In 2022, an estimated 10.99 million unauthorized immigrants were living in the United States. This is an increase from about 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants who lived in the United States in 1990.

In 2019, California had the highest population of unauthorized immigrants, at around **** million. The overall figure for the United States was estimated to be around ***** million unauthorized immigrants.

In January 2022, it was estimated that about 1.85 million male illegal immigrants living in the United States were aged between 35 and 44 years old. In that same year, it was estimated that 1.52 million female illegal immigrants living in the U.S. were between 35 and 44 years old.

Unauthorized population estimates for 1990, 2000, and 2014.

This statistic shows the top ten metropolitan areas in the United States with highest unauthorized immigrant populations in 2014. With over one million unauthorized people, New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA had the highest illegal immigrant population in the United States in 2014.

Users can download data and reports regarding the experience of Latinos in the United States. Users can also interact with maps to view population trends over time. Background The Pew Hispanic Center website contains reports and datasets regarding the experience of Latinos in the United States. Topics include, but are not limited to: homeownership, elections, criminal justice system, and education. User Functionality Users can view and download reports. Users can also interact with maps to obtain demographic information and view population trends from 1980 to 2010. Datasets are also available to download directly into SPSS stat istical software. Surveys administered by the Pew Hispanic Center include: Hispanic Health Care Survey, National Survey of Latinos, Hispanic Religion Survey, Survey of Mexicans Living in the U.S. on Absentee Voting in Mexican Elections, Survey o f Mexican Migrants, and the Survey of Latinos on the News Media. Demographic information is available by race/ethnicity. Data Notes Report information is available on a national and county level and is indicated with the report or dataset. Demographic trends in population growth and dispersion are available for 1980 through 2010. Each report and dataset indicate years in which the data were collected and the geographic unit.

The estimated population of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. stands at around ** million people. Although the number has stabilized, the United States has seen a spike in migrant encounters in the last few years, with over * million cases registered by the U.S. Border Patrol in 2023. This is a slight decrease from the previous year, when there were over *** million cases registered. Due to its proximity and shared border, Mexico remains the leading country of origin for most undocumented immigrants in the U.S., with California and Texas being home to the majority.

Immigration and political division

Despite the majority of the population having immigrant roots, the topic of immigration in the U.S. remains one of the country’s longest-standing political debates. Support among Republicans for restrictive immigration has grown alongside Democratic support for open immigration. This growing divide has deepened the polarization between the two major political parties, stifling constructive dialogue and impeding meaningful reform efforts and as a result, has led to dissatisfaction from all sides. In addition to general immigration policy, feelings toward illegal immigration in the U.S. also vary widely. For some, it's seen as a significant threat to national security, cultural identity, and economic stability. This perspective often aligns with support for stringent measures like Trump's proposed border wall and increased enforcement efforts. On the other hand, there are those who are more sympathetic toward undocumented immigrants, as demonstrated by support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

As of January 2022, it was estimated that about 4.81 million illegal immigrants from Mexico were living in the United States. It was also estimated that 750,000 illegal immigrants from Guatemala were living in the United States.

Graph and download economic data for Employment Level - Foreign Born (LNU02073395) from Jan 2007 to Jun 2025 about foreign, household survey, employment, and USA.

As of 2023, 27.3 percent of California's population were born in a country other than the United States. New Jersey, New York, Florida, and Nevada rounded out the top five states with the largest population of foreign born residents in that year. For the country as a whole, 14.3 percent of residents were foreign born.

