POPULATION DIVISION 

Working Paper #63 

Evaluating Components of International Migration: 

Native Emigrants 

James C. Gibbs 

Gregory S. Harper 

Marc J. Rubin 

Hyon B. Shin 
Synopsis 

On March 1, 2001, the U.S. Census Bureau issued the recommendation of the Executive 

Steering Committee for A.C.E. Policy (ESCAP) that the Census 2000 Redistricting Data 

not be adjusted based on the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (A.C.E.). By midOctober 2001, the Census Bureau had to recommend whether Census 2000 data should be 

adjusted for future uses, such as the census long form data products, post-censal 

population estimates, and demographic survey controls. In order to inform that decision, 

the ESCAP requested that further research be conducted. 

Between March and September 2001, the Demographic Analysis-Population Estimates 

(DAPE) research project addressed the discrepancy between the demographic analysis 

data and the A.C.E. adjusted estimates of the population. Specifically, the research 

examined the historical levels of the components of population change to address the 

possibility that the 1990 Demographic Analysis understated the national population and 

assessed whether demographic analysis had not captured the full population growth 

between 1990 and 2000. Assumptions regarding the components of international 

migration (specifically, emigration, temporary migration, legal migration, and unauthorized 

migration) contain the largest uncertainty in the demographic analysis estimates. 

Therefore, evaluating the components of international migration was a critical activity in 

the DAPE project. 

This report focuses on the evaluation of the assumptions about emigration of the native 

born used by the Census Bureau. From the 1970s through the 1980s, the Census Bureau 

estimated annual emigration of the native born at a constant level of 27,000. For the 1990 

and 2000 decennial population census, the Census Bureau estimated annual emigration of 

the native born at a constant level of 48,000. The evaluation attempted -- unsuccessfully 

-- to replicate the approach taken to arrive at the 48,000 figure. 

However, working with published data from population censuses and statistical reports of 

other countries, we were able to calculate a rough estimate of the net effect of the native 

born emigrant flow on the 2000 national resident population estimate. We compared the 

available data for dates as close to 1990 and 2000 as possible for 16 countries for which 

data were available. These 16 countries represented 58 percent of the American 

population abroad as measured by 2000 State Department data. We then applied 1990 

U.S. survival rates to survive the populations of the 11 countries for which age 

distribution data were available. For those countries for which we did not have age 

distributions, we estimated the survived population by assuming a one- percent annual 

decrease in the Year 1 population. This was based on the experience of the countries for 

which we did have data. 

The limitations on the available data make the estimate of the native born emigrant 

population questionable, but our research indicates that the magnitude of this population is 

small and likely to fluctuate over time. Our best estimate of the annual emigration of the 

native born is 18,000, or 180,000 for the 1990-2000 intercensal decade. Based on this 

estimate, we believe that the estimate of 480,000 native born emigrants for the 1990-2000 

decade that was used in the 2000 national population estimate is too high by 300,000. 
Background 

Emigration from the United States is one of the most difficult components of migration to 

measure. There are only minimal identification checks for those leaving the United States, 

and there is no system - official or unofficial - to identify residents of the United States 

who emigrate. While demographic techniques have been developed by the Census Bureau 

and others to estimate the amount of emigration of the foreign born, emigration of the 

native born has been and remains, at best, a guess. From the 1970s through the 1980s, the 

Census Bureau estimated annual emigration of the native born at a constant level of 

27,000. For the 1990 and 2000 decennial population census, the Census Bureau estimated 

annual emigration of the native born at a constant level of 48,000. 

The methodology and procedures used to arrive at the 48,000 figure are described in 

Estimation of the Annual Emigration of U.S. Born Persons by Using Foreign Censuses 

and Selected Administrative Data: Circa 1980, Population Division Technical Working 

Paper 10, prepared by Edward W. Fernandez in January 1995. Fernandez’ work, both 

Technical Working Paper 10 and various background memoranda and other documents 

prepared by him, were the point of departure for the work completed by Team 7. 

Fernandez’ opinion was that the analytical demography used to estimate emigration of the 

foreign born was not adequate to estimate emigration of the native born. Instead, he used 

analytical methods applied to information derived from administrative records. To briefly 

summarize the technique used by Fernandez, 

“I applied the Intercensal cohort survival techniques to the two latest censuses of a 

selected number of foreign countries which had enumerated U.S. residents by 

birth. In addition, I used State Department information on U.S. citizens registering 

at U.S. posts abroad (e.g., Consulates, Embassies, etc.). By combining these two 

methods and making some basic assumptions, I was able to estimate the net annual 

emigration of U.S. born persons by age, sex, and race.” 

