No. It has become significantly easier for Europeans to immigrate since 2005. Labor certification alone now takes less than a year rather than multiple years pre-PERM. EB2 and EB3 priority dates are current. Europeans can expect to get a green card within a couple years (even accounting for the new mandatory Adjustment of Staus interviews for employment based applicants). It has become significantly harder for Indians where the green card backlog approaches a century (!) for EB2/EB3. The only thing that has become harder is getting an H-1B visa due to oversubscription.

I was curious about the backlog being a century so I did some googling around and it looks like a user on quora did a bit of reading and math and figured that an Indian person applying today can expect a wait of 100-150 years to get a GC.

https://www.quora.com/Why-have-the-final-action-dates-for-th...

My understanding from Indian coworkers is that most who did not marry into a favorable immigration situation expect their children to sponsor their green card when they reach adulthood. As somone born and educated in the American system, this is a travesty as we deprive them of basic rights such as voting. Another hypocrisy of modern America, I suppose.

The reason for this delay in getting citizenship is an effort to promote diversity among immigrants to the US. No single country can get more than 5% of the permanent resident visas in any given year.

If this wasn't done, the vast majority of immigrants to the US would be from China and India at the expense of other countries.

> The reason for this delay in getting citizenship is an effort to promote diversity among immigrants to the US. No single country can get more than 5% of the permanent resident visas in any given year.

7%, and note that this applies separately to employment-based and family-based immigration, not just in total, which is why the backlogs (and which countries have backlogs) differ between countries.

> If this wasn't done, the vast majority of immigrants to the US would be from China and India

Mexico, actually, by a very, very, very large margin (and that may understate the size of the margin.) The annual quota for family-based immigration is nearly double that for employment-based, and Mexico dominates the waiting list in every family-based category (as well as showing up on the waiting list in several employment-based categories.) Mexico has more people on the waiting to lost for Family Fourth Preference alone than (1) the total annual US immigratiom quota for all categories, (2) twice the number the next two countries have on the waiting list in all categories combined, (3) three times what China has on the waiting list in all categories, combined. They also, aside from waiting lists, have a huge number of immigrants in the unlimited “immediate relative” category (which is uncapped itself, but effects the allocations to the other categories), about 9% of total US immigrant visas of all kinds issued in 2017 were for immigrants from Mexico in that category.

India and China have the most applicants annually in most employment-based categories, but they don't come anywhere close to dominating total applications or total visas that would be issued if the only change was eliminating the per country cap.

Using countries is a very inaccurate way to measure diversity. The EU is many countries, but is less diverse than India, a single country.

If India reformed itself as a union of states, suddenly the backlog of Indian immigrants would be cleared!

> Using countries is a very inaccurate way to measure diversity.

It's a perfectly accurate (fraud aside) measure of diversity in country of origin. Whether that's a meaningful kind of diversity is a different question.

> The EU is many countries, but is less diverse than India, a single country.

Less diverse in what?

> If India reformed itself as a union of states, suddenly the backlog of Indian immigrants would be cleared!

That assumes that the sourcing of qualified prospective Indian immigrants to the US is basically uniform across the succesor states India would be a subdivided into.

It'd only be at the expense of other countries if you keep the current quotas, which haven't moved for decades. Let's not pit immigrant vs immigrant when congress could double the number of Green Cards if they had any interest in the matter. It just happens that they do not.

India has diversity(and population) comparable to the average continent. Of course, Indians who have the means and motivation to apply to emigrate to the US are a significantly less diverse group.

I understand the diversity and the huge numbers India/China have, but shouldn't it be based on merit too? It's similar to hiring, everyone wants a diverse team, yet half the engineers are Asians/Indians. It's because there are more people who go to school from those ethnicities.

By displaying the diversity card, you are just keeping people who has high paying jobs worrying about their status all the time, it's not good for them or the economy they are supporting.

Also, to consider India or China as single countries, when they have a vast array of sub-countries/cultures within them, is to say the least, not an ideal situation. India, China, US are "super" countries with wide geographical, cultural and other differences within the countries.

It already is merit based but if they were to rank people based on merit very specifically, it would be extremely subjective and likely highly inaccurate. People already lie / stretch their case and it would just be 100x. The gov shouldn't spend its time on that.

