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.
And more Mexicans came to St. Louis, Memphis and Milwaukee over Boston? Wow.
I expected BOS to be at 30-35k.
Wanted to follow up on this, but needed to wait until I was home to sit down and do the math. The difference between Boston and the other big immigration hubs in the US is entirely due to the difference in immigration from Mexico, which is entirely geography-based. If you look at immigration without Mexico, it's right up there with all the others:
Total Immigration, except Mexico
New York 145,451
Miami 61,356
Los Angeles 50,368
Washington DC 38,752
San Francisco 31,980
Houston 30,591
Dallas 27,184
Boston 26,079
Chicago 24,712
Seattle 24,560
San Jose 21,354
Philadelphia 19,480
Atlanta 19,118
Orlando 16,775
Tampa 11,664
Detroit 11,021
Austin 8,841
Charlotte 8,767
San Diego 8,362
Sacramento 8,067
Raleigh 5,118
Providence 4,599
Indianapolis 4,242
San Antonio 3,704
Jacksonville 3,602
Louisville 3,602
St. Louis 3,445
Hartford 3,438
Pittsburgh 3,330
Kansas City 3,065
Richmond 2,955
Cleveland 2,798
Salt Lake City 2,673
New Orleans 2,392
Memphis 2,133
Virginia Beach 2,095
Honolulu 2,030
Milwaukee 2,006
Buffalo 1,979
Oklahoma City 1,741
Rochester 1,376
Grand Rapids 1,192
Tuscon 1,055
Birmingham 913
Re-arranged to include commutable neighbors:
New York 145,451
Miami 61,356
Los Angeles + Riverside 58,189
San Francisco + San Jose 53,334
Washington + Baltimore 46,535
Boston + Providence 30,678
Houston 30,591
Dallas 27,184
Chicago 24,712
Seattle 24,560
(etc.)
Wanted to follow up on this, but needed to wait until I was home to sit down and do the math. The difference between Boston and the other big immigration hubs in the US is entirely due to the difference in immigration from Mexico, which is entirely geography-based. If you look at immigration without Mexico, it's right up there with all the others:
Total Immigration, except Mexico
New York 145,451
Miami 61,356
Los Angeles 50,368
Washington DC 38,752
San Francisco 31,980
Houston 30,591
Dallas 27,184
Boston 26,079
Chicago 24,712
Seattle 24,560
San Jose 21,354
Philadelphia 19,480
Atlanta 19,118
Orlando 16,775
Tampa 11,664
Detroit 11,021
Austin 8,841
Charlotte 8,767
San Diego 8,362
Sacramento 8,067
Raleigh 5,118
Providence 4,599
Indianapolis 4,242
San Antonio 3,704
Jacksonville 3,602
Louisville 3,602
St. Louis 3,445
Hartford 3,438
Pittsburgh 3,330
Kansas City 3,065
Richmond 2,955
Cleveland 2,798
Salt Lake City 2,673
New Orleans 2,392
Memphis 2,133
Virginia Beach 2,095
Honolulu 2,030
Milwaukee 2,006
Buffalo 1,979
Oklahoma City 1,741
Rochester 1,376
Grand Rapids 1,192
Tuscon 1,055
Birmingham 913
Re-arranged to include commutable neighbors:
New York 145,451
Miami 61,356
Los Angeles + Riverside 58,189
San Francisco + San Jose 53,334
Washington + Baltimore 46,535
Boston + Providence 30,678
Houston 30,591
Dallas 27,184
Chicago 24,712
Seattle 24,560
(etc.)
That is not a fair way of doing it at all. It is an open attempt to boost places that don't get large number of Mexican immigrants.
If you want a more fair way, you can take out the biggest group of each. For example, take out the Mexican numbers for LA, Houston, DFW, etc., take out the Cubans from Miami, and take out the Dominican Republic from NYC and Boston.
For example, take out the Mexican numbers for LA, Houston, DFW, etc., take out the Cubans from Miami, and take out the Dominican Republic from NYC and Boston.
I can see an argument for Miami, but Boston is not a 0.5-2.5hr drive from the Dominican Republic like San Diego, Tusco, San Antonio are from the Mexican border. It’s an entirely different animal when your source of immigration is just a couple towns over.
And sure, this diminishes a bit when we talk about SF, Denver, or Chicago. But I’d still argue that the amount of immigration from Mexico in those cities is a function of how close they are to the massive, land border we share with our most populous neighbor. And this is different than if we’re talking about immigration from India, Colombia, Poland, etc.
This is nuts. Because all of those nationalities are way bigger here than just the numbers of who got a green card. Are those numbers just for this year? Because that might make sense.
In Orange County alone there are 156,000 foreign born people who are not naturalized. If those numbers represent everyone for all years that means there are around 140,000 people - 10% of the county - who are here on a temporary status or are here illegally.
Seminole and Osceola Counties combined make up another 80,000
I'd be curious to see these numbers expressed as a percentage of population. My hunch is that when population is factored in places like Nashville, Seattle, DC, and the Bay Area would seem to be punching well above their weight while Chicago and Philly are (as expected) punching well below theirs. That's pretty on brand but it helps frame the discussion of what counts as an "immigrant" hub a little better.
I'd be curious to see these numbers expressed as a percentage of population. My hunch is that when population is factored in places like Nashville, Seattle, DC, and the Bay Area would seem to be punching well above their weight while Chicago and Philly are (as expected) punching well below theirs. That's pretty on brand but it helps frame the discussion of what counts as an "immigrant" hub a little better.
Mhays25 did this a few posts up.
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.