I. Overview

Rapid increases in the foreign-born population at the state level are not associated with negative effects on the employment of native-born workers, according to a study by the Pew Hispanic Center that examines data during the boom years of the 1990s and the downturn and recovery since 2000.

An analysis of the relationship between growth in the foreign-born population and the employment outcomes of native-born workers revealed wide variations across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. No consistent pattern emerges to show that native-born workers suffered or benefited from increased numbers of foreign-born workers.

In 2000, nearly 25% of native-born workers lived in states where rapid growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 was associated with favorable outcomes for the native born. Meanwhile, only 15% of native-born workers resided in states where rapid growth in the foreign-born population was associated with negative outcomes for the native born. The remaining 60% of native-born workers lived in states where the growth in the foreign-born population was below average, but those native workers did not consistently experience favorable employment outcomes. The same results emerged from the analysis of data for 2000 to 2004.

When ranked by the growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000, the top 10 states showed significant variation in employment outcomes for native-born workers in 2000. Native workers in five states had employment outcomes that were better than average and native workers in the other five states had employment outcomes that were worse than average. The pattern also held for the 2000 to 2004 time period.

The size of the foreign-born workforce is also unrelated to the employment prospects for native-born workers. The relative youth and low levels of education among foreign workers also appear to have no bearing on the employment outcomes of native-born workers of similar schooling and age.

The study uses Census Bureau data at the state level to examine the growth of the foreign-born population and the employment outcomes for the native born during two time periods, 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2004. The question it addresses is whether above-average growth in the foreign-born population was associated with worse-than-average employment outcomes for the native-born population.

The analysis maps the growth of the foreign-born population in a state over a given time period against three measures for native-born workers—employment rate, labor force participation rate and unemployment rate—at the end of the time period. That establishes the relationship between the pace of immigration and outcomes for the native born. The analysis also explores the relationship between the share of foreign-born workers in the workforce of a given area and the employment rate for native-born workers. That establishes the relationship between the size of the foreign-born presence in a state’s workforce and a key outcome for the native born.

Among the major findings:

• Eight states had above-average growth in the foreign-born population from 1990-2000 and below-average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000. Those states, where immigration may have had a negative impact, include North Carolina, Tennessee and Arizona and accounted for 15% of all native-born workers.
• Fourteen states with above-average growth in the foreign-born population and above-average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000. Those states, where rapid immigration appears to have not harmed nativeborn workers, included Texas, Nevada and Georgia and accounted for 24% of all native-born workers.
• The growth in the foreign-born population from 1990-2000 was below average in 16 states with above-average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000. Those states, in which the native born may have benefited from the slow pace of growth in the foreign-born workforce, include Illinois, Michigan and Virginia and represented 23% of the nativeborn workforce.
• The growth in the foreign-born population was below average in 12 states and the District of Columbia with below-average employment rates for native workers in 2000. Those states, in which the slow growth in the foreign-born workforce may not have benefited native workers, include California, New York, New Jersey and Florida and represented 38% of the native-born workforce.
• Between 2000 and 2004, there was a positive correlation between the increase in the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers in 27 states and the District of Columbia. Together, they accounted for 67% of all native-born workers and include all the major destination states for immigrants. In the remaining 23 states there was a negative correlation between the growth of the foreign-born population and the employment of native-born workers. Those states accounted for 33% of the native born workforce in 2004.
• The share of foreign-born workers in the workforce of a state is not related to the employment rate for native-born workers in either 2000 or 2004.
• Many immigrant workers lack a college education and are relatively young, but the analysis found no evidence that they had an impact on the employment outcomes of those native-born workers who also have low levels of education and are ages 25-34.

In 2000, the foreign-born population ages 16 years and older stood at 28 million, a 61% increase since 1990 and clear evidence of the surge in immigration during the previous decade. The most significant gains, in percentage terms, took place in states that had comparatively small foreign-born populations in 1990 and drew new flows of immigrants over the course of the decade.

The fastest growth occurred in North Carolina, where the foreign-born population in that age group increase 278% by 2000. Georgia and Nevada each also grew by more than 200% (Table 1). In all, in 18 states the foreign-born population 16 and older grew by at least 100% between 1990 and 2000.

