Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on June 13, 2007

Click here to view bill details.

Michigan has one of the highest if not the highest population densities of Arab people. I sure hope our legislators get the budget wrapped up and pay attention to what is ALSO important. Our SECURITY, please. Interesting that the most Arabs in the U.S. are at the Canadian borders, Dearborn, Port Huron, U.P., even a high concentration at the Indiana border of Michigan, the state with the most fresh water in the world. Florida, also a peninsula and therefore, isolated from other states, also has a high population. Something for our leaders to keep in mind. The following is a great census website. 2003 Census Information for Arab Population Density in United States The information on ancestry was collected on the “long form” of the census questionnaire, which was sent to approximately one-sixth of all households. Item 10 on the questionnaire asked respondents to identify their ancestry or ethnic origin (see Figure 1).4 As many as two ancestries were tabulated per respondent; if either response was included in the definition of Arab used here, the person is included in this analysis. Around 19 percent of the U.S. population provided no response to the ancestry question. Ancestry refers to ethnic origin, descent, “roots,” heritage, or place of birth of the person or of the person’s ancestors. The ancestry question was not intended to measure the degree of attachment to a particular ethnicity, but simply to establish that the respondent had a connection to and self-identified with a particular ethnic group. For example, a response of “Lebanese” might reflect involvement in a Lebanese community or only a memory of Lebanese ancestors several generations removed. The data in this report are based solely on responses to the Census 2000 ancestry question. Questions that were positioned before the ancestry question where respondents might have indicated an Arab origin (namely race, Hispanic origin, and place of birth) were not considered. Although religious affiliation can be a component of ethnic identity, neither the ancestry question nor any other question on the decennial census form was designed to collect information about religion. No religious information was tabulated from Census 2000. Religious responses were all reclassified as “Other groups.” This report presents national, regional, state, county, and selected place-level information for the total Arab population, as well as additional detailed information for the three largest Arab groups: Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian. Smaller groups are shown only at the national level. The Arab population, which numbered over 1 million in 2000, increased by nearly 40 percent during the 1990s. In 2000, 1.2 million people reported an Arab ancestry in the United States, up from 610,000 in 1980 (when data on ancestry were first collected in the decennial census) and 860,000 in 1990. The Arab population increased over the last two decades: 41 percent in the 1980s and 38 percent in the 1990s.5 Arabs represented 0.42 percent of the U.S. population in 2000, compared with 0.27 percent in 1980. People of Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian ancestry accounted for about three-fifths of the Arab population. In 2000, more than one-third of those reporting an Arab ancestry were Lebanese (37 percent, see Table 1), including both people who indicated that they were only Lebanese and those who reported being both Lebanese and another ancestry, which might or might not also be Arab.6 The next largest specific groups were Syrian and Egyptian (12 percent each). Among the nearly half-million people who reported other specific Arab ancestries, the largest proportion was Palestinian (6.1 percent of the total Arab population). The Jordanian, Moroccan, and Iraqi populations were also sizable (3.3 percent, 3.3 percent, and 3.2 percent, respectively).7 An additional 4.3 percent of the Arab population identified themselves as Yemeni, Kurdish, Algerian, Saudi Arabian, Tunisian, Kuwaiti, Libyan, Berber, or other specific Arab ancestries, each of which accounted for 1 percent or less of the total Arab population.8 A substantial portion of the Arab population (20 percent) identified with general Arab ancestries, such as “Arab” or “Arabic” (17 percent), “Middle Eastern” (2.4 percent), or “North African” (0.3 percent). This population was second in size only to the Lebanese ancestry group. During the 1990s, the Egyptian population increased numerically more than any other group. The number of people with Egyptian ancestry grew by 64,000, the most of any specific Arab ancestry group (see Table 1), increasing from 79,000 in 1990 to 143,000 in 2000 (growing by 82 percent). The number of people who identified as Lebanese also grew substantially, but by a smaller proportion, from 394,000 to 440,000 over the decade, an increase of 12 percent. Syrians, who numbered 130,000 in 1990, grew to 143,000 in 2000 (or by 10 percent).9 5 The estimates in this report are based on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements made in this report have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 6 Hereafter, estimates of specific ancestry groups include people who reported solely that ancestry or who reported it in combination with another one. 7 The proportions of the population who were Jordanian, Moroccan, or Iraqi were not statistically different. 8 The proportion of the population that was Yemeni was not statistically less than 1 percent. 9 The growth in the Syrian population from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically different from the growth in the Lebanese population. 4 The term respondent is used here to refer to all individuals for whom one or more ancestries were reported, whether or not one person answered the question for all household members. Among the smaller Arab ancestry groups, the Moroccan, Jordanian, and Palestinian populations grew the most numerically over the decade. Proportionally, each of those groups experienced substantial growth as well, increasing by at least half. The number of Moroccans doubled (104 percent increase) to 39,000. People who identified as Jordanian increased 92 percent to 40,000, and the number who reported they were Palestinian increased by 50 percent to 72,000.10 The Yemeni-ancestry population tripled between 1990 and 2000. People with Yemeni ancestry increased from 4,000 in 1990 to 12,000 in 2000. In addition, the Kurdish and Algerian populations also experienced a high growth rate over the decade, from 2,000 and 3,000 respectively in 1990 to 9,000 each in 2000. The number of people who responded as “Arab” or “Middle Eastern” to the ancestry question increased over the decade. Between 1990 and 2000, an increasing share of the Arab population identified themselves by a general term such as Arab or Middle Eastern and gave no other specific Arab ancestry. The population who identified as “Arab” or “Arabic” increased by 62 percent, reaching 206,000 in 2000. The number of people who reported being “Middle Eastern” was much smaller, but quadrupled to 28,000. U.S. Census Bureau 3 Table 1. Arab Population by Ancestry: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Subject 1990 2000 Change, 1990 to 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248,709,873 100.00 281,421,906 100.00 32,712,033 13.2 TOTAL ARAB POPULATION AND ANCESTRY1 Total Arab population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,354 0.35 1,189,731 0.42 329,377 38.3 Lebanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394,180 45.82 440,279 37.01 46,099 11.7 Syrian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,606 15.06 142,897 12.01 13,291 10.3 Egyptian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,574 9.13 142,832 12.01 64,258 81.8 All other Arab reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,378 31.19 476,863 40.08 208,485 77.7 Specific Arab ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,066 15.35 239,424 20.12 107,358 81.3 Palestinian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,019 5.58 72,112 6.06 24,093 50.2 Jordanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,656 2.40 39,734 3.34 19,078 92.4 Moroccan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,089 2.22 38,923 3.27 19,834 103.9 Iraqi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,212 2.70 37,714 3.17 14,502 62.5 Yemeni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,093 0.48 11,683 0.98 7,590 185.4 Kurdish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,181 0.25 9,423 0.79 7,242 332.0 Algerian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,215 0.37 8,752 0.74 5,537 172.2 Saudi Arabian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,486 0.52 7,419 0.62 2,933 65.4 Tunisian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,376 0.28 4,735 0.40 2,359 99.3 Kuwaiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,306 0.15 3,162 0.27 1,856 142.1 Libyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,172 0.25 2,979 0.25 807 37.2 Berber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 0.06 1,327 0.11 797 150.4 Other specific Arab ancestry2 . . . . . . . . . . . 731 0.08 1,461 0.12 730 99.9 General Arab ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136,312 15.84 237,439 19.96 101,127 74.2 Arab or Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,364 14.80 205,822 17.30 78,458 61.6 Middle Eastern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,656 0.89 28,400 2.39 20,744 271.0 North African. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,292 0.15 3,217 0.27 1,925 149.0 1 Because respondents could list up to two ancestries, the total number of ancestries reported will sum to more than the total number of people. 2 Groups whose population was less than 1,000 in 2000, including Emirati (United Arab Emirates), Omani, Qatari, Bahraini, Alhuceman, Bedouin, and Rio de Oro. Source: 2000 data from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 4 and Sample Edited Detail File; 1990 data from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Sample Edited Detail File. 10 The growth in the Moroccan population from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically different from the growth in the Jordanian population. THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE OF ARAB ANCESTRY People of Arab ancestry were fairly evenly distributed among the four regions of the United States. In 2000, 27 percent of the Arab population lived in the Northeast, while 26 percent lived in the South, 24 percent in the Midwest, and 22 percent in the West (see Table 2).11 Arabs accounted for 0.6 percent of the total population in the Northeast but for only 0.3 percent of the total population in the South. About half of the Arab population was concentrated in only five states. In 2000, 576,000 Arabs (or 48 percent of the Arab population) lived in just five states: California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. These states contained 31 percent of the total U.S. population. People reporting an Arab ancestry also numbered over 40,000 in five other states (Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas).12 Over the last decade, the Arab population increased in almost every state. From 1990 to 2000, the number of people with Arab ancestry increased in most states.13 The Arab population in California increased by 48,000, more than in any other state. The Arab population increased by 39,000 in Michigan and by 28,000 in Florida. The Arab population grew by about half in several states. The Arab population doubled in Tennessee (102 percent increase) since 1990.14 However, the number of people who identified as Arab in that state was relatively small, increasing from 6,000 in 1990 to 13,000 in 2000. The Arab population also increased by over 50 percent in North Carolina, Washington, Colorado, and Virginia.15 The Arab populations in Florida and Michigan experienced high growth rates as well as large numerical increases. The Arab population in Florida grew by 57 percent, from 49,000 to 77,000 between 1990 and 2000; the Arab population in Michigan grew by 51 percent, from 77,000 in 1990 to 115,000 in 2000.16 The proportion of the population that was Arab was highest in Michigan. Arabs accounted for 1.2 percent of the total population in Michigan in 2000. Arabs comprised nearly 1 percent of the state populations in New Jersey and Massachusetts, which were 0.9 percent and 0.8 percent Arab, respectively. Arabs represented a higher proportion of the population in 2000 than they did in 1990 in a large majority of states. The proportion of the population that was Arab grew from 0.