• Home
  • About
  • Projects
    • Immigration Forum >
      • Part 1
      • Part 2
    • Past Projects >
      • Andhra Non-Profit Work
      • Gujarat Earthquake Relief
      • Gujarat Cyclone Relief
      • HudHud Cyclone
      • Kargil War
      • Maps Project
    • Current Projects >
      • Mineral Water Projects
      • Travel Grants >
        • Past Winners
  • Research
    • Dr. KV Rao
    • India Digest
    • Census
    • Indian Economy >
      • Chapter 1
      • Chapter 2
      • Chapter 3
      • Chapter 4
  • Culture
    • Stamps
    • Book Reviews
    • Hindu Temples
  • Directory
    • Indian Financial Institutions
    • List of Indian Embassies
    • Indian Faculty
    • NITPU Centre Sites
  • Members
  • Contact
INDIA NETWORK FOUNDATION
  • Home
  • About
  • Projects
    • Immigration Forum >
      • Part 1
      • Part 2
    • Past Projects >
      • Andhra Non-Profit Work
      • Gujarat Earthquake Relief
      • Gujarat Cyclone Relief
      • HudHud Cyclone
      • Kargil War
      • Maps Project
    • Current Projects >
      • Mineral Water Projects
      • Travel Grants >
        • Past Winners
  • Research
    • Dr. KV Rao
    • India Digest
    • Census
    • Indian Economy >
      • Chapter 1
      • Chapter 2
      • Chapter 3
      • Chapter 4
  • Culture
    • Stamps
    • Book Reviews
    • Hindu Temples
  • Directory
    • Indian Financial Institutions
    • List of Indian Embassies
    • Indian Faculty
    • NITPU Centre Sites
  • Members
  • Contact

1980-1990 Census

Growth and Structure of Asian Indians in the United States: A Census Analysis 

K. V. Rao
Revised paper presented at the Population Association of America, San Francisco, April 6-8, 1995.


Abstract

The 1990 U.S. Census shows that Asian Indians are one of the fastest growing ethnic minorities during the decade 1980-1990. The 1990 US census recorded a total of 815,447, an increase of almost half-million over the 1980 population. The East-West Center study of Asian Indians in the United States based on 1980 census data (based on mis-classified data) concludes that Asian Indians are extremely well assimilated economically but very diversified in other areas such as cultural, religious, and other dimensions (Xenos et al., 1989). A review of the largest circulated Asian Indian weekly suggests that marital, economic problems, childcare, child custody issues are becoming common among members of the community. This may be a result of recent immigration regulations that have given preference for family class, and adaptation of local customs among second generation Asian Indians unlike their parents. This study explores social, economic, and demographic growth and structure of this emerging minority population using the 5 percent sample from Public Use Micro Sample data from the 1980 and 1 percent sample from the 1990 censuses. The 1980 U.S. Census enumerated a number of single elderly native American persons under Asian Indian race category. For the first time, an attempt has been made to isolate these cases to reflect the true picture Asian Indians. Three selection schemes have been employed in identifying the Asian Indians in the U.S. -- (i) by place birth (India), (ii) by race (Asian Indian), and (iii) by ancestry (Asian Indian). The socio-economic and demographic characteristics of Asians Indians based on 1980 (corrected) and 1990 Census sample data are examined. Some of the variables considered include age, region of residence, marital status, education, income, length of stay, and children ever born by mothers' age. This descriptive study provides up-todate demographics of the emerging minority. Relevant recommendations and some policy implications are discussed toward the end of this paper. 

Introduction:

The 1990 United States Census confirms earlier assertions that the Asian Indian group is one of the fastest growing ethnic communities during the last decade 1980-1990. A total of 815,447 Asian Indians called United States as their home at the time of 1990 census and this represents an increase of 125.6 percent over the 1980 numbers. They rank fourth among the largest Asian groups after Chinese (1,645,427), Filipinos (1,406,770), and Japanese (847,562). Most of the growth in population among Asian Indians is through immigration and less through natural increase. The Asian Indian immigration took on a fast phase after the 1965 U.S. immigration act abolished national origins' quota system. However, the surge was limited to 20,000 per country ceiling. The relaxation of immigration regulations attracted many adventurous and talented professionals from India for the first time. The percentage change in immigrants from India between 1965 and 1977 was about 3098.1 (Dinnerstein and Reimers, 1982). The 1990 comprehensive immigration legislation increased the total immigration to 700,000 level during the fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Unlike earlier immigration regulations, this 1990 legislation created a separate category for family-sponsored, employment-based, and diversity of immigrants. For example, there were 30,667 persons from India that were admitted under new regulations in 1990, compared to 45,064 in 1991, 34,629 in 1992, and 40,021 in 1993 (INS, 1994). It is expected that the family re-unification and favorable global economy would likely to promote conditions conducive to higher immigration levels from India in the 1990s.

The 1980 Census marks the first census in the United States to collect and record information separately for various ethnic minority groups, including Asian Indians. Several studies have been conducted based on the 1980 census data such as a census monograph on Asian Indian demographics, occupational structure, and family structure (Xenos et al., 1989). The term Asian Indian is somewhat confusing than some other ethnic terminology to describe ethnic groups such as Koreans, Chinese, etc., for the general population. This confusion arises from the fact that Native Americans are often referred to as Indians in the United States and the existence of a federal department of Indian affairs. Varied terminology has been adopted by mass media in referring to Asian Indian groups such as East Indian community, Asian Indians, Asian Americans, immigrants from India, etc., and there seems to be no consensus on standard terminology universally. In this paper, the term Asian Indian is used to refer to the people from or origins in India. In the following sections, we will examine the growth of Asian Indians in the last decade and study the structure with the help of 1980 and 1990 US Census Public Use Micro Sample Data.

Studies on Asian Indians in the United States in the past were concerned with small localized samples or individual case studies drawn from few families located around major metropolitan areas (Saran, 1980; Fisher, 1978; Amarsingham, 1980; Oh, 1977; Becker, 1971; Rao, et al., 1990). The size and structure of Asian Indians was left to estimates due to lack of reliable data at the national level from the Bureau of the Census, the main source of data in the United States. The 1980 census for the first time included a separate category within the Race question, Asian Indians.

