Policy & Research/Report/News/Immigration/Pathway

Immigration Can Reverse Rural Population Decline

The majority of rural counties have fewer working-age people than 20 years ago. As populations decline and economies shrink, rural communities have to get by with fewer services and fewer resources. But in several counties, increased immigration by just a couple of hundred people each year has erased population losses. These success stories are a model for how smart immigration policy can help reverse rural population decline, providing real opportunities for rural America to regain population and significantly improve quality of life.
Download
Download

Immigration is helping many rural American counties turn an important corner, by growing their workforces, revitalizing abandoned downtowns, and breathing new life into community spaces like schools and houses of worship. Yet there remains ample opportunities for residents living in rural America to attract more immigrants to their communities.

SEE DATA FOR EVERY RURAL COUNTY BELOW

Rural American counties are expected to face growing demographic challenges in the coming years. FWD.us analysis reveals the severity of rural decline: more than three-quarters (77%) of U.S. rural counties have fewer working-age people, ages 15 to 64, than 20 years ago.1

FWD.us analysis reveals the severity of rural decline: more than three-quarters (77%) of U.S. rural counties have fewer working-age people, ages 15 to 64, than 20 years ago.

The majority of rural counties are facing population decline….

WORKING-AGE POPULATION CHANGE BETWEEN 2000 & 2020

"FWD.us projects that nearly three-quarter (71%) of rural counties nationwide would see larger working-age populations in 2040 than in 2000 if just 200 new immigrants settled in their county each year."

… but increased immigration would reverse population losses for most rural counties

PROJECTED WORKING-AGE POPULATION CHANGE BETWEEN 2000 & 2040, WITH 200 NEW IMMIGRANTS EACH YEAR BETWEEN 2025 & 2040

Note: Working-age population (ages 15-64). Rural counties are noncore-based counties according to the Office of Management and Budget’s 2013 rural definition, See Methodology for details.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau population data (2000, 2020). FWD.us population projections (2040).

This rural population decline has accelerated as more people leave rural communities for more urban areas. Between 2000 and 2020, departures from rural counties outweighed new arrivals by 700,000 people. FWD.us projections conservatively show that this trend will continue over the next two decades, resulting in a net loss of an additional 600,000 people by 2040. Those leaving are often in their prime working years, leaving behind a population that is rapidly aging; during the past two decades, the average ratio of individuals 65 or older for every 100 working-age people across rural counties rose to 40 from 26, far outpacing the U.S. overall (25 in 2020 from 19 in 2010).

People are leaving rural America for a variety of reasons: education, work, business opportunities, family. This is not only a population loss, but also a real loss of people, deeply felt by the communities in which they had lived much of their lives.

Unfortunately, internal migration—that is, movement within the U.S. between states counties—is not likely to be enough to counter these trends. Even during the COVID-19 pandemic, a time when significantly more people were relocating, there was not much meaningful movement from urban centers to those rural counties contained in this report, and what movement there was has started to subside, in part because remote workers are returning to offices. Also, those who have relocated permanently are often trained and working in fields that are not a strong match for the skills and labor needed in these communities.

However, to reverse rural population declines and rebuild the rural working-age population to where it was 20 years ago, rural communities can welcome more new Americans as residents. As newcomers arrive, they and their children can, over time, become an integrated part of rural American life, an experience that is historically consistent with the many waves of newcomers entering the U.S, including rural areas, since the founding of the country.

Fortunately, several rural communities have weathered current demographic challenges, and have actually managed not only to recover but also to grow and thrive. Rural communities whose working-age populations have rebounded have one important factor in common: increased immigration. Nearly all of these rural counties have blunted the outflow of residents with an inflow of immigrants. Two of these rural counties – one in Iowa and another in Alabama – are featured in this report, along with another county in Maine that is actively recruiting international immigrants.

Immigration would make all the difference for rural counties in offsetting rural population decline. FWD.us projects that nearly two-thirds (62%) of rural counties nationwide would see larger working-age populations in 2040 than in 2000 if just 100 new immigrants settled in their county each year. This share rises to nearly three-quarters (71%) of counties if 200 new immigrants were welcomed each year. Between 100 and 200 immigrants into rural counties each year represents less than 1% of the total U.S. rural population, on par with levels of international immigration seen into more urban areas in the rest of the country.

