Year: 2025

How Many American live outside the US?

Estimates of the number of Americans living outside the United States are very rough and quite varied. Heitor David Pinto delved into the complex way in which one would define and an American (see note below). He does not take into account how many in his estimate may be spending part time abroad and part time in the United States. Overall, he estimates that there are about 5.5 million U.S. citizens who are living outside the country.  1.2 million citizens per his estimate live in Mexico and one million live in Canada. About 300,000 live in the United Kingdom. 280,000 live in Isreal, the equivalent to about 3% of the non-Arab population of Isreal.

Note that the organization promoting Pinto’s estimate, the Associations of Americans Resident Overseas, is most likely to favor a high estimate

How Pinto came to his estimate

The United Nations estimates that about 3 million American live outside the U.S. (go here).

Pinto started from data compiled by the United Nations for 2020 from the most recent census of every country, and updated it with U.S. census data for 2022 and with census data for the years 2010 – 2023 from some individual countries. The census data of each country shows the number of people residing there who were born in each other country so, in the case of Americans abroad, it means only people born in the U.S. Pinto then took the more detailed census data from some countries showing parents’ place of birth to estimate the number of Americans born there from a parent who was born in the U.S., and applied it to all other countries proportionally.

His analysis presents the number of U.S. citizens living abroad as people born in the U.S. plus those born abroad with at least a parent who was born in the U.S. (so it includes the so-called “accidental Americans”). He also included naturalized citizens, assuming that they have the same emigration rate from the U.S. as the rest of the U.S. population. This analysis is an admitted simplification, as it includes some people who are not U.S. citizens (those born in the U.S. from foreign diplomats, or born abroad from American parents who didn’t reside in the U.S. for enough years to transmit U.S. citizenship, or those who renounced U.S. citizenship). But there is no data available to estimate these particular cases and their numbers are thought to be relatively small. Mr. Pinto’s estimate does not include military personnel or their families.

Indians in the US: a thriving and growing community

Today there are about 3 million persons in the United states who were born in India, compared to one million in 2000.  That is a compound annual rate of growth of 5% and that does not take into account the children whom first generation indians are producing. (The annual growth rate for the entire popution was about 0.9%).

Here are some facts, drawn from 2023 by the Migration Policy Institute. They capture how Indians have a distinct advantage over other immigrants and even native born persons in terms of thriving economically.  It is very interesting that Indian immigrants are now quite visible among Republican Party ranks, just as they are among Conservative Party ranks in the United kingdom.

The distinctive profile of Indian immigrants in America today is influenced by several factors that are not readily apparent. The surge in their arrival matched the growing demand for STEM talent. As with most other recent immigrants, they have come well educated and at prime working age. In very different specific ways they are similar to the arrival of German Jews in the 1930s whose talents in science and the arts were quickly absorbed.  Who are the Einsteins and Billy Wilders among our 3 million Indians?

The educational head start: Among persons 25 years or older, 81% of Indians have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared to 35% of all immigrants and 36% of native born. This means that the second generation of Indians grow up in an educated household.

Income is higher: In 2023, households headed by an Indian immigrant had a median annual income of $166,200, compared to $78,700 for all immigrant-led and $77,600 for native-led households. Indian immigrants were roughly half as likely to be in poverty (6 percent) as immigrants overall (14 percent) or the U.S. born (12 percent). Poverty is an income below $30,900 for a family of four in 2023. I suspect that many Indians in poverty are actually students.

Indians have better health insurance coverage: In 2023, just 4 percent of immigrants from India were uninsured, compared to 6 percent of the native born and 18 percent of the overall foreign-born population. Indian immigrants were more likely to be covered by private health insurance than the overall foreign-born and U.S.-born populations, reflecting their strong labor force participation and employment in high-skilled jobs that often come with employer-provided health insurance.

The intergenerational factor: In 2023 their median age was 42 years old, compared to 47 for all immigrants and 37 for the native-born population. This is due to the high number of working-age adults: 81 percent of all Indian immigrants were ages 18 to 64 and 58 percent of the native born.  Behind these figures is that high number of children born to immigrants and who are now counted, of course, as native born.  Immigration is a multi-generational phenomenon – immigrants being more of working age tend to produce relatively more children.

Laken Riley Act – the controversional provision

The Laken Riley Act, passed by the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate, is an act that does little to change immigration law. But there are two expansions of the existing law.  One, the Homeland Security “shall” [i.e. must] detain an unauthorized person in the event they are “charged with, is arrested for, is convicted of, admits having committed, or admits committing acts which constitute the essential elements of any burglary, theft, larceny, or shoplifting offense.”  That is, they cannot be released pending further legal action, but must be detained, even for shoplifting.

Two, the law grants a state Attorney General standing to file suits to enforce certain provisions of existing law if an unauthorized person within that state commits a “harm” as defined by law. A state Attorney General can get a court to require Homeland Security to apply a power already in place, which is to deny the issuance of all visas to a that person’s country if that country tends not to accept their citizens subject to deportation. At this time, these countries include China, India, Venezuela, Cuba, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Russia and Somalia.  For example, if an unauthorized person in Texas who is a citizen of Ethiopia falls within the scope of this law, the Attorney General of Texas can through a court stop all visa issuance for persons from Ethiopia.

