The U.S. Foreign-Born Population:
Trends and Selected Characteristics
William A. Kandel
Analyst in Immigration Policy
January 18, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41592
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Summary
This report offers context for consideration of immigration policy options by presenting data on
key geographic, demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the foreign-born population
residing in the United States. Interest in the U.S. foreign-born population stems in part from the
changing demographic profile of the United States as well as the rapidity of such change, and
how both of these trends correspond to U.S. immigration policy. Although the foreign born are
relatively small in absolute terms—38 million people representing 12.5% of the total U.S.
population of 304.1 million in 2008—they are growing far more rapidly than the native-born
population. Between 2000 and 2008, the foreign born contributed 30% of the total U.S.
population increase and almost all of the prime 25-54 working age group increase. Close to 30%
of the foreign born arrived in the United States since 2000, and roughly 29% were residing
illegally in the United States in 2009.
Geographic origins of the foreign born have shifted from Europe (74% in 1960) to Latin America
and Asia (80% in 2008). In recent years, many foreign born have settled in new urban and rural
destinations, often in response to employment opportunities in construction, manufacturing, and
low-skilled services. Yet, as in previous decades, at least two-thirds of the foreign born remain
concentrated in just six states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.
Several measures of marital status and household structure show little difference between the
native born and foreign born. The foreign born have lower average educational attainment, but
the proportion with at least a bachelor’s degree matches that of the native born.
In 2008, the foreign born accounted for 15.7% of all workers, with higher labor force
participation rates among men and lower rates among women compared to native-born workers.
With exceptions, native- and foreign-born workers generally resemble each other in their
distribution across broad industrial and occupational sectors. Among specific occupations,
however, glaring differences occur, with native-born workers dominating occupations such as
construction inspectors and librarians, and foreign-born workers dominating occupations such as
agricultural laborers and tailors.
Lower education levels and differences in industrial sector and occupational distributions explain
in part why foreign-born workers have lower median incomes and higher poverty rates than
native-born workers. Earnings differences are minimal for those with a four-year college degree.
Among the foreign born, median incomes of naturalized citizens are 60% higher than those of
noncitizens, reflecting higher education levels, older ages, and greater U.S. labor market
experience. Poverty status is linked to the lack of citizenship, a difference that is magnified after
including the “near-poor,” who earn between 100% and 200% of the poverty threshold.
Although foreign-born population growth and transformation often occur because of factors
beyond the control of Congress—including political turmoil and natural disasters in neighboring
countries and social and economic processes of globalization—the way that Congress crafts
immigration law does influence the size and character of resulting immigration flows to the
United States.

Congressional Research Service

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Contents
Why Examine the Foreign Born? ................................................................................................ 1
Foreign-Born Population Growth in Historical Context ......................................................... 3
Foreign Origins and U.S. Destinations......................................................................................... 3
Region of Birth ..................................................................................................................... 4
Country of Birth.................................................................................................................... 5
Geographic Distribution in the United States ......................................................................... 6
Period of Arrival ................................................................................................................... 8
Legal Status of the Foreign Born ................................................................................................. 8
Unauthorized Foreign Born................................................................................................... 9
Legal Residents................................................................................................................... 11
Naturalized Citizens ............................................................................................................ 11
Demographic Characteristics..................................................................................................... 13
Age Composition ................................................................................................................ 13
Household and Family Structure and Size ........................................................................... 16
Education and Skills.................................................................................................................. 17
Educational Attainment ....................................................................................................... 17
English Language Ability.................................................................................................... 20
Employment ............................................................................................................................. 21
Labor Force Participation.................................................................................................... 21
Employment by Industrial Sector ........................................................................................ 23
Occupational distribution .................................................................................................... 24
Economic Well-Being ............................................................................................................... 26
Median Income ................................................................................................................... 26
Poverty ............................................................................................................................... 27
Concluding Observations .......................................................................................................... 28

Figures
Figure 1. Total U.S. and Total Foreign-Born Population Sizes, 1850-2008 ................................... 2
Figure 2. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth, 1960 to 2008 .......................................... 5
Figure 3. Foreign-Born Population Growth Between 1990 and 2008 ........................................... 7
Figure 4. Foreign-Born Period of Arrival by Citizenship Status, 2008.......................................... 8
Figure 5. Immigration Status of the Foreign-Born Population, 2009............................................. 9
Figure 6. Published Estimates of the Unauthorized Population, 1986-2009 ................................ 10
Figure 7. Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status, 1970-2008 ........................................ 12
Figure 8. Age Composition of Native-Born and Foreign-Born Populations, 2008....................... 14
Figure 9. Household Structure by Nativity, 2008 ....................................................................... 16
Figure 10. Household Size by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008.................................................... 17
Figure 11. Educational Attainment by Nativity, Citizenship Status, and Period of Arrival,
2008 ...................................................................................................................................... 18
Congressional Research Service

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 12. Educational Attainment of Foreign Born by Birth Region, 2008................................ 19
Figure 13. Poverty Status by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008...................................................... 27

Tables
Table 1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth, 1960 to 2008............................................ 4
Table 2. Ten Leading Countries of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population, 1960-2008 ................. 6
Table 3. Foreign-Born Citizenship Status by Selected Characteristics, 2008............................... 12
Table 4. Parental Nativity of Children Under Age 18, 2008........................................................ 14
Table 5. Contributions to U.S. Population Change, 2000-2008, by Nativity and Age.................. 15
Table 6. English Language Proficiency by Socio-demographic Characteristics, 2008................. 20
Table 7. Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) by Sex, Nativity, and Citizenship Status,
2008 ...................................................................................................................................... 22
Table 8. Industrial Sector Employment by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008 ................................. 23
Table 9. Occupational Distribution by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008........................................ 24
Table 10. Sex and Nativity Composition of Selected Occupations, 2008 .................................... 25
Table 11. Median Income by Nativity, Education, and Citizenship, 2008 ................................... 26
Table 12. Foreign-Born Poverty Rates by Socio-demographic Characteristics, 2008 .................. 28
Table A-1. Selected State-Level Characteristics, 2008 ............................................................... 31
Table A-2. Labor Force Participation, Foreign Born, by Gender................................................. 33
Table A-3. Proportion of Naturalized Foreign-Born Population by Region of Origin and
Decade of Arrival to the United States.................................................................................... 34

Appendixes
Appendix. ................................................................................................................................. 30

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 34

Congressional Research Service

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Why Examine the Foreign Born?
This report offers context for consideration of immigration policy options by presenting data on
key geographic, demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the foreign-born population
residing in the United States. Data on the native-born population are often shown for comparison.
The report relies heavily on the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Micro
Sample (PUMS), the largest most representative and recent dataset available on the U.S.
population.1 In some instances, other data sources, such as Decennial Census and Current
Population Survey data are introduced. At times, the report discusses possible reasons for patterns
observed in the data.
The term “foreign-born” used in this report refers to people born outside the United States who do
not automatically acquire citizenship at birth. The foreign born have a variety of immigration
statuses and include immigrants,2 refugees, nonimmigrants,3 and persons illegally residing in the
United States.4 This report often distinguishes between two groups of foreign-born individuals:
noncitizens (a broad category that includes unauthorized aliens as well as legal permanent
residents) and naturalized U.S. citizens.
Interest in the U.S. foreign born stems, in part, from the changing demographic profile of the U.S.
population, the rapidity of such change, and how both trends correspond to the objectives of U.S.
immigration policy.5 Although relatively small in absolute terms, the foreign born are growing
faster than the native-born population generally and specifically among young people and the
civilian labor force.6 Moreover, much policy attention is devoted to dealing with the estimated
11.1 million foreign born (as of 2009) residing illegally in the United States.7
In 1970, the foreign born numbered 9.7 million people, or 4.8% of the total U.S. population, their
lowest proportion since 1850.8 By 2008, the foreign-born population had increased to 38.0
million people representing 12.5% of the total U.S. population (see Figure 1). Although the
absolute number of foreign born is higher than at any point in the nation’s history, the proportion
of the foreign born to the total U.S. population is lower than peaks reached at the beginning of the
20th Century.

1 U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) Technical Documentation,
2010, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/data_documentation/pums_documentation/.
2 The term immigrant refers to any foreign national admitted to the United States for lawful permanent residence.
Those who obtain citizenship through naturalization are classified as naturalized citizens, and all others are classified as
noncitizens.
3 Nonimmigrants refers to foreign nationals admitted on a temporary basis and include tourists, diplomats, foreign
students, persons on work visas, temporary agricultural workers, and exchange visitors.
4 The foreign-born population is not the same as the “foreign stock” which includes both the foreign born as well as
native-born children of foreign-born parents.
5 For more extensive discussion on U.S. demographic composition, see CRS Report RL32701, The Changing
Demographic Profile of the United States, by Laura B. Shrestha and Elayne J. Heisler.
6 For more information, see CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Native-
Born Workers, by Linda Levine.
7 For more information, see CRS Report R41207, Unauthorized Aliens in the United States, by Andorra Bruno.
8 U.S. census data on the foreign born prior to 1850 are not available.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 1. Total U.S. and Total Foreign-Born Population Sizes, 1850-2008
350
16%
14.4%
14.7%
14.7%
13.6%
13.2%
13.3%
13.2%
.4
304.1
14%
300
281
11.6%
11.1%
12%
5
248.7
250
n
9.7%
3
226.
bor
8.8%
10%
203.
sons
0
0
2
ign-
179.3
7.9%
Per
re
.3
8%
o
s of
F
151
n
6.2%
150
tion
llio
131.7
6.8%
.7
122.8
6%
or
Mi
p
105
5.4%
ro
P
.3
92.0
100
4.8%
0
76
4%
63.
0
4
50.2
5
2
38.6
.1
38.0
31.
31
2%
23.
.1
7
19.8
9.2
10.3
13.5
13.9
14.2
11.6
10.3
9.7
9.7
14
2.2
4.1
5.6
6.
0
0%
1850 1860 1870 1880 1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008
Total U.S. Population
Foreign-born Population
Proportion Foreign-born

