Census 2000 showed that the foreignborn population in the United States was

31.1 million, a 57-percent increase from

the 1990 figure of 19.8 million. This

group constituted 11.1 percent of the

population in 2000, the highest percentage since 1930, when they composed

11.6 percent of the total population.1 As

the country’s foreign-born population—

already the largest in history—continues

to increase in size, understanding how

its migration and mobility patterns fit

into, and partially shape, the overall

migration patterns within the United

States will be increasingly important. 

This Census 2000 Special Report examines migration patterns of natives and

the foreign born, aged 5 years and over.

The report’s first section focuses on overall mobility patterns by nativity. The

next section examines migration from

abroad, while the final section looks at

patterns and differences between natives

and the foreign born in state-to-state and

county-to-county migration. Particular

attention is given to the redistribution of

the foreign-born population within the

United States.

GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY 

The foreign born were more 

mobile than natives.

Between 1995 and 2000, the foreign

born were more likely to have moved

than natives (Table 1). Fully 57.4 percent of the foreign-born population

reported living in a different residence in

2000 than in 1995, compared with 

44.3 percent of natives.2 Given that the

likelihood of moving generally peaks

during the late twenties, then declines,

and that the foreign-born population is

more likely to be of those ages than the

native population, some of this difference could be due to differing age

structures.3

The foreign born were more likely to

have moved from abroad, while natives

were more likely than the foreign born to

have moved from another state. Natives

had a higher interstate migration rate

than the foreign born (8.6 percent versus

6.7 percent). The foreign born, however,

had a higher rate of intracounty migration (25.7 percent versus 24.8 percent). 

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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued August 2003

CENSR-11

Migration of Natives and the

Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000

Census 2000 Special Reports

By 

Marc J. Perry 

and

Jason P. Schachter

1 U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Profile of the

Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1997,

by Dianne A. Schmidley and Campbell Gibson,

Current Population Reports P23-195, Washington,

DC: Government Printing Office.

2 The estimates in this report are based on a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates

may vary from the actual values because of sampling

variation or other factors. All comparisons made in

this report have undergone statistical testing and are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless

otherwise noted. 

All mobility and migration data in this report are

for the population 5 years old and over in 2000.

Movers are defined as those who did not live in their

residence 5 years previously. Thus previous residence is measured 5 years before the census and

does not track any other potential moves made within that 5-year period. Similarly, the residence 5 years

ago question does not measure those who moved

away from a place of residence and later returned to

that same residence during that 5-year period. 3 See U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Geographical

Mobility: March 1999 to March 2000, by Jason

Schachter, Current Population Reports P20-538,

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, available at www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs

/p20-538.pdf. 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

Recent arrivals and

noncitizens were highly

mobile.

Recent arrivals to the United States

had higher mobility rates than

foreign-born people who entered

before 1980, and mobility rates

declined as length of time in the

United States increased (Table 1).

This pattern is consistent with the

fact that more recent arrivals were

younger, on average, than people

who arrived decades ago.4 Foreignborn people who arrived in the

United States before 1980 actually

had a lower mobility rate than

natives—due perhaps to the foreign born being older.

Interestingly, among foreign-born

movers, those who entered before

1970 were more likely to have

made an interstate move than

those who entered after 1970.

Year of entry is also important in

terms of country of origin, as more

recent immigrants tended to come

from Asia and Latin America, while

older waves of immigration came

largely from Europe. 

Similar differences were found for

citizenship status, which was not

surprising given that year of entry

to the United States and the likelihood of becoming a naturalized citizen are strongly related. In 2000,

roughly 40 percent of the foreignborn population aged 5 and over

were United States citizens. Their

mobility rate of 39.6 percent was

far lower than the rate for noncitizens (69.6 percent) and was lower

than the overall rate of 44.3 percent

for natives. Foreign-born noncitizens were more likely than foreignborn citizens to have made an intracounty move within the United

States and less likely to have made

an interstate move. 

Africans had the highest

mobility rate; Europeans had

the lowest.

Foreign-born people from Africa

had a mobility rate of 68.3 percent, meaning that this percentage

of the African-born population

changed their usual residence

(house or apartment) between

1995 and 2000. This rate surpasses the rate of 62.8 percent for the

foreign born from Mexico (Table 1).

The European foreign-born population was the least mobile, at 

47.0 percent. Of the foreign born,

individuals from Africa were most

likely to have moved to the United

States between 1995 and 2000. 

