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.
7 Major Classifications of Immigrant Cities/Metropolitan Areas:
1. Former: Buffalo, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Saint Louis, Milwaukee, and Providence.
Quote:
The former gateways are mostly located in the Midwest and saw their manufacturing heyday in the earlier half of the 20th century, but have since waned. During the 1900 to 1930 period, 20 percent of all immigrants in a named gateway lived in just these seven metro areas: Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, Providence, and St. Louis. That figure is now 3 percent (Figure 1).
2. Major-Continuous: Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco.
Quote:
Four large metro areas (Boston, Chicago, New York, and San Francisco) have had sustained continuous immigration, attracting more than their fair share of immigrants. While these major-continuous gateways housed more than half of all immigrants through 1960, only 29 percent of immigrants lived in one in 2014.
3. Minor-Continuous: Rochester, Worcester, Hartford, Tucson, Honolulu, New Haven, Bridgeport, San Antonio, El Paso, Oxnard, Stockton, Modesto, Fresno, McAllen, and Bakersfield.
Quote:
Yet, their minor-continuous counterparts—with more modest but equally long immigration histories—have maintained a fairly steady 7 or 8 percent of the total.
4. Post-World War II: Washington DC, Miami/Fort Lauderdale, Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Riverside/San Bernardino.
Quote:
Gateways that developed after World War II are some of the largest presently, and more than one in three immigrants live in one of these six metropolitan areas, all of which are located in the West or the South: Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, Riverside, San Diego, and Washington, D.C. The post-WWII gateways have seen impressive numeric growth, comprising just a tiny share of the total (2 percent) in the early 20th century, by 1990 they topped out at 41 percent and currently house 37 percent of immigrants.
5. Re-emerging: Denver, Tampa, Seattle, Minneapolis/Saint Paul, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Portland, Sacramento, and San Jose.
Quote:
The re-emerging gateways, metro areas including Baltimore and Philadelphia in the East, and Seattle and Denver in the West, had significant immigrant populations in the early 20th century and declines at mid-century, trends akin to the former gateways. By the end of the 20th century and into the beginning of the 21st, the re-emerging gateways had a solid uptick in immigrants, inching up to 12 percent in 2014, but not yet reaching the level of 14 percent seen in 1900.
6. Major-Emerging: Orlando, Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta, Charlotte, and Las Vegas.
Quote:
The fastest contemporary growth rates belong to the major-emerging gateways (Atlanta, Austin, Charlotte, Las Vegas, Orlando, and Phoenix); together they comprise 8 percent of the total foreign-born population in 2014.
7. Minor-Emerging: Cape Coral, Columbus, Indianapolis, Nashville, Greensboro, Lakeland, Salt Lake City, Raleigh, and Durham.
Quote:
The up-and-coming minor-emerging gateways had miniscule foreign-born populations until very recent, very fast growth. They include places such as Nashville, Raleigh, Durham, and Greensboro in the South and Columbus and Indianapolis in the Midwest. Together both emerging gateway groups now make up 11 percent of the total.
Rest of analysis:
Quote:
It is not a surprise that the former and major-continuous gateways saw the slowest growth rates in the 2000-2014 period, but for different reasons. The former gateways include Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and Pittsburgh, all metro areas that have declined in overall population during the period due to a shrinking native-born population. In contrast, the immigrant population grew by 23 percent on average across the seven former gateway metros. A number of municipal and non-profit leaders in many of these gateways have made the case for attracting and retaining immigrant workers and families as a boon for local economies and a tonic for shrinking populations.
The major-continuous gateways have a different storyline. They have a large, long-standing immigrant base and thus the rate of population increase of this group is lower, despite the fact that immigrants continue to go to these places. For their part, the minor-continuous gateways are a combination of the slower-growing New England metro areas such as New Haven, Bridgeport, and Hartford, with faster-growing metro areas in Texas and California such as San Antonio, McAllen, and Bakersfield posting more elevated growth rates. Boasting some of the largest immigrant populations in America, the post-WWII gateways together grew faster than the U.S. average, but their immigrant increases fell below the U.S. average despite the absolute numeric gains registered by Houston, Miami, Washington, D.C., Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Riverside, Calif. in particular. Notably Los Angeles’ population growth is slowing across the board.
