Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I know that DFW had passed HOuston in the yearly African totals but was not certain if it Had passed it in the total African born population.
How are they in relation to Detroit and LA.
Last I remember Detroit was ahead of Houston by about 1K and ahead of DFW by about 3K. But that was really old numbers.
I am thinking that both are in the top 6 or 7 now. Can Only think of DC, NY, ATL and MSP having more African borns
Yeah. Houston does fairly well with Latin America:
For Africans, its laid out like this according to ACS (which has to be taken with some margin of error in mind). Bear in mind this is ancestry and not foreign born:
New York: 289,909
Washington DC: 221,038
Boston: 149,504
Los Angeles: 144,080
Atlanta: 139,629
Minneapolis: 97,955
Dallas: 92,478
Chicago: 71,469
Houston: 70,806
Philadelphia: 65,540
Seattle: 59,539
Bay Area: 55,548
Miami: 44,398
Detroit: 42,299
Funny thing is, I dont ever recall meeting more than 2 or 3 Africans in 24 years of living in LA. Ive met at least 15-20 in Dallas.
Does the US Census include Arabs in the Asian demographic, or does "Asian" only refer to East Asians? If such is the case, it would be interesting to see where Arabs are immigrating to.
I'm sure it includes people from the Middle East, because Detroit did well on the "Asian immigrants" list. Detroit gets a lot of immigrants from the Middle East, but not many from "the Orient."
Not all that interested in all the nitty gritty. just general trends.
Like:
DC is getting more diverse, and may soon pass Chicago in total number of Asians. (Now the Chicagoans are gonna come at me with pitch forks)
Houston is push on par with the western cities for Asians. It passed SD last decade and should be dead even with Seattle in total asian population.
DC is already tops on immigration from Africa.
ATL does extremely well here.
DFW I think Passed Houston, and Both passed Chicago and Detroit (Think both are really close to LA's African numbers)
DC is a beast when it comes to African immigration. I'm surprised that Atlanta's numbers weren't higher. I'm also surprised that Houston is behind Dallas.
Possibly yes, as an anomaly definitely does, especially for a large metropolitan.
Uniqueness comes from what the existing community makes of their new home, what they offer in terms of culture, food, clothing, influence, so on. Miami has plenty of that, it's rightfully famed for it's all out Latino culture.
Immigration from everywhere varies based on job prospects and geography.
You're looking at raw numbers, like I said Asians have more immigrants into the United States in raw numbers than Europe, South America, Africa, and Oceania all combined. Getting large raw numbers while still not being a "hub" isn't particularly difficult, for anywhere.
When you look at percentages Miami got 1% of the Asian immigrants of the United States total for 2012, Houston got 2.8 of the South Americans of the United States total and I still wouldn't argue either which way. It just is what it is. Since in raw numbers only 80,000 South Americans immigrated into the country, the 2,300 or so from Houston spells a larger percentage they received than the 4,200 or so Miami received of the total 420,000 something America got total.
Well this is where I actually do disagree with you and everyone else making this same argument, including HtownLove.
There shouldn't be taking anything out or at all, things are what they are. People from Mexico or Canada or where ever are still people, there is no geographic preference for whom we should include or exclude in our arguments. It's one thing to move from New York to New Mexico, an entirely different stratosphere going from a country as culturally different as Mexico to Chicago.
Either which way, like I already said, Miami is just in it's own tier for immigration. I think most would agree it's higher than places like Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Washington, Bay Area, where ever and right below Los Angeles and New York.
The comparison to Orlando is a far stretch, I don't think anyone will willingly accept Seattle, Philadelphia, San Diego, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, Boston as a peer of the place (Orlando), there's not much remotely cosmopolitan about it other than it hitting above it's medium sized American city size bracket. My usual cut off is places 20,000 or more for total immigrants, in retrospect a figure of 200,000 people a decade is healthy for any larger metropolitan (5 million or more) of any size.
Below that, in my opinion, a place is under-achieving.
I'm not disagreeing with you on Orlando, all I was saying to Htownlove is we can take out any portion of immigration and make most metros appear a limited a draw. I know Orlando isn't the immigrant hub that Houston or Dallas its a much smaller metro, even if its demographics are closer to Dallas and Houston than even Miami. Orlando actually outperforms any metro for size in Florida when it comes to Asia from what Í've seen.
I'm not disagreeing with you on Orlando, all I was saying to Htownlove is we can take out any portion of immigration and make most metros appear a limited a draw. I know Orlando isn't the immigrant hub that Houston or Dallas its a much smaller metro, even if its demographics are closer to Dallas and Houston than even Miami. Orlando actually outperforms any metro for size in Florida when it comes to Asia from what Í've seen.
No disagreements from me.
At first I thought it was Orlando touting, I admit and the thoughts running through my head were "serious or kidding?".
I think we're on the same page. Miami's a monster at immigration. Orlando for it's size does relatively well, considering that Seattle is twice its metropolitan population, Phoenix is twice that, and Philadelphia is three times that, it's very much on their tails, in the same "10,000-19,000 tier".
My cut off is 20,000, which essentially translates to 200,000 a decade if trends stay consistent. The metropolitans above 20,000 in my opinion are deserving of (in of course multiple tiers) the title of cosmopolitan whereas below that, to me at least (especially the large ones), are however not. The smaller cities punching above their weight I consider developmental, it'll show when they're larger.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 03-23-2013 at 12:13 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
in total asian population.
