GROWTH OF THE KOREAN POPULATION AND CHANGES IN THEIR SETTLEMENT PATTERNS OVER TIME, 1990-2008

Pyong Gap Min College and the Graduate Center of CUNY

and Chigon Kim Wright State University

RESEARCH CENTER FOR KOREAN COMMUNITY QUEENS COLLEGE OF CUNY

Research Report No.2 March 16, 2010

0

I: Introductory Remarks

The first research report released on December 3, 2009 includes the senior author’s review of the literature on Korean American studies and an expanded bibliography.

Many readers have sent me e-mail and telephone messages, telling me that it is very useful to them. The second research report focuses on analyzing changes in Korean

Americans’ settlement patters between 1990 and 2008. The first research report may be more useful to graduate students and scholars conducting research on Korean

Americans than to lay Korean Americans. Data included in this report focusing on changes in growth in the Korean population in the and settlement patterns among Korean Americans between 1990 and 2008 are likely to be more useful to non- academic practitioners--community leaders, owners of businesses largely to catering

Korean customers, including Korean restaurants and real estate agencies, social serve agencies, the Korean Consulate Generals in major Korean population centers, and the

Korean government.

From the beginning of the census enumeration, the U.S. Census Bureau did not include any question about religion because American forefathers were afraid of the possibility that information about religion was used for persecution of minority religious groups. For the same reason, the U.S. Census has continued to ask no question about religion. This means that religious groups like Jewish Americans and Muslims cannot find official statistics about their own groups. Due to the absence of data about its own group in census reports, the Jewish American community has conducted a large-scale

1 National Jewish Population Surveys every ten years. The most recent National Jewish

Population Survey, conducted for twelve months between August 2000 and August 2001, interviewed about 2,500 Jewish respondents by telephone. Not only to interview 2,500

Jewish households, but also to screen Jewish households from the randomly selected households, the research team spent a great deal of time and money. The Jewish community has conducted many other large surveys, such as the American Jewish

Identity Survey.

The Korean community does not have to conduct a national Korean American survey involving high costs and energy and a great deal of time because the U.S. Census

Bureau includes questions about race and vs. non-Hispanic origin. We are lucky to get major statistics about our population size and population characteristics from census data, the largest survey data available in the United States. Until 2000, the U.S.

Census Bureau had conducted the major censuses involving a short form and a long form every ten years. But, from 2001 on, it has conducted the American Community Survey every year, replacing the earlier long form. It will continue the decennial census involving a short form every ten years, thus taking another decennial census this March.

Since the American Community Survey involving a long form has a small sample size

(2.6%) compared to the decennial census, we cannot enumerate the Korean population size and settlement patterns accurately at this point. Nevertheless, we may be able to provide a glimpse of the direction of changes in Korean Americans’ settlement patterns using the most recent American Community Survey available. Thus we decided to analyze the 2008 American Community Survey compared to the 2000 and 1990

2 Censuses for our center’s Second Research Report, instead of waiting for the 2010 decennial census. But we present major findings about changes in Korean Americans’ settlement patterns from the 2008 American Community Survey with much caution. We should be able to determine whether major changes in ’ settlement patterns discerned from the 2008 American Community Survey will hold true when results of the

2010 Census are available in 2012.

We did not need census data to complete the First Research Report, providing an annotated bibliography, published and released last December. But the current (Second) and most of the following Research Reports to be released by our center will be based on census data, especially American Community Surveys conducted by the U.S. Census

Bureau every year. As already pointed out, the American Community Survey for a single year does not have a sample large enough for statistical analysis on the Korean population. But we can combine three or five years of the American Community Surveys to increase the sample size. Using the combined American Community Surveys, we can not only estimate Korean population size and settlement patterns, but also examine population characteristics.

In this report, we used the 2008 American Community Survey, along with the

1970, 1980 and 1990 decennial censuses for the population estimation and settlement patterns. We used the 2005-2007 Combined American Community Surveys to examine

Korean population characteristics. The current research report consists of four different sections. The first section including two tables and two figures show the growth of the

Korean population in the United States between 1970 and 2008 and the foreign-born

3 and native-born distributions for single-race and multi-racial Korean populations. The second section examines changes in Korean Americans’ settlement patterns by looking at changes in the proportions of the Korean population in major metropolitan areas between 1990 and 2008. Three tables and two figures are provided in this section.

The third section looks at changes in the Korean population in the -

CMSA (Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area), boroughs and adjacent suburban counties, and Flushing-Bayside Korean enclaves in Queens

Professor Chigon Kim of Wright State University is an expert in analyzing census data. As a data analyst of our center he did all data analyses for this research report. He will continue to analyze census data for our center for the coming research reports and other major survey studies our center will conduct in the future. Prof. Kim may be the only Korean sociologist in the United States who can undertake analyzing census data with such efficiency and accuracy. As Director of the center, I feel lucky to find such an ideal data analyst for the center.

