City in the western world with most direct/firsthand connection to Asia/Asians?

[Capsicum]

The US census is going to ask white and black Americans about their ancestry in 2020, but some groups get a preset category already (eg. Asian groups and even small ethnic groups like Chamorro or Samoan get a box).

I don't get the logic of why some specific sub-groups (especially Asian, Pacific Islander and some Hispanic) get a box (especially since their sub-group's raw numbers are often small) while large groups like "white", "black" don't get one that's broken down by most common sub-group.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Toronto's Asian presence, arguably more than any other North American city, is more characterized by its South Asian presence which in terms of both numbers and percentage of the population is very high. Its East Asian and Chinese population is big too, but it's the South Asian presence that makes it particularly unique.

Even NYC's metro?

[jd3189]

Or LA and SF?

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Or LA and SF?

Or San Jose.

San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area, 3rd largest city in California and 10th largest city in America with over 1 million residents in the city limits.

Over 25% of San Jose first language at home is Asian/Pac. Islander
Over 34% of the population is Asian [26% White, 33% Hispanic, >3% Black].

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Or San Jose.

San Jose is the largest city in the Bay Area, 3rd largest city in California and 10th largest city in America with over 1 million residents in the city limits.

Over 25% of San Jose first language at home is Asian/Pac. Islander
Over 34% of the population is Asian [26% White, 33% Hispanic, >3% Black].

Is SJ's Asian population as South Asian-leaning as Toronto? I think there are smaller Asian cohorts where South Asians (usually Indians) dominate (say Detroit), but I'm trying to think of big U.S. Asian metro populations.

I don't think NYC's South Asian population, as a % of overall Asian population is quite as large as in Toronto (though probably close). Though I'll admit I'm still a bit surprised at the Toronto numbers. South Asians must be superconcentrated in the burbs, because they aren't very visible in the core areas, as with Chinese, who are everywhere in the GTA.

But SJ South Asians are likely very different. I'm betting they're overwhelmingly higher-income immigrants tied to Silicon Valley, while GTA South Asians are working class and not particularly educated.

[Docere]

Toronto has a similar share of the population that is South Asian as London. And the South Asian population is about equal to the East Asian population. My point was that it's the South Asian population that does much of the "heavy lifting" in terms of making Toronto a major Asian center in North America.

New York has a sizable South Asian presence and like Toronto that population isn't dominated by any group (such as Sikhs in Vancouver or upper middle class Hindus in most US cities).

The Bay Area has some South Asians (particularly in the Silicon Valley). LA's South Asian represents a very small share of the overall Asian population.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Crawford

South Asians must be superconcentrated in the burbs, because they aren't very visible in the core areas, as with Chinese, who are everywhere in the GTA.

They are much more in the periphery, relative to the Chinese. If you just hang around the central city, the Chinese are probably more visible to the visitor, given the presence of a pretty big Chinatown, the University of Toronto etc.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is SJ's Asian population as South Asian-leaning as Toronto? I think there are smaller Asian cohorts where South Asians (usually Indians) dominate (say Detroit), but I'm trying to think of big U.S. Asian metro populations.

Chicago.

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Crawford

South Asians must be superconcentrated in the burbs, because they aren't very visible in the core areas, as with Chinese, who are everywhere in the GTA.

In general, the Chinese have had more of an urban presence relative to most other Asian groups, because of the abundance of Chinatowns (even if it's historically been very tiny as a share of the city) in many North American cities I'd imagine, that haven't often fully gone away.

I'd imagine most South Asians, whose major presence in the biggest North America cities (outside a few places like Vancouver or some places in California) tends to go back mostly a few decades, arrived at a time when suburbanization was already pretty thorough and didn't have as much of the "start off in the city, move to the suburbs later" path like earlier immigrants did.

[dc_denizen]

Obviously either Toronto or Vancouver.

