United States US: Net Migration data was reported at 4,500,000.000 Person in 2017. This stayed constant from the previous number of 4,500,000.000 Person for 2012. United States US: Net Migration data is updated yearly, averaging 4,213,405.500 Person from Dec 1962 (Median) to 2017, with 12 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 8,612,074.000 Person in 1997 and a record low of 1,549,465.000 Person in 1967. United States US: Net Migration data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by World Bank. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.World Bank.WDI: Population and Urbanization Statistics. Net migration is the net total of migrants during the period, that is, the total number of immigrants less the annual number of emigrants, including both citizens and noncitizens. Data are five-year estimates.; ; United Nations Population Division. World Population Prospects: 2017 Revision.; Sum;

Users can download reports regarding immigrant issues and view maps of the distribution of the foreign-born population in the U.S. Topics include: immigration policy, migration, English language proficiency, and adult education. Background The Migration Policy Institute is a think tank dedicated to studying human migration across the globe. This website is useful for policymakers and practitioners interested in understanding and responding to immigrant integration. Topics include, but are not limited to: migration, immigration policy, English language proficiency, immigration enforcement, and English language education. User Functionality Users can download reports regarding immigrant int egration issues and immigration trends. Users can also access the State Responses to Immigration Database, the American Community Survey of the Foreign Born, and Who's Where in the United States Database. Users can download data into SAS statistical software. In addition, users can view maps showing the distribution of the foreign-born population in the U.S. Demographic information is available by race/ethnicity, Hispanic origin, place of origin, citizenship status, sex/gender, and marital status. Data Notes Data sources include the New Immigrants Survey, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, United States Census Bureau, U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, Congressional Research Service, Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, National Immigration Law Ce nter, among others. Full citations and years to which the data apply, are indicated in each report. Data are available on national, state and city levels, depending upon the report.

This annual study provides migration pattern data for the United States by State or by county and are available for inflows (the number of new residents who moved to a State or county and where they migrated from) and outflows (the number of residents who left a State or county and where they moved to). The data include the number of returns filed, number of personal exemptions claimed, total adjusted gross income, and aggregate migration flows at the State level, by the size of adjusted gross income (AGI) and by age of the primary taxpayer. Data are collected and based on year-to-year address changes reported on U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns (Form 1040) filed with the IRS. SOI collects these data as part of its Individual Income Tax Return (Form 1040) Statistics program, Data by Geographic Areas, U.S. Population Migration Data.

VITAL SIGNS INDICATOR Migration (EQ4)

FULL MEASURE NAME Migration flows

LAST UPDATED December 2018

DESCRIPTION Migration refers to the movement of people from one location to another, typically crossing a county or regional boundary. Migration captures both voluntary relocation – for example, moving to another region for a better job or lower home prices – and involuntary relocation as a result of displacement. The dataset includes metropolitan area, regional, and county tables.

DATA SOURCE American Community Survey County-to-County Migration Flows 2012-2015 5-year rolling average http://www.census.gov/topics/population/migration/data/tables.All.html

CONTACT INFORMATION vitalsigns.info@bayareametro.gov

METHODOLOGY NOTES (across all datasets for this indicator) Data for migration comes from the American Community Survey; county-to-county flow datasets experience a longer lag time than other standard datasets available in FactFinder. 5-year rolling average data was used for migration for all geographies, as the Census Bureau does not release 1-year annual data. Data is not available at any geography below the county level; note that flows that are relatively small on the county level are often within the margin of error. The metropolitan area comparison was performed for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, in addition to the primary MSAs for the nine other major metropolitan areas, by aggregating county data based on current metropolitan area boundaries. Data prior to 2011 is not available on Vital Signs due to inconsistent Census formats and a lack of net migration statistics for prior years. Only counties with a non-negligible flow are shown in the data; all other pairs can be assumed to have zero migration.