The second of these provisions is what is controversial.

 

 

Do immigrant workers create, complement, or displace?

In a modern economy, the dynamics between immigrant and native born workers is so complex that it cannot be reduced to an all-inclusive, simple sum without eliminating 90% of meaningful insight.  Thus, to say that overall immigrants add jobs, do not affect native workers, or compete with native workers is to engage in vast simplification.

Cauimi and Peri came perilously close to vast simplification in a study they released in early 2024. Giovanni Peri is a star academic researcher on immigration who has for some time argued that immigration overall is neutral or positive in its effect on native born workers.

They explain their findings through the concept of complementarity: Immigrants and U.S.-born workers often have different skills and specializations that complement each other rather than compete directly. This complementarity boosts productivity and, in turn, wages for U.S.-born workers. Since 2000, there has been an increase in college-educated immigrants, which has further enhanced the complementary effect, especially benefiting less educated U.S.-born workers.

Pretty much all academic research into the economic impact of immigrants on American workers relies on correlation analysis that deals with association, not cause. Further, these analysis address employment and wages, but not productivity, the investment decision, job switching, career switching, or domestic migration. Nor do they deal with the secondary effects. These analyses cannot capture the possibility that immigrants concentrate on geographic locales and occupations where they perceive substantial growth requiring new workers.

An example of immigrant impact which has a very rich story that is lost in statistical analysis typically done is the independent motel industry. About 60% of all hotels in the US are owned by Indian Americans, and this group may own at least 80% of all motels in small towns.   I addressed this phenomenon here.   At the core of this story is the evolution of a business model crafted by Indian immigrants that facilitated the voluntary purchase/sale of motels and hotels from native owners, and which preserved the viability of thousands of motels in the country.

Bernie Sanders on H-1B

Senator Bernie Sanders issued a statement on January 3, “We need major reforms in the H-1B program.” The full statement is here.

Sanders argues that the H-1B visa program is exploited by corporations to replace well-paid American jobs with low-wage foreign labor. He says, “We must utilize this program as a very short-term and temporary approach“ to meeting workforce needs.  He advocates for reforms like raising minimum wages for guest workers and enabling them to switch jobs.

Sanders statement reflects persistent blinkered political thinking about immigration, and exposes the vulnerability of the Democratic Party to a major attack from Republicans. For one, he implicitly buys into the idea that for the most part bringing a worker in on a temporary basis means an American loses a job. I doubt he would say that when addressing the hundreds of thousands of temporary farm workers who come in from Latin America.

Further, he does what virtually every politician does when addressing immigration, which is to think in the extremely short term with no consideration of intermediate, much less long term, workforce needs.   No national Democratic politician, from what I read has come forward with a proposal on how to draw upon the huge talent pool in the world to complement, not replace, American workers.

Republican senators are, I believe, ready to come forward with a comprehensive immigration bill that would feature skilled labor, and defend this approach using a intermediate and long term vision of how to maintain a highly productive workforce. I have zero factual knowledge that such a bill is in the works. I am interested in how Sanders would respond to such a proposal.

How the AMA influences physician immigration

In 1970,10% of practicing physicians were graduates of foreign medical schools (IMGs). In 1985, 22% of practicing physicians were. In 2019, some 230,000 active physicians graduated from international medical schools, accounting for 25% of the total active physician workforce.

Who controls the flow of MDs from abroad? The AMA effectively influences the flow of foreign-born doctors (very roughly = graduates of IMGs. Over 80% of IMGs are non-U.S. citizens).  In contrast, foreign born workers are a quarter of computer science workers but their employers have far less influence over the overseas supply of computer science workers.

Let’s say that the AMA wants to increase the supply of MDs by 10%. How would it make that happen?

Easing International Medical Graduates integration:  The Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) could streamline its certification process for IMGs, making it easier for qualified foreign-trained doctors to practice in the U.S.. This could quickly boost the physician workforce, given as IMGs already constitute about 25% of the U.S. physician workforce. The AMA and ECFMG are separate organizations.  But the AMA’s influence as a leading voice in American medicine ensures that its perspectives are considered in shaping ECFMG.

Increase Medical School Enrollment: The AMA could advocate for expanding enrollment in existing medical schools and support the establishment of new medical schools. This would directly increase the number of U.S. medical graduates entering the workforce.

Support for Residency Programs: Lobbying Congress to increase funding for residency programs would be crucial. The AMA has already urged Congress to remove caps on Medicare-funded residency slots. Expanding residency positions is essential, as it’s a bottleneck in physician training.

State-Level Initiatives: Advocating for more states to follow Tennessee’s example of lowering barriers for IMGs could significantly expand the talent pool.

Policy and Regulatory Changes: The medical community could push for the passage of bills like the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act, which aims to increase Medicare-supported residency positions.

Promoting the use of telehealth could help extend the reach of existing physicians, effectively increasing the supply of medical services.

