12.07.2015 Views

Estimating the Latin American Population of London from Official ...

Estimating the Latin American Population of London from Official ...

Estimating the Latin American Population of London from Official ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS
  • No tags were found...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Estimating</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong><strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>Official</strong> Data SourcesBrian Linneker and Cathy McIlwaineMay 2011


The APS 2008 central estimate <strong>of</strong> 79,296 is drawn <strong>from</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> and has a 95 percent confidence interval coefficient <strong>of</strong>variation <strong>of</strong> 11.6 percent. At <strong>the</strong> 95 percent confidence limits, <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong><strong>Latin</strong> population estimates are reasonably precise, but are less precise at<strong>London</strong> borough level and at <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> nationality (as represented bycountry <strong>of</strong> birth) within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population.At <strong>London</strong> borough level it is more robust to consider <strong>the</strong> average APS <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population over <strong>the</strong> period 2004 to 2008. This estimate suggests<strong>the</strong> highest concentrations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s are to be found in <strong>the</strong> boroughs<strong>of</strong> Lambeth, Brent and Southwark.The majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> have arrived within<strong>the</strong> last 10 years, with 60 percent arriving since 2000. The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> increased by 34 percent between 2004 and 2008. In2004 women comprised 56 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population and men 44 percent. By2008 <strong>the</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> women and men had both increased,with women comprising 50 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population, withincreasing proportions <strong>of</strong> men arriving over <strong>the</strong> period 2004-2008.Over <strong>the</strong> period 2004-2008 <strong>the</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> isgetting younger. The 0-15 age group increased by 106 percent, and <strong>the</strong>16-29age group increased by 50 percent. The over 60s age group increased by 39percent, with <strong>the</strong> smallest increases in <strong>the</strong> middle aged group <strong>of</strong> 45-59 yearolds at 3 percent.The majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> are in employment, and thisproportion has been increasing. The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> employment rate hasbeen increasing, rising <strong>from</strong> 57 percent in 2004 to 65 percent in 2008.In 2008 some 30 percent <strong>of</strong> male employment was in routine and semi-routineoccupations and 26 percent in higher and lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essionaloccupations. Some 27 percent <strong>of</strong> women’s employment was in routineoccupations and 24 percent in managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations.The occupational structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> employment in <strong>London</strong> has changed over<strong>the</strong> period 2004 to 2008. Both men and women have increased <strong>the</strong>iremployment in all occupations except lower supervisory and technicaloccupations. For women <strong>the</strong> largest increase has been in <strong>the</strong> routineoccupations 94 percent, but employment has also been increasing in <strong>the</strong>higher pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations (74 percent).For men, small employers and own account workers only accounted for 3percent <strong>of</strong> occupations in 2004, but by 2008 this had increased to 7 percent <strong>of</strong>all occupations. This represents a 258 percent growth rate in small employersand own account workers over <strong>the</strong> period. Men have also been increasing<strong>the</strong>ir employment in semi-routine occupations (170 percent) and intermediateoccupations, with smaller growth rates in <strong>the</strong> higher managerial andpr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations (10 percent) over <strong>the</strong> period.5


Nearly half <strong>of</strong> all UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> National Insurance Number registrations<strong>of</strong> 77,000 over <strong>the</strong> period 2002-2008 are for nationals <strong>from</strong> Brazil, followed byColombia and Mexico.A major problem with <strong>of</strong>ficial data sources is that <strong>the</strong>y are not adjusted for <strong>the</strong>irregular migrant populations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. Irregular migrants are generally <strong>of</strong>three different kinds. First, illegal entrants, such as those evading formalcontrols or presenting false papers. Second, migrants remaining after apermitted period, such as failed asylum seekers who stay in country,‘overstayers’ who remain despite expired legal residence. Third, children bornto irregular migrants, though not migrants <strong>the</strong>mselves, have no right toremain. In 2001 it was estimated that 430,000 or 0.7 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UKpopulation were irregular migrants (Woodbridge, 2005) and by 2007 this isestimated to have risen to 618,000 with <strong>London</strong> containing <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong>irregular migrants at 406,300 (GLA, 2009).<strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> proportions <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants are difficult to estimate.Published Home Office asylum data is not very useful for estimating <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> irregular migrants, as <strong>the</strong>se data cannot be disaggregated by <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> nationality without large margins <strong>of</strong> error and are more suitable foroverall irregular estimation.Estimates <strong>of</strong> ‘overstayers’ in <strong>the</strong> GLA (2009) irregular method are not beingdirectly estimated <strong>from</strong> any survey source, but only appear as a residual aftersubtracting failed asylum seeker estimates. The overall size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GLAestimate is questionable, and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> survey data for this study suggests<strong>the</strong>re to be 19 percent <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants within <strong>the</strong> sample population.The overall estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars migrants are consistentwith <strong>the</strong> GLA (2009) irregular total and updated to 2008. An estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>proportion <strong>of</strong> all irregulars who are likely to be <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> is based on <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> foreign born population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> in 2008.Irregular EstimateThe GLA study estimated that <strong>the</strong> irregular population in <strong>London</strong> in 2007 wasbetween 281,000 and 630,000, with a central estimate <strong>of</strong> 442,000. If thisestimate is updated to 2008 using <strong>the</strong> central estimate as a base, assuming<strong>the</strong> same year to year growth <strong>from</strong> previous years, <strong>the</strong> irregular population in<strong>London</strong> in 2008 could be estimated to be 477,500. To calculate <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong>irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular population whichcomes <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> America needs to be estimated. There are several ways todo this by applying <strong>the</strong> estimated share <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s to <strong>the</strong> LSE/GLAestimate updated for 2008.The first is to apply to <strong>the</strong> GLA estimate <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>ers whocome <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> America as calculated <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial figures such as <strong>the</strong> APS(1%). A second option, was to take <strong>the</strong> irregular population born in <strong>the</strong> UK out<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GLA estimate and apply to it <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s as ashare <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> migrant population in <strong>London</strong> (foreign born 3.2%, Non-EU foreign6


Table 1b: Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population in <strong>the</strong>UK 2008 based on <strong>London</strong> proportions<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> UK 2008 Central Lower UpperTotal 186,469 163,606 209,9991 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 130,186 119,251 141,1222 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 28,074 18,373 38,4323 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Second Generation 2008 28,209 25,982 30,4451. APS 2008 using 95% confidence interval for lower and upper estimates (8.4%)2. Assumes irregulars are <strong>the</strong> same share as <strong>London</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> UK APS 2008 estimates3. Assumes second generation are <strong>the</strong> same share as <strong>London</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> UK APS 2008 estimates9


IntroductionThis research attempts to estimate <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong><strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong> extent to which it has been increasing over <strong>the</strong> last 10 years.The report explores evidence <strong>from</strong> key <strong>of</strong>ficial base data sources, problemswith <strong>the</strong>m, and how <strong>the</strong>y relate to differing estimation methods <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>. The main <strong>of</strong>ficial datasets considered hereare <strong>the</strong> 2001 <strong>Population</strong> Census, <strong>the</strong> International Passenger Survey (IPS),which is <strong>the</strong> only survey measuring flows into and out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK, and <strong>the</strong>Labour Force Survey (LFS) - Annual <strong>Population</strong> Census (APS). Toge<strong>the</strong>r andin combination with o<strong>the</strong>r administrative data sources, relating to <strong>the</strong> irregularpopulation <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>, <strong>the</strong>se sources are used to explore estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>.New migrant populations are a key component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> socio-economiccomposition <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK and a key driver <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population and labour marketchange in <strong>London</strong>. <strong>Population</strong> change in <strong>the</strong> UK is composed <strong>of</strong> both naturalchange, which results <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> relationship between births and deaths, andnet in-migration <strong>of</strong> overseas nationals. Net migration has been <strong>the</strong> dominantcomponent <strong>of</strong> UK population change since 1998 and in 2004 it comprised65% <strong>of</strong> total population change (Rees and Bodin, 2006).The increasing importance <strong>of</strong> international migration in driving demographicchange in <strong>London</strong> was <strong>the</strong> recent impetus for a review <strong>of</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> howstocks and flows <strong>of</strong> new migrants in <strong>London</strong> could be estimated (Rees andBodin, 2006). This earlier work identified that although <strong>the</strong>re were a number<strong>of</strong> different sources <strong>of</strong> international migration data available in <strong>the</strong> UK,“<strong>the</strong>re is no common, integrated framework <strong>from</strong> which dataset are madeavailable and no evidence <strong>of</strong> alternative methods for providing robuststatistical estimates <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>m” (Rees and Bodin, 2006:2).National Statistics use <strong>the</strong> Total International Migration (TIM) method toproduce statistics on long-term migrants. This is primarily based on data <strong>from</strong><strong>the</strong> International Passenger Survey, and modified <strong>from</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r survey sourcesfor visitor and migrant ‘switchers’, where people change <strong>the</strong>ir plans to stay /leave <strong>from</strong> under 12 months to more than 12 months.Conceptual and Measurement IssuesVisitors and migrants who enter and leave <strong>the</strong> UK do so for a number <strong>of</strong>reasons and durations. Those that stay for less than 3 months are <strong>of</strong>tenclassed as ‘visitors’, those that stay for 3-12 months are classified as shorttermmigrants, while those that stay for 12 months or more are classified aslong-term migrants (Rees and Boden, 2006).All <strong>of</strong>ficial UK migration data is focussed on long-term migrants where <strong>the</strong>intended or reported length <strong>of</strong> stay is 12 months or more. The Office <strong>of</strong>National Statistics (ONS) use <strong>the</strong> United Nations definition <strong>of</strong> a migrant as an10


The <strong>Population</strong> Census 2001The <strong>Population</strong> Census in <strong>the</strong> UK is under taken every 10 years and providesa somewhat blurred and out <strong>of</strong> date snap shot <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> stock <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population <strong>of</strong> England and Wales and that <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>.Evidence <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2001 Census commissioned by <strong>the</strong> GLA (2005) suggests<strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> to have been 31,411 and <strong>of</strong> Englandand Wales to have been 58,411. The <strong>London</strong> total represents approximately53 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total <strong>Latin</strong> population, with 18,062 being women and 3,313under 16 years <strong>of</strong> age. In <strong>London</strong> Colombians form <strong>the</strong> largest single <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population group 9,035 in 2001, while nationally Brazilians formed<strong>the</strong> largest group at 14,555.Table 2: Census 2001 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>Country <strong>of</strong> BirthEngland &WalesGreater <strong>London</strong>All All


The 2001 Census was undertaken in April 2001 and is a highly detailed studywhich has been used to compare LFS and IPS estimates against (Rendall etal. 2003). However, while <strong>the</strong> census is adjusted for undercounts generally, itis not adjusted for <strong>the</strong> foreign born migrant population, ei<strong>the</strong>r regular orirregular. In addition, <strong>the</strong> main draw back with using <strong>the</strong> Census figures on<strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> are that <strong>the</strong> figures only relate to2001 stocks and are out <strong>of</strong> date.International Passenger Survey - IPSThe IPS data can be used to estimate <strong>the</strong> total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> net migrationper year, which depending on <strong>the</strong> net annual flow will affect <strong>the</strong> stock <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population since 2001.The IPS is a quarterly sample <strong>of</strong> individual respondents undertaking aninternational trip into or out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. Migration is estimated based on <strong>the</strong>question <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> intension to stay for a specified period. It is <strong>the</strong> only source <strong>of</strong>data on in and out migration to and <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK, but has a small sample size<strong>of</strong> 3100 observations per year. The 95% confidence interval for <strong>the</strong> IPSsurvey is +/- 2.9% for overseas arrivals, and +/- 1.3% for UK residents.The value <strong>of</strong> IPS deteriorates with increasing spatial scale, but has datageocoded by government <strong>of</strong>fice region. The sampling frame is based on UKentry and exit ports and <strong>London</strong> is over represented due to <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong>Heathrow and Gatwick in <strong>the</strong> survey.The sample is weighted based on passenger movement statistics producedby BAA and CAA for air traffic and <strong>the</strong> Department <strong>of</strong> Transport for sea trafficand allowances are made for transit passengers not passing through <strong>the</strong>passport control which is <strong>the</strong> IPS counting line.The IPS questionnaire first establishes nationality <strong>from</strong> passport control at airor sea port, <strong>the</strong>n those who are overseas residents and those who are UKresidents, based on <strong>the</strong> country in which <strong>the</strong> person was living for <strong>the</strong> last 12months.The international migration definition is a person changing country <strong>of</strong> usualresidence for a period <strong>of</strong> 12 months or more. In terms <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>migration, <strong>the</strong> survey data can be used to estimate <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> INmigration, and OUT migration, in order to estimate annual <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>NET migration.In migration can be estimated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> data by deriving <strong>the</strong> overseasresidents arrivals by air and by sea (including <strong>the</strong> channel tunnel) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> nationals who intend to stay for 12 months or more. Out migrationcan be derived <strong>from</strong> departures <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK residents who intend tolive outside <strong>the</strong> UK for 12 months or more.Over <strong>the</strong> period 2001 to 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> in-migration was cumulatively50,656 according to this source and was nearly as big as <strong>the</strong> 2001 resident15


<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population for England and Wales given in <strong>the</strong> Census.However, out migration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK residents was approximately34,051, giving a cumulative net migration into <strong>the</strong> UK by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>nationals <strong>of</strong> approximately 16,605. These data are shown in <strong>the</strong> graph andtable below. The data in <strong>the</strong> graph below are weighted but unadjusted forvisitor and migrant switchers.According to this evidence <strong>the</strong> largest nationality group <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> netmigrants into <strong>the</strong> UK over <strong>the</strong> 2001-2008 period are <strong>from</strong> Colombia 4,968,followed by Mexico 4,273 and Brazil 2,775. The greater numbers <strong>of</strong> inmigrants and out migrants are <strong>from</strong> Brazil, followed by Colombia.Figure 1 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Net Migration 2000-2008Table 3: <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK International Migration Flows 2001-2008NationalityIN MIG OUT MIG NET MIGCuba 1,029 0 1,029Dominican Republic 258 936 -678Belize 0 0 0Argentina 3,176 2,545 631Brazil 19,618 16,842 2,775Mexico 7,568 3,295 4,273Bolivia 975 333 643Chile 2,233 2,691 -458Colombia 8,570 3,602 4,968Ecuador 1,817 1,135 682Paraguay 333 0 333Peru 998 953 4516


Uruguay 81 0 81Venezuela 2,985 1,480 1,504Costa Rica 142 0 142El Salvador 296 238 58Guatemala 352 0 352Honduras 39 0 39Nicaragua 0 0 0Panama 186 0 186<strong>Latin</strong> America 50,656 34,051 16,605Notes: Source IPSIncludes air, sea, tunnel arrivals and departuresIn Migration = Intends to stay for > 12 monthsOut Migration = Intends to Stay for > 12 monthssample size is approx 30,00 per yearweighted by final weight to represent all IPS passengertrips<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Visitor Flows to <strong>the</strong> UKVisitor trips are flows <strong>of</strong> trips to and <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s that arefor less than 12 months, and mainly consist <strong>of</strong> tourists and short-termmigrants. The table below shows evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> IN visitor flowsand OUT flows <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> nationals resident in <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> IPS2001-2008. These are not migrants as such but a proportion maysubsequently become migrants if <strong>the</strong>y ‘overstay’. Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population are likely to be highly sensitive to <strong>the</strong>se overstayproportions.Table 4 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Visitor Trips into and out <strong>the</strong> UK 2001-20082001-2008 IN Visits OUT VisitsNationalityCuba 34,222 8,306Dominican Republic 15,593 1,104Belize 5,623 3,516Argentina 361,042 64,437Brazil 1,103,693 309,873Mexico 819,552 123,634Bolivia 39,226 17,085Chile 151,502 47,815Colombia 201,103 72,375Ecuador 29,363 19,461Paraguay 6,431 3,077Peru 51,350 16,927Uruguay 37,383 3,076Venezuela 158,292 37,769Costa Rica 27,054 4,725El Salvador 17,838 2,635Guatemala 18,409 2,338Honduras 14,159 2,52017


Nicaragua 5,006 1,679Panama 13,681 6,813<strong>Latin</strong> America 3,110,522 749,164Notes: Source IPSIncludes air, sea, tunnel arrivals and departuresIn Visits = Intends to stay for < 12 monthsOut Visits = Intends to stay for < 12 monthssample size is approx 30,00 per yearweighted by final weight to represent allpassenger tripsOver <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008 Visitor inflows by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> nationals into <strong>the</strong>UK were just over 3.1 million trips, <strong>the</strong> largest proportion coming <strong>from</strong> Brazil,followed by Mexico and Colombia. Visitor inflows have been increasing over<strong>the</strong> period <strong>from</strong> 281,000 in 2002 to 551,000 by 2008 (see annex).Over <strong>the</strong> same period visitor out flows <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> nationals resident in<strong>the</strong> UK were approximately 749,000, with again Brazil, Mexico and Colombiannationals having higher proportions. Visitor outflows have also beenincreasing over <strong>the</strong> period <strong>from</strong> 73,000 in 2002 to 119,000 by 2008.The IPS is <strong>the</strong> only UK survey measuring flows into and out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. Thetrips counted refer to visits ra<strong>the</strong>r than visitors and <strong>the</strong> same individual can becounted twice if undertaking 2 trips in <strong>the</strong> 3 month period, although <strong>the</strong> extent<strong>of</strong> double counting is unknown <strong>from</strong> this data source.There are also estimation problems associated with net migration since it isbased on <strong>the</strong> question <strong>of</strong> intended length <strong>of</strong> stay. Not all migrants intending tostay for 12 months or more will actually do this. These are known as migrantswitchers. Also not all visitors will leave <strong>the</strong> UK within 12 months and thosethat stay longer effectively become migrants. These are known as visitorswitchers.Visitor Switchers: It has been suggested by ONS (2008) that between Julyand December 2007 <strong>the</strong> estimated number <strong>of</strong> visitors who switched tobecome migrants was 13% for IN flows <strong>of</strong> non-EEA citizens and 11% for OUTflows <strong>of</strong> non-EEA citizens, and EEA citizens to non-EU countries (ONS,2008).Migrant Switchers: In <strong>the</strong> July to December 2007 period migrant switcherproportions are reported by ONS to be 4.2% for inflow and 3.9% for outflow.The method estimates visitor switchers <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> count <strong>of</strong> respondents whostate <strong>the</strong>ir intension <strong>of</strong> being ‘long-stay’ visitors (6-11 months) and ‘don’tknows possibly 12 months’. For non-EEA respondent in flows, 25% <strong>of</strong> longstayvisitors and 75% <strong>of</strong> ‘don’t knows are classed as switchers.18


