F e d e r a t i o n
f o r
A m e r i c a n
I m m i g r a t i o n
R e f o r m
U
RBAN BLOAT
How Immigration Fuels
Population Growth
by John L. Martin
E X E C U T I V E S U M M A R Y | Many of the nation’s large cities are growing at an
alarming rate. Immigration is the major contributor to those high growth rates—all of it in some cases—
and to the many negative impacts that arise from rapidly increasing populations, such as school
overcrowding, bankrupt public health care systems, the alarming number of children living in poverty,
insufficient low-income housing, and deteriorating or inadequate infrastructure.
❚
In all large cities in the United States where the population is increasing, immigration is fueling the
increase.
❚
Of metro areas with populations of more than one million in 2000 and an increase in population of
over 20 percent between 1990–2000, the rate of increase of the immigrant population is generally
more than three times greater than the rate of increase in native-born newcomers.
❚
In some major urban areas with the largest influx of immigrants, so many native-born residents are
moving out that immigration accounted for all of the population increase there, and then some (in the
New York City, Boston, San Jose, Newark, and Bergen-Passaic metro areas).
❚
In mid-sized cities with population growth higher than 20 percent between 1990–2000, new
immigrant residents accounted for portions ranging from one-fifth to one-third of the increase.
❚
In every smaller metro area that increased by more than 20 percent between 1990–2000, the rate of
increase from immigration exceeded the increase from domestic migration. The rate of population
increase in the immigrant population of these cities ranged from about twice as much as the increase
in the native-born population (Daytona Beach) up to more than 15 times as much (FayettevilleSpringdale-Rogers metro area).
INTRODUCTION
The United States experienced record levels of immigration in the 1990s. Fifteen million
immigrants settled in the U.S. legally and illegally during the decade. Factor in their
children and the generally higher fertility rates among immigrant groups, and this single
factor accounts, conservatively, for more than half the astounding 35 million increase in
U.S. population in the 1990s.
Immigration at these levels has a significant impact on a variety of pressing national issues,
such as school overcrowding, bankrupt public health care systems, the alarming number of
children living in poverty, and deteriorating or inadequate infrastructure. For cities and
regions experiencing particularly high levels of immigration-related population growth, no
serious discussion of these issues can be undertaken without reexamining immigration
policy.
THE BIRD’S-EYE VIEW
Immigration increased at more than six times the rate of increase for the native-born
population. Nationwide, population increased by 13 percent over the 1990s. However,
when the components of that increase are analyzed, it can be seen that the immigrant
population1 increased 57.4 percent (from 19.8 million to 31.1 million), while the nativeborn population increased 9.3 percent (from 229.1 million to 250.3 million).
This division of the increase in the population identifies immigration as being directly
responsible for more than one-third (35%) of the country’s population increase during the
1990s. The most recent estimate by the Census Bureau indicates that, since the start of the
new century, immigration is accounting for almost half (44%) of the population increase,2
without taking into account the additional impact resulting from the children born to
immigrants after they arrive.
If our immigration policies remain unchanged, Census Bureau projections show that
immigration will account for two-thirds of the staggering 135 million additional residents
projected to be added our population during the first half of this century. In that context,
discussing the future of American cities without addressing the impact of immigration is an
exercise in futility.
LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS: IMMIGRANT INFLUX AND
NATIVE-BORN EXODUS
In all large cities in the United States where the population is increasing, immigration
is fueling the increase. Of metro areas with populations of more than one million in
2000 and an increase in population of over 20 percent between 1990–2000, the rate
of increase of the immigrant population is generally more than three times greater
than the rate of increase in non-immigrant newcomers.