 

In sum, the AMA has far more concentrated and effective influence over the flow of physician immigration then does Silicon Valley over computer science, and manufacturers over engineering immigrants.

Immigrant parents have higher educational expectations for their children

A study done in 2016 sought to compare the K-12 education experience of children of foreign-born parents with children of U.S. born parents.

The base line economic profile of these households shows that immigrant households overall have lower economic status (though there is the hour glass effect of relatively many immigrant households with little formal education and at the other end a concentration of highly educated immigrants).

The proportion enrolled in charter schools was twice as large among students of immigrant parents as among those with native parents: 12% versus 6%. On the other hand, the proportion enrolled in private schools was only about half as large: 6% versus 10%.

The proportion of students earning “mostly A” grades was 51% among students with immigrant parents and 48% among those with native-born parents. The proportion of parents contacted by their child’s school, due to a learning problem the child was having, was 16% in the immigrant group, versus 22% of U.S.-born parents who had been similarly contacted. The proportion of students diagnosed with a psychological or physical disability was 14% in the immigrant parent group, versus. 24% so diagnosed in the native-born parent group. The study notably did not address if immigrant parents were more concerned about stigmatizing their children.

The proportion of parents contacted by their child’s school, due to a conduct or disciplinary problem the child was creating, was 12% in the immigrant group versus 17% of U.S.-born parents who had been similarly contacted. The proportion of students who had ever been suspended or expelled from school was 4% versus 7%.

The study reported that immigrant children are more likely to live in two parent households.

91% of immigrant parents expected their children to get a college degree, which was significantly higher than the 72% of native parents.  57% of immigrant parents expected their children to get graduate or professional degrees, versus 36% of native parents. Students with immigrant parents who expected them to get graduate or professional degrees were more likely to get A’s in school than those whose parents had lower expectations (57% versus 34%). This was the case even after adjusting for the parents’ education level and family income, the student’s grade level and sex, and whether the student lived with two married birth parents.

Roadblocks to mass deportation

The Wall Street Journal’s Michelle Hackman and Tariri Parti posted an article in the first few minutes of the new year which explains why I have predicted for months that mass deportation will not occur. The article cites five reasons. There is a sixth, the most powerful deterrent: public outrage over the first few arrests of law abiding unauthorized persons who have contributed to their communities for years.

Immigration-court backlog: Most immigrants in the U.S. illegally can’t be deported without a hearing in immigration court, where they have a chance to ask for asylum or another avenue to stay in the country. But immigration courts are so backlogged that hearings are being scheduled as far into the future as 2029.

Outside experts estimate that Congress would have to hire about 5,000 immigration judges—the system now has roughly 500—to efficiently sort through all existing cases as well as new ones.

I outlined here the complex series of steps to deport some one.

Lack of ICE agents: The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency is responsible for arresting immigrants in the country illegally, detaining them and deporting them. It has roughly 6,000 agents on staff and funding to jail about 40,000 immigrants at any given time. It doesn’t have nearly the fleet of planes needed to deport millions of migrants back to their home countries.  The government is also having trouble recruiting new Border Patrol agents and doesn’t have enough asylum officers to hear claims made outside of court.

Republicans are hoping to use a budget process known as reconciliation to pass billions of dollars in spending for ICE as well as Trump’s border wall without needing Democratic votes.  Trump plans to declare a national emergency soon after taking office, which could unlock additional money taken out of the Pentagon’s budget for projects such as border-wall construction.

Blue-state resistance: Immigrants living in the country illegally are often concentrated in big, Democratic-led cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Denver. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a CNN interview recently that he wouldn’t be cooperating with federal immigration authorities. “The law is very clear,” he said. “Local police officers are not federal agents.”

Without local cooperation, ICE would need to post officers on watch outside of jails for hours or days to catch a release. They can also conduct neighborhood raids, but immigration officers—unlike regular police—don’t have warrants to make an arrest, meaning they can’t enter a person’s home to arrest them.

Lack of cooperation from foreign countries: Among the reasons President Dwight Eisenhower was able to pull off a broad deportation program in the 1950s, which Trump cites as a model, was that everyone he sought to send out of the country was from Mexico. But over the past few years, immigrants crossing into the U.S. illegally have come from record numbers of countries, such as China, India, Mauritania and Uzbekistan.

Many of the newly-arrived migrants in the U.S. come from countries where diplomatic relations are frayed or even nonexistent, such as Venezuela.  U.S. immigration law allows immigrants to be deported to third countries if their home countries won’t take them back, but getting a third country to agree is rare.

Legal challenges: Many of the changes proposed by Trump and Stephen Miller, his incoming deputy chief of staff and longtime immigration adviser, can only be done through Congress—or perhaps even through a constitutional amendment.

A core issue they have attempted to surmount is that under existing law migrants can legally ask for asylum even if they have entered the country unlawfully. Trump, and even Biden, sought to get around this by making asylum seekers live in Mexico while their claims were being weighed, jailing them, or coming up with new rules to make asylum seekers otherwise ineligible. As long as the law remains on the books, however, the government will struggle to find legal ways to narrow that right.