William H. Frey Immigration and Internal Migration for No. 94-320 · 2017. 6. 22. · William H....
Transcript of William H. Frey Immigration and Internal Migration for No. 94-320 · 2017. 6. 22. · William H....
William H. Frey
Immigration and Internal Migration forU.S. States: 1990 Census Findings byPoverty Status and Race
No. 94-320
Research Reports
Population Studies CenterUniversity of michigan
\ .
William H. Frey
Immigration and Internal Migration forU.S. States: 1990 Census Findings byPoverty Status and Race
No. 94-320
Research ReportSeptember 1994
William H. Frey is Research Scientist and Associate Director for Training at the University of Michigan PopulationStudies Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
This is a revised version of a paper presented at the 1994 Joint Statistical Meetings, Toronto, August 16, 1994. Themigration data for this paper were prepared at the Population Studies Center, University of Michigan from 1990 U.S.Census files. The author acknowledges Cathy Sun for computer programming assistance, and Ron Lue-Sang forpreparing maps and graphics.
\ .
ABSTRACT
This paper presents an analysis of 1990 census migration data for US States (includingthe District of Columbia). Its text and Appendix tables provide detailed statistics on immigrationand internal migration components of 1985-90 population change for individual States, crosstabulated by race, Latino status, poverty status, and, in some cases, education attainment.
The paper's analyses focus on immigration and internal migration components as theyaffect State poverty populations. New immigrant waves are heavily focused on only a few Kportof-entryK States. As a consequence, they have begun to impact upon internal migration flowsboth into and out of these "High Immigration States," and have also altered the national system ofinternal migration patterns. This paper addresses the questions: (1) How do the magnitudes ofpoverty population out-migration from High Immigration States compare with those of otherStates? (2) Is this out-migration selective on particular social and demographic groups? and (3)Is immigration a significant determinant of internal migration of the poverty population?
The results of this analysis are consistent with the view that recent, focused immigrationis associated with poverty out-migration among longer-term State residents. At the local level,there is an apparent displacement of low income residents by immigrants which involves morethan just numbers of people. Rather, it involves a turnover of race, ethnic and skill-levelcharacteristics in the State's poverty population that can impact upon race relations, publicservice requirements, and labor force quality.
Data used: 1990 US census tabulations of full migration ("residence 5 years ago") sample.
;:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction
A Migration Classification of States
Poverty Out-migration from High Immigration States
Selectivity of Poverty Out-migrants
Selectivity by Race and Latino StatusSelectivity by Education Attainment
Immigration as a Determinant of Poverty Out-migration
References
Figures and Tables
Appendix Tables
1
2
3
3
34
4
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Fii1Jlres
Figure 1
Figure 2
Migration Classification of States
Net Interstate Migration of Poverty and Non-poverty Whites
Table 1 Classification of States by Dominant Immigration and Interstate MigrationContributions to Population Change, 1985-90
Table 2 Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90, for PovertyPopulations of High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States
Table 3 Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Race-Ethnicity forHigh Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, and High OutMigration States
Tables 4-A,B Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Race-Ethnicity for Poverty Populations of High Immigration Sates, High InternalMigration States, and High Out-Migration States
Table 5 Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and EducationalAttainment for High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States
Table 6 Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 byEducational Attainment for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States,High Internal Migration States, and High Out-migration States
Table 7 Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes:Total, Whites and Blacks
Table 8 Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes:Education Attainment
Appendix Tables
Table A
TableB
TableC
TableD
Table E
Table F
TableG
TableH
Table I
Table}
Table K
Table L
TableM
TableN
Table 0
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Total Population
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Population
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Population
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-Latino Whites
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Whites
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Whites
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Blacks
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Blacks
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Blacks
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Latinos
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Latinos
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Latinos
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Asians
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Poverty Asians
Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State PopulationChange: Non-poverty Asians
Immigration and Internal Migration for US States:
1990 Census Findings by Poverty Status and Race
William H. Frey
Population Studies CenterThe University of Michigan
1225 South University AvenueAnn Arbor, M148104-2590
Phone: (313) 998-7141FAX: (313) 998-7415
Introduction
Recent studies of 1990 US census migration data have shown that immigration to the USis affecting internal migration patterns in unprecedented ways (Frey, 1993; 1994a; 1994c; 1994d;1994e). New immigrant waves are as large as those seen at the turn of this century and comefrom more diverse origins (Fix and Passel, 1994). Yet, they are just as heavily focused on only afew "port-of-entry" States. As a consequence, they have begun to impact upon internal migrationflows both into and out of these "High Immigration States," and have also altered the nationalsystem of internal migration patterns.
A significant feature of the new immigration-influenced internal migration is relevant to theresident low income poverty populations of High Immigration States. Because recent immigrationis heavily weighted toward minority and developing country origins, and is disproportionatelyrepresented among less well off and relatively unskilled populations (Borjas and Freeman, 1992),these immigrants are prone to compete with native workers for low-skilled jobs and will serve tobid down their wages. Moreover, the arrival, in large numbers, of immigrant ethnic minoritieschanges the cultural milieu and perceptions of social costs for whites and more established,assimilated minorities that can lead to their out-migration.
Hence, immigrant-induced out-migration does not conform to the traditional "circulation ofelites" model (Taeuber and Taeuber, 1964), which characterizes more conventional long-distancemigration patterns (Lansing and Mueller, 1964; Long, 1988). Rather out-migration from HighImmigration States tends to select, disproportionately, poorer, lesser-skilled native-born whitesand blacks. While this immigration effect on "downwardly-selective" out-migration was alreadyevident in the 1970s (see analyses of 1980 census data by Filer, 1992; Walker, Ellis and Barff,1992; and White and Imai, 1993), its scope appears to have increased over time (Frey, 1993;Frey, 1994a; Frey, 1994d).
This paper focuses specifically on how immigration affects internal migration of the USpoverty population. How does it impact on the populations of High Immigration States? Howdoes it affect the overall pattern of inter-state poverty migration? From a State's perspective, theout-flow of native-born poor migrants may partially offset the welfare and social service costs ofpoor immigrant inflows. However, the relationship might not be one-to-one in the sense thatpoverty out-migrants may be from more assimilated, higher-skilled segments of these States'populations. From the perspective of nationwide inter-state migration flows, an acceleratedimmigration "push" may increase the flows to traditional poverty magnet States, or even Statesthat lie adjacent to immigrant "ports-of-entry." Finally, these immigration-internal migration linksare relevant to recent studies of US immigration policy. Studies that show modest or mixedimpacts of immigration on native worker employment or income loss tend to overlook thepossibility of an out-migration response (Fix and Passel, 1994). Also, to the extent that the skill
1
\ .
level of immigrants leads to native worker "pushes,"a re-examination of the current immigrantpreference system may be warranted.
Analyses in this paper will employ tabulations of the full migration ("residence 5 years agoquestion") sample of the 1990 census to address the following questions:
1. How do the magnttudes of poverty population out-migration from High ImmigrationStates, compare with those for States with relatively small numbers of immigrants?
2. Is immigration-induced poverty out-migration uniquely selective on particular race andeducation attainment populations?
3. How does a State's immigration level affect its internal poverty migration when othersocial and economic migration determinants are taken into account?
The census migration data used here permit an assessment of net internal migration, andmigration from abroad for the 1985-90 period, for each State. The data were compiled for allindividuals aged 5 and above in 1990 (who were alive in 1985), by poverty status, by race andethnicity, and education attainment among persons aged 25 and over. Because of the way thedata were compiled, statistics for whites (non-Latino whites) had to be estimated (see Frey,1994d). The migration from abroad data, as reported in the census, substantially understates theillegal immigrant population (Fix and Passel, 1994; Center for Immigration Studies, 1994).Finally, the reader should be aware that the determination of poverty status is based on 1989income as reported by census respondents, and does not reflect the income status at thebeginning of the migration period.
A Migration Classification of States
This analysis will employ a typology, developed in an earlier study (Frey, 1994a), whichclassifies States on the basis of their dominant migration source of change. (See Table 1 andFigure 1.) States classed as "High Immigration States" include the six States with largest 198590 migration from abroad, where the immigration component overwhelms net internal migration(California, New York, Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts). Each of these States tendsto have large existing settlements of earlier immigrants from Latin America and Asia. The sixStates classified as "High Internal Migration States" (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia,Washington, Arizona) displayed greatest net increases in their migration exchanges with otherStates over the 1985-90 period. Moreover, in each case, these internal migration gainssignificantly exceeded those of the immigration component. (This is the case for Florida, as well,despite its strong attraction for immigrants.) These internal migration magnets are located,largely, in the South Atlantic and the Pacific and Mountain divisions. Their allure lies with theirgrowing economies and, in most cases, climatic and other amenities. Finally, a third class ofStates include five "High Out-migration States" -- Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma and Iowa.These States displayed greatest out-migration in their exchanges with other States and were notrecipients of large immigration from abroad.
(Table 1 and Figure 1 here)
One distinction of these groups involved the contrast of minority-white majoritycompositions of inflows to High Immigration States versus those to High Internal Migration States.That is, the dominant immigration stream to the former States is comprised, largely, of minoritiesfrom Latin American or Asian origins -- while the migrant gains to the latter States are made upmostly of native-born whites (and, in some cases, blacks). By themselves, these differentprocesses will lead to wider disparities in their racial compositions between these two categoriesof States (see Frey, 1993). However, the present paper focuses on another distinction that exists
2
across State categories. This involves the unique "downward selectivity" of internal migrationaway from High Immigration States. This will be taken up below.