Source: US Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1949 Historical Statistics of the United States,
1789-1945, Series B 182-194 (1850-1890); 1960 Statistical Abstract, Population Section, Table 29 (1900-1950);
2000 Statistical Abstract, Population Section, Table 46 (1960-1990); 2003 Statistical Abstract, Population Section,
Table 48 (2000); American Factfinder, 2008 ACS data (2008).
Note: The foreign-born proportion of 12.5% for 2008 is not shown in Figure 1 because it represents an
incomplete decade that is not visually compatible with proportions for other decades shown.
This report presents information on the foreign-born population that is relevant to several
prominent immigration policy issues, including the unauthorized alien population; proposed
revisions to current immigration policies; the skill and educational composition of new
immigrants; and the impact of foreign-born workers on the U.S. economy.9 Using the 2008 ACS
PUMS, the report describe characteristics of the foreign-born that relate directly to these
immigration policy issues. It begins by placing the current foreign-born population in historical
context. It then describes from what regions of the world the foreign born originate, where they
settle in the United States, and how these foreign origins and U.S. destinations have changed over
the past five decades. Because legal status is central to immigration policy, the report discusses
the unauthorized population and naturalization trends and often breaks out descriptive statistics
by citizenship status throughout the text. The report describes several critical determinants of
labor market outcomes, including age, educational attainment, and English language ability, and
then compares the industrial sector and occupational distribution of the foreign born with the
native born. Finally, the report presents several measures of economic well-being, including
median income and poverty.

9 For information on several of these topics, see CRS Report R41207, Unauthorized Aliens in the United States, by
Andorra Bruno; CRS Report R40848, Immigration Legislation and Issues in the 111th Congress, coordinated by
Andorra Bruno; and CRS Report RL33977, Immigration of Foreign Workers: Labor Market Tests and Protections, by
Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Foreign-Born Population Growth in Historical Context
In 2008, the nation’s 38.0 million foreign-born persons represented 12.5% of the total U.S.
population (Figure 1). While this proportion remains lower than those reached during the turn of
the last century, Figure 1 illustrates that the proportion of the foreign-born population has
increased steadily since 1970. Moreover, the foreign-born contribution to total population growth
in recent years—30.3% between 2000 and 2008—has been disproportionate compared to its size.
The relatively high foreign-born proportion between 1860 and 1920 resulted from several factors,
including the U.S. industrial revolution, which generated substantial labor demand; political and
economic turmoil throughout Europe during the latter 19th Century; and the expansion of
affordable transatlantic travel.10 In response to these historically high immigration flows,
Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1924, which limited, by country, the number of new
immigrants to a proportion of those already living in the United States and reduced immigration
levels overall.11 The Great Depression reduced the foreign-born population by curtailing U.S.
labor demand and worldwide migration flows.12
Foreign Origins and U.S. Destinations
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 collected and codified existing immigration
law provisions into one organized structure.13 Amended many times, it remains the foundation of
U.S. immigration law. The 1952 Act introduced a system of preferences based on family
reunification and skills that upheld and reinforced the national origins quota system established in
1924.14 In 1965, Congress amended the INA, removing widely perceived discriminatory
provisions of previous immigration laws and loosening numerical restrictions on immigration.
The 1965 revisions to the INA also had the effect of gradually shifting the ethnic composition of
the immigrant flow away from Europe and toward Latin America and Asia.15 Subsequent
legislation—such as the Refugee Act of 198016; the Immigration Reform and Control Act of
198617, which legalized the status of 2.7 million previously unauthorized residents; and the
Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 199018—have all increased the number of the
foreign born directly by expanding legal immigration to the United States. These laws have also
increased the numbers of foreign born indirectly because naturalized immigrants and legal
permanent residents can sponsor for citizenship their relatives living abroad.19

10 Aristide R. Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America (Russell Sage
Foundation and Harvard University Press, 2006), pp. 166-242.
11 Ibid, pp. 243-292.
12 Ibid.
13 P.L. 82-414, 182 Stat. 66, also known as the McCarran-Walter Act of 1952.
14 For more information, refer to the Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs, Milestones: 1945-1952: The
Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (The McCarran-Walter Act), U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC,
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/ImmigrationAct.
15 Ibid, p. 337.
16 P.L. 96-212. For more information and an example, see CRS Report RS20154, Kosovo: Refugee Assistance and
Temporary Resettlement, by Lois B. McHugh and Joyce C. Vialet.
17 P.L. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (Nov. 6, 1986).
18 P.L. 101-649, 104 Stat. 4978 (Nov. 29, 1990).
19 Current U.S. immigration policy permits U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to petition on behalf of relatives
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Legislation aside, the U.S. foreign born also expanded from the aftermath of the Vietnam War,
Central American political turmoil, greater numbers of U.S.-based foreign-born students and
business people, and greater U.S. citizen contact with foreign nationals from international travel,
study, and work assignments.
Region of Birth
Origin countries of the foreign born have changed since 1960 in ways that have increased U.S.
population diversity. The absolute number of foreign born by region of birth (Table 1) and the
percent distribution of the total foreign-born population by region (Figure 2) illustrate these
trends. The proportion of all foreign-born persons originating from Europe declined from 74% in
1960 to 13% by 2008. Over the same period, fivefold increases occurred in the proportion from
Latin America (9% to 53%) and Asia (5% to 27%). Proportions from other areas, including
Canada, increased and then dropped over this period, although absolute numbers from these areas
have increased steadily.
Table 1. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth, 1960 to 2008
(Millions of persons)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008
Other
Areas
1.1 1.2 2.1 2.1 1.8 2.5
Europe
7.3 5.7 5.1 4.4 4.9 5.0
Asia 0.5
0.8
2.5
5.0
8.2
10.3
Latin
America
0.9 1.8 4.4 8.4 16.1 20.2
Total
9.8 9.5 14.1 19.9 31.1 38.0
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, 2001, p.11; and CRS
presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Note: Differences between totals in Table 1 and Figure 1 are due to rounding.

(...continued)
living abroad according to a set of preferences. The largest number of beneficiaries consist of immediate family
members of petitioners (spouses, minor children, and parents for petitioners ages 21 and older) who face no numerical
restrictions. Relatives of petitioners who fall into other family-based preference categories face total annual numerical
quotas. For instance, in 2009, of the 747,413 persons who obtained legal permanent residence within family-based
provisions of U.S. immigration policy, 535,554 persons, or 72% did so as immediate family members of U.S. citizens
and LPRs. For more information on family-based preference admissions, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration
Policy on Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 2. Foreign-Born Population by Region of Birth, 1960 to 2008
(Percent distribution)
9%
19%
5%
31%
8%
42%
Latin America
52%
53%
Asia
Europe
18%
Other Areas
74%
25%
60%
36%
26%
27%
22%
16%
13%
13%
15%
11%
11%
6%
7%
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, 2001, p.11, and CRS
presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Country of Birth
The shift in the origins of the foreign born becomes more vivid when examining specific
countries. In 1960, European nations represented eight of the top 10 origin countries for the
foreign born (Table 2). By 1990, that figure had dropped to three countries, and by 2008, no
European country ranked among the top 10 origin countries. In contrast, in 1960 only one country
from either Latin America or Asia ranked among the top 10 origin countries (Mexico), but by
2008 that figure had increased to nine.
Trends on the top 10 origin countries for the foreign-born population reflect not only foreign-born
composition but also immigrant diversity, a central principle governing legal immigration policy
and the rationale for the Diversity Visa Lottery, which admits 55,000 persons annually from
countries sending relatively few immigrants.20

20 CRS Report RS21342, Immigration: Diversity Visa Lottery, by Ruth Ellen Wasem and Karma Ester.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Table 2. Ten Leading Countries of Birth for the Foreign-Born Population, 1960-2008
Rank
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2008
1
Italy
Italy
Mexico Mexico Mexico Mexico
2
Germany Germany Germany China
China
China
3
Canada Canada Canada Philippines
Philippines
Philippines
4 U.K.
Mexico
Italy
Canada
India
India
5
Poland
U.K. U.K. Cuba Cuba Vietnam
6
Soviet Union
Poland
Cuba
Germany
Vietnam
El Salvador
7
Mexico
Soviet Union
Philippines
U.K.
El Salvador
Korea
8 Ireland
Cuba
Poland
Italy
Korea
Cuba
9 Austria
Ireland
Soviet
Union Korea
D.R.
Canada
10 Hungary
Austria
Korea
Vietnam
Canada
D.R.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, 2001, p.13; and CRS
presentation of 2008 American Community Survey Public Use Micro Sample (PUMS) data.
Note: For 1990, 2000, and 2008, China includes Taiwan and Hong Kong. U.K. and D.R. refer to the United
Kingdom and the Dominican Republic, respectively.
Geographic Distribution in the United States
The geography of foreign-born population settlement in the United States can be divided between
the “stock” of the existing population and the “flow” of the recently arrived foreign born. The
latter had previously become especially visible during the past two decades in U.S. regions, cities,
and rural areas that have not experienced recent foreign-born population growth, prompting some
states and localities to pass or consider ordinances addressing immigration-related policy issues.21
As in previous decades, the foreign born continue to be concentrated in the nation’s most
populous states (Table A-1). Six states—California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New
Jersey—accounted for 73%, 68%, and 66% of the entire foreign-born population in 1990, 2000,
and 2008, respectively. Nationally, a much smaller proportion of the foreign born (7.8%) are
concentrated in rural areas compared to the native born (25.4%).22
The declining proportion of foreign born living in the most populous six states reflects greater
population dispersion to what are referred to as “new immigrant destinations” in urban and rural
areas.23 The extent of this geographic shift can be seen in Figure 3, which displays foreign-born

