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).

For the original data source: https://data.census.gov/table/ACSDP5Y2023.DP02. Layer published for the Equity Explorer, a web experience developed by the LA County CEO Anti-Racism, Diversity, and Inclusion (ARDI) initiative in collaboration with eGIS and ISD. Visit the Equity Explorer to explore foreign born population and other equity related datasets and indices, including the COVID Vulnerability and Recovery Index. Foreign born population for census tracts in LA County from the US Census American Communities Survey (ACS), 2023. Estimates are based on 2020 census tract boundaries, and tracts are joined to 2021 Supervisorial Districts, Service Planning Areas (SPA), and Countywide Statistical Areas (CSA). For more information about this dataset, please contact egis@isd.lacounty.gov.

The Los Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) continues the Los Angeles Metropolitan Area Studies (LAMAS) and the Southern California Social Surveys (SCSS). The Log Angeles County Social Survey (LACSS) is part of a continuing annual research project supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA). Each year a University of California researcher is given an opportunity to be principal investigator and to use a segment of the LACSS for his or her own research. The 1992 principal investigator was Dr. Lawrence Bobo, who was an Associate Professor of Sociology at UCLA. The LACSS 1992 was conducted between February and July 1992. Los Angeles County residents were asked questions concerning ethnic relations, social dominance, social distance, immigration, affirmative action, employment, and government. A split ballot methodology was utilized concerning the topics of immigration and affirmative action. Respondents were randomly selected to answer a series of questions from one of three ballots. In addition, a different series of social distance questions were asked depending on the respondent's ethnicity. Questionnaires were provided in both English and Spanish languages. Demographic information collected includes race, gender, religion, age, education level, occupation, birth place, political party affiliation and ideology, and origin of ancestry.

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.

This indicator provides information about the percentage of the population that was born outside of the United States based on self-reported data. Percentage of Population that was foreign-born is defined as the foreign-born population divided by the total population.For more information about the Community Health Profiles Data Initiative, please see the initiative homepage.

California was the state with the highest resident population in the United States in 2024, with 39.43 million people. Wyoming had the lowest population with about 590,000 residents. Living the American Dream Ever since the opening of the West in the United States, California has represented the American Dream for both Americans and immigrants to the U.S. The warm weather, appeal of Hollywood and Silicon Valley, as well as cities that stick in the imagination such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, help to encourage people to move to California. Californian demographics California is an extremely diverse state, as no one ethnicity is in the majority. Additionally, it has the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States. By 2040, the population of California is expected to increase by almost 10 million residents, which goes to show that its appeal, both in reality and the imagination, is going nowhere fast.

The LA Promise Zone is a collective impact project involving leaders from government, local institutions, non-profits and community organizations that targets resources to create jobs, boost public safety, improve public education and stimulate better housing opportunities for our residents and neighborhoods.The Promise Zone is located within Central Los Angeles and includes the neighborhoods of Hollywood, East Hollywood, Koreatown, Pico Union and Westlake. The Zone is home to approximately 165,000 residents, of whom 35% live in poverty. Nearly one-quarter of Promise Zone households earn less than $15,000 each year, and educational attainment for adults is weak with 35% of the population 25 years of age and older having obtained less than a high school diploma. The Promise Zone also has alarming high school dropout rates, high unemployment, and a shortage of affordable housing. Large shares of recent immigrant populations hailing from Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe live there.

Project Summary: Over a half million unaccompanied minors have been apprehended at the US-Mexico border in the past 10 years. They hail from Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala, countries where human rights violations, violence, and insecurity are widespread, and teenagers are especially at risk of being targeted and victimized by gangs. This study centers the experiences and perspectives of these youth and their immigration attorneys as together they navigate US removal proceedings, applying for asylum or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status. While unaccompanied minors are a formally protected group under US immigration law, I find that, in fact, there are vast gaps between legal protections in the books and their implementation in practice. As a result, even with high quality legal representation, too many youths remain in lengthy legal limbo or risk deportation back to home countries where they faced life threatening violence. This study consists of six years of research (2015-2021), spanning the Obama and Trump administrations. I conducted longitudinal and multi-sited ethnographic fieldwork in various non-profit legal aid organizations that represent unaccompanied minors in Los Angeles. There, I shadowed immigration attorneys and other staff as they helped nearly 80 youths apply for asylum and/or Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) and navigate challenges beyond the legal realm. In these same legal aid organizations, I also spent countless hours working as a volunteer legal assistant and English-Spanish interpreter to help attorneys prepare asylum cases. Data Overview: The ethnography involved shadowing immigration attorneys and other NGO staff as they met with their Central American unaccompanied minor clients to help them apply for asylum and deportation relief for abandoned, abused, or neglected children. I complemented the ethnography by conducting 122 in-depth interviews, 55 of which were with immigration attorneys, other advocates, and asylum officers. The rest of my interviews were with 45 Central American unaccompanied minors and 10 of their caretakers; I stayed in touch with many of these youths over an extended period of time and re-interviewed 12 of them roughly two years after we first met. Organization of Shared Data: Metadata materials shared include immigrant interview protocols and demographic information for immigrant youth interviewees. Transcripts and fieldnotes are not shared to protect the identity and case information of this exceptionally vulnerable study population of unaccompanied children in active US removal proceedings. The fact that only the researcher would have access to those materials was a condition agreed upon both with UCLA IRB and with study respondents. A detailed description of the study methodology can be found in the appendix of Galli, Chiara. Forthcoming. Precarious Protections: Unaccompanied Minors Seeking Asylum in the U.S. University of California Press.

