Per-Country Limits for Employment Categories: The Debate

[berkeleybee]

I am moving the conversation about per-country limits started in the Lobbying/Identifying the Last Successful Coalition thread to this new thread. It is an inevitable debate, and we might as well hone our arguments. I would encourage you to focus on the issues, and not lose your cool and call each other names.


Marlon2006 on Sept 28, 2005

Pardon me if I misunderstood this, but you seem to think that a way to solve this backlog problems for Indians is by getting rid of per country quotas ? If so, then the worldwide people like me would be affected in a huge pile of millions of Indians and Chinese GC applicants. I think that is not fair. If this is correct, I suggest that you guys simply suggest increase of Visa numbers, but don't suggest fixes at expenses of making the worldwide people suffer with this. I don't think that will ever be implemented anyway, but let's make sure we implement a fair fix to everyone.

Berkeleybee on Sept 29

Don't you think that employment based visas should be based on skills and qualifications? If two people applied at the same time and both have employers who want to hire them, then they should get their green cards at the same time. What is going on right now is that there may be two people who applied at the same time, have the same skills, but one of them from the "right" country gets his greencard right away and the one from the "wrong" country might have to wait up to 7 years more.

That just seems wrong to me. The whole idea of employment based immigration is that those skills are needed in this country. Everyone who gets in line and has the skills should be treated the same way.

As for competitiveness, think of the consequences of employers knowing that a worker is not mobile -- cannot switch jobs, and needs the employer to keep refiling his H-1 -- you think that worker would be able to negotiate raises, or benefits comparable to others? How do you think that would affect the market for that type of worker?

Marlon2006 on Sept 29:

Berkeybee, I think it should be based on qualifications. Now let's assume you are as qualified as I am. Therefore we are even on the qualifications. Honestly, most people applying for a greencard/H1B are at certain level of qualifications that are usually comparable, since it requires years of experience and background.

Now there are two ways for you to see this:you can say well, Marlon is from the "right country, not fair". Or you can say, darn, India is overpopulated and if we let them apply without quotas they would monopolize the slots and then Indians could become an *overrepresented* group in the US. I believe the latter is what makes this rule in place. Given individuals of comparable qualifications, very few managers or administrators would prefer to create a group of individuals of same ethnical background. I have been through an MBA program in the US, there are technical reasons why you wouldn't want to allow this to happen. Given individuals of comparable qualifications, what is the case here, the diversity is usually the best option and I think the quotas in this case are the "headcounts" control in place. I am sorry you guys have to wait all this long. We may never agree with this and that's

Berkeleybee on Sept 30, 2005

This fallacy is *so* profound I have to respond. Any more and I'm going to start a new thread. If you'd like to respond please start a new thread, maybe called "Why Per-Country Limits on Employment Categories Should be Preserved"

Marlon says "Or you can say, darn, India is overpopulated and if we let them apply without quotas they would monopolize the slots and then Indians could become an *overrepresented* group in the US. I believe the latter is what makes this rule in place. Given individuals of comparable qualifications, very few managers or administrators would prefer to create a group of individuals of same ethnical background."

I have to remind you that it is *employers* who sponsor these labor certification applications. If Microsoft has a thousands of Indian and Chinese EB labor certification applicants pending it is because they find them useful; if they wanted people from any other country absolutely nothing is stopping them from going and getting them, especially since they get to keep them far more easily than an Indian or Chinese person. I can only conclude that they have picked the most qualified people, and satisfied whatever goals they have for diversity etc.

Check out the list of firms that are affiliated with Compete America -- over 200 American firms, even the US Chamber of Commerce -- and they are not fans of this quota system for employment based greencards.

Also, employment based greencard applicants are a small fraction (apparently between 12-16%) of all greencards. Doing the logical thing and removing per-country limits from this category isn't going to create an all Indian/Chinese America.

As for technical reasons learnt at MBA schools for why per-country limits should be preserved.... I taught at a rather well known MBA program and frankly I'm mystified.

