• Hello Members, This forums is for DV lottery visas only. For other immigration related questions, please go to our forums home page, find the related forum and post it there.

DV-2015 winners from Asia with CN 10,000+

SusieQQQ said:
Agree 100%. I'd scrap a bunch of other family visas too actuaLly and bring more skilled people in, as well as make it easier for graduates in certain subjects to remain in the U.S.
Click to expand...

Agree 100% back.

Also stealing university graduates is a smart move. Another country has spent 100s of thousands of dollars educating this person and the USA gets their prime tax paying years.
 
SusieQQQ said:
Are you old enough to appreciate this?
Click to expand...

A group of us watched the entire movie earlier this year in Spain. A frenchman showed it to us. He loved the way Peter Sellers mocked the French.

I've grown attached to my grumpy monkey. We've been through a lot together!
 
guestgulkan said:
Agree 100% back.

Also stealing university graduates is a smart move. Another country has spent 100s of thousands of dollars educating this person and the USA gets their prime tax paying years.
Click to expand...

Well, many of those other countries certainly don't spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per student... And I meant, graduates of US colleges from foreign countries so the student pays for grad school in the U.S. anyway.
 
SusieQQQ said:
If you know anything about statistics you know that outliers can actually happen. You may think it won't - that is not the same thing.
The way you explained your 60:20:20 idea and the numbers you give above don't add up if it is 60% mandated for ROA.
I think simon has already explained that "diversity" in the meaning of the visa is not the same as your understanding of it.

The only problem you and others here really have with the system is that you were born in the wrong country.
Click to expand...
Truely, the wrong countries (ROA) you called are mainly caused by the DV progress.
 
Britsimon said:
So with your 20:20:60 idea that would mean 30% of the entries would get 60% of the selectees or visas. That's just not fair is it? Everyone complaining says things like Iran and Nepal should not be given any preference. I have shown over and over they are not. They are given the same chances as every other Asia region entry, although of course Nepal and Iran actually have worse chances due to the country cap for Nepal and the country specific background checks for Iran.

So. You want to make it unfair to give preference to certain countries. Why do you think that is fair?
Click to expand...
In light of your logic, so you think the 7% limit of world visa for each country is unfair?
 
alex2014 said:
In light of your logic, so you think the 7% limit of world visa for each country is unfair?
Click to expand...

He's said a number of times the system is unfair to Nepalese and Iranians (among other large entry countries) because they have lower chances of being selected due to this. So do you agree with this now?
 
SusieQQQ said:
Are you aware that each case number is for all the people in the family, not per each individual selectee?
Click to expand...
Yes am aware of that very well,but wouldn't that be the case in every dv lottery since it started,but obviously they used to handle it better than now since the final cut off number alway ended up much higher than the 7650 right?!!am not bitching about anything really,trust me if my number was higher i would have prepared myself from the start,i do believe in fate and probably something better waiting outside,so i won't just cry about it,,but again the thing is it was almost a done deal for me,u guys r experts in the dv lottery and am sure u urself didn't see that coming,it was a shock for u as well so u can expect how is it for us.
Anyway am sorry if sharing my grieve with u made u think am nagging and bitching about it,i just hope u won't taste the hardness we face and when something like the lottery can be the light of hope for us here
 
The wsy you phrased the previous post it sounded like you thought each selectee had a CN of their own.

Careful comparing numbers to the past. You can't compare Asian numbers to when Bangladesh was in DV. You can't compare African numbers to when Nigeria was in. The issue this year is not Nepal or Iran who have been there all along, for heavens sake Iran maxed out in 2013, it is about too many selectees plus a higher than historical take up rate. The period of 2007-2013 when most numbers went current was the exception - the financial crisis fallout - not the rule. Before then, since then, cut offs are the rule. The numbers of those cut offs change as particular countries become eligible or ineligible. So be very careful about blanket statements about what "always" happened.
 
SusieQQQ said:
The wsy you phrased the previous post it sounded like you thought each selectee had a CN of their own.