II: Growth of the Korean Population and the Foreign-Born vs. Native-Born Distribution

Figure 1 below provides a general picture of the Korean population growth in the United

States between 1970 and 2008. Table 1 gives statistics for the Korean population in different decennial years and 2008. The 1970s Census counted less than 70,000 Koreans in the United States. Assuming the Census underestimated the Korean population, the actual number may have been a little more than 70,000 in 1970. Given that the total number of Koreans who immigrated to the United States between 1903 and 1969 is

4 approximately 42,200 (Barringer, Gardner and Levin 1995: 24-25), the Korean population can be said to have achieved a high level of natural growth.

Figure 1. Growth of Korean Population, 1970-2008

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Census, 1970, 1990, 2000, 2008.

Congress passed the new liberalized immigration laws in 1965, abolishing the earlier race-based discriminatory immigration laws. The 1965 Immigration Act began to be in full effect in 1968. As a result of the enforcement of the new Immigration Act, the

Korean population achieved a five-fold increase in the 1970s, from 69,150 in 1970 to

354,953 in 1980. It further increased to approximately 800,000 in 1990, achieving a two-

5 fold increase in the the1980s.

Beginning from the 2000 Census, the U.S. Census Bureau allowed the respondents with mixed racial and ethnic backgrounds (children of intermarried parents) to choose two or more racial and ethnic categories. As a result, we have two separate figures of the Korean population for 2000 and 2008, for those who chose the Korean category alone (“Korean alone”) and those who chose the Korean category and one or more additional categories (“Korean in Combination”). In 1990 and before, children of

Korean-other intermarried couples chose either the Korean, the other racial-ethic category of the non-Korean parent, or “others.” Thus, approximately 800,000 Korean

Americans counted by the 1990 Census must have included a moderate number of multiracial/multi-ethnic Koreans.

Table 1: Growth of Korean Population, 1970-2008

1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Korean Alone 69,150 354,593 798,849 1,076,872 1,372,152 (87.7%) (89.6%) Korean in XX XX XX 151,555 160,033 Combination (12.3%) (10.4%) Total 69,150 354,593 798,849 1,228,427 1,532,185 (100.0%) (100.0%) Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (1970, 1990, 2000, 2008). Note: The Korean American population in 2008 is estimated from the 2008 American Community Survey.

The single-race Korean population in 2008 was approximately 1.4 million, about

300,000 (27.4%) increase from 1,077,000 in 2000. Including about 160,000 multiracial

Koreans, the total Korean population in 2008 was over 1.5 million. Single-race Korean

Americans comprised the fifth largest Asian group, following the Chinese (2,998,849),

6 Indian (2,495,998), Filipino (2,425,697) and Vietnamese (1,431,980) groups. Among six major Asian groups, only the Japanese population (710,063) is smaller than the Korean population. The Chinese population is more than twice as large as the Korean population. The significant reduction of the Korean immigration flow since the late

1980s (see Min 2006a) has been the major factor for the slower increase in the Korean population relative to other Asian populations. The same trend will continue in the future as Koreans will have less incentive for choosing the U.S.-bound emigration than other Asian populations.

Table 2 shows the distribution of single-race and multiracial Koreans by birth place for 2000 and 2008. In 2000, only 21% of single-race Koreans was native-born. By contrast, 75% of multiracial Koreans were native-born. The vast majority of multi-racial

Koreans were native-born because they were most likely to be children of Korean-other intermarried couples. While foreign-born Koreans have a very low intermarriage rate

(Zai and Ito 1999), the majority of native-born Koreans engage in intermarriage (Min and

Kim 2009). Twenty-five percent of foreign-born multi-racial Koreans were most likely to be children of intermarried couples between U.S. servicemen and Korean women who got married in . In 2008, the native-born proportion among single-race Koreans increased to 26% while the foreign-born proportion among multi-racial Koreans decreased to 16%. Since fewer and fewer Korean women are likely to marry American citizens in Korea, the foreign-born proportion among multiracial Koreans is likely to further decline in the future.

7 Table 2: Place of Birth among the Korean Population, 2000-2008 (%)

2000 2008 Nativity Single-Race Multi-Racial Single-Race Multi-Racial Korean Korean Korean Korean Total 1,076,872 151,555 1,372,152 160,033 (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) (100.0) Foreign-born 79.1 25.5 73.6 15.6 Native-born 20.9 74.5 26.4 84.4 Note: Authors’ compilation from 2000 & 2008 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al. 2008).

III: DISTRIBUTION OF KROEAN AMERICANS IN FOUR REGIONS AND SELECTED METRO AREAS

Korean Americans, like other Asian ethnic groups, tend to concentrate in large cities.

Sixty-six percent of Korean Americans concentrated in the ten major gateway cities in

2008 (see Table 4). Eighty-six percent of Korean Americans lived in the 56 largest metropolitan cities in 2008 and 95% lived in 336 all metropolitan areas in 2000.

