Skip to main content
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Int Migr Rev. 2013 Feb 15;47(2):296–329. doi: 10.1111/imre.12022

Unauthorized Immigration to the United States: Annual Estimates and Components of Change, by State, 1990 to 2010

Robert Warren 1, John Robert Warren 2
PMCID: PMC3744247  NIHMSID: NIHMS468176  PMID: 23956482

Abstract

We describe a method for producing annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United Sates and components of population change, for each state and D.C., for 1990 to 2010. We quantify a sharp drop in the number of unauthorized immigrants arriving since 2000, and we demonstrate the role of departures from the population (emigration, adjustment to legal status, removal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and deaths) in reducing population growth from one million in 2000 to population losses in 2008 and 2009. The number arriving in the U.S. peaked at more than one million in 1999 to 2001, and then declined rapidly through 2009. We provide evidence that population growth stopped after 2007 primarily because entries declined and not because emigration increased during the economic crisis. Our estimates of the total unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S. and in the top ten states are comparable to those produced by DHS and the Pew Hispanic Center. For the remaining states and D.C., our data and methods produce estimates with smaller ranges of sampling error.


Few demographic estimates diverge as widely as do those pertaining to the size of America’s unauthorized immigrant population. Highly publicized estimates of the total number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. in recent years range from 10.8 million (Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011) to 13 million (Martin and Ruark 2011) to 20 million (Elbel 2007; Justich and Ng 2005).1 Likewise, recent estimates of the gross annual number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. range from 300,000 (Passel and Cohn 2010) to a million (Smith 2011)2. Few other demographic estimates diverge as widely or receive so much public attention.

One reason that these diverging demographic estimates generate so much public attention is that they inform any number of contentious public policy discussions at the national and state levels. Should the U.S. grant amnesty to unauthorized immigrant workers? Should we support unauthorized immigrants who came to the U.S. as small children if they wish to attend college or serve in the U.S. armed forces? Should we do more to enforce immigration laws, particularly along the U.S.-Mexico border? Answers to these questions depend in part on the size of the unauthorized immigrant population—at both the national and state levels—and/or on the number of unauthorized immigrants who enter and leave the country each year. Disagreement about those numbers fuels disagreement on these and other contentious policy matters.

Beyond these several policy considerations, estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are also relevant for academic and applied research on the changing composition and characteristics of the U.S. population. What are the economic costs to native-born workers of unauthorized immigration? How many children should a public school district expect to serve in coming years? How has the racial/ethnic composition of America changed in recent years, and what are the social and economic implications of those changes? How can city planning offices effectively forecast demand on local government services? What are the social and economic predictors of the size and character of migration streams across international borders? The answers to these sorts of questions also depend on demographic estimates of the size of America’s unauthorized immigrant population.

Although one particular estimate—the total number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S.—generates the most attention, there are important policy and research questions that require more detailed and disaggregated estimates. For example, we believe that it is just as important to understand net annual change in the size of that population, as well as the components of that change. This requires information about how many unauthorized immigrants enter the U.S. each year and how many depart via removal by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), voluntary emigration, or death. It is also important to understand where unauthorized immigrants come from, what their destination states are, and how these patterns have changed over time. In this article, we describe a method for producing reliable annual estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population and of the components of change in the size of that population, all disaggregated by state. Our methods improve upon other available estimates, provide more useful levels of statistical disaggregation, and can be replicated going forward at the national and state levels.

Our estimate of the total size of the unauthorized immigrant population in the United States—11.7 million as of January 2010—does not differ markedly from other recent estimates using similar data and methods (e.g., Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011; Passel and Cohn 2011). However, our estimates allow unique assessments of trends over time in the size of that population and of the component processes generating those trends. For example, we demonstrate below that the declining size of the unauthorized immigrant population in recent years has occurred not just because of rapidly declining inflows (i.e., immigrants entering without inspection or overstaying their visas) but also because the number departing from the population is large and increasing. What is more, we demonstrate important heterogeneity across states in these patterns. Finally, as we explain below, our estimates are subject to less sampling error than other recently published estimates.

Review and Critique of Early Estimates

Early estimates of the number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the U.S. were based on strong assumptions and the creative use of very limited data (for reviews, see Donato and Armenta 2011; Espenshade 1995; Siegel, Passel and Robinson 1980). For example, Robinson (1980) began with the estimated number of foreign-born Latinos counted in the 1950 through 1970 decennial censuses and a 1975 intercensal enumeration; used age-specific mortality rates to compute the expected numbers of deaths that should have been observed in various geographic areas; compared those expected numbers of deaths to the actual numbers of deaths records in the vital statistics system; and assumed that the difference between those figures represented the number of unauthorized (Latino) immigrants. As the author notes, this procedure relies on the now discredited assumption that few unauthorized immigrants are counted in federal censuses and the assumption that most of their deaths are reflected in the vital statistics system. Another example: Bean et al. (1983) based their estimates of the number of unauthorized Mexican immigrants on sex ratios observed in the 1980 Mexican census and on assumptions about the gender composition of those immigrants, the sex ratio at birth of Mexican babies, and the undercount of men in the Mexican census. See Bos (1984) and Hill (1985) for a discussion of the methodological challenges faced in many of these pioneering efforts.

Early estimates of the number of unauthorized immigrants entering the U.S. also relied on the use of limited data and on important assumptions (Espenshade 1995; Frisbie 1975; Heer 1979). For example, a number of observers have estimated the probability that an undocumented migrant is apprehended along the U.S.-Mexico border and then combined that with data on the annual number of such apprehensions to produce an estimate of the annual gross flow of undocumented migrants from Mexico (e.g., Espenshade 1990; Massey and Singer 1995). The quality of such estimates depends on the questionable accuracy of apprehension probabilities; in any case, these estimates have been produced only episodically and then only for Mexico.

Review of Recent Estimates

In recent years, virtually all systematic estimates have been based on some form of the residual method3 , a variant of capture-recapture and dual system estimation procedures used in demography and elsewhere (e.g., Sekar and Deming 1949; Shryock, Siegel and Associates 1973). In general, this method involves comparing the total number of foreign-born people to the number of authorized immigrants. The difference between these figures (perhaps after some adjustments) is an estimate of the number of unauthorized immigrants. As reviewed by Bos (1984), Hill (1985), and Passel (1986), estimates based on the residual method are sensitive to how “authorized” and “unauthorized” immigrants are defined and counted. Some foreign-born people—such as students or tourists who overstay their visas—were authorized to enter the U.S. upon arrival, but should not necessarily be counted as authorized immigrants. Others—such as asylees and parolees who have work authorization but who have not adjusted to permanent resident status and aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions—may have entered the U.S. without authorization, but should not necessarily be classified as unauthorized immigrants.

Lancaster and Scheuren (1977) were among the first to use the residual method to estimate the number of unauthorized immigrants residing in the United States. They began with an estimate of the size of the total civilian non-institutionalized adult population based on matched March 1973 Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative record data (80.2 million), subtracted from that an estimate of the size of the legal civilian non-institutionalized adult population based on adjusted 1970 Census data (76.3 million), and arrived at an estimate of the number of illegal immigrant adults in April 1973 (3.9 million). More recently, Warren and Passel (1987) and Passel and Woodrow (1984) estimated the number of unauthorized immigrants counted in the 1980 Census (2.06 million) by comparing the non-naturalized foreign-born population in the 1980 Census (7.44 million) to the non-naturalized legally resident immigrant population at the time of the 1980 Census (5.38 million). Using similar methods, Woodrow and Passel (1990) used 1986 and 1988 CPS data to show that the number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. declined precipitously (from 3.16 million to 1.91 million) after IRCA. Likewise, Warren (2003) used residual methods to estimate that about 7 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the U.S. in January 2000.

The residual method has also been used to estimate the annual number of unauthorized immigrants entering (and remaining) in the U.S. and the annual net change in the size of that population. These figures are based on (1) the estimated total number of unauthorized immigrants after disaggregating by year of entry; (2) information from administrative records on annual numbers of legal entrants and removals (e.g., U.S. Department of Homeland Security 2010); and (3) estimated mortality and emigration rates (e.g., Van Hook and Zhang 2011). For example, Woodrow and Passel (1990) used this method to conclude that the average annual net increase in the number of unauthorized immigrants was almost unchanged in the two years after IRCA (246,000 per year) compared to the years immediately before it (218,000 per year).

Two ongoing sets of published reports provide estimates of the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population. Both are based on the residual method. However, despite their conceptual and technical similarities, each is limited in important ways. Both have methodological limitations, but more importantly, neither provides adequately disaggregated estimates. A central goal of the current article is to overcome these limitations and to provide estimates that are more useful for applied and academic purposes.

First, since 2005, Passel, Cohn and colleagues at the Pew Hispanic Center (hereafter, Pew) have issued reports on the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population (e.g., Passel 2005; Passel and Cohn 2009; Passel and Cohn 2011). Their estimates begin with the total number of foreign-born people residing in the U.S. as reflected in the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the March Current Population Survey (CPS). They subtract from that figure the estimated number of legal residents based on data collected by DHS and other government agencies; for their purposes, these include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, refugees, asylees and parolees; and legal temporary residents (e.g., students and workers in some high technology industries). Some of their reports include estimates of annual net change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population (Passel and Cohn 2008; Passel and Cohn 2010). The Pew estimates are typically disaggregated by state of residence, geographic regions of origin, and five-year periods of entry.

Second, in recent years the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics (OIS) has also issued reports on the size and characteristics of the unauthorized immigrant population (e.g., Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011; Hoefer, Rytina and Campbell 2006). Their estimates begin with the total number of foreign-born people residing in the U.S. as reflected in the annual American Community Survey (ACS). Like the Pew estimates, they subtract from that figure the estimated number of legal residents based on data collected by DHS and other government agencies; these include naturalized citizens, legal permanent residents, asylees, refugees, and nonimmigrants (e.g., students and temporary workers). The OIS estimates are typically disaggregated by state of residence, region and country of origin, and period of entry. These reports have typically included a statement about the average annual net change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population over a period of several years.

The Pew and OIS estimates are similar at the national level and for larger states. For example, their estimates of the total size of the unauthorized immigrant population in early 2010 were 11.2 million and 10.8 million, respectively (Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011; Passel and Cohn 2011). Both estimated that California was home to 2.6 million unauthorized immigrants.

Critique of Recent Estimates

The Pew and OIS estimates are based on methods that, in significant aspects, are similar to our own, and they are useful for a number of academic and policy applications. However, in some important areas – estimates for states with relatively smaller populations, analysis of long-term trends for every state, and estimates derived separately for arrivals and departures — our estimates should prove to be more useful. Below we review four conceptual and technical differences between those estimates and ours.

First, neither the Pew nor the OIS reports routinely disaggregate annual net change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population into its component parts: inflows and outflows. Net change is a function of people entering that population (mainly via “entering without inspection” or overstaying temporary visas) and leaving that population (via removal by DHS, death, adjusting to authorized status, or voluntary emigration). Both Pew and OIS report annual net change, and in some reports, Pew describes total inflows for selected years (e.g., Passel and Cohn 2010: iii). However, there is a considerable amount of policy and research interest in the components of entry and exit from the population of authorized immigrants. How many unauthorized immigrants enter the U.S. each year, either by “entering without inspection” or by overstaying a student, tourist, or other temporary visa? How many unauthorized residents are removed by DHS? How many simply leave voluntarily? How many adjust to lawful status? Without access to disaggregated components of change of this sort, it becomes difficult to interpret net change in the total size of the unauthorized immigrant population. For example, Pew and OIS each reported that the size of that population declined between 2008 and 2009, by 500,000 (Passel and Cohn 2011) and 800,000 (Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011), respectively. Did this decline happen mainly because fewer people entered the country without authorization, because fewer people who were admitted temporarily overstayed their visas, because of a growing numbers of removals by DHS, or because of increasing rates of emigration? Likewise, what are the relative contributions of these components of change to the increase in the overall size of the unauthorized immigrant population in earlier years? The Pew and OIS reports provide very limited evidence regarding these questions, despite their fundamental importance for policy and research purposes.

Second, like OIS, we use data from the American Community Survey; the Pew estimates are based on data from the CPS. The relatively small size of the CPS sample—even when expanded somewhat for the March supplement—yields substantially larger ranges of sampling error in the Pew estimates. For example, the 90% confidence interval for Pew’s CPS-based estimate of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population in 2010 was 11.2 million ± 500,000 (Passel and Cohn 2011: Table 2). In contrast, the 90% confidence interval for the parallel OIS figure—based on the ACS, which includes 30 times as many observations as the CPS—was 10.8 million ± 149,000 (Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011: 2). This uncertainty in the CPS-based estimates leads the authors of the Pew reports to aggregate data in a way that obscures potentially important detail. For example, the authors sometimes aggregate across states (as described below) and combine countries of origin in their reports such that all unauthorized immigrants are classified as originating from (1) Mexico, (2) other Latin American countries, (3) Asia, (4) Europe or Canada, or (5) elsewhere. Statistical uncertainty with CPS-based estimates also leads to problems with statistical power when analyzing trends over time. For instance, the authors of the Pew reports describe the decline in the number of unauthorized immigrants between 2007 (12.0 million) and 2009 (11.1 million). This decline of nearly one million was not statistically significantly different from zero (Passel and Cohn 2011: Table 2).

Table 2.

Annual Estimates of the Foreign-born Population Residing in the United States, by Legal Status and Year of Entry: 1990 to 1999

Foreign-born Population in
January 2000
Unauthorized
Immigrant
Population in
January 2000
Left the Unauthorized Immigrant Population
(via Emigration, Removal by DHS
Adjustment to Lawful Status, or Death)
Year of
Entry
Total
(2000 Census)
Legally Resident Unauthorized Undercount 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 Entry
cohorts

(1) (2) (3)=
(1)-(2)
(4) (5)=
3+41
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)=
Σ(5–15)1
Total 12,590 6,851 5,741 609 8,600 358 338 311 284 251 233 229 220 197 181
1999 1,868 824 979 127 1,106 26 - - - - - - - - - 1,132
1998 1,463 680 793 97 889 44 20 - - - - - - - - 954
1997 1,229 670 604 70 674 31 37 16 - - - - - - - 759
1996 1,171 655 582 63 646 27 31 36 15 - - - - - - 756
1995 1,371 634 617 63 680 27 30 33 35 16 - - - - - 822
1994 1,155 678 505 49 554 23 25 27 27 30 14 - - - - 700
1993 1,033 704 381 35 416 18 20 21 22 22 25 12 - - - 557
1992 1,094 705 368 32 400 17 19 21 21 21 22 25 12 - - 559
1991 988 625 415 34 449 20 21 22 23 23 24 25 28 15 - 649
1990 1,219 677 498 39 536 31 30 27 27 27 27 29 31 33 18 816

Pre`90 - - - - 2,250 94 103 107 113 112 121 138 149 149 163 3,500

All numbers in thousands, and rounded independently.

1

Except for the shaded area

Third, neither the Pew nor the OIS figures are disaggregated fully and reliably by state. The OIS reports provide estimates of the size of unauthorized immigrant population only in the 10 states with the largest such populations (e.g., Hoefer, Rytina and Baker 2011: Table 4). Over time, the Pew reports have employed different methods to produce state estimates. In some years, they have used residual methods to directly generate estimates of the size of unauthorized immigrant population only in the several states with the largest such populations. For the remaining states, they have employed some form of averaging across states and/or regression-based estimates. In all years, and even after averaging across multiple years, the Pew estimates for states have wide margins of error; again, this is a function of the relatively small sample sizes in the March CPS. For example, even after averaging across multiple years of CPS data, their 90% confidence interval for the number of unauthorized immigrants in Alabama in 2010 ranged from 75,000 to 160,000 (Passel and Cohn 2011: Table A3).

Table 4.

Sensitivity of Estimates of the Size of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in 2010 to Different Assumptions about Emigration and Undercount Rates

Effects of changing emigration rates by + or − 25%
Increase rates by 25% Reduce rates by 25%
Number Percent Number Percent
Unauthorized Immigrants −403 −3.40% 431 3.70%
Authorized Immigrants 375 3.20% −383 −3.30%

Effects of changing undercount rates by + or − 25%

Increase rates by 25% Reduce rates by 25%
Number Percent Number Percent
Unauthorized Immigrants 356 3.00% −332 −2.80%
Authorized Immigrants 172 1.50% −159 −1.40%

All numbers in thousands, and rounded independently.

Table A3.

Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population and Annual Components of Population Change, by State: 1990 to 2010

Left Population
Population
on Jan. 1
Net
Change
Entered
Pop.
Total
Left Pop.
Emigrated Adjusted Removed Died
UNITED STATES
  1990 3,500,000 634,935 815,876 180,941 102,648 37,883 25,369 15,041
  1991 4,134,935 451,657 648,602 196,945 115,922 35,290 28,568 17,165
  1992 4,586,592 338,842 558,601 219,759 124,179 42,925 33,921 18,735
  1993 4,925,434 327,496 556,605 229,109 130,175 44,870 34,023 20,041
  1994 5,252,930 467,096 700,030 232,934 138,038 38,392 34,921 21,582
  1995 5,720,026 570,626 821,533 250,907 149,624 41,900 35,765 23,618
  1996 6,290,652 472,185 755,784 283,599 161,052 55,428 41,426 25,693
  1997 6,762,838 447,625 758,703 311,078 170,283 54,319 58,954 27,522
  1998 7,210,462 616,057 953,591 337,534 181,664 61,448 64,797 29,626
  1999 7,826,519 773,482 1,131,520 358,038 197,808 60,393 65,287 34,551
  2000 8,600,005 1,020,484 1,389,322 368,838 197,784 72,621 65,279 33,154
  2001 9,620,489 638,197 1,145,813 507,616 223,171 176,169 71,191 37,085
  2002 10,258,686 433,517 906,295 472,778 237,468 114,927 80,836 39,546
  2003 10,692,203 285,752 779,187 493,435 244,470 119,709 88,033 41,223
  2004 10,977,956 338,847 812,516 473,669 246,684 84,288 100,363 42,333
  2005 11,316,803 397,498 873,134 475,636 250,187 79,037 102,764 43,648
  2006 11,714,302 266,996 749,421 482,425 255,867 64,200 117,171 45,187
  2007 11,981,297 27,212 558,276 531,064 257,585 94,064 133,190 46,225
  2008 12,008,509 (109,690) 439,496 549,186 252,281 100,485 150,079 46,341
  2009 11,898,820 (173,804) 384,314 558,118 243,319 104,029 164,839 45,931
  2010 11,725,016
ALABAMA
  1990 5,000 1,723 2,010 287 160 88 16 23
  1991 6,723 1,231 1,533 302 200 62 11 29
  1992 7,954 848 1,162 314 225 46 10 33
  1993 8,802 964 1,321 357 245 52 24 36
  1994 9,766 1,640 2,000 360 277 24 18 41
  1995 11,407 2,029 2,472 443 324 43 27 49
  1996 13,435 2,344 2,830 486 380 42 6 57
  1997 15,780 3,322 3,931 609 456 38 47 68
  1998 19,101 4,766 5,546 780 568 104 25 84
  1999 23,867 5,471 6,436 965 709 108 31 117
  2000 29,339 9,987 11,042 1,055 747 162 32 113
  2001 39,326 8,730 10,235 1,505 1,023 273 58 151
  2002 48,056 5,871 7,578 1,707 1,251 218 52 185
  2003 53,927 3,824 5,678 1,854 1,381 210 55 208
  2004 57,751 5,417 7,315 1,898 1,442 169 65 222
  2005 63,168 8,603 10,691 2,088 1,550 228 66 243
  2006 71,771 7,966 10,277 2,311 1,753 205 77 276
  2007 79,737 4,992 7,588 2,596 1,926 276 87 307
  2008 84,729 5,039 7,772 2,733 2,000 311 95 327
  2009 89,768 5,679 8,539 2,860 2,076 333 105 346
  2010 95,448
ALASKA
  1990 2,500 563 821 258 77 71 99 11
  1991 3,063 485 819 334 93 65 163 13
  1992 3,548 390 715 325 104 41 166 15
  1993 3,938 205 612 407 111 26 254 16
  1994 4,142 191 511 320 113 17 172 17
  1995 4,334 95 401 306 114 16 158 17
  1996 4,429 (55) 267 322 111 15 178 18
  1997 4,374 (44) 268 312 106 14 174 17
  1998 4,330 (14) 363 377 103 57 199 17
  1999 4,316 101 500 399 103 102 175 19
  2000 4,415 (90) 226 316 97 48 154 17
  2001 4,325 (146) 202 348 92 100 140 17
  2002 4,179 (40) 283 323 86 101 120 16
  2003 4,139 140 438 298 84 68 130 16
  2004 4,279 414 704 290 88 38 147 17
  2005 4,693 871 1,186 315 100 44 153 18
  2006 5,565 773 1,140 367 126 47 172 21
  2007 6,338 58 499 441 148 72 197 24
  2008 6,396 (351) 114 465 147 70 224 25
  2009 6,045 (466) 18 484 133 83 244 23
  2010 5,579
ARIZONA
  1990 89,000 17,866 21,791 3,925 2,627 402 512 384
  1991 106,866 14,954 19,643 4,689 3,047 364 829 449
  1992 121,820 15,060 20,546 5,486 3,408 428 1,141 509
  1993 136,880 16,600 22,547 5,947 3,780 510 1,087 570
  1994 153,480 21,980 28,551 6,571 4,251 498 1,176 646
  1995 175,460 25,581 32,874 7,293 4,846 591 1,117 739
  1996 201,041 21,403 29,622 8,219 5,407 632 1,348 831
  1997 222,444 19,390 28,739 9,349 5,855 557 2,025 912
  1998 241,834 25,156 35,049 9,893 6,344 666 1,884 999
  1999 266,990 30,333 41,030 10,697 6,991 879 1,640 1,188
  2000 297,324 19,657 30,278 10,621 7,035 832 1,608 1,146
  2001 316,981 11,836 24,830 12,994 7,386 2,763 1,623 1,222
  2002 328,818 7,210 19,028 11,818 7,516 1,613 1,421 1,268
  2003 336,028 3,222 15,679 12,457 7,492 2,122 1,547 1,296
  2004 339,250 3,783 15,710 11,927 7,354 1,500 1,764 1,309
  2005 343,033 5,064 16,719 11,655 7,242 1,283 1,806 1,324
  2006 348,097 726 12,247 11,521 7,199 919 2,060 1,344
  2007 348,823 (5,167) 7,140 12,307 7,041 1,579 2,341 1,347
  2008 343,656 (4,132) 8,278 12,410 6,720 1,726 2,637 1,327
  2009 339,524 (189) 12,203 12,392 6,455 1,730 2,896 1,312
  2010 339,334
ARKANSAS
  1990 5,000 2,699 2,961 262 176 50 12 25
  1991 7,699 2,298 2,643 345 248 39 24 35
  1992 9,996 1,979 2,396 417 306 53 16 43
  1993 11,975 1,757 2,254 497 353 67 26 50
  1994 13,732 2,218 2,748 530 401 50 21 58
  1995 15,950 2,728 3,351 623 464 57 34 68
  1996 18,678 2,633 3,392 759 531 112 37 78
  1997 21,312 2,544 3,420 876 593 128 67 89
  1998 23,855 3,064 4,005 941 659 79 103 100
  1999 26,920 3,782 4,803 1,021 742 71 86 122
  2000 30,701 7,623 8,824 1,201 750 186 147 118
  2001 38,324 5,885 7,625 1,740 954 512 127 148
  2002 44,209 4,514 6,287 1,773 1,100 359 144 170
  2003 48,722 2,937 4,868 1,931 1,198 389 156 188
  2004 51,659 3,659 5,492 1,833 1,245 210 179 199
  2005 55,318 4,782 6,717 1,935 1,310 229 183 213
  2006 60,100 3,031 5,071 2,040 1,409 191 208 232
  2007 63,131 1,859 4,085 2,226 1,452 292 238 243
  2008 64,991 2,310 4,583 2,273 1,460 294 268 251
  2009 67,301 1,122 3,473 2,351 1,482 315 294 260
  2010 68,423
CALIFORNIA
  1990 1,474,700 198,763 270,902 72,139 42,075 10,423 13,444 6,198
  1991 1,673,463 130,272 206,787 76,515 45,644 9,981 14,049 6,841
  1992 1,803,735 79,485 161,524 82,039 47,243 13,531 14,008 7,257
  1993 1,883,219 66,838 147,877 81,039 47,768 12,920 12,812 7,540
  1994 1,950,057 98,475 179,308 80,833 48,634 10,914 13,425 7,860
  1995 2,048,532 122,701 208,343 85,642 50,439 11,741 15,165 8,297
  1996 2,171,234 95,274 188,109 92,835 52,185 16,214 15,704 8,733
  1997 2,266,508 80,091 181,575 101,484 53,308 19,296 19,790 9,089
  1998 2,346,598 111,591 217,529 105,938 54,703 18,184 23,582 9,469
  1999 2,458,189 142,446 251,574 109,128 57,054 17,083 24,534 10,457
  2000 2,600,636 164,021 276,719 112,698 56,140 22,410 24,115 10,033
  2001 2,764,657 68,580 227,278 158,698 59,918 64,076 24,039 10,665
  2002 2,833,237 49,460 187,733 138,273 61,287 39,567 26,490 10,930
  2003 2,882,696 36,550 177,358 140,808 61,813 39,023 28,851 11,122
  2004 2,919,246 64,106 197,053 132,947 61,900 26,890 32,893 11,264
  2005 2,983,352 88,973 219,122 130,149 62,707 22,258 33,671 11,513
  2006 3,072,325 58,986 190,050 131,064 64,314 16,497 38,396 11,857
  2007 3,131,311 (15,914) 129,948 145,862 64,977 25,153 43,647 12,085
  2008 3,115,398 (73,487) 77,212 150,699 63,441 26,063 49,169 12,026
  2009 3,041,910 (107,510) 43,829 151,339 60,277 25,313 54,003 11,746
  2010 2,934,400
COLORADO
  1990 30,000 11,575 13,066 1,491 978 230 143 141
  1991 41,575 9,277 11,320 2,043 1,273 210 378 182
  1992 50,851 8,660 11,188 2,528 1,511 258 542 217
  1993 59,512 8,220 11,338 3,118 1,725 336 807 251
  1994 67,731 10,770 14,505 3,735 1,968 316 1,162 289
  1995 78,502 13,928 18,491 4,563 2,296 492 1,437 338
  1996 92,430 13,339 18,546 5,207 2,649 506 1,660 391
  1997 105,770 12,076 18,709 6,633 2,973 433 2,784 443
  1998 117,846 16,366 23,665 7,299 3,326 688 2,786 499
  1999 134,211 19,738 28,549 8,811 3,803 696 3,684 627
  2000 153,949 17,146 25,606 8,460 3,826 831 3,209 593
  2001 171,095 10,750 21,416 10,666 4,213 2,097 3,697 659
  2002 181,845 7,989 18,530 10,541 4,411 1,356 4,073 701
  2003 189,834 7,206 18,824 11,618 4,516 1,934 4,436 732
  2004 197,040 7,616 18,867 11,251 4,601 834 5,057 759
  2005 204,656 6,588 17,990 11,402 4,685 752 5,176 789
  2006 211,243 2,856 15,089 12,233 4,744 771 5,903 815
  2007 214,099 (2,565) 10,605 13,170 4,700 935 6,710 826
  2008 211,534 (6,087) 7,896 13,983 4,497 1,110 7,560 816
  2009 205,447 (8,366) 6,066 14,432 4,204 1,131 8,304 793
  2010 197,082
CONNECTICUT
  1990 19,000 4,479 5,778 1,299 579 514 122 84
  1991 23,479 3,015 4,453 1,438 678 499 163 99
  1992 26,494 1,391 3,034 1,643 725 552 258 108
  1993 27,885 1,271 2,951 1,680 744 608 215 113
  1994 29,156 3,523 5,180 1,657 797 531 207 122
  1995 32,679 4,766 6,682 1,916 906 651 220 139
  1996 37,445 3,595 5,712 2,117 1,012 643 307 155
  1997 41,041 4,030 6,222 2,192 1,101 633 288 170
  1998 45,070 6,688 9,342 2,654 1,243 770 450 192
  1999 51,758 8,881 11,820 2,939 1,455 747 492 245
  2000 60,639 20,898 23,770 2,872 1,495 871 273 234
  2001 81,537 14,826 19,357 4,531 2,086 1,639 492 314
  2002 96,363 7,640 12,582 4,942 2,478 1,100 993 371
  2003 104,004 2,063 7,405 5,342 2,632 1,227 1,082 400
  2004 106,066 1,467 6,754 5,287 2,608 1,037 1,233 409
  2005 107,534 3,055 8,253 5,198 2,566 958 1,260 414
  2006 110,589 3,553 8,836 5,283 2,580 836 1,441 426
  2007 114,142 1,680 7,463 5,783 2,611 1,097 1,635 440
  2008 115,822 (2,293) 3,805 6,098 2,585 1,224 1,843 447
  2009 113,528 (4,634) 1,566 6,200 2,440 1,298 2,024 438
  2010 108,894
DELEWARE
  1990 3,000 796 962 166 92 45 16 13
  1991 3,796 680 900 220 113 61 30 16
  1992 4,475 933 1,158 225 134 54 18 19
  1993 5,408 978 1,215 237 159 44 11 23
  1994 6,386 860 1,122 262 182 32 22 27
  1995 7,246 802 1,118 316 201 37 47 30
  1996 8,048 750 1,097 347 218 39 57 33
  1997 8,798 1,037 1,399 362 238 30 57 37
  1998 9,835 1,355 1,852 497 269 72 115 41
  1999 11,190 1,498 2,060 562 305 104 102 51
  2000 12,687 758 1,315 557 309 101 99 49
  2001 13,445 2,276 3,061 785 321 288 124 52
  2002 15,721 2,777 3,531 754 382 199 113 61
  2003 18,498 1,226 2,095 869 454 220 123 71
  2004 19,724 481 1,320 839 477 146 140 76
  2005 20,205 991 1,854 863 476 164 145 78
  2006 21,196 749 1,623 874 492 138 162 82
  2007 21,945 (402) 556 958 499 190 185 85
  2008 21,543 (561) 396 957 471 190 212 83
  2009 20,982 36 983 947 441 197 228 81
  2010 21,018
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
  1990 15,000 1,253 2,081 828 417 224 125 62
  1991 16,253 753 1,548 795 432 218 79 66
  1992 17,005 266 1,105 839 433 251 87 68
  1993 17,271 187 978 791 425 214 84 68
  1994 17,458 279 1,017 738 417 181 71 69
  1995 17,737 395 1,186 791 414 230 75 71
  1996 18,133 314 1,186 872 414 282 104 72
  1997 18,447 294 1,163 869 412 208 176 73
  1998 18,740 696 1,529 833 415 228 115 75
  1999 19,436 1,207 1,991 784 433 191 77 83
  2000 20,644 675 1,526 851 431 276 64 80
  2001 21,319 (37) 1,019 1,056 445 487 42 82
  2002 21,282 (358) 553 911 440 315 74 82
  2003 20,925 (84) 920 1,004 424 419 80 81
  2004 20,841 533 1,325 792 419 202 91 80
  2005 21,374 342 1,132 790 430 183 94 83
  2006 21,716 947 1,748 801 435 174 108 84
  2007 22,663 1,090 1,987 897 458 228 123 87
  2008 23,753 (57) 969 1,026 485 313 136 92
  2009 23,696 (495) 540 1,035 477 317 150 91
  2010 23,201
FLORIDA
  1990 239,000 42,475 53,964 11,489 6,981 2,701 783 1,024
  1991 281,475 35,563 47,736 12,173 7,940 2,383 674 1,175
  1992 317,038 32,900 45,878 12,978 8,712 2,293 663 1,309
  1993 349,939 31,335 45,776 14,441 9,401 2,943 662 1,436
  1994 381,274 39,331 54,538 15,207 10,167 2,750 716 1,573
  1995 420,605 43,491 60,263 16,772 11,107 3,307 621 1,736
  1996 464,096 28,962 48,015 19,053 11,857 4,383 932 1,880
  1997 493,058 22,858 43,460 20,602 12,264 4,670 1,685 1,984
  1998 515,916 41,455 63,281 21,826 12,871 4,884 1,961 2,110
  1999 557,371 62,661 86,497 23,836 14,106 5,267 1,980 2,484
  2000 620,034 106,378 132,276 25,898 14,243 6,824 2,441 2,390
  2001 726,412 75,246 111,110 35,864 17,073 13,318 2,673 2,800
  2002 801,659 56,093 89,847 33,754 18,927 7,800 3,938 3,090
  2003 857,751 39,761 74,928 35,167 20,081 7,490 4,290 3,306
  2004 897,512 36,437 70,840 34,403 20,688 5,365 4,890 3,460
  2005 933,949 37,450 73,525 36,075 21,163 6,307 5,004 3,601
  2006 971,398 22,265 58,450 36,185 21,725 5,004 5,710 3,746
  2007 993,663 (4,830) 36,504 41,334 21,823 9,189 6,489 3,833
  2008 988,833 (1,978) 39,039 41,017 21,122 8,771 7,309 3,815
  2009 986,855 14,316 55,951 41,635 20,527 9,270 8,029 3,809
  2010 1,001,171
GEORGIA
  1990 34,000 18,586 20,411 1,825 1,198 311 145 170
  1991 52,586 14,214 16,438 2,224 1,669 210 111 234
  1992 66,801 13,396 16,029 2,633 2,038 162 145 288
  1993 80,197 15,448 18,488 3,040 2,411 124 161 344
  1994 95,645 20,256 23,895 3,639 2,880 92 253 414
  1995 115,901 23,587 28,072 4,485 3,461 277 247 500
  1996 139,488 21,188 26,424 5,236 4,030 228 391 588
  1997 160,676 21,451 27,664 6,213 4,546 292 704 672
  1998 182,127 30,378 37,741 7,363 5,195 625 769 774
  1999 212,505 38,099 46,895 8,796 6,088 755 953 1,000
  2000 250,604 37,082 46,354 9,272 6,266 1,165 876 965
  2001 287,686 26,855 39,043 12,188 7,146 2,374 1,560 1,108
  2002 314,541 21,983 33,311 11,328 7,703 1,631 782 1,212
  2003 336,524 18,969 30,442 11,473 8,081 1,244 852 1,297
  2004 355,493 18,358 30,192 11,834 8,347 1,146 971 1,370
  2005 373,851 14,904 27,679 12,775 8,590 1,749 994 1,441