There are four relevant questions in the 1980 Census that provided information on Asian Indians in the United States. First, the direct question on race has Asian Indian as one of the 14 categories of race that also includes Indian (American). In the 1970 US Census, Asian Indians were included in the White racial category while Chinese, Filipinos, Japanese and Koreans were counted as Other. Asian Indian babies are registered with race as White in the vital registration records and thus making those data sources of no value to research on ethnic fertility. The short forms used by many elementary schools across the United States also count Asian Indian youngsters as White. Thus many traditional resources for an extensive study of Asian Indians in the United States either do not have the information on this group separately or they were mixed with White category as explained above. The one percent sample of the US Census Public Use Micro Sample data is the best statistical resource for a study of Asian Indians and this too suffers from misclassification as demonstrated later in the paper.

The second question pertains to place of birth and period of entry to the US if not born in the US. The exact wording of the question is In what State or foreign country was this person born? A follow-up question solicits citizenship status -- If this person was born in a foreign country- (a) Is this person a naturalized citizen of the United States? and (b) when did this person come to the United States to stay? These two sub-questions provide information on citizenship status and immigration status besides their country of origin. One of the problem with this question is that persons immigrated before independence of India might have born in what is now called Pakistan.

The third question is about the languages spoken at home. The exact wording of the question in the 1980 Census was -- Does this person speak a language other than English at home? (b) what is this language? It is even much tougher to identify Asian Indians on the basis of one of the several Indian languages spoken at home. The issue of identification is complicated by the fact that many Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, Bangladeshis, Burmese, Nepalese and several other nationals speak one or other Indian languages. In view of the complexity involved in analyzing the language question, we have not considered language information for analysis in this study.

The fourth and the last question that allows one to identify Asian Indians is on ancestry. The Ancestry question was used for the first time in the 1980 census and has been used again in the 1990 Census to identify ancestral background of the residents of the United States. The exact wording of the 1980 question was What is this person's ancestry? If uncertain about how to report ancestry, see instructions guide. An example was given that include ancestry categories such as Afro-American, English, French, German, Honduran, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Jamaican, Korean, Lebanese, Mexican, Nigerian, Polish, Ukrainian, Venezuelan, etc. following the above question.

Unfortunately, these four questions do not lend themselves into a homogeneous group of Asian Indians. The problem with race is that most Asian Indians are not familiar with the term race in their native country, India. The divisions discussed in the Indian society are often by religion and by caste but not by race. Ancestry is another confusing term and it gets even more complicated when inter-racial and inter-caste marriages are involved. In the present study we will devise strategies to find a common ground to identify all Asian Indians in the United States at the 1980 and 1990 census periods.

Data for the Study

The data for this study come from the 5 percent sample of the United States Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) data of 1980; and 1 percent PUMS from the 1990 census. The coverage is universal and includes all fifty states and the District of Columbia. Appropriate weights have been applied to get nationally representative numbers from the sample. Preliminary examination of the 1980 census shows that there were excessive number of elderly US born Asian Indians. These persons (particularly women) were suspected to be members of the native American Indian population who have been miss-classified themselves as Asian Indians in 1980 (Xenos, et al., 1989). However, earlier researchers have not excluded this group from the study of Asian Indians due to lack of detailed information to identify them. In this research, we have excluded persons of age 50 and over that have been reported as born in the United States and Asian Indian race at the census. Historical review of Asian Indian immigration to the United States document that earlier immigrants were farm laborers and no significant immigration took place until after the second world war (Jensen, 1988). Immigration restrictions on Asians were lifted only towards the end of second world war by President Roosevelt. However, immigration of Asian Indians did not pickup till 1965 (only 7,629 immigrants from South Asia are said to have arrived in the US (Xenos, 1989, p. 15). The historic Asian Indian immigration trends to the United States suggest that it is very unlikely that these US born persons who were aged 50 and over in 1980 and 1990 belong to Asian Indians as defined in this research. Hence we made a decision to eliminate native (US) born persons who were 50 years and older in 1980 and 1990 in this study and we recognize that it is not the best way to identify the group. However, leaving the suspected group in the analysis does not benefit the research.

Basic Demographics

Table 1 shows Asian Indians in the United States in 1980 and 1990 censuses as identified by race (first panel), ancestry (second panel), and by country of birth (third panel). We have employed a broader net to identify Asian Indians in the US Census by considering three overlapping categories. The net includes persons who have either declared themselves belonging to Asian Indian race or having Asian Indian ancestry or born in India. These three criteria when considered individually, provide a variety of estimates. There were 414,780 Asian Indians in the US in 1980 and 869,900 in 1990 after considering all three questions and eliminating the US born persons aged 50 and over (misclassification adjustment). These numbers were slightly different from the numbers released by the Bureau of the Census due to (i) use of sample rather than exact counts, and most importantly (ii) considering more than one criterion in identifying Asian Indians. There were 33,320 US born persons in 1980 and 4,153 US born persons in 1990 aged 50 and over who would qualify to be included in the Asian Indian population according to race or ancestry but were excluded in the present study.

About 87.7 percent (or 363, 760) would qualify to be in the sample of Asian Indians just on the basis of race question alone, while about 92 percent would be so in 1990. The term Asian Indian was first employed by the US Census bureau in 1980 and since then the term has been popularized by news media and researchers in describing the community originally from India. The improvement of the response to the race question in the 2000 census would certainly help researchers in accurately identifying Asian Indians in the Census.

The question on ancestry draws even poor response from Asian Indians at the 1980 and 1990 censuses. Only 71 percent declared themselves as belonging to the Asian Indian ancestry in 1980 while only 62 percent said so in 1990. The drop in reporting Asian Indian ancestry may be attributed to the trend of reporting American ancestry by some at the 1990 census. The next pertinent question available to us was the country of birth. It is surprising to find that slightly more than 50 percent of Asian Indians indicated country of birth as India. It is likely that some Asian Indians might have been born before independence of India in what is now called Pakistan and Bangladesh and thus not reporting India as their country of birth. Table 2 shows the 1980-90 decadal growth of Asian Indians in the US by gender. During the last decade male population grow by 113 percent and females grow by 105 percent with an overall growth rate of 110 percent. Figures 1, and Figure 2 displays the age structure of Asian Indians at the 1980 census with and without the U.S. born elderly of age 50 and over. Similarly, Figures 3 and 4 shows the age structure of Asian Indians at the 1990 census. These four pyramids clearly show that there is some problem with the 1980 census data, particularly among elderly women while the problem is not so severe to attract attention at the 1990 census.

Who is an Asian Indian?

We have further examined the questions of race and ancestry to understand the pattern in which responses were provided during the 1980 and 1990 censuses. Table 3 shows Asian Indians in the United States by race and ancestry controlling for place birth. There were 211,900 persons in 1980 declared India as their place of birth and of these only 90 percent indicated that they were of Asian Indian race. At the 1990 census, more than 92 percent of total Asian Indians born in India reported their race as Asian Indian. In other words, if we consider only race to identify, then we would have been succeeded in capturing 92 percent of Asian Indian community members born in India. About 62 percent of those identify themselves as belonging to Asian Indian race were born outside India at the 1980 census. This percentage has declined to 54 percent in 1990. This table demonstrates that greater confusion or misclassification may result from using race alone for people who were born outside India but consider themselves belonging to Asian Indian ancestry. It is likely that the U. S born Asian Indians may not consider themselves belonging to Asian Indian racial category but a more general Asian American or American Asian categories.

Table 3 also show that about 80 percent of those born in India indicate Asian Indian ancestry at the 1980 census and this percentage has declined to 69 in 1990. But more than 85 percent in 1980, and 90 percent in 1990 claim Asian Indian ancestry among those that were not born in India. There were 16,220 persons in 1980 who neither claimed Asian Indian ancestry nor Asian Indian race but were born in India. This number has gone-up to 28,353 in 1990. These persons might have actually been belonging to other than Asian Indian group but we have no way of identifying them otherwise. The only common characteristic that these individuals have with others in the group is that they were born in India.

Demographic Structure of Asian Indians in the 1980 and 1990

Asian Indians are one of the fastest growing immigrant groups in the United States in the last decade. It is common to find statements like the following in news papers and other mass media:

Asian Indians are immigrating to the US in greater numbers than ever before and many are taking the fast track up the economic ladder. According to data, Asian Indians have the highest household income of any major immigrant group in the US, $48,320Ó (USA Today 1993, Nov. 5). While such statements are a welcome appreciation of the community, it is important to underscore that most Asian Indians are young and professionals unlike the U.S. population in general. For example only 3.6 percent Asian Indians in the 1980 census and 4.3 percent in 1990 were age 60 and over compared to more than 10 percent of the US population in that category. Table 4 shows that age and sex distribution of Asian Indians in 1980 and 1990 along with percentage distribution. In presenting the demographic picture, we have removed the U.S. born elderly (50 years and over) from our study as we suspect that these persons may actually belong to American Indian category. Figure 1 and 2 shows the demographic structure of Asian Indians before correction and after correction for place of birth in 1980. These graphs clearly demonstrate an excessive number of females in older ages compared to males (Figure 1) and once corrected (Figure 2), the sex ratio looks balanced and no excessive males or females can be found in older ages. The age pyramids of Asian Indians by gender in 1990 are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. These two graphs are very similar though figure 4 incorporates corrected data indicating that the suspected misclassification in 1980 has been greatly reduced at the 1990 census time. More than 30 percent of Asian Indian population in 1980 were below 14 years of age compared to 25 percent in 1990. The young and favorable age structure of Asian Indians has been often ignored when making comparisons about prosperity of the community. The age pyramids show that the Asian Indian population in the US is very young with a large base and fewer elderly persons. It is likely that the misclassification that took place in 1980 has been reduced in 1990 due to awareness and popularization of the word Asian Indian by media and other governmental agencies, and publications. The term Asian Indians is understood to mean people having origins in India in 1990s United States.

Where do the Asian Indians live?

Asian Indians in general are highly concentrated in northeastern region of the United States, and this has not changed during the last decade. Table 5 shows the distribution of Asian Indians by region and by gender. About 35 percent live in Northeast region that comprises of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Southern and Western regions of the United States are favorite destinations for more than 50 percent of Asian Indians. There are no substantial differences between men and women in regional distribution within the US. An interesting observation is that the MidWest region that had about 22 percent of Asian Indians in 1980 had only 18 percent in 1990. Though the absolute number choosing MidWest region has gone-up, the percentage of Asian Indians living in this region has declined during the decade.

Marital Status and education

Marital status structure and education of Asian Indians help us understand the nature of demographic changes taking place in the new immigrant community. Table 6 shows the distribution of Asian Indians by gender in 1980 and 1990. As expected, about 50 percent of Asian Indian persons were currently married while about 46 percent were never married or under the age of 15 years in 1980 and 1990. These percentages have not changed during the last decade. Though nominal, about 2.5 percent of Asian Indians are separated or divorced. The number of married females are lower than the number of married males at both points in time indicating the effect of immigration legislation that typically delays in bringing spouses. This is further confirmed by our analysis of marital status distribution by gender and by age groups in 1980 and 1990. The Table 7a shows age distribution by marital status for males in 1980. About 29 percent of males and 31 percent of females were below 15 years of age in 1980 while only 24 percent males and 27 percent females were so in 1990. The decrease in the percentages may be a result of general fertility declines around the World and substantial migration at working ages. The tables' 7a, 7b, 7c, 8a, 8b, 8c provide the detailed demographic breakdown of Asian Indians by their marital status and gender.

Educational attainment of Asian Indians is often portrayed as a characteristic of model minority by the mass media in the United States. Tables' 9a, 9b, 9c, 10a, 10b, and 10c display educational attainment by gender and by marital status in 1980 and 1990. The data show that about 56 percent of males have at least a college degree compared to 40 percent of females in 1980. Only 15 percent of males and 17 percent of females have preschool or lower educational level. It is important to note that the none completed education category includes children under age 15 and hence consideration of education by marriage would provide insights of education among adult Asian Indian population. About 95 percent of married males have at least high school or higher education (81 percent have college or advanced degree) in 1980 and this compares with 90 percent of married females having at least high school in 1980 (62 percent at least have a college degree). In 1990, about 95 percent of married males and 90 percent of married females have at least high school or higher education. Less than 11 percent of females and 8 percent of males have not completed formal education in 1990. The educational attainments of Asian Indians far exceed those of local populations for any given marital status or age group. However, it is important to note that most Asian Indians immigrate after completing their bachelors or masters' degree. The immigration selectivity is an important factor that contributes to higher levels of education among Asian Indian immigrants.

Earning Levels of Asian Indians

Asian Indians with their higher levels of education are expected to do better or at least equal to the natives. Table 11 shows the distribution of mean wages and salaries earned by Asian Indian males and females by the region of residence in 1980 and 1990. In 1980, females were earning about half as much as males in all regions of the country and they seem to have done better in MidWest region. The median income for both sexes combined was only $11,010 in 1980 and $18,000 in 1990. The highest mean wages and salaries were earned in MidWest region by both females and males. The data show that the disparity between sexes in wages exist among the native U.S. population is also operating for minority groups. Another element for low wages is that many Asian Indians are not aware of the fact that the wages and salaries are subjected to negotiation. Often times, Asian Indians in certain professions were hired at the minimum wages allowed by the law. Some of these differences could be the result of experience in working in the United States. In a recent article Klein (1990) describe Asian Americans in the United States as better educated, have greater computer literacy, and hold a higher proportion of professional and managerial jobs than the general population. There were on going debates on whether Asian Indians could be considered part of the affirmative action plans and whether the businesses owned by Asian Indians would qualify for minority status (Chung, 1991; Franklin, 1994; Call and Post, 1991). There were also conflicts and protests by Chinese Americans against including Asian Indians in the Asian American group for San Francisco city affirmative action program (Sandalow, 1991). We have further examined the issue of wages and salaries earned after controlling for length of the stay in the United States to understand the wage differentials.

Table 12 shows the mean wages and salary income earned by Asian Indians by their length of stay. This table shows that native born Asian Indians have the lowest median income and they could be the youngest people with limited experience. The highest wages were received by those who were living in the U.S. between 11 to 20 years by 1980. These are the professionals who might have arrived after the liberalization of immigration act in 1965. The highest mean wages were again among those living in MidWest region in 1980. Table 13 provides similar information at the time of 1990 census. As expected, the highest mean wages and salaries were drawn by those who were in the U.S. between 21 and 30 years by 1990. MidWest region has attracted and paid the highest mean wages and salaries in 1980 and 1990. The mean wages earned by residents of MidWest region in 1991 was $47,920 (among those who came 21-30 years before 1990).

Fertility and family size preferences

It is always interesting to study whether the immigrants from traditional societies adopt to the local norms and customs concerning family size preferences or stick with their own cultural preferences. A recent study by a Wayne State University student found that Asian Indians are still holding onto their traditions while embracing their new society in the U.S. (Abdel-Latif, 1994). Table 14 shows the mean number of children ever born by age of mother in 1980 by region of residence. The data show that Asian Indian women have slightly higher number of children at any given age, but significantly lower than their sisters in India. Asian Indians living in the Western region have slightly higher fertility compared to other regions. It is estimated that about 10 percent of all births in the United States are born to immigrants (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1991). The number children ever born per 1,000 women 45-49 year olds provides an estimate of completed fertility for women near the end of their childbearing period. Thus the completed fertility for Asian Indian women was 3.10 (Northeastern region), 3.17 (MidWest), 2.85 (South), and 3.75 (West) children in 1980. The overall completed fertility was 3.19 children per women by the age 45-49 in 1980. The 1990 data show a remarkable decline in fertility levels and trends.

Table 15 shows the mean number of children ever born (CEB) by region and age of mother in 1990. The data show that the mean CEB for women who were in 45-49 age group was 2.50 (Northeast), 2.80 (MidWest), 2.26 (South), and 2.45 (West) children. The overall completed fertility in 1990 was 2.48, which is about 0.7 children less than the 1980 average, a remarkable decline. We have further examined the fertility behavior of Asian Indian women by race, by ancestry, and by place of birth. This analysis has been presented in Tables 16, 17, and 18.

Table 16 shows the mean CEB by region and race of mother as indicated at the time of 1980 and 1990 censuses. It is noteworthy that women who have identified themselves as Asian Indian by race have lower fertility (2.32 children versus 2.65) in 1980 and this trend has not changed much in 1990. It is likely that some of these non-Asian Indian race persons may be native born or of mixed parentage. Table 17 shows the mean CEB by ancestry of mother in 1980 and 1990. This table confirms our earlier observation that non-Indian ancestry women have slightly higher number of children (2.58 in 1980 and 2.54 in 1990) compared to those who belong Asian Indian ancestry (2.27 in 1980 and 2.44 in 1990).The mean children ever born per women has declined slightly from 1980 to 1990 for both Indian and non-Indian ancestry Asian Indians in the U.S. Women residing in the western region have the highest children ever born (CEB) in 1980 and that has been the case in 1990 for Indian ancestry women. The overall trends in the CEB show that the means have slightly increased over the decade. This may be a result of immigration of elderly who might have raised larger families in India, and reported in 1990 census.

