive (86.6 percent) educational population were 0.7 percent, cent of women (not statistically dif- rates of high school completion 4.0 percent, and 8.7 percent. ferent) age 25 and older had com- and beyond was confined to the Among individuals with less than pleted high school or more educa- proportions who were high school a high school education, those with tion. The proportion with a graduates only or who had some less than a 5th grade education rep- bachelor's degree or more education was higher for men (27.7 percent) college but less than a bachelor's resented about Iin 5 of the foreign- degree. The proportion with born, but only about 1in 20 of the than for women (23.6 percent). The proportion with a graduate degree a bachelor's degree or more native population.

Figure 14-1. Educational Attainment of the Population Age 23 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)

Percent of total Percent high school Population Less than high High school Some college, less Bachelor's degreegraduate (in millions) mg school graduate graduate than bachelor's degree or more or more

Total 175.2 25.6 1 84.4 Native 152.8 86.6 Foreign born 22.4 67.0 Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 6.8 67.0 10 to 19 years 6.6 64.5 20 years or more 9.0 68.7 Citizenship status Naturalized citizen 9.8 23.8 26.4 kiM,414,11MW 303 76.2 Not a citizen 12.6 40.2 23.9 MOM 22.0 59.8

Source: U.5 Census Bureau. 2001, Tables 14 -I A. 14-18, and 14-IC

36 (.50 Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE was also higher for men (9.6 per- grade education were 3.9 percent population age 25 and older from cent) than for women (7.3 percent).' for the foreign born and 0.2 percent Mexico, 66.2 percent had less than for the natives. a high school education. Those Educational differences with less than a 5th grade education exist among the Most African foreign born comprised 16.5 percent of the Mexi- population ages 25 have completed high can-born population, 31.9 percent to 34 years. school. had a 5th to 8th grade education, and 17.9 percent had a 9th to llth Among adults, educational at- Among the population age 25 grade education, not statistically tainment often differs by age.' Be- and older in 2000, 94.9 percent of different from the proportion with cause of this, it is useful to limit the the foreign born from Africa had less than a 5th grade education. comparison of educational attain- completed high school or more edu- The median educational level of the ment to the population ages 25 to cation (Figure 14.2). The high school foreign-born population from 34, the youngest age group in completion rates for the foreign Mexico was about 8th grade. which a large share of individuals born from Europe (81.3 percent), Asia (83.8 percent), Northern had completed their formal educa- 'There is no statistical difference in the propor- tion.' America (85.5 percent), and South tions of foreign-born and native women with a America (79.6 percent) were not sta- bachelor's degree or more education (23.1 percent In 2000, the proportion ages 25 compared with 23.6 percent) or with graduate de- to 34 that had completed high tistically different from each other, grees (6.8 percent compared with 7.3 percent). Simi but they were all well above the for- larly, there is no statistical difference in the propor- school or more education was lower tions of foreign-born and native men with a among the foreign-born population eign born average of 67.0 percent. bachelor's degree or more education (28.6 percent The Latin American average was compared with 27.7 percent). (68.3 percent) than among the na- 'For an in-depth discussion of the age distribu tive population (92.0 percent). The much lower (49.6 percent). non of the foreign-born and native populations. see Within the Latin American for- Section 10. proportion with a bachelor's degree The discussion of education levels for the popu- or more education was 24.6 percent eign-born population, South America lation 25 to 34 years old is limited to a comparison of registered the highest proportion of foreign-born and native populations. The sample is for the foreign-born population and not large enough to identify small. but substantively 30.2 percent for the native popula- high school completions (79.6 per- important, differences between foreign-born men and tion. Conversely, the proportions of cent) while Mexico had the lowest women in the 25 to 34 age group. the population with less than a 5th (33.8 percent). Of the foreign-born

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)

Percent of total Percent highschool Population Less than high High school Some college, less Bachelor's degreegraduate (in millions) school graduate graduate than bachelor's degree Or more ormore Total' 22.4E115- 25 0 Paw 25.8]67.0 Europe 3.8 28 7 81.3 Asia 5.8 21 8 44.983.8 Africa 0.6 23 3 49.3 94.9 Latin America 10.9 249 11249.6 Caribbean 2.3 300 kk's 19.368.1 Central America 7.1arr 218 5.537.3 Mexico 5.6 20 3 " 4.233.8 . Other 1.5 278 10.550.8 South America 1.5 316 25.979.7 Northern America 0.6 270 36.285.5

'Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 14-1D.

37 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4 ;; Section 15. Labor Force Participation

The foreign-born foreign-born males 16 years old and For foreign-born men in 2000, population accounts for older, compared with 56.7 percent labor force participation rates for 12.4 percent of the of native males 16 years old and the 25-to-54 age group did not vary older. Men 65 years old and older, by region of birth (Figure 15-3); civilian labor force. who had the lowest participation however, there was some variation In March 2000, the foreign-born rates, represented 10.4 percent of among women. For women born in population accounted for 17.4 mil- foreign-born males 16 years old and Mexico, the labor force participation lion, or 12.4 percent, of the total older, compared with 14.3 percent rate was 55.1 percent compared civilian labor force of 140.5 million.' of native males 16 years old and with 66.5 percent for all foreign- The labor force participation rate of over. For men 25 to 54 years old born women. the foreign-born population was the labor force rates by nativity were 66.6 percent, not significantly differ- statistically different, but the differ- The unemployment rate ent from 67.3 percent for the native ences were very small. For men 65 is higher for the foreign- population. years old and older, the labor force born labor force than for participation rates by nativity were the native labor force. virtually equal. In March 2000, the overall unem- The civilian labor force is For women, the labor force par- ployment rate was 4.4 percent. The the civilian noninstitutional ticipation rate was lower among unemployment rate was higher population age 16 years and the foreign-born population older who are employed (have (53.7 percent) than among the na- among the foreign-born labor force (4.9 percent) than among the native a job) or who are unemployed tive population (61.6 percent).In (without a job, available for contrast to males, the difference labor force (4.3 percent)! Among work, and actively seeking for females was due to differences males, the unemployment rates work or on layoff). The labor in age-specific labor force partici- were not statistically different force participation rate is the pation rates and not to differences (4.5 percent for the foreign-born la- proportion of the civilian popu- in age structure. In the 25-to-54 bor force and 4.4 percent for the na- lation 16 years old and older in age group, which accounts for tive labor force). However, the un- the labor force. The unemploy- most of the labor force, the partici- employment rate was higher for for- ment rate is the proportion of pation rates were 66.5 percent for eign-born female labor force partici- the civilian labor force that is foreign-born women and 79.4 per- pants (5.5 percent) than for their na- unemployed. cent for native women. tive counterparts (4.2 percent). The unemployment rate varied by region Labor force participation of birth from 2.3 percent for Euro- The patterns of labor rates for foreign-born pean and 3.5 percent for Asian for- force participation rates women 25 to 54 years eign-born workers to 7.3 percent for by sex differ between the old differ sharply by Mexican and 7.2 percent for Carib- foreign-born and native citizenship status. bean foreign-born workers.' populations. Among foreign-born men, labor 'Labor force data for March 2000 differ slightly force participation rates in the 25-to- from data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statis- The labor force participation rate tics (BLS) due to the use by BLS of a composite estima- in 2000 was higher for foreign-born 54 age group did not differ greatly tion procedure that reduces sampling error, especially by length of residence in the United in estimates of month-to-month change. In addition. men (79.6 percent) than for native the data in this section differ from annual-average data men (73.4 percent), as shown in Fig- States (Figure 15-2). Among for- and from seasonally adjusted data published by BLS. eign-born women, the labor force (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000, especially pp. ure 15-1. The difference is due pri- 172 and 195-197). marily to differences in age structure participation rate was lowest for 'There is no statistical difference between the to- those with length of residence less tal unemployment rate and the rates for native females. and not to differences in age-spe- the foreign born, the male foreign born, and the female cific labor force participation rates. than 10 years (56.1 percent), and it foreign born. was lower among those who were 'There is no statistical difference between Euro- Men 25 to 54 years old, who had pean and Asian unemployment rates; there is no statis- the highest participation rates, not citizens (60.1 percent) than tical difference between the Mexican and Caribbean rates. represented 64.6 percent of among those who were naturalized citizens (77.4 percent).

38 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4 5 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) Foreign born 1 Native Labor force Labor force Males (in millions) (in millions) Females 53 7 79 6 10.3 16 years old and over 7.1 73 4 64.2 58.9 -, 61 6 46 8 0.3 0.2 32 3 49 6 3.8 16 to 19 years 3.6 50 3 80 3 49 1 1.1 20 to 24 years 0.5 80 6 , 6.3 6.2 = 75.4 5.5 66 5 92.8 7.8 25 to 54 years 91.2 45.3 41.5 79.4 50 2 75 1 0.9 55 to 64 years 0.7 66 1 6.6 5.8 53 6 0.1 79 183 0.2 65 years and over 18.6 2.3 1.7 102

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 15-IA.

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) Labor force Labor force Males (in millions) (in millions) Females

91.4 3' 53.1 Total 47.0 3,0-04`,Pt 77.6 < 91.2 t4A a's 45.2 Native 41.5 a=< 79.4 92.8 .. .` 7.8 Foreign born 5.5 1'ZC.P1 4 66 5 Length of residence in the United States a3g 91.1 1,,",N,.,:4\ e>," AA,''.AVV, 2.7 Less than 10 years1.7 N 'W"'" 56 1 95.1 2.8 10 to 19 years 1.9 t k 70.4 92.0 1,4 ;',1s -1k 2.3 20 years or more 1.9 ° 75.2 Citizenship status

95.3 . A2<, 2.8Naturalized citizen2.4 14. 77.4 92.4 tONV- Wt.A1014 5.0 Not a citizen 3.1 c", - a Vit 60 1

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Tables I5-3A, I 5-3B, I 5-3C.

