6 ms·

It's not very diverse, is it? You'd end up with many times more people from India and China as from the whole of Africa, for example. Basically no one from smal

by Veen 5y ago

It's not very diverse, is it? You'd end up with many times more people from India and China as from the whole of Africa, for example. Basically no one from small nations would get a green card. The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots.

chrisseaton 5y ago
> there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots But why? Why is it so important to you what countries people are coming from?
arcticbull 5y ago
> It's not very diverse, is it? The responsibility of an immigration program to its citizens isn't necessarily to maximize diversity. It's to maximize the benefit to the country. A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc. > The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots. Is it? Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. I think there's probably a lot of wiggle room.
- 908B64B197 5y ago
  > A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc. That's what the cap is for. > Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > That's what the cap is for. Yes, but it selects for the wrong things. It's an axe when you need a scalpel. > Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out? What on earth do you mean "out of control" lol. That's a value judgement you made that you're projecting. Canada has low inequality. Most people are paid roughly the same amount - in line with much of Western Europe. The US is closer to PNG, the Philippines, Turkey and Madagascar. You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. [1] Canadians value that. You don't, and that's ok too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
    - 908B64B197 5y ago
      > You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. You also can't have overachievers. This becomes obvious when looking at academia. [0] These individuals are the ones bootstrapping entire businesses and economic sectors. [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Of course you can have overachievers, I suspect this is a very American perspective. Japan Airlines' CEO makes $90K a year. Money isn't the be all and end all, promotions come with more pay and more social status. [edit] did you not have overachievers in high school and college? I suspect they weren't getting paid! Quite the opposite.
    - refurb 5y ago
      As a Canadian that’s hilarious. “Were going to pay you much less than other countries do and we’re actually doing you a favor”.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Nobody said anything about doing anyone any favors. I said that the wealth inequality was lower, and inequality being lower by definition requires that pay bands are compressed. Keep in mind that when you compare against international salaries, you have to convert not just to a neutral currency, but also adjust for PPP. Canada's PPP adjustment factor is close to +15%. That is to say, 1 USD goes 15% further in Canada than it does in America. There are pros and cons to a more egalitarian society. Certain groups that would do better in other countries do worse, and in exchange certain groups that would do worse in other countries do better. Per Levels.fyi a: - Shopify L7 makes $324K USD ($372K PPP). - That's a Google L5 at $356K. - A Facebook E5 at $390K. - Or a Microsoft level 65 at $287K. Remote changes the game a bit here, but in the past your Shopify L7 would have gone infinitely further in Ottawa than your Facebook E5 would have gone down in MPK. Local PPP matters too.
triceratops 5y ago
> It's not very diverse, is it? Why do you think India and China aren't diverse by themselves, and within themselves? India probably has more languages than all of Europe. Would it be sensible to treat Europe (or even just the Schengen area) as one country, to "increase diversity"? I think that would be dumb. European countries are obviously very diverse and we see that more clearly because they're sovereign nations on a map. India and China are mega-countries and we fail to appreciate the diversity within. > Basically no one from small nations would get a green card Why would that happen? It would be a first-come-first-served system. If a person from a small nation applies, they'll get it at the same time as someone from a bigger nation who applied at the same time as them (modulo processing time variances).
- Veen 5y ago
  > Would it be sensible to treat Europe as one country Why would it? Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point. It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans etc have a more or less equal chance, and that's what the current rules are supposed to provide. > It would be a first-come-first-served system So you think immigration status should be determined by whether someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I'm not sure that's entirely practical or fair. Perhaps a lottery would be more suitable.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - triceratops 5y ago
    > Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point The point was in the rest of my comment. "Country" doesn't imply a homogenous, non-diverse group of people. And "diversity" is the purported reason for country-of-birth caps. > It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans You said China and India are countries, then went on to compare them to continents. Surely you see the fallacy here. > someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I didn't say anything about the 1st of January (or any other date). "First-come-first-served" means applications are treated on their merits and processed in the order they arrived. If two people with the same application, but different country of birth, apply at the same time, they should have roughly same result in the same amount of time. That's not the case today. And I'm struggling to understand how a single queue is "unfair".
rmk 5y ago
There is a diversity visa category that is specifically geared toward getting diverse immigrants from all over the world. Increasing diversity is not a goal of the employment-based green card system, and neither is it a goal in the family-based green card system (it is family unification). The reason for caps is historical. The idea was to reduce any ethnic group from wielding too strong an influence on politics by immigrating in large numbers, but that is now moot because of mostly uncontrolled/lenient immigration from Latin America over decades. The main problem with the US immigration system is the high prevalence of family immigration vs. employment-based immigration. The majority of professional immigrants, such as the doctors who serve rural areas, medical/pharma researchers, postgrads in various scientific disciplines and software and high-tech industry employees are drawn from the latter category, and the majority face insanely long wait periods. This is rapidly eroding the attractiveness of the US as a destination for these people, which can only harm the future prospects of the country.

by Veen 5y ago

chrisseaton 5y ago

> there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots But why? Why is it so important to you what countries people are coming from?

arcticbull 5y ago

> It's not very diverse, is it? The responsibility of an immigration program to its citizens isn't necessarily to maximize diversity. It's to maximize the benefit to the country. A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc. > The problem is that the number of green cards is relatively fixed, so there has to be some way to distribute them that prevents two nations from taking almost all the spots. Is it? Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. I think there's probably a lot of wiggle room.

