Posted October 12, 201113 yr Interactive Map Showing Immigration Data Since 1880 - Interactive Graphic - NYTimes.com Total foreign-born residents, % of population by county, and origin of largest immigrant groups: 1880 Total foreign-born residents Cuyahoga Co: 68,753 Franklin Co: 11,821 Hamilton Co: 82,247 % of population Cuyahoga: 34.9% Franklin: 13.6% Hamilton: 26.2% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1890 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 110,038 Franklin: 15,184 Hamilton: 83,942 % of population Cuyahoga: 35.5% Franklin: 12.2% Hamilton: 22.4% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1900 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 137,844 Franklin: 14,707 Hamilton: 68,439 % of population Cuyahoga: 31.4% Franklin: 8.9% Hamilton: 16.7% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1910 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 214,199 Franklin: 18,649 Hamilton: 65,893 % of population Cuyahoga: 33.6% Franklin: 8.4% Hamilton: 14.3% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1920 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 265,944 Franklin: 18,177 Hamilton: 48,658 % of population Cuyahoga: 28.2% Franklin: 6.4% Hamilton: 9.9% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1930 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 276,966 Franklin: 17,401 Hamilton: 41,175 % of population Cuyahoga: 23.1% Franklin: 4.8% Hamilton: 7.0% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1940 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 222,787 Franklin: 13,806 Hamilton: 31,262 % of population Cuyahoga: 18.3% Franklin: 3.6% Hamilton: 5.0% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1950 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 183,833 Franklin: 13,046 Hamilton: 25,654 % of population Cuyahoga: 13.2% Franklin: 2.6% Hamilton: 3.5% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1960 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 146,720 Franklin: 15,426 Hamilton: 25,790 % of population Cuyahoga: 8.9% Franklin: 2.3% Hamilton: 3.0% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1970 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 138,633 Franklin: 17,882 Hamilton: 22,658 % of population Cuyahoga: 8.1% Franklin: 2.1% Hamilton: 2.5% Largest immigrant group origins for all 3: Russia/Eastern Europe 1980 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 98,608 Franklin: 22,080 Hamilton: 20,590 % of population Cuyahoga: 6.6% Franklin: 2.5% Hamilton: 2.4% Largest immigrant group origins Cuyahoga: Russia/Eastern Europe Franklin: Asia/Middle East Hamilton: Russia/Eastern Europe 1990 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 77,701 Franklin: 31,542 Hamilton: 21,636 % of population Cuyahoga: 5.5% Franklin: 3.3% Hamilton: 2.5% Largest immigrant group origins Cuyahoga: Russia/Eastern Europe Franklin: Asia/Middle East Hamilton: Asia/Middle East 2000 Total foreign-born Cuyahoga: 88,700 Franklin: 64,253 Hamilton: 28,441 % of population Cuyahoga: 6.4% Franklin: 6.0% Hamilton: 3.4% Largest immigrant group origins Cuyahoga: Russia/Eastern Europe Franklin: Asia/Middle East Hamilton: Asia/Middle East Total Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +19,947 Franklin: +52,432 Hamilton: -53,806 Total % Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +29.0% Franklin: +443.5% Hamilton: -65.4%
October 12, 201113 yr I find these numbers interesting for a few reasons. First, they show the evolution of immigration groups in Ohio's major cities. At the beginning of the period, Hamilton County had the largest number of foreign-born residents, but by 1890 Cuyahoga County did and maintained the largest percentage throughout it's lifespan. Cuyahoga's foreign-born population continued to grow through at least 1930 before beginning a steady decline. Hamilton began to experience that decline a few decades earlier, and both seeminly were an early precursor to the overall population declines that would be in full force by the 1950s. Franklin County's foreign-born population started out the smallest and stayed the smallest for 100 years. For 100 years, as well, the largest immigration groups were Eastern European. 1980 saw the first significant changes. Franklin County went above Hamilton County for the first time in foreign-born population, as well as having its largest group of that population be from Asia. Since 1980, Franklin County's foreign-born population has almost tripled, a growth faster than either Cuyahoga or Hamilton Counties, which both saw rebounds by 2000. Cuyahoga was still strongly European even through 2000. Interestingly enough, none of the 3 have their largest foreign populations from Latin America, which is, by far, the largest group nationally.
October 12, 201113 yr I've always suspected that people in the Columbus area are from families that have been in the U.S. for a long time and this study proves my theory. In recent years, the immigrant population in Columbus has been bolstered by people who move here because of OSU and Somalis.
October 12, 201113 yr What is striking to me is that the percentage of foriegn born in Cuyahoga and Hamilton coorespondes with the period of highest population increase. Hamilton County's foreign born population was highest in 1880, and was probably higher still before they kept records. Cuyahoga's was highest in 1920. This is yet another piece of evidence that shows that foreign immigration is practically required for substantial population growth. Columbus is sort of an anomoly, since it is the state capital and hosts one of the largest universities in the nation. Today, the West Coast cities of Portland, Seattle, and L.A., along with many cities in the border states of California, Arizona, Texas, and Florida are getting the biggest share of foreign immigration, most of it from Latin America. Ohio just isn't growing from natural increase alone.