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent in 2000 in Michigan, and from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent in New Jersey.17 The counties with the highest proportion of people who were Arab were in the Northeast and the Midwest. The proportion of people who identified with an Arab ancestry by county is shown in Figure 2. The counties with the highest proportions of Arabs in 2000 were in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and California. The proportion of the population that was Arab in Wayne County, Michigan, was 2.7 percent. 18 In addition, at least 1.2 percent of the population was Arab in Macomb, Oakland, and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan; Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey; Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria Counties, Virginia; Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Kings, Richmond, 4 U.S. Census Bureau 11 The Northeast region includes the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Midwest region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South region includes the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, a state equivalent. The West region includes the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 12 Although the estimated size of the Arab population in Virginia was more than 40,000, it was not statistically larger than 40,000. 13 The Arab population did not change statistically in the following states: Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 14 The growth rate of the Arab population in Tennessee was not statistically different from the corresponding growth rates in Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and Utah. 15 Although the estimated increases in the Arab populations in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, and Utah were more than 50 percent, the increases were not statistically different from 50 percent. 16 There was no statistical difference between the growth rates of the Arab populations in Florida and Michigan. 17 The increase in the proportion of Arabs in Michigan was not statistically different from the increase in the proportion of Arabs in New Jersey. 18 The proportion of the Arab population in Wayne County, Michigan was not statistically different from Passaic and Hudson Counties in New Jersey; Oakland and Macomb Counties, Michigan; Lehigh County, Pennsylvania; Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria Counties in Virginia. U.S. Census Bureau 5 Table 2. Arab Population by Ancestry for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Area 1990 2000 Total population Arab population1 Total population Arab population1 Selected Arab groups2 Number Percent Number Percent Lebanese Syrian Egyptian United States . . . . . 248,709,873 860,354 0.35 281,421,906 1,189,731 0.42 440,279 142,897 142,832 Region Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . 50,809,229 254,411 0.50 53,594,378 327,090 0.61 115,809 57,075 59,184 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,668,632 203,549 0.34 64,392,776 286,537 0.44 120,172 27,448 16,756 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,445,930 211,103 0.25 100,236,820 309,924 0.31 121,534 30,825 29,849 West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,786,082 191,291 0.36 63,197,932 266,180 0.42 82,764 27,549 37,043 State Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . 4,040,587 5,839 0.14 4,447,100 6,634 0.15 3,769 444 361 Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,043 541 0.10 626,932 817 0.13 329 178 77 Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,665,228 11,796 0.32 5,130,632 17,111 0.33 6,388 1,849 1,253 Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 2,350,725 1,854 0.08 2,673,400 2,397 0.09 969 403 214 California . . . . . . . . . . . 29,760,021 142,805 0.48 33,871,648 190,890 0.56 53,286 19,553 30,959 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 3,294,394 7,541 0.23 4,301,261 12,421 0.29 4,886 1,120 939 Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 3,287,116 12,783 0.39 3,405,565 14,671 0.43 8,131 1,730 1,365 Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 666,168 1,443 0.22 783,600 1,766 0.23 468 156 448 District of Columbia . . . 606,900 2,741 0.45 572,059 3,082 0.54 747 109 526 Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,937,926 49,206 0.38 15,982,378 77,461 0.48 30,115 9,925 6,759 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,478,216 10,357 0.16 8,186,453 17,110 0.21 7,823 1,549 1,731 Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,108,229 1,149 0.10 1,211,537 1,622 0.13 651 115 159 Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006,749 730 0.07 1,293,953 1,446 0.11 703 124 65 Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,430,602 34,747 0.30 12,419,293 52,191 0.42 10,542 4,295 3,794 Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,544,159 8,368 0.15 6,080,485 11,594 0.19 4,090 1,965 1,338 Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,776,755 3,965 0.14 2,926,324 4,365 0.15 2,057 590 319 Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,477,574 4,846 0.20 2,688,418 6,722 0.25 2,984 730 438 Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 3,685,296 5,091 0.14 4,041,769 7,137 0.18 3,431 712 307 Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 4,219,973 10,780 0.26 4,468,976 13,445 0.30 6,561 1,821 608 Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,227,928 3,365 0.27 1,274,923 2,990 0.23 1,959 487 166 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 4,781,468 15,683 0.33 5,296,486 20,224 0.38 6,608 2,201 3,246 Massachusetts . . . . . . . 6,016,425 44,773 0.74 6,349,097 52,756 0.83 32,072 7,123 3,238 Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,295,297 76,504 0.82 9,938,444 115,284 1.16 54,363 8,876 3,310 Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 4,375,099 9,732 0.22 4,919,479 13,795 0.28 6,806 923 2,269 Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 2,573,216 4,063 0.16 2,844,658 4,185 0.15 2,785 329 237 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,117,073 9,079 0.18 5,595,211 12,626 0.23 5,381 1,348 687 Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . 799,065 1,155 0.14 902,195 1,153 0.13 699 239 21 Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 1,578,385 3,072 0.19 1,711,263 4,657 0.27 2,141 782 328 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201,833 4,176 0.35 1,998,257 7,188 0.36 2,897 997 772 New Hampshire . . . . . . 1,109,252 4,953 0.45 1,235,786 6,767 0.55 4,706 801 454 New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 7,730,188 46,381 0.60 8,414,350 71,770 0.85 13,353 12,624 25,170 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 1,515,069 3,464 0.23 1,819,046 4,271 0.23 2,373 206 206 New York . . . . . . . . . . . 17,990,455 94,319 0.52 18,976,457 120,370 0.63 31,083 17,685 23,661 North Carolina . . . . . . . 6,628,637 10,551 0.16 8,049,313 19,405 0.24 6,998 1,584 2,076 North Dakota . . . . . . . . 638,800 975 0.15 642,200 1,042 0.16 546 199 40 Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,847,115 44,405 0.41 11,353,140 54,014 0.48 27,361 6,519 3,210 Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . 3,145,585 6,859 0.22 3,450,654 8,090 0.23 4,408 608 331 Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,842,321 6,164 0.22 3,421,399 9,316 0.27 3,148 1,657 850 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 11,881,643 39,842 0.34 12,281,054 48,678 0.40 19,889 13,392 4,718 Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 1,003,464 6,342 0.63 1,048,319 7,012 0.67 3,016 3,089 338 South Carolina . . . . . . . 3,486,703 5,702 0.16 4,012,012 6,423 0.16 3,573 594 547 South Dakota . . . . . . . . 696,004 1,237 0.18 754,844 1,405 0.19 730 294 85 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 4,877,185 6,381 0.13 5,689,283 12,882 0.23 3,194 773 1,569 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,986,510 44,256 0.26 20,851,820 63,046 0.30 23,652 5,866 5,132 Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,722,850 2,703 0.16 2,233,169 4,569 0.20 1,995 238 280 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 562,758 1,653 0.29 608,827 2,076 0.34 1,600 144 74 Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,187,358 24,795 0.40 7,078,515 41,230 0.58 12,870 2,909 5,586 Washington . . . . . . . . . 4,866,692 8,811 0.18 5,894,121 15,016 0.25 5,226 1,261 1,407 West Virginia . . . . . . . . 1,793,477 5,502 0.31 1,808,344 5,407 0.30 3,563 842 171 Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . 4,891,769 6,619 0.14 5,363,675 8,842 0.16 3,171 927 938 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 453,588 256 0.06 493,782 360 0.07 183 12 55 Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 3,522,037 (NA) (NA) 3,808,610 2,633 0.07 828 66 56 NA Not available; the ancestry question was not asked in Puerto Rico during the 1990 census. 1 Respondents who reported either one or two Arab ancestries were tabulated exactly once to calculate the Arab population by region and state. 2 For selected Arab groups, the columns reflect the designated Arab ancestry regardless of whether or not another Arab ancestry was also reported; that is, someone who reported Lebanese and Syrian would be tabulated in each column. Hence, it is not appropriate to sum the columns. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF4), 1990 Census Sample Edited Detail File. 6 U.S. Census Bureau 0.8 to 1.2 0.4 to 0.7 0.2 to 0.3 0.1 or less Arab Ancestry: 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.gov provides census data and mapping tools. Percent of people who reported Arab ancestry by state 1.2 to 2.7 0.7 to 1.1 0.4 to 0.6 0.2 to 0.3 0.1 or less (Based on sample data. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Figure 2. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Percent of people who reported Arab ancestry by county U.S. percent 0.4 U.S. percent 0.4 and Oneida Counties, New York; Lehigh and Lawrence Counties, Pennsylvania; Ohio County, West Virginia; Lucas County, Ohio; and San Mateo County, California.19 Elsewhere in the country, the proportion of Arabs at the county level was more dispersed. The Arab population represented between 0.7 and 1.1 percent of the population in one or more counties in many states across the nation. However, more than half the counties in the United States had a low percentage of people who reported an Arab ancestry (0.1 or less). The largest number of Arabs lived in New York City. In 2000, 70,000 people of Arab ancestry lived in New York, making it the city with the largest number of Arabs (see Table 3). Six of the ten largest cities in the United States were also among the ten places with the largest Arab populations (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and U.S. Census Bureau 7 Table 3. Arab Population in Selected Places: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Place Total population Arab population Number 90-percent confidence interval Percent Arab 90-percent confidence interval Ten Largest Places New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90 Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73 Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53 Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61 Philadelphia, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,517,550 5,227 4,829 - 5,625 0.34 0.32 - 0.37 Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320,994 5,098 4,600 - 5,596 0.39 0.35 - 0.42 San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 Dallas, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,188,204 4,077 3,632 - 4,522 0.34 0.31 - 0.38 San Antonio, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,144,554 3,748 3,321 - 4,175 0.33 0.29 - 0.36 Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92 Ten Places With Largest Arab Population New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90 Dearborn, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,775 29,181 28,392 - 29,970 29.85 29.04 - 30.65 Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73 Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53 Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61 Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92 San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04 Boston, MA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589,141 5,845 5,341 - 6,349 0.99 0.91 - 1.08 Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . 735,503 5,751 5,251 - 6,251 0.78 0.71 - 0.85 Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With Highest Percent Arab Sterling Heights, MI. . . . . . . . . 124,471 4,598 4,157 - 5,039 3.69 3.34 - 4.05 Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04 Warren, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,276 3,470 3,149 - 3,791 2.51 2.28 - 2.74 Allentown, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,632 2,613 2,279 - 2,947 2.45 2.14 - 2.76 Burbank, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,316 2,395 2,057 - 2,733 2.39 2.05 - 2.72 Glendale, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195,047 4,028 3,589 - 4,467 2.07 1.84 - 2.29 Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,545 1,953 1,712 - 2,194 1.94 1.70 - 2.18 Arlington, VA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,453 3,352 2,972 - 3,732 1.77 1.57 - 1.97 Paterson, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149,222 2,634 2,297 - 2,971 1.77 1.54 - 1.99 Daly City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,549 1,752 1,462 - 2,042 1.69 1.41 - 1.97 Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. 19 The 90-percent confidence interval fell below 1.2 percent for all counties except for Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; Passaic and Hudson Counties, New Jersey; and Fairfax County, Virginia. San Diego). Although these cities were among those with the largest number of Arabs, their proportions Arab were relatively low (less than 1 percent). Arabs were 30 percent of the population in Dearborn, Michigan. Among places with 100,000 or more population, the highest proportion of Arabs lived in Sterling Heights, Michigan (3.7 percent).20 Additionally, relatively high percentages of Arabs also lived in Warren and Livonia, Michigan. However, Dearborn, Michigan, which fell just below the 100,000 population threshold, had an Arab population of 30 percent, by far the largest proportion among places of similar size. California, (with Burbank, Glendale, and Daly City), and New Jersey, (with Jersey City and Paterson), also had more than one city of 100,000 or more population among the places with the highest proportion Arab. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON THE ARAB POPULATION Where are the Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians concentrated? The largest specific Arab ancestries reported in Census 2000 were Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian. People reporting Lebanese ancestry lived predominately in Michigan, California, Massachusetts, and New York.21 The largest groups with Syrian ancestry were in California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.22 Those with Egyptian ancestry lived predominately in California, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.23 People of Arab ancestry also report other non-Arab ancestries, races, and Hispanic origins. The Arab population in the United States is composed of people with many different ethnic backgrounds. More than one-quarter of the Arab population (29 percent) reported two ancestries: 28 percent reported one Arab and one non-Arab ancestry and 1.1 percent reported two Arab ancestries. Among Arabs who also reported a non-Arab ancestry, 14.7 percent reported Irish, 13.6 percent reported Italian, and 13.5 percent reported German.24 Among the 13,000 people who reported two Arab ancestries, onehalf reported Lebanese and Syrian. In Census 2000, the vast majority of Arabs reported their race as White and no other race (80 percent), or as Two or more races (17 percent).25 Small proportions reported a single race of Black (1.1 percent), Asian (0.7 percent), American Indian and Alaska Native (0.07 percent), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (0.03 percent), or Some other race (1.0 percent). In addition, 3.2 percent of the Arab population reported as Hispanic (of any race). ABOUT CENSUS 2000 Why Census 2000 asked about ancestry. Ancestry data are required to enforce provisions under the Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, and national origin. More generally, these data are needed to measure the social and economic characteristics of ethnic groups and to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences. Data about ancestry assist states and local agencies to develop health care and other services tailored to meet the language and cultural diversity of various groups. Under the Public Health Service Act, ancestry is one of the factors used to identify segments of the population who may not be receiving medical services. Accuracy of the Estimates The data contained in this report are based on the sample of households who responded to the Census 2000 long form. Nationally, approximately 1 out of every 6 housing units was included in this sample. As a result, the sample estimates may differ somewhat from the100-percent figures that would have been obtained if all housing units, people within those housing units, and people living in group quarters had been enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample 8 U.S. Census Bureau 22 The size of the Syrian population in California was not statistically different from that of the Syrian population in New York. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in size between the Syrian populations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 23 There was no statistical difference between the size of the Egyptian populations in New Jersey and New York. 24 Italian was not statistically different from German as another non-Arab ancestry reported by Arabs. 25 Census 2000 allowed respondents to choose more than one race. In this report, a “single race” category refers to people who indicated exactly one racial identity among the six primary categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Some other race. The “single race” or “alone” category is used for all of the racial groups in this brief except for the Two or more races category. The use of the alone population in this section does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. In general, either the alone population or the alone or in combination population can be used, depending on the purpose of the analysis. The Census Bureau uses both approaches. 20 Census 2000 showed 245 places in the United States with 100,000 or more population. They included 238 incorporated places (including 4 city-county consolidations) and 7 census designated places that were not legally incorporated. For a list of these places by state, see www.census.gov /population/www/cen2000/phc-t6.html. 21 The size of the Lebanese population in Michigan was not statistically different from that of the Lebanese population in California, nor was there a statistical difference between the Lebanese populations in Massachusetts and New York. estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained from different samples of housing units, and hence of people living in those housing units, and people living in group quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of all possible samples is called the sampling error. In addition to the variability that arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100- percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error may be introduced during any of the various complex operations used to collect and process data. Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every person in the population, failing to obtain all required information from the respondents, obtaining incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information incorrectly. In addition, errors can occur during the field review of the enumerators’ work, during clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or during the electronic processing of the questionnaires. While it is impossible to completely eliminate error from an operation as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau attempts to control the sources of such error during the data collection and processing operations. The primary sources of error and the programs instituted to control error in Census 2000 are described in detail in Summary File 3 Technical Documentation under Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,” located at www.census.gov/prod /cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. Nonsampling error may affect the data in two ways: (1) errors that are introduced randomly will increase the variability of the data and, therefore, should be reflected in the standard errors; and (2) errors that tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 100-percent data in that direction. For example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by income category will tend to be understated for the higher income categories and overstated for the lower income categories. Such biases are not reflected in the standard errors. All statements in this Census 2000 Brief have undergone statistical testing and all comparisons are significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. The estimates in tables, maps, and other figures may vary from actual values due to sampling and nonsampling errors. As a result, estimates in one category used to summarize statistics in the maps and figures may not be significantly different from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is located at www.census.gov/prod/cen2000 /doc/sf3.pdf. For further information on the computation and use of standard errors, contact the Decennial Statistical Studies Division at 301-763-4242. For More Information The Census 2000 Summary File 3 and Summary File 4 data are available from the American Factfinder on the Internet (factfinder.census.gov). They were released on a state-by-state basis during 2002. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, also see www.census.gov /prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf or contact the Customer Services Center at 301-763-INFO (4636). Information on population and housing topics is presented in the Census 2000 Brief series, located on the Census Bureau’s Web site at www.census.gov/population/www /cen2000/briefs.html. This series presents information on race, Hispanic origin, age, sex, household type, housing tenure, and social, economic, and housing characteristics, such as ancestry, income, and housing costs. For additional information on the Arab population, including reports and survey data, visit the Census Bureau’s Internet site at www.census.gov/population/www /ancestry.html. To find information about the availability of data products, including reports, CD-ROMs, and DVDs, call the Customer Services Center at 301-763-INFO (4636), or e-mail webmaster@census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau 9 How are our leaders spending their time? Getting reelected or getting down to the business of our security?

