Where Do Texas Immigrants Come from?



Between July, 2016 and July, 2017, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates that Texas gained more new residents than any other state—399,734. Accounting for the increase, the bureau estimates that 209,690 (52.5 percent) was a result of natural increase—births minus deaths—and 189,580 (47.5 percent) was the result of net migration, the domestic and international population additions minus the departures. Of the net migration, 110, 417 (58.2 percent) were international, and 79,163 (41.8 percent) were domestic.

These revelations caused me to ask where the domestic migrants to Texas were coming from. Although the data for 2016 to 2017 aren’t available, the data for 2015 to 2016 are available and provide an understanding of which states are contributing the most and least to Texas’ net immigrants. The table provides the 49 states (Texas is not applicable) and the District of Columbia’s contribution during that period, arranged from the largest to smallest contributions.


The ten states that provided the largest contributions to Texas’ domestic migration increase were California, Florida, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Illinois, Colorado, Arizona, Virginia, New York, and Georgia. Collectively, they provided 52.15 percent of the growth. The ten states that provided the fewest domestic migrants were Vermont, Wyoming, South Dakota, West Virginia, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Maine, the District of Columbia, Connecticut, and Montana. Collectively, they provided only 2.38 percent of the domestic migrants. The chart depicts the contribution of each quintile of states and the District of Columbia. 

 
Obviously, the top and second quintile provide a substantial majority (slightly more than three-fourths) of the growth in Texas’ population through domestic net migration.

The map depicts the contribution of each of the five states that provided more than one-third of the domestic migrants between 2015 and 2016.




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Whither the Republican Party?

Jonathan Rauch and Benjamin Wittes write in The Atlantic magazine: So we arrive at a syllogism: (1) The GOP has become the party of Trumpism. (2) Trumpism is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. (3) The Republican Party is a threat to democratic values and the rule of law. A syllogism is, according to dictionary.com: 1. Logic. an argument the conclusion of which is supported by two premises, of which one (major premise) contains the term (major term) that is the predicate of the conclusion, and the other (minor premise) contains the term (minor term) that is the subject of the conclusion; common to both premises is a term (middle term) that is excluded from the conclusion. A typical form is “All A is C; all B is A; therefore, all B is C.”. 2. deductive reasoning. 3. an extremely subtle, sophisticated, or deceptive argument. Which definition applies here?   First, has the GOP become the party of Trump? Has he taken control of the party appa...
Read more

Choices for the Final Four (ICRC Commissions, that is)

Image
With four commission positions remaining to be filled, whom should the commissioners select? The commissioners should choose an African American male from TCCC precinct 1. Since the greatest concentrations of African Americans are located in TCCC precinct 1 (see this map ), choosing an African American from this geographic area would provide the greatest voice to the area with the highest concentration of African Americans in the city and the area that would most likely be included in a council district that would possess a plurality of African Americans. The choice should Nathaniel Bradford because of his connections to the community. An Anglo male and an Anglo female should be chosen from TCCC precinct 2. One, if not both, should be chosen from those voter precincts slightly east and west of MOPAC that featured high voter turnout in the 2012 mayoral election (see this map ). The male and female from those voting precincts who the ARP considered the most qualified are He...
Read more

In Defense of a Theory

I’m a big fan of political scientist Seth Masket, but what he wrote in defense of the theory of presidential nominations expounded in The Party Decides intrigues me. First, he notes that his initial defense caused some blowback: Last week at Mischiefs of Faction , I wrote about the book The Party Decides and the extent to which the 2016 is causing trouble for it. I argued that the Republican race isn't providing a very clean test of the theory, while the Democratic race is. This invited substantial pushback from Jonathan Chait , Justin Grimmer , and others, suggesting that I was either protecting the theory from actual testing, or that the theory itself was untestable. So I'd like to clarify a bit and suggest just what evidence we've gathered this year. Then, he goes on to explain more fully: Now, in my recent post, I focused on what I see as the central claim of the book: The party generally gets what it wants. That is, when party elites have selected a...
Read more