Indian-origin man Pardeep Basra sentenced to three years and five months
(USA)A 54-year-old Indian-origin man has been sentenced to over three years in prison for his role in obtaining more than USD 20 million under the US government’s economic aid plan following the coronavirus pandemic. Pardeep Basra of Houston was part of a multimillion-dollar COVID-19 relief fraud ring and had previously pleaded guilty to the fraud. He was sentenced to three years and five months on Monday along with six of his co-conspirators, who got prison sentences of various lengths, the justice department said in a press release on Tuesday. The ring leader, Amir Aqeel, got 15 years in prison for the fraud.
The ring “fraudulently obtained more than USD 20 million in forgivable Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans that the Small Business Administration (SBA) guaranteed under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act,” the release said.”He (Aqil) and his cohorts stole millions from the public fund, using that money to buy houses, a Porsche, even a Lamborghini, all while taking advantage of programs intended to help those struggling during the pandemic,” the release said.
Basra and his co-conspirators submitted more than 75 fraudulent PPP loan applications in 2020, falsifying the number of employees and the average monthly payroll expenses of the applicant businesses. They also submitted fraudulent bank records or fake federal tax forms supporting the PPP loan applications. Some were paid large kickbacks in exchange for their assistance with the false and fraudulent PPP loan applications, the release said.
The conspirators also laundered some fraudulent proceeds by writing cheques from companies that received PPP loans to fake employees. Over 1,100 counterfeit paychecks for over USD 3 million in fraudulent PPP loan proceeds were cashed.”While the rest of our country was reeling from the effects of an unprecedented global health crisis, these individuals conspired to fraudulently obtain and launder millions of taxpayer dollars from an emergency fund that was intended to help keep struggling businesses and employees afloat,” Special Agent in Charge Mark Dawson, Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Houston, was quoted as saying in the release. Federal agents also executed 45 seizure warrants in conjunction with the case and seized, among other items, a residence, a Porsche and a Lamborghini purchased with illegally obtained funds. The four others sentenced for their roles in the loan fraud scheme are Khalid Abbas and Richard Reuth, who received two and a half years in prison. Rifat Bajwa and Siddiq Azeemuddin were sentenced to three years and two years in prison, respectively, the release said.
Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau
Prime Minister of Canada
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A2
Canada
Subject: Request for Cooperation on Document Exchange and Visa Issuance between Canada and India
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau,
I hope this letter finds you in good health and high spirits. I am writing to you as a concerned citizen and a strong advocate for strengthening the bilateral relations between our two great nations, Canada and India. The purpose of this letter is to humbly request your assistance in facilitating the exchange of important documents and the reevaluation of the visa policies between our countries.
Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the deep-rooted friendship and diplomatic ties that Canada and India share. Over the years, both nations have collaborated on numerous fronts, including trade, education, culture, and technology. These interactions have significantly enriched the lives of our citizens and have contributed to the progress of our respective societies.
Recently, there has been a growing need for improved cooperation in two key areas: document exchange and visa policies.
Document Exchange: It is imperative that we streamline the process of exchanging official documents between our countries. This includes extradition requests, legal documents, and other vital records. Smooth and efficient document exchange will enhance our ability to cooperate on matters of mutual interest, such as counter-terrorism, law enforcement, and extradition of fugitives. This cooperation is crucial for maintaining peace and security in both our nations.
Visa Policies: Another important aspect that merits our attention is the visa policies between Canada and India. The people-to-people connections and cultural exchanges between our countries have been instrumental in fostering a strong bond. However, visa-related challenges have often hindered the flow of travelers, students, and professionals between our nations. I urge you to consider reviewing and potentially relaxing visa regulations to promote greater mobility, tourism, and economic collaboration.
I understand that addressing these issues requires a careful and thorough evaluation of their impact on national security and economic interests. However, I firmly believe that by working together to find practical and mutually beneficial solutions, we can overcome these challenges and strengthen the already robust relationship between our countries.
I kindly request you to consider establishing a bilateral task force or committee to explore these matters in detail. Such a platform would allow experts and officials from both countries to collaborate and develop practical solutions.
Your leadership and commitment to fostering strong international relationships are well-recognized, and I am hopeful that you will give due consideration to these requests. Strengthening the ties between Canada and India in these areas will not only benefit our nations but also contribute to global peace and prosperity.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to a positive response and continued collaboration between our two great nations.
Sincerely,
Satnam Singh Chahal
CBP officers discovered and extracted 223 packages from the rear passenger door, spare tire, and gas tank area of the pick-up truck.
CALEXICO, Calif., — U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers assigned to the Calexico West port of entry discovered 223 packages of methamphetamine and heroin hidden throughout a pick-up truck.
