To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.

Immigration to the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A welcome notice to new immigrants
Naturalization ceremony at Oakton High School in Fairfax County, Virginia, December 2015
Immigrants to the United States take the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony at the Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona, September 2010.
Population growth rate with and without migration in the U.S.

Immigration to the United States has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of its history. In absolute numbers, the United States has by far the highest number of immigrant population in the world, with 50,661,149 people as of 2019.[1][2] This represents 19.1% of the 244 million international migrants worldwide, and 14.4% of the United States' population. In 2018, there were almost 90 million immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants in the United States, accounting for 28% of the overall U.S. population.[3]

According to the 2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, the United States admitted a total of 1.18 million legal immigrants (618k new arrivals, 565k status adjustments) in 2016.[4] Of these, 48% were the immediate relatives of United States citizens, 20% were family-sponsored, 13% were refugees or asylum seekers, 12% were employment-based preferences, 4.2% were part of the Diversity Immigrant Visa program, 1.4% were victims of a crime (U1) or their family members were (U2 to U5),[5] and 1.0% who were granted the Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) for Iraqis and Afghans employed by the United States Government.[4] The remaining 0.4% included small numbers from several other categories, including 0.2% who were granted suspension of deportation as an immediate relative of a citizen (Z13);[6] persons admitted under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act; children born after the issuance of a parent's visa; and certain parolees from the former Soviet Union, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam who were denied refugee status.[4]

Between 1921 and 1965, policies such as the national origins formula limited immigration and naturalization opportunities for people from areas outside Northwestern Europe. Exclusion laws enacted as early as the 1880s generally prohibited or severely restricted immigration from Asia, and quota laws enacted in the 1920s curtailed Southern and Eastern European immigration. The civil rights movement led to the replacement[7] of these ethnic quotas with per-country limits for family-sponsored and employment-based preference visas.[8] Between 2018 and 2021, the number of first-generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled.[9][10] Census estimates show 45.3 million foreign born residents in the United States as of March 2018 and 45.4 million in September 2021, the lowest three-year increase in decades.[11]

In 2017, out of the U.S. foreign-born population, some 45% (20.7 million) were naturalized citizens, 27% (12.3 million) were lawful permanent residents, 6% (2.2 million) were temporary lawful residents, and 23% (10.5 million) were unauthorized immigrants.[12] The United States led the world in refugee resettlement for decades, admitting more refugees than the rest of the world combined.[13]

Some research suggests that immigration is beneficial to the United States economy. With few exceptions, the evidence suggests that on average, immigration has positive economic effects on the native population, but it is mixed as to whether low-skilled immigration adversely affects low-skilled natives. Studies also show that immigrants have lower crime rates than natives in the United States.[14][15][16] The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding such issues as maintaining ethnic homogeneity, workers for employers versus jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior.

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/2
    3 191 636
    715 632
  • Growth, Cities, and Immigration: Crash Course US History #25
  • Ellis Island - History of Immigration to the United States | 1890-1920 | Award Winning Documentary


Episode 25: Immigrant Cities Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. History and today we’re going to continue our extensive look at American capitalism. Mr. Green, Mr. Green, I’m sorry are you saying that I grow up to be a tool of the bourgeoisie… Oh not just a tool of the bourgeoise, Me from the Past, but a card-carrying member of it. I mean, you have employees whose labor you can exploit because you own the means of production, which in your case includes a chalkboard, a video camera, a desk, and a xenophobic globe. Meanwhile Stan, Danica, Raoul, and Meredith toil in crushing poverty--STAN, DID YOU WRITE THIS PART? THESE ARE ALL LIES. CUE THE INTRO. intro So, last week we saw how commercial farming transformed the American west and gave us mythical cowboys and unfortunately not-so-mythical Indian reservations. Today we leave the sticks and head for the cities--as so many Americans and immigrants have done throughout this nation’s history. I mean we may like to imagine that the history of America is all “Go west young man,” but in fact from Mark Twain to pretty much every hipster in Brooklyn, it’s the opposite. So, population was growing everywhere in America after 1850. Following a major economic downturn in the 1890s, farm prices made a comeback, and that drew more and more people out west to take part in what would eventually be called agriculture’s golden age. Although to be fair agriculture’s real golden age was in like 3000 BCE when Mesopotamians were like, “Dude, if we planted these in rows, we could have MORE OF IT THAN WE CAN EAT.” So it was really more of a second golden age. But anyway, more than a million land claims were filed under the Homestead Act in the 1890s. And between 1900 and 1910 the populations of Texas and Oklahoma together increased by almost 2 million people. And another 800,000 moved into Kansas, the Dakotas, and Nebraska. That’s right. People moved to Nebraska. Sorry, I just hadn’t yet offended Nebraskans. I’m looking to get through the list before the end of the year. But one of the central reasons that so many people moved out west was that the demand for agricultural products was increasing due to … the growth of cities. In 1880, 20% of the American population lived in cities and there were 12 cities with a population over 100,000 people. This rose to 18 cities in 1900 with the percentage of urban dwellers rising to 38%. And by 1920, 68% of Americans lived in cities and 26 cities had a population over 100,000. So in the 40 years around the turn of the 20th century, America became the world’s largest industrial power and went from being predominantly rural to largely urban. This is, to use a technical historian term, a really big deal. Because it didn’t just make cities possible, but also their products. It’s no coincidence that while all this was happening, we were getting cool stuff like electric lights and moving picture cameras. Neither of which were invented by Thomas Edison. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but suddenly there are a lot more photographs in Crash Course U.S. History b-roll. So the city leading the way in this urban growth was New York, especially after Manhattan was consolidated with Brooklyn (and the Bronx, Queens and Staten Island) in 1898. At the turn of the century, the population of the 23 square miles of Manhattan Island was over 2 million and the combined 5 boroughs had a population over 4 million. But, while New York gets most of the attention in this time period, and all time periods since, it wasn’t alone in experiencing massive growth. Like, my old hometown of Chicago, after basically burning to the ground in 1871, became the second largest city in America by the 1890s. Also, they reversed the flow of the freaking Chicago River. Probably the second most impressive feat in Chicago at the time. The first being that the Cubs won two World Series. Even though I’m sorely tempted to chalk up the growth of these metropolises to a combination of better nutrition and a rise in skoodilypooping, I’m going to have to bow to stupid historical accuracy and tell you that much of the growth had to do with the phenomenon that this period is most known for: immigration. Of course, by the end of the 19th century, immigration was not a new phenomenon in the United States. After the first wave of colonization by English people, and Spanish people, and other Europeans, there was a new wave of Scandinavians, French people, and especially the Irish. Most of you probably know about the potato famine of the 1840s that led a million Irish men and women to flee. If you don’t know about it, it was awful. And the second largest wave of immigrants was made up of German speakers, including a number of liberals who left after the abortive revolutions of 1848. Alright, let’s go to the ThoughtBubble. The Irish had primarily been farmers in the motherland, but in America, they tended to stay in cities, like New York and Boston. Most of the men began their working lives as low-wage unskilled laborers, but over time they came to have much more varied job opportunities. Irish immigrant women worked too, some in factories or as domestic servants in the homes of the growing upper class. Many women actually preferred the freedom that factory labor provided and one Irish factory woman compared her life to that of a servant by saying: “Our day is ten hours long, but when it’s done, it’s done, and we can do what we like with the evenings. That’s what I’ve heard from every nice girl that’s tried service. You’re never sure that your soul is your own except when you’re out of the house.” [1] Most German speakers had been farmers in their home countries and would remain farmers in the U.S., but a number of skilled artisans also came. They tended to stay in cities and make a go of entrepreneurship. Bismarck himself saw emigration from Germany as a good thing saying, “The better it goes for us, the higher the volume of emigration.”[2] And that’s why we named a city in North Dakota after him. Although enough German immigrants came to New York that the lower east side of Manhattan came to be known for a time as Kleindeutschland (little Germany), many moved to the growing cities of the Midwest like Cincinnati and St. Louis. Some of the most famous German immigrants became brewers, and America is much richer for the arrival of men like Frederick Pabst, Joseph Schlitz, and Adolphus Busch. And by richer, I mean more drunker. Hey. Thanks for not ending on a downer, Thought Bubble. I mean, unless you count alcoholism. So but by the 1890s, over half of the 3.5 million immigrants who came to our shores came from southern and eastern Europe, in particular Italy and the Russian and Austro Hungarian empires. They were more likely than previous immigrants to be Jewish or Catholic, and while almost all of them were looking for work, many were also escaping political or religious persecution. And by the 1890s they also had to face new “scientific” theories, which I’m putting in air quotes to be clear because there was nothing scientific about them, which consigned them to different “races” whose low level of civilization was fit only for certain kinds of work and predisposed them to criminality. The Immigration Restriction League was founded in Boston in 1894 and lobbied for national legislation that would limit the numbers of immigrants, and one such law even passed Congress in 1897 only to be vetoed by President Grover Cleveland. Good work, Grover! You know, his first name was Stephen, but he called himself Grover. I would have made a different choice. But before you get too excited about Grover Cleveland, Congress and the President were able to agree on one group of immigrants to discriminate against: the Chinese. Chinese immigrants, overwhelmingly male, had been coming to the United States, mostly to the West, since the 1850s to work in mines and on the railroads. They were viewed with suspicion because they looked different, spoke a different language, and they had “strange” habits, like regular bathing. By the time the Chinese Exclusion Act went into effect in 1882 there were 105,000 people of Chinese descent living in the United States, mainly in cities on the West Coast. San Francisco refused to educate Asians until the state Supreme Court ordered them to do so and even then the city responded by setting up segregated schools. The immigrants fought back through the courts. In 1886, in the case of Yick Wo v. Hopkins the United States Supreme court ordered San Francisco to grant Chinese-operated laundries licenses to operate. Then in 1898 in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Court ruled that American born children of Chinese immigrants were entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, which should have been a duh but wasn’t. We’ve been hard on the Supreme Court here at Crash Course, but those were two good decisions. You go, Supreme Court! But despite these victories Asian immigrants continued to face discrimination in the form of vigilante-led riots like the one in Rock Springs, Wyoming that killed 26 people, and congressionally approved restrictions, many of which the Supreme Court did uphold, so meh. Also it’s important to remember that this large-scale immigration--and the fear of it--was part of a global phenomenon. At its peak between 1901 and the outbreak of World War 1 in 1914, 13 million immigrants came to the United States. In the entire period touched off by the industrialization from 1840 until 1914, a total of 40 million people came to the U.S. But at least 20 million people emigrated to other parts of the Western Hemisphere, including Brazil, the Caribbean, Canada (yes, Canada) and Argentina. As much as we have Italian immigrants to thank for things like pizza (and we do thank you), Argentina can be just as grateful for the immigrant ancestors of Leo Messi. Also the Pope, although he has never once won La Liga. And there was also extensive immigration from India to other parts of the British Empire like South Africa; Chinese immigration to South America and the Caribbean; I mean, the list goes on and on. In short, America is not as special as it fancies itself. Oh it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document. I get it wrong and then I get shocked with the shock pen. Sorry I don’t mean to sound defeatist, but I don’t have a good feeling about this. Alright. “The figure that challenged attention to the group was the tall, straight, father, with his earnest face and fine forehead, nervous hands eloquent in gesture, and a voice full of feeling. This foreigner, who brought his children to school as if it were an act of consecration, who regarded the teacher of the primer class with reverence, who spoke of visions, like a man inspired, in a common classroom...I think Miss Nixon guessed what my father’s best English could not convey. I think she divined that by the simple act of delivering our school certificates to her he took possession of America.”[3] Uhh, I don’t know. At first I thought it might be someone who worked with immigrants, like Jane Addams, but then at the end suddenly it’s her own father. Jane Addams’s father was not an immigrant. Mary Antin? Does she even have a Wikipedia page?! She does? Did you write it, Stan? Stan wrote her Wikipedia page. AH. So, this document, while it was written by someone who should not have a Wikipedia page, points out that most immigrants to America were coming for the most obvious reason: opportunity. Industrialization, both in manufacturing and agriculture, meant that there were jobs in America. There was so much work, in fact, that companies used labor recruiters who went to Europe to advertise opportunities. Plus, the passage was relatively cheap, provided you were only going to make it once in your life, and it was fast, taking only 8 to 12 days on the new steam powered ships. The Lower East Side of Manhattan became the magnet for waves of immigrants, first Germans then Eastern European Jews and Italians, who tended to re-create towns and neighborhoods within blocks and sometimes single buildings. Tenements, these 4, 5 and 6 story buildings that were designed to be apartments, sprang up in the second half of the 19th century and the earliest ones were so unsanitary and crowded that the city passed laws requiring a minimum of light and ventilation. And often these tenement apartments doubled as workspaces because many immigrant women and children took in piecework, especially in the garment industry. Despite laws mandating the occasional window and outlawing the presence of cows on public streets, conditions in these cities were pretty bad. Things got better with the construction of elevated railroads and later subways that helped relieve traffic congestion but they created a new problem: pickpockets. “Pickpockets take advantage of the confusion to ply their vocation… The foul, close, heated air is poisonous. A healthy person cannot ride a dozen blocks without a headache.” So that’s changed! This new transportation technology also enabled a greater degree of residential segregation in cities. Manhattan’s downtown area had at one time housed the very rich as well as the very poor but improved transportation meant that people no longer had to live and work in the same place. The wealthiest, like Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan, constructed lavish palaces for themselves and uptown townhouses were common.[4][5] But until then, one of the most notable feature of gilded age cities like New York was that the rich and the poor lived in such close proximity to each other. And this meant that with America’s growing urbanization, the growing distance between rich and poor was visible to both rich and poor. And much as we see in today’s megacity, this inability to look away from poverty and economic inequality became a source of concern. Now one way to alleviate concern is to create suburbs so you don’t have to look at poor people, but another response to urban problems was politics, which in cities like New York, became something of a contact sport. Another response was the so-called progressive reform movement. And in all these responses and in the issues that prompted them – urbanization, mechanization, capitalism, the distribution of resources throughout the social order -- we can see modern industrial America taking shape. And that is the America we live in today. Thank you for watching. I’ll see you next week. Crash Course is produced and directed by Stan Muller. The script supervisor is Meredith Danko. The show is written by my history teacher, Raoul Meyer, Rosianna Halse Rojas, and myself. Our associate producer is Danica Johnson. And our graphics team is Thought Café. Every week, there’s a new caption for the libertage. If you’d like to suggest one, you can do so in comments where you can also ask questions about today’s video that will be answered by our team of historians. Thanks for watching Crash Course and as we say in my hometown, don’t forget to be awesome. Immigrant Cities - ________________ [1] Quoted in H.W. Brands, American Colossus: The Triumph of Capitalism 1865-1900. p. 265. [2] Ibid p. 267 [3] Quoted in Brands, American Colossus, p. 324 [4] Ibid p. 315 [5] quoted in Brands, American Colossus p. 320


An 1887 illustration of immigrants on an ocean steamer passing the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor

American immigration history can be viewed in four epochs: the colonial period, the mid-19th century, the start of the 20th century, and post-1965. Each period brought distinct national groups, races, and ethnicities to the United States.

