U

SCENSUSBUREAU

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

America at the Close of the 20th Cent

Profile of the Foreign-Bor

in the United States: 200

P23-206 U S C E N S U S B U R E A U 2000	 Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States Current Population Reports Special Studies

FIRST-CLASS MAIL

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

U.S. Census Bureau

Permit No. G-58

Current Population Reports

Special Studies
Acknowledgments

Dianne Schmidley prepared this report under the direction of Kevin Deardorff,

Chief of the Ethnic Statistics Branch, Population Division (POP). Wan He, Lisa Lollock,

Angela Brittingham, Betsy Guzman, Joseph Costanzo, and Melissa Therrien

(POP); and Robert Callis, Alfred Gottschalck, Robert Mills, and Benadette Proctor

of Housing and Household Economics Division (HHES) made significant contributions to

the development of the report. General direction was provided by Jorge del Pinal

(POP), Assistant Division Chief for Special Population Statistics. Clerical support was

provided by Jennifer Kipple.

Dianne Schmidley (POP) provided the data tabulations. Teresa Andrews and Lisa

Lollock (POP) and Bonnie Damon and Bernadette Proctor (HHES) made significant

contributions to the development of PPL-145, the detailed table package for this report.

Alex Varson prepared material including the report and statistical table package for

presentation on the Census Bureau Internet site.

Campbell Gibson (POP) provided overall review of the report. One or more sections

were reviewed by other staff members in Population Division and Housing and Household Economics Statistics Division: Jennifer Day (POP), Sandra Luckett (HHES),

Charles Nelson (HHES), Thomas Palumbo (HHES), Jennifer Paluch (POP), Thomas

Scopp (HHES), and Ed Welniak (HHES). Linda Gordon, Office of Policy and Planning of

the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service also reviewed the report.

Survey coordination was provided by Gregory Weyland, Demographic Surveys

Division. Sampling review was provided by John Finamore, David Hornick, Fred

Meier, Jana Shepherd, Aneesah Stephenson, Marie Stetser, Jeffrey Stratton, and

Brandi York of the Demographic Statistical Methods Division.

Penny Heiston, Jan Sweeney, and Barbara Blount of the Administrative and

Customer Services Division, Walter C. Odom, Chief, provided publications and printing

management, graphics design and composition, and editorial review for print and

electronic media. General direction and production management were provided by

Michael G. Garland, Assistant Chief, and Gary J. Lauffer, Chief, Publications Services

Branch.

Funding for this report was provided in part by the Immigration and Naturalization Service of the U.S. Department of Justice.

THIS REPORT IS DEDICATED TO EMILY LENNON
Profile of the Foreign-Born Population

in the United States: 2000 Issued December 2001

Current Population Reports

Special Studies

P23-206

U.S. Department of Commerce

Donald L. Evans,

Secretary

Economics and Statistics Administration

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director
Suggested Citation

Schmidley, A. Dianne,

U.S. Census Bureau,

 Current Population Reports,

Series P23-206, Profile of the

Foreign-Born Population in the

United States: 2000,

U.S. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 2001.

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

Kathleen B. Cooper,

Under Secretary for

Economic Affairs

ECONOMICS

AND STATISTICS

ADMINISTRATION

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Acting Director

William G. Barron, Jr.,

Deputy Director

John H. Thompson,

Principal Associate Director

for Programs

Nancy M. Gordon,

Associate Director

for Demographic Programs

John F. Long,

Chief, Population Division

Daniel H. Weinberg,

Chief, Housing and Household

Economics Statistics Division

For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov; Phone: toll-free 1-866-512-1800; DC area 202-512-1800; Fax: 202-512-2250; Mail: Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001.
iii

U.S. Census Bureau

Contents

Notes About This Report..................................................................................................................................... 1

Highlights ........................................................................................................................................................... 2

Sections

1. Trends in Immigration and the Foreign-Born Population ....................................................................... 8

2. Region of Birth ................................................................................................................................... 10

3. Country of Birth ................................................................................................................................. 12

4. Geographic Distribution ..................................................................................................................... 14

5. Metropolitan Areas ............................................................................................................................. 16

6. Length of Residence ........................................................................................................................... 18

7. Citizenship Status .............................................................................................................................. 20

8. Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock ............................................................................................... 22

9. Hispanic Origin and Race ................................................................................................................... 24

10. Age and Sex ....................................................................................................................................... 26

11. Household Size and Type ................................................................................................................... 30

12. Families and Related Children ............................................................................................................ 32

13. Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders ................................................................................ 34

14. Educational Attainment ...................................................................................................................... 36

15. Labor Force Participation.................................................................................................................... 38

16. Occupation ......................................................................................................................................... 40

17. Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers ......................................................................................... 42

18. Money Income of Households ............................................................................................................ 44

19. Poverty Status .................................................................................................................................... 46

20. Means-Tested Program Participation................................................................................................... 48

21. Health Insurance ................................................................................................................................ 50

22. Homeownership ................................................................................................................................. 52

References ........................................................................................................................................................ 54

Figures

1-1. Foreign-Born Population and Percent of Total Population for the United States: 1850 to 2000 ............ 9

1-2. Immigrants to the United States by Decade: Fiscal Years, 1821 to 1998.............................................. 9

2-1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1960 to 2000 ................................................................ 11

2-2. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: Selected Years, 1850 to 2000 ........................................ 11

3-1. Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population With 500,000 or More

in 2000: 1990 and 2000 .................................................................................................................... 12

4-1. States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000......................... 15

4-2. Foreign-Born Population for States: 2000 ........................................................................................... 15

5-1. Metropolitan Areas With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million or More

in 2000: 1990 and 2000 .................................................................................................................... 16

5-2. Population by Nativity and Metropolitan-Nonmetropolitan Residence: 2000...................................... 17

6-1. Length of Residence1 in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population: 1970 to 2000 ................ 18

6-2. Length of Residence in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population

by Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 19
iv

U.S. Census Bureau

7-1. Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status: 1970 to 2000 ........................................................... 20

7-2. Naturalized Citizens by Length of Residence in the United States: 1970 to 2000 .............................. 21

7-3. Naturalized Citizens by Region of Birth: 2000 ................................................................................... 21

8-1. Foreign-Stock Population by Nativity and Parentage: Selected Years, 1890 to 2000 .......................... 23

9-1. Nativity and Parentage for Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000 ..................................... 25

9-2. Length of Residence in the United States and Citizenship Status for Selected Race and

Hispanic-Origin Groups of the Foreign-Born Population: 2000 ........................................................... 25

10-1. Age and Sex of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,

and Citizenship Status: 2000 ............................................................................................................. 27

10-2. Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 2000 ............................................... 27

10-3. Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population: 1960 to 2000............................................................... 27

10-4. Total Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000............................................................................. 28

10-5. Foreign-Stock1 Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000 .............................................................. 29

11-1. Households by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and

Citizenship Status of the Householder: 2000 ..................................................................................... 30

11-2. Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 2000 ............................................. 31

12-1. Families by Type, Nativity of Householder, and Number of Related Children: 2000 ........................... 32

12-2. Married-Couple Families by Nativity of Spouses and Nativity and Age of

Related Household Members: 2000 ................................................................................................... 33

13-1. Children Under Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, Nativity, and

Nativity of Householder: 2000 .......................................................................................................... 34

14-1. Educational Attainment of the Population Age 25 and Older by Nativity, Length of

Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000............................................................ 36

14-2. Educational Attainment of the Foreign-Born Population Age 25 and Older

by Region of Birth: 2000 .......................................................................................... ..................... 37

15-1. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population Age 16 and Older by Nativity and

Sex for Selected Age Groups: 2000 .................................................................................................... 39

15-2. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population 25 to 54 Years Old by Nativity,

Length of Residence in the United States, Citizenship Status, and Sex: 2000 .................................... 39

15-3. Labor Force Participation Rates of the Foreign-Born Population 25 to 54 Years Old

by Region of Birth and Sex: 2000....................................................................................................... 39

16-1. Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and Older by Nativity, Length of Residence

in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000 ............................................................................ 41

16-2. Major Occupation Group of Foreign-Born Workers Age 16 and Older

by Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 41

17-1. Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex, Nativity, Length of Residence

in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 43

17-2. Median Earnings of Foreign-Born Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex and

Region of Birth: 1999 ......................................................................................................................... 43

18-1. Median Household Income by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,

and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 .............................................................................. 45

18-2. Income of Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 ............................ 45

18-3. Median Household Income by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 1999 ...................... 45

19-1. Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States,

and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................................................. 47

19-2. Poverty Rates for the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999 ............................................ 47
v

U.S. Census Bureau

19-3. Selected Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, for Families by Nativity of the

Householder, and for Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity: 1999 ............................................ 47

20-1. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Specified

Benefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1999 .................................................................................. 49

20-2. Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by Nativity, Length

of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999 ........................ 49

20-3. Foreign-Born Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by

Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999 .......................................................................................... 49

21-1. Health Insurance Coverage of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence

in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 51

21-2. Health Insurance Coverage of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 1999 ........................ 51

21-3. Employment-Based Health Insurance for Workers by Nativity, Length of Residence

in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999 ............................................................................ 51

21-4. Employment-Based Health Insurance for Foreign-Born Workers by Region of Birth: 1999 .................. 51

22-1. Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder by Nativity, Citizenship Status,

and Length of Residence in the United States: 2000 .......................................................................... 53

22-2. Homeownership Rates by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 2000 ............................. 53

22-3. Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder for Foreign-Born Householders

by Region of Birth: 2000 .................................................................................................................... 53

Text Tables

3-1. Leading Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: Selected Years, 1850 to 1990 ................. 13

4-1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence and for Leading States:

Selected Years, 1900 to 2000............................................................................................................. 14

5-1. Foreign-Born Population in Metropolitan Areas With 5 Million or More People: 2000 ......................... 17

8-1. Population by Nativity and Parentage: 2000 ...................................................................................... 22

9-1. Population by Nativity, Parentage, and Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000 .................. 24

13-1. Native and Foreign-Born Children Under Age 18 Living in Households and Families

by Nativity of Householder: 2000 ..................................................................................................... 35

22-1. Homeownership Rates by Nativity, Region of Birth, and Age of Householder: 2000 ......................... 52

Appendixes

A. Foreign Born and Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts .................................................................. 56

B. Source and Accuracy of Estimates ...................................................................................................... 58

C. Comparison of Population Universes ................................................................................................. 67

D. Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey ......................................................................... 68

E. Related Reports and Information........................................................................................................ 69
1

U.S. Census Bureau

Notes About This Report

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, Current Population

Reports, P23-206, presents data on a wide range of geographic, demographic, social,

economic, and housing characteristics for the foreign-born population of the United

States. Data for the native population are included for comparison. The data in this report for 2000 are from the March 2000 Current Population Survey (CPS) and do not include information from Census 2000 or the Census 2000 Supplementary Survey. Data

for 1990 and earlier years, which are included for historical comparison, are from the

decennial censuses of population. Detailed tables showing data for 2000 are presented

in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 2000, PPL-145, issued in

2001. Detailed tables showing data on the foreign-born population from decennial censuses are presented in Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the

United States: 1850 to 1990, Population Division Working Paper, No. 29, issued in 1999.

The reference date for data from the 1990 census is April 1. For data from the CPS,

the reference dates vary depending on when the housing unit first came into the survey

and on the topic. Housing units (and their occupants) in the CPS are in for 4 months,

out for 8 months, and then in again for 4 months. Thus housing units in the March

2000 CPS are about equally distributed among those that first came into the survey

from December 1998 to March 1999 and from December 1999 to March 2000. While

data on some characteristics, including age, are updated, data on other characteristics,

including length of residence in the United States and citizenship status of the foreignborn population, are not.

The core of this report is 22 sections presenting information on various topics

for the foreign-born population. These sections are preceded by Highlights and are

followed by References and five appendixes: (A) Foreign Born and Other Terms:

Definitions and Concepts, (B) Source and Accuracy of Estimates, (C) Comparison of

Population Universes, (D) Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey, and

(E) Related Reports and Information.

Numbers or percentages in the text, figures, and text tables may not sum to totals

due to rounding. In general, percentages in the text are shown to one decimal place.

The Census Bureau uses 90-percent confidence intervals and 0.10 levels of significance to determine statistical validity (see Appendix B). Comparisons in the text of

this report that do not meet this standard are described as being not significant. Current Population Survey data are weighted to population estimates based on the 1990

census counts adjusted for undercoverage in 1990.

Copies of this report are available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S.

Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402. General questions about the report

may be addressed to A. Dianne Schmidley, Population Division, U.S. Census Bureau,

Washington DC 20233-8800, or to the e-mail address pop@census.gov.
2

U.S. Census Bureau

Highlights

1. Trends in International March 2000. Mexico’s propor- Hawaii (16.1 percent),

Migration and the tion in 2000 is the largest re- Nevada (15.2 percent),

Foreign-Born Population corded share any country has New Jersey (14.9 percent),

held since the decennial cen- Arizona (12.9 percent), The estimated foreign-born sus in 1890 when about Massachusetts (12.4 percent), population of the United 30 percent of the foreign-born and Texas (12.2 percent). States in March 2000 was population was from Germany. 28.4 million, based on data From 1960 to March 2000, the (However, the March 2000 pro- collected in the Current Popu- foreign-born population in- portion for Mexico is not sta- lation Survey. creased from 1.3 million to tistically different from the 8.8 million in California, from In March 2000, an estimated proportion shown in 1997 in 0.3 million to 2.8 million in

10.4 percent of the U.S. popu- P23-195.) Florida, and from 0.3 million lation was foreign born, up In 1970, 2 of the 10 leading to 2.4 million in Texas. The

from 7.9 percent in 1990. countries of foreign birth growth in California, Florida,

The rapid increase in the (Mexico and Cuba) were Latin and Texas caused the foreignforeign-born population from American or Asian. By 2000, born population to expand

9.6 million in 1970 to these two regions may have more rapidly in the West and

28.4 million in 2000 reflects accounted for 9 of the 10 top South than it did in the Norththe high level of international countries (Mexico, China, In- east and Midwest between

migration during the past gen- dia, Korea, the Philippines, 1960 and 2000.

eration. Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican

Republic, and El Salvador). The 5. Metropolitan Areas

2. Region of Birth exact number and the exact The foreign-born population order after Mexico are uncerAmong the 14.5 million for- was especially concentrated in tain due to sampling variabil- eign-born population from the largest metropolitan areas ity in the Current Population Latin America in March 2000 and in their central cities: Survey data. (51.0 percent or about half of 54.5 percent lived in the 9

the foreign born), 9.8 million metropolitan areas of 5 million 4. Geographic Distribution were from Central America (in- or more population compared

cluding Mexico), 2.8 million In March 2000, six states had with 27.3 percent of the nawere from the Caribbean, and estimated foreign-born popu- tive population.

1.9 million were from South lations of 1 million or more: In March 2000, the metropoli- America. California (8.8 million), New tan areas with the largest York (3.6 million), Florida (2.8 The remaining foreign born foreign-born population were million), Texas (2.4 million), were from: Asia (7.2 million, Los Angeles and New York, New Jersey (1.2 million), and or one-quarter of the total for- each with 4.7 million foreign Illinois (1.2 million). These eign-born population); Europe born. Together, these two states accounted for 70.4 per- (4.4 million, or about one- metropolitan areas included cent of the total foreign-born seventh of the foreign born); 33.1 percent of the foreign- population. Northern America (essentially born population in the United

Canada, 0.7 million); and In nine states, the foreign-born States.

other areas. proportion in the population in Among the nine largest metro- March 2000 was estimated to politan areas in 2000 (those 3. Country of Birth be above the national average with total populations of of 10.4 percent: Mexico accounted for more 5 million or more), Los Ange- California (25.9 percent), than one-quarter of the les and San Francisco had the New York (19.6 percent), foreign-born population in highest proportion foreign Florida (18.4 percent),
3

U.S. Census Bureau

born at 30.0 percent each. 47.1 percent from Asia, and race, this is not true of all

For metropolitan areas with 28.3 percent from Latin regions. For example, in March

1 million to 5 million popula- America. The low proportion 2000, 96.0 percent of the fortion in 2000, Miami had the from Latin America is attribut- eign born from Europe and

highest proportion foreign able primarily to the low fig- 89.1 percent of the foreign

born at 42.7 percent. ure for the Central America born from North America (es-

(21.1 percent), most of whom sentially Canada) where White

6. Length of Residence are from Mexico. non-Hispanic. Of the foreign

born from Asia, 83.7 percent The median length of resi- 8. Nativity, Parentage, and were Asian and Pacific Islander dence in the United States of Foreign Stock (not statistically different from the foreign-born population the proportion White non- was 14.4 years in 2000 com- In March 2000, 55.9 million or Hispanic from Northern pared with 12.2 years in one-fifth of the U.S. popula- America), and 14.5 percent 1990. tion was of foreign stock. This were White non-Hispanic. In number included 28.4 million Length of residence in the contrast, the foreign-born foreign born, 14.8 million of United States of the foreign- population from Africa was very foreign parentage (native with born population varies greatly heterogeneous — no one race both parents foreign born), by region of birth. In 2000, was dominant. and 12.7 million of mixed par- the median length of resi- entage (native with one parent In March 2000, the Current dence was 25.0 years for the foreign born). Population Survey showed foreign-born population from 10.4 percent of the total popu- Europe, 14.3 years for those The foreign stock population lation was foreign born. The from Asia, and 13.5 years for is likely to increase in the fu- proportion was much higher those from Latin America. (The ture as recent international mi- among Asians and Pacific Is- percent for Asia does not dif- grants form families. One indi- landers (61.4 percent) and His- fer significantly from that for cation of this is the increase in panics (39.1 percent) but much Latin America or for the total the proportion of births to for- lower for Blacks (6.3 percent) foreign born). eign-born women residing in and for White non-Hispanics the United States: from 6 per- (3.9 percent). Thus Asians and 7. Citizenship Status cent in 1970 to 20.2 percent Pacific Islanders and Hispanics in 1999. Between 1970 and March are much more likely to be for2000, the total foreign-born eign born than Blacks and White 9. Hispanic Origin and Race population increased by non-Hispanics.

191 percent, from 9.7 million Categories of ethnicity and

to 28.4 million. In contrast, race are not interchangeable 10. Age and Sex

the naturalized citizen foreign- with geographic regions used In 2000, the median ages of born population increased by in this report. For example, the foreign-born (38.1 years) 71 percent (6.2 million to the March 2000 data show and native (34.5 years) popu- 10.6 million) and the nonciti- 15.3 percent of the foreign lations did not differ greatly, zen population increased by born were born in Europe, but their age distributions dif- 401 percent (3.5 million to however, 67.9 percent of the fered considerably. In the 17.8 million). foreign born were White, and foreign-born population, 24.8 percent were White non- In March 2000, the proportion 10.0 percent of the people Hispanic. of naturalized citizens in the were under 18 years old, and

foreign-born population varied While the foreign born from 58.7 percent were 25 to 54

greatly by region of birth: some regions of the world are years old, whereas the corre52.0 percent from Europe, relatively homogeneous by sponding proportions in the
4

U.S. Census Bureau

native population were for Northern America (2.32) households. Nearly 1 in 6 of

28.3 percent and 41.7 per- and Europe (2.38). (The latter these children lived with a

cent. two averages are not statisti- foreign-born householder

cally different.) (foreign-born households). Of The sex ratio (the number of the 11.5 million children living males for every 100 females) 12. Families and Related in foreign-born households, of the foreign-born population Children 8.9 million or 77.7 percent was 100.1 compared with were native, and 2.6 million 95.0 for the native population. The average size of families were foreign born. In con- with a foreign-born house- In 2000, the median age of trast, nearly all of the children holder (foreign-born families) the foreign-born population living in native households in 2000 was 3.72 compared was 50.0 years for those from were native. with 3.10 for families with a Europe, 39.2 for those from native householder (native Most of the children under age Asia, and 35.3 for those from families). Foreign-born fami- 18 living in foreign-born fam- Latin America. lies had larger average num- ily households (98.7 percent)

bers of both adults, 2.47 ver- were related to the house- 11. Household Size and Type sus 2.15, and of children, holder. The majority of these

In March 2000, 11.1 percent 1.25 versus 0.94. children (89.4 percent) were

of all households, or 11.6 mil- the householder’s own child, Among married-couple fami- lion households, had a for- and the rest were other rela- lies with a foreign-born house- eign-born householder. tives such as grandchildren, holder in 2000, the proportion nephews, or nieces (9.3 per- The average size of house- with one or more related chil- cent). A small proportion of holds with a foreign-born dren under age 18 ranged these children (1.3 percent) householder (foreign-born from 35.0 percent for house- were unrelated. Comparable households) was 3.26, consid- holders from Europe to figures for native households erably larger than the average 73.4 percent for Latin Ameri- were 91.5 percent, 7.5 per- size of 2.54 for households can householders. Among cent, and 1.1 percent respec- with a native householder (na- married-couple family house- tively. (There was no statistical tive households). Foreign- holders from Mexico, the pro- difference between foreign- born households had larger portion was 80.4 percent. born and native households in average numbers of children Of the 55.3 million married- the proportions of unrelated under age 18 (0.99 versus couple families in 2000, children.) 0.65). 8.7 million, or 15.7 percent, Preschool age children, or Whereas native households in- included at least one foreign- those less than 6 years old, cluded an average of only born spouse. Of these represented 35.3 percent of 0.03 foreign-born members in couples, 5.5 million had both children living in foreign-born 2000, foreign-born house- spouses foreign born, 1.7 mil- households, compared with holds included an average of lion had a foreign-born wife 32.2 percent of children in na- 1.08 native members. Native and a native husband, and tive households. Among chil- members represented one- 1.5 million had a foreign-born dren in foreign-born house- third (33.1 percent) of the husband and a native wife. holds, a major difference ex- members of foreign-born isted in the age structure of households. 13. Children Living With native and foreign-born chil- Foreign-Born Average household size dren: 41.6 percent of native Householders among foreign-born house- children living with foreignholders ranged from a high for In 2000, 72.1 million children born householders were under

Latin America (3.72) to lows (under age 18) lived in the age of 6 compared with
5

U.S. Census Bureau

only 13.5 percent of foreign- 66.6 percent, not significantly (4.5 percent versus 2.1 perborn children. different from 67.3 percent for cent). (The proportion of

the native population. foreign-born workers holding

14. Education service jobs (19.2 percent) Among the population age 16 was not significantly different In 2000, the proportion of the and older, the labor force par- from the proportion in preci- population age 25 and older ticipation rate in 2000 was sion production, craft, and re- who had completed high higher for foreign-born males pair jobs (18.7 percent).) school or more education in (79.6 percent) than for native

March 2000 was lower among males (73.4 percent). For fe- Professional and managerial

the foreign-born population males, the labor force partici- specialty occupations ac-

(67.0 percent) than among the pation rate was lower among counted for 38.1 percent of

native population (86.6 per- the foreign-born population workers from Europe and

cent). (53.7 percent) than among the 38.7 percent of workers from

native population (61.6 per- Asia (not statistically differ- Among individuals with less cent). ent), compared with 12.1 per- than a high school education, cent of workers from Latin those with less than a 5th For foreign-born males in America. grade education represented 2000, labor force participation

about 1 in 5 of the foreign rates for the 25 to 54 age Operators, fabricators, and laborn but only about 1 in 20 of group did not vary by region borers accounted for 24.8 perthe native population. of birth (Figure 15-3); how- cent of workers from Latin

ever, there was some variation America, while farming, for- For the population aged 25 among females. For females estry, and fishing occupations and older, 95.0 percent of the born in Mexico, the labor force lay claim to another 7.8 per- foreign born from Africa had participation rate was cent of these workers. Among completed high school or 55.1 percent, compared with foreign-born workers from more education by March 66.5 percent for all foreign- Mexico, 28.6 percent were in 2000. The high school born females. the operators, fabricators, and completion rates for the for- laborers occupational group, eign born from Europe 16. Occupation and 12.9 percent were in the (81.3 percent), Asia farming, forestry, and fishing (83.8 percent), Northern In March 2000, managerial, occupational group. America (85.5 percent), and professional, technical, sales,

South America (79.6 percent) and administrative support oc- 17. Earnings were not statistically different cupations accounted for

from each other, but they were 45.6 percent of foreign-born In 1999, median earnings for

all well above the proportion workers, compared with full-time, year-round foreignfor Mexico (33.8 percent) and 61.5 percent of native work- born male and female workers

the foreign-born average ers. Higher proportions of for- were $27,239 and $22,139,

(67.0 percent). eign-born compared with na- respectively, compared with

tive workers filled service oc- $37,528 and $26,698 respec15. Labor Force cupations (19.2 percent ver- tively, for native male and fesus 13.2 percent); worked as male workers. The female-to- In March 2000, the foreign- operators, fabricators, and la- male earnings ratio was higher born population accounted for borers (18.7 percent versus for foreign-born workers 17.4 million, or 12.4 percent, 12.7 percent); worked in preci- (0.81) than for native workers of the total civilian labor force sion production, craft, and re- (0.71). of 140.5 million. The labor pair jobs (12.1 percent versus force participation rate of the Among foreign-born male 10.5 percent); or held farming, foreign-born population was workers, 44.9 percent had forestry, and fishing jobs
6

