4 ms·

> the US for 6 years, a person has to wait another 10 years to reap the benefits of permanent residency simply because they were born in a particular country is

> the US for 6 years, a person has to wait another 10 years to reap the benefits of permanent residency simply because they were born in a particular country is morally indefensible When phrased that way, sure it feels that way. But it's not because you are born in a specific country, it's because your country of origin has a lot of people who are attempting to immigrate to the US, and each country is capped. Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out. So instead of penalizing Indians (in this case), you've now penalized everyone else. What system, given a fixed number of applicants, would not apply some sort of penalty by proxy? Contrast that to pre-1960's where laws SPECIFICALLY targeted blacks american citizens. The US has no moral requirement to treat non-us citizens 100% the same as it does it's citizens. Yes they have perhaps lived in the US for 6 years, and paid US Taxes. They have also enjoyed a certain level of comfort afforded them, that they presumably would not have had in their native country.

shas3 11y ago
> Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out. You are assuming that they will lock-out without supporting with real data. Already 30% of H1Bs are taken by Indians, and a good percentage of family based immigration is from Mexico. India and China make up around 35% of the world's population. A uniformly drawn sample of immigrants from across the world would consist of 35% Indians and Chinese. Further, Mexico is America's neighbor, and the two countries share a lot of history. The number of Indians has grown from 1.7 million in 2000 to 2.8 million in 2010 in spite of the caps. The numbers are not magically going to explode, most of the people who're in the green card queue will likely duke it out and become citizens in due time. Their children will likely stay in the US too. So, I don't see how the caps are limiting or democratizing the process. You don't have caps at H1B, you don't have caps for citizenship. Only the in-between stage of permanent residency, caps exist. That already makes it an ineffective tool in un-biasing the skew.
- balls187 11y ago
  If I understood your original point correctly, it was that having country-limits for US residency was morally questionable, and tantamount to jim-crow era laws against Blacks in America. Presumably because if you are an guest worker in the US, and of Indian citizenship, you would have a longer wait time, than if you were say from Bhutan. I classify this as a penalization by proxy. I pointed out that if you lifted the per-country cap, you haven't solved this penalization by proxy. Even with caps based on world population, you still have a penalty applied.
Brig303 11y ago
Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese. If this is defensible, then racial quotas in schools (e.g., capping proportion of Jews) are also defensible by using the same logic as "you're now penalizing everyone else." I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China. Sorry, can't really see how the moral argument works.
- balls187 11y ago
  > Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese. However, you've then penalized someone born in in Mongolia, simply because they come from a less populous country, vs the opposite that is happening now. I'm not claiming there is a moral argument to be made: the way the US residency program is implemented is neither moral or immoral. > I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China. How do you qualify "best" & "brightest?" I'm a 1st generation US Citizen (of Indian decent). Both my parents immigrated here. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and then continued to serve in the US Army for 20 years, and my mom was a lunch lady. My parents don't have CS degrees, and instead worked blue collar jobs to make sure we could have a better life than they did.

shas3 11y ago

> Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out. You are assuming that they will lock-out without supporting with real data. Already 30% of H1Bs are taken by Indians, and a good percentage of family based immigration is from Mexico. India and China make up around 35% of the world's population. A uniformly drawn sample of immigrants from across the world would consist of 35% Indians and Chinese. Further, Mexico is America's neighbor, and the two countries share a lot of history. The number of Indians has grown from 1.7 million in 2000 to 2.8 million in 2010 in spite of the caps. The numbers are not magically going to explode, most of the people who're in the green card queue will likely duke it out and become citizens in due time. Their children will likely stay in the US too. So, I don't see how the caps are limiting or democratizing the process. You don't have caps at H1B, you don't have caps for citizenship. Only the in-between stage of permanent residency, caps exist. That already makes it an ineffective tool in un-biasing the skew.

balls187 11y ago
If I understood your original point correctly, it was that having country-limits for US residency was morally questionable, and tantamount to jim-crow era laws against Blacks in America. Presumably because if you are an guest worker in the US, and of Indian citizenship, you would have a longer wait time, than if you were say from Bhutan. I classify this as a penalization by proxy. I pointed out that if you lifted the per-country cap, you haven't solved this penalization by proxy. Even with caps based on world population, you still have a penalty applied.

Brig303 11y ago

Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese. If this is defensible, then racial quotas in schools (e.g., capping proportion of Jews) are also defensible by using the same logic as "you're now penalizing everyone else." I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China. Sorry, can't really see how the moral argument works.

balls187 11y ago
> Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese. However, you've then penalized someone born in in Mongolia, simply because they come from a less populous country, vs the opposite that is happening now. I'm not claiming there is a moral argument to be made: the way the US residency program is implemented is neither moral or immoral. > I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China. How do you qualify "best" & "brightest?" I'm a 1st generation US Citizen (of Indian decent). Both my parents immigrated here. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and then continued to serve in the US Army for 20 years, and my mom was a lunch lady. My parents don't have CS degrees, and instead worked blue collar jobs to make sure we could have a better life than they did.