HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 10:25 AM
MontroseNeighborhood's Avatar
MontroseNeighborhood MontroseNeighborhood is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 776
U.S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million

U.S. Hispanic Population Surpasses 45 Million
Now 15 Percent of Total

The nation's Hispanic population increased 1.4 million to reach 45.5 million on July 1, 2007, or 15.1 percent of the estimated total U.S. population of 301.6 million.

National and state estimates by race, Hispanic origin, sex and age released today by the U.S. Census Bureau also show that the Hispanic population exceeded 500,000 in 16 states.

Hispanics remained the largest minority group, with blacks (single race or multiracial) second at 40.7 million in 2007. The black population exceeded 500,000 in 20 states. Blacks were the largest minority group in 24 states, compared with 20 states in which Hispanics were the largest minority group

Blacks were followed by Asians, who totaled 15.2 million; American Indians and Alaska Natives, who totaled 4.5 million; and Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, with 1 million. The population of whites (single race and not of Hispanic origin) totaled 199.1 million (See Table 1 [Excel]).

With a 3.3 percent increase between July 1, 2006, and July 1, 2007, Hispanics were the fastest-growing minority group. Asians were the second fastest-growing minority group, with a 2.9 percent population increase during the period. The white population grew by 0.3 percent during the one-year period.

Overall, the nation's minority population reached 102.5 million in 2007 -- 34 percent of the total. California had a minority population of 20.9 million -- 20 percent of the nation's total, Texas had a minority population of 12.5 million -- 12 percent of the U.S. total.

Four states and the District of Columbia were "majority-minority" (i.e., more than 50 percent of their population is made up of people other than single-race non-Hispanic whites). Hawaii led the nation with a population that was 75 percent minority in 2007, followed by the District of Columbia (68 percent), New Mexico (58 percent), California (57 percent) and Texas (52 percent). Next in line, though not majority-minority, were Nevada, Maryland and Georgia, each with a minority population of 42 percent (See Table 2 [Excel]).

Highlights for the various groups:

Hispanics

California (13.2 million) had the largest Hispanic population of any state as of July 1, 2007, followed by Texas (8.6 million) and Florida (3.8 million). Texas had the largest numerical increase between 2006 and 2007 (308,000), followed by California (268,000) and Florida (131,000). In New Mexico, Hispanics comprised the highest proportion of the total population (44 percent), with California and Texas (36 percent each) next in line.
The Hispanic population in 2007 had a median age of 27.6, compared with the population as a whole at 36.6. Almost 34 percent of the Hispanic population was younger than 18, compared with 25 percent of the total population.

Blacks

The black population increased by 1.3 percent, or 540,000, between 2006 and 2007.
New York had the largest black population in 2007 (3.5 million), followed by Florida and Texas (3 million each). Georgia had the largest numerical increase between 2006 and 2007 (84,000), with Texas (62,000) and Florida (48,000) next. In the District of Columbia, the black population comprised the highest percentage (56 percent); Mississippi (38 percent) and Louisiana (32 percent) were next.

The single-race black population in 2007 had a median age of 31.1, compared with the population as a whole at 36.6. About 31 percent of the black population was younger than 18, compared with 25 percent of the total population.

Asians

The Asian population rose by 2.9 percent, or 434,000, between 2006 and 2007.
California (5 million) had the largest Asian population on July 1, 2007, as well as the largest numerical increase during the 2006 to 2007 period (106,000). New York (1.4 million) and Texas (915,000) followed in population. Texas (44,000) and New York (33,000) followed in numerical increase. In Hawaii, Asians made up the highest proportion of the total population (55 percent), with California (14 percent), and New Jersey and Washington (8 percent each) next.

The single-race Asian population in 2007 had a median age of 35.4, compared with the population as a whole at 36.6.

Asians were the largest minority group in Hawaii and Vermont.


American Indians and Alaska Natives


The American Indian and Alaska Native population rose by 1 percent or 45,000, from 2006 to 2007.

