8 ms·

For the sake of all the great skilled people from India who have been on H1B for decades, Congress really need to fix the green card attribution problem: there’

For the sake of all the great skilled people from India who have been on H1B for decades, Congress really need to fix the green card attribution problem: there’s no reason why a person born in India has to wait 10 years to get a green card when a French person can have one in 18-36 months.

refurb 7y ago
Sure there is a reason - diversity. The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix. Same reason you can’t get a green card through the lottery if your from Canada - it’s only open to under-represented countries.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Is there any reason why you would want diversity? On its face Indians wouldn't be less valuable per capita than inhabitants of some small Pacific island just because there are more Indians alive. In fact if you believe in normal distributions then the best Indians would be better than almost any other country because there are more Indians to draw from.
  - pkaye 7y ago
    > Is there any reason why you would want diversity? Diversity is generally considered a positive thing for companies and countries. Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that.
    - whatshisface 7y ago
      >Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that. The US sets US law to serve US interests, so I don't see how that would be a motivation.
    - diebeforei485 7y ago
      Diversity in the green card pool is not the same as diversity of who lives in the country or works at a company.
  - golemiprague 7y ago
    I don't think diversity is important, it is just a meme paddled for a certain political reason, there is no one proof that it is better than an homogenous society and I doubt a proof exists for such a complicated and untestable subject. However, what we do know is that having large groups of various dominant cultures in one country usually brings divisions in the best case and wars in the worst. There is already cultural tension between the large groups in the American society. Adding another large dominant group is not going to make anything better, that's why the immigration policy is trying to make an equal blend as much as it can, it would be more accurate to make it based on culture or race but that would be frowned upon, so the next best thing is by country.
  - siphon22 7y ago
    Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others. It's the same reason why diversity quotas are pushed for, because we can't have companies only hiring or promoting into leadership positions people who happen to look like them. It is in line with those principles that we would not want to have a system where Indians are being severely advantaged compared to other minorities just because they have a huge population.
    - belltaco 7y ago
      >Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others. This does not make much sense. People get green cards, not countries. Imagine if you were at the DMV and each region of your city had its own queue. People coming from the smaller parts leave in 5 minutes, and people hailing from the larger parts have to wait 8 hours for their turn. It's their fault for living in a more populous place? What did the people in the smaller areas do to deserve their faster queue compared to others, except being born at a certain place? Work visas should be about the person who passes the interview, is selected and is able to hold said job.
      - siphon22 7y ago
        That sounds nice and all but the DMV analogy does not hold up. Think about if there were no limits by country population, India has more people and therefore the most applicants, so we would be mainly giving limited numbers of work visas to Indians while others would have no chance. Imagine if there was a company with a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area. If that makes you cringe, you should have the same reaction regarding this. Diversity = various countries/peoples around the world getting a fair chance Not diversity = Only Indians get work visas
        whatshisface 7y ago
        >a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area If 90% of a town is white and 10% is black, 9:1 is a fair ratio for executive boards on average. Anything else would mean that the probability of a person holding a board position given their race would be different for different races. Imagine if every company in Mombasa was required to have an even split between white and black: being born white would guarantee you any job you wanted because you would be competing with less than 1% of the population, while in contrast every other ethnicity would be crowded in to half the number of jobs. In fact if racial quotas were instituted in Kenya and every race was given the same percent quota, 98% of Kenyans would be forced to be unemployed.
  - dmaldona 7y ago
    Yes, If you only receive immigration from only one country, it is easier for these newcomers to associate and become a political force that can change your status quo. Whereas if immigration is diverse, this situation is more complicated.
    - duckfruit 7y ago
      I don't think this comment deserves to be dismissed so readily. Although I shudder to think about the xenophobia that could potentially motivate thinking along these lines, it is very much a fact that plenty of people have such concerns, and as such it is an important reason to enact barriers and one that I hadn't thought of before.
      - umvi 7y ago
        Are there any historical examples of large numbers of immigrants politically changing the country they immigrated to?
        cvwright 7y ago
        Hawaii. Texas.
        kthejoker2 7y ago
        Texas Revolution?
        shard972 7y ago
        The western roman empire.
        masonic 7y ago
        Every country in the Western hemisphere? India/Pakistan until the mid-20th century and under earlier Muslim rule? The entire Mediterranean under Rome? China after Khan?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- screye 7y ago