Fernandez noted that Technical Working Paper 10 was exploratory in nature, and the 

document is replete with caveats concerning the quality of the data with which he was 

working and the limits of his analysis. Still, in the absence of any more detailed analysis, 

his figure of 48,000 U.S. born emigrants annually was used as the component of native 

emigration for the population estimates during the 1990s and in the preliminary 

demographic analysis estimate produced in March. 

The objectives of Team 7 were to answer the following questions: 

- Could the results of the 1990 demographic analysis be replicated?

- Could the methodology utilized by Fernandez be replicated?

- Does the 1990 - 2000 estimate of emigration of the native born (480,000)

appear reasonable? 

- How does the 1990 - 2000 estimate change based upon current demographic 

analysis and current data? 

- Are there changes in procedures and methodologies that we would suggest for 
the future, that is, to be implemented for the period 2000 - 2010? 

These questions are addressed in the following sections of the report, dealing respectively 

with methods, limits of the data and analysis, results, and suggestions for future estimates. 

Methods 

Fernandez’ methodology started with Department of State records concerning the number 

of U.S. persons living abroad. Unfortunately, his documentation doesn’t make clear with 

whom he spoke, or what precise data he obtained from the State Department. Team 7 

met with officials from both the Consular Section and the Operations Center at the 

Department of State. The Consular Section personnel, while not providing any raw data, 

were extremely helpful in explaining the voluntary registration system employed by the 

166 U.S. Consulates worldwide. 

Operations Center personnel provided information from 1999 and 2000 on the number of 

persons registering as Americans at the 166 Consulates. This information, which is 

contained in the body of an annual reporting cable - called the F-77 - from the Consulate to 

the State Department in Washington, is interesting, but can hardly be considered 

definitive. 

The second phase of Fernandez’ work involved consulting the published census volumes 

of selected countries that report on U.S. emigrants (taken by Team 7 to mean published 

data on the U.S.-born population). Fernandez used the University of Texas library in this 

phase. Team 7 used the resource collection of foreign censuses and other statistical 

materials maintained by the International Programs Center. Fernandez’ only specific 

reference to his census sources is “Censuses of Foreign Countries: 1965 to 1985” and 

presumably Team 7 consulted many of the same sources. 

However, when Team 7 turned to the IPC resource collection, there was not a single 

instance in which we could validate a country figure reported by Fernandez. This was due 

principally to the vague nature of his bibliographic references. We therefore were forced 

to improvise by using whatever sources we could find, and hope that the dates and 

definitions contained therein were compatible. Table 1 lists all of the direct comparisons 

that could be made. While “Germany 1980" and “Japan 1980" produce nearly identical 

figures for the US State-DAPE Team 7 comparison, only “Argentina 1980" (9,785 vs. 

11,667) is close when the relevant Fernandez estimate is measured against the estimate of 

DAPE Team 7. 
Table 1. Estimates of U.S. Born Persons in Selected Countries at Specified Dates 

Based on Registrations of U.S. Residents at U.S. Posts Abroad, by Sex: 1970 &1980 

Country U.S. State 

Department 

Fernandez I Fernandez II DAPE Team 7 

Argentina 

1970 

1980 

Austria 

1970 

1980 

Germany 

1970 

1980 

Greece 

1970 

1980 

Italy 

1970 

1980 

Japan 

1970 

1980 

Norway 

1970 

1980 

Philippines 

1970 

1980 

Spain 

1970 

1980 

Thailand 

1970 

1980 

5,825 

7,000 

5,235 

10,168 

59,927 

75,956 

28,532 

46,000 

60,886 

69,161 

20,680 

22,532 

7,596 

15,500 

25,195 

55,500 

23,708 

34,754 

9,039 

5,732 

9,708 

11,667 

8,725 

16,947 

99,878 

126,593 

47,553 

76,664 

101,477 

115,268 

34,467 

37,553 

12,660 

25,833 

41,992 

92,500 

39,513 

57,923 

15,065 

9,553 

4,854 

5,833 

4,363 

8,473 

49,939 

63,297 

23,777 

38,333 

50,738 

57,634 

17,233 

18,777 

6,330 

12,917 

20,996 

46,250 

19,757 

28,962 

7,533 

4,777 

9,785 

(1/1/71) 4,422 

56,393 

77,436 

(1/1/71) 20,756 

(10/25/81) 18,546 

19,045 

22,401 

(1/1/71) 7,010 

(1/1/81) 10,680 

(1971) 9,951 

(1978) 8,353 

(1981) 5,883 

2,250 

Sources: US State: US State Department estimate (Technical Working Paper 10) 

Fernandez l: State Department estimate inflated by 60 percent to reflect fact that perhaps 40 percent of all Americans abroad 

fail to register. (Technical Working Paper 10, p.4.) 