Figure 2 and Table 3 show changes in distribution of single-race Koreans in four different regions in the three given years. Over 43% of Korean Americans were concentrated in the West in1970. The proportion slightly increased to 46% in 2008.

California, and are three major Western states where Korean

Americans are highly concentrated. The slight increase in the proportion of Korean

Americans settled in the West between 1970 and 2008 makes a good contrast with other

Asian groups. Census data show that 71% of were concentrated in the

West in 1970 and the proportion gradually decreased to 49% in 2008 (Min 2006b). Even in 2000, 73% of and 68% of lived in the West

8 Figure 2: The Single-Race Korean Population by Region, 1970-2008

Table 3: Changes in the Regional Distribution of Korean-American Population, 1970-2008 (%)

1970 1980 1990 2000 2008 Northeast 20.1 19.2 22.8 22.9 20.2 Midwest 19.1 17.5 13.6 12.3 11.5 South 18.2 19.9 19.2 20.8 22.0 West 42.6 43.4 44.4 44.0 46.3 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (1970, 1990, 2000, 2008).

9 (Min 2006b: 32-33). But Korean Americans were much more widely dispersed in all regions of the United States than Asian Americans as a whole in 1970.

We speculate that a much wider distribution of Korean Americans throughout the United States away from the West than other Asian groups in 1970 was due to the fact that the vast majority of Korean immigrants several years before the enforcement of the 1965 Immigration Act were Korean women married to American servicemen and children adopted by American citizens (see Min 2006a: 13-14). Since both Korean women married to U.S. servicemen and adoptees followed their American husbands and adopted parents, unlike other Asian immigrants they did not have the option to choose the West, the gateway to Asian countries.

In 1970, there were slightly more Korean Americans (22%) in the Northeast than in the South (20%). But the South has achieved a greater increase in the Korean

American population than the Northeast since 2000. As a result, the South and the

Northeast have the same proportion of Korean Americans (22%). Probably the most significant change in Koreans’ settlement patterns has occurred in the Midwest. In 1970,

19% of Korean Americans resided in the Midwest. The area is the largest Korean center in the Midwest. The proportion of Koreans in the region began to decline in the

1980s and it continued to decrease until it fell close to 12% in 2008. The decrease in the proportion of the Korean population in the Midwest and the increase in the South reflect the change in the U.S. general population. In the process of deindustrialization, many companies moved from the Midwest, the “lust belt,” to the South or the West, the

“sunbelts.”

10 Figure 3 and Table 4 Table show changes in the share of the Korean population in

10 major metropolitan areas in the three given years. We have selected the ten areas that had at least 10,000 Korean Americans in 1990. In 2008, 56% of Korean Americans were settled in the seven traditional immigrant gateway cities: , New York,

Washington, San Francisco, Chicago, and Honolulu. Another 10% were concentrated in three newly emerging cities: Seattle, Atlanta and . Thus, about

66% were concentrated in the ten large gateway cities.

The Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area combining Los

Angeles, Long Beach and Riverside had nearly one-fourth of the Korean population (24%) in 1990. The proportion was stable through 2000, but it experienced a slight decline

(22.6%) in 2008. Over 310,000 Koreans in 2008 still puts Los Angeles as the largest overseas Korean population center in the world. The presence of large Korean and Asian populations already in the 1960s, the convenience of air travels from Korea, a mild weather, and active trade relations from the Los Angeles region to Korea all contributed to the influx of post-1965 Korean immigrants to the Los Angeles CMSA (Min 1993).

The New York and Washington CMSA’s rank the second and third largest Korean population centers in the United States with approximately 183,000 and 86,000 in 2008.

Both areas marked an increase in the share of the Korean population between 1990 and

2000, but suffered a decrease in the next eight years. The slight increase in the share of the Korean population in the New York-New Jersey area from 1990 and 2000 was mainly due to the rapid expansion of the Korean population in Bergen County, which will be discussed in the next section. The reduction in the same area between 2000 and 2008 is

11 noticeable. We believe that economic difficulties in New York City pushed many Koreans in the area to move to Atlanta, Dallas and Western cities, which will also be covered in the next section. A great increase in the share of the Korean population in the

Washington--Northern area from 5% in 1990 to 6.9% in 2000 is due mainly to the Census Bureau’s incorporating the Baltimore metro area into the

Washington- CMSA. The San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CMSA area, the fourth largest Korean population center in the United States, is the only traditional gateway city that experienced a modest increase in the share of the Korean population between 2000 and 2008.

Hawaii in general and Honolulu in particular, the home to the pioneering Korean immigrants in the beginning of the twentieth century, continued to lose the share of the

Korean population since the post-Korean immigration flow started. But, surprisingly, between 2000 and 2008 Honolulu achieved a modest gain in the share of the Korean population. We have no information that helps us explain why more Korean immigrants chose Honolulu as the destination of their immigration during recent years and whether this trend will continue in the foreseeable future.