Colonial period

During the 17th century, approximately 400,000 English people migrated to America under European colonization.[17] They comprised 83.5% of the white population at the time of the first census in 1790.[18] From 1700 to 1775, between 350,000 and 500,000 Europeans immigrated: estimates vary in sources. Regarding English settlers of the 18th century, one source says 52,000 English migrated during the period of 1701 to 1775, although this figure is likely too low.[19][20] 400,000–450,000 of the 18th-century migrants were Scots, Scots-Irish from Ulster, Germans, Swiss, and French Huguenots.[21] Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants.[22] They numbered 350,000.[23] From 1770 to 1775 (the latter year being when the American Revolutionary War began), 7,000 English, 15,000 Scots, 13,200 Scots-Irish, 5,200 Germans, and 3,900 Irish Catholics migrated to the Thirteen Colonies.[24] According to Butler (2000), up to half of English migrants in the 18th century may have been young, single men who were well-skilled, trained artisans, like the Huguenots.[25] Based on scholarly analysis, English was the largest single ancestry in all U.S. states at the time of the first census in 1790, ranging from a high of 82% in Massachusetts to a low of 35.3% in Pennsylvania, where Germans accounted for 33.3%.

Origins of immigrant stock in 1790

The Census Bureau published preliminary estimates of the origins of the colonial American population by scholarly classification of the names of all White heads of families recorded in the 1790 census in a 1909 report entitled A Century of Population Growth.[26] These initial estimates were scrutinized and rejected following passage of the Immigration Act of 1924, when the government required accurate official estimates of the origins of the colonial stock population as basis for computing National Origins Formula immigration quotas in the 1920s. In 1927, proposed quotas based on CPG figures were rejected by the President's Committee chaired by the Secretaries of State, Commerce, and Labor, with the President reporting to Congress "the statistical and historical information available raises grave doubts as to the whole value of these computations as the basis for the purposes intended".[27] Concluding that CPG "had not been accepted by scholars as better than a first approximation of the truth", an extensive scientific revision was produced, in collaboration with the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS), as basis for computing contemporary legal immigration quotas.[28] For this task scholars estimated the proportion of names of unique derivation from each of the major national stocks present in the population as of the 1790 census. The final results, later also published in the journal of the American Historical Association, are presented below:[27]

United States Estimated Nationalities of the White American population in the Continental United States as of the 1790 CensusUnited States[27]

State or Territory EnglandEnglishWales[a] ScotlandScotch Northern IrelandScotch-Irish IrelandIrish Holy Roman EmpireGerman Dutch RepublicDutch FranceFrench SwedenSwedishFinland[b] SpainSpanish Other Total
# % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # % # %
 Connecticut 155,598 67.00% 5,109 2.20% 4,180 1.80% 2,555 1.10% 697 0.30% 600 0.26% 2,100 0.90% 25 0.01% - 61,372 26.43% 232,236
 Delaware 27,786 60.00% 3,705 8.00% 2,918 6.30% 2,501 5.40% 509 1.10% 2,000 4.32% 750 1.62% 4,100 8.85% - 2,041 4.41% 46,310
 Georgia 30,357 57.40% 8,197 15.50% 6,082 11.50% 2,010 3.80% 4,019 7.60% 100 0.19% 1,200 2.27% 300 0.57% - 621 1.17% 52,886
 Kentucky &  Tennessee 53,874 57.90% 9,305 10.00% 6,513 7.00% 4,838 5.20% 13,026 14.00% 1,200 1.29% 2,000 2.15% 500 0.54% - 1,790 1.92% 93,046
 Maine 57,664 60.00% 4,325 4.50% 7,689 8.00% 3,556 3.70% 1,249 1.30% 100 0.10% 1,200 1.25% - - 20,324 21.15% 96,107
 Maryland &  District of Columbia 134,579 64.50% 15,857 7.60% 12,102 5.80% 13,562 6.50% 24,412 11.70% 1,000 0.48% 2,500 1.20% 950 0.46% - 3,687 1.77% 208,649
 Massachusetts 306,013 82.00% 16,420 4.40% 9,703 2.60% 4,851 1.30% 1,120 0.30% 600 0.16% 3,000 0.80% 75 0.02% - 31,405 8.42% 373,187
 New Hampshire 86,078 61.00% 8,749 6.20% 6,491 4.60% 4,092 2.90% 564 0.40% 100 0.07% 1,000 0.71% - - 34,038 24.12% 141,112
 New Jersey 79,878 47.00% 13,087 7.70% 10,707 6.30% 5,439 3.20% 15,636 9.20% 28,250 16.62% 4,000 2.35% 6,650 3.91% - 6,307 3.71% 169,954
 New York 163,470 52.00% 22,006 7.00% 16,033 5.10% 9,431 3.00% 25,778 8.20% 55,000 17.50% 12,000 3.82% 1,500 0.48% - 9,148 2.91% 314,366
 North Carolina 190,860 66.00% 42,799 14.80% 16,483 5.70% 15,616 5.40% 13,592 4.70% 800 0.28% 4,800 1.66% 700 0.24% - 3,531 1.22% 289,181
 Pennsylvania 149,451 35.30% 36,410 8.60% 46,571 11.00% 14,818 3.50% 140,983 33.30% 7,500 1.77% 7,500 1.77% 3,325 0.79% - 16,815 3.97% 423,373
 Rhode Island 45,916 71.00% 3,751 5.80% 1,293 2.00% 517 0.80% 323 0.50% 250 0.39% 500 0.77% 50 0.08% - 12,070 18.66% 64,670
 South Carolina 84,387 60.20% 21,167 15.10% 13,177 9.40% 6,168 4.40% 7,009 5.00% 500 0.36% 5,500 3.92% 325 0.23% - 1,945 1.39% 140,178
 Vermont 64,655 76.00% 4,339 5.10% 2,722 3.20% 1,616 1.90% 170 0.20% 500 0.59% 350 0.41% - - 10,720 12.60% 85,072
 Virginia &  West Virginia 302,850 68.50% 45,096 10.20% 27,411 6.20% 24,316 5.50% 27,853 6.30% 1,500 0.34% 6,500 1.47% 2,600 0.59% - 3,991 0.90% 442,117
Thirteen Colonies 1790 Census Area 1,933,416 60.94% 260,322 8.21% 190,075 5.99% 115,886 3.65% 276,940 8.73% 100,000 3.15% 54,900 1.73% 21,100 0.67% - 219,805 6.93% 3,172,444
Ohio Northwest Territory 3,130 29.81% 428 4.08% 307 2.92% 190 1.81% 445 4.24% - 6,000 57.14% - - - 10,500
New France French America 2,240 11.20% 305 1.53% 220 1.10% 135 0.68% 1,750 8.75% - 12,850 64.25% - 2,500 12.50% - 20,000
Spanish Empire Spanish America 610 2.54% 83 0.35% 60 0.25% 37 0.15% 85 0.35% - - - 23,125 96.35% - 24,000
 United States 1,939,396 60.10% 261,138 8.09% 190,662 5.91% 116,248 3.60% 279,220 8.65% 100,000 3.10% 73,750 2.29% 21,100 0.65% 25,625 0.79% 219,805 6.81% 3,226,944
  1. ^ and Welsh; ethnic Welsh people making up approximately 7-10% of settlers from England and Wales
  2. ^ and Finnish (including Forest Finns); ethnic Finns making up more than half of New Swedish colonial settlers[29]

Historians estimate that fewer than one million immigrants moved to the United States from Europe between 1600 and 1799.[30] By comparison, in the first federal census, in 1790, the population of the United States was enumerated to be 3,929,214.[31]

Early United States era

Immigrants arriving at Ellis Island in 1902

The Naturalization Act of 1790 limited naturalization to "free white persons"; it was expanded to include black people in the 1860s and Asian people in the 1950s.[32] This made the United States an outlier, since laws that made racial distinctions were uncommon in the world in the 18th century.[33]

In the early years of the United States, immigration (not counting the enslaved, who were treated as merchandise rather than people) was fewer than 8,000 people a year,[34] including French refugees from the slave revolt in Haiti. Legal importation of enslaved African was prohibited after 1808, though many were smuggled in to sell. After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States.[35] The death rate on these transatlantic voyages was high, during which one in seven travelers died.[36]

After an initial wave of immigration from China following the California Gold Rush, Congress passed its first immigration law, the Page Act of 1875 which banned Chinese women.[37] This was followed by the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, banning virtually all immigration from China until the law's repeal in 1943. In the late 1800s, immigration from other Asian countries, especially to the West Coast, became more common.

Exclusion Era

The peak year of European immigration was in 1907, when 1,285,349 persons entered the country.[38] By 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the United States.[39]

While the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 had already excluded immigrants from China, the immigration of people from Asian countries in addition to China was banned by the Immigration Act of 1917, also known as the Asiatic Barred Zone Act, which also banned homosexuals, people with intellectual disability, and people with an anarchist worldview.[40] The Emergency Quota Act was enacted in 1921, limiting immigration from the Eastern Hemisphere by national quotas equal to 3 percent of the number of foreign-born from each nation in the 1910 census. The Act aimed to further restrict immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe, particularly Italian, Slavic, and Jewish people, who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s.[41] The temporary quota system was superseded by the National Origins Formula of the Immigration Act of 1924, which computed national quotas as a fraction of 150,000 in proportion to the national origins of the entire White American population as of the 1920 census, except those having origins in the nonquota countries of the Western Hemisphere (which remained unrestricted).[42][43]

Origins of immigrant stock in 1920

The National Origins Formula was a unique computation which attempted to measure the total contributions of "blood" from each national origin as a share of the total stock of White Americans in 1920, counting immigrants, children of immigrants, and the grandchildren of immigrants (and later generations), in addition to estimating the colonial stock descended from the population who had immigrated in the colonial period and were enumerated in the 1790 census. European Americans remained predominant, although there were shifts toward Southern, Central, and Eastern Europe from immigration in the period 1790 to 1920. The formula determined that ancestry derived from Great Britain accounted for over 40% of the American gene pool, followed by German ancestry at 16%, then Irish ancestry at 11%. The restrictive immigration quota system established by the Immigration Act of 1924, revised and re-affirmed by the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, sought to preserve this demographic makeup of America by allotting quotas in proportion to how much blood each national origin had contributed to the total stock of the population in 1920, as presented below:[28]

The White Population of the United States in 1920, apportioned according to the National Origins Formula prescribed by §11(c) of the Immigration Act of 1924. About 56.5% of White Americans were deemed to be of postcolonial immigrant stock as of 1920, while 43.5% were deemed colonial stock. Consequent immigration quotas in effect until 1965 were based upon these calculations.[44]
European Americans in 1790 by nationality, estimated by classification of family names, according to a 1909 preliminary estimate in Census Bureau report A Century of Population Growth (top half) and revised figures according to a scientific study by the Census Bureau in collaboration with the American Council of Learned Societies commissioned in the 1920s (bottom half)[26][27]
Country of origin Total Colonial stock Postcolonial stock
Total Immigrants Children of Grandchildren of
# % # % # % # % # % # %
 Austria 843,051 0.89% 14,110 0.03% 828,951 1.55% 305,657 2.23% 414,794 2.16% 108,500 0.53%
 Belgium 778,328 0.82% 602,300 1.46% 176,028 0.33% 62,686 0.46% 62,042 0.32% 51,300 0.25%
 Czechoslovakia 1,715,128 1.81% 54,700 0.13% 1,660,428 3.10% 559,895 4.08% 903,933 4.71% 196,600 0.95%
 Denmark 704,783 0.74% 93,200 0.23% 611,583 1.14% 189,934 1.39% 277,149 1.44% 144,500 0.70%
 Estonia 69,013 0.07% - 69,013 0.13% 33,612 0.25% 28,001 0.15% 7,400 0.04%
 Finland 339,436 0.36% 4,300 0.01% 335,136 0.63% 149,824 1.09% 146,612 0.76% 38,700 0.19%
 France 1,841,689 1.94% 767,100 1.86% 1,074,589 2.01% 155,019 1.13% 325,270 1.69% 594,300 2.88%
 Germany 15,488,615 16.33% 3,036,800 7.36% 12,451,815 23.26% 1,672,375 12.20% 4,051,240 21.11% 6,728,200 32.61%
 Greece 182,936 0.19% - 182,936 0.34% 135,146 0.99% 46,890 0.24% 900 0.00%
 Hungary 518,750 0.55% - 518,750 0.97% 318,977 2.33% 183,773 0.96% 16,000 0.08%
 Ireland 10,653,334 11.24% 1,821,500 4.41% 8,831,834 16.50% 820,970 5.99% 2,097,664 10.93% 5,913,200 28.66%
 Italy 3,462,271 3.65% - 3,462,271 6.47% 1,612,281 11.76% 1,671,490 8.71% 178,500 0.87%
 Latvia 140,777 0.15% - 140,777 0.26% 69,277 0.51% 56,000 0.29% 15,500 0.08%
 Lithuania 230,445 0.24% - 230,445 0.43% 117,000 0.85% 88,645 0.46% 24,800 0.12%
 Netherlands 1,881,359 1.98% 1,366,800 3.31% 514,559 0.96% 133,478 0.97% 205,381 1.07% 175,700 0.85%
 Norway 1,418,592 1.50% 75,200 0.18% 1,343,392 2.51% 363,862 2.65% 597,130 3.11% 382,400 1.85%
 Poland 3,892,796 4.11% 8,600 0.02% 3,884,196 7.26% 1,814,426 13.23% 1,779,570 9.27% 290,200 1.41%
 Portugal 262,804 0.28% 23,700 0.06% 239,104 0.45% 104,088 0.76% 105,416 0.55% 29,600 0.14%
 Romania 175,697 0.19% - 175,697 0.33% 88,942 0.65% 83,755 0.44% 3,000 0.02%
 Russia 1,660,954 1.75% 4,300 0.01% 1,656,654 3.09% 767,324 5.60% 762,130 3.97% 127,200 0.62%
 Spain 150,258 0.16% 38,400 0.09% 111,858 0.21% 50,027 0.36% 24,531 0.13% 37,300 0.18%
 Sweden 1,977,234 2.09% 217,100 0.53% 1,760,134 3.29% 625,580 4.56% 774,854 4.04% 359,700 1.74%
  Switzerland 1,018,706 1.07% 388,900 0.94% 629,806 1.18% 118,659 0.87% 203,547 1.06% 307,600 1.49%
 Syria & Leb. 73,442 0.08% - 73,442 0.14% 42,039 0.31% 31,403 0.16% -
 Turkey 134,756 0.14% - 134,756 0.25% 102,669 0.75% 31,487 0.16% 600 0.00%
 United Kingdom 39,216,333 41.36% 31,803,900 77.02% 7,412,433 13.85% 1,365,314 9.96% 2,308,419 12.03% 3,738,700 18.12%
 Yugoslavia 504,203 0.53% - 504,203 0.94% 220,668 1.61% 265,735 1.38% 17,800 0.09%
Other Countries 170,868 0.18% 3,500 0.01% 167,368 0.31% 71,553 0.52% 93,815 0.49% 2,000 0.01%
All Quota Countries 89,506,558 100.00% 40,324,400 45.05% 49,182,158 54.95% 12,071,282 13.49% 17,620,676 19.69% 19,490,200 21.78%
Nonquota Countries 5,314,357 5.60% 964,170 2.34% 4,350,187 8.13% 1,641,472 11.97% 1,569,696 8.18% 1,139,019 5.52%
1920  USA Total 94,820,915 100.00% 41,288,570 43.54% 53,532,345 56.46% 13,712,754 14.46% 19,190,372 20.24% 20,629,219 21.76%
Several Polish immigrant workers, some of which are children, are seen standing in their fields after picking berries.
Polish immigrants working on a farm in 1909; the welfare system was practically non-existent before the 1930s and the economic pressures on the poor were giving rise to child labor.