Poverty Out-migration from High Immigration States
To what extent did the poverty population move out of High Immigration States during the1985-90 period? The data shown in Table 2 indicate a fairly consistent pattern. That is, each ofthe six High Immigration States showed declines in their poverty population as a result of netinternal migration; and in four of the six (New York and Massachusetts excepted), the povertypopulation out-migration rates were greater than those for the non-poverty population.
(Table 2 here)
The latter observation is consistent with the unique "downwardly selective" out-migrationthat appears to be responding to large waves of poverty immigrants in these States (see columns1 and 2 in Table 2). In contrast, the poverty status selectivity patterns for the High InternalMigration States and High Out-migration States conform more closely to the "circulation of elites"model discussed earlier. That is, the net migration losses in each of the five High Out-migrationStates are more accentuated for the non-poverty than poverty populations in those States.Likewise, the net migration gains for four of the High Internal Migration States are larger for theirnon-poverty populations. (The higher poverty gains for North Carolina and Washington reflect thefact that these are destinations for "return" and spillover" poverty migrants from high ImmigrationStates.)
Finally, the last three columns in Table 2 permit an assessment of how migration fromabroad and internal migration contribute to overall change in each State's poverty population.The upper panel makes clear that in five of the six High Immigration States, internal migrationserved to substantially reduce poverty population gains. California gains approximately ninetimes as many poverty migrants from abroad as it loses via internal out-migration to other States.However, internal out-flows reduce New York's poverty gains through immigration by almost twothirds, and Texas' poverty gains from abroad by almost one-half. Moreover, in New Jersey andIllinois poverty out-migration to other States exceeds their poverty gains from abroad. Thesedisplacement patterns of poverty migrants from abroad for internal migrants to other States begsthe question of what other selectivity patterns are accompanying this displacement?
Selectivity of Poverty Out-migrants
Selectivity by Race and Latino Status
The selectivity of poverty net out-migration can be assessed from the data shown inTables 3, 4-A, and 4-8. The presumption that poverty out-migration from High ImmigrationStates was only a "white flight" phenomenon is countered by the rates shown for blacks, and, to alesser extent, Latinos and Asians. While whites showed a net out-migration of poverty migrantsfrom all six States, blacks and Latinos out-migrated from five and Asians from four. AlthoughLatinos and Asians overwhelm immigrant growth in these States, there is a smaller but consistentpattern of net internal out-migration for these groups (except in Massachusetts, and for Asians inCalifornia). Moreover, the migration pattern for each group from the High Immigration Statesconforms generally to the "downward selective" immigrant "push" pattern discussed earlier. Thiscontrasts with the "circulation of elites" model which tends to characterize each group's internalmigration patterns for High Internal Migration States and High Out-migration States.
(Tables 3, 4-A and 4-8 here)
Emphasis on aggregate population shifts, rather than rates, shows that the povertyimmigration substitution for internal out-migrants translates into a Latino and Asian substitution for
3
non-Latino whites. In California, for example, Latinos and Asians make up the dominant share ofpoverty immigrants, while non-Latino whites make up plurality of the internal out-migrants. Onlyin New York and Illinois is there a significant alteration of this pattern -- where blacks contributealmost as much as whites to the internal out-migration of the poverty population. Hence, thepoverty turnover in High Immigration States can be characterized as a displacement of "newimmigrant minorities' for whites and, to a lesser extent, blacks. It is also of interest to see thatpoverty net in-migration gains for High Internal Migration States, is dominated by the latter twogroups. Indeed, poverty blacks outnumber poverty whites in the internal migration gains forGeorgia and Virginia over the 1985-90 period.
Selectivity by Education Attainment
Are poverty net out-migrants from High Immigration States similar in educationattainment to the immigrants who are displacing them? The data in Tables 5 and 6 shed light onthis question. The net migration rates shown in Table 5 make plain that the poverty net outmigration from these States is not a proxy for migrant skill level or education attainment. That is,for each of four broad categories of education attainment (less than high school, high schoolgraduate, some college, college graduate), out-migration rates for these States' povertypopulations are generally greater in magnitude than for their non-poverty populations. This mayreflect more head-to-head competition with poor immigrants, of similar education levels, whowere forced to take less permanent types of jobs. Moreover, the higher migration responseamong poverty populations (when controlled for education) is only characteristic of movementfrom High Immigration States. In the other two categories of States, it is the non-povertypopulation which is more likely to migrate in (to High Internal Migration States) or out (from HighOut-migration States).
(Tables 5 and 6 here)
The aggregate migration data in Table 6 make plain that at least in California and Texaspoverty immigrants are decidedly less well-educated than the internal out-migrants they aredisplacing. In both of these States, the vast majority of the poverty adult immigrants (aged 25and above) have not completed high school whereas internal out-migrants are more evenlydistributed between high school dropouts and high school graduates. In New York, New Jersey,and Illinois the mismatch is not nearly as imbalanced because a larger share of those States'immigrants are at least high school graduates. Massachusetts' displacement patterns are not likethe other States', reflecting, perhaps, the draw of more educated immigrants to the State's manyinstitutions of higher learning. In sum, this review of race and education selectivity patternsshows a general displacement of poverty out-migrant whites with largely "new immigrant"minorities with lower skill levels.
Immigration as a Determinant of Poverty Out-migration
Does a State's immigration level exert an independent impact on poverty out-migration?This question is addressed in a series of regression equation where the dependent variables areState net migration levels for the period 1985-90, specific to different demographic sub-groups(by poverty status, race and education attainment). The independent variables for theseregressions include the State's 1985-90 immigration level, a geographic regional classification(dummy variables for the Northeast region, the Midwest region, the South Atlantic division, theMountain division and the Pacific division, where parts of the South, which are not included in theSouth Atlantic division, represent the omitted category); five variables reflecting the metropolitanarea's economic structure (unemployment rate of 1985, per capita income in 1985, percent ofchange in manufacturing employment and percent of change in service employment for theperiod 1985-90, and the State's AFDC level); percent of State's population that was non-Latinowhite and black in 1985 (for use in the equations for whites and blacks); percent of "newimmigrant minorities" in the State (percent Latinos and Asians); and the log of the State'spopulation size in 1985. All of the migration and population data were drawn from the 1980 and
4
:
1990 US censuses. The economic characteristics were drawn from the State and MetropolitanArea Data Book, 1991, compiled by the US Bureau of the Census.
Shown in Table 7 are the regression equations for the net migration for povertypopulations and non-poverty populations of the 51 States (including District of Columbia).Separate equations are shown for the total population, for the white population, and for the blackpopulation, aged 5 and above in 1990. A similar set of equations is shown in Table..8Jor personsaged 25 and above, classed by their levels of education attainment. The results are consistentwith expectations in showing that immigration exerts a significant negative effect on net povertymigration for each demographic subgroup except for college graduates. Moreover, theimmigration effect is not significant in explaining net migration for the non-poverty populations ofeach group except college graduates where the effect is positive (reflecting, perhaps, the "duallabor market" character of high immigration areas discussed in MOllenkopf and Castells, 1991).
(Tables 7 and 8 here)
The only other consistent finding across all of the equations except one (non-povertyblacks) is the positive effect that service growth exerts on net migration gains for poverty andnon-poverty populations, alike. The regional categories, in the race-specific comparisons, show aconsistent positive effect for the South Atlantic division on non-poverty migration. This resultsuggests that there are unmeasured economic and amenity ·puIlS" for non-poverty migrants tothis region; in contrast to the immigration "pushes" exerted on the poverty population. Thesedistinct effects are consistent with the maps shown in Figure 2. The upper map, depicting the netmigration patterns of poverty whites, shows sharp levels of out-migration from selected HighImmigration States, but a more diffuse pattern of destinations for poverty net in-migration. Incontrast, non-poverty white migration responds more sharply to "pulls" of distinct destinationStates, primarily in the South Atlantic and Mountain regions. While a more detailed migration flowanalysis is required, these maps, in conjunction with the regression results, suggest that povertyand non-poverty populations participate in somewhat different migration stream networks.
A few other regression coefficients in the Tables are worthy of note. Poverty migrantsamong the total, and white populations, respond negatively to a State's average income level -reflecting, perhaps, its relative cost of living. Poverty and non-poverty black migrants respondnegatively to unemployment in the Northeast and (for black poverty migrants only) the Midwestregions. State AFDC benefit levels do not exert significant impacts on poverty or non-povertymigration for most comparisons. (Poverty AFDC benefits exert an unanticipated negativerelationship to the net migration of poverty college graduates.)
(Figure 2 here)
In sum, these regression results are consistent with the overall analyses presented in thispaper. The recent focused immigration to a few selected "port-of-entry" States appears to beeffecting a consistent pattern of poverty out-migration among the native-born resident populationsof these States. The results of this analysis are strong and consistent enough to warrantadditional investigations into the nature of immigrant competition, or labor market mechanismsthat are contributing to this pattern. At the local level, this apparent displacement of low incomeresidents by immigrants involves more than just numbers of people. Rather, it involves a turnoverof race, ethnic and skill-level characteristics in the State's poverty population that can holdimplications for race relations, public service requirements, and the quality of the labor force.
5
REFERENCES
Borjas, George J. and Richard Freeman. 1992. Immigration and the Work Force. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Center for Immigration Studies. 1994. Backgrounder. 25 pp.