Fernandez ll: Fernandez I estimate deflated by half to capture US born among all U.S. citizen registrants (Technical Working 

Paper 10, p.4) 

DAPE: various census volumes and statistical abstracts in IPC resource collection 

Note: For our purposes, the most relevant comparison is Fernandez l to DAPE Team 7, since most of our European data are by 

country of citizenship not birth. Nevertheless, the Fernandez 1 figure is still a flawed comparitor since it probably includes 

businessmen on temporary travel, while DAPE Team 7 does not. 

As mentioned earlier, the State Department provided us with an electronic version of its 

worldwide internal tracking report (the F-77) for 1999 and 2000. From this, we were able 

to extract a table that summarized a plausible estimate of the number of registered 

Americans living abroad by Consulate. In many case, Consulates also provided 

information on the likely numbers of unregistered Americans and Americans of dual 

citizenship. In 1999 and 2000, the only two years for which data are available, there were 

approximately 3.4 million Americans overseas, excluding tourists and federally affiliated 

personnel (See Appendix 1). With only two data points, this data set had too few 
observations to support a robust statistical trend analysis of stocks or flows. However, it 

was useful to estimate the comparative level of U.S. citizens living in other countries. 

That is, the countries containing the majority of U.S. citizens in the State Department 

count can reasonably be expected to contain the majority of U.S. emigrants. The 26 

countries that contained approximately 85 percent of the total population of Americans 

living abroad, according to State Department data, were the countries for which we 

attempted to locate information from the IPC resource collection as well as other sources. 

Since we were unable to replicate Fernandez’ baseline data, we abandoned any effort to 

reproduce the results of his initial model. Nevertheless, we felt it was premature to 

abandon his methodology altogether at this point since we were still compiling our own 

database for the years after 1980. We could not determine in advance what type of 

modeling activity it would ultimately support. This data effort is now complete, and we 

are in a position to make a determination on methodology. 

Although we used the cohort survival method to create an estimate of native born 

emigration, the lack of timely data including age distributions for many countries makes 

this estimate problematic. We had recent data (past 1995) for only 16 countries and age 

distribution data for only 11. We assumed that the proportion of the native born emigrant 

population was proportionate to the American population living abroad as identified in the 

State Department F-77 data. A review of the available data shows that the native born 

emigrant population is fluid. What we are attempting to measure is not simply the gross 

outflow of native born Americans to other countries but the net effect of native born 

Americans leaving the United States versus those returning to the United States from 

abroad. The flow of this population is likely influenced by a variety of unpredictable 

economic and political factors and for some countries there will be a net negative flow of 

U.S. native born (that is, more people departing than arriving). 

Limits of the Data and Analysis 

The data compiled by the Consulates, which are designed to be useful to identify citizens

in the case of an emergency evacuation, are severely limited for our purposes.

Not only is the registration system completely voluntary, but also:

1. There is no independent confirmation that the people who register are, in fact, 

U.S. citizens, 

2. The registration system apparently is conducted independently with only 

minimal documentation and oversight in the 166 Consulates (that is, no 

guarantee of comparability of data), 

3. The registration system most likely obtains information on short-term U.S. 

visitors to a country as well as long-term residents, 

4. The registration system includes people of dual citizenship, meaning many 

people who have never lived permanently in the United States and may have no 

intention of returning to or ever living in the United States 

A more serious concern from our standpoint was the apparent absence of historical 

records and institutional memory on the part of the State Department. It wasn’t clear how 

long the annual reporting system had been in place, what the specific source of Fernandez’ 
information was, or if historical records were maintained in any form or for any period of 

time (1999 and 2000 were the only years available from the Operations Center at the time 

of our discussions with State). There was simply no way to retrieve the registration 

numbers for 1970-1980 used in Technical Working Paper 10. 