Immigration patterns of the 1930s were affected by the Great Depression. In the final prosperous year, 1929, there were 279,678 immigrants recorded,[45] but in 1933, only 23,068 moved to the U.S.[30] In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than to it.[46] The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will.[47] Altogether, approximately 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated; half of them were US citizens.[48] Most of the Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.[49] In the post-war era, the Justice Department launched Operation Wetback, under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954.[50]

Since 1965

Immigrant trunks from Sweden in the late 19th century (on left) and from a refugee camp in Thailand in 1993 (on right)
Boston's Chinatown in Boston in 2008

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act, abolished the system of national-origin quotas. By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations, which changed the ethnic demographics of the United States.[51] In 1970, 60% of immigrants were from Europe; this decreased to 15% by 2000.[52] In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990,[53] which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%.[54] In 1991, Bush signed the Armed Forces Immigration Adjustment Act 1991, allowing foreign service members who had served 12 or more years in the US Armed Forces to qualify for permanent residency and, in some cases, citizenship.

In November 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187 amending the state constitution, denying state financial aid to illegal immigrants. The federal courts voided this change, ruling that it violated the federal constitution.[55]

Appointed by President Bill Clinton,[56] the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended reducing legal immigration from about 800,000 people per year to approximately 550,000.[57] While an influx of new residents from different cultures presents some challenges, "the United States has always been energized by its immigrant populations", said President Bill Clinton in 1998. "America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants ... They have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people."[58]

In 2001, President George W. Bush discussed an accord with Mexican President Vincente Fox. Due to the September 11 attacks, the possible accord did not occur. From 2005 to 2013, the US Congress discussed various ways of controlling immigration. The Senate and House were unable to reach an agreement.[55]

Nearly 14 million immigrants entered the United States from 2000 to 2010,[59] and over one million persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The per-country limit[8] applies the same maximum on the number of visas to all countries regardless of their population and has therefore had the effect of significantly restricting immigration of persons born in populous nations such as Mexico, China, India, and the Philippines—the leading countries of origin for legally admitted immigrants to the United States in 2013;[60] nevertheless, China, India, and Mexico were the leading countries of origin for immigrants overall to the United States in 2013, regardless of legal status, according to a U.S. Census Bureau study.[61]

Nearly 8 million people immigrated to the United States from 2000 to 2005; 3.7 million of them entered without papers.[62][63] In 1986 president Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants in the country.[64] Hispanic immigrants suffered job losses during the late-2000s recession,[65] but since the recession's end in June 2009, immigrants posted a net gain of 656,000 jobs.[66] Over 1 million immigrants were granted legal residence in 2011.[67]

For those who enter the US illegally across the Mexico–United States border and elsewhere, migration is difficult, expensive and dangerous.[68] Virtually all undocumented immigrants have no avenues for legal entry to the United States due to the restrictive legal limits on green cards, and lack of immigrant visas for low-skilled workers.[69] Participants in debates on immigration in the early 21st century called for increasing enforcement of existing laws governing illegal immigration to the United States, building a barrier along some or all of the 2,000-mile (3,200 km) Mexico-U.S. border, or creating a new guest worker program. Through much of 2006 the country and Congress was engaged in a debate about these proposals. As of April 2010 few of these proposals had become law, though a partial border fence had been approved and subsequently canceled.[70]

Modern reform attempts

Beginning with Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, presidents from both political parties have steadily increased the number of border patrol agents and instituted harsher punitive measures for immigration violations. Examples of these policies include Ronald Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the Clinton-era Prevention Through Deterrence strategy. The sociologist Douglas Massey has argued that these policies have succeeded at producing a perception of border enforcement but have largely failed at preventing emigration from Latin America. Notably, rather than curtailing illegal immigration, the increase in border patrol agents decreased circular migration across the U.S.–Mexico border, thus increasing the population of Hispanics in the U.S.[71]

Presidents from both parties have employed anti-immigrant rhetoric to appeal to their political base or to garner bi-partisan support for their policies. While Republicans like Reagan and Donald Trump have led the way in framing Hispanic immigrants as criminals, Douglas Massey points out that "the current moment of open racism and xenophobia could not have happened with Democratic acquiescence".[72] For example, while lobbying for his 1986 immigration bill, Reagan framed unauthorized immigration as a "national security" issue and warned that "terrorists and subversives are just two days' driving time" from the border.[72] Later presidents, including Democrats Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, used similar "security" rhetoric in their efforts to court Republican support for comprehensive immigration reform. In his 2013 State of the Union Address, Obama said "real reform means strong border security, and we can build on the progress my administration has already made – putting more boots on the southern border than at any time in our history".[73]

Trump administration policies

ICE reports that it removed 240,255 immigrants in fiscal year 2016, as well as 226,119 in FY2017 and 256,085 in FY2018. Citizens of Central American countries (including Mexico) made up over 90% of removals in FY2017 and over 80% in FY2018.[74]

In January 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order temporarily suspending entry to the United States by nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries. It was replaced by another executive order in March 2017 and by a presidential proclamation in September 2017, with various changes to the list of countries and exemptions.[75] The orders were temporarily suspended by federal courts but later allowed to proceed by the Supreme Court, pending a definite ruling on their legality.[76] Another executive order called for the immediate construction of a wall across the U.S.–Mexico border, the hiring of 5,000 new border patrol agents and 10,000 new immigration officers, and federal funding penalties for sanctuary cities.[77]

The "zero-tolerance" policy was put in place in 2018, which legally allows children to be separated from adults unlawfully entering the United States. This is justified by labeling all adults that enter unlawfully as criminals, thus subjecting them to criminal prosecution.[78] The Trump Administration also argued that its policy had precedent under the Obama Administration, which had opened family detention centers in response to migrants increasingly using children as a way to get adults into the country. However, the Obama Administration detained families together in administrative, rather than criminal, detention.[79][80]

Other policies focused on what it means for an asylum seeker to claim credible fear.[81] To further decrease the amount of asylum seekers into the United States, Attorney General Jeff Sessions released a decision that restricts those fleeing gang violence and domestic abuse as "private crime", therefore making their claims ineligible for asylum.[82] These new policies that have been put in place are putting many lives at risk, to the point that the ACLU has officially sued Jeff Sessions along with other members of the Trump Administration. The ACLU claims that the policies that are currently being put in place by this Presidential Administration is undermining the fundamental human rights of those immigrating into the United States, specifically women. They also claim that these policies violate decades of settle asylum law.[83]

In April 2020, President Trump said he will sign an executive order to temporarily suspend immigration to the United States because of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.[84][85]

Biden administration policies

In January 2023, regarding the southern border crisis, Joe Biden announced a new immigration policy that would allow 30,000 migrants per month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela[86] but will also expel the migrants from those countries who violate US laws of immigration.[87] The policy has faced criticism from "immigration reform advocates and lawyers who decry any expansion of Title 42."[86]

Origins of the U.S. immigrant population, 1960–2016

% of foreign-born population residing in the U.S. who were born in ...[88]
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018
Europe-Canada 84% 68% 42% 26% 19% 15% 15% 14% 14% 14% 14% 13% 13%
South and East Asia 4% 7% 15% 22% 23% 25% 25% 26% 26% 26% 27% 27% 28%
Other Latin America 4% 11% 16% 21% 22% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 25% 25%
Mexico 6% 8% 16% 22% 29% 29% 29% 28% 28% 28% 27% 26% 25%

Note: "Other Latin America" includes Central America, South America and the Caribbean.

Persons obtaining legal permanent resident status by fiscal year[89][90][91][92]
Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year
1890 455,302 1910 1,041,570 1930 241,700 1950 249,187 1970 373,326 1990 1,535,872 2010 1,042,625 2018 1,096,611
1895 258,536 1915 326,700 1935 34,956 1955 237,790 1975 385,378 1995 720,177 2015 1,051,031 2019 1,031,765
1900 448,572 1920 430,001 1940 70,756 1960 265,398 1980 524,295 2000 841,002 2016 1,183,505 2020 707,362
1905 1,026,499 1925 294,314 1945 38,119 1965 296,697 1985 568,149 2005 1,122,257 2017 1,127,167 2021 740,002
Decade Average per year
1890–99 369,100
1900–09 745,100
1910–19 634,400
1920–29 429,600
1930–39 69,900
1940–49 85,700
1950–59 249,900
1960–69 321,400
1970–79 424,800
1980–89 624,400
1990–99 977,500
2000–09 1,029,900
2010–19 1,063,300
Refugee numbers
Operation Allies Refuge with Afghans being evacuated on a U.S. Air Force Boeing C-17 plane during the fall of Kabul in 2021

According to the Department of State, in the 2016 fiscal year 84,988 refugees were accepted into the US from around the world. In the fiscal year of 2017, 53,691 refugees were accepted to the US. There was a significant decrease after Trump took office; it continued in the fiscal year of 2018 when only 22,405 refugees were accepted into the US. This displays a massive drop in acceptance of refugees since the Trump Administration has been in place.[93][original research?]

On September 26, 2019, The Trump administration announced it plans to allow only 18,000 refugees to resettle in the United States in the 2020 fiscal year, its lowest level since the modern program began in 1980.[94][95][96][97]

In 2020 The Trump administration announces that it plans to slash refugee admissions to U.S. for 2021 to a record low, 15,000 refugees down from a cap of 18,000 for 2020. This is the fourth consecutive year of declining refugee admissions under the Trump term.[98][99][100]

Period Refugee Program
2018 45,000
2019 30,000
2020 18,000
2021 15,000

Contemporary immigration

Legal immigration to the United States over time
A naturalization ceremony in Salem, Massachusetts in 2007

As of 2018, approximately half of immigrants living in the United States are from Mexico and other Latin American countries.[103] Many Central Americans are fleeing because of desperate social and economic circumstances in their countries. Some believe that the large number of Central American refugees arriving in the United States can be explained as a "blowback" to policies such as United States military interventions and covert operations that installed or maintained in power authoritarian leaders allied with wealthy land owners and multinational corporations who stop family farming and democratic efforts, which have caused drastically sharp social inequality, wide-scale poverty and rampant crime.[104] Economic austerity dictated by neoliberal policies imposed by the International Monetary Fund and its ally, the U.S., has also been cited as a driver of the dire social and economic conditions, as has the U.S. "War on Drugs", which has been understood as fueling murderous gang violence in the region.[105] Another major migration driver from Central America (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) are crop failures, which are (partly) caused by climate change.[106][107][108][109] "The current debate ... is almost totally about what to do about immigrants when they get here. But the 800-pound gorilla that's missing from the table is what we have been doing there that brings them here, that drives them here", according to Jeff Faux, an economist who is a distinguished fellow at the Economic Policy Institute.

