essays about immigrants coming to america

Social Justice
Environment
Health & Happiness
Get YES! Emails
Teacher Resources

Give A Gift Subscription
Teaching Sustainability
Teaching Social Justice
Teaching Respect & Empathy
Student Writing Lessons
Visual Learning Lessons
Tough Topics Discussion Guides
About the YES! for Teachers Program
Student Writing Contest

Follow YES! For Teachers

Eight brilliant student essays on immigration and unjust assumptions.

Read winning essays from our winter 2019 “Border (In)Security” student writing contest.

For the winter 2019 student writing competition, “Border (In)Security,” we invited students to read the YES! Magazine article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the “Constitution-Free Zone” by Lornet Turnbull and respond with an up-to-700-word essay.

Students had a choice between two writing prompts for this contest on immigration policies at the border and in the “Constitution-free zone,” a 100-mile perimeter from land and sea borders where U.S. Border Patrol can search any vehicle, bus, or vessel without a warrant. They could state their positions on the impact of immigration policies on our country’s security and how we determine who is welcome to live here. Or they could write about a time when someone made an unfair assumption about them, just as Border Patrol agents have made warrantless searches of Greyhound passengers based simply on race and clothing.

The Winners

From the hundreds of essays written, these eight were chosen as winners. Be sure to read the author’s response to the essay winners and the literary gems that caught our eye.

Middle School Winner: Alessandra Serafini

High School Winner: Cain Trevino

High School Winner: Ethan Peter

University Winner: Daniel Fries

Powerful Voice Winner: Emma Hernandez-Sanchez

Powerful Voice Winner: Tiara Lewis

Powerful Voice Winner: Hailee Park

Powerful Voice Winner: Aminata Toure

From the Author Lornet Turnbull

Literary Gems

Middle school winner.

Alessandra Serafini

Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

Broken Promises

“…Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

These words were written by Emma Lazarus and are inscribed on the base of the Statue of Liberty. And yet, the very door they talk about is no longer available to those who need it the most. The door has been shut, chained, and guarded. It no longer shines like gold. Those seeking asylum are being turned away. Families are being split up; children are being stranded. The promise America made to those in need is broken.

Not only is the promise to asylum seekers broken, but the promises made to some 200 million people already residing within the U.S. are broken, too. Anyone within 100 miles of the United States border lives in the “Constitution-free zone” and can be searched with “reasonable suspicion,” a suspicion that is determined by Border Patrol officers. The zone encompasses major cities, such as Seattle and New York City, and it even covers entire states, such as Florida, Massachusetts, and New Jersey. I live in the Seattle area, and it is unsettling that I can be searched and interrogated without the usual warrant. In these areas, there has been an abuse of power; people have been unlawfully searched and interrogated because of assumed race or religion.

The ACLU obtained data from the Customs and Border Protection Agency that demonstrate this reprehensible profiling. The data found that “82 percent of foreign citizens stopped by agents in that state are Latino, and almost 1 in 3 of those processed are, in fact, U.S. citizens.” These warrantless searches impede the trust-building process and communication between the local population and law enforcement officers. Unfortunately, this lack of trust makes campaigns, such as Homeland Security’s “If You See Something, Say Something,” ineffective due to the actions of the department’s own members and officers. Worst of all, profiling ostracizes entire communities and makes them feel unsafe in their own country.

Ironically, asylum seekers come to America in search of safety. However, the thin veil of safety has been drawn back, and, behind it, our tarnished colors are visible. We need to welcome people in their darkest hours rather than destroy their last bit of hope by slamming the door in their faces. The immigration process is currently in shambles, and an effective process is essential for both those already in the country and those outside of it. Many asylum seekers are running from war, poverty, hunger, and death. Their countries’ instability has hijacked every aspect of their lives, made them vagabonds, and the possibility of death, a cruel and unforgiving death, is real. They see no future for their children, and they are desperate for the perceived promise of America—a promise of opportunity, freedom, and a safe future. An effective process would determine who actually needs help and then grant them passage into America. Why should everyone be turned away? My grandmother immigrated to America from Scotland in 1955. I exist because she had a chance that others are now being denied.

Emma Lazarus named Lady Liberty the “Mother of Exiles.” Why are we denying her the happiness of children? Because we cannot decide which ones? America has an inexplicable area where our constitution has been spurned and forgotten. Additionally, there is a rancorous movement to close our southern border because of a deep-rooted fear of immigrants and what they represent. For too many Americans, they represent the end of established power and white supremacy, which is their worst nightmare. In fact, immigrants do represent change—healthy change—with new ideas and new energy that will help make this country stronger. Governmental agreement on a humane security plan is critical to ensure that America reaches its full potential. We can help. We can help people in unimaginably terrifying situations, and that should be our America.

Alessandra Serafini plays on a national soccer team for Seattle United and is learning American Sign Language outside of school. Her goal is to spread awareness about issues such as climate change, poverty, and large-scale political conflict through writing and public speaking.

High School Winner

Cain Trevino

North Side High School, Fort Worth, Texas

Xenophobia and the Constitution-Free Zone

In August of 2017, U.S. Border Patrol agents boarded a Greyhound bus that had just arrived at the White River Junction station from Boston. According to Danielle Bonadona, a Lebanon resident and a bus passenger, “They wouldn’t let us get off. They boarded the bus and told us they needed to see our IDs or papers.” Bonadona, a 29-year-old American citizen, said that the agents spent around 20 minutes on the bus and “only checked the IDs of people who had accents or were not white.” Bonadona said she was aware of the 100-mile rule, but the experience of being stopped and searched felt “pretty unconstitutional.”

In the YES! article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’” by Lornet Turnbull, the author references the ACLU’s argument that “the 100-mile zone violates Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure.” However, the Supreme Court upholds the use of immigration checkpoints for inquiries on citizenship status. In my view, the ACLU makes a reasonable argument. The laws of the 100-mile zone are blurred, and, too often, officials give arbitrary reasons to conduct a search. Xenophobia and fear of immigrants burgeons in cities within these areas. People of color and those with accents or who are non-English speakers are profiled by law enforcement agencies that enforce anti-immigrant policies. The “Constitution-free zone” is portrayed as an effective barrier to secure our borders. However, this anti-immigrant zone does not make our country any safer. In fact, it does the opposite.

As a former student from the Houston area, I can tell you that the Constitution-free zone makes immigrants and citizens alike feel on edge. The Department of Homeland Security’s white SUVs patrol our streets. Even students feel the weight of anti-immigrant laws. Dennis Rivera Sarmiento, an undocumented student who attended Austin High School in Houston, was held by school police in February 2018 for a minor altercation and was handed over to county police. He was later picked up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and held in a detention center. It is unfair that kids like Dennis face much harsher consequences for minor incidents than other students with citizenship.

These instances are a direct result of anti-immigrant laws. For example, the 287(g) program gives local and state police the authority to share individuals’ information with ICE after an arrest. This means that immigrants can be deported for committing misdemeanors as minor as running a red light. Other laws like Senate Bill 4, passed by the Texas Legislature, allow police to ask people about their immigration status after they are detained. These policies make immigrants and people of color feel like they’re always under surveillance and that, at any moment, they may be pulled over to be questioned and detained.

During Hurricane Harvey, the immigrant community was hesitant to go to the shelters because images of immigration authorities patrolling the area began to surface online. It made them feel like their own city was against them at a time when they needed them most. Constitution-free zones create communities of fear. For many immigrants, the danger of being questioned about immigration status prevents them from reporting crimes, even when they are the victim. Unreported crime only places more groups of people at risk and, overall, makes communities less safe.

In order to create a humane immigration process, citizens and non-citizens must hold policymakers accountable and get rid of discriminatory laws like 287(g) and Senate Bill 4. Abolishing the Constitution-free zone will also require pressure from the public and many organizations. For a more streamlined legal process, the League of United Latin American Citizens suggests background checks and a small application fee for incoming immigrants, as well as permanent resident status for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients. Other organizations propose expanding the green card lottery and asylum for immigrants escaping the dangers of their home countries.

Immigrants who come to the U.S. are only looking for an opportunity to provide for their families and themselves; so, the question of deciding who gets inside the border and who doesn’t is the same as trying to prove some people are worth more than others. The narratives created by anti-immigrant media plant the false idea that immigrants bring nothing but crime and terrorism. Increased funding for the border and enforcing laws like 287(g) empower anti-immigrant groups to vilify immigrants and promote a witch hunt that targets innocent people. This hatred and xenophobia allow law enforcement to ask any person of color or non-native English speaker about their citizenship or to detain a teenager for a minor incident. Getting rid of the 100-mile zone means standing up for justice and freedom because nobody, regardless of citizenship, should have to live under laws created from fear and hatred.

Cain Trevino is a sophomore. Cain is proud of his Mexican and Salvadorian descent and is an advocate for the implementation of Ethnic Studies in Texas. He enjoys basketball, playing the violin, and studying c omputer science. Cain plans to pursue a career in engineering at Stanford University and later earn a PhD.

High School Winner

Ethan Peter

Kirkwood High School, Kirkwood, Mo.

I’m an expert on bussing. For the past couple of months, I’ve been a busser at a pizza restaurant near my house. It may not be the most glamorous job, but it pays all right, and, I’ll admit, I’m in it for the money.

I arrive at 5 p.m. and inspect the restaurant to ensure it is in pristine condition for the 6 p.m. wave of guests. As customers come and go, I pick up their dirty dishes, wash off their tables, and reset them for the next guests. For the first hour of my shift, the work is fairly straightforward.

I met another expert on bussing while crossing the border in a church van two years ago. Our van arrived at the border checkpoint, and an agent stopped us. She read our passports, let us through, and moved on to her next vehicle. The Border Patrol agent’s job seemed fairly straightforward.

At the restaurant, 6 p.m. means a rush of customers. It’s the end of the workday, and these folks are hungry for our pizzas and salads. My job is no longer straightforward.

Throughout the frenzy, the TVs in the restaurant buzz about waves of people coming to the U.S. border. The peaceful ebb and flow enjoyed by Border agents is disrupted by intense surges of immigrants who seek to enter the U.S. Outside forces push immigrants to the United States: wars break out in the Middle East, gangs terrorize parts of Central and South America, and economic downturns force foreigners to look to the U.S., drawn by the promise of opportunity. Refugees and migrant caravans arrive, and suddenly, a Border Patrol agent’s job is no longer straightforward.

I turn from the TVs in anticipation of a crisis exploding inside the restaurant: crowds that arrive together will leave together. I’ve learned that when a table looks finished with their dishes, I need to proactively ask to take those dishes, otherwise, I will fall behind, and the tables won’t be ready for the next customers. The challenge is judging who is finished eating. I’m forced to read clues and use my discretion.

Interpreting clues is part of a Border Patrol agent’s job, too. Lornet Turnbull states, “For example, CBP data obtained by ACLU in Michigan shows that 82 percent of foreign citizens stopped by agents in that state are Latino, and almost 1 in 3 of those processed is, in fact, a U.S. citizen.” While I try to spot customers done with their meals so I can clear their part of the table, the Border Patrol officer uses clues to detect undocumented immigrants. We both sometimes guess incorrectly, but our intentions are to do our jobs to the best of our abilities.

These situations are uncomfortable. I certainly do not enjoy interrupting a conversation to get someone’s dishes, and I doubt Border Patrol agents enjoy interrogating someone about their immigration status. In both situations, the people we mistakenly ask lose time and are subjected to awkward and uncomfortable situations. However, here’s where the busser and the Border Patrol officer’s situations are different: If I make a mistake, the customer faces a minor inconvenience. The stakes for a Border Patrol agent are much higher. Mistakenly asking for documentation and searching someone can lead to embarrassment or fear—it can even be life-changing. Thus, Border Patrol agents must be fairly certain that someone’s immigration status is questionable before they begin their interrogation.

To avoid these situations altogether, the U.S. must make the path to citizenship for immigrants easier. This is particularly true for immigrants fleeing violence. Many people object to this by saying these immigrants will bring violence with them, but data does not support this view. In 1939, a ship of Jewish refugees from Germany was turned away from the U.S.—a decision viewed negatively through the lens of history. Today, many people advocate restricting immigration for refugees from violent countries; they refuse to learn the lessons from 1939. The sad thing is that many of these immigrants are seen as just as violent as the people they are fleeing. We should not confuse the oppressed with the oppressor.

My restaurant appreciates customers because they bring us money, just as we should appreciate immigrants because they bring us unique perspectives. Equally important, immigrants provide this country with a variety of expert ideas and cultures, which builds better human connections and strengthens our society.

Ethan Peter is a junior. Ethan writes for his school newspaper, The Kirkwood Call, and plays volleyball for his high school and a club team. He hopes to continue to grow as a writer in the future.

University Winner

Daniel Fries

Lane Community College, Eugene, Ore.

Detained on the Road to Equality

The United States is a nation of immigrants. There are currently 43 million foreign-born people living in the U.S. Millions of them are naturalized American citizens, and 23 million, or 7.2 percent of the population, are living here without documentation (US Census, 2016). One in seven residents of the United States was not born here. Multiculturalism is, and always has been, a key part of the American experience. However, romantic notions of finding a better life in the United States for immigrants and refugees don’t reflect reality. In modern history, America is a country that systematically treats immigrants—documented or not—and non-white Americans in a way that is fundamentally different than what is considered right by the majority.

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment states,“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” When a suspected undocumented immigrant is detained, their basic human rights are violated. Warrantless raids on Greyhound buses within 100 miles of the border (an area referred to by some as the “Constitution-free zone”) are clear violations of human rights. These violations are not due to the current state of politics; they are the symptom of blatant racism in the United States and a system that denigrates and abuses people least able to defend themselves.

It is not surprising that some of the mechanisms that drive modern American racism are political in nature. Human beings are predisposed to dislike and distrust individuals that do not conform to the norms of their social group (Mountz, Allison). Some politicians appeal to this suspicion and wrongly attribute high crime rates to non-white immigrants. The truth is that immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. In fact, people born in the United States are convicted of crimes at a rate twice that of undocumented non-natives (Cato Institute, 2018).

The majority of immigrants take high risks to seek a better life, giving them incentive to obey the laws of their new country. In many states, any contact with law enforcement may ultimately result in deportation and separation from family. While immigrants commit far fewer crimes, fear of violent crime by much of the U.S. population outweighs the truth. For some politicians, it is easier to sell a border wall to a scared population than it is to explain the need for reformed immigration policy. It’s easier to say that immigrants are taking people’s jobs than explain a changing global economy and its effect on employment. The only crime committed in this instance is discrimination.

Human rights are violated when an undocumented immigrant—or someone perceived as an undocumented immigrant—who has not committed a crime is detained on a Greyhound bus. When a United States citizen is detained on the same bus, constitutional rights are being violated. The fact that this happens every day and that we debate its morality makes it abundantly clear that racism is deeply ingrained in this country. Many Americans who have never experienced this type of oppression lack the capacity to understand its lasting effect. Most Americans don’t know what it’s like to be late to work because they were wrongfully detained, were pulled over by the police for the third time that month for no legal reason, or had to coordinate legal representation for their U.S. citizen grandmother because she was taken off a bus for being a suspected undocumented immigrant. This oppression is cruel and unnecessary.

America doesn’t need a wall to keep out undocumented immigrants; it needs to seriously address how to deal with immigration. It is possible to reform the current system in such a way that anyone can become a member of American society, instead of existing outside of it. If a person wants to live in the United States and agrees to follow its laws and pay its taxes, a path to citizenship should be available.

People come to the U.S. from all over the world for many reasons. Some have no other choice. There are ongoing humanitarian crises in Syria, Yemen, and South America that are responsible for the influx of immigrants and asylum seekers at our borders. If the United States wants to address the current situation, it must acknowledge the global factors affecting the immigrants at the center of this debate and make fact-informed decisions. There is a way to maintain the security of America while treating migrants and refugees compassionately, to let those who wish to contribute to our society do so, and to offer a hand up instead of building a wall.

Daniel Fries studies computer science. Daniel has served as a wildland firefighter in Oregon, California, and Alaska. He is passionate about science, nature, and the ways that technology contributes to making the world a better, more empathetic, and safer place.

Powerful Voice Winner

Emma Hernandez-Sanchez

Wellness, Business and Sports School, Woodburn, Ore.

An Emotion an Immigrant Knows Too Well

Before Donald Trump’s campaign, I was oblivious to my race and the idea of racism. As far as I knew, I was the same as everyone else. I didn’t stop to think about our different-colored skins. I lived in a house with a family and attended school five days a week just like everyone else. So, what made me different?

Seventh grade was a very stressful year—the year that race and racism made an appearance in my life. It was as if a cold splash of water woke me up and finally opened my eyes to what the world was saying. It was this year that Donald Trump started initiating change about who got the right to live in this country and who didn’t. There was a lot of talk about deportation, specifically for Mexicans, and it sparked commotion and fear in me.

I remember being afraid and nervous to go out. At home, the anxiety was there but always at the far back of my mind because I felt safe inside. My fear began as a small whisper, but every time I stepped out of my house, it got louder. I would have dreams about the deportation police coming to my school; when I went to places like the library, the park, the store, or the mall, I would pay attention to everyone and to my surroundings. In my head, I would always ask myself, “Did they give us nasty looks?,” “Why does it seem quieter?” “Was that a cop I just saw?” I would notice little things, like how there were only a few Mexicans out or how empty a store was. When my mom went grocery shopping, I would pray that she would be safe. I was born in America, and both my parents were legally documented. My mom was basically raised here. Still, I couldn’t help but feel nervous.

I knew I shouldn’t have been afraid, but with one look, agents could have automatically thought my family and I were undocumented. Even when the deportation police would figure out that we weren’t undocumented, they’d still figure out a way to deport us—at least that was what was going through my head. It got so bad that I didn’t even want to do the simplest things like go grocery shopping because there was a rumor that the week before a person was taken from Walmart.

I felt scared and nervous, and I wasn’t even undocumented. I can’t even imagine how people who are undocumented must have felt, how they feel. All I can think is that it’s probably ten times worse than what I was feeling. Always worrying about being deported and separated from your family must be hard. I was living in fear, and I didn’t even have it that bad. My heart goes out to families that get separated from each other. It’s because of those fears that I detest the “Constitution-free zone.”

Legally documented and undocumented people who live in the Constitution-free zone are in constant fear of being deported. People shouldn’t have to live this way. In fact, there have been arguments that the 100-mile zone violates the Fourth Amendment, which gives people the right to be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures of property by the government. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court has consistently upheld these practices.

One question that Lornet Turnbull asks in her YES! article “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’” is, “How should we decide who is welcome in the U.S and who is not?” Instead of focusing on immigrants, how about we focus on the people who shoot up schools, rape girls, exploit women for human sex trafficking, and sell drugs? These are the people who make our country unsafe; they are the ones who shouldn’t be accepted. Even if they are citizens and have the legal right to live here, they still shouldn’t be included. If they are the ones making this country unsafe, then what gives them the right to live here?

I don’t think that the Constitution-free zone is an effective and justifiable way to make this country more “secure.” If someone isn’t causing any trouble in the United States and is just simply living their life, then they should be welcomed here. We shouldn’t have to live in fear that our rights will be taken away. I believe that it’s unfair for people to automatically think that it’s the Hispanics that make this country unsafe. Sure, get all the undocumented people out of the United States, but it’s not going to make this country any safer. It is a society that promotes violence that makes us unsafe, not a race.

Emma Hernandez-Sanchez is a freshman who is passionate about literature and her education. Emma wan ts to inspire others to be creative and try their best. She enjoys reading and creating stories that spark imagination.

Powerful Voice Winner

Tiara Lewis

Columbus City Preparatory Schools for Girls,

Columbus, Ohio

Hold Your Head High and Keep Those Fists Down

How would you feel if you walked into a store and salespeople were staring at you? Making you feel like you didn’t belong. Judging you. Assuming that you were going to take something, even though you might have $1,000 on you to spend. Sometimes it doesn’t matter. This is because people will always judge you. It might not be because of your race but for random reasons, like because your hair is black instead of dirty blonde. Or because your hair is short and not long. Or just because they are having a bad day. People will always find ways to bring you down and accuse you of something, but that doesn’t mean you have to go along with it.

Every time I entered a store, I would change my entire personality. I would change the way I talked and the way I walked. I always saw myself as needing to fit in. If a store was all pink, like the store Justice, I would act like a girly girl. If I was shopping in a darker store, like Hot Topic, I would hum to the heavy metal songs and act more goth. I had no idea that I was feeding into stereotypes.

When I was 11, I walked into Claire’s, a well-known store at the mall. That day was my sister’s birthday. Both of us were really happy and had money to spend. As soon as we walked into the store, two employees stared me and my sister down, giving us cold looks. When we went to the cashier to buy some earrings, we thought everything was fine. However, when we walked out of the store, there was a policeman and security guards waiting. At that moment, my sister and I looked at one another, and I said, in a scared little girl voice, “I wonder what happened? Why are they here?”

Then, they stopped us. We didn’t know what was going on. The same employee that cashed us out was screaming as her eyes got big, “What did you steal?” I was starting to get numb. Me and my sister looked at each other and told the truth: “We didn’t steal anything. You can check us.” They rudely ripped through our bags and caused a big scene. My heart was pounding like a drum. I felt violated and scared. Then, the policeman said, “Come with us. We need to call your parents.” While this was happening, the employees were talking to each other, smiling. We got checked again. The police said that they were going to check the cameras, but after they were done searching us, they realized that we didn’t do anything wrong and let us go about our day.

Walking in the mall was embarrassing—everybody staring, looking, and whispering as we left the security office. This made me feel like I did something wrong while knowing I didn’t. We went back to the store to get our shopping bags. The employees sneered, “Don’t you niggers ever come in this store again. You people always take stuff. This time you just got lucky.” Their faces were red and frightening. It was almost like they were in a scary 3D movie, screaming, and coming right at us. I felt hurt and disappointed that someone had the power within them to say something so harsh and wrong to another person. Those employees’ exact words will forever be engraved in my memory.

In the article, “Two-Thirds of Americans Live in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’,” Lornet Turnbull states, “In January, they stopped a man in Indio, California, as he was boarding a Los Angeles-bound bus. While questioning this man about his immigration status, agents told him his ‘shoes looked suspicious,’ like those of someone who had recently crossed the border.” They literally judged him by his shoes. They had no proof of anything. If a man is judged by his shoes, who else and what else are being judged in the world?

In the novel To Kill a Mockingbird , a character named Atticus states, “You just hold your head high and keep those fists down. No matter what anybody says to you, don’t you let’em get your goat. Try fighting with your head for a change.” No matter how much you might try to change yourself, your hairstyle, and your clothes, people will always make assumptions about you. However, you never need to change yourself to make a point or to feel like you fit in. Be yourself. Don’t let those stereotypes turn into facts.

Tiara Lewis is in the eighth grade. Tiara plays the clarinet and is trying to change the world— one essay at a time. She is most often found curled up on her bed, “Divergent” in one hand and a cream-filled doughnut in the other.

Hailee Park

Wielding My Swords

If I were a swordsman, my weapons would be my identities. I would wield one sword in my left hand and another in my right. People expect me to use both fluently, but I’m not naturally ambidextrous. Even though I am a right-handed swordsman, wielding my dominant sword with ease, I must also carry a sword in my left, the heirloom of my family heritage. Although I try to live up to others’ expectations by using both swords, I may appear inexperienced while attempting to use my left. In some instances, my heirloom is mistaken for representing different families’ since the embellishments look similar.

Many assumptions are made about my heirloom sword based on its appearance, just as many assumptions are made about me based on my physical looks. “Are you Chinese?” When I respond with ‘no,’ they stare at me blankly in confusion. There is a multitude of Asian cultures in the United States, of which I am one. Despite what many others may assume, I am not Chinese; I am an American-born Korean.

“Then… are you Japanese?” Instead of asking a broader question, like “What is your ethnicity?,” they choose to ask a direct question. I reply that I am Korean. I like to think that this answers their question sufficiently; however, they think otherwise. Instead, I take this as their invitation to a duel.

They attack me with another question: “Are you from North Korea or South Korea?” I don’t know how to respond because I’m not from either of those countries; I was born in America. I respond with “South Korea,” where my parents are from because I assume that they’re asking me about my ethnicity. I’m not offended by this situation because I get asked these questions frequently. From this experience, I realize that people don’t know how to politely ask questions about identity to those unlike them. Instead of asking “What is your family’s ethnicity?,” many people use rude alternatives, such as “Where are you from?,” or “What language do you speak?”

When people ask these questions, they make assumptions based on someone’s appearance. In my case, people make inferences like:

“She must be really good at speaking Korean.”

“She’s Asian; therefore, she must be born in Asia.”

“She’s probably Chinese.”

These thoughts may appear in their heads because making assumptions is natural. However, there are instances when assumptions can be taken too far. Some U.S. Border Patrol agents in the “Constitution-free zone” have made similar assumptions based on skin color and clothing. For example, agents marked someone as an undocumented immigrant because “his shoes looked suspicious, like those of someone who had recently crossed the border.”

Another instance was when a Jamaican grandmother was forced off a bus when she was visiting her granddaughter. The impetus was her accent and the color of her skin. Government officials chose to act on their assumptions, even though they had no solid proof that the grandmother was an undocumented immigrant. These situations just touch the surface of the issue of racial injustice in America.

When someone makes unfair assumptions about me, they are pointing their sword and challenging me to a duel; I cannot refuse because I am already involved. It is not appropriate for anyone, including Border Patrol agents, to make unjustified assumptions or to act on those assumptions. Border Patrol agents have no right to confiscate the swords of the innocent solely based on their conjectures. The next time I’m faced with a situation where racially ignorant assumptions are made about me, I will refuse to surrender my sword, point it back at them, and triumphantly fight their ignorance with my cultural pride.

Hailee Park is an eighth grader who enjoys reading many genres. While reading, Hailee recognized the racial injustices against immigrants in America, which inspired her essay. Hailee plays violin in her school’s orchestra and listens to and composes music.

Aminata Toure

East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

We Are Still Dreaming

As a young Muslim American woman, I have been labeled things I am not: a terrorist, oppressed, and an ISIS supporter. I have been accused of planning 9/11, an event that happened before I was born. Lately, in the media, Muslims have been portrayed as supporters of a malevolent cause, terrorizing others just because they do not have the same beliefs. I often scoff at news reports that portray Muslims in such a light, just as I scoff at all names I’ve been labeled. They are words that do not define me.

In a land where labels have stripped immigrants of their personalities, they are now being stripped of something that makes them human: their rights. The situation described in Lornet Turnbull’s article, “Two-Thirds of Americans are Living in the ‘Constitution-Free Zone’,” goes directly against the Constitution, the soul of this country, something that asserts that we are all equal before the law. If immigrants do not have protection from the Constitution, is there any way to feel safe?