Given that the vast majority of migration out of the region was to other counties in California, California counties were bundled into the following regions for simplicity: Bay Area: Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma Central Coast: Monterey, San Benito, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Santa Cruz Central Valley: Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced, Tulare Los Angeles + Inland Empire: Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura Sacramento: El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, Yuba San Diego: San Diego San Joaquin Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus Rural: all other counties (23)

One key limitation of the American Community Survey migration data is that it is not able to track emigration (movement of current U.S. residents to other countries). This is despite the fact that it is able to quantify immigration (movement of foreign residents to the U.S.), generally by continent of origin. Thus the Vital Signs analysis focuses primarily on net domestic migration, while still specifically citing in-migration flows from countries abroad based on data availability.

Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data was reported at 53,287.000 Person in 2016. This records a decrease from the previous number of 56,478.000 Person for 2015. Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data is updated yearly, averaging 54,446.000 Person from Sep 1986 (Median) to 2016, with 31 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 74,606.000 Person in 2006 and a record low of 30,943.000 Person in 1999. Immigrants Admitted: Philippines data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by US Department of Homeland Security. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.G086: Immigration.

The study analyzes the forces leading to or impeding the assimilation of 18- to 32-year-olds from immigrant backgrounds that vary in terms of race, language, and the mix of skills and liabilities their parents brought to the United States. To make sure that what we find derives specifically from growing up in an immigrant family, rather than simply being a young person in New York, a comparison group of people from native born White, Black, and Puerto Rican backgrounds was also studied. The sample was drawn from New York City (except for Staten Island) and the surrounding counties in the inner part of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan region where the vast majority of immigrants and native born minority group members live and grow up. The study groups make possible a number of interesting comparisons. Unlike many other immigrant groups, the West Indian first generation speaks English, but the dominant society racially classifies them as Black. The study explored how their experiences resemble or differ from native born African Americans. Dominicans and the Colombian-Peruvian-Ecuadoran population both speak Spanish, but live in different parts of New York, have different class backgrounds prior to immigration, and, quite often, different skin tones. The study compared them to Puerto Rican young people, who, along with their parents, have the benefit of citizenship. Chinese immigrants from the mainland tend to have little education, while young people with overseas Chinese parents come from families with higher incomes, more education, and more English fluency. Respondents were divided into eight groups depending on their parents' origin. Those of immigrant ancestry include: Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union; Chinese immigrants from the mainland, Taiwan, Hong Kong, and the Chinese Diaspora; immigrants from the Dominican Republic; immigrants from the English-speaking countries of the West Indies (including Guyana but excluding Haiti and those of Indian origin); and immigrants from Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru. These groups composed 44 percent of the 2000 second-generation population in the defined sample area. For comparative purposes, Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans who were born in the United States and whose parents were born in the United States or Puerto Rico were also interviewed. To be eligible, a respondent had to have a parent from one of these groups. If the respondent was eligible for two groups, he or she was asked which designation he or she preferred. The ability to compare these groups with native born Whites, Blacks, and Puerto Ricans permits researchers to investigate the effects of nativity while controlling for race and language background. About two-thirds of second-generation respondents were born in the United States, mostly in New York City, while one-third were born abroad but arrived in the United States by age 12 and had lived in the country for at least 10 years, except for those from the former Soviet Union, some of whom arrived past the age of 12. The project began with a pilot study in July 1996. Survey data collection took place between November 1999 and December 1999. The study includes demographic variables such as race, ethnicity, language, age, education, income, family size, country of origin, and citizenship status.

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.

This data collection contains information on the characteristics of aliens who became legal permanent residents of the United States in fiscal year 1979 (October 1978 through September 1979). Data are presented for two types of immigrants. The first category, New Arrivals, arrived from outside the United States with valid immigrant visas issued by the United States Department of State. Those in the second category, Adjustments, were already in the United States with temporary status and were adjusted to legal permanent residence through petition to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service. Variables include port of entry, month and year of admission, class of admission, and state and area to which immigrants were admitted. Demographic information such as age, sex, marital status, occupation, country of birth, country of last permanent residence, and nationality is also provided.