October 13, 201113 yr I've always suspected that people in the Columbus area are from families that have been in the U.S. for a long time and this study proves my theory. In recent years, the immigrant population in Columbus has been bolstered by people who move here because of OSU and Somalis. I never thought about it that way, but that makes sense. Also, what I find interesting is that Columbus' foreign-born population bottomed out in the 1950 census and then began growing again by 1960. This correspondes perfectly with Cleveland losing a significant portion of it's foreign population at the same time. Even Cincinnati saw a small rebound by 1960, but then fell again through 1980. Cleveland's losses seems to have been Columbus and Cincinnati's gain, at least in a small way. Also, Columbus bottomed out 30 years before Cincinnati and 40 years before Cleveland. At the rate Columbus seems to have been growing, I wonder if the 2010 numbers show Franklin County being on top now. That would be a complete reversal from where the numbers started.
November 15, 201113 yr ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. speaking of correlations, there is an even clearer one between immigration and the health of the region.next world crsis that comes along, cle & cinci should lobby uncle sam hard to host the refugees.
November 15, 201113 yr Total Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +19,947 Franklin: +52,432 Hamilton: -53,806 Total % Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +29.0% Franklin: +443.5% Hamilton: -65.4% What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :)
November 16, 201113 yr There was essentially a ban on foreign immigration between 1921 and 1965 (never more than a few hundred thousand a year at most), so there are some entirely extraneous factors at play.
November 16, 201113 yr ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. True, because if the last 120 years have taught us anything, it's that every trend is permanent and irreversible.
November 16, 201113 yr ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. speaking of correlations, there is an even clearer one between immigration and the health of the region.next world crsis that comes along, cle & cinci should lobby uncle sam hard to host the refugees. Immigration and health in what way? I don't think immigration is the driver of economic health, but rather a symptom of it. People move where the economy is best.
November 16, 201113 yr Total Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +19,947 Franklin: +52,432 Hamilton: -53,806 Total % Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +29.0% Franklin: +443.5% Hamilton: -65.4% What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :) Just to show the long term trend. The short-term trends are somewhat similar but less dramatic.
November 16, 201113 yr ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. True, because if the last 120 years have taught us anything, it's that every trend is permanent and irreversible. Definitely no permanent trends to be seen, for sure. The good news is that all 3 areas saw increases by 2000 and I believe 2010 kept that up.
November 16, 201113 yr Total Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +19,947 Franklin: +52,432 Hamilton: -53,806 Total % Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +29.0% Franklin: +443.5% Hamilton: -65.4% What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :) Just to show the long term trend. The short-term trends are somewhat similar but less dramatic. wait, what? long term tread?? Do you understand what I'm saying? This reminds me of political stat-keeping to manipulate numbers... Think of it scientifically: Example: 1880: 10 1890: 11 1900: 40000000 1910: 5 1920:18 1930: 170000000 1940: 0 1950: 5 1960: 11 1970: 15 1980: 50000000000 1990: 15 2000: 18 2010: 12 Percent change from 1880-2010: 20% It's essentially selecting two random points without regard to any data values in the middle and finding the percent difference. My point is: it is completely arbitrary and pointless. Not to mention, it covers 3 generations of people (including a majority who have most likely died...)...impossible to connect...meaning, this is no model for growth, if that's what you're trying to illustrate.
November 16, 201113 yr Total Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +19,947 Franklin: +52,432 Hamilton: -53,806 Total % Change 1880-2000 Cuyahoga: +29.0% Franklin: +443.5% Hamilton: -65.4% What type of stat does percent change over 120 years show? :) Just to show the long term trend. The short-term trends are somewhat similar but less dramatic. wait, what? long term tread?? Do you understand what I'm saying? This reminds me of political stat-keeping to manipulate numbers... Think of it scientifically: Example: 1880: 10 1890: 11 1900: 40000000 1910: 5 1920:18 1930: 170000000 1940: 0 1950: 5 1960: 11 1970: 15 1980: 50000000000 1990: 15 2000: 18 2010: 12 Percent change from 1880-2010: 20% It's essentially selecting two random points without regard to any data values in the middle and finding the percent difference. My point is: it is completely arbitrary and pointless. Not to mention, it covers 3 generations of people (including a majority who have most likely died...)...impossible to connect...meaning, this is no model for growth, if that's what you're trying to illustrate. I didn't randomly choose them. They were the beginning and end census years that were provided with the NY Times link I got these from. The 120 year trend change was just shown to illustrate how foreign-born % of population had changed over that long period. I'm not sure why there being generational changes in that time period means anything in relation to that point. In any case, here are short term trends, take your pick. 1970-2000 Cuyahoga: -36.0% Franklin: +259.3% Hamilton: +25.5% 1980-2000 Cuyahoga: -10.0% Franklin: +191.0% Hamilton: +38.1% 1990-2000 Cuyahoga: +14.2% Franklin: +103.7% Hamilton: +31.5%
February 22, 201213 yr Interesting data. I agree that the 1880 to 2000 comparison isn't meaningful/useful, but the decade by decade data are. Sad to see that Cuyahoga, once a mecca for immigrants is no longer seen that way.....
