HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 8:17 PM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 1,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
One thing I've regularly wondered about -- why is the US so good at resettling refugees in rural/small town areas, compared to Canada. Like the Somalis and Hmong in Minneapolis, but tons of other examples too. You'll find of cases all over, from Seattle to Houston, from the Midwest to the South.

In Canada, the big issue is overcrowding immigrants and newcomers into the same expensive cities, and even when immigrants are settled into small towns, they leave and head for Toronto or Vancouver.

But in the US, it seems like this is less of a problem. Burmese, or Eritrean, Cambodian or Hmong refugees deciding to pack up and head to New York or LA or Chicago isn't as heavily talked about, but refugees in, say, Nova Scotia or somewhere, packing up and moving to the GTA is.

Ironically, the US seems to have more mobility among its domestic-born population than Canada (more people move and work between states than between provinces), yet refugee communities are really good at staying put and growing a local community so that kids and grandkids of small town 70s-era refugees are still around growing the community, not packed up and left for the nearest big metro.
All immigrants initially tend to cluster in a few cities where they can gain a foothold. Ethnic enclaves facilitate assistance within the group, and language issues are not a problem. Once the assimilation takes place, they move to new areas. Where the foothold is may just be a matter of chance. For example, when the Vietnamese refugees came to America in the mid 1970s, they were initially settled in camps on U.S. military bases, for example Camp Pendleton south of Orange County CA. It therefore was easy to resettle in suburban Orange County, and that area still probaby has the largest number of Vietnamese Americans.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 8:32 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Since when is Minneapolis rural or small town?
Maybe a better phrasing than rural or small town is "not a big, huge city".

The US is still better at getting refugees/immigrants to stay in a Minneapolis sized city (let alone a Lowell-sized one or even smaller) and not leave for the nearest Chicago-sized city or bi-coastal metro area than say, Canada would be at getting refugees/immigrants to stay in Halifax, Thunder Bay, or Saskatoon and not leave for Toronto or Vancouver.

US-bound immigrants seem more comfortable in a 100 000-something people city, or 10, 000-something one, even one not that diverse, than Canadian-bound immigrants. This applies even for non-refugees. Despite the perception that Americans are super mobile and will pack up more readily than Canadians for greener pastures in another state/province at the drop of a hat. So many more South Asian hotel owners or engineers far from any big city in the US because they initially settled there, so few in Canadian small towns far from Brampton or Surrey.

I'm wondering about this phenomenon. Is it willingness on the part of the immigrants themselves or the town to be super good at welcoming/settling them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 8:40 PM
Urbanguy's Avatar
Urbanguy Urbanguy is offline
Go Beavs! Go Niners!
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Portland | Honolulu
Posts: 6,147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
One thing I've regularly wondered about -- why is the US so good at resettling refugees in rural/small town areas, compared to Canada. Like the Somalis and Hmong in Minneapolis, but tons of other examples too. You'll find of cases all over, from Seattle to Houston, from the Midwest to the South.

In Canada, the big issue is overcrowding immigrants and newcomers into the same expensive cities, and even when immigrants are settled into small towns, they leave and head for Toronto or Vancouver.

But in the US, it seems like this is less of a problem. Burmese, or Eritrean, Cambodian or Hmong refugees deciding to pack up and head to New York or LA or Chicago isn't as heavily talked about, but refugees in, say, Nova Scotia or somewhere, packing up and moving to the GTA is.

Ironically, the US seems to have more mobility among its domestic-born population than Canada (more people move and work between states than between provinces), yet refugee communities are really good at staying put and growing a local community so that kids and grandkids of small town 70s-era refugees are still around growing the community, not packed up and left for the nearest big metro.
There are a number of reasons why the US Government settles Refugees in rural/small towns to larger metros. Often times they try to settle them in places that the US Government and the organizations (usually Religious) that they approve funding for in places that they believe would have the least negative impact (e.g., lower cost of living, lower crime, etc.) on their lives and provide adequate opportunities for them to easily adjust to American Society.