Movers can be classified by type of move and are

categorized as to whether they moved within the

same county, to a different county within the same

state, to a different county from a different state or

region, or were movers from abroad. Migration is

commonly defined as moves that cross jurisdictional

boundaries (counties in particular), while moves

within a jurisdiction are referred to as residential

mobility. Moves between counties are often referred

to as intercounty moves, while moves within the

same county are often referred to as intracounty

moves. Further, migration can be differentiated as

movement within the United States (domestic, or

internal, migration) and movement into and out of

the United States (international migration).

International migration includes migrants from

Puerto Rico and other U.S. outlying areas. Foreignborn movers from abroad also include migrants,

such as students, who are not necessarily immigrants (documented or undocumented). 

Natives and foreign born. For this report, natives

are people who were born in the United States,

Puerto Rico, or other U.S. territories, or born

abroad of an American parent or parents. The foreign born are all other residents born outside the

United States, including both naturalized United

States citizens and those who are not citizens of

the United States. 

Secondary migration refers to domestic migration of

foreign-born migrants after their initial arrival to the

United States. The migration question in Census

2000 asked for residence 5 years ago; any intermediate moves were missed. Consequently, the captured move was not necessarily the first after arriving in the United States, and the eventual destination

for a migrant from abroad could differ from the initial point-of-entry to the United States. 

Net migration is the difference between inmigration and outmigration during a given time period.

A positive net, or net inmigration, indicates that

more migrants entered the area than left the area

during that time period. A negative net, or net outmigration, means that more migrants left the area

than entered it. 

Common Migration Terms

4 See U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Profile of

the Foreign-Born Population in the United

States: 1997, by Dianne A. Schmidley and

Campbell Gibson, Current Population

Reports P23-195, Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, available at

www.census.gov/prod/99pubs/p23-195.pdf.
When restricting analysis to moves

made within the United States, the

foreign born from Mexico were

most likely to have made an intracounty move (74.9 percent of their

3.9 million moves within the

United States) and least likely to

have made an interstate move

(12.1 percent). Among the foreign

born, individuals from Africa and

Canada were most likely to have

moved between states.

Collectively, these results indicate

differences between natives and

the foreign born in both their likelihood of moving and the types of

move made. The findings also

highlight the diversity within the

foreign-born population with

regard to year of entry, citizenship

status, and country of origin. 

MIGRATION FROM ABROAD

Migration from abroad was

concentrated in gateway states. 

Among recent waves of immigration, most foreign-born migrants to

the United States initially settled in

one of six “gateway” states:

California, New York, Texas,

Florida, Illinois, and New Jersey.5

According to Census 2000, each of

these six states had more than 

1 million foreign-born people;

together, these gateway states contained 21.3 million foreign-born

people, roughly two thirds of the

country’s foreign-born population. 

Growth in a state’s foreign-born

population occurs through movement from abroad or through foreign-born migrants’ secondary

migration from elsewhere in the

United States after their initial

arrival. Differentiating between

these two kinds of movements is

often difficult because a foreignborn mover from abroad could

move to one location in the United

States, then move to another (or

perhaps move several times) during the 5-year period. For example, a foreign-born person living in

Georgia in 2000 who reported living abroad in 1995 could have

moved to Georgia in 1999 after initially moving to Florida in 1996.

Instead of counting as a Florida-toGeorgia domestic migrant, this person would be characterized as

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Type of Move for Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Item Population

aged

5 years

and over

in 2000

Same

residence (nonmovers)

Number of movers Percent moving

Total

Within the United States

From

abroad1 Total

Within the United States

From

abroad1 Total

Same

county

Different

county,

same state

Different

state Total

Same

county

Different

county,

same

state

Different

state

Total . . . . . . . . 262,375,152 142,027,478 120,347,674 112,851,828 65,435,013 25,327,355 22,089,460 7,495,846 45.9 43.0 24.9 9.7 8.4 2.9

Nativity

Native . . . . . . . . . . 231,666,088 128,946,394 102,719,694 100,849,171 57,530,090 23,294,651 20,024,430 1,870,523 44.3 43.5 24.8 10.1 8.6 0.8

Foreign born . . . . . 30,709,064 13,081,084 17,627,980 12,002,657 7,904,923 2,032,704 2,065,030 5,625,323 57.4 39.1 25.7 6.6 6.7 18.3

Year of Entry

1990-2000 . . . . . . . 12,779,451 2,758,771 10,020,680 4,760,259 3,165,279 754,264 840,716 5,260,421 78.4 37.2 24.8 5.9 6.6 41.2

1980-1989 . . . . . . . 8,464,762 4,020,788 4,443,974 4,222,333 2,835,580 707,729 679,024 221,641 52.5 49.9 33.5 8.4 8.0 2.6