> I understand the diversity and the huge numbers India/China have, but shouldn't it be based on merit too?

The system of defined-in-law preference categories are a system of merit, though of course merit is subjective and one may disagree with the assessment of the merits of particular immigrants that goes into that system.

You can have both, you can have merit based within a group and promote diversity overall.

Doing what you describe and assuming an even distribution of merit throughout the world, limiting 1/3rd of the world population (India + China) to 10% of immigration slots by definition means lowering the average merit of immigrants.

Keep in mind this was in response to the US basically blocking all non-European immigration for quite a long time.

And yes, not basing it on population side means you are screwed if you come from a big country, but at a huge benefit if from a small country.

> And yes, not basing it on population side means you are screwed if you come from a big country, but at a huge benefit if from a small country

What the actual system does is make it so you are screwed if you come from a country with a large number of qualified immigrant applocants in a similar category (employment or family) subject to numerical limits. Population is loosely associated with this, but the biggest negative impact by far, on a country level, is to qualified immigrants from Mexico, and specifically to those in limited, family-based categories. India and China have bigger populations, sure, but much smaller total backlogs of qualified applicants.

Yeah, but US immigration policy should be constructed for maximum benefit to the US, not to the rest of the world minus China + India.

And I would go one step further and say that it is probably in the best long term interest to the US to have a large population of ethnic Chinese, for the same reason that Israel has benefitted so greatly by the US having a large and influential Jewish population.

I strongly disagree with this. I am a WASP whose family came to the US in 1620 and diversity in America is imperative. I don't think any racial group should particularly have a majority. If I've learned anything recently, a muslim man was lynched in India for killing a cow, it is illegal to eat in public on Ramadan in muslim majority countries or the chinese treatment of Uyghurs. We are strong through diversity and secularism, as much as I want economic prosperity that a pure merit based system can potentially bring. I think we can have a diversity oriented immigration system that works in tandem with being merit based, we must also remember that people of some backgrounds may be more disadvantaged but would similarly work hard given a good opportunity.

I have a very nuanced view on immigration and I tend to be more republican in my views. i.e. Curbing illegal immigration and moving to a merit vs. lottery based system. America is strong through diversity, but it needs to be controlled in an intelligent way.

I'm not sure that we disagree. The person I was responding to was framing things in terms of how US immigration policy benefits people who are not US citizens. I was just pointing out that the US government is morally obligated to attend primarily to the interests of it's own citizens (IMO; I realize this is a controversial opinion in some circles). I tend to take a pretty expansive position on what constitutes the best interests of US citizens and generally think it's good for the US that most countries have significant expat populations in the US.

> And I would go one step further and say that it is probably in the best long term interest to the US to have a large population of ethnic Chinese, for the same reason that Israel has benefitted so greatly by the US having a large and influential Jewish population.

That doesn't seem to follow, unless you left out a “not” before “in the interest of” or meant “China” the first time you used “US”.

(I'm not endorsing the result of either change as a correct statement, just commenting on the internal coherence of the statement, and particularly the disanalogy between the juxtaposed situations as presented.)

The analogy is not that the two sets of countries are related to each other in the exact same way, but that they can enjoy the benefits of a significant shared ethnic population.

> limiting 1/3rd of the world population (India + China) to 10% of immigration slots by definition

They are limited to 14% of, separately, the limited employment and family-based visa categories, not 10% (the per country limit is 7%) and not of total immigration.

Yeah, I defer to your knowledge of the matter. I was responding to the person's assertion that you can optimize for both diversity and merit.

> You can have both, you can have merit based within a group and promote diversity overall.

You can. For instance, you can set limits to the total share sourced from one country, and create a system alongside that where visas are allocated among preference categories based on assessment of the relative deisrability and need for immigrants in each category.

This does not justify the 10 year wait time for having a green card application processed. There are far better, efficient ways to throttle inflow. Also, in the process you’ve lost control of the ‘quality’ of the 5% that makes it through.

Apart from working in tech. Is there a reason to move to US for an average bloke?