21 For more information, see CRS Report RL32270, Enforcing Immigration Law: The Role of State and Local Law
Enforcement, by Lisa M. Seghetti, Karma Ester, and Michael John Garcia.
22 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey. This categorization is based on Census Bureau definitions
of urban (places with populations exceeding 2,500) versus rural rather than the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) county-level definition of metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan.
23 See Roberto Suro and Audrey Singer, “Latino Growth in Metropolitan America: Changing Patterns, New Locations,”
Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, The Brookings Institution and The Pew Hispanic Center, Washington DC,
2004; William Kandel and John Cromartie, “New Patterns of Hispanic Settlement in Rural America,” Economic
Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, RDRR 99, Washington, DC, 2004; Victor Zúñiga and Rubén
Hernández-León (editors), New Destinations: Mexican Immigration in the United States, Russell Sage Foundation,
New York, 2005; and Douglas S. Massey (editor), New Faces in New Places: The Changing Geography of American
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

population growth for all states between 1990 and 2008. Notably, 13 of the 15 states with the
highest foreign-born population growth rates are located in the South and Mountain West,24 two
areas that as recently as 1960 contained 12.5% of the total foreign-born population, a figure that
had increased to 37.2% by 2008. States with the lowest foreign-born population growth during
this period were concentrated in the Northeast and the northern Great Plains.
Figure 3. Foreign-Born Population Growth Between 1990 and 2008

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey and 1990 Decennial Census data.
Moreover, many of these same states experienced total population growth that exceeded the
national average of 7.0% (Table A-1). The correspondence between foreign-born and total
population growth during this period often resulted from, among other factors, growing labor
demand in the construction and low-skilled service sectors.25 Outside of the more established

(...continued)
Immigration, Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 2008.
24 The South Region includes the South Atlantic, East South Central, and West South Central Divisions and is
comprised of Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Virginia, West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas. The
Mountain West Division includes Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, and Nevada.
25For an elaboration of the causes and consequences of recent foreign-born population growth, see New Faces in New
Places: The Changing Geography of American Immigration, ed. Douglas S. Massey (Russell Sage Foundation, 2008).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

destination states of Texas and Florida, foreign-born population growth in the South and
Mountain West represents a considerable demographic shift.
Figure 4. Foreign-Born Period of Arrival by Citizenship Status, 2008
Before 1950
1950-59
1960-69
1970-79
1980-89
1990-99
2000-08
5%
46.
1%
7%
5%
7%
31.
28.
29.
%
27.
.5
25
0%
5%
20.
19.
2%
%
4%
4
14.
11.
11.
1%
1%
0%
6.
6.
7.
2%
0%
8%
5.
3%
3.
2.
1%
7%
1.
2%
2.
0.
0.
All Foreign-born
Naturalized Citizen Foreign-born
Noncitizen Foreign-born

Source: CRS Presentation of 2008 American Community Survey PUMS data.
Period of Arrival
Period of arrival data (Figure 4) reflect the large and recent increase in the foreign-born
population. In 2008, almost 30% of all foreign-born persons in the United States had arrived since
2000, and more than 58% since 1990. Greater proportions of noncitizens than naturalized citizens
arrived this past decade, mirroring to some extent the time required to attain citizenship.26
Legal Status of the Foreign Born
Legal status of the foreign born has received increased attention with the growing estimated size
of the unauthorized population, the geographic dispersion of the foreign born to new U.S.
destinations, and increased border security concerns. Legal status of the foreign born
encompasses three broad groups: unauthorized aliens, legal noncitizens (which includes legal
permanent and legal temporary residents), and naturalized citizens that are described below.27

26 Typically, five years of U.S. residence is required after receiving legal permanent residence. For more information,
see CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and Naturalization Fundamentals, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
27 The ACS, the decennial census, and other datasets used herein capture citizenship status but not unauthorized status
among noncitizens, Consequently, this report distinguishes only between naturalized citizens and noncitizens when
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 5. Immigration Status of the Foreign-Born Population, 2009
Legal
Permanent
Residents
Naturalized
31.4%
citizens
37.0%
Legal
Temporary
Residents
3.5%
Unauthorized
Residents
28.1%

Source: Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn. “U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-
Decade,” Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, September 1, 2010.
Note: Figures are imputed by the Pew Hispanic Center, which estimates the unauthorized alien population using
the “residual method,” a widely used demographic technique based on official government data, notably the
March Supplements to the Current Population Survey (CPS).
According to the most recent estimates of foreign-born legal status (Figure 5), unauthorized
aliens, legal residents (permanent and temporary) and naturalized citizens made up, respectively,
28.1%, 34.9% and 37.0% of the foreign-born population. Applied to the total estimated foreign-
born population of 38.0 million persons in 2008, these percentages yield absolute population sizes
of 10.7 million for unauthorized aliens, 13.3 million for legal residents, and 14.0 million for
naturalized citizens.
Unauthorized Foreign Born28
Unauthorized aliens are part of the noncitizen foreign-born population captured by the American
Community Survey. However, surveys of the population such as the ACS, the CPS and other
nationally representative datasets are only permitted to record if respondents are citizens, but not
if they are unauthorized aliens. Therefore, policymakers typically rely on estimates produced by

(...continued)
presenting descriptive statistics.
28 For an extended discussion of the unauthorized population, see CRS Report R41207, Unauthorized Aliens in the
United States, by Andorra Bruno and Jeffrey S. Passel and Paul Taylor, Unauthorized Immigrants and Their U.S.-Born
Children, Pew Hispanic Center, Washington, DC, August 11, 2010, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/125.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

government agencies and private organizations to have a sense of how many unauthorized
noncitizens live in the United States. In 2009, the unauthorized population was estimated at
roughly 11 million persons (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Published Estimates of the Unauthorized Population, 1986-2009
Millions
14
12
.6
.8
.6
11
11
11
8
5
10
.3
10.
10.
4
9.8
10
9.
9.3
8
4
8.
6
8
5.
4
4
3.5
3.2
3.
2
9
1.
0
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
98
98
98
98
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Source: CRS presentation of estimates produced by Woodrow and Passel (1990) for 1986 and 1988; Warren
(2000) for 1992; Warren (2003) for 1990 and 1996; Passel, Capps, and Fix (2004) for 2002; Passel and Cohn
(2008) for 2000, 2001, 2003, 2004; Hoefer, Rytina, and Campbel (2006, 2007), respectively, for 2005 and 2006;
and Hoefer, Rytina, and Baker (2008, 2009, 2010), respectively, for 2007, 2008, and 2009.
Note: Estimates presented before 2003 are based on the Current Population Survey data, and those from 2003
forward are based on the American Community Survey data.
Estimates of the unauthorized population in Figure 6 are shown from 1986, the year Congress
passed the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which legalized 2.7 million
unauthorized aliens, through the most recent year for which reliable estimates are available
(2009).29 Some attribute declining incoming flows and estimated unauthorized population sizes

29 Karen Woodrow and Jeffrey Passel, “Post-IRCA Undocumented Immigration to the United States: An Analysis
Based on the June 1988 CPS,” in Undocumented Migration to the United States, by Frank D. Bean, Barry Edmonston,
and Jeffrey Passel, RAND Corporation, 1990; Robert Warren, Annual Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant
Population Residing in the United States and Components of Change: 1987 to 1997, Office of Policy and Planning,
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, September 2000; Robert Warren, Estimates of the Unauthorized
Immigrant Population Residing in the United States, 1990 to 2000, Office of Policy and Planning, U.S. Immigration
and Naturalization Service, January 2003; Jeffrey Passel, Randy Capps, and Michael Fix, Undocumented Immigrants:
Facts and Figures, The Urban Institute, January 2004; Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, Trends in Unauthorized
Immigration: Undocumented Inflow Now Trails Legal Inflow, Pew Hispanic Center, October 2008; Michael Hoefer,
Nancy Rytina, and Christopher Campbell, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United
States: January 2005, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, February 2006; Michael
Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Christopher Campbell, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

after 2007 to the economic downturn and increased enforcement efforts.30 Some have suggested
that greater enforcement of immigration laws likely reduced the overall flow from what it would
have been during this period without such action.31
Legal Residents
Legal residents include immigrants and nonimmigrants. Immigrants are synonymous with legal
permanent residents (LPRs) and refer to foreign nationals who come to live lawfully and
permanently in the United States.32 Nonimmigrants are admitted for a designated period of time
and a specific purpose, and include foreign students, diplomats, temporary agricultural workers,
persons on work assignments, and exchange visitors, among others. Conditions for immigrant
admission to the United States are more stringent than those for nonimmigrants, yet once
admitted, immigrants are subject to few restrictions regarding changes in employment and may
apply for U.S. citizenship through the naturalization process, generally after five years.33
Naturalized Citizens
The process of converting legal permanent resident status to U.S. citizenship is referred to as
naturalization. In most cases, persons wishing to naturalize must first be permanent residents.
Naturalization requires applicants to possess certain eligibility criteria, including a minimum age
of 18; permanent residency status for five years (three years in some circumstances); good moral
character; basic knowledge of U.S. government; continuous presence in the United States
(generally fewer than 6 months abroad during the entire permanent residency status period
requirement); and the ability to read, write, and speak basic English.34 Because citizenship
confers the right to vote, naturalization trends may sometimes have political impacts. Over the
longer term, however, naturalization trends have demographic implications because citizens are
accorded higher preferences than legal permanent residents under U.S. immigration law to
sponsor immediate and extended family members to live in the United States. As Figure 7