1970-1979 . . . . . . . 4,686,752 2,810,619 1,876,133 1,788,342 1,162,388 329,442 296,512 87,791 40.0 38.2 24.8 7.0 6.3 1.9

1960-1969 . . . . . . . 2,536,828 1,771,910 764,918 729,677 452,236 138,502 138,939 35,241 30.2 28.8 17.8 5.5 5.5 1.4

1950-1959 . . . . . . . 1,371,466 1,044,543 326,923 313,590 180,188 63,966 69,436 13,333 23.8 22.9 13.1 4.7 5.1 1.0

Before 1950 ...... 869,805 674,453 195,352 188,456 109,252 38,801 40,403 6,896 22.5 21.7 12.6 4.5 4.6 0.8

Citizenship

Citizens . . . . . . . . . 12,483,968 7,540,355 4,943,613 4,646,539 2,922,839 890,038 833,662 297,074 39.6 37.2 23.4 7.1 6.7 2.4

Noncitizens . . . . . . 18,225,096 5,540,729 12,684,367 7,356,118 4,982,084 1,142,666 1,231,368 5,328,249 69.6 40.4 27.3 6.3 6.8 29.2

Country of Birth

Mexico . . . . . . . . . 9,011,998 3,356,916 5,655,082 3,892,596 2,915,841 504,703 472,052 1,762,486 62.8 43.2 32.4 5.6 5.2 19.6

Other Latin American 6,846,775 2,937,031 3,909,744 2,797,848 1,919,266 440,815 437,767 1,111,896 57.1 40.9 28.0 6.4 6.4 16.2

Canada . . . . . . . . . 811,401 406,344 405,057 271,507 140,619 57,397 73,491 133,550 49.9 33.5 17.3 7.1 9.1 16.5

Europe . . . . . . . . . 4,864,701 2,589,407 2,275,294 1,512,638 856,262 304,858 318,126 796,048 46.8 30.5 17.6 6.3 6.5 16.4

Asia . . . . . . . . . . . 8,130,832 3,449,458 4,681,374 3,135,731 1,855,501 646,840 666,782 1,512,251 57.6 39.0 22.8 8.0 8.2 18.6

Africa .......... 869,401 275,239 594,162 329,155 181,040 65,658 82,457 265,007 68.3 37.9 20.8 7.6 9.5 30.5

Other . . . . . . . . . . 173,956 66,689 107,267 63,182 36,394 12,433 14,355 44,085 61.7 36.3 20.9 7.1 8.3 25.3

1

Includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.

5 U.S. Immigration and Naturalization

Service. 2000. Statistical Yearbook of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service,

1998 (M-367).
4 U.S. Census Bureau

having come to Georgia directly

from abroad. 

Between 1995 and 2000, 5.6 million foreign-born people moved to

the United States from abroad.

California received the largest

number of foreign-born movers

from abroad, with just fewer than

1.2 million (Table 2). This was followed by New York (584,000),

Texas (564,000), Florida (477,000),

Illinois (287,000), and New Jersey

(258,000). 

By comparison, about 1.9 million

natives moved to the United States

from abroad between 1995 and

2000. The states which received

the most native migrants from

abroad were similar to those of the

foreign born, but with some differences. California received the

largest number (218,000), followed

by Florida (176,000), Texas

(162,000), and New York

(137,000). Many of the native

movers could have been associated with the U.S. armed forces or,

particularly in the case of New

York and Florida, could have

moved from Puerto Rico, which is

included in the “from abroad” category in this report.

Migration from abroad serves an

important role in redistributing

population in the United States.

First, migration from abroad may

offset net domestic migration loss

for some states that experienced

large outmigration between 1995

and 2000. Second, after initial

arrival to the United States, many

movers from abroad then relocate

to different areas of the country.

These moves may potentially result

in changes to the demographic,

social, and economic make-up of

those destination areas. This

state-to-state migration is discussed in the next section. 

STATE-LEVEL MIGRATION

Most gateway states with

domestic net outmigration 

of natives also had net

domestic outmigration 

of the foreign born.

While all six gateway states were

receiving large numbers of movers

from abroad between 1995 and

2000, four of the six states

(California, New York, Illinois, and

New Jersey) simultaneously were

experiencing substantial net outmigration to other states. In recent

years, considerable attention has

been placed on the relationship

between migration flows of natives

and the foreign born. A resorting

of native and foreign-born populations could occur in the United

States if the outmigration from

immigrant gateway states is made

up primarily of natives. 