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) Labor force Labor force Males (in millions) (in millions) Females 92.8 7.8 Total' 5.5 66 5

93.1 0.9 Europe 0.7 < 73.8 91 4 1.9 Asia 1.6 68 9 93.5 4.2 Latin America 2.7 63 4 90 8 0.6 Caribbean 0.7 73.9 94.5 3.1 Central America 1.6 58 1 94.4 2.5 Mexico 1.2 551 94.7 0.6 Other 0.4 68 5 91.7 0.5 South America 0.4 73.0

'Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 15 -3D. 39 U.S. Census Bureau

47 Section 16. Occupation ld Occupational distribution occupational groups for natural- of foreign-born workers The occupational classifica- ized-citizen workers and native differs sharply from that tion system used here and by workers were statistically different of native workers. the Bureau of Labor Statistics from each other in most cases, but is the one used in the 1990 the differences were relatively In March 2000, managerial and census and is based largely on small. professional specialty occupations the 1980 Standard Occupa- accounted for 24.7 percent of tional Classification (SOC). This Occupational distributions foreign-born workers compared with system includes 501 detailed of foreign-born workers 30.9 percent of native workers (Fig- occupational categories, which differ greatly by region ure 16-1).' Technical, sales, and ad- can be combined into the 6 of birth. ministrative support occupations ac- summary occupational groups As would be expected given dif- counted for an additional 20.9 per- discussed in this section. The ferences in length of residence, citi- cent of foreign-born workers com- data on occupation are for the zenship status, and educational at- pared with an additional 30.6 per- employed civilian population tainment by region of birth of the cent of native workers.' As a result, age 16 years old and older (as foreign-born population, there are these two occupational groups to- discussed in Section 15 on la- gether accounted for 45.6 percent bor force) who are referred to major differences in occupational of foreign-born workers compared in this section as workers. distributions (Figure 16-2). In 2000, with 61.5 percent of native workers. professional and managerial spe- Higher proportions of foreign-born cialty occupations accounted for workers than of native workers filled 38.1 percent of workers from Eu- lived in the United States less than service occupations (19.2 percent rope and 38.7 percent of workers 10 years.In contrast, operators, versus 13.2 percent); worked as op- from Asia compared with 12.1 per- fabricators, and laborers ac- erators, fabricators, and laborers cent of workers from Latin America.' counted for 13.9 percent of for- (18.7 percent versus 12.7 percent); (The proportions of the foreign-born eign-born workers who had lived worked in precision production, population age 25 years old and in the United States 20 years or craft, and repair jobs (12.1 percent older with a bachelor's degree or versus 10.5 percent); or held farm- more compared with 22.7 percent more education were 32.9 percent for those who had lived in the ing, forestry, and fishing jobs from Europe, 44.9 percent from United States less than 10 years.' (4.5 percent versus 2.1 percent).' Asia, and 11.2 percent from Latin Among foreign-born workers in America.) Among foreign-born work- 2000, managerial and professional Naturalized-citizen ers from Latin America, the propor- specialty occupations accounted workers and native tions in managerial and professional for 33.6 percent of workers who workers have similar specialty occupations ranged from were naturalized citizens versus occupational distributions. 23.2 percent for workers from South 19.0 percent of workers who were America and 22.6 percent for work- The differences in occupational not citizens. In contrast, operators, ers from the Caribbean to 6.3 per- distributions between foreign-born fabricators, and laborers ac- and native workers described counted for 13.3 percent of cent of workers from Mexico.6 In above are reflected in differences naturalized-citizen workers versus 2000, operators, fabricators, and la- among foreign-born workers by 22.1 percent of workers who were borers, who accounted for 18.7 per- length of residence in the United not citizens. cent of foreign-born workers, ac- States and by citizenship status While the occupational distribu- counted for 24.8 percent of workers (Figure 16-1). In 2000, managerial tion of naturalized-citizen workers from Latin America and for 11.2 per- and professional specialty occupa- differed from that of workers who cent of all other foreign-born work- tions accounted for 32.6 percent were not citizens, as well as from ers. Farming, forestry, and fishing of foreign-born workers who had that of workers who were native, it occupations, which accounted for lived in the United States for more closely resembled that of na- 4.5 percent of foreign-born workers, 20 years or more compared with tive workers. In 2000, the propor- accounted for 7.8 percent of work- 20.2 percent for those who had tions in each of the six summary ers from Latin America and for 40 U.S. C ensu, Bureau

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 43 XI I 1.0 percent of all other foreign-born forestry, and fishing occupational 'There is no statisticaldifference between 19.2 percent and 18.7 percent. workers. Among foreign-born work- group. 'There is no statisticaldifference between 20.2 ers from Mexico, 28.6 percent were and 22.7. There is no statisticaldifference between 38.1 in the operators, fabricators, and la- 'See Section 15. footnote 1, concerning labor and 38.7. force data for March 2000. borers occupational group, and 'There is no statisticaldifference between 23.2 There is no statistical difference between and 22.6. 12.9 percent were in the farming, 30.6 and 30.9 percent.

Figure 16-1.

Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and IManagerial and professional specialty Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the Technical, sales, and administrative support United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 Service occupations r Precision production, craft, and repair (Civilian noninstitutional population) Operators, fabricators, and laborers Farming, forestry, and fishing Workers (in millions) Percent distribution by major occupation group

Total 134.3 30.1 10 7 2.4 Native 117.8 30.9 a. 105 2.1 Foreign born 16.5 24.7 12 1 4.5 I Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 5.7 10 to 19 years 5.4 20 years or more 5.4 Citizenship status Naturalized citizen 6.5 1.9 Not a citizen 10

Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Tables 16-1A. 16-1B, and 16-1C.

Figure 16-2. Major Occupation Group of Foreign --Born Workers Managerial and professional specialty =11 Technical, sales, and administrative support Age 16 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000 Service occupations (Civilian noninstitutionalpopulation) L 1Precision production, craft, and repair Operators, fabricators, and laborers Farming, forestry, and fishing Workers (in millions) Percent distribution by majoroccupationgroup

Total i 16.524.7 12 1 4.5 Europe 2338.1 122 0.6 5 9 0.8 Asia 4.338.7 1 Africa 0.436.5 42 0.5 Latin America 8.5 12.1 159 7.8 Caribbean 1.622.6 90 0.8 Central America 5.87.0 183 11.1 Mexico 4.56.3 192 12.4 Other 1.3 9.4 15 2 4.5 South America 1.223.2 137 0.9 Northern America 0.446.3 93 1.7

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

41 U.S Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE 4 ;) Section 17. Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers

Earnings of full-time, earnings less than $25,000, while The median earnings of workers year-round workers are 12.0 percent had earnings of from Latin America were well lower for foreign-born 550,000 or more. Among their na- below the median earnings of all tive counterparts, the correspond- foreign-born workers. workers than for their ing proportions were 44.1 percent Formenfrom Europe and Asia, native counterparts. and 13.2 percent, respectively.2 the median earnings were $44,990 In 1999, median earnings for Even though the median earnings and $36,911, respectively, while all full-time, year-round workers of foreign-born female workers for women, median earnings were age 16 and older (shortened to were lower than those of native $28,319 and $29,662, respec- "workers" in the remainder of the female workers, the proportions tively.'In comparison, the median text of this section) were $36,572 with earnings of $50,000 or more earnings for workers from Latin for men and $26,380 for women.' were not significantly different. America were $20,974 for men Median earnings for foreign-born Earnings of foreign-born and 517,213 for women. The male and female workers were female-to-male earnings ratio was $27,239 and 522,139, respec- workers who are higher for foreign-born workers tively, compared with $37,528 and naturalized citizens from Latin America (0.82) and Asia $26,698 respectively, for native are higher than the (.80) than for foreign-born workers male and female workers (Figure earnings of other foreign- from Europe (0.63).4 17-1). The female-to-male earnings born workers. Median earnings for workers ratio was higher for foreign-born from the Caribbean ($26,971 for The median earnings of foreign- workers (0.81) than for native men and $21,255 for women) and born male workers in 1999 were workers (0.71). from South America ($27,502 for $21,600 for those living in the Among foreign-born male work- men and $23,080 for women) United States less than 10 years ers, 44.9 percent had earnings less were not statistically different from and $35,778 for those living in the than 525,000 while 23.2 percent each other. The median earnings United States 20 years or more. had earnings of $50,000 or more. of Mexican-born female workers The corresponding figures for Among their native counterparts, (515,149) were below the respec- foreign-born female workers were the corresponding proportions tive medians for both male and fe- were 24.2 percent and 33.0 per- $17,330 and $27,221. male workers from the Caribbean For foreign-born male workers, cent, respectively. and South America and Mexican- median earnings in 1999 were Among foreign-born female born men ($19,181) but not differ- workers, 55.5 percent had 536,157 for naturalized citizens ent from earnings for female work- and $22,276 for workers who ers from other Central American were not citizens. The correspond- countries ($15,857).5 Earnings include money ing figures for foreign-born female wage or salary income before workers were $27,697 and 'There was no statistical difference in the earn- 518,236, respectively. ings of foreign-born men and native women. deductions from work per- There was no statistical difference in the pro- formed as an employee, net portion of native females and foreign-born males Median earnings of earning less than $25.000. income from farm and non- workers from Europe and The apparent differences in median earnings of farm self employment for female workers from Europe and Asia were not sta- Asia exceed the median tistically different. workers.In this report, a 'Male/female earnings ratios for foreign-born earnings of workers from workers from Asia and Latin America are not signifi- full-time year-round worker is cantly different, however, a Latin American worker a person age 16 or older who Latin America. earns about 50.51 for every S 100 an Asian worker hours per earns. worked 35 ormore Among foreign-born workers 'There was no statistical difference in the earn- week for 50 or more weeks from the regions shown in Figure ings of Mexican born male workers and female work- ers from the Caribbean or South America. during the calendar year. 17-2, those from Europe and Asia generally had the highest earnings.

42 U.SCensus Rureau

BEST COPY AVAILABLE )(/ I

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)

Percent distribution of workers by earnings

Workers Ems Less than $1 0 , 000- $25,000- $50,000. $75,000 Median I I Men (in millions) $10,000 $24,999 $49,999 $74,999 and over earnings Total *CV:, $36,572

Native 1.44:; NA $37,528 Foreign born $27,239 Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 2.6 $21,600 10 to 19 years 2.7 $26,319 20 years or more 2.5 2' . $35,778 Citizenship status 2.3 Naturalized citizen 3.0 26.7 $36,157 Not a citizen 4.85.9 49 0 MilleneeW 9.8 $22,276

Median Women earnings Total 40.25,3 40.0 $26,380 Native 35.95.2 38.9 $26,698 Foreign born 4,47.1 48.4 83 $22,1 39 Length of residence in U.S. Less than 10 years 1.3 5.2 E 2.0 $17,330 10 to 19 years 1.4 6.482.6 $21,573 20 years or more 1.7 $27,221 Citizenship status Naturalized citizen 2.1 1113 rri. $27,697 Not a citizen 2.3 57.2 SAM 2.6 $18,236

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001. Tables 17-IA, 17-IB, and 17-IC.

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) Female- to-male Workers Workers earnings Men (inmillions) (in millions) Women ratio $27,2391 7.8 Total) 4.4 $22,139 0.81 $44,9901 1.0 Europe 0.6 $28,319 0.63 $36,9111 2.0 Asia 1.3 $29,662 0.80 $20,974 1 4.1 Latin America 2.1 517,213 0.82 $26,9711 0.6 Caribbean 0.5 $21,255 0.79 $19,499 I 3.0 Central America 1.2 $15,346 0.79 $19,181 2.5 Mexico 0.8 $15,149 0.79 0.5 Other 0.3 $20,801 I $15,857 0.76 $27,502 I 0.4 South America 0.4 $23,080 0.84

'Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 17-1 D.

