3 ms·

US immigration law limits immigrant visa (i.e. green cards) to no more than 5% of the annual total per year. It's an effort to add diversity to the immigrant p

by refurb 4y ago

US immigration law limits immigrant visa (i.e. green cards) to no more than 5% of the annual total per year. It's an effort to add diversity to the immigrant population. Similar to how the green card lottery "discriminates" against immigrants from countries that already have a high immigrant population in the US. I mean it sucks if you're one of the people who are stuck waiting for a green card, and I agree it's dumb to allow people to start a process they can't reasonably finish, but I don't think the goal of the law is unjust.

carlmr 4y ago
In Germany we had a lot of migrant workers from Turkey after the war. The lack of diversity in immigrant populations is still causing problems today. Because there were so many immigrants from the same place, a lot didn't learn German properly because they have enough of their own people to talk to. A parallel society formed. In the big cities you have 3rd and 4th generation children that still don't speak German properly, but probably also don't speak Turkish properly. Of course these youths don't feel at home here, don't get good jobs, and are overrepresented in crime statistics. This causes problems even for skilled immigrants from Turkey today, since the stereotypes that manifested from this are applied to them as well. On the other hand I do understand the individual issue here though. It is a bit unfair to never have a proper foothold in the country that asked you to be there. I think it would be better to limit the H1Bs more by the same country of origin metric, so that people aren't given hope only to crush it later on. And there should be a way to get a green card for those that are already here for 5+ years. It's inhumane to never allow them in properly after they spent so much time building a life in the US.
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  The quota system was set up because of racial and eugenic concerns rather than some progressive notion of diversity. Though it should be noted that eugenics was considered progressive policy at that time. So it would be a very peculiar accident that it happens to resemble sane and forward thinking policy As to why countries instead of races, >The question will probably at once arise, why, if this legislation was a response to a demand for racial discrimination, was it expressed in terms of nationality? The answer is simple. As has already been shown, our actual knowledge of the racial composition of the American people, to say nothing of the various foreign groups, is so utterly inadequate that the attempt to use it as a basis of legislation would have led to endless confusion and intolerable litigation. So Congress substituted the term nationality, and defined nationality as country of birth. It is clear, then, that “nationality,” as used in this connection, does not conform exactly to the correct definition of either nationality or race. But in effect it affords a rough approximation to the racial character of the different immigrant stream https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day#dillingham-commission-world-war-i-national-origins-act-1910-1930 https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigr...
dhruval 4y ago
Effectively penalizes countries with a larger population (India and China) systemically, India is similar to the EU in terms of ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity yet each EU country is treated as a seperate entity. Indian States are not.
- refurb 4y ago
  Sure it's penalizing India and China. There is no other option if your goal is diversity of country of origin. And the US immigration system penalizes people all the time. Don't have a formal degree? Sorry, high skilled visa aren't an option. Want to come on an H1-B? Sorry, ran out of visas and now it's a lottery. Immigration systems need to make choices about who they want to bring in. The outcome of that is some people can't come.
  - throw123123123 4y ago
    Yes. Every job posting comes with a federally mandated anti-discrimination statement, and with a federally mandated discrimination immigration system.
    - refurb 4y ago
      Those anti-discrimation laws don’t apply to immigration criteria.
      - throw123123123 4y ago
        That's the point.
  - dhruval 4y ago
    It is actually based country of birth rather than origin / citizenship. Sure every immigration system as to make choices, but ideally you want to make intelligent choices. The current system makes no sense unless your goal is to specifically limit Indian / Chinese born from people getting green cards while also letting in large numbers of them to work on H1B indefinitely.
amf12 4y ago
> It's an effort to add diversity to the immigrant population. There are many categories of green card applications: family, employment based, diversity, etc. It might make sense to consider "diversity" in family based immigration, but doesn't really make sense in the context of "employment based". Historically, when US just wanted more people, the diversity might have made sense. But today, if a country wants better skilled immigrants, who are a net positive to the economy and don't put a strain on benefits, then it needs to select for such immigrants.

by refurb 4y ago

carlmr 4y ago

In Germany we had a lot of migrant workers from Turkey after the war. The lack of diversity in immigrant populations is still causing problems today. Because there were so many immigrants from the same place, a lot didn't learn German properly because they have enough of their own people to talk to. A parallel society formed. In the big cities you have 3rd and 4th generation children that still don't speak German properly, but probably also don't speak Turkish properly. Of course these youths don't feel at home here, don't get good jobs, and are overrepresented in crime statistics. This causes problems even for skilled immigrants from Turkey today, since the stereotypes that manifested from this are applied to them as well. On the other hand I do understand the individual issue here though. It is a bit unfair to never have a proper foothold in the country that asked you to be there. I think it would be better to limit the H1Bs more by the same country of origin metric, so that people aren't given hope only to crush it later on. And there should be a way to get a green card for those that are already here for 5+ years. It's inhumane to never allow them in properly after they spent so much time building a life in the US.

cuteboy19 4y ago
The quota system was set up because of racial and eugenic concerns rather than some progressive notion of diversity. Though it should be noted that eugenics was considered progressive policy at that time. So it would be a very peculiar accident that it happens to resemble sane and forward thinking policy As to why countries instead of races, >The question will probably at once arise, why, if this legislation was a response to a demand for racial discrimination, was it expressed in terms of nationality? The answer is simple. As has already been shown, our actual knowledge of the racial composition of the American people, to say nothing of the various foreign groups, is so utterly inadequate that the attempt to use it as a basis of legislation would have led to endless confusion and intolerable litigation. So Congress substituted the term nationality, and defined nationality as country of birth. It is clear, then, that “nationality,” as used in this connection, does not conform exactly to the correct definition of either nationality or race. But in effect it affords a rough approximation to the racial character of the different immigrant stream https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigration-policy-colonial-period-present-day#dillingham-commission-world-war-i-national-origins-act-1910-1930 https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/brief-history-us-immigr...

dhruval 4y ago

Effectively penalizes countries with a larger population (India and China) systemically, India is similar to the EU in terms of ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversity yet each EU country is treated as a seperate entity. Indian States are not.

refurb 4y ago
Sure it's penalizing India and China. There is no other option if your goal is diversity of country of origin. And the US immigration system penalizes people all the time. Don't have a formal degree? Sorry, high skilled visa aren't an option. Want to come on an H1-B? Sorry, ran out of visas and now it's a lottery. Immigration systems need to make choices about who they want to bring in. The outcome of that is some people can't come.
- throw123123123 4y ago
  Yes. Every job posting comes with a federally mandated anti-discrimination statement, and with a federally mandated discrimination immigration system.
  - refurb 4y ago
    Those anti-discrimation laws don’t apply to immigration criteria.
    - throw123123123 4y ago
      That's the point.
- dhruval 4y ago
  It is actually based country of birth rather than origin / citizenship. Sure every immigration system as to make choices, but ideally you want to make intelligent choices. The current system makes no sense unless your goal is to specifically limit Indian / Chinese born from people getting green cards while also letting in large numbers of them to work on H1B indefinitely.

amf12 4y ago

> It's an effort to add diversity to the immigrant population. There are many categories of green card applications: family, employment based, diversity, etc. It might make sense to consider "diversity" in family based immigration, but doesn't really make sense in the context of "employment based". Historically, when US just wanted more people, the diversity might have made sense. But today, if a country wants better skilled immigrants, who are a net positive to the economy and don't put a strain on benefits, then it needs to select for such immigrants.