On Sept. 10, at approximately 11:44 p.m., CBP officers encountered a 35-year-old male U.S. citizen driving a 2020 pick-up truck. At the time of encounter, the driver was applying for entry into the United States from Mexico. A CBP officer performing the primary inspection referred the driver for further examination at the secondary inspection area.
CBP officers observed anomalies irregularities during a non-intrusive (x-ray) examination of the vehicle. A CBP canine enforcement team responded to the scene and alerted to the presence of narcotics.
Meth concealed in tire
The narcotics were field tested as methamphetamine with a total weight of 126.06 pounds and heroin with a weight of 7.84 pounds. The estimated street value of the narcotics is $410,553.
CBP officers discovered and extracted 223 packages from the rear passenger door, spare tire, and gas tank area of the pick-up truck. The narcotics were field tested as methamphetamine with a total weight of 126.06 pounds and heroin with a weight of 7.84 pounds. The estimated street value of the narcotics is $410,553.
Meth inside door panel
“Our CBP officers continue to combat and degrade transnational criminal organizations through their successful enforcement efforts,” stated Roque Caza, CBP Area Port Director for Calexico. “I commend our officers for their outstanding work and their meritorious contribution in keeping these harmful drugs away from our communities.”The driver was detained and turned over to Homeland Security Investigations for further processing. CBP officers seized the vehicle and narcotics.
A Turning Point for the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the United States
By Jennifer Van Hook, Julia Gelatt and Ariel G. Ruiz Soto
Border SecurityBorder EnforcementIllegal Immigration & Interior EnforcementDeportations/ReturnsImmigrant Profiles & DemographicsU.S. Datasee more…
Vice President Kamala Harris participates in a DACA roundtable
Lawrence Jackson/White House
Approximately 11.2 million unauthorized immigrants lived in the United States in 2021, up from 11.0 million in 2019, according to new Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates. This represents larger annual growth in the unauthorized immigrant population than at any point since 2015. While the public, which is regularly exposed to images of chaotic arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border, might expect an even greater jump in the size of the overall unauthorized immigrant population, it is important to note that these 2021 data do not capture the record number of border encounters witnessed in 2022 and the high levels seen this year.
These estimates also reflect the population as of mid-2021, a period when global mobility was still depressed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The size of the unauthorized immigrant population is shaped by new entries—border arrivals and visa overstays alike—but also by departures. In 2020, both arrivals and departures seemed to be at lower levels than in previous years.
The observed increase in the size of the unauthorized population between 2019 and 2021 (see Figure 1) is partially explained by increased irregular arrivals at the U.S.-Mexico border. These border arrivals represented a growing mix of nationalities from the Americas and, increasingly, from beyond the hemisphere. The growth also stems from rising numbers of Europeans who overstayed their nonimmigrant visas. Among research organizations that estimate the size of the unauthorized immigrant population, MPI is the first to publish national trends for 2021, using a methodology developed in collaboration with The Pennsylvania State University.
The estimates offered here are based on data from the 2021 American Community Survey (ACS), the latest available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Because the Census Bureau deemed that the 2020 ACS did not meet its quality standards, given the challenges of conducting surveys during the onset of the pandemic, MPI had not generated estimates of the size of the unauthorized immigrant population since the 2019 data became available.
Figure 1. Estimated Size of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population in the United States, 2007-21
Notes: Migration Policy Institute (MPI) estimates of the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population, developed in collaboration with Jennifer Van Hook from The Pennsylvania State University, Population Research Institute, are achieved by subtracting the number of legal immigrants from the total of all immigrants for each country and region represented in U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) data. The number of legal immigrants is estimated by adding up all legal admissions from each country and region in every year—using U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) administrative data—and then reducing this number to account for deaths and emigration of legal immigrants. Finally, the unauthorized immigrant population estimates are adjusted upward slightly to account for the recognized undercount of this population in the ACS. For more detail on this methodology, see MPI, “MPI Methodology for Assigning Legal Status to Noncitizen Respondents in U.S. Census Bureau Survey Data.”
Sources: MPI estimates, developed in collaboration with Van Hook. Estimates from other organizations are from Robert Warren, “MPI Methodology In 2019, the US Undocumented Population Continued a Decade-Long Decline and the Foreign-Born Population Neared Zero Growth,” Journal on Migration and Human Security 9, no. 1 (March 1, 2021): 31–43; Jeffrey S. Passel and D’Vera Cohn, “Mexicans Decline to Less than Half the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2019; Pew Research Center, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population Trends for States, Birth Countries and Regions,” June 12, 2019; Bryan Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018,” DHS, Office of Immigration Statistics, January 2021; Bryan Baker, 2018, “Population Estimates: Illegal Alien Population Residing in the United States: January 2015,” DHS, Office of Immigration Statistics, December 2018.
The increase in unauthorized immigrants between 2019 and 2021, which was driven by migration from Central America and Venezuela in particular, was partially offset by emigration of large numbers of Mexican unauthorized immigrants over this period. The Mexican unauthorized immigrant population has been shrinking for more than a decade, falling about 32 percent from its 7.7 million peak just before the 2008-09 Great Recession. MPI estimates that the Mexican unauthorized immigrant population declined by roughly 200,000 people between 2019 and 2021, from 5.4 million to 5.2 million (see Figure 2), likely as a result of repatriations by U.S. immigration authorities as well as voluntary returns to reunite with family, among other factors. It is also likely that as more Mexican migrants are utilizing lawful pathways to come to the United States, including the H-2A visa for seasonal agricultural work, fewer may be inclined to migrate irregularly.
Figure 2. Estimated Size of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population from Mexico in the United States, 2007–21
Sources: MPI estimates, developed in collaboration with Van Hook. Estimates from other organizations are from Warren, “In 2019, the US Undocumented Population Continued a Decade-Long Decline and the Foreign-Born Population Neared Zero Growth;” Passel and Cohn, “Mexicans Decline to Less than Half the U.S. Unauthorized Immigrant Population for the First Time;” Pew Research Center, “Unauthorized Immigrant Population Trends for States, Birth Countries and Regions;” Baker, “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2015–January 2018;” Baker, “Population Estimates: Illegal Alien Population Residing in the United States: January 2015.”
A Turning Point: Growing Diversification of Origins
While Mexico continued to be the largest origin country of unauthorized immigrants (accounting for 46 percent of the total in 2021, as compared to 63 percent in 2007), declines in the Mexican unauthorized population offset increases in irregular arrivals from other countries. The unauthorized immigrant populations from places such as Guatemala, Honduras, Venezuela, and other parts of South America grew between 2019 and 2021, as did populations from the Caribbean and Africa, among others.
In 2021, the top countries of origin of unauthorized immigrants after Mexico ranged from those in nearby northern Central America to countries such as India, the Philippines, and Colombia (see Table 1).
Table 1. Top 10 Countries of Origin for Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, 2021
Sources: MPI estimates, developed in collaboration with Van Hook.
Migrants from Latin America and the Caribbean accounted for 79 percent of all unauthorized immigrants in 2021. Eleven percent were from Asia (see Table 2).
Table 2. Regions of Birth of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States, 2021
Sources: MPI estimates, developed in collaboration with Van Hook.
Why Are the Unauthorized Immigrant Estimates Relatively Stable?
Over the last 15 years, the unauthorized immigrant population has hovered just above or below 11 million, plus or minus a few hundred thousand—with the research organizations that provide such estimates falling within a similar range despite using differing methodologies (see Figure 1).
While this stability seems to defy expectations, given the very high numbers of encounters of unauthorized immigrants by U.S. authorities at the U.S.-Mexico border in recent years, a closer look offers a logical explanation.
The new MPI estimates reflect the population as of mid-2021, the most recent year for which ACS data exist. The post-pandemic rise in migrant encounters at the Southwest border did not start until spring 2021, with peaks occurring in July and August, which are therefore not fully reflected in these estimates. Notably, border encounters in fiscal year (FY) 2022 far exceeded those in FY 2021, and with two months left in the year encounters in FY 2023 already surpassed the total in FY 2021 (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Migrant Encounters at U.S.-Mexico Border, FY 2019-23
Notes: U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) uses the term “encounters” to account for apprehensions under Title 8 of the U.S. Code and expulsions under the Title 42 public-health order that was implemented from March 2020 to May 12, 2023. Data for fiscal year (FY) 2023 include the period of October 2022 through July 2023.
Sources: MPI tabulations based on data from CBP, “Southwest Border Migration,” updated November 14, 2019, available online; CBP, “Southwest Land Border Encounters,” updated July 18, 2023, available online.
Although the pandemic depressed immigration to the United States, this does not explain why the unauthorized immigrant population has been stable since 2008. One key to understanding this is knowing that, under the surface, the unauthorized immigrant population has never been static. Even as new migrants enter the country, others exit. After spending time living and working in the United States, some people voluntarily leave because they cannot find employment, their money goes further in their communities of origin, they want to be closer to family and friends, or they prefer not to live with the burden of unauthorized status anymore. Still others are deported by immigration authorities (more than 4.7 million removals have been carried out since 2008), with their relatives sometimes electing to rejoin them. Though not easy, other unauthorized immigrants are able to obtain legal status in the United States. Finally, some die.
