E.g., 11/23/2017
E.g., 11/23/2017

Profile of the Unauthorized Population - County Data

Profile of the Unauthorized Population:
Maricopa County, AZ

DemographicsEstimate% of Total
Unauthorized Population172,000100%
Top Countries of Birth
- - -
- - -
Regions of Birth
Mexico and Central America156,00090%
Caribbean - -
South America - -
Years of U.S. Residence
Less than 521,00012%
5 to 928,00016%
10 to 1452,00030%
15 to 1940,00023%
20 or more32,00018%
Under 1616,0009%
16 to 2423,00014%
25 to 3446,00027%
35 to 4447,00028%
45 to 5424,00014%
55 and over16,0009%
FamilyEstimate% of Total
Parental Status
Population ages 15 and older159,000100%
Reside with at least one U.S.-citizen child under 1863,00040%
Reside with noncitizen children only under 188,0005%
Reside with no children 88,00055%
Marital Status
Population ages 15 and older159,000100%
Never married63,00040%
Married to a U.S. citizen9,0006%
Married to a legal permanent resident (LPR)12,0007%
Married to non-U.S. citizen/non-LPR44,00028%
Divorced, separated, widowed31,00019%
Education and LanguageEstimate% of Total
School Enrollment of Children and Youth
Population ages 3 to 1720,000100%
Not enrolled - -
Population ages 3 to 129,000100%
Not enrolled - -
Population ages 13 to 1711,000100%
Not enrolled - -
Population ages 18 to 2419,000100%
Not enrolled14,00074%
Educational Attainment of Adults
Population ages 25 and older133,000100%
0-5 grade16,00012%
6-8 grade33,00025%
9-12 grade28,00021%
High school diploma or GED33,00025%
Some college or associate’s degree14,00011%
Bachelor’s, graduate, or professional degree9,0007%
English Proficiency
Population ages 5 and older171,000100%
Speak only English9,0005%
Speak English "very well"44,00026%
Speak English "well"28,00016%
Speak English "not well"/"not at all"89,00052%
Top 5 Languages Spoken at Home
Population ages 5 and older171,000100%
- - -
- - -
- - -
WorkforceEstimate% of Total
Labor Force Participation
Civilian population ages 16 and older156,000100%
Not in the labor force59,00037%
Top Industries of Employment*
Civilian employed population ages 16 and older105,000100%
Professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management22,00021%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services18,00017%
Other services (except public administration)10,0009%
EconomicsEstimate% of Total
Family Income
Below 50% of the poverty level39,00023%
50-99% of the poverty level39,00022%
100-149% of the poverty level31,00018%
150-199% of the poverty level21,00012%
At or above 200% of the poverty level42,00024%
Access to Health Insurance
Home Ownership**


Source: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2014 American Community Survey (ACS), 2010-2014 ACS pooled, and the 2008 Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) by James Bachmeier of Temple University and Jennifer Van Hook of The Pennsylvania State University, Population Research Institute. 

Note: For U.S., state, and county estimates of the unauthorized population potentially eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, click here.

Data-related notes
* “Top Industries of Employment” are those in which unauthorized immigrants were employed at the time of the survey or during the last five years. “Other services” are miscellaneous services, not including the following services listed separately: (1) professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services; (2) educational, health and social services; and (3) arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food services.

** “Homeowners” are unauthorized immigrants residing in homes that are owned, not rented.

+ Includes the following Colorado counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Douglas, Jefferson, Boulder, Broomfield, Gilpin, Clear Creek, and a portion of Elbert.

++ NECTAs refer to New England City and Town Areas, geographic entities defined by the U.S. Census Bureau for use as alternatives to counties in the six-state New England region.

  1. “School Enrollment of Children and Youth” refers to unauthorized immigrants who reported attending school or college at any time in the three months prior to the survey.
  2. For languages, "Chinese" includes Mandarin, Cantonese, and other Chinese languages; “English” includes English, Jamaican Creole, Krio, and Pidgin Krio; "French" includes French, Patois, French or Haitian Creole, and Cajun; “Hindi and related” includes Hindi, Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Marathi, Gujarati, Sindhi, Sinhalese, and Kannada; “Sub-Saharan African” includes Bantu, Swahili, Mande, Fulani, Kru, and other African languages; “Tagalog/Other Filipino” includes Tagalog, Bisayan, Sebuano, Llocano, and Hocano.
  3.  “-“ estimates are zero, not applicable, or not displayed due to small sample size.
  4. Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.

Methodology in Brief:
In the SIPP, noncitizens report whether they currently have LPR status—i.e., a green card. Those without LPR status may be recent refugees, temporary visitors (e.g., students or high-skilled H-1B workers), Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries, or unauthorized immigrants. Our method maps characteristics such as country of birth, year of U.S. entry, age, gender, and educational attainment between the two surveys, and those noncitizens in the ACS who have characteristics similar to those reporting LPR status in the SIPP are coded as LPRs in the ACS. The remaining noncitizens—who are similar in characteristics to those not reporting LPR status in the SIPP—are classified as either unauthorized or legal temporary migrants, depending on whether they meet the qualifications for H-1B, TPS, and the other temporary classifications. This method was developed by Jennifer Van Hook of The Pennsylvania State University and James Bachmeier of Temple University. For more detail on the methods, see Jeanne Batalova, Sarah Hooker, Randy Capps, and James D. Bachmeier, DACA at the Two-Year Mark: A National and State Profile of Youth Eligible and Applying for Deferred Action (Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute, 2014). Please note that these estimates use commonly accepted benchmarks from other research studies to determine the size of the unauthorized population and response rates to surveys. These estimates have the same sampling and coverage errors as any other survey-based estimates that rely on ACS and other Census Bureau data.