I see a lot of opposition and misinformation surrounding this bill. Here are some key points to understand this bill and the current situation. Please explain to me exactly what (if at all), you find unfair in the new system that it proposes.
Current System:
- Employment-Based Green Cards have 7% quota for each country, thus effectively having separate queues for each country. Note that, these separate queues come into play after an applicant goes through a long application process that checks their qualifications and checks that no American is being displaced; this process being the same for all applicants regardless of country-of-birth.
- However, EB GCs are, by definition supposed to be skills-based GCs. Country-of-birth is not a skill.
Proposed system by S386 / HR1044:
- In general, removes the 7% quota based on country-of-birth from EB GC category, thus effectively replacing the current separate queues with a single queue for all eligible applicants (who have gone through the long application process).
- Instead of completely removing the quotas, it still retains some small quotas for non-backlogged countries (Rest of World other than India/China) so as to smoothen out the transition.
Potential counters and my responses to them:
- S386 is bad because it will eliminate diversity.
- EB GCs are only 14% of total Green Cards given per year. By definition, EB GCs are supposed to be skills-based, not diversity based. There exists a dedicated category for diversity visas (GCs), and there are also Family-Based and other kinds of GCs available for promoting diversity.
- Diversity of what? Nationality? Culture? Race? Profession? Neither of these support the counterargument anyway; viz:
- Nationality/Culture/Race: It's not supposed to be a factor for employment / skills. In fact, Civil Rights Title VII prohibits employers from discrimination based on national origin.
- Profession: There are many Indians & Chinese who are not in IT or not doctors, and there are many other immigrants who are in IT or are doctors.
- S386 is bad because it puts Indians first.
- No it does not bump Indians to the front of the queue. Infact, in the current system, non-Indians and non-Chinese (more generally, non-backlogged nationals) get bumped ahead of Indians & Chinese. S386 removes this unfair advantage that other nationals get over Indians and Chinese. With S386, no one would be bumped ahead of each other. All nationals would be in a single queue. Any new person entering the single queue shall wait the same amount of time due to the fact that total GCs are less than total eligible immigrants.
- S386 is bad because it does not increase total GCs.
- It's purpose is to make the distribution of GCs fair, not to solve the backlog. These are two separate issues. Solving the backlog is a much larger issue that would require increasing total GCs which many lawmakers do not want, esp in the Trump administration.
- S386 is bad because it promotes more cheap foreign labor to be brought in.
- Wrong, infact it would have quite the opposite effect, and would help the American job market.
- First of all, s386 does not increase total GCs, so no increase in immigrants.
- Second, people who are being exploited by employers to be paid less because they are locked to the employer for their visa, will gain mobility once they get their GC, thus resolving the issue of suppressed wages. See this point below.
Implications of Current System:
- Due to the current country caps, any country that sends more eligible individuals than the 7% quota starts facing a backlog. This backlog for India has grown for DECADES to an extent where the wait time for EB2 India is now 195 years, i.e. an effective GC ban for Indians. - Note the unequal opportunity here.
- This results in cases where even a more qualified people from a backlogged country has to wait longer than a less qualified person from a non-backlogged country. This goes against the purpose of employment-based GCs which was to bring in immigrants based on their skills / qualifications / demand. - Note the unequal opportunity here.
- Due to decades long / indefinitely long wait times of GC for high-skilled immigrants from backlogged countries (primarily India), they have to remain on their employer-sponsored visa while other immigrants transition away from their visa to green card.
- The indefinitely backlogged immigrants thus get exploited by employers, suppressing their wages, and suppressing average wages in that area overall, affecting Americans as well.
- While other immigrants who have moved on to Green Cards can bring their spouse & children into USA on family-based green cards, the indefinitely backlogged cannot do that, and so the dependents too have severely restricted freedom. - Note the unequal opportunity here.
- When & if the backlogged immigrant does get his GC after waiting for decades, his/her dependents are counted against the 7% country cap in EB GC, thus FURTHER BACKLOGGING that country.
Implications of S386's proposed system:
- Any new applicant for EB GC would wait the same amount regardless of their nationality (after a transition period). - Note the EQUAL opportunity here.
- This new wait time for new applicants would roughly be = [total waiting applicants in queue] / [total EB GCs given per year]... (simplified calculation,.. this would be the case after nine yrs. see next point).
- The reservation for Rest-Of-World over NINE years ensures that the wait-time for new applicants from ROW DOES NOT increase beyond even a single year (viz, wait time of ZERO yrs as it is now), while reducing the wait time for Indians from 195 yrs to 17 yrs.
Bottom line:
- Country-of-birth is not a skill, and it should not be a factor for giving Employment-based GC.
- Depriving an individual of an opportunity based on the group that individual represents is discrimination. (Individual vs Country). This is the same for racism. eg. Giving unequal opportunity to a person who is African is racism.
Sources:
- The bill text itself: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386/all-info
- History of its amendments over the last yr: https://immigrationforum.org/article/explainer-amendments-to-the-fairness-for-high-skilled-immigrants-act-s-386/
- CRS Report: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46291
[link] [comments]
source https://www.reddit.com/r/immigration/comments/hym9c8/what_is_unfair_about_s386_hr1044_bills_fairness/