South Asian Community Survey
SAAVETX EF / South Asian community survey / 2026

Belonging
under pressure.

01 / belonging

Belonging and acceptance do not always align.

Most respondents identify at least somewhat strongly as American and Texan. Yet only 34.4% feel South Asians are completely or mostly accepted in Texas, and 21.4% feel not very or not at all accepted. Cultural-expression responses show how belonging can coexist with caution.

FIG. 1

How strongly respondents identify

Identify at least somewhat strongly as American
71.6%
Identify at least somewhat strongly as Texan
66.5%
Identify at least somewhat strongly as Asian American
50.1%
Identify at least somewhat strongly as South Asian
85.6%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 2

How accepted do South Asians feel in Texas?

Completely or mostly accepted
34.4%
Somewhat accepted
39.1%
Not very or not at all accepted
21.4%
Don’t know
5.0%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 3

Birthplace

Born in the United States
13.1%
Born outside the United States
86.9%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 4

Citizenship status

U.S. citizen by birth
11.8%
Naturalized U.S. citizen
46.3%
Not a U.S. citizen
37.5%
Prefer not to answer
4.4%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 5

How respondents describe cultural visibility

I feel completely comfortable being visibly South Asian in Texas.
31.3%
I am proud of my culture, but I am sometimes careful about expressing it publicly.
31.5%
I feel pressure to fit in and appear less culturally different.
12.0%
I sometimes feel that being visibly South Asian makes me a target.
14.4%
I don’t think about my South Asian identity very much.
9.9%
Other
0.9%
0%25%50%75%100%
02 / discrimination

Hate and discrimination reach into everyday life.

Respondents report slurs, exclusion, online harassment, threats and other experiences. Immigration policy also reaches families and their close networks.

FIG. 6

More than half experienced hate in the past year

57.5%

of South Asian adults report at least one experience of hate in Texas in the past 12 months because of their race, ethnicity, religion, nationality, accent, or immigration background

60.8%

report at least one personal experience or setting of unfair treatment

FIG. 7

Personal experiences in the past 12 months

Personal experiences in the past 12 months — exploded pie chartSlices show the share of weighted affirmative category reports. Respondents may report multiple categories. Legend percentages show the percentage of adults reporting each experience.An insulting remark or slur 30.6% of adults 21.1% of affirmative category reports1Being told or made to feel that you do not belong here 28.5% of adults 19.6% of affirmative category reports2Harassment online or on social media 27.0% of adults 18.6% of affirmative category reports3Being treated as though you were not a U.S. citizen or legal resident 21.8% of adults 15.0% of affirmative category reports4Being told to “go back” to another country 21.1% of adults 14.5% of affirmative category reports5A threat of violence 6.4% of adults 4.4% of affirmative category reports6Damage to your property or a place of worship 6.3% of adults 4.3% of affirmative category reports7Physical violence 3.6% of adults 2.5% of affirmative category reports8

Percentage of adults reporting each experience

1An insulting remark or slur30.6%
2Being told or made to feel that you do not belong here28.5%
3Harassment online or on social media27.0%
4Being treated as though you were not a U.S. citizen or legal resident21.8%
5Being told to “go back” to another country21.1%
6A threat of violence6.4%
7Damage to your property or a place of worship6.3%
8Physical violence3.6%

Slices show each category’s share of all weighted affirmative category reports. Labels show the percentage of adults. Respondents could report more than one experience, so the adult percentages do not add to 100%.

FIG. 8

Exposure to exclusionary rhetoric

64.1%

heard “invaders,” “outsiders,” or similar terms sometimes or frequently in the past two years

FIG. 9

Immigration policies and family impact

79.3%

say they, a family member, or someone close was directly affected by at least one listed immigration policy, action, or proceeding

H-1B/H-4 visa issues
39.3%
Green card or permanent residency delays
30.4%
Visa application or renewal problems
23.5%
Travel or re-entry concerns related to immigration status
28.3%
Concern about losing legal immigration status
18.2%
0%25%50%75%100%
03 / cultural expression

Concerns about treatment change daily routines.

Comfort expressing culture and avoiding particular activities can coexist. The summary below captures the breadth of behavioral changes.

FIG. 10

Changing routines because of concerns about treatment

57.3%

avoided at least one listed activity

23.8%

avoided two or more listed activities

1.52

average activities avoided among those avoiding at least one

Across all adults, the average is 0.87 activities. Respondents could select multiple activities; each person is counted once in each summary.

FIG. 11

Avoidance among respondents reporting discrimination or unfair treatment

71.5%

avoided at least one activity among those reporting a personal experience or unfair treatment

04 / reporting and rhetoric

Many experiences go unreported.

Reporting behavior, perceived explanations for hate, and views of political rhetoric provide context for the community’s experiences.

FIG. 12

Reporting experiences of hate or unfair treatment

Yes
20.3%
No
44.5%
Not sure whether it should be considered reportable
14.1%
Don’t know who to report to
7.2%
Don’t want to cause attention
11.2%
Prefer not to answer
2.6%
0%25%50%75%100%

Base: 598 adults reporting at least one experience in S27 or S28. Reporting includes any recipient, including family or friends.

