How Many From Where? According to What? Legal Immigration to California – Stocks and Flows

1. How Many From Where? According to What? Legal Immigration to California – Stocks and Flows Presented by Andrew Ruppenstein

2. Introduction: • Since the change in immigration laws in 1965, California has been the leading destination state for immigrants, and the proportion of the population that is foreign- born has increased rapidly. • In 1960, the 1.3 million foreign-born persons were 9% of the state’s population; in 2000, the 8.9 million foreign-born were 26% of the population.

3. Foreign-Born Persons in California, 1960-2000 (Number and Percent of Total Population)

4. Statement of Problem: Prior to 1994, there was only one estimate of the foreign-born available – the decennial census. Intercensal estimates were based on decennial figures plus an estimated flow. From 1994 onwards the Current Population Survey has included questions about place of birth. From 1999 onwards the American Community Survey has included place of birth as a data item. How closely do the estimates agree?

5. Ethnic Estimates: the Press vs. the Census

6. Data Sources for Estimates of Numbers of Immigrants: • Decennial Census • Current Population Survey (CPS) • Census Supplementary Survey / American Community Survey (ACS) • Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Legal Immigrant Files

7. The Decennial Census • The Decennial Census is in a sense, two separate surveys. One covers 100% of the population (“short form data”). The other covers ~ 1 in 6 households (“long form data”). • Race data may be from the short or the long form, and place of birth data are from the long form. Only short form race data were used. • Foreign-born includes both legal immigrants and undocumented residents.

8. Where does the race data come from? Below is an excerpt from the 2000 Census questionnaire.

9. Where does the ancestry data come from? Below is an excerpt from the 2000 Census long form questionnaire.

10. Where does the place of birth data come from? Below is an excerpt from the 2000 Census long form questionnaire.

11. Comparing Country of Birth and Race/Ethnicity in California (2000 Census Data)

12. Current Population Survey (CPS) • Monthly nationwide survey run jointly by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics. • The March Survey Supplement has questions concerning nativity and place of birth. • The California sample size (1994-2002) has ranged from 4,338 households to 5,569 households. • Use of county-level data strongly discouraged.

13. Supplementary Surveys/ACS • Census Supplementary Surveys are preliminary tests of the American Community Survey (ACS) designed to replace long-form census data in 2010 • 1999 ACS – Tabulates San Francisco and Tulare Counties only • 19,807 housing units sampled • 2000 Supplementary Survey (ACS) – State and 21 Counties tabulated • 75,418 housing units sampled • 2001 Supplementary Survey (ACS) – State and 22 Counties tabulated • 72,480 housing units sampled

14. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Legal Immigrant Data • Collected continuously from legal immigrants, released on an annual basis (federal fiscal year). • Includes only legal immigrants. Undocumented, tourists, students, etc. are excluded. • Reports immigrants not on an arrival (“flow”) basis, but when they adjust their status to obtain legal residency.

15. 14 Selected Counties: • Data from 14 Counties are examined for further analysis.

16. Proportion Foreign-Born by County: • Data from 14 Counties are examined for further analysis. • These counties contain 80% of the state’s population, and 87% of it foreign-born. • These counties contain most of the high concentrations of foreign-born.

17. Mexico: 3,928,701 Philippines: 664,935 Vietnam: 418,249 El Salvador: 359,673 China excluding Hong Kong & Taiwan: 327,611 Korea: 268,452 Guatemala: 211,458 India: 198,201 Iran: 158,613 Taiwan: 151,775 Top 10 Countries of Birth for the Foreign Born in California, Census 2000 figures

18. Flow of Legal Immigrants to California, FFY 1990-2001

19. Foreign-Born Persons in California, as Implied by INS Legal Immigrant Data Cumulatively Added to 1990 Census Data

20. Caveats to INS Cumulation: • Mortality to census base population of foreign-born is unknown, but its effects are assumed to be minimal. • Interstate in-/out-migration and international out-migration of persons in the base populations is unknown, but is assumed to be small enough to be ignored. • Does not capture undocumented immigrants.

21. Three Sets of Estimates for California: INS Cumulative, CPS, ACS

22. California: Three Sets of Estimates vs. Census 2000

23. Comparing the Data: • CPS 1994-2001 vs. the 1990 INS Cumulative data (State-level, Foreign-Born and by Country of Birth) • CPS 2000 vs. 2000 Census (State-level, Foreign-Born and by Country of Birth) • 2000 Census vs. ACS (State and Counties, Foreign-Born)

24. California: CPS vs. INS Cumulative Foreign-Born

25. How do the CPS and INS Cumulative estimates compare? • Of the 80 possible combinations (8 years x 10 countries), the census-based estimates were below the CPS estimates 46% of the time (37/80). • Over 1994-2001, only 1995 had more estimates out of the 90% CI’s than within. Of the 80 possible combinations, the estimates were within the CI’s 74% of the time. • Most of the countries had at least 6 of 8 years within the CI’s, except Mexico, which had 0. Korea and El Salvador had all 8 within the CI’s.

26. How do the Census 2000 and CPS foreign-born and country of birth figures compare? Using 90% confidence intervals: • For the state, the Census 2000 and CPS figures are different, as the confidence intervals do not overlap for the foreign-born. • For the 9 smaller countries, the CI’s do overlap. Only Mexico is different. • The CPS estimate for the state was 1% below the census estimate. The population-weighted mean absolute difference between the two for the 10 countries was 5.4%.

27. How do the Census 2000 and ACS foreign-born figures compare for the state and counties? Using 90% confidence intervals: • For the state, the Census 2000 and ACS figures are different, as the confidence intervals do not overlap. • For the LA and Sacramento, the CI’s do not overlap. For the other 12 counties, the CI’s overlap. • The ACS estimate for the state was 3.4% below the census estimate. The population-weighted mean absolute difference between the two for the 14 countries was 3%.

28. Summary Findings: • 2000 Census vs. CPS: For the state, the 2000 Census estimate is distinctly different from the CPS estimate. For the 10 countries, 9 estimates are essentially the same (only Mexico is different.) Thus for 2000, CPS country-level estimates are acceptable for most countries. • CPS vs. INS Cumulative: Except for Mexico, the INS Cumulative estimate usually falls reasonably close to the CPS estimate. No discernible bias in the INS Cumulative estimate relative to the CPS. Thus both methods are deemed acceptable for intercensal estimates.

29. Summary Findings (continued): • 2000 Census vs. ACS: For the state, the 2000 Census estimate is distinctly different from the ACS estimate. For the 14 counties, they are essentially the same in 12. Thus for most counties, ACS estimates may be OK.

30. And Finally… For more information contact me via e-mail: • Andrew.Ruppenstein@dof.ca.gov