The neawvmfi New Yorkers Characteristics of the City's Foreign-born Population 2013 edition PLANNING CITYCF Characteristics of the City’s Foreign-born Population 2013 edition The City of New York Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor Department of City Planning Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director Office of Immigrant Affairs Fatima Shama, Commissioner www.nyc.gov/population December 2013 NYC DCP #13-10 The Newest New Yorkers Acknowledgments This report was conceived and written by Arun Peter Lobo and Joseph J. Salvo of the Population Division of the New York City Department of City Planning. Joel Alvarez co-wrote the chapter on immigrant residential settlement. Donnise Hurley and Will Levin illustrated the data, proofread the report, and provided detailed feedback. William Sears, Drew Minert, Erica Maurer, Adam Attar, Anna Triebwasser, and Tamara Agins assisted with mapping and verification of tabulations. The document was prepared under the general direction of Eric Kober, Director of the Housing, Economic and Infrastructure Planning Division. Carol Segarra of the Graphics Division prepared the report for production, designing the cover, page layout, and graphics and tables. We are grateful to Nancy Rytina, Michael Hoefer, and John Simanski of the Office of Immigration Statistics at the Department of Homeland Security for providing data on green card admissions. These data were used in Chapter 6, which was co-written with Vicky Virgin while tenured at City Planning. The printed version of this report was made possible through the support of the Mayor’s Office of Immigrant Affairs, and the One NYC One Nation initiative, a partnership with The New York Community Trust. iv The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition The Newest New Yorkers Contents Acknowledgments ...................................................................................iii List of Tables and Figures ........................................................................ vi CHAPTER 1 Report Highlights, Overview of Chapters, and Data Sources ........... 1 CHAPTER 2 Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population .................. 9 CHAPTER 3 Immigrant Settlement Patterns in New York City ........................... 23 CHAPTER 4 Socio-demographic Profile of the Foreign-born ............................... 95 CHAPTER 5 Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective ............................... 119 CHAPTER 6 Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants .................. 159 Supplementary material available at www.nyc.gov/population CHAPTER 7 The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future.................... 179 Appendix Tables ...................................................................................201 List of Tables TABLE 2-1 Population by Nativity New York City and the United States, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . 10 2-2 Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth New York City, 2000 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 2-3 Foreign-born Population by Area of Origin and Country of Birth New York City, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 2-4 Foreign-born Population by Area of Origin and Country of Birth United States, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 2-5 Decade of Entry of the Foreign-born by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 3-1 Total and Foreign-born Population New York City and Boroughs, 2000–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3-2 Top 20 Neighborhoods of Residence of the Foreign-born New York City, 2000 to 2007–2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 3-3 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Bronx, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 3-4 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Bronx, 2007–2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 3-5 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Bronx, 2007–2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 3-6 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Brooklyn, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 3-7 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Brooklyn, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 3-8 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Brooklyn, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 3-9 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Manhattan, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3-10 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Manhattan, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 3-11 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Manhattan, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 3-12 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Queens, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3-13 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Queens, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 3-14 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Queens, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 3-15 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Staten Island, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3-16 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Staten Island, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 3-17 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Staten Island, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 vi 3-18 Persons Born in the Dominican Republic by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 3-19 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in the Dominican Republic New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3-20 Persons Born in China by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 3-21 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in China by Subregion of Birth New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3-22 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in China New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 3-23 Persons Born in Mexico by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3-24 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Mexico New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 3-25 Persons Born in Jamaica by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3-26 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Jamaica New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 3-27 Persons Born in Guyana by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 3-28 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Guyana New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …74 3-29 Persons Born in Ecuador by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …77 3-30 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Ecuador New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …77 3-31 Persons Born in Haiti by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . …79 3-32 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Haiti New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 3-33 Persons Born in Trinidad and Tobago by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3-34 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Trinidad and Tobago New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 3-35 Persons Born in India by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3-36 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in India New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 3-37 Persons Born in Russia by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3-38 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Russia New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3-39 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 3-40 Persons Born in West African Countries by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5-7 Top Three Source Countries of the Foreign-born by County New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 3-41 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in West African Countries New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 5-8 Characteristics of Selected Lower Income Areas New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 . . 144 5-9 Share of the Foreign-born and White Nonhispanics for Selected Urban Places by Income Level New York Metropolitan Region, 1970 to 2007–2011. . . . . . . . 146 5-10 Top 5 Countries of Birth for the Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 5-11 Area of Origin and Country of Birth by Neighborhood Income New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 3-42 Persons Born in Arab Countries by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3-43 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Arab Countries New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 3-44 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Foreign-born Groups Ranked 11 through 20 New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 4-1 5-12 Characteristics of Selected Upper Income Areas New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 . . 154 Selected Demographic Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 5-13 Characteristics of Selected Middle Income Areas New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 . . 156 Household/Family Type by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 6-1 Persons Admitted for Lawful Permanent Residence New York City, 1982–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Selected Household Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 6-2 Outline of the U.S. Visa Allocation System for Fiscal Years 1982–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162 English Language Proficiency and Educational Attainment by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 6-3 Immigrants Admitted by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . 166 4-5 Household Income and Poverty Status by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 6-4 Immigrants Admitted by class of Admission United States, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . 167 4-6 Labor Force Participation and Class of Worker for Males by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 6-5 Family Preference Visas by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168 6-6 4-7 Definitions of Occupation Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Immediate Relatives by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170 4-8 Male Earnings by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 6-7 Employment Preference Visas by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172 4-9 Labor Force Participation and Class of Worker for Females New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 6-8 Top 20 Users of Diversity Visas New York City, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4-10 Female Earnings by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 6-9 Top 20 Refugee and Asylee Adjustees New York City, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 4-11 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Foreign-born Arriving in 2000 and Later by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 7-1 Enumerated and Adjusted Populations New York City, 1970–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 7-2 5-1 Population by Nativity New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 Economic Characteristics of Migrants to and from New York City: 1985–1990, 1995–2000, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 7-3 5-2 Population by Nativity and County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin & Decade of Entry New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 5-3 White Nonhispanics by County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 7-4 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin & Decade of Entry New York City, 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 5-4 Race/Hispanic Origin by County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 7-5 Births to Foreign-born Mothers by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth New York Metropolitan Region, 2000 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . 135 7-6 Housing Type by Nativity of Household Head New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 4-2 4-3 4-4 5-5 5-6 Top 30 Source Countries of the Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Subregions, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137 vii List of Figures FIGURE 2-1 Growth in the Total and Foreign-born Populations New York City, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2-2 New York City’s Share of the US Foreign-born Population, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 2-3 How Areas of Origin are Defined in this Report . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 2-4 Areas of Origin of the Foreign-born Population New York City and the United States, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2-5 New York City’s 2011 Share of the US Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 2-6 Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth United States, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 2-7 Foreign-Born by Area of the World New York City and the United States, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . 18 2-8 Foreign-Born by Area of the World by Year of Entry New York City and the United States, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 3-1 Foreign-born by Borough New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 3-2 New York City Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 3-3 Foreign-born by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 3-4 Change in Foreign-born by Neighborhood New York City, 2000 to 2007–2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 3-5 Foreign-born by Area of Origin Bronx, 2011. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 3-6 Bronx Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 3-7 Bronx Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007–2011. . . . . . . . . . 33 3-8 Foreign-born by Area of Origin Brooklyn, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 3-9 Brooklyn Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 3-10 Brooklyn Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . 39 3-11 Foreign-born by Area of Origin Manhattan, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 3-12 Manhattan Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 3-13 Manhattan Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007–2011 . . . . . . 47 3-14 Foreign-born by Area of Origin Queens, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 3-15 Queens Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 3-20 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in the Dominican Republic by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 3-21 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in China by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 3-22 Foreign-born Population from China by Subregion of Birth New York City Boroughs, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 3-23 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Mexico by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 3-24 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Jamaica by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 3-25 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Guyana by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 3-26 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Ecuador by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 3-27 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Haiti by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 3-28 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Trinidad and Tobago by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 3-29 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in India by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 3-30 Persons Born in Russia by Borough New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 3-31 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Russia by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3-32 Foreign-born Population from Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan New York City Boroughs, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 3-33 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in West African Countries by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 3-34 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Arab Countries by Neighborhood New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 4-1 Children Under 18 Years by Nativity New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 4-2 Percent of Population Not Proficient in English New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102 4-3 Dropout Rates Among Persons 17–24 New York City, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 4-4 Occupations of Males by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4-5 Occupations of Females by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 3-16 Queens Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . 53 3-17 Foreign-born by Area of Origin Staten Island, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3-18 Staten Island Neighborhoods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3-19 Staten Island Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007–2011 . . . . 63 viii The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 5-1 Percent Foreign born by County New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 7-7 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin New York City, 2000 and 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 5-2 Total and Foreign-born Population by County Inner and Outer Counties for the New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 7-8 Population 65 and Over by Nativity New York City, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 7-9 5-3 Total and Foreign-born Population New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2011 . . . . . . 122 Resident Labor Force by Nativity and Age New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192 5-4 Total Population by Subregion New York Metropolitan Region, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 5-5 Foreign-born Population by Subregion New York Metropolitan Region, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 7-11 5-6 Percent White Nonhispanic by Subregion New York Metropolitan Region, 19 0–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 7-12 Age by Race/Hispanic Origin New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 5-7 Foreign born by Area of Origin New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 5-8 Country of Birth by Subregion of Settlement New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 5-9 Census Tracts with High Foreign-born Concentrations New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 7-10 Nativity of New York City’s Resident Employed by Selected Industry New York City, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193 Population by Race/Hispanic Origin New York City, 1970–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 5-10 Census Tracts by Income Level New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 5-11 Country of Birth by Neighborhood Income New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 6-1 Immigrants Admitted by Class of Admission New York City and the United States, 1982–1991 and 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164 6-2 Family Preference Immigrants New York City & the United States, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011; and the United States, 2002–2011. . . . . . . . 165 6-3 Immigrants Admitted by Detailed Employment Preferences New York City and the United States, 1992–2001 and 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 6-4 Top Five Sources of Diversity Immigrants New York City and the United States, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . 173 6-5 Top Five Sources of Refugee/Asylees New York City and the United States, 2002–2011 . . . . . . . . . 175 7-1 Estimated Components of Population Change New York City by Decade, 1970–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 7-2 Migration Patterns for Persons Filing Tax Returns New York City, 1985–2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 7-3 Changing Origins of In-migrants to New York City 1995–2000 and 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 7-4 Estimated Components of Population Change (Annualized) New York City, 2000–2010 and 2010–2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 7-5 Annual Change in the Estimated Unauthorized Population New York State, 1990 to 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 7-6 Unauthorized Immigrant Outflow from New York State By Components of Change: 2009–2010. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 ix The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition CHAPTER Report Highlights, Overview of Chapters, And Data Sources The Newest New Yorkers: Characteristics of the City’s Foreign-born Population (2013 edition) provides a comprehensive portrait of immigrants in New York City. It examines where the city’s foreign-born come from, their patterns of settlement, the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the city’s immigrants, the role of the foreign-born in the New York region, changes in the legal paths of entry of newly admitted immigrants, and concludes by examining the impact of immigrants on the city. This is the latest volume in The Newest New Yorker series, which began in 1992 with the publication of The Newest New Yorkers: An Analysis of Immigration to New York City in the 1980s, and continued with The Newest New Yorkers, 1990–1994, The Newest New Yorkers, 1995–1996, and The Newest New Yorkers, 2000, which was released in 2005. The 2013 edition of The Newest New Yorkers builds on the preceding volume and provides detailed analyses of the latest available data. It continues a tradition of providing comprehensive information on the foreign-born to policy makers, program planners, and service providers, to help them gain perspective on a population that continues to reshape the city. And for the first time, this edition includes interactive web content, at www.nyc.gov/population. New York City’s demography is dynamic, defined by the ebb and flow of people. These demographic changes result in a unique level of diversity: over one-third of the city’s 3 million foreign-born residents arrived in the U.S. in 2000 or later; 49 percent of the population speaks a language other than English at home; and in just 30 years, what was a city with a population of primarily European origins has now become a place with no dominant race/ethnic or nationality group. Indeed, New York’s unmatched diversity epitomizes the world city. Most U.S. cities in the Northeast and Midwest saw their population peak in 1950, after which many experienced large declines associated with suburbanization and economic changes that led to central city job losses. While New York also initially experienced declines as a result of these forces, the city’s population was replenished by the flow of new immigrants. After a loss of 10 percent of its population in the 1970s, the city rebounded on the heels of a big economic transformation from manufacturing to service industries that, in turn, acted as a magnet for further immigration. The relative youth and economic activity of immigrants brought the city into an era of renewal and growth, which propelled the population above the 8 million mark in 2000, and to a new peak population of 8.34 million in 2012. In addition to stabilizing New York City’s population, immigration has had a huge impact on the city’s racial and ethnic composition. With the passage of the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act and the abolition of quotas, the countries from which immigrants originated shifted from southern and eastern Europe to Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean. New York City’s foreign-born population is now at an all-time high and reflects immigrant streams from every corner of the world. The next section highlights the main findings of this report. It is followed by an overview of each chapter, and an explanation of data sources used and the conceptual issues that arise when analyzing multiple sources of data on the immigrant population. 1 HIGHLIGHTS OF THE REPORT Overall 1. Since the passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1965, New York’s foreign-born population has more than doubled to 3 million—a population that would comprise the third largest city in the U.S., bested by just New York City and Los Angeles. The surge in the foreign-born has been accompanied by a decline in the share of immigrants from Europe, from 64 percent in 1970 to just 16 percent in 2011. Latin America is now the largest area of origin, comprising nearly one-third of the city’s foreign-born, followed by Asia (28 percent), and the nonhispanic Caribbean (19 percent). Africa accounts for 4 percent. New York arguably boasts the most diverse population of any major city in the world because of the flow of immigrants from across the globe. 2. The immigrant share of the population has also doubled since 1965, to 37 percent. With foreign-born mothers accounting for 51 percent of all births, approximately 6-in-10 New Yorkers are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. 3. Although New York’s foreign-born population increased only modestly since 2000, from 2.9 million to just over 3 million in 2011, it marked a new peak. The Dominican Republic was the largest source of the foreign-born in 2011, with 380,200 residents, followed by China (350,200) in second place. While these rankings have held since 1990, Dominican population growth in the last decade was 3 percent, compared with 34 percent for China. If these growth rates hold, the Chinese would likely be the city’s largest immigrant group in the next few years. 2 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 4. Immigrants from Mexico moved into 3rd place in 2011, with a 52 percent increase over 2000. The Mexican population, which numbered 186,300, was followed by Jamaica (169,200) and Guyana (139,900). Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, India, and Russia rounded out the top 10 groups. Thus the foreign-born in 2011 had very diverse origins, in contrast to the overwhelmingly European origin of the foreign-born in earlier decades. Russia was the only European country to make the top 10 in 2011. 5. The top sources of the foreign-born population for the U.S. differed markedly from those for New York City. Mexicans dominated the U.S. immigrant population, accounting for nearly 3-in-10 of the nation’s 40 million foreign-born. China was the second largest source country for the U.S., followed by India, the Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala. In contrast, the city’s immigrant population was more diverse, with Dominicans, the largest immigrant group in the city, accounting for only 12 percent of the foreign-born. Six countries on the nation’s top 10 list—Philippines, El Salvador, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Guatemala—were not among the city’s top 10 groups, and the last 3 were not even among the city’s top 20 groups. 6. In a national context, most of New York’s top 20 immigrant groups were disproportionately concentrated in the city. The Guyanese had the highest proclivity to settle in New York, with over one-half of Guyanese immigrants in the U.S. making their home in the city. Other countries that were disproportionately represented in the city included the Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, and Trinidad and Tobago—around 4-in-10 immigrants in the U.S. from these countries settled in New York. 7. A majority of the foreign-born are now naturalized citizens. Partly as a result, the entry of immigrants with family ties to legal permanent residents (“green card” holders) has fallen, while visas to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have increased dramatically. Visas to those with ties to permanent residents are numerically limited and entail long waiting periods, as opposed to visas for immediate relatives, which are exempt from any limit. The increase in naturalization has allowed for greater use of immediate relative visas, which paves the way for quicker immigrant entry. In light of the increase in naturalized citizens, and the quicker pathways to family reunification that it provides, the gate to immigration could open even further in the years to come. 8. The ceiling on the annual allotment for asylees was lifted in 2005 to clear a large backlog, resulting in a big increase in the number of asylees admitted, especially from China. Asylees now comprise over 40 percent of the flow from China. The growth in asylees made China the top source of newly admitted immigrants to the city. 9. A number of large source countries have seen increases due to the use of particular pathways to entry. Besides China (increase in asylees), this group includes Bangladesh (family preferences, immediate relatives, and diversity visas), Ecuador (immediate relatives) and Mexico (employment preferences). Bangladesh is now in the number three spot, behind China and the Dominican Republic, in the flow data. Diversity visas have allowed immigrants from Ghana and Nigeria to establish a notable presence in the city, and flows from these sources are likely to burgeon in the next decade as diversity entrants reunify with their kin. Flows from Ukraine and Russia declined due to a fall in refugee admissions. SETTLEMENT PATTERNS 1. While immigrants were dispersed throughout the city, 1.09 million lived in Queens, and another 946,500 lived in Brooklyn, together accounting for two-thirds of the city’s immigrants. The Bronx and Manhattan were home to 471,100 (15 percent) and 461,300 (15 percent) immigrants, respectively, while 98,400 (3 percent) lived in Staten Island. 2. In terms of immigrants as a percentage of the population, Queens was the most immigrant borough, with nearly one-half of residents foreign-born in 2011. Much of this immigrant population was clustered along the “International Express”—the number 7 subway line that runs across northwest Queens. Elmhurst, which sits astride this route, had one of the highest concentrations of immigrants in the city. Queens had a remarkably diverse immigrant population and was the only borough where Asians comprised a plurality among the foreign-born. Top immigrant groups included the Chinese (who settled across northern Queens), the Guyanese (concentrated in South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill), Ecuadorians, and Mexicans (both of whom tended to settle in northwest Queens). 3. Brooklyn’s immigrants also exhibited a remarkable diversity, rivaling that of Queens. These diverse origins were arrayed in a chain of neighborhoods, forming a horseshoe pattern along the B-Q and N subway lines. Immigrants constituted almost one-half of the population in neighborhoods along these routes, encompassing nearly half of the borough’s foreign-born population. The Chinese were concentrated in the western portion of the area, along with Dominicans, Mexicans, and Ecuadorians. Jamaican, Haitian, and other nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants settled primarily in central Brooklyn, while Russians and Ukrainians were concentrated in southern Brooklyn. Chapter 1: Report Highlights, Overview of Chapters, and Data Sources 3 4. Washington Heights in Manhattan was the neighborhood with the largest number of immigrants (80,200), followed by Bensonhurst (77,700), and Elmhurst (77,100). 7. Most immigrant groups generally begin their American experience on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and this is reflected in their initial neighborhoods of residence. Together, these three neighborhoods had more immigrants than the city of Philadelphia. Neighborhoods that rounded out the top 10 were Corona, Jackson Heights, Sunset Park, Flushing, Flatbush, Crown Heights, and Bushwick. As in New York City, immigrants in the inner and outer suburban counties tended to live in neighborhoods that had older, small multi-unit rental buildings, which produced high population densities. Since family networks tend to feed immigration and influence immigrant settlement, lower income neighborhoods were home to large foreign-born concentrations. 5. Of the major immigrant neighborhoods, Bushwick saw the highest growth, with its immigrant population increasing by over one-fifth between 2000 and 2007–2011. Areas in southwest Brooklyn, eastern Brooklyn, and eastern Queens also experienced substantial gains, reflected in neighborhoods such as East New York and Sunset Park, both in Brooklyn, and South Ozone Park in Queens. East and Central Harlem in Manhattan and Concourse-Concourse Village in the South Bronx also experienced high growth among the foreign-born. 6. The counties surrounding the city are now primary destinations of settlement, as many newly arrived immigrants bypass the city and settle directly in other parts of the region. In earlier decades, counties adjacent to the city were secondary destinations of settlement, as many post-1965 immigrants left the city to make their home in the suburbs. While New York City was still home to a majority of the region’s foreign-born population, the inner suburban counties accounted for 38 percent, while the outer counties settled over 11 percent. Counties closest to New York City were disproportionately foreign-born. Hudson County, across the river from New York City, was 40 percent foreign-born—higher than any county in the region, except for Queens. The inner ring counties of Middlesex, Bergen, Passaic, and Union were around 30 percent or more foreign-born, while in the outer ring, Mercer (20 percent) and Suffolk (14 percent) counties had the highest percentage of immigrants. 4 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 8. While lower income areas, especially in urban settings, have historically been the destination of choice for immigrants, a new pattern has been emerging that shows substantial immigrant settlement in wealthier areas. In the region as a whole, these upper income areas were home to over one million immigrants, disproportionately from Europe and Asia. IMPACTS 1 Immigrants have played an important role in maintaining the city’s population. In recent decades immigrant flows have mitigated what could have been catastrophic population losses (1970s), have stabilized the city’s population (1980s), were a major impetus for growth that helped New York officially cross the 8 million mark in 2000, and have propelled the city to a new population peak of 8.34 million in 2012. 2. With the native-born population in decline, immigrants have helped shore up the population of many counties and places in the region. Foreign-for-native replacement, which first took place in New York City, has been replicated in many of the inner suburban counties. The flow of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean, coupled with white outflows, has also altered the racial/Hispanic composition of the region. 3. On the economic front, immigrants comprised 47 percent of all employed residents and could be found in all major industries. Immigrants accounted for over a majority of residents employed in construction; accommodation, food, and other services; transportation, warehousing and utilities; and manufacturing. Immigrants were heavily represented among those who start new businesses, providing a continuous injection of economic vitality that serves the neighborhoods of New York. As workers in the large baby boom cohorts retire, they need to be replaced to ensure the continued prosperity of New York’s economy. If history is any indication, the economic opportunities in New York will continue to sustain the flow of immigrants into the city’s labor force. 4. Immigrants also drive the demand for housing. Close to one-half of all housing units occupied for the first time after 2000 had an immigrant householder; add the second generation and the share rises to more than 6-in-10. Yorkers will need to be adjusted to accommodate the needs of people from a multitude of nations and variety of backgrounds. The continued flow of working age immigrants could help ameliorate the costs associated with increased services that will be needed by the burgeoning older population. 7. The role of domestic migration may be changing. The inflow of domestic migrants has increased and the outflow from the city has declined, greatly reducing the net outflow of persons to the rest of the nation; there is still a net domestic loss of persons, but it is greatly attenuated. Moreover, two-thirds of all migrants coming to New York City now originate from other parts of the nation, compared with one-half in 2000. 8. The most recent data suggest that we are potentially in the midst of yet another phase in the city’s demographic history. It is one where, as noted above, domestic migration plays a heightened role, as evidenced by more modest losses to the rest of the nation, but also where there are smaller gains through international migration. This relative balance of 5. The large flow of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean has reshaped the race/ Hispanic composition of New York. New York has changed from a city of largely European origins to a diverse mix where no one group is in the majority. domestic losses and international gains, while present in just the last few years, may represent a reversal of a longstanding pattern of net losses through migration. 9. Future immigration to New York City will be influenced by newly proposed federal legislation. 6. Immigrants will become a larger portion of the older age cohorts, which are projected to increase by more than 400,000 persons by 2040. Local conditions, however, will continue to deter- The fact that the older foreign-born population is a product of the post-1965 immigration translates into a new phase of unprecedented diversity for the city’s older population. Models that are currently used to provide services to older New to immigrants and local policies that enhance the mine whether those who enter the nation settle in New York City. New York’s historic receptivity incorporation of newcomers into the fabric of the city, coupled with a healthy and diverse economy, should ensure New York’s continued status as a magnet for immigrants. Chapter 1: Report Highlights, Overview of Chapters, and Data Sources 5 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT Chapter 2, Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population, presents information on the size and country composition of the foreign-born, with a special emphasis on change over the last 40 years. Chapter 3, Immigrant Settlement Patterns in New York City, examines the spatial distribution of New York’s foreign-born population, highlighting the top immigrant neighborhoods in the city. The chapter also examines leading immigrant groups in each borough and in major neighborhoods across the city. The top neighborhoods of residence are tabulated and mapped for major foreign-born groups. Chapter 4, Socio-demographic Profile of the Foreignborn, provides a comprehensive look at measures of demographic (age and sex composition and family type); housing (tenure and overcrowding); social (educational attainment, year of entry, and English proficiency); economic (median household income, poverty status, and public assistance); and labor force (labor force participation, occupation, and class of worker) characteristics for New York City’s top 20 foreign-born groups. These profiles provide perspective on the level of distress in a community and are crucial in formulating policies and programs that better fit the needs of specific groups. Chapter 5, Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective, offers an analysis of immigrants in the 31 county New York Metropolitan Region. In 2011, there were nearly 6 million foreign-born residents in the region, which encompasses the 5 counties of New York City, an inner ring of 12 counties that are closest to the city, and an outer ring of 14 counties. Chapter 6, Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants, examines those who obtained legal permanent residence or green cards that listed an address of intended residence in New York City. These data provide insight into the current flow of immigrants by country of birth and legal classes of admission. Detailed analyses of classes of admission for the 6 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition top 20 sending countries, as well as tables showing class of admission for every country over the past 3 decades, are available as a chapter supplement at www.nyc.gov/population. Chapter 7, The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future, examines the effects of immigration on the city’s population size and composition, labor force, and housing from a city planning perspective. As with earlier reports in The Newest New Yorkers series, this report contains a detailed set of appendix tables that permit a closer examination of many points made in the main text. These tables provide information for countries that are not included in the analyses of top foreign-born groups. Included here are data on neighborhoods of residence for the top 40 immigrant groups in New York City, as well as demographic information for every county in the region. Finally, interactive maps that provide a look at countries represented in each of the neighborhoods of New York, as well as maps detailing the settlement patterns of top source countries by neighborhood are available at www.nyc.gov/population. DATA SOURCES AND CONCEPTS The main objective of this volume is to describe the stock of immigrants in New York City. It is important to emphasize that the concept of immigrant stock refers to all residents of New York City who were foreign-born. Measurement of the foreign-born population of New York City has changed since the publication of The Newest New Yorkers, 2000. The source of data for the 2000 analysis—the decennial census long form—was replaced by the American Community Survey (ACS), which began full implementation in 2005. Like the census long form, the ACS provides data on the characteristics of all foreign-born residents using a sample of the population. This encompasses all persons who lived for at least two months in their current location at the point of response/time of interview, including persons who resided in the city on a temporary basis, such as students and those on temporary work assignments. Chapters 2 through 5 focus on the immigrant stock using data from the ACS. Unlike the decennial census long form, however, data collection in the ACS occurs on a continuous basis; each month some 295,000 households in the nation receive an ACS questionnaire. Each year, sample cases for the preceding 12 months are combined to create tabulations of characteristics for New York City and its five boroughs. Most of the analyses in this volume utilize data for 2011 as the latest time point. Much of the data come from the ACS Summary File tabulations via American FactFinder (AFF), the Census Bureau’s web-based data dissemination system. Data are for one year of the ACS, which works out to a little more than 1 percent of the foreign-born population or about 30,000 persons in the New York City sample. While one year of data are sufficient to create tabulations for the city and boroughs overall, the sample is not large enough to provide reliable information for smaller geographic areas such as neighborhoods (or for small places in the metropolitan region). Detailed information for neighborhoods requires multiple years of sample to create tabulations. Moreover, geographic areas must be large enough in terms of population to achieve sufficient sample. In this analysis, we employ Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs) as building blocks to depict the residential settlement patterns of immigrants in neighborhoods across the five boroughs. NTAs are aggregates of the city’s 2,167 census tracts and are subsets of New York City’s 55 Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs). Primarily due to these constraints, NTA boundaries and their associated names may not definitively represent neighborhoods. NTAs are meant to provide broad reference points to analyze the residential settlement of immigrants. In the few instances where two NTAs constituted a split neighborhood, they are combined for this analysis. For example, the original “Sunset Park East” and “Sunset Park West” NTAs are combined and appear as “Sunset Park.” NTA tabulations are based on five years of sample, for the period 2007–2011. Tabulations, maps and charts for 2007–2011 essentially represent an average for a characteristic over that period. For example, an NTA may be said to contain a number of residents born in a specific country more or less averaged over the period 2007-2011. While the broad time interval for this reference period is less than ideal, this disadvantage is more than offset by the larger sample obtained for a five year period, improving the reliability of estimates. Typically, the five-year NTA tabulations are based on a sample of about 6 percent. It is important to recognize that numbers created for 2011 from a single year of sample will differ from those created for 2007–2011, based on a sample of data collected over five-years. Sometimes these differences can be sizable; nevertheless, each analysis still provides us with useful descriptions of characteristics and settlement patterns that can be melded into an overall portrait of immigrant New York. When it comes to detailed demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of foreign-born groups, custom cross-tabulations were required. These were primarily constructed from the ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) file for 2011, but also from the 2009-2011 file when a larger sample size was required. The PUMS files contain records that have the attributes of residents, including their nativity and birthplace, as reported in the ACS questionnaire, with steps taken to preserve the confidentiality of individual respondents. The 2011 PUMS file contains a 1 percent sample of the city’s population, or records for approximately 30,000 foreign-born persons, while the 2009–2011 PUMS file has a 1 percent sample from each of the 3 years or about 90,000 respondents. The advantage of the PUMS file is that it is possible to derive custom tabulations for the foreign-born that are not available in the Summary File series (e.g. those in Chapter 4). Since overlapping samples and time periods yield slightly different estimates of characteristics, figures that were based on the one- and five- year Summary Files, and estimates derived from the oneand three-year PUMS, will all differ slightly. Chapter 1: Report Highlights, Overview of Chapters, and Data Sources 7 It is important to note that ACS data are subject to sampling error, which refers to variability in estimates due to the use of a sample. In general, when comparisons are made, highlighted differences have all been deemed to be statistically significant. Unlike the analyses of the immigrant stock in Chapters 2 to 5, Chapter 6 focuses on the flow of newly-admitted immigrants to New York City, their origins, paths to admission, characteristics, and residential settlement patterns. This analysis is based on data from the administrative records of the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) at the Department of Homeland Security. These data include the annual immigrant tape files for federal fiscal years 1982 to 2001 and special tabulations for New York City for 2002 to 2011. These data show how newly admitted immigrants navigate immigration law, detailing the legal paths of entry they employ. Administrative data on newly admitted immigrants are the only source of such information and allow us to understand the effect of U.S. immigration law on the size and character of legal immigration to the city. All persons who listed their address of intended residence as within the five boroughs of New York City were included in this analysis. The final chapter used a number of data sources to highlight the impact of immigration on New York City. To explain the dynamic nature of the city’s population, data on births and deaths going back to 1970 from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene were used, along with adjusted decennial census counts from 1970 to 2010, 2012 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau, and data on changes of address of income tax filers from the Internal Revenue Service. To examine the immigrant component of the 65 and over population and the city’s labor force, several ACS files were used (2011 and 2007–2011 five-year averages). In addition, the 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey was employed to analyze the role immigrants play in the city’s housing market. 8 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 2 CHAPTER Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population Throughout its history, New York City’s population has been shaped by the ebb and flow of immigrants. In recent decades, the city’s population has been reshaped by the Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1965. This seminal legislation repealed immigration quotas that favored northern and western Europeans and placed all countries on an equal footing, resulting in a large increase in immigrants from non-European sources. This chapter first examines the overall growth of the city’s population in the past century, as well as its foreign-born component, to provide historical context to the 21st century foreign-born population. It next examines the top immigrant groups in 2011, and then goes on to analyze the effects of the 1965 law by focusing on decade-by-decade changes in the composition of the city’s immigrant population since 1970. New York City’s Population, 1900–2011 Table 2-1 shows the total and foreign-born populations of New York City and the U.S. by decade for the period 1900-2011, while Figure 2-1 shows how these populations grew in the city. In 1900, two years after the consolidation of the five boroughs of New York, the city’s population stood at 3.4 million, and reached over 8.2 million by 2011. Most of this growth occurred in the first three decades of the 20th century, sustained by large immigrant flows. In the first decade of the last century, the city’s population increased 39 percent, reaching 4.8 million in 1910. Continued immigration, domestic inflows, and natural increase (births minus deaths) resulted in further increases, with the city’s population reaching 6.9 million in 1930. With the onset of the Great Depression and World War II, immigration tapered off in the 1930s and 1940s, but the city continued to grow due to migration from the south and from Puerto Rico. By 1950, the city’s population had reached 7.9 million. High baby boom fertility and domestic inflows in the 1950s did not fully counter the large out-migration to the suburbs, and growth dipped during this period. With the enactment of the 1965 Immigration Amendments, immigration increased, and by 1970 the city’s population rebounded to its 1950 high of 7.9 million. The increase in immigration in the 1970s, while substantial, was insufficient to counter the very large domestic outflow. As a result, the city’s population declined in the 1970s by more than 10 percent, dropping to 7.1 million in 1980. Lower domestic outmigration in the 1980s, a higher level of immigration, and greater natural increase all resulted in a return to growth, with the city’s population enumerated at 7.3 million in 1990. With continued growth in the 1990s, the city’s population crossed the 8 million mark for the first time in 2000 and reached a new peak of 8.2 million in 2011. New York City’s Foreign-born, 1900–2011 Since 2000, New York’s foreign-born population increased modestly, from 2.9 million to just over 3 million in 2011, though it marked a new peak. Prior to this period, the previous high was in 1930, at the tail end of the huge wave of immigration from southern and eastern Europe, when the foreign-born population stood at 2.4 million. But with the slump in immigration during the Great Depression and World War II, the foreign-born population declined, reaching a low of 1.4 million in 1970. With changes in immigration law in 1965 resulting in a resurgence in immigration, the foreign-born population rose in the following three decades. While the 3 million foreign-born New Yorkers in 2011 were an all-time Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 9 Table 2-1 Population by Nativity New York City and the United States, 1900–2011 NEW YORK CITY UNITED STATES Foreign-born Percent Population Foreign-born Total Population 1900 3,437,202 1,270,080 37.0 75,994,575 10,341,276 13.6 12.3 1910 4,766,883 1,944,357 40.8 91,972,266 13,515,886 14.7 14.4 1920 5,620,048 2,028,160 36.1 105,710,620 13,920,692 13.2 14.6 1930 6,930,446 2,358,686 34.0 122,775,046 14,204,149 11.6 16.6 1940 7,454,995 2,138,657 28.7 131,669,275 11,594,896 8.8 18.4 1950 7,891,957 1,784,206 22.6 150,216,110 10,347,395 6.9 17.2 1960 7,783,314 1,558,690 20.0 179,325,671 9,738,091 5.4 16.0 1970 7,894,798 1,437,058 18.2 203,210,158 9,619,302 4.7 14.9 1980 7,071,639 1,670,199 23.6 226,545,805 14,079,906 6.2 11.9 1990 7,322,564 2,082,931 28.4 248,709,873 19,767,316 7.9 10.5 2000 8,008,278 2,871,032 35.9 281,421,906 31,107,889 11.1 9.2 2011 8,244,910 3,066,599 37.2 311,591,919 40,377,860 13.0 7.6 high, their share of the total population (37.2 percent) was well under the peak attained in the preceding century — 40.8 percent in 1910. The U.S. as a whole was 13 percent foreign-born in 2011. 10 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Total Population SHARE OF U.S. Census Year Foreign-born Percent Foreign-born Population Foreign-born in New York At the turn of the last century, New York City was home to 12.3 percent of the nation’s foreignborn population of 10.3 million (Figure 2-2). With southern and eastern European immigrants pouring in and settling disproportionately in New York, the city’s share of the nation’s foreign-born population increased in the next four decades, reaching 18.4 percent in 1940. As immigration waned, and longerresident immigrants out-migrated from New York, the city’s share of the nation’s foreign-born population began to decline. By 1970, under 15 percent of the nation’s foreign-born made their home in New York City. While immigration to the city rebounded after the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Amendments, flows to the nation as a whole increased even faster as Mexicans and Asians largely settled on the West Coast. By 2011, under eight percent of the nation’s foreign-born lived in New York City. This still represented a disproportionate share of the nation’s foreign-born, given that the city accounted for under three percent of the U.S. population in 2011. DEFINING AN IMMIGRANT IN THE AMERICAN COMMUNITY SURVEY The American Community Survey provides detailed information on the place of birth of city residents. Respondents who wrote-in a place of birth outside the United States and its territories, and whose parents were not American citizens, are included in the foreign-born population. The overwhelming share of the foreign-born are immigrants, i.e. persons who were at one time legally admitted to the U.S. for lawful permanent residence under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Unless otherwise noted, immigrants in this study are not necessarily recent entrants; indeed, many have spent years in the U.S. and are naturalized U.S. citizens. The foreign-born population, however, also includes non-immigrants, such as students, business personnel, and diplomats, who have been admitted to the U.S. for a temporary duration. Area of Origin and Country of Birth, 2011 The foreign-born may also include undocumented persons In order to get a broad picture of the foreign-born from around the globe, we divide the world into six of the foreign-born population, we use the terms immigrants who answered the census. Since immigrants comprise most and foreign-born interchangeably. Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 11 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1900–2000 censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning “areas of origin”: Latin America, Asia, the nonhispanic Caribbean,1 Europe, Africa, and an “All Other” category (See Figure 2-3 for how each area is defined). Figure 2-4 shows the 2011 immigrant population in New York City and the U.S. by area of origin. Latin America was the top area of origin in New York City, accounting for nearly one-third of the city’s immigrants. While this was a relatively large share, Latin Americans had an even larger presence among the nation’s foreign-born, where they had a 47 percent share. The Asian presence in the city (28 percent) was close to their 29 percent share of the overall U.S. foreign-born population. In contrast to Latin Americans and Asians, immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean disproportionately made their home in New York City—while they accounted for nearly one-in-five of the foreign-born population in the city, they comprised just five percent of the nation’s foreign-born. The European-born were also over-represented in New York, accounting for 16 12 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition percent of the city’s immigrants, but only 12 percent of the nation’s. Africans comprised the smallest share of the city’s immigrants (4 percent), similar to their share of the nation’s foreign-born. Between 2000 and 2011, the foreign-born population in the city increased by 195,600 or 7 percent, from 2.87 million to 3.1 million (Table 2-2). Dominicans were the largest foreign-born group in 2011, with 380,200 residents or 12 percent of the total, followed by the Chinese (350,200 immigrants from the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan) in second place, rankings both groups have maintained since 1990. Dominican growth, however, was a tepid 3 percent during this period, compared to a 34 percent increase for the Chinese. If these growth rates were to hold, the Chinese would likely be the city’s largest immigrant group in the next few years. Immigrants from Mexico, who numbered 186,300 moved into 3rd place in 2011, up from 5th place in 2000, aided by a 52 percent increase during this period. Table 2-2 Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth New York City, 2000 and 2011 2011 2000 Growth, 2000–2011 RANK NUMBER PERCENT RANK NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL, Foreign-born – 3,066,599 100.0 – 2,871,032 100.0 195,567 6.8 Dominican Republic China* Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti Trinidad and Tobago India Russia Bangladesh Korea Colombia Ukraine Poland Philippines Italy Pakistan United Kingdom El Salvador 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 380,160 350,231 186,298 169,235 139,947 137,791 94,171 87,635 76,493 76,264 74,692 72,822 65,678 59,820 57,726 50,925 49,075 39,794 34,134 32,903 12.4 11.4 6.1 5.5 4.6 4.5 3.1 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1 1 2 5 3 4 6 7 8 14 10 17 12 9 13 15 16 11 18 21 25 369,186 261,551 122,550 178,922 130,647 114,944 95,580 88,794 68,263 81,408 42,865 70,990 84,404 69,727 65,999 49,644 72,481 39,165 28,996 26,802 12.9 9.1 4.3 6.2 4.6 4.0 3.3 3.1 2.4 2.8 1.5 2.5 2.9 2.4 2.3 1.7 2.5 1.4 1.0 0.9 10,974 88,680 63,748 -9,687 9,300 22,847 -1,409 -1,159 8,230 -5,144 31,827 1,832 -18,726 -9,907 -8,273 1,281 -23,406 629 5,138 6,101 3.0 33.9 52.0 -5.4 7.1 19.9 -1.5 -1.3 12.1 -6.3 74.2 2.6 -22.2 -14.2 -12.5 2.6 -32.3 1.6 17.7 22.8 Honduras Greece 22 26 28,552 22,915 0.9 0.7 19 20 32,358 29,805 1.1 1.0 -3,806 -6,890 -11.8 -23.1 Includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 3; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning In fourth and 5th places were 2 nonhispanic Caribbean sources—Jamaica (169,200) and Guyana (139,900), followed by Ecuador (137,800), and two other nonhispanic Caribbean countries, Haiti (94,200) and Trinidad and Tobago (87,600). The foreign-born from Jamaica, Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago declined between 2000 and 2011, while the Guyanese population increased by seven percent. India moved into the top 10 in 2011—the 76,500 immigrants from that country placed it in 9th place, up from 14th place, while Russia maintained its position as the tenth largest source. (As a single political unit, the former U.S.S.R. would have ranked 5th in 2011 and 4th in 2000.2) Turning to those in the second half of the top 20 list, continued growth in the Bangladeshi population placed them at number 11, up from number 17 in 2000. In contrast, Colombia exited the top 10, ranking 13th in 2011, while an aging Italian population fell by one-third and dropped to 17th place. Hondurans and Greeks, who rounded out the top 20 in 2000, also Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 13 the city’s top 20 list of the foreign-born had a below average propensity to settle in New York. These countries were Mexico (under two percent of the nation’s Mexican-born population lived in the city), Philippines (three percent), India (four percent), the United Kingdom (five percent) and Korea (seven percent). Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning saw declines in their populations and were replaced by the United Kingdom and El Salvador, respectively. In 2011, New York City’s 3.1 million immigrants comprised under 8 percent of the country’s foreignborn population (Figure 2-5). But most of New York’s top 20 immigrant groups disproportionately made their home in the city. The Guyanese had the highest proclivity to settle in New York, with over one-half of Guyanese immigrants in the U.S. making their home in the city. Other countries that were disproportionately represented in the city included the Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, and Trinidad and Tobago— around four-in-ten immigrants in the U.S. from these sources settled in New York. Only five countries in 14 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition The top sources of the foreign-born population for the U.S. differed markedly from those for New York City (Figure 2-6). Mexicans dominated the U.S. immigrant population, accounting for nearly three-in-ten of the nation’s 40 million foreign-born. In contrast, the city’s immigrant population was more diverse—Dominicans, the largest immigrant group in the city, accounted for only 12 percent of the foreign-born. China was the second largest source country for the U.S., followed by India, the Philippines, El Salvador, Vietnam, Cuba, Korea, the Dominican Republic, and Guatemala. Six countries on the nation’s top 10 list—Philippines, El Salvador, Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Guatemala—were not among the city’s top 10 groups, and the last 3 were not even among the city’s top 20 groups. Change in the Composition of the Immigrant Population, 1970–2011 This section examines the changing composition of the foreign-born population since the passage of the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act. For the years 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, and 2011, Tables 2-3 and 2-4 show the area of origin and top source countries of the foreign-born populations of New York City and the U.S., respectively, while Figure 2-7 shows the share of each area of origin during this period. In 1970, of the 1.44 million immigrants in the city, 64 percent (922,800) were from Europe, and the top five source countries were all European. Those born fifth. The Dominican Republic, with 120,600 residents, was the second largest source country, followed by Jamaica (93,100) and China (85,100). Latin America was the birthplace of 21 percent of the foreign-born, the nonhispanic Caribbean accounted for 17 percent, and Asia for 13 percent. In 1990, the foreign-born crossed the 2 million mark, and Latin America emerged as the largest area of origin of the city’s immigrant population. The Dominican Republic was the number one source country; Colombia (in eighth place) and Ecuador (in tenth place) were the only other two Latin American countries ranked in the top 10. Europe accounted for 24 percent of the foreign-born, with Italy and the U.S.S.R. still in the top five. Asia and the nonhispanic Caribbean each accounted for one-fifth of the foreign-born population. China, ranked 2nd, was the only Asian source in the top 10, but Korea, India, and the Philippines were top 20 source countries. Three nonhispanic Caribbean countries were in the top 10: Jamaica (ranked 3rd), Guyana (ranked 6th), and Haiti (in 7th place). Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning in Italy were the largest source (212,200), followed by Poland (119,600), the U.S.S.R. (117,400), Germany (98,300), and Ireland (68,800). Other European sources in the city’s top 20 list were the United Kingdom, Austria, Greece, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia; European countries accounted for 12 of the top 20 sources of the foreign-born. Latin America provided 15 percent of the city’s foreign-born population, with Cuba (63,000) and the Dominican Republic (51,200) in 5th and 6th place, respectively. By 1980, the city’s immigrant population had increased to 1.67 million, but the number of Europeanborn declined to 667,200. Nevertheless, the Europeanborn remained the largest group, comprising 40 percent of the foreign-born, and Europe accounted for 10 of the top 20 sources of the foreign-born in the city. Italy remained the largest source country, but the U.S.S.R., the next largest European source, dropped to The year 2000 saw the city’s foreign-born reach 2.87 million, with Latin America accounting for nearly one-third of the total. Four Latin American countries were on the city’s top 10 list of sources of immigrants: the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Ecuador, and Colombia. With a 24 percent share, Asia eclipsed the nonhispanic Caribbean to comprise the second largest area of origin, though China was the only Asian country that figured in the top 10 foreignborn list. In contrast, though immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean accounted for a lower share (21 percent), they included 4 countries in the top 10: Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago. The European share of the foreign-born population continued to decline, to 19 percent, while the African share grew to 3 percent. By 2011, the city’s foreign-born reach a new peak of 3.1 million, but as in the prior three decades, no one area of origin accounted for a majority. The European share of the foreign-born population dropped to 16 percent, with the number of European-born persons (487,000) approximately one-half the total in 1970. Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 15 Table 2-3 Foreign-born Population by Area of Origin and Country of Birth New York City, 1970–2011 NYC FOREIGN–BORN POPULATION 1970 1980 TOTAL, Foreign-born 1,437,058 1,670,199 AFRICA 1990 2000 2,082,931 2,871,032 COUNTRY RANK 2011 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 3,066,599 – – – – – 13,029 23,360 42,481 92,435 128,176 – – – – – ASIA China Korea India Philippines Bangladesh* Pakistan 104,936 37,348 2,665 5,032 8,275 – 932 217,680 85,100 20,380 21,500 21,260 1,280 4,440 411,697 160,399 56,949 40,419 36,463 8,695 14,911 686,599 261,551 70,990 68,263 49,644 42,865 39,165 843,321 350,231 72,822 76,493 50,925 74,692 39,794 – 11 47 34 29 – 61 – 4 23 20 21 77 46 – 2 11 14 16 42 29 – 2 12 14 16 17 18 – 2 12 9 16 11 18 EUROPE Austria Czechoslovakia** Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Poland Romania U.S.S.R. Russia Ukraine United Kingdom 922,849 48,024 21,523 98,336 35,000 31,717 68,778 212,160 119,604 21,165 117,363 – – 48,798 667,200 26,160 16,320 60,760 41,760 22,660 42,360 156,280 77,160 17,560 78,340 – – 34,520 495,785 12,072 11,825 38,259 31,894 14,631 31,252 98,868 61,265 17,585 80,815 – – 28,740 557,492 6,700 8,628 27,708 29,805 11,144 22,604 72,481 65,999 19,280 – 81,408 69,727 28,996 486,806 3,837 6,272 18,657 22,915 7,938 12,392 49,075 57,726 14,134 – 76,264 59,820 34,134 – 9 15 4 12 13 5 1 2 16 3 – – 8 – 17 26 7 11 18 10 1 6 25 5 – – 15 – 35 36 15 18 30 19 4 9 28 5 – – 20 – 52 45 22 20 43 28 11 15 32 – 10 13 21 – 75 59 30 26 50 44 17 15 40 – 10 14 19 16,491 22,300 21,926 19,535 – 19 19 23 30 – 211,048 22,581 63,043 51,231 16,075 4,672 353,500 41,020 49,720 120,600 39,000 9,520 574,151 65,731 41,039 225,017 60,451 17,890 919,759 84,404 26,030 369,186 114,944 32,358 984,722 65,678 17,687 380,160 137,791 28,552 – 14 6 7 20 35 – 12 9 2 14 34 – 8 13 1 10 27 – 9 26 1 6 19 – 13 32 1 6 22 3,541 7,380 32,689 122,550 186,298 42 36 17 5 3 113,892 – 20,245 40,672 282,980 31,960 50,160 93,100 410,532 76,150 71,892 116,128 591,660 130,647 95,580 178,922 595,740 139,947 94,171 169,235 – – 18 10 – 16 8 3 – 6 7 3 – 4 7 3 – 5 7 4 Trinidad and Tobago 13,773 39,160 56,478 88,794 87,635 22 13 12 8 8 ALL OTHERS Canada 71,304 125,479 148,285 23,087 27,834 – – – – – 20,545 15,320 13,818 17,318 21,070 17 28 31 34 27 Yugoslavia*** LATIN AMERICA Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Honduras Mexico CARIBBEAN, nonhispanic Guyana Haiti Jamaica *The 1990 ranking for Bangladesh is based on a figure from PUMS. **Includes both the Czech Republic and Slovakia in 2000 and 2011. ***Includes only Serbia, Montenegro, and Kosovo in 2000 Sources: 2011 (ACS-SF), 2000 (SF3), 1990 (STF4), 1980 PUMS (for NYC country detail only) and STF4 (U.S.) and 1970 (STF4) 16 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 2-4 Foreign-born Population by Area of Origin and Country of Birth United States, 1970–2011 U.S. FOREIGN–BORN POPULATION 1970 1980 1990 2000 SHARE LIVING IN NEW YORK CITY 2011 TOTAL, Foreign-born 9,619,302 14,079,906 19,767,316 31,107,889 40,377,757 AFRICA 1990 2000 2011 11.9 10.5 9.2 7.6 199,723 363,819 1,664,414 21.2 11.7 11.7 10.5 7.7 4,979,037 921,070 568,397 450,406 912,674 21,414 91,889 8,226,254 11,562,022 1,518,652 2,231,159 864,125 1,082,613 1,022,552 1,856,777 1,369,070 1,813,597 95,294 184,469 223,477 303,915 12.7 21.7 6.9 9.9 4.5 – 15.1 8.6 23.2 7.0 10.4 4.2 25.7 14.4 8.3 17.4 10.0 9.0 4.0 40.6 16.2 8.3 17.2 8.2 6.7 3.6 45.0 17.5 7.3 15.7 6.7 4.1 2.8 40.5 13.1 EUROPE Austria Czechoslovakia Germany Greece Hungary Ireland Italy Poland Romania U.S.S.R. Russia Ukraine United Kingdom Yugoslavia 5,712,026 5,149,572 214,014 145,607 160,899 112,707 832,965 849,384 177,275 210,998 183,236 144,368 251,375 197,817 1,008,533 831,922 548,107 418,128 70,687 66,994 463,462 406,022 – – – – 686,099 669,149 153,745 152,967 4,350,403 87,673 87,020 711,929 177,398 110,337 169,827 580,592 388,328 91,106 333,725 – – 640,145 141,516 4,915,557 63,648 83,081 706,704 165,750 92,017 156,474 473,338 466,742 135,966 – 340,177 275,153 677,751 212,753 4,889,987 48,179 72,905 608,288 138,269 77,485 132,540 373,897 461,618 164,606 – 399,216 340,468 684,573 – 16.2 22.4 13.4 11.8 19.7 17.3 27.4 21.0 21.8 29.9 25.3 – – 7.1 10.7 13.0 18.0 14.5 7.2 19.8 15.7 21.4 18.8 18.5 26.2 19.3 – – 5.2 14.6 11.4 13.8 13.6 5.4 18.0 13.3 18.4 17.0 15.8 19.3 24.2 – – 4.5 15.5 11.3 10.5 10.4 3.9 18.0 12.1 14.4 15.3 14.1 14.2 – 23.9 25.3 4.3 9.2 10.0 8.0 8.6 3.1 16.6 10.2 9.3 13.1 12.5 8.6 – 19.1 17.6 5.0 – LATIN AMERICA Colombia Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Honduras Mexico 1,620,278 3,853,045 63,538 143,508 439,048 607,814 61,228 169,147 36,663 86,128 19,118 39,154 759,711 2,199,221 7,403,663 14,483,112 19,156,043 286,124 509,872 658,667 736,971 872,716 1,094,811 347,858 687,677 897,263 143,314 298,626 435,476 108,923 282,852 490,636 4,298,014 9,177,487 11,672,619 13.0 35.5 14.4 83.7 43.8 24.4 0.5 9.2 28.6 8.2 71.3 45.3 24.3 0.3 7.8 23.0 5.6 64.7 42.2 16.4 0.8 6.4 16.6 3.0 53.7 38.5 11.4 1.3 5.1 10.0 1.6 42.4 31.6 5.8 1.6 CARIBBEAN, nonhispanic 881,300 1980 14.9 824,887 2,539,777 172,132 366,500 38,711 289,885 51,000 206,087 184,842 501,440 – 4,989 6,182 30,774 ASIA China Korea India Philippines Bangladesh Pakistan 61,463 1970 183,692 530,010 1,004,174 1,603,862 2,089,301 62.0 53.4 40.9 36.9 28.5 Guyana Haiti – 28,026 48,608 92,395 120,698 225,393 211,189 419,317 259,036 592,260 – 72.2 65.8 54.3 63.1 31.9 61.9 22.8 54.0 15.9 Jamaica 68,576 196,811 334,140 553,827 696,990 59.3 47.3 34.8 32.3 24.3 Trinidad and Tobago 20,673 65,907 115,710 197,398 225,115 66.6 59.4 48.8 45.0 38.9 1,216,956 1,807,779 812,421 842,859 1,666,220 744,830 997,804 820,771 1,015,990 786,317 5.9 2.5 6.9 1.8 8.9 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.7 2.7 ALL OTHERS Canada Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 17 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970-2000 censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The foreign-born from most European countries declined, including those born in Russia and Ukraine. The United Kingdom was the only major European source that saw its numbers increase—by 18 percent—in the past decade. Latin Americans accounted for 32 percent of the foreign-born in 2011, similar to their share in 2000. Mexicans, whose population nearly quadrupled in the 1990s, saw growth moderate to 52 percent in the past decade, still the highest among Latin Americans. Immigrants from Mexico, who numbered 186,300 in 2011, are now the 3rd largest foreign-born group in the city, up from 5th place in 2000 and 42nd place in 1970. Ecuadorians grew 20 percent to reach 138,000, while Colombians declined for the first time, by 22 percent. The relative positions of these two countries have changed over the past four decades: between 1970 and 1990, the population of Colombians exceeded that of Ecuadorians, but by 2011, there were twice as many Ecuadorians as Colombians. Cubans continued to see their numbers decline, down by nearly one-third in the past decade. They were the 6th largest foreign-born group in 1970 and ranked 33rd in 2011 as Cuban flows bypassed the city for 18 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition other parts of the New York region. As a result, the city was home to just two percent of the nation’s Cuban-born population in 2011, compared to 14 percent in 1970. Asians accounted for 28 percent of the foreignborn in 2011, up from 24 percent in 2000. India moved into the top 10 in 2011—the 76,500 immigrants from that country placed it in 9th place. As a result, for the first time, two Asian countries were in the top 10, the other country being China, which maintained its position as the second largest source country. In the past decade, the dramatic growth in the Bangladeshi population tapered to 74 percent, but remains the highest of any Asian group. Bangladesh was the 11th largest group in 2011, up from 17th in 2000 and 42nd in 1990. If current trends continue, the count of immigrants from Bangladesh is likely to soon match those from India. The nonhispanic Caribbean saw its share of the city’s foreign-born population decline slightly, from over one-in-five in the 1990s to 19 percent in 2011. With the exception of Guyana, the foreign-born from the other major senders from this region declined in the past decade. These numerical declines in the city have been accompanied by high growth across the country, resulting in a declining share living in New York. Between 2000 and 2011, the share of immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago living in the city declined from 45 percent to 39 percent, the share of Jamaicans living in the city declined from 32 percent to 24 percent, and Haitians declined from 23 percent to 16 percent. Even the Guyanese, who saw relatively high growth in the city, experienced even higher growth in the nation as a whole, resulting in a decline in the city’s share of the Guyanese population, from 62 percent to 54 percent. Finally, between 2000 and 2011, the Africanborn population increased 39 percent, to 128,200, accounting for over 4 percent of the foreign-born. African groups do not make the city’s top 20 list of the foreign-born, but are a growing presence among recent entrants to the city (see next section). The 1970 census, when Europe accounted for nearly two-thirds of New York’s foreign-born, marked the last time immigrant New York was truly dominated by just one continent. Since then, diversity has become a hallmark of the city’s foreign-born population, with the largest group (Latin Americans) accounting for less than one-third of the immigrant population in 2011. With respect to the overall U.S. foreign-born population, the European dominance of earlier decades has also waned, with the share of the European-born falling from 59 percent in 1970 to 12 percent in 2011. To some extent, Latin Americans have replaced Europeans as the dominant foreignborn group in the U.S. as a whole, with their share increasing from 17 percent of all foreign-born persons in 1970 to a near majority (47 percent) in 2011. However, the ascendance of Latin America is a far cry from the European dominance of earlier decades. Decade of Entry of the Foreign-born in 2011 by Area of Origin and Country of Birth New York’s foreign-born population in 2011 was comprised primarily of those who had arrived in the prior two decades, often succeeding departing immigrants from earlier cohorts. Over one-third of the city’s foreign-born were recent entrants, defined as those who arrived in the U.S. in 2000 or later, while 28 percent entered the U.S. in the 1990s (Figure Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 19 Table 2-5 Decade of Entry of the Foreign-born by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 TOP 20 RECENT ARRIVALS, 2000 OR LATER TOP 20 FOREIGN-BORN GROUPS PERCENT ARRIVING COUNTRY 2000 or RANK NUMBER COUNTRY – 3,066,599 33.8 28.1 19.5 18.5 TOTAL, New York City – 1,035,758 Dominican Republic 1 380,160 30.5 29.6 22.7 17.2 China 1 132,766 China 2 350,231 37.0 27.4 21.0 14.5 Dominican Republic 2 111,672 Mexico 3 186,298 52.8 31.9 11.2 4.1 Mexico 3 94,491 Jamaica 4 169,235 23.7 24.5 30.1 21.7 Ecuador 4 50,308 Guyana 5 139,947 31.3 23.8 28.8 16.1 Guyana 5 42,987 Ecuador 6 137,791 35.1 31.2 17.4 16.3 Jamaica 6 40,331 Haiti 7 94,171 30.7 14.8 30.2 24.3 Bangladesh 7 37,540 Trinidad & Tobago 8 87,635 27.7 27.4 19.5 25.4 India 8 32,471 India 9 76,493 41.0 33.2 16.6 9.1 Haiti 9 31,581 10 76,264 25.2 50.1 16.2 8.5 Korea 10 26,023 Bangladesh 11 74,692 49.8 40.0 8.1 2.2 Trinidad & Tobago 11 24,343 Korea 12 72,822 37.8 25.8 23.7 12.7 Russia 12 18,781 Colombia 13 65,678 29.2 25.4 22.9 22.4 Colombia 13 18,571 Ukraine 14 59,820 20.0 60.5 11.3 8.2 Philippines 14 18,242 Poland 15 57,726 28.9 37.2 14.9 19.0 Pakistan 15 16,128 Philippines 16 50,925 40.4 23.0 18.4 18.3 Poland 16 15,237 Italy 17 49,075 12.7 7.0 8.2 72.1 United Kingdom 17 15,059 Pakistan 18 39,794 42.0 34.7 18.2 5.0 Ghana 18 14,670 United Kingdom 19 34,134 45.2 16.5 13.3 25.0 Guatemala 19 12,874 El Salvador 20 32,903 27.9 33.3 25.7 13.1 Ukraine 20 12,705 TOTAL, New York City Russia 1990–2000 1980–1990 BEFORE 1980 LATER RANK NUMBER Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980-2000 censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample and Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 2-8). Thus, over 60 percent of the city’s foreign-born entered the U.S. in 1990 or later, comparable to that of the overall U.S. foreign-born population.3 Europeans, with a long history of immigration to the city, were the longest resident foreign-born group, with 28 percent having arrived in the U.S. prior to 1980. Just 13 percent of the European foreignborn had arrived in the 1980s, a reflection of the dip in European immigration to the U.S. during that 20 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition period, but 32 percent had entered in the 1990s, testament to the era of booming flows from the former Soviet Union. In contrast, just one-quarter of the European foreign-born population in the U.S. as a whole arrived in the 1990s, indicative of the disproportionate European flow to the city. Among immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean, the largest share arrived in the 1980s (27 percent), a period when flows from this area were surging. Another 23 percent arrived prior to 1980, a proportion second only to the European foreignborn, and pointing to the role this group has long played in immigration to the city. The African foreign-born were the city’s most recent entrants, with nearly one-half having entered the U.S. in 2000 or later, followed by those born in Asia (39 percent) and Latin America (35 percent). In contrast, just over one-quarter of those born in the nonhispanic Caribbean and Europe were recent entrants, the lowest share among any group. This was a reflection of their longer history of immigration to New York, and in the case of nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants, an increased proclivity to bypass the city for the rest of the New York region. Table 2-5 details the decade of entry for each of the top 20 groups in the city. Many groups had a high percentage of recent entrants. Among the foreign-born from the United Kingdom, over fourin-ten arrived in 2000 or later, as did approximately one-half of Mexicans and Bangladeshis. At the other end of the spectrum, just 13 percent of Italians and 20 percent of Ukrainians were recent entrants—72 percent of Italians arrived prior to 1980 when flows from Italy were at a post-World War II peak. The share of the foreign-born from the nonhispanic Caribbean who were recent entrants ranged from 24 percent for Jamaicans to 31 percent for the Guyanese, below the city average of 34 percent. This is related to an increasing share of newly arrived immigrants from this region who bypass the city and settle directly in counties adjacent to New York City (please see Chapter 5 for additional information). Table 2-5 also lists the 20 source countries with the largest number of recent entrants. Seventeen countries on the list of the 20 largest sources of the foreign-born also made the list of countries with the largest number of recent entrants, though they were often ranked differently on both lists. Bangladesh, ranked 11th on the city’s top 20 list, had the 7th largest number of recent entrants, testament to its growing role on the city’s immigrant landscape. In contrast, Italy, which ranked 17 th in terms of its overall foreign-born population, ranked 32nd on the list of recent entrants (data not shown), which indicates that not enough Italian immigrants are arriving to replenish this population. The two countries that made the top list of recent entrants, but were not among the top 20 sources of the foreign-born, were Ghana and Guatemala. In the coming years, these countries are likely to have a significant immigrant presence in New York. SUMMARY Since the passage of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Amendments, New York’s foreign-born population has more than doubled, to 3.1 million in 2011. Given that the total population of the city has not increased substantially during this time, the foreign-born share of the overall population has also more than doubled, to 37 percent. The surge in the foreign-born has been accompanied by a decline in the European share of this population, from 64 percent in 1970 to just 16 percent in 2011. Latin America was the largest area of origin in 2011, comprising nearly one-third of the city’s foreign-born, followed by Asia (28 percent), and the nonhispanic Caribbean (19 percent). Africa accounted for just four percent. The Dominican Republic was the largest source of the foreign-born in 2011, followed by China, Mexico, Jamaica, and Guyana. Ecuador, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, India, and Russia rounded out the top ten. Thus, the foreign-born in 2011 had extremely diverse origins, in contrast to the overwhelming European origin of the foreign-born in earlier decades. Indeed, Russia was the only European country to make the top ten in 2011. While immigration to New York City surged after the passage of the 1965 law, flows to the country as a whole have increased even faster. As a result, New York City’s foreign-born, who comprised 15 percent of the nation’s foreign-born in 1970, accounted for under eight percent in 2011. The origins of the nation’s foreign-born were different from that of the city, with a heavier representation of Latin Americans and Asians. Mexico was the nation’s largest source country, followed by three Asian countries—China, India, and the Philippines. As with the nation, Latin America and Asia were also the top areas of origin of New York City’s foreign- Chapter 2: Growth and Composition of the Immigrant Population 21 born, reflected in the presence of the Dominican Republic, China, and Mexico in the city’s top five. However, those born in the nonhispanic Caribbean made up a disproportionate 19 percent of the city’s foreign-born, compared to just 5 percent for the nation. Indeed, Jamaica and Guyana were among the city’s top five sources of the foreign-born, but no country from the nonhispanic Caribbean made the nation’s top 10 list. Over one-third of New York’s foreign-born arrived in 2000 or later, and over 60 percent arrived in 1990 or later. Africans were the most recent entrants, 50 percent of whom arrived since 2000, followed by those born in Asia (39 percent) and Latin America (35 percent). European and nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants were among the longest resident groups in the city. ENDNOTES 1 The nonhispanic Caribbean comprises primarily countries in the Caribbean Basin that are not Spanish-speaking. It includes large source countries of the city’s foreign-born, such as Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti, Trinidad & Tobago, and Barbados. It also includes smaller source countries, such as Anguilla, Antigua-Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Dominica, French Guiana, Grenada, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Montserrat, Netherlands Antilles, St. KittsNevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent & Grenadines, Suriname, Turks & Caicos Islands, and the Central American nation of Belize. 2 The 2011 ACS estimates of immigrants from the former Soviet Republics were as follows: Russia (76,264), Ukraine (59,820), Uzbekistan (21,065), Belarus (12,639), Moldova (4,848), Armenia (2,698), and Kazakhstan (1,892). As a single group, these 179,226 immigrants from the former Soviet Union would be the 5th largest foreign-born group in the city in 2011. The 2000 census estimated 81,408 immigrants from Russia, 69,727 from Ukraine, 11,187 from Belarus, and 1,507 from Armenia. Thus, there were at least 163,829 immigrants from the former Soviet Union in 2000, and they would have ranked 4th among the city’s foreign-born groups. 3 22 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition The year of entry does not refer to a person’s arrival in New York City, but the year of initial entry anywhere in the U.S. Thus, a foreign-born person residing in New York City in 2011 may have a year of entry listed as sometime in the 1990s, but may have arrived in New York only in the 2000s. Similarly, there are people who arrived in New York in the 1990s, but who may have left the city, and are thus excluded from the city’s foreign-born population in 2011. CHAPTER Immigrant Settlement Patterns in New York City This chapter examines the spatial distribution of the foreign-born in New York City in 2011. It focuses on borough level distributions, immigrant settlement patterns across neighborhoods, and changes in these patterns since 2000. The first section is an overview of concentrations of the overall foreign-born population, focusing on the major immigrant neighborhoods in the city. This is followed by an examination of individual boroughs and their constituent neighborhoods, where we show top foreign-born groups and their concentrations across the borough. Neighborhoods with high immigrant populations are examined in greater detail, with a focus on leading countries of origin. The foreign-born population is mapped out for the overall city and each of the boroughs. Citywide, the evolution of foreign-born neighborhoods is mapped as well, showing changes in the number of immigrants since 2000. The chapter concludes with an examination of the distribution of the top 10 immigrant groups in the city. Neighborhoods with significant concentrations are tabulated and mapped. Population changes since 2000 among these top groups are examined as well. The analysis in this chapter is done primarily at a neighborhood level. The box on page 24 explains how neighborhoods have been demarcated and provides technical details as to how neighborhood tables and maps were created. The box also provides important statistical information on the different estimates used for analyses done at the city, borough, and neighborhood levels. Borough Distribution and Neighborhood Concentrations of Immigrants New York City’s immigrant population grew from 2.9 million in 2000 to 3.1 million in 2011, a 7 percent increase (Table 3-1). Of the city’s 3.1 million immigrants in 2011, 1.09 million lived in Queens, while 946,500 lived in Brooklyn. Thus, Queens and Brooklyn together accounted for two-thirds of the city’s immigrant population (Figure 3-1). The Bronx and Manhattan were home to 471,100 (15 percent) and 461,300 (15 percent) immigrants, respectively, while 98,400 (3 percent) lived in Staten Island. Though small, Staten Island’s immigrant population in 2011 represented a 36 percent increase over 2000, the highest of any borough. Although immigrants were dispersed throughout the city, Table 3-2, Figure 3-2, and Figure 3-3 show that some neighborhoods had large numerical concentrations. Washington Heights in Manhattan was the neighborhood with the largest number of immigrants (80,200), followed by Bensonhurst (77,700), Elmhurst (77,100), Corona (66,300), Jackson Heights (65,600), Sunset Park (64,000), and Flushing (63,900). 23 IMPORTANT GEOGRAPHIC AND DATA NOTES To undertake an analysis of immigrant residential settlement by neighborhood, one has to first define neighborhoods, whose boundaries are inherently arbitrary. We use Neighborhood Tabulation Areas (NTAs) as building blocks for the city’s neighborhoods. Neighborhood Tabulation Areas were originally created by the Department of City Planning to project populations at a small area level. Since population size affects the error associated with population projections, these geographic units had a minimum population of 15,000. In a few instances, extremely large neighborhoods were split into two NTAs to more effectively project their populations. Another feature of NTA population projections was the need for NTAs to fit into census tract approximations of New York City’s Community Districts. Consequently, NTAs were created using whole census tracts, from the 2010 Census. For tables, maps, and charts in this chapter, census tract data from the 2000 Census and the 2007–2011 American Community Survey (ACS) were summed to produce NTA estimates. Neighborhood names were attached to NTAs as geographic reference points. It is important to emphasize that NTA boundaries are not coterminous with neighborhood boundaries; at best they provide only crude approximations of neighborhoods due to the restrictive criteria noted above. Thus, readers should be cognizant of the reason why NTAs were created and the demographic/geographic constraints inherent in how they were configured. In many instances two or more neighborhoods comprise a single NTA. For example, the Marble Hill-Inwood NTA encompasses the neighborhoods of Marble Hill and Inwood. When this melding of two or more neighborhoods occurs, the NTA name is hyphenated, with hyphens separating constituent neighborhoods. In the few instances where two NTAs constituted a split neighborhood, they were combined for this analysis. For example, the original “Sunset Park East” and “Sunset Park West” NTAs were combined and appear as “Sunset Park.” The most recent foreign-born data available for New York City’s NTAs comes from the 5-year, 2007–2011 ACS. However, more recent data from the 1-year, 2011 ACS are available at the city and borough levels. Consequently, figures and tables presenting data exclusively for the city or boroughs relied on the 2011 ACS, while others were based on the 2007–2011 ACS. Readers should be aware of the distinction between these two sources, as city and borough totals derived from the 2011 ACS can vary considerably from those originating from the 2007–2011 ACS. Further, all ACS estimates are subject to sampling error. Therefore, small differences between ACS estimates may not be statistically significant. (Please see Chapter 1 for more on the ACS.) There are also important issues with ACS data specific to particular neighborhoods within New York. The 2010 Census undercounted the population in northwest Queens and southern Brooklyn because of erroneously deleted housing units and housing units mislabeled as vacant. Since current ACS data are essentially controlled to 2010 Census counts, readers should exercise caution when examining ACS data for these two undercounted areas. Table 3-1 Total and Foreign-born Population New York City and Boroughs, 2000–2011 2000 NEW YORK CITY 2011 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT CHANGE, 2000–2011 NUMBER PERCENT Total Population Foreign-born 8,008,278 2,871,032 100.0 35.9 8,244,910 3,066,599 100.0 37.2 236,632 195,567 3.0 6.8 Bronx Total Population Foreign-born 1,332,650 385,827 100.0 29.0 1,392,002 471,136 100.0 33.8 59,352 85,309 4.5 22.1 Brooklyn Total Population Foreign-born 2,465,326 931,769 100.0 37.8 2,532,645 946,511 100.0 37.4 67,319 14,742 2.7 1.6 Manhattan Total Population Foreign-born 1,537,195 452,440 100.0 29.4 1,601,948 461,325 100.0 28.8 64,753 8,885 4.2 2.0 Queens Total Population Foreign-born 2,229,379 1,028,339 100.0 46.1 2,247,848 1,089,187 100.0 48.5 18,469 60,848 0.8 5.9 Staten Island Total Population Foreign-born 443,728 72,657 100.0 16.4 470,467 98,440 100.0 20.9 26,739 25,783 6.0 35.5 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 24 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-2 Top 20 Neighborhoods of Residence of the Foreign-born New York City, 2000 to 2007–2011 Change in Foreign-born 2000 to 2007–2011 2007–2011 TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL, NEW YORK CITY Washington Heights Bensonhurst Elmhurst Corona Jackson Heights Sunset Park Flushing Flatbush Crown Heights Bushwick South Ozone Park Concourse-Concourse Village Forest Hills Canarsie East New York Richmond Hill Astoria Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 8,128,980 162,898 144,159 108,556 103,210 105,859 123,790 94,418 105,940 141,067 131,250 78,381 102,401 83,728 84,244 119,236 63,201 74,859 69,331 Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 60,009 Borough Park 106,816 FOREIGNBORN PERCENT FOREIGN-BORN NUMBER PERCENT 2,989,817 80,174 77,682 77,110 66,259 65,585 64,029 63,920 51,122 49,058 48,528 45,681 41,748 41,056 39,195 36,585 36,203 33,217 32,925 31,856 31,739 36.8 49.2 53.9 71.0 64.2 62.0 51.7 67.7 48.3 34.8 37.0 58.3 40.8 49.0 46.5 30.7 57.3 44.4 47.5 53.1 29.7 118,785 -9,756 3,224 -3,321 4,539 -7,026 5,322 2,656 -7,274 -1,720 8,431 5,782 6,316 -1,269 2,732 5,346 1,808 -14,333 -3,206 -3,778 -4,057 4.1 -10.8 4.3 -4.1 7.4 -9.7 9.1 4.3 -12.5 -3.4 21.0 14.5 17.8 -3.0 7.5 17.1 5.3 -30.1 -8.9 -10.6 -11.3 Neighborhood Ranked on Number of Foreign-born 2000 2007–2011 – 1 3 2 5 4 7 6 8 9 12 13 18 11 14 22 19 10 15 17 16 – 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning These 7 neighborhoods cumulatively had a larger immigrant population than the state of Connecticut (474,100). Flatbush (51,100), Crown Heights (49,100), and Bushwick (48,500) rounded out the list of top 10 immigrant neighborhoods in the city. No Bronx or Staten Island neighborhood made the list, or the list of the 20 largest immigrant neighborhoods, with the exception of Concourse-Concourse Village (41,700) in the Bronx. Of the major immigrant neighborhoods, the highest growth was in Bushwick, which saw its immigrant population increase by over one-fifth between 2000 and 2007–2011. As a result, Bushwick was ranked the 10th largest immigrant neighborhood in 2007–2011, up from 12th place in 2000. (Numeric changes in the foreign-born population are mapped out in Figure 3-4 and are also available by neighborhood in Appendix Table 3-1.) Areas in southwest Brooklyn, eastern Brooklyn, and eastern Queens also experienced substantial gains, reflected in neighborhoods such as East New York (up 17 percent) and Sunset Park (9 percent) both in Brooklyn, and South Ozone Park in Queens (15 percent). East and Central Harlem in Manhattan and the South Bronx also experienced high growth among the foreign-born, with the ranking of Concourse-Concourse Village in the South Bronx jumping from 18th in 2000 to 12th in 2007–2011. On the other hand declines in the foreign-born population occurred in Astoria, Flatbush, and Washington Heights, neighborhoods with dense Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 25 Figure 3-2 New York City Neighborhoods Bronx Woodlawn New Bloomfield .. Emerson HI HI Schuylervill Throgs Edgewater Pk Staten Island Mott Haven Morris Manhattan Ft Totten College Pt Steinway Douglas Mn Douglaston Little Oa kland Gd ns Bellerose th Maspeth Jamaica Ests Holliswood Middle VI Queens LIC I Hunters Pt Sunnyside Maspe Briarwood Jamaica HI Queens Jamaica Ridgewood Bushwick Cambria Baislay Pk Laurelton Springfield Brookville East New York Cana rsie Bensonhurst Far Bayswater Bay Ridge Brooklyn Seagate Coney ls Source: Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 2 6 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Figure 3-3 Foreign-born by Neighborhood New York City, 2007-2011 Bronx 453,466 Total New York City foreign-born 2,989,817 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN (13 neighborhoods) (10) (23) 12,000 to 19,999 (41) "$1232" Queens i 1,058,602 9,000 to 11,999 (38) Under 9,000 (51) 1 it); 9 Staten Island 91402 . es: U.S. au, 222222222222 rican nity Survey -- Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 2 7 Figure 3-4 Change in Foreign-born by Neighborhood New York City, 2000 to 2007-2011 Change in New York City's foreign-born +118,785 CHANGE IN FOREIGN-BORN 2 Gain of 5,000 or more (8 neighborhoods) 2 3,000 to 4,999 (18) 1,000 to 2,999 (62) -999 to 999 (55) Queens -1,000 t0 -2,999 4.30263 '.3935 :34' 1 Staten Island +24,745 Population Division--New York City Department of City Planning 28 immigrant concentrations; nevertheless, Washington Heights remained the largest immigrant neighborhood in both 2000 and 2007–2011. Astoria’s decline as an immigrant neighborhood was mirrored to a lesser extent in other parts of western Queens, such as Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. (The box on page 24 explains why losses are somewhat overstated in these neighborhoods in northwestern Queens, as well as those in southern Brooklyn.) Flatbush’s losses were also echoed elsewhere in central Brooklyn, including Borough Park (down 11 percent) and Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate (down 9 percent). As a result of these declines, both Borough Park and Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate saw their ranking fall between 2000 and 2007–2011, from 15th to 18th, and from 16th to 20th, respectively. In terms of immigrants as a percentage of the population, Queens was the most heavily immigrant borough (Table 3-1). The 1.09 million immigrants in Queens comprised nearly one-half of the borough’s population (49 percent), the highest immigrant concentration in the city. In comparison, immigrants constituted 37 percent of Brooklyn’s population, 34 percent of the population of the Bronx, 29 percent in Manhattan, and 21 percent of Staten Island’s population. While neighborhoods in Table 3-2 are ranked in terms of the absolute number of immigrants, it is also interesting to look at listed neighborhoods where immigrants accounted for a disproportionate share of the population. Among the city’s neighborhoods, Elmhurst in Queens had the highest share of immigrants, with 71 percent of its residents foreignborn. Other neighborhoods—all in Queens—with a disproportionate share of residents who were foreign-born were Flushing, Corona, and Jackson Heights, each with over 6-in-10 residents born outside the U.S. In Brooklyn, Bensonhurst and Sunset Park were both over one-half foreign-born. These were substantial concentrations given that the overall share of immigrants in the city was 37 percent. The next section surveys each borough, focusing on the areas of origin and the countries of birth of their foreign-born populations. Sub-borough and neighborhood geographies are then examined, and for neighborhoods with significant immigrant populations the top source countries are tabulated. THE BRONX With growth of 22 percent over the past decade the Bronx had a larger immigrant population (471,100) than Manhattan in 2011. Immigrants from Latin America and Africa were disproportionately represented in the Bronx (Figure 3-5). Latin Americans accounted for well over one-half of the borough’s immigrants, compared with less than one-third citywide (Figure 2-4). Africans comprised over onetenth of the foreign-born in the borough, more than twice their city share, while Asian and European immigrants were underrepresented in the Bronx, comprising just 8 percent (28 percent in the city) and 7 percent (16 percent in the city), respectively. As a result, for the first time, Africans in the Bronx eclipsed the shares of Asians and Europeans. As in the city overall, those originating from the nonhispanic Caribbean represented about one-fifth of all Bronx immigrants. Turning to countries of origin (Table 3-3), the Dominican Republic accounted for one-third of all immigrants in the Bronx, followed by Jamaica (11 percent) and Mexico (9 percent). While these three sources accounted for just over one-half of the borough’s foreign-born, no other country accounted for more than 5 percent of the immigrant population. Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 29 Bronx Neighborhoods Table 3-4 shows the total and immigrant populations of neighborhoods in the Bronx. The West section of the borough had the largest number of immigrants (236,300), followed by the Central and South section (140,400), and the North and East (76,400). As a percentage of the total population, the West also had a slightly higher concentration of immigrants (36 percent of the population), compared with 33 percent for the borough overall. The largest immigrant neighborhoods in the borough were Concourse-Concourse Village, Williamsbridge-Olinville, Mount Hope, University Heights-Morris Heights, Bedford Park-Fordham North, Van Cortlandt Village, and WoodlawnWakefield, each with 19,000 or more immigrants. (For a neighborhood guide and a map showing the distribution of the foreign-born in the Bronx, please see Figure 3-6 and Figure 3-7.) Table 3-3 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Bronx, 2011 NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL 471,136 100.0 Dominican Republic 156,165 33.1 Jamaica 52,533 11.2 Mexico 42,487 9.0 Ecuador 21,915 4.7 Ghana 20,428 4.3 Guyana 13,845 2.9 Honduras 10,547 2.2 Bangladesh 10,023 2.1 Trinidad and Tobago 7,407 1.6 El Salvador 6,720 1.4 China* 5,958 1.3 Albania 5,883 1.2 Italy 5,599 1.2 West Bronx The West section of the Bronx had more than onehalf of all immigrants in the borough. This was a heavily Dominican area, with growth fueled by direct immigration from the Dominican Republic, as well as the in-movement of Dominicans from Washington Heights, in Manhattan. Dominicans accounted for 59 percent of the immigrant population in University Heights-Morris Heights and 56 percent in Mount Hope. Farther north, Dominicans were 41 percent or more of the immigrant populations of Bedford Park-Fordham North and Van Cortlandt Village. South of Mount Hope, in ConcourseConcourse Village, Dominicans constituted 43 percent of the foreign-born. The Dominican dominance in these neighborhoods can also be gauged from the share of every other immigrant group, which was primarily in the single digits. Only Mexicans, an increasing presence, broke into double digits, with a 13 percent share in Bedford Park-Fordham North and 10 percent in Concourse-Concourse Village. Ghanaians 30 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 5,087 1.1 Nigeria 4,636 1.0 Guatemala 4,433 0.9 Cuba 3,693 0.8 United Kingdom 3,165 0.7 Dominica Next, the 3 sections of the borough are examined along with the top 10 source countries for selected neighborhoods in each of these areas (Table 3-5). Philippines 3,143 0.7 Ireland 3,025 0.6 84,444 17.9 All Others *In all tables, China includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning were also a notable growing share of the foreignborn in West Bronx, particularly in Van Cortlandt Village (8 percent) and Mount Hope (7 percent). Jamaica, Ecuador, Honduras, Guyana, Bangladesh, Trinidad and Tobago, and El Salvador also had a nominal presence in these neighborhoods. No European group made the top 10 list of immigrants in these neighborhoods. North and East Bronx This area of the Bronx had 76,400 immigrants or just 17 percent of immigrants in the borough. The Jamaican presence here was pronounced, accounting for one-half of the immigrant population in Woodlawn-Wakefield and 48 percent in Williamsbridge-Olinville; no other group accounted for more than 9 percent. Both neighborhoods Table 3-4 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Bronx, 2007–2011 Number Percent Number Percent FOREIGN-BORN AS % OF TOTAL POPULATION 1,374,593 100.0 453,466 100.0 33.0 TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL, BRONX West FOREIGN-BORN 654,743 47.6 236,254 52.1 36.1 Bedford Park-Fordham North 51,002 3.7 20,131 4.4 39.5 Belmont 26,729 1.9 8,203 1.8 30.7 Claremont-Bathgate 29,795 2.2 7,812 1.7 26.2 Concourse-Concourse Village 102,401 7.4 41,748 9.2 40.8 Crotona Park East 19,603 1.4 6,337 1.4 32.3 East Tremont 41,919 3.0 12,045 2.7 28.7 Fordham South 26,506 1.9 9,199 2.0 34.7 Highbridge 36,851 2.7 14,355 3.2 39.0 Kingsbridge Heights 32,129 2.3 14,101 3.1 43.9 Morrisania-Melrose 35,295 2.6 9,916 2.2 28.1 Mount Hope 51,945 3.8 22,333 4.9 43.0 North Riverdale-Fieldston-Riverdale 26,978 2.0 5,393 1.2 20.0 Norwood 39,847 2.9 14,792 3.3 37.1 Spuyten Duyvil-Kingsbridge 30,073 2.2 9,003 2.0 29.9 University Heights-Morris Heights 54,163 3.9 21,100 4.7 39.0 Van Cortlandt Village 49,507 3.6 19,786 4.4 40.0 259,934 18.9 76,415 16.9 29.4 43,778 3.2 9,509 2.1 21.7 35.9 North and East Co-op City Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester 37,203 2.7 13,354 2.9 Pelham Bay-Country Club-City Island 26,939 2.0 4,418 1.0 16.4 Schuylerville-Throgs Neck-Edgewater Park 44,832 3.3 6,637 1.5 14.8 Williamsbridge-Olinville 61,448 4.5 23,479 5.2 38.2 Woodlawn-Wakefield 45,734 3.3 19,018 4.2 41.6 458,744 33.4 140,385 31.0 30.6 Allerton-Pelham Gardens 32,872 2.4 10,681 2.4 32.5 Bronxdale 33,508 2.4 12,035 2.7 35.9 Hunts Point 27,231 2.0 7,004 1.5 25.7 Longwood 26,250 1.9 7,803 1.7 29.7 Melrose South-Mott Haven North 37,069 2.7 11,996 2.6 32.4 Mott Haven-Port Morris 52,487 3.8 14,365 3.2 27.4 Central and South Parkchester 29,367 2.1 9,137 2.0 31.1 Pelham Parkway 29,976 2.2 11,484 2.5 38.3 Soundview-Bruckner 34,286 2.5 13,228 2.9 38.6 Soundview-Castle Hill-Clason Point-Harding Park 52,945 3.9 10,943 2.4 20.7 Van Nest-Morris Park-Westchester Square 29,620 2.2 8,696 1.9 29.4 West Farms-Bronx River 35,105 2.6 12,748 2.8 36.3 Westchester-Unionport 27,575 2.0 8,796 1.9 31.9 Rikers Island 10,453 0.8 1,469 0.3 14.1 Sub-borough estimates do not sum to borough estimates because a tiny segment of the population reside in areas beyond designated neighborhoods, mostly in parks and cemeteries. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 31 Figure 3-6 Bronx Neighborhoods North Riverdal Fieldston Riverdale Woodlawn Wakefield Eastchester Edenwald Baychest Olinville uyten Duyvil Van Cortlandt Village - - Heights Allerton Pelham Gardens Bronxdal - Pelham Parkway Van Nest Mcarrist Pasrk . and es es er qu Highbridg tWest Farms Bronx River Westchest Concourse Villa - unionpor Soundview Bruckner Schuylerville Throgs Neck Edgewater Park Soundview Castle Hill Clason Point Harding Park Melrose South Mott Haven Nort Mott Haven Port Morris Rikers Island Source: Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 32 Figure 3-7 Bronx Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007-2011 Bronx foreign-born 453,466 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN 2 25,000 or more (1 neighborhood) 2 16,000 to 24,999 (6) 2 12,000 to 15,999 (9) 8,000 to 11,999 (12) North Riverdale Fieldston Riverdale Under 8,000 (8) Spuyten Duyvil Allerton Pelham Gardens Belmont Pelham Parkway Van Nest Morris Park Westcheste Square Clarmnt Bathgat= Parkchester Crotona Park East Westchester Unionport Morrisania Melrose Schuylerville Throgs Neck Edgewater Park Soundview Castle Hill Clason Point Harding Park Melrose South Mott Haven North Rikers Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 33 Table 3-5 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Bronx, 2007–2011 WEST Bedford ParkFordham North Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ghana Ecuador Guyana Honduras Jamaica El Salvador Nigeria Haiti All Others Number 20,131 8,150 2,622 1,038 922 758 454 393 312 293 283 4,906 Percent 100.0 40.5 13.0 5.2 4.6 3.8 2.3 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.4 24.4 ConcourseConcourse Village Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Jamaica Ghana Ecuador Honduras Bangladesh El Salvador Trinidad & Tobago Nigeria All Others Number 41,748 18,115 4,301 2,525 2,093 1,719 1,204 827 788 560 486 9,130 Percent 100.0 43.4 10.3 6.0 5.0 4.1 2.9 2.0 1.9 1.3 1.2 21.9 University HeightsMorris Heights Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ghana Ecuador Jamaica Bangladesh Honduras Trinidad & Tobago Dominica Peru All Others Number 21,100 12,365 1,480 1,320 787 780 448 396 282 220 191 2,831 Percent 100.0 58.6 7.0 6.3 3.7 3.7 2.1 1.9 1.3 1.0 0.9 13.4 Van Cortlandt Village Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Ghana Mexico Ecuador Honduras Philippines Jamaica Cuba Guyana Peru All Others Number 19,786 9,270 1,568 1,335 642 502 497 373 293 270 258 4,778 Percent 100.0 46.9 7.9 6.7 3.2 2.5 2.5 1.9 1.5 1.4 1.3 24.1 Number 23,479 11,195 1,663 1,250 750 696 681 559 449 372 306 5,558 Percent 100.0 47.7 7.1 5.3 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.4 1.9 1.6 1.3 23.7 Woodlawn-Wakefield Total, Foreign-born Jamaica Guyana Ireland Dominican Republic Trinidad & Tobago Ghana United Kingdom Mexico Ecuador Philippines All Others Number 19,018 9,462 1,667 1,006 872 571 435 434 216 212 203 3,940 Percent 100.0 49.8 8.8 5.3 4.6 3.0 2.3 2.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 20.7 Percent 100.0 34.2 26.5 9.2 7.7 3.4 1.9 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 12.1 Soundview-Bruckner Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador Guyana Bangladesh Jamaica Yemen China Uruguay Honduras All Others Number 13,228 2,906 2,785 1,543 1,210 1,151 677 377 286 154 124 2,015 Percent 100.0 22.0 21.1 11.7 9.1 8.7 5.1 2.9 2.2 1.2 0.9 15.2 Mount Hope Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ghana Honduras Guyana Jamaica Ecuador Dominica Trinidad & Tobago Bangladesh All Others Number 22,333 12,523 1,719 1,534 632 581 564 506 333 311 209 3,421 Percent 100.0 56.1 7.7 6.9 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 1.5 1.4 0.9 15.3 West FarmsBronx River Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Ecuador Mexico Guyana Jamaica Honduras Pakistan Nigeria Ghana Dominica All Others Number 12,748 3,619 2,056 1,986 800 722 311 251 207 197 192 2,407 Percent 100.0 28.4 16.1 15.6 6.3 5.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.5 1.5 18.9 NORTH AND EAST WilliamsbridgeOlinville Total, Foreign-born Jamaica Dominican Republic Guyana Dominica Ghana Trinidad & Tobago Nigeria Mexico Barbados United Kingdom All Others CENTRAL AND SOUTH Mott HavenPort Morris Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Honduras Ecuador Guatemala Trinidad & Tobago Cuba El Salvador Peru Jamaica All Others 34 Number 14,365 4,913 3,808 1,327 1,112 482 271 198 187 179 155 1,733 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning also had immigrants from across the nonhispanic Caribbean and Africa, including those from Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Ghana, Nigeria, and Dominica. Dominicans were the 2nd largest group in Williamsbridge-Olinville (7 percent) and the Irish with the Bronx, Brooklyn’s immigrant stream was considerably more diverse. In further contrast with the Bronx, Brooklyn’s immigrant population experienced only minimal growth over the past decade (2 percent). were third in Woodlawn-Wakefield (5 percent). There was also a small British presence in both neighborhoods. Beyond these two neighborhoods, it is interesting to note a foreign-born Italian presence farther east, a reflection of past flows. Central and South Bronx Over 140,000 immigrants resided in Central and South Bronx constituting nearly one-third of the borough total. Dominicans were the largest group in this section of the Bronx, but other Latin American countries like Mexico and Ecuador were well represented. In Mott Haven-Port Morris, Soundview-Bruckner, and West Farms-Bronx River Dominicans were the top foreign-born group, but never accounted for more than about one-third of the total. Mexicans accounted for over one-quarter of immigrants in Mott Haven-Port Morris and over one-fifth in SoundviewBruckner, to the north. Central and South Bronx also had a sizable share of Asian immigrants, buoyed by a growing Bangladeshi population and a mix of smaller groups such as Chinese, Pakistanis, and Yemenis. In fact, this section of the Bronx had one of the more diverse mixes of immigrants, with substantial representation from the nonhispanic Caribbean (Guyana, Jamaica, and Trinidad and Tobago), Central America (Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador), and Africa (Ghana and Nigeria). BROOKLYN While immigrants in the Bronx were disproportionately Latin American, Figure 3-8 shows that Brooklyn’s 946,500 immigrants were heavily from the nonhispanic Caribbean (31 percent) and Asia (25 percent). Europeans and Latin Americans each accounted for one-fifth of the immigrant population, and Africans constituted 3 percent. Thus, compared China was the largest source of immigrants in Brooklyn and was the only Asian country with a substantial presence in the borough (Table 3-6). The Chinese numbered 129,200 (14 percent) and were followed by Jamaicans (7 percent); Haitians (7 percent); Dominicans (6 percent); and Trinidadians and Tobagonians, Mexicans, Russians, and Ukrainians (each with 5 percent). The fact that no group constituted more than 14 percent of the foreign-born was further testimony to Brooklyn’s diversity. Brooklyn Neighborhoods Table 3-7 shows that Southern Brooklyn had the largest number of immigrants (379,800), followed by Central Brooklyn (240,700), West Brooklyn (111,800), North Brooklyn (110,600), and East Brooklyn (83,600). In terms of immigrants as a percent of the total popu- Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 35 Table 3-6 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Brooklyn, 2011 NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL 946,511 100.0 China 129,219 13.7 Jamaica 70,508 7.4 Haiti 61,550 6.5 Dominican Republic 55,007 5.8 Trinidad and Tobago 50,319 5.3 Mexico 49,977 5.3 Russia 47,631 5.0 Ukraine 43,804 4.6 Guyana 41,637 4.4 Ecuador 25,616 2.7 Poland 22,860 2.4 Barbados 16,375 1.7 Grenada 15,683 1.7 Bangladesh 14,268 1.5 Italy 14,091 1.5 Pakistan 14,026 1.5 Uzbekistan 11,394 1.2 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 10,941 1.2 Panama 10,625 1.1 9,725 1.0 231,255 24.4 Israel All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning lation, Southern and Central Brooklyn had the highest concentrations, with 44 percent and 42 percent, respectively, of their population born outside the U.S., compared with 37 percent for the borough overall. On the other end of the spectrum, at 27 percent, North Brooklyn had the lowest percent foreign-born. The largest immigrant neighborhoods in Brooklyn included Bensonhurst, Sunset Park, Flatbush, Crown Heights, and Bushwick, each constituting over 5 percent of Brooklyn’s total foreignborn population (Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10). For selected neighborhoods, Table 3-8 lists the top 10 source countries of the foreign-born in 2007–2011. 36 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition North Brooklyn This section of Brooklyn had the lowest concentration of immigrants: Just 27 percent of the population was foreign-born, compared with 37 percent borough-wide. Even historically high-immigrant neighborhoods, such as Greenpoint (39 percent foreign-born) and Bushwick (37 percent), were around the borough average. Most of North Brooklyn, however, was notable for its paucity of immigrants, Williamsburg being the most extreme example, with only 13 percent of its population foreign-born. In Bushwick, North Brooklyn’s largest immigrant neighborhood, Dominicans constituted the largest group (28 percent of all immigrants), but Mexicans (22 percent) and Ecuadorians (16 percent) were also well represented (Table 3-8). Besides immigrants from China (4 percent), the rest of the foreign-born population originated primarily from other Latin American countries, like Honduras, El Salvador, or Guatemala, or nonhispanic Caribbean countries, like Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, or Guyana. East Brooklyn As in Bushwick to the north, East Brooklyn had a strong Dominican presence. However, this section’s immigrant profile was notable for its nonhispanic Caribbean character. In East New York, the largest immigrant neighborhood of this section, Jamaica, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago were three of the top four countries of immigrant origin. The Dominican Republic, the only Latin American source in the top 4, was the 2nd largest contributor to the foreign-born population, with a 15 percent share. Among the top 10 groups, only Honduras, Nigeria, and Ecuador were from outside of the nonhispanic Caribbean. To the north, in Cypress Hills-City Line, the Dominican Republic was the top immigrant source country, representing one-third of all immigrants. The other two-thirds were from diverse origins across Asia, Latin America, and the nonhispanic Caribbean, including Guyana (15 percent), Bangladesh (10 percent), Ecuador (7 percent), Table 3-7 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Brooklyn, 2007–2011 TOTAL POPULATION Number TOTAL, BROOKLYN North Bedford Bushwick East Williamsburg Greenpoint North Side-South Side Stuyvesant Heights Williamsburg East Brownsville Cypress Hills-City Line East New York Ocean Hill Starrett City Central Canarsie Crown Heights East Flatbush-Farragut Erasmus Flatlands Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin Prospect Heights Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate Rugby-Remsen Village Southern Bath Beach Bay Ridge Bensonhurst Borough Park Brighton Beach Dyker Heights Flatbush Gravesend Homecrest Kensington-Ocean Parkway Madison Midwood Ocean Parkway South Seagate-Coney Island Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach West Brighton West Brooklyn Heights-Cobble Hill Carroll Gardens-Columbia Street-Red Hook Clinton Hill DUMBO-Vinegar Hill-Downtown Brooklyn-Boerum Hill Fort Greene Park Slope-Gowanus Sunset Park Windsor Terrace Percent 2,486,119 404,760 FOREIGN-BORN FOREIGN-BORN AS % OF TOTAL POPULATION Number Percent 100.0 926,511 100.0 37.3 16.3 110,615 11.9 27.3 68,052 131,250 33,041 31,255 45,324 62,129 33,709 2.7 5.3 1.3 1.3 1.8 2.5 1.4 12,900 48,528 8,526 12,067 10,900 13,459 4,235 1.4 5.2 0.9 1.3 1.2 1.5 0.5 19.0 37.0 25.8 38.6 24.0 21.7 12.6 264,808 10.7 83,579 9.0 31.6 54,558 47,518 119,236 30,719 12,777 2.2 1.9 4.8 1.2 0.5 14,560 20,982 36,585 7,663 3,789 1.6 2.3 3.9 0.8 0.4 26.7 44.2 30.7 24.9 29.7 572,259 23.0 240,650 26.0 42.1 84,244 141,067 52,262 29,505 70,428 47,948 21,003 69,331 56,471 3.4 5.7 2.1 1.2 2.8 1.9 0.8 2.8 2.3 39,195 49,058 26,658 16,861 29,877 12,477 4,540 32,925 29,059 4.2 5.3 2.9 1.8 3.2 1.3 0.5 3.6 3.1 46.5 34.8 51.0 57.1 42.4 26.0 21.6 47.5 51.5 865,523 34.8 379,807 41.0 43.9 27,779 83,704 144,159 106,816 30,693 43,469 105,940 26,981 40,698 36,635 39,131 52,764 19,873 30,806 60,210 15,865 1.1 3.4 5.8 4.3 1.2 1.7 4.3 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 2.1 0.8 1.2 2.4 0.6 12,630 27,432 77,682 31,739 21,261 19,001 51,122 11,972 18,072 16,867 18,682 20,731 6,209 10,739 26,170 9,498 1.4 3.0 8.4 3.4 2.3 2.1 5.5 1.3 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.2 0.7 1.2 2.8 1.0 45.5 32.8 53.9 29.7 69.3 43.7 48.3 44.4 44.4 46.0 47.7 39.3 31.2 34.9 43.5 59.9 378,389 15.2 111,814 12.1 29.6 23,818 40,358 34,929 34,105 26,108 72,311 123,790 22,970 1.0 1.6 1.4 1.4 1.1 2.9 5.0 0.9 4,364 7,280 6,547 6,225 5,850 12,255 64,029 5,264 0.5 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.3 6.9 0.6 18.3 18.0 18.7 18.3 22.4 16.9 51.7 22.9 Sub-borough estimates do not sum to borough estimates because a tiny segment of the population reside in areas beyond designated neighborhoods, mostly in parks and cemeteries. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 37 Figure 3-9 Brooklyn Neighborhoods Greenpoint East Williamsburg North Side Stuyvesant Heights Vinegar HI BK Boerum HI Cypress Hills City Line Carroll Gardens Columbia Street Red Hook Park Slope Gowanus Crown Heights East Brownsville East New York Prospect Lefferts Gardens Wingate Rugby Remsen Village C3 East Flatbush Farragut Borough Park Central R_d Flatlands ay I 9e Georgetown Marine Park Bergen Beach Mill Basin Midwood South Bens on Bath Beach Seagate Coney Island Madison Sheepshead Bay Gerritsen Beach Manhattan Beach Source: Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 38 Figure 3-10 Brooklyn Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007-2011 Brooklyn foreign-born 926,511 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN 2 60,000 or more (2 neighborhoods) 2 to 59,999 (3) Greenpoint 20,000 to 29,999 (8) East Williamsburg to 19,999 (15) North Side South Side Under (13) B-Q Subway Line Subway Line Stuyvesant Heights Carroll Gardens Columbia Street Red Hook Park Slope Gowanus Brownsville Rugby Remsen Sunset Park East Flatbus Farragut Flatlands Bay Rugs Georgeton Marine Park Bergen Beach Mill Basin Bensonhurst Madison Sheepshead Bay Beach Manhattan Beach - 7 West Beac Brighto 4" coney Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 39 Table 3-8 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Brooklyn, 2007–2011 NORTH EAST Number 48,528 13,532 10,490 7,640 2,022 1,247 1,228 1,212 1,116 774 675 8,592 Percent 100.0 27.9 21.6 15.7 4.2 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3 1.6 1.4 17.7 Cypress Hills-City Line Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Guyana Bangladesh Ecuador Mexico China Trinidad & Tobago Colombia Honduras Guatemala All Others Number 20,982 7,124 3,094 2,178 1,454 895 809 757 693 518 350 3,110 Percent 100.0 34.0 14.7 10.4 6.9 4.3 3.9 3.6 3.3 2.5 1.7 14.8 East New York Number Total, Foreign-born 36,585 Jamaica 6,002 Dominican Republic 5,511 Guyana 5,401 Trinidad & Tobago 3,744 Haiti 1,250 Honduras 1,213 Barbados 1,152 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,094 Nigeria 1,034 Ecuador 1,029 All Others 9,155 Percent 100.0 16.4 15.1 14.8 10.2 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.0 2.8 2.8 25.0 Canarsie Number Total, Foreign-born 39,195 Jamaica 9,666 Haiti 8,898 Trinidad & Tobago 3,859 Guyana 3,571 Grenada 1,893 Barbados 1,456 China 1,155 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,024 Nigeria 648 Panama 527 All Others 6,498 Percent 100.0 24.7 22.7 9.8 9.1 4.8 3.7 2.9 2.6 1.7 1.3 16.6 Crown Heights Number Total, Foreign-born 49,058 Trinidad & Tobago 8,066 Jamaica 7,775 Haiti 4,161 Guyana 4,021 Barbados 3,149 Dominican Republic 2,174 Grenada 2,051 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,766 Panama 1,593 Israel 746 All Others 13,556 Percent 100.0 16.4 15.8 8.5 8.2 6.4 4.4 4.2 3.6 3.2 1.5 27.6 East Flatbush-Farragut Number Total, Foreign-born 26,658 Jamaica 6,315 Haiti 4,222 Trinidad & Tobago 3,990 Guyana 3,554 Grenada 2,059 Barbados 1,409 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,103 Panama 559 Nigeria 309 United Kingdom 235 All Others 2,903 Percent 100.0 23.7 15.8 15.0 13.3 7.7 5.3 4.1 2.1 1.2 0.9 10.9 Number Erasmus Total, Foreign-born 16,861 Haiti 4,138 Jamaica 3,014 Trinidad & Tobago 2,586 Guyana 1,655 Grenada 721 Panama 563 Barbados 485 Pakistan 349 St. Vincent & Grenadines 323 Mexico 286 All Others 2,741 Percent 100.0 24.5 17.9 15.3 9.8 4.3 3.3 2.9 2.1 1.9 1.7 16.3 Flatlands Number Total, Foreign-born 29,877 Haiti 8,655 Jamaica 5,539 Trinidad & Tobago 3,120 Guyana 2,475 Grenada 1,473 Barbados 863 St. Vincent & Grenadines 560 Pakistan 513 Panama 506 Mexico 371 All Others 5,802 Percent 100.0 29.0 18.5 10.4 8.3 4.9 2.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.2 19.4 Prospect Lefferts GardensWingate Number Total, Foreign-born 32,925 Jamaica 6,394 Haiti 5,592 Trinidad & Tobago 5,415 Guyana 3,598 Grenada 2,158 Panama 1,575 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,301 Barbados 1,157 Ghana 596 Dominican Republic 467 All Others 4,672 Percent 100.0 19.4 17.0 16.4 10.9 6.6 4.8 4.0 3.5 1.8 1.4 14.2 Rugby-Remsen Village Number Total, Foreign-born 29,059 Jamaica 7,936 Trinidad & Tobago 4,370 Guyana 3,441 Grenada 2,637 Haiti 2,607 Barbados 1,826 St. Vincent & Grenadines 1,131 Panama 599 Nigeria 400 United Kingdom 320 All Others 3,792 Percent 100.0 27.3 15.0 11.8 9.1 9.0 6.3 3.9 2.1 1.4 1.1 13.0 Bushwick Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador China Honduras Trinidad & Tobago Jamaica Guyana El Salvador Guatemala All Others CENTRAL 40 SOUTHERN Bay Ridge Total, Foreign-born China Greece Russia Egypt Mexico Poland Ukraine Lebanon Syria Italy All Others Number 27,432 4,349 1,654 1,521 1,486 1,222 1,146 1,063 831 672 671 12,817 Percent 100.0 15.9 6.0 5.5 5.4 4.5 4.2 3.9 3.0 2.4 2.4 46.7 Bensonhurst Total, Foreign-born China Italy Russia Ukraine Mexico Pakistan Belarus Poland Ecuador Albania All Others Number 77,682 31,658 6,091 6,071 4,697 3,787 2,159 1,790 1,633 1,611 1,574 16,611 Percent 100.0 40.8 7.8 7.8 6.0 4.9 2.8 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.0 21.4 Borough Park Total, Foreign-born China Israel Poland Mexico Hungary Russia Bangladesh Romania Italy Uzbekistan All Others Number 31,739 5,967 2,817 2,514 2,264 1,427 1,221 1,071 963 927 805 11,763 Percent 100.0 18.8 8.9 7.9 7.1 4.5 3.8 3.4 3.0 2.9 2.5 37.1 Brighton Beach Total, Foreign-born Ukraine Russia Mexico Pakistan China India Uzbekistan Belarus Moldova Philippines All Others Number 21,261 6,273 4,663 1,386 1,231 717 659 567 555 455 314 4,441 Percent 100.0 29.5 21.9 6.5 5.8 3.4 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.1 1.5 20.9 Dyker Heights Total, Foreign-born China Italy Poland Pakistan Greece Ukraine Albania Mexico Philippines Egypt All Others Number 19,001 9,307 1,732 755 696 622 482 458 413 388 319 3,829 Percent 100.0 49.0 9.1 4.0 3.7 3.3 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.7 20.2 Flatbush Total, Foreign-born Haiti Trinidad & Tobago Mexico Jamaica Pakistan Guyana Dominican Republic China Bangladesh Panama All Others Number 51,122 9,820 5,442 4,074 3,963 2,466 2,381 1,537 1,485 1,478 1,193 17,283 Percent 100.0 19.2 10.6 8.0 7.8 4.8 4.7 3.0 2.9 2.9 2.3 33.8 Homecrest Total, Foreign-born Russia Ukraine China Syria Israel Mexico Uzbekistan Belarus Egypt Italy All Others Number 18,072 2,812 2,803 1,856 1,785 699 695 447 446 378 366 5,785 Percent 100.0 15.6 15.5 10.3 9.9 3.9 3.8 2.5 2.5 2.1 2.0 32.0 KensingtonOcean Parkway Total, Foreign-born Bangladesh Russia Mexico Ukraine China Poland Pakistan Uzbekistan Haiti Guyana All Others Number 16,867 3,378 2,094 1,200 913 879 737 705 572 439 408 5,542 Percent 100.0 20.0 12.4 7.1 5.4 5.2 4.4 4.2 3.4 2.6 2.4 32.9 Madison Total, Foreign-born China Russia Ukraine Belarus Pakistan Mexico Israel Uzbekistan Vietnam Italy All Others Number 18,682 3,981 2,896 2,564 710 670 608 489 424 311 304 5,725 Percent 100.0 21.3 15.5 13.7 3.8 3.6 3.3 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.6 30.6 Percent 100.0 17.5 13.0 7.8 5.9 5.0 4.5 4.4 4.0 2.5 2.1 33.4 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach Number Total, Foreign-born 26,170 Ukraine 5,659 China 5,164 Russia 4,909 Belarus 1,320 Burma 715 Uzbekistan 625 Moldova 522 Poland 427 Vietnam 413 Turkey 390 All Others 6,026 Number 64,029 27,647 12,420 4,976 3,834 1,191 989 769 748 640 598 10,217 Percent 100.0 43.2 19.4 7.8 6.0 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.0 0.9 16.0 Midwood Total, Foreign-born Russia Ukraine Pakistan Israel China Uzbekistan Belarus Mexico Poland Dominican Republic All Others Number 20,731 3,619 2,685 1,607 1,228 1,040 941 917 835 510 427 6,922 WEST Percent 100.0 21.6 19.7 18.8 5.0 2.7 2.4 2.0 1.6 1.6 1.5 23.0 Sunset Park Total, Foreign-born China Mexico Dominican Republic Ecuador Poland El Salvador Philippines Guatemala Colombia Guyana All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 41 Mexico (4 percent), China (4 percent), and Trinidad and Tobago (4 percent). Central Brooklyn No other borough subsection comes close to the distinctly nonhispanic Caribbean character of Central Brooklyn, where three of every four immigrants were born in this part of the globe. Erasmus, Rugby-Remsen Village, and East Flatbush-Farragut in Central Brooklyn were among the most heavily immigrant neighborhoods in the borough. In all three neighborhoods, over one-half of residents were born outside the U.S., overwhelmingly in the nonhispanic Caribbean. Erasmus’s immigrant community was largely Haitian (25 percent), but as in the rest of Central Brooklyn, no one nonhispanic Caribbean group dominated. Jamaica (18 percent), Trinidad and Tobago (15 percent), and Guyana (10 percent) rounded out the top 4. A similar pattern was present to the east in East Flatbush-Farragut, where Jamaicans were the top group (24 percent), though Haitians (16 percent), Trinidadians and Tobagonians (15 percent), and Guyanese (13 percent) were not far behind. RugbyRemsen Village, to the east, also had a similar mix but Grenadians supplanted Haitians in the top 4, with 9 percent of the immigrant population. To the south in Canarsie, an area notable for its relatively high percentage of homeowners, Jamaicans and Haitians cumulatively constituted nearly one-half of all immigrants, with 25 percent and 23 percent, respectively. Farther southwest, in Flatlands, Haitian immigrants comprised 29 percent of the foreign-born, their highest concentration in the city. Here, the top seven immigrant countries of birth were all from the nonhispanic Caribbean. In the northern part of Central Brooklyn, Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate had nearly one-half of its population originating overseas. The top 4 groups in this neighborhood were from Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana, each comprising between 11 and 19 percent of all immigrants. It is interesting to note that seven out of the top eight countries of birth were from the nonhispanic Caribbean, with the excep- 42 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition tion of Panama; however, many of the Panamanians living here could trace their roots back to the nonhispanic Caribbean. Farther north, in Crown Heights, Trinidad and Tobago was in the unique position of being the top source country among all immigrant groups, with a 16 percent share. Jamaica was the only other country in double digits, followed by Haiti, Guyana, and Barbados. In Crown Heights there was a small but significant number of Dominican immigrants, with a 4 percent share. Southern Brooklyn While Central Brooklyn had a pronounced nonhispanic Caribbean presence, the southernmost section of the borough was heavily Asian and European; three-in-four immigrants hailed from these regions. The one major exception to this was Flatbush, a neighborhood just to the west of Central Brooklyn. Flatbush maintained a nonhispanic Caribbean character (about one-half of its immigrant population was from the nonhispanic Caribbean) as a transitional neighborhood between Central and Southern Brooklyn. Although Haiti (19 percent) and Trinidad and Tobago (11 percent) were the top two countries of origin, Latin American countries like Mexico and the Dominican Republic, and Asian countries like Pakistan, China, and Bangladesh also appeared as top sources. Farther west, in Kensington-Ocean Parkway, the transition away from nonhispanic Caribbean origins was nearly complete. Bangladeshis constituted a full one-fifth of all immigrants here, followed by Russians (12 percent), Mexicans (7 percent), Ukrainians (5 percent), and Chinese (5 percent). Although Haiti and Guyana appeared in the top 10 countries of origin, cumulatively they only comprised 5 percent of all immigrants. To the south in Midwood, Russians and Ukrainians predominated, comprising 18 percent and 13 percent of immigrants, respectively. There was also a relatively high concentration of Pakistanis (8 percent) and Israelis (6 percent), followed by a diverse mix of Chinese, Uzbeks, Belarusians, and Mexicans. Farther south, in Madison and Homecrest, there was a combination of three dominant groups: Russians, Ukrainians, and Chinese. In Madison these 3 groups constituted over one-half of all im- migrants, while in Homecrest they represented 41 percent. The only other major country of origin in either neighborhood was Syria, which comprised 10 percent of immigrants in Homecrest—the greatest concentration of Syrians in the city. South of Madison and Homecrest, along the Lower New York Bay, Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach was also dominated by Ukrainian, Chinese, and Russian immigrants, each constituting roughly one-fifth of the foreign-born. In Brighton Beach, over one-half of the immigrant population was born in either the Ukraine (30 percent) or Russia (22 percent). Bensonhurst, the second largest immigrant neighborhood in the city, and Dyker Heights have recently transitioned from neighborhoods with primarily European immigrants to areas with a substantial Chinese presence. The Chinese accounted for 41 percent of immigrants in Bensonhurst and nearly one-half in Dyker Heights. The next largest group was Italians, but they accounted for under 10 percent in both areas. Russians (8 percent) and Ukrainians (6 percent) rounded out the top 4 national origins, a reflection of heavily Slavic neighborhoods to the east. To the west, Bay Ridge exhibited a remarkable diversity. Here, immigrants had origins across Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Latin America. While the Chinese were still the most common immigrant group, they only comprised 16 percent of the foreignborn. Other significant countries of origin included Greece (6 percent), Russia (6 percent), Egypt (5 percent), Mexico (5 percent), Poland (4 percent), the Ukraine (4 percent), and Lebanon (3 percent). Borough Park also exhibited a substantial degree of diversity. The top 5 sending countries included the China (19 percent), Israel (9 percent), Poland (8 percent), Mexico (7 percent), and Hungary (5 percent). West Brooklyn West Brooklyn, like South Brooklyn, was disproportionately Asian. However, instead of the European presence, seen to the south, there was a higher concentration of Latin American immigrants. With a foreign-born population of 64,000, constituting over one-half of the general population, most of West Brooklyn’s immigrants were concentrated in Sunset Park. Here, Chinese were by far the largest foreign-born group, with a 43 percent share of all immigrants. The only other countries of birth with a significant share of immigrants were Mexico (19 percent), the Dominican Republic (8 percent), and Ecuador (6 percent). Brooklyn Horseshoe Across Brooklyn’s subsections, there was a diverse chain of high immigrant neighborhoods, forming a horseshoe pattern along the B-Q and N subway lines (Figure 3-10). This line of neighborhoods began in the west, in Sunset Park, and continued south, encompassing Borough Park, Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, Gravesend, Seagate-Coney Island, West Brighton, and Brighton Beach. The Horseshoe then turned north again at Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach, continued into Madison, Homecrest, Midwood, Flatbush, and ended at Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate, in Central Brooklyn. Nearly one-half of the population in these neighborhoods was foreign-born (46 percent), encompassing almost one-half of all immigrants in the borough (45 percent). Beyond the sheer number and concentration of immigrants, Brooklyn’s Horseshoe exhibited a remarkable degree of immigrant diversity. Beginning in Sunset Park, Chinese and Latin American immigrants predominated. Turning south, through Borough Park, Dyker Heights, Bensonhurst, and Gravesend, the Chinese maintained a sizable presence, along with Eastern European and Italian immigrants. However, Latin Americans had a minimal presence here, represented by a small number of Mexicans. Farther south, from Seagate-Coney Island to Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach, the share of Chinese immigrants tailed off, and immigrants from the former Soviet Union were most common. As the Horseshoe turned north, in Madison, Midwood, and Homecrest, we again saw a balance between Chinese and Eastern European immigrants, with a small number of Arabs and Pakistanis. Finally, in Flatbush and Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate, most immigrants came from the Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 43 nonhispanic Caribbean, with only a small number of Hispanics and South Asians. MANHATTAN Since 2000, Manhattan’s foreign-born population grew only nominally (2 percent), to reach 461,300 in 2011. Thanks to this anemic growth, the Bronx supplanted Manhattan as the third largest immigrant borough in the city after Queens and Brooklyn; Manhattan now ranks fourth. Latin Americans were disproportionately represented in the borough, accounting for 40 percent of all immigrants (Figure 3-11), compared with their 32 percent share in the city overall (Figure 2-4). At the same time, there was a very small presence of immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean, who accounted for just 4 percent of all immigrants, compared with their 19 percent share in the city overall. The shares of the foreign-born from Asia (30 percent) and Europe (19 percent) were slightly higher compared with their shares among all immigrants in the city. Table 3-9 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Manhattan, 2011 NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL 461,325 100.0 Dominican Republic 109,780 23.8 65,750 14.3 China Mexico 23,773 5.2 United Kingdom 16,408 3.6 Ecuador 15,503 3.4 India 14,483 3.1 Korea 11,911 2.6 Japan 11,208 2.4 Canada 10,337 2.2 France 9,777 2.1 Germany 8,004 1.7 Russia 7,943 1.7 1.5 Philippines 6,709 Colombia 6,329 1.4 Italy 5,444 1.2 Israel 4,926 1.1 Jamaica 4,813 1.0 Spain 4,674 1.0 Poland 4,641 1.0 Brazil All Others 4,552 1.0 114,360 24.8 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The Dominican Republic was the largest source of immigrants in Manhattan (Table 3-9). Dominicans numbered 109,800, or 24 percent of all immigrants, and were followed by the Chinese (14 percent) and Mexicans (5 percent). The list of top 20 foreign-born groups in Manhattan is unique in that it includes countries such as Japan, Canada, France, Germany, Israel, and Spain that do not appear on the top 20 list of foreign-born groups in the city. Moreover, while the major European foreign-born groups in the other boroughs tend to be Russians, Ukrainians, Italians, and Poles, the top European sources in Manhattan were western European. It is important to keep in mind that in many Manhattan neighborhoods, the foreign-born include a relatively high proportion of non-immigrants, such as diplomats, students, business personnel, and others posted to the city for a temporary duration. 44 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-10 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Manhattan, 2007–2011 Number Percent Number Percent FOREIGN-BORN AS % OF TOTAL POPULATION 1,588,257 100.0 453,836 100.0 28.6 TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL, MANHATTAN Upper FOREIGN-BORN 582,561 36.7 203,400 44.8 34.9 Central Harlem-Polo Grounds 122,288 7.7 26,881 5.9 22.0 East Harlem 120,430 7.6 30,335 6.7 25.2 51,069 3.2 18,202 4.0 35.6 Manhattanville 23,054 1.5 9,124 2.0 39.6 Marble Hill-Inwood 48,889 3.1 22,480 5.0 46.0 Hamilton Heights Morningside Heights 53,933 3.4 16,204 3.6 30.0 Washington Heights 162,898 10.3 80,174 17.7 49.2 362,338 22.8 78,775 17.4 21.7 19.0 East Side Gramercy 25,897 1.6 4,926 1.1 Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island 78,155 4.9 19,154 4.2 24.5 Murray Hill-Kips Bay 51,190 3.2 11,941 2.6 23.3 Stuyvesant Town-Cooper Village 21,688 1.4 4,355 1.0 20.1 Turtle Bay-East Midtown 47,330 3.0 12,000 2.6 25.4 Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill 60,178 3.8 9,757 2.1 16.2 Yorkville 77,900 4.9 16,642 3.7 21.4 Lower 306,380 19.3 93,013 20.5 30.4 Battery Park City-Lower Manhattan 35,770 2.3 10,660 2.3 29.8 Chinatown 47,803 3.0 26,808 5.9 56.1 East Village 42,481 2.7 10,345 2.3 24.4 Lower East Side 73,992 4.7 22,711 5.0 30.7 SoHo-TriBeCa-Civic Center-Little Italy 39,031 2.5 10,591 2.3 27.1 West Village 67,303 4.2 11,898 2.6 17.7 23.4 335,554 21.1 78,532 17.3 Clinton West Side and Midtown 43,693 2.8 12,923 2.8 29.6 Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flatiron-Union Square 68,328 4.3 14,886 3.3 21.8 Lincoln Square 59,772 3.8 12,979 2.9 21.7 Midtown-Midtown South 27,728 1.7 8,254 1.8 29.8 136,033 8.6 29,490 6.5 21.7 Upper West Side Sub-borough estimates do not sum to borough estimates because a tiny segment of the population reside in areas beyond designated neighborhoods, mostly in parks and cemeteries. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 45 Figure 3-12 Manhattan Neighborhoods Marble Hill lnwood Washington Heights Hamilton Central Harlem Morningside Polo Heights East Harlem Yorkvi lle Lincoln Square Hudson Chelsea Flat Iron Union Sq SoHo TriBeCa Civic Little Italy Battery pk City Source: Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning Lower MN 4 6 Figure 3-13 Manhattan Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007-2011 Manhattan foreign-born 453,836 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN (1 neighborhood) 2 to 59,999 (0) 2 to 39,999 (1) 20,000 to 29,999 (5) to 19,999 (13) Under (5) Midtown Midtown Hudson Chelsea Flat Iron Union Sq West Village SoHo TriBeCa Civic Little Italy Battery Pk City Lower MN Turtle Bay Midtown Marble Hill Inwood Washington Heights Hamilton Heights Manhattanville Central Harlem Momingside Polo Heights Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey -- Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning 47 Manhattan Neighborhoods The largest number of immigrants in Manhattan was in the northern section of the borough (Table 3-10, Figure 3-12, and Figure 3-13). Upper Manhattan, with 203,400 immigrants, included Washington Heights, with one of the largest (80,200) and densest concentration of immigrants (49 percent of the population) in the city. The area also included large neighborhoods such as Central Harlem-Polo Grounds and East Harlem where, despite large immigrant populations, the foreign-born constituted a relatively small portion of the overall populations. The Lower Manhattan section of the borough had 93,000 foreign-born residents, one-half of whom lived in the vicinity of Chinatown and the Lower East Side, where immigrants comprised 56 percent and 31 percent of the population, respectively. The East Side of Manhattan had 78,800 foreign-born residents fairly evenly distributed across this section, though they comprised a low share of the overall population. The West Side and Midtown section of Manhattan was home to 78,500 foreign-born persons, again, with a somewhat even distribution throughout, but a low percentage foreign-born. The next section examines the country composition of the foreign-born in selected Manhattan neighborhoods (Table 3-11). Upper Manhattan Upper Manhattan’s immigrant population was overwhelmingly from Latin America, with a sizable share from Mexico and Ecuador. However, the vast majority hailed from the Dominican Republic, although their numbers have declined significantly over the past decade. Washington Heights, the largest immigrant neighborhood in the city, was particularly dominated by Dominican immigrants, who comprised over 60 percent of the 80,200 foreignborn residents in the neighborhood. The adjacent neighborhoods of Marble Hill-Inwood to the north and Hamilton Heights to the south were also favored by Dominicans, who accounted for 69 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of the foreign-born population in these neighborhoods. Farther south, in Morningside Heights, Dominicans were again 48 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition the largest group, but only constituted 16 percent. In this neighborhood dominated by Columbia University, the origins of the foreign-born were wide-ranging, with significant contributions from China, Korea, India, United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, and the Philippines. Dominicans were also the largest group in Central Harlem-Polo Grounds, comprising one-quarter of the 26,900 foreign-born residents, followed by those born in Jamaican, Trinidad and Tobago, Ecuador, and Haiti. To the east, in East Harlem, Mexicans were the largest group, comprising nearly one-quarter of the 30,300 immigrants; Dominicans were the second largest group accounting for 18 percent. East Side of Manhattan The East Side was disproportionately populated by Asian immigrants, particularly from China, India, Japan, and Korea. This section of the borough also had the most European immigrants, including persons born in the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and Germany. While East Side neighborhoods tended to be heavily Asian and European, they were home to a diverse set of national origins. The top 10 foreign-born groups accounted for less than one-half of the foreign-born residents in both Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island and Yorkville, and no single group constituted more than a nine percent share, indicative of the diverse array of groups present. Lower Manhattan While Upper Manhattan was dominated by Latin Americans, specifically Dominicans, Lower Manhattan had a heavy Chinese presence. As with Dominicans uptown, the Chinese presence in Lower Manhattan has been diminishing. In Chinatown, over three-quarters of the foreign-born population was Chinese. The neighborhood also included a small number of persons born in Malaysia, Korea, and Vietnam, many of them of Chinese descent. Besides those born in Asian countries, there were over 1,000 Dominicans in Chinatown who comprised 4 percent of the foreign-born. A similar mix existed to the north, on the Lower East Side, where the Chinese constituted 53 percent of the foreign-born and Dominicans represented 12 percent. No other Table 3-11 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Manhattan, 2007–2011 UPPER Central Harlem-Polo Grounds Number Percent Total, Foreign-born 26,881 100.0 Dominican Republic 6,940 25.8 Jamaica 1,411 5.2 Trinidad & Tobago 1,044 3.9 Ecuador 859 3.2 Haiti 852 3.2 China 692 2.6 Mexico 586 2.2 India 504 1.9 Honduras 486 1.8 Guyana 397 1.5 All Others 13,110 48.8 East Harlem Total, Foreign-born Mexico Dominican Republic China Ecuador Bangladesh Trinidad & Tobago Philippines India France Honduras All Others Number 30,335 7,172 5,352 2,687 1,788 682 680 652 553 527 429 9,813 Percent 100.0 23.6 17.6 8.9 5.9 2.2 2.2 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.4 32.3 Hamilton Heights Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador Jamaica Honduras Haiti Dominica Canada Guyana Philippines All Others Number 18,202 8,403 2,305 1,384 525 456 361 284 250 225 217 3,792 Percent 100.0 46.2 12.7 7.6 2.9 2.5 2.0 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.2 20.8 Number Percent 22,480 100.0 15,587 69.3 1,896 8.4 588 2.6 511 2.3 417 1.9 244 1.1 232 1.0 183 0.8 177 0.8 163 0.7 2,482 11.0 Morningside Heights Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic China Korea India United Kingdom Canada Germany Philippines Mexico Austria All Others Number 16,204 2,565 2,106 1,061 612 577 454 442 400 359 349 7,279 Percent 100.0 15.8 13.0 6.5 3.8 3.6 2.8 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.2 44.9 Washington Heights Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador Cuba El Salvador China Russia Haiti Colombia Trinidad & Tobago All Others Number 80,174 48,371 6,254 4,349 1,798 1,141 1,049 1,023 961 934 877 13,417 Percent 100.0 60.3 7.8 5.4 2.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.1 16.7 Yorkville Total, Foreign-born China Japan United Kingdom Russia Canada India Israel France Germany Korea All Others Number 16,642 1,418 923 916 804 646 629 585 569 560 537 9,055 Percent 100.0 8.5 5.5 5.5 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.2 54.4 Marble Hill-Inwood Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador Cuba Colombia Dominica Honduras Peru El Salvador United Kingdom All Others EAST SIDE Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island Number Percent Total, Foreign-born 19,154 100.0 China 1,484 7.7 India 1,355 7.1 Korea 1,052 5.5 Russia 1,043 5.4 United Kingdom 845 4.4 France 704 3.7 Israel 691 3.6 Japan 683 3.6 Canada 615 3.2 Germany 576 3.0 All Others 10,106 52.8 LOWER Chinatown Total, Foreign-born China Dominican Republic Malaysia Korea United Kingdom Honduras Canada France Vietnam Bangladesh All Others WEST SIDE & MIDTOWN Number Percent 26,808 100.0 20,907 78.0 1,068 4.0 478 1.8 318 1.2 293 1.1 251 0.9 242 0.9 219 0.8 198 0.7 169 0.6 2,665 9.9 Lower East Side Total, Foreign-born China Dominican Republic India Ecuador United Kingdom Mexico Malaysia Russia Bangladesh Japan All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Number 22,711 12,039 2,714 513 462 407 402 317 289 271 255 5,042 Percent 100.0 53.0 12.0 2.3 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.4 1.3 1.2 1.1 22.2 Upper West Side Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic United Kingdom China Canada France Germany Ecuador Russia Philippines Israel All Others Number 29,490 2,954 1,637 1,381 1,374 1,161 1,156 1,087 973 963 863 15,941 Percent 100.0 10.0 5.6 4.7 4.7 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.3 3.3 2.9 54.1 49 country of birth constituted more than 3 percent, testimony to a burgeoning diversity with origins including India, Ecuador, the United Kingdom, Mexico, Malaysia, and Russia. West Side and Midtown Manhattan As in the East Side section of Manhattan, there was no single dominant foreign-born group on the West Side and Midtown Manhattan. The overall foreignborn population was disproportionately European and Asian. In the Upper West Side neighborhood, the United Kingdom, China, Canada, France, and Germany were all top countries of birth. However, Dominicans still topped the list with a 10 percent share of all immigrants, a reflection of the heavily Dominican neighborhoods bordering this section’s northern reaches. million in 2011. Queens was the only borough where Asian immigrants formed a plurality, comprising 37 percent of the borough’s foreign-born (Figure 3-14), compared with a 28 percent share citywide (Figure 2-4). No other world region was overrepresented in the borough. Latin Americans constituted 31 percent of the foreign-born, immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean accounted for 17 percent, Europeans were 13 percent, and Africans were 2 percent. Turning to the countries of origin of immigrants (Table 3-12), the Chinese were the largest group, accounting for 13 percent of the foreign-born population. They were followed by the Guyanese (8 percent); Ecuadorians (7 percent); Mexicans (6 percent); Dominicans, Colombians, and Koreans (5 percent each); and Bangladeshis, Indians, and Jamaicans (each with 4 percent). With dramatic increases over the past decade, Bangladeshis now rank among the borough’s top 10 immigrant groups, outranking Indians for the first time. Table 3-12 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Queens, 2011 NUMBER TOTAL China PERCENT 1,089,187 100.0 142,957 13.1 Guyana 82,538 7.6 Ecuador 72,736 6.7 Mexico 62,215 5.7 Dominican Republic 56,899 5.2 Colombia 51,087 4.7 Korea 50,411 4.6 Bangladesh 2.7 26,209 2.4 Haiti 25,655 2.4 Poland The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 3.7 29,434 Trinidad and Tobago 50 4.2 40,181 Philippines Queens was the most racially and ethnically heterogeneous of the city’s boroughs, and on many measures, the most diverse county in the U.S. This was primarily due to the huge flow of immigrants to the borough. Since 2000, the overall foreign-born population of Queens grew 6 percent, reaching 1.09 4.3 46,103 Jamaica QUEENS 47,313 India 25,510 2.3 Peru 20,142 1.8 Pakistan 18,168 1.7 Italy 16,767 1.5 El Salvador 16,117 1.5 Russia 15,407 1.4 Greece 13,384 1.2 229,954 21.1 All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-13 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Queens, 2007–2011 FOREIGN-BORN TOTAL POPULATION Number TOTAL, QUEENS Northwest Astoria Corona East Elmhurst Elmhurst Forest Hills Glendale Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth Jackson Heights Maspeth Middle Village Old Astoria Queensbridge-Ravenswood-Long Island City Rego Park Ridgewood Steinway Woodside Northeast Auburndale Bayside-Bayside Hills Briarwood-Jamaica Hills College Point Douglas Manor-Douglaston-Little Neck Flushing Fresh Meadows-Utopia Ft. Totten-Bay Terrace-Clearview Jamaica Estates-Holliswood Kew Gardens Hills Murray Hill Oakland Gardens Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest Queensboro Hill Whitestone Southeast Baisley Park Bellerose Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel Cambria Heights Far Rockaway-Bayswater Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park Hammels-Arverne-Edgemere Hollis Jamaica Laurelton Queens Village Rosedale South Jamaica Springfield Gardens-Brookville St. Albans Southwest Kew Gardens Lindenwood-Howard Beach Ozone Park Richmond Hill South Ozone Park Woodhaven Percent FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent AS % OF TOTAL POPULATION 47.8 2,213,977 100.0 1,058,602 100.0 894,904 40.4 472,909 44.7 52.8 74,859 103,210 22,834 108,556 83,728 32,679 60,009 105,859 28,862 38,190 26,550 17,707 28,237 69,313 49,366 44,945 3.4 4.7 1.0 4.9 3.8 1.5 2.7 4.8 1.3 1.7 1.2 0.8 1.3 3.1 2.2 2.0 33,217 66,259 12,388 77,110 41,056 9,135 31,856 65,585 11,131 11,565 12,767 6,570 15,798 31,509 20,441 26,522 3.1 6.3 1.2 7.3 3.9 0.9 3.0 6.2 1.1 1.1 1.2 0.6 1.5 3.0 1.9 2.5 44.4 64.2 54.3 71.0 49.0 28.0 53.1 62.0 38.6 30.3 48.1 37.1 55.9 45.5 41.4 59.0 512,340 23.1 250,660 23.7 48.9 19,907 45,363 37,933 23,236 24,511 94,418 18,192 23,280 24,037 36,489 50,181 28,271 33,539 20,473 32,510 0.9 2.0 1.7 1.0 1.1 4.3 0.8 1.1 1.1 1.6 2.3 1.3 1.5 0.9 1.5 9,212 17,901 21,058 10,127 8,978 63,920 9,313 7,008 11,521 13,846 29,039 11,708 14,171 12,436 10,422 0.9 1.7 2.0 1.0 0.8 6.0 0.9 0.7 1.1 1.3 2.7 1.1 1.3 1.2 1.0 46.3 39.5 55.5 43.6 36.6 67.7 51.2 30.1 47.9 37.9 57.9 41.4 42.3 60.7 32.1 533,088 24.1 202,713 19.1 38.0 34,160 26,112 29,325 21,356 48,791 22,438 34,901 21,338 50,227 25,728 57,666 26,863 36,583 46,851 50,749 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.0 2.2 1.0 1.6 1.0 2.3 1.2 2.6 1.2 1.7 2.1 2.3 11,948 10,205 3,852 8,726 16,935 7,823 9,193 9,692 30,053 9,610 28,763 11,515 11,833 15,798 16,767 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.8 1.6 0.7 0.9 0.9 2.8 0.9 2.7 1.1 1.1 1.5 1.6 35.0 39.1 13.1 40.9 34.7 34.9 26.3 45.4 59.8 37.4 49.9 42.9 32.3 33.7 33.0 273,255 12.3 132,168 12.5 48.4 22,657 28,480 22,153 63,201 78,381 58,383 1.0 1.3 1.0 2.9 3.5 2.6 10,071 5,256 8,569 36,203 45,681 26,388 1.0 0.5 0.8 3.4 4.3 2.5 44.4 18.5 38.7 57.3 58.3 45.2 Sub-borough estimates do not sum to borough estimates because a tiny segment of the population reside in areas beyond designated neighborhoods, mostly in parks and cemeteries. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 51 Figure 3-15 Queens Neighborhoods Fort Totten Bay Terrace Clearview La Guardia Airport Old Astoria Douglas Manor Douglaston Little Neck Bayside Bayside Hills Astoria Queensbn - Ravenswood LIC Northwest Jackson Heights Queensboro Hill Hunters Point Oakland Fresh Meadow Benerose Sunnyside West Maspeth Utopia 3' ens Flushing Hillcrest Kew Gardens Hills Jamaica Ests Holliswood Queens Village Cambria Heights Middle Village Ridgewood Glendale Briarwood Jamaica Hill Kew Gardens ac' Richmond Hill South Jamaica St Albans thea Woodhaven Baisley Park Ozone Park South Ozone Park Springfield Garden Brookville Rosedale JFK International Airport Far Rockaway Bayswater Arverne Edgemere Source: Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning reezy Point Belle Harbor Rockaway Par 52 Figure 3-16 Queens Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007-2011 Fort Totten Bay Terrace Cle arview - College Point La Guardia Airport Douglas Manor Douglaston Little Neck Bayside Bayside Hills Ravenswood Flushing Glen Oaks I Floral Park Corona Queensboro Hill Oakland Gardens Fresh Meadow Utopia Bellerose Pomonok Flushing Hillcrest Kew Gardens Hills Jamalca Ests Middle Village Homswood Queens Village Briarwood Jamaica Hill Kew Gardens Glendale Cambria South Jamaica Heights St Albans Woodhaven Baisley Park Springfield Garden Broo kville Rosedale JFK Intemational Airport Far Rockaway Bayswater Ozone Park Queens foreign-born 1,058,602 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN 2 60,000 or more (4 neighborhoods) 2 40,000 to 59,999 (2) 2 30,000 to 39,999 (5) to 29,999 (6) ,9 Lindenwood Howard Beac to 19,999 (21 Under (14) No. 7 Subway Line Arverne Edgemere Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division--New York City Department of City Planning 53 Queens Neighborhoods Northwest Queens Table 3-13 shows the number of foreign-born residents in neighborhoods across Queens, while Figure 3-15 and Figure 3-16 map the settlement pattern of the foreign-born. Northwest Queens had nearly as many immigrants (472,900) as the rest of the borough combined. It was home to 7 of the borough’s 10 largest immigrant neighborhoods: Elmhurst, Corona, Jackson Heights, Forest Hills, Astoria, Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, and Ridgewood. Fifty-three percent of the population of Northwest Queens was foreign-born, higher than any other section of New York City. In Elmhurst, 7-in-10 residents were foreign-born, the highest concentration of any neighborhood in the city, while about 6-in-10 residents of Corona, Jackson Heights, and Woodside were born outside the U.S. The Northeast section of Queens also had an impressive concentration of immigrants, with nearly one-half (49 percent) of all residents being foreign-born. By far, the largest immigrant neighborhood in this section was Flushing, with the foreign-born constituting over two-thirds of all residents. Briarwood-Jamaica Hills and Murray Hill also had disproportionately high immigrant concentrations of 56 percent and 58 percent of the total population, respectively. The heaviest immigrant presence was along the “International Express”—the number 7 subway line that connects Times Square in Manhattan with Flushing in Queens (Figure 3-16). The first stop in Queens is Vernon-Jackson, in Long Island City, but the significant immigrant presence started at Queensboro Plaza, extending east toward Flushing. Immigrants in these neighborhoods were primarily from Asia and Latin America. In contrast with other sections of Queens, immigrants comprised a relatively low share in the Southeast (38 percent). However, in Jamaica, this section’s largest immigrant neighborhood, threein-five residents were foreign-born. Similarly, onehalf of the population living in Queens Village was foreign-born. In contrast to the Southeast section of Queens, the Southwest had a very high concentration of immigrants, with nearly one-half of all residents born overseas. This section encompassed South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill, two of the city’s larger immigrant neighborhoods (45,700 and 36,200 immigrants, respectively), where nearly 60 percent of the population was foreign-born. Table 3-14 lists the country composition of foreign-born residents for selected neighborhoods in Queens. 54 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition North of Queensboro Plaza lies Astoria and Steinway, once predominantly immigrant Greek and Italian neighborhoods. While immigration from Greece and Italy has declined, these neighborhoods were still home to immigrant cohorts that arrived in earlier decades. In Steinway, Greeks (3,400) remained the largest foreign-born group, accounting for 17 percent of immigrants in the neighborhood, the largest percentage of Greeks anywhere in the city. Italians (7 percent), Ecuadorians (6 percent), Mexicans (5 percent), Egyptians (4 percent), Colombians (4 percent), Bangladeshis (3 percent), and Chinese (3 percent) rounded out the top immigrant groups in Steinway, exhibiting a surprising degree of diversity even for Queens. In Astoria, Greeks were also still the top immigrant group, but the diversity among immigrants in this neighborhood was so great that no single country of origin had more than a 7 percent share of the foreign-born population. Mexico (7 percent), Bangladesh (6 percent), Colombia (5 percent), Brazil (5 percent), China (5 percent), Ecuador (5 percent), Italy (4 percent), Japan (4 percent), and Croatia (4 percent) were each countries of origin with greater than a 3 percent share of the total immigrant population. It is interesting to note that the percent share of Brazilians was higher here than anywhere else in New York City. Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, the next major neighborhood on the International Express, was home to 31,900 immigrants. The major groups were Ecuadorians (12 percent), Colombians (9 percent), Chinese (8 percent), Koreans (7 percent), and Bangladeshis and Mexicans (each with 6 percent). The next largest group after Mexicans was Nepalese (4 percent), who had their greatest concentration in the city in this neighborhood. Woodside, the next stop on this subway line, with 26,500 foreign-born residents, was similarly diverse, but with a slightly more Asian presence. In the early 1990s, the Irish were the largest newly arrived group settling in Woodside. But with so many having left, the Irish-born were not even among the top 10 immigrant groups in 2007–2011. All of the top 10 groups were either from Asia (Philippines, Bangladesh, China, India, Korea, and Japan) or Latin America (Ecuador, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru). ist. Rego Park had a cluster of 15,800 foreign-born residents, with the Chinese being the largest group (17 percent), followed by Russians (12 percent), and Indians (11 percent). These sources were among the top 4 groups in Forest Hills (41,100 immigrants), which is east of Rego Park. Both of these neighborhoods also had a large population from the former Soviet republics. The largest source, besides Russia, was Uzbekistan, with immigrants primarily from the Bukharan community. In fact, Forest Hills had more immigrants from Uzbekistan (3,200) than any other neighborhood in the city. Continuing east, Elmhurst was home to 77,100 immigrants, the third largest immigrant neighborhood in the city. As in Woodside, Elmhurst was a mix of mostly Asian and Latin American immigrants. However, unlike Woodside, the Chinese (22 percent) were a clear plurality of the foreign-born. Besides Chinese, Elmhurst had a significant percentage of Ecuadorians (11 percent), Mexicans (11 percent), Colombians (8 percent), Filipinos (7 percent), and Bangladeshis (6 percent). North of Elmhurst lies Jackson Heights, another exceedingly large immigrant community with a foreign-born population of 65,600. Here, Ecuadorians (16 percent) were outnumbered by Colombians (13 percent), a reversal of the 2000 profile. Still, there was a stronger Colombian numeric presence (8,300) here than anywhere else in the city, as was the case with Bangladeshis (5,000) and Peruvians (2,300). Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, and Dominicans also had a robust presence in Jackson Heights. Ridgewood, which borders northern Brooklyn, was a neighborhood of 31,500 immigrants. Over the past decade, Poles saw their center of gravity shift from Greenpoint, Brooklyn, toward Ridgewood. By 2007–2011, Poles were the top immigrant group (17 percent) in Ridgewood. This neighborhood was also home to smaller European populations, including Albanians, Italians, and Romanians; more Romanians lived in Ridgewood than anywhere else in New York City. After Poles, the largest groups were Ecuadorians (16 percent), Dominicans (8 percent), and Mexicans (7 percent), many of whom moved across the border from Bushwick in Brooklyn. Historically many immigrant groups have moved from northern Brooklyn into Queens, and then onto Nassau and Suffolk. Corona, to the east of Jackson Heights and Elmhurst, is the next major neighborhood on the International Express, and was home to 66,300 immigrants. The immigrant community here was more heavily Latin American than any other neighborhood in Queens. This was reflected in the fact that Corona had more Mexican (15,300) and Ecuadorian (14,000) immigrants than any other neighborhood in New York City, and more Dominican immigrants (11,200) than any other neighborhood in Queens. Other Northwest Queens Neighborhoods South of the International Express are the E and F subway lines that run under Queens Boulevard, along which a number of immigrant clusters ex- Northeast Queens While Northwest Queens was primarily a mix of Asian, Latin American, and European immigrants, Northeast Queens was much more Asian in character. Over two-in-three immigrants in this part of Queens were of Asian origins, making it the most heavily Asian immigrant section of the city. With a foreign-born population of 63,900, Flushing was the heart of immigrant community of Northeast Queens. Nearly 80 percent of immigrants in Flushing were from Asia, the greatest concentration of Asian immigrants in all of Queens. Flushing is also the last stop on the International Express, punctuating the great diversity of origins found along this subway line. Here, the Chinese constituted nearly one-half of all immigrants (49 percent), but there were also sizable percentages of Koreans (12 percent), Indians Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 55 Table 3-14 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Queens, 2007–2011 NORTHWEST Astoria Total, Foreign-born Greece Mexico Bangladesh Colombia Brazil China Ecuador Italy Japan Croatia All Others Number 33,217 2,472 2,161 2,083 1,795 1,767 1,681 1,627 1,275 1,215 1,065 15,956 Percent 100.0 7.4 6.5 6.3 5.4 5.3 5.1 4.9 3.8 3.7 3.6 48.0 Corona Total, Foreign-born Mexico Ecuador Dominican Republic China Colombia Peru India Bangladesh Guyana Guatemala All Others Number 66,259 15,337 13,971 11,244 5,153 3,615 1,511 1,098 916 864 752 11,798 Percent 100.0 23.1 21.1 17.0 7.8 5.5 2.3 1.7 1.4 1.3 1.1 17.8 Elmhurst Total, Foreign-born China Ecuador Mexico Colombia Philippines Bangladesh Korea Dominican Republic India Peru All Others Number 77,110 17,247 8,489 8,117 5,947 5,506 4,537 3,191 2,865 2,683 1,764 16,764 Percent 100.0 22.4 11.0 10.5 7.7 7.1 5.9 4.1 3.7 3.5 2.3 21.7 Forest Hills Total, Foreign-born China Russia Uzbekistan India Colombia Ukraine Israel Poland Japan Korea All Others Number 41,056 7,602 4,400 3,192 2,758 1,594 1,230 1,041 1,035 1,021 995 16,188 Percent 100.0 18.5 10.7 7.8 6.7 3.9 3.0 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.4 39.4 Hunters Point-SunnysideWest Maspeth Number Total, Foreign-born 31,856 Ecuador 3,650 Colombia 2,741 China 2,469 Korea 2,162 Bangladesh 1,975 Mexico 1,798 Nepal 1,368 Philippines 1,361 India 1,201 Dominican Republic 1,080 All Others 12,051 Percent 100.0 11.5 8.6 7.8 6.8 6.2 5.6 4.3 4.3 3.8 3.4 37.8 Jackson Heights Total, Foreign-born Ecuador Colombia Mexico Bangladesh China India Dominican Republic Peru Pakistan Philippines All Others Number 65,585 10,762 8,257 6,539 5,029 4,580 4,504 3,747 2,316 1,810 1,289 16,752 Percent 100.0 16.4 12.6 10.0 7.7 7.0 6.9 5.7 3.5 2.8 2.0 25.5 Rego Park Total, Foreign-born China Russia India Uzbekistan Philippines Colombia Poland Ukraine Ecuador Guyana All Others Number 15,798 2,698 1,943 1,753 1,091 840 796 549 396 340 324 5,068 Percent 100.0 17.1 12.3 11.1 6.9 5.3 5.0 3.5 2.5 2.2 2.1 32.1 Ridgewood Total, Foreign-born Poland Ecuador Dominican Republic Mexico China Albania Romania Italy Egypt Philippines All Others Number 31,509 5,389 4,950 2,565 2,073 1,850 1,428 1,206 1,072 818 707 9,451 Percent 100.0 17.1 15.7 8.1 6.6 5.9 4.5 3.8 3.4 2.6 2.2 30.0 Steinway Total, Foreign-born Greece Italy Ecuador Mexico Egypt Colombia Bangladesh China Morocco Albania All Others Number 20,441 3,427 1,516 1,215 1,088 829 729 700 563 522 456 9,396 Percent 100.0 16.8 7.4 5.9 5.3 4.1 3.6 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.2 46.0 Woodside Total, Foreign-born Philippines Bangladesh China Ecuador Colombia Mexico India Korea Peru Japan All Others Number 26,522 3,381 2,725 2,437 2,424 2,175 2,103 1,162 1,145 856 517 7,597 Percent 100.0 12.7 10.3 9.2 9.1 8.2 7.9 4.4 4.3 3.2 1.9 28.6 56 NORTHEAST Bayside-Bayside Hills Total, Foreign-born China Korea Greece Italy El Salvador Dominican Republic Colombia Peru Ecuador Croatia All Others Number 17,901 5,143 4,193 993 651 477 467 459 359 294 292 4,573 Percent 100.0 28.7 23.4 5.5 3.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.6 25.5 BriarwoodJamaica Hills Total, Foreign-born Bangladesh Guyana Philippines India China Colombia Uzbekistan Pakistan Guatemala Ecuador All Others Number 21,058 3,050 1,838 1,637 1,432 1,243 1,167 900 867 721 645 7,558 Percent 100.0 14.5 8.7 7.8 6.8 5.9 5.5 4.3 4.1 3.4 3.1 35.9 Flushing Total, Foreign-born China Korea India Colombia Pakistan Philippines Malaysia Ecuador Dominican Republic Bangladesh All Others Number 63,920 31,571 7,639 4,127 2,620 1,638 1,339 1,152 1,067 862 856 11,049 Percent 100.0 49.4 12.0 6.5 4.1 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.3 17.3 SOUTHEAST Murray Hill Total, Foreign-born China Korea Colombia India El Salvador Italy Greece Peru Ecuador Philippines All Others Number 29,039 10,450 8,022 1,140 1,079 878 775 649 447 391 386 4,822 Percent 100.0 36.0 27.6 3.9 3.7 3.0 2.7 2.2 1.5 1.3 1.3 16.6 Far RockawayBayswater Total, Foreign-born El Salvador Guyana Jamaica Guatemala Dominican Republic Trinidad & Tobago Haiti Russia Ukraine Honduras All Others Number 16,935 1,808 1,693 1,631 1,593 889 880 792 696 613 579 5,761 Percent 100.0 10.7 10.0 9.6 9.4 5.2 5.2 4.7 4.1 3.6 3.4 34.0 Jamaica Total, Foreign-born Guyana Bangladesh Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Trinidad & Tobago Dominican Republic Honduras Colombia Haiti All Others Number 30,053 6,721 4,303 2,401 2,337 1,520 1,208 1,142 1,108 936 899 7,478 Percent 100.0 22.4 14.3 8.0 7.8 5.1 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.1 3.0 24.9 Queens Village Total, Foreign-born Haiti Guyana Jamaica India Philippines Trinidad & Tobago Colombia Bangladesh Ecuador Dominican Republic All Others Number 28,763 6,048 4,848 4,245 1,667 1,421 1,160 953 935 912 883 5,691 Percent 100.0 21.0 16.9 14.8 5.8 4.9 4.0 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.1 19.8 Springfield GardensBrookville Number Total, Foreign-born 15,798 Jamaica 6,454 Haiti 2,717 Guyana 1,403 Trinidad & Tobago 1,015 Nigeria 571 Dominican Republic 562 Barbados 398 Panama 147 St. Vincent & Grenadines 142 Yemen 135 All Others 2,254 Percent 100.0 40.9 17.2 8.9 6.4 3.6 3.6 2.5 0.9 0.9 0.9 14.3 St. Albans Number Total, Foreign-born 16,767 Jamaica 6,343 Guyana 2,840 Haiti 1,839 Trinidad & Tobago 1,196 Barbados 524 Dominican Republic 522 Nigeria 305 Ecuador 221 Belize 201 St. Vincent & Grenadines 192 All Others 2,584 Percent 100.0 37.8 16.9 11.0 7.1 3.1 3.1 1.8 1.3 1.2 1.1 15.4 Number 36,203 11,050 5,673 2,829 2,424 2,295 1,158 1,077 955 934 815 6,993 Percent 100.0 30.5 15.7 7.8 6.7 6.3 3.2 3.0 2.6 2.6 2.3 19.3 South Ozone Park Total, Foreign-born Guyana Trinidad & Tobago India Dominican Republic Ecuador Jamaica Mexico El Salvador Colombia China All Others Number 45,681 21,245 6,574 2,459 1,674 1,624 1,383 1,205 969 821 767 6,960 Percent 100.0 46.5 14.4 5.4 3.7 3.6 3.0 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.7 15.2 Woodhaven Total, Foreign-born Dominican Republic Ecuador Guyana China Bangladesh Colombia Philippines Mexico Poland India All Others Number 26,388 4,886 3,328 2,559 2,357 2,153 1,427 1,055 939 907 805 5,972 Percent 100.0 18.5 12.6 9.7 8.9 8.2 5.4 4.0 3.6 3.4 3.1 22.6 SOUTHWEST Richmond Hill Total, Foreign-born Guyana India Trinidad & Tobago Dominican Republic Ecuador Bangladesh Mexico Colombia Philippines China All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 57 (7 percent), Colombians (4 percent), and Pakistanis (3 percent). To the northeast of Flushing lies Murray Hill, also an overwhelmingly Asian immigrant area. In this neighborhood, Chinese were again the largest immigrant group (36 percent), but Koreans were a close 2nd (28 percent). No other immigrant group had greater than a 4 percent share of the foreign-born. Farther east is the neighborhood of Bayside-Bayside Hills, where the Chinese (29 percent) and Koreans (23 percent) still constituted over one-half of all immigrants. However there was also a European and Latin American presence, particularly Greeks (6 percent), Italians (4 percent), Salvadorans (3 percent), Dominicans (3 percent), and Colombians (3 percent). Briarwood-Jamaica Hills is near the center of Queens, just north of Jamaica. Here the immigrant population was still majority Asian, but with a much stronger presence of Latin Americans and those from the nonhispanic Caribbean. Unlike Flushing, Murray Hill, and Bayside-Bayside Hills, the Chinese constituted only 6 percent of the foreign-born population, and the area exhibited an impressive diversity of Asian groups. Bangladeshis (15 percent) were the top immigrant group here, followed by many other Asian origins including Filipinos (8 percent), Indians (7 percent), Uzbeks (4 percent), and Pakistanis (4 percent). The Guyanese (9 percent), Colombians (6 percent), Guatemalans (3 percent), and Ecuadorians (3 percent) were other notable immigrant groups. Southeast Queens While Southeast Queens had the lowest percentage of foreign-born residents (38 percent) of any section of Queens, it was still around the city average. Moreover, this section of Queens was home to over 200,000 immigrants, with a heavy presence of immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean. The neighborhoods with the largest number of immigrants in this section were Jamaica (30,100) and Queens Village (28,800). Both neighborhoods had many nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants, but Jamaica also had substantial numbers of Latin American and Asian immigrants. The top 5 immi- 58 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition grant groups in Jamaica were from Guyana (22 percent), Bangladesh (14 percent), Ecuador (8 percent), El Salvador (8 percent), and Guatemala (5 percent). In Queens Village, the top 5 places of birth among the foreign-born were Haiti (21 percent), Guyana (17 percent), Jamaica (15 percent), India (6 percent), and the Philippines (5 percent). The immigrants of St. Albans and Springfield Gardens-Brookville, south of Queens Village, were overwhelmingly from the nonhispanic Caribbean, and Jamaicans were the largest group. In fact, only 4 countries of birth constituted more than a 5 percent share of either immigrant community. The 4 topranking groups in St. Albans were Jamaicans (38 percent), followed by Guyanese (17 percent), Haitians (11 percent), and Trinidadians and Tobagonians (7 percent). Springfield Gardens-Brookville had a similar composition that was ordered slightly differently, with Jamaicans (41 percent) being the largest group, followed by Haitians (17 percent), Guyanese (9 percent), and Trinidadians and Tobagonians (6 percent). Farther south, on the Rockaway Peninsula, lies the neighborhood of Far Rockaway-Bayswater, with 16,900 immigrants. This neighborhood is notable for its mix of Latin American immigrants (especially from Central America), nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants, and a few Eastern European immigrants. Here, the top countries of birth among immigrants were El Salvador (11 percent), Guyana (10 percent), Jamaica (10 percent), Guatemala (9 percent), Dominican Republic (5 percent), Trinidad and Tobago (5 percent), Haiti (5 percent), Russia (4 percent), and Ukraine (4 percent). It is interesting to note that the concentration of Salvadorans and Guatemalans was greater here than anywhere else in the city. Southwest Queens South Ozone Park, with 45,700 foreign-born residents, and Richmond Hill, with 36,200 foreign-born residents, were the biggest immigrant neighborhoods in Southwest Queens and among the largest in all of Queens. In Richmond Hill, the Guyanese comprised nearly one-third of all immigrants (31 percent), followed by Indians (16 percent), and those STATEN ISLAND The immigrant population of Staten Island totaled 98,400 and comprised over one-fifth of the borough’s population. Staten Island had the smallest immigrant population of the 5 boroughs, but it experienced the highest percentage growth among the foreign-born, increasing 36 percent (Table 3-1). This growth was partly fueled by the movement into Staten Island of longer resident immigrants from Brooklyn, a pattern that has been true historically. With respect to the geographic origins of immigrants (Figure 3-17), Europe was the largest source, accounting for 36 percent of foreign-born residents in the borough, compared with their 16 percent share in the city overall (Figure 2-4). Further, Staten Island was the only borough in which European immigrants constituted a plurality. Asians (30 percent) and Africans (10 percent) were also overrepresented Table 3-15 Foreign-born Rank Ordered by Country of Birth Staten Island, 2011 born in Trinidad and Tobago (8 percent). Immigrants from Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago who have established a presence in this neighborhood were primarily of Asian Indian descent, living alongside Indian-born immigrants. In the 1990s, the Guyanese enclave in Richmond Hill started expanding south, into South Ozone Park. By 2007–2011, the Guyanese were the largest group here, accounting for nearly one-half (47 percent) of the foreign-born residents, making it the largest concentration of Guyanese immigrants anywhere in New York. As in Richmond Hill, this neighborhood also had a presence of immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago and India, as well as from the Dominican Republic and Ecuador. Woodhaven, immediately to the west of Richmond Hill, still had a Guyanese presence, but also a much greater percentage of immigrants from Latin America. Dominicans (19 percent) were the top immigrant group, followed by Ecuadorians (13 percent), Guyanese (10 percent), Chinese (9 percent), Bangladeshis (8 percent), and Colombians (5 percent). NUMBER PERCENT TOTAL 98,440 100.0 Mexico 7,846 8.0 Italy 7,174 7.3 China 6,347 6.4 India 5,480 5.6 Russia 3,621 3.7 Philippines 3,538 3.6 Poland 3,333 3.4 Korea 3,151 3.2 Jamaica 1,200 1.2 Israel 1,007 1.0 United Kingdom 858 0.9 Germany 608 0.6 Vietnam 589 0.6 Colombia 482 0.5 El Salvador 426 0.4 Ireland 406 0.4 Canada 359 0.4 Cuba 340 0.3 France 239 0.2 Portugal 178 0.2 51,258 52.1 All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 59 Table 3-16 Total and Foreign-born Population by Neighborhood of Residence Staten Island, 2007–2011 Number Percent Number Percent FOREIGN-BORN AS % OF TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL, STATEN ISLAND 466,034 100.0 97,402 100.0 20.9 North TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN 173,065 37.1 41,295 42.4 23.9 Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills 23,401 5.0 7,321 7.5 31.3 Mariner’s Harbor-Arlington-Port Ivory-Graniteville 31,874 6.8 8,092 8.3 25.4 New Brighton-Silver Lake 18,037 3.9 2,991 3.1 16.6 Port Richmond 19,154 4.1 4,466 4.6 23.3 Stapleton-Rosebank 25,240 5.4 7,935 8.1 31.4 West New Brighton-New Brighton-St. George 31,492 6.8 6,735 6.9 21.4 Westerleigh 23,867 5.1 3,755 3.9 15.7 132,441 28.4 34,084 35.0 25.7 Central Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth 14,758 3.2 4,556 4.7 30.9 New Dorp-Midland Beach 21,618 4.6 5,101 5.2 23.6 New Springville-Bloomfield-Travis 39,871 8.6 9,536 9.8 23.9 Old Town-Dongan Hills-South Beach 24,410 5.2 6,918 7.1 28.3 Todt Hill-Emerson Hill-Heartland Village-Lighthouse Hill 31,784 6.8 7,973 8.2 25.1 160,528 34.4 22,023 22.6 13.7 Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville 28,626 6.1 4,391 4.5 15.3 Arden Heights 24,549 5.3 3,863 4.0 15.7 Charleston-Richmond Valley-Tottenville 23,177 5.0 2,290 2.4 9.9 South Great Kills 42,709 9.2 5,783 5.9 13.5 Oakwood-Oakwood Beach 21,753 4.7 3,558 3.7 16.4 Rossville-Woodrow 19,714 4.2 2,138 2.2 10.8 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning among Staten Island’s immigrants. On the other hand, Latin Americans (19 percent) and nonhispanic Caribbean immigrants (5 percent) were relatively underrepresented in the borough, compared with their citywide distributions. to Italians (7 percent of the foreign-born population), who were mostly long time residents. Other immigrant groups included Chinese and Indians (6 percent each), Russians and Filipinos (4 percent each), and Poles and Koreans (3 percent each). Mexicans were the largest foreign-born group, accounting for 8 percent of all immigrants in the borough (Table 3-15). In no other borough did the leading immigrant group constitute such a small share of the foreign-born, a testament to Staten Island’s increasing immigrant diversity. Most Mexican immigrants arrived in Staten Island after 1990, as opposed Staten Island Neighborhoods 60 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-16 provides the foreign-born count for neighborhoods in Staten Island, which is also mapped in Figure 3-18 and Figure 3-19. For each section of Staten Island, Table 3-17 lists the country of origin of the foreign-born. Table 3-17 Foreign-born by Country of Birth for Selected Neighborhoods Staten Island, 2007–2011 NORTH CENTRAL SOUTH Includes: Includes: Includes: Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville Mariner’s Harbor-Arlington-Port Ivory-Graniteville New Dorp-Midland Beach Arden Heights New Brighton-Silver Lake New Springville-Bloomfield-Travis Charleston-Richmond Valley-Tottenville Port Richmond Old Town-Dongan Hills-South Beach Great Kills Stapleton-Rosebank Todt Hill-Emerson Hill-Heartland Village- Oakwood-Oakwood Beach West New Brighton-New Brighton-St. George Lighthouse Hill Rossville-Woodrow Westerleigh Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent TOTAL, Foreign-born 41,295 100.0 TOTAL, Foreign-born 34,084 100.0 TOTAL, Foreign-born 22,023 100.0 Mexico 6,586 15.9 China 3,131 9.2 Italy 4,016 18.2 China 3,162 7.7 Ukraine 2,694 7.9 Russia 2,475 11.2 Philippines 1,994 4.8 Italy 2,505 7.3 Ukraine 2,191 9.9 Ecuador 1,485 3.6 India 2,323 6.8 China 1,097 5.0 Poland 1,444 3.5 Russia 1,845 5.4 Philippines 935 4.2 Liberia 1,433 3.5 Poland 1,695 5.0 Egypt 911 4.1 Nigeria 1,356 3.3 Korea 1,583 4.6 Korea 816 3.7 Pakistan 1,306 3.2 Philippines 1,288 3.8 Belarus 702 3.2 Dominican Republic 1,263 3.1 Mexico 1,228 3.6 Poland 639 2.9 1,131 2.7 Egypt 20,135 48.8 India All Others All Others 995 2.9 14,797 43.4 India All Others 601 2.7 7,640 34.7 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning North Staten Island In the North section of Staten Island, the neighborhoods of Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills and Stapleton-Rosebank were notable for their relatively high immigrant concentrations, with 31 percent of the population foreign-born in both neighborhoods. North Staten Island differed from the rest of the borough in that its immigrant community came from diverse origins in a rather balanced distribution across world regions, with even African immigrants having a sizable representation. Of all specific countries of origin, Mexico was the largest, accounting for 16 percent of foreign-born residents. Mexico was followed by China (8 percent), Philippines (5 percent), Ecuador, Poland, and Liberia (each with 4 percent), and Nigeria, Pakistan, the Dominican Republic, and India (3 percent each). Central Staten Island Central Staten Island had 34,100 immigrants, which represented 26 percent of its population. In each of the neighborhoods of this section, immigrants comprised at least 24 percent of the population, with Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth, in the east, having the highest concentration, at 31 percent. While the immigrant communities in North Staten Island were from diverse origins, Central Staten Island was more heavily European and Asian. The Chinese were the largest immigrant group, but with just 9 percent of the foreign-born population. They were followed Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 61 Figure 3-18 Staten Island Neighborhoods West New Brighton New Brighton St George Mariner's Harbor Arlington Port Ivory Graniteville Port Richmond New Brighton Silver Lake Westerleigh Stapleton Rosebank New Springville Bloomfield Travis Grasmere Arrochar Fort Wadsworth Old Town Dongan Hills South Beach Todt Hill Emerson Hill Heartland Village Lighthouse Hill New Dorp Midland Beach Oakwood Oakwood Beach Arden Heights Rossvi I I Woodrow South Annadale Huguenot Prince's Bay Eltingville Charleston Richmond Valley Tottenville Source: Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 62 Figure 3-19 Staten Island Foreign-born by Neighborhood, 2007-2011 Staten Island foreign-born 2,989,817 NUMBER OF FOREIGN-BORN I 8,000 or more (2 neighborhoods) 1 6,000 to 7,999 (5) 4,000 to 5,999 (5) New Brighton Silver Lake Under 4,000 (6) Westerleigh Grasmere Arrochar Fort Wadsworth New Dorp Midland Beach Oakwood Oakwood Beach Arden Heights Great Kills Rossville Woodrow Annadale Huguenot Charleston Bay Richmond Valley Tottenville Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey -- Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 63 Figure 3-20 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in the Dominican Republic by Neighborhoo New York City, 2 -2011 Persons Born in the Dominican Republic 361,700 ore (3 neighborhoods) (11) 2,500 to 4,999 (21) 1,000 to 2,499 (26) Under 1,000 (111) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey -- Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning by Ukrainians (8 percent), Italians and Indians (7 percent each), and Russians, Poles, and Koreans (5 percent each). South Staten Island South Staten Island had the lowest concentration of immigrants of any section in New York City, with only 14 percent of its population born abroad. Roughly 22,000 immigrants lived in this area, most from European countries. Italy was the top source country, accounting for 18 percent of foreign-born residents, followed by Russia (11 percent) and Ukraine (10 percent). Asian groups in the top 10 included the Chinese, Filipinos, Koreans, and Indians. Egypt was the only non-European/nonAsian source country among the top 10, constituting 4 percent of the immigrant population. This section examines the residential patterns of the major immigrant groups in New York City. Since immigration is heavily tied to kinship networks, new immigrants tend to move into neighborhoods with an existing immigrant concentration. With a continued inflow, immigrant groups substantially increase their presence in a neighborhood, their concentrations supplemented by their U.S.-born children and the out-migration of other groups. Table 3-18 Persons Born in the Dominican Republic by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 2011 Change 2000–2011 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent TOTAL, NYC 369,186 100.0 380,160 100.0 10,974 3.0 Bronx Manhattan Queens Staten Island For the major immigrant groups, their share in each borough is first examined, with a focus on how the borough distribution has changed between 2000 and 2011. The top neighborhoods of residence are then examined for 2007–2011, and significant growth or decline in a group’s neighborhood population is noted. While tabulations are presented for the borough distribution of each group in 2000 and 2011 and for the top 10 neighborhoods of residence in 2007–2011, changes in a group’s neighborhood population are not tabulated. Each group’s settlement pattern is also mapped at the neighborhood level for 2007–2011. Settlement Patterns of Dominican Immigrants RESIDENTIAL ENCLAVES OF THE MAJOR IMMIGRANT GROUPS IN NEW YORK CITY Brooklyn Immigrant concentrations in many neighborhoods have resulted in ethnic enclaves, where an immigrant group leaves its social, economic, and cultural imprint on a neighborhood. 