For three of the four gateway

states that experienced net domestic migration loss (New York,

California, and Illinois), however,

this outmigration included a sizable foreign-born component

(Table 2). Indeed, for both New

York and California, net domestic

outmigration rates for the foreign

born exceeded the rates for

natives. New Jersey was the only

gateway state to have net outmigration of natives but net inmigration of foreign born. 

Georgia and Nevada were 

both among the top gainers 

of foreign-born individuals

from other states.

Internal migration of the foreignborn had a dramatic impact on

several areas of the country. In

terms of net migration, Nevada

had the highest rate (276.0), while

North Carolina (187.0), Georgia

(178.1), and Arkansas (155.0) also

had high rates.6 In addition, a

number of midwestern states also

had high net migration rates of the

foreign born, including Minnesota,

Nebraska, and Indiana. In terms of

net gain of foreign-born migrants

from other states, Florida received

the most between 1995 and 2000:

89,000, some of whom were likely

retiree migrants. The states with

the next largest net foreign-born

migration from other states were

Georgia (59,000) and Nevada

(55,000).7

California and New York were

the major “exporters” of the

foreign born to other states.

As the leading destinations for

migrants from abroad, California

and New York played important

roles in the redistribution of the

foreign-born population in the

United States. Both California 

(237,000) and New York 

(205,000) experienced by far the

largest net outmigration of their

foreign-born populations to other

states, followed by Illinois 

(24,000), and Hawaii (11,000), 

and the District of Columbia 

(10,000).8

6 The net migration rates in this report

are based on an approximated 1995 population, which is the sum of people who reported living in the area in both 1995 and 2000,

and those who reported living in that area in

1995 but lived elsewhere in the United

States in 2000. The net migration rate is

equal to 1,000 times net migration (inmigration minus outmigration) divided by the

approximated 1995 population. Differences

between North Carolina, Georgia, and

Arkansas were not statistically significant. 7 The difference between Georgia and

Nevada was not statistically significant. 8 The difference between Hawaii and the

District of Columbia was not statistically significant. 
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Net Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000

(Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Area

Natives Foreign born

Net domestic migration

From abroad2

Net domestic migration

From abroad2 Number Rate1 Number Rate1

Total .................................. - - 1,870,523 - - 5,625,323

Northeast ................................. –1,075,547 –24.6 367,733 –195,111 –31.7 1,199,598

New England ............................. –88,134 –7.5 110,761 5,849 5.3 258,826

Maine ................................. 3,330 2.9 5,197 310 10.1 5,316

New Hampshire ......................... 27,091 25.2 5,334 812 19.8 11,274

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,399 4.4 2,838 –145 –7.9 4,555

Massachusetts .......................... –56,324 –10.8 53,543 1,616 2.6 152,179

Rhode Island ........................... 2,320 2.7 8,920 916 9.1 16,626

Connecticut ............................ –66,950 –23.5 34,929 2,340 8.0 68,876

Middle Atlantic ............................ –987,413 –30.8 256,972 –200,960 –39.7 940,772

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –669,102 –46.3 136,979 –205,146 –59.4 583,769

New Jersey ............................ –186,933 –28.6 54,140 4,104 3.4 257,625

Pennsylvania ........................... –131,378 –11.8 65,853 82 0.2 99,378

Midwest .................................. –564,474 –9.9 282,699 23,285 8.8 775,171

East North Central ......................... –517,695 –13.0 198,287 –4,884 –2.3 575,469

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –114,627 –11.1 44,607 –2,313 –8.9 75,978

Indiana ................................ 11,490 2.1 23,229 10,135 84.0 51,920

Illinois ................................ –318,776 –31.0 66,671 –23,840 –19.1 287,160

Michigan .............................. –98,660 –11.2 41,740 6,730 17.3 117,922

Wisconsin ............................. 2,878 0.6 22,040 4,404 30.9 42,489

West North Central ........................ –46,779 –2.7 84,412 28,169 57.2 199,702

Minnesota ............................. 11,658 2.7 18,404 17,511 102.6 66,101

Iowa .................................. –32,636 –12.2 9,676 –376 –6.2 28,484

Missouri ............................... 42,397 8.5 25,432 3,656 35.8 41,931

North Dakota ........................... –23,495 –38.4 3,518 –1,712 –172.4 3,698

South Dakota ........................... –12,347 –17.6 3,209 –121 –13.1 3,916

Nebraska .............................. –20,160 –13.1 7,713 4,807 101.0 20,569

Kansas ............................... –12,196 –5.2 16,460 4,404 47.6 35,003

South .................................... 1,544,372 18.7 769,361 255,427 40.0 1,845,918