2
U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth | FAIR
Many of the cities with the largest influx of immigrants are not increasing especially rapidly
in total population because there are so many native-born residents moving out of those
cities. That exodus of native-born residents dampens the overall net change. In five of
those metropolitan areas,3 i.e., those in which the native-born population was less in 2000
than in 1990 (see Table 1), immigration accounted for all of the metropolitan area’s
population increase between 1990–2000, and then some. In all of the others, immigration
accounted directly for more than half of the metropolitan area’s population increase.4
The problems resulting from the demographic trends in those large immigrant-settlement
cities relate to the population increase itself (immigration added more than 100,000
residents in each of these cities during the 1990s) and to the changing characteristics of the
population, as immigrants displace or replace native-born residents. Those localities have
acute problems associated with the influx of immigrants such as school overcrowding,
insufficient low-income housing, and the strains on public education from educating large
numbers of non-English-speaking children.
Table 1
Metro Area
Population
1990
2000
Bergen-Passaic, N.J.
1,278,440
1,373,167
Boston, Mass.
3,227,707
Chicago, Ill.
Native-Born
1990
Change
1990
2000
Change
1,041,502 1,020,575
-2%
236,938
352,592
49%
3,406,835
2,914,462 2,898,556
-1%
313,245
508,279
62%
7,410,858
8,272,768
6,523,247 6,846,790
5%
887,611
1,425,978
61%
Detroit, Mich.
4,266,654
4,441,551
4,032,181 4,106,444
2%
234,473
335,107
43%
Los Angeles, Calif.
8,863,164
9,519,338
5,968,098 6,069,894
2%
Middlesex-SomersetHunterdon, N.J.
1,019,835
1,169,641
Nassau-Suffolk, N.Y.
2,609,212
2,753,913
Newark, N.J.
1,915,928
New York, N.Y.
893,182
2000
Foreign-Born
926,235
2,895,066 3,449,444
19%
4%
126,653
243,406
92%
2,335,690 2,356,974
1%
273,522
396,939
45%
2,032,989
1,649,462 1,647,182
0%
266,466
385,807
45%
8,546,846
9,314,235
6,263,915 6,174,588
-1%
Oakland, Calif.
2,082,914
2,392,557
1,745,479 1,819,413
4%
337,435
573,144
70%
Philadelphia, Pa.
4,922,175
5,100,931
4,669,670 4,743,510
2%
252,505
357,421
42%
San Francisco, Calif.
1,603,678
1,731,183
1,162,388 1,176,364
1%
441,290
554,819
26%
San Jose, Calif.
1,497,577
1,682,585
1,150,376 1,109,455
-4%
347,201
573,130
65%
FAIR | U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth
2,282,931 3,139,647
38%
3
Evidence of this problem may be seen in looking at 2000 Census data for the nation’s two
largest concentrations of immigrants: Los Angeles and New York City. As shown in Table
2 below, both of these metropolitan areas have elevated levels of children in families with
income below the poverty level, who live in high-poverty neighborhoods, who are high
school dropouts, and who have difficulty communicating in English.
Other examples of chronic immigration-related problems in these major cities include
overcrowded housing, school crowding, and budgetary problems due to increasing outlays
for services at the same time that tax collections stagnate in part because many of these new
workers are earning subsistence wages and/or working off the books.
Table 2
Los Angeles
24.6%
New York
27.5%
National
16.6%
Residents in High Poverty Areas
44.8%
49.6%
20.4%
High School Dropouts
11.8%
10.6%
9.8%
English Difficulty
22.7%
14.8%
6.6%
Children in Poverty
Los Angeles County has the highest rate of severe crowded housing in the United States, at
15 percent, and experts say that the problem is driven by mass numbers of immigrants
working for subsistence wages.5 So many people living in single-family homes strains
services such as trash collection, schools, and public safety.