Until the 1930s most legal immigrants were male. By the 1990s women accounted for just over half of all legal immigrants.[110] Contemporary immigrants tend to be younger than the native population of the United States, with people between the ages of 15 and 34 substantially overrepresented.[111] Immigrants are also more likely to be married and less likely to be divorced than native-born Americans of the same age.[112]

Immigrants are likely to move to and live in areas populated by people with similar backgrounds. This phenomenon has remained true throughout the history of immigration to the United States.[113] Seven out of ten immigrants surveyed by Public Agenda in 2009 said they intended to make the U.S. their permanent home, and 71% said if they could do it over again they would still come to the US. In the same study, 76% of immigrants say the government has become stricter on enforcing immigration laws since the September 11, 2001 attacks ("9/11"), and 24% report that they personally have experienced some or a great deal of discrimination.[114]

Public attitudes about immigration in the U.S. were heavily influenced in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. After the attacks, 52% of Americans believed that immigration was a good thing overall for the U.S., down from 62% the year before, according to a 2009 Gallup poll.[115] A 2008 Public Agenda survey found that half of Americans said tighter controls on immigration would do "a great deal" to enhance U.S. national security.[116] Harvard political scientist and historian Samuel P. Huntington argued in his 2004 book Who Are We? The Challenges to America's National Identity that a potential future consequence of continuing massive immigration from Latin America, especially Mexico, could lead to the bifurcation of the United States.[117][118]

The estimated population of illegal Mexican immigrants in the US decreased from approximately 7 million in 2007 to 6.1 million in 2011[119] Commentators link the reversal of the immigration trend to the economic downturn that started in 2008 and which meant fewer available jobs, and to the introduction of tough immigration laws in many states.[120][121][122][123] According to the Pew Hispanic Center, the net immigration of Mexican born persons had stagnated in 2010, and tended toward going into negative figures.[124]

More than 80 cities in the United States,[125] including Washington D.C., New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, Dallas, Fort Worth, Houston, Detroit, Jersey City, Minneapolis, Denver, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, Oregon and Portland, Maine, have sanctuary policies, which vary locally.[126]

Origin countries

Immigration to the United States over time by region
Inflow of New Legal Permanent Residents by region, 2015–2020
Region 2015 % of total 2016 % of total 2017 % of total 2018[90] % of total 2019[91] % of total 2020[92] % of total Increase/Decrease% in 2020
Americas 438,435 41.7% 506,901 42.8% 492,726 43.7% 497,860 45.4% 461,710 44.8% 284,491 40.2% Decrease38.4%
Asia 419,297 39.9% 462,299 39.1% 424,743 37.7% 397,187 36.2% 364,761 35.4% 272,597 38.5% Decrease25.3%
Africa 101,415 9.7% 113,426 9.6% 118,824 10.5% 115,736 10.6% 111,194 10.8% 76,649 10.8% Decrease31.1%
Europe 85,803 8.2% 93,567 7.9% 84,335 7.5% 80,024 7.3% 87,597 8.5% 68,994 9.8% Decrease21.2%
Australia and Oceania 5,404 0.5% 5,588 0.5% 5,071 0.5% 4,653 0.4% 5,359 0.5% 3,998 0.6% Decrease25.4%
Unknown 677 0.1% 1,724 0.1% 1,468 0.1% 1,151 0.1% 1,144 0.1% 633 >0.1% Decrease
Total 1,051,031 100% 1,183,505 100% 1,127,167 100% 1,096,611 100% 1,031,765 100% 707,632 100% Decrease31.4%

Source: US Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics[127][128][129][130]

Top 15 Countries of Origin of Permanent Residents, 2016–2022:[131]
Country 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
 India 64,687 60,394 59,821 54,495 46,363 93,450 120,121
 Mexico 174,534 170,581 161,858 156,052 100,325 107,230 117,710
 China 81,772 71,565 65,214 62,248 41,483 49,847 62,022
 Dominican Republic 61,161 58,520 57,413 49,911 30,005 24,553 36,007
 Cuba 66,516 65,028 76,486 41,641 16,367 23,077 31,019
 Philippines 53,287 49,147 47,258 45,920 25,491 27,511 27,692
 El Salvador 23,449 25,109 28,326 27,656 17,907 18,668 25,609
 Vietnam 41,451 38,231 33,834 39,712 29,995 16,312 22,604
 Brazil 13,812 14,989 15,394 19,825 16,746 18,351 20,806
 Colombia 18,610 17,956 17,545 19,841 11,989 15,293 16,763
 Venezuela 10,772 11,809 11,762 15,720 12,136 14,412 16,604
 Guatemala [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] 7,369 8,199 15,328
 South Korea 21,801 19,194 17,676 18,479 16,244 12,351 [data missing]
 Honduras [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] 7,843 9,425 14,762
 Canada [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] [data missing] 11,297 12,053 13,916
 Jamaica 23,350 21,905 20,347 21,689 12,826 13,357 13,603
Total 1,183,505 1,127,167 1,096,611 1,031,765 707,362 740,002 1,018,349


Inflow of New Legal Permanent Residents by continent in 2020:[92]

  Americas (40.2%)
  Asia (38.5%)
  Africa (10.8%)
  Europe (9.8%)
  Unknown (0.1%)

Languages spoken among U.S. immigrants, 2016:[88]

  English only (16%)
  Spanish (43%)
  Chinese (6%)
  Hindi and related languages (5%)
  French (3%)
  Vietnamese (3%)
  Arabic (2%)
  Other (18%)


Extent and destinations

Little Italy in New York City, c. 1900
A crowd at the Philippine Independence Day Parade in New York City
Galveston immigration stations
Year[132] Number of
1850 2,244,602 9.7
1860 4,138,697 13.2
1870 5,567,229 14.4
1880 6,679,943 13.3
1890 9,249,547 14.8
1900 10,341,276 13.6
1910 13,515,886 14.7
1920 13,920,692 13.2
1930 14,204,149 11.6
1940 11,594,896 8.8
1950 10,347,395 6.9
1960 9,738,091 5.4
1970 9,619,302 4.7
1980 14,079,906 6.2
1990 19,767,316 7.9
2000 31,107,889 11.1
2010 39,956,000 12.9
2017 44,525,500 13.7
2018 44,728,502 13.5
2019 44,932,799

The United States admitted more legal immigrants from 1991 to 2000, between ten and eleven million, than in any previous decade. In the most recent decade,[when?] the 10 million legal immigrants that settled in the U.S. represent roughly one third of the annual growth, as the U.S. population increased by 32 million (from 249 million to 281 million). By comparison, the highest previous decade was the 1900s, when 8.8 million people arrived, increasing the total U.S. population by one percent every year. Specifically, "nearly 15% of Americans were foreign-born in 1910, while in 1999, only about 10% were foreign-born".[137]

By 1970, immigrants accounted for 4.7 percent of the US population and rising to 6.2 percent in 1980, with an estimated 12.5 percent in 2009.[138] As of 2010, 25% of US residents under age 18 were first- or second-generation immigrants.[139] Eight percent of all babies born in the U.S. in 2008 belonged to illegal immigrant parents, according to a recent[when?] analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data by the Pew Hispanic Center.[140]

Legal immigration to the U.S. increased from 250,000 in the 1930s, to 2.5 million in the 1950s, to 4.5 million in the 1970s, and to 7.3 million in the 1980s, before becoming stable at about 10 million in the 1990s.[141] Since 2000, legal immigrants to the United States number approximately 1,000,000 per year, of whom about 600,000 are Change of Status who already are in the U.S. Legal immigrants to the United States now[when?] are at their highest level ever, at just over 37,000,000 legal immigrants. In reports in 2005–2006, estimates of illegal immigration ranged from 700,000 to 1,500,000 per year.[142][143] Immigration led to a 57.4% increase in foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000.[144]

Foreign-born immigration has caused the U.S. population to continue its rapid increase with the foreign-born population doubling from almost 20 million in 1990 to over 47 million in 2015.[145] In 2018, there were almost 90 million immigrants and U.S.-born children of immigrants (second-generation Americans) in the United States, accounting for 28% of the overall U.S. population.[146]

While immigration has increased drastically over the 20th century, the foreign-born share of the population is, at 13.4, only somewhat below what it was at its peak in 1910 at 14.7%. A number of factors may be attributed to the decrease in the representation of foreign-born residents in the United States. Most significant has been the change in the composition of immigrants; prior to 1890, 82% of immigrants came from North and Western Europe. From 1891 to 1920, that number decreased to 25%, with a rise in immigrants from East, Central, and South Europe, summing up to 64%. Animosity towards these ethnically different immigrants increased in the United States, resulting in much legislation to limit immigration in the 20th century.[147]


Country of birth for foreign-born population in the United States (1970–2015)
Country of birth 2015[note 1] 2010[note 2] 2000[150] 1990[151] 1980[152] 1970[152]
 Mexico 11513528 11,513,528 11599653 11,599,653 9177487 9,177,487 4298014 4,298,014 2199221 2,199,221 759,711
 India 2348867 2,348,687 1837838 1,837,838 1022552 1,022,552 450406 450,406 206087 206,087 51,000
 China[a] 2034383 2,034,383 1583634 1,583,634 988857 988,857 529837 529,837 286120 286,120 172,132
 Philippines 1945345 1,945,345 1810537 1,810,537 1369070 1,369,070 912674 912,674 501440 501,440 184,842
 El Salvador 1323592 1,323,592 1201972 1,201,972 817336 817,336 465,433 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Vietnam 1314927 1,314,927 1231716 1,231,716 988174 988,174 543262 543,262 231,120 N/A[b]
 Cuba 1227031 1,227,031 1057346 1,057,346 872716 872,716 736971 736,971 607184 607,184 439,048
 South Korea[c] 1064960 1,064,960 1085151 1,085,151 864125 864,125 568397 568,397 289885 289,885 38,711
 Dominican Republic 1057439 1,057,439 866618 866,618 687677 687,677 347858 347,858 169147 169,147 61,228
 Guatemala 923562 923,562 822947 822,947 480665 480,665 225,739 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Canada 818,441 818,441 808772 808,772 820771 820,771 744830 744,830 842859 842,859 812,421
 Jamaica 727634 727,634 671197 671,197 553827 553,827 334140 334,140 196811 196,811 68,576
 Colombia 723561 723,561 648594 648,594 509872 509,872 286,124 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 United Kingdom[d] 696048 696,048 685938 685,938 677751 677,751 640145 640,145 669149 669,149 686,099
 Haiti 643341 643,341 572896 572,896 419317 419,317 225,393 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Honduras 603179 603,179 502827 502,827 282852 282,852 108,923 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Germany 577282 577,282 617070 617,070 706704 706,704 711929 711,929 849384 849,384 832,965
 Peru 447223 447,223 419363 419,363 278186 278,186 144,199 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Ecuador 437581 437,581 428747 428,747 298626 298,626 143,314 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Poland 422208 422,208 450537 450,537 466742 466,742 388328 388,328 418128 418,128 548,107
 Russia 391974 391,974 391101 391,101 340177 340,177 333725 333,725 406022 406,022 463,462
 Iran (Incl. Kurdistan) 377741 377,741 353169 353,169 283226 283,226 210,941 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Taiwan 376666 376,666 365981 365,981 326215 326,215 244,102 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Brazil 373058 373,058 332250 332,250 212428 212,428 82,489 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Pakistan 371400 371,400 301280 301,280 223477 223,477 91,889 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Italy 348216 348,216 368699 368,699 473338 473,338 580592 580,592 831922 831,922 1,008,533
 Japan 346887 346,887 334449 334,449 347539 347,539 290128 290,128 221794 221,794 120,235
 Ukraine 344565 344,565 324216 324,216 275,153 N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Nigeria 298532 298,532 221077 221,077 134940 134,940 55,350 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Guyana 274118 274,118 257272 257,272 211189 211,189 120,698 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Venezuela 265282 265,282 182342 182,342 107031 107,031 42,119 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Nicaragua 252196 252,196 250186 250,186 220335 220,335 168,659 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Thailand 247614 247,614 224576 224,576 169801 169,801 106,919 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Trinidad and Tobago 234483 234,483 231678 231,678 197398 197,398 115,710 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Hong Kong 228316 228,316 216948 216,948 203580 203,580 147,131 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Ethiopia 226159 226,159 164046 164,046 69531 69,531 34,805 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Bangladesh 221275 221,275 166513 166,513 95,294 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Iraq 212608 212,608 148673 148,673 89892 89,892 44,916 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Laos 188385 188,385 192469 192,469 204284 204,284 171,577 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Argentina 187052 187,052 170120 170,120 125218 125,218 92,563 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Egypt[f] 179157 179,157 143086 143,086 113396 113,396 66,313 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Portugal 175555 175,555 186142 186,142 203119 203,119 210122 210,122 177437 177,437 91,034
 France[g] 175198 175,198 157577 157,577 151154 151,154 119233 119,233 120215 120,215 105,385
 Cambodia 159827 159,827 156508 156,508 136978 136,978 118,833 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Ghana 158999 158,999 120785 120,785 65572 65,572 20,889 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Romania 158033 158,033 163431 163,431 135966 135,966 91,106 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Myanmar 137190 137,190 89,553 N/A[b] 19,835 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Greece 134654 134,654 136914 136,914 165750 165,750 177398 177,398 210998 210,998 177,275
 Israel[h] 134172 134,172 133074 133,074 109719 109,719 86,048 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Kenya 126209 126,209 95,126 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Ireland 124411 124,411 128496 128,496 156474 156,474 169827 169,827 197817 197,817 251,375
 Lebanon 120620 120,620 119523 119,523 105910 105,910 86369 86,369 N/A[b] N/A[b]
   Nepal 119640 119,640 63,948 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Turkey 113937 113,937 102242 102,242 78378 78,378 55,087 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Spain 109712 109,712 86683 86,683 82858 82,858 76,415 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Bosnia and Herzegovina 105657 105,657 115600 115,600 98,766 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Panama 103715 103,715 104080 104,080 105177 105,177 85,737 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 South Africa 99323 99,323 83298 83,298 63558 63,558 34,707 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Chile 97391 97,391 92948 92,948 80804 80,804 55,681 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Indonesia 96158 96,158 92555 92,555 72552 72,552 48,387 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Somalia 92,807 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Saudi Arabia 90836 90,836 48,916 N/A[b] 12,632 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Syria[i] 88226 88,226 64240 64,240 54561 54,561 36,782 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Armenia 86727 86,727 80972 80,972 65,280 N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Australia 86447 86,447 74478 74,478 60965 60,965 42,267 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Costa Rica 86186 86,186 83034 83,034 71870 71,870 43,350 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Albania 85406 85,406 77,091 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Netherlands[j] 84579 84,579 85096 85,096 94570 94,570 96198 96,198 103136 103,136 110,570
 Liberia 83221 83,221 71,062 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Afghanistan 79298 79,298 60314 60,314 45195 45,195 28,444 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Morocco[k] 74009 74,009 58,728 N/A[b] 15,541 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Malaysia 72878 72,878 58095 58,095 49459 49,459 33,834 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Jordan[l] 72662 72,662 60912 60,912 46794 46,794 31,871 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Bulgaria 68658 68,658 61,931 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Hungary 67594 67,594 75479 75,479 92017 92,017 110337 110,337 144368 144,368 183,236
Former  Czechoslovakia 67241 67,241 70283 70,283 83031 83,031 87020 87,020 112707 112,707 160,899
 Belarus 59501 59,501 54575 54,575 38,503 N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Uzbekistan 56275 56,275 47,664 N/A[b] N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Barbados 54,131 54,131 51764 51,764 52172 52,172 43,015 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Sri Lanka 50819 50,819 43,568 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Cameroon 50,646 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Belize 49432 49,432 46,717 N/A[b] 29,957 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Uruguay 47933 47,933 47,254 N/A[b] 20,766 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Yemen 47664 47,664 38,627 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Sweden 47190 47,190 45856 45,856 49724 49,724 53676 53,676 77157 77,157 127,070
 Austria 46167 46,167 49465 49,465 63648 63,648 87673 87,673 145607 145,607 214,014
 Fiji 45354 45,354 39,921 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Moldova 42388 42,388 34,081 N/A[b] N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Sudan 41081 41,081 40,740 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Cape Verde 39836 39,836 34,678 N/A[b] 14,368 N/A[b] N/A[b]
  Switzerland 39203 39,203 38,872 N/A[b] 39,130 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Croatia 38854 38,854 44,002 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Eritrea 38657 38,657 27,148 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Sierra Leone 38257 38,257 34588 34,588 20,831 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Serbia 36244 36,244 30,509 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Belgium 35077 35,077 31,938 N/A[b] 34,366 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Lithuania 34334 34,334 36,317 N/A[b] 29,745 N/A[e] N/A[e]
 Grenada 34041 34,041 30,291 N/A[b] 17,730 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Bahamas 32962 32,962 31,095 N/A[b] 21,633 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Singapore 32748 32,748 29,173 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Dominica 31007 31,007 29,883 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Kuwait 30522 30,522 24,373 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Denmark 29045 29,045 29,964 N/A[b] 34,999 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Kazakhstan 28512 28,512 24,169 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Azores 26,022 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Norway 24583 24,583 26,207 N/A[b] 42,240 N/A[b] N/A[b]
 North Macedonia 24529 24,529 23,645 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
 Latvia 22983 22,983 23,763 N/A[b] N/A[e] N/A[e] N/A[e]
 St. Vincent and the Grenadines 22898 22,898 21,478 N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b] N/A[b]
Foreign-Born Population 43027453 43,027,453 39784145 39,784,145 31107889 31,107,889 19767316 19,767,316 14079906 14,079,906 9,619,302
Foreign-born population of the United States in 2017 by country of birth
  United States and its territories
Immigrants to the United States between 2012 and 2016 per thousand inhabitants of each country of origin
  United States and its territories

