1

2

 For LPR data, a year refers to the fiscal year (October 1 to September 30).

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

2 Refers to the percentage of adults ages 18 and over who rated their health status 

as “good,” “very good,” or “excellent” (on a five-category scale) on a question about 

their health. Calculations exclude some outlying suburban counties because of 

missing data.

Note: All years for LPR data refer to fiscal years (October 1 to September 30). Caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions about the metropolitan areas 

based on rankings.

3 Average of all 25 metropolitan areas.

2 Metropolitan areas defined based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Core-Based 

Statistical Areas (CBSAs). Only the first city of the CBSA is shown. Complete CBSA 

names as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau are (in the order listed): PhoenixMesa-Scottsdale, AZ; Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA; Tampa-St. PetersburgClearwater, FL; Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA; 

Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; Orlando-Kissimmee, FL; Minneapolis-St. PaulBloomington, MN-WI; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Portland-Vancouver-Beaver

ton, OR-WA; Denver-Aurora, CO; Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA; Dallas-Fort 

Worth-Arlington, TX; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA; Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, 

WA; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Baltimore-Towson, MD; San DiegoCarlsbad-San Marcos, CA; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD; Washing

ton-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL; 

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI; San Francisco-OaklandFremont, CA; New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA.

-

-

1 Percent change in the LPR flow from the 1995–2000 period to 2001–2006 period.

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Office of Immigration Statistics

Policy Directorate

Fact Sheet

FeBrUary 2009

Characteristics of Major Metropolitan 

Destinations of Immigrants

JaMes lee

In recent years, a small group of major metropolitan 

areas has received most of the nation’s new immigrants. 

While cities such as New York and Los Angeles remain 

popular destinations for immigrants, some of the great

est increases in the immigrant population now occur 

in cities located in the South and West. This Office of 

Immigration Statistics Fact Sheet provides information on 

leading metropolitan destinations of immigrants ranked 

by immigrant population growth rates and selected 

economic and social indicators. 

Data

Immigration is measured by the number of persons ob

taining legal permanent resident (LPR) status. The 25 

leading metropolitan areas in total LPR flow for 2001–

2006 were selected. The immigrant population growth 

rate is defined as the percentage change in LPR flow dur

ing the 2001–2006 period compared to the previous sixyear period (1995–2000). LPR data were obtained from 

the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The economic and social indicators include the percent

age of the total population that is foreign-born, median 

household income, percentage of the population ages 

25 and over with a college degree, index crime rate (for 

seven serious offenses per 100,000 population), and 

percentage of adults in “good or better health.” Data on 

the foreign-born, income, and education in 2006 were 

obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2006 American 

Community Survey (ACS). Crime data came from Crime 

in the United States, 2006 of the Federal Bureau of In

vestigation (FBI). Estimates of health status in 2006 

were generated from data from the Behavior Risk Factor 

Surveillance System (BRFSS) of the Center for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC).

FinDings

Tables 1 and 2 list the 25 leading metropolitan destina

tions for LPRs during the 2001-2006 period and report 

table 1.

leading Metropolitan Destinations of legal Permanent

residents (lPrs): 2001–2006

(Ranked by percentage change in LPR flow from 1995–2000 

to 2001–2006)

Metropolitan area2

Percent change 

in lPr flow1

total lPr flow 

2001–2006

number rank number rank

 Average3 . . . . . . . . . . 77 X 200,814 X

Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . 177 1 80,764 17

Atlanta, GA . . . . . . . . . 126 2 115,789 12

Tampa, FL . . . . . . . . . . 123 3 59,970 20

Las Vegas, NV . . . . . . . 98 4 52,915 23

Riverside, CA . . . . . . . . 96 5 114,430 13

Boston, MA . . . . . . . . . 94 6 163,412 9

Orlando, FL . . . . . . . . . 94 7 58,206 21

Minneapolis, MN . . . . . 88 8 73,636 18

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . 86 9 194,134 7

Portland, OR . . . . . . . . 79 10 56,906 22

Denver, CO . . . . . . . . . . 78 11 51,875 24

Sacramento, CA . . . . . . 78 12 71,661 19

Dallas, TX . . . . . . . . . . 69 13 164,521 8

San Jose, CA . . . . . . . . 67 14 148,951 10

Seattle, WA . . . . . . . . . 65 15 107,332 15

Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . 65 16 757,571 2

Baltimore, MD . . . . . . . 62 17 43,151 25

San Diego, CA . . . . . . . 61 18 128,967 11

Philadelphia, PA . . . . . . 58 19 114,142 14

Washington, DC . . . . . . 56 20 261,407 5

Miami, FL . . . . . . . . . . . 47 21 469,267 3

Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . 47 22 92,270 16

Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . 44 23 297,931 4

San Francisco, CA . . . . 38 24 243,574 6

New York, NY . . . . . . . . 25 25 1,097,565 1

X Not applicable.
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

X Not applicable.

1 Rate per 100,000 population. Index crimes include four violent crimes (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) and three property crimes (burglary, larcenytheft, and motor vehicle theft).

2

3

 Adults include the population from ages 18 and up. “Good or better health” is a combination of three categories (“good,” “very good,” and “excellent”) out of a total of five which Behavior Risk Factor 

Surveillance System (BRFSS) interviewees were given to describe their own health. Percentages shown here may differ slightly from the CDC’s estimates. 