New York City’s housing supply has not kept pace with its surging population, creating high
prices, overcrowding, and homelessness.6 Bronx County has the third highest rate of
severely crowded housing in the nation.7 Flushing’s housing shortage is so severe that there
is simply no more living space; houses and apartments are being subdivided, and basements,
attics, and garages are all being rented out.8 And New York’s schools are bursting with overcapacity enrollments, a trend that the school chancellor says is “almost exclusively driven by
immigration.”9 Some classes are even being held in school ticket booths and custodial
closets.10
Other cities in this list are suffering as well: Thirty-seven of Detroit’s 88 suburban school
districts had double-digit enrollment growth between 1992 and 2000.11 Apartments in
Bergen are among the least affordable in the U.S., according to the National Low Income
Housing Coalition. To afford the estimated $1,050 rent on a typical two-bedroom
apartment in Bergen, a worker needs to earn an hourly wage of $20.19, almost quadruple
the minimum wage of $5.15.12 In Boston, congestion costs each motorist three days and
$1,255 each year.13 In Chicago, rush hour now lasts almost eight hours a day,14 and
affordable housing shortages are becoming a crisis.15
4
U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth | FAIR
IMMIGRANT AND NATIVE-BORN INFLUX
Where the most dramatically increased problems of crowding, urban sprawl, and related
issues arise is in cities where there is both an influx of immigrants and of native-born
residents. Those two sources of population increase combined with natural change
(involving the birth rate) result in population growth rates that strain the ability of city
planners to manage the impact.
The Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area offers an example of the challenges in dealing
with this high-impact population growth. Portland’s battle against sprawl is well known.
But with a 28 percent increase in population during the 1990s, Portland, once a model for
limiting urban growth, has been forced to repeatedly expand its urban boundary. Growth
has led to traffic congestion, longer commutes, and inflated home prices (which increased
44 percent in the 1990s16). In December 2002, Portland’s regional government agreed to
the largest expansion of allowable development in its history—18,600 acres—simply to
accommodate population growth anticipated over the next 20 years.17 In the Portland
school districts, as many as two out of three new students are immigrants.18
What is strikingly evident in these bursting cities is that the rate of increase in immigrant
settlement is consistently much greater than the rate of increase from domestic migration
into the metropolitan area. This pattern of immigration-led population growth may be seen
in Table 3. The criteria for selecting these metropolitan areas were that they had
populations of more than one million in 2000 and had an increase in population of over 20
percent between 1990–2000. All U.S. metropolitan areas that met these two criteria are
included in the table.19
Even in Las Vegas, the nation’s fastest growing large metropolitan area, the high rate of
increase in the native-born population (131%) is outstripped by the even higher rate of
increase in the foreign-born population (248%). In every other of these metropolitan areas
the rate of increase of the immigrant population is more than three times greater than the
rate of increase in native-born newcomers.
What symptoms accompany this immigration-inflated population growth? Las Vegas’ school
enrollment doubled during the 1990s. Clark County school district (part of the Las Vegas
metro area) projects that, given the current trend, it will add 10,000 to 15,000 students
every year.20,21 Officials say that unless Salt Lake City acts to limit sprawl and curb auto
emissions, the city could soon be “obscured by a soup of pollutants.”22 In the RaleighDurham-Chapel Hill metro area, one in every ten students, or 3,000 students in Durham,
attend class in mobile trailers, many of which are decades old and dilapidated.23 Chapel Hill
expects its high schools to reach 126 percent of their capacity in the next three years.24
Among these large metropolitan areas with population growth rates above 20 percent
between 1990–2000, immigrant settlement directly accounted for more than half of that
increase in Fort Lauderdale (58%). Metropolitan areas in which immigrant settlement
directly accounted for more than two-fifths of population increase during the 1990s were
Houston (48%) and Dallas (41%). More than one-third of population growth was directly
due to immigration in Riverside-San Bernardino (38%), Sacramento (37%), and West Palm
FAIR | U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth
5
Table 3
Population
Metro Area
Native-Born
Foreign-Born
1990
2000
1990
2000
Change
1990
2000
Change
Charlotte-GastoniaRock Hill, N.C.
1,162,093
1,499,293
1,138,052
1,399,533
23%
24,041
99,760
315%
Atlanta, Ga.
2,959,950
4,112,198
2,846,615
3,689,093
30%
113,335
423,105
273%
Raleigh-DurhamChapel Hill, N.C.
