Its a typical tactic of the media and the globalist. Find a problem, but instead of dealing with the real cause, find some way to turn it towards attacking the desired group.
They did it with "black lives matter" except its summertime and every weekend for a decade you could find black people being murdered in record numbers in places like Chicago and Baltimore by other black people without so much as a peep from them. For some reason the 1% of deaths outweigh the 99% because the race of the shooter is ultimately what matters, not the fact that black people are dying.
Nor does it make sense to call your organization or movement "black lives matter" when you literally ignore the everyday violence in black communities that kills 99% of black people.
If you look at these groups, you should see that many immigrants from Asia were already well off enough to immigrate, so in some sense mid-to-upper class of their societies.
This is not by far the case for native Americans and African Americans, who have been oppressed for generations in America.
To view things from the perspective of race just seems to miss a lot of essential substance.
I’m Bangladeshi, and we are about 20 years behind in that curve. Still higher poverty rates than average (90% immigrated after 2000), but moving rapidly toward parity. Also, being upper class in “old country” doesn’t mean coming here with money. My family was upper class in Bangladesh. But a Bangladeshi college degree is worthless here. My dad came here with a job from a US company, but we were the exception. Most of my aunts and uncles work retail and service jobs.
For recent migrants, sure. For others, we spent over a century putting them in ghettos, rail gangs and concentration camps. Broadly speaking, I see no gain for anyone, minorities the least, in creating a caste system of victimhood in America.
Edited to please the pedantic among us.
There are actually many reasons why immigrants cannot be directly compared to native populations. A huge one, for example, is that you're not just selecting from those who are typically filtered according to some meritocratic criteria, but you're also filtering people who are motivated enough and sufficiently risk averse so as to upend their whole lives and move somewhere. This is what I meant by controlling for these factors.
In regards to viewing things from the perspective of race, I agree completely. I think that making decisions on the basis of race is functionally the core of racism. That being said, the people whose narratives I'm combatting are racial identitarians, they make arguments in terms of racial populations, and have to be addressed in such terms. i.e. if they say that America is a horribly racist country whose systems are dictated by white supremacy and patriarchy, the only way to tease these arguments apart is by pulling out racial statistics.
The homicide rate of India proper is 2.9 cases per 100,000 population. That of Asian Americans is about the same.
The rate for African Americans is around 18
However, if you are motivated by ... other things, I'm sure you can just jump to conclusions and tell us all the statistics you have about African Americans.
It seems you base your beliefs on things you imagine instead of facts.
There are many examples in history where it was the privileged class/race/ethnicity/group that was the most murderous one.
Spartiates, Normans, elites of Renaissance Italy, even Nazis (see: The Night of Long Knives).
Also, gangs can be seen as proto-states, and a lot of today's criminal violence is gang-related. There isn't really that much difference between, say, drug cartels and the kind of violent packs of future nobility that raided and terrorized Early Middle Age villages in the post-Roman world.
And very importantly for this discussion, an immigrant has no criminal record. So the people who have commited crimes are already filtered out in this process.
At least with this issue, however, the reasoning as to why data is being manipulated is so abundantly clear that there is actually virtually no loss of information for the time being. The reality is that Asians largely constitute a problem for the prevailing narrative around racial and ethnic power dynamics. Indians, for example, despite being "brown," and despite being from a "developing" country, are overwhelmingly overrepresented in upper economic echelons. This holds true not just when compared to natively born Americans, but also when controlling for immigration and starting economic conditions. They're also extremely underrepresented in violent crime statistics. Many of these figures remain consistent across the board for Asians living in the US, despite living in a system "designed to explicitly benefit white men." The"model minority myth" is a pathetic manipulation of information in an attempt to account for the narrative-breaking statistics regarding Asian immigrants.
When it comes to violence against Asians, there are multiple reasons to muddy the waters, because there are multiple reasons why statistics cause problems. For one, it has been well established that the "racial" group that is overrepresented in violence against Asians is not "white" people. This is clearly a large problem on its own, but it isn't the only problem. The other problem is seeing how disproportionately low violent crime is within the Asian community, even when controlling for economic factors.
TL;DR this is unacceptable, but at least for now, completely predictable. In a decade or so, however, the information we had a year ago could be considered out of date, and narratives can be shielded from data.