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.
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!
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
| 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)
| 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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: kvrao@indnet.bgsu.edu
|
|