the hottest immigration tracker
|
 
| Got questions on U.S. immigration? |
 |
|
|
|
I-485 Discussion Forum
Eliminating per-country quota only benefit those who are asking for it |
|
Like this thread? |  |  |
|
This is in regard to a letter to be sent to US Congress supporting bill H.R. 5921 introduced by Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) which was posted by user Birbal and has been circulated in this forum promoting the idea that country quotas in EB category are unfair which obviously doesn't sustain itself under just a few arguments.
http://www.trackitt.com/discussion-forums/i485-...
The letter points points out the below issues and justifications. My comments are right below each bullet point:
• Current law caps at 7% the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country during the year. Because of this cap, a Chinese or Indian post-graduate at the top of his/her class at MIT may have to wait half a decade or more for a green card, much longer than a student from a less-populated country.
COMMENT: The cap is same for every country across the board though equality is guaranteed. The fact is there are many more people from the above mentioned nationalities who want to come to the US. The same would apply if any other country would be sending a high number of immigrants to US. Let's say Russians start immigrating massively to US, do we change the quotas again for the benefit of them? In other words, b/c they're in need let's change rules in the middle of the game.
• This limit thus creates arbitrary incentives, often forcing U.S. employers to consider country of birth over talent.
COMMENT: This is a blatant lie. I have already pointed out in my posts that there is NOT a single US employer who has said such a thing on the record. That's based on words of a professional politician. Need to say more?
• By eliminating per-country caps on employment based visas, this bill gives U.S. employers the ability to hire foreign workers based on merit. U.S. employers are beginning to lose out in the global competition for talent, as more and more countries from around the world adapt their immigration laws to attract talent from overseas. This bill will help insure that the American economy can continue to seek out the best and brightest, regardless of their country origin. America needs a fair and simple immigration system that gives U.S. employers the ability to hire foreign workers on a first-in, first-out basis.
COMMENT: US employers (truly domestic ones) hire based on merit, period. This whole thing about US loosing competition has nothing to do with country quotas but to the overall number of available visas and other issues such as outsourcing. This bill has nothing to do with America's search for the best and brightest. The best and the brightest have always come to America since there was no temporary worker program which was streamlined and implemented around 1991. America has indeed a fair and maybe not that simple system to hire foreign workers. It's done through O1/H1 and L1 visa programs.
Now I will add few things from my side to support HR 5921, which is based on the discussion I had with other immigrants in my community and forums.
• In 'Employment based' green card, 'skill' should be deciding factor and not country of birth.
COMMENT: EB green cards relies on lack of US resident and national skilled workers. It is based on local job market's demand. It has nothing to do with offered but required skills. You could be a PhD and US market is in lack of cashiers. People are trying to make the point that highly skilled foreigners have automatically acquired the right to come and live in th US. That's not why the EB program was created for.
• To promote diversity in immigration US already as the diversity visa lottery program which promotes immigration from countries which are under-represented.
COMMENT: In other words, EB program as of now should belong to a private group of immigrants. The rest must take their chances in a random selection. Pathetic. By the way, it also has quotas per region/country. Whether they are fair or not it doesn't belong to the current discussion.
• When there are no per-country limits at entry point (student visas / tourist visas / business visas / temporary worker visas) why should there be a per-country limit for employment based Green cards. This defies logic.
COMMENT: Because those are TEMPORARY. Let me repeat, TEMPORARY. It has nothing to do with immigrating and settling permanently in US which as per definition is PERMANENT. Your logic is about breaking equality of immigration opportunity because you have a higher demand coming from a small group of countries. US must ensure that people from any country has the same opportunity, so to speak QUOTA, to immigrate here.
• The current per-country quota is per-se discriminatory based on nationality and race. In the initial days of US immigration it never tried to restrict people from other countries like Ireland or Germany because more people from these countries migrated to US.
COMMENT: It will be discriminatory if you make Employment based UNEQUAL on a country basis. In the past immigration was about war, now is about opportunity. Moreover US does have a political asylum program and is currently allowing foreigners involved with Iraq war to come to US through those specific channels.
