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.

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.

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

Historical chart and dataset showing U.S. net migration by year from 1960 to 2024.

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 ** 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 ***** 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, ******* people in California naturalized as U.S. citizens, followed by Florida, New York, Texas, and New Jersey.

The New Immigrant Survey (NIS) was a nationally representative, longitudinal study of new legal immigrants to the United States and their children. The sampling frame was based on the electronic administrative records compiled for new legal permanent residents (LPRs) by the U.S. government (via, formerly, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and now its successor agencies, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) and the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS)). The sample was drawn from new legal immigrants during May through November of 2003. The geographic sampling design took advantage of the natural clustering of immigrants. It included all top 85 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and all top 38 counties, plus a random sample of MSAs and counties. The baseline survey (ICPSR 38031) was conducted from June 2003 to June 2004 and yielded data on: 8,573 Adult Sample respondents, 810 sponsor-parents of the Sampled Child, 4,915 spouses, and 1,072 children aged 8-12. This study contains the follow-up interview, conducted from June 2007 to October 2009, and yielded data on: 3,902 Adult Sample respondents, 351 sponsor-parents of the Sampled Child, 1,771 spouses, and 41 now-adult main children. Interviews were conducted in the respondents' language of choice. Round 2 instruments were designed to track changes from the baseline and also included new questions. As with the Round 1 questionnaire, questions that were used in social-demographic-migration surveys around the world as well as the major U.S. longitudinal surveys were reviewed in order to achieve comparability. The NIS content includes the following information: demographics, health and insurance, migration history, living conditions, transfers, employment history, income, assets, social networks, religion, housing environment, and child assessment tests.

Graph and download economic data for Civilian Labor Force Level - Foreign Born (LNU01073395) from Jan 2007 to Jun 2025 about foreign, civilian, 16 years +, labor force, labor, household survey, and USA.

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.

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.

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.

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the majority of documented migration to the United States of American came from European countries. Between 1820 and 1957, of the approximate 41 million migrants to the US, over 34 million of these came from Europe. The most commonly documented countries of origin during this time were Germany (6.6 million), Italy (4.9 million), Ireland (4.6 million), Great Britain (4.5 million), and Russia (3.4 million). The first wave of mass migration came in the 1850s, as the Great famine crippled Ireland's population, and many in rural areas of mainland Europe struggled to adapt to industrialization, and economic opportunities attracted many in the 1870s, following the American Civil War. The 1880s saw another wave, as steam powered ships and lower fares made trans-Atlantic journeys much more affordable. The first wave of mass migration from Eastern and Southern Europe also arrived at this time, as industrialization and agricultural advancements led to high unemployment in these regions.

The majority of migrants to the United States settled in major urban centers, which allowed the expansion of industry, leading to the United States' emergence as one of the leading global economies at the turn of the twentieth century. The largest wave of migration to the United states during this period came in the first fifteen years of the 1900s. The influx of migrants from Northern and Western Europe had now been replaced by an influx from Eastern and Southern Europe (although migration from the British Isles was still quite high during this time). European migration fell to it's lowest levels in eighty years during the First World War, before fluctuating again in the interwar period, due to the Great Depression. As the twentieth century progressed, the continent with the highest levels of migration to the US gradually changed from Europe to Latin America, as economic opportunities in Western Europe improved, and the US' relationship with the Soviet Union and other Eastern, communist states became complicated.

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 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.

According to figures recently released by the United States Census, America’s largest metro areas are currently gaining population at impressive rates. The growth in these areas is in fact driving much of the population growth across the nation. Upon closer examination of the data, this growth is the result of two very different migrations – one coming from the location choices of Americans themselves, the other shaped by where new immigrants from outside the United States are heading.While many metro areas are attracting a net-inflow of migrants from other parts of the country, in several of the largest metros – New York, Los Angeles., and Miami, especially – there is actually a net outflow of Americans to the rest of the country. Immigration is driving population growth in these places. Sunbelt metros like Houston, Dallas, and Phoenix, and knowledge hubs like Austin, Seattle, San Francisco, and the District of Columbia are gaining much more from domestic migration.This map charts overall or net migration – a combination of domestic and international migration. Most large metros, those with at least a million residents, had more people coming in than leaving. The metros with the highest levels of population growth due to migration are a mix of knowledge-based economies and Sunbelt metros, including Houston, Dallas, Miami, District of Columbia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Austin. Eleven large metros, nearly all in or near the Rustbelt, had a net outflow of migrants, including Chicago, Detroit, Memphis, Philadelphia, and Saint Louis.Source: Atlantic Cities

Period of migration by origin shows how many people who entered the U.S. were born in the country and are currently residing in Lewis and Clark County, MT.

this chart shows the top 10 countries where it is most difficult to immigrant from, to the US. Taking into consideration visa refusal rate, passport power, green cards per 100k people, and searches per 100k people to come to a final score.

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.