U.S. Census Bureau

earnings less than $25,000, per foreign-born household 1999 were relatively low (and

while 23.2 percent had earn- (1.60) was higher than the av- not significantly different from

ings of $50,000 or more. erage for native households each other) for the populaAmong their native counter- (1.40). tions from Europe (9.3 perparts, the corresponding pro- cent) and Asia (12.8 percent). In 1999, households with a portions were 24.2 percent For the population from Latin householder born in Asia had and 33.0 percent, respectively. America, the poverty rate was a median income of $51,363. 21.9 percent. Among foreign-born female This was well above the meworkers, 55.5 percent had dian income of native house- Among the foreign-born popuearnings less than $25,000, holds as well as other foreign- lation from Latin America, the

while 12.0 percent had earn- born households. The income poverty rates ranged from

ings of $50,000 or more. for European households 11.5 percent for the populaAmong their native counter- ($41,733) was not statistically tion from South America to

parts, the corresponding pro- different from the native me- 25.8 percent for the populaportions were 44.1 percent dian but was much higher tion from Mexico.

and 13.2 percent, respectively. than the median income for

Even though the median earn- Latin American households 20. Program Participation

ings of foreign-born female ($29,388). In 1999, 2.5 million (21.2 per- workers were lower than The higher median income of cent) of households with those of native female work- Asian households was mostly foreign-born householders and ers, the proportions with earn- due to a combination of three 13.5 million (14.6 percent) of ings of $50,000 or more were factors: the high proportion of households with native house- not significantly different. Asian foreign-born males and holders participated in one or

female workers who held more of the following means- 18. Household Income high-paying managerial and tested programs providing

In 1999, the median income professional jobs (a character- noncash benefits: food

for households with a foreign- istic they shared with male Eu- stamps, housing assistance,

born householder was ropean workers); the low pro- or medicaid. The highest par-

$36,048, compared with portion of householders from ticipation rates were for med-

$41,383 for households with Asia age 65 and older (com- icaid — 18.6 percent of fora native householder. Among pared with the foreign born eign-born households and

foreign-born households, the from Europe); and the high 12.1 percent of native houseproportion of households with proportion of Asian women in holds.

incomes below $25,000 and the labor force. In 1999, 8.0 percent of house- with incomes of $50,000 or holds with a foreign-born more was about equal — 19. Poverty Status householder and 5.6 of house- 34.5 percent and 36.2 per- In 1999, the official poverty holds with a native house- cent, respectively. In contrast, rate was 16.8 percent for the holder participated in one or 30.2 percent of native house- foreign-born population, com- more of the following means- holds had an income of less pared with 11.2 percent for tested programs providing than $25,000, and 41.6 per- the native population. Of the cash benefits: Temporary As- cent had an income of 32.3 million individuals below sistance for Needy Families $50,000 or more. the poverty level, 4.8 million, (TANF), General Assistance

The lower income of foreign- or 14.7 percent, were foreign- (GA), or Supplemental Security

born households was not ex- born. Income (SSI).

plained by the number of Among the foreign-born popu- Among foreign-born house- earners per household. The lation, the poverty rates in holds, participation rates in average number of earners
7

U.S. Census Bureau

noncash means-tested pro- were foreign born and higher when the householder

grams are higher for house- 54.6 percent of those who was a naturalized citizen

holds with noncitizen house- were native had employment- (66.5 percent) than when the

holders (24.8 percent) than for based health insurance. householder was not a citizen

households with naturalized- Among foreign-born workers, (33.5 percent).

citizen householders the proportions ranged from Among the foreign-born, home- (16.9 percent). For cash 36.2 percent for residents in ownership for naturalized citi- means-tested programs, the the United States for less than zen householders was more participation rate was 8.0 per- 10 years to 54.8 percent for likely for those who lived in the cent for both noncitizen and those resident 20 years or United States 10 or more years, naturalized-citizen house- more. The proportions were compared with those who lived holds. 54.6 percent for naturalized here less than 10 years. citizens and 37.9 percent for

21. Health Insurance noncitizens. Among the regions of birth with

1 million or more foreign-born In 1999, 66.6 percent of the 22. Homeownership householders, the homeowner- foreign-born population com- ship rate was 63.5 percent for pared with 86.5 percent of the In 2000, the homeownership householders from Europe, native population had health in- rate for the United States was 52.0 percent for householders surance for all or part of the 67.2 percent. The homeown- from Asia, and 41.2 percent for year. (Health insurance includes ership rate for foreign-born householders from Latin government insurance plans householders was 48.8 per- America. The homeownership such as medicare, medicaid, or cent, compared with 69.5 per- rates for householders from Eu- military health care and private cent for households with a na- rope, Asia, and Latin America insurance plans.) tive householder. For foreign- under age 35 were all about born households, the home- Among workers in 1999, 25.0 percent. ownership rate was much 44.5 percent of those who
8

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 1.

Trends in Immigration and the

Foreign-Born Population

The foreign-born

population reached

28 million in 2000.

The estimated foreign-born

population of the United States in

March 2000 was 28.4 million based

on data collected in the Current

Population Survey1 (Figure 1-1). Previously, the foreign-born population

had expanded from 9.6 million in

1970, the lowest total in this century, to 14.1 million in 1980 and to

19.8 million in 1990.2

The proportion foreign born increased from 6.2 percent in 1980

to 7.9 percent in 1990. By March

2000, an estimated 10.4 percent

of the U.S. population was foreign

born, the highest proportion since

1930.

Historically, the foreignborn population increased

during each decade until

1930 and then declined

until 1970.

With the exception of the

1860s (which included the Civil

War) and the 1890s (which included the “closing” of the agricultural frontier and economic depression), the number of international

migrants to the United States increased in each decade from the

1820s to the 1901-1910 decade

(Figure 1-2).3 Data from the Immigration and Naturalization Service

(INS) indicate that the number of

immigrants increased from 0.1 million in the 1820s to 8.8 million in

the 1901-1910 decade, the highest

total on record for a single decade.

Census data reflect this migration

trend and show that the foreignborn population increased rapidly

from 2.2 million in 1850, the first

year place of birth data were collected, to 13.5 million in 1910.4

The number of new foreign- Following a reduced flow of inborn arrivals declined between ternational migrants in the 1930s

1911 and the 1920s, due first to and 1940s (due partly to economic

World War I and then to restrictive depression and then to World War

immigration legislation enacted in II), the U.S. foreign-born population

1921 and 1924. The new legisla- dropped to 10.3 million in 1950

tion established a national origin or 6.9 percent of the total populaquota system that severely limited tion. The number of international

immigration and favored countries migrants to the United States inin the Western Hemisphere and creased in the 1950s and 1960s,

Northern or Western Europe.5 but remained relatively low com-

 As a result of decreased migra- pared to earlier decades. As a

tion to the United States, the result of four decades of low immiforeign-born population increased gration, the foreign-born populaslowly to 14.2 million in 1930. tion dropped to 9.6 million in

The proportion foreign born in the 1970 or a record low of 4.7 pertotal population, which had fluctu- cent of the total population.

ated in the 13 percent to 15 per- The national origins quota syscent range from 1860 to 1920, tem, which was enacted in the

dropped from 14.7 percent in 1920s and reaffirmed in the Immi1910 to 11.6 percent in 1930. gration and Nationality Act of

Foreign-born and native populations.

Simply put, the foreign born are not U.S. citizens at birth. The

foreign-born population is classified by citizenship status: those

who have become U.S. citizens through naturalization and those

who are not U.S. citizens. Natives, as defined by the Census Bureau, were born in the United States, in U.S. Island Areas such as

Puerto Rico, or were born in a foreign country of at least one parent

who was a United States citizen.

The foreign-born population includes immigrants, as defined

above, legal nonimmigrants (e.g., refugees and persons on student

or work visas), and persons illegally residing in the United States.

Immigrants and immigration.

Immigrants, as defined in the Immigration and Nationality Act,

are aliens admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence. They may be issued immigrant visas overseas by the Department of State or adjusted to permanent resident status in the

United States by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Immigration is defined here as the number of immigrants during a specified period of time, such as a year or a decade.

Further information.

For a detailed discussion, see Appendix A, “Foreign Born and

Other Terms: Definitions and Concepts.”
9

U.S. Census Bureau

1952, was eliminated by the 1965

Amendments to the Immigration

and Nationality Act of 1952. This

legislation and subsequent legislation, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,

which permitted some illegal aliens

to obtain lawful permanent residence, and the Immigration Act of

1990, which increased the annual

cap on immigration, have contributed to increased international

migration.

1Data from the Current Population Survey (CPS)

include the civilian noninstitutionalized population

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post.

2While legal immigration has been the primary

source for growth in the foreign-born population

since 1965, the number of illegal aliens has also

probably increased the foreign-born population (Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, pp. 239-

243).

3For a detailed discussion of trends in immigration to the United States, see U.S. Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 1991, special section on

“Trends in Immigration,” pp. 13-34. See also U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, Appendix 1, “Immigration and Naturalization Legislation.”

4The highest number of international migrants

recorded for a 10-year period was 10.1 million for

the years 1905-14 (INS, 2000, p. 19). However, Warren and Kraly estimate emigration was also high during this period — approximately 3.2 million (Warren

and Kraly, 1985, p. 5). For the 1901-10 decade,

when the number of immigrants was 8.8 million,

they estimate emigration was 3.0 million (U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 238).

5Ibid., Appendix 1, “Immigration and Naturalization Legislation.”

1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Foreign-born population (in millions)

Percent of total population

Figure 1-1.

Foreign-Born Population and Percent of Total Population 

for the United States: 1850 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a, Table 1, and 2001, Table 1-1.

9.7

13.2

14.4

13.3

14.8

13.6

14.7

13.2

11.6

8.8

6.9

5.4

4.7

6.2

7.9

10.4

2.2 4.1 5.6 6.7 9.2 10.3 13.5 13.9 14.2 11.6 10.3 9.7 9.6 14.1 19.8 28.4

(For 1850-1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus 

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Figure 1-2.

Immigrants to the United States by Decade: 

Fiscal Years, 1821 to 1998

1991-

1998

1981-

1990

1971-

1980

1961-

1970

1951-

1960

1941-

1950

1931-

1940

1921-

1930

1911-

1920

1901-

1910

1891-

1900

1881-

1890

1871-

1880

1861-

1870

1851-

1860

1841-

1850

1831-

1840

1821-

1830

Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, Table 1.

0.1

0.6

1.7

2.6 2.3

2.8

5.2

3.7

8.8

5.7

4.1

0.5

1.0

2.5

3.3

4.5

7.3 7.6

(Numbers millions)
10

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 2.

Region of Birth

One-half of the foreign- America. From 1970 to 2000,

born population is from the foreign-born population from

Latin America. Central America rose from 48.4 percent to 67.6 percent of the total

In 2000, 14.5 million of the born in Latin America.

foreign-born population living in

the United States was born in Latin One-quarter of the

America, up from 8.4 million in foreign-born population

1990 (Figure 2-1).1 This increase is from Asia.

represented a continuation of the In 2000, about 7.2 million of the rapid growth in the foreign-born foreign born living in the United population from Latin America since States were born in Asia compared 1960 when the figure was 0.9 mil- with 5.0 million in 1990. The in- lion. From 1970, when the total crease reflects a pattern established foreign-born population started to shortly after 1965 when U.S. na- increase dramatically, to 2000, the tional origins quotas were abol- increase in the foreign-born popula- ished. In 1960, the foreign-born tion from Latin America accounted population from Asia stood at for 12.7 million, or 67.6 percent, of 0.5 million. During the 1970s the the total increase of 18.8 million. population more than tripled, and The foreign-born population then in the 1980s it nearly doubled from Latin America accounted for to about 5.0 million people. 51.0 percent of the foreign-born By March 2000, the foreign-born population in 2000 (Figure 2-2). The population from Asia constituted proportion of the foreign-born popu- 25.5 percent of the foreign-born lation from Latin America increased population. The apparent difference rapidly from 9.4 percent in 1960 to in the proportion between 2000 and 19.4 percent in 1970, to 33.1 per- 1990 when the foreign-born popula- cent in 1980 and to 44.3 percent in tion from Asia was 26.3 percent is 1990. not statistically significant. PreviCentral Americans form ously, the Asian born share of the

a growing share of the foreign-born population had inforeign born from Latin creased from 5.1 percent in 1960 to

America. 8.9 percent in 1970 and to 19.3 percent in 1980.

Among the 14.5 million foreign- Nearly one-seventh of the born population from Latin America

in 2000, 9.8 million were from foreign born are from

Central America (including Mexico), Europe.

2.8 million were from the Caribbean, As suggested by the discussion and 1.9 million were from South of historical trends in immigration in America.2 In 1970, when the Section 1, European countries were foreign-born population from Latin the primary source of the foreign- America was 1.8 million, 0.9 million born population in the United States were from Central America, 0.7 mil- until the immigration laws were lion were from the Caribbean, and changed in 1965 (Figure 2-2). 0.3 million were from South

Survey data from March 2000 show

that about 15.3 percent of the foreign born were from Europe. Slightly

more than half of the 4.3 million

European foreign born came from

countries in Southern and Eastern

Europe.

Through 1960, Northern

America (essentially Canada) was

the second largest source of the

foreign-born population after Europe.3 From 1960 to 1990, the proportion of the foreign-born population from Northern America dropped

from 9.8 percent to 4.0 percent. In

2000, the proportion of the foreignborn population from Northern

America was 2.5 percent.

In 2000, the foreign-born population from Africa was 0.7 million,

up from 0.4 million in 1990. The

foreign-born population from

Oceania (mostly Australia) remained

statistically unchanged at 0.15 million. In 1960, the foreign-born

population from Africa and Oceania

each was 35,000.4

1 The six regions of the world used in this report are those defined by the United Nations and

used in its annual Demographic Yearbook. These regions are Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, Latin

America, and Northern America (United Nations,

1996, pp. 30-31). Region of origin is not equivalent

with race. For example, 14.5 percent of the foreign

born from Asia are non-Hispanic white. See Section

9, Hispanic Origin and Race.

2 The subregions of Latin America, including

Mexico as a part of Central America, are defined by

the United Nations. See footnote 1.

3 In addition to Canada, foreign countries in

Northern America include Bermuda, Greenland, and

two tiny islands governed by France, St. Pierre, and

Miquelon.

4 For census data the “Other Areas” category includes people for whom place of birth was never reported, so fluctuations in this category through 1990

are often due to reporting changes. For March 2000,

the “Other Areas” category is composed of foreign

born from Africa and Oceania and a few cases from

Antarctica and At Sea. (See U.S. Census Bureau,

1999.)
11

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 2-1.

Foreign-Born Population by 

Region of Birth: 1960 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 2

and Table 1-1.

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Other Areas

Asia

Northern America

Europe

Latin America

7.3 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.4

0.8 0.7

0.9

0.8

1.0

0.9

0.5

0.1

9.7

9.6

14.1

19.8

28.4

1.6

7.2

14.5

1.3

5.0

8.4

1.2

2.5

4.4

0.4

0.8

1.8

(Numbers in millions. For 1960-90, resident 

population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional 

population plus Armed Forces living off post 

or with their families on post)

Other Areas

Asia

Northern America

Europe

Latin America

Figure 2-2.

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 

Selected Years, 1850 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 2 and Table 1-1.

1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

92.2

6.7

1.0

86.2

10.7

3.1

86.0

11.4

2.6

83.0

9.2

5.6

2.2

75.0

9.8

9.4

5.1

0.7

61.7

8.7

19.4

8.9

1.3

39.0

6.5

33.1

19.3

2.1

22.9

4.0

44.3

26.3

2.5

15.3

2.5

51.0

25.5

5.7

(Percent distribution. For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, 

civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 

living off post or with their families on post)
12

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 3.

Country of Birth

More than one-quarter

of the foreign born is

from Mexico.

In 2000, 7.8 million of the

foreign-born population living in

the United States were born in

Mexico, an increase of 3.5 million,

or 82.4 percent, over the 1990 figure for Mexico of 4.3 million (Figure 3-1). Previously, the foreignborn population from Mexico

rose from 0.8 million in 1970

to 2.2 million in 1980.

The foreign-born population

from Mexico accounted for

27.6 percent of the foreign born

in 2000. Previously, the Mexican

proportion was 8.2 percent in

1970, 16.7 percent in 1980, and

22.7 percent in 1990. Mexico’s

proportion in 2000 is the largest

recorded share any country has

held since the decennial census in

1890 when about 30 percent of

the foreign-born population was

from Germany. The foreign-born

population from Mexico in 2000

was about six times as large as the

foreign-born population from the

next highest ranked country:

China.

In addition to the large increase

in the foreign-born population

from Mexico during the period

from 1990 to 2000, statistically

significant increases in the foreignborn population occurred for several countries with 0.5 million or

more foreign-born population in

2000: China,1 the Philippines,

India, Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador,

the Dominican Republic, and the

combined countries in Europe that

were once part of the former

Soviet Union.2

Most of the 10 leading the addition of Vietnam and China.

countries of birth of the Although the sample size in the

foreign-born population Current Population Survey is not

are in Latin America and large enough to rank most countries with complete accuracy (note Asia. the 90-percent confidence

In 1960, Mexico was the only intervals shown in Figure 3-1),

Latin American or Asian country the number of Latin American and

among the 10 leading countries of Asian countries among the

birth of the foreign-born popula- 10 leading countries of birth of

tion (Table 3-1). The number in- the foreign-born population may

creased to two in 1970 with the have reached 9 in 2000 (with the

addition of Cuba; to four in 1980 addition of India, the Dominican

with the addition of the Philippines Republic, and El Salvador).3

and Korea; and to six in 1990 with

2000

1990

Figure 3-1.

Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population

With 500,000 or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000

(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals 

in parentheses for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population.

For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed 

Forces living off post or with their families on post)

United Kingdom

Soviet Union*1

Germany

Canada

Dominican

Republic*

Korea

El Salvador*

Vietnam*

Cuba*

India*

Philippines*

China*1

Mexico* 7,841 (7,364-8,318)

4,298

1,391 (1,195-1,588)

921

1,222 (1,038-1,407)

913

1,007 (839-1,174)

450

952 (784-1,121)

737

863 (708-1,019)

543

765 (614-916)

465

701 (561-841)

568

692 (548-836)

348

678 (536-820)

745

653 (547-759)

712

624 (521-727)

334

613 (511-716)

640

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.

1See text footnotes 1 and 2, respectively, regarding China and the Soviet Union.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 3, and Tables 3-1, 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4.
13

U.S. Census Bureau

3

1

2

4

Historically, European

countries and Canada

were the leading countries

of birth of the foreignborn population.

At each census from 1850

through 1960, the 10 leading countries of birth of the foreign-born

population were predominantly

European countries and Canada.

The only exceptions were Mexico

(1850-60, 1920-60) and China

(1860-80). Prior to 1980, when

Mexico became the leading country

of birth of the foreign-born population, the leading countries were

Ireland (1850-70), Germany (1880-

20), and Italy (1930-1970). The

10 leading countries of birth of the

foreign-born population in selected

years are shown in Table 3-1.

1 Including Hong Kong and Taiwan. Data for

Hong Kong and Taiwan corresponding to the format in

Figure 3-1 are (in thousands): Hong Kong (147 for

1990 and 195 (121-269) for 2000); Taiwan (244 for

1990 and 325 (230-420) for 2000). The 2000 populations for Hong Kong and Taiwan are not statistically

different from their 1990 populations. 2 The Soviet Union as defined prior to January 1,

1992, excluding Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan

which are included with Asia in this report. In 1992,

the United States formally recognized 12 independent

republics within the former Soviet Union. See Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2000, p. 10. 3 Given the uncertainty as to whether or not

Cuba, Vietnam, El Salvador, Korea, and the Dominican

Republic are in the top 10 in 2000, the number may

be as low as 4 (if none of the 5 is among the 10 leading countries) or as high as 9 (if all 5 are among the

10 leading countries).

Table 3-1.

Leading Countries of Birth of the Foreign-Born Population: 

(Resident population)

Selected Years, 1850 to 1990

Subject 1850 1880 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990

Number of 10 Leading

Countries by Region

 Total ...................... 10

Europe ........................ 8

Northern America ........ 1

Latin America .............. 1

Asia ............................ -

10 Leading Countries by Rank1

(foreign-born population

in thousands)

1 ............................ Ireland

............................ 962

2 ............................ Germany

............................ 584

3 ............................ Great Britain

............................ 379

4 ............................ Canada

............................ 148

5 ............................ France

............................ 54

6 ............................ Switzerland

............................ 13

7 ............................ Mexico

............................ 13

8 ............................ Norway

............................ 13

9 ............................ Holland

............................ 10

10 ............................ Italy

............................ 4

10

8

1

-

1

Germany

1,967

Ireland

1,855

Great Britain

918

Canada

717

Sweden

194

Norway

182

France

107

China

104

Switzerland

89

Bohemia

85

10

9

1

-

-

Germany

2,663

Ireland

1,615

Canada

1,180

Great Britain

1,168

Sweden

582

Italy

484

Russia

424

Poland

383

Norway

336

Austria

276

10

8

1

1

-

Italy

1,790

Germany

1,609

United Kingdom

1,403

Canada

1,310

Poland

1,269

Soviet Union

1,154

Ireland

745

Mexico

641

Sweden

595

Czechoslovakia

492

10

8

1

1

-

Italy

1,257

Germany

990

Canada

953

United Kingdom

833

Poland

748

Soviet Union

691

Mexico

576

Ireland

339

Austria

305

Hungary

245

10

7

1

2

-

Italy

1,009

Germany

833

Canada

812

Mexico

760

United Kingdom

686

Poland

548

Soviet Union

463

Cuba

439

Ireland

251

Austria

214

10

5

1

2

2

Mexico

2,199

Germany

849

Canada

843

Italy

832

United Kingdom

669

Cuba

608

Philippines

501

Poland

418

Soviet Union

406

Korea

290

10

Mexico

4,298

China

921

Philippines

913

Canada

745

Cuba

737

Germany

712

United Kingdom

640

Italy

581

Korea

568

Vietnam

543

- Represents zero.

1In general, countries as reported at each census. Data are not totally comparable over time due to changes in boundaries for some countries. 

Ireland. United Kingdom includes Northern Ireland. China in 1990 includes Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 3 and 4.

 Great Britain excludes
14

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 4.

Geographic Distribution

The foreign-born

population is highly

concentrated in a few

states.

In 2000, 6 states had estimated

foreign-born populations of 1 million or more: California (8.8 million), New York (3.6 million),

Florida (2.8 million), Texas

(2.4 million), New Jersey (1.2 million), and Illinois (1.2 million)

(Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1). These

6 states accounted for 20.0 million, or 70.4 percent, of the total

foreign-born population, but only

39.3 percent of the total population. The concentration of the

foreign-born population in these

six states increased from 56.5 percent in 1960 to 70.4 percent in

2000 while their proportion of the

total population increased from

35.2 percent in 1960 to 39.3 percent by 2000.

In five of these states, the proportion foreign born exceeded the

national average of 10.4 percent:

California (25.9 percent), New York

(19.6 percent), Florida (18.4 percent), New Jersey (14.9 percent),

and Texas (12.2 percent). The proportion foreign born in Illinois (9.5

percent) fell below the national average.

Although their foreign-born

population did not exceed 1 million, the proportion foreign born

was significantly above the national average in 4 other states:

Hawaii (16.1 percent), Nevada

(15.2 percent), Arizona (12.9 percent), and Massachusetts

(12.4 percent) (Figure 4-2).1 In

contrast, 33 states located mostly

in the Midwest and South had an

estimated proportion foreign born

of 5 percent or less in 2000.

Most of the growth in the The regional distribution

foreign-born population of the foreign-born

has occurred in California, population has changed

Florida, and Texas. sharply since 1960.

From 1960 to 2000, the foreign- The growth of the foreign-born

born population increased from population in California, Florida, and

1.3 million to 8.8 million in Califor- Texas caused the foreign-born popunia, from 0.3 million to 2.8 million in lation to expand more rapidly in the

Florida, and from 0.3 million to West and South than it did in the

2.4 million in Texas. The combined Northeast and Midwest between

foreign-born population in these 3 1960 and 2000 (Table 4-1). For the

states rose from 1.9 million to West and South combined, the for14.0 million, an increase of 12.1 mil- eign-born population grew from

lion people, or 64.8 percent of the 2.9 million to 18.9 million and rose

growth of the total foreign-born from 29.6 percent to 66.7 percent

population during this period. of the foreign-born population of the

These three states combined ac- United States. During the same pecounted for 40.9 percent of the riod, the proportion of the total

growth in the total U.S. population population in the West and South

between 1960 and 2000.

Table 4-1.

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence

and for Leading States: Selected Years, 1900 to 2000

(For 1900-90 resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Subject 1900 1930 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

Foreign-Born Population by Region of Residence (in thousands)

United States ........ 10,341 14,204 9,738 9,619

Northeast .................... 4,763 7,202 4,575 4,120

Midwest ...................... 4,158 4,360 2,277 1,874

South .......................... 574 819 963 1,316

West ............................ 846 1,824 1,924 2,310

Percent Foreign Born in Total Population for Regions

United States ........ 13.6 11.6 5.4 4.7

Northeast .................... 22.6 20.9 10.2 8.4

Midwest ...................... 15.8 11.3 4.4 3.3

South .......................... 2.3 2.2 1.8 2.1

West ............................ 20.7 15.3 6.9 6.6

Six Leading States by Rank (foreign-born population in thousands)

1 .......................... NY NY NY NY

............................ 1,900 3,262 2,289 2,110

2 .......................... PA IL CA CA

............................ 985 1,242 1,344 1,758

3 .......................... IL PA IL NJ

............................ 967 1,240 686 635

4 .......................... MA CA NJ IL

............................ 846 1,074 615 629

5 .......................... MI MA PA FL

............................ 542 1,066 603 540

6 .......................... WI MI MA MA

............................ 516 853 576 495

14,080

4,506

2,114

2,895

4,565

6.2

9.2

3.6

3.8

10.6

CA

3,580

NY

2,389

FL

1,059

TX

856

IL

824

NJ

758

19,767

5,231

2,131

4,582

7,823

7.9

10.3

3.6

5.4

14.8

CA

6,459

NY

2,852

FL

1,663

TX

1,524

NJ

967

IL

952

28,379

6,420

3,036

7,596

11,327

10.4

12.3

4.8

7.9

18.1

CA

8,781

NY

3,634

FL

2,768

TX

2,443

NJ

1,208

IL

1,155

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 13, and 2001, Table 4-1A.
15

U.S. Census Bureau

combined rose from 46.3 percent to

57.8 percent. The changes between

1960 and 2000 in the six states

with the largest foreign-born populations reflect these regional changes

(Table 4-1). Pennsylvania and Massachusetts, among the top six

states in 1960, were replaced by

Florida and Texas.2

Historically, the foreignborn population was

highly concentrated in the

Northeast and Midwest.