Foreign-born population in the United States in 2019 by country of birth[135][153]

Country of birth Change (2019) Population (2019) 2018–2019
Total foreign-born Increase 44,932,799 +204,297
 Mexico Decrease 10,931,939 −239,954
 India Increase 2,688,075 +35,222
 China[m] Increase 2,250,230 +28,287
 Philippines Increase 2,045,248 +31,492
 El Salvador Decrease 1,412,101 −7,229
 Vietnam Increase 1,383,779 +38,026
 Cuba Increase 1,359,990 +16,030
 Dominican Republic Decrease 1,169,420 −8,444
 South Korea[n] Decrease 1,038,885 −214
 Guatemala Increase 1,111,495 +104,508
 Colombia Increase 808,148 +18,587
 Canada Decrease 797,158 −16,506
 Jamaica Increase 772,215 +38,786
 Honduras Increase 745,838 +99,585
 Haiti Increase 701,688 +14,502
 United Kingdom[o] Decrease 687,186 −12,007
 Germany Decrease 537,691 −21,411
 Brazil Increase 502,104 +29,467
 Venezuela Increase 465,235 +71,394
 Peru Decrease 446,063 −21,109
 Ecuador Decrease 431,150 −11,955
 Poland Increase 404,107 +5,321
 Pakistan Increase 398,399 +19,296
 Nigeria Increase 392,811 +18,100
 Russia Increase 392,422 +8,917
 Iran Increase 385,473 +3,522
 Taiwan Decrease 371,851 −18,299
 Ukraine Increase 354,832 +28,947
 Japan Decrease 333,273 −28,292
 Italy Decrease 314,867 −10,036
 Bangladesh Increase 261,348 +296
 Thailand Decrease 260,820 −8,561
 Nicaragua Decrease 257,343 −4,734
 Ethiopia Decrease 256,032 −22,051
 Guyana Decrease 253,847 −26,450
 Iraq Increase 249,670 +12,248
 Hong Kong Decrease 231,469 −1,779
 Trinidad and Tobago Decrease 212,798 −9,770
 Argentina Increase 210,767 +16,346
 Egypt[p] Decrease 205,852 −1,727
 Ghana Increase 199,163 +3,792
 Laos Decrease 176,904 −7,486
 France[q] Decrease 171,452 −19,727
 Romania Increase 167,751 +5,308
   Nepal Increase 166,651 +18,017
 Portugal Decrease 161,500 −8,390
 Kenya Increase 153,414 +6,854
 Burma Increase 150,877 +10,486
 Cambodia Increase 149,326 +10,792
 Israel[r] Increase 132,477 +2,551
 Afghanistan Increase 132,160 +18,491
 Lebanon Decrease 120,065 −1,861
 Greece Decrease 119,571 −6,128
 Turkey Decrease 117,291 −9,203
 Spain Decrease 116,077 −1,713
 Somalia Increase 114,607 +11,230
 Ireland Decrease 111,886 −13,104
 South Africa Increase 111,116 +11,444
 Bosnia and Herzegovina Decrease 104,612 −957
 Indonesia Increase 101,622 +7,543
 Panama Decrease 101,076 −2,674
 Australia Increase 98,969 +8,382
 Liberia Increase 98,116 +12,824
 Albania Increase 94,856 +4,617
 Chile Decrease 93,950 −9,080
 Costa Rica Increase 93,620 +6,237
 Syria[s] Decrease 92,514 −19,252
 Jordan[t] Increase 90,018 +2,335
 Armenia Increase 87,419 +151
 Netherlands[u] Decrease 82,603 −5,632
 Bolivia Increase 79,804 +447
 Morocco[v] Decrease 77,434 −1,978
 Saudi Arabia Increase 76,840 +2,166
 Malaysia Decrease 76,712 −5,844
 Cameroon Decrease 72,634 −5,374
former  Czechoslovakia Increase 68,312 +3,960
 Bulgaria Decrease 66,950 −5,239
 Uzbekistan Decrease 65,216 −3,296
 Hungary Decrease 64,852 −2,413
 Democratic Republic of the Congo 60,512 +/−
 Yemen Decrease 58,627 −3,795
 Belarus Decrease 57,315 −13,654
 Barbados Decrease 52,279 −1,097
 Sri Lanka Decrease 51,695 −305
 Sudan Decrease 51,351 −1,300
 Eritrea Increase 49,355 +4,245
 Uruguay Increase 48,900 +2,638
 Fiji Increase 48,710 +5,195
 Moldova Decrease 46,388 −1,379
 Sierra Leone Decrease 45,506 −2,328
 Belize Decrease 44,364 −2,923
 Uganda 44,150 +/−
 Sweden Decrease 43,506 −6,236
  Switzerland Increase 42,958 +8,536
 Bahamas Increase 40,067 +10,851
 Austria Increase 39,083 +100
 Serbia Increase 39,020 +1,585
 Republic of the Congo 38,932 +/−
 Croatia Decrease 37,044 −1,941
 Cape Verde Decrease 36,410 −663
 Dominica Decrease 36,372 −721
 Singapore Decrease 33,736 −466
 Kazakhstan Increase 33,438 +5,148
 Lithuania Decrease 32,655 −445
 Belgium Decrease 32,323 −3,431
 Denmark Increase 31,872 +2,541
 Kuwait Decrease 31,113 −4,494
 Senegal 30,828 +/−
 North Macedonia Increase 30,359 +4,456
 Micronesia 30,136 +/−
 Grenada Decrease 29,722 −11,288
 Latvia Decrease 23,300 −2,039
 Zimbabwe 20,519 +/−
 Norway Decrease 20,143 −4,928
  1. ^ Excluding Hong Kong and Taiwan
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj bk bl bm bn bo bp bq br bs bt bu bv bw bx by bz ca cb cc cd ce cf cg ch ci cj ck cl cm cn co cp cq cr cs ct cu cv cw cx cy cz da db dc dd de df dg dh di dj dk dl dm dn do dp dq dr ds dt du dv dw dx dy dz ea eb ec ed ee ef eg eh ei ej ek el em en eo ep eq er es et eu ev ew ex ey ez fa fb fc fd fe ff fg fh fi fj fk fl fm fn fo fp fq fr fs ft fu fv fw fx fy fz ga gb gc gd ge gf gg gh gi gj gk gl gm gn go gp gq gr gs gt gu gv gw gx gy gz ha hb hc hd he hf hg hh hi hj hk Not counted separately; aggregated into "Other" category
  3. ^ As well as North Korea
  4. ^ Including Crown Dependencies
  5. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Country was not independent; counted under "Russia"
  6. ^ As well as the Gaza Strip
  7. ^ Only Metropolitan France
  8. ^ Does not include the Palestinian Territories or the Golan Heights
  9. ^ Including the Golan Heights
  10. ^ Only European Netherlands
  11. ^ Does not include the Western Sahara
  12. ^ As well as the West Bank
  13. ^ Excluding Hong Kong, and, also Taiwan (Republic of China).
  14. ^ Including North Korea.
  15. ^ Including Crown Dependencies.
  16. ^ Including the Gaza Strip.
  17. ^ Metropolitan France only.
  18. ^ Excluding the Golan Heights and the Palestinian territories.
  19. ^ Including the Golan Heights.
  20. ^ Including the West Bank.
  21. ^ European Netherlands only.
  22. ^ Excluding Western Sahara.

Effects of immigration

Mexican immigrants are seen protesting for more rights in San Jose.
Mexican immigrants march for more rights in San Jose, California in 2006

Immigration to the United States significantly increases the population. The Census Bureau estimates that the US population will increase from 317 million in 2014 to 417 million in 2060 with immigration, when nearly 20% will be foreign-born.[154] In particular, the population of Hispanic and Asian Americans is significantly increased by immigration, with both populations expected to see major growth.[155][156] Overall, the Pew Report predicts the population of the United States will rise from 296 million in 2005 to 441 million in 2065, but only to 338 million with no immigration.[155] The prevalence of immigrant segregation has brought into question the accuracy of describing the United States as a melting pot.[157][158] Immigration to the United States has also increased religious diversity, with Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Sikhism growing in the United States due to immigration.[159] Changing demographics as a result of immigration have affected political affiliations. Immigrants are more likely than natives to support the Democratic Party.[51][160][161] Interest groups that lobby for and against immigration play a role in immigration policy, with religious, ethnic, and business groups most likely to lobby on issues of immigration.[162][163]

Immigrants have not been found to increase crime in the United States, and immigrants overall are associated with lower crime rates than natives.[14][15][16][164] Some research even suggests that increases in immigration may partly explain the reduction in the U.S. crime rate.[165][166] According to one study, sanctuary cities—which adopt policies designed to not prosecute people solely for being an illegal immigrant—have no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[167] Research suggests that police practices, such as racial profiling, over-policing in areas populated by minorities and in-group bias may result in disproportionately high numbers of immigrants among crime suspects.[168][169][170][171] Research also suggests that there may be possible discrimination by the judicial system, which contributes to a higher number of convictions for immigrants.[172][173][174][175][176] Crimmigration has emerged as a field in which critical immigration scholars conceptualize the current immigration law enforcement system.[177]

Increased immigration to the United States has historically caused discrimination and racial unrest.[citation needed] Areas with higher minority populations may be subject to increased policing[168][169][178][171] and harsher sentencing.[172][173][174][175][176] Faculty in educational facilities have been found to be more responsive toward white students,[179] though affirmative action policies may cause colleges to favor minority applicants.[180] Evidence also shows the existence of racial discrimination in the housing market[181][182][183] and the labor market.[181][184][185] Discrimination also exists between different immigrant groups.[186][187] According to a 2018 study of longitudinal earnings, most immigrants economically assimilate into the United States within a span of 20 years, matching the economic situations of non-immigrants of similar race and ethnicity.[188]

Immigration has been found to have little impact on the health of natives.[189] Researchers have also found what is known as the "healthy immigrant effect", in which immigrants in general tend to be healthier than individuals born in the U.S.[190][191] However, some illnesses are believed to have been introduced to the United States or caused to increase by immigration.[192] Immigrants are more likely than native-born Americans to have a medical visit labeled uncompensated care.[193]

A significant proportion of American scientists and engineers are immigrants. Graduate students are more likely to be immigrants than undergraduate students, as immigrants often complete undergraduate training in their native country before immigrating.[194] 33% of all U.S. Ph.D.s in science and engineering were awarded to foreign-born graduate students as of 2004.[195]

Economic impact

Garment factories in Manhattan's Chinatown

High-skilled immigration and low-skilled immigration have both been found to make economic conditions better for the average immigrant[196] and the average American.[197][198] The overall impact of immigration on the economy tends to be minimal.[199][200] Research suggests that diversity has a net positive effect on productivity[201][202] and economic prosperity.[203][204][205] Contributions by immigrants through taxation and the economy have been found to exceed the cost of services they use.[206][207][208] Overall immigration has not had much effect on native wage inequality[209][210] but low-skill immigration has been linked to greater income inequality in the native population.[211] Labor unions have historically opposed immigration over economic concerns.[212]

Immigrants have also been found to raise economic productivity, as they are more likely to take jobs that natives are unwilling to do.[213] Research indicates that immigrants are more likely to work in risky jobs than U.S.-born workers, partly due to differences in average characteristics, such as immigrants' lower English language ability and educational attainment.[214] Refugees have been found to integrate more slowly into the labor market than other immigrants, but they have also been found to increase government revenue overall.[215][216][217] Immigration has also been correlated with increased innovation and entrepreneurship, and immigrants are more likely to start businesses than Native Americans.[218][219][220]

Undocumented immigrants have also been found to have a positive effect on economic conditions in the United States.[208][221][222] According to NPR in 2005, about 3% of illegal immigrants were working in agriculture,[223] and the H-2A visa allows U.S. employers to bring foreign nationals to the United States to fill temporary agricultural jobs.[224] States that imposed harsher immigration laws were found to suffer significant economic losses.[225][226]

Public opinion

History of immigration enforcement actions, as reported by the Department of Homeland Security[227]

The largely ambivalent feeling of Americans toward immigrants is shown by a positive attitude toward groups that have been visible for a century or more, and much more negative attitude toward recent arrivals. For example, a 1982 national poll by the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut showed respondents a card listing a number of groups and asked, "Thinking both of what they have contributed to this country and have gotten from this country, for each one tell me whether you think, on balance, they've been a good or a bad thing for this country", which produced the results shown in the table. "By high margins, Americans are telling pollsters it was a very good thing that Poles, Italians, and Jews immigrated to America. Once again, it's the newcomers who are viewed with suspicion. This time, it's the Mexicans, the Filipinos, and the people from the Caribbean who make Americans nervous."[228][229]