124,032 33.6 156,165 41.1 32,133 25.9 59,362 16.1 55,007 14.5 -4,355 -7.3 125,063 33.9 109,780 28.9 -15,283 -12.2 59,444 16.1 56,899 15.0 -2,545 -4.3 1,285 0.3 2,309 0.6 1,024 79.7 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Dominicans were New York’s largest immigrant group in 2011, numbering 380,200 or 12 percent of the total foreign-born population in the city. Dominicans showed a remarkable proclivity to settle in New York, which was home to 42 percent of all Dominicans in the United States (Table 2-4). Over 4-in-10 Dominicans in the New York City called the Bronx home, while Manhattan accounted for well over one-quarter (Table 3-18). Queens and Brooklyn were each home to 15 percent and Staten Island settled less than 1 percent of Dominicans in the city. While there was a marked increase in the number of Dominicans living in the Bronx (26 percent), Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens all saw substantial declines. The overall Dominican population in the city grew only 3 percent since 2000. The western Bronx and Upper Manhattan were home to the largest Dominican enclaves in the city (Figure 3-20). The Upper Manhattan enclave encompassed the neighborhoods of Washington Heights, which settled 48,400 immigrant Dominicans, or 13 percent of the city total (Table 3-19); Marble Hill-Inwood (15,600); and Hamilton Heights (8,400). In the western Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 65 Table 3-20 Persons Born in China by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 Table 3-19 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in the Dominican Republic New York City, 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 Number Percent 361,700 100.0 Washington Heights 48,371 13.4 Concourse-Concourse Village 18,115 15,587 13,532 3.7 Mount Hope 12,523 3.5 University Heights-Morris Heights 12,365 3.4 Corona 11,244 3.1 Van Cortlandt Village 9,270 2.6 Highbridge 8,735 2.4 Hamilton Heights 8,403 2.3 203,555 56.3 Number Percent Number Percent 4.3 Bushwick Number Percent 5.0 Marble Hill-Inwood Change 2000–2011 2011 TOTAL, NYC TOTAL, NYC 261,551 350,231 100.0 88,680 33.9 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Bronx, the enclave included Concourse-Concourse Village (18,100), Mount Hope (12,500), University Heights-Morris Heights (12,400), Van Cortlandt Village (9,300), and Highbridge (8,700). Overall, 55 percent of the city’s Dominican immigrants lived in either the western Bronx or Upper Manhattan. While these two sections of the city are similarly leading areas of residential settlement for Dominican immigrants, they differ in one important way. The western Bronx has shown the highest growth citywide in its Dominican immigrant population since 2000, whereas Upper Manhattan exhibited the greatest decline. By no coincidence, the losses in Washington Heights were offset by gains in the western Bronx, as many Dominicans who left Upper Manhattan moved across the Harlem River. This exchange, along with concurrent growth in central and southern Bronx, made the Bronx the leading borough of residence among Dominican immigrants in 2011. In contrast, Manhattan’s popu- 66 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 4,363 1.7 5,958 1.7 1,595 36.6 Brooklyn 86,064 32.9 129,219 36.9 43,155 50.1 Manhattan All Others Bronx 100.0 63,891 24.4 65,750 18.8 1,859 2.9 102,902 39.3 142,957 40.8 40,055 38.9 4,331 1.7 6,347 1.8 2,016 46.5 Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning lation of foreign-born Dominicans dropped precipitously—down 12 percent between 2000 and 2011. Beyond the Bronx and Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn each settled 15 percent of the city’s Dominican immigrants. Although Dominican immigrants declined in both boroughs, Brooklyn’s neighborhood of Bushwick saw growth and was the fourth largest concentration in New York. While there were pockets of Dominicans in Brooklyn’s Cypress HillsCity Line, East New York, and Sunset Park, none of these areas were among the top 10 neighborhoods of Dominican settlement in the city. In Queens, Corona was home to 11,200 foreign-born Dominicans, the 7th largest Dominican immigrant neighborhood in the city. However, Corona’s Dominican population was declining so rapidly that recent estimates showed it to be only seven-tenths the size of its 2000 population. Settlement Patterns of Chinese Immigrants The Chinese were the second largest immigrant group in the city, and gaining fast on the top ranked Dominican population. They numbered 350,200 in 2011, up from 261,600 in 2000, a 34 percent increase (Table 3-20). While the number of Chinese increased in each borough, the largest increase was in Brooklyn and Queens (up 43,200 and 40,100 respectively). As Fi 3-21 Sett Persons Born in China by Neighborhood New Yor ity, 2 7- Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning CHINESE SETTLEMENT PATTERNS BY BIRTHPLACE Flushing (1,400). However, Sunset Park was not a major In 2011, there were 350,200 New York City residents who Kong often lived in many of the same neighborhoods as were born in China,* including those born in mainland those from the mainland, some gravitated to lower density China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Immigrants from the neighborhoods with higher rates of owner occupancy. mainland dominated the overall Chinese population in the city and were growing at a faster rate than their counterparts from Hong Kong and Taiwan. As a result, the share of mainland immigrants in the overall Chinese-born population increased from 71 percent in 1990, to 80 percent in 2000, and to 83 percent in 2011. While Hong Kong- and Taiwanese-born immigrants also increased, they comprised just 10 percent and 7 percent, respectively, of the overall Chinese-born population in 2011. Given the large share neighborhood of settlement. Though immigrants from Hong Residential patterns of the Taiwanese-born were even more distinct, with two-thirds of the group living in Queens; the borough had 9 of the top 10 Taiwanese neighborhoods. Flushing was by far the largest neighborhood of residence, with 3,700 Taiwanese immigrants, followed by Forest Hills (1,400), and Murray Hill (900). In general, Taiwanese-born immigrants were more likely to live in the more affluent sections of northeast Queens than their mainland counterparts. of mainland China, this group tended to dominate overall settlement patterns of Chinese in the city. This section analyzes neighborhoods of settlement for each group to examine whether residential patterns differ by birthplace (Figure 3-22 and Table 3-21). Immigrants from mainland China and Hong Kong were concentrated in Brooklyn, Queens, and Manhattan. In 2011, nearly 4-in-10 immigrants born in mainland China lived in Brooklyn and another 4-in-10 in Queens. Just under one-fifth lived in Manhattan, while a nominal population lived in the Bronx and Staten Island. For immigrants from Hong Kong, the shares living in Queens, Manhattan, and the Bronx were akin to those of residents from mainland China. However, compared with immigrants from the mainland, a smaller percentage of Hong Kong-born immigrants lived in Brooklyn (34 percent), while there was a relatively larger share (6 percent) living in Staten Island. During the past decade, the share of mainlanders living in both Brooklyn and Queens has increased, as their population in neighborhoods like Bensonhurst, Sunset Park, Dyker Heights, Flushing, and Murray Hill has soared. Over the same period, Manhattan’s share declined dramatically as immigrants from China’s mainland moved away from the original Chinatown (data not shown). According to the most recent data, the largest neighborhood of residence for the mainland Chinese was Bensonhurst (27,300) followed by the 3 Chinatowns: Sunset Park (26,800); Flushing (26,500); and the original Chinatown in Manhattan (19,000). For im- * This analysis uses place of birth information to identify Chinese immigrants. However, if one looks at New York’s foreign-born that self identified as Chinese by race, we find 92 percent were from mainland China, Hong Kong, or Taiwan. The remaining foreign-born Chinese were mostly from other Asian migrants from Hong Kong, the largest neighborhoods were countries, like Malaysia or Vietnam, but also nearly 5,000 from parts of the Bensonhurst (3,700), Chinatown in Manhattan (1,700), and Americas, a reflection of the vast Chinese diaspora. 68 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-21 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in China by Subregion of Birth New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent Persons Born in Mainland China a result, the share of Chinese living in Queens and Brooklyn in 2011 increased by a few percentage points, to 41 percent and 37 percent, respectively. In contrast, the Chinese population in Manhattan grew by a well below-average 3 percent, and the share of Chinese in the borough dropped from 24 percent in 276,370 100.0 Bensonhurst 27,322 9.9 Sunset Park 26,846 9.7 Flushing New York City was home to three Chinatowns 26,461 9.6 Chinatown in 2011: the original Chinatown in Manhattan, 18,993 6.9 Elmhurst 15,169 5.5 Flushing in Queens, and Sunset Park in Brooklyn Lower East Side 11,498 4.2 Murray Hill 8,685 3.1 Dyker Heights 8,533 3.1 Borough Park 5,482 2.0 20,900 (Table 3-22), a decline of 23 percent. Recent Queensboro Hill 5,434 2.0 data showed Flushing and Sunset Park to have 121,947 44.1 33,152 100.0 Bensonhurst 3,723 11.2 Chinatown 1,741 5.3 Flushing 1,373 4.1 Elmhurst 1,274 3.8 Forest Hills 1,069 3.2 Bath Beach 1,049 3.2 Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest 952 2.9 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach 858 2.6 Murray Hill 858 2.6 Bayside-Bayside Hills 738 2.2 19,517 58.9 All Others Persons Born in Hong Kong All Others 2000 to 19 percent in 2011. (Figure 3-21). Chinatown in Manhattan had the largest Chinese-born population back in 2000, but by 2011 that same population had dropped to surpassed Chinatown’s Chinese immigrant count, with populations of 31,600 and 27,600, respectively. Though lacking the overall population density of the 3 Chinatowns, Brooklyn’s Bensonhurst was the largest Chinese neighborhood in New York City, with a Chinese-born population of 31,700. Together, these four neighborhoods were home to one-third of New York’s Chinese immigrant population. Table 3-22 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in China New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Persons Born in Taiwan Percent 22,094 100.0 TOTAL, NYC 331,616 100.0 Flushing 3,737 16.9 Bensonhurst 31,658 9.5 Forest Hills 1,375 6.2 Flushing 31,571 9.5 Murray Hill 907 4.1 Sunset Park 27,647 8.3 Bayside-Bayside Hills 847 3.8 Chinatown 20,907 6.3 Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest 811 3.7 Elmhurst 17,247 5.2 Elmhurst 804 3.6 Lower East Side 12,039 3.6 Auburndale 790 3.6 Murray Hill 10,450 3.2 Queensboro Hill 658 3.0 Dyker Heights 9,307 2.8 Bensonhurst 613 2.8 Forest Hills 7,602 2.3 Oakland Gardens 606 2.7 Queensboro Hill 10,946 49.5 All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning All Others 6,649 2.0 156,539 47.2 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 69 Figure 3-23 Resi ial Settleme Persons Born in Mexico by Neighborhood New rk City, 2007- ico =17 ,650 (1 nei borh od) (2) (4) (7) (34) oo (128) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-23 Persons Born in Mexico by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 Number Percent TOTAL, NYC 122,550 Change 2000–2011 2011 Number Percent Number Percent 100.0 186,298 100.0 63,748 52.0 Bronx 20,962 17.1 42,487 22.8 21,525 102.7 Brooklyn 39,605 32.3 49,977 26.8 10,372 26.2 Manhattan 19,426 15.9 23,773 12.8 4,347 22.4 Queens 37,667 30.7 62,215 33.4 24,548 65.2 4,890 4.0 7,846 4.2 2,956 60.4 Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-24 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Mexico New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent While foreign-born Chinese declined in Manhattan’s Chinatown, they increased in neighborhoods across Queens and Brooklyn, especially those neighborhoods in close proximity to the Brooklyn and Queens Chinatowns. In Brooklyn, there was a large band of Chinese settlement that extended from Sunset Park down to Dyker Heights, Borough Park, and Bensonhurst, and then eastward to Sheepshead Bay. In Queens, there was a similar band of Chinese settlement that extended from Elmhurst, eastward to Flushing, Murray Hill, and Queensboro Hill, and then farther east to Bayside, Oakland Gardens, and Douglaston. Settlement Patterns of Mexican Immigrants Mexican immigrants saw the largest growth among the major immigrant groups, increasing by more than 50 percent, to reach a population of 186,300 in 2011. With this growth, Mexicans vaulted into third place in 2011, from their previous position as the city’s fifth largest immigrant group. Queens settled one-third of Mexicans in the city, while Brooklyn and the Bronx were home 177,650 100.0 to 27 and 23 percent, respectively (Table 3-23). Corona 15,337 8.6 Although immigrant Mexicans grew substantially Sunset Park 12,420 7.0 Bushwick 10,490 5.9 population. This was because of exceptionally Elmhurst 8,117 4.6 high growth in the Bronx, where the Mexican- East Harlem 7,172 4.0 Jackson Heights 6,539 3.7 Washington Heights 6,254 3.5 Concourse-Concourse Village 4,301 2.4 rored that of the total immigrant population Flatbush 4,074 2.3 (Figure 3-23). There were Mexican concentrations Mott Haven-Port Morris 3,808 2.1 in northwest Queens, Upper Manhattan, parts of 99,138 55.8 TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning in Manhattan and Brooklyn since 2000, both boroughs saw a decline in their shares of the Mexican born population doubled, and in Queens, where it increased by two-thirds. Unlike most immigrant groups, the borough distribution of Mexicans in the city largely mir- Brooklyn, and across the Bronx. Cumulatively, with 30,000 Mexican immigrants, Corona, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights were the core of Mexican settlement in Queens and the greatest numeric presence of Mexicans anywhere in the city (Table 3-24). In Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 71 Brooklyn, Sunset Park and Bushwick were the sec- Table 3-25 Persons Born in Jamaica by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 ond and third largest Mexican neighborhoods in New York, with Mexican immigrant populations of 12,400 and 10,500, respectively. The fifth larg- 2000 est settlement of Mexican immigrants was in East Harlem. This was the only major concentration of Mexicans to see its population decrease since Number Percent TOTAL, NYC Change 2000–2011 2011 178,922 100.0 Number Percent 169,235 100.0 Number Percent -9,687 -5.4 2000. In nearby Washington Heights, however, Bronx 51,120 28.6 52,533 31.0 1,413 2.8 the Mexican population more than doubled, up Brooklyn 73,580 41.1 70,508 41.7 -3,072 -4.2 to 6,300. Concourse-Concourse Village and Mott Manhattan 5,886 3.3 4,813 2.8 -1,073 -18.2 47,145 26.3 40,181 23.7 -6,964 -14.8 1,191 0.7 1,200 0.7 9 0.8 Haven-Port Morris typified the Mexican presence in much of the Bronx, which was sizable, though Queens not dominant, but grew dramatically over the Staten Island past decade. Though no individual Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning neighborhood made the list of top Mexican neighborhoods, the North Shore was home to over 6,000 Mexican immigrants, or 4 percent of Mexicans in the city. This substantial presence helped make Mexicans the largest immigrant group in the entire borough. Settlement Patterns of Jamaican Immigrants Jamaicans were the 4th largest foreign-born group in the city, numbering 169,200 in 2011. This represented a 5 percent decrease over the 2000 Jamaican immigrant population of 178,900 and was the second greatest decline of any top immigrant group (Table 3-25). Forty-two percent of the city’s Jamaican-born population lived in Brooklyn, while the Bronx and Queens were home to 31 percent and 24 percent, respectively. The Bronx actually saw a slight increase in their Jamaican immigrant population, but Brooklyn and particularly Queens experienced substantial declines. Unlike the dispersed settlement pattern of Mexicans, Jamaicans were primarily concentrated in three enclaves: central and eastern Brooklyn, southeast Queens, and northern Bronx (Figure 3-24). These three areas encompassed over three 72 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-26 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Jamaica New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent 167,667 100.0 11,195 6.7 Canarsie 9,666 5.8 Woodlawn-Wakefield 9,462 5.6 Rugby-Remsen Village 7,936 4.7 Crown Heights 7,775 4.6 Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester 7,209 4.3 Springfield Gardens-Brookville 6,454 3.8 Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 6,394 3.8 St. Albans 6,343 3.8 East Flatbush-Farragut 6,315 3.8 88,918 53.0 TOTAL, NYC Williamsbridge-Olinville All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning i re 3-24 id ial Settlement of Persons Born in Jamaica by Neighborhood New City, 2007-2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning quarters of Jamaicans in the city. Central and eastern Brooklyn together had the largest Jamaican presence in the city. This area included the neighborhoods of Canarsie, Rugby-Remsen Village, Crown Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate, and East Flatbush-Farragut, each with over 6,000 Jamaican immigrants (Table 3-26). All of these neighborhoods except Canarsie saw a dramatic drop in their Jamaican population. While many Jamaicans have left New York, many have moved within the city, from high density areas, like those in central Brooklyn, to lower density neighborhoods on the periphery, like Canarsie and East New York, in eastern Brooklyn. The largest single Jamaican neighborhood in the city was Williamsbridge-Olinville in the northern Bronx, with 11,200 Jamaican immigrants. The adjacent neighborhoods of Woodlawn-Wakefield and Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester represented the 3rd and 6th largest Jamaican neighborhoods in the city, with 9,500 and 7,200 Jamaican immigrants, respectively. Springfield Gardens-Brookville (6,500) and St. Albans (6,300) formed the core of Jamaican settlement in southeast Queens. Settlement Patterns of Guyanese Immigrants There were 139,900 foreign-born Guyanese in New York in 2011, making them the 5th largest immigrant group in the city. About 6-in-10 Guyanese immigrants in New York City lived in Queens, 3-in-10 in Brooklyn, and the rest primarily in the Bronx (Table 3-27). Not only was the Guyanese population in the U.S. concentrated in New York (Table 2-4), but it was also highly clustered within the city, primarily in southwest Queens and central and eastern Brooklyn (Figure 3-25). These areas accounted for three quarters of Guyanese in the city. The two largest Guyanese neighborhoods, South Ozone Park (21,200) and Richmond Hill (11,100), were both in southwest Queens and were home to nearly 74 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-27 Persons Born in Guyana by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 2011 Change 2000–2011 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent TOTAL, NYC 130,647 100.0 139,947 100.0 9,300 7.1 Bronx 14,868 11.4 13,845 9.9 -1,023 -6.9 Brooklyn 46,425 35.5 41,637 29.8 -4,788 -10.3 1,727 1.3 602 0.4 -1,125 -65.1 66,918 51.2 82,538 59.0 15,620 23.3 709 0.5 1,325 0.9 616 86.9 Manhattan Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-28 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Guyana New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent 134,601 100.0 South Ozone Park 21,245 15.8 Richmond Hill 11,050 8.2 Jamaica 6,721 5.0 East New York 5,401 4.0 Queens Village 4,848 3.6 Crown Heights 4,021 3.0 Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 3,598 2.7 Canarsie 3,571 2.7 East Flatbush-Farragut 3,554 2.6 Rugby-Remsen Village 3,441 2.6 67,151 49.9 TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 3-25 Residential Settleme Persons Born in Guyana by Neighborhood New York City, 2007- Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey -- Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning i ure 3-26 idential Settlement of Persons Born in Ecuador by Neighborhood New York City, 2007-2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-29 Persons Born in Ecuador by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 Number TOTAL, NYC Change 2000–2011 2011 Percent 114,944 100.0 Number Percent Number Percent 137,791 100.0 22,847 19.9 Bronx 14,800 12.9 21,915 15.9 7,115 48.1 Brooklyn 20,256 17.6 25,616 18.6 5,360 26.5 Manhattan 12,217 10.6 15,503 11.3 3,286 26.9 Queens 66,643 58.0 72,736 52.8 6,093 9.1 1,028 0.9 2,021 1.5 993 96.6 Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-30 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Ecuador New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent one-quarter of Guyanese in the city (Table 3-28). South Ozone Park in particular experienced substantial growth since 2000, adding well over 3,000 Guyanese-born residents. The Guyanese immigrants in both South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill were primarily of Asian Indian descent.1 Farther west, Jamaica (6,700) and Queens Village (4,800) were the 3rd and 5th largest Guyanese neighborhoods, respectively. In Brooklyn, East New York was the largest neighborhood of Guyanese settlement, with a foreign-born Guyanese population of 5,400. Here and in adjacent Canarsie (3,600) there was substantial growth in the Guyanese population since 2000, but the same was not true in most of central Brooklyn. In Brooklyn’s core, where Guyanese were primarily of African descent, major neighborhoods such as Crown Heights (4,000) and East Flatbush-Farragut (3,600) saw declines of over 20 percent in their Guyanese populations. Settlement Patterns of Ecuadorian Immigrants The number of Ecuadorians grew by 20 percent since 2000, increasing from 114,900 to 137,800 in 132,883 100.0 Corona 13,971 10.5 Jackson Heights 10,762 8.1 the city’s immigrant Ecuadorians in 2011, but Elmhurst 8,489 6.4 this represented a substantial drop from 2000 Bushwick 7,640 5.7 as growth (9 percent) did not keep pace with Ridgewood 4,950 3.7 nearly one-fifth (19 percent) of the New York’s Washington Heights 4,349 3.3 Ecuadorian immigrants lived in Brooklyn, while Sunset Park 3,834 2.9 the Bronx and Manhattan were home to 16 per- Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 3,650 2.7 Woodhaven 3,328 2.5 East Elmhurst 3,192 2.4 68,718 51.7 TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 2011 (Table 3-29), and ranked 6th among foreignborn groups. Queens was home to 53 percent of robust increases in the other boroughs. In 2011, cent and 11 percent, respectively, and 2 percent lived in Staten Island. Of the 72,700 Ecuadorians living in Queens, the vast majority were in the northwestern part of the borough (Figure 3-26). In fact, 42 percent of the city’s overall Ecuadorian population lived in this section of Queens, and 6 out of the top Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 77 i ure 3-27 idential Settlement ersons Born in Haiti by Neighborhood New York City, 2007-20 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-31 Persons Born in Haiti by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 Change 2000–2011 Number Percent TOTAL, NYC 2011 Number Percent Number Percent 95,580 100.0 94,171 100.0 -1,409 -1.5 Bronx 1,643 2,867 3.0 1,224 74.5 61,267 64.1 61,550 65.4 283 0.5 5,083 5.3 3,418 3.6 -1,665 -32.8 27,212 Brooklyn 1.7 28.5 25,655 27.2 -1,557 -5.7 375 0.4 681 0.7 306 81.6 Manhattan Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 10 largest Ecuadorian neighborhoods (Table 3-30) were here: Corona, home to 14,000 or 11 percent of Ecuadorians in the city; Jackson Heights (10,800); Elmhurst (8,500); Ridgewood (5,000); Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth (3,700); and East Elmhurst (3,200), which had 4 times as many Ecuadorians as it did in 2000. Many of these Ecuadorian neighborhoods in northwest Queens also had high Mexican populations, particularly Corona, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights. Woodhaven (3,300), in southwest Queens, was the borough’s only major Ecuadorian neighborhood found outside of its northwestern section. There was also a substantial Ecuadorian presence across the border from Ridgewood, in Bushwick (7,600), Brooklyn. Other top 10 Ecuadorian neighborhoods included Sunset Park (3,800) in Brooklyn, and Washington Heights (4,300) in Manhattan. Table 3-32 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Haiti New York City, 2007–2011 Settlement Patterns of Haitian Immigrants 2007–2011 There were 94,200 foreign-born Haitians in 2011, Number Percent down 2 percent since 2000 (Table 3-31). This 90,797 100.0 lack of growth stood in contrast to the citywide Flatbush 9,820 10.8 increase for the overall foreign-born popula- Canarsie 8,898 9.8 tion (7 percent), but was typical of nonhispanic Flatlands 8,655 9.5 Caribbean groups. Queens Village 6,048 6.7 In 2011, the overwhelming majority of Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 5,592 6.2 Haitians lived in two boroughs: Brooklyn (65 East Flatbush-Farragut 4,222 4.6 percent) and Queens (27 percent). Six of the top Crown Heights 4,161 4.6 Erasmus 4,138 4.6 center of Brooklyn: Flatbush (9,800 Haitian-born Springfield Gardens-Brookville 2,717 3.0 residents), Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate Rugby-Remsen Village 2,607 2.9 (5,600), East-Flatbush-Farragut (4,200), Crown 33,939 37.4 Heights (4,200), and Rugby-Remsen Village TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 10 Haitian neighborhoods in New York City were found in the high density, geographic (2,600) (Table 3-32 and Figure 3-27). However, all of these neighborhoods experienced a drop in their Haitian population of 15 percent or Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 79 i ure 3-28 idential Settlem of Persons Born in dad To bago eighborhood York City, 2007-2011 Persons 2 5, 0000000 re ds) 2,50 (7) 1,000 (12) oo (15 fivlisne 0' Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-33 Persons Born in Trinidad and Tobago by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 Change 2000–2011 more since 2000. In contrast, Haitian populations in lower density neighborhoods on the eastern periphery of Brooklyn, like Canarsie (8,900) and Flatlands (8,700), experienced gains of 20 percent 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 88,794 100.0 87,635 100.0 -1,159 -1.3 In Queens, the largest Haitian neighborhoods 6,145 6.9 7,407 8.5 1,262 20.5 were in the southeast section of the borough, in 52,256 58.9 50,319 57.4 -1,937 -3.7 2,852 3.2 3,207 3.7 355 12.4 population grew in these fringe neighborhoods, 26,255 TOTAL, NYC 2011 29.6 26,209 29.9 -46 -0.2 and declined in denser parts of the borough, where 1,286 1.4 493 0.6 -793 -61.7 Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-34 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Trinidad and Tobago New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number Percent 90,470 100.0 Crown Heights 8,066 8.9 South Ozone Park 6,574 7.3 Flatbush 5,442 6.0 Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 5,415 6.0 Rugby-Remsen Village 4,370 4.8 East Flatbush-Farragut 3,990 4.4 Canarsie 3,859 4.3 East New York 3,744 4.1 Flatlands 3,120 3.4 Richmond Hill 2,829 3.1 43,061 47.6 TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning or more since 2000. Queens Village (6,000) and Springfield GardensBrookville (2,700). As in Brooklyn, the Haitian there are higher rates of renter occupancy. Settlement Patterns of Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago Immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago numbered 87,600 in 2011, similar to their number in 2000 (Table 3-33). They were the 8th largest immigrant group in the city, concentrated primarily in Brooklyn (57 percent) and Queens (30 percent). While the Bronx only accounted for 9 percent of immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago, this immigrant population grew by 21 percent since 2000, higher than any other borough. Almost all of the largest neighborhoods for Trinidadians and Tobagonians were in the center of Brooklyn, including Crown Heights (8,100), Flatbush (5,400), Prospect Lefferts GardensWingate (5,400), Rugby-Remsen Village (4,400), and East Flatbush-Farragut (4,000) (Table 3-34 and Figure 3-28). These six neighborhoods together were home to nearly one-third of the city’s Trinidadian and Tobagonian immigrants. As with other groups from the nonhispanic Caribbean, central Brooklyn neighborhoods like Crown Heights and East Flatbush-Farragut lost immigrants from Trinidad and Tobago, but neighborhoods to the east, such as Canarsie (3,900), East New York (3,700), and Flatlands (3,100), saw their numbers increase since 2000. The two remaining top Trinidadian and Tobagonian neighborhoods were in Queens – South Ozone Park (6,600) and Richmond Hill (2,800). These neighborhoods were Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 81 Figure 3-29 Residential Settleme Persons Born in India by Neighborhood New York City, 2007- Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning home to many Trinidadians and Tobagonians of Asian Indian descent. Table 3-35 Persons Born in India by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 Number Percent TOTAL, NYC 2011 Change 2000–2011 Number Percent Number Percent 68,263 100.0 76,493 100.0 8,230 12.1 Bronx 3,440 5.0 2,754 3.6 -686 -19.9 Brooklyn 6,838 10.0 7,673 10.0 835 12.2 Manhattan 6,354 9.3 14,483 18.9 48,132 70.5 46,103 60.3 -2,029 5.1 5,480 7.2 1,981 56.6 ity (73 percent) of New York’s Trinidadian and -4.2 3,499 As with Guyanese immigrants, Trinidadian and Tobagonian immigrants of Asian and African descent each had a preferred borough of residence. Queens accounted for the overwhelming major- Queens Staten Island 8,129 127.9 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Tobagonian immigrants of Asian descent, while Brooklyn settled nearly two-thirds of those of African descent. Settlement Patterns of Indian Immigrants There were 76,500 foreign-born Indians in New York City in 2011, up from 68,300 in 2000 (Table 3-35). This translated to a 12 percent increase, nearly twice the rate of growth among the overall foreign-born in the city. Queens was home to 60 percent of all Indians Table 3-36 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in India New York City, 2007–2011 in the city in 2011, down from 71 percent in 2000. Manhattan had the second largest Indian population (19 percent) and by far the highest 2007–2011 Number Percent growth rate, more than doubling since 2000. The 7 percent share of Indians living in Staten Island 76,731 100.0 Richmond Hill 5,673 7.4 share of the overall foreign-born in this borough. Jackson Heights 4,504 5.9 Staten Island’s Indian immigrant population also Flushing 4,127 5.4 increased substantially, up 57 percent since 2000. Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park 3,961 5.2 Although Manhattan and Staten Island were Bellerose 3,834 5.0 the fastest growing boroughs among Indian im- Forest Hills 2,758 3.6 migrants, the top 10 neighborhoods of settlement Elmhurst 2,683 3.5 were all in Queens (Table 3-36 and Figure 3-29). South Ozone Park 2,459 3.2 Rego Park 1,753 2.3 Queens Village 1,667 2.2 hoods were followed by Flushing, Glen Oaks- 43,312 56.4 Floral Park-New Hyde Park, and Bellerose, each TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning is noteworthy in that it was more than twice the Richmond Hill and Jackson Heights were the 2 largest Indian neighborhoods, with 5,700 and 4,500 Indian immigrants, respectively. These neighbor- with a foreign-born Indian population of about Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 83 4,000. Of the top 5, Flushing was the only neighborhood to have its Indian population decline (down 23 percent) since 2000, while the other 4 all saw increases of 37 percent or more. Forest Hills, Elmhurst, South Ozone Park, Rego Park, and Queens Village rounded out the top 10. Elmhurst, the seventh largest Indian neighborhood, is notable along with Jackson Heights as areas of co-residence between Indian and Bangladeshi immigrants. Table 3-37 Persons Born in Russia by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 2000 Change 2000–2011 2011 Number Percent Number Percent 81,408 100.0 76,264 100.0 -5,144 -6.3 3,111 3.8 1,662 2.2 -1,449 -46.6 51,781 63.6 47,631 62.5 -4,150 -8.0 5,832 7.2 7,943 10.4 2,111 36.2 17,232 TOTAL, NYC Number Percent 21.2 15,407 20.2 -1,825 -10.6 3,452 4.2 3,621 4.7 169 4.9 Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-38 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Russia New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Number TOTAL, NYC 8.3 6.7 4,663 6.4 Forest Hills The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 6,071 Brighton Beach 84 100.0 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach 4,909 New York was home to 76,300 Russian immigrants, who were the 10th largest foreign-born group in the city. Brooklyn settled 63 percent of Russians, Queens was home to 20 percent, and Manhattan 10 percent (Figure 3-30). While Manhattan had a relatively small share of New York’s Russian population, it was the only borough to see a significant increase, up 36 percent since 2000 (Table 3-37). Indeed, New York’s Russian immigrant population was down 6 73,252 Bensonhurst Settlement Pattern of Russian Immigrants Percent 4,400 6.0 Midwood 3,619 4.9 West Brighton 3,160 4.3 Madison 2,896 4.0 Homecrest 2,812 3.8 Seagate-Coney Island 2,651 3.6 Kensington-Ocean Parkway 2,094 2.9 35,977 49.1 All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning i ure 3-31 idential Settleme Persons Born in Russia by Neighborhood New York City, 2007- Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OF IMMIGRANTS FROM THE FORMER SOVIET REPUBLICS The Census Bureau’s American Community Survey provides data for those born in a number of former Soviet republics, including Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. New York City’s foreign-born residents from these former republics, which are now independent states, totaled 169,800 in 2011, slightly less than their number in 2000 (175,200). Russian-born residents (76,300) comprised slightly less than one-half of this group in 2011, Ukrainian-born residents (59,800) were just over one-third, while those from Uzbekistan (21,100) and from Belarus (12,600) comprised 12 percent and 7 percent, respectively (Figure 3-32). While settlement patterns of the Russian-born were covered earlier, this section examines residential patterns of immigrants from the Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan. Ukrainians were the 14th largest immigrant group in the city. They lived overwhelmingly in Brooklyn (73 percent) with smaller populations in Queens (12 percent), Staten Island (8 percent), and Manhattan (6 percent). Two-thirds of Ukrainian-born residents lived in southern Brooklyn, a proclivity shared with their Russian counterparts. In fact, Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 9 of the top 10 Ukrainian neighborhoods were in southern Brooklyn, and 9 of these top 10 were also top neigh- over two-thirds of those born in Belarus lived in southern borhoods among the Russian-born population (Table Brooklyn. Of the four former Soviet Republics examined, 3-39). Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Belarusians showed the greatest proclivity to settle in Beach-Manhattan Beach, and Bensonhurst constituted Staten Island, with 15 percent residing in this borough. the top 3 Ukrainian neighborhoods, and collectively Thus, Ukrainians and Belarusians lived alongside accounted for 30 percent of the city’s Ukrainian-born Russians in neighborhoods across southern Brooklyn. population. While Brooklyn and Queens accounted for all Russians, however, also had a major presence in Queens. of the top Ukrainian neighborhoods, it should be noted that there was a sizable concentration of Ukrainians in Central Staten Island, constituting 5 percent of the overall Ukrainian-born population in New York and a near quadrupling of its number since 2000. The Russian tendency to also settle in Queens was even more pronounced among immigrants born in Uzbekistan, 43 percent of whom settled in this borough. In fact, nearly one-quarter of immigrants from Uzbekistan lived in either Forest Hills or Rego Park in central Queens. Besides this The Ukrainian and Russian neighborhoods in Brooklyn were also the major neighborhoods of settlement for settled in the Russian-Ukrainian-Belarusian neighbor- the Belarusian population, and, as with the Ukrainians, 86 core settlement area, Uzbekistan-born immigrants also hoods of southern Brooklyn. The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 3-39 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Ukraine, Belarus, and Uzbekistan New York City, 2007–2011 Persons Born in the Ukraine 2007–2011 Number Percent 56,166 100.0 percent, the greatest percent decline of any top immigrant group. Not only were New York City’s Russians heavily concentrated in Brooklyn, but well over onehalf were residents of southern Brooklyn (Figure 3-31). Further, 9 out of the top 10 neighborhoods were in southern Brooklyn: Bensonhurst (6,100), Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach (4,900), Brighton Beach (4,700), Midwood (3,600), West Brighton (3,200), Madison (2,900), Homecrest (2,800), Seagate-Coney Island (2,700), and Kensington-Ocean Parkway (2,100) (Table 3-38). Brighton Beach 6,273 11.2 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach 5,659 10.1 Bensonhurst 4,697 8.4 West Brighton 4,131 7.4 Homecrest 2,803 5.0 Midwood 2,685 4.8 Madison 2,564 4.6 Seagate-Coney Island 1,671 3.0 Gravesend 1,666 3.0 Forest Hills 1,230 2.2 All Others 22,787 40.6 Persons Born in Belarus 12,590 100.0 Bensonhurst 1,790 14.2 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach 1,320 10.5 Midwood 917 7.3 Madison 710 5.6 Brighton Beach 555 4.4 West Brighton 502 4.0 Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin 484 3.8 Homecrest 446 3.5 Gravesend 409 3.2 Seagate-Coney Island 342 2.7 5,115 40.6 18,000 100.0 Forest Hills 3,192 17.7 Rego Park 1,091 6.1 Bensonhurst 1,036 5.8 Midwood 941 5.2 While no individual West African country ranked Flatbush 934 5.2 among New York City’s top 20 foreign-born Briarwood-Jamaica Hills 900 5.0 groups, this region would rank 8th if treated as a Borough Park 805 4.5 single source country, with a population of 76,700 Corona 660 3.7 in 2011 (Table 3-40).2 Further, it would have been Kew Gardens Hills 653 3.6 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach the fastest growing of any of the top 10 groups, 625 3.5 increasing by 60 percent since 2000. Most of this 7,163 39.8 growth was in the Bronx, where the population All Others Persons Born in Uzbekistan All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The only major settlement outside of Brooklyn was in Forest Hills, Queens, with a Russian-born population of 4,400. Settlement Pattern of Other Immigrant Groups While this chapter primarily focused on the top neighborhoods of settlement for the 10 largest immigrant groups, emerging immigrant groups from West Africa and Arab countries are profiled in the following section. Data on other smaller immigrant groups (ranked 11 to 20) are presented in Table 3-44. In addition, Appendix Table 3-1, as well as Appendix Tables 3-2a and 3-2b, list detailed neighborhood patterns for world areas of origin and for the 40 largest immigrant groups in the city, respectively. Settlement Pattern of West African Immigrants doubled, resulting in essentially one-half of the Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 87 Figure 3-33 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in West African Countries by Neighborhood New York City, 2007-2011 000000000 re 00 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 3-40 Persons Born in West African Countries by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 city’s West African immigrants residing in this Change 2000–2011 largest immigrant group. Still, there was a West borough. Treated as an individual source country, West Africa would have been the borough’s fourth 2000 2011 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent African presence across New York City boroughs, TOTAL, NYC 47,885 100.0 76,710 100.0 28,825 60.2 with 17 percent in Brooklyn, 14 percent in Queens, 12 Bronx 18,539 38.7 37,826 49.3 19,287 104.0 Brooklyn 10,911 22.8 13,009 17.0 2,098 19.2 Manhattan 7,051 14.7 9,537 12.4 2,486 35.3 Queens 7,121 14.9 10,877 14.2 3,756 52.7 Staten Island 4,263 8.9 5,461 7.1 1,198 28.1 percent in Manhattan, and 7 percent in Staten Island. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 1; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning With such a large share of West African immigrants, it is not surprising that 7 of the top 10 West African neighborhoods were in the Bronx, including six in the western Bronx (Table 3-41 and Figure 3-33). The largest among these were Concourse-Concourse Village and Mount Hope, with an estimated 4,800 and 2,500 West African immigrants, respectively. The only major West African neighborhoods outside of the Bronx were Central Harlem-Polo Grounds in Manhattan (4,000), Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills in Staten Island (2,000), and Crown Heights in Brooklyn (1,900). The Bronx’s disproportionate share of West Table 3-41 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in West African Countries New York City, 2007–2011 African immigrants, particularly in the western Bronx, was largely a reflection of the settlement patterns of Ghanaians who were the single largest West African source country. With a 2011 population 2007–2011 of 27,400, Ghanaian-born immigrants constituted Number Percent 67,122 100.0 Concourse-Concourse Village 4,764 7.1 Central Harlem-Polo Grounds 4,044 6.0 African immigrant group, constituting nearly one- Mount Hope 2,546 3.8 quarter of this region’s immigrants, but showed a University Heights-Morris Heights 1,982 3.0 settlement pattern quite distinct from Ghanaians. Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills 1,959 2.9 One-quarter of the Nigerian-born did reside in Bedford Park-Fordham North 1,942 2.9 Crown Heights 1,940 2.9 Highbridge 1,843 2.7 tendency to settle in Staten Island, with 1-in-10 Van Cortlandt Village 1,837 2.7 Nigerians calling this borough home. No other indi- Williamsbridge-Olinville 1,782 2.7 vidual West African country of origin constituted a 42,483 63.3 substantial share of the overall West African popu- TOTAL, NYC All Others well over one-third of New York’s West African immigrants, and three-in-four Ghanaians settled in the Bronx. Nigerians were the second largest West the Bronx, but another quarter settled in Brooklyn and one-third in Queens, especially in West Indian neighborhoods. Nigerians also showed a stronger lation, but Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, and Sierre Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Leone all represented noteworthy sending states. Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 89 Figure 3-34 Residential Settlement of Persons Born in Arab Countries by Neighborho New York Cit 07-2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey--Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning It is interesting to point out that immigrants from Table 3-42 Persons Born in Arab Countries by Borough New York City, 2000 to 2011 West African countries, beyond Ghana and Nigeria, were more likely to settle in Manhattan and Staten 2000 2011 Change 2000–2011 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 100.0 58,018 100.0 14,109 32.1 1,812 4.1 5,855 10.1 4,043 223.1 As with West Africa, no single Arab country was 20,898 47.6 23,704 40.9 2,806 13.4 among New York’s top 20 immigrant countries of 5,922 13.5 8,371 14.4 2,449 41.4 12,163 27.7 13,456 23.2 1,293 10.6 3,114 7.1 6,632 11.4 3,518 113.0 TOTAL, NYC 43,909 Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-5-Percent PUMS; 2011 American Community Survey-PUMS Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Island, especially along Staten Island’s North Shore. Settlement Pattern of Arab Immigrants origin, but cumulatively they constituted a 2011 immigrant population of 58,000, which would have ranked 15th among countries of birth (Table 3-42).3 The number of Arab immigrants increased by onethird, among the highest growth rates in the city. While there was a considerable Arab presence in all 5 boroughs, most settled in Brooklyn (41 percent) or Queens (23 percent). There was substantial growth in every borough, but Staten Island and the Bronx had the most dramatic increases, with Arab immigrants doubling in number in Staten Island and tripling in Table 3-43 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Persons Born in Arab Countries New York City, 2007–2011 the Bronx since 2000. Below the borough level, nearly one-third of im- 2007–2011 Number Percent migrants born in Arab countries resided in southern Brooklyn, while nearly one-fifth lived in northwest 47,375 100.0 Queens (Figure 3-34). This settlement pattern is Bay Ridge 4,834 10.2 further reflected at a neighborhood-level. The top Homecrest 3,019 6.4 Bensonhurst 1,876 4.0 Steinway 1,799 3.8 Astoria 1,638 3.5 Ridgewood 1,216 2.6 3 Arab immigrant neighborhoods of Bay Ridge (Arab immigrant population of 4,800), Homecrest (3,000), and Bensonhurst (1,900), were all in southern Brooklyn (Table 3-43). The next 3 largest Arab neighborhoods of Steinway (1,800), Astoria (1,600), and Ridgewood (1,200), were all in northwest Queens. Turtle Bay-East Midtown 941 2.0 Morningside Heights 940 2.0 Crown Heights 757 1.6 Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 746 1.6 29,609 62.5 TOTAL, NYC All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning About one-third of New York’s Arab immigrants were born in Egypt. As with the overall Arab settlement pattern, Egyptians were primarily concentrated in southern Brooklyn and northwest Queens. While the Egyptian community grew substantially since 2000, New York’s second largest Arab group, Yemenis, showed the highest growth among all Arabs, nearly tripling since 2000. Yemeni-born im- Chapter 3: Settlement Patterns of Immigrants in New York City 91 migrants also showed a uniquely diffuse settlement pattern, with substantial numbers in all boroughs outside Manhattan. The other major contributors to New York’s Arab immigrant population were Morocco, Lebanon, and Syria. Moroccans had a fair presence in all boroughs except Staten Island, and showed exceptionally high growth in the Bronx. Immigrants from Lebanon were primarily concentrated in Brooklyn and Manhattan. Syrian-born immigrants were overwhelmingly concentrated in southern Brooklyn, particularly in the neighborhood of Homecrest. SUMMARY New York City’s foreign-born population increased from 2.9 million in 2000 to 3.1 million in 2011, an increase of 7 percent. About 1.09 million immigrants in 2011 made their home in Queens, while 946,500 lived in Brooklyn. These boroughs together accounted for two-thirds of the city’s foreign-born. The Bronx and Manhattan each constituted about a 15 percent share of the city’s immigrant population, while Staten Island was home to 3 percent. The largest foreign-born neighborhoods in the city were Washington Heights, Bensonhurst, and Elmhurst, each with over 77,000 immigrants. Together, these three neighborhoods had more immigrants than the entire city of Philadelphia. Neighborhoods that rounded out the top 10 were Corona, Jackson Heights, Sunset Park, Flushing, Flatbush, Crown Heights, and Bushwick. No Bronx or Staten Island neighborhood was among the city’s 20 largest immigrant neighborhoods, but for Concourse-Concourse Village in the Bronx. Since 2000, the foreign-born population in Queens grew by 6 percent, to reach 1.09 million in 2011. Immigrants accounted for nearly one-half of the population in Queens, the highest concentration of any borough. They were heavily clustered along the International Express—the number 7 subway line that runs across northwest Queens. Elmhurst, which sits astride this route, had the highest concentration of immigrants in the city, with 71 percent of its residents classified as foreign-born. Queens had a remarkably diverse immigrant population and it was the only borough with an Asian plurality. 92 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Immigrants from China represented 13 percent of the borough’s foreign-born, making them the largest source country. Chinese settlement stretched across the northern half of Queens, extending from Elmhurst to Flushing and farther east into Bayside. The Guyanese were the second largest foreignborn group, concentrated in South Ozone Park and Richmond Hill, where most were of Indian origin. Ecuadorian and Mexican immigrant populations ranked third and fourth, respectively. These groups occupied many of the same neighborhoods in northwest Queens, including Corona, Jackson Heights, and Elmhurst. For the first time, Bangladeshis were a top 10 group in Queens, outranking Indians. Both groups shared a presence in some neighborhoods, particularly in Jackson Heights and Elmhurst. Jamaicans and other immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean were concentrated in neighborhoods across southeast Queens. Brooklyn’s immigrants grew minimally over the past decade. They numbered 946,500 in 2011 and represented 37 percent of the borough’s population. All corners of the globe were substantially represented, and Brooklyn now rivals Queens in immigrant diversity. These diverse origins were arrayed in a chain of neighborhoods, forming a horseshoe pattern along the B-Q and N subway lines. Brooklyn’s Horseshoe is the borough’s answer to the International Express in Queens. This horseshoe stretches from Sunset Park, down to Bensonhurst, through southern Brooklyn, and north again into Flatbush and Prospect Lefferts Gardens. In the borough overall, China was the most common country of origin, but accounted for just 14 percent of the foreign-born. Chinese settlement extended primarily along the western portion of the horseshoe, from Sunset Park south to Dyker Heights, Borough Park, and Bensonhurst. Jamaicans were the second largest immigrant group, but with just one-half the Chinese presence. The largest concentration of Jamaicans in the city was in central Brooklyn, primarily in Canarsie, RugbyRemsen Village, Crown Heights, Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate, and East Flatbush-Farragut. These neighborhoods also had a substantial Haitian presence, the borough’s third largest immigrant group, as well as other groups from the nonhispanic Table 3-44 Top 10 Neighborhoods of Settlement for Foreign-born Groups Ranked 11 through 20* New York City, 2007–2011 2007–2011 Persons Born in Bangladesh 2007–2011 NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT Persons Born in the Philippines 64,016 5,029 4,537 4,303 3,378 3,050 2,725 2,178 2,153 2,083 1,975 32,605 100.0 7.9 7.1 6.7 5.3 4.8 4.3 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.1 50.9 70,562 8,022 7,639 4,193 3,225 3,191 2,414 2,237 2,172 2,162 2,074 33,233 100.0 11.4 10.8 5.9 4.6 4.5 3.4 3.2 3.1 3.1 2.9 47.1 Jackson Heights, Queens Elmhurst, Queens Corona, Queens Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, Queens Flushing, Queens Woodside, Queens Astoria, Queens Forest Hills, Queens Woodhaven, Queens College Point, Queens All Others 67,339 8,257 5,947 3,615 2,741 2,620 2,175 1,795 1,594 1,427 1,342 35,826 100.0 12.3 8.8 5.4 4.1 3.9 3.2 2.7 2.4 2.1 2.0 53.2 Persons Born in Ukraine 56,166 100.0 11.2 10.1 8.4 7.4 5.0 4.8 4.6 3.0 3.0 2.2 40.6 Upper West Side, Manhattan Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flatiron-Union Square, Manhattan West Village, Manhattan Lincoln Square, Manhattan Yorkville, Manhattan Park Slope-Gowanus, Brooklyn Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill, Manhattan Turtle Bay-East Midtown, Manhattan Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island, Manhattan East Village, Manhattan All Others 100.0 14.3 9.7 5.8 4.5 2.9 2.4 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 51.8 Jamaica, Queens Far Rockaway-Bayswater, Queens Washington Heights, Manhattan Flatbush, Brooklyn Sunset Park, Brooklyn South Ozone Park, Queens Murray Hill, Queens Jackson Heights, Queens Concourse-Concourse Village, Bronx Bushwick, Brooklyn All Others Jackson Heights, Queens Elmhurst, Queens Jamaica, Queens Kensington-Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn Briarwood-Jamaica Hills, Queens Woodside, Queens Cypress Hills-City Line, Brooklyn Woodhaven, Queens Astoria, Queens Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, Queens All Others Persons Born in Korea Murray Hill, Queens Flushing, Queens Bayside-Bayside Hills, Queens Oakland Gardens, Queens Elmhurst, Queens Douglas Manor-Douglaston-Little Neck, Queens Ft. Totten-Bay Terrace-Clearview, Queens Auburndale, Queens Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, Queens Fresh Meadows-Utopia, Queens All Others Persons Born in Colombia Brighton Beach, Brooklyn 6,273 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach,Brooklyn 5,659 Bensonhurst, Brooklyn 4,697 West Brighton, Brooklyn 4,131 Homecrest, Brooklyn 2,803 Midwood, Brooklyn 2,685 Madison, Brooklyn 2,564 Seagate-Coney Island, Brooklyn 1,671 Gravesend, Brooklyn 1,666 Forest Hills, Queens 1,230 All Others 22,787 Persons Born in Poland Greenpoint, Brooklyn Ridgewood, Queens Maspeth, Queens Borough Park, Brooklyn Bensonhurst, Brooklyn Glendale, Queens Middle Village, Queens Sunset Park, Brooklyn Bay Ridge, Brooklyn Jackson Heights, Queens All Others 55,361 7,893 5,389 3,201 2,514 1,633 1,347 1,278 1,191 1,146 1,094 28,675 Elmhurst, Queens Woodside, Queens Briarwood-Jamaica Hills, Queens Queens Village, Queens Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth, Queens Flushing, Queens Jackson Heights, Queens Jamaica Estates-Holliswood, Queens Woodhaven, Queens Kew Gardens Hills, Queens All Others Persons Born in Italy Bensonhurst, Brooklyn Whitestone, Queens Lindenwood-Howard Beach, Queens Middle Village, Queens Dyker Heights, Brooklyn Steinway, Queens Schuylerville-Throgs Neck-Edgewater Park, Bronx Astoria, Queens Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville, Staten Island Ridgewood, Queens All Others Persons Born in Pakistan Flatbush, Brooklyn Bensonhurst, Brooklyn Jackson Heights, Queens Flushing, Queens Midwood, Brooklyn Elmhurst, Queens Brighton Beach, Brooklyn Briarwood-Jamaica Hills, Queens Fresh Meadows-Utopia, Queens Woodhaven, Queens All Others Persons Born in the United Kingdom Persons Born in El Salvador *Ranking is based on the 2011 ACS, while neighborhood information is from the 2007–2011 ACS Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File. Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 56,288 5,506 3,381 1,637 1,421 1,361 1,339 1,289 1,095 1,055 998 37,206 100.0 9.8 6.0 2.9 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.8 66.1 54,096 6,091 1,814 1,789 1,788 1,732 1,516 1,317 1,275 1,080 1,072 34,622 100.0 11.3 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.2 2.8 2.4 2.4 2.0 2.0 64.0 38,057 2,466 2,159 1,810 1,638 1,607 1,300 1,231 867 808 764 23,407 100.0 6.5 5.7 4.8 4.3 4.2 3.4 3.2 2.3 2.1 2.0 61.5 30,574 1,637 1,252 1,199 1,004 916 905 896 866 845 697 20,357 100.0 5.4 4.1 3.9 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.3 66.6 29,801 2,337 1,808 1,141 1,044 989 969 878 877 788 774 18,196 100.0 7.8 6.1 3.8 3.5 3.3 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.6 61.1 93 Caribbean. Central Brooklyn remained the core area of settlement for the city’s West Indian groups, though there has been a substantial eastward shift toward Canarsie. Dominicans, the borough’s fourth largest immigrant group, had a substantial presence in both Bushwick and Sunset Park, which were also home to Mexicans and Ecuadorians. Russians, and especially Ukrainians, saw substantial declines, and were concentrated primarily in southern Brooklyn. and Hamilton Heights, these areas remained the borough’s largest Dominican neighborhoods. Chinese immigrants ranked second in the borough and primarily lived in Chinatown and the Lower East Side. As with their uptown Dominican counterparts, the core Chinese population in Chinatown also experienced substantial declines. Ranked third were foreign-born Mexicans, who were concentrated in East Harlem and Washington Heights. The 471,100 foreign-born residents of the Bronx accounted for over one-third of the borough’s population. Thanks to a growth of 22 percent over the past decade the Bronx had a larger immigrant population than Manhattan in 2011. More than one-half of the Bronx’s foreign-born population was from Latin America and one-fifth was from the nonhispanic Caribbean. African immigrants accounted for one-tenth of the foreign-born and for the first time eclipsed the shares of Asians and Europeans. The Dominican Republic was the borough’s largest source country and accounted for one-third of the foreign-born; Dominicans had a substantial presence across the borough, with the highest concentrations in the western Bronx. With just 11 percent of the borough’s foreign-born population, Jamaicans were the second largest immigrant group in the borough, concentrated primarily in the northern Bronx neighborhoods of Williamsbridge-Olinville and Woodlawn-Wakefield. Mexicans, who doubled in size since 2000, were the third largest immigrant group in the borough. Like their Dominican counterparts, Mexicans were dispersed across the borough. Treated as a single source country, West Africans would have been the borough’s fourth largest immigrant group. Their neighborhoods of settlement were primarily in the western Bronx. Staten Island’s foreign-born population grew by one-third since 2000, the highest growth of any borough. Much of this growth has been fueled by the movement of immigrants from Brooklyn, a pattern that has been true historically. Thanks to this growth, immigrants numbered just under 100,000, accounting for one-fifth of all residents. The foreignborn in Staten Island, both in terms of size and as a percentage of the total population, was the smallest of any borough. This was the only borough where Europeans comprised a plurality, accounting for over one-third of the foreign-born. No single source country accounted for more than 8 percent of the immigrant population, a reflection of the borough’s increasing immigrant diversity. Mexicans, Italians, and Chinese were the largest immigrant groups in the borough, with Mexicans heavily represented in the north, Italians in the south, and the Chinese in both central and northern parts of the island. Africans—comprised primarily of Liberians and Nigerians—had an above average 10 percent representation among Staten Island’s foreign-born, concentrated primarily in the north. The foreign-born population in Manhattan saw nominal growth over the past decade. The borough’s 461,300 immigrants constituted 29 percent of the population in 2011. With respect to area of origin, Latin Americans and Asians together represented 7-in-10 immigrants in the borough. Dominicans represented the largest country of origin among Manhattan’s foreign-born, but saw substantial declines over the past decade. While declines were heavily concentrated in Washington Heights, Marble Hill-Inwood, 94 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition ENDNOTES 1 Seventy-nine percent of the city’s Indo-Guyanese lived in Queens, while Brooklyn was home to 57 percent of the AfroGuyanese population. 2 According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s Place of Birth coding, West African countries include: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Côte D’Ivoire, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, St. Helena, and Togo. 3 Arab countries in this analysis were limited to only those available in the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey’s Summary Files. These countries included: Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, Western Sahara, and Yemen. CHAPTER Socio-Demographic Profile of The Foreign-Born While earlier chapters examined the number, country-origins, and settlement patterns of the foreign-born, a more complete picture requires information on the demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of various immigrant groups. Information about age, sex, household type, education, labor force, occupation, and income characteristics of immigrant groups provides us with a perspective on where these groups fit along the city’s socioeconomic spectrum. Such a perspective can greatly help those charged with developing policies, planning programs, or targeting services to immigrant groups. The needs of the foreign-born are unique and often more challenging, but the issues differ markedly for specific groups. An understanding of the characteristics of each group helps shape policies and programs that better fit specific groups, increasing their chances of success. In this chapter, demographic and socioeconomic profiles of foreign-born groups are constructed from the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) and include the following characteristics: age, sex, household type, ability to speak English, educational attainment, poverty status, median household income, labor force participation, and earnings. The chapter highlights differences between a group’s socioeconomic characteristics and those for the city overall—where differences are noted, these are statistically significant.1 In Chapter 2, 2011 ACS data were primarily from the Summary Files, which are derived from the full sample, while data presented in Chapter 3 were primarily from the five year ACS (2007–2011) Summary Files. Since different samples and time periods yield slightly different estimates of characteristics, figures that were based on the one- and five- year Summary Files will differ slightly from estimates in this chapter that are derived from the one- and three-year PUMS. (Please see Chapter 1 for more details.) This chapter presents summary statistics, such as means and medians, for various socioeconomic variables. These summary statistics—for example, a median income of $30,000—are useful measures of the “central tendency” or “central position” within a distribution. A median income of $30,000 means that one-half of the population has an income above the median, and one-half is below that level. Similarly, if a group has an average poverty rate that is extremely high, it does not mean that every person in that group is necessarily in poverty. These measures also reflect only the current status of groups; they do not speak to issues of upward social mobility. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS Age Distribution Immigrants tend to be disproportionately between the ages of 18 and 64: In 2011, 80 percent of the foreign-born were in this age group, compared with just 58 percent of the native-born (Table 4-1). Among Dominicans, 80 percent were between 18 and 64, while 79 percent of Chinese were so classified. The large share of the foreign-born in this age group is often related to the fact that the foreign-born are heavily comprised of recent arrivals, most of whom come to New York for economic opportunities and are primarily in the working age groups.2 As noted in Chapter 2, and shown again in Table 4-1, 34 percent of the city’s immigrants were recent arrivals, defined as having arrived in the U.S. in 2000 or later. Mexicans and Bangladeshis, who are overwhelmingly recent arrivals, tend to be among the youngest, 95 Table 4-1 Selected Demographic Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 Total PERCENT OF THE POPULATION Percent Arrived PERSONS, AGES 18 TO 64 in US 2000–2011 Under 18 Total 18 to 44 45 to 64 65 & over Native-born 5,184,514 – – Foreign-born 3,059,912 33.8 TOTAL, NYC 8,244,426 21.5 66.2 41.6 24.6 12.3 Median Age 35 Sex Ratio* 91 31.4 58.1 39.4 18.7 10.4 28 92 4.7 79.9 45.4 34.6 15.3 44 89 Dominican Republic 366,074 30.5 6.5 80.4 42.5 37.9 13.1 45 68 China 358,736 37.0 5.0 78.5 41.4 37.1 16.4 47 88 Mexico 179,010 52.8 3.9 94.7 81.5 13.2 1.4 33 171 Jamaica 170,279 23.7 4.2 80.6 37.7 42.9 15.3 48 69 Guyana 137,293 31.3 5.4 81.1 40.8 40.3 13.5 46 79 Ecuador 143,496 35.1 4.1 84.6 51.7 32.9 11.3 41 118 Haiti 102,866 30.7 7.3 73.3 34.5 38.7 19.5 49 79 87,917 27.7 3.9 80.6 36.1 44.5 15.5 48 65 India 79,119 41.0 4.8 83.5 52.3 31.2 11.6 40 124 Russia 74,405 25.2 2.4 74.1 33.7 40.4 23.6 51 62 Bangladesh 75,452 49.8 10.1 85.3 61.6 23.7 4.6 35 119 Korea 68,835 37.8 4.5 85.1 57.2 28.0 10.4 40 65 Colombia 63,511 29.2 3.5 80.0 36.7 43.3 16.4 49 82 Trinidad and Tobago Ukraine 63,415 20.0 1.5 66.9 34.2 32.7 31.6 54 87 Poland 52,669 28.9 2.1 77.4 44.2 33.2 20.5 47 81 Philippines 45,173 40.4 5.7 73.5 35.1 38.3 20.8 49 62 Italy 50,413 12.7 0.2 53.8 18.2 35.6 46.1 63 108 Pakistan 38,386 42.0 9.7 83.6 48.8 34.8 6.7 40 123 United Kingdom 33,312 45.2 3.1 82.5 53.7 28.8 14.4 40 98 El Salvador 30,794 27.9 4.2 83.2 57.1 26.1 12.6 41 98 *Males per 100 females Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning with 95 percent and 85 percent, respectively between the ages of 18 and 64. This statistic actually masks the youthfulness of the Mexican population, since over 8-in-10 of all Mexican immigrants were between the ages of 18 and 44. Forty-six percent of Italians were ages 65 and over—the highest among all groups—compared with 15 percent of all foreign-born who were ages 65 and over. Most Italians in New York City arrived prior to 1980 and represent earlier immigrant cohorts that are now aging. Ukrainians and Russians were 96 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition also disproportionately in the older age groups, with 32 percent and 24 percent, respectively, ages 65 and over. The heyday of flows from these two sources was in the 1990s, when flows were comprised primarily of refugees who spanned the age spectrum— unlike those immigrating to the U.S. for economic reasons, who tend to be young. While these refugees have aged, immigration from Ukraine and Russia has declined in the past decade (see Chapter 6). Both reasons account for the relatively high proportion of those ages 65 and over among both these sources. Figure 4-1 Children Under 18 Years by Nativity New York City, 2011 Foreignborn 8.2% Native-born 91.8% New York City Total = 1,774,455 We next turn to the share of children under 18 among the native- and foreign-born. As noted earlier, a disproportionate share of immigrants are between the ages of 18 and 44, which is when most child-bearing occurs. It is important to recognize that children born to immigrants are born primarily in the U.S. Figure 4-1 shows that of the 1.77 million children in New York City, 92 percent were born in the U.S., and are thus counted as native-born. As a result, children under 18 comprise 31 percent of the native-born, but 5 percent of the foreign-born. This dramatically lowers the median age of native-born residents to 28 years, compared with 44 years for foreign-born residents.3 Groups also differed in their sex ratios, defined as the number of males per 100 females. At birth, and in the earliest stages of the life-cycle, males exceed females. But because of higher male mortality, females exceed males in the overall population. The sex ratio for the city was 91, meaning that there were 91 males for every 100 females. The sex ratio differed slightly by nativity: It stood at 92 for the native-born and at 89 for the foreign-born. There were marked differences, however, among foreign-born groups, primarily a result of their immigration histories. Mexicans had the highest sex ratio, 171 males for every 100 females. As noted earlier, Mexicans are relatively recent entrants, who are young, and as the sex ratio indicates, disproportionately male. Among the top 20 foreign-born groups, South Asians also stood out for their high sex ratios. The sex ratio for Indians was 124, while it was 123 for Pakistanis and 119 for Bangladeshis. Often times, immigrant groups start out with very high sex ratios, with males first establishing themselves before being joined by their spouses and children, which eventually lowers the sex ratio. Immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean had among the lowest sex ratios. Among Trinidadians and Tobagonians, there were just 65 males per 100 females, while the sex ratios for Jamaicans and Haitians were 69 and 79, respectively. For these groups, as well as for Colombians (82) and Dominicans (68), females are often in the vanguard of immigration and are later followed by males. This was also true for Filipinos, who had a sex ratio of 62, among the lowest for the top 20. As will be discussed in Chapter 6, many Filipinos have made use of a special provision in the law that allows for the entry of nurses into the United States. These nurses are overwhelmingly women, and it highlights how provisions in immigration law can affect the overall sex ratio of an immigrant group. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS Household/Family Type In census terminology, households are classified either as family or nonfamily. If any person is related by blood, marriage or adoption to the head of the household, that household is defined as a family household. Family households have been further subdivided in this analysis into married couples; male householder, no spouse; and female householder, no spouse (referred to as female-headed). Households in which no one is related to the head of the household are defined as nonfamily households. Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 97 Table 4-2 Household/Family Type by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 PERCENT FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS Total Households Total Married Couple Male head, no spouse Female head, no spouse Percent Nonfamily Households TOTAL, NYC 3,023,332 60.2 35.8 5.7 18.8 39.8 Native-born 1,703,244 51.7 29.2 4.5 18.0 48.3 Foreign-born 1,320,088 71.2 44.2 7.2 19.7 28.8 Dominican Republic 161,138 80.2 28.1 8.4 43.7 19.8 China 136,228 79.4 64.9 4.1 10.3 20.6 Mexico 56,481 83.0 44.0 22.5 16.5 17.0 Jamaica 77,869 67.8 34.7 5.9 27.3 32.2 Guyana 54,772 80.9 47.5 6.7 26.7 19.1 Ecuador 50,233 83.1 49.3 14.1 19.8 16.9 Haiti 42,392 80.9 31.8 11.1 37.9 19.1 Trinidad and Tobago 41,920 76.4 40.2 5.6 30.5 23.6 India 29,437 72.3 58.3 8.4 5.5 27.7 Russia 37,846 57.2 43.9 3.6 9.8 42.8 Bangladesh 22,707 89.0 73.7 8.5 6.7 11.0 Korea 30,145 61.0 44.3 4.1 12.7 39.0 Colombia 28,320 68.9 38.0 8.1 22.8 31.1 Ukraine 33,400 59.2 48.4 2.3 8.6 40.8 Poland 28,179 64.4 49.9 6.4 8.1 35.6 Philippines 18,604 65.7 41.6 4.3 19.8 34.3 Italy 28,091 65.0 58.0 2.6 4.4 35.0 Pakistan 11,625 85.4 70.4 11.0 4.0 14.6 United Kingdom 17,991 41.6 30.8 5.5 5.3 58.4 El Salvador 12,374 76.3 32.8 9.6 33.9 23.7 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Overall, 60 percent of households in the city were family households (Table 4-2), but this was true of 71 percent of foreign-born households. Among the top 20 foreign-born groups, nearly 9-in-10 Bangladeshi households were family households, and those with over 8-in-10 family households included Pakistanis, Ecuadorians, Mexicans, Guyanese, Haitians, and Dominicans. Those born in the United Kingdom had the lowest percentage of family households (42 percent), even lower than the average for native-born households (52 percent). 98 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition While a high percentage of immigrant households were comprised of families, the types of families differed substantially by group. Over 7-in10 Bangladeshi and Pakistani households were married-couple families, and their percentage of female-headed households was in the single digits. In comparison, 44 percent of Dominican households were female-headed families, as were over 3-in-10 Haitian, Salvadoran, and Trinidadian households. With some of the largest immigrant groups disproportionately in female-headed families, the overall share of immigrant households that were female-headed (20 percent) was higher than that of native-born households (18 percent). Due to high immigrant fertility, the overall share of immigrant households that was nonfamily (29 percent) was much lower than that of the native-born (48 percent). Not surprisingly, immigrant groups with the largest household share in nonfamilies were generally older on average and included Russians and Ukrainians, over 40 percent of whose households were nonfamily. But the British had the largest percentage living in nonfamily households, with nearly 6-in-10 households so classified. Average Household Size There was an average of 2.7 persons per household in the City of New York in 2011 (Table 4-3). Households headed by the foreign-born were significantly larger (3.1 persons) than those headed by the native-born (2.4 persons). The lower average household size of the native-born can be partly explained by the fact that heads of household are older and more likely to be “empty nesters,” with children living independently. Most immigrants had a household size that generally exceeded the city average. Groups with the highest average household size included Mexican (4.5 persons), as well as Bangladeshi and Pakistani households (4.3 persons each). On the end of the spectrum, the average size of European households was generally below the city average, and usually below that of the native-born. Italian, Ukrainian, British, and Russian households averaged just 2.2 persons, while Polish households averaged 2.5 persons. Household Tenure Rates of home ownership, as measured by the percent of dwelling units that were owner-occupied, are also presented in Table 4-3. For the city overall, 31 percent of units were owner-occupied in 2011. Home ownership for the native-born stood at 33 percent, compared with 29 percent for the foreign-born. Home ownership rates were highest for Italians (68 percent), followed by the Guyanese (49 percent), Chinese (44 percent), and Filipinos (41 percent). Among groups from the nonhispanic Caribbean, the home ownership rate stood at 40 percent for Jamaicans, and was marginally above the city average for Trinidadians and Haitians. Latin American groups had the lowest rates of home ownership, ranging from just 4 percent for Mexicans, to 22 percent for Colombians. Overcrowding Overcrowding, as defined by federal standards, occurs when there is more than one person per room in a housing unit. Citywide, 9 percent of all households were overcrowded (Table 4-3). While differences by nativity were evident with many socioeconomic characteristics, few comparisons are as striking as Table 4-3 Selected Household Characteristics by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 HOUSEHOLDS Total TOTAL, NYC 3,023,332 Native-born 1,703,244 Foreign-born 1,320,088 Dominican Republic 161,138 China 136,228 Mexico 56,481 Jamaica 77,869 Guyana 54,772 Ecuador 50,233 Haiti 42,392 Trinidad and Tobago 41,920 India 29,437 Russia 37,846 Bangladesh 22,707 Korea 30,145 Colombia 28,320 Ukraine 33,400 Poland 28,179 Philippines 18,604 Italy 28,091 Pakistan 11,625 United Kingdom 17,991 El Salvador 12,374 Average Percent Percent Size OwnerOver(Persons) Occupied crowded* 2.7 2.4 3.1 3.4 3.2 4.5 2.9 3.5 3.9 3.6 3.0 3.2 2.2 4.3 2.6 2.9 2.2 2.5 2.9 2.2 4.3 2.2 3.8 31.4 33.0 29.2 7.3 43.8 3.9 39.6 49.3 18.5 32.1 32.9 36.1 31.3 22.0 21.1 22.0 32.2 31.3 41.0 67.5 24.2 39.3 17.8 8.9 5.0 14.0 15.5 17.6 41.8 6.4 12.5 23.1 21.1 7.9 15.3 4.6 44.8 5.5 15.3 4.3 7.7 8.5 2.5 39.3 0.0 28.2 *More than one person per room Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 99 that of overcrowding. The share of foreign-born households that were overcrowded (14 percent) was nearly 3 times that of native-born households (5 percent). This is, at least in part, a function of larger households among the foreign-born, as well as a reflection of the housing available to newcomers.4 Levels of overcrowding were extraordinarily high for many groups. The most acute levels of overcrowding were for Bangladeshis (45 percent), Mexicans (42 percent), and Pakistanis (39 percent). Levels of overcrowding were over 3 times the city average for Salvadorans (28 percent) and over twice the city average for Ecuadorians and Haitians. In contrast, many households for European groups, including British, Italian, Ukrainian, and Russian had levels of overcrowding below the city average—and the average for the native-born—a reflection of their smaller household size and older age. High levels of home ownership fail to dampen the effects of large household sizes on overcrowding. For example, despite similar levels of home ownership among Haitian households and the native-born, the level of overcrowding among Haitian households (21 percent) is over 4 times that of native-born households (5 percent). Similarly, though Chinese and Indian home ownership rates significantly exceeded that of the native-born, the level of overcrowding of these groups was three times higher. ENGLISH LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT Ability to Speak English Table 4-4 shows that while just 6 percent of native-born persons ages 5 and over were not proficient in English,5 close to one-half of the foreign-born were so classified. Among the foreign-born, approximately 8-in-10 Mexicans and Salvadorans had problems speaking English. On the other end of the spectrum, among those from English-speaking countries such as Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana, less than 2 percent were not proficient in English. Indeed, Figure 4-2 shows that in the central Brooklyn 100 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition neighborhoods of East Flatbush and Canarsie, home to large numbers of immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean, relatively few had problems with English. While not all immigrant neighborhoods had problems with English, it was an issue in a few neighborhoods that had substantial native-born populations. For example, in the south Bronx, home to many native-born Hispanics who were born on the island of Puerto Rico, a high percentage of residents were not English proficient.6 Nevertheless, the overall percentages shown earlier indicate that the lack of English proficiency is an issue primarily for the foreign-born. While immigrants from the English-speaking Caribbean were in a favorable position in terms of English proficiency, a large share of Caribbean immigrants from Creole/French-speaking Haiti were not English-language proficient (50 percent). The percentage of those not proficient in English among Hispanic immigrants was also uniformly high—64 percent or more of each Hispanic subgroup had problems speaking English. Among immigrant Asians, the level of proficiency varied widely. Chinese and Koreans had a high percentage not English proficient (75 and 63 percent, respectively), while Indians and Filipinos, many of whom were educated in English in their home countries, had a lower share with English language problems (32 and 24 percent, respectively). Recency of arrival in New York was not strongly correlated with English language problems, although that would appear to be a logical assumption. For example, the share of Mexican immigrants who were not proficient in English was not very different from that for other Hispanic subgroups, despite the higher percentage of recent Mexican arrivals. Similarly, proficiency levels for Asians varied widely, despite high percentages of recent arrivals for every group. Educational Attainment of Adults Among city residents ages 25 and over, 80 percent were high school graduates, while 20 percent had less than a high school education (Table 4-4). Educational attainment was substantially higher among the native-born (87 percent high school Table 4-4 English Language Proficiency and Educational Attainment by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT (25 YEARS AND OVER) PERCENT HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATES Percent not English Proficient* Total, NYC Native-born Foreign-born Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti Trinidad and Tobago India Russia Bangladesh Korea Colombia Ukraine Poland Philippines Italy Pakistan United Kingdom El Salvador Population 25 and over Percent less than High School Total High School Grad only College or more 23.0 6.2 48.8 70.0 74.8 82.1 1.0 1.8 75.8 49.6 1.3 32.4 63.2 58.4 62.8 63.5 70.9 48.7 24.4 45.0 45.4 1.2 79.4 5,614,557 2,917,961 2,696,596 311,568 317,245 146,773 152,869 119,703 127,939 89,437 79,153 70,340 68,235 58,780 59,772 57,515 58,527 49,858 40,005 49,745 29,997 29,344 27,605 20.3 13.4 27.8 45.4 40.5 52.0 21.1 25.9 41.4 20.1 20.3 13.9 9.1 18.2 8.8 25.4 5.6 13.5 7.6 42.4 26.5 6.2 53.3 79.7 86.6 72.2 54.6 59.5 48.0 78.9 74.1 58.6 79.9 79.7 86.1 90.9 81.8 91.2 74.6 94.4 86.5 92.4 57.6 73.5 93.8 46.7 24.6 23.3 26.0 22.4 20.6 31.7 35.2 38.3 30.6 30.7 36.6 12.5 25.2 24.2 18.7 31.7 19.1 26.5 5.8 30.2 20.7 16.0 32.4 34.4 40.4 27.9 12.6 28.2 7.4 20.7 16.0 10.8 18.6 15.2 64.8 50.5 37.4 54.8 19.4 54.3 35.2 66.5 14.5 35.0 57.2 4.7 *The population not English-proficient was defined as those ages 5 and over who spoke a language other than English at home and who spoke English less than "very well." Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning graduates), compared with their foreign-born counterparts (72 percent), though there was substantial variation among immigrant groups. Asian groups had among the highest levels of schooling. Among immigrant Filipinos and Koreans, over 90 percent had graduated high school, as had 86 percent of Indians. On the other end of the spectrum, just 60 percent of Chinese immigrants were high school graduates. Many Asian groups had a high percentage of college graduates: Approximately twothirds of Filipinos and Indians completed college, as did over one-half of Koreans; this compared with 34 percent of all city residents. Among Latin American immigrants, less than one-half of Salvadorans and Mexicans had completed high school; the percentage of college graduates was in the single digits. Educational attainment of Ecuadorians and Dominicans was marginally higher, while Colombians had the highest educational attainment among Latin American immigrants, though still well below the city average. Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 101 Figure 4-2 Percent of Population* Not Proficient in English New York City, 2007–2011 PERCENT Bronx 40.0% or more (18 neighborhoods) 30.0% to 39.9% (33) 20.0% to 29.9% (37) 10.0% to 19.9% (44) Less than 10% (44) NYC Average = 23.4% Manhattan Queens *Population 5 years and over Brooklyn Staten Island Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey–Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 102 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition enrolled in school. Some young adults forego a formal education in their home countries and come to the city to find employment. While we label these immigrants as high school dropouts, many may have dropped out of school long before they would have reached high school age. Since young adults are the future of the city, it is important to examine their dropout rates, as these shed light on their potential for upward mobility in future years and their potential contribution to the city’s workforce. Figure 4-3 Dropout Rates Among Persons 17–24 New York City, 2007–2011 TOTAL Native-born Foreign-born Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Overall, 16 percent of foreign-born young adults were high school dropouts, compared with 11 percent of all young adults in the city. Four Latin American groups had the highest percentage of dropouts among young adults: Mexicans (46 percent), Salvadorans (44 percent), and Ecuadorans (32 percent), followed by Dominicans (19 percent). The high percentage of dropouts among Latin American groups is likely to affect their future levels of socioeconomic attainment. Ecuador Haiti Trinidad & Tobago India Russia Bangladesh Korea Colombia Ukraine Poland Philippines Italy* Pakistan United Kingdom* El Salvador 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Percent 40 45 * Sample size insufficient to produce reliable estimates. European groups were well educated. Over 9-in-10 immigrants from Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and Russia were high school graduates, and over one-half had college degrees—among the highest levels of educational attainment in the city. However, Italians, most of whom immigrated in earlier decades, had a level of high school and college completion well below the city average. Dropout Rates Among Young Adults This section examines dropout rates among young adults, ages 17 to 24 (Figure 4-3). Since this is a relatively small subpopulation, 5 year data are used (2007–2011) in order to garner an adequate sample size.7 The focus is on high school dropouts among these young adults—defined as persons who do not have a high school diploma and are not currently 50 Groups with dropout rates around the city average of 11 percent included Trinidadians, Chinese, Guyanese, and Pakistanis, while Haitians, Bangladeshis, Colombians, and Jamaicans had dropout rates between 7 and 8 percent. All other groups had a dropout rate 5 percent or lower. ECONOMIC WELL-BEING Median Household Income The median household income in the city stood at $49,800 (Table 4-5), with native-born households ($54,700) having significantly higher incomes than their foreign-born counterparts ($43,700). Among the largest foreign-born groups, Indian household income ($83,800) was 68 percent more than the city median, that of U.K. households ($80,400) was 62 percent higher, and Filipino household income ($77,400) was 55 percent higher. In comparison, household income for native-born households ($54,700) was 10 percent higher than the city median. Median household incomes for nonhispanic Caribbean groups, such as Guyanese ($50,900), Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 103 Table 4-5 Household Income and Poverty Status by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 HOUSEHOLD INCOME Median Ratio: Subgroup to Total POVERTY PUBLIC ASSISTANCE Average Persons for whom Workers* poverty status has Percent in per Household been determined Poverty Percent with Total Households PA income TOTAL, NYC $49,792 1.00 1.2 8,112,377 20.7 3,023,332 4.3 Native-born $54,679 1.10 1.1 5,077,035 21.3 1,703,244 4.5 Foreign-born $43,682 0.88 1.4 3,035,342 19.8 1,320,088 4.0 Dominican Republic $25,456 0.51 1.4 363,178 32.8 161,138 7.6 China $42,766 0.86 1.5 356,676 20.2 136,228 5.5 Mexico $34,518 0.69 2.1 178,045 29.8 56,481 3.6 Jamaica $49,283 0.99 1.4 168,848 13.5 77,869 5.2 Guyana $50,912 1.02 1.6 136,928 15.8 54,772 3.0 Ecuador $46,126 0.93 1.9 142,940 20.7 50,233 3.8 Haiti $48,875 0.98 1.6 101,928 16.6 42,392 3.7 Trinidad and Tobago $43,988 0.88 1.5 86,727 15.1 41,920 5.8 India $83,821 1.68 1.7 78,430 11.2 29,437 1.7 Russia $37,267 0.75 1.1 73,777 20.6 37,846 4.0 Bangladesh $35,129 0.71 1.7 75,241 29.2 22,707 4.0 Korea $44,802 0.90 1.4 66,948 17.5 30,145 1.5 Colombia $44,090 0.89 1.4 63,272 19.3 28,320 4.1 Ukraine $33,602 0.67 1.0 63,415 19.6 33,400 0.5 Poland $55,392 1.11 1.2 52,077 7.8 28,179 1.1 Philippines $77,406 1.55 1.7 44,538 4.0 18,604 3.2 Italy $43,784 0.88 0.9 49,490 10.6 28,091 1.7 Pakistan $50,912 1.02 1.5 38,386 28.2 11,625 4.9 United Kingdom $80,441 1.62 1.3 32,355 10.9 17,991 2.6 El Salvador $38,693 0.78 1.9 30,794 27.0 12,374 2.4 * Ages 16 and over, employed in the civilian labor force Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Jamaicans ($49,300), and Haitians ($48,900) were around the city median, though Trinidadian income ($44,000) was 12 percent lower. With respect to European groups, while immigrants from the U.K and Poland had relatively high household incomes, those from Italy ($43,800) and Russia ($37,300) were below the city median, and household income of Ukrainian immigrants ($33,600) was just two-thirds of the city median. Among Latin American groups, Ecuadorians ($46,100) and Colombians ($44,100) had 104 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition household incomes close to the city median, while Salvadorans ($38,700) and Mexicans ($34,500) had significantly lower incomes. Dominicans ($25,500) were at just over one-half the city median, the lowest of any top 20 group. The high household incomes for Indians and Filipinos, compared with the city average, were partly due to the fact that these households had multiple earners. While an average city household had 1.2 workers, Indian and Filipino households averaged 1.7 workers. But large numbers of workers do not always translate into high household income. Mexican and Salvadoran households had the highest number of workers (2.1 and 1.9, respectively), but had among the lowest household incomes in the city. On the other hand, the low income of Italian households was primarily because these households averaged less than one worker, among the lowest in the city. Poverty Status Since household income tends to be higher if there are more workers in a household, it is important to look at poverty, which takes into account both household income and household size (Table 4-5). A poverty rate becomes especially pertinent when a high median household income for a group reflects the presence of large numbers of both high- and low-income households. Over one-fifth of city residents were below the poverty line in 2011. Foreign-born households had a poverty rate (20 percent) marginally lower than that of native-born households (21 percent), even though the latter had a higher median household income. Latin Americans, who as noted earlier, had low household incomes, had among the highest rates of poverty. Among the top 20, Dominicans (33 percent) had the highest poverty rate, followed by Mexicans (30 percent), Bangladeshis (29 percent), Pakistanis (28 percent), and Salvadorans (27 percent), all well above the city average. Thus, three Latin American groups had among the highest levels of poverty in the city, while two others, Ecuadorians and Colombians, had poverty rates around the city average. Not surprisingly, immigrant sources with the lowest poverty—the Philippines, Poland, the United Kingdom, and India—have among the highest household incomes in the city. However, this relationship does not hold for all groups. Pakistanis had a household income marginally higher than the city median, but a poverty rate (28 percent) that was substantially higher than the citywide rate, a result of their larger household size. In contrast, Ukrainians and Russians, who had among the city’s lowest household incomes—as well as household size—had poverty rates around the city average. Public Assistance Recipiency While poverty in this analysis is calculated at the individual level, one consequence of poverty on households is measured by public assistance8 (Table 4-5). Overall, the percentage of native-born households receiving public assistance (4.5 percent) was similar to that for foreign-born households (4 percent). Dominicans had the highest percentage on public assistance (8 percent), followed by Trinidadians and Chinese (6 percent each), and Jamaicans and Pakistanis (5 percent each). The level of public assistance was positively correlated with poverty. Not surprisingly, British, Polish, Korean, Italian, and Indians households had among the lowest percentages receiving public assistance, given their low poverty rates. But Jamaicans and Trinidadians, who had below average poverty, had above-average rates of public assistance recipiency. On the other hand, Mexicans and Salvadorans, who had high rates of poverty, had relatively low rates of public assistance recipiency. Some groups may not qualify for public assistance due to their recency of arrival or they may choose not to avail themselves of this benefit. LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS9—MALES Labor Force Participation Rate The labor force participation rate is defined as the percent of people working or looking for work. These rates are presented in Table 4-6 for those 16 years and over. Foreign-born males had a labor force participation rate (75 percent) that was 10 points higher than their native-born counterparts; for the city overall, the rate was 70 percent. Three Latino groups had the highest labor force participation rates: Mexicans (93 percent), Salvadorans (89 percent), and Ecuadorans Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 105 Table 4-6 Labor Force Participation and Class of Worker for Males by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION MALES, 16 AND OVER CLASS OF WORKER Labor Force Participation Rate Total, Employed* Private Wage Total TOTAL, MALES 3,116,798 2,173,208 69.7 1,925,949 76.6 11.7 11.6 0.1 Native-born 1,734,228 1,134,909 65.4 979,674 72.9 15.5 11.4 0.1 Foreign-born 1,382,570 1,038,299 75.1 946,275 80.4 7.8 11.8 0.0 Government SelfEmployed Unpaid Family Worker In the Labor Force Dominican Republic 137,971 99,575 72.2 87,071 81.5 6.8 11.7 – China 160,231 108,297 67.6 100,638 84.8 5.0 10.1 0.1 Mexico 110,326 102,597 93.0 98,904 93.1 1.6 5.3 – Jamaica 66,894 49,291 73.7 41,322 78.3 14.7 7.1 – Guyana 58,395 42,973 73.6 37,756 75.4 17.8 6.8 – Ecuador 75,570 63,711 84.3 58,887 87.1 2.7 10.2 – Haiti 41,683 29,337 70.4 25,498 74.3 15.2 10.6 – Trinidad and Tobago 33,944 24,954 73.5 21,442 74.5 12.7 12.7 – India 42,392 33,340 78.6 31,311 76.6 6.6 16.8 – Russia 27,574 19,070 69.2 16,681 71.6 12.8 15.6 – Bangladesh 37,504 30,393 81.0 27,986 68.5 3.1 28.4 – Korea 25,643 18,606 72.6 17,237 78.7 5.7 15.6 – Colombia 27,852 20,831 74.8 18,782 85.3 3.0 11.7 – Ukraine 28,936 16,400 56.7 15,048 78.0 10.0 12.1 – Poland 23,231 16,739 72.1 15,196 79.1 7.9 13.0 – Philippines 15,898 10,873 68.4 10,003 72.7 19.4 8.0 – Italy 26,172 12,428 47.5 11,920 68.6 14.9 16.6 – Pakistan 19,562 16,241 83.0 15,228 70.4 10.2 19.3 – United Kingdom 16,054 12,847 80.0 11,231 84.4 4.1 11.5 – El Salvador 14,688 13,129 89.4 12,371 98.2 0.6 1.2 – *Ages 16 and over, employed in the civilian labor force Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning (84 percent), followed by Pakistanis (83 percent) and Bangladeshis (81 percent). Among groups from the nonhispanic Caribbean, 74 percent of Jamaicans, Guyanese, and Trinidadians were in the labor force—around the average for immigrants, but higher than the city average—as were 70 percent of Haitians. With the exception of 106 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition the British (80 percent), European groups had lower levels of labor force participation: the rate was just 48 percent for Italians, 57 percent for Ukrainians, and 69 percent for Russians. The lower labor force participation rates for Europeans were partly due to the fact that they were disproportionately in the older age groups, where labor force participation tends to be lower. Occupation and Class of Worker Figure 4-4 shows that approximately one-third of males in the city were in managerial and professional occupations. (Please see Table 4-7 for definitions of occupational groupings.) Native-born males were disproportionately in these high-end occupations (45 percent), compared with immigrant males (23 percent). Over 70 percent of immigrants from the United Kingdom were in managerial and professional occupations, the highest of any group, followed by Filipinos and Indians, half of whom were in these high-end occupations. Though Ukrainian and Russian labor force participation was low (see above), among those who were employed, approxi- Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 107 mately 4-in-10 were in managerial and professional occupations. Occupations of workers tend to be correlated with education, and these five groups had among the highest proportions of college graduates. Fewer than one-in-five immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean were in managerial and professional occupations, and Latin American groups had the lowest percentages employed in these highend occupations, with the percentages in the single digits for Mexicans, Salvadorans, Ecuadorians, and Dominicans. While most foreign-born groups were underrepresented in managerial and professional occupations, they were overrepresented in the other broad occupational categories, where groups had distinct niches. Latin Americans, for example, were disproportionately represented in service occupations, with close to one-half of Mexicans, and approximately 30 percent to 40 percent of Ecuadorians, Dominicans, Colombians, and Salvadorans in these occupations. In contrast, many European groups had a striking reliance on construction, extraction, and maintenance occupations, with 36 percent of Poles, and approximately one-fifth of Italians and Ukrainians employed in these occupations, compared with 11 percent of all city residents. The group disproportionately represented in sales and office occupations were Koreans, with over 4-in-10 so classified, twice the city average. Finally, groups disproportionately represented in production, transportation and material moving occupations included Pakistanis, 47 percent of whom were employed in these occupations, as well as one-third of Haitians and Bangladeshis, compared with 14 percent for the city. Besides a worker’s occupation, it is important to examine the type of organization employing the worker, defined as the class of worker (Table 4-6). The overwhelming majority of city residents (77 percent) are private wage and salary workers; 12 percent work for the federal, state, or city governments; and 12 percent are self-employed. Foreign-born workers are more likely than the native-born to be private wage and salary workers (80 percent versus 73 percent) and are much less likely to be government workers (8 percent versus 16 percent). 