For outflows, 25% and 75% parameters are used for both EEA and non-EEApeople travelling to non-EU countries, and 50% <strong>of</strong> ‘don’t knows’ are used forEEA citizens travelling to EU countries (Rees and Bodin, 2006:23).TIM methods attempt to adjust for <strong>the</strong>se switchers along with asylum seekers,and <strong>the</strong>se are explored within <strong>the</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> estimation section.The Labour Force Survey – Annual <strong>Population</strong> SurveyThe Local Labour Force Survey is a quarterly sample survey and <strong>the</strong> springquarter contains migration questions. The Local LFS has information at LocalAuthority District Level and can be used in estimation <strong>of</strong> both sock andmigration flows <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> UK.The Annual <strong>Population</strong> Survey (APS) is an ONS major survey series, whichaims to provide data that can produce reliable estimates at local authoritylevel <strong>of</strong> population. It comprises key variables <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Labour Force Survey(LFS) and combines results <strong>from</strong> five different sources: <strong>the</strong> LFS (waves 1 and5); <strong>the</strong> English Local Labour Force Survey (LLFS), <strong>the</strong> Welsh Labour ForceSurvey (WLFS), <strong>the</strong> Scottish Labour Force Survey (SLFS) and <strong>the</strong> Annual<strong>Population</strong> Survey Boost Sample.The APS aims to provide enhanced annual data for England, covering atarget sample <strong>of</strong> at least 510 economically active persons for each UnitaryAuthority (UA)/Local Authority District (LAD) and at least 450 in each Greater<strong>London</strong> Borough. In combination with local LFS boost samples such as <strong>the</strong>WLFS and SLFS, <strong>the</strong> survey provides estimates for a range <strong>of</strong> indicators.This analysis uses <strong>the</strong> Special Licence version which contains more detailedgeographical, industry, occupation, health and age variables.APS data sets are produced quarterly and contain 12 months <strong>of</strong> data referringto approximately 360,000 persons per dataset. The sample is weighted byapplication <strong>of</strong> a person weight to each sample record to reflect <strong>the</strong> widerpopulation, but <strong>the</strong> extent to which this is adjusted for foreign-born populationis unclear.The table below shows estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by country <strong>of</strong> birth livingand working in <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>London</strong>, and by individual <strong>London</strong> borough.These data estimate <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> to be79,269 out <strong>of</strong> a total UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 130,186. <strong>London</strong>contains 61 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population by country <strong>of</strong> birth.At <strong>the</strong> 95% confidence limits, <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> population estimatesare reasonably precise (see annex).The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> has continued to rise between 2004and 2008 despite down turns in estimated numbers in 2007, although thismay be related to <strong>the</strong> coding bias prior to 2007 (see annex).The 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population estimates for <strong>London</strong> show Brent to have<strong>the</strong> highest population at 10,470, followed by Kensington and Chelsea 6,15619


and Westminster 5,310. Between 2004 and 2006 Lambeth had <strong>the</strong> highestestimated <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population, followed by Southwark (with <strong>the</strong>exception <strong>of</strong> 2005). However, this source also shows estimates for Bexleyand Redbridge as having no <strong>Latin</strong> population in 2008, this is related to <strong>the</strong> factthat no <strong>Latin</strong> population was sampled in <strong>the</strong>se boroughs. The 2008 boroughestimates need to be treated with extreme caution as <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> sample size isvery small in some boroughs, making <strong>the</strong>se estimates less than precise (seeAnnex).At borough level it may be more useful to consider <strong>the</strong> average <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population over <strong>the</strong> period 2004 to 2008 for a more robust estimate.This puts Lambeth as <strong>the</strong> highest (6,209) followed by Brent and Southwark.There is some evidence that <strong>the</strong> LFS under-estimates non-EEA citizens by 15to 20%, but geographical estimation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> in migrant population<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS is thought to be better than that <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> IPS (Rendall et. al,2003).Table 5: APS <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimates for <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong>UK 2004-2008Area 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Average 2004-2008 Share <strong>of</strong> AverageUK 100,089 108,946 125,993 123,018 130,1862004-2008<strong>London</strong> 58,958 68,351 70,652 71,762 79,296 100City <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0Barking and Dagenham 0 945 638 676 631 578 0.8Barnet 4,031 2,163 2,771 2,657 4,824 3,289 4.7Bexley 0 291 739 244 0 255 0.4Brent 2,782 4,894 3,120 9,538 10,470 6,161 8.8Bromley 345 1,473 561 489 2,039 981 1.4Camden 2,958 3,205 6,606 3,173 4,643 4,117 5.9Croydon 993 1,921 2,046 573 1,089 1,324 1.9Ealing 315 1,517 2,293 1,096 1,128 1,270 1.8Enfield 907 999 0 0 274 436 0.6Greenwich 198 1,485 1,091 1,029 592 879 1.3Hackney 3,255 3,625 2,894 3,386 1,592 2,950 4.2Hammersmith and Fulham 2,453 3,672 1,835 1,921 1,017 2,180 3.1Haringey 2,463 2,239 2,636 1,990 1,778 2,221 3.2Harrow 0 320 314 277 261 234 0.3Havering 0 0 674 0 295 194 0.3Hillingdon 291 0 268 0 231 158 0.2Hounslow 173 1,867 452 537 1,148 835 1.2Islington 1,856 2,983 2,289 4,015 4,540 3,137 4.5Kensington and Chelsea 3,061 3,544 3,397 5,420 6,156 4,316 6.2Kingston upon Thames 1,113 651 1,232 806 521 865 1.2Lambeth 7,630 6,150 6,885 5,581 4,800 6,209 8.9Lewisham 1,645 5,617 4,147 2,421 2,243 3,215 4.6Merton 2,662 2,231 711 1,389 1,256 1,650 2.4Newham 1,849 846 4,211 4,098 4,028 3,006 4.3Redbridge 812 305 343 340 0 360 0.5Richmond upon Thames 3,166 1,938 1,847 2,100 1,938 2,198 3.120


<strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by Arrival, Age, Sex, and Economic ActivityThe APS 2008 suggests that some 57 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> UKarrived after 2000, while 79 percent arrived after 1990. In <strong>London</strong> some 60percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s arrived after 2000 and 87 percent after 1990. Thissuggests <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> have arrivedwithin <strong>the</strong> last 10 years.Table 7 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK <strong>Population</strong> by Year <strong>of</strong> Arrival in UKYear <strong>of</strong> arrival to UK UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s 2008 Percent <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s 2008 Percent1913-1939 1,082 1 158 01940-1949 981 1 375 01950-1959 2,618 2 798 11960-1969 4,460 3 2,434 31970-1979 7,043 5 1,779 21980-1989 11,365 9 4,749 61990-1999 28,016 22 21,569 272000-2008 73,716 57 46,819 60Total 129,281 100 78,681 100Note: APS 2008 missing years <strong>of</strong> arrival for some entriesdoes not sum to 2008 UK and <strong>London</strong> totalFigure 3 Year <strong>of</strong> Arrival in <strong>the</strong> UK23


Evidence <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS 2004 suggests that women comprised 56 percent <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> and men 44 percent. By 2008 <strong>the</strong>numbers <strong>of</strong> women and men had both increased, with women comprising alower 50% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population, with increasing proportions <strong>of</strong>men over <strong>the</strong> period. This is shown in figure 3.Fig 4 - <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by SexThe overall age pr<strong>of</strong>ile <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> is shown in Figure 4.The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> increased by 34% between 2004and 2008 (table 6). While <strong>the</strong>re have been increases in population across allage groups <strong>the</strong> largest increases are in <strong>the</strong> younger age groups. On average<strong>the</strong> increasing population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> is getting younger.The 0-15 age group increased by 106%, and <strong>the</strong>16-29 age group increasedby 50%. The over 60s age group increased by 39%, with <strong>the</strong> smallestincreases in <strong>the</strong> middle aged group <strong>of</strong> 45-59 year olds (3%).Table 8 - Age Structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>Age 2004 2008 % Change0-15 2,904 5,969 10616-29 19,582 29,335 5030-44 25,183 31,699 2645-59 9,436 9,716 360+ 1,853 2,577 39ALL 58,958 79,296 3424


Fig 6 - <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by ActivityThere has been a 51% increase in <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> men over<strong>the</strong> period and <strong>the</strong>y have experienced increasing employment rates rising<strong>from</strong> 66% in 2004 to 74% in 2008 (table 8). While <strong>the</strong>re is greater number <strong>of</strong><strong>Latin</strong> women in <strong>London</strong> (up 21%), <strong>the</strong>ir employment rate has also increased<strong>from</strong> 50% to 57%. The latest available APS 2008 data relate to <strong>the</strong> periodJuly 2007 to June 2008 just before <strong>the</strong> start <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> recession, so this may be avery different picture now.Table 10 – <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Activity by Sex2004 2004 2008 2008 2004-2008Activity Male % Female % Male % Female % F % change M % ChangeIn employment 17,345 66 16,432 50 29,510 74 22,425 57 36 70ILO unemployed 1,944 7 975 3 1,233 3 1,389 4 42 -37Inactive 5,717 22 13,641 42 5,238 13 13,532 34 -1 -8Under 16 1,227 5 1,677 5 3,661 9 2,308 6 38 198ALL 26,233 100 32,725 100 39,642 100 39,654 100 21 51The number <strong>of</strong> young <strong>Latin</strong> males <strong>of</strong> school age has increased by nearly200% <strong>from</strong> 1,227 in 2004 to 3,661 in 2008.26


Fig 7 - <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by Sex & ActivityRelative to all <strong>London</strong> activity <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s have higheremployment rates, and lower rates <strong>of</strong> inactivity.Table 11 <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Activity<strong>London</strong> 2008 ALL Foreign Born <strong>Latin</strong>Activity Count % Count % Count %Male In employment 2,066,645 55 789,882 65 29,510 74ILO unemployed 140,591 4 56,469 5 1,233 3Inactive 778,360 21 280,402 23 5,238 13Under 16 743,261 20 80,596 7 3,661 9ALL 3,728,857 100 1,207,349 100 39,642 100Female In employment 1,644,363 43 592,081 46 22,425 57ILO unemployed 110,680 3 50,493 4 1,389 4Inactive 1,335,884 35 567,596 44 13,532 34Under 16 716,030 19 77,867 6 2,308 6ALL 3,806,957 100 1,288,037 100 39,654 100ALL In employment 3,711,008 49 1,381,963 55 51,935 65ILO unemployed 251,271 3 106,962 4 2,622 3Inactive 2,114,244 28 847,998 34 18,770 24Under 16 1,459,291 19 158,463 6 5,969 8ALL 7,535,814 100 2,495,386 100 79,296 10027


Table 11b <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Activity Rate Over 16s<strong>London</strong> 2008 ALL Foreign Born <strong>Latin</strong>Activity Count % Count % Count %Male In employment 2,066,645 69 789,882 70 29,510 82ILO unemployed 140,591 5 56,469 5 1,233 3Inactive 778,360 26 280,402 25 5,238 15ALL >16 2,985,596 100 1,126,753 100 35,981 100Female In employment 1,644,363 53 592,081 49 22,425 60ILO unemployed 110,680 4 50,493 4 1,389 4Inactive 1,335,884 43 567,596 47 13,532 36ALL >16 3,090,927 100 1,210,170 100 37,346 100ALL In employment 3,711,008 61 1,381,963 59 51,935 71ILO unemployed 251,271 4 106,962 5 2,622 4Inactive 2,114,244 35 847,998 36 18,770 26ALL >16 6,076,523 100 2,336,923 100 73,327 100Figure 8 <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Activity Relative to All28


In 2008 some 30% <strong>of</strong> male employment was in routine and semi-routineoccupations and 26% in higher and lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essionaloccupation. Some 27% <strong>of</strong> women’s employment was in routine occupationsand 24% in managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional.The occupational structure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> employment in <strong>London</strong> has changed over<strong>the</strong> period 2004 to 2008. Both men and women have increased <strong>the</strong>iremployment in all occupations except lower supervisory and technicaloccupations.For women <strong>the</strong> largest increase has been in <strong>the</strong> routine occupations 94%, butemployment has also been increasing in <strong>the</strong> higher pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations(74%).For men, small employers and own account workers only accounted for 3% <strong>of</strong>occupations in 2004, but by 2008 this had increased to 7% <strong>of</strong> all occupations.This represents a 258% growth rate in this occupation over <strong>the</strong> period. Menhave also been increasing <strong>the</strong>ir employment in semi-routine occupations(170%) and intermediate occupations with little growth in <strong>the</strong> highermanagerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations (10%) over <strong>the</strong> period.Figure 9 – <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupations by Sex29


Table 12 – <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupation StructureOccupation 2004 2008% Change 2004-2008Men % Women % Men % Women % Men WomenHigher managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 3,894 16 1,527 5 4,268 12 2,658 7 10 74Lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 2,721 11 5,745 19 5,104 14 6,471 17 88 13Intermediate occupations 462 2 2,373 8 984 3 3,450 9 113 45Small employers and own accountworkers 733 3 2,895 9 2,626 7 3,499 9 258 21Lower supervisory and technical 4,198 17 1,097 4 3,928 11 920 2 -6 -16Semi-routine occupations 2,258 9 2,080 7 6,102 17 2,801 8 170 35Routine occupations 4,470 18 3,684 12 4,785 13 7,149 19 7 94Never worked, unemployed, and nec 6,270 25 11,647 38 8,184 23 10,398 28 31 -11ALL 25,006 100 31,048 100 35,981 100 37,346 100 44 20Table 13 <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupations<strong>London</strong> 2008 ALL Foreign Born <strong>Latin</strong>Occupation Count % Count % Count %Male Higher managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 525,010 18 178,646 16 4,268 12Lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 619,909 21 201,341 18 5,104 14Intermediate occupations 142,012 5 44,994 4 984 3Small employers and own account workers 317,510 11 136,756 12 2,626 7Lower supervisory and technical 202,900 7 82,149 7 3,928 11Semi-routine occupations 203,683 7 100,920 9 6,102 17Routine occupations 221,241 7 92,755 8 4,785 13Never worked, unemployed, and nec 753,331 25 289,192 26 8,184 23ALL 2,985,596 100 1,126,753 100 35,981 100Female Higher managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 276,549 9 89,948 7 2,658 7Lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 675,615 22 219,134 18 6,471 17Intermediate occupations 350,543 11 107,870 9 3,450 9Small employers and own account workers 117,986 4 52,194 4 3,499 9Lower supervisory and technical 84,063 3 34,796 3 920 2Semi-routine occupations 306,161 10 130,313 11 2,801 8Routine occupations 135,893 4 72,002 6 7,149 19Never worked, unemployed, and nec 1,144,117 37 503,913 42 10,398 28ALL 3,090,927 100 1,210,170 100 37,346 100ALL Higher managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 801,559 13 268,594 11 6,926 9Lower managerial and pr<strong>of</strong>essional 1,295,524 21 420,475 18 11,575 16Intermediate occupations 492,555 8 152,864 7 4,434 6Small employers and own account workers 435,496 7 188,950 8 6,125 8Lower supervisory and technical 286,963 5 116,945 5 4,848 7Semi-routine occupations 509,844 8 231,233 10 8,903 12Routine occupations 357,134 6 164,757 7 11,934 16Never worked, unemployed, and nec 1,897,448 31 793,105 34 18,582 25ALL 6,076,523 100 2,336,923 100 73,327 10030


Relative to all <strong>London</strong> occupations <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s have higherproportions in routine and semi-routine occupations.Table 13b <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupations<strong>London</strong> 2008 Occupation Total Total % <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> %Men Managers and Senior <strong>Official</strong>s 435,406 21 4,671 16Pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations 344,467 17 1,888 6Associate Pr<strong>of</strong>essional and Technical 371,423 18 2,549 9Administrative and Secretarial 109,335 5 1,143 4Skilled Trades Occupations 266,902 13 4,545 15Personal Service Occupations 53,306 3 1,362 5Sales and Customer Service Occupations 101,467 5 798 3Process, Plant and Machine Operatives 148,131 7 1,557 5Elementary Occupations 219,526 11 10,997 37ALL 2,049,963 100 29,510 100Women Managers and Senior <strong>Official</strong>s 227,570 14 2,821 13Pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations 256,740 16 1,553 7Associate Pr<strong>of</strong>essional and Technical 323,253 20 2,694 12Administrative and Secretarial 331,015 20 3,834 17Skilled Trades Occupations 20,632 1 0 0Personal Service Occupations 204,438 13 2,690 12Sales and Customer Service Occupations 128,312 8 1,581 7Process, Plant and Machine Operatives 17,886 1 299 1Elementary Occupations 124,496 8 6,680 30ALL 1,634,342 100 22,152 100ALL Managers and Senior <strong>Official</strong>s 662,976 18 7,492 15Pr<strong>of</strong>essional occupations 601,207 16 3,441 7Associate Pr<strong>of</strong>essional and Technical 694,676 19 5,243 10Administrative and Secretarial 440,350 12 4,977 10Skilled Trades Occupations 287,534 8 4,545 9Personal Service Occupations 257,744 7 4,052 8Sales and Customer Service Occupations 229,779 6 2,379 5Process, Plant and Machine Operatives 166,017 5 1,856 4Elementary Occupations 344,022 9 17,677 34ALL 3,684,305 100 51,662 10031


Figure 10 <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupations Relative to AllFigure 10b <strong>London</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Occupations Relative to All32


DWP- National Insurance Registrations – NINoA National Insurance Number (NINo) is required by any overseas nationallooking to work or claim benefits / tax credits in <strong>the</strong> UK, including <strong>the</strong> selfemployed or students working part time. The Department <strong>of</strong> Work andPensions (DWP) provide statistics on National Insurance Numbers (NINo)allocated to adult overseas nationals entering <strong>the</strong> UK.The figures provide some measure <strong>of</strong> regular in-migration (inflow) for adultoverseas nationals registering for a NINo, but do not reflect out migrationflows <strong>of</strong> those who leave <strong>the</strong> UK, or <strong>the</strong> overall migrant population (stock).The figures reflect adult overseas nationals allocated a NINo through <strong>the</strong> adultregistration scheme. The registration date represents <strong>the</strong> date <strong>the</strong> informationon <strong>the</strong> individual was processed on HM Revenue and Customs’ NationalInsurance Recording System (NIRS), and figures show here are for calendaryears.Table 14 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> NINo Registrations UK 2002-2009NINo Registrations to Adult <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Overseas Nationals entering <strong>the</strong> UK (Thousands)Nationality 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009p 2002-2009<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> 5.28 7.86 8.96 10.76 10.04 12.89 13.34 8.75 77.88Argentina 0.48 0.6 0.47 0.52 0.53 0.61 0.59 0.29 4.09Belize 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.21Bolivia 0.13 0.33 0.47 0.51 0.26 0.25 0.17 0.09 2.21Brazil 1.84 3.14 4.19 5.34 4.83 6.05 6.21 4.09 35.69Chile 0.19 0.25 0.22 0.25 0.27 0.36 0.37 0.16 2.07Colombia 1.05 1.38 1.35 1.75 1.75 2.62 3.18 2.49 15.57Costa Rica 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.24Cuba 0.11 0.14 0.13 0.18 0.15 0.2 0.19 0.09 1.19Dominican Rep 0.1 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.08 1.08Ecuador 0.28 0.34 0.36 0.29 0.29 0.4 0.41 0.28 2.65El Salvador 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.15Guatemala 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.15Honduras 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.14Mexico 0.42 0.56 0.6 0.69 0.77 0.96 0.88 0.5 5.38Nicaragua 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.14Panama 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.21Paraguay 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.18Peru 0.22 0.29 0.29 0.3 0.32 0.5 0.43 0.25 2.6Uruguay 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.29Venezuala 0.29 0.49 0.55 0.56 0.48 0.49 0.51 0.27 3.64NotesTime Series - Calendar Year Of Registration Date2009p (Not Complete)ThousandsThe lowest spatial resolution is Local Authority level in <strong>the</strong> UK whereRegistrations are allocated using address matching s<strong>of</strong>tware to <strong>the</strong> latest33


postcode directory. Figures reflect <strong>the</strong> best estimate <strong>of</strong> an adult overseasnational’s locality at <strong>the</strong> time <strong>of</strong> registering for a NINo (DWP, 2009). However,<strong>the</strong> figures do not reflect internal movement within <strong>the</strong> UK which may happenafter registration.<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s entering <strong>the</strong> UK have been increasing over <strong>the</strong> period 2002to 2008 <strong>from</strong> 5,280 in 2002 to 13,340 in 2008. Over <strong>the</strong> period as a wholesome 77,880 national insurance registration took place in <strong>the</strong> UK. Nearly half<strong>of</strong> all UK registrations are <strong>from</strong> nationals <strong>from</strong> Brazil, followed by Colombiaand Mexico.Table 15 <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> NINo Registrations 2002-2009NINo Registrations <strong>of</strong> Adult <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s Entering <strong>London</strong> 2002-2009 (thousands)Area 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009p 2002-2009<strong>London</strong> 2.86 4.41 5.28 6.49 5.87 7.55 8.22 5.75 46.43Camden 0.17 0.23 0.21 0.33 0.29 0.43 0.43 0.28 2.37City <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.06Hackney 0.13 0.23 0.32 0.44 0.32 0.37 0.49 0.37 2.67Hammersmith and Fulham 0.17 0.26 0.32 0.39 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.31 2.65Haringey 0.12 0.21 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.41 0.48 0.38 2.38Islington 0.14 0.19 0.25 0.28 0.26 0.39 0.43 0.32 2.26Kensington and Chelsea 0.16 0.23 0.22 0.20 0.23 0.29 0.27 0.17 1.77Lambeth 0.23 0.40 0.48 0.59 0.52 0.62 0.66 0.51 4.01Lewisham 0.10 0.11 0.15 0.21 0.20 0.24 0.27 0.22 1.50Newham 0.10 0.16 0.17 0.16 0.18 0.26 0.32 0.18 1.53Southwark 0.21 0.43 0.47 0.65 0.52 0.63 0.67 0.51 4.09Tower Hamlets 0.12 0.20 0.27 0.37 0.34 0.51 0.55 0.33 2.69Wandsworth 0.15 0.23 0.26 0.35 0.39 0.40 0.49 0.32 2.59Westminster 0.26 0.35 0.39 0.48 0.40 0.54 0.46 0.33 3.21Barking and Dagenham 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.06Barnet 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.15 0.22 0.24 0.14 1.30Bexley 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06Brent 0.20 0.34 0.60 0.65 0.48 0.65 0.69 0.54 4.15Bromley 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.29Croydon 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.10 0.06 0.52Ealing 0.07 0.12 0.15 0.21 0.20 0.22 0.25 0.19 1.41Enfield 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.08 0.08 0.05 0.44Greenwich 0.02 0.07 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.09 0.11 0.06 0.53Harrow 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.17Havering 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.04Hillingdon 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.24Hounslow 0.06 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.06 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.67Kingston upon Thames 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.28Merton 0.05 0.04 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.19 0.10 0.83Redbridge 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.20Richmond upon Thames 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.10 0.06 0.07 0.06 0.53Sutton 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.15Waltham Forest 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.09 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.12 0.78NotesTime Series - Calendar Year Of Registration Date2009p (Not Complete)34