Beginning in 2008 and continuing through 2021, more Mexican unauthorized migrants have left the United States each year than there have been new unauthorized entrants who are from Mexico, according to the authors’ analysis. Many moved to the United States during the economic boom of the late 1990s and early 2000s to work in construction, agriculture, or service-sector jobs. The 2008-09 recession abruptly reduced job opportunities and many immigrants moved back to Mexico. Additionally, conditions in Mexico had changed. Reductions in family size reduced the pressures on people to work abroad to support their families, and job opportunities started to increase as the Mexican economy recovered from the financial crises of the 1980s and 1990s.
Mexico’s longstanding trend of more migrant departures than arrivals is not replicated by other major sending countries. Among many other unauthorized immigrant groups, new arrivals have outpaced departures, legalizations, deaths, and deportations. Between 2008 and 2021, the unauthorized population from Africa grew by 68 percent; from the Caribbean by 67 percent; from Central America by 52 percent; Asia by 47 percent; Europe, Canada, and Oceania by 32 percent; and South America by 30 percent. But because Mexicans compose nearly half of the overall unauthorized population, their decline has offset increases among all other groups combined.
A Population Likely to Grow Beyond 2021
Trends witnessed since 2021 portend greater shifts in the unauthorized immigrant population into 2023. A combination of the easing of pandemic-era travel restrictions, increasing displacement due to global conflict and climate events, and shifts in regional migration have led to increased migration in the Americas and worldwide. Migration through the Western Hemisphere has become significantly more diverse in nationality, with growing numbers of migrants from far-away countries such as Russia, Turkey, Cameroon, and India arriving at the U.S.-Mexico border.
Multiple factors go into whether the U.S. unauthorized immigrant population has grown since mid-2021. It is possible that the significant rise in migrant arrivals at the Southwest border since 2021—driven by interlocking factors ranging from political repression to strong U.S. labor demand and favorable perceptions of U.S. policy changes—may increase the size of the unauthorized population if large shares stay pending removal or the conclusion of their immigration court proceedings. Visa overstays could also add to this growth if more people remain beyond the duration of their visa, as global travel rebounds. At the same time, emigration could also rise, driven by migrants’ decisions to return home or by stricter enforcement policies, offsetting the increases.
The Growth of a “Twilight” Population
Looking past 2021, another trend that has strongly affected the lives of unauthorized immigrants is that a growing share hold—or even arrive with—some kind of liminal status. MPI has long included in its estimates of the unauthorized population people who hold some sort of twilight status such as Temporary Protected Status (TPS) or Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which grant the right to work in the United States and protection from deportation but do not offer permanent legal status. MPI estimates also include people in the process of applying for asylum.
While these groups collectively comprised a minority of unauthorized immigrants in 2019 and continue to do so, larger shares of new arrivals are now in some sort of liminal status, with many granted entry with that status. The Biden administration has expanded TPS eligibility to more than 800,000 U.S. residents, including sizable numbers of recent entrants from Haiti, Ukraine, and Afghanistan. Separately, it has allowed entry of hundreds of thousands of migrants from Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Ukraine, and Venezuela through humanitarian parole, which affords the temporary right to stay and work with authorization. And ever-larger shares of recent border crossers are asylum seekers.
As a result, migrants’ legal status composition in the United States has become more complex. While the term “unauthorized” is an imperfect descriptor for migrants the U.S. government has processed and granted the temporary right to stay, MPI estimates continue to group together these populations given their lack of a visa or other durable legal status.
Future data will reveal how the size and origins of the unauthorized immigrant population have shifted during the very dynamic period of U.S.-Mexico border arrivals in 2022 and 2023. Shifting national origins, protection needs, and migration policies have also changed what the experience of being an unauthorized immigrant in the United States is like—including more with work authorization and a somewhat expanded set of rights but without a fixed immigration status. The 2021 data offered here represent a return to estimates after the pandemic-induced lull.
What You Should Know About the Upcoming Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A
September 13, 2023
Written by:
Rachel Marks, Chief, Racial Statistics Branch, Population Division; Jessica E. Peña, Senior Researcher, Race/Ethnicity Research and Outreach, Population Division; Alli Coritz, Senior Analyst, Racial Statistics Branch, Population Division
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Estimated reading time: 13 minutes
The upcoming 2020 Census Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (Detailed DHC-A) greatly expands what we know about the racial and ethnic composition of the U.S. population.
