Illegal and unseen: Nine surprising facts about Indians in the US
Donald Trump has made the mass deportation of undocumented foreign nationals a key policy, with the US said to have identified about 18,000 Indian nationals it believes entered illegally.
Last week Narendra Modi said India would take back its nationals who were in the US illegally, and also crack down on the "human trafficking ecosystem".
"These are children of very ordinary families, and they are lured by big dreams and promises," he said during his visit to Washington.
Now a new paper by Abby Budiman and Devesh Kapur from Johns Hopkins University has shed light on the numbers, demographics, entry methods, locations and trends relating to undocumented Indians over time.
Here are some of the more striking findings.
Unauthorised immigrants make up 3% of the US population and 22% of the foreign-born population.
The number of undocumented Indians among them is contested however, with estimates varying widely due to differing calculation methods.
Pew Research Center and Center for Migration Studies of New York (CMS) estimate some 700,000 people as of 2022, making them the third-largest group after Mexico and El Salvador.
In contrast, the Migration Policy Institute (MPI) puts the figure at 375,000, ranking India fifth among origin countries.
The official government data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) offers yet another picture, reporting 220,000 unauthorised Indians in 2022.
The vast differences in estimates highlight the uncertainty surrounding the true size of the undocumented Indian population, according to the study.
Indian migrants make up only a small share of the overall unauthorised migrant population in the US.
If Pew and CMS estimates are accurate, nearly one in four Indian immigrants in the US is undocumented - an unlikely scenario given migration patterns, the study says. (Indian immigrants are one of the fastest-growing groups in the US, surging from 600,000 in 1990 to 3.2 million in 2022.)
The DHS estimated in 2022 that the undocumented Indian population in the US dropped 60% from its 2016 peak, falling from 560,000 to 220,000.
How did the number of undocumented Indians drop so steeply from 2016 to 2022? Mr Kapur says the data doesn't provide a clear answer, but plausible explanations could be that some obtained legal status while others returned, particularly due to COVID-related hardships.
However, this estimate doesn't reflect a 2023 surge in Indians at US borders, meaning the actual number could now be higher.
Despite rising border encounters, US government estimates show no clear increase in the overall undocumented Indian population from the US financial year (FY) 2020 to 2022, according to the study.
Encounters refer to instances where non-citizens are stopped by US authorities while attempting to cross the country's borders with Mexico or Canada.
Visa overstays by Indians have remained steady at 1.5% since 2016.
The number of Indian recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (Daca) has also declined from 2,600 in 2017 to 1,600 in 2024. The Daca programme protects migrants who came to the US as children.
To sum up: the undocumented Indian population grew both in numbers and as a share of all unauthorised migrants, rising from 0.8% in 1990 to 3.9% in 2015 before dropping to 2% in 2022.
The US has two main land borders.
The southern border along the states of Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas bordering Mexico sees the most migrant crossings. Then there's the US-Canada border spanning 11 states.
Before 2010, encounters involving Indians at the two borders were minimal, never exceeding 1,000.
Since 2010, nearly all encounters involving Indians occurred along the US-Mexico southern border.
In FY 2024, encounters of Indian nationals on the northern border surged to 36% of all Indian crossings, up from just 4% the previous year.
Canada had become a more accessible entry point for Indians, with a shorter visitor visa processing times than US.
Also, there was a surge in attempted border crossings from 2021 onwards, and the encounters at the Mexico border peaked in 2023.
"This is not specific to Indians. It is part of a larger surge of migrants trying to come into the US after Biden was elected. It is as if there was a high tide of migrants and Indians were a part of it," Mr Kapur told me.
The study finds that the states with the largest Indian immigrant populations -California (112,000), Texas (61,000), New Jersey (55,000), New York (43,000) and Illinois (31,000) - also have the highest numbers of unauthorised Indian immigrants.
Indians make up a significant share of the total unauthorised population in Ohio (16%), Michigan (14%), New Jersey (12%) and Pennsylvania (11%).
