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

Capsicum · #1 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 2:53 AM**

Immigration from Latin America has already reached its peak I think (since the 2000s, the proportion foreign born among Hispanic/Latino Americans has fallen). Return migration has also been a factor. So, Hispanics/Latinos are already following the trend of past immigrants from Europe, where the immigrant experience is slowly receding and the American-born generation is the newer face of the ethnicity.

Is the trend for Asians going to follow soon? Asian immigration is now the fastest growing source for the US. Do you foresee it continuing to be high for a decade or two, or more or is it close to peaking?

Countries like Japan stopped sending large immigrant shares once it got wealthy in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and now many East Asian waves have peaked (eg. Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam war wave was over, South Korea isn't sending as much as South Korea got rich).

China still sends a lot, but there's the potential that it may slow down (either restrictions get tighter due to political issues, or richer Chinese people stay home)

The Indian/South Asian wave of immigration has grown a lot in the 2000s too and might still continue to grow the US population for a while, unless something changes on either end (either more restrictive policies or if the sending country gets richer so fewer want to leave any more).

sopas ej · #2 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 3:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Capsicum

Immigration from Latin America has already reached its peak I think (since the 2000s, the proportion foreign born among Hispanic/Latino Americans has fallen). Return migration has also been a factor. So, Hispanics/Latinos are already following the trend of past immigrants from Europe, where the immigrant experience is slowly receding and the American-born generation is the newer face of the ethnicity.

Is the trend for Asians going to follow soon? Asian immigration is now the fastest growing source for the US. Do you foresee it continuing to be high for a decade or two, or more or is it close to peaking?

Countries like Japan stopped sending large immigrant shares once it got wealthy in the 60s, 70s and 80s, and now many East Asian waves have peaked (eg. Vietnamese refugees after the Vietnam war wave was over, South Korea isn't sending as much as South Korea got rich).

China still sends a lot, but there's the potential that it may slow down (either restrictions get tighter due to political issues, or richer Chinese people stay home)

The Indian/South Asian wave of immigration has grown a lot in the 2000s too and might still continue to grow the US population for a while, unless something changes on either end (either more restrictive policies or if the sending country gets richer so fewer want to leave any more).

Why do you ask about immigration into the United States? How about Canada? May I ask why you ask these things of the US? Why the interest?

Crawford · #3 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Why do you ask about immigration into the United States? How about Canada? May I ask why you ask these things of the US? Why the interest?

Actually, they're two sides of the same coin. Canadian immigration streams are largely the same as U.S. immigration streams, and the U.S. is somewhat more of a first choice but also somewhat more difficult to gain entry.

So when U.S. restricts certain groups (or qualifications) they usually end up in Canada. That's why Persians were big in the U.S. in the 70's and then big in Canada immediately thereafter, following U.S. restrictions.

RST500 · #4 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 6:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Actually, they're two sides of the same coin. Canadian immigration streams are largely the same as U.S. immigration streams, and the U.S. is somewhat more of a first choice but also somewhat more difficult to gain entry.

So when U.S. restricts certain groups (or qualifications) they usually end up in Canada. That's why Persians were big in the U.S. in the 70's and then big in Canada immediately thereafter, following U.S. restrictions.

A lot of articles from Neoliberal sources claim that Asian immigrants are going to Canada for tech jobs instead of the US due to a "xenophobic climate" but I am sort of skeptical of that.

RST500 · #5 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 6:53 PM**

The other factor is automation which could favor Asian immigration. Jobs that are done by immigrants from Latin America are more likely to be automated.

Crawford · #6 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 9:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by RST500

A lot of articles from Neoliberal sources claim that Asian immigrants are going to Canada for tech jobs instead of the US due to a "xenophobic climate" but I am sort of skeptical of that.

Perhaps some do, but that sounds more like Canadian melting pot mythmaking. Asians are turning down Silicon Valley jobs because they're scared of bigots in San Jose (a place where Asians are a plurality, and probably soon to be majority?)

I doubt a typical U.S. Asian is exposed to more xenophobia than their Canadian equivalents. And I doubt most immigrants are doing rigorous analyses of immigration options; they're headed to family or jobs and probably couldn't say much about the differences between Topeka and Toronto, Hartford or Hamilton.

They might know the U.S. has more guns, blacks, rich folks, loud folks, warm weather, and that's about it.

Capsicum · #7 Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Actually, they're two sides of the same coin. Canadian immigration streams are largely the same as U.S. immigration streams, and the U.S. is somewhat more of a first choice but also somewhat more difficult to gain entry.

So when U.S. restricts certain groups (or qualifications) they usually end up in Canada. That's why Persians were big in the U.S. in the 70's and then big in Canada immediately thereafter, following U.S. restrictions.

That's somewhat the case, but not entirely (it's true that similar timings of immigration for groups like Jews, Eastern Europeans, Italians, Chinese etc. existed for Canada and the US, with some lag because the US was more restrictive and led to Canada being the second choice). There's also the British and French colonial legacy for Canada that influences things in a way that doesn't for the US. And then there's the Latino influence (connection to Spanish-speaking countries, be they Cuba, Mexico, or the Dominican Republic) in the US that there isn't in Canada.

