Contemporary Immigrant Gateways in
Historical Perspective
Audrey Singer
Astratto: This article focuses on settlement trends of immigrants during the periods that bookend the
twentieth century, both eras of mass migration. It compares settlement patterns in both periods, describ-
ing old and new gateways, the growth of the immigrant population, and geographic concentration and
dispersion. Historically, immigrants have been highly concentrated in a few places. Between 1930 E
1990, more than half of all immigrants lived in just ½ve metropolitan areas. Since then, the share of these
few destinations has declined, as immigrants have made their way to new metro areas, particularly in the
South and West. During the same period, immigrants began to choose the suburbs over cities, following
the decentralization of jobs and the movement of opportunities to suburban areas. There are now more
immigrants in U.S. suburban areas than cities.
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
0
2
2
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
New immigrant settlement trends have reshaped
communities across the United States. The history
of immigrant urban enclaves has been fundamen-
tally altered by the post–World War II restructuring
of the U.S. economy, the decentralization of cities,
and the growth of suburbs as major employment
centers. The contemporary immigration “map” has
multiple implications for the social, economic,
civic, and political integration of immigrants.
Similar transformative processes also character-
ized the turn of the twentieth century, when the
United States was shifting from an agrarian to an
industrial economy, inducing both an exodus from
rural areas to cities and mass immigration, mainly
from Europe. At that time, immigrants signi½cantly
altered neighborhoods in burgeoning cities, some
of which are still de½ned by the immigrants who
settled there during that period.
Today, these processes are taking place in new
geographies and through different industrial tran-
sitions. During both periods, the content and the
location of working life changed. At the turn of the
© 2013 by Audrey Singer
doi:10.1162/DAED_a_00220
AUDREY SINGER is a Senior Fellow
in the Metropolitan Policy Program
at the Brookings Institution. She
edited Twenty-First Century Gate-
ways: Immigrant Incorporation in
Suburban America (with Susan W.
Hardwick and Caroline B. Brettell,
2008) and has authored or co-
authored numerous Brookings re –
ports, including “The Rise of New
Immigrant Gateways,” “State of
Metropolitan America: On the
Front Lines of Demographic Trans –
formation,” and “The Geography
of Immigrant Skills.”
76
twentieth century, the U.S. economy
moved from agriculture toward manu-
facturing, and the population shifted
from rural to urban areas. The turn of the
twenty-½rst century has been character-
ized by a transition from manufacturing
to “new economy” technology and ser –
vice jobs, and a population movement
from urban to suburban and exurban
areas.
The historical immigrant settlement
narrative typically begins with immi-
grants arriving at Ellis Island or the ports
of California, before making their way to
ethnic neighborhoods in cities such as
New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chi –
cago, St. Louis, or San Francisco. As these
communities developed, immigrants
worked in local establishments, started
their own businesses, sent their children
to local schools, and organized places of
worship.
Building on this history, the contempo-
rary story entails the arrival of immi-
grants to established immigrant gate-
ways with well-de½ned service infra-
structures and a receptivity that aids the
integration process. But it also includes a
large number of immigrants streaming to
newer destinations. These new gateways
have emerged over the past two decades,
creating a different context for integra-
tion and eliciting a mixed response from
local communities. In some areas, immi-
grants have been welcomed, while in oth-
ers they have stimulated conflict. Rapid
demographic shifts in the newest gate-
ways often have an impact on public
istituzioni, whose adjustments to the
changes unfold across immigrant and
native-born communities that may be
unprepared for change. This article
focuses on settlement trends of immi-
grants in the two periods that bookend
the twentieth century, both eras of mass
immigration. It compares settlement pat-
terns in both periods, describing old and
new gateways, the growth of the immi-
grant population, and geographic con-
centration and dispersion. The rise of
suburban settlement patterns is exam-
ined in the contemporary period.
This analysis examines the size and dis-
tribution of the foreign-born population
for the period between 1900 E 2010.
Much of the analysis focuses on 1900, rep –
resenting the beginning of the twentieth
century, E 2010, representing the begin –
ning of the twenty-½rst century. County-
level data from decennial censuses for the
years 1900 A 1950 E 1970 A 2000 were
accessed via the Minnesota Population
Center’s National Historical Geographic
Information System (nhgis).1 Due to
sampling errors noted by the Minnesota
Population Center, data for the year 1960
were extracted directly from Census
Bureau digital uploads of the U.S. Census
of Population: 1960, vol. 1, Characteristics of
the Population.2 For 2010, American Com-
munity Survey (acs) 2006–2010 5-year
estimates were accessed from the Census
Bureau because comparable data at the
county level are not available from 1-year
estimates of the acs.
