American Community Survey Briefs

U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

U S C E N S U S B U R E A U

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

Year of Entry of the Foreign-Born 

Population: 2009

Introduction

This report presents data on the year of 

entry of the foreign-born population at 

the national and state levels based on 

the 2009 American Community Survey 

(ACS).1 In 2009, an estimated 38.5 million 

foreign-born people lived in the United 

States, representing roughly 12.5 percent 

of the total population. The foreign-born 

population includes anyone who was not 

a U.S. citizen at birth.

Data on year of entry is important 

because it can be used as an indicator 

of time spent in the United States by 

the foreign born. For example, in 2009, 

14 percent of the foreign-born population reported having lived in the country 

less than 5 years. Additional information 

about the foreign born can be gained 

when year of entry is analyzed with other 

variables. For example, combining year 

of entry with data on place of birth shows 

that 83 percent of the foreign-born population who reported entering the United 

States in 2000 or later were from Asian or 

Latin American countries compared with 

68 percent of those who reported entering prior to 1980. Also, data showing 

year of entry by state of residence can 

provide information on the proportion of 

recent entrants in each state. For example, the foreign-born population in North 

Dakota represents less than 1 percent of 

the total foreign born; however, one-third 

of this state’s foreign-born population 

1 Data on the year of entry of the foreign-born 

population are derived from the question: “When did 

this person come to live in the United States?” The 

year respondents report that they “came to live” is 

considered their “year of entry.” Respondents who 

“came to live” in the United States more than once 

were asked to report their most recent year of entry. 

entered the country within the past 

5 years. By comparison, over one-fourth 

of all foreign born lived in California, but 

only 10 percent had entered in the past 

5 years. This report examines differences 

in the size, place of birth, and geographic 

distribution of foreign-born year of entry 

cohorts.2

Size, Place of Birth, and 

Geographic Distribution of 

Foreign-Born Year of Entry

Cohorts

Among the 38.5 million foreign-born U.S. 

residents in 2009, 21 percent reported 

a year of entry prior to 1980, compared 

with 32 percent who reported entering in 2000 or later (Table 1). Over half 

(59 percent) of the foreign-born population entered the United States during the 

last two decades.

The distribution of the foreign-born 

population by world region of birth varies 

considerably across entry cohorts. For 

example, 13 percent of the total foreignborn population was born in Europe 

(Table 2). However, 1 in 4 who entered 

prior to 1980 was born in Europe compared with less than 1 in 10 (8.9 percent) who entered in 2000 or later. When 

compared to Europe, the foreign born 

from Latin America show a different pattern. Over half (53 percent) of all foreign 

born were from Latin America. Of the 

foreign born who entered prior to 1980, 

45 percent were born in Latin America, 

compared with 54 percent of those who 

2 In this report the term “year of entry cohorts” 

refers to individuals who reported coming to live 

in the United States during specific periods of time: 

prior to 1980, 1980 to 1989, 1990 to 1999, and 

2000 or later.

Issued October 2010

ACSBR/09-17

By

Nathan P. Walters

Rachel T. Cortés
2 U.S. Census Bureau

entered in 2000 or later. This trend 

has been driven especially by those 

born in Central American countries, 

representing 37 percent of the total 

foreign-born population, 28 percent 

of those who entered before 1980, 

and 39 percent of those who 

entered in 2000 or later. The foreign 

born from Asia, when examined by 

entry cohort, also show a noteworthy pattern. Over one-fourth 

(28 percent) of the total foreignborn population was from Asia, and 

the Asian foreign born represented 

approximately one-fourth or more 

of each entry cohort, peaking at 

31 percent of all foreign born who 

entered between 1980 and 1989. 

Table 1.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry: 2009

(Numbers in thousands. Data based on sample. For information on 

confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Period of entry Number

Margin of 

error1

 (±) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (±)

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38,517 116 100.0 (X)

Prior to 1980 . . . . . . . . . . 8,041 54 20.9 0.2

1980 to 1989 . . . . . . . . . . 7,577 60 19.7 0.1

1990 to 1999 . . . . . . . . . . 10,736 74 27.9 0.2

2000 or later . . . . . . . . . . 12,163 97 31.6 0.2

(X) Not applicable.

1

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error 

is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the 

size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from 

the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.