ThousandsOver <strong>the</strong> period 2002 to 2009 some 60% <strong>of</strong> all registrations are undertaken in<strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> with 46,430 <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 77,880 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> registrations. <strong>London</strong>registrations increased <strong>from</strong> 2,860 in 2002 to 8,220 in 2008. The <strong>London</strong>boroughs having <strong>the</strong> higher number <strong>of</strong> registrations over <strong>the</strong> period are Brentat 4,150, followed by Southwark 4,090 and Lambeth 4,010.Home Office – Border Agency DataHome Office / Border Agency statistics mainly concern visitors to <strong>the</strong> UK whoare subject <strong>of</strong> immigration control. The Border Agency collect data onpassenger arrivals, admissions and refusals at air, sea and Channel Tunnelports in <strong>the</strong> UK. Data on non-EEA national passenger admissions arecompiled <strong>from</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong> landing cards, as Non-EEA citizens are required tocomplete a landing card on entry to <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom (Home Office, 2009web site info).UK Passenger Entry ControlEach year some 12 million passengers <strong>from</strong> non-EEA countries are subject toborder control with approximately 60% being ordinary or business visitors.The Home Office control <strong>of</strong> immigration statistics give <strong>the</strong> estimated number<strong>of</strong> passengers entering <strong>the</strong> UK by purpose <strong>of</strong> journey and by nationality,(excluding EEA nationals and Switzerland) for <strong>the</strong> years 2005 to 2008.A serious geographical aggregation problem also exists with this data as only<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> nationality figures are produced for Argentina, Brazil, Chile,Colombia, Mexico, Peru and Venezuela. All o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> countriesare contained in an 'O<strong>the</strong>r Americas' category.The ‘O<strong>the</strong>r Americas’ category includes a mix <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>countries <strong>of</strong> interest here, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, El Salvador,Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Panama, Uruguay, Bolivia, Paraguay, Cuba,and o<strong>the</strong>r Caribbean Islands <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Bahamas, Barbados, Dominica, Grenada,Haiti, Puerto Rico, Surinam, and <strong>the</strong> Virgin Islands.Visitor estimates are based on passengers classified as ei<strong>the</strong>r ordinary orbusiness visitors, and o<strong>the</strong>rs given leave to enter and includes <strong>the</strong> ‘O<strong>the</strong>rAmericas’ category. These figures are shown in <strong>the</strong> table below.Data for 2004 and before are produced in a different format and only a 'TotalAmericas' category is given making <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> analysis difficult.However, for <strong>the</strong> years 2005 - 2008 it is possible to estimate visitors <strong>from</strong><strong>Latin</strong> America and ‘O<strong>the</strong>r Americas’ by using extrapolation <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>se data toproduce estimates for <strong>the</strong> period 2001 – 2004 based on fitting a linear trendline to <strong>the</strong> 2005-2008 data. The 2005-2008 data and <strong>the</strong> extrapolated dataare shown below.35


Over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008 this estimate suggests <strong>the</strong>re to have been 2.1million <strong>Latin</strong> and O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>American</strong> visitors to <strong>the</strong> UK.Table 16 Passenger Visitors Entering <strong>the</strong> UK 2005-2008Passenger Visitors Entering UK by nationality2005 2006 2007 2008 2005-2008 2001-2008Argentina 27,005 34,175 36,565 41,720 139,465 naBarbados 7,235 7,720 6,910 7,385 29,250 naBrazil 96,180 113,370 137,390 162,230 509,170 naCanada 605,800 655,100 717,300 688,340 2,666,540 naChile 14,925 17,920 19,385 19,425 71,655 naColombia 14,580 15,760 15,820 17,250 63,410 naGuyana 2,750 2,595 1,965 1,530 8,840 naJamaica 6,585 6,145 6,100 7,475 26,305 naMexico 72,380 80,120 81,300 80,780 314,580 naPeru 5,075 5,915 5,605 5,195 21,790 naTrinidad & Tobago 16,600 17,970 15,430 14,485 64,485 naUSA 2,596,600 2,687,200 2,501,300 2,190,900 9,976,000 naVenezuela 14,365 17,585 19,150 25,845 76,945 naO<strong>the</strong>r America 36,970 38,780 38,160 39,610 153,520 na<strong>Latin</strong> America 244,510 284,845 315,215 352,445 1,197,015<strong>Latin</strong> / O<strong>the</strong>r America 281,480 323,625 353,375 392,055 1,350,535 2,120,535All Americas 3,517,050 3,700,355 3,602,380 3,302,170 14,121,955<strong>Latin</strong>/O<strong>the</strong>r % All Americas 8.0 8.7 9.8 11.9 9.6Note:2001 to 2004 <strong>Latin</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r <strong>American</strong> figures are extrapolated <strong>from</strong> 2005 to 2008 data2004=245,0002003=210,0002002=175,0002001=140,000estimates as based on trend lineIncludes Caribbean countries in o<strong>the</strong>r Americasbased on nationality not country <strong>of</strong> birth<strong>Latin</strong> America is sum <strong>of</strong> countries givenThe statistics produce a summary view <strong>of</strong> numbers <strong>of</strong> passengers arriving, byjourney purpose, but are limited by <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> info on UK address andintended length <strong>of</strong> stay.The lack <strong>of</strong> information on ‘intended length <strong>of</strong> stay’ make estimating inmigration <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> data difficult. Migrants estimates <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>se data couldinclude o<strong>the</strong>r journey purpose categories such as students, all work permitholders (greater and less than 12 months) and <strong>the</strong>ir dependents, points basedsystem entries, those admitted as a husband, wife or fiancé, refugees,exceptional leave to remain cases and <strong>the</strong>ir dependents, and those grantedsettlement on arrival.36


Visitor estimates can be compared with <strong>the</strong> IPS figures for <strong>the</strong> 2001-2008period which suggest <strong>the</strong>re to have been a stock <strong>of</strong> in visitors over <strong>the</strong> sameperiod <strong>of</strong> 3.1 million. However, <strong>the</strong> IPS figures are also based on nationality,but include passengers in transit. The Border Agency figures excludepassengers in transit, and use trend line estimation for earlier year 2001-2004both <strong>of</strong> which will produce a lower estimate.Work PermitsApplications for Work permits in <strong>the</strong> UK are made by employers notindividuals. The Highly Skilled Migrants Programme (HSMP) uses a pointbased application system for specific skills lacking in <strong>the</strong> UK labour market.The coordinating agency in <strong>the</strong> UK for work permits is known as Work PermitsUK.The summary table below gives figures on work permit holders by <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> nationality given for <strong>the</strong> period for which data are given <strong>from</strong> 2005-2008. Over this period some 17,475 work permits were granted with <strong>the</strong>majority going to nationals <strong>from</strong> Brazil and Argentina.Table 17 Work Permit Holders and DependentsWork Permit Holders and Dependents 2005-20082005 2006 2007 2008 2005-2008Argentina 860 1,135 1,125 1,335 4,455Brazil 1,230 1,450 1,200 1,305 5,185Chile 160 190 190 155 695Colombia 300 355 265 355 1,275Mexico 555 660 490 450 2,155Peru 45 70 80 45 240Venezuela 195 325 235 220 975O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 675 665 635 520 2,495<strong>Latin</strong> and O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 4,020 4,850 4,220 4,385 17,475Note: Source Home Officeincludes >12 and < 12 months permitsincludes Caribbean Countries in O<strong>the</strong>r AmericasGrants <strong>of</strong> Settlement – Long Term In migrationAfter UK entry <strong>the</strong> Home <strong>of</strong>fice record application and decisions on extensions<strong>of</strong> leave to remain and settlement. Those subject to immigration control whoare allowed to remain in <strong>the</strong> UK indefinitely, or had a time limit removed arerecorded in <strong>the</strong> Grants <strong>of</strong> Settlement statistics.Grants <strong>of</strong> settlement are <strong>the</strong> main measure <strong>of</strong> long-term in migration <strong>of</strong> peoplesubject to immigration control. In 2008 <strong>the</strong>re were 148,740 persons grantedsettlement, 8% (11,580) <strong>of</strong> which were <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Americas. Like o<strong>the</strong>r Home37


Office data it is not available for all individual <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> countries, onlyfor <strong>the</strong> countries given below.Table 18 Grants <strong>of</strong> Settlement in <strong>the</strong> UK by <strong>American</strong> NationalityGrants <strong>of</strong> Settlement in <strong>the</strong> UK by Nationality2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-2008Argentina 120 120 155 95 145 125 155 170 1,085Barbados 115 100 160 145 120 130 80 95 945Brazil 575 510 695 565 645 850 865 940 5,645Canada 1,320 1,300 1,710 1,225 1,215 1,125 1,015 1,190 10,100Chile 75 100 120 65 50 105 80 65 660Colombia 785 805 1,000 1,745 1,555 855 590 655 7,990Guyana 210 190 275 170 235 165 140 350 1,735Jamaica 2,855 2,675 4,500 2,930 2,780 2,900 2,440 2,750 23,830Mexico 130 160 245 130 140 220 185 240 1,450Peru 150 155 180 110 220 200 145 150 1,310Trinidad & Tobago 365 410 655 565 505 375 405 505 3,785USA 4,385 4,355 5,620 4,120 4,350 3,845 3,310 3,335 33,320Venezuela 85 80 120 85 155 145 150 140 960O<strong>the</strong>r America 810 720 1,025 2,175 1,790 1,055 885 995 9,455<strong>Latin</strong> Americas 1,920 1,930 2,515 2,795 2,910 2,500 2,170 2,360 19,100<strong>Latin</strong> / O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 2,730 2,650 3,540 4,970 4,700 3,555 3,055 3,355 28,555All Americas 11,980 11,680 16,460 14,125 13,905 12,095 10,445 11,580 102,270While <strong>the</strong>se figures only include <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> countries given, over <strong>the</strong>period 2001-2008 some 19,000 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s were granted settlement in<strong>the</strong> UK with <strong>the</strong> largest group coming <strong>from</strong> Colombia 7,990, followed by Brazil5,645.Asylum DataHome Office data on asylum cover a number <strong>of</strong> types and flows and includesAsylum applications, decisions and appeals, people detained underimmigration powers, and immigration appeals. O<strong>the</strong>r topic areas coveredinclude <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> asylum seekers supported, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> asylumseekers detained and removed, <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> asylum seekers who departedvoluntarily and applications and decisions relating to British citizenship.Asylum ApplicationsThe Home Office enter asylum applicants on <strong>the</strong> CID system and in 2008some 90% <strong>of</strong> applications were <strong>from</strong> within country applications once aperson has entered <strong>the</strong> UK, with <strong>the</strong> remained applying at port <strong>of</strong> entry onarrival. In 2008 <strong>the</strong>re were some 31,315 asylum applications includingdependents, with some 2% being applicants <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Americas as a whole.The National Asylum Support Service – NASS ga<strong>the</strong>rs information on asylumapplications awaiting a decision who qualify for support services, by age, sex,nationality and Local Authority District. In 2003 some 72 % <strong>of</strong> applicants tookup NASS support, with <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r 28% excluded <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> database. Thissource has less value for <strong>London</strong> as most asylum seekers are outside <strong>the</strong>38


NASS system or get only cash support <strong>from</strong> it and find <strong>the</strong>ir ownaccommodation.Data IssuesMost <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> data are taken <strong>from</strong> administrative records, but only summaryfigures are given for global regions. Home Office data is not alwaysdisaggregated by nationality, for much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> asylum data only<strong>the</strong> nationalities <strong>of</strong> Columbia and Ecuador are given separately along with acategory ‘O<strong>the</strong>r Americas’ which includes much <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Caribbean islands ando<strong>the</strong>r colonies <strong>of</strong> South America excluded <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> working definition usedhere.Table 19 UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Asylum StatisticsUK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Asylum Statistics, excluding dependants, by country <strong>of</strong> nationalityNationality 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-2008Applications Colombia 365 420 220 120 70 60 30 25 1310Ecuador 255 315 150 35 10 15 10 15 805Jamaica 525 1310 965 455 325 215 240 240 4275O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 170 240 230 130 100 95 115 130 1210Total Americas 1315 2290 1560 740 505 385 390 405 7590Recognised Colombia 40 45 15 5 5 5 115granted asylum Ecuador 10 20 5 0 0 0 0 35Jamaica 5 10 5 10 30O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 10 5 5 5 0 25Total Americas 70 80 25 10 10 10 5 10 220Not recognised but Colombia 55 20 5 80granted leave Ecuador 10 10 10 5 0 0 0 0 35Jamaica 15 15 10 10 10 5 10 75O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 30 5 10 5 5 5 5 65Total Americas 115 50 40 20 15 10 15 5 270Refusals Colombia 675 415 315 150 65 45 30 10 1705Ecuador 495 290 220 50 20 10 15 10 1110Jamaica 470 890 1105 500 305 160 225 170 3825O<strong>the</strong>r Americas 245 170 195 110 75 55 80 75 1005Total Americas 1885 1770 1835 810 465 270 350 260 7645Source: Border Agency DataWhile <strong>the</strong> aggregations may be for disclosure reasons, <strong>the</strong> nationalitiesrecorded as ‘Americas O<strong>the</strong>r’ are given in <strong>the</strong> table below.39


Table 20 Nationalities recorded as: Americas O<strong>the</strong>rMexico Guatemala Belize HondurasEl Salvador Nicaragua Costa Rica PanamaArgentina Brazil Chile UruguayVenezuela Bolivia Peru ParaguayCuba Bahamas Barbados Dominica,Grenada Guyana Haiti Puerto Rico,Surinam Trinidad & Tobago Virgin Islands, and ‘o<strong>the</strong>r Americas’(Source: Home Office 2006 file hosb1407.pdf, page 91)This data is not very useful for estimating <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular migrants as<strong>the</strong>se figures included countries outside <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> working definition and cannotbe disaggregated without large margins <strong>of</strong> error.Irregular MigrantsA major problem with <strong>of</strong>ficial data sources is that <strong>the</strong>y are not adjusted for <strong>the</strong>irregular migrant populations <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK. Various studies have attempted toestimate <strong>the</strong> irregular migrant population in <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>London</strong> (Woodbridge,2006: GLA 2009). However, <strong>the</strong>re is no study which estimates <strong>the</strong> irregular<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> migrant population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>.Regular migrants are those who enter <strong>the</strong> UK with <strong>the</strong> correct papers and whoare given permission to remain under different conditions. Irregular migrantsare generally <strong>of</strong> three different types.a) Illegal entrants – those evading formal controls, or presenting falsepapers.b) Migrants remaining after permitted period, such as failed asylumseekers who stay in country, overstayers who remain despite expiredlegal residence.c) Children born to irregular migrants, though not migrants <strong>the</strong>mselves,have no right to remain.While irregular migrants are not always uncounted migrants in <strong>of</strong>ficial datasources, <strong>the</strong>re is no study in <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>of</strong> unauthorised migrant undercount in <strong>the</strong>UK Census <strong>of</strong> 2001. The ONS suggest that between 10 and 20 percent asbeing appropriate undercount for <strong>the</strong> unauthorised foreign born population(reported in Woodbridge, 2005:11).40


In 2001 it was estimated at 430,000 or 0.7% <strong>of</strong> UK population <strong>of</strong> 59 millionwere illegal migrants (Woodbridge, 2005) and by 2007 this is estimated tohave risen to 618,000 (GLA, 2009).Table 21: Recent Estimates <strong>of</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong>, 000sUK Irregular Resident <strong>Population</strong> 2001 - end 2007Central Estimate Lower Estimate Higher EstimateWoodbridge: 2001 estimate <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants 430 310 5702001-2007 change in numbers <strong>of</strong>:resident failed asylum seekers 219 219 219overstayer / illegal entrants 50 21 79Regularised 2003-2007 -166 -177 -149Total irregular migrants at end 2007 533 373 719UK-born children 85 44 144Total Irregular resident population at end 2007 618 417 863Source: GLA 2009, note 000s<strong>London</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> end 2007Central Estimate Lower Estimate Higher EstimateFailed asylum seekers as a 2001 229 215 243Growth in failed asylum seekers 131 99 164Overstayer/illegal entrants 121 28 226Regularisations 2003-2007 (inc EU Accession) -100 -91 -108UK-born children 61 30 105Total irregular residents 2007 442 281 630Source: GLA 2009, note 000sThe GLA report updates Woodbridge to 2007 and suggests <strong>London</strong> has 70%<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular total population for <strong>the</strong> UK (GLA 2009).In <strong>London</strong> by 2007 <strong>the</strong> estimated total irregular resident population has acentral estimate <strong>of</strong> 442,000, (with a high estimate <strong>of</strong> 630,000 and a lowestimate <strong>of</strong> 281,000). <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s will be contained in this total for allirregulars and estimates <strong>of</strong> 2008 stocks <strong>of</strong> irregulars can be made based on<strong>the</strong>se figures and <strong>the</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> population. Twomethods <strong>of</strong> doing this are explored below.<strong>Estimating</strong> <strong>the</strong> Irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 'irregular' <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> are difficult toobtain <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial data sources, as <strong>of</strong>ten <strong>the</strong> data does not exist in a formatsuitable to estimation methods. Despite <strong>the</strong> fact that many irregulars have aninterest in remaining invisible, <strong>of</strong>ficial surveys such, as <strong>the</strong> population census,produce estimates <strong>of</strong> all residents regardless <strong>of</strong> legal status, and can includeirregulars.41


Recent research has attempted to estimate <strong>the</strong> overall irregular population <strong>of</strong><strong>London</strong> (GLA 2009). The research method used essentially updatesestimates produced by Woodbridge (2005). Woodbridge uses a residualmethod to estimate <strong>the</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK and it is only possible touse this type <strong>of</strong> method for a decennial Census year. The GLA update workuses Home Office asylum seeker data, along with conjectural extrapolationsfor illegal entrants and overstayers. Added to <strong>the</strong>se figures are estimates <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> likely number <strong>of</strong> UK-born children to irregular migrant couples, along witha deduction for regularised irregulars (GLA, 2009).However, <strong>the</strong>se estimates are subject to a large margin <strong>of</strong> error and as <strong>the</strong>authors note,"it is impossible to produce an agreed and wholly robust figure for <strong>the</strong> number<strong>of</strong> irregular migrants in <strong>the</strong> UK" (GLA, 2009:28).Home <strong>of</strong>fice data is more suitable for estimating <strong>the</strong> overall figures <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>London</strong> as is done in <strong>the</strong> GLA (2009)report.The GLA approach to Irregular Overstayer Estimation<strong>Population</strong> estimates are highly sensitive to estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong>overstayers. The GLA methodology estimates <strong>the</strong> overstayer / illegal irregularpopulation <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> as a residual after subtracting <strong>the</strong> 2001 failed asylumseeker stock <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Woodbridge figure for total irregulars. The GLA failedasylum seeker stock at 2001 is estimated to be 286,000 which is 67% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>Woodbridge estimate <strong>of</strong> 430,000 irregulars in 2001, <strong>the</strong> remaining 144,000being <strong>the</strong> supposed size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overstayer / illegal stock at 2001. However, itis not entirely clear that <strong>the</strong> failed asylum seekers stock are <strong>the</strong> largestproportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total irregulars stock and many suggest that overstayersstocks may be larger than this.The GLA method avoids <strong>the</strong> issue <strong>of</strong> how to estimate <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>overstayer stock and it may be an underestimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overstayerpopulation <strong>of</strong> irregulars. Overstayers in <strong>the</strong> GLA method are not being directlyestimated <strong>from</strong> any survey source, but only appear as a residual, <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong>which may be greater than <strong>the</strong> GLA analysis suggests. The <strong>Latin</strong> survey datafor this study suggests <strong>the</strong>re to be 19 percent <strong>of</strong> irregulars with a largeproportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se being overstayers, ra<strong>the</strong>r than failed asylum seekers.Methods <strong>of</strong> EstimationThere are a number <strong>of</strong> different methods that can be used in estimation basedon <strong>the</strong> available base data. All estimates will vary depending on what isincluded in <strong>the</strong> estimate, what parameters are used and where <strong>the</strong>parameters come <strong>from</strong>. This section explores a number <strong>of</strong> stock and flowmethod approaches to estimating <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UKand <strong>London</strong> for 2008.42


<strong>Official</strong> estimates do not take account <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants living in <strong>the</strong> UK,and different types <strong>of</strong> estimates are produced based on <strong>the</strong> GLA (2009)estimates <strong>of</strong> irregulars and o<strong>the</strong>r estimates <strong>of</strong> visitor switchers.Estimates are likely to be highly sensitive to what irregular populationcomponents are included and how <strong>the</strong>y are estimated. As was shown earlier<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> IN visitors between 2001-2008 summed to a cumulative 3.1million over <strong>the</strong> period. Even if 10% or 13% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se became visitor switchers<strong>the</strong>re could be a hidden/ irregular 300,000 - 400,000 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong>UK over <strong>the</strong> period. These parameters swamp <strong>the</strong> 130,000 <strong>of</strong>ficial populationestimate coming <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS 2008.A number <strong>of</strong> methodological approaches are explored here and <strong>the</strong>sensitivities to various parameters are discussed. The main methods usedare;Estimates <strong>of</strong> Irregulars <strong>from</strong> Home Office Data: The first is <strong>the</strong> possibility<strong>of</strong> obtaining a measure <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars directly <strong>from</strong> Home Officedata. However, this method was difficult due to <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> available datadisaggregated by detailed nationality this approach could not be attempted,despite this information existing within <strong>the</strong> Home Office (see Annex D).Estimates <strong>from</strong> APS 2008 plus a <strong>Latin</strong> Irregulars Estimate; This uses <strong>the</strong>overall measures <strong>of</strong> irregulars derived by <strong>the</strong> GLA (2009) report and <strong>the</strong>nupdates this to 2008 and estimates <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> all irregulars who arelikely to be <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s based on population proportions derived <strong>from</strong>evidence <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> LFS/APS. This method estimates directly <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Annual<strong>Population</strong> Survey <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong>, and assumes that <strong>the</strong>APS estimate contains no irregular migrants. While not all irregulars areuncounted in <strong>of</strong>ficial surveys, <strong>the</strong> incentive to remain hidden would make itmore likely that irregulars would not complete any <strong>of</strong>ficial government surveyinformation (especially <strong>the</strong> LFS/APS). This figure is <strong>the</strong>n adjusted forirregular migrants to produce an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> populationtotal for 2008.Estimates based on TIM type methods: <strong>the</strong> first TIM Type method 1 - taking<strong>the</strong> 2001 stock and adjusting for regular net in migration flows over <strong>the</strong> period2001-2008, with an additional adjustment for <strong>the</strong> irregular component.A second TIM type method 2, taking <strong>the</strong> 2001 stock and adjusting for regularand migrants switchers (as additional irregular flows), natural increase in <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> population, and irregular flows between 2001-2008 (most complex).Estimates <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Survey Questionnaire; In addition some parameters foruse in estimation can be derived <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> questionnaire survey itself,particularly those relating to migrant and visitor switchers and fertility rates,along with those switching between regular and irregular migrant status.These could feed into <strong>the</strong> available base-data and see what effect this has onestimates, or can be used to validate o<strong>the</strong>r estimates.43