FIG. 13

How South Asians perceive hate and political hostility

Share saying political rhetoric about each group contributes to hostility a great deal or somewhat.

Immigrants
66.2%
H-1B/work-visa workers
71.8%
Muslims
61.0%
Hindus
46.6%
Sikhs
38.9%
South Asians generally
61.9%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 14

The four most common personal effects of rhetoric

Made me pay more attention to politics
38.3%
Made me more concerned about my family's future
36.3%
Made me more concerned about discrimination
32.3%
Made me more concerned about immigration policy
30.1%
0%25%50%75%100%
05 / representation

Lack of Representation Drives Civic Participation

Respondents describe gaps in representation while reporting a range of civic activities. Outreach measures contact from anyone encouraging registration or voting.

FIG. 15

Representation and political power

63.7%

say elected officials understand South Asian concerns not too well or not at all

53.6%

feel South Asians have a little or no political power in Texas

FIG. 16

Voter outreach in the past 12 months

Yes
45.8%
No
45.4%
Not sure
8.8%
0%25%50%75%100%

Base: South Asian registered voters.

FIG. 17

Civic participation

92.4%

have participated in at least one listed civic activity other than voting

Encouraged someone to vote
45.1%
Signed a petition
27.2%
Donated to a civic/community organization
26.6%
Attended a community meeting
21.2%
Volunteered for a nonprofit/community organization
20.6%
Contacted an elected official
18.4%
0%25%50%75%100%
06 / voting motivation

Political climate and candidate engagement shape voting motivation.

Voting measures in this section describe South Asian registered voters.

FIG. 18

Likelihood of voting in November

78.5%

certain to vote or probably will vote in the November 3, 2026 election

FIG. 19

Self-reported effect on November voting motivation

Less motivated8.2%More motivated49.8%
60%060%
37.1%

no difference

4.8%

not sure

FIG. 20

Candidates speaking out against discrimination

52.0%

much more likely to vote for a candidate who speaks out against discrimination toward South Asians

77.6%

much or somewhat more likely

07 / representation and issues

Voters bring a range of priorities and political views.

Community experiences are part of the political context. Cost of living and education remain the most frequently selected voting priorities.

FIG. 21

The most frequently selected voting issues

Cost of living
34.4%
Education
21.2%
Immigration and visas
19.2%
Property taxes
18.8%
Health care
18.1%
Jobs/wages
17.2%
Discrimination and hate
15.1%
Public safety/crime
13.4%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 22

Party identification

Democrat
48.2%
Republican
16.7%
Independent
28.5%
Another party
2.1%
Not sure
3.5%
Prefer not to answer
0.9%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 23

2024 presidential vote

In the 2024 presidential election, 64.5% report voting for Kamala Harris and 25.4% for Donald Trump.

Kamala Harris
64.5%
Donald Trump
25.4%
Another candidate
4.1%
Did not vote
2.1%
Was not eligible to vote
2.3%
Don’t remember
1.0%
Prefer not to answer
0.6%
0%25%50%75%100%
FIG. 24

Most registered voters identify as moderate or liberal

77.1%

of South Asian registered voters in Texas identify as moderate, somewhat liberal, or very liberal.

LiberalModerateConservative
Very liberal9.6%
Somewhat liberal26.9%
Moderate40.6%
Somewhat conservative13.6%
Very conservative4.0%
Not sure4.4%
Prefer not to answer0.9%
08 / election snapshot

An election snapshot of South Asian registered voters.

FIG. 25

Concern about harassment or intimidation when voting

47.0%

very or somewhat concerned that they or someone they know might face harassment or intimidation while registering or voting

Base: South Asian registered voters. This question measures concern about possible harassment or intimidation.

FIG. 26

Candidate choice with every response retained

U.S. Senate

Ken Paxton — Republican21.1%
James Talarico — Democrat66.4%
Ted Brown — Libertarian2.9%
Another candidate1.3%
Would not vote in this race2.0%
Undecided6.3%

Governor

Greg Abbott — Republican27.3%
Gina Hinojosa — Democrat62.5%
Another candidate1.2%
Would not vote in this race1.6%
Undecided7.4%

U.S. House — generic party choice

Republican candidate22.8%
Democratic candidate67.1%
Another candidate1.7%
Would not vote in this race0.7%
Undecided7.8%

Methodology

The SAAVETX EF South Asian Community Survey includes 1,000 South Asian adults age 18 or older living in Texas. The survey was fielded in October 2026 using mixed-mode recruitment including online panels, text-to-survey, and traditional phones. South Asians were identified by Tom K. Wong of UC San Diego using BISFG plus a machine-learning ensemble trained on billions of genealogical records. Weights are calculated using iterative proportional fitting (“raking”) and ACS target proportions. The full adult sample includes 1,000 respondents. Adult weights range from 0.457 to 2.467, with a Kish weighting design effect of 1.248 and an effective sample size of approximately 801. The conventional 95% maximum margin-of-error approximation based on this effective sample size is +/- 3.46 percentage points.