It's about national origin quotas which favour immigrants from less populated countries. Not discrimination against immigrants once they get to the US...
I am a tech immigrant to Sweden and even though the work-visa here is not as bad as the US (if we lose our jobs we got 3 months before we have to leave the country!) it is still quite atrocious
Isn't this illegal? Aren't H1B required to be paid at least the same as domestic counterparts?
Immigrants also lead to increased demand and job growth:
"Contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not take away jobs from American workers. Instead, they create new jobs by forming new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses. Immigrants are good for the economy, not the other way around." [1]
"However, although immigrants increase the supply of labor, they also spend their wages on homes, food, TVs and other goods and services and expand domestic economic demand. This increased demand, in turn, generates more jobs to build those homes, make and sell food, and transport TVs." [2]
"Most empirical studies indicate long-term benefits for natives’ employment and wages from immigration, although some studies suggest that these gains come at the cost of short-term losses from lower wages and higher unemployment. Standard economic theory implies that while higher labor supply from immigration may initially depress wages, over time firms increase investment to restore the amount of capital per worker, which then restores wages." [2]
[1] https://www.aclu.org/other/immigrants-and-economy [2] https://budgetmodel.wharton.upenn.edu/issues/2016/1/27/the-e...
And god forbid they have kids that they brought along with them completely legally because once those kids turn 18 they have absolutely no standing in the US and have to leave the country.
That sounds absolutely reasonable. What makes this even more fascinating is that those kids would have been ok if their parents had come to the US as undocumented immigrants, as opposed to being documented immigrants with approved green cards.
What we’re talking about here are people who have completed their permanent residency applications and have it approved.
So it’s a discussion about permanent residency, not visas.
> "We all have applied for a green card and it has been approved. Only thing is, we need to wait 150 years to get a green card," said Akhilesh Malavalli. "A hundred fifty years! I'll be dead. I'll be dead by the time we see a green card."
> There is a cap on the number of skills-based green cards that can be issued to any one country of origin and there are so many workers from India, getting one has become practically impossible.
So the problem seems to be that Indians are more affected by the quotas, because there are many Indians, but of course this puts them at a disadvantage against other nationalities. There is probably also a good reason to have country of origin quotas, but to me it seems a terrible idea to apply that quota after residency applications have already been approved.
If they don't want immigrants to settle, they shouldn't allow migrant workers to stay for more than a year or so and make that clear, instead of leaving them in legal limbo for cheap labor, which is close to what Qatar was criticized for.
The fact that the only argument commenters here have against what these people are asking for is that “well, it was a law set 30 years ago…” in itself shows that there’s little defense for the current law and very clearly should be changed.
Sure, the current law sucks, but the same can be said for many laws in America. The law is the law, and if you don't like it, maybe you shouldn't go there, and should pick a more welcoming country.
As far as I can tell, the current situation is not a surprise: someone immigrating from India today should know the situation, and know that there's probably not a good likelihood of it being fixed anytime soon. Given that, why bother going to the US? As I said, there's other countries that are much more welcoming. It seems to me the only reason to go to the US is $$$. Tech workers are overpaid there relative to other countries, so this is attractive to people who want to take advantage of this.
Basically, I see this like going to a casino and then complaining about the odds being stacked against you there. America is a very high-risk place: sure, you can make a lot of money there, if you're skilled and lucky, but all it takes is one big medical problem and you're bankrupt.
This is false, by definition. Permanent residency IS a visa. It's just a more permanent one than a normal work visa. It's still a visa affixed in your passport. And like any other visa, it expires as soon as you leave the country, unless you get a re-entry permit before you leave.
The only thing that's not a visa is citizenship.
Source: am a US permanent resident.
And how exactly do you get into the US when you return, without a visa? They won't let you in with a foreign passport unless you have a visa. No country will, unless you have visa-free travel because your country's passport is granted that.
You get into the US without a visa by having a green card instead.