855,545
1,187,941
826,205
1,079,138
31%
29,340
108,803
271%
Las Vegas, Nev.
528,000
1,304,788
453,715
1,046,294
131%
74,285
258,494
248%
Nashville, Tenn.
985,026
1,231,311
966,826
1,173,697
21%
18,200
57,614
217%
Denver, Colo.
1,622,980
2,109,282
1,541,646
1,876,186
22%
81,334
233,096
187%
Phoenix-Mesa, Ariz.
2,238,480
3,251,876
2,076,650
2,794,393
35%
161,830
457,483
183%
Salt Lake City-Ogden,
Utah
1,072,277
1,333,934
1,030,500
1,219,426
18%
41,777
114,508
174%
846,227
1,249,763
790,073
1,096,929
39%
56,154
152,834
172%
Dallas, Tex.
2,676,248
3,519,176
2,439,723
2,928,007
20%
236,525
591,169
150%
Orlando, Fla.
1,224,852
1,644,561
1,142,810
1,447,442
27%
82,042
197,119
140%
Portland-Vancouver,
Ore./Wash.
1,515,452
1,918,009
1,427,380
1,709,934
20%
88,072
208,075
136%
Fort Worth-Arlington, Tex. 1,361,034
1,702,625
1,277,157
1,509,152
18%
83,877
193,473
131%
Fort Lauderdale, Fla.
1,255,531
1,623,018
1,057,257
1,212,631
15%
198,274
410,387
107%
952,840
1,100,491
922,446
1,040,905
13%
30,394
59,586
96%
Houston, Tex.
3,322,009
4,177,646
2,881,688
3,322,977
15%
440,321
854,669
94%
Sacramento, Calif.
1,340,010
1,628,197
1,219,874
1,402,257
15%
120,136
225,940
88%
863,503
1,131,184
758,200
934,332
23%
105,303
196,852
87%
RiversideSan Bernadino, Calif.
2,588,793
3,254,821
2,228,143
2,642,462
19%
360,650
612,359
70%
San Antonio, Tex.
1,324,749
1,592,383
1,219,805
1,429,919
17%
104,944
162,464
55%
Austin-San Marcos, Tex.
Jacksonville, Fla.
W. Palm BeachBoca Raton, Fla.
6
U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth | FAIR
Beach-Boca Raton (34%). In most of these other large metro areas, the proportion of
population growth directly attributable to immigration was more than one-fourth of the
overall increase.
IMMIGRATION’S IMPACT ON MID-SIZED METROPOLITAN AREAS
In mid-sized cities with population growth higher than 20 percent between
1990–2000, new immigrant residents accounted for portions ranging from one-fifth
to one-third of the increase.
The impact of rapidly increasing immigrant populations is not limited to the largest
metropolitan areas. The data on cities of between half a million and one million residents
show a similar pattern of a rapidly growing immigrant population outstripping change in the
native-born population (see Table 4). Each of the cities in this table also had population
growth rates in excess of 20 percent between 1990–2000.25
Table 4
Metro Area
Population
1990
Native-Born
Foreign-Born
2000
1990
2000 Change 1990
2000 Change
Albuquerque, N.Mex. 589,131
712,738
560,288
656,558
17%
28,843
56,180
95%
Sarasota-Bradenton,
489,483
Fla.
589,959
461,448
537,308
16%
28,035
52,651
88%
Colorado Springs,
Colo.
397,014
516,929
378,629
483,621
28%
18,385
33,308
81%
McAllen-Edinburgh383,545
Mission, Tex.
569,463
288,830
401,248
39%
94,715
168,215
78%
Bakersfield, Calif.
543,477
661,645
477,336
549,701
15%
66,141
111,944
69%
Tucson, Ariz.
666,880
843,746
606,932
743,696
23%
59,948
100,050
67%
Fresno, Calif.
