Will Asian American immigration (like Hispanics did in the 2000s) peak/slow soon?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Actually, it's clearly the Census Bureau, quoted by Breitbart.

I don't care. It's Breitbart, so not a legitimate information source. There is no reason to think they would post anything related to the truth, because their entire mission is to engage in misinformation and poison the public sphere.

We can debate the Census numbers, of course. But linking to an extremist hate organization isn't helpful or informative.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by RST500

Yes, but the decline is very modest. Also there is a country cap bill in the Senate that would dramatically increase immigration from India.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/immig...dce_story.html

We don't know if it was a temporary decline or the start of a broader trend, but it's not modest because the number of Indian immigrants dropped by roughly a third since 2016. This is probably hard to see because the chart's scale is distorted to show the decline in Mexican immigration since 2006.

What we do know is that the recent declines coincide with the start of the Trump presidency, and that there had not been a decline of any sort in the decade preceding Trump's inauguration. We also know that the decline of Indian nationals to the U.S. mirrors declines of nationals from other countries.

[RST500]

Indian immigration to US down 7.5%


https://economictimes.indiatimes.com...w/73262243.cms

[Pedestrian]

^^The issues that govern Asian and Latin American immigrants are quite different since the former require a lengthy transoceanic trip and usually arrive by air whereas the latter need only walk or swim across the border.

Both are recently declining for very different reasons. I won't go into the Latin American issue here--it's too complicated and emotional and I don't want to add politics to this any more than necessary.

But with Asians, what we may be seeing may have to do with Trump Administration policies shutting down family-based immigration from countries that cannot or will not satisfy US vetting requirements for persons desiring to immigrate. According to the Washington Post, those policies have, at the moment "all but shut down" immigration from Myanmar, also known as Burma, as well as Nigeria, Kyrgyzstan, Eritrea, Sudan and Tanzania. Besides those countries, I have no doubt procedures in other countries have been slowed. Family-based immigration in general is not favored by the current US Administration.

See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...c09_story.html

[RST500]

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...iness-n1207251

Interesting to see if this will have an impact post-quarantine.

[iheartthed]

^That seems like it would be unthinkably catastrophic. America has the best educational institutions in the world because of its ability to attract the best students from around the world. Not only would cutting off incentive for foreign students to attend school in the U.S. send many university systems into bankruptcy, other countries would scramble to fill the void.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by RST500

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/imm...iness-n1207251

Interesting to see if this will have an impact post-quarantine.

The US might see a population decline much earlier than expected.

In 2018, natural growth (births minus deaths) had dropped below 1 million for the first time since 1937 (!!!) and it's falling quickly (1.9 million surplus as early as 2007). This year, with Covid deaths, might not even reach the 800k mark.

As migration surpluses are getting smaller, anti-immigration mood stronger, shrinking might arrive in the 2030's already.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

The US might see a population decline much earlier than expected.

In 2018, natural growth (births minus deaths) had dropped below 1 million for the first time since 1937 (!!!) and it's falling quickly (1.9 million surplus as early as 2007). This year, with Covid deaths, might not even reach the 800k mark.

As migration surpluses are getting smaller, anti-immigration mood stronger, shrinking might arrive in the 2030's already.

Except anti-immigration mood has actually decreased over time.

Everyone knows the reason that immigration to U.S. has dropped in the last couple of years, and that's probably ending in a few months. It has nothing to do with the migrants themselves.

I would guess there will be a dramatic immigration surge in the coming decades, as birth rates continue to drop, as we've seen in basically every other first world western country.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Except anti-immigration mood has actually decreased over time.

Everyone knows the reason that immigration to U.S. has dropped in the last couple of years, and that's probably ending in a few months. It has nothing to do with the migrants themselves.

How optimistic.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I would guess there will be a dramatic immigration surge in the coming decades, as birth rates continue to drop, as we've seen in basically every other first world western country.

Whether we'll see a "dramatic immigration surge" (for no reason whatsoeve), it's as you said a "guess".

What we are sure about is the US TFR fell to very low levels and showed no sign of recovery during the good economic momentum. Births fell to 3.8 million in 2018 (down from 4.3 million in 2007) while deaths keep rising inexorably as larger generations to start die off. It's at 2.8 million (2018). By 2030, people born in 1950 will start to die (3.6 million people) pretty much ending positive natural growth in the US.

This over optimistic explosion on immigration numbers expected by you, if it happens, will only offset the traditional 2 million national growth.

[JoeMusashi]

America (and the rest of the developed world) is already broken if it needs to rely on third world birth rates to fuel its future success. We are an economic Elizabeth Bathory and eventually the peasants are going to get wise to our plundering. If world birth rates are falling, what is the plan going forward? Natural growth is the only answer, anything less is relying too deeply on foreign labor and automation. We will be a new Rome if that is the case.

I don't see this college story being a single party issue either. Bragging about how great your university is and how good the foreign pipeline means shit to the working class leftists and right-wingers who can't afford to attend them and are constantly demoralized by these same elites about their manufacturing base drying up. Revolution is brewing on both sides of the aisle.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

America (and the rest of the developed world) is already broken if it needs to rely on third world birth rates to fuel its future success.