California (689,000) had the largest population of American Indians and Alaska Natives on July 1, 2007, with Oklahoma (394,000) and Arizona (335,000) next. Texas had the largest numerical increase (8,300) since July 1, 2006, followed by Arizona (4,900) and Florida (2,800). In Alaska, American Indians and Alaska Natives made up the highest proportion of the total population (18 percent), with Oklahoma (11 percent) and New Mexico (10 percent) next.

The single-race American Indian and Alaska Native population in 2007 had a median age of 30.3, compared with the population as a whole at 36.6. About 27 percent of the American Indian and Alaska Native population was younger than 18, compared with 25 percent of the total population.

American Indians and Alaska Natives were the largest minority group in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma and South Dakota.

Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders

The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population rose by 1.6 percent, or 16,000, from 2006 to 2007.

Hawaii had the largest population (269,000), followed by California (262,000) and Washington (50,000). California had the largest numerical increase (2,900) of people of this group, with Texas (2,500) and Florida (1,100) next. In Hawaii, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders comprised the largest proportion (21 percent) of the total population, followed by Utah (1 percent) and Alaska (0.9 percent).

The single-race Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population in 2007 had a median age of 30.2, compared with the population as a whole at 36.6. About 29 percent of the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population was younger than 18, compared with 25 percent of the total population.

Whites

The non-Hispanic, single-race white population of 199.1 million represented 66 percent of the total population.

California, New York and Texas had the largest population of this group (15.6 million, 11.6 million and 11.4 million, respectively), but Texas experienced the largest numerical increase (95,000), followed by North Carolina (92,000) and Georgia (57,000). Maine (96 percent) had the highest proportion of whites, followed by Vermont (95 percent) and West Virginia (94 percent).

The white population in 2007 was older than the population as a whole: The respective median ages were 40.8 and 36.6. About 21 percent of the population of this group was younger than 18, compared with 25 percent of the total population.

Also released today were tabulations by age:

Thirteen percent of the total population, 37.9 million people, was 65 and older in 2007.

The number of people 85 and older reached 5.5 million, or 2 percent of the population.

In 2007, working-age adults (18 to 64) totaled 189.8 million, which was 63 percent of the population.

The number of preschoolers (younger than 5) was estimated at 20.7 million.

The number of children 5 to 13 was 36 million, with children 14 to 17 numbering 17.2 million.

States with the highest percentages of older people (65 and older) included Florida (17 percent), West Virginia (15.5 percent) and Pennsylvania (15.2 percent). States with the lowest percentages were Alaska (7 percent), Utah (8.8 percent) and Georgia (9.9 percent).

States with the highest percentages of preschoolers included Utah (9.7 percent), Texas (8.3 percent) and Idaho (7.9 percent). States with the lowest percentages were Vermont (5.2 percent), Maine (5.4 percent) and New Hampshire (5.7 percent).

-X-

Unless otherwise specified, the data refer to the population who reported a race alone or in combination with one or more other races. The detailed tables show data for both this group and those who reported a single race only. Censuses and surveys permit respondents to select more than one race; consequently, people may be one race or a combination of races. Hispanics may be any race.

The federal government treats Hispanic origin and race as separate and distinct concepts. In surveys and censuses, separate questions are asked on Hispanic origin and race. The question on Hispanic origin asks respondents if they are Spanish, Hispanic or Latino. Starting with Census 2000, the question on race asked respondents to report the race or races they consider themselves to be. Thus, Hispanics may be of any race. (See U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data <http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/compraceho.html>.)

These data are based on estimates of U.S. population for July 1, 2007. The Census Bureau estimates population change from the most recent decennial census (Census 2000) using annual data on births, deaths and international migration. More detailed information on the methodology used to produce these estimates can be found at <http://www.census.gov/popest/topics/methodology/>.

April 30, 2008
New Census report highlights growth of Texas, Hispanics

A new report from the U.S. Census Bureau illustrates the explosive growth of Texas, driven largely by an Hispanic population that is increasing at a faster rate than any other group nationwide.

In all, more than three times as many Hispanics than whites joined Texas' population from July 1, 2006, to July 1, 2007.