Although most insults are easy to shrug off, they are still threatening. I am ashamed when I feel afraid to go to the mosque. Friday is an extremely special day when we gather together to pray, but lately, I haven’t been going to the mosque for Jummah prayers. I have realized that I can never feel safe when in a large group of Muslims because of the widespread hatred of Muslims in the United States, commonly referred to as Islamophobia. Police surround our mosque, and there are posters warning us about dangerous people who might attack our place of worship because we have been identified as terrorists.

I wish I could tune out every news report that blasts out the headline “Terrorist Attack!” because I know that I will be judged based on the actions of someone else. Despite this anti-Muslim racism, what I have learned from these insults is that I am proud of my faith. I am a Muslim, but being Muslim doesn’t define me. I am a writer, a student, a dreamer, a friend, a New Yorker, a helper, and an American. I am unapologetically me, a Muslim, and so much more. I definitely think everyone should get to know a Muslim. They would see that some of us are also Harry Potter fans, not just people planning to bomb the White House.

Labels are unjustly placed on us because of the way we speak, the color of our skin, and what we believe in—not for who we are as individuals. Instead, we should all take more time to get to know one another. As Martin Luther King Jr. said in his “I Have a Dream” speech, we should be judged by the content of our character and not the color of our skin. To me, it seems Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream is a dream that should be a reality. But, for now, we are dreaming.

Aminata Toure is a Guinean American Muslim student. Aminata loves spoken-word poetry and performs in front of hundreds of people at her school’s annual poetry slam. She loves writing, language, history, and West African food and culture. Aminata wants to work at the United Nations when she grows up.

From the Author

Dear Alessandra, Cain, Daniel, Tiara, Emma, Hailee, Aminata and Ethan,

I am moved and inspired by the thought each of you put into your responses to my story about this so-called “Constitution-free zone.” Whether we realize it or not, immigration in this country impacts all of us— either because we are immigrants ourselves, have neighbors, friends, and family who are, or because we depend on immigrants for many aspects of our lives—from the food we put on our tables to the technology that bewitches us. It is true that immigrants enrich our society in so many important ways, as many of you point out.

And while the federal statute that permits U.S. Border Patrol officers to stop and search at will any of the 200 million of us in this 100-mile shadow border, immigrants have been their biggest targets. In your essays, you highlight how unjust the law is—nothing short of racial profiling. It is heartening to see each of you, in your own way, speaking out against the unfairness of this practice.

Alessandra, you are correct, the immigration system in this country is in shambles. You make a powerful argument about how profiling ostracizes entire communities and how the warrantless searches allowed by this statute impede trust-building between law enforcement and the people they are called on to serve.

And Cain, you point out how this 100-mile zone, along with other laws in the state of Texas where you attended school, make people feel like they’re “always under surveillance, and that, at any moment, you may be pulled over to be questioned and detained.” It seems unimaginable that people live their lives this way, yet millions in this country do.

You, Emma, for example, speak of living in a kind of silent fear since Donald Trump took office, even though you were born in this country and your parents are here legally. You are right, “We shouldn’t have to live in fear that our rights will be taken away.”

And Aminata, you write of being constantly judged and labeled because you’re a Muslim American. How unfortunate and sad that in a country that generations of people fled to search for religious freedom, you are ashamed at times to practice your own. The Constitution-free zone, you write, “goes directly against the Constitution, the soul of this country, something that asserts that we are all equal before the law.”

Tiara, I could personally relate to your gripping account of being racially profiled and humiliated in a store. You were appalled that the Greyhound passenger in California was targeted by Border Patrol because they claimed his shoes looked like those of someone who had walked across the border: “If a man is judged by his shoes,” you ask, “who else and what else are getting judged in the world?”

Hailee, you write about the incorrect assumptions people make about you, an American born of Korean descent, based solely on your appearance and compared it to the assumptions Border Patrol agents make about those they detain in this zone.

Daniel, you speak of the role of political fearmongering in immigration. It’s not new, but under the current administration, turning immigrants into boogiemen for political gain is currency. You write that “For some politicians, it is easier to sell a border wall to a scared population than it is to explain the need for reformed immigration policy.”

And Ethan, you recognize the contributions immigrants make to this country through the connections we all make with them and the strength they bring to our society.

Keep speaking your truth. Use your words and status to call out injustice wherever and whenever you see it. Untold numbers of people spoke out against this practice by Border Patrol and brought pressure on Greyhound to change. In December, the company began offering passengers written guidance—in both Spanish and English—so they understand what their rights are when officers board their bus. Small steps, yes, but progress nonetheless, brought about by people just like you, speaking up for those who sometimes lack a voice to speak up for themselves.

With sincere gratitude,

Lornet Turnbull

Lornet Turnbull is an editor for YES! and a Seattle-based freelance writer. Follow her on Twitter @TurnbullL .

We received many outstanding essays for the Winter 2019 Student Writing Competition. Though not every participant can win the contest, we’d like to share some excerpts that caught our eye:

After my parents argued with the woman, they told me if you can fight with fists, you prove the other person’s point, but when you fight with the power of your words, you can have a much bigger impact. I also learned that I should never be ashamed of where I am from. —Fernando Flores, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

Just because we were born here and are privileged to the freedom of our country, we do not have the right to deprive others of a chance at success. —Avalyn Cox, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

Maybe, rather than a wall, a better solution to our immigration problem would be a bridge. —Sean Dwyer, Lane Community College, Eugene, Ore.

If anything, what I’ve learned is that I don’t know what to do. I don’t know how to change our world. I don’t know how to make a difference, how to make my voice heard. But I have learned the importance of one word, a simple two-letter word that’s taught to the youngest of us, a word we all know but never recognize: the significance of ‘we.’ —Enna Chiu, Highland Park High School, Highland Park, N.J.

Not to say the Border Patrol should not have authorization to search people within the border, but I am saying it should be near the border, more like one mile, not 100. —Cooper Tarbuck, Maranacook Middle School, Manchester, Maine.

My caramel color, my feminism, my Spanish and English language, my Mexican culture, and my young Latina self gives me the confidence to believe in myself, but it can also teach others that making wrong assumptions about someone because of their skin color, identity, culture, looks or gender can make them look and be weaker. —Ana Hernandez, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

We don’t need to change who we are to fit these stereotypes like someone going on a diet to fit into a new pair of pants. —Kaylee Meyers, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

If a human being with no criminal background whatsoever has trouble entering the country because of the way he or she dresses or speaks, border protection degenerates into arbitrariness. —Jonas Schumacher, Heidelberg University of Education, Heidelberg, Germany

I believe that you should be able to travel freely throughout your own country without the constant fear of needing to prove that you belong here . —MacKenzie Morgan, Lincoln Middle School, Ypsilanti, Mich.

America is known as “the Land of Opportunity,” but this label is quickly disappearing. If we keep stopping those striving for a better life, then what will become of this country? —Ennyn Chiu, Highland Park Middle School, Highland Park, N.J.

The fact that two-thirds of the people in the U.S. are living in an area called the “Constitution-free zone” is appalling. Our Constitution was made to protect our rights as citizens, no matter where we are in the country. These systems that we are using to “secure” our country are failing, and we need to find a way to change them. —Isis Liaw, Brier Terrace Middle School, Brier, Wash.

I won’t let anyone, especially a man, tell me what I can do, because I am a strong Latina. I will represent where I come from, and I am proud to be Mexican. I will show others that looks can be deceiving. I will show others that even the weakest animal, a beautiful butterfly, is tough, and it will cross any border, no matter how challenging the journey may be. —Brittany Leal, The East Harlem School, New York City, N.Y.

Get Stories of Solutions to Share with Your Classroom

Teachers save 50% on YES! Magazine.

Inspiration in Your Inbox

Get the free daily newsletter from YES! Magazine: Stories of people creating a better world to inspire you and your students.

Immigration Issues in the United States Essay

To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
As a template for you assignment

Introduction

National concerns, self-identity, benefits of immigration, discussion and recommendations.

Immigration is a vital context of the American Dream and national identity. However, the outdated immigration system and globalization trends have led to a shift in perception of immigration as white nationalism is on the rise. There are socio-political concerns about the impact of immigration on self-identity and security of the United States. This report seeks to investigate these fears and compare them to the benefits for the country to determine if immigration should be curbed. A discussion is held regarding the perceptions and realities of international migration and its principles from a political and ethical perspective. Recommendations are then provided regarding reform of the national immigration system.

Immigration is the foundation of the United States as a country. It was built on the labor, ideas, and cultural melting pot of immigrants coming to the US in the hopes of achieving the American dream, finding a new life, and establishing a home for their families. This report seeks to investigate whether the United States should be defined as a nation of immigrants or should it take extensive efforts to curb foreign entry into the country. The United States has built its self-identity on immigration and its extraordinary socio-economic and technological progress depends on it, but in the realities of an unstable global society, measures should be taken to ensure neutrality and competence in immigration policy.

The US has one of the largest immigrant populations in the world, exceeding 40 million individuals, which is around 14% of the total population (Migration Policy Institute, 2019). In recent years, there has been a rise in nationalism which places the blame on the nation’s socio-economic issues on immigration and challenging the concept of the US self-identity. There is an overwhelming public debate and policymakers are commonly unable to reach an agreement on immigration due to the complexity of economic, security, and humanitarian concerns.

From an economic standpoint, anti-immigration critics consider immigrants to be taking away jobs and creating a strain on public services funded by taxes. Security is being challenged as a significant amount of violence and drug crime is attributed to immigrants, particularly those illegally entering the country. The current Trump administration was elected and continues to gather massive support on its strong anti-immigration policies, particularly targeting Muslim and Hispanic migrants for security purposes (Felter & Renwick, 2018).

The words of an identity crisis are unheard of in other parts of the world where everyone is classified based on their characteristics, family, or religion. Mukherjeee (1997) recalls “The concept itself — of a person not knowing who he or she is — was unimaginable in our hierarchical, classification-obsessed society” (par. 6). However, the United States and many countries in Europe have been or becoming increasingly culturally pluralistic and diverse.

As a result of populations and cultures intertwining, influences and opinions coming from many directions, and new generations being born into varied mixed backgrounds, identity is becoming lost. Some regions are experiencing violence, instability, and lack of direction due to immigration and pluralism (Chua, 2007). This is concerning for the core white population of the United States, not just due to the concern about the loss of control and privilege, but also the prolonged effect immigration has on national stability, value system, and institutions.

Immigration has been studied for centuries, and in the United States, it has been a vital part of cultural and economic development. First, it is considered to be almost universally by experts to be an economic driver to the country by contributing to demographic growth, human capital, talent acquisition, and innovation. If the immigrant flow is managed flexibly and efficiently, it can generate U.S. economic growth at times of relative stagnation.

A restrictive policy is detrimental as the legislation limits legal work-related immigration among highly-educated scientists and engineers as well as the less educated labor force in construction and agriculture that few core Americans would participate in (Orrenius, 2016). The mobility, specialization, and motivational drive of immigrants have proven continuously to be a significant economic benefit.

In terms of self-identity and national culture, immigration holds various benefits as well. It introduces new customs, beliefs, and ideas into the general folklore and traditions of the nation. Many of the things that are considered innately American have their origins from immigrants bringing these aspects into the country for centuries and celebrating them in local communities. Immigrants are also known for their rich and active culture and civic lives as they participate in the American democratic process and local communities, allowing for the establishment of international and tolerant networks.

Furthermore, it is important to consider that migrants often link together, and a healthy immigration base in the country that actively engages in the aspects described above ensures that incoming immigrants are more likely to do so and less willing to participate in radical or criminal activity (McCarthy, 2018).

In a modern liberal society, free movement is considered to be an inalienable right, which if limited would provide a precedent for limitation of other human rights. However, these rights are realistically only observed within country borders. International migration is often done to improve lives and those of their families; therefore, instilling a system of migration control would be coercion, that has historically and will continue to produce violence at the borders. This not only applies to border checkpoints and building the “Wall”, but various aspects such as measures that peaceful migrants attempt to gain entry into the country and threats that they face once settled down, for both legal and illegal aliens (Waldinger, 2018).

The reality is that there is no country without borders, and although such boundaries do imply discrimination, it is necessary to protect U.S. citizens. In a world where the number of immigrants exceeds the capacity of a country to take them in, choices must be made regarding admissions criteria of whom the country would be willing to accept as residents. This remains to be the primary socio-political debate from which the U.S. society will never find an escape. However, should be considered that immigration serves as both, a source for international integration and national fragmentation (Waldinger, 2018).

In the context of immigration, with its threats and benefits, it is evident that the immigration system requires comprehensive and intelligible reform. In her essay, Chua (2007) suggests, “if the U.S. immigration system is to reflect and further our ethnically neutral identity, it must itself be ethnically neutral, offering equal opportunity to [all]” (p. 3). Based on the discussion earlier, there should be more concrete criteria that would allow for a modern rules-based approach to immigration.

Most Americans support legal immigration and accept it as part of the American social contract despite the highly emotional nature of it. Historically, there have always been regulations in place regarding nationality and family ties, with very few people being able to afford passage to the United States. These rules were relaxed in the late 20th century, and it is ultimately left to the voters whether a new system should be re-established again.

The U.S. should bring forward incentives for immigration that were present in the past while laying down harsh penalties for violations of the law by individuals and companies. The aspects of immigration that are commonly exploited such as birthright tourism should be eliminated. Meanwhile, incentives such as professional opportunities under a legal status and safety if following proper refugee procedures would help establish a competent system (Gray, 2019). Although there would be challenges and undoubtedly, debate, the system eventually will balance out if a non-ideological and politically correct approach is taken to reforming it.

Immigration is a critical issue in the current political agenda. There are legitimate national concerns regarding security and national identity. However, immigration brings tremendous benefits economically, socially, and culturally, allowing to form a unique melting pot that promotes inclusivity and tolerance while driving forward economic growth and innovation. Nevertheless, the United States had been built on immigration and it should not be curbed significantly, but rather strong measures taken in policy reform to incentivize legal and dedicated immigrants while eliminating those seeking to use it for enrichment or illegal purposes.

Chua, A. (2007). The right road for America? Washington Post. Web.

Felter, C., & Renwick, D. (2018). The U.S. immigration debate . Web.

Gray, M. W. (2019). America’s immigration policy needs an overhaul . National Interest. Web.

McCarthy, J. (2018). 5 ways immigration enhances a country’s culture . Global Citizen . Web.

Migration Policy Institute. (2019). Frequently requested statistics on immigrants and immigration in the United States . Web.

Mukherjee, B. (1997). American dreamer . Mother Jones . Web.

Orrenius, P. (2016). Benefits of immigration outweigh the costs . The Catalyst, 2 . Web.

Waldinger, R. (2018). Immigration and the election of Donald Trump: Why the sociology of migration left us unprepared … And why we should not have been surprised. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41 (8), 1411-1426. Web.

New Waves of Immigration to the United States
The History of Korean American Immigration Experience
The Impact of the Social Environment on Self-Identity
Migration Patterns: American Immigration
Policy Brief for Reducing Irregular Labor Migrants in Switzerland
Immigrants in the US: Studying Public Attitudes
Oral History: The True Story of an Immigrant Woman
Coverage of Immigrants in the Israeli Media
Travel and New Land: Immigration Experience
"Modernity Here and Now" Analysis
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, June 8). Immigration Issues in the United States. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-issues-in-the-united-states/

"Immigration Issues in the United States." IvyPanda , 8 June 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-issues-in-the-united-states/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Immigration Issues in the United States'. 8 June.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Immigration Issues in the United States." June 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-issues-in-the-united-states/.

1. IvyPanda . "Immigration Issues in the United States." June 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-issues-in-the-united-states/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Immigration Issues in the United States." June 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/immigration-issues-in-the-united-states/.

IvyPanda uses cookies and similar technologies to enhance your experience, enabling functionalities such as:

Basic site functions
Ensuring secure, safe transactions
Secure account login
Remembering account, browser, and regional preferences
Remembering privacy and security settings
Analyzing site traffic and usage
Personalized search, content, and recommendations
Displaying relevant, targeted ads on and off IvyPanda

Please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy for detailed information.

Certain technologies we use are essential for critical functions such as security and site integrity, account authentication, security and privacy preferences, internal site usage and maintenance data, and ensuring the site operates correctly for browsing and transactions.

Cookies and similar technologies are used to enhance your experience by:

Remembering general and regional preferences
Personalizing content, search, recommendations, and offers

Some functions, such as personalized recommendations, account preferences, or localization, may not work correctly without these technologies. For more details, please refer to IvyPanda's Cookies Policy .

To enable personalized advertising (such as interest-based ads), we may share your data with our marketing and advertising partners using cookies and other technologies. These partners may have their own information collected about you. Turning off the personalized advertising setting won't stop you from seeing IvyPanda ads, but it may make the ads you see less relevant or more repetitive.

Personalized advertising may be considered a "sale" or "sharing" of the information under California and other state privacy laws, and you may have the right to opt out. Turning off personalized advertising allows you to exercise your right to opt out. Learn more in IvyPanda's Cookies Policy and Privacy Policy .

Why immigrants are America’s superpower

Full Transcript

Subscribe to Global Connection

Wendy edelberg and wendy edelberg director - the hamilton project , senior fellow - economic studies david dollar david dollar senior fellow - foreign policy , global economy and development , john l. thornton china center.

July 3, 2023

26 min read

Wendy Edelberg, senior fellow and director of The Hamilton Project at Brookings, discusses the positive impact of immigration on the dynamism and fiscal sustainability of the U.S. economy. She also explains her research on the impact immigrants have on local, state, and federal finances. As a whole, immigrants are a net benefit to the U.S. economy, but based largely on immigrants’ education levels, the fiscal cost is disproportionately paid by certain state and local areas. Together with co-author Tara Watson, Edelberg proposes a way to redirect some of the federal gains to these communities, piggy-backing on existing programs.

Understanding the U.S. Immigrant Experience: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants

Shannon Schumacher , Liz Hamel , Samantha Artiga , Drishti Pillai , Ashley Kirzinger , Audrey Kearney , Marley Presiado , Ana Gonzalez-Barrera, and Mollyann Brodie Published: Sep 17, 2023

Methodology

Executive Summary

The Survey of Immigrants, conducted by KFF in partnership with the Los Angeles Times during Spring 2023, examines the diversity of the U.S. immigrant experience. It is the largest and most representative survey of immigrants living in the U.S. to date. With its sample size of 3,358 immigrant adults, the survey provides a deep understanding of immigrant experiences, reflecting their varied countries of origin and histories, citizenship and immigration statuses, racial and ethnic identities, and social and economic circumstances. KFF also conducted focus groups with immigrants from an array of backgrounds, which expand upon information from the survey (see Methodology for more details).

This report provides an overview of immigrants’ reasons for coming to the U.S.; their successes and challenges; their experiences at work, in their communities, in health care settings, and at home; as well as their outlook on the future. Recognizing the diversity within the immigrant population, the report examines variations in the experiences of different groups of immigrants, including by immigration status, income, race and ethnicity, English proficiency, and other factors. Given that this report includes a focus on experiences with discrimination and unfair treatment, data by race and ethnicity are often shown rather than by country of birth. A companion report provides information on immigrants’ health coverage, access to, and use of care, and further reports will provide additional details for other subgroups within the immigrant population, including more data by country of origin.

Key takeaways from this report include:

Most immigrants – regardless of where they came from or how long they’ve been in the U.S. – say they came to the U.S. for more opportunities for themselves and their children. The predominant reasons immigrants say they came to the U.S. are for better work and educational opportunities, a better future for their children, and more rights and freedoms. Smaller but still sizeable shares cite other factors such as joining family members or escaping unsafe or violent conditions.
Overall, a majority of immigrants say their financial situation (78%), educational opportunities (79%), employment situation (75%), and safety (65%) are better as a result of moving to the U.S. A large majority (77%) say their own standard of living is better than that of their parents, higher than the share of U.S.-born adults who say the same (51%) 1 ,and most (60%) believe their children’s standard of living will be better than theirs is now. Three in four immigrants say they would choose to come to the U.S. again if given the chance, and six in ten say they plan to stay in the U.S. However, about one in five (19%) say they want to move back to the country they were born in or to another country, while an additional one in five (21%) say they are not sure.
Despite an improved situation relative to their countries of birth, many immigrants report facing serious challenges, including high levels of workplace and other discrimination, difficulties making ends meet, and confusion and fears related to U.S. immigration laws and policies. These challenges are more pronounced among some groups of immigrants, including those who live in lower-income households, Black and Hispanic immigrants, those who are likely undocumented, and those with limited English proficiency. Given the intersectional nature of these factors, some immigrants face compounding challenges across them.
Most immigrants are employed, and about half of all working immigrants say they have experienced discrimination in the workplace, such as being given less pay or fewer opportunities for advancement than people born in the U.S., not being paid for all their hours worked, or being threatened or harassed . In addition, about a quarter of all immigrants, rising to three in ten of those with college degrees, say they are overqualified for their jobs, a potential indication that they had to take a step back in their careers when coming to the U.S. or lacked career advancement opportunities in the U.S.
About a third (34%) of immigrants say they have been criticized or insulted for speaking a language other than English since moving to the U.S., and a similar share (33%) say they have been told they should “go back to where you came from.” About four in ten (38%) immigrants say they have ever received worse treatment than people born in the U.S. in a store or restaurant, in interactions with the police, or when buying or renting a home. Some immigrants also report being treated unfairly in health care settings. Among immigrants who have received health care in the U.S., one in four say they have been treated differently or unfairly by a doctor or other health care provider because of their racial or ethnic background, their accent or how well they speak English, or their insurance status or ability to pay for care.
Immigrants who are Black or Hispanic report disproportionate levels of discrimination at work, in their communities, and in health care settings. Over half of employed Black (56%) and Hispanic (55%) immigrants say they have faced discrimination at work, and roughly half of college-educated Black (53%) and Hispanic (46%) immigrant workers say they are overqualified for their jobs. Nearly four in ten (38%) Black immigrants say they have been treated unfairly by the police and more than four in ten (45%) say they have been told to “go back to where you came from.” In addition, nearly four in ten (38%) Black immigrants say they have been treated differently or unfairly by a health care provider. Among Hispanic immigrants, four in ten (42%) say they have been criticized or insulted for speaking a language other than English.
Even with high levels of employment, one third of immigrants report problems affording basic needs like food, housing, and health care. This share rises to four in ten among parents and about half of immigrants living in lower income households (those with annual incomes under $40,000). In addition, one in four lower income immigrants say they have difficulty paying their bills each month, while an additional 47% say they are “just able to pay their bills each month.”
Among likely undocumented immigrants, seven in ten say they worry they or a family member may be detained or deported, and four in ten say they have avoided things such as talking to the police, applying for a job, or traveling because they didn’t want to draw attention to their or a family member’s immigration status . However, these concerns are not limited to those who are likely undocumented. Among all immigrants regardless of their own immigration status, nearly half (45%) say they don’t have enough information to understand how U.S. immigration laws affect them and their families, and one in four (26%) say they worry they or a family member could be detained or deported. Confusion and lack of information extend to public charge rules. About three quarters of all immigrants, rising to nine in ten among likely undocumented immigrants, say they are not sure whether use of public assistance for food, housing, or health care can affect an immigrant’s ability to get a green card or incorrectly believe that use of this assistance will negatively affect the ability to get a green card.
About half of all immigrants have limited English proficiency, and about half among this group say they have faced language barriers in a variety of settings and interactions. About half (53%) of immigrants with limited English proficiency say that difficulty speaking or understanding English has ever made it hard for them to do at least one of the following: get health care services (31%); receive services in stores or restaurants (30%); get or keep a job (29%); apply for government financial help with food, housing, or health coverage (25%); report a crime or get help from the police (22%). In addition, one-quarter of parents with limited English proficiency say they have had difficulty communicating with their children’s school (24%). Working immigrants with limited English proficiency also are more likely to report workplace discrimination compared to those who speak English very well (55% vs. 41%).

Who Are U.S. Immigrants?

The KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants is a probability-based survey that is representative of the adult immigrant population in the U.S. based on known demographic data from federal surveys (see Methodology for more information on sampling and weighting). For the purposes of this project, immigrant adults are defined as individuals ages 18 and over who live in the U.S. but were born outside the U.S. or its territories.

According to 2021 federal data, immigrants make up 16% of the U.S. adult population (ages 18+). About four in ten immigrant adults identify as Hispanic (44%), over a quarter are Asian (27%), and smaller shares are White (17%), Black (8%), or report multiple races (3%). The top six countries of origin among adult immigrants in the U.S. are Mexico (24%), India (6%), China (5%), the Philippines (5%), El Salvador (3%), and Vietnam (3%) although immigrants hail from countries across the world.

The immigrant adult population largely mirrors the U.S.-born adult population in terms of gender. While similar shares of U.S.-born and immigrant adults have a college degree, immigrant adults are substantially more likely than U.S.-born adults to have less than a high school education. About four in ten (40%) immigrants are parents of a child under 18 living in their household, and a quarter (25%) of children in the U.S. have an immigrant parent.

Slightly less than half (47%) of immigrant adults report having limited English proficiency, meaning they speak English less than very well. Regardless of ability to speak English, a large majority (83%) of immigrants say they speak a language other than English at home, including about four in ten (43%) who speak Spanish at home.

A majority (55%) of U.S. adult immigrants are naturalized citizens. The remaining share are noncitizens, including lawfully present and undocumented immigrants. KFF analysis based on federal data estimates that 60% of noncitizens are lawfully present and 40% are undocumented. 2

See Appendix Table 1 for a table of key demographics about the U.S. adult immigrant population compared to the U.S.-born adult population.

Key Terms Used In This Report

Limited English Proficiency : Immigrants are classified as having Limited English Proficiency if they self-identify as speaking English less than “very well.”

Immigration Status: Immigrants are classified by their self-reported immigration status as follows:

Naturalized Citizen : Immigrants who said they are a U.S. citizen.
Green Card or Valid Visa : Immigrants who said they are not a U.S. citizen, but currently have a green card (lawful permanent status) or a valid work or student visa.
Likely Undocumented Immigrant : Immigrants who said they are not a U.S. citizen and do not currently have a green card (lawful permanent status) or a valid work or student visa. These immigrants are classified as “likely undocumented” since they have not affirmatively identified themselves as undocumented.

Race and Ethnicity: Data are reported for four racial and ethnic categories: Hispanic, Black, Asian, and White based on respondents’ self-reported racial and ethnic identity. Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race but are categorized as Hispanic for this analysis; other groups are non-Hispanic. Results for individuals in other groups are included in the total but not shown separately due to sample size restrictions. Given that this report includes a focus on experiences with discrimination and unfair treatment, we often show data by race and ethnicity rather than country of birth. Given variation of experiences within these broad racial and ethnic categories, further reports will provide additional details for subgroups within racial and ethnic groups, including more data by country of origin.

Educational Attainment: These data are based on the highest level of education completed in the U.S. and/or in other countries as self-reported by the respondent. The response categories offered were: did not graduate high school, high school graduate with a diploma, some college (including an associate degree), university degree (bachelor’s degree), and post-graduate degree (such as Master’s, PhD, MD, JD).

