Immigration drives population growth in Kentucky in 2024
Migration from other states but more so by people from other countries accounts for Kentucky's population growth in 2024. (Getty Images)
Thanks to The Daily Yonder's Sarah Melotte for providing Kentucky's Census data to the Lantern.
Kentucky's population grew in 2024, according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates. And over 80% of that growth was due to the migration of people from other countries.
The Census makes yearly estimates of population changes at the state and county level. Here are five items to note from the report on 2024:
Kentucky added a net 37,777 people last year, an increase of .8%. At the end of last year, Kentucky had a population of 4,588,372, according to the Census.
Kentucky had more deaths (53,140) than births (52,248) in 2024. That loss was made up by a net increase in domestic migration of 7,294 people. (More people moved into Kentucky from other states than moved out.)
The largest contributor to Kentucky's population growth was international migration. The state gained 31,430 people in the net exchange of people between Kentucky and other countries. Over 80% of the net gain in Kentucky's population came from international migration.
Of Kentucky's 120 counties, 37 lost population in 2024. A large number of these are places that have been dependent on coal mining.
The state's two largest counties (Jefferson and Fayette) both had decreases in domestic migration, but gained population overall because of international migration. For example, Jefferson lost just over 4,600 people to domestic migration, but gained 13,807 people from other counties. (Counties surrounding these two metro counties gained from domestic migration; some of that growth likely came from moving out of the large metro counties.)
The 2024 report is a snapshot of population trends. And in many ways, Kentucky is like the rest of the nation. For example, most of the population growth in the U.S. in 2024 was due to international migration.
Jefferson, 1.3%
Fayette, 1.5%
Warren, 2.8%
Boone, 1.9%
Kenton, 1.5%
Madison, 2.0%
Scott, 1.8%
Jessamine, 1.8%
Bullitt, 0.9%
Nelson, 1.5%
Pike, -1.0%
Floyd, -1.3%
Perry, -1.3%
Letcher, -1.3%
Harlan, -1.0%
McCreary, -1.4%
Martin, -2.1%
Christian, -0.3%
Knott, -1.6%
Larue, -1.3%
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
California looters now face ‘hard-charging' consequences after blue state abandoned soft-on-crime approach
Amid the continuing unrest and flash mob-style looting incidents in Los Angeles, California is making a significant pivot toward tougher criminal enforcement. Criminal defense attorney David Wohl told Fox News Digital that the legal consequences are no longer a slap on the wrist for looters following the reversal of Proposition 47, which notably did not criminalize theft under $950. Advertisement 'Now we have a very conservative, hard-charging DA in Los Angeles,' Wohl said. 'He's adding up what is stolen by each individual co-defendant, and if that's over $950, everybody's getting charged with felonies.' In a city once known for turning a blind eye to petty theft and soft prosecution, looters who are taking advantage of protests over federal immigration operations now face stricter penalties. In 2014, California voters approved Proposition 47, a ballot initiative that reclassified several nonviolent felonies, including shoplifting, theft and drug possession, as misdemeanors if the value involved was $950 or less. Supporters argued the measure would reduce prison overcrowding and redirect state funds to additional programming. Advertisement 8 Vulgar graffiti was spray-painted onto an Apple store after it was looted during the riots in Los Angeles on June 10, 2025. REUTERS 8 Protesters loot a gas station convenience store in Paramount, California on June 7, 2025. Getty Images Critics argued that it contributed to a noticeable increase in retail theft and emboldened looters. In 2024, voters voiced their concerns and overwhelmingly chose a sharp course correction from the progressive reforms that Proposition 47 implemented and voted in favor of Proposition 36. Advertisement Prop 36 restored the ability to file felony charges against repeat offenders, regardless of whether their latest crime falls under the $950 limit. It also enhances penalties for group theft and organized looting, which had previously fallen into legal gray zones under Prop 47. 8 Police officers detain a group of protesters in the streets of Los Angeles on June 11, 2025. AFP via Getty Images The shift stems from a growing rejection of the previous criminal justice model championed by former District Attorney George Gascon, who Wohl described as 'more liberal than a lot of public defenders.' Advertisement Under Gascon's leadership, prosecution was often delayed or diminished, with an emphasis on giving offenders 'second, third, fourth, fifth chances,' Wohl said. William Jacobson, a law professor at Cornell University and founder of offered a sharp critique of California's criminal justice policies in light of the emergence of looters during the ongoing L.A. protests against immigration enforcement. 8 Graffiti is sprayed onto the glass windows of an Apple store hit by looters during the Anti-ICE riots in California. REUTERS 8 Apple products are scattered around a store that was looted during the Los Angeles riots on June 9, 2025. REUTERS 'Looting and violence have always been illegal, even in California,' Jacobson told Fox News Digital. 'Unfortunately, California's lax enforcement of the criminal laws, including the former decriminalization of shoplifting, has created a culture of criminality that has played out in numerous riots over the years.' 