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they were received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except for the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompanying readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collection and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed. The main aim of this research is to study the criminal mobility of ethnic-based organized crime groups. The project examines whether organized crime groups are able to move abroad easily and to reproduce their territorial control in a foreign country, or whether these groups, and/or individual members, start a life of crime only after their arrival in the new territories, potentially as a result of social exclusion, economic strain, culture conflict and labeling. More specifically, the aim is to examine the criminal mobility of ethnic Albanian organized crime groups involved in a range of criminal markets and operating in and around New York City, area and to study the relevance of the importation/alien conspiracy model versus the deprivation model of organized crime in relation to Albanian organized crime. There are several analytical dimensions in this study: (1) reasons for going abroad; (2) the nature of the presence abroad; (3) level of support from ethnic constituencies in the new territories; (4) importance of cultural codes; (5) organizational structure; (6) selection of criminal activities; (7) economic incentives and political infiltration. This study utilizes a mixed-methods approach with a sequential exploratory design, in which qualitative data and documents are collected and analyzed first, followed by quantitative data. Demographic variables in this collection include age, gender, birth place, immigration status, nationality, ethnicity, education, religion, and employment status. Two main data sources were employed: (1) court documents, including indictments and court transcripts related to select organized crime cases (84 court documents on 29 groups, 254 offenders); (2) in-depth, face-to-face interviews with 9 ethnic Albanian offenders currently serving prison sentences in U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities, and with 79 adult ethnic Albanian immigrants in New York, including common people, undocumented migrants, offenders, and people with good knowledge of Albanian organized crime modus operandi. Sampling for these data were conducted in five phases, the first of which involved researchers examining court documents and identifying members of 29 major ethnic Albanian organized crime groups operating in the New York area between 1975 and 2013 who were or had served sentences in the U.S. Federal Prisons for organized crime related activities. In phase two researchers conducted eight in-depth interviews with law enforcement experts working in New York or New Jersey. Phase three involved interviews with members of the Albanian diaspora and filed observations from an ethnographic study. Researchers utilized snowball and respondent driven (RDS) recruitment methods to create the sample for the diaspora dataset. The self-reported criteria for recruitment to participate in the diaspora interviews were: (1) age 18 or over; (2) of ethnic Albanian origin (foreign-born or 1st/2nd generation); and (3) living in NYC area for at least 1 year. They also visited neighborhoods identified as high concentrations of ethnic Albanian individuals and conducted an ethnographic study to locate the target population. In phase four, data for the cultural advisors able to help with the project data was collected. In the fifth and final phase, researchers gathered data for the second wave of the diaspora data, and conducted interviews with offenders with ethnic Albanian immigrants with knowledge of the organized crime situation in New York City area. Researchers also approached about twenty organized crime figures currently serving a prison sentence, and were able to conduct 9 in-depth interviews.

Sample restrictions for the SEDA standardized achievement scores datafile.

Abstract

The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) carried out the Migration and Remittances Survey in South Africa for the World Bank in collaboration with the African Development Bank. The primary mandate of the HSRC in this project was to come up with a migration database that includes both immigrants and emigrants. The specific activities included: · A household survey with a view of producing a detailed demographic/economic database of immigrants, emigrants and non migrants · The collation and preparation of a data set based on the survey · The production of basic primary statistics for the analysis of migration and remittance behaviour in South Africa.

Like many other African countries, South Africa lacks reliable census or other data on migrants (immigrants and emigrants), and on flows of resources that accompanies movement of people. This is so because a large proportion of African immigrants are in the country undocumented. A special effort was therefore made to design a household survey that would cover sufficient numbers and proportions of immigrants, and still conform to the principles of probability sampling. The approach that was followed gives a representative picture of migration in 2 provinces, Limpopo and Gauteng, which should be reflective of migration behaviour and its impacts in South Africa.

Geographic coverage

Two provinces: Gauteng and Limpopo

Limpopo is the main corridor for migration from African countries to the north of South Africa while Gauteng is the main port of entry as it has the largest airport in Africa. Gauteng is a destination for internal and international migrants because it has three large metropolitan cities with a great economic potential and reputation for offering employment, accommodations and access to many different opportunities within a distance of 56 km. These two provinces therefore were expected to accommodate most African migrants in South Africa, co-existing with a large host population.

Analysis unit

• Household
• Individual

Universe

The target group consists of households in all communities. The survey will be conducted among metro and non-metro households. Non-metro households include those in: - small towns, - secondary cities, - peri-urban settlements and - deep rural areas. From each selected household, one adult respondent will be selected to participate in the study.

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Migration data for South Africa are available for 2007 only at the level of local governments or municipalities from the 2007 Census; for smaller areas called "sub places" (SPs) only as recently as the 2001 census, and for the desired EAs only back so far as the Census of 1996. In sum, there was no single source that provided recent data on the five types of migrants of principal interest at the level of the Enumeration Area, which was the area for which data were needed to draw the sample since it was going to be necessary to identify migrant and non-migrant households in the sample areas in order to oversample those with migrants for interview.

