Will cities with high immigrant/foreign-born numbers to change any time soon?
 

Many cities in the US with high foreign-born populations like New York city, LA, the Bay Area, Miami have over a third to one half their population foreign born.

Outside the US, the same can be said of cities such as Toronto, Sydney, London etc. They all have numbers where one in two or one in three are immigrants.

Do you anticipate these numbers to drop any time soon, or for these gateways to shift to other locales?

On the one hand, some of these places have been immigrant gateways for a long time coming (eg. New York city), but on the other hand, there were once immigrant gateways that are now low in foreign born population. The Rust Belt cities were once great immigration hubs a hundred years or more ago and now first-generation immigrants are rare and often feel out of place in them.

Honestly, i dont think any time soon. Now that so many families and ethnicities are entrenched in these cities, it will only draw more from the same. For example, theres no way Armenians or Persians as a whole will decide to migrate to Kansas instead of Los Angeles. Just too many cultural, religious and family ties. Perhaps new cultures that are moving to the US might take root in other locales, but even then, i still think LA, SF and NY are going to be the main draws for all. We still have the best schools, the jobs, immigration infrastructure and the cache

This exact process has happened countless times in the US.

Interestingly enough, the Armenians were primarily located in the Northeast 100 years ago. They slowly moved west across the country, which is why there are still plenty of active Armenian churches and communities in Midwestern cities that a lot of people wouldn't expect to find. The difference is that many Armenian communities out east (well, Midwest and Northeast) have quite a lot more second, third, fourth, etc, generation Armenians at this point with newcomers mixed in.

It all depends. During the peak of the Syrian refugee crisis, most Syrians that were allowed into the states opted to go to the Midwest, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and etc. And most of those states governors were happy to accept, at the time, since most are still seeing population declines and at the time it seemed to be a great political move.

The overseas manager for the middle eastern division for my employer lives/works out of Lebanon. Every time I talk with him he says "Have you seen any one famous today" because he knows I'm in LA, He's fascinated with how things are done here and that he wish he could move here. BUT. That being said, he has no desire to be on the coasts, his exact words "if I move to the States, I don't want to be in New York or LA, I want to experience the country living".... I told him that may or may not be a good idea hahaha but he was pretty determined he wanted to be in Texas or Oklahoma or somewhere in the south. Again, I told him that may or may not be a good idea HAHAHA.

The reason why NYC and LA attract immigrants more than other cities and why the coasts in general attract immigrants more than the interiors is because...... to be blunt, the coasts are a somewhat friendlier and more welcoming. The interiors can sometimes feel a little unwelcoming, even to those visiting from the coasts.

If non-coastal states and states not currently big in terms of being immigrant gateways offer strong financial incentives for immigrants to settle, do you think it will change things?

Well, Middle Eastern and Arab Americans have long had a sizeable presence in Michigan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...cans_and_Arabs

A friend of mine is second generation Egyptian and we have talked about how much of a shock it must have been to move from Alexandria to Dearborn in January.

Here's a listing of American cities' foreign born residents based on the 2009 census. Based on numbers of people, the top five, in order, were New York, Los Angeles, Houston, Chicago, and San Jose. Percentages look somewhat different, though.

Would be good to find data on the countries of origin for the cities shown on the list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...orn_population

At some point most of the world will become developed enough (and old enough) that international migration will slow down. After all, the main reason for migrating is lack of economic opportunity in one's home country, and older people do not migrate as much as younger people. At that point the native-born populations will start to gain at the expense of the foreign-born.

Have no idea when this will occur. For all we know it might be starting now, or might not start for another few decades, or something.

2 options
1) Mexicans are not immigrants
2) you have never visited Chicago.

Why would that happen? Under the current political climate, many states are happy to be poorer as long as they keep immigrants out. They would offer financial incentives to NOT receive immigrants.

Why would that be a "shocking" move? Both cities are urban suburbs in large metros, middle class and Democrat. Both cities have tons of immigrants.

Edit: You're talking Alexandria, Egypt, I take it. I thought you were talking Alexandria, VA.

That has nothing to do with "the coasts" but small town v. big city. I came from the east coast and live in Texas. My hometown in Upstate NY (plus I also lived in New England) was very insular where as big Texas cities are very welcoming of immigrants.

OK, but when people talk about "the coasts" they typically aren't referring to insular places in Central/Western NY State, and when talking about the "interior" they typically aren't referring to Houston or Texas-Mexican border.

"The coasts" typically means the Northeast Corridor, Coastal CA, and the Coastal PNW. "The interior" wouldn't really apply to South Texas and its centuries of Hispanic settlement.

People from the coasts refer to anything between I-95/I-87 in the east and US 101/I-5 in the west as fly-over hinterlands where there be Waffle Houses, dragons and republicans. Texas falls within this abyss. We had to create our own "third" coast here.

yeah nope -- the third coast has long been in cleveland and it is called the north coast -- as you can see examples of below -- and etc etc more ;) :cool:


https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/11...=220&sq=1&cb=0http://www.northcoastseal.com/images/logo.png https://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.com/bph...rMqoBL8w/l.jpghttps://terrysnorthcoastauto.net/ima...0building1.png
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/clev/LRT-North-Coast-02.JPG

In the 1800's there were actually entire "colonization" companies devoted to moving new immigrants out of big cities and onto rural homesteads of their own. One I'm familiar with was devoted to bringing Italians and Russians from New York City to Western North Carolina.

Then there's the immigrant communities that have entrenched themselves in cities and towns off the beaten path. There was an effort to bring Cambodian refugee families into my area in the 70's and 80's, and Somalian communities have established themselves in Lewiston-Auburn, ME and in Minneapolis.

entrenched now and that is a good thing, but the somali refugees were purposefully relocated to those areas, and columbus too.

that's interesting re colonization companies.

"third coast" and "north coast" are not exclusive to cleveland. these branding terms are used throughout the entire great lakes region.