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.

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.

The statistic provides information about the towns with the highest percentage of foreign-born residents in the United States for every state on average between 2008 and 2012. Between 2008 and 2012, Star City was the place with the highest percentage of immigrants in West Virginia. About **** percent of its residents were foreign-born.

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.

United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries data was reported at 1,127,167.000 Person in 2017. This records a decrease from the previous number of 1,183,505.000 Person for 2016. United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries data is updated yearly, averaging 451,510.000 Person from Sep 1900 (Median) to 2017, with 118 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 1,827,167.000 Person in 1991 and a record low of 23,068.000 Person in 1933. United States Immigrants Admitted: All Countries 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.

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 states with the highest search demand for immigration legal help, comparing 10 states and the number of undocumented immigrants. This also takes into consideration the % of undocumented immigrants, state laws on immigration enforcement (ranked 1-5), and search volume per 10k undocumented immigrants.

Himachal Pradesh had over ** percent of intra-state migrant population, the highest among all states in India between 2020 and 2021. Telangana and Tamil Nadu followed it with ** and over ** percent respectively.

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 data presented in this data project were collected in the context of two H2020 research projects: ‘Enhanced migration measures from a multidimensional perspective’(HumMingBird) and ‘Crises as opportunities: Towards a level telling field on migration and a new narrative of successful integration’(OPPORTUNITIES). The current survey was fielded to investigate the dynamic interplay between media representations of different migrant groups and the governmental and societal (re)actions to immigration. With these data, we provide more insight into these societal reactions by investigating attitudes rooted in values and worldviews. Through an online survey, we collected quantitative data on attitudes towards: Immigrants, Refugees, Muslims, Hispanics, Venezuelans News Media Consumption Trust in News Media and Societal Institutions Frequency and Valence of Intergroup Contact Realistic and Symbolic Intergroup Threat Right-wing Authoritarianism Social Dominance Orientation Political Efficacy Personality Characteristics Perceived COVID-threat, and Socio-demographic Characteristics For the adult population aged 25 to 65 in seven European countries: Austria Belgium Germany Hungary Italy Spain Sweden And for ages ranged from 18 to 65 for: United States of America Colombia The survey in the United States and Colombia was identical to the one in the European countries, although a few extra questions regarding COVID-19 and some region-specific migrant groups (e.g. Venezuelans) were added. We collected the data in cooperation with Bilendi, a Belgian polling agency, and selected the methodology for its cost-effectiveness in cross-country research. Respondents received an e-mail asking them to participate in a survey without specifying the subject matter, which was essential to avoid priming. Three weeks of fieldwork in May and June of 2021 resulted in a dataset of 13,645 respondents (a little over 1500 per country). Sample weights are included in the dataset and can be applied to ensure that the sample is representative for gender and age in each country. The cooperation rate ranged between 12% and 31%, in line with similar online data collections.

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).

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.

This chart shows the four states with the lowest demand for immigration legal help, based on the number of legal help searches per 10k undocumented immigrants.

Knowing the place of birth of the foreign-born population can help us understand the experience of different immigrant groups, as well as enforce laws, policies, and regulations against discrimination based on national origin. This information can also help tailor services to accommodate cultural differences.Place of birth is broken down by continent: Latin America, Asia, Europe, Africa, North America, and Oceania. Map opens to the Washington - Baltimore metro area but has national coverage.This map is multi-scale, with data for states, counties, and tracts. This map uses these hosted feature layers containing the most recent American Community Survey data. These layers are part of the ArcGIS Living Atlas, and are updated every year when the American Community Survey releases new estimates, so values in the map always reflect the newest data available.

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.

At a time when many states are increasing restrictions on immigration, others are using formal agreements on international economic migration to open their borders. The use of international agreements on migration presents a puzzle, as most states can open their borders to migrants unilaterally. I argue that, when states cannot generate large enough flows of migrants or the right type of migrants to fill open positions in the labor market, they turn to the sending state to help them. States that need migrants can negotiate a bilateral labor agreement with a sending state, which then acts as a recruiter, helping to channel labor to the receiving state. This article details the conditions under which immigrant-receiving countries use these treaties and tests the implications of the argument on a new dataset on migration treaties.

Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data was reported at 13,735,616.000 Person in 03-01-2011. This records an increase from the previous number of 9,189,438.000 Person for 03-01-2001. Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data is updated decadal, averaging 9,189,438.000 Person from Mar 1991 (Median) to 03-01-2011, with 3 observations. The data reached an all-time high of 13,735,616.000 Person in 03-01-2011 and a record low of 6,960,431.000 Person in 03-01-1991. Census: Number of Migrants: Punjab data remains active status in CEIC and is reported by Office of the Registrar General & Census Commissioner, India. The data is categorized under India Premium Database’s Demographic – Table IN.GAG001: Census of India: Migration: Number of Migrants: by States.

This layer shows children by nativity of parents by age group. This is shown by tract, county, and state boundaries. This service is updated annually to contain the most currently released American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year data, and contains estimates and margins of error. There are also additional calculated attributes related to this topic, which can be mapped or used within analysis. This layer is symbolized to show the percentage of children who are in immigrant families (children who are foreign born or live with at least one parent who is foreign born). To see the full list of attributes available in this service, go to the "Data" tab, and choose "Fields" at the top right. Current Vintage: 2019-2023ACS Table(s): B05009Data downloaded from: Census Bureau's API for American Community Survey Date of API call: December 12, 2024National Figures: data.census.govThe United States Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS):About the SurveyGeography & ACSTechnical DocumentationNews & UpdatesThis ready-to-use layer can be used within ArcGIS Pro, ArcGIS Online, its configurable apps, dashboards, Story Maps, custom apps, and mobile apps. Data can also be exported for offline workflows. For more information about ACS layers, visit the FAQ. Please cite the Census and ACS when using this data.Data Note from the Census:Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. The degree of uncertainty for an estimate arising from sampling variability is represented through the use of a margin of error. The value shown here is the 90 percent margin of error. The margin of error can be interpreted as providing a 90 percent probability that the interval defined by the estimate minus the margin of error and the estimate plus the margin of error (the lower and upper confidence bounds) contains the true value. In addition to sampling variability, the ACS estimates are subject to nonsampling error (for a discussion of nonsampling variability, see Accuracy of the Data). The effect of nonsampling error is not represented in these tables.Data Processing Notes:This layer is updated automatically when the most current vintage of ACS data is released each year, usually in December. The layer always contains the latest available ACS 5-year estimates. It is updated annually within days of the Census Bureau's release schedule. Click here to learn more about ACS data releases.Boundaries come from the US Census TIGER geodatabases, specifically, the National Sub-State Geography Database (named tlgdb_(year)_a_us_substategeo.gdb). Boundaries are updated at the same time as the data updates (annually), and the boundary vintage appropriately matches the data vintage as specified by the Census. These are Census boundaries with water and/or coastlines erased for cartographic and mapping purposes. For census tracts, the water cutouts are derived from a subset of the 2020 Areal Hydrography boundaries offered by TIGER. Water bodies and rivers which are 50 million square meters or larger (mid to large sized water bodies) are erased from the tract level boundaries, as well as additional important features. For state and county boundaries, the water and coastlines are derived from the coastlines of the 2023 500k TIGER Cartographic Boundary Shapefiles. These are erased to more accurately portray the coastlines and Great Lakes. The original AWATER and ALAND fields are still available as attributes within the data table (units are square meters). The States layer contains 52 records - all US states, Washington D.C., and Puerto RicoCensus tracts with no population that occur in areas of water, such as oceans, are removed from this data service (Census Tracts beginning with 99).Percentages and derived counts, and associated margins of error, are calculated values (that can be identified by the "_calc_" stub in the field name), and abide by the specifications defined by the American Community Survey.Field alias names were created based on the Table Shells file available from the American Community Survey Summary File Documentation page.Negative values (e.g., -4444...) have been set to null, with the exception of -5555... which has been set to zero. These negative values exist in the raw API data to indicate the following situations:The margin of error column indicates that either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute a standard error and thus the margin of error. A statistical test is not appropriate.Either no sample observations or too few sample observations were available to compute an estimate, or a ratio of medians cannot be calculated because one or both of the median estimates falls in the lowest interval or upper interval of an open-ended distribution.The median falls in the lowest interval of an open-ended distribution, or in the upper interval of an open-ended distribution. A statistical test is not appropriate.The estimate is controlled. A statistical test for sampling variability is not appropriate.The data for this geographic area cannot be displayed because the number of sample cases is too small.

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

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.