U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

The Newly Arrived ForeignBorn Population of the 

United States: 2010

American Community Survey Briefs

Issued November 2011

ACSBR/10-16

By

Nathan P. Walters 

and

Edward N. Trevelyan

INTRODUCTION

Forty million foreign-born people lived in 

the United States in 2010, according to 

the American Community Survey (ACS).1

The majority (83 percent) of the foreign 

born reported entering the United States 

prior to 2005. Using 2010 ACS data on 

the period of entry of the foreign-born 

population, this report focuses on the 

“newly arrived” foreign born, defined 

here as those who came to live in the 

United States in 2005 or later.2 Seven 

million U.S. residents or 17 percent of 

the foreign-born population are classified as newly arrived in this report. 

Notable differences emerge when the 

newly arrived foreign born are compared with those who arrived prior to 

2005. For example, over half of those 

who arrived prior to 2005 were born 

in Latin America and the Caribbean, 

compared with only 48 percent of 

those who arrived in 2005 or later. The 

newly arrived were more likely than 

other foreign-born residents to live 

outside the traditional “gateway” states 

of California, New York, Texas, Florida, 

New Jersey, and Illinois—thus providing

1 The foreign-born population includes anyone 

who was not a U.S. citizen at birth, including those 

who have become U.S. citizens through naturalization. People born abroad of U.S. citizen parents are 

not included in the foreign-born population. 2 Data on the year of entry of the foreign-born 

population are derived from the question: “When did 

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

year respondents reported that they “came to live” 

is considered their “year of entry.” Respondents who 

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

were asked to report their most recent year of entry.

further evidence of increased movement to nontraditional destination 

states.3 Additional differences appear 

when the newly arrived foreign born are 

further divided into two period-of-entry 

cohorts—arrived from 2005 through 

2007 and arrived in 2008 or later.4

This report compares the foreignborn entry cohorts by population size, 

world region and country of birth, 

and geographic distribution within 

the United States. It finds several 

interesting trends that distinguish 

recent arrivals from earlier arrivals.

SIZE OF THE NEWLY ARRIVED 

FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION

Among the 40 million foreign-born residents in 2010, most (83 percent) reported 

a year of entry prior to 2005 (Table 1). 

The remaining 17 percent entered during the 6 years from 2005 to 2010. Ten 

percent of the foreign born reported 

entering the United States from 2005 

through 2007 compared with 7.5 percent 

in the 3 years beginning with 2008.

3 Audrey Singer, The Rise of New Immigrant 

Gateways, The Brookings Institution, 2004. 4 In this report the term “period-of-entry cohorts” 

refers to individuals who reported coming to live 

in the United States during specific periods of time: 

prior to 2005, 2005 through 2007, and 2008 or later. 

Note that the foreign-born population in a period of 

entry cohort represents immigrants who came to live 

in the United States during the specified time period 

and were still in the United States at the time of the 

survey. Thus, it does not include persons who subsequently died or left the United States.
2 U.S. Census Bureau

PLACE OF BIRTH OF THE 

NEWLY ARRIVED FOREIGNBORN POPULATION

The distribution of the foreign-born 

population by world region of birth 

varies considerably across entry 

cohorts. For example, 54 percent of 

the foreign born who arrived before 

2005 and 53 percent of those 

arriving from 2005 through 2007 

were born in Latin America and 

the Caribbean. However, only 41 

percent of the most recently arrived 

(2008 or later) were born in this 

region (Figure 1). The differences 

are even more apparent when an 

important Latin American subregion, Central America, is examined. 

Those born in Central America 

accounted for over one-third of the 

foreign born who arrived before 

2005 and from 2005 through 

2007 (38 percent and 39 percent, 

respectively) but only 25 percent 

of those who entered in 2008 or 

later. In contrast, the Asian foreign 

born comprised a higher proportion of the later entry cohorts: 

27 percent prior to 2005, 30 

percent from 2005 through 2007, 

and 40 percent in 2008 or later. 

Together, the foreign born from 

Latin America and the Caribbean 

and Asia accounted for over 80 

percent of the newly arrived.

