Census 2000 measured

a U.S. population of

281.4 million, including

1.2 million who reported an Arab ancestry.1

Arabs were 1 of 33

ancestry groups with

populations over 1 million.2 This is the first

report the U.S. Census

Bureau has produced

on the population of

Arab ancestry. In 1997,

the Office of

Management and

Budget revised the federal standard for the

classification of race and ethnicity, noting the lack of consensus about the definition of an Arab ethnic category and

suggesting that further research be done

in order to improve data on this population group.3 This report contributes to

ongoing research about people in the

United States who identify an Arab

ancestry and reflects the Census Bureau’s

consultation and collaboration with

experts within the Arab community. 

For the purposes of this report, most people with ancestries originating from

Arabic-speaking countries or areas of the

world are categorized as Arab. For example, a person is included in the Arab

ancestry category if he or she reported

being Arab, Egyptian, Iraqi, Jordanian,

Lebanese, Middle Eastern, Moroccan,

North African, Palestinian, Syrian, and so

on. It is important to note, however, that

some people from these countries may

not consider themselves to be Arab, and

conversely, some people who consider

themselves Arab may not be included in

this definition. More specifically, groups

such as Kurds and Berbers who are usually not considered Arab were included in

this definition for consistency with 1990

census and Census 2000 data products.

In the same manner, some groups such as

Mauritanian, Somalian, Djiboutian,

Sudanese, and Comoros Islander who may

consider themselves Arab were not

included, again for consistency. (For more

information, see Table 1.) 

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

Helping You Make Informed Decisions

U.S.Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Issued December 2003

C2KBR-23

The Arab Population: 2000

Census 2000 Brief

By 

G. Patricia de la Cruz 

and 

Angela Brittingham

Figure 1.

Reproduction of the Question on Ancestry 

From Census 2000

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

What is this person’s ancestry or ethnic origin?

(For example: Italian, Jamaican, African Am., Cambodian,

Cape Verdean, Norwegian, Dominican, French Canadian,

Haitian, Korean, Lebanese, Polish, Nigerian, Mexican,

Taiwanese, Ukrainian, and so on.)

10

1 The text of this report discusses data for the

United States, including the 50 states and the

District of Columbia. Data for the Commonwealth of

Puerto Rico are shown in Table 2 and Figure 2. 2 Census 2000 Summary File 4 shows that the

largest ancestry groups reported were German 

(42.9 million), Irish (30.5 million), and English 

(24.5 million). Ancestry groups similar in size to the

Arab population included Greek, Czech, and

Portuguese (approximately 1.2 million each). 3 Office of Management and Budget. 1997.

“Revisions to the Standards for the Classification of

Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity.” Federal

Register, Vol. 62, No. 210, p. 58787.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

The information on ancestry was

collected on the “long form” of the

census questionnaire, which was

sent to approximately one-sixth of

all households. Item 10 on the

questionnaire asked respondents to

identify their ancestry or ethnic origin (see Figure 1).4 As many as two

ancestries were tabulated per

respondent; if either response was

included in the definition of Arab

used here, the person is included in

this analysis. Around 19 percent of

the U.S. population provided no

response to the ancestry question.

Ancestry refers to ethnic origin,

descent, “roots,” heritage, or place

of birth of the person or of the person’s ancestors. The ancestry question was not intended to measure

the degree of attachment to a particular ethnicity, but simply to

establish that the respondent had a

connection to and self-identified

with a particular ethnic group. For

example, a response of “Lebanese”

might reflect involvement in a

Lebanese community or only a

memory of Lebanese ancestors

several generations removed. 

The data in this report are based

solely on responses to the Census

2000 ancestry question.

Questions that were positioned

before the ancestry question where

respondents might have indicated

an Arab origin (namely race,

Hispanic origin, and place of birth)

were not considered.

Although religious affiliation can

be a component of ethnic identity,

neither the ancestry question nor

any other question on the decennial census form was designed to

collect information about religion.

No religious information was tabulated from Census 2000. Religious

responses were all reclassified as

“Other groups.”