Filer, Randall K. 1992. ''The Effect of Immigrant Arrivals on Migratory Patterns of NativeWorkers." Pp. 245-270 in George J. Borjas and Richard B. Freeman (eds.), Immigrationand the Work Force. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fix, Michael and Jeffrey Passel. 1994. "Immigration and Immigrants' Setting the RecordStraight." Washington, IX: The Urban Institute.
Frey, William H. 1993. "Inter-state Migration and Immigration for Whites and Minorities, 198590: The Emergence of Multi-ethnic States." Research Report No. 93-297. Ann Arbor,:MI:Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Frey, William H. 1994a. "The New White Flight." American Demographics (April), pp. 40-48.
Frey, William H. 1994b. "College Grad, Poverty Blacks Take Different Migration Paths."Research Report No. 94-303. Ann Arbor,:MI: Population Studies Center.
Frey, William H. 1994c. "Irrunigration and Internal Migration "Flight": 1990 Census Findingsfrom California." Research Report No. 94-306. Ann Arbor, MI: Population StudiesCenter, University of Michigan.
Frey, William H. 1994d. "Irrunigration and Internal Migration "Flight" from U.S. Metro Areas:1990 Census Findings by Race, Poverty and Education." Research Report No. 94-304.Ann Arbor, MI: Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Frey, William H. 1994e. "White and Black 'Flight' from High Immigration Metro Areas:Evidence from the 1990 Census." Research Report. Ann Arbor, MI: Population StudiesCenter, University of Michigan.
Lansing, John B. and Eva Mueller. 1967. The Geographic Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor, MISurvey Research Center, Institute for Social Research.
Long, Larry. 1988. Mi~ration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: RussellSage.
Mollenkopf, John H. and Manuel Castells (eds.). 1991. Dual City: Restructuring- New York.New York: Russell Sage.
Waldinger, Roger. 1989. "Irrunigration and Urban Change." Annual Review of Sociology 15:211232.
Walker, Robert, Mark Ellis and Richard Barff. 1992. "Linked Migration Systems: Immigrationand Internal Labor Flows in the United States." Economic Geography. Vol. 68, pp. 234248.
White, Michael J. and Yoshie Imai. 1993. "The Impact of Irrunigration upon Internal Migration."Population and Environment. Vol. 15(3), pp. 189-209.
6
Migration Classification of States
• High Immigration StatesII High Internal Migration Stateso High Out Migration States
FIGURE 1
\ .
Poverty Whites - Net Interstate Migration
Non-Poverty Whites - Net Interstate Migration
Net In-Migration
• Top 5 States~ Other States
Net Out-Migration
o Top 5 StatesD Other States
FIGURE 2
, .
Table 1: Qassification of States by Dominant lnunigration and Intecstate Migration
Contributions to Population Otan~e. 1985-90
State
Contribution to 1985-90 Otan~e (1000s)Net Interstate
MiJ!;X"ationfrom Abroad Mi~tion**
I mGB IMMIGRATION STATESa
1 .--=~--23456
CaliforniaNewYodc
Texas
NewJ~yDIinois
M~
1499
614368211203156
174-821-331-194-342
-97
II mGB INTERNAL MIGRATION STATESb
123456
Florida
GeorgiaNorth Carolina
Vuginia
WashingtonArizona
390
9266
149102
80
1071303
281228
216
216
In HIGH OUT-MIGRATION STATESc
1234
5
LouisianaOhio
MichiganOklahomaIowa
3069
74
32
17
-251-141-133-128
-94
Source: Compiled from 1990 Census files at the Population Studies Center. The University ofMichigan
* 1990 State residents who resided abroad in 1985
-1985-90 In-migrants from other States minus 1985-90 Out -migrants to other States
aStates with largest 1985-90 migration ~ abroad which exceeds net interstate migrationhstates with largest 1985-90 net interstate migration and exceeds migration from abroadeStates with largest negative net interstate migration and not recipients of large migration fromabroad
Source: William H. Frey, "The New White Flight" American Demographics April, 1994
\ .
Tahle 2: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90, for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States, High Internal MigrationStates, and High Out-Migration States.
Rates of
Rates ofComponents of Poverty Population ChangeMigration from Abroad *
Internal Migration *TotalMigrationInternal
StatePovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyMigrationFrom AbroadMigration
I High Immigration States
California
14.14.3-1.50.7402,727450,777-48,050New York
7.73.1 -4.6-4.864,691156,873-92,182Texas
4.6\.9 -2.3-2.162,443122,970-60,527
New Jersey
7.42.6-10.4-1.4-15,35537,815-53,170lIlinois
4.11.6-5.3-2.7-13,42048,206-61,626Massachusetts
9.42.1 -0.3-2.241,84843,403-1,555
.f,
II HiRh-lnternal Migration States
Florida
7.02.7 5.69.6180,002100,22479,778
Georgia
2.01.4 2.75.438,39716,04522,352North Carolina
1.2\.0 4.23.940,3629,15931,203
Virginia
3.32.5 2.23.529,96818,03011,938
Washington
5.61.8 6.04.752,87225,55927,313
Arizona
5.41.8 5.36.652,71826,40726,311
III lliRh Ow-MiRratinn States
Louisiana
0.80.7 -3.2-7.5-21,0606,560-27,620
Ohio
\.40.6 0.3-\.420,59816,5834,015
Michigan
1.80.7 0.2-1.520,26618,4681,798
Oklahoma
1.6\.0 -0.2-5.46,0197,076-1,057
Iowa
2.00.5 0.8-4.37,5315,3892,142
* Rates per 100, 1990 population
Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Table 3: Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Race-Ethnicity for High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, andHigh Out-Migration States.
Rates of Internal Migration * :Non-Latino Whites"
BlacksLatinosAsians
State
PovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPoverty
I High Immigration States
California
-3.90.8-1.81.2-1.1-0.2 4.52.4
New York
-4.2-4.5 -5.0-5.6 -4.8-6.5 -3.2-4.4
Texas
-5.0-2.5 -0.20.7-1.1-2.0 -5.2-4.9
New Jersey
-17.7-2.1-5.40.3-4.9-0.9 -5.77.1
Illinois
-5.3-2.7 -5.6-2.6 -3.4-1.5 -9.8-5.3
Massachusetts
-3.4-2.6 1.80.3 6.91.9 8.81.2
.',
II High-Internal Migration StatesFlorida
6.610.4 2.24.8 8.58.9 3.68.4
Georgia
2.24.9 2.86.2 17.215.9 -7.97.8
North Carolina
4.34.2 3.72.0 12.67.7 9.52.9
Virginia
1.23.2 3.54.2 8.010.4 -3.54.8
Washington
5.94.8 4.53.4 10.37.0 1.42.7
Arizona
5.97.5 7.19.4 3.92.1 5.60.5
III High Out-Migration States
Louisiana
-5.0-7.6 -1.6-5.8-12.1-13.0-11.5-23.5
Ohio
-0.1-1.4 1.0-0.8 7.2-0.6 -3.3-2.9
Michigan
-0.3-1.5 0.6-1.2 5.2-0.3 -1.9-2.7
Oklahoma
-0.3-5.3 1.5-4.9 -0.3-5.4-13.1-17.5
Iowa
0.5-4.2 6.3-5.1 7.40.2 -5.2-10.8
* Rates per 100, 1990 population
•• Estimated as: whites + "other races" - Hispanics
Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Tablc 4-A: Immigration and Intcrnal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Race-Ethnicity for PovertyPopulations of High Immigration States, High Internal Migration States, and High Out-Migration States.
Components of Poverty Population Change:Non-Latino Whites
Blacks
TotalMigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternal
StateMigrationFrom AbroadMigrationMigration From Abroad Migration
I High Immigration States
California16,01358,588-42,575 2846,836-6,552
New York-3,56329,283-32,846-1,35328,311-29,664
Texas-32,46711,048-43,515 3,4194,285-866
New Jersey
-31,7355,903-37,638 -4,8844,034-8,918Illinois
-16,51413,179-29,693-22,0932,066-24,159Massachusetts
-2509,883-10,133 4,5463,557989,I,
II High-Internal Migration StatesFlorida
58,10911,86446,24527,32417,4819,843
Gcorgia
11,0733.3287,74515,9043,54812,356North Carolina
19,6372,47617,16113,9551,78212,173
Virginia
8,4174,7603,6579.3711,8477,524
Washington
27,4136,40821,005 2,2451,0611,184Arizona
21,8563,84618,0102,3216261,695
1Il High Out-Migration States
Louisiana-15,4371,429-16,866 -6,7811,031-7,812
Ohio5,3716,017-6464,2581,0923,166
Michigan
6,2758,358-2,083 3,7721,4852,287Oklahoma
6941,813-1,1 191,525586939
Iowa
2,8661,6371,2291,140313827
Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Table 5: Rates of Internal Migration, 1985-90, by Poverty Status and Educational Attainment* for High Immigration States, High Internal MigrationStates, and High Out-Migration States.