As a Brit, the only thing that would really draw me to America is the fact that they speak English and I can pick a state where the weather is nice. There are two absolute things that would stop me though: The lack of annual leave, and the lack of social healthcare. Maybe if I ever get rich I'd move, but I really don't want to be a poor to averagely wealthy American. I'd rather be a poor to averagely wealthy Brit.

[edit] My brother moved to Orlando a few years ago, and I love visiting for the weather and Theme parks. I took a greyhound bus from Tampa one day and an immigration officer came on the bus and aggressively demanded to inspect my passport. Pretty crazy. I've never been randomly forced to prove I'm allowed to be in the UK in the nearly 40 years I've lived here. Yet, a few short stays in Orlando and I experience that.

>Yet, a few short stays in Orlando and I experience that.

I wasn't so much the visit in Orlando -- it was you using a Greyhound bus, which put you in the "possible illegal immigrant/poor person to abuse" category in the eyes of the cop.

They'd be much less likely to stop and ask you anything if you were just driving there yourself, or merely walking around Orlando.

I forget where, but I remember my father telling a story about being the only white on a Greyhound bus (and not in the South, IIRC) in the 60s or 70s, and the guy he ended up sitting next to being a bit uneasy about him being there, until he realised my father was some professional foreigner who didn't drive and not someone there to cause trouble.

Yeah, I did wonder if that was it. I've since discovered that busses are a thing that only poor people do in the US.

Regional bus services are popping up and including amenities like wifi, friendly customer service, and stops for breaks (usually once every 2-3 hours). Greyhound service is abysmal however, and a last resort economically.

Or to rephrase it, it's one of the most affordable ways to travel longer distances.

Not all busses, but greyhound - yes..

That is such a tragedy.

> The lack of annual leave

If you're coming over to work in a knowledge field like tech that's less of an issue, pretty much all of those jobs have decent levels of vacation. This year (my 4th year at the company) I have 31 days off (26 base + 5 rolled over from last year) not counting bank holidays and that's going up again when I hit 5 years.

The portrait of the US as a PTO-less hellscape is very true for retail/sales/blue collar workers but the situation is better in many fields.

Perhaps but the way a lot of British people view things is quite inverse to Americans: Instead of thinking of ourselves as "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" like a lot of Americans do, we think of ourselves as having "temporarily escaped poverty."

Meaning we view other countries through their most disadvantaged and genuinely believe that that could be us one day. If America treats their poorest badly, we believe they'd treat us badly if we ever had a bad run of luck.

The UK used to be a country of strong social safety nets, I'm not sure what it is today -- I don't recognise it (without getting overly political).

Unless I am reading that wrong that's 26 days off/year which is still better than I have had at any tech company.

My first tech job had 2 weeks vacation, 2 weeks sick leave. Next 2 where 16 days total comp bumped to 18 + 2 floating holidays.

UK has a legal minimum of 28 days off, but as with any minimum many are significantly higher.

It's a bit weird because they recently lumped sick days and vacation PTO into one generic pool. It's nice because it gives way more time to just take off without faking sick.

Most places significantly cut total vacation time as part of the conversion and you still need a reserve to cover sick days anyway.

The loss of sick days also tends to get people to show up to work sick which is terrible downside IMO.

> The loss of sick days also tends to get people to show up to work sick which is terrible downside IMO.

True though we're 90% hot/hotel seating now so pretty much everyone is setup to work from home if they're sick-ish and don't want to use a day.

Plus 52 weeks of weekends. Funny how we always leave that out when accounting work. So its 26 days + 10 federal holidays (in the US) plus 104 weekend days == 140 days off work a year.

Somebody posted about how medieval peasants had way more days off than us today - but it turns out it was about equal, considering everything.

365-144 = 225 which is far more than the 150 for medieval peasants quoted here: https://nypost.com/2013/09/04/medieval-peasants-got-a-lot-mo...

The other half of the US equation is many people don't take their full vacation days either though direct pressure or informal social norms. Working weekends are also very common.

That figure for medieval peasants is for a very short period of time after the plague when labor was in short supply. Not at all indicative of the quality of life you could expect as a peasant.

Same here. Work for a US company and get 24 paid vacation days per year plus the 13 or so stat holidays.

