10 ms·

Only around 2,500 people from India are allowed to get EB-2 and EB-3 green cards per year. That's ~200 Indians per month. This is a numerical limit imposed by C

Only around 2,500 people from India are allowed to get EB-2 and EB-3 green cards per year. That's ~200 Indians per month. This is a numerical limit imposed by Congress. The US government will approve an EB-2/EB-3 green card application, but not actually issue it, and place people from Indian on a queue. The queue for India-born people is over 300,000 right now. So the queue wait time is over a century. These people from India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. A visa which prohibits spouses from working, deports your non-U.S.-born children[3] when they turn 21, makes it difficult to switch employers, prohibits unemployment / taking a break, and prohibits starting your own company. This all goes back to the 1965 Immigration Act. That was the Act that made it possible for people from outside Western Europe to immigrate to the US. It allowed a limited number of highly-skilled people to immigrate if they were sponsored by a company (and the company proved there was no minimally qualified Americans willing to do the job). Some rather-racist members of Congress were presciently concerned about a lot of skilled immigrant coming from China and India, which were the two most populous countries back in 1965 as well. To appease them, a 7% limit was put based on country of birth.[1] No more than 7% of immigrants in a numerically-limited category can be from the same country of birth. Again, when the 1965 law passed, there were hard numerical limits on immigration. To appease the racists, Congress reserved most of the green cards for family members. Even the majority employment-based green cards go to family members.[2] Effectively, out of the 80,000 skilled immigraiton (EB-2 and EB-3) green cards, around 55% are used by family members. That leaves around 36,000 spots for skilled immigrants a year. With the 7% per-country limit, you end up with a limit of ~2500 per year per country. [1] Specifically, Section 202(a)(2) of the Immigration Nationality Act (Sec 202 is codified as 8 U.S. Code § 1152 Numerical limitations on individual foreign states): https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152#a https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1152#a [2] Family Members Use Most Employment-Based Green Cards (Cato Institute): https://www.cato.org/blog/family-members-use-most-employment-based-green-cards https://www.cato.org/blog/family-members-use-most-employment... [3] An extremely sad story about this: https://www.statesman.com/news/20171013/commentary-how-a-20-year-visa-backlog-sent-our-daughter-back-to-india https://www.statesman.com/news/20171013/commentary-how-a-20-... Quoting: > My wife and I came to the United States nearly 20 years ago from India with our daughter, Himani — legally — in hopes of a better life and an aspiration to succeed and contribute positively to American society. Unfortunately, due to immigration laws, she was unable to stay in the United States due to massive backlogs. This is a problem that affects thousands of immigrant children. > She has lived in Williamson County following all the legal processes — but last year she aged out of the system, when she had turned 21 while we were still waiting for her permanent status. Under the current immigration system, a child can only stay on their parents’ visa as a dependent until he or she is an adult. We had been waiting in line for 20 years to get permanent residence but are now stuck in a massive backlog that is extremely disheartening. > [...] This is all she knows and can call her “home.” > Juvenile memories — such as her lemonade stands and attending prom her senior year — are some of the beautiful things she had to leave behind. We still cannot digest the reality of the situation. As a parent, it is bearable to see your child leave home voluntarily for college or their career — but not when they’re forced to leave through the result of unfair laws. > She initially went back to India alone last year with a big smile and positive attitude. Since then, life has been a struggle to live for her: assimilating to a new culture, undergoing chronic illnesses due to her environment in India, and trying to figure out her life in general. > She says it feels like someone has spontaneously taken everything away, including her identity. On top of that, her college education in the U.S. was abruptly stopped because she was unable to obtain a student visa; there is a law where gaps between a dependent visa and the college semester start date should not exceed 30 days. Unfortunately, she was five days over the limit. She has since applied to another university in India, where she will spend another four years studying. > She hadn’t been able to see us for a year but later opted for a visa to “visit” a nation that is practically her home.

