Nation of SettlersImmigration Policy Research
On this page
Demographics

Why Immigration Looks Different From One Town to the Next

The national immigration percentage is only a starting point. Where people settle determines what changes show up in housing, schools, jobs and civic life.

·3 min read
The BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey.
The BAPS Swaminarayan Hindu temple in Robbinsville, New Jersey.BAPS Swaminarayan temple, Robbinsville, New Jersey. Photo: BAPS Swaminarayan Sanstha, CC BY-SA 3.0 (via Wikimedia Commons).

Key Findings

  1. A majority of US immigrants live in 12 metropolitan areas, so the national percentage hides substantial local concentration.

  2. The foreign-born share is 14% nationally, 1.9% in the mostly rural comparison group, and 30.1% to 42.3% in the selected local examples below.

  3. Foreign-born status records where a person was born. It does not identify race, religion, language ability or political views.

  4. A larger foreign-born population can create real demands for housing, classrooms and public services. Those effects need local evidence rather than a national average.

A national figure cannot tell a family what has changed in its school district. Population growth can be modest across a large area while concentrated in particular neighborhoods, job markets and schools.

The latest national estimate places a majority of immigrants in 12 metropolitan areas. New York, Los Angeles and Miami account for particularly large shares. That concentration is why people in different parts of the country can describe immigration from very different vantage points.

The national number and the local picture

A national share tells you how many residents were born outside the United States. It does not tell you which neighborhoods, schools or rental markets absorb the change.

Counting places introduces another distinction. A small rural county and Los Angeles County each count as one county, even though they serve very different numbers of people. A statement about most counties cannot be restated as a statement about most Americans.

Foreign-born share of residents: national and local comparisons

Foreign-born residents as a percentage of each place's population. Source years vary by place.

United States14%
Mostly rural counties1.9%
New York City36.1%
San Jose metro40.8%
Dearborn, Michigan30.1%
Miami metro42.3%
Los Angeles County33.3%

Sources: Data USA / American Community Survey; Pew Research Center (national 2023 estimate); Census (2011–15 rural benchmark).

The chart measures the percentage of each place's residents who are foreign-born. It does not show the percentage of all US immigrants living there. Local estimates use the 2024 American Community Survey profiles; the national and rural comparison sources are listed below.

Different measures answer different questions

Foreign-born is a birthplace measure. It includes naturalized citizens and says nothing by itself about race, religion, language proficiency or political beliefs. Ethnic and racial categories include people whose families have lived here for generations, so they answer a different question.

A town can become more ethnically diverse while its residents become more fluent in English. It can also add English-speaking residents while housing demand rises. Those are different developments and require different evidence.

Historical comparisons need particular care. Census categories and reporting practices change. A modern QuickFacts page is not, by itself, a source for a town’s racial composition in 1990.

Institutions respond to population

New places of worship, businesses and community organizations make demographic change visible. Their existence does not tell us whether their members participate in other civic institutions.

The national mosque survey, for example, counted 1,209 mosques in 2000 and 2,769 in 2020. That is a count of congregational institutions. It is not a count of new buildings or a direct measure of Muslim population growth.

Local reporting should ask how these organizations interact with schools, employers and public life. A grocery store or a temple is an observable institution. A claim that residents no longer participate in the surrounding city needs separate support.

Planning for receiving communities

Lower admissions and closer attention to federally organized resettlement are policy choices. Whichever policy is adopted, the capacity question is concrete: are homes, classrooms, transport and language services keeping pace with local arrivals?

Job opportunities and existing family networks influence where people settle. A dispersal proposal must therefore explain how people would find work, what assistance it would provide, and how it would respect residents’ freedom to move.

The national average is a starting point. Decisions about capacity require local evidence and clear definitions.

Sources