[pfarnsworth]

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.

[_skel]

> 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.

[scarejunba]

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.

[jiminy_john]

If I know that by jumping off of a bridge I will get hurt but I still jump, it is the bridge that is at fault.

Brilliant logic on your side!

[scarejunba]

Haha, the irony of it all.

Whether you know that jumping off a bridge will hurt has no impact on whether it will hurt. It's not a question of fault. It's a question of fact.

[rahul003]

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.

[berthe]

> 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.

[taken_username]

Slavery was a system in the way it was and it was even legal! You can't turn around and yell this is how it is.

[oculusthrift]

And not being able to swarm into another country is equivalent to slavery?

[throwaway12122]

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.

[mavelikara]

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.

[throwaway12122]

No. This is in Midwest. I am surprised California also has the same rule considering they have a lot of software companies there.

[rohit2412]

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.

[fjsolwmv]

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.

[rohit2412]

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.

[UncleEntity]

> 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.

[pfarnsworth]

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.

[cfadvan]

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.

[rohit2412]

And that's how you are discriminating on the basis of geographical area of birth.

Why isn't the system oblivious to one's country of origin?

[cfadvan]

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.

[pessimizer]

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.

[damnyou]

Is it really discrimination if the system has separate water fountains for whites and coloreds?

It sucks that the system is the way it is, and I think having the same water fountains for everyone is far more efficient.

(There is a term for when the system discriminates. It's called... you guessed it, systemic discrimination.)