February 22, 201213 yr >Ohio just isn't growing from natural increase alone. There is hardly such thing as a "natural increase" in population by native-born people in leading countries. Average family size plummeted after the introduction of oral contraceptives. Germany and Japan, of course, are in crisis due to few births. Futurists predict that the entire world's population will start dropping after 2100.
February 22, 201213 yr ^ i'm not sure the people in non-leading countries in central america, asia and africa would agree with those futurists. the general world population is skyrocketing and all signs are for further growth, just not in the leading countries. we can only hope it starts dropping before some population related disaster occurs. ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. speaking of correlations, there is an even clearer one between immigration and the health of the region.next world crsis that comes along, cle & cinci should lobby uncle sam hard to host the refugees. Immigration and health in what way? I don't think immigration is the driver of economic health, but rather a symptom of it. People move where the economy is best. not entirely. thats just the ideal way, but there are other ways to attract immigrants. targeted marketing is one. uncle sam purposefully placing a massive influx of somali refugees in columbus is another way. ^ no surprise, every columbus gain corresponds to cleveland loss. there is no doubt columbus will be on top next census. True, because if the last 120 years have taught us anything, it's that every trend is permanent and irreversible. Definitely no permanent trends to be seen, for sure. The good news is that all 3 areas saw increases by 2000 and I believe 2010 kept that up. well who ever said immigration trends were permanent? the facts is all signs point to the central ohio columbus region as economically healthy and the current immigrant magnet for ohio. so its just a prediction that the cols area will jump over the cle area next time. sure all three c's saw recent increases, and thats good, but frank co. had by far the biggest increase, it tripled cuy co. increases. so we'll see what actually happens with 2010 data. it's interesting for sure.
February 24, 201213 yr I wanted to update this thread a bit with immigration numbers based on metro and city (don't have them for county) for 2000-2010. This is a LOT of data, so just a fair warning. First, metropolitan information. Total metro foreign-born population, 2010. 1. Columbus: 132,360 2. Cleveland: 123,037 3. Cincinnati: 90,785 4. Dayton: 29,478 5. Akron: 26,910 6. Toledo: 23,435 7. Youngstown: 12,124 Change in metro foreign-born population, 2000-2010, # and %. 1. Columbus: +60,407 or +84.0% 2. Cincinnati: +39,385 or +76.6% 3. Dayton: +8,841 or +42.8% 4. Akron: +6,138 or +29.5% 5. Toledo: 5,042 or +27.4% 6. Cleveland: +10,031 or +8.9% 7. Youngstown: +18 or +0.1% % of metro population that is foreign-born in 2010 and % change 2000-2010. 1. Columbus: 7.2% (+60.0%) 2. Cleveland: 5.9% (+11.3%) 3. Cincinnati: 4.3% (+64.4%) 4. Akron: 3.8% (+26.7%) 5. Toledo: 3.6% (+28.6%) 6. Dayton: 3.5% (+45.8%) 7. Youngstown: 2.1% (+5.0%) % of metro foreign-born population that is naturalized, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 59.7% 2. Youngstown: 58.6% 3. Toledo: 55.2% 4. Akron: 53.8% 5. Dayton: 45.1% 6. Cincinnati: 44.3% 7. Columbus: 39.0% % of metro foreign-born population entering the US since 2000, 2010. 1. Columbus: 53.0% 2. Cincinnati: 47.0% 3. Dayton: 43.9% 4. Akron: 43.5% 5. Cleveland: 31.5% 6. Toledo: 31.3% 7. Youngstown: 21.2% % of metro population that speaks English at home, 2010. 1. Dayton: 95.2% 2. Toledo: 94.8% 3. Akron: 94.2% 4. Cincinnati: 94.2% 5. Youngstown: 94.0% 6. Columbus: 90.8% 7. Cleveland: 89.9% % of metro population that is limited-English proficient, 2010. 1. Columbus: 3.7% 2. Cleveland: 3.4% 3. Cincinnati: 2.2% 4. Youngstown: 1.8% 5. Akron: 1.6% 6. Dayton: 1.5% 7. Toledo: 1.5% % of metro population of children living with one or more foreign-born parents, 2010. 1. Columbus: 13.9% 2. Cleveland: 8.2% 3. Cincinnati: 7.4% 4. Akron: 7.4% 5. Toledo: 7.1% 6. Dayton: 7.0% 7. Youngstown: 2.5% % of metro foreign-born population under age 18, 2010. 1. Akron: 12.3% 2. Cincinnati: 12.1% 3. Dayton: 11.3% 4. Columbus: 10.8% 5. Toledo: 8.7% 6. Cleveland: 7.1% 7. Youngstown: 1.8% % of metro foreign-born population that is working age (18-64), 2010. 1. Columbus: 82.0% 2. Cincinnati: 75.9% 3. Toledo: 74.7% 4. Dayton: 72.7% 5. Youngstown: 72.0% 6. Akron: 71.9% 7. Cleveland: 71.9% % of metro foreign-born population that is age 65+, 2010. 1. Youngstown: 26.2% 2. Cleveland: 21.0% 3. Toledo: 16.6% 4. Dayton: 16.0% 5. Akron: 15.7% 6. Cincinnati: 12.0% 7. Columbus: 7.2%