The individual countries of birth 

that drive the differences in the 

regional distributions among the 

entry cohorts can be seen in Table 

2. The foreign born from Mexico 

accounted for 30 percent of the 

foreign born who entered prior 

to 2005, 28 percent for the 2005 

through 2007 period, but only 19 

percent of those who arrived in 

2008 and later. Two country-ofbirth groups from Asia—China and 

India—represented an increasing 

percentage of the newly arrived 

foreign born. Those born in China 

accounted for 5 percent of the 

foreign born who arrived before 

2005, 6 percent of those from 

2005 through 2007, and 9 percent 

of those arriving in 2008 or later. 

Similarly, the proportion of the 

foreign born from India increased 

from 4 percent of those who 

Table 1.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry: 2010

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

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

/acs/www/)

Period of entry Number

Margin of 

error1

 (+/–) Percent

Margin of 

error1 (+/–)

 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,956 115 100.0 (X)

Prior to 2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,996 103 82.6 0.2

2005 or later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,960 72 17.4 0.2

2005 to 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,961 54 9.9 0.1

2008 or later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,998 45 7.5 0.1

(X) Not applicable.

1

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

of an estimate’s variability. The larger the margin of error in relation to the size of the estimate, the less 

reliable the estimate. When added to and subtracted from the estimate, the margin of error forms the 90 

percent confidence interval.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

Figure 1. 

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry and World Region of Birth: 2010

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

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

Note: "Other regions" includes Northern America and Oceania.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

Latin America and the Caribbean

Prior to 2005

2005 to 2007

2008 or later

Other 

regions

South 

Africa Asia Europe Caribbean Central America America

3.5 26.9 12.8 9.5 37.8 6.9 2.5

6.2 30.4 8.0 7.6 38.8 6.7 2.3

6.6 40.3 9.1 9.4 25.2 6.1 3.3
U.S. Census Bureau 3

arrived before 2005, to 7 percent 

of those who arrived from 2005 

through 2007, and to 8 percent of 

those who arrived in 2008 or later. 

GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION 

OF THE NEWLY ARRIVED 

FOREIGN-BORN 

POPULATION

The number of foreign-born residents in 2010 differed considerably 

from state to state, from a high of 

10.2 million in California to fewer 

than 20,000 in North Dakota and 

Wyoming (Table 3).5 The traditional 

immigrant destination states of 

California, New York, Texas, Florida, 

New Jersey, and Illinois, each with 

over 1 million foreign-born residents, accounted for well over half 

(65 percent) of all foreign born. 

California had the largest proportion of the nation’s newly arrived 

(19 percent), followed by Texas (11 

5 The percentages for North Dakota and 

Wyoming were not statistically different from 

each other.

percent), New York (10 percent), 

and Florida (9 percent) (Figure 2). 

An additional 10 states (New Jersey, 

Illinois, Massachusetts, Georgia, 

Virginia, Washington, Maryland, 

North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and 

Arizona) accounted for between 

2 and 5 percent of the recently 

arrived foreign born.6 The remaining 36 states and the District 

of Columbia each contained 

less than 2 percent of those 

who arrived in 2005 or later. 

Although California, New York, 

Texas, Florida, New Jersey, and 

Illinois accounted for the majority 

of the newly arrived, notable differences exist between earlier and 

later arrivals. Of all foreign born 

who entered prior to 2005, about 

two-thirds (66 percent) resided in 

these six states, compared with 

58 percent of those who entered 

in 2005 and later (Figure 3). The 

difference is most clearly shown in

6 The percentage for Arizona was not 

statistically different from 2 percent.

 California, which represented 27 

percent of the foreign born who 

arrived before 2005, but only 19 

percent of the newly arrived. The 

remaining 44 states and the District 

of Columbia, however, represent a 

greater share of the newly arrived: 

43 percent of those who arrived 

in the last 6 years compared with 

34 percent of those who entered 

prior to 2005. The data indicate 

that newer immigrants may be 

choosing to reside in locations 

beyond the traditional “gateway” 

states and increasingly settling in 

states with smaller foreign-born 

populations not typically viewed 

as major immigrant destinations. 

A similar picture emerges when 

considering the proportion of the 

foreign-born population within 

each state. Of the six traditional 

gateway states, three (California, 

Illinois, and New York) had a lower 

proportion of recent entrants than 

the national average (Figure 4). 