Group members often vary in the information that they have about their environment. In this study, we evaluated the relative contribution of information held by the population majority vs. new immigrants to groups in determining group function. To do so we created experimental groups of the social spider Stegodyphus dumicola that were either iteratively exposed to a dangerous predator, the ant Anoplopepis custodiens, or kept in safety. We then seeded these groups (i.e., the population majority) with an “immigrant” individual that either had or did not have prior experience with the predator and was either shy or bold. Bold group members are argued to be particularly influential for group function in S. dumicola. We then evaluated colonies’ response towards predators over multiple trials to determine the effect of the immigrant’s and the majority’s prior experience with the predator and the immigrant’s boldness. We found that groups adopt a “better safe than sorry” strategy, where groups avoided predators when either the group or the immigrant had been previously exposed to risk, regardless of immigrant boldness. These findings suggest that past experience with predators, even if only experienced by a single individual in the group, can alter how groups respond to risk in a potentially advantageous manner.

Preintervention demographic and clinical characteristics in the total sample and in the English- and Spanish speaking groupsa.

The two countries with the greatest shares of the world's Jewish population are the United States and Israel. The United States had been a hub of Jewish immigration since the nineteenth century, as Jewish people sought to escape persecution in Europe by emigrating across the Atlantic. The Jewish population in the U.S. is largely congregated in major urban areas, such as New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago, with the New York metropolitan area being the city with the second largest Jewish population worldwide, after Tel Aviv, Israel. Israel is the world's only officially Jewish state, having been founded in 1948 following the first Arab-Israeli War. While Jews had been emigrating to the holy lands since the nineteenth century, when they were controlled by the Ottoman Empire, immigration increased rapidly following the establishment of the state of Israel. Jewish communities in Eastern Europe who had survived the Holocaust saw Israel as a haven from persecution, while the state encouraged immigration from Jewish communities in other regions, notably the Middle East & North Africa. Smaller Jewish communities remain in Europe in countries such as France, the UK, and Germany, and in other countries which were hotspots for Jewish migration in the twentieth century, such as Canada and Argentina.

Plan Description: This plan creates four Latino districts (total population in SD 1, 2, 4, and 5 over 50%) and is reasonably compact for districts 1 and 4. Districts 2, 3, and 5 are contorted in order to accommodate the need to add Latino population. Still this is a starting point for discussion.Plan Objectives:This is a plan with four Latino majority districts (total population above 50%) and CVAP percentages of Latinos over 40%, although in no district do they form a majority CVAP. It is provided for discussion purposes only and I do not endorse this plan, but it could be used as a starting point for commissioners who wish to maximize Latino participation. I continue to support OP 005, my original plan. SD 1 and 4 are compact. SD 5 comprises of the core AV cities, the high Latino Northeast San Fernando Valley and Reseda/Van Nuys area, and densely populated Latino first generation immigrant communities in the central city areas like Pico Union, Highland Park, and Macarthur Park. SD 2 connects South LA, the Eastside (East LA and SELA cities), Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. In this plan, the Black community which used to be in SD 2 does end up getting cracked into SD 2 and SD 4. The Asian community is evenly split in all districts except 1 where they are about 25% of the population. The Non Hispanic White population forms a majority in SD 3 as it connects the rich coastal cities, Beverly Hills and Malibu, Santa Clarita, and the outer portions of the Antelope Valley. Ultimately, as demographics continue to trend in the current direction with higher fertility among Latinos, older White population, and Black displacement into the Inland Empire and out of state, it is possible that by 2030 these districts, or a slightly tweaked version, could produce not just four majority Latino total population districts but at least three Latino CVAP majority districts.