Chicago and Philadelphia are two major gateway cities that experienced declines in the share of the Korean population in both time periods (between 1990 and 2000, and between 2000 and 2008). By contrast, the metropolitan areas with medium-size

Korean populations, such as Seattle, Atlanta, and Dallas, experienced significant increases in their shares of the Korean population. These areas were traditionally considered non-gateway cities, but they have become “newly emerging gateway cities”

12 for Korean immigrants. Although no included in Table 4, , Denver and Phoenix also achieved higher levels of increase in the Korean population than five old Gateway cities.

Figure 3: Korean-American population in Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1990-2008

13

Table 4. Korean-American Population in Selected Metropolitan Areas, 1990-2008

1990 2000 2008 (Estimated) Metropolitan Area a) N % N % N % Los Angeles (CMSA) 194,437 24.3 257,975 24.0 309,881 22.6 New York (CMSA) 118,096 14.8 170,509 15.8 183,249 13.4 Washington D.C. (CMSA) b) 39,850 5.0 74,454 6.9 86,039 6.3 San Francisco (CMSA) c) 42,277 5.3 57,386 5.3 80,100 5.8 Chicago (CMSA) 36,952 4.6 46,256 4.3 52,065 3.8 Seattle (CMSA) 23,901 3.0 41,189 3.8 60,694 4.4 Philadelphia (CMSA) 24,568 3.1 29,309 2.7 27,624 2.0 Atlanta (CMSA) d) 10,120 1.3 22,317 2.1 45,316 3.3 Honolulu (MSA) 22,646 2.8 21,681 2.0 34,494 2.5 Dallas (CMSA) 11,041 1.4 18,123 1.7 31,258 2.3

Total in 10 Metropolitan 523,888 65.6 739,199 68.6 910,720 66.4 Total in the United States 798,849 100.0 1,076,872 100.0 1,372,152 100.0 Source: U.S. Bureau of Census (1990, 2000, 2008). Note: Ten metropolitan areas with more than 10,000 Korean Americans, excluding multi-racial cases, in the 1990 Census are selected. a) The name of the metropolitan area follows the 2008 definitions:

. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CMSA . New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA . Washington-Baltimore-Northern Virginia, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA . San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, CA CMSA . Chicago-Naperville-Michigan City, IL-IN-WI CMSA . Seattle-Tacoma-Olympia, WA CMSA . Philadelphia-Camden-Vineland, PA-NJ-DE-MD CMSA . Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Gainesville, GA-AL CMSA . Honolulu, HI MSA . Dallas-Fort Worth, TX CMSA

There is evidence that large gateway CMSA’s suffered modest decreases in the share of the Korean population with concomitant increases in medium-size Korean centers. How can we explain this change? We suggest that there are closely major related factors that contributed to this change. One major factor is the economic

14 difficulties that these traditional gateway cities experienced, along with high living costs.

As already noted, partly pushed by losses of manufacturing jobs and partly attracted by milder weather and lower living costs, there has been the internal migration of the

American general population, too, from these Mid-west and Northeastern “lust cities” to

Western and Southern “sunbelt cities.”

The other important factor, unique to Korean and other immigrants, but inapplicable to the American general population, is increasing conveniences of cultural and social life for Korean immigrants in medium-size Korean centers by virtue of increasing transnational ties between these cities and Korea. In the 1980s and the 1990s,

Korean immigrants were willing to accept high living costs to live in Los Angeles, New

York and Washington and Chicago areas partly because of their advantages there in maintaining full Korean cultural and social life by virtue of strong ethnic media, many

Korean restaurants, and other enclave businesses catering mainly to Koreans. But many other medium-size Korean communities, such as Atlanta, Dallas and Seattle, had Korean populations by the early 2000s, large enough to provide similar Korean cultural and social amenities. Moreover, by virtue of technological advances and globalization during recent years, full-time Korean TV programs, large Korean grocery chains, such as H-Marts, and many other Korean ethnic stores became available in these non-gateway cities with medium-size Korean populations. When Korean immigrants could enjoy most of Korean the Korean cultural things in Atlanta that they could enjoy only in Los Angeles, many of them would be willing to sell their houses to move to these sunbelt cities.

Another important issue related to Korean Americans’ settlement patterns is the

15 extent to which the Korean population has been more dispersed away from the ten gateway cities. Table 4 shows that the proportion of Korean Americans concentrated in the ten gateway cities decreased from 68.6% in 2000 to 66.4 in 2008. By contrast, the

U.S. population concentrated in the same ten gateway cities increased from 28.9% to

31.3% during the same period. The 2.2% decrease for the Korean population, compared to the 2.3% increase for the general population, may mean a moderate level of dispersal of the Korean population away from the major gateway cities. But this figure is still too small to tell us whether Korean Americans have really moved away from the ten gateway cities. We can answer this question more conclusively when we have access to the 2010

Census.