This report presents national,

regional, state, county, and selected place-level information for the

total Arab population, as well as

additional detailed information for

the three largest Arab groups:

Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian.

Smaller groups are shown only at

the national level.

The Arab population, which

numbered over 1 million in

2000, increased by nearly 

40 percent during the 1990s.

In 2000, 1.2 million people reported

an Arab ancestry in the United

States, up from 610,000 in 1980

(when data on ancestry were first

collected in the decennial census)

and 860,000 in 1990. The Arab

population increased over the last

two decades: 41 percent in the

1980s and 38 percent in the 1990s.5

Arabs represented 0.42 percent of

the U.S. population in 2000, compared with 0.27 percent in 1980.

People of Lebanese, Syrian, and

Egyptian ancestry accounted

for about three-fifths of the

Arab population.

In 2000, more than one-third of

those reporting an Arab ancestry

were Lebanese (37 percent, see

Table 1), including both people

who indicated that they were only

Lebanese and those who reported

being both Lebanese and another

ancestry, which might or might not

also be Arab.6 The next largest

specific groups were Syrian and

Egyptian (12 percent each).

Among the nearly half-million people who reported other specific

Arab ancestries, the largest proportion was Palestinian (6.1 percent of

the total Arab population). The

Jordanian, Moroccan, and Iraqi populations were also sizable (3.3 percent, 3.3 percent, and 3.2 percent,

respectively).7 An additional 

4.3 percent of the Arab population

identified themselves as Yemeni,

Kurdish, Algerian, Saudi Arabian,

Tunisian, Kuwaiti, Libyan, Berber, or

other specific Arab ancestries, each

of which accounted for 1 percent or

less of the total Arab population.8

A substantial portion of the Arab

population (20 percent) identified

with general Arab ancestries, such

as “Arab” or “Arabic” (17 percent),

“Middle Eastern” (2.4 percent), or

“North African” (0.3 percent). This

population was second in size only

to the Lebanese ancestry group.

During the 1990s, the

Egyptian population increased

numerically more than any

other group. 

The number of people with

Egyptian ancestry grew by 64,000,

the most of any specific Arab

ancestry group (see Table 1),

increasing from 79,000 in 1990 to

143,000 in 2000 (growing by 82

percent). The number of people

who identified as Lebanese also

grew substantially, but by a smaller proportion, from 394,000 to

440,000 over the decade, an

increase of 12 percent. Syrians,

who numbered 130,000 in 1990,

grew to 143,000 in 2000 (or by 

10 percent).9

5 The estimates in this report are based on

responses from a sample of the population.

As with all surveys, estimates may vary from

the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements made in

this report have undergone statistical testing

and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 6 Hereafter, estimates of specific ancestry

groups include people who reported solely

that ancestry or who reported it in combination with another one.

7 The proportions of the population who

were Jordanian, Moroccan, or Iraqi were not

statistically different. 8 The proportion of the population that

was Yemeni was not statistically less than 

1 percent. 9 The growth in the Syrian population

from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically 

different from the growth in the Lebanese

population.

4 The term respondent is used here to

refer to all individuals for whom one or more

ancestries were reported, whether or not

one person answered the question for all

household members.
Among the smaller Arab ancestry

groups, the Moroccan, Jordanian,

and Palestinian populations grew

the most numerically over the

decade. Proportionally, each of

those groups experienced substantial growth as well, increasing by

at least half. The number of

Moroccans doubled (104 percent

increase) to 39,000. People who

identified as Jordanian increased

92 percent to 40,000, and the

number who reported they were 

Palestinian increased by 50 percent

to 72,000.10

The Yemeni-ancestry

population tripled between

1990 and 2000.

People with Yemeni ancestry

increased from 4,000 in 1990 to

12,000 in 2000. In addition, the

Kurdish and Algerian populations

also experienced a high growth

rate over the decade, from 2,000

and 3,000 respectively in 1990 to

9,000 each in 2000.

The number of people 

who responded as “Arab” 

or “Middle Eastern” to the

ancestry question increased

over the decade.