43 tis. Census Bureau BEST COPY AVAILABLE Ji Section 18. Money Income of Households

Income is lower among median income of $51,363 (Figure foreign-born households Data on income are based 18-2). This was well above the me- than among native on money income received dian income of native households households. (excluding capital gains) be- as well as of other foreign-born fore deductions for income households. The median income In 1999, median income for all taxes, social security, union for households with a European- households was $40,816.' The dues, medicare deductions, born householder ($41,733) was median income for households etc. Money income does not not statistically different from the with a foreign-born householder include the value of noncash native median but much higher was $36,048 compared with benefits such as food than the median for households $41,383 for households with a na- stamps, medicare, medicaid, with a Latin American-born house- tive householder (Figure 18-1). public housing, and em- holder ($29,388). Foreign-born households with in- ployer-provided fringe ben- The higher median income of comes below $25,000 and with in- efits. Noncash benefits are households with an Asian-born comes of $50,000 or more were discussed in Sections 20 and householder is mostly due to a about equal 34.5 percent and 21. Earners include wage and combination of three factors. First, 36.2 percent, respectively. In con- salary workers and nonfarm a high proportion of Asian foreign- trast, 30.2 percent of native and farm self-employed work- born workers (both men and households had an income of less ers. For definitions of house- women) held higher-paying man- than $25,000, and 41.6 percent holds, see Section 11. Data agement and professional jobs, a had an income of $50,000 or more. on income are for the 1999 characteristic shared with male Eu- The lower income of foreign- calendar year and are based ropean foreign-born workers.' Sec- born households was not explained on the composition of house- ondly, compared with the European by differences in household size or holds as of March 2000. foreign born, a relatively low pro- the numbers of earners per house- portion of householders from Asia hold. For example, in 1999 median were age 65 or older and thus income of two-member households household by region of birth of the were much more likely to be labor was $33,231 when the householder householder, the variation had no force participants and contributing was foreign born and $44,184 when apparent affect on household in- earnings from employment.' the householder was native. The come differences.' Thirdly, about 70 percent of corresponding medians were Among foreign-born households, foreign-born Asian women were in $45,233 and $61,364 respectively median income in 1999 ranged from the labor force, resulting in many for four-member households. $40,178 when the householder's dual-earner households. As discussed in Section 11, the length of residence in the United Married-couple average size of foreign-born house- States was 20 years or more to holds in 2000 was considerably $30,604 when the householder's households have the larger than that of native house- length of residence was less than highest income. holds (3.26 versus 2.54). The aver- 10 years (Figure 18-1). Median Among both foreign-born and age number of earners in 1999 per household income was considerably native households in 1999, foreign-born household was 1.60 higher when the householder was a married-couple family households compared with 1.40 for native naturalized citizen than when the had higher incomes ($44,152 and households.' The higher average householder was not a citizen: $58,382 respectively), than did number of earners in foreign-born $43,947 versus $31,199. other household types." Family households reflects the higher ratio Region of birth is households with female house- of adults age 18 or older per for- holders (with no spouse present) eign-born household 2.27 versus connected to household had much lower median incomes 1.88 for native households. Al- income. than married-couple family house- though there was some variation in In 1999, households with a holds. The median income for the number of earners per householder born in Asia had a these households was $24,776

44 U S.Census Bureau

BEST COPYAVAILABLE when the female family house- For example, households with Mexican-born Full-Time Workers. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables householders had an earner ratio of 1.86 and a lower 16-Al, 16-DI.) holder was foreign born, compared median income compared with European-born house- This included 27.6 percent of the European with $26,338 when the house- holders who had a ratio of 1.26 and a high median foreign-born population and 9.5 percent of the for- income. eign born from Asia. holder was native! ' About 38 percent of foreign-born men and Nativity of married couples refers to the women from Asia, as well as European-born men, householder only. occupied managerial and professional specialty jobs The incomes of foreign-born and native female ' Income rounded to dollars. which require higher levels of education and pay family households are not statistically different. Earners include wage and salary workers and more on average than other jobs. See Section 16, Oc- nonfarm and farm self-employed workers. cupation, and Section 17, Earnings of Year-Round,

Figure 18-1. Figure 18-2. Median Household Income by Nativity, Income of Foreign-Born Households by Length of Residence in the United States, and Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 (Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population (Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Households (in millions) Households $36,048 (in Total' 11.6 Iv' '34 $41,733 Total 104.7 $40,816 Europe 2.2,a Native 93.0 $41,383 Asia 2.8 " $51,363 Africa .%I $36,371 Foreign born 11.6 $36,048 0.3 Latin America $29,388 Length of residence in U.S. 5.6 " $28,701 Less than 10 years 3.3 $30,604 Caribbean 1.3 10 to 19 years 3.3 $36,555 Central America 3.5 = $27,993 $27,345 20 years or more 4.9 $40,178 Mexico 2.8 Other 0.7 I1 II $29,855 Citizenship status $40,480 Naturalized citizen 5.4 $43,947 South America0.7 = , $46,799 Not a citizen 6.3 $31,199 Northern America 0.3 1,, -34 'Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 18-1A, 18 -I B, and 18-1C. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 18-ID.

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)

Households Households Foreign-born householder (in millions) (in millions) Native householder $36,048 I 11.6 All households 93.1 $41,383 $39,897 I' 9.0 Family households 63.0 551,179 544,152 I" 6.8 ivlal lied couple 48.5 $58,382 $36,831 0.7Male householder' 3.3 $42,936 $24,776 1.5 Female householder' 11.2 $26,338

$25,029 2.6 Nonfamily households30.1 $24,531 $31,022 1.4 Male householder 13.3 $30,733 $18,025 1 1.2 Female householder 16.8 $20,042

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

45 U.S. Census Bureau 53 Section 19. Poverty Status I The poverty rate is higher was 9.1 percent for naturalized citi- families with a foreign-born house- among the foreign-born zens, compared with 21.3 percent holder, poverty rates in 1999 ranged population than among noncitizens. from 9.5 percent for families with no the native population. Among both males and females, related children under age 18 to the poverty rate in 1999 was higher 32.8 percent for families with three In 1999, the poverty rate, which for the foreign-born population than or more related children under 18 was 11.8 percent for the total popu- for the native population (Figure years old. The corresponding rates lation, was 16.8 percent for the 19-3). For the population under age for families with a native house- foreign-born population and 18, the poverty rate for the foreign holder were 3.9 percent and 11.2 percent for the native popula- born (29.4 percent) was about twice 20.6 percent. Foreign-born families tion (Figure 19-1). Of the 32.3 mil- as high as the poverty rate for their with a female householder, no hus- lion individuals below the poverty native counterparts (16.4 percent). band present, had a higher poverty level, 4.8 million, or 14.7 percent, For people 65 years and older, pov- rate than married-couple families were foreign-born. Among the erty rates were much lower: with a foreign-born householder foreign-born population, the poverty 13.8 percent for the foreign-born (31.0 percent, compared with rate ranged from 9.9 percent for population compared with 9.3 per- 12.4 percent). those who had lived in the United cent for the native population.' States for 20 years and longer to Poverty rates are high for 23.5 percent for those who had Poverty rates of the children living in families lived in the United States for less foreign-born population with a foreign-born than 10 years. The poverty rate differ by region of birth. householder, regardless The poverty rates for the popu- of the child's nativity. lation born in Europe (9.3 percent) In 1999, the poverty rate for re- The poverty definition used and in Asia (1 2.8 percent), which lated children age under age 18 in by the federal government for were not significantly different families with foreign-born house- statistical purposes is based from each other, were about half holders was 24.0 percent (2.7 mil- on a set of money income as high as the poverty rate for the lion of 11.2 million). For the chil- thresholds that vary by family population born in Latin America dren who were foreign born, the size and composition and do (21.9 percent). (Figure 19-2). poverty rate was 29.9 percent not take into account noncash Among the foreign-born popula- (0.7 million of 2.5 million). For benefits or taxes. The average tion from Latin America, the pov- the children who were native, the threshold in 1999 for a four- erty rates ranged from 11.5 per- poverty rate was 22.3 percent person family was $17,029. cent for the population from South (1.9 million of 8.8 million chil- The poverty status (in poverty America to 25.8 percent for the dren).' Native children accounted or not in poverty) of a family is population from Mexico. for 72.4 percent of the related chil- assigned to each member of The poverty rates of dren under age 18 living below the family. Poverty status is families differ by nativity the poverty level in families with not defined for individuals un- foreign-born householders. der 15 years old who are not and type. related to anyone in the house- In 1999, when the overall pov- The poverty rate for natives under age 18 was hold (e.g., foster children). For not significantly different from the rate for foreign- erty rate for families was 9.3 per- born people 65 years old and older. a discussion of alternative defi- cent, the poverty rate was 15.7 per- The poverty rate for related children under age nitions of poverty, see U.S. 18 in families with a foreign-born householder cent for families with foreign-born (24.0 percent) reflects the average rate for both for- Census Bureau, Current Popu- householders, almost twice the pov- eign-born (29.9 percent) and native (22.3 percent) children and is statistically different from neither. lation Reports, P60-201. erty rate of 8.3 percent for families with native householders. For

46 U S. Census Bureau 5I BEST COPY AVAILABLE sa.

Figure 19-1. Figure 19-2. Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity,Poverty Rates for the Foreign-Born Population Length of Residence in the United States, by Region of Birth: 1999 and Citizenship Status: 1999 (Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post and (Populations as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old) and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old) Population Population (in millions) (in millions) Total) 28.3 t"14 16 8 Total 273.5 Europe 4.4 93 Native 245.1 Asia 7.2 " , 128 Foreign born 28.3 Africa 0.7 '0, 132 Length of residence in U.S. Latin America 14.4 stiff $ 1-.".,..t21 9 Less than 10 years 11.2 Caribbean 2.8 ,1 206 10 to 19 years 8.0 Central America 9.8 4" 24.2 20 years or more 9.2 Mexico 7.8 '41 >>4e1.kY " 1,F1'; 25.8 Citizenship status Other 1.9 \`1, ;"17 8 Naturalized citizen South America 1.9 ,'11 5 Not a citizen Northern America 0.7 7 4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 19-1A, 19 -I B, and 19-IC. 'Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b, Table 19-1 D. 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 Millions Population Millions Native Total 16 8 28.3 245.1 111 2 Males 15 2 14.2 119.5 (98 Females 18 3 14.2 125.7 112 6 Under age 18 29.4 2.8 68.9 116.4 65 years old and over 13 8 3.1 29.5 93 Males 65 years old and over 124 1.3 12.5 63 Females 65 years old and over 14 9 1.8 17.0 111 5 Unrelated individuals1 25 9 4.1 39.3 18.4 Families2 15 7 9.0 Total 63.0 83 95 3.5 With no related children under age 18 31.2 39 14 2 2.1 With one related child under age 18 13.3 109 16 6 2.0 With two related children under age 18 12.0 110 6 32.8 1.4 With three or more related children under age 18 6.5 206

12 4 6.8 Married-couple families 48.5 1 3 8 31.0 1.5 Female-householder families, no husband present 11.2 127.4 Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity of Householder 24 0 11.2 Total 59.2 114.9 22 3 8.8 Native related children under age 18 59.0 114.9 29.9 2.5 Foreign-born related children under age 18 0.2 111.6