108 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition MAJOR OCCUPATION GROUPS AND EXAMPLES OF INCLUDED OCCUPATIONS Table 4-7 Definitions of Occupation Groups Management, Professional & Related Occupations: Chief executives, legislators, marketing and sales managers, logisticians, budget analysts, computer programmers, network and computer system administrators, aerospace engineers, astronomers and physicists, economists, sociologists, social workers, clergy, lawyers, paralegals and legal assistants, teachers, librarians, actors, dancers and choreographers, technical writers, photographers, chiropractors, dentists, registered nurses, therapists. Service: Massage therapists, dental assistants, fire fighters, police officers, chefs and head cooks, food preparation workers, bartenders, waiters and waitresses, dishwashers, janitors and cleaners, maids and housekeeping cleaners, barbers, child care workers, personal and care aides, recreation and fitness workers. Sales & Office: Cashiers, advertising sales agents, real estate brokers and sales agents, payroll and timekeeping clerks, procurement clerks, customer service representatives, receptionists and information clerks, couriers and messengers, dispatchers, postal service clerks, secretaries and administrative assistants, word processors and typists. Farming, Fishing, & Forestry: Agricultural inspectors, animal breeders, fishing and hunting workers, forest and conservation workers. Construction, Extraction, & Maintenance: Carpenters, construction laborers, electricians, glaziers, insulation workers, roofers, sheet metal workers, iron and steel workers, elevator installers and repairers, fence erectors, highway maintenance workers, mining machine operators, security and fire alarm systems installers, aircraft mechanics and service technicians, automotive service technicians and mechanics, home appliance repairers, electrical power-line installers and repairers, telecommunications line installers and repairers, precision instrument and equipment repairers, commercial divers, locksmiths and safe repairers, riggers, signal and track switch repairers. Production, Transportation, & Material Moving: Bakers, butchers, machinists, tool and die makers, job printers, laundry workers, sewing machine operators, painting workers, aircraft pilots and flight engineers, bus drivers, driver/sales work ers and truck drivers, taxi drivers and chauffeurs, locomotive engineers and operators, subway and street car operators, sailors and marine oilers, parking lot attendants, automotive and watercraft service attendants, industrial truck and tractor operators, cleaners of vehicles and equipment, pumping station operators, refuse and recyclable material collectors, mine shuttle car operators, truck and ship loaders. Many foreign-born groups had high levels of entrepreneurship. Self-employment was highest among Asian groups. The percent of self-employed Bangladeshis (28 percent), Pakistanis (19 percent), Indians and Italians (17 percent each), and Russians and Koreans (16 percent each) was significantly higher than that for all city residents (12 percent). In comparison, nonhispanic Caribbean groups had high percentages in government, led by Guyanese (18 percent), and Haitians and Jamaicans (15 percent each). Filipinos, however, had the largest share in government, with nearly one-in-five so employed. Latin American groups were disproportionately private wage and salary workers, ranging from 98 percent for Salvadorans and 93 percent of Mexicans, to 87 percent for Ecuadorians and 85 percent for Colombians. Table 4-8 Male Earnings by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 MALES, AGES 16 AND OVER EMPLOYED FULL TIME* Total TOTAL, MALES Mean Earnings Ratio: Subgroup to Total 1.00 1,650,873 $68,255 Native-born 819,491 $86,416 1.27 Foreign-born 831,382 $50,354 0.74 0.50 Dominican Republic 71,653 $34,193 China 86,472 $44,349 0.65 Mexico 91,043 $25,792 0.38 Jamaica 36,821 $46,162 0.68 Guyana 32,469 $47,463 0.70 0.50 Earnings consist of income derived from employment, either in the form of wages and salary or self-employment income. Table 4-8 provides information on the earnings of full-time workers 16 years of age and over. The mean earnings for city residents was $68,300, with large differences by nativity. On average, foreign-born males earned $50,400 annually, much lower than the native-born mean of $86,400. Among foreign-born groups, only immigrants from the United Kingdom ($127,800), India ($72,600), and Italy ($71,600) had earnings at or above the city average. Other top earners included Russians ($67,100) at 98 percent of the city average, Poles ($63,400), and Ukrainians and Filipinos (roughly $60,000 each). Thus, while some European groups had among the lowest labor force participation rates, earnings were relatively high for those who were employed. This was true for not only the more established Italians, but also for more recent entrants, such as Russians and Ukrainians, who had high levels of educational attainment. Earnings for groups from the nonhispanic Caribbean ranged from $47,500 for Guyanese (70 percent of the city average) to under $44,000 for Haitians and Trinidadians (at 64 percent of the city average). As with so many characteristics, there was 50,939 $34,447 21,103 $43,700 0.64 Trinidad and Tobago Earnings Ecuador Haiti 17,362 $43,576 0.64 India 29,630 $72,572 1.06 Russia 15,549 $67,122 0.98 Bangladesh 24,678 $36,045 0.53 Korea 14,588 $45,897 0.67 Colombia 15,472 $48,695 0.71 Ukraine 12,694 $59,976 0.88 Poland 14,615 $63,382 0.93 9,226 $59,827 0.88 Italy 11,085 $71,593 1.05 0.69 Philippines Pakistan 13,036 $46,810 United Kingdom 10,231 $127,794 1.87 El Salvador 11,254 $29,790 0.44 *At least 35 hours a week Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning considerable variation in earning levels among immigrant Asian subgroups. As noted earlier, Indian and Filipino men were among the highest earners, but earnings for Chinese, Korean, and Pakistani men were between 65 percent and 69 percent of the city average, while Bangladeshi earnings came in at only $36,000, or 53 percent of the city average. Among immigrant Hispanic subgroups, Colombian earnings ($48,700) were at 71 percent of the city average, Ecuadorians and Dominicans earned half the city average, while Salvadorans and Mexicans earned just 44 percent and 38 percent, respectively, of the city average. Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 109 Table 4-9 Labor Force Participation and Class of Worker for Females by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 LABOR FORCE PARTICIPATION FEMALES, 16 AND OVER Total TOTAL, FEMALES Native-born Foreign-born Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti Trinidad and Tobago India Russia Bangladesh Korea Colombia Ukraine Poland Philippines Italy Pakistan United Kingdom El Salvador 3,551,776 1,984,576 1,567,200 209,321 184,344 64,213 98,439 74,107 63,180 54,528 51,094 34,155 45,308 32,437 40,715 34,304 33,762 28,641 27,450 24,149 15,869 16,233 15,586 In the Labor Force 2,050,255 1,151,269 898,986 124,293 100,735 30,427 69,004 49,085 33,725 34,153 34,984 19,064 27,266 11,779 23,485 17,791 18,705 15,619 19,434 7,542 3,361 11,464 8,271 CLASS OF WORKER Labor Force Participation Rate Total, Employed* Private Wage Government 57.7 58.0 57.4 59.4 54.6 47.4 70.1 66.2 53.4 62.6 68.5 55.8 60.2 36.3 57.7 51.9 55.4 54.5 70.8 31.2 21.2 70.6 53.1 1,822,911 1,014,345 808,566 110,032 93,395 24,872 62,130 42,562 29,649 30,517 31,187 17,246 25,238 9,452 21,881 16,494 17,414 15,101 18,649 7,137 3,053 11,020 7,661 76.6 75.0 78.6 78.1 84.8 82.1 77.4 82.2 82.2 78.7 68.5 81.3 83.6 92.0 77.3 76.8 83.1 74.8 83.4 65.3 72.8 62.4 84.9 15.7 18.3 12.5 13.0 8.8 1.7 16.8 14.2 7.9 17.5 20.6 12.2 11.0 8.0 4.7 7.4 8.7 16.3 12.9 23.3 19.6 18.3 1.9 SelfEmployed 7.6 6.6 8.9 8.8 6.3 16.2 5.8 3.7 9.6 3.8 11.0 6.5 5.3 – 18.0 15.8 8.1 8.9 3.7 11.3 7.6 19.3 11.8 Unpaid Family Worker 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 – – – 0.3 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1.3 *Ages 16 and over, employed in the civilian labor force Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning LABOR FORCE CHARACTERISTICS—FEMALES Labor Force Participation Rate While immigrant males had a labor force participation rate 10 points higher than native-born males, Table 4-9 shows that immigrant female labor force participation (57 percent) was similar to that of native-born females (58 percent). 110 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Immigrant women from the Philippines and the United Kingdom had among the highest labor force participation rate (71 percent each); immigrant Filipinas were the only top 20 group whose labor force participation exceeded that of their immigrant male counterparts. Others with high labor force participation included four nonhispanic Caribbean groups: Jamaicans (70 percent), Trinidadians (69 percent), Guyanese (66 percent), and Haitians (63 percent). While these groups had lower labor force participation rates than their male counterparts, the differential was generally smaller, compared with other top 20 groups. The high levels of labor force participation among nonhispanic Caribbean women stood in stark contrast to that of most other immigrant women. Among Asians, for example, while Filipinas had high levels of labor force participation, rates were average for Koreans, marginally below average for Indians (56 percent) and for Chinese (55 percent), and exceedingly low for Bangladeshis (36 percent) and Pakistanis (21 percent). The low rates for South Asian women were in marked contrast to Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 111 those for male South Asians, who had among the highest labor force participation rates in the city. Similarly, Latin Americans, except for Dominicans (59 percent), had levels of labor force participation below the city average for women. Among European groups, while immigrants from the United Kingdom had very high labor force participation, Russians (60 percent) were above average, and the rate for Ukrainians (55 percent) was marginally lower than that for the city. Italians had the lowest labor force participation (31 percent) among Europeans, but as with their male counterparts, this may be related to the disproportionate share in the older age groups. Occupation and Class of Worker Four-in-ten females in the city were in managerial and professional occupations (Figure 4-5), but immigrant females were underrepresented in these occupations (32 percent), as well as in sales and office occupations (22 percent versus 28 percent for the city), and were overrepresented in service occupations (40 percent versus 27 percent for the city). Occupational niches, however, differed by group. As with their male counterparts, a high proportion of Filipinas and Indians (57 percent each) were managers and professionals, as were approximately one-half of Pakistanis and Koreans. British women, however, had the highest proportion of managers and professionals (69 percent), just as their male counterparts ranked highest among all males. Latin American groups had the lowest percentages in managerial and professional occupations—and were disproportionately represented in service occupations. Seventy percent of Salvadorans, over 5-in-10 Mexicans and Dominicans, and 43 percent of Colombians were employed as service workers—all significantly above the city average of 27 percent. Nonhispanic Caribbean women also had an above average representation in service occupations, with 62 percent of Haitians, roughly one-half of Jamaicans and Trinidadians, and 40 percent of Guyanese employed in these occupations. As noted earlier, foreign-born women had a lower representation in sales and office occupations, compared with the city average of 28 percent. The 112 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition three foreign-born groups with above average representation in these occupations were Bangladeshis (59 percent), Italians (42 percent), and Ecuadorians (30 percent). While only 5 percent of all foreign-born women were in the production, transportation and material moving occupations, 15 percent of Ecuadorians, 10 percent of Mexicans, and 8 percent of Chinese and Dominicans were employed in these occupations. With respect to class of worker (Table 4-9), foreign-born women were less likely to be government workers (13 percent), compared with women in the city overall (16 percent). Among immigrant women, those from the nonhispanic Caribbean had a high percentage of government workers, with 21 percent of Trinidadians, 18 percent of Haitians, and 17 percent of Jamaicans so classified. Italians, however, had the highest percentage of government workers, with nearly one-in-four in this category. Foreign-born women were more likely to be self-employed (9 percent), compared with their nativeborn counterparts (7 percent). Foreign-born groups with the highest percentage of self-employment included the British (19 percent), Koreans (18 percent), and Mexicans and Colombians (16 percent each). Earnings Female earnings in the city averaged $55,500 (Table 4-10), with native-born females ($62,600) earning substantially more than their foreign-born counterparts ($46,500). However, overall differences by nativity among females were not as great as those among males. Many Asian groups had among the highest immigrant earnings, including Filipinas ($63,500), Koreans ($59,100), and Indians ($56,900), all marginally higher than the city average. Chinese women ($50,500) earned 91 percent of the mean, while Pakistani and Bangladeshi earnings stood at $45,500 and $31,400, respectively. Koreans and Chinese were the only groups where female earnings were significantly higher than male earnings. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY Table 4-10 Female Earnings by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 FEMALES, AGES 16 AND OVER EMPLOYED FULL TIME* Total Mean Earnings Ratio: Subgroup to Total 1,402,902 $55,520 1.00 Native-born 782,407 $62,646 1.13 Foreign-born 620,495 $46,535 0.84 80,718 $28,355 0.51 China 68,327 $50,539 0.91 Mexico 17,025 $25,150 0.45 Jamaica 52,133 $43,275 0.78 Guyana 35,493 $40,192 0.72 Ecuador 23,032 $31,757 0.57 Haiti 25,776 $37,511 0.68 Trinidad and Tobago 23,895 $43,856 0.79 India 13,918 $56,872 1.02 Russia 19,774 $55,971 1.01 0.57 TOTAL, FEMALES Dominican Republic Bangladesh 6,073 $31,435 Korea 16,276 $59,139 1.07 Colombia 11,226 $40,858 0.74 Ukraine 13,427 $51,953 0.94 Poland 11,564 $53,656 0.97 Philippines 15,754 $63,487 1.14 Italy 4,549 $53,201 0.96 Pakistan 2,497 $45,492 0.82 United Kingdom 7,812 $87,631 1.58 El Salvador 4,698 $20,355 0.37 *At least 35 hours a week Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Women from the United Kingdom had the highest earnings ($87,600) in the city, though their European counterparts from Russia, Poland, Italy, and Ukraine earned around the city average or slightly less. Earnings for Caribbean subgroups, which had very high labor force participation rates, were less than the city average. Trinidadian and Jamaicans earnings stood at $43,900 and $43,300, respectively, followed by the earnings of Guyanese ($40,200) and Haitians ($37,500). Hispanic subgroups generally had lower earnings, ranging from a high of $40,900 for Colombians to a low of just $20,400 for Salvadorans. The demographic, social, and economic characteristics of foreign-born groups reflect their diverse origins. Groups organize their households so as to maximize their strengths. Thus, examining human capital that a group possesses, as well as its household configuration, leads to a more complete understanding of a group’s socioeconomic attainment. This in turn helps policy makers and program planners better understand how groups fit into the social and economic fabric of the city. An examination of the 20 largest foreign-born groups revealed differences in demographic, social, and economic characteristics. Groups with relatively disadvantageous socioeconomic characteristics used various strategies to make their households economically viable, especially by having multiple workers in the household. This was particularly true for Ecuadorians. In 2011, less than 60 percent of Ecuadorians had a high school diploma, and male and female earnings were at 50 percent and 57 percent, respectively, of the city average. However, the average number of workers in an Ecuadorian household (1.9 persons) was among the highest in the city. The combined earnings of multiple earners in Ecuadorian households resulted in household income that was 93 percent of the city median, and poverty was at the city average. While such a strategy may improve a household’s economic viability, it resulted in 23 percent of Ecuadorian households being overcrowded. This overcrowding was a function of the sheer size of Ecuadorian households (averaging 3.9 persons per household), set against a backdrop of a housing stock that is characterized by an abundance of small, aging units. Latin American groups, in general, had among the lowest levels of socioeconomic attainment. For example, among Dominicans, the largest foreign-born group, only 55 percent had completed high school; labor force participation rates were marginally above the city average, but earnings for Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 113 A SOCIOECONOMIC SNAPSHOT OF THE RECENTLY ARRIVED FOREIGN-BORN Newly arrived immigrants often need time to adjust to the U.S. labor market. Many of them lack English-language proficiency and have to accept lower-level jobs than they may have held in their home countries. As a result, newly arrived immigrants tend to have a lower socioeconomic profile than their counterparts who arrived earlier. Over time, however, many new immigrants acquire language skills, further education, and U.S. work experience and licenses that qualify them for higher-level positions, leading to an increase in socioeconomic attainment. The less favorable socioeconomic characteristics of recent entrants (Table 4-11) become evident when they are compared with those of the overall foreign-born population. For example, recent entrants, defined as those who entered the U.S. in 2000 or later, had a higher percentage not English proficient, compared with the overall foreign-born population (54 percent versus 49 percent), lower household income ($40,700 versus $43,700), and higher poverty (23 percent versus 20 percent). For both male and female recent entrants, earnings were significantly lower than those for the overall population of foreign-born males and females, respectively. It is worth noting, however, that recent entrants from the United Kingdom, Philippines, India, and Italy generally have superior socioeconomic characteristics compared with those for the city overall—and sometimes have better characteristics than their compatriots who entered earlier. Table 4-11 Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics for Foreign-born Arriving in 2000 and Later by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 Total Population TOTAL, NYC Native-born Foreign-born Arrived 2000 or later Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti Trinidad and Tobago India Russia Bangladesh Korea Colombia Ukraine Poland Philippines Italy Pakistan United Kingdom El Salvador Percent Not English Proficient Percent College or higher Percent below Poverty Median Household Income 8,244,426 23.0 34.4 20.7 5,184,514 3,059,912 1,035,758 111,672 132,766 94,491 40,331 42,987 50,308 31,581 24,343 32,471 18,781 37,540 26,023 18,571 12,705 15,237 18,242 6,413 16,128 15,059 8,587 6.2 48.8 54.1 74.0 77.6 83.4 0.6 1.5 78.6 60.0 1.5 28.3 65.9 67.5 71.4 65.7 70.7 58.6 22.9 32.8 53.5 0.9 78.0 40.4 27.9 30.6 11.7 20.9 6.3 14.2 9.0 10.8 16.3 13.5 69.5 49.8 36.6 63.2 29.8 47.1 39.9 64.2 48.3 32.7 68.2 – 21.3 19.8 23.2 36.8 22.2 31.5 17.1 19.4 25.3 19.7 16.9 13.7 25.9 27.1 31.0 28.8 15.0 8.8 6.9 20.6 40.1 15.8 30.3 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 114 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition MEAN EARNINGS OF PERSONS AGES 16 AND OVER, EMPLOYED FULL-TIME Males Females $49,792 $68,255 $55,520 $54,679 $43,682 $40,729 $24,336 $38,184 $31,362 $39,711 $42,766 $35,638 $37,675 $40,729 $82,884 $30,547 $35,129 $27,492 $37,675 $52,948 $51,930 $51,930 $35,638 $35,638 $96,733 – $86,416 $50,354 $44,299 $26,443 $30,643 $24,333 $36,744 $30,405 $28,008 $36,769 $28,364 $71,007 $46,201 $29,292 $40,129 $31,754 $43,123 $62,143 $55,318 $72,873 $48,859 $105,617 $23,053 $62,646 $46,535 $41,928 $20,880 $37,046 $24,217 $34,250 $31,606 $22,638 $27,840 $35,978 $54,825 $38,079 $30,026 $46,710 $33,729 $36,440 $45,012 $52,139 $55,473 $39,716 $95,901 $25,316 both males and females were approximately one-half the city mean. Dominican households were disproportionately female-headed, and with the number of workers per household only slightly above the city average, household income was just one-half the city median and nearly one-third lived in poverty. Salvadoran households were also disproportionately female-headed, and Salvadorans and Mexicans had lower educational attainment than Dominicans; their earnings were marginally lower than those of Dominicans. However, Salvadoran and Mexican males had extremely high labor force participation rates and their households had among the highest number of workers in the city. This resulted in household incomes and poverty rates that were more advantageous than those for Dominicans, though significantly less favorable than those for the city overall. As noted earlier, Ecuadorian household income was at 93 percent of the city median, followed by Colombians at 89 percent of the median. As with Dominican and Salvadoran households, those from the nonhispanic Caribbean had a percentage of female-headed households that was above the city average. But unlike their Latin American counterparts, Jamaican, Trinidadian, Guyanese, and Haitian females had among the highest labor force participation rates in the city, and rates for males were at the city average or higher. Moreover, except for Haitians, English-language proficiency was high for these groups because they come from English-speaking countries. While levels of college completion and earnings for nonhispanic Caribbean groups were below the city average, thanks to their higher labor force participation, household incomes were around the city median for the Guyanese, Jamaicans, and Haitians. Moreover, poverty rates for these groups, as well as for Trinidadians, were below the city average. As has been true for earlier waves of immigrants, a large share of nonhispanic Caribbean groups used employment in government as a path to upward mobility. Among European groups, immigrants from the United Kingdom had socioeconomic characteristics that were far superior to those of the overall foreign- and native-born populations. British male and female immigrants had among the highest rates of labor force participation in the city, the highest proportion of managers and professionals, and the highest earnings in the city. Labor force participation and earnings for other European groups were around the city average or lower, as were the size of their households. With the exception of British immigrants, Europeans are older than other immigrants, and this reflected in their smaller households. One consequence was that the number of workers in Russian, Ukrainian, and Italian households was below average, which resulted in significantly lower household incomes for these groups. Nevertheless, poverty was at the city average or lower for these groups, as household income had to support fewer people in the household. As noted earlier, the larger households of many Latin American and nonhispanic Caribbean groups allowed them to pool resources from multiple workers in the household, who generally had earnings below the city average. In contrast, the higher earnings of Europeans made a small household strategy feasible for many of them. An added benefit was that overcrowding was significantly below the city average. Foreign-born Asians had a range of socioeconomic attainment, with Indians and Filipinos at the high end, trailed by Koreans, Chinese, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. Nearly two-thirds of Indians had a college degree and they were disproportionately in professional and managerial occupations; labor force participation rates for males exceeded those for the city, while the female rate was marginally lower than that for all women. High earnings of males and females resulted in a household income ($83,800) that was 68 percent higher than the city median—which was also partly due to the large number of workers in Indian households. Filipinos also had favorable socioeconomic characteristics: Female labor force Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 115 participation and earnings were significantly higher than the city average, and Filipino household income was 55 percent higher than the city median. Koreans too had very favorable educational characteristics, but 63 percent were not proficient in English, leading many to choose self-employment as a path to upward mobility. Korean household income was at 90 percent of the city median and poverty was below the city average; home ownership was below the overall city rate, but Koreans were the only Asian group to live in households that were significantly less overcrowded than the city average. Pakistanis and Chinese were a contrast. The high Pakistani male labor force participation rate (83 percent) exceeded that of Chinese males (68 percent), but the low Pakistani female labor force participation rate (21 percent) was less than one-half that of Chinese females (55 percent). Pakistani household income stood at $50,900, compared with $42,800 for Chinese households, though Pakistanis had a higher rate of poverty (28 percent versus 20 percent for the Chinese), partly due to their larger household size. As with Pakistanis, the high Bangladeshi male labor force participation rate stood in contrast with the low rate for females. Bangladeshis had low earnings and household income among Asian groups, and a high poverty level. The socioeconomic attainment of immigrants is affected by the set of skills they bring to the U.S. Indeed, many of New York’s recent immigrants, defined as those entering in 2000 or later, have high levels of educational attainment, which positively affects their overall socioeconomic attainment. Among recent entrants from India, 70 percent were college graduates, as were 68 percent of recent entrants from the United Kingdom and 64 percent from the Philippines; this compared with 34 percent of city residents who had a college degree. These three groups disproportionately entered the U.S. under the employment preferences (see Chapter 6), which are generally open to those with high-end skills and educational credentials. Earnings of recent male and female entrants from the United Kingdom surpassed the city mean, while the earnings of recent Indian male 116 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition entrants were around the city average. Household income among recent British ($96,700) and Indian ($82,900) immigrants significantly exceeded the city median of $49,800, while Filipino household income was around that of the city. The socioeconomic characteristics of the larger streams of recent entrants to New York, however, are generally below those of the city overall. With the exception of Indians and Russians, among recent entrants from each of the city’s top 10 foreign-born groups, the percentage of college graduates was below the city average. Earnings, as well as household income, for most of these recent entrants were also below the city average. Newly arrived immigrants often accept lower-level jobs than they may have held in their home countries, and their earnings tend to be below the city average. But after acquiring experience in the U.S. labor market and becoming more proficient in English, earnings tend to increase; indeed, for many of the 20 top foreign-born groups in our cross-sectional analysis, earnings were significantly higher for the overall foreign-born population, compared with recent entrants. Given that recent entrants generally have less favorable socioeconomic characteristics, groups that are overwhelmingly comprised of recent entrants (Mexicans and Bangladeshis, for example) tend to have lower overall levels of socioeconomic attainment. ENDNOTES 1 The analysis presented in this chapter is based on the 2011 ACS Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS). The PUMS is a one percent sample of addresses nationally, with measures incorporated to protect the confidentiality of individual respondents. It is an invaluable source for customized tabulations, and provides content detail unavailable in any other census product. Since the figures from the PUMS file are based on a sample of the population, estimates are subject to sampling variability (i.e., sampling error). Differences that have been determined to be meaningful were statistically significant at p <10 (i.e., less than a 10 percent probability that the difference occurred by chance). 2 The recently arrived foreign-born tend to be younger than all foreign-born residents. Among New York City’s foreign-born who arrived in the U.S. in 2000 or later, 13 percent were under the age of 18, 65 percent were between the ages of 18 and 44, 18 percent were between the ages of 45 and 64, and 4 percent were 65 and over. The median age for the recently arrived was 32 years, compared with 44 years for all foreign-born residents. 7 Dropout rates among young adults, ages 17 to 24, were calculated using 5 year (2007–2011) PUMS data. The subpopulation of young adults is relatively small and the use of 5 year data helped increase sample size, thus providing for more reliable estimates. Greater reliability, however, came at the cost of using data that were less current—data that were aggregated over five years, as opposed to one year data in the 2011 PUMS. 8 Households with at least one person receiving public assistance were defined as receiving public assistance income. 9 The labor force participation rate was calculated on those ages 16 and over. Data on occupation and class of worker were determined for those ages 16 and over, who were employed. Earnings were calculated for those ages 16 and over, who were employed and worked at least 35 hours a week. Negative earnings were recoded to 0. 3 The median age of the foreign-born increased from 39 years in 2000 to 44 years in 2011; the median age of the native-born increased from 28 years to 29 years during this period. The large increase in the median age of the foreign-born was due to the smaller share of recent entrants—who tend to be younger than the general immigrant population—in the overall foreign-born population. Please see Chapter 7 for more details. 4 There is a relatively short supply of large housing units in New York City. ACS data show that housing units with 3 or more bedrooms comprised just 29 percent of all housing in New York City in 2011, but accounted for 46 percent of the housing units in the NY-NJ-PA Metro Area. This is related to the old housing stock and the high cost of housing in New York City. 5 Those ages five and over who spoke a language other than English at home were asked whether they spoke English very well, well, not well, or not at all. According to the Census Bureau, data from other surveys suggest a major difference between the category very well and the remaining categories. Thus, those not English proficient were defined as persons who spoke a language other than English at home and who spoke English well, not well, or not at all. The population that was not English proficient was percentaged on the population ages five and over to obtain the percent not English-proficient. 6 Those born in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico are U.S. citizens by birth. Spanish is the primary language of Puerto Rico. See Salvo, Ortiz and Lobo, 1994. Puerto Rican New Yorkers in 1990. New York: New York City Department of City Planning. Chapter 4: Socio-Demographic Profile of the Foreign-Born 117 1 1 8 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition CHAPTER Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective The impact of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Amendments on the New York metropolitan region was initially localized in New York City, which for the first time saw the entry of large numbers of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the nonhispanic Caribbean. Gradually, new patterns of immigrant settlement emerged. While New York City continued to be the primary destination for immigrants in the area, counties adjacent to New York City became secondary destinations of settlement as many immigrants migrated out of the city to make their homes in suburban counties in the region. In recent decades, these counties have become gateway destinations in their own right as many newly arrived immigrants have bypassed the five boroughs in favor of settling in other parts of the region. These flows have resulted in enclaves of post-1965 immigrants across the region. This chapter examines overall patterns of immigrant settlement in the New York metropolitan region. For the purposes of this analysis, the first section subdivides counties in the region into three subregions: New York City, the inner ring of counties that are adjacent to the city, and the outer counties along the region’s periphery. The second section examines the role of the foreign-born in the population growth of each county and its impact on the racial make-up of the region. (Appendix Tables 5-1, 5-2, and 5-3 provide demographic information for each county.) The third section then analyzes immigrant settlement patterns by area of origin and country of birth for each subregion and county. The final section focuses on the diverse patterns of immigrant settlement, highlighting new patterns that show substantial immigrant settlement in wealthier places across the region. The New York Metropolitan Region and its Subregions The New York metropolitan region encompasses 12,600 square miles across portions of New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The region was home to 22.3 million people in 2011, an all time high. The metropolitan region is comprised of 31 counties of varying population sizes (Figures 5-1 and 5-2): the five boroughs of New York City; seven counties in the Hudson Valley (Westchester, Rockland, Putnam, Dutchess, Ulster, Orange and Sullivan) and 2 on Long Island (Nassau and Suffolk); 3 counties in Connecticut (Fairfield, New Haven, and Litchfield); and 14 counties primarily in northern New Jersey (Hudson, Essex, Passaic, Union, Middlesex, Bergen, Morris, Somerset, Mercer, Monmouth, Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, and Ocean). Although both New York City and the inner counties each represent nearly two-fifths of the region’s population, New York City’s 8.2 million persons occupy only 2 percent of the region’s land area, resulting in a density in excess of 27,000 persons per square mile. In 2011, 37 percent of New York City residents were foreign-born, but counties adjacent to the city also had relatively high immigrant concentrations, a reflection of their evolution into major destination areas for post-1965 immigrants. Hudson, across the river from New York City was 40 percent foreign-born—higher than any county in the region, except for Queens. Other counties that had substantial percentages of immigrants included Middlesex, Bergen, Passaic, Union, Essex (each more than one-quarter foreign-born), as well as Somerset, Westchester, Rockland, Nassau, Fairfield and Morris (each 19 percent or more foreign-born). These counties surrounding New York City had 119 Figure 5-1 Percent Foreign-born by County New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 Percent Foreign-born 2 25.0 or more 20.0 to 24.9 10.0 to 19.9 Less than 10.0 Dutchess Inner County Boundary New York City Orange Westchester Rockland Passaic Bergen Middlesex Total Foreign-born Percent Population Population Foreign-born NY Metro. Region 22,342,470 5,986,283 26.8 New York City 8,244,910 3,066,599 37.2 Inner Counties 8,554,344 2,246,217 26.3 Outer Counties 5,543,216 673,467 12.1 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey -- Summary File Population Division -- New York City Department of City Planning among the highest immigrant concentrations in the region, and given their proximity to the city, are labeled “inner counties.” The inner counties had a population totaling 8.6 million, or 38 percent of the region’s population. Population density in the inner counties averaged 2,600 persons per square mile, but ranged from a high of 13,700 persons per square mile in Hudson, to a low of 1,070 in Somerset and Morris. The most populous inner county was Nassau, with 1.3 million people, followed by Westchester (955,900), Fairfield (925,900), and Bergen (911,100). Counties that were farthest from New York City generally were less than 15 percent foreign-born (the exception being Mercer County, which was onefifth foreign-born) and are labeled “outer counties.” Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 121 This outer ring includes Orange, Putnam, Dutchess, Ulster, Sullivan and Suffolk in New York State; New Haven and Litchfield in Connecticut; and Sussex, Warren, Hunterdon, Mercer, Monmouth, and Ocean in New Jersey. The outer counties, with 5.5 million people, accounted for 25 percent of the region’s population. These counties were less densely populated, with densities ranging from over 1,600 persons per square mile in Mercer and Suffolk to 80 persons per square mile in Sullivan; the average was 616 persons per square mile. Suffolk was, by far, the most populous county in the outer ring (1.5 million), followed by New Haven (861,100), Monmouth (631,000), and Ocean (579,400). While population in the region was heavily concentrated in New York City and its adjacent counties, these areas accounted for an even greater share of the foreign-born. Of the 5.2 million foreign-born in the region, just over one-half lived in New York City, while 38 percent lived in the inner counties; just 11 percent of immigrants made their home in the outer counties (Figure 5-3). 122 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Population Growth in the Subregions, 1900–2011: the Role of the Foreign-born The New York metropolitan region saw dramatic growth in the last century, more than tripling in size, from 6.2 million in 1900 to 22.3 million in 2011 (Table 5-1 and Figure 5-4). This growth has been fueled by the entry of immigrants and their U.S.-born descendants. Over this period, New York City has remained at the region’s core, but its share of the region’s population has declined, from 56 percent in 1900 to 37 percent in 2011. In the first decade of the last century, New York City’s population increased 39 percent, from 3.4 million in 1900 to 4.8 million in 1910. This was a result of the large European flow to the city, which was reflected in the 53 percent growth in the city’s foreign-born population in the decade. Overall population growth in the inner counties, however, was even higher (42 percent), with the foreign-born component increasing 55 percent. With immigration flows curtailed in the mid-1910s due to World War I, and again in the mid-1920s due to restrictionist immigration legislation, population growth was mod- Table 5-1 Population by Nativity New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 1900–2011 FOREIGN-BORN GROWTH OVER DECADE Total Population Native-born Foreign-born Year Total Population Native-born Number Percent NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 6,179,423 8,391,061 10,023,449 12,636,464 13,565,549 15,146,950 17,625,675 19,747,870 19,190,781 19,843,157 21,491,898 22,342,470 4,254,108 5,458,713 6,916,290 9,010,213 10,330,614 12,340,815 15,014,661 17,220,006 16,230,641 16,167,965 16,291,276 16,356,187 1,925,315 2,932,348 3,107,159 3,626,251 3,234,935 2,806,135 2,611,014 2,527,864 2,960,140 3,675,192 5,200,622 5,986,283 31.2 34.9 31.0 28.7 23.8 18.5 14.8 12.8 15.4 18.5 24.2 26.8 – – – 35.8 19.5 26.1 7.4 11.7 16.4 12.0 -2.8 3.4 8.3 4.0 28.3 26.7 30.3 14.7 19.5 21.7 14.7 -5.7 -0.4 0.8 0.4 52.3 6.0 16.7 -10.8 -13.3 -7.0 -3.2 17.1 24.2 41.5 15.1 New York City 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 3,437,202 4,766,883 5,620,048 6,930,446 7,454,995 7,891,957 7,783,314 7,894,798 7,071,639 7,322,564 8,008,278 8,244,910 2,167,122 2,822,526 3,591,888 4,571,760 5,316,338 6,107,751 6,224,624 6,457,740 5,401,440 5,239,633 5,137,246 5,178,311 1,270,080 1,944,357 2,028,160 2,358,686 2,138,657 1,784,206 1,558,690 1,437,058 1,670,199 2,082,931 2,871,032 3,066,599 37.0 40.8 36.1 34.0 28.7 22.6 20.0 18.2 23.6 28.4 35.9 37.2 – – – 38.7 17.9 23.3 7.6 5.9 -1.4 1.4 -10.4 3.5 9.4 3.0 30.2 27.3 27.3 16.3 14.9 1.9 3.7 -16.4 -3.0 -2.0 0.8 53.1 4.3 16.3 -9.3 -16.6 -12.6 -7.8 16.2 24.7 37.8 6.8 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 1,718,169 2,431,348 3,081,336 4,154,644 4,426,873 5,248,250 6,964,250 7,951,684 7,666,658 7,692,310 8,243,503 8,554,344 1,245,154 1,699,572 2,267,906 3,170,587 3,593,065 4,480,659 6,175,854 7,129,173 6,690,752 6,440,456 6,401,250 6,308,127 473,015 731,776 813,430 984,057 833,808 767,591 788,396 822,511 975,906 1,251,854 1,842,253 2,246,217 27.5 30.1 26.4 23.7 18.8 14.6 11.3 10.3 12.7 16.3 22.3 26.3 – – – 41.5 26.7 34.8 6.6 18.6 32.7 14.2 -3.6 0.3 7.2 3.8 36.5 33.4 39.8 13.3 24.7 37.8 15.4 -6.1 -3.7 -0.6 -1.5 54.7 11.2 21.0 -15.3 -7.9 2.7 4.3 18.6 28.3 47.2 21.9 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 1,024,052 1,192,830 1,322,065 1,551,374 1,683,681 2,006,743 2,878,111 3,901,388 4,452,484 4,828,283 5,240,117 5,543,216 841,832 936,615 1,056,496 1,267,866 1,421,211 1,752,405 2,614,183 3,633,093 4,138,449 4,487,876 4,752,780 4,869,749 182,220 256,215 265,569 283,508 262,470 254,338 263,928 268,295 314,035 340,407 487,337 673,467 17.8 21.5 20.1 18.3 15.6 12.7 9.2 6.9 7.1 7.1 9.3 12.1 – 16.5 10.8 17.3 8.5 19.2 43.4 35.6 14.1 8.4 8.5 5.8 – 11.3 12.8 20.0 12.1 23.3 49.2 39.0 13.9 8.4 5.9 2.5 – 40.6 3.7 6.8 -7.4 -3.1 3.8 1.7 17.0 8.4 43.2 38.2 Inner Counties Outer Counties Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1900–2000 Censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 123 erated, with New York City’s population increasing 18 percent in the 1910s and 23 percent in the 1920s. But the inner counties once again saw higher growth than the city in both decades. Nonetheless, for both New York City and the inner counties, increases in the native-born population were far greater than those for the foreign-born. Three decades into the 20th century, the region broke the 12 million mark, reaching 12.6 million in 1930. New York City’s population more than doubled in size during this period, reaching 6.9 million in 1930. But the inner counties saw even higher growth, increasing by a factor of 2.4, from 1.7 million in 1900 to 4.2 million in 1930. As a result, the inner counties’ share of the region’s population increased from 28 percent in 1900 to 33 percent in 1930; New York City’s share declined by less than 2 percentage 124 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition points, to 55 percent in 1930. The outer counties, which saw the lowest growth of any subregion, saw their share of the region’s population decline, from 17 percent to 12 percent during this period. With the onset of the Great Depression, immigration plunged in the 1930s and remained low in the early 1940s due to World War II. While immigration bounced back in the post-World War II years, it did not reach the levels seen earlier in the century; moreover, cohorts that came in at the turn of the century began to die out. As a result, the region’s foreign-born population, which peaked at 3.6 million in 1930, declined in each of the next four decades, reaching 2.5 million in 1970. But thanks to the growth of the native-born population, the region’s overall population continued to increase each decade, reaching 19.7 million in 1970. This growth was due to immigrant—as well as second and third generation—fertility, and to the inflow of domestic migrants from other parts of the country. counties, was partly due to out-migrants from New York City (both native- and foreign-born) settling in those subregions. Once again, patterns of growth varied by subregion. New York City had the lowest growth between 1930 and 1970. During this period, New York City’s overall population increased from 6.9 million to 7.9 million, a new peak, but it accounted for just 40 percent of the region’s population in 1970. Its foreign-born population declined each decade, reaching a low of 1.4 million in 1970. In comparison, the inner counties saw higher overall growth during this period, and by 1970 had surpassed New York City’s population. The outer counties, which had lagged behind the other subregions, had the highest growth between 1930 and 1970. During this period, their population grew from 1.6 million to 3.9 million, and their share of the region’s population increased from 12 percent to 20 percent. The growth in the inner, and to a lesser extent the outer The passage of the 1965 amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act led to a resurgence in immigration, bolstering the foreign-born population. By 1980, the foreign-born population in the region had increased to nearly 3 million, and by 1990 it had reached to the highest point in the century, 3.7 million. At the close of the century, the New York metropolitan region’s foreign-born population hit a new peak of 5.2 million, and was just under 6 million in 2011—twice the number a century earlier. Nevertheless, the foreign-born in the region comprised a smaller share of the population in 2011 (27 percent) than in 1910, when 35 percent of the region was foreign-born. In terms of the distribution of the region’s foreign-born in 2011, New York City settled one-half, down from over two-thirds a century earlier, and the outer counties account- Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 125 Table 5-2 Population by Nativity and County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 1970 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION TOTAL POPULATION 19,747,870 NATIVEBORN 1980 FOREIGN-BORN Number 17,220,006 2,527,864 Percent 12.8 TOTAL POPULATION NATIVEBORN FOREIGN-BORN Number 19,190,781 16,230,641 2,960,140 Percent 15.4 New York City 7,894,798 6,457,740 1,437,058 18.2 7,071,639 5,401,440 1,670,199 23.6 Bronx, NY 1,471,686 1,242,476 229,210 15.6 1,168,972 953,659 215,313 18.4 Brooklyn, NY 2,601,974 2,145,338 456,636 17.5 2,230,936 1,699,963 530,973 23.8 Manhattan, NY 1,539,225 1,231,595 307,630 20.0 1,428,285 1,079,704 348,581 24.4 Queens, NY 1,986,470 1,569,583 416,887 21.0 1,891,325 1,350,507 540,818 28.6 295,443 268,748 26,695 9.0 352,121 317,607 34,514 9.8 Staten Island, NY Inner Counties 7,951,684 7,129,173 822,511 10.3 7,666,658 6,690,752 975,906 12.7 Bergen, NJ 898,012 802,619 95,393 10.6 845,385 731,100 114,285 13.5 Essex, NJ 929,984 837,152 92,832 10.0 851,116 744,541 106,575 12.5 Fairfield, CT 792,811 715,323 77,488 9.8 807,143 720,539 86,604 10.7 Hudson, NJ 609,261 501,862 107,399 17.6 556,972 423,397 133,575 24.0 Middlesex, NJ 583,812 539,483 44,329 7.6 595,893 540,357 55,536 9.3 Morris, NJ 383,454 357,331 26,123 6.8 407,630 374,602 33,028 8.1 1,428,077 1,310,067 118,010 8.3 1,321,582 1,185,700 135,882 10.3 Nassau, NY Passaic, NJ 460,782 404,577 56,205 12.2 447,585 381,654 65,931 14.7 Rockland, NY 229,903 209,481 20,422 8.9 259,530 230,325 29,205 11.3 Somerset, NJ 198,372 182,999 15,373 7.7 203,129 186,513 16,616 8.2 Union, NJ 543,116 480,808 62,308 11.5 504,094 432,291 71,803 14.2 Westchester, NY 894,100 787,471 106,629 11.9 866,599 739,733 126,866 14.6 Outer Counties 3,901,388 3,633,093 268,295 6.9 4,452,484 4,138,449 314,035 7.1 222,295 207,720 14,575 6.6 245,055 227,888 17,167 7.0 5.0 Dutchess, NY Hunterdon, NJ 69,718 65,778 3,940 5.7 87,361 83,003 4,358 Litchfield, CT 144,091 134,375 9,716 6.7 156,769 147,049 9,720 6.2 Mercer, NJ 303,968 282,465 21,503 7.1 307,863 284,484 23,379 7.6 Monmouth, NJ 459,378 432,515 26,863 5.8 503,173 471,492 31,681 6.3 New Haven, CT 744,947 684,179 60,768 8.2 761,337 702,124 59,213 7.8 Ocean, NJ 208,470 192,408 16,062 7.7 346,038 320,401 25,637 7.4 Orange, NY 221,657 208,082 13,575 6.1 259,603 243,294 16,309 6.3 Putnam, NY Suffolk, NY 56,695 51,940 4,755 8.4 77,193 70,948 6,245 8.1 1,124,941 1,050,151 74,790 6.6 1,284,231 1,189,584 94,647 7.4 Sullivan, NY 52,580 48,115 4,465 8.5 65,155 59,763 5,392 8.3 Sussex, NJ 77,528 72,670 4,858 6.3 116,119 110,125 5,994 5.2 Ulster, NY 141,241 132,630 8,611 6.1 158,158 147,419 10,739 6.8 Warren, NJ 73,879 70,065 3,814 5.2 84,429 80,875 3,554 4.2 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970–2000 Censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 126 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 1990 TOTAL POPULATION NATIVEBORN 19,843,157 16,167,965 2000 FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent 3,675,192 18.5 TOTAL POPULATION NATIVEBORN 21,491,898 16,291,276 2011 FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN NATIVEBORN Number Percent 5,200,622 24.2 22,342,470 16,356,187 5,986,283 26.8 7,322,564 5,239,633 2,082,931 28.4 8,008,278 5,137,246 2,871,032 35.9 8,244,910 5,178,311 3,066,599 37.2 1,203,789 928,996 274,793 22.8 1,332,650 946,823 385,827 29.0 1,392,002 920,866 471,136 33.8 2,300,664 1,628,095 672,569 29.2 2,465,326 1,533,557 931,769 37.8 2,532,645 1,586,134 946,511 37.4 1,487,536 1,103,670 383,866 25.8 1,537,195 1,084,755 452,440 29.4 1,601,948 1,140,623 461,325 28.8 1,951,598 1,244,445 707,153 36.2 2,229,379 1,201,040 1,028,339 46.1 2,247,848 1,158,661 1,089,187 48.5 378,977 334,427 44,550 11.8 443,728 371,071 72,657 16.4 470,467 372,027 98,440 20.9 7,692,310 6,440,456 1,251,854 16.3 8,243,503 6,401,250 1,842,253 22.3 8,554,344 6,308,127 2,246,217 26.3 825,380 676,519 148,861 18.0 884,118 661,817 222,301 25.1 911,004 638,327 272,677 29.9 778,206 656,870 121,336 15.6 793,633 625,468 168,165 21.2 785,137 578,686 206,451 26.3 827,645 726,684 100,961 12.2 882,567 733,529 149,038 16.9 925,899 745,171 180,728 19.5 553,099 383,665 169,434 30.6 608,975 374,378 234,597 38.5 641,224 383,669 257,555 40.2 671,780 576,676 95,104 14.2 750,162 568,401 181,761 24.2 814,217 554,881 259,336 31.9 421,353 376,888 44,465 10.6 470,212 397,574 72,638 15.4 494,976 403,379 91,597 18.5 1,287,348 1,118,037 169,311 13.2 1,334,544 1,096,130 238,414 17.9 1,344,436 1,054,435 290,001 21.6 453,060 364,983 88,077 19.4 489,049 358,758 130,291 26.6 502,007 353,915 148,092 29.5 265,475 226,677 38,798 14.6 286,753 231,987 54,766 19.1 315,158 244,801 70,357 22.3 240,279 214,104 26,175 10.9 297,490 243,553 53,937 18.1 324,893 245,506 79,387 24.4 493,819 403,084 90,735 18.4 522,541 391,625 130,916 25.1 539,494 380,957 158,537 29.4 874,866 716,269 158,597 18.1 923,459 718,030 205,429 22.2 955,899 724,400 231,499 24.2 4,828,283 4,487,876 340,407 7.1 5,240,117 4,752,780 487,337 9.3 5,543,216 4,869,749 673,467 12.1 259,462 241,443 18,019 6.9 280,150 256,550 23,600 8.4 297,999 261,833 36,166 12.1 107,776 102,402 5,374 5.0 121,989 114,281 7,708 6.3 128,038 116,225 11,813 9.2 174,092 164,671 9,421 5.4 182,193 172,295 9,898 5.4 188,789 176,353 12,436 6.6 325,824 297,434 28,390 8.7 350,761 302,102 48,659 13.9 367,063 292,356 74,707 20.4 553,124 511,416 41,708 7.5 615,301 551,494 63,807 10.4 631,020 551,052 79,968 12.7 804,219 749,414 54,805 6.8 824,008 749,581 74,427 9.0 861,113 762,070 99,043 11.5 433,203 407,013 26,190 6.0 510,916 477,764 33,152 6.5 579,369 532,823 46,546 8.0 307,647 285,574 22,073 7.2 341,367 312,657 28,710 8.4 374,872 329,950 44,922 12.0 83,941 78,271 5,670 6.8 95,745 87,325 8,420 8.8 99,933 86,892 13,041 13.0 1,321,864 1,217,653 104,211 7.9 1,419,369 1,260,844 158,525 11.2 1,498,816 1,285,957 212,859 14.2 69,277 64,234 5,043 7.3 73,966 68,091 5,875 7.9 76,900 67,958 8,942 11.6 130,943 124,796 6,147 4.7 144,166 135,995 8,171 5.7 148,517 136,392 12,125 8.2 165,304 155,731 9,573 5.8 177,749 167,281 10,468 5.9 182,448 169,983 12,465 6.8 91,607 87,824 3,783 4.1 102,437 96,520 5,917 5.8 108,339 99,905 8,434 7.8 Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 127 ed for 11 percent (Figure 5-5). The inner counties were home to 38 percent of the foreign-born, a new high. This was a reflection of higher growth of the foreign-born in the inner counties, compared to the city, a testament to the region-wide impact of post-1965 foreign-born settlement. The increasing foreign-born presence helped stabilize the region’s population, which despite the influx of immigrants had declined from 19.7 million in 1970 to 19.2 million in 1980; modest growth in the next two decades edged the region’s population past the 20 million mark, to 21.5 million in 2000. In the 1970s and 1980s, New York City had the lowest growth of any subregion, but in the 1990s, growth slightly surpassed that of the inner and outer counties, before once again lagging in the 2000-2011 period. The foreign-born played an especially crucial role in shoring up the population of New York City and the inner counties, both of which saw a decline in their native-born during each decade in the post1970 period. Thus, if not for the entry of immigrants, the population decline in the 1970s in New York City and in the inner counties would have continued in the next three decades. The outer counties, however, saw increases in both their native- and foreign-born populations (partly fueled by inflows from the inner counties). They had the highest growth of any subregion in the 1970s and 1980s, and in the most recent decade, and by 2011, the outer counties accounted for one-quarter of the region’s population, a 5 percentage point increase since 1970. As a result, both New York City and the inner counties saw concomitant declines in their shares of the region’s overall population. Population Growth by County, 1970–2011 For each county in the region, Table 5-2 examines population by nativity, from 1970, soon after the enactment of the 1965 immigration amendments, to 2011, the most recent year available. Many of the demographic processes that characterized New York City’s population in the 1950s marked the inner counties in subsequent decades. 128 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition New York City’s population hit a high of 7.9 million in 1950, but fell in the following decade as city residents began to suburbanize in large numbers. The population of Nassau county, for example, nearly doubled in the 1950s, to reach 1.3 million in 1960— the largest growth among counties in the inner ring. Fueled by high fertility and immigration, New York City’s population rebounded by 1970 to just under its earlier high, despite continued outflows to adjacent counties. These outflows from the city continued to boost populations in the inner counties; Nassau, Westchester, Union, and Passaic counties each reached a new population peak in 1970. In the 1970s, New York City skirted bankruptcy; its population declined more than 10 percent, to 7.1 million in 1980. This decline was caused by massive outflows from the city, primarily to the inner counties. Despite these flows, Nassau, Essex, Bergen, Westchester, Union, and Passaic counties lost population as many of their own residents moved away, often to the fringes of the inner ring or to the outer counties. As with New York City, immigration played a crucial role in reversing these population losses. In Westchester county, for example, the foreign-born population more than doubled, from 106,600 in 1970 to 231,500 in 2011, helping the county reach a new population peak of 955,900 in 2011. This came about despite the number of native-born residents having declined in the 1970s and 1980s, and growing only modestly thereafter. As a result, the share of foreign-born in Westchester county climbed from 12 percent to 24 percent during this period. A similar process occurred in Passaic county, where there has been a decline in the native-born in each decade of the 1970-2011 period. However, gains in the foreign-born were large enough to counteract these losses, helping Passaic cross the 500,000 mark for the first time; the share of foreign-born increased from 12 percent to 30 percent during the period. While increases in the foreign-born were notable in Nassau, Essex, and Union counties, these were not sufficient to counteract the native-born losses. As a result, the 2011 populations for these counties were still below their 1970 peaks. Hudson county stands out in the inner ring as its population peaked as early as 1930 at 690,700. It declined each decade thereafter, reaching a low of 553,100 in 1990; by 2000, these losses were partially reversed, with its population climbing to 609,000 and to 641,200 in 2011. The foreign-born comprised 40 percent of the county’s population in 2011; as noted earlier, this percentage was the highest among the inner counties. The fringes of the inner ring—Fairfield, Middlesex, Morris, and Somerset counties—are noteworthy because their populations increased each decade between 1900 and 2011; except for a small decline in 1920, Rockland county, too, saw steady population increases. The foreign-born were an increasing presence in each of these counties. But unlike the other counties in the inner ring, their native-born populations were generally increasing. The exceptions were Rockland, which saw small declines in its native-born population in the 1980s, and Middlesex, which saw its native-born population drop in the 1990s and 2000s. Thus, the process of foreign-for-native replacement that took place in the inner counties closest to New York City has begun to establish itself on the fringes of the inner ring. Though the foreign-born population of some counties declined from 1980 to 1990, all outer counties saw an increase between 2000 and 2011, with the rate of increase far exceeding that of the native-born. Moreover, the percentage increase in the foreign-born far exceeded that of the native-born in each county, resulting in the foreign-born comprising a greater share of the population. In Mercer county, the foreign-born increased from 28,400 in 1990 to 74,700 in 2011, and the foreign-born share in the county climbed from 9 percent to 20 percent, the highest in the outer ring. During this period, the foreign-born in Suffolk county increased from 104,200 to 212,900; their share increased from 8 percent to 14 percent of the county’s population. The outer ring, however, remained predominantly native-born, with every county showing an increase in their U.S.-born populations during each decade of the 1970-2000 period. However, between 2000 and 2011, the native-born population in Mercer declined by over three percent, and there were marginal declines in Monmouth, Sullivan and Putnam. This may herald wider declines in the native-born in the outer counties closest to New York City. Race/Hispanic Origin in the Subregions and Counties, 1970–2011 The post-1965 flow of immigrants, which has been primarily from non-European source countries, has not only helped stabilize the region’s population but has also dramatically changed the race/Hispanic composition of the region. White nonhispanics, who comprised 77 percent of the region’s population in 1970, accounted for just over one-half in 2011 (Table 5-3 and Figure 5-6). In numerical terms, white nonhispanics declined from 15.3 million to 11.5 million during this period. In contrast, black nonhispanics saw their share increase, from 13 percent in 1970 to under 16 percent in 2000. By 2011, the black nonhispanic share declined to 15 percent though they represented a small numerical increase (Table 5-4). There were large increases in the number and share of Hispanics and Asians. Hispanics saw their share more than double, from 9 percent in 1970 to 22 percent in 2011. Thus, thanks to large flows from Latin America, in the space of four decades, the Hispanic population is over 40 percent larger than the black population. Asian nonhispanics, however, saw the largest growth, increasing their share 15 fold, from 0.6 percent in 1970 to 9 percent in 2011.1 New York City saw the steepest decline in the share of white nonhispanics—a result of both the entry of non-European immigrants and the outflow of native-born white nonhispanics. In 1970, white nonhispanics accounted for 63 percent of the population, but dropped to 52 percent in 1980, the last decade in which they comprised a majority of the population. By 2011, white nonhispanics accounted for just one-third of the population, but remained the largest group in New York City. While white nonhispanics still comprise an overall majority in the inner counties, their share of the total population dropped, from 86 percent in 1970 to 54 percent in 2011. Indeed, white nonhispanics comprised a lower share in each of the 12 counties Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 129 Table 5-3 White Nonhispanics by County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 WHITE NONHISPANICS 1970* 1980 1990 2000 CHANGE IN POPULATION 2011 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN 15,283,672 13,778,347 12,936,273 12,200,730 11,461,284 REGION New York City Bronx, NY Brooklyn, NY Manhattan, NY Queens, NY Staten Island, NY Inner Counties 4,936,292 3,703,203 3,178,712 2,801,995 2,731,173 1970–80 1980–90 1990–00 2000–11 -9.8 -6.1 -5.7 -6.1 -25.0 -14.2 -11.9 -2.5 720,666 401,856 276,221 194,312 153,850 -44.2 -31.3 -29.7 -20.8 1,569,530 1,095,946 928,255 854,653 901,218 -30.2 -15.3 -7.9 5.4 824,467 721,588 728,563 703,462 763,051 -12.5 1.0 -3.4 8.5 1,555,260 1,183,038 941,890 732,968 613,997 -23.9 -20.4 -22.2 -16.2 266,369 300,775 303,783 316,600 299,057 12.9 1.0 4.2 -5.5 6,807,962 6,104,563 5,591,590 5,183,410 4,650,413 -10.3 -8.4 -7.3 -10.3 Bergen, NJ 846,332 762,809 683,864 637,644 558,052 -9.9 -10.3 -6.8 -12.5 Essex, NJ 586,002 448,140 352,765 298,726 256,936 -23.5 -21.3 -15.3 -14.0 Fairfield, CT 703,958 688,810 663,105 644,541 607,978 -2.2 -3.7 -2.8 -5.7 Hudson, NJ 452,223 328,837 263,892 214,797 195,440 -27.3 -19.7 -18.6 -9.0 Middlesex, NJ 533,068 512,726 519,013 463,779 393,390 -3.8 1.2 -10.6 -15.2 Morris, NJ Nassau, NY 364,431 379,144 373,487 385,451 365,670 4.0 -1.5 3.2 -5.1 1,319,251 1,173,724 1,067,420 986,378 867,907 -11.0 -9.1 -7.6 -12.0 Passaic, NJ 375,525 322,624 286,213 251,713 223,414 -14.1 -11.3 -12.1 -11.2 Rockland, NY 207,026 224,849 212,120 205,288 202,817 8.6 -5.7 -3.2 -1.2 Somerset, NJ 186,981 185,466 204,783 220,274 199,910 -0.8 10.4 7.6 -9.2 Union, NJ 455,949 376,276 322,934 283,293 237,653 -17.5 -14.2 -12.3 -16.1 Westchester, NY 777,216 701,158 641,994 591,526 541,246 -9.8 -8.4 -7.9 -8.5 Outer Counties 3,539,418 3,970,581 4,165,971 4,215,325 4,079,698 12.2 4.9 1.2 -3.2 202,225 218,591 223,031 224,979 220,113 8.1 2.0 0.9 -2.2 67,553 84,934 102,505 112,770 111,422 25.7 20.7 10.0 -1.2 141,407 153,807 168,946 172,230 171,297 8.8 9.8 1.9 -0.5 -12.2 Dutchess, NY Hunterdon, NJ Litchfield, CT Mercer, NJ 246,206 237,550 236,790 225,079 197,669 -3.5 -0.3 -4.9 Monmouth, NJ 408,182 441,918 469,673 495,716 482,446 8.3 6.3 5.5 -2.7 New Haven, CT 667,518 661,573 664,859 616,338 577,112 -0.9 0.5 -7.3 -6.4 Ocean, NJ 197,195 326,242 403,798 459,135 494,539 65.4 23.8 13.7 7.7 Orange, NY 200,734 230,574 260,815 265,003 252,797 14.9 13.1 1.6 -4.6 Putnam, NY Suffolk, NY 55,712 75,342 79,788 85,774 82,097 35.2 5.9 7.5 -4.3 1,025,580 1,141,744 1,133,930 1,117,720 1,061,679 11.3 -0.7 -1.4 -5.0 Sullivan, NY 57,522 58,756 59,092 57,054 21.6 2.1 0.6 -3.4 75,599 112,640 125,832 134,707 131,280 49.0 11.7 7.1 -2.5 Ulster, NY 132,062 146,049 149,544 152,218 148,430 10.6 2.4 1.8 -2.5 Warren, NJ * 47,298 Sussex, NJ 72,147 82,095 87,704 94,564 91,763 13.8 6.8 7.8 -3.0 White nonhispanics were not tabulated in 1970. To make 1970 data comparable with those of subsequent censuses, a count of white nonhispanics was created by combining full count race data with the sample count data on Spanish language speakers. First, the number of Spanish language speakers was used as a proxy for Hispanics; we assumed that these Spanish language speakers were white. Second, the total number of whites was reduced by the number of Spanish language speakers to come up with the number of white nonhispanics. While the assumption that all Spanish language speakers were white is not entirely correct, it does result in a good approximation of the number of white nonhispanics. For New York City and its five boroughs, however, the count of white Spanish speakers was available and was used to derive the nonhispanic white population. 130 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Figure 5-6 Percent White Nonhispanic by Subregion New York Metropolitan Region, 19 0–2011 100 90 80 Percent 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning in 2011 than in 1970, primarily a result of outflows of native-born whites. In 1970 and 1980, each inner county was majority-white, but starting in 1990, whites were in a minority in Essex and Hudson, with black nonhispanics (primarily native-born) and Hispanics, respectively, comprising a plurality for the past decade. In 2011, whites were in a minority in three additional inner counties—Union, Passaic, and Middlesex—though they still comprised a plurality. In the coming decade, Westchester is likely to see their white population comprise only a plurality, and Bergen and Somerset counties will see their white populations hover around the 50 percent mark. The overall white nonhispanic population of the outer counties increased between 1970 and 2000, from 3.5 million to 4.2 million, but declined to under 4.1 million in 2011. With faster growth among other race/Hispanic groups, the white nonhispanic share of the population declined from 91 percent in 1970 to 80 percent in 2000, before declining further to 74 percent in 2011. Hispanics were the largest minority group in 2011 (13 percent), followed by black nonhispanics (8 percent), and Asian nonhispanics (4 percent). Between 1970 and 2000, just Outer 2 of the 14 outer counties—Mercer Counties and New Haven—saw a decline in the absolute number of white nonInner hispanics. In the following decade, Counties whites were in numerical decline in nearly every outer county, resulting New York Metropolitan in decreasing white shares across the Region outer counties. The only county that New York City saw a numerical increase in whites was Ocean, but the white share declined here as well, as other groups experienced faster growth. In 2011, just 54 percent of Mercer county and 67 percent of New Haven and Orange counties were white nonhispanic, the lowest percentages among the outer counties, while whites had the highest share in Litchfield, comprising over 9-in-10 residents. Area of Origin and Country of Birth While the previous section examined the changing race/Hispanic distribution of residents in the region, this section examines only the foreign-population, focusing on their birthplace—in terms of geographic area of origin and country of birth. Although a disproportionate share of immigrants in the metropolitan region make their home in New York City, their area of origin was distinct from that of the inner and outer counties. Figure 5-7 shows that while 19 percent of immigrants in New York City were born in the nonhispanic Caribbean, this was true of just 10 percent of immigrants in both the inner and outer counties. On the other hand, while 16 percent of the New York City’s immigrants were born in Europe, nearly one-quarter of immigrants in the outer ring were European. Immigrants Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 131 Table 5-4 Race/Hispanic Origin by County New York Metropolitan Region, 1970–2011 1970* NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION New York City 1980 NONHISPANIC TOTAL POPULATION White Black Asian 19,747,870 77.4 12.7 0.6 NONHISPANIC Hispanic TOTAL POPULATION White Black Asian Hispanic 8.8 19,190,781 71.8 14.9 2.1 11.0 7,894,798 62.5 19.4 1.2 16.2 7,071,639 52.4 24.0 3.4 19.9 Bronx, NY 1,471,686 49.0 21.7 0.5 27.7 1,168,972 34.4 29.9 1.4 33.8 Brooklyn, NY 2,601,974 60.3 23.3 0.6 15.1 2,230,936 49.1 30.9 2.0 17.6 Manhattan, NY 1,539,225 53.6 22.2 3.1 20.3 1,428,285 50.5 20.3 5.2 23.5 Queens, NY 1,986,470 78.3 12.4 1.1 7.7 1,891,325 62.6 18.0 5.1 13.9 295,443 90.2 5.1 0.4 4.2 352,121 85.4 6.9 2.0 5.5 Staten Island, NY Inner Counties 7,951,684 85.6 9.3 0.3 4.5 7,666,658 79.6 11.4 1.6 7.2 Bergen, NJ 898,012 94.2 2.8 0.3 2.5 845,385 90.2 3.8 2.4 3.4 Essex, NJ 929,984 63.0 30.0 0.4 5.9 851,116 52.7 36.6 1.3 9.1 Fairfield, CT 792,811 88.8 7.1 0.2 3.6 807,143 85.3 7.9 0.8 5.6 Hudson, NJ 609,261 74.2 10.0 0.4 14.7 556,972 59.0 11.9 2.7 26.1 Middlesex, NJ 583,812 91.3 4.5 0.3 3.7 595,893 86.0 5.9 2.1 5.7 Morris, NJ Nassau, NY 383,454 95.0 2.2 0.3 2.3 407,630 93.0 2.5 1.7 2.7 1,428,077 92.4 4.6 0.3 2.6 1,321,582 88.8 6.6 1.1 3.3 Passaic, NJ 460,782 81.5 10.9 0.2 6.8 447,585 72.1 12.8 1.0 13.8 Rockland, NY 229,903 90.0 5.7 0.2 3.7 259,530 86.6 6.7 1.7 4.6 Somerset, NJ 198,372 94.3 3.6 0.3 1.6 203,129 91.3 5.0 1.4 2.1 Union, NJ 543,116 84.0 11.2 0.3 4.3 504,094 74.6 15.9 1.2 8.0 Westchester, NY 894,100 86.9 9.5 0.4 2.9 866,599 80.9 11.7 1.9 5.3 Outer Counties Dutchess, NY Hunterdon, NJ 3,901,388 90.7 6.3 0.2 2.5 4,452,484 89.2 6.5 0.8 3.3 222,295 91.0 6.5 0.4 1.8 245,055 89.2 6.8 1.2 2.5 1.0 69,718 96.9 1.7 0.1 1.1 87,361 97.2 1.2 0.5 Litchfield, CT 144,091 98.1 0.8 0.1 0.9 156,769 98.1 0.6 0.4 0.7 Mercer, NJ 303,968 81.0 16.4 0.3 2.0 307,863 77.2 17.8 1.4 3.5 Monmouth, NJ 459,378 88.9 8.3 0.3 2.2 503,173 87.8 8.3 1.0 2.6 New Haven, CT 744,947 89.6 7.6 0.2 2.3 761,337 86.9 8.7 0.6 3.6 Ocean, NJ 208,470 94.6 3.0 0.2 2.1 346,038 94.3 2.7 0.5 2.4 Orange, NY 221,657 90.6 6.4 0.1 2.5 259,603 88.8 6.1 0.5 4.3 Putnam, NY 56,695 98.3 0.3 0.2 1.1 77,193 97.6 0.4 0.5 1.4 Suffolk, NY Sullivan, NY 1,124,941 91.2 4.7 0.2 3.6 1,284,231 88.9 5.4 0.8 4.6 52,580 90.0 6.5 0.3 2.7 65,155 88.3 6.6 0.8 3.9 Sussex, NJ 77,528 97.5 0.4 0.1 1.8 116,119 97.0 0.5 0.6 1.7 Ulster, NY 141,241 93.5 3.7 0.2 2.3 158,158 92.3 3.9 0.5 3.0 Warren, NJ 73,879 97.7 1.1 0.1 1.1 84,429 97.2 1.1 0.5 1.1 * Mutually exclusive race/Hispanic groups were not tabulated in 1970. To make 1970 data comparable with those of subsequent censuses, mutually exclusive race/Hispanic categories were created by combining full count race data with the sample count data on Spanish language speakers. First, the number of Spanish language speakers was used as a proxy for Hispanics; we assumed that these Spanish language speakers were white. Second, the total number of whites was reduced by the number of Spanish language speakers to come up with the number of white nonhispanics. While the assumption that all Spanish language speakers were white is not entirely correct, it does result in a good approximation of the relative number of Hispanics and white nonhispanics. The number of blacks was used as a proxy for black nonhispanics. For New York City and its five boroughs, however, the count of white and black Spanish speakers was available and was used to derive the population of nonhispanic whites and blacks. For all counties, Japanese, Chinese, and Filipinos were combined to obtain a count of Asian nonhispanics.These mutually exclusive race/Hispanic groups were then percentaged on the sample count population. 132 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 1990 2000 NONHISPANIC NONHISPANIC TOTAL POPULATION White Black Asian 19,843,157 65.2 16.0 7,322,564 43.4 1,203,789 22.9 2,300,664 1,487,536 2011 Hispanic TOTAL POPULATION White Black Asian 4.4 14.1 21,491,898 56.8 15.8 6.7 25.6 6.8 23.7 8,008,278 35.0 24.4 9.8 31.6 2.6 42.3 1,332,650 14.6 31.2 2.9 40.3 35.1 4.7 19.5 2,465,326 34.7 34.3 7.5 49.0 17.8 7.2 25.6 1,537,195 45.8 15.2 9.3 1,951,598 48.3 20.2 12.0 19.0 2,229,379 32.9 18.8 378,977 80.2 7.5 4.3 7.8 443,728 71.4 9.0 7,692,310 72.7 12.5 3.9 10.6 8,243,503 62.9 825,380 82.9 4.6 6.5 5.9 884,118 72.1 778,206 45.3 39.6 2.6 12.0 793,633 827,645 80.1 9.6 1.9 8.1 882,567 553,099 47.7 12.7 6.4 32.8 671,780 77.3 7.3 6.5 8.6 NONHISPANIC Hispanic TOTAL POPULATION White Black Asian 18.0 22,342,470 51.3 15.3 9.2 27.0 8,244,910 33.1 22.8 12.7 28.8 48.4 1,392,002 11.1 29.9 3.4 53.8 19.8 2,532,645 35.6 32.1 10.6 20.0 27.2 1,601,948 47.6 13.1 11.0 25.6 17.6 25.0 2,247,848 27.3 17.7 23.1 27.8 5.5 12.1 470,467 63.6 10.0 7.9 17.6 12.9 6.4 15.5 8,554,344 54.4 13.0 9.4 21.2 4.9 10.6 10.3 911,004 61.3 5.5 14.7 16.8 37.6 40.1 3.7 15.5 785,137 32.7 38.7 4.6 20.8 73.0 9.6 3.2 11.8 925,899 65.7 10.4 4.8 17.4 608,975 35.3 12.0 9.3 39.8 641,224 30.5 11.0 13.6 42.4 750,162 61.8 8.5 13.9 13.6 814,217 48.3 9.0 22.0 18.9 Hispanic 22.0 421,353 88.6 2.8 3.8 4.6 470,212 82.0 2.5 6.4 7.7 494,976 73.9 3.1 9.1 11.8 1,287,348 82.9 8.3 3.0 5.7 1,334,544 73.9 9.7 4.7 10.0 1,344,436 64.6 10.7 7.8 15.0 453,060 63.2 12.7 2.4 21.2 489,049 51.5 12.3 3.7 30.0 502,007 44.5 11.4 5.2 37.7 265,475 79.9 9.1 3.9 6.6 286,753 71.6 10.4 5.6 10.1 315,158 64.4 11.4 6.5 16.1 240,279 85.2 5.9 4.4 4.2 297,490 74.0 7.2 8.4 8.7 324,893 61.5 8.6 14.6 13.3 493,819 65.4 18.2 2.7 13.5 522,541 54.2 20.0 3.7 19.7 539,494 44.1 20.1 4.6 28.1 874,866 73.4 13.2 3.6 9.6 923,459 64.1 13.4 4.5 15.7 955,899 56.6 13.3 5.5 22.4 4,828,283 86.3 6.9 1.6 4.9 5,240,117 80.4 7.3 2.4 8.1 5,543,216 73.6 7.8 3.6 13.2 259,462 86.0 7.9 2.2 3.6 280,150 80.3 8.8 2.5 6.3 297,999 73.9 9.2 3.9 10.8 107,776 95.1 1.7 1.4 1.7 121,989 92.4 1.9 2.1 2.7 128,038 87.0 2.8 3.3 5.5 174,092 97.0 0.9 0.8 1.1 182,193 94.5 1.0 1.3 2.1 188,789 90.7 0.9 1.4 4.8 325,824 72.7 18.3 2.9 5.7 350,761 64.2 19.2 5.0 9.7 367,063 53.9 19.5 9.0 15.5 553,124 84.9 8.3 2.6 3.9 615,301 80.6 7.7 3.9 6.2 631,020 76.5 6.8 5.1 9.9 804,219 82.7 9.8 1.2 6.0 824,008 74.8 10.8 2.4 10.0 861,113 67.0 11.8 3.6 15.4 433,203 93.2 2.6 0.8 3.2 510,916 89.9 2.7 1.3 5.0 579,369 85.4 2.8 1.7 8.6 307,647 84.8 6.7 1.2 7.0 341,367 77.6 7.2 1.6 11.7 374,872 67.4 9.0 2.5 18.5 83,941 95.1 0.7 1.1 2.8 95,745 89.6 1.2 1.2 6.2 99,933 82.2 1.6 1.9 12.0 1,321,864 85.8 5.9 1.6 6.4 1,419,369 78.7 6.5 2.4 10.5 1,498,816 70.8 7.1 3.5 17.0 69,277 84.8 7.7 0.8 6.4 73,966 79.9 7.8 1.2 9.5 76,900 74.2 7.5 1.8 13.9 130,943 96.1 0.8 0.8 2.1 144,166 93.4 0.9 1.1 3.5 148,517 88.4 2.0 2.0 6.7 165,304 90.5 4.1 1.1 3.9 177,749 85.6 5.2 1.0 6.1 182,448 81.4 5.5 1.7 9.0 91,607 95.7 1.3 0.9 1.8 102,437 92.3 1.8 1.2 3.5 108,339 84.7 3.8 2.5 7.4 Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 133 better understand these patterns of settlement, Table 5-6 shows the top 30 source countries for each subregion, while Table 5-7 displays the top three source countries for each county in the region. in New York City were less likely to be from Latin America (32 percent) than those in the inner counties (39 percent), but the Asian share was similar in both subregions (28 percent vs. 29 percent). Table 5-5 shows the top 30 foreign-born groups in the metropolitan region in 2011 and where they stood in 2000, while Figure 5-8 shows the percentage of each of these groups by subgregion of residence. These data show that immigrant groups differ in their propensity to settle in New York City. Historically, newly arrived immigrants have been drawn to the city because of the availability of housing and jobs. Immigrant groups that have been in the U.S. longer have a stronger presence in the surrounding region. For these older, primarily European immigrant groups, the initial neighborhood of settlement may have been in New York City, but as with their native-born counterparts, many eventually moved to the suburbs and smaller cities in the region. Although newer entrants overall are still more likely to be concentrated in New York City, the pattern differs significantly by group. To 134 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Dominicans (557,500) and Chinese (477,400)—who include immigrants from the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan—were the two largest immigrant groups in the New York metropolitan region (Table 5-5), together accounting for over 17 percent of all immigrants. Both groups were heavily concentrated in New York City, with roughly seven-in-ten of each group residing in the city (Figure 5-8). But due to their overall size, they also leave a substantial imprint in the inner and outer counties. In fact, Dominicans were the second largest group in the inner counties and were ranked sixth in the outer counties (Table 5-6). Dominicans were the largest group in Passaic county (29,800) and the second largest in Hudson (23,200), Middlesex (18,600), Suffolk (15,200), Westchester (14,700), and Rockland (9,000) counties (Table 5-7); they were ranked third in Bergen county (15,100). The Chinese, who were the fourth largest group in the inner counties (95,700), ranked second in Somerset (5,900), and third in Middlesex (17,400) and Morris (7,400); other large concentrations were in Nassau (14,500) and Bergen (12,900) counties. Chinese were also the fourth largest group in the outer counties (31,400), with a notable presence in New Haven, Mercer, and Monmouth counties. Mexicans were the third largest foreign-born group in the region (366,800), and just over onehalf lived in New York City—the regional average. Nevertheless, there were substantial numbers of Mexicans in both the inner and outer counties. Mexicans ranked third in the inner counties; they were the largest foreign-born group in Westchester Table 5-5 Foreign-born Population by Country of Birth New York Metropolitan Region, 2000 and 2011 2011 RANK TOTAL, Foreign-born Dominican Republic NUMBER 2000 PERCENT 5,986,283 1 100.0 557,520 9.3 RANK - NUMBER CHANGE, 2000–2011 PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT 5,200,622 100.0 785,661 15.1 1 495,581 9.5 61,939 12.5 China* 2 477,386 8.0 2 354,829 6.8 122,557 34.5 Mexico 3 366,810 6.1 4 225,709 4.3 141,101 62.5 India 4 330,881 5.5 5 223,116 4.3 107,765 48.3 Jamaica 5 273,490 4.6 3 264,749 5.1 8,741 3.3 Ecuador 6 272,557 4.6 6 199,579 3.8 72,978 36.6 Haiti 7 181,347 3.0 9 161,147 3.1 20,200 12.5 Colombia 8 181,121 3.0 8 186,558 3.6 -5,437 -2.9 Guyana 9 173,195 2.9 10 158,708 3.1 14,487 9.1 Korea 10 160,296 2.7 12 139,097 2.7 21,199 15.2 Philippines 11 159,971 2.7 13 133,821 2.6 26,150 19.5 Poland 12 150,229 2.5 11 146,103 2.8 4,126 2.8 El Salvador 13 149,803 2.5 16 105,736 2.0 44,067 41.7 Italy 14 143,537 2.4 7 195,367 3.8 -51,830 -26.5 Trinidad and Tobago 15 115,062 1.9 15 110,775 2.1 4,287 3.9 Peru 16 114,907 1.9 18 90,521 1.7 24,386 26.9 Russia 17 106,119 1.8 14 111,295 2.1 -5,176 -4.7 Guatemala 18 101,817 1.7 25 57,899 1.1 43,918 75.9 Bangladesh 19 87,200 1.5 29 49,714 1.0 37,486 75.4 Ukraine 20 86,513 1.4 19 89,573 1.7 -3,060 -3.4 United Kingdom 21 83,775 1.4 21 85,689 1.6 -1,914 -2.2 Pakistan 22 79,469 1.3 22 64,519 1.2 14,950 23.2 Honduras 23 77,033 1.3 23 61,539 1.2 15,494 25.2 Cuba 24 65,745 1.1 17 90,524 1.7 -24,779 -27.4 Brazil 25 60,132 1.0 28 51,490 1.0 8,642 16.8 Portugal 26 55,786 0.9 24 58,165 1.1 -2,379 -4.1 Germany 27 55,585 0.9 20 86,433 1.7 -30,848 -35.7 Canada 28 51,577 0.9 30 49,228 0.9 2,349 4.8 Israel 29 44,134 0.7 33 36,785 0.7 7,349 20.0 Egypt 30 43,531 0.7 32 38,425 0.7 5,106 13.3 Greece 33 41,030 0.7 26 53,051 1.0 -12,021 -22.7 Ireland 36 36,958 0.6 27 52,926 1.0 -15,968 -30.2 *China includes the mainland, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 3; 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder and Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 135 county (27,500) and had a notable presence in Passaic (18,900), Middlesex (15,900), Hudson (10,500), and Fairfield (9,600) counties. In the outer counties, Mexicans were the largest group overall and were the number one group in Monmouth (12,800), New Haven (12,200), Ocean (10,200), Orange (8,700), and Sullivan and Ulster (2,100). 136 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Given that New York City was home to over one-half of the metropolitan region’s immigrant population, it helps determine the top immigrant groups in the region. Indeed, the city’s three leading groups, Dominicans, Chinese, and Jamaicans were also the top three groups in the region overall. It is with India, the fourth largest group in the region, Table 5-6 Top 30 Source Countries of the Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Subregions, 2011 NEW YORK CITY INNER COUNTIES Total, Foreign-born 3,066,599 Rank OUTER COUNTIES Total, Foreign-born 2,246,217 Rank Total, Foreign-born 673,467 Rank 1 Dominican Republic 380,160 1 India 216,759 1 Mexico 65,341 2 China 350,231 2 Dominican Republic 150,272 2 India 37,629 3 Mexico 186,298 3 Mexico 115,171 3 El Salvador 37,620 4 Jamaica 169,235 4 Ecuador 111,652 4 China 31,415 5 Guyana 139,947 5 Colombia 99,007 5 Italy 28,166 6 Ecuador 137,791 6 China 95,740 6 Dominican Republic 27,088 7 Haiti 94,171 7 Philippines 91,312 7 Poland 26,507 8 Trinidad and Tobago 87,635 8 Jamaica 79,937 8 Jamaica 24,318 9 India 76,493 9 El Salvador 79,280 9 Ecuador 23,114 10 Russia 76,264 10 Korea 74,802 10 Guatemala 22,810 11 Bangladesh 74,692 11 Peru 72,402 11 United Kingdom 21,999 12 Korea 72,822 12 Haiti 70,415 12 Philippines 17,734 13 Colombia 65,678 13 Italy 66,296 13 Haiti 16,761 14 Ukraine 59,820 14 Poland 65,996 14 Colombia 16,436 15 Poland 57,726 15 Guatemala 52,871 15 Germany 14,894 16 Philippines 50,925 16 Portugal 43,472 16 Canada 13,289 17 Italy 49,075 17 Cuba 43,369 17 Korea 12,672 18 Pakistan 39,794 18 Brazil 39,774 18 Honduras 11,966 19 United Kingdom 34,134 19 Honduras 36,515 19 Pakistan 11,949 20 El Salvador 32,903 20 Pakistan 27,726 20 Peru 10,656 21 Peru 31,849 21 United Kingdom 27,642 21 Portugal 10,413 22 Honduras 28,552 22 Guyana 26,450 22 Vietnam 8,342 23 Ghana 27,371 23 Russia 22,453 23 Russia 7,402 24 Guatemala 26,136 24 Egypt 22,272 24 Ireland 7,274 25 Barbados 23,798 25 Germany 22,034 25 Ukraine 6,994 26 Greece 22,915 26 Trinidad and Tobago 20,747 26 Brazil 6,974 27 Canada 21,070 27 Ukraine 19,699 27 Guyana 6,798 28 Uzbekistan 21,065 28 Ireland 17,292 28 Trinidad and Tobago 6,680 29 Israel 20,847 29 Canada 17,218 29 Israel 6,181 30 Germany 18,657 30 Israel 17,106 30 Greece 5,190 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder and Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning where New York City and the rest of the region significantly diverged. Just 23 percent of the foreign-born from India lived in New York, making them the 9th largest group in the city. However, Indians were the largest foreign-born group in the inner counties (216,800) and the 2nd largest in the outer counties (37,600). Indians were the top ranked group in Middlesex (72,700), Somerset (17,800), and Morris (15,700) counties, and had a notable presence in Mercer (11,500) and Monmouth (5,700), creating a significant concentration that straddled the inner-outer county boundary in central New Jersey. Other areas with substantial Indian populations included the inner counties of Hudson (28,500), Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 137 Table 5-7 Top Three Source Countries of the Foreign-born by County New York Metropolitan Region, 2011 COUNTRY RANK TOTAL, FOREIGNBORN COUNTRY NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION 5,986,283 New York City 3,066,599 1 2 NUMBER 3 COUNTRY NUMBER COUNTRY NUMBER Dominican Republic 557,520 China 477,386 Mexico 366,810 Dominican Republic 380,160 China 350,231 Mexico 186,298 Bronx, NY 471,136 Dominican Republic 156,165 Jamaica 52,533 Mexico 42,487 Brooklyn, NY 946,511 China 129,219 Jamaica 70,508 Haiti 61,550 Dominican Republic 109,780 China 65,750 Mexico 23,773 China 142,957 Guyana 82,538 Ecuador 72,736 Manhattan, NY Queens, NY Staten Island, NY Inner Counties Bergen, NJ 461,325 1,089,187 98,440 2,246,217 272,677 Mexico 7,846 India 216,759 Korea 46,228 Italy 7,174 China 6,347 Dominican Republic 150,272 Mexico 115,171 India 17,605 Dominican Republic 15,146 14,722 Essex, NJ 206,451 Ecuador 21,475 Haiti 17,891 Jamaica Fairfield, CT 180,728 Ecuador 14,000 Jamaica 10,461 Mexico 9,609 Hudson, NJ 257,555 India 28,525 Dominican Republic 23,233 Ecuador 19,012 Middlesex, NJ 259,336 India 72,748 Dominican Republic 18,613 China 17,444 91,597 India 15,733 Colombia 11,196 China 7,406 Morris, NJ Nassau, NY 290,001 El Salvador 30,786 India 22,443 Haiti 15,686 Passaic, NJ 148,092 Dominican Republic 29,811 Mexico 18,869 Peru 12,709 4,778 Rockland, NY 70,357 Haiti 10,079 Dominican Republic 8,954 India Somerset, NJ 79,387 India 17,812 China 5,876 Philippines 4,973 Union, NJ 158,537 Colombia 14,817 Haiti 11,360 Portugal 10,623 Westchester, NY 231,499 Mexico 27,501 Dominican Republic 14,697 Jamaica 14,393 Outer Counties 673,467 Mexico 65,341 India El Salvador 37,620 4,807 Dutchess, NY 36,166 Mexico Hunterdon, NJ 11,813 Philippines Litchfield, CT 12,436 Dominica Mercer, NJ 74,707 India 11,543 China 6,103 Guatemala 5,847 Monmouth, NJ 79,968 Mexico 12,842 India 5,682 China 4,917 New Haven, CT 99,043 Mexico 12,191 China 7,226 India 6,081 Ocean, NJ 46,546 Mexico 10,186 Philippines 3,524 Italy 2,528 44,922 Mexico 8,715 Guatemala 3,211 Honduras 3,198 13,041 Guatemala 2,139 Italy 1,530 212,859 El Salvador 30,496 Orange, NY Putnam, NY 1 Suffolk, NY Sullivan & Ulster, NY 8,942 Mexico 964 1277 2,059 Jamaica 37,629 India 940 Germany Canada 916 Italy 2,664 784 874 Mexico 1,280 Dominican Republic 15,207 Ecuador 11,800 Italy United Kingdom Sussex, NJ 12,125 Philippines 1,054 8,434 Philippines 1,683 Jamaica 1,477 Romania Warren, NJ 1 2,755 China 812 1,040 1,003 Germany 641 India 769 Contains a small portion of Westchester, NY Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder and Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Note: The total foreign-born was derived from 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder estimates. In addition, 2011 American Community Survey-FactFinder data were used to calculate place of birth data for the following counties: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Bergen, Essex, Fairfield, Middlesex, Nassau, Westchester, and Suffolk. Because place of birth data were not available for counties with small foreign-born populations, the remaining counties used 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample. 138 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Nassau (22,400), Bergen (17,600), and Westchester (9,500) counties, along with the outer counties of Suffolk (7,600) and New Haven (6,100). Jamaicans were the 5th largest foreign-born group in the region (273,500), and 62 percent lived in New York City. The propensity of Jamaicans to settle in New York reflects the nonhispanic Caribbean influence that is more pronounced in the city than in any other part of the region. Despite their concentration in New York City, Jamaicans were in the top 10—ranked eighth—in both the inner and outer counties. They were the 3rd largest group in Essex (14,700) and Westchester counties (14,400), and had an equally large presence in Nassau county (14,400). In the outer counties, Jamaicans had a significant presence in Suffolk (6,400) and New Haven (5,500), and were ranked 2nd in Dutchess (2,800) and Warren (1,000) counties. The higher percentage of Latin American immigrants in both the inner and outer counties is reflected in this group claiming one-half of the top ten spots in each subregion, including four of the top five spots in the inner counties. After the Dominican Republic and Mexico, Ecuador is the largest Latin American group in the region. Its population in the region increased by over one-third since 2000 and it has a growing presence in the inner counties, where it is now the fourth largest source country. Ecuadorians were the top group in Essex (21,500) and Fairfield (14,000), and had a notable presence in Hudson (19,000) and in Westchester (13,800), as well as in the outer county of Suffolk (11,800). While the Ecuadorian population in the region saw a huge increase, Colombians declined three percent. Colombians were ranked fifth in the inner counties, down from third in 2000 (data not shown) and were the top group in Union (14,800) and ranked second in Morris (11,200) counties; large Colombian populations were also present in Bergen (14,100), Hudson (10,800), and Nassau (10,600) counties. Salvadorans, who grew by 42 percent over 2000, showed a much higher-than-average propensity to settle in the inner and outer counties, mostly on Long Island. They were the largest group in both Nassau (30,800) and Suffolk (30,500) counties; these two counties were home to four-in-ten Salvadorans in the region. The largest Guatemalan presence was in Westchester (9,800) and Union (8,100) counties; while they had a numerically smaller presence in the outer counties, they were ranked among the top three groups in Mercer (5,800), Orange (3,200), and Putnam (2,100) counties. The region’s Hondurans, who grew by 25 percent since 2000, are now larger than the Cuban population, which declined by over one-quarter. Both Hondurans and Cubans were disproportionately present in the inner counties and both groups had their highest concentration in Hudson county. Among the region’s Cubans, over one-quarter or nearly 17,800 lived in Hudson county, as did 7,300 Hondurans. In the outer counties, there was also a notable concentration of Hondurans in Suffolk (4,600), as well as in Orange (3,200), where they were the third largest group. Europe was the only area of the world that saw a decline in its regional population since 2000—down 11 percent to just over 1 million. With the exception of Poland, every major European country saw declines, ranging from 36 percent for Germany and 27 percent for Italy, to under five percent for the United Kingdom, Ukraine, Portugal, and Russia. For the first time, no European country was among the top 10 in the overall region or in the inner counties. With Poles increasing by three percent, they bypassed Italians as the largest European source country in the region. In the inner counties, Poles had their largest presence in Bergen county (13,700) and Italians in Nassau county (13,700). The Portuguese were overwhelmingly concentrated in the inner counties, especially in Essex (11,000) and in Union county (10,600), where they were ranked 3rd—the only European country to make the top 3 list in an inner county. In the outer counties, Italians and Poles were the 2 European countries in the top 10 and they were concentrated primarily in Suffolk and New Haven counties. Smaller Italian populations present in Ocean, Putnam, Sullivan and Ulster, and Litchfield placed Italy among the top three groups in these counties. Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 139 An exception to the disproportionate presence of European groups in the inner and outer counties was among the foreign-born from Russia and the Ukraine. Both showed a marked proclivity to live in New York City, 72 percent and 69 percent, respectively. Russia ranked 10th and the Ukraine 14th on the list for New York City, but ranked far lower on the lists for the inner and outer counties. Outside New York City, Bergen county had the largest presence of Ukrainians (4,400) and Russians (4,200). While the share of Asians in each subregion mirrored that of all immigrants, there were marked differences among groups. As discussed earlier, while the Chinese population can be found in many communities throughout the region, 73 percent reside in New York City. Among Bangladeshis, 86 percent live in the city, especially in Queens (see Chapter 4). In contrast, over three-quarters of Indians and over two-thirds of Filipinos live outside the city; one-third of Filipinos lived in just four counties—Middlesex, Hudson, Bergen, and Nassau. Filipinos were also the third largest group in Somerset county, with 5,000 residents. Koreans have a higher than average proclivity to live in the inner counties; their major area of settlement is Bergen county (46,200), home to over 60 percent of Koreans in the inner counties. The inner and outer counties have proportionately fewer immigrants from the nonhispanic Caribbean. This is true of Jamaica, as noted earlier, but is also true of other neighboring countries. Guyana, Haiti, and Trinidad and Tobago were ranked 5th, 7th, and 8th in New York City, but do not make the top 10 in either the inner or outer counties. Indeed, Guyana was ranked 22nd on the inner county list and 27th on the list for the outer counties, a reflection of the fact that 81 percent of all Guyanese immigrants to the region settle in New York City. Similarly, with 76 percent of Trinidadians living in New York City, they were ranked 26th in the inner counties and 28th in the outer counties. While above-average, the Haitian concentration in the city (52 percent) was not as high as that of the Guyanese or Trinidadians. Haitians were ranked 12th in the inner counties and 13th in the outer counties. Their largest concentrations were in Essex (17,900), Nassau 140 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition (15,700), Union (11,400), and Rockland (10,100)—in each of these counties they were among the top three groups. Places with High Foreign-born Concentrations While the prior sections examined the foreign-born population at the county level, this section focuses on areas within counties that have the highest foreign-born concentrations. Figure 5-9 shows census tracts that were in the 75th percentile or higher in terms of the percent foreign-born along with cities, villages, and towns (“urban places” in census terminology) that encompass these census tracts.2 There were distinct patterns of immigrant settlement in the inner and outer counties (for patterns in New York City, please see Chapter 3). In the inner counties, areas with high foreign-born concentrations (or “high immigrant areas”) were in close proximity to New York City. These included cities in New Jersey that were located across the Hudson river: Hackensack, Garfield, and Cliffside Park in Bergen county; Jersey City, Union City, and West New York in Hudson county; and Elizabeth and Union in Union county. North of the Bronx, high immigrant areas included Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, and New Rochelle in the southern section of Westchester county, as well as Spring Valley in Rockland county. To the east, across the Queens border in Nassau county, Hempstead, Elmont, and Mineola had high foreign-born concentrations. Immigrant concentrations were also present along U.S. Route 1 in New Jersey, including Fort Lee in Bergen county, and Elizabeth and Linden in Union county. Farther south along this route, high immigrant areas included Edison and New Brunswick in Middlesex county, and Princeton and Trenton in the outer county of Mercer. High immigrant concentrations were also evident in Dover in Morris county, in Paterson and Passaic in Passaic county, and North Plainfield in Somerset county. In Connecticut, there were immigrant concentrations along I-95, in Stamford in Fairfield county, and in New Haven and West Haven in the outer county of New Haven. Figure 5-9 Census Tracts with High Foreign-born Concentrations* New York Metropolitan Region, 2007-2011 gzena 0 Norfolk Fall Village Kingston . gston Manor 0 . sha.-on Stone 0 Ridge 0 Accord Jeffersonville . Liberty 0 South Fallsburg 0 Bantam . Litchfield 0 Poughkeepsie . Monticello Hopewell Junction 9 Waterbury Newburgh Center 0 Middletown Brewster Kiryas 'Joel Monroe . Woo Harriman Mahopac . Sussex .