4 ms·

If there was zero discrimination no-one from any other country would stand a chance due to the sheer population size of India & China. Would have thought this

If there was zero discrimination no-one from any other country would stand a chance due to the sheer population size of India & China. Would have thought this was obvious. It’s fairer to the rest of us.

bradleyjg 9y ago
That's not true. People from every country would have the same chance. Petitions would be processed in the order they were received regardless of nationality. How would that be unfair to anyone?
- suryacom 9y ago
  It is unfair because it doesn't allow someone to jump the line. A totally unfair system (sarcasm).
- rvo 9y ago
  Trust me man, you haven't seen the ugly side of many liberal "pro immigration" folks. At least the guy you are responding to is being honest.
- uiri 9y ago
  There is no "order they are received" for H-1B. You have to apply on the first of April and literally win a lottery. If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born), then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese? The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
  - bradleyjg 9y ago
    > If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born) Yeah, those things aren't correlated at all. Come on. > then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. No it wouldn't. There's a different system in place for permanent visas than for temporary ones. Viz. a waiting list. The grandparent post linked the visa bulletin which explains how it works. You have the tools at hand to educate yourself, there's no excuse for ignorance. > How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese? Because human being are human beings, not 1 billionth of India or China. It is a bedrock principle of contemporary liberalism (small l) that people ought be to treated as individuals. The remnant of the pre-1965 racist national origin system is a disgusting anomaly of a worse time. > The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual. One terribly unjust system originally put in place to protect slavery doesn't define the United States' entire notion of fairness. In any event it is nonsensical to talk about giving a country a shot. Countries aren't going to immigrate to the US, people are.
    - uiri 9y ago
      Yes, I am aware that there is currently a different system, for green cards. I am aware that your proposal is to process each application in the order that it is received. What exactly do you think is going to happen to go from here to there? On one hand, you need to deal with the backlog. On the other hand, if you are going to "fix" the system, you should fix it in such a way that, in the future, there will be no backlog. How would such a system be different than what I described? The alternative is to turn the green card backlog into a problem for immigrants of all nationalities rather than a problem for immigrants of some nationalities. You should perhaps learn a bit more about the history of the country which you want to immigrate to. Slavery had nothing to do with representation in the senate. It had everything to do with protecting Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey from New York, Georgia, and the Carolinas. The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention. Applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the US have a great chance of winning. Applicants from countries with high rates of immigration to the US are ineligible to apply.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> If there was zero discrimination no-one from any other country would stand a chance due to the sheer population size of India & China. If there was zero discrimination on country of origin, each qualified individual applicant within a given VISA category would be situated equivalently regardless of nation of origin. India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines (I may be missing one or two other countries) would see an increased number of total immigrants to the US and other countries less, but that's because the per country of origin limits currently put individuals of those countries in a worse position, not because the present system is fair and removing the per country limits would be unfair.
- mc32 9y ago
  I think we'd see more from Brazil peh Argentina, Indonesia, fewer from Mexico [unless undocumenteds don't count as immigrants]
zaptheimpaler 9y ago
India & China make up 35% of the entire worlds population. A fair system will admit a lot more people from those countries than others simply because there have more people.
- toomuchtodo 9y ago
  That’s why the system can’t be “fair”. Someone in the system is always going to be slighted.
- refurb 9y ago
  The goal of the caps is diversity of immigrants. Making the system "fair" for countries like India and China is not the goal.
  - wheretolive 9y ago
    Do you know that India is more than in languages, cuisine, culture and history than whole of Western Europe. Just because they have common passport, doesn't mean that they are any less diverse. If whole of Europe gets a single EU passport, does it suddenly make them any less diverse?
  - zaptheimpaler 9y ago
    Its hilarious how "diversity" is supposed to be about thinking beyond race/nationality/skin color, yet the measure of diversity is how many different races/nationalities/skin colors you can collect. If race does not matter, then why does "diverse" mean as many races as possible. Shouldn't it mean diversity of thought instead? If nationality does not affect personality, then why should diversity be about diversity of nations?
whalabi 9y ago
Hang on, why should someone from India have less of a chance just because they were born in India? They can't help where they were born, or that their country has a high population. If there weren't country caps, then someone born in India would have an equal chance as someone from Sweden. I argue what you're proposing isn't fair at all - it's clear that limiting by country is discrimination, not the other way around. Now what I will grant you is that it'll skew population statistics for immigrants to the more populous countries. But that's just a function of global population distribution by nation. Which again, isn't the fault of the applicant. Or to put all this another way, should someone born in Vatican City have an extremely high chance to get in, versus someone from a country with several million in population? No.

bradleyjg 9y ago

That's not true. People from every country would have the same chance. Petitions would be processed in the order they were received regardless of nationality. How would that be unfair to anyone?

