Why aren't there many South Asians (India, Pakistan, Bangladeshi, Sri Lanka) on the West Coast?

[Lifeshadower]

Originally Posted by Goodjobgoodeffort

I guess the question of my thread is why isn't the South Asian population as strong on the West Coast relative to other Asian populations, as opposed to Chinese, Filipinos, Vietnamese, Koreans, etc. etc.

Now I get it.

A lot of it is geography: much of India is just as close to the East Coast as the West Coast, so the motivation to migrate to America based on geographic proximity isn't quite there.

A lot of it is where these Desis are coming from: on the East Coast, it's more likely that Desis from other parts of the Western Hemisphere (especially Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, etc.) will migrate there than coming all the way out here to the West Coast. However, we get more Desis from the Pacific Islands (Fiji, etc.)

Lastly, most migrations are economic: in the early part of the 20th century, South Asians were a majorly West Coast group.

Echoes of Freedom: South Asian Pioneers in California, 1899-1965 | Chapter 10: U.S. vs. Bhagat Singh Thind

When you think about cases like US vs. Thind (1923), Indian farmers migrating to Northern California, etc. it was mostly associated with the West Coast.

It wasn't only until the latter part of the 20th century that more South Asians begun to settle on the East Coast vs. West Coast.

Indians in Calif. up nearly 50%; up only 5.9% in NY - Times Of India

However, nowadays, due to Silicon Valley and associated family migrations thereof, Indians and other South Asians have been migrating in great numbers to the West Coast. I wouldn't be surprised if, using current growth rates, Indians will become the 3rd largest Asian group by 2020 after Chinese and Filipinos.

Of course, if the idea that California = LA runs true (which for a lot of misinformed people it does), then it obviously won't be seen very much simply because there aren't as many associated jobs in SoCal that South Asians can engage in that NorCal has (not to mention the longer settled places of smaller NorCal towns have for Desis).

For other Asian groups: proximity (literally across the Pacific for East and Southeast Asians), US refugee settlement (Vietnamese, Cambodians, Hmong, and Laotians purposefully settled here), and economic standings make settlement on the West Coast that much more paramount.

[415_s2k]

Originally Posted by Goodjobgoodeffort

But the Vancouver area has a large Indian population for its size and it's even further than the PNW than Oregon, Washington, and California.

So that can't be the explanation.

Vancouver is in a different country with different immigration policies. Also, Canada is a Crown country - India was under British control for some time. It has a reputation as being (and statistically, is) safer... I mean, ultimately, if we're going to include Vancouver, we may as well include London and Hong Kong.

Also, if you look on a map... in terms of physical distance, Vancouver is not further from the PNW than California, and Oregon is part of the PNW. It's 141 miles from Seattle (closer to Seattle than Vancouver, WA), and 30 miles from the US/Canadian border. It may as well be in the PNW!

Oregon just doesn't have many people in general. It's a small state with one, relatively small, defining urban area.

[Goodjobgoodeffort]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

Vancouver is in a different country with different immigration policies. Also, Canada is a Crown country - India was under British control for some time. It has a reputation as being (and statistically, is) safer... I mean, ultimately, if we're going to include Vancouver, we may as well include London and Hong Kong.

Also, if you look on a map... in terms of physical distance, Vancouver is not further from the PNW than California, and Oregon is part of the PNW. It's 141 miles from Seattle (closer to Seattle than Vancouver, WA), and 30 miles from the US/Canadian border. It may as well be in the PNW!

Oregon just doesn't have many people in general. It's a small state with one, relatively small, defining urban area.

Well, that makes sense.

I did modify my question a bit: I guess what I wanna know is why South Asians aren't as concentrated on the West Coast as other Asian groups are, but I think the poster above you got it and it makes sense to me.

It seems that nearly every town in New Jersey and a huge chunk of the Tri-State Area, along with a huge chunk of the DC area, Boston area, has a notable South Asian population while on the West Coast, this doesn't seem to be the case, which is what motivated me to make this thread.

[reppin_the_847]

I believe the SF Bay area & particularly the Silicon Valley region clustered around San Jose has reached a critical mass of South Asians & Indians (there are a LOT out there now). But keep in mind that it is still a newer community when compared to the very large & established groups in places like NYC/NJ, Chicago, Philly, D.C., Houston, Dallas, etc.

Originally Posted by Goodjobgoodeffort

Well, that makes sense.

I did modify my question a bit: I guess what I wanna know is why South Asians aren't as concentrated on the West Coast as other Asian groups are, but I think the poster above you got it and it makes sense to me.

It seems that nearly every town in New Jersey and a huge chunk of the Tri-State Area, along with a huge chunk of the DC area, Boston area, has a notable South Asian population while on the West Coast, this doesn't seem to be the case, which is what motivated me to make this thread.

[munna21977]

I dont understand the purpose of this thread. CALIFORNIA has maximum population of Indians in USA in all the states-even more then New York and New Jersey. Also San Francisco and Los Angeles Metro areas are top metropolitan regions in USA with huge Indian population.
Indian American - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia