Will there ever be merit based immigration in the US ?Nov 20
Immigration policy in the US seems to be pretty weird. 67% of the immigration is family based, which doesn’t bring much value to the country.
Only 13.5% of the immigration is employment based. There’s this country cap due to which high skilled indians wait forever for a green card, while low skilled workers from other countries get green card easily.
The h1b selection process is random which is dominated by Indian body shops.
Will there ever be a merit based immigration system ?
- Microsoft TurtleeeHaha pure comedy. Not only can you not read, you are not informed about immigration policy. This is fine by the way... until you start proclaiming yourself as knowledgeable. OP provided H1b as an example and the same skill bar test applies there but when it comes to the general immigration policy for which green card is a crucial part of, a “high-skilled” Indian or Chinese worker will take nearly a decade or more to complete the process. Immigrants from other nations don’t have this issue. Also, you are absolutely right that we are not speaking American because there is no such language. We’re all speaking, or rather typing, in English. It’s the new hot language. Haven’t you heard?
P.S. You should go work for a newspaper. You seem to have a talent for spins. Good luck on the “American” proficiency part though. I hope you don’t have that listed as a language in your resume.Nov 214
- As soon as OP becomes a citizen he will favor family based immigration and hog the pipeline with all his family members.
- @ZiZai which country are you from buddy? First of all you didn’t understand my post, second of all you weren’t able to understand the difference between low skilled and high skilled immigrants.
And now here you’re asking about L visa 😂
Seems you’re an immigrant yourself.
I have seen many Indian immigrants who look down on fellow Indian immigrants, you better not be one of them.
This comment was deleted by original commenter.
- There's PLENTY of space left. With higher population density, you can build better public transit, obviating the need for people to sit in traffic for hours. Housing in the bay area is unaffordable because of a lack of political will to build more housing, not because the region is anywhere close to being overcrowded. Increasing the number of skilled workers who can move here in their twenties and thirties will reduce the dependency load and make the social safety net more sustainable, not less.
- Ok.. how’s unsustainable consumption relevant to merit based immigration?
It’s very convenient for you to say that “we” have had enough inflow. This needs to stop now.
What you are saying is that we americans have exploited the planet enough and now reached a point where it’s unsustainable...we can’t let anyone become american from now.
- If sharing resources are the problem, then maybe all board members of companies should be deported.
The absurd premise of your argument is that people share or have equal use of resources in the US.
If “population” is the issue (it isn’t objectively) then why don’t anti-immigrant people argue for a one-child policy?
When it comes down to it, there are no logical anti-immigrant arguments that don’t eventually boil down to “well, I just don’t like/am scared by ‘those others.’”
People can vote for politicians who support immigration restrictions for the rationale that their quality of life is declining because of immigrants - but people can also support anti-Semitic politicians because they blame Jews for Their country loosing WWI. It’s just scapegoating and xenophobia.
our quality of life is worse (though immigration rates have declined) because business has sought to suppress wage increases, the government froze minimum wage for 40 years and has cut public services.
- “Housing. Public infrastructure. Land. Public services to some degree. Open space. Air quality. Forests. Farmland. Water.”
Yeah... corporations and government have no influence over this - it’s obviously due to people looking for a job 🙄
Corporations and government have not destroyed water in places like flint? Public infrastructure was not neglected by government? Lobbyists have not fought to open forests to commercial use? Democrats and Republicans haven’t cut public services for 40 years?
You ignore those who actually have decision-making power over these things while blaming their erosion on people who literally have no power in the US. It’s just simple scapegoating.
- “Our total impact is the product of (population) x (resource consumption per capita). That total impact is unsustainable, frankly it's probably well past the sustainable limit.”
Malthusianism is discredited and outdated in the natural sciences - it only survives in policy circles and among some conservative environmentalists.
The missing piece of your equation is that people are not consumers but also producers. We all create more value through our jobs than the value we get in return to survive, yes? And immigration slows and even reverses when recession hits (like California during the last recession). So working immigrants (or any working people) add value (if not, then they’d be redundant and laid off or fired), they don’t simply “consume”
For finite resources, the problem is not population, it’s profit-seeking above all else including less profitable alternative ways of producing that would mitigate these issues. All kinds of deforestation and strip mining and logging happened when the US population was a fraction of the current size. Whaling from 200 years ago is still hurting ocean ecosystems! It wasn’t population, it was just the drive for the quickest possible profit.