Method 1: The <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular population based on Updating <strong>the</strong> GLAReportThis method takes <strong>the</strong> overall GLA total <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants in <strong>London</strong> as <strong>of</strong>2007 and updates this to 2008 based on <strong>the</strong> projected annual growth rate inirregular migrants over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2007. Based on <strong>the</strong> GLA estimates<strong>the</strong> growth rate in irregular migrants in <strong>London</strong> has a central estimate <strong>of</strong>35,500 per year (with a lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 11,000 and a higher estimate <strong>of</strong>64,500).There are a number <strong>of</strong> methods <strong>of</strong> estimating <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> this updatedirregular population likely to be <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>A. <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimate based on Proportion <strong>of</strong> Total <strong>Population</strong>This method takes <strong>the</strong> GLA middle estimate for irregular migrants as <strong>of</strong> 2007<strong>of</strong> 618,000 for <strong>the</strong> UK and 442,000 for <strong>London</strong>. The GLA figures are for 2007so <strong>the</strong>se are first projected forward one year to 2008 based on <strong>the</strong> annualaverage growth in irregular migrants (31,000 nationally and 35,500 for<strong>London</strong>). For example <strong>the</strong> central 2001 estimate <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants in <strong>the</strong>UK was 430,000 and by 2007 this had increased to 618,000. The additional188,000 irregular migrants arrived over <strong>the</strong> 6 year period, giving an annualaverage <strong>of</strong> 31,333 irregular migrants over <strong>the</strong> period.For <strong>London</strong> this produces an estimate <strong>of</strong> total irregular migrants <strong>of</strong> 477,500.The proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se who are likely to be <strong>Latin</strong> is derived <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS2008 where <strong>the</strong>y comprise about 1% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> over <strong>the</strong>period 2004-2008 (annex c table 32). Assuming that <strong>the</strong> same proportion <strong>of</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> population are also in <strong>the</strong> total irregularpopulation gives a central estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> irregular <strong>Latin</strong> population <strong>of</strong>5,000 (with a lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 3,100 and a higher estimate <strong>of</strong> 7,300).The next stage adjusts for <strong>the</strong> likely irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population, andis based on <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> total 2008 APSpopulation. This gives an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> likely <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong>all irregular migrants. These are <strong>the</strong>n added to <strong>the</strong> APS totals. The 2008APS estimates <strong>the</strong> total UK population as 60,372,758 <strong>of</strong> which 130,186 are<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> representing about 0.22 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total UK population.44


Table 22: Irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 based on <strong>Population</strong>Proportion<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Estimate 2008 (Thousands)UK Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 430.0 310.0 570.02 Irregular 2007 618.0 417.0 863.03 Change 2007-2001 (6 year period) 188.0 107.0 293.04 growth per year 2001-2007 31.3 17.8 48.85 Irregular 2008 (2+ 4) 649.3 434.8 911.8<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> UK <strong>Population</strong>6 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (5*6) 0.22% 1.4 1.0 2.07 2004-2008 Average (5*7) 0.20% 1.3 0.9 1.8<strong>London</strong> Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 229.0 215.0 243.02 Irregular 2007 442.0 281.0 630.03 Change 2007-2001 (6 year period) 213.0 66.0 387.04 growth per year 2001-2007 35.5 11.0 64.55 Irregular 2008 (2+ 4) 477.5 292.0 694.5<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong>6 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (5*6) 1.05% 5.0 3.1 7.37 2004-2008 Average (5*7) 0.94% 4.5 2.7 6.5Notes: 000sThe UK estimates are lower due to <strong>the</strong> lower <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> a higher UK totalBased on GLA (2009) estimates<strong>Latin</strong> proportions derived <strong>from</strong> LFS/APSThe UK figures are somewhat smaller than <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> estimates. This isbecause <strong>of</strong> two factors, first <strong>the</strong> GLA estimate allocates 70% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UKirregular population to <strong>London</strong>, second <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> population is higher (1%) than <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> UK population proportion(0.2%).45


Table 24 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 Estimate as Proportion <strong>of</strong> Total<strong>Population</strong>UKCentral Lower Higher1 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 (APS) 130,186 130,186 130,1862Irregular Stock 2008 (GLA middle estimate projected on 1 year by 31,000 annualaverage) 649,000 434,833 911,8333 <strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> All UK <strong>Population</strong> APS 2008 (0.22%)4 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Share (2*3) 1,429 957 2,0065 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> (1+4) 131,615 131,143 132,192<strong>London</strong>1 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 (APS) 79,296 79,296 79,2962Irregular Stock 2008 (GLA middle <strong>London</strong> estimate projected on 1 year by 35,500annual average) 477,500 292,000 694,5003 <strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> All <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong> APS 2008 (1.05%)4 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Share (2*3) 5,014 3,066 7,2925 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> (1+4) 84,310 82,362 86,588Assuming <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s represent <strong>the</strong> same share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregularpopulation as <strong>the</strong>y do <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 figure <strong>of</strong> 0.22%, this gives an irregulartotal <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> central estimate <strong>of</strong> 1,429 for 2008 (957 lower, 2,006higher).For <strong>London</strong> <strong>the</strong> central estimate <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants had increased <strong>from</strong>229,000 in 2001 to 442,000 in 2007 (see Table 21), some 213,000 increaseover <strong>the</strong> 6 year period, giving an average increase <strong>of</strong> 35,500 per year over <strong>the</strong>period. For <strong>London</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 total population estimate is 7,535,814 anda <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 79,296 giving a <strong>Latin</strong> percentage <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>London</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 1.05%. Using this proportion produces an estimatedlarger number <strong>of</strong> irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> (5,014) than in <strong>the</strong> UK(1,429) in 2008, suggesting fur<strong>the</strong>r validation needs to be undertaken inapplying a proportionate method, especially at UK level.This produces a UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population central estimate <strong>of</strong> nearly131,615 and a <strong>London</strong> total <strong>of</strong> 84,310 (64% if UK total).This method assumes that <strong>the</strong> APS does not contain any irregular <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> migrants and <strong>the</strong>y are additional to <strong>of</strong>ficial population estimates, on<strong>the</strong> assumption <strong>of</strong> wanting to remain invisible <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial LFS survey46


processes. The <strong>London</strong> Borough Estimates based on <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 95%confidence interval are shown below.Table 25 <strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Based<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower Upper<strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong> basedTotal 84,310 73,164 95,786<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,494<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 5,014 3,066 7,292<strong>London</strong> BoroughCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0Barking and Dagenham 698 606 793Barnet 3,973 3,448 4,513Bexley 308 267 350Brent 7,441 6,457 8,454Bromley 1,185 1,029 1,347Camden 4,973 4,315 5,649Croydon 1,600 1,388 1,817Ealing 1,534 1,331 1,742Enfield 527 457 598Greenwich 1,062 921 1,206Hackney 3,564 3,092 4,049Hammersmith and Fulham 2,633 2,285 2,991Haringey 2,683 2,328 3,048Harrow 283 246 322Havering 234 203 266Hillingdon 191 166 217Hounslow 1,009 876 1,146Islington 3,788 3,288 4,304Kensington and Chelsea 5,212 4,523 5,922Kingston upon Thames 1,044 906 1,186Lambeth 7,500 6,508 8,520Lewisham 3,883 3,369 4,411Merton 1,993 1,729 2,264Newham 3,631 3,151 4,125Redbridge 435 377 494Richmond upon Thames 2,655 2,304 3,016Southwark 5,893 5,114 6,695Sutton 952 826 1,081Tower Hamlets 2,476 2,148 2,813Waltham Forest 2,534 2,199 2,879Wandsworth 3,372 2,926 3,831Westminster 5,047 4,380 5,734NoteLower and Upper APS 2008 estimates are based on a 95% confidence Interval47


At 95% CI coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation is +/-11.6% or +/- 9,198<strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 1.05%Irregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 values<strong>London</strong> Borough Distribution based on APS 2004-2008 averageThis estimate <strong>of</strong> 5,014 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars in <strong>London</strong> is 5.9 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total central estimate <strong>of</strong> 84,310 (4.2% lower based on 3,066 / 73,164, and7.6% upper based on 7,292 / 95,786). These irregular estimates seem lowrelative to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> survey source validation <strong>of</strong> 19% irregular.B. <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimate based on Proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Foreign Born<strong>Population</strong>Ano<strong>the</strong>r method <strong>of</strong> estimating <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>UK and <strong>London</strong> is to use <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> foreign bornpopulation in <strong>the</strong> estimate ra<strong>the</strong>r than <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total population, as given above.All irregular population are likely to be foreign born with <strong>the</strong> exception <strong>of</strong> UKborn children <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular population who are also classed as irregular.For this reason <strong>the</strong>y were subtracted <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2007 GLA estimates to leavejust <strong>the</strong> foreign born irregular population in 2007. This was projected forwardone year to 2008 based on <strong>the</strong> growth per year over <strong>the</strong> 6 year period 2001-2007. The national irregular foreign-born population stock at 2008 is <strong>the</strong>nderived.The UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> foreign born population (2 percent) is<strong>the</strong>n applied to <strong>the</strong> total irregular foreign-born population. This produces a<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK central irregular estimate <strong>of</strong> 11,000.The 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> is 3.18 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total foreign-born population (see Annex C table 34). This method produces ahigher estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular <strong>Latin</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong> 12,900 (lower <strong>of</strong>8,200 and upper <strong>of</strong> 18,200).48


Table 23 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 based on Foreign BornProportions<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Estimate 2008 (Thousands) based on Foreign BornUK Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 430.0 310.0 570.02 Irregular 2007 618.0 417.0 863.03 UK-born Children 85.0 44.0 144.04 Irregular foreign born 2007 533.0 373.0 719.05 Change foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 103.0 63.0 149.06 growth per year 2001-2007 17.2 10.5 24.87 Irregular Foreign Born 2008 (4+ 6) 550.2 383.5 743.8<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> UK foreign born8 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 2.00% 11.0 7.7 14.9<strong>London</strong> Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 229.0 215.0 243.02 Irregular 2007 442.0 281.0 630.03 UK-born Children 61.0 30.0 105.04 Irregular foreign born 2007 381.0 251.0 525.05 Change in foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 152.0 36.0 282.06 Growth per year 2001-2007 25.3 6.0 47.07 Irregular Foreign 2008 (4+ 6) 406.3 257.0 572.0<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> Foreign Born <strong>Population</strong>8 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 3.18% 12.9 8.2 18.2Notes: 000sBased on GLA (2009) estimates<strong>Latin</strong> foreign born proportions derived <strong>from</strong> LFS/APS 2008The UK estimates are smaller than <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> estimates as <strong>the</strong>y are basedon a lower proportion <strong>of</strong> only a slightly larger UK irregular estimate.<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportions <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> foreign born are more representative thanthat <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole population which included UK born. However, this <strong>Latin</strong>irregular estimate does exclude UK born children to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregularsand is on <strong>the</strong> conservative side.49


Table 26 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 Estimate based on share <strong>of</strong> foreign bornpopulationUKCentral Lower Higher1 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 (APS) 130,186 130,186 130,1862 Irregular Stock 2008 (Foreign Born Table X) 550,168 383,500 743,8333 <strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> All UK Foreign Born <strong>Population</strong> APS 2008 (2.00%)4 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Share (2*3) 11,003 7,670 14,8775 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> (1+4) 141,189 137,856 145,063<strong>London</strong>1 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 (APS) 79,296 79,296 79,2962 Irregular Stock 2008 (Foreign Born Table X) 406,333 257,000 572,0003 <strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> All <strong>London</strong> Foreign Born <strong>Population</strong> APS 2008 (3.18%)4 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Share (2*3) 12,921 8,173 18,1905 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> (1+4) 92,217 87,469 97,486This method takes <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population estimate for<strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong> 79,296 and adds to this <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular populationshare <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GLA totals, based on <strong>the</strong> 3.18 percent proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population within <strong>the</strong> total foreign born population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> in2008. This produces a <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong>12,921 with a lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 8,173 and an upper estimate <strong>of</strong> 18,190. While<strong>the</strong>se figures exclude estimates <strong>of</strong> UK-born children to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>irregulars <strong>the</strong>y are higher than <strong>the</strong> estimates based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> total <strong>London</strong> population (1 percent).Based in <strong>the</strong> central 2008 APS <strong>London</strong> population estimate <strong>of</strong> 79,296 thismethod produces a <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 92,217 with a lower estimate<strong>of</strong> 87,469 and an upper estimate <strong>of</strong> 97,486 based on <strong>the</strong> APS <strong>London</strong> total.However, confidence intervals can also be applied to <strong>the</strong> 79,296 APS 2008central estimate to account for fur<strong>the</strong>r variation in <strong>the</strong> estimate.This estimate <strong>of</strong> 12,921 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars in <strong>London</strong> is 14 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total central estimate <strong>of</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> 92,217 (10,4% lower based on 8,173 /78,271, and 17% upper based on 18,190 / 106,684).The <strong>London</strong> Borough Estimates based on <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 95% confidenceinterval are shown below.50


Table 27 <strong>Latin</strong> Foreign Born <strong>Population</strong> Based<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower Upper<strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> Foreign Born BasedTotal 92,217 78,271 106,684<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,494<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 12,921 8,173 18,190<strong>London</strong> BoroughCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0Barking and Dagenham 764 648 883Barnet 4,345 3,688 5,027Bexley 337 286 389Brent 8,139 6,908 9,416Bromley 1,297 1,100 1,500Camden 5,439 4,616 6,292Croydon 1,750 1,485 2,024Ealing 1,678 1,424 1,941Enfield 576 489 666Greenwich 1,161 986 1,343Hackney 3,898 3,308 4,509Hammersmith and Fulham 2,879 2,444 3,331Haringey 2,934 2,491 3,395Harrow 310 263 358Havering 256 217 296Hillingdon 209 177 241Hounslow 1,104 937 1,277Islington 4,144 3,517 4,794Kensington and Chelsea 5,701 4,839 6,596Kingston upon Thames 1,142 969 1,321Lambeth 8,203 6,962 9,490Lewisham 4,247 3,605 4,913Merton 2,180 1,850 2,521Newham 3,972 3,371 4,595Redbridge 476 404 550Richmond upon Thames 2,903 2,464 3,359Southwark 6,446 5,471 7,457Sutton 1,041 883 1,204Tower Hamlets 2,708 2,298 3,133Waltham Forest 2,772 2,353 3,207Wandsworth 3,688 3,131 4,267Westminster 5,521 4,686 6,387NoteLower and Upper APS 2008 estimates are based on a 95% confidenceIntervalAt 95% CI coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation is +/-11.6% or +/- 9,198<strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> irregular foreign born population 3.2% (based on GLAestimates)Irregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 values<strong>London</strong> Borough Distribution based on APS 2004-2008 average51


C. <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimate based on proportion <strong>of</strong> Non EU ForeignBorn <strong>Population</strong>This method takes <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population estimate for<strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong> 79,296 and adds to this <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular populationshare <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> GLA totals, based on <strong>the</strong> 4.2 percent proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> population within <strong>the</strong> non EU foreign born population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> in2008. This produces a <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong>17,100 with a lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 10,800 and an upper estimate <strong>of</strong> 24,100.While <strong>the</strong>se figures exclude estimates <strong>of</strong> UK-born children to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>irregulars <strong>the</strong>y are higher than <strong>the</strong> estimates based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> foreign born <strong>London</strong> population (3.2 percent).Table 33<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Estimate 2008 (Thousands) based on Non EU Foreign BornUK Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 430.0 310.0 570.02 Irregular 2007 618.0 417.0 863.03 UK-born Children 85.0 44.0 144.04 Irregular foreign born 2007 533.0 373.0 719.05 Change foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 103.0 63.0 149.06 growth per year 2001-2007 17.2 10.5 24.87 Irregular Foreign Born 2008 (4+ 6) 550.2 383.5 743.8<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> UK foreign born8 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 2.89% 15.9 11.1 21.5<strong>London</strong> Central Lower Higher1 Irregular 2001 229.0 215.0 243.02 Irregular 2007 442.0 281.0 630.03 UK-born Children 61.0 30.0 105.04 Irregular foreign born 2007 (2-3) 381.0 251.0 525.05 Change in foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 152.0 36.0 282.06 growth per year 2001-2007 25.3 6.0 47.07 Irregular Foreign 2008 (4+ 6) 406.3 257.0 572.0<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> Foreign Born <strong>Population</strong>8 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 4.22% 17.1 10.8 24.1Notes: 000sBased on GLA (2009) estimates52


<strong>Latin</strong> foreign born proportions derived <strong>from</strong> LFS/APS 2008Table 34 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> - Non EU foreign-bornbased<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower Upper<strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> Non EU Foreign Born Based 4.44%Total 96,396 80,898 112,594<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,494<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 17,100 10,800 24,100<strong>London</strong> BoroughCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0Barking and Dagenham 798 670 932Barnet 4,542 3,812 5,306Bexley 352 295 411Brent 8,508 7,140 9,937Bromley 1,355 1,137 1,583Camden 5,685 4,771 6,641Croydon 1,829 1,535 2,136Ealing 1,754 1,472 2,048Enfield 602 505 703Greenwich 1,214 1,019 1,418Hackney 4,074 3,419 4,759Hammersmith and Fulham 3,010 2,526 3,516Haringey 3,067 2,574 3,583Harrow 324 272 378Havering 268 225 313Hillingdon 218 183 255Hounslow 1,154 968 1,348Islington 4,332 3,635 5,059Kensington and Chelsea 5,960 5,001 6,961Kingston upon Thames 1,194 1,002 1,395Lambeth 8,575 7,196 10,015Lewisham 4,439 3,726 5,185Merton 2,278 1,912 2,661Newham 4,152 3,484 4,849Redbridge 497 417 581Richmond upon Thames 3,035 2,547 3,545Southwark 6,738 5,654 7,870Sutton 1,088 913 1,271Tower Hamlets 2,831 2,376 3,306Waltham Forest 2,898 2,432 3,385Wandsworth 3,856 3,236 4,504Westminster 5,771 4,843 6,74153


NoteLower and Upper APS 2008 estimates are based on a 95% confidence IntervalAt 95% CI coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation is +/-11.6% or +/- 9,198<strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> Non EU Born <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 4.22%Irregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 values<strong>London</strong> Borough Distribution based on APS 2004-2008 averageBased in <strong>the</strong> central 2008 APS <strong>London</strong> population estimate <strong>of</strong> 79,296 thismethod produces a <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 96,396 with a lower estimate<strong>of</strong> 80,898 and an upper estimate <strong>of</strong> 112,594 based on <strong>the</strong> APS <strong>London</strong> total.D. <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimate based on <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> Removals andVoluntary DeparturesThis method uses Home Office data on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> total2008 removals and voluntary departures in order to estimate proportion <strong>of</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> GLA total. This proportion is 12.1% in2008.However, not all <strong>the</strong> removals and voluntary departures are by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>irregulars who are living within <strong>the</strong> UK as some will be removed <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UKat point <strong>of</strong> entry. To this extent this is an overestimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>Table 28 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK Removals and Voluntary DeparturesRemovals and voluntary departures <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Kingdom (1)(2)(3), by country <strong>of</strong> nationality, 2006 to20082006 2007 2008asylum non-asylum Total asylum non-asylum Total asylum non-asylum TotalTotal 18,280 45,585 63,865 13,705 49,660 63,365 12,875 55,105 67,980LA total 415 8,065 8,475 265 8,460 8,730 220 8,015 8,250LA % 2.3 17.7 13.3 1.9 17.0 13.8 1.7 14.5 12.1includes those returned at port <strong>of</strong> entryso not all UK irregularSource: Home Office 2009There is a question <strong>of</strong> how well this method represents <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> irregular population, since it is an overall UK figurera<strong>the</strong>r than a <strong>London</strong> figure, and is only given for certain <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>nationalities. The nationality break down form this source is only given forBolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Ecuador and Mexico, and is only given for 2006 to2008.54


