• Overview
• National Data
• State and Local Data
• Public Opinion
• Immigration 101
• Historical Perspective
• Suggested Reading
• Quotes Library
• Glossary

Page Tools

• Email to a Friend
• Print this Page

Maryland

 

Summary Demographic State Data (and Source)
Population (2009 CB est.):	5,699,478
Population (2000 Census):	5,296,486
Foreign-Born Population (2009 CB est.):	730,400
Foreign-Born Population (2000 Census):	518,315
Share Foreign-Born (2009):	12.8%
Share Foreign-Born (2000):	9.8%
Naturalized U.S. Citizens (2009 CB est.):	331,766
Share Naturalized (2009):	45.4%
Legal Immigrant Admission (DHS 2000-2009):	232,695
Refugee Admission (HHS 2000-2009):	14,896
Illegal Alien Population (2010 FAIR):	295,000
Costs of Illegal Aliens (2010):	$1,724,300,000
Projected 2050 Population (2006 FAIR):	7,674,000

 

Maryland: Census Bureau Data

STATE POPULATION

Using the American Community Survey (ACS), the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that in July 2009 Maryland’s population had increased to 5,699,478 residents, i.e., an annual average increase of about 43,330 residents since 2000. That is a rate of increase of about 0.8 percent per year. The comparable national annual rate of increase was 1.0 percent.

 

The 2000 Census found 5,296,486 persons resident in Maryland. This was an increase of 515,018 persons above the 1990 Census. The annual average increase of 1.0 percent was lower than the national annual average of 1.2 percent population increase.

The 2000 population was about 20,000 more persons than the Census Bureau had expected to find in the state in 2000 when it issued its state population projections in 1996. The significance of this is that the Census Bureau has concluded that much of the shortfall in their population estimates during the 1990s was due to an underestimation of the illegal alien population.

The population of Maryland rose by 13.4 percent from 1980 to 1990 (from 4,216,933 to 4,781,468 residents). That was an annual rate of increase of 1.3 percent. The national rate of change was 1.0 percent.

FOREIGN-BORN POPULATION

Based on the ACS, the U.S. Census Bureau estimated that the foreign-born population of Maryland was 730,400 persons in 2009. That was a 12.8 percent share of the total population compared to a national foreign-born population share of 12.5 percent.

 

NET INTERNATIONAL MIGRATION (NIM)

Based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Census Bureau estimated that between the 2000 Census and July 2009 the state’s population increased by about 191,260 residents from net international migration (more foreign-born arriving than leaving). That was an annual average increase of about 20,565 residents, i.e., more than two-fifths (42.4%) of the total increase (not including the children born to the immigrants after their arrival in the United States). At the same time the state had negative net domestic migration (more residents moving to other states than were moving in).

 

 

FOREIGN-BORN CHANGE

The amount of change since the 2000 Census estimated in the ACS indicates an average annual rate of increase in the foreign-born population of about 22,805 people, which is more than three-fifths (52.6%) of the state’s annual average population increase. Since 2000, the foreign-born population has increased by 40.9 percent compared to a 4.0 percent increase in the native-born population.

Immigration also contributes to population growth through the children born to immigrants in this country. Nationally the share of births to the foreign-born is about double their share of the population. A 25.6 percent share of the state’s current births is large enough to account for about 19,245 births a year. Combining the increase in the foreign-born population and estimated immigrant births suggests that immigration may account for about 42,050 persons added to the state’s population annually, i.e., virtually all (97%) of the state’s overall population increase.

The 2000 Census found that 44.1 percent of Maryland's foreign-born population had arrived in the state since 1990. This demonstrates the effects of the current mass immigration, and it is a slightly higher share than the national average (43.7%). In the 2009 CPS estimate, nearly one-fourth (22.2%) had arrived since 2000. That is lower than the less than one-third (31.6%) share of new arrivals nationally.