Senate approves security bill Updated: July 27, 2007 07:47 AM EDT CAPITOL HILL (AP) -- Working late into the night, the Senate has approved a package of security measures recommended by the 9-11 Commission. It would shift more federal money to high-risk states and cities and require more stringent screening of air and sea cargo. The measure could clear the House as early as Friday and there's no suggestion President Bush will veto it. Still, the White House is not happy with a requirement that within five years all ship containers would have to be scanned for nuclear devices before they leave foreign ports for the US. The bill also requires the screening of all cargo on passenger aircraft within three years. The security measure would change the formula for distributing federal security grants to ensure that high-risk states and urban areas get a greater share. High-risk cities such as New York and Washington have complained that the current formula, which divides money more evenly around the country, does not reflect the realities of the terrorist threat. The information on ancestry was collected on the “long form” of the census questionnaire, which was sent to approximately one-sixth of all households. Item 10 on the questionnaire asked respondents to identify their ancestry or ethnic origin (see Figure 1).4 As many as two ancestries were tabulated per respondent; if either response was included in the definition of Arab used here, the person is included in this analysis. Around 19 percent of the U.S. population provided no response to the ancestry question. Ancestry refers to ethnic origin, descent, “roots,” heritage, or place of birth of the person or of the person’s ancestors. The ancestry question was not intended to measure the degree of attachment to a particular ethnicity, but simply to establish that the respondent had a connection to and self-identified with a particular ethnic group. For example, a response of “Lebanese” might reflect involvement in a Lebanese community or only a memory of Lebanese ancestors several generations removed. The data in this report are based solely on responses to the Census 2000 ancestry question. Questions that were positioned before the ancestry question where respondents might have indicated an Arab origin (namely race, Hispanic origin, and place of birth) were not considered. Although religious affiliation can be a component of ethnic identity, neither the ancestry question nor any other question on the decennial census form was designed to collect information about religion. No religious information was tabulated from Census 2000. Religious responses were all reclassified as “Other groups.” This report presents national, regional, state, county, and selected place-level information for the total Arab population, as well as additional detailed information for the three largest Arab groups: Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian. Smaller groups are shown only at the national level. The Arab population, which numbered over 1 million in 2000, increased by nearly 40 percent during the 1990s. In 2000, 1.2 million people reported an Arab ancestry in the United States, up from 610,000 in 1980 (when data on ancestry were first collected in the decennial census) and 860,000 in 1990. The Arab population increased over the last two decades: 41 percent in the 1980s and 38 percent in the 1990s.5 Arabs represented 0.42 percent of the U.S. population in 2000, compared with 0.27 percent in 1980. People of Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian ancestry accounted for about three-fifths of the Arab population. In 2000, more than one-third of those reporting an Arab ancestry were Lebanese (37 percent, see Table 1), including both people who indicated that they were only Lebanese and those who reported being both Lebanese and another ancestry, which might or might not also be Arab.6 The next largest specific groups were Syrian and Egyptian (12 percent each). Among the nearly half-million people who reported other specific Arab ancestries, the largest proportion was Palestinian (6.1 percent of the total Arab population). The Jordanian, Moroccan, and Iraqi populations were also sizable (3.3 percent, 3.3 percent, and 3.2 percent, respectively).7 An additional 4.3 percent of the Arab population identified themselves as Yemeni, Kurdish, Algerian, Saudi Arabian, Tunisian, Kuwaiti, Libyan, Berber, or other specific Arab ancestries, each of which accounted for 1 percent or less of the total Arab population.8 A substantial portion of the Arab population (20 percent) identified with general Arab ancestries, such as “Arab” or “Arabic” (17 percent), “Middle Eastern” (2.4 percent), or “North African” (0.3 percent). This population was second in size only to the Lebanese ancestry group. During the 1990s, the Egyptian population increased numerically more than any other group. The number of people with Egyptian ancestry grew by 64,000, the most of any specific Arab ancestry group (see Table 1), increasing from 79,000 in 1990 to 143,000 in 2000 (growing by 82 percent). The number of people who identified as Lebanese also grew substantially, but by a smaller proportion, from 394,000 to 440,000 over the decade, an increase of 12 percent. Syrians, who numbered 130,000 in 1990, grew to 143,000 in 2000 (or by 10 percent).9 5 The estimates in this report are based on responses from a sample of the population. As with all surveys, estimates may vary from the actual values because of sampling variation or other factors. All statements made in this report have undergone statistical testing and are significant at the 90-percent confidence level unless otherwise noted. 6 Hereafter, estimates of specific ancestry groups include people who reported solely that ancestry or who reported it in combination with another one. 7 The proportions of the population who were Jordanian, Moroccan, or Iraqi were not statistically different. 8 The proportion of the population that was Yemeni was not statistically less than 1 percent. 9 The growth in the Syrian population from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically different from the growth in the Lebanese population. 4 The term respondent is used here to refer to all individuals for whom one or more ancestries were reported, whether or not one person answered the question for all household members. Among the smaller Arab ancestry groups, the Moroccan, Jordanian, and Palestinian populations grew the most numerically over the decade. Proportionally, each of those groups experienced substantial growth as well, increasing by at least half. The number of Moroccans doubled (104 percent increase) to 39,000. People who identified as Jordanian increased 92 percent to 40,000, and the number who reported they were Palestinian increased by 50 percent to 72,000.10 The Yemeni-ancestry population tripled between 1990 and 2000. People with Yemeni ancestry increased from 4,000 in 1990 to 12,000 in 2000. In addition, the Kurdish and Algerian populations also experienced a high growth rate over the decade, from 2,000 and 3,000 respectively in 1990 to 9,000 each in 2000. The number of people who responded as “Arab” or “Middle Eastern” to the ancestry question increased over the decade. Between 1990 and 2000, an increasing share of the Arab population identified themselves by a general term such as Arab or Middle Eastern and gave no other specific Arab ancestry. The population who identified as “Arab” or “Arabic” increased by 62 percent, reaching 206,000 in 2000. The number of people who reported being “Middle Eastern” was much smaller, but quadrupled to 28,000. U.S. Census Bureau 3 Table 1. Arab Population by Ancestry: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Subject 1990 2000 Change, 1990 to 2000 Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Total population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248,709,873 100.00 281,421,906 100.00 32,712,033 13.2 TOTAL ARAB POPULATION AND ANCESTRY1 Total Arab population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 860,354 0.35 1,189,731 0.42 329,377 38.3 Lebanese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394,180 45.82 440,279 37.01 46,099 11.7 Syrian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129,606 15.06 142,897 12.01 13,291 10.3 Egyptian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,574 9.13 142,832 12.01 64,258 81.8 All other Arab reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268,378 31.19 476,863 40.08 208,485 77.7 Specific Arab ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132,066 15.35 239,424 20.12 107,358 81.3 Palestinian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,019 5.58 72,112 6.06 24,093 50.2 Jordanian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,656 2.40 39,734 3.34 19,078 92.4 Moroccan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,089 2.22 38,923 3.27 19,834 103.9 Iraqi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,212 2.70 37,714 3.17 14,502 62.5 Yemeni. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,093 0.48 11,683 0.98 7,590 185.4 Kurdish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,181 0.25 9,423 0.79 7,242 332.0 Algerian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,215 0.37 8,752 0.74 5,537 172.2 Saudi Arabian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,486 0.52 7,419 0.62 2,933 65.4 Tunisian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,376 0.28 4,735 0.40 2,359 99.3 Kuwaiti . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,306 0.15 3,162 0.27 1,856 142.1 Libyan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,172 0.25 2,979 0.25 807 37.2 Berber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 530 0.06 1,327 0.11 797 150.4 Other specific Arab ancestry2 . . . . . . . . . . . 731 0.08 1,461 0.12 730 99.9 General Arab ancestry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136,312 15.84 237,439 19.96 101,127 74.2 Arab or Arabic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,364 14.80 205,822 17.30 78,458 61.6 Middle Eastern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,656 0.89 28,400 2.39 20,744 271.0 North African. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,292 0.15 3,217 0.27 1,925 149.0 1 Because respondents could list up to two ancestries, the total number of ancestries reported will sum to more than the total number of people. 2 Groups whose population was less than 1,000 in 2000, including Emirati (United Arab Emirates), Omani, Qatari, Bahraini, Alhuceman, Bedouin, and Rio de Oro. Source: 2000 data from U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000, Summary File 4 and Sample Edited Detail File; 1990 data from U.S. Census Bureau, 1990 Census, Sample Edited Detail File. 10 The growth in the Moroccan population from 1990 to 2000 was not statistically different from the growth in the Jordanian population. THE GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF PEOPLE OF ARAB ANCESTRY People of Arab ancestry were fairly evenly distributed among the four regions of the United States. In 2000, 27 percent of the Arab population lived in the Northeast, while 26 percent lived in the South, 24 percent in the Midwest, and 22 percent in the West (see Table 2).11 Arabs accounted for 0.6 percent of the total population in the Northeast but for only 0.3 percent of the total population in the South. About half of the Arab population was concentrated in only five states. In 2000, 576,000 Arabs (or 48 percent of the Arab population) lived in just five states: California, Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, and New York. These states contained 31 percent of the total U.S. population. People reporting an Arab ancestry also numbered over 40,000 in five other states (Illinois, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas).12 Over the last decade, the Arab population increased in almost every state. From 1990 to 2000, the number of people with Arab ancestry increased in most states.13 The Arab population in California increased by 48,000, more than in any other state. The Arab population increased by 39,000 in Michigan and by 28,000 in Florida. The Arab population grew by about half in several states. The Arab population doubled in Tennessee (102 percent increase) since 1990.14 However, the number of people who identified as Arab in that state was relatively small, increasing from 6,000 in 1990 to 13,000 in 2000. The Arab population also increased by over 50 percent in North Carolina, Washington, Colorado, and Virginia.15 The Arab populations in Florida and Michigan experienced high growth rates as well as large numerical increases. The Arab population in Florida grew by 57 percent, from 49,000 to 77,000 between 1990 and 2000; the Arab population in Michigan grew by 51 percent, from 77,000 in 1990 to 115,000 in 2000.16 The proportion of the population that was Arab was highest in Michigan. Arabs accounted for 1.2 percent of the total population in Michigan in 2000. Arabs comprised nearly 1 percent of the state populations in New Jersey and Massachusetts, which were 0.9 percent and 0.8 percent Arab, respectively. Arabs represented a higher proportion of the population in 2000 than they did in 1990 in a large majority of states. The proportion of the population that was Arab grew from 0.8 percent in 1990 to 1.2 percent in 2000 in Michigan, and from 0.6 percent to 0.9 percent in New Jersey.17 The counties with the highest proportion of people who were Arab were in the Northeast and the Midwest. The proportion of people who identified with an Arab ancestry by county is shown in Figure 2. The counties with the highest proportions of Arabs in 2000 were in Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, and California. The proportion of the population that was Arab in Wayne County, Michigan, was 2.7 percent. 