There is no doubt that the country caps and quotas for immigrants from countries with large populations like India, Mexico, Philippenes and China are a huge problem.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
> I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
What initial visas? If you are talking about selectively denying non-immigrant dual-intent H-1B visas to people from countries with long timelines in some or all immigrant visa categories (not that getting an H-1B doesn't imply intent to seek to immigrate, and doesn't require qualification in an immigrant visa category), that's...well, even as someone who thinks the H-1B is a bad idea ab initio, a remarkably non-helpful policy to layer on top.
> The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.
It's not just that people agree it is a problem and don't agree on a solution, people don't even agree on what the problem is though they might agree that, e.g., the long waitlists from certain countries are symptoms of some problem.
Like, when some people favor eliminating all immigration from certain countries, and other people favor eliminating per country caps, that isn't a different solution to the same problem, its a fundamental difference in what is perceived as the problem.
It is not a right, for sure. However, there are historical reasons why they are county wide quotas. Before the 1965 INA (Hart-Celler Act, which JFK wanted), they had a national-origins quota system: each country's quota was based on the existing immigrant population of that national origin already in the United States, using data from the 1890 census. Because the U.S. population in 1890 was overwhelmingly from Northern and Western Europe (especially Protestants), this formula strongly favored those groups. Immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe was heavily restricted because most of them are Catholics. Once Catholics got political power, thanks to JFK, this is reformed in favor of what we see country based caps.
The national-origins formula was explicitly designed to maintain the existing ethnic composition of the U.S.--in other words, preserve what policymakers at the time considered the “traditional” American demographic makeup.
In fact it's the opposite. We used to have a system that promoted western european, and we decided to change that. So we split them up in a way that encourages diversity. People from populous nations think this isn't fare. American's think it is explicitly fair, that our system makes sure people from all over the world come and join us, not just immigration dominated by the highest populous countries.
I understand the diversity is good, and that immigration can create that take. But I don't understand that 'immigration good, policies for diversity bad' take?
> American's think it is explicitly fair, that our system makes sure people from all over the world come and join us, not just immigration dominated by the highest populous countries.
I'm an American, and I don't understand how it is explicitly fair that India and China with areas of very large and populations of very large have the same immigration caps as Belize. Especially when something happens and Sudan becomes Sudan and South Sudan and the same people and the same area now have twice the cap; how is that explicitly fair? If India reorganized as the Union of Indian Republics (which I hope is not an offensive hypothetical name), where each state became a full country with an ISO-2 code and an ITU country code, would it be fair that each of the 36 member states have the same cap as any other country? Also, I'm not sure why the overall caps haven't changed since 1990. It feels like they should be indexed to something.
I think this version of quotas/caps is better than the previous version, but that doesn't make it explicitly fair.
I would be interested in knowing what the priority dates would look like if we adjusted the overall caps every ten years after the census to some percentage of overall US population (the 1990 cap was set at approximately 0.3%) or annually based on estimates works too, and also adjusting up the per country caps a bit too.
Basically the idea is that foreign nationals can only have as much leverage as the quota. This is based partly on old fears that European powers would recolonize the US.
Whether or not is necessary or not, I can’t say but if India separated into 500 different counties, then the US would only be catering to 500 micronations, maybe even divided on ethnic lines, and not a single powerful one which could get cultural dominance.
For a historical case, look at the British Empire. If given a large quota, most immigrants would be from the original isles because that’s who have the financial means to cross the ocean, while the billion plus people living in colonies like India wouldn’t have a chance until the Empire breaks.
No, this policy is currently kept based on our reason for immigration, to encourage diversity. We would lose that, and make immigration be basically for highly populous countries. That isn't why the USA has immigration. We don't have a system purely to get bodies in the country.
The USA is not the British Empire. The USA did away with preference for western Europeans and replaced it with a system for everyone. It pisses me off we are told we are being racist by... making sure all races get a chance to come here?
Refugee programs are separate from the immigration caps already.
If it was free for all, because of the way math works, you would get mainly immigrants from the higher populous countries. We have as our reason for high immigration being diversity, and we would lose that, and replace it with 'immigration is for Chinese/Indians/other populous countries'. That isn't why we have our immigration system, nor why people support it.
Is it fair that Bugatti Chiron has to obey the same speed limit as Geo Metro?
The country cap is the limit on the speed of immigration from that country. If we establish such a limit for any reason, why does it have to be proportional to the size of the country? If anything, it should be lower for the bigger countries if we consider this a safety measure against a country gaining too much influence, similar to trucks having lower speed limit than cars on some roads.
I have no problem with your notion of diversity. The whole EU population is 450 million, and there are 27 countries within the EU. So, the question: is China/India less diverse than the whole EU? Some say "yes"; others, "no". Both provide good reasons for their answers.
However, one can't deny the original immigration template with a variable. Original value for this variable: "national-origins". That value is replaced with "country wide quotas". The other value is f(diversity): another formula f based on the variable 'diversity'.
American citizens and their politicians have total freedom to replace the template, or change the current value for one of the variables, or replace with another variable.
Policies encouraging diversity aren't necessarily good or bad on their own. It may be that it is time to readjust those quotas based on the current needs.
Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!
America has a pretty generous immigration cap. But we have chosen as a nation that we want diverse immigration. At one time we prioritized western europeans, and we decided that wasn't a great policy. So we switched to one that encourage people from everywhere. This is what American's want, diverse immigration. I don't get how that somehow is bad? I don't get how more populous nations should have greater representation. Again, we had larger groups from certain countries (western europe) and we decided we SPECIFICALLY don't want that, that that isn't fair immigration policy and isn't part of America's diversity. We aren't going back to that.
As time goes on, the rejection of the idea of US-born people being "natives" in the sense that the rest of the world uses the term, simply because we have another term, "Native Americans" (which, as you will notice, is a proper noun), with a different meaning, is getting more and more dishonest. Yes, language is funny. Yes, the origins of nations are tragic if you go back far enough, and future citizens inherit the distributed weight of that guilt (but not the responsibility). But now, we have 300 million living people whose practical reality we would like discuss, and on that topic you are free and encouraged to disagree with anybody.
It's an argument based on a value. The parent's position is ostensibly that the value does not currently survive contact with concrete reality in the US today.
This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. It's ok to see and have emotions about the very real negative side of immigration. Lumping all those people in with the theoretical "just racist with no other rationale" crowd is harmful.
"This sneering oversimplification pushes people away from generosity. "
If you don't like "sneering oversimplification" you're really not gonna like it when you find out what smug "I'm the adult in the room" rhetoric does to both how you're perceived by interlocutors and the limitations on your own ability to work out the logic of these situations.
No it didn't. Putting up a candidate that talked about the stars and the moonlight instead of real problems Americans have got you Orange Man 2.0. To think, that they played the same game they did with Hillary and thought they could get away with it should really get you angry with party leadership.
I don't see how this is a counterpoint to my opinion. You can cultivate the generosity of natives to be open to immigration to whatever degree you think is just (e.g. by declining to use mockery/hate as your default position toward anybody who thinks there is any problem with the state of immigration), and you can do that regardless of your generosity level toward a political party that on average is more conservative or more hateful on immigration than the other. But that seems obvious, so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Idk about US, but in Europe we are in dire need of migration. The shortage in for example health care is acute and alarming, at least in Germany.
Our cleaning women is just about to finish her three year training program. However she failed the final exam because of the complicated wording of the test. Her German is good enough but formal German is a different beast. She is allowed to redo the test a single time next week.
If she passes, she will have an official German degree but has to leave the country because her visa is based on the training program. She then has to reapply for another visa to be allowed to reenter Germany.
Completely dysfunctional in my opinion. The system should bring people in that will be a net positive for the country while filtering out criminals.
I think you just don't want to pay those professions adequately.
Additionally I believe non eu migration on average hasn't been a net positive in various western european without even taking into account a load of externalities.
Why do you believe that it hasn't been a net positive? Talking about regular migration, not refugees, and it's quite difficult to migrate to Germany, the country makes sure that you are a net positive to at least the economics (everything else can't be measured on an individual basis).
Because it hasn't been in the places where it was measured adequately with a similar makeup.
And typically it's not even close.