FOREIGN-BORN CHARACTERISTICS

An indicator of the change in the immigrant population may be seen in data on the share of the population that speaks a language other than English at home. Between 1990 and 2000 the share of non-English speakers at home in Maryland increased by more than two-fifths, from 8.9 percent to 12.7 percent. Less than two-fifths (39.6%) of those who said they spoke a language other than English at home in 2000 also said they spoke English less than very well. In the 2009 ACS, the share had increased to 15.3 percent and of those 39.7 percent spoke English less than very well. Spanish speakers were 39.1 percent of those who spoke other than English at home, and 48.1 percent of those who spoke English less than very well.

The ten countries below constituted 43.7% of the foreign-born population in Maryland in 2006. El Salvador accounted for nine percent alone.

Speakers of Foreign Languages (at home in Maryland in the 2000 Census)
Spanish	230,830
French	41,920
Chinese	34,515
Korean	32,935
German	23,785
Kru, Ibo, Yoruba	19,850
Tagalog	18,495
Russian	17,585
Vietnamese	14,890
Italian	13,800
(Source: Census Bureau report: Language Spoken at Home for the Population 5 Years and Over, April 2004)

The chart above shows the foreign-born population increasing by 40.9 percent since 2000 and the share of that population from Latin America and the Caribbean increasing by 56 percent. That region’s share of the state’s immigrant population grew from 34 percent to 37.6 percent in 2009.

NATURALIZATION

Data from the 2006 American Community Survey indicate that 305,065 residents or 44.7 percent, of the foreign-born population in Maryland were citizens, compared to 234,711 residents, or 45.3 percent, in 2000.

Nationally, 40.3 percent of the foreign-born population was citizens in 2000, and 42.0 percent in 2006

Population Projection

We projected Maryland’s population in 2050 likely would be between 7.36 million and 7.67 million depending on what happens with immigration policy. See “Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050: Four Immigration Scenarios,” FAIR 2006.

Back to Top

Maryland: General Data

REFUGEES

Maryland received 14,896 refugees over the most recent ten fiscal years (FY'00-'09).

LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY STUDENTS

In Maryland overall enrollment in 2008 (845,700) was 0.5 percent above enrollment in 1999. LEP enrollment was 130 percent higher than a decade earlier.

FOREIGN STUDENTS

The 2009/2010 annual report of the Institute of International Education (IIE) lists the number of foreign students attending post-secondary school in Maryland as 14,498. Five schools in Maryland are listed as having a major concentration of these students:

• U. of Maryland-CP – 3,530.
• Johns Hopkins U. – 2,689
• Montgomery Col. – 2,622
• U. Maryland-Baltimore – 989
• Towson U. – 709

Those schools represented nearly three-fourths (72.7%) of the total foreign students in the state.

For information on foreign student issues see: Foreign Students in the United States

 

ILLEGAL ALIENS

FAIR Estimate - FAIR estimated the state’s illegal alien population as of 2010 was 295,000 persons. This is part of an overall estimate of the U.S. illegal alien population of about 12 million persons.

INS/DHS Estimate - The INS (now dissolved into the Dept. of Homeland Security) estimated that the resident illegal population in Maryland was 56,000 as of January 2000. This number was 12,000 higher than the INS' 1996 estimate.

Other Estimates - The Pew Hispanic Center estimated the illegal alien population of the state at 275,000 as of 2010.

COSTS OF ILLEGAL ALIENS

FAIR’s 2010 fiscal cost study, “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers” estimated the following cost outlays and tax receipts:

Maryland Fiscal Costs In 2009
Due to Illegal Aliens ($M)		(Pct.)
K-12 educ.	$921.4	53.4%
LEP educ.	$295.7	17.1%
Medicaid	$174.2	10.1%
SCHIP	$62.1	3.6%
Justice	$137.7	8.0%
Welfare+	$47.7	2.8%
General	$85.5	5.0%
Total	$1,724.3
Tax Receipts	$68.6
Net Cost	$1,655.7

Source: “The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on United States Taxpayers,” FAIR 2010.

Back to Top

Maryland: Immigrant Admissions

Maryland Immigrant Admissions by Fiscal Year
2000	17,705
2001	22,060
2002	23,751
2003	17,813
2004	20,253
2005	22,870
2006	30,255
2007	24,255
2008	27,062
2009	26,722
Total	232,695

Recent immigrant admissions are at 625 percent of admissions just after adoption of the current immigration system in 1965. During the 1965-'69 period, annual admissions averaged about 4,200 immigrants. During the most recent five years, admissions averaged about 26,225 persons.