In a 2002 study, which took place soon after the September 11 attacks, 55% of Americans favored decreasing legal immigration, 27% favored keeping it at the same level, and 15% favored increasing it.[230]

In 2006, the immigration-reduction advocacy think tank the Center for Immigration Studies released a poll that found that 68% of Americans think U.S. immigration levels are too high, and just 2% said they are too low. They also found that 70% said they are less likely to vote for candidates that favor increasing legal immigration.[231] In 2004, 55% of Americans believed legal immigration should remain at the current level or increased and 41% said it should be decreased.[232] The less contact a native-born American has with immigrants, the more likely they would have a negative view of immigrants.[232]

One of the most important factors regarding public opinion about immigration is the level of unemployment; anti-immigrant sentiment is where unemployment is highest, and vice versa.[233]

Surveys indicate that the U.S. public consistently makes a sharp distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, and generally views those perceived as "playing by the rules" with more sympathy than immigrants who have entered the country illegally.[234]

According to a Gallup poll in July 2015, immigration is the fourth-most important problem facing the United States and seven percent of Americans said it was the most important problem facing America today.[235] In March 2015, another Gallup poll provided insight into American public opinion on immigration; the poll revealed that 39% of people worried about immigration "a great deal".[236] A January poll showed that only 33% of Americans were satisfied with the current state of immigration in America.[237]

Before 2012, a majority of Americans supported securing United States borders compared to dealing with illegal immigrants in the United States. In 2013, that trend has reversed and 55% of people polled by Gallup revealed that they would choose "developing a plan to deal with immigrants who are currently in the U.S. illegally". Changes regarding border control are consistent across party lines, with the percentage of Republicans saying that "securing U.S. borders to halt flow of illegal immigrants" is extremely important decreasing from 68% in 2011 to 56% in 2014. Meanwhile, Democrats who chose extremely important shifted from 42% in 2011 to 31% in 2014.[238] In July 2013, 87% of Americans said they would vote in support of a law that would "allow immigrants already in the country to become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements including paying taxes, having a criminal background check and learning English". However, in the same survey, 83% also said they would support the tightening of U.S. border security.[239]

Donald Trump's campaign for presidency focused on a rhetoric of reducing illegal immigration and toughening border security. In July 2015, 48% of Americans thought that Donald Trump would do a poor job of handling immigration problems. In November 2016, 55% of Trump's voters thought that he would do the right thing regarding illegal immigration. In general, Trump supporters are not united upon how to handle immigration. In December 2016, Trump voters were polled and 60% said that "undocumented immigrants in the U.S. who meet certain requirements should be allowed to stay legally".[240]

American opinion regarding how immigrants affect the country and how the government should respond to illegal immigration have changed over time. In 2006, out of all U.S. adults surveyed, 28% declared that they believed the growing number of immigrants helped American workers and 55% believed that it hurt American workers. In 2016, those views had changed, with 42% believing that they helped and 45% believing that they hurt.[241] The PRRI 2015 American Values Atlas showed that between 46% and 53% of Americans believed that "the growing number of newcomers from other countries ... strengthens American society". In the same year, between 57% and 66% of Americans chose that the U.S. should "allow [immigrants living in the U.S. illegally] a way to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements".[242]

In February 2017, the American Enterprise Institute released a report on recent surveys about immigration issues. In July 2016, 63% of Americans favored the temporary bans of immigrants from areas with high levels of terrorism and 53% said the U.S. should allow fewer refugees to enter the country. In November 2016, 55% of Americans were opposed to building a border wall with Mexico. Since 1994, Pew Research center has tracked a change from 63% of Americans saying that immigrants are a burden on the country to 27%.[243]

The Trump administration's zero-tolerance policy was reacted to negatively by the public. One of the main concerns was how detained children of illegal immigrants were treated. Due to very poor conditions, a campaign was begun called "Close the Camps".[244] Detainment facilities were compared to concentration and internment camps.[245][246]

After the 2021 evacuation from Afghanistan in August 2021, an NPR/Ipsos poll (±4.6%) found 69% of Americans supported resettling in the United States Afghans who had worked with the U.S., with 65% support for Afghans who "fear repression or persecution from the Taliban".[247] There was lower support for other refugees: 59% for those "fleeing from civil strife and violence in Africa", 56% for those "fleeing from violence in Syria and Libya", and 56% for "Central Americans fleeing violence and poverty". 57% supported the Trump-era Remain in Mexico policy, and 55% supported legalizing the status of those illegally brought to the U.S. as children (as proposed in the DREAM Act).

Religious responses

Religious figures in the United States have stated their views on the topic of immigration as informed by their religious traditions.

  • Catholicism – In 2018, Catholic leaders stated that asylum-limiting laws proposed by the Trump administration were immoral. Some bishops considered imposing sanctions (known as "canonical penalties") on church members who have participated in enforcing such policies.[248]
  • Judaism – American Jewish rabbis from various denominations have stated that their understanding of Judaism is that immigrants and refugees should be welcomed, and even assisted. The exception would be if there is significant economic hardship or security issues faced by the host country or community, in which case immigration may be limited, discouraged or even prohibited altogether.[249] Some liberal denominations place more emphasis on the welcoming of immigrants, while Conservative, Orthodox and Independent rabbis also consider economic and security concerns.[250] Some provide moral arguments for both the right of country to enforce immigration standards as well as for providing some sort of amnesty for illegal migrants.[251]

Legal issues

A U.S. green card, a document confirming permanent resident status for eligible immigrants, including refugees, political asylum seekers, family-sponsored migrants, employment-based workers, and diversity immigrants

Laws concerning immigration and naturalization include the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), the Naturalization Act of 1790, the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, and the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924. AEDPA and IIRARA exemplify many categories of criminal activity for which immigrants, including green card holders, can be deported and have imposed mandatory detention for certain types of cases. The Johnson-Reed Act limited the number of immigrants and the Chinese Exclusion Act banned immigration from China altogether.[252][253]

Refugees are able to gain legal status in the United States through asylum, and a specified number of legally defined refugees, who either apply for asylum overseas or after arriving in the U.S., are admitted annually.[quantify][citation needed] In 2014, the number of asylum seekers accepted into the U.S. was about 120,000. By comparison, about 31,000 were accepted in the UK and 13,500 in Canada.[254] Asylum offices in the United States receive more applications for asylum than they can process every month and every year, and these continuous applications cause a significant backlog.[255]

Removal proceedings are considered administrative proceedings under the authority of the United States Attorney General, and thus part of the executive branch rather than the judicial branch of government.[256] in removal proceedings in front of an immigration judge, cancellation of removal is a form of relief that is available for some long-time residents of the United States.[257] Eligibility may depend on time spent in the United States, criminal record, or family in the country.[258][259] Members of Congress may submit private bills granting residency to specific named individuals.[citation needed] The United States allows immigrant relatives of active duty military personnel to reside in the United States through a green card.[260][261]

As of 2015, there are estimated to be 11 to 12 million unauthorized immigrants in the United States, making up about 5% of the civilian labor force.[262][263] Under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, unauthorized immigrants that arrived as children were granted exemptions to immigration law.[264]

Most immigration proceedings are civil matters, though criminal charges are applicable when evading border enforcement, committing fraud to gain entry, or committing identity theft to gain employment. Due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been found to apply to immigration proceedings, but those of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution have not due to their nature as civil matters.[265][256]

In 2021 a new system establishes by The U.S. Citizenship Act, for responsibly manage and secure U.S. border's, for safety of families and communities, and better manage migration across the Hemisphere, sent by President Biden to U.S. Congress.[266]

Immigration in popular culture

This 1888 cartoon in Puck magazine criticized businessmen for welcoming large numbers of low-paid immigrants, leaving the American men unemployed.[267]

The history of immigration to the United States is the history of the country itself, and the journey from beyond the sea is an element found in American folklore, appearing in many works, such as The Godfather, Gangs of New York, "The Song of Myself", Neil Diamond's "America", and the animated feature An American Tail.[268]

From the 1880s to the 1910s, vaudeville dominated the popular image of immigrants, with very popular caricature portrayals of ethnic groups. The specific features of these caricatures became widely accepted as accurate portrayals.[269]

In The Melting Pot (1908), playwright Israel Zangwill (1864–1926) explored issues that dominated Progressive Era debates about immigration policies. Zangwill's theme of the positive benefits of the American melting pot resonated widely in popular culture and literary and academic circles in the 20th century; his cultural symbolism – in which he situated immigration issues – likewise informed American cultural imagining of immigrants for decades, as exemplified by Hollywood films.[270][271]

The popular culture's image of ethnic celebrities often includes stereotypes about immigrant groups. For example, Frank Sinatra's public image as a superstar contained important elements of the American Dream while simultaneously incorporating stereotypes about Italian Americans that were based in nativist and Progressive responses to immigration.[272]

The process of assimilation has been a common theme of popular culture. For example, "lace-curtain Irish" refers to middle-class Irish Americans desiring assimilation into mainstream society in counterpoint to the older, more raffish "shanty Irish". The occasional malapropisms and social blunders of these upward mobiles were lampooned in vaudeville, popular song, and the comic strips of the day such as Bringing Up Father, starring Maggie and Jiggs, which ran in daily newspapers for 87 years (1913 to 2000).[273][274] In The Departed (2006), Staff Sergeant Dignam regularly points out the dichotomy between the lace-curtain Irish lifestyle Billy Costigan enjoyed with his mother, and the shanty Irish lifestyle of Costigan's father. Since the late 20th century popular culture has paid special attention to Mexican immigration;[275] the film Spanglish (2004) tells of a friendship of a Mexican housemaid (played by Paz Vega) and her boss (played by Adam Sandler).

Immigration in literature

Maggie and Jiggs from Bringing Up Father, January 7, 1940
Maggie and Jiggs from Bringing Up Father, January 7, 1940

Novelists and writers have captured much of the color and challenge in their immigrant lives through their writings.[276]

Regarding Irish women in the 19th century, there were numerous novels and short stories by Harvey O'Higgins, Peter McCorry, Bernard O'Reilly and Sarah Orne Jewett that emphasize emancipation from Old World controls, new opportunities and expansiveness of the immigrant experience.[277]

Fears of population decline have at times fueled anti-emigration sentiment in foreign countries. Hladnik studies three popular novels of the late 19th century that warned Slovenes not to migrate to the dangerous new world of the United States.[278] In India some politicians oppose emigration to the United States because of a supposed brain drain of highly qualified and educated Indian nationals.[279]

Jewish American writer Anzia Yezierska wrote her novel Bread Givers (1925) to explore such themes as Russian-Jewish immigration in the early 20th century, the tension between Old and New World Yiddish culture, and women's experience of immigration. A well established author Yezierska focused on the Jewish struggle to escape the ghetto and enter middle- and upper-class America. In the novel, the heroine, Sara Smolinsky, escapes from New York City's "down-town ghetto" by breaking tradition. She quits her job at the family store and soon becomes engaged to a rich real-estate magnate. She graduates college and takes a high-prestige job teaching public school. Finally Sara restores her broken links to family and religion.[280]

The Swedish author Vilhelm Moberg, in the mid-20th century, wrote a series of four novels describing one Swedish family's migration from Småland to Minnesota in the late 19th century, a destiny shared by almost one million people. The author emphasizes the authenticity of the experiences as depicted (although he did change names).[281] These novels have been translated into English (The Emigrants, 1951, Unto a Good Land, 1954, The Settlers, 1961, The Last Letter Home, 1961). The musical Kristina från Duvemåla by ex-ABBA members Björn Ulvaeus and Benny Andersson is based on this story.[282][283]

The Immigrant is a musical by Steven Alper, Sarah Knapp, and Mark Harelik. The show is based on the story of Harelik's grandparents, Matleh and Haskell Harelik, who traveled to Galveston, Texas in 1909.[284]

Documentary films

A 1970 video about the history of immigration to the United States

In their documentary How Democracy Works Now: Twelve Stories, filmmakers Shari Robertson and Michael Camerini examine the American political system through the lens of immigration reform from 2001 to 2007. Since the debut of the first five films, the series has become an important resource for advocates, policy-makers and educators.[285]

That film series premiered nearly a decade after the filmmakers' landmark documentary film Well-Founded Fear which provided a behind-the-scenes look at the process for seeking asylum in the United States. That film still marks the only time that a film-crew was privy to the private proceedings at the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), where individual asylum officers ponder the often life-or-death fate of immigrants seeking asylum.

The documentary Trafficked with Mariana van Zeller argued that weapons smuggling from the United States contributed to insecurity in Latin America, itself triggering more migration to the United States.[286]

Overall approach to regulation

The Statue of Liberty was a common sight to many immigrants who entered the United States through Ellis Island.

University of North Carolina School of Law professor Hiroshi Motomura has identified three approaches the United States has taken to the legal status of immigrants in his book Americans in Waiting: The Lost Story of Immigration and Citizenship in the United States. The first, dominant in the 19th century, treated immigrants as in transition; in other words, as prospective citizens. As soon as people declared their intention to become citizens, they received multiple low-cost benefits, including the eligibility for free homesteads in the Homestead Act of 1862,[287] and in many states, the right to vote. The goal was to make the country more attractive, so large numbers of farmers and skilled craftsmen would settle new lands.

By the 1880s, a second approach took over, treating newcomers as "immigrants by contract". An implicit deal existed where immigrants who were literate and could earn their own living were permitted in restricted numbers. Once in the United States, they would have limited legal rights, but were not allowed to vote until they became citizens, and would not be eligible for the New Deal government benefits available in the 1930s.