Country of Birth : “Country of birth” is classified based on respondents’ answer to the question “In what country were you born?” In some cases, countries are grouped into larger regions. See Appendix Table 2 for a list of regional groupings.

Why Do Immigrants Come to The U.S. And How Do They Feel About Their Life in the U.S.?

Immigrants cite both push and pull factors as reasons for coming to the U.S. For most immigrants, their major reasons for coming to the U.S. are aspirational, such as seeking better economic and job opportunities (75% say this is a major reason they came to the U.S.), a better future for their children (68%), and for better educational opportunities (62%). Half of immigrants say a major reason they or their family came to the U.S. was to have more rights and freedoms, including about three-quarters of immigrants from Central America (73%). Smaller but sizeable shares say other factors such as joining family members (42%) or escaping unsafe or violent conditions (31%) were major reasons they came. The share who cites escaping unsafe conditions as a major reason for coming to the U.S. rises to about half of likely undocumented immigrants (51%) and about six in ten (59%) immigrants from Central America.

In Their Own Words: Reasons for Coming to the U.S. from Focus Group Participants

Stories focus group participants told of why they came to the U.S. reflect the survey responses. While many pointed to economic and educational opportunities, some described leaving harsh economic and unsafe conditions in their home countries.

“I came to the U.S. hoping that my children will have better educational opportunity.” – 58-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in California

“[My husband] came here, and I followed him. So, he came, and I came with the kids afterwards…so we could have a better life. It’s not easy…we wanted to have…better opportunities for our children, for ourselves.” – 46-year-old Ghanian immigrant woman in New Jersey

“The thing is that there are more opportunities, and the standard of living is much better. We can make ends meet even through manual labor. That is not possible in Vietnam.” – 33-year-old Vietnamese immigrant man in Texas

“Then, my mom had to make a decision because the gangs took control of her place. They started asking for rent, extorting her life. If she didn’t pay the extortion, the rent, they were going to take me, or my siblings, or her. …since I was the oldest, she brought me, making the sacrifice of leaving behind my two siblings.” – 25-year-old Salvadorian immigrant man in California

“Actually, it wasn’t my decision to come. I left when I was 13 years old, fleeing from my country because I had a death threat, along with my eight-year-old sister. I didn’t want to come.” – 20-year-old Honduran immigrant woman in California

“Because of the earthquake, you know, I lost my house, and I wanted to go to a country with more opportunities and I came here.” – 30-year-old Haitian immigrant man in Florida

Most immigrants say moving to the U.S. has provided them more opportunities and improved their quality of life. When the survey asked immigrants to describe in their own words the best thing that has come from moving to the U.S., many similar themes arise: better opportunities, a better life in general, or a better future for their children are top mentions, as are education and work opportunities.

In Their Own Words: The Best Thing That Has Come From Moving To The U.S.

In a few words, what is the best thing that has come from you moving to the U.S.?

“Educational opportunities, economic opportunities, political and human rights, housing, food and basic needs, neighborhood safety, lower crime rates”- 28 year old Mexican immigrant woman in Nebraska

“Best education for my kids. Professional job. Healthy environment. Good system. The opportunities everywhere!” – 67-year-old Nepalese immigrant man in Maryland

“Better job, education, and economic opportunities” – 48-year-old Indian immigrant woman in North Carolina

“Education and improved quality of life in terms of obtaining basic needs” – 39-year-old Dominican immigrant woman in New Jersey

“Stability, freedom, better finance[s], having the opportunity to have a family” – 32-year-old Venezuelan immigrant man in New York

“Educational and employment opportunities for myself and my children” – 60-year-old Filipino immigrant woman in California

Most immigrants feel that moving to the U.S. has made them better off in terms of educational opportunities (79%), their financial situation (78%), their employment situation (75%), and their safety (65%). Safety stands out as an area where somewhat fewer –though still a majority–immigrants say they’re better off, particularly among White and Asian immigrants. A bare majority (54%) of Asian immigrants and fewer than half (42%) of White immigrants say their safety is better as a result of moving to the U.S., while about one in five in both groups (17% of Asian immigrants and 21% of White immigrants) say they are less safe as a result of coming to the U.S.

In Their Own Words: Safety Concerns In The U.S. From Focus Group Participants

In focus groups, some participants pointed to concerns about guns, drugs, and safety in the U.S., particularly in their children’s schools.

“Sometimes when you see on the television and they’re talking about shooting and these types of things. In Ghana we don’t have that—it’s safe, you walk around, you’re free.” – 38-year-old Ghanian immigrant woman in New Jersey

“I take my kids to school because, really, you have to go to school. But if I could have them at home and homeschool them, I’d do it. I wouldn’t let them go because I don’t feel safe anymore.” – 51-year-old Salvadorian immigrant man in California

“I’m from Mexico, and over there, you have to struggle to get a gun. Here, you can buy a gun like you’re buying candy at Walmart or somewhere.” – 37-year-old Mexican immigrant man in Texas

“Because in my children’s school, there are a lot of drugs found in its restrooms. …There is so much temptation for drugs here. It is not that safe.” – 49-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in Texas

Most immigrants say they are better off compared with their parents at their age, and most are optimistic about their children’s future. When asked about their standard of living, three quarters (77%) of immigrants say their standard of living is better than their parents’ was at their age. This is substantially higher than the share of U.S.-born adults who say the same (51%). Many expect an even better future for their children. Six in ten immigrants believe their children’s standard of living will be better than theirs is now, with much smaller shares saying they think it will be worse (13%) or about the same (17%). Most immigrant parents also have positive feelings about the education their children are receiving . About three in four (73%) immigrant parents rate their child’s school as either “excellent” (35%) or “good” (38%), with a further one-sixth (17%) saying the school is “fair,” and 3% give it a “poor” rating.

In Their Own Words: Hopes For Their Children’s Future From Focus Group Participants

In focus groups, many participants described hopes and dreams for their children’s futures, which often center on improved educational and job opportunities. Some pointed to sacrifices they were making in their own lives for the future benefit of the children.

“I am old, so I came here for my children. That is the thing– We must pay dearly for it when we first came here, but since then, we have seen that life here is wonderful.” – 59-year-old Vietnamese immigrant man in California

“I want my daughter to achieve what I couldn’t…I want her to be better, so she doesn’t have to go through what I went through” – 32-year-old Mexican immigrant woman in California

“…I will not change anything for my kids or for myself. I think it didn’t work out like I expected to do, but I don’t regret it because my kids have the better chance to have a better education system.” – 42-year-old Ghanian immigrant woman in California

“These children, they were born there; they have the opportunity; they get the opportunity, they go to school for free; they get food when they get food; they don’t have these problems. I can say yes, their lives are better than before the life I had.” – 48-year-old Haitian immigrant woman in Florida

How Are Immigrants Faring Economically?

Like many U.S. adults overall, immigrants’ biggest concerns relate to making ends meet: the economy, paying bills, and other financial concerns. When asked in the survey to name the biggest concern facing them and their families in their own words, about one-third of immigrants gave answers related to financial stability or other economic concerns. No other concern rose to the level of financial concerns, though other common concerns mentioned include health and medical issues, safety, work and employment issues, and immigration status.

In Their Own Words: Biggest Concerns Facing Immigrant Families Are Economic

In a few words, what is the biggest concern facing you and your family right now?

“Low income, hard to survive as day to day cost of living is going up” – 65 year old Colombian immigrant man in Texas

“There are a lot of expenses. Groceries and gas prices are at a high price. It gets overwhelming with all the bills and trying to save money in this economy right now.” – 50-year-old Pakistani immigrant man in California

“High prices for rents and new homes” – 55-year-old Congolese immigrant man in Florida

“Retirement– will I need to keep working until I die?” – 64-year-old Dutch immigrant man in Colorado

“Biggest concern is with the inflation. It’s hard to keep up with buying groceries, gas paying the bills paying the mortgage and trying to live paycheck to paycheck worrying about if you’re gonna be able to afford paying the next bill.” – 35-year-old Mexican immigrant man in Nevada

“The house payment. The interest. Everything is really expensive. The food and the university for my son.” – 51-year-old Mexican immigrant woman in California

One in three immigrants report difficulty paying for basic needs. About one in three immigrants (34%) say their household has fallen behind in paying for at least one of the following necessities in the past 12 months: utilities or other bills (22%), health care (20%), food (17%), or housing (17%). The share who reports problems paying for these necessities rises to about half among immigrants who have annual household incomes of less than $40,000 (47%). The shares who report facing these financial challenges are also larger among immigrants who are likely undocumented (51%), Black (50%), or Hispanic (43%), largely because they are more likely to be low income. Additionally, four in ten immigrant parents report problems paying for basic needs.

Beyond having trouble affording basic needs, a sizeable share of immigrants report they are just able to or have difficulties paying monthly bills. Nearly half (47%) of immigrants overall say they can pay their monthly bills and have money left over each month, while four in ten (37%) say they are just able to pay their bills and about one in six (15%) say they have difficulty paying their bills each month. Affordability of monthly bills varies widely by income as well as race and ethnicity. For example, only about a quarter (27%) of lower income immigrants say they have money left over after paying monthly bills compared with eight in ten (80%) of those with at least $90,000 in annual income. About six in ten immigrants who are White or Asian say they have money left over after paying their bills each month compared with four in ten Hispanic immigrants and one-third (32%) of Black immigrants, reflecting lower incomes among these groups.

Despite these financial struggles, close to half of immigrants say they send money to relatives or friends in their country of birth at least occasionally . Overall, about one in three (35%) immigrants say they send money occasionally or when they are able. Much smaller shares report sending either small (8%) or large (2%) shares of money on a regular basis, and overall, most immigrants (55%) do not send money to relatives or family outside the U.S.

Similar shares of immigrants report sending money to their birth country regardless of their own financial struggles. About half (49%) of those who have difficulty paying their bills each month say they send money at least occasionally, as do 44% of those who say they just pay their bills and the same share of those who have money left over after paying monthly bills. Two-thirds (65%) of Black immigrants say they send money to their birth country at least occasionally, while about half (52%) of Hispanic immigrants and four in ten Asian immigrants (42%) report sending money. A much smaller share (24%) of White immigrants say they send money to the country where they were born.

What Are Immigrants’ Experiences In The Workplace?

Two-thirds of immigrants say they are currently employed, including nearly seven in ten of those under age 30, about three quarters of those between the ages of 30-64, and a quarter of those ages 65 and over. The remaining third include a mix of students, retirees, homemakers, and few (6%) unemployed immigrants. A quarter of working immigrants say they are self-employed or the owner of a business, rising to one-third (34%) of White working immigrants and nearly three in ten (27%) Hispanic working immigrants. Jobs in construction, sales, health care, and production are the most commonly reported jobs among working immigrants. KFF analysis of federal data shows that immigrants are more likely to be employed in construction, agricultural, and service jobs than are U.S.-born citizen workers.

About a quarter of working immigrants feel they are overqualified for their job, rising to half of college-educated Black and Hispanic immigrants. A majority of working immigrants overall (68%) say they have the appropriate level of education and skills for their job, while about a quarter (27%) say they are overqualified, having more education and skills than the job requires. Just 4% say they are underqualified, having less education and skills than their job requires. In an indication that some immigrants are unable to obtain the same types of roles they were educated and trained for in the countries they came from, the share who feel overqualified for their current job rises to 31% among immigrants with college degrees. It is even higher among college-educated Black (53%) and Hispanic (46%) immigrants.

In Their Own Words: Work Experiences From Focus Group Participants

In focus groups, many immigrants expressed a desire to work and willingness to work in industries like construction, agriculture, and the service sector, which are often physically demanding. Some also described taking jobs that required less skills and education compared to those they held in their country of birth.

“We are the ones that work on the farms. We are the ones that cannot call out. We are the ones that even if our kids are sick, we can’t call our boss and say I can’t make it to work.” – 38-year-old Nigerian immigrant woman in New Jersey

“Yes, we have to put our effort in. It is more demanding. My hands and feet are sore. In exchange, I have a satisfactory level of income.” – 49-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in Texas

“…in Mexico, I was a preschool teacher. Being undocumented, obviously, you can’t work in the area you studied in, so now, I do cleaning.” – 36-year-old Mexican immigrant woman in Texas

“I used to work a white-collar job, now I do manual labor. My major used to hurt my mind, now it’s my arms and legs.” – 41-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in Texas

“My job entails picking up trash and cleaning toilets. I don’t like doing that. Who likes cleaning toilets? Who likes picking up other people’s trash, right? I don’t like it, but I’m in this job out of necessity.” – 20-year-old Honduran immigrant woman in California

“I only had [one] job back in Vietnam. Here I need to do four: a nanny, a maid, a house cleaner and a main job.” – 41-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in Texas

“The work in the field is hard. When it’s hot out, it gets up to 100 or 104. People work with grapes, so they pick the grapes. They work in the sun. There’s no air…. Snakes come out. Whatever comes out, you just keep picking with the machine. Snakes, mice, whatever. So, it’s hard. It’s hard.” – 32-year-old Mexican immigrant woman in California

Overall, about half of employed immigrants report working jobs that pay them by the hour (52%), one third say they are paid by salary (32%), and 15% report being paid by the job. However, these shares vary by income, immigration status, educational attainment, and race and ethnicity. Compared to immigrants with higher incomes, immigrants with lower incomes are more likely to be paid by the hour (63% of immigrants with annual household incomes of less than $40,000) or by the job (24%) than receive a salary (13%). Immigrants who are likely undocumented (30%) are about twice as likely as those with a green card or visa (14%) or naturalized citizens (12%) to report being paid by the job, and about half as likely to report being paid by salary (17%, 32%, and 36%, respectively). Immigrants with a college degree are more than three times as likely as those without a college degree to hold salaried jobs, (57% vs. 16%). Black and Hispanic immigrants are more likely to report working hourly jobs (69% and 60% respectively) than their White (42%) and Asian (40%) counterparts. Conversely, among those who are employed, almost half of Asian immigrants and more than four in ten White immigrants report being paid by salary compared with a quarter or fewer Black and Hispanic immigrants.

About half of working immigrants report experiencing discrimination at work. About half (47%) of all working immigrants say they have ever been treated differently or unfairly at work in at least one of five ways asked about on the survey, most commonly being given fewer opportunities for advancement (32%) and being paid less (29%) compared to people born in the U.S. About one in five working immigrants say they have not been paid for all their hours or overtime (22%) or have been given undesirable shifts or less control over their work hours than someone born in the U.S. doing the same job (17%). About one in ten (12%) say they have been harassed or threatened by someone in their workplace because they are an immigrant.

Highlighting the intersectional impacts of race, ethnicity, and immigration status, reports of workplace discrimination are higher among immigrant workers of color and likely undocumented immigrants. Majorities of Black (56%) and Hispanic (55%) immigrant workers report experiencing at least one form of workplace discrimination asked about. More than four in ten (44%) Asian immigrant workers also report experiencing workplace discrimination compared to three in ten (31%) White immigrant workers. About two-thirds (68%) of likely undocumented working immigrants report experiencing at least one form of unfair treatment in the workplace, with about half of this group saying they have been paid less or had fewer opportunities for advancement than people born in the U.S. for doing the same job. Undocumented immigrant workers often face even greater employment challenges due to lack of work authorization, which increases risk of potential workplace abuses, violations of wage and hour laws, and poor working as well as living conditions.

Limited English proficiency is also associated with higher levels of reported workplace discrimination. A majority (55%) of working immigrants who speak English less than very well (rising to 61% of Hispanic immigrants with limited English proficiency) report experiencing at least one form of workplace discrimination. In particular, immigrants with limited English proficiency are more likely than those who are English proficient to say they were given fewer opportunities for promotions or raises (38% vs. 27%) or were paid less than people born in the U.S. for doing the same job (34% vs. 24%).

Do Immigrants Feel Welcome In The U.S.?

Most immigrants feel welcome in their neighborhoods. Overall, two-thirds of immigrants say most people in their neighborhoods are welcoming to immigrants. Just 7% say people in their neighborhood are not welcoming, while one in four say they are “not sure” whether immigrants are welcome in their neighborhood. When it comes to the treatment of immigrants in the state in which they live, about six in ten immigrants say they feel people in their state are welcoming to immigrants, but 15% say their state is not welcoming and another one in four say they are “not sure.” When asked about whether they think most people are welcoming to immigrants outside of the state in which they live, about half (48%) of immigrants say they are “not sure” about this, which could reflect lack of experiences in other places.

Immigrants in Texas are much less likely than those in California to feel their state is welcoming to immigrants. Immigrants living in California and Texas, the two most populous states for immigrants, are about equally likely to say immigrants are welcome in their neighborhood. However, immigrants living in California are about 30 percentage points more likely than are immigrants living in Texas to say they feel people in their state are welcoming to immigrants (70% vs. 39%). Further, immigrants in Texas are more than three times as likely as those in California to say they feel their state is not welcoming to immigrants (31% vs. 8%).

What Are Immigrants’ Experiences With Discrimination And Unfair Treatment In The Community?

Despite feeling welcome in their neighborhoods, many immigrants report experiencing discrimination and unfair treatment in social and police interactions . About four in ten (38%) immigrants say they have ever received worse treatment than people born in the U.S. in at least one of the following places: in a store or restaurant (27%), in interactions with the police (21%), or when buying or renting a home (17%). In addition, about a third (34%) of immigrants say that since moving to the U.S., they have been criticized or insulted for speaking a language other than English, and a similar share (33%) say they have been told they should “go back to where you came from.”

Reports of discrimination and unfair treatment are more prevalent among people of color compared to White immigrants, illustrating the combined impacts of racism and anti-immigrant discrimination. For example, about one-third of immigrants who are Black (35%) or Hispanic (31%) and about a quarter (27%) of Asian immigrants say they have ever received worse treatment than people born in the U.S. in a store or restaurant, all higher than the share among White immigrants (16%). Notably, four in ten (38%) Black immigrants say they have ever received worse treatment than people born in the U.S. in interactions with the police, and almost half (45%) say they have been told they should “go back to where you came from.” Among Hispanic immigrants, about four in ten (42%) say they have been criticized or insulted for speaking a language other than English.

In Their Own Words: Experiences With Discrimination In The Community From Focus Group Participants

In focus groups, many immigrants shared their experiences with discrimination in the community.

“Sometimes, when you talk, the way some people will laugh. They’ll laugh at you, you say one word, they’ll be laughing, laughing, laughing. …I’m so very ashamed. I’m so ashamed, so you don’t want to talk.” – 46-year-old Ghanian immigrant woman in New Jersey

“I speak English, but obviously, I don’t speak it fluently. I have my accent, and you can tell that I’m Mexican. I’ve seen people make faces at me or whatnot.” – 37-year-old Mexican immigrant man in Texas

“We have our business around the corner. I left the house one day to go pick up my daughter, and my husband called me. There was a White guy yelling at my husband ‘Get out of my country.’ I said, ‘Tell him that it’s your country, too.’” – 36-year-old Mexican immigrant woman in California

“The guy was like…you guys should go back to your country. He used different words for us. Then he called the cops, and when the cops came, they didn’t listen to us. I was like, this is unfair. You could have listened to both sides.” – 38-year-old Nigerian immigrant woman in New Jersey

“But my son when he first came here, he did not know English. When he went to school, his classmates said, ‘You do not study well, you should go back to your country.’” – 54-year-old Vietnamese immigrant woman in California

One in four immigrants report being treated unfairly by a health care provider. In addition to discrimination at work and in community settings, a sizeable share of immigrants say they have been treated unfairly by a doctor or health care provider since coming to the U.S. Overall, among immigrants who have received health care in the U.S., one in four (rising to nearly four in ten Black immigrants) say they have been treated differently or unfairly by a doctor or other health care provider because of their racial or ethnic background, their accent or how well they speak English, or their insurance status or ability to pay for care. For more details about immigrants’ health and health care experiences, read the companion report here.

What Language Barriers Do Immigrants With Limited English Proficiency Face?

Over half of immigrants with limited English proficiency report language barriers in a variety of settings and interactions. Overall, about half of all immigrants have limited English proficiency, meaning they speak English less than very well. Among this group, about half (53%) say that difficulty speaking or understanding English has ever made it hard for them to do at least one of the following: receive services in stores or restaurants (30%); get health care services (31%); get or keep a job (29%); apply for government assistance with food, housing, or health coverage (25%); or get help from the police (22%).

Language barriers are amplified among those with lower levels of educational attainment as well as those with lower incomes. Among immigrants with limited English proficiency, those who do not have a college degree are more likely to report experiencing at least one of these difficulties than those who have a college degree (57% vs. 39%). Similarly, lower income immigrants (household incomes less than $40,000) with limited English proficiency are more likely to report facing language barriers compared to their counterparts with incomes of $90,000 or more (61% vs. 38%).

Immigrant parents with limited English proficiency also face challenges communicating with their children’s school or teacher. Among immigrant parents with limited English proficiency (52% of all immigrant parents), about one in four (24%) say difficulty speaking or understanding English has made it hard for them to communicate with their child’s school or teacher.

How Do Confusion And Worries About Immigration Laws And Status Affect Immigrants’ Daily Lives?

About seven in ten (69%) immigrants who are likely undocumented worry they or a family member may be detained or deported. However, worries about detention or deportation are not limited to those who are likely undocumented. About one in three immigrants who have a green card or other valid visa say they worry about this, as do about one in ten (12%) immigrants who are naturalized U.S. citizens.

Some immigrants report avoiding certain activities due to concerns about immigration status. Fourteen percent of immigrants overall, rising to 42% of those who are likely undocumented, say they have avoided things such as talking to the police, applying for a job, or traveling because they didn’t want to draw attention to their or a family member’s immigration status. In addition, 8% of all immigrants say they have avoided applying for a government program that helps pay for food, housing, or health care because of concerns about immigration status, including 27% of those who are likely undocumented.

More than four in ten (45%) immigrants overall say they don’t have enough information about U.S. immigration policy to understand how it affects them and their family. Lack of immigration-related knowledge is strongly related to one’s immigration status. Nearly seven in ten (69%) immigrants who are likely undocumented say they don’t have enough information, while immigrants with a valid green card or visa are split, with one half saying they have enough information and the other half saying they do not. Being a naturalized U.S. citizen doesn’t completely diminish immigrants’ confusion about U.S. immigration policy, as nearly four in ten (39%) immigrants who are naturalized citizens also say they don’t have enough information. Beyond immigration status, the groups who are more likely to say they do not have enough information to understand how immigration policy affects them and their families include immigrants with limited English proficiency, those who have been in the U.S. for fewer than five years, have lower household incomes, and/or have lower levels of education.

Across immigrants, there is a general lack of knowledge about public charge rules. Under longstanding U.S. policy, federal officials can deny an individual entry to the U.S. or adjustment to lawful permanent status (a green card) if they determine the individual is a “ public charge ” based on their likelihood of becoming primarily dependent on the government for subsistence. In 2019, the Trump Administration made changes to public charge policy that newly considered the use of previously excluded noncash assistance programs for health care, food, and housing in public charge determinations. This policy was rescinded by the Biden Administration in 2021, meaning that the use of noncash benefits, including assistance for health care, food, and housing, is not considered for public charge tests, except for long-term institutionalization at government expense. The survey suggests that many immigrants remain confused about public charge rules. Six in ten immigrants say they are “not sure” whether use of public programs that help pay for health care, housing or food can decrease one’s chances for green card approval and another 16% incorrectly believe this to be the case. Among immigrants who are likely undocumented, nine in ten are either unsure (68%) or incorrectly believe use of these types of public programs will decrease their chances for green card approval (22%).

What Are Immigrants Plans And Hopes For The Future?

Six in ten immigrants say they plan to stay in the U.S. However, about one in five immigrants say they want to move back to the country they were born in (12%) or to another country (7%), and about one in five (21%) say they are not sure. The desire to stay in the U.S. varies by immigration status as well as by race and ethnicity. Nearly two in three immigrants who are naturalized citizens say they plan to stay in the country, compared to about half of immigrants who have a green card or valid visa (54%) or immigrants who are likely undocumented (52%). Black immigrants are somewhat more likely than immigrants from other racial or ethnic backgrounds to say they plan to leave the U.S. (28%). This includes 17% who say they want to move back to their country of birth and 11% who say they want to move to a different country.

Three in four immigrants say they would choose to come to the U.S. again. Asked what they would do if given the chance to go back in time knowing what they know now, three in four immigrants (75%) say they would choose to come to the U.S. again, including large shares across ages, educational attainment, income, immigration status, and race and ethnicity. While most immigrants share this sentiment, overall, about one in ten (8%) immigrants say they would not choose to move to the U.S. and about one in five (17%) say they are not sure whether they would choose to move to the U.S.

In Their Own Words: Focus Group Participants Say They Would Choose To Come To The U.S. Again

In focus groups, many participants said that despite the challenges they face in the U.S., life is better here than in their country of birth. When asked whether they would choose to come again, many said yes and pointed to how they have more opportunities for themselves and their children to have a better standard of living.

“So I will not change anything for my kids or for myself. I think it didn’t work out like I expected to do but I don’t regret it because my kids have the better chance to have a better education system”-42-year-old Ghanian immigrant woman in California

“I can say from my experience, it was really hard. God made everything right now because I have my papers. But I agreed to stay here for my children, so that they have a better life tomorrow. Because home is worse.” – 48-year-old Haitian immigrant woman in Florida

“Of course, I would still come to America. When I compare my current state with that of my old neighbors, who are my age as well, this place is a far cry from it.” – 40-year-old Vietnamese immigrant man in Texas

“We’re happy because we have a better life, even though we always miss our homeland. But it’s better.” – 35-year-old Mexican immigrant man in California

“I can say that America gives me many options, many opportunities, so far I like it. The only thing I don’t like is how the bills are here, they come fast when you make a small amount of money many times it goes through the bill.” – 30-year-old Haitian immigrant man in Florida

Immigrants represent a significant and growing share of the U.S. population, contributing to their communities and to the nation’s culture and economy. Immigrants come to the U.S. largely seeking better opportunities and lives for themselves and their children, often leaving impoverished and sometimes dangerous conditions in their country of birth. For many, this dream has been realized despite ongoing challenges they face in the U.S.

Many immigrants recognize work as a key element to achieving their goals and are willing to fill physically demanding, lower paid jobs, for which some feel they are overqualified. Immigrants are disproportionately employed in agricultural, construction, and service jobs that are often essential for our nation’s infrastructure and operations.

Despite high rates of employment and, for many, an improved situation relative to their county of birth, many immigrants face serious challenges in the U.S. Finances are a top challenge and concern, with many having difficulty making ends meet and paying for basic needs. Moreover, although most immigrants feel welcome in their neighborhood, many face discrimination and unfair treatment on the job, in their communities, and while seeking health care. Fears of detention and deportation are a concern for immigrants across immigration statuses, sometimes affecting daily lives and interactions, particularly among those who are likely undocumented.