(...continued)
United States: January 2006, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, February 2007;
Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in
the United States: January 2007, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, February 2008;
Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in
the United States: January 2008, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security, February 2009;
and Michael Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and Bryan C. Baker, Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population
Residing in the United States: January 2009, Office of Immigration Statistics, Department of Homeland Security,
January 2010. For more information on estimates of the unauthorized population, see CRS Report RL33874,
Unauthorized Aliens Residing in the United States: Estimates Since 1986, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
30 Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade,
Pew Hispanic Center, September 2010.
31 Ibid.
32 For more information on permanent legal residents, see CRS Report RL32235, U.S. Immigration Policy on
Permanent Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
33 For more information on nonimmigrants, see CRS Report RL31381, U.S. Immigration Policy on Temporary
Admissions, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
34 For more information, see CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and Naturalization Fundamentals, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

illustrates, in the past four decades, the total foreign-born population has increased while the
proportion of the naturalized foreign born has declined from 63.6% in 1970 to 43.0% in 2008.
Figure 7. Foreign-Born Population by Citizenship Status, 1970-2008
43.0%
40.3%
16,329,909
% Naturalized
12,542,626
Naturalized
40.5%
Noncitizen
50.5%
7,996,998
63.6%
7,110,475
21,631,026
18,565,263
6,198,173
11,770,318
6,969,431
3,541,550
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008

Source: CRS presentation of data from Historical Statistics of the United States, Millennium Edition Online,
Table Ad256-279, http://hsus.cambridge.org/HSUSWeb/toc/tableToc.do?id=Ad280-318 (1970-1990); Decennial
Census (2000); and American Community Survey (2008).
Note: Noncitizens include legal permanent residents, other persons with legal status, and unauthorized aliens.
U.S. experience, or the number of years spent in the United States since arrival, and education are
positively associated with citizenship status (Table 3). Foreign-born persons who arrived in the
United States in earlier decades or who possess a bachelor’s degree show higher proportions who
naturalized than those arriving more recently or who lack a high school diploma. According to
2008 data, most foreign born from the Middle East, Europe, Asia, and the Caribbean were
naturalized, in contrast to their counterparts from Central America and Mexico who had larger
proportions of recent U.S. arrivals.
Table 3. Foreign-Born Citizenship Status by Selected Characteristics, 2008
Naturalized
Percent of the Total


Citizens
Noncitizens
Foreign-Born Population
Period of U.S. Arrival
Before
1950
92%
8%
1%
1950-1959
87%
13%
3%
1960-1969
81%
19%
6%
1970-1979
74%
26%
11%
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Naturalized
Percent of the Total


Citizens
Noncitizens
Foreign-Born Population
1980-1989
60%
40%
20%
1990-1999
38%
62%
29%
2000-2009
10%
90%
30%
Total


100%
Educational Attainment

Less than HS diploma
28%
72%
37%
HS
diploma
44%
56%
21%
Some
col ege
55%
45%
18%
Bachelor’s
degree
56%
44%
24%
Total


100%
Region of Birth
Middle
East
66%
34%
2%
Eastern
Europe
63%
37%
4%
Western
Europe
59%
41%
10%
Asia
57%
43%
25%
Caribbean
54%
46%
9%
South
America
43%
57%
7%
Africa
43%
57%
4%
Oceania
&
Canada
43%
57%
3%
Central
America
30%
70%
7%
Mexico
22%
78%
30%
Total


100%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Note: Noncitizens include legal permanent residents, other persons with legal status, and unauthorized aliens.
Demographic Characteristics
Age Composition
Figure 8 shows that prime working ages dominate the foreign born, with six of every 10 persons
between the ages 25 to 54. By contrast, just four of every 10 native-born persons falls within this
age group. Above age 55, the foreign born largely resemble the native born, while among youth,
the two populations differ considerably: children under 18 comprise 24.3% of the native-born
population but just 7.3% of the foreign-born population. Moreover, among the foreign born, the
age distribution differs substantially between the generally older naturalized citizen population
and younger noncitizen population.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 8. Age Composition of Native-Born and Foreign-Born Populations, 2008
60%
50%
40%
Age 0-17
18-24
30%
25-44
45-64
20%
65+
10%
0%
Native born
Foreign-born
Foreign-born
Naturalized Citizen
Noncitizen

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Note: Bars sum to 100% for each population.
Most children of foreign-born parents are born in the United States (Table 4). Of the 16.2 million
children with at least one foreign-born parent in 2008, 13.9 million, or 86%, were born in the
United States.35 Children with foreign-born parentage comprised almost one-fourth of the 67.4
million U.S. children under age 18.36
Table 4. Parental Nativity of Children Under Age 18, 2008

Children Born in United States
Children Born Abroad

Number Percent Number Percent
Children with only native-born parents
53,459,605
79%
233,705
9%
Children with foreign-born parents
13,901,895
21%
2,346,454
91%
Total children
67,361,500
100%
2,580,159
100%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.

35 The citizenship rights of U.S. born children of unauthorized aliens has received considerable recent public attention.
For more information, see CRS Report RL33079, Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in
the United States to Alien Parents, by Margaret Mikyung Lee.
36 For more on this topic, see Randolph Capps, Michael E. Fix, and Julie Murray, et al., The New Demography of
America’s Schools: Immigration and the No Child Left Behind Act, Urban Institute, Washington, DC, September 2005,
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311230_new_demography.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Notes: Data presented for one- and two-parent households. Children with foreign-born parents may either
have parents who are both foreign born or have one parent who is foreign born and one who is native born.
Native-born children with foreign-born parents confound the computation of foreign-born median
age.37 Traditionally among the foreign born, noncitizens with less U.S. experience are often
young adults with the most to gain economically over their working careers by migrating to a new
country.38 Most foreign born are in fact relatively young, but because their U.S.-born children are
included in native-born population figures, the foreign born have a higher median age (40) than
the native born (35). However, when median ages are recomputed by reclassifying native-born
minor children of foreign-born parents among the 38 million foreign born, the foreign-born
median age (32) becomes less than the native-born median age (37).
The foreign born, 12.5% of the U.S. population, contribute disproportionately to the growth of
certain age groups (Table 5). Between 2000 and 2008, the foreign born contributed 6.9 million, or
almost a third of the entire U.S. population increase of 22.6 million persons. Especially
noteworthy was the foreign-born contribution of 4.6 million persons in the 25-54 prime working-
age adult group. Some of this change occurs because the native born aged into older age cohorts.
The foreign-born contribution to the child-age population was negative during this period, but this
negative figure does not reflect a decline in child-bearing among foreign-born adults. Rather it
reflects more native-born children born to foreign-born parents (see above discussion and Table
4). Among those ages 65 and older, the foreign born contributed just over a third (0.7 million plus
0.6 million or 1.3 million persons) of the total U.S. increase (0.8 million plus 1.5 million or 2.3
million persons).
Table 5. Contributions to U.S. Population Change, 2000-2008, by Nativity and Age
(Millions of persons)
Native-Born
Foreign-Born
U.S.
Contribution
Contribution
Population
to 2000-2008
to 2000-2008
2000 U.S.
2008 U.S.
Change
U.S. Population
U.S. Population
Age Group
Population
Population
2000-2008
Change
Change
0-4 years
19.0
21.0
1.9
2.0
-0.1
5 to 17 years
53.1
52.9
-0.2
0.2
-0.4
18 to 24 years
27.1
30.1
3.0
3.1
-0.1
25 to 34 years
39.6
40.4
0.9
0.2
0.6
35 to 44 years
45.9
42.9
-3.0
-4.9
1.9
45 to 54 years
37.6
44.4
6.8
4.7
2.1
55 to 64 years
24.2
33.8
9.6
8.0
1.6
65 to 74 years
18.5
20.1
1.6
0.8
0.7
75+ years
16.5
18.5
2.1
1.5
0.6
Total 281.4
304.1
22.6
15.8 6.9

37 The median is one type of average. It is found by sorting all of the values of a characteristic (such as age) from
lowest to highest and then selecting the value that falls in the middle. As such, it is the value above and below which
half the population falls.
38 Douglas Massey, Rafael Alarcón, Jorge Durand, and Humberto González, Return to Aztlan: The Social Process of
International Migration from Western Mexico (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1987), p. 294.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Source: CRS presentation of 2000 Census SF3 and 2008 American Community Survey data; foreign-born age
distribution data for 2000 from U.S. Census Bureau (2003).
Household and Family Structure and Size
Across several measures of family and household structure, such as marital status (e.g., married,
divorced, never married) and household structure (e.g., two-parent households, one-parent
households), differences between the native born and foreign born are relatively modest (Figure
9).
Figure 9. Household Structure by Nativity, 2008
Native born
67%
Foreign born: Naturalized Citizen
61%
61%
Foreign born: Noncitizen
17%
12% 14%
11%
11% 10%
6%
6%
6%
6%
8%
4%
Married-couple
Male householder
Female householder
Living alone
Not living alone
family household
(no wife present)
(no husband present)
(male or female)
(male or female)

