New Immigrants to New York

New Immigrants
to New York
Joseph J. Salvo
Director
Population Division of the
New York City Department of City Planning

and

Arun Peter Lobo
Deputy Director

Research and publication was
assisted with a grant provided
by Consolidated Edison, Inc.

The Hon. Jerome and Helene Berg
Public Policy Papers on Government Reform
Issue No. 6

Published by the
Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform
at Wagner College
Staten Island, New York

The Hugh L. Carey
Center for Government Reform
at Wagner College

Dr. Seymour P. Lachman
Director

The Hugh L. Carey Center for
Government Reform at Wagner
College conducts non-partisan
studies of state government and
proposes ways to improve legislative
and administrative effectiveness.

Research and publication was
assisted with a grant provided
by Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Wagner College
One Campus Road
Staten Island, New York 10301

Tel: 718-420-4131
seymour.lachman@wagner.edu
www.wagner.edu

The Hugh L. Carey Center for Government Reform • Wagner College

New Immigrants to New York

Joseph J. Salvo
Director,
New York City Department of City Planning 1

and

Arun Peter Lobo
Deputy Director,

Since its inception, New York City has had an extraordinary capacity to accept newcomers
and, over time, integrate them into the fabric of the city. Since the Immigration and Nationality
Amendments of 1965, which repealed quotas that favored northern and western European
immigrants, there has been a dramatic surge in immigration to the city from Latin America,
Asia, and the Caribbean. New arrivals bring in new languages, cultures, and histories, which
serve to enrich our common identity as New Yorkers. The integration of immigrants allows
New York to reinvent itself dynamically, decade after decade. A prerequisite to any discussion
of integrating newcomers is an understanding of the forces that drive change in New York City’s
demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Such data are crucial to address issues such as
civic and political participation, which is usually the domain of political scientists. It is with this
mindset that we present a portrait of the demographic forces that are at work in New York City,
which will provide a useful framework to understand a host of issues pertaining to the social and
cultural integration of immigrants.

Dynamic Population Movements

Let us start with the overall population of the city, which stood at just over eight million in
2000. In the next six years, the city added nearly one-quarter of a million people, reaching 8.25
million in 2006. Indeed, most people view the population of the City of New York as a big number
to which a small piece is added each year. But, in fact, in the first six years of this decade, New

1 The views expressed here are those of the authors and may not represent the views of the
Department of City Planning or the City of New York.

1


York City lost nearly 800,000 people
Figure 1. Estimated Components of Population Change for New
through domestic migration (Figure York City, 2000–2006
1). In other words, 800,000 more
residents left for our nation’s 50 states
than have come in from the 50 states.
Population Change
But we have gained back a big portion
of that loss — over 600,000 peo- Natural Increase
ple—through immigration, our net ex-
Net Migration
change of people with other countries.
The net result was a loss through Net International
Migration
migration of about 138,000 people.
Net Domestic
Despite this loss through migration, Migration

the city’s population continued to -1000 -800 -600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600 800 1000

grow, thanks to natural increase Thousands

(the difference between births and Source: U.S. Census Bureau Estimates Program
Population Division, NYC Department of City Planning

deaths) of over 380,000, resulting in
a net population increase of 242,000.
This is how the city’s population changes. This is the dynamic that makes New York City a
really special place, because we have a constant injection of energy into the city. In effect, new people
move to the city each day, while others leave. Some venture that there must be something wrong with
a city that lost nearly 800,000 people in six years through domestic migration. But there is nothing
inherently wrong with this dynamic. In fact, it is a sign that New York City is a dynamic and healthy
place. A good way to illustrate this point is to examine the top ten cities in the U.S. in 1950. New
York ranked number one in 1950, followed by Chicago, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles; Detroit was
ranked fifth, followed by Baltimore, Cleveland, St. Louis, Washington, and Boston. But by 2006,
only New York remained among the nation’s ten largest (Table 1). All the rest had lost population,
with St. Louis, Detroit,
and Cleveland losing Table 1. Top U.S. Cities in 1950 and Their Growth to 2006
more than half their 1950
populations. These cities
Population
did not have immigrants Rank 2006 Percent
1950 2006 City 1950 2006 % Growth Foreign-born
coming in to replace those 1950-2006
leaving; indeed, but for 1 1 New York City, NY 7,891,957 8,250,567 4.5 37.0

Boston and Washington, 2 3 Chicago, IL 3,620,962 2,826,099 -22.0 21.8

3 6 Philadelphia, PA 2,071,605 1,450,708 -30.0 10.9
the percentage of foreign-
4 2 Los Angeles, CA 1,970,358 3,802,539 93.0 39.9
born in these cities’ 5 10 Detroit, MI 1,849,568 918,849 -50.3 4.5
populations was in the 6 20 Baltimore, MD 949,708 640,961 -32.5 6.1

single digits in 2006. In 7 40 Cleveland, OH 914,808 442,924 -51.6 4.9
8 52 St. Louis, MO 856,796 353,837 -58.7 6.4
contrast to these one-
9 25 Washington, DC 802,178 585,419 -27.0 12.7
sided population flows,
10 23 Boston, MA 801,444 595,698 -25.7 27.2
New York’s population
movements are dynamic, Sources: 1950 U.S. Census, 2006 Census Estimates,
and 2006 ACS Full Sample
with immigrants re- Population Division, NYC Department of City Planning