Every 5 years you get an additional month off for that year.

Just to trade anecdote for anecdote: I’ve ridden lots of greyhound buses, and never once been asked for my passport in the US (or any form of ID by a police officer; since I’m a US citizen, it’s not like I would have had a passport to present).

But, as it happens, I have been asked for my passport by British authorities on a train ride once in the early 2000s. Presumably if I’d had a British accent they wouldn’t have expected me to have a passport on my person.

I suspect both of us experienced relatively rare events!

Yes--every government employee stereotypes, and profiles. Government employees=federal, state, and local.

It's embarrassing, and I'm questioned all those days in grade school I repeated the Pleadge of Allegiance.

If I had a do over; I would have high tailed it to Europe, or Canada in my twenties.

If you are in highly educated, able to work, and are in the right field (i.e. software), life for the majority of individuals who fall into this category is better in the US than many other countries. On the other hand if you're dirt poor, have no education, bad health.... you may be better off in Scandinavia or Western Europe.

This includes tech, engineering and other professions. For instance you can get a graduate mechanical engineering job and start earning ~$70k and live in an area where housing costs ~$150k-$200k for a small, detached, ~2-3 bedroom house with garage and garden (2.85x ratio). You can also get amazing weather :)

Mechanical engineers in the UK start on ~£25k in areas where a small house will cost £300k-£400k. That's a ratio of pay to house price of 16x versus 2.9x in the US. Anecdotal I know but powerful.

That's why I moved to the US. If you're well educated and have good job prospects, many of the chief complaints about the US disappear. Sure, healthcare is still a huge pain in the ass, but you've got access (and ability to pay for) some of the best healthcare in the world.

One of the big drivers is if your career is something you'd like to maximize. The opportunities here are some of the best in the world as is the compensation. If I had stayed in my home country I would have had pretty limited prospects even at the top of my game.

That is indeed powerful, and goes to show how completely broken the housing situation in the UK is.

It also goes to show how the advice from people like Mr. Money Mustache [0] actually works in the US. Even without large salary increases, the US engineer in your example could realistically pay off their $150-200k mortgage in <10 years by living reasonably frugally, and then get to work on building a hefty retirement fund.

If they did get salary increases and/or had a partner earning money too, they could do it much faster.

Am I missing some hidden cost, or is this actually quite common?

[0] http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/

Firstly - while there are plenty of places in the US to find houses with $150-200k mortgage there are rarely tech jobs on those locations (and the jobs that do exist in those locations dont pay the obscene salaries you hear of.) Of course there are always some exceptions (handful in Texas.) And if you get a job in some odd location, lose your job, good luck finding another one in the same down if you dont live in SF/SV/NYC. You'll also lose massive equity in the house you'll be fire-selling since sales fees/taxes/insurance/lawyers/inspections are ~7%+ all in.

In the center of tech-job-land (SF/SV), you're looking at a $1M mortgage if you have a family you dont wish to raise in a 640sqft studio. Part of what you're paying for is the pool of jobs and easy availability of work.

Secondly, I lived quite frugally in my early career. This is much harder 10yrs in...because those choices affect my children. What do I give up on? Braces? Health? Here in the US you get nickle and dimed on literally everything, and especially on healthcare.

Finally, you are missing a major hidden cost -- risk. Numerous tech jobs can rarely survive 10yrs. Often, you find yourself out of work in the worse economy finding a new job when prevailing wages are depressed. Tech isnt like government, or teaching, or medicine -- there are harsh cycles. Worse, in those cycles, often your company stock/options are also worth farless/zero.

I'm literally going through a purchase of a home on 5 acres, riverfront, workshop and pole barn for ~$300k, within commuting distance to a large midwest metro area.

$300 is the purchase price, not the mortgage.

Salaries around here for skilled software engineers are typically $100-150k, depending on years of experience and field.

A friend of mine in the same area is working remotely for a major SV company making $175k.

For the love of whatever you consider to be holy, don't think that the SV lifestyle and cost of living are representative of the country as a whole.

This completely understates the tech world outside of SF/SV/NYC. There are tons of tech jobs outside of these locations. And the pay differential isn't even close to compensating for the increased cost of living in the bubble cities.