Several states with histories of 

Table 2.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry and Country of Birth: 2010

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

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

Place of birth

Total Prior to 2005 Newly arrived foreign born, 2005 or later

Total 2005 to 2007 2008 or later

Percent

Margin 

of error1

(+/–) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(+/–) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(+/–) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(+/–) Percent

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

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

Nine largest countries of birth2 . . 57.5 0.2 57.9 0.2 55.8 0.5 58.1 0.6 52.8 0.8

China3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.4 0.1 5.1 0.1 7.1 0.3 6.0 0.3 8.6 0.4

Cuba . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.1 2.8 0.1 2.7 0.2 2.7 0.2 2.8 0.3

Dominican Republic . . . . . . . . . 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.1 2.2 0.2 1.9 0.2 2.7 0.3

El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.0 0.1 3.1 0.1 2.9 0.2 3.6 0.3 2.0 0.2

India . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 0.1 3.9 0.1 7.1 0.2 6.6 0.3 7.7 0.4

Korea4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.8 0.1 2.7 0.1 2.9 0.2 2.7 0.2 3.2 0.3

Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29.3 0.2 30.4 0.2 24.3 0.4 28.0 0.6 19.3 0.6

Philippines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 0.1 4.5 0.1 4.3 0.2 4.5 0.3 4.1 0.2

Vietnam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.1 0.1 3.3 0.1 2.2 0.2 2.2 0.2 2.4 0.3

All other countries . . . . . . . . . . . . 42.5 0.2 42.1 0.2 44.2 0.5 41.9 0.6 47.2 0.8

(X) Not applicable.

1

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

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

confidence interval.

2

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

3

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

4

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.
4 U.S. Census Bureau

Table 3.

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry by State and for Puerto Rico: 2010

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

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

Area

Total Prior to 2005 Newly arrived foreign born, 2005 or later

Total 2005 to 2007 2008 or later

Number

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

Percent of 

total

Margin 

of error1

(+/–)

 United States . . . 39,956 115 82 .6 0 .2 17 .4 0 .2 9 .9 0 .1 7 .5 0 .1

Alabama . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 7 67 .3 2 .7 32 .7 2 .7 19 .7 2 .6 13 .0 1 .8

Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 4 76 .0 3 .7 24 .0 3 .7 14 .2 3 .5 9 .8 2 .6

Arizona . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 857 18 84 .1 1 .1 15 .9 1 .1 8 .3 0 .8 7 .6 0 .8

Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 6 76 .0 2 .9 24 .0 2 .9 12 .9 2 .3 11 .1 2 .5

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,150 60 86 .7 0 .3 13 .3 0 .3 8 .2 0 .2 5 .1 0 .2

Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497 14 81 .5 1 .3 18 .5 1 .3 10 .3 0 .9 8 .2 1 .0

Connecticut . . . . . . . . . . . . 487 14 81 .5 1 .5 18 .5 1 .5 11 .3 1 .0 7 .1 1 .0

Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 4 79 .9 3 .7 20 .1 3 .7 11 .9 3 .2 8 .2 2 .3

District of Columbia . . . . . . 82 4 74 .0 3 .2 26 .0 3 .2 13 .8 2 .4 12 .1 2 .2

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,658 37 83 .0 0 .5 17 .0 0 .5 9 .5 0 .5 7 .6 0 .4

Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 15 79 .5 1 .1 20 .5 1 .1 11 .8 0 .9 8 .8 0 .7

Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 13 82 .6 1 .9 17 .4 1 .9 8 .9 1 .7 8 .5 1 .4

Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 5 83 .5 2 .9 16 .5 2 .9 9 .5 2 .3 7 .0 1 .7

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,760 22 84 .6 0 .6 15 .4 0 .6 8 .8 0 .5 6 .6 0 .5

Indiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301 10 73 .2 1 .5 26 .8 1 .5 13 .5 1 .2 13 .3 1 .5

Iowa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 7 74 .6 2 .6 25 .4 2 .6 13 .2 2 .1 12 .1 1 .9

Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 8 77 .9 2 .5 22 .1 2 .5 10 .9 1 .6 11 .2 2 .0

Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 7 71 .0 2 .8 29 .0 2 .8 16 .1 2 .2 12 .9 2 .2

Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 7 70 .3 2 .6 29 .7 2 .6 16 .1 1 .9 13 .6 1 .9

Maine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3 81 .1 3 .3 18 .9 3 .3 12 .8 3 .0 6 .1 1 .7

Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 804 15 78 .7 1 .3 21 .3 1 .3 11 .7 0 .9 9 .5 0 .9

Massachusetts . . . . . . . . . . 984 18 79 .5 1 .0 20 .5 1 .0 10 .7 0 .6 9 .8 0 .8

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 588 13 78 .9 1 .4 21 .1 1 .4 9 .6 0 .9 11 .5 1 .0

Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . . . . 378 9 75 .5 1 .5 24 .5 1 .5 14 .0 1 .3 10 .5 1 .1

Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 4 68 .3 4 .0 31 .7 4 .0 21 .1 3 .8 10 .6 2 .4

Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 9 76 .1 1 .9 23 .9 1 .9 12 .4 1 .6 11 .5 1 .6

Montana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3 75 .3 4 .7 24 .7 4 .7 11 .9 3 .6 12 .9 3 .7

Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 6 79 .2 2 .2 20 .8 2 .2 12 .1 1 .8 8 .7 1 .7

Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 10 85 .6 1 .3 14 .4 1 .3 9 .7 1 .2 4 .8 0 .9

New Hampshire . . . . . . . . . 70 5 82 .0 2 .9 18 .0 2 .9 7 .5 1 .9 10 .6 2 .5

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,845 19 83 .1 0 .7 16 .9 0 .7 9 .7 0 .5 7 .2 0 .5

New Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . 205 10 85 .4 1 .8 14 .6 1 .8 7 .5 1 .3 7 .1 1 .3

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,298 33 83 .9 0 .5 16 .1 0 .5 8 .5 0 .3 7 .6 0 .3

North Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 719 14 76 .9 1 .3 23 .1 1 .3 14 .2 1 .0 8 .9 0 .9

North Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2 66 .9 7 .1 33 .1 7 .1 11 .0 6 .5 22 .2 4 .7

Ohio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 11 76 .4 1 .5 23 .6 1 .5 13 .0 1 .3 10 .6 1 .0

Oklahoma . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206 7 76 .3 1 .9 23 .7 1 .9 12 .4 1 .4 11 .3 1 .7

Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 10 82 .8 1 .6 17 .2 1 .6 10 .6 1 .3 6 .7 1 .0

Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . . . . 739 15 78 .6 1 .3 21 .4 1 .3 11 .6 1 .0 9 .8 0 .8

Rhode Island . . . . . . . . . . . 134 6 80 .5 2 .6 19 .5 2 .6 8 .7 1 .5 10 .9 2 .6

South Carolina . . . . . . . . . . 218 7 74 .1 2 .2 25 .9 2 .2 16 .6 1 .9 9 .4 1 .4

South Dakota . . . . . . . . . . . 22 3 67 .9 8 .1 32 .1 8 .1 13 .0 4 .6 19 .1 4 .8

Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289 10 74 .5 1 .9 25 .5 1 .9 15 .5 1 .7 10 .0 1 .3

Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,142 39 81 .9 0 .5 18 .1 0 .5 10 .4 0 .3 7 .7 0 .3

Utah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223 8 81 .6 1 .9 18 .4 1 .9 11 .4 1 .5 7 .0 1 .1

Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 2 79 .9 5 .0 20 .1 5 .0 6 .6 2 .2 13 .4 5 .0

Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 911 16 80 .0 1 .0 20 .0 1 .0 12 .3 0 .9 7 .7 0 .7

Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . 886 14 79 .8 1 .2 20 .2 1 .2 10 .8 0 .9 9 .3 1 .0

West Virginia . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3 72 .3 6 .2 27 .7 6 .2 13 .5 3 .6 14 .1 4 .9

Wisconsin . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 8 80 .7 1 .6 19 .3 1 .6 11 .1 1 .3 8 .2 1 .0

Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2 66 .3 9 .9 33 .7 9 .9 13 .1 6 .0 20 .6 9 .3

Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 7 83 .7 2 .2 16 .3 2 .2 8 .9 1 .5 7 .5 1 .4

1

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

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

confidence interval .

Sources: U .S . Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey, 2010 Puerto Rico Community Survey .
U.S. Census Bureau 5

Figure 2.