Some immigrants face more challenges than others, reflecting the diversity of the immigrant experience and the compounding impacts of intersectional factors such as immigration status, race and ethnicity, and income. Black and Hispanic immigrants, likely undocumented immigrants, immigrants with limited English proficiency, and lower income immigrants face disproportionate challenges given the impacts of racism, fears and uncertainties related to immigration status, language barriers, and financial challenges. Many immigrants lack sufficient information to understand how U.S. immigration laws and policies impact them and their families. This confusion and lack of certainty contributes to some immigrants avoiding accessing assistance programs that could ease financial challenges and facilitate access to health care for themselves and their children, who are often U.S.-born.

As the immigrant population in the U.S. continues to grow, recognizing their contributions and challenges of immigrants and addressing their diverse needs will be important for improving the nation’s overall health and economic prosperity.

Racial Equity and Health Policy
Race/Ethnicity
Quality of Life
TOPLINE & METHODOLOGY
U.S.-BORN ADULT COMPARISON

Also of Interest

Understanding the Diversity in the Asian Immigrant Experience in the U.S.: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants
Health and Health Care Experiences of Immigrants: The 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants
Political Preferences and Views on U.S. Immigration Policy Among Immigrants in the U.S.: A Snapshot from the 2023 KFF/LA Times Survey of Immigrants

The Integration of Immigrants into American Society (2015)

Chapter: 1 introduction, 1 introduction.

The United States is a country that has been populated, built, and transformed by successive waves of migration from almost every part of the world. This reality is widely recognized in the familiar image of the United States as a “nation of immigrants” and by the great majority of Americans, who fondly trace their family histories to Asia, Africa, or Europe or to a mix of origins that often includes an ancestry from one or more of the many indigenous peoples of the Americas. The American national mosaic is one of long standing. In the 18th century, Jean de Crèvecoeur (1981 [1782]) observed that in America, “individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men.” More than two centuries later, the American experiment of E Pluribus Unum continues with one of the most generous immigration policies in the world, one that includes provisions for diversity, refugees, family reunification, and workers who bring scarce employment skills. The United States is home to almost one-fifth of the world’s international migrants, including 23 million who arrived from 1990 to 2013 ( United Nations Population Division, 2013 ). This figure (23 million net immigrants) is three times larger than the number of immigrants received by any other country during that period.

The successful integration of immigrants and their children contributes to the nation’s economic vitality and its vibrant and ever-changing culture. The United States has offered opportunities to immigrants and their children to better themselves and to be fully incorporated into this society; in exchange “ immigrants” have become “Americans” —embracing an American identity and citizenship, protecting the United States through service in

its military, building its cities, harvesting its crops, and enriching everything from the nation’s cuisine to its universities, music, and art.

This has not always been a smooth process, and Americans have sometimes failed to live up to ideals of full inclusion and equality of opportunity for immigrants. Many descendants of immigrants who are fully integrated into U.S. society remember the success of their immigrant parents and grandparents but forget the resistance they encountered—the riots where Italians were killed, the branding of the Irish as criminals who were taken away in “paddy wagons,” the anti-Semitism that targeted Jewish immigrants, the racist denial of citizenship to Chinese immigrants, and the shameful internment of Japanese American citizens. This historical amnesia contributes to the tendency to celebrate the nation’s success in integrating past immigrants and to worry that somehow the most recent immigrants will not integrate and instead pose a threat to American society and civic life.

2015 was the 50th anniversary of the passage in 1965 of the Hart Celler Act, which amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA) and began the most recent period of mass immigration to the United States. These amendments abolished the restrictive quota system of the 1920s and opened up legal immigration to all countries in the world, setting the stage for a dramatic increase in immigration from Asia and Africa. At the same time, they limited the numbers of legal immigrants permitted from countries in the Western Hemisphere, establishing restrictions on immigrants across the U.S. southern border and setting the stage for the rise in undocumented border crossers.

Today, the approximately 41 million immigrants in the United States represent 13.1 percent of the U.S. population, which is slightly lower than it was 100 years ago. An estimated 11.3 million of these immigrants—over 25 percent—are undocumented. The U.S.-born children of immigrants, the second generation (see Box 1-1 ), represent another 37.1 million people, 12 percent of the population. Together, the first and second generations account for one of every four members of the U.S. population.

The numbers of immigrants coming to the United States, the racial and ethnic diversity of new immigrants, and the complex and politically fraught issue of undocumented immigrants have raised questions about whether the nation is being as successful in absorbing current immigrants and their descendants as it has been in the past. Are new immigrants and their children being well integrated into American society? Do current policies and practices facilitate their integration? How is American society being transformed by the millions of immigrants who have arrived in recent decades?

To address these issues, the Panel on the Integration of Immigrants into American Society was tasked with responding to the following questions:

What has been the demographic impact of immigration, in terms of the size and age, sex, and racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population from 1970 to 2010? What are the likely changes in the future?
What have been the effects of recent immigration on the educational outcomes, employment, and earnings of the native-born population? 1
How has the social and spatial mobility of immigrants and the second generation changed over the last 45 years?

___________________

1 The native-born population includes the second and third generation descendants of foreign-born immigrants. For more information about how the panel uses “generations” in this report, see Box 1-1 .

How has the residential integration (or segregation) of immigrants and their descendants changed over the last 45 years? How has immigration affected residential segregation patterns within native-born racial and ethnic communities?
How rapidly are recent immigrants and their descendants integrating into American society, as measured by competency in English language, educational attainment, rate of naturalization, degree of intermarriage, maintenance of ethnic identity, health outcomes, and other dimensions?
How has immigration affected American institutions, including civil society, and economic and political organizations? What role do mediating institutions play in the integration process? How responsive are these institutions to the needs of immigrants and their descendants?
How has immigration affected the stock and growth of scientific and technological skills in universities, research organizations, and private businesses? Is it possible to measure the impact of immigration on the pace of technological change and innovation?
What are the general attitudes and public perceptions of native-born Americans toward (a) legal and illegal immigration and (b) how immigrants shape American society? How do these perceptions compare with the statistical record?
How does legal status affect immigrants’ and their descendants’ ability to integrate across various dimensions?
For each of these questions, how do outcomes vary by gender, race and ethnicity, social class, geography, and other social categories?
What additional data are needed for research on the role and impact of immigration on American society?

In the sections below, the panel sets up the context for answering these questions. First, we lay out the definition of integration we will use throughout the report. Second, we address the question of demographic changes in the United States since 1970. Third, we discuss demographic projections for the U.S. population based on current and predicted immigration trends. Fourth, we examine native-born attitudes toward immigration and immigrants themselves. Finally, we discuss the implications of these conditions for immigrant integration. The final section outlines the rest of the report.

INTEGRATION

“Integration” 2 is the term the panel uses to describe the changes that both immigrants and their descendants—and the society they have joined—undergo in response to migration. The panel defines integration as the process by which members of immigrant groups and host societies come to resemble one another ( Brown and Bean, 2006 ). That process, which has both economic and sociocultural dimensions, begins with the immigrant generation and continues through the second generation and beyond ( Brown and Bean, 2006 ). The process of integration depends upon the participation of immigrants and their descendants in major social institutions such as schools and the labor market, as well as their social acceptance by other Americans ( Alba et al., 2012 ). Greater integration implies parity of critical life chances with the native-born American majority. This would include reductions in differences between immigrants or their descendants vis-a-vis the general population of native-born over time in indicators such as socioeconomic inequality, residential segregation, and political participation and representation. Used in this way, the term “integration” has gained near-universal acceptance in the international literature on the position of immigrants and their descendants within the society receiving them, during the contemporary era of mass international migration.

Integration is a two-fold process: it happens both because immigrants experience change once they arrive and because native-born Americans change in response to immigration. The process of integration takes time, and the panel considers the process in two ways: for the first generation, by examining what happens in the time since arrival; for the second and third generations—the children and grandchildren of immigrants—by comparisons across generations.

Integration may make immigrants and their children better off and in a better position to fully contribute to their communities, which is no doubt a major objective for the immigrants themselves. If immigrants come to the United States with very little education and become more like native-born Americans by getting more education, one would say they are more integrated. And they would also probably be viewed as being better off, because more education improves their well-being. But immigrants also, on average, come to the United States with better health than native-born Americans. As they become more like native-born Americans they become less healthy. They become more integrated and their well-being declines. So, to the extent that available data allow, the panel measured two separate

2 “Assimilation” is another term widely used for the processes of incorporation of immigrants and their children and the decline of ethnic distinctions in equality of opportunity and life chances. For this report, “integration” is used as a synonym for “assimilation” as defined by Alba and Nee (2003) .

dimensions of change: integration and well-being. The first asks whether immigrants and the native-born become more like one another; the second asks whether immigrants are better or worse off over time.

This report investigates whether immigrants and their children are becoming more like the general population of native-born Americans across a wide range of indicators: attitudes toward social issues, citizenship, crime, education, family structure, health, income, language, occupations, political participation, religion, and residence. Of course this is a complicated process to measure, in part because immigrants are very diverse themselves and have very different starting points in all of these domains when they arrive and because immigrants change at different paces across domains and individuals, but also because Americans are also changing. The convergence between immigrants and later generation Americans may happen because immigrants change once they get here, because native-born Americans change in response to immigration, or both. There is no presumption that change is happening in one direction only.

Indeed, bidirectional change is often easier to see in hindsight than in real time. Looking back, one can now see how the absorption of immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries changed American culture. Many foods, celebrations, and artistic forms considered quintessentially American today originated in immigrant homelands. Current immigrants continue to contribute to the vibrancy and innovation of American culture as artists, engineers, and entrepeneurs. One-fourth of the American Nobel Prize winners since 2004, and a similar proportion of MacArthur “Genius” Awardees (which are given to people in a range of fields including the arts) have been immigrants to the United States. The foreign-born (see Box 1-2 ) are also overrepresented among authors of highly cited scientific papers and holders of patents ( Smith and Edmonston, 1997 , p. 385; Chellaraj et al., 2008 ; Stephan and Levin, 2001 , 2007 ; Hunt and Gauthier-Loiselle, 2010 ; Kerr, 2008 ). To the extent that one can document changes among the native-born in the 21st century due to immigration, the panel attempts to do so, but we also suspect that many of the changes happening right now will only be visible to future historians as they look back.

Examining integration involves assessing the extent to which different groups, across generations or over time within the same generation, come to approximate the status of the general native-born population. Equality between immigrants and the native-born should not be expected in the first generation because immigrants have different background characteristics: they are younger, their education may not have been in American schools, and they may initially lack proficiency in English. But one can measure progress toward that equality among immigrants and their descendants. To measure equality of opportunity between the native-born and immigrant generations, the report employs conditional probabilities and other means to measure the likelihood of outcomes net of prior characteristics. (For in-

stance, does an immigrant from China with a college degree earn as much as a native-born white with a college degree?) These conditional probabilities are typically estimated for different generations of an immigrant-origin group, with statistical controls for differences from the general native-born population in demographic characteristics and skill levels.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES IN THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION SINCE 1970

The demographic make-up of the United States in the early 21st century is incredibly diverse compared to mid-20th century America. In many ways, the composition of the contemporary United States is more similar to the polyglot nation of the early 20th century, when major waves of immigrants were drawn by greater economic and political opportunities in the United States than were available in their countries of origin. The desire for religious freedom, flight from persecution, and family ties are also important factors spurring migration ( Massey, 1999 ; Portes and Rumbaut, 2014 ; Grasmuck and Pessar, 1991 ). Today as in the past, nearly one in seven Americans is foreign-born. But today’s immigrants are more likely to come from Latin America or Asia than from Europe, are more likely to be female, are much less likely to be white, and are more geographically dispersed than the immigrants who arrived at the turn of the 20th century. Meanwhile, the development of federal immigration law since that era (discussed in Chapter 2 ) has led to the rapid growth of an undocumented-immigrant population whose experiences differ from immigrants with legal status in fundamental ways (see Chapter 3 ).

In this section, the panel reviews the demographic changes among the foreign-born since 1970. We discuss both flows and stocks of immigrants. Flows are the numbers of arrivals and departures each year or in a designated period (e.g., decades). Stock refers to the number of foreign-born in the population at a point in time, usually based on counts in the census or other surveys such as the Current Population Survey. Both flows and stocks have measurement problems. For example, flows of immigrants as measured by administrative data of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services of the Department of Homeland Security include only those immigrants who lawfully enter the United States with a visa of some kind, either permanent or temporary. The panel had less information on how many people leave the United States. Another substantial problem is that these flow data do not count those who enter without inspection, as undocumented immigrants. The stock data are based on the foreign-born as measured in censuses and surveys, but they include anyone residing in the United States, including those who do not plan to stay and do not consider themselves immigrants. Nevertheless, stock and flow data do provide different but complementary perspectives on the composition of the foreign-born population. Flow data represent the recent history of immigration. Stock data provide a snapshot of the current and future composition of the foreign-born.

The next section begins by discussing the rapid growth of immigration in recent decades and then examines the ways in which these immigrants

are different from previous waves of immigrants, how they differ from the native-born, and how they are changing the overall demographics of the United States.

In the 50 years since the 1965 amendments to the INA passed, the demographics of immigration—and in consequence, the demographics of the United States—have changed dramatically. Before that law passed, the number of Americans who were foreign-born had declined steadily, shrinking from over 14 million in 1930 to less than 10 million in 1970 (see Figure 1-1 ). As a share of the total population, the foreign-born peaked at almost 15 percent at the turn of the 20th century and declined to less than 5 percent in 1970. After 1970, the number of foreign-born increased rapidly, doubling by 1990 to 19.9 million and doubling again by 2007 to 40.5 million.

Since the beginning of the Great Recession in 2007, net immigration to the United States appears to have plateaued and undocumented immigra-

tion appears to have declined, at least temporarily. In 2012, there were 41.7 million foreign-born in the United States, a relatively small 5-year increase compared to the rapid growth over the previous two decades. Today, 13 percent of the U.S. population is foreign-born, a proportion that is actually slightly lower than it was 100 years ago ( Figure 1-1 ).

Regions and Countries of Origin

The vast majority of immigrants in 1900 arrived from Europe; today, the majority come from Latin America and Asia. In 1960, over 60 percent of immigrants were from Europe (see Figure 1-2 ), and the top five countries of birth among the foreign-born were Canada, Germany, Italy, Poland, and the United Kingdom. 3 By 1970, Europeans comprised less than 50 percent of the foreign-born, and that percentage declined rapidly in the following decades. Meanwhile the share of foreign-born from Latin America and Asia has grown rapidly. Forty-four percent of the foreign-born in the United States in 2011 were from Latin America, and 28.6 percent were from Asian countries. The top five countries of birth among the foreign-born in 2010 were China, India, Mexico, the Philippines, and Vietnam. And while immigration from Africa is proportionately much smaller, the number of immigrants from that continent has also increased steadily since 1970.

Mexican immigration has been the driver for the dramatic growth in migration from Latin America since 1970. Today, almost one-third of the foreign-born are from Mexico (see Figure 1-3 ). Immigration from other parts of Latin America also increased: since 1990, the number of Central American immigrants in the United States has nearly tripled ( Stoney and Batalova, 2013 ). However, a major demographic shift in migration flows is occurring as Mexican immigration, in particular, has slowed and Asian immigration has increased. Between 2008 and 2009, Asian arrivals began to outpace immigration from Latin America; and in 2010, 36 percent of immigrants arrived from Asian countries, versus 31 percent from Latin America (see Figure 1-4 ). In 2013, China replaced Mexico as the top sending country for immigrants to the United States ( Jensen, 2015 ).

Race and Ethnicity

The United States has a long history of counting and classifying its population by race and ethnicity, beginning with the first Decennial Census in 1790 ( Prewitt, 2013 ). However, the categories of race and their interpretation have changed over time—in no small part due to immigration and the absorption of people from different parts of the world. The meaning of

3 See https://www.census.gov/how/pdf//Foreign-Born--50-Years-Growth.pdf [September 2015].

the term “race” itself has also changed. At the height of immigration from Europe, different national-origin groups such as the Irish, Poles, and Italians were considered “races” in popular understanding and by many social scientists, although these beliefs were not formalized in the official census classifications ( Snipp, 2003 ; Perez and Hirschman, 2009 ).

This report uses the federal (as defined by the Office of Management and Budget) race and ethnic categories, with Hispanics as an independent category alongside the major race groups (see Box 1-3 ). The panel uses the terms “race and ethnicity” and “ethnoracial categories” to refer to this classification scheme. For example, we report on the ethnoracial categories—white non-Hispanic, black non-Hispanic, Asian non-Hispanic, American Indian non-Hispanic, and Hispanic—when we are reporting on race and ethnic characteristics of the population. We use the terms “Hispanic” and “Latino” interchangeably to refer to the same group, as these terms are used to varying degrees in different parts of the country or are preferred by different individuals.

The racial and ethnic categorizations of the population are a good example of how immigration changes American society and American society changes immigrants. Census and survey data on race and ethnicity are based on the subjective identities (self-reports) of respondents who complete written forms or respond to interviewer questions, and respondents are free to check any listed category or to write in any group identity that

is not listed. Many immigrants remark that they learn their “official” ethnoracial identity soon after they arrive and are asked about it constantly: on government forms, when they register their children for school, on employment applications, etc. Many come to understand and identify with a racial or ethnic category that was often unfamiliar or meaningless before they immigrated. Black immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean had not thought of themselves as African Americans before immigrating to the United States, and the category “Asian” is often new to many people who had thought of themselves as Chinese or Pakistani before their arrival. In this sense, one can speak of people being “racialized” as they come to the United States. They may also face racial discrimination, based on neither their identity as immigrants nor their national origin identity but rather on their new “racial identity.”

The shift from European to Latin American and Asian migration has also significantly changed the racial and ethnic make-up of the United States (see Figures 1-5 and 1-6 ). In 1970, 83 percent of Americans were non-Hispanic white; today, that proportion is 62.4 percent. In 1970, Lati-

nos were approximately 4.6 percent of the total U.S. population. 4 In 2013, Latinos made up 17 percent of the U.S. population, with foreign-born Latinos accounting for 6 percent of the population, or about one-third of all Latinos. 5 Since 2000, the native-born Latino population grew at a faster rate than the foreign-born because of both a decline in migration from Mexico and an increasing number of native-born children of Latino immigrants. Overall, Latino population growth between 2000 and 2010 accounted for more than half of the nation’s population growth ( Passel et al., 2011 ).

Asians, meanwhile, have become the fastest-growing racial group in

4 The 1970 Decennial Census marked the Bureau’s first attempt to collect data for the entire Hispanic/Latino population. However, there were problems with data collection. For further discussion, see http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2010/03/03/census-history-countinghispanics-2/ [September 2015].

5 See http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/04/29/statistical-portrait-of-hispanics-in-the-unitedstates-2012/ , Table 1 [September 2015].

the United States ( Passel, 2013 ). In 1970 Asians accounted for less than 1 percent of the U.S. population, a reflection of long-term discriminatory regulations that banned most Asian immigration (see Chapter 2 ). In 2010, they made up almost 6 percent of the U.S. population, and 74 percent of them were foreign-born ( Passel, 2013 ).

The proportion of foreign-born among blacks in the United States is much smaller: only 9 percent in 2013. However, the number of black immigrants has increased steadily since 1970, 6 and immigrants accounted for at least 20 percent of the growth of the black population between 2000 and 2006 ( Kent, 2007 ).

Overall, racial and ethnic minorities accounted for 91.7 percent of the nation’s population growth between 2000 and 2010 ( Passel et al., 2011 ). Non-Hispanic whites are now a minority of all births, while fertility rates for Latinos, in particular, remain relatively high ( Monte and Ellis, 2014 ). 7 Today, there are four states where the majority of the population

6 See http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-184.html [September 2015].

7 See https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html [September 2015].

is “minority”—California, Hawaii, New Mexico, and Texas—plus the District of Columbia ( Desilver, 2015 ). It is not a coincidence that most of these states also have large immigrant populations. As discussed further below, the United States will be even more racially and ethnically diverse in the future, due to immigration, intermarriage, and fertility trends.

The foreign-born population is now much younger than it was 50 years ago ( Grieco et al., 2012 ). 8 The median age for the foreign-born declined dramatically after the 1965 amendments to the INA, dropping from 51.8 years in 1970 to 39.9 in 1980. 9 Before 1970, over half of all foreign-born in the United States were over the age of 50 (see Figure 1-7 ) and the foreign-born were mostly European immigrants who arrived during the earlier wave at the turn of the 20th century. By 2000, only 20 percent were in this age category, while 70 percent were between the ages of 18 and 54. However, after bottoming out at 37.2 years in 1990, the median age of the foreign-born began to creep upward as the proportion under the age of 18 declined. In 2012, the median age of the foreign-born was 41.4 years, compared to 35.9 years among the native-born. 10 , 11

Part of the explanation for the higher median age of the foreign-born is the large number of second generation Americans under the age of 18, which pulls down the median age of the native-born (see Figure 1-8 ). The vast majority of immigrants are of child-bearing age, and immigrants generally have higher fertility rates than the native-born (see Figure 1-9 ). In 2013, 37.1 million Americans, or about 12 percent of the population, were members of the second generation, and one-fourth of all children in the United States (17.4 million) had at least one foreign-born parent. 12 This has particular significance for the future racial and ethnic composition of the country because so many of the second generation are racial and ethnic minorities. The panel discusses the implications of this increasing diversity

8 The median age for foreign-born from Mexico and Central America is the lowest at 38, while the median age for foreign-born from the Caribbean is the highest at 47. See http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/01/29/statistical-portrait-of-the-foreign-born-population-in-the-unitedstates-2011/ [September 2015].

9 See http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2012/demo/POPtwps0096.pdf [September 2015].

10 See http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/frequently-requested-statistics-immigrants-and-immigration-united-states [September 2015].

11 Since the children of immigrants born in the United States count as native-born, and the majority of those immigrating are adults, the median age for immigrants is generally higher than it is for the native-born.

12 See https://www.census.gov/population/foreign/files/cps2010/T4.2010.pdf [September 2015].

among the native-born in the population projections below and in the chapters that follow.

The gender ratio for the foreign-born is generally balanced, with 101 males for every 100 females (see Table 1-1 ). 13 The native-born population, on the other hand, skews toward more females, with a gender ratio of 95

13 See http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/sex-ratios-foreign-born-united-states [September 2015].

males per 100 females. As the ratios by age in Table-1-1 show, these ratios vary by age because women live longer than men and because the age structure of migrants is concentrated in the young-adult working ages. Thus, a better measure is to examine gender ratios that have been age standardized. Donato and Gabaccia (2015 , p. 154) created age-standardized gender ratios for the years 1850-2010, and these are plotted in Figure 1-10 .

Gender ratios for all of the foreign-born have varied over time, with the percentage of women among immigrants growing. The gender composition among immigrants shifted from male dominated toward gender balanced in the 1930s and was gender balanced by the 1970s. Unstandardized rates show women at above 50 percent of the stock of immigrants beginning in 1970; standardized rates indicate a gender balanced stock where women comprise about 50 percent of the foreign-born after 1970 ( Donato et.al., 2011 ).

As Donato and colleagues (2011 , 2015 ) point out, because Mexicans are such a large percentage of recent immigrant flows after 1970 and because they are a much more male-dominated migration stream, it is useful to separate the gender ratio for all immigrants from the gender ratio for Mexican migrants ( Figure 1-10 ). The lines diverge beginning in 1970 when men were predominant among the Mexican foreign-born, whereas among the rest of the foreign-born women’s share continued to grow. By 2010 the percentage of females was 50 percent for all the foreign-born in the United States and was slightly higher at 51 percent when Mexicans are excluded.

Nonetheless, the gender ratios for specific source countries vary widely. India (138 males per 100 females) and Mexico (124 per 100) have male-to-female gender ratios well above the median, as do El Salvador (110 males per 100 females) and Haiti (109 per 100). Germany (64 males per 100 females), South Korea (65 per 100), the Dominican Republic (68 per 100), the Philippines (71 per 100), and Japan (74 per 100) all have much lower ratios of males to females, indicating that more females than males may be immigrating from those countries but also reflecting the age structures of the different immigrant populations (older populations in source countries such as Germany and Japan will reflect the demographic that women live longer than men in those countries).

The gender-balanced immigrant population of today reflects a complex mix of factors including shifts in labor demand, civil strife around the world leading to more refugees, and increased state regulation of migration ( Donato and Gabaccia, 2015 , p. 178; Oishi, 2005 ). Many women immigrate and work. No matter how they enter—on a family preference visa, as a close relative exempt from numerical limitations, without legal documents, or with an H-1B or other employment worker visa—most are employed in the United States after entering and are therefore meeting market demands for labor. The increasing percentage of women among immigrants

TABLE 1-1 Male to Female Ratio among Immigrants to the United States, 1870-2000

	Males per 100 Females among U.S. Immigrants
	1870	1880	1890	1900	1910	1920	1930	1940	1950	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000
Total	117.4	119.1	121.2	119.5	131.1	122.9	116.6	111.8	103.3	95.6	84.4	87.8	95.8	99.0
Under 15 years	103.5	102.0	103.1	101.9	102.2	102.0	102.0	102.1	104.1	102.5	102.7	104.7	106.0	104.6
15 to 64 years	119.1	117.5	120.8	121.7	133.9	124.7	117.3	112.7	103.7	92.9	83.8	91.9	101.6	103.9
15 to 44 years	114.3	115.7	122.5	121.8	137.2	123.3	114.6	99.5	89.4	83.5	80.8	97.6	109.6	110.2
15 to 24 years	101.5	102.2	104.1	98.3	126.6	97.0	96.4	93.9	82.5	86.2	88.1	110.2	121.9	121.3
25 to 44 years	119.3	120.2	130.5	131.0	141.3	130.5	118.5	100.1	90.5	82.7	78.4	92.5	105.6	106.9
45 to 64 years	134.7	121.2	117.2	121.4	126.5	127.4	121.4	123.0	111.3	99.7	87.8	80.4	83.3	89.9
65 years and older	111.4	109.8	112.2	108.5	105.3	104.7	107.7	104.9	102.3	100.0	82.4	69.7	64.1	65.6

SOURCE: Data from U.S. Census Bureau Decennial Census. Also see Gibson and Jung (2006) , Hobbs and Stoops (2002) , and Ruggles et al. (2010) .

thus reflects a much stronger demand for labor in a variety of occupations such as domestic service, child care, health care, factory assembly work, and food processing/production. The gender imbalance in deportations may also contribute to the feminization of Latino immigration, in particular ( Mexican Migration Monitor, 2012 ). The increase in human trafficking in the United States and globally also contributes to the feminization of immigration ( Pettman, 1996 ).

Geographic Dispersal

A key component of the story of recent immigration is the significant geographic dispersal of immigrants across the United States. Historically, immigrants tended to cluster in a handful of traditional gateway cities or states, such as California, Illinois, New York, and Texas. Although these states are still the most popular destinations and have the largest numbers of foreign-born, recent years have seen immigration to states that had not previously witnessed a large influx of foreign-born. The panel discusses this geographic dispersal in further detail in Chapter 5 , but we highlight some of the most important trends here.

