On Sat, 7 May 2016 06:50 pm, Marko Rauhamaa wrote: > The United States has an "egalitarian" quota system that seeks to > promote diversity. By law, at most 7% of green cards can be awarded to > citizens of any individual country. So, by this fair principle, in any > given year, at most 7% of the green cards can go to citizens of Finland > (pop. 5 million) and at most 7% of the green cards can go to citizens of > India (pop. 1 billion). > > <URL: https://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit>
Obviously this system is a conspiracy to benefit citizens of Andorra (population 85 thousand), Marshall Islands (pop. 70 thousand), Liechtenstein (pop. 37 thousand), Nauru (pop. 9 thousand) and the Vatican City (pop. 842). > Indian and Chinese H1B holders are getting screwed, which is of course > the whole objective of the country limits. The *whole* objective? You don't think that *part* of the objective may be to ensure that citizens of countries other than India and China can get green cards too? Given that there are only a limited number of green cards available overall, without per country limits it is conceivable that they would all go to people from one or two countries. Perhaps the country limits are also in place, at least in part, to manage the rate at which new immigrants arrive in the country? It's not that country limits act as a permanent barrier to getting a green card. It's a per year limit, and there is a first-come, first-served queue system in place. If an applicant is otherwise eligible for a green card, the country limit will only delay, not prevent, them from getting a green card. E.g. if there are (let's say) a maximum of 1000 green cards available for people from Nauru, and the entire population applies in 2016. Let's assume that they are all eligible under one clause or another (e.g. family ties, employment, refugee status, national interest, etc.). Then the first 1000 applicants will be granted a green card in the first year, followed by the next 1000 the following year, and so on. New applicants go to the back of the queue. Meanwhile, this unexpected flood of immigrants from Nauru have no effect on the chances of Pope Francis being granted a green card, what with the Vatican having its own country limit of 1000 as well. > The US used to have more explicitly worded immigration laws: > > <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act> > <URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Exclusion_Act> Yes, many countries had, and still have, overtly racist immigration laws. You should try immigrating into Japan, or Saudi Arabia, and getting citizenship. > How this relates to Python? Well, I bet thousands of Asian Python coders > in the United States are under the threat of deportation because of > country limits. I'm not sure why you think that "H1B holders" are at threat of deportation. So long as they meet the conditions of the work visa, they are entirely entitled to stay and work in the country. There are good arguments for removing the H1B programme. It's used to flood the market with relatively cheap labour made up of people who are less likely to unionise and more likely to put up with bad treatment, and drive wages down for others in the same field. But the inequities of the H1B programme are not caused by the existence of country limits. -- Steven -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