British themselves moved to Canada at really high rates until the 60s, something which never happened in the US, past colonial times.

Many Indians moved to Canada because of the Commonwealth ties, rather than IT/tech unlike in the US. Many Hong Kongers moved to Canada, again because of Commonwealth ties rather than the US, where Chinese-origin immigrants more likely come from China (though Canada also had lots of mainland Chinese immigration after the Hong Kong wave) or Taiwan.

And Canada has immigrant groups that are present because of French language skills in the points system offering them access to Quebec, like French-educated Haitians, Francophone West/North Africans, Lebanese etc. that there aren't as much of stateside.

whatnext · #8 Posted **May 22, 2019, 12:39 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Why do you ask about immigration into the United States? How about Canada? May I ask why you ask these things of the US? Why the interest?

LOL, why do comments like this always come from Americans? Are they so insular they just can't imagine being interested in anywhere else?

sopas ej · #9 Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, why do comments like this always come from Americans? Are they so insular they just can't imagine being interested in anywhere else?

Yes, one can be interested in anywhere else, in fact many Americans are, including myself.

My question was directed at Capsicum, because he often asks about US-related stuff, and hardly anything about other countries, including his own.

So that's where my question was coming from. It's like, why (on his part) all the interest in the US? I thought that was clear when I asked that the FIRST time.

pdxtex · #10 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 3:34 AM**

asian immigration will slow but continue to show gains. economic prosperity in their home countries will continue and asian birth rates just arent that high. this country will be mexico 2.0 in 100 years. which is fine by me.

chris08876 · #11 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 4:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtex

asian immigration will slow but continue to show gains. economic prosperity in their home countries will continue and asian birth rates just arent that high. this country will be mexico 2.0 in 100 years. which is fine by me.

I'm starting to believe that too if my experience in NJ is anything to go by.

Birthrates are very high. Unfortunately, at a young age folks are having kids, from what I've observed. Some of these folks don't have a pot to piss on, yet they have 5 kids before age 26.

Lesson to be learned is that this isn't the middle ages, so a high amount of children are not required for a healthy life. Things like medicine and healthcare improvements have made childhood survival higher, so people need to stop having so many kids.

2 would be fine, so one can enjoy life and not be strangled in debt or live pay-check to pay-check. Also to not further strangle the social services, which hate to say it folks, we pay for!

This is just some of the stuff I've observed.

Crawford · #12 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtex

asian immigration will slow but continue to show gains. economic prosperity in their home countries will continue and asian birth rates just arent that high. this country will be mexico 2.0 in 100 years. which is fine by me.

The U.S. has had net negative immigration from Mexico for years, so that makes no sense. And Mexico has more or less the same birthrates as the U.S.

Asians are the biggest immigrant cohort right now, and given the fact there are billions of Asians, probably biggest cohort going forward. The future of the U.S., long-term, is probably more Asian than Hispanic.

Zapatan · #13 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 11:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdxtex

asian immigration will slow but continue to show gains. economic prosperity in their home countries will continue and asian birth rates just arent that high. this country will be mexico 2.0 in 100 years. which is fine by me.

I spent some time in Mexico and while there are things I like about that country I would never want the US to be Mexico 2.0.

There's tons of crime, violence, poverty, corruption there. Not that the US doesn't have its problems but quality of life is way better overall.

Sun Belt · #14 Posted **Apr 19, 2019, 11:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I spent some time in Mexico and while there are things I like about that country I would never want the US to be Mexico 2.0.

There's tons of crime, violence, poverty, corruption there. Not that the US doesn't have its problems but quality of life is way better overall.

No question.

Via Chicago · #15 Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zapatan

I spent some time in Mexico and while there are things I like about that country I would never want the US to be Mexico 2.0.

the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be

liat91 · #16 Posted **May 22, 2019, 9:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be

That won’t happen. Identity in the future will be based on one’s virtual skin and desire/capability for gene editing. Even in Africa they have preferences for lighter skin and eyes. White skin won’t be preferable. This will be the look of the future, IMO.

RST500 · #17 Posted **May 30, 2019, 7:36 PM**

What does Trump’s “merit-based” immigration plan mean for Indians?

https://qz.com/india/1622593/beyond-...-help-indians/

MonkeyRonin · #18 Posted **May 30, 2019, 7:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be

So essentially what you're saying is, homogeneity is good; diversity is bad.

Acajack · #19 Posted **Nov 7, 2019, 1:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

So essentially what you're saying is, homogeneity is good; diversity is bad.

I any event, even if humanity became "one brown androgynous blob" it wouldn't take long before we developed other ways to divide ourselves that simply differ from the historic ones.

Buckman821 · #20 Posted **May 30, 2019, 8:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Via Chicago

the sooner we're all one brown androgynous blob the better humanity will be

I know this comment was tongue in cheek but this is a looooong way into the future.

What I do think will happen within a shorter time frame is that being mixed race is going to be associated with high education levels, affluence and cosmopolitanism whereas racial "purity" will be associated with populations the undeveloped world or provincial areas within the developed world. My guess is we're only a few generations away from this sort of natural association being commonplace. This just seems to be a natural outcome of the current pattern of which types of people are mixing races and which ones are not.