Between 1990 and 2000, an

increasing share of the Arab

population identified themselves

by a general term such as Arab or

Middle Eastern and gave no other

specific Arab ancestry. The population who identified as “Arab” or

“Arabic” increased by 62 percent,

reaching 206,000 in 2000. The

number of people who reported

being “Middle Eastern” was much

smaller, but quadrupled to 28,000. 

U.S. Census Bureau 3

Table 1.

Arab Population by Ancestry: 2000

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

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf)

Subject

1990 2000 Change, 1990 to 2000

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent

Total population ..................... 248,709,873 100.00 281,421,906 100.00 32,712,033 13.2

TOTAL ARAB POPULATION

AND ANCESTRY1

Total Arab population .................. 860,354 0.35 1,189,731 0.42 329,377 38.3

Lebanese ................................ 394,180 45.82 440,279 37.01 46,099 11.7

Syrian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,606 15.06 142,897 12.01 13,291 10.3

Egyptian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,574 9.13 142,832 12.01 64,258 81.8

All other Arab reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,378 31.19 476,863 40.08 208,485 77.7

Specific Arab ancestry ................... 132,066 15.35 239,424 20.12 107,358 81.3

Palestinian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,019 5.58 72,112 6.06 24,093 50.2

Jordanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,656 2.40 39,734 3.34 19,078 92.4

Moroccan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,089 2.22 38,923 3.27 19,834 103.9

Iraqi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,212 2.70 37,714 3.17 14,502 62.5

Yemeni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,093 0.48 11,683 0.98 7,590 185.4

Kurdish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,181 0.25 9,423 0.79 7,242 332.0

Algerian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,215 0.37 8,752 0.74 5,537 172.2

Saudi Arabian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,486 0.52 7,419 0.62 2,933 65.4

Tunisian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,376 0.28 4,735 0.40 2,359 99.3

Kuwaiti. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,306 0.15 3,162 0.27 1,856 142.1

Libyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,172 0.25 2,979 0.25 807 37.2

Berber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 0.06 1,327 0.11 797 150.4

Other specific Arab ancestry2 . . . . . . . . . . . 731 0.08 1,461 0.12 730 99.9

General Arab ancestry ................... 136,312 15.84 237,439 19.96 101,127 74.2

Arab or Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,364 14.80 205,822 17.30 78,458 61.6

Middle Eastern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,656 0.89 28,400 2.39 20,744 271.0

North African. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,292 0.15 3,217 0.27 1,925 149.0

1 Because respondents could list up to two ancestries, the total number of ancestries reported will sum to more than the total number of people. 2 Groups whose population was less than 1,000 in 2000, including Emirati (United Arab Emirates), Omani, Qatari, Bahraini, Alhuceman, Bedouin, and Rio

de Oro.

Source: 2000 data from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 4 and Sample Edited Detail File; 1990 data from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990

Census, Sample Edited Detail File.

10 The growth in the Moroccan population

from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically different from the growth in the Jordanian population.
THE GEOGRAPHIC

DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE

OF ARAB ANCESTRY

People of Arab ancestry 

were fairly evenly distributed

among the four regions of 

the United States.

In 2000, 27 percent of the Arab

population lived in the Northeast,

while 26 percent lived in the South,

24 percent in the Midwest, and 

22 percent in the West (see 

Table 2).11 Arabs accounted for 

0.6 percent of the total population

in the Northeast but for only 

0.3 percent of the total population

in the South.

About half of the Arab

population was concentrated

in only five states.

In 2000, 576,000 Arabs (or 48 percent of the Arab population) lived

in just five states: California,

Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and

New York. These states contained

31 percent of the total U.S. population. People reporting an Arab

ancestry also numbered over

40,000 in five other states (Illinois,

Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

and Texas).12

Over the last decade, the Arab

population increased in

almost every state.

From 1990 to 2000, the number of

people with Arab ancestry

increased in most states.13 The

Arab population in California

increased by 48,000, more than in

any other state. The Arab population increased by 39,000 in

Michigan and by 28,000 in Florida. 

The Arab population grew by

about half in several states.