  This underlies an assumption that the people from one country are generally homogeneous. India is easily the most internally diverse country in the world. There is also the fact, that literally 15% of the world's population resides here. The current "diversity" heuristic is too naive to promote any real diversity.
  - ramraj07 7y ago
    I'm Indian and I find that claim hard to believe. Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous, unless you want to say everyone who speaks a different language is different in any way other than the language (mostly not;).
    - petilon 7y ago
      It is not just language. It is skin color (some are fair skinned like Europeans, some are dark skinned like Africans), food (North and South Indian food are very different), clothes, religion (which is very important in India), income levels (extreme poverty as well as extreme wealth), education (most of the country is illiterate, but there also world-class institutions such as IITs, culture (India has higher female participation in the workforce, in IT at least, that the US, yet, in certain villages there is "honor killings" and so on.) Yes, India is absolutely the most diverse country in the world, and it is many times more diverse than the US.
      - webgoat 7y ago
        Double bell curves != diversity
    - belltaco 7y ago
      Why do you think India is called a subcontinent? >Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous That's only in the media and big cities.
    - diebeforei485 7y ago
      Country caps are based on country of birth (with some exceptions that don't apply to most people). From that standpoint, US-born people are actually very heterogenous relative to other large countries, and the same applies to Canada-born people.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix. It was done so that countries with large numbers of eligible immigrants don't dominate the immigrant mix in any category (it's per category, not global), which is a really stupid idea (it systematically prevents legal supply and demand from aligning, even as far as they could within the aggregate limit, by artificial restriction, which as anyone whose studied price controls know, creates illegality.)
  - refurb 7y ago
    Supply and demand? I don’t think are many people that think who should immigrate to the US should happen the same way people buy cars or other consumer goods.
- devdas 7y ago
  It was a more subtle way of restricting immigration from "undesirable" countries. https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-immigration-policy https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-im... US immigration law has always been racist.
top256 7y ago
This has been fixed. French people won't get any new green cards. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lofgrens-bipartisan-green-card-bill/ https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lo...
- digianarchist 7y ago
  Erm the House passed the bill but it's unlikely to pass the Senate and even if it did I'd expect Trump to veto it.
- belltaco 7y ago
  It's nowhere close to actually becoming law. The El Paso shooter mentioned that proposed law in his manifesto as letting in many more new foreign workers after listening to fake news from Fox News and Breitbart, when it does nothing of that sort. Also that the Senate passed it. The last thing we want is more bad information.
- notabot 7y ago
  This is such a terrible "fix". “For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country” This is so unfair to citizens of other countries. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
  - belltaco 7y ago
    >This is so unfair to citizens of other countries. Not sure how it's unfair. The bill has a clause that anyone currently waiting will not be impacted. >I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone? Not sure if you're serious. Even adding a few new green cards is politically impossible in the current climate. Just imagine the attack ads on TV for the next election.
    - notabot 7y ago
      Yes. I'm at least half serious. 1. The system is unfair in the first place -- Indian's quota is not in proportion to their population. 2. The bill tries to flush the queue, that leads to: 2.1 The perpetuation of this unfair system. 2.2 Other people who will still use this system get unfairly treated. So I don't think this is a proper solution to this issue. If US really wants all the best and brightest, the cap should be lifted.
hamstergene 7y ago
Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year). Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.) There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that. Sure, 7% cap for a country that makes 17% of the world seems a bit unfair. But increasing it to the fair 17% or even to unfair 100% will still be peanuts in the long run. The reality is that a person born in India is being screwed not as much by bias in immigration policies but only by other persons born in India.
- belltaco 7y ago
  >Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year). This is not correct. The 250k includes people who got their first H1B in 2006 till date but have to renew every 3 years. Those are work visa renewals while they wait. The yearly demand is much lower. There is a 85K cap on all new H1Bs. Only 70% go to tech sector. However some governments and nonprofits are excluded from the cap, but the nowhere as high as 250k. Which is why the rest of your comment is wrong. >Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.) >There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that. Not true again. After 8 to 10 years it will fix itself because the system is first come first served. i.e If a French or German person apply on January 1 2029, they will get their GC before everyone from India that applied after Jan 1 2029. Actually that would be true even today if the law passes. The French citizen who applies on Jan 1 2020 will get his gc before the Indian citizen who applies on Jan 2, 2020. It's just that if the law passes, they won't get to cut ahead to directly in front of the line, before people waiting since 2009. It's like going to a DMV. Regardless of how bad the crowd is or where you drove from, you get a token number and no one that came after you gets a GC before you can. The initial wait for some will be high initially because there are people waiting for a long time.