 Metropolitan areas defined based on the U.S. Census Bureau’s Core-Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs). Only the first city of the CBSA is shown. Complete CBSA names as defined by the U.S. Census 

Bureau are (in the order listed): Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ; Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA; Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL; Las Vegas-Paradise, NV; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA; BostonCambridge-Quincy, MA-NH; Orlando-Kissimmee, FL; Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI; Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX; Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton, OR-WA; Denver-Aurora, CO; Sacramento-ArdenArcade-Roseville, CA; Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA; Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA; Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA; Baltimore-Towson, MD; San Diego-CarlsbadSan Marcos, CA; Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD; Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV; Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL; Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI; Chicago-NapervilleJoliet, IL-IN-WI; San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA; New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA.

4 Average of all 25 metropolitan areas.

Note: All years for LPR data refer to fiscal years (October 1 to September 30). Caution should be exercised when drawing conclusions about the metropolitan areas based on rankings.

2 DHS Office of Immigration Statistics

selected economic and social indicators for each area. To stream

line the discussion, all comparisons highlighted below are made 

between the five metropolitan areas with the highest and lowest 

LPR growth rates. It should be noted that many of the differences 

between metropolitan areas reflect local and regional variation in 

demographics, economic conditions, and historic migration pat

terns, among other factors.

Highlights

•	 The	largest	percentage	increases	in	the	LPR	flow	occurred	in	Phoe

nix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ, Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA, Tam

pa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL, Las Vegas-Paradise, NV, and 

Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA. 

•	 The	smallest	percentage	increases	in	LPR	flow	are	found	in	New	

York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA, San Francis

co-Oakland-Fremont, CA, Chicago-Naperville-Joliet, IL-IN-WI, 

Detroit-Warren-Livonia, MI, and Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pom

pano Beach, FL.

•	 Metropolitan	areas	with	the	highest	LPR	growth	generally	did	

not have the highest household median income or proportion 

of population with a college degree. 

•	 Metropolitan	areas	with	the	lowest	LPR	growth	were	also	those	

with higher median income and a larger percentage of the pop

ulation with a college degree.

•	 On	average,	crime	rates	were	higher	in	metropolitan	areas	expe

riencing higher versus lower LPR growth.

•	 A	higher	proportion	of	residents	in	low-growth	metropolitan	

areas reported being in good or better health compared to resi

dents of high-growth areas. 

For More inForMation

Visit the Office of Immigration Statistics web page at http://www.

dhs.gov/immigrationstatistics.

table 2.

economic and social indicators in the leading Metropolitan Destinations of legal Permanent residents (lPrs): 2006

(Ranked by percentage change in LPR flow from 1995–2000 to 2001–2006)

Metropolitan area3

Percent 

foreign-born

Median household 

income (in 2006 

dollars)

Percent ages 25+ 

with college 

degree index crime rate1

Percent adults 

in good or 

better health2

total population 

(in millions)

number rank number rank number rank number rank number rank number rank

 Average4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 X 57,492 X 32 X 4,291 X 85 X 4.9 X

Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 14 51,862 21 27 20 5,388 2 83 19 4.0 13

Atlanta, GA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 18 55,552 13 33 11 NA NA 89 2 5.1 9

Tampa, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 20 43,742 25 25 23 4,934 7 81 23 2.7 18

Las Vegas, NV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8 53,536 16 20 24 5,362 3 82 21 1.8 25

Riverside, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 7 53,243 17 18 25 3,921 15 80 24 4.0 14

Boston, MA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 64,144 4 41 4 NA NA 88 7 4.5 11

Orlando, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 15 48,934 23 28 19 5,200 4 84 17 2.0 23

Minneapolis, MN . . . . . . . . . . . 9 22 62,223 5 36 5 NA NA 91 1 3.2 16

Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 9 50,250 22 27 21 4,830 8 87 9 5.5 6

Portland, OR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 21 52,480 18 32 12 3,968 14 87 11 2.1 21

Denver, CO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 19 54,994 15 36 7 4,111 13 89 3 2.4 20

Sacramento, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 13 56,953 11 30 15 4,566 9 87 10 2.1 22

Dallas, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 11 52,001 20 29 16 4,953 6 86 14 6.0 4

San Jose, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 2 80,638 1 43 2 3,034 20 88 8 1.8 24

Seattle, WA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 17 60,663 7 36 6 5,425 1 88 5 3.3 15

Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3 55,516 14 29 17 3,147 19 79 25 13.0 2

Baltimore, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 25 61,010 6 34 9 4,307 12 87 12 2.7 19

San Diego, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 6 59,591 8 33 10 3,613 16 81 22 2.9 17

Philadelphia, PA . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 23 55,593 12 31 14 3,563 17 86 13 5.8 5

Washington, DC . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 10 78,978 2 46 1 3,367 18 89 4 5.3 8

Miami, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 1 46,637 24 28 18 5,158 5 84 18 5.5 7

Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 24 52,004 19 26 22 4,351 11 85 15 4.5 10

Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 12 57,008 10 32 13 NA NA 84 16 9.5 3

San Francisco, CA . . . . . . . . . . 30 4 70,463 3 42 3 4,566 10 88 6 4.2 12

New York, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 5 59,281 9 34 8 2,343 21 83 20 18.8 1

NA Not available.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Center for Disease Control and Prevention.