Table 29 Removals and Voluntary Departures Based Estimate<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Estimate 2008 (Thousands)based on Share <strong>of</strong> Removals and Voluntary DeparturesUK Central Lower HigherIrregular 2001 430.0 310.0 570.0Irregular 2007 618.0 417.0 863.0UK-born Children 85.0 44.0 144.0Irregular foreign born 2007 533.0 373.0 719.0Change foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 103.0 63.0 149.0growth per year 2001-2007 17.2 10.5 24.8Irregular Foreign Born 2008 (4+ 6) 550.2 383.5 743.8<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> Removals and Voluntary Departures<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 12.10% 66.6 46.4 90.0<strong>London</strong> Central Lower HigherIrregular 2001 229.0 215.0 243.0Irregular 2007 442.0 281.0 630.0UK-born Children 61.0 30.0 105.0Irregular foreign born 2007 (2-3) 381.0 251.0 525.0Change in foreign born 2007-2001 (6 year period) 152.0 36.0 282.0growth per year 2001-2007 25.3 6.0 47.0Irregular Foreign 2008 (4+ 6) 406.3 257.0 572.0<strong>Latin</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> Removals and Voluntary Departures<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular 2008 (7*8) 12.10% 49.2 31.1 69.2Notes: 000sBased on GLA (2009) estimates<strong>Latin</strong> proportions derived <strong>from</strong> Home Office figures 2008The <strong>London</strong> Borough Estimates based on <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 95% confidenceinterval are shown below.55


Table 30 <strong>London</strong> Borough estimate based on Removals and Departures<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower Upper<strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> Removals and DeparturesBasedTotal 128,496 101,198 157,694<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,494<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 49,200 31,100 69,200<strong>London</strong> BoroughCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0Barking and Dagenham 1,064 838 1,306Barnet 6,055 4,769 7,431Bexley 469 369 576Brent 11,341 8,932 13,918Bromley 1,807 1,423 2,217Camden 7,579 5,969 9,301Croydon 2,438 1,920 2,992Ealing 2,337 1,841 2,869Enfield 803 632 985Greenwich 1,618 1,274 1,986Hackney 5,431 4,277 6,665Hammersmith and Fulham 4,012 3,160 4,924Haringey 4,089 3,220 5,018Harrow 431 340 530Havering 357 281 438Hillingdon 291 229 357Hounslow 1,538 1,211 1,887Islington 5,774 4,547 7,086Kensington and Chelsea 7,944 6,257 9,749Kingston upon Thames 1,592 1,253 1,953Lambeth 11,430 9,002 14,027Lewisham 5,917 4,660 7,262Merton 3,037 2,392 3,727Newham 5,534 4,359 6,792Redbridge 663 522 813Richmond upon Thames 4,046 3,186 4,965Southwark 8,981 7,073 11,022Sutton 1,450 1,142 1,780Tower Hamlets 3,773 2,972 4,631Waltham Forest 3,863 3,042 4,741Wandsworth 5,140 4,048 6,30756


Westminster 7,693 6,059 9,441NoteLower and Upper APS 2008 estimates are based on a 95% confidence IntervalAt 95% CI coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation is +/-11.6% or +/- 9,198<strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> irregular Removals & Voluntary Departures population 12.1%(based on GLA estimates)Irregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 values<strong>London</strong> Borough Distribution based on APS 2004-2008 averageThis estimate <strong>of</strong> 49,200 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars in <strong>London</strong> is 38 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>total central estimate <strong>of</strong> 128,496 (31% lower based on 31,100 / 101,198, and43.8% upper based on 69,200 / 157,694). These irregular estimates seemhigh relative to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> survey source validation <strong>of</strong> 19% irregular(see below).E. <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimate based Survey QuestionnaireThough not an <strong>of</strong>ficial data source, this method derives <strong>the</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> directly <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey questionnaireproportion. This can be used to validate <strong>the</strong> estimates <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial datasources. The survey asks respondents what <strong>the</strong>ir status is currently, andwhat <strong>the</strong>ir status was on arrival in <strong>the</strong> UK. All those who responded asarriving without valid documentation or not currently having validdocumentation, are defined as irregular.Table 31: <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Irregular TransitionsIrregular Transitions <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> -2009 Survey DataArrival Status Current Status %Irregular 26 Irregular 13 50 still IrregularRegular 13 50 regularisedRegular 932 Irregular 169 18 became irregularRegular 763 82 remained regularTotal 958 Irregular 182 19 currently irregularRegular 776 81 currently regularNoteirregular defined as arriving without valid documentation or not currently havingvalid documentationSource: survey questionnaires 2009excludes missing values57


In total 19 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> questionnaire sample have a currentirregular status, defined as not currently having valid documentation. Theremaining 81 percent have current valid documentation.Of <strong>the</strong> currently irregular population <strong>of</strong> 182 some 93 percent arrived with validdocumentation for <strong>the</strong>ir stay in <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>the</strong> 7 percent arrived without validdocumentation. This suggests 93 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> current irregular population<strong>of</strong> 182 transitioned into irregularity <strong>from</strong> being regular, and having validdocumentation on arrival.Of <strong>the</strong> currently regular population <strong>of</strong> 776 in <strong>the</strong> sample 2 percent arrived withinvalid documentation and transitioned <strong>from</strong> being an irregular to being aregular. The remaining 98 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> regular population were regular onarrival.In total nearly 1 in 5 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> are classified as beingirregular in <strong>the</strong> sense <strong>of</strong> not having valid documentation to support <strong>the</strong>ir stay.Assuming that <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 contains no irregular population <strong>the</strong>seproportions can be used in estimation. The <strong>of</strong>ficial total <strong>of</strong> 79,296 onlyrepresents 81% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> actual total including irregulars (assuming irregularscomprise 19% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total). The actual total is thus estimated to be 97,896(79,296 / 0.81). This gives a total irregular estimate <strong>of</strong> 18,600 (97,896 –79,296) for <strong>the</strong> central estimate (16,443 lower and 20,758 upper irregualestimates).Table 32 Survey Questionnaire Based Estimate<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower UpperSurvey Irregular Proportion Based 19%Total 97,896 86,541 109,252<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,494<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 18,600 16,443 20,758<strong>London</strong> BoroughCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0Barking and Dagenham 810 716 904Barnet 4,613 4,077 5,148Bexley 357 315 398Brent 8,640 7,638 9,642Bromley 1,377 1,217 1,536Camden 5,773 5,104 6,443Croydon 1,857 1,642 2,072Ealing 1,781 1,575 1,988Enfield 611 540 682Greenwich 1,232 1,090 1,37558


Hackney 4,137 3,657 4,617Hammersmith and Fulham 3,056 2,702 3,411Haringey 3,115 2,754 3,477Harrow 329 291 367Havering 272 240 303Hillingdon 222 196 248Hounslow 1,171 1,035 1,307Islington 4,399 3,889 4,909Kensington and Chelsea 6,053 5,350 6,755Kingston upon Thames 1,213 1,072 1,353Lambeth 8,708 7,698 9,719Lewisham 4,509 3,986 5,032Merton 2,314 2,045 2,582Newham 4,216 3,727 4,705Redbridge 505 447 564Richmond upon Thames 3,082 2,725 3,440Southwark 6,843 6,049 7,637Sutton 1,105 977 1,233Tower Hamlets 2,875 2,541 3,208Waltham Forest 2,943 2,602 3,285Wandsworth 3,915 3,461 4,370Westminster 5,861 5,181 6,540NoteLower and Upper APS 2008 estimates are based on a 95% confidence IntervalAt 95% CI coefficient <strong>of</strong> variation is +/-11.6% or +/- 9,198<strong>Latin</strong> irregulars <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Questionnaire Survey population are 19%Irregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 values<strong>London</strong> Borough Distribution based on APS 2004-2008 averageThis estimates shows <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population to be 97,896,with a lower estimate <strong>of</strong> 86,541 and a higher estimate <strong>of</strong> 109,252.Irregular Estimate ValidationIn order to validate <strong>the</strong> different estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> irregulars <strong>from</strong><strong>of</strong>ficial data sources, <strong>the</strong> differing <strong>Latin</strong> proportionate estimates (eg <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> totalpopulation, foreign born population, non European Union (EU) foreign bornpopulation, and <strong>the</strong> removals and voluntary departures) are compared to <strong>the</strong>estimate obtained directly <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> questionnaire survey (19%) applied to <strong>the</strong>APS 2008 estimate.59


Table 35: Summary <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>London</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> EstimatesEstimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower UpperA <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 1.05% (based on GLA estimates) 5,014 3,066 7,292B <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> Foreign born population 3.2% (based on GLA estimates) 12,921 8,173 18,190C <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> Non EU Foreign born population 4.2% (based on GLA estimates) 17,100 10,800 24,100D <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> Removals & Voluntary Departures population 12.1% (based on GLA estimates) 49,200 31,100 69,200E <strong>Latin</strong> irregulars <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Questionnaire Survey population are 19% (based on APS 2008) 18,600 16,443 20,758NotesIrregular upper and lower based on GLA 2009 valuesGLA 2009 based estimates A, B, C, Destimate E assumes APS contains no irregularsSurvey validation <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> central estimates <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial data sources suggests<strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> Non EU foreign born population based method to beclose to <strong>the</strong> survey derived estimates, giving a difference <strong>of</strong> 1,500 (18,600 –17,100) which represents a slight under-estimate.The estimate based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> Non EU foreign born seems tobe a more valid estimate compared to <strong>the</strong> sample survey data irregularestimate.Method 2: Estimates Based on Total International Migration MethodsTIM Type Estimate 1This method takes <strong>the</strong> 2001 Census Estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in Englandand Wales, and adjusts this GLA total for <strong>the</strong> missing Paraguay, Belize andDR population, as this sub-group are not contained within <strong>the</strong> GLA specialcensus estimate (GLA 2005). This adjustment is 0.9 % and is based on <strong>the</strong>proportion <strong>of</strong> this sub population in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> IPS in migrantpopulation between 2001 and 2008 (<strong>the</strong> only data source disaggregated by<strong>Latin</strong> country over <strong>the</strong> period).The next stage adds to this population <strong>the</strong> net in migration flow into <strong>the</strong> UK<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> International Passenger Survey between 2001-2008, an estimate <strong>of</strong>some 16,605 net in-migrants over <strong>the</strong> period.60


Table 36 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 M2 Estimate1 2001 Census Estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> England & Wales 58,4112 Adjust for missing Paraguay, Belize & DR population 512IPS proportion Paraguay, Belize & DR = 0.9% <strong>of</strong> total 2001-2008 in migration(444/50,656)3 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2001 (1+2) 58,9234 <strong>Latin</strong> Net Migration Estimate 2001-2008 (cumulative) 16,6055 <strong>Latin</strong> IN change 2001-2008 50,6566 <strong>Latin</strong> Out change 2001-2008 34,051Irregulars 2001No study <strong>of</strong> unauthorised migrant undercount in UK census 2001ONS suggest 10, 20% as being appropriate (Woodbridge 2005)7 10 percent 5,8928 20 percent 11,7849 Irregulars 2001-2008 (GLA <strong>Latin</strong> national share) 1,42910 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> UK 2008 (3+4+7+9) 82,84911 <strong>London</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> England & Wales <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s 2008 APS (10 * 0.63) 52,195(79,296 / 126,619 = 63%)The next stage adjusts for Irregulars migrants. This comprises two parts, <strong>the</strong>first is <strong>the</strong> 2001 irregular population. The 2001 Census is adjusted forundercounts generally, but not for foreign-born unauthorised population, thisis estimated by ONS to be between 10% and 20% (Woodbridge, 2005). Thisestimate uses <strong>the</strong> 10% value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> population (5,892). The secondstage is to estimate <strong>the</strong> 2001 to 2008 irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong>, which <strong>from</strong>before was nationally estimated at 1,429 based on <strong>the</strong> 0.22% <strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> total population in 2008.The <strong>London</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> England and Wales <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> 2008 isestimated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 at 63% and this is applied to <strong>the</strong> UK total givinga <strong>London</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> 52,195 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in 2008. This estimate is a lotlower than <strong>the</strong> direct APS estimate.TIM Type Estimate 2This method takes <strong>the</strong> 2001 Census estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in Englandand Wales, and adjusts this GLA total for <strong>the</strong> missing Paraguay, Belize andDR population, as this sub-group are not contained within <strong>the</strong> GLA specialcensus estimate (GLA 2005). This adjustment is 0.9 % and is based on <strong>the</strong>proportion <strong>of</strong> this sub population in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> IPS in migrantpopulation between 2001 and 2008.61


The next stage adds to this population <strong>the</strong> net in migration flow into <strong>the</strong> UK<strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> International Passenger Survey between 2001-2008, an estimate <strong>of</strong>some 16,605 net in migrants over <strong>the</strong> period.The next stage adjusts for irregulars migrants in 2001 as above. This isestimated by ONS to be between 10% and 20% (Woodbridge, 2005). Thisestimate used <strong>the</strong> 10% value <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> population (5,892).The next stage adjusts for possible irregular visitor switchers <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> IPSvisitor flows over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008. There were some 3,110,521 (3a)<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> visitors to <strong>the</strong> UK over this period and <strong>the</strong> proportion whooverstay and become migrants is likely to be very sensitive to this number andproportion. This was also estimated using <strong>the</strong> Home Office passenger visitorestimate 2001-2008 <strong>of</strong> 2,120,535 (3b)The ONS suggest that in 2007 some 13% <strong>of</strong> in visitors became migrants, andsome 11% <strong>of</strong> out visitors became migrants and if <strong>the</strong>se proportions areapplied to <strong>the</strong> whole period <strong>the</strong>re could have been 404,363 (3b 275,670) invisitor switchers, and 82,408 out visitor switchers over <strong>the</strong> period, giving a net321,960 (3b 193,262) irregular migrants inflows into <strong>the</strong> UK based on thistype <strong>of</strong> switching.These figures seem quite high for <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s and it would be good tohave evidence <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> visitors to overstayed <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> surveyquestionnaire itself, as little is known <strong>of</strong> this proportion <strong>from</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r sources.In addition to this <strong>the</strong>re are also migrant switchers where migrants entering<strong>the</strong> UK (and UK residents leaving <strong>the</strong> UK) for 12 months or more decided tostay for less than 12 months and effectively became visitors. ONS suggestthat over <strong>the</strong> period July to December 2007 that 3.9% out migrants becamevisitors, and 4.2% <strong>of</strong> in migrants became visitors.If <strong>the</strong>se rates are applied to <strong>the</strong> migrant flows for <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008 some2,128 in migrants became visitors and 1,328 out migrants became visitors,suggesting a net migrant switcher total <strong>of</strong> 800 for <strong>the</strong> period.Table 37 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 M3A and M3B Estimate1 2001 Census Estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> England & Wales 58,411 58,4113a3b2 Adjust for missing Paraguay, Belize & DR population 512 512IPS proportion Para, Bel & DR = 0.9% <strong>of</strong> total 2001-2008 in migration (444/50,656)3 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2001 (1+2) 58,923 58,9234 <strong>Latin</strong> Net Migration Estimate 2001-2008 (cumulative) 16,605 16,6055 <strong>Latin</strong> IN change 2001-2008 50,656 50,6566 <strong>Latin</strong> Out change 2001-2008 34,051 34,05162


Irregulars 2001No study <strong>of</strong> unauthorised migrant undercount in UK census 2001ONS suggest 10, 20% as being appropriate (Woodbridge 2005)7 10 percent 5,892 5,8928 20 percent 11,784 11,7849 Visitor Switchers Flows 2001-2008 (Visitors who became migrants 10-11) 321,960 193,262In flow visitors <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> America 2001-2008 (IPS) 3,110,521 2,120,53510 13% <strong>of</strong> IN visitors (2007 figure applied as average rate ONS, 2008) 404,363 275,670Out flow <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> UK resident visitors 2001-2008 749,164 749,16411 11 % Out visitors (2007 figure applied as average rate for period ONS, 2008) 82,408 82,40812 Migrant Switcher Flows 2001-2008 (Migrants who become visitors 13-14) 800 800IN migrants who become visitors 50,656 50,65613 4.2% <strong>of</strong> inflow July-Dec 2007 (applying 2007 as average rate for period) 2,128 2,128OUT migrants who became visitors 34,051 34,05114 3.9% <strong>of</strong> outflow (July-Dec 2007) (applying 2007 as average rate for period) 1,328 1,32815 Net natural Increase in <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2001-2008 (regular + irregular) 7,905 4,901Birth adjustment 2001-2008 (87.5 per 1000 foreign born women aged 15-44, ONS 2009) 11,257 6,978Mortality adjustment 2001-2008 (9.9 per 1000 population UK ONS data) 3,187 for 321,960 3,352 2,07716 Total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> UK 2008 (3+4+7+9-12+15) 410,485 278,783717 <strong>London</strong> Proportion <strong>of</strong> Nation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s 2008 APS (16 * 0.63) 258,606 175,633Birth rate and death rate figures can be applied over <strong>the</strong> period to find <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> natural increase in <strong>the</strong> regular and irregular population.There is evidence <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> registration <strong>of</strong> births <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> differing fertility ratesbetween UK-born and foreign-born women, but not for <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> womenin <strong>the</strong> UK. It is suggested that over <strong>the</strong> period 2004 to 2007 foreign-bornwomen have a Total Fertility Rate (TFR) <strong>of</strong> about 2.5 children per woman,while that <strong>of</strong> UK-born women is 1.7 per woman (ONS, 2009).Age-specific fertility rates (ASFR) are expressed as <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> live birthsper 1000 women for different age groups between 15 and 44 years <strong>of</strong> age.For UK born women this is estimated at 57.8 for all age groups, while forforeign-born women this is estimated at 87.5 (ONS 2009).Taking <strong>the</strong> additional <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK estimate at 338,565(3b 209, 867) (net migrants (4) + switchers (9)) and dividing by 2 (based onAPS 2008 50% women) gives an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> extra <strong>Latin</strong> women in <strong>the</strong> UK<strong>of</strong> 169,283 (3b 104,934). Those aged between 15-44 are derived by applying<strong>the</strong> average APS 2004-2008 rate <strong>of</strong> 0.76 (APS estimate <strong>of</strong> those agedbetween 15-44 is 76% over 2004 –2008 period) for <strong>London</strong> to this populationto give an estimate <strong>of</strong> 128,654 (3b 79,749) for extra <strong>Latin</strong> women agedbetween 15-44 in <strong>the</strong> UK. Applying a birth rate <strong>of</strong> 87.5 per 1000 women tothis group produces an estimate <strong>of</strong> 11,257 (3b 6,978) births over <strong>the</strong> period63


2001-2008. However, it would be useful to estimate this <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>questionnaire survey, as little evidence exists for <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> women in<strong>the</strong> UK.Death rates in <strong>the</strong> UK varied between about 10.5 per 1000 population in 2001to 9.7 in 2008 with an average <strong>of</strong> 9.9 per 1000 population for <strong>the</strong> period as awhole. While death rates are not <strong>Latin</strong> specific <strong>the</strong>y can be used in estimates.A death rate <strong>of</strong> 9.9 per 1000 is applied to <strong>the</strong> extra <strong>Latin</strong> population <strong>of</strong> 338,565(3b 209,867) giving an estimate <strong>of</strong> 3,352 (3b 2,077) deaths over <strong>the</strong> period2001-2008. This suggests a possible natural increase in <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> population<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008 <strong>of</strong> 7,905 (3b 4,901).Though highly sensitive to proportions <strong>of</strong> overstayers, <strong>the</strong> 3a methodproduces a UK estimate <strong>of</strong> a possible 410,485 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s. The <strong>London</strong>proportion <strong>of</strong> this total is estimated to be 258,605 and is <strong>the</strong> largest <strong>of</strong> allestimates. The 3b method using <strong>the</strong> Home Office passenger figures producea lower UK estimate <strong>of</strong> 278,783 and a <strong>London</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> 175,633.64


<strong>Estimating</strong> <strong>the</strong> Second Generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong>Second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> are defined as UK-born <strong>London</strong> residentswho have at least one parent born in one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> countriesused in this analysis. This section explores ways <strong>of</strong> estimating <strong>the</strong> secondgeneration <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial data. There are anumber <strong>of</strong> different methods considered below all <strong>of</strong> which give differentestimates depending on assumptions and omissions contained within <strong>the</strong>available data.Fertility Rate MethodWomen’s reproductive age is generally regarded as between <strong>the</strong> ages <strong>of</strong> 15to 44 in fertility rates estimations (ONS, 2009). Based on place <strong>of</strong> birth beingin a <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> country <strong>the</strong> weighted <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population isestimated to be 79,296 in 2008. The APS estimates <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> bornwomen <strong>of</strong> reproductive age between 15 and 44 as some 29,733.Table 38 <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> Born <strong>Population</strong> by Age and Sex 2008Age Bands Male Female All0-15 3,661 2,308 5,96916-17 515 373 88818-19 1,068 0 1,06820-24 6,453 4,615 11,06825-29 7,419 8,892 16,31130-34 6,880 5,871 12,75135-39 2,931 4,912 7,84340-44 6,035 5,070 11,10545-49 1,328 2,602 3,93050-54 1,337 1,611 2,94855-59 1,001 1,837 2,83860-64 472 618 1,09065-99 542 945 1,487ALL 39,642 39,654 79,296Source: APS 2008The ONS have calculated age specific fertility rates by five-year age groupsfor UK born and foreign-born women for 2007. This is estimated <strong>from</strong> birthregistrations and <strong>the</strong> APS population estimates (ONS, 2009).Age specific fertility rates (ASFR) are useful for comparing <strong>the</strong> reproductivebehaviour <strong>of</strong> women at different ages. They are derived by dividing <strong>the</strong>number <strong>of</strong> live births in one year to mo<strong>the</strong>rs in each age group, by <strong>the</strong> number<strong>of</strong> women in <strong>the</strong> population <strong>of</strong> that age group. Rates are expressed per 1,000women in <strong>the</strong> age group (ONS, 2009).65