The Arab population doubled in

Tennessee (102 percent increase)

since 1990.14 However, the number of people who identified as

Arab in that state was relatively

small, increasing from 6,000 in

1990 to 13,000 in 2000. The Arab

population also increased by over

50 percent in North Carolina,

Washington, Colorado, and

Virginia.15 The Arab populations in

Florida and Michigan experienced

high growth rates as well as large

numerical increases. The Arab population in Florida grew by 57 percent, from 49,000 to 77,000

between 1990 and 2000; the Arab

population in Michigan grew by 

51 percent, from 77,000 in 1990

to 115,000 in 2000.16

The proportion of the

population that was Arab 

was highest in Michigan.

Arabs accounted for 1.2 percent of

the total population in Michigan in

2000. Arabs comprised nearly 

1 percent of the state populations

in New Jersey and Massachusetts,

which were 0.9 percent and 

0.8 percent Arab, respectively. 

Arabs represented a higher proportion of the population in 2000 than

they did in 1990 in a large majority of states. The proportion of the

population that was Arab grew

from 0.8 percent in 1990 to 

1.2 percent in 2000 in Michigan,

and from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent in New Jersey.17

The counties with the 

highest proportion of people

who were Arab were in the

Northeast and the Midwest.

The proportion of people who identified with an Arab ancestry by

county is shown in Figure 2. The

counties with the highest proportions of Arabs in 2000 were in

Massachusetts, New York, New

Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West

Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and

California. The proportion of the

population that was Arab in Wayne

County, Michigan, was 2.7 percent.18 In addition, at least 

1.2 percent of the population was

Arab in Macomb, Oakland, and

Washtenaw Counties, Michigan;

Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, and

Passaic Counties, New Jersey;

Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria

Counties, Virginia; Norfolk County,

Massachusetts; Kings, Richmond,

4 U.S. Census Bureau

11 The Northeast region includes the

states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

The Midwest region includes the states of

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan,

Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North

Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin.

The South region includes the states of

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida,

Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland,

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South

Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West

Virginia, and the District of Columbia, a state

equivalent. The West region includes the

states of Alaska, Arizona, California,

Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada,

New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and

Wyoming. 12 Although the estimated size of the

Arab population in Virginia was more than

40,000, it was not statistically larger than

40,000.

13 The Arab population did not change

statistically in the following states: Hawaii,

Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North

Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West

Virginia, and Wyoming. 14 The growth rate of the Arab population

in Tennessee was not statistically different

from the corresponding growth rates in

Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and

Utah. 15 Although the estimated increases in the

Arab populations in Alaska, Florida, Georgia,

Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New

Jersey, Nevada, and Utah were more than 50

percent, the increases were not statistically

different from 50 percent. 16 There was no statistical difference

between the growth rates of the Arab populations in Florida and Michigan.

17 The increase in the proportion of Arabs

in Michigan was not statistically different

from the increase in the proportion of Arabs

in New Jersey. 18 The proportion of the Arab population

in Wayne County, Michigan was not statistically different from Passaic and Hudson

Counties in New Jersey; Oakland and

Macomb Counties, Michigan; Lehigh County,

Pennsylvania; Fairfax, Arlington, and

Alexandria Counties in Virginia.
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Table 2.

Arab Population by Ancestry for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico:

1990 and 2000

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

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf)

Area

1990 2000

Total

population

Arab population1

Total

population

Arab population1 Selected Arab groups2

Number Percent Number Percent Lebanese Syrian Egyptian

United States . . . . . 248,709,873 860,354 0.35 281,421,906 1,189,731 0.42 440,279 142,897 142,832

Region

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . 50,809,229 254,411 0.50 53,594,378 327,090 0.61 115,809 57,075 59,184

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,668,632 203,549 0.34 64,392,776 286,537 0.44 120,172 27,448 16,756

South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,445,930 211,103 0.25 100,236,820 309,924 0.31 121,534 30,825 29,849

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,786,082 191,291 0.36 63,197,932 266,180 0.42 82,764 27,549 37,043

