As an immigrant myself I don't support this bill as this means we will have more green card holders from just two countries, India and China, and hence less diversity.
In fact, no one from China I know supports this bill.
Scenario 1: 10 Indians, 10 Chinese, 10 French, 10 Mexicans
Scenario 2: 100 Indians, 100 Chinese, 10 French, 10 Mexicans
Both seem pretty diverse to me.
Unhealthy? Likely. Unfair? Definitely.
The current bill tries to go closer to fairness by weighting based on population.
What if there are only 3 countries in the world, US, Lithuania, and Rest? Would you want 50 Lithuanians and 50 rest and call it diverse?
It's backwards to think this is better for the people who are trying to get in from places like Europe or Canada, or even parts of Africa. They're now at the back of the line behind India and China. Nothing about this bill promotes fair diversity, or even diversity itself. Unless you explicitly measure diversity in quantity of melanin in their skin which is racist itself.
By your definition, both a toddler and Arnold Schwarzenegger should both get same 2 slices of bread, because it is 'equal' and 'fair'. Anything else would be ageist?
The point is just because a place like India has a huge population shouldn't prevent or make it more difficult for people to immigrate from Australia, Europe, Africa, Japan, South Korea, or any less populated countries. The same goes with China. What gives China and India other than population alone the upper hand? Are they somehow more valuable than someone from Japan? Are the more valuable than people throughout Africa?
If you want unbiased immigration you treat everything equal. From within those pools you can argue who is more worth the green card via a merit system that can be scrutinized against those peers within the same country. By your standard India and China would dominate the immigrant population and leave less well off countries with an even worse chance for economic prosperity.
I'm not commenting on my support or opposition of the bill.
All I'm saying is there's two ways to look at it: either there's a lot of different options, or there are a lot of different options and they're not evenly distributed. To me, I don't know why "evenly distributed" matters and it feels like sophistry. Especially when the people making the argument are generally anti-diversity (to be ridiculously generous) in the first place.