Total Fertility Rates (TFR) are related to <strong>the</strong> ASFR. The TFR is <strong>the</strong> averagenumber <strong>of</strong> children that a group <strong>of</strong> women would each have if <strong>the</strong>yexperienced <strong>the</strong> ASFR for a particular year throughout <strong>the</strong>ir reproductive lives.A TFR <strong>of</strong> 1.9 in 2007 means that a group <strong>of</strong> women would each have 1.9children during <strong>the</strong>ir lifetimes based solely on <strong>the</strong> 2007 ASFR, reflecting <strong>the</strong>intensity <strong>of</strong> childbearing and <strong>the</strong> rate at which <strong>the</strong> population is replacing itself(ONS, 2009).The TRF provides a snap shot <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> fertility in a particular year anddoes not necessarily represent <strong>the</strong> average number <strong>of</strong> children a group <strong>of</strong>women will have over <strong>the</strong>ir life-course. The TFR for foreign-born women in2007 was 2.54 (ONS 2009).Table 39 Estimated Age Specific Fertility Rates for Women in 2007 - LiveBirths Per Thousand WomenAge Group UK Born Foreign BornUnder 20 29 3520-24 70 10525-29 95 13030-34 100 13535-39 50 7040 + 10 20Source ONS, 2009Applying <strong>the</strong>se fertility rates to <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> born <strong>London</strong> female population<strong>of</strong> 29,733 suggests <strong>the</strong>re would be an estimated 2,891 live births in <strong>London</strong><strong>from</strong> this population component in 2008.Table 40 Estimate <strong>of</strong> Second Generation UK born <strong>London</strong> children to<strong>Latin</strong> WomenAge Group Women 1000s Foreign Born ASFR Women X ASFRUnder 20 0.373 35 13.120-24 4.615 105 484.625-29 8.892 130 1,156.030-34 5.871 135 792.635-39 4.912 70 343.840-44 5.070 20 101.4All 2,891.4Annual birth estimations depend on <strong>the</strong> rates applied and <strong>the</strong> population sizeand reproductive structure and <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular population. If <strong>the</strong>same APS female age distributions are applied to <strong>the</strong> irregular <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> estimate total Second generation UK born rise to a central estimate<strong>of</strong> 3,244 (3,114 lower and 3,388 higher).66


Table 41 Estimates <strong>of</strong> Irregulars UK BornCentral Lower Upper<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> Foreign Born Based 12,921 8,173 18,190APS % Women 0.50 6,461 4,087 9,095APS % 15-44 0.75 4,845 3,065 6,821UK born irregulars 353 223 497UK born non irregulars 2891 2891 2891All UK Born 3,244 3,114 3,388From <strong>the</strong>se data it is also possible to derive a crude 2008 fertility rate for <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> women <strong>of</strong> reproductive age between 15-44 in <strong>London</strong>. In 2008<strong>the</strong>re were 1,911 births recorded to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs, while <strong>the</strong> APS2008 suggest <strong>the</strong>re to be 29,733 women <strong>of</strong> reproductive age. Dividing <strong>the</strong>two values gives <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> births per mo<strong>the</strong>r (1,913 / 29,733 = 0.064) andexpressed per 1000 women gives an average total fertility rate <strong>of</strong> 64 per 1000<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> women in 2008.However, using birth statistics to validate <strong>the</strong>se estimates indicates that <strong>the</strong>actual number <strong>of</strong> births to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>London</strong> in 2008was 1,913 suggesting this to be an over estimate. <strong>Latin</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs seem to behaving less children than <strong>the</strong> ASFR for all foreign-born mo<strong>the</strong>r suggests, socumulative stock estimates based on <strong>the</strong>se will be over estimates even ifASFR rates for earlier years were obtained.<strong>London</strong> School Pupil DataThis method attempts to estimate <strong>the</strong> second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in<strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Annual School Census. This DCSF Census ga<strong>the</strong>rsinformation on pupils aged 5 and over in primary, secondary and specialschools <strong>of</strong> compulsory school ages between 5 and 16. Information on firstlanguage spoken and ethnic group are used to estimate <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> pupilsin school in January 2008.Ethnic group tables crossed by Spanish and Portuguese first language <strong>of</strong>pupil are used to estimate <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> pupil population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> in2008 as shown in <strong>the</strong> table below. The majority <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> languagespeakers are <strong>of</strong> an ‘O<strong>the</strong>r White’ ethnic group, 42 percent, which accounts formost Europeans. The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population is assumed to be mainlycontained within <strong>the</strong> ‘O<strong>the</strong>r’ ethnic group category. This group accounts for26 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> speakers (Spanish and Portuguese). Thisestimates <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> speakers <strong>of</strong> school age to be5,254.67


Table 42 Pupils Resident in <strong>London</strong> 2008: Language by ethnic groupEthnic Group Portuguese Spanish LA Language %Total pupils 11,915 8,647 20,562 100.0Indian 74 3 77 0.4Bangladeshi 1 0 1 0.0Pakistani 13 6 19 0.1O<strong>the</strong>r Asian 37 55 92 0.4Black African 1,601 197 1,798 8.7Black Caribbean 47 50 97 0.5Black O<strong>the</strong>r 647 75 722 3.5Mixed White and Asian 83 63 146 0.7Mixed White and Black African 593 96 689 3.4Mixed White and Black Caribbean 67 104 171 0.8Any o<strong>the</strong>r mixed 988 935 1,923 9.4White British 364 437 801 3.9White Irish 2 9 11 0.1O<strong>the</strong>r White 6,091 2,585 8,676 42.2Chinese 0 3 3 0.0O<strong>the</strong>r (LA) 1,276 3,978 5,254 25.6Information not obtained 31 51 82 0.4Source: DCSF, Jan 2008 Annual School CensusIts difficult to know if this is an under or over estimate as 1) not all pupils areUK born and some will have been foreign born (over estimate), 2) it excludes<strong>the</strong> non-pupil second generation who are over compulsory school age <strong>of</strong> 16(under estimate), and 3) <strong>the</strong> ethnic groups are only a rough guide to <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> definition used here as <strong>the</strong>y could also span o<strong>the</strong>r groups such asBlack Caribbean, Black O<strong>the</strong>r, Mixed White and Black Caribbean, Any O<strong>the</strong>rMixed in addition to <strong>the</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r category (under estimate).If <strong>the</strong>se are included in <strong>the</strong> total an extra 2,913 could be added to this ‘O<strong>the</strong>r’total <strong>of</strong> 5,254 pushing <strong>the</strong> upper estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> pupils to about8,167. These are stock estimates for 2008 <strong>of</strong> all pupils under 16 and all wouldhave been born between 1992 and 2003 as <strong>the</strong> under 5 age group will not yethave entered school.Vital Statistics MethodVital Statistics tables published give live births per year by country <strong>of</strong> birth <strong>of</strong>mo<strong>the</strong>r if outside <strong>the</strong> UK, by nationally and by Local Authority District annuallybetween 2004-2008. However <strong>the</strong> geographical categories given for much <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong> published data are for large global regions such as New Commonwealthand Rest <strong>of</strong> WorldOffice for National Statistics is Cardiff generously provided more detailed datatables between 2002 and 2008 on <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> live births in each <strong>London</strong>borough by <strong>the</strong> country <strong>of</strong> birth <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r.These data were extrapolated to cover <strong>the</strong> period back to 1990 based onlinear trend fitting <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2002-2008 data. These are shown below.68


Table 43 <strong>London</strong> Live births by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>rs<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Country 1990-2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2002-2008 1990-2008Argentina na 59 83 84 101 113 129 110 679 naBelize na 3 2 4 1 9 6 3 28 naBolivia na 28 52 87 96 85 117 119 584 naBrazil na 332 368 428 551 787 802 807 4,075 naChile na 52 47 44 44 43 52 46 328 naColombia na 378 348 344 345 336 308 323 2,382 naCosta Rica na 5 6 5 4 189 3 1 213 naCuba na 13 19 14 21 20 14 23 124 naDominican Republic na 3 3 11 9 69 11 8 114 naEcuador na 263 266 223 196 193 182 167 1,490 naEl Salvador na 7 5 7 6 8 13 11 57 naGuatemala na 3 3 2 5 1 7 5 26 naHonduras na 4 2 2 1 5 4 3 21 naMexico na 49 60 76 53 80 82 101 501 naNicaragua na 2 1 2 3 3 5 7 23 naPanama na 6 3 2 3 2 5 3 24 naParaguay na 9 2 3 5 1 3 5 28 naPeru na 66 52 60 85 75 94 73 505 naUruguay na 6 7 8 7 14 15 7 64 naVenezuela na 49 62 74 61 76 92 91 505 naTotal Births 6,350 1,337 1,391 1,480 1,597 2,109 1,944 1,913 11,771 18,121Source: ONS Vital Statistics on Birthsnote: 1990-2001 figures are based on Linear extrapolations <strong>of</strong> 2002-2008 dataLA mo<strong>the</strong>rs are those whose country <strong>of</strong> birth is in one <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 20 countries listedThe data only record birth events for <strong>Latin</strong> foreign-born mo<strong>the</strong>rs at particularyearly points in time, so its difficult to build up stock measures <strong>of</strong> secondgeneration <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong> births data alone as some <strong>of</strong><strong>the</strong>se mo<strong>the</strong>rs and / or <strong>the</strong>ir children may not now be living in <strong>London</strong> or even<strong>the</strong> UK in 2008 (over estimate), and a small proportion may have died (overestimate). The data also exclude <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>r registrations where<strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r is not <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> (under estimate). The extent to which <strong>the</strong>seinfluences apply will over and under estimate <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> secondgeneration.Births to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs has been increasing in <strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong>1,337 in 2002 to 1,913 in 2008, with a peak at 2,109 in 2006. There weresome 11,771 live births recorded to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>London</strong>between 2002-2008 and extrapolation suggests over <strong>the</strong> whole periodbetween 1990-2008 <strong>the</strong>re could have been approximately 18,121 childrenborn to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>London</strong> since 1990. This figure is likely tobe an over estimate as not all those born in <strong>London</strong> over <strong>the</strong> period will nowbe living in <strong>London</strong>.69


Figure 11 Births in <strong>London</strong> to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>rs by Country <strong>of</strong>Birth <strong>of</strong> Mo<strong>the</strong>r 2002-2008<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs born in Brazil, Colombia and Ecuador comprise <strong>the</strong>majority <strong>of</strong> births <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs over <strong>the</strong> period 2002-2008.The geographical distribution <strong>of</strong> births to <strong>Latin</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs within <strong>London</strong> in2008 gives an indication <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs within<strong>London</strong>. Earlier distributions are less useful as people are more likely tohave moved around since births were recorded.The <strong>London</strong> boroughs containing <strong>the</strong> largest number <strong>of</strong> UK born children to<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs in 2008 are in Lambeth, Southwark, Brent,Hackney, Harringey and Wandworth. These are shown in <strong>the</strong> figure below70


Figure 12 <strong>London</strong> Births 2008 by <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Country <strong>of</strong> Birth <strong>of</strong>Mo<strong>the</strong>rOver <strong>the</strong> period 2002 to 2008 some 35 percent <strong>of</strong> all births <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rswere <strong>from</strong> Brazil, followed by Colombia (20 percent) and Ecuador (13percent). Taking 2008 alone some 42 percent <strong>of</strong> all <strong>Latin</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r births in<strong>London</strong> were <strong>from</strong> Brazilian born mo<strong>the</strong>rs.Second Generation Estimate ValidationSome 87 percent <strong>of</strong> first generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> arrived after1990. UK children who were born between 1990 and 2008 will be under 19years <strong>of</strong> age and will account for this 87 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second generation<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s. The remaining 13 percent <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second generation 2008stock will be over 19 years <strong>of</strong> age. The problem is how best to estimate <strong>the</strong>2008 stock <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> little <strong>of</strong>ficial data available.It is difficult to obtain a stock estimate <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> ASFR as it refers to an overestimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> children <strong>Latin</strong> women in 2008 would have, and isnot a cumulative stock estimate for <strong>the</strong> years up to 2008.It is also difficult to use <strong>the</strong> pupil data <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Annual School Census as astock measure as it only records first language <strong>of</strong> pupil by ethnic group.English speaking second generation pupils will be missed by this data, alsosome will be foreign born and not second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s. In71


addition <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> could fall within a number <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> ethnic group, makingis data unreliable for estimation purposes.Live UK births <strong>from</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs is probably <strong>the</strong> best basestock estimate but <strong>the</strong> problem with <strong>the</strong>se data are that not all those bornwithin <strong>London</strong> over <strong>the</strong> period will remain in <strong>London</strong>. Assumptions need to bemade concerning <strong>the</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> those born in <strong>London</strong> that havesubsequently moved away by 2008.Little information exists on <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> movement out <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>. From<strong>the</strong> IPS nationality based data over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2008 34,051 <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong>s out migrated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK, over 8 years this is 4,256 per year(34,051 / 8). Most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se will be <strong>from</strong> <strong>London</strong> so as a proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS2008 figure this is 5.4% (4,256 / 79.296). This is an under estimate since it isnot based on country <strong>of</strong> birth, so 0, 10 and 20% applied to second generationseem reasonable estimates.The table below estimates <strong>the</strong> stock <strong>of</strong> second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in<strong>London</strong> in 2008 assuming that 10 percent (Central), 20% (Lower) and 0%(Upper) move out <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> after birth.In addition births to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> fa<strong>the</strong>rs where <strong>the</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>r is not <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> will be missed by <strong>the</strong>se data. Those born before 1992 is estimatedat less than 100 per year and going back to 1982 would produce an estimate<strong>of</strong> those over 16 to be 1000. Again a 10 and 20 percent rate <strong>of</strong> out movement<strong>from</strong> <strong>London</strong> is used.Table 44 Second Generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> 20082008 Estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> Stock <strong>of</strong> Second Generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>sCentral Lower Upper1 Aged 0-5 (2004-2008) 8,139 7,234 9,0432 Aged 6-16 (1992-2003) 8,143 7,238 9,0483 Over 16 (1982-1991) 900 800 1,0004 Total UK Born 17,182 15,273 19,091Note1 2004-2008 ONS Vital Statistics2002, 2003 ONS Vital Statistics, 1992-2001 extrapolation2 estimate3 1982-1991, assumes 100 per year over 10 years = 10004 Central assumes 10% move, Lower 20%, Upper 0% moveEstimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> births to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> born mo<strong>the</strong>rs since 1990suggest <strong>the</strong>re to be a possible cumulative stock <strong>of</strong> 18,121 UK born members<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> community in <strong>London</strong> (see Table 43). However, not all72


<strong>the</strong>se will have remained in <strong>London</strong> (over estimate), this figure also excludessecond-generation births before 1990, so could be regarded as an upper limit.The 2008 <strong>London</strong> stock estimate <strong>of</strong> second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s has acentral estimate <strong>of</strong> 17,182 (Lower 15,273 and Upper 19,091) and assumes 10percent <strong>of</strong> each cohort component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se births are no long resident in<strong>London</strong>.National EstimatesThe proportionate method applied to <strong>the</strong> UK irregular GLA data produces agreat deal <strong>of</strong> variation in <strong>the</strong> irregular estimate for <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong> UK due to<strong>the</strong> differing relative proportions within <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong> wider UK. The <strong>London</strong>survey sample undertaken for this project was not able to validate <strong>the</strong> UKestimates under this method, so a different approach was adopted.Crude national estimates were obtained <strong>from</strong> a shift share approach based on<strong>the</strong> assumption that irregular and <strong>the</strong> second generation estimates for <strong>London</strong>are in <strong>the</strong> same relative proportions as <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> to UK APS figures. Thismay overestimate <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population as <strong>the</strong><strong>London</strong>/UK proportions <strong>of</strong> irregulars and second generation may differ <strong>from</strong><strong>the</strong> overall <strong>London</strong>/UK APS population proportions. Bearing in mind <strong>the</strong>secaveats and acknowledging that <strong>the</strong> margins <strong>of</strong> error cannot be calculated,<strong>the</strong> central estimate for <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population in 2008 was186,469 (see Table below). This suggests that 61% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population resides in <strong>London</strong>.Table 44a: Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population in <strong>the</strong> UK2008 based on <strong>London</strong> proportions<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> UK 2008 Central Lower UpperTotal 186,469 163,606 209,9991 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 130,186 119,251 141,1222 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 28,074 18,373 38,4323 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Second Generation 2008 28,209 25,982 30,4451. APS 2008 using 95% confidence interval for lower and upper estimates (8.4%)2. Assumes irregulars are <strong>the</strong> same share as <strong>London</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> UK APS 2008 estimates3. Assumes second generation are <strong>the</strong> same share as <strong>London</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> UK APS 2008 estimates73


ConclusionsIt is not possible to accurately determine <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in<strong>London</strong> <strong>from</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficial data sources, as no registration system exists in <strong>the</strong> UKwhich counts all people coming in and out <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> country. This researchexplores what data sources are available in an attempt to derive a robustestimate <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS based on certain assumptions and constraints.Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> vary depending onwhat <strong>of</strong>ficial base data sources are used, <strong>the</strong> adjustment for in/out flows and<strong>the</strong> extent to which irregular migrants and <strong>the</strong> second generation are includedin <strong>the</strong> estimate and assumptions used.The approach adopted <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> various explorations <strong>of</strong> available data andmethod focussed on a three- stage approach dividing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population estimate into different components. First an <strong>of</strong>ficial robust estimate<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS, second, an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregularpopulation consistent with <strong>the</strong> GLA <strong>London</strong> irregular population estimate, andthird, an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> second generation.Even though rounding is not used in this report <strong>the</strong> estimates are not thoughtto be accurate to below 1000 as <strong>the</strong>y are based on APS sample surveys.This should be born in mind when reading <strong>the</strong> figures and should be roundedto <strong>the</strong> nearest 1000.The Census estimates <strong>the</strong> 2001 <strong>London</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s to bejust 31,211. However, taking <strong>the</strong> base data <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2001 Census national<strong>Latin</strong> population estimate <strong>of</strong> 58,411 and adding to this <strong>the</strong> net in-migrationflow to <strong>the</strong> UK between 2001 and 2008, given by <strong>the</strong> IPS <strong>of</strong> 16,605, gives anoverall national UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population stock estimate for 2008 <strong>of</strong>approximately 75,016 persons. This compares to an APS 2008 estimate <strong>of</strong>130,186 for <strong>the</strong> UK as a whole and is an under estimate.The <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population total <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong>se estimates can bederived by applying <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 <strong>London</strong> / UK share <strong>of</strong> approximately 61percent to this total. This produces a Census 2001 / IPS derived estimate for<strong>London</strong> in 2008 <strong>of</strong> 79,412. This compares with a <strong>London</strong> 2008 APS estimate<strong>of</strong> 79,296, with <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 likely to be <strong>the</strong> more robust base figure.While <strong>the</strong> Census and IPS can be used to derive <strong>the</strong> overall <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population totals, and <strong>the</strong> LFS – APS can be used to distribute this total to<strong>London</strong> boroughs, larger base population estimates are obtained directly <strong>from</strong><strong>the</strong> APS. While <strong>the</strong> APS gives a reasonably robust overall measure for<strong>London</strong>, this is less so for <strong>London</strong> boroughs and 2004-2008 averages werethought to be more indicative.74


