 I'd like to welcome you. My name is Rogelio Sainz. I'm the Dean of the College of Public Policy. And it is my pleasure to welcome you to the Dean's Distinguished Lecture Series. The intent of this particular lecture series is to bring individuals or researchers, policy makers, as well as practitioners, that are key individuals that are addressing major policy issues. And certainly immigration is represent one of these issues. We've had a couple of town hall forums. We had one back in the screen with the San Antonio Express News. And then more recently in September, Congressman Doggett was here as part of a town hall meeting. We've also had seen a lot of debate taking place and we read the newspaper today. There was a kind of a suggestion that it looks difficult for immigration reform and the vote to take place during 2013, so that debate continues to take place. Jeff Pacell, who is our distinguished speaker this evening, is certainly one of these individuals who was in the forefront, not necessarily in terms of the engagement of the creation of policy itself, but he represents the major individual who is providing the data to policy makers and also informing the debate about what is going on with immigration. And a lot of our knowledge regarding trends that we see significant changes that we've seen over the last several years has come from the work of Jeff Pacell who's been doing this work for a long period of time and is representing the key vote to person with respect to immigration data. And now what I want to do is introduce Joachim Siegelman, who is the chair of the Department of Demography, who will introduce our speaker. Welcome, Jeff Pacell, to this evening. Jeff and I, we go back a long time, about 40 years. We shared in the office, we were both graduate students. We're not that old, we were risk kids. We graduated from high school very, very young. Anyway, we shared this office and almost every lunch, Jeff had a friend over and they were practicing bidding in bridge. He was very proficient in bridge. I don't know that much about it, but he was the equivalent of a chess master, grand chess master in which however you cheat, you get master plans. So the only thing that I remember from it was, what I learned was there's an opening when you start bidding and there's one opening, he can correct me. It's called one club, and that means that you have absolutely nothing. And you tell your partner that whatever you have, if you want to go for something, it's all in your hand because you don't have anything. So that's how I feel today when I introduce Jeff. I would say one club. I don't have anything compared to what he brings to the table here. Jeff is just incredibly accomplished. As I said to some of the others, when you see a story on immigration, it's either produced, the data about which a story is written, produced by him, or he is asked to comment on someone else's work. There's no story about the data immigration undocumented work where his name doesn't appear amongst the nation's newspapers. Our dean already talked about in a wide range of what he has done. Jeff was at the, you know, he's now at the Q Foundation, previously he was at the Urban Institute for a good number of years and previously, he started his career as a Ph.D. at Johns Hopkins at the Census Bureau where again he did a variety of things. If you look at sort of where he shows up, he's in virtue of all major penalties. He has served on the committees of the Population Association of America. He has been on several panels of the National Academy of Sciences and it goes on and on. He's a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and in 2004 American Demographic magazine selected him as a demographic diamond, one of the five most important demographers social scientists in the last 25 years whose work, you know, got cited and referred to the most. We are absolutely in for a treat today and I thank you very much for being here and what comes next? I am very excited to be here and thank you for the kind introductions. It's worth pointing out that American Demographics did do that and then they promptly went out of business. I don't know what to make of all of that. I am at the Pew Research Center, formerly at the Pew Hispanic Center and now the Pew Research Center's Hispanic Trends Project. And just a couple words about what we do because it does color some of the things I talk about. The Pew Research Center is part of what the Pew Charitable Trust calls the Three-Legged Stool of Public Policy. They support policy research. They support policy advocacy but they think that it's important to have data and facts to base those other things on. So the Pew Research Center's mission is to provide facts that are relevant to policy advocacy and policy research but we do not take positions on policies and we don't take government funding and we don't do policy research. So if I say something that's about policy, it's a slip. I'm not supposed to be talking about policy. So it's great. I was raised in Texas but not in the good part of Texas like San Antonio. I was raised in Dallas. It is nice to be back and San Antonio is one of my favorite places. What I'm going to try to do is do a little bit of a kind of primer on immigration and talk a little about history to talk about how we got to where we are today because I think it colors a lot of the attitudes and debates that we're having now and then talk some about some of the changes and some of the new trends that have emerged. There's, I call some of this myth in reality. There's a lot of concern about immigration that we're, immigration's at an all time high and in some ways that's true and in some ways it's not and I'll talk a little bit more about that now. Later we have more immigrants than we've ever had before but then we have more people. The idea that the U.S. welcomes immigrants is part of the kind of myth. It's our view of ourselves as a country of immigrants. I would say that historically the best description of the U.S. attitudes towards immigrants is exactly what we have today, that the immigrants we're getting today, people say they're not so good, they're not like the immigrants we got before. Those would be good immigrants. Of course, you can go back a hundred years and you can find articles being written that say the same thing about the immigrants today that we consider the good immigrants, the southern Europeans, the eastern Europeans. Back then they weren't exactly welcomed. It was the immigrants before them that were the good ones. Of course, you go back 50 years before that and people hated the Irish immigrants which by 1900 were the good immigrants. There's a long history of this. Ben Franklin is thought to have been concerned that there were too many Germans coming to Pennsylvania and was changing the character of the state. So it's something that's been there for a long time. The idea that immigrants in the past assimilated or adapted