Which States Win Migration? Part II
The Role of International Migrants
In my last post, I looked at overall net migration in each state. However, debates about migration in America always have an international component to them. Whether it’s foreign students, H1-B visas, illegal/undocumented immigrants*, refugee and diaspora communities, or other linkages, there is a complementary relationship between international migration and internal migration.
Immigration in 2013 was concentrated in a few “gateway” states, especially on the east coast. While, net immigration into the states along the Mexican border was relatively low. This is partly because of declining illegal/undocumented immigration, but also partly because many of those immigrants re-migrate back across the Mexican border. Such circular migration maintains a large (and poorly integrated in many cases) migrant community in the U.S., but results in fairly low net migration in a given year (curiously, there is some research that suggests increased border protection efforts may not only reduce illegal/undocumented immigration into the US, but may also reduce voluntary emigration by those same individuals: the higher risks in return reduce the incentive to go home).
Once immigrants are in the United States, their internal migrations are substantively different from the native-born. Foreign-born individuals especially display a relatively stronger preference for the Midwest. At least as important: “gateway” states with high immigration tend to retain immigrants fairly well, but be associated with high out-migration by natives.
Gross Immigration is Widely Distributed
For most of this series, I’ve focused on net immigration. Unfortunately, ACS data can’t track net international immigration: emigrants are out of the country, so out of the ACS survey sample. All it can track is gross immigration, or how many people move into the country.
While there is some variation in gross immigration between states, immigration is less concentrated on borders and coasts than might be expected. Inland states like Colorado, Utah, Nevada, or Idaho experienced migration rates similar to Texas, Arizona, or New York. In other words, when immigrants arrive in the U.S., they are pretty widely distributed around the country, not concentrated right on the border.
Net Immigration is Concentrated in “Gateway” States
The Census Components of Population Change include annual estimates of net international migration. These estimates show a different trend than ACS data.
Contrary to popular narratives of immigration in the United States, the highest net immigration in 2013 was along the east coast, not the Mexican border. Key metro areas like New York City, DC, and Boston in particular saw high immigration, along with certain west coast cities like Seattle and San Francisco.
Despite having high gross migration rates, many western states have low net migration. The reason is that they also experience consistent out-migration. The border states have high migratory “churn” as people come and go to and from Mexico.
Indeed, the glaring absence of exceptionally high net immigration along the Mexican border may shock some observers. Net immigration in border states like Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas was not much higher than in inland states like Kansas, Nebraska, or Illinois. For perspective, net immigration into Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico came to about 76,000 individuals in 2013, which is about the same as net immigration into Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, and Iowa. Meanwhile, net immigration into northeastern states came to 227,000 over the same time period.**
Native-born and Foreign-born U.S. Residents Migrate to Different Places
As shown here, the difference in migration rates between native-born Americans and foreign-born residents (American citizens or not) can be quite significant. Alaska and South Dakota, for example, see far more positive migration rates for the native-born (although in Alaska’s case, it’s still negative for native-born). Meanwhile, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Ohio all have a 1% or greater gap in favor of foreign-born migrants.
Overall, there are a few interesting points: foreigners are less likely to depart from key “gateway states” like California, New York, Texas, or New Jersey than native-born Americans are. This is important, because it suggests that these “gateways” could have some phenomenon that accelerates out-migration by the native-born relative to foreigners, or that diminishes native-born in-migration relative to foreign-born. If increasing immigration leads to the native born being displaced from a state, that may raise concerns for policymakers (or they may decide such displacement is totally fine: such a judgment will depend on those policymakers’ priorities).
Meanwhile, the native-born seem to have fairly strong preferences for the southeastern and western US compared to the foreign born, and a much weaker preference for the midwest. In Ohio, natives have a -0.2% migration rate, compared to 0.8% for the foreign born. In Indiana, migration for natives is essentially 0, while it’s 0.5% for the foreign-born. In Minnesota, natives have out-migration at -0.3%, while the foreign-born migrate in at 0.2%. While the midwest is losing people on net, an important shift is happening, with the native-born moving west or south, while the foreign-born replace them. However, at least Arizona and New Mexico do seem to function as “gateways,” with the foreign-born migrating away at a substantially higher rate than the native-born. Texas and California, meanwhile, are actually more likely to attract internal migration among the foreign-born, rather than serve as conduits to send the foreign-born to other states.
Internal migration has a close relationship with immigration. Immigrants in the United States have tended to boost the population of areas seeing native-born out-migration, and that trend continues in 2013. Indeed, immigrants’ different migration trends, due to visa requirements, ethnic or cultural networks, or different mores concerning work and family, can serve as a vital balance to the migrations of the native-born. Lacking foreign-born migrants, states as different as Indiana and New York would all have seen far more more sluggish population growth, and would have experienced more associated economic weaknesses.
Start the series from the beginning!
If you like this post and want to see more research like it, I’d love for you to share it on Twitter or Facebook. But what’s just as valuable for me is if you click the recommend button at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Follow me on Twitter. Follow my Medium Collection at In a State of Migration. I’m a grad student in International Trade and Investment Policy at the George Washington University’s Elliott School. I like to write and tweet about migration, airplanes, trade, space, and other new and interesting research. Cover photo from Unsplash.
* I use the dual term illegal/undocumented for this post. I have no desire here to wade into debates about the right immigration policy, or weigh in on the interminable terminological debates regarding individuals from other countries who enter the U.S. in with varying degrees of noncompliance with United States laws and regulations. My understanding is that most commentators regard one of either “illegal immigrant” or “undocumented immigrant” to be most correct. For the purposes of this post, I have chosen to use both. I made this choice to minimize politically charged distractions from my key points regarding the relationship between international and internal migration.
** I do not know how the Census Components of Population Change treat undocumented/illegal immigrants. ACS counts these individuals, but it is possible that they are excluded from net immigration data. I have attempted to find an answer to this, but have not yet found it. If any readers know the answer, please share!