Places like Boise, Idaho (e.g., Bosnia, Congo, Uzbekistan, etc.), Des Moines, Iowa (e.g., Burma, Sudan, Somalia, Iraq, Togo, Congo, Liberia, Eritrea, Burundi, Syria, etc.), Lincoln, Nebraska (e.g., Iraq, Burma, Sudan) to Fargo, North Dakota (e.g., Somalia, Iraq, Congo, Sudan, Liberia, etc.) also receive a lot of refugees from all over the globe relative to their size/per capita.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 8:43 PM
Capsicum's Avatar
Capsicum Capsicum is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Western Hemisphere
Posts: 2,164
Interesting then that the US has done a pretty good job at it, engaging at the local level, despite immigration being a federal issue.

In Canada, the provinces have some say with regards to immigration policy (on the books, provinces have a lot of control over immigration). In principle, provinces that aren't as economically prosperous have a harder time not getting the immigrants to simply pack up and leave to the economically prosperous cities in a different province. The "immigrants come in and use the small town as a stepping stone to the big city, often leaving in the next half decade or so" is the bane of some provinces' immigration policies with the goal to distribute immigrants more evenly to economically struggling places, like some parts of the Maritimes, though things have been getting better I hear as immigrant communities start to build up (and the incentive to leave is less).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 9:28 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
Maybe a better phrasing than rural or small town is "not a big, huge city".

The US is still better at getting refugees/immigrants to stay in a Minneapolis sized city (let alone a Lowell-sized one or even smaller) and not leave for the nearest Chicago-sized city or bi-coastal metro area than say, Canada would be at getting refugees/immigrants to stay in Halifax, Thunder Bay, or Saskatoon and not leave for Toronto or Vancouver.
uhhhhh, compared to places like thunder bay or saskatoon, the twin cities ARE a "big, huge city".


metro populations:

MSP: 3,600,000

saskatoon: 300,000

thunder bay: 125,000
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 9:42 PM
Chef's Avatar
Chef Chef is online now
Paradise Island
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 1,863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
uhhhhh, compared to places like thunder bay or saskatoon, the twin cities ARE a "big, huge city".


metro populations:

MSP: 3,600,000

saskatoon: 300,000

thunder bay: 125,000
I was going to say, Minneapolis is larger than Vancouver and almost the size of Montreal. There is no problem getting immigrants and refugees to stay here because it offers the opportunities and resources of a major city. More comparable cities would be Duluth and Fargo. Fargo gets refugees and holds on to them because it has economic opportunity, Duluth doesn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 9:47 PM
pdxtex's Avatar
pdxtex pdxtex is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 2,530
portland is about 7 percent asian. vietnamese are the largest ethnicity followed by chinese..
__________________
Portland!! Where young people go to retire.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 10:58 PM
TexasPlaya's Avatar
TexasPlaya TexasPlaya is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: ATX-HTOWN
Posts: 8,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capsicum View Post
One thing I've regularly wondered about -- why is the US so good at resettling refugees in rural/small town areas, compared to Canada. Like the Somalis and Hmong in Minneapolis, but tons of other examples too. You'll find of cases all over, from Seattle to Houston, from the Midwest to the South.

In Canada, the big issue is overcrowding immigrants and newcomers into the same expensive cities, and even when immigrants are settled into small towns, they leave and head for Toronto or Vancouver.

But in the US, it seems like this is less of a problem. Burmese, or Eritrean, Cambodian or Hmong refugees deciding to pack up and head to New York or LA or Chicago isn't as heavily talked about, but refugees in, say, Nova Scotia or somewhere, packing up and moving to the GTA is.

Ironically, the US seems to have more mobility among its domestic-born population than Canada (more people move and work between states than between provinces), yet refugee communities are really good at staying put and growing a local community so that kids and grandkids of small town 70s-era refugees are still around growing the community, not packed up and left for the nearest big metro.
Probably just the overall nature of the US/upward mobility along with the size difference between cities.