-. . gansett Miller Place 0 Middle island Southampton Gordon Heights ort Murray 0 'T,m?flip Nolth Plainlield Flemington 0 A El Inner County Marlboro Boundary Long 0 Freehold Branch High Foreign-born Concentrations Census Tracts 0 Selected Places CedarG|en es 0 *Done separately for each subregion. Defined as census tracts with a percentage foreign-born in the 75"' percentile or higher. Ocean Acres 0 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007--2011American Community Survey-Summary File 141 Other high immigrant areas in the outer counties included Poughkeepsie in Dutchess county, and Newburgh in Orange county, both on the Hudson river. Middletown, in the western section of Orange county, New Paltz in Ulster county, and Mahopac and Brewster in Putnam county also had concentrations of immigrants. In Monmouth county, there were two immigrant clusters, one centered around Long Branch on the Jersey shore, the other to the west around Freehold and Morganville. Farther south, in Ocean county, Lakewood had a high concentration of immigrants. In Suffolk county, which had the largest immigrant population in the outer ring, there was a big band of immigrant settlement along the border with Nassau county, in Huntington Station and Copiague, and east into West Babylon, Brentwood and Central Islip. Another stretch of high immigrant areas began in Riverhead, extending east toward Montauk on the south fork of Long Island. High immigrant areas were home to approximately one-half of the foreign-born residents of the inner and the outer counties. As we shall see in the next section, many of these are lower income areas that have historically settled newly arrived immigrants in the region. Diverse Patterns of Settlement in the New York Metropolitan Region The inner and outer counties are home to places where patterns of settlement mimic patterns historically seen in New York City, as well as new patterns of settlement. To better discern these patterns, we distinguish areas in the region that are lower income (census tracts with a median household income in the 25th percentile or lower) from those that are upper income (census tracts with a median household income in the 75th percentile and above).3 As we shall see, places in each income group have distinct patterns of settlement (Figure 5-10). Tables 5-8, 5-12, and 5-13 examine the socio-demographic characteristics of places that are lower income, upper income, and middle income, respectively, for the 2007–2011 period. For these places, Table 5-9 shows the overall population and the 142 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition shares of whites and the foreign-born over time, from 1970 to 2007–2011, while Table 5-10 examines the top 5 foreign-born groups for the 2007–2011 period. Table 5-11 and Figure 5-11 show the distribution of the top immigrant groups by neighborhood type. LOWER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS— TRADITIONAL AREAS OF IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT Most immigrant groups generally begin their American experience on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder and this is reflected in their initial neighborhoods of residence, which have historically been in lower income areas. In the New York metropolitan region, lower income census tracts were home to 1.6 million immigrants (Table 5-8). Since family networks tend to feed immigration and influence immigrant settlement, lower income neighborhoods are home to large foreign-born concentrations. Essentially, new immigrants tend to move into neighborhoods that are home to other immigrants. In the inner counties, lower income neighborhoods were on average 36 percent foreign-born, 10 points higher than for the inner counties as a whole. In the lower income urban places selected for this section, the share of foreign-born residents in 2011 ranged from a high of around 60 percent in West New York and Union City, to a low of around one-quarter in Bridgeport and Newark. Lower income areas in the inner counties also had higher population densities, averaging 11,800 persons per square mile. In Union City and West New York, densities were approximately 50,000 persons per square mile, and stood at 22,000 persons per square mile in Passaic, and 17,300 persons per square mile in Paterson—compared with under 2,600 persons per square mile in the inner counties overall. The high population densities were related to the large number of multi-unit structures present. Given that most immigrant groups lack substantial economic resources when they first immigrate to the U.S., these multi-unit buildings—often between 5 and 10 units—are very appealing to new immigrants as they are primarily rentals. Pine Hill Zena Norfolk Falls Village Kingston Livingston Manor Liberty Jeffersonville Torrington Accord Litchfield Bantam New Paltz South Fallsburg Poughkeepsie Monticello Kiryas Mahopac Joel Monroe Woodbury Harriman Sussex Branchville Bethlehem Village Meriden Waterbury Newburgh Middletown Northwest Harwinton Thomaston New Milford Hopewell Junction Wallingford Center Newtown Brewster Danbury Bethel Ridgefield Highland Lake Orange New Haven West Haven Bridgeport Hamburg Crandon Lakes Winsted Sharon Stone Ridge Spring Valley Stamford Greenport Montauk Springs Sag Harbor Northwest Harbor Ridgewood Port Amagansett Noyack Hainesburg Jefferson Andover North Wainscott East Hampton Fair Lawn Yonkers New Mamaroneck Miller Place Riverhead Stony Brook Water Mill Sea Allamuchy Rochelle Paterson University Coram Middle Hackensack Dover Shinnecock Hills Tuckahoe Mount Island Garfield Teaneck Vernon Huntington Southampton Selden Gordon Heights Hampton Hackettstown Station Fort Lee Bays Dix Passaic Beattystown East Syosset Hills Shirley Cliffside Park East Port Murray Patchogue West New York Livingston North Bellport Brentwood Central Orange Union Mineola Westbury Harrison Bellport Islip New City New Hyde Park Newark West Babylon Hempstead Village Jersey Elmont City Elizabeth Copiague Union Ocean North Plainfield town Linden Beach Ogdensburg Newton Harrison Lake Mohawk Flemington Lambertville New Brunswick Princeton West Windsor Greenwich Edison Morganville Holmdel Marlboro Freehold Trenton Fair Haven Long Branch Farmingdale Lakewood Cedar Glen Lakes Ocean Acres *Done separately for each subregion. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 143 Table 5-8 Characteristics of Selected Lower Income Areas* New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 TOTAL UNITS POPULATION % in Multi-unit Structures*** % built prior to 1950 8,844,982 34.3 38.3 2,383 2,093,490 49.2 45.4 36.8 35.6 26,860 27,709 3,356,992 819,937 59.9 76.7 53.1 53.4 2,160,859 648,046 73,150 42,745 37,729 32,089 38,068 29,316 25.6 35.8 26.6 29.3 26.3 46.3 57.6 59.9 2,580 11,835 11,391 17,313 8,978 22,012 51,529 48,612 3,213,791 707,260 109,504 49,664 59,038 22,029 25,062 19,852 22.8 38.3 34.4 25.9 30.2 42.8 52.5 63.7 33.7 44.3 39.7 50.1 48.6 57.2 44.5 45.2 660,804 189,249 21,570 15,850 19,683 7,617 7,265 7,531 12.0 15.2 16.7 14.4 23.1 15.3 22.3 26.0 614 634 6,918 3,860 11,119 7,014 6,331 7,623 2,274,199 566,293 57,133 48,426 35,201 11,578 15,017 10,920 12.6 23.0 33.7 27.1 21.7 23.0 31.7 21.6 23.0 35.3 58.2 40.4 65.0 12.3 54.2 72.4 Total Foreignborn % foreignborn Persons per Square Mile** 22,101,595 5,811,480 26.3 1,758 Lower Income 5,238,511 1,614,314 30.8 Total, New York City Lower Income 8,128,980 2,180,250 2,989,825 777,019 Total, Inner Counties Lower Income Newark, Essex, NJ Paterson, Passaic, NJ Bridgeport, Fairfield, CT Passaic, Passaic, NJ Union City, Hudson, NJ West New York, Hudson, NJ 8,454,358 1,812,305 275,512 145,915 143,412 69,253 66,095 48,973 Total, Outer Counties Lower Income New Haven, New Haven, CT Waterbury, New Haven, CT Trenton, Mercer, NJ Lakewood, Ocean, NJ Poughkeepsie, Dutchess, NY Newburgh, Orange, NY 5,518,257 1,245,956 129,213 110,075 85,044 49,646 32,564 28,999 TOTAL, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION Total * Census tracts with a median household income in the 25th percentile or lower are categorized as lower income. **The total persons per square mile is based on 2007–2011 American Community Survey population estimates, which differs from the one year estimate seen earlier in the chapter. ***Structures containing five or more housing units. Lower income areas with an abundance of small multi-unit structures and rental units often showed the most traditional patterns of immigrant settlement. In these places, the process of post-1965 immigrant settlement usually involved newer immigrant groups succeeding longer resident groups who had moved out. Housing vacated by these departing residents was then occupied by newly arrived immigrants. This process of immigrant succession, which is well documented in New York City, has occurred in urban places across the inner and outer counties, resulting in large post-1965 foreign-born 144 concentrations in cities across the New York region. In addition to high population densities, a higher proportion of small multi-unit structures, and a greater proportion of rental units, lower income areas that attract immigrants tend to have an older housing stock and are disproportionately minority. In the inner county of Passaic, the cities of Paterson and Passaic, which were once home to European immigrants, are now emblematic of poor areas—nearly 3-in-10 lived in poverty—that have attracted post-1965 immigrants. In both cities, approximately 3-in-4 occupied units were rentals—a OCCUPIED UNITS RACE/HISPANIC ORIGIN (%) ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME NONHISPANICS % Below Poverty % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Total % Rentals White Black Asian Hispanic Total Foreign-born 8,038,714 44.9 52.4 15.4 9.0 21.3 $66,449 – 12.6 35.9 1,860,088 72.0 25.9 28.2 5.3 38.8 $34,698 – 27.1 17.3 3,049,978 753,375 67.4 89.6 33.5 12.8 23.1 31.5 12.6 7.7 28.4 46.3 $51,090 $26,785 – – 19.4 35.4 33.7 16.0 2,988,022 624,056 91,712 43,640 51,014 20,357 22,408 18,331 35.4 70.3 75.1 70.2 55.4 72.5 80.3 78.8 55.9 19.8 12.9 10.6 24.2 17.7 13.9 14.3 13.0 31.6 50.4 29.2 33.1 7.6 2.1 2.0 9.0 4.1 1.5 3.0 3.5 4.5 2.1 4.8 20.2 42.6 32.6 56.2 36.7 69.6 81.3 78.0 $78,453 $39,619 $35,696 $34,302 $40,947 $30,363 $40,108 $44,640 – – $42,887 $42,816 $47,948 $28,892 $37,970 $40,205 8.9 22.4 26.1 27.1 21.9 29.2 21.1 19.0 40.1 16.6 12.5 9.9 15.2 14.8 16.2 25.3 2,000,714 482,657 49,247 42,599 28,285 10,583 13,044 9,162 24.9 46.8 68.9 50.4 57.9 62.9 60.5 64.9 74.7 57.7 32.9 46.7 15.2 79.1 41.3 21.0 7.7 17.5 32.8 17.8 49.5 4.5 33.9 29.1 3.5 2.6 4.8 1.6 0.9 0.4 1.5 0.4 12.4 20.0 26.3 30.1 32.9 15.6 20.2 48.1 $74,246 $42,844 $39,094 $41,499 $37,219 $36,079 $39,061 $37,671 – – $43,750 $41,915 $51,875 $50,844 $43,384 $44,246 8.3 19.3 26.3 20.6 25.6 32.0 25.0 26.3 32.6 20.2 32.1 17.2 10.9 24.6 22.1 13.1 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning hallmark of cities that are attractive to newly arrived immigrants. Both cities were white-majority in 1970 (Table 5-9), and as whites began leaving they were succeeded by immigrants, particularly Dominicans. Interestingly, the original Dominican presence in Washington Heights in New York City extended west across the Hudson into Passaic county (as well as east, across the Harlem River into the West Bronx). Dominicans comprised nearly 30 percent of the foreign-born in Paterson and over one-fifth in Passaic (Table 5-10). By 2011, Passaic was overwhelmingly Hispanic (70 percent), while Paterson was majority Hispanic, with a significant black presence (29 percent). Both cities are examples of how immigration has changed the racial/ethnic composition of cities in the inner counties. Other cities that received substantial Latin American flows were West New York and Union City in Hudson County. Both cities were also once home to newly arrived European immigrants at the turn of the 20th century and now to post-1965 immigrant flows. West New York and Union City saw an enormous inflow of immigrants (especially Cubans) in the 1960s; by1970, the share of the for- Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 145 Table 5-9 Share of the Foreign-born and White Nonhispanics for Selected Urban Places by Income Level* New York Metropolitan Region, 1970 to 2007–2011 1980 1970** URBAN PLACE TOTAL COUNTY & STATE POPULATION TOTAL, NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION % WHITE NONHISPANIC 19,747,870 77.4 Inner Counties 7,951,684 Outer Counties 3,901,388 Lower Income, Inner Counties Newark Essex, NJ Paterson Passaic, NJ Bridgeport Fairfield, CT Passaic Passaic, NJ Union City Hudson, NJ West New York Hudson, NJ FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent TOTAL % WHITE POPULATION NONHISPANIC FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent 2,527,864 12.8 19,190,781 71.8 2,960,140 15.4 85.6 822,511 10.3 7,666,658 79.6 975,906 12.7 90.7 268,295 6.9 4,452,484 89.2 314,035 7.1 382,374 144,835 156,542 55,124 58,537 40,666 32.1 59.2 73.6 62.9 58.1 55.6 40,104 21,001 20,000 10,405 22,746 17,793 10.5 14.5 12.8 18.9 38.9 43.8 329,248 137,970 142,546 52,463 55,593 39,194 22.8 37.1 59.8 44.4 33.9 34.5 47,739 25,537 19,138 12,850 27,094 21,742 14.5 18.5 13.4 24.5 48.7 55.5 Lower Income, Outer Counties New Haven New Haven, CT Waterbury New Haven, CT Trenton Mercer, NJ Lakewood Ocean, NJ Poughkeepsie Dutchess, NY Newburgh Orange, NY 137,721 108,032 104,521 17,874 32,029 26,219 69.0 85.8 57.9 79.9 81.2 70.0 13,784 12,580 8,023 2,901 2,765 1,738 10.0 11.6 7.7 16.2 8.6 6.6 126,109 103,266 92,124 22,863 29,757 23,438 59.1 81.1 46.2 74.0 72.8 60.0 10,930 11,941 6,143 3,423 2,672 1,917 8.7 11.6 6.7 15.0 9.0 8.2 Upper Income, Inner Counties Greenwich Fairfield, CT Mamaroneck Westchester, NY Livingston Essex, NJ Harrison Westchester, NY Ridgewood Bergen, NJ Syosset Nassau, NY 59,755 31,243 30,127 21,544 27,547 10,084 97.5 95.2 99.3 98.1 98.2 98.6 6,809 3,978 1,697 28 1,702 749 11.4 12.7 5.6 0.1 6.2 7.4 59,578 29,017 28,040 23,046 25,208 9,818 94.8 90.3 94.9 93.8 93.8 96.6 8,594 4,332 2,380 3,282 2,142 855 14.4 14.9 8.5 14.2 8.5 8.7 Upper Income, Outer Counties Marlboro Monmouth, NJ Dix Hills Suffolk, NY West Windsor Mercer, NJ Holmdel Monmouth, NJ 12,273 10,050 6,431 6,117 94.2 99.3 96.6 99.1 607 638 506 228 4.9 6.3 7.9 3.7 17,560 26,693 8,542 8,447 92.2 95.6 92.2 95.1 1,083 2,338 840 561 6.2 8.8 9.8 6.6 Middle Income, Inner Counties Jersey City Hudson, NJ Yonkers Westchester, NY Stamford Fairfield, CT Edison Middlesex, NJ Teaneck Bergen, NJ Fort Lee Bergen, NJ Fair Lawn Bergen, NJ New Hyde Park Nassau, NY 260,549 204,367 108,848 – – 30,631 37,975 10,116 68.7 89.4 83.2 – – 97.4 99.4 99.2 26,635 27,513 12,810 – – 5,939 4,358 1,232 10.2 13.5 11.8 19.4 11.5 12.2 223,532 195,351 102,453 70,193 39,007 32,449 32,229 9,801 49.4 79.1 78.0 90.9 72.0 82.6 98.6 96.8 36,352 32,582 14,784 6,589 5,815 8,594 3,997 1,056 16.3 16.7 14.4 9.4 0.2 26.5 12.4 10.8 Middle Income, Outer Counties Brentwood Suffolk, NY Suffolk, NY Central Islip Lawrence Mercer, NJ Naugatuck New Haven, CT Ocean Monmouth, NJ East Windsor Mercer, NJ – 36,391 19,567 23,034 18,643 11,736 – 94.4 93.5 99.3 99.2 95.4 – 2,130 1,390 2,557 849 659 – 5.9 7.1 11.1 4.6 5.6 44,321 19,734 19,724 26,456 23,570 21,041 68.0 62.0 88.8 95.9 94.0 89.0 4,019 1,549 1,620 3,083 1,683 1,630 9.1 7.8 8.2 11.7 7.1 7.7 * Census tracts with a median household income in the 75th percentile or higher are labeled upper income, while those in the 25th percentile or lower are categorized as lower income. **White nonhispanics were not tabulated in 1970. To make 1970 data comparable with those of subsequent censuses, a count of white nonhispanics was created by combining full count race data with the sample count data on Spanish language speakers. First, the number of Spanish language speakers was used as a proxy for Hispanics; we assumed that these Spanish language speakers were white. Second, the total number of whites was reduced by the number of Spanish language speakers to come up with the number of white nonhispanics. While the assumption that all Spanish language speakers were white is not entirely correct, it does result in a good approximation of the number of white nonhispanics. These white nonhispanics were then percentaged on the sample count population. 146 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 1990 TOTAL % WHITE POPULATION NONHISP.ANIC 2000 FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent TOTAL % WHITE POPULATION NONHISPANIC 2011 FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent TOTAL % WHITE POPULATION NONHISPANIC 19,843,157 65.2 3,675,192 18.5 21,491,898 56.8 5,200,622 24.2 22,101,595 7,692,310 72.4 1,251,854 16.3 8,243,503 62.9 1,842,253 22.3 4,828,283 86.1 340,407 7.1 5,240,117 80.4 487,337 9.3 275,221 140,891 141,686 58,041 58,012 38,125 16.8 25.1 46.4 28.5 21.2 23.7 51,423 35,355 20,731 20,997 31,959 23,028 18.7 25.1 14.6 36.2 55.1 60.4 273,546 149,222 139,529 67,861 67,088 45,768 14.3 13.2 30.9 18.3 13.4 14.9 66,057 48,924 28,638 31,101 39,378 29,831 130,474 108,961 88,675 26,095 28,444 26,454 49.0 73.8 37.8 67.6 64.4 42.3 10,633 9,461 6,695 3,053 2,878 3,201 8.1 8.7 7.6 11.7 10.1 12.1 123,626 107,271 85,258 36,065 29,871 28,259 35.7 58.2 24.7 68.3 49.2 28.2 58,441 27,974 26,609 23,308 24,152 18,967 90.0 88.4 87.7 89.3 88.0 89.6 10,199 2,608 4,102 4,014 3,307 2,578 17.5 9.3 15.4 17.2 13.7 13.6 61,101 36,398 27,391 24,154 24,936 18,544 27,706 25,849 16,021 11,532 85.9 89.6 80.2 86.3 5,363 2,783 2,438 1,415 19.4 10.8 15.2 12.3 228,537 188,082 108,056 88,680 37,825 31,997 30,548 9,728 37.0 67.4 71.2 77.0 62.6 73.0 93.1 91.5 56,326 38,067 20,075 15,782 6,506 11,230 5,069 1,523 45,218 26,028 25,787 30,625 25,058 22,353 52.2 48.1 84.8 93.8 88.4 82.7 7,721 3,645 2,708 2,721 2,686 2,372 FOREIGN-BORN Number Percent 52.4 5,811,480 26.8 8,454,358 55.9 2,160,859 25.6 5,518,257 74.7 660,804 12.0 24.1 32.8 20.5 45.8 58.7 65.2 275,512 145,915 143,412 69,253 66,095 48,973 12.9 10.6 24.2 17.7 13.9 14.3 73,150 42,745 37,729 32,089 38,068 29,316 26.6 29.3 26.3 46.3 57.6 59.9 14,350 12,950 12,024 5,651 4,138 5,742 11.6 12.1 14.1 15.7 13.9 20.3 129,213 110,075 85,044 49,646 32,564 28,999 32.9 46.7 15.2 79.1 41.3 21.0 21,570 15,850 19,683 7,617 7,265 7,531 16.7 14.4 23.1 15.3 22.3 26.0 85.5 81.5 80.9 85.2 83.9 82.4 11,601 5,621 5,154 4,520 4,005 3,261 19.0 15.4 18.8 18.7 16.1 17.6 61,023 29,069 29,023 27,103 24,895 19,064 79.9 79.5 73.6 75.6 74.6 72.6 12,857 5,978 6,565 5,949 4,817 3,620 21.1 20.6 22.6 21.9 19.3 19.0 28,967 26,024 21,907 15,781 82.0 83.9 68.9 78.2 6,322 3,717 4,906 2,970 21.8 14.3 22.4 18.8 39,740 26,829 26,669 16,668 75.0 80.5 53.7 77.3 8,219 4,477 8,586 3,226 20.7 16.7 32.2 19.4 24.6 20.2 18.6 17.8 17.2 35.1 16.6 15.7 240,055 196,086 117,083 97,687 39,260 35,461 31,637 9,523 23.6 50.7 61.0 55.8 51.5 57.4 87.7 76.9 81,554 51,687 34,670 32,351 9,435 15,864 8,476 2,016 34.0 26.4 29.6 33.1 24.0 44.7 26.8 21.2 245,226 195,506 121,784 99,825 39,636 35,274 32,286 9,661 21.9 42.1 51.3 39.8 45.9 48.0 76.6 61.0 93,673 60,841 45,628 40,348 9,155 17,377 9,100 3,192 38.2 31.1 37.5 40.4 23.1 49.3 28.2 33.0 17.1 14.0 10.5 8.9 10.7 10.6 53,883 31,950 29,159 30,989 26,959 24,919 25.0 31.8 76.6 88.9 81.8 65.9 18,721 7,325 5,097 3,511 4,240 5,764 34.7 22.9 17.5 11.3 15.7 23.1 56,302 36,638 32,994 31,778 27,278 26,994 15.8 19.4 62.3 79.6 75.6 51.9 23,874 13,093 8,109 3,865 4,388 7,985 42.4 35.7 24.6 12.2 16.1 29.6 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970–2000 decennial censuses; 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 147 Table 5-10 Top 5 Countries of Birth for the Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 INNER COUNTIES Lower Income Newark, NJ Total Ecuador Portugal Brazil Dominican Republic Mexico Passaic, NJ Total Mexico Dominican Republic Peru India Colombia 11,670 9,188 8,484 6,729 3,172 Paterson, NJ Total Dominican Republic Peru Mexico Jamaica Colombia 42,745 12,816 6,262 3,499 3,130 2,863 32,089 12,266 6,855 1,973 1,744 1,486 Union City, NJ Total Cuba Dominican Republic Mexico Ecuador El Salvador 38,068 6,739 5,899 5,127 4,651 3,522 73,150 Bridgeport, CT Total Jamaica Mexico Brazil Haiti Ecuador 37,729 5,690 3,748 3,481 2,808 1,758 West New York, NJ Total Cuba Dominican Republic Mexico El Salvador Ecuador 29,316 5,991 3,846 3,371 3,117 2,957 Stamford, CT Total Guatemala Haiti India Ecuador Jamaica 45,628 7,514 4,008 3,658 2,403 2,306 Middle Income Jersey City, NJ Total India Philippines Dominican Republic Ecuador China Edison, NJ Total India China Philippines Pakistan Korea 93,673 19,149 12,229 7,475 5,025 4,123 Yonkers, NY Total Dominican Republic Mexico India Jamaica Italy 60,841 9,248 8,172 4,046 2,988 2,782 20,467 4,842 1,955 1,178 787 Fort Lee, NJ Total Korea Japan China Russia Dominican Republic 12,857 1,069 844 803 757 753 Mamaroneck, NY Total Mexico Guatemala France Colombia Peru 5,978 564 518 515 331 285 Livingston, NJ Total China India Korea Philippines Ukraine 6,565 1,622 784 579 331 310 Ridgewood, NJ Total Korea India China Japan Costa Rica 4,817 867 589 384 326 250 Syosset, NY Total China Korea India Italy Greece 3,620 985 581 464 206 169 40,348 17,377 5,889 1,525 1,242 908 677 New Hyde Park, NY Total India Italy Guyana Korea Pakistan 3,192 927 317 271 150 146 Upper Income Greenwich, CT Total United Kingdom Japan Peru India Brazil Harrison, NY Total Italy Japan Brazil Uruguay Argentina 148 5,949 965 758 398 233 203 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition OUTER COUNTIES Lower Income New Haven, CT Total Mexico China Jamaica Ecuador Dominican Republic Lakewood, NJ Total Mexico Israel Poland Costa Rica Canada 21,570 3,951 2,158 1,537 1,308 940 Waterbury, CT Total Albania Dominican Republic Jamaica Italy Brazil 15,850 1,852 1,703 1,440 957 930 Trenton, NJ Total Guatemala Mexico Dominican Republic Jamaica Liberia 7,617 3,760 385 330 323 296 Poughkeepsie, NY Total Jamaica Mexico Dominican Republic Ecuador Italy 7,265 2,289 1,903 334 262 216 Newburgh, NY Total Mexico Honduras Peru Colombia El Salvador 7,531 3,383 1,288 459 333 283 13,093 4,740 1,318 938 764 691 Lawrence, NJ Total India Poland Guatemala China Philippines 8,109 1,890 1,285 769 736 539 19,683 6,220 2,006 1,331 1,249 1,141 Middle Income Brentwood, NY Total El Salvador Dominican Republic Ecuador Peru Honduras Naugatuck, CT Total Portugal India Canada Vietnam Ecuador 23,874 8,822 2,777 1,384 1,383 1,209 Central Islip, NY Total El Salvador Guatemala Haiti Ecuador Honduras 3,865 1,055 357 206 204 163 Ocean, NJ Total Haiti India Philippines Mexico Pakistan 4,388 726 379 378 361 173 East Windsor, NJ Total India Ecuador China Mexico Guatemala 7,985 2,071 1,835 503 347 303 Marlboro, NJ Total India China Korea Russia Italy 8,219 1,509 1,489 698 541 418 Dix Hills, NY Total India China Korea Italy Poland 4,477 641 594 370 274 247 West Windsor, NJ Total India China Korea United Kingdom Japan 8,586 3,127 1,894 628 278 222 Holmdel, NJ Total China India Italy Turkey Ukraine 3,226 1,079 268 186 180 179 Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 149 Upper Income Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970–2000 decennial censuses; 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning eign-born was 44 percent and 39 percent, respective- which were initially overwhelmingly white, turned ly. Immigrants continued to settle in these cities in Newark from a majority-white city to one that was subsequent decades, and by 2000, both the overall majority-black by 1970 (Table 5-9). But immigrants population and the share of the foreign-born had have played an increasing role in recent decades, reached a new peak. While the foreign-born share with the share of the foreign-born increasing, from 11 dipped slightly by 2011, immigrants still accounted percent in 1970 to 27 percent in 2011. While Newark’s for approximately six-in-ten residents in each city. 2011 population of 277,500 is less than three-quarters White nonhispanics, who comprised a majority in of its1970 population of 382,400, it does represent a West New York and Union City in 1970, saw their small increase since 2000. share dwindle to a new low of 13 percent and 11 percent, respectively; Hispanics accounted for roughly four-fifths of the population. West New York and Union City were quintessentially immigrant cities with very high population densities (Table 5-8). In West New York, nearly two-thirds of housing units were in small multi-unit structures, while this was true of a majority of units in Union City; around 80 percent of the housing stock in each city was comprised of rental units. These characteristics — that we have previously identified as being common to lower income areas — are most often found in urban environments and tend to be the initial destination of immigrants entering the region. Both West New York and Union City had poverty rates more than twice that of the inner counties as a whole, and the In the outer counties, the cities of New Haven and Waterbury had many of the attributes that characterize lower income areas. This included a majority of the housing stock comprised of rentals, and a high proportion of housing units in small multi-unit structures. Each of these cities saw a population decline in the 1990s, but growth reemerged in the following decade in New Haven and Waterbury. In New Haven, this growth was spurred by a large increase in the foreign-born (especially Mexicans and Chinese) who increased their share of the population from 12 percent in 2000 to 17 percent in 2011. Waterbury also grew, primarily due to growth in its foreign-born population; whites remained a plurality in both cities. percentages of those with a bachelor’s degree (25 In New Jersey, Trenton in the outer county of percent and 12 percent, respectively) were much Mercer, was similar in many respects to Newark lower than the 40 percent average for the inner ring. in the inner country of Essex. Trenton was a ma- While Newark has had a long and storied immigrant history, it had not been a prime destination in the initial decades of the post-1965 immigration era despite having the defining physical characteristics of an immigrant city. Rental units in Newark—the largest urban place in the region outside of New York City—comprised the bulk (79 percent) of the housing stock, and 33 percent of housing units were jority-white city in 1970, but saw white flight in the following decades and a precipitous decline in population. Starting in the 1990s, it began to see an influx of immigrants, with the foreign-born nearly doubling to 15 percent in 2000. By 2011, the immigrant share had increased to 23 percent and the entry of immigrants had helped stabilize the overall population of this majority-black city. in small multi-unit buildings. However, public The 1.6 million immigrants in lower income housing comprises a disproportionate share of its areas of the region represented 28 percent of all im- housing stock, and until recently, Newark has not migrants, compared with 24 percent of the overall been able to attract large flows of immigrants to population that lived in lower income areas. Latin counteract native-born outflows. These outflows, American immigrant groups were dispropor- 150 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 5-11 Area of Origin and Country of Birth by Neighborhood Income* New York Metropolitan Region, 2007–2011 TOTAL REGION PERCENT LIVING IN NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE: Lower Income Middle Income Upper Income TOTAL POPULATION Foreign-born 22,101,595 5,811,480 23.7 27.8 50.4 54.6 25.9 17.7 Europe Asia Africa Caribbean, nonhispanic Latin America All Others 1,033,501 1,584,984 221,908 861,996 2,042,534 66,557 14.5 14.8 37.7 28.6 43.6 14.1 56.4 60.0 47.7 57.5 49.3 42.0 29.1 25.2 14.6 13.9 7.1 43.8 523,521 454,827 350,748 324,645 262,350 264,089 171,471 172,908 167,313 159,967 162,197 133,103 138,678 149,374 116,275 112,512 105,832 95,104 76,670 79,984 81,743 73,238 76,989 74,670 65,153 55,889 62,722 53,361 43,771 37,914 59.1 20.6 50.0 9.1 30.2 34.4 30.3 25.2 21.5 9.8 11.5 15.8 36.1 9.8 26.6 35.3 17.4 44.6 21.9 20.1 10.0 15.3 51.5 40.4 37.3 33.6 10.9 15.2 17.5 18.5 36.8 55.9 45.3 61.8 54.7 60.0 55.0 63.9 65.1 57.0 67.9 66.1 59.3 59.4 60.5 56.0 56.0 48.9 69.8 59.6 43.6 69.7 44.9 45.9 47.2 53.6 49.7 42.7 43.1 60.2 4.2 23.5 4.6 29.1 15.1 5.6 14.8 10.9 13.4 33.2 20.6 18.2 4.6 30.9 12.9 8.7 26.5 6.5 8.3 20.2 46.4 15.0 3.6 13.7 15.5 12.8 39.4 42.2 39.5 21.3 Dominican Republic China Mexico India Jamaica Ecuador Haiti Colombia Guyana Korea Philippines Poland El Salvador Italy Trinidad and Tobago Peru Russia Guatemala Bangladesh Ukraine United Kingdom Pakistan Honduras Cuba Brazil Portugal Germany Canada Israel Egypt *For each subregion, census tracts with a median household income in 25th percentile or lower were labeled lower income, while those in the 75th percentile or higher were categorized as upper income. For New York City, this translated into a median household income under $35,800 for lower income neighborhoods, and above $69,500 for upper income neighborhoods. For the inner counties, these thresholds were $52,800 and $108,300, respectively; for the outer counties, they were $58,200 and $95,400, respectively. Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 151 tionately represented in lower income neighborhoods, which were home to nearly 60 percent of Dominicans, approximately one-half of Hondurans and Mexicans, over 4-in-10 Guatemalans and Cubans, and over one-third of Brazilians, El Salvadorans, Peruvians, and Ecuadorians. Overall, 44 percent of Latin Americans lived in these neighborhoods (Table 5-11 and Figure 5-11). 152 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition UPPER INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS—NEW PATTERNS OF IMMIGRANT SETTLEMENT While lower income areas, especially in urban settings, have historically been the destination of choice for immigrants, a new pattern has been emerging that shows substantial immigrant settlement in wealthier areas. In the region as a whole, these upper income areas were home to over one million immigrants (Table 5-12). In the inner counties, upper income areas had a median household income of $135,400, significantly higher than the $78,500 for the subregion as a whole, and were home to 340,800 immigrants. These immigrants include those who settled in these areas directly from their home countries, as well as those who moved in from other parts of the region or from elsewhere in the country. Upper income areas in the inner counties not only had superior socioeconomic characteristics compared with the subregion, but had a more advantageous housing profile. They had a more recently built housing stock, compared with the inner counties as a whole, a smaller proportion of multi-unit buildings and rental units, and a lower population density. These areas were also disproportionately white (80 percent versus 56 percent in the inner counties as a whole), and well educated (63 percent had a college degree versus 40 percent in the inner counties). In upper income places such as Greenwich, Mamaroneck, Livingston, Harrison, Ridgewood, and Syosset, immigrants comprised roughly one-fifth of the population, compared with 26 percent in the inner counties overall. These places are indicative of how wealthier immigrants have established themselves in “nontraditional” areas. But these areas are home to not only wealthy immigrants, but sometimes to poorer immigrants who often work in service occupations in these wealthy neighborhoods. In Greenwich, immigrant household income stood at $113,500, with the largest groups coming from the United Kingdom, Japan, Peru, India, and Brazil (Table 5-10). In Ridgewood, household income stood at $154,300 (data were unavailable for just the foreign-born) and the largest immigrant groups were Koreans, Indians, and Chinese. In Livingston and Syosset, each with household income in excess of $132,000, the Chinese were the largest group, followed by Koreans and Indians. The Asian presence in these upper income places reflects the large Asian presence in upper income areas across the inner counties. In the outer counties, upper income areas had a more recently built housing stock, a smaller proportion of multi-unit buildings and rental units, but a slightly higher population density, compared with the subregion (Table 5-12). Upper income areas, which were home to 148,300 immigrants, had a household income ($108,400) nearly 50 percent higher than subgregion ($74,200) as a whole, and poverty (3 percent) less than one-half the rate of the subregion. Upper income places in the outer counties included Marlboro, West Windsor, Dix Hills, and Holmdel, each with a foreign-born component that substantially exceeded the 12 percent share of immigrants in the outer counties. Dix Hills, with a median household income of $150,500—over twice that of the outer counties as a whole—was 16 percent foreign-born; Indians, Chinese, and Koreans accounted for one-third of the immigrant total. When compared with other upper income areas, West Windsor stood out in that it was nearly one-third foreign-born and had unique housing characteristics. Nearly one-quarter of its housing stock was in small multi-unit structures and a similar percentage of units were rentals. Whites comprised just over one-half the population, with Asians accounting for over one-third, and the median household income was $153,800. The over one million immigrants who lived in upper income neighborhoods across the region comprised 18 percent of the overall foreign-born population (Table 5-11). Upper income areas, however, were home to 26 percent of the overall population, and only European (29 percent) and Asian immigrants (25 percent) had a similar share living in these areas. Immigrants from the United Kingdom (46 percent) had the largest percentage living in upper income areas, followed by Canadian, Israeli, and German immigrants (approximately 40 percent each). Among Asians, Koreans (33 percent) and Indians (29 percent) had the highest shares living in upper income areas. While under one-quarter of foreign-born Chinese lived in upper income neighborhoods, this Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 153 Table 5-12 Characteristics of Selected Upper Income Areas* New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 TOTAL UNITS POPULATION Total Foreignborn % foreignborn Persons per Square Mile** 22,101,595 5,723,018 5,811,480 1,025,736 26.3 17.9 1,758 1,368 8,128,980 2,050,204 2,989,825 536,605 36.8 26.2 Inner Counties 8,454,358 Upper Income 2,180,761 Greenwich, Fairfield, CT 61,023 Mamaroneck, Westchester, NY 29,069 Livingston, Essex, NJ 29,023 Harrison, Westchester, NY 27,103 Ridgewood, Bergen, NJ 24,895 Syosset, Nassau, NY 19,064 2,160,859 340,836 12,857 5,978 6,565 5,949 4,817 3,620 660,804 148,295 8,219 8,586 4,477 3,226 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION Upper Income New York City Upper Income Outer Counties Upper Income Marlboro, Monmouth, NJ West Windsor, Mercer, NJ Dix Hills, Suffolk, NY Holmdel, Monmouth, NJ 5,518,257 1,492,053 39,740 26,669 26,829 16,668 % in Multi-unit Structures** % built prior to 1950 8,844,982 2,291,811 34.3 30.3 38.3 33.2 26,860 22,269 3,356,992 987,924 59.9 60.3 53.1 48.7 25.6 15.6 21.1 20.6 22.6 21.9 19.3 19.0 2,580 1,192 1,276 4,369 2,108 1,617 4,328 3,833 3,213,791 769,648 24,417 11,574 9,898 9,020 8,694 6,302 22.8 9.1 13.1 33.5 5.9 12.1 8.4 1.3 33.7 26.0 37.8 55.2 17.6 33.9 54.6 12.0 12.0 9.9 20.7 32.2 16.7 19.4 614 665 1,309 1,043 1,682 931 2,274,199 534,239 12,826 9,503 8,406 5,773 12.6 5.4 4.4 23.2 2.4 5.1 23.0 15.2 2.8 3.9 5.2 5.1 Total *Census tracts with a median household income in the 75th percentile or higher are labeled upper income. **The total persons per square mile is based on 2007-2011 American Community Survey population estimates, which differs from the one year estimate seen earlier in the chapter. ***Structures containing five or more housing units represented 106,700 Chinese in numerical terms, the largest immigrant presence in these neighborhoods. MIDDLE INCOME NEIGHBORHOODS—HOME TO A MAJORITY OF IMMIGRANTS While the focus of this section has been on lower and upper income areas, so as to distinguish old patterns of immigrant settlement from emerging trends, it is important to remember that 55 percent of immigrants—3.2 million out of 5.8 million (Table 5-13)— live in middle income areas. Since middle income is broadly defined—census tracts with household incomes between the 25th and 75th percentiles—the 154 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition socio-demographic characteristics of middle income areas broadly reflect those of the subregion in which they are located. We highlight a few unique middle income places in each subregion. Edison, which was 40 percent foreign-born, had a household income of $88,700, but immigrant household income was substantially higher, at $105,200. Asian Indians comprised one-half the foreign-born population, and Asians—irrespective of nativity—account for a plurality of Edison’s overall population. Edison is an example of Asian immigrants advancing economically to a point where they can afford a suburban enclave, and OCCUPIED UNITS RACE/HISPANIC ORIGIN (%) NONHISPANICS Total % Rentals White Black 8,038,714 2,106,766 44.9 27.6 52.4 75.0 15.4 6.3 3,049,978 874,045 67.4 50.8 33.5 62.5 2,988,022 732,807 22,249 10,796 9,667 8,679 8,330 6,127 35.4 11.9 27.8 29.8 7.4 33.6 19.2 4.9 2,000,714 499,914 12,567 9,107 8,213 5,336 24.9 10.3 4.3 23.9 6.2 8.3 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME Asian % Below Poverty % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher Hispanic Total Foreign-born 9.0 9.2 21.3 7.7 $66,449 $110,750 – – 12.6 4.5 35.9 56.5 23.1 12.4 12.6 11.5 28.4 11.2 $51,090 $91,964 – – 19.4 7.4 33.7 56.9 55.9 80.4 79.9 79.5 73.6 75.6 74.6 72.6 13.0 2.7 2.1 2.0 1.3 1.4 1.8 0.2 9.0 9.7 7.1 3.9 20.1 7.6 13.7 19.5 20.2 5.6 9.0 13.4 4.0 14.0 7.4 5.9 $78,453 $135,429 $127,201 $111,159 $133,304 $109,005 $154,348 $132,435 – – $113,454 – – – – – 8.9 2.7 3.7 4.8 1.7 5.3 3.6 2.8 40.1 62.6 63.7 64.8 69.6 50.0 74.6 63.4 74.7 84.4 75.0 53.7 80.5 77.3 7.7 3.1 2.1 3.0 3.5 0.5 3.5 5.2 17.2 34.7 10.4 17.5 12.4 6.0 4.8 5.2 4.9 3.1 $74,246 $111,922 $134,269 $153,797 $150,501 $129,444 – – $152,422 $156,227 – – 8.3 3.2 1.4 5.0 1.4 3.8 32.6 46.9 56.1 76.7 59.3 57.4 Note: Incorporated cities or township with a population of at least 16,000 people and a percent foreign-born near the subregional average were selected to be included in the above list of places. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning how Asian immigrants and their children have now come to define a relatively affluent city. Fort Lee, where immigrants comprised nearly one-half of the population, also had a strong Asian presence, particularly of Koreans. Asians—irrespective of nativity—comprised over one-third of the population, and whites were just under one-half. Another city that had a very diverse racial/ethnic mix was Jersey City, where the major groups were roughly similar in size. Hispanics, the largest group, comprised just 28 percent of the population, and whites, Asians, and blacks each comprised between 22 percent and 24 percent. Jersey City was 38 percent foreign-born, and immigrant household income ($62,200) exceeded that of all residents ($57,500). The above cities have a large immigrant presence and the lack of a majority racial group lends them a racial composition that is similar to New York City. In New York State, New Hyde Park in Nassau and Yonkers in Westchester are emblematic of how immigrant groups in New York City have spilled over into adjacent counties. The Irish presence in the Woodlawn section of the Bronx has now established itself across the border in Yonkers. Similarly, the Asian Indian presence in Floral Park in Queens now extends into New Hyde Park. Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 155 Table 5-13 Characteristics of Selected Middle Income Areas* New York Metropolitan Region and Subregions, 2007–2011 TOTAL UNITS POPULATION % in % built Total Multi-unit Structures** prior to 1950 1,758 1,799 8,844,982 4,459,681 34.3 29.3 38.3 37.6 36.8 43.0 26,860 33,713 3,356,992 1,549,131 59.9 50.8 53.1 55.7 2,160,859 25.6 2,580 3,213,791 22.8 33.7 1,171,977 93,673 60,841 45,628 40,348 17,377 3,192 26.3 38.2 31.1 37.5 40.4 49.3 33.0 3,447 16,576 39,309 3,236 3,334 13,883 11,239 1,736,883 108,750 79,914 48,660 34,700 18,031 3,683 22.5 46.4 48.2 35.9 29.0 67.3 4.0 32.8 50.2 45.6 23.1 10.9 14.4 49.2 660,804 323,260 23,874 13,093 8,109 3,865 4,388 7,985 12.0 11.6 42.4 35.7 24.6 12.2 16.1 29.6 614 581 5,127 5,152 1,513 1,949 2,508 1,725 2,274,199 1,173,667 14,580 10,352 12,766 13,212 11,602 10,529 12.6 10.8 4.5 16.3 27.0 13.5 23.4 34.2 23.0 20.6 11.8 10.4 13.2 31.5 17.6 4.3 Total Foreignborn % foreignborn Persons per Square Mile** 22,101,595 11,140,066 5,811,488 3,171,430 26.3 28.5 8,128,980 3,898,526 2,989,825 1,676,193 Inner Counties 8,454,358 Middle Income 4,461,292 Jersey City, Hudson, NJ 245,226 Yonkers, Westchester, NY 195,506 Stamford, Fairfield, CT 121,784 Edison, Middlesex, NJ 99,825 Fort Lee, Bergen, NJ 35,274 New Hyde Park, Nassau, NY 9,661 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION Middle Income New York City Middle Income Outer Counties Middle Income Brentwood, Suffolk, NY Central Islip, Suffolk, NY Lawrence, Mercer, NJ Naugatuck, New Haven CT Ocean, Monmouth, NJ East Windsor, Mercer, NJ 5,518,257 2,780,248 56,302 36,638 32,994 31,778 27,278 26,994 *Census tracts with a median household income between the 25th and 75th percentiles are labeled middle income. **The total persons per square mile is based on 2007–2011 American Community Survey population estimates, which differs from the one year estimate seen earlier in the chapter. ***Structures containing five or more housing units In the outer counties, immigrants comprised the largest share in Brentwood (44 percent). But unlike immigrant cities in the inner counties, Brentwood came into its own after World War II—only 12 percent of its housing stock was built before 1950. It was an atypical immigrant area on other dimensions as well in that only five percent of its housing units were in small multi-unit structures, well below average for the outer ring. The biggest spurt in the foreign-born population took place between 1990 and 2000, resulting in the share of immigrants doubling to 35 percent, further increasing to 44 percent by 2011. While the population reached a peak of 56,200 in 2011, whites comprised just 14 percent of the total. 156 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition There were groups that had a disproportionately large presence in middle income neighborhoods— and a small presence in both lower income and upper income neighborhoods (Table 5-11). This was especially true of immigrants from Poland, the Philippines, and Egypt, with over 6-in-10 immigrants from these countries living in middle income neighborhoods, compared with one-half of the overall population. While the focus in this chapter has been the inner and outer counties, neighborhoods in New York City also run the gamut from lower income to upper income. As in the rest of the region, lower income areas OCCUPIED UNITS RACE/HISPANIC ORIGIN (%) ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS NONHISPANICS MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME % White Black Asian Hispanic Total Foreign-born 8,038,714 4,071,860 44.9 41.5 52.4 53.2 15.4 14.1 9.0 10.6 21.3 20.0 $66,449 $67,399 – – 12.6 10.0 35.9 33.2 3,049,978 1,422,558 67.4 65.9 33.5 29.9 23.1 24.0 12.6 15.9 28.4 27.5 $51,090 $49,988 – – 19.4 16.8 33.7 29.2 2,988,022 1,631,159 94,599 74,242 45,478 33,355 16,404 35.4 32.7 68.2 53.1 43.6 35.8 39.2 55.9 58.6 21.9 42.1 51.3 39.8 48.0 13.0 10.5 24.2 16.4 14.4 7.1 1.3 9.0 10.8 22.9 6.3 8.0 42.0 36.5 20.2 18.2 28.0 33.5 24.4 8.4 12.2 $78,453 $79,292 $57,520 $56,816 $78,201 $88,706 $69,911 – – $62,171 $52,781 $64,192 $105,206 $66,076 8.9 6.5 16.4 2.8 11.0 6.7 8.8 40.1 38.3 40.6 29.2 43.9 50.4 53.9 3,347 18.9 61.0 1.3 23.3 11.4 $86,875 – 2.7 32.6 2,000,714 24.9 21.6 24.9 28.4 28.5 30.8 33.0 30.5 74.7 77.2 15.8 19.4 62.3 79.6 75.6 51.9 7.7 5.8 14.7 21.9 11.6 4.0 8.6 8.9 3.5 2.9 2.6 3.7 15.1 4.3 6.7 16.8 12.4 12.4 65.1 52.8 8.0 9.7 7.6 20.3 $74,246 $76,234 $70,816 $70,310 $86,715 $63,414 $80,000 $85,859 – – $68,435 $73,320 $97,774 – – $81,375 8.3 6.2 8.7 10.1 5.8 8.5 5.6 6.6 32.6 30.4 13.6 16.5 52.2 23.2 44.6 44.2 Total 1,018,143 13,874 9,833 11,948 12,386 10,786 10,053 Below Poverty % Bachelor’s Degree or Higher % Rentals Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007-2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning in the city had the highest share of housing in multiunit structures (75 percent) in heavily immigrant neighborhoods such as Washington Heights and Chinatown in Manhattan. But lower income areas also include neighborhoods such as Mott HavenPort Morris, Melrose, Brownsville, Ocean Hill, and East New York that have high-rise public housing, home to primarily a poor, native-born population. In contrast with lower income neighborhoods, just 56 percent of housing in middle-income neighborhoods was in multi-unit structures. But the city’s housing stock and socio-demographic make-up result in neighborhood characteristics that are often distinct from those in the region (Tables 5-8, 5-12, and 5-13). For example, lower income neighborhoods had a percentage foreign-born (36 percent) that was slightly lower than the city average of 37 percent, while middle income neighborhoods had the highest percentage of residents who were foreign-born (43 percent) and had the highest population density (33,700 persons per square mile). These middle income areas included Corona, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights, among the most densely populated—and disproportionately foreign-born—neighborhoods in the city. Upper income neighborhoods included a swath of low density neighborhoods in eastern Chapter 5: Immigrant New York: A Regional Perspective 157 Queens, southern Brooklyn, and the southern section of Staten Island. But they also included many neighborhoods in Manhattan, including the Upper East and Upper West side. As a result, upper income neighborhoods had relatively high densities, averaging 22,300 persons per square mile, with over one-quarter of residents born abroad. Thus, dense immigrant concentrations in New York City were a feature of not only poor neighborhoods, but of many wealthy ones as well. SUMMARY The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Amendments had a two-fold impact on the New York metropolitan region: it increased overall immigration and led to a surge in flows from non-European sources. The initial impact was felt primarily in New York City, which saw the entry of large numbers of immigrants from the Caribbean, Asia, and Latin America. Over time, however, many of these immigrants migrated out of New York City, making their home in the suburbs. Their numbers were supplemented by newly arrived immigrants bypassing the five boroughs and settling in immigrant enclaves across the region. By 2011, while New York City was still home to a majority of the region’s foreign-born, the inner counties accounted for 38 percent, while the outer counties settled over 11 percent. With many parts of the region showing a decline in their native-born populations, immigrants have helped shore up the population of many counties in the region. Foreign-for-native replacement, which first took place in New York City, has been replicated in many of the inner counties. The flow of immigrants has also altered the racial/Hispanic composition of the region, as the primarily non-European flow of immigrants has succeeded departing white nonhispanics. Again, New York City’s experience of white nonhispanics comprising only a plurality has been mirrored in the inner counties of Union, Passaic, and Middlesex; in Hudson and Essex, whites were in the minority, but were too small to comprise a plurality. Increasingly, post-1965 immigrants have made their presence felt in the outer counties, 158 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition leading to declines in the share of the native-born and white nonhispanics; however, these groups still comprise the overwhelming majority in the outer ring. With Mercer at just 54 percent white in 2011, it is soon likely to be the first outer county where whites will comprise a plurality. As in New York City, immigrants in the inner and outer counties tend to cluster in places with an abundance of older housing, much of it in small multi-unit buildings, which produce high population densities. Since newly arrived immigrants often settle in existing enclaves, these areas also tend to be disproportionately immigrant, heavily minority, and with incomes that are lower than the subregion average. While the foreign-born have disproportionately made their home in older cities that have traditionally housed newly arrived immigrants, they also have a notable presence in wealthier urban places in the region. These places reflect the overall racial make-up of the inner or outer counties, and often have a higher socioeconomic profile than the subregion in which they are located. ENDNOTES 1 Unlike previous censuses, separate counts were available for Asians and Pacific Islanders in 2000 and 2011. In this analysis, Asians and Pacific Islanders were combined in both periods to obtain a count that was comparable with previous decades. 2 Given the differences in the percentage foreign-born between subregions, areas with high foreign-born concentrations were defined separately for census tracts in New York City, the inner ring of counties, and the outer ring. Since urban places are not necessarily coterminous with census tract boundaries, the urban places selected have their centroid in a census tract with a high concentration of the foreign-born. 3 For each subregion, census tracts with a median household income in 25th percentile or lower were labeled lower income, while those in the 75th percentile or higher were categorized as upper income. For New York City, this translated into a median household income under $35,800 for lower income neighborhoods, and above $69,500 for upper income neighborhoods. For the inner counties, these thresholds were $52,800 and $108,300, respectively; for the outer counties, they were $58,200 and $95,400, respectively. CHAPTER Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants Immigration law is the gateway through which every legally admitted immigrant to the U.S. passes. The law helps determine the size and characteristics of immigrant flows and provides a perspective for understanding the changing mix of immigrants over time. This chapter examines how those coming to New York City navigate the paths made available by U.S. immigration law, also known as classes of admission, to become legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. For nearly 50 years, immigration to the U.S. has been shaped by the landmark Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1965 (hereafter referred to as the 1965 Act). This law replaced the national origins quotas of the 1920s, which heavily favored northern and western Europe, with a visa system that placed all countries on an equal footing. The 1965 Act (as amended in 1976 and 1978) emphasized family reunification, but also opened the door to those with occupational skills required in the U.S., and the admission of refugees and asylees. The 1990 Immigration Act, the biggest change in immigration law since 1965, maintained the priority given to family reunification, but placed an increased premium on skills. It also permanently put into place a program to diversify the source countries of immigrants to the U.S. Under the new law, which took effect in 1992, most prospective immigrants could choose one of four tracks to enter the U.S.: a family track, an employment track, a diversity track intended to provide people without family in the U.S. a chance to immigrate, and a track that provided for the entry of refugees and asylees. The discussion that follows is divided into four sections. The first section (please see the box on page 160 and Table 6-1) explains the data sources used in this chapter and how these data differ from those used in earlier chapters. The second section dissects immigration law, details classes of admission, and notes how these classes have been amended in recent decades. The third section examines how the share of immigrants entering through each class of admission has changed over the past three decades for the city overall and for the U.S. The final section focuses on the top 20 recently admitted immigrant groups and examines their immigration trajectories and paths of admission over the past three decades. It groups these countries by their trajectory—some have seen their numbers increase over this period, while others have reached a plateau or are in decline—and by the primary strategy they have used to gain admission to the U.S. (This section is available only as a chapter supplement at www.nyc.gov/ population, along with data on classes of admission for each country for the past three decades.) VISA ALLOCATION UNDER THE 1990 IMMIGRATION ACT All immigrants legally admitted to the U.S. must obtain a visa from any one of the pools defined by immigration law. These visa pools are referred to as classes of admission because each represents a category defined by the law through which one gains permanent resident status. As a result, the law itself can promote immigration from some places and discourage it from others. This in turn helps explain not only how groups have come to settle in the U.S., but also provides insight into future flows. Thus comprehending the impact of immigration laws through an analysis of class of admission is essential for those seeking to understand immigration flows to New York City. The visa allocation system, as defined by the 1965 Act, is presented in Table 6-2 alongside the 1990 Act and is divided into four major categories: 159 DATA SOURCES This chapter is based on administrative data from A comparison of the foreign-born that entered during the the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) at the U.S. past decade, as measured in the ACS and OIS, would Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on persons also show differences due to internal migration, which 1 who have been granted lawful permanent residence in often occurs as part of the immigrant settlement process. the United States. The data are derived from adminis- Thus a newly admitted immigrant who first settled in New trative records provided by the OIS via annual immigrant York in 2008 (and hence was included in the OIS data for the city), may not have been a resident of the city in 2011(and thus was excluded from the 2011 ACS data for the city). In contrast, a newly admitted immigrant who may have initially resided elsewhere, and subsequently moved to the city in 2011, would be included in the ACS data for the city, but not in the OIS data. As a result, a recent immigrant may be captured by one data source, but not the other. 2 tape files for the fiscal years 1982 to 2001 and special tabulations for 2002 to 2011. These newly admitted legal permanent residents (LPRs), also known as recipients of “green cards,” either arrived from outside of the U.S. with valid immigrant visas issued by a U.S. Department of State consular office in their home countries (new arrivals) or were already in the U.S. in a temporary status and adjusted to legal permanent residence (adjustees) by applying to the U.S. Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services within DHS. In 2011, 55 percent of all LPRs were adjustees.3 As OIS data are derived from administrative records, they are prone to the limitations associated with using such data for statistical purposes. One problem concerns administrative delays in the processing of visa applications where increases/declines in annual flows (Table 6-1) may not be associated with changes in the propensity of immigrants to come to the city.4 Given the conceptual differences in data from the OIS and ACS, caution needs to be exercised when comparing data from these two sources. Nevertheless, these data complement each other and each offers a unique dimension on immigration to the city. Since OIS data are singularly focused on the annual legal flows into the city, they contain a rich trove of information on the changing legal pathways immigrants use to gain admission to the U.S. Once admitted, LPRs are able to open the door for their family members to legally immigrate to the U.S. Anyone interested in current issues related to immigration would be well-served by studying the latest trends in immigration in the context of class of admission. While OIS data focus on the flow of newly admitted immi- multinational corporations, foreign government officials, Many tables in this chapter show country of birth detail. While earlier chapters looked at the top 20 groups with the largest overall foreign-born population, this chapter focuses on the top 20 countries in the OIS data in the 2002-2011 period—countries that had the largest number of newly admitted LPRs in the past decade. The top 20 OIS list includes Uzbekistan, Ghana, and Nigeria, which were not among the top 20 foreign-born groups shown in earlier chapters. They have replaced Italy, the United temporary workers and trainees—as well as a segment of Kingdom, and El Salvador, which were among the top 20 the unauthorized immigrant population. Therefore, sum- foreign-born groups, but are not among the top 20 source ming the post-2000 flow of newly admitted immigrants to countries in the OIS data. While discussing the top 20 New York from the OIS data will not equal the number of source countries in this chapter, the more expansive term immigrants in the 2011 ACS data who reported that they “immigrant” is often used, but it only refers to the subset entered the country over the same time period. of immigrants who are newly admitted LPRs. grants, earlier chapters presented American Community Survey (ACS) data on the total stock of the foreign-born population residing in the city in 2011, sometimes by their year of arrival. The foreign-born population in the ACS is comprised of more than just recent LPR entrants. The foreign-born also include non-immigrants—those temporarily admitted to the U.S., such as students, employees of 160 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition family-related immigrants, employment preferences, diversity visas, and refugees and asylees. Family-Related Immigrants Under the 1990 Immigration Act, those seeking to immigrate by way of family ties entered within the family preferences or as immediate relatives of U.S. citizens. The family preferences included visas allotted in the first, second, third, and fourth preferences. Unmarried and married adult children of U.S. citizens were eligible for entry under the first and third preferences, respectively. Siblings of American citizens entered under the fourth preference. The second preference was the only category through which LPRs could reunify with their spouses, minor children, and unmarried children 21 and over. The family preferences were subject to numerical limits; however, any unused visas from a preference category were assigned to the next highest preference. Visas for reunification with immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, defined as minor children, spouses of U.S. citizens, and parents of U.S. citizens over the age of 21, were not subject to numerical limits. Each country was allotted a maximum of 20,000 visas; however, visas for immediate relatives were not counted toward this limit. The minimum allotment for family-related immigrants was 480,000 visas, including 226,000 visas for the family preferences and 254,000 visas for immediate relatives. Since immediate relatives were not subject to any numerical limits, if more than 254,000 visas were required, this increase would be accommodated. If any of the 254,000 visas for immediate relatives were unused they were allotted to the family preferences. Table 6-1 Persons Admitted for Lawful Permanent Residence New York City, 1982–2011* Year TOTAL, 1982–2011 1982–1991 Number 2,932,071 898,213 1982 75,443 1983 75,035 1984 87,364 1985 85,835 1986 89,810 1987 92,296 1988 88,165 1989 90,871 1990 103,049 1991 110,345 1992–2001 1,002,190 1992 113,246 1993 119,258 1994 117,090 1995 105,728 1996 125,645 1997 100,970 1998 76,586 1999 76,787 2000 81,539 2001 85,341 2002–2011 1,031,668 2002 84,102 2003 66,104 The 1990 Immigration Act provided more opportunities for those in skilled occupations. Prior to the 1990 law, visas were allotted equally to members of the professions of exceptional ability (27,000 visas) and to those, either skilled or unskilled, in occupations where labor was in short supply (27,000 visas). In response to appeals from employers, the 1990 Act substantially increased the number of visas 77,011 2005 102,545 2006 Employment Preferences 2004 137,009 2007 105,110 2008 111,813 2009 117,255 2010 115,217 2011 115,502 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 161 Table 6-2 Outline of the U.S. Visa Allocation System for Fiscal Years 1982–2011 Visa Allocation System after the 1976 and 1978 Amendments, and the 1980 Refugee Act The Immigration Act of 1990* (in effect during the period 1992–2011) (in effect during the period 1982–1991) FAMILY-RELATED VISAS FAMILY-RELATED VISAS Family Preferences: First 216,000 Unmarried sons and daughters of United States 54,000 Family Preferences:** First citizens and their children 70,200 Second permanent resident aliens 23,400 Spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of 114,200 permanent resident aliens Married sons and daughters of United States 27,000 Third citizens and their spouses and children Fifth Unmarried sons and daughters of United States citizens and their children Second Spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of Fourth 226,000 Married sons and daughters of United States 23,400 citizens and their spouses and children Brothers and sisters of United States citizens 64,800 Fourth Brothers and sisters of United States citizens (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children 65,000 (at least 21 years of age) and their spouses and children Immediate relatives of United States citizens: No numerical limit Immediate relatives of United States citizens: No numerical limit Spouses Spouses Minor Children Minor Children Parents of United States citizens at least 21 years of age Parents of United States citizens at least 21 years of age 54,000 EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES: Third Members of the professions of exceptional 27,000 EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCES: 140,000 First Priority workers 40,040 Second Professionals with advanced degrees 40,040 Third Skilled and needed unskilled workers 40,040 Fourth Special immigrants 9,940 Fifth Employment creation (investors) 9,940 ability and their spouses and children Sixth Workers in either skilled or unskilled 27,000 occupations in which laborers are in short supply in the United States and their spouses and children DIVERSITY* Started only in 1987; visas varied by year REFUGEE AND ASYLEE ADJUSTMENTS Set by the President, in consultation with Congress *Countries “adversely affected” by the 1965 law were allotted 5,000 visas in 1987 and1988. This was increased to 15,000 for 1989, 1990 and 1991. “Natives of under-represented” countries were provided 10,000 visas in 1990 and 1991. DIVERSITY REFUGEE AND ASYLEE ADJUSTMENTS 55,000 Set by the President, in consultation with Congress *Visas for legalization dependents—the immediate relatives of those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act—are not shown. These visas totaled 55,000 annually during the 1992-1994 transition period. Also during this period, diversity visas totaled 40,000 annually, increasing to 55,000 from 1995 onwards. **The figure of 226,000 is the minimum number of family preference visas available. The upper limit is 480,000 minus the number of immediate relatives admitted in the prior year. 162 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition for workers with skills, from 27,000 to 130,000; the number of visas for the less skilled was reduced from 27,000 to 10,000. The 1990 Act established five new employment preferences. The first preference, with an allotment of 40,040 visas, was for priority workers and included aliens with extraordinary ability, outstanding professors or researchers, and multinational executives. The second preference provided 40,040 visas for professionals with advanced degrees. The third preference, which was open to skilled workers, professionals with a bachelor’s degree, and to needed unskilled workers, also had an allotment of 40,040 visas, 10,000 of which were reserved for unskilled workers. Skilled workers generally needed to have a college degree or specialized experience. The fourth preference (9,940 visas) was aimed at special immigrants, which included religious workers, employees of the U.S. government abroad, and aliens serving in the U.S. armed forces. The fifth preference was also allotted 9,940 visas and aimed at persons willing to invest at least $500,000 in certain businesses that employ a minimum specified number of workers. Diversity Visas The passage of the 1965 Act dramatically increased immigration to the U.S. from Latin America and Asia. Moreover, by the late 1970s, European immigration began to decline, and the 1965 law’s emphasis on family reunification began to adversely affect prospective European immigrants as many no longer had close kin in the U.S. Various attempts were made in the 1980s to invigorate immigration from Europe by instituting programs aimed at diversifying immigration. As part of the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), 5,000 visas were allotted in 1987 and 1988 to 36 countries deemed “adversely affected” by the 1965 law. The Immigration Amendments of 1988 increased the annual allotment for adversely affected countries to 15,000 for 1989, 1990, and 1991. Also included as part of these amendments was a program for natives of “underrepresented” countries, which provided 10,000 visas to aliens in 1990 and 1991 for countries where immigration was less than 5,000 in 1988. The idea of creating a pool of visas to diversify immigration became permanent in the 1990 Immigration Act. By providing an entry path for those with no close relatives in the U.S., these visas were meant to sustain a diverse mix of immigrants, thereby redressing some of the perceived inequities in a system based on reunification with close relatives. Under the 1990 law, 40,000 visas would be made available on the basis of a lottery during a transition period (1992 to 1994), with 40 percent of all visas reserved for Ireland. A permanent program was put in place in 1995, with 50,000 visas available annually for nations from which immigration was less than 50,000 over the previous 5 years, with each nation limited to 7 percent of the total pool. (The 50,000 immigrant threshold did not include immigrants who were exempt from numerical limits, such as immediate relatives or refugees.) Most countries competed for an allotment under the permanent diversity visa program, with the federal government establishing ceilings by region of the world. Applicants for diversity visas needed to have at least a high school education or equivalent, or a minimum of two years in a skilled occupation within five years of the application date. Refugees and Asylees The criterion for refugee status was established by the Refugee Act of 1980, which defines a refugee as a person with a “well founded fear of persecution.” The number of refugees permitted to enter the U.S. is set annually by the president in consultation with the Congress. The granting of refugee status is a political decision, as much as a humanitarian one, and is closely related to foreign policy objectives. For example, persons from communist nations have historically been granted refugee status, while other victims of political oppression have not been granted entry under this category. In general, persons victimized by poverty are not eligible for refugee status. Asylees differ from refugees in that the former seek asylum once they are inside the U.S., while the latter apply for refugee status while living outside the U.S. Prior to 2005, there was a 10,000 annual limit on the number of persons authorized to adjust status as asylees. The REAL ID Act of 2005 removed that cap Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 163 the next period, 1992-2001, corresponds to the first 10 years this law was in effect. The most recent period, 2002-2011, reflects the second decade since the law went into effect. These periods hereafter will be referred to as the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. Table 6-3 presents data for the classes of admission used by immigrants to New York City in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s, while Table 6-4 presents comparable data for the U.S. thereby clearing out the existing backlog in addition to paving the way for an increase in the annual number of asylees adjusting status. Both refugees and asylees are given temporary visas and are permitted to adjust their status to LPR after one year. ANALYSIS OF IMMIGRANTS BY CLASS OF ADMISSION This section examines the legal paths of admission taken by newly admitted immigrants over the last three decades, and how the share entering through these classes of admission has changed for the city and for the U.S. The first time span, 1982-1991, largely represents a period when the 1965 Immigration Act (and subsequent amendments) defined the classes of admission. The 1990 Act took effect in 1992, and thus 164 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition In the 2002–2011 period, there were 1,031,700 persons admitted as legal permanent residents in New York City, up 3 percent from the flow in the 1992–2001 period (Table 6-3). This increase, it is important to note, is an artifact of how the data are collated. Since 1990, partly due to administrative issues, immigration has fluctuated from a low of 66,100 in 2003, to a high of 137,000 in 2006. If immigration flows were compared between the 19901999 and 2000–2011, they would have shown a decline of 5 percent. Thus, rather than be seen as an increase in the overall propensity of immigrants to come to New York, the 3 percent growth in legally admitted immigrants between 1992–2001 and 2002–2011 should be used as a benchmark when examining changes in the classes of admission used by immigrants entering the city in these two periods. In addition to the three time periods presented in Tables 6-3 and 6-4, which examine the class of admission for all immigrants to New York and the U.S, respectively, the analysis below refers to Tables 6-5 to 6-9, which present detailed class of admission data for New York’s top sources of LPRs in the 2000s. The analysis is divided into four subsections, each corresponding to a central feature of recent immigration law outlined in the previous section: family-related visas—including family preferences (Table 6-5) and immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (Table 6-6), employment preferences (Table 6-7), diversity immigration (Table 6-8), and refugees/ asylees (Table 6-9). Family-Related Immigrants FAMILY PREFERENCES Historically, immigrants to New York City have disproportionately relied on family preference visas. In the 1980s, 57 percent of immigrants to the city (Table 6-3) were admitted under this class of admission, compared with 35 percent for the nation (Table 6-4). But the use of family preference visas has declined dramatically over the last 30 years, from 514,800 in the 1980s to 279,800 in the last decade. The sharpest decline was from the 1980s to the 1990s, when the number of family preference visas fell by 33 percent, and continued into the 2000s with another loss of 19 percent. The nation, which has not had nearly as high a reliance on family preference visas, actually showed a 7 percent increase in their use between the 1980s and 1990s, followed by a decline of 9 percent in the 2000s. As a result, the share of immigrants admitted under the family preferences in the last decade has continued to converge for the city (27 percent) and the nation (20 percent) (Figure 6-1). The drop in the city’s family preferences in the past decade can be entirely explained by the sharp decline (39 percent) in the second preference (spouses and minor children of permanent resident aliens). The reduction in this category was also substantial for the nation in the latest period—25 percent. The share of all LPRs to New York admitted by way of the second preference has grown smaller over the years. In the 1980s, 37 percent of all immigrants used this path, but by the last decade the share had Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 165 Table 6-3 Immigrants Admitted by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, 2002–2011* Number Percent Distribution Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s ALL IMMIGRANTS 898,213 1,002,190 1,031,668 Family-Related Visas 731,657 656,409 Family Preferences 514,846 First Unmarried sons and daughters of 100.0 100.0 100.0 11.6 2.9 718,068 81.5 65.5 69.6 -10.3 9.4 344,024 279,759 57.3 34.3 27.1 -33.2 -18.7 14,946 38,359 48,463 1.7 3.8 4.7 156.7 26.3 335,203 197,239 120,535 37.3 19.7 11.7 -41.2 -38.9 42,855 35,272 37,296 4.8 3.5 3.6 -17.7 5.7 121,842 73,154 73,465 13.6 7.3 7.1 -40.0 0.4 216,811 312,385 438,309 24.1 31.2 42.5 44.1 40.3 48.0 U.S. citizens and their children Second Spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens Third Married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens and their spouses and children (Fourth preference prior to 1992) Fourth Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens at least 21 years of age and their spouses and children (Fifth preference prior to 1992) Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens Spouses 128,231 167,903 248,484 14.3 16.8 24.1 30.9 Children 36,673 80,261 97,195 4.1 8.0 9.4 118.9 21.1 Parents 51,907 64,221 92,630 5.8 6.4 9.0 23.7 44.2 67,923 106,855 95,914 7.6 10.7 9.3 57.3 -10.2 – 13,521 19,784 – 1.3 1.9 – 46.3 Second Professionals with advanced degrees Third Skilled and needed unskilled workers Skilled and professional workers Needed unskilled workers – – – – 11,440 71,397 57,936 13,461 14,044 52,150 47,365 4,785 – – – – 1.1 7.1 5.8 1.3 1.4 5.1 4.6 0.5 – – – – 22.8 -27.0 -18.2 -64.5 Fourth Special immigrants – 10,343 7,426 – 1.0 0.7 – -28.2 Fifth Employment creation (investors) Employment preferences First Priority workers – 154 2,509 – 0.0 0.2 – 1529.2 Pre-1992 Third preference 18,958 – – 2.1 – – – – Pre-1992 Sixth preference 48,965 – – 5.5 – – – – Diversity 15,254 88,932 72,014 1.7 8.9 7.0 483.0 -19.0 Refugees/Asylees 64,978 125,836 131,735 7.2 12.6 12.8 93.7 4.7 Other Immigrants 18,401 24,158 13,937 2.0 2.4 1.4 31.3 -42.3 * Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 – Data category not applicable Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 166 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 6-4 Immigrants Admitted by Class of Admission United States, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, 2002–2011* Number Percent Distribution Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 ALL IMMIGRANTS 6,086,281 8,131,855 10,510,852 100.0 100.0 100.0 33.6 29.3 Family-Related Visas 4,199,869 5,188,188 6,780,981 69.0 63.8 64.5 23.5 30.7 Family Preferences 2,118,384 2,273,226 2,079,557 34.8 28.0 19.8 7.3 -8.5 First Unmarried sons and daughters of 109,288 192,023 248,904 1.8 2.4 2.4 75.7 29.6 1,112,043 1,235,914 932,768 18.3 15.2 8.9 11.1 -24.5 U.S. citizens and their children Second Spouses and unmarried sons and daughters of permanent resident aliens Third Married sons and daughters of U.S. 217,740 230,048 257,849 3.6 2.8 2.5 5.7 12.1 679,313 615,241 640,036 11.2 7.6 6.1 -9.4 4.0 citizens and their spouses and children (Fourth preference prior to 1992) Fourth Brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens at least 21 years of age and their spouses and children (Fifth preference prior to 1992) Immediate Relatives of U.S. Citizens Spouses 2,081,485 2,914,962 4,701,424 34.2 35.8 44.7 40.0 61.3 1,240,863 1,629,977 2,718,106 20.4 20.0 25.9 31.4 66.8 Children 384,749 640,438 950,181 6.3 7.9 9.0 66.5 48.4 Parents 455,873 644,547 1,033,137 7.5 7.9 9.8 41.4 60.3 529,604 1,100,488 1,573,421 43.0 Employment preferences First Priority workers Second Professionals with advanced degrees Third 8.7 13.5 15.0 107.8 – 220,086 352,583 – 2.7 3.4 – 60.2 – 234,186 437,506 – 2.9 4.2 – 86.8 Skilled and needed unskilled workers – 565,887 691,438 – 7.0 6.6 – 22.2 Skilled and professional workers – 488,643 652,598 – 6.0 6.2 – 33.6 Needed unskilled workers – 77,244 38,840 – 0.9 0.4 – -49.7 Fourth Special immigrants – 74,226 78,782 – 0.9 0.7 – 6.1 Fifth Employment creation (investors) – 5,452 13,112 – 0.1 0.1 – 140.5 Pre-1992 Third preference 264,524 340 – 4.3 0.0 – -99.9 – Pre-1992 Sixth preference 265,080 311 – 4.4 0.0 – -99.9 – 67,365 452,323 461,598 1.1 5.6 4.4 571.5 2.1 990,994 1,386,293 17.8 12.2 13.2 -8.5 39.9 3.4 4.9 2.9 93.2 -22.8 Diversity Refugees/Asylees 1,082,501 Other Immigrants 206,942 399,862 308,559 * Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 – Data category not applicable Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 167 Table 6-5 Family Preference Visas by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011* NUMBER SHARE Family Preferences TOTAL ALL IMMIGRANTS Family Preferences Second Third Fourth TOTAL Total First 1,031,668 279,759 48,463 120,535 37,296 73,465 100.0 27.1 4.7 Total First Second Third Fourth 11.7 3.6 7.1 China 169,801 45,696 2,299 9,922 7,340 26,135 100.0 26.9 1.4 5.8 4.3 15.4 Dominican Republic 153,440 83,964 8,024 66,456 2,185 7,299 100.0 54.7 5.2 43.3 1.4 4.8 Bangladesh 52,658 17,013 415 4,845 676 11,077 100.0 32.3 0.8 9.2 1.3 21.0 Jamaica 50,317 17,389 9,477 4,170 1,868 1,874 100.0 34.6 18.8 8.3 3.7 3.7 Guyana 46,431 28,017 8,693 3,657 10,893 4,774 100.0 60.3 18.7 7.9 23.5 10.3 Ecuador 34,817 9,741 1,759 5,210 1,345 1,427 100.0 28.0 5.1 15.0 3.9 4.1 India 27,991 6,330 272 1,297 998 3,763 100.0 22.6 1.0 4.6 3.6 13.4 Haiti 27,461 10,988 2,803 5,754 962 1,469 100.0 40.0 10.2 21.0 3.5 5.3 Trinidad & Tobago 26,006 6,323 2,502 896 1,061 1,864 100.0 24.3 9.6 3.4 4.1 7.2 Pakistan 22,468 7,035 448 2,368 1,207 3,012 100.0 31.3 2.0 10.5 5.4 13.4 Colombia 22,312 4,536 1,406 1,564 547 1,019 100.0 20.3 6.3 7.0 2.5 4.6 Ukraine 19,233 744 288 199 162 44 100.0 3.9 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.2 Philippines 17,909 2,877 285 1,264 530 798 100.0 16.1 1.6 7.1 3.0 4.5 Poland 17,571 3,918 546 812 2,119 441 100.0 22.3 3.1 4.6 12.1 2.5 Uzbekistan 16,476 334 99 64 126 14 100.0 2.0 0.6 0.4 0.8 0.1 Russia 14,364 481 192 139 79 23 100.0 3.3 1.3 1.0 0.6 0.2 Korea 14,060 1,855 341 471 584 459 100.0 13.2 2.4 3.3 4.2 3.3 Ghana 13,419 1,458 611 540 147 160 100.0 10.9 4.6 4.0 1.1 1.2 Mexico 12,820 1,175 86 972 48 43 100.0 9.2 0.7 7.6 0.4 0.3 Nigeria 11,011 1,051 323 339 77 297 100.0 9.5 2.9 3.1 0.7 2.7 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning dropped to 12 percent, almost converging with the 9 percent share nationwide. The second preference, however, is still the largest source of family preference visas for the city, numbering 120,500. The second largest category in the family preference visa system is the fourth preference—brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens. The number of LPRs to New York admitted with fourth family preference visas fell by 40 percent between the 1980s and the 1990s, but remained at that level in the 2000s. The 73,500 LPRs admitted as fourth preference immi168 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition grants in the 2000s accounted for 7 percent of all LPRs, down from 14 percent in the 1980s. Visas allocated for the first and third preferences accounted for the smallest share of all family preferences (5 and 4 percent, respectively, in the 2000s). However, these were the only categories that increased between the 1990s and 2000s. The increase was greatest for first preference visas (unmarried adult sons and daughters of U.S. citizens), which grew by 26 percent. With the decline in the use of second preference visas and increases in both the first and third preferences, the distribution within the family preference visas has become more reflective of the nation (See Figure 6-2). The number and share of detailed family preference visas for the top immigrant groups are shown in Table 6-5 for the most recent period. While the share of LPRs in the city entering with a family preference has declined to 27 percent in the 2000s, a few countries still show a heavy reliance on this visa category. For example, 60 percent of LPRs from Guyana enter by way of a family preference, as do over one-half of all immigrants from the Dominican Republic (55 percent). Other countries that also exhibit a higher proclivity for family preference visas are Haiti, Jamaica, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Certain countries relied disproportionately on specific family preference categories. Nearly onefifth of immigrants from Jamaica and Guyana entered with first preference visas. Dominicans had the highest percentage, by far, of those who entered with second preference visas (43 percent), and accounted for over one-half of all second preference users in the city. The third preference was most likely to be the visa of choice for Guyanese (24 percent) and Poles (12 percent); as noted earlier, the city average was 4 percent. Finally, Bangladeshis (21 percent) and Chinese (15 percent) were most likely to enter with a fourth preference visa, along with two other South Asian groups, Indians and Pakistanis (13 percent each); the city average was just 7 percent. number of family preference immigrants in New York City. This increase, along with a decline in the number of family preference visas noted earlier, has caused the share of immediate relatives in the city to increase from 31 percent in the 1990s to 43 percent in the last decade, converging with its 45 percent share nationally (Figure 6-1). The entry of spouses of American citizens, the majority of all immediate relatives, increased by 48 percent, from 167,900 in the 1990s to 248,500 in the last decade. This group now accounts for almost one-quarter of all immigrants to New York City. Visas issued to the children of U.S. citizens increased by 21 percent, the smallest gain among the immediate relative categories, while those issued to the parents of U.S. citizens increased by 44 percent. In the 2000s, children and parents accounted for 9 percent each, roughly comparable for the nation overall. Immediate relatives accounted for more than one-half of all immigrants from a number of nations in the past decade (Table 6-6). These include immigrants from Colombia (70 percent), Trinidad and Tobago (67 percent), Jamaica (62 percent), Ecuador (54 percent), and Pakistan (53 percent). In addition, two countries that are emerging in the city’s immigration firmament, Ghana and Nigeria, had large shares (63 percent and 55 percent, respectively) of immigrants coming in as immediate relatives. IMMEDIATE RELATIVES Employment Preferences While the numerically limited family preference visas are often oversubscribed, entailing long waiting periods, visas for immediate relatives are not subject to numerical limits. Thus someone who is eligible for an immediate relative visa is admitted to permanent residence once the visa processing is completed. Given the lack of numerical limits, this category has increased dramatically over the last three decades. In the U.S. the number of immediate relatives increased 61 percent in the last decade and now accounts for 45 percent of all immigrants. The number of immediate relatives settling in New York City also increased, but to a lesser degree (40 percent). Consequently, for the first time, the number of immediate relatives admitted exceeded the The 1990 law’s increased emphasis on the entry of those with job skills required in the U.S. was reflected in a 57 percent growth in employment visas used by immigrants to the city, from 67,900 in the 1980s to 106,900 in the 1990s (Table 6-3). As foreseen by the 1990 law, these entrants comprised a larger share of all entrants, increasing from 8 percent in the 1980s to 11 percent in the 1990s. Nationally, employment visas have played a more important role: The number of immigrants admitted with an employment visa more than doubled in the first decade the 1990 law was in effect. But while employment visas nationwide continued to increase by 43 percent over the last decade, New York City experienced a decrease of 10 percent. In the 2000s, just 9 percent of the city’s Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 169 Table 6-6 Immediate Relatives by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011* NUMBER Immediate Relatives TOTAL ALL IMMIGRANTS 1,031,668 SHARE Immediate Relatives Total Spouses 438,309 248,484 Children Parents 97,195 92,630 TOTAL Total 100.0 42.5 Spouses Children 24.1 Parents 9.4 9.0 China 169,801 40,072 19,338 6,314 14,420 100.0 23.6 11.4 3.7 8.5 Dominican Republic 153,440 68,628 32,046 22,245 14,337 100.0 44.7 20.9 14.5 9.3 52,658 18,195 8,038 2,622 7,535 100.0 34.6 15.3 5.0 14.3 Bangladesh Jamaica 50,317 31,294 17,092 9,116 5,086 100.0 62.2 34.0 18.1 10.1 Guyana 46,431 17,075 8,220 3,834 5,021 100.0 36.8 17.7 8.3 10.8 Ecuador 34,817 18,792 8,596 4,642 5,554 100.0 54.0 24.7 13.3 16.0 India 27,991 10,737 6,076 1,381 3,280 100.0 38.4 21.7 4.9 11.7 Haiti 27,461 13,016 5,932 3,630 3,454 100.0 47.4 21.6 13.2 12.6 Trinidad & Tobago 26,006 17,408 11,381 3,867 2,160 100.0 66.9 43.8 14.9 8.3 Pakistan 22,468 11,937 6,244 3,702 1,991 100.0 53.1 27.8 16.5 8.9 Colombia 22,312 15,669 9,765 3,535 2,369 100.0 70.2 43.8 15.8 10.6 Ukraine 19,233 5,996 3,576 749 1,667 100.0 31.2 18.6 3.9 8.7 Philippines 17,909 7,720 4,074 1,424 2,222 100.0 43.1 22.7 8.0 12.4 Poland 17,571 6,665 4,713 729 1,223 100.0 37.9 26.8 4.1 7.0 Uzbekistan 16,476 2,802 1,751 436 618 100.0 17.0 10.6 2.6 3.7 Russia 14,364 5,337 2,825 1,073 1,355 100.0 37.2 19.7 7.5 9.4 Korea 14,060 5,317 3,780 478 1,059 100.0 37.8 26.9 3.4 7.5 Ghana 13,419 8,393 4,913 2,907 573 100.0 62.5 36.6 21.7 4.3 Mexico 12,820 6,096 3,797 855 1,444 100.0 47.6 29.6 6.7 11.3 Nigeria 11,011 6,024 3,036 1,644 1,344 100.0 54.7 27.6 14.9 12.2 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning immigrant flow was admitted with an employment visa (Table 6-3), compared with 15 percent for the nation (Table 6-4). As intended by the 1990 law, those entering with an employment visa were increasingly skilled, 5 with healthy increases in highly skilled workers admitted under the fi rst and second preference categories. The number of immigrants admitted as priority workers (first preference) increased from 13,500 in 1990s to 19,800 in the 2000s (up 46 percent), while second preference professionals with advanced degrees increased by 23 percent, to 170 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 14,000. However, nationwide, these increases were much larger. As a result, 35 percent of the city’s employment entrants were priority workers and professionals with advanced degrees (fi rst and second preferences), compared with 50 percent for the nation (Figure 6-3). Thus the city’s employment entrants have not kept pace with those entering the nation, both in terms of overall growth and growth in the most highly skilled categories. Skilled and professional workers—a subset of the third preference category—accounted for the largest number of workers for both the city and the U.S. Over the last decade, the number of skilled and professional workers admitted to the city declined 18 percent, from 57,900 to 47,400. This decline can be explained in part by the Chinese Displaced Students Act of 1992, which was a response to the events at Tiananmen Square. Under this law, 10,400 Chinese students were admitted under the third employment preference, creating an inordinately large increase in the 1990s. The 18 percent decline in visas in the following decade should therefore be interpreted with caution. With respect to the U.S., the number of skilled and professional workers increased by 34 percent, from 488,600 in the 1990s to 652,600 in the 2000s. This category accounted for 42 percent of all employment visas nationwide and for 49 percent in New York City. Unskilled third preference visas, the smallest of the employment categories, declined by 65 percent for immigrants to New York, from 13,500 in the 1990s to 4,800 in the 2000s. The decrease in the number of unskilled workers was also evident in the nation, falling by almost one-half, from 77,200 in the 1990s to 38,800 in the 2000s. Just 3 percent of U.S. employment entrants were third preference unskilled workers, compared with 5 percent for New York. The fifth employment preference was designed specifically to encourage foreign investment and create employment; these are also known as investor visas. Approximately 10,000 visas were allotted annually to persons willing to invest at least $500,000 in certain businesses that employed a minimum specified number of workers. But in the first decade (1992-2001) only 5,500 visas were actually granted in the U.S., of which 154 were in New York. In the 2000s there was a dramatic increase in the number of visas issued for the U.S. (13,100); the increase was even more so for New York (2,500), with the Chinese accounting for 2,000 visas, followed by Korea with Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 171 Table 6-7 Employment Preference Visas by Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011* NUMBER Employment Preferences TOTAL Total SHARE Employment Preferences First Third Third Second Skilled Unskilled Fourth Fifth ALL IMMIGRANTS 1,031,668 95,914 19,784 14,044 47,365 4,785 China 169,801 11,391 3,283 Dominican Republic 153,440 595 14 52,658 1,809 71 Bangladesh 2,462 Third Third TOTAL Total First Second Skilled Unskilled Fourth Fifth 7,426 2,509 100.0 9.3 1.9 1.4 4.6 0.5 0.7 0.2 277 1,951 100.0 6.7 1.9 1.4 1.8 0.2 0.2 1.1 3,053 300 19 218 22 282 – 100.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 – 165 1,194 34 305 – 100.0 3.4 0.1 0.3 2.3 0.1 0.6 – Jamaica 50,317 1,431 23 35 742 291 317 – 100.0 2.8 0.0 0.1 1.5 0.6 0.6 – Guyana 46,431 1,094 16 – 642 206 180 – 100.0 2.4 0.0 – 1.4 0.4 0.4 – Ecuador 34,817 5,478 24 29 4,806 521 67 – 100.0 15.7 0.1 0.1 13.8 1.5 0.2 – India 27,991 7,579 1,606 1,672 3,788 67 386 – 100.0 27.1 5.7 6.0 13.5 0.2 1.4 – Haiti 27,461 – 13 98 – 100.0 0.6 – – 0.0 0.4 – 158 – – – Trinidad & Tobago 26,006 1,969 24 25 1,145 497 258 – 100.0 7.6 0.1 0.1 4.4 1.9 1.0 – Pakistan 22,468 1,710 188 295 971 26 209 – 100.0 7.6 0.8 1.3 4.3 0.1 0.9 – Colombia 22,312 1,190 117 147 672 129 109 – 100.0 5.3 0.5 0.7 3.0 0.6 0.5 – Ukraine 19,233 806 129 134 425 37 29 – 100.0 4.2 0.7 0.7 2.2 0.2 0.2 – Philippines 17,909 7,230 113 523 5,760 597 237 – 100.0 40.4 0.6 2.9 32.2 3.3 1.3 – Poland 17,571 4,536 93 168 4,006 182 57 – 100.0 25.8 0.5 1.0 22.8 1.0 0.3 – Uzbekistan 16,476 171 27 19 115 – 10 – 100.0 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.7 – 0.1 – Russia 14,364 1,452 525 367 414 16 98 16 100.0 10.1 3.7 2.6 2.9 0.1 0.7 0.1 100.0 48.5 3.2 6.4 26.5 2.0 7.4 3.0 – 0.1 0.5 – 0.6 – Korea 14,060 6,819 450 896 3,731 284 1,040 418 Ghana 13,419 212 – 13 67 – 74 – Mexico 12,820 4,901 275 155 3,976 318 131 – 100.0 38.2 2.1 1.2 31.0 2.5 1.0 – Nigeria 11,011 676 63 59 310 – 210 – 100.0 0.6 0.5 2.8 – 1.9 – 100.0 1.6 6.1 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 –Indicates cell with fewer than 10 immigrants Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 400. Nonetheless, this employment category continues to be underutilized, with unused visas going to other employment preferences that demonstrate more demand. Table 6-7 shows that in numeric terms, the largest users of employment visas on New York City’s top list of recent entrants were the Chinese (11,400), followed by Indians (7,600), Filipinos (7,200), and Koreans (6,800). Several countries had a heavy reliance on these visas: Almost one-half (49 percent) of all Koreans entered with employment visas, as did 40 percent of Filipinos, 38 percent of Mexicans, and 172 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 27 percent of Indians. Indians had a very large share admitted both as priority workers and professionals with advanced degrees—these 2 categories accounted for 12 percent of all Indian LPRs, well above the city average of 3 percent. Of particular interest is the large share of Mexican LPRs coming in as skilled third preference workers. Almost one-third (31 percent) of all Mexican LPRs were admitted as skilled and professional workers, compared with just 5 percent for the city overall. The highly selective profile of recent Mexican LPRs stands in stark contrast to the picture of the total Mexican foreign-born population discussed in Chapter 4. Diversity Visas Of all the changes that came with the 1990 Act, the establishment of the diversity visa program as a permanent pathway for entry had the biggest impact in shaping the country mix of immigrants to New York. The diversity visa lottery opened immigration to a whole host of countries that were previously unable to gain entry. Thus what started as a program in the late 1980s to reinvigorate immigration from Europe, with visas set aside specifically for Ireland and Poland, has turned into a gateway for immigrants from all over the world who did not qualify under the family or employment preferences. In the first full decade of this program, there were 88,900 diversity immigrants who settled in New York (Table 6-3), but by the 2000s the number of diversity immigrants had declined to 72,000, a drop of 19 percent. Nationwide, diversity entrants were up 2 percent (Table 6-4). Despite this, the share of all immigrants using diversity visas was still higher in New York City (7 percent) than the nation (4 percent). As earlier noted, diversity visas were initially meant to favor Ireland and Poland, each with a special allotment of visas. Not surprisingly, Polish (10,200) and Irish (12,100) diversity entrants comprised one-quarter of the 88,900 diversity immigrants who settled in New York in the 1990s (data not shown), most arriving in the first part of the decade. With this special preference withdrawn from 1995 onward, the number of Polish diversity immigrants in the 2000s declined to 2,300 (Table 6-8), and those from Ireland dropped to just 130 (data not shown). Thus the overall decline in diversity immigrants in the city can be largely explained by declines in Polish and Irish diversity entrants. Bangladesh replaced Poland as the top source country for diversity visas in the 2000s, with 13,700 Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 173 Table 6-8 Top 20 Users of Diversity Visas New York City, 2002–2011* Diversity Visas TOTAL ALL IMMIGRANTS 1,031,668 Number Percent Diversity as a % of Total 72,014 100.0 7.0 Bangladesh 52,658 13,706 19.0 26.0 Uzbekistan 16,476 9,722 13.5 59.0 Ukraine 19,233 6,593 9.2 34.3 Of particular interest for New York was Uzbekistan, where diversity visas accounted for 59 percent of their total immigrant flow (Table 6-8). Also notable was that including Egypt, 6 of the top 20 source countries for diversity visas were African: Ghana (3,000), Nigeria (2,900), Morocco (2,600), Togo (1,200), and Algeria (800). Refugees and Asylees While the number of refugees/asylees in the city grew by 5 percent in the city, they increased by 40 Egypt 10,111 3,664 5.1 36.2 Ghana 13,419 3,042 4.2 22.7 Albania 10,045 2,940 4.1 29.3 Table 6-9 Nigeria 11,011 2,865 4.0 26.0 5,242 2,588 3.6 49.4 Top 20 Refugee and Asylee Adjustees New York City, 2002–2011* Poland 17,571 2,293 3.2 13.0 Russia 14,364 1,645 2.3 11.4 Germany 4,506 1,459 2.0 32.4 Belarus 4,422 1,345 1.9 30.4 Togo 2,303 1,246 1.7 54.1 Georgia 4,842 1,164 1.6 24.0 China Nepal 4,249 1,135 1.6 26.7 Serbia & Montenegro Turkey 4,218 1,092 1.5 25.9 Bulgaria 2,277 891 1.2 Morocco Refugees/Asylees TOTAL ALL IMMIGRANTS Refugees/ Asylees as Number Percent a % of Total 1,031,668 131,735 100.0 12.8 169,801 71,979 54.6 42.4 9,355 5,244 4.0 56.1 Russia 14,364 4,794 3.6 33.4 39.1 Ukraine 19,233 4,243 3.2 22.1 10,045 3,953 3.0 39.4 Algeria 1,509 800 1.1 53.0 Albania Romania 3,857 630 0.9 16.3 India 27,991 3,084 2.3 11.0 Sri Lanka 2,458 552 0.8 22.5 Uzbekistan 16,476 2,951 2.2 17.9 Guinea 3,638 2,490 1.9 68.4 Liberia 2,865 1,917 1.5 66.9 Sierra Leone 2,563 1,907 1.4 74.4 Nepal 4,249 1,646 1.2 38.7 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning LPRs entering with these visas, accounting for 19 percent of all diversity visas in the city. The other top source countries were Uzbekistan (9,700), followed by Ukraine (6,600), and Egypt (3,700). Figure 6-4 shows that the top diversity entrants to the U.S. were from Ethiopia (36,300), Nigeria (28,900), Egypt (26,700), Ukraine (25,300), and Bangladesh (23,400). These 5 countries accounted for 30 percent of the nation’s diversity flow, compared with New York’s top 5, which accounted for one-half of the city’s diversity immigrants (Figure 6-4). 