The United States hosted, by far, the highest number of immigrants in the world in 2020. That year, there were over ** million people born outside of the States residing in the country. Germany and Saudi Arabia followed behind at around ** and ** million, respectively. There are varying reasons for people to emigrate from their country of origin, from poverty and unemployment to war and persecution. American Migration People migrate to the United States for a variety of reasons, from job and educational opportunities to family reunification. Overall, in 2021, most people that became legal residents of the United States did so for family reunification purposes, totaling ******* people that year. An additional ******* people became legal residents through employment opportunities. In terms of naturalized citizenship, ******* people from Mexico became naturalized American citizens in 2021, followed by people from India, the Philippines, Cuba, and China. German Migration Behind the United States, Germany also has a significant migrant population. Migration to Germany increased during the mid-2010's, in light of the Syrian Civil War and refugee crisis, and during the 2020’s, in light of conflict in Afghanistan and Ukraine. Moreover, as German society continues to age, there are less workers in the labor market. In a low-migration scenario, Germany will have **** million skilled workers by 2040, compared to **** million by 2040 in a high-migration scenario. In both scenarios, this is still a decrease from **** skilled workers in 2020.

This graph shows the distribution of nationalities among documented immigrants who arrived in the United States between 1820 and 1870. As we can see, over seven million people arrived in the US in this 50 year period, with the majority coming from Ireland, Germany and Britain. The largest groups, by far, were Irish and German, who together made up roughly two thirds of all immigrants to the US during this time. The reasons for this were because of the Irish Potato famine from 1845 to 1849, which resulted in the death or emigration of twenty to twenty five percent of the total Irish population, and a number of internal factors in Germany such as economic migration for farmers affected by industrialization, political/religious asylum, and in order to avoid conscription. One noteworthy exclusion from the information is of those transported to US as slaves, whose information was not recorded in this statistic (although the slave trade was abolished in 1808, the practice continued in the decades that followed).

This chart looks at the U.S. states with the largest number of workers per 100k immigrants, specifically looking at the 10 states with the highest percentage of workers per 100k immigrants.

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.

All of the inhabitants in the Holy See, the home of the leader of the Roman Catholic Church, were immigrants in 2020, meaning that they were born outside of the country. Perhaps more interesting are the Gulf States the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, all with an immigrant population of over 70 percent of their total populations, underlining the high importance of migrant workers to these countries' economies. In terms of numbers, the United States had the highest number of immigrants in 2020. Migration to Gulf Cooperation Council states The United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait, all members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), have a significant amount of migrant labor. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar both rank high in quality-of-life rankings for immigrants. A significant number of migrant workers in the GCC originate from Asia, with the most originating from Bangladesh. As of 2022, nearly 938.7 thousand Bangladeshi citizens expatriated to work in GCC nations. The American melting pot The United States is known for having high levels of diversity and migration. Migration to the United States experienced peaks from the periods of 1990-1999 as well as 1900-1909. Currently, Latin Americans are the largest migrant group in the United States, followed by migrants from Asia. Out of each state, California has some of the highest naturalization rates. In 2021, 171,863 people in California naturalized as U.S. citizens, followed by Florida, New York, Texas, and New Jersey.

