I'm not wondering. From the Chronicle:
"Illegal immigrants help Texas gain 4 house seats
"...Much of it is due to more births than deaths. One expert estimates that 55 percent of the state’s growth comes from the newly born.
Another chunk comes from in-state migration. Those are people fleeing states with rough economies — like Michigan — for better job opportunities in Texas.
The rest, roughly 20 percent, is from migration — both legal and illegal. (The Census counted everyone, regardless of immigration status.)"
A dubious distinction. I wonder if immigrants (both legal and illegal) are aware they're twice as likely to die in Texas jobs?
My earlier link addresses the purported U-Haul phenomenon:
"But consider this: A truck also costs more to rent from San Jose to Yuma than from Yuma to San Jose. Are we to conclude that Yuma — with the nation’s highest metropolitan unemployment level, at 27 percent — is doing better than Silicon Valley?
The U-Haul theory also assumes that truck renters are representative of workers in general. In fact, those who move themselves naturally have few possessions or lack resources to hire a moving van. Putting aside other issues, would it be reasonable to draw sweeping conclusions from this sample?
Christopher Thornburg of Beacon Economics, one of the economists cited in the Business Journal story last week, dismisses the U-Haul theory as little more than folklore.
“Why are we even having this debate? We know that net migration is about zero,” he told me. Stories like this gain traction because “you have an opinion and you’re looking for some kind of data to support your position.”
Thornburg is no fan of California’s regulatory climate. But in the end, he says, the notion that California is bleeding “is just not true. California has been and will continue to be a success story.”