This dataset shows length of US residence and worker earnings in 1999. The information is mapped according to place of residence. The data is part of the Census Transportation Planning Package (CTPP), and is the result of a cooperative effort between various groups including the State Departments of Transportation, U.S. Census Bureau, and the Federal Highway Administration. The data is a special tabulation of responses from households completing the decennial census long form. The data was collected in 2000 and is shown at tract level. This data can be found at http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Fields.asp?Table_ID=1339.

United States Immigrants Admitted: Taiwan data was reported at 4,858.000 Person in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 5,120.000 Person for 2016. United States Immigrants Admitted: Taiwan data is updated yearly, averaging 9,012.000 Person from Sep 1986 (Median) to 2017, with 32 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 16,344.000 Person in 1992 and a record low of 4,697.000 Person in 2014. United States Immigrants Admitted: Taiwan data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by US Department of Homeland Security. The data is categorized under Global Database’s United States – Table US.G087: Immigration.

There is a large econometric literature that examines the economic assimilation of immigrants in the United States and elsewhere. On the whole immigrants are seen as atomistic individuals assimilating in a largely anonymous labour market, a view that runs counter to the spirit of the equally large literature on ethnic groups. Here we argue that immigrants assimilate as communities, not just as individuals. The longer the immigrant community has been established the better adjusted it is to the host society and the more the host society comes to accept that ethnic group. Thus economic outcomes for immigrants should depend not just on their own characteristics, but also on the legacy of past immigration from the same country. In this paper we test this hypothesis using data from a 5 percent sample of the 1980, 1990 and 2000 US censuses. We find that history matters in immigrant assimilation: the stronger is the tradition of immigration from a given source country, the better the economic outcomes for new immigrants from that source.

The U.S. Census defines Asian Americans as individuals having origins in any of the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1997). As a broad racial category, Asian Americans are the fastest-growing minority group in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). The growth rate of 42.9% in Asian Americans between 2000 and 2010 is phenomenal given that the corresponding figure for the U.S. total population is only 9.3% (see Figure 1). Currently, Asian Americans make up 5.6% of the total U.S. population and are projected to reach 10% by 2050. It is particularly notable that Asians have recently overtaken Hispanics as the largest group of new immigrants to the U.S. (Pew Research Center, 2015). The rapid growth rate and unique challenges as a new immigrant group call for a better understanding of the social and health needs of the Asian American population.

This table contains 25 series, with data for years 1955 - 2013 (not all combinations necessarily have data for all years). This table contains data described by the following dimensions (Not all combinations are available): Geography (1 items: Canada ...) Last permanent residence (25 items: Total immigrants; France; Great Britain; Total Europe ...).

Graph and download economic data for Population Level - Foreign Born (LNU00073395) from Jan 2007 to Aug 2025 about foreign, civilian, population, and USA.

People who have been granted permanent resident status in Canada. Please note that in these datasets, the figures have been suppressed or rounded to prevent the identification of individuals when the datasets are compiled and compared with other publicly available statistics. Values between 0 and 5 are shown as “--“ and all other values are rounded to the nearest multiple of 5. This may result to the sum of the figures not equating to the totals indicated.

Abstract

These data consist of a long-term follow-up of applicants to a migration visa lottery. Tongan households were surveyed as migrants in New Zealand, or non-migrants in Tonga. It was used to examine the long-term impacts of international migration by comparing immigrants who had successful ballot entries in a migration lottery program, and first moved almost a decade ago, with people who had unsuccessful entries into those same ballots. It was additionally used to study how migrating from a poor country to a rich country affects economic beliefs, preference parameters, and household decision-making efficiency. In a ten-year follow-up survey of applicants to a migration lottery program we elicit risk and time preferences and pro-market beliefs for the migrants and the unsuccessful applicants. The successful and the unsuccessful applicants are each linked to closest relative households, who would stay in the home country if the applicant moved, to play lab-in-the-field games that measure intra-family trust and the efficiency of intra-family decision-making.