• The foundation of this country considers all man equals and with the same opportunities, I believe as immigrants we are looking to be considered equals and with same opportunity as Americans. Life is difficult and I think any person must be able to pursue their dreams without restrictions of origin race, color or sexual orientation.
COMMENT: I am a firm believer that immigrants must be respected and have their human rights guaranteed however I also think that only when you become an American citizen you will be absolutely equal. That's the same speech being given by illegal immigrants who break the law in first place then demand for undeserved rights. Please don't throw legal immigrants in the same flock it will eventually turn against us. What has to do a person's dreams with coming to the US? If it's about your dreams then let's bend the rules to favor it?
• America cannot prosper with a policy of per-country limitation. World has changed a lot and if we dont make our policies clear and fair enough then the best will go to other countries like Europe etc.
COMMENT: What do you mean by "if WE dont (sic) make our policies"? Are you a US citizen? The day you become one then maybe you can speak as one.
• This Bill will not only benefits professionals from India or China but also temporary workers from Mexico and Philippines.
COMMENT: Did you mean professional immigrants?
• Employment based Green Cards should be an open market where the best and the most talented may have the jobs.
COMMENT: And it is. Making it private for a small group is exactly what will defeat the purpose.
|
You just proved my point. Whoever is not from your country is not trustful.
And yet you expected to have my support over a bunch of crap you're spreading out?
|
to gcismymission:
It has to be based on the population, talent and many other factors. It should not be linear, it should be non-linear and dynamic. So it maybe brutal for some of people who came from countries like China and India. Ultimately, it is supply and demand relationship coupled with US diversity agenda, I never heard of diversity in China /or India though.
|
What a crap?? I need this bill into law ASAP. I hope no one has to wait for 7+ years for GC in future including so called countries.
|
I am against eliminating per-country qouta.
If one day, they started a quota on Egyptians, I will accept that without an issue!
Otherwise, America will be dominated by Egyptians only!
Think about that!
|
gcismymission..
please change your name to .."gcismymissionbyunfairmeans"...it will suit you
if you are principal of a school and if all the top rank from each class happen to be black will you put a cap on blacks...I think you will.......since you are very unfair...
gcdedoyaar,
Since you don't have words to oppose my above arguments your next steps were personal offense and country-wise discrimination. Yes, I suspect US is not attracting the best and brightest anymore. |
I think per-country quotas are fair. I think it derives from the fact that there is a yearly quota. Maybe the quota for countries with a high population should be higher. Even that alone may not be fair. In addition, if USCIS implements its system of using the unused visa numbers at some point in the year properly and on a first-in-first-out basis, it will be fine.
If the per-country quota is eliminated, then they should also eliminate per-year quotas. That way it will be fair for everyone.
|
Why would a country want their immigration system be dominated by a few countries? Especially when China is one of them. This is a bad idea for the US to remove the per country cap and I will be surprised if they did this. Not only is it unfair for smaller countries but it could possibly be a national security threat. Instead of fighting for more numbers, you want to remove the cap as well. Don't you guys realize what's going on? This is a deal breaker and Rep. Lofgren knows this. Maybe she is up for re-election and she wants to show the immigrant community in California that she is for them, but as far as I am concerned this bill is a dead horse. I am sorry that you have a long wait but thats because you are from a large country with a high demand. Thats it, there is no getting around it. I think she should be concentrating her efforts on getting more numbers and trying to reclaim the lost ones. That would help India/China immensely especially with the ROW moving forward as it is because this would mean that there are more numbers spilling over into the respective pools.
|
gcdedoyaar,
Since you don't have words to oppose my above arguments your next steps were personal offense and country-wise discrimination. Yes, I suspect US is not attracting the best and brightest anymore.
Best and brightest? The way it is set up, it is supply and demand, not the best and the brightest.
enduring,
What do you exactly mean by "supply and demand"? |
I think per-country quotas are fair. I think it derives from the fact that there is a yearly quota. Maybe the quota for countries with a high population should be higher. Even that alone may not be fair. In addition, if USCIS implements its system of using the unused visa numbers at some point in the year properly and on a first-in-first-out basis, it will be fine.