And sure, it can be tough to find a tech job that lasts 10+ years. But that's true of a lot of jobs. Tech jobs don't have to be in "tech" companies. Lots of businesses have tech jobs in house; insurance, healthcare, etc etc. Unless you have a burning desire to work for the FAANGs of the world, there's a billion tech jobs out there.

While individual jobs in tech may not last, the tech industry is much less risky than the rest of the economy. There is a perpetual and widening gap between supply and demand of talent. It’s been one hell of a ride and it ain’t ending anytime soon.

You almost exactly described my life in Richmond, VA; Mechanical Eng. Grad making 80k/yr, in a detached 2br $210K house, great weather + 1.5hr drive from D.C., mountains, & beach :D

I can't complain.

Good pay and cheap housing is a pretty strong drawing force.

Scandinavia is, somewhat contrary to popular belief, great if you are upper-middle class. A similar life in the US would be prohibitively expensive. The problem is if you are middle class and paying for many system that you might not in effect be able to use.

From what I've seen, the truth is the exact opposite (living in Sweden, visiting the US). Sweden is only good if you live on welfare or have a "bad" job (where the salary is inflated due to unions, plus you might get welfare).

Upper middle class people in the US are so much better off - there is really no comparison. If average Swedes only knew how poor they really are...

The average Swede isn't upper-middle class, at least not by Swedish standards. If you are upper-middle class in Sweden you have a lot of freedom that upper-middle class people in the US don't necessarily have.

In Sweden you can study cost-free. You can get a second, or third, degree from reputable school, even online. That makes it easy to change careers or to stay competitive.

If you are established in Sweden you are going to have very high financial security and low living costs. Almost anyone that is upper-middle class in Sweden can take a year off to, say, start a business without any major consequences.

Just in general upper-middle class people in Sweden have a lot more quality of life and time. 40 hour weeks, employment protection, flat hierarchies, short commute, long vacations, summer homes etc.

I personally have nothing against people moving to the US. Especially if you are middle-class and in your twenties it can be a good idea. But as soon as you have kids your costs are going to rise significantly, your opportunities are going to decrease or both.

I would be interesting to hear what you think is better in the US for someone upper-middle class.

Can you expand on that? It's contrary to every example I've heard of.

The largest tax burden is on the middle class. The upper-middle class has fixed social security taxation (it is growing up to a certain level) and large part of the capital is in different securities which are taxed differently (much lower than say income tax).

At the same time, you have no need to pay extra costs for security, healthcare, roads, etc. more than average income people.

Thus you enjoy overall good quality of life with no additional payments.

My own opinion is that you will have better life quality in Scandinavia than in US independently on which income group you belong to, but some people may disagree. And don't underestimate the harsh climate - depression and bad mood is not as uncommon during the dark months.

I know a lot of this is subjective so two people could differ on which country is "better" and both could be right, but your first point about taxation is true in the US as well - capped social security taxes and lower tax rates on investment income.

And for the rich, healthcare isn't much of an issue in the US. Either your employer pays most of the bill or you're so wealthy that $20k per year for your families insurance is a rounding error on your income.

But you still have to live in a country where (1) a bunch of people don't have adequate public services; (2) a bunch of people don't want people in (1) to have adequate public services; (3) because of the threat of people in (1) possibly getting adequate public services, the people in (2) make the government completely dysfunctional; and (4) because they have PTSD from (3), the people aligned with the people in (1) also make the government completely dysfunctional.

The people are nice but the society is acrimonious and divided, and it grates on you.

I was born as a second-generation immigrant in the Netherlands. Even though I was born and raised there, the fact that you’re an immigrant and always will stay an immigrant (aka second class citizen) is constantly reminded to you by the media, politics and every other institution and hampers your growth in life everywhere you go.

When I later on in life moved to the US, as an actual immigrant, I’ve felt immediately way more accepted and at home than in the country I was born and raised in. Of course, the US is far from perfect, don’t get me wrong (if I were dark skinned this would probably be a different story) but its mostly merit-based society definitely works for me.

If you have values that are out of place in Europe.

