Michael Barone, one of the few pundits who actually knows things, presents some statistics on internal and international migration in the U.S. Unfortunately the tables don't all format well, at least in Firefox, but that data are compelling nonetheless.
Counties that are gaining from internal migration are exurban counties, mostly in the South and Southwest. In the Southern California conurbation, it's the "Inland Empire" (San Bernardino and Riverside Counties) that is gaining. Even Orange County, California, once a big net gainer, shows net domestic outmigration.
Big losers are the central cities all over the country. In short, the areas that tend to be liberal and Democrat are losing population and more Republican areas are gaining. This is consistent with Steve Sailer's data that show married breeders, who gravitate toward low house prices, tend to be more conservative than the non-breeders who can afford to live in the central cities.
Looking at metropolitan areas, here are the big losers with their losses:
|New York, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa.||1,151,338|
|San Francisco, Calif.||506,241|
|Los Angeles, Calif.||291,180|
|San Diego, Calif.||97,536|
Here Barone adds the international in-migration figures to the big losers:
|New York, N.Y.-N.J.-Pa.||1,151,338||865,533|
|San Francisco, Calif.||506,241||327,724|
|Los Angeles, Calif.||291,180||726,174|
|San Diego, Calif.||97,536||91,725|
Los Angeles and Philadelphia are unique in that international immigration offsets the internal out-migration.
Of the areas that gained from domestic in-migration, only Dallas and Houston show greater gains from international immigration.
In L.A., it's quite clear. Immigrants are pouring in, and the native-born are leaving. As they used to say in Garden Grove, California--will the last American to leave please turn out the lights?
If anyone thought about it, we're not headed to a future that most Americans would prefer.