Table 2.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry and Place of Birth: 2009

(Percent distribution. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and 

definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Place of birth

Total Prior to 1980 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 or later

Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(±)

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X)

Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.9 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.8 0.1 3.9 0.1 5.9 0.2

Americas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.2 0.1 49.1 0.3 57.6 0.4 57.8 0.3 55.6 0.4

Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53.1 0.1 44.6 0.3 56.3 0.3 56.2 0.4 54.0 0.4

 Caribbean.................. 9.0 0.1 11.6 0.2 10.1 0.3 8.3 0.2 7.2 0.2

 Central America . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.4 0.2 27.7 0.2 39.7 0.4 41.4 0.3 38.8 0.4

 South America . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.7 0.1 5.3 0.2 6.5 0.2 6.5 0.2 8.1 0.2

 Northern America . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 – 4.5 0.1 1.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.6 0.1

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.7 0.1 23.7 0.3 31.5 0.3 26.6 0.3 28.8 0.4

Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.7 0.1 24.9 0.3 7.7 0.2 11.3 0.2 8.9 0.2

Oceania . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 – 0.5 – 0.4 – 0.5 – 0.7 0.1

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X) 100.0 (X)

Eight largest countries of birth2 54.9 0.2 46.4 0.3 58.3 0.4 58.3 0.4 55.5 0.4

China3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 0.1 4.1 0.1 5.7 0.2 5.4 0.1 5.3 0.1

Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.1 4.8 0.1 1.9 0.1 1.8 0.1 2.2 0.1

El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.1 1.5 0.1 4.4 0.2 3.1 0.1 3.0 0.1

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 0.1 2.3 0.1 3.2 0.1 4.4 0.1 6.3 0.2

Korea4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 0.1 2.9 0.1 3.4 0.1 2.1 0.1 2.4 0.1

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.8 0.2 23.5 0.2 30.0 0.3 33.7 0.3 30.3 0.4

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.1 4.8 0.1 5.6 0.2 4.0 0.1 4.0 0.1

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.1 2.5 0.1 4.1 0.2 3.8 0.1 1.9 0.1

All other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.1 0.2 53.6 0.3 41.7 0.4 41.7 0.4 44.5 0.4

(X) Not applicable.

 – Represents or rounds to zero.

1

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

in relation to the size of the estimate, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval. 2

Eight largest countries of birth determined for total foreign-born population. Countries listed alphabetically. 3

Includes respondents who reported their country of birth as China, Hong Kong, Macau, Paracel Islands, or Taiwan. 4

Includes respondents who reported their country of birth as Korea, North Korea, or South Korea.

Note: Data exclude population born at sea.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 3.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry by State and Puerto Rico: 2009

(Numbers in thousands. Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, 

and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

Area

Total Prior to 1980 1980 to 1989 1990 to 1999 2000 or later

Number

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(±)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(±)

 United States . . . 38,517 116 20.9 0.2 19.7 0.1 27.9 0.2 31.6 0.2

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . 147 4 14.7 1.6 11.4 1.3 26.3 2.4 47.6 2.6

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3 18.3 3.5 21.0 3.1 24.9 3.3 35.7 5.5

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . 925 20 19.2 0.8 18.9 1.1 29.2 1.2 32.7 1.3

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 120 5 13.8 1.8 16.6 2.2 31.7 3.2 37.8 3.8

California . . . . . . . . . . . 9,947 47 23.4 0.3 25.2 0.3 26.5 0.3 24.9 0.4

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 487 15 16.3 0.9 13.9 1.1 33.8 1.7 36.0 2.1

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 460 12 24.3 1.2 15.8 1.1 25.4 1.1 34.5 1.6

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 74 5 16.0 2.3 12.0 1.8 27.7 3.7 44.3 4.1

District of Columbia . . . 72 5 19.1 2.9 17.8 2.7 23.5 2.5 39.6 3.8

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,484 37 24.0 0.5 18.7 0.5 25.5 0.5 31.8 0.6

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 920 17 12.0 0.6 14.9 0.8 31.7 1.2 41.4 1.4

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 9 30.2 1.9 19.1 1.5 24.3 1.6 26.4 2.4

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6 20.9 2.2 16.9 2.6 28.0 3.1 34.1 4.0

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,741 24 22.6 0.7 17.7 0.6 31.4 0.9 28.4 0.9