If the per-country quota is eliminated, then they should also eliminate per-year quotas. That way it will be fair for everyone.
to msam:
msam,
Country quotas are fair given that any visas left should be proportionally alloted to countries with overflowed demand. No visa should be wasted nor visas should go first to high immigration influx countries. |
gcismymission,
What I meant by supply and demand is that for many companies it is sufficient to hire the available people to do the job, the best suited for the job. It doesn't always necessarily mean "the best and the brightest".
enduring,
I agree with your thoughts.
Furthermore I'm 100% in favor of raising overall visa numbers (I think H1B and GC numbers are below demand) and stop the waste of unassigned visas b/c of country quotas. I think wasting visas that could go to people from India, China or wherever is a nonsense. |
If the law of supply and demand is set *free* without per-country cap and since it is employer-driven immigration, isn't it giving more power to employers to choose one nationality over another? Although it may not be obvious, but it looks like that in the IT industry, one small or medium sized company maybe dominantly Indian, or dominantly chinese, etc.
(Good for nursing, it is not like that) Please correct me if my view is wrong.
|
If the law of supply and demand is set *free* without per-country cap and since it is employer-driven immigration, isn't it giving more power to employers to choose one nationality over another? Although it may not be obvious, but it looks like that in the IT industry, one small or medium sized company maybe dominantly Indian, or dominantly chinese, etc.
(Good for nursing, it is not like that) Please correct me if my view is wrong.
to July31stRN:
July31stRN,
I'll give you my point of view based on experience.
I understand that India and China are dominants in terms of immigration flux to US. I understand that b/c a whole network has already been established it's natural to bring people over country connections therefore you'll find that kind of profile in small and medium companies with majority from one or two countries.
What I can't agree is pushing a bill by means of false and misleading arguments. Instead of offending why not discuss? B/c the majority of arguments will fall like a castle of cards hit by a small puff. |
If the law of supply and demand is set *free* without per-country cap and since it is employer-driven immigration, isn't it giving more power to employers to choose one nationality over another? Although it may not be obvious, but it looks like that in the IT industry, one small or medium sized company maybe dominantly Indian, or dominantly chinese, etc.
July31stRN,
I completely share your view point. I have also expressed this viewpoint in the other thread. However, as usual, not everyone can see (or more like refused to see) this problem.
I'd like to add.
For sure it might shift the power over to a network of connections that will at least partially take over the EB immigration process. US government must stay in control over the fairness of the entire process and guarantee that every nationality has the same opportunity through identical country quotas. |
During the testimony of Mr. Aytes in Congress, he said that the total immigration (Family, employment, etc) is composed of people from Mexico (14%), Philippines (7%), and China (7%). In total number, India is not in the picture (yet). Is it because Indians are mostly taking the employment immigration route just lately and not much of family-based immigration? Can someone from India answer this please. I want to know the whole picture.
|
During the testimony of Mr. Aytes in Congress, he said that the total immigration (Family, employment, etc) is composed of people from Mexico (14%), Philippines (7%), and China (7%). In total number, India is not in the picture (yet). Is it because Indians are mostly taking the employment immigration route just lately and not much of family-based immigration? Can someone from India answer this please. I want to know the whole picture.
to July31stRN:
Must be getting closer to China and Philippines. I think that any difference would be due to family based b/c indian immigration is relatively recent. |
The following is the PERM statistics for fiscal year 2007 if it is of any help, I got it from user satishku2000's post
http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/PERM...
Top countries:
India (24573)
China(6846)
Mexico(6442)
South Korea(5159)
Canada(4837)
|
to gcismymission:
gcismymission -- I read through your arguments. Please find my reply below to your comments. I am prefixing my comment with "me:"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The letter points points out the below issues and justifications. My comments are right below each bullet point:
• Current law caps at 7% the number of employment-based immigrants that can come from any one country during the year. Because of this cap, a Chinese or Indian post-graduate at the top of his/her class at MIT may have to wait half a decade or more for a green card, much longer than a student from a less-populated country.