In an attempt to overcome the data limitations referred to above, it was necessary to adopt a novel approach to the design of the sample for the World Bank's household migration survey in South Africa, to identify EAs with a high probability of finding immigrants and those with a low probability. This required the combined use of the three sources of data described above. The starting point was the CS 2007 survey, which provided data on migration at a local government level, classifying each local government cluster in terms of migration level, taking into account the types of migrants identified. The researchers then spatially zoomed in from these clusters to the so-called sub-places (SPs) from the 2001 Census to classifying SP clusters by migration level. Finally, the 1996 Census data were used to zoom in even further down to the EA level, using the 1996 census data on migration levels of various typed, to identify the final level of clusters for the survey, namely the spatially small EAs (each typically containing about 200 households, and hence amenable to the listing operation in the field).

A higher score or weight was attached to the 2007 Community Survey municipality-level (MN) data than to the Census 2001 sub-place (SP) data, which in turn was given a greater weight than the 1996 enumerator area (EA) data. The latter was derived exclusively from the Census 1996 EA data, but has then been reallocated to the 2001 EAs proportional to geographical size. Although these weights are purely arbitrary since it was composed from different sources, they give an indication of the relevant importance attached to the different migrant categories. These weighted migrant proportions (secondary strata), therefore constituted the second level of clusters for sampling purposes.

In addition, a system of weighting or scoring the different persons by migrant type was applied to ensure that the likelihood of finding migrants would be optimised. As part of this procedure, recent migrants (who had migrated in the preceding five years) received a higher score than lifetime migrants (who had not migrated during the preceding five years). Similarly, a higher score was attached to international immigrants (both recent and lifetime, who had come to SA from abroad) than to internal migrants (who had only moved within SA's borders). A greater weight also applied to inter-provincial (internal) than to intra-provincial migrants (who only moved within the same South African province).

How the three data sources were combined to provide overall scores for EA can be briefly described. First, in each of the two provinces, all local government units were given migration scores according to the numbers or relative proportions of the population classified in the various categories of migrants (with non-migrants given a score of 1.0. Migrants were assigned higher scores according to their priority, with international migrants given higher scores than internal migrants and recent migrants higher scores than lifetime migrants. Then within the local governments, sub-places were assigned scores assigned on the basis of inter vs. intra-provincial migrants using the 2001 census data. Each SP area in a local government was thus assigned a value which was the product of its local government score (the same for all SPs in the local government) and its own SP score. The third and final stage was to develop relative migration scores for all the EAs from the 1996 census by similarly weighting the proportions of migrants (and non-migrants, assigned always 1.0) of each type. The the final migration score for an EA is the product of its own EA score from 1996, the SP score of which it is a part (assigned to all the EAs within the SP), and the local government score from the 2007 survey.

Based on all the above principles the set of weights or scores was developed.

In sum, we multiplied the proportion of populations of each migrant type, or their incidence, by the appropriate final corresponding EA scores for persons of each type in the EA (based on multiplying the three weights together), to obtain the overall score for each EA. This takes into account the distribution of persons in the EA according to migration status in 1996, the SP score of the EA in 2001, and the local government score (in which the EA is located) from 2007. Finally, all EAs in each province were then classified into quartiles, prior to sampling from the quartiles.

From the EAs so classified, the sampling took the form of selecting EAs, i.e., primary sampling units (PSUs, which in this case are also Ultimate Sampling Units, since this is a single stage sample), according to their classification into quartiles. The proportions selected from each quartile are based on the range of EA-level scores which are assumed to reflect weighted probabilities of finding desired migrants in each EA. To enhance the likelihood of finding migrants, much higher proportions of EAs were selected into the sample from the quartiles with the higher scores compared to the lower scores (disproportionate sampling). The decision on the most appropriate categorisations was informed by the observed migration levels in the two provinces of the study area during 2007, 2001 and 1996, analysed at the lowest spatial level for which migration data was available in each case.

Because of the differences in their characteristics it was decided that the provinces of Gauteng and Limpopo should each be regarded as an explicit stratum for sampling purposes. These two provinces therefore represented the primary explicit strata. It was decided to select an equal number of EAs from these two primary strata.