Six states—California, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, New York, and Texas—attract the largest proportion of the foreign-born, but that share has

declined in recent years, from 73 percent in 1990 to 64 percent in 2012. 14 The states with the fastest growth in immigrants today are in the South and West: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Virginia. Although the numbers in many of these states are still relatively small, some saw more than 400 percent growth in their foreign-born population since 1990. The rapid growth of immigration in the South and Midwest and in the Mountain States has been dramatic in the last few decades. Many of these receiving communities were either all white or contained a mix of black and white residents but had virtually no Latino or Asian residents. The sudden influx of Latino and Asian immigrants, many of whom are undocumented, has challenged long-established racial and social hierarchies, has posed new problems for school systems who had not previously dealt with children in need of instruction in English as a second language, and sometimes has led to negative attitudes and anti-immigrant backlash. Other communities, particularly declining rural areas, have welcomed the new influx as a way to revitalize small communities that were experiencing long-term population decline.

Immigration has also broadened from traditional gateway cities, such as Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York City, to other metropolitan areas—including Atlanta, Dallas, Las Vegas, and Washington, D.C. Many immigrants to these metro areas are finding homes in the suburbs. 15 And while overall immigration to rural areas is relatively small, some rural counties have witnessed a surge in Latino immigration, particularly in places where meat processing plants are major employers. 16 This influx of immigrants has created new challenges for communities and local institutions that have not previously had to create or maintain integrative services (see Chapter 5 ).

The European immigrants who arrived at the turn of the 20th century had less formal schooling than the native-born; on average, immigrants from southern, eastern, and central Europe had a little more than 4 years of education versus 8 years for the native-born ( Perlmann, 2005 ). Rates of illiteracy in 1910 were less than 10 percent among immigrants from northwestern Europe and about 20 to 50 percent among immigrants from eastern and southern Europe ( Lieberson, 1963 , pp. 72-73). By 1920, with rising educational levels

14 Data are from Jeffrey Passel, Pew Research Center, presentation to the Panel on the Integration of Immigrants into American Society on January 16, 2014.

15 See http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/twenty-first-century-gateways-immigrants-suburban-america [August 2015].

16 See http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/in-the-news/immigration-and-the-rural-workforce.aspx#Foreign [August 2015].

in Europe and the imposition of a literacy test in 1917, illiteracy was generally less than 2 to 3 percent for most immigrant streams from all European countries. The educational attainment of the second generation from European immigration generally matched the larger native-born population, demonstrating large strides in just one generation ( Perlmann, 2005 ).

Since 1970, although immigrants’ education level has increased, either before arrival or after they have reached the United States, immigrants are still overrepresented among the least educated: 31.7 percent have less than a high school degree, compared to 11 percent of the native-born. 17 However, the educational attainment of immigrants has risen since 1980 ( Hall et al., 2011 ). In 2013, 28 percent had a bachelor’s degree or higher, and a slightly higher proportion of immigrants than native-born had advanced degrees (see Figure 1-11 ). Meanwhile the largest proportion of the foreign-born are actually in the middle range of educational achievement: more than 40 percent have a high school diploma and/or some college.

Educational attainment varies a great deal in relation to immigrants’ regions of origin. Despite some national variations, Asians and Europeans are generally as highly educated or more highly educated than native-born Americans. Almost 50 percent of the foreign-born from Asia and 39.1 percent from Europe have a bachelor’s degree or higher, versus 27.9 percent of the U.S.-born population. But only 12.3 percent of Latin American immigrants have a bachelor’s degree, and immigrants from Mexico and

17 See http://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf [May 2015].

Central America, in particular, are much more likely to have very low levels of education. However, there is evidence that second generation Latinos make great strides in education, despite their parents’ relatively low socioeconomic status. The panel discusses this further in Chapter 6 .

In addition to lower levels of education, European immigrants at the turn of the last century also earned less than their native-born counterparts ( Perlmann, 2005 ). Immigrants from southern, eastern, and central Europe in particular tended to work in low-skilled jobs where wages were particularly low. However, wage inequalities between immigrants and the native-born declined over time, and the second generation nearly closed the wage gap, earning within 10 percent of the children of native-born Americans ( Perlmann, 2005 ).

A similar pattern of intergenerational change over time occurs in earnings and household income when one examines changes between the first and second generation (see Chapter 6 ). Among the present-day first generation, the earnings of foreign-born workers are still generally lower than earnings of the native-born, and the gap is particularly large for men. The median income for full-time, year-round, native-born male workers is $50,534, compared to just $36,960 for foreign-born men (for comparisons for both men and women, see Figure 1-12 ). The income gap for foreign-born versus native-born is wider for men than for women. Nearly one-third of the foreign-born make less than $25,000 per year, compared to 19 percent of the native-born, and although almost 20 percent of immigrants make over $75,000, the native-born outpace them in every income category above $35,000 (see Figure 1-13 ).

Not surprisingly, native-born head of households also have higher incomes than those headed by the foreign-born. Overall, the average household income of the foreign-born was $48,137 in 2013, compared to $53,997 in native-born households. However, as with education, there is variation based on immigrants’ region of origin. As Figure 1-14 shows, the median household incomes for immigrants from Asia, Canada, Europe, and Oceania (the region including Australia, Fiji, and New Zealand) are higher than native-born median household income, while the median immigrant household from Latin America had a much lower income than the median native-born household. Part of the explanation for this variation is the bimodal nature of the labor market and different immigrant groups’ representation in particular types of occupations, as described below.

A common perception of immigrant labor force participation is the concentration of immigrants in occupational niches. In fact, immigrants do not dominate in any single occupation, although there is geographical variation in the extent to which they are represented among agricultural workers, for instance, or health care workers. There are important variations by region of origin, however. Asian immigrants, particularly those from China and India, are overrepresented in professional occupations, including those in health care, engineering, and information technology. Immigrants from Latin America, meanwhile, are more concentrated in lower-skilled, lower-paying occupations in construction and in the service and retail industries (see Chapter 6 for further discussion).

In recent decades, as immigration has been high, the U.S. poverty rate has also been stubbornly high. Rising income inequality and the declining wages of those with low education since the 1970s likely hit immigrants and their families particularly hard, as they are overrepresented among

lower-educated workers. Unlike earlier European immigrants and their descendants, who benefited from the decline in income inequality and the growth in wages among those at the bottom of the labor market in the period beginning in the 1930s, current immigrants are entering a U.S. economy that sees declining fortunes at the bottom of the income distribution. Real wages for those without a college degree have fallen 26 percent since 1970, and for males without a high school degree they have fallen a remarkable 38 percent ( Greenstone and Looney, 2011 ). Chapter 6 discusses intergenerational trends in poverty, which do show some progress over time. However, this progress begins at a low level, as the foreign-born are more likely than the native-born to be poor.

The poverty rate for immigrants is a cause for particular concern because many immigrants are barred from participation in social welfare programs that aid the impoverished. As Figure 1-15 illustrates, 18.7 percent of the foreign-born are impoverished, compared to 15.4 percent of the native-born, a difference of just over 3 percentage points, while the proportion of immigrants living within 200 percent of the poverty level is 6 percentage points higher than it is for the native-born. Considering that the poverty threshold for a family of four is $23,850 and 30 percent of immigrants make less than $25,000 a year, the higher proportion of immigrant households at or near poverty is unsurprising.

The differences in houshold income distribution relative to the poverty

level becomes even more alarming for families with children. While 1 in 10 native-born families are impoverished, almost 18 percent of foreign-born families live below the poverty level (see Figure 1-16 ). The differences are particularly stark for families in which a married couple has children. Only 4.4 percent of native-born families with two parents are impoverished, but over 13 percent of foreign-born two-parent families live in poverty. This means a much larger proportion of children of foreign-born parents are living in poverty, even in cases where there is an intact household and both parents may be working. Although many of these children are U.S. citizens themselves, and some social welfare programs for children are available regardless of nativity (e.g., the Women, Infants, and Children Supplemental Nutrition Program of the Food and Nutrition Service; free and reduced school meals), the fact that their parents are often prevented from accessing social welfare programs makes these families’ financial situations even more precarious ( Yoshikawa, 2011 ).

Legal Status

A key finding in this report is the importance of legal status and its impact on immigrants’ integration prospects. Although some distinctions

in status existed in the past, the complicated system of statuses that exists today is unprecedented in U.S. history.

As discussed in detail in Chapter 2 , an unintended consequence of the 1965 amendments to the INA and the immigration legislation that followed was to dramatically increase both legal and undocumented immigration to the United States. In response, rather than initiating overarching reform, the federal government has been reactive, creating piecemeal changes that grant certain groups or persons in specific situations various legal statuses. Some of these statuses provide clear pathways to lawful permanent residence and citizenship, but many are explicitly designed to be temporary and discourage permanent settlement in the United States. Meanwhile, federal, state, and local legislation has increasingly used legal status as a dividing line between those who can access various social services and those who are excluded from portions of the social safety net.

Chapter 3 outlines the current major legal statuses and examines how these statuses may aid or hinder immigrant integration. Legal status provides a continuum of integrative potential, with naturalized citizenship at one end and undocumented status at the other. However, many immigrants move back and forth along that continuum, gaining or losing statuses during the course of their residence in the United States. And despite the inherent uncertainty of temporary or undocumented statuses, it is important to understand that as long as immigrants reside in the United States, regardless of their legal status, immigrants are starting families, sending their children to schools, working in the labor market, paying taxes, attending churches, and participating in civic organizations. They interact on a daily basis across a variety of social environments with the native-born population. In effect, they are integrating into American society and culture.

Particularly important to the discussion of legal status and immigrant integration is the undocumented population. Between 1990 and 2007, the number of undocumented immigrants in the United States tripled (see Figure 1-17 ). Although unauthorized immigration declined somewhat after 2007 in response to the Great Recession, there are currently an estimated 11.3 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States ( Passel et al., 2014 ). As noted above, this situation is unprecedented because, during the last great wave of immigration, there were relatively few obstacles to entry. The social and legal challenges facing undocumented immigrants create significant barriers to integration, a consequence discussed in detail in Chapter 3 and referred to throughout this report.

DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS

The increase in immigration since 1970 has its primary impact on the growth of the foreign-born population. But immigration also has secondary

effects through the children and subsequent descendant of the foreign-born. The children of immigrants (or the second generation) are native-born and are American citizens at birth but can be considered as part of the broadly defined immigrant community. The second generation is generally reared within the culture and community of their immigrant parents, and their first language is often their parents’ mother tongue, even as they usually make great strides in integrating into the American mainstream.

In 1970, the second generation population was about twice the size of the foreign-born population—almost 24 million. The large second generation population in the 1960s and 1970s was the product of the early 20th century immigrant wave from eastern and southern Europe. Almost all were adults and many were elderly. By the first decade of the 21st century, there was a new second generation population: the children of the post-1965 wave of immigrants from Latin America and Asia. Currently about one-quarter of all U.S. children are first generation or second generation immigrants.

Recent immigrants and their descendants will continue to affect the demography of the United States for many years to come. In late 2014 and early 2015, the U.S. Census Bureau released a new update of population projections from 2015 to 2060, with a primary emphasis on the impact

of immigration on population growth, composition, and diversity ( U.S. Census Bureau 2014a ; Colby and Ortman, 2015 ). Historically, projections of net immigration to the United States were little more than conjectures based on recent trends and ad hoc assumptions. In recent years, the Census Bureau has adopted a new methodology based on a predictive model of future emigration rates from major sending countries and regions, informed by recent trends in immigration ( U.S. Census Bureau, 2014b ).

The Census Bureau projects that the number of foreign-born persons residing in the United States will increase from just over 41 million to more than 78 million between 2013 and 2060, with their population share rising from 13.1 percent to 18.8 percent (see Figure 1-18 ). Although the Census Bureau projects a slowing trend in the relative growth rate of the foreign-born population (from more than 2% to less than 1%) and a decline in absolute numbers of immigrants per year (from over 900,000 to less than 600,000), most of the growth of the U.S. population in the coming decades will be due to immigration, including both the increase from the immigrants themselves and the increase from their higher fertility rates. Fertility-related increase is projected to decline even faster as the population ages, and much of the projected natural increase of the native-born population is also due

to immigration. The Census Bureau projects that over 20 percent of the births in the United States between now and 2060 will be to foreign-born mothers ( Colby and Ortman, 2015 ). Without new immigrants and their children, the United States is projected to experience population decline in the coming years.

The most controversial aspects of the new population projections are the impact of immigration on population diversity and the prediction that the U.S. population will become a majority minority population; that is, non-Hispanic whites will be less than half of the total population by the middle of the 21st century ( Colby and Ortman, 2015 , Table 2). However, a significant share of this change is due to the changes in the measurement of race and ethnicity in recent years.

There is little doubt that the massive wave of immigration of recent decades has changed the composition of the American population. In 2010, almost 15 million Americans claimed an Asian American identity and over 50 million reported themselves to be Hispanic ( Humes et al., 2011 ). These numbers and future projections must be understood in light of a complex system of measurement of race and ethnicity in federal statistics, discussed above. As noted earlier, Hispanic ethnicity is measured on a separate census/survey question from race, so Hispanics may be of any race. In 2010, more than half (53%) of Hispanics reported that they were “white” on the race question, a little more than a third (36.7%) chose “Some Other Race” (many wrote in a Latin American national origin), and 6 percent chose multiracial (mostly “Some Other Race” and “white”). Multiple race reporting was only 2 to 3 percent in the 2000 and 2010 censuses, but it is projected to increase in the coming decades, perhaps to 6 percent, or 26 million Americans, in 2060 ( Colby and Ortman, 2015 , Table 2).

The Census Bureau projects that 28.6 percent of Americans will be Hispanic in 2060, 14.3 to 17.9 percent will be black, 9.3 to 11.7 percent will be Asian, 1.3 to 2.4 percent will be American Indian or Alaskan Native, and 0.3 to 0.7 percent will be Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. The range of uncertainty in these projections depends on how persons who claim multiple racial identities (“race alone or in combination” in census terminology) are counted. “One race” non-Hispanic whites are projected to be 43.6 percent of all Americans in 2060 ( Colby and Ortman 2015 , Table 2). However, all whites (including Hispanic whites and all multiracial persons who checked “white”) are projected to be 74.3 percent of the American population in 2060 ( Colby and Ortman 2015 , Table 2).

It is impossible to predict the future ethnoracial population of the United States with numerical precision, but general trends are foreseeable. There will be more persons with diverse heritage, including a very large number of persons with ancestry from Latin America: likely more than a quarter of all Americans in 2060. Among the less predictable consequences

are whether these ancestral origins will be important in terms of language, culture, residential location, or choice of marital partners.

AMERICAN ATTITUDES ABOUT IMMIGRATION

An important but misunderstood component of immigrant integration is native-born attitudes toward immigration and immigrants. Immigration has been hotly debated in American elections and in the media, and based on these debates, one might think that Americans are deeply concerned with the issue and that many, perhaps even the majority, are opposed to immigration. Polling data suggest that this is not the case: most Americans assess immigration positively. Figure 1-19 shows the results of a poll question, asked from 2001 to 2014, on Americans’ overall assessment about whether “Immigration is a good thing or a bad thing for this country today.” In every year of the polling period, a majority of Americans say that immigration is a good thing, reaching a high of 72 percent in 2013 before falling to 63 percent in 2014.

Polling results also show that an increasing number of Americans (57% in 2005, up from 37% in 1993) think that immigrants contribute to the United States, and one-half feel that immigrants pay their fair share of taxes. Yet this is counterbalanced by the significant proportion, 42 percent, who think immigrants cost taxpayers too much ( Segovia and Defever, 2010 , pp. 380-381). The majority of Americans do not believe that recent immigrants take jobs away from U.S. citizens, and they believe that the jobs immigrants take are ones that Americans do not want ( Segovia and Defever, 2010 , p. 383). When asked specifically about immigration and whether

illegal or legal immigration is a bigger problem, respondents in a 2006 Pew survey were much more likely to say that it was illegal immigration (60%) than legal immigration (4%), with 22 percent saying both were of equal importance and 11 percent saying neither ( Pew Research Center, 2006 ; Segovia and Defever, 2010 , p. 379).

Opinion polls since 1964 have asked questions to solicit respondents’ assessment of their ideal level of immigration ( Segovia and Defever, 2010 ; Saad, 2014 ). For example, “Should immigration be kept at the present level, increased, or decreased?” These opinions do not necessarily match the actions that Congress takes. In 1964, for example, just before the passage of the 1965 Immigration Act that vastly increased immigration to the United States, almost one-half of respondents (48%) liked the present level of immigration and 38 percent wanted a reduction ( Lapinski et al., 1997 , pp. 360-361).

More recent polling data from 1999-2014 show that the dominant view of the public about the desired level of immigration is for a decrease, followed closely by maintaining it at current levels ( Saad, 2014 ). However, support for increasing immigration levels has been rising over the last 15 years. There has been a doubling of the percentage who said that the level should be increased, from 10 percent in 1999 to 22 percent in 2014. Not surprisingly, immigrants are more favorable toward maintaining current levels of immigration than are the native-born. Only 17 percent of the foreign-born, compared to 60 percent of the native-born, told pollsters in 2014 that immigrant levels should be decreased. Urban residents and the highly educated are more supportive of expanding immigration than are those in rural areas and those with less than a college education. ( Saad, 2014 , p. 5).

While Americans have generally preferred to decrease the number of immigrants coming to the United States, they have also tended to resist mass deportation as the solution to the problem of unauthorized immigration. For example, in the CBS/New York Times Poll in 2006 and 2007, the proportion favoring legalization was consistent at around 62 percent, 18 while the proportion favoring deportation was considerably lower, at around 33 percent. 19 In later years, the New York Times Poll split the legalization option into two possibilities: for immigrants to either (1) stay in the United States and eventually apply for citizenship or (2) stay but not qualify for

18 Support for legalization was 62 percent in May 2006, 60 percent in March 2007, 61 percent in May 2007, and 65 percent in June 2007. See http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_bush_050906.pdf , http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/052407_immigration.pdf , and http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/062807_immigration.pdf [September 2015].

19 Support for deportation was 33 percent in May 2006, 36 percent in March 2007, 35 percent and 28 percent in May 2007. Sources: CBS News Poll webpages cited in the preceding footnote.

citizenship. 20 Less than a third of respondents preferred deportation over legalization, while nearly one-half supported legalization with a pathway to citizenship. Only about 19 percent favored legalization without the possibility of citizenship.

In general, most Americans do not think immigration is as important as many other issues facing the country. From 1994 to 2014, immigration is mentioned as the most important issue facing the country today by only about 1 percent to 3 percent of Americans. By contrast, the economy, unemployment, and health care consistently receive higher mentions. 21 Even at times when immigration reform is very much in the news and high on legislators’ agenda; it is not the top issue for the vast majority of Americans.

Attitudes on immigration have recently become decoupled from strictly economic concerns. While restrictive attitudes on immigration tended to go up significantly during recessions and periods of high unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s ( Lapinski et al., 1997 ), there is no clear relationship among aggregate economic output, unemployment, and immigration attitudes after 2001. Furthermore, observational and experimental studies of immigration opinion have found that personal economic circumstances bear little or no relationship to restrictive attitudes on immigration ( Citrin et al., 1997 ; Hainmuller and Hiscox, 2010 ). There also is not a fixed relationship between local demographic composition and concentration of immigrants and attitudes toward immigrants. Rather, the broader political context (whether immigration is nationally salient and being widely debated and reported on) interacts with local demographics. Hopkins (2010) found that when immigration is nationally salient, a growing population of immigrants is associated with more restrictionist views, but demography does not predict attitudes when immigration is not nationally salient.

So even though immigration is rarely mentioned as an important policy issue by the American public, and despite consistent majority support for legalization of the undocumented, immigration remains a contentious topic. As past research has shown, this level of heightened attention and polarization on immigration is evident more among party activists than among the general electorate ( Skocpol and Williamson, 2012 ; Parker and Barreto, 2014 ) and is often the result of agenda-setting and mobilization by key media personalities and political actors, rather than emerging from widespread popular sentiment ( Hopkins, 2010 ; Gulasekaram and Ramakrishnan, 2015 ).

Concern about immigration is also fueled by misconceptions about

20 See http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1302290/sept14b-politics-trn.pdf [September 2015].

21 Panel’s analysis of Gallup toplines obtained from Roper Center Public Opinion Archives, University of Connecticut, see http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/ [September 2015].

immigrants and the process of integration. Americans have been found to overestimate the size of the nonwhite population ( Wong, 2007 ), to erroneously believe that immigrants commit more crime than natives ( Simes and Waters, 2013 ), and to worry that immigrants and their children are not learning English ( Hopkins et al., 2014 ). A sense of cultural threat to national identity and culture, rooted in a worry about integration, therefore seems to underly many Americans’ worries about immigration ( Hainmueller and Hopkins, 2014 ).

IMPLICATIONS

The United States has witnessed major changes in the demographic make-up of immigrants since 1970. Prior to the passage of the 1965 amendments to the INA, the majority of immigration to the United States originated from Europe. After 1965, the United States witnessed a surge of immigration from Latin America and Asia, creating a much more racially and ethnically diverse society. This new wave of immigration is more balanced in terms of gender ratios but varies in terms of skills and education, both from earlier immigration patterns and by region of origin. Immigrants are more geographically dispersed throughout the country than ever before. And since 1990 in particular, the United States has witnessed an enormous influx of undocumented immigrants, a legal category that was barely recognized 100 years ago. 22

The demographic trends described above have broad implications for immigrant integration that cut across the various social dimensions discussed in this report. Just as in the past, American society is adjusting to the fact that a high proportion of the population is composed of immigrants and their descendants. But the differences between earlier waves of immigrants and more recent arrivals present new challenges to integration.

One key issue is the role of racial discrimination in the integration of immigrants and their descendants. Scholars debate how much racial and ethnic discrimination is directed toward immigrants and their children, whether immigration and the complexity it brings to our racial and ethnic classification system will ultimately lead to a blurring or hardening of the boundaries separating groups, what kinds of racial and ethnic distinctions that we see now will persist into the future, and what kinds will become less socially meaningful (for recent reviews, see Lee and Bean, 2012 ; Alba and Nee, 2009 ). Sometimes these questions are framed as a debate about

22 Many scholars have described Chinese immigrants who arrived after the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 as the first “illegal aliens.” Ngai (2004) describes the evolution of the term as having roots in the experiences of these Chinese immigrants and then being more broadly applied after the 1920s.

where the “color line” will be drawn in the 21st century. Will immigrants and their children who are Asian and Latino remain distinct, or will their relatively high intermarriage rates with whites lead to a blurring of the line separating the groups, similar in many ways to what happened to groups of European origin, who developed optional or voluntary ethnicities that no longer affect their life chances ( Alba and Nee, 2003 ; Waters, 1990 )? This debate also focuses on African Americans and the historically durable line separating them from whites, one enforced until recently by the legal prohibition on intermarriage between blacks and whites and the norm of the one-drop rule, which defined any racially mixed person as black ( Lee and Bean, 2012 ).

There is evidence on both sides of this debate. High intermarriage rates of both Asians and Latinos with whites, as well as patterns of racial integration in some neighborhoods, point to possible future blurring of the boundaries separating these groups (see Chapter 8 ). The association between Latinos and undocumented immigration, however, may be leading to a pattern of heightened discrimination against Latinos. The negative framing of undocumented immigrants as illegal criminals, alien invaders, and terrorists, along with the conflation of undocumented and documented migrants in public discourse, contributes to the racialization of Latinos as a despised out-group. Discrimination against Hispanics may have been exacerbated by the criminalization of undocumented hiring and the imposition of employer sanctions under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which encouraged employers either to avoid Latino immigrants who “looked Hispanic” ( Lowell et al., 1995 ) or to pay lower wages to compensate themselves for the risk of hiring undocumented foreigners ( Lowell and Jing 1994 ; Sorensen and Bean 1994 ; Fry et al., 1995 ; Cobb-Clark et al., 1995 ).

To the extent that immigrants today are racialized, they can be expected to be subject to systematic discrimination and exclusion, thus compromising their integration into U.S. society. Immigrants with darker skin earn significantly less than those with lighter skin in U.S. labor markets ( Frank et al., 2010 ; Hersch, 2008 ; 2011 ). And stereotypical markers of Hispanic origin such as indigenous features and brown skin, have come to trigger discrimination and exclusion within American society ( Chavez, 2008 ; Lee and Fiske, 2006 ; Massey, 2007 , 2014 ; Massey and Denton, 1992 ; Massey and Sanchez, 2010 ; Turner et al., 2002 ).

Discrimination, skin color, and socioeconomic status may interact to particularly affect ethnoracial self-identification among Latin American immigrants, who come from a region where race is more often seen as a continuum than a dichotomy. For instance, upon arrival, many Latin American immigrants select “other” when asked about their race, corresponding to a racially mixed identity. However, with rising socioeconomic status, they

are more likely to become familiar with U.S. racial taxonomies and select “white” as their racial identity ( Duncan and Trejo, 2011 ; Pulido and Pastor, 2013 ). Investigators studying immigrant integration must therefore remember that self-identifications are both causes and consequences of integration and socioeconomic mobility, sometimes making it difficult to measure such mobility over time (discussed further in Chapter 6 ). Chapter 10 describes the kinds of longitudinal data on immigrants and their children that would enable much more accurate measurement of this change.

The ubiquity and the vagaries of racial and ethnic categorization in American society, along with the scarcity of data on immigration and especially on the second generation, means that there is often conceptual confusion in interpreting trends and statistics not only on racial and ethnic inequality but also on immigrant integration. For example, the gap between Hispanic and white graduation rates in the United States is sometimes interpreted to mean a deep crisis exists in our education system. But Latino graduation rates include about one-third of people who are foreign-born, many of whom completed their schooling in countries such as Mexico, with a much lower overall educational distribution. Throughout the report, the panel tries to specify the intersection between national origin and generation to analyze change over time among immigrants and their descendants. This careful attention to specifying the groups we are analyzing is made difficult by the scarcity of data sources containing the relevant variables. The most glaring problem is that the Decennial Census and American Community Survey do not contain a question on parental birthplace. We return to this issue in Chapter 10 when we discuss data recommendations.

The implications of this debate about the role of racial discrimination in limiting opportunities for immigrants and their children are profound. One out of four children today are the children of immigrants, and the question of whether their ethnoracial identity will hold them back from full and equal participation in our society is an open one. Throughout the report, the panel presents reasons for optimism about the ability of U.S. society to move beyond discrimination and prejudice, as well as particular reasons for concern that discrimination and prejudice will affect immigrants and their descendants negatively. While the panel cannot provide a definitive answer at this time, we do include the best evidence on both sides of this question.