  2006 388,755 7,044 19,999 12,955 8,747 1,575 1,133 1,499
  2007 395,800 2,481 16,188 13,707 8,671 2,222 1,287 1,527
  2008 398,281 1,198 14,797 13,599 8,462 2,150 1,450 1,537
  2009 399,479 (2,603) 10,963 13,566 8,227 2,201 1,596 1,542
  2010 396,876
HAWAII
  1990 5,000 1,185 1,740 555 156 366 11 23
  1991 6,185 939 1,484 545 185 232 102 27
  1992 7,123 669 1,406 737 208 133 367 30
  1993 7,792 588 1,167 579 219 73 255 32
  1994 8,380 270 825 555 225 63 233 34
  1995 8,650 156 764 608 225 68 280 35
  1996 8,806 144 866 722 224 129 333 36
  1997 8,950 457 1,244 787 230 94 426 37
  1998 9,407 945 1,738 793 247 255 252 40
  1999 10,352 1,111 1,941 830 275 268 239 47
  2000 11,463 631 1,525 894 273 287 290 44
  2001 12,094 916 1,883 967 286 398 236 47
  2002 13,010 1,114 2,126 1,012 309 350 303 50
  2003 14,124 1,108 2,262 1,154 338 431 330 54
  2004 15,232 655 1,950 1,295 367 494 375 59
  2005 15,887 (199) 907 1,106 383 277 385 61
  2006 15,688 (148) 945 1,093 369 224 439 60
  2007 15,541 194 1,526 1,332 357 416 500 60
  2008 15,734 61 1,407 1,346 357 367 562 61
  2009 15,795 347 1,810 1,463 353 432 617 61
  2010 16,142
IDAHO
  1990 10,000 1,715 2,144 429 290 36 60 43
  1991 11,715 1,590 2,131 541 332 38 122 49
  1992 13,306 1,597 2,228 631 370 47 158 56
  1993 14,903 1,162 2,013 851 403 78 309 61
  1994 16,065 1,144 1,970 826 424 79 257 66
  1995 17,210 1,292 2,198 906 449 124 263 71
  1996 18,502 854 1,886 1,032 469 126 363 75
  1997 19,356 198 1,393 1,195 472 111 535 77
  1998 19,554 557 1,875 1,318 472 195 572 79
  1999 20,110 1,264 2,624 1,360 489 152 631 88
  2000 21,376 4,301 5,652 1,351 477 222 569 82
  2001 25,677 3,207 4,811 1,604 598 379 527 99
  2002 28,885 1,605 3,282 1,677 683 209 674 111
  2003 30,490 865 2,776 1,911 713 346 734 118
  2004 31,355 1,698 3,600 1,902 723 222 836 121
  2005 33,053 2,104 4,034 1,930 758 188 857 127
  2006 35,156 656 2,711 2,055 804 138 977 136
  2007 35,812 (1,152) 1,114 2,266 806 211 1,111 138
  2008 34,660 (1,501) 871 2,372 754 233 1,251 134
  2009 33,159 (1,030) 1,414 2,444 694 246 1,376 128
  2010 32,129
ILLINOIS
  1990 195,000 34,694 44,934 10,240 5,711 1,737 1,955 837
  1991 229,694 24,771 35,616 10,845 6,431 1,687 1,775 953
  1992 254,465 18,564 31,288 12,724 6,891 2,550 2,243 1,040
  1993 273,029 18,761 31,704 12,943 7,229 2,920 1,681 1,113
  1994 291,791 28,444 41,502 13,058 7,718 2,466 1,671 1,204
  1995 320,234 36,187 49,396 13,209 8,458 2,342 1,081 1,329
  1996 356,421 29,321 44,221 14,900 9,197 3,123 1,122 1,458
  1997 385,741 27,323 43,889 16,566 9,780 3,288 1,927 1,571
  1998 413,065 35,508 53,115 17,607 10,443 3,492 1,978 1,694
  1999 448,573 40,150 58,886 18,736 11,288 3,651 1,839 1,957
  2000 488,724 50,219 68,725 18,506 11,242 3,391 1,989 1,884
  2001 538,943 30,313 55,820 25,507 12,428 8,080 2,921 2,078
  2002 569,256 17,847 41,504 23,657 13,039 5,417 3,005 2,195
  2003 587,104 4,549 28,582 24,033 13,227 5,269 3,273 2,264
  2004 591,653 2,811 26,406 23,595 12,995 4,587 3,731 2,282
  2005 594,464 8,972 31,837 22,865 12,721 4,030 3,821 2,294
  2006 603,436 4,162 27,138 22,976 12,682 3,609 4,356 2,329
  2007 607,598 (5,196) 18,581 23,777 12,520 3,961 4,950 2,345
  2008 602,402 (7,618) 16,741 24,359 12,089 4,368 5,576 2,326
  2009 594,784 (10,135) 14,380 24,515 11,628 4,464 6,127 2,297
  2010 584,649
INDIANA
  1990 10,000 4,308 4,895 587 335 161 43 48
  1991 14,308 3,119 3,821 702 440 143 57 62
  1992 17,428 2,468 3,260 792 511 150 58 73
  1993 19,896 2,541 3,458 917 571 205 58 83
  1994 22,437 3,748 4,662 914 648 109 62 95
  1995 26,185 4,545 5,572 1,027 754 126 35 112
  1996 30,729 4,711 5,888 1,177 871 126 50 130
  1997 35,441 6,031 7,368 1,337 1,008 82 97 151
  1998 41,471 8,324 10,125 1,801 1,200 347 74 179
  1999 49,795 10,371 12,505 2,134 1,454 342 98 240
  2000 60,166 10,051 12,222 2,171 1,517 299 123 232
  2001 70,217 7,135 9,990 2,855 1,763 614 208 270
  2002 77,352 5,144 8,261 3,117 1,917 540 362 298
  2003 82,496 3,686 7,022 3,336 2,005 619 394 318
  2004 86,182 5,145 8,287 3,142 2,046 313 451 332
  2005 91,326 6,754 9,988 3,234 2,128 294 461 352
  2006 98,080 3,756 7,266 3,510 2,258 348 526 378
  2007 101,836 1,370 5,085 3,715 2,292 432 598 393
  2008 103,206 2,146 6,000 3,854 2,252 532 672 398
  2009 105,352 2,515 6,416 3,901 2,240 516 739 407
  2010 107,867
IOWA
  1990 5,000 1,406 1,682 276 155 91 8 22
  1991 6,406 867 1,312 445 187 96 134 27
  1992 7,273 644 1,088 444 204 99 111 30
  1993 7,917 876 1,378 502 222 139 108 33
  1994 8,793 1,716 2,196 480 255 92 94 38
  1995 10,509 2,240 2,768 528 309 90 83 46
  1996 12,749 2,388 3,073 685 373 140 118 55
  1997 15,137 2,994 3,760 766 445 130 125 65
  1998 18,131 3,630 4,540 910 535 159 137 79
  1999 21,761 4,284 5,278 994 641 125 123 104
  2000 26,044 4,667 5,871 1,204 665 211 228 100
  2001 30,711 3,489 5,133 1,644 783 434 309 118
  2002 34,200 2,791 4,740 1,949 864 335 618 132
  2003 36,992 2,560 4,737 2,177 921 441 673 142
  2004 39,552 2,665 4,746 2,081 968 192 769 152
  2005 42,216 2,385 4,527 2,142 1,015 177 788 163
  2006 44,601 1,589 3,855 2,266 1,052 146 896 172
  2007 46,190 642 3,129 2,487 1,063 226 1,019 178
  2008 46,833 273 2,907 2,634 1,048 260 1,146 181
  2009 47,106 31 2,768 2,737 1,024 271 1,260 182
  2010 47,137
KANSAS
  1990 13,000 3,338 4,007 669 397 113 101 58
  1991 16,338 2,886 3,760 874 482 108 214 70
  1992 19,224 2,773 3,845 1,072 556 130 305 81
  1993 21,997 2,860 4,044 1,184 625 171 295 92
  1994 24,858 3,982 5,135 1,153 710 124 214 106
  1995 28,839 4,659 5,886 1,227 820 161 123 122
  1996 33,499 3,959 5,507 1,548 928 273 208 140
  1997 37,458 4,310 6,007 1,697 1,025 219 297 156
  1998 41,768 5,655 7,716 2,061 1,150 376 360 176
  1999 47,423 6,615 8,846 2,231 1,305 333 376 217
  2000 54,039 7,392 9,753 2,361 1,322 426 405 208
  2001 61,431 5,295 8,119 2,824 1,501 788 298 237
  2002 66,726 1,482 4,190 2,708 1,613 553 285 257
  2003 68,208 (1,085) 1,788 2,873 1,602 699 309 263
  2004 67,122 (260) 2,254 2,514 1,516 387 353 259
  2005 66,862 1,427 3,870 2,443 1,457 366 363 258
  2006 68,289 2,501 4,917 2,416 1,456 285 411 263
  2007 70,790 1,574 4,220 2,646 1,490 413 469 273
  2008 72,364 1,793 4,620 2,827 1,496 523 529 279
  2009 74,157 3,333 6,218 2,885 1,511 508 580 286
  2010 77,490
KENTUCKY
  1990 4,000 821 1,102 281 120 82 62 18
  1991 4,821 540 943 403 139 84 160 20
  1992 5,361 271 722 451 148 92 188 22
  1993 5,632 67 571 504 150 89 242 23
  1994 5,699 813 1,206 393 159 46 164 24
  1995 6,511 1,493 1,900 407 191 45 142 29
  1996 8,004 1,483 1,892 409 231 57 86 34
  1997 9,487 1,792 2,247 455 275 65 74 41
  1998 11,280 3,166 3,755 589 345 120 73 51
  1999 14,446 4,510 5,195 685 455 88 66 76
  2000 18,956 6,391 7,160 769 495 131 70 73
  2001 25,347 4,790 6,007 1,217 671 362 86 98
  2002 30,137 3,641 4,891 1,250 794 259 82 116
  2003 33,778 1,999 3,400 1,401 875 306 90 130
  2004 35,777 1,048 2,415 1,367 903 223 103 138
  2005 36,825 1,349 2,754 1,405 899 260 105 142
  2006 38,174 2,896 4,282 1,386 906 214 119 147
  2007 41,069 2,938 4,419 1,481 960 226 136 158
  2008 44,008 2,005 3,574 1,569 1,012 235 152 170
  2009 46,013 3,770 5,394 1,624 1,032 248 166 177
  2010 49,782
LOUISIANA
  1990 16,000 2,130 2,943 813 457 212 77 67
  1991 18,130 1,517 2,398 881 497 179 130 74
  1992 19,647 1,209 2,164 955 522 160 193 80
  1993 20,856 831 2,018 1,187 539 153 411 84
  1994 21,687 298 2,262 1,964 551 86 1,239 88
  1995 21,986 499 2,607 2,108 555 98 1,365 90
  1996 22,485 96 2,510 2,414 560 133 1,630 91
  1997 22,581 92 2,829 2,737 562 118 1,965 92
  1998 22,673 422 3,393 2,971 570 181 2,127 94
  1999 23,094 1,136 3,802 2,666 588 188 1,787 104
  2000 24,231 4,909 6,740 1,831 562 254 922 93
  2001 29,140 3,740 5,896 2,156 703 392 949 112
  2002 32,880 2,179 4,411 2,232 804 264 1,037 127
  2003 35,059 1,367 3,746 2,379 853 262 1,129 135
  2004 36,426 2,298 4,789 2,491 875 188 1,287 140
  2005 38,724 4,298 6,880 2,582 925 189 1,318 149
  2006 43,023 4,875 7,742 2,867 1,035 163 1,503 166
  2007 47,898 4,481 7,793 3,312 1,159 261 1,708 185
  2008 52,378 3,849 7,536 3,687 1,266 295 1,925 202
  2009 56,228 1,580 5,593 4,013 1,351 332 2,113 217
  2010 57,808
MAINE
  1990 1,000 20 256 236 30 45 157 4
  1991 1,020 (59) 134 193 28 45 116 4
  1992 961 (18) 118 136 26 39 68 4
  1993 943 0 119 119 25 31 60 4
  1994 943 72 164 92 25 20 43 4
  1995 1,015 79 164 85 27 18 36 4
  1996 1,093 39 131 92 28 21 38 4
  1997 1,132 41 175 134 29 20 79 5
  1998 1,174 117 277 160 32 61 62 5
  1999 1,291 167 338 171 36 65 64 6
  2000 1,457 97 271 174 36 36 97 6
  2001 1,554 12 277 265 39 77 144 6
  2002 1,565 63 282 219 39 66 108 6
  2003 1,628 128 368 240 40 76 117 6
  2004 1,756 252 475 223 44 39 133 7
  2005 2,008 189 440 251 51 54 138 8
  2006 2,197 8 264 256 56 37 155 8
  2007 2,205 (130) 153 283 55 42 178 8
  2008 2,075 (156) 157 313 50 53 202 8
  2009 1,919 (196) 121 317 44 45 220 7
  2010 1,723
MARYLAND
  1990 35,000 10,736 13,259 2,523 1,109 847 407 160
  1991 45,736 7,101 9,756 2,655 1,350 720 390 195
  1992 52,837 5,394 8,329 2,935 1,500 913 302 219
  1993 58,232 5,437 8,542 3,105 1,620 936 309 241
  1994 63,668 5,036 8,151 3,115 1,727 806 321 261
  1995 68,704 3,768 6,976 3,208 1,805 863 263 278
  1996 72,472 3,756 7,131 3,375 1,862 748 472 293
  1997 76,228 6,315 10,069 3,754 1,963 789 689 313
  1998 82,542 11,120 15,692 4,572 2,187 1,399 637 348
  1999 93,663 14,478 19,493 5,015 2,532 1,526 521 436
  2000 108,141 28,269 32,831 4,562 2,585 1,199 361 417
  2001 136,410 20,352 26,973 6,621 3,362 2,324 410 525
  2002 156,762 14,490 21,206 6,716 3,882 1,770 460 604
  2003 171,252 12,591 20,034 7,443 4,196 2,086 501 660
  2004 183,843 12,130 19,384 7,254 4,449 1,525 572 708
  2005 195,973 9,130 16,437 7,307 4,677 1,291 585 755
  2006 205,102 7,379 14,549 7,170 4,804 909 667 791
  2007 212,481 4,259 12,299 8,040 4,866 1,597 758 819
  2008 216,741 1,918 10,361 8,443 4,832 1,921 854 836
  2009 218,658 4,656 13,063 8,407 4,735 1,891 938 844
  2010 223,314
MASSACHUSETTS
  1990 53,000 11,011 13,930 2,919 1,580 1,042 67 231
  1991 64,011 7,277 10,725 3,448 1,814 881 486 267
  1992 71,288 3,366 7,226 3,860 1,919 1,076 576 288
  1993 74,654 2,018 5,959 3,941 1,938 1,285 418 299
  1994 76,672 4,375 8,303 3,928 1,976 1,234 407 311
  1995 81,047 7,290 11,296 4,006 2,098 1,091 483 334
  1996 88,337 7,463 11,701 4,238 2,265 1,009 602 363
  1997 95,799 7,926 12,340 4,414 2,434 872 714 393
  1998 103,726 10,850 16,023 5,173 2,661 1,283 799 431
  1999 114,576 14,175 19,778 5,603 2,978 1,397 711 518
  2000 128,752 26,475 32,445 5,970 3,011 1,802 661 496
  2001 155,227 17,058 26,599 9,541 3,734 4,604 605 598
  2002 172,286 13,583 22,642 9,059 4,180 3,411 804 664
  2003 185,869 8,870 18,569 9,699 4,493 3,612 877 716
  2004 194,739 6,797 15,498 8,701 4,648 2,304 999 750
  2005 201,536 6,285 14,953 8,668 4,715 2,154 1,022 777
  2006 207,821 1,284 9,672 8,388 4,766 1,656 1,164 801
  2007 209,106 (6,563) 3,001 9,564 4,662 2,771 1,324 806
  2008 202,543 (5,439) 4,013 9,452 4,335 2,844 1,492 781
  2009 197,103 274 9,824 9,550 4,061 3,088 1,640 761
  2010 197,378
MICHIGAN
  1990 23,000 6,877 8,403 1,526 724 594 104 105
  1991 29,877 4,956 6,804 1,848 887 623 210 128
  1992 34,833 3,800 5,868 2,068 996 659 268 145
  1993 38,633 3,838 5,929 2,091 1,081 649 201 160
  1994 42,471 5,759 7,669 1,910 1,191 361 179 178
  1995 48,230 6,635 8,696 2,061 1,344 370 145 202
  1996 54,865 5,719 8,164 2,445 1,491 485 241 227
  1997 60,584 7,400 10,106 2,706 1,646 391 416 253
  1998 67,984 10,636 14,131 3,495 1,882 1,003 320 289
  1999 78,621 12,397 16,308 3,911 2,188 1,103 255 366
  2000 91,015 10,744 14,970 4,226 2,235 1,200 440 351
  2001 101,759 5,313 10,494 5,181 2,486 1,755 548 392
  2002 107,072 (578) 4,218 4,796 2,573 1,168 643 413
  2003 106,494 (3,786) 1,266 5,052 2,473 1,467 701 411
  2004 102,708 (3,409) 1,038 4,447 2,284 967 800 396
  2005 99,299 (2,730) 1,531 4,261 2,113 947 818 383
  2006 96,569 (2,192) 1,966 4,158 1,976 877 932 373
  2007 94,377 (3,166) 1,296 4,462 1,862 1,176 1,059 364
  2008 91,212 (2,619) 1,814 4,433 1,723 1,164 1,193 352
  2009 88,593 (516) 3,900 4,416 1,611 1,152 1,311 342
  2010 88,077
MINNESOTA
  1990 13,000 6,891 7,791 900 458 219 158 65
  1991 19,891 5,699 6,947 1,248 643 155 360 90
  1992 25,590 6,068 7,435 1,367 805 84 366 113
  1993 31,658 5,786 7,632 1,846 966 130 613 136
  1994 37,444 6,484 8,389 1,905 1,122 70 553 160
  1995 43,928 7,599 9,732 2,133 1,303 107 535 188
  1996 51,527 7,078 9,565 2,487 1,486 137 647 217
  1997 58,605 6,744 9,836 3,092 1,654 108 1,085 245
  1998 65,349 8,458 12,126 3,668 1,840 405 1,148 275
  1999 73,808 10,270 14,256 3,986 2,074 573 1,000 339
  2000 84,079 8,493 12,576 4,083 2,085 608 1,066 324
  2001 92,572 5,532 10,437 4,905 2,266 1,036 1,246 357
  2002 98,104 2,584 7,925 5,341 2,357 747 1,860 378
  2003 100,688 951 6,640 5,689 2,358 916 2,026 388
  2004 101,639 1,735 7,346 5,611 2,316 592 2,311 392
  2005 103,374 1,925 7,535 5,610 2,299 548 2,364 399
  2006 105,299 (461) 5,509 5,970 2,295 573 2,696 406