The third policy is "immigration by affiliation", originating in the later half of the 20th century, which Motomura argues is the treatment which depends on how deeply rooted people have become in the country. An immigrant who applies for citizenship as soon as permitted, has a long history of working in the United States, and has significant family ties, is more deeply affiliated and can expect better treatment.[288]

The American Dream is the belief that through hard work and determination, any United States immigrant can achieve a better life, usually in terms of financial prosperity and enhanced personal freedom of choice.[289] According to historians, the rapid economic and industrial expansion of the U.S. is not simply a function of being a resource rich, hard working, and inventive country, but the belief that anybody could get a share of the country's wealth if he or she was willing to work hard.[290] This dream has been a major factor in attracting immigrants to the United States.[291]

See also


  1. ^ Refers to 2013–2017 American Community Survey data;[148] the last Decennial Census where foreign-born population data was collected was in the 2000 census
  2. ^ Refers to 2008–2012 American Community Survey data;[149] the last Decennial Census where foreign-born population data was collected was in the 2000 census


  1. ^ "International Migrant Stock 2019 Documentation" (PDF). United Nations.
  2. ^ "UN_MigrantStockTotal_2019".
  3. ^ "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States". Migration Policy Institute. March 14, 2019.
  4. ^ a b c "Table 7. Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status By Type And Detailed Class Of Admission: Fiscal Year 2016–2016 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics". United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS). December 18, 2017. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
  5. ^ "Green Card for a Victim of a Crime (U Nonimmigrant)". May 23, 2018. Retrieved July 30, 2019.
  6. ^ "INS Class of Admission Codes" (PDF). Retrieved July 30, 2019.
  7. ^ Foner, Nancy; Fredrickson, George M., eds. (December 8, 2005). "Chapter 6: American Gatekeeping: Race and Immigration Law in the Twentieth Century". Not Just Black and White: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on Immigration, Race, and Ethnicity in the United States. Russell Sage Foundation. ISBN 978-0-87154-270-0. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016.
  8. ^ a b "Per Country Limit". U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Archived from the original on January 21, 2016. in 1965.
  9. ^ "Immigrants in the United States and the Current Economic Crisis Archived April 8, 2010, at the Wayback Machine", Demetrios G. Papademetriou and Aaron Terrazas, Migration Policy Institute, April 2009.
  10. ^ "Immigration Worldwide: Policies, Practices, and Trends Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine". Uma A. Segal, Doreen Elliott, Nazneen S. Mayadas (2010),
  11. ^ "Monthly Census Bureau Data Shows Big Increase in Foreign-Born". November 2, 2021. Retrieved December 17, 2021.
  12. ^ "Key findings about U.S. immigrants". Pew Research Center. June 17, 2019.
  13. ^ Jens Manuel Krogstad (October 7, 2019). "Key facts about refugees to the U.S." Pew Research Center.
  14. ^ a b The Integration of Immigrants into American Society. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2015. doi:10.17226/21746. ISBN 978-0-309-37398-2. Americans have long believed that immigrants are more likely than natives to commit crimes and that rising immigration leads to rising crime ... This belief is remarkably resilient to the contrary evidence that immigrants are in fact much less likely than natives to commit crimes.
  15. ^ a b Doleac, Jennifer (February 14, 2017). "Are immigrants more likely to commit crimes?". Econofact. Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. Archived from the original on February 16, 2017.
  16. ^ a b * Graif, Corina; Sampson, Robert J. (July 15, 2009). "Spatial Heterogeneity in the Effects of Immigration and Diversity on Neighborhood Homicide Rates". Homicide Studies. 13 (3): 242–60. doi:10.1177/1088767909336728. ISSN 1088-7679. PMC 2911240. PMID 20671811.
  17. ^ "Leaving England: The Social Background of Indentured Servants in the Seventeenth Century Archived January 6, 2009, at the Wayback Machine", The Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
  18. ^ "A Century of Population Growth. From the First to the Twelfth Census of the United States: 1790-1900" (PDF).
  19. ^ Butler, Becoming America, The Revolution before 1776, 2000, pp. 34–35 ISBN 0-674-00091-9
  20. ^ The Oxford History of the British Empire, "The Eighteenth Century," Ed. P. J. Marshall, p. 3 ISBN 0-19-820563-5 the number given is at 80,000 less 29,000 Welsh which seems strange to the author, James Horn; Duncan also regards this as a "mystery"; it does not include the 50,000–120,000 convicts transported, most of whom were English
  21. ^ Encyclopedia of the Colonial and Revolutionary America, 1996 pp. 200–02 ISBN 0-306-80687-8; Jon Butler, Becoming America, The Revolution before 1776, 2000, pp. 16–49 ISBN 0-674-00091-9)
  22. ^ "Indentured Servitude in Colonial America Archived December 28, 2009, at the Wayback Machine". Deanna Barker, Frontier Resources.
  23. ^ Encyclopedia, p. 202)
  24. ^ Butler, p. 35
  25. ^ Butler, p. 35 producers of watches, jewelry, furniture, skilled construction workers, food and service trade workers
  26. ^ a b Rossiter, W. S. (1909). "Chapter XI. NATIONALITY AS INDICATED BY NAMES OF HEADS OF FAMILIES REPORTED AT THE FIRST CENSUS". A Century of Population Growth. From the First to the Twelfth Census of the United States: 1790-1900 (PDF). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census. pp. 116–124. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2022. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  27. ^ a b c d American Council of Learned Societies. Committee on Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States (1932). Report of the Committee on Linguistic and National Stocks in the Population of the United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. OCLC 1086749050.
  28. ^ Wedin, Maud (October 2012). "Highlights of Research in Scandinavia on Forest Finns" (PDF). American-Swedish Organization. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 9, 2017.
  29. ^ a b "A Look at the Record: The Facts Behind the Current Controversy Over Immigration Archived February 11, 2009, at the Wayback Machine". American Heritage Magazine. December 1981. Volume 33, Issue 1.
  30. ^ "History: 1790 Fast Facts". U.S. Census Bureau.
  31. ^ Schultz, Jeffrey D. (2002). Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans. Oryx Press. p. 284. ISBN 978-1-57356-148-8. Retrieved March 25, 2010.
  32. ^ James Q. Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 35
  33. ^ "A Nation of Immigrants Archived November 29, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". American Heritage Magazine. February/March 1994. Volume 45, Issue 1.
  34. ^ Evans, Nicholas J. (2001). "Indirect passage from Europe: Transmigration via the UK, 1836–1914". Journal for Maritime Research. 3 (1): 70–84. doi:10.1080/21533369.2001.9668313.
  35. ^ Wilson, Donna M; Northcott, Herbert C (2008). Dying and Death in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. p. 27. ISBN 978-1-55111-873-4. Archived from the original on January 1, 2016.
  36. ^ Will, George P. (May 2, 2010). "The real immigration scare tactics". The Washington Post. Washington, DC. p. A17. Archived from the original on August 25, 2010.
  37. ^ "Turn of the Century (1900–1910) Archived February 21, 2010, at the Wayback Machine".
  38. ^ An Introduction to Bilingualism: Principles and Processes Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Jeanette Altarriba, Roberto R. Heredia (2008). p. 212. ISBN 0-8058-5135-6
  39. ^ James Whitman, Hitler's American Model: The United States and the Making of Nazi Race Law, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017), p. 35
  40. ^ "Old fears over new faces Archived August 16, 2012, at the Wayback Machine", The Seattle Times, September 21, 2006
  41. ^ Beaman, Middleton (July 1924). "CURRENT LEGISLATION: The Immigration Act of 1924". American Bar Association Journal. American Bar Association. 10 (7): 490–492. JSTOR 25709038. Retrieved November 21, 2022.
  42. ^ "Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1931" (PDF) (53rd ed.). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Foreign and Domestic Commerce. August 1931. pp. 103–107. Archived from the original (PDF) on March 29, 2021. Retrieved November 21, 2022.
  43. ^ U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary (April 20, 1950). Investigation of the Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States (PDF) (Report). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. pp. 768–925. Senate Report No. 81-1515. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 8, 2022. Retrieved September 16, 2022.
  44. ^ Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status in the United States of America Archived February 17, 2009, at the Wayback Machine, Source: US Department of Homeland Security
  45. ^ A Great Depression? Archived September 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, by Steve H. Hanke, Cato Institute
  46. ^ Thernstrom, Harvard Guide to American Ethnic Groups (1980)
  47. ^ The Great Depression and New Deal Archived March 10, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, by Joyce Bryant, Yale-New Haven Teachers Institute.
  48. ^ "Jewish refugees from the German Reich, 1933–1939". United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Retrieved August 20, 2014.
  49. ^ Navarro, Armando (2005). Mexicano Political Experience in Occupied Aztlán. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press. ISBN 978-0-7591-0566-9.
  50. ^ a b Peter S. Canellos (November 11, 2008). "Obama victory took root in Kennedy-inspired Immigration Act". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on August 5, 2009. Retrieved November 14, 2008.
  51. ^ Trends in International Migration 2002: Continuous Reporting System on Migration Archived January 1, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (2003). OECD Publishing. p. 280. ISBN 92-64-19949-7
  52. ^ Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics: African Americans and Asian Americans Archived September 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Jeffrey D. Schultz (2000). Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 282. ISBN 1-57356-148-7
  53. ^ The Paper curtain: employer sanctions' implementation, impact, and reform Archived September 19, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. Michael Fix (1991). The Urban Institute. p. 304. ISBN 0-87766-550-8
  54. ^ a b Gonzales, Daniel (March 13, 2016). "How we got here:The many attempts to reform immigration, secure the border". Florida Today. Melbourne, Florida. p. 1A. Archived from the original on March 14, 2016. Retrieved March 13, 2016.
  55. ^ "New Limits In Works on Immigration / Powerful commission focusing on families of legal entrants Archived January 19, 2012, at the Wayback Machine". San Francisco Chronicle. June 2, 1995
  56. ^ Plummer Alston Jones (2004). Still struggling for equality: American public library services with minorities Archived February 17, 2017, at the Wayback Machine. Libraries Unlimited. p. 154. ISBN 1-59158-243-1
  57. ^ Mary E. Williams, Immigration. 2004. p. 69.
  58. ^ "Immigrant Population at Record 40 Million in 2010". Yahoo! News. October 6, 2011.
  59. ^ "Persons Obtaining Lawful Permanent Resident Status by Leading Core Based Statistical Areas (CBSAs) of Residence and Region and Country of Birth: Fiscal Year 2013". Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2013. United States Department of Homeland Security. 2013. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved May 4, 2015.
  60. ^ Shah, Neil (May 3, 2015). "Immigrants to U.S. From China Top Those From Mexico". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on May 5, 2015. Retrieved May 4, 2015. China was the country of origin for 147,000 recent U.S. immigrants in 2013, while Mexico sent just 125,000, according to a Census Bureau study by researcher Eric Jensen and others. India, with 129,000 immigrants, also topped Mexico, though the two countries' results weren't statistically different from each other.
  61. ^ "Study: Immigration grows, reaching record numbers". USA Today. December 12, 2005.
  62. ^ "Immigration surge called 'highest ever' Archived May 2, 2013, at the Wayback Machine". Washington Times. December 12, 2005.
  63. ^ "A Reagan Legacy: Amnesty For Illegal Immigrants Archived November 23, 2016, at the Wayback Machine". NPR: National Public Radio. July 4, 2010
  64. ^ Meyer, Guillaume (February 27, 2009). "Crisis hits Hispanic community hard". France24. Archived from the original on February 12, 2011. Retrieved August 20, 2014.
  65. ^ "Immigrants top native born in U.S. job hunt Archived November 3, 2010, at the Wayback Machine". October 29, 2010.
  66. ^ "U.S. Legal Permanent Residents: 2011" Archived August 17, 2016, at the Wayback Machine. Office of Immigration Statistics Annual Flow Report.
  67. ^ Archibold, Randal C. (February 9, 2007). "Illegal Immigrants Slain in an Attack in Arizona". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 16, 2012. Retrieved July 31, 2008.
  68. ^ "Why Don't They Just Get In Line?". Immigration Policy Center, American Immigration Council. Archived from the original on March 19, 2013.
  69. ^ Sullivan, Cheryl (January 15, 2011). "US Cancels "virtual fence"". Christian Science Monitor. Archived from the original on January 20, 2011. Retrieved January 19, 2011.
  70. ^ Massey 2021, p. 6.
  71. ^ a b Massey 2021, p. 11.
  72. ^ Massey 2021, p. 13.
  73. ^ "Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Report" (PDF).
  74. ^ Fact Sheet: The President's Proclamation on Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats, United States Department of Homeland Security, September 24, 2017.
  75. ^ "Trump travel ban to take effect after Supreme Court ruling". The New York Times. December 4, 2017. Archived from the original on January 3, 2022.
  76. ^ "Trump orders clamp down on immigrant "sanctuary cities," pushes border wall". USA Today. Archived from the original on January 27, 2017.
  77. ^ Villazor, Rose, and Kevin Johnson. "The Trump Administration and the War on Immigration Diversity." Wake Forest Law Review 54.2 (2019): 575.
  78. ^ Shear, Michael D.; Davis, Julie (June 16, 2018). "How Trump Came to Enforce a Practice of Separating Migrant Families". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2022. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  79. ^ Qiu, Linda (June 14, 2018). "Republicans Misplace Blame for Splitting Families at the Border". The New York Times. Archived from the original on January 3, 2022. Retrieved June 8, 2021.
  80. ^ "Trump Admin Quietly Made Asylum More Difficult". CNN. March 8, 2017. Archived from the original on March 8, 2017.
  81. ^ "Sessions Moves to Block Asylum for Most Victims of Domestic, Gang Violence". Politico. June 11, 2018. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  82. ^ Hartmann, Margaret (August 8, 2018). "ACLU Sues Sessions Over Ending Asylum for Victims of Domestic and Gang Violence". New York Intelligencer. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  83. ^ "Trump's latest move to limit immigration worries Seattle-area tech community". The Seattle Times. April 21, 2020.
  84. ^ "Coronavirus: US green cards to be halted for 60 days, Trump says". BBC News. April 22, 2020.
  85. ^ a b "Biden announces new program to curb illegal migration as he prepares for visit to border". Politico. January 5, 2023. Retrieved January 15, 2023.
  86. ^ "Biden announces new migration programs as he prepares to visit the border on Sunday". Retrieved January 15, 2023.
  87. ^ a b JYNNAH RADFORD; ABBY BUDIMAN (September 14, 2018). "Facts on U.S. Immigrants, 2016. Statistical portrait of the foreign-born population in the United States". Pew Research Center.
  88. ^ "Table 1. Persons obtaining lawful permanent resident status: fiscal years 1820 to 2017". U.S. Department of Homeland Security. August 14, 2018. Retrieved January 3, 2019.