and became Americans is, again, I think a misreading of history. It took generations, in most cases, for the immigrants and their children and grandchildren to become accepted as part of the country. And we're very much going through that today. And a lot of today's immigrants are doing following the paths that immigrants historically have. It's really not that different. But what has happened is that within a fairly short period of time, since 1970, the country has undergone a major set of changes. And the country is quite different today in terms of its makeup. These are the integration in 1970. Certainly, 1950 was very different. And even 1990 was quite different. So I'll talk some about that. We're going to talk about how many immigrants we get, where they're from, what the trends are, where they're going. A little bit about the policies. There's more in the handout that I'm going to talk about here in terms of just what the laws have been. And I hope to spend some time talking about what the immigrants today are like. One of the big takeaways for me with this is that the unauthorized immigrants to a very great and underappreciated degree are families and families of children as opposed to the stereotype of a single male. That sort of message that will come through a lot. And talk about some of the factors that are driving immigration. We've had a lot of very big changes within just really the last five or six years. Unauthorized immigration has basically stopped. You never know that from the attention it gets in the press and the politics. But after a long period of very rapid growth in the unauthorized population that turned around and the number of unauthorized immigrants living here actually decreased for a couple of years. Since about 2005, there's been a balance in terms of how many Mexicans are coming to the US versus people going back to Mexico. And after about 2008, there were more Mexicans going back than coming to the US. And you might not know that if you read the newspapers and listen to the political debates about this. What we don't know is if this is a real change or just a wall, whether it's temporary or whether it's something that's going to continue to be. Overall, the total foreign-born population, it didn't reverse, but the growth basically stopped. And that's due mainly to the fact that there's not nearly as many, hardly any unauthorized immigrants coming to the country. Legal immigration has not been affected to the same degree. Legal immigration has continued. Remember, we haven't changed very much, but there's some new trends. If you look at the overall picture, again, something you'll notice that with the drop in Latino immigration from unauthorized immigrants, we're actually getting more immigrants from Asia now than from Latin America. And that hadn't happened for a very long time. About half of all the unauthorized immigrants, adults are parents. Most of those kids are US citizens. So we're really talking about families with US citizens and we think about the unauthorized population. And the other big factor over about a 15-year period was that the immigrants went into new areas in very rapidly, very rapid growth in places that in some cases had never seen an immigrant and in other cases hadn't seen an immigrant for 100 years. That pretty much stopped in 2007 to this dispersal. So 2007 is sort of a key date in all of this. A little bit of history. Talking about migration flows as people coming into the US, we have seen very large increases starting after World War II. The increases have stopped. The numbers have been relatively stable. But along with this is a shift in where the immigrants come from. We now are getting about 75-80% of our immigrants come from either Latin America or Asia. Historically, before this period, 80-90% of the immigrants came from Europe and Canada. Those areas no longer send new immigrants. Beginning around the 1980s, we were starting to get more unauthorized immigrants than legal immigrants. And that was part of what was behind the shift to Latin America. That is no longer the case. So we went through a period of 20 years where that was true and now it isn't. Again, big changes recently. The flows, especially the unauthorized flow, tends to be very sensitive to economic conditions in the US, but also in the sending countries. So immigrants do look to some extent at what their opportunities are where they live versus what their opportunities are here. And that's true especially with unauthorized immigrants. And a lot of the new destinations that emerged emerged because of unauthorized Mexican immigration. And I'll talk a little more about that later. The numbers aren't that important here. It's really the relative numbers. These represent decade by decade immigrant arrivals to the US in millions. And they go back to the age of 20s. And so you can see this is in the 19th century the numbers went up and down. This is the Civil War. People didn't come as much in the Civil War. This is opening up in the 1880s, a big economic growth period, and a period of some turmoil in northern Europe. The 1890s were a period with four, what they called, panics at that time. There were recessions or depressions that were foreign during that decade. And there weren't jobs here, people didn't come. So we saw a big drop in immigration in the 1890s and then a big boom in the next 10 years. Almost 9 million immigrants came in the first decade of the 20th century. And between 1905 and 1914, immigration averaged more than a million a year. Basically it averaged then what we're getting now. But World War I came along. People couldn't get out of Europe. And then in the 1920s we passed several different pieces of legislation that restrict the inflow of immigrants. And immigrants were viewed very negatively throughout this period. The first thing was we put numerical restrictions on for the first time. Up until the 1920s basically we had open immigration people came. They were admitted if they were healthy and they were in. The other thing was that we put in geographic quotas in the 1920s and the quotas were designed based on the origins of the population as of 1890. And it was chosen for a very specific reason and that was to keep the undesirable immigrants from southern Europe and eastern Europe. Undesirable immigrants like my program from coming to the US. And it worked. You couldn't get into the country if you were from Italy or Poland or Russia. And so the numbers went down. The depression hit, nobody came. No jobs, 25% unemployment. We get more immigrants in about five months now than we got in the entire decade of the 1940s. So half a million years. More people left than came. Not all of them by choice, but more people left than came. This is basically World War II when nobody could get out of Europe and nobody was coming to the US. After that things started to pick up. But you see some shift in origins. We start getting the dark part. The