While the 2020 Census has already revealed much about the overall Hispanic population and the major race groups (White, Black or African American, Asian and so on), the Detailed DHC-A provides data on detailed groups – such as German, Lebanese, Jamaican, Chinese, Native Hawaiian and Mexican – and on American Indian and Alaska Native (AIAN) tribes and villages like the Navajo Nation.
In total, we will release 2020 Census population counts for about 1,500 detailed race and ethnicity groups and AIAN tribes and villages. Depending on the size of the group, we’ll also provide sex-by-age statistics (the number of males and females within certain age categories). This is our most detailed racial and ethnic accounting of who we were as a nation in 2020.
Leading up to the 2020 Census, we conducted research and engaged with various communities and tribal nations to learn more about the ways in which people view and report their detailed racial, ethnic or tribal identities. This helped us improve the way that we collect, code and tabulate detailed data, providing a more vibrant portrait of the United States.
This blog describes what you should know about the Detailed DHC-A release on September 21.
Data Included in the Detailed DHC-A
The Detailed DHC-A provides total population counts for the detailed groups and sex-by-age data for the nation, states, counties, places, census tracts and American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian (AIANNH) areas.
To protect individuals’ confidential census responses, the geography type and the size of the population group determine the level of detail that will be available for the group. Larger groups will receive more age detail. Smaller groups, particularly in areas below the state-level, will receive less.
For example, detailed groups whose national population was less than 50 in the 2010 Census will only receive national- and state-level total population counts. By determining this in advance, we could tailor our confidentiality protections to produce more accurate counts for these small populations. For these groups, a total population count will be available at the national and state levels, but no other data can be produced.
For all other groups (i.e., groups with a national population of at least 50 in the 2010 Census or that we did not collect data for in the 2010 Census), we used an “adaptive design” process to determine the level of detail available for each:
To protect confidentiality, we infused a small amount of statistical noise in the group’s population count.
We compared that noise-infused population count to our population thresholds to determine the level of age granularity we will report.
The smallest groups receive only a population count table for the selected geography. Larger groups receive a total population table and one of three detailed sex-by-age tables: a table with four age categories, a table with nine categories or a table with 23 categories. The larger the group, the more age categories available in a sex-by-age data table.
Table 1 shows how many people need to identify as a particular detailed group to receive each level of age detail. (Note that the thresholds are different depending on the type of geography.)
For example, according to the ranges in the right column, a county with 1,500 people who identified as Japanese alone will receive a table with four age categories for each sex:
Under 18 years.
18 to 44 years.
45 to 64 years.
65 years and over.
Table 1. Detailed DHC-A Population Thresholds for Detailed Groups and Margins of Error (MOE) for Each Level of Geography
Level of Detail Detailed groups
Nation
and State
(MOE = ±3) Substate and AIANNH (MOE = ±11)
Total count only 0–499 22–999
Sex by age table – 4 age categories 500–999 1,000–4,999
Sex by age table – 9 age categories 1,000–6,999 5,000–19,999
Sex by age table – 23 age categories 7,000+ 20,000+
Notes:
The MOE measures disclosure avoidance-related uncertainty at the 95% confidence interval.
Groups are assigned the sex-by-age table that corresponds to their total population count 99.9% of the time.
AIANNH is American Indian/Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian areas. Substate includes county, place, and census tract.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Larger groups will receive tables with the age categories further split apart. For example, a county with 8,000 people who identified as Japanese alone would receive a table with nine age categories in a sex-by-age table and a county with 20,000 or more would receive a table with 23 age categories.
The margins of error (MOE) in table 1 also show how much disclosure avoidance-related uncertainty will be in the data about 95% of the time.
For instance, a county with a Japanese alone population of 850 would have an MOE of ±11. This means we expect the published count of the total Japanese alone population in that county to be within 11 people of the enumerated count 95 percent of the time if this disclosure avoidance process was repeated many times.
For groups with sex-by-age statistics, each age category published would have the MOE listed in table 1. (For example, if a group at the county-level receives four age categories, the count for each category would have an MOE of ±11.) The sex-by-age data then add up to the group’s total population count, and we use a formula to calculate its MOE. The result is the MOE for the total population count is larger for these larger groups. (For example, if each of the four age categories has an MOE of ±11, the total population count for the group would have an MOE of ±31.1).
Detailed information on MOEs for sex-by-age counts will be available in the “Data Accuracy and Margins of Error” section of the technical documentation (coming soon).
Using this type of adaptivity allows us to produce more data for detailed groups where the populations live and to provide accurate data while protecting respondents’ privacy and the confidentiality of the data.
For the 2020 Census, we also made two improvements that allowed us to provide population counts in more localities than ever before.