February 24, 201213 yr And now for the city proper information. Total city foreign-born population, 2010. 1. Columbus: 86,663 2. Cleveland: 17,739 3. Cincinnati: 16,531 4. Toledo: 11,559 5. Akron: 8,524 6. Dayton: 5,102 7. Youngstown: 3,695 Change in city foreign-born population 2000-2010, # and %. 1. Youngstown: +2,090 or +130.2% 2. Columbus: +38,950 or +81.6% 3. Dayton: +1,857 or +57.2% 4. Cincinnati: +4,070 or +32.7% 5. Akron: +1,613 or +23.3% 6. Toledo: +2,084 or +22.0% 7. Cleveland: -3,633 or -17.0% % of total city population that is foreign-born, 2010. 1. Columbus: 11.0% 2. Cincinnati: 5.6% 3. Youngstown: 5.5% 4. Cleveland: 4.5% 5. Akron: 4.3% 6. Toledo: 4.0% 7. Dayton: 3.6% % of city foreign-born population that is naturalized, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 55.6% 2. Toledo: 44.4% 3. Akron: 37.8% 4. Cincinnati: 35.1% 5. Columbus: 33.7% 6. Youngstown: 25.8% 7. Dayton: 21.6% % of city foreign-born population entering the US since 2000, 2010. 1. Dayton: 77.4% 2. Akron: 65.0% 3. Columbus: 57.8% 4. Cincinnati: 51.9% 5. Youngstown: 36.8% 6. Cleveland: 36.2% 7. Toledo: 35.8% % of city population that speaks English at home, 2010. 1. Dayton: 95.8% 2. Akron: 93.9% 3. Toledo: 93.7% 4. Cincinnati: 92.2% 5. Youngstown: 89.5% 6. Cleveland: 88.6% 7. Columbus: 86.3% % of city population that is limited-English proficient, 2010. 1. Columbus: 6.0% 2. Youngstown: 4.5% 3. Cleveland: 4.0% 4. Cincinnati: 3.4% 5. Akron: 2.8% 6. Dayton: 2.3% 7. Toledo: 2.0% % of city population of children living with one or more foreign-born parents, 2010. 1. Columbus: 20.8% 2. Akron: 7.3% 3. Cincinnati: 7.1% 4. Toledo: 7.1% 5. Dayton: 7.0% 6. Cleveland: 4.8% 7. Youngstown: N/A % of city foreign-born population under age 18, 2010. 1. Dayton: 28.9% 2. Akron: 18.6% 3. Columbus: 11.0% 4. Toledo: 10.5% 5. Cincinnati: 5.4% 6. Cleveland: 3.2% 7. Youngstown: 1.0% % of city foreign-born population that is working age (18-64), 2010. 1. Youngstown: 86.5% 2. Cincinnati: 84.8% 3. Columbus: 83.9% 4. Cleveland: 77.2% 5. Toledo: 75.2% 6. Akron: 65.8% 7. Dayton: 62.2% % of city foreign-born population that is age 65+, 2010. 1. Cleveland: 19.4% 2. Akron: 15.6% 3. Toledo: 14.3% 4. Youngstown: 12.5% 5. Cincinnati: 9.8% 6. Dayton: 8.9% 7. Columbus: 5.1%
February 24, 201213 yr Finally, here is some specific demographic information on where foreign-born immigrants are coming from. Not all of the 2010 information is out yet, so I'll provide what I have so far. % of metro foreign-born population born in Mexico, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Toledo: 10.3% 2. Columbus: 8.7% 3. Cincinnati: 7.2% 4. Dayton: 4.0% 5. Cleveland: 3.2% 6. Youngstown: 2.8% 7. Akron: 2.0% 2010 1. Columbus: 14.3% 2. Dayton: 13.8% 3. Cincinnati: 12.1% 4. Cleveland: 7.0% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population from the rest of Latin America, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Cincinnati: 9.8% 2. Toledo: 9.0% 3. Cleveland: 7.9% 4. Dayton: 7.7% 5. Columbus: 7.0% 6. Youngstown: 5.4% 7. Akron: 5.1% 2010 1. Columbus: 11.9% 2. Cincinnati: 11.6% 3. Dayton: 8.7% 4. Cleveland: 7.3% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Asia, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Dayton: 46.7% 2. Columbus: 44.5% 3. Toledo: 40.6% 4. Akron: 40.3% 5. Cincinnati: 38.9% 6. Cleveland: 27.0% 7. Youngstown: 23.5% 2010 1. Dayton: 48.3% 2. Columbus: 39.1% 3. Cincinnati: 37.9% 4. Cleveland: 32.7% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Africa, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Columbus: 15.5% 2. Cincinnati: 7.0% 3. Dayton: 6.7% 4. Toledo: 4.5% 5. Cleveland: 3.3% 6. Akron: 2.0% 7. Youngstown: 1.6% 2010 1. Columbus: 21.0% 2. Cincinnati: 12.0% 3. Dayton: 7.0% 4. Cleveland: 3.6% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A % of metro foreign-born population born in Europe, 2000 and 2010. 2000 1. Youngstown: 61.9% 2. Cleveland: 54.3% 3. Akron: 44.0% 4. Cincinnati: 31.0% 5. Dayton: 29.3% 6. Toledo: 26.6% 7. Columbus: 20.1% 2010 1. Cleveland: 46.2% 2. Cincinnati: 22.5% 3. Dayton: 17.5% 4. Columbus: 11.1% Akron, Toledo, Youngstown: N/A
February 24, 201213 yr And this matters because. . . . . It's interesting, which is more than enough to justify posting it, but there are a lot of applications. For instance, a lot of people who do immigration law argue that the anti-immigration policies are actually counterproductive, because immigrants tend to create, not 'steal' jobs. So, if you believe that (or not) they can be taken as an economic indicator of likely growth (or not), especially in the small business area. If a particular community or nationality specializes in one field, it can be even more specific. Also, it helps government forecast the need for particular services, and it helps businesses, charities, and non-profits do the same. Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) and only a tiny African population, mostly Ghana/Nigeria AFAIK. But you can see how fast the proportions are changing, but they're changing even faster (away from European to others) in other parts of Ohio.