While “metropolitan areas” as we know
them today did not exist at the turn of the
twentieth century, consistent metropolitan
de½nitions based on 2010 Of½ce of Man-
agement and Budget (omb) de½nitions
are used throughout the analysis in order
to standardize data comparisons. Metro-
politan immigration estimates were con-
structed from individual county-level
dati. Così, metropolitan area de½nitions
are applied to data from 1900, even though
population was heavily concentrated in
the cities of those areas, and suburbs
were not yet well developed. Metropoli-
tan areas are composed of counties or
county equivalents and are ranked accord –
ing to the one hundred most populous
metro areas of each decade.
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
0
2
2
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
142 (3) Estate 2013
77
Contem –
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
In
Historical
Perspective
Two trends emerge from a review of
the share of foreign-born populations
residing in the primary urban counties of
the metropolitan areas with the largest
immigrant populations. For contempo-
rary metropolitan areas that developed
prior to World War II, the share of the
immigrant population in the primary
urban county is generally high in the ½rst
half of the century. As immigrants began
to suburbanize in the second half of the
century, this share diminished; St. Louis,
Baltimore, and Portland, Oregon, follow
this pattern. For newer metropolitan
areas that experienced development after
the advent of the automobile, the trend
tends to be different. The share of immi-
grants in the primary urban county, often
only a small city or town in the early
twentieth century, is small, reflecting a
more rural foreign-born population. IL
share of the immigrant population in the
primary urban county increases over
time, as the region surrounding the cities
becomes denser. This pattern is particu-
larly evident in states such as Texas,
which shares a border with Mexico, E
which has a signi½cant Mexican immi-
grant population, especially in cities such
as Houston and Austin. Areas that tend to
have a consistently low share of immi-
grants residing in the primary urban
county are those that have recently
emerged or reemerged as immigrant
gateways and that have a largely subur-
ban population, such as Salt Lake City,
Denver, and Sacramento.
Currently, the omb de½nes 366 metro-
politan areas in the United States, all of
which are included in this study. Thirty-
seven percent of U.S. counties (1,168) are
located in metropolitan areas. In this
analysis, “metropolitan area” is used to
describe all urban places, including those
at the beginning of the twentieth century.
IL 100 largest metropolitan areas in 2010
constitute “large metropolitan areas”;
the remaining 266 are the “small metro-
politan areas.” The remainder of the pop-
ulation lives in rural or non-metropolitan
areas. IL 100 largest metropolitan areas
are de½ned by the Brookings Metropolitan
Policy Program’s State of Metropolitan
America Indicator Map.3 Primary cities
are de½ned as the largest city in each met-
ropolitan area, plus all other incorporat-
ed places with populations of at least
100,000. Suburbs are designated as the
remainder of the metro areas outside pri-
mary cities.
The terms immigrant and foreign born are
used interchangeably here to refer to per-
sons born outside the United States,
excluding those born to American citi-
zens abroad. Immigrant status is deter-
mined by a question about birthplace in
the census questionnaire. This question
varies somewhat over the twentieth cen-
tury, but foreign-born population and
total population were determined for
each year at the metropolitan level.
During the turn of both the twentieth
and twenty-½rst centuries, immigration
levels were high, and the share of the
population that was foreign born was at a
peak. In this regard, America at the turn
of the twenty-½rst century bears some
similarities to America at the turn of the
twentieth century. In 1900, immigrants
made up nearly 14 percent of the U.S.
population; In 2010, they composed 13
percent of the total. Tuttavia, in absolute
terms, the number of immigrants has
quadrupled, from 10 million in 1900 A
nearly 40 million today.
For several decades prior to 1900,
immigrants arrived in great numbers.