bottom part is Europe and Canada and the top is the rest of the world. So we started to get more from specifically Latin America. And the numbers gradually increased. Some legislative changes brought even more. And so we've got the steady increase in the number of legal immigrants arriving. On top of that we have unauthorized immigrants coming. And there's a little bit back here, but it really starts in the 1970s, the 90s. And you can see we've got as many legal immigrants as legal immigrants. Big, big numbers. It wasn't until the 1980s that we surpassed the numbers from 1900s. The number of legal immigration is still high. And with unauthorized, we're still a little below. The last decade was a little below the 1990s, but not much. So still very high levels. Now, we're getting more immigrants numerically than we got in our past. This looks at the immigrants who come during the decade as a share of the population. This is per 1,000. So basically here in the 1850s, we got 12 immigrants for every 1,000 people that were in the country. And you can see the high levels are back here in the 19th century. We're not close to the peak levels before and it dropped a little. And basically, if you look at the average of these rates across all of these decades, you get about 5.2. So immigration in the last decade was basically average in terms of the U.S. population. So if we're talking about relative to our size, we're kind of at a normal level, if you will. If you're talking about numbers, we're getting more than we've ever gotten. Why do we admit immigrants? So what is the basis for our immigration policy? The economics of immigration tend to drive the discussion. That it makes us competitive. We want to admit the best and the brightest. And it helps the country to admit immigrants to create jobs. But we look at what share they make up of legal immigrants that people admitted solely because of their skills and qualifications. It's all about one in seven or 14%. The next big thing people talk about is family unification. We admit people of us, they're parts of families that appear in the U.S. This is really what drives our immigration policy right now. Two-thirds of the legal immigrants are admitted because they're close relatives. Usually, almost all of these are spouses or children of people who are already in the country. So the best way to get into the U.S. is to be married to somebody who's already here. We admit refugees because they're in difficult situations of various kinds. That's about one out of seven. The 1990 act introduced the idea of diversity in the migration screen. Part of the reason that the politicians decided to do this was they wanted to get more Europeans to come. There was a set aside for Irish immigrants that Senator Kennedy carved out. Of course, the Europeans don't want to come here. They've got mostly a good situation back at home. Ironically, this diversity led to more Asians and Africans being admitted. I don't think that's what the people who set it up had in mind. But it's a small share. It's about 50,000 a year. This is one of the things that's being discussed to cut as a trade-off in the legislation. Because it's really a lottery. Part of the reason we're discussing this is that part of the reason for having an immigration policy. So we can decide who comes and keep us secure. There's not much within the emissions that deals with that specifically. But the reality there is to keep people out of that and let people in. So that's all the flows. That's the people coming in. This is what demographers call the stock. This is the number of immigrants who are actually living in the country at a point in time. And you can see that historically the peak level here was in 1930 after that long period of very large flows of people coming in. And then as we restricted the flows, the numbers started to drop. Because the only way you can become part of the foreign-born population is to immigrate. These people have children, but their children are part of the native population. And so with the reduced inflows in the 30s, the 40s, the 50s, the numbers started to drop. It got down to about less than 10 million in 1970. That changed. Changed a lot. The numbers started almost straight up here. By 2007, there were more than four times as many immigrants in that country. This is an era here that a lot of people look at as sort of the golden age of the idealism that's what they grew up with. And in fact, it's atypical. The other thing, of course, is these 9.6 million immigrants were largely white, European and old. The median age of the foreign-born then was over 60. The median age of the foreign-born population today is about 40. And it's largely Latino and Asian. So it's very different in the number of ways. After 2007, the numbers kind of leveled off. We didn't get as many people coming in, so the growth stopped and isn't much higher now. The other way to look at this is what share of the immigrants, what share they represented the population. The peak levels were back here in the 19th century, period around 13% to 15%. 1970 was the lowest on record, lowest for which we have data. And we're back up to about 13%, but it's not as high as it had been here. And again, if you listen to the people in water-restrict immigration, they talk a lot about the 50s and 60s. And think of that as somehow a normal time. And if you look at this chart, the normal time is here, not here. So in many ways, what we're going through is normal for the U.S. Where do they come from? Mexico, other Latin America and Asia represent about three quarters of all the immigrants living in the country. This is both legal and unauthorized. The European share has been dropping steadily. We're not getting a lot of immigrants from Europe and the ones we have are dying off. So we're going to focus a little on the unauthorized population. These are various kinds of estimates that are round. The numbers steadily increased here from the late 80s to 2007, growing very rapidly. That's about 500,000 years growth. And it means that more than 500,000 have come to some waveholding time. So we were getting on average about 700,000 or more. This is the U.S. unauthorized immigrants every year. This drop, by the way, isn't because we control unauthorized immigration. We control it by legalizing people. This was the legalization programs passed in 86 led to a drop in the population. Well, that changed. 