You can find papers on this from the netherlands (look up borderless welfare state, university of amsterdam), denmark, etc
Certain demographic historically brought in to work(morocco, etc) cost on average few hundreds of thousands.
This mostly trough abysmal employment statistics (the majority of non eu migrant women here in brussels is neither working nor looking for work, among men it's still >30%) and lower income employment which also costs the country on average.
And this is despite a whole hosts of internationals that come in for the higher paying jobs at the international companies, etc.
Pragmatically: if you want to enforce the legality of a state-affirmed migration path, it has to be viable. Without a militarized border (which is impractical based on nation size and undesirable for fiscal and moral reasons) and a militarized interior (do you _like_ what ICE is becoming?), the best mitigation for illegal immigration is viable legal immigration.
Fiscally: immigrants have above-average entrepreneurial tendencies. It doesn't take a lot of enterprise creations and resulting tax payment and job creation to offset a _lot_ of social service consumption. Inbound migration also is what keeps the US from having a net-shrinking population, which until we can get away from late-stage capitalism is a death knell for the economy.
Morally and ethically: this is a nation of immigrants. If you claim to be a native, do you speak Navajo? Ute?
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
It's not a poem that _I_ wrote. That would be silly. You don't have to share _my_ feelings.
It's inscribed on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty and is taught in civics classes as a representation of American values. The idea is that, when you live in a society, you build upon a set of shared values and stories so that you can have something in common with your neighbor and something bigger than yourself to strive for.
All that said, there's a reason that comes last on my list of reasons. If you and I agree on the shared story, the other stuff doesn't matter so much. If we don't, having pragmatic and fiscal reasons to get on the same page lets us at least stay rational in our discourse.
> It's inscribed on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty and is taught in civics classes as a representation of American values
It was created by an activist looking to further Jewish and Georgian causes in the late 19th century. Id argue she wasn’t pushing for American causes and sought to redefine them to include her groups.
> The idea is that, when you live in a society, you build upon a set of shared values and stories so that you can have something in common with your neighbor and something bigger than yourself to strive for.
This is a relatively new idea (the inscription you described above came after the Statue of Liberty). Civic nationalism does not work with the entire world as opposed to immigrants of European descent, as they do not generally share the individualist egalitarian mindset that is unique to the west. There’s ample evidence of this in the US, but the conversation usually devolves into racism accusations at that point.
I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted. We’d probably find a fair amount of disagreement in our points of view, but I appreciate your engaging in good faith.
It’s not a bad thing per se, but democratic action can produce cultural shift to something that was previously considered outside of the scope of your country’s way of life. What matters is what you want to achieve as a country, a society, a community and so on. This is something groups of people have to decide for themselves, and the worst form of disagreement is violence.
I am of the view that more than 10 countries in the world should be built on enlightenment ideals, have a rule of law, have systems and processes for providing a good quality of life, and have centers of education and productivity.
I don’t think it’s reasonable that we should shift billions of people to live in a handful of nations via immigration. If that’s the overall plan, then nations where those people are immigrating from should just become vassal states.
It isn’t necessarily, but it’s currently used in the US to allow the wealthy to avoid investing in Americans.
Instead of investing in Americans by lowering costs of necessities (food, housing, education, children) they chase short term profits for the benefits of shareholders (which is by and large the ultra rich). It’s much cheaper to import labor where the above costs were paid for by somebody else.
The American people have spoken time and again that we want these caps. That we want opportunity spread to more countries than just the most populace. That immigration policy should support diversity over other considerations.
The reason this hasn't been fixed is because most American's support current policy along with promoting family unification and other decisions that are based on our moral positions. America has set a pretty generous amount of immigration slots, and it's not broken that we chose to fill them in a diverse way.
> That we want opportunity spread to more countries than just the most populace. That immigration policy should support diversity over other considerations.
There's an unspoken assumption there that India and China are monocultures, containing no diversity within themselves. Or that diversity is neatly defined by a border on a map.
Those four countries have very different quota problems though: folks from Mexico and Philippines face a long wait in family immigration, mostly to bring their kids & siblings to the US ( https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v... ), whereas Indian nationals also face long waits for employment based green-cards.