Texas added the most Hispanics last year (308,000). California was second with 268,000. Texas added the most whites (95,000) compared to North Carolina's 92,000.

Texas added the second-most Blacks (62,000) compared to Georgia's 84,000. Texas added the second-most Asians (44,000) compared to California's 106,000.

Texas' minority population of 12.5 million is second only to California's 20.9 million. California has the largest Hispanic population (13.2 million), followed by Texas (8.6 million), then Florida (3.8 million).

You can search the Census data on chron.com.

Here's the U.S. Census press release. (www.census.gov):
__________________
My Flickr Photos:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/indiephotographer/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 3:20 PM
DFW LUV's Avatar
DFW LUV DFW LUV is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Valley Ranch, TX
Posts: 145
With Oklahoma passing strict laws punishing companies and individuals who hire undocumented workers; looks like Texas will continue to be popular for Hispanic migration.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 4:10 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,268
Notice that these are only number for documented, legal immigration. The numbers are (sadly) much higher for every state, but especially California and Texas.

Illegal immigration just seems like such a no-win situation. I believe it shouldn't be tolerated, but at the same time who are we to deny someone the right to a better life, and better job opportunities?? Plus, so many people are discouraged by the difficulties of applying for citizenship... it is very frustrating.

I know that within Houston, it is perfectly feasible for one to come to this country, and not need to know a single word of English. Yet they will have access to free medical care, very cheap living arrangements, insurance, and illegal documentation. As we are in a recession, it's a shame that we are passing up hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and sales tax from the illegal immigrant population.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 4:23 PM
fflint's Avatar
fflint fflint is offline
Triptastic Gen X Snoozer
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 22,213
This is a topic for the United States section, not for City Discussions.
__________________
"You need both a public and a private position." --Hillary Clinton, speaking behind closed doors to the National Multi-Family Housing Council, 2013
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 6:35 PM
Samwill89 Samwill89 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX View Post
Notice that these are only number for documented, legal immigration. The numbers are (sadly) much higher for every state, but especially California and Texas.

Illegal immigration just seems like such a no-win situation. I believe it shouldn't be tolerated, but at the same time who are we to deny someone the right to a better life, and better job opportunities?? Plus, so many people are discouraged by the difficulties of applying for citizenship... it is very frustrating.

I know that within Houston, it is perfectly feasible for one to come to this country, and not need to know a single word of English. Yet they will have access to free medical care, very cheap living arrangements, insurance, and illegal documentation. As we are in a recession, it's a shame that we are passing up hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and sales tax from the illegal immigrant population.
They definitely pay more than their fair share of taxes (at higher rates than US citizens), even with income paid "under the table".

I could care less about the "better life" argument. The only reasons I am against the deportation of illegal immigrants are the facts that parents and children can be separated in the process and children who lived here most of their lives can be sent into an unfamiliar world.

I am glad that the US is becoming more diverse culturally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted May 1, 2008, 8:28 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samwill89 View Post
They definitely pay more than their fair share of taxes (at higher rates than US citizens), even with income paid "under the table".

I could care less about the "better life" argument. The only reasons I am against the deportation of illegal immigrants are the facts that parents and children can be separated in the process and children who lived here most of their lives can be sent into an unfamiliar world.