I wish you the best. May we all come out of this mess with our optimism and sanity intact.

Marlon on Sept 30, 2005

Microsoft wants qualified people who can put the longest hours and work for the lowest salary. A lot of Indians can fulfill those requirements. I hope that is not an offense to anyone, but that's the reason. I worked there, I know how it is. That said, again I don't think the Administration of any nation should allow the country to get monopolized by a specific culture.

To encapsulate:

Round I

1. This fan of per-country limits for employment greencards (FPCE) is afraid of being drowned out by a deluge of Indians and Chinese.
2. The anti per-country limits for employment greencards (APCE) asks if it is fair that people with the same qualifications, who apply at the same time, and have a willing employer, don’t get their greencard at the same time because of per-country limits.

Round II
1. FPCE claims that it is qualifications that should count BUT repeats the fear of the deluge, says that employers/administrators would not prefer to have a workforce with the same ethnic background, says that his MBA training gives him technical reasons for this;
2. APCE reminds FPCE that it is employers and administrators who are sponsoring these labor certifications from Indians/Chinese, and we can only assume that they have satisfied their diversity goals and picked the most qualified people; APCE also points out that employment based greencards make up about 12% of all greencards, removing per-country limits from this category isn’t going to create an all Chinese/Indian America.

Round III
1. FPCE says that Microsoft wants employees who put in the longest hours and work for the lowest salary – Indians and once again repeats the fear of “monopolization by a specific culture.”

So now we are down to an argument that immigrant employees work for less pay than their peers. Time and time again this specter is brought up, but as you can see on page 8 and 9 of the article on this link – data shows that this is not true, these immigrants/H-1 workers are not depressing wages. Note that there are no per-country limits on H-1 workers. Workers with greencards are completely mobile and could/should switch to employers who pay more and offer better work conditions.

http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-007.pdf

So what we are left with is the basic FPCE fear – “monopolization by a specific culture.”

We should not be surprised at this argument. Such fears have dominated American Immigration policy. See for example Karen Narasaki’s testimony (attached file) in front of the Senate Judiciary committee on April 4, 2001.


So we will have to confront this, and the best I think we can do is to expose the argument for what it is.

 

[LCSilence]

Realistically, increase per-country limits is more likely than eliminate it.

 

[marlon2006]

Agree with LCSilence.

BerkeleyBee, why don't you focus your energy in requests to increase the quotas then ? You would accomplish two things; you would gain the sympathy of other "Worldwide" people and at the same time you would be fighting for something way more achievable. USCIS (and US administrators, not me) don't want a monopoly.

Now, regarding your misconception of "afraid", I am not afraid of anything. Perhaps the only one who has motives to be afraid here is you.

Now regarding your assumptions:

Round I

2. The anti per-country limits for employment greencards (APCE) asks if it is fair that people with the same qualifications, who apply at the same time, and have a willing employer, don’t get their greencard at the same time because of per-country limits.
> Before that, don't forget the monopoly issues that this country don't admit.

Round II
1. FPCE claims that it is qualifications that should count BUT repeats the fear of the deluge, says that employers/administrators would not prefer to have a workforce with the same ethnic background, says that his MBA training gives him technical reasons for this;
> That's a big "and" condition here and that you persist to ignore; I said, qualifications AND diversity. Regarding the MBA training, I spent quite few days reading papers and doing group studies on how diversity can improve a team. It is not my MBA training which gives me technical reasons for this, but rather I studied in my leadership program how enforcing diversity makes sense.


Round III
1. FPCE says that Microsoft wants employees who put in the longest hours and work for the lowest salary – Indians and once again repeats the fear of “monopolization by a specific culture.”

So now we are down to an argument that immigrant employees work for less pay than their peers. Time and time again this specter is brought up, but as you can see on page 8 and 9 of the article on this link – data shows that this is not true, these immigrants/H-1 workers are not depressing wages. Note that there are no per-country limits on H-1 workers. Workers with greencards are completely mobile and could/should switch to employers who pay more and offer better work conditions.