States that for decades have been home to significant number of immigrants also experienced an increase in the foreign-born population 16 and older by 2000. But even though the number of foreign born added to the population was large, the percentage increase was comparatively smaller. For example, in California, the state with the largest foreign-born population, the number of immigrants 16 and older increased by 2.5 million people. While that was the most of any state, it produced a growth of 44% because the population was already quite large at the start of the 1990s. Other traditional destination states for immigrants include Florida, where the foreign-born population 16 and older grew 63%, Illinois (62%), New Jersey (54%) and New York (39%).

Maine had the smallest change (-1%) in the foreign-born population 16 and older. In all others, the change was 21% or higher between 1990 and 2000. The simple average of growth across all states and the District of Columbia was 90%.¹

Between 2000 and 2004, a period that included a recession, an extended economic slowdown and the start of a recovery, the increases in the foreign-born population 16 and older generally followed the geographic pattern set in the expansion years of 1990s, with some variations. The 10 states with the fastest growth between 2000 and 2004 had all experienced increases of 100% or more in the foreign-born population 16 and older in the 1990s. For example, in Tennessee, where the foreign-born population 16 and older increased 174% between 1990 and 2000, that population grew by an additional 43% by 2004 (Table 1). States with significant concentrations of foreign-born workers experienced comparatively more modest growth. The simple average of growth across all states and the District of Columbia was 17% between 2000 and 2004, when the total foreign-born population 16 and older reached almost 32 million.

Rapid Growth in the Foreign-Born Population and Employment Outcomes

Is above-average growth in the foreign-born population associated with worse-than-average employment outcomes for the native-born population? As a prelude to the more formal analysis in the remainder of the report, Table 1 shows the employment rates in the 10 states with the fastest growth in the foreign-born workforce. It is clear that the employment outcomes for native-born workers in these states were significantly different.

For example, employment rates for native-born workers were below average in several of the states with the highest growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000. Those states included Kentucky, whose employment rate for native-born workers in 2000 was 61.4%, and South Carolina, where it was 62.7%. Both are well below the across-state average employment rate of 65.3%. On the other hand, the employment rates for native-born workers in 2000 were better than average in other states, including Georgia (66.9%) and Nevada (66.4%).

Those different outcomes for native-born workers also occurred between 2000- 2004. The rapid growth in the foreign-born population was associated with below average employment rates in Arkansas, Kentucky and South Carolina. On the other hand, several states with fast-growing foreign-born populations, such as Minnesota and Idaho, had above average employment rates for native-born workers.

Table 1 shows that high rates of growth in the foreign-born population are not necessarily associated with worse employment outcomes for native-born workers.

High Employment Rates and Growth in the Foreign-Born Population

Another way of addressing the question is to examine whether better employment outcomes for native-born workers are linked with relatively slow rates of growth in the foreign-born population. Table 2 shows the 10 states that had the highest employment rates in 2000 and 2004. It is clear that these states had significant differences when it came to rates of growth in the foreign-born population.

For example, between 1990 and 2000 the growth in the foreign-born population exceeded 100% in several states with high employment rates for native-born workers. Those include Minnesota, with an employment rate of 73.1% in 2000, Nebraska (70.8%), Colorado (70.5%) and Utah (69.1%). On the other hand, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Wyoming are among the states where high employment rates for the native born were associated with relatively slow growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000.

These differences in the growth of the foreign-born population are also evident between 2000 and 2004. During these years, the change in the foreign-born workforce was relatively high in Minnesota, North Dakota and Wyoming, but it was relatively low in Kansas, South Dakota and Vermont. Yet, all of these states are ranked in the top 10 with respect to growth in the foreign-born population from 2000 to 2004.

Overall, the weight of the evidence presented in Tables 1 and 2 shows that there is no consistent relationship between the growth in the foreign-born population and employment outcomes for native-born workers. As a result, it is not possible to state with certainty whether the inflow of foreign-born workers has hurt or helped the employment outlook for native-born workers.

The remainder of the study presents a more detailed analysis of the relationship between the growth of the foreign-born population and employment outcomes for the native born during 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2004. The analysis charts the growth of the foreign-born workforce in a state over a given time period against three measures for native-born workers—employment rate, labor force participation rate and unemployment rate—at the end of the time period. That establishes the relationship between the pace of immigration and employment outcomes for the native born.

