For this survey, SSRS maintained a staff of bilingual interviewers who, when contacting a household, were able to offer respondents the option of completing the survey in Spanish or English. A total of 674 (55%) respondents were surveyed in Spanish, and 546 (45%) respondents were interviewed in English. Any person ages 18 or older of Latino origin or descent was eligible to complete the survey.

To address concerns about coverage, the study employed a dual-frame landline/cellphone telephone design. The sample consisted of a landline component (n = 617) and a cellphone component (n = 603).⁸ Both the landline and cellphone components consisted of a stratified sampling design, oversampling areas with higher densities of Latino residents.

For the landline sampling frame, the sample was run against InfoUSA and other listed databases, and phone numbers that matched to known Latino surnames were subdivided into a Surname stratum. The remaining, unmatched and unlisted landline sample was divided into the following mutually exclusive strata: Very High Latino, High Latino and Medium Latino.

MSG’s GENESYS sample generation system was used to generate cellphone sample, which was divided into High and Medium Latino strata. Overall, the study employed eight strata.

Samples for the low-incidence landline and cell strata were drawn based on responses to SSRS’s weekly dual-frame Excel omnibus survey. Respondents who indicated they were Latino on the omnibus survey were eligible to be recontacted for the present survey.

It is important to note that the existence of a surname stratum does not mean this was a surname sample design. The sample is RDD, with the randomly selected telephone numbers divided by whether they were found to be associated with or without a Spanish surname. This was done simply to increase the number of strata and thereby increase the ability to meet ethnic targets and ease administration by allowing for more effective assignment of interviewers and labor hours.

A five-stage weighting design was used to ensure an accurate representation of the national Hispanic population.

• An adjustment was made for all persons found to possess both a landline and a cellphone, as they were twice as likely to be sampled as were respondents who possessed only one phone type.
• The sample was corrected for a potential bias associated with recontacting respondents in the low-incidence landline and cell strata.
• The sample was corrected for the likelihood of within-household selection, which depended upon the likelihood that the respondent’s age group would be selected, and that within that age group, the particular respondent would be selected.
• The sample was corrected for the oversampling of telephone number exchanges known to have higher densities of Latinos and the corresponding undersampling of exchanges known to have lower densities of Latinos.

Finally, the data were put through a post-stratification sample balancing routine. The post-stratification weighting utilized national 2011 estimates from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey, March Supplement, on gender, age, education, census region, heritage, years in the U.S., and phone status (i.e., cellphone only, cellphone mostly, mixed/landline only/landline mostly).⁹

Two-thirds (67%) of Latinos (compared with 61% of the general public) say their standard of living is better than that of their parents when their parents were the age they are now.

This assessment of an improved standard of living is stronger among foreign-born Hispanics than it is among native-born Hispanics. Seven-in-ten (71%) foreign-born Hispanics say their standard of living is better than that of their parents. Among the native born, 62% say the same.

Looking to the next generation, Latinos are more optimistic than the general public. Two-thirds (66%) of Latino adults expect their children will do better than themselves, while fewer than half (48%) of the general public says the same about the next generation.

Among Hispanics, expectations of intergenerational upward mobility are higher among the foreign born than they are among the native born. More than seven-in-ten (72%) Hispanic immigrants say they expect their children’s standard of living will be better than their own. Among the native born, 59% expect their children’s standard of living to be better.

For Latinos, after reaching a record high of 49.8% in 2006, the homeownership rate fell to 47.4% in 2011, matching similar declines among other groups.

Falling housing prices have affected household wealth among Latinos more than other groups. In 2005, Latinos derived nearly two-thirds of their net worth from home equity. However, because many Latinos live in places where housing prices increased the most prior to the housing crisis—and have fallen the most since—the housing bust had a greater impact on Latino household wealth than any other group (Kochhar, Fry and Taylor, 2011).

The steep decline in housing prices has many Latino homeowners underwater on their home mortgages. According to Pew Hispanic survey, 28% of Latino homeowners say they owe more on their home than what they could sell it for—double the share (14%) of homeowners in the general population who say the same.