State

Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . 4,040,587 5,839 0.14 4,447,100 6,634 0.15 3,769 444 361

Alaska ............. 550,043 541 0.10 626,932 817 0.13 329 178 77

Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,665,228 11,796 0.32 5,130,632 17,111 0.33 6,388 1,849 1,253

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 2,350,725 1,854 0.08 2,673,400 2,397 0.09 969 403 214

California . . . . . . . . . . . 29,760,021 142,805 0.48 33,871,648 190,890 0.56 53,286 19,553 30,959

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 3,294,394 7,541 0.23 4,301,261 12,421 0.29 4,886 1,120 939

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 3,287,116 12,783 0.39 3,405,565 14,671 0.43 8,131 1,730 1,365

Delaware ........... 666,168 1,443 0.22 783,600 1,766 0.23 468 156 448

District of Columbia . . . 606,900 2,741 0.45 572,059 3,082 0.54 747 109 526

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,937,926 49,206 0.38 15,982,378 77,461 0.48 30,115 9,925 6,759

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,478,216 10,357 0.16 8,186,453 17,110 0.21 7,823 1,549 1,731

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,108,229 1,149 0.10 1,211,537 1,622 0.13 651 115 159

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006,749 730 0.07 1,293,953 1,446 0.11 703 124 65

Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,430,602 34,747 0.30 12,419,293 52,191 0.42 10,542 4,295 3,794

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,544,159 8,368 0.15 6,080,485 11,594 0.19 4,090 1,965 1,338

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,776,755 3,965 0.14 2,926,324 4,365 0.15 2,057 590 319

Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,477,574 4,846 0.20 2,688,418 6,722 0.25 2,984 730 438

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 3,685,296 5,091 0.14 4,041,769 7,137 0.18 3,431 712 307

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 4,219,973 10,780 0.26 4,468,976 13,445 0.30 6,561 1,821 608

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,227,928 3,365 0.27 1,274,923 2,990 0.23 1,959 487 166

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 4,781,468 15,683 0.33 5,296,486 20,224 0.38 6,608 2,201 3,246

Massachusetts . . . . . . . 6,016,425 44,773 0.74 6,349,097 52,756 0.83 32,072 7,123 3,238

Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,295,297 76,504 0.82 9,938,444 115,284 1.16 54,363 8,876 3,310

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 4,375,099 9,732 0.22 4,919,479 13,795 0.28 6,806 923 2,269

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 2,573,216 4,063 0.16 2,844,658 4,185 0.15 2,785 329 237

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,117,073 9,079 0.18 5,595,211 12,626 0.23 5,381 1,348 687

Montana............ 799,065 1,155 0.14 902,195 1,153 0.13 699 239 21

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 1,578,385 3,072 0.19 1,711,263 4,657 0.27 2,141 782 328

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201,833 4,176 0.35 1,998,257 7,188 0.36 2,897 997 772

New Hampshire . . . . . . 1,109,252 4,953 0.45 1,235,786 6,767 0.55 4,706 801 454

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 7,730,188 46,381 0.60 8,414,350 71,770 0.85 13,353 12,624 25,170

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 1,515,069 3,464 0.23 1,819,046 4,271 0.23 2,373 206 206

New York . . . . . . . . . . . 17,990,455 94,319 0.52 18,976,457 120,370 0.63 31,083 17,685 23,661

North Carolina . . . . . . . 6,628,637 10,551 0.16 8,049,313 19,405 0.24 6,998 1,584 2,076

North Dakota ........ 638,800 975 0.15 642,200 1,042 0.16 546 199 40

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,847,115 44,405 0.41 11,353,140 54,014 0.48 27,361 6,519 3,210

Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . 3,145,585 6,859 0.22 3,450,654 8,090 0.23 4,408 608 331

Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,842,321 6,164 0.22 3,421,399 9,316 0.27 3,148 1,657 850

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 11,881,643 39,842 0.34 12,281,054 48,678 0.40 19,889 13,392 4,718

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 1,003,464 6,342 0.63 1,048,319 7,012 0.67 3,016 3,089 338