  2007 104,837 (2,024) 4,365 6,389 2,225 695 3,065 405
  2008 102,814 (2,070) 4,706 6,776 2,113 813 3,453 397
  2009 100,744 (1,857) 5,195 7,052 2,011 861 3,792 389
  2010 98,886
MISSISSIPPI
  1990 3,000 723 871 148 91 40 4 13
  1991 3,723 653 836 183 109 41 17 16
  1992 4,376 591 805 214 125 36 34 18
  1993 4,967 519 751 232 138 44 29 21
  1994 5,487 605 851 246 151 26 47 23
  1995 6,091 707 961 254 166 25 38 25
  1996 6,798 542 849 307 179 36 64 28
  1997 7,340 494 841 347 190 41 86 30
  1998 7,834 1,126 1,498 372 209 58 73 33
  1999 8,960 1,861 2,310 449 250 70 85 43
  2000 10,821 912 1,418 506 262 95 107 42
  2001 11,733 674 1,259 585 281 147 112 45
  2002 12,407 880 1,390 510 293 91 78 48
  2003 13,287 948 1,492 544 310 96 87 51
  2004 14,234 1,496 2,055 559 330 80 95 55
  2005 15,730 3,023 3,641 618 365 92 100 61
  2006 18,753 3,871 4,587 716 446 85 113 72
  2007 22,624 2,280 3,145 865 550 98 130 87
  2008 24,904 804 1,774 970 600 131 144 96
  2009 25,708 1,338 2,315 977 601 119 158 99
  2010 27,045
MISSOURI
  1990 8,000 1,406 1,928 522 236 189 63 35
  1991 9,406 750 1,344 594 262 174 120 39
  1992 10,156 299 945 646 270 183 152 41
  1993 10,455 608 1,315 707 277 157 230 43
  1994 11,063 2,115 2,729 614 311 76 179 48
  1995 13,178 3,512 4,207 695 390 85 162 59
  1996 16,689 3,539 4,483 944 490 142 239 73
  1997 20,228 3,402 4,474 1,072 583 134 269 86
  1998 23,630 4,363 5,849 1,486 690 245 449 102
  1999 27,993 5,898 7,878 1,980 836 355 651 138
  2000 33,893 9,959 12,357 2,398 868 344 1,056 130
  2001 43,852 7,635 11,200 3,565 1,147 777 1,472 169
  2002 51,487 5,281 9,251 3,970 1,349 576 1,847 198
  2003 56,768 4,313 8,698 4,385 1,470 686 2,011 219
  2004 61,080 4,624 9,070 4,446 1,555 363 2,293 235
  2005 65,705 4,245 8,868 4,623 1,643 379 2,348 253
  2006 69,950 2,184 7,181 4,997 1,717 332 2,678 269
  2007 72,134 (927) 4,578 5,505 1,729 453 3,044 278
  2008 71,208 (2,151) 3,716 5,867 1,649 516 3,428 274
  2009 69,056 (1,247) 4,841 6,088 1,537 518 3,766 266
  2010 67,809
MONTANA
  1990 1,200 26 117 91 33 26 27 5
  1991 1,226 7 94 87 32 19 31 5
  1992 1,233 5 97 92 31 11 45 5
  1993 1,238 (39) 66 105 30 12 58 5
  1994 1,199 (14) 63 77 28 9 35 5
  1995 1,185 (43) 51 94 26 9 54 5
  1996 1,142 (29) 50 79 24 9 41 5
  1997 1,113 (26) 40 66 23 8 30 4
  1998 1,088 (46) 69 115 22 23 66 4
  1999 1,042 (11) 108 119 21 27 67 4
  2000 1,029 17 87 70 20 26 21 4
  2001 1,046 (28) 84 112 20 48 40 4
  2002 1,017 (24) 84 108 20 36 48 4
  2003 993 (50) 76 126 20 50 52 4
  2004 943 (31) 79 110 19 28 59 4
  2005 912 (25) 91 116 19 33 61 4
  2006 887 (37) 83 120 18 28 70 3
  2007 851 (36) 102 138 18 36 81 3
  2008 814 (47) 94 141 17 32 88 3
  2009 767 (123) 28 151 16 36 96 3
  2010 644
NEBRASKA
  1990 5,500 2,284 2,601 317 183 69 39 26
  1991 7,784 1,401 1,929 528 236 66 192 34
  1992 9,185 1,281 1,824 543 270 72 163 39
  1993 10,466 1,424 2,023 599 303 88 164 44
  1994 11,890 1,847 2,469 622 344 69 159 51
  1995 13,737 2,394 3,057 663 398 82 124 59
  1996 16,131 2,486 3,296 810 462 144 135 68
  1997 18,617 2,846 3,708 862 529 119 135 79
  1998 21,463 3,629 4,642 1,013 614 167 141 92
  1999 25,091 4,208 5,362 1,154 716 110 211 117
  2000 29,300 3,232 4,520 1,288 732 204 239 113
  2001 32,532 1,860 3,683 1,823 804 559 335 125
  2002 34,392 109 2,137 2,028 836 392 667 132
  2003 34,502 (560) 1,581 2,141 814 465 728 133
  2004 33,942 1,172 3,148 1,976 775 242 828 131
  2005 35,114 2,802 4,765 1,963 788 191 848 135
  2006 37,917 2,192 4,316 2,124 851 160 967 146
  2007 40,108 761 3,141 2,380 893 234 1,098 155
  2008 40,869 (563) 2,005 2,568 892 282 1,237 158
  2009 40,306 (2,039) 580 2,619 852 250 1,361 156
  2010 38,268
NEVADA
  1990 26,000 13,929 15,237 1,308 910 175 93 129
  1991 39,929 9,639 11,435 1,796 1,249 168 204 176
  1992 49,568 7,370 9,628 2,258 1,470 206 373 209
  1993 56,937 7,483 10,032 2,549 1,648 228 435 238
  1994 64,420 9,652 12,391 2,739 1,855 222 391 272
  1995 74,072 10,552 13,719 3,167 2,105 344 407 312
  1996 84,624 8,197 11,901 3,704 2,324 530 502 349
  1997 92,820 6,747 10,914 4,167 2,476 664 648 378
  1998 99,568 8,369 12,908 4,539 2,630 790 711 408
  1999 107,937 10,210 15,244 5,034 2,837 935 787 475
  2000 118,147 15,668 20,620 4,952 2,798 938 761 455
  2001 133,815 11,183 17,396 6,213 3,176 1,734 787 516
  2002 144,998 10,027 16,046 6,019 3,421 1,136 904 559
  2003 155,025 9,519 16,020 6,501 3,616 1,304 983 598
  2004 164,544 9,586 15,957 6,371 3,791 824 1,122 634
  2005 174,130 9,399 15,974 6,575 3,958 797 1,148 671
  2006 183,529 5,589 12,463 6,874 4,125 731 1,310 708
  2007 189,118 (1,179) 6,500 7,679 4,177 1,283 1,489 729
  2008 187,940 (4,000) 3,493 7,493 4,029 1,059 1,679 725
  2009 183,940 (4,229) 3,524 7,753 3,803 1,397 1,843 710
  2010 179,711
NEW HAMPSHIRE
  1990 1,600 430 563 133 50 57 19 7
  1991 2,030 278 431 153 60 61 24 9
  1992 2,308 100 264 164 64 57 33 9
  1993 2,409 (2) 141 143 63 32 38 10
  1994 2,407 20 144 124 61 31 23 10
  1995 2,427 35 155 120 60 40 11 10
  1996 2,461 54 189 135 60 45 21 10
  1997 2,515 89 223 134 60 36 27 10
  1998 2,605 115 334 219 63 96 49 11
  1999 2,720 289 547 258 69 97 79 13
  2000 3,009 161 458 297 68 133 84 12
  2001 3,170 (156) 334 490 73 317 88 12
  2002 3,015 (224) 246 470 70 255 134 12
  2003 2,790 (227) 230 457 64 239 143 11
  2004 2,563 (159) 233 392 59 157 166 10
  2005 2,404 (156) 232 388 55 153 170 9
  2006 2,249 (41) 330 371 51 117 194 9
  2007 2,208 (58) 381 439 50 159 221 9
  2008 2,150 (209) 284 493 50 187 248 8
  2009 1,941 (252) 251 503 44 178 273 7
  2010 1,689
NEW JERSEY
  1990 95,000 30,444 36,660 6,216 3,020 2,467 293 436
  1991 125,444 19,300 26,079 6,779 3,695 2,277 274 533
  1992 144,744 11,605 19,539 7,934 4,056 2,879 405 595
  1993 156,348 10,726 19,157 8,431 4,270 3,023 499 639
  1994 167,074 17,488 25,741 8,253 4,567 2,615 378 693
  1995 184,562 21,074 30,477 9,403 5,033 3,235 366 769
  1996 205,637 16,884 28,286 11,402 5,488 4,646 421 846
  1997 222,520 19,246 30,167 10,921 5,877 3,408 721 915
  1998 241,766 27,429 39,283 11,854 6,432 3,424 992 1,007
  1999 269,195 33,840 46,326 12,486 7,193 3,036 1,041 1,217
  2000 303,034 45,504 58,886 13,382 7,235 4,068 911 1,168
  2001 348,538 22,638 45,219 22,581 8,387 11,675 1,175 1,343
  2002 371,176 12,268 30,860 18,592 8,908 6,931 1,323 1,430
  2003 383,443 2,893 21,815 18,922 9,043 6,960 1,441 1,478
  2004 386,337 7,486 25,197 17,711 8,880 5,698 1,643 1,489
  2005 393,823 15,513 32,861 17,348 8,854 5,293 1,682 1,519
  2006 409,336 11,787 28,629 16,842 9,092 4,253 1,918 1,579
  2007 421,123 513 19,013 18,500 9,203 5,493 2,180 1,624
  2008 421,635 (4,393) 14,076 18,469 8,975 5,413 2,455 1,627
  2009 417,242 (5,859) 13,384 19,243 8,612 6,321 2,699 1,610
  2010 411,383
NEW MEXICO
  1990 20,000 2,327 3,321 994 565 112 233 83
  1991 22,327 1,942 3,140 1,198 613 128 365 92
  1992 24,270 1,887 3,272 1,385 654 174 458 100
  1993 26,157 1,610 3,163 1,553 688 186 572 107
  1994 27,766 2,062 3,479 1,417 720 160 422 114
  1995 29,829 2,973 4,426 1,453 775 218 336 123
  1996 32,802 2,326 4,024 1,698 835 411 318 134
  1997 35,128 1,892 3,574 1,682 874 163 503 142
  1998 37,020 3,085 4,787 1,702 924 222 405 152
  1999 40,105 4,404 6,321 1,917 1,014 232 492 179
  2000 44,508 6,086 8,388 2,302 1,024 401 706 172
  2001 50,594 6,432 9,195 2,763 1,184 968 417 195
  2002 57,025 6,985 9,234 2,249 1,353 425 251 220
  2003 64,011 5,996 8,563 2,567 1,525 522 273 247
  2004 70,007 4,764 7,308 2,544 1,660 301 313 270
  2005 74,771 2,698 5,351 2,653 1,749 297 319 288
  2006 77,469 948 3,612 2,664 1,775 227 364 299
  2007 78,416 1,144 3,903 2,759 1,749 295 413 302
  2008 79,560 2,485 5,348 2,863 1,731 360 465 307
  2009 82,045 2,050 5,024 2,974 1,755 392 511 317
  2010 84,095
NEW YORK
  1990 358,000 51,054 73,588 22,534 10,340 7,953 2,721 1,520
  1991 409,054 29,180 51,546 22,366 11,220 7,337 2,134 1,674
  1992 438,234 13,412 38,076 24,664 11,519 8,733 2,652 1,761
  1993 451,645 13,798 38,287 24,489 11,565 8,980 2,131 1,814
  1994 465,443 31,643 55,664 24,021 11,914 8,436 1,770 1,901
  1995 497,086 42,604 66,843 24,239 12,713 7,258 2,225 2,044
  1996 539,690 30,499 58,179 27,680 13,499 9,347 2,642 2,192
  1997 570,189 25,042 54,056 29,014 13,980 8,755 3,977 2,302
  1998 595,231 34,523 64,212 29,689 14,518 9,320 3,433 2,418
  1999 629,754 44,590 73,732 29,142 15,329 7,749 3,350 2,714
  2000 674,345 72,122 101,063 28,941 15,126 7,773 3,442 2,600
  2001 746,467 35,193 75,565 40,372 16,946 16,587 3,960 2,878
  2002 781,660 15,596 53,859 38,263 17,714 12,718 4,818 3,014
  2003 797,256 2,148 42,015 39,867 17,821 13,723 5,248 3,075
  2004 799,405 (946) 35,080 36,026 17,503 9,458 5,981 3,084
  2005 798,459 (5,717) 30,412 36,129 17,060 9,863 6,125 3,081
  2006 792,742 (10,270) 25,055 35,325 16,549 8,735 6,982 3,059
  2007 782,472 (17,945) 22,371 40,316 15,950 13,405 7,940 3,021
  2008 764,527 (24,223) 18,098 42,321 15,205 15,223 8,942 2,952
  2009 740,304 (35,369) 7,806 43,175 14,336 16,156 9,824 2,859
  2010 704,935
NORTH CAROLINA
  1990 25,000 15,377 16,679 1,302 908 235 30 128
  1991 40,377 12,090 13,801 1,711 1,307 179 43 182
  1992 52,467 11,129 13,170 2,041 1,620 148 46 227
  1993 63,596 12,352 14,764 2,412 1,926 118 95 273
  1994 75,948 17,148 19,958 2,810 2,315 78 86 331
  1995 93,097 21,702 25,190 3,488 2,838 150 93 407
  1996 114,799 21,717 25,897 4,180 3,409 153 126 492
  1997 136,516 22,925 27,889 4,964 3,978 146 261 579
  1998 159,441 28,509 34,659 6,150 4,638 509 322 680
  1999 187,950 33,538 40,627 7,089 5,439 488 281 881
  2000 221,487 24,090 31,565 7,475 5,593 621 408 853
  2001 245,577 17,209 26,501 9,292 6,093 1,967 286 946
  2002 262,786 14,270 23,348 9,078 6,387 1,378 300 1,012
  2003 277,056 14,364 23,567 9,203 6,578 1,231 327 1,068
  2004 291,420 19,037 28,222 9,185 6,762 927 372 1,123
  2005 310,457 20,358 29,937 9,579 7,080 921 381 1,197
  2006 330,815 15,537 25,378 9,841 7,440 689 436 1,276
  2007 346,352 11,722 22,356 10,634 7,646 1,159 493 1,336
  2008 358,075 7,641 18,716 11,075 7,734 1,402 557 1,381
  2009 365,715 5,103 16,268 11,165 7,706 1,436 612 1,411
  2010 370,819
NORTH DAKOTA
  1990 500 34 82 48 14 25 7 2
  1991 534 27 75 48 15 21 10 2
  1992 561 21 71 50 15 25 8 2
  1993 582 (33) 36 69 15 17 35 2
  1994 549 0 44 44 14 7 22 2
  1995 548 (6) 41 47 13 6 25 2
  1996 542 (25) 41 66 13 7 44 2
  1997 517 (25) 19 44 11 7 24 2
  1998 492 (10) 45 55 11 31 11 2
  1999 483 32 89 57 11 34 10 2
  2000 514 12 51 39 11 10 16 2
  2001 526 2 54 52 11 26 13 2
  2002 527 (13) 33 46 12 23 10 2
  2003 514 (26) 21 47 11 22 11 2
  2004 489 (18) 21 39 10 16 11 2
  2005 471 (21) 20 41 10 15 14 2
  2006 450 (18) 21 39 9 13 15 2
  2007 432 (23) 23 46 9 19 16 2
  2008 409 (4) 48 52 8 23 19 2
  2009 405 23 80 57 8 27 20 2
  2010 429
OHIO
  1990 11,000 3,159 3,866 707 344 294 20 50
  1991 14,159 2,449 3,142 693 419 183 31 61
  1992 16,608 1,746 2,582 836 470 128 170 69
  1993 18,353 1,580 2,566 986 507 229 174 76
  1994 19,934 2,566 3,433 867 552 94 137 83
  1995 22,500 3,606 4,590 984 630 155 104 95
  1996 26,106 4,645 5,839 1,194 739 173 171 112
  1997 30,751 6,070 7,632 1,562 885 129 415 133
  1998 36,821 7,808 9,864 2,056 1,078 458 360 161
  1999 44,628 9,558 11,937 2,379 1,318 557 285 218
  2000 54,187 12,955 15,575 2,620 1,379 707 325 209
  2001 67,142 8,511 12,642 4,131 1,727 1,589 557 258
  2002 75,653 5,669 9,775 4,106 1,938 1,103 774 291
  2003 81,322 2,408 6,764 4,356 2,050 1,150 843 313
  2004 83,730 3,378 7,485 4,107 2,059 765 961 323
  2005 87,108 7,038 11,197 4,159 2,093 748 983 336
  2006 94,145 5,755 10,315 4,560 2,238 837 1,122 363
  2007 99,900 1,073 5,982 4,909 2,338 911 1,275 385
  2008 100,973 (1,369) 3,733 5,102 2,292 984 1,437 389
  2009 99,605 (1,407) 3,728 5,135 2,176 996 1,579 384
  2010 98,198
OKLAHOMA
  1990 15,000 2,564 3,307 743 437 126 116 64
  1991 17,564 2,035 2,968 933 495 128 237 73
  1992 19,599 2,285 3,262 977 545 137 213 82
  1993 21,885 2,509 3,547 1,038 601 174 172 91
  1994 24,394 3,303 4,471 1,168 673 116 277 103
  1995 27,696 3,964 5,214 1,250 763 202 169 117
  1996 31,660 3,440 4,793 1,353 852 223 147 131
  1997 35,100 3,727 5,246 1,519 936 150 288 145
  1998 38,827 5,549 7,427 1,878 1,053 235 426 164
  1999 44,376 6,757 9,089 2,332 1,216 324 586 206
  2000 51,132 7,743 10,271 2,528 1,242 360 729 197
  2001 58,875 5,658 8,520 2,862 1,439 563 634 227
  2002 64,533 3,580 6,300 2,720 1,566 478 428 249
  2003 68,113 2,823 5,637 2,814 1,622 464 466 262
  2004 70,935 4,487 7,260 2,773 1,654 313 532 273
  2005 75,422 4,814 7,710 2,896 1,735 327 543 291
  2006 80,237 3,715 6,771 3,056 1,827 299 621 309
  2007 83,951 3,837 7,126 3,289 1,883 377 705 324
  2008 87,789 3,947 7,473 3,526 1,941 452 795 339
  2009 91,736 2,473 6,178 3,705 2,001 477 873 354
  2010 94,209
OREGON
  1990 25,500 7,693 8,931 1,238 796 215 112 115
  1991 33,193 6,799 8,659 1,860 1,001 209 506 144
  1992 39,992 6,815 8,930 2,115 1,180 219 545 171
  1993 46,807 5,800 8,786 2,986 1,346 298 1,145 197
  1994 52,607 6,437 9,401 2,964 1,490 271 983 221
  1995 59,043 7,996 10,690 2,694 1,658 268 520 248
