The United States is a nation built on and constituted by immigrants. Surprisingly, this basis of the American nation has divided the country between the Democrats and Republicans, between Whites and non-Whites, affluent and indigents, employed and unemployed, male and female. America and its body-shopping exporters of human suppliers was the most contentious issue of the US presidential campaign 2016.

Starting with a modest 8385 persons who obtained lawful permanent resident status in 1820, the number expanded to 1051031 persons in 2015. However, it is not as if such manifold increase in numbers has seen a consistent northward trend. In the decade of 1980-89, ‘green card’ holders doubled and crossed a million. In 1992-2000, the numbers were again scaled back to under a million per fiscal. During 2005-15, the annual numbers hovered just above a million. Going back into history, 8385 migrants in 1820 to 812870 in 1904 marked a 97-fold increase. Likewise, post-World War II witnessed a six-fold rise, from 108721 in 1946 to 641346 in 1988 (before it crossed over into the million plus range). Since then the annual grant of green cards has stagnated between 650000 and 1.10 million per annum, the lowest since America became an independent nation. The predominance of Latin American and Asian immigration in the late 20th and early 21st centuries starkly contrasts with the trend seen in 1960 when immigrants largely originated from Europe. In the 1960s no single country accounted for more than 15 per cent of the total immigrant population.

Asian card holders constituted 39-41 per cent of all green cards issued in 2013-15. For every European green card holder, there were four Asian holders. China, India and the Philippines constituted 7 per cent, 6-7.5 per cent and 5 per cent respectively, while Mexico, the Caribbean, Latin America and Africa claimed 15 per cent, 25 per cent, 7-12 per cent and 9-10 per cent of all green cards respectively. California, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and Washington attracted the maximum number of green card holders.

Are all Indian and Chinese green card holders’ fresh imports? Forty two per cent of Indians received employment-based green cards against 29 per cent Chinese, if one were to deem this as the ‘original’ category. Twenty three per cent of Indian holders fell in the family-sponsored category against 20 per cent Chinese. While 32 per cent Indian card holders were relatives of US citizens, the Chinese outdid Indians at 38 per cent. Finally, only 2 per cent Indians fell in the diversity category against 11 per cent Chinese. However, what is most interesting is that from 2006-15, 493292 Indian nationals have been granted naturalised citizen status against 341281 Chinese, i.e. 44 per cent more. In fact, new naturalised Indian-Americans accounted for 7 per cent of 7388464 conferred compared with 4.50 per cent Chinese. Surprisingly, small Latin American and Caribbean nations like the Dominican Republic (3.50 per cent), Jamaica (2 per cent), Cuba (3 per cent), Haiti (2 per cent) have appreciable shares, perhaps out of proportion to their respective populations. Against all these nations, including India and China, stand 1113940 Mexican-Americans and 418894 Filipino-Americans, i.e. 15 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.

How do Indian and Chinese American migrants compare with other migrant communities? Chinese immigrants had much higher incomes compared to the total foreign-and native-born populations. In 2013, the median income of households headed by a Chinese immigrant was $57,000, compared to $48,000 and $53,000 for overall immigrant and native-born households, respectively. In 2013, 19 per cent of Chinese immigrants lived in poverty, a rate similar to all immigrants but slightly higher than the 15 per cent posted by the native-born population. In contrast, Indian immigrants have much higher incomes compared to the total foreign ~ and native-born populations.

In contrast, the median income of households headed by an Indian immigrant was $103,000. Only 6 per cent of Indian immigrants lived in poverty. About 70 per cent of Indian immigrants aged 16 and above were in the civilian labour force, compared to 67 per cent and 63 per cent of the total foreign and native-born populations, respectively. Indian immigrants were more than twice as likely to be employed in management, business, science, and arts occupations (73 per cent) than both the overall foreign-born (30 per cent) and native-born (38 per cent) populations. Indian immigrants were as likely as the native-born population to be uninsured (12 per cent), but much less likely to be uninsured than the overall immigrant population (32 per cent). Indian immigrants were more likely to have private health insurance (80 per cent) than both the total foreign and native-born populations (50 per cent and 67 per cent respectively).

Seventy per cent of Indian Americans aged 25 and above had college degrees in 2010, by far the highest rate among the six Asian-American groups that studied and 2.5 times the rate among the overall U.S. population. This is probably because of the H1-B visa programme, which allowed highly skilled foreign workers in designated specialty occupations to work in the U.S. In 2011, for example, 72438 Indians received H1-B visas, 56 per cent of all such visas granted that year. Not surprisingly, Indians received 86 per cent of all H1B visas with China a poor second at 5 per cent in 2014.

What does the mumbo-jumbo of statistics imply? First, that the US is not far different from many other former colonial nations of Europe when it came to cheap labour. Hence the high rates of migration, legal and illegal, ranged from former offshore sugar to cotton colonies. The first wave of immigration that came from Europe till 1945, post-War, needed cheap labour to build infrastructure and operate their factories and expand utilities in a ‘cost-effective’ manner. The radical change in the complexion of migration to the US after 1945 and even more in the post-decolonisation years after 1960 created the wealth that is America’s today. Second, the White US population is fast ageing, birth rates are declining and social security for the Baby boomer generation is expected to be bankrupt by 2030. Third, the virtual dismantling of employees’ trade unions by various subterfuges such as employment has opened the labour market to wage undercutting, the prime beneficiaries of which are non-Indian and Chinese immigrants, legal and illegal.

Fourth, the cost of manufacturing and services has steadily increased over the decades, owing to 30-35 per cent corporate taxation, uncontrolled avarice of the health insurance and pharmaceutical sectors, rising wage demands of native-born, etc. All these made manufacturing and services in the US extraordinarily expensive and mostly uncompetitive, save for high technology. Trade and tariff barriers have evidently not helped much either, leaving monuments like Detroit and Flint in their wake. Fifth, economic deprivation, has given rise to immense social tension that is frequently spilling onto streets and schools, in the form of frequent fatal shootings. It is a travesty that 76 per cent of America’s wealth ~ a whopping $67 trillion ~ was held by just 10 per cent of all families in the US in 2013. The top 50 per cent of the country accounted for 23 per cent of the total wealth, with an average of $316,000 per family, leaving just 1 per cent of the total pie for the entire bottom half of the population. The average held was $36,000 for families that fell in the 26th to 50th percentiles. In in the lowest quarter, they had zero wealth and in fact, were $13,000 in debt on average. And all this from a report from the US Congressional Budget Office (CBO)! The wealth of families at the 90th percentile grew by 54 per cent between 1989 and 2013 while those at the 50th percentile experienced a paltry 4 per cent rise during the same period and those at the 25th percentile actually saw their wealth drop by 6 per cent .

Sixth, the complete dependence on cheap migrant labour has engendered a Gulf-like anathema for ‘dirty’ jobs among native-born. Getting over this mindset takes a whole generation, if not longer. Seventh, to tar all immigrants with the same ‘menial’ brush contradicts statistics mentioned above. There is a self-evident qualitative divide between European, Chinese and Indian immigrants and those from many other underprivileged parts of the world. Failure to recognise these would have disastrous consequences for America’s economy and reputation.

Yet India must remain beholden to Trump for ending exploitative body shopping by Indian I-T companies by pegging the minimum annual salary of Indian expatriates to $100000, a 30-40 per cent rise. To Trump or be trumped by migration then remains the central question.

The writer is a senior public policy analyst and commentator.