Noting that you can always use your country of birth or your spouse's country of birth (cross-chargeability) for an employment-based green-card, my understanding has always been that Indians have large preference (or face large pressure) to marry other highly-educated folks that they often meet in the US but are also born in India that other immigrants just don't face as much.
> Those four countries have very different quota problems though: folks from Mexico and Philippines face a long wait in family immigration, mostly to bring their kids & siblings to the US
Mexico faces long wait times in all of the quota-limited family-based immigrant visa categories.
The Phillipines faces a few months longer wait time in one severelly globally backlogged family based category (F4; where there is a 17 year backlog for most countries and its 3 months longer for the Phillipines), but not otherwise.
India and China have long backlogs in most employment-based immigrant visa categories (but generally much less than Mexico has in family-based categories), India also has an longer-than-usual backlog (more than Phillipines, less than Mexico) in the F4 family based category.
I think they could at least offer some sort of reprieve for people waiting in line. Their status is tied to employer whims. If someone has lived in the country for 5 years and in line for citizenship perhaps give them some protection in case their employment gets taken away. Some grace period, perhaps access to healthcare.
I suspect that the amount of background legwork for each application is fairly limited. It should be possible to triage the vast majority of applications in a matter of days at most, at least the denials. It's wild that it takes years to do this.
The really long waits aren't processing backlogs they are quota backlogs, either global (because the total annual cap in a category is or was recently lower than the annual nuber of applicants, so there it takes a period of years for quota space to be available globally) or on a per-country basis (because in each category, only 7% of the annual quota can go to applicants from one country, regardless of the distribution of applications.)
Though the processing times are also ridiculously and inexcusably long, in most categories.
Considering that there are over 2M immigrants per year and the USCIS staff is about 20K, it's actually pretty quick. If all USCIS did was just immigration it would still be ~100 immigrants per year per employee or about 2 workdays per immigrant. Even considering that some of those are dependents on the same case, it's still pretty fast. But USCIS also handles all the non-immigrant stuff: CoS, AoS, asylums, etc so they don't dedicate their whole workforce to the immigration and the actual caseload is higher than this estimate.
You've clearly never seen someone go for citizenship. It's a relatively involved process that involves multiple interviews, character reference letters, lots of paperwork, etc.
Getting a greencard (or equivalent) is an entirely different thing and is even _more_ broken.
I've known several people who've done it. I wasn't trying to argue that there isn't a lot of manual labor going on. But I'm doubting how much of that labor extends beyond interfacing with the applicant.
Are they interviewing references outside the country? Doing deep background checks that are not basically instant electronically? That's what I'm talking about. The denial process can probably be made extremely fast, and then the tedious interview part can be focused only on the ones we are planning to accept otherwise.
You're probably right that the background checks aren't that intensive, but every other part of that process is. If needing 2+ interviewers for 15-30 minutes per candidate isn't labor intensive, I don't know what your definition is.
No its not. It's a 3-step process with only one in person interview involved. I've helped 2 people go through that process in the last 2 years.
1) Submit an application and fee. Along with additional documentation (if any). Then wait for biometrics appointment notification.
2) Go to appointed date for biometrics. (Finger printing, photos). Takes about 30 minutes. No different than appointment for TSA Pre-check or Global entry.
3) Go for naturalization interview. If accepted, then usually interviewer will let the person know that they've been approved for naturalization. They'll receive an email/letter indicating date , time and location of the naturalization ceremony/oath.
Of course, depending on the area of the country you live in , the time between the above 3 steps varies. From 90 days to upwards of a year or more. Also, the above is for most people. But there could be some complicated cases where a person has to make multiple in-person visits. But regarding interview, there is only one.
There was bipartisan immigration legislation working its way through Congress, until the president killed it because it went against his "immigration bad" narrative.
I’m not sure that anyone can really agree on a solution, but there should be some stop loss where these things can’t be delayed beyond a certain fixed length of time and/or they shouldn’t issue the initial visas if the backlog to adjust is so long.
The reason that this and most immigration law hasn’t been fixed is that while most people agree that this is a problem, there is not really a compromise solution that everyone can really agree on.