'Includes Individuals who live alone, or who are unrelated to anyone in the household. Nativity reflects the status of the householder. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 19 -I A, 19-2A, I 9-3A, and 19-4A. 47 U.S. Census Bureau Section 20. Means-Tested Program Participation Aor Al / The participation rate in Participation rates in 1999 for Female family house- means-tested programs medicaid and TANF/GA were higher holders, with no husband is higher among foreign- for foreign-born households than for present, have the highest born households. native households. The highest par- participation rates in ticipation rates were for medicaid means-tested programs. In 1999, 2.5 million, or 21.2 per- 18.6 percent of foreign-born house- cent, of households with foreign- holds and 12.1 percent of native In 1999, the participation rates born householders participated in households. in noncash programs for family one or more of the following means- Among foreign-born households with female household- tested programs providing noncash ers, no husband present, were not benefits: food stamps, housing as- households, participation significantly different for foreign- sistance, or medicaid. The corre- rates in noncash programs born households (39.7 percent) and sponding figures for households vary by citizenship status native households (40.4 percent), with native householders were and length of residence. but each of these figures was larger 13.5 million, or 14.6 percent (Figure than the corresponding figure for The participation rate in noncash 20-1). For participation in one or other types of family households.' programs in 1999 was 24.8 percent more means-tested programs pro- Likewise, the participation rates in for noncitizen households compared viding cash benefits Temporary cash programs for female family with 16.9 percent for naturalized- Assistance for Needy Families householders, no husband present, citizen households (Figure 20-2). (TANF), General Assistance (GA), or were not significantly different for For cash programs, the rates were Supplemental Security Insurance foreign-born households (19.2 per- 8.0 percent for both noncitizen and (SSI) the corresponding figures cent) and native households naturalized-citizen households. were 0.9 million, or 8.0 percent, for (18.2 percent), though again, these Among foreign-born households, foreign-born households, and rates were higher than those of the participation rate in noncash 5.2 million, or 5.6 percent, for other family households. programs was lowest when the native households. Participation rates in noncash householder's length of residence in programs in 1999 were lowest for the United States was 20 years or native married-couple family house- longer (17.0 percent). Means-tested programs holds. The rates for married couple provide cash and noncash as- Participation rates among family households were 19.6 per- sistance to portions of the foreign-born households cent for foreign-born households low-income population. The vary sharply by region of and 8.6 percent for native house- programs require the income birth of the householder. holds. For cash programs, the rates and/or assets of an indi- for married couple family house- vidual or family to be below In 1999, the participation rates holds were 6.2 percent and 2.7 per- specified thresholds in order in means-tested noncash programs cent respectively. to qualify for benefits. The for households with householders noncash programs included from Europe (10.1 percent) and from The participation rate for households with householders from Asia (8.8 percent) was not statis- here are food stamps, hous- Asia (16.7 percent) were one-third tically different from households with householders ing assistance, and medicaid. and one-half, respectively, of the from Europe or Latin America. -In contrast to data on poverty for families, The cash programs included rate for households with household- which do not include any nonfamily members living here are Temporary Assis- ers from Latin America (29.5 per- with families (i.e., individuals not related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), data on tance for Needy Families cent) (Figure 20-3). The participa- means-tested programs for family households in- (TANF), General Assistance tion rate in cash programs for clude nonfamily members. In March 2000, the 72.0 million family households in the United States in- (GA), and Supplemental Secu- households with householders from cluded 228.6 million family members and 4.5 mil- rity Income (SSI). Europe (4.7 percent) was one-half lion nonfamily members. See Section I I and Section 12 for more information about families and house- the rate for households with house- holds. The nativity designation of the household is holders from Latin America (9.6 per- based on the nativity status of the householder. cent).'

48 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPY 56 AVAILABLE Figure 20-1. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Specified Benefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1.999 Percentage of households receiving (Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces specified benefits living off post or with their families on post) I Foreign-born households Native households

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

Number Number Percent receiving benefits (in millions)Selected Noncash Benefits(in millions) Percent receiving benefits 21.2 , 2.5 Total' 13.5 14.6 0.8 5.0 67 I Food stamps 53 49 0.6 Housing assistance 3.9 42 2.2 Medicaid 11.2 12 I

Selected Cash Benefits 8.0 0.9 Total2 5.2 5.6 2.0 3 21 0.4 TANF3 or General Assistance 21 53[ 0.6 Supplemental Security Income 3.6 39

'Includes households receiving benefits from one or more of the three programs listed. 2lncludes 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-IA and 20-18.

Figure 20-2. Figure 20-3. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Foreign-Born Households Receiving Selected Noncash or Cash Benefits by Nativity, Length Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by of Residence in the United States, and Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 (Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population (Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Percentage of households receiving Percentage of households receiving Selected noncash benefits Households Selected cash benefits Selected noncash benefits (in millions) Selected cash benefits 1 21 2 Households Total' 11.61 80 (in millions) 2.2 10 I 153 Europe 47 Total 104.7 167 Asia 2.8 Native 146 88 93.1 131 Africa 0.3 Foreign born 21.2 11.6 1 29.5 Latin America 5.6 Length of residence in U.S. 96 31.6 122.9 1.3 Less than 10 years 3.4 Caribbean 123 30.5 125.6 Central America 3.5 10 to 19 years 3.3 90 30.9 Mexico 2.8 20 years and over 4.9 170 9 28.9 Other 0.7 Citizenship status 16.9 78 5.4 21 3 Naturalized citizen 8.0 South America 0.7 78 124.8 45 Not a citizen 6.3 Northern America 0.3 8.0 1 6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1 A, 20-1B, 20-1C, 20-2A, 'Total includes areas not shown separately. 20-2B, and 20-2C. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-ID and 20-2D. 49 U.S. Census Bureau

57 Section 21. Health Insurance

One-fifth of the proportion with health insurance employment-based health insur- population with no was 82.1 percent for naturalized ance (Figure 21-3). Among for- health insurance is citizens compared with 57.4 per- eign-born workers, the proportion foreign born. cent for noncitizens. Foreign-born ranged from 36.2 percent for resi- males were less likely to be in- dents in the United States less In 1999, 84.5 percent of the sured (64.4 percent) than foreign- than 10 years to 54.8 percent for total population had health insur- born females (68.9 percent). those resident 20 years or more. ance for all or at least part of the The proportion of the foreign- The proportion was 54.6 percent year. The proportion was lower born population with health insur- for naturalized citizens compared among the foreign-born population ance varied by region of birth (Fig- with 37.9 percent for noncitizens. than among the native population: ure 21-2). For the populations By region of birth, the proportions 66.6 percent versus 86.5 percent from Europe and Asia, the propor- were 57.3 percent of workers from (Figure 21-1).' Of the 42.6 million tions in 1999 were 86.3 percent Europe, 53.2 percent for workers individuals with no health insur- and 75.7 percent respectively. For from Asia, and 35.2 percent for ance during 1999, 9.5 million, or the total population from Latin workers from Latin America (Figure 22.2 percent, were foreign born. America, the proportion was 21-4).3 For workers from Mexico, Among the foreign-born popu- 54.3 percent; it ranged from the proportion with employment- lation, the proportion with health 69.3 percent and 67.3 percent, based health insurance was insurance in 1999 ranged from respectively, for the populations 30.5 percent. Male foreign-born 54.5 percent for residents in the from the Caribbean and South workers were more likely to have United States less than 10 years America (not significantly different employment-based health insur- to 81.8 percent among those from each other) to 47.4 percent ance than female foreign-born resident 20 years or more. The for the population from Mexico. workers, 46.9 percent compared Health insurance coverage for to 41.0 percent. children in foreign-born house- holder families varied by the The proportions with health Insurance under Health insurance includes householder's place of birth and private insurance plans were 53.1 percent for the private insurance plans and foreign-born population and 73.1 percent for the ranged from 85.4 percent and native population. government insurance plans. 83.1 percent, respectively, for the Employment-based insurance refers to cover- Private insurance plans in- age offered through one's own employment and population born in Europe and excludes coverage through another person's policy. clude those offered through Asia (not significantly different "There is no statistical difference between employment (either one's 57.3 percent and 53.2 percent. from each other) to 67.9 percent State Children's Health Insurance Plans. own and/or a relative's) and for the population from Latin Military health care includes CHAMPUS (Com- those purchased privately. prehensive Health and Medical Plan for Uniformed America. Services) /Tricare, CHAMPVA (Civilian Health and Government insurance plans Medical Program of the Department of Veterans include medicare, medicaid, The proportion of Affairs), Veterans', and military health care. S-CHIP4, and military health foreign-born workers S. Census Bureau. I 998c. h. 12. care.' Individuals may be cov- with employment-based ered by more than one type of health insurance during health insurance is lower the year. There is some evi- than for native workers.' dence that health insurance In 1999, 44.5 percent of is underreported.6 foreign-born workers and 54.6 per- cent of native workers had

BEST COPYAVAILABLE SO U S Census Bureau Figure 21-1. Figure 21-2. Health Insurance Coverage of the Population Health Insurance Coverage of the Foreign- by Nativity, Length of Residence in the Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999 United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 (Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population (Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Population Population (in millions) Percent with insurance (in millions) Percent with insurance Total] 28.4 66 6

Total 274.1 84.5 Europe 4.4 86.3 Native 245.7 Asia 7.2 75 7 86.5 Africa 0.7 69 7 Foreign born 28.4 66 6 Length of residence in U.S. Latin America 14.5 54 3 Less than 10 years 11.2 54 5 Caribbean 2.8 69 3

10 to 19 years 8.0 66 4 Central America 9.8 47 6

20 years or more 9.2 81.8 Mexico 7.8 47 4 Citizenship status Other 1.9 48 3 Naturalized citizen 10.6 82.1 South America 1.9 67 3 Not a citizen 17.8 57 4 Northern America 0.7 88.4

'Total includes regions not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 21-IA, 21 -18, and 21 -IC. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21-1 D.

Figure 21-3. Figure 21-4. Employment-Based Health Insurance for Employment-Based Health Insurance Workers by Nativity, Length of Residence for Foreign-Born Workers by Region in the United States, and Citizenship of Birth: 1999 Status: 1999 (Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population (Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post) Workers (in millions) Percent with insurance Workers (in millions) Percent with insurance Totals 17.71, 1 44 5 Total 149.01, 53.4 Europe 2.5 157.3 1 Asia 4.6L, Native 131.3k. 54.6 532 Africa Foreign born 0.4I, ,499 17.7 44 5 Length of residence in U.S. Latin America 9.2 1 35 2 6.1 Less than 10 years 36 2 Caribbean 1.7 467 10 to 19 years 5.7 , Central America 6.2 30 9 ,- 1428 Mexico 4.9 30 5 20 years or more 5.8 54.8 Citizenship status Other 1.3 32 3 7.0 Naturalized citizen 54.6 South America 1.2 413 Not a citizen 10.7 37 9 Northern America 0.4 60.8

'Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one's own 'Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one's own employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy. employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy. 2Total includes areas not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 2I-3A, 21 -38, and 2I-3C. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21 -3D.

51 U.S. Census Bureau

59 Section 22. Homeownership 14 9' Homeownership rates are 43.1 percent and 22.6 percent, re- Asia, and 41.2 percent for house- similar for naturalized spectively (Figure 22-1).' holders from Latin America (Figure citizen households and Homeownership rates 22-3). These differences are partially native households. explained by age differences. increase as the age of the Householders from Europe had In March 2000, the homeown- householder increases. the highest median age of 54.8 ership rate for the United States was For both native and foreign-born years, compared with 42.7 years 67.2 percent (Figure 22-0. The rate householders, homeownership was for Asian householders and 39.7 was much higher for native house- more likely when the householder years for Latin American house- holds (69.5 percent) than for house- was older although the rates for na- holders. Since homeownership holds with a foreign-born house- tive householders were higher for rates increase with age, and Euro- holder (48.8 percent). Among for- each age category shown in Table pean householders are relatively eign-born households, the rate was 22-1. Native householders younger older than Asian and Latin Ameri- higher when the householder was a than age 35 had a homeownership can householders, and Asian naturalized citizen (66.5 percent) rate of 42.8 percent. Those in ages householders in turn are older than than when the householder was not 35 to 64 had a rate of 75.7 percent, Latin American householders, it ap- a citizen (33.5 percent). and those 65 years and older had a pears age differences may explain Naturalized-citizen householders rate of 81.6 percent. A similar pat- some of the regional differences. had a rate not very different from tern occurred for foreign-born The homeownership rates for that of native householders. householders where the homeown- householders under age 35 from Among the foreign born, the ership rate for those younger than Europe, Asia, and Latin America homeownership rate for naturalized- age 35 was 25.8 percent, compared ranged from 25 percent to 30 per- citizen householders who had been with 55.8 percent for those ages 35 cent.' For those 65 years or older, in the United States for 10 or more to 64, and 67.4 percent for those householders from Europe had the years was 68.1 percent compared ages 65 years and older. highest rate (76.5 percent), com- with 42.3 percent for those who had pared with 59.5 percent for those lived here less than 10 years. Com- Homeownership rates are from Asia and 55.9 percent for parable rates for noncitizens were highest for foreign-born those from Latin America.' householders from Europe. ' The homeownership rate for naturalized citizens Among the regions of birth with with a length of residence of less than 10 years The members of a house- (42.3 percent) is not statistically different from the hold, as defined in Section 1 million or more foreign-born comparable rate for noncitizens with a length of resc householders, the homeownership dente of 10 years or more (43.1 percent). 11, live in an occupied hous- The proportions for Asia (29.6 percent) and Latin ing unit (e.g., a house, con- rate ranged from 63.5 percent for America (24.5 percent) were not statistically different. householders from Europe, to " The proportions for Asia and Latin America were dominium, cooperative, mo- not statistically different. bile home, tent, or house- 52.0 percent for householders from boat). The homeownership rate is the percentage of Table 22.1. householders in which the Homeownership Rates by Nativity, Region of Birth. and Age of owner or a co-owner is a Householder: 2000 member of the household, whether or not the housing Less than 35 to 64 65 years old unit is mortgaged or not oth- All 35 years old years old or older erwise fully paid for. House- Native 69.5 42.8 75.7 81.6 holds are classified as foreign Foreign born' 48.8 25.8 55.8 67.4 born or native based on the Europe 63.5 25.9 66.2 76.5 nativity of the householder, Asia 52.0 29.6 62.4 59.5 regardless of the nativity of Latin America 41.2 24.5 48.9 55.9 other household members. 'Includes all foreign born. Source: U.S. Census Bureau. 2001. Table 22-20.