Table 5 compares Korean Americans settled in the ten largest Korean gateway cities and those in other areas in the selected population characteristics based on the

2006-2008 combined American Community Surveys. We include only single-race

Koreans for this comparison in population characteristics, but we include both single- race and multiracial Koreans only to make a comparison in number of multiracial

Koreans for 1,000 single-race Koreans. As expected, residents in the gateway cities include a larger proportion of the elderly population, while residents in non-gateway cities include a larger proportion of the younger population below 25. Korean elderly people prefer to live in large gate-way Korean communities where they can live comfortably without speaking English. The non-gateway cities have a larger proportion of younger Koreans, partly because of the overrepresentation of Korean college students there. We need to remember that the U.S. Census refers to all foreign-born Koreans,

16 including international students, as “Korean immigrants.”

Table 5: Selected Characteristics of Korean-American Population by Place of Residence, 2006- 2008

Place of Residence 10 Gateway Non-Gateway Characteristics Metropolitan Metropolitan Areas Area Percent of less than 25 years old 29.7 35.5 Percent of 65 years old and over 10.4 6.9 Percent of female 53.1 55.9 Percent of the first generation 56.2 50.5 Percent of the 1.5 generation 19.0 25.9 Percent of recent immigrants arrived within 3 years 6.7 14.1 Number of multiracial Koreans per 1,000 single race 51 185 Koreans Percent of speaking English only at home 15.2 28.6 Percent of intermarriage among the married people 13.9 38.3 Percent of college of more educational attainment 39.5 34.5 Percent of managerial occupations among the 18.4 12.7 employed Percent of professional occupations among the 9.0 11.0 employed Percent of self-employment among the employed 21.5 16.6 Percent of homeownership 55.9 62.5 Source: Authors’ compilation from 2006-2008 American Community Surveys (Ruggles et al. 2008). Note: Gateway metropolitan areas include those in Table 4. The sample excludes the cases of whose metropolitan status is not identified and of the multiracial Koreans.

As expected, Korean residents outside of the gateway cities have higher proportions of multiracial Koreans, intermarried people, and English-only speakers than those in gateway cities. Surprisingly, more than one-third of the married in non-gateway cities are intermarried. The majority of native-born Koreans engage in intermarriage

(Min and Kim 20009). Intermarried Koreans overwhelmingly speak English at home (Kim and Min 2010) and thus they do not have to live in gateway cities. These intermarried

17 and multiracial Korean Americans are expected to compose an increasing proportion of the Korean population in the United States, as the intermarriage rate will increase over generations in the future.

As expected, Korean Americans settled in gateway cities have a higher self- employment rate than those in non-gateway cities. As more of them have their own businesses in large metropolitan areas, they are over-represented in managerial occupations, either in the general economy or from their own businesses, than those in non-gateway cities. As expected, a higher proportion of Korean Americans in non- gateway cities have professional occupations than those in gateway cities. But the difference is not as great as we expected. Since, as previously noted, the vast majority of residents in non-gateway cities still live in metropolitan areas, they are likely to have all kinds of urban occupations. But we expect those Korean Americans settled in small cities, like university towns, to have a high representation in professional occupations, such as medical professions and teaching in higher educational institutions. For these

Koreans, their professional occupations may be the main reason why they live in small cities. They are likely to have far more frequent social interactions with their white

American neighbors and/or co-workers than those who live in gateway cities.

IV: The Korean Population in the NY-NJ Area

We have above noted that all major traditional gateway cities, with the exception of the

San Francisco area, experienced a moderate reduction in the share of the U.S. Korean population between 2000 and 2008. Each of these six Consolidated Metropolitan

18 Statistical Areas consists of two or more metropolitan areas and their adjacent cities. A moderate level of reduction in the share of the Korean population in one CMSA may mean a significant reduction in a particular city within it. In order to see the magnitude of population reduction in a particular city, we need to examine population changes in particular counties or particular central cities.

We are more interested in changes in the Korean population over time in the

New York-New Jersey CMSA and changes in particular counties in the area. The following four tables (Tables 6 to 9) show changes in New York City and suburban areas, and then by county within each area separately. Table 6 shows changes over time in the

NY-NJ CMSA by separating New York City and suburban counties outside of the central city. As previously noted, Between 1990 and 2000, the NY-NJ CMSA achieved a higher rate of increase in the Korean population than the United States as a whole, but in the next eight years it experienced a small gain in the Korean population, suffering a decrease in the share of the population. We can see that during the entire 18 year period New York Central City achieved a modest increase (21%) in the Korean population whereas suburban counties marked a 100% increase. Surprisingly, the Korean population in the central city was reduced by 3% between 2000 and 2008. We suggest that economic difficulties in New York City pushed many Koreans to move away while discouraging new immigrants to settle in the city.