174 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Azerbaijan 2,972 1,605 1.2 54.0 52,658 1,566 1.2 3.0 Belarus 4,422 1,408 1.1 31.8 Pakistan 22,468 1,388 1.1 6.2 Bangladesh Cuba 1,762 1,231 0.9 69.9 Haiti 27,461 1,222 0.9 4.4 Indonesia 2,169 1,116 0.8 51.5 Burma 2,922 1,081 0.8 37.0 Mauritania 1,149 1,080 0.8 94.0 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year: October 1 to September 30 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning percent nationally, from 986,800 in the 1990s to 1.4 million in the 2000s (Tables 6-3 and 6-4). Refugees/ asylees accounted for 13 percent of all immigrants to the nation, about the same as for New York. Most of these increases were the result of a surge in asylees, due to the enactment of the REAL ID Act, which lifted the annual limit on asylee adjustments. The numerical limit of 10,000, prior to 2005, had created a sizeable backlog over the years, with the average asylee waiting over 10 years to achieve legal permanent residency. Within the first few years after the passage of this law, the backlog had been greatly reduced, and both the nation and city witnessed increases in the number of asylees adjusting status. In the 1980s and 1990s, asylees accounted for between 5 and 10 percent of the combined refugee/asylee adjustments nationally because most entrants from Southeast Asia and the former Soviet Union were refugees. With the sharp decline in refugee flows from the former Soviet Union and enactment of the REAL ID Act, asylees grew to 86 percent of the total refugee/asylee flow (data not shown). The overall refugee/asylee numbers for New York City increased only modestly between the 1990s (125,800) and in the 2000s (131,700), mostly because of a dramatic drop in refugees from the former Soviet Union. The composition of the refugee/asylee flow shifted dramatically from what was a flow of mostly refugees from the former Soviet Union to a mix of refugees and asylees from China and Eastern Europe. A majority of the flow in the 2000s consisted of 72,000 entrants from China, virtually all of whom were asylees that entered under the REAL ID Act mentioned earlier (Table 6-9). Figure 6-5 presents data for the top five source countries of refugees/asylees for New York City and the U.S. in the 2000s. China was by far the largest Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 175 source country for New York City, accounting for more than half (55 percent) of the total refugee/ asylee flow. Serbia & Montenegro was the second largest source country (5,200),6 with refugees/asylees accounting for over half (56 percent) of their total flow. Ukraine and Russia—the top refugee sources to the city in the 1990s—saw dramatic declines in these flows in the 2000s, but both countries were still among the top five refugee/asylee source countries.7 Nationwide, Cuba was the largest source country for refugees, followed by China, Somalia, Iraq, and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Finally, although their numbers were small, a very high percentage of immigrants admitted to New York from Guinea (68 percent), Liberia (67 percent), and Sierra Leone (74 percent) were refugees/asylees. Detailed information on how pathways to admission have changed over the past 3 decades for the top 20 sources of newly admitted LPRs is available as a chapter supplement at www.nyc.gov/population. The supplement also has tables that provide this information for all countries that send immigrants to New York. both the nation and the city; however, the impact was more pronounced nationally. Perhaps the most startling change was in the refugee/asylee category, after an important change in the law lifted the ceiling on the annual allotment for asylees. Once they were able to adjust status, the way was clear for alleviating what had become a large backlog, allowing for large increases in the number of asylees admitted over the last decade. Locally, this greatly affected immigrants from China, over 40 percent of whom claimed asylum, thus allowing them to take the position as the top source of newly admitted immigrants to New York City for the first time. Lastly, an analysis of the pathways revealed commonalities among top source countries that provide a better understanding of how immigration is affected by the classes of admission. Among the top sources of newly admitted LPRs, there is a group where immigrant flows have increased ─ China (due to an increase in asylees), Bangladesh (family preferences), Ecuador (spouses), and Mexico (employment preferences). Conversely, there are a number of countries where flows to the city are waning. For SUMMARY Immigrants to New York City have seen their overreliance on family preference visas continue to wane and have dramatically increased their use of immediate relative visas. As a consequence, the distribution of immigrants by broad classes of admission for New York City has nearly converged with the nation. Despite this, the national picture differed from the local one in some important ways. Given the increased emphasis on skills as a basis for entry after the passage of the 1990 Immigration Act, the nation attracted more highly-skilled immigrants via the employment visa categories in the last decade; however, the number of skilled workers in these categories coming to New York City actually fell during that time. The pool of diversity visas did serve to attract new sources of immigration in 176 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Colombia, these declines are due to a drop in second preference visas – those reunifying with LPRs, while for Ukraine and Russia, declines were brought about by a fall in refugee admissions. There are a number of countries that rely heavily on employment visas— India, Korea, and the Philippines. Finally, there is a group of emerging source countries, whose flows are likely to increase in the coming decades—Ghana and Nigeria are prominent in this category, having attained a beachhead based on the diversity visa pool. ENDNOTES 1 We would like to thank Mike Hoefer, Nancy Rytina, and John Simanski of the Office of Immigration Statistics for their help in obtaining the data and their technical assistance. 2 Permanent resident status confers certain rights and responsibilities. For example, LPRs may live and work permanently anywhere in the United States, own property, and attend public schools, colleges, and universities. They may also join certain branches of the Armed Forces and apply to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain eligibility requirements. 3 United States Department of Homeland Security. Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2011. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, 2012. 5 It is important to note that large numbers of immigrants with skills enter the nation using non-employment pathways, so generalizations about the skill levels of immigrants cannot be made solely using information on those arriving with employment visas. 6 About three-quarters of the refugee/asylee flow from Serbia & Montenegro were asylees and the remaining 25 percent were refugees. 7 Asylees accounted for 39 percent of the total Russian refugee/asylee flow while 24 percent of the total Ukrainian flow was comprised of asylees. 4 Administrative delays in processing visa applications were due to a complex set of factors. In 1994, Section 245(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allowed unauthorized immigrants who were eligible for legal status to adjust their status to LPR while in the U.S. by applying at a DHS office and paying a penalty. Formerly, these persons had to collect their visas outside the U.S. and were processed overseas by U.S. State Department consular offices. These changes shifted a large portion of the visa processing workload from the State Department to DHS. In 1998, Congress phased out Section 245(i) of the law; however immigrants who had already begun the process of changing their status were grandfathered into the section’s benefits. The Legal Immigration and Family Equity Act (LIFE Act) of 2000 extended the qualifying date for Section 245(i) and allowed immigrants who had visa petitions filed between 1998 and April 2001 to qualify for adjustment of status. Again, these changes increased the workload of DHS. Processing delays were also due to a surge in petitions from those legalized under the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA). Many of the nearly 3 million beneficiaries of IRCA began to naturalize in 1993 and were petitioning to adjust the status of their immediate relatives who were already living in the U.S., further increasing the DHS workload. Overall growth in naturalization applications during this period also stretched resources at DHS. Table 6-1 illustrates the effect the backlog had on annual admissions for New York City. The flow of immigrants to New York City grew steadily from 75,400 in 1982 to a high of 125,600 in 1996. The flow then dropped precipitously, reaching a low of 66,100 in 2003, increasing to a high of 137,000 in 2006. The yearly fluctuations in the data are a result of administrative delays in processing and are not necessarily associated with changes in the propensity of immigrants to come to the city. Thus caution is advised when seeking trends from these annual numbers. By combining the data on legal pathways of admission for immigrants into 10 year periods, these ups and downs that are inherent when analyzing administrative records are likely to be smoothed out. Chapter 6: Legal Pathways Used by Newly Admitted Immigrants 177 1 7 8 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition CHAPTER 7 The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future Few places in the world are as closely identified with immigrants as New York City. The ebb and flow of immigrants has continuously renewed the city’s population; nearly every sphere of New York has been invented or re-invented by the energy and talents of immigrants. This chapter explores the major role that immigration plays in population change and its effect on the city’s economy and neighborhoods. Going forward, such an understanding can help promote more appropriate planning decisions. The Role of Immigration in Population Change: 1970 to 2010 New York has a very dynamic population, reflected in the continuous flow of people into and out of the city. Each year hundreds of thousands of people arrive from across the U.S. and other countries, while others leave for domestic or international destinations. The city is as much a process as a place, with continuous population turnover, where population change is the only constant on the city’s demographic landscape. In recent decades, the city has been a net exporter of people through migration—people leaving the city for other parts of the country or the world exceed those entering to make the city their home. New York’s population gains have come through natural increase—the excess of births over deaths. While the contribution of natural increase has varied over the past few decades, the most important factor regarding change in the city’s overall population is migration. The fact that New York City continues to be a net exporter of population to the 50 states is a defining part of its population dynamic. Many people come to the city, avail themselves of its opportunities, and then leave for a variety of reasons including chil- drearing, desire for the space afforded by a suburban or exurban home, job change, and retirement. Figure 7-1 shows the components of population change in the city for each decade, from 1970 to 2010. As noted above, population change is a function of two basic demographic components: natural increase (the balance of births and deaths) and net migration (the balance of persons entering and leaving the city). While the separate components of net migration are not shown in Figure 7-1, it needs to be noted that net migration is the sum of net domestic migration (the balance of flows within the U.S.) and net international migration (net exchanges with the rest of the world). International migrants include a large flow from Latin America, Asia, and the nonhispanic Caribbean who have benefited from the passage of the Immigration and Nationality Amendments of 1965, detailed in the previous chapter. In the 1970s, the first full decade after passage of the new immigration law, New York City was near fiscal insolvency, with the housing stock in many neighborhoods approaching collapse. In that decade the city lost more than 800,000 people— natural increase of 366,000 persons was offset by a huge net outflow of nearly 1.15 million. The net outflow—and overall population losses—would have been far greater were it not for the entry of 783,000 immigrants in that decade. As bad as things were in New York City in the 1970s, the opportunities envisioned by immigrants to the city were preferable to those in their countries of origin. The 1980s saw growth of 336,000 for two reasons. First, the slowing of domestic outflows, coupled with the arrival of 856,000 immigrants, sharply attenuated overall migration losses to an estimated 72,000 persons. Second, natural increase rose to 408,000, a result of births to baby boomers (many of whom had 179 Figure 7-1 Estimated Components of Population Change New York City by Decade, 1970–2010 1970–1980 Immigration Flow 1980–1990 783,000 Population Change 856,000 Natural Increase 1990–2000 1,048,700 2000–2010 Net Migration 967,800 -1,250 -1,000 -750 -500 -250 0 250 500 750 Sources: Adjusted U.S. Decennial Census data 1970–2010; New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; United States Department of Homeland Security as revised by Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning delayed childbearing) and fertility among a youthful immigrant population. Thus the overall increase was a product of the direct effect of people immigrating, but also of the relative youth and fertility of these newcomers. Indeed, by the late 1980s, more than one-half of all births in New York City were to foreign-born women. The 1990s saw immigration cross the 1 million mark; nevertheless, net migration losses totaled 107,000. These migration losses were offset by a natural increase of 584,000, resulting in growth of 477,000 that propelled the official population of New York City over the 8 million mark for the first time. In the first decade of this century, losses through net migration increased to 440,000—notwithstanding legal immigration of 968,000 persons. With natural increase of 639,000 offsetting migration losses, the city’s population grew by 199,000 during the decade. Thus in each decade since 1970, net migration to the city has been negative, despite the huge 180 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition flow of immigrants. Given continued net domestic outflows, the city would have sustained huge population losses were it not for the entry of immigrants. A New Population Dynamic? Starting around the middle of the first decade of this century, a change in the historical pattern of population growth depicted above has emerged, with several data sources pointing to a shift in the relative roles played by domestic and international migration. Changes of address on tax returns, a widely used source of information on domestic migration, show a consistent increase in the number of in-migrants from other parts of the nation and a reduction in domestic outflows from the city (Figure 7-2)1. The convergence of these two flows, starting in 2007, represents a relatively new pattern of fewer people leaving for domestic destinations and more coming to the city from other parts of the U.S. Figure 7-2 Migration Patterns for Persons Filing Tax Returns New York City, 1985–2010 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 Out Migration In Migration 40,000 20,000 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 0 Migration data are based on year-to-year address changes reported on individual income tax returns filed with the IRS. Does not include the income tax returns filed by those living abroad. Sources: Statistics of Income Division, Internal Revenue Service Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning In addition, the 2011 American Community Survey (ACS) shows a decline in the entry of recent international migrants. Data on year of arrival in the U.S. for the foreign-born show that the number of foreign-born persons who arrived “in the previous year” declined by 25 percent between 2000 and 20112. Consequently, domestic migrants now constitute a much larger share of all in-migrants to New York City. In 2000 domestic in-migrants were about one-half of all in-migrants, but they now constitute two-thirds of the total inflow (Figure 7-3). All of this points to a newly evolving pattern of migration over the latter part of the past decade, which is reinforced in the latest data on components of change in population post-2010. Figure 7-4 compares components of change for 2000-2010 and 2010-2012. Since a 10 year period is being examined alongside Census Bureau estimates for an approximately 2 year period, these components have been annualized to make them comparable. Annual net international migration in the post-2010 period dropped to 67,000, from 77,000 in the prior decade, and annual net domestic losses attenuated to 62,000, nearly one-half the level of the prior decade.3 The result was positive net migration—a net annual inflow of 5,000 in the post-2010 period. While modest, this net inflow represents a reversal of historical migration trends. The increased role of domestic migration relative to international migration is important because it affects the attributes of migrants to the city, which serve as a backdrop for needs assessments, program planning, policy formulation and, ultimately, the provision of services. Since 75 percent of domestic arrivals are native-born (data not shown) and most are English-speaking, a shift in the balance of Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 181 POPULATION GROWTH AND MIGRATION IN THE CONTEXT OF A CENSUS UNDERCOUNT In recent decades, the decennial census has consistently underenumerated New York’s population. This is largely because the city contains large numbers of “hard-to-enumerate” groups, including undocumented immigrants, workers in the underground economy, and other marginalized groups who fear government and have a high propensity to elude census operations. In this section, we use Census Bureau estimates of the undercount1 along with selected local adjustments to the city’s enumerated population for 2010, which allow us The biggest change occurs in the 1990s, where the enumerated population increase of 685,700 persons was actually 477,000, after adjusting for the much lower undercount in 2000. With a lower level of population change, net migration using the adjusted data is negative (-107,000), compared to positive net migration of 101,000 using the unadjusted data. Thus, the adjusted data show that the underlying dynamic of population change in the 1990s was similar to that of earlier decades: a loss through net migration, the entry of 1.14 million immigrants being insufficient to offset domestic outflows. to more accurately quantify population growth and the role of immigration in sustaining the city’s population in the 1970–2010 period. Data, primarily from Census Bureau post-enumeration surveys, show that the estimated undercount stood at 143,000 in 19702 and 160,000 in 19803, and increased to 245,000 in 19904 (Table 7-1). When the city’s population is adjusted to reflect the undercount, the population decline of the 1970s drops from 10.4 percent to 10 percent, and the population growth in the 1980s increases from 3.5 percent to 4.6 percent. In 2000, thanks to an improved address list of city residents created by the Department of City Planning and used by the Census Bureau to mail out census questionnaires, the undercount dropped dramatically to 36,000.5 As a result, the real increase in the city’s population in the 1990s is estimated to be 6.3 percent, instead of the 9.4 percent obtained through the enumerated census figures. When the adjusted population numbers for New York City are incorporated into the components of change analysis (along with natural increase, which is unchanged), the effect of net migration is altered. The 1970s, which saw huge domestic outflows, was a decade with a large net migration loss, -1.14 million using adjusted population, instead of -1.16 million using unadjusted population data. In the 1980s, with domestic outflows moderating from levels seen in the earlier decade, net migration losses were relatively low using the unadjusted data (-157,000) and were even lower when the adjusted figures are used (-73,000). Thus, the use of adjusted data attenuates population losses through net migration in the 1970s and 1980s, though immigration remained a crucial element in stabilizing the city’s population. 182 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition New York City’s population as of April 1, 2010, reported as 8,175,000, was well under estimates prepared by New York City Department of City Planning in cooperation with the Census Bureau, which were in excess of 8.3 million. Despite this disparity, the Census Bureau’s 2010 Census Coverage Measurement (CCM) program, which utilized a post enumeration survey, determined that New York City did not experience a net undercount in 2010.6 Still, anomalies in the 2010 Census results became apparent when the housing data revealed a reported increase of 82,000 vacant units in New York City, or a 46 percent rise since 2000. A disproportionate share of this increase was found in two local census offices covering southern Brooklyn and northwest Queens, both vibrant sections of the city. The huge increase in vacant units in these areas cannot be explained by new construction or foreclosures; nor is it consistent with other survey and administrative data.7 As a result, an adjustment to the population in Brooklyn and Queens was employed to compensate for this undercount. The Department of City Planning estimates of the population missed due to erroneous vacancies in Brooklyn, and vacancies and deleted units in Queens, added 48,211 people to the total population in Brooklyn and 19,280 people to Queens. This increased the population of Brooklyn from 2,504,700 to 2,552,911. In Queens, the population rose from 2,230,722 to 2,250,002. The additional population increased New York City’s total population in 2010 from the official count of 8,175,133 to 8,242,624.8 Using the 2010 adjusted population of the city, net migration losses stand at 440,400, compared to losses of 507,900 using the unadjusted 2010 population. Table 7-1 Enumerated and Adjusted Populations New York City, 1970–2010 Enumerated Population Undercount Population Adjusted For Undercount CHANGE OVER DECADE YEAR TOTAL Number 1970 7,894,798 – 1980 7,071,639 1990 CHANGE OVER DECADE Percent TOTAL Number Percent – 143,323 8,038,121 – – -823,159 -10.4 160,000 7,231,639 -806,482 -10.0 7,322,564 250,925 3.5 244,582 7,567,146 335,507 4.6 2000 8,008,278 685,714 9.4 35,797 8,044,075 476,929 6.3 2010 8,175,133 166,855 2.1 67,491 8,242,624 198,549 2.5 FOOTNOTES 1 Since 1940, the Census Bureau has done a “coverage evaluation” of the decennial census, usually through the creation of an independent estimate of population, using administrative records (e.g., births and deaths) and/or through a post-enumeration survey, which provides information on who was captured in the census enumeration. While the use of administrative records for demographic analysis has been considered by many to be the gold standard for independently estimating the population, this approach has two big limitations. First, estimation cannot be done for most sub-national areas and second, in recent times, these estimates have come under fire because of problems in estimating the size of the immigrant population. The post-enumeration survey, which has been used since 1950, has the advantage of being able to provide coverage estimates for small areas. Post-enumeration surveys work on the premise that it is possible to revisit addresses in a sample of blocks to estimate who was captured and who was missed in the census. The main limitation of this method is that persons who resist the enumeration may also resist the post-census survey. Moreover, like any survey, estimates for small areas are subject to error associated with use of a sample instead of the entire population (sampling error) and error associated with the collection, processing and compilation of data (nonsampling error). 2 No post-enumeration survey was conducted in 1970; demographic analysis was the main coverage evaluation method, supplemented by administrative data for the elderly. (Please see Citro, C. F., & Cohen, M.L. (Eds.). (1985). The Bicentennial Census: New Directions for Methodology in 1990. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.) Despite the absence of a post-enumeration survey, Anderson and Fienberg cite an estimate of 186,352 black persons missed in the 1970 Census for New York State, part of a sizable national undercount. (Please see Anderson, M. J. & Fienberg, S. E. (1999). Who Counts: The Politics of Census-Taking in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.) The proportion of blacks in New York State who resided in New York City was applied to the undercount of blacks in the State (.7691*186,352) to obtain the city undercount of 143,323. In 1970, no estimates of the undercount for other race groups were available. (Please see U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (1974). Counting the Forgotten: The 1970 Census Count of Persons of Spanish Speaking Background in the United States.) Therefore, the 1970 adjusted population for the city includes the estimated undercount for only blacks in the city. 3 The figure of 160,000 was used by New York State, as part of their projections methodology in the 1980s. (Please see New York State, Department of Commerce, State Data Center, Official Population Projections for New York State Counties: 1980–2010, April 1985. Also see, U.S. Census Bureau. 1988. The Coverage of The Population in the 1980 Census, PHC80-E4. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce.) 4 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Committee on Adjustment of Postcensal Estimates (CAPE Committee), Assessment of Accuracy of Adjusted Versus Unadjusted 1990 Census Base for use in Intercensal Estimates (Washington, DC, 7 August 1992). 5 Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, A.C.E. Revision II, Memorandum Series #PP-60. (Washington, DC, 9 April 2003) http://www.census.gov/ dmd/www/pdf/pp-60r.pdf . There is a high standard error associated with the undercount for the city. The main goal of this section, however, is to examine components of population change. If one were to assume there was no undercount in 2000, net out-migration in the 1990s would be even higher. 6 The Census Bureau’s 2010 CCM results actually showed a net overcount for New York City but the results were not statistically significant. See U.S. Census Bureau. Census Coverage Measurement Summary Results for New York: http://www.census.gov/coverage_measurement/post-enumeration_surveys/stateinfo36.html 7 For more information, see Salvo, J.J. and A.P. Lobo (2013). “Misclassifying New York’s Hidden Units as Vacant in 2010: Lessons Gleaned for the 2020 Census.” Population Research and Policy Review, 32(5), 729-751. 8 Erroneous vacant units in Brooklyn were estimated at 18,090, which accounted for an estimated population of 48,211. In Queens, erroneous vacancies were estimated at 3,278, resulting in 8,160 persons added. In addition, Queens had an estimated 3,940 erroneously deleted units, resulting in an added population of 11,120, for a total population added in Queens of 19,280. More information is available at: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/census_challenge_2010.shtml Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 183 Figure 7-3 Changing Origins of In-migrants to New York City 2000 and 2007–2011 Abroad 33.2% 50 States & Puerto Rico 50.2% Abroad 49.8% 50 States & Puerto Rico 66.8% 2007–2011 2000 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 census; 2007–2011 Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 7-2 in-migrants towards those with domestic origins has implications for the service delivery environment in areas such as housing, English language instruction, Economic Characteristics of Migrants to and from New York City: 1985–1990, 1995–2000, 2007–2011 1985–1990 education, and social and health services. The effects of this shift can be gleaned from Table 7-2.4 In earlier periods, in-migrants had lower earnings and household income than their out-migrant counterparts, leaving some to lament the loss of persons of higher socioeconomic status to out-migration. Data for 2007–2011 show a reversal of that pattern, with in-migrants reporting higher household incomes compared with out-migrants. Moreover, differences in earnings and the poverty rate are no longer statistically significant. This turnaround is primarily a result of the increased share of domestic migrants in the migration stream coming to New York. It remains to be seen whether reduced international migration and the increased role of domestic migration represent a new long-term pattern of migration for New York City or whether it is a temporary phenomenon tied to the current economic climate. 184 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 1995–2000 2007–2011 Mean Earnings, 21 years & over In-migrants $45,130 * $57,959 * $57,399 Out-migrants $54,880 $61,857 $59,531 Median Household Income In-migrants $50,933 * $54,304 * $58,217* Out-migrants $56,026 $58,884 $51,594 Percent Below Poverty In-migrants 21.9 * 23.9 * 21.7 Out-migrants 17.2 15.7 20.6 Percent College Graduates,+ 25 years & over 39.0 * In-migrants 46.0 * 56.0* Out-migrants 37.4 46.8 32.4 *Difference with out-migrants is statistically significant at the .10 level. All dollar figures in 2010 constant dollars. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990–2000 censuses; 2008–2010 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division, NYC Department of City Planning Unauthorized Immigration Unauthorized immigration to the U.S. can trace its roots to the Bracero Program, a temporary migrant labor program that began in 1942. It was created to address a shortage of agricultural workers in the southwest. For over two decades this program established networks between farm workers in Mexico and agricultural interests in the U.S. While the Bracero Program ended in 1964, the networks established earlier resulted in continued—but now frequently unauthorized/undocumented—flows from Mexico to the U.S.5 Though New York City saw its unauthorized numbers rise, the increases were more dramatic in the southwest and western U.S., where Mexicans were much more likely to settle. Estimating the number of unauthorized immigrants is a challenging endeavor. The ACS does not include a question on the legal status of the foreign-born and hence an estimate of the unauthorized population can only be obtained indirectly. The most recent estimates come from a methodology that relies on data on the foreign-born population from the ACS and a series of assumptions about what these data represent.6 Since the foreign-born population tends to be heavily undercounted, the methodology first adjusts for this undercount. This adjusted count of the foreign-born population is then reduced by the number of legal immigrants derived from administrative records to obtain the number of unauthorized immigrants as a residual figure. The precision of the estimates are heavily dependent on the quality of the data sources and the accompanying assumptions. These limitations notwithstanding, the numbers derived provide the best estimates of the unauthorized foreign-born population. Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 185 Figure 7-5 Annual Change in the Estimated Unauthorized Population New York State, 1990 to 2010 Total Unauthorized Population (thousands) 358 409 438 452 465 497 540 570 595 630 674 746 782 797 799 798 793 782 765 740 705 80,000 60,000 40,000 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 0 1990 20,000 -20,000 -40,000 -60,000 Sources: Robert Warren, Unpublished estimates Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 7-5 provides insight into trends in unauthorized flows to New York State. The line graph shows the annual change in the unauthorized population, while the total unauthorized population (in thousands) is noted above the graph. In 1990 the unauthorized population in the state stood at 358,000 and nearly doubled in the following two decades to 705,000 in 2010. For most of this period, the unauthorized population grew, with the largest increase of 72,000 in 2000, which took the unauthorized population to 746,000 in 2001. With smaller gains in the following years, the unauthorized population peaked at 799,000 in 2004 and has been declining ever since, reaching 705,000 in 2010. New research sheds light as to why unauthorized immigrants leave (Figure 7-6). Unauthorized residents leave the population in three ways: 1) emigration—that is, voluntarily leave the country; 2) adjustment to lawful resident status; or 3) removal by the Department of Homeland Security. For 2009, 186 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition about one-third of the 43,000 persons who exited the unauthorized population in New York State emigrated out of the U.S. The largest group—37 percent—adjusted their status to legal permanent resident and 23 percent were removed from the country by the Department of Homeland Security. Additionally, there is some depletion of the unauthorized population because of death, which was estimated to be about 7 percent. Given that the overwhelming majority of the foreign-born in New York State live in New York City, these data are likely to be representative of what is going on in the city. Using the city’s share of the state’s foreign-born population (71 percent) as a proxy for its share of the unauthorized population, the city was home to 499,000 unauthorized immigrants in 2010. As in the rest of the state, the city’s undocumented population is also likely to be in decline. This decline is a result of fewer unauthorized entrants coupled with large outflows of this popu- Figure 7-6 Unauthorized Immigrant Outflow from New York State By Components of Change: 2009–2010 Died 7% Emigrated 33% Removal by U.S. DHS 23% Adjusted Status 37% Outflow = 43,175 just 18 percent of those who entered in the 2000s. The low percentage naturalized among those entering in the 2000s reflects the fact that many of these recent entrants, particularly those who entered in the late 2000s, have not lived in the U.S. for a sufficient period to qualify for citizenship. Moreover, recent entrants include a large number of non-immigrants, such as students, diplomats, and those on temporary work visas, who are not eligible for citizenship. Thus a decline in the share of recent entrants—as in New York, where the share of recent entrants fell from 43 percent of the foreign-born in 2000 to 34 percent in 2011—can positively influence the percentage of the overall foreign-born population that is naturalized.7 Indeed, this partly accounts for the increase in the share of the overall foreign-born population that was naturalized, from 45 percent in 2000 to 52 percent in 2011 (Tables 7-3 and 7-4). Naturalization is the process through which the foreign-born acquire U.S. citizenship. To naturalize, an immigrant must be at least 18 years of age, have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the U.S., and must have continuously resided in the U.S. for at least five years. Those naturalizing as a spouse of a U.S. citizen may do so in three years. Given that a change in the percentage naturalized is related to the duration of residence in the U.S., it is important to disaggregate data from the 2000 census and the 2011 ACS by year of entry. Theoretically by doing so, changes in the percentage naturalized can be attributed to shifts in the proclivity of a group to become U.S. citizens. For the most recent entrants (those who entered within 10 years of the survey), about the same share were naturalized in 2000 and 2011—18 percent. Among those with residence of 20 years or more, close to 8-in-10 were naturalized at both points in time. The only significant difference was among immigrants who were in the country between 10 and 20 years. In this group, 55 percent were naturalized in 2011, compared with 51 percent in 2000, indicative of a slight increase in their proclivity to become American citizens, particularly among Europeans and Asians.8 The number of New York City residents who were naturalized citizens stood at 1,595,000 in 2011 (Table 7-3), or 52 percent of the foreign-born population. In general, the longer an immigrant group has been in the U.S., the larger the percentage that naturalizes. As measured in 2011, 80 percent of New York City’s foreign-born who entered before 1990 were naturalized citizens, but this was true for only 55 percent of those who entered in the 1990s, and In 2011 over 6-in-10 immigrants from Europe and the nonhispanic Caribbean were naturalized, as were over one-half from Asia. Latin Americans and Africans had the lowest levels of naturalization, 39 and 44 percent, respectively. The low percentage naturalized among Latin Americans was largely a result of their lower proclivity to naturalize, irrespective of decade of entry; for Africans, the lower percentage naturalized was heavily influenced by the recency Sources: Warren, R. & Warren, J.R. (2013). Unauthorized immigration to the United States: Annual estimates and components of change, by state, 1990 to 2010. International Migration Review, 47, 296–329 lation. The decline in newly-arrived unauthorized immigrants corroborates other data that show an overall decline in recent arrivals—both authorized and unauthorized—from abroad. Naturalization: Acquiring U.S. Citizenship Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 187 Table 7-3 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin & Decade of Entry New York City, 2011 All Periods Percent Naturalized Naturalized Total TOTAL, NYC Entered 2000 or later 3,059,912 1,595,227 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized Entered 1990–1999 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized Entered before 1990 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized 52.1 1,035,758 189,734 18.3 860,995 476,951 55.4 1,163,159 928,542 79.8 Latin America 975,941 384,082 39.4 339,139 35,296 10.4 279,890 98,143 35.1 356,912 250,643 70.2 Asia 841,844 449,588 53.4 330,637 69,197 20.9 248,639 154,618 62.2 262,568 225,773 86.0 Carribean, nonhispanic 606,390 381,675 62.9 159,808 40,868 25.6 138,670 86,338 62.3 307,912 254,469 82.6 Europe 479,696 315,006 65.7 128,628 26,784 20.8 155,568 119,743 77.0 195,500 168,479 86.2 Africa 128,952 57,072 44.3 64,275 17,179 26.7 34,515 17,281 50.1 30,162 22,612 75.0 27,089 7,804 28.8 13,271 410 3.1 3,713 828 22.3 10,105 6,566 65.0 All Others Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 7-4 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin & Decade of Entry New York City, 2000 All Periods Total TOTAL, NYC Entered 1990-2000 Percent Naturalized Naturalized 2,871,032 1,278,687 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized Entered 1980–1989 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized Entered before 1980 Total Percent Naturalized Naturalized 44.5 1,224,524 216,693 17.7 831,758 422,651 50.8 814,750 639,343 78.5 Latin America 907,451 310,497 34.2 398,305 45,994 11.5 276,124 102,823 37.2 233,022 161,680 69.4 Asia 686,599 294,643 42.9 333,751 57,908 17.4 220,558 125,343 56.8 132,290 111,392 84.2 Carribean, nonhispanic 595,642 325,792 54.7 190,417 47,450 24.9 218,071 128,688 59.0 187,154 149,654 80.0 Europe 557,492 308,116 55.3 232,814 57,633 24.8 85,652 50,032 58.4 239,026 200,451 83.9 Africa 92,435 31,398 34.0 52,013 6,418 12.3 23,783 12,226 51.4 16,639 12,754 76.7 All Others 31,413 8,241 26.2 17,224 1,290 4.1 7,570 3,539 11.3 6,619 3,412 10.9 Sources: US Census Bureau, 2000 Census-Summary File 3 and 5% Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 188 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Figure 7-7 Share of Foreign-born who are Naturalized by Area of Origin New York City, 2000 and 2011 70.0 60.0 Percent 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 0.0 TOTAL Latin America Asia Carribean, nonhispanic 2000 Europe Africa All Other 2011 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2000 Census-Summary File 3 and 5% Public Use Microdata Sample; U.S. Census Bureau: 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning of their immigration, with almost one-half of all immigrants in 2011 entering in the previous decade. For all groups, however, the level of naturalization rose between 2000 and 2011 (Figure 7-7). As discussed in Chapter 6, there has been a substantial change in the classes of admission utilized by immigrants over the past three decades. The entry of immigrants with family ties to legal permanent residents has fallen, while visas to immediate relatives of U.S. citizens have increased dramatically. Visas to those with ties to permanent residents are numerically limited and entail long waiting periods, as opposed to visas for immediate relatives, which are exempt from any limit. One reason for the earlier reliance on reunification with legal permanent residents was the low levels of naturalization among some immigrant groups. The increase in naturalization has allowed for greater use of immediate relative visas, which paves the way for quicker immigrant entry. Immigrants in an Aging Population Most immigrants ages 65 and over (hereafter referred to as 65+) arrived in the U.S. primarily in the young working ages. Thus peaks and valleys in immigration to the city are reflected—after a lag—in the foreign-born composition of the city’s 65+ population. In recent decades, the foreign-born share of the city’s 65+ population peaked in 1970, when 58 percent of the 948,000 residents in that age group were foreign-born (Figure 7-8). Most immigrants 65+ were part of the large flow from Europe in the initial decades of the 20th century, and their numerical strength was reflected in the large share they comprised of the 65+ population in 1970. The cessation of large-scale immigration in the 1930s and 1940s was reflected in a diminishing share of the foreign-born among those 65+ in 1980 (41 percent) and 1990 (32 percent). While the overall population age 65+ was essentially unchanged between 1970 and 1990, the number of foreign-born in this age group dropped 45 percent during this period. Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 189 After 1965, flows from Europe began to ebb and there was a dramatic increase in immigration from Latin America, Asia, and the nonhispanic Caribbean. The resurgence of large-scale immigration to the nation provided a large supply of young, working age people who are now beginning to enter the older age groups. Between 1990 and 2011, the number of foreign-born persons 65+ increased by 55 percent, from 302,000 to 469,000; immigrants comprised over 46 percent of the population age 65+ in 2011.9 It should be noted that growth in the older foreign-born population was not only due to the aging of earlier foreign-born cohorts who entered in the young working ages, but also due to recent direct immigration of older persons. More than 45,000 persons or 10 percent of the foreign-born age 65+ in 2011 immigrated to the U.S. since 2000, with China and the Dominican Republic accounting for about one-in-three of these older—but recent—immigrants (data not shown). Like the nation, more New Yorkers are projected to be in the older age groups over the next few decades. The question is not whether an increase in the population 65+ will occur, but rather the scale of the increase. Preliminary projections have the city’s population 65+ increasing by approximately 400,000 in the next three decades. As those in the present, heavily immigrant younger age cohorts eventually enter the older age groups, the number of foreign-born in the oldest age groups will con- Figure 7-8 Population 65 and Over by Nativity New York City, 1970–2011 Total 65+ = 947,878 948,840 949,688 937,857 1,010,156 1,200,000 1,000,000 Native 800,000 Foreign-born 600,000 400,000 200,000 58.0 40.5 31.8 37.1 46.4 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 384,540 302,023 348,075 469,206 0 Foreign-born 65+ = 550,062 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970-2000 censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 190 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Percent 65+ who are foreign-born tinue to increase. As of 2011, more than one-half of all persons 35 to 64 years of age were foreign-born, well above the city average of 37 percent. These age cohorts will increase both the size of the older population and its immigrant component. More importantly, unlike previous periods, the mix of countries represented in these groups will reflect the diverse post-1965 immigrant streams, resulting in unprecedented diversity among older New Yorkers. Immigrant Fertility In addition to the direct effect of immigration on population growth, immigration has an indirect effect by way of fertility. Immigrants are heavily concentrated in the childbearing ages and tend to have higher fertility than native-born residents. In 2011 foreign-born women constituted 41 percent of women in the childbearing ages, 15 to 50 years. Yet foreign-born mothers accounted for a slight majority of all births in New York City: 60,800 out of 118,700 births (Table 7-5). Among foreign-born women, mothers born in China (8,000), the Dominican Republic (7,700), and Mexico (6,600) had the largest numbers of births, together accounting for 1-in-3 births to foreign-born women. Overall, immigrants and their U.S.-born offspring account for approximately 60 percent of the city’s population. Table 7-5 Births to Foreign-born Mothers by Country of Birth New York City, 2011 Number BIRTHS, TOTAL Percent 118,651 100.0 Native-born 57,567 48.5 Foreign-born 60,807 51.2 Foreign-born 60,807 100.0 China 7,954 13.1 Dominican Republic 7,701 12.7 Mexico 6,645 10.9 Ecuador 2,687 4.4 Jamaica 2,684 4.4 Bangladesh 1,955 3.2 Guyana 1,902 3.1 Haiti 1,494 2.5 Trinidad and Tobago 1,372 2.3 India 1,248 2.1 Pakistan The ebb and flow of people that is a defining feature of New York City’s population dynamic means that workers who leave need to be replaced to ensure the continued success of New York’s economy. Moreover, as workers in the large baby boom cohorts retire, they also need to be replaced. These replacement workers are often immigrants. In 2011, 46 percent of the city’s resident labor force was foreign-born (Figure 7-9), but immigrants constituted a majority of all workers 35 to 64 years of age, with their peak share among 45 to 54 year olds (56 percent). In 2011, recent immigrants—those who arrived in 2000 or later—comprised 15 percent of city residents in the labor force. Since most immigrants 2.0 948 1.6 Israel 944 1.6 Russia 889 1.5 Poland 852 1.4 Colombia 805 1.3 Uzbekistan Immigration and the Resident Work Force 1,243 Korea 779 1.3 Honduras 768 1.3 Ukraine 740 1.2 Philippines 733 1.2 Sources: Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, New York City, 2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning arrive in the young working ages, this is where recent immigrants are disproportionately represented (as are the native-born). The peak share for recent immigrants is among those 25 to 34 years of age, where they comprised 21 percent of the labor force. Longer resident immigrants—those who arrived prior to 2000—comprised 31 percent of residents in the labor force, but 40 percent of workers ages 35 to 54, and 46 percent among 55 to 64 year olds. In order to better understand the contribution immigrants make to the city’s workforce, it is import- Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 191 ant to identify the niches they occupy by industry. Industry refers to the kinds of business conducted by a person’s employing organization.10 This includes the businesses of those who are self-employed, where immigrants have a higher-than-average representation (see Chapter 4). Immigrants were conspicuous across the industry spectrum, but had the highest numerical presence in two of the city’s largest industries (Figure 7-10). Educational, Health, and Social Services, the largest industry in New York’s economy, employed 990,500 residents; immigrants accounted for 461,000 (47 percent) of this service sector, in fields such as hospitals (80,400), home health care (51,700), elementary and secondary schools (44,800), individual and family services (32,900), child day care services (27,400), colleges and universities (26,500), and nursing care facilities (25,600). The next largest industry, Accommodation, Food, and Other Services, employed 614,500 residents, of whom 360,300 or 59 percent 192 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition were foreign-born. The largest concentrations in this industry were found in restaurants and other food services (125,600), private households (28,300), and traveler accommodations (21,500), with smaller, though notable, numbers in auto repair, beauty salons, and dry cleaning. Wholesale and Retail Trade had the third largest immigrant presence, with 219,900 immigrants employed. They constituted nearly one-half of total employments in this sector, with substantial numbers in grocery (32,200), clothing (15,200), and department and discount stores (10,900). With respect to industries with a disproportionate immigrant presence, 67 percent of workers in Construction were foreign-born (120,700), followed by Accommodation, Food, and Other Services (59 percent). Immigrants also had a large share in Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities (57 percent or 125,300 immigrant workers), which included 33,800 in taxi and limousine businesses, 19,500 in bus service and urban transit, and 10,000 in services Figure 7-10 Nativity of New York City’s Resident Employed* by Selected Industry New York City, 2011 Percent Foreign-born = 67.0 55.4 47.7 57.1 19.3 36.4 37.4 46.5 58.6 28.4 1,000 800 Thousands 46.8% of all employed* residents were foreign-born 600 400 200 0 Construction Manufacturing Wholesale & Retail Trade Transportation & Warehousing and Utilities Information Native F.I.R.E. & Rental Professional** Educational, Accommodation, Public and Leasing Health & Social Food, & Other Administration Services Services*** Foreign-born * Persons 16 and Over Employed in the Civilian Labor Force ** Includes Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste Management *** Includes Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, and Other Services (Except Public Administration) Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning incidental to transportation. Also included here are workers in the postal service, as well as those in air transport, courier, truck, and rail transportation. Finally, immigrants comprised a majority in Manufacturing (55 percent or 86,100 immigrant workers), with the largest cluster in apparel (13,100), along with medical equipment, baking, furniture, pharmaceuticals, and printing. Industry sectors where immigrants had the lowest percentages of all workers were Information (19 percent); Public Administration (28 percent); Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste Management (37 percent); and Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) (36 percent). Despite the relatively low representation, large clusters of immigrants were present in industries within these sectors. Among jobs in F.I.R.E., for example, large numbers of immigrants were in real estate (37,600), banking (29,700), securities/ commodities (22,800), and insurance (14,400). Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management included immigrant workers in building maintenance (25,300), legal services (14,100), investigation and security services (12,900), computer systems design (11,200), and accounting and payroll (10,900). Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 193 Immigrants and Housing This section addresses the role immigrants play in the city’s housing market by using the 2011 New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey (NYCHVS).11 Table 7-6 shows there were 3.1 million households in the city, of which 1.39 million had foreign-born heads (of household). Among these foreign-born heads, 1,080,000 had arrived in the U.S. before 2000 (longer-resident heads) and 313,000 arrived in 2000 or later (recent entrants). For both recently arrived and longer-resident foreign-born heads, Table 7-6 lists the number living in six types of housing. The housing types depicted refer to tenure and regulatory status. Owner-occupied housing units are either conventional or co-op/condo. Conventional refers to privately owned houses or buildings that are not part of a cooperative or condominium development. This includes owner-occupied single family houses and living quarters that are part of commercial or industrial buildings. The category co-op/condo is comprised of cooperative and condominium units, including those constructed under the New York State and New York City Mitchell-Lama programs that provide cooperative housing for moderate income families through limited equity ownership. Renter-occupied housing units cover four categories: market rate, controlled/stabilized, government assisted, and public housing. Market rate refers to units with no current governmental restrictions or regulation on rents, rental conditions, or type of tenancy. These units may never have been subject to government rent regulation, or may have been regulated in the past but are no longer subject to these controls. Controlled/stabilized units include those that are subject to the Rent Control Law and Regulations, as well as units where other government regulations determine the level of rent increases. Controlled/stabilized units numbered nearly 1 million, making this the largest category in the city’s housing inventory. Table 7-6 Housing Type by Nativity of Household Head New York City, 2011 Household Heads Percent Distribution FOREIGN-BORN FOREIGN-BORN Entered Entered TOTAL Total before 2000 2000 or later TOTAL, New York City* 3,087,523 1,392,909 1,079,827 313,082 Owner-Occupied Conventional Co-op/condo Renter-Occupied Market rate Controlled/stabilized Government assisted Public housing** TOTAL 100.0 Total 45.1 Entered Entered before 2000 2000 or later 35.0 10.1 984,065 567,167 416,898 427,889 280,478 147,411 401,194 266,690 134,202 26,695 13,788 13,209 100.0 100.0 100.0 43.5 49.5 35.4 40.8 47.0 32.2 2.7 2.4 3.2 2,103,458 812,124 999,243 104,648 187,443 965,020 365,283 498,338 45,080 56,319 671,093 228,411 358,094 39,559 51,418 293,927 136,872 140,244 5,521 4,901 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 45.9 45.0 49.9 43.1 30.0 31.9 28.1 35.8 37.8 27.4 14.0 16.9 14.0 5.3 2.6 *There were 426,000 householder records with missing information on birthplace and 193,907 foreign born householder records with missing information on year of immigration. These households were assigned a year of immigration based on the percent distribution of households with complete information for these variables. **Includes about 2,500 units that were acquired by the city due to nonpayment of property taxes. Source: New York City Housing and Vacancy Survey, 2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 194 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition The large majority of these units were rent stabilized, covered under the auspices of the Emergency Tenant Protection Act of 1974.12 Government assisted rentals include several categories that receive some form of government subsidy for the purposes of providing affordable housing to those with moderate incomes. Finally, public housing refers to rental units owned and managed by the New York City Housing Authority. Units in Housing Authority projects aim to provide housing for low to moderate income tenants, with the terms and conditions of occupancy regulated by the Authority. Immigrants comprised 45 percent of all households, with a slightly lower percentage in owner-occupied (44 percent) compared with renter-occupied units (46 percent). Immigrants were particularly underrepresented among co-op/condo owners, where they accounted for just 35 percent of all units; they had a higher share (50 percent) of conventional owner-occupied units. Among rental units, immigrants were disproportionately represented in controlled/stabilized units, while they were underrepresented in government assisted units and especially in public housing. A different picture emerges when longer-resident immigrants are compared with recent entrants. Home ownership requires not only capital but also knowledge of the housing market. Not surprisingly, units that were home to recent entrants were far less likely to be owner-occupied. While recent entrants accounted for 10 percent of all households in New York City, they constituted just 3 percent of owner-occupied units—and 14 percent of rentals. Among market rate rentals, 17 percent were occupied by recent entrants. On the other hand, recent entrants were underrepresented in rentals that were government assisted (5 percent) and in public housing (3 percent). With increased time spent in the U.S., the housing picture improved dramatically for immigrant households. While longer-resident immigrant households were 35 percent of all households, they accounted for 41 percent of owner-occupied units. Among conventional units, longer resident households accounted for 47 percent, though they were underrepresented (32 percent) in co-ops/condos. Among rentals, the presence of longer resident immigrants in controlled/stabilized units (36 percent) and in government assisted units (38 percent) was broadly in line with their overall share of households. But they were underrepresented in public housing, with 27 percent of units in this category. Thus even with increased time in the U.S., immigrants are still much less likely to be living in public housing. Since the mid-1990s, demand for housing resulted in a surge in new construction, especially in the Bronx, Brooklyn, and Queens, boroughs that also had significant numbers of housing conversions in the 1990s.13 This boom lasted until 2008, when the effects of the deep recession took hold in the New York housing market.14 Much of the demand for new housing that came on the market in the last decade was driven by immigrants. NYCHVS reported that between 2000 and 2011, 133,000 housing units were “occupied for the first time,”15 and over 64,000 or 49 percent of these units were occupied by a foreign-born head (data not shown). When second generation household heads—those who were native-born with one/both parents foreign-born—were added, units occupied by first and second generation heads stood at more than 83,000 or 63 percent of all housing units that were first occupied between 2000 and 2011. Race and Hispanic Change Over the past four decades, the large flow of immigrants from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean has reshaped the race/Hispanic composition of New York from largely white nonhispanic to a diverse mix where no one group is in the majority. White nonhispanics, who have experienced population losses each decade since 1970, saw these losses attenuate in the last decade due to a large influx of young whites from the rest of the nation. With a population of 2.73 million in 2011, whites remained the largest group in the city, but they comprised just 33 percent of the Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 195 Figure 7-11 Population by Race/Hispanic Origin New York City, 1970–2011 Total Population = 7,849,862 7,071,639 7,322,564 8,008,278 8,244,910 100% Multiracial, nonhispanic 80% Asian and other, nonhispanic 60% Hispanic 40% Black, nonhispanic 20% White, nonhispanic 0% 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 Year Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 1970-2000 decennial censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning population, down from 63 percent in 1970 (Figure 7-11). The black population reached a high 1.96 million in 2000, but declined by 79,000 in the last decade, the result of increased out-migration of blacks with origins in the southern states and the Caribbean. Black nonhispanics, who comprised 19 percent in 1970, accounted for 23 percent of the population in 2011. While the population of whites and blacks declined in the past decade, Asians and Hispanics saw population increases that were mirrored in their growing shares of the city’s population. Asians and other nonhispanics increased by nearly one-third in the last decade and crossed the one million mark for the first time. They accounted for 14 percent of the population in 2011, up from 2 percent in 1970. Hispanics grew 10 percent in the last decade to reach 2.37 million. Hispanics are now the largest minority group in the city, with a 29 percent share, up from 16 percent in 1970. 196 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition These dramatic changes have been accompanied by increasing ethnic diversity within each race/ Hispanic group. The Afro-Caribbean population, for example, numbered in excess of 601,000 in 2011, or nearly one-third (32 percent) of the black nonhispanic population, up from less than 10 percent in 1970.16 The Hispanic population, long synonymous with Puerto Ricans, had no single group that comprised a majority. While Puerto Ricans remained the largest group, they accounted for just 31 percent of Hispanics in 2011, and were followed by a panoply of other ethnic groups, including Dominicans (25 percent), Mexicans (13 percent), Ecuadorians (7 percent) and Colombians (4 percent). Among Asians, the Chinese were a near majority (47 percent) in 2011, but down from their 59 percent share in 1970. They were followed by Asian Indians (19 percent), Koreans (9 percent), and Filipinos (7 percent). Bangladeshis emerged as the 5th largest Asian group in 2011, with a Figure 7-12 Age by Race/Hispanic Origin New York City, 2011 Total Population = 8,244,910 1,775,171 852,085 2,574,783 2,030,875 1,011,996 100% Multiracial, nonhispanic 80% Asian and other, nonhispanic 60% Hispanic 40% Black, nonhispanic 20% White, nonhispanic 0% Total Under 18 18–24 25–44 45–64 65+ Age Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 5 percent share of the Asian nonhispanic population, followed by Pakistanis at 4 percent. Figure 7-12 examines the race/Hispanic profile of the city by age. White nonhispanics accounted for a disproportionate 46 percent of those 65 years and over—an age cohort that represents the city’s demographic past. The city’s demographic future is best represented by children under 18: Hispanics were the largest group (35 percent), followed by white and black nonhispanics (25 percent each), Asian and other nonhispanics (12 percent), and those of multiracial nonhispanic backgrounds (2 percent).17 In the coming decades, the overall race/Hispanic composition of the city will reflect the make-up of the younger age cohorts as they move into the older age groups. However, the changing nature of domestic and international migration could alter the race and Hispanic makeup of the city in new ways. SUMMARY There is a dynamism that defines the population of New York City, an energy that comes from a continuous ebb and flow of people—literally hundreds of thousands of people entering and leaving the city each year. Immigration is a key part of this process, selective of people with talent and motivation who are drawn to the possibilities afforded by the wide array of economic opportunities the city offers. In recent decades immigrant flows have mitigated what could have been catastrophic population losses in the 1970s, have stabilized the city’s population in the 1980s, were a major impetus for growth that helped New York officially cross the 8 million mark in 2000, and have propelled the city to a new population peak of 8.34 million in 2012. The city’s foreign-born number more than three million—a population that would comprise the third largest city in the U.S., bested by just New York City Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 197 A NOTE ABOUT RECENT IMMIGRATION LEGISLATION The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” (S. 744) is a broadbased proposal for reforming the U.S. immigration system. The bill was introduced in the Senate on April 16, 2013, sent to the Committee on the Judiciary, amended, and then passed by the Senate on June 27, 2013. The legislation has been given to the House of Representatives for consideration. The major goal of the proposed legislation is to increase the number of workers with higher levels of skills, while still allowing for family reunification. In an effort to attract more immigrants with skills, the proposed legislation creates a new merit-based point system that is based heavily on education and work experience; and country-specific quotas for employment visas would be discarded in favor of an overall visa cap. Family reunification remains an important goal of the system, in that spouses and children of legal permanent residents would be exempt from numerical limits for the first time. However, the current immigrant visa categories for siblings and adult married children of U.S. citizens would be eliminated. Also noteworthy are the proposed elimination of the diversity visa pool and the creation of pathways for the legalization of undocumented immigrants. Any endeavor that aims to predict the size and composition of future immigration flows to New York is difficult at best. While the new legislation, if ultimately enacted, would likely alter the flow of immigrants to the city and to the nation, world events and changes in U.S. policy toward particular countries could also dramatically affect flows. What is certain is that local conditions will continue to influence whether those who enter the nation settle in New York City. New York’s historic receptivity to immigrants and local policies that enhance the incorporation of newcomers into the fabric of the city, coupled with a healthy and diverse economy, should ensure New York’s continued status as a magnet for immigrants. 198 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition and Los Angeles. Immigrants are 37 percent of the city’s population, and with foreign-born mothers accounting for 51 percent of all births, approximately 6-in-10 New Yorkers are either immigrants or the children of immigrants. On the economic front, immigrants comprised 47 percent of all employed residents, but accounted for over a majority of residents employed in Construction; Accommodation, Food, and Other Services; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; and Manufacturing. Immigrants are disproportionately represented among those who start new businesses, providing a continuous injection of economic vitality that serves the neighborhoods of New York. Further, the presence of immigrants helps New York City maintain its aging housing stock and drives demand for new housing, with almost one-half of all units coming on the market between 2000 and 2011 occupied by an immigrant; when the second generation is included, this share increases to 63 percent. There is another and perhaps less well understood side to the economic story of immigration, one that goes to the heart of the city’s demographic makeup. It involves the inevitable aging of the city’s population over the next three decades, a result of the baby boomer cohorts entering retirement. Continued immigration could help ameliorate the costs associated with increased services that would be needed by this burgeoning older population, which is projected to increase by approximately 400,000 persons by 2040. If history is any indication, the economic opportunities in New York will continue to sustain its immigrant flow. And in light of the increase in the number of naturalized citizens, the number of family members reunifying with these citizens should continue to grow. Finally, the most recent data suggest that we are potentially in the midst of yet another phase in the city’s demographic history. It is one where domestic migration will play a heightened role in the flow of people to the city, as evidenced by smaller losses to the rest of the nation and more modest gains through international migration. This rela- tive balance of domestic losses and international gains, while evident in just the last few years, may represent a reversal of a longstanding pattern of net losses through migration. 10 The broad industry groups shown in Figure 7-10 are based on the one-year 2011 ACS. Because of the much larger number of detailed industries, the 2011 sample was insufficient for the creation of reliable estimates. Thus estimates of detailed industries are from the five-year ACS for 2007-2011. ENDNOTES 11 The 2011 NYCHVS sample consisted of about 19,000 housing units that were drawn from the 2010 census address list. Information on “control status” of the housing unit, that is the kinds of subsidies and/or governmental regulation that govern housing occupancy, can be identified in the NYCHVS but not the decennial census or ACS. 1 Changes of address from year-to-year for tax returns represent flows into and out of the city. Those who have addresses in the city in one year and outside the city in the next are designated as “out-migrants”; those who live outside the city one year and in the city the next are designated as “in-migrants.” 2 According to the 2011 ACS, the number of persons who “came to the U.S. to live” in 2010 was 94,800, down 25 percent from the 126,400 persons in the 2000 census who said they had entered in 1999. Similarly, the 451,800 persons in the 2011 ACS who had arrived in the previous five years (2006–2010) was down 22 percent from the 579,800 in the 2000 census who had entered between 1995–1999. 3 Net international flows were derived by assuming that those emigrating equaled 20 percent of the legal flow. Non-immigrant in- and out-flows were ignored. 4 Strictly comparable data on in-migrants and out-migrants are not available; data on out-migrants are incomplete, since the ACS does not provide information on those who have left the U.S. for other countries. This analysis assumes that this effect remains the same over time, thus making comparisons useful. 5 See Massey, D. and Liang, Z. (1989). The long-term consequences of a temporary worker program: the U.S.-Bracero experience. Population Research and Policy Review, 8, 199–226. 6 See Warren, R. & Warren, J.R (2013). Unauthorized Immigration to the United States: Annual Estimates and Components of Change, by State, 1990 to 2010. International Migration Review, 47, 296–329. 7 These percentages, shown in Chapter 4, can also be derived from the first row in Tables 7-2 and 7-3. 8 Theoretically, it is possible that differences in the year-to-year flow of immigrants in the 1980s and the 1990s could have affected the time available for immigrants to naturalize. However it is impossible to disentangle this effect from those related to the other factors mentioned, such as differences in the number of non-immigrants and other groups that are ineligible to naturalize. 9 Between 1990 and 2010, there was steady growth in the percentage of all deaths to foreign-born persons: 29 percent in 1990, 31 percent in 2000 and 35 percent in 2010. 12 The Emergency Tenant Protection Act (ETPA) is a state law that provides limitations on the amount of rent in various municipalities (local opt in) based on a continuing housing emergency, defined as vacancy rates of less than five percent. 13 Unlike new construction, conversions are housing units created by adding to or subdividing units in existing buildings. It includes dwelling units created in non-residential buildings, additional units created within existing occupied residential buildings, and units restored to the housing stock in vacant residential buildings by private investors without city assistance. The city’s building records provide more accurate data on new construction than on conversions, requiring that the number of these added units be estimated by indirect means. For the 1990s, the estimated number of conversions in the city was 127,000. 14 Data from the New York City Department of Buildings show annual permits for new construction. In the Bronx, permits rose from an annual average of 1,072 in 1995–1999 to 3,576 in 2000–2008, plummeting to 1,689 in 2009–2012. In Brooklyn, annual average permits increased from 1,526 in 1995–1999 to 7,240 in 2000–2008, falling to 1,552 in 2009–2012. In Queens, the average rose from 1,360 to 5,482, dropping to 2,372 over the same periods. 15 This excludes 9,400 households where information on the birthplace of the respondent or respondent’s parents was not reported. 16 Based on persons of nonhispanic Caribbean ancestry in the ACS. 17 Self-reporting more than one race on the census, which began in 2000, is affected by a variety of factors that make any judgment of “accuracy” impossible to determine. Suffice it to say that the “two or more races” population is a volatile number that demonstrates much inconsistency when measured over multiple samples in census evaluations. See National Research Council (2004). The 2000 Census: Counting Under Adversity. Panel to Review the 2000 Census. Washington DC: the National Academies Press. Chapter 7: The Impact of Immigration: Past, Present, and Future 199 2 0 0 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition The Newest New Yorkers Appendix Tables Appendix Table 3-1 Change in Foreign-born Population by World Area of Origin and Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2000 to 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 Appendix Table 3-2a Top 20 Foreign-born Groups by Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212 Appendix Table 3-2b Foreign-born Groups Ranked 21 through 40 by Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2007–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222 Appendix Table 5-1 Population Density and Percent Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232 Appendix Table 5-2 Foreign-born by Area of Origin New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Appendix Table 5-3 Total and Foreign-born Population New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 1900–2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234 201 Appendix Table 3-1 Change in Foreign-born Population by World Area of Origin and Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2000 to 2007–2011 TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN EUROPE Change Change 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Percent Number Number Number Percent 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 2000 Number TOTAL, NEW YORK CITY 8,008,278 8,128,980 120,702 1.5 BRONX 1,332,650 1,374,593 3.1 385,827 453,466 -4,187 -7.6 41,943 2,871,032 2,989,817 118,785 Change 4.1 67,639 17.5 557,492 475,091 -82,401 -14.8 40,577 30,673 -9,904 -24.4 West Bedford Park-Fordham North 55,189 51,002 20,165 20,131 -34 -0.2 1,965 1,436 -529 -26.9 Belmont 25,804 26,729 925 3.6 7,386 8,203 817 11.1 1,293 867 -426 -32.9 Claremont-Bathgate 28,105 29,795 1,690 6.0 5,175 7,812 2,637 51.0 94 53 Concourse-Concourse Village 98,457 102,401 3,944 4.0 35,432 41,748 6,316 17.8 241 403 Crotona Park East 18,079 19,603 1,524 8.4 4,265 6,337 2,072 48.6 30 31 East Tremont 39,282 41,919 2,637 6.7 7,546 12,045 4,499 59.6 112 239 Fordham South 26,880 26,506 Highbridge 33,797 36,851 Kingsbridge Heights 33,368 Morrisania-Melrose 29,654 Mount Hope North Riverdale-Fieldston-Riverdale 1 3.3 127 113.4 8,949 9,199 2.8 35 34 10,969 14,355 3,386 30.9 55 31 -24 -43.6 32,129 -1,239 -3.7 12,829 14,101 1,272 9.9 415 171 -244 -58.8 35,295 5,641 19.0 6,021 9,916 3,895 64.7 17 110 93 547.1 52,463 51,945 -518 -1.0 20,367 22,333 9.7 169 149 -20 -11.8 28,006 26,978 -1,028 -3.7 6,338 5,393 -945 -14.9 3,375 1,971 -1,404 -41.6 -946 -2.3 40,793 39,847 Spuyten Duyvil-Kingsbridge 29,728 30,073 University Heights-Morris Heights 54,347 Van Cortlandt Village 50,857 3,054 250 67.2 9.0 Norwood -374 -1.4 -41 -43.6 162 1,966 -1 -2.9 14,362 14,792 430 3.0 2,357 1,646 -711 -30.2 1.2 8,907 9,003 96 1.1 3,146 2,569 -577 -18.3 54,163 -184 -0.3 17,312 21,100 3,788 21.9 49,507 -1,350 -2.7 18,687 19,786 1,099 345 134 65 -69 -51.5 5.9 2,485 1,808 -677 -27.2 -256 -19.6 North and East Co-op City 40,676 43,778 3,102 7.6 7,406 9,509 2,103 28.4 1,309 1,053 Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester 35,547 37,203 1,656 4.7 12,084 13,354 1,270 10.5 345 512 -104 -0.4 -3 167 48.4 Pelham Bay-Country Club-City Island 27,043 26,939 4,421 4,418 Schuylerville-Throgs Neck-Edgewater Park 43,501 44,832 1,331 3.1 5,813 6,637 -0.1 3,058 2,248 -810 -26.5 824 14.2 3,418 2,494 -924 -27.0 Williamsbridge-Olinville 57,796 61,448 3,652 6.3 22,505 23,479 974 4.3 Woodlawn-Wakefield 43,583 45,734 2,151 4.9 17,573 19,018 1,445 8.2 764 519 -245 -32.1 2,818 1,957 -861 -30.6 Allerton-Pelham Gardens 28,537 32,872 4,335 15.2 8,448 10,681 2,233 26.4 2,203 2,332 129 5.9 Bronxdale 34,250 33,508 -742 -2.2 10,759 12,035 1,276 11.9 2,905 2,665 -240 -8.3 Hunts Point 25,315 27,231 1,916 7.6 6,368 7,004 636 10.0 19 27 8 42.1 Longwood 23,080 26,250 3,170 13.7 6,804 7,803 999 14.7 85 35 Melrose South-Mott Haven North 33,722 37,069 3,347 9.9 8,091 11,996 3,905 48.3 44 42 -2 -4.5 Mott Haven-Port Morris 48,977 52,487 3,510 7.2 9,862 14,365 4,503 45.7 113 209 96 85.0 Parkchester 29,407 29,367 -40 -0.1 7,881 9,137 1,256 15.9 298 106 -192 -64.4 Pelham Parkway 29,936 29,976 0.1 10,291 11,484 1,193 11.6 4,195 2,738 -1,457 -34.7 Rikers Island 12,780 10,453 -2,327 -18.2 – 1,469 1,469 – – 73 Soundview-Bruckner 34,713 34,286 -427 -1.2 10,860 13,228 2,368 21.8 239 93 -146 -61.1 Soundview-Castle Hill-Clason Point-Harding Park 50,718 52,945 2,227 4.4 7,771 10,943 3,172 40.8 233 84 -149 -63.9 Van Nest-Morris Park-Westchester Square 27,435 29,620 2,185 8.0 7,463 8,696 1,233 16.5 1,936 1,487 -449 -23.2 Central and South 40 -50 -58.8 73 – West Farms-Bronx River 34,516 35,105 589 1.7 9,962 12,748 2,786 28.0 298 97 -201 -67.4 Westchester-Unionport 25,814 27,575 1,761 6.8 6,658 8,796 2,138 32.1 374 267 -107 -28.6 202 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition ASIA AFRICA NONHISPANIC CARIBBEAN LATIN AMERICA Change Change Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent Number Number Number Percent Number Number Number Percent 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 686,599 815,288 Change 2000 to 2007–2011 128,689 18.7 92,435 118,162 25,727 27.8 591,660 594,623 2,963 0.5 919,759 957,786 38,027 4.1 59.8 90,305 92,867 2,562 2.8 199,434 252,091 52,657 26.4 12.3 28,656 36,034 7,378 25.7 25,747 41,150 15,403 2,914 1,251 -1,663 -57.1 1,012 2,021 1,009 99.7 2,377 2,087 -290 -12.2 11,845 13,305 1,460 542 556 14 2.6 371 261 -110 -29.6 699 745 46 6.6 4,481 5,774 1,293 28.9 139 123 -16 -11.5 689 1,709 1,020 148.0 666 856 190 28.5 3,587 5,071 1,484 41.4 897 1,883 986 109.9 3,811 6,186 2,375 62.3 5,329 5,241 -88 -1.7 25,103 27,996 2,893 11.5 36 87 51 141.7 173 694 521 301.2 513 647 134 26.1 3,502 4,878 1,376 39.3 175 245 70 40.0 613 1,859 1,246 203.3 1,047 1,325 278 26.6 5,599 8,377 2,778 49.6 194 169 -25 -12.9 873 961 88 10.1 1,150 823 -327 -28.4 6,690 7,212 522 7.8 61 86 25 41.0 1,493 2,417 924 61.9 1,052 1,305 253 24.1 8,293 10,516 2,223 26.8 1,431 1,222 -209 -14.6 359 618 259 72.1 1,176 1,621 445 37.8 9,444 10,469 1,025 10.9 190 153 -37 -19.5 692 1,550 858 124.0 1,069 1,091 22 2.1 4,040 7,012 2,972 73.6 650 556 -94 -14.5 1,789 3,008 1,219 68.1 3,167 2,609 -558 -17.6 14,575 16,011 1,436 9.8 1,252 1,733 481 38.4 136 176 40 29.4 359 298 -61 -17.0 1,107 1,129 22 2.0 3,073 2,416 -657 -21.4 555 487 -68 -12.3 2,220 2,315 95 4.3 6,104 7,852 1,748 28.6 1,705 1,624 -81 -4.8 219 153 -66 -30.1 386 357 -29 -7.5 3,367 4,204 837 24.9 365 611 246 67.5 1,919 2,165 246 12.8 2,266 2,096 -170 -7.5 12,618 16,163 3,545 28.1 1,744 1,456 -288 -16.5 1,572 2,291 719 45.7 1,193 1,302 109 9.1 11,686 12,894 1,208 10.3 306 351 45 14.7 728 1,137 409 56.2 3,928 5,373 1,445 36.8 1,030 1,595 565 54.9 141 272 131 92.9 542 1,056 514 94.8 10,138 9,621 -517 -5.1 882 1,877 995 112.8 438 687 249 56.8 37 13 -24 -64.9 207 198 -9 -4.3 634 1,188 554 87.4 266 719 453 170.3 121 187 66 54.5 400 587 187 46.8 1,564 2,625 1,061 67.8 621 931 310 49.9 1,922 2,113 191 9.9 16,151 16,704 553 3.4 2,995 3,161 166 5.5 422 719 297 70.4 580 832 252 43.4 12,784 13,718 934 7.3 906 1,792 886 97.8 1,047 1,692 645 61.6 254 464 210 82.7 3,492 3,966 474 13.6 1,450 2,219 769 53.0 828 1,104 276 33.3 478 541 63 13.2 3,151 2,904 -247 -7.8 3,379 4,807 1,428 42.3 152 95 -57 -37.5 161 499 338 209.9 648 376 -272 -42.0 5,382 6,007 625 11.6 32 55 23 71.9 140 493 353 252.1 625 491 -134 -21.4 5,922 6,729 807 13.6 319 362 43 13.5 273 869 596 218.3 570 683 113 19.8 6,885 10,040 3,155 45.8 69 240 171 247.8 503 726 223 44.3 675 560 -115 -17.0 8,474 12,630 4,156 49.0 1,470 2,796 1,326 90.2 1,610 1,476 -134 -8.3 2,229 2,672 443 19.9 2,256 2,087 -169 -7.5 2,574 3,941 1,367 53.1 107 415 308 287.9 809 1,011 202 25.0 2,455 3,357 902 36.7 – 175 175 – – 67 67 – – 291 291 – – 857 857 – 840 2,114 1,274 151.7 315 418 103 32.7 2,313 2,430 117 5.1 7,153 8,163 1,010 14.1 285 417 132 46.3 816 1,538 722 88.5 1,977 2,182 205 10.4 4,433 6,713 2,280 51.4 1,721 2,079 358 20.8 151 250 99 65.6 841 956 115 13.7 2,797 3,912 1,115 39.9 515 605 90 17.5 650 1,035 385 59.2 3,044 2,210 -834 -27.4 5,455 8,770 3,315 60.8 1,153 2,444 1,291 112.0 83 373 290 349.4 1,647 1,208 -439 -26.7 3,341 4,504 1,163 34.8 Appendix Tables 203 Appendix Table 3-1 (continued) TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN EUROPE Change Change 2007–2011 2000 to 2007-2011 Number Percent 2000 Number BROOKLYN North Bedford Bushwick East Williamsburg Greenpoint North Side-South Side Stuyvesant Heights Williamsburg 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Percent 2,465,326 2,486,119 20,793 2000 Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number 0.8 931,769 926,511 -5,258 -0.6 Number Number Number Percent 238,383 190,081 -48,302 -20.3 626 8,431 -435 -7,783 -3,161 3,443 -562 5.1 21.0 -4.9 -39.2 -22.5 34.4 -11.7 451 953 1,590 15,012 3,089 211 2,759 546 1,049 1,849 8,854 2,718 206 1,933 95 96 259 -6,158 -371 -5 -826 21.1 10.1 16.3 -41.0 -12.0 -2.4 -29.9 58,784 120,374 31,949 37,907 40,080 62,184 32,094 68,052 131,250 33,041 31,255 45,324 62,129 33,709 9,268 15.8 10,876 9.0 1,092 3.4 -6,652 -17.5 5,244 13.1 -55 -0.1 1,615 5.0 12,274 40,097 8,961 19,850 14,061 10,016 4,797 12,900 48,528 8,526 12,067 10,900 13,459 4,235 59,093 49,039 110,827 30,382 14,621 54,558 47,518 119,236 30,719 12,777 -4,535 -7.7 -1,521 -3.1 8,409 7.6 337 1.1 -1,844 -12.6 13,916 21,532 31,239 5,888 4,739 14,560 20,982 36,585 7,663 3,789 644 4.6 -550 -2.6 5,346 17.1 1,775 30.1 -950 -20.0 225 453 628 197 2,382 53 288 543 141 1,694 -172 -165 -85 -56 -688 -76.4 -36.4 -13.5 -28.4 -28.9 85,058 145,600 56,091 31,392 66,722 43,147 19,426 70,342 57,935 84,244 141,067 52,262 29,505 70,428 47,948 21,003 69,331 56,471 -814 -4,533 -3,829 -1,887 3,706 4,801 1,577 -1,011 -1,464 -1.0 -3.1 -6.8 -6.0 5.6 11.1 8.1 -1.4 -2.5 36,463 50,778 30,275 18,085 26,795 9,273 4,861 36,131 30,824 39,195 49,058 26,658 16,861 29,877 12,477 4,540 32,925 29,059 2,732 7.5 -1,720 -3.4 -3,617 -11.9 -1,224 -6.8 3,082 11.5 3,204 34.6 -321 -6.6 -3,206 -8.9 -1,765 -5.7 2,700 2,036 519 194 2,445 5,675 478 586 524 1,004 1,648 301 82 1,381 5,394 752 565 405 -1,696 -388 -218 -112 -1,064 -281 274 -21 -119 -62.8 -19.1 -42.0 -57.7 -43.5 -4.9 57.3 -3.6 -22.7 28,297 80,990 143,060 101,560 34,920 38,697 110,974 29,279 46,091 36,867 38,659 55,477 20,672 34,257 64,531 17,370 27,779 83,704 144,159 106,816 30,693 43,469 105,940 26,981 40,698 36,635 39,131 52,764 19,873 30,806 60,210 15,865 -518 -1.8 2,714 3.4 1,099 0.8 5,256 5.2 -4,227 -12.1 4,772 12.3 -5,034 -4.5 -2,298 -7.8 -5,393 -11.7 -232 -0.6 472 1.2 -2,713 -4.9 -799 -3.9 -3,451 -10.1 -4,321 -6.7 -1,505 -8.7 12,709 29,747 74,458 35,796 24,593 14,023 58,396 11,984 22,319 20,265 19,089 23,827 7,012 9,254 25,569 9,413 12,630 27,432 77,682 31,739 21,261 19,001 51,122 11,972 18,072 16,867 18,682 20,731 6,209 10,739 26,170 9,498 -79 -2,315 3,224 -4,057 -3,332 4,978 -7,274 -12 -4,247 -3,398 -407 -3,096 -803 1,485 601 85 6,546 11,767 36,647 17,358 14,969 5,800 6,667 6,454 11,112 7,379 10,947 13,331 3,727 3,905 15,445 8,805 4,126 9,022 25,688 12,287 13,048 4,802 4,319 5,617 7,821 5,224 9,014 9,994 2,900 5,444 14,574 8,574 -2,420 -2,745 -10,959 -5,071 -1,921 -998 -2,348 -837 -3,291 -2,155 -1,933 -3,337 -827 1,539 -871 -231 -37.0 -23.3 -29.9 -29.2 -12.8 -17.2 -35.2 -13.0 -29.6 -29.2 -17.7 -25.0 -22.2 39.4 -5.6 -2.6 East Brownsville Cypress Hills-City Line East New York Ocean Hill Starrett City Central Canarsie Crown Heights East Flatbush-Farragut Erasmus Flatlands Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin Prospect Heights Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate Rugby-Remsen Village Southern Bath Beach Bay Ridge Bensonhurst Borough Park Brighton Beach Dyker Heights Flatbush Gravesend Homecrest Kensington-Ocean Parkway Madison Midwood Ocean Parkway South Seagate-Coney Island Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach West Brighton -0.6 -7.8 4.3 -11.3 -13.5 35.5 -12.5 -0.1 -19.0 -16.8 -2.1 -13.0 -11.5 16.0 2.4 0.9 West Brooklyn Heights-Cobble Hill 22,442 23,818 1,376 6.1 3,232 4,364 1,132 35.0 1,373 1,976 603 43.9 Carroll Gardens-Columbia Street-Red Hook 38,173 40,358 2,185 5.7 5,441 7,280 1,839 33.8 1,751 2,016 265 15.2 Clinton Hill 33,960 34,929 969 2.9 7,051 6,547 -7.1 454 1,054 600 132.2 DUMBO-Vinegar Hill-Downtown Brooklyn-Boerum Hill 30,802 34,105 3,303 10.7 4,827 6,225 1,398 29.0 742 1,297 555 74.8 Fort Greene 28,379 26,108 -2,271 -8.0 4,351 5,850 1,499 34.5 397 724 327 82.4 Park Slope-Gowanus 67,206 72,311 5,105 7.6 12,945 12,255 -690 -5.3 2,426 3,464 1,038 42.8 118,661 123,790 5,129 4.3 58,707 64,029 5,322 9.1 5,140 3,586 -1,554 -30.2 20,887 22,970 2,083 10.0 5,878 5,264 -614 -10.5 2,132 2,077 Sunset Park Windsor Terrace 204 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition -504 -55 -2.6 ASIA AFRICA NONHISPANIC CARIBBEAN Change 2000 2007–2011 Number Number 183,909 226,651 Change 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 LATIN AMERICA Change 2000 2007–2011 Number Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent Number Number Percent Number Number Number Percent Number Number 42,742 23.2 23,588 26,639 3,051 12.9 295,275 287,298 -7,977 -2.7 185,245 187,620 Number Percent 2,375 1.3 623 2,901 2,107 1,500 1,049 476 722 1,565 3,772 2,887 1,113 1,600 1,432 709 942 871 780 -387 551 956 -13 151.2 30.0 37.0 -25.8 52.5 200.8 -1.8 754 455 49 122 27 504 23 1,070 591 84 53 10 461 92 316 136 35 -69 -17 -43 69 41.9 29.9 71.4 -56.6 -62.8 -8.5 300.0 5,933 6,144 421 422 151 6,052 142 5,373 5,758 219 280 319 7,492 30 -560 -386 -202 -142 168 1,440 -112 -9.4 -6.3 -48.0 -33.6 111.3 23.8 -78.9 4,476 29,609 4,689 2,742 9,636 2,709 935 4,093 37,207 3,436 1,506 5,826 3,802 1,236 -383 7,598 -1,253 -1,236 -3,810 1,093 301 -8.6 25.7 -26.7 -45.1 -39.5 40.3 32.2 456 2,286 1,279 195 1,004 363 3,457 1,454 57 605 -93 1,171 175 -138 -399 -20.4 51.2 13.7 -70.8 -39.7 526 112 1,239 501 111 438 268 1,699 780 132 -88 156 460 279 21 -16.7 139.3 37.1 55.7 18.9 9,890 6,253 16,661 3,428 878 10,646 4,996 21,704 5,111 745 756 -1,257 5,043 1,683 -133 7.6 -20.1 30.3 49.1 -15.1 2,791 12,428 11,362 1,567 364 3,041 11,971 11,147 1,562 597 250 -457 -215 -5 233 9.0 -3.7 -1.9 -0.3 64.0 2,895 1,853 452 450 1,569 1,840 745 771 515 2,119 3,403 182 813 1,825 3,140 840 1,312 662 -776 1,550 -270 363 256 1,300 95 541 147 -26.8 83.6 -59.7 80.7 16.3 70.7 12.8 70.2 28.5 1,179 1,841 590 322 792 125 329 1,035 619 1,290 2,899 883 602 465 274 124 1,194 642 111 1,058 293 280 -327 149 -205 159 23 9.4 57.5 49.7 87.0 -41.3 119.2 -62.3 15.4 3.7 27,372 38,246 26,773 15,738 20,180 965 2,043 29,311 27,390 32,594 34,374 23,924 13,741 24,139 2,559 1,766 26,977 25,926 5,222 -3,872 -2,849 -1,997 3,959 1,594 -277 -2,334 -1,464 19.1 -10.1 -10.6 -12.7 19.6 165.2 -13.6 -8.0 -5.3 2,215 6,486 1,881 1,334 1,749 591 1,147 4,333 1,696 2,012 6,060 1,295 1,489 1,958 1,068 744 2,728 1,334 -203 -426 -586 155 209 477 -403 -1,605 -362 -9.2 -6.6 -31.2 11.6 12.0 80.7 -35.1 -37.0 -21.3 4,936 11,456 30,208 11,867 5,894 6,410 8,266 3,947 8,300 7,276 6,465 6,684 2,402 1,839 7,535 271 6,806 11,772 41,153 12,871 5,553 11,803 9,337 4,930 7,436 7,934 7,815 7,392 2,001 2,446 9,356 808 1,870 316 10,945 1,004 -341 5,393 1,071 983 -864 658 1,350 708 -401 607 1,821 537 37.9 2.8 36.2 8.5 -5.8 84.1 13.0 24.9 -10.4 9.0 20.9 10.6 -16.7 33.0 24.2 197.7 169 2,121 896 537 170 634 1,772 137 707 394 190 556 318 518 270 41 442 2,424 1,082 335 148 510 1,969 75 1,029 182 298 467 189 353 433 8 273 303 186 -202 -22 -124 197 -62 322 -212 108 -89 -129 -165 163 -33 161.5 14.3 20.8 -37.6 -12.9 -19.6 11.1 -45.3 45.5 -53.8 56.8 -16.0 -40.6 -31.9 60.4 -80.5 65 417 368 438 567 124 32,064 417 207 2,205 386 1,509 38 1,483 900 96 36 378 412 187 126 106 25,059 143 66 1,333 174 842 56 802 655 0 -29 -39 44 -251 -441 -18 -7,005 -274 -141 -872 -212 -667 18 -681 -245 -96 -44.6 -9.4 12.0 -57.3 -77.8 -14.5 -21.8 -65.7 -68.1 -39.5 -54.9 -44.2 47.4 -45.9 -27.2 -100.0 942 3,745 6,124 4,953 2,965 985 9,425 985 1,860 2,876 1,024 1,565 442 1,479 1,324 167 1,134 3,663 9,225 5,339 2,330 1,674 10,224 1,138 1,585 2,112 1,316 1,959 1,007 1,694 1,053 108 192 -82 3,101 386 -635 689 799 153 -275 -764 292 394 565 215 -271 -59 20.4 -2.2 50.6 7.8 -21.4 69.9 8.5 15.5 -14.8 -26.6 28.5 25.2 127.8 14.6 -20.5 -35.5 1,052 1,108 56 5.3 53 138 85 160.4 233 303 70 30.0 304 608 304 100.0 1,437 1,648 211 14.7 152 316 164 107.9 470 743 273 58.1 1,489 2,205 716 48.1 1,090 1,277 187 17.2 969 654 -315 -32.5 2,675 1,676 -999 -37.3 1,751 1,624 -127 -7.3 1,281 2,012 731 57.1 212 177 -35 -16.5 613 566 -47 -7.7 1,884 1,840 -44 -2.3 603 1,522 919 152.4 349 466 117 33.5 1,427 1,653 226 15.8 1,443 1,219 -224 -15.5 2,685 2,688 3 0.1 456 430 -26 -5.7 1,769 1,060 -709 -40.1 5,074 3,685 -1,389 -27.4 24,585 32,118 7,533 30.6 584 406 -178 -30.5 1,834 1,874 40 2.2 26,458 25,645 -813 -3.1 1,724 1,545 -179 -10.4 128 57 -71 -55.5 559 366 -193 -34.5 1,241 1,121 -120 -9.7 Appendix Tables 205 Appendix Table 3-1 (continued) TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN EUROPE Change Change 2007–2011 2000 to 2007-2011 Number Percent 2000 Number MANHATTAN Upper 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Percent 1,537,195 1,588,257 2000 Number Number 51,062 3.3 452,440 453,836 1,396 Change 0.3 2000 2007–2011 Number Number 83,327 86,724 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent 3,397 4.1 Central Harlem-Polo Grounds 109,534 122,288 12,754 11.6 19,415 26,881 7,466 38.5 602 1,941 1,339 222.4 East Harlem 113,962 120,430 6,468 5.7 24,288 30,335 6,047 24.9 1,129 2,520 1,391 123.2 Hamilton Heights 50,465 51,069 604 1.2 21,173 18,202 -2,971 -14.0 286 921 635 222.0 Manhattanville 24,775 23,054 -1,721 -6.9 10,040 9,124 -916 -9.1 81 297 216 266.7 Marble Hill-Inwood 49,134 48,889 -245 -0.5 24,111 22,480 -1,631 -6.8 1,333 794 -539 -40.4 Morningside Heights 54,146 53,933 -213 -0.4 14,174 16,204 2,030 14.3 2,735 3,510 775 28.3 Washington Heights 167,119 162,898 -4,221 -2.5 89,930 80,174 -9,756 -10.8 6,179 4,570 -1,609 -26.0 East Side Gramercy 26,184 25,897 -287 -1.1 5,429 4,926 -503 -9.3 1,911 1,602 -309 -16.2 Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island 76,692 78,155 1,463 1.9 18,047 19,154 1,107 6.1 7,204 7,070 -134 Murray Hill-Kips Bay 48,316 51,190 2,874 5.9 11,609 11,941 332 2.9 3,613 3,892 279 7.7 Stuyvesant Town-Cooper Village 19,101 21,688 2,587 13.5 3,029 4,355 1,326 43.8 955 986 31 3.2 -1.9 Turtle Bay-East Midtown 49,734 47,330 -2,404 -4.8 14,364 12,000 -2,364 -16.5 5,474 4,225 -1,249 -22.8 Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill 63,788 60,178 -3,610 -5.7 11,550 9,757 -1,793 -15.5 6,323 4,294 -2,029 -32.1 Yorkville 76,730 77,900 1,170 1.5 17,058 16,642 -2.4 6,989 6,209 -780 -11.2 -416 Lower Battery Park City-Lower Manhattan 20,179 35,770 15,591 77.3 5,128 10,660 5,532 107.9 1,443 3,517 2,074 143.7 Chinatown 52,546 47,803 -4,743 -9.0 32,791 26,808 -5,983 -18.2 632 1,302 670 106.0 East Village 41,779 42,481 702 1.7 11,903 10,345 -1,558 -13.1 4,483 4,509 26 0.6 Lower East Side 72,132 73,992 1,860 2.6 22,398 22,711 313 1.4 1,973 2,122 149 7.6 SoHo-TriBeCa-Civic Center-Little Italy 36,565 39,031 2,466 6.7 11,637 10,591 -1,046 -9.0 2,264 2,910 646 28.5 West Village 68,575 67,303 -1,272 -1.9 12,418 11,898 -520 -4.2 5,673 5,097 -576 -10.2 West Side and Midtown Clinton 40,531 43,693 3,162 7.8 11,330 12,923 1,593 14.1 2,577 2,920 343 13.3 Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flatiron-Union Square 55,845 68,328 12,483 22.4 11,920 14,886 2,966 24.9 3,649 4,642 993 27.2 Lincoln Square 55,057 59,772 4,715 8.6 11,979 12,979 1,000 8.3 4,681 4,704 23 0.5 Midtown-Midtown South 25,782 27,728 1,946 7.5 7,660 8,254 594 7.8 2,350 2,294 -56 -2.4 136,913 136,033 -880 -0.6 28,972 29,490 518 1.8 8,783 9,857 1,074 12.2 2,229,379 2,213,977 -15,402 -0.7 1,028,339 1,058,602 30,263 2.9 169,014 132,713 -36,301 -21.5 Upper West Side QUEENS Northwest Astoria 88,802 74,859 47,550 33,217 -14,333 -30.1 14,176 10,060 Corona 99,094 103,210 4,116 4.2 61,720 66,259 4,539 7.4 2,469 1,558 -911 -36.9 East Elmhurst 20,930 22,834 1,904 9.1 8,775 12,388 3,613 41.2 262 90 -172 -65.6 112,412 108,556 -3,856 -3.4 80,431 77,110 -3,321 -4.1 4,176 2,853 -1,323 -31.7 85,072 83,728 -1,344 -1.6 42,325 41,056 -1,269 -3.0 15,148 12,517 -2,631 -17.4 Elmhurst Forest Hills -13,943 -15.7 -4,116 -29.0 Glendale 30,933 32,679 1,746 5.6 7,899 9,135 1,236 15.7 5,186 4,687 -499 Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 61,870 60,009 -1,861 -3.0 35,634 31,856 -3,778 -10.6 5,734 4,783 -951 -16.6 -7,026 -9.7 7,908 5,038 -2,870 -36.3 1,674 17.7 5,487 5,399 -88 -1.6 8.0 6,663 6,101 -562 -8.4 Jackson Heights 113,097 105,859 -7,238 -6.4 72,611 65,585 Maspeth 28,736 28,862 126 0.4 9,457 11,131 Middle Village 37,761 38,190 429 1.1 10,708 11,565 857 -9.6 Old Astoria 28,871 26,550 -2,321 -8.0 14,440 12,767 -1,673 -11.6 3,075 2,542 -533 -17.3 Queensbridge-Ravenswood-Long Island City 21,059 17,707 -3,352 -15.9 8,052 6,570 -1,482 -18.4 584 417 -167 -28.6 Rego Park 29,326 28,237 -1,089 -3.7 17,256 15,798 -1,458 -8.5 5,330 4,634 Ridgewood 69,582 69,313 -269 -0.4 31,924 31,509 -415 -1.3 13,681 12,775 Steinway 53,422 49,366 -4,056 -7.6 24,560 20,441 -4,119 -16.8 10,941 8,048 -2,893 -26.4 Woodside 43,846 44,945 1,099 2.5 27,333 26,522 3,362 2,554 -808 -24.0 206 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition -811 -3.0 -696 -13.1 -906 -6.6 ASIA AFRICA NONHISPANIC CARIBBEAN Change 2000 2007–2011 Number Number 122,417 132,869 Change 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 LATIN AMERICA Change 2000 2007–2011 Number Change 2000 Number Percent 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent Number Percent Number 10,452 8.5 15,838 18,681 2,843 18.0 20,531 21,538 1,007 2000 4.9 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 198,264 178,832 -19,432 -9.8 37.7 1,070 2,819 1,749 163.5 4,555 5,764 1,209 26.5 5,285 5,283 -2 0.0 7,710 10,616 2,906 2,761 6,175 3,414 123.7 1,553 1,877 324 20.9 1,873 2,437 564 30.1 16,830 17,074 244 1.4 474 979 505 106.5 1,003 910 -93 -9.3 2,559 1,680 -879 -34.3 16,841 13,289 -3,552 -21.1 -15.2 381 528 147 38.6 426 527 101 23.7 510 408 -102 -20.0 8,605 7,293 -1,312 1,012 597 -415 -41.0 150 242 92 61.3 504 685 181 35.9 21,016 20,120 -896 -4.3 4,059 6,279 2,220 54.7 489 761 272 55.6 755 600 -155 -20.5 5,677 4,527 -1,150 -20.3 3,354 4,626 1,272 37.9 638 783 145 22.7 2,341 3,291 950 40.6 77,189 66,255 -10,934 -14.2 2,320 2,036 -284 -12.2 164 321 157 95.7 116 81 -35 -30.2 572 535 -37 -6.5 5,734 7,445 1,711 29.8 1,183 1,314 131 11.1 444 472 28 6.3 2,690 1,898 -792 -29.4 4,989 4,698 -291 -5.8 442 435 -7 -1.6 315 189 -126 -40.0 1,612 2,377 765 47.5 1,278 2,334 1,056 82.6 127 58 -69 -54.3 290 452 162 55.9 317 421 104 32.8 5,429 4,914 -515 -9.5 672 650 -22 -3.3 364 241 -123 -33.8 1,875 1,396 -479 -25.6 2,670 2,981 311 11.6 440 337 -103 -23.4 36 217 181 502.8 1,450 1,311 -139 -9.6 5,277 5,477 200 3.8 563 716 153 27.2 508 537 29 5.7 2,770 2,868 98 3.5 2,638 4,565 1,927 73.1 111 341 230 207.2 123 301 178 144.7 419 1,104 685 163.5 29,780 22,937 -6,843 -23.0 79 54 -25 -31.6 104 330 226 217.3 2,073 1,848 -225 -10.9 4,464 3,848 -616 -13.8 180 197 17 9.4 296 177 -119 -40.2 1,886 1,097 -789 -41.8 13,450 14,725 1,275 9.5 293 440 147 50.2 488 609 121 24.8 5,972 4,513 -1,459 -24.4 7,673 5,928 -1,745 -22.7 128 74 -54 -42.2 92 214 122 132.6 901 847 -54 -6.0 3,304 4,086 782 23.7 437 357 -80 -18.3 299 208 -91 -30.4 1,651 1,032 -619 -37.5 3,329 4,014 685 20.6 418 209 -209 -50.0 293 473 180 61.4 4,304 4,733 429 10.0 3,548 5,236 1,688 47.6 316 251 -65 -20.6 381 660 279 73.2 3,219 2,721 -498 -15.5 3,904 4,863 959 24.6 287 331 44 15.3 379 200 -179 -47.2 2,024 1,862 -162 -8.0 3,545 3,873 328 9.3 189 267 78 41.3 130 111 -19 -14.6 1,099 1,162 63 5.7 5,917 6,892 975 16.5 995 1,454 459 46.1 2,034 1,663 -371 -18.2 9,549 7,880 -1,669 -17.5 331,323 390,761 59,438 17.9 20,148 23,406 3,258 16.2 180,898 187,496 6,598 3.6 323,114 319,930 -3,184 -1.0 12,944 9,284 -3,660 -28.3 1,826 1,395 -431 -23.6 865 741 -124 -14.3 17,556 11,429 -6,127 -34.9 9,770 10,232 462 4.7 1,854 1,590 -264 -14.2 3,633 2,930 -703 -19.4 43,970 49,912 5,942 13.5 273 1,313 1,040 381.4 184 70 -114 -62.1 2,429 1,947 -482 -19.9 5,614 8,968 3,354 59.8 37,920 41,697 3,777 10.0 583 573 -10 -1.7 1,370 854 -516 -37.7 36,292 30,994 -5,298 -14.6 20,399 22,242 1,843 9.0 782 526 -256 -32.7 801 872 71 8.9 4,916 4,358 -558 -11.4 558 1,007 449 80.4 187 105 -82 -44.0 119 136 17 14.4 1,830 3,200 1,370 74.8 12,070 13,705 1,635 13.5 629 508 -121 -19.2 701 674 -27 -3.9 16,327 11,834 -4,493 -27.5 18,465 20,772 2,307 12.5 818 679 -139 -17.0 1,746 1,359 -387 -22.2 43,488 37,606 -5,882 -13.5 1,577 2,072 495 31.4 35 50 15 42.9 69 158 89 129.0 2,241 3,421 1,180 52.7 2,165 2,572 407 18.8 85 221 136 160.0 52 195 143 275.0 1,692 2,427 735 43.4 4,033 3,426 -607 -15.1 694 457 -237 -34.1 467 486 19 4.1 6,064 5,818 -246 -4.1 2,328 2,114 -214 -9.2 293 215 -78 -26.6 498 430 -68 -13.7 4,335 3,369 -966 -22.3 8,743 8,280 -463 -5.3 433 334 -99 -22.8 329 372 43 13.0 2,343 2,159 -184 -7.9 4,986 4,350 -636 -12.7 421 1,255 834 198.1 478 514 36 7.5 12,315 12,564 249 2.0 5,735 4,543 -1,192 -20.8 822 1,583 761 92.6 498 708 210 42.2 6,352 5,317 -1,035 -16.3 12,932 13,544 612 4.7 329 335 6 1.8 334 257 -77 -23.1 10,325 9,711 -614 -5.9 Appendix Tables 207 Appendix Table 3-1 (continued) TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN EUROPE Change Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007-2011 Number Number Number Percent 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent Change 2000 2007–2011 Number Number 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent QUEENS (continued) Northeast Auburndale 20,201 19,907 -294 -1.5 8,276 9,212 Bayside-Bayside Hills 44,376 45,363 987 2.2 15,689 17,901 11.3 2,411 2,044 -367 -15.2 2,212 14.1 936 4,023 3,270 -753 -18.7 Briarwood-Jamaica Hills 38,886 37,933 -953 -2.5 22,012 21,058 College Point 21,385 23,236 1,851 8.7 7,528 10,127 -4.3 2,823 1,866 -957 -33.9 2,599 34.5 1,645 1,039 -606 -36.8 Douglas Manor-Douglaston-Little Neck 24,356 24,511 155 0.6 7,841 8,978 Flushing 95,876 94,418 -1,458 -1.5 61,264 63,920 1,137 14.5 2,116 1,039 -1,077 -50.9 2,656 4.3 4,859 3,196 Fresh Meadows-Utopia 17,420 18,192 772 4.4 6,543 -1,663 -34.2 9,313 2,770 42.3 927 564 Ft. Totten-Bay Terrace-Clearview 22,731 23,280 549 2.4 5,540 -363 -39.2 7,008 1,468 26.5 1,940 1,630 -310 -16.0 Jamaica Estates-Holliswood 25,885 24,037 -1,848 -7.1 11,723 11,521 -202 -1.7 1,443 951 -492 -34.1 Kew Gardens Hills 36,090 36,489 399 1.1 15,024 13,846 -1,178 -7.8 3,713 2,410 -1,303 -35.1 Murray Hill 52,982 50,181 -2,801 -5.3 28,367 29,039 672 2.4 4,478 2,698 -1,780 -39.7 Oakland Gardens 27,876 28,271 395 1.4 10,112 11,708 1,596 15.8 1,832 1,480 -352 -19.2 Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest 31,734 33,539 1,805 5.7 11,829 14,171 2,342 19.8 2,412 1,984 -428 -17.7 Queensboro Hill 19,309 20,473 1,164 6.0 10,354 12,436 2,082 20.1 948 861 -87 -9.2 Whitestone 31,405 32,510 1,105 3.5 9,473 10,422 949 10.0 4,439 4,315 -124 -2.8 Baisley Park 35,719 34,160 -1,559 -4.4 7,636 11,948 4,312 56.5 139 76 -63 -45.3 Bellerose 24,459 26,112 1,653 6.8 7,894 10,205 2,311 29.3 1,103 476 -627 -56.8 Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel 26,707 29,325 2,618 9.8 2,989 3,852 863 28.9 1,587 1,625 Cambria Heights 21,356 514 2.5 7,740 8,726 986 12.7 297 225 -954 Southeast 20,842 577 38 2.4 -72 -24.4 Far Rockaway-Bayswater 48,344 48,791 447 0.9 16,358 16,935 3.5 2,321 2,296 Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park 22,431 22,438 7 0.0 6,584 7,823 1,239 18.8 1,259 1,010 -249 -19.8 -25 Hammels-Arverne-Edgemere 31,639 34,901 3,262 10.3 6,713 9,193 2,480 36.9 887 1,274 387 43.6 Hollis 20,699 21,338 639 3.1 8,166 9,692 1,526 18.7 220 305 85 38.6 Jamaica 51,511 50,227 -1,284 -2.5 29,956 30,053 97 0.3 930 864 Laurelton 27,025 25,728 -1,297 -4.8 8,860 9,610 750 8.5 194 88 -106 -54.6 Queens Village 57,590 57,666 76 0.1 26,148 28,763 2,615 10.0 913 599 -314 -34.4 Rosedale 25,463 26,863 1,400 5.5 11,434 11,515 433 162 -271 -62.6 81 0.7 -66 -1.1 -7.1 South Jamaica 35,470 36,583 1,113 3.1 9,324 11,833 2,509 26.9 124 42 -82 -66.1 Springfield Gardens-Brookville 44,504 46,851 2,347 5.3 12,830 15,798 2,968 23.1 303 183 -120 -39.6 St. Albans 50,350 50,749 399 0.8 13,567 16,767 3,200 23.6 345 175 -170 -49.3 -1,079 -31.0 Southwest Kew Gardens 23,971 22,657 -1,314 -5.5 11,678 10,071 -1,607 -13.8 3,476 2,397 Lindenwood-Howard Beach 28,098 28,480 382 1.4 3,920 5,256 1,336 34.1 2,086 2,649 563 27.0 Ozone Park 21,003 22,153 1,150 5.5 6,605 8,569 1,964 29.7 1,287 834 -453 -35.2 Richmond Hill 63,698 63,201 -497 -0.8 34,395 36,203 1,808 5.3 2,227 1,040 -1,187 -53.3 South Ozone Park 78,869 78,381 -488 -0.6 39,899 45,681 5,782 14.5 1,318 862 -456 -34.6 Woodhaven 53,976 58,383 4,407 8.2 22,732 26,388 3,656 16.1 3,269 2,089 -1,180 -36.1 208 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition ASIA AFRICA NONHISPANIC CARIBBEAN LATIN AMERICA Change Change Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 Number Number Number Number 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent Change 2000 Number Percent 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent 4,617 6,009 1,392 30.1 87 15 -72 -82.8 125 164 39 31.2 989 894 -95 -9.6 8,940 11,170 2,230 24.9 174 198 24 13.8 390 460 70 17.9 2,043 2,705 662 32.4 9,796 10,776 980 10.0 408 196 -212 -51.9 4,195 3,333 -862 -20.5 4,746 4,851 105 2.2 2,795 4,543 1,748 62.5 214 63 -151 -70.6 92 96 4 4.3 2,747 4,348 1,601 58.3 4,517 6,127 1,610 35.6 66 101 35 53.0 91 231 140 153.8 993 1,343 350 35.2 41,976 50,561 8,585 20.5 352 422 70 19.9 1,973 1,252 -721 -36.5 11,977 8,374 -3,603 -30.1 4,192 7,193 3,001 71.6 172 96 -76 -44.2 654 366 -288 -44.0 587 1,036 449 76.5 2,641 4,500 1,859 70.4 123 65 -58 -47.2 174 115 -59 -34.1 514 628 114 22.1 4,141 4,447 306 7.4 301 147 -154 -51.2 3,907 3,451 -456 -11.7 1,871 2,359 488 26.1 7,361 8,592 1,231 16.7 411 272 -139 -33.8 1,009 439 -570 -56.5 2,352 2,015 -337 -14.3 17,454 21,794 4,340 24.9 93 66 -27 -29.0 560 347 -213 -38.0 5,716 4,006 -1,710 -29.9 6,909 9,083 2,174 31.5 190 227 37 19.5 243 269 26 10.6 888 643 -245 -27.6 6,666 9,544 2,878 43.2 224 146 -78 -34.8 432 588 156 36.0 2,023 1,750 -273 -13.5 7,667 9,422 1,755 22.9 75 135 60 80.0 223 266 43 19.3 1,425 1,736 311 21.8 3,310 3,961 651 19.7 137 146 9 6.6 248 45 -203 -81.9 1,258 1,893 635 50.5 57.9 303 793 490 161.7 503 967 464 92.2 5,828 8,727 2,899 49.7 863 1,363 500 4,353 6,943 2,590 59.5 124 67 -57 -46.0 1,054 1,367 313 29.7 1,198 1,352 154 12.9 592 446 -146 -24.7 105 355 250 238.1 120 327 207 172.5 568 1,093 525 92.4 6 309 303 5,119.1 213 305 92 43.0 6,660 7,516 856 12.9 533 319 -214 -40.2 525 810 285 54.3 498 740 242 48.6 7,586 6,135 -1,451 -19.1 5,319 6,870 1,551 29.2 4,243 5,731 1,488 35.1 89 7 -82 -92.1 339 497 158 46.6 608 534 -74 -12.2 538 941 403 74.9 450 957 507 112.7 3,255 3,104 -151 -4.6 1,568 2,906 1,338 85.3 828 965 137 16.5 172 646 474 275.6 5,838 6,661 823 14.1 1,057 1,095 38 3.6 3,710 7,060 3,350 90.3 574 1,092 518 90.2 11,911 9,857 -2,054 -17.2 12,789 11,090 -1,699 -13.3 144 256 112 77.8 332 506 174 52.4 7,476 8,325 849 11.4 714 401 -313 -43.8 3,723 5,392 1,669 44.8 625 781 156 25.0 16,671 17,251 580 3.5 4,149 4,694 545 13.1 604 647 43 7.1 670 1,090 420 62.7 8,578 8,817 239 2.8 1,131 753 -378 -33.4 270 865 595 220.4 626 527 -99 -15.8 7,025 7,732 707 10.1 1,241 2,649 1,408 113.5 395 435 40 10.1 772 1,245 473 61.3 10,282 12,851 2,569 25.0 934 978 44 4.7 305 433 128 42.0 437 528 91 20.8 11,451 13,893 2,442 21.3 988 1,684 696 70.4 4,212 3,731 -481 -11.4 159 353 194 122.0 964 353 -611 -63.4 2,773 3,177 404 14.6 785 532 -253 -32.2 89 114 25 28.1 99 271 172 173.7 799 1,675 876 109.6 1,567 2,658 1,091 69.6 111 114 3 2.7 1,561 1,540 -21 -1.3 2,049 3,423 1,374 67.1 7,331 9,720 2,389 32.6 194 371 177 91.2 14,397 14,424 27 0.2 10,114 10,529 415 4.1 3,733 5,376 1,643 44.0 229 213 -16 -7.0 26,980 30,599 3,619 13.4 7,540 8,579 1,039 13.8 4,972 7,734 2,762 55.6 155 233 78 50.3 4,012 3,194 -818 -20.4 10,261 13,098 2,837 27.6 Appendix Tables 209 Appendix Table 3-1 (continued) TOTAL POPULATION TOTAL FOREIGN-BORN EUROPE Change Change 2007–2011 2000 to 2007-2011 Number Number Percent Number Number Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 443,728 466,034 22,306 5.0 72,657 97,402 24,745 34.1 26,191 34,900 8,709 33.3 Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills 20,070 23,401 3,331 16.6 5,966 7,321 1,355 22.7 529 912 383 72.4 Mariner’s Harbor-Arlington-Port Ivory-Graniteville 27,944 31,874 3,930 14.1 5,576 8,092 2,516 45.1 798 704 -94 -11.8 New Brighton-Silver Lake 16,716 18,037 1,321 7.9 2,619 2,991 372 14.2 756 576 -180 -23.8 Port Richmond 18,053 19,154 1,101 6.1 2,943 4,466 1,523 51.7 520 554 34 6.5 Stapleton-Rosebank 23,752 25,240 1,488 6.3 5,119 7,935 2,816 55.0 1,592 1,668 76 4.8 West New Brighton-New Brighton-St. George 31,957 31,492 -465 -1.5 6,462 6,735 4.2 858 983 125 14.5 Westerleigh 23,781 23,867 86 0.4 2,430 3,755 1,325 54.5 1,033 1,469 436 42.2 Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth 15,279 14,758 -521 -3.4 3,235 4,556 1,321 40.8 1,477 2,163 686 46.4 New Dorp-Midland Beach 20,353 21,618 1,265 6.2 2,780 5,101 2,321 83.5 1,317 3,028 1,711 129.8 New Springville-Bloomfield-Travis 39,280 39,871 591 1.5 7,285 9,536 2,251 30.9 1,978 3,252 1,274 64.4 Old Town-Dongan Hills-South Beach 23,059 24,410 1,351 5.9 3,693 6,918 3,225 87.3 2,132 3,501 1,369 64.2 Todt Hill-Emerson Hill-Heartland Village-Lighthouse Hill 30,802 31,784 982 3.2 6,680 7,973 1,293 19.4 2,325 3,030 705 30.3 STATEN ISLAND 2000 Number 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent North 273 Central South Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville 26,333 28,626 2,293 8.7 2,955 4,391 1,436 48.6 1,942 2,766 824 42.4 Arden Heights 25,045 24,549 -496 -2.0 2,822 3,863 1,041 36.9 1,234 1,587 353 28.6 Charleston-Richmond Valley-Tottenville 18,332 23,177 4,845 26.4 1,991 2,290 299 15.0 1,184 1,275 Great Kills 41,680 42,709 1,029 2.5 4,817 5,783 966 20.1 3,328 3,848 520 15.6 Oakwood-Oakwood Beach 22,398 21,753 -645 -2.9 2,990 3,558 568 19.0 1,868 2,342 474 25.4 Rossville-Woodrow 18,894 19,714 820 4.3 2,294 2,138 1,319 1,242 -77 -156 -6.8 91 7.7 -5.8 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2000 Census-Summary File 3; 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Notes: Neighborhoods were created using Neighborhood Tabulation Areas as building blocks. (Please See Chapter 3 for a more detailed explanation.) Sums of constituent neighborhoods may not add up to totals due to populations in parks, cemeteries, and other open space not listed in this table; “All other” category not shown for world area of origin. Due to sampling error, readers should exercise caution when examining estimates or differences of under 1,000. 