The Vietnamese in Houston fit like a glove, similar climate and they had no problem finding work in fishing/shrimping.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 11:08 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasPlaya View Post
Probably just the overall nature of the US/upward mobility along with the size difference between cities.

The Vietnamese in Houston fit like a glove, similar climate and they had no problem finding work in fishing/shrimping.
Didn't they get threatened by the KKK when they got into shrimping? Or was that more Louisiana? That kinda sounds like a problem to me.

Decades After Clashing With The Klan, A Thriving Vietnamese Community In Texas
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/25/66985...unity-in-texas
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2019, 11:12 PM
homebucket homebucket is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 852
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Top Asian group by metro:

Atlanta Indian 102,000 1.8%
Boston Chinese 133,000 2.8%
Chicago Indian 205,000 2.2%
Dallas Indian 140,000 2%
Detroit Indian 71,000 1.7%
Honolulu Filipino 148,000 15%
Houston Indian 124,000 1.9%
Los Angeles Chinese 507.000 3.8%
New York Chinese 740,000 3.7%
Philadelphia Indian 109,000 1.8%
Sacramento Chinese 61,000 2.7%
San Diego Filipino 158,000 4.8%
San Francisco Chinese 462,000 10.1%
San Jose Chinese 166,000 8.5%
Seattle Chinese 97,000 2.6%
Washington Indian 151,000 2.5%

#2 Asian group:

Atlanta Korean 45,000 0.8%
Boston Indian 76,000 1.6%
Chicago Filipino 112,000 1.2%
Dallas Vietnamese 84,000 1.2%
Detroit Chinese 24,000 0.6%
Honolulu Japanese 146,000 14.8%
Houston Vietnamese 115,000 1.8%
Los Angeles Filipino 417,000 3.2%
New York Indian 620,000 3.2%
Philadelphia Chinese 80,000 1.3%
Sacramento Filipino 57,000 2.5%
San Diego Chinese 58,000 1.7%
San Francisco Filipino 250,000 5.5%
San Jose Indian 156,000 8%
Seattle Indian 79,000 2.2%
Washington Chinese 103,000 1.7%
Looks like the Bay Area and Honolulu are far and away the outliers in terms of percentage, with the top 2 Asian groups making up 15% and 30% of the overall metro, respectively. LA, NYC, and SD are next at 7%. The others all hover around 3%.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 12:58 AM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 3,521
Of the "big three" mainland US Asian centers, New York has the most Chinese and Indians/South Asians, while L.A. leads for Filipinos, Koreans and Vietnamese. Bay Area is second for all except Koreans.

L.A. is the least Chinese/Indian dominated and is the most "balanced" in terms of nationalities, but really underperforms in terms of Indians/South Asians (fewer than Chicago and Washington); the Asian population is overwhelmingly East and Southeast Asian. Only 31% are Chinese or Indian and 45% belong to the two largest groups (Chinese and Filipinos). In New York, 64% are Chinese or Indian.

Last edited by Docere; Oct 9, 2019 at 1:18 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 3:04 AM
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 156
Fremont (Bay Area) is apparently the home to the largest population of Afghan Americans in the United States.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 3:53 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Of the "big three" mainland US Asian centers, New York has the most Chinese and Indians/South Asians, while L.A. leads for Filipinos, Koreans and Vietnamese. Bay Area is second for all except Koreans.

L.A. is the least Chinese/Indian dominated and is the most "balanced" in terms of nationalities, but really underperforms in terms of Indians/South Asians (fewer than Chicago and Washington); the Asian population is overwhelmingly East and Southeast Asian. Only 31% are Chinese or Indian and 45% belong to the two largest groups (Chinese and Filipinos). In New York, 64% are Chinese or Indian.
For what it’s worth, LA CSA had the largest Sri Lankan population as of the 2012 ACS... don’t know if there are more recent estimates for CSAs. LA’s “underperformance” in the South Asian “category” really only applies to Indian, and to a lesser extent Pakistani (but they don’t have a terribly large presence in the US, and only NYC has a relatively sizable presence).