The charts below show recent immigrant admissions and the cumulative immigrant admissions data since 1965. The number of annual admissions has ranged from 3,263 in FY'66 to 30,204 in FY’06. The cumulative total of admissions to Maryland between fiscal years 1965 and 2009 was about 574,280 immigrants.

 

 

INS DATA BY NATIONALITY: FY'93 - FY'02

The INS data below are furnished for nationals of the countries with the largest number of immigrants admitted or adjusted to legal residence each year since 1993. The absence of data means that the total number of admissions to the United States by nationals of that country was not enough to merit detailed reporting in that year.

The nationalities may change each year, so the totals in some cases will not reflect all the immigrants of that nationality who have become legal immigrants in Wyoming during this period.

The Department of Homeland Security website has detailed data on immigrant admissions since FY’03 by year and by country. (See http://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/data/dslpr.shtm.

The 31 nationalities above represent over two-thirds (70.5%) of all immigrant settlement and adjustment in Maryland during this eight-year period.

The principal countries of immigration were China (including Hong Kong and Taiwan), El Salvador, India, and the former Soviet Union. These countries accounted for nearly three-tenths (29.1%) of total immigrant admissions during the period.

Imigration from Korea to Maryland was given impetus by Perdue Farms Inc., based in Salisbury, the nation's third-largest poultry producer. That may change, however, as the result of an investigation by the Washington Post. Perdue announced in February, 2000 that it was suspending its Korean immigrant hiring program after learning that Korean recruiters of its new employees were charging the immigrants as much as $30,000 and requiring a contract that bound the immigrant to work for Perdue for at least one year. The investigation found that the hiring program, which Perdue had run for 25 years and brought in hundreds of Korean immigrants a year, was being used by middle income, white-collar workers in Korea as a springboard to immigrant status in the United States. The visas were so popular, that the immigration brokers in Korea were able to abuse the program. It is illegal in the United States to require a binding work contract that restricts a worker's freedom to change jobs. (Source: Washington Post, February 25, 2000)

Back to Top

Maryland : Poll Data

 

Rasmussen Poll: Arizona Law SB 1070
July 2010

Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state?

The U.S. Justice Department has decided to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law in federal court. Do you agree or disagree with the decision to challenge the legality of Arizona’s new immigration law?

 

 

A Rasmussen Report poll conducted 500 Likely Voters in Maryland on January 2, 2008 found:

• 76% oppose granting drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens.
• 66% say that when police officers pull someone over for a traffic violation, they should routinely check to see if that person is in the country legally.
• 55% believe that if an illegal immigrant is discovered in this manner, they should be deported

A Washington Post telephone poll taken from October 18-22, 2007 of a random sample of 1,103 adults found:

• 85% want the state and local governments to do more to deal with illegal immigration (53% “a lot more” and 32% “some more”).
• 68% believe the federal government has not done enough in dealing with immigration.
• 49% believe immigration is a serious problem (25% “very serious” and 24% “somewhat serious”)
• 42% believe immigrants today pose a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing, and health care
• 27% believe recent immigration has made their area a worse place to live.

Back to Top

Maryland: Immigration Impact

 

Environmental and Quality of Life Profile

The Chesapeake Bay: Because of population growth, a decade-long attempt to clean up the Chesapeake Bay, reduce air pollution, and combat sprawl has left Maryland's environment no better off than it was ten years ago, according to a 2002 report by the University of Maryland.¹ More recently, the University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science gave the Chesapeake Bay a disheartening grade of "C" in 2009 for overall health, indicating overwhelmingly poor water quality and unhealthy aquatic life.²