REPORT ORGANIZATION

In the following chapters, the panel surveys the empirical evidence on how immigrant and generational status has been and continues to be predictive of integration into American society. In Chapter 2 , we review the legal and institutional context for immigrant integration, including the

historical construction of the U.S. immigration system, the emergence of the current system of legal statuses, and the tensions inherent in the uniquely American brand of “immigration federalism.” Chapter 3 discusses the central role legal status plays in the integration of both immigrants and their descendants and examines the largest and most important legal statuses in detail. Chapter 4 details the political and civic dimensions of integration with a focus on naturalization. Chapter 5 focuses on the spatial dimensions of integration at each level of geography, emphasizing the importance of place and contexts of reception. Chapter 6 examines the socioeconomic dimensions of immigrant integration, including education, income, and occupation. Chapter 7 discusses sociocultural aspects of integration, including language, religion, attitudes of both immigrants and the native-born, and crime. Family dimensions, including intermarriage, fertility, and family form, are the focus of Chapter 8 . Chapter 9 outlines the health dimensions of integration, including the apparent immigrant health paradox. Finally, in Chapter 10 the panel assesses the available data for studying immigrant integration and makes recommendations for improving available data sources.

Alba, R., and Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary Immigration . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Alba, R., Reitz, J.G., and Simon, P. (2012). National conceptions of assimilation, integration, and cohesion. In M. Crul and J. Mollenkopf (Eds.), The Changing Face of World Cities: Young Adult Children of Immigrants in Europe and the United States (pp. 41-61). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Brown, S.K., and Bean, F.D. (2006). Assimilation models, old and new: Explaining a long-term process. Migration Information Source , 3-41.

Chavez, C. (2008). Conceptualizing from the inside: Advantages, complications, and demands on insider positionality. The Qualitative Report , 13 (3), 474-494.

Chellaraj, G., Maskus, K.E., and Mattoo, A. (2008). The contribution of international graduate students to U.S. innovation. Review of International Economics, 16 , 444-462.

Choldin, H.M. (1986). Statistics and politics: The “Hispanic issue” in the 1980 census. Demography , 23 (3), 403-418.

Citrin, J., Green, D.P., Muste, C., and Wong, C. (1997). Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics , 59 (03), 858-881.

Cobb-Clark, D.A., Shiells, C.R., and Lowell, B.L. (1995). Immigration reform: The effects of employer sanctions and legalization on wages. Journal of Labor Economics , 472-498.

Colby, S.L., and Ortman, J.M. (2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060. Current Population Reports, P25-1143. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p25-1143.pdf [May 2015].

de Crèvecoeur, J. Hector St. John (1782). Letters from an American Farmer and Sketches of Eighteenth-Century America . London, UK: Davies & Davis.

Desilver, D. (2015). Share of Counties Where Whites Are a Minority Has Doubled since 1980. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewresearch.org/facttank/2015/07/01/share-of-counties-where-whites-are-a-minority-has-doubled-since-1980/ [July 2015].

Donato, K.M., and Gabaccia, D. (2015). Gender and International Migration . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Donato, K.M., Alexander, J.T., Gabaccia, D.R., and Leinonen, J. (2011). Variations in the gender composition of immigrant populations: How they matter. International Migration Review , 45 (3), 495-526.

Duncan, B., and Trejo, S.J. (2011). Tracking intergenerational progress for immigrant groups: The problem of ethnic attrition. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 101 (3), 603-608.

Frank, R., Akresh, I.R., and Lu, B. (2010). Latino immigrants and the U.S. racial order how and where do they fit in? American Sociological Review, 75( 3), 378-401.

Fry, R., Lowell, B.L., and Haghighat, E. (1995). The impact of employer sanctions on metropolitan wage rates. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society , 34 (3), 464-484.

Gibson, C., and Jung, K. (2006). Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850-2000. Population Division Working Paper No. 81. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.

Grasmuck, S., and Pessar, P.R. (1991). Between Two Islands: Dominican International Migration . Oakland: University of California Press.

Greenstone, M., and Looney, A. (2011). Trends: Reduced earnings for men in America. The Milken Institute Review, Third Quarter , 8-16. Available: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/files/downloads_and_links/07_milken_greenstone_looney.pdf [May 2015].

Grieco, E.M., Acosta, Y.D., de la Cruz, G.P., Gambino, C., Gryb, T., Larsen, L.J., Trevelyan, E.N., and Walters, N.P. (2012). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2010. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: https://www.census.gov/prod/2012pubs/acs-19.pdf [August 2015].

Gulasekaram, P., and Ramakrishnan, S.K. (2015). The New Immigration Federalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hainmueller, J., and Hiscox, M.J. (2010). Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review , 104 (01), 61-84.

Hall, M., Singer, A., De Jong, G.F., and Graefe, D.R. (2011). The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Profiles of Metropolitan Areas. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Available:_ http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2011/6/immigrants-singer/06_immigrants_singer.pdf [May 2015].

Hainmueller, J., and Hopkins, D. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17 , 225-249.

Hersch, J. (2008). Profiling the new immigrant worker: The effects of skin color and height. Journal of Labor Economics, 26 , 345-386.

Hersch, J. (2011). The persistence of skin color discrimination for immigrants. Social Science Research, 40 , 1337-1349.

Hobbs, F., and Stoops, N. (2002). Demographic Trends in the 20th Century. Census 2000 Special Reports, CENSR-4. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

Hopkins, D.J. (2010) Politicized places: Explaining where and when immigrants provoke local opposition. American Political Science Review, 104 (01), 40-60.

Hopkins, D.J., Tran, V.C., and Williamson, A.F. (2014). See no Spanish: Language, local context, and attitudes toward immigration. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 2 (1), 35-51.

Humes, K.R., Jones, N.A., and Ramirez, R.R. (2011). Overview of Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010 Census Briefs, C2010BR-02. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf [August 2015].

Hunt, J., and Gauthier-Loisellem, M. (2010). How much does immigration boost innovation? American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2 (April), 31-56.

Jensen, E. (2015). China Replaces Mexico as the Top Sending Country for Immigrants to the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: http://researchmatters.blogs.census.gov/2015/05/01/china-replaces-mexico-as-the-top-sending-country-forimmigrants-to-the-united-states/ [July 2015].

Kent, M.M. (2007). Immigration and America’s black population. Population Bulletin, 62 (4). Available: http://www.prb.org/pdf07/62.4immigration.pdf [September 2015].

Kerr, W.R. (2008). Ethnic scientific communities and international technology diffusion. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (3), 518-537.

Lapinski, J.S., Peltola, P., Shaw, G., and Yang, A. (1997). Trends: Immigrants and immigration. Public Opinion Quarterly , 356-383.

Lee, J., and Bean, F.D. (2012). A postracial society or a diversity paradox? Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race , 9 (02), 419-437.

Lee, T.L., and Fiske, S.T. (2006). Not an outgroup, not yet an ingroup: Immigrants in the stereotype content model. International Journal of Intercultural Relations , 30 (6), 751-768.

Lieberson, S. (1963). Ethnic Patterns in American Cities . New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Lowell, B.L., and Jing, Z. (1994). Unauthorized workers and immigration reform: What can we ascertain from employers? International Migration Review , 427-448.

Lowell, B.L., Teachman, J., and Jing, Z. (1995). Unintended consequences of immigration reform: Discrimination and Hispanic employment. Demography , 32 (4), 617-628.

Massey, D.S. (1999). Why does immigration occur?: A theoretical synthesis. In C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, and J. DeWind (Eds.), The Handbook of International Migration (pp. 34-52). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Massey, D.S. (2007). Categorically Unequal: The American Stratification System . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Massey, D.S. (2014). The racialization of Latinos in the United States. In S.M. Bucerius and M. Tonry (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration (pp. 21-40). New York: Oxford University Press.

Massey, D.S., and Denton, N.A. (1992). Racial identity and the spatial assimilation of Mexicans in the United States. Social Science Research , 21 (3), 235-260.

Massey, D.S., and Sánchez, M. (2010). Brokered Boundaries: Immigrant Identity in Anti-Immigrant Times . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Mexican Migration Monitor. (2012). Hitting Homes: The Impact of Immigration Enforcement. Los Angeles: Universit of Southern California Tomas Rivera Policy Institute and Colegio de la Frontera Norte.

Monte, L.M., and Ellis, R.R. (2014). Fertility of Women in the United States: 2012. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau. Available: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p20-575.pdf [August 2015].

Ngai, M.M. (2004). Impossible Subjects: Illegal Aliens and the Making of Modern America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Office of Management and Budget. (1997a). Recommendations from the Interagency Committee for the Review of the Race and Ethnic Standards to the Office of Management and Budget concerning changes to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register, 62 (131), 36874-36946.

Office of Management and Budget. (1997b). Revisions to the standards for the classification of federal data on race and ethnicity. Federal Register, 62 (210), 58782-58790.

Oishi, N. (2005) Women in Motion: Globalization, State Policies and Labor Migration in Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Parker, C.S., and Barreto, M.A. (2014). Change They Can’t Believe in: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Passel, J. (2013). The Rise of Asian Americans. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/files/2013/04/Asian-Americans-new-fullreport-04-2013.pdf [August 2015].

Passel, J., and Cohn, D. (2011). Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/02/01/unauthorized-immigrant-population-brnational-and-state-trends-2010/ [August 2015].

Passel, J., Cohn, D., and Lopez, M.H. (2011). Hispanics Account for More than Half of Nation’s Growth in Past Decade. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2011/03/24/hispanics-account-for-more-than-half-of-nationsgrowth-in-past-decade/ [August 2015].

Passel, J., Cohn, D., Krogstad, J.M., and Gonzalez-Barrera, A. (2014). As Growth Stalls, Unauthorized Immigrant Population Becomes More Settled. Available: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2014/09/03/as-growth-stalls-unauthorized-immigrant-population-becomes-more-settled/ [September 2015].

Perez, A.D., and Hirschman, C. (2009). The changing racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population: Emerging American identities. Population and Development Review , 35, 1-51.

Perlmann, J. (2005). Italians Then, Mexicans Now: Immigrant Origins and the Second-Generation Progress, 1890-2000 . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Pettman, J.J. (1996). Worlding Women: A Feminist International Politics . London, UK: Routledge.

Pew Research Center. (2006). America’s Immigration Quandary. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and Pew Hispanic Center. Available: http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/274.pdf [July 2015].

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (2001). Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (2006). Immigrant America: A Portrait . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, A., and Rumbaut, R.G. (2014). Immigrant America. 4th Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Prewitt, K. (2013). What is Your Race?: The Census and Our Flawed Efforts to Classify Americans . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Pulido, L., and Pastor, M. (2013). Where in the world is Juan and what color is he? The geography of Latina/o racial subjectivity in Southern California. American Quarterly, 65 (2), 309-341. Available: http://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals/american_quarterly/v065/65.2.pulido.pdf [September 2015].

Ruggles, S., Alexander, J.T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M.B., and Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated Public Use Microdata Series: Version 5.0 [Machine-readable database]. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.

Saad, L. (2014). More in U.S. Would Decrease Immigration than Increase. Available: http://www.gallup.com/poll/171962/decrease-immigration-increase.aspx [August 2015].

Segovia, F., and Defever, R. (2010). The polls—trends: American public opinions on immigrants and immigration policy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24 (3) 375-394.

Simes, J.T., and Waters, M.C. (2013). The politics of immigration and crime. In S.M. Bucerius and M. Tonry (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook on Ethnicity, Crime, and Immigration (pp. 457-483). New York: Oxford University Press.

Skocpol, T., and Williamson, V. (2012). The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism . New York: Oxford University Press.

Smith, J.P., and Edmonston, B. (1997). The New Americans: Economic, Demographic, and Fiscal Effects of Immigration . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Snipp, C.M. (2003). Racial measurement in the American census: Past practices and implications for the future. Annual Review of Sociology, 29 , 563-588.

Sorensen, E., and Bean, F.D. (1994). The Immigration Reform and Control Act and the wages of Mexican origin workers: Evidence from Current Population Surveys. Social Science Quarterly , 75 (1), 1-17.

Stephan, P.E., and Levin, S.G. (2001).Exceptional contributions to U.S. science by the foreign-born and foreign-educated. Population Research and Policy Review, 20 (1-2), 59-79.

Stephan, P.E., and Levin, S.G. (2007). Foreign scholars in the U.S.: Contributions and costs. In P.E. Stephan and R.G. Ehrenberg (Eds.), Science and the University (pp. 150-173). Madison: University of Wisconsin.

Stoney, S., and Batalova, J. (2013). Central American immigrants in the United States. Migration Information Source , March. Available: http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/central-american-immigrants-united-states/ [August 2015].

Telles, E.E., and Ortiz, V. (2008) Generations of Exclusion: Mexican Americans, Assimilation, and Race . New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Turner, M.A., Ross, S., Galster, G.C., and Yinger, J. (2002). Discrimination in Metropolitan Housing Markets: National Results from Phase 1 of the Housing Discrimination Study . Available: http://www.huduser.gov/portal/Publications/pdf/Phase1_Report.pdf [September 2015].

United Nations Population Division. (2013). The number of international migrants worldwide reaches 232 million. Population Facts, 2103/2. Available: http://esa.un.org/unmigration/documents/The_number_of_international_migrants.pdf [September 2015].

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014a). Data on Population Projections: 2014 to 2060. Population projections based on Census 2010. Available: https://www.census.gov/population/projections/data/national/ [September 2015].

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014b). Methodology, Assumptions, and Inputs for the 2014 National Projections. Available: https://www.census.gov/population/projections/files/methodology/methodstatement14.pdf [September 2015].

Waters, M.C. (1990). Ethnic Options: Choosing Identities in America . Berkeley: University of California Press.

Waters, M.C. (2014). Defining difference: The role of immigrant generation and race in American and British immigration studies. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37 (1), 10-26.

Wong, C.J. (2007). Little and big pictures in our heads about local context and innumeracy about racial groups in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71 (3), 392-412.

Yoshikawa, H. (2011). Immigrants Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents of Young Children. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

This page intentionally left blank.

The United States prides itself on being a nation of immigrants, and the country has a long history of successfully absorbing people from across the globe. The integration of immigrants and their children contributes to our economic vitality and our vibrant and ever changing culture. We have offered opportunities to immigrants and their children to better themselves and to be fully incorporated into our society and in exchange immigrants have become Americans - embracing an American identity and citizenship, protecting our country through service in our military, fostering technological innovation, harvesting its crops, and enriching everything from the nation's cuisine to its universities, music, and art.

Today, the 41 million immigrants in the United States represent 13.1 percent of the U.S. population. The U.S.-born children of immigrants, the second generation, represent another 37.1 million people, or 12 percent of the population. Thus, together the first and second generations account for one out of four members of the U.S. population. Whether they are successfully integrating is therefore a pressing and important question. Are new immigrants and their children being well integrated into American society, within and across generations? Do current policies and practices facilitate their integration? How is American society being transformed by the millions of immigrants who have arrived in recent decades?

To answer these questions, this new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine summarizes what we know about how immigrants and their descendants are integrating into American society in a range of areas such as education, occupations, health, and language.

READ FREE ONLINE

Welcome to OpenBook!

You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

Show this book's table of contents , where you can jump to any chapter by name.

...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

Switch between the Original Pages , where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter .

Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

View our suggested citation for this chapter.

Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

Get Email Updates

Do you enjoy reading reports from the Academies online for free ? Sign up for email notifications and we'll let you know about new publications in your areas of interest when they're released.

Student Opportunities

About Hoover

Located on the campus of Stanford University and in Washington, DC, the Hoover Institution is the nation’s preeminent research center dedicated to generating policy ideas that promote economic prosperity, national security, and democratic governance.

The Hoover Story
Hoover Timeline & History
Mission Statement
Vision of the Institution Today
Key Focus Areas
About our Fellows
Research Programs
Annual Reports
Hoover in DC
Fellowship Opportunities
Visit Hoover
David and Joan Traitel Building & Rental Information
Newsletter Subscriptions
Connect With Us

Hoover scholars form the Institution’s core and create breakthrough ideas aligned with our mission and ideals. What sets Hoover apart from all other policy organizations is its status as a center of scholarly excellence, its locus as a forum of scholarly discussion of public policy, and its ability to bring the conclusions of this scholarship to a public audience.

Russell A. Berman
Robert Service
Arun Majumdar
H.R. McMaster
Justin Grimmer
China's Global Sharp Power Project
Economic Policy Group
History Working Group
Hoover Education Success Initiative
National Security Task Force
National Security, Technology & Law Working Group
Middle East and the Islamic World Working Group
Military History/Contemporary Conflict Working Group
Renewing Indigenous Economies Project
State & Local Governance
Strengthening US-India Relations
Technology, Economics, and Governance Working Group
Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region

Books by Hoover Fellows

Economics Working Papers

Hoover Education Success Initiative | The Papers

Hoover Fellows Program
National Fellows Program
Student Fellowship Program
Veteran Fellowship Program
Congressional Fellowship Program
Media Fellowship Program
Silas Palmer Fellowship
Economic Fellowship Program

Throughout our over one-hundred-year history, our work has directly led to policies that have produced greater freedom, democracy, and opportunity in the United States and the world.

Determining America’s Role in the World
Answering Challenges to Advanced Economies
Empowering State and Local Governance
Revitalizing History
Confronting and Competing with China
Revitalizing American Institutions
Reforming K-12 Education
Understanding Public Opinion
Understanding the Effects of Technology on Economics and Governance
Energy & Environment
Health Care
Immigration
International Affairs
Key Countries / Regions
Law & Policy
Politics & Public Opinion
Science & Technology
Security & Defense
State & Local
Books by Fellows
Published Works by Fellows
Working Papers
Congressional Testimony
Hoover Press
PERIODICALS
The Caravan
China's Global Sharp Power
Economic Policy
History Lab
Hoover Education
Global Policy & Strategy
Middle East and the Islamic World
Military History & Contemporary Conflict
Renewing Indigenous Economies
State and Local Governance
Technology, Economics, and Governance

Hoover scholars offer analysis of current policy challenges and provide solutions on how America can advance freedom, peace, and prosperity.

China Global Sharp Power Weekly Alert
Email newsletters
Hoover Daily Report
Subscription to Email Alerts
Periodicals
California on Your Mind
Defining Ideas
Hoover Digest
Video Series
Uncommon Knowledge
Battlegrounds
GoodFellows
Hoover Events
Capital Conversations
Hoover Book Club
AUDIO PODCASTS
Matters of Policy & Politics
Economics, Applied
Free Speech Unmuted
Secrets of Statecraft
Capitalism and Freedom in the 21st Century
Libertarian
Library & Archives

Support Hoover

Learn more about joining the community of supporters and scholars working together to advance Hoover’s mission and values.

What is MyHoover?

MyHoover delivers a personalized experience at Hoover.org . In a few easy steps, create an account and receive the most recent analysis from Hoover fellows tailored to your specific policy interests.

Watch this video for an overview of MyHoover.

Log In to MyHoover

Forgot Password

Don't have an account? Sign up

Have questions? Contact us

Support the Mission of the Hoover Institution
Subscribe to the Hoover Daily Report
Follow Hoover on Social Media

Make a Gift

Your gift helps advance ideas that promote a free society.

About Hoover Institution
Meet Our Fellows
Focus Areas
Research Teams
Library & Archives

Library & archives

Events, news & press.

Recent US Immigration: How Big? Who? What Impact?

How big is the US immigration surge in recent years? What are its fiscal and economic consequences? Join Steven Davis, as he probes these questions with economists Wendy Edelberg and Madeline Zavodny.

Host Steven Davis engages Wendy Edelberg and Madeline Zavodny to discuss the recent wave of U.S. immigration and some of its implications. They discuss the surge in immigration since 2021, the extent to which it reflects unlawful entry, its impact on employment growth, its fiscal consequences, and the failure of U.S. statistical authorities to accurately measure the scale of the surge in real time. They also provide historical context by comparing recent immigration waves from Latin America to past influxes from Europe and Asia. Lastly, the guests discuss potential policy changes to raise the economic benefits of immigration and address fiscal impacts on local governments.

For more episodes about immigration:

The Political Reaction to Immigration
Immigrants and Innovation in the United States

Economics, Applied with Wendy and Madeline

Madeline Zavodny: Would be a surprise to many of us in the United States how recent most Latin American migration is. You think this is who's geographically proximate, right? Mexico's right there on our southern border, the Caribbean's not very far, and so on. But for most of US history, the vast majority of our immigration was coming from Europe.

Steven J. Davis: Welcome to Economics, Applied , a podcast sponsored by the Hoover Institution. In today's episode, we return to the topic of immigration and its impact on the US economy. To help us think about these matters, we are fortunate to have two outstanding economists. Wendy Edelberg is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, where she directs the Hamilton Project.

Previously, she served as chief economist at the US Congressional Budget Office and executive director for the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, among other roles. She earned her PhD in economics at the University of Chicago, and I used to talk to her quite a bit about our work in those days.

Madeline Zavodny is the Donna L Gibbs and first co-systems professor of economics at University of North Florida. She is the managing editor at the Journal of Population Economics, an IZA research fellow, an adjunct scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. She has published extensively on the economics of immigration, and earned her PhD in economics at MIT.

I confirmed with her earlier today that she took two courses in labor economics from me during her grad school days at MIT. So both of our guests today have somehow managed to overcome educational experience with me and proceed to have outstanding careers. So welcome, it's really great to have both of you.

Wendy Edelberg: It's great to be here.

Madeline Zavodny: Thank you.

Wendy Edelberg: You couldn't have done that much damage, we're back, we're back with you.

Steven J. Davis: No, it wasn't as bad as I remember, yes.

Madeline Zavodny: It was longer ago than I care to think about, though.

Steven J. Davis: Yes, it was. But that's okay, we're still having fun.

Okay, so immigration is a complex topic. It's got many elements to it, this is the third or fourth episode we've done that deals with this topic in some way. So just note to the audience, we're not gonna pretend to cover it in all its complexity today. We're gonna cover certain aspects.

I wanna start with Wendy and try to get a scale on just what is the scale of immigration since, say, 2021, after the worst of the pandemic had wound down? And how does that compare to what was happening before the pandemic? So, what are the numbers like and how should we think about them in that respect?

Wendy Edelberg: Yeah, that's a good way to pose the question. So, in a generally typical year, though, there's never really any one typical year. But in a roughly typical year, smoothing through gyrations, you might have expected immigration before the pandemic to be about a million each year on net migration.

So people come, people go. And then things went wildly haywire in the depths of the pandemic, and then there was some bounce back. But then we did indeed see a surge in net migration in 2022 and in 2023. So in 2022, using CBO's numbers that a co-author, Tara Watson, and I have kicked the tires on and think are right, CBO estimates that net migration in 2022 was 2.4 million.

So that's a lot more than one.

Steven J. Davis: Right.

Wendy Edelberg: And net migration in 2023 was 3.3 million. And their projection was that net migration in 2024 would once again be 3.3 million. I'm sure we'll come around to what we're seeing in the most recent data, but that gives you a sense of how very big these numbers are relative to what you might have expected.

Steven J. Davis: So something like 4 million more people over this three-year period, if I got the numbers right?

Wendy Edelberg: That sounds about right.

Steven J. Davis: Let's go, okay, so, okay. And there's a CBO study that just came out very recently that tries to make a combination of estimate projection of kind of above the norm immigration from 2021 to 2026, and their number is about 8.7 million.

Now that's partly a looking forward projection. And just to put that in context, that's about two and a half percent of the US population, if I do my arithmetic right. So we should think about over, say, a five year window. Roughly speaking, we're getting an extra two and a half percent bulge in our population that we weren't really expecting, say, as of 2019.

Wendy Edelberg: It's quite dicey if you're gonna add what you think is these projected numbers, because things are unusual right now, and it's hard to get a grip on what's happening right now. And then, of course, what happens in 2025, 2026, that's very much going to depend on policy.

That said, to give you a sense of how big these numbers are for what you think about the economy. When we thought we kind of knew what demographics were doing to the labor force and what we thought was happening, generally speaking, with labor force participation, we might have thought that under full employment, a good number in a given month for payroll employment growth was about 100,000.

And, in fact, CBO probably thought it was more like 75,000. Social Security, being optimistic, probably thought it was like 120. But those were the numbers that people had in mind for what a good payroll growth number was with these sorts of immigration numbers that we're talking about, that full employment, good number for payroll growth, double it.

That's how big this effect is if you wanna think about what it does to the labor force. So now if you look back at it like, how do we understand whether or not the labor market was healthy in 2023 or the first half of 2024, in a given month under full employment, if the labor market's healthy, you should look for a number that's like 200,000 a month.

So it's just a game changer in understanding the economy.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, so I wanna come back to that point, but we jumped over two other things I think we ought to put on the table first. One's implicit in our discussion already in talking about estimates of what's happened and so on.

A surprise, which is the statistical authorities in the government don't really have an exact precise handle on how much immigration has happened in recent years. I think it's important to say that. And you refer to the CBO numbers, which I think is also, in my judgment, the best source to look to for this question, at least for the moment.

Those numbers don't really square up exactly with what you might get from the current population survey, at least they haven't been factored in. So I just wanna let the audience know is there's some ambiguity or uncertainty about exactly what the extent of immigration has been. And there's certainly been some slow to catch up recognition of what's happened in the last three or four years, in terms of some of the statistical releases that we rely on for our understanding of the economy.

You agree with that?

Wendy Edelberg: You're being rather understated in saying that we don't have a precise handle, the numbers don't completely capture it. So the current population survey, another way of thinking about this is, what the official statistics tell us, how big the population is right now. Those statistics rely on excellent data sources, but they're quite lagged.

And so those data sources don't do a good job at all of measuring this unusual surge that we've gotten in immigration in the past couple of years. Those data sources work best when demographics kinda trudge along at a normal pace year after year after year, which, generally speaking, is a perfectly valid methodology for thinking about population growth.

But when you have a surge that's completely unexpected of millions of people coming into the country, this established methodology has just put us wildly astray of where I think the actual numbers are. So I think that the population numbers right now are very much understated, and I think that that is infecting a lot of the numbers that we're seeing in the household survey.

Not the shares, but the levels in the household survey that we see every month, month by month in the BLS employment report. Those numbers just are not capturing reality.

Madeline Zavodny: But I would say even the shares can be off as the composition of who is entering the country and who's staying in the country has changed.

Because I think the flows that we've been getting in the last couple of years are groups that are very difficult to measure, particularly compared to what we've been getting since about 2007 until the onset of COVID where it was a largely legal stream coming in, and now it's all streams.

Steven J. Davis: Right, so I wanna pick up on that point in particular. And here I'm gonna use a little jargon, and I'm gonna rely again on the CBO, their numbers here. So there's a category that is often referred to as other foreign nationals, okay? And as I understand it, that category mainly consists of two groups, people who entered the country unlawfully or who unlawfully overstayed their lawful entry visa.

That's roughly according to CBO numbers about 65% of the surge. And most of the surge we're talking about is in this other foreign national category, so that's why I'm focusing on it. Huge surge in that relative to what we had pre-pandemic. That accounts for most of what Wendy was talking about it.

As I understand it, about 65% of that is the unlawful entry or overstay category. The other 35% are people who entered lawfully, but they have refugee or asylum status. Ukrainian refugees would be an example. And those also, for various reasons, surged in recent years and were kind of unexpected and off the usual path.