Rates of Internal Migration ** :Less than HS Grad
High School GradsSome CollegeCollege GradState
PovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPovertyPovertyNonPoverty
I High Immigration States
California
-1.3-0.6 -4.0-0.8 -3.8-0.1 -0.23.3New York
-3.3-3.9 -4.4-4.6 -6.3-5.8 -5.1-6.1
Texas
-1.7-2.1 -3.1-2.6 -3.9-2.4 -1.4-1.8
New Jersey
-4.2-1.9 -6.9-2.3 -9.9-2.2 -8.91.0
I1Iinois
-3.7-2.2 -3.8-2.6 -4.9-3.3 -2.2-2.6
Massachuetts
-0.4-1.9 -4.0-2.8 -4.4-3.4 -3.3-2.2
II High-Internal Migration States
.-'Florida 4.27.9 7.110.5 8.310.3 9.711.1 'eGeorgia
1.42.5 2.53.6 4.46.7 7.47.9
North Carolina
2.12.1 3.72.9 5.64.4 5.45.3
Virginia
0.51.4 1.21.5 0.22.8 3.15.5
Washington
4.62.7 4.73.5 7.44.8 7.16.8Arizona
2.34.8 4.57.4 7.77.6 11.07.8
III High Out-migration States
Louisiana
-1.5-3.3 -3.6-5.4 -6.6-9.7 -6.1-12.3
Ohio
0.2-0.8 0.6-0.7 0.0-1.4 -0.9-3.5
Michigan
0.2-1.2 0.2-0.9 0.6-1.3 -3.7-3.2
Oklahoma
0.7-2.0 0.1-3.5 -0.6-5.2 -4.3-10.1
Iowa
1.0-0.6 1.5-1.6 0.8-4.1 -3.6-11.7
* For Persons Aged 25 and Over
** Rates per 100, 1990 population
Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Table 6: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of Change, 1985-90 by Educational Attainment for Poverty Populations of High Immigration States, HighInternal Migration States, and High Out-migration States.
Components of Poverty Population Change:Less than HS Grad
High School GradCollege Graduates
Total
MigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternalTotalMigrationInternal
State
MigrationFrom Abroad MigrationMigration From Abroad MigrationMigration From Abroad Migration
I High Immigration States
California106,939117,672-10,73316,68530,673-13,98829,06029,428-368
New York
15,39035,581-20,191 6,10319,907-13,80414,01018,923-4,913Texas
16,16330,833-14,670-3,4426,329-9,771 8,2299,265-1,036
New Jersey
1,7938,383-6,590-1,6334,427-6,0602,4634,686-2,223Illinois
-2,1559,479-11,634 -1,7844,821-6,6056,7367,725-989
Massachusetts
7,9778,473-496 5903,670-3,080 5,0396,071-1,032
/I High-Internal Migration States
'I'
Florida44,37425,83118,54328,45711,71916,73813,6128,0515,561
Georgia
6,7402,7074,0334,3731,6832,6903,3961,8941,502
North Carolina
7,0121,2395,7734,7809943,786 2,5001,522978
Virginia
4,1623,2149482,4301,6058253,7973,175622
Washington
8,9164,8424,0745,3441,9433,4013,9872,2981,689
Arizona
8,8446,0932,7514,3441,4662,8784,2022,0932,109
11/High Out-migration States
Louisiana-3,514704-4,218 -3,692624-4,316 -291,023-1,052
Ohio
2,3961,8635332,5891,4271,1623,3043,591-287
Michigan
2,7002,1655351,8681,5483202,9083,989-1,081
Oklahoma
1,638784854 621530917241,346-622
Iowa
1,0474575901,156328828 8421,218-376
* For Persons Aged 25 and Over
Source: 1990 Census Full Migration Sample Compiled at Population Studies Center, University of Michigan.
Table 7: Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes
Total, Whites and Blacksa
(Standardized Regression Coefficients)Total
WhitesBlacksState
Non-Non-Non-Attributesb
PovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPoverty
REGlO~ Northeast
-.27-.to -.12-.13 -.62*-.50*Midwest
-.11-.02 -.06-.11 -.38*.23South Atlantic
.18.29* .17.32* .16.35*Mountain
.10.12 .12.01 -.18-.09Pacific
.13.24 .17.11 -.16.09
UNEMPLOYMENT
-.16-.21 -.10-.15 -.31 *-.34*MFG GROWTI-I
.14.16 .19.22 .12-.04SERVICE GROwrn:
.39*.40* .40*.42* .23*.18INCOME
-.29*-.00 -.35*.07-.20.21AFDC
.23-.18 .19-.22 .35-.21
% WHITES
------- -.04.25% BLACKS
-------- -------- -.22-.49
% LATINOS & ASIANS
-.23*-.13 -.22.11-.13-.16
IMMIGRA nON
-.47*.07 -.52*.09-.45*-.09
POP SIZE (LOG)
.17.02 .18.01 .20.12
R2
.62.52 .67.55 .53.55
~
'Persons a2:ed 5 and above in 1990 bSee text f~r attribute definitionscOmitted category includes the remainder of the South region (other than South Atlantic)*Significant at .1 level
Table 8: Net Internal Migration, 1985-90 by Poverty Status Regressed on State Attributes
Educational Attainmentb(Standardized Regression Coefficients)Less thanHS
High School GradCollege GradState
Non-Non-Non-Attributesb
PovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPovertyPoverty
REGION" Northeast
-.23-.09 -.03-.05 -.04-.15Midwest
-.12-.03 .02.01 .14-.04South Atlantic
.17.26 .23.27 .27*.24Mountain
.03.08 .12.10 .24.12Pacific
.07.11 .16.13 .52*.35
UNEMPLOYMENT
-.10-.16 -.07-.14 -.14-.24MFGGROWTII
.15.21 .17.21 .05.04SERVICE GROWTII
.35*.34* .35*.38* .39*.35*INCOME
-.22-.04 -.19-.02 -.10.06AFDe
.20-.13 .03-.16 -.36*-.24
% LATINOS & ASIANS
-.18-.07 -.13-.07 -.12-.16
IMMIGRA nON
-.48*-.15 -.59*-.10 -.14+.38*
POP SIZE (LOG)
.12.04 .20.06 .07-.11
R2
.54.43 .61.43 .56.57
apersons aged 5 and above in 1990bSee text for attribute definitions
'Omitted category includes the remainder of the South region (other than South Atlantic) ~*Significant at .1 level
Table A: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Total Population·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
65,68429,81535,869 0.81.0Alaska
-37,58610,899-48,485 22-9.8Arizona
296,44880,271216,177 2.46.4Arkansas
36,58612,33924,247 0.61.1California
1,672,1941,498,608173,586 550.6Colorado
-21,95856,040-77,998 1.8-2.6Connecticut
18,81270,655-51,843 23-1.7Delaware
33,4027,52125,881 1.24.2District of Columbia
-30,15724,254-54,411 43-95Florida
1,461,550389,8681,071,682 3.28.9
Georgia394,67792,080302,597 155.1
Hawaii28,16148,417-20,256 4.7-2.0
Idaho-8,36211,217-19,579 12-2.1
Illinois-139,360202,784-342,144 1.9-3.2
Indiana35,59232,4643,128 0.60.1
Iowa-77,06917,303-94,372 0.7-3.7
Kansas9,18132,631-23,450 1.4-1.0
Kentucky5,93326,057-20,124 0.8-0.6
Louisiana-220,45630,198-250,654 0.8-6.4
Maine44,09110,77333,318 0.92.9
Maryland212,679111,789100,890 252.3
Massachusetts59,131155,863-96,732 2.8-1.7
Michigan
-58,69274,307-132,999 0.9-1.5Minnesota
40,53736,1754,362 0.90.1
Mississippi
-14,86812,262-27,130 05-1.1Missouri
62,10834,05128,057 0.70.6Montana
-46,9275,677-52,604 0.8-7.1Nebraska
-27,43212,518-39,950 0.9-2.7Nevada
203,09730,245172,852 2.715.6
New Hampshire
7359811,53862,060 1.16.1
New Jersey17,884211,417-193,533 2.9-2.7
New Mexico13,44424,901-11 ,457 1.8-0.8
New York-207,162613,724-820,886 3.7-4.9
North Carolina346,54565,663280,882 1.14.6
North Dakota-44,1426,805-50,947 1.2-8.6
Ohio-72,07369,106-141,179 0.7-1.4
Oklahoma-95,51932,241-127,760 1.1-4.4
Oregon123,52740,95582,572 1.63.1
Pennsylvania20,88698,575-77,689 0.9-0.7
Rhode Island33,98421,71612,268 2.313
South Carolina139,88630,545109,341 0.93.4
South Dakota-17,3725,071-22,443 0.8-35
Tennessee161,80930,347131,462 0.72.9
Texas36,722368,091-331,369 2.4-2.1
Utah-10,54525,617-36,162 1.6-2.3
Vermont21,3864,40116,985 0.83.3
Virginia376,596148,724227,872 2.64.0
Washington317,832101,562216,270 2.34.8
West Virginia-68,7164,939-73,655 0.3-4.4
Wisconsin-3,15032,704-35,854 0.7-0.8
Wyoming-53,7062,987-56,693 0.7-13.5
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).
\ .