The analysis also explores the relationship between the share of foreign-born workers in the workforce of a given area and the employment rate for native-born workers. That establishes the relationship between the size of the foreign-born presence in a state’s workforce and a key outcome for the native born. Finally, the report presents evidence on the impact on native-born workers ages 25-44 or with low levels of education. Those traits were shared by the majority of foreign-born workers entering the U.S. during the periods of analyses.

This analysis exploits the wide variations in the growth of the foreign-born population and the employment outcomes for native-born workers across states. For example, the changes in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 ranged from an increase of 278% North Carolina to a decrease of 1.1% in Maine. Similarly, in 2000, the employment rate for the native born ranged from 73.1% in Minnesota to 53.9% in West Virginia.

The question is whether there is a consistent pattern in the relationship between the growth in the foreign-born workforce and employment outcomes for the native-born population. If there was a negative relationship between an increase in the number of foreign-born workers and the employment of native-born workers, one would expect a pattern to emerge. More specifically, above-average growth in the foreign-born population 16 and older would be associated with below-average employment rates or labor force participation rates or higher-than-average unemployment rates for the native born. Conversely, less-than-average growth in the foreign-born population would be associated with better-than-average employment outcomes for the native-born in those areas.

This analysis does not find a clear, consistent pattern which would suggest a direct relationship between the growth in the foreign-born workforce and employment outcomes for native-born workers.

Assessing the Impact

To assess whether the growth in the foreign-born population is related to the employment outcome of native-born workers, Census Bureau data were used to group states according to whether their foreign-born population growth was above or below average and whether the native-born employment rate was above or below average. That produces the four groupings of states shown in Table 3.

Two of the four groups could be described as arising from a positive relationship (or correlation) between the growth of the foreign-born population and the employment rate of native-born workers. In the states in those two groups, high rates of growth in the foreign-born population are associated with high employment outcomes for the native-born (FB +, NB +) and low rates of growth are associated with low employment rates (FB ─, NB ─). States clustered in these two groups would indicate that employment outcomes for native-born workers may not be harmed by changes in the foreign-born population.

The other two groups in Table 3 could be described as arising from a negative relationship. In these states, high rates of growth in the foreign-born population are associated with low employment rates for the native-born (FB +, NB ─) and low rates of growth are associated with high employment rates (FB ─, NB +). States clustered in these two groups would indicate that employment outcomes for native-born workers may be harmed by changes in the foreign-born population.

Finally, if states are scattered across the four groups, that would indicate there is no relationship between changes in the foreign-born population and employment outcomes for native-born workers.

The method described above was also used to determine the relationship between the growth in the foreign-born population and two other measures of native-born employment—the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate.

The assignment of states into the four groups is done twice, once for 1990-2000 and again for 2000-2004. States may fall into different groups in the two time periods depending on how they fared. For example, a state in which the foreign-born population grew faster than average between 1990 and 2000 may have experienced slower-than-average growth between 2000 and 2004. A complete listing of the states that fall into each group in the two time periods is in Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A. The following sections show the results of applying this grouping methodology to data for 1990-2000 and 2000-2004.

The record-setting economic expansion of the 1990s improved the employment prospects of all workers. The period also experienced a surge in the foreign-born workforce, especially between 1995 and 2000. Against that backdrop, the analysis of the relationship between growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 and the employment outcomes of native-born workers in 2000 revealed no consistent pattern across the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Native-born workers did well in some states where the foreign-born population growth was above average and well in others where the foreign-born population growth was below average. They did not do well in some states where the growth in the foreign-born population was above average and also not well in others where the growth was below average. This irregular pattern is summarized in Table 4, which shows employment rates and changes in the foreign-born population in four groups of states (see Figure 1 below and Table A1 in Appendix A for data on individual states).

A Negative Correlation with the Foreign-Born Workforce

Between 1990 and 2000, there were 24 states in which the increase of foreignborn workers possibly had a negative impact on the employment of native-born workers. This means that above-average growth in the foreign-born population was associated with below-average employment rates for native-born workers or, conversely, below-average growth in the foreign population was associated with above-average employment rates for native-born workers. In Table 4, those states are grouped in the lower-right (FB +, NB ─) and upper-left (FB ─, NB +) quadrants. Together, the states represented 38% of the population of native-born workers.