Between 1860 E 1900, the immigrant
population grew by more than 6 million
persons, growing by 35 percent between
1860 E 1870 and then varying in growth
rates between 12 E 38 percent per
decade (see Table 1). Between 1900 E
78
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Scienze
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
0
2
2
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Tavolo 1
Foreign-Born Population, including Its Share of the Total Population and
Its Change from the Previous Decade, 1860–2010
Audrey
Singer
Change from Previous Decade
Foreign Born
Share of Total
4,138,697
13.2%
5,567,229 14.4%
6,679,943 13.3%
9,249,547 14.8%
10,341,276 13.6%
14.7%
13,515,886
13,920,692 13.2%
14,204,149 11.6%
11,594,896 8.8%
10,347,395 6.9%
9,738,091 5.4%
9,619,302 4.7%
14,079,906 6.2%
19,767,316 7.9%
31,107,889 11.1%
39,955,854 12.9%
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Numero
–
1,428,532
1,112,714
2,569,604
1,091,729
3,174,610
404,806
283,457
-2,609,253
-1,247,501
-609,304
-118,789
4,460,604
5,687,410
11,340,573
8,847,965
Growth Rate
–
35%
20%
38%
12%
31%
3%
2%
-18%
-11%
-6%
-1%
46%
40%
57%
28%
Fonte: Author’s calculations of 1860–2000 data via Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, “Historical Census Statis-
tics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United States: 1850–2000,” Population Division Working Paper No.
81 (Washington, D.C.: NOI. Bureau of the Census, Febbraio 2006), http://www.census.gov/population/www/
documentation/twps0081/twps0081.html; E 2010 acs 1-year estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
1910, the immigrant population grew by a
whopping 3.2 million, a rate of 31 per cento,
yielding a U.S. population in 1910 Quello
was nearly 15 percent foreign born.
What followed were six decades of
much lower immigration levels, as the
Great Depression and two world wars
curtailed immigration worldwide. Questo
slow and, at times, negative growth of the
immigrant population, coupled with
restrictive immigration policy and the
mid-century baby boom, rendered a
nation that was almost entirely native
born. By 1960, the share of the population
that was foreign born was less than 5 per-
cent, amounting to fewer than 10 million
immigrants.
Between 1970 E 1980, immigration
began to pick up again in earnest, In –
creasing steadily over the four decades
between 1970 E 2010. The greatest
increase came in the 1990s, when more
di 11.3 million immigrants arrived, UN
growth of 57 per cento. Immigration in the
2000s slowed a bit after the recession;
still, nearly 9 million immigrants arrived,
boosting the U.S. foreign-born popula-
tion to nearly 13 per cento, the highest
share since 1920.
During the 1960s and 1970s, changes in
NOI. admissions policy regarding national
origins as well as political and economic
conditions in sending countries affected
the composition of immigrants entering
the United States.4 Thus, the two periods
also differ greatly in the regional origins
of immigrants. In 1900, the vast majority
del 10 million immigrants residing in
the United States were from European
countries, but by 2010, Europeans made
142 (3) Estate 2013
79
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
0
2
2
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Contem –
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
In
Historical
Perspective
up less than 13 percent of all immigrants
(Vedi la tabella 2). At the turn of the twentieth
century, 11 percent of immigrants were
from Northern America (in addition to
Canada, this includes Bermuda, Verde-
land, and St. Pierre and Miquelon). Mex-
ican immigrants then made up only 1 per-
cent of the total, as did immigrants from
all Asian countries combined. The re –
mainder of Latin America, Africa, E
Oceania each contributed less than 1 per-
cent of the total. By 2010, Tuttavia, immi-
grants from Mexico had the largest share
of the total, at 30 per cento. The rest of
Latin America contributed 23 per cento
and all Asian countries combined were
another 28 percent of the total. Africans
comprised 4 per cento, Northern America
2 per cento, and immigrants from Oceania
less than 1 per cento.
As the United States has urbanized and
sviluppato, the destinations of immi-
grants have shifted. While the United
States developed from a largely rural to a
largely urban society, the number and
density of cities increased.5 Eventually,
the cities themselves expanded, growing
from dense urban cores to metropolitan
areas with large suburban areas extend-
ing outward.
Immigrant workers contributed mightily
to the workforce during the industrial
transformation of the U.S. economy.
Sociologists Charles Hirschman and Eliza –
beth Mogford estimate that immigrants
and their children held half of all U.S.
manufacturing jobs by 1920.6 Così, IL
industrializing cities of the Northeast and
Midwest attracted workers to manufac-
turing jobs in great numbers, and immi-
grants played a major role in the process
of urbanization. Infatti, 67 percent of all
immigrants lived in the largest metropol-
itan areas in 1900, as compared to just 44
percent of the native born (Guarda la figura 1).
Including small “metros,” more than
three-quarters of immigrants lived in
metropolitan areas and less than one-
quarter lived in rural areas in 1900. In
contrasto, 58 percent of the native-born
population lived in metro areas and 42
percent in non-metropolitan areas. By
2010, 95 percent of foreign-born residents
lived in metropolitan America, as com-
pared with only 81 percent of the native
born. Among the large metropolitan areas
In 1900, the majority of the foreign born
lived in the Northeast (41 per cento) E
Midwest (20 per cento). Only a small share
lived in large metro areas in the South
(3 per cento) and the West (3 per cento), E
another 10 percent lived in smaller met-
ropolitan areas (Guarda la figura 2).
By 2010, Tuttavia, the large metropoli-
tan areas in the Northeast housed only 20
percent of the immigrant population and
the Midwest dropped to only 9 percent of
the total, reflecting broader population
shifts to the South and West. Metropoli-
tan areas in the South (25 per cento) E
the West (31 per cento) are now home to
more than half of all immigrants. Small
metro areas make up another 10 per cento
of the total.
Immigrants were drawn to cities that
were flourishing at the turn of the twenti-
eth century. Infatti, metropolitan immi-
grant settlement was highly concentrated
(see Figure 3).7 For most of the century,
just ½ve cities ruled as major settlement
areas, where half of all immigrants chose
to live. New York is by far the dominant
destination, garnering at least one-quarter
of all immigrants for each decade through –
out most of the century. No other metro-
politan area comes close to that share
until 1990, when Los Angeles matches
New York’s share at 19 per cento, O 3.4 mil-
lion immigrants each. Only New York and
Chicago make the top-½ve list for every
decade between 1900 E 2010. New York
is ranked ½rst (with the exception of 1990,
when it shares that rank with Los Angeles)
80
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Scienze
l
D
o
w
N
o
UN
D
e
D
F
R
o
M
H
T
T
P
:
/
/
D
io
R
e
C
T
.
M
io
T
.
/
e
D
tu
D
UN
e
D
UN
R
T
io
C
e
–
P
D
/
l
F
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
D
UN
e
D
_
UN
_
0
0
2
2
0
P
D
.
F
B
sì
G
tu
e
S
T
T
o
N
0
7
S
e
P
e
M
B
e
R
2
0
2
3
Tavolo 2
Foreign-Born Population by Region or Country of Birth, 1900 E 2010
Audrey
Singer
1900
2010
Region or Country
Europe
Asia
Africa
Oceania
Latin America (excluding Mexico)
Mexico
Northern America
Total
Numero
8,881,548
120,248
2,538
8,820
34,065
103,393
1,179,922
10,330,534
Share
86.0%
1.2%
<0.1%
0.1%
0.3%
1.0%
11.4%
Number
4,817,437
11,283,574
1,606,914
216,736
9,512,984
11,711,103
806,925
39,955,673
Share
12.1%
28.2%
4.0%
0.5%
23.8%
29.3%
2.0%
The table excludes unreported country of birth (1900 only). Source: Author’s calculations of 1860–2000 data via
Campbell Gibson and Kay Jung, “Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-Born Population of the United
States: 1850–2000,” Population Division Working Paper No. 81 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census,
February 2006), http://www.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0081/twps0081.html; and
2010 acs 1-year estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
Figure 1
Metropolitan/Non-Metropolitan Residence by Nativity, 1900 and 2010
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Source: Author’s calculations of 1900 Decennial Census data accessed via Minnesota Population Center’s
National Historical Geographic Information System, http://www.nhgis.org; and 2006–2010 acs 5-year estimates,
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
142 (3) Summer 2013
81
Figure 2
Regional Share of Foreign Born in Large Metropolitan Areas, Small Metropolitan Areas,
and Non-Metropolitan Areas, 1900 and 2010
Contem -
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
in
Historical
Perspective
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Midwest, Northeast, South, and West divisions include the 100 largest metropolitan areas for 1900 and
2006–2010. Source: Author’s calculations of 1900 Decennial Census data accessed via Minnesota Population
Center’s National Historical Geographic Information System, http://www.nhgis.org; and 2006–2010 acs 5-
year estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
and Chicago ranks second all the way
through 1960, after which Chicago drops
in rank, though all the while gaining im -
migrants in absolute numbers.8
In the early decades of the twentieth
century, industrial Philadelphia main-
tains a rank in the top ½ve, but by 1940 it
suffers a net loss of immigrants. Pitts-
burgh, another industrial city, also appears
in the ½rst three decades, only to be
trumped by Detroit, which occupies a top
spot from 1930 to 1960 as job opportuni-
ties there expanded. Boston maintains a
continuous presence on the list through
1960, despite a net decline in the number
of immigrants. San Francisco claims a
strong and growing share from 1970 to
2010, reflecting gains in immigrants from
the Paci½c Rim. Los Angeles rises from
mid-century on to assert a large share of
all immigrants living in metropolitan
America. In a similar fashion, albeit with
a smaller share among all metro areas,
Miami stakes out third place in the last
several decades due to an increase, ½rst,
in Cuban immigrants and, later, in immi-
grants from other Caribbean and Latin
American countries.