South Atlantic ............................ 1,217,230 29.1 463,241 217,891 59.8 1,097,300

Delaware .............................. 15,044 22.6 7,324 2,339 73.4 9,984

Maryland .............................. –29,128 –6.6 41,798 9,405 23.7 105,509

District of Columbia ...................... –35,515 –72.2 10,333 –9,816 –157.3 20,066

Virginia ................................ 59,364 10.0 71,818 16,366 39.7 133,633

West Virginia ........................... –9,778 –5.8 4,441 –976 –60.3 3,893

North Carolina .......................... 293,525 43.5 56,956 44,358 187.0 139,381

South Carolina .......................... 124,151 35.6 25,563 8,054 111.9 33,815

Georgia ............................... 281,312 42.1 69,145 59,393 178.1 174,276

Florida ................................ 518,255 44.3 175,863 88,768 42.6 476,743

East South Central ........................ 218,189 14.3 87,306 15,005 64.2 110,628

Kentucky .............................. 31,571 8.7 18,979 2,556 52.3 27,002

Tennessee ............................. 135,615 27.1 29,547 10,699 111.0 48,425

Alabama .............................. 25,158 6.3 23,636 665 11.0 25,076

Mississippi ............................. 25,845 10.1 15,144 1,085 38.7 10,125

West South Central ........................ 108,953 4.3 218,814 22,531 9.0 637,990

Arkansas .............................. 35,049 14.8 14,085 7,067 155.1 19,572

Louisiana .............................. –72,193 –17.7 22,199 –3,566 –36.2 19,827

Oklahoma ............................. 14,559 4.8 20,380 2,328 25.2 34,781

Texas ................................. 131,538 8.2 162,150 16,702 7.3 563,810

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95,649 2.1 450,730 –83,601 –8.5 1,804,636

Mountain ................................ 591,543 41.1 141,940 132,677 111.4 387,425

Montana ............................... –4,681 –5.6 4,441 –485 –34.2 2,443

Idaho ................................. 33,830 31.0 7,757 17 0.3 13,209

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . –12,024 –26.1 3,112 –503 –53.4 2,125

New Mexico ............................ –29,159 –18.7 14,599 –786 –6.3 24,107

Arizona ............................... 275,814 72.7 41,380 40,334 87.4 141,602

Colorado .............................. 131,528 37.8 35,731 31,105 134.0 98,984

Utah .................................. 17,270 9.4 18,333 8,026 79.7 46,330

Nevada ............................... 178,965 133.0 16,587 54,969 275.9 58,625

Pacific .................................. –495,894 –15.4 308,790 –216,278 –24.9 1,417,211

Washington ............................ 55,300 11.5 48,924 20,030 43.7 126,743

Oregon ................................ 63,538 22.4 17,822 11,127 53.5 65,539

California .............................. –518,187 –22.6 218,046 –237,349 –30.4 1,189,612

Alaska ................................ –31,040 –54.7 6,835 542 17.8 5,729

Hawaii ................................ –65,505 –67.4 17,163 –10,628 –55.5 29,588

- Net domestic migration, both number and rate, are by definition zero for the United States.

1

The net domestic migration rate in this report is based on an approximated 1995 population, which is the sum of people who reported living in the area in

both 1995 and 2000, and those who reported living in that area in 1995 but lived elsewhere in 2000. The net domestic migration rate is the 1995 to 2000 net

domestic migration divided by the approximated 1995 population and multiplied by 1,000. 2

Includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and U.S. minor outlying islands.

Note: A negative value for net migration or the net migration rate is indicative of net outmigration, meaning that more migrants left an area than entered it.

Positive numbers reflect net inmigration to an area.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
6 U.S. Census Bureau

California’s largest flows of foreignborn migrants to other states were

to Nevada (48,000), Texas (42,000),

Arizona (36,000), and Washington

(27,000). California’s role as a

source of population redistribution

was not limited to neighboring

states in the West: Georgia had

higher net foreign-born migration

from California than from much

closer immigrant gateway states

such as Florida or New York.

North Dakota (172.4) and the

District of Columbia (157.3) had

the highest rates of foreign-born

outmigration to other states.9

North Dakota’s foreign-born population is small and its net outmigration may be associated with

retirement. Most of the District of

Columbia’s foreign-born outmigration (13,000 of 21,000) was to the

adjacent states of Virginia and

Maryland. 

