Growing population says nothing about net migration other than the fact that it isn't as large as the number of births.
Also I'm not going back to 1850. CA used to be a relatively free state and it had net domestic migration in. But in recent years or decades its been the other way around. And in recent years international migration in hasn't been enough to make up the difference.
---
Since 1992, California has witnessed a negative domestic migration rate every year except two (1999 and 2000) with top the recipient states being Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Texas, and Washington. Complicating matters: a quality replacement phenomenon, with lost jobs being replaced by lower-paying ones. Los Angeles County, for example, has lost a net of 28,627 jobs between 1990 and 2011 according to UCLA researchers. Among the 100,749 jobs leaving the county, the average salary was $76,000 (about $20,000 over Los Angeles County’s household median income), while the average salary for the 72,122 jobs moving to the county was roughly $52,000—a decline of almost 32% and $4,000 below the county’s household median income.
advancingafreesociety.org
An analysis of California's population trends reports that since 1990 California's net migration has been net negative 3.6 million people.
acec-ca.org
foxandhoundsdaily.com
Note the above chart is cumulative interstate migration, not that many per year, also CA has pulled in more people from other countries than have left for other countries so the total migration including international migration wasn't negative until after 2001. |