2


placing those who leave.
The city remains a magnet Figure 2. Estimated Components of Population Change for New
York City, 1970-2000
for immigrants who come
here to take advantage of the
opportunities the city has 1970-1980
Population Change
to offer. As a result of these
flows, New York remained the Natural Increase
largest city in the nation in
2006, followed by Los Angeles, 1980-1990 Net Migration

which saw a near doubling of its Net International
Migration
population, also due to a heavy
Net Domestic
flow of immigrants. 1990-2000 Migration
This population dynamic
is not new. As Figure 2 shows,
the city was a net exporter of -2 -1 Millions 0 1 Source: Census Bureau
Enumerated Population adjusted for undercount
Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning

people in the 1970s, 1980s, and
1990s. In the 1970s, however, a period of grave economic crises, immigration could not mitigate the
large outflows from the city, resulting in a population decline of around 900,000. In the 1980s and
1990s, however, outflows moderated, and thanks to higher immigration and to natural increase,
the city enjoyed renewed growth.
While net population losses that are offset by natural increase are a continuing feature of New
York City’s population growth, there is a new facet to population flows in the post-2000 period. In-flows
to New York City are comprised of domestic migrants from the 50 states and immigrant flows from
outside the U.S. In-migrants from the 50 states have traditionally had relatively high socioeconomic
characteristics compared to those coming from abroad, which remains true even today. For example,
domestic migrants entering between 1995 and 2000 had mean earnings of $64,000, compared to $41,000
for immigrants entering during this period. That differential has narrowed—though still present—in
the most recent period. The lower earnings of immigrants helps pull down the overall socioeconomic
profile of those entering the city. As
Table 2. Economic Characteristics of In-Migrants to, and Out-
a result, historically, those coming migrants from, New York City: 1985-1990, 1995-2000, 2005-2006
to the city have had lower socioeco- 1985-1990 1995-2000 2005-2006
Mean Earnings, 21 years and over
nomic characteristics compared with In-migrants $42,918 * $55,117 * $52,975
those leaving the city. For example, in- Out-migrants $52,191 $58,824 $52,470
Median Household Income
migrants during 1985-1990 had mean In-migrants $48,436 * $51,642 * $52,224 *
earnings of $43,000 compared with Out-migrants $53,279 $55,997 $47,629
Percent Below Poverty
$52,000 for out-migrants during this In-migrants 21.9 * 23.9 * 23.2
period; earnings for in-migrants during Out-migrants 17.2 15.5 20.6
Percent College Graduate+, 25 years and over
1995-2000 stood at $55,000 compared In-migrants 39.0 * 46.0 * 53.8 *
with $59,000 for out-migrants (Table Out-migrants 32.4 37.4 39.6

2). Similarly, in-migrants during these * Difference with out-migrants is statistically significant at the .10 level
All dollar figures in 2007 constant $
two periods had significantly lower
household incomes compared with
Sources: 1990, 2000 Census; 2006 ACS centered on 2005-2007PUMS
out-migrants. However, more recently, Population Division, NYC Department of City Planning

3


socioeconomic characteristics of in-
Figure 3. Changing Origins of In-migrants to New York City,
migrants in the 2005-2006 period were 1995-2000 and 2005-2006
either similar to those of out-migrants
(in the case of mean earnings) or
1995-2000 2005-2006
superior (median household income).
This was partly due to a shift in the
sources of inflow to the city, with
immigrants comprising a smaller Abroad
50 States
share, and a concomitant increase in Abroad & Puerto 34.2%
50 States &
49.8% Rico
the share of domestic migrants. While 50.2%
Puerto Rico
65.8%
immigrants remain an important part
of the flow, the city has become a more
attractive destination for domestic
migrants, who now comprise a larger
share of the total inflow to the city. Sources: 2000 U.S. Census, 2006 ACS centered on 2005-2007 PUMS

Figure 3 shows that between 1995 and
2000, domestic migrants comprised just over half of the inflow to the city, but in the most recent
2005-2006 period they accounted for close to two thirds of the flow. The superior characteristics
of domestic migrants, and their increased shared of the inflow to the city, has helped increase the
overall socioeconomic profile of in-migrants to the city. It remains to be seen whether this pattern will
continue; but these changes are testament to the dynamic nature of migration flows to the city and the
dramatic effect they can have on the city’s overall well-being.

Secondary Effects of Immigration

Immigration has not only directly helped shore up the city’s population. It has had an
indirect effect as well through fertility. Immigrants tend to be in the younger child-bearing age
groups and many immigrant groups have high levels of fertility. Table 3 shows that in 2006,
53 percent of the 119,000 births in the
City of New York were to foreign- Table 3. Births in New York City to Foreign-born Mothers, 2006
born women—and 61 percent of these
Number Percent
children had a foreign-born mother
Total births 119,359 100.0
or father. Women from five countries
accounted for nearly one-quarter of all Foreign-born mothers 63,416 53.1

births in New York City: Mexico, the Mexico 8,146 6.8
Dominican Republic, China, Jamaica, Dominican Republic 7,683 6.4
China* 7,017 5.9
and Ecuador. Jamaica 3,273 2.7
Figure 4 (next page) shows Ecuador 3,116 2.6
that neighborhoods with the largest Guyana 2,338 2.0
Trinidad & Tobago 1,884 1.6
numbers of children born in 2006 Bangladesh 1,639 1.4
included Washington Heights and Haiti 1,497 1.3
India 1,381 1.2
Chinatown in Manhattan; the West
Sources: NYC Department of Health
*Includes mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan
Bronx; Jackson Heights, Corona, and New York State Department of Health

4


5


Flushing in Queens; and Sunset Park and Flatbush in Brooklyn. These were largely immigrant
neighborhoods, reflective of high immigrant fertility in the city.
One of the ways of estimating the size of some of New York’s smaller immigrant groups
is by looking at the number of births, which are a pretty firm number since births are almost
always recorded. The number of children born to a group allows us to estimate a population that
would be large enough to result in the given number of births—a population that would include
undocumented immigrants and others who may be wary of being included in population surveys
that may involve door-to-door canvassing.

Immigrant Population in 2006: Diversity and Settlement

As of 2006, the city’s foreign-born population was over three million, an all-time high.
The high in the previous century was in 1930, during the waning years of the large flows from
Southern and Eastern Europe, when the foreign-born population stood at 2.4 million. The surge
in immigration in recent decades is a result of the Immigration and Nationality Amendments of
1965, which repealed immigration quotas favoring northern and western Europeans and placed
all countries on an equal footing. Immigrants constituted 37 percent of the population in 2006;
the record in the 20th century was 41 percent, reached in 1910. The share of the foreign-born
never rises much above that because the children of immigrants born in the U.S. are native-born
Americans, which serves to cap the percentage of the foreign-born.
The Dominican Republic was the largest source country of New York’s immigrants in 2006,
accounting for 378,000
residents or nearly 13 Figure 5. Top Sources of New York City’s Foreign-born
percent of the city’s foreign- Population, 1970 and 2006
1970 2006
born (Figure 5). The second Dominican
Italy
Republic
largest source country was
Poland China
China (303,000), followed
Former
by Jamaica (175,000), Mexico USSR
Soviet Union

(170,000), and Guyana Germany Jamaica

(143,000). As recently as 1970 Ireland Mexico
the top five source countries
Cuba Guyana
were all European: Italy
Dominican
(212,200), Poland (119,000), Republic
Ecuador

United Trinidad &
the U.S.S.R. (117,000), Kingdom Tobago
Germany (98,000), and Austria Haiti
Ireland (69,000). By 2006,
Jamaica India
no European country made
0 100,000 200,000 300,000 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000
the top 10 list of immigrants Sources: 1970 Census and 2006 ACS Full Sample
in the city, though if the
constituent states of the U.S.S.R. were treated as one entity, it would rank third. Thus, there
has been a dramatic shift in the composition of the city’s immigrant population in the past few
decades.
A significant feature of New York’s immigrant population is its unique diversity, which will

6


significantly shape civic participation in the city. The top ten immigrant groups account for just
over half of all immigrants in the city. The manner in which these myriad constituencies coalesce
will have major repercussions on the city’s body politic. It is instructive to examine New York
in comparison with
other cities in the Figure 6. Top Sources of the Foreign-born for Major U.S. Cities,
nation. Los Angeles 2006
had 1.5 million foreign-
Dominican
born residents in New York City
Total=3,038,073
Republic 12.5 Los Angeles
Total=1,507,032
2006, and just two China, total*
10.0
groups, Mexicans and All other 27.5
Mexico 40.1
Salvadorans, made All other 51.0
Jamaica 5.8

Iran 3.1
up the majority of Mexico 5.6
Korea 5.2
its foreign-born Guyana 4.7
Philippines 5.6
Ecuador 4.2
population (Figure Trinidad and
Guatemala 6.8 El Salvador 11.7
Haiti 3.0 Tobago 3.3
6). In Chicago, the
Chicago Houston
nation’s third-largest Total=599,802 Total=576,035

city, Mexicans alone All other 31.4
All other 23.5

accounted for close to Mexico 47.8 China, total 3.1 Mexico 51.6

Guatemala 3.3
half of all immigrants. Vietnam 4.3

In Houston, the India 3.1
Honduras 4.9
Philippines 3.5

next-largest city, China, total 4.6 El Salvador 9.4
Source: 2006 ACS Full Sample
Poland 9.6 * Includes mainland China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan. Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning
Mexican immigrants
accounted for over half of foreign-born residents. Most other cities have one or two dominant
groups, compared to the myriad ethnic constituencies that characterize New York’s immigrants,
each of which has a substantial population.
Not only is the city’s immigrant population diverse, but it has become even more so in recent
years, thanks to the diversity visa program. This program provides an entry path for immigrants
with no close relatives in the U.S., and who were unable to take advantage of family-based visas
under the 1965 law. 2 Initially, the program benefited European groups, primarily the Irish and
Poles, many of whom no longer had close relatives in the U.S., but who could now avail themselves
of these new visas. But these visas have also helped immigrants from countries such as Bangladesh
and the nations of West Africa, particularly Ghana and Nigeria, to gain a firm foothold in New
York. Given that these visas are aimed at those underrepresented in the immigration steam, it is a
built-in mechanism in immigration law to further diversify the sources of immigration.
New York also has a significant flow of undocumented immigrants, most of whom enter the
country with a valid visa. But by overstaying their visas, i.e., staying in the U.S. beyond the required

2 Under the Immigration Act of 1990 law, 40,000 diversity visas were available through a lottery
during the 1992-1994 period, with 40 percent reserved for natives of Ireland. From 1995 onward, 55,000
visas were available annually for nations whose immigrants numbered fewer than 50,000 over the previous
five years, with each nation limited to seven percent of the total pool. Immigrants who were exempt from
numerical limits, such as immediate relatives or refugees, were not counted toward the 50,000 threshold.
Most countries competed for an allotment under the diversity visa program, with the federal government
establishing ceilings by region of the world.

7


Table 4. Borough Foreign-born by Place of Birth, 2006

Number Percent Number Percent
Bronx Population 1,369,859 100.0 Brooklyn Population 2,520,835 100.0
Foreign-born 434,251 31.7 Foreign-born 942,921 37.4

Foreign-born 434,251 100.0 Foreign-born 942,921 100.0
Dominican Republic 139,429 32.1 China 98,125 10.4
Jamaica 48,383 11.1 Jamaica 67,695 7.2
Mexico 38,249 8.8 Haiti 60,273 6.4
Ecuador 17,805 4.1 Trinidad & Tobago 54,806 5.8
Guyana 15,683 3.6 Dominican Republic 53,420 5.7
Ghana 12,634 2.9 Ukraine 51,796 5.5
Honduras 11,924 2.7 Mexico 50,202 5.3
Italy 9,118 2.1 Guyana 46,913 5.0
Bangladesh 7,517 1.7 Russia 43,356 4.6
Trinidad & Tobago 5,642 1.3 Poland 26,818 2.8

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Manhattan Population 1,613,257 100.0 Queens Population 2,263,858 100.0 Staten Is. Population 478,501 100.0
Foreign-born 457,360 28.4 Foreign-born 1,093,622 48.3 Foreign-born 100,020 20.9