52 U.S. Census Bureau

BEST COPYAVAILABLE 60 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) Households (inmillions) Homeownership rate Median age of householder

Total 104.7 67.2 < 1 46.8 Native 93.1 69.5 Foreign born 11.6 488 ,`,142 9 Naturalized citizen 5.4 66.5 4.;,;-]50.3 Less than 10 years 0.3 42 3 ,<-1 36 1 10 or more years 5.1 68.1 'ti 51.1 Not a citizen 6.3 33 5 ° 437 9 Less than 10 years 3.0 226 33 2 10 or more years 3.2 43 1 °J 42 4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-IA, 22-18, 22 -IC, 22-2A, 22 -2B, and 22-2C.

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) Foreign-bornhouseholder Native householder Households Households Foreign-born householder (inmillions) (inmillions) Native householder 48 81 11.6 Total 93.1 695 54 2 E 9.0Family households 63.0 77S 59.8 6.8 Married-couple family 48.5 85.2 3591 0.7 Male householder, no wife present 3.3 623 37 3 I 1.5 Female householder, no husband present 11.2 48 8 299( 2.6Nonfamily households 30.1 52 8 2061 1.4 Male householder 13.3 48 0 40 3 1.2 Female householder 16.8 565

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 22-IA.

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) Households (in millions) Homeownership rate Median age of householder

Total, /1.6 488 > , ,-,,.: ,,-' .,,:',;, /A 42 9

Europe 2.2 63.5 4.e' ,,,. :" ,>'a :,, V.:" < 54.8 Asia 2.8 520 ",. 142 7 Africa 0.3 38 2 ',,rk- f$,'3'''i,`,i'.,.4e, ..,'S-', 41 3 Latin America 5.6 41 2 5,-.,'",c.'.,..P''',..i't ':''11;:c..1139 7 Caribbean 1.3 426 I "I>, 0,45 8 Central America 3.6 39 4 c' v`, 37 6 Mexico 2.8 40 9 '' 4,'<37 2 Other 0.7 332 ..> 39 0 South America 0.7 474 =er- A 42 4 Northern America 0.3 63.0 it .:,.<':; ..v"-',.-,052.7

'Total includes regions not shown separately. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-1D and 22-2D. 53 U.S. Census Bureau

61 References f U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. . 1999a. Historical Census . 1998. Statistical Yearbook of 2000. Employment and Earn- Statistics on the Foreign-Born the Immigration and Natural- ings, Vol. 48, No. 4 (April). U.S. Population of the United States: ization Service, 1997. Washing- U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973. 1850 to 1990. By Campbell ton, DC: U.S. Government Print- National Origin and Language. Gibson and Emily Lennon. ing Office. 1970 Census of Population. Population Division Working . 1999. Legal Immigration, PC(2) -JA. Washington, DC: U.S. Paper No. 29. Fiscal Year 1998. Office of Government Printing Office. . 1999b. Profile of the Foreign- Policy and Planning, Annual . 1980. The Methods and Ma- Born Population in the United Report, No. 1. terials of Demography. By States: 1997. By Dianne . 2000. 1998 Statistical Year- Henry S. Shryock, Jacob S. Schmidley and Campbell book of the Immigration and Siegel, and Associates. Fourth Gibson. Current Population Re- Naturalization Service. Wash- printing (rev.). Two volumes. ports, Series P23-206. Washing- ington, DC: U.S. Government Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- ton, DC: U.S. Government Print- Printing Office. ing Office. ment Printing Office. U.S. National Center for Health Sta- . 1985. Foreign-Born Popula- . 2000a. Money Income in the tistics. 1975. Volume I, Natality, tion in the United States Micro- United States: 1999. By Carmen 1970. Washington, DC: U.S. fiche. 1980 Census of Popula- DeNavas and Robert Cleveland. Government Printing Office. tion. Current Population Reports, Se- ries P60-209. Washington, DC: . 2000. Unpublished tabula- . 1993a. The Foreign-Born U.S. Government Printing Of- tions for 1999. Population in the United States. fice. U.S. Office of Management and 1990 Census of Population. Budget. 1977. Race and Ethnic 1990 CP-3-1. Washington, DC: . 2000b. Poverty in the United States: 1999. By Joseph Dalaker. Standards for Federal Statistics U.S. Government Printing Of- and Administrative Reporting. fice. and Bernadette Proctor. Current Population Reports, Series P60- Directive No.15. Washington, . 1993b. U.S. Population Esti- 210. Washington, DC: U.S. Gov- DC. mates by Age, Sex, Race, and ernment Printing Office. . 1990. Revised Standards for Hispanic Origin: 1980-1991. By . 2001. The Foreign-Born Defining Metropolitan Areas in Fred Hollmann. Current Popula- the 1990's. Federal Register, tion Reports, Series P25-1095. Population of the United States: March 2000. PPL-145. Detailed Vol. 55, No. 62 (March 30), Washington, DC: U.S. Govern- pp. 12154-12160. ment Printing Office. Tables. Population Division. U.S. Department of Labor, Social . 1993. Revised Statistical . 1998a. How Well Does the Definitions for Metropolitan Ar- Current Population Survey Mea- Security Administration, U.S. Small Business Administration, eas (MAs). OMB Bulletin No. 93- sure the Foreign-Born Popula- 17. tion in the United States? By A. and Pension Benefit Guaranty Dianne Schmidley and J. Gre- Corporation. 1994. Pension and . 1997. Revisions to the Stan- gory Robinson. Population Divi- Health Benefits of American dards for the Classification of sion Working Paper No. 22. Workers: New Findings from the Federal Data on Race and Eth- April 1993 Current Population nicity. Federal Register, Vol. 62, . 1998b. Health Insurance Survey. No. 210 (October 30), pp. Coverage: 1997. By Robert L. 58782-58790. Bennefield. Current Population U.S. Immigration and Naturaliza- Reports, Series P60-202. Wash- tion Service. 1991. Statistical United Nations. 1996. 1995 Demo- ington, DC: U.S. Government Yearbook of the Immigration graphic Yearbook. Department Printing Office. and Naturalization Service, for Economic and Social Infor- 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. mation and Policy Analysis, Sta- Government Printing Office. tistics Division. New York, NY.

54 U.S. Census Bureau

62 Ar"

United Nations. 1998. Recommen- United States. Congress. House. Warren, Robert J. and Ellen Percy dations On Statistics on Interna- 1978. Legal and Illegal Immigra- Kraly. 1985. The Elusive Exodus: tional Migration. Department tion to the United States. Report Emigration from the United for Economic and Social Infor- prepared by the U.S. House of States. Population Trends and mation and Policy Analysis, Sta- Representatives Select Commit- Public Policy Occasional Paper tistics Division. New York, NY. tee on Population, Ninety-fifth No. 8, Population Reference Congress, second session. U.S. Bureau. Washington, DC. COvernment Printing Office. Washington DC.

55 U.S. Census Bureau 63 Appendix A. Foreign Born and Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts

The term foreign born and birth, the population born in the. United States including that of the other related terms are discussed United States and the population U.S. Armed Forces.4 The Census below. For additional information, born abroad are determined by Bureau uses the terms immigrant see the References preceding Sec- place of birth, regardless of citi- and immigration as well as interna- tion A.' zenship status. The population tional migrant and international born abroad consists of the native migration in reference to the popu- Foreign Born population in categories (2) and (3) lation components of change in U.S. Census Bureau publica- above, plus the foreign-born popu- population estimates methodol- tions, including P23-206 (this re- lation. The Census Bureau does ogy.' port) define the term foreign not use the term "native born" in Some foreign-born individuals born as people residing in the census publications. are known to reside in the United United States on census day or on Immigration and States illegally.6 Statistics shown a survey date who were not U.S. in P23-206 for the foreign-born citizens at birth.' The term nativeRelated Terms population undoubtedly include refers to people residing in the The terms immigration and some information about these indi- United States who were U.S. citi- immigrant, or international mi- viduals. The Census Bureau does zens in one of three categories: gration and international mi- not ask questions in decennial cen- (1) People born in one of the fifty grant have many and varied suses or the Current Population states and the District of Co- meanings.' In P23-206, the terms Survey about the immigration sta- lumbia; immigration and immigrant usually tus of respondents with the excep- refer to administrative and statisti- tion of a question about citizen- (2) People born in U.S. Island Areas ship status. such as Puerto Rico or Guam; cal data from reports issued by the Immigration and Naturalization After migration to the United (3) People who were born abroad Service (INS). The terms interna- States, some foreign-born resi- to at least one parent who was tional migrant and-international dents become naturalized citizens. a U.S. citizen. migration refer to the movement This process usually requires a The classification of the resi- of all persons to and from the minimum of 5 years of residence dent population of the United States by native and foreign born (based on citizenship status) is Figure A-1. shown in Figure A-1 and reflects Classification of the Population of the United States the definitions presented above. by Nativity and Place of Birth: 2000 (Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post Born in the United States or with their families on post) and Born Abroad 1 Native population (residents with U.S. citizenship at birth) Generally, census publications Foreign-born population (residents without U.S. citizenship at birth) use the terms born in the United Foreign born States and born abroad when re- 10.4% ferring to place of birth or the na- Born in island Areas of the United States (Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), or born abroad tivity of the U.S. resident popula- with at least one parent who was a tion. These terms are not used in- U.S. citizen terchangeably with the terms na- 1.2% tive and foreign born in census reports including this report, Pro- file of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 2000 (P23- Born in the United States (50 states and DC) 206). Whereas the foreign-born 88.4% and native populations are deter- mined by citizenship status at Source: U.S. Census Bureau. Table I -I .