In 1900 and 1930, more than

80 percent of the foreign-born

population of the United States

lived in the Northeast and Midwest, and in 1930, 50.7 percent

lived in the Northeast alone. New

York had a foreign-born population

of 3.3 million in 1930, more than

twice the foreign-born population

of any other state and the highest

census figure for any state until

1980, when the foreign-born population of California was 3.6 million.

1 The proportion foreign born appears to be

above the national figure in Washington, DC (10.6

percent); however, the apparent difference is not statistically significant. It should be noted that the

sample size is not large enough to identify many

substantively important differences involving areas

with relatively small populations. See Appendix B.

2 The change in the foreign-born population

from 1960 to 2000 was statistically significant for

both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania. However, the

foreign-born population in Massachusetts was significantly larger in 2000 than in 1960, whereas the

foreign-born population in Pennsylvania was significantly smaller in 2000 than in 1960.

2000

1990

Figure 4-1.

States With a Foreign-Born Population of 1 Million 

or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000

(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses 

for 2000 estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, 

civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living 

off post or with their families on post)

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 census of population, and 2001, Table 4-1A.

8,871 (8,272-9,290)

6,459

3,634 (3,406-3,862)

2,852

2,768 (2,550-2,985)

1,663

2,443 (2,188-2,698)

1,524

1,208 (1,086-1,330)

967

1,155 (1,010-1,300)

952 Illinois*

New Jersey*

Texas*

Florida*

New York*

California*

Figure 4-2.

Foreign-Born Population for States: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 

living off post or with their families on post) Percent foreign born

(number of states in parentheses)

Under 5.0 (27)

5.0 to 9.9 (14)

10.0 to 14.9 (4 plus DC)

15.0 to 19.9 (4)

20.0 or more (1)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 4-1A.

CA

25.9

AZ

12.9 NM

5.8

TX

12.2

OK

3.2 AR

1.8

LA

2.6

MS

0.9

AL

1.6

GA

4.4

FL

18.4

KS

5.7

NE

3.7

SD

1.3

ND

1.5 MT

0.8

WY

1.0

CO

9.8

UT

5.5

NV

15.2

OR

7.8

WA

7.4 MN

5.1

IA

3.9

MO

3.0

IL

9.5

IN

2.4

OH

2.5

MI

5.1

WI

3.6

PA

2.9

WV

0.9

KY 2.5

TN 1.8

NC

4.4 SC

1.6

VA

7.7

NY

19.6

ME

2.2

NH

3.9 VT

3.5

MA

12.4

NJ

14.9

MD

9.0

CT

8.7

RI

7.8

HI

16.1

AK

4.2

ID

5.3

DE

4.7

DC

10.6

Northeast

12.3%

South

7.9%

United States

10.4%

West

18.1%

Midwest

4.8%
16

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 5.

Metropolitan Areas

The foreign-born populations of 5 million or more),

population is highly Los Angeles and San Francisco had

concentrated in a few the highest proportion foreign born

large metropolitan areas. (Table 5-1).3 For metropolitan areas

with 1 million to 5 million populaIn March 2000, the metropoli- tion in 2000, Miami had the highest

tan areas with the largest foreign- proportion foreign born at 42.7 perborn populations were Los Angeles cent.

and New York each with 4.7 million

1 The foreign-born foreign-born persons (Figure 5-1).

Together, these two metropolitan population is more

areas included 9.4 million, or concentrated than the

33.1 percent, of the foreign-born native population in

population of 28.4 million. In con- metropolitan areas and in

trast, they included only 13.3 per- their central cities.

cent of the total population. In

The concentration of the foreign- three additional metropolitan arborn population in metropolitan ar- eas, the foreign-born population

was 1 million or more in 2000: eas and in their central cities is

shown from two perspectives in San Francisco (2.0 million), Miami

Figure 5-2. The numbers on the left (1.6 million), and Chicago (1.1 million).2 side show the proportionate distri- Together with Los Angeles

butions of the total population, the and New York, these 5 metropolinative population, and the foreign- tan areas included 14.1 million, or

born population by type of resi- 49.8 percent of the foreign-born

dence. The bar chart on the right population, but only 20.5 percent

side shows the proportion foreign of the total population.

Among the 9 largest metropoli- born in each category of the population by type of residence. tan areas in 2000 (those with total

As shown in the left side of Figure 5-2, 94.9 percent of the foreignborn population lived in metropolitan areas in 2000 compared with

79.3 percent of the native population. The difference was accounted

for entirely by the differences in the

proportions in central cities:

45.1 percent of the foreign-born

population versus 27.5 percent of

the native population. The proportion living outside central cities in

metropolitan areas was slightly

lower among the foreign-born population than among the native population: 49.8 percent versus 51.9 percent respectively.

The foreign-born population was

especially concentrated in the largest metropolitan areas and in their

central cities: 54.5 percent lived in

the 9 metropolitan areas of 5 million

or more population in 2000 compared with 27.3 percent of the native population. While a much higher

proportion of the foreign-born population than of the native population

lived in metropolitan areas of 5 million or more population in 2000, the

proportions were not significantly

different in metropolitan areas of

1 million up to 5 million population

(about 24 percent each). The proportions were lower for the foreignborn population than for the native

population in metropolitan areas

with less than 1 million population

(16.8 percent versus 27.6 percent)

and in nonmetropolitan areas

(5.1 percent versus 20.7 percent).

More than one-quarter of

the central-city population

of the largest metropolitan

areas are foreign born.

As shown on the right side of

Figure 5-2, the proportion of the

population foreign born was much

higher in metropolitan areas

2000

1990

4,708 (4,445-4,972)

1,251

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha,

IL-IN-WI CMSA*

Miami-Ft. Lauderdale,

FL CMSA*

San Francisco-OaklandSan Jose, CA CMSA*

New York-Northern New JerseyLong Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA*

Los Angeles-RiversideOrange County, CA CMSA* 3,945

4,690 (4,427-4,954)

3,657

1,647 (1,477-1,816)

*Change from 1990 to 2000 is statistically significant.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 16 and 2001, Table 5-2A.

915

1,073

2,007 (1,795-2,220)

1,070 (932-1,208)

Figure 5-1.

Metropolitan Areas With a Foreign-Born Population of 

1 Million or More in 2000: 1990 and 2000

(Numbers in thousands. 90-percent confidence intervals in parentheses for 2000 

estimates. For 1990, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional 

population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post. 

Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)
17

U.S. Census Bureau

(12.1 percent) than in nonmetropoli- The proportion of the population

tan areas (2.7 percent) in 2000. The foreign born was higher in central

proportion foreign born ranged from cities (16.0 percent) than outside

18.8 percent in metropolitan areas central cities in metropolitan areas

with 5 million or more population to (10.0 percent). The foreign-born

6.6 percent in metropolitan areas proportion of the population was

with less than 1 million population. highest in central cities of

metropolitan areas with 5 million or

more population (25.8 percent).

1 Official names of metropolitan areas are provided in Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 but are shortened

in the text for readability. The general concept of a

metropolitan area (MA) is one of a large population

nucleus, together with adjacent communities that have

a high degree of economic and social integration with

that nucleus. Some MAs are defined around two or

more nuclei. The Office of Management and Budget,

with technical assistance from the Census Bureau, uses

published standards to define MAs for use by Federal

agencies. The standards provide for the classification

of an MA as a metropolitan statistical area (MSA) or as a

consolidated metropolitan statistical area (CSMA) with

component primary metropolitan statistical areas

(PMSAs). See Office of Management and Budget, 1990

and 1993.

2 For the Chicago metropolitan area, the lower

bound on the 90-percent confidence interval is less

than 1 million.

3 Dallas metropolitan area had a population estimate for which the lower bound of the 90-percent confidence interval fell below 5 million.

Table 5-1.

Foreign-Born Population in Metropolitan Areas With

5 Million or More People: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their

families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)

 Percent

Metropolitan area foreign born

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA ..................................

Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA ........................................................

Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI CMSA........................................................................

Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-CMSA ...............................................................

San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA .................................................................

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA ..........................................

Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI CMSA ...............................................................................

Boston-Worcester-Lawrence, MA-NH-ME-CT CMSA ......................................................

Dallas-Ft. Worth, TX CMSA .........................................................................................

22.8

29.6

12.3

11.9

28.3

5.1

7.4

12.5

12.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 5-2A.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 5-1A.

Figure 5-2.

Population by Nativity and MetropolitanNonmetropolitan Residence: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their 

families on post. Metropolitan areas as defined June 30, 1993; see text, footnote 1)

 10.4

12.1

16.0

10.0

14.9

20.2

12.0

18.8

25.8

14.8

10.0

12.7

8.8

6.6

8.1

5.5

2.7

Total population

Metropolitan areas

In central cities

Outside central cities

1 million or more population

In central cities

Outside central cities

5 million or more population

In central cities

Outside central cities

1 million up to 5 million population

In central cities

Outside central cities

Less than 1 million population

In central cities

Outside central cities

Nonmetropolitan areas

Total Native Foreign born

100.0 100.0 100.0

80.9 79.3 94.9

29.3 27.5 45.1

51.6 51.9 49.8

54.5 51.7 78.2

18.9 16.8 37.0

35.6 34.9 41.2

30.1 27.3 54.5

10.9 9.0 27.2

19.2 18.2 27.3

24.4 24.5 23.7

8.0 7.8 9.8

16.4 16.7 13.9

26.4 27.6 16.8

10.4 10.6 8.2

16.1 16.9 8.6

19.1 20.7 5.1

Percent distribution by type of residence Percent foreign born by type of residence

Total

Metro areas

In central cities

Outside central cities

Nonmetro areas
18

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 6.

Length of Residence

The median length of United States for 20 years or more from all other world regions of

residence of the foreign- dropped from 50.4 percent in birth.3

born population is about 1970 to 32.2 percent in 2000. The Among the foreign-born popu14 years. proportions residing in the United lation from Latin America, the meStates less than 5 years, 5 to 9 dian was highest for those from

In 2000, the median length of years, 10 to 14 years, and 15 to the Caribbean, 17.6 years, reflectresidence in the United States of 19 years were all higher in 2000 ing the relatively large number of

the foreign-born population was than in 1970. migrants from Cuba in the 1960s

14.4 years (Figure 6-1).1 This is and 1970s. The median lengths Length of residence by 4

slightly higher than in 1990 of residence of the population

(12.2 years), virtually equal to region of birth reflects from Central America (about four1980 (14.1 years), and much lower historical patterns of fifths of whom are from Mexico)

than in 1970 when the median was international migration. and South America, 12.9 years and

20.3 years.2 13.0 years, respectively, were not In 2000, the median length of In general, changes between statistically different from each residence in the United States of the 1970 and 2000 in the percent other and were the lowest in Latin foreign-born population was distribution of the foreign-born America.5

14.3 years for the population from population by length of residence The median lengths of resi- Asia and 13.5 years for the popula- reflect the relatively high level of dence in 2000 of the foreign-born tion from Latin America (Figure 6-2). international migration during this populations from Northern These two medians are not signifi- period and the attrition (through America and Europe were 24.8 cantly different from each other, nor death) of nearly all migrants who years and 25.0 years, respectively, are they significantly different from came to the United States before and did not differ significantly. the median length of residence of 1930 when international migration The median length of residence for 14.4 years for the total foreign-born previously had been at relatively the foreign born from Europe population. The median length of high levels, as discussed in Section (25.0) was much higher than the residence of the population from 1. The proportion of the foreign- median for the total foreign-born Africa was 10.2 years in 2000, be- born population residing in the population (14.4).6

low the medians for the populations

1Census data for 1970-90 do not include persons who did not report length of residence information.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 10, and 2001, Table 6-1.

Figure 6-1.

Length of Residence1 in the United States for the Foreign-Born Population: 1970 to 2000

(For 1970-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 

living off post or with their families on post)

Year

1970

1980

1990

2000

Percent distribution by length of residence (in years)

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19 20 or more

14.4

12.2

14.1

20.3

22.0

24.7

23.7

18.5

17.5 15.9 12.3 32.2

19.2 13.9 10.7 31.5

15.8 12.8 9.4 38.2

12.2 10.5 8.5 50.4

Median length 

of residence

(in years)
19

U.S. Census Bureau

While 32.2 percent of the foreign-born population had resided in

the United States for 20 years or

more, 55.5 percent of the foreign

born from Europe and 57.7 percent

of the foreign born from Northern

America were in this category (not

statistically different). Of the foreign

born from Europe 35.8 percent had

been living in the United States for

at least 35 years. Stated differently,

35.8 percent of the European

foreign born came to live in the

United States before 1965.7 Only

6.6 percent of the foreign born from

Latin America came to live in the

United States before 1965.

1 The median is the value which divides the

ranked population into two groups of equal size.

2 Because reporting on year of entry (which is

used to obtain data on length of residence) is subject

to misstatement, small differences in length of residence do not warrant emphasis. For example, the

specific question, “When did you come to live in the

United States?,” may be interpreted by some respondents to mean the year in which they obtained permanent legal residence in the United States.

3 Comparisons involving Africa and Oceania and

Northern America are limited due to the small

sample size of the CPS for foreign born from each of

these regions. See Appendix B.

4 During the period 1988-1998, 214,757 Haitians were admitted for legal permanent residence

to the United States. The entry of these immigrants

has probably lowered the length of residence of the

foreign born from the Caribbean. (See U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 2000.)

5 There is no statistical difference between 12.9

and 14.4; there is no statistical difference between

13.0 and 14.4.

6 Due to the small sample, the median length of

residence for the foreign born from Northern America

(24.8) does not differ statistically from that for the

total foreign-born population (14.4), Asia (14.3), or

Latin America (13.5). 7 Recent INS data show that international migration from the countries of the former Soviet Union during the 1990s was significantly higher than during the

1980s (444,614 and 57,972, respectively). Also,

23,349 (30.6 percent) of all refugee arrivals in 1998

were from the countries of the former Soviet Union.

(See U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service, 2000,

and 1991.)

Figure 6-2.

Length of Residence in the United States for the Foreign-Born 

Population by Region of Birth: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

Total 28.4 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

Median

length

of residence

(in years)

14.4

25.0

14.3

10.2

13.5

17.6

12.9

12.8

13.2

13.0

24.8

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 6-1.

Less than 5 5 to 9 10 to 14 15 to 19

Percent distribution by length of residence (in years)

20 or more

22.0 17.5 15.9 12.3 32.2

16.8 12.5 9.6 5.6 55.5

21.5 17.9 17.2 16.6 26.9

37.1 16.9 14.2 11.5 20.3

22.5 19.2 17.8 12.6 27.9

16.9 16.2 14.4 13.9 38.6

23.4 20.2 19.1 12.2 25.1

23.9 20.8 18.3 10.7 26.4

21.4 18.1 22.4 18.3 19.8

26.3 18.4 15.8 12.7 26.8

21.1 8.1 6.3 6.8 57.7
20

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 7.

Citizenship Status

The proportion of citizens in the foreign-born populanaturalized citizens in the tion is attributable to the proporforeign-born population tionate declines in citizenship

has declined since 1970. within each length-of-residence

category. Changes in the distribuWhile the total foreign-born tion of the foreign-born population

population increased by 191 per- by length of residence in the

cent (from 9.7 million to 28.4 mil- United States are a secondary faclion) between 1970 and 2000, the tor. (The median length of resinumbers of naturalized citizens dence of the foreign-born populaand noncitizens in the foreign-born tion dropped from 20.3 years in

population increased at very differ- 1970 to 14.4 years in 2000, as disent rates (Figure 7-1).1 Naturalized cussed in Section 6.)

citizens increased by 71 percent As noted above, the proportion

(from 6.2 million to 10.6 million), of naturalized citizens dropped

while noncitizens rose by from 63.6 percent in 1970 to

401 percent (from 3.5 million to 37.4 percent in 2000, or by

17.8 million). As a result of the 26.2 percentage points. Declines

more rapid growth of noncitizens, in proportions of naturalized citithe proportion of naturalized citi- zens in the length-of-residence catzens in the foreign-born popula- egories account for 17.9 percenttion dropped from 63.6 percent in age points of the decrease, and

1970 to 50.1 percent in 1980, to the changes in the distribution by

40.5 percent in 1990, and to length of residence account for

37.4 percent in 2000.2 8.3 percentage points of the decrease. The proportion of 3

naturalized citizens has The proportion of

declined in each length- naturalized citizens varies

of-residence category. greatly by region of birth.

The proportion of naturalized The proportion of naturalized

citizens in the foreign-born popula- citizens among the foreign-born

tion declined from 1970 to 2000, population in 2000 was 52.0 pernot only for the total foreign-born cent for the population from Eupopulation, but for every category rope, 47.1 percent for the populaof length of residence in the United tion from Asia, and 28.3 percent

States (Figure 7-2). As measured for the population from Latin

by percentage-point change, the America (Figure 7-3). The low prodeclines were most pronounced portion for the population from

for the foreign-born population re- Latin America is attributable prisiding in the United States for marily to the low figure for the

10 to 14 years (57.5 percent to population from Central America

29.4 percent). Most of the decline (21.1 percent), most of whom are

in the proportion of naturalized from Mexico.

Differences in the proportion

naturalized by region of birth are explained only partly by differences in

length of residence in the United

States. For example, in March 2000,

proportions naturalized among the

Mexico foreign born whose length

of residence in the United States

was 5 to 9 years, 10 to 14 years,

15 to 19 years, or 20 years or more

were lower than corresponding rates

for the total foreign-born population. The respective length of residence figures for Mexico and the total foreign born were 6.2 percent

versus 13.2 percent, 14.2 percent

versus 29.4 percent, 28.9 percent

versus 51.2 percent, and 47.0 percent versus 71.1 percent.

Figure 7-1.

Foreign-Born Population by 

Citizenship Status: 

1970 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999, Table 11, 

and 2001, Table 7-1.

1970 1980 1990 2000

28.4

19.8

14.1

9.7

17.8

11.8

7.0

3.5

6.2 7.1 8.0 10.6

Total

Noncitizens

Naturalized 

citizens

(In millions. For 1970-90, resident population. 

For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their 

families on post)
21

U.S. Census Bureau

1 Some individuals who are foreign born may

erroneously report themselves as U.S. citizens. The

naturalization process requires the foreign-born

applicant reside continuously in the United States for

5 years (or less for special categories of immigrants)

following admission as a legal permanent resident.

See also Section 6, footnote 1, concerning limitations

of data on length of residence in the United States.

2 Evidence from the Current Population Survey

indicates the decades-long decline in the proportion

of naturalized citizens may have ended. The March

1997 proportion was 35.1 percent, statistically different from and lower than the March 2000 figure of

37.4 percent. For censuses prior to 1970, data on

citizenship status of the foreign-born population are

available for 1890-1950. (U.S. Census Bureau, 1999,

Table 11). 3 The 1970 distribution of the foreign-born

population by length of residence combined with the

2000 proportions of naturalized citizens would have

produced a decline in the proportion of naturalized

citizens from 63.6 percent to 45.8 percent. The reverse combination (the 2000 distribution by length

of residence combined with the 1970 proportions of

naturalized citizens) would have produced a decline

from 63.6 percent to 55.4 percent.

Figure 7-2.

Naturalized Citizens by Length of Residence

in the United States: 1970 to 2000

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1973, Table 17; 1985, Table 2; 1993a, Table 1; 1999b, Figure 7-2;

and 2001, Table 7-1.

(For 1970-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional 

population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

20 years

and over

Total Under 5 years 5 to 9 years 10 to 14 years 15 to 19 years

Percent of

foreign-born

population

1970

1980

1990

2000

63.6

50.5

40.5

37.4

12.210.5

7.65.5

31.4

28.2

23.3

13.2

57.5

44.1

40.7

29.4

72.5

57.6

49.4

51.2

89.6

84.9

73.5

71.1

Figure 7-3.

Naturalized Citizens by Region of Birth: 2000

Foreign-born population

(in millions)

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

Total 28.4 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 7-1.

37.4

52.0

47.1

37.0

28.3

46.5

21.1

20.3

24.3

38.6

43.1

(Percent of foreign-born population. Civilian noninstitutional population plus 

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)
22

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 8.

Nativity, Parentage, and Foreign Stock

One-fifth of the total

U.S. population is of

foreign stock.

In 2000, 55.9 million, or

20.4 percent, of the population

was of foreign stock (Table 8-1). In

addition to a foreign-born population of 28.4 million, the native

population of foreign or mixed parentage was 27.5 million (not significantly different). The population of foreign or mixed parentage

included 14.8 million of foreign

parentage and 12.7 million of

mixed parentage. Among the

population of mixed parentage,

6.8 million had a foreign-born father, and 5.9 million had a foreignborn mother.1

The proportion of the

population of foreign

stock has increased

since 1970.

In 1960, 34.1 million, or

19.0 percent, of the population

was of foreign stock (Figure 8-1).

The population of foreign stock

dropped to 33.6 million, or

16.5 percent of the population in

1970, the last year in which data

on parentage were collected in the

decennial census.2 By 2000, the

population of foreign stock had

risen to 55.9 million, or 20.4 percent of the population, reflecting

the high level of international

migration since 1970.

The growth in the population of

foreign stock since 1970 is due

mostly to the growth in the

foreign-born population. From

1970 to 2000, the foreign-born population increased by 18.8 million

(from 9.6 million to

28.4 million), while the

population of foreign or

mixed parentage rose by

only 3.5 million (from

24.0 million to 27.5 million). The slower growth

in the population of foreign or mixed parentage

reflects the relatively old

age structure of this

population in 1970,

which in turn reflects the

preceding decades of

relatively low international migration.3 With

the attrition (through mortality) of

descendants of migrants who

came to the United States early in

the twentieth century and with th

high level of international migration during the past 30 years, the

population of foreign or mixed pa

entage should grow more rapidly

in the future.4

From 1960 to 2000, the population of mixed parentage increased by 2.5 million (from

10.2 million to 12.7 million).5 The

portion with foreign-born fathers

increased by 0.3 million (from

6.5 million to 6.8 million), while

the portion with foreign-born

mothers increased by 2.1 million

(from 3.8 million to 5.9 million

(not significantly different from

2.5 million)).

The proportion of the

population of foreign

stock is below historical

levels.

While the proportion of the

population of foreign stock rose

from 16.5 percent in 1970 to

20.4 percent in 2000, it is well

below the level of the 1890 to

1930 period (Figure 8-1). The

e

rTable 8-1.

Population by Nativity and

Parentage: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces

living off post or with their families on post)

Nativity and parentage

Number

(in millions) Percent

Total population ...................

Native ......................................

Native parentage ..................

Foreign or mixed parentage ..

Foreign parentage ............

Mixed parentage ..............

... Father foreign born ......

... Mother foreign born ....

Foreign born ............................

Native of native parentage ........

Foreign stock ...........................

Foreign or mixed parentage ..

Foreign born .........................

274.1

245.7

218.2

27.5

14.8

12.7

6.8

5.9

28.4

218.2

55.9

27.5

28.4

100.0

89.6

79.6

10.0

5.4

4.6

2.5

2.2

10.4

79.6

20.4

10.0

10.4

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 4-1A.

The terms native population and foreign-born population, which

were defined in Section 1, concern the nativity of the population.

Information on the birthplace of parents may be used to classify

the native population by parentage: native of native parentage

(both parents native), native of foreign parentage (both parents foreign born), and native of mixed parentage (one parent native and

one parent foreign born).

The term foreign stock includes the foreign-born population and

the native population of foreign or mixed parentage. The foreign

stock may thus be thought of as the combination of first and second generation U.S. residents. Just as the native population and foreign-born population comprise the total population, the native

population of native parentage and the foreign-stock population

also comprise the total population.
23

U.S. Census Bureau

proportion increased from 33.2 population, as shown below. In

percent in 1890 to 35.3 percent in 1890, when 18.4 percent of the

1910 and then dropped back to population was native of foreign or

32.8 percent in 1930. mixed parentage and 14.8 percent

The relative sizes of the popu- of the population was foreign

lation of foreign or mixed parent- born, the ratio was 1.2 to 1. By

age and the foreign-born popula- 1960, the ratio had increased to

tion have fluctuated, reflecting the 2.5 to 1.0. From 2.5 to 1.0 again

timing of periods of large-scale in 1970, the ratio fell sharply to

immigration and subsequent 1.0 to 1.0 in 2000, slightly lower

childbearing of the foreign-born than the ratio in 1890.