'The current riots against immigration enforcement and violence targeting both ICE and the community are part of the California political ecosystem,' he said. Looters in LA Several stores across downtown Los Angeles were hit by looters in the early morning hours as anti-ICE riots continued. On Monday night, looters took to the streets and ransacked a series of storefronts, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed with Fox News Digital. Apple and Adidas were among the stores hit by thieves, as well as several mom-and-pop shops. Advertisement 'What have they done to my business? I don't know,' one local business owner shared with Fox News affiliate KKTV. 'I have to go inside and see what's going on. I don't know what they have done with the business.' 8 A shoe sits on the floor in an empty Adidas store attacked by looters in Los Angeles. ALLISON DINNER/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock 8 Workers board up a CVS pharmacy after it was looted by rioters in Los Angeles on June 10, 2025. REUTERS One video, taken by Brendan Gutenschwager, captured looters ransacking an Apple storefront on Monday night. Advertisement The video captured a slew of individuals dashing up to the technology storefront and grabbing goods before dispersing as police arrived. The footage captured the store's glass windows spray-painted with 'F— ICE.' Other photos showed ransackers disappearing into the night with stolen goods after a smash-and-grab in Compton, a city south of Los Angeles. It was unclear if the thieves were participating in the ongoing anti-ICE protests or if they were being opportunistic of the city's unrest. Advertisement 'Let me be clear: ANYONE who vandalized Downtown or looted stores does not care about our immigrant communities,' Mayor Karen Bass said in a post to X. 'You will be held accountable.' On Tuesday and Wednesday, after continued protests, other businesses set out to protect their stores. Fox News Digital saw a T-Mobile store on the corner of 3rd Street and Broadway boarding up ahead of likely another night of protests in the city. While a security guard protected the property, a repairer worked on the CVS store on the corner of 7th and Spring streets in downtown Los Angeles after several nights of rioting. Attorney General Pam Bondi offered a blunt message to would-be robbers and looters in the deep-blue city on 'Fox & Friends' Tuesday. Advertisement 'If you loot a business in California during this, we're charging you with robbery under the Hobbs Act. No longer are the days of non-prosecution for looting. It's a criminal act,' she said. 8 Police officers detained masked protesters after a demonstration near Los Angeles City Hall on June 11, 2025. AFP via Getty Images The administration is also determined to crack down on those who inflict harm on law enforcement. 'We've all made over 190 arrests, [and] more [are] coming. If you hit a police officer, you assault a police officer, state or federal, we are coming after you.'
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The big, beautiful AI disaster coming to a school near you
"AI-generated images and chatbot responses about the Los Angeles situation have further exposed the startling lack of information and AI literacy among the American public." (Getty Images) Predictably, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement riots in Los Angeles have been viewed through a partisan lens. The left has suggested that the federalizing of the California National Guard is a mere dress rehearsal for a full military dictatorship by President Donald Trump, while the right has pounded the drum of pseudo-law and order with '[i]f they spit, we will hit.' Both of these viewpoints are irresponsible, ill-conceived, and lean into misinformation. Trump is within his lawful and precedential authority to federalize the National Guard given the current circumstances seen in and around Los Angeles. Spitting on a law enforcement officer is assault. However, Trump's remark about spitting directly leading to hitting overtly encourages disproportionate use of force. Couple this with the speaker of the House saying that the governor of California 'should be tarred and feathered.' Lost among the politics of this moment is something media analysts have been concerned about for quite some time — moments of social upheaval ceding fertile ground to the rapid spread and uptake of misinformation via artificial intelligence. AI-generated images and chatbot responses about the Los Angeles situation have further exposed the startling lack of information and AI literacy among the American public. It is one thing for adults to engage with potential AI-driven misinformation, but consider that the minds of Generations Z and Alpha are developing within this information environment. The pertinent question to be asked is this: How will this caustic environment shape their information consumption habits? The information environment surrounding Los Angeles right now is not an outlier. It once again reveals the scale of misinformation AI is capable of generating and the ease with which it can inflame public discourse. Yet, amid this crisis, Congress is pushing forward with what has been dubbed the big beautiful bill — a federal budget package that includes a 10-year moratorium on any state-level AI regulation. This regulation would prevent schools from teaching the vital skill of AI-driven information literacy. Squirreled away in the 1,000-plus pages of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a clause which reads: '…no state or political subdivision may enforce, during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act, any law or regulation limiting, restricting, or otherwise regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems entered into interstate commerce.' This clause explicitly forbids states and their political subdivisions (i.e. school boards) from