18 In addition, at least 1.2 percent of the population was Arab in Macomb, Oakland, and Washtenaw Counties, Michigan; Bergen, Hudson, Middlesex, and Passaic Counties, New Jersey; Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria Counties, Virginia; Norfolk County, Massachusetts; Kings, Richmond, 4 U.S. Census Bureau 11 The Northeast region includes the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Midwest region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. The South region includes the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and the District of Columbia, a state equivalent. The West region includes the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. 12 Although the estimated size of the Arab population in Virginia was more than 40,000, it was not statistically larger than 40,000. 13 The Arab population did not change statistically in the following states: Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wyoming. 14 The growth rate of the Arab population in Tennessee was not statistically different from the corresponding growth rates in Alaska, Idaho, Nevada, North Carolina, and Utah. 15 Although the estimated increases in the Arab populations in Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Michigan, Nebraska, New Jersey, Nevada, and Utah were more than 50 percent, the increases were not statistically different from 50 percent. 16 There was no statistical difference between the growth rates of the Arab populations in Florida and Michigan. 17 The increase in the proportion of Arabs in Michigan was not statistically different from the increase in the proportion of Arabs in New Jersey. 18 The proportion of the Arab population in Wayne County, Michigan was not statistically different from Passaic and Hudson Counties in New Jersey; Oakland and Macomb Counties, Michigan; Lehigh County, Pennsylvania; Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria Counties in Virginia. U.S. Census Bureau 5 Table 2. Arab Population by Ancestry for the United States, Regions, States, and for Puerto Rico: 1990 and 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Area 1990 2000 Total population Arab population1 Total population Arab population1 Selected Arab groups2 Number Percent Number Percent Lebanese Syrian Egyptian United States . . . . . 248,709,873 860,354 0.35 281,421,906 1,189,731 0.42 440,279 142,897 142,832 Region Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . 50,809,229 254,411 0.50 53,594,378 327,090 0.61 115,809 57,075 59,184 Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,668,632 203,549 0.34 64,392,776 286,537 0.44 120,172 27,448 16,756 South . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85,445,930 211,103 0.25 100,236,820 309,924 0.31 121,534 30,825 29,849 West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,786,082 191,291 0.36 63,197,932 266,180 0.42 82,764 27,549 37,043 State Alabama. . . . . . . . . . . . 4,040,587 5,839 0.14 4,447,100 6,634 0.15 3,769 444 361 Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550,043 541 0.10 626,932 817 0.13 329 178 77 Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,665,228 11,796 0.32 5,130,632 17,111 0.33 6,388 1,849 1,253 Arkansas . . . . . . . . . . . 2,350,725 1,854 0.08 2,673,400 2,397 0.09 969 403 214 California . . . . . . . . . . . 29,760,021 142,805 0.48 33,871,648 190,890 0.56 53,286 19,553 30,959 Colorado . . . . . . . . . . . 3,294,394 7,541 0.23 4,301,261 12,421 0.29 4,886 1,120 939 Connecticut . . . . . . . . . 3,287,116 12,783 0.39 3,405,565 14,671 0.43 8,131 1,730 1,365 Delaware . . . . . . . . . . . 666,168 1,443 0.22 783,600 1,766 0.23 468 156 448 District of Columbia . . . 606,900 2,741 0.45 572,059 3,082 0.54 747 109 526 Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,937,926 49,206 0.38 15,982,378 77,461 0.48 30,115 9,925 6,759 Georgia . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,478,216 10,357 0.16 8,186,453 17,110 0.21 7,823 1,549 1,731 Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,108,229 1,149 0.10 1,211,537 1,622 0.13 651 115 159 Idaho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,006,749 730 0.07 1,293,953 1,446 0.11 703 124 65 Illinois. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,430,602 34,747 0.30 12,419,293 52,191 0.42 10,542 4,295 3,794 Indiana. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,544,159 8,368 0.15 6,080,485 11,594 0.19 4,090 1,965 1,338 Iowa. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,776,755 3,965 0.14 2,926,324 4,365 0.15 2,057 590 319 Kansas. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,477,574 4,846 0.20 2,688,418 6,722 0.25 2,984 730 438 Kentucky . . . . . . . . . . . 3,685,296 5,091 0.14 4,041,769 7,137 0.18 3,431 712 307 Louisiana . . . . . . . . . . . 4,219,973 10,780 0.26 4,468,976 13,445 0.30 6,561 1,821 608 Maine. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,227,928 3,365 0.27 1,274,923 2,990 0.23 1,959 487 166 Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . 4,781,468 15,683 0.33 5,296,486 20,224 0.38 6,608 2,201 3,246 Massachusetts . . . . . . . 6,016,425 44,773 0.74 6,349,097 52,756 0.83 32,072 7,123 3,238 Michigan. . . . . . . . . . . . 9,295,297 76,504 0.82 9,938,444 115,284 1.16 54,363 8,876 3,310 Minnesota . . . . . . . . . . 4,375,099 9,732 0.22 4,919,479 13,795 0.28 6,806 923 2,269 Mississippi . . . . . . . . . . 2,573,216 4,063 0.16 2,844,658 4,185 0.15 2,785 329 237 Missouri . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,117,073 9,079 0.18 5,595,211 12,626 0.23 5,381 1,348 687 Montana. . . . . . . . . . . . 799,065 1,155 0.14 902,195 1,153 0.13 699 239 21 Nebraska . . . . . . . . . . . 1,578,385 3,072 0.19 1,711,263 4,657 0.27 2,141 782 328 Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,201,833 4,176 0.35 1,998,257 7,188 0.36 2,897 997 772 New Hampshire . . . . . . 1,109,252 4,953 0.45 1,235,786 6,767 0.55 4,706 801 454 New Jersey . . . . . . . . . 7,730,188 46,381 0.60 8,414,350 71,770 0.85 13,353 12,624 25,170 New Mexico . . . . . . . . . 1,515,069 3,464 0.23 1,819,046 4,271 0.23 2,373 206 206 New York . . . . . . . . . . . 17,990,455 94,319 0.52 18,976,457 120,370 0.63 31,083 17,685 23,661 North Carolina . . . . . . . 6,628,637 10,551 0.16 8,049,313 19,405 0.24 6,998 1,584 2,076 North Dakota . . . . . . . . 638,800 975 0.15 642,200 1,042 0.16 546 199 40 Ohio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,847,115 44,405 0.41 11,353,140 54,014 0.48 27,361 6,519 3,210 Oklahoma. . . . . . . . . . . 3,145,585 6,859 0.22 3,450,654 8,090 0.23 4,408 608 331 Oregon. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,842,321 6,164 0.22 3,421,399 9,316 0.27 3,148 1,657 850 Pennsylvania . . . . . . . . 11,881,643 39,842 0.34 12,281,054 48,678 0.40 19,889 13,392 4,718 Rhode Island . . . . . . . . 1,003,464 6,342 0.63 1,048,319 7,012 0.67 3,016 3,089 338 South Carolina . . . . . . . 3,486,703 5,702 0.16 4,012,012 6,423 0.16 3,573 594 547 South Dakota . . . . . . . . 696,004 1,237 0.18 754,844 1,405 0.19 730 294 85 Tennessee . . . . . . . . . . 4,877,185 6,381 0.13 5,689,283 12,882 0.23 3,194 773 1,569 Texas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,986,510 44,256 0.26 20,851,820 63,046 0.30 23,652 5,866 5,132 Utah. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,722,850 2,703 0.16 2,233,169 4,569 0.20 1,995 238 280 Vermont . . . . . . . . . . . . 562,758 1,653 0.29 608,827 2,076 0.34 1,600 144 74 Virginia. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,187,358 24,795 0.40 7,078,515 41,230 0.58 12,870 2,909 5,586 Washington . . . . . . . . . 4,866,692 8,811 0.18 5,894,121 15,016 0.25 5,226 1,261 1,407 West Virginia . . . . . . . . 1,793,477 5,502 0.31 1,808,344 5,407 0.30 3,563 842 171 Wisconsin. . . . . . . . . . . 4,891,769 6,619 0.14 5,363,675 8,842 0.16 3,171 927 938 Wyoming . . . . . . . . . . . 453,588 256 0.06 493,782 360 0.07 183 12 55 Puerto Rico . . . . . . . . . . 3,522,037 (NA) (NA) 3,808,610 2,633 0.07 828 66 56 NA Not available; the ancestry question was not asked in Puerto Rico during the 1990 census. 1 Respondents who reported either one or two Arab ancestries were tabulated exactly once to calculate the Arab population by region and state. 2 For selected Arab groups, the columns reflect the designated Arab ancestry regardless of whether or not another Arab ancestry was also reported; that is, someone who reported Lebanese and Syrian would be tabulated in each column. Hence, it is not appropriate to sum the columns. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF4), 1990 Census Sample Edited Detail File. 6 U.S. Census Bureau 0.8 to 1.2 0.4 to 0.7 0.2 to 0.3 0.1 or less Arab Ancestry: 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. American Factfinder at factfinder.census.gov provides census data and mapping tools. Percent of people who reported Arab ancestry by state 1.2 to 2.7 0.7 to 1.1 0.4 to 0.6 0.2 to 0.3 0.1 or less (Based on sample data. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Figure 2. 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles 0 100 Miles Percent of people who reported Arab ancestry by county U.S. percent 0.4 U.S. percent 0.4 and Oneida Counties, New York; Lehigh and Lawrence Counties, Pennsylvania; Ohio County, West Virginia; Lucas County, Ohio; and San Mateo County, California.19 Elsewhere in the country, the proportion of Arabs at the county level was more dispersed. The Arab population represented between 0.7 and 1.1 percent of the population in one or more counties in many states across the nation. However, more than half the counties in the United States had a low percentage of people who reported an Arab ancestry (0.1 or less). The largest number of Arabs lived in New York City. In 2000, 70,000 people of Arab ancestry lived in New York, making it the city with the largest number of Arabs (see Table 3). Six of the ten largest cities in the United States were also among the ten places with the largest Arab populations (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Detroit, and U.S. Census Bureau 7 Table 3. Arab Population in Selected Places: 2000 (Data based on sample. For information on confidentiality protection, sampling error, nonsampling error, and definitions, see www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf) Place Total population Arab population Number 90-percent confidence interval Percent Arab 90-percent confidence interval Ten Largest Places New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90 Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73 Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53 Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61 Philadelphia, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,517,550 5,227 4,829 - 5,625 0.34 0.32 - 0.37 Phoenix, AZ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,320,994 5,098 4,600 - 5,596 0.39 0.35 - 0.42 San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 Dallas, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,188,204 4,077 3,632 - 4,522 0.34 0.31 - 0.38 San Antonio, TX. . . . . . . . . . . . 1,144,554 3,748 3,321 - 4,175 0.33 0.29 - 0.36 Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92 Ten Places With Largest Arab Population New York, NY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,008,278 69,985 68,241 - 71,729 0.87 0.85 - 0.90 Dearborn, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97,775 29,181 28,392 - 29,970 29.85 29.04 - 30.65 Los Angeles, CA . . . . . . . . . . . 3,694,834 25,673 24,557 - 26,789 0.69 0.66 - 0.73 Chicago, IL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,895,964 14,777 14,108 - 15,446 0.51 0.49 - 0.53 Houston, TX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,954,848 11,128 10,393 - 11,863 0.57 0.53 - 0.61 Detroit, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 951,270 8,287 7,787 - 8,787 0.87 0.82 - 0.92 San Diego, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,223,341 7,357 6,759 - 7,955 0.60 0.55 - 0.65 Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04 Boston, MA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 589,141 5,845 5,341 - 6,349 0.99 0.91 - 1.08 Jacksonville, FL . . . . . . . . . . . . 735,503 5,751 5,251 - 6,251 0.78 0.71 - 0.85 Ten Places of 100,000 or More Population With Highest Percent Arab Sterling Heights, MI. . . . . . . . . 124,471 4,598 4,157 - 5,039 3.69 3.34 - 4.05 Jersey City, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,055 6,755 6,219 - 7,291 2.81 2.59 - 3.04 Warren, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,276 3,470 3,149 - 3,791 2.51 2.28 - 2.74 Allentown, PA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106,632 2,613 2,279 - 2,947 2.45 2.14 - 2.76 Burbank, CA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,316 2,395 2,057 - 2,733 2.39 2.05 - 2.72 Glendale, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195,047 4,028 3,589 - 4,467 2.07 1.84 - 2.29 Livonia, MI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,545 1,953 1,712 - 2,194 1.94 1.70 - 2.18 Arlington, VA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189,453 3,352 2,972 - 3,732 1.77 1.57 - 1.97 Paterson, NJ. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149,222 2,634 2,297 - 2,971 1.77 1.54 - 1.99 Daly City, CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103,549 1,752 1,462 - 2,042 1.69 1.41 - 1.97 Note: Because of sampling error, the estimates in this table may not be statistically different from one another or from rates for other geographic areas not listed in this table. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 4. 19 The 90-percent confidence interval fell below 1.2 percent for all counties except for Wayne and Macomb Counties, Michigan; Passaic and Hudson Counties, New Jersey; and Fairfax County, Virginia. San Diego). Although these cities were among those with the largest number of Arabs, their proportions Arab were relatively low (less than 1 percent). Arabs were 30 percent of the population in Dearborn, Michigan. Among places with 100,000 or more population, the highest proportion of Arabs lived in Sterling Heights, Michigan (3.7 percent).20 Additionally, relatively high percentages of Arabs also lived in Warren and Livonia, Michigan. However, Dearborn, Michigan, which fell just below the 100,000 population threshold, had an Arab population of 30 percent, by far the largest proportion among places of similar size. California, (with Burbank, Glendale, and Daly City), and New Jersey, (with Jersey City and Paterson), also had more than one city of 100,000 or more population among the places with the highest proportion Arab. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS ON THE ARAB POPULATION Where are the Lebanese, Syrians, and Egyptians concentrated? The largest specific Arab ancestries reported in Census 2000 were Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian. People reporting Lebanese ancestry lived predominately in Michigan, California, Massachusetts, and New York.21 The largest groups with Syrian ancestry were in California, New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.22 Those with Egyptian ancestry lived predominately in California, New Jersey, New York, and Florida.23 People of Arab ancestry also report other non-Arab ancestries, races, and Hispanic origins. The Arab population in the United States is composed of people with many different ethnic backgrounds. More than one-quarter of the Arab population (29 percent) reported two ancestries: 28 percent reported one Arab and one non-Arab ancestry and 1.1 percent reported two Arab ancestries. Among Arabs who also reported a non-Arab ancestry, 14.7 percent reported Irish, 13.6 percent reported Italian, and 13.5 percent reported German.24 Among the 13,000 people who reported two Arab ancestries, onehalf reported Lebanese and Syrian. In Census 2000, the vast majority of Arabs reported their race as White and no other race (80 percent), or as Two or more races (17 percent).25 Small proportions reported a single race of Black (1.1 percent), Asian (0.7 percent), American Indian and Alaska Native (0.07 percent), Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander (0.03 percent), or Some other race (1.0 percent). In addition, 3.2 percent of the Arab population reported as Hispanic (of any race). ABOUT CENSUS 2000 Why Census 2000 asked about ancestry. Ancestry data are required to enforce provisions under the Civil Rights Act that prohibit discrimination based upon race, sex, religion, and national origin. More generally, these data are needed to measure the social and economic characteristics of ethnic groups and to tailor services to accommodate cultural differences. Data about ancestry assist states and local agencies to develop health care and other services tailored to meet the language and cultural diversity of various groups. Under the Public Health Service Act, ancestry is one of the factors used to identify segments of the population who may not be receiving medical services. Accuracy of the Estimates The data contained in this report are based on the sample of households who responded to the Census 2000 long form. Nationally, approximately 1 out of every 6 housing units was included in this sample. As a result, the sample estimates may differ somewhat from the100-percent figures that would have been obtained if all housing units, people within those housing units, and people living in group quarters had been enumerated using the same questionnaires, instructions, enumerators, and so forth. The sample 8 U.S. Census Bureau 22 The size of the Syrian population in California was not statistically different from that of the Syrian population in New York. Additionally, there was no statistical difference in size between the Syrian populations in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. 23 There was no statistical difference between the size of the Egyptian populations in New Jersey and New York. 24 Italian was not statistically different from German as another non-Arab ancestry reported by Arabs. 25 Census 2000 allowed respondents to choose more than one race. In this report, a “single race” category refers to people who indicated exactly one racial identity among the six primary categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, and Some other race. The “single race” or “alone” category is used for all of the racial groups in this brief except for the Two or more races category. The use of the alone population in this section does not imply that it is the preferred method of presenting or analyzing data. In general, either the alone population or the alone or in combination population can be used, depending on the purpose of the analysis. The Census Bureau uses both approaches. 20 Census 2000 showed 245 places in the United States with 100,000 or more population. They included 238 incorporated places (including 4 city-county consolidations) and 7 census designated places that were not legally incorporated. For a list of these places by state, see www.census.gov /population/www/cen2000/phc-t6.html. 21 The size of the Lebanese population in Michigan was not statistically different from that of the Lebanese population in California, nor was there a statistical difference between the Lebanese populations in Massachusetts and New York. estimates also differ from the values that would have been obtained from different samples of housing units, and hence of people living in those housing units, and people living in group quarters. The deviation of a sample estimate from the average of all possible samples is called the sampling error. In addition to the variability that arises from the sampling procedures, both sample data and 100- percent data are subject to nonsampling error. Nonsampling error may be introduced during any of the various complex operations used to collect and process data. Such errors may include: not enumerating every household or every person in the population, failing to obtain all required information from the respondents, obtaining incorrect or inconsistent information, and recording information incorrectly. In addition, errors can occur during the field review of the enumerators’ work, during clerical handling of the census questionnaires, or during the electronic processing of the questionnaires. While it is impossible to completely eliminate error from an operation as large and complex as the decennial census, the Census Bureau attempts to control the sources of such error during the data collection and processing operations. The primary sources of error and the programs instituted to control error in Census 2000 are described in detail in Summary File 3 Technical Documentation under Chapter 8, “Accuracy of the Data,” located at www.census.gov/prod /cen2000/doc/sf3.pdf. Nonsampling error may affect the data in two ways: (1) errors that are introduced randomly will increase the variability of the data and, therefore, should be reflected in the standard errors; and (2) errors that tend to be consistent in one direction will bias both sample and 100-percent data in that direction. For example, if respondents consistently tend to underreport their incomes, then the resulting estimates of households or families by income category will tend to be understated for the higher income categories and overstated for the lower income categories. Such biases are not reflected in the standard errors. All statements in this Census 2000 Brief have undergone statistical testing and all comparisons are significant at the 90-percent confidence level, unless otherwise noted. The estimates in tables, maps, and other figures may vary from actual values due to sampling and nonsampling errors. As a result, estimates in one category used to summarize statistics in the maps and figures may not be significantly different from estimates assigned to a different category. Further information on the accuracy of the data is located at www.census.gov/prod/cen2000 /doc/sf3.pdf. For further information on the computation and use of standard errors, contact the Decennial Statistical Studies Division at 301-763-4242. For More Information The Census 2000 Summary File 3 and Summary File 4 data are available from the American Factfinder on the Internet (factfinder.census.gov). They were released on a state-by-state basis during 2002. For information on confidentiality protection, nonsampling error, sampling error, and definitions, also see www.census.gov /prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf or contact the Customer Services Center at 301-763-INFO (4636). Information on population and housing topics is presented in the Census 2000 Brief series, located on the Census Bureau’s Web site at www.census.gov/population/www /cen2000/briefs.html. This series presents information on race, Hispanic origin, age, sex, household type, housing tenure, and social, economic, and housing characteristics, such as ancestry, income, and housing costs. For additional information on the Arab population, including reports and survey data, visit the Census Bureau’s Internet site at www.census.gov/population/www /ancestry.html. To find information about the availability of data products, including reports, CD-ROMs, and DVDs, call the Customer Services Center at 301-763-INFO (4636), or e-mail webmaster@census.gov. U.S. Census Bureau 9

