Immigrant_impact:
Mapping the local economic contributions of immigrants in the US
Immigration in the United States has become highly politicized. For every story that spotlights an immigrant entrepreneur, doctor, or teacher who is helping revitalize their community, one can find another that paints immigrants as scapegoats for economic woes. Although these negative anecdotes may do little to sway an already self-proclaimed immigrant advocate, it can leave many of its unversed readers confused about what national narrative they should be supporting.

By analyzing the proportional economic contributions of immigrants in their local communities, we can compare their impact and give a more comprehensive picture of their contributions across the country.

We show that more often than not, immigrants are making outstanding contributions. However, not all immigrants are contributing at the same levels across the country.

National disparities in contributions do not say anything inherent about the immigrants’ propensity to contribute. In fact, instances of under-contribution are often in constant flux and geographically clustered. We hope that highlighting these disparities across regions, states and metropolitan areas will illuminate how political environments and structures may be helping uplift some immigrant communities while limiting others.
We have constructed a metric that measures the impact immigrants have on their local economies. It is composed of three key indicator values for immigrants as a proportion of values for the local community (PUMA) they reside in: tax contributions, entrepreneurship and participation in key industries. Let's take a look at this metric for 2012.

On this map, blue indicates PUMAs that fostered significant immigrant contributions to their local economy, white indicates standard PUMAs where immigrants contributed at par with their share of the population and yellow indicates PUMAs where immigrant contributions were under-utilized.
We visualize the PUMAs in which immigrant contributions are significantly different from the expected value in the dot plot below. The dots are sized according to the number of immigrants in the PUMA and are colored according to the impact score of immigrants in those communities.
Using our Immigrant Impact Metric we can see that 87% of immigrants live in PUMAs that are either fostering increased contributions or maintaining proportional immigrant economic contributions to the local economy.

Moreover, immigrants are nationally overrepresented in PUMAs where they are making outsize contributions! 26.9% of the immigrant population lives in fostering PUMAs — which make up only 17.9% of the total PUMAs in the country.
It’s clear from the dot plot that not all PUMAs have the same share of immigrants. In this sense, the map can actually be misleading since larger PUMAs (regardless of their immigrant population) draw more attention.

To give you some perspective on where immigrants live in the US, let’s quickly scale states by their immigrant populations.

For the sake of clarity we'll continue with the regular map but it’s important to keep in mind that PUMA size isn’t representative of the immigrant population and their relative impact.
To better understand regional trends in immigrant contributions, lets smooth out this map and take a look at regional hotspots.
Now lets pop up a timeline and take a look at whether these regional hotspots evolve over time.
Across time, the overall proportional breakdown of immigrant economic impact remains pretty consistent. PUMAs that foster immigrants are more common and hold consistently larger immigrant populations than those that under-utilize them.
However, there are some clear regional hotspots that need further exploration. Let's take a look at these regions in more detail with 2017 data.
We divide the US into 5 major regions and rank them by their share of fostering PUMAs. The Southwest ranks first with both the largest share of fostering PUMAs and the smallest share of under-utilizing PUMAs. In other words, 92.6% of its PUMAs are either standard or fostering PUMAs.
Let’s take a closer look at the variation within these regions by looking at states.
Lastly, let’s look at economic impact across the urban/rural divide.