The data set that we produced from the various home country statistical offices, which 

covers roughly 85 percent of the likely emigrant population, is likewise deficient from a 

modeling perspective. Comparability is an overriding issue since different countries 

employ different definitions and methods for purposes of determining their foreign born 

population. The census figures are based on actual enumeration at known locations at 

given points in time. Other official data are derived from registrations with the relevant 

civil authorities as required by local law, or estimates. Neither of these country-based 

estimates is likely to coincide with the State Department figures since the former are apt to 

be mandated legally at some date shortly after the beginning of residency or at the time the 

census is taken. The latter are a voluntary action with no time limitation. Inspecting the 

figures in Appendix 2 reveals that, despite its breadth of coverage, much of the data matrix 

is empty. Of the 2632 cells, only 673 had observations.1 Again, a thorough statistical 

trend analysis of stocks is impeded by a lack of information. Over the 30 year period 

covered by the table, 40 of the 94 variable record entries (covering country totals, males 

and females) had fewer than 5 yearly observations, while thirty-two had fewer 

than 3. 

The implication is that for over one-third of the variable records, the data are insufficient 

to do statistical testing, and such testing was not done by Team 7. More specifically, for 

32 individual countries, simple trend line analysis (with slope and intercept parameters) is 

not feasible since one needs at least three data points to get the first degree of freedom for 

conducting tests of statistical significance. The problem of too few observations can be 

avoided to some extent if data are pooled across countries. But to get these additional 

data points, one has to sacrifice constancy in the composition of the sample at each point 

in time. This, in turn, confounds the interpretation of the growth rate. The problems are 

even more daunting if one is interested in capturing the data patterns with ARIMA (Auto 

Regressive Integrated Moving Average) models. Our impression of the existing data 

suggests that the series move erratically. Without more pattern stability, we doubt that 

Fernandez’ method of calculating the growth rate of the stock between the 1970 and 1980 

data points can adequately represent the annual rate of increase in emigration in the post 

1980 period. 

Results 

There are two major problems with using the current method to measure native born 

emigration. First, it is unlikely that the data on U.S. citizens living abroad accurately 

represents the native born emigrant population. The second problem is that there is little 

1

 Figures reported are limited to totals, with breakouts by gender where available. Additional data on the 

distribution of emigrants by age are also available for many of the included countries, but are not 

reproduced here. 
reason to believe that past trends are reliable indicators of present emigration levels. The 

severity of these problems suggests that the use of this method for estimating native born 

emigration is not well supported. 

Table 2 illustrates the problem of using the current method to estimate native born 

emigration. Canada is used as an example because it is home to a relatively large 

population of Americans, and it has available historical data. These data indicate that the 

American-born Canadian resident population fluctuates over time and suggest that many 

of those who immigrate to Canada later return to the United States. The change in these 

counts for any given ten-year period cannot be used as an accurate indicator of the change 

for the following ten-year period. 

Table 2. Number of American-born Canadian Residents: 1921-1996 

Year Number 

1921 

1931 

1941 

1951 

1961 

1971 

1981 

1986 

1991 

1996 

374,022 

344,574 

312,473 

282,010 

283,908 

309,640 

312,015 

282,025 

249,075 

244,690 

Source: 1961: Dominon Bureau of Statistics. 1961 Census of Canada. For years 1921-1961. 

1971: Statistics Canada. 1971 Census of Canada. 

1981: _____________. Population: Place of birth, citizenship, period of immigration. 

1986: _____________. Population and Dwelling Characteristics, Ethnicity, Immigration and Citizenship, The Nation. 

1991: _____________. Immigration and Citizenship: The Nation. 

1996: _____________. Immigration population by place of birth, 1996 Census. 

Table 3 shows similar data for the countries that we identified as having relatively large 

American citizen populations and for which data were available. 
Table 3. Native-born Emigrants to Selected Countries 

Country (Year1 Year2) 

Year 1 

(1) 

Year 2 

(2) 

Difference 

(1) - (2) = 

(3) 

Yearly 

Difference* 

(4) 

Argentina 1 (1981 1991) 

Australia 2 (1994 1999) 

Austria 3 (1981 1991) 

Belgium 3,4** (1991 1999) 

Brazil 5 (1982 1991) 

Canada 1,6 (1986 1996) 

France 1,3,4 (1982 1990) 

Germany 1,3,4** (1991 1998) 

Great Britain 1,3,4** (1991 1997) 

Greece 3,4** (1991 1998) 

Guatemala 5 (1981 1994) 

Ireland 3,4 (1992 1998) 

Israel 1 (1990 1997) 

Italy 3,4 (1991 1998) 

Japan 7 (1990 1995) 

Mexico 1 (1980 1990) 

Netherlands 3,4** (1991 1999) 

Norway 3,4** (1991 1999) 

Peru 5 (1981 1993) 

Philippines 1,8 (1978 1990) 

Portugal 3,4** (1992 1999) 

Spain 1,3,4 (1991 1999) 