Table B: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Poverty Population*
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroad MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
19,6495,00014,649 0.823Alaska
-9,8901,081-10,971 2.7.-27.0Arizona
52,71826,40726,311 5.45.3Arkansas
12,5942,35710,237 0.62.6California
402,727450,777-48,050 14.1-1.5Colorado
11,20212,319-1,117 3.7-0.3Connecticut
-1,18315,010-16,193 7.9-8.5Delaware
2,2731,310963 2.61.9District of Columbia
3,7324,617-885 5.3-1.0Florida
180,002100,22479,778 7.05.6
Georgia38,39716,04522,352 2.02.7
Hawaii-4797,135-7,614 9.1-9.7
Idaho7,1543,6273,527 3.23.1
Illinois-13.42048,206-61,626 4.1-5.3
Indiana11,2176,0185,199 1.21.0
Iowa7,5315,3892,142 2.00.8
Kansas8,5457,3591,186 3.00.5
Kentucky13,0884,2158,873 0.71.4
Louisiana-21,0606,560-27,620 0.8-3.2
Maine4,8931,1493,744 1.03.2
Maryland12,07115,745-3,674 4.6-1.1
Massachusetts41,84843,403-1,555 904-0.3
Michigan20,26618,4681,798 1.80.2
Minnesota24,28212,17912,103 3.23.1
Mississippi6,3282,2184,110 0.40.7
Missouri24,1667,59716,569 1.32.8
Montana9131,543-630 1.4-0.6
Nebraska3,3562,2471,109 1.5 .0.7
Nevada21,0426,64014,402 6.313.6
New Hampshire1,8031,528275 2.50.4
New Jersey-15,35537,815-53,170 704-lOA
New Mexico7,0286,656372 2.50.1
New York64,691156,873-92,182 7.7-4.6
North Carolina40,3629,15931,203 1.24.2
North Dakota-1,0451,090-2,135 104-2.7
Ohio20,59816,5834,015 1.40.3
Oklahoma6,0197,076-1,057 1.6-0.2
Oregon35,62314,97120,652 4.96.8
Pennsylvania32,71827,2255.493 2040.5
Rhode Island8,6976,3272,370 7.72.9
South Carolina12,9563,2579,699 0.72.1
South Dakota638797-159 0.9-0.2
Tennessee24,3815,32119,060 0.82.9
Texas62,443122,970-60,527 4.6-2.3
Utah17,5167,5789,938 4.66.0
Vermont3,6135063,107 1.16.5
Virginia29,96818,03011,938 3.32.2
Washington52,87225,55927,313 5.66.0
West Virginia3,5491,2472,302 0.40.7
Wisconsin30,30511,94218,363 2.74.1
Wyoming-5,365622-5,987 1.3-13.0
* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).
, .
Table C: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Popula~ion Change:
Non-poverty Population·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
45,25322,85022,403 0.80.7Alaska
-30,6039,113-39,716 2.1-9.1Arizona
236,88451,413185,471 1.86.6Arkansas
26,6919.09817,593 051.0California
1,191,259l,ol8,696172,563 430.7Colorado
-33,95241,622-75,574 1.6-2.9Connecticut
26,25053,328-27,078 1.9-1.0Delaware
28,0925,99922,093 1.14.0
District of Columbia-40,04018,194-58,234 4.1-13.0
Florida1,281,939281,0191.000,920 2.79.6
Georgia
341,30471,943269,361 1.45.4Hawaii
17,90938,962-21,053 4.3-2.3Idaho
-13,386UJ37-20,423 0.9-2.6Illinois
-94,151149,395-243,546 1.6-2.7Indiana
10,88423,306-12,422 05-0.3Iowa
-84,16210,010-94,172 0.5-4.3Kansas
-5,28221,502-26,784 1.1-1.4
Kentucky-17,22219,211-36,433 0.7-1.3
Louisiana-196,74921,622-218,371 0.7-7.5
Maine38,3318,49529,836 0.93.0
Maryland
210,07893,492116,586 2.42.9Massachusetts
-6,254104,219-110,473 2.1-2.2
Michigan-56,33952,785-109,124 0.7-1.5
Minnesota18,16422,207-4,043 0.6-0.1
Mississippi-21,4829,152-30,634 05-1.8
Missouri38,73624,10314,633 0.60.4
Montana-43,8023,854-47,656 0.6-7.8
Nebraska-28,2419,662-37,903 0.8-3.0
Nevada181,16423,138158,026 2.416.1
New Hampshire
68,4319,36659,065 1.06.3
New Jersey
74,627168,976-94,349 2.6-1.4New Mexico
8,49217,314-8,822 1.6-0.8New York
-247,418442,253-689,671 3.1-4.8North Carolina
251,86751,269200,598 1.03.9North Dakota
-455794,911-50,490 1.0-10.4Ohio
-68,59949,768-118,367 0.6-1.4Oklahoma
-106,14823,168-129,316 1.0-5.4
Oregon
91,41424,12267,292 1.13.0
Pennsylvania
-15,81865,737-81,555 0.7-0.8Rhode Island
15,33814,453885 1.80.1South Carolina
103,77523,78079,995 0.93.0South Dakota
-17,8463,950-21,796 0.8-4.2Tennessee
125,07522,908102,167 0.62.7Texas
-28,759233,617-262,376 1.9-2.1Utah
-31,72117,080-48,801 1.3-3.6Vermont
12,4423,3839,059 0.72.0
Virginia302,471125,692176,779 2535
Washington257,72272,540185.182 1.84.7
West Virginia-70,8693,236-74,105 0.2-5.5
Wisconsin-29,62818,959-48,587 0.5-1.2
Wyoming-46,5022.131-48,633 0.6-13.4
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
Table D: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Non-Latino Whites·
Migration Components
Rates per 1()() 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
61,64416,74144,903 0.61.6Alaska
-42,0285,339-47,367 12-10.7Arizona
220,78729,147191,640 1.173Arkansas
39,6506:17032,680 0.41.8California
376,390269/169106,721 1.70.7Colorado
-42,51729,833-72,350 12-2.9Connecticut
-29,02326,148-55,171 1.0-2.1Delaware
23,1742:19820,176 0.64.1District of Columbia
3,1747,352-4,178 4.6-2.6Florida
979,98699,211880,775 1.19.9
Georgia
239,45737,260202,197 0.94.8Hawaii
8,10911,332-3,223 3.8-1.1Idaho
-12,9855,513-18,498 0.6-2.1Illinois
-185,36466,836-252,200 0.8-3.1Indiana
20,46017,6302,830 0.40.1Iowa
-85,1627,627-92,789 03-3.7Kansas
-9,06015,016-24,076 0.7-1.2
Kentucky-1,53715,193-16,730 0.5-0.5
Louisiana-174,06913,757-187,826 0.5-7.2
Maine40,7848,55532,229 0.82.9
Maryland
70,51440,42830,086 1.31.0Massachusetts
-57,95857,311-115,269 1.2-2.3
Michigan-77,11040,468-117,578 0.6-1.6
Minnesota6,31215,909-9,597 0.4-0.2
Mississippi
1,0986,744-5,646 0.4-0.4Missouri
50,07818,09231,986 0.40.8Montana
-46,2994,114-50,413 0.6-7.0Nebraska
-30,6777,461-38,138 0.5-2.8Nevada
149,2219,486139,735 1.115.6
New Hampshire67,4457,51059,935 0.86.0
New Jersey-134,09851,324-185,422 1.0-3.5
New Mexico9,08911,498-2,409 1.4-0.3
New York-387,179135,653-522,832 1.2-4.5
North Carolina263,52231,875231,647 0.74.9
North Dakota-44,3344,768-49,102 0.8-8.4
Ohio-96,54435,942-132,486 0.4-1.5
Oklahoma-101,59616,302-117,898 0.6-4.5
Oregon93,68217,09476,588 0.73.1
Pennsylvania-31,66541,078-72,743 0.4-0.7
Rhode Island13,3616,6026,759 0.80.8
South Carolina119,12717,187101,940 0.84.5
South Dakota-17,7193,636-21,355 0.6-3.4
Tennessee133,34717,010116,337 0.43.1
Texas-159,69294,598-254,290 1.0-2.6
Utah-17,09715,029-32,126 1.0-2.2
Vermont19,2883,38815,900 0.73.1
Virginia219,77967,851151 :128 1.53.5
Washington235,07444,282190,792 1.14.8
West Virginia-66,6752,980-69,655 0.2-4.3
Wisconsin-30.59913,054-43,653 0.3-1.0
Wyoming-50,7332,031-52,764 0.5-13.5
• Estimated as in text table 3; includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom I
;:, .