Rural counties, like those presented in this report, are already prepared to meet any challenges in welcoming new residents. New Americans are ready to fill open jobs, grow local businesses, and revitalize their houses of worship and schools. In doing so, existing populations in these rural counties will also improve their current quality of life, from having better access to healthcare and potential higher standard of living, more businesses created, and a larger tax base that can be invested in local community infrastructure and services. Rebuilding a rural county’s population is not just about filling open jobs, it is also about improving the quality life for all residents.

For so many rural communities, immigration is an important historical legacy, a fundamental part of the stories of how their family from European countries like Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, or Norway, among others, migrated to rural communities across America so many years ago. It is also a legacy of immigration, perhaps from other parts of the world, that can shape rural communities’ futures in the years to come.

Note: Working-age population (ages 15-64). Rural counties are noncore-based counties according to the Office of Management and Budget’s 2013 rural definition. Percent foreign born available for counties with 5,000 or more working-age residents in 2000. Sources: 1920: Census 1920. 2000 to 2020: U.S. Census Bureau Population Estimates. 2030 and 2040: FWD.us projections. See Methodology for more information.

Immigration helped Franklin County, Alabama, buck national trends

Russellville is the county seat of Franklin County, Alabama, a county in the western foothills of the Appalachian Mountains. On Jackson Avenue—the primary street running through the town—is Sunday worship at First Baptist Church, down-home southern eats at Daily Bread Barbecue, and marquee country music events at the historic Roxy Theatre.

But La Niña, a Latino-owned restaurant, is also on Jackson Avenue, serving up tamales and other goods to newly arrived immigrants and longtime residents alike. This restaurant, in addition to other Latino-owned businesses, serves the 6,000-plus immigrants and their children who, over the span of the last several years, have come to call Franklin County home. 

Russellville’s longtime public librarian describes the downtown’s transformation: “We saw an influx of immigrants moving to the area looking for work, and they started opening little shops, grocery stores, furniture stores, restaurants, bakeries, places like that. We’ve now seen the entire downtown area be brought back to life, and the majority of that revitalization can be attributed to the immigrants who moved here.”

Franklin County was experiencing demographic challenges as recently as 2010. During the preceding decade, on net, about 2,000 people, or about 6% of its population, left the county for other locales. Natural population increase —the number of births compared with the number of deaths—was numbering only in the tens of people each year, hardly enough for sustainable growth in a county of about 30,000 people. In all, the county grew by only about 1.5% between 2000 and 2010, just enough to avoid population decline.

That turnaround can largely be attributed to the 100 to 200 immigrants who moved into the county each year. During the following decade, between 2010 and 2020, the number of new immigrants fell to about 100 each year, but still offered the population growth the county needed to enter 2020 above 32,000 people, a sizable increase over 2010.

Immigrants have been drawn to jobs at meat processing plants in the area. But, they have also started new businesses, like La Niña, and have established new churches for their growing number of Spanish-speaking congregants. More than half of the students in Russellville’s school district are Latino. Overall, about a quarter of Russellville’s students are English language learners. With a major investment in additional staffing for the area schools, students are growing their English language skills, and they are succeeding. With a major investment in additional staffing for the area schools, students are growing their English language skills, and they are succeeding. 

Franklin County has been able to buck the national rural trends. If recent immigration levels continue, FWD.us projects Franklin County’s total population will be at least 38,000 in 2040, nearly 20% larger than it is today. Even with a constant flow of immigrants each year, the county will be overwhelmingly U.S.-born. Projections suggest that more than 90% of the county in 2040 will be U.S.-born Americans, even as new immigrants call Franklin County home in the years ahead.

Many rural counties are facing downward population spirals

Population losses in America’s 1,336 rural counties are compounding. Between 2000 and 2010, 346 counties lost 5% or more of their working-age populations. From 2010 to 2020, the losses nearly tripled, with more than 970 rural counties losing 5%. And population declines are expected to continue: between 2020 and 2030, 694 counties will likely see decreases of 5% or more in their working-age populations. 

Unless there is a significant change, downward population spirals are the new reality for these rural counties. In 2020, 284. or nearly a fourth. of rural counties had seen a 5% or greater loss in their working-age populations for two consecutive decades this century.