Being underwater varies by region. More than four-in-ten (41%) Latino homeowners in Northeastern states say their mortgage is underwater, a share greater than any other part of the country. By comparison, 32% of Latino homeowners in the West, 27% in the North Central region, and 21% in the South say they owe more on their mortgage than what they could sell their home for.⁶

Recent home buyers are more likely to be underwater on their mortgages than other homeowners. Some 39% of Latinos who bought their home between 2000 and 2011 say they owe more in their home than what they could sell it for. This compares to 22% of those who bought a decade earlier (1990 to 1999) and only 15% of those who bought between 1980 and 1989.

The Investment Value of Homeownership

Despite being hit hard by the housing market downturn, three-in-four (75%) Latinos agree that buying a home is the best long-term investment a person can make in the U.S. This compares with 81% of the general population who say the same (Pew Social & Demographic Trends, 2011).

Large majorities of many groups of Latinos say buying a home is the best long-term investment. Homeowners are more convinced than renters of the value of owning a home. Fully 83% of Latino homeowners say owing a home is the best long-term investment, while 70% of renters say the same. Even among homeowners who are underwater, three-in-four (74%) say buying a home is the best long-term investment.

Home Foreclosures

Latinos have been more affected by the home foreclosure crisis than other groups. According to a recent study by the Center for Responsible Lending (Gruenstein Bocian, Li, Quercia and Reid, 2011), the rate of completed foreclosures on loans originating between 2004 and 2008 was 11.9% for Latinos. That foreclosure rate was more than double the rate for non-Hispanic whites (5.1%) and higher than the rate for blacks (9.8%).

The Pew Hispanic survey asked Hispanics who do not own a home about their experience with foreclosure. According to the survey, 7% of Latinos who do not own homes say they lost a home to foreclosure in the past year. By contrast, 5% of the general public that does not own a home said the same in May 2010.⁷

Nearly half (49%) say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a car or make some other major purchase in the past year. Some 45% say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a home or make major home improvements. Nearly four-in-ten (38%) say they have cut the size of meals or skipped meals because there wasn’t enough money for food. And 37% say they had trouble getting or paying for medical care for their family.

For some behaviors, there are no differences between foreign-born Hispanics and native-born Hispanics. For example, immigrant and native-born Hispanics are equally likely to say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a car or make some other major purchase—49% and 48%, respectively. And, when it comes to getting medical care for their family, nearly equal shares of foreign-born and native-born Latinos say they have had trouble getting or paying for it in the past year—38% versus 35%.

On other behaviors, foreign-born Hispanics are more likely than native-born Hispanics to say they have changed. Nearly half (48%) of the foreign born say they have delayed or canceled plans to buy a home or make major home improvements, compared with 41% of the native born. And 43% of immigrant Hispanics say they have cut back the size of their meals or skipped meals altogether because of a lack of money for food. Among the native born, 33% say they have done this in the past year.

Among foreign-born Latinos, those who are not U.S. citizens are more likely to have changed their economic behavior than other Latinos. For example, more than half (53%) of immigrant Latinos who are not citizens and not legal residents (a group that closely aligns with the unauthorized immigrant population⁵) and 49% of immigrant Latinos who are legal residents say they have cut back on the size of meals because of a lack of money for food. On getting or paying for medical care, 45% of immigrant Latinos who are not U.S. citizens and not legal residents and 43% of immigrant Latinos who are legal residents say they have had trouble getting or paying for medical care for their family in the past year.

Personal Finances

The difficult economy has also affected Latinos’ assessments of their personal finances. According to the new survey, three-in-four (75%) Latinos rate their current financial situation as either “only fair” (51%) or “poor” (25%). By contrast, among U.S. adults, fewer (61%) rate their current financial situation as “only fair” (37%) or “poor” (24%).

Despite challenging economic conditions and difficult personal finances, Latinos are optimistic about their finances in the coming year—more so than the general public. Two-thirds (67%) of Latinos expect an improvement in their financial situation and that of their family. By contrast, 58% of all adults say they expect to see an improvement.

Overall, foreign-born Hispanics hold a grimmer view of their personal finances than the native born. More than eight-in-ten (83%) foreign-born Hispanics rate their own financial situation as “only fair” or “poor” while two-thirds (66%) of the native born offer the same rating. And when it comes to optimism about personal finances in the next year, fewer immigrant Hispanics than native-born Hispanics expect to see an improvement—63% versus 71%.

Unemployment and Latinos

Many Latinos have experienced a spell of unemployment or know someone who has been unemployed. According to the new survey, nearly six-in-ten (59%) Latino adults say this has happened to their household in the past year. Among all U.S. adults, nearly as many said the same in March of 2011—51% (Kohut, Doherty, Dimock and Keeter, 2011).