[Jonesy55]

Originally Posted by nito

Vancouver certainly has a disproportionately large Asian ethnicity composition for a western city. There are other similar situations across Canada and the western world, in the UK, Leicester, Luton and Slough have Asian ethnicity populations that are approaching or have a strong possibility of surpassing the 40-50% mark by the 2021 census. Of course, the size of Vancouver, Leicester and other small towns and cities across the western world are orders of magnitudes smaller than London or New York. That isn’t to dilute the significance of the percentages, but smaller populations have a higher chance of specific community concentrations developing. There are nearly as many Londoners with Indian ethnicity as there are people in Vancouver. London and New York tend to have a wider ethnic/origin base that is not concentrated on specific groups.

Leicester is almost 40% Asian ethnicities as per latest figures, with 'White British' just under 50%, while the other 10-15% is black ethnicities, 'non-British white' and 'mixed/other'.

It is a smallish city though, 350,000 in the city proper that those figures relate to and if you include the neighbouring districts to make up an approximation of the 'Leicester Metro' then Asian ethnicities are down to around 20% of the 900,000 total 'metro' population. They are very concentrated in the city of Leicester itself.

[nito]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Vancouver is much smaller than London but it's not small like Leceister, Slough, or Luton. There are 2.5 million people there. Btw, I'd also consider Toronto to be more Asian than either London or New York and more diverse than either of those 2 cities. It receives immigrants from every corner of the world like London/NYC but to the degree that 50% of the population is foreign born. London's not even at 40% yet.

The comparison was with cities/towns, of which there are similar situations across the western world.

On the question of diversity; Toronto has a higher percentage than London or New York, however both have Foreign Born Communities (FBC’s) which are larger than the entire population of Toronto. The European and Asian FBC population in London are each nearly as large as the entire FBC population of Toronto.


Source: StatsCan, USCB + ONS

Another point to add is that Toronto’s diversity is heavily skewered towards Asia; 53% of all foreign-born residents come from the region. New York has a similar weighting, but towards the America’s (52%). London’s FBC profile is more evenly spread with no region account for more than 34% of the total number of FBC’s. Which probably explains why London has a more noticeable diversity in the number of FBC’s from across the planet.


Source: StatsCan, USCB + ONS

Originally Posted by Crawford

Come to think of it, while London has folks from every corner of the globe, even moreso than Toronto, it's still pretty white too. And it doesn't really have much Latin American migration.

Fewer Londoners are of Black and Hispanic ethnicity compared to New York. It should be added that whilst Hispanic migration to London is lower, the ONS doesn’t collect data on people of Hispanic ethnicity (responses typically fall under the White category). On the other side, more Londoners are of an Asian, Mixed, Arab or Other ethnicity.

[muppet]

London does have a sizable Hispanic community, thanks to the largest wave of recent migration this generation, coming from LatAm, notably Brazil (estimated at 200,000 in the UK over a decade ago, mostly centred on London) Venezuela and Colombia. Queen Mary University recently reduced London's Lat Am population to 145,000, but add that to the 130,000 Spaniards and we get a (under?)count of 275,000. And it's Black community is huge, though won;t show up under foreign born due to the large numbers established and being born in the UK. Also don't forget that the African community doesn't count it all, half of them make up most of the Americas contingent, being from the Caribbean. The Black population numbered 1.1 million, all the way back in 2011, and has been growing by 40% every decade, though that's meant to be a vast undercount according to a Parliament report.

[Urbanguy]

Originally Posted by Capsicum

The US census is going to ask white and black Americans about their ancestry in 2020, but some groups get a preset category already (eg. Asian groups and even small ethnic groups like Chamorro or Samoan get a box).

I don't get the logic of why some specific sub-groups (especially Asian, Pacific Islander and some Hispanic) get a box (especially since their sub-group's raw numbers are often small) while large groups like "white", "black" don't get one that's broken down by most common sub-group.

It's probably because many of them are American Citizens that come from Territories and Commonwealths of the US like Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands (Chamorro and Carolinian Islanders) and American Samoa (Samoan). It's sort of like giving recognition as the Census does with other Native US peoples like the American Indians and Native Hawaiians.

I think current estimates are 1.4 - 1.5 million who are of at least part-Pacific Islander heritage in the US -- more than any other country outside of their native Region and growing.

