The log odds ratio ($\beta$) comparing Filipinos with Chinese can be computed as:
$$\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}} = \beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,white}} - \beta_{\mathrm{Chinese,white}}$$
So, the the variance of the sampling distribution of that log odds ratio is:
$$\mathrm{var}(\beta_{\mathrm{Philipino,Chinese}}) = \mathrm{var}(\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino, white}}) + \mathrm{var}(\beta_{\mathrm{Chinese,white}}) - 2\mathrm{cov}(\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,white}}, \beta_{\mathrm{Chinese,white}})$$
So, you do not only need the standard errors (squaring these will give you the variances) but also the covariance of the sampling distribution of $\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,white}}$ and $\beta_{\mathrm{Chinese,white}}$. These are typically stored in a variance covariance matrix, but I am not familiar enought with SAS to tell you where SAS leaves this behind.
The standard error ($\mathrm{se}$) is the square root of this variance:
$$ \mathrm{se}(\beta_{\mathrm{Philipino,Chinese}}) = \sqrt{\mathrm{var}(\beta_{\mathrm{Philipino,Chinese}})} $$
The odds ratios is just: $OR_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}} = \exp(\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}})$. You can than use the delta method to approximate the standard error for the odds ratio:
$$\mathrm{se}(OR_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}}) \approx \exp(\beta_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}}) \times \mathrm{se}(\beta_{\mathrm{Philipino,Chinese}})$$
The confidence interval of the odds ratio comparing Filipinos and Chinese is than approximately:
$$ OR_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}} \pm 1.96 \mathrm{se}(OR_{\mathrm{Filipino,Chinese}}) $$
As you said: it basically means that there is a difference in your dependent variable between your reference race (Asian in your case) and people of Indian race.
The non-significance of the other two indicates that you haven't been able to detect such a difference between the other two races and the reference race (which of course does not mean that there isn't one). So no difference in the dependent variable detected for black vs Asian, and no difference in the dependent variable detected for white vs Asian.
Best Answer
You are right about the interpretation of the betas when there is a single categorical variable with $k$ levels. If there were multiple categorical variables (and there were no interaction term), the intercept ($\hat\beta_0$) is the mean of the group that constitutes the reference level for both (all) categorical variables. Using your example scenario, consider the case where there is no interaction, then the betas are:
We can also think of this in terms of how to calculate the various group means:
\begin{align} &\bar x_{\rm White\ Males}& &= \hat\beta_0 \\ &\bar x_{\rm White\ Females}& &= \hat\beta_0 + \hat\beta_{\rm Female} \\ &\bar x_{\rm Black\ Males}& &= \hat\beta_0 + \hat\beta_{\rm Black} \\ &\bar x_{\rm Black\ Females}& &= \hat\beta_0 + \hat\beta_{\rm Female} + \hat\beta_{\rm Black} \end{align}
If you had an interaction term, it would be added at the end of the equation for black females. (The interpretation of such an interaction term is quite convoluted, but I walk through it here: Interpretation of interaction term.)
Update: To clarify my points, let's consider a canned example, coded in
R
.The means of
y
for these categorical variables are:We can compare the differences between these means to the coefficients from a fitted model:
The thing to recognize about this situation is that, without an interaction term, we are assuming parallel lines. Thus, the
Estimate
for the(Intercept)
is the mean of white males. TheEstimate
forSexFemale
is the difference between the mean of females and the mean of males. TheEstimate
forRaceBlack
is the difference between the mean of blacks and the mean of whites. Again, because a model without an interaction term assumes that the effects are strictly additive (the lines are strictly parallel), the mean of black females is then the mean of white males plus the difference between the mean of females and the mean of males plus the difference between the mean of blacks and the mean of whites.