3 ms·

> Indian or Chinese engineers who applied 12 years ago are getting their GCs now Backlog for Chinese engineers is 6 years, not 12. > Those that apply now will

by crypto5 10y ago

> Indian or Chinese engineers who applied 12 years ago are getting their GCs now Backlog for Chinese engineers is 6 years, not 12. > Those that apply now will likely get it in a few decades only. Is word "likely" here based on any analysis? Or you throw random statements as usually? > Why is that so? Perhaps per country cap was implemented for a reason: immigrants to US are culturally and nationally diverse, not just all Indians. Also I suggest you to spend your energy fighting against h1b and l1 scam from Indian consulting companies. It will relax situation for real Indian high skilled engineers significantly.

mavelikara 10y ago
>> Indian or Chinese engineers who applied 12 years ago are getting their GCs now > Backlog for Chinese engineers is 6 years, not 12. That is correct. >> Those that apply now will likely get it in a few decades only. > Is word "likely" here based on any analysis? Or you throw random statements as usually? It is based on analysis. Please see: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-will-have-wait http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra... >> Why is that so? > Perhaps per country cap was implemented for a reason: immigrants to US are culturally and nationally diverse, not just all Indians. Yes, that is the _stated_ reason. Cultural diversity, I can understand. But national diversity? Why should tiny nations of one continent be preferred over larger nations of another? The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 had gone some way in fixing these discriminatory immigration preferences. > Also I suggest you to spend your energy fighting against h1b and l1 scam from Indian consulting companies. It will relax situation for real Indian high skilled engineers significantly. Agreed that this also needs be to fixed.
- crypto5 10y ago
  > It is based on analysis. Please see: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra.. http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra.... So, that analysis extrapolates 2 numbers from 2006 and 2008 years to timeframe of 20 years. Looks very strange for me. > But national diversity? Obviously, there is a strong correlation between national and cultural diversity, and since it is hard to set metrics for culture diversity, national diversity has been used.
  - mavelikara 10y ago
    > So, that analysis extrapolates 2 numbers from 2006 and 2008 years to timeframe of 20 years. Looks very strange for me. Having been on the receiving end of this for nearly a decade now, knowing many people who have been waiting even longer, and having read about this issue for many years - it does not look strange to me. > Obviously, there is a strong correlation between national and cultural diversity, and since it is hard to set metrics for culture diversity, national diversity has been used. And I am pointing out instances where this heuristic does not apply. Kerala and Gujrat have as much cultural diversity as any two countries in Europe. So, back to the original question - why is the attitude "Well, it is after all just the Indians!" OK?
    - crypto5 10y ago
      > Having been on the receiving end of this for nearly a decade now Decade and 20-50 years from your initial statement and cited analysis are quite different timeframes. This is another example of you bringing non-sense statements in order to "win" discussion no matter what. > Kerala and Gujrat have as much cultural diversity as any two countries in Europe. I don't know this, and I don't trust your statements from obvious reasons. And obviously setting cups for individual India provinces will open many more doors for cheating for Indian consulting companies.
      - mavelikara 10y ago
        > Decade and 20-50 years from your initial statement and cited analysis are quite different timeframes. > This is another example of you bringing non-sense statements in order to "win" discussion no matter what. See, if you'd stop attributing malice to everything I say, you might be able to understand this better. I am waiting for close to a decade and I am still unsure when I will get it. People applying now, are looking at a 20-50 year prospect as explained in the article I posted. > I don't know this, and I don't trust your statements from obvious reasons. And obviously setting cups for individual India provinces will open many more doors for cheating for Indian consulting companies. Maybe Wikipedia might help you understand, if you don't trust me? What I gather is that you have some grudge against Indian consulting companies (who doesn't?!) and are unwilling to look past that. I think I don't have anything to add to this thread at this point, so I am giving this a rest. Have a good day!
mavelikara 10y ago
> Or you throw random statements as usually? Replying as a separate comment to this one as it is off-topic. What made you suggest that that I throw random statements here on HN usually? I am trying to apply the Principle of Charity and trying to come up with a reasonable innocent interpretation of this statement, but am coming up short. Can you help me please?
- crypto5 10y ago
  It is very obvious that you represent and advocate certain group of people (Indians), and bring numbers which only beneficial for this group, ignoring bigger picture.
  - mavelikara 10y ago
    Yes, I am advocating for a particular cause I am convinced about; isn't that what all of us here on HN are doing? You are free to refute my arguments on its own merit, but is saying: > Or you throw random statements as usually? doing anything like that?
    - crypto5 10y ago
      > I am advocating for a particular cause I am convinced about; isn't that what all of us here on HN are doing? Usually people on HN share reliable and unbiased information, and advocating certain group of people by misrepresentation of information is discouraged. > but is saying: > Or you throw random statements as usually? > doing that? Sure, I pointed you that your strategy is based on flooding discussion by low quality statements.
    - mavelikara 10y ago
      > Sure, I pointed you that your strategy is based on flooding discussion by low quality statements. No, you didn't. You simply resorted to name calling because you disagreed with what I had to say. Or at least thats how it looks to me, but I admit that you might come at a different conclusion yourself and that is reasonable. I just wanted to point this out to you; but we seem to disagree. I am leaving it at that. Thanks!