2000 after growing by half a million a year for about 20 years, we saw the numbers drop by half a million a year after 2007. And this means that more people were leaving than were coming. The number coming dropped a lot, but a lot of people left for those two years. And I'm going to switch scales here so we can talk a little about this. What's happened since is that the numbers have basically stabilized. There's light band around that's a margin of error. And it looks like the number has gone up, but given that the data source has a very big margin of error. So we weren't comfortable saying that the number went up. Say it may have gone up, but certainly it's incompetent that the number isn't going down. The numbers have gone up a lot. These 11.7 million immigrants are about 28% of all the immigrants living here. The big share is naturalized citizens, people who came as immigrants and have become U.S. citizens. On this chart, the only number that's growing is naturalized citizens. We get new legal permanent residents coming every year, but a lot of them become naturalized citizens. So new people come in here, but people move from this category to this one. So this one's been fairly stable for about 10 years. Mexico is by far the largest source of the unauthorized immigrants, about 6 million unauthorized Mexicans living over half. And it's truly in order of magnitude different. The next largest country in these estimates usually comes out to be El Salvador in the 4 to 500,000 ranks. So it's Mexico and then other countries. The rest of Latin America is about a quarter of the total. So three quarters are Latin American. Asians here are a large group, but not the way they are at the total. And there's no single country that really dominates. We get a lot from El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, but we're also getting a fair number from China and India. And any country that sends us a lot of immigrants, there's some spillover. The Mexican numbers also peaked in 2007, and much of the drop by 2009 and 10 was a drop in Mexicans living in the country. And this number, unlike the total, this number continued to go down. And it's not going again, it's not going up, it may be going down. We'll have a better reading on 2012 when we get some new data in the next month or so. Interestingly, the non-Mexicans, those numbers peaked also in 2007 and dropped by 2009, but we've seen some increases since 2009. And again, with the vagaries of statistics, we can say that 2012 is higher than 2009, but we can't say it's higher than 2007. But it does appear to be going up in the case of the non-Mexicans. This I won't talk much about, it's in the handout. This is legal immigrants and where they're coming from. Mexico is sort of a constant share in here at 11 to 16 percent. That's Mexico. The big shift in origins occurs right here in the 70s. This is Asia. We didn't let many Asians in the 50s and we didn't get many in the 60s, but we changed the law to put all the countries on an equal footing in 65. And in the 70s, we started emitting Vietnamese refugees and Southeast Asian refugees. So a lot of change here. We've gained more immigrants from Asia in each of the last two decades. Three decades actually. Then we got total immigrants in the 50s. So big change there. Mexico is also our largest source of legal immigrants. About 20 percent of all the legal immigrants are from Mexico. Again, a quarter from the rest of Latin America and almost a third from Asia. So we're up here again. Three quarters of the legal immigrants living in the country are from the same three regions. I'm going to talk a bit in detail about Mexico. I'm going to try to go through this really quickly because I'm running out of time. We had a rapid buildup of Mexicans in the 70s. People think we've always had immigrants from Mexico and it's true. But until 1980, Mexico wasn't our principal source of immigrants. And the flows into the U.S. peaked in about 2000. And I'll show you a chart that looks at total flows from Mexico to the U.S. And in my opinion it's driven almost completely by employment opportunities in the U.S. And we had a big shift. About 80 percent of the Mexicans coming to the U.S. now are coming as legal immigrants. Ten years ago, about 80 to 85 percent were coming as unauthorized immigrants. So that's flipped as the numbers have changed. This is the number of Mexican immigrants living in the country. We deported, forced out a lot of Mexicans in the 30s. That's the only time until recently we saw the numbers go down. This is 1970. There were about three quarters of a million Mexicans living in the country. But just a thought, if you think about it, we've gotten there. There were more Italians, more Germans, more British and I think more Canadians than Mexicans. We're going to change the scale here because what happened after 1970 was the numbers tripled in the next decade. It kept going up. By 1996 we had ten times as many as we had in 1970. But it didn't stop. It kept going up until it did about 4.8 million in 2007. Now, just a little piece of information. The country that has the most immigrants besides the US is Russia. Some of it's an artifact of the breakup of the Soviet Union, but there are 12 million immigrants in Russia. So the number two country in terms of the number of immigrants has fewer immigrants than we have in Mexico. And they represented at that point about a third of all the immigrants living in the US. But the numbers started to go down as the flows dropped off with return flows from Mexico. Now, the other piece of this is a lot of the Mexican populations living in the US. If we combine Mexicans in the US with Mexico, we hit a peak in 2007 with about 10% of all the Mexicans in the world living in the US. That's not the US born children and that's not the Mexican American population. That's people born in Mexico. This is estimates of how many Mexicans came each year. And this is both legal and unauthorized. It peaked at about three quarters of a million per year. Well over 600,000 of this being unauthorized immigrants. But then with the recession and even a little before the recession, numbers started to drop. So our most recent data is that the inflow was only about 20% of what it was to eat. And this is almost all legal immigrants. This is the employment rate. This is the opposite of the unemployment rate. And these things move very, move very close together. So I like to think of unauthorized immigration as a distortion there. Unauthorized immigrants can decide to come or not. If there's not a job, the problem's going to come. Legal immigration is more of a cue and a waiting list. People tend to come when they get their return points, whether the U.S. economy is good or bad. So what we see here is largely a response to the U.S. economy in my opinion. How do they get here? Well, a lot of them sneak across the border. We've increased enforcement. This is the probability that the Mexicans setting out to the U.S. would get caught trying to sneak in. And as you can see, the latest data I have is from a decade ago basically. But the probability that they would get caught has gone up significantly over the last 30 years here. But interestingly, almost everybody eventually gets in. So they may get caught, but they tend to keep trying. And almost everybody who decides to come to the U.S. gets in. The big drop is due to the fact that people are deciding not to come. And so there are places in Mexico where