I'd rather reelect a person based on their SECURITY record than their BUDGET record. WHAT is being done to address the fact Michigan has one of the highest Arab populations? It's a free country and all, and I don't judge all by the action of a few, but are our leaders talking about the fact that we are a peninsula and that the Arab population in Michigan and the United States has great density in the areas that are Michigan's exits to Canada in case of emergency? Detroit, Port Huron, Sault Ste. Marie in the U.P. and Coldwater at the center of our state at the Indiana border. Makes you wonder. I'd like to see legislators get crackin' on security bills and frankly come up with some more and get Michigan READY should something happen this summer as the director of Homeland Security has suggested is his "GUT FEELING." Michigan could be easily ISOLATED in an attack, cut of from reinforcements and supplies. Michigan is the PERFECT STORM for a disaster. The economy is critical, but let's not put our heads in the sand regarding security. 2007 House Concurrent Resolution 28 [History, Amendments & Comments] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] Introduced by Rep. Steve Tobocman on June 13, 2007, to urge the United States Department of Homeland Security to continue to work with the states to coordinate driver's licenses with the new passport requirements to reenter the country from Canada. Passed in the House by voice vote on July 17, 2007. Received in the Senate on July 18, 2007. 2007 House Bill 4597 (Restrict DNR hunting closures ) [History, Amendments & Comments] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] Introduced by Rep. Matthew Gillard on April 12, 2007, to prohibit the Department of Natural Resources from restricting hunting on land under its control except for reasons of public safety, fish or wildlife management, homeland security concerns, or as otherwise required by law. Also, to require the department to file an annual report to the legislature that gives details on any land opened or closed to hunting in the past year. Passed in the House (109 to 0) on May 3, 2007, to prohibit the Department of Natural Resources from restricting hunting on land under its control, except for commercial forestland (which comprises almost half of all DNR land.) The bill would allow hunting to be banned on land that isn't commercial forestland only for reasons of public safety, fish or wildlife management, homeland security concerns, or as otherwise required by law. Also, to require the department to file an annual report to the legislature that gives details on any land opened or closed to hunting in the past year, not including commercial forestland. [Vote Details and Comments] Received in the Senate on May 8, 2007. 2007 Senate Resolution 21 [History, Amendments & Comments] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] Introduced by Sen. Cameron Brown on March 7, 2007, to memorialize the United States Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security to develop a pilot program in Michigan for a dual purpose state driver's license/personal identification card to comply with the provisions of the Real ID Act and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 21, 2007. 2007 Senate Resolution 20 [History, Amendments & Comments] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] Introduced by Sen. John Pappageorge on March 7, 2007, to urge the United States Department of Homeland Security to complete an economic analysis of the costs of compliance with the requirements of the federal Real ID Act and the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative. Passed in the Senate by voice vote on March 21, 2007. 2007 Senate Concurrent Resolution 3 [History, Amendments & Comments] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List] Introduced by Sen. Jud Gilbert on January 30, 2007, to urge the United States Department of Homeland Security to continue to work with the states to coordinate driver's licenses with the new passport requirements to reenter the country from Canada. Passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 13, 2007. Received in the House on February 13, 2007. Bills 1 to 5 of 5