Overall, native-born Hispanics and foreign-born Hispanics are just as likely to say their households have experienced unemployment in the last year—57% and 60% respectively. However, among the foreign born there are notable differences. Two-thirds (66%) of immigrant Hispanics who are legal residents and two-thirds (66%) of those who do not have U.S. citizenship and are not a legal resident say someone in their household was without a job or looking for work in the last year. By contrast, 54% of naturalized U.S. citizens say the same.

Experience with unemployment varies across other Latino demographic groups as well. Seven-in-ten (70%) of those ages 18 to 29 have experienced unemployment in their households in the last year—more than any other age group—while 57% of Latinos ages 30 to 49, 57% of those ages 50 to 64, and half (51%) of those ages 65 and older say the same.

The survey also reveals differences by educational attainment. Two-thirds (65%) of Latinos with less than a high school diploma say they or someone in their household has been without a job in the last 12 months. By contrast 53% of those with some college education say the same. Additionally, 60% of high school graduates also say they or someone in their household has been without a job in the last 12 months.

Finally, household experience with unemployment is higher among Hispanics who are not registered to vote than it is among those who are registered—64% of the former say this compared with 53% of Hispanic registered voters.

A majority of Latinos (54%) believe that the economic downturn that began in 2007 has been harder on them than on other groups in America.

Large shares report that they or someone in their household has been out of work in the past year (59%); that their personal finances are in “only fair” or “poor” shape (75%); that they canceled or delayed a major purchase in the past year (49%); or that they are underwater on their mortgage (28% of Latino homeowners).

The findings are drawn from a new telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of 1,220 Hispanic adults conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center, a project of the Pew Research Center. For a full description of the survey methodology, see Appendix C.

Latinos, who make up 16% of the population of the United States, have long trailed other Americans on most measures of economic well-being, but analyses of recent government trend data indicate that the gaps have widened since 2005, a period that encompasses the housing market crash and the Great Recession. For example:

• Household wealth: From 2005 to 2009, median household wealth (all assets minus all debt) among Latinos fell by 66%, compared with a drop of 53% among blacks and 16% among whites (Kochhar, Fry and Taylor, 2011).
• Unemployment: According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the unemployment rate among Latinos in December 2011 was 11.0%, up from 6.3% at the start of the Great Recession in December 2007. Over the same period, the national unemployment rate increased from 5.0% to 8.5%.
• Poverty: Between 2006 and 2010, the poverty rate among Hispanics increased nearly six percentage points—more than any other group—from 20.6% to 26.6%. By contrast, poverty rates among whites increased from 8.2% to 9.9%. And among blacks,¹ poverty rates increased from 24.3% to 27.4% (DeNavas-Walt, Proctor and Smith, 2011).

The new Pew Hispanic survey finds that most Latinos are broadly aware of these trends. Fully 54% say Hispanics have been hurt more than other groups by the economic downturn of the past four years, while just 5% say they have been hurt less. Some 38% say Hispanics have been affected about as much as other groups.

In their responses to a more detailed battery of questions, Latinos are more downbeat than the general public about various aspects of their economic lives. For example:

• Personal finances: Just 24% of Latinos rate their personal finance as excellent or good, compared with 38% of the general public.²
• Unemployment: Some 59% of Latinos say someone in their household has been out of work and looking for a job in the past year, compared with 51% of the general public.³
• Homeownership: Some 28% of Latino homeowners say they owe more on their home than they could sell it for today, compared with just 14% of homeowners in the general public.⁴

Despite these downbeat assessments about their current economic circumstances, Latinos are more upbeat than others about the prospect for better days ahead—both for themselves and their families in the short term and for their children over the long haul.

Fully two-thirds (67%) of Latinos say they expect their financial situation to improve over the next year, compared with 58% of the general population who say the same. Also, two-thirds (66%) of Latinos say they expect their children to eventually enjoy a standard of living that is better than theirs is now. By contrast, just 48% of the general public says the same.

The Latino population, at 50 million strong, is the largest minority group in the country. Some 52% of Latino adults are immigrants, and 48% were born in the United States. As is often the case, the new survey finds significant differences in the attitudes and experiences reported by these two groups.

