Comment by Riaz Haq on August 27, 2017 at 9:27pm

#Trump beware: #Pakistan’s luck playing #China card is turning. #AfghanStrategy #India #Afghanistan http://sc.mp/C4dZrZ via @SCMP_news

As a result, if Pakistan comes under real pressure, China will probably be willing to extend forms of economic support and political protection it would previously have balked at. A version of this already played out in 2015, when Pakistan was being pushed by the Saudis and the UAE to play a significant role in the military campaign in Yemen. Chinese economic reassurances helped Pakistan to resist the entreaties and financial threats. China has also given stronger political cover to Pakistan in international forums.

--------------

At the lowest ebb of the last annus horribilis for US-Pakistan ties in 2011, soon after the special forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan brandished the China card: if relations with Washington were going into a tailspin, Islamabad would turn to Beijing instead. They were rebuffed. China discreetly made it clear to both the United States and Pakistan that the “all-weather friendship” was already as deep as they wanted it to be and that Islamabad needed to focus on fixing its relations with Washington.

With President Donald Trump’s announcement that the new US South Asia strategy will involve tightening the screws on Pakistan if it doesn’t address militant safe havens within its borders, the early indications are that the China card will be played again. This time, however, Pakistan may have more luck. The relationship with Beijing is in a very different place now and while China will take its usual care not to get caught in the middle, it is likely to provide a stronger backdrop of support than it did the last time US-Pakistan tensions escalated.

Some things haven’t changed. While it might seem that Beijing would see any deterioration of Islamabad’s ties with Washington as an opportunity to exploit, China has long perceived greater advantage in a robust US-Pakistan relationship. Given Pakistan’s most important role for China has been as a counterbalance to India, it wants Islamabad to benefit from solid US economic and military support. Healthy ties with Washington are seen by Beijing to place implicit limits on the scope of US-India relations. They also ensure that Pakistan doesn’t turn into yet another point of tension in US-China relations or act as an impediment to Sino-Pakistani security ties.


---
In addition to the fact that China’s once negligible economic interests in Pakistan have grown to the tune of tens of billions of dollars in investment, there is a political premium to making CPEC a success.

CPEC is also bound up in a deeper Chinese strategic commitment to Pakistan. As the People’s Liberation Army looks to expand its global power projection capabilities, it is strengthening ties with partners in areas ranging from naval cooperation to counterterrorism. In the last two years, the security relationship with Pakistani has been held up as a model to follow in this regard.

Comment by Riaz Haq on September 4, 2017 at 7:11pm

7,000 Indian and 3,476 Pakistani Children in Jeopardy as DACA Faces Repeal by President Trump

http://www.indiawest.com/news/global_indian/indian-american-childre...

The Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program – an Obama-era initiative providing relief from deportation to more than 800,000 undocumented young people, including more than 7,000 Indian Americans – could be repealed by President Donald Trump as early as this week.

The repeal of DACA could make recipients of the program immediately eligible for deportation. It could also strip them of their work permits and rescind in-state tuition for undocumented college students. The program also allowed its recipients to obtain social security numbers.

A study issued in January by the CATO Institute – a libertarian think tank – estimated that deporting all 800,000 DACA recipients – also known as DREAMERs – would cost the federal government $60 billion, and reduce economic growth by $280 billion over the next 10 years.

“These are American children,” said Rep. Joe Crowley, D-New York, in an impassioned press call with reporters Aug. 31. “Eighty percent of Americans support DACA, and keeping these DREAMERS right here where they belong,” he said, noting that Trump has promised compassion for undocumented children on several occasions after he was elected to office.

“They’re not here for hand-outs, they’re not here to harm, they’re here to contribute to our country,” said the congressman, who represents the Queens and Bronx neighborhoods of New York, both which host a large immigrant population.

Asked by India-West if litigation would ensue should Trump repeal DACA, Crowley responded: “We will exhaust every legal avenue. But the president could show his compassion by not prosecuting or persecuting DACA kids, and give peace of mind to these young people.”

“We cannot send these children back to the country of their birth,” he said, noting that many DREAMERs arrived as young children, and do not know the language of their native countries.

Last December, Trump told Time magazine in an interview that he would “work something out” for DACA beneficiaries. “They got brought here at a very young age, they've worked here, they've gone to school here. And they're in never-never land because they don't know what's going to happen.”