Foreign-born 457,360 100.0 Foreign-born 1,093,622 100.0 Foreign-born 100,020 100.0
Dominican Republic 109,118 23.9 China 120,658 11.0 Mexico 9,275 9.3
China 65,242 14.3 Guyana 77,814 7.1 Italy 7,410 7.4
Mexico 20,927 4.6 Ecuador 77,032 7.0 China 7,367 7.4
United Kingdom 14,282 3.1 Colombia 58,231 5.3 Ukraine 5,551 5.5
Ecuador 13,225 2.9 Dominican Republic 54,521 5.0 Russia 4,717 4.7
Japan 11,667 2.6 India 54,089 4.9 Poland 4,218 4.2
Korea 10,656 2.3 Mexico 48,315 4.4 India 4,217 4.2
India 9,436 2.1 Korea 47,927 4.4 Philippines 3,812 3.8
Germany 8,309 1.8 Jamaica 47,661 4.4 Yugoslavia 3,507 3.5
France 7,959 1.7 Philippines 34,390 3.1 Korea 3,166 3.2

Source: 2006 ACS centered on 2005-07 Full Sample

departure date, they become part of the undocumented population. The total undocumented
population is conservatively estimated at 500,000.
With respect to settlement patterns of immigrants, each borough had a distinct pattern
of settlement. Immigrant groups were concentrated in specific boroughs, and often in specific
neighborhoods. In some boroughs a few groups were predominant, while other boroughs had
a more diverse immigrant population. The largest immigrant populations were in Queens
and Brooklyn, which were home to over two-thirds of the city’s immigrants. Over one million
immigrants lived in Queens, where large immigrant settlements developed in Flushing, Astoria,
Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights (Table 4, above, and Figure 7, next page). China was the largest
source country of immigrants to Queens, accounting for 11 percent of the foreign-born, with a
significant concentration in Flushing, one of New York’s three Chinatowns. The Chinese were
followed by immigrants from Guyana, Ecuador, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic.
Together, these countries accounted for just 36 percent of the overall foreign-born population
of Queens, indicative of the diverse nature of the foreign-born in the borough, where no single
group is dominant. Brooklyn had the second largest contingent of immigrants (943,000), heavily
concentrated in neighborhoods such as Bensonhurst, Bay Ridge, Canarsie, as well as in Sunset
Park, also known as Brooklyn’s Chinatown. The source countries of the top foreign-born groups
in Brooklyn were China, followed by Jamaica, Haiti, Trinidad and Tobago, and the Dominican
Republic, which together accounted for 35 percent of the foreign-born in the borough.
Manhattan had 457,000 immigrants, the largest neighborhoods being Washington Heights
and Chinatown. Washington Heights and its environs were home to large numbers of Dominicans,

8


9


who were the largest group in Manhattan, and accounted for nearly one-quarter of the borough’s
foreign-born. The Chinese were the second largest foreign-born group, comprising 14 percent,
and concentrated heavily in Chinatown in lower Manhattan. The next largest immigrant groups
were those from Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Ecuador. These top five groups accounted for
close to half of the borough’s foreign-born.
The Bronx was home to 434,000 immigrants, primarily in the western and northern
sections of the borough. The Dominican Republic alone accounted for nearly one-third of all
immigrants in the Bronx, followed by Jamaica, Mexico, Ecuador, and Guyana. These top five
countries comprised 60 percent of the borough’s foreign-born. The city’s emerging West African
presence can be seen in the Bronx, with Ghana ranked sixth.
Staten Island’s 100,000 immigrants were heavily present in the northern part of the
borough. The diversity of Staten Island’s growing immigrant population rivals that of Queens
and Brooklyn. The top five source countries in the borough were Mexico, Italy, China, Ukraine,
and Russia, which together accounted for just over one-third of the borough’s foreign-born; the
top ten countries accounted for just over half of its foreign-born.
In terms of the share of immigrants in the total population, Queens was the most
“immigrant” borough. The one million immigrants in Queens comprised 48 percent of the
borough’s population, followed by Brooklyn (37 percent), the Bronx (32 percent), Manhattan (28
percent), and Staten Island (21 percent). In recent years, both Staten Island and the Bronx have
seen a major increase in immigrant concentrations.
Newly arrived immigrants to the city usually succeed longer resident groups, both native-
and foreign-born, who have left the city. These outflows take place for a host of reasons, including
the desire for more affordable housing, new jobs, and retirement. Immigrants move into housing
vacated by those leaving the city, a process of residential succession that has been relatively smooth
in recent years. The city’s largest immigrant groups tend to live in their own enclaves. These
include Washington Heights, home to the largest Dominican concentration in the city, and the
city’s three Chinatowns, which are home to immigrants from China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan,
as well as from the far-flung Chinese diaspora. But other neighborhoods house immigrants with
diverse origins. As a result, many neighborhoods, especially in Queens, tend to have a multiethnic
and multiracial composition, which epitomize the “melting pot” nature of the borough. Indeed, by
many measures, Queens is the most diverse county in the U.S.

