5 ms·
I'm sure that California lost even more than 1 million to diaspora, but the loss was offset by new arrivals. I'm also sure the number of illegal aliens has incr
by throwahey 8y ago
I'm sure that California lost even more than 1 million to diaspora, but the loss was offset by new arrivals. I'm also sure the number of illegal aliens has increased significantly but there doesn't seem to be anyone keeping track of them.
- downandout 8y agoThe net loss, including all offsets, has been 1 million.
- ojbyrne 8y agoI don’t think that’s correct. California’s population has grown significantly over the period you’re discussing. http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-population/ http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/california-populatio...
- downandout 8y agoThe study I quoted was done by the State of California. It's most likely a reliable source.
- Izkata 8y agoIf nothing else, that one doesn't take into account births/deaths and immigration/emigration outside the US.
- ojbyrne 8y agoThe study specifically says “domestic” migration.
- downandout 8y agoThis entire thread is about migration. I was refuting someone's statement about too many many transplants arriving, when in fact net transplants are negative. Births have nothing to do with that. Most international migration to California is illegal.
- dragonwriter 8y agoThat's net domestic migration. It doesn't count international migration, one way or the other.