This is the third part of the three part series that reviews three of the most compelling
economic policy studies on the California economy completed in 2009. 

The report, ‘New Patterns of Immigrant Settlement in California’, July 2009 by Sarah Bohn
of the Public Policy Institute of California, PPIC has identified a variety of interesting changes
in immigration.

First the report corrected several previous statements.  One is that while California still remains
the home for the most immigrants in the nation, its destination for immigrants has declined
significantly.  In fact the shift began in the 1990’s and has continued to decline through
today. Additionally, there was no evidence that illustrated the movement was caused by access
to social service programs for immigrants but rather based upon available jobs and wages

Second, the report in the Technical Addendum identified why or what are the theoretic causes
behind immigration.  The report illustrates two reasons: The decisions are made at the individual
or household level whether to migrate and where.  The report identifies that this decision falls into
economic, social and institutional categories.  When determining economic factors, it is primarily
based upon neo-classical economic theory, involving costs and benefits of migrating but also where
to migrate.  As it pertains to the social factors, it is predicated upon the concentration of like co-
ethnics as a strong factor of location choice. And for institutional factors that affect immigration,
these involve state welfare benefits, and border crossing locations, specifically for undocumented
immigrants.

Second, the report brings to light for the reader a specific concern associated with the research
apparently quickly uncovered and that is there is no comprehensive data that allows research to
identify immigration status. 

The PPIC report has however tried to cobble together an analysis of both documented and undocumented
immigrants.  The question associated with this report comes to light is how one identifies and validates
an undocumented immigrant?

Thirdly and more important, is the most significant finding of the research is that while California remains
the largest home to immigrants, more than any state in the nation, its popularity as a location has dropped
steadily by not only percentage  but also by aggregate number.  This was also evident as well as for other
states traditionally known for the movement of immigrants to their states, such as New York, Florida, Texas,
Illinois and New Jersey.  But due to changes in preferences by immigrants, other states have become
impacted by immigrant movement. For example, based upon percentages, Nevada has become the number
one state for immigrants at 85 percent growth from 2000-2007 on a 10 year basis.  Arizona is second at
78 percent, followed by Georgia at 71 percent, followed by North Carolina at 64 percent and Colorado
at 51 percent, capping off the top five highest growing states. Thus, the report illustrated that these demographic
shifts have policy implications at the federal, state and local levels because many communities are confronting
issues of integrating immigrants for the first time.

But for the reader, for example, the report illustrates that since 1980, and then in ten year increments from
1980-1990, 1990-2000 and then 2000-2007, based on a 10 year basis, immigration has slowed in the state.
The report identifies the reduction in percentages.  Hence the need to read and refer to the Technical Addendum
because only in the Technical Addendum does the reader get an appreciation of the dramatic reductions in the
aggregate sum. But California is strongly in the number one position by the aggregate total of immigrants
illustrated by the fact that 36 immigrants reside in the nation with 26 percent of them in California.

Also within the Technical Addendum, there is a chart that illustrates the breakdown of immigration by
county.  It is this chart that provides some of the most important information for business, community,
economic developers, workforce training and redevelopment professionals.  For example, Alameda,
Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino and Sacramento Counties have been the fastest-growing immigrant
populations since 1990.  The growth in Alameda and Sacramento Counties has come predominately
from an in increase in new immigrant arrivals, while growth in Riverside and San Bernardino counties
stems more from relocation by more established immigrants, mostly from Los Angeles County.  And
Kern County has seen a little growth of new immigrant arrivals and al larger wave of relocation by
established immigrants.  Strangely, agricultural based economies where one would think that most
immigrant growth has occurred specifically in the Central Valley, Sacramento Valley and Salinas Valley
and the counties that comprise these regions were not major growth areas.  Certainly, Kern and
Sacramento Counties were identified, but counties such as Fresno, Merced, San Joaquin and Monterey
were not major recipients of immigrant growth since the 1980’s.

Finally, the last element raised by the report is the preference by the predominate immigrants to California.
Latinos and Asians have had a change of preference and California is no longer their first state of choice. 
Apparently based upon choices of finding work, Latino immigrants were less likely to choose California
in 2007 than they were in 1990.  Immigrants employed in construction, construction, and some service
industries, specifically hospitality preferred other states.  This preference appears to be directly based
upon economics, specifically for wages and jobs. 

To read the report go to www.ppic.org  then to publications.