Turning the tables, NYC CSA has a very poor representation of Southeast Asian groups across the board. Even Chicago has greater percentages of the two main groups (Filipino and Vietnamese).

And the Bay Area’s Korean population (a major East Asian ethnic group) being as small as it is is almost as odd as LA’s poor showing of Indians.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 12:58 PM
proghousehead proghousehead is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 42
NYC Proper only (not MSA or CSA). Anomalous vis a vis the majority of the USA in that it has a relatively large South Asian Population, especially Bangladeshi and Pakistani. I would not be surprised if the Bangladeshi population overtook Korean as the 3rd largest Asian sub group within a decade or even sooner.


Group Total %
Chinese, except Taiwanese 574,642 48.0%
Asian Indian 230,594 19.2%
Korean 87,866 7.3%
Filipino 73,881 6.2%
Bangladeshi 66,335 5.5%
Pakistani 53,541 4.5%
Japanese 25,447 2.1%
Two or more Asian 16,227 1.4%
Vietnamese 14,674 1.2%
Taiwanese 10,927 0.9%
Other Asian, not specified 9,812 0.8%
Nepalese 7,876 0.7%
Thai 6,994 0.6%
Burmese 4,542 0.4%
Sri Lankan 4,416 0.4%
Indonesian 3,716 0.3%
Cambodian 3,097 0.3%
Malaysian 2,072 0.2%
Mongolian 568 0.0%
Laotian 385 0.0%
Other Asian, specified 377 0.0%
Bhutanese 311 0.0%
Hmong 34 0.0%
Okinawan 0 0.0%
Total 1,198,334 100%
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 1:29 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 19,204
Yes, Bangladeshis will be the #3 NYC Asian group within a few years. Higher birthrates and higher inmigration.

The Bronx, in particular, is becoming a Bangladeshi center. If you take the D train, it's very noticable. Norwood and Bedford Park are very Bangladeshi. And the Parkchester-Longwood area is fast becoming Bangladeshi.

It's also notable because the Bronx hasn't been a big Asian immigrant center. There is a very small Korean community in Bedford Park, but it mostly suburbanized (you see tiny remnants around Bainbridge Ave.).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 3:46 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,767
Having a hard time finding any really detailed data but 2010 estimate of the Asian population of the Phoenix Metro is 3.3%

I assume that has increased significantly but if we use the 2010 ratio for today that would be roughly 165,000 Asians. Its probably a bigger ratio though like 4%

Most of them I would be willing to bet are from Southeast Asia Primarily India and Bangladesh followed by Philippino, southeast Asians in genera (lots of Thai and Vietnamese) and then the northern Asian states next with the smallest being Chinese. Not too many Chinese for whatever reason.

Fun Fact the most common non Christian religion in Arizona is Hindu.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 3:51 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 21,486
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post

Fun Fact the most common non Christian religion in Arizona is Hindu.
i never would have guessed that.

and now we finally have something to uniquely connect arizona and delaware!


source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...in-each-state/
__________________
He has to go.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 4:19 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post

L.A. is the least Chinese/Indian dominated and is the most "balanced" in terms of nationalities, but really underperforms in terms of Indians/South Asians
That statement is funny to me because that is not my experience where I live in LA County. I'm not doubting whatever the numbers are, but I guess because I grew up in Cerritos where Indians seem almost ubiquitous (I went to school with a lot of Indians, and some Sri Lankans too), especially in the Little India area of the neighboring city of Artesia. Plus you see Hindu temples and gurdwaras in the area, and there's even a Jain temple in nearby Buena Park... I figure when you start seeing an ethnicity's religious places, they are definitely established in the area. And where I live now in the Pasadena area where you see plenty of Indians, especially in the area near Caltech, and there's even a Ma Durga temple in Pasadena, and plus of course the SGV in general is very Chinese, and there's the huge Hsi Lai Buddhist temple...

