'Surely'? Why must it 'surely' fit into a preconceived ideological straightjacket? (One who's adherents are like 90% white, FWIW).

The answer is that asian immigrants are a self-selected subset of 1.5B asians in asia.

The social justice mental toolkit doesn't have an answer to this anomaly. American census numbers and the assumption of a normal distribution within them don't square with the highly-motivated subset of Asians who immigrated.

Given that:

    1) Cultural factors often raise people from poor to middle class
    2) The above often happens with little monetary input
    3) Culture is transmissible

In contrast, giving people money and resources has a very poor track record for increasing wealth long term. Why aren't social justice people all about the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge? If anything, on the whole, they seem ideologically in favor of policies that erode the transmission of wealth building cultural knowledge.

I hope you're not asking me, because I don't understand the social justice people at all.

My guess is a combination of social media obsession and limited life experience cause them to optimize for 'sounding woke' over 'things that help real people'.

I think deogeo was being sarcastic, though see also Poe's law.

Aren't all immigrants a highly-motivated subset of their home countries/continents?