56 U.S. Census Bureau 64 in the United States but there are the Current Population Survey conducted March 2000 IFor a comprehensive discussion of demo- and the 1990 and earlier censuses. P23-206 does some exceptions, particularly for graphic concepts and definitions, see U.S. Census not contain data collected in the 2000 decennial cen- underage children. The Census Bu- Bureau, 1980. For a complete listing of U.S. Census sus. Bureau decennial census reports, see U.S. Census Bu- 'Generally, immigrant and immigration are legal reau asks questions about citizen- reau, I 999a. For more information about terminol- terms and international migration and international ship status in censuses and the ogy used by the Immigration and Naturalization Ser- migrants are demographic terms, but this is not al- vice, see Immigration and Naturalization Service, ways the case. See U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and Current Population Survey, but in- 2000, pp. 239-243, and A.3-2 to A.3-14 as well as 19931). For a discussion of the history of these formation provided by respon- earlier volumes listed in the References section of terms through the end of the 1970s, see United P23-206 (this report). States, Congress, 1978. dents is self reported and may not 'The basic rule for where to enumerate a person 'Since definitions may differ across time, the reflect the formal acquisition of in U.S. censuses is his or her usual place of resi- reader is advised to refer directly to the Immigration dence. This is the place where the person lives or and Naturalization Service publications cited in P23- citizenship. Citizenship status sleeps most of the time or the place the person con- 206, Section 1. "Foreign-Born Population Trends," data used in P23-206 is self-' siders to be his or her usual home. This includes citi- footnotes 2-6. zens of foreign countries who have established regu- 'See U.S. Census Bureau, I993b, page xvi. reported. lar living arrangements (such as living in a house, 'See Section I. "Foreign-Born Population apartment, or dormitory) while working or studying Trends," footnote 2. in the United States. P23-206 uses information from

57 U.S. Census Bureau 65 Appendix B. Source and Accuracy of Estimates

Source of Data obtain interviews at about 3,200 information from four primary of these units. This occurs when sources: Estimates in this report come the occupants are not found at The 1990 Decennial Census of from data obtained from the Cur- home after repeated calls or are Population and Housing. rent Population Survey (CPS) con- unavailable for some other reason. ducted in March of 2000. The U.S. An adjustment for undercover- Since the introduction of the age in the 1990 census. Census Bureau conducts the sur- CPS, the Census Bureau has rede- Statistics on births, deaths, im- vey every month, although this re- signed the CPS sample several migration, and emigration. port uses only March data for its times. These redesigns have im- estimates. Also, some estimates proved the quality and accuracy of Statistics on the size of the come from decennial census data the data and have satisfied chang- Armed Forces. for years 1850 through 1990 and ing data needs. The most recent The independent population es- from the administrative records of changes were completely imple- timates used for 1994 to present the Immigration and Naturalization mented in July 1995. were based on updates to controls Service. These estimates are not March 2000 supplement. In established by the 1990 decennial derived from Census 2000 data. addition to the basic CPS ques- census. Before 1994, independent The March survey uses two sets of tions, field representatives asked population estimates from the lat- questions, the basic CPS and the supplementary questions in March est available decennial census data supplements. about poverty status, money in- were used. For more details on the Basic CPS. The basic CPS col- come received in the previous cal- change inindependent estimates, lects primarily labor force data ender year, educational attainment, see the section entitled "Introduc- about the civilian noninstitutional household and family characteris- tion of 1990 Census Population population. Interviewers ask ques- tics, marital status, geographic Controls" in an earlier report tions concerning labor force par- mobility, the foreign-born popula- (Series P60, No. 188). ticipation about each member 15 tion, health insurance, and non- The estimation procedure for years old and over in every sample cash benefits. the March supplement included a household. The basic CPS also in- To obtain more reliable data for further adjustment so husband cludes questions on country of the Hispanic population, the March and wife of a household received birth, citizenship, and year of entryCPS sample was increased by the same weight. The independent into the United States. about 2,500 eligible housing units. population estimates include The CPS sample used in this re- These housing units were inter- some, but not all, undocumented port was selected from the 1990 viewed the previous November immigrants. decennial census files with cover- and contained at least one sample age in all 50 states and the District person of Hispanic origin. In addi- Accuracy of the Estimates of Columbia. The sample is con- tion, the sample included persons Since the CPS estimates come tinually updated to account for in the Armed Forces living off post from a sample, they may differ new residential.construction. The or with their families on post. from figures from a complete cen- United States was divided into Estimation procedure. The sus using the same questionnaires, 2,007 geographic areas. In most survey's estimation procedure ad- instructions, and enumerators. A states, a geographic area consisted justs weighted sample results to sample survey estimate has two of a county or several contiguous agree with independent estimates possible types of error: sampling counties. In some areas of New En- of the civilian noninstitutional and nonsampling. The accuracy of gland and Hawaii, minor civil divi- population of the United States an estimate depends on both sions are used instead of counties. by age, sex, race, and Hispanic/ types of error, but the full extent A total of 754 geographic areas non-Hispanic origin, and state of of the nonsampling error is un- were selected for sample. About residence. The adjusted estimate is known. 50,000 occupied households are called the post-stratification ratio Consequently, one should be eligible for interview every month. estimate. The independent esti- particularly careful when interpret- Field representatives are unable to mates were calculated based on ing results based on a relatively

58 U.S. Census Bureau 66 small number of cases or on small Errors made in data collection that missed persons in missed differences between estimates. such as recording and coding households or missed persons in The standard errors for CPS esti- data. interviewed households have dif- mates primarily indicate the mag- Errors made in processing the ferent characteristics from those of nitude of sampling error. They also data. interviewed persons in the same partially measure the effect of age-sex-race-Hispanic origin Errors made in estimating some nonsampling errors in re- group. values for missing data. sponses and enumeration but do A common measure of survey not measure systematic biases in Failure to represent all units coverage is the coverage ratio, the the data. (Bias is the average over with the sample (undercover- estimated population before post- all possible samples of the differ- age). stratification divided by the inde- ences between the sample esti- CPS undercoverage results from pendent population control. Table mates and the true value.) missed housing units and missed A shows CPS coverage ratios for Nonsampling variability. persons within sample house- age-sex-race groups for a typical Several sources of nonsampling holds. Overall CPS undercoverage month. The CPS coverage ratios can exhibit some variability from errors include the following: is estimated at 8 percent. CPS un- dercoverage varies with age, sex, month to month. Other Census Bu- Inability to get information reau household surveys experience and race. Generally, undercoverage about all sample cases. similar coverage. is larger for males than for females Definitional difficulties. For additional information on and larger for Blacks and other nonsampling error including the Differences in the interpretation races combined than for Whites. possible impact on CPS nativity of questions. As described previously, ratio esti- data when known, refer to Statisti- mation to independent age-sex- Respondents' inability or un- cal Policy Working Paper 3, An race-Hispanic population controls willingness to provide correct Error Profile: Employment as Mea- information. partially corrects for bias due to sured by the Current Population Respondents' inability to recall undercoverage. However, biases Survey, Office of Federal Statistical information. exist in the estimates to the extent Policy and Standards, U.S. Depart- ment of Commerce, 1978, Techni- cal Paper 63, The Current Popula- Table A. tion Survey: Design and CPS Coverage Ratios Methodology, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Commerce, and Non-Black Black All persons Population Division Working Paper Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total No. 22, "How Well Does the Cur- rent Population Survey Measure 0-14 0.929 0.964 0.850 0.838 0.916 0.943 0.929 the Foreign-Born Population in the 15 0.933 0.895 0.763 0.824 0.905 0.883 0.895 United States?" by Dianne 16-19 0.881 0.891 0.711 0.802 0.855 0.877 0.866 Schmid ley and J. Gregory 20-29 0.847 0.897 0.660 0.811 0.823 0.884 U.854 Robinson. 30-39 0.904 0.931 0.680 0.845 0.877 0.920 0.899 Comparability of data. Data 40-49 0.928 0.966 0.816 0.911 0.917 0.959 0.938 obtained from the CPS and other 50-59 0.953 0.974 0.896 0.927 0.948 0.969 0.959 sources are not entirely compa- 60-64 0.961 0.941 0.954 0.953 0.960 0.942 0.950 rable. This results from differences 65-69 0.919 0.972 0.982 0.984 0.924 0.973 0.951 in interviewer training and experi- 70+ 0.993 1.004 0.996 0.979 0.993 1.002 0.998 ence and in differing survey pro- 15+ 0.914 0.945 0.767 0.874 0.898 0.927 0.918 cesses. This is an example of non- 0+ 0.918 0.949 0.793 0.864 0.902 0.931 0.921 sampling variability not reflected in the standard errors. Use caution

59 U.S. Census Bureau 6r when comparing results from dif- example, use of 1990-based popu- mixed sample, geographic ferent sources. lation controls results in about a estimates are subject to greater er- A number of changes were 1-percent increase in the civilian ror and variability. Users should made in data collection and esti- noninstitutional population and in exercise caution when comparing mation procedures beginning with the number of families and house- estimates across years for metro- the January 1994 CPS. The major holds. Thus, estimates of levels for politan and nonmetropolitan cat- change was the use of a new ques- data collected in 1994 and later egories. tionnaire. The questionnaire was years will differ from those for ear- Note when using small esti- redesigned to: lier years by more than what could mates. Summary measures (such as Measure the official labor force be attributed to actual changes in medians and percent distributions) concepts more precisely. the population. These differences are shown only when the base is Expand the amount of data could be disproportionately 100,000 or greater. Because of the available. greater for certain subpopulation large standard errors involved, sum- groups than for the total popula- mary measures would probably not Implement several definitional tion. reveal useful information when com- changes. During the period April 1994 puted on a smaller base. However, Adapt to a computer-assisted through June 1995, the U.S. Cen- estimated numbers are shown even interviewing environment. sus Bureau systematically intro- though the relative standard errors The March supplemental in- duced a new sample design for the of these numbers are larger than come questions were also modi- CPS based on the results of the those for corresponding percent- fied for adaptation to computer-as- 1990 decennial census. During this ages. These smaller estimates per- sisted interviewing, although there phase-in period, CPS estimates mit combinations of the categories were no changes in definition and were being made from two distinct to suit data users' needs. concepts. Due to these and other sample designs: the old 1980 Take care in the interpretation of changes, one should use caution sample design and the new 1990 small differences. For instance, even when comparing estimates from sample design. The March 1995 a small amount of nonsampling er- data collected in 1994 and later CPS consisted of 55 percent new ror can cause a borderline difference years with estimates from earlier (1990) sample and 45 percent old to appear significant or not, thus years. See Appendix C, P60-188 (1980) sample. The data based on distorting a seemingly valid hypoth- on "Conversion to a Computer the March 1996 CPS were the first esis test. Assisted Questionnaire" for a de- estimates based entirely on house- Sampling variability. Sampling scription of these changes and the holds selected from the 1990 cen- variability is variation that occurred effect they had on the data. sus-based sample design. by chance because a sample was Caution should also be used One of the effects of the intro- surveyed rather than the entire when comparing estimates in this duction of the 1990 census sample population. Standard errors, as cal- report (which reflects 1990 census- design is the change in the defini- culated by methods described in the based population controls) with tion of metropolitan and nonmet- section titled "standard errors and estimates from the March 1993 ropolitan areas. The 1990 census their use," are primarily measures of CPS and earlier years (which reflect sample design incorporates the sampling variability, but they may 1980 census-based population geographic definitions officially re- include some nonsampling error. controls).' This change in popula- leased in 19932; the 1980 census Standard errors and their tion controls had relatively little sample design incorporates the use. A number of approximations impact on summary measures geographic definitions released in are required to derive, at a moderate such as means, medians, and per- 1983. While most CPS estimates cost, standard errors applicable to cent distributions. It did have a have been unaffected by this the estimates in this report. Instead significant impact on levels. For of providing an individual standard error for each estimate, two param- For detailed information on the 1990 sample For additional information on the new metro- redesign, see the Department of Labor, Bureau of politan area definitions, see Revised Statistical Defi- eters, "a" and "b," are provided to Labor Statistics report, Employment and Earnings, nitions for Metropolitan Areas (MAs), Office of Man- calculate standard errors for each Volume 41, Number 5, May 1994. agement and Budget, Bulletin No. 93-17, June 30, 1993. estimate.