Public use data set on new legal immigrants to the U.S. that can address scientific and policy questions about migration behavior and the impacts of migration. A survey pilot project, the NIS-P, was carried out in 1996 to inform the fielding and design of the full NIS. Baseline interviews were ultimately conducted with 1,127 adult immigrants. Sample members were interviewed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months, with half of the sample also interviewed at three months. The first full cohort, NIS-2003, is based on a nationally representative sample of the electronic administrative records compiled for new immigrants by the US government. NIS-2003 sampled immigrants in the period May-November 2003. The geographic sampling design takes advantage of the natural clustering of immigrants. It includes all top 85 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and all top 38 counties, plus a random sample of other MSAs and counties. Interviews were conducted in respondents'' preferred languages. The baseline was multi-modal: 60% of adult interviews were administered by telephone; 40% were in-person. The baseline round was in the field from June 2003 to June 2004, and includes in the Adult Sample 8,573 respondents, 4,336 spouses, and 1,072 children aged 8-12. A follow-up was planned for 2007. Several modules of the NIS were designed to replicate sections of the continuing surveys of the US population that provide a natural comparison group. Questionnaire topics include Health (self-reports of conditions, symptoms, functional status, smoking and drinking history) and use/source/costs of health care services, depression, pain; background; (2) Background: Childhood history and living conditions, education, migration history, marital history, military history, fertility history, language skills, employment history in the US and foreign countries, social networks, religion; Family: Rosters of all children; for each, demographic attributes, education, current work status, migration, marital status and children; for some, summary indicators of childhood and current health, language ability; Economic: Sources and amounts of income, including wages, pensions, and government subsidies; type, value of assets and debts, financial assistance given/received to/from respondent from/to relatives, friends, employer, type of housing and ownership of consumable durables. * Dates of Study: 2003-2007 * Study Features: Longitudinal * Sample Size: 13,981

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.

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.

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.

Abstract (en): IIMMLA was supported by the Russell Sage Foundation. Since 1991, the Russell Sage Foundation has funded a program of research aimed at assessing how well the young adult offspring of recent immigrants are faring as they move through American schools and into the labor market. Two previous major studies have begun to tell us about the paths to incorporation of the children of contemporary immigrants: The Children of Immigrants Longitudinal Study (CILS), and the Immigrant Second Generation in New York study. The Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles study is the third major initiative analyzing the progress of the new second generation in the United States. The Immigration and Intergenerational Mobility in Metropolitan Los Angeles (IIMMLA) study focused on young adult children of immigrants (1.5- and second-generation) in greater Los Angeles. IIMMLA investigated mobility among young adult (ages 20-39) children of immigrants in metropolitan Los Angeles and, in the case of the Mexican-origin population there, among young adult members of the third- or later generations. The five-county Los Angeles metropolitan area (Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties) contains the largest concentrations of Mexicans, Salvadorans, Guatemalans, Filipinos, Chinese, Vietnamese, Koreans, and other nationalities in the United States. The diverse migration histories and modes of incorporation of these groups made the Los Angeles metropolitan area a strategic choice for a comparison study of the pathways of immigrant incorporation and mobility from one generation to the next. The IIMMLA study compared six foreign-born (1.5-generation) and foreign-parentage (second-generation) groups (Mexicans, Vietnamese, Filipinos, Koreans, Chinese, and Central Americans from Guatemala and El Salvador) with three native-born and native-parentage comparison groups (third- or later-generation Mexican Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks). The targeted groups represent both the diversity of modes of incorporation in the United States and the range of occupational backgrounds and immigration status among contemporary immigrants (from professionals and entrepreneurs to laborers, refugees, and unauthorized migrants). The surveys provide basic demographic information as well as extensive data about socio-cultural orientation and mobility (e.g., language use, ethnic identity, religion, remittances, intermarriage, experiences of discrimination), economic mobility (e.g., parents' background, respondents' education, first and current job, wealth and income, encounters with the law), geographic mobility (childhood and present neighborhood of residence), and civic engagement and politics (political attitudes, voting behavior, as well as naturalization and transnational ties). ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed consistency checks.; Standardized missing values.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.. Young adults aged 20-39 from six foreign-born and foreign-parentage groups: Mexican, Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, Chinese, and Central American (Guatemalan and Salvadoran), as well as native-born and native-parentage Mexican-Americans, and non-Hispanic Whites and Blacks, in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. Multistage random sampling. 2008-07-01 Edits were made to the metadata record. Funding insitution(s): Russell Sage Foundation. telephone interview Data collection for IIMMLA was subcontracted to and carried out by the Field Research Corporation, San Francisco, CA.

