7 ms·

I think it's fair to discriminate on skills than geographical area of birth. We call the first merit, and the second some ism. Also, if we discriminate on meri

I think it's fair to discriminate on skills than geographical area of birth. We call the first merit, and the second some ism. Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine? Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control.

UncleEntity 8y ago
> Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine? They can "limit" based on skills, they can "limit" based on country of origin with the main difference being not using the hot-button word "discrimination" to, err...discriminate between the two while implying some sinister race-based system of visa allocation. > Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control. They you'd be "discriminating" against people who can't afford advanced degrees from prominent schools who just want to work hard so their children can have a better life like the countless number of first-generation citizens I've met over the years. This is where I'd put a "why you hate poor people?" to make my point but I know that's not what you're arguing.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  All of these are good discussions to be had, maybe we should have a single global democratic secular government too. But in no way is the biases or diarciminations in a "fair" merit based system a justification for the discrimination based on country of birth, like in the current system.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    Actually, it does sound fair to me -- or at least as fair as it can get. Individually it may suck if you come from a country with a large population like China or India but overall it gives people from all over the globe the chance to emigrate without having to directly compete with the large numbers of visa seekers from these countries. I honestly can't think of a more egalitarian immigration policy.
    - rohit2412 8y ago
      So, say I break India into North India and South India as different countries, that doubles the visa the people there receive. What changed? How about Breaking India down into a hundred different countries? Did we increase the visas a hundred times? EU is a unified political and economic entity, with individual states having well defined freedom. Just like a federation. India is like that, so is USA. So, does EU also qualify for a combined 7% cap as a united entity? Discrimination and limits on the country of birth is such a stupid policy, unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India.
      - UncleEntity 8y ago
        > ...unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India. I personally think people (and capital) should be able freely move anywhere they want without having to worry about some arbitrary lines on a map but that's not the point, the point is no matter how you look at it someone is going to be "discriminated" against so a person from Tuvalu is either going to have a higher or lower chance than a person from India depending on whatever selection criteria you use.
        cfadvan 8y ago
        Honest question, why do you think that there should be totally free movement? Let’s say the US economy implodes, should a few hundred million Americans be allowed to pick a country to take over by default and sheer strength of numbers? What if half the population of India felt like moving to Mexico? What if half of the population of Mexico felt like moving to Vanu’Atu?
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala? Plus it'd be pretty hard to be an oppressive dictatorship (looking at you, California) if the people could just up and move to a less oppressive regime (like Arizona). Of course I'm (mostly) joking with my example but a CA->AZ mass migration is happening as we speak and nobody is calling for a wall on the border (yet). They can't put up massive apartment/condo monstrosities fast enough to handle all the new folks moving here and presumably they're finding jobs without too much trouble. So, yeah, I think if governments had to compete to retain their "subjects" the world would be a much better place and people probably wouldn't need to relocate unless they really wanted to unlike today's multiple "migration crises" (their term, not mine).
pfarnsworth 8y ago
Of course you think that it's fair to discriminate based on skills, because it benefits you. That's not how the rules are though. If Green Cards were based on the queue length, then Indians would starve out every other country, and that's not how the US has decided to approach immigration. There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination. Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot, just because you're not getting what you want doesn't mean there's discrimination. Letting you in would be discriminating against someone else in another country.
- rohit2412 8y ago
  > That's not how the rules are though We are just arguing why the rules are the way they are. > There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination If you have different outcomes for individuals based on what country they were born in, that is discrimination. Not sure what stupid definition of discrimination you have in mind. > Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot Not everyone, but every country. And that does not mean every race, or every ethnicity. So much for forced "diversity". You have no idea how diverse India is, with thousands of languages and hundreds of ethnic groups. It is the origin of four major world religions, and has been always been an accepting land. But you SJW can go through your forced diversity with your discriminatory policies, with complete lack of logical thought.

UncleEntity 8y ago

> Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine? They can "limit" based on skills, they can "limit" based on country of origin with the main difference being not using the hot-button word "discrimination" to, err...discriminate between the two while implying some sinister race-based system of visa allocation. > Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control. They you'd be "discriminating" against people who can't afford advanced degrees from prominent schools who just want to work hard so their children can have a better life like the countless number of first-generation citizens I've met over the years. This is where I'd put a "why you hate poor people?" to make my point but I know that's not what you're arguing.

rohit2412 8y ago
All of these are good discussions to be had, maybe we should have a single global democratic secular government too. But in no way is the biases or diarciminations in a "fair" merit based system a justification for the discrimination based on country of birth, like in the current system.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  Actually, it does sound fair to me -- or at least as fair as it can get. Individually it may suck if you come from a country with a large population like China or India but overall it gives people from all over the globe the chance to emigrate without having to directly compete with the large numbers of visa seekers from these countries. I honestly can't think of a more egalitarian immigration policy.
  - rohit2412 8y ago
    So, say I break India into North India and South India as different countries, that doubles the visa the people there receive. What changed? How about Breaking India down into a hundred different countries? Did we increase the visas a hundred times? EU is a unified political and economic entity, with individual states having well defined freedom. Just like a federation. India is like that, so is USA. So, does EU also qualify for a combined 7% cap as a united entity? Discrimination and limits on the country of birth is such a stupid policy, unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India.
    - UncleEntity 8y ago
      > ...unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India. I personally think people (and capital) should be able freely move anywhere they want without having to worry about some arbitrary lines on a map but that's not the point, the point is no matter how you look at it someone is going to be "discriminated" against so a person from Tuvalu is either going to have a higher or lower chance than a person from India depending on whatever selection criteria you use.
      - cfadvan 8y ago
        Honest question, why do you think that there should be totally free movement? Let’s say the US economy implodes, should a few hundred million Americans be allowed to pick a country to take over by default and sheer strength of numbers? What if half the population of India felt like moving to Mexico? What if half of the population of Mexico felt like moving to Vanu’Atu?
        UncleEntity 8y ago
        There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala? Plus it'd be pretty hard to be an oppressive dictatorship (looking at you, California) if the people could just up and move to a less oppressive regime (like Arizona). Of course I'm (mostly) joking with my example but a CA->AZ mass migration is happening as we speak and nobody is calling for a wall on the border (yet). They can't put up massive apartment/condo monstrosities fast enough to handle all the new folks moving here and presumably they're finding jobs without too much trouble. So, yeah, I think if governments had to compete to retain their "subjects" the world would be a much better place and people probably wouldn't need to relocate unless they really wanted to unlike today's multiple "migration crises" (their term, not mine).

pfarnsworth 8y ago

Of course you think that it's fair to discriminate based on skills, because it benefits you. That's not how the rules are though. If Green Cards were based on the queue length, then Indians would starve out every other country, and that's not how the US has decided to approach immigration. There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination. Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot, just because you're not getting what you want doesn't mean there's discrimination. Letting you in would be discriminating against someone else in another country.

rohit2412 8y ago
> That's not how the rules are though We are just arguing why the rules are the way they are. > There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination If you have different outcomes for individuals based on what country they were born in, that is discrimination. Not sure what stupid definition of discrimination you have in mind. > Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot Not everyone, but every country. And that does not mean every race, or every ethnicity. So much for forced "diversity". You have no idea how diverse India is, with thousands of languages and hundreds of ethnic groups. It is the origin of four major world religions, and has been always been an accepting land. But you SJW can go through your forced diversity with your discriminatory policies, with complete lack of logical thought.