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.
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.
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.
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.