1890 1960 1970 2000

Foreign or mixed

 parentage 18.4% 13.6% 11.8% 10.0%

Foreign born 14.8% 5.4% 4.7% 10.4%

Ratio 1.2 to 2.5 to 1.1 to 1.0 to

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

1 Among the foreign-born population, 27.3 million had parents born in the same country, and only

1.1 million had parents born in different countries.

Among the population of foreign parentage, 13.0

million had parents born in the same country, and

only 1.8 million had parents born in different countries.

2 The question on nativity or birthplace of parents, which was included in censuses from 1870 to

1970, was replaced in 1980 with a question on ancestry that was based on self-identification, with no

restrictions on how many generations removed from

their ancestors’ country or countries of origin.

3 In 1970, the native population of foreign or

mixed parentage had a median age of 47.3, and

16.3 percent was 65 years old and over (U.S. Census

Bureau, 1973, Table 1).

4 One indication of future growth is the rapid

increase in the number of births in the United States

to foreign-born women residing in the United States,

from 223,000 (6.0 percent of total births) in 1970 to

797,300 (20.2 percent of total births) in 1999. (U.S.

National Center for Health Statistics, 1975, Table 1-

61; and NCHS unpublished data 2001). These children have U.S. citizenship at birth and are part of the

native population.

5 Data published from the 1970 census did not

distinguish between the native populations of foreign parentage and mixed parentage.

Figure 8-1.

Foreign-Stock Population by Nativity and Parentage: 

Selected Years, 1890 to 2000

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1960 19701 2000

1Data not available separately for foreign parentage and mixed parentage.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a, Table 12, and 2001, Table 4-1A.

(For 1890-1970, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus 

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

9.2 10.3 13.5 13.9 14.2 9.7 9.6 28.4

8.1 10.7

12.9 15.8 17.5

14.1

24.0

14.8

3.4

5.0

6.0

7.0 8.5

10.2

12.7

20.8

26.0

32.5

36.7

40.3

34.1 33.6

Number (in millions) 55.9

1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1960 19701 2000

14.8 13.6 14.7 13.2 11.6 5.4 4.7 10.4

13.0 14.0 14.1 14.9 14.3

7.9 11.8

5.4

5.5 6.6 6.5 6.7 7.0

5.7 4.6

33.2 34.3 35.3 34.7 32.8

19.0

16.5

20.4

Percent of total population

Mixed parentage

Foreign parentage

Foreign born

Foreign stock

Mixed parentage

Foreign parentage

Foreign born

Foreign stock
24

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 9.

Hispanic Origin and Race

Hispanics and race groups The foreign-born

differ sharply in their population by region of

percent foreign born. birth is not identical with

race or ethnicity. In March 2000, the Current

Population Survey showed 10.4 per- As reflected in the March 2000

cent of the total population was for- Current Population Survey, the

eign born (Figure 9-1).1 The propor- foreign-born populations from

tion was much higher among Asians Europe, Northern America (essenand Pacific Islanders (61.4 percent) tially Canada), and Asia were

and Hispanics (39.1 percent) but somewhat homogeneous by race

lower for Blacks (6.3 percent) and and Hispanic origin. In 2000, for White non-Hispanics (3.6 per- 96.0 percent of the foreign born cent). from Europe and 89.1 percent of

About half of the foreign the foreign born from Northern

born are Hispanic. America were White non-Hispanic.

Of the foreign born from Asia,

Hispanics accounted for 83.7 percent were Asian and Pa12.8 million, or 45.2 percent, of the cific Islander (not statistically difforeign-born population according ferent from the proportion White

to the March 2000 survey (Table non-Hispanic from Northern

9-1). The Asian and Pacific Islander America), and 14.5 percent were foreign-born population was 6.7 mil- White non-Hispanic. In contrast, lion or 23.6 percent of the total, not the foreign-born population from statistically different from the White Africa was very heterogeneous — non-Hispanic figures of 7.0 million no one race was dominant.

or 24.8 percent. Blacks had the low- Of the foreign-born population est number and proportion foreign from Latin America, 86.2 percent born at 2.2 million people and were Hispanic, 11.4 percent were 7.8 percent. Black, and 2.9 percent were both

Black and Hispanic. The Black

population from Latin America was

primarily from the Caribbean

The racial categories used in

this section are drawn from the

March 2000 Current Population

Survey and include the following: White; Black; American Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut; and

Asian and Pacific Islander. The

ethnic categories used include

Hispanic origin and not of Hispanic origin. The population in

a race category may be Hispanic

or not Hispanic, and the population of Hispanic origin may be of

any race. There are four race or

Hispanic groups identified for

discussion in this section:

Blacks, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Hispanics, and White nonHispanics.

Categories of ethnicity and

race are not interchangeable

with the geographic regions

used throughout this report. For

example, the March 2000 data

show 15.3 percent of the foreign

born were born in Europe, however, 67.9 percent of the foreign

born were White, and 24.8 percent were White non-Hispanic.

These and other differences are

discussed in the text.

Table 9-1.

Population by Nativity, Parentage, and Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Native

Total Foreign or

population Total Native parentage mixed parentage Foreign born Foreign stock

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total1 .............................. 274.1 100.0 245.7 100.0 218.2 100.0 27.5 100.0 28.4 100.0 55.9 100.0

Black .................................... 35.5 13.0 33.3 13.5 31.9 14.6 1.4 5.0 2.2 7.8 3.6 6.4

Asian and Pacific Islander ..... 10.9 4.0 4.2 1.7 1.3 0.6 2.9 10.5 6.7 23.6 9.6 17.2

Hispanic origin (of any race) . 32.8 12.0 20.0 8.1 10.6 4.9 9.3 33.9 12.8 45.2 22.2 39.7

White non-Hispanic ............... 193.6 70.6 186.6 75.9 172.5 79.0 14.1 51.4 7.0 24.8 21.2 37.9

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 9-1A.
25

U.S. Census Bureau

(78.1 percent). Of the foreign born 37.4 percent were naturalized citifrom the Caribbean, 55.6 percent zens (Figure 9-2). White nonwere Hispanic, 45.7 percent were Hispanic foreign born had the highBlack (not statistically different), est rates - 21.2 median years of resiand 8.0 percent indicated they dence and 50.3 percent naturalized.

were both Black and Hispanic. Asian and Pacific Islander foreign

Length of residence and born had a median length of residence of 13.6 years, and 45.7 per- citizenship status differ cent reported they were naturalized by race and ethnicity citizens.2 Foreign-born Hispanics

among the foreign born. had a median length of residence of

13.2 years (not statistically different In 2000, the median length of from the median for Asians and Pa- residence in the United States of the

cific Islanders), but only 25.7 per- foreign born was 14.4 years, and cent were naturalized citizens.

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.

2Includes the foreign-born population and the native population of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Table 9-1A.

Figure 9-1.

Nativity and Parentage for Selected Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

193.6

32.8

10.9

35.5

274.1

Percent distribution by nativity and parentage

Native parentage Foreign or mixed parentage Foreign born

20.4

10.1

87.9

67.6

10.9

Percent 

of foreign 

stock2

Total1

Black

Asian and Pacific Islander

Hispanic origin (of any race)

White non-Hispanic 

79.6

89.9

12.1

32.4

89.1

10.0

3.9

26.6

28.5

7.3

10.4

6.3

61.4

39.1

3.6

Native Population

(in millions)

1The four race and Hispanic groups shown are not a mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total. See footnote 1 in text.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000, Table 9-1B.

Figure 9-2.

Length of Residence in the United States and Citizenship Status for Selected 

Race and Hispanic-Origin Groups of the Foreign-Born Population: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

7.0

12.8

6.7

2.2

28.4

Percent distribution by length of residence

14.4

13.9

13.6

13.2

21.2

Median

length of

residence

(in years)

37.4

38.7

45.7

25.7

50.3

Percent

naturalized

citizens

Total1

Black

Asian and Pacific Islander

Hispanic origin (of any race)

White non-Hispanic 

Population

(in millions) Less than 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20 or more

22.0

22.2

22.7

22.8

19.9

17.5

16.3

18.7

20.3

12.0

15.9

18.7

17.5

17.8

10.6 6.9

11.9

18.0 23.1

12.3

15.1

32.2

27.6

27.3

50.6

1 The four race and Hispanic groups discussed

in this section do not represent a mutually exclusive

and exhaustive set of categories adding to the total

population. The populations in these four categories

add to 99.6 percent of the total population. The

American Indian and Alaska Native non-Hispanic

population (0.9 percent of the total population) is not

included, and individuals who are both Black and

Asian and Pacific Islander and Hispanic (0.5 percent

of the total population) are each included in two of

the four categories shown. (In brief, 99.6 percent

plus 0.9 percent minus 0.5 percent equals 100.0 percent.)

2 The length of residence of foreign-born Asians

and Pacific Islanders was not significantly different

from the length of residence for all foreign-born

people.
26

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 10.

Age and Sex

Three-fifths of the (95.0). Among the foreign-born

foreign born are 25 to population the sex ratio was

54 years of age. higher for noncitizens (105.7) than

for naturalized citizens (91.6). The

In 2000, the median ages of sex ratio was also higher for those

the foreign-born population whose length of residence in the

(38.1 years) and the native popula- United States was less than

tion (34.5 years) did not differ 10 years (103.2) compared with

greatly; however, there were major those who had lived in the United

differences in age distributions of States 20 years or more (89.5).

the two groups (Figure 10-1). Only

10.0 percent of the foreign born The age structure of the

were under age 18 compared with foreign-born population

28.3 percent of natives. In con- varies by region of birth.

trast, the proportion of the foreign- The resurgence of U.S. interna- born population ages 25-54 was tional migration between 1970 and 58.7 percent, compared with 2000 resulted in a younger 41.7 percent for the native population.1 foreign-born population at the end The proportions of the popu- of the period. Due to an influx of lation age 55 and older were similar, young adults, the median age of 20.2 percent for the foreign born the foreign-born population de- and 20.5 percent for natives. clined from 52.0 in 1970 to 38.1 Foreign-born naturalized citi- in 2000 (Figure 10-3). In contrast, zens were older (median age 47.5)

the entire U.S. population contin- than the noncitizen foreign born

(median age 33.0). The proportion ued to grow older with its median

age 65 and older among natural- age rising from 28.1 in 1970 to

ized citizens (20.6 percent) was 35.1 in 2000.

much higher than among the non- In 2000, the median age of the

citizen population (5.2 percent). foreign-born population ranged

As would be expected, the age from 50.0 for Europe, to 39.2 for

structure of the foreign-born popu- Asia and 35.3 for Latin America

lation differed greatly by length of (Figure 10-2). The proportions age

residence in the United States. 25 to 54 from Asia (61.3 percent)

The median age ranged from 28.4 and Latin America (60.9 percent)

for those resident in the United were much higher than the proporStates less than 10 years to tions from Europe (45.8 percent).2

52.8 years for those resident in the Similarly, the proportions age

United States 20 years or more. 65 and older from Latin America

The proportions 65 and older were (6.7 percent) and Asia (9.5 per3.2 percent and 25.2 percent, re- cent) were much lower than the

spectively. proportion for Europe (27.6 perThe sex ratio (males per 100 cent). The differences in age strucfemales) in 2000 was higher in the ture by region of birth reflect difforeign-born population (100.1) ferences in the timing of internathan in the native population tional migration.

The foreign-stock

population was younger

in 2000.

The addition of millions of

young foreign-born adults also led

to a subsequent increase in the

number of children, most of them

natives at birth.3 Figures 10-4 and

10-5 show the effects on the agesex structure of four decades of

low international migration prior to

1970 followed by three decades of

large-scale international migration.

In 1970, 20.8 percent of the

foreign-stock population was age

65 and older compared with

7.7 percent of the native population of native parentage. On the

other hand, 51.0 percent of the native population of native parentage

was under age 25 (most of them

baby boomers born between 1946

and 1964), compared with

20.2 percent of the foreign stock.

As a result of their older age distribution, the foreign stock in 1970

made up 34.7 percent of the population age 65 and older and 7.3 percent of the population under age 25.

By 2000, the proportions of foreign

stock in these two age groups had

changed to 26.5 percent and

21.0 percent, respectively. About

two-thirds (72.5 percent) of the

foreign-stock population ages 25-54

in 2000 were foreign born compared with about one-third

(34.7 percent) in 1970.

1 The 25 to 54 age group is important for labor

force analysis because three factors are optimal:

Most are full-time workers; most have completed

schooling, and most are not eligible to retire. See

Section 15. 2 There is no statistical difference between the

proportions for Asia and Latin America.

3 For a discussion of the concept of foreign

stock, see Section 8. See Section 13 for a discussion

of the children of the foreign born.
27

U.S. Census Bureau

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 7, and 1999b, Tables 10-1A and 10-2A.

Figure 10-1.

Age and Sex of the Population by Nativity, Length of Residence in 

the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

Percent distribution by age

17.8

1.1

9.2

8.0

11.2

28.4

245.7

Total 274.1

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Under 18 18-24 55-64 65 and 

over

25-54

Median

age

(years)

35.1

34.5

38.1

28.4

37.0

52.8

47.5

33.0

95.6

95.0

100.1

103.2

109.1

89.5

91.6

105.7

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 10-1A, 10-1B, and 10-1C.

Sex ratio

(males 

per 

100

females)

26.4 9.7 43.5 8.5 11.9

28.3 9.5 41.7 8.5 12.0

10.0 11.1 58.7 9.2 11.0

20.5 18.8 53.7 3.83.2

6.8 11.1 71.0 5.6 5.6

1.6

54.1 19.1 25.2

3.5 4.4 57.0 14.6 20.6

13.9 15.1 59.7 6.0 5.2

Figure 10-2.

Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

Total 28.4 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 10-1D.

Percent distribution by age

Median

age

(years)

38.1

50.0

39.2

37.2

35.3

41.5

33.0

32.6

35.1

38.2

47.4

100.1

94.7

91.7

140.1

103.8

84.8

112.6

118.1

93.0

91.8

95.5

Sex ratio

(males 

per 

100

females)

10.0 11.1 58.7 9.2 11.0

5.7 6.5 45.8 14.4 27.6

9.1 10.5 61.3 9.6 9.5

12.1 8.7 69.0 7.6 2.6

11.6 13.1 60.9 7.6 6.7

9.3 7.4 58.0 11.8 13.6

12.3 15.3 62.0 6.0 4.5

13.0 15.1 61.8 5.5 4.6

9.3 15.9 62.8 7.9 4.2

11.8 10.3 60.1 9.5 8.2

7.6 5.3 49.4 14.4 23.3

Under 18 18-24 55-64 65 and 

over

25-54

Figure 10-3.

Age and Sex of the Foreign-Born Population: 1960 to 2000

(For 1960-90, resident population. For 2000, civilian noninstitutional population plus 

Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

9.7

9.6

14.1

19.8

2000 28.4

1990

1980

1970

1960

Percent distribution by age

Median

age

(years)

38.1

37.3

39.9

52.0

57.2

100.1

95.8

87.8

84.4

95.6

Sex ratio

(males 

per 

100

females)

7.1

7.5

14.0 43.6 24.3 11.0

15.0 41.9 22.0 13.6

8.8 14.7 33.6 21.6 21.2

6.3 8.8 25.9 27.0 32.0

5.2 5.2 19.5 37.5 32.6

Under 15 15-24 45-64 65 and 

over

25-44
28

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 10-4.

Total Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

Millions Millions

1970

Males Age Females

Millions Millions

Males Age Females

Foreign stock1

Native of native parentage

Total population: 203.2 million2

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

2000

Total population: 274.1 million3

1Foreign born plus natives of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8 for definition.

2Resident population.

3Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with families on post.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 1973, Table 1; 2001, Table 10-1A.
29

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 10-5.

Foreign-Stock1 Population by Age and Sex: 1970 and 2000

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

Millions Millions

1970

Males Age Females

Millions Millions

Males Age Females

Foreign born

Native of foreign or mixed parentage

Total population: 33.6 million2

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

0-4

5-9

10-14

15-19

20-24

25-29

30-34

35-39

40-44

45-49

50-54

55-59

60-64

65-69

70-74

75-79

80-84

85+

2000

Total population: 55.9 million3

1Foreign born plus natives of foreign or mixed parentage. See Section 8 for definition. 2Resident population.

3Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with families on post.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 1973, Table 1; 2001, Table 10-1A.
30

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 11.

Household Size and Type

On average, foreign-born

households are larger

than native households.

In 2000, 11.6 million, or

11.1 percent, of the 104.7 million

households in the United States had

a foreign-born householder (Figure

11-1). The average foreign-born

household (3.26) was larger than

the average native household (2.54).

Foreign-born households also had a

larger average number of children

under 18 (0.99 versus 0.65).

Among households with a foreignborn householder, average household size was largest where length

of residence in the United States

was 10 to 19 years (3.70). Average

household size was also larger

where the householder was not a

citizen (3.44).

The foreign-born proportion of

households (11.1 percent) exceeds

the foreign-born proportion of the

total population (10.4 percent), even

though average household size is

larger among foreign-born households than among native households. This apparent contradiction

occurs because household nativity

is based on the nativity of the

householder. A substantial proportion of members of foreign-born

households, especially children, are

native (with U.S. citizenship at birth)

rather than foreign born.

One-third of the

members of foreign-born

households are native.

The average size of native

households (2.54) in 2000 included

2.50 native members and only 0.03

foreign-born members. The average

size of foreign-born households

(3.26) included 2.18 foreign-born

members and 1.08 native members.

Native members thus represented

33.1 percent of all members of foreign-born households. In absolute

numbers, 12.6 million natives lived

in the 11.6 million foreign-born

A household is a person or

group of people who occupy a

housing unit. The householder is usually the household member or one of the

household members in whose

name the housing unit is

owned or rented. A family is

made up of two or more

people living together who are

related by birth, marriage, or

adoption, one of who is the

householder.

Households are classified

as foreign born or native

based on the nativity of the

householder, regardless of the

nativity of other household

members. For simplicity, a

household with a native

householder is referred to as a

native household, and a

household with a foreign-born

householder is referred to as a

foreign-born household.

Figure 11-1.

Households by Nativity, Length of Residence in the United States, and 

Citizenship Status of the Householder: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

Percent distribution of households by type

6.3

5.4

4.9

3.3

3.4

11.6

93.1

Total 104.7

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years and over

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Married 

couple

Male 

householder

Male 

householder1

Female 

householder

Female 

householder2

Family households Nonfamily households Average

household 

size

2.62

2.54

3.26

3.25

3.70

2.97

3.05

3.44

1Male householder, no spouse present. 2Female householder, no spouse present. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 11-1A.

52.8

52.1

58.7

54.0

62.9

59.0

60.3

57.3

3.8 12.1 14.0 17.2

3.5 12.0 14.2 18.1

6.2 12.7 11.9 10.6

8.6 11.3 17.2 8.9

7.5 13.9 9.5 6.2

3.8 12.8 9.8 14.7

4.6 12.1 9.5 13.5

7.6 13.1 13.9 8.0
31

U.S. Census Bureau

households in 2000 compared with 2000. Married-couple families,

only 3.0 million foreign born living which generally have the highest avin the 93.1 million native house- erage number of members among

holds. the different household types, repreThe distribution of households sented 58.7 percent of foreign-born

by size differs sharply between for- households versus 52.1 percent of

eign-born and native households. native households.

Among foreign-born households, Household size varies by about the same proportion had one region of birth of the member (17.7 percent) as had five householder. or more members (21.0 percent).

Among native households, 26.5 per- Of the 11.6 million households

cent had one member and only in 2000 with a foreign-born house9.0 percent had five or more mem- holder, 5.6 million, or 48.0 perbers. cent, of the householders were

Family households, which in- from Latin America (Figure 11-2).

clude married-couple families, male- An additional 2.8 million househouseholder families (no wife holders were from Asia, and 2.2

present), and female-householder million were from Europe. Average

families (no husband present), repre- household size among these

sented 77.6 percent of foreign-born foreign-born households ranged

households, compared with from 3.72 with householders from

67.7 percent of native households in Latin America to 2.32 with

householders from Northern

America (essentially Canada).1 Average household size among foreign-born households with householders from Mexico was 4.21

compared with 3.26 for all foreignborn households. The higher figure for households with a householder from Mexico reflects a

higher proportion of marriedcouple families (65.4 percent versus 58.7 percent for all foreignborn households) and a lower proportion of householders age 65

and older (6.6 percent versus

14.4 percent).2

1The average household size for householders

from Northern America was not significantly different

from that of householders from Europe. 2Elderly householders are less likely to have

children still living at home. Data on fertility from

the 1990 census show that among women 35 to 44

years old, the average numbers of children ever born

were 2.3 for all foreign-born women and 3.3 for foreign-born women from Mexico (U.S. Census Bureau,

1993a, Table 1).

Figure 11-2.

Foreign-Born Households by Region of Birth of the Householder: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

Percent distribution of households by type

0.3

0.7

0.7

2.8

3.5

1.3

5.6

0.3

2.8

2.2

Total 11.6 3

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

Married 

couple

Male 

householder

Male 

householder1

Female 

householder

Female 

householder2

Family households Nonfamily households Average

household 

size

3.26

2.38

3.18

3.08

3.72

3.01

4.09

4.21

3.60

3.19

2.32

1Male householder, no wife present. 2Female householder, no husband present. 3Includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 11-1D.

58.7 6.2 12.7 11.9 10.6

55.3 3.4 7.5 14.5 19.2

63.5 5.8 8.5 12.0 10.2

50.3 8.6 9.1 22.3 9.8

58.0 7.6 17.8 9.6 7.0

45.0 5.8 24.1 12.1 13.1

63.2 8.5 15.9 8.1 4.2

65.4 8.3 14.6 8.1 3.5

54.4 9.3 21.2 8.2 7.0

55.8 6.6 16.0 12.2 9.5

57.7 3.3 5.2 15.9 17.9
32

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 12.

Families and Related Children

Family size differs

between foreign-born

and native families.

In 2000, 9.0 million, or

12.5 percent, of the 72.0 million

family households in the United

States had a foreign-born householder (Figure 12-1). The average

size of foreign-born families was

3.72 compared with 3.10 for native families. Foreign-born families

had larger average numbers both

of adults (age 18 and older), 2.47

versus 2.15, and of children (under

age 18), 1.25 versus 0.94.

Of the 9.0 million families in

2000 with a foreign-born householder, 6.8 million were marriedcouple families, 1.5 million were

families with a female householder

(no husband present), and 0.7 million were families with a male

householder (no wife present). Of

the 63.0 million families with

native householders, 48.5 million

were married-couple families,

11.2 million were female householder families, and 3.3 million

were male householder families.

Married-couple families represented 75.6 percent of all foreignborn families and 77.0 percent of

all native families, not significantly

different from each other. Average

family size was 3.85 for marriedcouple families with a foreign-born

householder and 3.15 for their native householder counterparts.

Three-fifths of marriedcouple families with a

foreign-born householder

have one or more related

children.

Among married-couple families

in 2000, 61.3 percent of those

with a foreign-born householder

had one or more related children

A family is made up of

two or more people living together who are related by

birth, marriage, or adoption,

one of whom is the householder. Related children are

children under age 18 living

in the household and related

to the householder such as

own children, grandchildren,

nieces and nephews. Families are classified as foreign

born or native based on the

nativity of the householder,

regardless of the nativity of

other family members. For

simplicity, a family with a native householder is referred

to as a native family, and a

family with a foreign-born

householder is referred to as

a foreign-born family.

Figure 12-1.

Families by Type, Nativity of Householder, and Number of Related Children: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

Percent distribution of families by number of related children under 18 years old

1.5

11.2

12.7

0.7

3.3

4.0

6.8

48.5

55.3

9.0

63.0

Total families 72.0

Native householder

Foreign-born householder

Married-couple families

Native householder

Foreign-born householder

Male householder, no wife present

Native householder

Foreign-born householder

Female householder, no husband present

Native householder

Foreign-born householder

None 1 2 3 or more

Average

family

size

3.17

3.10

3.72

3.24

3.15

3.85

3.01

2.97

3.35

2.79

2.69

3.25

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 12-1A. 

48.3

49.5

39.2

52.3

54.2

38.7

46.2

44.4

54.3

31.1

30.8

34.2

21.5

21.2

23.7

17.9 19.1 10.7

19.4 10.9

19.0 10.3

22.0 15.2

17.3 18.5 10.0

22.1 23.2 16.1

32.3

34.1

24.4

15.7

15.9

14.5

5.8

5.6

6.9

33.7

34.1

30.7

22.0

22.2

20.2

13.1

12.9

14.9
33

U.S. Census Bureau

under age 18 compared with

45.8 percent of those with a native

householder (Figure 12-1). The

proportions for married-couple

foreign-born families were higher

than for married-couple native

families with one or two children

(45.2 percent versus 35.8 percent)

and with three or more children

(16.1 percent versus 10.0 percent).

Among the 1.5 million foreignborn families with a female householder (no husband present),

14.9 percent had three or more related children, not statistically different from 12.9 percent among

the 11.2 million native families

with a female householder.

Nearly 1 of 6 marriedcouple families includes

at least one foreign-born

spouse.

Of the 55.3 million marriedcouple families in 2000, 8.7 million, or 15.7 percent, included at

least one foreign-born spouse

(Figure 12-2). The average size

(3.95) of these families was largest in the 5.5 million families in

which both spouses were foreign

born.

The average size of marriedcouple families with both

spouses foreign born (3.95) included 2.79 foreign-born members and 1.16 native members.

Native members thus represented

29.3 percent of all members of

these families. For marriedcouple families with husband foreign born and wife native,

67.7 percent of family members

were native, not significantly different from the 66.0 percent of

family members who were native

in married-couple families with

spouses’ nativities reversed (husband native and wife foreign

born). In married-couple families

with both spouses native, virtually all members were native;

only 0.1 percent were foreign

born.

One-quarter of marriedcouple families with a

householder from Latin

America had three or

more related children.

In 2000, 61.3 percent of

married-couple families with a

foreign-born householder had one

or more related children under age

18. The proportion ranged from

35.0 percent with householders

from Europe to 73.4 percent with

householders from Latin America.

Among married-couple families with

householders from Mexico, the proportion was 80.4 percent.

While 16.1 percent of all marriedcouple families with a foreign-born

householder had three or more related children, the proportion

ranged from 5.1 percent with householders from Europe to 24.4 percent

with householders from Latin

America. Among married-couple

families with householders from

Mexico, 31.9 percent had three or

more related children.

Figure 12-2.

Married-Couple Families by Nativity of Spouses and Nativity and Age of 

Related Household Members: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Families

(in millions)

Average number of family members

46.7

1.7

1.5

5.5

Total married-couple families 55.3

Foreign born Foreign born

Foreign born Native

Native Foreign born

Native1 Native1

Under age 18 Age 18 and over Under age 18 Age 18 and over

1The proportion of foreign-born family members in married couple households where both spouses are native appears to be negligible. Due to sample size the number 

cannot be determined.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000b, Table 12-4.

Native Foreign born

3.95

3.40

3.29

3.15

3.24

0.87

0.97

1.08

0.98

0.89 2.01

0.04

0.30

0.18

2.27

1.20

0.04

1.08

0.36 2.44

1.22

0.01

1.09

Husband Wife
34

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 13.

Children Living With Foreign-Born Householders

Nearly 1 in 6 children

lives with a foreign-born

householder, and most of

these children are native.

In March 2000, 72.1 million

children (under age 18) lived in

households.1 Of the 11.5 million

children living in households with

a foreign-born householder,

8.9 million, or 77.7 percent, were

native, and 2.6 million were foreign born (Table 13.1).2 The remaining children in households

(60.6 million) lived with a native

householder. Nearly all of the children living with native householders were native (60.4 million, or

99.6 percent), but a small number Children living in foreign-

(240,000) were foreign born.3

born households are

The vast majority of younger than children in

children living in native households.

households with a foreign- Preschool age children, or

born householder are those less than 6 years old, reprerelated to the householder. sented 35.3 percent of children living in households with a foreign- In March 2000, 98.9 percent of born householder, compared with the 72.1 million children under age 32.2 percent of children living in 18 lived in family households. households with a native houseAmong the 11.4 million children holder.

living in family households with a Among children in foreign-born foreign-born householder, 98.7 households, a major difference ex- percent were related to the house- isted in the age structure of native holder, and 1.3 percent were unre- and foreign-born children: lated. (Figure 13.1).4 The majority 41.6 percent of native children liv- of these children were the ing with foreign-born householders householder’s own child (89.4 per- were under the age of 6, compared cent), but some were other rela- with only 13.5 percent of foreign- tives of the householder, such as born children.5

grandchildren, nephews, or nieces

(9.3 percent). Within foreign-born Children of the foreign

family households, similar propor- born are more likely to

tions of both foreign-born and na- live in poverty.

tive children were the houseAs discussed in Section 19, holder’s own child.

children living in a family with a For children in family houseforeign-born householder were holds with a native householder,

more likely to be living in poverty. 91.5 percent were the householdFor example, the poverty rate for er’s own child, and an additional

related children under age 18 in 7.4 percent were other relatives of

families living with foreign-born the householder. The remaining

householders was 24.0 percent 1.1 percent were not related to the

(2.7 million of 11.2 million), householder.

Children of the foreign

born may be either native or

foreign born. Native children

are those who were born in

the United States or one of

its Island Areas such as

Puerto Rico, or who were

born abroad to a U.S. citizen

parent. Foreign born children

are those who were born

abroad to parents who were

not U.S. citizens. For further

information see Section 8 and

Appendix A.

Source: Table 13-1.

Figure 13-1.

Children Under Age 18 in Family Households by Relationship to Householder, 

Nativity, and Nativity of Householder: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

59.9

2.5

8.9

11.4

71.3

Own 

children

Unrelated 

children

Other related 

children

All children in all family households

Children in foreign-born family households

Native children in foreign-born family households

Foreign-born children in foreign-born family households

Children in native family households

91.1

89.4

89.9

87.6

91.5

7.7

9.3

8.9

10.9

7.4

1.2

1.3

1.1

Children

(in millions)

1.2

1.5

Percent distribution of children by relationship to the householder
35

U.S. Census Bureau

compared with 14.9 percent for

children living in families with native householders.6 Families with

three or more related children living with a foreign-born householder had a much higher rate of

poverty (32.8 percent) than

families with three or more children living with a native householder (20.6 percent).

1 The child population in this section excludes

the very small number of people under age 18 in

households who were a householder or the spouse of

a householder. See also, Section 12.

2 For the definition of nativity, see the text box.

3 There is no statistical difference between

60.6 million and 60.4 million.

4 Related by birth, marriage, or adoption.

5 This difference reflects the fact that children

born in the United States are classified as native, regardless of the birthplace or citizenship status of either parent. 6 Poverty is calculated for the related child

population under age 18 living in family households.

Table 13-1.

Native and Foreign-Born Children Under Age 18 Living in Households and Families

by Nativity of Householder: 2000

(Numbers in thousands)

All children Native children Foreign-born children

Item

Total

Under

age 6

Under

Total age 6

Under

Total age 6

Percent

ofall

children

ALL HOUSEHOLDS

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unrelated child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

NATIVE HOUSEHOLDS

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unrelated child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

FOREIGN-BORN HOUSEHOLDS

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

In families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Own child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Other related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Not in family households . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Related child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Unrelated child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72,116

71,291

70,469

64,965

5,504

822

825

70,469

1,647

60,638

59,901

59,226

54,785

4,442

675

737

59,226

1,412

11,478

11,389

11,242

10,180

1,062

147

88

11,242

235

23,574

23,324

23,099

20,784

2,316

225

250

23,099

475

19,518

19,307

19,139

17,320

1,819

168

211

19,139

379

4,056

4,018

3,960

3,464

496

58

39

3,960

97

69,317

68,529

67,764

62,560

5,204

765

788

67,764

1,553

60,398

59,664

59,008

54,590

4,418

656

734

59,008

1,390

8,919

8,866

8,756

7,970

787

110

53

8,756

163

23,161

22,919

22,698

20,435

2,263

220

243

22,698

463

19,450

19,239

19,071

17,252

1,819

168

211

19,071

379

3,711

3,680

3,627

3,184

444

53

31

3,627

84

2,799

2,761

2,705

2,405

299

56

38

2,705

94

240

238

218

195

24

19

3

218

22

2,558

2,523

2,486

2,211

275

37

35

2,486

72

413

406

401

348

53

5

8

401

13

68

68

68

68

-

-

-

68

-

345

338

333

280

53

5

8

333

13

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.7

5.4

6.8

4.6

3.8

5.7

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.4

0.5

2.8

0.4

0.4

1.6

22.3

22.2

22.1

21.7

25.9

25.2

39.8

22.1

30.6

- Represents zero.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, March 2000.
36

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 14.

Educational Attainment

Educational levels among education was 26.0 percent for College education levels

the foreign-born and both the foreign-born and native differ by sex.

native populations differ populations. A small difference

Educational distributions by sex only below the college existed in the proportion of the

differed somewhat among the foreign-born and native population level. with a graduate degree (9.7 per- foreign-born population. The proportion of the foreign-born popula- In 2000, the proportion of the cent and 8.4 percent, respectively).

tion age 25 years and older who population age 25 and older who Among individuals with less than

had completed high school or more had completed high school or a high school education (33.0 pereducation was about 67.0 percent more education was lower among cent for the foreign-born population

for men and for women; however, the foreign-born population and 13.4 percent for the native

the proportion with a bachelor’s de- (67.0 percent) than among the population), the distributions by

gree or more education was higher native population (86.6 percent) educational attainment differed

for men (28.6 percent) than for (Figure 14-1). Among the foreign sharply. Among the foreign-born

women (23.1 percent). This differ- born, 76.2 percent of the natural- population, the proportions with

ence was mostly among the propor- ized citizens compared with less than a 5th grade education, a

tions with a graduate degree or 59.8 percent for those who were 5th to 8th grade education, and a

higher: 12.6 percent for men and not citizens had completed high 9th to 11th grade education were

6.8 percent for women. school. 7.2 percent, 15.0 percent, and

For the native population, The difference between the for- 10.8 percent, respectively. The cor86.7 percent of men and 86.5 per- eign born (67.0 percent) and na- responding figures for the native

cent of women (not statistically dif- tive (86.6 percent) educational population were 0.7 percent,

ferent) age 25 and older had com- rates of high school completion 4.0 percent, and 8.7 percent.

pleted high school or more educa- and beyond was confined to the Among individuals with less than

tion. The proportion with a proportions who were high school a high school education, those with

bachelor’s degree or more education graduates only or who had some less than a 5th grade education repwas higher for men (27.7 percent) college but less than a bachelor’s resented about 1 in 5 of the foreignthan for women (23.6 percent). The degree. The proportion with born, but only about 1 in 20 of the

proportion with a graduate degree a bachelor’s degree or more native population.

Figure 14-1.

Educational Attainment of the Population Age 25 and Older by Nativity, Length 

of Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

12.6

9.8

9.0

6.6

6.8

22.4

152.8

Total 175.2

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Less than high 

school graduate

Bachelor's degree

or more

High school

graduate

Some college, less 

than bachelor's degree

Percent 

high school

graduate

or more

84.4

86.6

67.0

67.0

64.5

68.7

76.2

59.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 14-1A, 14-1B, and 14-1C.

15.9

13.4

33.0

33.1 25.4 25.6

34.3 26.7 25.6

25.0 16.2 25.8

33.0 24.0 14.0 29.0

35.5 26.4 15.1 23.0

31.3 24.7 18.6 25.4

23.8 26.4 19.1 30.7

40.2 23.9 13.9 22.0

Percent of total
37

U.S. Census Bureau

was also higher for men (9.6 per- grade education were 3.9 percent

cent) than for women (7.3 percent).1 for the foreign born and 0.2 percent

for the natives. Educational differences

exist among the Most African foreign born

population ages 25 have completed high

to 34 years. school.

Among adults, educational at- Among the population age 25

tainment often differs by age.2 Be- and older in 2000, 94.9 percent of

cause of this, it is useful to limit the the foreign born from Africa had

comparison of educational attain- completed high school or more edument to the population ages 25 to cation (Figure 14.2). The high school

34, the youngest age group in completion rates for the foreign

which a large share of individuals born from Europe (81.3 percent),

had completed their formal educa- Asia (83.8 percent), Northern

tion.3 America (85.5 percent), and South

In 2000, the proportion ages 25 America (79.6 percent) were not stato 34 that had completed high tistically different from each other,

school or more education was lower but they were all well above the foramong the foreign-born population eign born average of 67.0 percent.

(68.3 percent) than among the na- The Latin American average was

tive population (92.0 percent). The much lower (49.6 percent).

proportion with a bachelor’s degree Within the Latin American foror more education was 24.6 percent eign-born population, South America

for the foreign-born population and registered the highest proportion of

30.2 percent for the native popula- high school completions (79.6 pertion. Conversely, the proportions of cent) while Mexico had the lowest

the population with less than a 5th (33.8 percent). Of the foreign-born

population age 25 and older from

Mexico, 66.2 percent had less than

a high school education. Those

with less than a 5th grade education

comprised 16.5 percent of the Mexican-born population, 31.9 percent

had a 5th to 8th grade education,

and 17.9 percent had a 9th to 11th

grade education, not statistically

different from the proportion with

less than a 5th grade education.

The median educational level of the

foreign-born population from

Mexico was about 8th grade.

1There is no statistical difference in the proportions of foreign-born and native women with a

bachelor’s degree or more education (23.1 percent

compared with 23.6 percent) or with graduate degrees (6.8 percent compared with 7.3 percent). Similarly, there is no statistical difference in the proportions of foreign-born and native men with a

bachelor’s degree or more education (28.6 percent

compared with 27.7 percent). 2For an in-depth discussion of the age distribution of the foreign-born and native populations, see

Section 10. 3The discussion of education levels for the population 25 to 34 years old is limited to a comparison of

foreign-born and native populations. The sample is

not large enough to identify small, but substantively

important, differences between foreign-born men and

women in the 25 to 34 age group.

Figure 14-2.

Educational Attainment of the Foreign-Born Population 

Age 25 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

0.6

1.5

1.5

5.6

7.1

2.3

10.9

0.6

5.8

3.8

Total 22.4 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

Percent

high school

graduate

or more

67.0

81.3

83.8

94.9

49.6

68.1

37.3

33.8

50.8

79.7

85.5

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 14-1D.

Less than high 

school graduate

Bachelor's degree

or more

High school

graduate

Some college, less 

than bachelor's degree

Percent of total

33.0

18.7

16.2

5.1

50.4

31.9

62.7

66.2

49.2

20.3

14.5

25.0 16.2 25.8

28.7 19.7 32.9

21.8 17.1 44.9

23.3 22.3 49.3

24.9 13.5 11.2

30.0 18.9 19.3

21.8 10.0 5.5

20.3 9.3 4.2

27.8 12.5 10.5

31.6 22.1 25.9

27.0 22.3 36.2
38

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 15.

Labor Force Participation

The foreign-born

population accounts for

12.4 percent of the

civilian labor force.

In March 2000, the foreign-born

population accounted for 17.4 million, or 12.4 percent, of the total

civilian labor force of 140.5 million.1

The labor force participation rate of

the foreign-born population was

66.6 percent, not significantly different from 67.3 percent for the native

population.

The civilian labor force is

the civilian noninstitutional

population age 16 years and

older who are employed (have

a job) or who are unemployed

(without a job, available for

work, and actively seeking

work or on layoff). The labor

force participation rate is the

proportion of the civilian population 16 years old and older in

the labor force. The unemployment rate is the proportion of

the civilian labor force that is

unemployed.

The patterns of labor

force participation rates

by sex differ between the

foreign-born and native

populations.

The labor force participation rate

in 2000 was higher for foreign-born

men (79.6 percent) than for native

men (73.4 percent), as shown in Figure 15-1. The difference is due primarily to differences in age structure

and not to differences in age-specific labor force participation rates.

Men 25 to 54 years old, who had

the highest participation rates,

represented 64.6 percent of

foreign-born males 16 years old and

older, compared with 56.7 percent

of native males 16 years old and

older. Men 65 years old and older,

who had the lowest participation

rates, represented 10.4 percent of

foreign-born males 16 years old and

older, compared with 14.3 percent

of native males 16 years old and

over. For men 25 to 54 years old

the labor force rates by nativity were

statistically different, but the differences were very small. For men 65

years old and older, the labor force

participation rates by nativity were

virtually equal.

For women, the labor force participation rate was lower among

the foreign-born population

(53.7 percent) than among the native population (61.6 percent). In

contrast to males, the difference

for females was due to differences

in age-specific labor force participation rates and not to differences

in age structure. In the 25-to-54

age group, which accounts for

most of the labor force, the participation rates were 66.5 percent for

foreign-born women and 79.4 percent for native women.

Labor force participation

rates for foreign-born

women 25 to 54 years

old differ sharply by

citizenship status.

Among foreign-born men, labor

force participation rates in the 25-to54 age group did not differ greatly

by length of residence in the United

States (Figure 15-2). Among foreign-born women, the labor force

participation rate was lowest for

those with length of residence less

than 10 years (56.1 percent), and it

was lower among those who were

not citizens (60.1 percent) than

among those who were naturalized

citizens (77.4 percent).

For foreign-born men in 2000,

labor force participation rates for

the 25-to-54 age group did not vary

by region of birth (Figure 15-3);

however, there was some variation

among women. For women born in

Mexico, the labor force participation

rate was 55.1 percent compared

with 66.5 percent for all foreignborn women.

The unemployment rate

is higher for the foreignborn labor force than for

the native labor force.

In March 2000, the overall unemployment rate was 4.4 percent. The

unemployment rate was higher

among the foreign-born labor force

(4.9 percent) than among the native

labor force (4.3 percent).2 Among

males, the unemployment rates

were not statistically different

(4.5 percent for the foreign-born labor force and 4.4 percent for the native labor force). However, the unemployment rate was higher for foreign-born female labor force participants (5.5 percent) than for their native counterparts (4.2 percent). The

unemployment rate varied by region

of birth from 2.3 percent for European and 3.5 percent for Asian foreign-born workers to 7.3 percent for

Mexican and 7.2 percent for Caribbean foreign-born workers.3

1Labor force data for March 2000 differ slightly

from data published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) due to the use by BLS of a composite estimation procedure that reduces sampling error, especially

in estimates of month-to-month change. In addition,

the data in this section differ from annual-average data

and from seasonally adjusted data published by BLS.

(U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2000, especially pp.

172 and 195-197).

2There is no statistical difference between the total unemployment rate and the rates for native females,

the foreign born, the male foreign born, and the female

foreign born.

3There is no statistical difference between European and Asian unemployment rates; there is no statistical difference between the Mexican and Caribbean

rates.
39

U.S. Census Bureau

0.5

0.6

2.5

3.1

0.6

4.2

1.9

0.9

7.8

0.4

0.4

1.2

1.6

0.7

2.7

1.6

0.7

5.5

5.0

2.8

2.3

2.8

2.7

7.8

45.2

53.1

3.1

2.4

1.9

1.9

1.7

5.5

41.5

47.0

2.3

0.2

6.6

0.9

45.3

7.8

6.3

1.1

3.8

0.3

64.2

10.3

Figure 15-1.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population Age 16 and Older 

by Nativity and Sex for Selected Age Groups: 2000

(Percent of the civilian noninstitutional population)

16 years old and over

16 to 19 years

20 to 24 years

25 to 54 years

55 to 64 years

65 years and over

Males Females

Labor force

(in millions)

Labor force

(in millions)

79.6

73.4

46.8

49.6

80.3

80.6

92.8

91.2

75.1

66.1

18.3

18.6

Foreign born

Native

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 15-1A.

53.7

61.6

32.3

50.3

49.1

75.4

66.5

79.4

50.2

53.6

7.9

1.7 10.2

0.1

5.8

0.7

41.5

5.5

6.2

0.5

3.6

0.2

58.9

7.1

Figure 15-2.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Population 25 to 54 Years Old by Nativity,

Length of Residence in the United States, Citizenship Status, and Sex: 2000

(Percent of civilian noninstitutional population)

Males Females

Labor force

(in millions)

Labor force

(in millions)

Figure 15-3.

Labor Force Participation Rates of the Foreign-Born Population 

25 to 54 Years Old by Region of Birth and Sex: 2000

(Percent of the civilian noninstitutional population)

Total1

Europe

Asia

Latin America

 Caribbean

 Central America

 Mexico

 Other

 South America

Males Females

Labor force

(in millions)

Labor force

(in millions)

1Total includes areas not shown separately. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 15-3D. 

Total

Native 

Foreign born

Length of residence in 

the United States

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001, Tables 15-3A, 15-3B, 15-3C. 

77.6

79.4

66.5

56.1

70.4

75.2

77.4

60.1

91.4

91.2

92.8

91.1

95.1

92.0

95.3

92.4

92.8

93.1

91.4

93.5

90.8

94.5

94.7

94.4

91.7

66.5

73.8

68.9

63.4

73.9

58.1

55.1

68.5

73.0
40

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 16.

Occupation

Occupational distribution

of foreign-born workers

differs sharply from that

of native workers.

In March 2000, managerial and

professional specialty occupations

accounted for 24.7 percent of

foreign-born workers compared with

30.9 percent of native workers (Figure 16-1).1 Technical, sales, and administrative support occupations accounted for an additional 20.9 percent of foreign-born workers compared with an additional 30.6 percent of native workers.2 As a result,

these two occupational groups together accounted for 45.6 percent

of foreign-born workers compared

with 61.5 percent of native workers.

Higher proportions of foreign-born

workers than of native workers filled

service occupations (19.2 percent

versus 13.2 percent); worked as operators, fabricators, and laborers

(18.7 percent versus 12.7 percent);

worked in precision production,

craft, and repair jobs (12.1 percent

versus 10.5 percent); or held farming, forestry, and fishing jobs

(4.5 percent versus 2.1 percent).3

Naturalized-citizen

workers and native

workers have similar

occupational distributions.

The differences in occupational

distributions between foreign-born

and native workers described

above are reflected in differences

among foreign-born workers by

length of residence in the United

States and by citizenship status

(Figure 16-1). In 2000, managerial

and professional specialty occupations accounted for 32.6 percent

of foreign-born workers who had

lived in the United States for

20 years or more compared with

20.2 percent for those who had

lived in the United States less than

10 years. In contrast, operators,

fabricators, and laborers accounted for 13.9 percent of foreign-born workers who had lived

in the United States 20 years or

more compared with 22.7 percent

for those who had lived in the

United States less than 10 years.4

Among foreign-born workers in

2000, managerial and professional

specialty occupations accounted

for 33.6 percent of workers who

were naturalized citizens versus

19.0 percent of workers who were

not citizens. In contrast, operators,

fabricators, and laborers accounted for 13.3 percent of

naturalized-citizen workers versus

22.1 percent of workers who were

not citizens.

While the occupational distribution of naturalized-citizen workers

differed from that of workers who

were not citizens, as well as from

that of workers who were native, it

more closely resembled that of native workers. In 2000, the proportions in each of the six summary

occupational groups for naturalized-citizen workers and native

workers were statistically different

from each other in most cases, but

the differences were relatively

small.

Occupational distributions

of foreign-born workers

differ greatly by region

of birth.

As would be expected given differences in length of residence, citizenship status, and educational attainment by region of birth of the

foreign-born population, there are

major differences in occupational

distributions (Figure 16-2). In 2000,

professional and managerial specialty occupations accounted for

38.1 percent of workers from Europe and 38.7 percent of workers

from Asia compared with 12.1 percent of workers from Latin America.5

(The proportions of the foreign-born

population age 25 years old and

older with a bachelor’s degree or

more education were 32.9 percent

from Europe, 44.9 percent from

Asia, and 11.2 percent from Latin

America.) Among foreign-born workers from Latin America, the proportions in managerial and professional

specialty occupations ranged from

23.2 percent for workers from South

America and 22.6 percent for workers from the Caribbean to 6.3 percent of workers from Mexico.6 In

2000, operators, fabricators, and laborers, who accounted for 18.7 percent of foreign-born workers, accounted for 24.8 percent of workers

from Latin America and for 11.2 percent of all other foreign-born workers. Farming, forestry, and fishing

occupations, which accounted for

4.5 percent of foreign-born workers,

accounted for 7.8 percent of workers from Latin America and for

The occupational classification system used here and by

the Bureau of Labor Statistics

is the one used in the 1990

census and is based largely on

the 1980 Standard Occupational Classification (SOC). This

system includes 501 detailed

occupational categories, which

can be combined into the 6

summary occupational groups

discussed in this section. The

data on occupation are for the

employed civilian population

age 16 years old and older (as

discussed in Section 15 on labor force) who are referred to

in this section as workers.
41

U.S. Census Bureau

1.0 percent of all other foreign-born

workers. Among foreign-born workers from Mexico, 28.6 percent were

in the operators, fabricators, and laborers occupational group, and

12.9 percent were in the farming,

forestry, and fishing occupational

group.

1 See Section 15, footnote 1, concerning labor

force data for March 2000.

2 There is no statistical difference between

30.6 and 30.9 percent.

3 There is no statistical difference between

19.2 percent and 18.7 percent. 4 There is no statistical difference between 20.2

and 22.7.

5 There is no statistical difference between 38.1

and 38.7.

6 There is no statistical difference between 23.2

and 22.6.

Figure 16-1.

Major Occupation Group of Workers Age 16 and 

Older by Nativity, Length of Residence in the 

United States, and Citizenship Status: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population)

Workers

(in millions)

10

6.5

5.4

5.4

5.7

16.5

117.8

Total 134.3

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 16-1A, 16-1B, and 16-1C.

Managerial and professional specialty

Technical, sales, and administrative support

Service occupations

Precision production, craft, and repair

Operators, fabricators, and laborers

Farming, forestry, and fishing

30.1 29.4 13.9 10.7 13.4 2.4

30.9 30.6 13.2 10.5 12.7 2.1

24.7 20.9 19.2 12.1 18.7 4.5

20.2 17.8 21.8 11.7 22.7 5.9

21.5 21.2 20.6 13.5 19.2 4.0

32.6 23.8 15.1 11.1 13.9 3.5

33.6 25.8 15.4 10.0 13.3 1.9

19.0 17.6 21.6 13.4 22.1 6.2

Percent distribution by major occupation group

Figure 16-2.

Major Occupation Group of Foreign-Born Workers 

Age 16 and Older by Region of Birth: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population)

Workers

(in millions)

0.4

1.2

1.3

4.5

5.8

1.6

8.5

0.4

4.3

2.3

Total 16.5 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 16-1D.