In February, Trump said the DACA executive order was one of the most difficult issues he has had to grapple with. “You have some absolutely incredible kids, I would say mostly,” hedging his remarks by noting that some were drug dealers and gang members.

But the president is under deadline to repeal Obama’s executive order: a June 29 letter sent by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatens to sue the administration if DACA is not repealed by Sept. 5. The attorney generals of eight other states – Alabama, Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia – and Gov. Butch Otter of Idaho were co-signatories to the letter.

---

According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services latest statistics – collected until March 31 – an estimated 7,028 undocumented Indian American students are DACA recipients, many who arrived as young children with their parents and have never been able to return to the land of their birth. India ranks 11 amongst the top countries of origin for DACA students; 7,881 have applied for the program. More than 17,000 are eligible, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute.

Pakistan ranks 22nd in countries of origin for DACA recipients: USCIS reports that 3,476 applications have been accepted to date.

Comment by Riaz Haq on September 8, 2017 at 9:54am

There are 519,000 Pakistani-Americans as of 2015, according to Pew Research. 

#Pakistani-Americans median household income is $66,000, higher than $53,600 for all #Americans but lower than $73,060 for #Asian Americans http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/09/08/key-facts-about-asi...

The U.S. Asian population grew 72% between 2000 and 2015 (from 11.9 million to 20.4 million), the fastest growth rate of any major racial or ethnic group. By comparison, the population of the second-fastest growing group, Hispanics, increased 60% during the same period.

Population growth varied across the 19 Asian origin groups in this analysis. Roughly half of the 19 groups more than doubled in size between 2000 and 2015, with Bhutanese-, Nepalese– and Burmese-origin populations showing the fastest growth over the period. Meanwhile, Laotians and Japanese had among the slowest growth rates among U.S. Asians in the past 15 years.

No single country-of-origin group dominates the U.S. Asian population, but the largest groups are of Chinese, Indian and Filipino origin. As of 2015, 24% of Asian Americans (4.9 million) were of Chinese origin, the largest single origin group. The next two largest origin groups are Indian-origin Asians, who accounted for 20% of the national Asian population (4.0 million), and Filipinos (19%, or 3.9 million). Those with roots in Vietnam, Korea and Japan easily clear the 1 million mark as well. The remaining 13 groups in this analysis account for just 12% of all U.S. Asians.

Comment by Riaz Haq on September 18, 2017 at 10:12pm

2.43 million Pakistanis working in Europe

https://tribune.com.pk/story/1391730/overseas-workforce-2-43-millio...

Out of the total Pakistan’s overseas workforce, 27 per cent have jobs in European countries, revealed statistics shared by Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis and Human Resource Development with the lawmakers in the Senate.

After Saudi Arabia, United Kingdom caters to the largest overseas Pakistanis followed by Italy, France, Germany and Spain.

In response to question of senator Rozi Khan Kakar, the ministry stated that presently around 9.08 million workforce is living/working abroad, out of which, 2.43 million got job opportunities in around 25 countries of Europe.
UK at the moment has provided jobs to 1.7 million Pakistanis. Saudi Arabia continues to be the favourite destination of Pakistani workforce with 2.6 million workers. United Arab Emirates is at the fourth place in the list with 1.6 million and United States fifth with 900,350.

In Europe, Italy is providing jobs to 119,762 Pakistanis, France 104,000, Germany 90,556, Spain 82,000, Greece 70,002, Norway 38,000 and Netherlands 35,000.

Turkey is providing jobs to only 557 Pakistani workers while China has accommodated 14,355 Pakistani workers. Chile is providing jobs to 760 Pakistanis and Cuba has given job opportunities to 600 Pakistanis. Afghanistan provided jobs to 71,000 Pakistanis and India 10,000. Iran has provided jobs to 7,065 Pakistanis.

Currently, 120,216 Pakistanis have been provided jobs in Malaysia and 65,000 in Thailand.

Libya provided 12,008 Pakistanis jobs, Iraq accommodated 4,709 and Yemen 3,024. Russia gave jobs to 3,560 Pakistanis, stated the statistics.