We eliminated the minimum population counts required for a group to receive a population count at the national and state levels. This means values of 0, 1, 2, 3… 99 can appear in national and state totals. In contrast, for the 2010 Census, a group had to have at least 100 people to receive a population count, even at the national and state levels.
We reduced the minimum population count required for a group to receive a population count at the county, place, census tract and AIANNH area levels from 100 in 2010 to 22 for detailed groups and 94 for regional groups (defined below) in 2020.
Regional Groups
Data in the Detailed DHC-A will also be available for “regional” race and ethnicity groups, such as European, Middle Eastern or North African, Caribbean, Sub-Saharan African, American Indian, Polynesian, South American, etc.
Table 2 shows how large a regional group must be to receive the different levels of sex-by-age categories. The 95% MOE for all regional groups is ±50 at every geography level.
Table 2. Detailed DHC-A Population Thresholds for Regional Groups and Margins of Error (MOE) for Each Level of Geography
Level of Detail Regional groups
Nation and State ±50) Substate
(MOE = ±50)
Total count only 0–4,999 94–4,999
Sex by age table – 4 age categories 5,000–19,999 5,000–19,999
Sex by age table – 9 age categories 20,000–149,999 20,000–149,999
Sex by age table – 23 age categories 150,000+ 150,000+
Notes:
The MOE measures disclosure avoidance-related uncertainty at the 95% confidence interval.
Groups are assigned the sex by age table that corresponds to their total population count 99.9 percent of the time.
Regional groups are not available for AIANNH areas except when postprocessing was applied.
Substate includes county, place, and census tract.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Table 3 shows the number of detailed and regional groups eligible for tabulation in the Detailed DHC-A. The complete list of detailed and regional groups is available in the 2020 Census Hispanic Origin and Race Iterations List.
Table 3. Race or Ethnicity Group by Number of Detailed and Regional Groups Eligible for Tabulation
Race or Ethnicity Group Number of Groups
Detailed Regional
Hispanic or Latino 30 4
White 104 3
Black or African American 62 3
American Indian and Alaska Native 1,187 8
Asian 47 5
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 35 3
Some Other Race 22 2
Source: U.S. Census Bureau
Race and Ethnicity Concepts
Data will be available for the race alone and race alone or in any combination populations.
The race alone population represents the minimum number of people who identified as that group. It includes those who reported only one response, such as only Fijian.
The race alone or in any combination population represents the maximum number of people who identified as that group. It includes those who reported only one response, such as Fijian, and those who reported multiple responses, such as Fijian and Japanese or Fijian and Black or African American.
The concepts of alone and alone or in any combination apply only to responses to the race question. Following the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s 1997 Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, only one response for Hispanic or Latino origin was tabulated.
Improvements to Coding Detailed Race and Ethnicity Groups and AIAN Tribes and Villages
As discussed in a previous blog, we made several enhancements to our 2020 Census Hispanic Origin and Race Code List that allowed us to more accurately collect, process and tabulate data. We made updates based on feedback that stakeholders, advisors and tribal leaders provided to us and that fit within the OMB guidelines.
Below are some examples of the improvements we made to more accurately code and process data for specific detailed race and ethnicity groups and AIAN tribes and villages. Some of these improvements include differences in how groups were coded and tabulated in 2010 and 2020.
Hispanic or Latino Origin
Based on research and consultation with experts and stakeholders, we added a new code for Afro-Latino and reclassified Garifuna from the American Indian and Alaska Native racial category to the Hispanic or Latino category. This is the first time these responses will be tabulated from the Hispanic origin question.
White and Black or African American
In 2020, we expanded our code list to include additional detailed White (including Middle Eastern and North African) and Black or African American groups, as the race question elicited the collection of detailed White and Black or African American responses through dedicated write-in areas for the first time.
Data will be available in the Detailed DHC-A for detailed White groups such as German, Lebanese and Cajun and detailed Black or African American groups such as Kenyan, Haitian and Jamaican.
Data for detailed White and Black or African American groups traditionally have been tabulated from the question on ancestry in the American Community Survey, and this is the first time these data will be tabulated from the race question in the census.
American Indian and Alaska Native
Leading up to the 2020 Census, we conducted formal consultations with tribal leaders to better understand how their citizens identify so we could more accurately code tribal responses.
Based on the consultations, data for individual American Indian and Alaska Native tribes are included in this product instead of tribal groupings.
We updated the code list to account for any changes to how tribes are formally recognized. For example, in 2010, responses for “Assiniboine Sioux,” “Fort Peck Sioux,” “Fort Peck Assiniboine,” and “Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation” were coded and tabulated as four separate tribes; in 2020 they were coded and tabulated together as “Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of The Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana.”