> Unfortunately this salary level argument is not as straightforward as you would like. There is a hidden factor that you should know about. Immigrants are many times eager to work harder than local people, and many times HARDER than immigrants from other countries. It is natural, you come here hungrier. Yes, you are hired to work under salary X. Then the other fellow is coming from a poor country, as qualified as you are but some people are willing to sacrifice Saturdays and Sunday nights for free. I had to bring this up to clarify that this argument of 'same salaries' that are debated so badly.
I am just saying that many people sometimes dream that you are here because your may be superior than others, etc and in reality that is not necessarily the case. Just wanted to point this out. Again, no offense at all, but it is better if you face the truth.

What I am saying is that is the motive certain companies may find compelling to hire a particular group of workers. Nothing wrong with that, the company is doing whatever is good on the short-term. What I am saying is that should not make the rest of the country pay the price and experience this monopoly of races X or Z.

 

[berkeleybee]

BerkeleyBee, why don't you focus your energy in requests to increase the quotas then ? You would accomplish two things; you would gain the sympathy of other "Worldwide" people and at the same time you would be fighting for something way more achievable. USCIS (and US administrators, not me) don't want a monopoly.

I have no problem with increasing the quota. These are not mutually exclusive goals. As for increasing the per-country limits -- LC Silence, crunch the numbers and suggest a % increase that will actually help with retrogression. And frankly worldwide applicants have nothing to fear -- if they have the same qualifications and apply at the same time, applicants from ALL countries will get their greencards at the same time.

Later

There is a hidden factor that you should know about. Immigrants are many times eager to work harder than local people, and many times HARDER than immigrants from other countries. It is natural, you come here hungrier. Yes, you are hired to work under salary X. Then the other fellow is coming from a poor country, as qualified as you are but some people are willing to sacrifice Saturdays and Sunday nights for free.

So you are saying that the US should not admit these incredibly hardworking people? And btw, have you seen a startup get into action -- I know plenty of "worldwide" and American people who work impossible hours. Read a couple of the Silicon Valley biographies around -- these companies were not built by people who were golfing over the weekend.

What I am saying is that should not make the rest of the country pay the price and experience this monopoly of races X or Z.

Here we go again -- this time more nakedly -- it is all about race. This is exactly what I was pointing out in the Karen Narasaki testimony.

 

[michael_holding]

dude marlon..i dunno which country you are from, but here is the serious flaw in your logic. you say companies do not want to create monoply of culture with lot of indians or chinese. the point is many of them are already here and working for companies ...in h-1, L-1...etc. if you say the people who applied for GC are all in their respective homelands and waiting for GC to come..atleast you have point. but majority of them are already here and working. so i guess its ok with you if they work in non-immigrant visa then the diversity is intact. but only if they apply for GC then your diversity in a company is demolished.
i dunno where you did your MBA..but there seems to be little bit twisted in your logic.

"Microsoft wants qualified people who can put the longest hours and work for the lowest salary. A lot of Indians can fulfill those requirements. I hope that is not an offense to anyone, but that's the reason. I worked there, I know how it is. That said, again I don't think the Administration of any nation should allow the country to get monopolized by a specific culture."

so you are saying microsoft is paying two different salaries one for people from india and another for people like you (from world). if that is the case then microsoft is discriminating, which i do not think is the case. my point here is you either accept what they give you or you don't. i must say you are trying to stereotype people with ignorant comments like these. just cause you said "no offense" does not mean a thing. you talk a lot of crap about diversity and ethnicity. what is your ethinicity? let the board know who are you ...before you start putting india related stereotypes around.
as an immigrant someone who comes in , i have absolutely no idea of what the market salary is...it takes you couple of years to figure out what is your worth and people at this point start to move. companies do pay below par rates compared to an american citizen or Gc.
what is distrubing about your comment you being another immigrant saying it.
i can tell you fortune 500 companies have strict policies regarding dicrimination. what you said might work out in no-name companies..body shops....but not in big companies.

i firmly believe it should be First in First out. the country is not looked into in h-1 or L-1 visa why bother looking it up when GC is filed?
marlon you are afraid that you might lose out. my point is if you applied sufficiently early fro gc why bother? you probably came few yrs ago and want a sweet ride through the immigration process... i don't blame you..but i would say its little unfair...

i would say keep the quotas based on the percentage of the population of a country to that of the world. that would be a fair and just task.
if you come from a country like say singapore...you might get say 100 or 300 gc every year.(for example).i think which is fair considering the population of singapore.