suryacom 9y ago
It is unfair because it doesn't allow someone to jump the line. A totally unfair system (sarcasm).
rvo 9y ago
Trust me man, you haven't seen the ugly side of many liberal "pro immigration" folks. At least the guy you are responding to is being honest.
uiri 9y ago
There is no "order they are received" for H-1B. You have to apply on the first of April and literally win a lottery. If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born), then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese? The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual.
- bradleyjg 9y ago
  > If you remove the national origin quotas (it has little to do with race and everything to do with where you were born) Yeah, those things aren't correlated at all. Come on. > then it would be the exact same process for green cards except you only have a limited number of chances before you cap out the time on your visa and get sent back. No it wouldn't. There's a different system in place for permanent visas than for temporary ones. Viz. a waiting list. The grandparent post linked the visa bulletin which explains how it works. You have the tools at hand to educate yourself, there's no excuse for ignorance. > How is that a better, less capricious system than the current one for anyone who isn't Indian or Chinese? Because human being are human beings, not 1 billionth of India or China. It is a bedrock principle of contemporary liberalism (small l) that people ought be to treated as individuals. The remnant of the pre-1965 racist national origin system is a disgusting anomaly of a worse time. > The US political system gives disproportionate power to states with smaller population. The US immigration system is disproportionately more difficult for countries with lots of applicants. That's what the US looks at as fair - giving each state or country a fair shot, not each individual. One terribly unjust system originally put in place to protect slavery doesn't define the United States' entire notion of fairness. In any event it is nonsensical to talk about giving a country a shot. Countries aren't going to immigrate to the US, people are.
  - uiri 9y ago
    Yes, I am aware that there is currently a different system, for green cards. I am aware that your proposal is to process each application in the order that it is received. What exactly do you think is going to happen to go from here to there? On one hand, you need to deal with the backlog. On the other hand, if you are going to "fix" the system, you should fix it in such a way that, in the future, there will be no backlog. How would such a system be different than what I described? The alternative is to turn the green card backlog into a problem for immigrants of all nationalities rather than a problem for immigrants of some nationalities. You should perhaps learn a bit more about the history of the country which you want to immigrate to. Slavery had nothing to do with representation in the senate. It had everything to do with protecting Connecticut, Delaware, and New Jersey from New York, Georgia, and the Carolinas. The green card diversity lottery is based on exactly the premise I mention. Applicants from countries with low rates of immigration to the US have a great chance of winning. Applicants from countries with high rates of immigration to the US are ineligible to apply.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> If there was zero discrimination no-one from any other country would stand a chance due to the sheer population size of India & China. If there was zero discrimination on country of origin, each qualified individual applicant within a given VISA category would be situated equivalently regardless of nation of origin. India, China, Mexico, and the Philippines (I may be missing one or two other countries) would see an increased number of total immigrants to the US and other countries less, but that's because the per country of origin limits currently put individuals of those countries in a worse position, not because the present system is fair and removing the per country limits would be unfair.

mc32 9y ago
I think we'd see more from Brazil peh Argentina, Indonesia, fewer from Mexico [unless undocumenteds don't count as immigrants]

zaptheimpaler 9y ago

India & China make up 35% of the entire worlds population. A fair system will admit a lot more people from those countries than others simply because there have more people.

toomuchtodo 9y ago
That’s why the system can’t be “fair”. Someone in the system is always going to be slighted.
refurb 9y ago
The goal of the caps is diversity of immigrants. Making the system "fair" for countries like India and China is not the goal.
- wheretolive 9y ago
  Do you know that India is more than in languages, cuisine, culture and history than whole of Western Europe. Just because they have common passport, doesn't mean that they are any less diverse. If whole of Europe gets a single EU passport, does it suddenly make them any less diverse?
- zaptheimpaler 9y ago
  Its hilarious how "diversity" is supposed to be about thinking beyond race/nationality/skin color, yet the measure of diversity is how many different races/nationalities/skin colors you can collect. If race does not matter, then why does "diverse" mean as many races as possible. Shouldn't it mean diversity of thought instead? If nationality does not affect personality, then why should diversity be about diversity of nations?

whalabi 9y ago

Hang on, why should someone from India have less of a chance just because they were born in India? They can't help where they were born, or that their country has a high population. If there weren't country caps, then someone born in India would have an equal chance as someone from Sweden. I argue what you're proposing isn't fair at all - it's clear that limiting by country is discrimination, not the other way around. Now what I will grant you is that it'll skew population statistics for immigrants to the more populous countries. But that's just a function of global population distribution by nation. Which again, isn't the fault of the applicant. Or to put all this another way, should someone born in Vatican City have an extremely high chance to get in, versus someone from a country with several million in population? No.