Managerial and professional specialty

Technical, sales, and administrative support

Service occupations

Precision production, craft, and repair

Operators, fabricators, and laborers

Farming, forestry, and fishing

24.7 20.9 19.2 12.1 18.7 4.5

38.1 23.9 15.0 12.2 10.2 0.6

38.7 27.5 15.0 5.9 12.0 0.8

36.5 22.1 19.6 4.2 17.1 0.5

12.1 16.5 22.9 15.9 24.8 7.8

22.6 25.1 22.6 9.0 19.9 0.8

7.0 12.7 22.9 18.3 28.1 11.1

6.3 11.2 21.8 19.2 28.6 12.9

9.4 17.7 26.7 15.2 26.5 4.5

23.2 24.0 23.0 13.7 15.2 0.9

46.3 24.9 8.3 9.3 9.5 1.7

Percent distribution by major occupation group
42

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 17.

Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers

Earnings of full-time,

year-round workers are

lower for foreign-born

workers than for their

native counterparts.

In 1999, median earnings for

all full-time, year-round workers

age 16 and older (shortened to

“workers” in the remainder of the

text of this section) were $36,572

for men and $26,380 for women.1

Median earnings for foreign-born

male and female workers were

$27,239 and $22,139, respectively, compared with $37,528 and

$26,698 respectively, for native

male and female workers (Figure

17-1). The female-to-male earnings

ratio was higher for foreign-born

workers (0.81) than for native

workers (0.71).

Among foreign-born male workers, 44.9 percent had earnings less

than $25,000 while 23.2 percent

had earnings of $50,000 or more.

Among their native counterparts,

the corresponding proportions

were 24.2 percent and 33.0 percent, respectively.

Among foreign-born female

workers, 55.5 percent had

earnings less than $25,000, while

12.0 percent had earnings of

$50,000 or more. Among their native counterparts, the corresponding proportions were 44.1 percent

and 13.2 percent, respectively.2

Even though the median earnings

of foreign-born female workers

were lower than those of native

female workers, the proportions

with earnings of $50,000 or more

were not significantly different.

Earnings of foreign-born

workers who are

naturalized citizens

are higher than the

earnings of other foreignborn workers.

The median earnings of foreignborn male workers in 1999 were

$21,600 for those living in the

United States less than 10 years

and $35,778 for those living in the

United States 20 years or more.

The corresponding figures for

foreign-born female workers were

$17,330 and $27,221.

For foreign-born male workers,

median earnings in 1999 were

$36,157 for naturalized citizens

and $22,276 for workers who

were not citizens. The corresponding figures for foreign-born female

workers were $27,697 and

$18,236, respectively.

Median earnings of

workers from Europe and

Asia exceed the median

earnings of workers from

Latin America.

Among foreign-born workers

from the regions shown in Figure

17-2, those from Europe and Asia

generally had the highest earnings.

The median earnings of workers

from Latin America were well

below the median earnings of all

foreign-born workers.

For men from Europe and Asia,

the median earnings were $44,990

and $36,911, respectively, while

for women, median earnings were

$28,319 and $29,662, respectively.3 In comparison, the median

earnings for workers from Latin

America were $20,974 for men

and $17,213 for women. The

female-to-male earnings ratio was

higher for foreign-born workers

from Latin America (0.82) and Asia

(.80) than for foreign-born workers

from Europe (0.63).4

Median earnings for workers

from the Caribbean ($26,971 for

men and $21,255 for women) and

from South America ($27,502 for

men and $23,080 for women)

were not statistically different from

each other. The median earnings

of Mexican-born female workers

($15,149) were below the respective medians for both male and female workers from the Caribbean

and South America and Mexicanborn men ($19,181) but not different from earnings for female workers from other Central American

countries ($15,857).5

1There was no statistical difference in the earnings of foreign-born men and native women.

2There was no statistical difference in the proportion of native females and foreign-born males

earning less than $25,000.

3The apparent differences in median earnings of

female workers from Europe and Asia were not statistically different.

4Male/female earnings ratios for foreign-born

workers from Asia and Latin America are not significantly different, however, a Latin American worker

earns about $0.51 for every $1.00 an Asian worker

earns.

5There was no statistical difference in the earnings of Mexican born male workers and female workers from the Caribbean or South America.

Earnings include money

wage or salary income before

deductions from work performed as an employee, net

income from farm and nonfarm self employment for

workers. In this report, a

full-time year-round worker is

a person age 16 or older who

worked 35 or more hours per

week for 50 or more weeks

during the calendar year.
43

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 17-1.

Earnings of Full-Time, Year-Round Workers by Sex, Nativity, Length of 

Residence in the United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Workers

(in millions)

4.8

3.0

2.5

2.7

2.6

7.8

49.4

Total 57.2

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Less than 

$10,000

$50,000-

$74,999

$10,000-

$24,999

$25,000-

$49,999

Median

earnings

$36,572

$37,528

$27,239

$21,600

$26,319

$35,778

$36,157

$22,276

Percent distribution of workers by earnings

$75,000

and over

3.0

2.8

4.4

6.2

3.9

3.3

2.3

5.9

24.0

21.4

40.5

50.8

42.6

27.6

26.7

49.0

41.3 18.6 13.1

42.8 19.5 13.5

31.9 13.1 10.1

25.4 10.0 7.6

34.8 10.7 8.0

35.6 18.9 14.6

38.1 18.4 14.5

28.1 9.8 7.2

Men

2.3

2.1

1.7

1.4

1.3

4.4

35.9

Total 40.2

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

Median

earnings

$26,380

$26,698

$22,139

$17,330

$21,573

$27,221

$27,697

$18,236

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 17-1A, 17-1B, and 17-1C.

5.3

5.2

7.1

10.5

7.4

4.3

4.7

9.3

40.0

38.9

48.4

57.1

50.4

40.2

38.7

57.2

41.7 9.3 3.7

42.7 9.5 3.7

32.5 8.3 3.7

25.2 5.2 2.0

33.2 6.4 2.6

37.4 12.3 5.8

40.0 11.8 4.8

25.8 5.1 2.6

Women

0.4

0.5

2.5

3.0

0.6

4.1

2.0

1.0

7.8

0.4

0.3

0.8

1.2

0.5

2.1

1.3

0.6

4.4

Figure 17-2.

Median Earnings of Foreign-Born Full-Time, Year-Round Workers 

by Sex and Region of Birth: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Total1

Europe

Asia

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Men Women

Workers

(in millions)

Workers

(in millions)

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 17-1D.

$27,239

$44,990

$36,911

$20,974

$26,971

$19,499

$19,181

$27,502

$20,801

$22,139

$28,319

$29,662

$17,213

$21,255

$15,346

$15,149

$15,857

$23,080

Femaleto-male

earnings

ratio

0.81

0.63

0.80

0.82

0.79

0.79

0.79

0.76

0.84
44

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 18.

Money Income of Households

Income is lower among

foreign-born households

than among native

households.

In 1999, median income for all

households was $40,816.1 The

median income for households

with a foreign-born householder

was $36,048 compared with

$41,383 for households with a native householder (Figure 18-1).

Foreign-born households with incomes below $25,000 and with incomes of $50,000 or more were

about equal — 34.5 percent and

36.2 percent, respectively. In contrast, 30.2 percent of native

households had an income of less

than $25,000, and 41.6 percent

had an income of $50,000 or more.

The lower income of foreignborn households was not explained

by differences in household size or

the numbers of earners per household. For example, in 1999 median

income of two-member households

was $33,231 when the householder

was foreign born and $44,184 when

the householder was native. The

corresponding medians were

$45,233 and $61,364 respectively

for four-member households.

As discussed in Section 11, the

average size of foreign-born households in 2000 was considerably

larger than that of native households (3.26 versus 2.54). The average number of earners in 1999 per

foreign-born household was 1.60

compared with 1.40 for native

households.2 The higher average

number of earners in foreign-born

households reflects the higher ratio

of adults age 18 or older per foreign-born household — 2.27 versus

1.88 for native households. Although there was some variation in

the number of earners per

household by region of birth of the

householder, the variation had no

apparent affect on household income differences.3

Among foreign-born households,

median income in 1999 ranged from

$40,178 when the householder’s

length of residence in the United

States was 20 years or more to

$30,604 when the householder’s

length of residence was less than

10 years (Figure 18-1). Median

household income was considerably

higher when the householder was a

naturalized citizen than when the

householder was not a citizen:

$43,947 versus $31,199.

Region of birth is

connected to household

income.

In 1999, households with a

householder born in Asia had a

median income of $51,363 (Figure

18-2). This was well above the median income of native households

as well as of other foreign-born

households. The median income

for households with a Europeanborn householder ($41,733) was

not statistically different from the

native median but much higher

than the median for households

with a Latin American-born householder ($29,388).

The higher median income of

households with an Asian-born

householder is mostly due to a

combination of three factors. First,

a high proportion of Asian foreignborn workers (both men and

women) held higher-paying management and professional jobs, a

characteristic shared with male European foreign-born workers.4 Secondly, compared with the European

foreign born, a relatively low proportion of householders from Asia

were age 65 or older and thus

were much more likely to be labor

force participants and contributing

earnings from employment.5

Thirdly, about 70 percent of

foreign-born Asian women were in

the labor force, resulting in many

dual-earner households.

Married-couple

households have the

highest income.

Among both foreign-born and

native households in 1999,

married-couple family households

had higher incomes ($44,152 and

$58,382 respectively), than did

other household types.6 Family

households with female householders (with no spouse present)

had much lower median incomes

than married-couple family households. The median income for

these households was $24,776

Data on income are based

on money income received

(excluding capital gains) before deductions for income

taxes, social security, union

dues, medicare deductions,

etc. Money income does not

include the value of noncash

benefits such as food

stamps, medicare, medicaid,

public housing, and employer-provided fringe benefits. Noncash benefits are

discussed in Sections 20 and

21. Earners include wage and

salary workers and nonfarm

and farm self-employed workers. For definitions of households, see Section 11. Data

on income are for the 1999

calendar year and are based

on the composition of households as of March 2000.
45

U.S. Census Bureau

when the female family householder was foreign born, compared

with $26,338 when the householder was native.7

1 Income rounded to dollars.

2 Earners include wage and salary workers and

nonfarm and farm self-employed workers.

3 For example, households with Mexican-born

householders had an earner ratio of 1.86 and a lower

median income compared with European-born householders who had a ratio of 1.26 and a high median

income. 4 About 38 percent of foreign-born men and

women from Asia, as well as European-born men,

occupied managerial and professional specialty jobs

which require higher levels of education and pay

more on average than other jobs. See Section 16, Occupation, and Section 17, Earnings of Year-Round,

Figure 18-1.

Median Household Income by Nativity, 

Length of Residence in the United States, and 

Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

6.3

5.4

4.9

3.3

3.3

11.6

93.0

Total 104.7

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

$36,048

$40,178

$43,947

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 18-1A, 18-1B, and 18-1C.

$29,388

Figure 18-2.

Income of Foreign-Born Households by 

Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

0.3

0.7

0.7

2.8

3.5

1.3

5.6

0.3

2.8

2.2

Total 11.6 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 18-1D.

$31,199

$36,555

$30,604

$40,816

$41,383

$36,048

$41,733

$51,363

$36,371

$28,701

$27,993

$27,345

$29,855

$40,480

$46,799

Figure 18-3.

Median Household Income by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 

living off post or with their families on post)

Foreign-born householder Native householder Households

(in millions)

Households

(in millions)

1.2

1.4

2.6

1.5

0.7

6.8

9.0

11.6

16.8

13.3

30.1

11.2

3.3

48.5

63.0

93.1

1No spouse present.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 18-2.

All households

 Family households

Married couple

Male householder1

Female householder1

 Nonfamily households

Male householder

Female householder

$41,383

$51,179

$58,382

$42,936

$26,338

$24,531

$30,733

$20,042

$36,048

$39,897

$44,152

$36,831

$24,776

$25,029

$31,022

$18,025

Full-Time Workers. (U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables

16-A1, 16-D1.) 5 This included 27.6 percent of the European

foreign-born population and 9.5 percent of the foreign born from Asia. 6 Nativity of married couples refers to the

householder only.

7 The incomes of foreign-born and native female

family households are not statistically different.
46

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 19.

Poverty Status

The poverty rate is higher

among the foreign-born

population than among

the native population.

In 1999, the poverty rate, which

was 11.8 percent for the total population, was 16.8 percent for the

foreign-born population and

11.2 percent for the native population (Figure 19-1). Of the 32.3 million individuals below the poverty

level, 4.8 million, or 14.7 percent,

were foreign-born. Among the

foreign-born population, the poverty

rate ranged from 9.9 percent for

those who had lived in the United

States for 20 years and longer to

23.5 percent for those who had

lived in the United States for less

than 10 years. The poverty rate

was 9.1 percent for naturalized citizens, compared with 21.3 percent

noncitizens.

Among both males and females,

the poverty rate in 1999 was higher

for the foreign-born population than

for the native population (Figure

19-3). For the population under age

18, the poverty rate for the foreign

born (29.4 percent) was about twice

as high as the poverty rate for their

native counterparts (16.4 percent).

For people 65 years and older, poverty rates were much lower:

13.8 percent for the foreign-born

population compared with 9.3 percent for the native population.1

Poverty rates of the

foreign-born population

differ by region of birth.

The poverty rates for the population born in Europe (9.3 percent)

and in Asia (12.8 percent), which

were not significantly different

from each other, were about half

as high as the poverty rate for the

population born in Latin America

(21.9 percent). (Figure 19-2).

Among the foreign-born population from Latin America, the poverty rates ranged from 11.5 percent for the population from South

America to 25.8 percent for the

population from Mexico.

The poverty rates of

families differ by nativity

and type.

In 1999, when the overall poverty rate for families was 9.3 percent, the poverty rate was 15.7 percent for families with foreign-born

householders, almost twice the poverty rate of 8.3 percent for families

with native householders. For

families with a foreign-born householder, poverty rates in 1999 ranged

from 9.5 percent for families with no

related children under age 18 to

32.8 percent for families with three

or more related children under 18

years old. The corresponding rates

for families with a native householder were 3.9 percent and

20.6 percent. Foreign-born families

with a female householder, no husband present, had a higher poverty

rate than married-couple families

with a foreign-born householder

(31.0 percent, compared with

12.4 percent).

Poverty rates are high for

children living in families

with a foreign-born

householder, regardless

of the child’s nativity.

In 1999, the poverty rate for related children age under age 18 in

families with foreign-born householders was 24.0 percent (2.7 million of 11.2 million). For the children who were foreign born, the

poverty rate was 29.9 percent

(0.7 million of 2.5 million). For

the children who were native, the

poverty rate was 22.3 percent

(1.9 million of 8.8 million children).2 Native children accounted

for 72.4 percent of the related children under age 18 living below

the poverty level in families with

foreign-born householders.

1 The poverty rate for natives under age 18 was

not significantly different from the rate for foreignborn people 65 years old and older.

2 The poverty rate for related children under age

18 in families with a foreign-born householder

(24.0 percent) reflects the average rate for both foreign-born (29.9 percent) and native (22.3 percent)

children and is statistically different from neither.

The poverty definition used

by the federal government for

statistical purposes is based

on a set of money income

thresholds that vary by family

size and composition and do

not take into account noncash

benefits or taxes. The average

threshold in 1999 for a fourperson family was $17,029.

The poverty status (in poverty

or not in poverty) of a family is

assigned to each member of

the family. Poverty status is

not defined for individuals under 15 years old who are not

related to anyone in the household (e.g., foster children). For

a discussion of alternative definitions of poverty, see U.S.

Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, P60-201.
47

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 19-1.

Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, 

Length of Residence in the United States, 

and Citizenship Status: 1999

(Populations as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post 

and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)

Population

(in millions)

17.7

10.6

9.2

8.0

11.2

28.3

245.1

Total 273.5

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

16.8

9.9

9.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 19-1A, 19-1B, and 19-1C. 

21.9

Figure 19-2.

Poverty Rates for the Foreign-Born Population 

by Region of Birth: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post and 

excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)

Population

(in millions)

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.4

0.7

7.2

4.4

Total1 28.3

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001b, Table 19-1D. 

21.3

15.2

23.5

11.8

11.2

16.8

9.3

12.8

13.2

20.6

24.2

25.8

17.8

11.5

7.4

Figure 19-3.

Selected Poverty Rates for the Population by Nativity, for Families by Nativity of the 

Householder, and for Related Children Under Age 18 by Nativity: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post 

or with their families on post and excluding unrelated individuals under 15 years old)

Foreign born Millions Millions Native

4.1

1.8

1.3

3.1

2.8

14.2

14.2

28.3

39.3

17.0

12.5

29.5

68.9

125.7

119.5

245.1

1Includes Individuals who live alone, or who are unrelated to anyone in the household. 

2Nativity reflects the status of the householder. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 19-1A, 19-2A, 19-3A, and 19-4A. 

Population

Total

Males

Females

Under age 18

65 years old and over

Males 65 years old and over

Females 65 years old and over

Unrelated individuals1

11.2

9.8

12.6

16.4

9.3

6.3

11.5

18.4

16.8

15.2

18.3

29.4

13.8

12.4

14.9

25.9

1.5

6.8

1.4

2.0

2.1

3.5

9.0

11.2

48.5

6.5

12.0

13.3

31.2

63.0

Families2

Total

With no related children under age 18

With one related child under age 18

With two related children under age 18

With three or more related children under age 18

Married-couple families

Female-householder families, no husband present

2.5

8.8

11.2

0.2

59.0

59.2

Related Children Under Age 18 

by Nativity of Householder

Total

Native related children under age 18

Foreign-born related children under age 18

8.3

3.9

10.9

10.6

20.6

3.8

27.4

15.7

9.5

14.2

16.6

32.8

12.4

31.0

24.0

22.3

29.9

14.9

14.9

11.6
48

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 20.

Means-Tested Program Participation

The participation rate in

means-tested programs

is higher among foreignborn households.

In 1999, 2.5 million, or 21.2 percent, of households with foreignborn householders participated in

one or more of the following meanstested programs providing noncash

benefits: food stamps, housing assistance, or medicaid. The corresponding figures for households

with native householders were

13.5 million, or 14.6 percent (Figure

20-1). For participation in one or

more means-tested programs providing cash benefits — Temporary

Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF), General Assistance (GA), or

Supplemental Security Insurance

(SSI) — the corresponding figures

were 0.9 million, or 8.0 percent, for

foreign-born households, and

5.2 million, or 5.6 percent, for

native households.

Participation rates in 1999 for

medicaid and TANF/GA were higher

for foreign-born households than for

native households. The highest participation rates were for medicaid —

18.6 percent of foreign-born households and 12.1 percent of native

households.

Among foreign-born

households, participation

rates in noncash programs

vary by citizenship status

and length of residence.

The participation rate in noncash

programs in 1999 was 24.8 percent

for noncitizen households compared

with 16.9 percent for naturalizedcitizen households (Figure 20-2).

For cash programs, the rates were

8.0 percent for both noncitizen and

naturalized-citizen households.

Among foreign-born households,

the participation rate in noncash

programs was lowest when the

householder’s length of residence in

the United States was 20 years or

longer (17.0 percent).

Participation rates among

foreign-born households

vary sharply by region of

birth of the householder.

In 1999, the participation rates

in means-tested noncash programs

for households with householders

from Europe (10.1 percent) and from

Asia (16.7 percent) were one-third

and one-half, respectively, of the

rate for households with householders from Latin America (29.5 percent) (Figure 20-3). The participation rate in cash programs for

households with householders from

Europe (4.7 percent) was one-half

the rate for households with householders from Latin America (9.6 percent).1

Female family householders, with no husband

present, have the highest

participation rates in

means-tested programs.

In 1999, the participation rates

in noncash programs for family

households with female householders, no husband present, were not

significantly different for foreignborn households (39.7 percent) and

native households (40.4 percent),

but each of these figures was larger

than the corresponding figure for

other types of family households.2

Likewise, the participation rates in

cash programs for female family

householders, no husband present,

were not significantly different for

foreign-born households (19.2 percent) and native households

(18.2 percent), though again, these

rates were higher than those of

other family households.

Participation rates in noncash

programs in 1999 were lowest for

native married-couple family households. The rates for married couple

family households were 19.6 percent for foreign-born households

and 8.6 percent for native households. For cash programs, the rates

for married couple family households were 6.2 percent and 2.7 percent respectively.

1The participation rate for households with

householders from Asia (8.8 percent) was not statistically different from households with householders

from Europe or Latin America.

2In contrast to data on poverty for families,

which do not include any nonfamily members living

with families (i.e., individuals not related to the

householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), data on

means-tested programs for family households include nonfamily members. In March 2000, the 72.0

million family households in the United States included 228.6 million family members and 4.5 million nonfamily members. See Section 11 and Section

12 for more information about families and households. The nativity designation of the household is

based on the nativity status of the householder.

Means-tested programs

provide cash and noncash assistance to portions of the

low-income population. The

programs require the income

and/or assets of an individual or family to be below

specified thresholds in order

to qualify for benefits. The

noncash programs included

here are food stamps, housing assistance, and medicaid.

The cash programs included

here are Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF), General Assistance

(GA), and Supplemental Security Income (SSI).
49

U.S. Census Bureau

6.3

5.4

4.9

3.3

3.4

11.6

93.1

104.7

Figure 20-1.

Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits 

by Specified Benefit and Nativity of the Householder: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces 

living off post or with their families on post)

Percent receiving benefits Percent receiving benefits Number

(in millions)

Number

(in millions)

1Includes households receiving benefits from one or more of the three programs listed.

2Includes households receiving benefits from TANF or general assistance and/or from Supplemental Security Income.

3Temporary Assistance to Needy Families.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1A and 20-1B.

2.2

0.6

0.8

2.5

11.2

3.9

5.0

13.5

Selected Noncash Benefits

Total1

Food stamps

Housing assistance

Medicaid

0.6

0.4

0.9

3.6

2.0

5.2

Selected Cash Benefits

Total2

TANF3 or General Assistance

Supplemental Security Income

14.6

5.3

4.2

12.1

21.2

6.7

4.9

18.6

5.6

2.1

3.9

Foreign-born households (11.6 million) Native households (93.1 million)

Percentage of households receiving 

specified benefits

Foreign-born households

Native households

8.0

3.2

5.3

Figure 20-2.

Households Receiving Selected Means-Tested 

Noncash or Cash Benefits by Nativity, Length 

of Residence in the United States, and 

Citizenship Status of the Householder: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

Total

Native

Foreign born

Length of residence in U.S.

Less than 10 years 

 10 to 19 years 

 20 years and over

14.6

8.0

22.9

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1A, 20-1B, 20-1C, 20-2A, 

20-2B, and 20-2C.

Figure 20-3.

Foreign-Born Households Receiving Selected

Means-Tested Noncash or Cash Benefits by 

Region of Birth of the Householder: 1999

(Households as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Households

(in millions)

0.3

0.7

0.7

2.8

3.5

1.3

5.6

0.3

2.8

2.2

11.6 Total1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Total includes areas not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 20-1D and 20-2D.

7.4

21.2

5.6

15.3

5.9

Percentage of households receiving 

Selected noncash benefits

Selected cash benefits

Percentage of households receiving 

Selected noncash benefits

Selected cash benefits

25.6

9.0

17.0

7.7

16.9

8.0

21.2

8.0

10.1

4.7

16.7

8.8

13.1

5.0

29.5

9.6

31.6

12.3

30.5

9.0

30.9

9.2

28.9

7.8

21.3

7.8

4.5

1.6

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen 24.8

8.0
50

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 21.

Health Insurance

One-fifth of the

population with no

health insurance is

foreign born.

In 1999, 84.5 percent of the

total population had health insurance for all or at least part of the

year. The proportion was lower

among the foreign-born population

than among the native population:

66.6 percent versus 86.5 percent

(Figure 21-1).1 Of the 42.6 million

individuals with no health insurance during 1999, 9.5 million, or

22.2 percent, were foreign born.

Among the foreign-born population, the proportion with health

insurance in 1999 ranged from

54.5 percent for residents in the

United States less than 10 years

to 81.8 percent among those

resident 20 years or more. The

proportion with health insurance

was 82.1 percent for naturalized

citizens compared with 57.4 percent for noncitizens. Foreign-born

males were less likely to be insured (64.4 percent) than foreignborn females (68.9 percent).

The proportion of the foreignborn population with health insurance varied by region of birth (Figure 21-2). For the populations

from Europe and Asia, the proportions in 1999 were 86.3 percent

and 75.7 percent respectively. For

the total population from Latin

America, the proportion was

54.3 percent; it ranged from

69.3 percent and 67.3 percent,

respectively, for the populations

from the Caribbean and South

America (not significantly different

from each other) to 47.4 percent

for the population from Mexico.

Health insurance coverage for

children in foreign-born householder families varied by the

householder’s place of birth and

ranged from 85.4 percent and

83.1 percent, respectively, for the

population born in Europe and

Asia (not significantly different

from each other) to 67.9 percent

for the population from Latin

America.

The proportion of

foreign-born workers

with employment-based

health insurance is lower

than for native workers.2

In 1999, 44.5 percent of

foreign-born workers and 54.6 percent of native workers had

employment-based health insurance (Figure 21-3). Among foreign-born workers, the proportion

ranged from 36.2 percent for residents in the United States less

than 10 years to 54.8 percent for

those resident 20 years or more.

The proportion was 54.6 percent

for naturalized citizens compared

with 37.9 percent for noncitizens.

By region of birth, the proportions

were 57.3 percent of workers from

Europe, 53.2 percent for workers

from Asia, and 35.2 percent for

workers from Latin America (Figure

21-4).3 For workers from Mexico,

the proportion with employmentbased health insurance was

30.5 percent. Male foreign-born

workers were more likely to have

employment-based health insurance than female foreign-born

workers, 46.9 percent compared

to 41.0 percent.