February 24, 201213 yr yeah its more than interesting, its very important. thanks for digging all this up and posting it. what grabs me the most is that outside of osu you could have counted the foreign born population of columbus on two hands when i lived there almost 20yrs ago. now its the clear leader. so cols 'immigrants' are not just ex-ne ohioans and farm bumpkins anymore. most impressive.
February 24, 201213 yr Is the point to understand immigration or to understand Ohio's metros? It seems more likely that immigration is an effect of economic forces rather than the cause of them on the local scale as much as at the national one. Looking at economic forces will contribute more to understanding immigration than looking at immigration will explain economic forces. The levels of income, education, and employment circumstances of immigrants would also reveal the role that immigrants play rather than raw numbers of immigrants. Just knowing where someone is from introduces more questions than it answers. It's what they do when they get where their going that counts.
February 24, 201213 yr Is the point to understand immigration or to understand Ohio's metros? It seems more likely that immigration is an effect of economic forces rather than the cause of them on the local scale as much as at the national one. Looking at economic forces will contribute more to understanding immigration than looking at immigration will explain economic forces. The levels of income, education, and employment circumstances of immigrants would also reveal the role that immigrants play rather than raw numbers of immigrants. Just knowing where someone is from introduces more questions than it answers. It's what they do when they get where their going that counts. Then why didn't you ask it like this the first time? I got the idea that it was just comparing the numbers and nothing really beyond that, basic stuff. Interesting I guess. Here in NE Ohio we have a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants and I was kind of surprised they don't count them as foreign-born.
February 24, 201213 yr Is the point to understand immigration or to understand Ohio's metros? It seems more likely that immigration is an effect of economic forces rather than the cause of them on the local scale as much as at the national one. Looking at economic forces will contribute more to understanding immigration than looking at immigration will explain economic forces. The levels of income, education, and employment circumstances of immigrants would also reveal the role that immigrants play rather than raw numbers of immigrants. Just knowing where someone is from introduces more questions than it answers. It's what they do when they get where their going that counts. Then why didn't you ask it like this the first time? I got the idea that it was just comparing the numbers and nothing really beyond that, basic stuff. Interesting I guess. Here in NE Ohio we have a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants and I was kind of surprised they don't count them as foreign-born. Yep, that's basically what it was. Just as a FYI and comparison.
February 24, 201213 yr And this matters because. . . . . It's interesting, which is more than enough to justify posting it, but there are a lot of applications. For instance, a lot of people who do immigration law argue that the anti-immigration policies are actually counterproductive, because immigrants tend to create, not 'steal' jobs. So, if you believe that (or not) they can be taken as an economic indicator of likely growth (or not), especially in the small business area. If a particular community or nationality specializes in one field, it can be even more specific. Also, it helps government forecast the need for particular services, and it helps businesses, charities, and non-profits do the same. Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) and only a tiny African population, mostly Ghana/Nigeria AFAIK. But you can see how fast the proportions are changing, but they're changing even faster (away from European to others) in other parts of Ohio. Not true if you take into account the Cleveland metro area. As I've pointed out here on a number of occasions, Painesville has become a big magnet for Mexicans: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/painesvilles_hispanic_communit.html http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
February 24, 201213 yr Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) Ahhhh..... I was just going to say something about the low latin american representation in the stats. I was wondering if they had forgotten to count the near west side :). Now it makes sense.