908B64B197 5y ago
> A points-based immigration program would allow the country to optimize along any number of axes: under-represented minorities, skills, etc. That's what the cap is for. > Canada brings in 3x as many immigrants per capita as the US does. It's brought in 1% of its population each year for roughly the last 100 years - so the equivalent of 3-4M green cards per year. Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > That's what the cap is for. Yes, but it selects for the wrong things. It's an axe when you need a scalpel. > Almost every week there's a thread with Canadian Engineers whining about low pay. How are these out of control immigration quotas helping them out? What on earth do you mean "out of control" lol. That's a value judgement you made that you're projecting. Canada has low inequality. Most people are paid roughly the same amount - in line with much of Western Europe. The US is closer to PNG, the Philippines, Turkey and Madagascar. You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. [1] Canadians value that. You don't, and that's ok too. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_eq...
  - 908B64B197 5y ago
    > You can't have low inequality and high pay for one group. You also can't have overachievers. This becomes obvious when looking at academia. [0] These individuals are the ones bootstrapping entire businesses and economic sectors. [0] https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade https://spectrum.ieee.org/the-global-brain-trade
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Of course you can have overachievers, I suspect this is a very American perspective. Japan Airlines' CEO makes $90K a year. Money isn't the be all and end all, promotions come with more pay and more social status. [edit] did you not have overachievers in high school and college? I suspect they weren't getting paid! Quite the opposite.
  - refurb 5y ago
    As a Canadian that’s hilarious. “Were going to pay you much less than other countries do and we’re actually doing you a favor”.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Nobody said anything about doing anyone any favors. I said that the wealth inequality was lower, and inequality being lower by definition requires that pay bands are compressed. Keep in mind that when you compare against international salaries, you have to convert not just to a neutral currency, but also adjust for PPP. Canada's PPP adjustment factor is close to +15%. That is to say, 1 USD goes 15% further in Canada than it does in America. There are pros and cons to a more egalitarian society. Certain groups that would do better in other countries do worse, and in exchange certain groups that would do worse in other countries do better. Per Levels.fyi a: - Shopify L7 makes $324K USD ($372K PPP). - That's a Google L5 at $356K. - A Facebook E5 at $390K. - Or a Microsoft level 65 at $287K. Remote changes the game a bit here, but in the past your Shopify L7 would have gone infinitely further in Ottawa than your Facebook E5 would have gone down in MPK. Local PPP matters too.

triceratops 5y ago

> It's not very diverse, is it? Why do you think India and China aren't diverse by themselves, and within themselves? India probably has more languages than all of Europe. Would it be sensible to treat Europe (or even just the Schengen area) as one country, to "increase diversity"? I think that would be dumb. European countries are obviously very diverse and we see that more clearly because they're sovereign nations on a map. India and China are mega-countries and we fail to appreciate the diversity within. > Basically no one from small nations would get a green card Why would that happen? It would be a first-come-first-served system. If a person from a small nation applies, they'll get it at the same time as someone from a bigger nation who applied at the same time as them (modulo processing time variances).

Veen 5y ago
> Would it be sensible to treat Europe as one country Why would it? Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point. It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans etc have a more or less equal chance, and that's what the current rules are supposed to provide. > It would be a first-come-first-served system So you think immigration status should be determined by whether someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I'm not sure that's entirely practical or fair. Perhaps a lottery would be more suitable.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- triceratops 5y ago
  > Europe isn't a country. India and China are countries. I fail to see your point The point was in the rest of my comment. "Country" doesn't imply a homogenous, non-diverse group of people. And "diversity" is the purported reason for country-of-birth caps. > It's obviously more diverse if Chinese, Indians, Europeans, South Americans, Africans You said China and India are countries, then went on to compare them to continents. Surely you see the fallacy here. > someone gets their forms in on the 1st of January or not? I didn't say anything about the 1st of January (or any other date). "First-come-first-served" means applications are treated on their merits and processed in the order they arrived. If two people with the same application, but different country of birth, apply at the same time, they should have roughly same result in the same amount of time. That's not the case today. And I'm struggling to understand how a single queue is "unfair".

rmk 5y ago

There is a diversity visa category that is specifically geared toward getting diverse immigrants from all over the world. Increasing diversity is not a goal of the employment-based green card system, and neither is it a goal in the family-based green card system (it is family unification). The reason for caps is historical. The idea was to reduce any ethnic group from wielding too strong an influence on politics by immigrating in large numbers, but that is now moot because of mostly uncontrolled/lenient immigration from Latin America over decades. The main problem with the US immigration system is the high prevalence of family immigration vs. employment-based immigration. The majority of professional immigrants, such as the doctors who serve rural areas, medical/pharma researchers, postgrads in various scientific disciplines and software and high-tech industry employees are drawn from the latter category, and the majority face insanely long wait periods. This is rapidly eroding the attractiveness of the US as a destination for these people, which can only harm the future prospects of the country.