60 U.S. Census Bureau

68 Age sa.

Table B provides standard error characteristics are different when, Number, x 9,789,000 parameters for native and foreign- in fact, they are the same. All a parameter -0.000041 born persons. Multiply the param- statements of comparison in the b parameter 11,054 eters in Table B by the factors in text were tested at the 0.10 level Standard error 322,922 Tables C and D to get region, of significance. Thus, if the abso- 90% conf. int. 9,258,000 to state, and nonmetropolitan param- lute value of the estimated differ- 10,320,000 eters. The sample estimate and its ence between characteristics was The standard error is calculated standard error enable one to con- greater than or equal to 1.645 as struct a confidence interval. A times the standard error of the

confidence interval is a range that difference, then the conclusion s.4-0.000041 x 9,789,000' + 11,054 x 9,789,000 would include the average result of was that the characteristics were = 322,922 all possible samples with a known different. The 90-percent confidence in- probability. For example, suppose The Census Bureau uses 90- terval is calculated as 9,789,000 ± all possible samples were surveyed percent confidence intervals and 1.645x322,922. under essentially the same general 0.10 levels of significance to deter- A conclusion that the average conditions and using the same mine statistical validity. Consult estimate derived from all possible sample design. If an estimate and standard statistical textbooks for samples lies within a range com- its standard error were calculated alternative criteria. puted in this way would be correct from each sample, then approxi- Standard errors of esti- for roughly 90 percent of all pos- mately 90 percent of the intervals mated numbers. The approxi- sible samples. from 1.645 standard errors below mate standard error, sx, of an esti- the estimate to 1.645 standard er- mated number shown in this re- Standard errors of esti- mated percentages. The reliabil- rors above the estimate would in- port can be obtained using the for- ity of an estimated percentage, clude the average result of all pos- mula: computed using sample data from sible samples. both numerator and denominator, A particular confidence interval sx= Vax2+ bx (1) depends on both the size of the may or may not contain the aver- percentage and its base. Estimated age estimate derived from all Here x is the size of the esti- percentages are relatively more re- possible samples. However, one mate, and a and b are the param- liable than the corresponding esti- can say with specified confidence eters in Table B associated with the mates of the numerators of the that the interval includes the aver- particular type of characteristic. percentages, particularly if the age estimate calculated from all When calculating standard errors percentages are 50 percent or possible samples. Standard errors from cross-tabulations involving more. When the numerator and de- may also be used to perform hy- different characteristics, use the nominator of the percentage are in pothesis testing. This is a proce- set of parameters for the charac- different categories, use the pa- dure for distinguishing between teristic which will give the largest rameter from Table B indicated by population parameters using standard error. the numerator. The approximate sample estimates. One common Illustration standard error, sx,, of an estimated type of hypothesis appearing in Suppose the March 2000 CPS this report is that two population percentage can be obtained by us- estimates the number of people ing the formula parameters are different. An ex- living in the United States who ample of this would be comparing were born in Central America to be Vb T, p (10o p) (2) the median age of natives to the 9,789,000, and a calculation of the median age of foreign-born per- standard error and a 90 percent Here x is the total number of sons. confidence interval for that esti- persons, families, households, or Tests may be performed at vari- mate are desired. Using Formula unrelated individuals in the base of ous levels of significance. The sig- (1) and the appropriate parameters the percentage, p is the percent- nificance level of a test is the prob- from Table B gives age (0 < p < 100), and b is the pa- ability of concluding that the rameter in Table B associated with

61 U.S. Census Bureau

69 the characteristic in the numerator However, if there is a high positive estimated median depends on the of the percentage. (negative) correlation between the form of the distribution and the Illustration two characteristics, the formula size of the base. One can approxi- Suppose we estimate the per- will overestimate (underestimate) mate the reliability of an estimated centage of naturalized citizens age the true standard error. median by determining a confi- 15+ to be 97.6 percent, and the Illustration dence interval about it. (See the standard error and confidence in- Suppose from the March 2000 section titled "standard errors and terval for this percentage are de- CPS, 34.3 percent of the their use" for a general discussion sired. The total number of natural- 152,836,000 natives in the United of confidence intervals.) ized citizens is 10,622,000. Using States ages 25 and older are high Estimate the 68-percent confi- Formula (2) and the appropriate school graduates. Also, suppose dence limits of a median based on parameter from Table B gives that 23.9 percent of the sample data using the following Percentage, p 97.6 12,606,000 noncitizens in the procedure. United States ages 25 and older Base, x 10,622,000 1 Determine, using formula (2), b parameter 6,774are high school graduates, and the the standard error of the esti- Standard error 0.4 standard error and a 90 percent mate of 50 percent from the 90% conf. int. 96.9 to 98.3confidence interval for the differ- distribution. ence between the percentages of The standard error is calculated 2. Add to and subtract from 50 natives and noncitizens who are as percent the standard error de- high school graduates are desired. termined in step 1. 6,774 Use Formulas (2) and (3) and the x 97.6 x (100 97.6) = 0.4 10,622,000 appropriate parameters from Table 3. Using the distribution of the The 90-percent confidence in- B to get characteristic, determine upper terval is calculated as 97.6 ± The standard error of the differ- and lower limits of the 68-per- 1.645x0.4. ence is calculated as cent confidence interval by cal- Standard error of a differ- culating values corresponding ence. The standard error of the sx - = V0.22 + 0.72 = 0.7 to the two points established in difference between two sample es- step 2. timates is approximately equal to The 90-percent confidence in- Use the following formula to cal- terval around the difference is culate the upper and lower limits. sx_y = Vs,2, + 4 (3) calculated as 10.4 ± 1.645x0.7. Since this interval does not include pN - N, XPN A1) + Al (4) where sx and sy are the stan- zero, we can conclude with 90-per- N2 N1 (A2 dard errors of the estimates, x and cent confidence that the percent- where y. The estimates can be numbers, age of natives in the United States XPN = estimated upper and lower proportions, ratios, etc. This will who are high school graduates is bounds for the confidence represent the actual standard error higher than the percentage of non- interval (0 < p < 1). For quite accurately for the difference citizens who are high school purposes of calculating the between estimates of the same graduates. confidence interval, p characteristic for two different Standard Error of a Median. takes on the values deter- groups or for the difference be- The sampling variability of an mined in step 2. Note that tween separate and uncorrelated XPN estimates the median characteristics in the same group. when p = 0.50. Description V difference N = for distribution of num- Percentage, p 34.3 23.9 10.4 bers: the total number of Base, x 152,836,000 12,606,000 units (persons, house- b parameter 2,369 3,080 holds, etc.) for the charac- Standard error 0.2 0.7 0.7 teristic in the distribution. 90% conf. int. 34.0 to 34.6 22.7 to 25.1 9.2 to 11.6

62 U.S. Census Bureau

70 Naturalized citizens 15+ Thus, a 68-percent confidence Earnings levels (working full-time and year-round) Cumulative total interval for the median income is Under $10,000 or loss 181,000 181,000 from $32,300 to $33,500. $10,000 to $19,999 1,007,000 I , 1 88,000 $20,000 to $34,999 1,588,000 2,776,000 (4) The standard error of the me- $35,000 to $49,999 997,000 3,773,000 $50,000 or more 1,336,000 5,109,000 dian is, therefore

Total 5,109,000 33,500 32,300 Median income $32,917 = 600 2 Standard Error of a Ratio. Certain estimates may be calcu- = for distribution of percent- error of 50 percent on a base of lated as the ratio of two numbers. ages: the value 1.0. 5,109,000 is about 1.2 percent. The standard error of a ratio, x/y, p = the values obtained in step (2) To obtain a 68 percent confi- may be computed using 2. dence interval for an estimated median, add to and subtract A1, AZ = the lower and upper 2r 2-s--Ys (5) S y/('')2+y xy bounds, respectively, of from 50 percent, the standard the interval containing XPN. error found in step 1. This The standard error of the nu- yields limits of 48.8 and N1, N2 =for distribution of num- merator, sy, and that of the denomi- 51.2 percent. bers: the estimated num- nator, sb,, may be calculated using ber of units (persons, (3) The lower and upper limits for formulas described earlier. In for- households, etc.) with val- the interval in which the me- mula (5), r represents the correlation ues of the characteristic dian falls are $20,000 and between the numerator and the de- greater than or equal to A, $35,000, respectively. nominator of the estimate. and A2, respectively. Then, by adding the totals in For one type of ratio, the de- = for distribution of Percent- the different income ranges, the nominator is a count of families or ages: the estimated per- estimated number of naturalized households and the numerator is a centage of units (persons, citizens 15+ working year-round count of persons in those families or households, etc.) having and full-time and with earnings households with a certain character- values of the characteristic greater than or equal to $20,000 istic. If there is at least one person greater than or equal to A, and $35,000 are 3,921,000 and with the characteristic in every fam- and A2, respectively. 2,333,000, respectively. ily or household, use 0.7 as an estimate of r. An example of this 4. Divide the difference between Using formula (4), the upper type is the mean number of children the two points determined in limit for the confidence interval of per family with children. step 3 by two to obtain the the median is about For all other types of ratios, r is standard error of the median. 0.488 x 5,109,000 3,921,000 assumed to be zero. If r is actually x (35,000 Illustration 2,333,000 3,921,000 positive (negative), then this proce- Suppose we wish to use the fol- 20,000) + 20,000 = 33,487 dure will provide an overestimate lowing distribution to calculate the (underestimate) of the standard er- Similarly, the lower limit is about standard error of the median earn- ror of the ratio. Examples of this ings of naturalized citizens 15+ type are the mean number of chil- years old who work full-time and 0.512 x 5,109,000 3,921,000 x (35,000 dren per family and the poverty 2,333,000 3,921,000 year-round. rate. (1) Using b = 3,190 from Table B 20,000) + 20,000 = 32,329 Note: For estimates expressed as and formula (2), the standard the ratio of x per 100 y or x per 1,000 y, multiply formula (5) by 100

63 U.S. Census Bureau 71 Description x y ratio Estimate 119,733,000 14,200,000 8.43 a parameter -0.000039 -0.000051 b parameter 5,211 6,774 Standard error 254,608 293,099 0.17 90% conf. int. 8.15 to 8.71 or 1,000, respectively, to obtain the the total foreign born in Florida are standard error. calculated, when the estimated Illustration number is 2,351,000 people.3 Suppose the standard error and Use Formula (1) and the appro- 90-percent confidence interval for priate parameters from Table B and the ratio of native males residing in Table C to get the United States to foreign-born males residing in the United States Number, x 2,351,000 are desired, when the estimated a parameter -0.000025 numbers of foreign born and native b parameter 6,774 males are 14,200,000 and State factor (Florida) 0.97 a parameter 119,733,000, respectively. Using (-0.000025 x 0.97) -0.000024 Formulas (1) and (5) and the param- b parameter (6,774 x 0.97) 6,571 eters in Table 2, the standard error Standard error 123,757 of this ratio is as follows 90% conf. int. 2,147,000 to Using formula (5) with r = 0, the 2,555,000 estimate of the standard error is The standard error is calculated 119,733000 Vi 254,608 I 293,0909r 0.17 as 8" 14,200,000 h 19,733.000. + h 4,200,

The 90-percent confidence in- s = 4-0.000024 x 2,351,0002+ 6,571 x 2,351,000 terval is calculated as 8.43 ± = 123,757 1.645x0.17. Computation of Standard Er- The 90-percent confidence in- rors for State Estimates. Table B terval is calculated as 2,351,000 ± gives standard error parameters 1.645x123,757. for characteristics at the national Technical Assistance level. To calculate standard errors at the state level, regional level If you require assistance or (Northeast, Midwest, South, and additional information, please West), and the nonmetropolitan contact Jeffrey Stratton of the level, the parameters in Table B Demographic Statistical Methods must first be multiplied by the Division via e-mail at appropriate factor from Table C [email protected]. and Table D. Illustration 'This estimate of 2,351,000 for the foreign-born Suppose the standard error and population of Florida comes from the 1997 March 90-percent confidence interval for CPS.

