> Still, because there will be no increase in visas issued, there will be losers. Hosin “David” Lee, president of the Korean-American Scientists and Engineers Association, said the bill would force engineers from South Korea to wait an additional two years in their immigration process to get green cards.
There's the same number of people wanting visas, and the same number of visas being granted. The number of people who get an advantage should be equal to the number of people who get a disadvantage, in any particular year. Over multiple years, the total man-years of wait time should remain constant, although they could be distributed among a different number of people.
Calling something fair or not is applying your morals to the situation. This change means that each person gets treated fairly (in the mathematical sense) but each group does not.
It is sort of like how in the US House is representation by population but in the Senate is equal senators per state.
Wether that is good or bad is up to us as a society. It will certainly reduce the diversity of the types of people getting visas as more populous countries crowd out less populous ones.
>This change means that each person gets treated fairly (in the mathematical sense) but each group does not.
So, without this change, each group was getting treated fairly? Care to explain how multidecade wait times for the two biggest groups while the rest get visas in a matter of years is fairness?
How is first-in first-out not more fair compared to discriminating on national origin?
> It will certainly reduce the diversity of the types of people getting visas as more populous countries crowd out less populous ones.
Not really. Employment based visas are a small fraction of the number of visas awarded each year. Diversity doesn't make much sense for employment based visas because companies hire based on need and employee talent, not race or language.
Not to mention that India is so diverse with race, languages and culture that it's called a sub-continent. Lumping them into one 'group' like you did doesn't make much sense. Countries don't directly map one to one to diversity.
>So, without this change, each group was getting treated fairly? Care to explain how multidecade wait times for the two biggest groups while the rest get visas in a matter of years is fairness?
Yes, from the perspective of the individual countries, the old policy is more fair. If you gave all of the countries of the world one vote each and had them vote, that's what you would get. However, if you gave all of the people of the world one vote, that is not what you would get as the people in the more populous countries would want their country to send more people.
As I explained, it is fair to the group not to the individual. All countries were capped at 7% of the total so large groups (and here we group by countries) would not crowd out small groups. You obviously don't like that policy.
As for the diversity argument, I am not stating wether it is better or worse. I explicitly said that it is up to society to decide that and our legislators have chosen to go with the less diversity option, so there you go. I think the fact that it will cause a reduction of diversity - diversity in the sense of what country immigrants come from, not cultural diversity - in applicants is indisputable. It is important to understand the consequences of our choices and this is one of them.
Also, I didn't lump all of India's diverse cultures into one group, India (and I guess the British and French) did. The grouping is done by country because that's how immigration laws and treaties work. I am fully aware of the cultural diversity in India.
>Yes, from the perspective of the individual countries, the old policy is more fair. If you gave all of the countries of the world one vote each and had them vote, that's what you would get. However, if you gave all of the people of the world one vote, that is not what you would get as the people in the more populous countries would want their country to send more people.
That may make sense for voting(to prevent tyranny of the majority), but makes no sense for employment based visas. Countries don't really send people in any sense. It's people that are hired by companies and what has that got to do with countries really?
>Care to explain how multidecade wait times for the two >biggest groups while the rest get visas in a matter of years >is fairness?
To be fair, each country gets quota for working visa based on a size of population. Unfortunately requests for working visa from those two countries outnumber that quota. This is the fact and everybody knows that. So if you are from country with more than one billion people where maybe 100.000+ ask for working visa per year you have to understand that the process can be complicated. And you have to understand as well that getting working visa here is a privilege, not a right.
>To be fair, each country gets quota for working visa based on a size of population.
Right now, that's not the case, each country is capped to 7% regardless of the population. Making it proportional to population would be much fairer than the current system.
>And you have to understand as well that getting working visa here is a privilege, not a right.
What a strawman. Maybe you should tell that to Mr. Lee who said the following:
> Hosin “David” Lee, president of the Korean-American Scientists and Engineers Association, said the bill would force engineers from South Korea to wait an additional two years in their immigration process to get green cards.
Of course immigration is unfair. If you're born in Korea you may wait less than if you're born in China, but if you're born in the US, you don't have to wait at all!
How is being born in the USA any less of an arbitrary distinction than being born in Korea?
Didn't expect that.