South Carolina . . . . . . . 3,486,703 5,702 0.16 4,012,012 6,423 0.16 3,573 594 547

South Dakota ........ 696,004 1,237 0.18 754,844 1,405 0.19 730 294 85

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 4,877,185 6,381 0.13 5,689,283 12,882 0.23 3,194 773 1,569

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,986,510 44,256 0.26 20,851,820 63,046 0.30 23,652 5,866 5,132

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,722,850 2,703 0.16 2,233,169 4,569 0.20 1,995 238 280

Vermont ............ 562,758 1,653 0.29 608,827 2,076 0.34 1,600 144 74

Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,187,358 24,795 0.40 7,078,515 41,230 0.58 12,870 2,909 5,586

Washington . . . . . . . . . 4,866,692 8,811 0.18 5,894,121 15,016 0.25 5,226 1,261 1,407

West Virginia . . . . . . . . 1,793,477 5,502 0.31 1,808,344 5,407 0.30 3,563 842 171

Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . 4,891,769 6,619 0.14 5,363,675 8,842 0.16 3,171 927 938

Wyoming ........... 453,588 256 0.06 493,782 360 0.07 183 12 55

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 3,522,037 (NA) (NA) 3,808,610 2,633 0.07 828 66 56

NA Not available; the ancestry question was not asked in Puerto Rico during the 1990 census.

1 Respondents who reported either one or two Arab ancestries were tabulated exactly once to calculate the Arab population by region and state. 2 For selected Arab groups, the columns reflect the designated Arab ancestry regardless of whether or not another Arab ancestry was also reported; that is,

someone who reported Lebanese and Syrian would be tabulated in each column. Hence, it is not appropriate to sum the columns.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF4), 1990 Census Sample Edited Detail File.
6 U.S. Census Bureau 

Arab Ancestry: 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.gov provides census data and mapping tools. (Based on sample data. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Figure 2. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 

0 100 Miles 

U.S. p

U.S. p
and Oneida Counties, New York;

Lehigh and Lawrence Counties,

Pennsylvania; Ohio County, West

Virginia; Lucas County, Ohio; and

San Mateo County, California.19

Elsewhere in the country, the proportion of Arabs at the county

level was more dispersed. The

Arab population represented

between 0.7 and 1.1 percent of the

population in one or more counties

in many states across the nation.

However, more than half the counties in the United States had a low

percentage of people who reported

an Arab ancestry (0.1 or less).

The largest number of Arabs

lived in New York City.

In 2000, 70,000 people of Arab

ancestry lived in New York, making

it the city with the largest number

of Arabs (see Table 3). Six of the

ten largest cities in the United

States were also among the ten

places with the largest Arab populations (New York, Los Angeles,

Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and 

U.S. Census Bureau 7

Table 3.

Arab Population in Selected Places: 2000

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

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf)

Place

Total population

Arab population

Number

90-percent

confidence interval Percent Arab

90-percent

confidence interval

Ten Largest Places

New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90

Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73

Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61

Philadelphia, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,517,550 5,227 4,829 - 5,625 0.34 0.32 - 0.37

Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320,994 5,098 4,600 - 5,596 0.39 0.35 - 0.42

San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65

Dallas, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,188,204 4,077 3,632 - 4,522 0.34 0.31 - 0.38

San Antonio, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,144,554 3,748 3,321 - 4,175 0.33 0.29 - 0.36

Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92

Ten Places With Largest

Arab Population

New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90

Dearborn, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,775 29,181 28,392 - 29,970 29.85 29.04 - 30.65

Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73

Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61

Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92

San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65

Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04

Boston, MA................ 589,141 5,845 5,341 - 6,349 0.99 0.91 - 1.08

Jacksonville, FL ............ 735,503 5,751 5,251 - 6,251 0.78 0.71 - 0.85

Ten Places of 100,000

or More Population With

Highest Percent Arab

Sterling Heights, MI......... 124,471 4,598 4,157 - 5,039 3.69 3.34 - 4.05

Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04

Warren, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,276 3,470 3,149 - 3,791 2.51 2.28 - 2.74