Socioeconomic Characteristics of Immigrants

Given that the foreign-born comprise such a large share of the city’s population, it should
not be surprising that only 52 percent of the city’s population ages 5 and over speaks only English
at home (Figure 8, next page). Of the remaining 48 percent who speak a language other than
English at home, about half, or 24 percent of the entire population of the city, is limited English-
3
proficient (LEP), defined as speaking English “less than very well.” The LEP population in the

3 Those who were ages 5 and over and 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 who were limited English-proficient were defined as persons who spoke a language

10


Figure 8. English Language Ability of Persons Ages 5 and Over
city totals nearly 1.8 million and speaks a host of in New York City, 2006
languages at home—over half speak Spanish, 14
percent speak Chinese, 7 percent speak Russian, 3
Not English
percent speak Korean, and roughly 2 percent each Proficient
Speaks Speaks
speak Italian and French Creole (Table 5). Thus language 23.5% only
other than 1,791,664 English
these six languages account for nearly 80 percent of English at home
at home English
the LEP population. proficient 52.2%
47.8% 3,986,074
While 24 percent of the entire city’s 3,651,805 24.4%
population is LEP, about half of the foreign-born 1,860,141

population is so classified. Over eight of every ten
Mexican immigrants are LEP, as are over seven of Total: 7,637,879
Source: 2006 ACS

every ten immigrants from China, Ecuador, the

Dominican Republic, and Colombia (Table 6). On Table 5. New York City’s Limited English Proficient Population
by Nativity and Language, 2006
the other hand, immigrants from English-speaking Number Percent
Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago have low levels Total LEP 1,791,664 100.0
Native-born 294,603 16.4
of LEP. Foreign-born 1,497,061 83.6

A high level of LEP among immigrants is Top LEP Languages
1 Spanish 910,264 50.8
accompanied by low educational attainment. Just 2 Chinese 256,613 14.3
3 Russian 121,104 6.8
72 percent of immigrants had completed high 4 Korean 53,281 3.0
school, compared to 84 percent of the native-born; 5 Italian 41,132 2.3
6 French Creole 38,115 2.1
for those with a college degree, the figures were 7 Bengali 30,500 1.7
8 Polish 27,261 1.5
26 percent and 37 percent, respectively. Among 9 French 26,130 1.5
10 Yiddish 24,875 1.4
the top ten immigrant groups, only Asian Indians
Source: 2006 ACS PUMS

had educational attainment higher than that of Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning

the native-born, with nearly half having
Table 6. Selected Socioeconomic Characteristics of New York
completed college.
City’s Top 10 Immigrant Groups, 2006
Given the lower socioeconomic
characteristics of immigrants, it is not
surprising that they have a lower median Education Poverty and Income
% Limited % High
household income ($41,000), compared Total English School % College Poverty Household
Population Proficient Graduate Graduate Rate Income
with the native-born ($50,000).
Total, New York City 8,214,426 23.5 78.6 31.9 17.2 $45,800
However, Guyanese household income Native-born 5,176,287 6.4 84.3 37.2 18.0 $50,000
Foreign-born 3,038,139 49.7 72.2 25.9 15.8 $41,000
was similar to that of the native-born, Dominican Republic 378,384 73.4 56.8 12.6 25.2 $26,000
China 303,462 78.4 62.0 22.8 18.6 $40,800
while Asian Indian household income Jamaica 174,861 1.5 76.0 17.5 11.1 $47,000
Mexico 169,572 86.5 47.1 6.0 23.5 $35,000
was substantially higher ($61,000). Guyana 142,946 1.1 73.7 13.9 11.6 $50,000
Ecuador 128,623 78.2 53.8 11.6 14.5 $40,000
Despite the lower median household Trinidad and Tobago 99,596 0.9 79.7 16.3 10.4 $44,800
Haiti 91,571 46.8 79.5 21.0 10.4 $45,180
income for immigrants, they had a India 74,476 39.0 84.6 49.4 14.1 $61,200
Colombia 73,809 69.9 74.0 19.5 11.6 $41,000
slightly lower poverty rate vis-à-vis the
Source: 2006 ACS PUMS

native-born: 16 percent compared with Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning

other than English at home and who spoke English less than “very well”; i.e., they included those who
spoke English “well,” “not well,” or “not at all.” The percentage of the population that was limited English-
proficient was calculated based on the populations ages 5 and over to obtain the percent LEP.

11


18 percent. Income among the native-born was concentrated, while the income distribution was
more equitable among immigrants, resulting in a lower poverty rate. Dominicans and Mexicans
were the only two groups in the top ten who had a higher poverty rate than the native-born.
Immigrants arrive in the U.S. with disparate skills, which accounts for differences in
socioeconomic attainment among immigrant groups. It is also pertinent to note that over one of
every five immigrants arrived in 2000 or later. Becoming integrated into the city’s economy is a
formidable undertaking, eased by the passage of time. Differences in socioeconomic attainment
among immigrant groups are thus also related to the fact that some groups are disproportionately
recent entrants who have not yet integrated into the U.S. labor market.
The city’s economy is sustained by immigrants, who account for 47 percent of the labor
force. It is instructive to examine the niches workers occupy by industry, which is defined as the
kinds of business conducted by a person’s employing organization. Immigrants account for more
than 60 percent of all workers in construction and in manufacturing (Figure 9).
The largest employer in New York’s economy is Educational, Health, and Social Services, with
978,000 resident workers. This industry employed the highest number of immigrants (435,000, or 46
percent of the total), primarily in fields such as hospitals, elementary and secondary schools, home
health care, nursing facilities, and colleges and universities. The second largest industry grouping
was Accommodation, Food, and Other Services, with 614,000 workers; immigrants accounted for
360,000, or 59 percent of the total, primarily in restaurants and other food establishments.
Thus, immigrants have not only stabilized the city’s population, but now buttress its labor

Figure 9. New York City’s Industry Groups by Nativity, 2006

Percent
Foreign-
born = 65.9 65.2 50.6 50.5 22.7 39.9 35.7 44.5 58.6 26.1
1,000

900

800
47% of all workers were foreign-born
700
Thousands

600

500

400

300

200

100

0
Construction Manufacturing Wholesale & Transportation Information FIRE & Rental Professional* Educational, Accommodation, Public
Retail Trade & Warehousing, and Leasing Health & Social Food, & Other Administration
and Utilities Services Services**
* Includes Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste Management
Foreign-born Native-born
** Includes Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, and Other Services (Except Public Administration)
Source: 2006 ACS. Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning

12


force. Immigrants will play an even greater role in the city’s economy as aging baby boomers begin
to enter retirement in greater numbers.

