Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My cut off is 20,000, which essentially translates to 200,000 a decade if trends stay consistent. The metropolitans above 20,000 in my opinion are deserving of (in of course multiple tiers) the title of cosmopolitan whereas below that, to me at least (especially the large ones), are however not. The smaller cities punching above their weight I consider developmental, it'll show when they're larger.
That sounds a bit arbitrary for two reasons:
1. You're basing a measure of "cosmopolitan" on a simple raw number without considering the types or origin of those immigrants. Hypothetically, if 25,000 immigrants in one metro area have emigrated overwhelmingly from 5 countries, but 15,000 immigrants in another areas are evenly divided in having originated from 20 different countries, then it would not necessarily be logical to call the former metro area more "cosmopolitan."
2. In the case of cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and New York, you are seeing international migration essentially drive population growth (aside from natural births). These metros all have negative domestic migration. Philadelphia is the only metro among this group below 20,000 in annual immigration, but my point is that, if certain metros are also receiving large amounts of domestic migrants (e.g., Houston, Dallas and Atlanta), then the presence of new immigrants is more diluted than that of a metro where growth is comprised almost entirely of new immigrants. Hence, in the case of Philadelphia, its immigration is far more likely to increase the rate of the foreign-born population.
Miami's immigration is extremely one sided on a regional basis, but they do have the most diverse set of Latin American immigrants in the US. Almost 22,000 of Miamis immigrants come from Cuba.
Miami is the nexus of Latin American immigration and their numbers from Europe are decent. I guess that has to make up for the abysmal African and small Asian immigration.
But NYC has more Latin American immigrants, and draws a more diverse mix.
Both cities draw from everywhere in Latin America, but NYC has heavy immigration from Peru, Ecuador, Mexico and Guatemala, and Miami doesn't. NYC is basically #1 or #2 in the U.S. for every Latin American country, excepting Mexico, and Miami is only #1 or #2 in the U.S. for a handful of countries.
It has a high Somalian population, similar to Minneapolis. I don't really know how exactly it got started, but it seems that they keep coming because of the already large population and they want to be near immigrants like themselves.
Do you know what the numbers are? I'm curious also. I hear of Columbus, Atlanta, Minneapolis and sometimes Seattle and SD for cities with prominent Somali populations. I know Minneapolis has lots, because I lived there and they are everywhere. I also hear completely different population numbers between the Census and independent Somali officials, who always claim that the population is much higher than what is reported in the Census because many Somali's don't trust the Census takers or something (they usually double the confirmed population, so if the Census says 25,000, the Somali community will quote 50K or more).
Do you know what the numbers are? I'm curious also. I hear of Columbus, Atlanta, Minneapolis and sometimes Seattle and SD for cities with prominent Somali populations. I know Minneapolis has lots, because I lived there and they are everywhere. I also hear completely different population numbers between the Census and independent Somali officials, who always claim that the population is much higher than what is reported in the Census because many Somali's don't trust the Census takers or something (they usually double the confirmed population, so if the Census says 25,000, the Somali community will quote 50K or more).
But NYC has more Latin American immigrants, and draws a more diverse mix.
Both cities draw from everywhere in Latin America, but NYC has heavy immigration from Peru, Ecuador, Mexico and Guatemala, and Miami doesn't. NYC is basically #1 or #2 in the U.S. for every Latin American country, excepting Mexico, and Miami is only #1 or #2 in the U.S. for a handful of countries.
just did a breakdown for the top 7 countries (with over 10,000 immigrants) comparing the three big cities. NYC is the most consistent to be sure, but if you weighted the results to city pop, even slightly, miami would come out a lot better.
I'm not disagreeing with you on Orlando, all I was saying to Htownlove is we can take out any portion of immigration and make most metros appear a limited a draw. I know Orlando isn't the immigrant hub that Houston or Dallas its a much smaller metro, even if its demographics are closer to Dallas and Houston than even Miami. Orlando actually outperforms any metro for size in Florida when it comes to Asia from what Ã've seen.
was just making an observation.
Wasn't writing a book, wasn't supplying any agency with info, just an observation.
There wasn't a need to run down the first two pages of the thread flustered about it.
- Los Angeles: 6,652,680
- Houston: 1,715,252
- Chicago: 1,607,929
- Dallas: 1,606,721
- Bay Area: 1,412,225
I would imagine Dallas will pass Chicago shortly here.
I'm pretty sure Dallas pasted Chicago a minute after this list was posted. Mexicans are moving here [TX] in droves lol
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.