Allentown, PA.............. 106,632 2,613 2,279 - 2,947 2.45 2.14 - 2.76

Burbank, CA............... 100,316 2,395 2,057 - 2,733 2.39 2.05 - 2.72

Glendale, CA .............. 195,047 4,028 3,589 - 4,467 2.07 1.84 - 2.29

Livonia, MI ................ 100,545 1,953 1,712 - 2,194 1.94 1.70 - 2.18

Arlington, VA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,453 3,352 2,972 - 3,732 1.77 1.57 - 1.97

Paterson, NJ............... 149,222 2,634 2,297 - 2,971 1.77 1.54 - 1.99

Daly City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,549 1,752 1,462 - 2,042 1.69 1.41 - 1.97

Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from rates for other geographic areas not

listed in this table.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4.

19 The 90-percent confidence interval fell

below 1.2 percent for all counties except for

Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan;

Passaic and Hudson Counties, New Jersey;

and Fairfax County, Virginia.
San Diego). Although these cities

were among those with the largest

number of Arabs, their proportions

Arab were relatively low (less than

1 percent).

Arabs were 30 percent 

of the population in 

Dearborn, Michigan.

Among places with 100,000 or

more population, the highest proportion of Arabs lived in Sterling

Heights, Michigan (3.7 percent).20

Additionally, relatively high percentages of Arabs also lived in

Warren and Livonia, Michigan.

However, Dearborn, Michigan,

which fell just below the 100,000

population threshold, had an Arab

population of 30 percent, by far

the largest proportion among

places of similar size. California,

(with Burbank, Glendale, and Daly

City), and New Jersey, (with Jersey

City and Paterson), also had more

than one city of 100,000 or more

population among the places with

the highest proportion Arab.

ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON

THE ARAB POPULATION

Where are the Lebanese,

Syrians, and Egyptians

concentrated?

The largest specific Arab ancestries

reported in Census 2000 were

Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian.

People reporting Lebanese ancestry

lived predominately in Michigan,

California, Massachusetts, and New

York.21 The largest groups with

Syrian ancestry were in California,

New York, Pennsylvania, and 

New Jersey.22 Those with Egyptian

ancestry lived predominately in

California, New Jersey, New York,

and Florida.23

People of Arab ancestry 

also report other non-Arab

ancestries, races, and

Hispanic origins.

The Arab population in the United

States is composed of people with

many different ethnic backgrounds.

More than one-quarter of the Arab

population (29 percent) reported

two ancestries: 28 percent reported

one Arab and one non-Arab ancestry and 1.1 percent reported two

Arab ancestries. Among Arabs who

also reported a non-Arab ancestry,

14.7 percent reported Irish, 

13.6 percent reported Italian, and

13.5 percent reported German.24

Among the 13,000 people who

reported two Arab ancestries, onehalf reported Lebanese and Syrian.

In Census 2000, the vast majority

of Arabs reported their race as

White and no other race (80 percent), or as Two or more races 

(17 percent).25 Small proportions

reported a single race of Black 

(1.1 percent), Asian (0.7 percent),

American Indian and Alaska Native

(0.07 percent), Native Hawaiian and

Other Pacific Islander (0.03 percent), or Some other race (1.0 percent). In addition, 3.2 percent of

the Arab population reported as

Hispanic (of any race).

ABOUT CENSUS 2000

Why Census 2000 asked 

about ancestry.

Ancestry data are required to

enforce provisions under the 

Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination based upon race, sex,

religion, and national origin. More

generally, these data are needed to

measure the social and economic

characteristics of ethnic groups

and to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences. 

Data about ancestry assist states

and local agencies to develop

health care and other services tailored to meet the language and cultural diversity of various groups. 

Under the Public Health Service

Act, ancestry is one of the factors

used to identify segments of the

population who may not be receiving medical services. 

Accuracy of the Estimates

The data contained in this report

are based on the sample of households who responded to the

Census 2000 long form.

Nationally, approximately 1 out of

every 6 housing units was included

in this sample. As a result, the

sample estimates may differ somewhat from the100-percent figures

that would have been obtained if

all housing units, people within

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters had been

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

8 U.S. Census Bureau

22 The size of the Syrian population in

California was not statistically different from

that of the Syrian population in New York.