755,580
922516
623,319
729,046
17%
132,261
193,470
46%
Despite the fact that each of these smaller metropolitan areas was receiving an influx of
native-born newcomers in addition to immigrant settlers, the new foreign-born residents
nevertheless represented a significant share of the overall population increase. The share of
the increase directly attributable to immigration was more than one-third in McAllenEdinburgh-Mission (40%), Bakersfield (39%), and Fresno (37%). The share was more than
one-fifth of the overall population increase in Sarasota-Bradenton (29%), Tucson (23%), and
Albuquerque (22%).
FAIR | U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth
7
IMMIGRATION’S IMPACT ON SMALLER METROPOLITAN AREAS
In every smaller metro area that increased by more than 20 percent between
1990–2000, the rate of increase from net immigrant settlement exceeded the increase
from net domestic in-migration.
The rate of population increase in the immigrant population of these cities ranged
from about twice as much as the increase in the native-born population up to more
than 15 times as much.
A look at similar data for cities with population size between a quarter of a million residents
and half a million residents reveals the same pattern. Once again, the municipalities selected
for examination are all of those that increased in size by more than 20 percent between
1990–2000 (see Table 5).26
The rate of increase from net immigrant settlement exceeded the increase from net
domestic in-migration in every one of these 16 smaller metropolitan areas. The rate
of population increase in the immigrant population of these cities ranged from about twice
as much as the increase in the native-born population (Daytona Beach) up to more than 15
times as much (Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metro area).
The share of the overall population increase that was directly attributable to the influx of
immigrants was more than one-third in Modesto (38%), Brownsville-Harlingen (37%), and
Salem (34%). The amount of change from immigration was more than one-fifth in another
five of the metropolitan areas: Naples (30%), Reno (29%), Boulder-Longmont (22%), Fort
Myers-Cape Coral (22%), and Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie (21%).
RECOMMENDATIONS: CURTAILING THE SURGE IN IMMIGRATION
The number of people coming to our country is based on a discretionary policy. The flow
of legal immigrants, refugees, and even illegal entrants may be changed by law and by the
actions or inaction of the government.
Economic, social, and environmental policy would benefit greatly from moderating mass
immigration. Though not entirely responsible for the three most troublesome phenomena
plaguing America’s large cities—the growing disparity between rich and poor, collapsing
social institutions, and urban sprawl and congestion—none of these issues can be adequately
addressed while large numbers of new immigrants, many lacking education and skills, pour
in.
The bulk of the responsibility for addressing immigration’s impact on America’s cities rests
with the federal government. Washington’s failure to establish clearly definable objectives
for U.S. immigration policy, coupled with its unwillingness to enforce the rules it passes—
often with great fanfare—lies at the core of the issue. But America’s cities, and the people
who run them, are not entirely innocent bystanders. They have shown themselves more
8
U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth | FAIR
Table 5
Population
Native-Born
Foreign-Born
Metro Area
1990
2000
1990
2000
FayettevilleSpringdaleRogers, Ark.
210,939
311,123
207,874
289,561
39%
Boise, Idaho
295,345
432,345
286,980
408,121
Naples, Fla.
152,099
251,377
136,196
Provo-Orem, Utah
263,590
368,536
Salem, Ore.
278,024
Fort MyersCape Coral, Fla.
Change 1990
2000
Change
3,065
21,562
603%
42%
8,365
24,224
190%
205,306
51%
15,903
46,071
190%
255,290
345,349
35%
8,170
23,187
184%
347,214
261,824
307,221
17%
16,200
39,993
147%
335,113
440,888
317,663
400,526
26%
17,450
40,362
131%
BoulderLongmont, Colo.
225,399
291,288
212,839
264,009
24%
12,560
27,279
117%
Reno, Nev.
254,667
339,486
231,302
291,493
26%
23,365
47,993
105%
Ocala, Fla.
194,835
258,916
187,850
245,564
31%
6,985
13,352
91%
Fort CollinsLoveland, Colo.
186,136
251,494
180,401
240,785
33%
5,735
10,709
87%
Fort PiercePort St. Lucie, Fla.