19

Table 6: Changes in the Korean Population in the New York-New Jersey CMSA, 1990-2008

1990 2000 2008 NY-NJ Area N N % change N % change 1990 – 2000 2000 – 2008 Total 118,096 170,509 44.4 183,249 7.5 NY Central City 69,718 86,473 24.0 84,309 -2.5 Suburban Areas 48,378 84,036 73.7 98,940 17.7 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000, 2008)

To see in what years the Korean population began to decline in New York City, we checked changes in populations in the four consecutive years between 2005 and 2008.

As shown in Table 7, the number of Koreans in New York City increased between 2005 and 2006 by approximately 7,000, but it decreased by about 15,000 between 2006 and

2007. In the next year, the Korean population achieved only a tiny increase. The Filipino and Pakistani populations in the city also experienced a minor decrease between 2006 and 2007, with the Chinese and Indian populations achieving only small gains.

Table 7: Asian Population Change in New York City, 2005-2008

Ethnicity 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total Asian 922,978 963,295 973,407 997,629 Chinese*) 422,178 431,829 435,727 464,050 Asian Indian 226,587 230,476 236,117 208,887 Korean 88,912 98,102 83,606 84,309 Filipino 65,090 68,147 67,860 70,448 Pakistani 22,180 27,532 23,841 39,233 Bangladeshi 18,825 24,440 33,805 31,257 Japanese 20,584 24,623 28,716 25,000 Vietnamese 17,455 14,624 18,155 21,768 Other 41,167 43,522 45,580 52,677 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (2005, 2006, 2007, 2008) *The Chinese-American population excludes Taiwanese.

20 We suggest that the financial and sub-prime mortgage problems that began to start in 2007 may have been the major cause of the loss of the Korean and other Asian populations between 2006 and 2007. A large proportion of Korean immigrants in New

York City are self-employed in small businesses (Min 2008). The financial difficulty in the city must have hit hard on Korean immigrant business owners. It is also important to note that the Indian population in New York City dropped by more than 27,000 between

2007 and 2008. Many Indian immigrants work in the IT industry. The financial crisis in

New York City in 2008 may have hit hard on Indian IT specialists between 2007 and 2008.

When the 2010 Census is available in 2012, we need a more systematic analysis of the negative effect of the financial crisis on changes in Asian populations in the 2000s.

Among the approximately one million Asian Americans in New York City in 2008,

Chinese Americans, excluding , account for about 47%. In 2010, they may comprise about half of the Asian population in the city. Asian Indians, the second largest Asian group, makes up 21%. Korean Americans comprise the third largest

Asian group, but outnumber Korean Americans by 5.5 to 1, and

Indian Americans outnumber Korean Americans 2.5 to 1. These numbers tell us the extent to which the Korean community has disadvantages compared to the Chinese or the Indian community in increasing our political power and taking other types of ethnic collective action using number power. Unfortunately, the demographic gap between the

Korean community and other Asian communities in New York City and other areas is likely to increase as time passes.

Table 8 shows the differences among the five boroughs in the changes in the

21 Korean population in the three given years. Queens has been the major Korean population center in New York City, with Flushing serving as . In 1990, about

70% of New York City Koreans lived in Queens. The proportion increased to 72% in 2000, but it was reduced to 67%. Surprisingly, between 2000 and 2007, the Korean population in Queens decreased in the absolute number by about 5%. The Korean populations in

Brooklyn and Bronx also experienced a decrease in the share of Korean Americans in

New York City during the same period. But Manhattan experienced a substantial increase in the share of the Korean population in both time periods, by 3.6% between

1990 and 2000 by 3.6% and by almost 5% between 2000 and 2007. The Korean population in Manhattan achieved a 2.5 times increase between 1990 and 2008.

Table 8: Changes in the Korean Population (Single Race) in New York City by Borough, 1990-2007

1990 2000 2006-2008* New York City N % N % N % Total 69,718 100.0 86,473 100.0 88,162 100.0 Bronx 4,908 7.0 3,845 4.4 3,580 4.1 6,608 9.5 6,210 7.2 6,414 7.3 Manhattan 6,183 8.9 10,848 12.5 15,181 17.2 Queens 49,088 70.4 62,130 71.8 59,098 67.0 Staten Island (Richmond County) 2,931 4.2 3,440 4.0 3,889 4.4 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000, 2006-2008) *We have combined the 2006-2008 ACS 3-year estimates to increase the sample size. The numbers in the last two columns roughly reflect figures in 2007.

We can specify two factors that contributed to a radical increase in the Korean population in Manhattan over the years. One is the big increase in the number of

Korean international students who reside in Manhattan. They include graduate students

22 enrolled at Columbia University, New York University, the CUNY Graduate Center and

New School University, and undergraduate students attending many arts, music and other specialized schools in Manhattan. The other contributing factor is the steady increase in the number of 1.5- and second-generation young adults who work for many companies located in mid-town and downtown Manhattan. Due to the presence of so many young Koreans in Manhattan, it is extremely difficult to interview by phone Korean respondents in Manhattan. Young Koreans usually do not have home phones. Moreover, even if they have home phones, they usually do not stay at home when telephone interview is available.