Table 18 examines the mean CEB of Asian Indian women by place of birth of mother in 1980 and 1990 by region of residence. The mean CEB ranges from 2.09 children in northeast to 2.42 in western region with an overall mean of 2.18 among India born mothers in 1980. The non-India born women have had higher mean CEB in every region of residence with women in northeast having the highest (2.84) in 1980. The 1990 records higher mean CEB among all regions and among India born and outside India born women. However, women born in India have lower mean CEB in 1990 and in all regions compared to outside India born mothers. The overall mean CEB among India born women was 2.40 compared to 2.66 among outside India born women in 1990. The non-India born women may be originally from outside India such as Fiji, Guyana, South Africa, etc., but of Indian origin. Since we have used an overlapping selection process for selecting the sample for this study, we might have captured Asian Indian population that is not necessarily from India but have their origins in India. In Tables 19 and 20, we have examined the mean CEB by length of stay in the United States and by region of residence.

The first row of Table 19 shows the fertility of native born women by region of residence in 1980. Given the recency of Asian Indian immigration to the United States, it is expected that these native born women (2nd generation Asian Indians) are general young, and are expected to be in early married life. It is interesting to note that these women have higher fertility than all women except those who lived in the U.S. for more than 30 years. The data show that about 76 percent of all Asian Indian immigrants have lived in the U.S for 10 years or less at the time of the 1980 census and this percentage has gone down to 51 in 1990. Another interesting observation is that the number of native born women has declined from 9900 in 1980 to 5990 in 1990. This may be a result of two processes -- (i) some of the native born women might have migrated outside the US, or deceased during the decade; and (ii) some native American Indian women might have recorded themselves as Asian Indians. In this paper, we have removed elderly native born women from our study population but could not eliminate younger than 50 year olds due to complexity involved in identifying these persons positively.

Table 20 shows the mean number of CEB by age of mother and place of residence in 1990. Unlike 1980 trends, the mean CEB for native born women is lower than any other immigrant duration group. This finding tends to support our contention that some of the native born women in 1980 may actually belong to American Indian racial group. The overall mean CEB was 2.47 in 1990 compared to 2.36 in 1980. It is interesting to note that Asian Indian mothers immigrated between 1960 to 1970 have the lowest mean CEB compared to those recent immigrants. This does not mean an increase in fertility levels among Asian Indians, but a reflection of recent change in the mix of immigrants (a higher proportion of elderly persons) who might have had larger families. In terms of regional differences, women living in the South have the lowest mean CEB and the highest means can be found in MidWest region.

Education and fertility levels

Does education have any significant effect on fertility behavior? It has long been identified that female education is an important factor in determining the family size preferences. Table 21 presents mean number of CEB by education of mother as in 1980. Education variable has five categories and only a tiny percentage of women have no education or just preschool (< 3 percent). As expected, women with no education have the highest family size in 1980. College educated mothers have lower mean CEB in both 1980 and 1990 (see Table 22). Surprisingly, fertility levels among women with no education or preschool has increased dramatically (3.81 to 4.30 among no education women; 2.71 to 4.44 among women with preschool education) by 1990 as well as the proportion of women (4.9 percent in 1990 versus <3 percent in 1980). The changing immigration pattern and demographic mix of immigrants in the last decade might have contributed to this sudden upsurge (family unification in late 1980s brought many elderly parents to the US from India). The mean CEB is lowest among women with advanced college degree in 1990. There were no preschool educated women living in Southern and Western regions of the US in 1980, and that trend continued in Southern region in 1990. The analysis of 1980 and 1990 census data show that education is an important factor in the study of family size preferences among Asian Indian community. The higher fertility levels among elderly immigrants from India overshadowed the real experience of younger generation. To further our understanding of fertility differentials, we have cross-tabulated the occupation of mother by region of residence in Table 23.

Table 23 shows that about 20 percent of Asian Indian women are in managerial and professional occupations while 25 percent of them are engaged in technical, sales and administrative support positions. But about a third of all women were either unemployed or have an occupation that cannot classify as one of the occupations in the census schedule (housewife?) in 1980. Managerial and professional women have given birth to 1.94 children on average compared to 3.21 among mothers whose occupation is farming, forestry, and fishing. The 1990 census data show a slightly different picture (Table 24). About 22 percent of Asian Indian mothers were in managerial and professional occupations (a slight increase over 1980 percent).

The 1990 data show that about 31 percent of Asian Indian mothers were either unemployed or unclassified and this is one of the groups with the highest mean CEB, 3.16 per woman. There are two modal occupations among women - (i) technical, sales, and administrative support occupations (about 29 percent), and (ii) unemployed or unclassified occupation (about 31 percent). The data show that only fewer mothers were employed in farming, forestry, fishing, precision production, craft, and repair service occupations. The Northeastern region has more than a third of all women. Farming women have the highest mean number of CEB in 1990, followed by unemployed or women not classified. The 1990s recorded an increase in fertility levels in almost all occupations of Asian Indian women. Unlike general population and other minority populations, Asian Indian women are active and have higher educational levels across the board. It is not uncommon to find women with a bachelors/masters degree in computer science or engineering from India settling often as home makers in their adopted land due to lack of opportunities, training, and lack of other family members in the United States to help care for the children.

Summary and Conclusions:

In this paper, we have examined the growth and structure of Asian Indian population in the United States since 1980. The PUMS of 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census were the primary source of this study. Three over-lapping selection schemes were employed to net all Asian Indians in the U.S. This includes both immigrants and native born population of India origin. Unfortunately, this wide net might have included persons from nations other than independent India. It was apparent from our analysis that there was some confusion about the term employed to describe people of India with that of American Indians. There were several elderly persons whose characteristics were closer to American Indian (low educational level, low income, single living as household head etc.) than Asian Indians. We have made an attempt to correct the census data (all tables presented in the paper are based on corrected data) on the basis of age (over 50 years of age) and nativity (born in the United States). The analysis was presented separately for males and females and where possible by region of residence within the U.S.