COMMENT: The cap is same for every country across the board though equality is guaranteed. The fact is there are many more people from the above mentioned nationalities who want to come to the US. The same would apply if any other country would be sending a high number of immigrants to US. Let's say Russians start immigrating massively to US, do we change the quotas again for the benefit of them? In other words, b/c they're in need let's change rules in the middle of the game.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: Just because it is same for every country does not make it fair. No one is asking to change the rules in the middle of the game. It has always been flawed and is just now coming to light. All countries are not created equal. India and China have more than 1/3 of the world population. So the number of people coming from these countries will also be large. Just because a person is born in one of these 2 countries, that person has to wait in queue with no end in sight, while someone from ROW will easily move ahead in line just because not a lot of people from their country want/know to to migrate here. I know this is what you call fair. When you decide to migrate to US, you are planning to leave your homeland and will probably make US your future home. So it is only fair that everyone is given an equal opportunity in this regard all else being equal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• This limit thus creates arbitrary incentives, often forcing U.S. employers to consider country of birth over talent.
COMMENT: This is a blatant lie. I have already pointed out in my posts that there is NOT a single US employer who has said such a thing on the record. That's based on words of a professional politician. Need to say more?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: Not very surprising. If an employer says this on record, they are in effect accepting that they are discriminating based on nationality, which is against the very core of US constitution. If you are an employer in this scenario will you go on record with this?
That being said, it is always a risk for the employer to sponsor someone for PR when they know that the person might get frustrated and decide to leave the country for other opportunities. I am not saying this is very widespread now, but it will soon be if these frustrations continue.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• By eliminating per-country caps on employment based visas, this bill gives U.S. employers the ability to hire foreign workers based on merit. U.S. employers are beginning to lose out in the global competition for talent, as more and more countries from around the world adapt their immigration laws to attract talent from overseas. This bill will help insure that the American economy can continue to seek out the best and brightest, regardless of their country origin. America needs a fair and simple immigration system that gives U.S. employers the ability to hire foreign workers on a first-in, first-out basis.
COMMENT: US employers (truly domestic ones) hire based on merit, period. This whole thing about US loosing competition has nothing to do with country quotas but to the overall number of available visas and other issues such as outsourcing. This bill has nothing to do with America's search for the best and brightest. The best and the brightest have always come to America since there was no temporary worker program which was streamlined and implemented around 1991. America has indeed a fair and maybe not that simple system to hire foreign workers. It's done through O1/H1 and L1 visa programs.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: You are right so far. But this trend will not continue. I know of atleast 3 people who did their Phd here and got frustrated with the level of immigration inefficiency and went to other countries to work. I know of a guy who did his Masters here and wanted to start his own business, but could not and left to Australia. He worked for sometime there and started his own business and as of last I heard, he employed around 13 people. So that atleast 13 jobs that US will not have. This is what they mean by loosing the best and brightest.
The best and brightest have limits which they are willing to bear. Why restrict them based on countries, which will only frustrate them and make them leave to other countries where there is no such frustration. I am not saying that all of them will leave. But certainly there are many that will if this situation continues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now I will add few things from my side to support HR 5921, which is based on the discussion I had with other immigrants in my community and forums.
• In 'Employment based' green card, 'skill' should be deciding factor and not country of birth.
COMMENT: EB green cards relies on lack of US resident and national skilled workers. It is based on local job market's demand. It has nothing to do with offered but required skills. You could be a PhD and US market is in lack of cashiers. People are trying to make the point that highly skilled foreigners have automatically acquired the right to come and live in th US. That's not why the EB program was created for.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: You are right in your comment that highly skilled foreigners have not acquired the right to come and live in US. The argument is that EB is skill based and birth country should not be a deciding factor. Going by your argument, if 2 people with same skill compete for cashier job, is it fair that one will wait endlessly whereas the other gets GC immediately. This is discrimination. The wait should be fair to all and who came in first should get it first, not because they were born NOT in a specific country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• To promote diversity in immigration US already as the diversity visa lottery program which promotes immigration from countries which are under-represented.
COMMENT: In other words, EB program as of now should belong to a private group of immigrants. The rest must take their chances in a random selection. Pathetic. By the way, it also has quotas per region/country. Whether they are fair or not it doesn't belong to the current discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: How does removal of country cap make the system belong to a private group of immigrants? There is no 'rest' vs 'private group'. If the country cap is removed, everyone stands in line. If you get in early, you get out early.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• When there are no per-country limits at entry point (student visas / tourist visas / business visas / temporary worker visas) why should there be a per-country limit for employment based Green cards. This defies logic.
