Is it really discrimination if the system is already known to have a per-country limit, and yet more and more people from that country continue to file for Green Cards? Indians who come to the US these days know for a fact there is a 10+ year wait for a Green Card, so they're the ones taking their chances. If they scream discrimination, I call BS on that.
It sucks that the system is the way it is, and I think a point-based system like Canada is far more efficient, but it's not discrimination. If there are already known rules, and one particular country comes in an adds a massive amount of applications, you can't turn around and yell discrimination.
> If there are already known rules, and one particular country comes in an adds a massive amount of applications, you can't turn around and yell discrimination.
If the rules are discriminatory then it's entirely valid to call them as such, and doing so may help to change them.
Yes, dude. If I already know you’re discriminatory and I still apply, you’re still discriminatory. It’s in the antecedent of the clause. Just apply basic propositional logic.
Knowing that discrimination exists while you get into something doesn't make it less discriminatory. Sure they knew what they were getting into, but I doubt they are complaining that they didn't know it was like this.
> Knowing that discrimination exists while you get into something doesn't make it less discriminatory.
"Discrimination" is a neutral term though: there are acceptable kinds and unacceptable kinds. For instance, it is discrimination to not let a stranger sleep in your home or in your bed, though no one reasonable would call that unacceptable discrimination.
The actual policy we're talking about here is a country-neutral permanent immigration quota coupled with country-neutral per-country percentage caps. There's nothing specially discriminatory in the law against people from India. It's just that there's massive amounts of temporary-worker immigration from there, which crashes hard against the other quotas. If German immigration were equally massive, Germans would have the same problems Indians have now, so the problem has nothing to due with racial or ethnic discrimination.
You could also think of the quotas another way: they're protecting the ability of people from countries other than India to immigrate, so the incoming immigrant stream is more diverse.
I have been riding taxis for the last 1 month because DMV refuses to renew my license until my work permit (visa) extension is approved. Nearly half of the drivers I met were from another continent. They are here legally and can work and live here without fear. But, just because I am from India, I cannot. I have to constantly live in fear of one day being told to go back. My employer asked me to go back to India 2-3 years back. I felt really horrible during the last 3 months. If this is how one feels about going back, I don't know how I would feel in my death bed.
I pay my taxes, I pay social security for which I get no benefit, I have to pay US tax for income I make in India. I cannot understand why I am less valuable to your country.
Let me guess - you are in California, rt? California DMV is an absolute peach in this respect. They won't issue you an extension to your license while you wait for your H-1B extension. But if you are in California illegally, they have no problem handing you a license! Some California cities actually fight for the right to harbor illegal immigrants. But a legal immigrant waiting for an extension paperwork - sorry.
Probability doesn't really work that way. There are complex factors that go into the calculation, for any set of policies. Every policy discriminates somehow, except completely unrestricted system.
I think it's fair to discriminate on skills than geographical area of birth. We call the first merit, and the second some ism.
Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine? Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control.
> Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine?
They can "limit" based on skills, they can "limit" based on country of origin with the main difference being not using the hot-button word "discrimination" to, err...discriminate between the two while implying some sinister race-based system of visa allocation.
> Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control.
They you'd be "discriminating" against people who can't afford advanced degrees from prominent schools who just want to work hard so their children can have a better life like the countless number of first-generation citizens I've met over the years. This is where I'd put a "why you hate poor people?" to make my point but I know that's not what you're arguing.
All of these are good discussions to be had, maybe we should have a single global democratic secular government too.
But in no way is the biases or diarciminations in a "fair" merit based system a justification for the discrimination based on country of birth, like in the current system.
Actually, it does sound fair to me -- or at least as fair as it can get.
Individually it may suck if you come from a country with a large population like China or India but overall it gives people from all over the globe the chance to emigrate without having to directly compete with the large numbers of visa seekers from these countries.
I honestly can't think of a more egalitarian immigration policy.
So, say I break India into North India and South India as different countries, that doubles the visa the people there receive. What changed? How about Breaking India down into a hundred different countries? Did we increase the visas a hundred times?
EU is a unified political and economic entity, with individual states having well defined freedom. Just like a federation. India is like that, so is USA. So, does EU also qualify for a combined 7% cap as a united entity?
Discrimination and limits on the country of birth is such a stupid policy, unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India.
> ...unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India.
I personally think people (and capital) should be able freely move anywhere they want without having to worry about some arbitrary lines on a map but that's not the point, the point is no matter how you look at it someone is going to be "discriminated" against so a person from Tuvalu is either going to have a higher or lower chance than a person from India depending on whatever selection criteria you use.
Honest question, why do you think that there should be totally free movement? Let’s say the US economy implodes, should a few hundred million Americans be allowed to pick a country to take over by default and sheer strength of numbers? What if half the population of India felt like moving to Mexico? What if half of the population of Mexico felt like moving to Vanu’Atu?
There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala?
Plus it'd be pretty hard to be an oppressive dictatorship (looking at you, California) if the people could just up and move to a less oppressive regime (like Arizona). Of course I'm (mostly) joking with my example but a CA->AZ mass migration is happening as we speak and nobody is calling for a wall on the border (yet). They can't put up massive apartment/condo monstrosities fast enough to handle all the new folks moving here and presumably they're finding jobs without too much trouble.
