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.
Miami-Dade has the highest Foreign Born population (by percentage) in the USA.
I would say after NYC, DC, and LA there is no city clearly more globally connected/international than Miami. Miami has her peers (San Francisco, Boston) but there I'd argue it's more of a case of each city having something the other city not having. In the case of Boston, the Foreign Born population of Miami is staggeringly larger and Miami is more connected to the goings on in Latin America than Boston is to Europe. I'd also say Miami is better globally connected than Houston, and Chicago but these could be contentious.
Miami definitely has an argument, but it's foreign population/connections are pretty dominated by Latin America and the economy is not very diverse. Miami is more an outlier IMO-but yes one that is very international. NYC, DC, LA, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, Atlanta, Philly, Houston, Dallas, Seattle probably round out the list. Miami could be thrown really anywhere after DC in there IMO.
Miami definitely has an argument, but it's foreign population/connections are pretty dominated by Latin America and the economy is not very diverse.
And Europe. There are quite a lot of Europeans here. Italian, Spanish, and French investors in Miami Beach and Russian investors in Sunny Isles. There are more Italian restaurants around me than Cuban. And in Sunny Isles all the bakeries, spas are operated by Russians.
The economy is not very diverse, which is the one weakness Miami has. That and a lack of asians which is partly tied to the lack of diverse economy, lack of educational institutions and jobs that are based on them.
People will ignore this. These days, Seattle is seen as "diverse". How can a city that is 70% white be diverse? The metro is even more skewed towards white. The city of Seattle is actually becoming less diverse which is pretty hilarious to be honest.
How can you be international if the majority of your foreign born is from one region? Even if Atlanta's foreign born population is lower in %, if the foreign born comes from multiple regions and it's spread out, doesn't it make it more international?
I guess it all depends on how you look at it. There are a number of Southern cities that would be more "diverse" than Seattle simply because they have a very high Black %. Memphis, for example, has a lower non-Hispanic White share than Seattle, but I doubt many people think of it as being more "diverse." I could be wrong though. But basically, the same argument you make against Seattle calling itself "international" could be made against Atlanta calling itself "diverse": how can you be diverse if one-third of your metro is Black people, which is largely the result of being located in former slave territory?
Overall, Seattle has a slightly higher foreign born percentage than Atlanta (16.9% vs 13.4%). The Hispanic share in both metros is roughly equal (10.4% vs 9.2%). Atlanta has a slightly higher percentage of people claiming Sub-Saharan African ancestry (2.7% vs 1.7%). Seattle is obviously much more Asian than Atlanta (11.6% vs 5.0%).
I suppose one argument for Seattle could be that it has a richness of diversity in its Asian community that compensates for its shortcomings in other areas. There are multiple languages spoken in Asia with a multitude of cultures and Seattle has better representation among those cultures than nearly any city East of the Mississippi (except NYC perhaps). The Latino factor is a wash between both metros, imo. Atlanta has the larger African presence but the gap there is not as large as the gap between their Asian populations. Seattle actually has a sizeable African community (58,904), which represents about 30% of the metro's Black population.
Isn't most of Seattle's Asian population Chinese though? and Atlanta's black population is relatively diverse. I mean, it has a lot of West Indies and it's growing, especially as a lot of them move from Miami to Atlanta or even cities like NYC to Atlanta..
I mean, Austin has a higher foreign born population than Atlanta. It just doesn't tell much. IMO, number of consulates generally tell you how internationally connected a city is. I think Atlanta is more international than both cities.
Cities along coasts OR near country borders are generally going to have higher foreign born populations. Chicago is the rare exception because of how important it was during the immigrant boom of the early 1900s.
Isn't most of Seattle's Asian population Chinese though?
No. Chinese are the largest Asian group but that's only natural since China is the largest country in the world. Chinese make up 20.5% of the metro's Asian population followed by Filipinos (16.6%), Indian (14.4%) and Vietnamese (13.2%). Seattle also has one of the largest Japanese communities in the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
Atlanta's black population is relatively diverse. I mean, it has a lot of West Indies and it's growing, especially as a lot of them move from Miami to Atlanta or even cities like NYC to Atlanta
It is becoming more diverse, but technically, Atlanta's Black population is less diverse than Seattle's. In Atlanta, 14.3% of Black people claim West Indian or Sub-Saharan African ancestry. In Seattle, that figure is 33.7%. Atlanta has more because it's a bigger metro with more Black people, but Seattle's Black population is more mixed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant131531
I mean, Austin has a higher foreign born population than Atlanta. It just doesn't tell much. IMO, number of consulates generally tell you how internationally connected a city is. I think Atlanta is more international than both cities.