The question of whether the United States will be able to replace its labor force to remain economically viable in the global market is also tied to immigration. The majority of immigrants come to the United States during their most productive working and reproductive years. This will prove to be more important in the next several decades as the large cohort of U.S.-born baby boomers enter retirement age.
The difference in the age composition of the immigrant and the native population is evident already. While 53 percent of the total U.S. population is in the prime working ages (25-64); only 50 percent of the native born population is in this age range versus 72 of the foreign-born population. This plays out differently across metro areas (Figure 3). In examining the percentage point difference in the share of foreign-born and native-born of prime working age (25 to 64), it is possible to see where immigrants are potentially contributing most to the labor supply across metro areas. Fast-growing minor-continuous gateways in the Southwest, such as Bakersfield, McAllen, and Fresno have greater shares of the immigrant population of prime working age relative to the native population. Indeed, the 10 metropolitan areas with the greatest differences in the two are all minor-continuous (those primarily in the Central Valley in California) or post-WWII gateways in Texas and California (Houston, Dallas-Ft. Worth, and Riverside).The exception is San Jose, a re-emerging gateway. On the other end of the spectrum, the 10 metro areas with more similar shares of both native- and foreign-born in the prime working ages include almost all of the former gateways, and the many in the group of minor-continuous gateways in New England, along with Tucson.
Atlanta is way over 750k by now, even in that report it was 751K, it should be classified as a Major-Continuous, or post WWII
First of all, Atlanta has never been a continuous immigrant magnet, so it won't qualify as one unless it remains so near the end of the 21st Century. Second of all, Atlanta only become a major immigrant magnet in the 1980s and 1990s, whereas the post-World War II immigrant magnets became so during the 1950s and 1960s. As a result, Atlanta fits into the emerging category.
Anyway, here's how the major MSAs are sorted by immigrant population percentage and growth:
Foreign-born percentage (2014)
39.2% - Miami
37.7% - San Jose
33.7% - Los Angeles
30.4% - San Francisco/Oakland
28.8% - New York
23.2% - San Diego
23.1% - Houston
22.6% - Washington DC
22.2% - Las Vegas
21.9% - Riverside/San Bernardino
13.0% - Tampa
12.7% - Denver
12.6% - Portland
12.5% - Hartford
12.1% - Salt Lake City
11.8% - San Antonio
11.7% - Raleigh
10.2% - Philadelphia
10.1% - Baltimore
10.1% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
9.4% - Detroit
9.3% - Charlotte
8.7% - Jacksonville
8.4% - Oklahoma City
7.9% - Nashville
7.7% - New Orleans
7.7% - Richmond
7.3% - Columbus
7.1% - Milwaukee
6.6% - Rochester
6.5% - Kansas City
6.5% - Virginia Beach/Norfolk
6.4% - Indianapolis
6.3% - Buffalo
5.5% - Cleveland
5.5% - Louisville
5.0% - Memphis
4.4% - Cincinnati
4.2% - St. Louis
3.6% - Birmingham
+89% - Austin
+85% - Birmingham
+85% - Las Vegas
+82% - Cincinnati
+82% - Oklahoma City
+77% - Atlanta
+77% - Memphis
+67% - Houston
+67% - Kansas City
+67% - Minneapolis/St. Paul
+64% - Seattle
+64% - Washington DC
+63% - San Antonio
+63% - Tampa
+59% - Dallas/Fort Worth
+59% - Riverside/San Bernardino
+58% - Philadelphia
+58% - Virginia Beach/Norfolk
+55% - Sacramento
+50% - New Orleans
+49% - Denver
+47% - Salt Lake City
+46% - St. Louis
+43% - Phoenix
+42% - Portland
+40% - Buffalo
+38% - Boston
+36% - Milwaukee
+34% - Pittsburgh
+32% - Miami
+29% - Hartford
+26% - San Jose
+25% - San Diego
+24% - San Francisco/Oakland
+19% - Detroit
+18% - New York
+17% - Providence
+16% - Rochester
+15% - Chicago
+4% - Los Angeles
IMO the line between 2 and 4 is kind of blurred. But I get why they make the distinction
I think the distinction is pretty stark: the cities in the second category were major immigrant hubs well before WW2, in contrast to the cities in category 4.