Impact of Immigration on Race, Ethnicity, and Ancestry

In just over four decades since the passage of the landmark 1965 Immigration and Nationality
amendments, population flows from Latin America, Asia, and the Caribbean have totally reshaped
New York, transforming it from a white-majority city to one with no racial/ethnic majority. In
1970, 63 percent of the city’s population was white, but by 2006, whites accounted for just 35
percent of the population. Figure 10 shows that
Hispanics were the largest minority group in the Figure 10. New York City’s Race/Hispanic Groups by Borough, 2006
city, with a 28 percent share, followed by blacks Population (millions)
8.25 1.37 2.52 1.61 2.26 .48
(24 percent) and Asians and others (13 percent). 100%
Multiracial,
(These figures include both the native- and non-
Hispanic

foreign-born in each group.) 75%
Asian, and
other non-
In 1970, each of the boroughs had a white Hispanic

50% Black, non-
majority, and the role of immigration in the Hispanic

remaking of New York can be discerned from Hispanic
25%
the unique changes in the racial/Hispanic
composition of each of the boroughs. Immigra- 0%
White, non-
Hispanic

tion to the Bronx is primarily from Latin NYC Bronx Brooklyn Manhattan Queens Staten
Island

America and the non-Hispanic Caribbean. By Source: 2006 ACS Full Sample

2006, Hispanics comprised just over half of
the population of the Bronx, while blacks accounted for under one-third. In Brooklyn, where
immigrants are primarily from the non-Hispanic Caribbean and Europe, whites and blacks each
comprised over one-third of the population. Whites in Manhattan comprise just under half the
population, but Hispanics and Asians have a strong presence thanks to immigration. In Queens,
Asia and Latin America are the top sources of immigration, and these flows have transformed the
borough. While whites still comprise a plurality—30 percent of its population—Hispanics and
Asians each account for roughly one-quarter of the population, and blacks for under one-fifth.
Staten Island is the only borough in the city
Figure 11. New York City’s Race/Hispanic Groups by Age, 2006
where whites comprise a majority, but their two-
thirds share is down from 90 percent in 1970.
While whites comprise a plurality in the 100%
Multiracial,
non-
city, they are older than average and are aging Hispanic
75% Asian, and
out, which will result in further changes in the other non-
Hispanic
racial/Hispanic composition of the city. This can 50% Black, non-
Hispanic
be clearly seen in Figure 11: whites are 35 percent
of the overall population, but they comprise a 25%
Hispanic

majority of those ages 65 and over, a cohort that White, non-
represents the city’s demographic past. On the 0%
Total Under 18 18-24 25-44 45-64 65+
Hispanic

other hand, blacks, Hispanics, and Asians are
underrepresented among the city’s elderly and Source: 2006 ACS Full Sample

13


overrepresented among children, a group that represents the city’s demographic future. Hispanics,
who account for 28 percent of the city’s overall population, comprise over one-third of children
under the age of 18, while blacks account for over one-quarter. In the coming decades, as the white
population ages out, the city’s overall population will reflect the racial/Hispanic makeup of these
younger age groups as they ascend the age distribution.
While immigration has helped make the city racially diverse, it has also brought about
unprecedented ethnic diversity within each of the major race/Hispanic groups. The Afro-
Caribbean population, which comprised less than 10 percent of black non-Hispanics in 1970,
now accounts for over one-third of this group (Figure 12). Among Hispanics, Puerto Ricans,
who once comprised the overwhelming majority, now account for just over one-third, with newer
entrants such as Dominicans accounting for one-quarter, and Mexicans for over one-tenth.
While the Asian presence is still dominated by the Chinese (46 percent of all Asians), other major
groups include Asian Indians (22 percent), Koreans (11 percent), and Filipinos (8 percent). New
York’s white population is a blend of the descendants of earlier immigrant streams from Italy and
Ireland, along with more recent streams from Russia and Eastern Europe.
We noted earlier that New York has dynamic population movements, with tens of thousands of
people leaving the city each year and others entering to take their place. In the 1970s, when the city was
facing a fiscal crisis and an uptick in crime, most of those leaving the city were white, and the phrase
“white flight” was often used to describe these outflows. As described earlier, the out-migration of whites
and the entry of non-European immigrants dramatically altered the racial/ethnic composition of the
city. The process in which people who leave the city are replaced by immigrants continues, but it is

Figure 12. New York City’s Race/Hispanic Groups by Ethnicity
and Ancestry, 2006
White Black
Total = 2,854,736 Total = 1,947,388

Italian Other
19.2% 19.3% Caribbean
Irish 35.5%
Other
48.3% 9.9%
Southern
Russian U.S.
6.7% 41.4%
Polish African
5.4% 3.8%
British German
5.2% 5.3%

Hispanic Asian
Central Total = 2,276,640 Total = 956,218
American Pakistani
Other Other
6.2% 3.2%
10.5% 10.0%
Colombian Filipino
Puerto
4.4% 7.5%
Rican Chinese
Ecuadoran 34.7% 46.5%
7.2% Korean
Mexican 10.5% Asian
11.6% Dominican Indian
25.4% 22.4%

Source: 2006 ACS Full Sample

14


worth noting that it is not an issue
Figure 13. In-, Out-, and Net Migration by Race/Hispanic Origin
of “white flight” anymore. Blacks and New York City, 2005-2006
Hispanics have the highest population
losses through out-migration (Figure
13), usually involving the native-born, Hispanic
while whites now experience the
lowest losses, and Asians continue to Asian, non-
have net inflows into the city. With Hispanic In-migrants
Out-migrants
continued immigration from Latin Net
Black, non-
America, Asia, and the non-Hispanic Hispanic
Caribbean, there is foreign-for-native
replacement within the black and White, non-
Hispanic
Hispanic populations. It is also worth
noting that migration decisions for -150 -100 -50 0 50 100 150
blacks and Hispanics are primarily Thousands
Source: 2006 ACS centered on 2005-2007 PUMS

related to where they are in the life
cycle, whether it is moving to the suburbs for housing opportunities, to Florida for job opportunities
(Hispanics), or to the South to retire (blacks).