Meanwhile, states where more than 20% of Indian immigrants are unauthorised include Tennessee, Indiana, Georgia, Wisconsin and California.
"We expect this because it's easier to blend in and find work in an ethnic business - like a Gujarati working for a Gujarati-American or a Punjabi/Sikh in a similar setup," Mr Kapur told me.
The US immigration system allows people who are detained at the border who fear persecution in their home countries to undergo credible "fear screenings". Those who pass can seek asylum in court, leading to a rise in asylum applications alongside rising border apprehensions.
Administrative data doesn't reveal the exact demographics of Indian asylum seekers, but court records on spoken languages provide some insight.
Punjabi-speakers from India have dominated Indian asylum claims since 2001. After Punjabi, Indian asylum seekers spoke Hindi (14%), English (8%) and Gujarati (7%).
They have filed 66% of asylum cases from FY 2001–2022, suggesting Punjab and the neighbouring state of Haryana as key migrant sources.
Punjabi speakers from India also had the highest asylum approval rate (63%), followed by Hindi speakers (58%). In contrast, only a quarter of Gujarati speakers' cases were approved.
US data collected by Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows Indian asylum requests in the US have skyrocketed.
The requests jumped tenfold in just two years, rising from about 5,000 in 2021 to over 51,000 in 2023.
While this spike is most dramatic in the US, similar trends are seen in Canada, the UK and Australia, where Indians are among the largest asylum-seeking groups, the study says.
Mr Kapur believes this is "largely a way to game the asylum system rather than an objective fear of persecution, as processing takes years".
Given the large number of Punjabi-speakers who seek asylum, it's unclear what has changed in the northern Indian state ruled by the Congress party (2017-22) and latterly the Aam Aadmi Party (2022–present) to drive this surge.
Under Trump's second presidency, asylum requests are set to plummet.
Within his first week, a key app for migrants was shut down and removed from app stores, cancelling nearly 300,000 pending appointments, including asylum cases already in progress.
US data shows most Indian asylum seekers are Punjabi and Gujarati - groups from India's wealthier states, better able to afford high migration costs.
In contrast, Indian Muslims and marginalised communities and people from conflict zones like the regions affected by Maoist violence and Kashmir, rarely seek asylum, the study says.
So most Indian asylum seekers are economic migrants, not from the country's poorest or conflict-hit regions.
The arduous journey to the US - whether via Latin America or as "fake" students in Canada - costs 30-100 times India's per capita income, making it accessible only to those with assets to sell or pledge, the study says.
Not surprisingly, Punjab and Gujarat - top origin states for unauthorised Indians - are among India's wealthier regions, where land values far exceed returns from farming.
"Even illegality takes a lot of money to pursue," the study says.
While rising asylum claims may seem linked to "democratic backsliding" in India, correlation isn't causation, the authors say .
Punjab and Gujarat have long histories of emigration, with migrants heading not just to the US but also the UK, Canada and Australia.
Remittances - India received an estimated $120bn in 2023 - fuel aspirations for a better life, driven not by poverty but "relative deprivation", as families seek to match the success of others abroad, the study says.
A parallel industry of agents and brokers in India has cashed in on this demand.
The Indian government, says the study, "has looked the other way, likely because the issue of illegal migration is much more a burden for receiving than sending countries".
Between 2009 and 2024, around 16,000 Indians were deported, according to India's ministry of external affairs.
These deportations averaged 750 per year under Obama, 1,550 under Trump's first term, and 900 under Biden.
Indian migrant removals spiked between FY 2023 and 2024, but the peak was in 2020 with nearly 2,300 deportations.
