Leon F. Bouvier

Foreign-born professionals in the United States

This article is abridged from a longer one published by the Center for Immigration Studies. The analysis of the distribution of foreign-born professionals in the United States by income ethnic group and occupation is based on 1990 Census PUMS File A sample returns. The foreign-born population is described as comprising 8.2% of US professionals or 1349587 persons. Over three-quarters of foreign-born professionals are Whites and Asians (40.8% and 35.2% respectively). However foreign-born White professionals represent 28.1% of the total foreign-born US population; foreign-born Asian professionals represent 23.3%. Hispanics are the least well represented among professionals (16.7% of professionals and 41.2% of total foreign population). Foreign-born professionals are distributed by occupation about equally among the sciences (27%) health professions (26%) and teaching professions (27%). US professionals account for about 20% in health or science fields and 33% in teaching. 17.4% of foreign-born and only 11% of professionals are in engineering fields. Other differences between natives and foreign-born is in post-secondary teaching where 8.7% are foreign-born and 4.4 are natives. However in elementary and secondary teaching 27.0% are natives and 14.3% are foreign-born. Foreign-born Blacks are mostly in nursing and other health occupations (34.3%) while Asians are mostly engineers (22%) and physicians (12%). Hispanics are largely pre-college teachers entertainers writers and artists. Over 25% of foreign-born Chinese are engineers and 16% are college professors. The pattern is a greater concentration of foreign-born in the sciences medicine and college education. Natives are concentrated in pre-college education the social sciences and law. Asians are the highest paid and Hispanics the lowest paid. Median income is

Population growth impacts of zero net international migration.

37782 for Asian professionals and

The impacts of apportionment method, and legal and illegal immigration, on Congressional apportionment in the year 2000

36375 for White foreign-born professionals. Foreign-born professionals have small but higher incomes in 9 out of 13 occupations. White and Asian natives earn more than Blacks and Hispanics. Differences in income vary by ethnic affiliation of foreign-born. The conclusion is reached that continued access to large numbers of foreign-born professionals offers few incentives to attract train and retain natives in the sciences.

Population and Society: Population Change in the United States

Natural increase, and net international migration are the demographic processes that determine the amount of growth or decline in a nations population. In a country such as the United States, the contribution of net international migration to overall population change overshadows the contribution of natural increase. It has long been the practice, however, when making population projections for countries, to consider the role of zero net international migration in an incorrect manner. Some analysts have assumed that if the same number of people leave and enter the country each year, then the effect of net international migration will be zero. This article examines that assumption and shows that it is fallacious. Examining the direct, indirect, total, and negative demographic impacts of zero net international migration through simulations with demographic data, we demonstrate that zero net international migration is not the same and therefore does not have the same demographic results and implications as zero international migration. We conclude that zero net international migration should not be confused with zero international migration. In discussions of international migration in either sending or receiving countries, the two concepts must be kept separate for they are not identical and, moreover, have decidedly different demographic implications and effects.

Population and Society: An Introduction to Demography

This paper first discusses two methods for apportioning the US House of Representatives, Equal Proportions and Major Fractions. The method of Equal Proportions will be used in the 2000 apportionment, but it is biased in favor of smaller states. The method of Major Fractions is a mathematically unbiased method, but will not be used in 2000. However, we show that apportionments for 2000 would not differ much according to these two methods. We also consider different definitions of the apportionment population, mainly based on including or excluding legal and illegal immigrants from the apportionment process. We show that the apportionment results for 2000 will not differ if illegal immigrants who entered the USA in the 1990s are kept in, or removed from, the apportionment population. But the apportionment results will differ in a major way if all persons immigrating to the USA in the 1990s are kept in, or removed.

Population and Society: Author Index

INTRODUCTION The United States is the third most populous country in the world after the two demographic billionaires, China and India. In 2015, the population of the United States numbered 321 million inhabitants, compared with 1.36 billion in China and 1.29 billion in India (PRB, 2015). When the first census was conducted in the United States in 1790, the population size of the country (as then defined geographically) was just under 4 million, which is about the size today of the metropolitan area of Phoenix, Arizona. In 220 years, the United States has increased tremendously in size, from 3.9 million inhabitants in 1790, to just under 309 million in 2010 (Figure 13.1), to more than 321 million in 2015. In this chapter, I trace the patterns of population growth of the United States from colonial times to the present and then examine some projections of the US population for the future. HISTORY OF POPULATION CHANGE IN THE UNITED STATES The Precolonial Period Estimates for the precolonization period of the size of the population in the land now known as the United States are not easy to obtain, and they vary considerably: “There is probably no single figure that can be accepted as the ‘best’ estimate of the late fifteenth century North American population” (Snipp, 1989: 9). According to Zinn, “The Indian population of [around] 10 million that lived north of Mexico when Columbus came would ultimately be reduced to less than a million. Huge numbers of Indians would die from diseases introduced by the whites. A Dutch traveler in New England wrote in 1656 that ‘the Indians…affirm, that before the arrival of the Christians and before the smallpox broke out amongst them, they were ten times as numerous as they now are, and that their population had been melted down by this disease, whereof nine-tenths of them have died’” (2003: 16). The number of Native Americans continued to decline over the next centuries and totaled between 125,000 and 150,000 by 1900 (Thornton, 1990: 42). This decline resulted in part from attrition during the continual warfare in which they participated in the defense of their tribal lands, as well as from unusual hardships and, as just noted, from diseases introduced by the European settlers.