This report offers context for consideration of immigration policy options by presenting data on key geographic, demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the foreign-born population residing in the United States. The foreign born have a variety of immigration statuses and include immigrants, refugees, nonimmigrants, and persons illegally residing in the United States. Interest in the U.S. foreign born stems, in part, from the changing demographic profile of the U.S. population, the rapidity of such change, and how both trends correspond to the objectives of U.S. immigration policy. Although relatively small in absolute terms, the foreign born are growing faster than the native-born population generally and specifically among young people and the civilian labor force. By 2010, the foreign-born population had increased to 39.9 million people representing 12.9% of the total U.S. population (see Figure 1 ). Geographic Distribution in the United States

The geography of foreign-born population settlement in the United States can be divided between the "stock" of the existing population and the "flow" of the recently arrived foreign born. In 2010, almost 35% of all foreign-born persons in the United States had arrived since 2000, and almost 62% since 1990. However, at the other end of the education distribution, the proportion of the foreign born with at least a bachelor's degree matches that of the native born. Foreign-born male workers exhibit consistently higher labor force participation rates than native-born workers both in total and across all age and education categories. In some heavily unionized occupations such as locomotive engineers and construction inspectors, native-born workers dominate. On average, median incomes of native-born workers are higher than foreign-born workers. Concluding Observations

The 39.9 million foreign born (in 2010) make up roughly one-eighth of the U.S. population, but between 2000 and 2010, they accounted for nearly one-third of all U.S. population growth. Origins of the foreign born have shifted from Europe (74% in 1960) to Latin America and Asia (81% in 2010). While many foreign-born persons have settled recently in new urban and rural destinations, two-thirds of the foreign-born population lives in California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey. Lower education levels and differences in industrial sector and occupational distributions partly explain income and poverty differences between foreign-born and native-born workers; for those with at least a four-year college degree, earnings differences by nativity are minimal. Among the foreign born, median incomes of naturalized citizens are roughly 60% higher than those of noncitizens, reflecting higher education levels, older ages, and greater U.S. labor market experience. Poverty status is linked to the lack of citizenship, a difference that is magnified after including the "near-poor," who earn between 100% and 200% of the poverty threshold.
This report offers context for consideration of immigration policy options by presenting data on key geographic, demographic, social, and economic characteristics of the foreign-born population residing in the United States. Interest in the U.S. foreign-born population stems in part from the changing demographic profile of the United States as well as the rapidity of such change, and how both of these trends correspond to U.S. immigration policy. Although the foreign born are relatively small in absolute terms—39.9 million people representing 12.9% of the total U.S. population of 309.3 million in 2010—they are growing far more rapidly than the native-born population. Between 2000 and 2010, the foreign born contributed 32% of the total U.S. population increase and almost all of the prime 25-54 working age group increase. Almost one-third of the foreign born arrived in the United States since 2000, and an estimated 28% were residing illegally in the United States in 2010.
Geographic origins of the foreign born have shifted from Europe (74% in 1960) to Latin America and Asia (81% in 2010). In recent years, many foreign born have settled in new urban and rural destinations, often in response to employment opportunities in construction, manufacturing, and low-skilled services. Yet, as in previous decades, at least two-thirds of the foreign born remain concentrated in just six states: California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.
Several measures of marital status and household structure show little difference between the native born and foreign born. The foreign born have lower average educational attainment, but the proportion with at least a bachelor's degree matches that of the native born.
In 2010, the foreign born accounted for 16.3% of all workers, with higher labor force participation rates among men and lower rates among women compared to native-born workers. With exceptions, native and foreign-born workers generally resemble each other in their distribution across broad industrial and occupational sectors. Among specific occupations, however, glaring differences occur, with native-born workers dominating occupations such as construction inspectors and librarians, and foreign-born workers dominating occupations such as agricultural laborers and tailors.
Lower education levels and differences in industrial sector and occupational distributions explain in part why foreign-born workers have lower median incomes and higher poverty rates than native-born workers. Earnings differences are minimal for those with a four-year college degree. Among the foreign born, median incomes of naturalized citizens are 62% higher than those of noncitizens, reflecting higher education levels, older ages, and greater U.S. labor market experience. Poverty status is linked to the lack of citizenship, a difference that is magnified after including the "near-poor," who earn between 100% and 200% of the poverty threshold.
Although foreign-born population growth and transformation often occur because of factors beyond the control of Congress—including political turmoil and natural disasters in neighboring countries and social and economic processes of globalization—how Congress crafts immigration law does influence the size and character of resulting immigration flows to the United States.