The concentration of immigrants after
1990 is especially notable. After seven
continuous decades–between 1930 and
1990–when just ½ve metro areas housed
about half of all immigrants living in
metropolitan areas, the share declines to
45 percent in 2000 and 40 percent in 2010
as immigrant newcomers make their way
to new metro areas, particularly in the
South and West. If growth trajectories of
82
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Figure 3
Five Largest Immigrant Populations in Metropolitan Areas as a Share
of All Metropolitan Areas, 1900–2010
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
2010 values represent 2006–2010 5-year estimates. Source: Author’s calculations of 1900–1950 and 1970–2000
Decennial Census data accessed via Minnesota Population Center’s National Historical Geographic Information
System, http://www.nhgis.org; 1960 Decennial Census data accessed via U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Pop-
ulation: 1960, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of½ce, 1963);
and 2006–2010 acs 5-year estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
dispersal continue into the next decade,
the immigrant population in the ½ve
largest metropolitan areas may only
amount to slightly more than one-third
of the total.
Mapping the largest immigrant popu-
lations within metropolitan areas in 1900
and 2010 reveals just how dispersed the
foreign-born population has become (see
Map 1). With the exception of San Fran-
cisco, all of the big immigrant destina-
tions in 1900 were in the Midwest or
Northeast, including cities in the Great
Lakes region such as Buffalo, Detroit,
Cleveland, Pittsburgh, and Milwaukee,
which all share a manufacturing past and
no longer draw immigrants in great num-
bers. New England also drew immigrants
to jobs in Worcester, Providence, New
Haven, and Boston. The big magnets of
Chicago, New York, and Philadelphia
attracted large numbers of immigrants.
By 2010, the immigration map had
been redrawn. While San Francisco, New
York, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia
are on both maps, more notable are the
metro areas in the South and West that
have risen to the top. Los Angeles, River-
side, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston are
among the metro areas in the Southwest
142 (3) Summer 2013
83
Map 1
Twenty Metropolitan Areas with the Largest Immigrant Populations, 1900 and 2010
Contem -
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
in
Historical
Perspective
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Source: Author’s calculations of 1900 Decennial Census data accessed via Minnesota Population Center’s
National Historical Geographic Information System, http://www.nhgis.org; and 2006–2010 acs 5-year estimates,
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
84
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
Figure 4
Percent of Foreign Born in Metropolitan Areas, by Gateway Type, 1900–2010
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Source: Author’s calculations of 1900–1950, 1970–2000 Decennial Census data accessed via Minnesota Population
Center’s National Historical Geographic Information System, http://www.nhgis.org; 1960 Decennial Census
data accessed via U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Census of Population: 1960, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Of½ce, 1963); and 2006–2010 acs 5-year estimates.
that rank highly, along with Miami, Tampa,
and Atlanta in the Southeast.
The body of work that analyzes contem-
porary immigrant gateways in historical
perspective sheds further light on the
stature and composition of today’s desti-
nations.9 A typology of immigrant gate-
ways reflects the size and geography of
immigrant settlement patterns shaped by
industrial histories, economic conditions,
proximity to immigrant sending countries,
and social networks.10 In the contempo-
rary period, they vary in size and national-
origin composition, skills distribution, and
neighborhood concentration. The share
of the population that is foreign born,
aggregated by gateway type, illustrates the
long-term patterns of growth and decline
within each type (see Figure 4).
Cities such as Cleveland, Milwaukee,
and St. Louis, which had populations
with a higher immigrant share than the
national average from 1900 to 1970, fol-
lowed by a lower share in every decade
since, are former immigrant gateways.
New York, Boston, San Francisco, and
Chicago are the quintessential immi-
grant destinations, having large and sus-
tained immigrant populations over the
entire twentieth century. These are the
“major” continuous gateways responsi-
ble for much higher than average shares
of immigrants for every decade of the
twentieth century. In addition, the “minor”
continuous gateways, like their larger
counterparts, have had long histories of
immigrant settlement, but the size of
the immigrant population is historically
smaller.