So the biggest, and this also speaks to Madeline's point about why it's hard to precisely track these people, especially the unlawful part.

Madeline Zavodny: But they're not even going in traditional housing units. So when you have people in shelters and who are homeless and so on, they're particularly hard to count.

So new arrivals are hard to capture in these surveys regardless. But when they're in non-traditional housing, I think it's a big challenge for the Census Bureau.

Steven J. Davis: Right, so we've had this extraordinary surge in immigration relative to what was happening before the pandemic. It was also of an unusual character in that this other foreign national category is really the main source of the big surge in immigration.

It's hard to measure. Okay, so that's what's happening on the ground in the last few years. And so people's perception that something unusual has happened, which is sometimes overplayed for dramatic effect in some of the news media. But there really has been something unusual that has played out since 2021 in a rather big way.

And now I wanna pick up on the thing Wendy was talking about, about how that's really had an impact on the potential growth of employment and labor force in the United States and the population, but also in our perception of what was happening in the economy in real time.

So that's what I wanna drill in on. Wendy, there's a story here which I wanna put on the table. From 2021 through 2023, there were many, many months in which the household, the business survey, the payroll survey, it's sometimes called the establishment survey. Was showing unusually large employment gains relative to what we were, what analysts had expected and also relative to what seemed to be coming out of the household survey.

So explain how that ties to this initially unrecognized surge in immigration. What's the story there? How do we understand that?

Wendy Edelberg: Generally speaking, we think that the establishment survey does a good job because it's administrative data and establishments have all the incentive in the world for various reasons to accurately report what their employment is.

So if people think, but that's not gonna capture the employment of immigrants who are not legally allowed to work in the United States, we have good reason to think that it does a pretty good job of capturing those numbers. The bottom line is that before today, before we got today's data, and even with today's data, we had a report of way more job growth in the establishment survey than in the household survey.

And my co author and I largely attributed that to a shortfall in the household survey because we had a shortfall in population numbers that were underlying those levels.

Steven J. Davis: You mean we've understated the population growth that feeds into the household survey? That's what by shortfall?

Wendy Edelberg: Yeah, that's what I mean by shortfall, yes.

Month after month we were getting very strong growth in payroll employment. That was very hard to understand, particularly hard to understand for me, given that I saw that the unemployment rate was basically moving sideways. Wage growth was kinda strong, but it wasn't crazy strong. And I didn't see anything close to the increases in the labor force that would help to support these gains in job growth that firms were reporting.

Now that we understand that the labor force was actually growing much more than I think we thought and much more than the official statistics suggest, it's now much easier to understand the payroll growth. That's true-

Madeline Zavodny: Wendy, can I just ask, I'm really curious why businesses would be reporting employment of workers who don't yet have papers, as is the case with lots of asylum seekers, where it's gonna take at least six months to be legally eligible to work and then kind of permanently, if you will, unauthorized immigrants.

It sounds like you think that they're actually captured in the payroll data.

Wendy Edelberg: I'm guessing that you actually know a lot more about this than I do, but my sense is that the consequences for firms not reporting accurately are actually quite high. And it's an issue of getting in trouble with the government statistical agencies, and like they've said, we are accurately reporting.

It's who they're getting in trouble with there relative to getting in trouble with immigration officials. It's just two sets of people who they're worried about getting in trouble with and the consequences for misreporting their numbers are actually quite high. And there's pretty good oversight on that relative to the oversight of, we're actually coming into your business and checking whether or not everybody in your business is legally allowed to be working there.

Madeline Zavodny: That's fascinating. I knew.

Steven J. Davis: Madeline, I wanted to ask you about this. My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, it's still that many people who enter the country unlawfully nonetheless manage to work in legal jobs with Social Security numbers they've somehow acquired or borrowing from somebody or buying from a list or employers just not verifying their eligibility very carefully.

So, just because somebody's unlawful in the country doesn't mean they aren't working in a lawful job. I believe many of them do. And that's part of the discrepancy that we're talking about between what comes out of the payroll numbers and what shows up in the household survey, which has the problem that it's not correctly adjusting for the surprise surge in the overall population.

That's what caused the household survey over the last three years to diverge from the establishment survey under the view that even unlawful immigrants are often working. Hence they're showing up in the establishment survey if they're working in an employee capacity, not a self employed capacity. And yet we're still missing those in the numbers that come out of the households.

It's a little complicated cuz the household survey is getting a sample and that sample has to be blown up somehow, okay? And that's where the population numbers, the population estimates come into play. And if those population estimates are too low, then the implied size of employment and the labor force from the household survey will also be too low.

We've been focused now so far on the discussion on the period from '21 to 2024 because it's been such an extraordinary episode in the history of US immigration, at least in recent decades, and it helps us understand our real time diagnosis and how we got it somewhat wrong in the last few years.

But I wanna broaden the historical lens now and turn to Madeline in particular and ask her to, over the last few decades, maybe we went all the way back to the 1960s, give us some historical perspective on the big wave of immigrants that have come into the United States over that whole period from Latin America.

It's hardly the first big extended immigration wave into the United States. We have many indoor in our history. I'll let you describe them, but describe the scale of the immigration wave from Latin America in recent decades and how it compares to earlier immigration waves in the United States from southern Europe, from central Europe, and so on.

Madeline Zavodny: So I think it would be a surprise to many of us in the United States how recent most Latin American migration is. You think this is who's geographically proximate, right? Mexico's right there on our southern border, the Caribbean's not very far, and so on. But for most of US history, the vast majority of our immigration was coming from Europe.

And so it was first, of course, the English, right. Then the Germans, and then we had the Irish, and then we had the eastern Europeans, that's my family and relatives and so on, and Italians coming in, and it really wasn't. You had some flows coming in from Latin America, particularly Mexico, largely to work, so in kind of farming jobs, largely along the border.

And then whenever the US economy went south, we would have a mass deportation campaign. So this happened in the 1920s, it happened in the 1950s, but those flows were still relatively small and the stock remained very low. Then in 1965, related to the civil rights movement, there was a big change in US immigration law that just led to huge changes in the composition of who was entering the United States in terms of the flows that ultimately really change the stock of who was here.

As foreign born, as older immigrants, the Europeans were just aging out of the population, dying, right? So that now we think of immigrants as largely being from Latin America, because about half of those who have come in this post 1965 era have indeed been from Latin America and the Caribbean, whereas if you went back pre 1965, it would be like 90% almost coming from Europe.

So just huge change that I don't think many of us realize.

Steven J. Davis: And is that because life in Europe was miserable first half of the 20th century relative to what it was in much of Latin American Caribbeans, whereas in recent decades, maybe things reversed. And that, I mean, just it is a broad sweep question but-

Madeline Zavodny: Yeah, I think part of it, life is hard everywhere, right?

Steven J. Davis: Hard everywhere, and then I guess it became less hard in much of Europe.

Madeline Zavodny: Life became, yeah, that Europe industrialized. We passed a lot of immigration restrictions in the 1920s that made it hard for non Europeans to come.

So to the extent that people might have wanted to continue, we already made it hard for Asians to come. But to the extent that people from Latin America or Asia would have wanted to come, it would have been difficult to enter legally. A lot of these farm workers were either on temporary programs.

We had a program called the Bracero program, or they were here illegally. And then in 1965, we kind of lifted these country caps. We still have them, but we've made it a lot more accessible for people to come from other places, while at the same time, I think transportation costs really change.

When you think about Mexico again, it's really close, but it didn't feel close in terms of the ability of people who were living not near the US border to come north into the US was very limited until you had planes, trains, and automobiles, in essence. And then from even further south, it was just hard to come to the US compared to the steamships coming from Europe.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, and so say, as of 2020, what fraction of the US population roughly was born in Latin America?

Madeline Zavodny: So in 2020, 2022, we're at around 6%, a little over 6% from Latin America and the Caribbean. So predominantly Mexico, but increasingly diverse over the last four decades.

Lots of Cubans, more coming from the northern triangle, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras. Recently, we've gotten inflows of Venezuelans coming. So in part, you're right that when things get tough at home, when things go really south, people do tend to come to the United States, or at least to leave their country, and the United States is a desirable place for some of them to go.

Steven J. Davis: And I wanna just put that 6% figure in historic perspective in various ways. So one way to do that is how does that compare to the fraction of US immigrants, say in, I don't know, 1950 or 1960 that came from central or southern Europe? Just, I wanna scale this immigration wave compared to earlier ones.

Madeline Zavodny: Okay, so if you look right kind of about the time that we slammed the border shut in the 1920s, we would have been over 8% from eastern European, so again, this is my relative. So those numbers were bigger as a share of the population, but back to the pie analogy.

The pie was indeed smaller during that period. The shares who were born in Germany, Ireland, Southern Europe, Italy were already declining at that point cuz those were much earlier waves that had come. And so this is now their children and grandchildren in the United States for the most part.

Steven J. Davis: And before the Chinese Exclusion Act and other restrictive immigration legislation in the 1920s, what fraction of the US population, roughly speaking, was from East Asia?

Madeline Zavodny: Incredibly low.

Steven J. Davis: Even so, it was never-

Madeline Zavodny: It would never high. If you were in California, you would probably would have, I don't know when California became a state, but what became California, you would have been much more aware of Asian immigrants, the gold rush and so on.

But that's really far to come at a time. And those barriers to Asian immigration really started in the 1800s, they predated the 1920s, closing of the borders.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, all right, so just in terms of raw numbers, the Latin American immigration wave, it's quite sizable in recent decades, after 1965, as you described, but it's within the range of previous immigration waves.

Madeline Zavodny: Absolutely.

Steven J. Davis: It's worth pointing out that the society, the country has changed in some way since then. We have more people, although I don't really think space is a huge physical constraint in the United States. But a bigger change is we have a well developed social safety net now that is funded by the public sector, much more so than we did in these earlier waves of immigration from central Europe, southern Europe, and to a much lesser extent from East Asia.

So, that's at least a reason to ask oneself whether the economic forces that are motivating immigration might differ over time, and that the consequences of after people arrive and their incentive to assimilate and integrate have changed over time. I'm not making a hard statement about the effects of that, but it's just worth noting that, it's not just about the scale of the immigration.

It's about the way we either directly or as a byproduct of other policies, set the stage for people to assimilate and integrate after they get here.

Madeline Zavodny: Absolutely, so I realize that a lot of people worry that immigrants are coming here to take advantage of welfare programs to the extent that we have them in the US.

And one thing that's important to realize is that, foreign born are largely barred from receiving most benefits until they are US citizens. Now, any US born children that they have are going to be eligible on the same basis as everybody else. But as Wendy's colleague Tara Watson has shown, I think a lot of those families are reluctant to even take up benefits on behalf of their US born children because they don't want scrutiny from immigration officials.

They worry about what's going to happen to their paperwork and so on.

Steven J. Davis: Well, when you make your statement about benefits, are you talking about federal benefits or including state and local benefits as well?

Madeline Zavodny: So largely, I would say, what we think of as welfare programs. Of course, the most expensive benefit that most immigrant families get is education for their children.

And I think that's incredibly important because those children are largely going to remain in the United States and we want them to be well educated.

Steven J. Davis: Yeah, understood-

Wendy Edelberg: But that's not something that has changed a lot over time. I'm not sure that that's in your same category of things where fiscal policy has changed wildly over the last 100 years.

Madeline Zavodny: I think there were certainly questions until within my lifetime about whether or not the children of unauthorized immigrants were eligible for public education. And the Supreme Court ruled that the unauthorized kids get K through 12 public school. And we have a presidential campaign right now that's talking about undoing that.

Steven J. Davis: When was that Supreme Court decision? Just, I didn't mean to put you on the spot, but-

Madeline Zavodny: I don't know if it was in the 70s or 80s, but it was not as old as you might expect.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, but I wanna make clear, there are many benefits to which immigrants either aren't entitled or don't avail themselves of, as you explained.

But there are many benefits to the state and local level, education probably being the most important one in which they or their children are entitled to, even if they're here unlawfully. That's kind of point one. And point two is, it's important to recognize that the fiscal effects and other effects of immigration are highly uneven spatially in the United States.

So even though for the country as a whole, the fiscal impact of immigrants might be modest, so we can get into that more at the state and local level, it can be extremely concentrated in a few communities in which the local tax base, the revenue base, local public services are overwhelmed and of course that then shows up on the TV news and so on.

So you can disagree with me if you want, but I don't wanna convey the impression that immigration is nowhere a serious fiscal issue in the United States. It's probably not much of an issue in most of the United States, but it is a big issue in some parts of the United States.

I think we just ought to recognize that.

Wendy Edelberg: Go ahead, Madeline.

Madeline Zavodny: No, Wendy, you should talk about that because you know more about the concentrated state and local impacts.

Wendy Edelberg: Thanks, so let me make an advertisement for a proposal that Tara and I put out not so long ago about how the federal government should do more to transfer the positive fiscal benefits that they enjoy from just about all kinds of immigration.

To the state and local communities that feel the most fiscal pressure from, particularly immigration of people with less formal education. On net, all kinds of immigration are very likely a net fiscal positive. And certainly if they're not a net fiscal positive, even across all state and local and federal fiscal effects, even if they're not a net fiscal benefit, like in the first year they arrive, they are very likely a net fiscal benefit over the longer term.

But just as you were saying, Steve, those effects are very uneven. And the federal government gets a net fiscal benefit, essentially, immediately from all kinds of immigration. And state and local governments can feel a really strong negative fiscal effect, particularly from immigrants with less formal education through educating young children.

But also there can be some pretty sizable health care costs from serving this population. And so, we could do a lot of good by transferring the net positive fiscal benefits from the federal government to state and local governments for these newly arrived immigrants until after a couple of years even immigrants with less formal education who make lower wages.

After a couple of years, their fiscal benefits even turned positive for state and local governments. But for those first couple of years, there absolutely should be a transfer.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, so I just wanna flesh some of that out. And I hear what you're saying, but I think point one is we are pretty confident, based on various analyses, that at the federal government level, the net fiscal effect of past waves of immigration, including the recent one we're talking about, are positive.

Wendy Edelberg: 100%, yes.

Steven J. Davis: It's not enormous, but it's not a trivial amount either. It's a material positive impact on the federal government's fiscal position. State and local, I think we have less precise evidence, let me put that on the table first. But on balance, it looks like it might be a net fiscal drain, especially in the early years.

But I think the larger point politically and maybe economically, and this is what motivates in some sense, your proposal is there are certain localities that bear the brunt of the negative fiscal impact. So that's highly concentrated. And so, I think there is a pretty compelling case. We're all part of a fiscal union in some grand sense.

If we're going to decide as a society or if we're going to, in the wake of any explicit decision, have many millions of immigrants, then the cost and benefits of that need to be distributed across people and localities and so on. And we haven't done a very good job of that, especially with respect to the wave of immigration that appears that we've talked about in the last three years.

And I think much of the political backlash, not all, but much of the political backlash to the immigration wave, especially the recent one, is a reflection of that fact. There are some communities that are suffering economically, fiscally, because they're being asked to bear such a disproportionate share of the challenges of bringing new people into society.

Wendy Edelberg: I will definitely give you fiscally, I'm less confident about the economically. So, all right, so-

Steven J. Davis: The impact on the local economy?

Wendy Edelberg: Yeah, so I think the impact on the local economy, that’s the parts that I’m not sure of. If you do some sort of stylized kinda correlations, I’m gonna be short of calling them regressions, you see that employment growth is stronger in areas that have gotten these big immigration waves.

You see retail sales are higher in these local communities that have gotten big immigration waves.

Steven J. Davis: I wanna just drill in a little bit further. More people, you're likely to get more economic activity.

Wendy Edelberg: Yes.

Steven J. Davis: For sure unless you make it completely impossible for these people to work, which we don't do that, but we often make it challenging.

So, but nonetheless, there are still people who are renters in that area who all of a sudden, they may not be working at all or their wages aren't exactly rising in the wake of this. There are still pockets of people, part of the electorate in these communities, that are being buffeted and sometimes harmed by the economic responses to these highly concentrated immigration waves.

So, I think it's important that we recognize as economists that not everybody is moving in the same way in response to the economic effects of immigration.

Madeline Zavodny: I think the biggest costs are on straining the safety net in terms of homeless shelters and the schools. Cuz one thing that has been very different about this post-COVID wave is a lot more family units coming than we're used to.

That traditionally people who were newly crossing the border from the south where young men coming to work, this started to change, really in the 2000s of having more family reunification in the United States. But what is coming, what has been entering lately has been in part because of things falling apart in Venezuela and the perception that it is easier to enter and get asylum, perhaps if you are a family unit, is a lot more family units with children. So the strain on schools in some areas has been enormous.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, so agreed. And so, Wendy made the point that there's a fairly compelling argument, at least I think so, and I gather the two of you do as well, for redistributing the, whatever, fiscal surplus is associated with immigration and alleviating some of the fiscal difficulties in certain localities.

But I wanna ask you about another issue, Madeline. Are there sensible policy changes we could make in the near term that would further increase the net fiscal benefits associated with immigration? So, think, what could we do so that newly arrived immigrants, whether lawful or unlawful, for the moment, and you might wanna distinguish between those two.

So that newly arrived immigrants can quickly find gainful employment and start contributing to the tax rolls and the tax revenue base, and taking less in the way of social benefits?

Madeline Zavodny: I think this is really tricky in terms of what incentives you're giving to future streams. The faster you start granting employment authorization to people who are pursuing an asylum claim, the more people you're probably going to have trying to enter, because word of mouth is pretty fast among these communities.

Steven J. Davis: Let's simplify it a bit and focus on people who enter lawfully. So, I'm thinking of the spouses of people who enter on H-1B visas.

Madeline Zavodny: Okay, well, so-

Steven J. Davis: Most of them work often, right?

Madeline Zavodny: So they cannot work unless their spouse is approved for a green card, which typically takes a couple of years after all of the paperwork has been filed.

So the adjudication times are pretty big. So this is a very different group than we've been talking about, cuz this is predominantly Indian immigrants. They're very highly educated. Typically, the spouse on an H-1B visa is working in computer programming, maybe as a professor, maybe as a doctor, whatever.

And the spouse, typically a woman, who's not able to work until the H-1B visa-holding spouse is well along in the green card process, is also typically very highly educated. So this is a very different group that could make tremendous economic contributions, has a lot of human capital, and is just barred from working for years.

Steven J. Davis: That's the point I'm trying to draw out.

Madeline Zavodny: Absolutely, it's a nonsense, I think.

Steven J. Davis: We have human capital in the country, and it's the H-1B visa spouses, but it's also spouses of grad students, many of whom are also very highly educated and who have severe restrictions on their ability to work.

So we have talented pools of human capital who enter the United States lawfully. So we're getting away from the incentive you describe, which are serious ones, and yet we make it very hard for them to contribute economically. And to me, it's hard to see what the sensible rationale for that policy is.

It's hard to see who it benefits, but then it's pretty obvious that it undermines the net fiscal contribution of people who are lawfully in the United States, at least for a period of time.

Madeline Zavodny: Yeah, I don't really understand it. On the other hand, you could say, well, it is a choice that families make.

But the whole immigration process is so complicated and such a mess, I'm not sure that anyone really understands what they're getting into. And then while I'm ranting about this, I think the group for whom I probably have the single most sympathy is the group called The Documented Dreamers.

So these are the foreign born kids of the H-1B holders. So they're not US citizens cuz they weren't born here. And once they turn 21, they have to basically get their own visa to stay in the United States. But often, they've been here many years. We have borne the cost of educating them, and then what?

Steven J. Davis: Yeah, this has unfortunately become, this group has become a political football. And it's from an economic perspective, the way we treat these people make. And for me, from a basic humanitarian perspective, it really makes no sense.

Wendy Edelberg: But I think Madeline's talking about kids of people with visas.

Madeline Zavodny: Yeah, Documented Dreamers. Yeah, so there was under Obama, the DACA for the Undocumented Dreamers. And this is this other group that's just completely, so they're also, I think, a football, a bargaining chip that gets completely forgotten by some groups.

Steven J. Davis: Then the challenging questions about how to deal with unlawful immigrants, the perverse incentive effects that you can create that drive more unlawful immigrants.

So that's the hard part of US immigration policy, perhaps. But then there are these what seem like, from an economic, even a political and humanitarian perspective, kind of no brainer policy improvements. And this has all gotten lost in the political heat over the immigration issue. But there are many policy improvements we could make on the margin with respect to immigration.

But I think almost anybody, if you ask them, would think, yeah, that makes sense. And yet somehow don't do them.

Madeline Zavodny: Yeah, grad students, that we make them jump through all of these hoops after, again, we've borne a lot of the costs of educating them. And the fact that many of them times they can't get a visa to permanently stay in the United States and they end up going to Canada or somewhere that's just happy to welcome.

Steven J. Davis: Even former President Trump seems to recognize that one. We'll see whether it be-

Wendy Edelberg: Yeah.

Steven J. Davis: I'm not trying to give him too much credit here, but that one is at least in some of his recent remarks, he's made positive.

Wendy Edelberg: I think if we're gonna say positive things about what he said, we have to provide a whole lot of scaffolding to the two sentences.

Steven J. Davis: Understood, I'm trying to be hopeful here and say, maybe we can get some alignment of the two political parties regardless of who wins the next presidential election. Who controls the House, where we make some of these no brainer improvements in US immigration policy. That's my wish.

Madeline Zavodny: I will say the first Trump administration, the only one, so far, did absolutely nothing for H-1B holders and their families that I can recall.

Wendy Edelberg: I mean, we can't talk about, if we've now invoked Trump and his hoped for immigration policy. We have to talk about the fact that what he really wants to do is have out migration of 11 million people over a very short period of time. That would be unbelievably disruptive for the US economy.

Steven J. Davis: Yes, agreed. I think it's a crazy economic policy and it's a humanitarian disaster. So, I'm not at all in favor of that. I'm pretty sure neither of you are either. So look, let me see, before we close the show, let me see if there's anything else you wanna put on the table here before I sign us off today.

Wendy Edelberg: Just because the whole point, I'm gonna come back to this tangential thing that I raised about employment among the US born. And whether or not this surge in immigration has meant that immigrants are, I'm gonna use air quotes, stealing all the jobs. I just wanna get some numbers on the table that employment among the US born has gone up, not down.

So, we estimate that US born employment over the course from January 23 to January 24 rose by 740,000. Even though I completely appreciate that in the published numbers, it fell by 190,000. I am very, very confident that US foreign employment did not fall in this recent data because the only reason that those numbers are the way they are is because they're based on population declining.

The actual shrinking of the US foreign population, which I don't think happened. So, I just wanna say over, and over, US born employment rose. And I'm happy to talk to your listeners one by one to convince them that that's correct.

Steven J. Davis: Okay, you may get some millions of requests on that one.

Wendy Edelberg: Millions? There millions of listeners.

Steven J. Davis: You could do a whole show on how to think about the employment and also the wage consequences of immigration. It might seem like simple questions to some of our viewers. It's not so, but we're gonna have to leave it there. We're not gonna have time to dive into that today.

And I wanna just in closing, say, look, the immigration question economically and politically is a complex one. We've touched on some aspects of it today. There are for our viewers, we will put on the website for this show links to previous episodes of Economics, Applied , where we have discussed other aspects of immigration.

So I'll leave it there and I think we'll probably come back on this show to the question of immigration again. So thanks very much, Wendy and Madeline. It's been great to see you, and I enjoyed the conversation. I hope you did as well.

Wendy Edelberg: Thanks, Steve.

ABOUT THE SPEAKERS:

Wendy Edelberg is a senior fellow in Economic Studies at the Brookings Institution, where she directs the Hamilton Project. Previously, she served as Principal Chief Economist at the Congressional Budget Office and executive director of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission. She worked for the President’s Council of Economic Advisers during two administrations. She co-chairs the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine’s Climate and Macroeconomics Roundtable and is a member of the National Academy of Social Insurance. She earned her Ph.D. in economics from the University of Chicago.

Madeline Zavodny is the Donna L. Gibbs and First Coast Systems Professor of Economics at UNF. She is also a Research Fellow at the Institute of Labor Economics (IZA), Fellow at the Global Labor Organization, and Adjunct Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Her research focuses on economic issues related to immigration, including Beside the Golden Door: U.S. Immigration Reform in a New Era of Globalization (AEI Press, 2010) and The Economics of Immigration (Routledge, 2015; 2nd ed. 2021). Before joining UNF she was a professor of economics at Agnes Scott College and Occidental College and an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta and the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. She earned her Ph.D. in Economics from MIT.

Steven Davis is the Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Senior Fellow and Director of Research at the Hoover Institution, and Senior Fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research (SIEPR). He is an elected fellow of the Society of Labor Economists and a consultant to the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. He co-founded the Economic Policy Uncertainty project, the U.S. Survey of Working Arrangements and Attitudes, the Global Survey of Working Arrangements, the Survey of Business Uncertainty, and the Stock Market Jumps project. He co-organizes the Asian Monetary Policy Forum, held annually in Singapore. Before joining Hoover, Davis was on the faculty at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business.

RELATED RESOURCES:

New Immigration Estimates Help Make Sense of the Pace of Employment
Waiting to work: employment among dependent spouses of H-1B visa holders in the U.S.
Immigrants and Their Effects on Labor Market Outcomes of Natives
Unprecedented U.S. Immigration Surge Boosts Job Growth, Output
Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyer v. Doe
The Economics of Immigration

FOLLOW OUR SPEAKERS ON SOCIAL MEDIA:

Wendy Edelberg: x.com/WendyEdelberg
Madeline Zavodny: x.com/madelinezavodny

View the discussion thread.

Join the Hoover Institution’s community of supporters in ideas advancing freedom.

Immigrants Put America First: In Coming Here, They Affirm Our Values

Immigrants enter the United States with dreams of a better life for themselves and their families. Rather than posing a threat to our democracy, they reinforce and enrich the values that make America the country it is.

The United States is a country created and built by immigrants from all over the world. Throughout our history, immigrants seeking a better life have flocked to our shores — reinvigorating our labor force, enriching our cultural fabric, and making our democracy stronger.

Yet even though nearly all Americans are descendants of immigrants, we have often had a tempestuous relationship with newcomers. Whether because of nationalist sentiment, xenophobia, or simply fear of change, our country has at times enacted policies that have run contrary to American ideals. The Chinese Exclusion Act, the 1924 Immigration Act, or quota-based laws restricting immigration from certain parts of the world, are just a few examples of reactionary policies that gained wide support in the past.

Today we are living through a resurgence of these sentiments. At a time of rapid change driven by technology, globalization, and demographics, there are many Americans who are directing their fears toward immigrants, believing that they are changing the culture and values of the United States. We have seen how these fears translate into harmful policies: our politicians are promising to wall off our borders and threatening to deport undocumented immigrants who had been granted protection because they arrived in the United States as children.

At a time of rapid change driven by technology, globalization, and demographics, there are many Americans who are directing their fears toward immigrants, believing that they are changing the culture and values of the United States.