 

[waitinginlimbo1]

dude marlon..i dunno which country you are from, but here is the serious flaw in your logic. you say companies do not want to create monoply of culture with lot of indians or chinese. the point is many of them are already here and working for companies ...in h-1, L-1...etc. if you say the people who applied for GC are all in their respective homelands and waiting for GC to come..atleast you have point. but majority of them are already here and working. so i guess its ok with you if they work in non-immigrant visa then the diversity is intact. but only if they apply for GC then your diversity in a company is demolished.
i dunno where you did your MBA..but there seems to be little bit twisted in your logic.

"Microsoft wants qualified people who can put the longest hours and work for the lowest salary. A lot of Indians can fulfill those requirements. I hope that is not an offense to anyone, but that's the reason. I worked there, I know how it is. That said, again I don't think the Administration of any nation should allow the country to get monopolized by a specific culture."

so you are saying microsoft is paying two different salaries one for people from india and another for people like you (from world). if that is the case then microsoft is discriminating, which i do not think is the case. my point here is you either accept what they give you or you don't. i must say you are trying to stereotype people with ignorant comments like these. just cause you said "no offense" does not mean a thing. you talk a lot of crap about diversity and ethnicity. what is your ethinicity? let the board know who are you ...before you start putting india related stereotypes around.
as an immigrant someone who comes in , i have absolutely no idea of what the market salary is...it takes you couple of years to figure out what is your worth and people at this point start to move. companies do pay below par rates compared to an american citizen or Gc.
what is distrubing about your comment you being another immigrant saying it.
i can tell you fortune 500 companies have strict policies regarding dicrimination. what you said might work out in no-name companies..body shops....but not in big companies.

i firmly believe it should be First in First out. the country is not looked into in h-1 or L-1 visa why bother looking it up when GC is filed?
marlon you are afraid that you might lose out. my point is if you applied sufficiently early fro gc why bother? you probably came few yrs ago and want a sweet ride through the immigration process... i don't blame you..but i would say its little unfair...

i would say keep the quotas based on the percentage of the population of a country to that of the world. that would be a fair and just task.
if you come from a country like say singapore...you might get say 100 or 300 gc every year.(for example).i think which is fair considering the population of singapore.

Moreover, I dont understand the philosophy of basing this "quota BS" on the country of birth.If a person happens to be born in a country from where a few people apply, he is given priority over someone who is born somewhere else even if the person has resided somewhere else for most part of his life.
Just doesnt make sense, atleast to me.

 

[marlon2006]

dude marlon..i dunno which country you are from, but here is the serious flaw in your logic. you say companies do not want to create monoply of culture with lot of indians or chinese. the point is many of them are already here and working for companies ...in h-1, L-1...etc. if you say the people who applied for GC are all in their respective homelands and waiting for GC to come..atleast you have point. but majority of them are already here and working. so i guess its ok with you if they work in non-immigrant visa then the diversity is intact. but only if they apply for GC then your diversity in a company is demolished.
i dunno where you did your MBA..but there seems to be little bit twisted in your logic.
==>No, no, no. The host country Administration is the the primary interested in avoiding monopoly of cultures. I think people are more concerned with monopoly of cultures when it comes to permanent residency applications.

Not sure what you mean by a "i dunno", but thanks anyway.

"Microsoft wants qualified people who can put the longest hours and work for the lowest salary. A lot of Indians can fulfill those requirements. I hope that is not an offense to anyone, but that's the reason. I worked there, I know how it is. That said, again I don't think the Administration of any nation should allow the country to get monopolized by a specific culture."

so you are saying microsoft is paying two different salaries one for people from india and another for people like you (from world). if that is the case then microsoft is discriminating, which i do not think is the case. my point here is you either accept what they give you or you don't. i must say you are trying to stereotype people with ignorant comments like these. just
==> No, I am not saying Microsoft is doing that. I said that certain folks may receive the same or similar salary, but some feel tempted to work hard, work long, long hours, more than what they have been asked for and that is one of the reasons they may become the favorites new kids in the block. I am not saying the organization initiates that though. Personally I don't really give a damn to this because Thanks God I know what I can do.


cause you said "no offense" does not mean a thing. you talk a lot of crap about diversity and ethnicity. what is your ethinicity? let the board know who are you ...before you start putting india related stereotypes around.
==> I was concerned this could go that route... no offense really. We are all bright people. In my experience I have lots of Indian friends and they are very good professionals. Very professional people, qualified as any in the world. However, I don't think they are more qualified than other comparable professionals from other regions of the world either.

as an immigrant someone who comes in , i have absolutely no idea of what the market salary is...it takes you couple of years to figure out
==> So you are new here ? Let me tell you this:there are lots of nuances for you to discover. You may or may not learn about them. It is not about laws or rules, they are nunances. Keep your mind open.

what is your worth and people at this point start to move. companies do pay below par rates compared to an american citizen or Gc.
what is distrubing about your comment you being another immigrant saying it.
i can tell you fortune 500 companies have strict policies regarding dicrimination. what you said might work out in no-name companies..body shops....but not in big companies.


i firmly believe it should be First in First out.
==> That's fine. I support the per country quotas and I respect your opinion. Let's move on.

the country is not looked into in h-1 or L-1 visa why bother looking it up when GC is filed?
marlon you are afraid that you might lose out. my point is if you applied sufficiently early fro gc why bother? you probably came few yrs ago and want a sweet ride through the immigration process... i don't blame you..but i would say its little unfair...

i would say keep the quotas based on the percentage of the population of a country to that of the world. that would be a fair and just task.
if you come from a country like say singapore...you might get say 100 or 300 gc every year.(for example).i think which is fair considering the population of singapore.

 

[berkeleybee]

Things that make you go hmm....

Things that make you go hmmm....does the logic, lack of a basic grasp of html markup (quote, /quote), grammar and spelling in that FCPE post make you see the light on why FCPE is an EX Microsoft employee?

In all seriousness: this debate is inevitable, I'd invite everyone to polish up their logical responses, come up with the most reasoned arguments possible. Brainstorm your best analogies, be articulate and coherent.

For example:

Per-country limits on employment say to employers: According to the law of the land you may not discriminate against anyone, based on origin, ethnicity, race, age, disability etc during the hiring process -- in fact you can't ask them if they need help with a visa till after you have offered them a job and they have accepted. But oh, oops! ACTUALLY you can't have your Indian and Chinese employees right away. So actually you may not want to hire them. Yes, we did say YOU can't discriminate. But the federal government can.

 

[marlon2006]

Things that make you go hmmm....does the logic, lack of a basic grasp of html markup (quote, /quote), grammar and spelling in that FCPE post make you see the light on why FCPE is an EX Microsoft employee?

That was a pathetic and rude comment from you. Thank you.

 

[vsaksena]

Per country quota!

I am really struggling with this concept, especially in light of arguements saying that GC hopefuls from a certain country make less/are being paid less/ are willing to accept less for the same job. I have worked on both side of the fence (IT companies; some of which were considered to be the Blue-eyed boys of NASDAQ) as well as mainstream manufacturing companies, I know for a fact that people from my country of origin (as well as other nationalities, not in the "rest of the world" group) were some of the highest paid individuals not only compared to other foreign nationalities but also Americans....

Coming from a Top 5 MBA program, what a person gets paid is wht the market is willing to bear based on the skill-set one posesses, and in most respected organizations has nothing to do with country of origin