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281 9 16.2 1.2 11.7 1.1 27.2 1.9 44.8 2.3

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 4 12.5 1.4 14.0 2.0 33.6 2.8 39.8 3.0

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6 13.6 1.4 15.3 1.7 31.1 2.0 39.9 2.3

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 128 6 11.5 1.4 7.7 1.5 26.8 2.6 54.0 3.1

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 152 7 24.0 2.2 15.3 1.9 21.1 1.9 39.5 2.9

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 4 37.4 4.5 11.1 2.3 17.6 4.3 33.9 5.2

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 730 14 16.6 0.7 18.7 1.0 28.4 1.2 36.4 1.5

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 943 19 21.6 0.7 18.0 0.9 26.2 1.1 34.2 1.2

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . 614 15 22.3 1.0 13.3 0.8 27.8 1.2 36.5 1.4

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 358 10 12.4 1.0 15.8 1.1 30.0 1.7 41.8 2.0

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 60 5 16.0 2.9 12.4 2.6 23.5 3.7 48.1 4.9

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 8 16.8 1.2 12.8 1.2 28.3 1.7 42.2 2.3

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 2 35.1 5.1 15.2 4.1 19.4 4.2 30.3 6.1

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 106 4 11.2 1.5 12.7 2.1 31.7 2.7 44.4 3.5

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 507 11 19.2 1.1 20.2 1.4 28.6 1.6 32.1 1.6

New Hampshire . . . . . . 68 5 31.5 2.8 14.6 2.8 23.1 3.2 30.8 3.9

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 1,759 24 21.1 0.6 19.1 0.6 27.7 0.7 32.1 0.8

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 196 10 24.1 2.1 20.7 1.9 25.3 2.5 29.9 2.6

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 4,178 36 22.9 0.4 20.9 0.4 28.1 0.4 28.2 0.6

North Carolina . . . . . . . 665 14 11.4 0.6 13.0 0.9 31.3 1.1 44.2 1.6

North Dakota . . . . . . . . 15 2 19.5 4.6 9.2 4.1 18.2 5.3 53.1 7.5

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433 11 24.5 1.0 12.6 1.1 25.5 1.3 37.4 1.4

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . 190 7 16.7 1.3 15.6 1.7 27.7 2.2 40.0 2.3

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367 12 16.9 1.0 17.8 1.1 29.8 1.6 35.5 1.7

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 691 16 21.7 0.8 16.1 0.9 26.7 1.1 35.5 1.4

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 133 7 26.8 2.0 20.8 2.1 25.4 2.6 27.0 3.1

South Carolina . . . . . . . 205 8 18.0 1.5 12.3 1.4 24.0 2.0 45.7 2.3

South Dakota . . . . . . . . 22 3 16.0 3.9 14.3 4.5 27.6 8.1 42.2 7.3

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 266 10 12.8 1.3 12.1 1.4 32.5 2.5 42.6 2.6

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,985 37 17.5 0.4 19.1 0.4 29.8 0.6 33.5 0.7

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 7 14.2 1.1 16.6 1.5 31.1 2.0 38.1 2.3

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 2 38.5 5.3 11.1 2.8 30.2 6.2 20.2 4.3

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 806 15 16.1 0.7 16.7 0.8 29.4 1.1 37.8 1.5

Washington . . . . . . . . . 811 15 19.5 0.9 18.3 0.9 29.0 1.1 33.2 1.3

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 23 2 26.6 4.5 14.6 4.1 21.5 4.5 37.2 6.1

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . 256 9 21.8 1.4 14.3 1.3 27.3 2.0 36.6 2.1

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 26.7 7.3 12.4 4.4 19.8 6.0 41.1 8.9

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . 108 7 25.3 2.3 15.8 1.9 29.8 2.8 29.2 2.0

1

Data are based on a sample and are subject to sampling variability. A margin of error is a measure of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error 

in relation to the size of the estimates, the less reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 percent 

confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Immigration from Africa shows a 

pattern similar to the foreign born 

from Latin America, albeit on a 

smaller scale. The proportion born 

in Africa increased in each subsequent entry cohort from a low of 

1.8 percent of those who entered 

prior to 1980 to 5.9 percent of 

those who entered in 2000 or later.

There are some interesting differences by country across each 

entry cohort. For example, Mexico 

accounted for the largest share of 

foreign-born residents (30 percent). 

