5 ms·
As long as you’re not Indian or Chinese, you can get a green card in 2-3 years in US
by sashank_1509 2y ago
As long as you’re not Indian or Chinese, you can get a green card in 2-3 years in US
- rednafi 2y agoIndeed. As you should. Indians and Chinese are no longer considered minorities in the US, so it makes sense to curb the influx. However, the problem is that the US tech market is volatile, with zero job security. Since H1B makes it difficult to switch employers, tech companies often exploit this and pay these workers disproportionately. On top of that, there’s always the looming risk of getting fired before securing a green card, and the stress of that hangs over you constantly. This part could definitely be improved.
- dyauspitr 2y agoHow is 3% of the population not a minority?
- rednafi 2y agoThe quota is fixed per country. For India and China it gets filled immediately. So the sentiment is that they’re no longer considered minority as quotas from other countries are barely filled.
- anon291 2y agoAnd honestly, it's kind of nuts, when you think about it. For India at least, it's better compared to the EU than a 'country'. The concept of 'India' is like 'Christendom'. It describes a very broad cultural region. But realistically, the gulf between culture in one state in India and another is as different as the gulf in culture between the UK and France. It's a bizarre accident of history that they even are under one sovereign jurisdiction. The languages are different (even more diverse than Europe, since there's two independent language families), the writing system is different, the food is different, the religion is different (despite what everyone says, Hinduism is a broad spectrum of beliefs; it's like classifying Judaism and Islam together as the same thing not to mention massive non-Dharmic cultural groups that have also been there a very long time and are sufficiently 'Indian'). That is to say... if the goal is diversity, which is a good goal, you should probably split some of these larger countries up. Especially countries like India which are not dominated by any one ethnic group. There is no equivalent to the Han Chinese in India. Unfortunately, the basic precept here seems to be 'has brown skin' makes you exactly the same as anyone else with brown skin, which leads to absurdities, such as California's old anti-miscegenation law that considered Indians and Mexicans the same race.
- rednafi 2y agoIt's nuts but at the same time, removing the limit isn't viable as in that case India and China will clog up the entire system.
- anon291 2y agoI was suggesting a limit based on subnational distinctions or another form of delineation. Although in general, I tend to be anti immigration, so I would rather just see a total cap and no quota.
- dyauspitr 2y agoIndia has had those borders long, long before the British. It was initially formed under the Mauryan empire in 300BC and quite a few times again since then. Infact if you consider the Mauryans, Mughals and the British, India has had these borders for 1000s of years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurya_Empire
- anon291 2y agoIndia has had those borders in the same way the 'greater Mediterranean' has had those borders. Mauryans were an empire which means that they ruled over disparate nations No the country of India is in fact not at all united. The various jatis worship different gods, speak different languages, have distinct cultures. Just because they all celebrate a few holidays in common and have some shared cultural beliefs does not make them the same This is like saying every Roman Catholic is an Italian. Lastly, the Mauryans never ruled all the way to South India. This is the first time in history the entirety of 'Bharat' has been under one polity (although arguably with the exclusion of Pakistan and Bangladesh, even this is wrong).
- dyauspitr 2y agoEvery place in the world was small disparate kingdoms until the rise of nation states. If anything India has been united longer than almost any other place in the world. Since when does a country mean a single cultural group? By that metric Switzerland, Russia, the UK, Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, Central Asia, most of SE Asia, any country in Africa, large parts of the Middle East and South America are not countries. For that matter, all of China isn’t Han Chinese, there are Tibetans, Mongolians, Uyghurs, Zhuang, Hui etc.
- addicted 2y agoAlso, this is wrong. There is no quota for the H1B visa. There is a quota for the number of H1B visa holders who have then additionally been sponsored by their company (something which costs a company $20k at a minimum) that can get permanent residency in a year.
- drekipus 2y agoWhite people are 10% of worldwide population. The concept of "minority" changes depending on what you're analysing.
- dyauspitr 2y agoIs the H1B a worldwide visa?
- bugglebeetle 2y ago> Indians and Chinese are no longer considered minorities in the US, so it makes sense to curb the influx. Why would this ever be rational a basis for immigration?
- rednafi 2y agoIt's not rational at all. India and China are huge, and subjecting them to the same quota as a tiny island is irrational.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoWhat would be rational quotas for countries that have over 1B people?
- addicted 2y agoHow about no quota at all based on nationality (actually place of birth) when you already have a limit of 65k visas a year being apportioned by lottery.
- toomuchtodo 2y agoVery unlikely. The per country quota is to limit influence of any one country via immigration.
- rednafi 2y agoThen one country would clog up the entire system.
- thfuran 2y agoWhy should the population of the country even be a factor in deciding how many immigrants we'll accept from there?
- tomohelix 2y agoNot saying it is the actual reason, but one rationale is that you don't want a sudden influx of a single demographic taking over the nation and disproportionately affect policy making and culture.
- gunian 2y agois there some stat that supports this? because I feel like foreign relations between India and the US have never beeen better
- mrkstu 2y agoThis is presumably about the per-country limits on H1Bs- i.e. most countries aren't hitting their quota, so if you apply for one as a citizen of most countries, the wait is comparatively minimal.
- gunian 2y agoahhh I misunderstood I thought there was just one global pool for H1B did not realize there were per country limits
- rednafi 2y agoI saw it first hand. My Indian colleagues mentioned that their queue to transition from H1B to green card is impossibly long. It’s just how the numbers work. There are just too many Indians applicants and not enough seats.
- redditor98654 2y agoWhat do you mean? My green card application has been pending for 9 years. Based on current projections I won’t get it in less than 100 years or so. Indian. This is a well known fact.
- gunian 2y agomy bad I misread I thought this was for the H1B which I read had a fixed quota hope all goes well with your application does this mean if you change your citizenship to a low population country by paying 100k and then applying it would speed up the process? or does USCIS have some law that prevents that
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- 2y ago
- jltsiren 2y agoIt's 3-4 years these days, unless you qualify for EB-1. Every step in the process takes a few months longer than it used to. But those numbers are not comparable. In most European countries, you first spend a number of years on a temporary residence permit, and then you can apply for permanent residence. That application typically takes less than a year to process. In the US, you can apply for permanent residence any time, but the application process takes several years.
- zoomthrowaway 2y ago2-3 years are no longer true. rest of the world (aka not Indian or Chinese) wait time if starting now is more like 5-6 years and possibly longer