Populations in rural American communities are not only shrinking in size, they are also aging, and rapidly. People living in rural America are, on average, considerably older than the rest of the country. In 2020, nearly all (89%) rural counties had median ages higher than the national median age of 38. And while the median age in the U.S. rose by slightly more than a year between 2010 and 2020, the median age in more than a third of rural counties (39%) increased by two years or more during the same period. 

These demographic headwinds challenge the quality of life for all residents, forcing communities to stretch limited resources and make difficult choices. Small-town parks, community centers, and sports leagues have fewer people each year. Schools are closing. Retail businesses are struggling to keep the lights on. Sunday congregations are dwindling in size. 

Demographically, rural America needs more people to breathe new life into local communities. Based on recent and historical experience, increasing immigration is the best and most immediate path forward to revitalizing these communities and securing the future of crucial industries and local job growth.

Immigrants are meeting workforce needs in Sioux County, Iowa

In the northwestern corner of Iowa, nearly four hours from the state capital of Des Moines, sits Sioux County, Iowa, home to near endless cornfields, several food processing plants, and some 36,000 residents.

Like many midwestern rural communities, Sioux County was facing demographic decline around the turn of this century. In fact, the county’s population decreased between 1980 and 1990, and grew little through 2000. Community pride was high and unemployment was low, but many were still moving out of the county to pursue other opportunities.

And yet, a small population miracle happened: the county’s population actually grew by 4,000 people between 2000 and 2020. The explanation? Largely the arrival of new immigrants. Between 2000 and 2010, a few hundred immigrants moved into the county and stayed. That number of new immigrants grew between 2010 and 2020. Most were from Mexico and other Central American countries who decided to move to Sioux County for its affordability, employment opportunities, and a better place to raise a family. Members of these new immigrant communities have entered the workforce and have been growing their families in their new homes. Today, 40% of students in the Sioux Center Community School District are Hispanic. The district also built a brand new high school and added an intermediate school for grades 3 to 5, all to accommodate the recent increase in student enrollment. 

Sioux County has a proud history of immigration. Many of its communities were founded by Dutch immigrants at the end of the 19th century. By 1920, immigrants made up 22% of Sioux County’s population. So the movement of just a hundred or so immigrants each year fits the county’s long history as a close-knit community built by immigrants.

The influx made all the difference for Sioux County. Today, many of the manufacturing and agricultural employers in the county are dependent on this new workforce. And the new arrivals breathed life into the county’s towns and communities, providing opportunities for neighbors to learn from each other and help each other out. While some rural churches are facing closure, a new Catholic church in Sioux County – Cristo Del Rey – was started to meet demand from the growing Spanish-speaking population.

Welcoming new immigrants with different languages and cultures can present some challenges. But as summarized by a longtime Sioux Center business owner: “We’ve gone from ‘We tolerate them,’ to ‘We can’t do without them,’ to ‘We love them.’” Nonprofits supporting immigrants, largely begun by longtime county residents, have been key to integrating newcomers.

The demographic future for Sioux County looks bright. If recent immigration patterns continue, similar to the 100 to 200 new immigrants each year proposed in this report, the working-age population will continue to grow, even as some of its longtime residents may leave for other opportunities. Come 2040, there will be a projected 29,000 working-age people in the county, compared with 22,000 currently.

If Sioux County were to continue welcoming 100 to 200 immigrants to join its community each year, the county would be about 10% foreign-born in 2040, still far short of the 22% foreign-born share in 1920. In other words, even with immigrants solving the county’s demographic challenges for the past two decades, Sioux County has room to expand for years to come.

Increasing international immigration could help breathe new life into communities and economies throughout rural America

The population decline in rural populations will continue to undermine the workforce in these areas, particularly for critical industries like farming, food processing, and manufacturing that our nation depends on. Many local communities face economic devastation as fewer workers mean closing businesses and an inability to attract new business investment. It also harms the greater U.S. economy and America’s economic security, as fewer workers producing food and goods in rural America can add to inflationary pressures across the country. 

Unfortunately, domestic migration of people already living in the United States is unlikely to sufficiently reverse rural population decline. In most rural areas across the country, a growing number of people raised in these counties are simply not staying. Many college-bound kids do not return after they complete their studies, and families are moving out as better job opportunities become available in larger population centers. And although the pandemic did spur a noticeable exodus of people to less-urban areas, much of the movement was not to the country’s most rural areas included in this report. In recent years, U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that many rural counties are still losing more people than they are gaining. And even though some rural counties have seen a recent influx of new residents, many are working in remote jobs that do not meet the employment needs of these rural counties.