I am glad that the US is becoming more diverse culturally.
I certainly am to, but illegal immigration doesn't have to be the catalyst for that diversity, and I definitely don't support the breaking up of families. But one has to wonder why people decide to emigrate illegally in the first place, instead of just getting a green card and following the proper channels. Anyone is welcome to live in the US, as long as they do it legally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted May 2, 2008, 1:36 AM
sogod sogod is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 82
Eventually we have got to stop classifying all hispanics as non-white. Especially in places like Texas where there is significant mixing. Its just silly and gives a distorted picture of what the population is like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted May 2, 2008, 3:32 AM
Gordo's Avatar
Gordo Gordo is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Seattle, WA/San Francisco, CA/Jackson Hole, WY
Posts: 4,016
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanactivistTX View Post
I certainly am to, but illegal immigration doesn't have to be the catalyst for that diversity, and I definitely don't support the breaking up of families. But one has to wonder why people decide to emigrate illegally in the first place, instead of just getting a green card and following the proper channels. Anyone is welcome to live in the US, as long as they do it legally.
People decide to emigrate illegally because the process to do it legally is too difficult, period. It's simply the market working around bad regulations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted May 2, 2008, 8:59 PM
urbanactivist's Avatar
urbanactivist urbanactivist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Houston
Posts: 3,268
^Most definitely agreed. I'd be discouraged too if I wanted to move to Canada, but knew it would take at least nine years to become a Canadian citizen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted May 3, 2008, 2:29 PM
Vladimir O'Shea Vladimir O'Shea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5
I used to think that illegal immigration was bad, mainly because of the tax load paid by citizens, until I read this article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5737683.html

Basically the taxes paid by the immigrants are about $1.58 billion vs. the services used by the immigrants being $1.15 billion for a net gain of $430 million dollars in in taxes for Texas. Sounds like illegal immigrants are paying more than their fair share. I agree that we need immigration reform to make it easier for people to come into this country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted May 6, 2008, 10:12 PM
dollaztx dollaztx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Midcities
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by sogod View Post
Eventually we have got to stop classifying all hispanics as non-white. Especially in places like Texas where there is significant mixing. Its just silly and gives a distorted picture of what the population is like.
I dont know. I actually think that the US Census should include something in the lines of Amerindian or Mexican Native, Mestizo. Take me for example. I know for sure that I am part Spanish and part Indian (Mexican Indian). I get my looks from my Amerindian side so I dont like to classify myself as white (even though my dad does). Its kind of wierd how 90% of Mexicans (the largest hispanic group) are reported as Amerindian or Mestizo in the Mexican census. But here in the US its that same percentage that are classifing themselves white.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 4:05 AM
worldwide's Avatar
worldwide worldwide is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Vancouver - Ktown
Posts: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir O'Shea View Post
I used to think that illegal immigration was bad, mainly because of the tax load paid by citizens, until I read this article:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/falkenberg/5737683.html
you based you entire point of view on a newspaper article? this type of thing happens all the time, and it scares me because i have read some really biased and just completely misinformed articles.

not referring to this article in particular though, i dont know enough about the topic to state my opinions
__________________
Hieroglyphics yeah, to the kick and the snare like that, there, yeah, we keep it raw rare
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:14 AM
sogod sogod is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 82
Quote:
Originally Posted by manuelpr View Post
I dont know. I actually think that the US Census should include something in the lines of Amerindian or Mexican Native, Mestizo. Take me for example. I know for sure that I am part Spanish and part Indian (Mexican Indian). I get my looks from my Amerindian side so I dont like to classify myself as white (even though my dad does). Its kind of wierd how 90% of Mexicans (the largest hispanic group) are reported as Amerindian or Mestizo in the Mexican census. But here in the US its that same percentage that are classifing themselves white.
I'd agree that changing "Native American" to "Amerindian" so as to include Mexican Indians would make a lot of sense along with possibly dropping the whole Hispanic/Latino thing.

The problem I see with the way the census handles this, is that as Hispanic people mix in with the existing population, as they most certainly are, eventually the term becomes meaningless and misleading (more so even than now). If a white American person and a Mexican person of any color get married all there kids would be counted Hispanic and deducted from the white non-Hispanic totals. Then when people read these statistics and assume Hispanic = Amerindian Mexican, which most people do, they see the Hispanic total growing fast and the non-Hispanic white stagnating and they get a mostly false picture of the country and its ethnic makeup.