by crypto5 10y ago

mavelikara 10y ago

>> Indian or Chinese engineers who applied 12 years ago are getting their GCs now > Backlog for Chinese engineers is 6 years, not 12. That is correct. >> Those that apply now will likely get it in a few decades only. > Is word "likely" here based on any analysis? Or you throw random statements as usually? It is based on analysis. Please see: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigrants-will-have-wait http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra... >> Why is that so? > Perhaps per country cap was implemented for a reason: immigrants to US are culturally and nationally diverse, not just all Indians. Yes, that is the _stated_ reason. Cultural diversity, I can understand. But national diversity? Why should tiny nations of one continent be preferred over larger nations of another? The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 had gone some way in fixing these discriminatory immigration preferences. > Also I suggest you to spend your energy fighting against h1b and l1 scam from Indian consulting companies. It will relax situation for real Indian high skilled engineers significantly. Agreed that this also needs be to fixed.

crypto5 10y ago
> It is based on analysis. Please see: http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra.. http://www.cato.org/blog/no-one-knows-how-long-legal-immigra.... So, that analysis extrapolates 2 numbers from 2006 and 2008 years to timeframe of 20 years. Looks very strange for me. > But national diversity? Obviously, there is a strong correlation between national and cultural diversity, and since it is hard to set metrics for culture diversity, national diversity has been used.
- mavelikara 10y ago
  > So, that analysis extrapolates 2 numbers from 2006 and 2008 years to timeframe of 20 years. Looks very strange for me. Having been on the receiving end of this for nearly a decade now, knowing many people who have been waiting even longer, and having read about this issue for many years - it does not look strange to me. > Obviously, there is a strong correlation between national and cultural diversity, and since it is hard to set metrics for culture diversity, national diversity has been used. And I am pointing out instances where this heuristic does not apply. Kerala and Gujrat have as much cultural diversity as any two countries in Europe. So, back to the original question - why is the attitude "Well, it is after all just the Indians!" OK?
  - crypto5 10y ago
    > Having been on the receiving end of this for nearly a decade now Decade and 20-50 years from your initial statement and cited analysis are quite different timeframes. This is another example of you bringing non-sense statements in order to "win" discussion no matter what. > Kerala and Gujrat have as much cultural diversity as any two countries in Europe. I don't know this, and I don't trust your statements from obvious reasons. And obviously setting cups for individual India provinces will open many more doors for cheating for Indian consulting companies.
    - mavelikara 10y ago
      > Decade and 20-50 years from your initial statement and cited analysis are quite different timeframes. > This is another example of you bringing non-sense statements in order to "win" discussion no matter what. See, if you'd stop attributing malice to everything I say, you might be able to understand this better. I am waiting for close to a decade and I am still unsure when I will get it. People applying now, are looking at a 20-50 year prospect as explained in the article I posted. > I don't know this, and I don't trust your statements from obvious reasons. And obviously setting cups for individual India provinces will open many more doors for cheating for Indian consulting companies. Maybe Wikipedia might help you understand, if you don't trust me? What I gather is that you have some grudge against Indian consulting companies (who doesn't?!) and are unwilling to look past that. I think I don't have anything to add to this thread at this point, so I am giving this a rest. Have a good day!

mavelikara 10y ago

> Or you throw random statements as usually? Replying as a separate comment to this one as it is off-topic. What made you suggest that that I throw random statements here on HN usually? I am trying to apply the Principle of Charity and trying to come up with a reasonable innocent interpretation of this statement, but am coming up short. Can you help me please?

crypto5 10y ago
It is very obvious that you represent and advocate certain group of people (Indians), and bring numbers which only beneficial for this group, ignoring bigger picture.
- mavelikara 10y ago
  Yes, I am advocating for a particular cause I am convinced about; isn't that what all of us here on HN are doing? You are free to refute my arguments on its own merit, but is saying: > Or you throw random statements as usually? doing anything like that?
  - crypto5 10y ago
    > I am advocating for a particular cause I am convinced about; isn't that what all of us here on HN are doing? Usually people on HN share reliable and unbiased information, and advocating certain group of people by misrepresentation of information is discouraged. > but is saying: > Or you throw random statements as usually? > doing that? Sure, I pointed you that your strategy is based on flooding discussion by low quality statements.
  - mavelikara 10y ago
    > Sure, I pointed you that your strategy is based on flooding discussion by low quality statements. No, you didn't. You simply resorted to name calling because you disagreed with what I had to say. Or at least thats how it looks to me, but I admit that you might come at a different conclusion yourself and that is reasonable. I just wanted to point this out to you; but we seem to disagree. I am leaving it at that. Thanks!