Increased immigration has already been helping to reverse population decline in rural counties in recent years. These new Americans are already helping several rural counties successfully turn around decreases in their working-age populations. In fact, nearly all rural counties that saw a decrease in their working-age population earlier this century (2000 to 2010) but saw population stabilization or growth in the following decade (2010 to 2020) had positive net international migration for the majority of years between 2010 and 2020. Even without the additional 100 or 200 immigrants each year proposed in this report, the few counties projected to see their population stabilize through 2040 after years of rural population decline can point to upticks in immigration. 

Immigrants setting down roots in rural counties are likely to find a significant number of open jobs. Unemployment rates in the majority (55%) of these rural counties averaged 5% or less over the preceding five years, according to FWD.us analysis of 2016-2020 American Community Survey data, with job openings across all skill and educational levels. With jobs relatively plentiful, immigrant workers’ immediately filling them can lead to a quick revitalization of local economies. And as rural working populations stabilize with new immigrants, local businesses will also expand, new businesses will start, and additional tax revenue can be used to build new infrastructure, all leading to a transformative cycle of revitalization. 

Immigration could substantially erase the losses in the working-age population across most rural counties. FWD.us projections indicate nearly two-thirds (62%) of rural counties nationwide would have larger working populations in 2040 than in 2000 if just 100 new immigrants settled in their county each year. If 200 new immigrants were welcomed each year, that number would rise to nearly three-quarters (71%). 

Adding 100 to 200 immigrants to rural counties each year would mean a nationwide increase of around 200,000 new permanent residents each year. With additional immigration in the years ahead, rural counties would see a dramatic shift in the age breakdown of their communities: the ratios of those 65 and over to working-age people would be at more sustainable levels like they were in 2000, before this downturn. 

By increasing immigration, if only by a fraction for many rural counties, communities would experience a complete turnaround: more children, enough workers, and a promising future. Several rural communities have already seen the positive economic impact immigrants have made. With expanded immigration policies and a welcoming environment, many more rural communities can experience the same bright futures.

Remote Aroostook County, Maine, looks to immigrants as a lifeline

Bordering Canada, Aroostook County, Maine, is about as remote as any place in America. Dense forests, rushing rivers, small towns, and family farms dot the landscape for miles. Interstate 95 runs through the southern portion of the county, providing a transportation link to larger cities in southern Maine and communities on the other side of the Canadian border.

Compared to other rural counties in the U.S., Aroostook County’s 2020 population of roughly 67,000 people, numbers on the higher end. But at 6,800 square miles, the county is larger than Delaware and Rhode Island put together. Aroostook County’s population is spread out, and its towns are small. So given its remote location, it can be challenging to attract newcomers to the area.

Nonetheless, leaders in Aroostook County, and adjacent Washington County, are making efforts to welcome new immigrants, and demographically speaking, it will be a necessity to fill the growing number of unfilled jobs in healthcare, farming, and forestry. Aroostook County has seen six consecutive decades of population decreases. Between 2010 and 2020, roughly 300 people, on net and on average, left the county each year; and natural increase – the number of births compared with the number of deaths – has been negative for years.

Meanwhile, job opportunities are plentiful. Without additional workers, lumber waits to be processed, fields go unharvested, and older residents do not have enough people to take care of them. Immigrants coming to work seasonally from Mexico and Central American countries have helped close the gap in agriculture, but it is really permanent residents, building their families in the county, that will make all the difference.

That’s why Tim Crowley, president of Northern Maine Community College, is leading a group of community organizers to persuade refugees and other immigrants entering the U.S. to make Aroostook County their new home. As Crowley succinctly describes the situation: “Going forward, what’s the alternative? What’s the future if you don’t bring in new people?”

FWD.us projections indicate that the working-age population in Aroostook County without any additional immigration will shrink to 34,000 by 2040, from 40,000 in 2020. But, if just 100 to 200 immigrants moved to the county each year, the working-age population could start to stabilize around 36,000 by 2040. 