In eight of those states, the average growth of the foreign-born population was 162%, well above the average of 90% for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The employment rate for native-born workers in 2000 was 62%, below the national average of 65%. Notably, this was the smallest of the four groups and together these states represented about 15% of the native-born workforce 16 and older in 2000.

There were 16 other states whose experiences between 1990 and 2000 were consistent with a negative correlation. In those states, the average growth of the foreign-born population was below the overall average (48%) and the employment rate for native-born workers was above average (68%).

A Positive Correlation with the Foreign-Born Workforce

There was a possible positive correlation between the growth of the foreign-born population and the employment rate of native-born workers in 26 states and in the District of Columbia between 1990 and 2000. That suggests that changes in the foreign-born population may not have had a harmful impact on outcomes for native-born workers. Above-average growth in the foreign-born population was associated with above-average employment rates for native-born workers or, conversely, below-average growth in the foreign population was associated with below-average employment rates for native-born workers. In Table 4, these states are grouped in the upper-right (FB +, NB +) and lower-left (FB ─, NB ─) quadrants. Together, they represented 62% of the population of native-born workers.

In 14 of those states, the growth of the foreign-born population was above average (137%) and the employment rate for native-born workers was also above average (68%). In 12 states and the District of Columbia, the growth of the foreign-born population was below average (46%) and the employment rate for native-born workers was also below average (61%).

Charting Individual States, 1990-2000

The lack of a relationship between the growth in the foreign-born population and outcomes for native-born workers comes into sharper focus when individual states are plotted on a chart that maps the change in the foreign-born population from 1990 to 2000 and the native-born employment rate in each state in 2000 (Figure 1). This mapping produces four distinct quadrants that correspond with the four groups of states presented in Tables 3 and 4 above.

The distribution of the 50 states and the District of Columbia in Figure 1 reveals a wide dispersion across the four quadrants. The absence of a discernible pattern clearly shows that foreign-born population growth, whether above or below average, was not related to lower- or higher-than-average employment rates for native-born workers.

The center point of the chart in Figure 1 is the intersection of two key indicators: the simple average of the growth in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 in the 50 states and the District of Columbia (90%) and the simple average of the employment rate for native-born workers in 2000 (65.3%). Eight states in 2000 had above-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB +) and below-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB ─). Those states, located in the lower-right quadrant, include North Carolina, Arizona and Arkansas. North Carolina and Arizona had the highest employment rate in this grouping (65% and 63.3%, respectively) and Arkansas the lowest (59%).

In North Carolina, the foreign-born population increased by 278% between 1990 and 2000, the highest among all states and more than three times the average across all states (90%). In Arizona, the foreign-born population increased by 141% between 1990 and 2000. In Arkansas, the foreign-born population increased by 193%. The other states in this group are South Carolina, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Alabama.

The upper-left quadrant of Figure 1 includes 16 states that had below-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB ─) between 1990 and 2000 and above-average employment rates for native-born workers in 2000 (NB +). In this group, the highest employment rate for native-born workers was in New Hampshire, where the foreign-born population increased by only 25%. Other states in this quadrant are South Dakota, Wisconsin, North Dakota, Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Missouri, Maryland, Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Illinois, Michigan, Montana and Massachusetts. The growth of the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 ranged from -1 % in Maine to 89% in Virginia.

The experiences of the 24 states in the lower-right (FB +, NB ─) and upper-left (FB ─, NB+) quadrants indicate that the growth in the foreign-born workforce may have had a harmful impact on native-born workers. However, the opposite is true for the remaining 26 states and the District of Columbia.

The upper-right quadrant of Figure 1 represents states with above-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB +) and above-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB +). Those states include Minnesota and Nebraska, which had the highest employment rates for native-born workers in 2000 (73.1% and 70.8% respectively). The growth in the foreign-born population in these two states between 1990 and 2000 was 120% and 168%, respectively. The other states in this group include Colorado, Iowa, Utah, Kansas, Georgia, Delaware, Nevada, Idaho, Indiana, Oregon, Texas and Washington. The growth of the foreign-born population in these states ranged from a low of 92% in Washington to a high of 245% in Georgia.