refurb 7y ago

Sure there is a reason - diversity. The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix. Same reason you can’t get a green card through the lottery if your from Canada - it’s only open to under-represented countries.

whatshisface 7y ago
Is there any reason why you would want diversity? On its face Indians wouldn't be less valuable per capita than inhabitants of some small Pacific island just because there are more Indians alive. In fact if you believe in normal distributions then the best Indians would be better than almost any other country because there are more Indians to draw from.
- pkaye 7y ago
  > Is there any reason why you would want diversity? Diversity is generally considered a positive thing for companies and countries. Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that.
  - whatshisface 7y ago
    >Also there have been complaints that US is poaching the best people from other countries so diversity helps moderate that. The US sets US law to serve US interests, so I don't see how that would be a motivation.
  - diebeforei485 7y ago
    Diversity in the green card pool is not the same as diversity of who lives in the country or works at a company.
- golemiprague 7y ago
  I don't think diversity is important, it is just a meme paddled for a certain political reason, there is no one proof that it is better than an homogenous society and I doubt a proof exists for such a complicated and untestable subject. However, what we do know is that having large groups of various dominant cultures in one country usually brings divisions in the best case and wars in the worst. There is already cultural tension between the large groups in the American society. Adding another large dominant group is not going to make anything better, that's why the immigration policy is trying to make an equal blend as much as it can, it would be more accurate to make it based on culture or race but that would be frowned upon, so the next best thing is by country.
- siphon22 7y ago
  Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others. It's the same reason why diversity quotas are pushed for, because we can't have companies only hiring or promoting into leadership positions people who happen to look like them. It is in line with those principles that we would not want to have a system where Indians are being severely advantaged compared to other minorities just because they have a huge population.
  - belltaco 7y ago
    >Even if you're right, I don't think people want a system that benefits a group of people just because they have a bigger population than others. This does not make much sense. People get green cards, not countries. Imagine if you were at the DMV and each region of your city had its own queue. People coming from the smaller parts leave in 5 minutes, and people hailing from the larger parts have to wait 8 hours for their turn. It's their fault for living in a more populous place? What did the people in the smaller areas do to deserve their faster queue compared to others, except being born at a certain place? Work visas should be about the person who passes the interview, is selected and is able to hold said job.
    - siphon22 7y ago
      That sounds nice and all but the DMV analogy does not hold up. Think about if there were no limits by country population, India has more people and therefore the most applicants, so we would be mainly giving limited numbers of work visas to Indians while others would have no chance. Imagine if there was a company with a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area. If that makes you cringe, you should have the same reaction regarding this. Diversity = various countries/peoples around the world getting a fair chance Not diversity = Only Indians get work visas
      - whatshisface 7y ago
        >a white CEO who was only hiring/putting other whites into high level positions because they happen to be in a majority white area If 90% of a town is white and 10% is black, 9:1 is a fair ratio for executive boards on average. Anything else would mean that the probability of a person holding a board position given their race would be different for different races. Imagine if every company in Mombasa was required to have an even split between white and black: being born white would guarantee you any job you wanted because you would be competing with less than 1% of the population, while in contrast every other ethnicity would be crowded in to half the number of jobs. In fact if racial quotas were instituted in Kenya and every race was given the same percent quota, 98% of Kenyans would be forced to be unemployed.
- dmaldona 7y ago
  Yes, If you only receive immigration from only one country, it is easier for these newcomers to associate and become a political force that can change your status quo. Whereas if immigration is diverse, this situation is more complicated.
  - duckfruit 7y ago
    I don't think this comment deserves to be dismissed so readily. Although I shudder to think about the xenophobia that could potentially motivate thinking along these lines, it is very much a fact that plenty of people have such concerns, and as such it is an important reason to enact barriers and one that I hadn't thought of before.
    - umvi 7y ago
      Are there any historical examples of large numbers of immigrants politically changing the country they immigrated to?
      - cvwright 7y ago
        Hawaii. Texas.
      - kthejoker2 7y ago
        Texas Revolution?
      - shard972 7y ago
        The western roman empire.
      - masonic 7y ago
        Every country in the Western hemisphere? India/Pakistan until the mid-20th century and under earlier Muslim rule? The entire Mediterranean under Rome? China after Khan?
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
screye 7y ago
This underlies an assumption that the people from one country are generally homogeneous. India is easily the most internally diverse country in the world. There is also the fact, that literally 15% of the world's population resides here. The current "diversity" heuristic is too naive to promote any real diversity.
- ramraj07 7y ago
  I'm Indian and I find that claim hard to believe. Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous, unless you want to say everyone who speaks a different language is different in any way other than the language (mostly not;).
  - petilon 7y ago
    It is not just language. It is skin color (some are fair skinned like Europeans, some are dark skinned like Africans), food (North and South Indian food are very different), clothes, religion (which is very important in India), income levels (extreme poverty as well as extreme wealth), education (most of the country is illiterate, but there also world-class institutions such as IITs, culture (India has higher female participation in the workforce, in IT at least, that the US, yet, in certain villages there is "honor killings" and so on.) Yes, India is absolutely the most diverse country in the world, and it is many times more diverse than the US.
    - webgoat 7y ago
      Double bell curves != diversity
  - belltaco 7y ago
    Why do you think India is called a subcontinent? >Countries like the United States and Canada are far more heterogenous That's only in the media and big cities.
  - diebeforei485 7y ago
    Country caps are based on country of birth (with some exceptions that don't apply to most people). From that standpoint, US-born people are actually very heterogenous relative to other large countries, and the same applies to Canada-born people.
dragonwriter 7y ago
> The “no country can get more than 5% of immigrant visa in any given year”, was done so that large countries don’t dominate the immigrant mix. It was done so that countries with large numbers of eligible immigrants don't dominate the immigrant mix in any category (it's per category, not global), which is a really stupid idea (it systematically prevents legal supply and demand from aligning, even as far as they could within the aggregate limit, by artificial restriction, which as anyone whose studied price controls know, creates illegality.)
- refurb 7y ago
  Supply and demand? I don’t think are many people that think who should immigrate to the US should happen the same way people buy cars or other consumer goods.
devdas 7y ago
It was a more subtle way of restricting immigration from "undesirable" countries. https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-immigration-policy https://scholars.org/brief/how-legacies-racism-persist-us-im... US immigration law has always been racist.