This article explores the impact of novel change in the ethnic composition of Americans’ local context on their attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy preferences. Adapting the “defended neighborhoods hypothesis” regarding residential integration and Black-White interracial relations to the context of immigration and intercultural relations, this paper advances the acculturating contexts hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that a large influx of an immigrant group will activate threat among White citizens when it occurs in local areas where the immigrant group had largely been absent. This theoretical argument is explored within the context of Hispanic immigration and tested using national survey and census data. This article demonstrates that over-time growth in local Hispanic populations triggers threat and opposition to immigration among Whites residing in contexts with few initial Hispanics, but reduces threat and opposition to immigration among Whites residing in contexts with large preexisting Hispanic populations.

With nearly 49,000 living in Denmark as of January 1, 2024, most immigrants were from Poland. The second and third largest groups of immigrants were from Ukraine and Romania, amounting to roughly 41,000 and 40,000 people, respectively. Tightening immigration policies Like many European countries, Denmark experienced a heightened influx of immigrants in 2015. In the wake of the refugee situation, however, the number of immigrants, notably asylum seekers, declined in part due to sharpened immigration policies. In 2015, over 21,000 refugees applied for asylum in Denmark, whereas applications fell below 5,000 in 2022. Residence permits Among the different types of residence permits, permits granted based on asylum were the least delivered type of permit. Only 1,400 people were granted asylum in Denmark in 2022. The highest number of asylum seekers came from Ukraine, even when excluding Ukrainians arriving via the temporary protection act. In 2022, Denmark registered around 2,000 applications from Ukrainians.

The National Origin of Top Wealth Holders (%).

Immigration to this country has increased significantly in recent years. While Mexican immigrants are the largest population of immigrants in the United States (39 percent), the rest of the population is widely varied, with no one nation accounting for more than 3 percent of all immigrants. Despite the significant benefits quality Early Childhood Education (ECE) programs offer to immigrant children, their rates of enrollment are significantly lower than for comparable children of United States-born parents. In order to better address the needs of these new American families, providers and state policymakers need more in-depth knowledge about the perceptions of these families and the factors that influence their choice of care. This study is an exploratory study in two cities which reflect the diversity of experience with immigration across the country: Denver, Colorado and surrounding areas, where the focus is on Mexican immigrants, and Portland, Maine and surrounding areas, where the focus is on three of the many refugee populations which have newly settled here. The contrasts, not only in the immigrant populations themselves, but also in the political and historical contexts of the communities in which they live, offer an opportunity to enrich the field of research on child care choices for this vulnerable population of children and families.Additional details about this study can be found on the New Americans Web site.

Asset Allocation of Top Wealth Owners: Proportion of Total Net Worth in Stocks, Bonds, and Retirement Accounts.

Approximately 41 million people immigrated to the United States of America between the years 1820 and 1957. During this time period, the United States expanded across North America, growing from 23 to 48 states, and the population grew from approximately 10 million people in 1820, to almost 180 million people by 1957. Economically, the U.S. developed from being an agriculturally focused economy in the 1820s, to having the highest GDP of any single country in the 1950s. Much of this expansion was due to the high numbers of agricultural workers who migrated from Europe, as technological advances in agriculture had lowered the labor demand. The majority of these migrants settled in urban centers, and this fueled the growth of the industrial sector.