Table E: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Poverty Whites·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationIntemaIMigrationIntemaI
StateMigra~ion _From Abl'Oll~ ~grationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
14,9121,51713,395 0542Alaska
-9,599261 .-9,860 0.7-27.3Arizona
21,8563,84618,010 135.9Arkansas
1l,09186210,229 034.1California
16,01358,588-42,575 5.4-3.9Colorado
1,6553,932-2,277 1.9-1.1Connecticut
-11,9542,612-14,566 2.7-14.9Delaware
899163736 0.62.8District of Columbia
3,3418652,476 8.022.8Florida
58,1091l,86446,245 1.76.6
Georgia
11,0733,3287,745 0.92.2Hawaii
-1,766817-2,583 4.3-13.5Idaho
3,9041,0892,815 1.12.8Illinois
-16,51413,179-29,693 2.4-5.3Indiana
6,8592,3864,473 0.61.2Iowa
2,8661,6371,229 0.705Kansas
2,9851,8571,128 1.00.6
Kentucky
10,1501,9558,195 0.415Louisiana
-15,4371,429-16,866 0.4-5.0Maine
4,6357833,852 0.73.4
Maryland
-3,0853,675-6,760 2.3-4.3Massachusetts
-2509,883-10,133 3.3-3.4
Michigan
6;2758,358-2,083 1.3-0.3Minnesota
5,4372,8032,634 0.80.8
Mississippi
4,7095234,186 0.322Missouri
19,8132,57717,236 0.63.9Montana
520989-469 0.9-0.4Nebraska
1,588883705 0.70.6Nevada
9,3098038,506 1.112.1
New Hampshire
1,002701301 1.20.5
New Jersey
-31,7355,903-37,638 2.8-17.7New Mexico
7201,098-378 0.9-0.3New York
-356329;283-32,846 3.7-4.2North Carolina
19,6372,47617,161 0.64.3North Dakota
-1,446664-2,110 0.9-2.7Ohio
5,3716,017-646 0.7-0.1Oklahoma
6941,813-1,119 05-0.3
Oregon
22,6514,59618,055 1.87.0
Pennsylvania
9,4856,7942,691 0.80.3Rhode Island
1,679807872 1.315South Carolina
6,8911,0375,854 0.63.2South Dakota
459517-58 0.6-0.1Tennessee
18,2522,24716,005 053.6Texas
-32,46711,048-43,515 1.3-5.0Utah
12,4233,2519,172 2.36.4Vermont
3,1002932,807 0.66.0
Virginia
8,4174,7603,657 151.2
Washington
27,4136,40821,005 1.85.9
West Virginia
2,9735772,396 0.20.8Wisconsin
10.3132,5067,807 0.82.3
Wyoming
-5,103300-5,403 0.7-13.3
• Estimated as in text table 3; includes pe~ons age 5 and above in 1990.
;:\ .
Table F: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Non-poverty Whites·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigratio~omf.broa( MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
46,04514,54431,501 0.613Alaska
-34,1984,706-38,904 12-9.9Arizona
194,32924,397169,932 1.17.5Arkansas
30,6155,88724,728 0.41.6California
317,137205,294111,843 1.40.8Colorado
-43,14125,043-68,184 1.1-3.1Connecticut
-8,89322,648-31,541 0.9-1.3Delaware
19,7352,73117,004 0.63.8District of Columbia
-9,7105,844-15,554 4.5-11.9Florida
922,67685,079837,597 1.110.4
Georgia
219,36232,339187,023 0.94.9Hawaii
5889,739-9,151 3.8-3.5Idaho
-14,2744,180-18,454 0.6-2.5Illinois
-142,86352,136-194,999 0.7-2.7Indiana
1,75813,910-12,152 0.3-0.3Iowa
-85,9605,350-91,310 0.2-4.2Kansas
-12,87411,753-24,627 0.7-1.4
Kentucky
-16,71512,162-28,817 0.5-1.1Louisiana
-155,63211,658-167,290 0.5-7.6Maine
36,2156,93529,280 0.73.0
Maryland
80,79735,71145,086 1.21.6Massachusetts
-70,88444,320-115,204 1.0-2.6
Michigan
-66,54230,641-97,183 0.5-1.5Minnesota
4,92912,333-7,404 0.4-0.2
Mississippi
-5,9645,959-11,923 0.5-0.9Missouri
32,09014,74517,345 0.40.5Montana
-42,9812,987-45,968 0.5-7.7Nebraska
-29,2466,330-35,576 0.5-3.0Nevada
140,2048,587131,617 1.116.2
New Hampshire
63,4016,43456,967 0.76.3
New Jersey
-63,35344,180-107,533 0.9-2.1New Mexico
9,7319,989-258 1.40.0New York
-368.442102,742-471,184 1.0-4.5North Carolina
203,82026,648177,172 0.64.2North Dakota
-44,9903,546-48,536 0.7-10.1Ohio
-81,45528,603-110,058 0.4-1.4Oklahoma
-102,41213,711-116,123 0.6-5.3
Oregon
75,86211,85964,003 0.63.0
Pennsylvania
-39,28932,402-71,691 0.4-0.8Rhode Island
3,9185,409-1,491 0.7-0.2South Carolina
92,70714,03078,677 0.74.0South Dakota
-17,7892,972-20,761 0.6-4.0Tennessee
107,11113,87693,235 0.42.9Texas
-129,04880,209-209,257 0.9-2.5Utah
-32,43811,285-43,723 0.9-3.4Vermont
11,6102,8408,170 0.62.0
Virginia
186,24160,762125,479 1.53.2
Washington204,99036,332168,658 1.04.8
West Virginia-67,3832,256-69,639 0.2-5.4
Wisconsin-35,78010,043-45,823 0.3-1.2
Wyoming
-43,9551,584-45,539 0.5-13.4
• Estimated as in text table 3: includes persons age 5 and above in \990.
, .
Table G: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Blacks·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
-2,7915,541-8,332 0.6-0.9Alaska
1,334929405 4.82.1Arizona
12,os32,8429,211 2.99.3Arkansas
-7,4931,438-8,931 0.4-2.6California
56,43034,79421,636 1.71.1Colorado
6,9494,8652,084 4.11.8Connecticut
7,6237,952-329 32-0.1Delaware
5,1101,0034,107 1.04.0District of Columbia
-38,1995,528-43,727 1.5-11.8Florida
115,85258,84357,009 3.73.6
Georgia
100,89420,06780,827 1.35.1Hawaii
2,1392,453-314 10.5-1.3Idaho
631226405 6.912.3Illinois
-51,8338,287-60,120 0.5-3.9Indiana
1,1542,161-1,007 0.6-0.3Iowa
602866-264 2.1-0.6Kansas
5,0713,9781,093 3.10.9
Kentucky
3433,991-3,648 1.7-1.5Louisiana
-41,4084,645-46,053 0.4-3.9Maine
748433315 9.56.9
Maryland
82,53922,57359,966 2.15.5Massachusetts
18,07115,6362,435 5.80.9
Michigan
-9,9334,667-14,600 0.4-1.3Minnesota
14,4271,90212,525 2.315.2
Mississippi
-17,4772,Q45-19,522 0.2-2.4Missouri
1573,519-3,362 0.7-0.7Montana
-375130-505 7.2-28.1Nebraska
4571,014-557 2.0-1.1Nevada
11,5301,38710,143 2.014.5
New Hampshire
1,034438596 6.99.4
New Jersey
14,04924,133-10,084 2.5-1.1New Mexico
1711,458-1,287 5.4-4.8New York
-26,869123,826-150,695 4.7-5.8North Carolina
51,83012,81539,015 1.02.9North Dakota
-71708-779 24.0-26.4Ohio
-1,7275,313-7,040 0.5-0.7Oklahoma
1,2753,968-2.693 1.9-1.3
Oregon
2,3276841,643 1.74.0
Pennsylvania
-3,2527,794-11,046 0.8-1.1Rhode Island
3,4912,521970 7.42.9South Carolina
11 ,5336,1915,342 0.70.6South Dakota
138361-223 13.5-8.3Tennessee
15,5294,23211,297 0.61.6Texas
34,54025,6198,921 1.40.5Utah
1,058544514 5.65.3Vermont
45188363 4.719.2
Virginia
71,85217,97953,873 1.75.1
Washington
12,2755,4956,780 4.25.1
West Virginia-2,768384-3,152 0.8-6.2
Wisconsin8.6001,1447,456 0.53.5
Wyoming
-56695-661 3.2-22.2
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).
" .