Distribution of the U.S. Foreign-Born Population That Entered 

the United States in 2005 or Later: 2010

Percentage

5.0 or more

2.0 to 4.9

1.0 to 1.9

0.5 to 0.9

Less than 0.5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA 

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

NJ 

HI

VT NH

DC 

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

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

Figure 3. 

Foreign-Born Population by Period of Entry and State: 2010

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

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

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

2005 or later

Prior to 2005

Illinois All other states New 

California New York Texas Florida Jersey

26.7 10.9 10.3 9.2 4.6 4.5 33.8

19.4 10.0 10.8 8.9 4.5 3.9 42.5
6 U.S. Census Bureau

lighter immigration had considerably higher proportions of recent 

entrants. Alabama (33 percent), 

Kentucky (29 percent), Louisiana 

(30 percent), Mississippi (32 

percent), North Dakota (33 percent), South Dakota (32 percent), 

West Virginia (28 percent), and 

Wyoming (34 percent) had among 

the largest proportions of their 

foreign-born population entering 

in 2005 or later.7 An additional 

four states, Indiana, Iowa, South 

Carolina, and Tennessee, along 

with the District of Columbia had 

25 percent or more of their 

7 The percentages for Alabama, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Mississippi, North Dakota, South 

Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming were not 

statistically different from each other.

foreign born entering in the 6-year 

period from 2005 to 2010.8

8 The percentages for Alaska, Arizona, 

Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Oklahoma, and Vermont were not statistically 

different from 25 percent.

Also noteworthy is the higher 

proportion of the foreign born of 

several less populous states that 

entered in the past 3 years (2008 

or later) compared with the prior 3 

years (2005 through 2007). Three 

Figure 4.

Percent of the State Foreign-Born Population That Entered 

the United States in 2005 or Later: 2010

United States = 17.4

Percentage

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2010 American Community Survey.

MT

AK

NM

OR MN

KS

SD

ND

MO

WA

FL

IL IN

WI NY

PA

MI

OH

IA

ME

MA 

CT 

AZ

NV

TX

CA CO

WY

UT

ID

NE

OK

GA

AR

AL

NC

MS

LA

TN

KY

VA

SC

WV

RI 

DE 

MD 

NJ 

HI

VT NH

DC 

25.0 or more

20.0 to 24.9

17.5 to 19.9

15.0 to 17.4

Less than 15.0

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

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

WHAT IS THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY?

The American Community Survey (ACS) is a nationwide survey designed 

to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, social, 

economic, and housing data for the nation, states, congressional 

districts, counties, places, and other localities every year. It has an 

annual sample size of about 3 million addresses across the United 

States and Puerto Rico and includes both housing units and group 

quarters (e.g., nursing facilities and prisons). The ACS is conducted 

in every county throughout the nation, and every municipio in Puerto 

Rico, where it is called the Puerto Rico Community Survey. Beginning 

in 2006, ACS data for 2005 were released for geographic areas 

with populations of 65,000 and greater. For information on the ACS 

sample design and other topics, visit <www.census.gov/acs/www>. 
U.S. Census Bureau 7

states (Michigan, North Dakota, 

and Vermont) had a larger proportion of their foreign born entering in 2008 or later than between 

2005 and 2007 (Table 3).9 While 

these states represent a small 

proportion of the total foreignborn population, they illustrate the 

widening geographic distribution 

of the foreign born, particularly 

among more recent entrants.

9 The percentages for Michigan and North 

Dakota or for North Dakota and Vermont were 

not statistically different.

SOURCE AND ACCURACY

Data presented in this report are 

based on people and households 

that responded to the ACS in 2010. 

The resulting estimates are representative of the entire population. 

All comparisons presented in this 

report have taken sampling error 

into account and are significant 

at the 90 percent confidence level 

unless otherwise noted. Due to 

rounding, some details may not 

sum to totals. For information on 

sampling and estimation methods, 

confidentiality protection, and 

sampling and nonsampling errors, 

please see the “2010 ACS Accuracy 

of the Data” document located at 

<www.census.gov/acs

/www/Downloads/data

_documentation/Accuracy/ACS

_Accuracy_of_Data_2010.pdf>.