All <strong>of</strong>ficial <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> base population estimates <strong>of</strong>ten exclude <strong>the</strong>irregular hidden population. Three additional methods <strong>of</strong> estimation areexplored which attempt to correct for this.For <strong>London</strong> methods based on <strong>the</strong> irregular population update <strong>of</strong> APS 2008data produce a higher estimates than TIM type methods, which are datahungry and produce estimates with much more variation.While TIM model type methods attempts to estimate irregular migrants <strong>from</strong>visitor overstayer proportions entering <strong>the</strong> UK form <strong>the</strong> IPS and Passengerarrivals data, it produces <strong>the</strong> highest overall estimate <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in<strong>London</strong>. While this method produces <strong>the</strong> highest estimates it is very sensitiveto <strong>the</strong> visitor switcher parameters used, and should be treated with caution.The more up to date and robust <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population estimate for<strong>London</strong>, which includes an allowance for irregulars and avoids many <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>problems associated with <strong>the</strong> IPS are methods based on <strong>the</strong> APS 2008.However, <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 central estimate <strong>of</strong> 79,296 is drawn <strong>from</strong> a sample <strong>of</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>London</strong> and has a 95% Confidence Interval coefficient <strong>of</strong>variation <strong>of</strong> 11.6 percent, which corresponds to +/- 9,198 variation. This canbe used to produce an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper and lower estimates around thiscentral estimate <strong>of</strong> 70,098 lower and 88,494 upper (see table below).Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population in <strong>London</strong>, whichinclude irregulars, and <strong>the</strong> second generation <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s born in <strong>the</strong>UK, can be obtained by combining <strong>the</strong> three main estimate components.First, <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 central estimate <strong>of</strong> 79,296 used along with <strong>the</strong> coefficient<strong>of</strong> variation to produce an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> upper and lower limits around thiscentral estimate. It is also assumes irregulars have an incentive to remainhidden and that <strong>the</strong> APS contains no irregulars in this estimate.Second, <strong>the</strong> irregular <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> migrants are derived as <strong>the</strong> share <strong>of</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s as a proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>’s Non EU foreign born applied to<strong>the</strong> LSE’s central, lower and upper estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>’s irregular population,updated for 2008 and excluding UK-born irregulars.Third, <strong>the</strong> second generation <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s are derived based on <strong>the</strong>number <strong>of</strong> live births to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> mo<strong>the</strong>rs in <strong>London</strong> between 2002 and2008, extrapolated back to 1990, with an added component for before 1990births. The central estimate assumes 10% have left <strong>London</strong> or <strong>the</strong> UK, <strong>the</strong>upper estimate assumed no migration, while <strong>the</strong> lower estimate assumes 20%migration <strong>from</strong> <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong> UK.Table 45 shows <strong>the</strong>se estimates for 2008 combining <strong>the</strong> above threecomponents and gives a central estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> community in <strong>London</strong> <strong>of</strong> 113,578.75


Table 45: Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> community in<strong>London</strong> 2008Estimate From <strong>Official</strong> Data<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 Central Lower UpperTotal 113,578 96,171 131,6851 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 79,296 70,098 88,4942 <strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> 2008 17,100 10,800 24,1003 <strong>Latin</strong> Second Generation 2008 17,182 15,273 19,091Notes1 APS 2008 using 95% confidence interval for lower and upper estimatesAPS 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> Share <strong>of</strong> Non EU Foreign Born 4.2% applied to updated GLA central, lower2 and upper irregular estimatesSecond generation estimate <strong>from</strong> ONS vital stats, central assumes 10% movement out <strong>of</strong>3 <strong>London</strong>, upper 0%, lower 20%The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> is currently a significant part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>city’s population as a whole, comparable in size to o<strong>the</strong>r large migrant andethnic groups. However, <strong>the</strong> population has received much less publicattention than o<strong>the</strong>r significant groups in <strong>London</strong>.76


ReferencesDWP (2009) National Insurance Number Allocations to Adult OverseasNationals Entering <strong>the</strong> UK: for 2008-2009, Department <strong>of</strong> Work and Pensions- DWP.GLA (2009) Economic impact on <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> and UK economy<strong>of</strong> an earned regularisation <strong>of</strong> irregular migrants to <strong>the</strong> UK, Greater <strong>London</strong>Authority - GLA, May 2009GLA (2005) Country <strong>of</strong> Birth and Labour Market Outcomes in <strong>London</strong>, DataManagement and Analysis Group - DMAG Briefing 2005/1 ISBN 1 85261 7004.Office for National Statistics (2009). Social and Vital Statistics Division,Annual <strong>Population</strong> Survey, July 2007 - June 2008: Special Licence Access[computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], January2009. SN: 6094.ONS (2009) Have women born outside <strong>the</strong> UK driven <strong>the</strong> rise in UK birthssince 2001? Office <strong>of</strong> National Statistics, Summer 2009.ONS (2008) Methodology to estimate Total International Migration 1991-2007,Office <strong>of</strong> National Statistics - ONS, 2008.Rees P. and Bodin P. (2006) <strong>Estimating</strong> <strong>London</strong>’s new migrant population,stage –1 – review <strong>of</strong> methodology, Greater <strong>London</strong> Authority –GLA,September 2006,Rendall M. Tomassini C. and Elliot D. (2003) Estimation <strong>of</strong> annualinternational migration <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Labour Force Survey <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United Kingdomand <strong>the</strong> continental European Union, Statistical Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> United NationsECE 20, 219-234, IOS Press.Woodbridge J. (2005) Sizing <strong>the</strong> unauthorised (illegal) migrant population in<strong>the</strong> United Kingdom in 2001, Home Office Online Report 29/05.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank <strong>the</strong> Trust for <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Women’sRights Service who funded this research. In particular, we are grateful toMubin Haq and Rachael Takens-Milne <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> Trust for <strong>London</strong> and FrancesCarlisle and Tania Bronstein <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Women’s RightsService. We are grateful to Juan Camilo Cock, Pablo Mateos and SarahBradshaw for <strong>the</strong>ir comments on various aspects <strong>of</strong> this paper and to JuanCamilo Cock for <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> photo on <strong>the</strong> front cover.We would like to thank <strong>the</strong> Office <strong>of</strong> National Statistics and UK Data Archive inEssex for provision <strong>of</strong> Annual <strong>Population</strong> Survey and International Passenger77


Survey Data for various years. The original data creators, depositors,copyright holders, and <strong>the</strong> UK Data Archive bear no responsibility for <strong>the</strong>analysis or interpretation <strong>of</strong> data within this report.Annex - Technical ReferenceA. APS 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> Sample Size and Confidence IntervalsThe APS 2008 samples 546 people who have a country <strong>of</strong> birth in <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> out <strong>of</strong> a total sample <strong>of</strong> 348,699 in <strong>the</strong> UK. The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>sample proportion is 0.157%. This has a 95% confidence interval <strong>of</strong> 0.143%(Lower) and 0.170 (Upper). The range <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> interval is 0.027 <strong>of</strong> 1 percent.This approximates to about 8% <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> sample count (see table below). A lessthan 5% variation is regarded as precise, while a 10% variation is regarded asreasonably precise (ONS, 2009), a greater than 10% variation is anincreasingly less precise estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> population proportion.Coefficients <strong>of</strong> variation for <strong>the</strong> UK sample <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> 8% indicate that<strong>the</strong> estimated <strong>Latin</strong> population is reasonably precise.The <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> sample is 283 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s out <strong>of</strong> a total<strong>London</strong> sample <strong>of</strong> 29,129. This represents 0.972 % <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> sample.The APS 2008 <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> sample proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total <strong>London</strong>sample, vary between 0.86 % to 1.08 %, at <strong>the</strong> 95% confidence limit.Coefficients <strong>of</strong> variation are about 11% so again this can be interpreted asbeing reasonably precise.However, for individual <strong>London</strong> Boroughs <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> sample sizevaries <strong>from</strong> 0 (both Bexley and Redbridge) to 24 (Kensington and Chelsea)with coefficients <strong>of</strong> variation varying between 34% to 195% making <strong>the</strong>seestimates not very precise. The within <strong>London</strong> distribution <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>smust be treated with extreme caution and it may be better to look at <strong>the</strong>average population <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s over <strong>the</strong> period 2004-2008 for a moregeneral estimate at <strong>London</strong> borough level.78


Table 46 APS 2008 <strong>Latin</strong> Sample Size and Confidence IntervalsArea Count N Proportion Lower Upper L Count U Count % diff Comment<strong>London</strong> - Unweighted 283 29129 0.00972 0.00859 0.01084 250 316 11.6 reasonably preciseUK - Unweighted 546 348699 0.00157 0.00143 0.00170 500 592 8.4 reasonably preciseCity <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 15 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 na no latins in sampleBarking and Dagenham 4 1057 0.00378 0.00008 0.00749 0 8 97.8 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseBarnet 13 987 0.01317 0.00606 0.02028 6 20 54.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseBexley 0 901 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 na no latins in sampleBrent 31 875 0.03543 0.02318 0.04768 20 42 34.6 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseBromley 6 859 0.00698 0.00142 0.01255 1 11 79.7 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseCamden 21 1128 0.01862 0.01073 0.02651 12 30 42.4 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseCroydon 2 837 0.00239 -0.00092 0.00570 -1 5 138.4 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseEaling 3 871 0.00344 -0.00045 0.00734 0 6 113.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseEnfield 1 995 0.00101 -0.00096 0.00297 -1 3 195.9 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseGreenwich 2 915 0.00219 -0.00084 0.00521 -1 5 138.4 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHackney 8 1073 0.00746 0.00231 0.01260 2 14 69.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHammersmith andFulham 5 807 0.00620 0.00078 0.01161 1 9 87.4 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHaringey 7 913 0.00767 0.00201 0.01333 2 12 73.8 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHarrow 1 951 0.00105 -0.00101 0.00311 -1 3 195.9 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHavering 1 993 0.00101 -0.00097 0.00298 -1 3 195.9 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHillingdon 1 935 0.00107 -0.00103 0.00316 -1 3 195.9 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseHounslow 4 797 0.00502 0.00011 0.00992 0 8 97.8 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseIslington 22 942 0.02335 0.01371 0.03300 13 31 41.3 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseKensington andChelsea 24 763 0.03145 0.01907 0.04384 15 33 39.4 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseKingston upon Thames 3 843 0.00356 -0.00046 0.00758 0 6 113.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseLambeth 17 1059 0.01605 0.00848 0.02362 9 25 47.2 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseLewisham 7 967 0.00724 0.00190 0.01258 2 12 73.8 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseMerton 4 747 0.00535 0.00012 0.01059 0 8 97.7 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseNewham 15 989 0.01517 0.00755 0.02278 7 23 50.2 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseRedbridge 0 833 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 na no latins in sampleRichmond uponThames 9 815 0.01104 0.00387 0.01822 3 15 65.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseSouthwark 14 934 0.01499 0.00720 0.02278 7 21 52.0 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseSutton 4 781 0.00512 0.00012 0.01013 0 8 97.7 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseTower Hamlets 15 971 0.01545 0.00769 0.02321 7 23 50.2 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseWaltham Forest 6 871 0.00689 0.00140 0.01238 1 11 79.7 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseWandsworth 11 688 0.01599 0.00662 0.02536 5 17 58.6 Less <strong>the</strong>n preciseNoteAPS 2008N=sample count, Count = <strong>Latin</strong> Count within sampleL=LowerU=Upper% diff = % upper count is different <strong>from</strong> samplecountProportion = Sample proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s79


Table 47 APS 2008 <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> Nationality Sample Size andConfidence Intervals<strong>London</strong> 95% Confidence Interval for <strong>Latin</strong> Country <strong>of</strong> Birth 2008Count N Proportion Lower UpperL U %Count Count diffComment<strong>London</strong> 283 29129 0.00972 0.00859 0.01084 250 316 11.6 reasonably preciseArgentina 18 29129 0.00062 0.00033 0.00090 10 26 46.2 less preciseBolivia 2 29129-0.00007 0.00003 0.00016 -1 5 138.6 less preciseBrazil 134 29129 0.00460 0.00382 0.00538 111less reasonably157 16.9 preciseBelize 0 29129 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0.0 none in sampleChile 8 29129 0.00027 0.00008 0.00046 2 14 69.3 less preciseColombia 62 29129 0.00213 0.00160 0.00266 47less reasonably77 24.9 preciseCosta Rica 1 29129-0.00003 0.00003 0.00010 -1 3 196.0 less preciseCuba 6 29129 0.00021 0.00004 0.00037 1 11 80.0 less preciseDR 5 29129 0.00017 0.00002 0.00032 1 9 87.6 less preciseEcuador 18 29129 0.00062 0.00033 0.00090 10 26 46.2 less preciseEl Salvador 4 29129 0.00014 0.00000 0.00027 0 8 98.0 less preciseMexico 4 29129 0.00014 0.00000 0.00027 0 8 98.0 less precise-Panama 1 29129 0.00003 0.00003 0.00010 -1 3 196.0 less preciseParaguay 0 29129 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0.0 none in samplePeru 4 29129 0.00014 0.00000 0.00027 0 8 98.0 less precise-Uruguay 2 29129 0.00007 0.00003 0.00016 -1 5 138.6 less preciseVenezuela 4 29129 0.00014 0.00000 0.00027 0 8 98.0 less preciseCentral America Not o<strong>the</strong>rwisespecified 0 29129 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0 0 0.0 none in sampleSouth America Not o<strong>the</strong>rwisespecified 10 29129 0.00034 0.00013 0.00056 4 16 62.0 less preciseThe <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> sample <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> APS 2008 contains no samplewho have a country <strong>of</strong> birth in Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Paraguay,Belize.For individual nationalities within <strong>the</strong> <strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> sample <strong>the</strong>coefficients <strong>of</strong> variation are varying between 17% to 196% making <strong>the</strong>seproportions within <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>London</strong> estimates not very precise for2008. As full country <strong>of</strong> birth coding is only available for 2007 and 2008 <strong>from</strong><strong>the</strong> APS, so <strong>the</strong> average composition <strong>of</strong> nationalities over this period areunlikely to be robust enough to base a sample weight on. Net migrationproportions may be a better indicator <strong>of</strong> nationality composition within <strong>the</strong><strong>London</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> population.80


B. International Passenger Survey - 2000 to 2008These data are contained in some 33 separate SPSS quarterly files for <strong>the</strong>years 2000 to 2008 and available <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK data archive. Each filecontains an average <strong>of</strong> 65,000 survey records, with each case beingnationally weighted.In migration can be estimated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> data by computing <strong>the</strong> overseasarrivals by air and by sea (including <strong>the</strong> channel tunnel) <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>residents who intend to stay for 12 months or more. Out migration can bederived <strong>from</strong> departures <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK residents who intend to liveoutside <strong>the</strong> UK for 12 months or more. This is undertaken for each <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 33individual IPS data files and annual flow summaries produced for each year.81


Table 48 - IPS based <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Migration Flows 2000-2008<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> International Migration Flows in <strong>the</strong>UK7320 Cuba 0 0 0 618 0 0 411 0 0 1,029 1,0297330 Dominican Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 258 258 2587500 Belize 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07600 Argentina 126 92 514 116 0 276 694 1,484 0 3,302 3,1767610 Brazil 1,571 627 1,921 1,321 3,550 3,930 3,069 1,870 3,329 21,189 19,6187620 Mexico 1,539 609 328 2,212 942 627 493 982 1,376 9,106 7,5687630 Bolivia 78 747 0 0 57 51 53 66 0 1,053 9757640 Chile 0 0 262 0 0 522 582 300 567 2,233 2,2337650 Colombia 900 1,246 0 599 661 456 1,374 3,198 1,035 9,470 8,5707660 Ecuador 878 541 0 751 0 180 0 0 345 2,695 1,8177670 Paraguay 62 0 0 0 0 333 0 0 395 3337680 Peru 0 0 80 0 236 163 131 267 122 998 9987690 Uruguay 43 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 124 817700 Venezuela 1,243 809 49 114 156 404 0 257 1,194 4,228 2,9857710 Costa Rica 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 62 0 142 1427720 El Salvador 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 0 49 296 2967730 Guatemala 0 0 0 87 0 0 265 0 0 352 3527740 Honduras 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 397750 Nicaragua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07770 Panama 0 0 0 0 45 79 0 0 61 186 186IN MIG Total 6,440 4,708 3,235 5,899 5,894 7,024 7,073 8,486 8,336 57,096 50,656IN MIG > 12 months<strong>Latin</strong> Overseas ResidentsArriving2000-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2001-2008OUT MIG > 12 months<strong>Latin</strong> UK Residents Departing2000-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2001-20087320 Cuba 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07330 Dominican Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 936 0 0 936 9367500 Belize 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07600 Argentina 0 0 0 0 1,903 345 0 0 297 2,545 2,5457610 Brazil 2,102 190 1,031 2,807 1,765 2,996 3,004 2,508 2,542 18,945 16,8427620 Mexico 1,402 0 550 0 209 235 220 276 1,806 4,697 3,2957630 Bolivia 0 0 0 0 0 210 0 122 333 3337640 Chile 244 0 0 0 0 1,067 0 1,374 250 2,935 2,6917650 Colombia 0 844 457 240 747 578 0 433 303 3,602 3,6027660 Ecuador 0 0 0 0 256 0 403 54 422 1,135 1,1357670 Paraguay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07680 Peru 0 0 0 174 0 0 0 0 779 953 9537690 Uruguay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07700 Venezuela 0 485 0 0 0 797 198 0 0 1,480 1,4807710 Costa Rica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07720 El Salvador 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 238 0 238 2387730 Guatemala 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07740 Honduras 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07750 Nicaragua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07770 Panama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OUT MIG Total 3,748 1,520 2,037 3,221 4,880 6,229 4,760 4,882 6,521 37,798 34,05182


NET MIG > 12 monthsArriving - Departing2000-2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2001-20087320 Cuba 0 0 0 618 0 0 411 0 0 1,029 1,0297330 Dominican Republic 0 0 0 0 0 0 -936 0 258 -678 -6787500 Belize 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-7600 Argentina 126 92 514 116 1,903 -69 694 1,484 -297 758 631-7610 Brazil -531 436 891 1,485 1,785 934 65 -638 787 2,244 2,7757620 Mexico 137 609 -221 2,212 733 392 273 706 -430 4,410 4,2737630 Bolivia 78 747 0 0 57 -159 53 66 -122 721 643-7640 Chile -244 0 262 0 0 -545 582 1,074 318 -702 -4587650 Colombia 900 402 -457 359 -87 -122 1,374 2,766 732 5,868 4,9687660 Ecuador 878 541 0 751 -256 180 -403 -54 -78 1,559 6827670 Paraguay 62 0 0 0 0 333 0 0 0 395 3337680 Peru 0 0 80 -174 236 163 131 267 -657 45 457690 Uruguay 43 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 0 124 817700 Venezuela 1,243 323 49 114 156 -393 -198 257 1,194 2,747 1,5047710 Costa Rica 0 0 80 0 0 0 0 62 0 142 1427720 El Salvador 0 0 0 0 247 0 0 -238 49 58 587730 Guatemala 0 0 0 87 0 0 265 0 0 352 3527740 Honduras 0 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 397750 Nicaragua 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07770 Panama 0 0 0 0 45 79 0 0 61 186 186NET MIG Total 2,692 3,189 1,198 2,678 1,014 795 2,313 3,604 1,815 19,297 16,605NotesIncludes air, sea, tunnel arrivals anddeparturesIn Migration = Intends to stay for > 12monthsOut Migration = Intends to Stay for > 12monthssample size is approx 30,00 per yearweighted by final weight to represent allpassenger trips83


Table 49 - IPS <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> In-Visitors Flows 2001-2008IN Visitor Arrivals (TAIN) < 12 months2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-2008Cuba 5,301 4,293 2,732 1,790 3,683 6,540 6,124 3,759 34,222Dominican Republic 885 0 1,839 3,303 2,347 2,605 2,414 2,199 15,593Belize 2,073 0 141 0 1,361 0 2,048 5,623Argentina 70,629 22,054 36,290 37,445 27,914 47,681 54,284 64,745 361,042Brazil 97,573 90,558 98,274 128,765 103,197 151,194 201,835 232,297 1,103,693Mexico 110,543 69,242 101,084 99,022 82,991 125,516 93,199 137,955 819,552Bolivia 3,769 5,510 3,156 2,105 6,055 4,863 9,152 4,616 39,226Chile 22,481 15,424 14,203 10,109 18,834 23,566 21,249 25,634 151,502Colombia 28,801 33,087 18,659 21,039 24,128 25,294 29,880 20,215 201,103Ecuador 1,575 3,002 8,127 4,266 3,845 1,894 3,401 3,254 29,363Paraguay 1,024 1,243 0 2,348 0 1,508 309 6,431Peru 2,019 3,970 9,866 6,149 6,591 10,484 5,391 6,881 51,350Uruguay 3,915 3,309 3,588 3,380 7,702 4,652 1,806 9,030 37,383Venezuela 20,352 16,394 9,081 11,684 12,774 29,754 28,513 29,741 158,292Costa Rica 2,545 2,568 1,099 5,796 2,785 6,959 3,893 1,408 27,054El Salvador 4,455 833 820 4,147 1,729 2,385 1,685 1,785 17,838Guatemala 2,248 3,191 1,804 799 4,864 2,145 1,642 1,716 18,409Honduras 2,452 3,362 1,741 3,337 802 355 1,426 683 14,159Nicaragua 0 517 361 1,210 708 682 1,527 0 5,006Panama 2,721 2,360 112 2,309 0 1,751 1,245 3,183 13,681All <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Trips 385,361 280,918 312,975 349,005 312,309 449,829 468,666 551,460 3,110,522Table 50 - IPS <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK Resident, Out-Visitors Flows 2001-2008OUT Visitors (<strong>Latin</strong> UK Residents Departure Visits < 12 months)2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2001-2008Cuba 875 1,648 424 229 256 784 3,215 876 8,306Dominican Republic 279 0 0 0 203 0 622 0 1,104Belize 0 1,008 0 571 1,275 213 450 3,516Argentina 4,605 7,881 8,952 5,940 10,828 11,020 12,053 3,157 64,437Brazil 28,847 21,769 23,552 34,725 33,359 57,761 59,347 50,514 309,873Mexico 12,466 16,809 11,004 18,150 16,440 16,725 18,150 13,889 123,634Bolivia 1,277 225 2,302 560 2,259 2,042 7,059 1,360 17,085Chile 6,864 6,842 7,487 4,452 6,924 5,834 9,413 47,815Colombia 7,884 7,343 4,050 11,104 12,739 4,746 6,923 17,586 72,375Ecuador 436 1,381 1,995 647 1,129 4,327 4,862 4,684 19,461Paraguay 782 0 221 0 715 0 290 1,070 3,077Peru 593 261 1,863 1,530 1,788 1,841 3,671 5,379 16,927Uruguay 200 1,181 227 386 369 403 310 0 3,076Venezuela 3,015 4,977 5,684 1,334 2,242 3,232 9,925 7,360 37,769Costa Rica 0 768 199 668 370 416 2,305 0 4,725El Salvador 0 0 361 623 0 1,139 512 0 2,635Guatemala 0 0 0 264 852 947 275 0 2,338Honduras 173 905 0 0 629 0 351 462 2,520Nicaragua 0 191 0 288 0 0 294 906 1,679Panama 1,694 0 771 1,307 0 0 1,075 1,967 6,813All <strong>Latin</strong> UK resident visits out 69,990 73,188 69,091 82,777 92,376 111,432 131,239 119,071 749,16484