210 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition ASIA AFRICA NONHISPANIC CARIBBEAN LATIN AMERICA Change Change Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 2000 2007–2011 Number Number Number Number 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent Number Percent Change 2000 2007–2011 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Number Number Percent 2000 to 2007–2011 Number Percent 20,294 28,973 8,679 42.8 7,114 8,286 1,172 16.5 4,651 5,424 773 16.6 13,702 19,313 5,611 41.0 985 1,788 803 81.5 2,445 2,036 -409 -16.7 752 829 77 10.2 1,179 1,750 571 48.4 1,143 1,975 832 72.8 875 1,562 687 78.5 1,010 1,034 24 2.3 1,738 2,817 1,079 62.0 734 1,049 315 42.9 101 212 111 109.9 316 351 35 11.1 669 752 83 12.4 444 816 372 83.6 269 250 -19 -7.2 241 568 327 136.0 1,440 2,254 814 56.6 1,162 2,679 1,517 130.5 647 377 -270 -41.7 488 500 12 2.5 1,173 2,689 1,516 129.2 1,320 1,144 -176 -13.3 911 891 -20 -2.2 975 1,062 87 8.9 2,325 2,601 276 11.9 841 1,506 665 79.1 102 152 50 49.0 67 191 124 185.1 334 403 69 20.7 1,080 1,497 417 38.6 68 267 199 292.6 16 117 101 631.3 571 487 -84 -14.7 777 992 215 27.6 82 226 144 174.9 23 61 38 164.4 552 774 222 40.3 3,924 4,762 838 21.3 381 426 45 11.7 246 212 -34 -13.9 689 855 166 24.1 894 2,171 1,277 142.8 68 198 130 191.2 68 97 29 42.6 487 894 407 83.6 3,184 3,592 408 12.8 309 391 82 26.5 75 57 -18 -24.0 723 811 88 12.2 604 964 360 59.6 103 244 141 136.9 9 65 56 622.2 279 330 51 18.3 854 1,165 311 36.4 275 510 235 85.5 78 86 8 10.3 359 500 141 39.3 345 406 61 17.8 97 118 21 22.0 100 114 14 14.2 244 377 133 54.4 735 1,215 480 65.2 141 130 -11 -7.8 114 0 -114 -100.0 458 535 77 16.8 692 587 -105 -15.1 63 226 163 259.9 41 15 -26 -63.4 304 388 84 27.4 575 665 90 15.7 177 70 -107 -60.5 32 65 33 103.1 178 96 -82 -46.1 Appendix Tables 211 Appendix Table 3-2a Top 20 Foreign-born Groups by Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2007–2011 TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti TOTAL, NEW YORK CITY 8,128,980 2,989,817 361,700 331,616 177,650 167,667 134,601 132,883 90,797 BRONX 1,374,593 453,466 148,101 5,348 42,168 49,880 13,334 20,508 3,214 Bedford Park-Fordham North 51,002 20,131 8,150 167 2,622 393 758 922 283 Belmont 26,729 8,203 2,304 83 2,201 437 95 221 10 West Claremont-Bathgate Concourse-Concourse Village 29,795 7,812 3,076 0 527 412 3 352 42 102,401 41,748 18,115 483 4,301 2,525 454 1,719 317 Crotona Park East 19,603 6,337 3,153 61 597 315 56 243 0 East Tremont 41,919 12,045 5,364 82 1,102 438 452 394 74 Fordham South 26,506 9,199 4,755 8 1,197 384 0 399 76 Highbridge 36,851 14,355 8,735 61 189 295 28 234 136 Kingsbridge Heights 32,129 14,101 8,094 65 1,183 460 510 519 29 Morrisania-Melrose 35,295 9,916 4,448 115 367 453 189 811 158 Mount Hope 51,945 22,333 12,523 32 1,719 564 581 506 125 North Riverdale-Fieldston-Riverdale 26,978 5,393 288 266 106 157 47 76 0 Norwood 39,847 14,792 3,598 203 2,115 1,076 284 802 181 Spuyten Duyvil-Kingsbridge 30,073 9,003 2,247 349 489 140 0 202 96 University Heights-Morris Heights 54,163 21,100 12,365 36 1,480 780 130 787 117 Van Cortlandt Village 49,507 19,786 9,270 136 1,335 373 270 642 111 North and East Co-op City 43,778 9,509 886 26 67 3,529 393 177 74 Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester 37,203 13,354 1,066 49 93 7,209 437 106 80 Pelham Bay-Country Club-City Island 26,939 4,418 340 201 68 13 120 167 0 Schuylerville-Throgs Neck-Edgewater Park 44,832 6,637 1,476 112 98 95 289 299 2 Williamsbridge-Olinville 61,448 23,479 1,663 84 449 11,195 1,250 217 230 Woodlawn-Wakefield 45,734 19,018 872 41 216 9,462 1,667 212 171 Allerton-Pelham Gardens 32,872 10,681 1,096 178 201 2,239 485 432 271 Bronxdale 33,508 12,035 1,796 32 1,750 1,766 114 307 70 Hunts Point 27,231 7,004 2,608 66 1,295 115 76 632 7 Longwood 26,250 7,803 3,050 53 1,364 199 8 690 63 Melrose South-Mott Haven North 37,069 11,996 4,752 0 2,082 148 40 1,663 8 Mott Haven-Port Morris 52,487 14,365 4,913 0 3,808 155 21 1,112 0 Parkchester 29,367 9,137 1,042 307 161 1,211 386 60 123 Pelham Parkway 29,976 11,484 1,638 704 900 562 271 143 59 Central and South Rikers Island 10,453 1,469 360 20 333 127 33 37 31 Soundview-Bruckner 34,286 13,228 2,906 286 2,785 677 1,210 1,543 54 Soundview-Castle Hill-Clason Point-Harding Park 52,945 10,943 4,105 81 315 898 406 688 43 Van Nest-Morris Park-Westchester Square 29,620 8,696 1,717 260 746 282 462 709 0 West Farms-Bronx River 35,105 12,748 3,619 55 1,986 722 800 2,056 166 Westchester-Unionport 27,575 8,796 1,666 632 1,869 74 1,001 338 7 212 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Trinidad & Tobago India Russia Korea Colombia Bangladesh Philippines Ukraine Poland Italy 90,470 76,731 73,252 70,562 67,339 64,016 56,288 56,166 55,361 54,096 38,057 32,490 30,859 6,797 2,816 1,831 1,936 3,495 9,229 4,866 994 1,474 5,987 2,142 13,409 3,024 232 136 0 250 63 202 135 0 55 14 0 454 260 22 28 0 144 84 0 156 0 3 337 0 292 61 92 48 16 0 105 16 0 0 0 0 0 730 0 560 116 0 71 176 827 80 80 39 10 0 1,204 247 Pakistan Honduras Peru 27 0 0 0 16 0 26 0 0 0 0 518 13 129 0 0 40 181 8 56 0 0 11 0 494 144 87 125 0 0 83 0 0 5 0 0 0 371 30 280 0 0 0 172 0 8 0 6 0 0 432 111 179 86 0 0 53 302 58 0 21 0 28 268 43 109 38 0 0 78 0 0 6 4 28 0 671 1 311 75 0 0 108 209 115 0 0 26 102 632 29 54 96 319 285 40 92 228 68 94 119 71 114 94 382 274 55 201 75 951 185 63 197 15 154 256 193 23 92 278 134 125 67 432 138 98 89 22 116 125 282 24 0 0 180 448 0 0 0 0 103 396 191 59 67 147 54 206 120 497 101 181 105 47 502 258 375 62 363 19 108 0 79 112 120 95 0 172 35 278 0 0 0 1 41 0 0 28 42 131 150 169 38 74 0 88 69 19 128 23 0 1,044 0 36 94 4 0 12 21 87 70 197 110 21 1,317 73 47 61 681 179 0 15 100 96 236 0 118 70 123 163 0 571 32 13 0 52 33 203 0 63 170 0 9 20 465 108 26 179 40 92 327 30 37 941 384 63 3 230 79 271 136 203 129 149 157 22 55 71 375 88 40 7 0 0 99 0 11 0 7 0 0 804 48 0 1 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 1 364 65 86 0 0 0 174 0 191 0 0 0 33 810 0 271 3 61 2 112 97 18 0 0 0 0 1,327 179 319 117 0 10 134 1,932 150 0 15 1 78 234 135 89 443 261 113 150 288 419 84 284 743 228 105 83 31 0 6 74 20 16 5 10 27 8 5 27 15 120 74 0 23 50 1,151 22 0 0 27 37 124 46 203 18 0 0 29 46 13 0 0 15 103 650 37 24 100 0 77 61 914 356 7 20 620 22 125 7 91 159 0 0 171 103 0 0 0 0 251 311 139 53 155 3 0 78 960 348 0 14 85 75 63 0 Appendix Tables 213 Appendix Table 3-2a (continued) TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN BROOKLYN 2,486,119 926,511 Dominican Republic China 54,202 118,148 Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador 50,835 68,069 42,503 22,522 Haiti 55,760 North Bedford 68,052 12,900 1,847 336 384 943 965 584 318 131,250 Bushwick 48,528 13,532 2,022 10,490 1,212 1,116 7,640 644 19 East Williamsburg 33,041 8,526 1,202 2,118 493 77 49 642 Greenpoint 31,255 12,067 331 201 235 22 198 160 3 North Side-South Side 45,324 10,900 2,995 467 1,056 24 58 534 42 Stuyvesant Heights 62,129 13,459 1,560 349 724 1,215 1,175 264 304 Williamsburg 33,709 4,235 532 12 361 0 0 55 12 594 East Brownsville 54,558 14,560 1,464 99 66 2,567 1,830 157 Cypress Hills-City Line 47,518 20,982 7,124 809 895 225 3,094 1,454 114 119,236 36,585 5,511 226 1,010 6,002 5,401 1,029 1,250 Ocean Hill 30,719 7,663 725 30 126 1,225 955 74 254 Starrett City 12,777 3,789 149 69 0 280 15 38 180 East New York Central Canarsie 84,244 39,195 407 1,155 184 9,666 3,571 187 8,898 141,067 49,058 2,174 648 408 7,775 4,021 68 4,161 East Flatbush-Farragut 52,262 26,658 179 16 20 6,315 3,554 26 4,222 Erasmus 29,505 16,861 241 182 286 3,014 1,655 66 4,138 Flatlands 70,428 29,877 232 359 371 5,539 2,475 187 8,655 Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin 47,948 12,477 105 417 123 464 500 256 870 Prospect Heights 21,003 4,540 25 114 0 401 247 171 384 Crown Heights Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 69,331 32,925 467 436 196 6,394 3,598 72 5,592 Rugby-Remsen Village 56,471 29,059 295 178 194 7,936 3,441 90 2,607 Southern Bath Beach 27,779 12,630 107 5,152 387 16 0 255 0 Bay Ridge 83,704 27,432 291 4,349 1,222 21 45 298 64 Bensonhurst 144,159 77,682 440 31,658 3,787 118 50 1,611 33 Borough Park 106,816 31,739 276 5,967 2,264 20 47 489 26 Brighton Beach 30,693 21,261 189 717 1,386 16 31 68 23 Dyker Heights 43,469 19,001 223 9,307 413 52 0 258 27 105,940 51,122 1,537 1,485 4,074 3,963 2,381 170 9,820 33 Flatbush Gravesend 26,981 11,972 226 3,536 381 23 30 206 Homecrest 40,698 18,072 241 1,856 695 1 34 0 2 Kensington-Ocean Parkway 36,635 16,867 94 879 1,200 85 408 135 439 Madison 39,131 18,682 36 3,981 608 21 15 41 6 Midwood 52,764 20,731 427 1,040 835 262 114 248 214 Ocean Parkway South 19,873 6,209 149 160 485 12 0 93 11 Seagate-Coney Island 30,806 10,739 320 1,342 425 117 46 53 292 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach 60,210 26,170 163 5,164 205 108 99 211 295 West Brighton 15,865 9,498 0 33 12 0 0 0 0 Brooklyn Heights-Cobble Hill 23,818 4,364 93 403 178 144 61 49 19 Carroll Gardens-Columbia Street-Red Hook 40,358 7,280 889 584 196 85 135 123 260 34,929 DUMBO-Vinegar Hill-Downtown Brooklyn-Boerum Hill 34,105 Fort Greene 26,108 6,547 383 254 371 414 78 0 195 6,225 569 651 265 66 93 121 123 West Clinton Hill Park Slope-Gowanus Sunset Park Windsor Terrace 214 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 5,850 394 531 324 378 74 35 195 72,311 12,255 908 608 829 193 105 399 321 123,790 64,029 4,976 27,647 12,420 544 598 3,834 54 22,970 5,264 174 601 251 105 141 71 47 Trinidad & Tobago 53,256 India Russia 7,640 Korea 45,592 5,451 Colombia Bangladesh 6,839 13,658 Philippines 6,489 Ukraine Poland Italy Pakistan 41,150 23,279 16,752 14,317 Honduras Peru 7,801 4,325 1,260 90 80 79 34 458 23 39 11 22 0 83 100 1,228 326 143 71 329 79 441 41 185 135 11 1,247 671 11 26 103 182 341 0 88 1 656 647 4 88 51 26 121 8 186 347 201 64 60 7,893 142 54 23 65 46 0 123 137 222 255 16 63 26 826 166 0 35 1,846 0 34 28 167 527 86 0 8 23 0 234 89 12 6 63 0 23 0 15 54 107 23 0 0 103 2,194 6 27 138 90 31 23 5 0 21 41 238 6 757 30 0 103 693 2,178 84 0 62 109 61 518 172 3,744 66 93 0 264 575 196 33 3 70 0 1,213 100 1,134 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 25 0 29 115 102 0 633 45 84 0 0 518 242 13 0 41 0 3,859 248 67 37 10 0 362 7 180 222 11 346 0 8,066 104 355 150 181 496 95 117 142 43 146 545 19 3,990 0 2 37 0 20 10 2 0 0 58 112 9 2,586 21 0 2 80 25 97 0 0 0 349 27 39 3,120 157 134 0 11 129 91 212 90 157 513 56 58 438 453 1,623 78 94 65 331 1,034 431 534 248 5 77 482 87 44 134 36 126 16 58 0 1 0 166 0 5,415 43 6 96 15 47 124 20 81 39 11 89 0 4,370 97 0 181 6 72 36 12 0 0 0 14 0 16 162 1,320 48 119 60 42 817 193 726 552 0 41 88 643 1,521 510 322 515 457 1,063 1,146 671 587 187 154 105 256 6,071 209 419 64 218 4,697 1,633 6,091 2,159 196 280 57 497 1,221 105 459 1,071 179 698 2,514 927 474 336 54 30 659 4,663 39 77 60 314 6,273 227 52 1,231 99 150 12 159 168 92 18 109 388 482 755 1,732 696 83 57 5,442 274 885 337 259 1,478 140 1,053 592 134 2,466 318 212 13 12 43 2,006 63 59 30 39 1,666 250 645 114 10 24 241 2,812 143 183 34 135 2,803 196 366 347 72 11 227 291 2,094 41 142 3,378 152 913 737 107 705 12 234 171 60 86 2,896 92 50 97 220 2,564 143 304 670 0 172 359 3,619 82 73 260 408 2,685 510 209 1,607 47 27 33 0 669 14 12 20 19 720 272 316 297 0 116 195 102 2,651 7 60 155 0 1,671 190 138 19 128 35 43 160 4,909 52 40 0 135 5,659 427 233 367 32 85 0 32 3,160 0 0 0 17 4,131 218 18 51 0 0 44 179 171 164 8 17 73 75 130 214 0 0 11 198 321 54 192 138 72 122 74 73 563 7 134 38 385 76 35 202 73 175 105 0 46 82 80 136 35 144 211 64 329 85 163 40 31 78 85 34 79 68 478 149 60 157 102 136 80 15 31 70 46 11 21 277 327 343 318 308 93 115 171 198 201 98 192 156 533 401 305 348 640 514 769 373 1,191 260 190 552 546 41 8 343 138 132 112 69 277 612 216 13 68 90 Appendix Tables 215 Appendix Table 3-2a (continued) TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN Dominican Republic China 63,109 Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti 23,910 4,328 2,127 13,496 4,343 852 1,588,257 453,836 103,898 Central Harlem-Polo Grounds 122,288 26,881 6,940 692 586 1,411 397 859 East Harlem 120,430 30,335 5,352 2,687 7,172 305 164 1,788 220 51,069 18,202 8,403 181 2,305 525 225 1,384 361 MANHATTAN Upper Hamilton Heights Manhattanville 23,054 9,124 5,647 150 950 125 31 268 52 Marble Hill-Inwood 48,889 22,480 15,587 104 1,896 68 47 588 94 Morningside Heights 53,933 16,204 2,565 2,106 359 33 4 214 290 Washington Heights 162,898 80,174 48,371 1,049 6,254 321 84 4,349 961 East Side Gramercy 25,897 4,926 37 449 155 11 0 37 14 Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island 78,155 19,154 282 1,484 188 71 100 93 46 Murray Hill-Kips Bay 51,190 11,941 542 1,459 263 13 42 267 34 Stuyvesant Town-Cooper Village 21,688 4,355 14 473 30 84 177 29 130 Turtle Bay-East Midtown 47,330 12,000 44 1,132 137 65 41 8 50 Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill 60,178 9,757 47 991 128 41 69 71 41 Yorkville 77,900 16,642 400 1,418 455 51 0 203 114 Lower Battery Park City-Lower Manhattan 35,770 10,660 148 1,867 107 17 105 231 48 Chinatown 47,803 26,808 1,068 20,907 168 104 131 120 3 East Village 42,481 10,345 250 1,970 139 48 36 142 2 Lower East Side 73,992 22,711 2,714 12,039 402 131 112 462 24 SoHo-TriBeCa-Civic Center-Little Italy 39,031 10,591 361 4,192 80 36 0 31 0 West Village 67,303 11,898 21 1,046 132 110 0 17 24 West Side and Midtown Clinton 43,693 12,923 943 1,510 693 91 51 843 76 Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flatiron-Union Square 68,328 14,886 647 1,978 339 126 251 178 44 Lincoln Square 59,772 12,979 394 961 119 0 46 107 79 Midtown-Midtown South 27,728 8,254 142 872 119 65 0 118 22 136,033 29,490 2,954 1,381 720 461 14 1,087 762 2,213,977 1,058,602 53,601 137,621 52,490 44,179 75,686 74,235 26,893 Upper West Side QUEENS Northwest Astoria 74,859 33,217 1,086 1,681 2,161 42 524 1,627 9 Corona 103,210 66,259 11,244 5,153 15,337 549 864 13,971 572 263 East Elmhurst Forest Hills 22,834 12,388 2,329 354 1,516 559 322 3,192 108,556 Elmhurst 77,110 2,865 17,247 8,117 95 271 8,489 48 83,728 41,056 585 7,602 98 212 248 455 150 Glendale 32,679 9,135 1,023 140 275 0 102 885 0 Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 60,009 31,856 1,080 2,469 1,798 49 469 3,650 71 233 Jackson Heights 105,859 65,585 3,747 4,580 6,539 164 515 10,762 Maspeth 28,862 11,131 319 1,107 386 16 124 1,085 0 Middle Village 38,190 11,565 207 1,186 96 36 93 538 9 Old Astoria 26,550 12,767 492 402 2,533 73 241 851 53 Queensbridge-Ravenswood-Long Island City 17,707 6,570 976 387 582 36 248 718 36 Rego Park 28,237 15,798 178 2,698 105 21 324 340 0 Ridgewood 69,313 31,509 2,565 1,850 2,073 12 191 4,950 0 Steinway 49,366 20,441 346 563 1,088 44 123 1,215 34 Woodside 44,945 26,522 304 2,437 2,103 38 122 2,424 4 216 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Trinidad & Tobago India Russia Korea Colombia Bangladesh Philippines Ukraine Poland Italy Pakistan 4,031 11,306 7,939 11,182 5,910 2,623 7,882 2,856 4,567 1,044 504 131 202 218 680 553 100 316 385 323 264 97 37 122 682 652 35 149 257 70 16 53 0 50 42 217 0 84 93 0 45 136 0 52 54 0 20 0 63 39 0 16 62 21 44 74 88 417 132 35 29 73 32 0 232 183 5,604 Honduras Peru 3,036 3,348 37 486 162 208 429 99 456 154 2,201 67 612 258 1,061 332 58 400 36 181 106 308 0 174 877 379 1,023 398 934 90 695 345 215 207 90 500 418 30 267 96 316 24 29 157 98 40 60 30 14 52 72 1,355 1,043 1,052 338 215 526 136 320 534 87 44 110 33 684 486 439 390 16 299 210 92 246 47 1 111 61 512 0 263 37 0 354 48 13 12 276 14 37 34 901 231 256 180 10 394 114 123 279 176 0 37 40 157 190 259 80 19 246 62 269 302 0 109 132 98 629 804 537 243 0 344 177 208 401 64 15 331 55 671 205 396 206 48 272 113 102 400 122 0 93 45 168 67 318 71 169 149 0 69 119 0 251 11 81 376 313 381 186 224 106 550 536 128 44 20 30 183 513 289 174 170 271 70 127 184 90 147 201 168 56 246 184 296 38 0 100 48 83 316 0 0 0 0 212 233 625 97 0 240 98 464 326 24 0 116 434 80 296 215 602 301 152 291 167 244 250 104 104 114 503 359 676 189 25 457 22 220 432 10 15 100 42 440 427 793 176 23 573 151 200 119 165 11 207 12 536 185 901 133 16 58 8 125 145 119 12 49 187 593 973 781 660 79 963 185 473 589 143 103 78 25,068 50,914 13,062 49,134 49,875 38,034 32,834 5,918 22,263 18,209 16,997 7,047 18,977 55 674 101 720 1,795 2,083 758 121 891 1,275 564 285 1,065 348 1,098 293 330 3,615 916 503 29 258 321 304 371 1,511 67 125 0 25 803 379 78 0 13 0 248 0 446 193 2,683 139 3,191 5,947 4,537 5,506 113 764 309 1,300 450 1,764 236 2,758 4,400 995 1,594 455 826 1,230 1,035 321 285 26 275 22 80 48 24 457 0 197 117 1,347 829 210 29 126 65 1,201 187 2,162 2,741 1,975 1,361 28 495 293 193 72 574 194 4,504 284 1,028 8,257 5,029 1,289 262 1,094 463 1,810 361 2,316 14 107 84 212 681 0 208 31 3,201 338 120 29 267 9 148 316 251 872 128 54 274 1,278 1,788 69 70 167 100 454 10 371 624 545 405 39 96 269 507 129 516 0 255 6 296 196 650 194 10 95 65 0 68 130 13 1,753 1,943 242 796 141 840 396 549 48 89 37 186 188 456 32 28 619 152 707 550 5,389 1,072 274 633 531 123 315 133 332 729 700 403 94 173 1,516 455 36 306 33 1,162 13 1,145 2,175 2,725 3,381 76 325 161 211 117 856 Appendix Tables 217 Appendix Table 3-2a (continued) TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti QUEENS (continued) Northeast Auburndale 19,907 9,212 96 2,731 105 40 60 201 40 Bayside-Bayside Hills 45,363 17,901 467 5,143 11 22 261 294 44 Briarwood-Jamaica Hills 37,933 21,058 415 1,243 548 315 1,838 645 490 College Point 23,236 10,127 787 2,340 261 21 23 557 17 Douglas Manor-Douglaston-Little Neck 24,511 8,978 112 2,406 220 0 52 126 123 Flushing 94,418 63,920 862 31,571 552 238 551 1,067 214 Fresh Meadows-Utopia 18,192 9,313 349 2,484 33 31 141 85 122 Ft. Totten-Bay Terrace-Clearview 23,280 7,008 89 1,433 0 18 82 108 15 Jamaica Estates-Holliswood 24,037 11,521 567 476 83 429 1,121 407 1,224 Kew Gardens Hills 36,489 13,846 223 2,674 0 70 10 181 118 Murray Hill 50,181 29,039 298 10,450 136 42 100 391 87 Oakland Gardens 28,271 11,708 43 3,712 63 73 38 184 137 Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest 33,539 14,171 487 4,964 78 186 37 128 202 Queensboro Hill 20,473 12,436 233 6,649 0 7 259 143 0 Whitestone 32,510 10,422 316 1,608 53 0 17 296 0 Southeast Baisley Park 34,160 11,948 534 76 0 2,659 2,739 302 635 Bellerose 26,112 10,205 480 637 0 157 575 99 255 Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel 29,325 3,852 267 25 27 72 103 114 118 Cambria Heights 21,356 8,726 88 133 0 3,433 529 43 2,465 Far Rockaway-Bayswater 48,791 16,935 889 24 51 1,631 1,693 448 792 Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park 22,438 7,823 78 559 0 158 231 22 50 Hammels-Arverne-Edgemere 34,901 9,193 1,470 60 100 848 978 179 429 Hollis 21,338 9,692 289 100 91 1,912 2,303 30 1,334 Jamaica 50,227 30,053 1,142 444 531 631 6,721 2,401 899 Laurelton 25,728 9,610 10 30 0 4,081 950 10 1,401 Queens Village 57,666 28,763 883 340 318 4,245 4,848 912 6,048 Rosedale 26,863 11,515 103 135 18 3,720 1,535 391 2,143 South Jamaica 36,583 11,833 865 105 540 2,532 2,573 393 673 Springfield Gardens-Brookville 46,851 15,798 562 13 28 6,454 1,403 39 2,717 St. Albans 50,749 16,767 522 163 128 6,343 2,840 221 1,839 Kew Gardens 22,657 10,071 334 509 205 54 164 377 32 Lindenwood-Howard Beach 28,480 5,256 497 59 0 40 135 210 24 Ozone Park 22,153 8,569 914 494 282 113 1,141 832 0 Richmond Hill 63,201 36,203 2,424 815 1,077 220 11,050 2,295 103 South Ozone Park 78,381 45,681 1,674 767 1,205 1,383 21,245 1,624 564 Woodhaven 58,383 26,388 4,886 2,357 939 55 2,559 3,328 57 Southwest 218 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Trinidad & Tobago India Russia Korea Colombia Bangladesh Philippines Ukraine Poland Italy Pakistan Honduras Peru 24 555 61 2,172 187 0 106 28 20 428 0 57 24 0 203 185 4,193 459 180 213 65 135 651 189 0 359 537 1,432 302 349 1,167 3,050 1,637 60 152 24 867 26 426 0 190 25 1,086 1,342 24 252 0 79 205 112 42 232 0 507 66 2,414 239 4 79 55 39 84 83 0 59 149 4,127 465 7,639 2,620 856 1,339 467 288 289 1,638 273 721 59 448 86 2,074 173 139 227 5 39 38 808 0 96 0 154 104 2,237 221 0 113 14 208 205 104 0 14 357 377 132 229 150 1,043 1,095 11 202 63 321 113 208 86 1,294 866 231 731 80 998 51 442 94 455 70 87 107 1,079 85 8,022 1,140 322 386 58 159 775 282 98 447 21 390 143 3,225 161 0 165 35 101 254 272 0 0 75 693 709 754 494 187 869 96 166 143 384 64 200 0 639 16 385 645 0 437 14 112 299 114 14 221 8 102 34 1,363 582 0 200 55 125 1,814 152 0 55 1,511 340 0 0 41 32 194 0 0 12 110 20 52 329 3,834 2 283 101 485 796 10 28 125 525 27 241 0 5 52 72 124 0 130 321 283 49 13 175 81 628 18 0 31 0 0 84 0 0 0 13 0 4 880 20 696 64 389 0 63 613 127 75 0 579 401 58 3,961 48 144 44 94 405 56 147 266 143 38 69 334 35 240 107 21 326 158 126 559 37 0 67 41 730 179 1 0 85 26 196 12 12 0 330 43 35 1,208 601 22 113 936 4,303 881 0 54 56 304 1,108 484 990 11 0 0 56 0 21 0 0 0 29 13 0 1,160 1,667 1 165 953 935 1,421 21 41 55 428 52 349 616 12 0 17 46 0 119 0 13 24 207 0 0 0 1,159 31 0 0 34 499 142 0 0 0 0 43 1,015 113 0 14 79 0 95 0 1 0 0 0 0 1,196 97 0 5 103 65 21 0 0 0 0 25 20 86 620 517 86 868 222 223 176 400 46 487 121 494 72 65 39 0 227 0 145 116 110 1,789 114 43 106 231 401 14 133 353 941 349 0 76 422 110 22 467 2,829 5,673 99 23 955 1,158 934 25 229 140 413 364 704 6,574 2,459 23 103 821 495 533 39 6 404 587 370 702 379 805 31 49 1,427 2,153 1,055 19 907 275 764 467 542 Appendix Tables 219 Appendix Table 3-2a (continued) TOTAL TOTAL POPULATION FOREIGN-BORN STATEN ISLAND Dominican Republic China Mexico Jamaica Guyana Ecuador Haiti 466,034 97,402 1,898 7,390 8,247 1,211 951 2,122 587 Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills 23,401 7,321 289 1,117 190 151 234 247 100 Mariner’s Harbor-Arlington-Port Ivory-Graniteville 31,874 8,092 238 454 1,331 333 161 349 155 New Brighton-Silver Lake 18,037 2,991 25 238 447 0 78 65 53 Port Richmond 19,154 4,466 127 95 1,623 153 47 15 20 Stapleton-Rosebank 25,240 7,935 330 842 1,378 118 22 620 0 West New Brighton-New Brighton-St. George 31,492 6,735 237 302 1,557 275 180 102 104 Westerleigh 23,867 3,755 17 114 60 12 16 87 21 Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth 14,758 4,556 0 214 156 0 13 136 36 New Dorp-Midland Beach 21,618 5,101 100 441 292 0 40 45 0 New Springville-Bloomfield-Travis 39,871 9,536 87 968 291 65 20 32 12 Old Town-Dongan Hills-South Beach 24,410 6,918 54 416 369 42 7 196 0 Todt Hill-Emerson Hill-Heartland Village-Lighthouse Hill 31,784 7,973 71 1,092 120 0 0 45 48 North Central South Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville 28,626 4,391 15 196 132 0 35 60 0 Arden Heights 24,549 3,863 153 336 0 24 26 26 0 Charleston-Richmond Valley-Tottenville 23,177 2,290 81 55 104 38 57 45 19 Great Kills 42,709 5,783 57 211 55 0 0 38 0 Oakwood-Oakwood Beach 21,753 3,558 17 158 132 0 15 14 0 Rossville-Woodrow 19,714 2,138 0 141 10 0 0 0 19 Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Notes: Neighborhoods were created using Neighborhood Tabulation Areas as building blocks. (Please See Chapter 3 for a more detailed explanation.) Sums of constituent neighborhoods may not add up to totals due to populations in parks, cemeteries, and other open space not listed in this table. Due to sampling error, readers should exercise caution when examining estimates or differences of under 1,000. 220 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Trinidad & Tobago India Russia Korea Colombia Bangladesh Philippines Ukraine Poland Italy Pakistan Honduras Peru 1,318 4,055 4,828 2,859 1,220 472 4,217 5,248 3,778 7,544 2,400 1,197 1,185 145 96 0 20 9 0 34 20 249 75 155 393 153 173 200 25 0 126 134 485 0 88 207 452 314 230 31 62 52 0 49 0 121 31 98 68 157 55 0 325 49 18 0 114 0 142 11 127 147 168 85 138 161 12 221 254 97 0 698 262 460 104 76 20 62 181 228 64 31 39 138 189 37 181 105 26 199 81 107 484 128 155 49 0 325 2 241 317 272 0 16 43 204 330 19 33 0 144 472 208 327 181 13 13 11 102 588 69 35 42 69 763 296 242 0 0 128 79 1,305 251 444 38 29 589 249 550 520 130 34 26 0 289 290 47 48 0 288 604 365 681 339 11 50 0 423 386 1,004 149 0 198 606 276 735 77 10 163 0 85 500 28 22 108 328 287 36 1,080 0 0 17 24 35 137 239 191 21 326 228 278 662 28 0 0 0 32 344 113 57 0 50 162 38 407 0 22 0 0 327 911 44 86 0 95 897 171 775 223 41 72 0 73 389 28 78 0 136 567 116 509 54 0 36 38 49 194 364 0 0 0 50 0 583 62 0 0 Appendix Tables 221 Appendix Table 3-2b Foreign-born Groups Ranked 21 through 40 by Neighborhood of Residence New York City Neighborhoods, 2007–2011 United Kingdom TOTAL, NEW YORK CITY El Salvador Israel Barbados Greece Ghana Guatemala Canada 29,801 23,817 23,476 23,173 23,083 21,686 21,327 2,576 4,282 675 1,587 1,063 16,569 3,723 419 157 312 0 6 10 1,038 61 31 16 BRONX 30,574 91 0 0 25 53 0 0 West Bedford Park-Fordham North Belmont Claremont-Bathgate 0 49 0 0 0 721 10 0 Concourse-Concourse Village 31 788 10 92 0 2,093 358 10 Crotona Park East 23 90 0 0 0 285 98 0 0 102 0 0 4 860 187 0 East Tremont Fordham South 0 0 0 0 0 431 152 0 Highbridge 0 230 0 0 0 809 123 0 Kingsbridge Heights 57 133 0 25 0 280 40 0 Morrisania-Melrose 11 342 0 0 0 371 121 0 Mount Hope 25 29 0 71 0 1,534 93 0 North Riverdale-Fieldston-Riverdale 96 0 236 0 51 0 17 68 Norwood 25 Spuyten Duyvil-Kingsbridge University Heights-Morris Heights 196 12 0 0 229 110 51 270 42 289 15 84 12 22 73 0 182 0 34 0 1,320 178 0 67 111 36 3 182 1,568 65 0 Co-op City 117 23 24 110 49 421 24 0 Eastchester-Edenwald-Baychester 418 0 0 303 0 166 78 0 98 77 0 0 273 0 68 44 Schuylerville-Throgs Neck-Edgewater Park 130 131 0 15 239 0 0 25 Williamsbridge-Olinville 306 23 24 372 0 696 6 40 Woodlawn-Wakefield 434 13 10 115 21 435 10 0 Allerton-Pelham Gardens 58 20 10 99 13 79 65 3 Bronxdale 14 Van Cortlandt Village North and East Pelham Bay-Country Club-City Island Central and South 20 14 13 104 71 303 22 Hunts Point 0 38 0 0 0 196 121 0 Longwood 10 409 0 11 0 73 536 0 0 189 0 20 0 268 162 0 0 Melrose South-Mott Haven North Mott Haven-Port Morris 0 187 0 0 24 124 482 31 52 0 48 0 521 96 0 Pelham Parkway 3 20 0 0 17 152 16 14 Rikers Island 0 20 11 6 0 12 15 0 Parkchester Soundview-Bruckner 13 46 0 30 0 21 106 0 Soundview-Castle Hill-Clason Point-Harding Park 53 96 0 67 0 1,034 88 9 Van Nest-Morris Park-Westchester Square 47 106 0 0 0 88 0 12 West Farms-Bronx River 39 72 0 24 0 197 179 25 Westchester-Unionport 21 49 0 17 0 120 14 0 222 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Japan Germany Cuba Grenada Panama Nigeria 20,787 19,947 19,428 19,333 18,492 18,043 464 1,085 3,855 637 1,902 14 13 91 0 20 48 219 47 Uzbekistan France Vietnam Albania Egypt Romania 18,000 14,888 14,652 14,530 14,437 14,218 5,017 8 434 3,104 4,469 444 573 43 293 0 0 141 233 0 33 0 19 0 0 57 132 0 27 0 28 83 0 6 99 0 9 0 0 0 0 26 39 159 46 151 486 0 0 0 52 11 28 0 8 38 0 47 174 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 0 122 301 0 0 0 24 0 0 19 0 16 0 60 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 10 0 100 0 40 121 0 4 7 0 0 0 0 54 54 0 34 36 0 0 610 0 9 0 0 0 117 21 0 230 0 0 0 42 0 0 0 21 138 49 27 100 0 0 0 33 10 0 38 139 94 0 17 0 0 116 61 0 46 37 0 52 127 0 37 13 0 0 25 507 0 31 45 267 150 0 123 17 0 64 6 245 56 0 0 14 157 107 36 71 0 6 0 45 0 0 25 51 293 50 81 179 8 32 193 111 17 59 0 46 56 0 20 227 0 0 38 29 0 48 0 0 86 12 16 559 0 0 51 0 4 23 23 72 102 5 12 0 0 25 27 209 0 141 0 45 73 0 28 0 0 28 17 59 187 22 0 0 83 42 144 559 0 0 34 0 0 0 14 33 85 23 46 177 0 14 53 78 0 0 9 21 74 0 51 174 0 4 249 425 0 11 0 0 54 19 42 79 0 14 40 1,247 0 0 0 20 182 0 26 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 10 77 86 16 41 0 0 10 0 0 0 6 0 198 0 17 0 0 30 37 0 33 0 58 0 21 36 46 171 0 0 43 0 44 15 103 28 72 0 55 41 0 44 1,140 585 7 24 0 0 11 6 6 5 0 0 0 0 20 7 0 0 91 0 76 39 0 0 99 0 0 0 19 0 257 12 218 365 0 16 21 0 0 0 0 0 129 76 130 0 0 16 75 381 0 38 0 0 51 0 61 207 0 0 0 27 0 0 28 76 118 0 68 86 0 0 70 0 0 0 Appendix Tables 223 Appendix Table 3-2b (continued) United Kingdom BROOKLYN North 7,869 El Salvador Israel Barbados 6,743 12,066 16,814 4,005 3,499 6,415 6,380 Greece Ghana Guatemala Canada Bedford 105 144 153 745 0 131 258 227 Bushwick 153 774 60 292 0 0 675 95 51 151 69 30 6 0 26 32 Greenpoint 176 0 21 0 0 0 98 193 North Side-South Side 364 390 223 0 0 0 33 277 15 0 24 961 0 16 47 56 152 36 598 0 0 0 0 235 East Williamsburg Stuyvesant Heights Williamsburg East Brownsville Cypress Hills-City Line East New York 0 0 0 884 0 60 186 0 89 337 0 219 0 34 350 2 225 337 2 1,152 0 254 263 38 34 104 0 560 0 60 100 12 0 0 59 151 0 56 0 0 Canarsie 339 175 44 1,456 0 220 0 176 Crown Heights 411 43 746 3,149 54 308 339 559 East Flatbush-Farragut Ocean Hill Starrett City Central 235 12 0 1,409 0 178 12 70 Erasmus 76 35 4 485 0 221 0 114 Flatlands 230 18 156 863 17 175 120 109 82 0 923 70 229 20 13 32 220 10 86 76 63 14 29 188 Georgetown-Marine Park-Bergen Beach-Mill Basin Prospect Heights Prospect Lefferts Gardens-Wingate 168 0 244 1,157 0 596 39 112 Rugby-Remsen Village 320 23 12 1,826 37 98 0 90 Southern Bath Beach 0 118 42 4 112 0 66 55 Bay Ridge 266 153 331 28 1,654 0 245 116 Bensonhurst 181 385 248 19 484 0 727 115 Borough Park 441 250 2,817 6 111 2 376 689 Brighton Beach 10 215 215 0 0 0 0 56 Dyker Heights 63 30 14 0 622 8 161 95 115 Flatbush 296 1,044 564 785 16 762 582 Gravesend 11 58 9 0 27 0 26 69 Homecrest 31 132 699 1 26 0 30 135 Kensington-Ocean Parkway 68 182 296 22 34 0 0 69 Madison 12 100 489 12 20 0 105 65 Midwood 121 0 1,228 0 55 5 0 71 Ocean Parkway South 24 0 564 0 10 0 0 45 Seagate-Coney Island 32 39 38 47 52 105 119 0 103 28 258 12 0 0 10 42 23 0 180 0 12 0 0 0 Sheepshead Bay-Gerritsen Beach-Manhattan Beach West Brighton West Brooklyn Heights-Cobble Hill 336 0 40 34 35 0 8 170 Carroll Gardens-Columbia Street-Red Hook 301 121 31 0 45 75 62 262 Clinton Hill 352 64 50 192 0 41 199 158 DUMBO-Vinegar Hill-Downtown Brooklyn-Boerum Hill 337 58 30 66 81 2 104 227 Fort Greene 174 5 40 63 46 0 178 132 Park Slope-Gowanus 905 149 128 38 41 30 70 663 Sunset Park 207 989 259 0 105 28 748 326 Windsor Terrace 130 34 72 0 11 0 11 88 224 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Japan Germany Cuba Grenada Panama Nigeria Uzbekistan France Vietnam Albania Egypt Romania 2,843 3,141 4,346 3,052 17,001 11,843 5,172 8,025 3,059 4,981 3,734 4,971 39 110 109 275 177 213 9 30 57 0 25 0 78 65 161 311 599 185 0 29 75 0 0 101 203 33 62 0 115 0 0 58 76 0 0 20 68 191 0 0 0 0 0 109 53 0 7 23 214 129 62 0 73 0 0 224 49 19 0 131 92 28 49 475 481 106 28 0 16 69 0 8 0 132 0 0 0 14 20 13 6 0 0 377 0 0 11 924 660 129 0 0 0 0 9 0 51 0 37 100 158 20 0 0 37 0 0 0 26 9 120 886 850 1,034 0 0 183 0 17 4 0 0 0 261 91 537 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 269 0 312 0 0 0 47 12 19 9 24 1,893 527 648 0 20 0 0 52 48 143 97 56 2,051 1,593 344 52 136 0 0 41 4 6 5 89 2,059 559 309 0 0 0 18 0 0 10 0 73 721 563 66 0 0 76 0 23 0 0 64 100 1,473 506 113 131 37 0 0 56 32 0 64 49 38 112 0 134 62 27 25 209 32 122 107 69 83 160 38 0 104 0 0 0 0 38 64 50 2,158 1,575 249 0 77 0 48 31 0 0 0 15 2,637 599 400 0 22 13 0 0 0 0 22 13 0 0 14 134 12 62 130 134 0 134 101 168 0 19 19 56 124 190 386 1,486 9 105 50 190 13 50 6 1,036 81 1,287 1,574 784 57 9 635 106 0 54 0 805 197 73 330 103 963 0 42 14 0 47 0 567 0 82 17 114 32 51 49 0 0 44 0 184 15 303 458 319 22 137 142 103 427 1,193 222 934 98 190 122 87 82 7 66 0 23 10 0 171 0 150 38 57 8 10 75 49 4 0 38 447 1 101 67 378 61 159 186 34 37 8 54 572 43 209 71 25 10 10 98 60 0 39 0 424 175 311 209 125 202 133 0 276 35 7 39 28 941 37 61 86 107 12 86 53 0 0 0 88 51 6 56 69 36 4 36 38 17 186 65 71 25 203 0 37 46 16 146 24 26 34 0 625 28 413 0 245 33 0 74 96 0 0 0 76 0 0 0 8 37 116 228 50 0 8 0 0 239 0 0 21 12 104 184 175 0 52 21 0 216 62 0 18 37 135 34 64 54 120 73 0 180 47 0 65 0 66 139 71 0 65 26 9 70 72 0 8 17 142 30 14 28 49 168 8 164 11 0 0 0 442 287 131 20 44 0 79 283 99 0 92 56 186 192 347 0 49 28 62 24 329 0 134 179 187 61 81 0 66 5 40 46 52 11 38 19 Appendix Tables 225 Appendix Table 3-2b (continued) United Kingdom El Salvador Israel Barbados Greece 15,109 2,424 6,030 870 2,515 808 1,742 10,596 Central Harlem-Polo Grounds 303 156 120 312 38 126 288 302 East Harlem 340 311 78 133 89 40 408 167 91 0 51 25 0 140 67 250 0 41 61 4 0 139 45 30 Marble Hill-Inwood 163 177 39 44 0 40 116 0 Morningside Heights 577 87 260 9 104 0 44 454 Washington Heights 310 1,141 322 46 386 28 171 625 MANHATTAN Ghana Guatemala Canada Upper Hamilton Heights Manhattanville East Side Gramercy 238 30 110 3 47 11 0 273 Lenox Hill-Roosevelt Island 845 30 691 72 226 86 38 615 280 Murray Hill-Kips Bay 543 0 305 17 58 0 0 Stuyvesant Town-Cooper Village 331 0 87 0 0 0 0 33 Turtle Bay-East Midtown 866 13 246 0 118 0 49 346 Upper East Side-Carnegie Hill 896 0 286 7 153 19 0 474 Yorkville 916 18 585 10 129 23 59 646 Lower Battery Park City-Lower Manhattan 612 0 151 0 188 28 0 538 Chinatown 293 57 30 0 8 0 0 242 East Village 697 15 66 0 36 0 28 232 Lower East Side 407 19 97 72 6 55 0 174 SoHo-TriBeCa-Civic Center-Little Italy West Village 580 0 130 0 133 10 0 446 1,199 0 528 1 234 0 103 681 West Side and Midtown Clinton 534 115 32 23 69 0 159 444 Hudson Yards-Chelsea-Flatiron-Union Square 1,252 89 184 0 120 3 27 990 Lincoln Square 1,004 13 547 0 51 0 31 595 463 10 161 0 73 0 0 385 Upper West Side 1,637 102 863 92 249 60 109 1,374 QUEENS 4,226 16,013 4,230 4,131 14,719 1,865 9,256 3,470 Midtown-Midtown South Northwest Astoria 232 350 90 0 2,472 0 127 130 Corona 49 680 38 197 191 546 752 27 East Elmhurst 48 176 6 142 0 0 64 0 Elmhurst 94 524 103 51 254 1 241 92 329 76 1,041 25 142 0 110 450 44 32 22 0 0 0 121 0 Hunters Point-Sunnyside-West Maspeth 423 104 47 0 133 0 125 302 Jackson Heights 117 Forest Hills Glendale 247 877 12 13 459 13 572 Maspeth 29 113 0 0 178 0 108 31 Middle Village 82 101 0 0 77 0 0 49 Old Astoria 94 145 0 0 462 106 31 19 7 214 60 31 48 0 13 25 Queensbridge-Ravenswood-Long Island City Rego Park 41 43 147 14 76 0 73 19 Ridgewood 17 406 2 0 27 0 242 44 Steinway 101 182 75 0 3,427 0 23 194 Woodside 76 174 27 6 472 13 54 49 226 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Japan Germany Cuba Grenada Panama Nigeria 332 1,080 817 Uzbekistan 472 France 9,324 Vietnam 1,857 Albania 479 Egypt Romania 1,552 2,073 10,993 8,697 5,418 327 360 122 22 90 185 0 283 36 0 0 64 369 101 133 100 155 60 11 527 89 0 72 18 209 146 174 72 41 36 0 95 12 41 26 0 66 0 59 14 0 0 0 15 0 0 17 7 39 84 511 0 21 0 0 36 0 0 27 44 319 442 208 0 74 52 25 290 0 38 262 115 268 709 1,798 28 263 47 147 112 26 11 49 242 459 120 0 0 0 42 24 148 30 82 32 16 683 576 63 11 13 0 0 704 31 14 68 257 724 265 171 0 57 0 6 347 139 21 156 109 110 115 0 0 14 29 25 133 39 0 0 0 896 468 56 10 23 17 0 425 9 0 138 55 329 421 114 0 0 31 0 436 30 22 53 119 923 560 92 0 0 43 0 569 79 0 160 105 369 285 17 0 0 0 14 418 111 11 44 67 125 18 14 14 24 0 0 219 198 17 0 24 441 468 59 0 0 4 0 430 61 25 11 208 255 237 62 0 33 35 71 127 240 23 67 73 244 370 79 0 0 0 21 372 191 0 7 53 574 505 137 0 27 32 7 677 91 0 68 67 384 210 379 52 101 31 36 264 114 16 44 15 678 396 304 0 33 32 5 550 108 0 9 107 754 482 97 0 12 49 37 452 31 54 68 80 586 203 87 0 0 4 43 534 113 0 44 7 862 1,156 674 9 99 85 0 1,161 79 104 130 221 6,014 5,412 6,587 1,298 3,345 5,563 9,067 1,799 4,209 4,047 5,087 8,448 1,215 206 303 9 32 0 17 128 28 263 453 516 0 6 406 0 215 240 660 25 63 0 0 220 9 6 1 0 0 0 0 13 49 0 16 0 407 84 550 0 105 49 72 112 496 18 241 156 1,021 611 276 0 9 0 3,192 336 146 64 148 901 8 207 94 0 0 0 0 3 22 271 73 386 748 192 386 0 30 0 19 117 81 54 214 1,074 183 173 1,083 23 134 0 18 236 338 26 230 318 0 60 6 0 11 0 0 10 69 115 42 596 37 240 92 0 0 0 265 91 123 122 126 402 182 35 65 0 23 0 0 118 37 253 148 295 30 39 54 0 10 0 0 4 58 34 92 0 205 126 101 0 34 0 1,091 48 41 57 219 273 124 404 82 57 37 0 7 0 72 1,428 818 1,206 334 268 188 24 21 55 8 15 14 456 829 143 517 164 297 1 26 0 0 42 277 52 103 98 Appendix Tables 227 Appendix Table 3-2b (continued) United Kingdom QUEENS (continued) 15,109 El Salvador Israel Barbados Greece 2,424 6,030 870 2,515 Ghana Guatemala 808 1,742 Canada 10,596 Northeast Auburndale 32 59 0 0 961 0 0 76 Bayside-Bayside Hills 75 477 6 7 993 0 6 82 Briarwood-Jamaica Hills 34 375 72 70 265 0 721 36 College Point 27 356 0 0 138 0 51 35 Douglas Manor-Douglaston-Little Neck 47 250 27 0 278 0 25 137 Flushing 97 619 16 11 386 0 283 115 Fresh Meadows-Utopia 12 0 138 0 51 0 82 58 Ft. Totten-Bay Terrace-Clearview Jamaica Estates-Holliswood Kew Gardens Hills Murray Hill 8 26 125 0 502 0 0 70 10 183 251 80 30 19 167 166 153 190 853 9 44 38 28 115 55 878 6 0 649 0 99 112 Oakland Gardens 92 13 256 0 206 0 13 6 Pomonok-Flushing Heights-Hillcrest 10 27 204 73 256 0 28 159 Queensboro Hill 42 130 16 0 113 0 39 15 Whitestone 79 31 0 20 1,081 0 47 37 Southeast Baisley Park 37 96 0 354 0 42 18 4 Bellerose 66 235 0 10 17 0 34 0 Breezy Point-Belle Harbor-Rockaway Park-Broad Channel 105 108 36 34 13 0 70 6 Cambria Heights Far Rockaway-Bayswater 164 0 0 54 0 26 0 33 34 1,808 64 393 1 102 1,593 26 Glen Oaks-Floral Park-New Hyde Park 18 46 73 0 52 0 0 44 Hammels-Arverne-Edgemere 56 591 0 25 0 53 233 11 Hollis 95 205 0 66 0 74 81 0 Jamaica 19 2,337 0 61 73 87 1,520 81 Laurelton 80 Queens Village 0 0 333 0 33 0 34 130 220 31 427 34 249 275 27 46 Rosedale 51 9 28 258 0 157 0 South Jamaica 29 91 0 160 0 35 203 12 Springfield Gardens-Brookville 105 10 0 398 0 65 11 97 St. Albans 147 41 0 524 2 11 62 24 Kew Gardens 66 217 185 0 77 50 49 60 Lindenwood-Howard Beach 13 20 121 0 12 0 129 15 Southwest Ozone Park Richmond Hill South Ozone Park Woodhaven 228 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 0 26 0 40 0 0 0 0 53 716 26 53 47 103 378 92 164 969 0 192 20 42 198 51 82 457 0 0 0 0 157 40 Japan 10,993 Germany 8,697 Cuba Grenada 5,418 Panama Nigeria 332 1,080 817 Uzbekistan 472 France 9,324 Vietnam Albania 1,857 479 Egypt Romania 1,552 2,073 40 75 0 0 0 0 7 11 71 53 9 36 35 118 158 18 10 0 6 10 82 0 100 112 88 120 79 26 88 99 900 73 101 0 0 101 37 71 156 1 0 12 0 42 132 69 30 10 31 96 9 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 37 30 157 162 227 0 155 0 109 31 486 97 143 239 14 80 46 0 24 6 356 0 4 0 90 42 19 131 46 0 0 0 0 63 15 0 50 80 34 47 253 24 32 0 163 6 0 0 42 41 91 124 205 0 9 14 653 42 161 9 150 98 9 66 40 0 18 10 0 0 172 10 22 224 16 125 18 0 63 0 65 43 15 0 90 67 8 69 20 11 72 27 484 0 144 22 0 0 124 69 105 0 0 0 8 0 60 0 30 63 81 232 138 0 65 0 6 56 26 0 82 24 23 0 0 166 173 376 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 39 16 14 29 7 0 0 78 0 19 22 0 164 26 0 39 308 35 0 0 0 47 37 0 8 11 89 137 170 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 42 76 110 310 531 240 8 0 0 4 59 14 93 84 0 1 0 0 0 82 8 0 17 13 40 84 133 66 667 157 12 0 0 7 0 9 0 27 55 37 196 0 0 48 0 0 0 0 45 99 28 105 367 24 7 41 0 34 13 0 8 22 100 163 421 0 0 21 0 0 0 4 12 67 54 137 275 0 0 0 0 87 0 13 29 10 127 49 736 0 9 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 57 169 31 0 10 55 0 15 0 0 0 18 0 147 571 0 31 65 0 0 0 0 17 110 124 170 305 0 0 11 0 0 0 82 159 92 0 0 15 371 24 22 161 46 207 0 71 109 0 0 0 0 0 0 216 51 12 0 12 37 0 55 0 0 0 31 50 22 131 14 122 67 1 95 22 79 0 181 0 54 43 0 80 33 46 89 53 39 0 78 0 37 22 32 65 114 0 151 0 16 23 102 139 37 96 Appendix Tables 229 Appendix Table 3-2b (continued) United Kingdom El Salvador Israel Barbados Greece Ghana Guatemala Canada 794 339 816 74 871 342 550 462 Grymes Hill-Clifton-Fox Hills 15 94 6 0 10 134 124 6 Mariner’s Harbor-Arlington-Port Ivory-Graniteville 31 0 14 0 50 80 25 0 New Brighton-Silver Lake 37 56 0 8 15 0 12 51 Port Richmond 12 26 24 0 0 54 0 24 Stapleton-Rosebank 77 31 8 37 34 24 29 22 West New Brighton-New Brighton-St. George 76 27 19 11 25 22 167 52 Westerleigh 62 0 0 0 69 0 57 34 Grasmere-Arrochar-Ft. Wadsworth 31 0 51 0 0 13 0 7 New Dorp-Midland Beach 34 34 13 0 23 15 95 20 New Springville-Bloomfield-Travis 84 58 284 18 97 0 3 21 Old Town-Dongan Hills-South Beach 24 0 0 0 60 0 0 57 Todt Hill-Emerson Hill-Heartland Village-Lighthouse Hill 35 8 240 0 185 0 21 92 Annadale-Huguenot-Prince’s Bay-Eltingville 47 0 44 0 45 0 0 22 Arden Heights 32 5 29 0 129 0 0 15 Charleston-Richmond Valley-Tottenville 18 0 41 0 12 0 0 0 Great Kills 48 0 0 0 79 0 0 39 Oakwood-Oakwood Beach 76 0 29 0 0 0 0 0 Rossville-Woodrow 55 0 14 0 38 0 17 0 STATEN ISLAND North Central South Source: U.S. Census Bureau: 2007–2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Notes: Neighborhoods were created using Neighborhood Tabulation Areas as building blocks. (Please See Chapter 3 for a more detailed explanation.) Sums of constituent neighborhoods may not add up to totals due to populations in parks, cemeteries, and other open space not listed in this table. Due to sampling error, readers should exercise caution when examining estimates or differences of under 1,000. 230 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Japan Germany Cuba Grenada Panama Nigeria Uzbekistan France Vietnam Albania Egypt Romania 175 407 516 65 322 1,474 428 272 501 1,801 2,383 281 33 16 31 16 90 434 0 8 14 218 6 0 0 8 74 17 29 547 0 0 0 33 93 24 57 34 6 0 0 17 0 27 0 40 60 0 9 10 0 0 27 114 0 0 20 46 11 15 0 35 37 0 0 11 0 5 55 176 100 20 1 35 102 21 0 233 0 43 17 47 90 40 0 0 0 0 21 0 18 32 50 21 117 0 0 0 28 0 63 25 64 0 47 101 170 0 8 24 25 0 0 3 53 17 21 203 85 12 3 53 66 11 12 51 59 34 162 161 218 61 23 16 17 0 41 0 83 6 33 248 168 0 10 46 44 0 0 0 57 30 43 170 354 63 0 56 7 0 0 0 35 7 27 33 196 0 0 0 59 0 10 0 0 19 0 2 485 0 0 0 0 0 29 28 0 0 12 28 90 0 31 49 12 0 0 11 15 29 0 274 119 46 0 10 0 0 0 0 44 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 8 0 0 0 0 15 0 0 21 0 Appendix Tables 231 Appendix Table 5-1 Population Density and Percent Foreign-born New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 2011 FOREIGN-BORN Total Population NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION New York City Persons per Square Mile Number Percent Percent Distribution 22,342,470 1,777 5,986,283 26.8 100.0 8,244,910 27,242 3,066,599 37.2 51.2 Bronx, NY 1,392,002 32,903 471,136 33.8 7.9 Brooklyn, NY 2,532,645 35,369 946,511 37.4 15.8 Manhattan, NY 1,601,948 69,468 461,325 28.8 7.7 Queens, NY 2,247,848 20,554 1,089,187 48.5 18.2 470,467 8,030 98,440 20.9 1.6 8,554,344 2,610 2,246,217 26.3 37.5 Bergen, NJ 911,004 3,885 272,677 29.9 4.6 Essex, NJ 785,137 6,212 206,451 26.3 3.4 Staten Island, NY Inner Counties Fairfield, CT 925,899 1,467 180,728 19.5 3.0 Hudson, NJ 641,224 13,731 257,555 40.2 4.3 Middlesex, NJ 814,217 2,622 259,336 31.9 4.3 Morris, NJ 494,976 1,070 91,597 18.5 1.5 Nassau, NY 1,344,436 4,705 290,001 21.6 4.8 Passaic, NJ 502,007 2,715 148,092 29.5 2.5 Rockland, NY 315,158 1,796 70,357 22.3 1.2 Somerset, NJ 324,893 1,072 79,387 24.4 1.3 Union, NJ 539,494 5,216 158,537 29.4 2.6 Westchester, NY 955,899 2,205 231,499 24.2 3.9 Outer Counties 5,543,216 616 673,467 12.1 11.3 Dutchess, NY 297,999 374 36,166 12.1 0.6 Hunterdon, NJ 128,038 300 11,813 9.2 0.2 Litchfield, CT 188,789 206 12,436 6.6 0.2 Mercer, NJ 367,063 1,632 74,707 20.4 1.2 Monmouth, NJ 631,020 1,345 79,968 12.7 1.3 New Haven, CT 861,113 1,427 99,043 11.5 1.7 Ocean, NJ 579,369 917 46,546 8.0 0.8 Orange, NY 374,872 459 44,922 12.0 0.8 Putnam, NY Suffolk, NY 99,933 433 13,041 13.0 0.2 1,498,816 1,637 212,859 14.2 3.6 Sullivan, NY 76,900 80 8,942 11.6 0.1 Sussex, NJ 148,517 288 12,125 8.2 0.2 Ulster, NY 182,448 162 12,465 6.8 0.2 Warren, NJ 108,339 305 8,434 7.8 0.1 Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 232 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Appendix Table 5-2 Foreign-born by Area of Origin New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 2011 AREA OF ORIGIN Total Foreign-born Latin America Asia Europe Caribbean, Nonhispanic Africa All Others NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION 5,986,283 2,102,770 1,648,376 1,046,098 886,823 237,854 63,032 New York City Bronx, NY Brooklyn, NY Manhattan, NY Queens, NY Staten Island, NY 3,066,599 471,136 946,511 461,325 1,089,187 98,440 984,722 260,089 187,400 183,442 334,952 18,839 843,321 35,468 240,224 138,523 399,650 29,456 486,806 32,318 193,471 89,343 136,156 35,518 595,740 93,830 289,616 18,299 189,497 4,498 128,176 48,215 28,096 17,318 24,842 9,705 27,834 1,216 7,704 14,400 4,090 424 Inner Counties Bergen, NJ Essex, NJ Fairfield, CT Hudson, NJ Middlesex, NJ Morris, NJ Nassau, NY Passaic, NJ Rockland, NY Somerset, NJ Union, NJ Westchester, NY 2,246,217 272,677 206,451 180,728 257,555 259,336 91,597 290,001 148,092 70,357 79,387 158,537 231,499 870,331 74,882 81,811 70,031 135,579 66,195 31,886 99,123 80,960 22,910 21,527 84,042 101,385 643,923 118,895 27,010 35,499 71,284 132,555 32,333 87,169 24,049 16,526 35,318 20,032 43,253 394,132 59,546 27,134 42,803 25,114 35,759 20,400 48,355 25,801 15,020 12,783 29,414 52,003 224,287 12,294 50,245 21,960 11,385 11,278 3,224 44,909 6,741 14,377 2,696 20,999 24,179 89,590 4,743 18,680 5,632 14,965 11,668 1,941 8,391 4,368 1,637 4,997 4,712 7,856 20,203 2,317 1,571 4,803 1,221 1,881 822 2,054 280 827 1,252 352 2,823 673,467 36,166 11,813 12,436 74,707 79,968 99,043 46,546 44,922 13,041 212,859 21,407 12,125 8,434 247,717 10,612 3,240 2,377 24,992 25,378 30,937 16,933 20,985 5,274 96,268 5,181 3,445 2,095 161,132 10,552 3,267 1,811 22,636 21,756 26,227 8,827 7,665 2,853 45,288 4,949 2,398 2,903 165,160 6,338 4,114 4,808 14,231 18,719 27,199 16,796 9,367 6,110 42,031 7,999 5,320 2,128 66,796 5,313 75 1,504 8,754 7,165 8,734 1,226 7,156 217 22,860 1,985 645 1,162 20,088 2,276 568 179 3,326 1,979 4,987 416 1,044 17 3,666 922 0 708 14,995 991 87 1,268 500 1,271 3,410 1,654 1,550 46 2,746 762 656 54 Outer Counties Dutchess, NY Hunterdon, NJ Litchfield, CT Mercer, NJ Monmouth, NJ New Haven, CT Ocean, NJ Orange, NY Putnam*, NY Suffolk, NY Sullivan and Ulster, NY Sussex, NJ Warren, NJ Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File and Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Note: The total foreign-born was derived from 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File estimates. In addition, 2011 American Community SurveySummary File data were used to calculate place of birth data for the following counties: Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Queens, Staten Island, Bergen, Essex, Fairfield, Middlesex, Nassau, Westchester, and Suffolk. Because place of birth data were not available for counties with small foreign-born populations, the remaining counties used 2011 American Community Survey-Public Use Microdata Sample. Appendix Tables 233 Appendix Table 5-3 Total and Foreign-born Population* New York Metropolitan Region by Subregion and County, 1900–2011 1900 Total Population 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn 12,636,464 3,626,251 13,565,549 3,234,935 15,146,950 2,806,135 1,784,206 NEW YORK METROPOLITAN REGION 6,179,423 1,925,315 8,391,061 2,932,348 10,023,449 3,107,159 New York City 3,437,202 1,270,080 4,766,883 1,944,357 5,620,048 2,028,160 6,930,446 2,358,686 7,454,995 2,138,657 7,891,957 200,507 61,258 430,980 149,427 732,016 267,742 1,265,258 479,451 1,394,711 463,453 1,451,277 373,894 Brooklyn, NY 1,166,582 355,697 1,634,351 574,730 2,018,356 666,188 2,560,401 881,571 2,698,285 778,054 2,738,175 630,526 Manhattan, NY 1,850,093 789,626 2,331,542 1,116,477 2,284,103 950,264 1,867,312 689,506 1,889,924 582,895 1,960,101 461,102 152,999 44,812 284,041 79,329 469,042 112,171 1,079,129 268,359 1,297,634 278,937 1,550,849 288,197 67,021 18,687 85,969 24,394 116,531 31,795 158,346 39,799 174,441 35,318 191,555 30,487 1,718,169 473,015 2,431,348 731,776 3,081,336 813,430 4,154,644 984,057 4,426,873 833,808 5,248,250 767,591 78,441 20,247 138,002 39,383 210,703 54,184 364,977 83,850 409,646 73,288 539,139 76,395 359,053 97,340 512,886 147,791 652,089 161,111 833,513 186,130 837,340 151,581 905,949 128,521 Bronx, NY Queens, NY Staten Island, NY Inner Counties Bergen, NJ Essex, NJ Fairfield, CT 184,203 45,801 245,322 72,441 320,936 89,568 386,702 95,126 418,384 84,074 504,342 78,592 Hudson, NJ 386,048 121,702 537,231 174,910 629,154 182,117 690,730 184,068 652,040 138,167 647,437 108,037 Middlesex, NJ 79,762 22,874 114,426 39,714 162,334 49,198 212,208 53,373 217,077 43,160 264,872 39,136 Morris, NJ 65,156 12,261 74,704 15,856 82,694 14,662 110,445 18,180 125,732 17,271 164,371 17,301 Nassau, NY 55,448 11,063 83,930 19,324 126,120 25,998 303,053 63,437 406,748 64,733 672,765 81,677 Passaic, NJ 155,202 57,820 215,902 84,795 259,174 88,742 302,129 90,554 309,353 74,946 337,093 63,869 Rockland, NY 38,298 7,249 46,873 9,704 45,548 6,961 59,599 9,128 74,261 11,636 89,276 11,441 Somerset, NJ 32,948 5,902 38,820 8,222 47,991 10,360 65,132 14,032 74,390 12,950 99,052 12,550 Union, NJ 99,353 Westchester, NY Outer Counties 24,074 140,197 38,593 200,157 50,524 305,209 65,467 328,344 56,320 398,138 54,003 184,257 46,682 283,055 81,043 344,436 80,005 520,947 120,712 573,558 105,682 625,816 96,069 1,024,052 182,220 1,192,830 256,215 1,322,065 265,569 1,551,374 283,508 1,683,681 262,470 2,006,743 254,338 Dutchess, NY 81,670 12,093 87,661 13,445 91,747 12,465 105,462 15,341 120,542 15,595 136,781 14,956 Hunterdon, NJ 34,507 1,714 33,569 2,485 32,885 2,803 34,728 3,982 36,766 4,194 42,736 4,432 Litchfield, CT 63,672 13,888 70,260 17,370 76,262 18,141 82,556 17,420 87,041 15,024 98,872 13,372 Mercer, NJ 95,365 18,955 125,657 30,109 159,881 35,916 187,143 35,780 197,318 30,329 229,781 26,971 Monmouth, NJ 82,057 8,645 94,734 11,850 104,925 13,030 147,209 19,000 161,238 19,206 225,327 22,614 269,163 77,470 337,282 105,580 415,214 117,354 463,449 110,956 484,316 93,610 545,784 80,385 19,747 1,082 21,318 1,944 22,155 2,282 33,069 4,177 37,706 4,807 56,622 6,990 103,859 14,723 116,001 19,164 119,844 16,422 130,383 16,832 140,113 16,306 152,255 15,351 New Haven, CT Ocean, NJ Orange, NY Putnam, NY 13,787 2,119 14,665 3,263 10,802 1,437 13,744 2,024 16,555 2,171 20,307 2,837 Suffolk, NY 77,582 14,757 96,138 21,995 110,246 23,888 161,055 34,634 197,355 38,931 276,129 44,272 Sullivan, NY 32,306 3,041 33,808 4,486 33,163 5,495 35,272 6,194 37,901 6,052 40,731 5,896 Sussex, NJ 24,134 1,536 26,781 4,147 24,905 2,902 27,830 2,829 29,632 2,716 34,423 2,841 Ulster, NY 88,422 9,276 91,769 14,227 74,979 8,043 80,155 8,819 87,017 8,658 92,621 9,090 Warren, NJ 37,781 2,921 43,187 6,150 45,057 5,391 49,319 5,520 50,181 4,871 54,374 4,331 *For 1900, the Bronx foreign-born includes only foreign-born whites; the Manhattan foreign-born total also includes Bronx foreign-born nonwhites. The foreign-born for the years 1910, 1920, 1930, and 1950 include only foreign-born whites, with the following exceptions:the foreign-born for New York City and the five boroughs in 1910, 1920, and 1930 include both whites and nonwhites. Sources: U.S. Census Bureau: 1900-2000 censuses; 2011 American Community Survey-Summary File and Public Use Microdata Sample Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 234 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2011 Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn Total Population Foreignborn 17,625,675 2,611,014 19,747,870 2,527,864 19,190,781 2,960,140 19,843,157 3,675,192 21,491,898 5,200,622 22,342,470 5,986,283 7,783,314 1,558,690 7,894,798 1,437,058 7,071,639 1,670,199 7,322,564 2,082,931 8,008,278 2,871,032 8,244,910 3,066,599 1,424,814 306,592 1,471,686 229,210 1,168,972 215,313 1,203,789 274,793 1,332,650 385,827 1,392,002 471,136 2,628,230 516,349 2,601,974 456,636 2,230,936 530,973 2,300,664 672,569 2,465,326 931,769 2,532,645 946,511 1,698,285 374,698 1,539,225 307,630 1,428,285 348,581 1,487,536 383,866 1,537,195 452,440 1,601,948 461,325 1,809,994 335,623 1,986,470 416,887 1,891,325 540,818 1,951,598 707,153 2,229,379 1,028,339 2,247,848 1,089,187 221,991 25,428 295,443 26,695 352,121 34,514 378,977 44,550 443,728 72,657 470,467 98,440 6,964,250 788,396 7,951,684 822,511 7,666,658 975,906 7,692,310 1,251,854 8,243,503 1,842,253 8,554,344 2,246,217 780,255 88,419 898,012 95,393 845,385 114,285 825,380 148,861 884,118 222,301 911,004 272,677 923,545 106,686 929,984 92,832 851,116 106,575 778,206 121,336 793,633 168,165 785,137 206,451 653,589 73,959 792,811 77,488 807,143 86,604 827,645 100,961 882,567 149,038 925,899 180,728 610,734 88,710 609,261 107,399 556,972 133,575 553,099 169,434 608,975 234,597 641,224 257,555 433,856 42,221 583,812 44,329 595,893 55,536 671,780 95,104 750,162 181,761 814,217 259,336 261,620 20,247 383,454 26,123 407,630 33,028 421,353 44,465 470,212 72,638 494,976 91,597 1,300,171 121,417 1,428,077 118,010 1,321,582 135,882 1,287,348 169,311 1,334,544 238,414 1,344,436 290,001 406,618 60,725 460,782 56,205 447,585 65,931 453,060 88,077 489,049 130,291 502,007 148,092 136,803 13,758 229,903 20,422 259,530 29,205 265,475 38,798 286,753 54,766 315,158 70,357 143,913 13,682 198,372 15,373 203,129 16,616 240,279 26,175 297,490 53,937 324,893 79,387 504,255 54,591 543,116 62,308 504,094 71,803 493,819 90,735 522,541 130,916 539,494 158,537 808,891 103,981 894,100 106,629 866,599 126,866 874,866 158,597 923,459 205,429 955,899 231,499 2,878,111 263,928 3,901,388 268,295 4,452,484 314,035 4,828,283 340,407 5,240,117 487,337 5,543,216 673,467 176,008 15,139 222,295 14,575 245,055 17,167 259,462 18,019 280,150 23,600 297,999 36,166 54,107 4,197 69,718 3,940 87,361 4,358 107,776 5,374 121,989 7,708 128,038 11,813 119,856 11,490 144,091 9,716 156,769 9,720 174,092 9,421 182,193 9,898 188,789 12,436 266,392 24,784 303,968 21,503 307,863 23,379 325,824 28,390 350,761 48,659 367,063 74,707 334,401 26,896 459,378 26,863 503,173 31,681 553,124 41,708 615,301 63,807 631,020 79,968 660,315 70,816 744,947 60,768 761,337 59,213 804,219 54,805 824,008 74,427 861,113 99,043 108,241 10,761 208,470 16,062 346,038 25,637 433,203 26,190 510,916 33,152 579,369 46,546 183,734 13,886 221,657 13,575 259,603 16,309 307,647 22,073 341,367 28,710 374,872 44,922 31,722 3,468 56,695 4,755 77,193 6,245 83,941 5,670 95,745 8,420 99,933 13,041 666,784 61,056 1,124,941 74,790 1,284,231 94,647 1,321,864 104,211 1,419,369 158,525 1,498,816 212,859 45,272 4,734 52,580 4,465 65,155 5,392 69,277 5,043 73,966 5,875 76,900 8,942 49,255 3,271 77,528 4,858 116,119 5,994 130,943 6,147 144,166 8,171 148,517 12,125 118,804 9,443 141,241 8,611 158,158 10,739 165,304 9,573 177,749 10,468 182,448 12,465 63,220 3,987 73,879 3,814 84,429 3,554 91,607 3,783 102,437 5,917 108,339 8,434 Appendix Tables 235 DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director Richard Barth, Executive Director Housing, Economic & Infrastructure Planning Eric Kober, Director Barry Dinerstein, Deputy Director William Sears Tamara Agins Population Division Joseph J. Salvo, Director Arun Peter Lobo, Deputy Director Joel Alvarez Donnise Hurley Will Levin Drew Minert Erica Maurer Adam Attar Anna Triebwasser Operations Maureen Brooks, Director of Operations Carol Segarra, Graphic Artist Antonio Mendez, Director Administrative Services Ray Figuerora, Deputy Director Administrative Services CHAPTER 6 Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Newly Admitted Immigrant Groups SUPPLEMENT This web-only supplement to Chapter 6 focuses on This supplement, which extends the analysis the classes of admission used by New York City’s in Chapter 6, examines in greater detail the top 20 top 20 sources of newly admitted legal permanent sources of newly admitted LPRs. Tables 6-10 through residents (LPRs). A common theme of Chapter 6 6-31 present data for detailed classes of admission was the shift from family preferences to immediate for 3 time periods, while Figures 6-6 through 6-27 relatives. This was largely a function of immigrants further illustrate how immigrants from the top 20 gaining admission and, once naturalized, sponsoring sources have navigated the classes of admission immediate family members. Similarly, immigrants over time. (Tables 6-32, 6-33, and 6-34 provide this who initially entered by way of the occupational information for three decades for all countries that preferences later sought to reunify with family send immigrants to New York.) members. This chapter supplement examines how pathways to admission have changed over the past 3 decades for the top 20 sources of newly admitted LPRs in the 2000s. Countries are grouped based on their shared set of experiences: whether their flows to the city are increasing or in decline, whether they use a specific class of admission disproportionately, or Each country is at its own particular stage with whether they have stopped using a specific class of respect to its flows to the city— it may be just starting admission as their immigration trajectories to the out, or it may have a moderate history of increasing city change. This allows for a more integrated view flows, or flows may be in decline. Country-specific of how classes of admission are used by New York immigrant flows usually disperse over time. City’s largest immigrant groups, as well as by those Frequently, a country establishes a beachhead in who are relative newcomers to the city. New York and increases its numbers through all available pathways to admission. But because of changes in the life cycle, such as childrearing and retirement, these immigrants eventually move to other places in the region or to other parts of the U.S. As groups move out of New York, new entrants wishing to reunify with them also bypass the city. Hence the flow from individual source countries to New York generally wanes over time, even as overall flows to the country may increase. At each stage, each country establishes its own pathway to admission to the U.S., and these pathways evolve over time. COUNTRIES WITH INCREASING IMMIGRANT FLOWS: China, Bangladesh, Ecuador, and Mexico Several countries have seen big increases in their fl ows to New York, but the pathways used by each country are distinct. CHINA The number of LPRs from China has grown rapidly over the last 30 years, and for the first time in the 2000s, China replaced the Dominican Republic as the 6-1 Although there was no change in the overall Figure 6-6 Immigrants Admitted from China by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 number of immigrants admitted with family preference visas, there were some important underlying changes in the detailed classes. Unlike many coun- 93,578 106,646 169,801 tries that rely on the second preference, it was the 100% Other fourth preference (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens) that accounted for the largest number (26,100) 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences of all family preference categories. Furthermore, the number of Chinese LPRs admitted in this category grew by 34 percent and accounted for 15 percent of all Chinese immigrants, roughly twice the city average in the last decade. There was a large increase in the number of Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 employment visas in the 1990s, due in part to the Chinese Displaced Student Act of 1992, which provided skilled third preference visas for approximately 10,000 students. By 2000 this program had come to an end and the number and share of employment visas fell accordingly. Nevertheless, in numerical Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning top source of newly admitted immigrants to the city. The number of Chinese LPRs in the 2000s stood at 169,800, an increase of 59 percent from the 106,600 in the 1990s (Table 6-10). This recent growth was fueled largely by a huge increase in the number of Chinese refugees/asylees. Over the last decade, 72,000 or 42 terms, LPRs from China are still at the top of the list of countries that make use of employment visas. Priority workers (first preference) and professionals with advanced degrees (second preference) together accounted for more than 5,700 Chinese immigrants in the last decade. Of particular interest was the large number of Chinese immigrants taking advantage of the fifth employment preference. Of the 2,500 employment creation visas issued, nearly 2,000 were used by Chinese immigrants. percent of all Chinese were admitted as refugees/ asylees (Figure 6-6)—the overwhelming majority of BANGLADESH whom were asylees. Furthermore, Chinese refugees/ Immigrants from Bangladesh had the highest growth asylees to New York City accounted for one-half of rate (77 percent) of the top 20 source countries. As the Chinese refugee/asylee flow to the nation (data a result, Bangladesh moved into the number three not shown). spot, behind China and the Dominican Republic, and There was also a large increase in the number of immediate relatives admitted from China, particularly the parents of U.S. citizens. The 65 percent increase in the number of Chinese immediate relatives was well above the city average of 40 percent (Table 6-3). 6-2 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition ahead of Jamaica, Guyana, and Haiti, the dominant source countries of the 1980s and 1990s. Moreover, 45 percent of LPRs from Bangladesh nationwide chose to settle in the city, second only to Guyana (60 percent), and followed by the Dominican Republic (43 percent) (data not shown). Table 6-10 Immigrants Admitted from China* by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 93,578 Family Preferences 106,646 169,801 14.0 59.2 68,236 TOTAL 45,405 45,696 -33.5 0.6 694 1,374 2,299 98.0 67.3 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 26,562 17,607 9,922 -33.7 -43.6 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 13,948 6,945 7,340 -50.2 5.7 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 27,032 19,479 26,135 -27.9 34.2 17,200 24,349 40,072 41.6 64.6 Spouses 6,418 9,980 19,338 55.5 93.8 Children 1,079 3,707 6,314 243.6 70.3 Parents 9,703 10,662 14,420 9.9 35.2 7,049 29,979 11,391 325.3 -62.0 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children Immediate Relatives Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 3,694 3,283 – -11.1 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 2,839 2,462 – -13.3 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 22,574 3,053 – -86.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 553 300 – -45.8 4th - Special immigrants – 233 277 – 18.9 5th - Employment creation – 86 1,951 – 2,168.6 Pre-1992 3rd preference 2,518 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 4,531 – – – – 35 196 291 460.0 48.5 Refugees/Asylees 384 3,933 71,979 924.2 1,730.1 Other 674 2,784 338 313.1 -87.9 Diversity *Includes Mainland, Taiwan, and Hong Kong –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The diversity visa program enabled immigrants from Bangladesh to establish a beachhead in New York in the 1980s, when almost one-half of them were admitted with a diversity visa (Figure 6-7). While the share is down to about one-quarter in the most recent period, Bangladesh remains at the top of the list of countries utilizing this path of admission. These diversity “seed” immigrants are using family related visas to bring in their family members. While there was an overall decline in the use of family preference visas among the top source countries, Bangladesh was an exception in registering an increase in family preference visas. The number of family preference visas grew from 9,600 in the 1990s to 17,000 in the 2000s, a 78 percent increase, Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-3 Figure 6-7 Immigrants Admitted from Bangladesh by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 100% 8,695 29,708 ECUADOR The number of immigrants from Ecuador has grown steadily over the last 30 years, increasing by 35 percent between the 1980s and 1990s, and by 13 percent 52,658 from the 1990s to the 2000s (Table 6-12). For each Other time period, the growth rate far exceeded that for all immigrants to the city (which stood at 12 percent and 80% Refugees/ Asylees Diversity 60% 3 percent, respectively). As a result, Ecuador climbed the last decade. Furthermore, 3-in-10 Ecuadorians to the 6th spot in the list of top source countries in admitted to the U.S. settled in New York City over Employment Preferences 40% last decade. While the number of employment visas declined Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences by 10 percent in the city in the 2000s, there was a 79 percent increase in the number of Ecuadorians admitted in this category. As a result, employment 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 6-8 Immigrants Admitted from Ecuador by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 22,857 30,867 34,817 100% Other compared with a 19 percent decline for immigrants overall (Table 6-11). 80% While the typical immigrant relies heavily on the 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences Refugees/ Asylees second preference, it is the fourth preference that is the preferred pathway for LPRs from Bangladesh, increasing from 2,000 in the 1990s to over 11,100 in the 2000s. Twenty-one percent of all Bangladeshi immigrants were admitted as fourth preference Immediate Relatives 20% immigrants, well above the city average of 7 percent. Family Preferences In addition, the number of immediate relatives more than doubled, from 8,300 in the 1990s to 18,200 in the last decade, one of the largest increases among the top source countries. 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 6-4 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 6-11 Immigrants Admitted from Bangladesh by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 8,695 29,708 52,658 241.7 77.3 Family Preferences 2,760 9,568 17,013 246.7 77.8 17 266 415 1,464.7 56.0 1,475 6,839 4,845 363.7 -29.2 132 424 676 221.2 59.4 1,136 2,039 11,077 79.5 443.3 1,463 8,279 18,195 465.9 119.8 Spouses 813 3,260 8,038 301.0 146.6 Children 229 1,832 2,622 700.0 43.1 Parents 421 3,187 7,535 657.0 136.4 242 911 1,809 276.4 98.6 1st - Priority workers – 94 71 – -24.5 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 133 165 – 24.1 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 460 1,194 – 159.6 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 59 34 – -42.4 4th - Special immigrants – 165 305 – 84.8 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 100 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 142 – – – – 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Employment Preferences Diversity 4,104 13,706 334 1,566 118 Other 10,169 – Refugees/Asylees 447 369 147.8 – 278.8 34.8 368.9 -17.4 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning visas accounted for 14 percent of the total flow in 1980s, and by the 2000s that share had increased the last decade, compared with 9 percent for immi- to 54 percent (Figure 6-8). In addition there was a grants overall. The bulk of employment visas were disproportionate number admitted as parents—16 for skilled third preference workers (4,800). percent compared with 9 percent citywide. The There was also strong growth in the immediate relative category. One-quarter of Ecuadorian immigrants were admitted as immediate relatives in the number of parents more than doubled between the 1990s and 2000s, bypassing the number of children admitted. Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-5 Table 6-12 Immigrants Admitted from Ecuador by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 22,857 30,867 34,817 35.0 12.8 Family Preferences 14,476 12,914 9,741 -10.8 -24.6 322 1,162 1,759 260.9 51.4 11,585 8,995 5,210 -22.4 -42.1 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen. & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 599 910 1,345 51.9 47.8 1,970 1,847 1,427 -6.2 -22.7 5,829 12,660 18,792 117.2 48.4 Spouses 3,584 6,500 8,596 81.4 32.2 Children 1,019 3,315 4,642 225.3 40.0 Parents 1,226 2,845 5,554 132.1 95.2 1,657 3,055 5,478 84.4 79.3 12 24 – 100.0 Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 14 29 – 107.1 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 2,335 4,806 – 105.8 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 598 521 – -12.9 4th - Special immigrants – 96 67 – -30.2 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 15 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 1,642 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other 187 545 404 15 – 62 693 1,683 339 191.4 – 142.9 -25.9 – -79.9 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning MEXICO The number of LPRs from Mexico settling in New domestic inflow of Mexican immigrants from other York was barely a blip in the 1980s, but Mexicans parts of the country, neither of which are captured in are now the 19 largest source of LPRs to the city. these data. Nonetheless, there is value in analyzing The number of Mexican LPRs increased from 9,500 the pathways of the growing number of Mexican in the 1990s to 12,800 in the 2000s, an increase of 36 immigrants who are entering the city as LPRs. th percent, and far above the overall 3 percent increase for the city (Table 6-13). As will be discussed in Chapter 7, the total stock of the Mexican foreign-born in the city has increased because of the entry of a large number of unauthorized immigrants and the 6-6 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment visas comprised 38 percent of the LPR Mexican flow (Figure 6-9), far above the city average of 9 percent. In contrast to the occupational characteristics of foreign-born Mexicans discussed in Chapter 4, the majority of the worker visas were Table 6-13 Immigrants Admitted from Mexico by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 35.5 3,856 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 12,820 145.4 695 Family Preferences 9,462 2,075 1,175 198.6 -43.4 90 167 86 85.6 -48.5 473 1,748 972 269.6 -44.4 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 48 56 48 16.7 -14.3 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 84 104 43 23.8 -58.7 Immediate Relatives 2,260 4,136 6,096 83.0 47.4 Spouses 1,707 2,935 3,797 71.9 29.4 Children 412 784 855 90.3 9.1 141 417 1,444 195.7 246.3 653 2,047 4,901 213.5 139.4 Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 108 275 – 154.6 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 25 155 – 520.0 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 1,470 3,976 – 170.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 360 318 – -11.7 4th - Special immigrants – 84 131 – 56.0 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 45 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 608 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – – – – – – – 51 – – 238 1,193 589 401.3 -50.6 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning granted to skilled and professional workers (third ber of immediate relatives grew by 47 percent and preference). Furthermore employment visas were accounted for about one-half of all Mexican LPRs. the fastest growing class of admission for Mexican Parents were responsible for the bulk of the increase. immigrants and were responsible for the majority admitted in the family preference category in the COUNTRIES THAT DISPROPORTIONATELY USE EMPLOYMENT VISAS: India, Korea, and the Philippines last decade, just 9 percent compared with 27 percent While the use of employment visas as a path of entry has of the increase in the overall number. A very small share of Mexican immigrants was citywide. And as with the city, the number and share declined between 1990s and 2000s. Lastly, the num- changed over time for all groups, some stand out for their high propensity to use these visas. Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-7 Figure 6-9 Immigrants Admitted from Mexico by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 3,856 100% 9,462 12,820 its use of highly skilled first and second preference employment visas. There was also a sharp increase in the number of refugees/asylees, from 300 in the 1990s to 3,100 in the 2000s (asylees accounted for Other virtually the entire flow of this group). Refugee/ asylees accounted for 11 percent of the total LPR 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences flow in the last decade. These fairly substantial increases were entirely offset by a 52 percent decline (6,900) in family preference visas from the 1990s. As a result, the share of all Indian immigrants admitted under the family preference categories dropped from 47 percent in Immediate Relatives 20% the 1990s to 23 percent in the 2000s. There are now more employment visas used by LPRs from India Family Preferences than family preference visas. 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, Figure 6-10 Immigrants Admitted from India by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 100% 24,938 28,274 27,991 Other INDIA India, a major source of immigrants for the past 80% Refugees/ Asylees three decades, was ranked 7th in the 2000s. There were 28,000 LPRs admitted from India in the 2000s, about the same as in the 1990s (Table 6-14). Even 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences though there appeared to be very little change in the overall flow, there was a rather dramatic shift in the pathways used by Indian immigrants in the last decade (Figure 6-10). Immediate Relatives 20% While there was a 10 percent decrease in em- Family Preferences ployment visas for the city, Indian LPRs experienced a healthy gain of 45 percent. In the 2000s, over 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 one-quarter of all Indian immigrants were admitted with an employment visa, compared with 9 percent Sources: for the city. In addition, there was a doubling in the 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, number of first preference priority workers. In numerical terms, India ranks second only to China in 6-8 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 6-14 Immigrants Admitted from India by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 24,938 27,991 13.4 -1.0 15,209 Family Preferences 28,274 13,192 6,330 -13.3 -52.0 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 47 385 272 719.1 -29.4 7,212 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 7,599 1,297 5.4 -82.9 495 941 998 90.1 6.1 7,455 4,267 3,763 -42.8 -11.8 5,340 8,575 10,737 60.6 25.2 Spouses 2,071 4,049 6,076 95.5 50.1 Children 217 1,237 1,381 470.0 11.6 Parents 3,052 3,289 3,280 7.8 -0.3 3,823 Employment Preferences 5,235 7,579 36.9 44.8 1st - Priority workers – 853 1,606 – 88.3 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 1,335 1,672 – 25.2 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 2,432 3,788 – 55.8 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 176 67 – -61.9 4th - Special immigrants – 431 386 – -10.4 5th - Employment creation – – – – – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 2,826 Pre-1992 6th preference 997 – – 18 67 43 272.2 -35.8 19 325 3,084 1,610.5 848.9 529 880 214 66.4 -75.7 Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – – –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning KOREA granted to Korean LPRs in the 2000s, up from 4,800 In the 1980s Korean LPRs numbered 24,400, but fell in the 1990s, a 43 percent increase. The share of 43 percent to 13,800 in the 1990s before a modest employment entrants increased from 35 percent of increase of 2 percent in the last decade to 14,100 all immigrants in the 1990s to 49 percent in the last (Table 6-15). decade (Figure 6-11). The bulk of the increase was Growth in the number of employment visas helped sustain Korean immigration in the most recent period. There were 6,800 employment visas in the skilled 3rd preference, which accounted for 55 percent of all employment visas. Of special interest, however, was the propensity of Korean LPRs to use the fourth preference employment category Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-9 Figure 6-11 Immigrants Admitted from Korea by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Korean LPRs entered by way of this category in the 2000s, down from 23 percent in the 1990s. More significantly, however, was the sharp decline in the number of fourth preference visas (brothers and 24,361 13,785 14,060 sisters of U.S. citizens). This had been an important 100% Other avenue of entry for Korean immigrants, with 1 in 5 Korean immigrants (5,100) admitted with a 4th 80% Refugees/ Asylees preference visa in the 1980s, well above the then city average of 14 percent. However, by the last decade 60% Diversity there were just 500 LPRs admitted in this category. 40% Employment Preferences diate relative category helped sustain Korean flows The 42 percent increase in the use of the immeto the city and also helped counter declines in famImmediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 ily preference visas. There was also a noteworthy change in the composition of immediate relative visas. Almost one-half of all immediate relatives 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, Figure 6-12 Immigrants Admitted from the Philippines by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 19,791 22,931 17,909 100% Other also known as “special immigrants.” The majority of Koreans entering as special immigrants were 80% Refugees/ Asylees religious workers and their families. Korea ranks first in the use of this category, accounting for 1,000 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences of the 7,400 special immigrants admitted to the city. Koreans were also the second largest user of fifth preference employment visas, which were designed to encourage foreign investment, accounting for 400 of the 2,500 LPRs admitted to the city under this class Immediate Relatives 20% of admission. The loss in the number of family preference visas was substantial, falling from 4,920 in the 1990s to Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 1,900 in the 2000s. As a result, the share of family Sources: preference entrants declined from 36 percent to 13 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; percent during this period. The loss was especially 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, large for 2nd preference visas: Only 3 percent of Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 6-10 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Table 6-15 Immigrants Admitted from Korea by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 24,361 13,785 14,060 -43.4 2.0 Family Preferences 14,829 4,924 1,855 -66.8 -62.3 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 56 264 341 371.4 29.2 9,050 3,165 471 -65.0 -85.1 590 325 584 -44.9 79.7 5,133 1,170 459 -77.2 -60.8 5,918 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 3,749 5,317 -36.7 41.8 Spouses 2,311 2,291 3,780 -0.9 65.0 Children 931 490 478 -47.4 -2.4 Parents 2,676 968 1,059 -63.8 9.4 3,131 4,781 6,819 52.7 42.6 Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 243 450 – 85.2 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 252 896 – 255.6 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 2,163 3,731 – 72.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 779 284 – -63.5 4th - Special immigrants – 1,327 1,040 – -21.6 5th - Employment creation – 17 418 – 2,358.8 Pre-1992 3rd preference 1,226 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 1,905 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – 25 – – – – – 11 – – 478 304 39 -36.4 -87.2 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning in the 1980s were parents of U.S. citizens, but this had an overreliance on employment preference visas percentage has been in decline; by the 2000s this as an entryway to New York. The use of employment stood at just one-fifth, with over 7-in-10 immediate visas peaked in the 1990s, however, when they ac- relative visas now going to spouses of U.S. citizens. counted for 47 percent of the total Filipino flow, the highest of any major group. While the number of PHILIPPINES employment entrants dropped from 10,900 in the LPRs from the Philippines numbered 17,900 in 1990s to 7,200 in the 2000s (a 33 percent decline), the 2000s, down 22 percent from the prior decade. 40 percent of Filipinos used employment visas in Historically, immigrants from the Philippines have the last decade, second only to Korea. The loss was Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-11 Table 6-16 Immigrants Admitted from the Philippines by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 19,791 22,931 17,909 15.9 -21.9 4,601 3,477 2,877 -24.4 -17.3 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 1,026 267 285 -74.0 6.7 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 2,012 1,505 1,264 -25.2 -16.0 525 688 530 31.0 -23.0 1,038 1,017 798 -2.0 -21.5 7,837 6,936 7,720 -11.5 11.3 Spouses 4,089 3,290 4,074 -19.5 23.8 Children 1,593 1,591 1,424 -0.1 -10.5 Parents 2,155 2,055 2,222 -4.6 8.1 4,051 10,853 7,230 167.9 -33.4 TOTAL Family Preferences 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 102 113 – 10.8 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 2,169 523 – -75.9 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 7,542 5,760 – -23.6 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 793 597 – -24.7 4th - Special immigrants – 246 237 – -3.7 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 1,051 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 3,000 – – – – – 15 – – – 75 13 22 -82.7 69.2 3,225 1,637 41 -49.2 -97.5 Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning particularly great for the second preference (profes- “other” category, primarily registered nurses, also sionals with advanced degrees), which declined from declined significantly.1 2,200 in the 1990s to 500 in the 2000s (Table 6-16). Visas going to skilled and professional workers, the large majority of all employment preference visas, also declined by 24 percent, from 7,500 in the 1990s to 5,800 in the 2000s. The number of LPRs in the 6-12 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition As was the case in the 1980s, the number of immigrants from the Philippines admitted as immediate relatives is once again greater than those coming in with employment visas (Figure 6-12). has declined from its high in the 1980s, when it stood Figure 6-13 Immigrants Admitted from Jamaica by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 at 87,100. During the 1990s, the flow was down by over one-third, and it dropped another 10 percent in the 2000s to 50,300 (Table 6-17). The propensity 87,112 55,686 50,317 for Jamaican LPRs to settle in New York has also 100% declined: In the 1980s, 44 percent of Jamaican LPRs Other to the U.S. settled in the city, but it was down to 27 80% percent in the 2000s. Refugees/ Asylees 60% 40% The most stunning decline was in the number Diversity Employment Preferences of family preferences, especially the second preference—spouses and children of LPRs. The number of second preference visas dropped by 73 percent, from 15,400 in the 1990s to 4,200 in the 2000s. In the 1980s, Immediate Relatives 20% over one-half of all Jamaicans were admitted under the second preference. But by the last decade, that Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 share had dropped to just 8 percent. There was also a decline in the number of employment visas, from 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 6-14 Immigrants Admitted from Guyana by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 67,729 46,189 46,431 100% COUNTRIES WITH A STEEP DECLINE IN THE SECOND PREFERENCE: Nonhispanic Caribbean Countries of Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti; and the Dominican Republic and Colombia The decline in immigration since the highs of the 1980s for Jamaica, Guyana, and Haiti, as well as for Colombia, Other 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences were almost exclusively the result of huge drops in the use of the second preference—spouses and unmarried sons Immediate Relatives 20% and daughters of LPRs. Dominican declines in the second preference were largely offset by increases in other classes. JAMAICA While still a large source of immigrants, ranking 4th among the top LPR sources, the flow from Jamaica Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-13 Table 6-17 Immigrants Admitted from Jamaica by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 87,112 55,686 50,317 Family Preferences 66,338 29,659 2,368 6,864 47,025 4,229 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children -36.1 -9.6 17,389 -55.3 -41.4 9,477 189.9 38.1 15,396 4,170 -67.3 -72.9 1,942 1,868 -54.1 -3.8 12,716 5,457 1,874 -57.1 -65.7 13,847 22,228 31,294 60.5 40.8 Spouses 7,523 10,821 17,092 43.8 58.0 Children 3,389 7,928 9,116 133.9 15.0 2,935 3,479 5,086 18.5 46.2 6,048 3,059 1,431 -49.4 -53.2 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 17 23 – 35.3 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 444 35 – -92.1 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 647 742 – 14.7 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 1,117 291 – -73.9 4th - Special immigrants – 834 317 – -62.0 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 1,234 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 4,814 – – – – – – – – – – – 45 – – 874 730 143 Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other -16.5 -80.4 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning just over 6,000 in the 1980s to 1,400 in the 2000s. The loss was most significant for unskilled workers, from 1,100 in the 1990s to 300 in the last decade. On the other hand, there was a big increase in the number of immediate relatives between the 1990s (22,200) and 2000s (31,300). Sixty-two percent of all Jamaican LPRs were admitted as immediate relatives in the last decade, compared with 16 percent in the 1980s.The increase in immediate relatives, however, was not large enough to offset the second preference declines, resulting in an overall decline in LPRs from 6-14 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Jamaica. Nevertheless, the huge shift in pathways from the family preference categories to immediate relatives (Figure 6-13) is significant. GUYANA Guyanese flows to New York peaked at 67,700 in the 1980s, declined by nearly one-third in the 1990s, and remained at that level in the 2000s (Table 6-18). There were 46,400 Guyanese LPRs admitted to the city in the 2000s, making Guyana the 5th largest source country. Guyanese immigrants continue to have the Table 6-18 Immigrants Admitted from Guyana by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 67,729 46,431 -31.8 0.5 52,189 Family Preferences 46,189 29,596 28,017 -43.3 -5.3 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 914 4,627 8,693 406.2 87.9 29,842 11,164 3,657 -62.6 -67.2 4,346 5,927 10,893 36.4 83.8 17,087 7,878 4,774 -53.9 -39.4 10,548 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 13,389 17,075 26.9 27.5 Spouses 4,200 5,743 8,220 36.7 43.1 Children 1,881 2,664 3,834 41.6 43.9 Parents 4,467 4,982 5,021 11.5 0.8 4,708 2,632 1,094 -44.1 -58.4 Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – – 16 – – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 199 – – – 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 704 642 – -8.8 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 1,312 206 – -84.3 4th - Special immigrants – 409 180 – -56.0 – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 612 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 4,096 – – – – 255 73 – -71.4 – – 83 – 273 310 84 13.6 5th - Employment creation Diversity – Refugees/Asylees Other – -72.9 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning highest propensity for settling in the city. Two-thirds tial declines in the number of family preference of all LPRs from Guyana nationally settled in the visas, the loss for Guyana was somewhat muted. city, down only slightly from 70 percent in the 1980s. There was just a 5 percent decline in the number Virtually all Guyanese were admitted by way of a family connection in the last decade: 60 percent with family preference visas and 37 percent as immediate relatives (Figure 6-14). While most of the top groups in New York experienced substan- of Guyanese family preference visas from 1990s to 2000s, compared with 19 percent for the city. Consequently, immigrants from Guyana have the highest reliance on family preference visas among the major source countries. Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-15 Figure 6-15 Immigrants Admitted from Haiti by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 48,518 30,329 27,461 100% Other 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% HAITI The high water mark for Haitian immigration to the city was in the 1980s when flows peaked at 48,500, and Haiti was the 5th largest source of immigrants. Flows from Haiti declined by over one-third in the 1990s and fell a further 10 percent in the 2000s to 27,500, dropping Haiti to 8th place (Table 6-19). During this period, Haitians admitted to the nation increased, though they have increasingly settled outside the city (especially in Florida). Just 13 percent of Haitian LPRs settled in New York in the 2000s, compared with 36 percent in the 1980s. Employment Preferences Figure 6-15 illustrates the decline in the use of the family preferences among Haitians, with most of Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning this associated with a drop in second preference visas. The number of family preference visas dropped Figure 6-16 Immigrants Admitted from The Dominican Republic by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 151,712 161,704 153,440 100% Other However, there has been a notable shift in the composition of family preferences. Whereas 44 per- 80% Refugees/ Asylees cent of LPRs from Guyana used a second preference visa in the 1980s, that declined to just 8 percent in the 2000s. Fourth preference visas followed the same 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences trend, though the decrease was not as stark. At the same time there were substantial increases between the 1990s and 2000s in both the first (unmarried adult children of American citizens) and third family preference (married children of American citizens) Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences categories. In the last decade, the share of the first preference was 19 percent and that of the third preference was 24 percent; for immigrants overall, the shares were 5 percent and 4 percent, respectively. Guyanese immigrants admitted with a third preference visa now exceed those entering under the second preference, a historic first. 6-16 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 6-19 Immigrants Admitted from Haiti by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 48,518 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 27,461 -37.5 -9.5 34,224 Family Preferences 30,329 16,171 10,988 -52.7 -32.1 664 2,703 2,803 307.1 3.7 27,611 10,552 5,754 -61.8 -45.5 440 530 962 20.5 81.5 5,509 2,386 1,469 -56.7 -38.4 10,260 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 12,272 13,016 19.6 6.1 Spouses 6,504 4,795 5,932 -26.3 23.7 Children 1,558 3,293 3,630 111.4 10.2 Parents 2,198 4,184 3,454 90.4 -17.4 1,153 564 158 -51.1 -72.0 – – Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – – – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 14 – – – 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 104 – – – 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 167 13 – -92.2 4th - Special immigrants – 279 98 – -64.9 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 63 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 1,090 – – – – 142 – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – 2,256 658 1,222 -70.8 85.7 625 522 2,076 -16.5 297.7 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning by 32 percent, compared with the citywide decline (this includes a special category known as Cuban/ of 19 percent. While LPRs from many of the largest Haitian entrants), which numbered 2,000 and 1,200, sending countries were able to offset their loss in in the 2000s, up from 500 and 700, respectively, in family preference visas by increases in immediate the prior time period. If it had not been for these two relatives, this was not true for Haitians. The number pathways, the number of LPRs from Haiti would of immediate relatives increased by just 6 percent for have decreased even more. Haitians, compared with 40 percent for the city, the smallest increase among the top 20 source countries. The only categories to show a substantial increase were refugees/asylees and “Other” entrants DOMINICAN REPUBLIC Dominican flows reached 151,700 in the 1980s, increased by 7 percent in the 1990s, before declining to 153,400, a level slightly higher than in the 1980s2 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-17 Table 6-20 Immigrants Admitted from the Dominican Republic by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL Percent Change 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 151,712 Family Preferences 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 161,704 153,440 6.6 -5.1 113,151 95,303 83,964 -15.8 -11.9 2,992 6,271 8,024 109.6 28.0 92,885 74,463 66,456 -19.8 -10.8 3,085 3,199 2,185 3.7 -31.7 14,189 11,370 7,299 -19.9 -35.8 36,220 63,935 68,628 76.5 7.3 Spouses 20,750 33,299 32,046 60.5 -3.8 Children 9,079 20,721 22,245 128.2 7.4 Parents 6,391 9,915 14,337 55.1 44.6 484 942 595 94.6 -36.8 1st - Priority workers – 44 14 – -68.2 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 29 19 – -34.5 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 219 218 – -0.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 117 22 – -81.2 4th - Special immigrants – 533 282 – -47.1 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 68 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 416 – – – – Employment Preferences Diversity – 22 14 – Refugees/Asylees – – 20 – 1,497 213 Other 1,849 -19.0 -36.4 – -85.8 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning (Table 6-20). Historically the Dominican Republic has had a heavy reliance on family preferences, in particular the second preference. Dominicans have the greatest propensity to enter using these visas, but this has waned significantly. In the 1980s, three-quarters of all Dominicans were admitted with a family preference visa, but by the last decade that share had dropped to 55 percent (Figure 6-16). 6-18 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Most of the decline in family preferences was due to a 20 percent drop in second preference visas between the 1980s and 1990s, followed by another 11 percent decline in the past decade. It is important to note that the decline in Dominican second preference visas has not been as significant compared with other top source countries – the city overall saw a 39 percent decline in these visas in the past decade (Table 6-3). Table 6-21 Immigrants Admitted from Colombia by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL Percent Change 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 26,834 22,097 22,312 -17.7 1.0 14,320 7,317 4,536 -48.9 -38.0 267 1,036 1,406 288.0 35.7 10,703 4,279 1,564 -60.0 -63.4 659 579 547 -12.1 -5.5 2,691 1,423 1,019 -47.1 -28.4 10,554 12,349 15,669 17.0 26.9 Spouses 6,994 7,157 9,765 2.3 36.4 Children 2,043 3,266 3,535 59.9 8.2 Parents 1,517 1,926 2,369 27.0 23.0 1,479 1,420 1,190 -4.0 -16.2 Family Preferences 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 52 117 – 125.0 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 32 147 – 359.4 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 671 672 – 0.1 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 509 129 – -74.7 4th - Special immigrants – 156 109 – -30.1 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 71 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 1,408 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – 65 – – – – – 759 – – 472 939 154 98.9 -83.6 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The decline over the last 30 years in the num- quires sponsoring families to have U.S. citizenship. ber of family preference visas has been offset by an The only family preference category that increased increase in the number of immediate relatives. Both was the first preference—unmarried adult sons and the number and the share of immediate relatives daughters of U.S. citizens—which also requires the almost doubled since the 1980s. In the last decade, sponsor to be a U.S. citizen. It is quite likely that the 45 percent of all Dominicans were admitted as im- shift away from family preference to immediate mediate relatives. Dominicans have increased their relatives for the Dominican Republic along with a use of the immediate relatives category—which re- number of other countries is indicative of an increase Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-19 The majority (53 percent) of Colombian immi- Figure 6-17 Immigrants Admitted from Colombia by Class of Admission grants in the 1980s were admitted with family pref- New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 erence visas, primarily in the second preference. By the last decade, that share of family preferences had 26,834 22,097 fallen to 20 percent, with most of the drop explained 22,312 by the decline in second preference visas, which fell 100% Other from 10,700 in the 1980s to 1,600 in the 2000s. Figure 6-17 shows the extraordinary use immigrants from 80% Refugees/ Asylees Colombia made of the immediate relative category, with 70 percent of all LPRs admitted as immediate 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences relatives in the 2000s, far greater than any other top source country. Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences COUNTRIES WITH A DECLINING FLOW DUE TO A DROP IN REFUGEE ADMISSIONS: Ukraine and Russia The losses over the last 20 years for Ukraine and Russia 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 were primarily the result of huge drops in refugee admissions. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and UKRAINE Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Among the republics of the former Soviet Union, Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Ukraine is the largest source of immigrants to the city. In the 1990s, Ukraine’s 51,600 LPRs made it the 4th largest source of newly admitted immigrants to in the number of naturalizations, which will be discussed in Chapter 7. COLOMBIA The flow of immigrants from Colombia has waned over the last 30 years. In the 1980s, Colombia was the 7th largest sending country with 26,800 LPRs, but by the 1990s, the flow declined by 18 percent to 22,100, where it remained in the last decade (Table 6-21). As a result, Colombia has dropped to 10th place on the list of the largest source countries of LPRs to New York. 6-20 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition the city. Refugees comprised 82 percent of the flow, while another 11 percent entered with a diversity visa (Table 6-22). The 2000s saw a waning of the earlier pivotal role played by refugees, with a precipitous 90 percent drop in these flows. The large increase in the number of immediate relatives and the modest increase in diversity visas were not enough to counter the large loss of refugee admissions. As a consequence, LPRs admitted from Ukraine fell by 63 percent to 19,200, and Ukraine dropped to the 12th spot on the top 20 list of newly admitted immigrants in the 2000s. Table 6-22 Immigrants Admitted from Ukraine by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001 and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1992–2001 2002–2011 90s to 00s TOTAL 51,637 19,233 -62.8 Family Preferences 239 92 73 64 10 1,980 1,117 386 477 514 201 53 198 10 51 – 5,666 42,313 924 744 288 199 162 44 5,995 3,576 749 1,667 806 129 134 425 37 29 – 6,593 4,243 825 211.9 214.2 172.6 151.2 345.2 202.8 220.2 94.0 249.1 56.7 -35.9 150.5 115.1 266.5 -42.7 – 16.4 -90.0 -10.7 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Spouses Children Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees 3rd - Skilled and professional workers 3rd - Needed unskilled workers 4th - Special immigrants 5th - Employment creation Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – Cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 6-18 Immigrants Admitted from Ukraine by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 100% 51,637 19,217 one-fifth of the flow, while diversity entrants and immediate relatives each comprised approximately Other one-third. 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity Employment Preferences 40% RUSSIA The number of newly admitted Russian LPRs dropped by more than one-half, from 30,100 in the 1990s to 14,400 in the 2000s. As a result, Russia’s ranking fell from 8th in the 1990s to 16th in the 2000s. Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences 0% Figure 6-18 shows that refugees account for just over 1992–2001 2002–2011 As with Ukraine, it was the large drop in refugees, which fell from 20,400 in the 1990s to 4,800 in the 2000s, that was responsible for the overall decline in the number of Russian LPRs (Table 6-23). And as with their Ukrainian counterparts, the number Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-21 Table 6-23 Immigrants Admitted from Russia by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001 and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 30,058 14,364 -52.2 Family Preferences 225 108 58 51 – 3,395 2,088 956 350 1,302 757 158 239 11 137 – 3,928 20,395 813 481 192 139 79 23 5,337 2,825 1,073 1,355 1,452 525 367 414 16 98 16 1,645 4,794 635 114.0 78.1 139.1 56.6 – 57.2 35.3 12.2 287.1 11.5 -30.6 132.2 73.7 40.9 -28.6 – -58.1 -76.5 -21.9 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Spouses Children Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees 3rd - Skilled and professional workers 3rd - Needed unskilled workers 4th - Special immigrants 5th - Employment creation Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other 90s to 00s –Cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning of Russians entering with immediate relative visas increased substantially, with these visas accounting for 37 percent of the total flow in the last decade Figure 6-19 Immigrants Admitted from Russia by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 100% 30,058 14,364 (Figure 6-19). Other 80% COUNTRIES WITH UNIQUE PATTERNS: The Difficult to Categorize Countries of Poland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, and Pakistan Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences Immediate Relatives These countries have undergone some significant changes over the last three decades, but with unique features that 20% make each of them stand out. Family Preferences 0% 1992–2001 6-22 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition 2002–2011 Table 6–24 Immigrants Admitted from Poland by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, 2002–2011 Number 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL Percent Change 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 12,712 28,464 17,571 123.9 -38.3 3,650 7,979 3,918 118.6 -50.9 217 844 546 288.9 -35.3 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 1,344 2,320 812 72.6 -65.0 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 1,709 4,446 2,119 160.2 -52.3 380 369 441 -2.9 19.5 2,334 3,626 6,665 55.4 83.8 Spouses 1,507 2,219 4,713 47.2 112.4 Children 334 827 729 147.6 -11.9 Parents 493 580 1,223 17.6 110.9 577 3,711 4,536 543.2 22.2 Family Preferences 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 195 93 – -52.3 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 81 168 – 107.4 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 2,892 4,006 – 38.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 183 182 – -0.5 4th - Special immigrants – 358 57 – -84.1 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 180 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 397 – – – – Diversity 2,065 12,123 2,293 487.1 -81.1 Refugees/Asylees 4,032 511 37 -87.3 -92.8 54 514 113 851.9 -78.0 Other –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning POLAND more than double the 12,700 flow in the 1980s (Table Polish immigration grew rapidly in the 1990s due 6-24). Poland was the largest user of diversity visas to the diversity visa program, which was initially in the 1990s, with these visas accounting for 43 per- tailored specifically for Poland and Ireland. There cent of the total LPR flow. By the first decade of this were 28,500 Polish LPRs admitted in that decade, century, however, diversity entrants dropped by 80 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-23 Figure 6-20 Immigrants Admitted from Poland by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 of the highest propensities in the city, behind the Philippines, Mexico, and Korea. At the same time, a big shift in visas for family reunification has occurred (Figure 6-20). LPRs from 12,712 28,464 Poland who were admitted with a family preference 17,571 100% Other 80% Refugees/ Asylees declined by more than one-half between 1990s and 2000s, while immediate relatives increased by 84 percent. As a result, for the first time, the share of immediate relative entrants (38 percent) exceeded those entering under the family preferences (22 percent). 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences Immediate Relatives 20% Family Preferences Figure 6-21 Immigrants Admitted from Trinidad and Tobago by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 0% 19,342 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 28,393 26,006 100% Other Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning percent, and increases in other classes of admission 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences were not large enough to offset this decline. The overall flow of Polish LPRs fell to17,600, a 38 percent Immediate Relatives 20% decline from the previous decade. Of particular interest has been the increasing Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 use of employment visas. In the 1990s 3,700 workers were admitted, up from under 1,000 in the 1980s. By the last decade that number had increased to 4,500, a 22 percent jump, compared with the overall 10 percent decline in employment visas for the city. This increase led to over-quarter of all Polish LPRs being admitted with an employment visa—one 6-24 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 6-25 Immigrants Admitted from Trinidad and Tobago by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 19,342 28,393 26,006 46.8 -8.4 Family Preferences 12,533 9,676 6,323 -22.8 -34.7 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 642 2,433 2,502 279.0 2.8 8,056 3,508 896 -56.5 -74.5 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 1,872 2,080 1,061 11.1 -49.0 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 1,963 1,655 1,864 -15.7 12.6 4,384 13,203 17,408 201.2 31.8 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs Immediate Relatives Spouses 2,914 7,666 11,381 163.1 48.5 Children 742 4,190 3,867 464.7 -7.7 728 1,347 2,160 85.0 60.4 1,546 4,913 1,969 217.8 -59.9 28 24 – -14.3 Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 405 25 – -93.8 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 1,106 1,145 – 3.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 2,234 497 – -77.8 4th - Special immigrants – 1,140 258 – -77.4 5th - Employment creation – – – – 0.0 Pre-1992 3rd preference 136 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 1,410 – – – – 284 363 144 27.8 – – 15 – 595 235 124 Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other -60.5 -60.3 – -47.2 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning LPRs from Trinidad and Tobago have tradition- TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO While immigration from several West Indian coun- ally had a greater reliance on employment visas than tries hit their high in the 1980s, flows from Trinidad other West Indian sources. This was particularly and Tobago peaked in the 1990s, before dropping 8 true in the 1990s when 17 percent of the total flow percent in the current decade, to 26,000 LPRs (Table entered with an employment visa, well above the city th 6-25). Trinidad and Tobago was the 9 largest source average of 11 percent. However, these visas declined of newly admitted LPRs in the 2000s. significantly, from 4,900 in the 1990s to 2,000 in the last decade. Unskilled workers made up the largest Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-25 Table 6-26 Immigrants Admitted from Uzbekistan by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001 and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1992–2001 17,463 TOTAL Family Preferences 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Spouses Children Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees 3rd - Skilled and professional workers 3rd - Needed unskilled workers 4th - Special immigrants 5th - Employment creation Diversity Refugee/Asylees Other 2002–2011 90s to 00s 16,476 -5.6 76 17 38 15 – 390 233 49 108 190 29 – 127 14 13 – 885 15,629 294 334 99 64 126 14 2,802 1,751 436 618 210 27 19 115 – 10 – 9,722 2,951 433 341.6 475.0 68.6 753.7 – 618.9 651.5 792.5 472.5 10.6 -6.8 – -9.9 -100.0 -21.0 – 999.0 -81.1 47.2 –Cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual YearImmigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning number of employment visas in the 1990s and it was this category that was responsible for the majority Figure 6-22 Immigrants Admitted from Uzbekistan by Class of Admission New York City, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 of the loss in the total number of employment visas in the last decade. 17,463 16,476 100% Other The drop in LPRs with employment and family preference visas was largely offset by increases in 80% Refugees/ Asylees immediate relatives (Figure 6-21). Two-thirds of LPRs from Trinidad were admitted as immediate 60% Diversity relatives, second only to Colombia. UZBEKISTAN Employment Preferences 40% While the number of immigrants admitted from the former Soviet republics such as Russia and Ukraine Immediate Relatives 20% dropped dramatically between the 1990s and 2000s, the flow from Uzbekistan saw a decline of about 6 percent, to 16,500 LPRs (Table 6-26). As a result 6-26 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Family Preferences 0% 1992–2001 2002–2011 Uzbekistan pushed past Russia into the 15th spot 31 percent used a family preference visa (Figure on the list of top sources of newly admitted LPRs. 6-23). Spouses accounted for the largest growth in Although there was little change in the number of the immediate relative category, increasing from immigrants in the 2000s, their composition by class 3,900 in the 1990s to 6,200 in the last decade (up 59 of admission has changed considerably (Figure 6-22). percent). However, it is with respect to reunification Like Russia and Ukraine, Uzbekistan experienced a large drop in the number of refugees, from 15,600 in the 1990s to just 3,000 one decade later. Refugees went from 90 percent of the total flow in the 1990s to just 17 percent in the 2000s. The substantial growth in the number of diversity visas, however, sets this country apart. Uzbek LPRs entering on these visas increased from under 1,000 in the 1990s to 9,700 in the 2000s, comprising 57 percent of the total flow. Uzbekistan was the second largest user with children where LPRs from Pakistan stand out: 17 percent enter as a child of an immediate relative, compared with just 9 percent for the city. The number of family preference visas in the 2000s declined by 21 percent—on par with the city. However, the number of fourth preference visas (brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens) increased by 51 percent. Furthermore, fourth preference visas accounted for 13 percent of all Pakistani LPRs, almost double that for the city overall. of diversity visas, behind Bangladesh. The number of immediate relatives substantially increased from 400 in the 1990s to 2,800 in the 2000s, almost two-thirds of whom were spouses. However, Figure 6-23 Immigrants Admitted from Pakistan by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 the share of those being admitted as immediate relatives (17 percent) was still well below the city average of 43 percent. Like their neighbors, Ukraine and 9,803 23,632 22,468 100% Other Russia, LPRs from Uzbekistan made minimal use of the family preferences. Of the 17,000 LPRs, only 300 were admitted in this category in the last decade. Lastly, immigrants from Uzbekistan had the third highest proclivity to settle in New York. Forty- 80% Refugees/ Asylees 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences four percent of all Uzbek LPRs newly admitted to the U.S. in the 2000s called New York home, behind Guyana (63 percent) and Bangladesh (45 percent). Immediate Relatives 20% PAKISTAN Family Preferences After rapidly growing between the 1980s and 1990s, the number of LPRs from Pakistan decreased by 5 percent in the 2000s, to 22,500 (Table 6-27). Pakistan 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 ranked 10th on the list of top sources of newly admitted LPRs to New York in the 2000s. In the last decade, 53 percent of immigrants from Pakistan entered as immediate relatives and Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-27 Table 6-27 Immigrants Admitted from Pakistan by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 9,803 23,632 22,468 141.1 -4.9 Family Preferences 5,460 8,931 7,035 63.6 -21.2 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 39 658 448 1,587.2 -31.9 2,815 5,777 2,368 105.2 -59.0 217 503 1,207 131.8 140.0 2,389 1,993 3,012 -16.6 51.1 2,484 9,110 11,937 266.7 31.0 Spouses 1,569 3,928 6,244 150.4 59.0 Children 245 3,633 3,702 1,382.9 1.9 670 1,549 1,991 131.2 28.5 806 1,639 1,710 103.3 4.3 445 188 – -57.8 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 164 295 – 79.9 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 676 971 – 43.6 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 39 26 – -33.3 4th - Special immigrants – 315 209 – -33.7 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 311 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 495 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other 678 3,117 241 359.7 -92.3 101 280 1,388 177.2 395.7 274 555 135 102.6 -75.7 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning The number of diversity visa immigrants spiked in the 1990s, when 3,100 or 13 percent of immigrants were admitted in this category. However, that stream dried up in the following decade. Countering that decline was an increase in the number of refugees/ asylees admitted, from 300 in the 1990s to 1,400 in the last decade.3 Refugees/asylees accounted for 6 percent of the total immigrant flow in 2000s. 6-28 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition NEWLY EMERGING COUNTRIES ON NEW YORK CITY’S IMMIGRANT SCENE: Ghana and Nigeria While we can never be certain about patterns of immigration going forward, there are countries currently with small flows that have had consistent gains over the past three decades. A continuation of these gains could turn these countries into major sources of immigration to New York. We call these “emerging countries.” Figure 6-24 Immigrants Admitted from Ghana by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 2,382 10,813 of LPRs admitted with a family preference visa, compared with 27 percent citywide; under 2 percent were admitted with employment visas. One-in-five immigrants admitted to the U.S. from 13,419 100% Other Ghana in the last decade settled in the city. Given the surge in immediate relatives from this country and their propensity to come to New York, Ghanaians 80% Refugees/ Asylees truly meet the definition of “emerging group.” 60% Diversity NIGERIA 40% Employment Preferences As with immigrants from Ghana, the small flow of Nigerians in the 1980s quadrupled in the 1990s, in large part because of the diversity visa program; Immediate Relatives 20% also played an important role. Nigeria’s diversity Family Preferences 0% however, the increase in immediate relative entrants 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning visas comprised 39 percent (3,600) of all LPRs in the Figure 6-25 Immigrants Admitted from Nigeria by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 2,087 9,214 11,011 100% Other GHANA The Ghanaian flow in the 1980s was small, at just 2,400 LPRs, but increased four-fold in the 1990s to 80% Refugees/ Asylees 10,800, primarily due to the diversity visa program (Table 6-28). Fifty percent (5,400) of all LPRs from 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences Ghana were admitted with a diversity visa in that decade. Since then, immigration from Ghana has increased by another 24 percent to 13,400 LPRs in the 2000s. While diversity visas were still an important component, at 23 percent of the total flow, 63 percent Immediate Relatives 20% of Ghanaians were admitted as immediate relatives (Figure 6-24), over twice the share of the previous decade. This included 22 percent who were admitted as the child of an immediate relative, significantly above the city average of 9 percent. Family and employment preferences played a very small role for Ghanaians, with just 11 percent Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-29 Table 6-28 Immigrants Admitted from Ghana by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL Percent Change 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 2,382 Family Preferences 10,813 13,419 353.9 24.1 998 1,643 1,458 64.6 -11.3 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 138 742 611 437.7 -17.7 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 783 744 540 -5.0 -27.4 21 86 147 309.5 70.9 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 56 71 160 26.8 125.4 1,074 3,295 8,393 206.8 154.7 Spouses 775 1,756 4,913 126.6 179.8 Children 250 1,310 2,907 424.0 121.9 Parents 49 229 573 367.3 150.2 -14.2 Employment Preferences 188 247 212 31.4 1st - Priority workers – – – – – 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 32 13 – -59.4 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 72 67 – -6.9 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 20 – – – 4th - Special immigrants – 115 74 – 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 68 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 120 Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other – – -35.7 – – 15 5,377 3,042 35,746.7 -43.4 38 124 247 226.3 99.2 69 127 65 84.1 -48.8 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 1990s, approximately the same share as immediate relatives, while employment visas accounted for 13 percent (Table 6-29). In the 2000s, the number of diversity visas declined by 21 percent, but still accounted for one-quarter of LPRs. Employment visas also declined during this period and accounted for just 6 percent of all entrants. In contrast, the number of immediate rela- 6-30 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition tives increased 72 percent, to 6,000 in the 2000s. Due to this large increase, immediate relatives accounted for over half of all Nigerian immigrants (Figure 6-25). Thanks to flows that reached a new high in the 2000s, Nigeria joined the list of top 20 countries for the first time, and at number 20, they rank two spots behind Ghana. Nigerian LPRs are half as likely as Ghanaians to settle in New York, with only 10 Table 6-29 Immigrants Admitted from Nigeria by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 2,087 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 11,011 341.5 19.5 393 Family Preferences 9,214 719 1,051 83.0 46.2 – 181 323 – 78.5 332 472 339 42.2 -28.2 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 16 30 77 87.5 156.7 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 38 36 297 -5.3 725.0 1,256 3,512 6,024 179.6 71.5 Spouses 1,146 2,210 3,036 92.8 37.4 Children 71 765 1,644 977.5 114.9 39 537 1,344 1,276.9 150.3 300 1,179 676 293.0 -42.7 55 63 Immediate Relatives Parents Employment Preferences 1st - Priority workers – – 14.5 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 164 59 – -64.0 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 730 310 – -57.5 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 23 – – – 4th - Special immigrants – 207 210 – 1.4 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 257 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 43 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other 16 3,611 2,865 – 105 316 118 88 79 22,468.8 – -25.4 -20.7 201.0 -10.2 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning percent of immigrants from Nigeria settling in the city in the last decade, compared with 20 percent of Ghanaians. These regional flows deserve to be examined for a more complete picture of the city’s immigrant population. ARAB COUNTRIES Other Areas of Interest Immigrants from countries belonging to the Arab The flows from some countries are too small to be included League4 have increasingly settled in the city over separately in the analysis, but they sometimes cluster the past few decades. The countries with the largest together in the city with other groups from their region. number of LPRs in the last decade are Egypt (10,100), Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-31 Figure 6-26 Immigrants Admitted from Arab Countries by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 17,363 28,053 asylees in the last decade, while immediate relatives account for one-half of the total flow (Figure 6-26). A disproportionate share of immediate relatives consists of children, accounting for 17 percent of the total flow, almost double that for the city overall. 34,309 The large share of immediate relatives who were 100% Other children was particularly true for Yemen, where they comprised nearly one-half of the total LPR flow 80% Refugees/ Asylees Diversity 60% (data not shown). WEST AFRICAN COUNTRIES Immigrants from West Africa5 have increased rap- Employment Preferences 40% Immediate Relatives 20% idly over the last three decades, from 6,700 in the 1980s to 45,800 in the 2000s (Table 6-31). The two largest source countries, Ghana and Nigeria, which we have labeled “emerging” source countries, Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Figure 6-27 Immigrants Admitted from West African Countries by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 6,653 27,002 45,751 100% Other Yemen (8,500), and Morocco (5,200). Egypt just miss- 80% Refugees/ Asylees es the top source list of countries, being ranked at 21, and Yemen is not far behind at 26. There are 34,300 60% Diversity 40% Employment Preferences immigrants from all Arab sources, which would rank them at number 7 on the top source countries list, nearly on par with Ecuador. About 9 percent of all Arab immigrants settled in New York, about the same as the average for all immigrants in the city. Immediate Relatives 20% Immigration from Arab countries was boosted tremendously thanks to the diversity visa program. The influence of the diversity visa pool can be seen in the sizable number of LPRs who entered via this pathway in the 2000s—7,700, accounting for 23 percent of the total (Table 6-30). In addition, 10 percent of LPRs from Arab countries entered as refugees/ 6-32 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Family Preferences 0% 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape Files, 2002–2011 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, and Special Tabulations for New York City, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning Table 6–30 Immigrants Admitted from Arab Countries by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 TOTAL Percent Change 80s to 90s 90s to 00s 17,825 34,309 66.7 15.5 6,177 Family Preferences 29,710 5,261 4,145 -14.8 -21.2 2nd – Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd – Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th – Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 475 956 307 101.3 -67.9 2,824 2,232 1,820 -21.0 -18.5 801 922 631 15.1 -31.6 2,077 1,151 1,085 -44.6 -5.7 8,966 1st – Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 13,101 16,605 46.1 26.7 Spouses 5,679 7,412 8,972 30.5 21.0 Children 2,029 4,048 5,725 99.5 41.4 Parents 1,258 1,641 1,651 30.4 0.6 1,420 1,881 1,871 32.5 -0.5 Employment Preferences 1st – Priority workers – 223 183 – -17.9 2nd – Professionals with advanced degrees – 282 214 – -24.1 3rd – Skilled and professional workers – 946 748 – -20.9 3rd – Needed unskilled workers – 96 11 – -88.5 4th – Special immigrants – 326 254 – -22.1 – – – – Pre–1992 3rd preference 567 – – – Pre–1992 6th preference 853 – – – 5th – Employment creation – Diversity 478 6,934 7,741 1,350.6 Refugees/Asylees 479 2,319 3,504 384.1 51.1 Other 305 214 144 -29.8 -32.7 11.6 –1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982–1991 period; pre–1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division–New York City Department of City Planning make up about one-half of the flow from this part was primarily driven by refugees/asylees from of Africa. The reason why this entire region has Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Two-thirds or been highlighted is because of the increasing flow more of all immigrants from each of these countries of refugees/asylees that are not reflected in flows entered as refugees/asylees. In addition, the number from Ghana and Nigeria. of immediate relatives admitted doubled from 9,700 A large influx of refugees/asylees entered during the last decade, increasing from 1,100 in the 1990s to 10,300 in 2000s (Figure 6-27). This increase in the 1990s to 20,500 in the 2000s. Immediate relatives now account for 45 percent of all West African immigrants. Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-33 Table 6-31 Immigrants Admitted from West Africa by Class of Admission New York City, 1982–1991, 1992–2001, and 2002–2011 Number Percent Change 1982–1991 1992–2001 2002–2011 80s to 90s 90s to 00s TOTAL 6,653 27,002 45,751 305.9 69.4 Family Preferences 1,953 3,027 3,261 55.0 7.7 1st - Unmarried adult sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their children 2nd - Spouses and unmarried sons/daughters of LPRs 3rd - Married sons/daughters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children 4th - Brothers/sisters of U.S. citizen & their spouses and children Immediate Relatives 183 1,176 1,080 542.6 -8.2 1,540 1,567 1,176 1.8 -25.0 83 141 241 69.9 70.9 147 143 481 -2.7 236.4 3,623 9,715 20,513 168.1 111.1 Spouses 3,022 5,954 11,694 97.0 96.4 Children 462 2,819 6,188 510.2 119.5 Parents 139 942 2,225 577.7 136.2 631 171.5 -21.7 Employment Preferences 1,713 1,341 1st - Priority workers – 78 83 – 6.4 2nd - Professionals with advanced degrees – 234 72 – -69.2 3rd - Skilled and professional workers – 907 489 – -46.1 3rd - Needed unskilled workers – 68 – – – 4th - Special immigrants – 426 415 – -2.6 5th - Employment creation – – – – – Pre-1992 3rd preference 358 – – – – Pre-1992 6th preference 273 – – – – Diversity Refugees/Asylees Other 95 11,130 8,659 11,615.8 -22.2 53 1,105 10,308 1,984.9 832.9 298 312 1,505 4.7 382.4 - 1st through 5th employment preferences not applicable for 1982-1991 period; pre-1992 3rd and 6th preferences not applicable for subsequent periods. In all other instances, indicates cell has fewer than 10 immigrants. Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File and Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning In the 1990s, 41 percent of West African immigrants were admitted with a diversity visa, which was a big reason for their growth in that decade. But in 2000s, diversity visas declined from 11,100 to 8,700, accounting for about one-in-five immigrants from West Africa. Nonetheless, increases in immediate relatives and refugees have propelled West African immigration to a new high. SUMMARY Immigrants to New York City have seen their overreliance on family preference visas continue to wane and have dramatically increased their use of immediate relative visas. As a consequence, the distribution of immigrants by broad classes of admission for New York City has nearly converged with the nation. Despite this, the national picture differed from the local one in some important ways. Given 6-34 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition the increased emphasis on skills as a basis for entry Nigeria are prominent in this category, having at- after the passage of the 1990 Immigration Act, the tained a beachhead based on the diversity visa pool. nation attracted more highly-skilled immigrants via the employment visa categories in the last decade; ENDNOTES however, the number of skilled workers in these 1 There were 4,800 registered nurses admitted to New York from the Philippines in the 1990s as a result of the Nursing Relief Act of 1989, but this program was phased out. categories coming to New York City actually fell during that time. The pool of diversity visas did serve to attract new sources of immigration in both the nation and the city; however, the impact was more pronounced nationally. Perhaps the most startling change was in the refugee/asylee category, after an important change in the law lifted the ceiling on the annual allotment for asylees. Once they were able to adjust status, the way was clear for alleviating what had become a large backlog, allowing for large increases in the number of asylees admitted over the last decade. Locally, this greatly affected immigrants from China, over 40 percent of whom claimed asylum, thus allowing them to take the position as the top source of newly admitted immigrants to New York City for the first time. Lastly, an analysis of the pathways revealed commonalities among top source countries that provide a better understanding of how immigration is affected by the classes of admission. Among the 2 Due to administrative issues, however, caution is advised in interpreting these trends. By the late 1980s, the waiting period for family preference visas had grown exceedingly long, particularly for the Dominican Republic. The 1990 Act sought to redress this issue by giving priority to countries with the longest waiting period. As a result the sharp increase in the number of Dominicans in the early 1990s and the concomitant drop-off is most likely the result of the huge push to process this backlog. Nonetheless, it is safe to say that the growth of this well established immigrant group has stabilized over the last decade. 3 Of the 1,388 refugee/asylees admitted from Pakistan, 1,360 were asylees. 4 Countries that belong to the Arab league and for which data are available include Algeria, Bahrain, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. 5 The following countries are defined as West African: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal, Sierra Leone, and Togo. top sources of newly admitted LPRs, there is a group where immigrant flows have increased ─ China (due to an increase in asylees), Bangladesh (family preferences), Ecuador (spouses), and Mexico (employment preferences). Conversely, there are a number of countries where flows to the city are waning. For Jamaica, Guyana, Haiti, Dominican Republic, and Colombia, these declines are due to a drop in second preference visas – those reunifying with LPRs, while for Ukraine and Russia, declines were brought about by a fall in refugee admissions. There are a number of countries that rely heavily on employment visas— India, Korea, and the Philippines. Finally, there is a group of emerging source countries, whose flows are likely to increase in the coming decades—Ghana and Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-35 Table 6-32 Legal Permanent Residents Admitted by Class of Admission and Country of Birth New York City, 2002–2011 Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* 1,031,668 EUROPE 120,032 Albania 10,045 Austria 495 Belgium 606 Bulgaria 2,277 Czechoslovakia, Former 1,297 Czech Republic 171 Slovakia 730 Czechoslovakia nec 396 Denmark 363 Estonia 294 Finland 205 France 4,479 Germany 4,506 Greece 1,422 Hungary 1,240 Iceland 78 Ireland 1,896 Italy 3,276 Latvia 773 Lithuania 828 Luxembourg 21 Malta 118 Netherlands 806 Norway 201 Poland 17,571 Portugal 232 Romania 3,857 Spain 1,314 Sweden 844 Switzerland 700 United Kingdom 8,692 USSR, Former ** 69,173 Belarus 4,422 Moldova 1,450 Russia 14,364 Ukraine 19,233 Yugoslavia, Former 12,127 Bosnia-Herzegovina 769 Croatia 603 Kosovo 291 Macedonia 1,330 Montenegro 152 Serbia 16 Serbia and Montenegro 8,896 Slovenia 70 6-36 Total 279,759 7,706 329 17 13 64 44 – 40 – – – – 67 81 92 50 – 13 181 31 22 – – 25 – 3,918 12 232 60 – – 452 2,052 136 88 481 744 543 – – 24 124 39 – 343 – The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition First Second 48,463 120,535 1,515 1,640 51 93 – – – – 17 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 11 13 – 18 11 17 – – – – – – 14 42 17 – – – – – – – – – – – 546 812 – – 73 27 – 21 – – – – 137 104 688 458 37 23 22 – 192 139 288 199 78 105 – – – – – – – 13 – 14 – – 57 71 – – Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 37,296 2,854 125 – – 14 – – – – – – – – 13 – – – – 29 – – – – – – 2,119 – 48 – – – 79 451 33 21 79 162 94 – – – 26 – – 64 – 73,465 1,116 33 – – – – – – – – – – 14 13 24 11 – – 65 – – – – – – 441 – 62 – – – 130 101 – – 23 44 210 – – – 59 – – 145 – 438,309 48,129 2,686 232 350 836 647 67 319 261 205 163 117 2,202 1,708 921 810 49 1,391 1,861 418 372 – 90 423 127 6,665 140 2,206 712 557 343 4,619 21,308 1,240 624 5,337 5,995 4,080 217 330 139 559 84 – 2,688 54 248,484 33,179 826 184 214 533 455 41 251 163 146 65 95 1,910 1,539 687 695 28 1,222 1,588 317 266 – 51 335 82 4,713 74 1,498 602 494 294 4,260 13,119 873 404 2,825 3,576 2,325 120 265 71 297 – – 1,546 17 97,195 4,446 66 – – 59 – – – – – 14 – 217 118 100 49 – – 154 42 53 – – 45 – 729 – 184 64 11 – 313 3,203 116 80 1,033 749 207 – 20 – 23 – – 152 – 92,630 9,170 1,792 – – 244 53 – 42 11 – – – 44 35 134 49 – – 119 24 49 – – – – 1,223 – 515 37 – – 46 4,909 271 124 1,355 1,667 1,378 45 35 59 208 41 – 990 – Employment Preferences Total 95,914 19,013 126 134 158 364 385 58 238 89 138 25 53 1,799 1,147 279 196 17 351 997 49 84 – – 272 59 4,536 55 527 451 210 258 3,457 3,108 139 34 1,452 806 447 19 121 – 43 – – 248 – First 19,784 7,166 15 64 96 131 13 – – – 83 – 20 1,064 719 66 51 – 207 504 – – – – 181 29 93 20 131 218 123 160 2,421 811 – – 525 129 78 – 23 – – – – 44 – Second 14,044 2,984 21 23 19 108 26 – 17 – – – – 468 257 78 15 – 59 224 – – – – 46 – 168 – 134 115 32 25 537 615 29 – 367 134 71 – 21 – – – – 50 – Third Skilled 47,365 6,963 28 13 – 80 204 – 146 51 – – – 206 102 97 78 – 38 220 11 43 – – – – 4,006 – 211 77 20 15 375 1,137 80 11 414 425 171 – 50 – 13 – – 108 – Third Unskilled 4,785 285 – – – – 21 – 21 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 182 – – – – – – 53 – – 16 37 – – – – – – – – – Fourth 7,426 448 36 – – – – – – – – – – 42 12 – – – 14 16 – – – – – – 57 – 22 – – – 86 150 – – 98 29 – – – – – – – – – Fifth 2,509 22 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 16 – – 16 – – – – – – – – – – Refugees & Asylees 131,735 21,626 3,953 – – 104 – – – – – 38 – 27 76 27 – – – – 149 41 – – – – 37 – 211 – – – – 17,358 1,408 303 4,794 4,243 6,183 491 65 88 380 22 – 5,134 – Diversity Other 72,014 20,776 2,940 77 45 891 176 28 125 23 – 39 17 347 1,459 92 149 – 130 205 101 286 – – 65 – 2,293 – 630 57 59 79 96 22,753 1,345 347 1,645 6,593 595 11 44 34 160 – – 346 – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 13,937 2,243 – – – 11 – – – – – – – 28 25 – 12 – – 12 12 – – – – – 113 – 49 13 – – 50 2,495 148 53 635 825 204 – – – 56 – – 137 – 6-37 Table 6-32 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* ASIA Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma Cambodia China, Total China, Mainland Hong Kong Taiwan Cyprus Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Macau Malaysia Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen 6-38 Total 1,031,668 391,555 1,526 1,427 2,972 53 52,658 196 – 2,922 336 169,801 159,892 5,041 4,868 270 4,842 27,991 2,169 1,853 428 8,253 5,795 1,480 2,027 14,060 427 859 17 1,503 255 2,998 106 4,249 58 22,468 17,909 54 526 596 2,458 1,380 709 1,403 4,218 392 341 16,476 2,639 8,447 279,759 88,358 133 61 40 – 17,013 – – 543 40 45,696 40,679 3,406 1,611 15 57 6,330 121 223 23 410 151 332 52 1,855 82 12 – 310 197 370 – 82 – 7,035 2,877 – 79 21 168 208 48 104 199 – 95 334 1,198 1,830 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition First Second 48,463 120,535 4,949 22,469 22 62 13 – – – – – 415 4,845 – – – – 71 98 – – 2,299 9,922 1,958 9,409 169 331 172 182 – – – 15 272 1,297 13 35 31 17 – – 125 43 – 81 – 83 – – 341 471 – – – – – – 35 81 – 11 51 112 – – – 53 – – 448 2,368 285 1,264 – – – – – – – 46 23 29 – – 39 21 22 86 – – – – 99 64 99 152 189 1,190 Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 37,296 12,575 – – – – 676 – – 56 – 7,340 6,774 360 206 – – 998 – – 11 181 – 93 15 584 12 – – 53 12 32 – – – 1,207 530 – – – 25 30 – 12 32 – – 126 160 351 73,465 47,626 27 14 – – 11,077 – – 316 23 26,135 22,538 2,546 1,051 – – 3,763 43 143 – 57 – 119 – 459 31 – – 128 120 165 – – – 3,012 798 – 39 – 63 97 – 13 48 – 54 14 777 59 438,309 128,725 579 479 638 17 18,195 – – 612 242 40,072 37,326 981 1,765 142 2,598 10,737 590 656 91 4,880 2,889 1,005 891 5,317 188 346 – 861 39 1,370 52 513 – 11,937 7,720 14 206 234 538 528 237 935 1,862 123 105 2,802 1,115 6,353 248,484 70,427 385 323 400 – 8,038 – – 237 168 19,338 17,304 702 1,332 108 1,922 6,076 463 341 44 4,049 2,740 618 605 3,780 153 222 – 534 – 955 39 301 – 6,244 4,074 11 140 104 348 335 160 738 1,521 57 77 1,751 763 2,253 97,195 23,178 93 63 48 – 2,622 – – 30 15 6,314 6,060 134 120 – 391 1,381 42 21 – 667 91 247 141 478 11 78 – 149 – 94 – 101 – 3,702 1,424 – 29 – 36 47 14 102 119 15 17 436 161 3,979 92,630 34,553 100 93 195 – 7,535 – – 317 21 14,420 13,962 145 313 – 330 3,280 71 202 20 164 56 140 140 1,059 – 45 – 178 – 321 – 86 – 1,991 2,222 – – – 141 127 47 95 222 25 – 618 178 103 Employment Preferences Total 95,914 47,619 38 66 54 15 1,809 – – 143 – 11,391 9,559 563 1,269 75 243 7,579 237 298 57 2,427 2,342 101 73 6,819 78 – – 248 – 1,104 15 855 25 1,710 7,230 – 121 267 397 118 28 288 973 – 69 210 67 29 First 19,784 8,120 – 15 – – 71 – – – – 3,283 2,948 151 184 – 94 1,606 90 115 – 736 761 17 14 450 – – – 51 – 82 – 104 – 188 113 – – 100 17 – – 15 142 – – 27 13 – Second 14,044 7,722 – – – – 165 – – 16 – 2,462 1,800 130 532 – 35 1,672 28 93 – 314 342 – 12 896 – – – 88 – 79 – 88 – 295 523 – 11 71 38 – – 69 346 – – 19 13 – Third Skilled 47,365 23,387 – 23 – – 1,194 – – 20 – 3,053 2,404 217 432 34 56 3,788 78 42 – 846 1,127 43 – 3,731 36 – – 72 – 880 – 525 15 971 5,760 – 53 47 199 40 – 155 439 – – 115 – – Third Unskilled 4,785 1,467 – – – – 34 – – – – 300 288 – – – – 67 – – – 11 – – – 284 – – – – – – – 109 – 26 597 – – – – – – – – – – – – – Fourth 7,426 3,297 37 – – – 305 – – 54 – 277 211 14 52 – – 386 14 – 33 456 34 – – 1,040 – – – – – 19 – 17 – 209 237 – – – 96 – – – – – – – – 17 Fifth 2,509 2,378 – – – – – – – – – 1,947 1,908 13 30 – – – – – – – – – – 418 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Refugees & Asylees 131,735 92,051 729 375 1,605 – 1,566 164 – 1,081 – 71,979 71,969 – – – 704 3,084 1,116 566 212 24 – 12 491 11 27 202 – 40 – 50 – 1,646 – 1,388 22 – 34 35 786 491 126 23 73 157 – 2,951 140 123 Diversity Other 72,014 31,877 – 435 400 – 13,706 – – 540 12 291 31 56 204 15 1,164 43 75 105 – 444 382 – 465 – 43 270 – 20 – 43 11 1,135 – 241 – – 76 13 552 15 264 26 1,092 104 35 9,722 – 94 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 13,937 2,352 21 – 231 – 369 – – – – 338 321 – – – 69 214 17 – 13 64 19 – 53 39 – 25 – – – 44 – 14 – 135 41 – – – 13 – – – 14 – – 433 105 – 6-39 Table 6-32 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* 1,031,668 AFRICA 70,426 Algeria 1,509 Angola 39 Benin 233 Botswana 20 Burkina Faso 599 Burundi 162 Cameroon 739 Cape Verde 39 Central African Republic 33 Chad 109 Congo, Dem. Rep. (Former Zaire) 261 Congo, Republic 368 Cote D’Ivoire 2,591 Egypt 10,111 Equatorial Guinea – Eritrea 130 Ethiopia 1,422 Gabon 102 Gambia 1,428 Ghana 13,419 Guinea 3,638 Guinea–Bissau 76 Kenya 503 Lesotho – Liberia 2,865 Libya 123 Madagascar 60 Malawi 12 Mali 1,289 Mauritania 1,149 Mauritius 66 Morocco 5,242 Mozambique 24 Namibia 11 Niger 193 Nigeria 11,011 Rwanda 115 Sao Tome and Principe – Senegal 2,355 Sierra Leone 2,563 Somalia 87 South Africa 1,157 Sudan 984 Tanzania 253 Togo 2,303 Tunisia 407 Uganda 154 Zambia 201 Zimbabwe 255 6-40 Total 279,759 4,646 26 – – – – – 11 – – – – – 117 867 – 14 86 – 70 1,458 72 – 14 – 149 – – – 39 – – 251 – – – 1,051 – – 165 74 – 35 17 32 45 – – – – The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition First Second 48,463 120,535 1,153 1,642 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 32 50 47 223 – – – – – 37 – – – – 611 540 – 20 – – – – – – 74 44 – – – – – – – 15 – – – – – 175 – – – – – – 323 339 – – – – 17 98 14 22 – – – – – – – – – 22 – – – – – – – – Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total Spouses 37,296 322 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 78 – – – – – 147 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 77 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 73,465 1,080 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 506 – – – – – 160 – – – – 12 – – – – – – 27 – – – 297 – – – – – 12 – 19 – – – – – 438,309 30,127 489 20 112 – 303 – 280 25 – – 16 73 1,063 3,872 – 45 636 47 524 8,393 522 38 243 – 405 73 11 – 540 39 13 2,157 – – 105 6,024 – – 1,549 362 11 554 296 114 509 295 68 137 120 248,484 17,889 365 – 58 – 263 – 180 – – – – 35 667 2,351 – 16 285 26 341 4,913 316 33 130 – 176 29 – – 445 12 – 1,589 – – 66 3,036 – – 824 197 – 468 187 57 340 259 34 89 57 Children 97,195 7,821 54 – 13 – 11 – 58 – – – – – 318 897 – – 263 – 109 2,907 119 – 24 – 145 – – – 26 11 – 221 – – – 1,644 – – 680 101 – – 57 – 95 – 16 13 – Parents 92,630 3,461 60 – – – – – 31 – – – – – 47 624 – – 86 – 35 573 28 – 11 – 84 – – – – – – 347 – – – 1,344 – – 40 60 – 14 35 – 14 14 – – – Employment Preferences Total 95,914 3,168 54 – – – – – 17 – – – – – 75 668 – – 70 – 44 212 61 – 109 – 21 – – – 57 – – 206 – – – 676 13 – 135 20 – 434 19 54 15 52 19 25 60 First 19,784 462 11 – – – – – – – – – – – – 55 – – – – – – – – 14 – – – – – – – – 33 – – – 63 – – 16 – – 243 – – – – – – 11 Second 14,044 289 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 55 – – – – – 13 – – 18 – – – – – – – – 29 – – – 59 – – – – – 87 – – – – – – – Third Skilled 47,365 1,075 14 – – – – – – – – – – – 20 354 – – – – – 67 – – 30 – – – – – – – – 82 – – – 310 – – 58 – – 68 – 13 – – – – – Third Unskilled Fourth Fifth Refugees & Asylees Diversity 4,785 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 7,426 656 – – – – – – – – – – – – 21 158 – – 23 – – 74 17 – – – 18 – – – – – – 18 – – – 210 – – 44 – – – – – – – – – – 2,509 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 131,735 13,175 106 – – – 148 131 215 – 19 87 189 219 795 976 – 32 295 – 385 247 2,490 14 25 – 1,917 – – – 338 1,080 – 11 – – – 316 79 – 195 1,907 47 – 335 – 472 – 13 – 50 72,014 17,038 800 – 81 – 90 16 193 – – – 31 40 264 3,664 – 16 330 20 – 3,042 236 – 98 – 340 19 – – 49 – – 2,588 – – 74 2,865 – – 193 161 – 125 307 34 1,246 48 12 12 – Other 13,937 1,619 – – – – 26 – – – – – – – 271 62 – – – – 379 65 251 – – – 25 – – – 251 – – 16 – – – 79 – – 112 31 – – – – – – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-41 Table 6-32 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL Total 1,031,668 279,759 48,463 120,535 LATIN AMERICA Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay Venezuela 268,575 3,069 964 5,411 1,040 22,312 779 1,762 153,440 34,817 5,943 3,347 5,765 12,820 1,313 2,050 792 8,848 569 3,534 108,993 160 160 211 144 4,536 167 183 83,964 9,741 1,580 760 2,328 1,175 238 624 63 2,301 33 625 13,726 38 31 59 18 1,406 44 32 8,024 1,759 307 182 713 86 57 240 12 548 – 170 CARIBBEAN, nonhispanic Anguilla Antigua-Barbuda Aruba Bahamas, The Barbados Belize British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Dominica French Guiana Grenada Guadeloupe Guyana Haiti Jamaica Martinique Montserrat Netherlands Antilles St. Kitts-Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent & Grenadines Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Turks & Caicos Islands 170,389 30 1,601 47 200 3,059 1,282 79 30 682 26 4,702 64 46,431 27,461 50,317 31 140 131 835 3,184 3,219 813 26,006 19 68,696 – 581 – 43 931 421 28 – 183 11 1,340 12 28,017 10,988 17,389 – 42 36 374 642 998 310 6,323 – 26,186 – 219 – 15 457 179 – – 85 – 634 – 8,693 2,803 9,477 – – 11 201 300 512 89 2,502 – TOTAL* 6-42 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition First Second Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 37,296 73,465 438,309 248,484 97,195 92,630 78,333 25 44 59 20 1,564 21 12 66,456 5,210 972 388 1,145 972 98 118 14 952 – 263 5,273 46 12 32 32 547 53 74 2,185 1,345 113 86 219 48 35 81 – 272 – 93 11,356 33 53 40 48 1,019 21 21 7,299 1,427 170 102 251 43 24 176 – 529 – 97 133,691 1,827 648 3,707 675 15,669 554 287 68,628 18,792 1,586 1,720 3,138 6,096 507 1,287 603 5,399 410 2,158 69,699 1,535 406 3,141 509 9,765 394 167 32,046 8,596 827 735 1,414 3,797 254 812 438 3,116 313 1,434 36,612 152 124 360 62 3,535 80 52 22,245 4,642 452 729 1,085 855 123 315 88 1,120 31 562 27,217 140 118 206 87 2,369 26 57 14,337 5,554 307 256 639 1,444 103 158 48 1,163 43 162 15,408 – 102 – – 153 64 – – 20 – 232 – 3,657 5,754 4,170 – – – 34 98 162 51 896 – 15,505 – 86 – – 111 47 – – – – 134 – 10,893 962 1,868 – – – 13 101 101 116 1,061 – 11,327 – 170 – – 197 108 – – 28 – 323 – 4,774 1,469 1,874 – – – 106 143 223 32 1,864 – 91,756 13 968 28 121 1,883 779 37 14 491 – 3,113 36 17,075 13,016 31,294 21 81 75 436 2,393 2,063 394 17,408 – 50,666 – 553 14 58 1,246 460 – – 340 – 1,932 – 8,220 5,932 17,092 13 39 31 253 1,523 1,305 256 11,381 – 23,360 – 205 – – 438 208 – – 76 – 723 – 3,834 3,630 9,116 – 13 11 94 589 456 67 3,867 – 17,381 – 210 – – 183 90 – – 63 – 458 – 5,021 3,454 5,086 – 16 – 77 281 271 11 2,160 – Employment Preferences Total First Second Third Skilled Third Unskilled Fourth Fifth Refugees & Asylees Diversity 4,785 7,426 2,509 131,735 72,014 13,937 Other 95,914 19,784 14,044 47,365 16,997 987 119 1,339 178 1,190 40 – 595 5,478 285 302 184 4,901 15 104 99 624 100 453 1,460 344 – 429 45 117 – – 14 24 – – – 275 – – – 35 17 154 1,100 325 – 189 28 147 – – 19 29 – – – 155 – – – 119 13 67 11,719 220 90 538 72 672 – – 218 4,806 178 216 92 3,976 – – 64 369 40 153 1,176 – – 57 – 129 – – 22 521 26 15 19 318 – – 11 39 – – 940 42 – 70 – 109 – – 282 67 43 36 26 131 – 53 – 41 – 36 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2,898 22 – 65 17 759 – 1,231 20 62 238 116 29 51 – – – 101 – 161 1,008 38 13 47 – – – – 14 404 – – – – – 11 – 364 – 98 4,777 14 – 30 – 154 – 41 213 339 2,254 446 66 589 525 – – 52 12 17 5,540 – 28 – 19 216 60 – – – – 213 – 1,094 158 1,431 – – – – 126 134 71 1,969 – 70 – – – – – – – – – – – – 16 – 23 – – – – – – – 24 – 75 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 35 – – – – – – – 25 – 2,756 – – – – 67 13 – – – – 42 – 642 – 742 – – – – 32 31 26 1,145 – 1,386 – 11 – – 98 – – – – – 131 – 206 13 291 – – – – 47 72 13 497 – 907 – – – – 13 – – – – – – – 180 98 317 – – – – – 14 – 258 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 1,369 – – – – – – – – – – – – 83 1,222 45 – – – – – – – 15 – 242 – – – – – – – – – – – – 73 – – – – – – – – – 144 – 2,531 – – – – 14 12 – – – – 18 – 84 2,076 143 – – – – – 15 19 124 – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-43 Table 6-32 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL Total 1,031,668 279,759 10,489 843 128 Australia 2,038 27 Bermuda 69 Canada Fiji French Polynesia New Zealand Papua New Guinea Unknown/Other Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 37,296 73,465 438,309 248,484 97,195 92,630 204 198 293 5,552 4,633 463 125 – – – – 898 849 37 – – – – – – 45 11 – – 561 80 66 179 258 3,246 2,792 264 – 18 ALL OTHERS Third 6,000 TOTAL* First Second Immediate Relatives of US Citizens – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 518 15 – – – – 159 94 – – – – – – – – – – – – 1,838 236 45 138 16 22 1,199 883 162 115 48,463 120,535 *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year - October 1 to September 30. Due to data suppression, subtotals for each area of origin by class of admission do not add up to the overall totals. **Includes a portion of flows that had no information on the specific republic. The known distribution by republic was used to reallocate these flows across each sub-class of admission. The adjusted flows for each sub-class were then totaled to obtain the flow for each broad class of admission, as well as the adjusted flow for each former republic. The subtotal for Europe only includes the European republics of the former U.S.S.R. –Indicates cell with 10 or fewer immigrants Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; Special Tabulations, Fiscal Years 2002–2011 Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 6-44 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total First Third Skilled Second Third Unskilled Fourth Fifth Refugees & Asylees Diversity 4,785 7,426 2,509 131,735 72,014 13,937 Other 95,914 19,784 14,044 47,365 2,965 1,594 760 382 – 101 – 134 561 141 644 509 90 66 – 19 – – 362 – – – – – – – – – – – 2,032 964 637 281 – 47 – – 39 53 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 198 109 22 – – – – – 97 – – – – – – – – – – – 88 12 11 28 – 32 – 131 56 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 75 6-45 Table 6-33 Legal Permanent Residents Admitted by Class of Admission and Country of Birth New York City, 1992–2001 Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* EUROPE Albania Austria Belgium Bulgaria Czechoslovakia, Former Czech Republic Slovakia Czechoslovakia nec Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Gibraltar Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Monaco Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Romania Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom, Total United Kingdom N. Ireland USSR, Former** Belarus Moldova Russia Ukraine Yugoslavia, Former Bosnia-Herzegovina Croatia Macedonia Slovenia Yugoslavia 6-46 1,002,190 198,621 5,655 455 467 2,126 1,189 55 688 446 261 225 187 2,852 2,896 – 1,983 879 66 11,085 3,024 1,262 877 20 194 – 633 167 28,464 364 5,826 1,108 688 783 8,258 8,196 62 128,397 11,732 4,968 30,058 51,637 10,023 1,160 637 645 62 7,519 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Total 344,024 14,524 509 29 25 59 86 – 29 54 – – – 139 149 – 381 62 – 157 387 15 38 – 76 – 72 – 7,979 108 410 145 26 36 1,046 1,045 – 695 34 29 225 239 998 24 72 134 13 755 First Second 38,359 197,239 2,094 4,450 93 20 – 12 – 11 16 – – 17 – – – – – 12 – – – – – – 36 55 27 64 – – 43 103 20 12 – – 70 62 39 159 – – – – – – – 25 – – 14 38 – – 844 2,320 – 32 84 96 – 91 – – – – 230 408 230 407 – – 267 228 14 16 – – 108 58 92 73 63 312 – – – 20 – 43 – – 51 241 Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total 35,272 5,909 395 – 11 26 46 – 18 27 – – – 17 15 – 44 21 – 14 33 – 23 – – – – – 4,446 – 138 – – 13 169 169 – 176 – 13 51 64 158 – 14 11 – 127 73,154 2,071 – – – – 13 – – – – – – 31 43 – 191 – – 11 156 – – – 38 – 16 – 369 68 92 40 – – 239 239 – 24 – – – – 465 11 31 77 – 336 312,387 30,509 556 192 218 294 315 37 92 186 153 37 89 1,371 1,266 – 1,130 441 34 496 1,451 107 130 – 102 – 304 99 3,626 118 1,808 519 381 310 3,222 3,190 32 7,070 341 186 3,395 1,980 2,635 68 258 254 22 2,033 Spouses 167,903 22,663 327 177 202 176 253 32 76 145 145 26 89 1,260 1,123 – 854 318 30 421 1,208 66 79 – 73 – 279 90 2,219 95 1,152 453 364 284 2,905 2,876 29 4,194 173 91 2,088 1,117 1,637 43 195 150 18 1,231 Children 80,263 4,215 63 – – 56 29 – – 19 – – – 78 125 – 125 69 – 64 82 25 39 – 21 – 22 – 827 11 267 32 14 19 273 271 – 1,616 53 39 956 386 224 – 21 32 – 165 Parents 64,221 3,630 166 – – 62 33 – – 22 – – – 33 18 – 151 54 – 11 161 16 12 – – – – – 580 12 389 34 – – 44 43 – 1,260 115 56 350 477 774 20 42 72 – 637 Employment Preferences Total First Second Third Skilled 106,900 15,126 18 104 138 268 127 – 58 63 55 15 30 801 625 – 272 138 12 171 660 53 52 – – – 159 37 3,711 97 405 298 134 224 2,060 2,047 13 2,453 86 54 1,302 514 437 13 107 19 14 371 13,521 5,703 – 34 59 127 33 – – 23 19 – 15 451 393 – 58 55 – 37 258 16 28 – – – 79 21 195 11 90 89 72 128 1,141 1,136 – 1,144 17 23 757 201 126 – 30 – – 87 11,440 1,482 – 15 19 29 19 – – 16 – – – 120 79 – 44 15 – 50 65 – – – – – 27 – 81 – 61 27 22 28 243 239 – 265 – – 158 53 48 – 13 – – 59 57,936 6,229 – 39 32 105 55 – 36 19 19 – – 166 115 – 143 44 – 63 267 23 15 – – – 44 – 2,892 49 195 119 34 49 521 518 – 745 40 24 239 198 176 – 49 – – 160 Third Unskilled 13,461 581 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 14 – – 13 40 – – – – – – – 183 31 12 37 – – 66 65 – 53 – – 11 – 53 – 11 – – 41 Fourth Fifth Old Third 10,343 1,114 – 12 24 – 19 – 14 – – – – 51 24 – 13 20 – – 30 – – – – – – – 358 – 46 26 – 17 88 88 – 245 18 – 137 51 34 – – – – 24 154 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Old Sixth Diversity 33 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 88,932 48,457 3,649 80 75 1,329 605 – 504 93 40 106 63 492 662 – 148 146 14 10,182 432 270 349 – – – 86 21 12,123 36 1,922 95 130 197 1,768 1,755 13 13,063 677 328 3,928 5,666 1,074 60 123 93 – 789 Refugees & Asylees 125,836 85,973 916 36 – 152 49 – – 47 – 67 – – 133 – 13 73 – – 36 802 291 – – – – – 511 – 1,195 – – – – – – 102,298 10,431 4,287 20,395 42,313 4,237 993 59 81 – 3,114 Legalization Dependents (To 1997) 11,499 468 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15 – – – 28 – – – – – – – 349 – – 37 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 26 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups Other 12,612 3,443 – 14 – 24 – – – – – – – 40 56 – 24 19 – 76 30 15 17 – – – – – 165 – 84 – 16 12 151 150 – 2,814 164 85 813 924 509 – 18 64 – 431 6-47 Table 6-33 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* ASIA Afghanistan Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan Brunei Burma Cambodia China, Total China, Mainland Hong Kong Taiwan Cyprus Georgia India Indonesia Iran Iraq Israel Japan Jordan Kazakhstan Korea Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Laos Lebanon Macau Malaysia Maldives Mongolia Nepal Oman Pakistan Philippines Qatar Saudi Arabia Singapore Sri Lanka Syria Tajikistan Thailand Turkey Turkmenistan United Arab Emirates Uzbekistan Vietnam Yemen 6-48 1,002,190 302,017 2,330 886 4,673 60 29,708 – – 1,546 332 106,646 90,223 10,528 5,895 351 1,842 28,274 820 2,903 373 6,176 5,116 2,080 1,918 13,785 398 442 45 2,133 442 2,175 – 24 242 26 23,632 22,931 28 509 332 1,152 2,874 2,513 948 3,336 266 229 17,463 4,362 5,681 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Total 344,024 94,663 234 20 19 17 9,568 – – 760 53 45,405 35,266 7,451 2,688 42 32 13,192 148 371 84 688 188 617 – 4,924 81 – – 622 322 415 – – 15 – 8,931 3,477 – 113 76 273 281 12 291 419 – 80 76 1,110 1,669 First Second 38,359 197,239 4,536 46,030 22 177 – – – – – – 266 6,839 – – – – 24 198 – – 1,374 17,607 981 15,077 178 1,556 215 974 – 19 – – 385 7,599 – 54 38 156 11 13 131 266 – 153 23 370 – – 264 3,165 – 40 – – – – 59 327 – 39 15 253 – – – – – 13 – – 658 5,777 267 1,505 – – – 29 – 42 22 152 26 114 – – 14 192 28 258 – – – 16 17 38 85 223 729 347 Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total 35,272 11,311 24 – – – 424 – – 97 12 6,945 5,869 810 266 – 14 941 14 58 24 157 – 91 – 325 14 – – 87 39 12 – – – – 503 688 – 18 – 35 48 – – 30 – 19 15 106 536 73,154 32,785 11 – – – 2,039 – – 441 28 19,479 13,339 4,907 1,233 15 – 4,267 71 119 36 134 23 133 – 1,170 20 – – 149 241 135 – – – – 1,993 1,017 – 64 30 64 93 – 84 103 – 41 – 696 57 312,387 79,659 605 133 182 – 8,279 – – 308 161 24,349 21,788 1,269 1,292 202 236 8,575 240 813 136 2,765 1,377 1,276 124 3,749 151 48 14 1,076 47 805 – – 65 – 9,110 6,936 11 68 116 344 572 44 391 1,049 12 23 390 966 3,888 Spouses 167,903 38,129 407 88 114 – 3,260 – – 173 91 9,980 8,289 921 770 176 147 4,049 167 353 60 2,335 1,297 811 79 2,291 119 29 13 671 15 656 – – 47 – 3,928 3,290 – 40 105 213 362 26 273 770 – – 233 419 997 Children 80,263 17,030 45 19 24 – 1,832 – – 13 40 3,707 3,380 157 170 15 38 1,237 18 19 16 294 29 244 30 490 32 14 – 163 – 68 – – 12 – 3,633 1,591 – 28 – 59 50 – 62 82 – 13 49 195 2,845 Parents 64,221 24,500 153 25 44 – 3,187 – – 122 30 10,662 10,119 191 352 11 52 3,289 55 441 60 136 51 221 15 968 – – – 242 23 81 – – – – 1,549 2,055 – – – 72 160 11 56 197 – – 108 352 46 Employment Preferences Total First Second Third Skilled 106,900 62,328 46 57 71 28 911 – – 116 – 29,981 26,756 1,440 1,785 71 93 5,236 217 407 61 2,286 2,017 142 42 4,786 108 – – 345 34 847 – – 104 13 1,639 10,861 – 124 128 288 186 33 199 513 – 52 190 25 44 13,521 6,874 – 30 23 – 94 – – – – 3,694 3,194 232 268 13 33 853 116 65 – 219 566 19 19 243 – – – 36 – 36 – – – – 445 102 – 18 36 20 – – – 78 – – 29 – – 11,440 7,898 – 12 – – 133 – – 33 – 2,839 2,303 153 383 13 17 1,335 28 62 11 269 158 – – 252 19 – – 82 – 50 – – – – 164 2,169 – 36 28 43 19 – 17 49 – – – – – 57,936 40,670 22 – 32 – 460 – – 56 – 22,574 20,807 908 859 41 33 2,432 45 231 21 1,162 1,005 73 16 2,163 69 – – 174 23 660 – – 82 – 676 7,542 – 60 55 129 120 22 121 339 – 40 127 17 14 Third Unskilled 13,461 2,975 – – – – 59 – – 12 – 553 289 94 170 – – 176 18 27 – 131 85 – – 779 – – – 33 – 87 – – – – 39 793 – – – 53 17 – 37 21 – – 14 – – Fourth Fifth Old Third 10,343 3,756 – – – – 165 – – 11 – 233 123 31 79 – – 431 – 21 13 496 201 37 – 1,327 – – – 18 – 13 – – – – 315 246 – – – 43 20 – 16 23 – – 13 – 20 154 135 – – – – – – – – – 87 40 22 25 – – – – – – – – – – 17 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Old Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees 33 14 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 88,932 20,647 69 296 293 – 10,169 – – 292 – 196 39 145 12 34 315 67 193 51 – 306 1,485 22 412 25 35 106 – 21 38 57 – – 58 – 3,117 15 – 175 – 201 28 133 26 1,324 23 68 885 – 70 125,836 36,172 1,326 196 3,917 – 334 – – 69 63 3,933 3,931 – – – 1,095 325 – 1,241 86 – – – 1,291 – 14 267 20 39 – – 43 – – – 280 13 – – – 39 1,794 2,258 19 16 220 – 15,629 1,601 – Legalization Dependents (To 1997) 11,499 4,230 – – – – 311 – – – – 2,456 2,283 78 95 – – 708 13 – – 12 – – – 203 – – – – – 20 – – – – 383 81 – – – – – – 13 – – – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups Other 12,612 4,316 – 183 191 – 136 – – – 42 326 160 144 22 – 71 171 – 15 – 109 43 18 41 96 – 13 – 27 – 26 – – – – 172 1,548 – 27 – – 13 33 – – – – 294 659 – 6-49 Table 6-33 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* 1,002,190 AFRICA 45,981 Algeria 1,220 Angola 19 Benin 55 Botswana – Burkina Faso 41 Burundi 27 Cameroon 266 Cape Verde 54 Central African Republic – Chad 17 Congo, Dem. Rep. (Former Zaire) 124 Congo, Republic 43 Côte D’Ivoire 960 Djibouti – Egypt 7,789 Equatorial Guinea – Eritrea 100 Ethiopia 1,164 Gabon 20 Gambia 335 Ghana 10,813 Guinea 301 Guinea-Bissau 201 Kenya 416 Lesotho – Liberia 1,933 Libya 122 Madagascar 71 Malawi – Mali 286 Mauritania 146 Mauritius 49 Morocco 4,380 Mozambique 18 Namibia – Niger 63 Nigeria 9,214 Reunion – Rwanda – Sao Tome and Principe – Senegal 1,329 Seychelles – Sierra Leone 794 Somalia 260 South Africa 834 Sudan 1,168 Swaziland – Tanzania 301 Togo 477 Tunisia 226 Uganda 123 Zambia 84 Zimbabwe 85 6-50 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Total 344,024 5,164 22 – – – – – 22 – – – 13 14 57 – 1,370 – – 82 – 14 1,643 – – 113 – 283 24 – – 11 – – 187 – – – 719 – – – 99 – 171 20 64 46 – 76 – 15 27 – – First Second 38,359 197,239 1,319 2,720 – 17 – – – – – – – – – – – 14 – – – – – – – – – – – 48 – – 59 737 – – – – 11 55 – – – 12 742 744 – – – – – 38 – – 155 94 – – – – – – – – – – – – 14 158 – – – – – – 181 472 – – – – – – 26 73 – – 53 99 – – – 23 – 29 – – – 19 – – – – – – – – – – Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total 35,272 256 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 65 – – – – – 86 – – – – 11 – – – – – – – – – – 30 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 73,154 869 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 509 – – 15 – – 71 – – 65 – 23 – – – – – – 11 – – – 36 – – – – – – – 29 – – 43 – – 16 – – 312,387 16,681 248 11 30 – 26 – 99 39 – – 51 11 586 – 3,525 – 27 273 11 142 3,295 158 112 110 – 580 41 14 – 133 – 15 1,571 – – 22 3,512 – – – 659 – 299 76 253 312 – 71 117 111 42 27 28 Spouses 167,903 11,034 222 11 22 – 25 – 67 20 – – 33 – 497 – 2,430 – 22 152 – 124 1,756 143 85 86 – 221 24 – – 125 – 12 1,260 – – 15 2,210 – – – 464 – 138 32 216 251 – 39 104 98 25 18 25 Children 80,263 3,629 – – – – – – 18 – – – 12 – 85 – 480 – – 55 – 15 1,310 11 22 11 – 279 – – – – – – 89 – – – 765 – – – 184 – 111 28 13 32 – – – – 14 – – Parents 64,221 2,018 17 – – – – – 14 – – – – – – – 615 – – 66 – – 229 – – 13 – 80 – – – – – – 222 – – – 537 – – – 11 – 50 16 24 29 – 27 – – – – – Employment Preferences Total First Second Third Skilled 106,900 3,305 64 – – – – – 23 – – – 19 – 40 – 405 – – 104 – 28 247 – – 74 – 91 32 27 – – – 11 214 – – – 1,182 – – – 48 – 31 12 357 28 – 81 17 22 22 32 31 13,521 380 16 – – – – – 13 – – – – – – – 48 – – – – – – – – 25 – – – – – – – – 30 – – – 55 – – – – – – – 105 – – 14 – – – – – 11,440 440 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 39 – – – – – 32 – – 13 – 19 – – – – – – 23 – – – 164 – – – – – – – 63 11 – – – – – – – 57,936 1,580 15 – – – – – – – – – – – 13 – 200 – – 26 – 17 72 – – 22 – 27 20 18 – – – – 105 – – – 730 – – – 16 – 11 – 166 – – 24 – – – 15 15 Third Unskilled 13,461 125 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 19 – – – – – 20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 23 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Fourth Fifth Old Third 10,343 775 22 – – – – – – – – – – – 19 – 99 – – 68 – – 115 – – 11 – 37 – – – – – – 47 – – – 207 – – – 17 – – – 18 – – 27 – – – – – 154 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Old Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees 33 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 88,932 18,708 852 – 18 – – – 107 – – – 21 12 249 – 2,385 – 61 459 – 104 5,377 119 49 111 – 364 17 25 – 120 15 17 2,390 – – 33 3,611 – – – 501 – 242 57 142 691 – 65 322 77 24 17 19 125,836 1,660 30 – – – – 13 12 – – – 16 – 26 – 29 – – 236 – 25 124 11 30 – – 575 – – – – 126 – – – – – 105 – – – 11 – 44 94 – 85 – – 14 – – – – Legalization Dependents (To 1997) 11,499 208 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 18 – – – – – 116 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 40 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups Other 12,612 255 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 57 – – – – 22 11 – – – – 34 – – – – – – 15 – – – 45 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 6-51 Table 6-33 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* Total First Second 1,002,190 LATIN AMERICA 344,024 38,359 197,239 Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Third Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 35,272 73,154 312,387 167,903 80,263 64,221 18,747 276,013 135,378 11,452 99,837 6,298 17,791 115,951 62,538 34,666 Argentina 2,063 324 59 133 68 64 825 615 95 115 Bolivia 1,049 297 33 152 27 85 527 285 141 101 111 Brazil 3,769 465 65 303 34 63 2,190 1,750 329 Chile 1,135 365 32 187 29 117 556 397 95 64 22,097 7,317 1,036 4,279 579 1,423 12,349 7,157 3,266 1,926 44 Colombia Costa Rica 795 283 73 127 37 46 418 265 109 1,844 377 119 34 127 97 276 144 53 79 161,704 95,303 6,271 74,463 3,199 11,370 63,935 33,299 20,721 9,915 30,867 12,914 1,162 8,995 910 1,847 12,660 6,500 3,315 2,845 El Salvador 7,592 2,733 195 2,052 61 425 2,224 1,049 587 588 Guatemala 3,956 1,797 267 1,148 101 281 1,475 740 517 218 Honduras 9,255 4,526 828 2,855 344 499 4,191 1,949 1,618 624 Mexico 9,462 2,075 167 1,748 56 104 4,136 2,935 784 417 Nicaragua 2,787 613 80 359 61 113 916 510 277 129 Panama 3,088 1,327 444 458 182 243 1,420 760 416 244 Cuba Dominican Republic Ecuador Paraguay 704 Uruguay 157 12 95 – 46 376 216 135 25 10,763 Peru 3,703 495 2,052 341 815 5,744 3,069 1,460 1,215 459 CARIBBEAN, nonhispanic Anguilla Antigua-Barbuda Aruba 93 16 46 14 17 222 154 27 41 2,624 709 98 351 124 136 1,511 744 721 46 182,030 94,254 18,968 44,409 11,413 19,464 70,357 34,381 20,645 15,331 44 Venezuela 23 – – – – 20 – – – 1,650 754 171 377 56 150 760 428 178 154 62 22 – – – – 25 20 – – 279 102 20 40 25 17 141 96 40 – Barbados 4,567 1,962 544 702 212 504 1,986 1,243 512 231 Belize 1,444 797 171 359 120 147 500 266 155 79 135 52 11 14 12 15 58 35 14 – 31 13 – – – – 17 – 11 – 904 445 76 250 30 89 335 194 74 67 Bahamas, The British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Dominica French Guiana Guadeloupe 22 14 – – – – – – – – 4,703 Grenada 1,916 499 796 137 484 2,135 1,238 595 302 102 53 18 25 – – 33 12 18 – 46,189 29,596 4,627 11,164 5,927 7,878 13,391 5,743 2,666 4,982 Haiti 30,329 16,171 2,703 10,552 530 2,386 12,272 4,795 3,293 4,184 Jamaica 55,686 29,659 6,864 15,396 1,942 5,457 22,229 10,821 7,929 3,479 Guyana Martinique 44 11 – – – – 25 14 – – Montserrat 289 117 28 40 15 34 106 55 19 32 Netherlands Antilles St. Kitts-Nevis 96 39 – 16 – – 43 17 24 – 1,100 524 193 199 21 111 474 232 154 88 St. Lucia 1,808 599 169 250 39 141 909 511 273 125 St. Vincent & Grenadines 3,414 1,345 360 548 126 311 1,453 850 395 208 Suriname 717 Trinidad & Tobago Turks & Caicos Islands 6-52 355 63 131 115 46 227 123 81 23 28,393 9,676 2,433 3,508 2,080 1,655 13,203 7,666 4,190 1,347 22 – – – – – – – – – The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total First Second Third Skilled 106,900 13,521 11,440 57,936 12,796 771 361 631 143 76 151 – 929 Third Unskilled Old Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees Legalization Dependents (To 1997) Fourth Fifth Old Third 13,461 10,343 154 12 33 88,932 125,836 11,499 12,612 6,613 3,311 1,726 – – 12 1,527 1,300 5,409 3,652 230 68 114 – – – 243 – 19 20 – 71 58 18 – – – 28 – 37 – 263 80 322 159 105 – – – 141 – – 34 Other 155 20 12 71 29 23 – – – 29 – 21 – 1,424 52 32 671 509 156 – – – 65 – 784 151 69 – – 24 31 – – – – – – – 14 – – – – – – – – – 51 1,088 – 46 942 44 29 219 117 533 – – – 22 – 1,065 432 3,058 12 14 2,335 598 96 – – – 545 – 1,464 216 960 – – 286 579 83 – – – – 58 336 1,280 453 – – 157 206 84 – – – 37 17 38 139 271 – – 82 128 58 – – – 43 17 173 34 2,047 108 25 1,470 360 84 – – – – – 1,024 169 157 – – 50 79 27 – – – – 66 21 1,004 288 – – 52 29 191 – – – 14 – 11 23 154 – – 60 86 – – – – – – – – 663 22 23 317 223 75 – – – 223 18 362 50 99 14 – 52 17 – – – – 11 – 30 – 339 72 31 143 35 58 – – – 41 – – 16 13,664 74 1,204 2,922 6,517 2,942 – – – 955 683 1,161 956 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 95 – – 13 62 14 – – – – – 22 11 – 11 – – – – – – – – – – – 29 – – – – – – – – – – – – 533 – 17 102 353 58 – – – 23 – 18 45 87 – – 19 59 – – – – – – 29 23 22 – – 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 96 – 16 – 56 15 – – – 13 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 530 – 29 51 396 54 – – – 51 – 59 12 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 2,634 – 199 704 1,312 409 – – – 255 – 242 64 564 – 14 104 167 279 – – – 142 658 17 505 3,061 17 444 647 1,117 834 – – – – – 583 144 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 64 – – – 49 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 89 – – 12 70 – – – – – – – – 258 – 14 28 194 21 – – – 17 – 22 – 549 – 47 76 364 62 – – – 31 – 29 – 102 – – 23 53 22 – – – 16 – – – 4,913 28 405 1,106 2,234 1,140 – – – 363 – 118 117 – – – – – – – – – – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-53 Table 6-33 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* Total First Second Third Fourth Total Spouses Children Parents 35,272 73,154 312,387 167,903 80,263 64,221 1,002,190 344,024 ALL OTHERS 5,725 1,088 221 200 254 413 2,421 2,034 349 38 Australia 1,132 30 – 12 – – 534 505 27 – Bermuda 72 20 – – – – 31 25 – – 3,823 977 193 164 235 385 1,584 1,279 293 12 23 – – – – – – – – – French Polynesia – – – – – – – – – – Kiribati – – – – – – – – – – Nauru – – – – – – – – – – New Caledonia – – – – – – – – – – 313 – – – – – 141 136 – – Northern Mariana Islands – – – – – – – – – – Papua New Guinea – – – – – – – – – – Solomon Islands – – – – – – – – – – St. Pierre & Miquelon – – – – – – – – – – Tonga – – – – – – – – – – Western Samoa – – – – – – – – – – Unknown/Other 337 43 15 14 – – 114 75 21 18 Canada Fiji New Zealand 38,359 197,239 Immediate Relatives of US Citizens * Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year, October 1 to September 30 **Includes a portion of flows that had no information on the specific republic. The known distribution by republic was used to reallocate these flows across each sub-class of admission. The adjusted flows for each sub-class were then totaled to obtain the flow for each broad class of admission, as well as the adjusted flow for each former republic. The subtotal for Europe only includes the European republics of the former U.S.S.R. –Indicates cell with 10 or fewer immigrants Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1992–2001 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 6-54 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Third Unskilled Fourth Fifth Old Third Old Sixth Total First Second 106,900 13,521 11,440 57,936 13,461 10,343 154 12 33 88,932 125,836 11,499 12,612 1,640 843 266 394 15 116 – – – 392 39 – 137 435 238 57 118 – 19 – – – 120 – – 13 15 – – – – – – – – – – – – 1,012 518 181 219 – 82 – – – 167 – – 73 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 127 65 18 40 – – – – – 33 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 39 16 – – – – – – – 63 37 – 42 Diversity Refugees & Asylees Legalization Dependents (To 1997) Third Skilled Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups Other 6-55 Table 6-34 Legal Permanent Residents Admitted by Class of Admission and Country of Birth New York City, 1982–1991 Family Preferences TOTAL Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Total First Second Fourth Fifth Total Spouse Children Parents TOTAL* 898,213 514,846 14,946 335,203 42,855 121,842 216,811 128,231 36,673 51,907 EUROPE 106,429 19,584 1,217 8,496 4,768 5,103 26,782 19,734 2,491 4,557 Albania 210 – – – – – 33 – – 19 Andorra – – – – – – – – – – Austria 472 62 – 34 11 14 231 205 – 19 Belgium 516 78 – 37 18 16 281 237 36 – Bulgaria 401 69 – 20 20 19 120 62 – 49 Czechoslovakia 736 73 16 17 18 22 204 130 25 49 Denmark 278 21 – 13 – – 200 186 – – Estonia 11 – – – – – – – – – Finland 219 34 – 25 – – 123 120 – – France 2,978 372 36 202 60 74 1,633 1,468 103 62 Germany 2,687 359 24 214 67 54 1,578 1,342 171 65 Gibraltar 12 – – – – – – – – – Greece 5,863 2,224 89 1,152 232 751 3,090 2,256 332 502 Hungary 1,066 136 19 41 42 34 379 226 37 116 Iceland 42 – – – – – 28 26 – – Ireland 7,321 725 255 203 148 119 1,886 1,492 272 122 Italy 6,553 2,662 87 839 579 1,157 2,711 2,007 169 535 63 14 – – – – 23 – – 13 – – – – – – – – – – Lithuania 62 – – – – – 30 15 – 14 Luxembourg 12 – – – – – – – – – 494 287 – 179 42 65 190 108 28 54 Latvia Liechtenstein Malta Monaco – Netherlands – – – – – – – – – 796 164 – 99 30 28 399 370 15 14 Norway 202 14 – – – – 148 119 – 19 Poland 12,712 3,650 217 1,344 1,709 380 2,334 1,507 334 493 Portugal 1,150 586 – 255 43 284 309 207 34 68 Romania 6,896 749 28 335 237 149 1,082 479 140 463 – – – – – – – – – – San Marino Spain 1,804 457 13 261 53 130 739 587 52 100 Sweden 602 40 – 30 – – 396 379 14 – Switzerland 666 73 – 47 12 – 390 355 24 11 United Kingdom 11,054 4,011 227 2,088 633 1,063 3,984 3,454 410 120 USSR 36,593 1,177 106 420 528 123 2,268 1,006 128 1,134 3,946 1,517 48 609 267 593 1,969 1,349 123 497 Yugoslavia 6-56 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total Third Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees Other 67,923 18,958 48,965 15,254 64,978 18,401 8,740 3,651 5,089 7,356 42,462 1,505 – – – – 165 – – – – – – – 90 32 58 18 51 20 124 65 59 11 – 19 33 12 21 – 171 – 57 25 32 16 378 – 35 22 13 17 – – – – – – – – 39 27 12 – – 12 768 432 336 112 – 83 468 239 229 69 69 144 – – – – – – 398 110 288 13 22 116 61 35 26 22 443 25 – – – – – – 677 459 218 3,979 – 52 618 203 415 315 79 168 22 – 16 – – – – – – – – – 15 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 177 92 85 25 – 29 28 14 14 – – – 577 180 397 2,065 4,032 54 223 – 214 – – 25 263 105 158 – 4,734 64 – – – – – – 512 117 395 – 14 77 115 70 45 38 – 13 151 66 85 32 – 20 2,236 1,097 1,139 549 – 268 748 134 614 26 32,146 228 282 90 192 – 126 48 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-57 Table 6-34 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL Total First Second Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Fourth Fifth Total Spouse Children Parents TOTAL* 898,213 514,846 14,946 335,203 42,855 121,842 216,811 128,231 36,673 51,907 ASIA 235,473 124,872 2,506 56,008 17,827 48,531 55,257 27,049 7,012 21,196 3,698 262 – 198 – 55 173 81 – 82 26 19 – – – – – – – – 8,695 2,760 17 1,475 132 1,136 1,463 813 229 421 Afghanistan Bahrain Bangladesh Bhutan – – – – – – – – – – Brunei 15 – – – – – – – – – Burma 1,338 1,030 17 470 111 432 215 100 – 107 Cambodia 2,445 72 – 44 – 22 56 14 – 39 93,578 68,236 694 26,562 13,948 27,032 17,200 6,418 1,079 9,703 China, Mainland 68,434 50,890 260 19,742 11,142 19,746 13,382 3,925 443 9,014 Hong Kong 13,737 10,505 323 3,280 2,314 4,588 2,057 1,491 352 214 Taiwan 11,407 6,841 111 3,540 492 2,698 1,761 1,002 284 475 Christmas Island – – – – – – – – – – Cocos Islands – – – – – – – – – – 809 316 – 155 43 113 395 335 – 53 3,052 China, Total Cyprus India 24,938 15,209 47 7,212 495 7,455 5,340 2,071 217 Indonesia 1,014 237 – 120 23 92 312 220 24 68 Iran 6,604 1,295 – 627 83 578 1,123 656 24 443 Iraq 500 147 – 44 – 95 171 98 – 72 10,073 Israel 2,451 104 1,009 680 658 4,191 3,498 496 197 Japan 3,991 481 – 378 – 87 1,181 1,094 39 48 Jordan 2,170 1,148 14 684 144 306 950 579 185 186 Korea 24,361 14,829 56 9,050 590 5,133 5,918 2,311 931 2,676 Kuwait 190 81 – 30 – 44 45 41 – – Laos 153 27 – 14 – – 11 – – – 2,545 1,052 29 521 178 324 1,003 633 133 237 Lebanon Macau 384 301 – 121 58 121 50 20 – 29 1,172 401 – 204 41 151 378 317 – 51 Nepal 96 23 – 15 – – 36 28 – – Oman 13 – – – – – – – – – Malaysia Pakistan 9,803 Philippines Qatar 5,460 39 2,815 217 2,389 2,484 1,569 245 670 19,791 4,601 1,026 2,012 525 1,038 7,837 4,089 1,593 2,155 18 11 – – – – – – – – Saudi Arabia 154 66 – 13 – 50 33 26 – – Singapore 353 145 – 76 18 50 106 85 – 17 Sri Lanka 643 170 – 113 11 42 130 92 – 37 Syria 1,358 445 – 213 45 180 451 278 – 164 Thailand 2,352 940 – 705 13 214 568 361 79 128 Turkey 2,462 764 – 432 47 278 957 620 39 298 100 62 – – – 46 – – – – Vietnam 6,476 751 23 386 87 255 399 121 61 217 Yemen, Total 3,142 1,052 376 280 284 112 2,057 465 1,556 36 479 168 55 51 45 17 307 72 227 – 2,167 735 244 214 194 83 1,405 315 1,068 22 496 149 77 15 45 12 345 78 261 – United Arab Emirates Yemen (Aden) Yemen (Sanaa) Yemen nec 6-58 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total Third Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees Other 67,923 18,958 48,965 15,254 64,978 18,401 26,823 10,319 16,504 6,038 15,022 7,461 69 – 59 – 3,185 – – – – – – – 242 100 142 4,104 – 118 – – – – – – – – – – – – 62 13 49 15 – 14 – – – – 2,293 14 7,049 2,518 4,531 35 384 674 3,335 1,030 2,305 18 359 450 1,023 221 802 12 19 121 2,691 1,267 1,424 – – 103 – – – – – – – – – – – – 86 18 68 – – – 3,823 2,826 997 18 19 529 158 45 113 265 18 24 722 303 419 16 3,405 43 121 45 76 – 45 14 2,509 733 1,776 72 25 825 1,751 387 1,364 490 – 85 39 22 17 – – 29 3,131 1,226 1,905 – – 478 51 31 20 – – 12 – – – – 110 – 378 151 227 18 57 37 27 – 20 – – – 273 110 163 92 15 13 34 – 26 – – – – – – – – – 806 311 495 678 101 274 4,051 1,051 3,000 – 75 3,225 – – – – – – 21 17 – 14 – 19 89 51 38 – – – 133 62 71 90 86 34 125 31 94 22 299 16 365 70 295 13 393 73 627 141 486 44 – 60 14 – – – – – 30 14 16 – 4,481 814 15 – 11 12 – – – – – – – – 13 – – 11 – – – – – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-59 Table 6-34 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL TOTAL* 898,213 AFRICA 17,931 Algeria 223 Angola 55 Benin 27 Botswana – Burkina Faso 12 Burundi – Cameroon 84 Cape Verde 94 Central African Republic – Chad – Congo, Republic 18 Cote D’Ivoire 229 Djibouti – Egypt 5,243 Equatorial Guinea – Eritrea – Ethiopia 949 Fr. S. & Antarctic Lands 22 Gabon – Gambia 33 Ghana 2,382 Guinea 57 Guinea–Bissau – Kenya 387 Lesotho – Liberia 901 Libya 81 Madagascar 18 Malawi – Mali 43 Mauritania – Mauritius 40 Morocco 1,502 Mozambique 32 Namibia 15 Niger 36 Nigeria 2,087 Rwanda – Sao Tome and Principe – Senegal 247 Seychelles – Sierra Leone 471 Somalia 177 South Africa 1,075 Sudan 185 Swaziland 11 Tanzania 459 Togo 29 Tunisia 191 Uganda 190 Western Sahara – Zaire (Current Dem. Rep. Congo) 102 Zambia 68 Zimbabwe 96 6-60 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Total First Second Fourth Fifth Total Spouse Children Parents 514,846 4,995 32 30 – – – – 19 69 – – – 22 – 1,685 – – 107 20 – – 998 – – 205 – 266 23 – – – – – 267 17 – 13 393 – – 16 – 144 32 146 23 – 229 – 20 96 – 16 18 24 14,946 267 – – – – – – – 11 – – – – – 31 – – – – – – 138 – – – – 21 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 17 – – – – – – – – – – 335,203 3,039 20 17 – – – – 14 28 – – – 16 – 794 – – 93 – – – 783 – – 99 – 201 – – – – – – 144 – – 12 332 – – 15 – 129 20 60 19 – 94 – – 38 – 11 12 11 42,855 290 – – – – – – – 13 – – – – – 91 – – – – – – 21 – – 15 – 26 – – – – – – 28 – – – 16 – – – – – – 36 – – – – – – – – – – 121,842 1,399 – – – – – – – 17 – – – – – 769 – – 11 – – – 56 – – 90 – 18 13 – – – – – 85 12 – – 38 – – – – – – 33 – – 129 – – 50 – – – – 216,811 8,774 148 14 – – – – 48 23 – – – 193 – 2,844 – – 131 – – 24 1,074 39 – 87 – 524 25 – – 29 – 14 913 – – 15 1,256 – – 169 – 234 92 372 119 – 84 23 92 27 – 36 14 33 128,231 7,328 136 13 – – – – 39 11 – – – 189 – 2,343 – – 95 – – 23 775 37 – 71 – 411 20 – – 29 – 13 791 – – 13 1,146 – – 165 – 183 68 332 107 – 48 20 83 24 – 32 12 30 36,673 635 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 83 – – 11 – – – 250 – – – – 87 – – – – – – 13 – – – 71 – – – – 39 19 15 – – – – – – – – – – 51,907 811 11 – – – – – – – – – – – – 418 – – 25 – – – 49 – – – – 26 – – – – – – 109 – – – 39 – – – – 12 – 25 – – 35 – – – – – – – Employment Preferences Total 67,923 2,189 33 – – – – – – – – – – – – 347 – – 41 – – – 188 – – 68 – 53 31 – – – – 12 192 – – – 300 – – – – 54 – 502 11 – 134 – 35 32 – 13 27 30 Third Sixth Diversity 18,958 1,120 15 – – – – – – – – – – – – 164 – – 30 – – – 68 – – 40 – – 17 – – – – – 33 – – – 257 – – – – 12 – 324 – – 19 – 19 23 – – 17 23 48,965 1,069 18 – – – – – – – – – – – – 183 – – 11 – – – 120 – – 28 – 46 14 – – – – – 159 – – – 43 – – – – 42 – 178 – – 115 – 16 – – – – – 15,254 534 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 240 – – 14 – – – 15 – – – – – – – – – – – 95 – – – 16 – – 54 – – – 15 – – – – 38 – – – – – Refugees & Asylees 64,978 823 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12 – – 595 – – – 38 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 39 25 23 – – – – 24 – 28 – – Other 18,401 616 – – – – – – – – – – – – – 115 – – 61 – – – 69 – – 15 – 54 – – – – – – 34 – – – 118 – – – – 32 – 15 – – – – – 11 – – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-61 Table 6-34 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Total First Second Fourth Fifth Total Spouse Children Parents TOTAL* 898,213 514,846 14,946 335,203 42,855 121,842 216,811 128,231 36,673 51,907 LATIN AMERICA 273,136 175,759 5,367 138,101 7,321 24,970 76,384 45,948 17,149 13,287 3,503 1,116 57 603 222 234 1,335 974 141 220 962 392 – 265 36 81 395 246 59 90 3,388 749 34 470 123 122 1,892 1,604 235 53 Argentina Bolivia Brazil Chile 2,329 870 20 556 80 214 1,012 579 274 159 26,834 Colombia 14,320 267 10,703 659 2,691 10,554 6,994 2,043 1,517 Costa Rica 1,824 989 70 721 94 104 652 408 147 97 Cuba 5,861 1,256 92 182 291 691 470 173 31 266 151,712 113,151 2,992 92,885 3,085 14,189 36,220 20,750 9,079 6,391 22,857 14,476 322 11,585 599 1,970 5,829 3,584 1,019 1,226 9,689 5,141 100 4,105 240 696 2,567 1,382 608 577 Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Guatemala 5,941 3,364 123 2,475 308 458 1,596 941 344 311 Honduras 11,381 7,775 647 5,809 549 770 3,211 1,702 979 530 Mexico 3,856 695 90 473 48 84 2,260 1,707 412 141 Nicaragua 2,581 1,317 54 875 137 251 871 442 211 218 Panama 7,152 4,255 293 2,574 367 1,021 1,902 964 525 413 527 193 – 165 – 23 217 119 68 30 9,920 4,577 147 2,954 304 1,172 4,259 2,617 692 950 Paraguay Peru Uruguay 1,113 380 15 210 67 88 395 274 57 64 Venezuela 1,706 743 32 491 109 111 747 488 225 34 258,998 187,840 5,435 128,913 12,224 41,268 46,830 25,742 9,082 12,006 68 34 – 23 – – 28 23 – – 202 CARIBBEAN, nonhispanic Anguilla Antigua–Barbuda 3,549 2,167 63 1,493 96 515 1,023 650 171 Aruba 100 58 – 36 – 13 22 16 – – Bahamas, The 627 319 18 233 31 37 199 127 63 – Barbados 9,450 6,193 275 4,480 471 967 1,690 972 356 362 Belize 4,078 2,834 92 1,954 216 572 765 384 155 226 554 239 – 151 21 57 224 146 48 30 68 34 – 22 – – 17 – – – 1,470 895 48 576 40 231 357 187 75 95 British Virgin Islands Cayman Islands Dominica French Guiana Guadeloupe – – – – – – – – – – 6,821 Grenada 4,239 115 3,331 138 655 1,179 644 189 346 93 51 – 38 – 12 27 12 – – Guyana 67,729 52,189 914 29,842 4,346 17,087 10,548 4,200 1,881 4,467 Haiti 48,518 34,224 664 27,611 440 5,509 10,260 6,504 1,558 2,198 Jamaica 87,112 66,338 2,368 47,025 4,229 12,716 13,847 7,523 3,389 2,935 Martinique 83 46 – 37 – – 28 20 – – Montserrat 464 252 11 150 22 69 103 60 26 17 12 Netherlands Antilles 375 208 15 136 – 48 125 103 – St. Kitts–Nevis 1,543 976 56 695 68 157 432 277 64 91 St. Lucia 1,822 964 41 716 28 179 541 355 109 77 St. Vincent & Grenadines 4,691 2,772 89 2,126 149 408 951 570 206 175 399 263 – 171 35 54 67 38 12 17 19,342 12,533 642 8,056 1,872 1,963 4,384 2,914 742 728 33 – – – – – 13 – – – Suriname Trinidad & Tobago Turks & Caicos Islands 6-62 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total Third Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees Other 67,923 18,958 48,965 15,254 64,978 18,401 10,689 826 9,863 593 4,382 5,329 642 139 503 169 13 228 127 – 119 – – 39 627 197 430 24 – 94 293 46 247 – 28 117 1,479 71 1,408 – – 472 126 – 122 – – 56 25 – 22 – 4,032 77 484 68 416 – – 1,849 1,657 15 1,642 187 15 693 1,821 19 1,802 – 60 100 774 21 753 17 – 185 278 – 276 – – 108 653 45 608 – – 238 156 – 147 – 194 39 258 27 231 18 – 717 100 – 97 12 – – 741 55 686 113 – 226 291 35 256 – – 42 157 59 98 12 – 46 18,464 2,381 16,083 338 2,280 3,246 – – – – – – 236 22 214 – – 121 14 – 12 – – – 72 16 56 – – 30 1,384 60 1,324 – – 174 259 14 245 – – 219 39 – 34 – – 51 13 – 12 – – – 187 19 168 – – 22 – – – – – – 1,312 68 1,244 12 – 75 12 – 12 – – – 4,708 612 4,096 – – 273 1,153 63 1,090 – 2,256 625 6,048 1,234 4,814 – – 874 – – – – – – 103 – 94 – – – 34 – 28 – – – 90 14 76 – – 44 283 20 263 – – 29 886 78 808 – – 80 61 – 60 – – – 1,546 136 1,410 284 – 595 13 – 13 – – – Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-63 Table 6-34 (continued) Family Preferences TOTAL Immediate Relatives of US Citizens Total First Second Fourth Fifth Total Spouse Children Parents 898,213 514,846 14,946 335,203 42,855 121,842 216,811 128,231 36,673 51,907 6,248 1,797 155 646 425 571 2,785 2,431 304 50 Australia 758 105 – 39 32 30 461 422 33 – Bermuda 181 55 – 39 – 11 95 70 19 – 4,857 1,559 142 527 375 515 1,978 1,707 242 29 16 – – – – – – – – – French Polynesia – – – – – – – – – – Greenland – – – – – – – – – – Guam – – – – – – – – – – Kiribati – – – – – – – – – – Marshall Islands – – – – – – – – – – Nauru – – – – – – – – – – 234 – – – – – 151 148 – – N. Ireland – – – – – – – – – – Pacific Islands, Trust Territory – – – – – – – – – – Palau – – – – – – – – – – Papua New Guinea – – – – – – – – – – 70 15 – – – – 38 36 – – Tonga – – – – – – – – – – Vanuatu – – – – – – – – – – Western Samoa – – – – – – – – – – Unknown/Other 91 32 – 15 – – 38 27 – – TOTAL* ALL OTHERS Canada Fiji New Zealand Pitcairn Islands *Data are for compiled for federal fiscal year – October 1 to September 30 –Indicates cell with 10 or fewer immigrants Sources: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Immigration Statistics; 1982–1991 Annual Year Immigrant Tape File Population Division-New York City Department of City Planning 6-64 The Newest New Yorkers, 2013 edition Employment Preferences Total Third Sixth Diversity Refugees & Asylees Other 67,923 18,958 48,965 15,254 64,978 18,401 1,018 661 357 395 – 244 155 110 45 – – 36 12 – – – – 12 758 489 269 384 – 176 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 65 45 20 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 15 – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – 12 Chapter 6: Web Supplement—Legal Pathways Used by the Top 20 Immigrant Groups 6-65