historically large numbers of people have come to the U.S. and now hardly anybody is looking to come. The big thing here though is that the apprehensions at the border, the people who snuck in across the border only represent a little over half of all the unauthorized immigrants in the country. So this focus on border enforcement is not dealing with the entire unauthorized population. About 40% came to the U.S. legally with a visa of one sort or another in the state. And increasingly we're seeing people coming through the port of inquiry at the border with documents that let them come in and then they decide to stay. This one may be going down, but we don't have good data on it. And this is just to show you legally. So what happened though, so we've had this long period of Mexicans coming to the U.S. in large numbers and the population growing, but what happened here? This is data from the U.S. This is data from the Mexican census where they asked people, where'd you live five years ago? So in the 2000 census, 670,000 people said they lived in the U.S. five years before the Mexican census. That number more than doubled by the 2010 census. 1.4 million people said they were in Mexico in 2010 and in the U.S. in 2005. This is the flow of the other way. These are the numbers from the chart I put out before. Between 95 and 2000, about 2.9 million Mexicans moved to the U.S. by 2005 to 10, about 1.4 million. So if you put this together, we've hit zero here. So between 2005 and 10, the net flow between the U.S. and Mexico was roughly in balance. Again, it's not something you hear a lot about. This seemed to happen in between 2006 and 2009. We don't know exactly when. And these are sort of annual numbers we've tried to put together. This is the Mexico to U.S. flow. This is the U.S. to Mexico flow. And so the last couple of years here were in 2010. There were a lot more Mexicans going back to Mexico than coming to the U.S. And who are they? It's an interesting thing that some colleagues are not yet focused on. Most of them, 60%, were people who had been living in the U.S. five years before the 2010 census. So they had lived in the U.S. They were in the U.S. five years before and at some point they decided to come back. So I call them long-term Mexican migrants. There's a group of short-term, shorter-term people who were in Mexico in 2005 came to the U.S. before 2010 and then went back to Mexico. So these are more short-term migrants, about 200,000. This is an interesting group. These are U.S. born children of Mexican migrants. There's about 300,000 of them. It's a growing number in Mexico. It's creating some interesting public policy difficulties and options in Mexico. These people are almost all entitled to Mexican citizenship but they don't all have it. So they have to do some registration. Some of them are in schools. They're Spanish. They may not be very good. So they're having some language difficulties in some of these places with the children. So it's a kind of interesting flip of some of the things. What these people are not is in my U.S. retirees moving to Mexico. Which is something you peer about. But this other adults, even about half of them appear to be people born in the U.S. to Mexican immigrants. They're just over 18. So it's largely families of Mexicans going back to Mexico. This is just a little fact for you to throw in. This is what share of the new arrivals are from Latin America and this is what share are from Asia. You can see there's a crossover here. So we're getting more new immigrants now from Asia than from all of Latin America. Who are the unauthorized immigrants? They're here to work largely. This is labor force participation of men. 90% of the unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. men are in the labor force. Compared with 80% of the natives age 18 to 64. And this is necessity. That's why they're coming. And they support that notion. The native born men, a lot of them are in school. Some of them are on disability. And some of them are retired. The unauthorized immigrants really can't do any of those things. So they're working. In the case of women, the role is reversed. Unauthorized women are a bit less likely to be in the workforce than native women. And this is largely due to the fact that these are younger women and a lot of them are staying home with young kids. And in fact that the difference in the share staying home with kids more than accounts for this difference in labor force. This is something that surprised me when I found it out. This looks at households and classifies them as is this household with a couple and children? Minor children. Only 20% of native born households fit that model of the nuclear family. Now a lot of these are households that used to have young children but the children were moved and a lot of these are seniors living by themselves. But we look at the unauthorized population, 44% of our families, 44% of the households are families with young children. It's very much a family situation. It's something that when I look at this quite surprised me. The unauthorized populations increasingly settled in the country. Almost 60% have been in the U.S. 10 or more years now. In 2000 it was only about a third. So a big shift largely due to the fact that there aren't many new people coming and the ones that are here are staying. A majority of the unauthorized adult women are married. This is married and the body part is with children. These are single women here by themselves. A small minority. Even among the men, and this is again surprising to a lot of people, the solo male, the guy who's here by himself may have a family back in Mexico or somewhere else. There's less than half of all the men. Mostly the men are in couples, and a very wide share of them have children, minor children. Again, not the picture you get of the unauthorized population. What about these children? Well, most of the children, 80 plus percent are U.S. born. The number of unauthorized immigrant children has been dropping steadily. Partly that's because the only way you can have unauthorized immigrant children is that unauthorized immigrant adults bring their children with them. We're not getting as many immigrants as we used to get, so we're not getting as many children. The ones that are here as unauthorized immigrant children become adults at 18 in my day. But the U.S. born children are more than doubled from 2.1 million in 2000 to 4.6 million, which leads to a situation where very large shares of the unauthorized population are in families with children. There's the 11 plus million unauthorized immigrants if we look at their households, their families. There's an extra 5.5 million people. So if we think about the families that we're talking about, it's not 11 million people. It's over 16 million people that are affected by it. It's mostly U.S. citizen children that we're talking about here. Where do they live and do this very quickly? There's a