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Note: Persons not living alone are those living with other unrelated persons.
Figure 10 presents household size—a commonly used measure of household structure—by
nativity and citizenship status. Higher proportions of the native-born live in one- or two-person
households compared to either foreign born group. Foreign-born noncitizens, by contrast, are
found in equal proportions across all five categories shown. Differences in household size by
nativity and citizenship status reflect several characteristics. Native-born persons and naturalized
citizens, who have higher incomes than noncitizens (see Table 11), are more able to afford living
alone or in nuclear families, if so preferred, compared to noncitizens who have lower median
incomes. Age structure plays a role, particularly among the native born, with young adults and the
elderly more likely to live alone.39 Cultural preferences can also influence living arrangements,
with multi-generational households more common among the foreign born.40

39 U.S. Census Bureau, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2010, Table AVG2, Current Population Survey,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
16

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Figure 10. Household Size by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008
Native born
Foreign born: Naturalized Citizen
Foreign born: Noncitizen
35%
29%
28%
22%
22%
21%
20%
20%
18%
17%
17%
15%
15%
13%
8%
1 person
2 persons
3 persons
4 persons
5+ persons

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2008.
Education and Skills
Educational Attainment
Educational attainment correlates positively with several public policy objectives, including labor
market participation, higher incomes, improved health, improved child welfare, reduced public
service utilization, and greater civic participation.41 Average educational attainment is lower for
the foreign born than it is for the native born because many of the foreign born lack a high school

(...continued)
2010 Annual Social and Economic Supplement, Washington, DC, November 2010, http://www.census.gov/population/
www/socdemo/hh-fam/cps2010.html.
40 See, for example, Jennifer Van Hook and Jennifer E. Glick, “Immigration and Living Arrangements: Moving
Beyond Economic Need Versus Acculturation,” Demography, vol. 44, no. 2 (2007), pp. 225-249 and Janet M.
Wilmoth, “Living Arrangements Among Older Immigrants in the United States,” The Gerontologist, vol. 41, no. 2
(2001), pp. 228-238.
41 The Social Benefits of Education, ed. Jere R. Behrman and Nevzer Stacey (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan
Press, 1997); David E. Bloom, Matthew Hartley, and Henry Rosovsky, “Beyond Private Gain: The Public Benefits of
Higher Education,” in International Handbook of Higher Education, ed. James J.F. Forest and Philip G. Altbach, vol.
18 (Springer Netherlands, 2006), pp. 293-308; S. Baum and J. Ma, Education Pays: The Benefits of Higher Education
for Individuals and Society (New York: College Board, 2007).
Congressional Research Service
17

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

diploma (Figure 11). However, at the other end of the education distribution, the proportion of
the foreign born with at least a bachelor’s degree matches that of the native born.
Figure 11. Educational Attainment by Nativity, Citizenship Status,
and Period of Arrival, 2008
(Persons ages 25 and older)
Less than HS graduate
HS graduate
Some college
Bachelor's degree or more
NATIVE-BORN
12%
30%
31%
28%
FOREIGN-BORN
33%
22%
18%
27%
Citizenship Status
Naturalized
22%
22%
23%
33%
Noncitizen
42%
22%
14%
22%
Period of Arrival
Before 1950
32%
27%
20%
21%
1950 - 1959
28%
26%
24%
22%
1960 - 1969
28%
23%
23%
26%
1970 - 1979
32%
20%
21%
27%
1980 - 1989
34%
22%
20%
25%
1990 - 1999
34%
22%
17%
26%
2000 - 2009
32%
22%
15%
32%

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Foreign-born naturalized citizens have higher education levels than foreign-born noncitizens.
Average education levels have been rising consistently throughout the world,42 and consequently,
more recent immigrants, on average, arrive to the United States with more years of schooling than
immigrants who arrived in earlier decades, as illustrated in the period of arrival data in Figure 11.
The proportion of the foreign born with a bachelor’s degree has increased by roughly 50% since
1950, and from 21% to 32% for those arriving this past decade. Figure 11 shows that the
educational attainment categories of the foreign born that have declined over the period examined
include those who completed high school or some college. However, the figure also shows that
the proportion of the foreign born without a high school diploma remained unchanged over this
time. While the proportions of foreign born in each of the four broad education categories
presented in Figure 11 suggest only modest changes in educational composition over time, they

42 R.J. Barro and J.W. Lee, “International Measures of Schooling Years and Schooling Quality,” American Economic
Review, vol. 82, no. 2 (May 1996), pp. 218-223; R.J. Barro and J.W. Lee, “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment
in the World, 1950-2010,” NBER Working Paper Series, vol. w15902 (2010).
Congressional Research Service
18

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

conceal significant increases in average years of schooling that have occurred in many
countries.43
Figure 12. Educational Attainment of Foreign Born by Birth Region, 2008
(Persons ages 25 and older)
Less than HS graduate
HS graduate
Some college
Bachelor's degree or more
Mexico
62%
22%
11%
5%
Central America
49%
24%
17%
10%
Caribbean
28%
29%
24%
19%
South America
19%
28%
24%
29%
Western Europe
17%
26%
24%
33%
Asia
17%
16%
18%
49%
Middle East
16%
19%
20%
45%
Eastern Europe
12%
22%
21%
45%
Africa
12%
18%
28%
42%
Oceania & Canada
11%
21%
29%
39%

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
The foreign born from Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean have the lowest proportions
of college graduates and the highest proportions of persons lacking a high school diploma, in
sharp contrast with those from Africa, Eastern Europe, Asia, and the Middle East (Figure 12).
Mexico’s disproportionately high percentage of persons with less than a high school diploma may
be attributable to the large proportion of unauthorized aliens from that country, a group with
lower average education levels than other foreign born.44

43 For example, data analyzed and presented by the World Bank indicate that the proportion of Mexicans aged 15-19
that had completed 9th grade increased from roughly 50% to just over 60% between 1994 and 2002. While this increase
represents a substantial increase in relative terms, such an increase will not appear in Figure 11 which will still
categorize all of these 15-19 year olds in the first category of “Less than HS graduate.” For more information, see,
Deon Filmer, Educational Attainment and Enrollment around the World, Development Research Group, The World
Bank, Datasheet, Mexico, 1994 and Mexico 2002, Washington, DC, July 31, 2007, http://iresearch.worldbank.org/
edattain/index.htm.
44 Jeffrey S. Passel and D'Vera Cohn, A Portrait of the Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, Pew Hispanic
Center, Washington, DC, April 14, 2009, http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

English Language Ability
Like education, English language ability positively influences labor market outcomes and social
and cultural integration in the United States.45 Characteristics associated with higher education
levels are also associated with English language ability, as shown in Table 6.
Table 6. English Language Proficiency by Socio-demographic Characteristics, 2008
Percent Speaking
English “Well” or
Characteristic Category
“Very Well”
Citizenship
Naturalized citizen
83%

Noncitizen 59%
Birth Region
Mexico 48%
Central
America
54%
Caribbean
74%
South
America 76%
Asia
78%
Eastern
Europe 78%
Middle
East
81%
Africa
91%
Western
Europe
91%
Oceania
&
Canada
97%
Education
Less than HS
48%
HS
diploma
68%
Some
col ege 86%
Bachelor’s
degree
91%
Age Group
Ages 0-17
90%
Ages
18-24
73%
Ages
25-34
67%
Ages
35-44
69%
Ages
45-54
69%
Ages
55-64
67%
Ages
65-74
62%
Ages
75+
59%

45 Sherrie A. Kossoudji, “English Language Ability and the Labor Market Opportunities of Hispanic and East Asian
Immigrant Men,” Journal of Labor Economics, vol. 6, no. 2 (1988), pp. 205-228; Hoyt Bleakley and Aimee Chin,
“Language Skills and Earnings: Evidence from Childhood Immigrants.” Review of Economics and Statistics, vol. 86,
no. 2, (2004), pp:481–496; Alejandro Portes and Ruben Rumbaut, Immigrant America: A Portrait (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 2006); Hoyt Bleakley, “Age at Arrival, English Proficiency, and Social Assimilation
Among U.S. Immigrants,” American Economic Journal: Applied, vol. 2, no. 1 (January 2010), pp. 165-192.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Research has shown that English language ability tends to improve substantially over time, and
second- and third-generation immigrants often lose entirely the native languages of their
parents.46 Such findings are borne out in Table 6. Youth, who are much more likely to be enrolled
in U.S. schools and who acquire languages more easily than adults,47 have the highest English
language facility of all age groups, with nine out of 10 minors reporting that they speak English
“well” or “very well.” Two-thirds of all foreign-born working-age adults ages 25 to 64 also report
similar English language proficiency. As expected, naturalized citizens exhibit stronger English
language skills than noncitizens, reflecting U.S. experience. Among origin regions, foreign-born
persons from Mexico and Central America report the lowest average English proficiency, while
those from Africa, Western Europe, Canada, and Oceania, where English is typically spoken,
report the highest.48
Employment
Labor Force Participation
In 2008, the foreign-born population accounted for 24.6 million, or 15.7%, of the total U.S.
civilian labor force of 156.2 million.49 This proportion represents a considerable increase since
2000, when 17.4 million foreign-born persons accounted for 12.4% of the labor force, 50 and
mirrors higher foreign-born population growth generally within this age range. Labor force
participation rates for foreign-born and native-born workers differ significantly for men and
women (Table 7). Foreign-born male workers exhibit consistently higher labor force participation
rates than native-born workers both in total and across all age and education categories. In
contrast, foreign-born female workers exhibit lower rates than native-born women except at lower
education levels. Among all groups, labor force participation increases with education and from
ages 16 to 44.

