Hispanic Population Growth Now Driven More by Births, Not Immigration

From a Pew Research Center analysis of the latest Census data:

In the decade from 2000 to 2010, the Mexican-American population grew by 7.2 million as a result of births and 4.2 million as a result of new immigrant arrivals. This is a change from the previous two decades when the number of new immigrants either matched or exceeded the number of births.

The current surge in births among Mexican-Americans is largely attributable to the immigration wave that has brought more than 10 million immigrants to the United States from Mexico since 1970. Between 2006 and 2010 alone, more than half (53%) of all Mexican-American births were to Mexican immigrant parents. As a group, these immigrants are more likely than U.S.-born Americans to be in their prime child-bearing years. They also have much higher fertility.

(Source: The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center)

Mexican immigration has also fallen substantially in recent years:

According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of Mexican government data, the number of Mexicans annually leaving Mexico for the U.S. declined from more than one million in 2006 to 404,000 in 2010-a 60% reduction.2 This is likely a result of recent developments in both the U.S. and Mexico. On the U.S. side, declining job opportunities and increased border enforcement (Passel and Cohn, 2009) may have made the U.S. less attractive to potential Mexican immigrants. And in Mexico, recent strong economic growth may have reduced the “push” factors that often lead Mexicans to emigrate to the U.S. As a result, there were fewer new immigrant arrivals to the U.S. from Mexico in the 2000s (4.2 million) than in the 1990s (4.7 million). However, the Mexican-American population continued to grow rapidly, with births accounting for 63% of the 11.2 million increase from 2000 to 2010.

Source: The Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center

Leave A Comment

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.



View All Comments »
  1. Brittanicus says:

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

    Disliked! Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 9
    • JRB says:

      The US should have an immigration policy that reflects the realities of living and operating in a globalized marketplace in the 21st century. The United States espouse liberal economic principles based on the free flow of goods supported by an unrestrained free market. And yet this cornerstone of the American economic foundation is in direct contradiction with our immigration policy based on realist international relations theory that places national security above all else.
      In other words, we’re burning the farm to save the house, when in reality the house only exists because of the farm.

      Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
      • JRB says:

        Furthermore, we must ask ourselves why immigrants are choosing to stay in the United States rather than leave? Well, if we look at the period following 2001 (9/11) the number of immigrants leaving the US on their own volition has gone down, contributing to the overall number of immigrants, both authorized and unauthorized in the country. The effect of increased border security has not kept immigrants out (many travel hundreds of miles through rough terrain and elements, why would they turn back at the sight of a chain-link fence?) but rather it has kept those that arrive in, fearing that if they leave it may be more difficult to re-enter.

        So, given this consequence, what might happen if we allow amnesty (as if they have done something wrong. We offer amnesty to war criminals and human rights violators, not human beings seeking a better life)? Well, we have given amnesty, under Reagan, The Great. The impact? Nearly 3 million recent Americans came out of the shadows and contributed to a safer America and began paying the share into social services, if they weren’t already. Furthermore, the number of migrants returning voluntarily spiked. Why? Because there were conditions to amnesty such as criminal background checks and many who were aware that they had broken the law and were not eligible decided to leave.

        So tell me again what is so wrong with amnesty and why these people are a threat?

        P.S. 40% of Fortune 500 companies were started by an immigrant or first generation American. They just take, take, take without ever paying their share… sounds like a certain 1%

        Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1