1 The proportions with health insurance under

private insurance plans were 53.1 percent for the

foreign-born population and 73.1 percent for the

native population. 2 Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one’s own employment and

excludes coverage through another person’s policy. 3 There is no statistical difference between

57.3 percent and 53.2 percent.

4 State Children’s Health Insurance Plans.

5 Military health care includes CHAMPUS (Comprehensive Health and Medical Plan for Uniformed

Services)/Tricare, CHAMPVA (Civilian Health and

Medical Program of the Department of Veterans

Affairs), Veterans’, and military health care.

6 U.S. Census Bureau, 1998c, p. 12.

Health insurance includes

private insurance plans and

government insurance plans.

Private insurance plans include those offered through

employment (either one’s

own and/or a relative’s) and

those purchased privately.

Government insurance plans

include medicare, medicaid,

S-CHIP4, and military health

care.5 Individuals may be covered by more than one type

of health insurance during

the year. There is some evidence that health insurance

is underreported.6
51

U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 21-3.

Employment-Based Health Insurance for 

Workers by Nativity, Length of Residence 

in the United States, and Citizenship 

Status: 1999

(Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Workers

(in millions)

10.7

7.0

5.8

5.7

6.1

17.7

131.3

Total 149.0

Native

Foreign born

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

17.8

10.6

9.2

8.0

11.2

28.4

245.7

Total 274.1

Native

Foreign born

Less than 10 years

10 to 19 years

20 years or more

Citizenship status

Naturalized citizen

Not a citizen

1Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one’s own 

employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 21-3A, 21-3B, and 21-3C.

Figure 21-4.

Employment-Based Health Insurance 

for Foreign-Born Workers by Region 

of Birth: 1999

(Workers as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Workers

(in millions)

0.4

1.2

1.3

4.9

6.2

1.7

9.2

0.4

4.6

2.5

Total 17.7 2

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

0.7

1.9

1.9

7.8

9.8

2.8

14.5

0.7

7.2

4.4

Total 28.4 1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

Caribbean

Central America

Mexico

Other

South America

Northern America

1Employment-based insurance refers to coverage offered through one’s own 

employment and excludes coverage through another person's policy.

2Total includes areas not shown separately. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21-3D. 

Figure 21-1.

Health Insurance Coverage of the Population 

by Nativity, Length of Residence in the 

United States, and Citizenship Status: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 21-1A, 21-1B, and 21-1C.

Figure 21-2.

Health Insurance Coverage of the ForeignBorn Population by Region of Birth: 1999

(Population as of March 2000. Civilian noninstitutional population 

plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Population

(in millions)

1Total includes regions not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 21-1D.

44.5

57.3

53.2

49.9

35.2

46.7

30.9

30.5

32.3

41.3

60.8

53.4

54.6

44.5

36.2

42.8

54.8

54.6

37.9

66.6

86.3

75.7

69.7

54.3

69.3

47.6

47.4

48.3

67.3

88.4

84.5

86.5

66.6

54.5

66.4

81.8

82.1

57.4

Length of residence in U.S.

Citizenship status

Percent with insurance

Percent with insurance

Percent with insurance

Percent with insurance

Length of residence in U.S.
52

U.S. Census Bureau

Section 22.

Homeownership

Homeownership rates are

similar for naturalized

citizen households and

native households.

In March 2000, the homeownership rate for the United States was

67.2 percent (Figure 22-1). The rate

was much higher for native households (69.5 percent) than for households with a foreign-born householder (48.8 percent). Among foreign-born households, the rate was

higher when the householder was a

naturalized citizen (66.5 percent)

than when the householder was not

a citizen (33.5 percent).

Naturalized-citizen householders

had a rate not very different from

that of native householders.

Among the foreign born, the

homeownership rate for naturalizedcitizen householders who had been

in the United States for 10 or more

years was 68.1 percent compared

with 42.3 percent for those who had

lived here less than 10 years. Comparable rates for noncitizens were

43.1 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively (Figure 22-1).1

Homeownership rates

increase as the age of the

householder increases.

For both native and foreign-born

householders, homeownership was

more likely when the householder

was older although the rates for native householders were higher for

each age category shown in Table

22-1. Native householders younger

than age 35 had a homeownership

rate of 42.8 percent. Those in ages

35 to 64 had a rate of 75.7 percent,

and those 65 years and older had a

rate of 81.6 percent. A similar pattern occurred for foreign-born

householders where the homeownership rate for those younger than

age 35 was 25.8 percent, compared

with 55.8 percent for those ages 35

to 64, and 67.4 percent for those

ages 65 years and older.

Homeownership rates are

highest for foreign-born

householders from Europe.

Among the regions of birth with

1 million or more foreign-born

householders, the homeownership

rate ranged from 63.5 percent for

householders from Europe, to

52.0 percent for householders from

Asia, and 41.2 percent for householders from Latin America (Figure

22-3). These differences are partially

explained by age differences.

Householders from Europe had

the highest median age of 54.8

years, compared with 42.7 years

for Asian householders and 39.7

years for Latin American householders. Since homeownership

rates increase with age, and European householders are relatively

older than Asian and Latin American householders, and Asian

householders in turn are older than

Latin American householders, it appears age differences may explain

some of the regional differences.

The homeownership rates for

householders under age 35 from

Europe, Asia, and Latin America

ranged from 25 percent to 30 percent.2 For those 65 years or older,

householders from Europe had the

highest rate (76.5 percent), compared with 59.5 percent for those

from Asia and 55.9 percent for

those from Latin America.3

1 The homeownership rate for naturalized citizens

with a length of residence of less than 10 years

(42.3 percent) is not statistically different from the

comparable rate for noncitizens with a length of residence of 10 years or more (43.1 percent).

2 The proportions for Asia (29.6 percent) and Latin

America (24.5 percent) were not statistically different.

3 The proportions for Asia and Latin America were

not statistically different.

The members of a household, as defined in Section

11, live in an occupied housing unit (e.g., a house, condominium, cooperative, mobile home, tent, or houseboat). The homeownership

rate is the percentage of

householders in which the

owner or a co-owner is a

member of the household,

whether or not the housing

unit is mortgaged or not otherwise fully paid for. Households are classified as foreign

born or native based on the

nativity of the householder,

regardless of the nativity of

other household members.

Table 22.1.

Homeownership Rates by Nativity, Region of Birth, and Age of

Householder: 2000

Less than 35 to 64 65 years old

All 35 years old years old or older

Native 69.5 42.8 75.7 81.6

Foreign born1 48.8 25.8 55.8 67.4

Europe 63.5 25.9 66.2 76.5

Asia 52.0 29.6 62.4 59.5

Latin America 41.2 24.5 48.9 55.9

1Includes all foreign born.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 22-2D.
53

U.S. Census Bureau

0.3

0.7

0.7

2.8

3.6

1.3

5.6

0.3

2.8

2.2

11.6

3.2

3.0

6.3

5.1

0.3

5.4

11.6

93.1

104.7

Figure 22-1.

Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder by Nativity, Citizenship 

Status, and Length of Residence in the United States: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Figure 22-2.

Homeownership Rates by Nativity of Householder and Type of Household: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Homeownership rate Median age of householder

Foreign-born householder Native householder

Households

(in millions)

Households

(in millions)

Households

(in millions)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-1A, 22-1B, 22-1C, 22-2A, 22-2B, and 22-2C.

Figure 22-3.

Homeownership Rates and Median Age of Householder for 

Foreign-Born Householders by Region of Birth: 2000

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families on post)

Total1

Europe

Asia

Africa

Latin America

 Caribbean

 Central America

 Mexico

 Other

 South America

Northern America

Homeownership rate Median age of householder

Households

(in millions)

1Total includes regions not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Tables 22-1D and 22-2D.

1.2

1.4

2.6

1.5

0.7

6.8

9.0

11.6

16.8

13.3

30.1

11.2

3.3

48.5

63.0

93.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2001, Table 22-1A.

48.8

63.5

52.0

38.2

41.2

42.6

39.4

40.9

33.2

47.4

63.0

42.9

54.8

42.7

41.3

39.7

45.8

37.6

37.2

42.4

52.7

39.0

Total

Native

Foreign born

Naturalized citizen

Less than 10 years

10 or more years

Not a citizen

Less than 10 years

10 or more years

Total

Family households

Married-couple family

Male householder, no wife present

Female householder, no husband present

Nonfamily households

Male householder

Female householder

67.2

69.5

48.8

66.5

42.3

68.1

33.5

22.6

43.1

46.8

47.3

42.9

50.3

36.1

51.1

37.9

33.2

42.4

48.8

54.2

59.8

35.9

37.3

29.9

20.6

40.3

69.5

77.5

85.2

62.3

48.8

52.8

48.0

56.5

Foreign-born householder

Native householder
54

U.S. Census Bureau

References

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

2000. Employment and Earnings, Vol. 48, No. 4 (April). U.S.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1973.

National Origin and Language.

1970 Census of Population.

PC(2)-1A. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

_____. 1980. The Methods and Materials of Demography. By

Henry S. Shryock, Jacob S.

Siegel, and Associates. Fourth

printing (rev.). Two volumes.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 1985. Foreign-Born Population in the United States Microfiche. 1980 Census of Population.

_____. 1993a. The Foreign-Born

Population in the United States.

1990 Census of Population.

1990 CP-3-1. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 1993b. U.S. Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race, and

Hispanic Origin: 1980-1991. By

Fred Hollmann. Current Population Reports, Series P25-1095.

Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 1998a. How Well Does the

Current Population Survey Measure the Foreign-Born Population in the United States? By A.

Dianne Schmidley and J. Gregory Robinson. Population Division Working Paper No. 22.

_____. 1998b. Health Insurance

Coverage: 1997. By Robert L.

Bennefield. Current Population

Reports, Series P60-202. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

_____. 1999a. Historical Census

Statistics on the Foreign-Born

Population of the United States:

1850 to 1990. By Campbell

Gibson and Emily Lennon.

Population Division Working

Paper No. 29.

____. 1999b. Profile of the ForeignBorn Population in the United

States: 1997. By Dianne

Schmidley and Campbell

Gibson. Current Population Reports, Series P23-206. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 2000a. Money Income in the

United States: 1999. By Carmen

DeNavas and Robert Cleveland.

Current Population Reports, Series P60-209. Washington, DC:

U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 2000b. Poverty in the United

States: 1999. By Joseph Dalaker

and Bernadette Proctor. Current

Population Reports, Series P60-

210. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 2001. The Foreign-Born

Population of the United States:

March 2000. PPL-145. Detailed

Tables. Population Division.

U.S. Department of Labor, Social

Security Administration, U.S.

Small Business Administration,

and Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation. 1994. Pension and

Health Benefits of American

Workers: New Findings from the

April 1993 Current Population

Survey.

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service. 1991. Statistical

Yearbook of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service,

1990. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

_____. 1998. Statistical Yearbook of

the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

_____. 1999. Legal Immigration,

Fiscal Year 1998. Office of

Policy and Planning, Annual

Report, No. 1.

_____. 2000. 1998 Statistical Yearbook of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Government

Printing Office.

U.S. National Center for Health Statistics. 1975. Volume I, Natality,

1970. Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

_____. 2000. Unpublished tabulations for 1999.

U.S. Office of Management and

Budget. 1977. Race and Ethnic

Standards for Federal Statistics

and Administrative Reporting.

Directive No.15. Washington,

DC.

_____. 1990. Revised Standards for

Defining Metropolitan Areas in

the 1990’s. Federal Register,

Vol. 55, No. 62 (March 30),

pp. 12154-12160.

_____. 1993. Revised Statistical

Definitions for Metropolitan Areas (MAs). OMB Bulletin No. 93-

17.

_____. 1997. Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. Federal Register, Vol. 62,

No. 210 (October 30), pp.

58782-58790.

United Nations. 1996. 1995 Demographic Yearbook. Department

for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Statistics Division. New York, NY.
55

U.S. Census Bureau

United Nations. 1998. Recommendations On Statistics on International Migration. Department

for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis, Statistics Division. New York, NY.

United States. Congress. House.

1978. Legal and Illegal Immigration to the United States. Report

prepared by the U.S. House of

Representatives Select Committee on Population, Ninety-fifth

Congress, second session. U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Washington DC.

Warren, Robert J. and Ellen Percy

Kraly. 1985. The Elusive Exodus:

Emigration from the United

States. Population Trends and

Public Policy Occasional Paper

No. 8, Population Reference

Bureau. Washington, DC.
56

U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix A.

Foreign Born and Other Terms:

Definitions and Concepts

The term foreign born and

other related terms are discussed

below. For additional information,

see the References preceding Section A.1

Foreign Born

U.S. Census Bureau publications, including P23-206 (this report) define the term foreign

born as people residing in the

United States on census day or on

a survey date who were not U.S.

citizens at birth.2 The term native

refers to people residing in the

United States who were U.S. citizens in one of three categories:

(1) People born in one of the fifty

states and the District of Columbia;

(2) People born in U.S. Island Areas

such as Puerto Rico or Guam;

(3) People who were born abroad

to at least one parent who was

a U.S. citizen.

The classification of the resident population of the United

States by native and foreign born

(based on citizenship status) is

shown in Figure A-1 and reflects

the definitions presented above.

Born in the United States

and Born Abroad

Generally, census publications

use the terms born in the United

States and born abroad when referring to place of birth or the nativity of the U.S. resident population. These terms are not used interchangeably with the terms native and foreign born in census

reports including this report, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population

in the United States, 2000 (P23-

206). Whereas the foreign-born

and native populations are determined by citizenship status at

birth, the population born in the

United States and the population

born abroad are determined by

place of birth, regardless of citizenship status. The population

born abroad consists of the native

population in categories (2) and (3)

above, plus the foreign-born population. The Census Bureau does

not use the term “native born” in

census publications.

Immigration and

Related Terms

The terms immigration and

immigrant, or international migration and international migrant have many and varied

meanings.3 In P23-206, the terms

immigration and immigrant usually

refer to administrative and statistical data from reports issued by the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS). The terms international migrant and international

migration refer to the movement

of all persons to and from the

United States including that of the

U.S. Armed Forces.4 The Census

Bureau uses the terms immigrant

and immigration as well as international migrant and international

migration in reference to the population components of change in

population estimates methodology.5

Some foreign-born individuals

are known to reside in the United

States illegally.6 Statistics shown

in P23-206 for the foreign-born

population undoubtedly include

some information about these individuals. The Census Bureau does

not ask questions in decennial censuses or the Current Population

Survey about the immigration status of respondents with the exception of a question about citizenship status.

After migration to the United

States, some foreign-born residents become naturalized citizens.

This process usually requires a

minimum of 5 years of residence

Figure A-1.

Classification of the Population of the United States 

by Nativity and Place of Birth: 2000

Born in the United States (50 states and DC)

88.4%

Born in Island Areas of the United States 

(Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.), or born abroad 

with at least one parent who was a 

U.S. citizen

1.2%

Foreign born

10.4%

Native population (residents with U.S. citizenship at birth)

Foreign-born population (residents without U.S. citizenship at birth)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Table 1-1.

(Civilian noninstitutional population plus Armed Forces living off post 

or with their families on post)
57

U.S. Census Bureau

in the United States but there are

some exceptions, particularly for

underage children. The Census Bureau asks questions about citizenship status in censuses and the

Current Population Survey, but information provided by respondents is self reported and may not

reflect the formal acquisition of

citizenship. Citizenship status

data used in P23-206 is selfreported.

1For a comprehensive discussion of demographic concepts and definitions, see U.S. Census

Bureau, 1980. For a complete listing of U.S. Census

Bureau decennial census reports, see U.S. Census Bureau, 1999a. For more information about terminology used by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, see Immigration and Naturalization Service,

2000, pp. 239-243, and A.3-2 to A.3-14 as well as

earlier volumes listed in the References section of

P23-206 (this report).

2The basic rule for where to enumerate a person

in U.S. censuses is his or her usual place of residence. This is the place where the person lives or

sleeps most of the time or the place the person considers to be his or her usual home. This includes citizens of foreign countries who have established regular living arrangements (such as living in a house,

apartment, or dormitory) while working or studying

in the United States. P23-206 uses information from

the Current Population Survey conducted March 2000

and the 1990 and earlier censuses. P23-206 does

not contain data collected in the 2000 decennial census.

3Generally, immigrant and immigration are legal

terms and international migration and international

migrants are demographic terms, but this is not always the case. See U.S. Census Bureau, 1980 and

1993b. For a discussion of the history of these

terms through the end of the 1970s, see United

States, Congress, 1978.

4Since definitions may differ across time, the

reader is advised to refer directly to the Immigration

and Naturalization Service publications cited in P23-

206, Section 1. “Foreign-Born Population Trends,”

footnotes 2-6.

5See U.S. Census Bureau, 1993b, page xvi.

6See Section 1. “Foreign-Born Population

Trends,” footnote 2.
58

U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix B.

Source and Accuracy of Estimates

Source of Data

Estimates in this report come

from data obtained from the Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted in March of 2000. The U.S.

Census Bureau conducts the survey every month, although this report uses only March data for its

estimates. Also, some estimates

come from decennial census data

for years 1850 through 1990 and

from the administrative records of

the Immigration and Naturalization

Service. These estimates are not

derived from Census 2000 data.

The March survey uses two sets of

questions, the basic CPS and the

supplements.

Basic CPS. The basic CPS collects primarily labor force data

about the civilian noninstitutional

population. Interviewers ask questions concerning labor force participation about each member 15

years old and over in every sample

household. The basic CPS also includes questions on country of

birth, citizenship, and year of entry

into the United States.

The CPS sample used in this report was selected from the 1990

decennial census files with coverage in all 50 states and the District

of Columbia. The sample is continually updated to account for

new residential construction. The

United States was divided into

2,007 geographic areas. In most

states, a geographic area consisted

of a county or several contiguous

counties. In some areas of New England and Hawaii, minor civil divisions are used instead of counties.

A total of 754 geographic areas

were selected for sample. About

50,000 occupied households are

eligible for interview every month.

Field representatives are unable to

obtain interviews at about 3,200

of these units. This occurs when

the occupants are not found at

home after repeated calls or are

unavailable for some other reason.

Since the introduction of the

CPS, the Census Bureau has redesigned the CPS sample several

times. These redesigns have improved the quality and accuracy of

the data and have satisfied changing data needs. The most recent

changes were completely implemented in July 1995.

March 2000 supplement. In

addition to the basic CPS questions, field representatives asked

supplementary questions in March

about poverty status, money income received in the previous calender year, educational attainment,

household and family characteristics, marital status, geographic

mobility, the foreign-born population, health insurance, and noncash benefits.

To obtain more reliable data for

the Hispanic population, the March

CPS sample was increased by

about 2,500 eligible housing units.

These housing units were interviewed the previous November

and contained at least one sample

person of Hispanic origin. In addition, the sample included persons

in the Armed Forces living off post

or with their families on post.

Estimation procedure. The

survey’s estimation procedure adjusts weighted sample results to

agree with independent estimates

of the civilian noninstitutional

population of the United States

by age, sex, race, and Hispanic/

non-Hispanic origin, and state of

residence. The adjusted estimate is

called the post-stratification ratio

estimate. The independent estimates were calculated based on

information from four primary

sources:

• The 1990 Decennial Census of

Population and Housing.

• An adjustment for undercoverage in the 1990 census.

• Statistics on births, deaths, immigration, and emigration.

• Statistics on the size of the

Armed Forces.

The independent population estimates used for 1994 to present

were based on updates to controls

established by the 1990 decennial

census. Before 1994, independent

population estimates from the latest available decennial census data

were used. For more details on the

change in independent estimates,

see the section entitled “Introduction of 1990 Census Population

Controls” in an earlier report

(Series P60, No. 188).

The estimation procedure for

the March supplement included a

further adjustment so husband

and wife of a household received

the same weight. The independent

population estimates include

some, but not all, undocumented

immigrants.

Accuracy of the Estimates

Since the CPS estimates come

from a sample, they may differ

from figures from a complete census using the same questionnaires,

instructions, and enumerators. A

sample survey estimate has two

possible types of error: sampling

and nonsampling. The accuracy of

an estimate depends on both

types of error, but the full extent

of the nonsampling error is unknown.

Consequently, one should be

particularly careful when interpreting results based on a relatively
59

U.S. Census Bureau

small number of cases or on small

differences between estimates.

The standard errors for CPS estimates primarily indicate the magnitude of sampling error. They also

partially measure the effect of

some nonsampling errors in responses and enumeration but do

not measure systematic biases in

the data. (Bias is the average over

all possible samples of the differences between the sample estimates and the true value.)

Nonsampling variability.

Several sources of nonsampling

errors include the following:

• Inability to get information

about all sample cases.

• Definitional difficulties.

• Differences in the interpretation

of questions.

• Respondents’ inability or unwillingness to provide correct

information.

• Respondents’ inability to recall

information.

• Errors made in data collection

such as recording and coding

data.

• Errors made in processing the

data.

• Errors made in estimating

values for missing data.

• Failure to represent all units

with the sample (undercoverage).

CPS undercoverage results from

missed housing units and missed

persons within sample households. Overall CPS undercoverage

is estimated at 8 percent. CPS undercoverage varies with age, sex,

and race. Generally, undercoverage

is larger for males than for females

and larger for Blacks and other

races combined than for Whites.

As described previously, ratio estimation to independent age-sexrace-Hispanic population controls

partially corrects for bias due to

undercoverage. However, biases

exist in the estimates to the extent

that missed persons in missed

households or missed persons in

interviewed households have different characteristics from those of

interviewed persons in the same

age-sex-race-Hispanic origin

group.

A common measure of survey

coverage is the coverage ratio, the

estimated population before poststratification divided by the independent population control. Table

A shows CPS coverage ratios for

age-sex-race groups for a typical

month. The CPS coverage ratios

can exhibit some variability from

month to month. Other Census Bureau household surveys experience

similar coverage.

For additional information on

nonsampling error including the

possible impact on CPS nativity

data when known, refer to Statistical Policy Working Paper 3, An

Error Profile: Employment as Measured by the Current Population

Survey, Office of Federal Statistical

Policy and Standards, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1978, Technical Paper 63, The Current Population Survey: Design and

Methodology, U.S. Census Bureau,

U.S. Department of Commerce, and

Population Division Working Paper

No. 22, “How Well Does the Current Population Survey Measure

the Foreign-Born Population in the

United States?” by Dianne

Schmidley and J. Gregory

Robinson.

Comparability of data. Data

obtained from the CPS and other

sources are not entirely comparable. This results from differences

in interviewer training and experience and in differing survey processes. This is an example of nonsampling variability not reflected

in the standard errors. Use caution

Table A.

CPS Coverage Ratios

Non-Black Black All persons

Age Male Female Male Female Male Female Total

0-14 0.929 0.964 0.850 0.838 0.916 0.943 0.929

15 0.933 0.895 0.763 0.824 0.905 0.883 0.895

16-19 0.881 0.891 0.711 0.802 0.855 0.877 0.866

20-29 0.847 0.897 0.660 0.811 0.823 0.884 0.854

30-39 0.904 0.931 0.680 0.845 0.877 0.920 0.899

40-49 0.928 0.966 0.816 0.911 0.917 0.959 0.938

50-59 0.953 0.974 0.896 0.927 0.948 0.969 0.959

60-64 0.961 0.941 0.954 0.953 0.960 0.942 0.950

65-69 0.919 0.972 0.982 0.984 0.924 0.973 0.951

70+ 0.993 1.004 0.996 0.979 0.993 1.002 0.998

15+ 0.914 0.945 0.767 0.874 0.898 0.927 0.918

0+ 0.918 0.949 0.793 0.864 0.902 0.931 0.921
60

U.S. Census Bureau

when comparing results from different sources.

A number of changes were

made in data collection and estimation procedures beginning with

the January 1994 CPS. The major

change was the use of a new questionnaire. The questionnaire was

redesigned to:

• Measure the official labor force

concepts more precisely.

• Expand the amount of data

available.

• Implement several definitional

changes.

• Adapt to a computer-assisted

interviewing environment.

The March supplemental income questions were also modified for adaptation to computer-assisted interviewing, although there

were no changes in definition and

concepts. Due to these and other

changes, one should use caution

when comparing estimates from

data collected in 1994 and later

years with estimates from earlier

years. See Appendix C, P60-188

on “Conversion to a Computer

Assisted Questionnaire” for a description of these changes and the

effect they had on the data.

Caution should also be used

when comparing estimates in this

report (which reflects 1990 censusbased population controls) with

estimates from the March 1993

CPS and earlier years (which reflect

1980 census-based population

controls).1 This change in population controls had relatively little

impact on summary measures

such as means, medians, and percent distributions. It did have a

significant impact on levels. For

example, use of 1990-based population controls results in about a

1-percent increase in the civilian

noninstitutional population and in

the number of families and households. Thus, estimates of levels for

data collected in 1994 and later

years will differ from those for earlier years by more than what could

be attributed to actual changes in

the population. These differences

could be disproportionately

greater for certain subpopulation

groups than for the total population.

During the period April 1994

through June 1995, the U.S. Census Bureau systematically introduced a new sample design for the

CPS based on the results of the

1990 decennial census. During this

phase-in period, CPS estimates

were being made from two distinct

sample designs: the old 1980

sample design and the new 1990

sample design. The March 1995

CPS consisted of 55 percent new

(1990) sample and 45 percent old

(1980) sample. The data based on

the March 1996 CPS were the first

estimates based entirely on households selected from the 1990 census-based sample design.