The origins of the growing

foreign-born populations in

North Carolina, Georgia, and

Nevada were both domestic

and international.

The foreign-born populations in

North Carolina, Georgia, Nevada,

and Arkansas grew by 200 percent

or more between 1990 and 2000.

The foreign-born population grew

by 274 percent in North Carolina,

233 percent in Georgia, and 

202 percent in Nevada. Migration,

both internal and from abroad, was

the source of these increases. 

Nevada was one of the few states

that had more foreign-born inmigrants from other states (73,000)

than foreign-born movers from

abroad (59,000). The bulk of

these foreign-born domestic

migrants came from California

(48,000). 

While most foreign-born individuals who moved to North Carolina

were living abroad in 1995

(139,000), another 76,000 moved

from another state. However, comparing residences only in 1995 and

California, the country’s most populous state, has 

in recent decades been the leading destination for

migrants from abroad. During the 1990s, California

also experienced high net domestic outmigration,

with a total net outflow of 756,000 between 1995

and 2000, roughly one-third of whom were 

foreign born.

As described earlier, California was by far the top

destination for foreign-born movers from abroad,

with over 1 million who lived abroad 5 years previously. Though most of California’s foreign-born

population did not move or moved within state during the 5-year period, California was still the lead

actor in redistributing the foreign born to other

states, with over 400,000 domestic outmigrants.

Though the number of foreign born who moved to

California from other states was almost half the

number who left (203,000), California remained one

of the most attractive states for domestic foreignborn inmigrants. 

Did the characteristics of the foreign born who left

California differ from those of foreign-born people

who moved to the state? Did these migrant groups

differ from those who came from abroad and foreign-born who did not leave the state of California

(nonmovers and intrastate movers) between 1995

and 2000? 

The foreign born who left California to other states

differed significantly from the foreign born who

moved to California, as shown in Table 3. Foreignborn outmigrants from California tended to be

younger, were more likely to be Hispanic or noncitizens, and reported less education, and poorer

English language ability than the foreign born who

moved to California between 1995 and 2000. A

large share of foreign-born migrants to California

from other states were Asian (44.5 percent) and

reported at least a college degree (36.8 percent).

The characteristics of foreign-born California outmigrants tended to be more similar to California “stayers,” though they were more likely to be young,

Hispanic, male, poor, and noncitizens. 

The foreign born who moved from abroad to

California were younger (mean age of 30) than the

foreign born who moved to California from other

states, left California, or stayed in California between

1995 and 2000. The movers from abroad were more

likely to have a college degree than the resident foreign-born population of California, but the movers

from abroad were also more likely to be poor, report

limited English language ability, or be noncitizens 

(95 percent). This comparison illustrates how immigrants are sometimes overrepresented at the top and

bottom of the socioeconomic spectrum, relative to

the total foreign-born population. 

Characteristics of California’s Foreign-Born In- and Outmigrants 

9 The difference between North Dakota

and the District of Columbia was not statistically significant. 
2000 could mean that many of the

new arrivals from abroad initially

came to a state other than North

Carolina and subsequently moved

there during that 5-year period. Of

the foreign-born migrants who

moved to North Carolina from

other states, 16,000 came from

California, followed by the other

gateway states of New York,

Florida, and Texas. 

The top origins for foreign-born

domestic migrants to Georgia

included the six gateway immigration states. The highest number of

foreign-born inmigrants came from

California (19,200), New York

(14,100) and Florida (13,800), and

Texas (9,200), while high numbers

also came from New Jersey (4,000)

and Illinois (3,600).10 In addition

to 96,000 foreign born inmigrants

from other states, Georgia also had

174,000 foreign-born migrants

move there from abroad.

Native and foreign-born

migration followed similar

patterns, with some

exceptions. 

Many states experienced similar

domestic migration patterns for

their native and foreign-born populations. States with net inmigration of natives from other states

usually had net inmigration of foreign born, too. Similarly, states

with net outmigration of natives to

other states also had net outmigration of foreign-born migrants. 

There were some notable exceptions, however. Idaho, which had

a large net domestic migration of

natives from other states, saw very

little net migration of foreign-born

individuals from other states 

(Table 2) although it did experience

foreign-born migration from

abroad. Likewise, New Jersey and

Michigan had considerable outmigration of natives but had net

inmigration of foreign born from

other states. 

Some states had net domestic outmigration of both natives and foreign-born people, including such

major native and foreign-born origin states as California and New

York. For both of these states, net

domestic outmigration rates were

higher for the foreign born than

for natives. It is important to keep

in mind that movers from abroad—

both native and foreign born—

counterbalanced much of the

domestic outmigration from these

and other states. 