Table H: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Poverty Blacks·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1·990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroad MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
2,5371,0311,506 030.5Alaska
-47852-530 32-32.9Arizona
2,3216261,695 2.67.1Arkansas
-209326-535 02-0.4
California2846,836-6,552 1.8-1.8
Colorado1,422902520 3.72.1
Connecticut
-2581,145-1,403 2.7-3.2Delaware
212233-21 1.2-0.1District of Columbia
-2,020872-2,892 1.3-4.2Florida
27,32417,4819,843 3.92.2
Georgia
15,9043,54812,356 0.82.8Hawaii
-680134-814 8.5-51.5Idaho
27692184 13.727.5Illinois
-22,0932,066-24,159 05-5.6Indiana
1,313324989 0.31.0Iowa
1,140313827 2.46.3Kansas
1,8735021,371 1.54.2
Kentucky
1,447645802 0.91.1Louisiana
-6,7811,031-7,812 0.2-1.6Maine
564016 6.02.4
Maryland
4,7782,5832,195 1.61.3Massachusetts
4,5463,557989 6.51.8
Michigan
3,7721,4852,287 0.40.6Minnesota
7,4865366,950 2.026.4
Mississippi
313450-137 0.10.0Missouri
-242842-1,084 0.6-0.8Montana
481632 3.57.0Nebraska
646131515 0.93.7Nevada
1,7942761,518 1.910.7
New Hampshire
-5283-135 11.6-18.9
New Jersey
-4,8844,034-8,918 2.4-5.4New Mexico
710287423 4.36.3New York
-1,35328,311-29,664 4.7-5.0North Carolina
13,9551,78212,173 0.53.7North Dakota
603327 8.97.3Ohio
4,2581,0923,166 0.41.0Oklahoma
1,525586939 0.91.5
Oregon
1,249324925 3.08.7
Pennsylvania
1,1321,754-622 0.7-0.2Rhode Island
582708-126 9.4-1.7South Carolina
4,5307413,789 0.31.4South Dakota
-725-32 6.0-7.7Tennessee
3,3937102,683 0.31.3Texas
3,4194,285-866 0.8-0.2Utah
780114666 4.325.2Vermont
15621135 5.938.2
Virginia9,3711,8477,524 0.93.5
Washington2,2451,0611,184 4.14.5
West Virginia
136157-21 0.9-0.1Wisconsin
8,5753788,197 0.510.6
Wyoming
-7231-103 4.9-16.2
* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
;:
Table I: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Non-poverty Blacks·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
-4,7913,826-8,617 0.7-1.5Alaska
78174437 4.80.2Arizona
8,4201,9976,423 2.99.4Arkansas
-6,238977-7,215 05-3.8California
43,22725,66317,564 1.71.2Colorado
4,1783,5%582 4.20.7Connecticut
8,2246,5201,704 3.40.9Delaware
4,5797043,875 0.95.0District of Columbia
-31,6604,392-36,052 15-12.5Florida
90,18239,40950,773 3.74.8
Georgia
82,08515,28866,797 1.46.2Hawaii
3802,101-1,721 12.1-9.9Idaho
16011347 4.92.0Illinois
-21,9775,603-27,580 05-2.6Indiana
4871,538-1,051 0.6-0.4Iowa
-949359-1,308 1.4-5.1Kansas
4042,624-2,220 3.1-2.6
Kentucky
-3,9892,762-6,751 1.8-4.5Louisiana
-33,6533,093-36,746 0.5-5.8Maine
132307-175 10.5-6.0
Maryland
79,83819,30560,533 2.26.9Massachusetts
12,01911,3306895.70.3
Michigan
-6,6742,886-9,560 0.4-1.2Minnesota
5,6371,2094,428 2.38.6
Mississippi
-14,8791,418-16,297 0.3-3.7Missouri
1,2152,359-1,144 0.7-0.3Montana
-25672-328 6.3-28.9Nebraska
-326828-1,154 2.4-3.3Nevada
8,8541,0417,813 2.015.1
New Hampshire
817306511 6.210.3
New Jersey
21,10019,2451,855 2.60.3New Mexico
-7411,037-1,778 5.6-9.6New York
-15,25992,367-107,626 4.8-5.6North Carolina
28,6199,74718,872 1.02.0North Dakota
-268586-854 26.6-38.8Ohio
-1,8993,903-5,802 0.6-0.8Oklahoma
-3,5812,820-6,401 2.1-4.9
Oregon
1,251306945 1.135
Pennsylvania
-5,2745,183-10,457 0.8-1.5Rhode Island
2,2341,723511 7.12.1South Carolina
5,1454,671474 0.70.1South Dakota
99316-217 16.4-11.3Tennessee
9,4073.0036,404 0.61.4Texas
28,60519,6318,974 1.60.7Utah
41385-344 6.1-5.4Vermont
984949 3.83.8
Virginia
47,83815,01032,828 1.94.2
Washington7,3184,0413,277 4.23.4
West Virginia-3,321152-3,473 05-10.8
Wisconsin137693-556 05-0.4
Wyoming
-47464-538 3.2-26.7
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
Table J: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Latinos'"
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
2,8422,17966310.432Alaska
4171,381-964 8.9-6.2Arizona
52,73438,02314,711 632.4Arkansas
3,2661,6611,605 9.692California
730,556754,759-24,203 11.3-0.4Colorado
7,29111,363-4,072 3.0-1.1Connecticut
28,58526,2122,373 14.513Delaware
3,1141,8731,241 13.79.1District of Columbia
3,8798,128-4,249 27.8-14.5Florida
329,280205,937123,343 14.38.5
Georgia32,50317,02115,482 18.817.1
Hawaii1,6952,700-1,065 4.0-1.5
Idaho3,6894,141-452 93-1.0
Illinois60,06474,820-14,756 9.6-1.9
Indiana6,5843,7952,789 4.53.3
Iowa2,2511,799452 6.71.7
Kansas8,9525,8913,061 7.53.9
Kentucky3,2052,252953 12.553
Louisiana-3,5396,073-9,612 7.3-11.5
Maine1,328511817 8313.3
Maryland30,88521,9068,979 20.28.3
Massachusetts59,66150,2129,449 20.73.9
Michigan8,6197,1251,494 4.30.9
Minnesota7,0992,8624,237 6.710.0
Mississippi
252847-595 6.4-4.5Missouri
5,6063,6711,935 6.83.6Montana
-376520-896 4.9-8.5Nebraska
1,5831,685-102 5.5-0.3Nevada
32,63513,28819,347 12.318.0
New Hampshire2,4921,4561,036 14.410.2
New Jersey
67,47479,301-11,827 12.1-1.8New Mexico
3,0769,366-6,290 1.8-1.2New York
83,621203,543-119,922 10.4-6.1North Carolina
16,8688,8737,995 14.613.1North Dakota
23409-386 10.7-10.1Ohio
8,4157,2711,144 6.21.0Oklahoma
2,7494,933-2,184 6.7-3.0
Oregon
16,35911,0955,264 11.65.5
Pennsylvania30,48922,1578,332 11.44.3
Rhode Island12,3278,6183,709 22.19.5
South Carolina5,5113,0862,425 12.19.5
South Dakota-55252-307 5.5-6.6
Tennessee5,5052,1523,353 7.712.0
Texas119,861190,977-71,116 5.0-1.9
Utah2.9084,467-1,559 6.2-2.2
Vermont726315411 9.011.8
Virginia46,84330,96215,881 22.211.4
Washington31,91417,59714,317 9.88.0
West Virginia
112349-237 4.7-3.2Wisconsin
6,9296,140789 8.11.0
Wyoming-2,431362-2,793 1.6-12.6
* Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).
,:, .
Table K: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Poverty Latinos·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From~broac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
565462103 12.92.9Alaska
22298-276 17.7-16.4Arizona
24,80818,6436,165 11.83.9Arkansas
1,108374734 8.817.4California
261,439276,479-15,040 20.2-1.1Colorado
5,5554,2421,313 4.915Connecticut
9,6609,6273320.50.1Delaware
722460262 19.110.9District of Columbia
1,6682,011-343 36.4-6.2Florida
87,81964,76623,053 23.985
Georgia
8,4745,6142,860 33.817.2Hawaii
-139375-514 4.3-5.9Idaho
2,5971,963634 15.65.0Illinois
16,46421,471-5,007 14.6-3.4Indiana
1,0981,061378.10.3Iowa
853477376 9.47.4Kansas
1,8791,8621713.10.1
Kentucky
40438123 12.00.7Louisiana
1131,932-1,819 12.9-12.1Maine
63594 8.005
Maryland
5,7154,6931,022 39.68.6Massachusetts
26,14020,5575,583 25.66.9
Michigan
4,3852,5271,858 7.15.2Minnesota
3,6799692,710 9.927.7
Mississippi
186196-10 6.6-0.3Missouri
1,5691,030539 12.16.3Montana
114170-56 5.9-1.9Nebraska
601499102 8.01.6Nevada
8,1794,2833,896 23.721.6
New Hampshire
37828989 23.67.3
New Jersey
14,44920,130-5,681 17.2-4.9New Mexico
5,4054,576829 3.30.6New York
38,35665,160-26,804 11.7-4.8North Carolina
3,3952,1381,257 21.512.6North Dakota
915833 7.14.0Ohio
4,9633,0551,908 11.67.2Oklahoma
1,5171,575-58 8.0-0.3
Oregon
6,6545,2011,453 20.45.7
Pennsylvania
13,48010,2963,184 16.35.0Rhode Island
4,5603,1211,439 29.313.5South Carolina
630631-118.10.0South Dakota
704228 4.22.8Tennessee
909514395 11.38.7Texas
77,38191,186-13,805 7.6-1.1Utah
2,2791,663616 11.24.1Vermont
13838100 10.627.9
Virginia
7,0745,8791,195 39.28.0
Washington
12,6277,9254,702 17.310.3
West Virginia
19614650 8.62.9Wisconsin
3,4982,3231,175 12.66.4
Wyoming
-214149-363 33-8.0
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
:\ .
Table L: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change
Non-Poverty Latinos'"
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
1,9621,503459 932.9Alaska
168949-781 73-6.0Arizona
27,41318,5108,903 432.1Arkansas
1,878934944 7.67.7California
454,979464,471-9,492 8.9-0.2Colorado
1,6946,516-4,822 2.4-1.7Connecticut
17,80516,0131,792 12.61.4Delaware
2,1551,376779 12.97.3District of Columbia
1,7665,781-4,015 25.7-17.9Florida
239,784137,343102,441 11.98.9
Georgia21,73610,72811,008 15515.9
Hawaii8822,195-1,313 3.8-2.3
Idaho1,0182,111-1,093 6.8-3.5
Illinois43,25352,242-8,989 8.4-1.5
Indiana4,6642,3092,355 333.4
Iowa1,1281,095335.30.2
Kansas5,5993,4132,186 5.63.6
Kentucky1,1671,333-166 10.9-1.4
Louisiana-4,7733,570-8,343 5.6-13.0
Maine1,063350713 7.114.4
Maryland24,65416,6817,973 17.885
Massachusetts30,79027,8702,920 18.31.9
Michigan3,8584,175-317 3.3-0.3
Minnesota2,9551,5701,385 5.145
Mississippi
-397545-942 5.9-10.1Missouri
3,2032,206997 5.12.3Montana
-459321-780 45-10.9Nebraska
8951,107-212 4.7-0.9Nevada
24,2498,81015,439 10.017.6
New Hampshire2,3151,1301,185 13.313.9
New Jersey
53,21058,037-4,827 11.0-0.9New Mexico
-1,3754,478-5,853 1.2-1.6New York
47,023134,241-87,218 10.0-6.5North Carolina
9.5356,0733,462 13.57.7North Dakota
-188313-501 11.3-18.0Ohio
3,4203,961-541 4.6-0.6Oklahoma
2613,005-2,744 5.9-5.4
Oregon9,3075,6263,681 8.455
Pennsylvania14,32310,4863,837 8.63.2
Rhode Island6,9675,2231,744 19.665
South Carolina3.5252,1651,360 11.17.0
South Dakota-161194-355 5.9-10.7
Tennessee3,4951,3952,100 6.610.0
Texas44,75295,038-50,286 3.7-2.0
Utah4182,702-2,284 4.9-4.2
Vermont301178123 6.74.6
Virginia36,49224,26212,230 20.510.4
Washington18,1749,2618,913 7.27.0
West Virginia-345138-483 2.6-9.3
Wisconsin2,9743,364-390 6.1-0.7
Wyoming-2,022193-2,215 1.1-13.1
* Includes persons age 5 and above In 1990.