COMMENT: Because those are TEMPORARY. Let me repeat, TEMPORARY. It has nothing to do with immigrating and settling permanently in US which as per definition is PERMANENT. Your logic is about breaking equality of immigration opportunity because you have a higher demand coming from a small group of countries. US must ensure that people from any country has the same opportunity, so to speak QUOTA, to immigrate here.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: I am not sure how removing country quota breaks equality of immigration opportunity. The earlier you are in the line, the earlier you get your GC. How does this limit the opportunity of people from countries other than those capped? Once you decide to migrate and settle down in US based on your skill, the only criteria should be the skill of the individual and the time he applied, not where he was born. Is it so difficult to see this?
If a person decides to apply based on some other criteria like family or diversity, then of course your argument applies.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• The current per-country quota is per-se discriminatory based on nationality and race. In the initial days of US immigration it never tried to restrict people from other countries like Ireland or Germany because more people from these countries migrated to US.
COMMENT: It will be discriminatory if you make Employment based UNEQUAL on a country basis. In the past immigration was about war, now is about opportunity. Moreover US does have a political asylum program and is currently allowing foreigners involved with Iraq war to come to US through those specific channels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: The current system is discriminatory because country of birth, not skill, is the factor in deciding who gets GC and who will be in limbo for a very long time. I am not sure your comment makes sense at all. We are taking about EB, which is skill based, not free-for-all immigration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• The foundation of this country considers all man equals and with the same opportunities, I believe as immigrants we are looking to be considered equals and with same opportunity as Americans. Life is difficult and I think any person must be able to pursue their dreams without restrictions of origin race, color or sexual orientation.
COMMENT: I am a firm believer that immigrants must be respected and have their human rights guaranteed however I also think that only when you become an American citizen you will be absolutely equal. That's the same speech being given by illegal immigrants who break the law in first place then demand for undeserved rights. Please don't throw legal immigrants in the same flock it will eventually turn against us. What has to do a person's dreams with coming to the US? If it's about your dreams then let's bend the rules to favor it?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, do not bend rules for anyone. Make it fair and remove the quota. The first in gets out first, simple as that.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• This Bill will not only benefits professionals from India or China but also temporary workers from Mexico and Philippines.
COMMENT: Did you mean professional immigrants?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unnecessary comment.
• Employment based Green Cards should be an open market where the best and the most talented may have the jobs.
COMMENT: And it is. Making it private for a small group is exactly what will defeat the purpose.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me: Removing country cap will not make it unfair. When you get your GC depends on your skill (EB1,EB2,Eb3 etc) and when you applied to move in. It is unfair as of now in that people who get in way early will have to wait while a person who got in later gets his GC quicker because not many people applied from his/her country. Country of birth has got nothing to do with skill and as such should not be a factor in EB immigration.
The bottom line is removal of country cap is fair to all. Country of birth has got nothing to do with skill and should not be a factor in deciding EB immigration. This is the fair system. Everyone is an individual when it comes to immigration and as such should be given equal opportunity to settle down here based on whether the person has the required skill or not and not based on country of birth.
The current scenario gives an unfair advantage to those in ROW. Once the cap is removed, this unfair advantage will no more be there. I have seen a lot of ROW members say that it will be unfair to their country if the cap is removed. This is totally baseless. When it comes to skill based immigration, it should be skill based, not based on country of birth. When a person gets GC will depend on when they apply. the earlier you apply, the earlier you get your GC. So how is this unfair?
In the current scenario, a person born in a cap country with on EB2 will not be getting his/her gc even if they started their process in 2005, whereas a person from a row country with the same skill will get it faster than the earlier one even if they decide to apply today. Is this what you mean by fair?
|
During the testimony of Mr. Aytes in Congress, he said that the total immigration (Family, employment, etc) is composed of people from Mexico (14%), Philippines (7%), and China (7%). In total number, India is not in the picture (yet). Is it because Indians are mostly taking the employment immigration route just lately and not much of family-based immigration? Can someone from India answer this please. I want to know the whole picture.
to gcismymission:
Must be getting closer to China and Philippines. I think that any difference would be due to family based b/c indian immigration is relatively recent.