The lower-left quadrant in Figure 1 captures states with below-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB ─) and below-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB ─). That group of 12 states and the District of Columbia includes several traditional migrant settlement states such as California, New York, New Jersey and Florida. The employment rate for native-born workers ranged from 64.5% in Rhode Island, which matched the average across all states, to 53.9% in West Virginia, which ranked last among all states and the District of Columbia. Also in this category are Ohio, Hawaii, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Mississippi and Louisiana. The growth of the foreign-born population among these states ranged from a low of 30% in West Virginia to a high of 89% in New Mexico.

In conclusion, the scattering of the 50 states and the District of Columbia across the four quadrants in Figure 1 shows that there was no relationship between the growth of the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 and the employment rates for native-born workers 16 and older in 2000 (see Table A1 in Appendix A for data on all states). The same can be said about the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate for the native born in 2000 (see Figures A1 and A2 in Appendix A).

Labor market trends from 2000 to 2004, a period encompassing a recession, an extended economic slowdown and the start of a recovery, also revealed no consistent relationship across all states between changes in the foreign-born workforce and employment outcomes for native-born workers.

The average native-born employment rate across the 50 states and the District of Columbia was 63.3% in 2004, two percentage points below the average for 2000. It ranged from 71.8% in Nebraska to 51.3% in West Virginia. The overall decline in employment rates since 2000 is not surprising in view of the recession and economic slowdown that prevailed for most of 2000 to 2004. The average growth in the foreign-born workforce from 2000 to 2004 across the 51 areas was 17%, with the largest increase in Tennessee (43%) and the lowest in West Virginia (- 23%). Table A2 in Appendix A presents data on all the states.

Again, as was the case in 2000, there was no relationship between the growth of the foreign-born population between 2000 and 2004 and the employment rate for native-born workers in 2004. Evidence on the lack of a relationship is summarized in Table 5, which shows employment rates and changes in the foreign-born population in four groups of states.

The lack of a relationship between the growth in the foreign-born population and outcomes for native-born workers emerges more clearly when individual states are plotted on a chart that maps the change in the foreign-born population from 2000 to 2004 and the native-born employment rate in each state in 2004 (Figure 2). The central point in Figure 2 is the simple averages of changes in the foreign-born workforce (17%) between 2000 and 2004 and employment rates (63.3%) in 2004.

The four quadrants in Figure 2 correspond with the four groups of states presented in Tables 5 above. Two of these quadrants—(FB +, NB ─) and (FB ─, NB +)— represent groups of states where changes in the foreign-born workforce may have had a negative impact on employment outcome for native-born workers. States that lie in the other two quadrants—(FB +, NB +) and (FB ─, NB ─)—had experiences that were consistent with a positive relationship between growth in the foreign-born workforce and employment outcomes for the native born.

The 50 states and the District of Columbia are spread evenly across the four quadrants in Figure 2, evidence that there was no consistent relationship between the growth of the foreign-born population between 2000 and 2004 and the employment rates for native-born workers in 2004. The same can be said about the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate for the native born in 2004 (see Table A2 and Figures A3 and A4 in Appendix A).

A Negative Correlation with the Foreign-Born Workforce

There were 23 states where changes in the foreign-born population had a negative relationship with the employment rate of native-born workers (Table 5 and Figure 2). Those states accounted for 33% of the native-born workforce in 2004.

The lower-right quadrant of Figure 2 represents states with above-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB +) and below-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB ─). The upper-left quadrant represents states with below-average growth in the foreign-born population (FB ─) and above-average employment rates for the native-born (NB +).

There were 11 states in 2004—three more than in the comparable category in 2000—in which the growth in the foreign-born population was above average and the employment rate for the native-born population was below average. Georgia, which had an employment rate for native-born workers of 63.1%, was at the top of the list and Alabama, with an employment rate of 58%, was at the bottom.

Other states in the lower-right quadrant are Michigan, North Carolina, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arizona, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas and Kentucky. The growth of the foreign-born population ranged from 17% in New Mexico to 43% in Tennessee, which was two and a half times the 17% average across all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

There were 12 states in which the growth of the foreign-born workforce was less than average and the employment rate for native-born workers was above average (the upper-left quadrant in Figure 2). That is four fewer states than in the comparable category in 2000. Nebraska, with an employment rate of 71.8% in 2004, was at the top of the list and Connecticut, with an employment rate of 63.3%, was at the bottom.