Careful comparing numbers to the past. You can't compare Asian numbers to when Bangladesh was in DV. You can't compare African numbers to when Nigeria was in. The issue this year is not Nepal or Iran who have been there all along, for heavens sake Iran maxed out in 2013, it is about too many selectees plus a higher than historical take up rate. The period of 2007-2013 when most numbers went current was the exception - the financial crisis fallout - not the rule. Before then, since then, cut offs are the rule. The numbers of those cut offs change as particular countries become eligible or ineligible. So be very careful about blanket statements about what "always" happened.
Click to expand...
Ok am not arguing or saying that u r not right about Nepal and Iran, but come on,even after all these facts that you mentioned,have u or any of the experts herw saw that coming,that Asia would stop at 7650?!!!
I recall Britsimon said it was a shock,let along me the newbie who only know that 84** is safe to some extend..again am not arguing,maybe i put my words wrong,but all i wanted is just to release the negative energy from the disappointment,i'll try again in dv2017 and i learned my lesson,never take something for granted even if it was the logical thing
 
guestgulkan said:
I'll pass on artists / liberal arts graduates. America has enough unemployed artists to supply the planet.

Canada and Australia both have exactly the program I described. Here's the list of desirable professions in the Australian Skilled Visa Program
Click to expand...

Yes I would be more in favor of a program like that, but it isn't what you described. A nice mix of professions/skills rather than academics would get my vote.

Now. Since they would get way more than 50k applicants each year, they would need some way of selecting those people.....

Oh I know. A lottery!
 
Sensei-san said:
Thank you for posting this. We, ROAs, should really look into it. It looks like DV is draining the brightest OCs, such as yourself, year after year, and qualified ROA should really be filling those featherbeds.
Click to expand...
Britsimon said:
Yes I would be more in favor of a program like that, but it isn't what you described. A nice mix of professions/skills rather than academics would get my vote.

Now. Since they would get way more than 50k applicants each year, they would need some way of selecting those people.....

Oh I know. A lottery!
Click to expand...

Well, Australia's list of skills was very interesting (this was often a topic of conversation for Saffers looking to emigrate). Anyone with a decent degree (sciences, finance/accounting etc) generally could find it easy but they also had things like hairdressers on the list at times. And yes, I knew a couple of hairdressers who indeed emigrated to Aus using their skills. I believe since the financial crisis hairdressers are no longer on the desired list, but...
 
SusieQQQ said:
Well, Australia's list of skills was very interesting (this was often a topic of conversation for Saffers looking to emigrate). Anyone with a decent degree (sciences, finance/accounting etc) generally could find it easy but they also had things like hairdressers on the list at times. And yes, I knew a couple of hairdressers who indeed emigrated to Aus using their skills. I believe since the financial crisis hairdressers are no longer on the desired list, but...
Click to expand...

Yes it was interesting. I suppose the difference is that skills shortages in a sparsely populated country are a real possibility, but realistically the USA has fewer actual shortages. In that case you probably just need people with skills and a company willing to sponsor them, and hold a few open for everyone else - people prepared to work hard to make a go of it. The DV lottery is that sort of chance.
 
Britsimon said:
Yes it was interesting. I suppose the difference is that skills shortages in a sparsely populated country are a real possibility, but realistically the USA has fewer actual shortages. In that case you probably just need people with skills and a company willing to sponsor them, and hold a few open for everyone else - people prepared to work hard to make a go of it. The DV lottery is that sort of chance.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed, though there is of course no real determination of that. So you have a spread of people exactly like those you mention, others who would easily get into other countries on a skills-based measure but crimped by the U.S.'s archaic immigration policy, and those who start asking what welfare benefits they can get before they even land in the country....
 
Britsimon said:
So with your 20:20:60 idea that would mean 30% of the entries would get 60% of the selectees or visas. That's just not fair is it? Everyone complaining says things like Iran and Nepal should not be given any preference. I have shown over and over they are not. They are given the same chances as every other Asia region entry, although of course Nepal and Iran actually have worse chances due to the country cap for Nepal and the country specific background checks for Iran.

So. You want to make it unfair to give preference to certain countries. Why do you think that is fair?
Click to expand...
ROA with 60% of Asia quota is a more suitable way to meet the true meaning of diversity. With Nepal and Iran taking 70~80% of Asia quota, duopoly visa is a better name to replace diversity visa in Asia.
 
SusieQQQ said:
He's said a number of times the system is unfair to Nepalese and Iranians (among other large entry countries) because they have lower chances of being selected due to this. So do you agree with this now?
Click to expand...
It's unfair. 7% of world visa quota for each country is still a too large share. 5% or even 4% is a more moderate limit to achieve the diversity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top