A lot of catching up to do huh...I think Indian immigration started during the IT boom, unlike China and Philippines which started immigrating into the US after World War 1. I saw a documentary during my visit at California adventure that Chinese immigrants were used to climb up hills to set and denotate bombs during the Gold rush and I believe Filipinos started immigrating after the war when it was pretty easy for them because it was a US ally. |
to July31stRN:
gcformykid, the rule shall be fair and simple: equal quotas for each country, whatever is left goes to overflowed countries.
|
to July31stRN:
Very deep discussion so far and I would just like to add that had Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) passed last year then the per country quota would have been removed anyways! Everyone would have been in a points based system and it would have been survival of the best in the right to immigrate into this country. And hence I feel this is a piecemeal action towards acheiving some goals of the CIR.
Of course given the large size of populations in India and China there will be more people coming out of these countries. Imagine that had the Indian states been separate countries then there would have been a per country cap for each of those states and hence higher would have been the chances of seeing an Indian (or Chinese hypothetically speaking). The reality is that these two countries path is going to and already affecting the rest of the world.
Other than that I am not going to claim that removing the per country quota makes sense to me because I would not be able to defend that point of view from accusations that it is biased.
|
gcformykid, the rule shall be fair and simple: equal quotas for each country, whatever is left goes to overflowed countries.
to gcismymission:
How about more fair and simple rule - FIFO -- First in First out ? |
How about more fair and simple rule - FIFO -- First in First out ?
asdf,
I'll buy you a drink if you can make USCIS follow FIFO.
You are digressing. The other guy was talking about fair and simple rule. FIFO is THE fair and simple rule. |
to asdf:
you are right the rule should be fair and simple! if so, then what kind of rule is that one waits 7-10 years and other only 2-3 years under the same category example eb3.
|
to asdf:
Exactly...That is the fairest of all the rules. Everyone applies based on merit and all are subject to the same cap of 140,000 and people get their GCs on FIFO.
That is what the points based system would have acheived.
|
to shivapb80:
gcismymission,
If you really think about equall oppurtunity or equality, why do u care of about quota just remove it... are you afraid of competition? By the way, what is there on your agenda next? sending equal number of participants from countries to Olympics? Please cut the crap! :)
|
to gcismymission:
Simplest rule is FIFO , does not matter where you come from.
|
to gcformykid:
I understand that this is a very sensitive subject for many people here. I sympathize with all the people who have been waiting for the green card for such a long time, whether they are Indians, Chinese, or otherwise. However, I believe that the H1-B/GC system has been significantly abused by the body shop IT companies, which are mainly Indian.
I know that India has a huge population; however, the number of H1-Bs that Indians take is almost bigger than what the rest of the countries combined (china included) take. I don’t think we would be in the situation we are today if the system wasn’t so badly abused.
I understand that country caps could be deemed unfair, and I would have supported if everybody played by the same rules. But this is clearly not the case. So I don’t see why in the world any ROW applicant would supports such a thing, given that we are all paying the price of people abusing the system. Country caps at least keeps some sort of balance in this mess.
|
Hi enduring...
The simplest answer for me is to point you to the draft of the Comprehensive Immigration Reform (CIR) and see how that bill defined the points that can be accumulated. For example a person who has a gold medal in Mathematics from International Maths Olympiad and has a job offer here in the US is more qualified that someone who just has a job offer.
That is one thing I really liked about CIR. It only defined a minimum threshold of points that an aspiring immigrant needs to acquire and companies can only hire from that pool. So essentially it exposed everyone to competition. If there was a job which could really use maths skills then the Olympiad winner has a better chance of immigrating to this country regardless of which country he is from. That is really beneficial for the competitive edge of this country which is the whole point anyway with the Employment Based immigration.
|
enduring,
I thought I made my peace with you... :) clearly you do not like the concept of "equall opputunity" and I do. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this!