One of the effects of the introduction of the 1990 census sample

design is the change in the definition of metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas. The 1990 census

sample design incorporates the

geographic definitions officially released in 19932; the 1980 census

sample design incorporates the

geographic definitions released in

1983. While most CPS estimates

have been unaffected by this

mixed sample, geographic

estimates are subject to greater error and variability. Users should

exercise caution when comparing

estimates across years for metropolitan and nonmetropolitan categories.

Note when using small estimates. Summary measures (such as

medians and percent distributions)

are shown only when the base is

100,000 or greater. Because of the

large standard errors involved, summary measures would probably not

reveal useful information when computed on a smaller base. However,

estimated numbers are shown even

though the relative standard errors

of these numbers are larger than

those for corresponding percentages. These smaller estimates permit combinations of the categories

to suit data users’ needs.

Take care in the interpretation of

small differences. For instance, even

a small amount of nonsampling error can cause a borderline difference

to appear significant or not, thus

distorting a seemingly valid hypothesis test.

Sampling variability. Sampling

variability is variation that occurred

by chance because a sample was

surveyed rather than the entire

population. Standard errors, as calculated by methods described in the

section titled “standard errors and

their use,” are primarily measures of

sampling variability, but they may

include some nonsampling error.

Standard errors and their

use. A number of approximations

are required to derive, at a moderate

cost, standard errors applicable to

the estimates in this report. Instead

of providing an individual standard

error for each estimate, two parameters, “a” and “b,” are provided to

calculate standard errors for each

estimate.

1For detailed information on the 1990 sample

redesign, see the Department of Labor, Bureau of

Labor Statistics report, Employment and Earnings,

Volume 41, Number 5, May 1994.

2For additional information on the new metropolitan area definitions, see Revised Statistical Definitions for Metropolitan Areas (MAs), Office of Management and Budget, Bulletin No. 93-17, June 30,

1993.
61

U.S. Census Bureau

Table B provides standard error

parameters for native and foreignborn persons. Multiply the parameters in Table B by the factors in

Tables C and D to get region,

state, and nonmetropolitan parameters. The sample estimate and its

standard error enable one to construct a confidence interval. A

confidence interval is a range that

would include the average result of

all possible samples with a known

probability. For example, suppose

all possible samples were surveyed

under essentially the same general

conditions and using the same

sample design. If an estimate and

its standard error were calculated

from each sample, then approximately 90 percent of the intervals

from 1.645 standard errors below

the estimate to 1.645 standard errors above the estimate would include the average result of all possible samples.

A particular confidence interval

may or may not contain the average estimate derived from all

possible samples. However, one

can say with specified confidence

that the interval includes the average estimate calculated from all

possible samples. Standard errors

may also be used to perform hypothesis testing. This is a procedure for distinguishing between

population parameters using

sample estimates. One common

type of hypothesis appearing in

this report is that two population

parameters are different. An example of this would be comparing

the median age of natives to the

median age of foreign-born persons.

Tests may be performed at various levels of significance. The significance level of a test is the probability of concluding that the

characteristics are different when,

in fact, they are the same. All

statements of comparison in the

text were tested at the 0.10 level

of significance. Thus, if the absolute value of the estimated difference between characteristics was

greater than or equal to 1.645

times the standard error of the

difference, then the conclusion

was that the characteristics were

different.

The Census Bureau uses 90-

percent confidence intervals and

0.10 levels of significance to determine statistical validity. Consult

standard statistical textbooks for

alternative criteria.

Standard errors of estimated numbers. The approximate standard error, sx, of an estimated number shown in this report can be obtained using the formula:

Here x is the size of the estimate, and a and b are the parameters in Table B associated with the

particular type of characteristic.

When calculating standard errors

from cross-tabulations involving

different characteristics, use the

set of parameters for the characteristic which will give the largest

standard error.

Illustration

Suppose the March 2000 CPS

estimates the number of people

living in the United States who

were born in Central America to be

9,789,000, and a calculation of the

standard error and a 90 percent

confidence interval for that estimate are desired. Using Formula

(1) and the appropriate parameters

from Table B gives

Number, x 9,789,000

a parameter -0.000041

b parameter 11,054

Standard error 322,922

90% conf. int. 9,258,000 to

10,320,000

The standard error is calculated

as

The 90-percent confidence interval is calculated as 9,789,000 ±

1.645×322,922.

A conclusion that the average

estimate derived from all possible

samples lies within a range computed in this way would be correct

for roughly 90 percent of all possible samples.

Standard errors of estimated percentages. The reliability of an estimated percentage,

computed using sample data from

both numerator and denominator,

depends on both the size of the

percentage and its base. Estimated

percentages are relatively more reliable than the corresponding estimates of the numerators of the

percentages, particularly if the

percentages are 50 percent or

more. When the numerator and denominator of the percentage are in

different categories, use the parameter from Table B indicated by

the numerator. The approximate

standard error, sx,p, of an estimated

percentage can be obtained by using the formula

Here x is the total number of

persons, families, households, or

unrelated individuals in the base of

the percentage, p is the percentage (0 < p < 100), and b is the parameter in Table B associated with
62

U.S. Census Bureau

the characteristic in the numerator

of the percentage.

Illustration

Suppose we estimate the percentage of naturalized citizens age

15+ to be 97.6 percent, and the

standard error and confidence interval for this percentage are desired. The total number of naturalized citizens is 10,622,000. Using

Formula (2) and the appropriate

parameter from Table B gives

Percentage, p 97.6

Base, x 10,622,000

b parameter 6,774

Standard error 0.4

90% conf. int. 96.9 to 98.3

The standard error is calculated

as

The 90-percent confidence interval is calculated as 97.6 ±

1.645×0.4.

Standard error of a difference. The standard error of the

difference between two sample estimates is approximately equal to

where sx and sy are the standard errors of the estimates, x and

y. The estimates can be numbers,

proportions, ratios, etc. This will

represent the actual standard error

quite accurately for the difference

between estimates of the same

characteristic for two different

groups or for the difference between separate and uncorrelated

characteristics in the same group.

However, if there is a high positive

(negative) correlation between the

two characteristics, the formula

will overestimate (underestimate)

the true standard error.

Illustration

Suppose from the March 2000

CPS, 34.3 percent of the

152,836,000 natives in the United

States ages 25 and older are high

school graduates. Also, suppose

that 23.9 percent of the

12,606,000 noncitizens in the

United States ages 25 and older

are high school graduates, and the

standard error and a 90 percent

confidence interval for the difference between the percentages of

natives and noncitizens who are

high school graduates are desired.

Use Formulas (2) and (3) and the

appropriate parameters from Table

B to get

The standard error of the difference is calculated as

The 90-percent confidence interval around the difference is

calculated as 10.4 ± 1.645×0.7.

Since this interval does not include

zero, we can conclude with 90-percent confidence that the percentage of natives in the United States

who are high school graduates is

higher than the percentage of noncitizens who are high school

graduates.

Standard Error of a Median.

The sampling variability of an

estimated median depends on the

form of the distribution and the

size of the base. One can approximate the reliability of an estimated

median by determining a confidence interval about it. (See the

section titled “standard errors and

their use” for a general discussion

of confidence intervals.)

Estimate the 68-percent confidence limits of a median based on

sample data using the following

procedure.

1. Determine, using formula (2),

the standard error of the estimate of 50 percent from the

distribution.

2. Add to and subtract from 50

percent the standard error determined in step 1.

3. Using the distribution of the

characteristic, determine upper

and lower limits of the 68-percent confidence interval by calculating values corresponding

to the two points established in

step 2.

Use the following formula to calculate the upper and lower limits.

where

XpN = estimated upper and lower

bounds for the confidence

interval (0 < p < 1). For

purposes of calculating the

confidence interval, p

takes on the values determined in step 2. Note that

XpN estimates the median

when p = 0.50.

N = for distribution of numbers: the total number of

units (persons, households, etc.) for the characteristic in the distribution.

Description x y difference

Percentage, p 34.3 23.9 10.4

Base, x 152,836,000 12,606,000 -

b parameter 2,369 3,080 -

Standard error 0.2 0.7 0.7

90% conf. int. 34.0 to 34.6 22.7 to 25.1 9.2 to 11.6
63

U.S. Census Bureau

Thus, a 68-percent confidence

interval for the median income is

from $32,300 to $33,500.

(4) The standard error of the median is, therefore

Standard Error of a Ratio.

Certain estimates may be calculated as the ratio of two numbers.

The standard error of a ratio, x/y,

may be computed using

The standard error of the numerator, sx, and that of the denominator, sy

, may be calculated using

formulas described earlier. In formula (5), r represents the correlation

between the numerator and the denominator of the estimate.

For one type of ratio, the denominator is a count of families or

households and the numerator is a

count of persons in those families or

households with a certain characteristic. If there is at least one person

with the characteristic in every family or household, use 0.7 as an

estimate of r. An example of this

type is the mean number of children

per family with children.

For all other types of ratios, r is

assumed to be zero. If r is actually

positive (negative), then this procedure will provide an overestimate

(underestimate) of the standard error of the ratio. Examples of this

type are the mean number of children per family and the poverty

rate.

Note: For estimates expressed as

the ratio of x per 100 y or x per

1,000 y, multiply formula (5) by 100

Naturalized citizens 15+

Earnings levels (working full-time and year-round) Cumulative total

Under $10,000 or loss 181,000 181,000

$10,000 to $19,999 1,007,000 1,188,000

$20,000 to $34,999 1,588,000 2,776,000

$35,000 to $49,999 997,000 3,773,000

$50,000 or more 1,336,000 5,109,000

Total 5,109,000

Median income $32,917

= for distribution of percentages: the value 1.0.

p = the values obtained in step

2.

A1, A2 = the lower and upper

bounds, respectively, of

the interval containing XpN.

N1, N2 =for distribution of numbers: the estimated number of units (persons,

households, etc.) with values of the characteristic

greater than or equal to A1

and A2, respectively.

= for distribution of percentages: the estimated percentage of units (persons,

households, etc.) having

values of the characteristic

greater than or equal to A1

and A2, respectively.

4. Divide the difference between

the two points determined in

step 3 by two to obtain the

standard error of the median.

Illustration

Suppose we wish to use the following distribution to calculate the

standard error of the median earnings of naturalized citizens 15+

years old who work full-time and

year-round.

(1) Using b = 3,190 from Table B

and formula (2), the standard

error of 50 percent on a base of

5,109,000 is about 1.2 percent.

(2) To obtain a 68 percent confidence interval for an estimated

median, add to and subtract

from 50 percent, the standard

error found in step 1. This

yields limits of 48.8 and

51.2 percent.

(3) The lower and upper limits for

the interval in which the median falls are $20,000 and

$35,000, respectively.

Then, by adding the totals in

the different income ranges, the

estimated number of naturalized

citizens 15+ working year-round

and full-time and with earnings

greater than or equal to $20,000

and $35,000 are 3,921,000 and

2,333,000, respectively.

Using formula (4), the upper

limit for the confidence interval of

the median is about

Similarly, the lower limit is about
64

U.S. Census Bureau

or 1,000, respectively, to obtain the

standard error.

Illustration

Suppose the standard error and

90-percent confidence interval for

the ratio of native males residing in

the United States to foreign-born

males residing in the United States

are desired, when the estimated

numbers of foreign born and native

males are 14,200,000 and

119,733,000, respectively. Using

Formulas (1) and (5) and the parameters in Table 2, the standard error

of this ratio is as follows

Using formula (5) with r = 0, the

estimate of the standard error is

The 90-percent confidence interval is calculated as 8.43 ±

1.645×0.17.

Computation of Standard Errors for State Estimates. Table B

gives standard error parameters

for characteristics at the national

level. To calculate standard errors

at the state level, regional level

(Northeast, Midwest, South, and

West), and the nonmetropolitan

level, the parameters in Table B

must first be multiplied by the

appropriate factor from Table C

and Table D.

Illustration

Suppose the standard error and

90-percent confidence interval for

Description x y ratio

Estimate 119,733,000 14,200,000 8.43

a parameter -0.000039 -0.000051 -

b parameter 5,211 6,774 -

Standard error 254,608 293,099 0.17

90% conf. int. - - 8.15 to 8.71

the total foreign born in Florida are

calculated, when the estimated

number is 2,351,000 people.3

Use Formula (1) and the appropriate parameters from Table B and

Table C to get

Number, x 2,351,000

a parameter -0.000025

b parameter 6,774

State factor (Florida) 0.97

a parameter

 (-0.000025 x 0.97) -0.000024

b parameter (6,774 x 0.97) 6,571

Standard error 123,757

90% conf. int. 2,147,000 to

2,555,000

The standard error is calculated

as

The 90-percent confidence interval is calculated as 2,351,000 ±

1.645×123,757.

Technical Assistance

If you require assistance or

additional information, please

contact Jeffrey Stratton of the

Demographic Statistical Methods

Division via e-mail at

DSMD_S&A@cebsys.giv.

3This estimate of 2,351,000 for the foreign-born

population of Florida comes from the 1997 March

CPS.
65

U.S. Census Bureau

Table B.

Standard Error Parameters for Native and Foreign-Born Characteristics: March 2000

Natives Foreign born

Characteristic a b a b

Age

Total .................................................... -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774

Under 15 years .................................... -0.000086 5,211 -0.000112 6,774

15 years and over ................................ -0.000024 5,211 -0.000032 6,774

15 to 24 years ................................. -0.000136 5,211 -0.000177 6,774

25 to 34 years ................................. -0.000139 5,211 -0.000181 6,774

35 to 44 years ................................. -0.000117 5,211 -0.000152 6,774

45 to 64 years ................................. -0.000087 5,211 -0.000113 6,774

65 years and over ........................... -0.000160 5,211 -0.000208 6,774

Median age (years)............................... (NA) 5,211 (NA) 6,774

Sex

Male .................................................... -0.000039 5,211 -0.000051 6,774

Female................................................. -0.000037 5,211 -0.000048 6,774

Race and Hispanic Origin

Some Household Members

Total/White...................................... -0.000019 5,211 -0.000025 6,774

Black ............................................... -0.000212 7,486 -0.000212 7,486

Asian or Pacific Islander .................. -0.000550 7,486 -0.000550 7,486

Hispanic origin ................................ -0.000229 7,486 -0.000229 7,486

All Household Members

Total/White...................................... -0.000023 6,332 -0.000030 8,232

Black ................................................... -0.000312 11,039 -0.000312 11,039

Asian or Pacific Islander ....................... -0.000811 11,039 -0.000811 11,039

Hispanic origin .................................... -0.000337 11,039 -0.000337 11,039

Educational Attainment ............................ -0.000011 2,369 -0.000015 3,080

Labor Force Status

In the civilian labor force ..................... -0.000018 2,985 -0.000023 3,881

Employed ............................................ -0.000018 2,985 -0.000023 3,881

Unemployment .................................... -0.000018 2,957 -0.000023 3,844

Not in the labor force .......................... 0.000006 829 0.000008 1,078

Income in 1999

Individual ............................................ -0.000012 2,454 -0.000016 3,190

Household ........................................... -0.000011 2,241 -0.000014 2,913

Received Public Assistance ....................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494

Received AFDC .................................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494

Poverty Status .......................................... -0.000038 10,380 -0.000049 13,494

Tenure ...................................................... -0.000029 7,791 -0.000037 10,128

Country of Birth

Mexico, North/Central America............ (NA) (NA) -0.000041 11,054

Europe ................................................. (NA) (NA) -0.000024 6,351

Asia, Africa, Oceania ............................ (NA) (NA) -0.000038 10,351

United States ....................................... -0.000021 5,556 (NA) (NA)

NA Not applicable.
66

U.S. Census Bureau

Table C.

State Factors

State Factor

Alabama ........................... 1.01

Alaska .............................. 0.15

Arizona ............................ 0.97

Arkansas .......................... 0.59

California ......................... 1.29

Colorado .......................... 0.93

Connecticut ...................... 1.00

Delaware .......................... 0.22

Dist. of Col. ...................... 0.16

Florida.............................. 0.97

Georgia ............................ 1.40

Hawaii .............................. 0.35

Idaho................................ 0.27

Illinois .............................. 1.00

Indiana ............................. 1.38

Iowa ................................. 0.71

Kansas.............................. 0.65

Kentucky .......................... 0.92

Louisiana .......................... 0.95

Maine ............................... 0.37

Maryland .......................... 1.38

Massachusetts .................. 0.81

Michigan .......................... 0.93

Minnesota ........................ 1.11

Mississippi ....................... 0.64

Missouri ........................... 1.37

State Factor

Montana ........................... 0.20

Nebraska .......................... 0.42

Nevada ............................. 0.44

New Hampshire ................ 0.38

New Jersey ....................... 0.82

New Mexico ..................... 0.40

New York .......................... 0.89

North Carolina .................. 0.94

North Dakota .................... 0.16

Ohio ................................. 1.02

Oklahoma ......................... 0.73

Oregon ............................. 0.86

Pennsylvania .................... 0.96

Rhode Island .................... 0.30

South Carolina .................. 1.01

South Dakota .................... 0.17

Tennessee ........................ 1.34

Texas ............................... 1.21

Utah ................................. 0.43

Vermont ........................... 0.18

Virginia ............................ 1.48

Washington ...................... 1.47

West Virginia .................... 0.39

Wisconsin ......................... 1.23

Wyoming .......................... 0.12

Table D.

Region and

Nonmetropolitan Factors

Characteristic Factor

Region.............................

Northeast ................. 0.85

Midwest ................... 1.03

South ....................... 1.08

West......................... 1.09

Nonmetropolitan

 characteristics ............... 1.50
67

U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix C.

Comparison of Population Universes

The population universes in the

March Current Population Survey

(CPS) and in the decennial census

of population are not totally comparable. While the universe for the

census of population is the entire

resident population of the United

States, the universe for the March

CPS is the civilian noninstitutional

population plus Armed Forces living off post or with their families

on post.1 The coverage of the noninstitutional group quarters population in the CPS is limited primarily to individuals living in college

dormitories who generally are reported with their parental households and not in group quarters;

however, relatively few foreignborn students would be reported

in this way. As a result, the

foreign-born population in the

1990 census corresponding to the

CPS universe is essentially the

foreign-born population of

19.3 million living in households,

which is about 0.5 million less

than the total foreign-born population of 19.8 million in the 1990

census.

Foreign-Born Population in the CPS and in the

Census of Population

(Numbers in thousands)

 Foreign-born population

Total

population Number Percent of total

March 2000 CPS

Civilian noninstitutional population

plus Armed Forces living off post

or with their families on post ................... 274,087 28,379 10.4

1990 Census of Population

Total population .................................... 248,710 19,767 7.9

In households.............................................. 242,050 19,279 8.0

In group quarters ........................................ 6,660 489 7.3

In institutions .......................................... 3,312 242 7.3

In other group quarters ........................... 3,348 247 7.4

College dormitories ............................... 1,971 123 6.2

Military quarters.................................... 595 24 4.1

Other .................................................... 783 100 12.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, special tabulations from the 1990 census and the March 2000 Current Population Survey.

1In addition, data from the 1990 census and the

March 2000 CPS are not totally comparable because

the CPS data are inflated to independent population

controls reflecting an adjustment for undercoverage

in the 1990 census. See Appendix B, Source and Accuracy of the Estimates, and U.S. Census Bureau,

2001.
68

U.S. Census Bureau

Appendix D.

Nativity Questions on the Current Population Survey

(The following questions are asked about every member of every household in the CPS sample.

Information is also collected for persons joining the household at a later date.)

The next few questions ask about each household member’s country of birth.

NATVTY In what country (were/was) ................. born? (Enter Code) ________

MNTVTY In what country was .................’s mother born? __________

FNTVTY In what country was .................’s father born? __________

(screens with country codes not shown)

______________________________________________________________________________

AUTOMATED SKIP PATTERN:

If NATVTY = US (1) --> END sequence for this person

If NATVTY = PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR

If MNTVTY and FNTVTY = US (1), PR* (2) or OA* (3) --> go to INUSYR

ALL OTHERS --> go to CITIZN

______________________________________________________________________________

CITIZN (Are/Is) . . . a CITIZEN of the United States?

(1) YES --> go to CITTYPA

(2) NO --> go to INUSYR

(3) DK* --> go to INUSYR

(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

______________________________________________________________________________

CITTYPA (Were/Was) . . . born a citizen of the United States?

(1) Yes --> go to INUSYR

(2) No --> go to CITTYPB

(3) DK* --> go to CITTYPB

(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

CITTYPB Did . . . become a citizen of the United States through naturalization?

(1) Yes --> go to INUSYR

(2) No --> go to INUSYR

(3) DK* --> go to INUSYR

(4) R* --> go to INUSYR

_____________________________________________________________________________

 INUSYR When did . . . come to live in the United States?

(1) YEAR 19_____

(2) DK*

(3) R*

______________________________________________________________________________

 * PR= Puerto Rico; OA= Outlying Area; DK= Don’t Know; R= Refused.
69

U.S. Census Bureau

From the U.S.

Immigration and

Naturalization Service

(INS)

1998 Statistical Yearbook of the

Immigration and Naturalization

Service (2000) is the most recent

annual yearbook providing comprehensive data on immigration,

naturalization, and other topics for

fiscal year 1998. The publication

includes historical data on international migration. For additional

information, including data from

the report cited above, see the INS

Internet site:

http://www.ins.usdoj.gov.

From the U.S. Census

Bureau

Current Population Reports

Profile of the Foreign-Born

Population in the United States:

2000, PPL-145 (2001) is a comprehensive set of detailed statistical

tables and is the source of all the

data from the March 2000 Current

Population Survey (CPS) included in

Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000,

P23-206 (this report).

In 1999, the U.S. Census Bureau released a comprehensive report Profile of the Foreign-Born

Population in the United States:

1997, P23-195. This earlier report

used data from the March 1997

CPS and included a set of detailed

statistical tables, PPL-115.

Previous sets of CPS detailed

tables on the foreign-born population, which are less comprehensive

than either PPL-145 or PPL-115, include: The Foreign-Born Population

in the United States: March 2000,

PPL-135 (2001), and The ForeignBorn Population in the United

States: March 1999, PPL-123

(2000). Similar detailed tables are

also available for March 1995,

1996, 1997, and 1998.

The data on the foreign-born

population in these reports noted

above are based on national survey data for the 1995 to 2000 period. For a detailed evaluation of

these data, see How Well Does the

Current Population Survey Measure

the Foreign-Born Population in the

United States?, Population Division

Working Paper No. 22 (1998).

Recent population estimates

The Census Bureau produces

annual estimates of population

change and of the components of

population change (births, deaths,

net international migration, and

net domestic migration) since the

1990 census for the United States,

regions and divisions of the United

States, states, and counties. These

estimates are available only on the

Census Bureau’s Internet site:

http://www.census.gov.

On this Internet site, go to

People, select Estimates, and

then select State (which includes

data for the United States, regions,

and divisions) or County. Estimates of the components of population change are currently available for April 1, 1990, to July 1,

1999, and for July 1, 1998, to July

1, 1999. In 1999, the Census Bureau introduced annual population

estimates by nativity (native and

foreign-born resident populations)

at the national level. These estimates are currently available for

years 1990 to 1999.

Decennial census data

Historical Census Statistics on

the Foreign-Born Population of

the United States: 1850 to 1990,

Population Division Working Paper

No. 29 (1999), is the source of all

the decennial census data included

in Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000,

P23-206 (this report).

The Foreign-Born Population in

the United States, 1990 Census of

Population, 1990 CP-3-1 (1993)

presents data on the demographic,

social, economic, and housing

characteristics of the foreign-born

population of the United States as

a whole by region and country of

birth of the foreign-born population. These data are shown down

to the state level in Subject Summary Tape File (SSTF) 1, The

Foreign-Born Population in the

United States, which is available

also on CD-ROM.

Social and Economic Characteristics, 1990 Census of Population,

1990 CP-2 (1993) presents data on

the citizenship status, year of entry, and region and country of birth

of the foreign-born population.

1990 CP-2-1 includes data for the

United States, regions and divisions of the United States, and

states. 1990 CP-2-2 through 1990

CP-2-52 (one report for each state

and for the District of Columbia)

include data for states, counties,

and places of 10,000 or more

population (with less detail for

places of 2,500 to 9,999 population). 1990 CP-2-1B and CP-2-1C

include data for metropolitan areas

and urbanized areas, respectively.

Census 2000 sample data (including statistics on the foreign

born) are scheduled to be released

by the Census Bureau as early as

March 2002. Data products include: Demographic Profile (providing demographic, social, economic, and housing characteristics

presented in three separate

tables); Congressional District

Demographic Profile (providing

Appendix E.

Related Reports and Information
70

U.S. Census Bureau

demographic, social, economic,

and housing characteristics presented in three separate tables for

Congressional Districts only);

Summary File 3 (SF3) (population

counts for ancestry groups and selected population and housing

characteristics) (planned release

date: July-September 2002); other

forthcoming decennial products

scheduled for release in 2002 and

2003 include: Summary File 4

(SF4); Quick Tables; Geographic

Comparison Tables; Public Use

Microdata Sample (PUMS) Files; Advanced Query Function; Census

2000: Summary Social, Economic,

and Housing Characteristics; Congressional District Data Summary

File. The Census 2000 Web site:

http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/

products.html highlights these and

other Census 2000 data products.

On the Internet

A wide range of information

from the Census Bureau, including

data on some of the topics included in this report, is available

on the Census Bureau’s Internet

site: http://www.census.gov.