46 Ruben G. Rumbaut, Douglas S. Massey, and Frank D. Bean, “Linguistic Life Expectancies: Immigrant Language
Retention in Southern California,” Population and Development Review, vol. 32, no. 3 (September 2006), pp. 447-460.
47 David Birdsong, “Age and Second Language Acquisition and Processing: A Selective Overview,” Language
Learning, vol. 56, no. s1 (July 2006), pp. 9-49.
48 Some of the difference between groups stems from the different periods when the foreign-born arrive to the United
States. For instance, larger proportions of foreign born from Western Europe, Oceania, and Canada arrived to the
United States prior to 1990 compared with foreign born from all other regions, giving those individuals greater
opportunity to acquire English language skills.
49 Computed by CRS using 2008 American Community Survey PUMS data. This figure represents the size of the
civilian labor force. See notes on Table 7 for how this is defined.
50 U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, Current Population Reports,
Special Studies P23-206, December 2001, http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Table 7. Labor Force Participation Rate (LFPR) by Sex, Nativity, and
Citizenship Status, 2008
(Employed civilians ages 16 and older)

Male
Female

Natural-
Natural-
Native
ized
Non-
Native
ized
Non-
Born
Citizens
citizens
Born
Citizens
citizens
Total LFPR
71.2% 76.0% 84.9% 61.3% 59.7% 55.2%
Age






16-19
43.3% 38.0% 44.9% 45.3% 41.6% 32.0%
20-24
77.3% 73.5% 81.2% 75.5% 71.7% 57.3%
25-44
89.9% 93.9% 93.8% 79.5% 79.3% 61.9%
45-54
87.3% 93.4% 91.1% 77.5% 78.8% 66.1%
55-64
70.2% 79.6% 77.3% 60.3% 60.9% 48.7%
65+
21.0% 22.7% 23.1% 12.8% 12.0% 9.7%
Education






Less than HS
46.3%
62.3%
83.6%
33.7%
38.1%
44.9%
HS
diploma
71.5% 75.9% 87.9% 55.0% 55.6% 57.6%
Some
col ege
75.9% 79.2% 80.8% 68.7% 67.4% 63.8%
Bachelor's
degree 81.1% 82.6% 87.5% 74.9% 72.9% 65.8%
Total Workers
(millions)
68.5 5.5 8.8 63.2 5.1 5.1
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey PUMS data.
Notes: Following Census Bureau methodology, the labor force participation rate is computed as the proportion
of the civilian population ages16 years and older that is in the labor force. The civilian labor force is defined as
the civilian noninstitutional population ages 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). Excluded from this
measure of the labor force are students, retirees, persons who are recorded as having permanently left the labor
force, institutionalized persons, and military personnel.
Other characteristics among the foreign born significantly affect their labor force participation. As
shown in Table A-2, male naturalized citizens have lower labor force participation rates than
male noncitizens. The reverse is true for women, which may reflect greater employment
opportunity for those with citizenship, higher education levels, and more U.S. experience.51 Labor
force participation increases during the first 30 years of U.S. experience only slightly for men but
substantially for women, before declining significantly as both groups approach retirement. By
region, participation is higher for foreign-born men and women from Latin America and Africa
and lower for those from Europe, Oceania, and Canada (Table A-2).

51 Robert F. Schoeni, “Labor Market Outcomes of Immigrant Women in the United States: 1970 to 1990,”
International Migration Review, vol. 32, no. 1 (Spring 1998), pp. 57-77; Jennan Ghazal Read and Philip N. Cohen,
“One Size Fits All? Explaining U.S.-born and Immigrant Women’s Employment across 12 Ethnic Groups,” Social
Forces, vol. 85, no. 4 (June 2007), pp. 1713-1734.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Employment by Industrial Sector
Differences between the employment distribution of the native born and foreign born are found
among noncitizens.52 Figures in Table 8 show that naturalized citizens differ little in this respect
when compared with the numerically dominant native-born workforce. The noncitizen workforce,
however, is more concentrated in agriculture, construction, manufacturing, other services, and
accommodation and food services, and less in retail trade, finance, insurance, and real estate,
education, health care, and public administration. To some extent, this difference in concentration
may mirror skill requirements, with noncitizens more concentrated in industries employing less-
skilled workers. Yet in the highly skilled professional, scientific, and management sector, the
noncitizen foreign born are slightly more concentrated than either naturalized citizens or the
native born.
Table 8. Industrial Sector Employment by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008
(Employed civilians ages 16 and older)

Naturalized
Non-
Native Born
Citizens
citizens
Agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, mining
2%
1%
4%
Construction 7%
5%
15%
Manufacturing 11%
13%
13%
Wholesale trade
3%
3%
3%
Retail trade
12%
10%
9%
Transportation, warehousing,, utilities
5%
6%
4%
Information 3%
2%
1%
Finance, insurance, real estate
7%
7%
4%
Professional, scientific, management
10%
11%
13%
Education, health care, social assistance
22%
23%
13%
Arts, entertainment, accommodation, food services
9%
9%
13%
Other services
5%
6%
7%
Public administration
5%
4%
1%
Total 100%
100%
100%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey PUMS data.
Note: Data presented are not broken out by sex; with the exception of less female concentration in agriculture,
construction, and manufacturing, and greater concentration in education, trends described above apply for both
sexes.
Foreign-born educational attainment and job competition between foreign-born and native-born
workers continue to be perennial concerns, particularly during economic recessions.53 Yet, U.S.

52 For more on the skill distribution of immigrants, see Randy Capps, Michael Fix, and Serena Yi Ying-Lin, Still an
Hourglass? Immigrant Workers in Middle-Skilled Jobs, Migration Policy Institute, Washington, DC, September 2010.
53 For more information, see CRS Report 95-408, Immigration: The Effects on Low-Skilled and High-Skilled Native-
Born Workers, by Linda Levine.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

dependence on foreign-born workers is widely acknowledged in highly skilled sectors such as
science and engineering54 as well as less-skilled sectors such as labor-intensive agriculture.55
Occupational distribution
The distribution of workers within broad occupation categories displays patterns similar to those
found among industrial sectors (Table 9). In most occupational categories, the native born and
foreign-born naturalized citizens resemble each other closely. Differences appear among foreign-
born noncitizens who, on average, concentrate less in higher-skilled services and more in lower-
skilled service and industrial occupations. In the one key exception, computer, science, and
engineering occupations, noncitizen foreign born are comparable to naturalized citizens and the
native born. These descriptive statistics confirm an earlier Census Bureau report which showed
that citizens and those with extensive U.S. experience are more likely to resemble the native born
in their occupational distribution.56
Table 9. Occupational Distribution by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008
(Employed civilians ages 16 and older)
Naturalized
Non-
Native
Born
Citizens
citizens
Management, business, finance
14%
14%
8%
Computer, science, engineering
5%
8%
5%
Social, education, entertainment
11%
8%
5%
Medical, health services
7%
10%
4%
Security, protection services
2%
1%
1%
Food, cleaning services
9%
10%
20%
Recreation, personal services
3%
5%
4%
Sales 12%
10%
8%
Office 15%
12%
7%
Farming, construction, extraction, maintenance
9%
8%
20%
Production, transportation, material moving
12%
14%
18%
Total 100%
100%
100%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data downloaded from the U.S. Census
Bureau’s American Factfinder profile comparisons.

54 Grant C. Black and Paula E. Stephan, “The Importance of Foreign Ph.D. Students to U.S. Science,” in Science and
the University, ed. Paula E. Stephan and Ronald G. Ehrenberg (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2007), pp.
113-133; Sharon G. Levin and Paula E. Stephan, “Are the Foreign Born a Source of Strength for U.S. Science?”,
Science, vol. 285, no. 5431 (August 1999), pp. 1213-14; National Research Council, Foreign and Foreign-Born
Engineers in the United States: Infusing Talent, Raising Issues, Washington, DC, 1988.
55 For more information, see CRS Report RL30395, Farm Labor Shortages and Immigration Policy, by Linda Levine.
56 U.S. Census Bureau, Profile of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2000, Current Population Reports,
Special Studies P23-206, December 2001, p.41, http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/p23-206.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Note: Data presented are not broken out by sex; apart from less female concentration in farming and
production and greater concentration in social and medical services and office occupations, trends described
above apply for both sexes.
Broad occupation and industrial sector categories can mask the extent to which native-born or
foreign-born nationals dominate some occupations. Table 10 presents, for a group of selected
occupations, the proportions held by native and foreign-born men and women, by citizenship
status. The table lists these selected occupations according to native-born male proportion, ranked
lowest to highest.
Table 10. Sex and Nativity Composition of Selected Occupations, 2008
(Employed civilians ages 16 and older)