Anyway, sorry for my wrong post. What I meant was reserve medals with equal quota per country?
|
to gcismymission:
Why instead fight for eliminate per country quota, they fight for eliminate green card quota? Consider this: Whom is applying for green card? Only employment-based or family-based. Those people come to USA using H-1B (65000 per year) or relatives accompanying theirs sponsor. There are no possibility to overflow. The quota per country protect those country less developed. Think that
|
to ucsb:
No One is stopping companies from other countries such as Albania from starting a company and filing GC or H1b.
|
to ucsb:
ucsb...
let me ask you this question...
1. how big is the population of your country (Albania?)?
2. how many college students does it graduate each year from its universities and colleges?
3. what is the ranking of that country in the world in terms of economy size?
the reason partly h1b is used so much by indian companies (especially outsourcing companies) is because it makes economic sense to those companies. US government should not allow that abuse to happen and there are bills which are pending which deal with it. right now an indian student graduating from MIT and having gone to the prestigious IIT in India (which admits 2000 students each year from a pool of 300,000) will wait for 7 yeads before getting a LPR status whereas a student from Albania who has gone to University of Kentucky and faced only 10,000 studens in an exam in his home country will get it in 2 years.
you have to understand one way or the other - americans do not want any more immigrants. they do not care which country the immigrants are from - just that the annual numbers of 1 M immigrants needs to be reduced. And I agree with them in so many ways. So much so that I actually support:
a. removal of per country cap.
b. reducing the EB based GCs from 140,000 to 100,000
c. elimination of diversity visas.
d. removing the one-application-two-greencards rules which is also causing this backlog.
|
to satishku2000:
Yeah, I was lucky cause I got the first H1-B 7 years ago. I don't think for a moment I would have been so lucky to get an H1-B this year. I know the numbers are lower but look who is taking those H1-Bs.
|
I agree and that was the accusation laid out against the CIR.
And I am not knowledgeable enough to say wether it is right or wrong.
All I am saying is that it will remove the discrepancy that exists right within the highly qualified (EB3, EB2, EB1) categories.
|
lol... You continue to amuse me my friend (amuse me in a good way). =)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lets just say that some opinons need amusement... :)
|
Under current classifications that student may or may not be able to apply for EB1 classification. Under current classifications just going to the best school in India and US does not make you an EB1 applicant. But heaven knows how difficult is it to get into MIT. So if he applies for EB2 then my arguement stands valid.
Anyways, just for your reference no other country with a points based system has a per country cap.
The per country cap in the EB category was a carryover from the family based system. The dilema there was that how do the immigration authorities judge that sons/daughters of a person from Myanmar were less important than sons/daughters of a person from India, both of whom are US citizens and hence they went for this per-country cap. Infact if you look back to 1920s in the US there was no restriction on immigration numbers though I think they were disallowing Irish/Germans etc...Have to refresh my knowledge of US history on that one.
|
Ah! I wish life was that simple. But enduring think one step ahead. When you are a citizen of this coutry would you approve of that sort of legislation - I know I wont.
|
to gc1999:
I just thought of another grave situation...
Its true that there are a lot of EB application from In/China.
Its true that there are less EB applications from ROW.
But ...
If this goes on like this with country cap, then year by year,
new applications from these countries will have to wait even
longer longer years... while whoever applies from ROW will keep
getting in shorter years..
say (just imagination ...)
as of now, if average wait for india/china is
2008 5 yrs (ROW is 2yrs)
in future, it will be,
2010 7 yrs (ROW is 1 yrs)
2012 9 yrs (ROW is .5 yrs)
......
......
.....
At one point, In/China will be hopelessly discouraged themselves
and on the otherhand, IOs will be giving GC to anyone who
has applied from ROW, since they will be sort of always current, in
all stages...
If things start accumulating at this rate, then there is good
chance that the above may happen...
God Bless...
Regards,
Chatterjie
|
to chatterjie:
and some here would claim that that is demand-and-supply system at its best. though the fact is that those highly talented people have now reverse braindrained to their home countries of India/China.
