Why India and China's Population Size Make Them an Immigration Problem

Key findings

• China and India each have over one billion people, more than four times the population of the United States and about 3.2 times the population of the entire 27-state European Union.
• Just 0.01% of either country's population represents between 142,000 and 145,000 people, which would be a substantial addition to the average European country or American state.
• Most recent estimates show approximately 4.63 million Indian residents and 4.28 million Chinese (non-Taiwanese) residents in the United States. ^[9]
• The same is true in Canada, Australia, and many European countries, where India and China account for a large percentage of the total immigrant population.
• Both China and India can afford to send millions - even tens of millions - more of their citizens to the West, without a large change in their own population.

1%2%5%35 million Indians

0m10m20m30m40m

India29m

China28.4m

For scale: 29 million people equals 8.7% of the 335 million US population benchmark.

Sources: UN population estimates and US Census Bureau benchmarks cited in the article.

An enormous scale

When it comes to immigration, population size matters. When we think of migration from a country like Eritrea, Cuba, or Portugal, mass immigration isn't really a problem. Even if a huge influx comes in over a few years period, the influx will stop due to the source country's small size. When it comes to a country with 1.4 billion people (i.e. about 130 times the size of Portugal and 49 times the size of Venezuela), mass immigration can continue for decades.

Immigration policy is cumulative. For example, in 1991, the United States granted permanent residency to 1.8 million people^[10] and issued over 51,000 H-1B visas^[8]; the first few years - maybe even one decade - of doing this is not necessary a problem. However, 35 years of this is an issue - in 2026, we now have significant demographic changes in our country. Not only that, millions of high-paying jobs are going to a minority, non-foundational immigrant group, while the cost of living has gone up for all Americans.

Some simple arithmetic

One percent of India is about 14.5 million people, more than Belgium's entire population. Two percent is about 29 million, roughly the population of Texas. With India's population continuing to rise and a low quality of living, it's not inconceivable that much more than 2% of the country wants to leave, and would if given the chance.

With the sorts of progressive governments that we have seen in the West, it would also not be inconceivable to see large increases in Indian immigration.

India and China are already concentrated in particular places

We can already see what a future of continued progressive immigration policies looks like. In the most recent Census estimates, Indian residents accounted for nearly 40% of Edison, New Jersey and 19.3 % of Frisco, Texas^[9] Many areas of the California Bay Area have significant Indian and Chinese groups - Fremont, for example, is at 29.9% Indian while Cupertino is at 28.1% Chinese.

Indian

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Edison, NJ39.3%

Fremont, CA29.9%

Cupertino, CA29.2%

Frisco, TX19.3%

Naperville, IL13.5%

San Jose, CA8.1%

Chinese

0%10%20%30%40%50%

Edison, NJ5.8%

Fremont, CA17.3%

Cupertino, CA28.1%

Frisco, TX2.3%

Naperville, IL4.1%

San Jose, CA8.7%

Census tables B02015 and B01003. Single-group identification, all generations; Chinese excludes Taiwanese. Selected examples, not a national ranking.

While Chinese people are often areligious or Christian, Indians build Hindu temples, in direct contrast with the religion of the country that they were welcomed into.

Cuba and the Dominican Republic are the opposites

Cuban migration shows why origin size and geography matter. Cuban Americans have had a major influence in South Florida and a significant presence in Tampa. That is a real national story, but it is also geographically concentrated. India and China have much larger populations and migration networks spread across technology centers, universities, health care, finance, and professional services.

The comparison should not be used to claim that every Cuban, Indian, or Chinese immigrant votes alike. It shows something narrower: a migration stream can be politically important because of where it concentrates, how large its source population is, and how long the pipeline remains open.

Japan shows the same pressure in a different system

Japan has retained a much more restrictive immigration system than the United States, but its official statistics still show the scale effect. China is the largest nationality group among Japan's foreign residents, with roughly 930,000 people according to most recent estimates.^[5] This is despite the fact that China is not a friendly, allied country for Japan - it's simply that China can afford to send millions abroad.

What we should do

A workable policy would do four things:

1. End the H-1B visa. The United States was doing fine before 1991, without mass immigration and the H-1B visa.
2. Prevent a single country from dominating a visa category. The H-1B data show what happens when a neutral credential rule meets two enormous labor pools.
3. Limit chain migration to the closest family relationships and make the long-run population effect explicit.

Those are ordinary sovereign decisions. They do not require hostility toward any nationality. They require lawmakers to acknowledge that immigration policy is also population policy.

The choice

India and China do not need to send a majority of their populations abroad to reshape receiving countries. One or two percent is enough to produce numbers measured in tens of millions. The United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan therefore face the same basic question: will admissions be set by a deliberate national capacity target, or will they remain an open-ended pipeline whose eventual size is determined by the population of the source country?

The first approach treats immigration as a tool of national policy. The second treats demographic change as an accidental byproduct of visa rules. A country can choose either, but it should be honest about the choice.