In general, immigrants are more downbeat. For example, 62% of Latino immigrants say Latinos have been more hurt by the bad economy than other groups, compared with 45% of the native born who say the same. Just 16% of immigrants say their economic situation is “excellent” or “good,” compared with 32% of the native born. And 63% of immigrants say they expect their financial situation and that of their family to improve in the coming year, compared with 71% of the native born.

Immigrants, however, are more likely than the native born to say their children will eventually have a higher standard of living than theirs is now—72% versus 59%.

Florida Voter Registration Statistics

According to the Florida Division of Elections, final registration statistics for the state’s January 31 presidential primary show that 1,473,920 Latinos are registered to vote statewide. Overall, Latinos make up 13.1% of the state’s more than 11.2 million registered voters. Among Latino registered voters, 452,619 are registered as Republicans, making up 11.1% of all Republican registered voters. And 564,513 Latino registered voters are registered as Democrats, representing 12.4% of all Democratic registered voters.

As recently as 2006, more Hispanics in Florida were registered as Republicans than as Democrats. By 2008, the balance tipped over to the Democrats. This year that trend has accelerated, with the gap–111,894 registered voters–between Hispanics who are registered as Democrats and those registered as Republicans wider now than in 2008 or 2010.

Geographically, the majority of Hispanic Republican registered voters are located in South Florida. According to the Division of Elections, 58.5% (264,721) are in Miami-Dade County alone. By contrast, among the state’s Hispanic Democratic registered voters, a smaller share, 33.9% (191,359), are registered to vote in Miami-Dade County.

Hispanics in Florida’s Eligible Voter Population

• The Hispanic population in Florida is the third-largest in the nation. More than 4.2 million Hispanics reside in Florida, 8% of all Hispanics in the United States.
• Florida’s population is 23% Hispanic, the sixth-highest Hispanic population share nationally.
• There are 2.1 million Hispanic eligible voters in Florida—the third-largest Hispanic eligible-voter population nationally. California ranks first with 5.9 million.
• Some 16% of Florida eligible voters are Hispanic, the fifth-largest Hispanic eligible voter population share nationally. New Mexico ranks first with 39%.
• One-half (49%) of Hispanics in Florida are eligible to vote, ranking Florida 12th nationwide in the share of the Hispanic population that is eligible to vote. By contrast, 81% of the state’s white population is eligible to vote.

Characteristics of Eligible Voters

• Age. Florida’s Hispanic eligible voters are younger than all eligible voters in Florida—25% of Hispanic eligible voters are ages 18 to 29 versus 19% of all eligible voters.
• Citizenship. Some 43% of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are naturalized U.S. citizens, compared with 13% of all Florida eligible voters.
• Nativity. Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are less likely to be native-born citizens (57%) than are Hispanic eligible voters nationwide (75%).
• Hispanic Origin. Hispanic eligible voters in Florida have a different country-of-origin profile from Hispanic eligible voters nationwide. One-third (32%) of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida are of Cuban origin, 28% are of Puerto Rican origin and 9% are of Mexican origin. By contrast, among Hispanic eligible voters nationwide, 59% are Mexican, 14% are Puerto Rican and 5% are Cuban.
• Educational Attainment. Two-in-ten Latino eligible voters in Florida (20%) have not completed high school. That is lower than the rate for Latino eligible voters nationwide—25%—but greater than the rate for all U.S. eligible voters (12%) or all eligible voters in Florida (13%).
• Homeownership. Two-thirds of Hispanic eligible voters in Florida (67%) live in owner-occupied homes versus 58% of Hispanic eligible voters nationwide. Somewhat greater shares of all eligible voters in Florida (71%) and all eligible voters nationwide (69%) live in owner-occupied homes.

Characteristics of Eligible Voters in Florida, by Race and Ethnicity

• Number of Eligible Voters. White eligible voters outnumber both Hispanic and black eligible voters in Florida by more than 4 to 1.
• Age. Black eligible voters are younger than Hispanic or white eligible voters in Florida—28% of black eligible voters are ages 18 to 29 compared with 25% of Hispanic and 16% of white eligible voters.
• Educational Attainment. More than half (53%) of Hispanic eligible voters have attended college or earned at least a bachelor’s degree compared with 60% of white and 46% of black eligible voters.
• Homeownership. Hispanic eligible voters are less likely than white eligible voters in Florida to live in owner-occupied homes—67% versus 76%.