U.S. Census Bureau 7

10 The differences between New York and

Florida, and New Jersey and Illinois, were not

statistically significant.

Table 3.

Characteristics of California's Foreign-Born Population by

1995 to 2000 Migration Status: 2000

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

error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf)

Characteristic

In California

in 1995

Outside California

in 1995

Stayed in

California

Moved

to other

states

Moved

from other

states

Moved

from

abroad1

Total (aged 5 and over) . . . . . . . . 7,369,943 439,854 202,505 1,189,612

Mean age (years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.6 34.5 37.5 29.7

Median household income ........... $46,316 $39,304 $55,814 $40,000

PERCENT DISTRIBUTION

Race/Hispanic Origin

White alone, not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . 13.4 12.0 23.2 14.4

Black alone, not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 2.1 2.4 1.4

Asian alone, not Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . 27.1 23.3 44.5 30.2

Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.6 59.6 25.8 50.1

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 2.9 4.1 4.0

Sex

Male . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49.3 54.9 51.7 51.8

Female . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50.7 45.1 48.3 48.2

Education (aged 25 and over)

Not a high school graduate . . . . . . . . . . 45.7 45.4 33.6 37.3

High school graduate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.2 17.5 14.3 14.8

Some college or associate degree . . . . 19.0 16.9 15.3 14.5

College graduate or more . . . . . . . . . . . 19.1 20.2 36.8 33.3

English Language Ability

Very well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36.4 37.2 55.2 23.3

Well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27.6 25.9 24.7 22.9

Not well . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24.0 25.8 14.0 27.8

Not at all . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.0 11.1 6.1 26.0

Citizenship

Citizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45.0 32.3 42.4 4.8

Noncitizens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.0 67.8 57.6 95.2

Poverty Status in 1999

Not in poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82.7 79.6 85.7 70.4

In poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.3 20.4 14.3 29.6

1

Includes movers from foreign countries, as well as movers from Puerto Rico, U.S. Island Areas, and

U.S. minor outlying islands.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000.
8 U.S. Census Bureau (Data based on a sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf) Net Domestic Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000. Figure 1. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles N

of Nof 
U.S. Census Bureau 9

COUNTY-LEVEL MIGRATION 

County-level net domestic migration rates for both native and foreign-born migrants are mapped

simultaneously in Figure 1, revealing migration patterns not evident

at the state level. The four cells in

the matrix represent the four combinations of positive and negative

net domestic migration rates for

natives and the foreign born.

Counties shaded dark blue had net

inmigration of both natives and

foreign born. Light blue counties

had net domestic outmigration of

natives but net domestic inmigration of foreign born. Dark yellow

counties had net domestic inmigration of natives but net domestic

outmigration of foreign born.

Finally, counties shaded light yellow had net domestic outmigration

of both natives and foreign born. 

Counties shaded dark blue, indicating net inmigration of both natives

and the foreign-born population,

are found in many of the country’s

fastest-growing areas: the southern

Atlantic coast states, the Ozarks of

southwest Missouri and northwest

Arkansas, and fast-growing metropolitan areas in Texas, the Rocky

Mountain states, and the Pacific

Northwest. 

Several different groupings of

counties shaded light blue and

light yellow, indicating areas with

net outmigration of natives, are

visible. One band stretches across

New York and Pennsylvania south

through Appalachia. A second

large band starts in Montana and

covers much of the Great Plains

region through the Dakotas,

Nebraska, western Kansas, and

west Texas. 

The sizable number of midwestern

counties shaded light blue (net

outmigration of natives and net

inmigration of foreign born)

highlights the emergence of the

foreign-born population as a

potentially important source of

inmigrants for a region with a history of net domestic outmigration.

The migration of foreign-born people to the Midwest from elsewhere

in the country and from abroad is

a relatively recent phenomenon,

one that could mitigate some of

the population loss that has

occurred in many of these counties

in recent decades.

Several populous counties—like

Richmond County, New York

(Staten Island), and Monmouth

County, New Jersey—had net

domestic outmigration of natives

that was counterbalanced by foreign-born net domestic inmigration. This situation was uncommon, however. In many cases

sizable net outmigration of natives

was not offset by net inmigration

of foreign-born individuals. 

SUMMARY

Census 2000 data reveal several

findings concerning the mobility

and migration patterns of natives

and the foreign born in the United

States:

• The country’s foreign-born population, particularly noncitizens

and recent arrivals from abroad,

had a high rate of geographic

mobility between 1995 and

2000.

