View/save PDF version of this document - La Strada International

in the populous fourteen states of the Northeast that were attracting largenumbers of immigrants while at the same time losing many of their nativeborn.It is to states in this region that the Hatton-Williamson crowding-outresults reported above apply. Here we review their evidence.Figure 5 plots for each state the net migration rates of the native- andforeign-born for the 1890s. 8 The surprise, in seeming contradiction tothe conclusions presented by Hatton and Williamson, is the positivecorrelation between native- and foreign-born migration rates. That is,states experiencing the largest exoduses of the native-born – Vermont,Maine, New Hampshire, Michigan, and (hidden just to the upper right ofNew Hampshire) Wisconsin – reported very small inflows of foreign-born.Immigrant inflows were less than one percent of the resident population.While on balance more native-born left these states than entered, crowdingout by foreigners does not appear to explain the exodus. More likely, thenative-born left because of the poor state of New England agriculture andthe attractive agricultural opportunities out West (Barron 1984). States withthe heaviest inflows of the foreign-born – Rhode Island, Massachusetts,Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey – on the other hand were alsoattracting the native-born migrants.1418The data for other decades is qualitatively similar. The correlation coefficients between nativeandforeign-born net migrations are 0.64, 0.70, and 0.77 for the decades of the 1880s, 1890s, and1900s, respectively. Only Wisconsin in the 1880s displayed migration patterns consistent withpossible crowding out. In that decade an 18.7 percent immigration rate was associated with an 8.2percent outflow of the native born.