Asians Will Surge Past Hispanics to Become Largest Immigrant Group

Washington Post: “In a major shift in immigration patterns, Asians will surge past Hispanics to become the largest group of immigrants heading to the United States by 2065, according to estimates in a new study.”

Asians Projected to Become the Largest Immigrant Group, Surpassing Hispanics

“An increase in Asian and Hispanic immigration also will drive U.S. population growth, with foreign-born residents expected to make up 18 percent of the country’s projected 441 million people in 50 years, the Pew Research Center said in a report … released Monday. This will be a record, higher than the nearly 15 percent during the late 19th-century and early 20th-century wave of immigration from Europe.”

“Today, immigrants make up 14 percent of the population, an increase from 5 percent in 1965. The tipping point is expected to come in 2055, when Asians will become the largest immigrant group at 36 percent, compared with Hispanics at 34 percent.”

“By 2065, no racial or ethnic group will hold a majority in the United States, with whites holding 46 percent of the population, Hispanics at 24 percent, Asians at 14 percent and blacks at 13 percent. Currently, the country is 62 percent white, 18 percent Hispanic, 12 percent black and 6 percent Asian.”

FavoriteLoadingSave to Favorites
  • pisher

    Prediction: Our definition of ‘white’ will get ever more nebulous and open-ended, as us ofays look for some way to bolster our numbers. It will get to the point where it doesn’t really mean anything anymore, if it ever did. Well, of course it’ll always mean ‘not black.’

  • gcl

    “Human beings” is a larger group than either. What arbitrary categories.

    • pisher

      We do have many different cultures, and those cultures are often delineated by race–which is a cultural construct in itself, but culture matters.

      Let’s not pretend it’s just white people who care about it either.

      • gcl

        “Asian” is not a “culture” — unless you think that Indians, Chinese, Iranians and Israelis all share the same culture.

        • pisher

          I agree, but it’s not my term, is it?

          At the present time, people descended from Southeast Asia have found that they don’t have enough numbers as individual national units to have much political clout, and furthermore us roundeyes aren’t good at telling them apart. Once the accent is gone, they have problems themselves. So just as we have African American to refer to people who came from very different parts of Africa (also a continent, not a country), we have Asian American to refer mainly to people from Southeast Asia, China, Korea, Vietnam, Japan, etc. Basically, anybody who looks kindasorta Chinese.

          If Asian Americans weren’t trying to see themselves as one multi-faceted grouping, we wouldn’t have all this fuss and furor over “Yellowface”. Which is already getting old–they’re attacking small underfunded repertory companies for putting on productions of The Mikado, companies which depend on corporate donations to stay afloat, making them horribly vulnerable to this kind of thought-policing. And by ‘they’ I mean a handful of American kids who are trying to convince themselves they’ve experienced just as much racism as blacks and latinos. No actual Asian person I’ve ever met has ever been offended by Gilbert & Sullivan. The fact is, much as real racism is as virulent as ever, being the target of a certain limited non-fatal level of bigotry has become trendy in certain circles. A badge of honor. But if you can get a good job, and a cab, and don’t get nervous when you see a cop looking at you……

          The most horrible (and extremely fatal) racism any Asian people have experienced in the past century was actually inflicted on them by the Japanese in the 1930’s and 40’s, but why dwell on the past?

          We’re all racists. All of us. To deny it is the only unforgivable form of racism.

  • Calbengoshi

    While a majority of foreign-born residents of the US are predicted to come from Asia rather than south of the border, that won’t have as much political significance as the fact that the children and grandchildren of all those who came from south of the border since the 1980s will be American citizens who are entitled to vote.

    • pisher

      If we get a few more conservative justices on the Supreme Court, I’m not so sure about that.

      • Calbengoshi

        With the exception of slaves and Indians, “birthright citizenship” was the norm in the US before the adoption of the 14th Amendment, in large part because that had been part of the common law of England. Thus, unless the radical right Justices are willing to overturn precedents that came before the 14th Amendment along with the Wong Kim Ark decision, it is unlikely that the Court will conclude that a child of persons domiciled in the US is not entitled to US citizenship.

        However, I would not be surprised if the Court were to conclude that a child of someone not domiciled in the US (i.e., someone who comes to the US only a short time before giving birth and then moves away afterward) is not entitled to US citizenship.

        • pisher

          Well-argued, but honestly–who knows how far it could go? History is only ever obvious in retrospect.

          • Calbengoshi

            Even history is not always obvious in retrospect. There frequently are competing versions of history, and thus our understanding of history depends to a great degree on which version we accept. For there are differences in how Plato and Xenophon describe Socrates and in how Judas is portrayed in the version of the Bible prepared by his rivals and how he is portrayed in the Gospel of Judas.

          • pisher

            We’re getting offtopic, but what the hell, I ilke the new topic better. I personally suspect neither Plato nor Xenophon got it right. Neither was an actual witness to the trial of Socrates (for obvious reasons), and yet our only record of that event comes from them. As pupils of Socrates, who were using his reputation to further their own philosophic agendas (Plato in particular), we can’t really trust anything they say about him.

            The gospel of Judas can’t be taken as a historic record, because it appeared so much later than the three synoptic gospels and even the gospel of John, which shouldn’t be taken as any kind of historic record. Perhaps it refers to earlier traditions in which Judas played a larger and more sympathetic role, but you can’t put it on the same footing as the Big Four. It could just be some wacky gnostic making a point. The best analogy would be that the earlier gospels are like The Wizard of Oz, and the Judas gospel is more like Wicked–a revisionist take on an earlier story. Sympathy for the devil.

            There’s no reason to think they just made up Judas’ betrayal, because of the Doctrine of Embarassment–why make up something as embarassing as the Messiah being betrayed by one of his own followers, crucified as a common criminal, and saying “My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?”

            But anyway, this is all ancient history, and we have made SOME strides since the days of Plato and Xenophon and the gospel writers. The first true western historian is Thucydides, and he doesn’t even MENTION Socrates. Because nobody thought he’d be that important. Just as nobody but his followers thought Jesus was that important.

            And this brings us back ontopic–history is only obvious in retrospect.


Read previous post:
The GOP’s Tectonic Rightward Shift

Christopher Ingraham: "John Boehner's career provides an illustration of the stunning rightward shift among House Republicans in recent years." "The...