The case for including an ethnicity in the minimum reporting categories starts with, largely, that it is both a large community and that it significantly cuts across rather than existing largely within a category already defined as a racial category; "Ethnicities" which would fall almost entirely within the Asian, Asian, or White racial categories don't really have a strong case.

That said, there is probably a good argument for breaking out at least South Asian from Asian as a distinct top-level racial category, in the same way that MENA recently was. (But note that all of the top-level categories also have more detailed breakdowns available, and recent revisions have also moved to require the more detailed options to collected in a wider range of circumstances.)

> The only reason Hispanic is one is because the conquistadors were really, really persistent, murderous, and shameless eh?

Mostly, the opposite: that the successors to the conquistadors were less genocidal and more assimilationist than their British and British-descended North American counterparts.

American born Ethnic Chinese would like a word. As would a very large number of other groups.

The only reason these groups are included this way is because of lobbying power (for and against) and $$ and privileges related to being in or out of various categories.

From an ontological perspective, your argument is BS looking at the actual distributions and ground truth of these groups.

> American born Ethnic Chinese would like a word.

What racial groups in the minimum reporting scheme does this ethnic group cut across, and in what rough proportions?