West Virginia I can understand given where it is and its industries not as robust as they once were. Mississippi and Alabama though are on the Gulf which I thought would promote more immigration than it apparently does. There's also a fair amount of farming in both of those states which often means an influx of migrant workers who are known to overstay. Since there's no direct link to the data source it's hard to know what's being counted as a "resident".
Table R0501 here found: here. Not sure the exact methodology used. Counting illegal immigrants is very difficult. I know I wouldn't be eager to talk to the government if I didn't have a valid visa.
There seems to be a correlation, but I am a little skeptical of that rationale because, as martay noted, the agriculture industries in Mississippi and Alabama famously use a lot of migrant labor. I'm sure most people would prefer to go to other states, but once they're here and they begin to set up lives, it's probably harder to pick up and move.
I am curious to hear on what grounds your opinion of St. Louis is based? If it is the murder rate, you need to do more research on what is considered the "city". The St. Louis area has over 3 million residents. Only ~350,000 of those residents actually reside within the city limits, and the per capita murder rate is based on just this small area. The city limits contain some of the roughest neighborhoods. If our "city" encompassed the metro area, we would rank much lower than Detroit.
No, I'm talking about the abandoned desolation, 1/3 its 1950 population, urban prairie, 3 houses left on 4 blocks, decrepit city, not some suburb. Right, wrong, whatever that's the type of place where a lot of unsuspecting immigrants first wind up because it's cheap. If you seriously don't think St. Louis is one of the most devastated urban spots in America, start travelling.
Well, I don't to need to start traveling - I worked for an airline for almost 30 years and there are very few US cities that I haven't been in. I grew up in Southeast Missouri and am very familiar with St Louis. I don't have any special love or even loyalty for the city, but I don't find it to be any better or worse than many other major urban area in the US. For the last 12 years, I've worked for HUD so I've seen some pretty bad areas and St Louis is actually better than many.
I'm sure there are lovely parts of St. Louis (and Detroit). That being said, it doesn't really help St. Louis's case to make the argument "if you count our suburbs, we're better than Detroit."
Boise is a decently large city, and there are a lot of people just across the border from Spokane and Logan. I assume that's where the majority of the immigrants come from. Also, there still isn't too large of an immigrant population, just more than the 4.3% needed to be on the quiz. 1 in 20 isn't a lot.
There are parts of southern Idaho that have (proportionally) large Hispanic communities. The state as a whole is about 93% native-born American citizens, and about half of the other 7% are Mexican-born.
Not too many surprises for me, but for some reason I expected to see Alaska on this quiz. Apparently immigrants comprised 8% of the population in 2018. I wondered where they were coming from, so I did a little research. According to the American Immigration Council:
"The top countries of origin for immigrants were the Philippines (32 percent of immigrants), Mexico (10 percent), Canada (7 percent), Thailand (7 percent), and Korea (5 percent)."
I was a bit surprised to discover that most of the taxi drivers are Thai in the town formerly known as Barrow. I'm guessing it's a bit cooler than Bangkok.
I'm from there and it's a charming place but it's really underdeveloped and there isn't much in the way of jobs. it's the only state not to really grow in population since WW2 despite us adding many tens of millions of people to the nation and a comparably high birthrate. People move out quick for work (like me) because unless you want to work in timber, natural gas, or coal (none of which has a particularly rosy growth outlook) there really isn't much else there anymore outside of a couple small cities on the edge of the state and the geography/Infrastructure doesn't lend itself to economically feasible redevelopment
I am pro-immigrant philosophically, but I don't think having a low percentage of immigrants is per se a "terrible thing." There are different reasons these states have low immigration figures. It might be anti-immigrant bias. Or it might just be lack of employment opportunity or lack of established immigrant communities in the first place. Most immigrants would rather go where they have a community than go somewhere they don't, so it becomes cyclical.
Another years-old comment mysteriously and for no good reason gone missing. Honestly, QM, or whomever is editing the comments sections now... FU. Sick of this cowardly passive aggressive BS. I'm out.
I immediately went south-central (MS, AL, etc.), then went non-coastal (straddling the Mississippi), then New England. After some random tries, I missed only WV.
https://statisticalatlas.com/state/Idaho/National-Origin
"The top countries of origin for immigrants were the Philippines (32 percent of immigrants), Mexico (10 percent), Canada (7 percent), Thailand (7 percent), and Korea (5 percent)."