Male
Female

Natural-
Natural-
Native
ized
Non-
Native
ized
Non-

Born
Citizens
citizens
Born
Citizens
citizens
Total
Child care workers
5%
0%
0%
76%
7%
11%
100%
Nurses 7%
1%
1%
80%
8%
3%
100%
Tailors and dressmakers
7%
7%
6%
42%
22%
16%
100%
Sewing machine operators
11%
2%
10%
39%
13%
24%
100%
Librarians 13%
1%
1%
79%
3%
2%
100%
Bartenders 37%
2%
2%
55%
1%
2%
100%
Agricultural workers
38%
4%
37%
10%
1%
10%
100%
All U.S. workers
44%
4%
6%
40%
3%
3%
100%
Physical scientists
45%
6%
11%
28%
5%
5%
100%
Physicians and surgeons
50%
13%
5%
23%
6%
3%
100%
Meat processing workers
52%
6%
20%
12%
2%
8%
100%
Computer scientistsa
54%
9%
11%
19%
4%
3%
100%
Dishwashers 55%
2%
21%
16%
1%
5%
100%
Financial analysts
57%
5%
5%
25%
4%
4%
100%
Construction laborers
63%
5%
30%
2%
0%
0%
100%
Construction inspectors
82%
5%
2%
11%
1%
0%
100%
Locomotive engineers
90%
3%
1%
5%
0%
0%
100%
Child care workers
5%
0%
0%
77%
6%
10%
100%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey.
Note: Figures for all U.S. workers are shown in bold for the sake of comparison, and figures are summed by rows
instead of columns to facilitate comparison across population groups.
a. Includes computer engineers, computer programmers, and systems analysts.
Nationally, native and foreign-born proportions of male and female workers together shown in
Table 10 are roughly 84% and 16%, respectively. Differences between these national averages
and figures shown in the table indicate cases of occupational imbalance by gender, nativity, or
citizenship. In some heavily unionized occupations such as locomotive engineers and
Congressional Research Service
25

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

construction inspectors, native-born workers dominate. In other, less-skilled occupations with low
barriers to entry, such as sewing machine operators, agricultural workers, and meat processing
workers, the foreign-born noncitizen population is represented in numbers that far exceed their
total averages. Yet the foreign born also exceed their national average proportion in certain
specialty occupations that require substantial education, such as physical scientists, physicians
and surgeons, and computer scientists reflecting the bifurcated education profile discussed earlier
and presented in Figure 11.
Economic Well-Being
Median Income
Policymakers frequently rely on median income as an indicator of economic assimilation and
productive output.57 On average, median incomes of native-born workers are higher than foreign-
born workers, 37% for men but just 20% for women. These differences vary substantially by
subgroup (Table 11) but at higher education levels, they become minimal. In fact, no nativity gap
in median income appears for female workers with at least a bachelor’s degree. Among the
foreign born, naturalized U.S. citizen incomes exceed noncitizen incomes by an average of
60%,58 reflecting higher educational attainment, and greater U.S. experience (see Table 3).
Table 11. Median Income by Nativity, Education, and Citizenship, 2008
(2008 dollars)

Male
Female
Native-
Foreign-
Native-
Foreign-
Born
Born
Percent
Born
Born
Percent

Income
Income
Difference
Income
Income
Difference
All groups
$48,883
$35,644
37%
$36,662
$30,552
20%
Education






Less than HS
31,274
24,951
25%
22,405
19,349
16%
HS diploma
38,699
30,552
27%
28,515
24,441
17%
Some col ege
45,828
40,634
13%
34,391
32,588
6%
Bachelor's degree
74,342
69,250
7%
50,919
50,919
0%
Citizenship






Naturalized citizen

48,373


36,876

Noncitizen

28,515


24,441

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Notes: Figures are computed for non-institutional, full-time, year-round workers.

57 Carmen DeNavas-Walt, Bernadette D. Proctor, and Jessica C. Smith, Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance
Coverage in the United States: 2008, U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Reports, Consumer Income,
Washington, DC, September 2009, pp. 1-4, http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-236.pdf.
58 Computed by taking the average of the male and female earnings gap between naturalized citizens and noncitizens.
Congressional Research Service
26

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Poverty
The poverty threshold, another measure of economic well-being, is an income figure set annually
by the Census Bureau, above or below which an individual or family is officially classified as
poor.59 Poverty for the foreign born varies by citizenship status, with relatively smaller
proportions of naturalized citizens and greater proportions of noncitizens falling below the
poverty threshold (Figure 13). The difference in poverty level between the native born and
foreign-born noncitizens is 8%. If those below poverty and those earning 100-200% of the
poverty threshold are combined (the “poor” plus the “near-poor”), then the difference between the
native born (31%) and foreign-born noncitizens (50%) expands to 19%.
Figure 13. Poverty Status by Nativity and Citizenship, 2008
(Based on where individual income falls in relation to the 2008 poverty threshold)
14%
10%
Below
17%
22%
poverty
17%
threshold
17%
23%
100-200%
28%
of poverty
threshold
42%
42%
200-500%
39%
of poverty
36%
threshold
Above
28%
31%
21%
500% of
14%
poverty
threshold
Native-born
Foreign-born
Foreign-born
Foreign-born
Naturalized
Noncitizen
Citizen

Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Notes: Average poverty levels determined by the Census Bureau in 2008 were $10,400 for individuals (with
variation according to whether persons were above or below age 65) and $21,200 for a family with two children
under age 18. The federal poverty definition for statistical purposes varies by family size and composition and
does not include noncash benefits or account for taxes. Poverty status (in poverty or not in poverty) of a family
is assigned to each family member. The Census Bureau does not define poverty status for unrelated individuals
under age 15 (e.g., foster children). For a discussion of alternative definitions of poverty, see U.S. Census Bureau,
Current Population Reports, P60-227, prepared by Joe Dalaker, 2005.

59 For more information, see CRS Report RL33069, Poverty in the United States: 2009, by Thomas Gabe. For an
example of how the Census Bureau determines family poverty status, see “How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty”
on the Census Bureau’s website at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/methods/measure.html.
Congressional Research Service
27

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Among the foreign born, poverty rates vary by region of origin, with persons from Mexico
exhibiting the highest rate and those from Western Europe the lowest (Table 12). The proportion
of children falling below the poverty line is twice that of working-age adults. The same is true for
foreign-born persons who arrived in the United States during this past decade compared to those
who arrived prior to 1990.
Table 12. Foreign-Born Poverty Rates by Socio-demographic Characteristics, 2008
Percent Below Poverty
Characteristic Category Threshold
Region of Birth
Western Europe
9%
Oceania
&
Canada
11%
South
America
12%
Asia
12%
Eastern
Europe
14%
Caribbean 17%
Central
America
17%
Middle
East 18%
Africa
19%
Mexico
24%
Sex
Male 15%
Female
18%
Age Group
Under 18
27%
18-24
30%
25-44
16%
45-64
11%
65+
16%
Decade of Arrival
Before 1950
12%
1950-1959
9%
1960-1969 10%
1970-1979 10%
1980-1989 13%
1990-1999 17%
2000-2009 24%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data.
Concluding Observations
The 38.0 million foreign born (in 2008) make up roughly one-eighth of the U.S. population, but
between 2000 and 2008, they accounted for nearly one-third of all U.S. population growth. They
include not only an estimated 16.3 million naturalized citizens (43% of all foreign born) but also
Congressional Research Service
28

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

unauthorized aliens. Of the 16.2 million children with at least one foreign-born parent in 2008,
13.9 million, or 86%, were born in the United States. Recent estimates indicate that unauthorized
aliens, legal residents (permanent and temporary) and naturalized citizens made up 28%, 35% and
37%, respectively, of the foreign-born population. Years of U.S. experience and educational
attainment are positively associated with citizenship status. Origins of the foreign born have
shifted from Europe (74% in 1960) to Latin America and Asia (80% in 2008). While many
foreign-born persons have settled recently in new urban and rural destinations, two thirds of the
foreign-born population lives in California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.
Almost 60% of all foreign born arrived to the United States after 1990.
Between 2000 and 2008, foreign-born workers accounted for almost all the growth in the U.S.
workforce between ages 25-54. As this CRS analysis illustrates, their labor force contributions to
the U.S. economy range from low-skilled occupations in the agriculture, manufacturing, and
service sectors to highly skilled occupations in science, engineering, medicine, nursing, defense,
and other critical industrial sectors. The foreign born have lower average educational attainment
and a higher proportion of persons without a high school diploma than the native born. However,
the foreign-born and native-born populations possess the same proportion with at least a
bachelor’s degree.
Lower education levels and differences in industrial sector and occupational distributions partly
explain income and poverty differences between foreign-born and native-born workers; for those
with at least a four-year college degree, earnings differences by nativity are minimal. Among the
foreign born, median incomes of naturalized citizens are 60% higher than those of noncitizens,
reflecting higher education levels, older ages, and greater U.S. labor market experience. Poverty
status is linked to the lack of citizenship, a difference that is magnified after including the “near-
poor,” who earn between 100% and 200% of the poverty threshold.
Changes in the age composition of the American population can have a considerable impact on
the U.S. labor force, on public sector expenditures, and consequently on U.S. public policy.
Political debates over immigration policy may sometimes originate because of different priorities
for public spending, as younger foreign-born persons and their children tend to demand different
public services (e.g., public education and affordable housing) than older native-born residents
(e.g., affordable health care).
Congressional Research Service
29

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Appendix.
Data Sources and Limitations
Unless indicated otherwise, data for this report come primarily from the Public Use Micro
Sample (PUMS) of the 2008 American Community Survey (ACS). This survey is sent to roughly
250,000 households every month (or 3 million households every year) and replaces the long form
questionnaire of the decennial census. As with the decennial census long form, the ACS collects
information on socio-demographic characteristics, disability, English and native language use,
income, and housing characteristics. The ACS has the advantage of continuous measurement by
producing new data every year rather than every 10 years for the decennial census. However,
because it is sent to far fewer households (1 in 100) compared to the decennial census (1 in 6)
ACS estimates of the population and population characteristics have a relatively greater margin of
error, particularly for smaller geographic areas. This report avoids that obstacle because it
presents computations at a sufficiently large geographic unit of analysis, often at the national
level. For instance, the 2008 ACS PUMS contains about 2,677,000 observations representing the
native born, and 323,000 observations representing the foreign born, before weighting. As such,
descriptive statistics presented herein are based upon sufficiently large sample sizes that support
statistical validity at the 95% probability level. The PUMS is a publically available dataset that
contains no personal identifiers and permits analysis of micro-level data across characteristics of
one’s choosing.
Key Definitions
Nativity, which refers to whether someone is native born or foreign born, generally refers to
place of birth, but not exclusively. The Census Bureau defines native-born persons as those who
were U.S. citizens or U.S. nationals at birth.60 Hence, in addition to persons born in the United
States, the term native-born also includes persons born in a U.S. Commonwealth or other
territories (Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana
Islands), or born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents. Anyone not born a U.S. citizen or U.S.
national is defined as foreign born, including those who have become U.S. citizens through
naturalization.
Naturalized citizens are defined by the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) as persons
admitted as legal residents who have lived in the United States continuously for at least five
years; demonstrated good moral character as well as English reading, writing, and speaking
ability; and passed an examination on U.S. history and government.61 If these legal permanent
residents have their petitions for naturalization approved, they become U.S. citizens.