The Asian Indian population has a very favorable demographic structure (more working and young people than elderly or children) in 1980 and in 1990. The young age structure enabled the community to achieve higher levels of education, occupational prestige, and moderate incomes. It is unfortunate that news media often ignores this important dimension of the community. The analysis clearly demonstrates that most Asian Indians have at least high school diploma (about 90 percent among males and 86 percent for females in 1990) while many have college or other advanced degree (about 55 percent males and 50 percent females). Though highly educated community, a great percentage of women spend their time as unemployed or in a not classified occupation (about a third). It is not clear from the census data whether this is by choice or by lack of opportunities to women. Most Asian Indians are never married (about 48 percent males and 43 percent females in 1990) and about 3 percent are either divorced or separated at the time of 1990 census. Fertility levels and childbearing patterns among Asian Indian women has been examined. There were only 543 teenage mothers (about 0.3 percent of women age 15 and over) and thus teenage pregnancy is not a serious problem among Asian Indian families though the native trends are alarming. The fertility levels as measured by mean number of children ever born indicates that Asian Indians have slightly higher fertility levels than white population but lower than other minority groups. The fertility trends are inflated due to recent immigration of elderly Asian Indian women with large family sizes. The wages and salaries earned by Asian Indians are comparable to the majority community and they do not reflect the higher educational level and achievements. It is likely that when one controls for educational achievements and experience, Asian Indians may be earning significantly lower wages than majority population with similar characteristics (not tested in this paper). In view of our past experience at the 1980 and 1990 census (misclassification), I recommend that a concerted effort should be made by community leaders and the census authorities about usage of the term Asian Indian to avoid confusion at the year 2000 census. Though the basic demographic information is available, detailed information on living arrangements, marital histories, birth histories, and work histories as well as living conditions of elderly do not exist at the national level on Asian Indians. A comprehensive representative nationwide sample survey of Asian Indians of age 15 and over would provide such crucial information for an in-depth analysis of problems confronted by the community in their adopted land. Also such a dataset would help social workers and policy makers in designing appropriates policies to the betterment of Asian Indians in the United States. 

References
Abdel-Latif, Omayma. 1994. Asian Indians are maintaining their ethnic identity in U.S. Detroit News 1994, Aug. 19, Sec B, p7N col1.

Amarasingham, Lorna Rhodes. 1980. Making friends in a new culture: South Asian women in Boston, Massachusetts, in Uprooting and Development: Dilemmas of Coping with Modernization. Coelho, P. Ahmed, and Yuan, eds. New York: Plenum

Barringer, T. and Gene Kasserbaum. 1989. Asian Indians as a minority in the United States: The effect of education, occupations, and gender on Income.

Becker, Tamar. 1971. Cultural patterns and nationalistic commitment among foreign students in the United States, Sociology and Social Research, 55(4)

Burr, Jeffrey. 1992. Household status and Headship among unmarried Asian Indian women in later life, Research on Aging, 14(2).

Call and Post, 1994. No on Asian Indians. Jul 14, Sec A, p4 col1.

Chung, L A. 1991. S.F. Includes Asian Indians in Minority Law. San Francisco Chronicle 1991, Jun. 25, Sec A, p14 col4.

Dinnerstein, L. and D.M. Reimers. 1982. Ethnic Americans, New York: Harper & Row

Fernandez, M. and W. Liu. 1986. Asian Indians in the United States: Economic, Educational and Family Profile from the 1980 Census. Pp. 149-80 in Tradition and Transformation: Asian Indians in America, edited by Brown and Coelho. Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary.

Franklin, Donald E. City hires law firm to inquire about hiring of Indians, Asians. St. Louis Post-Dispatch 1994, Dec. 9, Sec D, p9 col2.

Klein, Easy. 1990. The Asian-American Market : Climb Aboard the Orient Express. D&B Reports 1990, v38n6, Nov./DEC p. 38-40 (3 pages)

OÌHare, W.P. and J.C. Feldt. 1991. Asian Americans: America's fastest growing minority group, Population Trends and Public Policy, No. 19, Washington, DC. : Population Reference Bureau.

Oh, Tai K. 1977. The Asian brain drain: A factual and causal analysis. San Francisco: R&E Research Associates

Rao, K.V. 1994. Growth of Asian Indian Population in the United States, 1980-1990,Ó Paper presented at the American Sociological Association meetings, Los Angels.

Rao, V.N, V.V. Prakasa Rao, and M. Fernandez. 1990. An exploratory study of social support among Asian Indians in the USA, International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 27(3-4)

Sandalow, Marc. 1991. S.F. May Add Asian Indians to Minority Business List. San Francisco Chronicle 1991, Jun 18, Sec A, p15 col1.

Saran, Parmatma. 1980. Patterns and adaptation of Indian immigrants: Challenges and strategies, in Uprooting and Development: Dilemmas of Coping with Modernization. Coelho, P. Ahmed, and Yuan, eds. New York: Plenum

Singh, G.K. 1991. Immigration, nativity and socio-economic assimilation of Asian Indians in the United States, Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1991. Studies in American fertility, Current Population Reports, Series P-23, No. 176, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Justice. 1994. INS Fact Book: Summary of recent Immigration Data, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.

Xenos, P., H. Barringer, and M. Levin. 1989. Asian Indians in the United States: A 1980 Census Profile, No. 111, Papers of the East-West Population Institute.

Enjoy a Historical Look-Back on Indian-American Population almost 30 years ago!