sokoloff 7y ago
> These people from my India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. They’re choosing to spend their lives in the US on an H-1B; they’re not being forced to do that.
- winter_blue 7y ago
  I take the libertarian non-aggression principle-based point of view on many things, especially immigration. Basically, there's a group of people (the government), that's threatening violence on me and my family because of where I was born. This is my home. The constant threat of violence that's associated with temporary statuses like the H-1B really really suck. Yes, I chose to make this my home. You have no right to threaten violence on me and my family, when I've done absolutely nothing morally wrong. C.f. https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/ https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/
  - sokoloff 7y ago
    I also take the libertarian “people should understand and make the best choices for themselves and those that they’re responsible for and own the outcome thereof” point of view.
  - SamReidHughes 7y ago
    Well you're an open borders advocate, a fine idea for a dictatorship whose water table isn't falling lower and lower every year. But if we stipulate that immigration is to be limited to N people per year, we need some means of determining who gets in and who doesn't. There's no reason why our immigration policy should care about you. I'd say we should let in everybody whose presence makes this country a better place to live. And nobody who makes it worse. That's a selfish, aggressionist policy, and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas.
    - winter_blue 7y ago
      The immigration laws, especially the per-country limit, was rooted in explicit racism. It was not a mistake or an oversight. The people that wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 had the foresight to predict a lot of skilled immigrants coming from China and India. They wrote Section 202 of the INA intentionally, to exclude Indian and Chinese immigrants. > I'd say we should let in everybody whose presence makes this country a better place to live. And nobody who makes it worse. That's a selfish, aggressionist policy, and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas. So to you, racist immigration laws ("ethnic/nationality based quotas"): "makes this country a better place to live". Well then, why not go back to the National Origins Formula that used from 1921 to 1965? It explicitly set preferences for Western European countries, because of course, the authors of those immigration laws thought it "made the country a better place to live". C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula I must admit, it's quite amazing to see an open white nationalist on HN. I looked at your profile, and it looks like you worked for RethinkDB. Funny thing is I've known Slava Akhmechet (coffeemug on HN) from back during his days at Stony Brook. (I used to frequent the LUGSB club that he was pretty heavily involved in back then.) I wonder what Slava would think about your white nationalist comments. --- The other important thing to recognize is that the majority of this country is in favor of immigrants. And the only reason the law doesn't reflect the desires of the majority, is because the U.S. is a truly representative democracy. Pew Research studies have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-immigrant, and want to grant legal status to the undocumented[6]. Moreover, some pro-immigrant folk might still vote Republican due to wanting lower taxes, pro-life views, opposition to large government, etc. Take the Dream Act. The only reason the Dream Act didn't pass in 2010 was because of the Senate filibuster (despite Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency). The Senate, a wholly undemocratic institution to begin with, blocked the Dream Act with its effective 60% majority requirement for legislation. In 2013, the Senate managed to pass a bipartisan immigration bill, but the Speaker of the House blocked it[1]. Despite there being majority support among members of the House. Why was it blocked then? Because of the Hastert Rule[2]. And how did the Republicans have a majority in the House in 2013? Democrats received 1.4 million votes in 2012[3]. Yet, Republicans won because of massive gerrymandering[4]. Ugly, undemocratic gerrymandering. So if the United States were a more representative democracy, most of the undocumented immigrants in this country would have had rights and freedom already. Even that disgrace has become President despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. Current immigration laws are rooted in racism and xenophobia of the ugliest kind. Grover Norquist said it beautifully: "Historically, opposition to immigration in the United States has been racially and religiously motivated in the ugliest, nastiest way possible"[5]. The only reason pro-immigrant policy has not become the law is because a minority is allowed to dictate policy thanks to a bunch of highly undemocratic institutions and practices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re.... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering [5] https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and.. https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and.... [6] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of.. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of....

sokoloff 7y ago

> These people from my India are forced to spend their lives in the U.S. on the H-1B visa. They’re choosing to spend their lives in the US on an H-1B; they’re not being forced to do that.