I have helped build one startup here and am working on building another start up. So essentially those two companies would have been formed in India if I go back. And you can see effects of that in both China and India. The Chinese are fast catching up to US students in terms of patents and publications in Information Technology/Computational Sciences.
|
to shivapb80:
shivapb80,
I don’t have the exact stats because I left Albania 15 years ago and I don’t follow closely what’s happening there. Your example of some Albanian dude graduating from some "second-grade" university and jumping ahead of a smart Indian MIT graduate is way off the charts. I’ve been more than 15 years in this country and waiting for more than 6 years for the green card. I also have several friends who graduated from MIT and other so called “prestigious†schools who and are in the same situation. That was not my point though. What I was trying to say that the H1B system has been badly abused and we are now paying the price waiting in the long line.
|
to ucsb:
UCSB
I am sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way. I was just giving an example of a lopsided quota system at work.
I hope people get their GCs in the order of the time they have wait for it regardless of where they are from.
|
to shivapb80:
shivapb80
It's OK. We are all a bunch of frustrated people, tired of waiting. Personally I don’t by the diversity argument. I don’t really want to jump ahead of someone who has been waiting longer than me. We just have to find ways to improve the system, which is clearly a mess.
|
to CADude:
Ask the Congress tro increase the quotas for the visas. Per country limit should stay!
|
How about more fair and simple rule - FIFO -- First in First out ?
to asdf:
asdf,
I'll buy you a drink if you can make USCIS follow FIFO.
You are digressing. The other guy was talking about fair and simple rule. FIFO is THE fair and simple rule.
It is FIFO with same opportunity by country. Every country has same quota. People are mixing up skill qualifications which is required for jobs with visa quotes to obtain permanent residency. You get H1, PERM and 140 solely based on your skills and job requirements on a FIFO based system then after you have the opportunity to apply for I-485 based on quotas equally and fairly divided by country. I support both quota increase and recover of unused visa numbers, something they should have done a long time ago. If it's supposed to just stand in line outside of US borders I bet Mexicans would beat us all here. |
The whole crap of this discussion is not about being fair ou unfair for Indians, Chinese or ROW.
The whole crap is what suits better the USA purpose.
Per country cap suits OK the US immigration purpose, i.e., DIVERSITY.
If you tell me about the thousand of talented Indians and Chinese that loose the opportunity to migrate to US
due the the coutry cap, I would say that there will be enough talented ROW to take their place. Hence, the immigration
can still attract talented people and maintain the diversity.
Is this bad for Indians and Chinese? Sure it is. I have some Indians friends, really talented guys, who are stuck in the
GC process for year, and probably will be stuck for some more years still, and I feel sorry for them.
However, looking for the Americans side, I belive the diversity has the purpose of protecting their culture.
If there is an influx of immigrants from the same nationality it can have a negative impact to the american culture.
I don't think americans would be happy if their kids started playing Cricket instead of baseboll, or if the burgers and
buffalo wings restaurants were replaced by Indian/Chinese cousine.
By the way, I hate baseboll and I really preffer Indian/Chinese food over burgers, but this is the american culture and we
have to respect it.
|
The whole crap of this discussion is not about being fair ou unfair for Indians, Chinese or ROW.
The whole crap is what suits better the USA purpose.
Per country cap suits OK the US immigration purpose, i.e., DIVERSITY.
If you tell me about the thousand of talented Indians and Chinese that loose the opportunity to migrate to US
due the the coutry cap, I would say that there will be enough talented ROW to take their place. Hence, the immigration
can still attract talented people and maintain the diversity.
Is this bad for Indians and Chinese? Sure it is. I have some Indians friends, really talented guys, who are stuck in the
GC process for year, and probably will be stuck for some more years still, and I feel sorry for them.
However, looking for the Americans side, I belive the diversity has the purpose of protecting their culture.
If there is an influx of immigrants from the same nationality it can have a negative impact to the american culture.
I don't think americans would be happy if their kids started playing Cricket instead of baseboll, or if the burgers and
buffalo wings restaurants were replaced by Indian/Chinese cousine.
By the way, I hate baseboll and I really preffer Indian/Chinese food over burgers, but this is the american culture and we
have to respect it.
to rcesar:
I agree. |
|
Users watching this thread:
cainong, hnks, msam, jamaican4gc, July31stRN, shivapb80, asdf, gc1999, ucsb, lucky1, rcesar
|