[memph]

Toronto has about 2.2 million Asians (37%) and Vancouver has about 1.1 million (44%).

I want to say that Toronto's Asian population is a bit more diverse, but they're pretty diverse in both cases. Vancouver still has a lot of South Asians (especially in Surrey) and a lot of Filipinos, and more Koreans and Japanese than Toronto (definitely per capita, maybe total too), and a respectable number of Iranians and Vietnamese, not just Chinese.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by memph

Toronto has about 2.2 million Asians (37%) and Vancouver has about 1.1 million (44%).

I want to say that Toronto's Asian population is a bit more diverse, but they're pretty diverse in both cases. Vancouver still has a lot of South Asians (especially in Surrey) and a lot of Filipinos, and more Koreans and Japanese than Toronto (definitely per capita, maybe total too), and a respectable number of Iranians and Vietnamese, not just Chinese.

Does Canada classify Persians as Asian? In the U.S. they would fall into caucasian - white category.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Does Canada classify Persians as Asian? In the U.S. they would fall into caucasian - white category.

The Canadian and U.S. % white will not be directly comparable because Middle Eastern and North African populations are white in U.S. context.

In some metros, like say Toronto, or LA, this makes a big difference. Toronto would be "more white" under US rules, and LA "less white" under Canadian rules.

Or, in my neck of the woods, Bay Ridge, Brooklyn probably has the biggest Arab North African population in the Americas (lots of Egyptians, esp., and decent numbers of Algerians and Moroccans, who are rare in the Americas). But the neighborhood per Census is overwhelmingly white.

[nito]

Originally Posted by muppet

London does have a sizable Hispanic community, thanks to the largest wave of recent migration this generation, coming from LatAm, notably Brazil (estimated at 200,000 in the UK over a decade ago, mostly centred on London) Venezuela and Colombia. Queen Mary University recently reduced London's Lat Am population to 145,000, but add that to the 130,000 Spaniards and we get a (under?)count of 275,000. And it's Black community is huge, though won;t show up under foreign born due to the large numbers established and being born in the UK. Also don't forget that the African community doesn't count it all, half of them make up most of the Americas contingent, being from the Caribbean. The Black population numbered 1.1 million, all the way back in 2011, and has been growing by 40% every decade, though that's meant to be a vast undercount according to a Parliament report.

I think it is for the best if we stick to the data published by national statistical organisations, otherwise the picture becomes muddied.

I recently pulled together the following graphic which shows the leading city destination for London, New York and Toronto. Quite interesting how there are more Canadians in London than New York, and more Americans in London than Toronto.


Source: StatsCan, USCB + ONS

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Canadian and U.S. % white will not be directly comparable because Middle Eastern and North African populations are white in U.S. context.

In some metros, like say Toronto, or LA, this makes a big difference. Toronto would be "more white" under US rules, and LA "less white" under Canadian rules.

In general, different countries census' will always conveive these sorts of subjective concepts a little differently - much like metro populations or anything else. And in Canada's case, statistics on race are a measure of personal identity rather than actual genealogical heritage.

Among people from both the Middle Eastern/North African region as well as Latin America, I believe there's a roughly 50/50 split as to whether they identify their race as "white" or "Arab" (or Latino).

[Docere]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In general, different countries census' will always conveive these sorts of subjective concepts a little differently - much like metro populations or anything else. And in Canada's case, statistics on race are a measure of personal identity rather than actual genealogical heritage.

Among people from both the Middle Eastern/North African region as well as Latin America, I believe there's a roughly 50/50 split as to whether they identify their race as "white" or "Arab" (or Latino).

I posted some stats on this. Iranians overwhelmingly identified as visible minorities in Canada.

http://skyscraperpage.com/forum/show...&postcount=198

Mexicans I think were a little over 50% visible minority, but I don't think the small number of Mexicans in Canada are comparable to Mexicans in the US. They are more of a professional class group, and I suspect much "whiter" as a result.

So I'd agree with that L.A. - already one of the least white metros - would be less white using Canadian criteria.