Comparisons of ACS estimates from one year to another encompass both real underlying population changes and changes in the population estimates used to weight the ACS. For most years, changes in the series of population estimates from one vintage to the next tend to be small—reflecting mainly the incorporation of final data on births, deaths and immigration to replace the preliminary data used the year before. However, the changeover to population data from the 2010 Census from estimates based on the 2000 Census (including Vintage 2009 estimates in the 2009 ACS) has significant effects on measures of change in the foreign-born population (as documented in this report).

Similar issues of inconsistent population weights across time arose with the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS) during the 2000-2010 decade. To develop consistent measures of the unauthorized immigrant population across the decade and consistent measures of annual change, the Pew Hispanic Center produced alternative population weights for the CPS and used the reweighted data as a basis for measuring change over time. (See Passel and Cohn, 2010 as well as Kochhar et al., 2010.) The Pew Hispanic revised estimates reported here for the 2009 ACS represent the first step in applying a consistent weighting methodology to ACS data for 2005-2010.

Differences Between Intercensal and Postcensal Population Estimates

The Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program produces postcensal estimates of the total population for the nation, states, counties and places as well as estimates for age, sex, race/Hispanic groups for the nation, states, and counties. For the 2000-2009 decade, the postcensal estimates represent updates of the 2000 Census. After the results of the 2010 Census became available, the Census Bureau produced an alternative set of intercensal population estimates for the nation, states and counties that are consistent with both the 2000 and 2010 censuses. These intercensal estimates provide a basis for developing consistent population weights for the ACS that can be used to assess year-to-year changes in various population groups, including the foreign-born.

Differences between the intercensal estimates and postcensal estimates (for the 2010 Census) are not large in the context of a total population of 309 million or a foreign-born population of 40 million. However, for year-to-year comparisons as measures of population change, incompatibilities attributable to weighting changes or other methodological changes can be as large as the actual change and can severely distort measures of change over time. For 2009, the intercensal population estimate for the total population is only 235,000, or 0.1% below the vintage 2009 estimate. (See Appendix Table 1.) However, the Hispanic intercensal population estimate exceeds the postcensal population estimate by 908,000, or 1.8%, and the Asian (alone, not Hispanic) intercensal estimate exceeds the postcensal estimate by 675,000, or 4.7%. Almost all of these differences occur among adults. The majority of adults in these two groups are foreign-born, and together account for about two-thirds of all immigrants. Thus, these differences between the population estimates used to weight race groups can lead to notable differences in survey-based estimates of the foreign-born population for 2009.

ACS Weighting

Development of ACS population weights is a complex process that involves postcensal estimates for age-sex-race/Hispanic populations for counties or groups of counties as well as estimates of married couples and group quarters populations (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). The weighting process uses six race/Hispanic groups—white, black, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, and Hispanic.⁸

For each race/Hispanic group, the population is further divided by sex and into 13 age groups— younger than 5, 5-14, 15-17, 18-19, 20-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-44, 45-49, 50-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75 and older. If the number of cases in a subgroup within a weighting area is “too small” (fewer than 10) or the adjustment factor for a group (the amount by which its weight is enlarged or reduced) is “extreme” (below 1/3.5 or greater than 3.5), the category is “collapsed” with other groups until the weighting criteria are met. In the collapsing process, race/Hispanic groups are first merged. Then, the age-sex cells are tested within the merged race/Hispanic group. The goals of the collapsing scheme are “to keep children [under 18] together whenever possible by collapsing across sex within the first three age categories. In addition, the collapsing rules keep men age 18-54, women age 18-54, and seniors 55+ together in separate groups by collapsing across age” (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009: pp. 11-13).

ACS weighting is done separately for persons in households, institutional group quarters by type (correctional institutions, juvenile detention facilities, nursing homes, other long-term care facilities), and noninstitutional group quarters (college dormitories, military facilities, other noninstitutional facilities). The weighting for group quarters is done at the state level by type of facility with no demographic controls imposed. The household weighting uses the demographic groups described above subdivided into four groups: householders in married couple or unmarried partner households; spouses or unmarried partners of persons in the first group; householders of other types of households; and the balance of the household population.