\ .
Table M: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Asians·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
3,9895,354-1,365 265-6.8Alaska
2,6913,250-559 18.6-3.2Arizona
10,87410,25961520.712Arkansas
1,1632,270-1,107 20.3-9.9California
508,818439,38669,432 16.82.6Colorado
6,3199,979-3,660 18.4-6.8Connecticut
11,62710,3431,284 23.22.9Delaware
2,0041,64735720.645District of Columbia
9893,246-2,257 29.9-20.8Florida
36,43225,87710,555 18.575
Georgia
21,82317,7324.091 26.16.0Hawaii
16,21831,872-15,654 5.0-2.5Idaho
3031,337-1,034 15.9-12.3Illinois
37,77352,841-15,068 20.1-5.7Indiana
7,3948,878-1,484 26.4-4.4Iowa
5,2407,011-1,771 32.1-8.1Kansas
4,2187,746-3,528 27.4-12.5
Kentucky3,9224,621-699 29.3-4.4
Louisiana-1,4405,723-7,163 15.8-19.7
Maine1,2311,274-4320.6-0.7
Maryland
28,74126,8821,859 21.115Massachusetts
39,35732,7046,653 25.45.2
Michigan
19,73222,047-2,315 23.7-2.5Minnesota
12,69915,502-2,803 23.5-4.2
Mississippi1,2592,626-1,367 22.5-11.7
Missouri6,2678,769-2,502 24.1-6.9
Montana123913-790 24.4-21.1
Nebraska1,2052,358-1,153 20.9-10.2
Nevada9,7116,0843,627 17.310.3
New Hampshire2,6272,13449326.46.1
New Jersey
70,45956,65913,800 22.95.6New Mexico
1,1082,579-1,471 19.7-11.2New York
123,265150,702-27,437 23.5-4.3North Carolina
14,32512,1002,225 26.24.8North Dakota
240920-680 32.1-23.7Ohio
17,78320,580-2,797 25.0-3.4Oklahoma
2,0537,038-4,985 23.3-16.5
Oregon11,15912,082-92319.4-1.5
Pennsylvania25,31427,546-2,232 22.2-1.8
Rhode Island4,8053,97583025.15.2
South Carolina3,7154,081-366 20.5-1.8
South Dakota264822-558 27.5-18.7
Tennessee7,4286,95347524.71.7
Texas42,01356,897-14,884 19.6-5.1
Utah2,5865,577-2,991 18.9-10.1
Vermont921610311 22.111.3
Virginia
38,12231,9326,190 21.74.2
Washington
38,56934,1884,381 17.62.3
West Virginia
6151,226-611 17.7-8.8Wisconsin
11,92012,366-44627.4-1.0
Wyoming
24499-475 20.0-19.1
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990 (including those for whom poverty status was not determined).
\ .
Table N: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Poverty Asians·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroac MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
1,6351,990-355 51.2-9.1Alaska
165470-305 40.1-26.0Arizona
3,7333,29244142.15.6Arkansas
604795-191 44.2-10.6California
124,991108,87416,117 30.245Colorado
2,5703,243-673 39.4-8.2Connecticut
1,3691,626-257 47.3-7.5Delaware
440454-14 58.6-1.8District of Columbia
743869-126 48.2-7.0Florida
6,7506,11363734.43.6
Georgia
2,9463,555-609 46.3-7.9Hawaii
2,1065,809-3,703 11.9-7.6Idaho
377483-106 325-7.1Illinois
8,72311,490-2,767 40.6-9.8Indiana
1,9472,247-300 49.5-6.6Iowa
2,6722,962-290 53.1-5.2Kansas
1,8083,138-1,330 53.9-22.8
Kentucky
1,0871,234-147 49.7-5.9Louisiana
1,0452,168-1,123 22.2-11.5Maine
139267-128 36.9-17.7
Maryland
4,6634,794-131 46.9-1.3Massachusetts
11,4129,4062,006 41.08.8
Michigan
5,8346,098-264 44.4-1.9Minnesota
7,6807,871-191 40.6-1.0
Mississippi
1,1201,0497128.92.0Missouri
3,0263,148-122 48.3-1.9Montana
231368-137 48.3-18.0Nebraska
521734-213 34.7-10.1Nevada
1,7601,278482 36.013.6
New Hampshire
47545520 52.82.3
New Jersey
6,8157,748-933 47.3-5.7New Mexico
193695-502 32.2-23.3New York
31,25134,119-2,868 37.5-3.2North Carolina
3,3752,76361243.19.5North Dakota
250335-85 49.8-12.6Ohio
6,0066,419-413 50.9-3.3Oklahoma
2,2833,102-819 49.7-13.1
Oregon
5,0694,85021941.11.9
Pennsylvania
8,6218,38124038.41.1Rhode Island
1,8761,69118544.14.8South Carolina
90584857 39.72.7South Dakota
116213-97 44.7-20.3Tennessee
1,8271,850-2344.7-0.6Texas
14,11016,451-2,341 36.5-5.2Utah
2.0342,550-516 43.0-8.7Vermont
21915465 39.916.8
Virginia
5,1065,544-438 44.1-35
Washington
10,58710,16542234.01.4
West Virginia
244367-123 36.6-12.3Wisconsin
7,9196,7351,184 40.37.1
Wyoming
24142-118 35.7-29.6
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
Table 0: Immigration and Internal Migration Components of 1985-90 State Population Change:
Non-poverty Asians·
Migration Components
Rates per 100 1990 PopulationTotal
MigrationInternalMigrationInternal
StateMigration From Abroad MigrationFrom AbroadMigration
Alabama
2P372!}77-940 19.2-6.1
Alaska2,6462,714-68 17.0-0.4
Arizona6,7226,509213 16.105
Arkansas4361,300-864 14.4-9.6
California375!}16323,26852,648 14.62.4
Colorado3,3176,467-3,150 14.5-7.1
COMecticut9,1148,147967 21.125
Delaware1,6231,188435 16.76.1
District of Columbia-4362,177-2,613 26.9-32.3
Horida29,29719,18810,109 16.08.4
Georgia
18,12113,5884,533 23.37.8Hawaii
16,05924,927-8,868 4.3-1.5Idaho
-290633-923 9.7-14.2Illinois
27,43639,414-11,978 17.3-5.3Indiana
3!}755,549-1,574 20.8-5.9Iowa
1,6193,206-1,587 21.9-10.8Kansas
1,5893,712-2,123 17.8-10.2
Kentucky
2,3152!}54-639 23.7-5.1Louisiana
-2,6913,301-5,992 13.0-23.5Maine
92190318 17.60.4
Maryland
24,78921,7952,994 18.92.6Massachusetts
21,82120,6991,122 21.31.2
Michigan
13,01915,083-2,064 19.8-2.7MiMesota
4,6437,095-2,452 15.7-5.4
Mississippi
-2421,230-1,472 16.7-20.0Missouri
2,2284,793-2,565 17.2-9.2Montana
-106474-580 17.0-20.8Nebraska
4361,397-961 16.1-11.1Nevada
7,8574,7003,157 15.010.1
New Hampshire
1,8981,496402 22.56.0
New Jersey
63,67047,51416,156 20.97.1New Mexico
8771,810-933 16.9-8.7New York
89,260112,903-23,643 21.1-4.4North Carolina
9,8938,8011,092 23.52.9North Dakota
-133466-599 23.8-30.6Ohio
11,33513,301-1,966 19.8-2.9Oklahoma
-4163,632-4,Q48 15.7-17.5
Oregon4,9946,331-1,337 13.2-2.8
Pennsylvania
14,42217,666-3,244 18.3-3.4Rhode Island
2,2192,098121 19.11.1South Carolina
2,3982!}14-516 17.4-3.1South Dakota
5468-463 20.8-20.6Tennessee
5,0624,634428 20.41.9Texas
26,93238,739-11,807 16.2-4.9Utah
2582,708-2,450 11.8-10.7Vermont
433316117 15.55.7
Virginia
31,90025,6586,242 19.64.8
Washington
27,24022,9064,334 14.32.7
West Virginia
180690-510 12.4-9.1Wisconsin
3,0414,859-1,818 18.4-6.9
Wyoming
-51290-341 14.8-17.5
• Includes persons age 5 and above in 1990.
\ .