• Six “gateway” states (California,

New York, Texas, Florida,

Illinois, and New Jersey)

accounted for roughly 60 percent of the 5.6 million foreignborn who moved to the United

States from abroad between

1995 and 2000.

• Three of these gateway states—

New York, California, and

Illinois—also had considerable

outmigration of their foreignborn populations to other states

between 1995 and 2000. This

secondary migration served to

redistribute some of the foreignborn population away from the

immigration gateway states into

nearly all other states.

• Domestic migration patterns of

both foreign-born and native

migrants were, broadly speaking, quite similar, with generally

common destinations. Many of

the states in the South Atlantic

and Mountain divisions that had

net inmigration of natives also

had net inmigration of people

who were foreign born. Other

states, including California, New

York, Illinois, and Hawaii, had

net outmigration of both natives

and foreign born. 

• Some states in the Midwest had

net outmigration of natives but

net inmigration of the foreignborn population. 

• Numerous counties in the

Midwest had net domestic outmigration of natives but net

domestic inmigration of foreignborn migrants. Fast-growing

regions of the country often had

net inmigration of both natives

and foreign-born people. 

As the size of the foreign-born

population in the United States

increases in numerical and percentage terms, understanding the

migration patterns of this mobile

and fast-growing group will

become increasingly important for

understanding the country’s overall

migration picture. These patterns

hold particular significance for

those areas where net inmigration

of foreign-born migrants runs

counter to long-established patterns of net outmigration.

Migration, both internal and international, remains a critical factor in

determining the population growth
10 U.S. Census Bureau

or decline of many areas; consequently, new migration patterns

may reveal potential new sources

of population growth. 

ACCURACY OF THE

ESTIMATES

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the

Census 2000 long form.

Nationally, approximately 1 out of

every 6 housing units was included

in this sample. As a result, the

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the 100-percent figures

that would have been obtained if

all housing units, people within

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters had been

enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample

estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained

from different samples of housing

units, people within those housing

units, and people living in group

quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of

all possible samples is called the

sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that

arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100-

percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error may

be introduced during any of the various complex operations used to

collect and process data. Such

errors may include: not enumerating every household or every person in the population, failing to

obtain all required information from

the respondents, obtaining incorrect

or inconsistent information, and

recording information incorrectly.

In addition, errors can occur during

the field review of the enumerators’

work, during clerical handling of

the census questionnaires, or

during the electronic processing of

the questionnaires.

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that are

introduced randomly will increase

the variability of the data and,

therefore, should be reflected in the

standard errors; and (2) errors that

tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 100-

percent data in that direction. For

example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their

incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by

income category will tend to be

understated for the higher income

categories and overstated for the

lower income categories. Such

biases are not reflected in the standard errors.

While it is impossible to eliminate

error from an operation as large

and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau attempts to

control the sources of such error

during the data collection and processing operations. The primary

sources of error and the programs

instituted to control error in

Census 2000 are described in

detail in Summary File 3 Technical

Documentation under Chapter 8,

“Accuracy of the Data,” located at

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000

/doc/sf3.pdf. 

All statements in this Census 2000

report have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

may not be significantly different

from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. For furtherinformation on the computation

and use of standard errors, contact

the Decennial Statistical Studies

Division at 301-763-4242. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION

More detailed information on

decennial migration products,

including additional tables and

other product announcements, is

available on the Internet and can

be accessed via the Census

Bureau’s decennial migration Web

page at www.census.gov

/population/www/cen2000

/migration.html. 

The decennial migration Web page

contains additional detailed migration tables not included in this

report, a schedule of upcoming

migration data releases, and other

migration-related Census 2000

Special Reports.

For more information on decennial

migration products, please contact:

Population Distribution Branch

Population Division

U.S. Census Bureau

301-763-2419

or send e-mail to pop@census.gov.

For a more detailed discussion of

the foreign-born population, see

Profile of the Foreign Born

Population in the United States:

2000, available at www.census.gov

/prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau 11

Information on other population

and housing topics is presented in

the Census 2000 Brief and Special

Reports Series, located on the U.S.

Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www

/cen2000/briefs.html. These

series present information about

race, Hispanic origin, age, sex,

household type, housing tenure,

and other social, economic, and

housing characteristics.

Census 2000 information and data

can also be accessed via the

Census 2000 Gateway Web page at

www.census.gov/main/www

/cen2000.html.

For more information about

Census 2000, including data products, call our Customer Services

Center at 301-763-INFO (4636) or

e-mail webmaster@census.gov.