Table 9 shows changes in the Korean population in the two time periods in major

New York-New Jersey area suburban counties where many Korean Americans are settled.

Korean immigrants in New Jersey are heavily concentrated in Bergen County. All Korean immigrants have heard about a radical increase in the Korean population in Bergen

County over the last two decades or so. But Table 9 shows more accurate statistics about Korean population changes in the county in the two time periods. The number of

Korean Americans in the county in 1990 was about 16,000. It increased by more than twice in 2000 and by 42% between 2000 and 2007. Other New York State counties achieved higher rates of increase in the two time-periods than New York City we examined above. But Bergen County achieved a much higher rate of increase than any other New York State county in both time periods. The Korean population in Bergen

County in 2007 was 51,124, only 37,038 behind of the Korean population in New York

City in 2008. If the current trend continues, in 2020 Korean Americans in Bergen County

23 may outnumber those in New York City. This means that two Korean suburban enclaves in Bergen County, Fort Lee and Palisades , have great potentials for expansions in the future.

Table 9: Growth in Korean Population (Single Race) in Selected NY-NJ Suburban Counties

County 1990 2000 2006-2008 NY-NJ Suburban % of Change % of Change N N N Counties 1990 - 2000 2000 - 2006/2008 Bergen County, NJ 16,073 36,075 124.4 51,124 41.7 Nassau County, NY 5,704 8,339 46.2 10,837 30.0 Suffolk County, NY 3,320 4,209 26.8 4,846 15.1 Rockland County, NY 1,216 1,879 54.5 2,220 18.1 Westchester County, NY 3,572 4,457 24.8 5,106 14.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau (1990, 2000, 2006-2008)

There are a number of factors that have contributed to the great increase in the

Korean population in Bergen County over the past two decades or so. First, many

Korean immigrants who had originally settled in Korean enclaves in Queens, such as

Woodside, Flushing and Elmhurst, re-migrated in the late 1980s and the 1990s to Fort

Lee, Palisades Park and other neighborhoods in Bergen County. They were attracted by presence of better schools, lower crime rates, and good suburban amenities there (Oh

2007: 82). When they re-migrated to Bergen County neighborhoods, they started new chains of further Korean immigration from . Second, Bergen County’s easy accessibility to Manhattan and other parts of New York City also has contributed to the expansion of the Korean population there. Many Korean residents in Bergen County commute to their businesses in Manhattan and other parts of New York City (Oh 2007:

24 84). Also, Korean government employees working for the Korean Consulate General

New York and other Korean government agencies located in Manhattan commute from

Bergen County. Third, the relocation of many branches of Korean multinational corporations originally located in Manhattan to Bergen County from the mid -1980s initially contributed to the increase in the Korean population there. Finally, the development suburban Korean enclaves in Fort Lee and Palisades Park in Bergen County since the late 1980s further attracted more Korean immigrants both from New York City and directly from Korea.

Among the suburban counties in New York State, Nassau County in Long Island had the largest Korean population with nearly 11,000 in 2008 and achieved the highest rate of growth (30%) in the Korean population between 2000 and 2008. The Nassau

County in Long Island is attractive to Korean immigrants mainly because there are several good school districts with first-class public schools. The neighborhoods where

Korean immigrants are concentrated in Long Island, such as New Hyde Park, Great Neck,

Port Washington, Syosset and Jericho, have many first-class high schools.

There are two community districts in Queens where Korean immigrants are highly concentrated. They are Community District 7 consisting of Flushing, College Point,

Whitestone, Bay Terrace and Clearview, and Community District 11 consisting of Bayside,

Auburndale, Little Neck, Hollis Hills, Douglaston and Oakland Gardens. Queens

Community District 7 includes the neighborhood of Flushing where Korean immigrants are most highly concentrated in New York City and where they have created a Korean business district. In 2007, approximately 110,000 single-race Asian Americans were

25 settled in the district, accounting for 44% of the population. , accounting for 47% of the population in District 7, slightly outnumbered Asian Americans.

Asian Americans will make up the majority of the population in Community District 7 soon, and they have already become the majority of the population in the Flushing boundary. Flushing is the only neighborhood outside of the West Coast where Asian

Americans comprise the majority of the population.

In 1990, Korean Americans slightly outnumbered Chinese Americans in the district. But in 2007 Chinese Americans (N=61,720) outnumbered Korean Americans

(25,927) by almost two and a half times. These demographic data show why Korean political candidates have suffered consecutive defeats to Chinese candidates over the last several years in Political District 19. The Chinese-Korean population gap in this area will continue to widen in the future.