Carry that on a few generations and its hard to see how the country could not become majority Hispanic even if it looks largely the same.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 5:35 AM
Urbanguy's Avatar
Urbanguy Urbanguy is offline
Go Beavs! Go Niners!
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portland | Honolulu
Posts: 5,927
manuelpr, could you please clarify your statement about Amerindian? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'll take a shot though. The Census does separate Hispanics into different races but it all depends on how people report their race(s). So for someone like you, you'd be Hispanic-Two or More Races instead of just Hispanic-White...but it depends on how you report your race to the Census. There's also a category called Latin American Indians under the Alaska Native and American Indian Category and for those that specify their ethnicity or tribe like Maya, Nahuatl, Quechua or vaguely as Mexican Indian or South American Indian, they are placed in that category.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 2:48 PM
Vladimir O'Shea Vladimir O'Shea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by worldwide View Post
you based you entire point of view on a newspaper article? this type of thing happens all the time, and it scares me because i have read some really biased and just completely misinformed articles.

not referring to this article in particular though, i dont know enough about the topic to state my opinions
Not just the article, but the numbers included in the article. I'm a numbers person. As long as there is no money out of my pocket, I'm happy. The only other way illegal immigrants are going to get money out of my pocket is to rob me, but I don't believe that immigrants are going to be any more crime prone than any other group. In fact, I would assert that they would be less crime prone because the consequences of getting caught would be higher.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted May 7, 2008, 8:59 PM
dollaztx dollaztx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Midcities
Posts: 567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Urbanguy View Post
manuelpr, could you please clarify your statement about Amerindian? I'm not exactly sure what you mean. I'll take a shot though. The Census does separate Hispanics into different races but it all depends on how people report their race(s). So for someone like you, you'd be Hispanic-Two or More Races instead of just Hispanic-White...but it depends on how you report your race to the Census. There's also a category called Latin American Indians under the Alaska Native and American Indian Category and for those that specify their ethnicity or tribe like Maya, Nahuatl, Quechua or vaguely as Mexican Indian or South American Indian, they are placed in that category.
In the US the term American Indian is used to describe the natives of the continental United States. Which is why they also narrow it down to Alaskan Natives, in order to merge the natives of Alaska with those of the continental US. It is for this reason that most people of Latin America dont check this. So basically your left with black, asian, white, other, or two or more. Most hispanics are not black or asian. To check other would be as though your not counted at all. Can you imagine having the biggest minority group as other? If you check 2 or more you still have to check from the same list that you couldnt identify yourself with. The only race that to a degree identifies you is white which is misleading and misinformative.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted May 13, 2008, 6:51 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,341
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir O'Shea View Post
Not just the article, but the numbers included in the article. I'm a numbers person. As long as there is no money out of my pocket, I'm happy. The only other way illegal immigrants are going to get money out of my pocket is to rob me, but I don't believe that immigrants are going to be any more crime prone than any other group. In fact, I would assert that they would be less crime prone because the consequences of getting caught would be higher.
You aren't listening to what worldwide is saying-- these people are coming into OUR country, taking OUR services, and are contributing NOTHING.

A few hundred million dollars does not change the face of the rabid rabid tide staring us down.

worldwide is a good americ-- oh WAIT.

I changed my mind. I agree with you, Vlad.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted May 13, 2008, 6:57 PM
Echo Park Echo Park is offline
California goth
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: cardboard box on skid row
Posts: 1,777
illegals are taking our jobs. i saw one the other day when i came into work and he was sitting in my desk doing spreadsheets and some accounting. i had to wrestle him off.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 1:08 AM
Vladimir O'Shea Vladimir O'Shea is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echo Park View Post
illegals are taking our jobs. i saw one the other day when i came into work and he was sitting in my desk doing spreadsheets and some accounting. i had to wrestle him off.
Now that's commentary!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted May 14, 2008, 5:24 AM
Urbanguy's Avatar
Urbanguy Urbanguy is offline
Go Beavs! Go Niners!
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portland | Honolulu
Posts: 5,927
You know, I just don't know of any person who feels that they are going to lose their job to an "illegal." It's a bogus argument in my opinion. If anyone should feel threatened it should be those in manufacturing and because their jobs are going across the border or overseas thanks to big business not "illegals." I know this because I went through a lay-off about six years ago from a microelectronics company that moved overseas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:54 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.