  1996 67,039 7,075 10,350 3,275 1,839 461 697 278
  1997 74,114 6,487 10,399 3,912 1,994 516 1,097 305
  1998 80,601 8,543 12,687 4,144 2,164 574 1,071 335
  1999 89,145 10,642 14,691 4,049 2,389 452 809 400
  2000 99,788 12,124 16,063 3,939 2,396 611 547 385
  2001 111,912 8,098 13,235 5,137 2,678 1,214 813 431
  2002 120,010 3,738 9,660 5,922 2,836 1,106 1,517 463
  2003 123,748 1,878 7,995 6,117 2,863 1,126 1,651 477
  2004 125,626 4,398 10,174 5,776 2,836 572 1,884 484
  2005 130,024 5,630 11,505 5,875 2,885 560 1,928 501
  2006 135,655 1,804 7,997 6,193 2,976 495 2,199 523
  2007 137,458 (1,106) 5,503 6,609 2,952 628 2,499 530
  2008 136,352 (2,363) 4,485 6,848 2,844 662 2,816 526
  2009 133,989 (3,358) 3,650 7,008 2,707 692 3,091 517
  2010 130,632
PENNSYLVANIA
  1990 25,000 4,778 6,637 1,859 746 689 315 109
  1991 29,778 3,735 5,768 2,033 857 665 385 126
  1992 33,513 2,399 4,340 1,941 923 524 357 137
  1993 35,912 1,822 3,711 1,889 956 472 316 145
  1994 37,734 3,858 5,743 1,885 1,013 349 367 156
  1995 41,592 5,978 8,103 2,125 1,136 443 369 176
  1996 47,570 5,722 8,246 2,524 1,286 459 580 199
  1997 53,292 6,134 9,282 3,148 1,437 366 1,122 223
  1998 59,425 7,517 11,599 4,082 1,618 860 1,352 251
  1999 66,943 8,351 12,714 4,363 1,824 1,377 855 307
  2000 75,292 23,442 27,394 3,952 1,833 1,079 750 290
  2001 98,734 16,928 23,434 6,506 2,494 2,529 1,103 380
  2002 115,662 12,201 18,792 6,591 2,950 1,739 1,457 445
  2003 127,862 7,237 14,561 7,324 3,236 2,010 1,586 492
  2004 135,099 5,990 12,948 6,958 3,358 1,271 1,809 520
  2005 141,089 5,228 12,540 7,312 3,427 1,489 1,852 544
  2006 146,317 2,990 10,615 7,625 3,477 1,472 2,112 564
  2007 149,307 240 8,471 8,231 3,461 1,795 2,400 576
  2008 149,547 (1,376) 7,131 8,507 3,365 1,861 2,704 577
  2009 148,171 (436) 8,300 8,736 3,232 1,962 2,971 572
  2010 147,735
RHODE ISLAND
  1990 8,500 2,015 2,491 476 258 165 16 38
  1991 10,515 1,526 2,141 615 305 125 140 45
  1992 12,041 1,308 2,146 838 342 162 283 50
  1993 13,349 1,210 2,083 873 372 182 264 55
  1994 14,559 1,433 2,283 850 401 173 216 60
  1995 15,992 1,454 2,342 888 434 188 200 66
  1996 17,446 838 1,790 952 457 226 198 71
  1997 18,284 847 1,733 886 468 205 139 74
  1998 19,131 1,451 2,258 807 488 176 65 78
  1999 20,582 1,855 2,791 936 525 192 128 90
  2000 22,436 3,498 4,525 1,027 520 215 205 86
  2001 25,934 2,073 3,410 1,337 611 452 173 100
  2002 28,007 709 2,101 1,392 658 395 231 108
  2003 28,716 280 1,784 1,504 662 481 251 111
  2004 28,996 (5) 1,341 1,346 654 293 287 112
  2005 28,991 (342) 979 1,321 637 277 295 112
  2006 28,648 (417) 856 1,273 613 214 335 111
  2007 28,232 (809) 592 1,401 589 324 380 109
  2008 27,423 (164) 1,282 1,446 554 357 429 106
  2009 27,258 1,108 2,645 1,537 542 420 470 105
  2010 28,366
SOUTH CAROLINA
  1990 6,000 2,323 2,669 346 196 106 16 28
  1991 8,323 2,037 2,445 408 258 90 24 37
  1992 10,359 1,732 2,170 438 307 75 12 44
  1993 12,091 1,491 1,990 499 346 58 44 50
  1994 13,583 2,074 2,600 526 389 43 37 57
  1995 15,656 3,038 3,659 621 455 59 39 67
  1996 18,695 3,353 4,073 720 539 67 34 80
  1997 22,048 3,770 4,640 870 631 87 58 94
  1998 25,819 5,749 6,898 1,149 760 171 105 113
  1999 31,568 8,152 9,478 1,326 953 167 48 158
  2000 39,721 8,550 9,992 1,442 1,016 194 79 153
  2001 48,271 6,706 8,545 1,839 1,236 322 95 186
  2002 54,977 7,931 9,850 1,919 1,393 261 53 212
  2003 62,909 10,050 12,128 2,078 1,582 196 58 242
  2004 72,959 9,614 11,961 2,347 1,826 177 63 281
  2005 82,573 8,077 10,757 2,680 2,046 247 69 318
  2006 90,650 6,493 9,302 2,809 2,211 171 78 349
  2007 97,143 4,336 7,446 3,110 2,322 327 87 374
  2008 101,479 2,211 5,388 3,177 2,362 324 100 391
  2009 103,690 696 3,904 3,208 2,334 366 107 400
  2010 104,386
SOUTH DAKOTA
  1990 700 99 145 46 20 16 7 3
  1991 799 37 85 48 22 16 7 3
  1992 836 0 53 53 22 20 8 3
  1993 836 (14) 54 68 21 15 28 3
  1994 823 18 65 47 20 7 17 3
  1995 841 (2) 63 65 20 6 35 3
  1996 839 (37) 39 76 19 11 43 3
  1997 802 8 67 59 18 11 27 3
  1998 809 56 115 59 19 24 13 3
  1999 866 32 124 92 20 29 39 4
  2000 897 91 165 74 19 27 24 3
  2001 988 41 130 89 22 42 22 4
  2002 1,029 6 109 103 23 44 31 4
  2003 1,035 (17) 84 101 24 41 32 4
  2004 1,019 (32) 61 93 23 28 38 4
  2005 986 (44) 56 100 22 34 40 4
  2006 942 (18) 84 102 21 35 43 4
  2007 924 42 149 107 20 32 51 4
  2008 966 32 158 126 21 42 59 4
  2009 997 (63) 69 132 22 43 62 4
  2010 935
TENNESSEE
  1990 9,500 3,402 3,915 513 306 132 31 44
  1991 12,902 2,955 3,552 597 395 128 18 56
  1992 15,856 2,900 3,631 731 473 153 37 68
  1993 18,756 3,090 3,987 897 551 211 55 80
  1994 21,847 4,208 5,131 923 645 139 45 94
  1995 26,055 5,108 6,161 1,053 768 128 45 112
  1996 31,163 4,880 6,141 1,261 896 188 45 132
  1997 36,042 5,148 6,646 1,498 1,022 198 126 152
  1998 41,191 7,709 9,527 1,818 1,189 247 205 177
  1999 48,900 10,721 12,738 2,017 1,437 203 139 238
  2000 59,623 13,181 15,488 2,307 1,508 304 265 230
  2001 72,804 10,406 13,451 3,045 1,851 689 225 280
  2002 83,211 8,982 12,343 3,361 2,099 482 460 320
  2003 92,192 9,711 13,257 3,546 2,293 397 501 355
  2004 101,904 10,235 14,081 3,846 2,500 383 571 393
  2005 112,139 8,035 12,258 4,223 2,716 490 585 432
  2006 120,174 6,258 10,778 4,520 2,860 529 668 463
  2007 126,432 6,481 11,297 4,816 2,948 623 758 487
  2008 132,913 3,920 8,909 4,989 3,038 584 854 512
  2009 136,833 (809) 4,315 5,124 3,046 613 938 528
  2010 136,023
TEXAS
  1990 440,000 70,896 90,007 19,111 12,702 2,556 1,986 1,867
  1991 510,896 53,905 75,077 21,172 14,174 2,585 2,302 2,111
  1992 564,801 47,168 73,078 25,910 15,266 3,440 4,889 2,315
  1993 611,969 51,396 79,326 27,930 16,267 3,689 5,464 2,510
  1994 663,365 71,868 100,586 28,718 17,617 2,836 5,515 2,749
  1995 735,234 87,397 118,866 31,469 19,504 3,634 5,269 3,061
  1996 822,631 71,809 109,269 37,460 21,360 5,870 6,850 3,380
  1997 894,440 62,825 104,249 41,424 22,767 4,221 10,789 3,647
  1998 957,265 77,654 122,298 44,644 24,221 4,459 12,039 3,925
  1999 1,034,919 92,240 139,531 47,291 26,085 4,706 11,970 4,529
  2000 1,127,161 132,157 181,723 49,566 25,932 6,653 12,636 4,345
  2001 1,259,318 90,194 153,519 63,325 29,208 15,465 13,797 4,854
  2002 1,349,512 61,306 122,199 60,893 31,198 10,019 14,474 5,202
  2003 1,410,818 41,157 105,088 63,931 32,179 10,549 15,764 5,439
  2004 1,451,976 52,765 117,707 64,942 32,506 8,865 17,971 5,599
  2005 1,504,741 64,793 130,127 65,334 33,185 7,948 18,398 5,804
  2006 1,569,533 46,639 113,392 66,753 34,283 5,436 20,980 6,054
  2007 1,616,172 19,225 91,513 72,288 34,830 7,374 23,849 6,235
  2008 1,635,397 (3,467) 72,869 76,336 34,565 8,596 26,864 6,311
  2009 1,631,930 (23,560) 55,048 78,608 33,675 9,126 29,508 6,299
  2010 1,608,371
UTAH
  1990 15,000 4,353 5,045 692 465 115 45 67
  1991 19,353 3,124 4,100 976 567 110 217 82
  1992 22,476 2,914 3,943 1,029 640 119 175 94
  1993 25,390 3,621 4,843 1,222 721 158 236 107
  1994 29,011 5,569 6,765 1,196 838 105 128 125
  1995 34,580 6,561 7,958 1,397 998 138 113 148
  1996 41,141 6,037 7,737 1,700 1,160 248 119 173
  1997 47,178 5,953 7,805 1,852 1,305 176 174 197
  1998 53,131 7,648 9,877 2,229 1,473 294 238 224
  1999 60,780 10,114 12,603 2,489 1,700 388 119 283
  2000 70,892 8,023 10,587 2,564 1,748 356 187 273
  2001 78,915 6,151 9,415 3,264 1,927 776 257 304
  2002 85,066 5,533 9,021 3,488 2,049 502 609 328
  2003 90,599 3,543 7,289 3,746 2,146 588 663 349
  2004 94,142 2,691 6,325 3,634 2,178 337 756 363
  2005 96,833 3,589 7,235 3,646 2,182 316 775 373
  2006 100,422 3,371 7,124 3,753 2,219 265 882 387
  2007 103,793 1,071 5,190 4,119 2,252 463 1,003 400
  2008 104,865 (1,740) 2,558 4,298 2,217 546 1,130 405
  2009 103,125 (2,662) 1,661 4,323 2,099 584 1,243 398
  2010 100,463
VERMONT
  1990 600 30 226 196 19 31 143 3
  1991 630 (50) 131 181 18 35 125 3
  1992 580 (27) 87 114 16 36 60 2
  1993 553 (29) 47 76 14 35 25 2
  1994 524 (16) 57 73 13 29 28 2
  1995 508 (6) 56 62 13 24 24 2
  1996 502 (21) 53 74 12 28 31 2
  1997 482 (28) 41 69 11 21 34 2
  1998 454 (51) 42 93 11 46 34 2
  1999 403 (25) 50 75 9 37 26 2
  2000 377 2 62 60 8 40 11 1
  2001 379 (49) 57 106 9 85 11 1
  2002 330 (7) 66 73 8 53 11 1
  2003 323 (17) 74 91 8 70 12 1
  2004 306 22 82 60 8 38 13 1
  2005 328 10 69 59 9 35 14 1
  2006 338 (3) 51 54 9 28 16 1
  2007 334 (2) 67 69 9 41 17 1
  2008 332 (42) 67 109 9 39 60 1
  2009 290 (94) 23 117 8 43 64 1
  2010 196
VIRGINIA
  1990 49,000 10,296 13,072 2,776 1,464 840 259 214
  1991 59,296 7,187 10,134 2,947 1,685 844 171 248
  1992 66,483 5,311 8,565 3,254 1,821 935 225 272
  1993 71,794 5,149 8,512 3,363 1,920 932 219 293
  1994 76,943 6,736 10,215 3,479 2,040 813 310 316
  1995 83,679 7,176 11,323 4,147 2,196 1,229 378 344
  1996 90,855 7,148 11,822 4,674 2,355 1,498 448 373
  1997 98,003 10,508 15,406 4,898 2,561 1,212 717 407
  1998 108,511 15,871 21,387 5,516 2,903 1,518 636 459
  1999 124,382 19,741 25,509 5,768 3,373 1,351 466 578
  2000 144,124 39,731 45,969 6,238 3,466 1,844 372 555
  2001 183,855 27,070 36,901 9,831 4,572 4,294 257 708
  2002 210,925 16,905 26,133 9,228 5,275 2,805 336 812
  2003 227,830 8,976 19,079 10,103 5,621 3,238 366 878
  2004 236,806 8,324 17,052 8,728 5,716 1,684 416 912
  2005 245,130 8,062 16,956 8,894 5,773 1,748 428 945
  2006 253,193 8,909 17,941 9,032 5,827 1,744 486 976
  2007 262,101 7,149 17,057 9,908 5,904 2,441 553 1,011
  2008 269,250 1,019 11,577 10,558 5,928 2,967 625 1,039
  2009 270,269 (2,819) 7,485 10,304 5,774 2,802 686 1,043
  2010 267,450
WASHINGTON
  1990 39,000 15,924 18,023 2,099 1,288 573 54 185
  1991 54,924 13,370 15,996 2,626 1,704 560 121 242
  1992 68,293 11,380 14,450 3,070 2,030 592 158 291
  1993 79,673 9,742 13,437 3,695 2,289 722 352 332
  1994 89,415 10,676 14,747 4,071 2,526 657 515 373
  1995 100,091 11,082 15,726 4,644 2,779 910 539 416
  1996 111,173 9,285 14,291 5,006 2,999 815 737 456
  1997 120,458 10,006 15,406 5,400 3,196 870 840 494
  1998 130,464 12,302 18,830 6,528 3,449 1,602 939 539
  1999 142,766 13,378 20,278 6,900 3,742 1,357 1,173 629
  2000 156,144 27,479 34,162 6,683 3,692 1,414 975 602
  2001 183,623 18,086 27,167 9,081 4,398 2,670 1,306 708
  2002 201,709 11,133 20,113 8,980 4,811 1,972 1,419 777
  2003 212,842 7,719 17,584 9,865 4,997 2,502 1,546 820
  2004 220,560 11,609 20,608 8,999 5,082 1,303 1,763 850
  2005 232,170 12,296 21,550 9,254 5,277 1,278 1,804 895
  2006 244,466 8,107 17,909 9,802 5,495 1,306 2,058 943
  2007 252,573 5,362 16,094 10,732 5,583 1,835 2,339 974
  2008 257,935 2,985 14,178 11,193 5,592 1,972 2,633 995
  2009 260,921 505 12,120 11,615 5,539 2,176 2,893 1,007
  2010 261,426
WEST VIRGINIA
  1990 1,200 (17) 100 117 32 34 46 5
  1991 1,183 (24) 50 74 30 27 13 5
  1992 1,158 (53) 43 96 28 24 39 5
  1993 1,105 (13) 53 66 26 13 23 4
  1994 1,092 (26) 41 67 25 12 25 4
  1995 1,067 (19) 49 68 23 10 30 4
  1996 1,048 (4) 46 50 22 6 18 4
  1997 1,044 (61) 45 106 21 5 75 4
  1998 983 (11) 65 76 20 22 30 4
  1999 972 18 96 78 19 39 16 4
  2000 989 10 97 87 19 32 32 4
  2001 999 (86) 62 148 20 83 42 4
  2002 913 (40) 41 81 18 53 6 4
  2003 873 (31) 50 81 17 54 6 3
  2004 842 0 76 76 17 49 6 3
  2005 843 7 73 66 17 36 9 3
  2006 850 (12) 58 70 18 39 9 3
  2007 838 (17) 57 74 18 44 9 3
  2008 822 (23) 55 78 17 45 12 3
  2009 799 (18) 65 83 17 52 12 3
  2010 781
WISCONSIN
  1990 9,500 3,372 3,798 426 304 27 51 44
  1991 12,872 3,282 3,838 556 398 18 83 57
  1992 16,154 3,148 3,831 683 484 22 107 70
  1993 19,302 3,138 3,954 816 565 78 91 82
  1994 22,440 4,156 5,059 903 659 46 102 96
  1995 26,596 5,228 6,286 1,058 782 91 71 114
  1996 31,824 5,069 6,269 1,200 913 63 89 135
  1997 36,893 4,920 6,299 1,379 1,035 70 120 154
  1998 41,813 6,232 7,900 1,668 1,173 223 96 176
  1999 48,045 7,885 9,789 1,904 1,353 235 93 223
  2000 55,930 6,798 8,903 2,105 1,388 379 123 215
  2001 62,728 3,661 6,953 3,292 1,541 1,372 137 242
  2002 66,389 1,467 4,096 2,629 1,605 577 192 256
  2003 67,856 1,013 3,700 2,687 1,593 622 210 262
  2004 68,869 2,493 5,083 2,590 1,569 518 238 266
  2005 71,362 4,560 7,189 2,629 1,591 519 244 275
  2006 75,921 6,240 8,897 2,657 1,679 406 279 293
  2007 82,162 3,350 6,320 2,970 1,817 520 316 317
  2008 85,512 (1,041) 2,065 3,106 1,862 559 355 330
  2009 84,471 (2,599) 454 3,053 1,771 566 391 326
  2010 81,872
WYOMING
  1990 1,500 105 164 59 41 12 6
  1991 1,605 82 155 73 42 13 11 6
  1992 1,687 3 87 84 42 14 21 7
  1993 1,691 (11) 83 94 41 16 30 7
  1994 1,680 6 91 85 39 12 27 7
  1995 1,685 13 112 99 39 18 35 7
  1996 1,698 0 96 96 38 19 32 7
  1997 1,699 5 89 84 37 15 25 7
  1998 1,704 47 123 76 36 21 12 7
  1999 1,751 59 153 94 37 32 18 7
  2000 1,810 161 256 95 37 22 29 7
  2001 1,971 155 267 112 41 49 15 8
  2002 2,126 164 267 103 46 31 18 8
  2003 2,289 87 210 123 50 46 18 9
  2004 2,376 33 142 109 52 25 22 9
  2005 2,409 114 220 106 53 21 24 9
  2006 2,523 220 330 110 55 19 26 10
  2007 2,743 217 355 138 61 37 30 11
  2008 2,959 200 348 148 66 36 34 11
  2009 3,159 181 341 160 71 41 36 12
  2010 3,340