The migration-level categories referred to above were treated as secondary explicit strata to ensure optimal coverage of each in the sample. The distribution of migration levels was then used to draw EAs in such a way that greater preference could be given to areas with higher proportions of migrants in general, but especially immigrants (note the relative scores assigned to each type of person above). The proportion of EAs selected into the sample from the quartiles draws upon the relative mean weighted migrant scores (referred to as proportions) found below the table, but this is a coincidence and not necessary, as any disproportionate sampling of EAs from the quartiles could be done, since it would be rectified in the weighting at the end for the analysis.

The resultant proportions of migrants then led to the following proportional allocation of sampled EAs (Quartile 1: 5 per cent (instead of 25% as in an equal distribution), Quartile 2: 15 per cent (instead

BackgroundRefugees are at higher risk of some psychiatric disorders, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and psychosis, compared with other non-refugee migrants and the majority population. However, it is unclear whether this also applies to substance use disorders, which we investigated in a national register cohort study in Sweden. We also investigated whether risk varied by region of origin, age at migration, time in Sweden, and diagnosis of PTSD.Methods and findingsUsing linked Swedish register data, we followed a cohort born between 1984 and 1997 from their 14th birthday or arrival in Sweden, if later, until an International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10), diagnosis of substance use disorder (codes F10.X–19.X), emigration, death, or end of follow-up (31 December 2016). Refugee and non-refugee migrants were restricted to those from regions with at least 1,000 refugees in the Swedish registers. We used Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) in refugee and non-refugee migrants, compared with Swedish-born individuals, for all substance use disorders (F10.X–19.X), alcohol use disorders (F10.X), cannabis use disorders (F12.X), and polydrug use disorders (F19.X). In adjusted analyses, we controlled for age, sex, birth year, family income, family employment status, population density, and PTSD diagnosis. Our sample of 1,241,901 participants included 17,783 (1.4%) refugee and 104,250 (8.4%) non-refugee migrants. Refugees' regions of origin were represented in proportions ranging from 6.0% (Eastern Europe and Russia) to 41.4% (Middle East and North Africa); proportions of non-refugee migrants' regions of origin ranged from 11.8% (sub-Saharan Africa) to 33.7% (Middle East and North Africa). These groups were more economically disadvantaged at cohort entry (p < 0.001) than the Swedish-born population. Refugee (aHR: 0.52; 95% CI 0.46–0.60) and non-refugee (aHR: 0.46; 95% CI 0.43–0.49) migrants had similarly lower rates of all substance use disorders compared with Swedish-born individuals (crude incidence: 290.2 cases per 100,000 person-years; 95% CI 287.3–293.1). Rates of substance use disorders in migrants converged to the Swedish-born rate over time, indicated by both earlier age at migration and longer time in Sweden. We observed similar patterns for alcohol and polydrug use disorders, separately, although differences in cannabis use were less marked; findings did not differ substantially by migrants’ region of origin. Finally, while a PTSD diagnosis was over 5 times more common in refugees than the Swedish-born population, it was more strongly associated with increased rates of substance use disorders in the Swedish-born population (aHR: 7.36; 95% CI 6.79–7.96) than non-refugee migrants (HR: 4.88; 95% CI 3.71–6.41; likelihood ratio test [LRT]: p = 0.01). The main limitations of our study were possible non-differential or differential under-ascertainment (by migrant status) of those only seen via primary care and that our findings may not generalize to undocumented migrants, who were not part of this study.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that lower rates of substance use disorders in migrants and refugees may reflect prevalent behaviors with respect to substance use in migrants’ countries of origin, although this effect appeared to diminish over time in Sweden, with rates converging towards the substantial burden of substance use morbidity we observed in the Swedish-born population.