American industrialization and European rural unemployment fuel migration The first major wave of migration came in the 1850s, and was fueled largely by Irish and German migrants, who were fleeing famine or agricultural depression at the time. The second boom came in the 1870s, as the country recovered from the American Civil War, and the Second Industrial Revolution took off. The final boom of the nineteenth century came in the 1880s, as poor harvests and industrialization in Europe led to mass emigration. Improvements in steam ship technology and lower fares led to increased migration from Eastern and Southern Europe at the turn of the century (particularly from Italy). War and depression reduces migration Migration to the U.S. peaked at the beginning of the 20th century, before it fluctuated greatly at the beginning of the 20th century. This was not only due to the disruptions to life in Europe caused by the world wars, but also the economic disruption of the Great Depression in the 1930s. The only period between 1914 and 1950 where migration was high was during the 1920s. However, the migration rate rose again in the late 1940s, particularly from Latin America and Asia. The historically high levels of migration from Europe has meant that the most common ethnicity in the U.S. has been non-Hispanic White since the early-colonial period, however increased migration from Latin America, Asia and Africa, and higher fertility rates among ethnic minorities, have seen the Whites' share of the total population fall in recent years (although it is still over three times larger than any other group.

The majority of immigrants moving to Sweden in 2023 were Swedes returning to Sweden. Nearly 10,600 Swedes returned to their home country in 2023. The remaining top five countries of origin were India, Poland, Germany, and Syria. In total, 95,000 people immigrated to Sweden in 2023.

Syrians largest immigrant group

Of Sweden's foreign-born population, Syrians made up the largest group. Following the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War in 2011, many people left the country in search of a better life in Europe, some of which landed in Sweden. In 2022, Sweden hosted the world's 7th largest group of Syrian refugees.

Immigration drives population increase in Sweden

Over the past decade, Sweden has seen a positive migration rate, with more people immigrating to the country than people leaving. This is one of the main reasons why the country's population has been increasing steadily over recent years.

Many studies suggest that stringent labor protection and higher labor costs in host countries can limit foreign direct investment. This implies that foreign firms are sensitive to the flexibility of the labor market in the U.S. The U.S. has experienced increasing immigrants, which have preserved the stable labor supply in the U.S. market. The U.S. is a good case to test the relationship between immigration and FDI because the U.S. is not only the largest host and home country of FDI but also the country that has one of the highest immigrant populations and experiences a significant reduction in labor supply and an increase in the minimum cost of labor. Utilizing a time-series analysis from 1970 to 2016, this study suggests that the expansive immigration policies directly increase FDI inflows in the U.S., and indirectly increase FDI inflows throughout lowering potential labor costs and securing a stable labor supply.

The main objective of the project was to improve understanding of the immigration-crime relationship. This study aimed to examine the robustness of the immigration-crime relationship across a substantially large and diverse range of neighborhoods across the U.S., reflecting different immigration contexts and histories. This included examining differences across groups, whether by immigrant status, demographic attributes, and/or socio-economic background. Additionally, this study examined how the immigration-crime relationship may be context dependent, and how immigration-related policies and practices may condition the immigration-crime relationship.

Migrants from the United Kingdom have long been Australia’s primary immigrant group and in 2023 there were roughly 960 thousand English-born people living in Australia. India and China held second and third place respectively with regard to Australia’s foreign-born population. The relative dominance of Asian countries in the list of top ten foreign-born residents of Australia represents a significant shift in Australia’s immigration patterns over the past few decades. Where European-born migrants had previously overshadowed other migrant groups, Australian migration figures are now showing greater migration numbers from neighboring countries in Asia and the Pacific. A history of migration Australia is often referred to as an ‘immigrant nation’, alongside the United States, Canada, and New Zealand. Before the Second World War, migrants to Australia were almost exclusively from the UK, however after 1945, Australia’s immigration policy was broadened to attract economic migrants and temporary skilled migrants. These policy changes saw and increase in immigrants particularly from Greece and Italy. Today, Australia maintains its status as an ‘’Immigrant nation’’, with almost 30 percent of the population born overseas and around 50 percent of the population having both that were born overseas. Australian visas The Australian immigration program has two main categories of visa, permanent and temporary. The permanent visa category offers three primary pathways: skilled, family and humanitarian. The skilled visa category is by far the most common, with more than a million permanent migrants living in Australia on this visa category at the last Australian census in 2021. Of the temporary visa categories, the higher education visa is the most popular, exceeding 180 thousand arrivals in 2023.