So, according to you, the U.S. has been broken since its inception, because the U.S. has always built its success on a foundation of migration.

Sorry, but women aren't property anymore, and aren't gonna be churning out 12 kids. Countries can grow rich through immigration, or they can wither away.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by Crawford

So, according to you, the U.S. has been broken since its inception, because the U.S. has always built its success on a foundation of migration.

Sorry, but women aren't property anymore, and aren't gonna be churning out 12 kids. Countries can grow rich through immigration, or they can wither away.

America and the world is a different place than it was then. Prospective markets for immigration are rapidly dwindling in the coming years and you would essentially be pinning our economic future on third world birthrates. Women might not be property but we are certainly looking at ones elsewhere as baby producing factories!

America was primarily built on immigration from other Western, European or Latin nations. We also had a 40 year gap in immigration and other restrictions or historical anomalies (like WWI) that allowed the melting pot to work.

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

America and the world is a different place than it was then. Prospective markets for immigration are rapidly dwindling in the coming years and you would essentially be pinning our economic future on third world birthrates. Women might not be property but we are certainly looking at ones elsewhere as baby producing factories!

America was primarily built on immigration from other Western, European or Latin nations. We also had a 40 year gap in immigration and other restrictions or historical anomalies (like WWI) that allowed the melting pot to work.

yes and there is another break in immigration now, so what? what you are claiming isnt that america is different today, but that immigration wont come roaring back the moment its allowed, as it has in the past. that seems very contrarian to history.

[mousquet]

^ Lol, hè, crois surtout pas que je veuille ruiner méchamment tes espoirs comme un être nuisible, laid, malsain ou malveillant, but the American Empire will gradually be going down just as every empire did before, once they'd got to their peak. It is already.

There is simply no exception to this rule. In case you'd actually have any spiritual education of any kind, I'll turn it this way: once God says - that's enough with that thing not good enough, that's just enough with it.
Then something else would arise anyhow. Quite possibly the Chinese regime if Western democracies don't get together.

It's always been that way, since we've all been Homo Sapiens. Just the sense of evolution, natural selection, whatever you'd call it in the Darwinian logic.
It is relentless and never fails anyway. That's why we've been trying the European Union here. We need to grow larger and more understanding to one another to survive.

And really, I've never heard of any population really friendly to immigration. People would rather enslave other people than welcoming them in their own places.
Actually, even in the 19th-century U.S., immigration was already controversial and raised a lot of hostility, or so I heard.

[SIGSEGV]

Eternal population growth is unsustainable in any case. We need to figure out how to make our economy resilient to future population stagnation.

To avert population decline, we will probably need something like a child stipend (which at the very least would be large enough to pay for daycare?). Universal free daycare is another solution, but it would effectively penalize people who want to be housewives/husbands. Maybe that's ok though.

[JoeMusashi]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

yes and there is another break in immigration now, so what? what you are claiming isnt that america is different today, but that immigration wont come roaring back the moment its allowed, as it has in the past. that seems very contrarian to history.

Our break in immigration lasted 40 years, from 1924-1965. I'm pretty sure the percent of the population that are immigrants today is equal to peak Ellis Island era and it is only projected to climb for the rest of the century.

We are an immigrant nation but we also are one based on the melting pot model not multiculturalism. People talk about us being an immigrant nation but forget about the events and policy that made us into an American one. Shared purposes like WWI which destroyed German culture in America, the Depression, WW2, and the Cold War. What purpose do we all have today? Media inflames political and racial tensions for ratings. Even something as big as 9/11 ended up being an internal political battle instead of a truly unifying long-term event.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Eternal population growth is unsustainable in any case. We need to figure out how to make our economy resilient to future population stagnation.

This is exactly why migration to wealthy first world nations is critical to lowering overall global birth rates.

And it's entirely sustainable from the U.S. perspective. There will be poorer nations with excess populations for many generations. The U.S., all things equal, is the most desirable destination, so has control over population growth.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by JoeMusashi

America and the world is a different place than it was then. Prospective markets for immigration are rapidly dwindling in the coming years and you would essentially be pinning our economic future on third world birthrates. Women might not be property but we are certainly looking at ones elsewhere as baby producing factories!

America was primarily built on immigration from other Western, European or Latin nations. We also had a 40 year gap in immigration and other restrictions or historical anomalies (like WWI) that allowed the melting pot to work.

The foundation of America's economy was built on slave labor not immigration. Mass immigration from Europe and elsewhere came primarily after America had already become a prosperous slave colony.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/...edward-baptist

[dc_denizen]

the foundation of america's wealth was not slave labor, there were several other equally important factors.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

the foundation of america's wealth was not slave labor, there were several other equally important factors.

Yes it was. To discount that is disingenuous and ahistorical. America was just as much of a slave colony as any place in the Caribbean or Latin America. For much of it's history Cotton was our biggest export and created great wealth for the country that would have not been there otherwise. Wall St. was literally a slave market and much of the funding for factories in the United States and Europe were funded by the proceeds of slavery.