That might be true. I was only pointing out that you can't "discount" Seattle's Asian population when one-third of Atlanta's metro is made up of Black people. In the grand scheme of things, cities with high Black percentages are relatively common east of the Mississippi River whereas cities with large Asian percentages are only common in a handful of places.
I voted for Atlanta. I couldn't really come up with any articulable reasons to vote for the other cities.
Atlanta is the only one of these cities that appears on A.T. Kearney's Global Cities Index and it's rated an Alpha- city by GaWC. People can hate on that if they want, but I do think they count for something.
Foreign-born population is a wash imo with perhaps a slight edge to Seattle. Atlanta has the most racial diversity among the three, as noted above, but I think the importance of this is a bit inflated since it sits in a state with one of the historically largest AA populations.
At the end of the day, I think Atlanta is the most "open" city among these three with the most transplants and a more global business footprint. I think some people are not voting for it because it's in the South, and that's seen as inherently uncosmopolitan, but the same could be said for South Jersey, imo.
It just doesn't tell much. IMO, number of consulates generally tell you how internationally connected a city is. I think Atlanta is more international than both cities.
No, because then New Orleans and Detroit would be more international than Dallas and Philadelphia. In Dallas' case, its demographics are more or less in line with Houston's and is the same exact general tier as Boston on total foreign born.
I actually have to use consulate-generals often when I travel overseas because I am not an American citizen. Their set up, while for the most part true to diverse cities, is primarily to serve an entire region. Every consulate office has a map on the wall in the lobby area, it is similar to a Federal Mint map where the consulate in that city is responsible for "covering" its area and all vicinity areas (nearby states, so on). Often in most cases, they only put one consulate per region and that is it, which is why a place like Philadelphia and Dallas only have 5, when they can obviously sustain more.
Consulates are very important and I agree with you, they definitely give some cities an edge. For example, when I travel to Singapore next month, I have to fly to either Washington D.C. or New York to meet with people at a Singaporean consulate to get my paper work done. These consulates are also partially responsible for getting foreign airlines and foreign air routes to the host city's airports, so yes, they are necessary and important but don't overall tell which cities are most international by function of their demographics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2e1m5a
Even Boston, which is much farther away from NYC/DC seems to be effected by the concentration of foreign consulates on The East Coast, as it's stature and foreign born population implies it should have more than Houston, Miami and Atlanta.
No, Boston does not have a larger foreign born population.
Total Overseas Born Population:
- New York: 5,974,000
- Los Angeles: 5,511,026
- Miami: 2,276,385
- San Francisco Bay Area: 2,226,990
- Chicago: 1,699,371
- Houston: 1,344,448
- Washington D.C.: 1,232,826
- Dallas: 1,160,081
- Boston: 1,111,220
- Atlanta: 755,810
- Seattle: 665,124
- Philadelphia: 635,606
Keep in mind, Boston is also more populous than all of those cities you named too. Its CSA has 8 million people the others are in the 6 millions range, still less foreign borns though.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 06-01-2015 at 12:59 PM..
Here's another indicator: passport ownership. If you own a passport, it's implied that you travel overseas and thus are more "open" to the world (which goes along with being cosmopolitan).
NOTE: Renew your passport by mail. Don't do it in person. It's the most painful thing in the world.
I can only get this by state, not by metro area so take it for what it is
Here's another indicator: passport ownership. If you own a passport, it's implied that you travel overseas and thus are more "open" to the world (which goes along with being cosmopolitan).
NOTE: Renew your passport by mail. Don't do it in person. It's the most painful thing in the world.
I can only get this by state, not by metro area so take it for what it is
Washington state stands out since it is half of Pennsylvania's population and rounded to around 40% smaller than Georgia's.
Yeah. I mean it might also be a necessity thing since it's a whole lot easier to cross into Canada with a passport than without a passport. There are at least a few people in Northwestern Washington State who commute to somewhere in Vancouver.
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.
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.