While each successive wave of immigration adds to the unique blend of cultures that define the United States of America, it is wrong to believe that immigrants pose any threat to American values. The truth is that today’s immigrants, just like our forefathers, arrive here seeking the ability to freely worship, to express themselves without fear of government retribution, and to chart their own economic destiny.

These immigrants, for whom the reality of oppression or lack of freedom is a not so distant memory, come not to undermine our values, but to embrace them. What better reaffirmation exists for the strength of our values than the validation we receive daily from people seeking to immigrate here?

Today’s immigrants, just like our forefathers, arrive here seeking the ability to freely worship, to express themselves without fear of government retribution, and to chart their own economic destiny.

It is true that America does not look like what it did in the past. Between 2000-2015, Latinos accounted for more than half of the country’s total population growth. During that same period, the country’s Asian population grew by 72 percent.

Yet America’s culture has always been a shifting kaleidoscope. What has remained constant is our values – a common belief in liberty, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. This is how, out of many, we become one.

Our diversity also contributes to our economic vitality. Over half of the startups worth over $1 billion were founded by foreigners. These companies create jobs, promote innovation, and contribute to our country’s economic productivity.

Instead of weakening our values and democracy as some may claim, immigrants enrich and revitalize our institutions and beliefs. While people may arrive as Mexicans, Russians, Ethiopians, or Chinese, over time they and their families become Americans.

This does not mean they forget where they came from; rather, it is because of their past that they so passionately embrace American values. It is why after centuries of continued immigration, the United States is stronger than ever.

In today’s divisive political environment, we must learn from the mistakes of our past and not let fear dictate our policies. The only way that our system, based on the foundations of freedom, democracy, and justice, will prevail is if we continue to enrich it by welcoming new stakeholders in the American dream.

Now more than ever, we have an opportunity to uphold the values of our forefathers. Almost 250 years after our founding, the United States remains the world’s beacon of hope. Let’s not extinguish liberty’s torch.

Previous Article Restoring Trust in Business: One Company at a Time An Essay by Kenneth Hersh, President and CEO at the George W. Bush Presidential Center
Next Article The Press and Public Trust in an Age of Fake News A Conversation with Keven Willey, Vice President and Editorial Page Editor of The Dallas Morning News , and Olivier Knox, White House Correspondent of Yahoo! News

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

Publications
Our Methods
Short Reads
Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

How the origins of America’s immigrants have changed since 1850

The United States is the top destination in the world for people moving from one country to another. Over 70 million immigrants have arrived in the U.S. since 1965 , according to a Pew Research Center analysis of Census Bureau data. About 18 million have come from Mexico, making up the largest wave of immigration from a single country to the U.S.

In 2022, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. reached a high of 46.1 million, accounting for 13.8% of the population. (This includes both legal and unauthorized immigrants.)

These immigrants trace their roots to virtually all countries around the world. The largest numbers hail from Mexico (10.6 million) and India (2.8 million). That’s different from a century ago: In 1920, the largest immigrant populations were from Germany and Italy.

Pew Research Center conducted this analysis to explore how immigration patterns have changed throughout the United States and by state over time.

The maps and data in this analysis are based on Center tabulations of Census Bureau microdata from IPUMS USA . The maps show the largest country of birth for immigrants in each state or territory from 1850 to 2022. The tabulations agree as closely as possible with published Census Bureau data on the national and state foreign-born populations and other national data on the country of birth of immigrants.

Data: For the 1850-1880 and 1900-1940 censuses, the tabulations use complete count census data, which has one record for each person counted in the census. The census data comes from 1% samples for 1950 and 1970 (form 1 for 1970). For the 1960 and 1980-2000 censuses, it comes from 5% samples. For 2010 and 2022, we use the 1% sample from the American Community Survey (ACS).

States and territories: Before 1960, some censuses included data for territories that would later become states. When available, we show data for these areas and designate the territorial status in the maps with an asterisk (*). Prior to 1959, Alaska and Hawaii were not routinely represented in IPUMS datasets used in this analysis. However, IPUMS samples that include these two areas in 1900-1920 (1% samples) and 1930 (5% sample) provide data for the maps.

Immigrant population: The immigrant or foreign-born population consists of people born outside the United States or its territories who are not U.S. citizens at birth. In census data for 1970-2000 and ACS data for 2010-2022, there is a direct question on U.S. citizenship that defines the foreign-born population.

For the earlier censuses, we used several steps to define the immigrant and U.S.-born or native populations. First, people born in U.S. territories and outlying areas are considered part of the native population.

The territories defined as part of the native population are: Alaska (1870 and later); Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Guam and American Samoa (1900 and later); Philippines (1900-1940); Panama Canal Zone (1900-1970); U.S. Virgin Islands (1920 and later); Trust Territory of the Pacific (1950-1980); and Northern Mariana Islands (1950 and later).

Beginning with the 1890 census, people born outside the U.S. and its territories were considered U.S. citizens at birth if they had one or two American-born parents under certain conditions. The criteria have changed over time and do not appear to have been consistently applied in the early censuses. The IPUMS data has coded some of these cases directly. For other cases, we use the country of birth of each respondent’s mother and father (either as reported in the census or assigned by IPUMS) to determine whether the individual is foreign born.

Country of birth: Countries of birth in the tabulations generally reflect the countries and regions within countries (e.g., Alsace-Lorraine, Bavaria) recognized at the time the data was collected. This reflects the responses to the census and generally agrees with official publications from the censuses. The country boundaries are similar to modern ones but may differ slightly in some cases.

The groupings used for the countries in the census and ACS data are:

United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales and Channel Islands in all years; Northern Ireland in 1930 and later.
Germany: Various German states, East Germany and West Germany in all years; Alsace and Lorraine for 1870-1910.
Austria: Austria and regions defined as Austria, including Austria-Hungary.
Poland: Regions defined as Poland, Austrian Poland, German Poland, Russian Poland, Prussian Poland, Galicia, Pomerania, West Prussia and various other areas.
Russia (1850-1920), USSR (1930-1990), USSR (former): These designations basically refer to the same area. It includes Russia plus the republics within the Soviet Union (e.g., Estonia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Siberia). The exception is Armenia, which is treated as a separate country for 1920-1930.
China: Mongolia and Taiwan for 1850-1940; Hong Kong and Macau for 2000-2022.
Portugal: Azores, Madeira Islands and St. Miguel in all years; Cape Verde Islands through 1970.
Korea: North and South Korea.

Various other countries and regions are grouped together, but none are the top origin countries for states or in the top five origin countries nationally.

Immigrant populations by state

The share of immigrants varies widely among states, from 2% in West Virginia to 27% in California. In 2022, Mexican immigrants were the largest group in 29 states, while Indian immigrants were the largest group in six states.

Mirroring the national trend, the origins of immigrants living in each state have changed dramatically in the past century. In 1920, the largest immigrant groups in 29 states were born in Germany, Italy or Canada. And only six states had the same largest origin group in 2022 that they did in 1920: Arizona, New Mexico and Texas (all from Mexico) and Maine, Montana and Vermont (from Canada).

Maps showing where each U.S. state’s largest immigrant population was born in 1920 and 2022.

Why has the immigrant population changed over the years?

Reasons behind the changes in the U.S. immigrant population since 1965 include:

A more equitable U.S. immigration law . The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act opened up legal immigration from Asia and Latin America. The law it replaced had favored immigrants from Northern and Western Europe and mostly barred those from Asia.
Unauthorized immigration. Unauthorized immigration to the U.S. began to grow in the 1970s , which made the total number of immigrants go up. Most of those who came before 1982 acquired legal status after the passage of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act . However, unauthorized immigrants continued to come in large numbers.
Further changes in U.S. immigration law. A revision to the 1965 act in 1990 allowed more legal immigrants to enter the U.S. and provided alternative ways for people to immigrate, increasing the diversity of origins.

An area chart showing the immigrant share of the U.S. population from 1850 to 2022.

Where immigrants have settled in the U.S. over time

The first large wave of immigration to the U.S. began in the 1840s and lasted until 1889. During this time, more than 14 million immigrants came to the country. Most arrived from Northern or Western Europe ; Germany, Ireland and the United Kingdom alone accounted for 70% of the new arrivals .

How America’s source of immigrants has changed over time

Top country of birth among U.S. immigrants, by state

Top five foreign-born populations by country of origin (in millions)

Total U.S. population 23.2 million Total foreign born 2.2 million Percentage foreign born 9.7%

Note: Populations rounded to nearest 10,000. Shares and ranks based on unrounded numbers. Germany includes East and West Germany (1980-1990), German states coded by IPUMS (1850-1940). Alsace and Lorraine are part of Germany for 1870-1910 and France in other years. United Kingdom (UK) includes England, Scotland, Wales and Channel Islands in all years and Northern Ireland in 1930 and later. China includes Mongolia and Taiwan for 1850-1940; Hong Kong and Macau for 2000 and later. Poland includes areas designated as Poland by IPUMS (1850-1940) including “Austrian,” “German,” “Prussian” and “Russian” Poland. The term “Russia” is used for 1850-1920, “USSR” for 1930-1990 and “USSR (former)” for 2000 and later. These areas encompass all former republics of the USSR including Baltic states in all years. The only exception is Armenia which is coded separately in 1930-1940. Various other areas have been grouped together but do not appear in the top five countries for the U.S. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “ Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850-2000 ”; Pew Research Center tabulations of complete count census data for 1850-1940; census samples for 1950 (1%), 1960, 1980-2000 (5%) and 1970 (1% form 1); 2010 and 2022 American Community Survey (1%). Alaska and Hawaii from samples for 1900-1920 (1%) and 1930 (5%). All data from IPUMS.

Total U.S. population 31.4 million Total foreign born 4.1 million Percentage foreign born 13.2%

Total U.S. population 38.6 million Total foreign born 5.6 million Percentage foreign born 14.4%

Total U.S. population 50.2 million Total foreign born 6.7 million Percentage foreign born 13.3%

Total U.S. population 62.6 million Total foreign born 9.3 million Percentage foreign born 14.8%

Total U.S. population 76.0 million Total foreign born 10.3 million Percentage foreign born 13.6%

Total U.S. population 92.0 million Total foreign born 13.5 million Percentage foreign born 14.7%

Total U.S. population 105.7 million Total foreign born 13.9 million Percentage foreign born 13.2%

Total U.S. population 122.8 million Total foreign born 14.2 million Percentage foreign born 11.6%

Total U.S. population 131.7 million Total foreign born 11.6 million Percentage foreign born 8.8%

Total U.S. population 150.2 million Total foreign born 10.3 million Percentage foreign born 6.9%

Total U.S. population 179.3 million Total foreign born 9.7 million Percentage foreign born 5.4%

Total U.S. population 203.2 million Total foreign born 9.6 million Percentage foreign born 4.7%

Total U.S. population 226.5 million Total foreign born 14.1 million Percentage foreign born 6.2%

Total U.S. population 248.7 million Total foreign born 19.8 million Percentage foreign born 7.9%

Total U.S. population 281.4 million Total foreign born 31.1 million Percentage foreign born 11.1%

Total U.S. population 309.4 million Total foreign born 40.0 million Percentage foreign born 12.9%

Total U.S. population 333.3 million Total foreign born 46.1 million Percentage foreign born 13.8%

From 1850 to 1880, Germany and Ireland were the largest immigrant origin countries in most states and territories. In 1860, Ireland was the largest origin country in 22 of the nation’s 39 states and territories.

By 1880, Germany was the largest origin country in 16 states and territories. Chinese immigrants were the largest group in California, Nevada, Oregon, and the Idaho and Washington territories. Mexicans were the largest group in Texas and the New Mexico and Arizona territories.

The next wave of immigration to the U.S. lasted from 1890 to 1919, when more than 18 million immigrants arrived. By then, over 60% came from Eastern and Southern Europe, with large numbers arriving from Italy, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Poland.

The number of new immigrants fell dramatically in the years between World War I and World War II (1919 to 1939). As a result, the largest immigrant groups in each state did not change much for the next few decades.

In 1920, German immigrants were the largest group in 11 states, down from 18 in 1910. Immigrants from Italy and Russia became the largest groups in a growing number of states. At their peaks, Italians were the largest group in 10 states in 1940 and 1960, and Russians were the biggest in seven states in 1920 and 1950.

By 1960, the largest number of immigrants in most states came from Germany (17 states), Italy (10) and Canada (10).

Another wave of immigration began in 1965. Most immigrants in this wave came from Latin America (49%) or Asia (27%) . Mexico alone accounted for about 25% of these new immigrants. Large numbers also came from China, India, the Philippines, Central America and the Caribbean.

After 1990, the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. started to grow quickly, from 3.5 million to 12.2 million in 2007. Most unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. at this time came from Mexico, which was also the largest source of legal immigrants.

These new legal and unauthorized arrivals led to major changes in states’ immigrant populations. Mexican immigrants became the largest group in an increasing number of states.

In 1980, Mexican immigrants were the largest group in 10 states, trailing German immigrants (19 states) and Canadian immigrants (11 states).

By 2000, Mexican immigrants were the largest group in 31 states, and Germans were no longer the largest immigrant group in any state. Immigrants from Cuba, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Vietnam, the Philippines and India were the largest groups in 11 states.

The onset of the Great Recession led to changes in immigration patterns. Mexican immigration to the U.S. slowed dramatically after 2007. As a result, the Mexican immigrant population stopped growing. Though Mexico remained the largest source of U.S. immigrants, Mexicans’ share of the immigrant population fell from 29% in 2010 to 23% in 2022.

Meanwhile, immigration from Asia increased rapidly. In the 2010s, there were more new arrivals from Asia than from Latin America .

The unauthorized immigrant population declined from 12.2 million in 2007 to 10.2 million in 2019. Since then, though, the unauthorized immigrant population has grown again, reaching 11.0 million in 2022 .

Mexico remained the largest country of birth for immigrants in 29 states in 2022, while India was the largest in six states. For the first time, the following origin groups made up the largest immigrant population in a state or district:

Ethiopians in the District of Columbia
Guatemalans in South Dakota
Hondurans in Louisiana

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Oct. 7, 2015.

Immigration & Migration

Jeffrey S. Passel is a senior demographer at Pew Research Center .

Jens Manuel Krogstad is a senior writer and editor at Pew Research Center .

Mohamad Moslimani is a former research analyst focusing on race and ethnicity at Pew Research Center .

What the data says about immigrants in the U.S.

Cultural issues and the 2024 election, latinos’ views on the migrant situation at the u.s.-mexico border, u.s. christians more likely than ‘nones’ to say situation at the border is a crisis, how americans view the situation at the u.s.-mexico border, its causes and consequences, most popular.

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 | Media Inquiries

Research Topics

Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan, nonadvocacy fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It does not take policy positions. The Center conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, computational social science research and other data-driven research. Pew Research Center is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts , its primary funder.

Welcome to a story

about all of us

Listen to our voices

Add your own

How did we get here?

Where will we go next?

We all have an American story

What’s yours?

The Immigrant Story

is an American Story

We are all Immigrants

“Of course, we couldn’t all come over on the Mayflower. But I got here as soon as I could, and I never wanted to go back.”

Anton Cermak

We are America

“Speaking different tongues, we nevertheless meet here today as brothers…Henceforth we have one country, one hope, one destiny”

Justice Nathaniel Bennett

These are our Stories

“One of our ancient methods is to tell a story begging the listener to say,

You’re not as alone as you thought.”

John Steinbeck

Latest Stories

My Heart Has Two Countries

Kseniia Hnatovska never kept up with the news. Instead, she was a planner. She loved scheduling vacations and weekend activities,

Getting Down to Business

For Abiba Magba Magba, running a business was a means of survival. Her mother taught her this while Magba was growing up in Bangui,

Flavors From Home In A Suitcase

Ask almost any refugee from war-torn countries how they arrived on these shores, and at this specific place, and you will inevitably hear of radical choices

Featured Stories

Opportunity in Every Hurdle

Ng Lai Goon, eager to fit in with her American grade school peers, chose her American name, Sally, from an elementary school reading primer,

Following Music to Freedom

It has always been music that has guided Ahmad Fanoos’ life. “My whole family liked music,” he explains. “And it was part of my life from a very early age.”

Finding Strength in a Complex Heritage

“Being 100% American means fully accepting your heritage — whatever it is,” Mitzi Loftus says, reflecting on her experience growing up in Oregon

Live! Stories

Discovering My Story

Growing up close to his paternal grandparents in southern Oregon, Toby Asai Loftus was always intrigued by the other half of his family,

Shall We Dance Bollywood?

As a student in India, Prashant worked hard and finally achieved the American dream of a well-paying job in engineering and a career that made his parents proud.

Food Feeds our Souls

Born in Tehran, Iran in 1978, during the Iranian revolution, Sara came to Portland with her family in 1986. As young teenagers,

Latest Podcast Episodes

The Immigrant Story Live Podcast II

Welcome to The Immigrant Story Live, where we feature stories from the stage. In each episode of this new series we weave together three stories that were originally

They Will be Free Soon

Veronika Levytska and Ian Levytsky grew up in Ukraine but dreamed of an easier life – away from the shadow of Russia – for themselves and their loved ones.

Pioneering Pilot Breaks Barriers

As a young woman growing up in a conservative society, Safia Ferozi overcame intense expectations and restrictions placed on women

Latest Conversations

It Takes a Yes from One Person

This episode brings together two remarkable women, both public servants. Sophorn Cheang is the director of Business Oregon, the economic development

Life is a Work in Progress

What does a mental health journey look like? How can art, music, and therapy bring us to better self understanding and self love? In this episode, Portland Community

I Am An American – Panel Discussion

Panelists explored their experiences as Asian American women, offering personal reflections as well as highlighting current xenophobia and intolerance against

Featured Movies

To Bear Witness: Closure

On a journey to come to terms with their losses, a group of Holocaust survivors from Portland, OR, travel together to six of the locations where concentration camps

To Bear Witness: Reconciliation

A survivor of the genocide in Rwanda when he was a teenager, Emmanuel Turanturanye has a theory about why he is alive: to tell rest of world what happened

To Bear Witness: Building Community

After the Khmer Rouge killed her husband, Saron’s mother gathered her three small children and made her way to a refugee camp in Thailand and, finally,

Live! Music

Temple Romance – Live on Stage

Temple Romance goes to South Indian classical flute melodies blended with a strong string and chorale harmonies. Bala’s inspiration for this piece is

Magic Gem – Live on Stage

Magic Gem takes a classic Western melody and adapts it to an Eastern classical vibe using the Chinese erhu, played by Jerry Lin.

Hit the Strings – Live on Stage

Hit the Strings is based on a Middle Eastern musical scale and features the Japanese koto played by Masumi Timson. Many cultural influences flow between

What We Carried

Painted Letter #2, Berlin, Germany

Eva Rickles: This is the second letter from Peter, expressing the joy he felt to receive my parents’ response to his first letter written from Shanghai.

Painted Letter #1, Berlin, Germany

Eva Rickles: Jou and Peter’s Departure (Text below the letter) This picture depicts the exodus of friends of my parents who had to flee from Germany in 1938

Photographs, Budapest, Hungary

Eva E. Aigner: Our apartment became a house marked by a Jewish star, during the Holocaust. We were taken to the ghetto from here.

No results found

We're sorry, but there are no results that match your search criteria. Try checking your spelling or using alternate search terms. We add new data to USAFacts all the time; you can subscribe to our newsletter to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly, no searching required.

Subscribe to get unbiased, data-driven insights sent to your inbox weekly.

Government spending
Defense and security
Environment
Guides and reports

Why do immigrants come to the US?

Of all people legally immigrating to the US in 2021, about 42% came for work, 32% for school, and 23% for family.

Updated on Thu, August 1, 2024 by the USAFacts Team

People immigrate to the US to work, reunite with family, study, or seek personal safety. In 2021, 42% of the 1.5 million people who immigrated to the US came for work.

What reasons for immigration does the government track?

The US government generally allows legal immigration for five broad reasons : work , school , family, safety, and encouraging diversity.

People immigrating for work or school are often granted temporary entry rather than permanent residency. Immigration for family generally means the immigrant has a relative who is already in the US as a citizen, green card holder, or temporary visa holder with whom they want to be reunited with. Those who immigrate for safety are refugees or asylum-seekers. And finally, up to 50,000 immigrants obtain green cards annually through the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program lottery that grants entry to individuals from countries with low rates of immigration to the US.

How many immigrants came for each reason in 2021?

Of the 1.5 million people who immigrated to the US in 2021, about 42% came for work, 32% for school, and 23% for family. Nearly 2% were seeking safety, and about 0.9% were admitted on Diversity Immigrant Visas.

How have reasons for immigration evolved over the past 15 years?

Since 2006, work has consistently been the top reason people immigrate to the US, with the exception of 2013–2015 when immigration for work was equal to or slightly lower than for school.

School is usually the second most common reason for immigration except for 2018, when a higher percentage of people began immigrating for family reunification than education. In 2021 school again became the second most common reason.

Safety and diversity have consistently been the fourth and fifth most common reasons for immigration, respectively.

Area chart showing the number of people authorized to immigrate to the US by reason, 2006–2021. The chart indicates work is the most common reason for authorized immigration.

How do the reasons for immigration change depending on where people are immigrating from?

Of the 638,551 immigrants who came to the US for work in 2021, 61% came from North America. Immigrants from Asia represent the largest geographic cohort among the other four primary reasons for immigration: school (58%), family (45%), safety (34%), and encouraging diversity (33%).

New authorized immigrant arrivals by reason and region of origin, 2021. People from Asia made up the largest cohort of newly arrived immigrants in 2021

In 2021, 74% of all immigrants came from Asia and North/Central America. Roughly 53% of Asian immigrants came from China and India, while nearly 80% of immigrants from North/Central America were from Mexico.

Get facts first

Unbiased, data-driven insights in your inbox each week

You are signed up for the facts!

Why do Chinese people immigrate to America?

School was the top reason Chinese people immigrated between 2006–2021; 19% of people who came to the US for school were from China, the highest percentage of any other country. The number of Chinese immigrants coming to the US for school peaked in 2015, growing 680% from 40,477 people in 2006 to 315,628 people in 2015.

Despite a sharp decrease after 2016, most Chinese immigrants continue to come to the US for school. Fewer than 57,000 Chinese immigrants have come to the US per year for work or family reasons since 2006, and those numbers hit record lows of 5,323 and 13,412 in 2021.

Chart showing Number of authorized Chinese immigrants to the US by reason, 2006–2021. Since its peak in 2015, Chinese immigration for education in the US has fallen by 70.4%.

Why do Indian people immigrate to America?

The largest share of immigrants who came to be with family were from India, at 18% . But in 2021, more Indians immigrated for school than for family reunification. Work was the third most common reason.

Prior to 2021, most Indian immigrants came to the US for family and work, but those numbers have been decreasing. Fewer people came to the US from India for work (54,032 people) and family in 2021 (62,407) than in 2006 (117,189 and 81,045 people, respectively).

Meanwhile, the number of Indians immigrating for school increased by over 300% between 2020 and 2021, from 20,629 to 85,385.

Line graph showing the number of authorized Indian immigrants to the US by reason, 2006–2021. Indian immigration into the US was 45.6% lower in 2021 than before the pandemic.

Why do Mexican people immigrate to America?

In 2021, people from Mexico comprised the largest share of immigrants coming for work — 55% of all immigrants, or 351,586 people. Work has consistently been the top reason Mexican people immigrate to the US. Family and school have consistently been the second and third reasons.

More than double the number of people immigrated to the US for work from Mexico in 2021 (351,586 people) than in 2006 (168,619 people).

Line graph showing the number of authorized Mexican immigrants to the US by reason, 2006–2021. Over 82% of authorized Mexican immigrants to the US in 2021 came for work-related reasons.

Where did this data come from?

There are multiple data sources because immigrants enter the US through multiple pathways. Data on visa admissions comes from the US State Department; we exclude people who come with visas for short-term tourism, cultural exchange, or visiting. Data on refugees and asylum-seekers comes from the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Yearbook of Immigration Statistics. Data on green cards comes from the DHS’s expanded lawful permanent resident tables.

Read more about where immigrants are moving in the US , and get the data directly in your inbox by signing up for our email newsletter .

Explore more of USAFacts

Related articles, temporary agricultural visas increase in 2020, despite pandemic, where are immigrants moving in the us, how many people seek asylum in the us, what types of work visas and green cards does the us issue, related data, immigrant population.

46.18 million

Data delivered to your inbox

Keep up with the latest data and most popular content.

SIGN UP FOR THE NEWSLETTER

Share full article

Supported by

Coming to America

By Sam Roberts

May 31, 2018

In “Journeys: An American Story” (RosettaBooks), Andrew Tisch and Mary Skafidas have compiled 72 essays by immigrants or their descendants, some of whom are famous, like Michael R. Bloomberg, while others are everyday — albeit exceptional — Americans. The diverse tales, presented together, show how immigrants have built and strengthened the culture of New York and the country at-large.

Mr. Tisch, the co-chairman of the board of the Loews Corporation, decided to ask celebrities and acquaintances to recount immigration stories after researching his own family history in preparation for a speech at a swearing-in ceremony of new citizens. (He contributed an essay to the book, as did Ms. Skafidas).

Ms. Skafidas, Loews’ vice president of investor relations and corporate communications, was born in the United States and had Greek immigrant parents but didn’t speak English until she was 6; her aunt was undocumented.

Among the book’s featured raconteurs are Pete Gogolak, the former Giants place kicker who was 14 when he fled Hungary; Linda Hills, a great-granddaughter of Andrew Carnegie; Arlene and Alan Alda; and the executive Morris Sarnoff, who emigrated from Belarus with his brothers David and Lew and their mother after their father had worked for five years as a house painter in New York to earn enough for their passage.

Also, Tony Bennett, who was the first person in his family to be born in a hospital; and Elaine L. Chao, now the Transportation Secretary, who, speaking no English, struggled to understand the concept of Halloween in her third grade class in Queens.

John Zaccaro Jr., whose mother was Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro, the first woman nominated for vice president on a major party ticket, recalls that his grandmother couldn’t write her own name, but understood the value of education, especially for a daughter.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in .

Want all of The Times? Subscribe .

Home / Essay Samples / Social Issues / Immigration in America / Immigrants Coming to America

Immigrants Coming to America

Category: Social Issues
Topic: Illegal Immigration , Immigration in America

Pages: 1 (425 words)

Downloads: -->

--> ⚠️ Remember: This essay was written and uploaded by an--> click here.

Found a great essay sample but want a unique one?

are ready to help you with your essay

You won’t be charged yet!

Dumpster Diving Essays

Corporal Punishment Essays

Gender Discrimination Essays

Daca Essays

Immigration Reform Essays

Related Essays

We are glad that you like it, but you cannot copy from our website. Just insert your email and this sample will be sent to you.

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Your essay sample has been sent.

In fact, there is a way to get an original essay! Turn to our writers and order a plagiarism-free paper.

samplius.com uses cookies to offer you the best service possible.By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .--> -->