251,071
319,426
234,676
288,943
23%
16,395
30,483
86%
Tallahassee, Fla.
233,598
284,539
226,058
271,346
20%
7,540
13,193
75%
Killeen-Temple, Tex.
255,301
312,952
241,771
291,664
21%
13,530
21,288
57%
Modesto, Calif.
370,522
446,997
317,678
365,382
15%
52,844
81,615
54%
BrownsvilleHarlingenSan Benito, Tex.
260,120
335,227
202,519
249,504
23%
57,601
85,723
49%
Daytona Beach, Fla.
399,438
493,175
375,723
459,865
22%
23,715
33,310
40%
than willing to pander to narrow economic interests and ethnic voting blocs, in an effort to
reap campaign dollars and votes, while sacrificing both the immediate and long-term
interests of their cities.
Once the role of immigration in causing our urban areas to be bursting at the seams is
recognized, the need to pursue the following agenda is clear:
FAIR | U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth
9
Reduce overall immigration levels. Incrementally, the federal government should reduce
overall legal immigration levels to the U.S. to somewhere between a quarter and a third of
current levels, while a vigorous, coordinated effort is made to deter illegal immigration.
Increase federal reimbursement for immigration-related costs. The federal government,
which has ultimate responsibility for making and enforcing immigration laws, should assume
the bulk of the cost burden associated with this policy, thereby relieving state and local
governments of what amounts to an enormous unfunded federal mandate.
Make federal reimbursement contingent on local policies and efforts. Local governments
that choose to offer costly benefits to immigrants, above and beyond those required by
federal policy and common decency, must be prepared to pay those costs themselves. Local
politicians, seeking to appeal to blocs of new voters, should not expect the costs to be borne
by taxpayers throughout the rest of the country.
Immigration enforcement must include federal-local cooperation. Local governments
cannot reasonably complain about the cost and impact of illegal immigration, while they
stand on the sideline, or worse, inhibit, the enforcement of immigration laws. Any local
government refusing to cooperate in enforcing laws against illegal immigration should
forfeit federal reimbursement for the costs associated with illegal immigration.
CONCLUSION
The data indicate where we are and where we are headed. How we choose to react to it is
up to us. The consequences of our action or inaction will determine whether America’s
cities will be centers of vibrant culture, economic advancement, and social harmony, or
decaying cores of despair.
10
U RBAN B LOAT : How Immigration Fuels Population Growth | FAIR
NOTES
1
The terms “immigrant population” and “foreign-born population” are used interchangeably in this study, inasmuch as the
difference between the populations they refer to is negligible.
2
The Census Bureau estimate based on the 2002 Current Population Survey indicates that since 2000, the U.S. population
had increased by 3.2 million, with 1.4 million of that increase due to net international migration.
3
Metropolitan areas, rather than the core cities, are used throughout this study to eliminate the effects of population shifts
between the core city and its suburban areas. Thereby, the movement of native-born residents out of the city proper to the
suburbs because of rising housing costs, congested conditions, or deteriorating schools is nullified.
4
The share of overall population increase due to immigrant settlement in those eight metropolitan areas was: San Francisco
(89%), Nassau (85%), Los Angeles (85%), Middlesex (78%), Oakland (76%), Chicago (63%), Philadelphia (59%), and
Detroit (59%).
5
Haya El Nasser, “U.S. Neighborhoods Grow More Crowded,” USA Today, July 2, 2002.
6
Bruce Lambert, “120 Groups Join to Push $10 Billion Housing Plan,” New York Times, June 1, 2001.
7
Haya El Nasser, op.cit.
8
Michele Ingrassia, “The Big Squeeze; New York Has too Many People, Not Enough Room,” Daily News, August 5, 2001.
9
Charisse Jones, “New-Timers’ Lives Reviving Old Cities,” USA Today, April 20, 2001.