Sweden 3,4** (1991 1999) 

Switzerland 3,4** (1993 1999) 

Thailand 9 (1981 1990) 

Venezuela 1 (1980 1990) 

9,767 

50,200 

4,171 

11,704 

13,803 

282,025 

18,800 

92,700 

143,484 

15,070 

3,764 

9,200 

NA 

18,604 

33,317 

157,117 

11,418 

9,537 

6,783 

8,353 

7,210 

14,776 

7,970 

11,864 

2,454 

13,027 

9,755 

59,700 

5,770 

12,394 

11,363 

244,690 

24,200 

110,105 

110,000 

15,245 

5,658 

10,000 

NA 

18,113 

38,954 

194,619 

13,389 

8,596 

5,595 

19,529 

8,065 

15,563 

9,515 

13,213 

2,282 

10,716 

-12 

9,500 

1,599 

690 

-2,440 

-37,335 

5,400 

17,405 

-33,484 

1,318 

1,894 

800 

12,925 

-491 

5,637 

37,502 

1,971 

-360 

-1,188 

11,176 

855 

787 

1,545 

1,349 

-172 

-2,311 

-1 

1,900 

160 

86 

-244 

-3,734 

675 

2,486 

-5,581 

188 

146 

133 

1,846 

-70 

1,127 

3,750 

246 

-120 

-99 

931 

122 

98 

193 

225 

-19 

-231 

Source: 1 Individual censuses from each country 

2 Australia Bureau Staff 

3 COE: Council of Europe 

4 Eurostat 

5 Boletin Demografico No. 65, January 2000. 

6 Stat Canada 

7 Japan Statistics Bureau 

8 National Economic and Development Authority 

9 Thailand National Statistics Office 

* Due to the different years available for each country, the yearly difference is the total in Column (3) divided by the change in the number 

of years (Year2 - Year1) 

** Data for this country include estimates of the population of American citizens not native born Americans 

The sources for Table 3 are numerous. They range from foreign census counts to 

estimates from statistical agencies. Although we attempted to obtain data for 1990 and 

2000 for all countries, our choices for the Year 1 and Year 2 were limited by the available 

data. 

Because the data in Table 3 cover inconsistent time periods (with no data at all available 

for 2000 and data after 1995 available only for 16 of the 26 countries listed), it is not 

possible to use these data to produce a reliable estimate of the U.S. native born emigrant 

population. The number in the “Yearly Difference” column offers only an indication of the 

magnitude of native born emigration. 
To arrive at an annual estimate of the native born emigrant population, we confined our 

analysis to the16 countries for which we have data after 1995 (Table 4.). We applied 

1991 U.S. survival rates to survive the populations of the 11 countries for which age 

distribution data were available. For those countries for which we did not have age 

distributions, we estimated the survived population by assuming a 1 percent annual 

decrease in the Year 1 population. The total estimated emigration for the 16 countries for 

which we had data past 1995 is 9,851. The 16 countries in Table 4 contained 58 percent 

of the American population abroad as measured by the 2000 State Department data. If we 

assume the same proportion for the native born emigrant population, we would arrive at 

an annual native born emigration estimate of 16,984. 

Table 4. Calculation of Native Born Emigration 

Country (Year1 Year2) Estimated 

Survived Year 1 

Population 

Year 2 

Population 

Difference Annual 

Emigration 

Estimate 

Australia (1994 1999) 47,690 59,700 12,010 2,402 

Belgium * (1991 1999) 10,874 12,394 1,520 190 

Canada * (1986 1996) 217,794 244,690 26,896 2,690 

Germany * (1991 1998) 84,467 110,105 25,638 3,663 

Great Britain * (1991 1997) 135,702 110,000 -25,702 -4,284 

Greece * (1994 1998) 14,549 15,245 696 174 

Ireland (1992 1998) 8,648 10,000 1,352 225 

Israel (1990 1997) NA NA 12,925 1,846 

Italy (1991 1998) 17,302 18,113 811 116 

Japan * (1990 1995) 32,160 38,954 6,794 1,359 

Netherlands * (1991 1999) 10,652 13,389 2,737 342 

Norway * (1991 1999) 8,274 8,596 322 40 

Portugal * (1992 1999) 6,631 8,065 1,434 205 

Spain (1991 1999) 13,594 15,563 1,969 246 

Sweden * (1991 1999) 7,352 9,515 2,163 270 

Switzerland * (1991 1999) 11,009 13,213 2,204 367 

Total 9,851 

* Indicates countries with age data 

However, the limitations on the available data make our estimate of the native 

born emigrant population questionable. The estimates used for many countries are not of 