Before the 1980s, any incidence of hypoxia at all in the bay was very rare. As more and more people have come and added their pollution to the waterway, however, a zone 90 to 125 miles long and six miles wide at its peak, completely devoid of aquatic life, has become a constant feature.³ This is the third largest dead zone in the country.⁴ Other smaller hypoxic hot-spots dot the bay which, when added to the massive area, means that over 15 percent of the total volume of water in the Chesapeake is effectively dead. Due in part to this catastrophe, Maryland’s famous blue crabs have declined in number by nearly 50 percent of the level in the early 1990s.⁵

The human population in the Chesapeake Bay watershed — centered on Maryland — is expected to reach 19 million by 2030.⁶ If growth continues in the Chesapeake Bay watershed at its current rate, gains made in restoring the bay would be reversed and more than 3,500 square miles of forests, wetlands and farms would be developed over the next 25 years.⁷ Gaithersburg’s Growth Education Movement has issued a study which disproves the popular argument that the impact on the Bay is due to rising per capita consumption, attributing nearly two-thirds of all open-space loss to population growth.⁸

Water Supply: Between 2000 and 2006, Maryland's foreign-born population increased by 31.8 percent.⁹ That compares with a 3.2 percent increase in the native-born population and that includes the children born to immigrants. When the U.S-born children of immigrants are included, immigration accounts for 85.7 percent of the state's overall growth during that time.¹⁰ The state's population is projected to rise to 7.7 million by 2050 — up from 5.6 million in 2006.¹¹ Maryland has a daily, per-capita water demand of 155.6 gallons.¹² This means that if water usage per capita remains unchanged by 2050 public water usage will have increased by 326.8 million gallons each day.

Traffic: As population growth put more traffic on the roads, the average commute for Maryland residents increased 15 percent during the 1990s, from 27 minutes to 31 minutes in 2000.^13,14 In 2009, Maryland’s traffic congestion ranked second worst in the nation, with 49 percent of Maryland's major urban roads acutely congested.¹⁵ Maryland has already seen over 4,000 lane-miles of highway built since 1970, and even this extensive construction cannot accommodate the traffic generated by the exploding population of the area.¹⁶

Nearly half (45%) of Maryland's major roads are in poor or mediocre condition and vehicle travel on Maryland's highways increased 35 percent from 1990 to 2003. Driving on roads in need of repair costs Maryland motorists $1.4 billion a year in extra vehicle repairs and operating costs — $402 per motorist. Congestion in the Baltimore metropolitan area costs commuters $866 per person in excess fuel and lost time, and $1,212 in the Washington, DC metropolitan area per person per year in excess fuel and lost time. ¹⁷

In the Washington, DC-Virginia-Maryland metro area, travelers experience an annual delay of 69 hours (ranked third in the U.S.), and in the Philadelphia-New Jersey-Delaware-Maryland area, travelers experience an annual delay of 38 hours. In the Baltimore area travelers experience an annual delay of 50 hours.¹⁸ One-fourth of commuters in Maryland have a commute that is 45 minutes or more, ranking 2nd longest in the U.S.¹⁹

A study by a Montgomery County planning board task force predicted the weekday rush hour period on the Beltway around Washington could total 14 hours by 2020.²⁰ In Howard County, traffic congestion has begun to clog even rural routes and back roads, which desperate drivers are using to avoid jams on the main roads.²¹ According to research at the University of Maryland, traffic congestion in Frederick, Howard, and Montgomery is even depressing voter turnout at election time by two or three percent.²² Local officials are concerned that firefighters are now unable to reach destinations in an emergency due to traffic congestion.²³

According to urban planning experts, urban flight and gridlock will continue plaguing the Baltimore region for at least the next 30 years, and the future promises worsening congestion and traffic snarls as a growing suburban population commutes into the city.²⁴

Disappearing open space: Each year, Maryland loses 36,000 acres of open space and farmland due to development.²⁵ The Chesapeake Bay Program's Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee predicts that two million acres of farm and forest land in the Bay watershed will be lost to sprawl by 2030.²⁶ The rate of land conversion in the watershed between 1990 and 2000 more than doubled over the previous decade.²⁷

215,000 additional acres of land are projected to be developed in counties surrounding Baltimore by 2030 (a 64 percent increase in developed land); farmland, forests, and wetlands would comprise more than half of that total. The current trend indicates an estimated 50,000 acres in Anne Arundel will disappear by 2030.²⁸