142 (3) Summer 2013
85
Contem -
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
in
Historical
Perspective
There are two groups of minor contin-
uous gateways, most easily described by
their geographies. The ½rst group in -
cludes New England metro areas such as
Hartford, New Haven, and Bridgeport
that attracted Europeans in the early part
of the twentieth century, and that now
receive a mixture of Europeans, Carib -
beans, and other groups. The other group
of metropolitan areas is primarily located
among border states, which have been
long-term settlement areas for Mexican
immigrants. These include Bakers½eld and
Fresno in the central valley of California
and San Antonio and McAllen in Texas.11
Post–World War II immigrant gate-
ways such as Miami, Los Angeles, Hous-
ton, and Washington, D.C., all emerged
as major immigrant destinations in the
second half of the twentieth century
(albeit in different decades). Until the
1960s, these places had comparatively
small immigrant populations making up
small shares of their total population, but
they grew rapidly thereafter, and now
include some of the largest contemporary
gateways. Their populations had lower
shares of immigrants than the national
average for the ½rst six decades of the
century, followed by spiking rates up to
the present.
Due to expanding economic and hous-
ing opportunities in several regions–the
Southeast and the Mountain West in par-
ticular–many metropolitan areas quickly
drew immigrants to work in construc-
tion, real estate, health care, and service
sector jobs. Many metropolitan areas
that became new gateways at the turn of
the twenty-½rst century also attracted
domestic migrants in large numbers, out-
weighing the growth due to immigrants.12
Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Phoenix lead the
emerging gateways. These places saw im -
migrant growth rates exceed the national
average during one of the last three decades
of the twentieth century, but until then
had small numbers of im migrants. The
immigrant share in emerging gateways
has been higher than the national average
since 2000.
Similar to the continuous gateways, the
reemerging gateways, including Seattle,
the Twin Cities, and Baltimore, drew im -
migrants in large numbers in the early
part of the twentieth century, but experi-
enced low levels of immigration during
the rest of the century. They then had fast
immigrant growth at the very end of the
twentieth century and into the 2000s,
reemerging as signi½cant destinations.
Among all the gateways types, foreign-
born shares in the reemerging gateways
most closely mirror the national average.
Other metro areas, such as Nashville,
Charlotte, and Columbus, have little his-
tory of immigration, but recently have
seen extraordinary growth in their immi-
grant populations. Still relatively small in
absolute terms and as a share of the pop-
ulation, the rates of growth in these “pre-
emerging” gateways have been at least
three times the national rate during the
past two decades.
The newest gateways, designated
“twenty-½rst-century gateways” else-
where, differ from the more established
continuous gateways and the former
gateways in that they developed largely
as auto-dependent metropolises and thus
are very suburban in form.13 They tend to
be large and sprawling compared to the
metropolitan areas with dense cities at
their core that received immigrants in the
early twentieth century. Growth patterns
in areas such as metropolitan Atlanta and
Washington, D.C., have led to extensive
suburbs surrounding comparatively small
central cities. Most of the population,
including immigrants, lives in the sub-
urbs. Other new destinations like Phoenix,
Charlotte, and Austin are comprised of
very large central cities resulting from
86
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Figure 5
Residence of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States, 1980–2010
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Cities and suburbs are de½ned for the 95 largest metropolitan areas based on the 2010 population. Primary cities
are those that are named in metropolitan area title, as well as any incorporated places that had at least 100,000
in total population in 2010. The residual of the metro area is de½ned as suburban. In 5 of the 100 largest metro-
politan areas, foreign-born population data at the city level are not available from the acs. Thus, metro areas
that are not in the top 95 are classi½ed as “small metros.” Source: Author’s calculations of Decennial Census
data; and 2010 acs 1-year estimates, http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
annexation. Here, the of½cial city limits
encompass vast suburban-like areas.
Nonetheless, the geography of U.S. im -
migrant settlement is now decidedly sub-
urban (see Figure 5). Just thirty years ago,
similar shares of immigrants lived in the
cities and the suburbs of the largest met-
ropolitan areas in the United States (41
percent and 43 percent, respectively). By
2010, only 33 percent of U.S. immigrants
lived in central cities of the 100 largest
metro areas, while 51 percent lived in the
suburbs of these cities. All the while, the
immigrant population increased nearly
threefold. Throughout this period, about
11 percent of immigrants lived in the
smaller metro areas, and another 5 per-
cent were in non-metropolitan or rural
areas, while also growing in absolute terms.