February 24, 201213 yr And this matters because. . . . . It's interesting, which is more than enough to justify posting it, but there are a lot of applications. For instance, a lot of people who do immigration law argue that the anti-immigration policies are actually counterproductive, because immigrants tend to create, not 'steal' jobs. So, if you believe that (or not) they can be taken as an economic indicator of likely growth (or not), especially in the small business area. If a particular community or nationality specializes in one field, it can be even more specific. Also, it helps government forecast the need for particular services, and it helps businesses, charities, and non-profits do the same. Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) and only a tiny African population, mostly Ghana/Nigeria AFAIK. But you can see how fast the proportions are changing, but they're changing even faster (away from European to others) in other parts of Ohio. Not true if you take into account the Cleveland metro area. As I've pointed out here on a number of occasions, Painesville has become a big magnet for Mexicans: http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2011/10/painesvilles_hispanic_communit.html Cleveland had the smallest Mexico-born population of the 3-Cs in 2010, though that obviously doesn't include those of Mexican origin who were born in the US.
February 24, 201213 yr Cleveland is interesting because there are surprisingly few Mexicans (lots of people from PR, but they don't count as foreign-born, obviously) Ahhhh..... I was just going to say something about the low latin american representation in the stats. I was wondering if they had forgotten to count the near west side :). Now it makes sense. The Hispanic population is counted, though, and that's around 10% of population in Cleveland.
February 24, 201213 yr ^Which is mostly PR (or at least a very healthy chunk) and 10% of the overall population would extrapolate into to a much higher percentage of foreign born population. BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. ^^You have to go a bit outside of Cleveland to find any significant mexican population. In the City itself, or even Cuyahoga County, we have an extremely small mexican population (legal and illegal) as compared to other places I have lived. But as EVD mentioned above, as you go to the outskirts of the metro into Geauga and Lake Counties, there is a noticeable difference. Not much farmland here in Cuyahoga County, I suppose.
February 24, 201213 yr BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. That's because most Latinos hate it when people confuse them with Mexicans. Bazinga!
February 24, 201213 yr ^Which is mostly PR (or at least a very healthy chunk) and 10% of the overall population would extrapolate into to a much higher percentage of foreign born population. BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. ^^You have to go a bit outside of Cleveland to find any significant mexican population. In the City itself, or even Cuyahoga County, we have an extremely small mexican population (legal and illegal) as compared to other places I have lived. But as EVD mentioned above, as you go to the outskirts of the metro into Geauga and Lake Counties, there is a noticeable difference. Not much farmland here in Cuyahoga County, I suppose. Why would I get scolded for using that term? It's what the Census uses and is fairly common in demographics data. The 10% is just for Cleveland proper, not for the metro. For the metro, the numbers were given in my previous post.
February 24, 201213 yr A true Hispanic is from the island of Hispaniola, which consists of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Census started using it in 1980 to differentiate those from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in the Americas from whites in English and French-speaking American cultures. Yet, most individuals identified as Hispanic aren't from Haiti or the Dominican Republic.
February 24, 201213 yr My point is that looking at immigration reveals little about the economic reality of Ohio's metros. Immigration doesn't cause economic growth and might hinder it, if immigrants are poor, uneducated, or lead to divisive local politics such as in southern california and Arizona with mexicans and central americans. The education, income, and job circumstances of immigrants are what matters for any economy, in ohio's metro or otherwise. It's not where you are from, but what you are doing that matters economically.
February 25, 201213 yr The infomation was offered simply to show immigration trends, not to address the correlation, if any, to economic health of a metro.
February 25, 201213 yr The infomation was offered simply to show immigration trends, not to address the correlation, if any, to economic health of a metro. Thanks. I find it interesting, independent of any economic analysis.
February 25, 201213 yr The infomation was offered simply to show immigration trends, not to address the correlation, if any, to economic health of a metro. Hmmm. I wonder if there are any forums on recent immigration to the U.S. where you could share this information?
February 25, 201213 yr The infomation was offered simply to show immigration trends, not to address the correlation, if any, to economic health of a metro. Hmmm. I wonder if there are any forums on recent immigration to the U.S. where you could share this information? UO doesn't have an immigration forum. This goes along with the topic of "city discussion", however, so I'm not sure what the problem is with posting it here.
February 25, 201213 yr Is the point to understand immigration or to understand Ohio's metros? It seems more likely that immigration is an effect of economic forces rather than the cause of them on the local scale as much as at the national one. Looking at economic forces will contribute more to understanding immigration than looking at immigration will explain economic forces. The levels of income, education, and employment circumstances of immigrants would also reveal the role that immigrants play rather than raw numbers of immigrants. Just knowing where someone is from introduces more questions than it answers. It's what they do when they get where their going that counts. Then why didn't you ask it like this the first time? I got the idea that it was just comparing the numbers and nothing really beyond that, basic stuff. Interesting I guess. Here in NE Ohio we have a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants and I was kind of surprised they don't count them as foreign-born. Please know, PR's (and those from Guam and the US Virgin Islands) would never be counted or called immigrants since we're American Citizens. It's offensive.