Additionally, there was no statistical difference in size between the Syrian populations

in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 23 There was no statistical difference

between the size of the Egyptian populations

in New Jersey and New York. 24 Italian was not statistically different

from German as another non-Arab ancestry

reported by Arabs. 25 Census 2000 allowed respondents to

choose more than one race. In this report, a

“single race” category refers to people who

indicated exactly one racial identity among

the six primary categories: White, Black or

African American, American Indian and Alaska

Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other

Pacific Islander, and Some other race. The

“single race” or “alone” category is used for all

of the racial groups in this brief except for the

Two or more races category. The use of the

alone population in this section does not

imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. In general, either

the alone population or the alone or in combination population can be used, depending on

the purpose of the analysis. The Census

Bureau uses both approaches.

20 Census 2000 showed 245 places in

the United States with 100,000 or more population. They included 238 incorporated

places (including 4 city-county consolidations) and 7 census designated places that

were not legally incorporated. For a list of

these places by state, see www.census.gov

/population/www/cen2000/phc-t6.html. 21 The size of the Lebanese population in

Michigan was not statistically different from

that of the Lebanese population in California,

nor was there a statistical difference

between the Lebanese populations in

Massachusetts and New York.
estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained

from different samples of housing

units, and hence of people living in

those housing units, and people

living in group quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from

the average of all possible samples

is called the sampling error. 

In addition to the variability that

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

percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error

may be introduced during any of

the various complex operations

used to collect and process data.

Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every

person in the population, failing to

obtain all required information

from the respondents, obtaining

incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information

incorrectly. In addition, errors can

occur during the field review of the

enumerators’ work, during clerical

handling of the census questionnaires, or during the electronic

processing of the questionnaires.

While it is impossible to completely

eliminate error from an operation

as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau

attempts to control the sources of

such error during the data collection and processing operations.

The primary sources of error and

the programs instituted to control

error in Census 2000 are described

in detail in Summary File 3

Technical Documentation under

Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,”

located at www.census.gov/prod

/cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. 

Nonsampling error may affect the

data in two ways: (1) errors that are

introduced randomly will increase

the variability of the data and,

therefore, should be reflected in the

standard errors; and (2) errors that

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

100-percent data in that direction.

For example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their

incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by

income category will tend to be

understated for the higher income

categories and overstated for the

lower income categories. Such

biases are not reflected in the

standard errors.

All statements in this Census 2000

Brief have undergone statistical

testing and all comparisons are

significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise

noted. The estimates in tables,

maps, and other figures may vary

from actual values due to sampling

and nonsampling errors. As a

result, estimates in one category

used to summarize statistics in the

maps and figures may not be significantly different from estimates

assigned to a different category.

Further information on the accuracy of the data is located at

www.census.gov/prod/cen2000

/doc/sf3.pdf. For further information on the computation and use of

standard errors, contact the

Decennial Statistical Studies

Division at 301-763-4242.

For More Information

The Census 2000 Summary File 3

and Summary File 4 data are

available from the American

Factfinder on the Internet 

(factfinder.census.gov). They were

released on a state-by-state basis

during 2002. For information on

confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, also see www.census.gov

/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf or

contact the Customer Services

Center at 301-763-INFO (4636).

Information on population and

housing topics is presented in the

Census 2000 Brief series, located

on the Census Bureau’s Web site at

www.census.gov/population/www

/cen2000/briefs.html. This series

presents information on race,

Hispanic origin, age, sex, household type, housing tenure, and

social, economic, and housing

characteristics, such as ancestry,

income, and housing costs.

For additional information on the

Arab population, including reports

and survey data, visit the Census

Bureau’s Internet site at 

www.census.gov/population/www

/ancestry.html. To find information

about the availability of data

products, including reports, 

CD-ROMs, and DVDs, call the

Customer Services Center at 

301-763-INFO (4636), or 

e-mail webmaster@census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau 9