Geographic coverage

The survey covers Tongans who applied to the 2002-05 Pacific Access Category migration visa program, along with linked households of their family members. This involved surveying in both New Zealand and Tonga (along with a small number of surveys of movers to third countries).

Analysis unit

Data are collected at both the individual and household level

Kind of data

Sample survey data [ssd]

Sampling procedure

Our population of interest consists of entrants to the 2002 to 2005 PAC migration lotteries. There were a total of 4,696 principal applicants of whom 367 were randomly selected as ballot winners (figure 2). Official records provided by the New Zealand immigration authorities in late 2012 show that 307 of these winners (84%) had residency applications approved and had ever migrated to New Zealand. The remaining 60 ballot winners did not migrate and are thus non-compliers to the treatment of migration.

Our main survey involved an extensive face-to-face interview, which also collected anthropometrics, blood pressure, peak lung flow, and included lab-in-the-field games. Of the 307 principal applicants ever migrating to New Zealand, 133 completed the full survey between late 2013 and the end of 2014. In order to bolster our sample size, in early 2015 we fielded a shortened survey that did not include health measurements or the lab-in-field games. This was mainly done as a telephone interview and was designed to reach those who had on-migrated beyond New Zealand or were located in parts of New Zealand that were impractical for face-to-face interviewing, although we also learned, through snowball effects, of more migrants in our face-to-face survey area and gave them the short survey as well. Overall, 61 additional ballot winners who had ever migrated to New Zealand were given the short survey, including 11 who had now on-migrated to Australia (ten) and the UK (one). In total, we were able to survey 194 households with principal applicants who ever migrated to New Zealand after winning the ballot.

We had even less information available for the ballot losers and non-compliers since these individuals had not filled out residency applications. We therefore used the same surveying approach for these groups as we had in our previous survey, which was to sample from the same villages in Tonga from which our migrants originated. Out of 4329 ballot losers, 143 were administered the long form survey and 39 the short survey (of which nine had subsequently moved to New Zealand through alternative pathways, including by winning a later round of the PAC lottery). Finances limited us to this relatively small sample, but, based on our previous research, we judged that it would give us enough power to measure economically significant impacts. An advantage of surveying from the same origin villages is that we can implicitly control for any unobserved characteristics that vary spatially in Tonga. Finally, we have a small sample of nine non-compliers; six who received the long survey and three the short survey. This is out of a population of 60 non-compliers, which hence made it difficult to find many individuals in this group.

Mode of data collection

Face-to-face [f2f]

Research instrument

Four separate questionnaires were administered: - a survey for migrant households in New Zealand - a survey for non-migrant households in Tonga - a survey of linked partner households - a short survey

The main dataset ("ESB Mobility Database") contains occupational data on 1,200 Irish immigrants who arrived in the U.S. in the Famine years and could be tracked for at least a decade. We also present the most up-to-date version of our Emigrant Savings Bank Depositor Database, which contains data on all 15,000 people who opened accounts at the bank from 1850 to 1858. Also provided are data from the 1855 New York State census documenting the occupations of New York's entire Irish-born population as well as datasets documenting the occupations held by New York's Irish immigrants one year and ten years after their arrival in America,

CBO Projection: Immigration Rate per 1000 People data was reported at 3.200 Person in 2048. This stayed constant from the previous number of 3.200 Person for 2047. CBO Projection: Immigration Rate per 1000 People data is updated yearly, averaging 3.200 Person from Dec 1987 (Median) to 2048, with 62 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 6.700 Person in 2005 and a record low of 0.300 Person in 2008. CBO Projection: Immigration Rate per 1000 People data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Congressional Budget Office. The data is categorized under Global Database’s USA – Table US.G087: Immigration: Projection: Congressional Budget Office.