American born residents but of American citizens. The quality of both the estimates of the 

total population and the age distribution data are inconsistent. The 1997 estimate for 

Great Britain, in particular, seems unreasonable when compared to data from other 

countries and a more consistent number for Great Britain would tend to increase the total 

estimate. The age and sex distributions for countries such as Japan and Germany seem to 

indicate that these populations may be comprised largely of workers who may be in the 

country for only a few years, thus making an estimate derived using the cohort survival 

technique of dubious value. The lack of recent data from Mexico and Central and South 

American countries is troubling because of the possibility that trends for these countries 

could be substantially different than trends for the countries for which data are available 

(predominantly European). Given these questions it is not possible to produce a reliable 

estimate of the native born emigrant population from the available data. However, given 

these caveats, we believe that the annual number of native born emigrants is probably 

between 10,000 and 25,000. Our best estimate of the annual native born emigrant 
population is 18,000 (approximately the mid point of the range 10,000 to 25,000), making 

the estimate of 48,000 for the annual native born emigrant population used to produce the 

2000 national population estimate too high by 30,000 (or 300,000 for the 1990-2000 

intercensal decade). 

Suggestions for the Future 

We have several suggestions on how to more accurately measure emigrants: 

Use survey methodology, namely the American Community Survey (ACS). 

This suggestion stems from an article written by Karen Woodrow-Lafield 

(1996) which used the Current Population Survey (CPS) in July 1987, June 

1988, and November 1989 to ask questions on emigration. The survey 

asked immediate relatives if they had parents, siblings or children living in a 

foreign country who had previously lived in the United States. Our 

suggestion to use the ACS instead of the CPS is due to the larger sample 

size available on the ACS. Since the Census Bureau had previously asked 

questions regarding emigration, it is not unreasonable to think that this can 

be used as a valuable tool for future estimates. 

Arrange to receive annual updates of the U.S. State Department's F-77s. 

As we have learned through working with the State Department, they do 

not archive their data of Americans who register with Consular Offices. 

Therefore, if we wish to use the State Department records, we will need to 

receive the F-77s on a yearly basis. The State Department was 

forthcoming in sharing their data, so this is a viable option. The limitations 

of using the State Department numbers, however, make it an unreliable 

source. This is mainly due to the State Department numbers being unable 

to distinguish between native- and foreign-born emigrants. They can be 

utilized, however, as a valuable tool for comparisons with other data that 

are obtained. 

Maintain and enhance contacts with the statistical agencies of foreign countries and 

receive their annual updates of Americans living in their country. 

A significant amount of our data came from publications from statistical 

agencies throughout the world. Through close communication with those 

agencies, we would be able to obtain whatever data they produce, not 

merely the data they choose to publish. 

These suggestions are not mutually exclusive and can be used in conjunction with each 

other. 
.
REFERENCES 

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2001. Migration: Australia. Publication No. 3412.0: pp. 

102. Melbourne, Australia: Australian Bureau of Statistics. 

Boletin Demografico. 2000. Migracion Internacional en America Latina: Imila. No. 

65. 

Centro LatinoAmericano Y Caribeno de Demographifia/Celade. WWW document 

URL: http://164.109.25.90/publicaciones/Poblacion/5/LCG2065/BD65.html (accessed 

07.25.01) 

Boxhill, W.O., R. McCrea, and M. Crew. 1986. 1981 Census information on place of 

birth, citizenship and immigration: some facts and figures. Catalogue 99-952: pp. 

31. Ottawa: Statistics Canada Housing, Family and Social Statistics Division. 

Census Office of the Executive Yuan. 1992. An Extract Report on the 1990 Census of 

Population and Housing Taiwan-Fukien Area Republic of China Part I. Pages 

472-473. Taiwan: Census Office of the Executive Yuan Publishing. 

Central Bureau of Statistics. 1999. Statistical Abstract of Israel 1999. No. 50: pp. 5-7. 

Jerusalem: Hemed Press LTD. 

Council of Europe. 1999. Recent demographic developments in Europe. Strasbourg, 

France: Council of Europe Publishing. 

Direccion de Estadistica Y Censo. 1970. Censos Nacionales de 1970: Caracteristicas 

Generales, Educativas, Migracion Interna, Fecundidad Y Hogares. Volumen IV: 

pp. 36. Republica de Panama: Contraloria General de la Republica. 

____________. 1980. Censos Nacionales de 1980: Caracteristicas 

Generales. Volumen II: pp. 77. Republica de Panama: Contraloria General de la 

Republica. 