Asian
We reclassified several Central Asian groups (i.e., Afghan, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Turkmen and Uzbek) from the White racial category to the Asian racial category based on research and consultation with experts and stakeholders.
After extensive engagement with the Sikh community, “Sikh” was included as a distinct detailed population group within the “Asian” racial category instead of being tabulated as “Asian Indian” like it was in the 2010 Census.
New codes were added for Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, Sikh, Sindhi, Bruneian, Mien, Buryat, Kalmyk, Kuki, Lahu, Malay, Mizo, Pashtun, Tai Dam and Timorese, and data for these groups will be available for the first time.
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
New codes were added for New Caledonian, Nauruan, Cook Islander, Easter Islander, French Polynesian, Maori, Niuean, Rotuman, Tuvaluan, and Wallisian and Futunan, and data for these groups will be available for the first time.
Because we updated the checkbox for “Guamanian or Chamorro” to “Chamorro,” we’re now able to provide data for the Guamanian and the Chamorro populations.
Some Other Race
Although we had codes for groups in the Some Other Race population in 2010, the 2020 Census will mark the first time we publish data for detailed groups, such as Brazilian, within this code range.
We’ve developed a crosswalk for data users interested in learning more about the differences between how we tabulated 2010 Census data and 2020 Census data for detailed race and ethnicity groups and AIAN tribes and villages. The Detailed Race and Ethnicity Crosswalk: 2010 to 2020 shows which codes were used to tabulate each group in 2010 and 2020.
Data comparisons between 2020 Census and 2010 Census detailed race data should be made with caution and take into account improvements we made to the question and the ways we code what people tell us. However, the detailed Hispanic origin data from the ethnicity question are comparable between the two censuses.
We’d like to note that we’ve previously estimated that we would publish data for approximately 370 detailed race and ethnicity groups and about 1,200 detailed AIAN tribes and villages. We estimated these were the maximum number of groups that could be eligible for data based on our code list. Now that we’ve finalized our iterations list used to tabulate the data, we know that the number of groups will be a little lower. This is because the code list includes every term that receives a unique code during processing, but not all unique codes receive their own tabulations in the Detailed DHC-A.
For example, Okinawan, Iwo Jiman, and Japanese all receive unique codes during our data processing. However, in the 2020 Census Hispanic Origin and Race Iterations List, Okinawan, Iwo Jiman and Japanese are all included in Japanese. Based on the final iterations list, 300 detailed race and ethnicity groups and 1,187 AIAN tribes and villages will be eligible for tabulation.
Conclusion
Leading up to the 2020 Census, we engaged with data users, stakeholders, researchers, tribal leaders and advisors who helped us make our code list one that more accurately represents our diverse nation and produces data fit for a variety of uses. The upcoming Detailed DHC-A will provide a rich source of information about myriad race and ethnicity groups and tribal nations.
More information about the upcoming release is available in the Detailed DHC-A press kit.
Page Last Revised – September 13, 2023
Punjab govt claims decrease in crime rate in one year of its rule
According to a spokesperson, the official data from March 16, 2022 to March 15, 2023 reveals that the Punjab Police have busted 26 terror modules with the arrest of 168 terrorist/radicals after recovering 31 rifles, 201 revolvers/pistols, 9 tiffin Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs), 8.72Kg RDX and other explosives, 11 hand grenades, two sleeves of disposed rocket launcher, 30 drones, and one loaded rocket propelled grenade.
Similarly, the Anti-Gangster Task Force (AGTF), since its formation on April 6, 2022, has succeeded in busting 162 gangster/criminal modules after arresting 582 gangsters/criminals and neutralising five, after recovering 586 weapons, 131 vehicles used in criminal activities. Pertinently, immediately after coming to power, the CM Bhagwant Mann-led government formed a special Anti-Gangster Task Force (AGTF) headed by ADGP Promod Ban to wipe out gangsters from the state.
Director general of police Gaurav Yadav said that there were six major heinous crime incidents including an RPG attack at Intelligence Headquarters building at Mohali, murder of Punjabi singer Shubhdeep Singh alias Sidhu Moose Wala, killing of Bargari sacrilege accused Pardeep Kumar, RPG attack at PS Sarhali, Tarn Taran, killings of Sudhir Suri and Bhupinder Singh Chawla alias Timmy Chawla, that took place since April 2022, and the Punjab Police have managed to effectively solve all these cases in a record time.
To make Punjab a drug-free state, the DGP said, that the Punjab Police had waged a decisive war against drugs which resulted in the arrest of as many as 17568 drug smugglers after registering 13094 FIRs since March 16, 2022 against them. “Punjab Police have effectively recovered a record 863.9Kg heroin in just one year,” he said.