The list of metropolitan areas with the
largest suburban population reflects
divergent trends (see Table 3). Slightly
more than 20 million immigrants–about
half of all immigrants in the United
States–live in the suburbs of ten metro-
politan areas. These ten places include
many of the largest metropolitan areas in
the country; although some are well-
established continuous gateways such as
New York, Chicago, and San Francisco,
others are mid-century gainers such as Los
Angeles, Miami, and Houston. Atlanta, a
gateway that only recently emerged, is
also on the list.
142 (3) Summer 2013
87
Contem -
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
in
Historical
Perspective
Table 3
Largest Number, Highest Share, and Fastest Growth of Immigrants in
the Suburbs of the 100 Largest Metropolitan Areas, 2010
Largest Number of Immigrants Living in the Suburbs
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Metro Area
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Miami, FL
Chicago, IL
Washington, D.C.
San Francisco, CA
Riverside, CA
Houston, TX
Atlanta, GA
Dallas, TX
All Large Metro Areas
Immigrants
2,639,567
2,330,889
1,893,530
1,065,839
1,055,461
815,914
757,105
726,498
682,813
617,036
20,401,330
Highest Share of Foreign-Born Population Living in the Suburbs
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Metro Area
Atlanta, GA
Miami, FL
Orlando, FL
Detroit MI
Washington, D.C.
Birmingham, AL
Cleveland, OH
Lakeland, FL
McAllen, TX
Dayton, OH
All Large Metro Areas
Fastest Suburban Foreign-Born Growth Rate, 2000–2010
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Metro Area
Louisville, KY
Jackson, MS
Knoxville, TN
Des Moines, IA
Little Rock, AR
Indianapolis, IN
Birmingham, AL
Scranton, PA
Cape Coral, FL
Austin, TX
All Large Metro Areas
Share Foreign Born
95.3%
87.4%
87.0%
86.8%
86.3%
86.0%
85.6%
84.0%
83.0%
82.7%
60.6%
Growth Rate
246%
159%
150%
148%
141%
141%
140%
136%
133%
124%
27%
Source: Author’s calculations of 2000 Decennial Census data; and 2010 acs 1-year estimates,
http://www.census.gov/acs/www/.
88
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
Atlanta also tops the list of metropoli-
tan areas with the greatest proportion of
immigrants living in the suburbs: 95 per-
cent. This is not surprising due to its small
central city population, as is the case with
Washington, D.C., Detroit, and Cleve-
land, all of which also have vast majori-
ties of the population in suburbs. On
average, the metropolitan areas on this
list have over 80 percent of immigrants
residing in their suburbs, compared to an
average of 60 percent across the 100
largest metro areas.
Not coincidentally, the fastest-growing
suburban immigrant populations corre-
spond to the metropolitan areas with the
fastest-growing immigrant populations
in the country. Eight of the ten areas with
suburban immigration growth of at least
124 percent in the last decade were metro
areas whose immigrant populations dou-
bled during the same period.14 The foreign-
born population grew by 246 percent in
Louisville’s suburbs, Jackson’s by 159
percent, and Knoxville’s by 150 percent.
All of the metropolitan areas on this list
are newer destinations, or in the case of
Scranton, reemergent ones. Seven of the
ten are in the Southeast.
The history of immigration to the United
States is intertwined with the American
narrative. This story is often cast as the
movement of people in search of eco-
nomic opportunity, political and reli-
gious freedom, and a better life for their
children. These desires have not changed
over time, but the U.S. locations where
opportunity unfolds have been altered by
industrial restructuring, changes in trans -
portation, and new technology. No longer
are immigrants con½ned to urban ethnic
neighborhoods; rather, they are a strong
presence in many suburbs. In this way,
the history of immigration also parallels
the history of American urbanization.
As immigrant settlement patterns have
shifted alongside those of the native-
born population, immigrant metropoli-
tan settlement trends since 1990 have
taken at least two new turns. For most of
the twentieth century, the majority of
immigrants were drawn to only a handful
of established gateways. But new oppor-
tunities in metro areas with little history
of receiving immigrants led to signi½cant
spikes in the foreign-born populations of
these places.
In a second shift, immigrants began
bypassing cities to settle directly in sub-
urban areas. During industrialization in
the early part of the twentieth century,
immigrants moved to cities to be close to
jobs. Now, as jobs have decentralized and
suburban opportunities have opened up,
there are more immigrants residing in
suburbs than in cities. During the ½rst de -
cade of the twenty-½rst century, as regions
experienced sluggish recovery following
the recession, immigration to the United
States slowed.
These new patterns are not without
conflict and stress, especially as major
institutions in the newest metropolitan
destinations now confront the challenge
of how to serve this diverse population.
Many areas have yet to recover from the
effects of the recession, and immigrants
are often viewed as competitors for jobs
and scarce public resources. In some of
the metropolitan areas that recently ex -
perienced fast immigrant growth, state and
local measures to control immigration,
especially unauthorized immigration,
have been proposed or legislated. But
other areas have welcomed immigrants,
including places with well-established
foreign-born populations that have been
integrating immigrants since mid-century
or prior. Moreover, cities such as Detroit,
Pittsburgh, and Dayton would like to
attract and retain immigrants to stem
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
142 (3) Summer 2013
89
population loss and to stimulate economic
activity; those regions are putting out the
welcome mat for immigrant newcomers.
These distinct and shifting patterns of
receptivity will no doubt yield future
changes to twenty-½rst-century immi-
grant settlement patterns.
Contem -
porary
Immigrant
Gateways
in
Historical
Perspective
endnotes
Author’s Note: I would like to acknowledge the excellent research assistance provided by
Nicole Svajlenka.
1 Minnesota Population Center, National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 2.0
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, 2011), http://www.nhgis.org.
2 U.S. Census Bureau, “Social Characteristics of the Population, for Counties: 1960,” U.S. Census
of Population: 1960, vol. 1, Characteristics of the Population (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Of½ce, 1963), Table 82.
3 The Brookings Institution, “State of Metropolitan America Indicator Map,” http://www
.brookings.edu/research/interactives/state-of-metropolitan-america-indicator map#/?subject
=7&ind=70&dist=0&data=Number&year=2010&geo=metro&zoom=0&x=0&y=0.
4 See Nancy Foner, From Ellis Island to JFK: New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration (New
York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2000); and Aristide Zolberg, A Nation by Design: Immigration
Policy in the Fashioning of America (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2006).
5 Sukkoo Kim and Robert A. Margo, “Historical Perspectives on U.S. Economic Geography,”
in Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, 1st ed., vol. 4, ed. J. Vernon Henderson and
Jacques-François Thisse (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1986), chap. 66, 2981–3019.
6 Charles Hirschman and Elizabeth Mogford, “Immigration and the American Industrial Rev-
olution from 1880 to 1920,” Social Science Research 38 (2009): 897–920.
7 Figure 3 shows “metropolitan areas” for each decade. These are constructed at the county
level and are consistent throughout. While metropolitan areas as we know them today did
not exist in the early part of the twentieth century, full metropolitan area de½nitions for
2010 are used for the sake of making consistent comparisons. See the earlier methodology
section for a more detailed discussion.
8 Data on absolute change not shown.
9 See Audrey Singer, “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, February 2004), http://www.brookings
.edu/~/media/research/½les/reports/2004/2/demographics%20singer/20040301_gateways
.pdf; Audrey Singer, Susan W. Hardwick, and Caroline B. Brettell, eds., Twenty-First Century
Gateways: Immigrant Incorporation in Suburban America (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Insti-
tution Press, 2008); and Matthew Hall, Audrey Singer, Gordon F. De Jong, and Deborah
Roempke Graefe, “The Geography of Immigrant Skills: Educational Pro½les of Metropolitan
Areas” (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, June 2011),
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/½les/papers/2011/6/immigrants%20singer/
06_immigrants_singer.pdf.
10 Hall et al., “The Geography of Immigrant Skills.”
11 See ibid. for listing of all metropolitan areas by gateway type.
90
Dædalus, the Journal of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
12 Singer, “The Rise of New Immigrant Gateways.”
13 Singer et al., Twenty-First Century Gateways.
14 See Jill H. Wilson and Audrey Singer, “Immigrants in 2010 Metropolitan America” (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, October 2011), http://
www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/½les/papers/2011/10/13%20immigration%20wilson
%20singer/1013_immigration_wilson_singer.pdf. Only Des Moines and Austin did not
double their immigrant populations between 2000 and 2010.
Audrey
Singer
l
D
o
w
n
o
a
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
t
t
p
:
/
/
d
i
r
e
c
t
.
m
i
t
.
/
e
d
u
d
a
e
d
a
r
t
i
c
e
-
p
d
/
l
f
/
/
/
/
/
1
4
2
3
7
6
1
8
3
0
2
9
7
d
a
e
d
_
a
_
0
0
2
2
0
p
d
.
f
b
y
g
u
e
s
t
t
o
n
0
7
S
e
p
e
m
b
e
r
2
0
2
3
142 (3) Summer 2013
91
