At a global scale, 71 percent of immigrants live in high-income countries, while the vast majority of emigrants (65 percent) come from middle-income countries. As seen in figure 3.2, there are higher concentrations of immigrants as a percentage of population in high-income places such as North America, much of Europe, Australia, and New Zealand. In the United States, 14.5 percent of the population was born abroad, substantially fewer than in Canada with 21.8 percent and Australia with 28.2 percent (figure 3.3). A cluster of countries with high immigrant stocks can also be seen in the Middle East, where over 70 percent of residents of the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Kuwait are foreign born.
Less-developed countries tend to have many fewer immigrants. The so-called global south, consisting largely of Latin America, Africa, and much of Asia, stands out in figure 3.2 as having low proportions of immigrants. Among the countries with the lowest percentage of immigrants are China, Vietnam, Indonesia, and Cuba, all of which have a foreign-born population of only 0.1 percent.
Figure 3.2.Migrant stock as a percentage of population. 2015. High-income countries tend to have a larger migrant stock than lower-income countries. Explore this map at http://arcg.is/2dDt4bf. Data source: United Nations.
Figure 3.3.Chinatown in Melbourne, Australia. The foreign-born population of Australia is double the proportion of that of the United States. Photo by ChameleonsEye. Stock photo ID: 188715929. Shutterstock.
In 2015 raw numbers, the largest diasporas, or people who have left their homelands, were from India, Mexico, Russia, and China. All four of these countries had at least ten million emigrants living in other countries, many of which have formed ethnic enclaves (more in chapter 4) in cities around the world.
Figure 3.4 illustrates international migrant flows by showing net migration per 1,000 people between 2010 and 2015. Larger negative numbers mean that more people left a country than arrived during this five-year period. Larger positive numbers mean that more people arrived than left. The Middle East shows the greatest movement of people during this time. The war-torn states of Syria and Libya show the largest proportional outflow of migrants, while the greatest proportional inflow of migrants was to Oman, Lebanon, Qatar, and Kuwait.
Figure 3.4.Net migration 2010−2015 per 1,000 people. The Middle East has seen massive migration flows during this time. Explore this map at http://arcg.is/2dDt4bf. Data source: United Nations.
While immigration is an ongoing topic of political discussion in the United States, net migration between 2010 and 2015 was 3.2 per 1,000, substantially less than in some other rich democracies. For instance, US net immigration was less than half that of Canada (6.7) and nearly one-third that of Australia (8.9) and Norway (9.3).
Migration stock and flow in the United States
Even though the United States has a smaller migrant stock and lower migration flows than some other countries, immigrants have still played an important role in shaping American society. Early American history consisted primarily of immigration from Europe (figure 3.5). The nineteenth century was dominated by immigration from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Germany, while the early twentieth century saw many Italians, Russians, and Austria-Hungarians. After World War II, immigration from the Americas picked up, specifically from Mexico, which by the 1960s outpaced European immigration. Asian immigration also picked up around the 1960s.
Annual trends since 1980 show how immigration from Latin America dominated the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century (figure 3.6). A huge spike in immigration from Latin America occurred in the late 1980s, in large part due to military conflict in Central America. While Latin American immigration outpaced Asian immigration for most of the time-period, by around 2011, new Asian immigrants began to outnumber new immigrants from Latin America, especially from countries such as China, India, and the Philippines.
International immigrants made up 14 percent of the US population in 2015, and immigrants and their children have been the main driver of population growth since the 1960s (figure 3.7). Without immigrants and their descendants, it is estimated that the US population in 2015 would have been 252 million as compared to the actual number of 324 million. By 2065, immigrants and their children will make up 36 percent of the US population. This change will have significant impacts on the human geography of the United States in terms of culture, politics, and economics.
Figure 3.5.US Immigration by region and decade, 1820–2009. Immigration was dominated first by Europeans and later by Latin Americans and Asians. Data source: US Department of Homeland Security.
Figure 3.6.Immigration levels by year, 1980–2012. Around 2011, Asian immigrants began to outnumber Latino immigrants. Data source: United Nations.
At the state level within the United States, migration stock and flows can be observed in terms of international migration and of intrastate migration.
As the United States becomes increasingly influenced by immigrants and their descendants, the country will look more like the states of California, New York, Texas, and Florida. These are the states with the largest international migrant population counts, all with over 3.5 million international immigrants in 2015. These states are all important coastal and border gateway states that also have overall large populations—of both the native born and immigrants. When mapping international immigrants as a proportion of the total population, the states of Nevada, New Jersey, and Massachusetts also stand out, with over 15 percent of their populations being foreign born (figures 3.8 and 3.9).
Figure 3.7.US population with and without immigration. Without immigrants and their children, it is estimated that the US population would have had 72 million fewer people in 2015. Data source: Pew Research Center, 2015.
Native-born migrants within the United States continue to move to the Sun Belt states. The largest native-born migrant stock is found, starting with the highest proportion, in Florida, California, and Texas, followed by Georgia, North Carolina, and Arizona.
Figure 3.8.Proportion of foreign-born residents, 2014. States with more immigrants represent demographic changes that will be faced by the country as a whole. Explore the map at http://arcg.is/2dDtVJc. Data source: US Census.
Figure 3.9.Tet Lunar New Year celebration in Little Saigon, Westminster, California. Gateway states such as California, Texas, New York, and Florida have large immigrant populations. The United States as a whole is becoming more diverse due to immigration. Photo by Joseph Sohm. Stock photo ID: 297524915. Shutterstock.
Figure 3.10 shows the movement of native-born Americans by region. Generally, people stay within the region where they were born—a clear sign of distance decay—so those born in the West tend to move to other western states, while those born in the Midwest stay within their own region as well. The same holds true for people born in the South and Northeast. However, it can also be seen that when people leave their region of birth, there are clear migration flows to the Sun Belt—California,