____________. 1990. Censos Nacionales de 1990: Migracion Y 

Fecundidad. Volumen V: pp. 103-109. Republica de Panama: Contraloria 

General de la Republica. 

Direccion General de Estadistica Y Censos Nacionales. 1974. X Censo de Poblacion Y 

Vivienda. Tomo II: pp. 321-329. Caracas, Republica de Venezuela: Ministerio de 

Fomento. 

Dominion Bureau of Statistics. 1963. 1961 Census of Canada. Catalogue number 92-

547, Vol. I, Part 2: pp. 48-1. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Trade and Commerce. 

Eurostat NewCronos 2000 CD ROM. Version 1.1 December 2000. 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/eurostat 

Fernandez, E.W. 1995. "Estimation of the Annual Emigration of U.S. Born 
Persons by Using Foreign Censuses and Selected Administrative Data: Circa 

1980." U.S. Census Bureau Technical Working Paper 10. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Census Bureau. 

Fernandez, E.W. U.S. Census Bureau Internal Memo. 1986, Sept. 8. Estimating the 

Annual Number of U.S. Born Emigrants. Sent to: Jeff Passel. 

____________. U.S. Census Bureau Internal Memo. 1987, March 31. An Alternative 

Scheme to Generate U.S. Born Residents Abroad. Sent to: Jeff Passel. 

____________. U.S. Census Bureau Internal Memo. 1987, July 21. Estimating the U.S. 

Born Abroad from State Dept. Data. Sent to: Jeff Passel. 

____________. U.S. Census Bureau Internal Memo. 1987, Sept. 29. Estimation of the 

Net Annual Emigration of U.S. Born Persons. Sent to: Distribution List. 

Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques. 1981. Recensement 

General de la Population de 1975: Resultats du sondage au 1/5, Nationalite. No. 

393, serie D No. 83: Table DG7. 

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica. 1985. Censo de Poblacion de 1981 Resultados 

Nacionales: Caracteristicas de la poblacion. Tomo I, Volumen 1: pp. 33. 

Madrid: INE. Artes Graficas. 

____________. 1994. Censos de Poblacion y Viviendas 1991: Caracteristicas generales 

de la poblacion, Resultados nacionales. Tomo I: pp. 45. Madrid: INE. Artes 

Graficas. 

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Y Censos (INDEC). 1983. Censo Nacional de 

Poblacion Y Vivienda 1980: Resumen Nacional. Serie D Poblacion: pp. 103. 

Buenos Aires, Argentina: Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Y Censos. 

Instituto Nacional de Estadistica Y Censos (INDEC). 1993. Anuario Estadistico de la 

Republica Argentina. Vol. 9: pp. 54-55. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Instituto 

Nacional de Estadistica Y Censos. 

National Economic and Development Authority. 1981. Philippine Statistical Yearbook. 

Page 47. Republic of the Philippines: National Economic and Development 

Authority. 

National Statistical Office, Office of the Prime Minister. 1992. Statistical Yearbook 

Thailand: 1981-84. Number 33: pp. 140. Manila, Republic of the Philippines: 

Office of the Prime Minister. 

______________. Statistical Yearbook Thailand: 1985-86. Number 34: pp. 

122. Manila, Republic of the Philippines: Office of the Prime Minister. 

______________. Statistical Yearbook Thailand: 1991. Number 38: pp. 
80-81. Manila, Republic of the Philippines: Office of the Prime Minister. 

National Statistics Office. 1992. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Report No. 3: 

Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics, Philippines. Page 30. Manila, 

Republic of the Philippines: National Statistics Office. 

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. 1993. 1991 Census Report for Great 

Britain Part 1. Page 162. London, England: Her Majesty's Stationery Office. 

Office of Population Censuses and Surveys Registrar General. 1983. Census 1981: 

National report Great Britain Part 2. Page 70. London, England: Her Majesty's 

Stationery Office. 

Oficina Central de Estadistica e Informatica. 1993. El Censo 90 en Venezuela. Numero 

428: pp. 47-59. Caracas, Venezuela: Taller Grafico de la Oficina Central de 

Estadistica e Informatica. 

____________. 1999. Anuario Estadistico de Venezuela 1998. Numero 712: pp. 191. 

Caracas, Venezuela: Taller Grafico de la Oficina Central de Estadistica e 

Informatica. 

Robey, B. 1981. "America, Out of Focus." American Demographics Vol. 3(4): 16-21. 