Unlike its disclosure practice in weighting the CPS, the Census Bureau does not publish detailed population estimates used in ACS weighting or specify the weighting areas; moreover, in the publicly available ACS microdata, the geographic areas used in weighting do not seem to be identifiable. Thus, it is not possible for data users outside the Census Bureau to replicate the full ACS weighting process. However, in order to produce estimates that can be compared across different years of the ACS, the Pew Hispanic Center has developed revised weights by following the general concepts employed by the Census Bureau in weighting the ACS.

Implementing Revised ACS Weighting

The Pew Hispanic analysis uses a modified weighting process that adjusts the existing ACS weights to produce a consistent set of data that approximates the weights that would have been obtained from a full ACS weighting based on the intercensal population estimates. Integrated Public-Use Microdata Series (IPUMS) datasets are used in this process (Ruggles et al., 2010).⁹ The reweighting uses population estimates at the state level and is a greatly simplified version of the full ACS weighting. Iterative proportional fitting is used to match control totals based on the intercensal population estimates for three sets of marginal totals:

1. 1. State-level population totals by age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin using the same breakdowns in the Census Bureau’s weighting process. More stringent cell-size requirements are imposed to minimize changes from the initial ACS weights. Collapsing rules follow the concepts in the Census Bureau weighting.
2. 2. State-level totals for household, institutional group quarters and noninstitutional group quarters. The broad grouping of group quarters populations is used because more detailed information on group quarters type is not available in the ACS public datasets. No demographic breakdowns are used.
3. 3. National totals for age, sex, and race/Hispanic origin groups with no collapsing. Ten iterations are performed to ensure convergence on all dimensions of the fitting process. The final adjustment to detailed national totals for age-sex-race groups is not part of the Census Bureau’s procedures but is included to maintain strict consistency of the reweighted data with the intercensal population estimates.

Race Groups. The race groups used in weighting assign all non-Hispanic individuals to one of five specific race groups and require population totals for the same groups. Accordingly, the intercensal population estimates used in the PHC reweighting are “bridged race” estimates released by the CDC (U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2011). These estimates are consistent with the Census Bureau’s intercensal estimates (U.S. Census Bureau, 2011a) but have reassigned estimates of “some other race” and multiple race populations to four specific race groups (white, black, American Indian and Alaska Native, and Asian and Pacific Islander). The Asian and Pacific Islander group in the bridged race estimates is subdivided into Asian and Native Hawaiian using proportions from the intercensal population estimates for the U.S. and for California (the only state with enough sample cases to require a separate control total for Native Hawaiians).

For weighting purposes, individual respondents in the ACS who give multiple responses to the race item or who are classified as some other race are assigned a single race group in accordance with the methods used to develop the bridged race estimates.¹⁰ The assignments use the IPUMS probabilities with thresholds selected to bring state totals for individual race groups in line with the bridged race aggregate estimates published by NCHS (Ingram et al., 2003).¹¹ These assigned races are used in reweighting, but the original ACS race item is retained for all other analyses.

Collapsing Rules. To minimize adjustments to the published ACS weights, the collapsing rules for race groups and age-sex groups are much more stringent than the Census Bureau employs in its weighting. If the number of ACS respondents in a state within a race group is less than 100 or the required adjustment factor is less than 0.67 or greater than 1.5, the race group is collapsed with the next smallest non-Hispanic race group.¹² For age-sex groups within a race group, the same minimum number of respondents and ranges for the adjustment factor determine whether the group is collapsed. Collapsing rules first attempt to keep children (younger than 18) and adults separate. For children, age groups are first collapsed by combining males and females and then by collapsing age groups. For persons ages 18-54, collapsing is first done for age groups to maintain separate totals for men and women. For ages 55 and older, the rules are the same as for children.

Regions. The estimates of the foreign-born population shown in this report divide the world into regions. “Europe” includes Russia and all the newly independent countries that were part of the former Soviet Union, even though some of the countries are geographically in Asia. This grouping is designed to maintain maximum consistency over time. “Canada” also includes parts of North America not classified, such as Bermuda and St. Pierre and Miquelon. “Middle East” as defined here includes countries of southwest Asia from Turkey and Cyprus in the north and west to Iran in the east to the Arabian Peninsula in the south; it also includes countries of North Africa (Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco and Western Sahara). Note that the Middle East does not include Afghanistan or Pakistan. “South and East Asia” includes the rest of Asia from Afghanistan and Pakistan eastward. “Africa” consists of sub-Saharan Africa.