What does this mean? Worried!!! [merged threads]

[Unlockable 7,306]

3 hours ago, charmander said:

That data is available annually. Here are 2016 numbers https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Lawful_Permanent_Residents_2016.pdf

 

Of all GCs in 2016, 14.7% are parents, 4.2% are adult children, and 5.7% are siblings.

Thanks for that.

 

I just skimmed through the document.

 

So family based immigration made up for 68% in 2016.

14.7 + 4.2 + 5.7 = 24.6%

About 25% of family based cases are family that are not spouses and minor children. That brings to the point that reallocating the parent, adult children, and sibling categories to employment based categories.

 

The employment based category was only 12% in 2016! Only 12%

 

That means people brought over twice as many family members outside of their spouse and children than highly skilled workers. 

 

If you remove the 25% from the 68% that brings it down to 43% of the share of immigration. 

If you then take that 25% and add it to the 12% employment based immigration, it will bring that category up to 37%.

 

Logically, it seems fair.

But like @SkruDe mentioned in his or her post, because of the people it will effect, logic gets thrown out the window.

 

[charmander 692]

4 minutes ago, NuestraUnion said:

Thanks for that.

 

I just skimmed through the document.

 

So family based immigration made up for 68% in 2016.

14.7 + 4.2 + 5.7 = 24.6%

About 25% of family based cases are family that are not spouses and minor children. That brings to the point that reallocating the parent, adult children, and sibling categories to employment based categories.

 

The employment based category was only 12% in 2016! Only 12%

 

That means people brought over twice as many family members outside of their spouse and children than highly skilled workers. 

 

If you remove the 25% from the 68% that brings it down to 43% of the share of immigration. 

If you then take that 25% and add it to the 12% employment based immigration, it will bring that category up to 37%.

 

Logically, it seems fair.

But like @SkruDe mentioned in his or her post, because of the people it will effect, logic gets thrown out the window.

 

If you look at my other posting just above yours, only slightly less than half of the EB green cards are the actual highly skilled workers. rest of the EB green cards are their spouses and kids. If you do the math, ~5.5% of all green cards are the actual high-skill workers.

 

I think it would be better to keep the spouses and minor children out of EBs quotas. Some would come as single, some married with 5 kids. That shouldn't affect how many high-skilled workers we get if we are rooting for a merit-based immigration.

 

 

[Unlockable 7,306]

1 hour ago, charmander said:

If you look at my other posting just above yours, only slightly less than half of the EB green cards are the actual highly skilled workers. rest of the EB green cards are their spouses and kids. If you do the math, ~5.5% of all green cards are the actual high-skill workers.

 

I think it would be better to keep the spouses and minor children out of EBs quotas. Some would come as single, some married with 5 kids. That shouldn't affect how many high-skilled workers we get if we are rooting for a merit-based immigration.

 

 

Agreed.

[Gamboli 48]

I'm a little surprised that no one actually fact checked the report by the Cato institute. I seen a few inaccuracies. 

 

Here is the actual bill if you're interested:

 

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170801_New_RAISE_Act_One_Pager_FINAL.pdf

Edited January 30, 2018 by Gamboli

[sarahandyunus 133]

I think pretty much all of what is in the bill above is reasonable - renewable visa for elderly parents - sounds reasonable. 

 

Would also like to see birthright citizenship eliminated but I'm pretty sure that goes really far back (a constitutional amendment?) so I doubt that'll ever happen.

 

Would also like to see more stringent requirements for spouse visas. K1 has a lot of room for abuse and fraud and potential to bring over individuals who have nothing to contribute to this country intellectually. 

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, sarahandyunus said:

Would also like to see more stringent requirements for spouse visas. K1 has a lot of room for abuse and fraud and potential to bring over individuals who have nothing to contribute to this country intellectually. 

So US citizens should be required to fall in love with and marry spouses who can contribute to the country intellectually? At least if they want to live with them in the US.

 

That goes a little far for me...

[AshMarty 359]

5 hours ago, Gamboli said:

I'm a little surprised that no one actually fact checked the report by the Cato institute. I seen a few inaccuracies. 