For example, schooling your kids at home is not only absolutely forbidden in Germany - but when I was in Germany, people reacted as if I was suggesting making a terrorist attack. Meanwhile, 9% of students in North Carolina are homeschooled.

Or, I have an German, non-tech acquaintance living in the US South. He loves it. He gets to live on a farm, buy giant sniper rifles, and go to long range shooting competitions. In much of Germany these would be both unaffordable and the sign of deeply dangerous mind.

Is shooting that looked down upon in Germany? It might not be as common as in the US, but my understanding is that there is a decent number of people involved, similar to Switzerland.

I might be wrong on that.

Wikipedia says Germany has 1.4 million legal gun owners, out of a population of 82 million so it can't be that common.

So it's less popular than football, but probably about as popular as tennis or badminton.

Not thinking it's common, but not so rare as to be viewed as freakish.

I assume it's similar to the US where it's more common in certain segments of the population (ex-military, rural, etc).

There are lot of reasons (and also a few good reasons not to). It's a huge and an extremely diverse country, so there are probably places that match your lifestyle, your political views and so on... It's also a country where you can feel at home even as an immigrant.

Nursing comes to mind. I generally think of it as a high-stress but also pretty highly-paid profession in the US (can do 100k+). In Europe pay is shockingly, appallingly, pathetically low (true of tech as well, but you can get out of that if you push hard enough, and I find the work culture superior).

I mean, I left the US, but my general experience has been that if you work in the dregs (and I've been there) you're better off in Europe, but if you work in a somewhat well-paid field, you'll make more in the US (whether you're "better off" is a more complicated question).

Not sure what opportunities there are for a former MP like yourself though.

Civil unrest around the world. We have peace here, which is a lot more than places in the middle east, sub saharan africa, and places in central/south america can say. Quality of life is high here compared to the rest of the world and there is a strong social welfare system. One thing I find particularly interesting these days is the prospect of Land Expropriation without compensation in South Africa. I will oversimplify it, but it is essentially the state expropriating land from farmers and redistributing it to the poor majority.

From discussions with Europeans, salaries for many white collar workers, not just tech, are like 2x higher in the US.

This is true. And net salaries are 3x higher.

Say, an average tech Joe from Munich is getting home only 3 to 4 thousands of dollars after taxes (48%, it includes social security, etc.), but renting a studio costs almost the same as in San Fran. All other costs are similar or more expensive in Europe.

Even healthcare is more expensive in Germany: if both parents are getting more than 3k USD after taxes each, then each of them need to pay around $900 (!!!), thus $1800 per month HEALTH INSURANCE per family. Good thing is that your employer pays around 50% of that costs, but even $900 health insurance is not as cheap in comparison with USA, right?

Day care, kindergarten - costs depend on your income. The more you earn the more you pay. On average it's around $800-$1000 per month/child for public kindergartens (assuming your net monthly income is over 3k USD) or $2000-$3000 private.

Having a different life experience, encountering different attitudes?

That said, I've just emigrated from the UK to Australia, and we didn't really even consider the US when we were picking countries.

What could have been more attractive about Australia than the US?

A few things that come to mind: lower COL, individual liberties, food culture, outstanding diversity of geography, easier to get around by car, no GDPR if you want to run a website.

You're casting a pretty wide net there, mister. The EU (if you want to just consider one "entity") is big enough to counter all those except for well, the GDPR :p

And regarding the food culture, you'd get many, many bewildered stares from my French and Italian colleagues with that statement :)

Part of what I mean is you can easily find "authentic" Italian/whatever food in the US - it's the big "melting pot" or "salad bowl" or whatever you want to call it.

As far as I know taxes, especially on fuel, are almost always higher in the EU compared to the US.

I doubt the average Italian would call the US version authentic :p

And this works both way, you can find US food (or Indian, or whatever) in Europe. It’s not the 1930’s anymore :)

Fuel is expensive but cars are smaller and generally much more fuel efficient. People move around just fine :)

TV, and film opportunities are certainly better in USA than UK.

The beer. The sheer local variety, quality, and abundance is officially out-of-control now. Funny, because not that many years ago the beer in US was among the worst in the world.

It's a heaven for gun collectors.