Aroostook County has a history of immigration. In the late 1800s, thousands of immigrants came to the area, as evidenced by one of the county’s town names, “New Sweden.” In 1920, the county’s population was 17% immigrant. By comparison, even under the best-case scenario of 200 additional immigrants each year, the county’s population would be less than 10% immigrant by 2040. Drawing on the county’s immigrant heritage, county leaders look to a day when immigrants may once again breathe new life into its towns and rural communities. Some immigrants have already started to make their home there, but far more are needed to meet the labor demands ahead.

Rural America is ready to welcome immigrants, and Congress can help

For many years, urban areas have benefited the most from immigration, as immigrants have tended to concentrate in these areas. In fact, most U.S. population growth during the past decade in urban areas is due to immigration. 

But it wasn’t always like this. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, millions of immigrants moved to rural counties, particularly in the Midwest. In 1920, about a third (31%) of today’s rural counties were centers of immigration, with foreign-born individuals making up 1 in 10 or more people. A history of immigration represents an important legacy for many rural communities and is part of the pride and nostalgia that longtime residents have for their home counties. 

Community leaders, state officials, and elected federal representatives can build stronger, healthier, more prosperous communities for many future generations living in rural America by taking steps to welcome more immigrants. It is time for rural America to share in the benefits immigration can have for their communities.

At the federal level, Congress can pass legislation to ensure that rural communities can share in the benefits of immigration, while simultaneously addressing the unique workforce and demographic challenges that rural American counties face. This includes building on pathways that have led immigrants to rural areas in the past, like refugee resettlement and humanitarian relief. Congress could also support American industries on which many rural communities are built, like agriculture and food processing and by expanding the scope and increasing the efficiency of visa programs. 

State and local officials, including state governors, should work with their federal representatives in Congress to increase immigration to rural communities in their states. One good example is the Heartland Visa program, a recommended pilot program that would allow state and local officials to help design pathways that benefit them, by incentivizing individuals with relevant skills to move to the parts of the country that need them most. 

The opportunity to stem the pending population spiral in rural America is closing quickly. Many communities are facing seismic demographic shifts that will be next to impossible to reverse. Congress can make substantial differences in the quality of life for the millions of Americans who call rural America home.

Methodology

Rural county projections employ a conventional demographic method called the cohort component model. All data are disaggregated by sex and five-year age intervals, both for the U.S. and foreign-born, to derive population projections for five-year intervals between 2025 and 2040. These five-year age groups enable analysis for the total working-age population, defined in this report as ages 15 to 64. 

There is no standard classification of rural counties. Most government services and funding follow the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) classification of metropolitan versus nonmetropolitan counties to denote urban versus rural. However, some nonmetropolitan counties can still contain significant population centers. 

This report aims to demonstrate the labor needs for America’s most rural counties; consequently, we define rural counties as noncore-based counties according to the OMB’s 2013 definition of a nonmetropolitan, nonmicropolitan area. This generally means that the county does not have a constituted town or city that exceeds 10,000 people. Data from the National Center for Health Statistics as noncore-base counties were used to denote rural counties.2

Base and historical data for the total population in 2000 and 2010 were derived from the U.S. Census Bureau’s vintage population estimates, reflecting the census counts for each year. Base data of sex and age groups are drawn from the 2020 Census’ Demographic and Housing Characteristics file. Foreign-born estimates by county for 2020 are drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau estimates based on the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS).3 Foreign-born estimates for 1920 are drawn from the complete 1920 Census as downloaded from IPUMS. 

Fertility rates are differentiated for U.S.-born and foreign-born women ages 15-44.4 Fertility rates for U.S.-born women were drawn from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2016-2021 natality data as rates for unidentified counties in each state. These counties are largely rural, as the CDC only provides state-specific fertility rates for more populated counties. Fertility rates for foreign-born women are drawn from the 2016-2020 ACS; these fertility rates are national-level estimates for foreign-born women living in rural areas. As per demographic convention in the U.S., births to both U.S.- and foreign-born women are assumed to have a 105-male-to-100-female ratio.

Mortality rates are not differentiated for U.S.-born and foreign-born individuals, as county data for this differentiation is largely unavailable. Mortality rates are calculated by state from 2019 CDC vital records data for rural areas. Life tables are generated for each state whereby survival ratios are calculated to apply mortality in projections. 