Note : See text for a description of how estimates were constructed. Negative numbers in parentheses

Fourth, both the Pew and OIS estimates go back in time only to 2000 (and OIS has not published estimates for 2001–2004). As we describe below, it is possible to use parallel methods to produce annual estimates back to 1990. This longer time horizon for estimates at the national and state levels is useful for policy analysts and researchers who are interested in understanding the correlates of change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population.

Below we describe an extension of the residual method that produces separate estimates of arrivals and departures of unauthorized immigrants in addition to estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population. Compared to Pew and OIS, our estimates are more statistically reliable, are available annually at both the state and national levels for 1990 to 2010, and include information at the national and state levels about both the size of the population and the components of annual inflows into and outflows from the population.

Research Design

Our estimates are based on a comparison of the total foreign-born population to the legally resident foreign-born population; the difference between them is taken to represent the unauthorized foreign-born population. Detailed estimates were derived for each state, annually, from 1990 to 2010, and the results were summed to produce national estimates. In this section, we describe the data that we use to account for each element of both the total foreign-born and the legally resident foreign-born populations; in Appendix Table A1 we summarize these several data elements. We then describe our techniques for deriving annual national and state estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population and of the components of annual inflows into and outflows from that population.

Table A1.

Sources and Descriptions of Data Used to Construct Estimates

Type of data Source Description and Notes
Lawful Resident Population
1 Legal Permanent Residents
(LPRs)
Department of Homeland Security Data for each State, by year of entry, for new
arrivals and adjustments of status
2 Nonimmigrant Resident
Population1
Department of Homeland Security Based on arrival and departure statistics, by
length of stay, for each State
3 Refugees Admitted Office of Refugee Resettlement,
Department of Health and Human
Services
Annual admissions for each State, by year of
entry
Total Foreign-Born Population
4 Moved to the U.S. Each Year,
1990 to 1999
2000 U.S. Decennial Census (from
IPUMS.org)
Data for each State, by year of entry,
collected in the 2000 Census
5 Moved to the U.S. Each Year,
2000 to 2009
American Community Surveys (from
IPUMS.org)
Data for each State, by year of entry,
collected by the Census Bureau in the
American Community Survey
Other data
6 Emigration Rates1 U.S. Bureau of the Census, Technical
Report # 92
Emigration rate for 10-year period
extrapolated to single years; assumes U.S.
rates apply to each State
7 Undercount Rates1 See Text. Assumes U.S. rates apply to each State
8 Removals of Unauthorized
Residents
Department of Homeland Security Statistics for each State, by year of entry,
resided in the U.S. for 6 months or more
9 Adjustments from
Unauthorized to Lawful
Status
Department of Homeland Security Estimates for each State, by year of entry,
based on number of years between entry and
adjustment of status
10 Mortality Rates1 Age-Standardized Crude Death
Rates3
Assumes U.S. rates apply to each State
1

The effects of alternative assumptions for selected variables – mortality rates, emigration rates, and undercount rates – on the size of the estimated total unauthorized resident population are discussed below in the section “Effects of alternative assumptions.” See, especially, Table 4.

3

Rate for unauthorized immigrants (3.9/1000) based on IRCA distribution by age and Hispanic mortality rates for 1990; rate for legal residents (5.7/1000) based on legal immigrants by age in 1994 and Hispanic mortality rates for 1990.

Data

Estimates of the total foreign-born population—separately by state and by year of entry into the country—were obtained from the 2000 decennial census (for those moving to the U.S. between 1990 and 1999) and from the 2010 ACS (for those moving to the U.S. between 2000 and 2009). Estimates of the legally resident foreign-born population combine counts of (1) legal permanent residents for each state, by year of entry, and for both new arrivals and those who adjust their status (obtained from the DHS); (2) nonimmigrant residents4 for each state and by length of stay (based on arrival and departure statistics obtained from DHS); and (3) refugees for each state and by year of entry (obtained from the Office of Refugee Resettlement).

Our method also requires estimates and assumptions about (1) emigration rates (discussed below); (2) Census and ACS undercount rates (discussed below); (3) removals of unauthorized residents for each state and by year of entry among those living in the U.S. for 6 months or longer (which we base on data obtained from DHS); (4) adjustments from unauthorized to lawful status by state, year of entry, and year of adjustment (also based on data obtained from DHS); and (5) mortality rates (which we base on age-standardized crude death rates for relevant populations as discussed below). In the next few paragraphs we explain and justify our estimates and assumptions for mortality rates, undercount rates, and emigration rates. Later, we explore the consequences of alternative assumptions about these three sets of rates for our estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population.

Mortality Rates

To estimate the annual number of deaths, we computed age-adjusted crude death rates separately for unauthorized and legal immigrants. In both calculations, we used age-specific survival rates for Hispanic males in 1990 (Ahmed and Robinson 1994: Table A-2). To compute the rate for unauthorized immigrants, we used the age distribution of applicants under IRCA; for legal immigrants, we used the age distribution of legal immigrants in 1994. The crude death rate was estimated to be 3.9 per 1,000 for unauthorized immigrants and 5.7 per 1,000 for legal immigrants. We assume that national rates apply to each state. Note that mortality is a very small component of change in our estimates. As described below, varying the rates by 25 percent would change the estimated total population by about ±85,000, or less than one percent. The effects of increasing or decreasing mortality rates for both authorized and unauthorized immigrants would be offsetting.

Table A2.

Standard Errors for ACS Estimates of the Number of Foreign-born People Entering Between 2000 and 2009, by State

Est. Stand.
Error
(SE)
SE as
% of
Estimate
Est. Stand.
Error
(SE)
SE as
% of
Estimate


(1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1) (1) (2) (3)=(2)/(1)
U.S. Total 13,161 71 0.54% Missouri 103 6 5.85%
Alabama 94 6 6.12% Montana 6 1 22.37%
Alaska 15 2 12.90% Nebraska 40 3 8.34%
Arizona 258 10 3.84% Nevada 155 8 4.91%
Arkansas 63 4 7.08% New Hampshire 20 3 13.24%
California 2,691 31 1.17% New Jersey 603 15 2.47%
Colorado 183 8 4.57% New Mexico 71 5 7.36%
Connecticut 170 8 4.71% New York 1,265 22 1.71%
Delaware 27 3 11.94% North Carolina 317 11 3.47%
D.C. 34 3 9.92% North Dakota 4 1 22.55%
Florida 1,233 21 1.73% Ohio 183 8 4.39%
Georgia 395 12 3.10% Oklahoma 93 5 5.81%
Hawaii 70 5 7.34% Oregon 125 7 5.54%
Idaho 33 3 10.30% Pennsylvania 282 10 3.70%
Illinois 555 14 2.61% Rhode Island 41 4 9.64%
Indiana 135 7 5.10% South Carolina 104 6 6.11%
Iowa 60 4 6.87% South Dakota 9 2 18.68%
Kansas 68 5 6.77% Tennessee 143 7 5.19%
Kentucky 70 5 7.46% Texas 1,429 23 1.62%
Louisiana 73 5 7.28% Utah 85 6 6.73%
Maine 15 2 14.76% Vermont 9 1 14.21%
Maryland 314 11 3.45% Virginia 360 12 3.24%
Massachusetts 350 11 3.27% Washington 315 11 3.46%
Michigan 203 8 3.93% West Virginia 8 2 19.80%
Minnesota 149 7 4.58% Wisconsin 97 5 5.38%
Mississippi 29 3 11.60% Wyoming 8 1 19.19%

Note: Standard errors derived as per U.S. Census Bureau (2010).

All numbers in thousands, and rounded independently.

Emigration Rates

The emigration rates used to construct our estimates are derived from Ahmed and Robinson (1994). Their 10-year rate of 18.7 percent for the decade of the 1980s was extrapolated to single years of entry. Although annual emigration rates are assumed to decline after entry, the overall 10-year emigration rate is maintained. National rates are assumed to apply to each state. The emigration rates we used were 3.0 percent for legal residents in their first year in the U.S. and 3.2 percent for unauthorized residents in their first year of residence. The rates decrease gradually with length of residence, dropping to 1.9 percent for legal residents after 10 years in the U.S and 2.0 percent for unauthorized residents after 10 years in the U.S.

To determine whether Ahmed and Robinson’s (1994) estimates are still applicable for more recent years, we conducted supplementary analyses (the results of which are available upon request) using data for the foreign-born population collected in the 2005 through 2009 ACS. This analysis indicates that national emigration rates at the end of the estimation period were at about the same level as in the earlier period. Supplementary analysis of ACS data for the ten states with the largest foreign-born populations in 2010 indicates that emigration rates for those states were at about the same level as the national rate.

Undercount Rates

The undercount rates we used were developed within the following logical framework: (1) the foreign-born population was more completely counted in the 2000 Census than in the 2010 ACS; (2) those with close attachments to the U.S. (legal immigrants) were more completely counted than unauthorized immigrants; and, (3) undercount rates decrease with length of time in the U.S.

For unauthorized immigrants who entered the United States in the 1990s, we used an overall undercount rate of 10.0 percent based on work by Marcelli and Ong (2002).5 The most recent unauthorized entrants were adjusted by 11.5 percent, and the undercount rate decreased by about 5 percent per year. The legal immigrant population is composed of legal permanent residents (LPRs), refugees, and nonimmigrants. For LPRs and refugees that entered the U.S. in the 1990s, we used a rate of 2.5 percent, or one quarter of the rate for unauthorized residents. For nonimmigrant residents, we used an undercount rate of 5.0 percent, which is twice the rate used for LPRs and refugees.6 This produced an undercount rate of 3.0 percent for total legal immigrants at the national level.

As noted above, we assumed that undercount rates were higher in the 2010 ACS than in the 2000 Census because the ACS does not have the resources – money, publicity, extensive follow-up, etc. – that decennial censuses have. We set the undercount rate at 20 percent for the most recently arrived cohort of unauthorized residents in the 2010 ACS and then reduced the rates by 10 percent per year. The overall undercount rate for unauthorized residents that entered in 2000 to 2009 was thus estimated to be 12.1 percent.7 For LPRs and refugees that entered from 2000 to 2009, we doubled the 2000 rate of 2.5 percent to 5.0 percent. The rate of 15 percent used for nonimmigrant residents brought the overall rate for legal immigrants for 2000 to 2009 up to 5.3 percent.

Methods

In Tables 1 through 3, we illustrate the methods we use to compute annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population and components of change in that population for 1990 through 2010. These tables present national estimates; figures in them are aggregated up from 51 parallel sets of state tables (which appear as Appendix Table A3).

Table 1.

Annual Estimates of the Foreign-born Population Residing in the United States, by Legal Status and Year of Entry: 2000 to 2009

Foreign-born Population in
January 2010
Unauthorized
Immigrant
Population in
January 2010
Left the Unauthorized Immigrant Population
(via Emigration, Removal by DHS
Adjustment to Lawful Status, or Death)
Year of
Entry
Total (ACS) Legally Resident Unauthorized Undercount 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 Entry cohorts

(1) (2) (3)=
(1)-(2)
(4) (5)=
3+41
(6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)=
Σ(5–15)1
Total 12,775 7,441 5,334 733 11,725 558 549 531 482 476 474 493 473 508 369
2009 1,136 819 307 77 384 - - - - - - - - - - 384
2008 1,162 885 317 70 387 53 - - - - - - - - - 439
2007 1,245 848 386 75 461 43 54 - - - - - - - - 558
2006 1,238 762 516 88 604 42 47 56 - - - - - - - 749
2005 1,478 762 596 90 686 38 44 49 57 - - - - - - 873
2004 1,212 737 537 72 609 32 36 40 44 52 - - - - - 813
2003 1,135 653 499 59 558 30 31 33 37 41 50 - - - - 779
2002 1,188 631 577 61 638 34 32 33 35 39 45 51 - - - 906
2001 1,368 655 727 68 795 44 38 37 37 41 46 50 58 - - 1,146
2000 1,615 690 872 73 945 50 48 43 40 43 47 53 57 65 - 1,389

Pre`00 - - - - 5,658 192 220 241 234 261 286 339 358 443 369 8,600

All numbers in thousands, and rounded independently.

1

Except for the shaded area

Estimates for 2000 to 2010

Using 2010 ACS data, Column 1 in Table 1 reports estimates of the total foreign-born population, separately by year of entry between 2000 and 2009. For example, the ACS included about 1,188,000 foreign-born people who entered the country in 2002, and about 12,775,000 foreign-born people who entered in any year between 2000 and 2009. For some states, an adjustment was made to correct the apparent overstatement of the 2000 entry cohort in the ACS.9 Column 2 reports the size of the legally resident foreign-born population, separately by year of entry between 2000 and 2009, including immigrants admitted for permanent residence, refugees, and nonimmigrant residents; as described above and in Appendix Table A1, these figures are based primarily on administrative data collected by DHS and other federal agencies. Column 3 presents the estimated number of unauthorized immigrants who were included in the ACS, separately by year of entry between 2000 and 2009. The estimates in Column 3 are residual estimates (Column 1 minus Column 2) that have been smoothed slightly to reduce the effects of sampling variation.10 Column 3 indicates that about 5,334,000 more foreign-born individuals were counted in the ACS as arriving between 2000 and 2009 than were legally admitted during those years. Column 4 introduces an adjustment for undercount in the ACS; for reasons described above, assumed undercount rates vary across entry cohorts, ranging from 20.0 percent for 2009 to 7.7 percent for 2000 and averaging 12.1 percent. Finally, Column 5 reports the total unauthorized immigrant population living in the U.S. in January 2010, by year of entry between 2000 and 2009; the derivation of the estimate for “Pre-00” is described below. The top line of Column 5 in Table 1 indicates that there were about 11,725,000 unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in January 2010.

The next step in constructing Table 1 is to determine how many unauthorized immigrants left the population each year between 2000 and 2009 (as shown in Columns 6 through 15), separately by year of entry. Unauthorized immigrants can leave the population in four ways—emigration, removal by DHS, adjustment to lawful status, or death. Our sources of information for these components are described above and in Appendix Table A1. For example, among foreign-born individuals that entered the U.S. in 2005, Column 9 of Table 1 indicates that about 57,000 left the U.S. (one way or another) in 2006. The last step in constructing the non-shaded area of Table 1 was to estimate the size of each annual cohort in its actual year of entry. Each entry cohort in Column 16 was estimated by summing Columns 5 to 15. In essence, we started with the population in January 2010 (Column 5) and “added back” those who left the population between entry and January 2010.11 For example, Column 5 of Table 1 shows that in January 2010 there were about 461,000 unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. who entered in 2007. Columns 6 and 7 show that a total of 97,000 unauthorized immigrants who entered the country in 2007 subsequently left that population (54,000 in 2008 and 43,000 in 2009). Consequently, we estimate that 461,000 + 43,000 + 54,000 = 558,000 unauthorized immigrants entered the country in 2007. The top line of column 8 shows that 531,000 unauthorized immigrants left that population in 2007; this implies a net change of 558,000 – 531,000 = +27,000 unauthorized immigrants in 2007.