The reply also contains that 19 Community Welfare Attaches are posted in Pakistan’s missions abroad in the countries having a sizeable concentration of Pakistanis to provide them certain facilities.

These facilities include, issuance of passports, provision of assistance in implementation of Foreign Service Agreement which is made between employee and employer and some others.

Comment by Riaz Haq on October 16, 2019 at 1:45pm

#London-born #Pakistani-#American Lina Khan’s essay on the “Amazon Antitrust Paradox” and subsequent legal research made it more possible for people in the halls of power to once again begin investigating monopolies. #Amazon #antitrust https://bit.ly/31YKbOV

For the most part, Americans have watched the advent of the massive corporation over the past half century with some degree of indifference. When companies merged with each other, they saved money on overheads, and so could provide consumers with lower prices on everyday goods. Regulators didn’t worry too much about the rise of big companies, in part since consumers weren’t complaining. But at the age of 27, while a student at Yale Law School, Lina Khan very publicly pushed back against this line of thinking. In “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox,” a widely-read article published in 2017 in the Yale Law Journal, Khan argued that though the rise of big companies like Amazon may mean lower prices, they should not necessarily be immune from antitrust scrutiny. There is a “broader set of ills and hazards that a lack of competition breeds,” she wrote. Giant corporations can manipulate the markets they dominate, she wrote, forcing smaller companies out of business and worsening the economy for workers, citizens, and sometimes even consumers.
Khan had in roughly 24,000 words resurfaced an argument against monopolies that journalists such as Ida Tarbell had popularized more than a century ago. It’s an argument that politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are now echoing. But it was Khan’s paper and subsequent legal research that gave people in the halls of power another tool for investigating monopolies. Thinking only about whether monopolies lead to lower prices was not the right approach, she argued. “If prices are low for us as consumers but our wages are stagnant and there’s no opportunity to create our own business, that’s not self-evidently a good thing,” she says.

After her paper was published, Khan worked as a legal fellow in the office of Rohit Chopra of the Federal Trade Commission as the agency increased its scrutiny of tech firms; the FTC has recently launched probes of Facebook and Amazon. Khan, now 30, has published opeds in the New York Times calling for more scrutiny of big tech companies, and is currently on leave from her position as an academic fellow at Columbia Law School to work as counsel for the House Antitrust Subcommittee as it takes on tech companies.

Khan, whose parents immigrated to the U.S. from the U.K. when she was 11, had originally wanted to be a journalist. It was the best way to hold powerful people accountable, she thought, during journalism stints in both high school and college, including a fellowship in India. But after graduating from Williams College, she started working with the New America Foundation under the journalist Barry Lynn, and began researching how the rise of massive companies was having a big impact on Americans’ everyday life. For instance, consumers face a lack of choice in chocolate bars since two companies control the majority of the world’s cocoa processing; farmers can only buy seeds from a few giant conglomerates, which limits their bargaining power; once people start buying a specific product like Darth Vader cufflinks on Amazon, the tech company can take over the market from the small seller. The more she researched, the more she found that though consumers might have an illusion of choice, a few companies dominate large sections of the economy and set their own rules. “I think there is a very coherent story to be told about how market power is harming us as a whole in all these bizarre ways that are not readily apparent,” she says. Khan ultimately decided to go to law school so she could more effectively take on antitrust, a mission she has pursued since she became a law student. “We’re at a moment where the revival of antitrust could be extremely important in the coming decades,” she said.

Comment by Riaz Haq on December 5, 2019 at 5:04pm

#Pakistani-#American Journalist Amna Nawaz Among #Democratic Presidential #Debate Moderators Named By PBS NewsHour & POLITICO. Other names include Judy Woodruff, Tim Alberta, Amna Nawaz and Yamiche Alcindor https://politi.co/34t2flr via @politico


Amna Nawaz joined PBS NewsHour in April 2018 and serves as senior national correspondent and primary substitute anchor.

Prior to joining the NewsHour, Nawaz was an anchor and correspondent at ABC News, anchoring breaking news coverage and leading the network’s digital coverage of the 2016 presidential election. Before that, she served as a foreign correspondent at NBC News, reporting from Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, Turkey, and the broader region. She is also the founder and former managing editor of NBC’s Asian America platform, built to elevate the voices of America’s fastest-growing population.