 

Here is the actual bill if you're interested:

 

https://www.cotton.senate.gov/files/documents/170801_New_RAISE_Act_One_Pager_FINAL.pdf

Someone posted the bill at some point. Haha. This thread has been very active over the past week and I know a couple of people even posted a revision but it is likely lost in pages of discussion. 

[charmander 692]

4 minutes ago, AshMarty said:

Someone posted the bill at some point. Haha. This thread has been very active over the past week and I know a couple of people even posted a revision but it is likely lost in pages of discussion. 

This is one area VJ lacks. You cannot do keyword searches within the thread. There is advanced search option and also google custom search but they both do searches in the whole VJ archive. It would have been great if they just add a search box for the topic itself.

 

if you want to check who else posted the pdf link of RAISE Act (for instance I did last week and I'm pretty sure I wasn't the first one either), the best way is unfortunately going through all postings one by one.

[yuna628 9,547]

2 hours ago, bcking said:

So US citizens should be required to fall in love with and marry spouses who can contribute to the country intellectually? At least if they want to live with them in the US.

 

That goes a little far for me...

Don't you know that in order for women to choose a potential foreign mate we must put them through an intellectual standards test? Afterall, don't you know Americans are vastly intellectually superior?

 

If you are the embodiment of Einstein risen from the grave +3000 points.

If you are the embodiment of Einstein but without the hair and a six-pac -8 points.

+2 points if you have a Masters or PhD. It's still not Einstein enough.

-1 point for only a BA. It means you didn't take learning seriously enough.

And all negative points if you only graduated in high school or A levels. You dirty non-achiever you. Commoner peasants are the worst!

No points if you only speak your native language with broken English.

+20 points if you speak every known language in every country that exists in the world, as it means you are a super communicator!

+60 points if you can say sexy things in French.

+50 points for no other language but English, you special human.

+100 points if you are rich.

+1000 if you look like Ryan Gosling.

-1000 if you look like Ryan Gosling only if I squint with the lights dimmed.

0 points if you are just so average.

If you are a lawyer, doctor, or scientist + or - 15 points depending on how rich you are.

'Normal people' need not apply, and not short people either. Intellectually defective all of them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by yuna628

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

Voules vouz couche

 

I look a lot like Ryan Gosling if you close your eyes really tight.  But being “normal” and short, as well as not rich...

 

Suffice it to say I had to order my wife from a mail order bride site.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Voules vouz couche

 

I look a lot like Ryan Gosling if you close your eyes really tight.  But being “normal” and short, as well as not rich...

 

Suffice it to say I had to order my wife from a mail order bride site.

Not rich   IDWAF is loaded. Like Yacht , Ferrari , Hot young trophy wife loaded 

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

21 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Not rich   IDWAF is loaded. Like Yacht , Ferrari , Hot young trophy wife loaded 

Uh huh.  If I had your money, I’d just use mine to start fires.

[yuna628 9,547]

1 hour ago, IDWAF said:

Voules vouz couche

 

I look a lot like Ryan Gosling if you close your eyes really tight.  But being “normal” and short, as well as not rich...

 

Suffice it to say I had to order my wife from a mail order bride site.

I had to order my husband from the Home Office, which isn't unlike Ikea. He was too expensive to upgrade to a PhD, so I traded down a little bit and nixed the instruction manual. He does come with a Ryan Gosling option so that is a plus.

[kargul38 1]

On 1/24/2018 at 9:33 AM, Going through said:

Unfortunately, immigration into another country is not a legal "right" for anyone not born in that country.

 

its a benefit.

[SmileAlways 5]

On 1/29/2018 at 9:22 AM, Boiler said:

I have no particular problem in principle, more an issue of not becoming a Public Charge which is reasonable.

 

Now somebody coming here at retirement age has nothing saved in the system so the multipliers you see, 10x salary at 65 would be larger.

 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-guidelines-for-young-retirement-savers/

 

The numbers mentioned in the I864 would be totally inadequate, so perhaps a compromise, require realistic numbers?

 

Hope parents visa will be allowed.