The shaded area at the bottom of Table 1 pertains to unauthorized immigrants who entered the country prior to 2000. The beginning point is the estimated unauthorized immigrant population of 8.6 million in January 2000, shown at the bottom of Column 16; this figure is taken from Table 2, as described below. The number of unauthorized immigrants who arrived prior to 2000 and who left that population in each year between 2000 and 2009 (the shaded areas of Columns 6 to 15) was subtracted from 8.6 million. That yields an estimate of 5.7 million unauthorized immigrants who moved to the United States before 2000 and still lived here in January 2010 (the shaded area of Column 5 in Table 1). Adding 5.7 million to the other numbers in Column 5 produces our estimate of 11,725,000 unauthorized immigrants living in the United States in January 2010.

Estimates for 1990 to 1999

Estimates for 1990 to 1999 were computed using data from the 2000 Census and the same methodology described above. Details are presented in Table 2. Our estimate of 3,500,000 unauthorized immigrants in 1990—the figure in Column 16 of the shaded area of Table 2—is based on estimates produced by Warren (1997). Columns 6 through 15 of the shaded area in Table 2 show that of the 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants living in the U.S. in 1990, 1.25 million left by 2000, yielding 2.25 million who arrived in the U.S. prior to 1990 and who still lived in the U.S. in 2000. The un-shaded portion of Column 5 in Table 2 shows the number of unauthorized immigrants who entered the U.S. in each year between 1990 and 1999 and who still lived in the U.S. in 2000. After “adding back” individuals in each year-of-entry cohort who left the population of unauthorized immigrants (the un-shaded portions of Columns 6 through 15 in Table 2), Column 16 reports the total size of each annual entry cohort between 1990 and 1999.

Annual Estimates of Population Size and Components of Change, 1990 to 2010

The first four columns of Table 3 were constructed entirely from the estimates reported in Tables 1 and 2, but the numbers have been put into a more familiar form. Table 3 also includes detailed information about the method by which unauthorized immigrants left that population, by year of entry. The headings for Columns 2, 3 and 4 show the sources of the estimates. Column 1 in Table 2 begins with the estimate of 3.5 million unauthorized immigrants in January 1990 (Table 2, Column 16, shaded area), and annual estimates were then computed for subsequent years by comparing the size of annual entry cohorts (Column 3) to the annual number leaving the unauthorized immigrant population (Column 4) to produce annual estimate of net change in the unauthorized immigrant population. For example, we estimate that there were 11,899,000 unauthorized immigrants on January 1, 2009 (Column 1). During 2009, we estimate that 384,000 unauthorized immigrants entered the U.S. (Column 3) and 558,000 left that population (Column 4). Thus there was a net change of 374,000 – 558,000 = −174,000 unauthorized immigrants in 2009, and the population of unauthorized immigrants on January 1, 2010 equaled 11,899,000 – 174,000 = 11,725,000.

Table 3.

Estimates of the Total Unauthorized Immigrant Population of the United States and Annual Components of Population Change: 1990 to 2010

Method of Leaving e Population
Year Unauthorized
Immigrants,
January 1
Annual
Net Change
Entered the
Population2
Left the
Population3
Emigrated Adjusted to
Lawful Status4
Removed
by DHS
Died

(1) (2) = (3)–(4) (3) (4)=Σ(5 to 8) (5) (6) (7) (8)
2010 11,725
2009 11,899 (174) 384 558 243 104 165 46
2008 12,009 (110) 439 549 252 100 150 46
2007 11,981 27 558 531 258 94 133 46
2006 11,714 267 749 482 256 64 117 45
2005 11,317 397 873 476 250 79 103 44
2004 10,978 339 813 474 247 84 100 42
2003 10,692 286 779 493 244 120 88 41
2002 10,259 434 906 473 237 115 81 40
2001 9,620 638 1,146 508 223 176 71 37
2000 8,600 1,020 1,389 369 198 73 65 33
1999 7,827 773 1,132 358 198 60 65 35
1998 7,210 616 954 338 182 61 65 30
1997 6,763 448 759 311 170 54 59 28
1996 6,291 472 756 284 161 55 41 26
1995 5,720 571 822 251 150 42 36 24
1994 5,253 467 700 233 138 38 35 22
1993 4,925 327 557 229 130 45 34 20
1992 4,587 339 559 220 124 43 34 19
1991 4,135 452 649 197 116 35 29 17
1990 3,500 635 816 181 103 38 25 15
1

From the shaded area of Table 2, Column 16.

2

From Column 16 of Tables 1 and 2.

3

From the top row of Columns 6 to 15 in Tables 1 and 2.

4

Includes unauthorized residents that left the U.S., returned with immigrant visas, and were tabulated as new arrivals.

All numbers in thousands, and rounded independently.

Sampling Variability

Our estimates of the size and attributes of the foreign-born population are based on sample data from the 2000 Census and the ACS, and therefore our annual estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population are subject to sampling variability. In Appendix Table A2 we report estimates of the number of foreign-born people living in the U.S. and in each state who came to the U.S. between 2000 and 2009 along with standard errors of those estimates; the standard errors are computed as per the guidance of the U.S. Census Bureau (2010b). In contrast, our counts of the legally resident foreign-born population and of the number of unauthorized immigrants removed each year are not subject to sampling variability because they are based on administrative record data; therefore, we are unable to estimate a possible range of non-sampling error in the estimates of the legally resident population. Finally, our estimates of mortality and emigration are based on sample data and statistical models, but uncertainty in these estimates is difficult to quantify. Because of this mixture of types of data, we do not compute proper standard errors for our estimates. We suggest that relatively small year-to-year or state-to-state differences should be disregarded, and we caution that actual differences might be somewhat higher or lower than reported here. The standard errors reported in Appendix Table A2 may be useful for generating approximate confidence intervals and for describing uncertainty in our population estimates.

Results

Figure 1 is based on the estimates in Table 3, and depicts the annual number of unauthorized immigrants entering the United States (the top bars), the annual number leaving the country (the bottom bars), and net change in the population size (the line). The annual number moving to the U.S. increased in the 1990s, growing from about 550,000 in 1993 to 1.1 million in 1999. More than 1 million arrived each year from 1999 to 2001; 1.4 million arrived in 2000. After 2000, the number moving to the U.S. declined sharply, dropping by 72 percent from its peak in 2000 to about 400,000 in 2009.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Annual Net Change and Components of Change in the Number of Unauthorized Immigrants in the U.S., 1990–2009

From 1990 to 2009, an estimated 15.7 million unauthorized immigrants moved to the United States. However, the population grew by “only” 8.2 million. This reveals an important aspect of unauthorized immigration that has typically been overlooked: Significant numbers of unauthorized immigrants leave the population each year. An estimated 7.5 million left the unauthorized immigrant population12 between 1990 and 2009. Although the rates of departure have remained fairly constant over the past two decades, the growing population has generated increasing numbers of departures. The total number leaving the population increased steadily from about 180,000 in 1990 to about 560,000 per year in 2009; as shown in Columns 5 to 8 of Table 3, each category of “departure” (i.e., removal, death, emigration, and adjustment of status) increased considerably between 1990 and 2009.

Annual net change in the unauthorized immigrant population is determined by the number entering minus the number leaving. As shown in Table 3 and Figure 1, population growth dropped from one million in 2000 to a net decline of 174,000 in 2009. A variety of factors might explain the sharp reduction in population growth in the past decade, including less favorable U.S. economic conditions after 2000, heightened security for air travel after September 11, 2001, and increased enforcement efforts by DHS. It is clear, however, that the substantial drop in arrivals after 2000 was the primary contributor to declining population growth and to reaching zero growth by the end of the decade.

The economic downturn in 2008 and 2009 apparently had little effect on emigration from the unauthorized immigrant population in those years. A set of estimates for January 2008, comparable to ours, estimated the unauthorized population that entered from 2000 to 2007 to be 5,187,000 (Hill and Johnson 2011). Two years later, those entry cohorts would have been reduced by emigration, adjustments to legal status, removals by DHS, and deaths.13 However, as shown in Table 1, Column 5, our estimate for January 2010 for those same cohorts is 5,296,000 or about 2 percent higher than the comparable figure in 2008. The unexpected increase for 2010 compared to 2008 probably occurred because of coverage improvement in the 2010 ACS which is likely to be better enumerated because it was conducted in a census year. Still, these two estimates provide clear evidence that any increases in emigration rates in 2008 and 2009, if they did occur, were too small to have a discernible effect on the population estimates and patterns of growth described here. We will leave it to others to more fully analyze the determinants of the patterns observed in Figure 1. However, it would be difficult to do those analyses without annual estimates of inflows into, outflows from, and net change in the unauthorized immigrant population.

These results at the national level have a number of implications for developing immigration policy and for U.S. data collection efforts. First, even though the number of unauthorized arrivals has dropped significantly since 2000, hundreds of thousands continue to move to the United States each year. Second, departures from the unauthorized immigrant population are an important aspect of population change for this group. Third, improvements in the data sources are needed to update and expand the empirical basis for future estimates. Fourth, the ACS has proven to be a vital resource for deriving detailed national and state estimates of the unauthorized immigrant population.

State Estimates

Appendix Table A3 shows estimates for each state that are comparable to the figures shown in Table 3 for the country as a whole: The size of the unauthorized immigrant population each year, the number entering that population each year, the number exiting that population each year (through emigration, death, removal, and adjustment of status), and annual net change in the size of that population.14

Figure 2 shows estimates for the 25 states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations in January 2010. More than half of all unauthorized immigrants lived in California (2.9 million), Texas (1.6 million), Florida (1.0 million), and New York (705 thousand) in 2010. The temporal trends in inflows, outflows, and net change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population observed in Table 3 and Figure 1 for the total U.S. population occurred in most, but not all, of the states. In Figure 3, we depict temporal trends in inflows, outflows, and net change in population size for the six states with the largest unauthorized immigrant populations in 2010: California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, and New Jersey. As in the country as a whole, in each of these states the inflow of unauthorized immigrants rose in the 1990s, peaked in about 2000, and declined steadily thereafter.15 Outflows from the unauthorized immigrant population increased gradually over time; and thus net change after 2000 declined to a point near or below zero in 2010. Between 2000 and 2009, every state (except Mississippi)16 and D.C. saw declines in inflows of unauthorized immigrants, and every state saw increases in outflows between 2000 and 2009. As a result, 29 states and D.C. experienced net losses in 2009 in the size of their unauthorized immigrant populations. As shown in Figure 4, only four states had net gains of 4,000 or more unauthorized immigrants in 2009, while the combined populations of California, New York, and Texas declined by more than 165,000.17

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Number of Unauthorized Immigrants, by State, January 2010

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Annual Net Change and Components of Change in the Number of Unauthorized Immigrants, Selected States, 1990–2009

Note: The vertical scale of the figures for California, Texas, and Florida (in the top row) is different from the vertical scale for New York, Illinois, and New Jersey (in the bottom row). In all figures, the lines (representing net change in population size) are scaled according to the vertical axis on the right. The bars (representing entries and exits) are scaled according to the vertical axis on the left.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

States with the Largest Net Changes in Populations of Unauthorized Immigrants, 2009

The seven states with the fastest growing populations of unauthorized immigrants over the past two decades, in declining order, were in the southeast: Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, and Georgia. In each of these states, the unauthorized immigrant population was more than 11 times larger in 2010 than it was in 1990; by contrast, the total U.S. unauthorized immigrant population tripled in the 1990 to 2010 period. In 1990, these seven states were home to just 2.5 percent (about 90,000) of the total unauthorized immigrant population; by 2010, the seven states had 10.4 percent (1.2 million) of the U.S. total. Yet despite the very rapid growth in these states from 1990 to 2010, the percent of unauthorized to total residents in the seven-state area in 2010 was still well below the same percent for California. In these seven states, the 1.2 million unauthorized residents in 2010 made up 2.9 percent of the total resident population of 42.3 million. In California, the 2.9 million unauthorized residents in 2010 constituted 7.9 percent of the total resident population of 37.3 million.

Qualifications and Sensitivity Analyses

As described above, our estimates are more statistically reliable than those produced by Pew and OIS and they include detailed information about inflows, outflows, and net change in each year and by state. However, three potential methodological issues regarding our estimates are worth exploring.

First, the basic logic of the residual method identifies the number of unauthorized immigrants by subtracting the number of authorized immigrants from the total foreign-born population. Precise counts of the legally resident population should—but in our estimates do not—include: (1) asylees and parolees who have work authorization but who have not adjusted to permanent resident status; (2) aliens who have filed Form I-485 (Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status) and who have been given work authorization pending final approval of legal permanent resident status; and (3) aliens who are allowed to remain and work in the United States under various legislative provisions, such as Temporary Protected Status. Unfortunately, current estimates are not available for these groups; estimates for 2000 totaled 577,000 people (Warren 2003). Because we are likely modestly understating the number of authorized immigrants, we are also likely modestly overstating the number of unauthorized immigrants.

Second, we are not able to quantify the migration of authorized immigrants between U.S. states. For our purposes, the state of residence of authorized immigrants is generally the state in which they lived when they entered DHS’s databases. Subsequent changes of residence to other states typically are not recorded. Net internal migration of both authorized and unauthorized immigrants within the U.S. after admission could affect the accuracy of our estimates of unauthorized immigration for individual states. We discuss the issue of internal migration in more detail at the end of this section.

Third, as described above, the methodology used to generate our estimates is based on assumptions about (1) mortality rates among the foreign born; (2) rates of emigration from the United States; and (3) undercount rates in the Census and ACS. Although we cannot know any of these rates with precision, in this section we quantify the sensitivity of our estimates to alternative assumptions about each of these rates. How much would our national estimate of 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants in January of 2010 change under alternate assumptions about the three sets of rates?

Mortality

Because of their relatively youthful age distributions, authorized and unauthorized immigrants have crude death rates that are lower than the rate for the entire U.S. population. Consequently, alternative assumptions about death rates have very little impact on our estimates. Increasing the crude death rate for the unauthorized immigrant population by 25 percent would reduce our estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population by only 81 thousand, or 0.7%. Increasing the crude death rate for the authorized immigrant population by 25 percent would increase the total unauthorized population by 90 thousand, or 0.8%. As noted above, the effects of increasing or decreasing mortality rates for both authorized and unauthorized immigrants would be offsetting.

Emigration and Undercount

Assumptions about emigration and undercount have greater potential for biasing our estimates. Table 4 shows the amount and percent that our estimate of total number of the unauthorized immigrants would change if alternative assumptions about emigration and undercount—plus or minus 25 percent in both cases—were used to construct that estimate. In general, even these extreme alternative assumptions about emigration and undercount would change our estimate of 11.7 million by only plus or minus 400,000 or about 3.5 percent.

Note that all of these sensitivity analyses pertain to our point estimate of the total size of the unauthorized immigrant population. The discussion above provides considerable support for our assumptions about mortality, emigration, and undercount rates. Reasonable variations in these assumptions would not matter a great deal for the sorts of temporal trends shown in Figure 1 or in parallel figures for states.

Net internal migration

To take account of internal migration would require detailed data on net internal migration for each state, by year of entry, compiled separately for legal and unauthorized immigrants; unfortunately, the necessary information is not available. DHS takes account of internal migration of part of the legal resident population by using data on the residence of the naturalized population; PEW takes account of internal migration of legal residents by using state-to-state migration rates for six states (CA, TX, NY, FL, IL, and NJ) and “all other” from the CPS and assuming that the rates for all foreign-born apply to the estimates of legal residents by state.18

There are three reasons why the effects of net internal migration of legal residents on our estimates could be relatively small. First, the majority of LPRs are admitted on the basis of close kinship with U.S. relatives, possibly reducing their odds of subsequent out-of-state moves. Second, a substantial proportion of the legally resident population already had a residence in the U.S. at the time they entered the DHS data systems, for example by adjusting from temporary to permanent lawful residence. Third, the legal immigrants and refugees in our estimates have, on average, only five years of residence in the U.S., reducing the time they have to migrate compared to those who have been here for longer periods.

Discussion

We estimate that about 11.7 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States in January of 2010.19 This figure is likely a modest overestimate (by perhaps a few hundred thousand) because data are not available for some (relatively smaller) portions of the authorized immigrant population (who are thus counted as unauthorized). More than half of all unauthorized immigrants lived in California, Texas, Florida, and New York. The number of unauthorized immigrants coming to the U.S. grew steadily in the 1990s, declined between 2000 and 2003, and then continued to decline rapidly after 2005. From 2000 to 2009, arrivals of unauthorized immigrants to the U.S. dropped from about 1.4 million to 400,000, a decline of 72 percent. While there is a great deal of publicity about the number of unauthorized immigrants who enter the U.S. each year, it is important to reiterate that many unauthorized immigrants also leave that population each year—well over half a million in 2009. Because of declining inflows after 2000 and steadily increasing outflows since 1990, annual net change in the size of the unauthorized immigrant population has also declined—indeed, it was negative in 2008 and 2009. That is, since 2007 the United States has lost more unauthorized immigrants than it has gained. It should be noted, however, that even though the unauthorized immigrant population in the U.S. has essentially reached zero growth, unauthorized immigration to the United States continues at a high level – nearly 400,000 arrived in 2009.

The annual time series for every state can be used in conjunction with other data collected by the Census Bureau to analyze trends in immigration since 1990. The estimates will complement any analysis of immigration trends carried out at the state level.20 For example, in her discussion of immigration to gateway states, Singer (1994) shows state-by-state estimates of the percent change in the foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000. Using our estimates, Table 2 in that report could be revised to show comparable estimates for legal and unauthorized residents in each state. Then, those tables could be updated to show change from 2000 to 2010.

Although additional analyses are beyond the scope of this article, we can illustrate some of the implications of these estimates by focusing on the seven rapidly growing states in the southeast.21 On the broadest scale, the size of the unauthorized population in these seven states in 2010 might not appear to be remarkable – even after growing very rapidly for 20 years, unauthorized immigrants make up just 2.9 percent of all residents, well below the U.S. average of 3.9 percent. When we expand the analysis to include census data for the foreign-born population, we begin to see additional effects of unauthorized immigration to the seven states. In 1990, the percent of foreign-born that were unauthorized was the same in the seven states as it was nationally, about 18 percent. From 1990 to 2010, the percent of the foreign-born that were unauthorized jumped from 18 percent to forty seven percent in the seven states. In other words, in 1990 the foreign-born population in the seven states was small, about 500,000, and fewer than one in five were unauthorized residents. By 2010, the foreign-born population had quadrupled to 2.6 million, and nearly half of them were unauthorized.