Less than one-fourth of all foreign 

born who entered prior to 1980 

were from Mexico; however, there 

were 30 percent or more in each 

subsequent period. The foreign 

born from China represented 

4.1 percent of those who entered 

the United States prior to 1980 

and 5.7 percent of those entering between 1980 and 1989. The 

foreign born from India represented 

a comparatively small percentage—2.3 percent—of the cohort 

entering before 1980. However, 

this proportion almost tripled for 

those who entered after 2000, 

increasing to 6.3 percent. 

Individual states differed considerably in terms of the year of entry to 

the United States of their foreignborn populations. California and 

New York, with large foreign-born 

populations, exhibited relatively 

consistent proportions of foreignborn individuals throughout their 

entry cohorts (Table 3). More 

interesting is the higher proportion 

of recent entrants in the foreignborn populations of several less 

populous states. For example, in 

five such states (Alabama, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Mississippi, and South 

Carolina) less than 20 percent of 

the foreign-born population in 

those states entered prior to 1980, 

compared with 45 percent or more 

who entered in 2000 or later. 

When focusing on the most recent 

immigrants, 14 percent of the 

foreign-born population entered 

the United States between 2005 

and 2009. More than half of these 

new immigrants lived in just six 

states: California, Florida, Illinois, 

New Jersey, New York, and Texas. 

However, a slightly different picture 

emerges when considering the 

proportion of the foreign-born 

population within each state that 

entered the United States within the 

past 5 years. Of those states with 

more than 1.0 million foreign born, 

four states (California, Florida, 

Illinois, and New York) had a lower 

proportion of recent entrants than 

the national average (Figure 1). 

Several states beyond these traditional immigrant destinations had 

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS MO

WA

FL

IL

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA

PR

HI

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

NC

MS

LA

TN

VA

RI 

DE 

MD 

DC 

NJ 

Figure 1.

Percentage of State Foreign-Born Population That Entered 

the United States: 2005 to 2009

(Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, 

nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/acs/www)

VT NH

United States = 14.1

Percentage

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, 2009, Puerto Rico Community Survey, 2009.

23.0 or more

20.0 to 22.9

17.0 to 19.9

14.0 to 16.9

Less than 14.0

ND

SD

WV

SC

AL

KY

IN
U.S. Census Bureau 5

considerably higher proportions 

of recent entrants. North Dakota 

(34 percent), Kentucky (28 percent), 

and South Dakota (26 percent) had 

among the largest proportions of 

foreign-born population entering 

between 2005 and 2009. An additional three states, including Alabama, Indiana, and South Carolina, 

had over 20 percent of their foreign 

born entering between 2005 and 

2009.3 Although these states 

account for a small percentage of 

the total foreign-born population, 

they illustrate the widening geographic distribution of the foreign 

born, particularly among more 

recent entrants.

3 The percentages for North Dakota, 

Kentucky, and South Dakota were not statistically different from each other. South Dakota’s 

percentage was also not statistically different 

from 20 percent.

Source and Accuracy

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2009. 

The resulting estimates are representative of the entire population. 

All comparisons presented in this 

report have taken sampling error 

into account and are significant 

at the 90 percent confidence level 

unless otherwise noted. Due to 

rounding, some details may not 

sum to totals. For information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “ACS Accuracy of the 

Data (2009)” document located 

at <www.census.gov/acs/www

/Downloads/data_documentation/

Accuracy/ACS_Accuracy_of_Data 

_2009.pdf>. 

What is the American 

Community Survey?

The American Community 

Survey (ACS) is a nationwide 

survey designed to provide communities with reliable and timely 

demographic, social, economic, and 

housing data for the nation, states, 

congressional districts, counties, 

places, and other localities every 

year. It has an annual sample size 

of about 3 million addresses across 

the United States and Puerto Rico 

and includes both housing units 

and group quarters (e.g. nursing 

facilities and prisons). The ACS is 

conducted in every county throughout the nation, and every municipio 

in Puerto Rico, where it is called 

the Puerto Rico Community Survey. 

Beginning in 2006, ACS data for 

2005 were released for geographic 

areas with populations of 65,000 

and greater. For information on the 

ACS sample design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs

.www>. Additional information 

about the foreign-born population 

is available on the Census Bureau’s 

web site at <www.census.gov

/population/www/socdemo/

foreign/index.html>.