The Effect of Immigration to New York on the Region

The entry of immigrants to New York has had a major impact on the wider New York
metropolitan region, an area that encompasses 31 counties across 12,600 square-miles in portions
of New York State, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The region had a population of 22 million in
2006, including over eight million in New York City. While the impact of post-1965 non-European
immigration was felt primarily in New York, over time many of these immigrants left the city
and settled in the suburban counties of the region. Their numbers have been supplemented by
immigrants who bypassed the five boroughs and settled directly in these counties, resulting in
immigrant enclaves across the region. The counties closest to the city, labeled the “inner counties,”
were one-quarter immigrant in 2006 and include Hudson County, across the river from New
York City, which was over 40 percent foreign-born—higher than any county in the region, except
for Queens (Figure 14, next page). The counties that were farthest from the city, labeled “outer
counties,” were 11 percent foreign-born.
Immigrant neighborhoods in the region tend to be low-income, and have housing stock that
includes older, multifamily rental units, which produce high population densities. On the other
hand, many of these neighborhoods had socioeconomic characteristics superior to those of the
subregion in which they were located.
The inner counties have been historical recipients of outflows from New York, resulting
in a demographic makeup which, over time, begins to resemble that of the city. In the 1970s, a
period marked by a severe fiscal crisis in New York, the city’s population declined by more than
10 percent, primarily caused by massive outflows to the inner counties. Despite these flows to the
inner counties, many inner counties lost population, as their own residents moved farther out,
often to the outer counties. As with New York City, immigration played a crucial role in reversing

15


Figure 14. Percent Foreign-born in the New York Metropolitan
Region by County, 2006

Ulster
Litchfield
Dutchess
Sullivan

Orange Putnam New Haven

Fairfield
Westchester
Sussex Rockland
Passaic

Bergen
Warren
Morris
Essex Suffolk
NYC Nassau
Union
Hunterdon
Somerset
Middlesex
Percent Foreign-born Hudson
Mercer Monmouth Total Foreign-born Percent
25% or more
Inner Population Population Foreign-born
Counties 15% to 24.9%
NY Metro. Region 22,105,536 5,733,701 25.9
10% to 19.9% New York City 8,214,426 3,038,139 37.0
Outer Ocean
Inner Counties 8,394,250 2,088,112 24.9
Counties Less than 10%
Nassau 1,325,662 268,252 20.2
Inner County Westchester 949,355 213,164 22.5
Boundary Outer Counties 5,496,860 607,450 11.1
Suffolk 1,469,715 196,965 13.4
New York City
Source: 2006 ACS Full Sample. Population Division, NYC Dept. of City Planning

population losses in many inner counties. In contrast, the outer counties have continued their
long pattern of growth, also aided by an increasing immigrant presence.
As in New York City, the entry of non-European groups had altered the racial/Hispanic
composition of the region. Whites still comprise a majority in the region, though their share
has declined from 77 percent in 1970 to only 54 percent in 2006; the share of whites in the inner
counties has fallen from 86 percent to 59 percent. In the outer counties, while the number of
whites has increased, their share has declined from 91 percent to 77 percent during this period,
primarily due to the faster growth of other groups.

New York to 2030: A Growing City that Continues To Be Defined by Immigration

In the past decade, New York has witnessed a building boom, which saw privately-owned
residential building permits surge, from fewer than 4,500 annually in 1994 to nearly 31,000 in 2006
(Figure 15, next page). These permits are not concentrated in Manhattan; rather, they have been issued
for all five boroughs, leading to significant new construction across neighborhoods in the city. This new
residential construction has been able to accommodate population growth in the city. In the opening
decade of the 21st century, however, New York is unlikely to see the torrid, immigrant-fueled growth
it saw a century earlier, when the city’s population increased by 39 percent between 1900 and 1910. But
neither is it likely to experience the steep decline of the 1970s. In the coming decades, we project that
immigration will continue to play a crucial role in the city’s growing population, which will be shaped by

16


low fertility, continued net out-migration, and an aging population.
New York City’s enumerated population, which stood at over eight million in 2000, was
estimated at 8.25 million in 2006. Between 2006 and 2010, according to the New York City
Department of City Planning, the city is projected to add another 150,000 residents, to reach 8.4
million. The city’s population
is projected at 8.7 million in Figure 16. Enumerated, Estimated, and Projected Populations
2020 and at 9.1 million in for New York City and Boroughs, 2000-2030
9,119,811
2030 (Figure 16). Thus, over 9 Staten
8,250,267 8,402,214
three decades (2000-2030), 8
8,008,278 Island

the city is projected to add 1.1
7 Queens
million residents, an increase
6
of 13.9 percent. The dynamic
5
Millions

population flows that have Manhattan
4
defined New York for over half
3
a century are likely to continue, Brooklyn

with substantial outflows from 2

the city offset by immigration 1
Bronx
and natural increase. Thus, 0
2000 2006 2010 2030
immigration will continue to
play a crucial role in the city’s Sources: Data from Census 2000 enumeration
2006 Estimate from US Census Bureau Population Estimates Program
2010 and 2030 NYC DCP Population Division Projections

growth. Population Division, NYC Department of City Planning

17


Two boroughs, Queens
Figure 17. New York City Population
and Staten Island, are likely by Borough, 2006 and 2030
Bronx
to see new population peaks in 1,371,353
1,457,039
2030, reaching 2.57 million and
552,000 in 2030, respectively. Manhattan
1,612,630
Manhattan is projected to see 1,826,547
New York City
its population hit 1.83 million 2006: 8,250,267
2030: 9,119,811 Queens
in 2030, well below its peak 2,264,661
population of 2.33 million in 2,565,352