US military plane carrying deported Indians lands in Punjab
Why Indians are risking it all to chase the American Dream
H-1B: Visa row under Trump fuels anxiety for Indian dreamers
Trump's citizenship order leaves expecting Indian immigrant parents in limbo
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
9 minutes ago
- New York Times
Man United fans' survey: Your views on Ruben Amorim, INEOS and the players
That season is now (finally) behind us, with the Champions League final played out on Saturday and the new Club World Cup-related transfer window open. United's on-pitch performance in 2024-25 was more than disappointing; the run to the Europa League final being a rare positive until even that was ended by Tottenham. Advertisement The Premier League finishing position need not be repeated here… let's just hope we never see the like of it again. Off the pitch, United have confirmed they have reached an agreement with Wolverhampton Wanderers to sign Matheus Cunha. While Bruno Fernandes is giving serious consideration to a move to Saudi Arabia. All this and we haven't yet mentioned head coach Ruben Amorim or the decisions made by INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe. Well, now is your chance to have your say on all the above topics (and more) below. (NOTE: Readers using our app on an Android device may need to use two fingers to scroll through the survey. Still unable to get to the survey, though? Try this direct link) Loading…
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Wall Street futures slip after Trump's steel, aluminum tariff threats
(Reuters) -U.S. stock index futures dipped on Monday after President Donald Trump announced plans to double tariffs on imported steel and aluminum, amplifying concerns about trade- and tariff-related volatility. Trump said on late Friday he planned to increase tariffs on imported steel and aluminum to 50% from 25% starting Wednesday, just hours after he accused China of violating an agreement. The increased levies would deepen Trump's global trade war and douses some enthusiasm stemming from a softening in his trade stance. Last month, a temporary relief on some levies on China and a rollback of steep tariff threats on the European Union, along with strong earnings and improving economic data helped the benchmark S&P 500 log its best monthly performance in 18 months. Shares of U.S. Steel companies rose in premarket trading, with Cleveland-Cliffs jumping 26.2%, Nucor up 14.1% and Steel Dynamics 13.4% higher. "It is really hard to keep up or predict what's going to happen on trade at the moment, and that's before we factor in the full ramifications from the court ruling last Thursday night, and then subsequent brief stay of execution for them on appeal," Jim Reid, global head of macro and thematic research at Deutsche Bank, said in a note. A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated most of Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs blocked by the Court of International Trade, the day prior. "For now, it seems likely that the tariff uncertainty will linger for a long time ahead even if we're still likely past the peak aggressiveness of U.S. policy," Reid said. At 5:22 a.m. ET, Dow E-minis were down 218 points, or 0.52%, S&P 500 E-minis were down 34 points, or 0.57%. Nasdaq 100 E-minis were down 156.5 points, or 0.73% Most megacap and growth stocks were down, with Tesla leading losses after it reported lower monthly sales in Portugal, Denmark and Sweden. The stock was last down 2%. Focus would be on comments from Fed Chair Jerome Powell later in the day as he presents opening remarks before the Federal Reserve Board International Finance Division's 75th anniversary conference at 1:00 p.m. ET (1700 GMT). Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said on Monday that interest rate cuts remain possible later this year even with the Trump administration's tariffs likely to push up price pressures temporarily. On the data front, a reading of S&P Global U.S. manufacturing PMI is due at 9:45 a.m. ET and an ISM Manufacturing index reading is scheduled for 10:00 a.m. ET. Ahead in the week, investors await a crucial nonfarm-payrolls report due on Friday to ascertain strength in the U.S. economy amid tariff volatility. Among other stocks, Moderna rose 4.6% after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved its next-generation COVID-19 vaccine for everyone aged 65 and above. Separately, RBC Capital Markets raised its year-end target for the S&P 500 index to 5,730 from 5,550, citing modestly improved U.S. economic outlook and stronger-than-expected corporate earnings.


Chicago Tribune
21 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Ashley Nunes: Outrage over President Donald Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in U.S. history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed U.S. automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered — by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more. Hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven — a lot — to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidize their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognizing its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it. Ashley Nunes is a senior research associate at Harvard Law School.