concentration in half a dozen states. No surprises. California, New York, Texas, Oregon, New Jersey, Illinois. These have been the top six states for immigrants since 1970. As of 19, as of 2012, they have a bit less than two-thirds of the overall born-born population. That's a big change. In 1990, they had 73% of the born-born population. And if we go back another 10 years, they had 80% of the born-born population. So what's happening? If we look at percent growth of the born-born population, the top 10 states in percentage growth, some of these are from small bases in 1990s. In the southeast, Georgia, North Carolina, or North England's, Nebraska, which is largely people moving here to do new packing just in the week, Utah and Nevada, the next fastest growing states are, again, spread out across the middle of the country. And almost every state in the southeast shows up here, and most of it in the west and the mountain west. So what we've seen is a lot of the growth is occurring out in these areas. This is the unauthorized. This is the one way to look at it. This is what share of the unauthorized immigrants live in California who went to 42% in 1990 or 23% in 2007. And part of its immigrants moving away, unauthorized immigrants moving away from California, but the numbers are still growing. It's just not as many going to California. Well, where are they going? They're not going in large numbers to any of these traditional states. The share state pretty level for most of these states went up a little bit. It's the rest of the country. The numbers went from 20% outside these six states to almost 40%. And more importantly, it went from 700,000 to almost seven times as many. And this is when the debate about what to do about unauthorized immigrants becomes national. It is in this period right here. And seven times as many unauthorized immigrants in these states as they used to be. In some states it's even larger. That's largely stopped. That's spread. That's largely stopped. And the number hasn't changed very much. But again, the grown up here fueled the debate and there's been nothing to kind of stop the debate even though the trends have stopped. This is what share of the immigrants in the state are unauthorized. And the very darkest is a third to have. And in my sense is in a lot of places there's a tendency to equate the immigration issue with immigrants with unauthorized immigrants. And in a lot of places, there's some basis for that in the data. So in places in the Southeast almost half of the immigrants in these states are unauthorized immigrants. And most of the unauthorized immigrants even in places like Georgia and North Carolina are Mexican unauthorized immigrants who fueled this dispersal. So this is a case where the data give you an insight into why something might be happening instead of this perception. Just to end up here, what are the immigrants doing? Well, there's about 8 million unauthorized immigrants in our workforce that represent a little bit over 5%. It's not a big share, but it's not small either. And 8 million is not a small number. In some places, notably California, Texas, Nevada and New Jersey, we're talking about 9 or 10% of the workforce as unauthorized immigrants. And my sense is that it's not as big an issue in California as it is nationally. I'm not sure about Texas, but I don't think it's a big issue in New Jersey. Some of the places where unauthorized immigration is a very big issue, Oklahoma, Alabama, Pennsylvania, where they passed restrictive laws in various communities. Those places where unauthorized immigrants were a way below average presence in the workforce. So the reality of the presence of unauthorized immigrants and the reaction to it can be a bit disconnected. Schools is another place where there's a lot of focus on children of unauthorized immigrants. They represent here about 1 in 15 of K-12 students. But most of these are U.S. citizen children. Less than 2% of the school children are unauthorized immigrants themselves. Another 5% are children of unauthorized immigrants. That, again, varies quite a bit. In these five states here, the numbers are pretty big in terms of share of students where children are unauthorized immigrants. 13% of Texas is as high as 18% in Arizona and 15% in California. Again, in a lot of these places in the Southeast, the shares are not very high, but it's a political issue there. So we've had a big shift in the nature of unauthorized immigration. We haven't had very much shift in the nature of legal immigration. We've continued to get a lot of immigrants. What are we likely to see? The short answer is I have no idea. And the sub-answer to that is I have to figure something out. I'm supposed to do some population projections from my job next year. The big unknown in those population projections is what is immigration going to be in the future. And I haven't figured that out yet, so I don't know. When I do them, you'll see what I think. And I will say the last time I did population projections, I was quite wrong. I did them in about 2005. And right up, I argue very strongly that we've seen a kind of steady but slow increase in the levels of immigration growing about the same rate as the population about one percent a year over the last 30 years. And there's every reason to think that will continue. And so my population projections showed steady increases in immigration after 2010. That wasn't wrong to what it was. So I'm not sure what this means. The inflows are way down. It seems to be a response to the economy. There's a tendency on the part of the administration and this one and the previous one to say they're doing a better job of enforcing laws and enforcing the border and that's cutting down the flows. I have to say I don't know whether that's true or not. It hasn't really been tested in the sense that the economy, the state of the economy seems to me to be what's driven down the flows. Now we've put a lot of effort into enforcement. I think at the point where I'm assuming the economy is going to turn around at some point completely and it's started to fill in. And we may then have to, that may test our enforcement capacity. Interior laws that have been passed by states and localities are designed to make life risky and unpleasant for unauthorized immigrants. Doesn't seem to have driven a lot of people away. Some people left, a lot of people left between 2007 and 2009. But since then we haven't seen very large outflows than matching the inflows. Yes, life is risky and unpleasant but it's not driving people away yet. There's some changes going on in Mexico that I didn't talk much about. Mexican fertility is a fascinating topic. In 1970, the fertility rate in Mexico was close to seven children per woman. It recently was 1970. By 2000 that had dropped to about 2.4 children per woman and it's gone down a little bit since. It's only a little higher in Mexico than in the U.S. Mexicans in the U.S. have higher