February 25, 201213 yr BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. That's because most Latinos hate it when people confuse them with Mexicans. Bazinga! You have a point. Many find it offensive. A true Hispanic is from the island of Hispaniola, which consists of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Census started using it in 1980 to differentiate those from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in the Americas from whites in English and French-speaking American cultures. Yet, most individuals identified as Hispanic aren't from Haiti or the Dominican Republic. Who told you that? Yes Hispaniola is the island of Haiti/DR, but please tell me where you got that other stuff. ^Which is mostly PR (or at least a very healthy chunk) and 10% of the overall population would extrapolate into to a much higher percentage of foreign born population. BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. ^^You have to go a bit outside of Cleveland to find any significant mexican population. In the City itself, or even Cuyahoga County, we have an extremely small mexican population (legal and illegal) as compared to other places I have lived. But as EVD mentioned above, as you go to the outskirts of the metro into Geauga and Lake Counties, there is a noticeable difference. Not much farmland here in Cuyahoga County, I suppose. LOL. HUSH!
February 25, 201213 yr My point is that looking at immigration reveals little about the economic reality of Ohio's metros. Immigration doesn't cause economic growth and might hinder it, if immigrants are poor, uneducated, or lead to divisive local politics such as in southern california and Arizona with mexicans and central americans. The education, income, and job circumstances of immigrants are what matters for any economy, in ohio's metro or otherwise. It's not where you are from, but what you are doing that matters economically. Immigrants are used by natural citizens to create divisive politics, not the other way around. Low rents and access to available, low paying jobs are attractive to immigrants, and Columbus and Cincinnati both offer these things. Immigrants don't hinder economic growth, they stimulate it by consuming and providing just like anyone else. The difference with immigrants are that they typically populate low-income areas, adjusting housing trends, often for the better. For example, in Hamilton, an industrial city outside of Cincinnati, Mexican, Guatemalan and Latin immigration has been huge in the last 20 years. The westside and the Lindenwald area which is southeast, was almost entirely white, but now you see more blacks in both neighborhoods. That integration, albeit quasi-forced, would not have happened fairly recently without immigration. Don't forget about Guatemalans, guys. They are a major component to the Spanish-speaking immigration wave in central and southern Ohio. And they don't like being called Mexicans.
February 25, 201213 yr My point is that looking at immigration reveals little about the economic reality of Ohio's metros. Immigration doesn't cause economic growth and might hinder it, if immigrants are poor, uneducated, or lead to divisive local politics such as in southern california and Arizona with mexicans and central americans. The education, income, and job circumstances of immigrants are what matters for any economy, in ohio's metro or otherwise. It's not where you are from, but what you are doing that matters economically. Immigrants are used by natural citizens to create divisive politics, not the other way around. Low rents and access to available, low paying jobs are attractive to immigrants, and Columbus and Cincinnati both offer these things. Immigrants don't hinder economic growth, they stimulate it by consuming and providing just like anyone else. The difference with immigrants are that they typically populate low-income areas, adjusting housing trends, often for the better. For example, in Hamilton, an industrial city outside of Cincinnati, Mexican, Guatemalan and Latin immigration has been huge in the last 20 years. The westside and the Lindenwald area which is southeast, was almost entirely white, but now you see more blacks in both neighborhoods. That integration, albeit quasi-forced, would not have happened fairly recently without immigration. Don't forget about Guatemalans, guys. They are a major component to the Spanish-speaking immigration wave in central and southern Ohio. And they don't like being called Mexicans. There was an article in the Columbus Dispatch last year about how immigrants had been opening small businesses and redeveloping previously abandoned or struggling retail areas, such as along the Morse Road corridor in Columbus. They tend to move into places, as you said, that are inexpensive and in which space for business is easily attainable. In that same frame, they are also moving into low-income neighborhoods, and in some cases, helping to reverse the population losses in what are considered to be less desirable neighborhoods of urban cores. This can only be positive in the long run.
February 25, 201213 yr UO doesn't have an immigration forum. This goes along with the topic of "city discussion", however, so I'm not sure what the problem is with posting it here. There is no problem at all with this being a city discussion topic. However, I did modify the thread title to reflect the updated information and discussion.