Table1: Asian Indians in the United States, 1980 & 1990

Table 1: Asian Indians in the United States


1980 1990
Male Female Total Percent Male Female Total Percent
RACE
Indian 191380 172380 363760 87.7 426393 370613 797006 91.6
Not Indian 26320 24700 51020 12.3 38280 34614 72894 8.4
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0 464673 405227 869900 100.0
Percent 52.5 47.5 100.0 53.4 46.6 100.0
ANCESTRY
Indian 159300 135860 295160 71.2 284970 254367 539337 62.0
Not Indian 58400 61220 119620 28.8 179703 150860 330563 38.0
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0 464673 405227 869900 100.0
Percent 52.5 47.5 100.0 53.4 46.6 100.0
COUNTRY OF BIRTH
India 117320 94580 211900 51.1 243775 214606 458381 52.7
Outside India 100380 102500 202880 48.9 220898 190621 411519 47.3
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0 464673 405227 869900 100.0
Percent 52.5 47.5 100.0 53.4 46.6 100.0

Table 2: Asian Indians in the U.S - Percent Increase from 1980 to 1990

Table 2: Asian Indians in the U.S. - Percent Increase from 1980 to 1990


Sex 1980 1990 Increase % Increase
Male 217700 464673 246973 113.4
Female 197080 405227 208147 105.6
Total 414780 869900 455120 109.7

Table 3: Asian Indians in the United States (Race by Ancestry) 1980 and 1990

Table 3: Asian Indians in the United States (Race by Ancestry, 1980 and 1990)


1980 1990
Of Indian Not Indian Indian Not Indian
Born in India Ancestry Ancestry Total Percent Ancestry Ancestry Total Percent
Indian Race 164440 26800 191240 90.3 308074 114771 422845 92.2
Not Indian Race 4440 16220 20660 9.7 7183 28353 35536 7.8
Total 168880 43020 211900 100.0 315257 143124 458381 100.0
Percent 79.7 20.3 100.0 68.8 31.2 100.0
Not Born in India
Indian Race 95920 30360 126280 62.2 186722 37358 224080 54.5
Not Indian Race 76600 0 76600 37.8 187439 0 187439 45.5
Total 172520 30360 202880 100.0 374161 37358 411519 100.0
Percent 85.0 15.0 100.0 90.9 9.1 100.0

Tables 4-6

Table 4: Age-Sex Distribution of Asian Indians, 1980 and 1990


1980 1990
Age Group Male Female Total Percent Male Female Total Percent
0 - 4 24640 23800 48440 11.7 34516 34770 69286 8.0
5 - 9 21600 21920 43520 10.5 38691 37607 76298 8.8
10 - 14 15800 15340 31140 7.5 38014 35197 73211 8.4
15 - 19 13080 12260 25340 6.1 34804 29025 63829 7.3
20 - 24 14160 15680 29840 7.2 39649 34410 74059 8.5
25 - 29 23620 25920 49540 11.9 44743 43335 88078 10.1
30 - 34 32300 28620 60920 14.7 49561 44460 94021 10.8
35 - 39 28540 18960 47500 11.5 47046 39277 86323 9.9
40 - 44 19600 11360 30960 7.5 43707 39051 82758 9.5
45 - 49 10480 7260 17740 4.3 37986 24093 62079 7.1
50 - 54 5700 3780 9480 2.3 24729 15474 40203 4.6
55 - 59 2600 3080 5680 1.4 13094 9262 22356 2.6
60 - 64 1640 2080 3720 0.9 6347 5896 12243 1.4
65 - 69 1500 2240 3740 0.9 6244 5983 12227 1.4
70 - 74 1020 1700 2720 0.7 3054 3949 7003 0.8
75 - 79 800 1600 2400 0.6 1304 2282 3586 0.4
80 - 84 380 1020 1400 0.3 639 870 1509 0.2
85 + 240 460 700 0.2 545 286 831 0.1
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0 464673 405227 869900 100.0
Tables 4-6

Table 5: Distribution of Asian Indians by Region and Gender, 1980 and 1990


1980 1990
Region Males Females Total Percent Male Female Total Percent
Northeast 75140 69840 144980 35.0 156923 144319 301242 34.6
Midwest 49560 41440 91000 21.9 81795 71978 153773 17.7
West 42600 38700 81300 19.6 115093 96244 211337 24.3
South 50400 47100 97500 23.5 110862 92686 203548 23.4
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0 464673 405227 869900 100.0

Tables 4-6

Table 6: Distribution of Asian Indians by Marital Status and Gender, 1980 and 1990


1980
Marital Status Male Female Total Percent
Married, Exc Sep 107120 98960 206080 49.7
Widowed 1260 7280 8540 2.1
Divorced 3760 3900 7660 1.8
Separated 1680 1840 3520 0.8
NMarried/< 15 Yrs 103880 85100 188980 45.6
Total 217700 197080 414780 100.0
1990
Marital Status Male Female Total Percent
Married, Except Sep 226327 205446 431773 49.6
Widowed 3234 13479 16713 1.9
Divorced 8148 8288 16436 1.9
Separated 3190 2650 5840 0.7
NMarried/< 15 Yrs 223774 175364 399138 45.9
Total 464673 405227 869900 100.0

Tables 7a

Table 7a: Age distribution by marital status, 1980 (males)