64 U.S. Census Bureau

72 Table B. Standard Error Parameters for Native and Foreign-Born Characteristics: March 2000

Natives Foreign born Characteristic a b a

Age Total -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774 Under 15 years -0.000086 5,211 -0.000112 6,774 15 years and over -0.000024 5,211 -0.000032 6,774 15 to 24 years -0.000136 5,211 -0.000177 6,774 25 to 34 years -0.000139 5,211 -0.000181 6,774 35 to 44 years -0.000117 5,211 -0.000152 6,774 45 to 64 years -0.000087 5,211 -0.000113 6,774 65 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 6,774 Female -0.000037 5,211 -0.000048 6,774 Race and Hispanic Origin Some Household Members Total/White -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774 Black -0.000212 7,486 -0.000212 7,486 Asian or Pacific Islander -0.000550 7,486 -0.000550 7,486 Hispanic origin -0.000229 7,486 -0.000229 7,486 All Household Members Total/White -0.000023 6,332 -0.000030 8,232 Black -0.000312 11,039 -0.000312 11,039 Asian or Pacific Islander -0.000811 11,039 -0.000811 11,039 Hispanic 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 3,881 Employed -0.000018 2,985 -0.000023 3,881 Unemployment -0.000018 2,957 -0.000023 3,844 Not in the labor force 0.000006 829 0.000008 1,078 Income in 1999 Individual -0.000012 2,454 -0.000016 3,190 Household -0.000011 2,241 -0.000014 2,913 Received Public Assistance -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494 Received 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 11,054 Europe (NA) (NA) -0.000024 6,351 Asia, Africa, Oceania (NA) (NA) -0.000038 10,351 United States -0.000021 5,556 (NA) (NA)

NA Not applicable.

65 U.S. Census Bureau 4.

TableC. State Factors

State Factor State Factor Alabama 1.01 Montana 0.20 Alaska 0.15 Nebraska 0.42 Arizona 0.97 Nevada 0.44 Arkansas 0.59 New Hampshire 0.38 California 1.29 New Jersey 0.82 Colorado 0.93 New Mexico 0.40 Connecticut 1.00 New York 0.89 Delaware 0.22 North Carolina 0.94 Dist. of Col. 0.16 North Dakota 0.16 Florida 0.97 Ohio 1.02 Georgia 1.40 Oklahoma 0.73 Hawaii 0.35 Oregon 0.86 Idaho 0.27 Pennsylvania 0.96 Illinois 1.00 Rhode Island 0.30 Indiana 1.38 South Carolina 1.01 Iowa 0.71 South Dakota 0.17 Kansas 0.65 Tennessee 1.34 Kentucky 0.92 Texas 1.21 Louisiana 0.95 Utah 0.43 Maine 0.37 Vermont 0.18 Maryland 1.38 Virginia 1.48 Massachusetts 0.81 Washington 1.47 Michigan 0.93 West Virginia 0.39 Minnesota 1.11 Wisconsin 1.23 Mississippi 0.64 Wyoming 0.12 Missouri 1.37

Table D. Region and Nonmetropolitan Factors Characteristic Factor Region Northeast 0.85 Midwest 1.03 South 1.08 West 1.09 Non metropolitan characteristics 1.50

66 U.S. Census Bureau 74 Appendix C. Comparison of Population Universes s Ty

The population universes in the Foreign-Born Population in the CPS and in the March Current Population Survey Census of Population (CPS) and in the decennial census (Numbers in thousands) of population are not totally com- parable. While the universe for the Foreign-born population census of population is the entire Total resident population of the United population Number Percent of total States, the universe for the March March 2000 CPS CPS is the civilian noninstitutional Civilian noninstitutional population population plus Armed Forces liv- plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post 274,087 28,379 10.4 ing off post or with their families on post) The coverage of the non- 1 990 Census of Population institutional group quarters popu- Total population 248,710 19,767 7.9 lation in the CPS is limited primar- In households 242,050 19,279 8.0 In group quarters 6,660 489 7.3 ily to individuals living in college In institutions 3,312 242 7.3 dormitories who generally are re- In other group quarters 3,348 247 7.4 ported with their parental house- College dormitories 1,971 123 6.2 Military quarters 595 24 4.1 holds and not in group quarters; Other 783 100 12.8 however, relatively few foreign- born students would be reported Source: U.S. Census Bureau, special tabulations from the 1990 census and the March 2000 Current Popu- lation Survey. in this way. As a result, the foreign-born population in the 1990 census corresponding to the CPS universe is essentially the foreign-born population of 19.3 million living in households, which is about 0.5 million less than the total foreign-born popula- tion of 19.8 million in the 1990 census.

In addition, data from the 1990 census and the March 2000 CPS are not totally comparable because the CPS data are inflated to independent population controls reflecting an adjustment for undercoverage in the 1990 census. See Appendix B, Source and Ac- curacy of the Estimates, and U.S. Census Bureau, 2001.

67 U.S. Census Bureau 75 Appendix D. Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey z i

(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 person If NATVTY = PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR If MNTVTY and FNTVTY = US (1), PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR ALL 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.

68 U.S. Census Bureau 76 Appendix E. Related Reports and Information

From the U.S. (2000). Similar detailed tables are No. 29 (1999), is the source of all Immigration and also available for March 1995, the decennial census data included Naturalization. Service 1996, 1997, and 1998. in Profile of the Foreign-Born Popu- (INS) The data on the foreign-born lation in the United States: 2000, population in these reports noted P23-206 (this report). 1998 Statistical Yearbook of the above are based on national sur- The Foreign-Born Population in Immigration and Naturalization vey data for the 1995 to 2000 pe- the United States, 1990 Census of Service (2000) is the most recent riod. For a detailed evaluation of Population, 1990 CP-3-1 (1993) annual yearbook providing com- these data, see How Well Does the presents data on the demographic, prehensive data on immigration, Current Population Survey Measure social, economic, and housing naturalization, and other topics for the Foreign-Born Population in the characteristics of the foreign-born fiscal year 1998. The publication United States?, Population Division population of the United States as includes historical data on interna- Working Paper No. 22 (1998). a whole by region and country of tional migration. For additional birth of the foreign-born popula- information, including data from Recent population estimates tion. These data are shown down the report cited above, see the INS to the state level in Subject Sum- The Census Bureau produces Internet site: mary Tape File (SSTF) 1, The annual estimates of population http://www.ins.usdoj.gov. Foreign-Born Population in the change and of the components of United States, which is available population change (births, deaths, From the U.S. Census also on CD-ROM. net international migration, and Bureau Social and Economic Character- net domestic migration) since the istics, 1990 Census of Population, Current Population Reports 1990 census for the United States, 1990 CP-2 (1993) presents data on regions and divisions of the United Profile of the Foreign-Born the citizenship status, year of en- States, states, and counties. These Population in the United States: try, and region and country of birth estimates are available only on the 2000, PPL-145 (2001) is a compre- of the foreign-born population. Census Bureau's Internet site: hensive set of detailed statistical 1990 CP-2-1 includes data for the http://www.census.gov. tables and is the source of all the United States, regions and divi- On this Internet site, go to data from the March 2000 Current sions of the United States, and People, select Estimates, and Population Survey (CPS) included in states. 1990 CP-2-2 through 1990 then select State (which includes Profile of the Foreign-Born Popula- CP-2-52 (one report for each state data for the United States, regions, tion in the United States: 2000, and for the District of Columbia) and divisions) or County. Esti- P23-206 (this report). include data for states, counties, mates of the components of popu- In 1999, the U.S. Census Bu- and places of 10,000 or more lation change are currently avail- reau released a comprehensive re- population (with less detail for able for April 1, 1990, to July 1, port Profile of the Foreign-Born places of 2,500 to 9,999 popula- 1999, and for July 1, 1998, to July Population in the United States: tion). 1990 CP-2-1B and CP-2-1C 1, 1999. In 1999, the Census Bu- 1997, P23-195. This earlier report include data for metropolitan areas reau introduced annual population used data from the March 1997 and urbanized areas, respectively. estimates by nativity (native and CPS and included a set of detailed Census 2000 sample data (in- foreign-born resident populations) statistical tables, PPL -1 1 5. cluding statistics on the foreign at the national level. These esti- Previous sets of CPS detailed born) are scheduled to be released mates are currently available for tables on the foreign-born popula- by the Census Bureau as early as years 1990 to 1999. tion, which are less comprehensive March 2002. Data products in- than either PPL-145 or PPL -1 15, in- Decennial census data clude: Demographic Profile (provid- clude: The Foreign-Born Population ing demographic, social, eco- in the United States: March 2000, Historical Census Statistics on nomic, and housing characteristics PPL-135 (2001), and The Foreign- the Foreign-Born Population of presented in three separate Born Population in the United the United States: 1850 to 1990, tables); Congressional District States: March 1999, PPL-123 Population Division Working Paper Demographic Profile (providing

69 U.S. Census Bureau 77 r

demographic, social, economic, scheduled for release in 2002 and products.html highlights these and and housing characteristics pre- 2003 include: Summary File 4 other Census 2000 data products. sented in three separate tables for (SF4); Quick Tables; Geographic Congressional Districts only); Comparison Tables; Public Use On the Internet Summary File 3 (SF3) (population Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files; Ad- A wide range of information counts for ancestry groups and se- vanced Query Function; Census from the Census Bureau, including lected population and housing 2000: Summary Social, Economic, data on some of the topics in- characteristics) (planned release and Housing Characteristics; Con- cluded in this report, is available date: July-September 2002); other gressional District Data Summary on the Census Bureau's Internet forthcoming decennial products File. The Census 2000 Web site: site: http://www.census.gov. http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/

70 U.S. Census Bureau 78 Ciecatraerj cf E7:1LiCeCrl OfficF; cf ajcic_7i-icrc! R,-E-f.ecrch cfnd Imprcvernent ;CE.-71) ;\icricnct L:Lrc:-/ ci (NLE3 Educcticrci Re.scurce_s infcrrnalion C.:.*-nter (Fic

NOTICE

RUCTION BASIS

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket) form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassingall or classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries itsown permission to reproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore,may be reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (9/97)