Current domestic migration levels are based on the average, annual net domestic population flow between 2010 and 2020 within each county as drawn from the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau’s vintage population components of change file and distributed by age and sex according to those who lived in a different county a year earlier, as drawn from the 2016-2020 ACS. Annual net domestic migration rates (negative in nearly all rural counties) are then calculated using the total 2015 population by age and sex. These domestic migration rates are applied to the U.S.-born population in each county for each projected year (2025 to 2040). Rates are added in two parts, half for the beginning of the projection year and the other half at the end of each projection year after taking mortality into account.5

Current international migration levels are based on the average, annual international population flow between 2010 and 2020 within each county as drawn from the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau’s vintage population components of change file and distributed by age and sex according to those who lived abroad a year earlier and live in a rural area, as drawn from the 2016-2010 ACS. Annual net international migration rates (positive in nearly all rural counties) are then calculated using the total 2015 population by age and sex. These international migration rates are applied to the total population in each county for each projected year (2025 to 2040). Rates were added in two parts, half for the beginning of the projection interval and the other half at the end of each projection interval after taking mortality into account.

International migration scenarios of an added 100 or 200 international migrants each year in each county are distributed by age and sex according to those ages 0 to 49 years among temporary worker and dependent visa holders identified by FWD.us researchers in 2021 ACS data. This distribution is meant to be a proxy for the age and sex distribution of newly arrived immigrants. Added immigrants are included in two parts, half for the beginning of the projection interval and the other half at the end of each projection interval after taking mortality into account. Since legislation in Congress for a rural or regional visa would likely take a year or more to implement, added immigrant scenarios are applied only for the 2030, 2035, and 2040 projection intervals.

Projections are derived for the foreign-born population separately from the U.S.-born population. International migrants, both at current and added scenario levels, are added to the foreign-born population, starting at the base year of 2020. This permitted the calculation of the percentage of foreign-born in most counties for each projected interval.6

Quality checks

Trial projections were computed for 2015 and 2020 based on 2010 data to test the validity of the aforementioned projection methods and assumptions; county projections for 2015 and 2020 were largely within +/- 5% of actual population estimates for these years. Recently released county population estimates for 2022 were checked against population trends in the projections. As an additional validation check, total populations at the county level were compared to projections estimated by several state data centers.

  1. Rural counties are noncore-based counties according to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) 2013 rural definition. These counties have fewer than 10,000 individuals in any of their constituted towns or cities as of 2010. See our Methodology for more details.
  2. At the time of this report’s release, OMB had released the 2023 definitions for nonmetropolitan, nonmicropolitan areas based on the 2020 Census. Even though the micropolitan threshold changed in the 2023 update, the 10,000 population threshold for nonmicropolitan counties did not. Consequently, unless one of the 2013 classified counties experienced a major population change in one of its towns or cities causing it to cross the 10,000 threshold, the list should be mostly the same in 2013 and 2023.
  3. The U.S. Census Bureau cautions against the use of the single-year 2020 ACS file due to potential coverage issues during the pandemic, particularly among foreign-born populations.
  4. Incomplete fertility data for women ages 45-49 in rural areas made it difficult to consistently include the fertility of this age group, and is expected to be minimal.
  5. The projection calculations operate under the assumption that domestic immigration rates are for the U.S.-born population while international migration rates are for foreign-born populations. This may not always be a safe operating assumption, particularly for the departure of foreign-born individuals out of rural counties to more urban centers. However, the primary immigration policy being presented in this report assumes that residency permits for immigrants being added through a rural immigration program would be conditional on residence in the rural county for a considerable amount of time; consequently, they should not be moving from these locations at the same rate as the U.S.-born population in these same counties.
  6. Percent foreign-born is not provided for counties with less than 5,000 working-age persons in 2020 as the reliability of such estimates, due to these counties’ small population sizes, can be questionable.
Tell the world; share this article via...
Read related articles:
  • Report
  • Immigration
  • News

Increasing Future Immigration Grows the U.S.’ Competitive Advantage

  • Blog
  • Immigration
  • News

Immigrant Farmworkers and America’s Food Production – 5 Things to Know

  • Policy & Research
  • Immigration
  • News

Inflation and Immigration

See All the News
Act Now

Get Involved

We need your help to move America forward. Learn what you can do.