Table 7a: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE DISTRIBUTION BY MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (MALES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 - - - - 62040 62040 28.5
15-29 15440 - 820 500 34100 50860 23.4
30-39 53000 120 1440 540 5740 60840 27.9
40-49 27440 140 880 320 1300 30080 13.8
50-59 7300 120 420 160 300 8300 3.8
60 + 3940 880 200 160 400 5580 2.6
Total 107120 1260 3760 1680 103880 217700 100.0
Percent 49.21 0.58 1.73 0.77 47.72 100.0
Table 7b: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE BY MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (FEMALES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 - - - - 61060 61060 31.0
15-29 32120 180 760 540 20260 53860 27.3
30-39 43740 220 1080 460 2080 47580 24.1
40-49 15460 620 1040 520 980 18620 9.4
50-59 4600 1320 540 180 220 6860 3.5
60 + 3040 4940 480 140 500 9100 4.6
Total 98960 7280 3900 1840 85100 197080 100.0
Percent 50.21 3.69 1.98 0.93 43.18 100.0
Table 7c: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE BY MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (BOTH SEXES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 - - - - 123100 123100 29.7
15-29 47560 - 1580 1040 54360 104540 25.2
30-39 96740 340 2520 1000 7820 108420 26.1
40-49 42900 760 1920 840 2280 48700 11.7
50-59 11900 1440 960 340 520 15160 3.7
60 + 6980 5820 680 300 900 14680 3.5
Total 206080 8540 7660 3520 188980 414780 100.0
Percent 49.68 2.06 1.85 0.85 45.56 100.0
Table 8a: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE BY MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (MALES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 0 0 0 0 111221 111221 23.9
15-29 22185 0 1033 994 94984 119196 25.7
30-39 78388 221 2992 1277 13729 96607 20.8
40-49 75777 174 2099 563 3080 81693 17.6
50-59 34654 774 1721 278 396 37823 8.1
60 + 15323 2065 303 78 364 18133 3.9
Total 226327 3234 8148 3190 223774 464673 100.0
Percent 48.71 0.70 1.75 0.69 48.16 100.0
Table 8b: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE BY MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (FEMALES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 0 0 0 0 107574 107574 26.55
15-29 45827 274 929 822 58918 106770 26.35
30-39 74472 322 2479 1199 5265 83737 20.66
40-49 57374 1327 2544 135 1764 63144 15.58
50-59 19526 2704 1448 304 754 24736 6.10
60 + 8247 8852 888 190 1089 19266 4.75
Total 205446 13479 8288 2650 175364 405227 100.0
Percent 50.70 3.33 2.05 0.65 43.28 100.0
Table 8c: ASIAN INDIANS-AGE BY MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (BOTH SEXES)
Now Never
Age Group Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
Below 15 - - - - 218795 218795 25.15
15-29 68012 274 1962 1816 153902 225966 25.98
30-39 152860 543 5471 2476 18994 180344 20.73
40-49 133151 1501 4643 698 4844 144837 16.65
50-59 54180 3478 3169 582 1150 62559 7.19
60 + 23570 10917 1191 268 1453 37399 4.30
Total 431773 16713 16436 5840 399138 869900 100.0
Percent 49.63 1.92 1.89 0.67 45.88 100.0
Table 9a: ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (MALES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 1100 60 0 20 19540 20720 9.52
Preschool 120 20 0 0 11780 11920 5.48
Grade School 4440 280 360 160 30160 35400 16.26
High School 14760 300 580 360 14620 30620 14.07
College 25460 360 1300 560 15080 42760 19.64
Advanced Degree 61240 240 1520 580 12700 76280 35.04
Total 107120 1260 3760 1680 103880 217700 100.00
Percent 49.21 0.58 1.73 0.77 47.72 100.00
Table 9b: ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (FEMALES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 1880 860 60 40 19400 22240 11.28
Preschool 120 20 0 0 10680 10820 5.49
Grade School 8020 2800 380 260 30220 41680 21.15
High School 27540 2120 1380 820 12960 44820 22.74
College 36780 1160 1320 540 9180 48980 24.85
Advanced Degree 24620 320 760 180 2660 28540 14.48
Total 98960 7280 3900 1840 85100 197080 100.00
Percent 50.21 3.69 1.98 0.93 43.18 100.00
Table 9c: ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1980 (BOTH SEXES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 2980 920 60 60 38940 42960 10.36
Preschool 240 40 0 0 22460 22740 5.48
Grade School 12460 3080 740 420 60380 77080 18.58
High School 42300 2420 1960 1180 27580 75440 18.19
College 62240 1520 2620 1100 24260 91740 22.12
Advanced Degree 85860 560 2280 760 15360 104820 25.27
Total 206080 8540 7660 3520 188980 414780 100.00
Percent 49.68 2.06 1.85 0.85 45.56 100.00
Table 10a - ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (MALES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 4880 285 0 32 33732 38929 8.38
Preschool 0 0 0 0 17425 17425 3.75
Grade School 7389 554 112 0 62032 70087 15.08
High School 37384 472 1478 910 41152 81396 17.52
College 81064 973 4190 1721 51547 139495 30.02
Advanced Degree 95610 950 2368 527 17886 117341 25.25
Total 226327 3234 8148 3190 223774 464673 100.00
Percent 48.71 0.70 1.75 0.69 48.16 100.00
Table 10b - ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (FEMALES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 6521 3480 117 138 33699 43955 10.85
Preschool 78 299 0 0 16528 16905 4.17
Grade School 12818 3361 280 175 58325 74959 18.50
High School 49481 3955 2135 681 32384 88636 21.87
College 95095 2215 4430 1119 29234 132093 32.60
Advanced Degree 41453 169 1326 537 5194 48679 12.01
Total 205446 13479 8288 2650 175364 405227 100.00
Percent 50.70 3.33 2.05 0.65 43.28 100.00
Table 10c - ASIAN INDIANS - EDUCATION AND MARITAL STATUS, 1990 (BOTH SEXES)
Now Never
Education Married Widowed Divorced Separated Married Total Percent
None Completed 11401 3765 117 170 67431 82884 9.53
Preschool 78 299 0 0 33953 34330 3.95
Grade School 20207 3915 392 175 120357 145046 16.67
High School 86865 4427 3613 1591 73536 170032 19.55
College 176159 3188 8620 2840 80781 271588 31.22
Advanced Degree 137063 1119 3694 1064 23080 166020 19.08
Total 431773 16713 16436 5840 399138 869900 100.00
Percent 49.63 1.92 1.89 0.67 45.88 100.00

Last Update: 4/29/96

Name: K.V. Rao

Email: [email protected]

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Create a free web site with Weebly
  • Home
  • About
  • Projects
    • Immigration Forum >
      • Part 1
      • Part 2
    • Past Projects >
      • Andhra Non-Profit Work
      • Gujarat Earthquake Relief
      • Gujarat Cyclone Relief
      • HudHud Cyclone
      • Kargil War
      • Maps Project
    • Current Projects >
      • Mineral Water Projects
      • Travel Grants >
        • Past Winners
  • Research
    • Dr. KV Rao
    • India Digest
    • Census
    • Indian Economy >
      • Chapter 1
      • Chapter 2
      • Chapter 3
      • Chapter 4
  • Culture
    • Stamps
    • Book Reviews
    • Hindu Temples
  • Directory
    • Indian Financial Institutions
    • List of Indian Embassies
    • Indian Faculty
    • NITPU Centre Sites
  • Members
  • Contact