So, yeah, I think if governments had to compete to retain their "subjects" the world would be a much better place and people probably wouldn't need to relocate unless they really wanted to unlike today's multiple "migration crises" (their term, not mine).
There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala?
Sounds fine, but what happens in the scenarios I actually outlined in my first post? It’s not about displacement, but simple overwhelming numbers. Would Japan still be Japan if tens of millions of people from all around the world decided to live there? Would Albania still be Albania if a hundred million people from China and India showed up? If everyone in California were suddenly matched 3:1 by Sub-Saharan Africans, what happens?
In terms of language, culture, social services, law enforcement, etc... you’re suddenly in a whole new world. I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong for Japan, to use a precious example, to wish to remain Japanese in terms of their language and culture. I don’t think it’s wrong for Switzerland to balk at the notion of a hundred million Americans showing up either.
If you remove all restrictions, it’s not just about having a Guatemalan neighbor; that’s just immigration as it is today. The US for example has absorbed millions of Mexicans, Central and South Americans without any real problems. It is after all, a drop the proverbial bucket. The issue arises when it’s far more than that, order of magnitude more, and all at once.
What would happen to Guatemala if a sizeable chunk of the US, or China, India, or Africa immigrated there? It would implode, socially, financially, and its existing culture would be consumed. If everyone who wanted to live in Hawaii or Monaco could just move there, both places would be environmentally and economically trashed. Immigration is necessary and human, and there should be more of it in most cases than we see today. That doesn’t imply that total freedom of movement is workable or desirable either. I’d no more want to live in a country with no immigration limits, than I would in a country with no immigration; both would be broken.
Of course you think that it's fair to discriminate based on skills, because it benefits you. That's not how the rules are though. If Green Cards were based on the queue length, then Indians would starve out every other country, and that's not how the US has decided to approach immigration. There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination. Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot, just because you're not getting what you want doesn't mean there's discrimination. Letting you in would be discriminating against someone else in another country.
We are just arguing why the rules are the way they are.
> There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination
If you have different outcomes for individuals based on what country they were born in, that is discrimination. Not sure what stupid definition of discrimination you have in mind.
> Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot
Not everyone, but every country. And that does not mean every race, or every ethnicity. So much for forced "diversity". You have no idea how diverse India is, with thousands of languages and hundreds of ethnic groups. It is the origin of four major world religions, and has been always been an accepting land. But you SJW can go through your forced diversity with your discriminatory policies, with complete lack of logical thought.
You can limit immigration fairly. But don't tell me I have a lesser chance of working in USA than a Kenyan and that's not discrimination.
You as one of over a billion people from the same country will understandably have more competition than a Kenyan who is competing with under 50 million countrymen. Overall more Indians have a chance of working in the US than Kenyans, but the pools drawn from are at least an order of magnitude apart.
The idea is to give people from all over the world an equal shot, not to just skew in favor of one or two high population demographics. You can call that discrimination if you like, but in the “discriminating tastes” sense not the KKK sense. The alternative is to discriminate (in the negative sense) against people who don’t come from a population in the billions.
I’m Irish and live in Dublin, so there is no “me” in this scenario. I’m just stating how the system works, which as far as I know would easily absorb everyone from Tuvalu, because yes, there aren’t many of them. It’s not Tuvalu’s fault that they can’t exceed the limit on their own, it’s just life.
In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.
That seems reasonable. You’re not being targeted, Tuvalu isn’t being advantaged, it’s just that there are a lot of Indian people. What’s the alternative? No one gets a chance until every Indian who wants in gets in? Remove all limits? How would that be more fair? You’d just shift one country’s overpopulation to another. If a billion people from various parts of Africa and Asia suddenly were able (and did) immigrate to the US, what would be the result? My guess is economic collapse and social upheaval, followed by people immigrating to the next “best” country with the same results, and so on and so on.
It seems to me you think that the highest population should entitle people to more opportunities. That’s better for the individual, because they get more chances, but it’s at the direct expense of lower populations. That’s not about fairness or being against discrimination, it’s just wanting what you want and fuck anyone else.
India is as diverse as Africa and Europe. I find this classification of Indian people as the same as wrong. I demand there be a similar 7% cap for Africa and Europe too.
After all, EU is a combined political and economic entity, makign it a federation, just like India.
I demand there be a similar 7% cap for Africa and Europe too.
Africa is a continent, India is a country. The cap isn’t based on diversity, but a country. The reason being the same as several people including myself have stated, namely so that one country doesn’t dominate at the direct expense of all others. Your personal demands based on what you personally want because it would advantage you aren’t how policies anywhere are made.
Given that, and given that your argument is neither consistent nor in good faith, I’m out. It’s clear that you don’t care about diversity or discrimination or anything else, you’re just all about personal advantage. That’s not an argument, it’s a form of bigotry.
No, the fact that a system of discrimination is already in place is not proof that the system is not discriminatory. If that were true, US chattel slavery would not have been discriminatory.
It sucks that the system is the way it is, and I think a point-based system like Canada is far more efficient, but it's not discrimination. If there are already known rules, and one particular country comes in an adds a massive amount of applications, you can't turn around and yell discrimination.