enacting or enforcing any law or policy that 'limits, restricts, or otherwise regulates' artificial intelligence systems. This broad language would ban everything from AI plagiarism checkers to basic AI literacy curricula in public education. While proponents claim this is about ensuring regulatory uniformity, the effect is much more pervasive. It locks state governments and schools into inaction in a time of dynamic technological change. When teaching students to assess the authenticity of information, there is a hard line to walk between healthy skepticism and corrosive cynicism. AI makes this line ever more opaque to navigate. Developing minds are already traversing AI-saturated landscapes without the tools they need. Teaching AI literacy in schools is not a partisan demand; it is a civic necessity. Teachers should not demand students to be zealots or Luddites in regard to any topic. But teachers should encourage them to become friendly critics of digital information and AI — capable of examining the tools they use with both curiosity and caution. To its supporters, the 10-year moratorium is being championed as a win for unfettered innovation. In a purely capitalistic sense, this is true and could lead to widespread economic prosperity. However, it is worth recalling that similar rhetoric surrounded the onset of social media platforms. We now know what happened when those technologies were left unregulated and used as substitutes for the in-person socialization of developing minds. Mental health spiraled, polarization deepened, and a generation came of age in an isolating echo chamber. We cannot afford to wait and see what AI will do on a larger, accelerated scale. As the R Street Institute argues, the moratorium is a way to avoid a patchwork of conflicting state laws. What it actually does is prevent local communities from crafting age-appropriate, culturally relevant responses to a fast-moving technological frontier. This is not about red states or blue states, right or left. If Democrats controlled the Legislature, the tech lobby would have courted them the same way. This is about whether any policymaker who claims to care about children or families will acknowledge the responsibility of schools to prepare their students for the rapidly changing world beyond their walls. The next chapter of American life will be molded by the technologies developing minds use. This is precisely why a 21st-century, technology-focused curriculum needs to be at the forefront of every school board discussion this summer. Students should learn not only how to prompt AI responsibly, but how to verify the accuracy of its output. They should study its biases, understand its limitations, and consider its societal impacts. In doing so, they will be less likely to fall for the kinds of digital falsehoods intended to exacerbate moments of social upheaval. AI and information literacy are not passing educational trends like social-emotional learning or whole language instruction. They are part of a new baseline for civic competence. School districts should be empowered, not prohibited, from integrating these skills into their curricula. The technology shaping this generation will evolve faster than the ability to legislate solutions to its shortcomings. Education is the answer to prepare young minds for a world awash in AI and digital information. Let us hope this answer does not get taken away from states and local school boards, leading students down the road to a big, beautiful AI disaster.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Ohio ‘state to watch' for U.S. constitutional convention measures, concerned advocates say
Stock photo from Getty Images. Ohio is one of the states where legislators are pushing for conventions that could make constitutional amendments related to term limits and other issues, but advocates are concerned about the free-for-all that could result. These measures have garnered strong opinions on both sides of the issue. Opponents, going back to James Madison, say constitutional conventions are risky because of their lack of regulation once a convention is called. This could allow for uncontrolled power-grabs that could result in amendments that may not be popular with the general public. The U.S. Constitution can be amended in two ways: through Congress with amendments passed with two-thirds support of each chamber and then sent to the states for ratification; or through a constitutional convention invoked by Article V. Article V is silent about rules and regulations once a convention is called. In order to call a convention, two-thirds of states, or 34 of the 50, would have to pass their own resolutions applying for a constitutional convention for a certain purpose. Past applications by states have aimed to force the federal government to balance their budget, but no such convention has happened in the history of the United States. Recently, however, the draft of a lawsuit has been circulating to attorneys generals in some states, looking to make the convention happen based on a legal argument that applications from states — no matter the purpose or age of the request — can be combined and counted toward the 34 needed to bring about a constitutional convention, according to critics of the move. 'This is literally a rewrite of our Constitution,' said Viki Harrison, policy director for civil rights and civil liberties with Common Cause, a nonpartisan voting rights advocacy and government watchdog group with branches all over the country. 'There would be nothing safe, there would be no guardrails.' Ohio has seen out-of-state interest in their measures, in what Common Cause Ohio's Catherine Turcer called a 'full-court press' this year of legislation and movement to see passage. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum appeared in March to support Senate Joint Resolution 3 in the Ohio Senate General Government Committee, and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis came to Ohio to support House Joint Resolution 3. 'It is very clear that Ohio is a focus of moving an Article V convention, that it is in fact a priority, and we are a state to watch,' Turcer said in a media briefing with other Common Cause branches. Santorum spoke on behalf of Convention of States Action, an advocacy group pushing for support of a constitutional convention, arguing that America's founders included the option of a constitutional convention 'to give the states a way to counteract the federal government if it became abusive with its powers.' Convention of States Action said 19 states have passed resolutions for a constitutional convention, and 'we hope to see Ohio become state number 20,' according to state media liaison Diana Telles. DeSantis argued that without term limits in Congress, 'incentives to do really good policy are just skewed away,' making a constitutional amendment necessary. The resolution DeSantis came to support, HJR 3, specifically applies for a convention of the states to institute congressional term limits. The measure and its Senate counterpart, SJR 6, look to piggyback on a 1992 amendment to the Ohio Constitution that instituted term limits for Ohio's members in Congress of two successive six-year terms in the U.S. Senate and four two-year terms in the U.S. House. Those term limits aren't being enforced because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1996 that 'the states have no authority to change the qualifications for members of Congress,' according to an analysis of HJR 3 done by the Legislative Service Commission. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX While the resolutions spell out the necessary number of states needed to call a convention, they also point out that the Constitution 'does not specify how a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution must be conducted or how its delegates are to be chosen.' 'Further, the Constitution does not indicate whether the states that apply for a convention may limit the scope of amendments the convention is to propose,' the HJR 3 and SJR 6 resolution analyses state. While term limits are attractive to many Americans, the opposition to constitutional conventions has less to do with the specific issues and more to do with the freedom convention attendees would have if it takes place. 'Whether you like term limits or not, (the problem is) the mechanism to get it,' Harrison said. As for the other convention request currently working its way through the Ohio legislature, HJR 2 and its companion, SJR 3, also want to see a convention that touches on term limits, but go further, looking at amendments 'that impose fiscal restraints on the federal government' and 'limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.' These measures go into more detail about the purported method through which conventions are formed, while also noting Congress 'does not have power beyond calling the convention and setting a reasonable time and place.' The Ohio bills name the state legislatures as authority-bearers when it comes to naming delegates to the convention, instructing delegates, and recalling delegates for 'breach of a duty or a violation of the instructions provided.' All four resolutions have seen hearings in their committees, but no votes have been cast on the measures yet, possibly because the legislature has had the main priority of passing a state operating budget by the end of June. Some states have been working to repeal resolutions that requested a convention, which, according to Georgetown University law professor David Super, could be the reason a lawsuit to combine existing resolutions is being floated. 'Congress decided long ago that it can only count applications together when they're for the same purpose,' Super said, in the media briefing with Common Cause. The Ohio resolutions on term limits specify that the application 'is valid only for the purpose of a convention that is limited to considering congressional term limits,' and say it 'should be aggregated with other state applications for a convention on term limits, but not with any applications on any other subject.' The resolutions focused on federal fiscal responsibility say the measures are only valid if combined 'with other applications from state legislatures that call for a convention for substantially the same purpose.' Telles said the movement for a constitutional convention would be for all of these issues. From the Convention of States Action point of view, 'it is necessary to address all of these areas, not just term limits or a balanced budget.' 'State amending conventions to propose amendments are a safe, civil and constitutional way for the states to flex their muscle and affect real change in Washington, D.C.,' Telles said. 'It's clear Washington is not going to fix itself.' Even if the lawsuit is filed – it's still just a draft at this point – Super said previous cases like it have fallen apart in the past, and 'there are some really serious problems with it.' 'The reason that these cases have failed is … they operate on the premise that the federal courts can tell the legislature what to do,' Super said. And while this issue has seen some momentum, according to Common Cause, the idea of implementing a constitutional convention isn't a universally supported issue by any means, even among the same political parties. 'This is not a standard red-blue issue, there are members of Congress who have strongly supported a constitutional convention,' Super said. 'But there are also members of Congress who are opposed to a convention.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