This is why Malthusianism is popular among policy wonks: it acts like the use and extraction of resources is simply a neutral function of abstract population - rather than the results of decisions about how and what to produce not to
mention complete asymmetry of access and ownership of resources among the population.
- No, not general gdp, even in individual jobs. You think that janitors don’t make money for contracting services and contracting services don’t save money for the companies that hire them?
“So in other words, in order to support the larger population, we need to make choices that will have a lower ROI and probably entail some lower quality of life.”
Speak with less abstractions. ROI in the case of people... so you mean how much profit is made off of labor. In that case, ROI is better if you lower their standard of living and wages... they produce as much as before, but rather than that value going back as wages, it becomes profit... or return on their (labor) investment. So maybe it’s Walmart and Amazon and logistics companies and the gig economy and stagnant minimum wages that are reducing quality of life.
“Freedom from competition”? Uh, I guess we need to get rid of internships, right to work laws, the gig jobs, and so on that are designed to gamify the search for wages and increase competition? Nah, probably some random people born on the other side of an invisible line that are increasing competition even though unemployment is low.
You seem smarter than your empty arguments - that’s because these arguments were developed to deflect anger at the slow decline of US life under 40 years of neoliberalism - it’s just scapegoating structural problems on a politically defenseless “other” who must somehow be corrupting what would otherwise be a perfect society 🙄
- Cisco / QAStoneHeart"There's this country cap due to which Brown people wait forever for a green card, while White workers from other countries get green card easily."
- And most of the people from "other countries" aren't white either.
I don't necessarily mind country caps (I don't like the abuse by Indian consulting shops) but I think it's ridiculous that people are left in limbo for decades. Just hold a damned lottery and give people an answer so they can move on with their lives, one way or the other.
- What merit are you talking about - genuine good people? No, merit is just code for “middle class”.
- Microsoft / EngrLcX37I think it's great that immigration is broken and Trump is making it worse. Other countries with friendlier immigration and respect for people will get talent, and they deserve it. And with that comes more investments and better salaries.
Money and opportunities being equal, I can think of a dozen countries better for living than USA.
- Us knows that no matter how unfair the system is, high skilled Indians will always want to be here and find ways to be here. So instead of changing rules to enable what is already happening, they focus on other demographic
- I’m not sure we need the highly skilled talent as a priority. A lot of the benefit from immigration is to get people to do shit jobs while dangling the possibility that it could be worth it some day.
- My two cents if your Indian(I’m indian myself);
The H1 is great visa IF you treat it as a temporary visa and aim for the best roles.Im now leaving the US and have interviews lined up in multiple geographies.Accept the fact that you can’t stay permanently,make the best use of your opportunities and move on.
- I think we should have a mixed system. Remove country caps on EB1 (and O) and keep them on EB2 and EB3. EB1 should be a stack rank by merit and the highest scoring get in.
By definition EB2 and EB3 aren't totally merit based, they are categories that take everyone who meets a certain bar. Hold a lottery and have that lottery replace the H1b lottery: give everyone who gets in a greencard. No h1 at all. You get in or you don't get in, no half measure.
Also rework EB3 to aim at new grads fresh out of school. Hold a lottery and take a percentage of fresh grads from every country. Undergrad, not graduate school. Anyone who scored in the top 20 percent of their school. Immediate greencard.
EB2 should be the same idea but picking people who have five years experience in their field on top of the degree, but who didn't make the EB1 cut.
And any lottery should be proportional to population so that everyone in each country has an equal chance of winning.
India's developement is on par with countries like Namibia according to UN's human developement index. It ranks 130th among 189 countries. As you can see its a major underdeveloped country. Why would anyone go back? Its on par with many impoversihed african countries
- We could cancel the whole h1 program and tech firms would be fine so long as you didn't do it suddenly, but gave them time to make alternate arrangements.
We'd see major new development centers opened in Canada, Europe, India, etc., and life would go on.
I think it would have zero impact on the product roadmaps so long as a couple years notice were given.
Employment in the US is dangled as a benefit to attract people, it's not necessary to get the work done.
Of course then all those jobs and the salaries they bring would be outside the US, benefiting other countries. But tech companies would be fine.