California is home to 12 percent of the nation's population yet accounts for more than 20 percent of the people living in the nation’s hardest-to-count areas, according to the United States Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau). California's unique diversity, large population distributed across both urban and rural areas, and sheer geographic size present significant barriers to achieving a complete and accurate count. The state’s population is more racially and ethnically diverse than ever before, with about 18 percent of Californians speaking English “less than very well,” according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Because the 2020 Census online form was offered in only twelve non-English languages, which did not correspond with the top spoken language in California, and a paper questionnaire only in English and Spanish, many Californians may not have been able to access a census questionnaire or written guidance in a language they could understand. In order to earn the confidence of California’s most vulnerable populations, it was critical during the 2020 Census that media and trusted messengers communicate with them in their primary language and in accessible formats. An accurate count of the California population in each decennial census is essential to receive its equitable share of federal funds and political representation, through reapportionment and redistricting. It plays a vital role in many areas of public life, including important investments in health, education, housing, social services, highways, and schools. Without a complete count in the 2020 Census, the State faced a potential loss of congressional seats and billions of dollars in muchneeded federal funding. An undercount of California in 1990 cost an estimated $2 billion in federal funding. The potential loss of representation and critically needed funding could have long-term impacts; only with a complete count does California receive the share of funding the State deserves with appropriate representation at the federal, state, and local government levels. The high stakes and formidable challenges made this California Complete Count Census 2020 Campaign (Campaign) the most important to date. The 2020 Census brought an unprecedented level of new challenges to all states, beyond the California-specific hurdles discussed above. For the first time, the U.S. Census Bureau sought to collect data from households through an online form. While the implementation of digital forms sought to reduce costs and increase participation, its immediate impact is still unknown as of this writing, and it may have substantially changed how many households responded to the census. In addition, conditions such as the novel Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, a contentious political climate, ongoing mistrust and distrust of government, and rising concerns about privacy may have discouraged people to open their doors, or use computers, to participate. Federal immigration policy, as well as the months-long controversy over adding a citizenship question to the census, may have deterred households with mixed documentation status, recent immigrants, and undocumented immigrants from participating. In 2017, to prepare for the unique challenges of the 2020 Census, California leaders and advocates reflected on lessons learned from previous statewide census efforts and launched the development of a high-impact strategy to efficiently raise public awareness about the 2020 Census. Subsequently, the State established the California Complete Count – Census 2020 Office (Census Office) and invested a significant sum for the Campaign. The Campaign was designed to educate, motivate, and activate Californians to respond to the 2020 Census. It relied heavily on grassroots messaging and outreach to those least likely to fill out the census form. One element of the Campaign was the Language and Communication Access Plan (LACAP), which the Census Office developed to ensure that language and communication access was linguistically and culturally relevant and sensitive and provided equal and meaningful access for California’s vulnerable populations. The Census Office contracted with outreach partners, including community leaders and organizations, local government, and ethnic media, who all served as trusted messengers in their communities to deliver impactful words and offer safe places to share information and trusted messages. The State integrated consideration of hardest-to-count communities’ needs throughout the Campaign’s strategy at both the statewide and regional levels. The Campaign first educated, then motivated, and during the census response period, activated Californians to fill out their census form. The Census Office’s mission was to ensure that Californians get their fair share of resources and representation by encouraging the full participation of all Californians in the 2020 Census. This report focuses on the experience of the Census Office and partner organizations who worked to achieve the most complete count possible, presenting an evaluation of four outreach and communications strategies.

This statistic shows the percentage of the illegal immigrant population in the United States that is eligible for either the DAPA or DACA programs in 2015. Fifty percent of California's illegal immigrant population was estimated to be eligible for DAPA or DACA in 2015.

In 2022, about **** million illegal aliens were apprehended in the United States. This was a significant increase from the previous year, when there were around **** million illegal aliens apprehended nationwide. Apprehensions refer to Border Patrol apprehensions and ICE administrative arrests.

Objectives: Refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants globally have been disproportionally impacted by COVID-19. Vaccination has been a major tool to reduce disease impact, yet concerns exist regarding equitable allocation and uptake.Methods: A rapid literature review was conducted based on PRISMA guidelines to determine COVID-19 vaccination acceptance rates and level of access for these population groups globally.Results: Relatively high COVID-19 vaccine acceptance levels were commonly reported in these populations, although, trust in host governments was a frequently expressed concern, especially for undocumented migrants. Outreach efforts and access to comprehensive information from a trusted source and in appropriate language were found to be major determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance. COVID-19 vaccination access and policies varied considerably across host countries despite urgings by international organizations to include migrants and refugees. While most governments endorsed inclusive policies, evidence of successful program implementation was frequently lacking, creating difficulty to better tailor and implement COVID-19 outreach programs.Conclusion: This review identifies impactful improvements to be implemented to ensure equitable COVID-19 vaccinations and to reduce disease burden on refugees, asylum seekers, and undocumented migrants.