> You're much more likely to encounter someone with an Indian accent on Wall Street or in Silicon Valley than someone with an Appalachian accent.
Yes, because one of those groups is two orders of magnitude larger than the other in number and can't make it to Wall Street or Silicon Valley without a visa that is incredibly expensive to get and explicitly filters for the trifecta of wealth, income, and formal education. That doesn't invalidate racism against against them; it just means that you're not comparing apples to apples.
This is an incredibly disingenuous set of arguments you're trying to make, and you've been called out for it many times before - it's classic flamewar bait, which is against the site rules.
> Literally the very first sentence of the link you cited contradicts what you're saying
> With heavy immigration fueled by U.S. immigration law changes in 1965 and the influx of over 700.000 Indochinese refugees since the Vietnam War ended
Do you think those “Indochinese refugees” were affluent educated professionals?
The 1965 Act actually caused a decrease in the percentage of Asians working in high skill jobs: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/07/12/income-... (“The surge in Asian immigration followed the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1965, which favored family reunification, and the end to the war in Vietnam in 1975, which brought in a wave of refugees. One result was that the share of new Asian immigrants working in high-skill occupations decreased from 1970 to 1990, and the share working in low-skill occupations increased.”). It wasn’t until the 1990 H1B changes that this trend reversed.
But these low Asian groups nonetheless did well. In the 1970s, Vietnamese Americans had a poverty rate higher than black Americans. Today, they have a lower poverty rate and higher median income than white Americans.
And even the skilled immigrants during that period didn’t come here with portable “wealth, income, and formal education” as stated above. The class people you’re thinking of—the children of wealthy business people in India and China who send their kids to go to school in America—was virtually non-existent in the 1960s through the 1980. That class is a product of India and China’s exponential growth since the 1990s. Being wealthy before that meant being like my mom’s family in Bangladesh—having land and social status, neither of which was very portable to America.
> I don't know why you are doing this but you're not contributing positively to the site.
Why are you so invested in the myth that Asian Americans are successful in the US primarily because of selective immigration? Why do you want to erase the—well documented—experience of all the Asians who came to the US as refugees or based on family reunification and went from poverty to being middle class or affluent?
Yes, because one of those groups is two orders of magnitude larger than the other in number and can't make it to Wall Street or Silicon Valley without a visa that is incredibly expensive to get and explicitly filters for the trifecta of wealth, income, and formal education. That doesn't invalidate racism against against them; it just means that you're not comparing apples to apples.
This is an incredibly disingenuous set of arguments you're trying to make, and you've been called out for it many times before - it's classic flamewar bait, which is against the site rules.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html