A quarter of U.S. adults see Chinese Americans as a "threat": poll
Why it matters: Five years after the pandemic, when the U.S. saw a surge in anti-Asian hate crimes, Asian Americans are still battling harmful stereotypes and deep-seated misperceptions.
By the numbers: 63% of Asian Americans report feeling unsafe in at least one daily setting, according to the STAATUS Index (Social Tracking of Asian Americans in the U.S.) released Thursday at the start of Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month.
The same percentage believe it is at least somewhat likely they will be victims of discrimination based on their race, ethnicity, or religion in the next five years. By comparison, 33% of white Americans say the same.
Asian Americans (40%) are far less likely than white Americans (71%) to completely agree that they belong in the U.S., and are least likely to feel they belong in online spaces/social media and their neighborhoods.
Zoom in: This year's survey found that a record percentage (40%) of Americans believe Asian Americans are more loyal to their countries of origin than to the U.S., up from 37% last year.
That's the highest rate since the inaugural STAATUS survey launched in 2021.
About two-fifths of Americans support legislation prohibiting foreign citizens from certain countries, including China, from purchasing land.
Stunning stat: Fewer than half (44%) of Americans strongly agree that Japanese American incarceration — the forcible detainment of 120,000 people with Japanese ancestry during World War II — was wrong.
What they're saying: "One of the most alarming results over the past five years has been the doubling of this perception of Asian Americans as more loyal to their country of origin," Norman Chen, CEO of The Asian American Foundation and co-founder of the STAATUS report, tells Axios.
"It questions the loyalty and patriotism of Asian Americans in this country."
Chen said the survey also found that most Americans continue to believe the "model minority" myth of overachieving Asian Americans who are "good at math" — stereotypes that are also harmful.
Between the lines: Rising antisemitism, anti-Arab American and anti-Muslim incidents have dominated the news since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack in Israel, taking the focus off hate crimes against Asian Americans.
Zoom out: The survey also found that 42% of Americans cannot think of a famous Asian American.
Actor Jackie Chan (11%) (who is not American) and Bruce Lee (6%) have been the most popular responses for five years in a row, followed by Kamala Harris (4%) and Lucy Liu (3%).
Yes, but: Many Americans back teaching Asian American history in schools.
The STAATUS Index found that nearly 80% of Americans support specific initiatives to uplift Asian American communities.
Around 41% backed legislation requiring Asian American history to be taught in schools.
Methodology: This survey was conducted from Jan. 22 to Feb. 25 by Savanta Research. It is based on a nationally representative probability sample of 4,909 U.S.-based respondents, aged 16 and older, conducted via an online panel.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Axios
21 minutes ago
- Axios
Putin made maximalist claims to Ukrainian territory in Trump summit: Sources
The peace terms that Russian President Vladimir Putin laid out in his summit with President Trump included that Ukraine withdraw entirely from two of its eastern regions, two sources briefed on the call told Axios. Why it matters: Trump will meet Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Monday in Washington. He also told European leaders in a post-summit call that he wants to arrange a trilateral summit with Putin and Zelensky as soon as next Friday, the sources said. But based on Putin's conditions, a major breakthrough appears unlikely. Trump also invited the European leaders on the call to join Monday's White House meeting, the sources said. Breaking it down: Trump and his special envoy Steve Witkoff briefed Zelensky and the leaders of the U.K., France, Germany, Italy, Finland, NATO and the European Commission on Putin's positions last night on their flight back to Washington. They said Putin had demanded that Ukraine cede two of the four regions to which Russia has laid claim (Donetsk and Luhansk), and freeze the front lines in the other two (Kherson and Zaporizhzhia). Russia controls nearly all of Luhansk, but only about three-quarters of Donetsk. Putin presented his willingness to stop pushing forward in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia as a concession, in exchange for Ukraine withdrawing from Donetsk, one source briefed on the call said. In reality, Russia hasn't made any progress in those areas for some time. A Ukrainian source said the U.S. side had the impression Putin was willing to negotiate over the small slivers of the Sumy and Kharkiv regions under Russian control. Between the lines: This proposal calls for significantly more territory to shift from Ukrainian to Russian control than vice versa — something Moscow might argue is reasonable, as Russia has the upper hand militarily, but which Ukraine would almost certainly reject. Putin also requested that the U.S. recognize Russia's sovereignty in the parts of Ukraine it would gain under a peace deal, according to the source. Trump called the meeting a success and said he and Putin agreed on most issues, though Putin appears to have stuck to most of his maximalist demands. The intrigue: Putin did say he was willing to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine, the source said. But he mentioned China as one of the possible guarantors, possibly suggesting he would oppose a security force consisting of NATO troops. Ukraine and its European backers have been discussing the idea of a "coalition of the willing" standing behind Ukraine to prevent a future Russian invasion. Ukraine was encouraged by the fact that Trump endorsed the idea of security guarantees for Ukraine in the post-summit call, according to a Ukrainian official, who said the matter was not discussed in detail. Trump has said this wouldn't be a NATO mission, but Ukraine hopes the U.S. will participate in some fashion. The official said the matter would be discussed further during Zelensky's White House visit. What to watch: Trump told Zelensky and the other participants in the call that he wants to hold a trilateral summit "fast," as early as August 22, two sources told Axios. Putin has not publicly committed to such a meeting.