top256 7y ago

This has been fixed. French people won't get any new green cards. https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lofgrens-bipartisan-green-card-bill/ https://www.sanjoseinside.com/2019/08/07/house-passes-zoe-lo...

digianarchist 7y ago
Erm the House passed the bill but it's unlikely to pass the Senate and even if it did I'd expect Trump to veto it.
belltaco 7y ago
It's nowhere close to actually becoming law. The El Paso shooter mentioned that proposed law in his manifesto as letting in many more new foreign workers after listening to fake news from Fox News and Breitbart, when it does nothing of that sort. Also that the Senate passed it. The last thing we want is more bad information.
notabot 7y ago
This is such a terrible "fix". “For the next 10 years, more than 90 percent of the employment-based green card will go to citizens of one country” This is so unfair to citizens of other countries. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Indian immigrants. What they've been through is not tenable in the slightest. I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone?
- belltaco 7y ago
  >This is so unfair to citizens of other countries. Not sure how it's unfair. The bill has a clause that anyone currently waiting will not be impacted. >I think lifting the cap all together will be a better solution for everyone? Not sure if you're serious. Even adding a few new green cards is politically impossible in the current climate. Just imagine the attack ads on TV for the next election.
  - notabot 7y ago
    Yes. I'm at least half serious. 1. The system is unfair in the first place -- Indian's quota is not in proportion to their population. 2. The bill tries to flush the queue, that leads to: 2.1 The perpetuation of this unfair system. 2.2 Other people who will still use this system get unfairly treated. So I don't think this is a proper solution to this issue. If US really wants all the best and brightest, the cap should be lifted.

hamstergene 7y ago

Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year). Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.) There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that. Sure, 7% cap for a country that makes 17% of the world seems a bit unfair. But increasing it to the fair 17% or even to unfair 100% will still be peanuts in the long run. The reality is that a person born in India is being screwed not as much by bias in immigration policies but only by other persons born in India.

belltaco 7y ago
>Compare number of applicants per year from India (250K H1 + some amount L1) to the green card caps (140K). And their population growth is still positive (>1% year). This is not correct. The 250k includes people who got their first H1B in 2006 till date but have to renew every 3 years. Those are work visa renewals while they wait. The yearly demand is much lower. There is a 85K cap on all new H1Bs. Only 70% go to tech sector. However some governments and nonprofits are excluded from the cap, but the nowhere as high as 250k. Which is why the rest of your comment is wrong. >Even if Congress kicks out all the rest of nationalities and gives 100% cap to Indians, the wait times will drop only once but then keep growing indefinitely. (And this does not yet account to how many more will be inspired by that, as right now long wait times presumably deter a lot from even trying.) >There is no fix for this that does not involve a huge lot of Indians failing at their immigration attempt. The core problem is that they are just trying too hard: India applies 8.5x more people per %population than France, 14x more than Germany etc. No Congress can fix that. Not true again. After 8 to 10 years it will fix itself because the system is first come first served. i.e If a French or German person apply on January 1 2029, they will get their GC before everyone from India that applied after Jan 1 2029. Actually that would be true even today if the law passes. The French citizen who applies on Jan 1 2020 will get his gc before the Indian citizen who applies on Jan 2, 2020. It's just that if the law passes, they won't get to cut ahead to directly in front of the line, before people waiting since 2009. It's like going to a DMV. Regardless of how bad the crowd is or where you drove from, you get a token number and no one that came after you gets a GC before you can. The initial wait for some will be high initially because there are people waiting for a long time.