February 25, 201213 yr And City Blights and jbcmh81 are on the mark about immigration and economic revitalization. Here are two articles about an Ohio Wesleyan researcher that examined the effect of immigrants in Columbus' Northland Area & Morse Road retail corridor: Ethnic businesses ending vacancies MORE: http://columbus.bizjournals.com/columbus/stories/2010/08/23/story2.html?b=1282536000^3831041 More about this from the Ohio Wesleyan University researchers quoted in the above article: Urban Immigrantification OWU Theory-to-Practice project studies change in Columbus's Northland area During the summer, Ohio Wesleyan University student Jack Schemenauer worked with assistant professor of geography David Walker, Ph.D., to study how an influx of Somali and Latino residents and merchants is helping to revitalize the Northland area of Columbus. Once a thriving go-to spot, the Northland area began to deteriorate when shoppers and merchants migrated to adjacent suburban areas. Walker and Schemenauer coined the term immigrantification, to describe how immigrants can revitalize blighted neighborhoods affected by businesses and residents seeking suburban development and by white flight. Walker says investments made by the new small businesses and the re-creation of vibrant urban landscapes has provided an excellent laboratory for study. MORE: http://connect2.owu.edu/issues/20100909/newsAndViews/immigrantification.html
February 25, 201213 yr Is the point to understand immigration or to understand Ohio's metros? It seems more likely that immigration is an effect of economic forces rather than the cause of them on the local scale as much as at the national one. Looking at economic forces will contribute more to understanding immigration than looking at immigration will explain economic forces. The levels of income, education, and employment circumstances of immigrants would also reveal the role that immigrants play rather than raw numbers of immigrants. Just knowing where someone is from introduces more questions than it answers. It's what they do when they get where their going that counts. Then why didn't you ask it like this the first time? I got the idea that it was just comparing the numbers and nothing really beyond that, basic stuff. Interesting I guess. Here in NE Ohio we have a lot of Puerto Rican immigrants and I was kind of surprised they don't count them as foreign-born. Please know, PR's (and those from Guam and the US Virgin Islands) would never be counted or called immigrants since we're American Citizens. It's offensive. Ok, well my intention was never to be offensive. I was trying to state something, sorry if I worded something wrong.
February 25, 201213 yr My point is that looking at immigration reveals little about the economic reality of Ohio's metros. Immigration doesn't cause economic growth and might hinder it, if immigrants are poor, uneducated, or lead to divisive local politics such as in southern california and Arizona with mexicans and central americans. The education, income, and job circumstances of immigrants are what matters for any economy, in ohio's metro or otherwise. It's not where you are from, but what you are doing that matters economically. Immigrants are used by natural citizens to create divisive politics, not the other way around. Low rents and access to available, low paying jobs are attractive to immigrants, and Columbus and Cincinnati both offer these things. Immigrants don't hinder economic growth, they stimulate it by consuming and providing just like anyone else. The difference with immigrants are that they typically populate low-income areas, adjusting housing trends, often for the better. For example, in Hamilton, an industrial city outside of Cincinnati, Mexican, Guatemalan and Latin immigration has been huge in the last 20 years. The westside and the Lindenwald area which is southeast, was almost entirely white, but now you see more blacks in both neighborhoods. That integration, albeit quasi-forced, would not have happened fairly recently without immigration. Don't forget about Guatemalans, guys. They are a major component to the Spanish-speaking immigration wave in central and southern Ohio. And they don't like being called Mexicans. I believe Dayton is taking on a program where they are welcoming immigrants. I know they really touted the program when Alabama was harshly cracking down on its immigrants. I know in a lot of depressed towns in Pennsylvania like Allentown and Reading, immigrants have come in and created businesses and really helped out the community. I believe population growth is on the upswing too. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-08/us/us_ohio-dayton-pro-immigrant_1_illegal-immigration-undocumented-immigrants-immigration-status?_s=PM:US
February 25, 201213 yr A true Hispanic is from the island of Hispaniola, which consists of Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The Census started using it in 1980 to differentiate those from Spanish and Portuguese-speaking countries in the Americas from whites in English and French-speaking American cultures. Yet, most individuals identified as Hispanic aren't from Haiti or the Dominican Republic. Who told you that? Yes Hispaniola is the island of Haiti/DR, but please tell me where you got that other stuff. I've heard it from quite a few sources, including professors, a Mexican friend, another buddy who visited Haiti, among other sources. The census stuff I learned from my mother who worked for the census.
February 25, 201213 yr See that's the thing though MTS, is that we use the term immigrant for people that have moved around inside the U.S., like from the South to the northern industrial cities or even from Appalachian Ohio to glaciated Ohio. A more accurate term would probably be "migrant" but they seem to be used interchangeably. And I don't know if someone from PR wants to be called a migrant, either.
February 25, 201213 yr ^Which is mostly PR (or at least a very healthy chunk) and 10% of the overall population would extrapolate into to a much higher percentage of foreign born population. BTW, you are going to get 'scolded' for using the term "Hispanic". Fair warning. ^^You have to go a bit outside of Cleveland to find any significant mexican population. In the City itself, or even Cuyahoga County, we have an extremely small mexican population (legal and illegal) as compared to other places I have lived. But as EVD mentioned above, as you go to the outskirts of the metro into Geauga and Lake Counties, there is a noticeable difference. Not much farmland here in Cuyahoga County, I suppose. Not sure I follow why the last comment explains the the lack of a significant Mexican presence in Cleveland. Yes, the reason they settled in Painesville initially was for the work available in the nurseries in the surrounding area (many have moved beyond that; but it may still be why Mexicans are moving there); but agricultural opportunities don't explain the enormous Mexican population in a large city like Chicago (or for that matter, Toledo, which apparently has a good number of them). Surely they're not working on farms in those cities. There's some other reason they haven't been drawn to the core of Cleveland. Why? http://www.mainstreetpainesville.org/
Create an account or sign in to comment