A study of urban sprawl between 1970 and 1990 that calculated the impact of population increase and per capita land use found that 282.9 square miles of additional land were consumed by urban sprawl in the Baltimore metropolitan area, and 27.6 percent of that sprawl was attributable to population increase. In the Wilmington, DE-New Jersey, Pennsylvania metro area, which crosses into Maryland, sprawl consumed an additional 78 square miles over the same period and population increase accounted for 35.7 percent of the increase.²⁹

Sprawl:Over the next 20 years, Maryland will grow by more than a million residents, resulting in the loss of another half-million acres to development and an almost 50 percent increase in Central Maryland's developed land. Under Maryland's Smart Growth program, every county has had to designate growth areas. But most Baltimore-area counties aren't fulfilling the intent, which is to limit growth. Over the next 20 years, 75 percent of the region's newly developed acreage is expected to be outside designated growth areas. From 1982 to 1997, the developed areas of the Baltimore and Washington regions increased by 32 percent and 47 percent, respectively.³⁰

In Howard County, final build-out (the point at which further building isn't feasible) fast approaches after the county grew by 32 percent in the 1990s; in Frederick, water shortages forced the city and county to restrict building; in Harford, there's consideration of making builders pay new impact fees or excise taxes; in Queen Anne's and Talbot counties, slow-growth candidates swept incumbents in 2002 elections.³¹

Crowded housing:In 2005, 42,000 Maryland households were defined as crowded or severely crowded by housing authorities.³² Studies show that a rise in crowded housing often correlates with an increase in the number of foreign-born.^{33, 34}

Poverty:In 2005 9.2 percent of immigrants in Maryland have incomes below the poverty level, an increase of 13.4 percent since 2000. Among non-citizens, the rate climbs to 12.2 percent.³⁵

At a time when there are not enough jobs for unskilled workers, immigration continues to flood the market with unskilled workers, lowering wages and opportunities for American workers; Maryland has approximately six job seekers for every unskilled job opening.³⁶

Education: Between 2000 and 2006, the K-12 enrollment in Maryland increased by over 13,000 (1.6 percent),^{37, 38} and is projected to increase by an additional 54,000 students by 2015.³⁹ Maryland's student to teacher ratio of 15.2 ranks 31st in the U.S.⁴⁰

Howard County's state delegate has called the school crowding problem "a crisis" saying that it's necessary to use "every revenue stream we can get our hands on to stay ahead of the population growth curve." ⁴¹ Since 2001, Anne Arundel has sometimes denied developers permission to build new houses in certain school districts because the schools are already overcrowded.^{42, 43}

In Harford, where public school enrollment increased by 1,000 to 1,400 students each year during the 1990s, the county is building a new $40 million middle/high school complex and spending $25 million to upgrade older schools to serve the increased student population.⁴⁴ In 2003, eleven Harford schools were servicing more than their maximum designed capacity of students.⁴⁵

Solid Waste:Maryland generates 1.63 tons of solid waste per capita.⁴⁶

Air Quality:12 of Maryland's 23 counties received a grade of "F" from the American Lung Associations "State of the Air 2005" report.⁴⁷

Endnotes:

1. Stephen Kiehl, "Md. Environment Troubled, UM Study Says," Baltimore Sun, December 18, 2002.
2. Overview — Chesapeake Bay Report Card," Chesapeake EcoCheck, 2009.
3. "Chesapeake swim: Come on in! The water’s dead," MarylandReporter.com, June 14, 2010.
4. "Manure becomes pollutant as its volume grows unmanageable," Washington Post, March 1, 2010.
5. "Bay-wide Blue Crab: Winter Dredge Survey," Maryland Department of Natural Resources Fisheries Service, 2010.
6. Anita Huslin, "Warning Issued on Health of Bay," Washington Post, July 14, 2000.
7. John Biemer, "Bay Program Outlines Possible Futures for Chesapeake," Associated Press, February 11, 2003.
8. "Growing! Growing! Gone! The Chesapeake Bay and the Myth of Endless Growth," Tom Horton, August 2008 (web published by the Abell Foundation at http://www.abell.org/pubsitems/env_Growing_808.pdf) accessed July 2010.
9. U.S. Census Bureau 2006
10. Jack Martin. "Issue Brief: Estimation of Foreign Born Birthrate." FAIR. 2008.
11. Jack Martin and Stanley Fogel. "Projecting the U.S. Population to 2050." FAIR. March 2006.
12. U.S. Geological Survey 2000
13. "Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990 and 2000," Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau.
14. "Table DP-1-4, Profile of General Demographic Characteristics: 1990 and 2000," Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau.
15. "2009 Urban Mobility Report," Texas Transportation Institute, July 2009.
16. "Annual Highway Mileage Reports," Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration Reports, 2009.
17. "Report Card for America's Infrastructure 2005," American Society of Civil Engineers.
18. "The 2005 Urban Mobility Report", Texas Transportation Institute.
19. "U.S. Population 2007 Data Sheet," Population Reference Bureau.
20. "Duncan Calls for $1B in Transportation Spending, ICC Restart," Associated Press, June 25, 2002.
21. Sandy Alexander, "As Howard County's Population Expands, Cars Flood Rural Roads, Causing Frustration and Accidents," Baltimore Sun, November 10, 2001.
22. Larry Carson, "Voters' Commute May Hurt Turnout," Baltimore Sun, March 3, 2003.
23. Jeff Horsemen, "Forest Drive:2.4 Miles of Backups - and It's Just Getting Worse," The Capital, March 16, 2003.
24. Paul Payne, "Planner: Traffic Should be Backed Up for 30 Years," Associated Press, May 16, 2001.
25. "State Rankings by Acreage and Rate of Non-Federal Land Developed," Natural Resources Conservation Service, United States Department of Agriculture.
26. John Biemer, op.cit.
27. "Chapter 5: Development and Sprawl," Chesapeake Futures Report, January 2003.
28. Ezra Fieser, "Study: Development Eroding Green Spaces," Baltimore Daily Record, May 2, 2002.
29. Beck, Roy and Leon Kolankiewicz, "Weighing Sprawl Factors in Large U.S. Cities," NumbersUSA, March 2001.
30. The Baltimore Sun, Editorial, December 2, 2002.
31. Ibid
32. Selected Housing Characteristics: 2005 Data Set - 2005 American Community Survey, American Fact Finder, U.S. Census Bureau.
33. Haya El Nasser, "U.S. Neighborhoods Grow More Crowded," USA Today, July 7, 2002.
34. Randy Capps, "Hardship Among Children of Immigrants: Findings from the 1999 National Survey of America's Families," Urban Institute, 2001.
35. <"Maryland State Factsheet," Migration Information Source, Migration Policy Institute.
36. "Maryland Poverty Profile 2001: Poverty Statistics for the State of Maryland and its Jurisdictions," Maryland Alliance for the Poor, January 2002.
37. "Overview of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools and Districts: School Year 1999-2000," National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.
38. "Public Elementary and Secondary School Student Enrollment, High School Completions, and Staff From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2005-06', National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, June 2007.
39. Ibid
40. Ibid
41. Larry Carson, "Pace of Growth May Ease, But Not Service Demand," Baltimore Sun, March 23, 2003.
42. Scott Burke, "Overcrowding at School Stalls Housing Project," The Capital, June 29, 2001.
43. Lynn Anderson, "Crowded Schools a Factor in Age-restricted Projects," Baltimore Sun, April 14, 2003.
44. Linda Linley, "ABC's of Growth," Baltimore Sun, October 27, 2002. 42. Ted Shelsby, "Officials Warn Growth Failing to Pay for Itself," Baltimore Sun, February 16, 2003.
45. Ted Shelsby, "Officials Warn Growth Failing to Pay for Itself," Baltimore Sun, February 16, 2003.
46. Report Card for America's Infrastructure 2005," American Society of Civil Engineers.
47. "State of the Air 2005: Maryland", American Lung Association.

 

Other Resources  

State Local Reform Organizations

State Representatives Voting Record

 

Updated January 2012

Back to Top

---

Back to Top