60 Elizabeth M. Grieco, Race and Hispanic Origin of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2007, U.S.
Census Bureau, January 2010.
61 These rules apply in most but not all cases. For example, the residency requirement is only three years in the case of
spouses of U.S. citizens. Another example: the language requirement may be waived for permanent resident aliens age
50 and older who have lived in this country for at least 20 years, or who are age 55 and older and have lived in this
country for at least 15 years. The civics requirement may be waived for permanent resident aliens over age 65 who
have lived in the United States for at least 20 years.
Congressional Research Service
30

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Table A-1. Selected State-Level Characteristics, 2008
Percent
Population
Percent Change
Foreign
Percent of

in 2008
from 1990-2008
Born
All Foreign Born Who:
Are
Arrived in Have a
Native
Foreign
Native
Foreign Of State Naturalized the U.S. Bachelor’s
State
Born
Born
Born
Born Population
Citizens since 2000 Degree
Alabama
4,530,205
131,695
12%
203%
3%
31%
46%
29%
Alaska
641,997
44,296
17%
79%
6%
58%
28%
25%
Arizona
5,567,662
932,518
52%
235%
14%
30%
33%
17%
Arkansas
2,746,133
109,257
17%
339%
4%
36%
36%
17%
California
26,897,639 9,859,027
-10%
53%
27%
44%
24%
25%
Colorado
4,440,277
499,179
35%
250%
10%
33%
33%
24%
Connecticut
3,047,250
454,002
-7%
63%
13%
45%
30%
33%
Delaware
806,299
66,793
21%
200%
8%
36%
37%
38%
District of Columbia
513,949
77,884
-15%
32%
13%
35%
41%
47%
Florida
14,936,829 3,391,511
15%
104%
19%
47%
29%
25%
Georgia
8,775,271
910,473
35%
426%
9%
34%
39%
30%
Hawai
1,058,850
229,348
-4%
41%
18%
53%
28%
23%
Idaho
1,434,327
89,489
42%
210%
6%
32%
36%
18%
Illinois
11,119,141 1,782,423
-3% 87% 14%
44% 27% 29%
Indiana
6,120,667
256,125
10%
172%
4%
36%
43%
29%
Iowa
2,890,268
112,289
4%
159%
4%
38%
40%
29%
Kansas
2,638,016
164,118
6%
161%
6%
36%
35%
27%
Kentucky
4,149,742
119,503
13%
250%
3%
34%
50%
33%
Louisiana
4,276,092
134,704
1%
54%
3%
46%
29%
27%
Maine
1,277,078
39,378
4%
8%
3%
55%
23%
25%
Maryland
4,935,988
697,609
3%
123%
12%
45%
36%
42%
Massachusetts
5,560,767
937,200
-8%
63%
14%
48%
33%
35%
Michigan
9,420,680
582,742
1%
64%
6%
50%
32%
38%
Minnesota
4,879,736
340,657
12%
201%
7%
45%
40%
32%
Mississippi
2,878,063
60,555
12%
197%
2%
31%
53%
29%
Missouri
5,696,391
215,214
11%
157%
4%
38%
40%
33%
Montana
946,155
21,285
18%
54%
2%
52%
25%
35%
Nebraska
1,685,617
97,815
7%
247%
5%
37%
34%
20%
Nevada
2,109,450
490,717
76%
368%
19%
36%
31%
20%
New Hampshire
1,250,228
65,581
13%
59%
5%
55%
29%
43%
New Jersey
6,964,627 1,718,034
-10%
78%
20%
50%
29%
36%
New Mexico
1,793,331
191,025
18%
137%
10%
29%
29%
16%
Congressional Research Service
31

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Percent
Population
Percent Change
Foreign
Percent of

in 2008
from 1990-2008
Born
All Foreign Born Who:
Are
Arrived in Have a
Native
Foreign
Native
Foreign Of State Naturalized the U.S. Bachelor’s
State
Born
Born
Born
Born Population
Citizens since 2000 Degree
New York
15,253,529 4,236,768
-15%
49%
22%
52%
26%
29%
North Carolina
8,581,284
641,130
29%
457%
7%
28%
43%
27%
North Dakota
626,468
15,013
-2%
60%
2%
43%
39%
16%
Ohio
11,058,870
427,040
2%
64%
4%
49%
38%
42%
Oklahoma
3,459,112
183,249
10%
180%
5%
34%
31%
22%
Oregon
3,423,655
366,405
20%
163%
10%
36%
32%
26%
Pennsylvania
11,787,853
660,426
-1%
79%
5%
48%
33%
37%
Rhode Island
922,335
128,453
-8%
35%
12%
50%
23%
20%
South Carolina
4,284,731
195,069
23%
290%
4%
33%
43%
26%
South Dakota
789,300
14,894
13%
93%
2%
52%
19%
39%
Tennessee
5,966,405
248,483
22%
320%
4%
32%
44%
29%
Texas
20,439,750 3,887,224
20%
155%
16%
32%
31%
20%
Utah
2,509,984
226,440
46%
286%
8%
31%
38%
22%
Vermont
596,745
24,525
6%
40%
4%
57%
26%
34%
Virginia
6,973,377
795,712
13%
155%
10%
46%
34%
40%
Washington
5,744,860
804,364
18%
150%
12%
43%
31%
31%
West Virginia
1,791,195
23,273
0%
48%
1%
47%
39%
47%
Wisconsin
5,380,319
247,649
10%
104%
4%
42%
35%
26%
Wyoming
520,296
12,372
15%
62%
2%
34%
33%
18%
National Average
5,217,623 744,332
12%
150%
8%
43%
30%
27%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey and 1990 Decennial Census data.
Congressional Research Service
32

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics


Table A-2. Labor Force Participation, Foreign Born, by Gender
(Employed civilians age 16 and older)

Male
Female

LFPR
Workers
(millions)
LFPR
Workers
(millions)
Citizenship categories




Naturalized citizen
76.0%
5.5
59.7%
5.1
Non-citizen 84.9%
8.8
55.2%
5.1
Period of Arrival to U.S.




Before 1950
17.8%
0.0
9.1%
0.0
1950-1959 40.7%
0.2
25.4%
0.2
1960-1969 58.5%
0.6
42.6%
0.5
1970-1979 78.0%
1.6
59.2%
1.3
1980-1989 87.1%
3.4
67.4%
2.5
1990-1999 86.4%
4.5
62.6%
3.2
2000-2009 83.7%
4.1
54.3%
2.5
Region of Birth




Western Europe
68.6%
1.1
48.4%
0.9
Eastern Europe
70.9%
0.4
56.1%
0.4
Oceania & Canada
71.4%
0.3
53.4%
0.3
Middle East
74.5%
0.3
47.0%
0.1
Caribbean 75.3%
1.1
63.5%
1.1
Asia 77.7%
3.2
59.3%
2.8
South America
83.7%
0.9
66.3%
0.8
Africa 83.8%
0.6
68.4%
0.4
Mexico 88.2%
5.2
52.6%
2.5
Central America
89.6%
1.2
64.2%
0.8
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data

Congressional Research Service
33

---

The U.S. Foreign-Born Population: Trends and Selected Characteristics

Table A-3. Proportion of Naturalized Foreign-Born Population by Region of Origin
and Decade of Arrival to the United States
Before
1950-
1960-
1970-
1980-
1990-
2000-

1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2008
Mexico
80% 76% 68% 53% 34% 13% 4%
Central
America 83% 79% 77% 73% 49% 20% 7%
Oceania
&
Canada 88% 79% 63% 55% 47% 33% 7%
South
America
86% 89% 86% 83% 72% 41% 9%
Western
Europe 95% 89% 79% 70% 58% 46% 10%
Asia
94% 94% 92% 90% 81% 61% 14%
Caribbean
93% 91% 89% 80% 65% 47% 15%
Africa
81% 90% 86% 83% 78% 55% 15%
Middle
East
89% 91% 92% 93% 88% 73% 20%
Eastern
Europe 96% 89% 89% 89% 86% 70% 25%
Source: CRS presentation of 2008 American Community Survey data







Author Contact Information

William A. Kandel

Analyst in Immigration Policy
wkandel@crs.loc.gov, 7-4703


Congressional Research Service
34

---