10 Karen Robinson, “Growth Puts School District, Planners in a Bind,” Buffalo News, October 12, 2001.
11 “Student Population Booming in Detroit-Area Districts,” Associated Press, April 30, 2001.
12 “Rental Housing Too Costly for Many in New Jersey,” The Record, September 19, 2002.
13 Karen E. Crummy, “Time for a Tailgate Party: Gridlocked Hub Makes Top 10,” Boston Herald, June 21, 2002.
14 Robert McCoppin, “You Wasted $1,235 and 67 Hours Sitting in Traffic, Study Says,” Chicago Daily Herald, June 24,
2002.
15 Kate N. Grossman, “Affordable Housing Pinch Also Hits Suburbs,” Chicago Sun-Times, July 22, 2002.
16 Tara Burghart, “Urban Planning, Oregon-Style, Gets Strong Support, Criticism,” Associated Press, May 31, 2001.
17 Laura Oppenheimer, “Damascus Waits to See How Growth Wll Proceed,” Oregonian, March 31, 2003.
18 Tracy Jan, “As Enrollment at Oregon Schools Declines, Local Districts Buck Trend,” Oregonian, October 31, 2002.
19 There were an additional nine metropolitan areas with populations over 1,000,000 residents in which the population
growth rate during the 1990s exceeded 15 percent—which approximates a rate for population doubling in 47 years. They
were: Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point (19%), Seattle-Bellevue-Everett (19%), Orange County MSA (18%),
Minneapolis-St. Paul (17%), Washington, D.C. (17%), Indianapolis (16%), Miami (16%), Grand Rapids-Muskegon (16%),
and Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (16%).
20 Anjetta McQueen, “A Crowded Century Ahead,” Associated Press, August 25, 2001.
21 Genaro C. Armas, “Baby Boomers’ Kids, Immigrants to Flood Nation’s High Schools,” Associated Press, May 24, 2001.
22 Timothy Egan, “Urban Sprawl Strains Western States,” New York Times, December 29, 2001.
23 Rebecca E. Eden, “Leaders Meet on School Crowding,” Herald-Sun, May 1, 2001.
24 Neil Offen, “City High Schools Going Mobile,” Chapel Hill Herald, October 6, 2002.
25 All U.S. cities that met the population size and rate of population increase are included in the table. There were an
additional seven metropolitan areas with population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 residents in which the population
growth rate during the 1990s exceeded 15 percent—which approximates a rate for population doubling in 47 years. They
were: Tacoma (20%), Ann Arbor (18%), Knoxville (17%), Stockton-Lodi (17%), Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson (16%),
Richmond-Petersburg (15%), and Vallejo-Fairfield-Napa (15%).
26 There were an additional sixteen metropolitan areas with population between 250,000 and 500,000 residents in which the
population growth rate during the 1990s exceeded 15 percent—which approximates a rate for population doubling in 47
years. They were: Pensacola (20%), Lakeland-Winter Haven (19%), Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay (19%), Santa Rosa
(18%), Visalia-Tulare-Porterville (18%), Lincoln (17%), Hickory-Morganton (17%), Huntsville (17%), Biloxi-GulfportPascagoula (17%), Madison (16%), Des Moines (16%), Spokane (16%), Newburg, NY (15%), Galveston-Texas City (15%),
Anchorage (15%), and Augusta-Aiken (15%).
Federation for American Immigration Reform
The Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) is a national, non-profit, public interest organization of concerned
citizens working to reform our nation’s immigration policy. FAIR seeks to improve border security, to stop illegal immigration,
and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest. FAIR is the largest and most effective organization in
the United States dedicated exclusively to immigration issues. It is financially supported by 70,000 members and over 40
foundations nationwide. FAIR is a tax-exempt organization under §501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.
ISBN 0-935776-36-2
1666 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 400 | Washington, DC 20009
202-328-7004 | 202-387-3447 (fax) | [email protected] | www.fairus.org
™
© August 2003 FAIR Horizon Press™ | All rights reserved | Printed in the United States of America