As described above, our estimates (as are those from OIS and Pew) are based on assumptions about mortality rates, emigration rates, and rates of undercount in the Census and ACS. As demonstrated above, our point estimates—at least at the national level—change only modestly if we make fairly extreme alternative assumptions about those rates. Our inferences about trends over time are likely unaffected by these assumptions. Nonetheless, our estimates could be improved by refinements in techniques for measuring emigration and undercount rates. Indeed many important policy and academic questions could be much more readily addressed if the Census Bureau would implement the pending U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO1998) recommendation that the Census Bureau and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now DHS) devise a plan of joint research to evaluate the quality and completeness of census and survey data on the foreign-born population in the United States. In addition, DHS should improve its collection of data on the arrival and departure of all nonimmigrants.

The quality of our estimates is certainly limited by the accuracy and completeness of the data on which they are based; besides the assumptions about mortality, undercount, and emigration that are built into our estimates, they are still also subject to random sampling error. Note, however, that amid all of the speculation and attempts to estimate the size of the unauthorized immigrant population over the years, the methodology used here is the only one that has been tested empirically. When IRCA was enacted in 1986, the U.S. Government needed to know how many might come forward for legalization so that it could set up legalization offices across the country. The Statistics Division of what was then called the Immigration and Naturalization Service, using methods similar to the ones used here, projected that the number of pre-1982 applicants for legalization would range from 1.3 to 2.7 million. A total of 1.6 million in this group came forward. In the large majority of cases, the projected high and low ranges for individual states bracketed the numbers that actually applied for legalization. A difference between the data and methods used here and those that performed so well at the time of IRCA is that both the methods and data sources have been improved significantly since 1987.

Our estimates of the total number of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. and in larger states are comparable to those produced over the past few years by Pew and DHS. The similarities in these estimates are remarkable given the differences in data sources and methods used to derive them. Overall, however, our data and methods produce estimates with smaller ranges of sampling error compared to those produced by Pew, and we show estimates for all of the states and D.C. instead of just the top ten states produced by DHS. We also provide a longer time series, covering every year between 1990 and 2010. Finally, an important and unique strength of our estimates is that we quantify inflows into and outflows from the unauthorized immigrant population at both the state and national levels. This makes possible any number of policy and academic analyses of the factors that influence inflows, outflows, and net change and of the economic, social, political, demographic, and other consequences of those trends.

Footnotes

This report and the estimates herein would not have been possible without the contributions of Michael Hoefer and his staff in the DHS Office of Immigration Statistics and the staff of the Immigration Statistics Branch in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Division. We are also grateful for assistance from Karl Eschbach, Linda Gage, Hans Johnson, Carolyn Liebler, Joe Salvo, Vicky Virgin, and several anonymous reviewers. All errors and omissions, however, are the responsibility of the authors.

1

Passel (1986) and others distinguish between “analytic” estimates—those based on systematic analysis of publicly available data—and “speculative” estimates based on conjecture and/or the misuse of data. In this article, we are only concerned with analytic estimates. Although speculative estimates—such as those by Elbel (2007) and Justich and Ng (2005)—often receive as much public attention as analytic estimates, they are not subject to verification or methodological improvement.

2

Less attention is paid to estimates of the number of unauthorized immigrants who leave the U.S. each year (Ahmed and Robinson 1994; Van Hook and Zhang 2011; Warren and Peck 1980).

3

One exception is Warren (1994), whose national estimates were based on data from the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) legalization program, estimates of nonimmigrant overstays, and estimates for Mexico based on the residual method.

4

Nonimmigrants are non-citizens admitted legally for specified temporary periods. Examples include foreign students, temporary workers, intra-company transferees, and others, including family members. These estimates include only those nonimmigrants that would be expected to be counted in censuses and surveys.

5

Our assumed undercount rate of 10.0 percent in the 2000 Census for unauthorized immigrants who entered in 1990 to 1999 is comparable to estimated undercount rates for two of the most difficult-to-measure populations in the 2000 Census: (1) Hispanic males age 16 to 29 (10 percent) and age 30 to 49 (15 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a: Table 4) and (2) Black males age 18 to 49 (8.3 percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2001: Appendix Table B3). In addition, in constructing an estimate of the unauthorized immigrant population originating from Mexico for 1996, the Mexico-United States Binational Migration Study “set plausible underenumeration rates for the legal and unauthorized Mexican populations at 4 and 12 percent respectively” (Bean et al. 1998: 79).

6

A higher rate of undercount was used for nonimmigrant residents compared to LPRs and refugees because nonimmigrants are recent arrivals with relatively less experience and less attachment to the U.S. and thus they would be more difficult to enumerate.

7

Our overall undercount rate of 12.1 percent for unauthorized immigrants that entered from 2000 to 2009 is consistent with the rates used by Pew and OIS. Pew has developed a set of assumptions consistent with the available information from census-based studies and with historical demographic data from Mexico. The undercount rates are higher for countries where the population is largely Latino, for young adult males and for recent arrivals. Overall, in 2008, these assumptions resulted in an estimated undercount of 12.5% for unauthorized immigrants in the March CPS. In deriving their estimates, DHS assumes that 10 percent of unauthorized immigrants are omitted from the ACS.

8

The estimates in column 1 of Table 1 are from the 2010 ACS, which is the first ACS to be controlled to the results of the 2010 Census. Comparisons of the results presented here with similar estimates for July 2009 – based on ACS data controlled to the 2000 Census – indicate that shifting the ACS controls from the 2000 census to the 2010 ACS increased the estimated unauthorized immigrant population by between 750,000 and 1 million.

9

Specifically, we adjust for “heaping”— the tendency for respondents in censuses and surveys to erroneously select years ending in zero or five when reporting their age or year of entry. It was apparent from examining the ACS data and from the pattern of annual estimates produced by the unadjusted ACS data that there was a considerable amount of heaping on the year 2000. For each state, the size of the 2000 entry cohort used in these estimates was limited to no more than 25 percent above the average of the 2001 and 2002 entry cohorts. The amount that the 2000 entry cohort exceeded the limit was judged to be due to heaping.

10

For the nine states that have the smallest unauthorized immigrant populations, the size of each residual estimate shown in column 3 was set to be (1) at least as large as the estimated legal population and (2) no larger than twice the percent of unauthorized to total foreign-born estimated for the State in the 1995 to 1999 period. These limitations added logical consistency to the estimates and tended to smooth the annual entry cohorts.

11

The description above is conceptually accurate, but the actual calculations were done differently. The size of each entry cohort shown in Column 16 is defined as, “the number that will produce the figure in Column 6 after being reduced by the four components of change each year.” Because estimated emigrants and deaths are based on rates, it was necessary to use an iterative process to derive the numbers shown in Column 16. This estimation procedure assures that unauthorized immigrants that entered the U.S. during each year of the decade, and then left the population before the end of the decade, are taken into account in the estimates.

12

It is important to note that the phrase “leaving the unauthorized resident population, “ as used above, does not refer to internal migration within the United States. The term “emigration” above refers to movement out of the United States. Below we discuss the issue of internal migration in more detail.

13

If emigration rates of unauthorized immigrants from 2008 to 2010 had been about the same as the rates we used, the cohort would have declined by about 11 percent.

14

We provide Appendix Table A3 here to facilitate the peer review process. We anticipate that this lengthy table will be made available on-line, not in print, once this article is accepted for publication.

15

In the large majority of states, the patterns of estimated arrivals and, consequently, net change in the unauthorized immigrant populations show peaks in 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. While this pattern could reflect actual peaks in inflows, especially in 2000, these peaks at 5-year intervals probably also reflect an unknown amount of “heaping,” which is the tendency for respondents to choose dates ending in 0 or 5.

16

Estimated inflow to Mississippi increased from 1,418 in 2000 to 2,315 in 2009.

17

There are certainly exceptions to the patterns described above. For example, in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma, inflows continued at high levels from 2002 through 2009. The annual inflow to Tennessee was about 13,000 from 1999 to 2007 and then declined in 2008 and 2009. We will leave it to others to explore the reasons for various regional and state-specific exceptions to the general patterns described above.

18

The DHS or PEW procedures would not be applicable to our estimates. The naturalization data would not cover the majority of our legal resident population because, on average, our legal immigrant population resided in the U.S. for only 5 years, which is about the length of time that would be needed to naturalize. The PEW assumption that the rates for all foreign-born apply to legal residents has not been tested empirically. In fact, there are plausible reasons, described in the text, to believe that legal immigrants, especially the recently arrived immigrants in our estimates, have relatively lower rates of internal migration than the rest of the foreign-born population.

19

As noted above, these estimates were derived using 2010 ACS data that are consistent with the 2010 Census count. As a result, they are approximately 750,000 to one million higher than other recent estimates that were based on 2000 Census counts. Explanation of the differences in the foreign-born population caused by changing from 2000- to 2010-based ACS population controls is beyond the scope of this article.

20

Studies of trends in immigration, by category of migrants, would be improved considerably if methods were devised to estimate unauthorized immigration below the state level.

21

Of all the states and D.C, the seven with the highest ratios of unauthorized immigrants in 2010 compared to 1990 are: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. The ratios range from 12:1 for Georgia to 19:1 for Alabama.

Contributor Information

Robert Warren, Former Director, Statistics Division U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.

John Robert Warren, Minnesota Population Center, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota.

References

  1. Ahmed Bashir, Robinson J. Gregory. Estimates of Emigration of the Foreign-Born Population: 1980–1990. Washington, D.C: U.S. Bureau of the Census; 1994. Technical Working Paper No. 9. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bean Frank D, Corona Rodolfo, Tuirán Rodolfo, Woodrow-Lafield Karen A. Migration Between Mexico and the United States: Binational Study, Volume I, Thematic Chapters. Mexico-United States Binational Migration Study: Mexican Ministry of Foreign Affairs and U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform; 1998. “The Quantification of Migration between Mexico and the United States.”; pp. 1–90. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bean Frank D, King Allan G, Passel Jeffrey S. “The Number of Illegal Migrants of Mexican Origin in the United States: Sex Ratio-based Estimates for 1980.”. Demography. 1983;20:99–109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bos Edward. “Estimates of the Number of Illegal Aliens: An Analysis of the Sources of Disagreement.”. Population Research and Policy Review. 1984;3:239–254. [Google Scholar]
  5. Donato Katherine, Armenta Amada. “What We Know About Unauthorized Migration.”. Annual Review of Sociology. 2011:37. [Google Scholar]
  6. Elbel Fred. “How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? - An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers.”. The Social Contract. 2007;17:241–254. [Google Scholar]
  7. Espenshade Thomas J. “Undocumented Migration to the United States: Evidence from a Repeated Trials Model.”. In: Bean Frank D, Edmonston Barry, Passel Jeffrey S., editors. Undocumented Migration to the United States: IRCA and the Experience of the 1980s. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  8. Espenshade Thomas J. “Unauthorized Immigration to the United States.”. Annual Review of Sociology. 1995;21:195–216. doi: 10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001211. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Frisbie Parker. “Illegal Migration from Mexico to the United States: A Longitudinal Analysis.”. International Migration Review. 1975;9:3–13. [Google Scholar]
  10. Heer David M. “What is the Annual Net Flow of Undocumented Mexican Immigrants to the United States?”. Demography. 1979;16:417–423. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Hill Kenneth. “Illegal Aliens: An Assessment.”. In: Levine Daniel B, Hill Kenneth, Warren Robert., editors. Immigration Statistics: A Story of Neglect. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences; 1985. pp. 225–245. [Google Scholar]
  12. Hill Laura E, Johnson Hans P. Unauthorized Immigrants in California: Estimates for Counties. San Francisco: Public Policy Institute of California; 2011. Accessed at http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_711LHR.pdf on 7/27/2011. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoefer Michael, Rytina Nancy, Baker Bryan C. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2010. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  14. Hoefer Michael, Rytina Nancy, Campbell Christopher. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2005. Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics, Policy Directorate; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  15. Justich Robert, Ng Betty. The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface. New York: Bear Stearns Asset Management Inc; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  16. Lancaster C, Scheuren F. “Counting the Uncountable Illegals: Some Initial Statistical Speculations Employing Capture-Recapture Techniques.”. Proceedings of the Social Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association. 1977;Part I:530–535. [Google Scholar]
  17. Marcelli EA, Ong PM. “2000 Census Coverage of Foreign-born Mexicans in Los Angeles County: Implications for Demographic Analysis.”; Atlanta, GA. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meetings of the Population Association of America.2002. [Google Scholar]
  18. Martin Jack, Ruark Eric A. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers. Washington, D.C.: Federation for American Immigration Reform; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. Massey Douglas S, Singer Audrey. “New Estimates of Undocumented Mexican Migration and the Probability of Apprehension.”. Demography. 1995;32:203–213. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Passel Jeffrey. Estimates of the Size and Characteristics of the Undocumented Population. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center; 2005. Pew Research Center Report. Accessed at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/44.pdf on 7/28/2011. [Google Scholar]
  21. Passel Jeffrey S. “Undocumented Immigration.”. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 1986;487:181–200. [Google Scholar]
  22. Passel Jeffrey S, Cohn D'Vera. Trends in Unauthorized Immigration: Undocumented Inflow Now Trails Legal Inflow. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center; 2008. Pew Research Center Report. Accessed at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/94.pdf on 7/27/2011. [Google Scholar]
  23. Passel Jeffrey S, Cohn D'Vera. “A Portrait of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States “. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center; 2009. Pew Research Center Report. Accessed at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/107.pdf on 6/2/2011. [Google Scholar]
  24. Passel Jeffrey S, Cohn D'Vera. “U.S. Unauthorized Immigration Flows Are Down Sharply Since Mid-Decade “. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center; 2010. Pew Research Center Report. Accessed at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/126.pdf on 6/2/2011. [Google Scholar]
  25. Passel Jeffrey S, Cohn D'Vera. Unauthorized Immigrant Population: National and State Trends, 2010. Washington, D.C.: Pew Hispanic Center; 2011. Pew Research Center Report. Accessed at http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/133.pdf on 7/27/2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. Passel Jeffrey S, Woodrow Karen A. “Geographic Distribution of Undocumented Immigrants: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 Census by State.”. International Migration Review. 1984;18:642–671. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gregory Robinson J. “Estimating the Approximate Size of the Illegal Alien Population in the United States by the Comparative Trend Analysis of Age-Specific Death Rates.”. Demography. 1980;17:159–176. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Sekar C, Deming W. “On a Method of Estimating Birth and Death Rates and the Extent of Registration.”. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 1949;44:101–115. [Google Scholar]
  29. Shryock Henry S, Siegel Jacob S Associates. The Methods and Materials of Demography, Volume 2. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1973. [Google Scholar]
  30. Siegel Jacob S, Passel Jeffrey S, Robinson J Gregory. U.S. Immigration Policy and the National Interest: The Staff Report of the Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 1980. “Preliminary Review of Existing Studies of the Number of Illegal Residents in the United States.”. [Google Scholar]
  31. Singer Audrey. Changes in the Employment and Earnings of the Legalized Population. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  32. Smith Hon. Lamar. “Eight In Ten Apprehended Illegal Immigrants Not Prosecuted.”. Congressional Record. 2011 Mar 29; 2011 (Extensions) [Google Scholar]
  33. U.S. Census Bureau. “ESCAP II: Demographic Analysis Results.”. 2001 Retrived on 11/1/2011 from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/Report1.PDF.
  34. U.S. Census Bureau. “The Development and Sensitivity Analysis of the 2010 Demographic Analysis Estimates “. 2010a Retreived on 11/1/2011 from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/pdf/20101206_da_revpaper.pdf.
  35. U.S. Census Bureau. “PUMS Accuracy of the Data (2010).”. 2010b Retrieved on 12/2011 from U.S. Census Bureau: http://www.census.gov/acs/www/Downloads/data_documentation/pums/Accuracy/2010AccuracyPUMS.pdf.
  36. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Yearbook of Immigration Statistics: 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics; 2010. [Google Scholar]
  37. U.S. General Accounting Office. GAO/GGD-98–164. Washington, D.C: United States General Accounting Office; 1998. “Immigration Statistics: Information Gaps, Quality Issues Limit Utility of Federal Data to Policymakers.”. [Google Scholar]
  38. Van Hook Jennifer, Zhang Weiwei. “Who Stays? Who Goes? Selective Emigration Among the Foreign-Born “. Population Research and Policy Review. 2011;30:1–24. doi: 10.1007/s11113-010-9183-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Warren Robert. “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States, by Country of Origin and State of Residence: October 1992.”. Unpublished report, Immigration and Naturalization Service, U.S. Department of Justice; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  40. Warren Robert. “Estimates of the Undocumented Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: October 1996.”; Anaheim, CA. Paper presented at the Joint Statistical Meetings; Aug 13, 1997. 1997. [Google Scholar]
  41. Warren Robert. Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: 1990 to 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Office of Policy and Planning; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  42. Warren Robert, Passel Jeffrey S. “A Count of the Uncountable: Estimates of Undocumented Aliens Counted in the 1980 United States Census.”. Demography. 1987;24:375–393. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Warren Robert, Marks Peck Jennifer. “Foreign-Born Emigration From The United States: 1960 To 1970.”. Demography. 1980;17:71–84. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Woodrow Karen A, Passel Jeffrey. “Post-IRCA Undocumented Immigration to the United States: An Assessment Based on the June 1988 CPS.”. In: Bean Frank D, Edmonston Barry, Passel Jeffrey S., editors. Undocumented Migration to the United States: IRCA and the Experience of the 1980s. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute; 1990. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES