Hacker News Reader

> I think the notion that after working (and paying taxes) in the US for 6 years, a person has to wait another 10 years to reap the benefits of permanent residency simply because they were born in a particular country is morally indefensible.

I came here on a student visa at 17, went on get a CS Masters and now live in SF on a H1B almost 10 years later. America is pretty much the only country I know how to navigate as an adult. The fact that it is mathematically impossible for me to get a GC before 2025 as an Indian used to upset me quite a bit. H1B simply doesn't allow one to live with dignity or take chances. But over this year, I've made my peace with this. I'll continue to work here while I still love my job but eventually go back. Theres no way in hell I'll keep working the same job years on in hopes of a gc.

If you can get a well-paying job you could move to Singapore, where English is an official language, India is much nearer, and the process from initial entry to permanent residency can be completed within three years (n.b. it is not guaranteed but you can reapply). And if you can navigate in America you'll not have a problem in Singapore.

The problem is that your kids (male) might have to undergo conscription. I know the situation is changing now, but that was a large deterrant behind a lot of my friends leaving Singapore.

Well I'm aware there are many other countries I could move to and to be honest India isn't such a bad place either. But its about more than opportunities, most of the people I care about, all my friends happen to live here in America.

Well you can change jobs if you have an I140 approved. I've been in the US for 10 years and I honestly don't care about getting a gc. The I140 from my previous employer allows me to get 3 year extensions on my H1B. The downside is that your new employer has to restart the gc process again, which is fine since I get to work on things that I'm interested in rather than getting stuck in the same job for years on end.

But what if you want to take a year off? Or just some time off inbetween jobs to travel? AFAIK you need to stay employed with a sponsoring employer all the while. Plus it definitely makes you risk averse as far as doing your thing is concerned.

If you have an approved H1B, you can take a year off by resigning. I don't know of any employer who would you give you a sabbatical; citizen or not. You can use your remaining H1B time with the same or any other employer. As I see it, this is the law of the land, take it or leave it; complaining is not an option IMO.

Also, I don't see how you can start something on your own (excluding freelancing) if you're taking considerable time off; maybe I'm wrong. You cannot just take time off when you feel like it, a competitor is most certainly going to eat your lunch.

To me, this is a lame argument that "if I get my gc I can start something on my own". Really? Totally anecdotal and bay area specific, but the ratio of recent gc holders starting a new venture (note: new venture, not an existing venture) to number of people getting their gc is tending to 0 (I'm exaggerating but it's a pretty low number). Chances are, this person has spent a lot of time in an established company waiting for his/her gc, bought a house (therefore enslaved by a mortgage), possibly have had kids, and lost most of the technical and any entrepreneurial skills required to compete in a cut throat environment. I do not see such a person taking a risk, even after getting a gc. Will expediting handing gc to applicants change this ratio? Who knows? It's a moot point.

Again, this is totally anecdotal, but I see a considerable difference between me (I work in a startup) vs a lot of my friends who don't. I'm not saying I'm superior than them; but I see that they just don't realize what's required to start/run a company. It's no piece of cake.

> You can use your remaining H1B time with the same or any other employer. As I see it, this is the law of the land, take it or leave it; complaining is not an option IMO.

Given that I pay taxes and am subject to immigration laws a lot longer than a person born anywhere else, I don't see why I can't complain about a law that reflects nativist compromises of the Civil Rights act.

And well by time off, I didn't mean a sabbatical, just the ability to quit my job and not have to leave the country as a result.

> Given that I pay taxes and am subject to immigration laws a lot longer than a person born anywhere else

So? The United States or [Insert country] is under no obligation whatsoever to afford special treatment since a foreigner pays the same taxes like the rest. I'm an Indian citizen and I did a quick search for work visas in India. A foreigner pays the same taxes as an Indian citizen in India[0] and isn't given special privileges when it comes to immigration laws.

> I don't see why I can't complain about a law that reflects nativist compromises of the Civil Rights act.

Source? How does the gc allocation compromise the Civil rights act?

The gc allocation is 7% per country[1]. If you fall in a country (like me India) where the number of applicants outstrip the 7% quota per year, you're out of luck. How is that compromising the Civil rights act?

Here's my take: I can keep complaining and waste my time and brain cycles over this. I don't have any voting power on this issue; all I have is a modest amount of talent and more importantly the drive and the persistence which I would like to use to further my career and make smart decisions. Personally for me, the immigration laws aren't as debilitating as people make them out to be.

[0] http://www.expatarrivals.com/india/taxes-in-india [1] http://www.uscis.gov/tools/glossary/country-limit

> complaining is not an option IMO.

Complaining (including to those responsible for the policy) is obviously an option, one protected by the First Amendment. (Which applies to "the people", not merely citizens.)

Whether it is a productive course of action is, of course, potentially a very different story.

True, but I thought that was obvious.

Time off is not the only consideration. In a good economy, companies might be queueing up to transfer your H1 visa. In a bad economy (post 2001/2008 recession), if you are looking for a new job, the pickings would be very slim indeed.

Doesn't have to work that way. I am Indian myself but my wife is from a different country (which does not wait times). So the green card was mutually beneficial. Was employment based through my work but was able to use her country of origin.

Just food for thought though not suggesting any course of action. We married for love and found out about about this little pleasant twist later.

> However, unlike pre-civil rights citizenship quotas, the green card quota seems ok to everyone.

One is denying the right of people born in the U.S. with parents that are citizens.

The other, is limiting the number of people not born in the U.S. and without parents that are citizens. In other words, its a choice to come here.

Not saying it is morally right or wrong, but you may consider distinguishing between the two.

Despite some flaws with the country, I'm very happy with my decision to have been born in the US.

> I'm very happy with my decision to have been born in the US.

What? you decided your country of birth?

Pssst, that's the sarcasm.

> One is denying the right of people born in the U.S. with parents that are citizens.

Umm, no. You are mistaken. Racial criteria also applied to naturalized citizenship aspirants. Today, once you have a green card, irrespective of where you were born, it takes you 5 or so years to get your citizenship. So, person of white ethnicity born in Switzerland and a non-white person born in India would have the same wait and the same criteria for citizenship. This was not possible before the INA act of 1965 (and other civil rights acts).

Psst, we should not try to take a moral high ground here given how many times something as straightforward as the DREAM act has failed.

Although the per country limits hit India and Chinese born beneficiaries in employment based preference categories the worst, there is also a waiting list for Filipinos in employment based third and other workers. In the family based categories, Mexicans and Filipinos generally have the longest waits, with Mexican family first preference (i.e. unmarried children of US citizens) in December 1994 and Filipino fourth preference (i.e. siblings of US citizens) in June 1992 vs. 2008 and 2003 for those categories generally.

Right! There is one across-the-board solution that occurs to me, let's say, the US has an overall cap of 40,000 for employment based preference category, 2800 each are max caps for Indians and Chinese. Because of the 7% quota, I would expect at least some, let's say, M of the 40,000 are left unclaimed. So why can't they take M unfulfilled slots and redistribute that to clear the China/India backlog?

You can think of the same for EB3, and family petitions too. This would be more equitable than 7% quotas.

Edit: I did back of the envelope calculations based on this data: http://www.uscis.gov/tools/reports-studies/immigration-forms... For the last year, there are about 120k applications approved, while 140k is the limit. At the end of the year, the remaining 20k can be split up among people in the queue. This can be made even fairer if you aggregate it over two years, and then tie the number of immigrants to the inflation rate. I estimate it would shave off at least 3-5 years from the current wait times for EB petitions. It can even be tied to the percentage of the country's population that got an H1B. There are some more trends here: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R42048.pdf

On the current visa bulletin it lists a backlog for EB-3 all other chargeability. Because unused numbers flow from fourth and fifth to first to second to third (but not other workers which are capped), if there is a waiting list for EB-3 that means there likely won't be any extra numbers in the whole employment based category this year. Not a bad idea if there were though.

If it were up to me I would eliminate the DV lottery (50k visas) and reassign those numbers to EB as well as eliminating the per country caps. F-2B (26k) and F-4 (65k) are also ripe for elimination IMO. I'd probably also move parents of USC to F-1 from IR.

> the US for 6 years, a person has to wait another 10 years to reap the benefits of permanent residency simply because they were born in a particular country is morally indefensible

When phrased that way, sure it feels that way.

But it's not because you are born in a specific country, it's because your country of origin has a lot of people who are attempting to immigrate to the US, and each country is capped.

Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out.

So instead of penalizing Indians (in this case), you've now penalized everyone else.

What system, given a fixed number of applicants, would not apply some sort of penalty by proxy?

Contrast that to pre-1960's where laws SPECIFICALLY targeted blacks american citizens.

The US has no moral requirement to treat non-us citizens 100% the same as it does it's citizens. Yes they have perhaps lived in the US for 6 years, and paid US Taxes. They have also enjoyed a certain level of comfort afforded them, that they presumably would not have had in their native country.

Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese.

If this is defensible, then racial quotas in schools (e.g., capping proportion of Jews) are also defensible by using the same logic as "you're now penalizing everyone else."

I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.

Sorry, can't really see how the moral argument works.

> Both India and China have a lot of diversity and are home to 40% of humanity. A fairer immigration system WOULD see a lot more Indians and Chinese.

However, you've then penalized someone born in in Mongolia, simply because they come from a less populous country, vs the opposite that is happening now.

I'm not claiming there is a moral argument to be made: the way the US residency program is implemented is neither moral or immoral.

> I'd rather have US as the home of the best and the brightest, not based on whether your parents were born in Mongolia or 100 miles away in Inner Mongolia that happens to be in China.

How do you qualify "best" & "brightest?" I'm a 1st generation US Citizen (of Indian decent). Both my parents immigrated here. My dad was drafted for Vietnam and then continued to serve in the US Army for 20 years, and my mom was a lunch lady. My parents don't have CS degrees, and instead worked blue collar jobs to make sure we could have a better life than they did.

> Imagine if they lifted that policy, then countries like Mexico, India, China would lock out pretty much any other country from immigrating to the US. Add in the Amnesty program for undocumented workers, and you could imagine that nearest neighbors to the US would lock everyone else out.

You are assuming that they will lock-out without supporting with real data. Already 30% of H1Bs are taken by Indians, and a good percentage of family based immigration is from Mexico.

India and China make up around 35% of the world's population. A uniformly drawn sample of immigrants from across the world would consist of 35% Indians and Chinese. Further, Mexico is America's neighbor, and the two countries share a lot of history.

The number of Indians has grown from 1.7 million in 2000 to 2.8 million in 2010 in spite of the caps. The numbers are not magically going to explode, most of the people who're in the green card queue will likely duke it out and become citizens in due time. Their children will likely stay in the US too. So, I don't see how the caps are limiting or democratizing the process. You don't have caps at H1B, you don't have caps for citizenship. Only the in-between stage of permanent residency, caps exist. That already makes it an ineffective tool in un-biasing the skew.

If I understood your original point correctly, it was that having country-limits for US residency was morally questionable, and tantamount to jim-crow era laws against Blacks in America.

Presumably because if you are an guest worker in the US, and of Indian citizenship, you would have a longer wait time, than if you were say from Bhutan. I classify this as a penalization by proxy.

I pointed out that if you lifted the per-country cap, you haven't solved this penalization by proxy. Even with caps based on world population, you still have a penalty applied.

I'm curious, how long is the lock-in for people from "rest of the world" category for H1B to green card process? It looks like there's almost no backlog these days.

From December visa bulletin. For India EB3- The priority date for applying for the final phase of Green card is 22APR04. So only people with a date prior to this would be eligible to apply. For EB2 India - 01JUN07 For China, EB3 - 15APR12 EB2 - 01FEB12.

Interestingly enough EB1 is current for all countries and is the most abused Employment based visa category. HR /Manager types with an MBA and experience from India eligible to apply for EB1(C) and they get visas in 3 months.

Currently, there is almost no delay for the rest of the world outside India, Mainland China and The Philippines – by the time the PERM request is approved (which in itself takes at least six months,) there should be a green card visa number ready.

Assuming no complications, the full process from LCA to a status change could take as little as a year (but 18-24 months would be a more realistic estimate).

http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bull...

> No country is allowed to get more than 7% of the green cards each year

It works by zones, not by country.