fertility than Mexico and Mexican Americans in the U.S. have slightly higher fertility than Mexico. Mexico's fertility is very low for Mexico. It took a long time for that to have a big impact on how many births there were but in the mid-90s they started having fewer births every year. Not just lower fertility rates but fewer births. Those folks are entering the workforce now so they're not getting the same kind of growing demographic pressure to create jobs. They're still not creating enough jobs but the demographic pressure is lessened. The factor that I think is an interesting one and I hope there are people looking into this as researchers is that we're going through a fairly long period here where Mexicans aren't coming to the United States. This migration to the U.S. is in some parts of Mexico really in a sense built into the culture. It's what young men especially do when they reach maturity as they go to the U.S. They don't always stay here but they go to the U.S. And a lot of the migration is driven by network connections of families in Mexico with families in the U.S. What happens if you go through 5, 10, 15 years where flows have dropped completely? Does that change the culture in Mexico? Does it break the networks? It may well mean that in a lot of parts of Mexico in my sense is the first place people look when they think they have to leave home to go when their living is to the U.S. Maybe the first place they'll live now is the big city nearby in Mexico City. Whether that's a real change or not I think is something that we'll have to observe as we go forward. And like I said, I hope people are looking into it. The key features of the unauthorized population as it intersects with what to do about it and this isn't the policy prescription. This is some issues that arise out of the data. First is that we're not talking about individuals by and large. We're talking about families and how our immigration policies affect families. There are some former colleagues of mine who are looking at what's happening to children when their parents are recorded. So this is an area that is under discussed in my opinion and is under emphasized in thinking about policies around specifically unauthorized immigration. A lot of the flows are driven by networks, connections between sending areas and receiving areas. A lot of the flows into the new areas where a pioneer migrant went to some town in Indiana in the late 1980s and his cousins came and then their friends came and pretty soon you have these flows from specific places in Mexico to specific places in the U.S. and as I talked about the culture in a lot of places is re-emphasizing these. How is that going to work going forward? We don't know. The big thing here is, and this is clearly discussed, is that we're talking about a lot of people. We're talking about more than 11 million unauthorized immigrants, 16, maybe 17 million people in their families. That's a large number of people who might be affected. It also means if there's a program to legalize people, it's a lot of work. It was, in many ways, overwhelmed the old INS back in the 80s when they legalized 2.6 million people, processed about 3 million applications. We're talking about 4 times that many people. So it's a lot of people. In the 1980s, it was large concentrations in half a dozen states, and even in those states. Yes, Illinois is there, but it wasn't Illinois. It was Chicago. Yes, Florida is there, but it wasn't Florida. It was Miami. Now, with the dispersal, there are large numbers spread out around the country. So the logistics of what to do about this are going to be very difficult, should anything ever pass, but it's part of what goes into it. So, with that, I thank you. And I know there's not, there's no quiz. There's no quiz, so it's okay. Well, we have a lot of time to attend questions, so do you have any questions? Yes. In the demographic literature office, there's been a lot of discussion of these new transformation hotspots coming over the last 10 years. Is there any sort of linear review that the rate of growth in the immigrant population is slowing down in those places, or is it the more traditional ones where it's slowing down? No, it's, you know, it's slowed down in kind of across the board. And especially in some of the new, and I haven't looked carefully at it, it's an interesting question. The growth rates may have slowed more in the new destination because so much of that growth was fueled by an authorized immigration and that's, the group is not coming anymore. So the legal immigrants are still coming and they may be going under a bit more to the traditional areas, but even then, they just spread out. Yeah, I was wondering if you had any data about an authorized immigrant who are also in the queue to become legal immigrants, and nobody looked at the State Department to see dates, so what could the Philippines and Mexico... Yeah, I don't. There's a group, there's some... and it's more more than data, but there's of this 11, 12 million that we're talking about, there are a couple of fairly big groups that are not going to be deported, let's put it that way. One is that there are people with temporary protected status which allows them to stay in the country temporarily, let's put that in quotes, because they keep renewing a lot of these places. And that's been the case for Central America and the South Africans. And then there's people who have applied for various legal statuses and are waiting and they're not, technically, they're not likely to be deported under any circumstances either. And the thought is that there is much as maybe 10% of this unauthorized population, but there's a good deal of uncertainty. And the way I make these estimates, I basically compare an estimate of how many people are in the country legally with the temporary and permanent admission to the foreign-born total numbers from the surveys. And most of the few other people who are doing estimates are doing variations of this. And I think we've all concluded that if we knew that number, we'd probably put them into the legal population rather than the unauthorized the number you're asking about. But my guess is it's not millions, it's hundreds of thousands, but it's not small. Yeah? The Asian migration, how much is characterized and prepared than education? The Asian immigrants tend to be very highly educated. Most of the Asian immigrants, the Chinese, the Indians, are mostly authorized? Yes. In the case of Mexico, we were in a period where 80% were unauthorized, but changed a lot. But in the case of the Asian countries, it tends to be on the order of 10% or 15% of the total numbers. And to a very great extent from what we can tell, there are people who are overstaying legal visas. So they're coming, a lot of them are coming on work visas and just staying. Some of them are coming on tourist visas and just staying. But it's largely, and again, from what we can tell, they don't have great data on it, but it is. The overall Asian migration is very highly educated. They have the highest incomes. I don't know if any Asian Indians have the highest income of any group, and they're largely immigrants, not native born. A very, very high percentage. Not only have college degrees but have advanced degrees. And the kind of spillover into the unauthorized population is people that have similar characteristics or maybe not as highly educated, but they tend to be educated. So yeah, I mean, there are, when we looked at it, I didn't talk about the education distribution of the unauthorized population, but there are people with bachelor's and higher degrees in the unauthorized population. How big of an impact do you think the security in Mexico has had on the government as immigrants from Mexico? And I'm assuming that many of the unauthorized Central Americans are crossing through Mexico. So if their numbers are increasing a little, I would assume from the numbers that the level of security in Mexico has not deterred them. So do you think it has had an impact in Mexicans on Mexico? It's hard to separate out these factors because at this point they're kind of all pushing in the same direction. I'm not concrete enough to kind of nutrition to figure out how to separate it. But I think you look at Mexico and it's clearly gotten more difficult to get in. We have data from the Mexican migration project on what it costs to hire a smuggler and the people have to navigate the violence in northern Mexico. And I think that we couple all of that with the prospects of not being able to find a job and pay back this cost. It's not surprising that people aren't coming. But I think it's only one of a number of factors in the case of Mexico. The Central Americans the situation there seems to be a little bit more difficult than desperate these days. And the other thing is the Mexican economy has been doing a little bit better the last couple of years. But the Central American economies haven't been and I guess it's not enough where people get desperate they come. I didn't show this here but in the last year a number of apprehensions were going to the border of Central Americans between 2011 and 2012. I mean it went from 50,000 to 100,000 but it's not a huge number but it's still not a small number either and that does suggest to some degree that people are coming. And Mexico has some new immigration laws some protections for transit migrants now that they didn't before. This is a law passed about a year and a half ago and one of your colleagues here was instrumental in getting a law passed in Mexico and he knows a lot more about it than I do so I should ask him. Do you see increasing patterns of higher education in the Mexican migrants? It's still not high levels of education but it's increasing. I mean educational levels in Mexico have been increasing and that's reflected in the migrants who come and the migrants who come are on average slightly better educated than the average Mexican but again the differences aren't great and by U.S. standards the education levels are still quite low but they're a bit higher than they were say 10, 15, 20 years ago. No I was just going to ask a little bit about your projections. Do you ever look at other economies particularly like the global south and the economies are increasingly getting better and we're seeing it have an impact obviously on migration do you take that into consideration when you think about projections? There's the short answer is not really and not enough if you look at immigration projections and the Center for Strategic and International Studies did kind of review potential methodologies and things almost nobody really looks at those factors partly because talking about a huge effort to get a single number that may not be very different and you not only have to if you're going to do that sort of thing you not only have to look at migration in the U.S. you have to look at alternative destinations and you've got to look at a matrix of country by country flows and there's been a little bit of recent work that's focusing more on well moving back up traditionally what the U.S. has done people in the U.S. people in the Census Bureau is they've really done extrapolations and they're extrapolations based almost entirely on U.S. data and that's not very satisfying intellectually recently the Census Bureau projections looked at the rate at which people are moving to the U.S. in various regions of the world so they're looking at historic data on how many people came from Europe for the population of Europe how many people came from different regions compared to the population in those regions and based their projections on those sorts of but there wasn't a lot of economic or econometric modeling underneath that and you know it's difficult to do and I'm not sure I'm going to be able to do that I'm going to try to think about it and the other piece of this is that as I said last night there's really no shortage of potential migrants in the world to come to the U.S. the real question is will they be able to get here because there are a lot of regions that I think people would like to come to the U.S. but it's hard to get here from China it's hard to get here from Africa but a lot of people would like to come the question is is there going to be a mechanism for them to come I see the trends around Central Americans coming in particularly a lot higher but also because in Mexico they also have a lot of first transit program legislation that's kind of just set up to and obviously Central American economies are doing as well as the Mexican economy even though there's still many people trying to get here but there's still there's not a lot of Central Americans in the close they're not even significant but those countries aren't very big to the great do you have a final question that anyone wants to ask do you find a significance in European uprising or like the European immigrants coming over or have they kind of plateaued and now we're seeing it from Central and South America oh yeah no we get very opinionated immigrants from Europe and a lot of the migration that a lot of the the turmoil and the migrants who might come to the US often end up going to other places in Europe because it's easier to do and in some cases it's not even migration if it's one of the countries that's part of the European Union they can just literally they don't have to migrate per se but no we're not getting a lot from say the caucuses or places like that it's more than we used to but not the huge numbers and on the handout is my email, my phone numbers if you have questions or want data, feel free to shoot me an email as I said at the very beginning the mission of the few research centers is to provide data and information so answering questions and answering emails is my job so if I can help you with any of that please feel free to contact me and thank you very much