  89. ^ a b U.S. 2018 Lawful Permanent Residents Annual Flow Report authored by the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  90. ^ a b U.S. 2019 Lawful Permanent Residents Annual Flow Report authored by the Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  91. ^ a b c U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents 2020 Data Tables 11/18/2021, authored by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
  92. ^ "Refugees and Asylees". Department of Homeland Security. April 5, 2016. Retrieved November 22, 2019.
  93. ^ "Trump proposes slashing refugee numbers". SBS News.
  94. ^ "Trump aims to slash US refugee intake, claiming backlog".
  95. ^ "Trump to cut number of refugees allowed in U.S. to lowest ever".
  96. ^ "US slashes refugee limit to all-time low of 18,000". BBC News. September 27, 2019.
  97. ^ a b "Trump to limit 2021 US refugee admissions to 15,000, a record low".
  98. ^ a b "U.S. to cut refugee admissions to U.S. to a record low". NBC News. October 2020.
  99. ^ a b "Donald Trump slashes US refugee admissions to record low". DW.COM. October 1, 2020.
  100. ^ "US slashes number of refugees it is ready to resettle".
  101. ^ "'Shameful': US slashes number of refugees it will admit to 30,000".
  102. ^ "Immigrants in America: Key Charts and Facts". Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. August 20, 2020. Retrieved January 15, 2022.
  103. ^ The Guardian, December 19, 2019 "Fleeing a Hell the U.S. Helped Create: Why Central Americans Journey North – The region's inequality and violence, in which the US has long played a role, is driving people to leave their homes"
  104. ^ The Nation, October 18, 2017, "How US Foreign Policy Helped Create the Immigration Crisis: Neoliberal Strictures, Support for Oligarchs, and the War on Drugs Have Impoverished Millions and Destabilized Latin America" Archived July 5, 2019, at the Wayback Machine
  105. ^ "Climate Change Is Altering Migration Patterns Regionally and Globally". December 3, 2019.
  106. ^ "Changing climate forces desperate Guatemalans to migrate". National Geographic Society. October 23, 2018. Archived from the original on October 31, 2018.
  107. ^ "'People are dying': how the climate crisis has sparked an exodus to the US". July 29, 2019.
  108. ^ "How climate change is driving emigration from Central America". PBS. September 8, 2019.
  109. ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 5253.
  110. ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 54.
  111. ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 56.
  112. ^ The New Americans, Smith and Edmonston, The Academy Press. p. 58 ("Immigrants have always moved to relatively few places, settling where they have family or friends, or where there are people from their ancestral country or community.").
  113. ^ Archived July 27, 2011, at the Wayback Machine 2009 report available for download, "A Place to Call Home: What Immigrants Say Now About Life in America"
  114. ^ "Americans Return to Tougher Immigration Stance". August 5, 2009. Archived from the original on November 7, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
  115. ^ "Public Agenda Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index". Archived from the original on February 8, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  116. ^ "Table of contents for Who are we? : the challenges to America's national identity / Samuel P. Huntington". Library of Congress.
  117. ^ "Samuel Huntington – on Immigration and the American Identity – Podcast Interview". Thoughtcast. Archived from the original on March 5, 2017.
  118. ^ Yen, Hope (April 24, 2012). "Mexican Migration Appears To Be In Reverse". The San Diego Union-Tribune. Associated Press. Archived from the original on May 1, 2015. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
  119. ^ Ruben Navarrette Jr. (April 27, 2012). "Navarrette: The Mexican reverse migration". Newsday. Archived from the original on April 28, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
  120. ^ "Mexicans feeling persecuted flee U.S." CNN. November 27, 2012. Archived from the original on March 5, 2016.
  121. ^ "L.A. Now". Los Angeles Times. October 23, 2012. Archived from the original on March 6, 2016.
  122. ^ Preston, Julia (July 31, 2008). "Decline Seen in Numbers of People Here Illegally". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 24, 2015. Retrieved May 5, 2010.
  123. ^ "Net Migration from Mexico Falls to Zero – and Perhaps Less". Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. April 23, 2012. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Retrieved April 19, 2016.
  124. ^ "Governor candidates oppose sanctuary cities Archived September 17, 2011, at the Wayback Machine". San Francisco Chronicle. August 4, 2010.
  125. ^ "Sanctuary Cities, USA". Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC. Archived from the original on August 12, 2007.
  126. ^ Mossaad, Nadwa. "U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2014" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on May 22, 2016. Retrieved May 20, 2016.
  127. ^ "Profiles on Lawful Permanent Residents 2015 Country - Homeland Security". January 31, 2017. Archived from the original on March 16, 2017.
  128. ^ "U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2016" (PDF).
  129. ^ "U.S. Lawful Permanent Residents: 2017" (PDF).
  130. ^ "Lawful Permanent Residents (LPR)". Retrieved November 17, 2023.
  131. ^ Nativity of the Population and Place of Birth of the Native Population: 1850 to 2000 – .xls Archived October 20, 2011, at the Wayback Machine, .csv Archived July 23, 2017, at the Wayback Machine
  132. ^ Population by Nativity Status and Citizenship: 2010 Archived February 9, 2015, at the Wayback Machine (estimated to nearest thousand)
  133. ^ "Place of Birth for the Foreign-born in the United States". 2016. Archived from the original on February 14, 2020. Retrieved March 16, 2017.
  134. ^ a b "Explore Census Data". Retrieved September 1, 2020
  135. ^ "U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States". Retrieved September 1, 2020
  136. ^ Mary E. Williams, Immigration. (San Diego: GreenHaven Press) 2004. p. 82.
  137. ^ "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants in the United States Archived March 17, 2008, at the Wayback Machine", Aaron Terrazas and Jeanne Batalova, Migration Policy Institute, October 2009.
  138. ^ "Global Migration: A World Ever More on the Move Archived June 30, 2017, at the Wayback Machine". The New York Times. June 25, 2010.
  139. ^ "Illegal Immigrants Estimated to Account for 1 in 12 U.S. Births". The Wall Street Journal. August 12, 2010.
  140. ^ "National Review: Know the flow - economics of immigration". May 11, 2005. Archived from the original on May 11, 2005.
  141. ^ "Illegal immigrants in the US: How many are there?". May 16, 2006. Archived from the original on May 5, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  142. ^ Passel, Jeffrey S. "Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population" (PDF). Pew Hispanic Center. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 7, 2015. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  143. ^ "Characteristics of the Foreign Born in the United States: Results from Census 2000". Archived from the original on April 10, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  144. ^ "United Nations Population Division | Department of Economic and Social Affairs". Retrieved October 3, 2017.
  145. ^ "Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States". Migration Policy Institute. March 14, 2019.
  146. ^ Cohn, D’Vera (May 30, 2020). "How U.S. immigration laws and rules have changed through history". Pew Research Center. Retrieved May 14, 2023.
  147. ^ "B05006: PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE ... - Census Bureau Table". B05006 | PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  148. ^ "B05006: PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE ... - Census Bureau Table". B05006 | PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION IN THE UNITED STATES. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  149. ^ "PCT019: PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE ... - Census Bureau Table". PCT019 | PLACE OF BIRTH FOR THE FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION [126]. U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  150. ^ "1990 Census of Population Social and Economic Characteristics United States" (PDF). Social and Economic Characteristics: United States. U.S. Census Bureau. October 1993. Archived (PDF) from the original on January 19, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  151. ^ a b "General Social and Economic Characteristics UNITED STATES SUMMARY 1980 Census of Population" (PDF). untitled. U.S. Census Bureau. December 1983. Archived (PDF) from the original on October 6, 2022. Retrieved March 24, 2023.
  152. ^ "Place of Birth for The Foreign-Born Population In The United States | 2019: ACS 1-Year Estimates Detailed Tables".
  153. ^ Colby, Sandra L.; Ortman, Jennifer M. (March 2015). Projections of the Size and Composition of the U.S. Population: 2014 to 2060 (PDF) (Report). U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration U.S. Census Bureau. pp. 8–9. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 22, 2016. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  154. ^ a b Modern Immigration Wave Brings 59 Million to U.S., Driving Population Growth and Change Through 2065 (Report). Pew Research Center. September 28, 2015. p. 1. Archived from the original on May 11, 2016. Retrieved May 17, 2016.
  155. ^ U.S. Hispanic population to triple by 2050 Archived June 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine, USA Today
  156. ^ Cutler, David M.; Glaeser, Edward L.; Vigdor, Jacob L. (2008). "Is the Melting Pot Still Hot? Explaining the Resurgence of Immigrant Segregation" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 90 (3): 478–97. doi:10.1162/rest.90.3.478. S2CID 1110772.
  157. ^ Hook, J.; Snyder, J. (2007). "Immigration, ethnicity, and the loss of white students from California public schools, 1990–2000". Population Research and Policy Review. 26 (3): 259–77. doi:10.1007/s11113-007-9035-8. S2CID 153644027.
  158. ^ Charles H. Lippy, Faith in America: Organized religion today (2006) ch 6 pp. 107–27
  159. ^ Page, Susan (June 29, 2007). "Hispanics turning back to Democrats for 2008". USA Today. Archived from the original on April 19, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  160. ^ Fung, Margaret (November 9, 2006). "AALDEF Exit Poll of 4,600 Asian American Voters Reveals Robust Support for Democratic Candidates in Key Congressional and State Races". American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Archived from the original on August 7, 2007. Retrieved March 16, 2015.
  161. ^ Facchini, Giovanni; Mayda, Anna Maria; Mishra, Prachi (2011). "Do interest groups affect US immigration policy?". Journal of International Economics. 85 (1): 114–28. CiteSeerX doi:10.1016/j.jinteco.2011.05.006. S2CID 154694541.
  162. ^ Facchini, Giovanni; Steinhardt, Max Friedrich (2011). "What drives U.S. immigration policy? Evidence from congressional roll call votes" (PDF). Journal of Public Economics. 95 (7–8): 734–43. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.02.008. ISSN 0047-2727. S2CID 6940099.
  163. ^ Gomez, Alan (January 31, 2018). "Trump painted a dark picture of immigrants, despite the facts". USA Today. Retrieved February 1, 2018. All available national crime statistics show immigrants commit fewer crimes, not more, than those born in the U.S.
  164. ^ Wadsworth, Tim (June 1, 2010). "Is Immigration Responsible for the Crime Drop? An Assessment of the Influence of Immigration on Changes in Violent Crime Between 1990 and 2000". Social Science Quarterly. 91 (2): 531–53. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00706.x. ISSN 1540-6237.
  165. ^
  166. ^ "Sanctuary cities do not experience an increase in crime". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on October 3, 2016. Retrieved October 3, 2016.
  167. ^ a b Warren, Patricia Y.; Tomaskovic-Devey, Donald (May 1, 2009). "Racial profiling and searches: Did the politics of racial profiling change police behavior?". Criminology & Public Policy. 8 (2): 343–69. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9133.2009.00556.x. ISSN 1745-9133.
  168. ^ a b Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2008/09 Archived October 22, 2016, at the Wayback Machine, p.p 8, 22
  169. ^ West, Jeremy. "Racial Bias in Police Investigations" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on March 7, 2016.
  170. ^ a b Donohue III, John J.; Levitt, Steven D. (January 1, 2001). "The Impact of Race on Policing and Arrests". The Journal of Law & Economics. 44 (2): 367–94. doi:10.1086/322810. JSTOR 10.1086/322810. S2CID 1547854.
  171. ^ a b Abrams, David S.; Bertrand, Marianne; Mullainathan, Sendhil (June 1, 2012). "Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?". The Journal of Legal Studies. 41 (2): 347–83. doi:10.1086/666006. ISSN 0047-2530. S2CID 2338687.
  172. ^ a b Mustard, David B. (April 1, 2001). "Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Disparities in Sentencing: Evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts". The Journal of Law and Economics. 44 (1): 285–314. doi:10.1086/320276. ISSN 0022-2186. S2CID 154533225.
  173. ^ a b Anwar, Shamena; Bayer, Patrick; Hjalmarsson, Randi (May 1, 2012). "The Impact of Jury Race in Criminal Trials". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 127 (2): 1017–55. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs014. ISSN 0033-5533.
  174. ^ a b Daudistel, Howard C.; Hosch, Harmon M.; Holmes, Malcolm D.; Graves, Joseph B. (February 1, 1999). "Effects of Defendant Ethnicity on Juries' Dispositions of Felony Cases1". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29 (2): 317–36. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb01389.x. ISSN 1559-1816.
  175. ^ a b Depew, Briggs; Eren, Ozkan; Mocan, Naci (2017). "Judges, Juveniles, and In-Group Bias" (PDF). Journal of Law and Economics. 60 (2): 209–39. doi:10.1086/693822. S2CID 147631237.
  176. ^ Armenta, Amanda (2016). "Radicalizing Crimmigration: Structural Racism, Colorblindness, and the Institutional Production of Immigrant Criminality". Sociology of Race and Ethnicity. 3.
  177. ^ West, Jeremy (February 2018). "Racial Bias in Police Investigations" (PDF). Working Paper.
  178. ^ Milkman, Katherine L.; Akinola, Modupe; Chugh, Dolly (November 1, 2015). "What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 100 (6): 1678–1712. doi:10.1037/apl0000022. ISSN 1939-1854. PMID 25867167.
  179. ^ Espenshade, Thomas J.; Radford, Alexandria Walton (November 2009). Espenshade, T.J. and Radford, A.W.: No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life. (eBook, Paperback and Hardcover). Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691141602. Archived from the original on April 21, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016. {{cite book}}: |website= ignored (help)
  180. ^ a b "IZA – Institute for the Study of Labor". Archived from the original on September 17, 2016. Retrieved April 24, 2016.
  181. ^ Ondrich, Jan; Ross, Stephen; Yinger, John (November 1, 2003). "Now You See It, Now You Don't: Why Do Real Estate Agents Withhold Available Houses from Black Customers?" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 85 (4): 854–73. doi:10.1162/003465303772815772. ISSN 0034-6535. S2CID 8524510.
  182. ^ "Housing Discrimination against Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2012: Full Report". June 11, 2013. Retrieved April 23, 2016.
  183. ^ Riach, P. A.; Rich, J. (November 1, 2002). "Field Experiments of Discrimination in the Market Place". The Economic Journal. 112 (483): F480–F518. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00080. ISSN 1468-0297. S2CID 19024888.
  184. ^ Zschirnt, Eva; Ruedin, Didier (May 27, 2016). "Ethnic discrimination in hiring decisions: a meta-analysis of correspondence tests 1990–2015". Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies. 42 (7): 1115–34. doi:10.1080/1369183X.2015.1133279. ISSN 1369-183X. S2CID 10261744.
  185. ^ Ofari, Earl (November 25, 2007). "The black-Latino blame game". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on June 26, 2012. Retrieved April 25, 2012.
  186. ^