Oh and my bad, there is an 8th category as well that I forgot about when I made the thread, as identified by the Brookings Institution.
8. Low immigration metro areas: New Orleans, Akron, Albany, Albuquerque, Allentown, Augusta, Baton Rouge, Birmingham, Boise, Charleston, Cincinnati, Colorado Springs, Columbia, Dayton, Deltona, Des Moines, Grand Rapids, Greenville, Harrisburg, Jackson, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Knoxville, Lancaster, Little Rock, Louisville, Madison, Memphis, Sarasota, Ogden, Oklahoma City, Omaha, Palm Bay, Portland (ME), Provo, Richmond, Scranton, Spokane, Springfield (MA), Syracuse, Toledo, Tulsa, Virginia Beach, Wichita, Winston-Salem, and Youngstown.
Quote:
Do not meet any of the above criteria and their percent foreign-born is smaller than the national rate. There is considerable variation in the size and growth patterns of the immigrant population in these metro areas. Some have small, but fast-growing foreign-born populations, such as Birmingham and Scranton, and others have sizable, but slower-growing immigrant populations, like New Orleans. Still others have very low numbers of immigrants.
Population Centers by MSA, 2014: 01. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 20,092,883
02. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 13,262,220
03. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 9,554,598
04. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 6,954,330
05. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 6,490,180
06. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area: 6,051,170
07. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area: 6,033,737
08. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area: 5,929,819
09. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 5,614,323
10. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,732,161
11. San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,594,060
12. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,489,109
13. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,441,890
14. Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,296,611
15. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 3,671,478
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 3,495,176
17. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 3,263,431
18. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,915,582
19. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,754,258
20. Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,380,314
21. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,348,247
22. San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,328,652
23. Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,321,418
24. Sacramento–Roseville–Arden-Arcade, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,244,397
25. Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,069,681
26. Cleveland-Elyria, OH Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,063,598
27. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,952,872
28. Austin-Round Rock, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,943,299
Foreign Born Persons by MSA, 2014: 01. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 5,791,236
02. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 4,473,597
03. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area: 2,322,794
04. Chicago-Naperville-Elgin, IL-IN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,685,654
05. Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,498,072
06. San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,398,127
07. Washington-Arlington-Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,362,763
08. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX Metropolitan Statistical Area: 1,243,764
09. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 974,210
10. Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH Metropolitan Statistical Area: 832,708
11. San Diego-Carlsbad, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 757,937
12. Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 751,859
13. San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 736,326
14. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area: 652,266
15. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA Metropolitan Statistical Area: 630,389
16. Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD Metropolitan Statistical Area: 620,158
17. Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV: 459,629
18. Sacramento--Roseville--Arden-Arcade, CA: 403,975
19. Detroit-Warren-Dearborn, MI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 401,917
20. Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, FL: 390,653
21. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL Metropolitan Statistical Area: 380,338
22. Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI Metropolitan Statistical Area: 352,254
23. Denver-Aurora-Lakewood, CO: 348,936
24. Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA: 295,627
25. Austin-Round Rock, TX: 288,627
26. San Antonio-New Braunfels, TX: 273,420
27. Charlotte-Concord-Gastonia, NC-SC: 221,370
28. Cleveland-Elyria, OH: 114,009
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 12-03-2015 at 09:55 AM..
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.