At the NewsHour, Nawaz has reported politics, foreign affairs, education, climate change, culture and sports. Her immigration reporting has taken her to multiple border communities in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and Mexico. She’s investigated the impact of the Trump Administration’s immigration policies, including following the journey of a single toddler as she left her home in Mexico, was separated from her family at the U.S. border, and later reunited with her family several weeks later. She also regularly covers issues around detention, refugees and asylum, and migrant children in U.S. government custody.

Nawaz has interviewed international newsmakers -- including Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, and Brazilian leader Eduardo Bolsonaro; lawmakers and Trump administration officials – including then-ICE Director Mark Morgan’s first interview after President Trump announced mass raids across the U.S., Acting Secretary of DHS Kevin McAleenan, and former DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen in her first interview since leaving the Trump administration; and influential voices including Reba McEntire, Gloria Estefan, and Dev Patel.

Domestically, her reporting has taken her to Appalachia to cover healthcare and the economy, the Pacific Northwest to cover gentrification and discrimination in housing, and communities across the country to take the political pulse of the nation. Internationally, she’s traveled to Brazil to report on climate change from within the Amazon, and the Venezuelan refugee crisis.

In 2019, her reporting as part of a NewsHour series on the global plastic problem was the recipient of a Peabody Award.

While at ABC News, Nawaz reported the documentary, “Roberts County: A Year in the Most Pro-Trump Town,” following four families’ lives over President Trump’s first year in office, and hosted the podcast series, “Uncomfortable,” featuring in-depth, one-on-one conversations with thought leaders on the issues dividing America.

Earlier, at NBC News, her work appeared on NBC Nightly News, The Today Show, Dateline NBC, MSNBC, andMSNBC.com. She was NBC’s Islamabad Bureau Chief and Correspondent for several years, and was the first foreign journalist allowed inside North Waziristan, the then-global hub of Al Qaida and the Taliban. She covered the Taliban attack on Malala Yousafzai, the U.S. raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound, and broke news in a series of exclusive reports on the impact of U.S. drone strikes. Nawaz reported for the network’s investigative unit, covering the U.S. housing crisis and the BP oil spill, and also covered the election and inauguration of Barack Obama, the earthquake in Haiti, and Hurricane Katrina.

--

Nawaz has also been honored with an Emmy Award for the NBC News Special “Inside the Obama White House,” a Society for Features Journalism Award, and was a recipient of the International Reporting Project fellowship in 2009. She earned a bachelor's degree from the University of Pennsylvania, where she captained the varsity field hockey team, and later earned her master's degree from the London School of Economics.

Comment by Riaz Haq on December 31, 2019 at 9:53am

DEMOGRAPHIC SNAPSHOT OF SOUTH ASIANS IN THE UNITED STATES
April 2019

http://saalt.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/SAALT-Demographic-Snaps...

Over 9.5% of green card recipients in FY 2017 were from South Asian countries: Bangladesh (14,693); Bhutan (2,940); India
(60,394); Nepal (11,610); Pakistan (17,408); and Sri Lanka (1,627).

The South Asian American community grew roughly 40% between 2010 and 2017. (See Table 1) The Nepali community
experienced the most significant growth, increasing by 206.6% followed by Indian, Bhutanese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, and
Sri Lankan populations.
By 2065, it is projected that Asian Americans will be the largest immigrant population. The term immigrant refers to 2
individuals living in the United States but were not U.S. citizens at birth and necessarily all individuals who trace their
ancestry to a country outside of the United States. Bhutanese (92%) and Nepalese (88%) communities have the highest
foreign-born shares, followed by Sri Lankans (78%), Bangladeshis (74%), Indians (69%), and Pakistanis (67%)


Citizen Voting Age Population (CVAP) describes the total South Asian American population that is eligible to vote.30
Bangladeshi - 69,825
Bhutanese - 1,242
Indian - 1,558,594
Nepalese - 18,931
Pakistani - 222,252
Sri Lankan - 22,161