Pertinently, Punjab Police have recovered 716.9 Kg Heroin from across the state and additionally, 147.5-kg heroin was recovered by the teams of Punjab Police from Seaports of Gujarat and Maharashtra, taking the total effective recovery of heroin to 863.9 kgs. Apart from this, Police have also recovered 888-kg opium, 1229-kg Ganja, 464 quintals of poppy husk, and 70.16 lakh tablets/capsules/injections/vials of pharma opioids from across the state. The police have also recovered ₹10.36 crore of drug money from the possession of drug smugglers arrested in the past one year.
I hope this letter finds you well. I am writing to express my keen interest in participating in debates and discussions on your esteemed television program, . Having been an avid viewer of your show for quite some time, I have always been impressed by the diverse range of topics and the high-quality discourse it offers to its audience.
As someone deeply passionate about current affairs, social issues, and relevant topics, I believe that meaningful discussions play a crucial role in shaping public opinion and fostering informed dialogue. It is with this enthusiasm and a desire to contribute constructively that I am reaching out to request an opportunity to participate as a panelist or guest on your program.
My background and expertise align with several of the subject matters frequently covered on your show.
I understand that your program aims to provide a balanced and diverse range of perspectives, and I am committed to upholding the standards of professionalism and integrity that your show embodies. Whether it’s providing in-depth analysis, offering alternative viewpoints, or fostering constructive dialogue, I am eager to contribute to the intellectual depth and quality of your discussions.
If you find it appropriate, I would be grateful for an opportunity to discuss potential topics, my areas of expertise id NRI Issues,Social and political issues in Punjab, and how my participation can enhance the quality of your program. I am flexible and open to participating either in-person or remotely, depending on your needs and preferences.
Please find my contact details above, and I am available at your convenience for further discussions. Thank you for considering my request, and I look forward to the possibility of collaborating with to provide engaging and informative content to your viewers.
U.S. welcomes Indian students in record numbers
By Leigh Hartman -Feb 6, 2023
Garima Shekhar standing in front of building, behind sign reading ‘Harvard Business School’ (Courtesy of Garima Shekhar)
Garima Shekhar, seen in 2022, is one of many students from India choosing to advance their education and careers at U.S. universities. (Courtesy of Garima Shekhar)
While studying at Harvard University, Garima Shekhar is building technology to help students in her home country of India choose careers and make the right decision for their higher education.
For Shekhar, from Mumbai, the decision on where to study led her to the United States. “In my opinion, [the United States] has the best universities in the world,” said Shekhar, who is earning a master’s degree in education. “I’m very grateful” for the opportunity to study here, she added.
Shekhar is one of the many thousands of Indian students choosing to study in the United States. In 2022, the U.S. government issued nearly 125,000 visas to students from India, a record. It means more students from India will be studying in the United States than from any other country.
It also continues a trend of rising enrollments after the COVID-19 pandemic.
During the 2021–2022 academic year, 199,182 students from India studied in the United States, a nearly 20% increase over the previous year, according to the Open Doors 2022 Report on International Educational Exchange, issued by the Institute of International Education and the State Department in November 2022.
Indian students make important contributions “to both our countries,” U.S. Embassy New Delhi Chargé d’Affaires Patricia Lacina said in September. “They build lifelong connections with American peers to maintain and grow international partnerships, working collectively to address current and future global challenges.”
The U.S. Department of State provides information on educational opportunities in the United States through EducationUSA, a network of over 430 advisory centers for international students in more than 175 countries and territories.
Students from India enjoy classes in English, also widely spoken in India, and arrive in a country that is home to an Indian diaspora of 4.5 million. Several Indian students say they chose the United States for its diverse student populations and world-renowned universities. Sixteen of the world’s top 25 universities are in the United States, according to the Times Higher Education World University Rankings 2023.
Pranavi Byri in traditional Indian attire standing in front of a display on India in large room (Courtesy of Pranavi Byri)
Pranavi Byri, in traditional attire, presents an exhibit on Indian culture at Northern Virginia Community College. (Courtesy of Pranavi Byri)
Some Indian students have continued their careers in the United States, including several who now lead major U.S. tech firms. Others return home with new skills and ideas.
Pranavi Byri, from Telangana state and an undergraduate student in early childhood education at Northern Virginia Community College, says U.S. colleges offer a more hands-on, less theoretical approach. The real-world examples her professors share in class will prove useful in opening her own child care centers when she returns to India.
Shekhar also expects her work at Harvard will benefit other students when she returns home. “I feel that I can contribute significantly to improving the Indian education system,” she said.