Other states in this group are South Dakota, Vermont, Kansas, Utah, Iowa, Alaska, Massachusetts, Montana, Maine and Washington. The growth in the foreign-born population ranged from -8% in Montana to 16% in Nebraska and Washington.

The experiences of the 23 states in the lower-right (FB +, NB ─) and upper-left (FB ─, NB+) quadrants indicate that the growth in the foreign-born workforce may have had a harmful impact on native-born workers. However, the opposite is true for the remaining 27 states and the District of Columbia.

A Positive Correlation with the Foreign-Born Workforce

In 27 states and the District of Columbia, changes in the foreign-born population between 2000 and 2004 had a positive relationship with the employment rate of native-born workers in 2004. Those states accounted for 67% of the native-born workforce.

The upper-right quadrant in Figure 2 represents states with above-average foreign population growth (FB +) and above-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB +). The lower-left quadrant represents states with below-average foreign population growth (FB ─) and below-average employment rates for native-born workers (NB ─).

There were 13 states in 2004—one more than in 2000—in which both the growth of the foreign-born workforce and native-born employment rates were above average. Together, the states in the upper-right quadrant in Figure 2 represented 17% of the native-born workforce in 2004. Six of those states also appeared on the comparable group in 2000.

Minnesota again was at the top of the list, followed by North Dakota, Colorado, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Maryland, Idaho, Missouri, Indiana, Virginia, Nevada and Delaware. The growth of the foreign-born population in that grouping ranged from 18% in Maryland to 38% in Delaware, which was more than double the average across all states (17%).

In 14 other states and in the District of Columbia, both the change in the foreignborn workforce between 2000 and 2004 and the employment rate for native-born workers in 2004 were below average. Those states and the District of Columbia accounted for 50% of the nation’s native-born workforce and include the traditional migrant states of California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas and Florida. Rhode Island, which led the states in this category both in 2000 and 2004, had a native-born employment rate of 62.8% in 2004. As was the case in 2000, West Virginia again had the lowest employment rate for native-born workers (51.3%).

The other states in the lower-left quadrant in 2004 are Hawaii, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Mississippi and Louisiana. Eleven of the states and the District of Columbia also appeared on the comparable list in 2000, which had the District of Columbia and 12 states, including New Mexico. The growth of the foreign-born population in 2004 ranged from -23% in West Virginia to 16% in Texas, Pennsylvania and Florida, which was one percentage point shy of the average across all states.

In conclusion, the evidence in Table 5 and Figure 2 shows that there was no relationship between the growth of the foreign-born population between 2000 and 2004 and the employment rates for native-born workers 16 and older in 2004. The same conclusion emerges with respect to the labor force participation rate and the unemployment rate for the native born in 2004 (see Figures A3 and A4 in Appendix A). Thus, two very different sets of economic circumstances—the record expansion of the 1990s and the recessionary period since 2000—produce no clear evidence of an association between the growth in the foreign-born population and employment prospects for native-born workers.

The foreign-born workforce tends to grow at the slowest rate in places where there is already the greatest number of foreign-born workers. If a population is already large, then even substantial increases in the numbers will produce a small rate of growth. The previous sections focused on growth rates. This section focuses on states with already large immigrant populations that experienced large increases in the numbers of foreign-born workers. It explores whether the analysis under-emphasizes the role of the existing stock of foreign-born workers in affecting the employment rate of native-born workers.

Consider a traditional immigrant settlement state such as California. In both 2000 and 2004, the employment rates for native-born workers in California were below average. This outcome could not be attributed to the rate of growth in the foreign-born population 16 and older because the rate in California was well below average from 1990 to 2000 and from 2000 to 2004.

But in California, foreign-born workers make up more than 30% of the labor force, well above the average of 9.7%. Having such a large stock of foreign-born workers raises the possibility that their sheer numbers contributed to relatively worse outcomes for native-born workers. Does this hold true across all other areas?