winter_blue 7y ago
I take the libertarian non-aggression principle-based point of view on many things, especially immigration. Basically, there's a group of people (the government), that's threatening violence on me and my family because of where I was born. This is my home. The constant threat of violence that's associated with temporary statuses like the H-1B really really suck. Yes, I chose to make this my home. You have no right to threaten violence on me and my family, when I've done absolutely nothing morally wrong. C.f. https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/ https://www.zeroaggressionproject.org/
- sokoloff 7y ago
  I also take the libertarian “people should understand and make the best choices for themselves and those that they’re responsible for and own the outcome thereof” point of view.
- SamReidHughes 7y ago
  Well you're an open borders advocate, a fine idea for a dictatorship whose water table isn't falling lower and lower every year. But if we stipulate that immigration is to be limited to N people per year, we need some means of determining who gets in and who doesn't. There's no reason why our immigration policy should care about you. I'd say we should let in everybody whose presence makes this country a better place to live. And nobody who makes it worse. That's a selfish, aggressionist policy, and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas.
  - winter_blue 7y ago
    The immigration laws, especially the per-country limit, was rooted in explicit racism. It was not a mistake or an oversight. The people that wrote the Immigration Act of 1965 had the foresight to predict a lot of skilled immigrants coming from China and India. They wrote Section 202 of the INA intentionally, to exclude Indian and Chinese immigrants. > I'd say we should let in everybody whose presence makes this country a better place to live. And nobody who makes it worse. That's a selfish, aggressionist policy, and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas and it seems consistent with ethnic/nationality based quotas. So to you, racist immigration laws ("ethnic/nationality based quotas"): "makes this country a better place to live". Well then, why not go back to the National Origins Formula that used from 1921 to 1965? It explicitly set preferences for Western European countries, because of course, the authors of those immigration laws thought it "made the country a better place to live". C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Origins_Formula I must admit, it's quite amazing to see an open white nationalist on HN. I looked at your profile, and it looks like you worked for RethinkDB. Funny thing is I've known Slava Akhmechet (coffeemug on HN) from back during his days at Stony Brook. (I used to frequent the LUGSB club that he was pretty heavily involved in back then.) I wonder what Slava would think about your white nationalist comments. --- The other important thing to recognize is that the majority of this country is in favor of immigrants. And the only reason the law doesn't reflect the desires of the majority, is because the U.S. is a truly representative democracy. Pew Research studies have shown that the majority of Americans are pro-immigrant, and want to grant legal status to the undocumented[6]. Moreover, some pro-immigrant folk might still vote Republican due to wanting lower taxes, pro-life views, opposition to large government, etc. Take the Dream Act. The only reason the Dream Act didn't pass in 2010 was because of the Senate filibuster (despite Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and Presidency). The Senate, a wholly undemocratic institution to begin with, blocked the Dream Act with its effective 60% majority requirement for legislation. In 2013, the Senate managed to pass a bipartisan immigration bill, but the Speaker of the House blocked it[1]. Despite there being majority support among members of the House. Why was it blocked then? Because of the Hastert Rule[2]. And how did the Republicans have a majority in the House in 2013? Democrats received 1.4 million votes in 2012[3]. Yet, Republicans won because of massive gerrymandering[4]. Ugly, undemocratic gerrymandering. So if the United States were a more representative democracy, most of the undocumented immigrants in this country would have had rights and freedom already. Even that disgrace has become President despite losing the popular vote by 3 million. Current immigration laws are rooted in racism and xenophobia of the ugliest kind. Grover Norquist said it beautifully: "Historically, opposition to immigration in the United States has been racially and religiously motivated in the ugliest, nastiest way possible"[5]. The only reason pro-immigrant policy has not become the law is because a minority is allowed to dictate policy thanks to a bunch of highly undemocratic institutions and practices. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Oppo.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_United_States_House_of_Re.... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering [5] https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and.. https://reason.com/video/grover-norquist-on-open-borders-and.... [6] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of.. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/01/31/majority-of....