But Korean Americans in Community District 7 account for 29% of the Korean population in New York City, while Chinese Americans in the district comprise only 13% of the Chinese population in the city. This means that Flushing is more important for

Korean Americans than it is for Chinese Americans. In fact, Korean immigrants have created a long ethnic business district in the Flushing-Bayside area, stretching about 90 blocks along Northern Boulevard. But Chinese immigrants have created their largest business district in Manhattan Chinatowns. Moreover, they have developed three more satellite Chinatowns in Brooklyn, in addition to the Flushing Chinatown.

Table 10: Racial Characteristics of the Population in Queens District 7*

26 1990 2000 2006-2008 Race N % N % N % Total 220,508 100.0 242,952 100.0 245,749 100.0 White 128,470 58.3 100,231 41.3 87,879 35.8 Black 9,348 4.2 6,873 2.8 5,642 2.3 Asian 48,765 22.1 87,450 36.0 106,623 43.4 Chinese (NA) (NA) 41,777 17.1 61,720 25.1 Korean (NA) (NA) 27,113 11.2 25,927 10.6 Asian Indian (NA) (NA) 11,100 4.6 8,953 3.6 Other Asian (NA) (NA) 7,460 3.1 10,023 4.1 Hispanic 33,130 15.0 40,976 16.9 41,085 16.7 Other Races or 795 .4 7,422 3.1 3,340 1.4 Multi-racial Source: New York City Department of City Planning, Community Districts, Demographic Characteristics *Flushing, College Point, Whitestone, Bay Terrace & Clearview

Queens Community District 7 is connected eastward to Community District 11.

Table 11 shows demographics in Community District 11 in 2007. This community district, encompassing Bayside, Little Neck, Oakland Gardens, Douglaston and their other adjacent areas is a predominantly middle and upper middle-class neighborhood. Almost

40,000 Asian Americans lived in this community district, comprising 40% of the population. This is the second largest Asian population area next to District 7 in Queens.

The percentage of white Americans in Community District 11 decreased from 78% in

1990 to 53% in 2007 while that of Asian Americans increased from 13% to 33%. As of

2010, white Americans may be outnumbered by Asian Americans and Latinos consisting predominantly of immigrants and their children. Asian Americans prefer Community

District 11 because of excellent public schools located there. Like in Community District

7, in this community district Chinese and Korean Americans comprise the first and second largest Asian groups with a relatively small Indian population. And the numerical difference between the two groups was widened between 2000 and 2007. It will

27 continue to do so in the future.

Table 11: Racial Characteristics of the Population in Queens District 1*

1990 2000 2006-2008 N % N % N % Total 108,056 100.0 116,404 100.0 121,985 100.0 White 83,812 77.6 70,210 60.3 64,111 52.6 Black 2,216 2.1 2,289 2.0 2,152 1.8 Asian 14,502 13.4 30,804 26.5 39,001 32.7 Chinese ------14,619 12.6 19,523 16.0 Korean ------11,539 9.9 13,729 11.3 Asian Indian ------2,221 1.9 3,133 2.5 Other Asian ------2,584 2.1 2,616 2.1 Hispanic 7,341 6.8 10,357 8.9 15,062 12.3 Other Races or 185 0.2 2,744 2.4 1,599 1.3 Multi-racial Source: New York City Department of City Planning, Community Districts, Demographic Characteristics *Bayside, Auburndale, Little Heck, Hollis Hills, Douglaston and Oakland Gardens

28

References

Barringer, Herbert, Robert W. Gardner, and Michael J. Levin. 1995. Asians

and Pacific Islanders in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Kim, Chiogon, and Pyong Gap Min. 2010. “Marital Patterns and Use of

Mother Tongue at Home among Native-Born Asian Americans.” Social Forces 88.

Liang, Zai, and Naomi Ito. “Intermarriage of Asian Americans in the New York-New Jersey

Region: Contemporary Trends and Future Prospects.”

Inrternational Migration Review 33: 876-900.

Min, Pyong Gap. 2006a. “Asian Immigration: History and Contemporary

Trends.” Pp.7-31 in Asian Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, Second

Edition, edited by Pyong Gap Min. New York: Pine Forge Press.

_____. 2006b. “Settlement Patterns and Diversity.” Pp.32-53 in in Asian

Americans: Contemporary Trends and Issues, Second Edition, edited by Pyong

Gap Min. New York: Pine Forge Press

_____. 2008. Ethnic Solidarity for Economic Survival: Korean Greengrocers

In New York City. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Min, Pyong Gap, and Chigon Kim. 2009. “Patterns of Intermarriage and

Cross-Generational Inmarriage among Native-Born Asian Americans.”

Intergenerational Migration Review 43: 447-470.

Oh, Sook Hee. 2007. “Immigrant Communities and Ethnic Linkages:

Suburban Koreans in the New York-New Jersey Metropolitan Area.” Dissertation,

29 New School University

30