Also, if we discriminate on merit, then racism is also fine? Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control.
They can "limit" based on skills, they can "limit" based on country of origin with the main difference being not using the hot-button word "discrimination" to, err...discriminate between the two while implying some sinister race-based system of visa allocation.
> Maybe we should only discriminate on an individual level and with the attributes that individual has under his control.
They you'd be "discriminating" against people who can't afford advanced degrees from prominent schools who just want to work hard so their children can have a better life like the countless number of first-generation citizens I've met over the years. This is where I'd put a "why you hate poor people?" to make my point but I know that's not what you're arguing.
But in no way is the biases or diarciminations in a "fair" merit based system a justification for the discrimination based on country of birth, like in the current system.
Individually it may suck if you come from a country with a large population like China or India but overall it gives people from all over the globe the chance to emigrate without having to directly compete with the large numbers of visa seekers from these countries.
I honestly can't think of a more egalitarian immigration policy.
EU is a unified political and economic entity, with individual states having well defined freedom. Just like a federation. India is like that, so is USA. So, does EU also qualify for a combined 7% cap as a united entity?
Discrimination and limits on the country of birth is such a stupid policy, unless you really think that a person born in Tuvalu should have 130,000 times higher chance of a green card than a person born in India.
I personally think people (and capital) should be able freely move anywhere they want without having to worry about some arbitrary lines on a map but that's not the point, the point is no matter how you look at it someone is going to be "discriminated" against so a person from Tuvalu is either going to have a higher or lower chance than a person from India depending on whatever selection criteria you use.
Plus it'd be pretty hard to be an oppressive dictatorship (looking at you, California) if the people could just up and move to a less oppressive regime (like Arizona). Of course I'm (mostly) joking with my example but a CA->AZ mass migration is happening as we speak and nobody is calling for a wall on the border (yet). They can't put up massive apartment/condo monstrosities fast enough to handle all the new folks moving here and presumably they're finding jobs without too much trouble.
So, yeah, I think if governments had to compete to retain their "subjects" the world would be a much better place and people probably wouldn't need to relocate unless they really wanted to unlike today's multiple "migration crises" (their term, not mine).
There's a difference between displacing the local population (which you imply) and moving somewhere there's better opportunities (jobs, housing, &etc). As long as there's no coercion or violence involved then who's the victim if my new neighbor is from Guatemala?
Sounds fine, but what happens in the scenarios I actually outlined in my first post? It’s not about displacement, but simple overwhelming numbers. Would Japan still be Japan if tens of millions of people from all around the world decided to live there? Would Albania still be Albania if a hundred million people from China and India showed up? If everyone in California were suddenly matched 3:1 by Sub-Saharan Africans, what happens?
In terms of language, culture, social services, law enforcement, etc... you’re suddenly in a whole new world. I don’t necessarily think it’s wrong for Japan, to use a precious example, to wish to remain Japanese in terms of their language and culture. I don’t think it’s wrong for Switzerland to balk at the notion of a hundred million Americans showing up either.
If you remove all restrictions, it’s not just about having a Guatemalan neighbor; that’s just immigration as it is today. The US for example has absorbed millions of Mexicans, Central and South Americans without any real problems. It is after all, a drop the proverbial bucket. The issue arises when it’s far more than that, order of magnitude more, and all at once.
What would happen to Guatemala if a sizeable chunk of the US, or China, India, or Africa immigrated there? It would implode, socially, financially, and its existing culture would be consumed. If everyone who wanted to live in Hawaii or Monaco could just move there, both places would be environmentally and economically trashed. Immigration is necessary and human, and there should be more of it in most cases than we see today. That doesn’t imply that total freedom of movement is workable or desirable either. I’d no more want to live in a country with no immigration limits, than I would in a country with no immigration; both would be broken.
We are just arguing why the rules are the way they are.
> There is a set limit based on country. Just because 1 country has more applicants doesn't mean there's discrimination
If you have different outcomes for individuals based on what country they were born in, that is discrimination. Not sure what stupid definition of discrimination you have in mind.
> Having a set limit per country ensures that everyone globally gets a fairer shot
Not everyone, but every country. And that does not mean every race, or every ethnicity. So much for forced "diversity". You have no idea how diverse India is, with thousands of languages and hundreds of ethnic groups. It is the origin of four major world religions, and has been always been an accepting land. But you SJW can go through your forced diversity with your discriminatory policies, with complete lack of logical thought.
You as one of over a billion people from the same country will understandably have more competition than a Kenyan who is competing with under 50 million countrymen. Overall more Indians have a chance of working in the US than Kenyans, but the pools drawn from are at least an order of magnitude apart.
Why isn't the system oblivious to one's country of origin?
In addition to the numerical limits placed upon the various immigration preferences, the INA also places a limit on how many immigrants can come to the United States from any one country. Currently, no group of permanent immigrants (family-based and employment-based) from a single country can exceed seven percent of the total amount of people immigrating to the United States in a single fiscal year. This is not a quota to ensure that certain nationalities make up seven percent of immigrants, but rather a limit that is set to prevent any immigrant group from dominating immigration patterns to the United States.
That seems reasonable. You’re not being targeted, Tuvalu isn’t being advantaged, it’s just that there are a lot of Indian people. What’s the alternative? No one gets a chance until every Indian who wants in gets in? Remove all limits? How would that be more fair? You’d just shift one country’s overpopulation to another. If a billion people from various parts of Africa and Asia suddenly were able (and did) immigrate to the US, what would be the result? My guess is economic collapse and social upheaval, followed by people immigrating to the next “best” country with the same results, and so on and so on.
It seems to me you think that the highest population should entitle people to more opportunities. That’s better for the individual, because they get more chances, but it’s at the direct expense of lower populations. That’s not about fairness or being against discrimination, it’s just wanting what you want and fuck anyone else.
After all, EU is a combined political and economic entity, makign it a federation, just like India.
Africa is a continent, India is a country. The cap isn’t based on diversity, but a country. The reason being the same as several people including myself have stated, namely so that one country doesn’t dominate at the direct expense of all others. Your personal demands based on what you personally want because it would advantage you aren’t how policies anywhere are made.
Given that, and given that your argument is neither consistent nor in good faith, I’m out. It’s clear that you don’t care about diversity or discrimination or anything else, you’re just all about personal advantage. That’s not an argument, it’s a form of bigotry.