It SHOULD be.

It SHOULD be.

It SHOULD be.

Quit playing politics and PROTECT the people you would like to vote for you next time, please.

???? A PERFECT STORM/RECIPE for disaster. Wrap the budget up, please.

IS Homeland Security Security equipment, government equipment, Red Cross Equipment, Communications like radio and TV and NOAA emergency equipment protected by or backed up with a Plan B with faraday cages to protect and ensure our safety? Are we as a federal government, state government, emergency response PREPARED in case of a EMP strike? NOT LIKELY. Do the people who need to know AND the average citizen EVEN KNOW what an EMP strike is and how quickly it could cripple transportation and communications? How many faraday cages are available for purchase in the state of Michigan? If you want to manufacture something, manufacture THAT! How much technology produced or sold in Michigan has a faraday cage protection system built into it? If our leaders elected or otherwise don't know the dangers of an EMP strike or how to protect our equipment against it, we are in BAD shape. Take a survey. Ask a friend, "Do you know what an EMP strike would do?" or "Do you know how to protect technology against an EMP strike?" or "Do you know what a faraday cage does?" If the answer is NO then we are not as prepared as we could be here in Michigan. Why does Michigan have such a high Arab population? Is it because we are easy to isolate geographically? Is it because we are the source of the most fresh water of the planet? It simply makes you wonder. It's time for Michigan to step up the security and get smart quickly. We need to be realistic and share security ideas with other states that also have a high Arab population. We need to be realistic and strategic and collaborative. And we need to do it NOW! No, YESTERDAY. Spring into action, Michigan.

Makes sense that the Arab population would be higher in college/university towns where people were going to get an education, but it still makes you wonder. Quite a little climate change. What's up with THAT?

Something to keep an eye on, as well.

Is the report published?

Great graphics/maps/population density Check it out.

Enlightening

http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-23.pdf Be informed.

Senate approves security bill Updated: July 27, 2007 07:47 AM EDT CAPITOL HILL (AP) -- Working late into the night, the Senate has approved a package of security measures recommended by the 9-11 Commission. It would shift more federal money to high-risk states and cities and require more stringent screening of air and sea cargo. The measure could clear the House as early as Friday and there's no suggestion President Bush will veto it. Still, the White House is not happy with a requirement that within five years all ship containers would have to be scanned for nuclear devices before they leave foreign ports for the US. The bill also requires the screening of all cargo on passenger aircraft within three years. The security measure would change the formula for distributing federal security grants to ensure that high-risk states and urban areas get a greater share. High-risk cities such as New York and Washington have complained that the current formula, which divides money more evenly around the country, does not reflect the realities of the terrorist threat.

When preparing for a possible emergency situation, it's best to think first about the basics of survival: fresh water, food, clean air and warmth. Recommended Items to Include in a Basic Emergency Supply Kit: Water, one gallon of water per person per day for at least three days, for drinking and sanitation Food, at least a three-day supply of non-perishable food Battery-powered or hand crank radio and a NOAA Weather Radio with tone alert and extra batteries for both Flashlight and extra batteries First aid kit Whistle to signal for help Dust mask, to help filter contaminated air and plastic sheeting and duct tape to shelter-in-place Moist towelettes, garbage bags and plastic ties for personal sanitation Wrench or pliers to turn off utilities Can opener for food (if kit contains canned food) Local maps Additional Items to Consider Adding to an Emergency Supply Kit: Prescription medications and glasses Infant formula and diapers Pet food and extra water for your pet Important family documents such as copies of insurance policies, identification and bank account records in a waterproof, portable container Cash or traveler's checks and change Emergency reference material such as a first aid book or information from www.ready.gov Sleeping bag or warm blanket for each person. Consider additional bedding if you live in a cold-weather climate. Complete change of clothing including a long sleeved shirt, long pants and sturdy shoes. Consider additional clothing if you live in a cold-weather climate. Household chlorine bleach and medicine dropper – When diluted nine parts water to one part bleach, bleach can be used as a disinfectant. Or in an emergency, you can use it to treat water by using 16 drops of regular household liquid bleach per gallon of water. Do not use scented, color safe or bleaches with added cleaners. Fire Extinguisher Matches in a waterproof container Feminine supplies and personal hygiene items Mess kits, paper cups, plates and plastic utensils, paper towels Paper and pencil Books, games, puzzles or other activities for children top of page« previous | next »

Put the BUDGET TO BED, ROLL UP YOUR SLEEVES and protect MICHIGAN CITIZENS and SHOW THE M how to protect themselves. Step up, Michigan leaders. We've got even bigger fish to fry here. Congress sends 9/11 panel recommendations to BushStory Highlights NEW: House passed homeland security bill 371-40 Friday Bill shifts more federal money to high-risk states and cities Legislation requires more stringent screening of air and sea cargo Measure passes by a 85-8 vote Next Article in Politics » Read INTERACTIVE WASHINGTON (AP) -- Congress sent President Bush legislation Friday to intensify anti-terror efforts in the U.S., shifting money to high-risk states and cities and expanding screening of air and sea cargo to stave off future September 11-style attacks. Sea cargo, which could face more stringent screening, is unloaded from a ship in New Jersey this month. The measure carries out major recommendations of the independent 9/11 Commission. The bill, passed by the House on a 371-40 vote, ranks among the top accomplishments of the six-month-old Democratic Congress. The Senate approved the measure late Thursday by 85-8, and the White House said the president would sign the bill. Six years after the Sept. 11 attacks and three years after the 9/11 Commission made its recommendations, "Congress is finally embracing what the 9/11 families have been saying all along," said Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson, D-Mississippi. "It takes a willingness to do things a different way." The bill elevates the importance of risk factors in determining which states and cities get federal security funds -- that would mean more money for such cities as New York and Washington -- and also puts money into a new program to assure that security officials at every level can communicate with each other. It would require screening of all cargo on passenger planes within three years and sets a five-year goal of scanning all container ships for nuclear devices before they leave foreign ports. Don't Miss N.Y., Washington: Anti-terror funding insufficient Report: Al Qaeda may use Iraq operatives to attack U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut, who steered the legislation through the Senate with Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said it would "make our nation stronger, our cities and towns more secure and our families safer." Republicans generally backed the bill while stressing their own administration's success in stopping another major terrorist attack. The bill, said Rep. Peter King of New York, top Republican on the Homeland Security panel, "is another step in the right direction building on the steps of the previous 51/2 years." "These efforts build upon the considerable progress we've made over the past six years," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel. Completion of the bill, six months after the House passed its original version on the first day of the current Congress, was a major victory for Democrats who have seen some of their other priorities -- immigration and energy reform and stem cell research funding -- thwarted by GOP and presidential resistance and House-Senate differences. Another goal, raising the minimum wage, went into effect last Tuesday, and Democratic leaders still hope for agreement on ethics and lobbying changes before Congress departs for its August recess at the end of next week. The independent 9/11 Commission in 2004 issued 41 recommendations covering domestic security, intelligence gathering and foreign policy. Congress and the White House followed through on some, including creating a director of national intelligence, tightening land border screening and cracking down on terrorist financing. Democrats, after taking over control of Congress, promised to make completing the list a top priority. Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, D-Indiana, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, said with enactment of the bill some 80 percent of the panel's recommendations will have been met. "The bottom line is that the American people will be safer," he said. The 9/11 bill led off the first busy legislative week in the House last January, and the Senate passed its version in March. The measure stalled after that, partly because of a White House veto threat over language, since dropped, to give collective bargaining rights to aviation screeners. House-Senate negotiators finally reached an agreement this week after Democrats worked out a provision satisfying GOP demands that people who report what they in good faith believe to be terrorist activity around planes, trains and buses be protected from lawsuits. The most controversial provision in the legislation requires the radiation scanning of cargo containers in more than 600 ports from which ships leave for the U.S. The White House, and other critics, say that the technology isn't there, that the requirement could disrupt trade and that current procedures including manifest inspections at foreign ports and radiation monitoring in U.S. ports are working well. Supporters argue that the unthinkable devastation from the detonation of a nuclear device in an American port makes it imperative to scan cargo before it reaches U.S. shores. As a compromise, it was agreed that the Homeland Security secretary can extend the five-year deadline for 100 percent scanning in two-year increments if necessary. The White House was also unhappy with a provision that requires total amounts requested and appropriated for the intelligence community to be made public. There was more agreement on changing the formula to ensure that more federal security grants go to high-risk states and cities. The current formula makes sure that every lawmaker, even those representing rural areas relatively safe from terrorism, get a chunk of the federal grants. Under the new formula a larger percentage of grants will go to high-risk urban areas. The bill also establishes a new grant program to ensure that local, state and federal officials can communicate with each other and approves $4 billion over four years for rail, transit and bus security. It strengthens security measures for the Visa Waiver Program, which allows travelers from select countries to visit the United States without visas. The massive legislation also contains language requiring the president to confirm that Pakistan is making progress in combatting al Qaeda and Taliban elements within its borders before the United States provides aid to the country. Hamilton said that one shortcoming of the bill is that it fails to carry out the commission's recommendation that Congress streamline its own overlapping setup for monitoring intelligence and homeland security matters. "I think congressional oversight still remains a weakness in our homeland security," he said. E-mail to a friend

How about protection at Michigan's borders? Port Huron, Detroit, Sault Ste. Maria, Coldwater?