So to say that LA is the least Chinese/Indian dominated is almost laughable to me. But that's just my subjective experience.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
For what it’s worth, LA CSA had the largest Sri Lankan population as of the 2012 ACS... don’t know if there are more recent estimates for CSAs. LA’s “underperformance” in the South Asian “category” really only applies to Indian, and to a lesser extent Pakistani (but they don’t have a terribly large presence in the US, and only NYC has a relatively sizable presence).

Turning the tables, NYC CSA has a very poor representation of Southeast Asian groups across the board. Even Chicago has greater percentages of the two main groups (Filipino and Vietnamese).

And the Bay Area’s Korean population (a major East Asian ethnic group) being as small as it is is almost as odd as LA’s poor showing of Indians.
Mmm... Sri Lankan food. Yes, many Sri Lankans in the LA area, and like I said above, I went to school with a number of them when I was growing up.

Interestingly, the city of LA also has an official "Little Bangladesh" neighborhood.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 4:46 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Top Asian group by metro:

Atlanta Indian 102,000 1.8%
Boston Chinese 133,000 2.8%
Chicago Indian 205,000 2.2%
Dallas Indian 140,000 2%
Detroit Indian 71,000 1.7%
Honolulu Filipino 148,000 15%
Houston Indian 124,000 1.9%
Los Angeles Chinese 507.000 3.8%
New York Chinese 740,000 3.7%
Philadelphia Indian 109,000 1.8%
Sacramento Chinese 61,000 2.7%
San Diego Filipino 158,000 4.8%
San Francisco Chinese 462,000 10.1%
San Jose Chinese 166,000 8.5%
Seattle Chinese 97,000 2.6%
Washington Indian 151,000 2.5%

#2 Asian group:

Atlanta Korean 45,000 0.8%
Boston Indian 76,000 1.6%
Chicago Filipino 112,000 1.2%
Dallas Vietnamese 84,000 1.2%
Detroit Chinese 24,000 0.6%
Honolulu Japanese 146,000 14.8%
Houston Vietnamese 115,000 1.8%
Los Angeles Filipino 417,000 3.2%
New York Indian 620,000 3.2%
Philadelphia Chinese 80,000 1.3%
Sacramento Filipino 57,000 2.5%
San Diego Chinese 58,000 1.7%
San Francisco Filipino 250,000 5.5%
San Jose Indian 156,000 8%
Seattle Indian 79,000 2.2%
Washington Chinese 103,000 1.7%
Interesting list. Would there be any way to show the numbers of the top two Asian groups in the IE? San Jose and SF should be looked at together, and same with LA and the IE. When you combine SJ and SF, their Chinese population exceeds LA's, but I'm curious what happens when the IE is added in for LA. I don't perceive the IE as having a large Asian presence, but it's hard to say. LA's Chinese community is on the eastern side of the MSA, so it's plausible that some of them have moved even further east and are now part of the IE metro area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2019, 5:00 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Interesting list. Would there be any way to show the numbers of the top two Asian groups in the IE? San Jose and SF should be looked at together, and same with LA and the IE. When you combine SJ and SF, their Chinese population exceeds LA's, but I'm curious what happens when the IE is added in for LA. I don't perceive the IE as having a large Asian presence, but it's hard to say. LA's Chinese community is on the eastern side of the MSA, so it's plausible that some of them have moved even further east and are now part of the IE metro area.
I can only say this anecdotally, but yes, quite a number of Filipinos in Rancho Cucamonga, going by the Filipino restaurants and businesses that are there. And yes, a lot of boba shops and regional Chinese restaurants in Chino Hills, and a Taiwanese friend of mine moved to Chino a year or 2 ago. So yes, there is an Asian presence in the IE that's probably growing. Asians tend to like newer/brand-new housing, and there are plenty of new tract homes being built there.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:00 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.