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Obamacare faces a subsidy cliff — don't bail it out without reform
The controversy over the 2010 Affordable Care Act dominated Barack Obama's presidency. The implementation of ObamaCare caused health insurance premiums to soar and nearly collapsed the market entirely. The Biden administration responded by flooding the system with expanded federal subsidies, which are set to expire at the end of 2025. To stop premiums for older workers with pre-existing conditions from suddenly leaping by $10,000, Republicans will need to extend part of this additional funding. But in return, they should insist on reforms to allow healthy Americans to purchase better value insurance with their own money. The Affordable Care Act required health insurers to cover individuals with pre-existing conditions at the same price as enrollees who signed up before they got sick. As a result, premiums more than doubled, millions of healthy enrollees dropped coverage and many insurers abandoned the market. The Affordable Care Act kept the individual health insurance market from falling apart completely by providing subsidies to low-income enrollees. But individuals earning more than $62,600 in 2025 would have faced full premiums without any assistance. Those unsubsidized enrollees felt the full pain of the Affordable Care Act's premium hikes. The legislation allows insurers to charge older enrollees up to three times what they do the youngest, and so unsubsidized premiums for near-retirees can be huge. This year, the benchmark unsubsidized premium for a 61-year-old individual in Washington, D.C., is $15,402 per year. Rather than fix ObamaCare's structure, the newly-elected Democratic Congress in 2021 threw money at the problem with the American Rescue Plan Act. By expanding eligibility for subsidies to higher earners, the act reduced the cost of health insurance for a 61-year-old earning $70,000 from $15,402 to $5,950 — with federal taxpayers covering the difference. That legislation also expanded the generosity of subsidies for lower earners. Those earning $22,000, who would have contributed $756 to the cost of insurance under the original Affordable Care Act, would get it entirely paid for by the federal government. This approach has been hugely expensive. In May 2022, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that subsidies for the Affordable Care Act would cost $67 billion in 2024. Last June, following a renewal of the American Rescue Plan Act's increased subsidies, the Congressional Budget Office's revised cost estimate for 2024 surged to $129 billion. A recent Paragon Institute report found that this leap in cost owed much to a surge in enrollment among those who received coverage free of charge. Paragon estimated that such enrollees accounted for nearly half of new enrollment, and that 5 million people may have misreported their income to claim free coverage, costing taxpayers an additional $20 billion. Insurers eagerly welcomed the influx of new healthy enrollees, who had not deemed it worth purchasing insurance from the individual market until the federal government paid the entire price. Such newcomers proved enormously lucrative, as they used less medical care than existing enrollees but generated the same revenue. Democrats, who received twice as much in campaign contributions as Republicans from Blue Cross Blue Shield in 2024, eagerly boasted about reducing the number of uninsured Americans, with little concern for the cost. The expiry of the American Rescue Plan Act subsidies is now looming again, set to expire at the end of 2025. It will be up to a Republican president and Republican-led Congress to find a way forward. Fiscal conservatives have little appetite to pay for renewing all the expanded ObamaCare subsidies. But nor will they feel comfortable letting the American Rescue Plan Act's enhanced subsidies expire entirely, as this would result in a $10,000-per-year premium hike on thousands of middle-income near-retirees. Congress should focus on targeted support by eliminating the cap on eligibility for the Affordable Care Act's original subsidies, which limit premiums at 9.5 percent of income, to avoid a sudden benefit cliff for those with incomes just above $62,600. But they should also let other expansions of subsidies expire. In return, Republicans should insist that Americans be allowed to obtain discounted premiums if they purchase insurance before they get sick. In 2017, President Trump allowed Americans to do this by purchasing short-term insurance. However, in 2024, the Biden administration limited the duration of these plans to four months. This came following pressure from big insurers, who claimed that allowing the expansion of such plans would prevent them from cross-subsidizing enrollees with pre-existing conditions by overcharging those who signed up while healthy. In reality, the restriction of these affordable plans has served mostly to inflate insurers' profits. Healthy enrollees remain able to purchase short-term plans afresh every few months; it is only those who subsequently become sick who are deprived of coverage. Regulatory protections for the long-term coverage of enrollees in non-ObamaCare plans should be strengthened; not weakened. Furthermore, with the extension of the American Rescue Plan Act's premium cap, federal subsidies taxpayers directly subsidize most enrollees. It is therefore unnecessary to also prohibit healthy enrollees from obtaining insurance plans which offer long-term coverage at good value for their money.
Buzz Feed
an hour ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Voter Lists 4 Things Trump Should Change
A Reddit post by a MAGA voter has recently gone viral for sharing a list of things Donald Trump needs to do better as President — but it's not exactly what you expect. At the start of the post, the MAGA voter explained why they voted for Trump in the first place, expressing their belief that a woman should not be president. "He was the best we had to choose from and I don't believe a woman should sit in that position." They then went on to list what needs to change in the Trump presidency. "Tired of hearing about Elon Musk and see some results." They wrote about Trump focusing on people other than the Biden family. "Move on from Joe Biden..." They emphasized Trump continuously bringing up past events. "Stop living in the forward." And advised Trump to stop the division, and "work for of America." Many people in the original poster's comments who also voted for Trump expressed support for the post: "We voted for Trump because there was not any other option. His big beautiful bill does zero for middle class Americans..." "I would love to see the Bidens prosecuted but it's time to move on and quit dwelling..." this user wrote. "I also do not believe a woman should hold that well said." Elsewhere, this person wrote, "It's really, really telling they'd rather have a felon than a woman running the country." "Lol most of these [people] don't realize they're spouting liberal talking points," another person wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.