Changes in South Asian American Population, 2010 to 2017
Single Ethnicity Reported4 Multiple Ethnicities Reported5
2010 2017 Percent
Change
2010 2017 Percent
Change
Bangladeshi 142,080 176,229 24% 147,300 185,622 26%
Bhutanese 18,814 23,904 27% 19,439 26,845 38.1%
Indian 2,918,807 4,094,539 40.3% 3,183,063 4,402,362 38.3%
Maldivian 102 N/A N/A 127 N/A N/A
Nepali 57,209 171,709 200.1% 59,490 182,385 206.6%
Pakistani 382,994 499,099 30.3% 409,163 544,640 33.1%

Comment by Riaz Haq on February 25, 2020 at 1:27pm

Legal #Immigration Is Plunging in #Trump Years. Number of people who obtained lawful permanent residence, besides refugees who entered the #UnitedStates in previous years, declined to 940,877 in the 2018 fiscal year from 1,063,289 in the 2016 fiscal year https://nyti.ms/2PjtCsx

Four years ago, legal immigration was at its highest level since 2006, when 1,266,129 people obtained lawful permanent residence in the United States.

And immigration experts say new policies will accelerate the trend. A report released on Monday by the foundation projected a 30 percent plunge in legal immigration by 2021 and a 35 percent dip in average annual growth of the U.S. labor force.

Trump administration officials have said that immigration into the country should be based on merit and skills, not the family-based system that for decades has allowed immigrants to bring their spouses and children to live with them.

------------


The rapid declines come as record-low unemployment has even the president’s acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confiding to a gathering in Britain that “we are desperate, desperate for more people.”

But the doors have been blocked in multiple ways. Those fleeing violence or persecution have found asylum rules tightened and have been forced to wait in squalid camps in Mexico or sent to countries like Guatemala as their cases are adjudicated. People who have languished in displaced persons camps for years face an almost impossible refugee cap of 18,000 this year, down from the 110,000 that President Barack Obama set in 2016.


Family members hoping to travel legally from Iran, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Somalia were blocked by the president’s travel ban.

Increased vetting and additional in-person interviews have further winnowed foreign travelers. The number of visas issued to foreigners abroad looking to immigrate to the United States has declined by about 25 percent, to 462,422 in the 2019 fiscal year from 617,752 in 2016.

And two more tough policies have now taken effect. The expansion of Mr. Trump’s travel ban to six additional countries, including Africa’s most populous, Nigeria, began on Friday, and the wealth test, which effectively sets a wealth floor for would-be immigrants, started on Monday. Those will reshape immigration in the years to come, according to experts.

The travel and visa bans, soon to cover 13 countries, are almost sure to be reflected in immigration numbers in the near future. Of the average of more than 537,000 people abroad granted permanent residency from 2014 to 2016, including through a diversity lottery system, nearly 28,000, or 5 percent, would be blocked under the administration’s newly expanded travel restrictions, according to an analysis of State Department data.

But the wealth test — or public charge rule — may prove the most consequential change yet. Around two-thirds of the immigrants who obtained permanent legal status from 2012 to 2016 could be blocked from doing so under the new rule, which denies green cards to those who are likely to need public assistance, according to a study by the Migration Policy Institute.

Before Monday, immigrants were disqualified from permanent resident status only if they failed to demonstrate a household income above 125 percent of the federal poverty line, a threshold set by Congress. Now, immigration officials will weigh dozens of factors, like age, health, language skills, credit score and insurance as well as whether an applicant has previously used public benefits, to determine if the applicant is likely to use them in the future.