State of Israel Central Bureau of Statistics. 1985. Demographic Characteristics of the 

Population, National Data from the Complete Enumeration: 1983 Census of 

Population and Housing Publications. No. 7: pp. 171. Jerusalem: State of Israel 

Central Bureau of Statistics. 

Statistisches Bundesamt. 1990. Bevolkerung und Erwerbstatigkeit: Fachserie 1. Heft 5: 

Struktur der auslandischen Bevolkerung. Volkszahlung vom 25, Heft 5: pp. 16-

17. Wiesbaden, Germany: Metzler-Poeschel Stuttgart. 

______________. 1998. Bevolkerung und Erwerbstatigkeit: Fachserie 1. Reihe 2: 

Auslandische Bevolkerung. Reihe 2: pp. 18-19. Wiesbaden, Germany: MetzlerPoeschel. 

Statistics Bureau, Management and Coordination Agency. 1998. Japan Statistical 

Yearbook. 48th Edition: pp. 53. Tokyo, Japan: Printing Bureau, Ministry of 

Finance. 

Statistics Canada. 1974. 1971 Census of Canada: Population, Birthplace. Catalogue 

number 92-727, Vol. I, Part 3: pp. 33-1. Ottawa, Canada. 

______________. 1984. Population: Place of birth, citizenship, period of immigration. 

Catalogue number 92-913, Vol. I: pp. 1B-1. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Supply 

and Services Canada. 

______________. 1989. Population and Dwelling Characteristics: Ethnicity, 
Immigration and Citizenship, The Nation. Catalogue number 93-109: pp. 5B-1. 

Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of 

State for Science and Technology. 

______________. 1992. Immigration and Citizenship: The Nation. Catalogue number 

93-316: pp. 12, 66, 174, 236, & 254. Ottawa, Canada: Minister of Industry, 

Science and Technology. 

______________. Immigration population by place of birth, 1996 Census. 

WWWdocument URL: 

http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/People/Population/demo35a.htm (accessed 08-10-01). 

U.S. Department of State. Remarks from meeting between Census Bureau staff (James 

Gibbs, Greg Harper, Hyon Shin) and staff of the Consular Bureau of the U.S. 

State Department (Edward Betancourt, Michael Meszaros). May 9, 2001. 

______________.Remarks from meeting between Census Bureau staff (James Gibbs, 

Marc Rubin) and staff from the Operations Center of the U.S. 

Department of State (Ronald Hawkins). May 31, 2001. 

______________. Unpublished reporting cables (F-77s) concerning Americans in 

consular catchment areas, 1999. 

______________. Unpublished reporting cables (F-77s) concerning Americans in 

consular catchment areas, 2000. 

Woodrow-Lafield, K. A. 1996. "Emigration from the USA: Multiplicity survey 

evidence." Population Research and Policy Review Vol. 15: 171-199. 
APPENDIX 3: DAPE WORKING PAPER SERIES 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

(in order of Working Paper Series Number) 

Deardorff, K. and L. Blumerman. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: 

Estimates of the Foreign-Born Population by Migrant Status: 2000. (Population Division 

Working Paper #58) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Perry, M., B. Van der Vate, L. Auman, and K. Morris. 2001. Evaluating Components of 

International Migration: Legal Migrants. (Population Division Working Paper #59) 

(December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Cassidy, R. and L. Pearson. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: 

Temporary (Legal) Migrants. (Population Division Working Paper #60) (December 2001) 

U.S. Census Bureau. 

Costanzo, J., C. Davis, C. Irazi, D. Goodkind, R. Ramirez. 2001. Evaluating Components of 

International Migration: The Residual Foreign Born. (Population Division Working 

Paper #61) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Mulder, T., B. Guzmán, and A. Brittingham. 2001. Evaluating Components of International 

Migration: Foreign-Born Emigrants. (Population Division Working Paper #62) 

(December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Gibbs, J., G. Harper, M. Rubin, H. Shin. 2001. Evaluating Components of International 

Migration: Native Emigrants. (Population Division Working Paper #63) (December 

2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Christenson, M. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: Migration Between 

Puerto Rico and the United States. (Population Division Working Paper #64) (December 

2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Cresce, A., R. Ramirez, and G. Spencer. 2001. Evaluating Components of International 

Migration: Quality of Foreign-Born and Hispanic Population Data. (Population Division 

Working Paper #65) (December 2001) U.S. Census Bureau. 

Malone, N. 2001. Evaluating Components of International Migration: Consistency of 2000 

Nativity Data. (Population Division Working Paper #66) (December 2001) U.S. Census 

Bureau.