Ethnicity in the census: US, Canada, UK compared

[King of Kensington]

I'm sure most are familiar with the US format: Hispanic origin and then a race question.
 
In Canada it is as follows:

First, everyone is asked their ethnic/cultural origins.

Next is an Aboriginal identity question.  If the answer is yes - one specifies First Nations (North American Indian), Inuit, Metis.  They are then directed to questions about Indian status and band membership. Those who are not Aboriginal, they go on to a population group question which includes the following groups (they can circle all that apply):

White
South Asian (e.g. East Indian, Pakistani, Sri Lankan, etc.)
Chinese
Black
Filipino
Latin American
Arab
Southeast Asian (e.g. Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, etc.)
West Asian (e.g. Iranian, Afghan, etc.)
Korean
Japanese
Other - specify

These responses are classified into not visible minority (white and Aboriginal) and various VM groups.
 "White and Latin American", "White and Arab" and "White and West Asian" responses are not considered visible minorities and thus not included in the Latin American VM, Arab VM and West Asian VM counts.  However Black/white and white combined with East or South Asian groups are considered members of those visible minority groups.

In England and Wales respondents are asked "What is your ethnic group? and have the following options.

A.  White

English/Welsh/Scottish/Northern Irish/British
Irish
Gypsy or Irish Traveller
Any other White background, write-in

B.  Mixed/multiple ethnic groups

White and Black Caribbean
White and Black African
White and Asian
Any other Mixed/multiple ethnic background, write-in

C.  Asian/Asian British

Indian
Pakistani
Bangladeshi
Chinese
Any other Asian background, write-in

D.  Black/African/Caribbean/Black British

African
Caribbean
Any other Black/African/Caribbean background, write-in

E.  Other ethnic group

Arab
Any other ethnic group, write-in

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Do you prefer one to the others?

[King of Kensington]

Each seems to work for their context, but it seems that the Canadian system has an obvious box for everyone whereas there is some ambiguity for some groups such as Middle Easterners in the US.  It's also not clear where "Asian" ends in the UK context, even though traditionally Asian = South Asian there.  Where do Iranians or Afghans fit, for example?

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

Yes Middle Easterners always seem to end up in an ambiguous space, especially Iranians, Afghans and other Indo-Aryan ethnic groups.
I believe that is mainly because Indo-Iranian peoples and their descendants are usually perceived by Europeans and their descendants as "other" even if both groups have the same (proto-Indo-European) origin (and usually look the same: have you ever seen a photograph of Khaled Hosseini?).


By the way, many Western countries, like France, Italy and Spain, do not ask or are prohibited by law to ask ethnic-related questions in the Census.

[King of Kensington]

The US census explicitly instructs all those with origins in Europe, the Middle East and North Africa as "White."  And there is some logic to it in the sense that it's not as simple as "Europe = white, Middle East = brown."  But most Middle Eastern immigrants are not functionally white in the US, hence the push for a MENA (Middle Eastern and North African) category.

[King of Kensington]

Australia has an ancestry question but no "race" question.

[Storr]

Of the three, I prefer the Canadian system. It allows less ambiguity than the other two.

[支持核绿派 (Greens4Nuclear)]

Of the three, I prefer the Canadian system. It allows less ambiguity than the other two.

"Visible minority" better describes groups of people that are not of indigenous descent and cannot physically pass as "white". It's less reductive than "people of color" (which places too much emphasis on skin tone IMO), and is more precise than "mInOrItY".

In Canada...

These responses are classified into not visible minority (white and Aboriginal) and various VM groups.
 "White and Latin American", "White and Arab" and "White and West Asian" responses are not considered visible minorities and thus not included in the Latin American VM, Arab VM and West Asian VM counts.  However Black/white and white combined with East or South Asian groups are considered members of those visible minority groups.

[King of Kensington]

The Census "visible minority" question lines up with employment equity (affirmative action) categories.

Statistics Canada started using the VM category in 1996, before that it was an ethnic origin question.

One reason to have Visible Minority category is for the Black population which has specific needs and isn't necessarily captured by an "ethnic origin" question.  Apparently there was difficulty in getting an accurate count prior to 1996.

[King of Kensington]

For selected Middle Eastern/North African (broadly defined) groups:

VM minority identity (and total population)

Afghan  96.4% (84,000)
Iranian 83.2% (210,405)
Arab nos  82.8% (111,405)
Iraqi  82.6% (70,920)
Palestinian  80.1% (44,820)
Egyptian  68.3% (99,135)
Moroccan  62.8% (103,945)
Syrian  62.1% (77,045)
Algerian  59% (67,335)
Turkish  28.7% (63,955)
Armenian  12.5% (63,810)
Israeli  7.4% (28,740)

[King of Kensington]

And for Latin American groups:

Salvadorean  85.1% (66,220)
Colombian  80.9%  (96,325)
Peruvian  73.9% (42,145)
Chilean  60% (45,185)
Mexican  50.7% (128,485)
Brazilian  42.2% (36,830)