5 ms·

"lift the per country cap on each visa category, which is a remnant of the pre-1965 overtly racist national origin system" I understand that pre-1965 it was us

by dahdum 9y ago

"lift the per country cap on each visa category, which is a remnant of the pre-1965 overtly racist national origin system" I understand that pre-1965 it was used in a racist way, but isn't a per country cap a good way maintain a diverse group of immigrants today? I'd keep that, and add a gender cap, forcing a relatively equal distribution. I'd also greatly increase skilled immigration overall.

refurb 9y ago
Exactly, if we got rid of the per country caps, the only thing it would do (beyond help the OP, surprise!) would ensure immigrants would be 80% Chinese and Indian. I for one prefer the diversity of immigrants we get with the cap.
- letitgo12345 9y ago
  How are arguments like this any different than arguments for Jewish quotas back in the day? What happened to judging people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? Making Indians wait for up to 70 years (a de facto Indian exclusion act) is extremely racist.
  - refurb 9y ago
    Are you against diversity? Because that's what the quota is there for. Plenty of Indians can come to the US, we just want to leave room for others as well.
    - taway994 9y ago
      (1) If India hypothetically broke into 50 nations (at independence there were 556 states), this problem would not arise. Suddenly, India's diversity index would "shoot up". (2) India itself is very diverse: ~30% speak the same language (Hindi) with different dialects. Rest speak over 16+ regional languages with distinct scripts and a 1000+ dialects. Someone speaking Tamil won't understand a Punjabi speaker and vice versa. (3) If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar. (4) Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together. (5) Logically extending your argument, you'd also agree with a quota system in all jobs classifications. For example, we should have a 12% quota for African Americans in Google's engineering team. This is an asinine argument. Merit, fit and an ability to contribute to the society should determine America's immigration policy not some racist concept determined by the accident of birth.
      - sridca 9y ago
        > Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together. That's an interesting point. When asked by others where I am from I normally respond with "I am from India" - but it would be more appropriate to say "I am from Tamil Nadu" (an Indian State north of Sri Lanka).
      - refurb 9y ago
        If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar. And if they were born 9000 miles away in the US, they'd already be a citizen, so what's your point. Listen, no system is ever going to be "fair" for every person. And considering how often people talk shit about the US on HN, I'm surprised people don't just go to Canada or Australia instead.
    - jimmywanger 9y ago
      What's so good about diversity? Arbitrary country lines don't count for diversity, as somebody else pointed out. China and India have huge populations, and China at least has a huge land mass. Why wouldn't we not "leave room" for others, especially if they weren't as skilled?
throwawayi140 9y ago
No, it isn't. Under the current system, there are no per-country limits on who can come to this country to work for a sponsoring employer. The per-country caps only have the effect that some people need to wait longer than others for their rights, while still living here and paying the same taxes as you do, but not being easily able to switch jobs, not being eligible for certain jobs (eg. SpaceX), or certain research grants (eg. NIH), and being one layoff away from having to sell their house, sell their car, take their kids out of school, and leave on short notice. If diversity is the goal, then the entire pipeline (H1/L1, potentially F1) should have per-country caps - that way, nobody living here is denied their rights based on where they were born. Raising the per-country caps on green cards to 100% to match the H-1B caps (aka eliminating them) is one way of achieving this, and arguably the most egalitarian - but it isn't the only way. At this point now, I suspect some companies prefer hiring people from India/China because they know they'd be indentured. That aspect should be removed.

by dahdum 9y ago

refurb 9y ago

Exactly, if we got rid of the per country caps, the only thing it would do (beyond help the OP, surprise!) would ensure immigrants would be 80% Chinese and Indian. I for one prefer the diversity of immigrants we get with the cap.

letitgo12345 9y ago
How are arguments like this any different than arguments for Jewish quotas back in the day? What happened to judging people for the content of their character rather than the color of their skin? Making Indians wait for up to 70 years (a de facto Indian exclusion act) is extremely racist.
- refurb 9y ago
  Are you against diversity? Because that's what the quota is there for. Plenty of Indians can come to the US, we just want to leave room for others as well.
  - taway994 9y ago
    (1) If India hypothetically broke into 50 nations (at independence there were 556 states), this problem would not arise. Suddenly, India's diversity index would "shoot up". (2) India itself is very diverse: ~30% speak the same language (Hindi) with different dialects. Rest speak over 16+ regional languages with distinct scripts and a 1000+ dialects. Someone speaking Tamil won't understand a Punjabi speaker and vice versa. (3) If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar. (4) Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together. (5) Logically extending your argument, you'd also agree with a quota system in all jobs classifications. For example, we should have a 12% quota for African Americans in Google's engineering team. This is an asinine argument. Merit, fit and an ability to contribute to the society should determine America's immigration policy not some racist concept determined by the accident of birth.
    - sridca 9y ago
      > Not sure why two immigrants from Austria and Germany are 'diverse' but two immigrants from India's Nagaland and Gujarat, who have different religions, cultures, languages (even facial features, if those count) are clubbed together. That's an interesting point. When asked by others where I am from I normally respond with "I am from India" - but it would be more appropriate to say "I am from Tamil Nadu" (an Indian State north of Sri Lanka).
    - refurb 9y ago
      If someone was born just 5 kms from say Gorakhpur in India , across the border in Nepal, they suddenly meet the diversity bar. And if they were born 9000 miles away in the US, they'd already be a citizen, so what's your point. Listen, no system is ever going to be "fair" for every person. And considering how often people talk shit about the US on HN, I'm surprised people don't just go to Canada or Australia instead.
  - jimmywanger 9y ago
    What's so good about diversity? Arbitrary country lines don't count for diversity, as somebody else pointed out. China and India have huge populations, and China at least has a huge land mass. Why wouldn't we not "leave room" for others, especially if they weren't as skilled?

throwawayi140 9y ago

No, it isn't. Under the current system, there are no per-country limits on who can come to this country to work for a sponsoring employer. The per-country caps only have the effect that some people need to wait longer than others for their rights, while still living here and paying the same taxes as you do, but not being easily able to switch jobs, not being eligible for certain jobs (eg. SpaceX), or certain research grants (eg. NIH), and being one layoff away from having to sell their house, sell their car, take their kids out of school, and leave on short notice. If diversity is the goal, then the entire pipeline (H1/L1, potentially F1) should have per-country caps - that way, nobody living here is denied their rights based on where they were born. Raising the per-country caps on green cards to 100% to match the H-1B caps (aka eliminating them) is one way of achieving this, and arguably the most egalitarian - but it isn't the only way. At this point now, I suspect some companies prefer hiring people from India/China because they know they'd be indentured. That aspect should be removed.