Comment by Riaz Haq on April 11, 2021 at 11:04am

My research similarly shows that creating spaces for empathy can prove invaluable for combating intergroup hostility. In 2015, my research assistants and I interviewed Americans and Pakistanis on their views of each other’s culture. We found that both groups held highly negative beliefs and stereotypes about the other. Pakistanis didn’t just see Americans as loose, but as immoral and arrogant. Americans saw Pakistanis as overly constrained, but also aggressive and violent. As impressions are often formed through the media, which thrives on caricature, such extreme stereotyping is perhaps not surprising. What’s more, we tend to live in our own echo chambers. Even on Twitter and Facebook, we communicate with those we know and those who share our views, rather than engaging with people from other cultures. In our study, we wondered if we could lessen intergroup intergroup hostility by giving each group a more realistic window into each other’s lives. We didn’t have the budget to fly Pakistanis to the United States or vice versa. But what if Americans were able to read the actual daily diaries of Pakistanis, and Pakistanis were able to read the diaries of Americans, over the course of a week? Would this exposure to one another’s day-to-day lives change their attitudes? To find out, my collaborator Joshua Jackson and I had American and Pakistani students write about their everyday experiences for one week. We then gave a new group of participants, including a hundred American and a hundred Pakistani students, a set of these diary entries to read over the course of a week. The results of this low-cost intervention were striking: As compared with participants who read diary entries from members of their own culture, participants who read diary entries written by members of the other culture viewed the two cultures as being much more similar. What’s more, Pakistani participants who read Americans’ diaries viewed Americans as more moral and as having less of a sense of superiority over other cultures. And, by the end of this intervention, our American participants who read diaries written by Pakistanis viewed Pakistanis as less violent and more fun-loving. “I don’t know many Pakistanis personally, but the diary entries helped me learn about the everyday life of someone in Pakistan,” one American participant wrote at the study’s end. “I think that they tend to be a bit more religious than the people in America, but have similar life patterns and personalities to us.” Likewise, a Pakistani participant remarked, “Americans may be different than us in moral, ethical, or religious values, but the lives of students in America are very similar to the life of a student here . . . They are law-abiding citizens, which is one of the reasons the system in America is working smoothly.” As these quotes show, interventions that improve our understanding of people from other cultures hold tremendous promise for defusing stereotypes, heading off conflict, and resolving intercultural disputes. Every day, citizens are finding meaningful ways to interact with people far outside their own social circles. In 2017, the Washington Post reported that, in a Dairy Queen in Dallas, Texas, two American-born men decided to have a sit-down over burgers and fries to untangle their mutual suspicion. On one end, there was David Wright, a white man who had founded a militia called the Bureau of American Islamic Relations (BAIR) with the mission of rooting out Islamic terrorists in Texas. At the other end was Ali Ghouri, a member of a local mosque where Wright and his coalition had protested twice with weapons and signs reading “Stop the Islamization of America.” Against the advice of other members of his mosque, Ghouri confronted the protesters, saying, “I have a weapon. You have a weapon. I’m not scared of you.” Five months later, Wright and Ghouri met at the Dairy Queen. Each man brought a friend—and a gun.

Gelfand, Michele. Rule Makers, Rule Breakers: How Tight and Loose Cultures Wire Our World (p. 198-199). Scribner. Kindle Edition. 

Comment by Riaz Haq on April 27, 2021 at 1:35pm

Pakistani-American Divorce Rate is the Third Lowest, according to Institute of Family Studies

https://ifstudies.org/blog/immigrant-families-are-more-stable

Not all immigrant families are equal when it comes to family structure. Among the 30 largest groups of working-age immigrants in the U.S., Indian Americans rank at the top in family stability.1 Almost all (first-generation) Indian immigrants with children are stably married (94%), according to an IFS analysis of the 2019 American community survey. About 4% are remarried, and the share of unmarried Indian immigrants with children is only 2%.

Meanwhile, immigrants from the Middle East (e.g., Iran) and those from South America, such as Brazil and Venezuela, also enjoy a relatively higher level of family stability. So, too, do immigrants from Nigeria: 71% of Nigerian immigrants with children are married and in their first marriage.

On the other hand, the share of intact families is relatively lower among immigrants from Mexico (68%), the largest immigrant group. Immigrants from the Caribbean countries, such as Jamaica, Cuba and the Dominican Republic, also tend to have lower family stability—just about half of these immigrants with children are stably married (see Appendix Table 2 for more info)

-------------
Indian Americans lead in marriage stability, Pakistan immigrants at 3rd. List of top 20 groups
The Institute of Family Studies said in a report that not all immigrant families are equal when it comes to the family structure as Indian Americans rank at the top in family stability.

https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/indian-americans-lead-in-...

Immigrant families tend to be more stable than native-born Americans, and Indian American families lead the communities in terms of marriage stability, according to a report published in early March by a US-based think tank. After analysing the census data, the Institute of Family Studies (IFS), which advocates for strengthening marriage and family life, said that 72% of immigrants with children are still in their first marriage, while the share among native-born Americans is just 60%.
Family stability is also higher among immigrants from other parts of Asia, such as Bangladesh, Pakistan, Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan. More than 80% of immigrant families from these countries comprise two stably married adults with their children.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page