C. Annual <strong>Population</strong> Survey – APS 2004-2008The project uses 2008 APS Special License Access data sets going back toAPS 2003. These were <strong>the</strong> latest consistent time series available when thispart <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> project was undertaken.The APS comprises some 9 SPSS files <strong>from</strong> 2003 -2008. The 2003-2007files are complete annual files while those for 2008 relate to <strong>the</strong> 12 monthperiod July 2007 to June 2008.The APS annual Jan-Dec 2009 set only came out in late 2010 and <strong>the</strong> 2010annual data set is not yet available, even though some quarterly ones are.The APS can be used to estimate both <strong>the</strong> stock <strong>of</strong> foreign nationals bynationality and country <strong>of</strong> birth.APS Weights UsedIn 2007, ONS undertook a reweighting project, whereby APS and LFS datawere reweighted using population estimates for 2007-2008, and <strong>the</strong>se weightsare used in this analysis.In 2009 <strong>the</strong> ONS again undertook a re-weighting exercise on data sets after2006. However, <strong>the</strong>se later data were not consistent with earlier APS seriesback to 2003 data used in <strong>the</strong> project and were not used.In addition <strong>the</strong> project method is consistent with irregular estimates derived for2007 and projected forward to 2008 <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> LSE / GLA study published in2009. The method uses forward estimation and <strong>the</strong> use <strong>of</strong> later APS serieswould involve more error in estimation.85


Table 51 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 2008 – APS based on Country <strong>of</strong>BirthArea <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>Population</strong> 2008 All <strong>Population</strong> 2008 % <strong>Latin</strong> 2008UK 130,186 60,372,758 0.22England 124,928 50,592,874 0.25Wales 1,691 2,951,067 0.06Scotland 2,444 5,088,028 0.05Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 1,123 1,740,789 0.06<strong>London</strong> 79,296 7,535,814 1.05City <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 0 8,592 0.00Barking and Dagenham 631 165,352 0.38Barnet 4,824 329,118 1.47Bexley 0 222,047 0.00Brent 10,470 271,649 3.85Bromley 2,039 298,959 0.68Camden 4,643 231,078 2.01Croydon 1,089 335,693 0.32Ealing 1,128 305,100 0.37Enfield 274 285,345 0.10Greenwich 592 222,591 0.27Hackney 1,592 208,670 0.76Hammersmith and Fulham 1,017 170,825 0.60Haringey 1,778 226,259 0.79Harrow 261 214,928 0.12Havering 295 227,397 0.13Hillingdon 231 250,310 0.09Hounslow 1,148 219,716 0.52Islington 4,540 186,291 2.44Kensington and Chelsea 6,156 180,339 3.41Kingston upon Thames 521 157,744 0.33Lambeth 4,800 271,276 1.77Lewisham 2,243 256,672 0.87Merton 1,256 200,313 0.63Newham 4,028 245,689 1.64Redbridge 0 254,124 0.00Richmond upon Thames 1,938 180,229 1.08Southwark 4,819 274,333 1.76Sutton 948 184,637 0.51Tower Hamlets 3,942 215,285 1.83Waltham Forest 1,624 221,618 0.73Wandsworth 5,159 280,076 1.84Westminster 5,310 233,559 2.27Note: weighted sample proportions notsample count proportionsTable based on <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Country <strong>of</strong> BirthSource: Annual <strong>Population</strong> Survey 2008The table below is based on nationality ra<strong>the</strong>r than Country <strong>of</strong> birth and showsestimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> nationals living and working in <strong>the</strong> UK and<strong>London</strong> by individual <strong>London</strong> borough. These data estimate <strong>the</strong> 2008 <strong>Latin</strong>86


<strong>American</strong> population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> to be 54,060 out <strong>of</strong> a total UK <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>population <strong>of</strong> 82,939. The country <strong>of</strong> birth figures are larger and have a<strong>London</strong> total <strong>of</strong> 79,286 out <strong>of</strong> a UK total <strong>of</strong> 130,186.Table 52: APS <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> Estimates for <strong>London</strong> and <strong>the</strong>UK 2004-2008 based on NationalityArea 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008UK 62,674 64,901 93,127 78,739 82,939<strong>London</strong> 44,826 49,469 52,230 51,542 54,060City Of <strong>London</strong> 0 0 0 0 0Camden 987 1,711 4,604 2,416 3,314Hackney 2,739 3,713 2,128 3,458 1,421Hammersmith And Fulham 2,782 2,722 1,140 1,546 467Haringey 2,513 1,590 2,595 1,926 1,043Islington 1,783 2,392 2,278 2,284 2,647Kensington And Chelsea 808 1,779 2,929 3,473 4,359Lambeth 6,954 5,396 6,547 3,577 4,148Lewisham 852 3,436 2,606 1,557 1,395Newham 2,115 636 2,616 3,378 3,047Southwark 3,329 2,238 4,484 3,124 2,951Tower Hamlets 1,060 1,084 434 3,322 2,560Wandsworth 1,740 2,170 2,513 1,583 5,530Westminster, City Of 3,180 2,441 1,825 3,004 2,863Barking And Dagenham 0 547 638 676 631Barnet 2,296 0 2,073 2,044 3,392Bexley 0 291 739 0 0Brent 2,364 4,277 3,772 8,006 6,270Bromley 0 1,124 561 0 1,625Croydon 369 345 368 573 1,089Ealing 597 958 1,123 353 389Enfield 337 727 0 0 371Greenwich 198 1,485 608 260 270Harrow 0 320 314 277 261Havering 0 0 0 0 295Hillingdon 0 0 268 0 231Hounslow 0 1,303 311 229 267Kingston-Upon-Thames 1,113 651 882 431 164Merton 2,663 2,633 760 928 333Redbridge 526 0 343 340 0Richmond-Upon-Thames 1,602 1,249 1,181 848 642Sutton 180 226 924 723 684Waltham Forest 1,739 2,025 666 1,206 1,401Notes 2004, 2005, 2006 includes population <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r CaribbeanSource: APS, nationalitybased87


Table 53 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> as a proportion <strong>of</strong> Foreign Bornpopulation 2008<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Born as a proportion <strong>of</strong> Foreign Born 2008UK Born Foreign Born 2008 Total <strong>Latin</strong> Born <strong>Latin</strong> % <strong>of</strong> Foreign BornUK 53,868,662 6,504,096 60,372,758 130,186 2.00England 44,574,113 6,018,761 50,592,874 124,928 2.08Wales 2,817,475 133,592 2,951,067 1,691 1.27Scotland 4,827,128 260,900 5,088,028 2,444 0.94Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Ireland 1,649,946 90,843 1,740,789 1,123 1.24<strong>London</strong> 5,040,428 2,495,386 7,535,814 79,296 3.18City <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 7,284 1,308 8,592 0 0.00Barking and Dagenham 120,600 44,752 165,352 631 1.41Barnet 219,335 109,783 329,118 4,824 4.39Bexley 199,187 22,860 222,047 0 0.00Brent 131,225 140,424 271,649 10,470 7.46Bromley 268,293 30,666 298,959 2,039 6.65Camden 141,531 89,547 231,078 4,643 5.18Croydon 244,121 91,572 335,693 1,089 1.19Ealing 163,913 141,187 305,100 1,128 0.80Enfield 189,206 96,139 285,345 274 0.29Greenwich 165,363 57,228 222,591 592 1.03Hackney 137,598 71,072 208,670 1,592 2.24Hammersmith and Fulham 102,639 68,186 170,825 1,017 1.49Haringey 140,687 85,572 226,259 1,778 2.08Harrow 121,658 93,270 214,928 261 0.28Havering 210,741 16,656 227,397 295 1.77Hillingdon 184,738 65,572 250,310 231 0.35Hounslow 132,467 87,249 219,716 1,148 1.32Islington 126,146 60,145 186,291 4,540 7.55Kensington and Chelsea 97,731 82,608 180,339 6,156 7.45Kingston upon Thames 115,022 42,722 157,744 521 1.22Lambeth 171,644 99,632 271,276 4,800 4.82Lewisham 171,989 84,683 256,672 2,243 2.65Merton 138,252 62,061 200,313 1,256 2.02Newham 128,266 117,423 245,689 4,028 3.43Redbridge 164,097 90,027 254,124 0 0.00Richmond upon Thames 141,592 38,637 180,229 1,938 5.02Southwark 180,933 93,400 274,333 4,819 5.16Sutton 151,305 33,332 184,637 948 2.84Tower Hamlets 125,977 89,308 215,285 3,942 4.41Waltham Forest 147,888 73,730 221,618 1,624 2.20Wandsworth 187,853 92,223 280,076 5,159 5.59Westminster 111,147 122,412 233,559 5,310 4.34Source APS 2008 Country <strong>of</strong> Birth88


Table 54 <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> <strong>Population</strong> as a proportion <strong>of</strong> Non EuropeanUnion Foreign Born population 2008<strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> Born as a proportion <strong>of</strong> Non EU Foreign Born 2008APS 2008 Country <strong>of</strong> Birth EU Born Non EU Born Total <strong>Latin</strong> Born <strong>Latin</strong> % <strong>of</strong> Non EU BornUK 55,861,628 4,511,130 60,372,758 130,186 2.89England 46,346,145 4,246,729 50,592,874 124,928 2.94Wales 2,871,004 80,063 2,951,067 1,691 2.11Scotland 4,936,813 151,215 5,088,028 2,444 1.62NI 1,707,666 33,123 1,740,789 1,123 3.39<strong>London</strong> 5,654,644 1,881,170 7,535,814 79,296 4.22City <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> 7,938 654 8,592 0 0.00Barking and Dagenham 131,346 34,006 165,352 631 1.86Barnet 249,938 79,180 329,118 4,824 6.09Bexley 205,792 16,255 222,047 0 0.00Brent 165,497 106,152 271,649 10,470 9.86Bromley 276,147 22,812 298,959 2,039 8.94Camden 167,194 63,884 231,078 4,643 7.27Croydon 267,189 68,504 335,693 1,089 1.59Ealing 205,962 99,138 305,100 1,128 1.14Enfield 211,595 73,750 285,345 274 0.37Greenwich 176,091 46,500 222,591 592 1.27Hackney 150,853 57,817 208,670 1,592 2.75Hammersmith and Fulham 127,126 43,699 170,825 1,017 2.33Haringey 165,035 61,224 226,259 1,778 2.90Harrow 134,207 80,721 214,928 261 0.32Havering 215,240 12,157 227,397 295 2.43Hillingdon 198,970 51,340 250,310 231 0.45Hounslow 152,216 67,500 219,716 1,148 1.70Islington 143,483 42,808 186,291 4,540 10.61Kensington and Chelsea 120,075 60,264 180,339 6,156 10.22Kingston upon Thames 123,575 34,169 157,744 521 1.52Lambeth 194,757 76,519 271,276 4,800 6.27Lewisham 194,164 62,508 256,672 2,243 3.59Merton 153,171 47,142 200,313 1,256 2.66Newham 145,919 99,770 245,689 4,028 4.04Redbridge 179,924 74,200 254,124 0 0.00Richmond upon Thames 157,274 22,955 180,229 1,938 8.44Southwark 204,044 70,289 274,333 4,819 6.86Sutton 161,889 22,748 184,637 948 4.17Tower Hamlets 142,196 73,089 215,285 3,942 5.39Waltham Forest 169,580 52,038 221,618 1,624 3.12Wandsworth 216,420 63,656 280,076 5,159 8.10Westminster 139,837 93,722 233,559 5,310 5.67Source APS 2008 Country <strong>of</strong> Birth89


D. GLA <strong>Latin</strong> irregular estimation method data requirementsThe GLA method <strong>of</strong> estimating <strong>the</strong> irregular population <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong> takesWoodbridges 2001 UK estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> irregular population and updates this to2007 using Home Office asylum and o<strong>the</strong>r data. The method <strong>the</strong>n apportions<strong>the</strong> UK total to <strong>London</strong>.The GLA analysis estimates <strong>the</strong> stock <strong>of</strong> failed asylum seekers at Censusdate 2001 <strong>from</strong> Home Office data over <strong>the</strong> period 1988 to 2001 (first third) at286,000. This is based on figures on asylum applications, withdrawnapplications, refused applications and deportations and voluntary departures.While data are published overall for <strong>the</strong>se categories, <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> countryspecific figures are not available except for Colombia and Ecuador and onlyafter 2005.One method <strong>of</strong> finding <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> total Americafigures given in asylum data is to use <strong>the</strong> proportions represented byColombia and Ecuador given, as representative <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s in <strong>the</strong> allAmerica total figures given. For example in 2008 <strong>the</strong>re were 25 Colombianand 15 Ecuadorian asylum applications, out <strong>of</strong> a total <strong>of</strong> 405 for All Americas.This represents about 10% (40/405) and can be applied to <strong>the</strong> O<strong>the</strong>rAmericas figures given <strong>of</strong> 130 applications in 2008, to give an estimate <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> component <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> O<strong>the</strong>r Americas proportion <strong>of</strong> 13applications. In total <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> asylum applications can be estimated at53 applications in 2008 (25 Colombian, 15 Ecuador and 13 estimated <strong>from</strong>O<strong>the</strong>r Americas). This is a type <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> proportionaterepresentational estimate method.The <strong>Latin</strong> failed asylum seeker stock at 2001 can be estimated as aproportion <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overall 430,00 Woodbridge figure based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong><strong>American</strong> share <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2001 Census population (0.1%). This produces a <strong>Latin</strong>failed asylum seeker stock at 2001 <strong>of</strong> 473 people.The GLA overall failed asylum seeker stock <strong>of</strong> 286,000 represented 67% <strong>of</strong>Woodbridges figure <strong>of</strong> 430,000. The remaining 33% are thought to represent<strong>the</strong> size <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overstayers and illegal entrants at 2001 <strong>of</strong> 144,000. It issuggested that <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> irregulars are failed asylum seekers, withoverstayers likely to be <strong>the</strong> larger <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> overstayers / illegal group (GLA,2009:36).To <strong>the</strong>se estimates are added 4 o<strong>the</strong>r estimated components over <strong>the</strong> period2001-2007 in <strong>the</strong> GLA method.A) The growth in stock <strong>of</strong> failed asylum seekers,B) Overstayer and illegals,C) Regularisations, and90


D) UK children born to <strong>the</strong> irregular population.A: Estimates failed asylum seekers stock between 2001-2007, are based onasylum applications, withdrawn applications, refused applications, anddeportations and voluntary withdrawals. The GLA estimate this to be 219,000over <strong>the</strong> period 2001-2007.The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> estimate <strong>of</strong> this figure is difficult as data are patchy, butusing <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> representational method above <strong>Latin</strong> asylumapplications are estimated to be 2,413 principal applicants, and 2,929including dependents.Dependents are estimated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2008 figures which suggest 5,380dependents accompanied 25,930 principal asylum applicants = 0.21, or 1dependent for every 5 applicants (Home Office, 2009:p21 Control <strong>of</strong>Immigration Stats UK 2008).Refused applications estimated in <strong>the</strong> same way produce estimates <strong>of</strong> 3,823and is larger than <strong>the</strong> number <strong>of</strong> applications, so <strong>the</strong> data may include abacklog. To date data has only been found for 2008 withdrawn applicationsand successful appeals for which an estimate can be made.Deportations and voluntary withdrawals are only given for Colombia andEcuador between <strong>the</strong> years 2005-2008 so this data are incomplete also.Without a more complete time period data set estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> growth in failedasylum seekers between 2001 and 2008 are difficult to make.B: Estimates <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> growth in overstayers and illegals is based on <strong>the</strong>assumption that this group grow in proportion to <strong>the</strong> total in-migration rateover <strong>the</strong> period. Growth in stock at a point in time is proportional to <strong>the</strong>accumulated sum <strong>of</strong> in-migrants. This is estimated at 35% nationally for2001-2007 and for <strong>the</strong> UK is 50,000 +- 20% for <strong>the</strong> low-high estimate.According to <strong>the</strong> GLA report, <strong>the</strong> majority <strong>of</strong> migrants <strong>from</strong> poor countries willtend to be overstayers relative to those <strong>from</strong> rich countries (GLA 2009).This could also be estimated for <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s based on <strong>the</strong>ir rate <strong>of</strong> inmigration into <strong>the</strong> UK and <strong>London</strong> (77%) over <strong>the</strong> period 2001 to 2008 <strong>from</strong><strong>the</strong> in-migration figures given in <strong>the</strong> IPS (table 29). However, first a 2001stock figure needs to be estimated based on <strong>the</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> 2001irregulars. The <strong>Latin</strong> proportion <strong>of</strong> 2001 overstayers and illegals stock <strong>of</strong>144,000 (GLA, 2009) based on <strong>the</strong> Census 2001 <strong>Latin</strong> proportion (0.1%) is158. If this figure were to grow at <strong>the</strong> 77% in migration rate over <strong>the</strong> period<strong>the</strong>re would be an extra 122 overstayers / illegal <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s by 2008.C: Regularisations are where irregular migrants become regulars by somemeans. This is estimated based on various schemes undertaken since 2003to be 126,000 for <strong>the</strong> UK between 2001-2007 (GLA, 2009).1 families and long term residents who become naturalised,91


2 UK Border Agency case resolution exercise since 2006 working on file <strong>of</strong>asylum ‘legacy’ cases producing three outcomes. A) removal <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> UK inwhich case <strong>the</strong>se will be reported in <strong>the</strong> removals / voluntary withdrawals, B)grant <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> asylum cases should be subtracted <strong>from</strong> estimates asno longer failed asylum seekers or C) file closure (no allowance made in GLA)those irregulars making <strong>the</strong>mselves visible for regularisation may perceiveforced removal, so remain irregular.Regularisations <strong>of</strong> <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s is difficult to obtain <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> asylum dataand as a proxy grants <strong>of</strong> settlement <strong>of</strong> asylum cases can be used, but thisdata is not available but could be estimated <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey.D: UK born children to irregular population. The <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong> UK fertilityrate can be used to estimate this <strong>from</strong> <strong>the</strong> survey.Table 55 <strong>Latin</strong> Data needs for GLA estimate methodA Failed Asylum Seekers Growth in Stock 2001-2008Notes1 Asylum Applications 2001-2008 2919.732 Withdrawn Appilations 2008only !! 25.413 Refused Applications (refused less appeals) 2001-2008 3823.63a Successful appeals 2008only !! 19.364 Deportations and Voluntary Withdrawls 2005-2008 not disaggregated for earlier years 1885.185 Growth in Stock <strong>of</strong> failed Asylum Seekers uses 3-3a-4 1919.06B OverstayerC Illegal EntrantsB+C<strong>Latin</strong> Irregular <strong>Population</strong> at end 2008data needsassumes same rate as 2001-2007 in migration flow 77% inc <strong>Latin</strong>sLower, upper + or -20% <strong>of</strong> thisComments1 Failed Asylum Seekers as at 2001<strong>Latin</strong> % <strong>of</strong> Woodbridge estimate 430,000 (0.0011 inCensus 2001) 4732 Growth in Failed Asylum Seekers 2001-2008 estimated <strong>from</strong> above A5 19193 Overstayer / Illegal entrants at 2001<strong>Latin</strong> share <strong>of</strong> 144,000 GLA estimate <strong>from</strong> Woodbridge *0.1% 1584 Overstayer / Illegal entrants 2001-2008rate <strong>of</strong> growth <strong>of</strong> latin in migrants 2001 (4,708) -2008(8,336) = 77% 1225 Regularisations 2003-2008 asylum grants <strong>of</strong> settlement to <strong>Latin</strong> <strong>American</strong>s?<strong>from</strong>surveyTotal Irregular migrants6 Estimate <strong>of</strong> UK-born children to irregulars average dependent child per migrant woman = 1.29(GLA, 2009:p47 Table 2.7)Total Irregular <strong>Latin</strong> Migrants 1+2+3+4-5+6<strong>from</strong>survey92


This guide has been producedby Creative Services for <strong>the</strong>School <strong>of</strong> GeographyFor fur<strong>the</strong>r information contact:School <strong>of</strong> GeographyQueen Mary, University <strong>of</strong> <strong>London</strong>Mile End Road<strong>London</strong> E1 4NSTel: +44 (0)20 7882 8200Fax: +44 (0)20 7882 7032email: geog@qmul.ac.ukwww.geog.qmul.ac.uk/latinamericansinlondonPub8154

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!