1910 (Figure 17). Brooklyn
Brooklyn
should still be the most pop- 2,523,047
2,718,967
Staten
ulous borough, with 2.72 mil- Island
lion in 2030, close to its 1950 478,876
551,906
historical high of 2.74 million,
while the Bronx is projected to
reach 1.46 million, just under Sources: 2006 Census Bureau Estimates, 2030 DCP Population Projections

its 1970 historical high of 1.47
million.
While the overall pop-
ulation of the city will in-
crease, the number of resi-
dents under the age of 18 is
projected to decline slightly,
from 1.96 million in 2006 to
under 1.95 million in 2030
(Figure 18). The largest decline
in the number of children will
be in Brooklyn, followed by
the Bronx; but these declines
will be largely offset by growth
in Staten Island, Manhattan,
and Queens. Given the growth
of the overall population and
the decline in the number of
children, the share of children in the overall population is projected to decline from 24 percent in
2006 to 21 percent in 2030.
The decline in the number of children will be accompanied by a dramatic increase in the city’s
elderly population. The number of persons ages 65 and over is projected to rise from 921,000 in
2006 to 1.35 million in 2030, an increase of 432,000 or 47 percent (Figure 19, next page). The share
of the elderly in the city’s population is projected to increase from 11 percent in 2006 to 15 percent
in 2030. The largest percentage increase in the elderly will be in Staten Island, which will see a near
doubling of its elderly population, from 53,000 in 2006 to 103,000 in 2030. Aging baby boomers,
fertility decline, and higher life expectancy all contribute to an aging of the population, which will

18


mark a new demographic era in
the city.

Conclusion

The racial and ethnic
diversity of New York brings
to mind the words of Major
Samuel Shaw of Boston, who
referred to the city as “a motley
collection of all the nations
under heaven.” The major was
describing New York in 1776,
and if anything, those words
are even truer in the first
decade of the 21st century.
This increased diversity
in recent decades is a result of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Amendments, which opened
up immigration to non-Europeans. The 1965 law has altered the city’s population, from one
that was largely descended from European immigrants, to a city with no dominant immigrant
or migrant heritage. Immigrants from Latin America, Asia, the non-Hispanic Caribbean, and
Eastern Europe have transformed the city’s ethnic composition to a point where no simple
categorization fits. The diversity visa program, which provides visas for those underrepresented
in the immigration stream, has further diversified the flow of immigrants, who now include
Bangladeshis as well as West Africans from Nigeria, Ghana, and Senegal.
Back in 1970, New York City’s population was largely of European-origin, descendants of
earlier waves of immigrants. The city was also home to sizable black and Hispanic populations
who, by today’s standards, were relatively homogeneous: a black population with links to the great
migration from the southern states, and a Hispanic population that was largely from Puerto Rico.
Over time, and against great odds, increases in civic participation among native-born black and
Hispanic New Yorkers have led to numerous high-level positions in city government, including
commissioners of various city agencies, City Council members, borough presidents, deputy
mayors, and ultimately, an African American mayor in 1990. Newer immigrant groups can take
advantage of the earlier struggles won by black and Hispanic New Yorkers and walk the path they
have laid.
From a demographic perspective, immigrants will have many opportunities to do so. But
sheer numbers do not immediately translate into civic participation. Many immigrants are not
naturalized and hence cannot vote. Moreover, many immigrants are young, and the young have
relatively low rates of voting. On the other hand, native-born groups are older and tend to vote.
But immigrants have built-in demographic advantages, and it is a safe bet that political and civic
life will eventually reflect demographic realities. First, the city’s second- and third- generation
descendants of earlier European immigrants are aging. Second, continued outflows from the
city and immigrant-for-native replacement will magnify the effects of immigration, not only

19


demographically but also socially, economically, and eventually, politically. Indeed, many of
the more recent immigrant groups are already taking an active role in civic groups, including
community boards, not-for-profit community associations, and union organizations.
Immigrant enclaves give many groups a natural “leg-up” in the political process, since they
often provide the numerical strength to elect one of their own. For example, the influx
of Dominicans into Washington Heights helped elect the first Dominican to the City
Council, while Flushing eventually elected the first Chinese-American council member.
There is a possibility that in 2009, New York City will elect an Asian American to city-
wide office, another potential first. Immigrants of Caribbean origin have also been elected
to the City Council from Brooklyn, as well as to Congress. Neighborhoods—both from
the standpoint of spatial propinquity and a sense of community—allow groups to coalesce
around common interests. But it is also worth noting that the most successful groups have
attained influence only because they have built coalitions with others. In a city with no
ethnic or racial majority, this is the key to city-wide success.
The secret of New York has always been is its ability to rise to the challenges that
new communities of people put before us. If people in new immigrant communities do
come forward and participate in social, economic, civic and political life, the energy and
dynamism that is unleashed will continue to propel the city forward, with benefits far
exceeding the costs of meeting these challenges. The key is that when people have access to
opportunities, upward social mobility and prosperity follow, which in turn reinvigorate the
city for all. In a city of 8.3 million diverse people, the challenges are more difficult than ever,
but the payoff for being successful is even more impressive, and has the capacity to take the
city to heights perhaps not seen in its history. •

20

The Hugh L. Carey
Center for Government Reform
at Wagner College

Dr. Seymour P. Lachman
Director

Adam Simms
Senior Research Fellow
Senior Policy Analyst

Robert Polner
Senior Research Associate

Joshua Spivak
Research Fellow

Susan Rosenberg
Administrator

The Hugh L. Carey Center
for Government Reform at
Wagner College conducts non-
partisan studies and proposes
ways to improve legislative and
administrative effectiveness.

Wagner College
One Campus Road
Staten Island, New York 10301

Tel: 718-420-4131
seymour.lachman@wagner.edu
www.wagner.edu

New Immigrants to New York

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Destacado

Destacado (6)

Similar a New Immigrants to New York

Similar a New Immigrants to New York (20)

Más de Wagner College

Más de Wagner College (20)

Último

Último (20)

New Immigrants to New York