Figures 3 and 4 show the relationship between the share of foreign-born workers in the labor force and the employment rate for native-born workers in 2000 and 2004 respectively (also, see Tables A1 and A2 in Appendix A). Again, there is no meaningful relationship between the stock of foreign-born workers in a state and the employment outcomes for native-born workers. Indeed, the distribution of states across the four quadrants in Figures 3 and 4 resembles the spreads in Figures 1 and 2 and indicates that the share of foreign-born workers in a state is not associated with the employment rate for native-born workers.

In addition to California, Florida and New York have among the highest shares of foreign-born workers in their labor forces. In 2004, the employment rate for native-born workers was 59.1% in both New York and Florida, well below the across-state average of 63.3%. The two states appear in the lower-right quadrant in Figures 3 and 4, indicating that the low employment rates for native-born workers in these states may be related to high shares of foreign-born workers in the labor force.

But each state also represents extenuating circumstances. The lower-than-average employment rates in Florida and New York are more likely a consequence of demographic and economic factors unrelated to the presence of foreign-born workers. Florida has a much higher-than-average share of residents 65 and older (21% of the working-age population compared with 16% for the country, according to American Community Survey data for 2004). This demographic reality naturally lowers the labor force participation rate and the employment rate in Florida.

Economic growth in New York lagged behind the national average in both the expansion of the 1990s and the more unsettled economic period between 2000 and 2004. Annual growth in per capita personal income averaged 4.4% from 1990 to 2000 and 3.2% from 2000 to 2004 in all states and the District of Columbia. In comparison, the growth rate in New York was 4% from 1990 to 2000 and 2.4% from 2000 to 2004. Research also indicates that economic restructuring in New York was more severe than in the rest of the country (Groshen, Potter and Sela, 2004).

The immigrant workforce is characterized by its relative youth and its low levels of education. Most foreign-born workers fall between the ages of 25 and 44 and a smaller share has a college education compared to the native born. Does it follow, then, that the concentration of such workers would have a more pronounced effect on the employment rate of native-born workers who also have low levels of education and are of similar age? As was the case for all workers, there was no relationship between the inflow of foreign-born workers with less education and relative youth and the employment outcome of native-born workers with less education and similar ages.

Education

The foreign-born population with less than a high school education grew very rapidly between 1990 and 2000. The largest increase—583%—was in North Carolina. Other states that witnessed large increases include Georgia (420%), Arkansas (341%) and Utah (268%). The simple average of the increase in the population of foreign workers across all states and the District of Columbia who had less than a high school education was 114%. Of foreign-born workers with at least a high school education, states with the largest increases were North Carolina at 232%, Georgia (198%) and Nevada (189%). The average increase was 81%.

Figures 5 and 6 chart the changes in the foreign-born population between 1990 and 2000 and the employment rates for native-born workers in 2000 for those with less than a high school education and those with a high school degree (see Figures A5 and A6 in Appendix A for the analysis of 2000-2004 data and Tables A3 to A6 for data on all states). The four quadrants in Figures 5 and 6 have the same meaning as in the preceding analyses.

The rapid growth in the less educated foreign-born population does not appear to have harmed the employment prospects of less educated native-born workers. Following the same line of reasoning as in the earlier analyses, it is clear from Figures 5 and 6 that there was no apparent relationship between the growth of foreign workers with less education and the employment outcome of native workers with the same low level of education.

For example, the population of foreign-born workers with less than a high school education increased 583% in North Carolina between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 5). However, the employment rate for comparable native-born workers in North Carolina was 39.4% in 2000, higher than the across-state average of 38.5%.

Georgia and Utah are examples of two other states, among a total of 15, where above-average increases in the least-educated foreign-born population were associated with above-average employment rates for native-born workers (FB +, NB +). In those 15 states there appears to have been no negative impact from the rapid influx of foreign-born workers without a high school education.

The growth in the foreign-born population with less than a high school education was also above average in five other states. But in those states, employment rates for native-born workers proved to be worse than average, indicating possible harm from the inflow of less educated foreign-born workers (FB +, NB ─). Those states include Alabama and Arkansas. The growth in the foreign-born population with less than a high school education was below average in 30 other states and the District of Columbia (Figure 5). In 14 of these states, employment rates for native-born workers proved to be higher than average, indicating that the native born may have benefited from the relatively slow growth in the less educated foreign-born population (FB ─, NB +). These states included New Hampshire, Vermont, South Dakota and Texas.

Most areas—16 states and the District—witnessed both below-average employment rates for native-born workers and below-average growth in the foreign-born population with less than a high school education (FB ─, NB ─). This too shows that there may not have been a negative impact from the inflow of less educated immigrants. Those states include West Virginia, New Jersey, New York, Illinois and California as well as the District of Columbia.

Figure 6 confirms the lack of an association between the growth in the foreign-born population and the employment rates for native-born workers with a high school education. The 50 states and the District of Columbia are scattered across the four quadrants indicating that employment prospects for native-born high school graduates may not have been directly affected by the growth in the foreign-born workforce with a high school diploma. The same conclusions emerge for the 2000-2004 time period (see Figures A5 and A6 in Appendix A).

Age

Like education, age is not a factor when considering how the inflow of foreignborn workers has affected native-born workers. In Figures 7 and 8, the analysis is extended to two groups: those between 25 and 34 and those between 35 and 44 (see Figures A7 and A8 in Appendix A for the analysis of 2000-2004 data and Tables A7 to A10 for data on all states), Once again, there is no relationship between growth in the foreign-born population in those age groups and the employment rate of native-born workers in the same age groups.

The average growth in the foreign-born population of ages 25 to 34 was 106% between 1990 and 2000. There were 23 states in which the growth of the foreignborn population exceeded the average. Among these states, 13 had above-average employment rates for native-born workers of ages 25-34 (FB +, NB +). That group includes Georgia, North Carolina and Nebraska (Figure 7). In 10 other states, including Arkansas, Utah and Nevada, above-average growth in the foreign-born population ages 25-34 was associated with below-average employment rates for native workers (FB +, NB ─). The rapid growth of foreignborn workers did not have a consistent impact on native-born workers who were of the same age.

In 27 states and in the District of Columbia, the growth in the foreign-born population of ages 25-34 was below average. Those areas were equally divided with respect to the outcomes for native-born workers, again indicating a lack of association between immigration and employment outcomes for native-born workers (Figure 7). In 13 states and the District of Columbia, employment rates for native-born workers ages 25-34 were above average (FB ─, NB +). That was the case in North Dakota, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois and Florida, among others. However, in 14 other states employment rates for native-born workers of the same age were below average (FB ─, NB ─). This group includes West Virginia, Alaska, Louisiana, California, New York and Texas.

In sum, even though the majority of foreign-born workers are relatively young, their entry was not directly related to the employment prospects of similarly aged native-born workers. What was true for ages 25-34 was also true for workers of ages 35-44 (Figure 8). The 2000-2004 time period had similar results (Figures A7 and A8 in Appendix A).

The analysis shows that the employment prospects for native-born workers do not appear to be related to the growth of the foreign-born population. The assessment, based on Census data for 1990 and 2000 and 2000 to 2004, did not produce a distinct outcome for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Instead, those areas fell into one of two contrasting groups. In the first, the growth in the foreign-born population was negatively correlated with employment prospects for native-born workers. In the second, the growth of the foreign-born population was positively correlated with employment prospects for native-born workers.

These results emerged for both the 1990 to 2000 time period, a decade marked by a record economic expansion, and the 2000 to 2004 period, which was marked by a recession and slow recovery. Employment outcomes for native-born workers were assessed using three indicators—the employment rate, the labor force participation rate, and the unemployment rate. Regardless of the indicator used, when the employment outcome of the native-born population was measured against the percent change of the foreign-born population in each state, no constant pattern emerged. When ranked by employment rate, for example, there were significant differences in the growth of the foreign-born population among the top 15 states.

The relationship between the inflow of foreign-born workers and employment outcomes for native-born workers was also tested using other indicators. However, the same conclusion emerges when the share of foreign-born workers in a state’s workforce is correlated with employment outcomes of native-born workers. The size of the foreign-born workforce in a state appears to have no relationship to the employment prospects for native-born workers.

The analysis also focused on two particular segments of the workforce that are entry points for a majority of foreign-born workers: workers with a high school education or less and workers ages 25 to 44. Despite the relative concentration of foreign-born workers in these segments, it appears to have had no discernible impact on the employment of less-educated and relatively young native-born workers.