well i would question race completely. as you see there is a continuum from east eurasia to west eurasia so you can't really divide those too. there is probably also a cline from SSA's to westeurasians. so in the end taking nationality would be way more accurate instead of these large categories. or just not categorize at all. it's just going to be a matter of definition.
Well, they're doing the study, so I guess they get to define the categories.
You can't use a nationality for "African Americans", because they are a mix of different ethnic groups from Africa. There's just no way to do it. They don't have a clue precisely which ones and neither do scientists. So, African-American would perhaps be the best choice, but although used for a long time, they now prefer to be called "black".
How precisely would you assign a nationality to a French, German, Irish, Italian, Polish American??? The U.S. is not like Europe.
As for Near Easterners it's a little murkier. I remember that when the pictures of the two Chechen brothers who did the bombing at the Boston Marathon were released, a lot of the police chatter was about two "white" males. So, for a lot of people, yes, they are white. Osama Bin Laden, who was mostly Yemeni, many people might say no, as they might say no about a lot of North Africans. Interestingly, when there was still segregation, Armenians went to court to be classified as "white", and were, and the same thing happened with the Christian Lebanese.
For the purposes of statistics like this, I suppose they could have a "European descent" and a "Near Eastern" descent, because they're trying to determine current rates of admixture between newer immigrants from different cultures with "older", European descent Americans.