China Bets Big on Small Grants, Large Facilities# Biology - 生物学
t*e
1 楼
http://www.ilw.com/articles/2011,1110-endelman.shtm
Right now, the INA permits the issuance of 140,000 employment-based
immigrant visas each fiscal year with the nationals of any one country
limited to 7% of that total. Under HR 3012, the so-called Fairness for High-
Skilled Workers Act, would remove the per country cap on EB migration
entirely, raise the cap on family migration to 15%, and stop taking 1,000
numbers from EB-2 China to compensate for the Chinese Student Protection Act
. There are transitional rules for Fiscal Years 2012(October 1, 2011-
September 30, 2012) through FY 2014 under which a certain percentage of
immigrant visas would go to nationals who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that was not one of two countries with the largest number of
natives obtaining LPR status in that fiscal year. In FY 2012, this
percentage would be 15% and would decline to 10% for the following two
fiscal years.
According to the report issued by the Office of Immigration Statistics in
late October, Mexico sent more immigrants than any other country(3.3
million or 26%) followed by the Philippines (560,000 or 4.4%) after which
came China (550,000 or 4.4%), India (500,000 or 4.0%) and then the Dominican
Republic(440,000 or 3.5%). The top 10 sending countries, including Cuba,
Canada, El Salvador, Vietnam and the United Kingdom, accounted for 55 % of
all permanent residents in FY 2010.
The motives behind HR 3012 are laudable, to end the chronic backlogs in
EB-3 and EB-2 migration from China and India; to allow highly-skilled
scientists and engineers to make the US economy more competitive; and to
avoid having to send this top talent to our competitors abroad so that more
white collar jobs can flee these shores. Amen to all that! The IT industry
and the immigration bar are in hog heaven as we used to say in Flatbush. So
, what's not to like? Isn't this what we all want and have been asking for?
The current system discriminates against nationals of China and India based
on their country of origin. It is essentially an unintended but no less
brutally effective revival of the hated national origins quota enacted in
1924 to keep Jews and Catholics from coming to the United States. Now we
keep out highly educated STEM Degree holders from China and India. What
would the end result of lifting the cap on EB per country migration be? It
would mean that those born in these two countries would virtually
monopolize all available EB visa numbers each fiscal year. By ending the
inanity and inequity of treating Chinese and Swiss nationals the same,
Congress would be effectively creating an equally pernicious regime that
will admittedly treat everyone equally but, in practice, would keep out
nationals of every country save for India and China. Everyone else would be
infinitely worse off than they are now. The yawning EB backlogs for China
and India would disappear to be replaced by equally discouraging queues for
the rest of the world.
Do we really want to create an employment-based green card system that
only works for India and China? Should discrimination against an educated
workforce from these two countries be shelved only to discriminate against
no less talented professionals from everywhere else? Why would those who
favor diversity in college admission and employment hiring not recognize its
value in immigration quotas? Doubtless advocates would contend that
spreading the pain around is the best, maybe the only way, to get Congress
to enlarge our manifestly inadequate EB quotas and they could be right.
Before we join in the chorus for this radical move away from geographic
neutrality, why not consider an alternative such as giving China and India a
preferred position but not scrapping EB per country limits entirely?
Remember the old adage: Beware of What You Wish For- You May Get It!
Right now, the INA permits the issuance of 140,000 employment-based
immigrant visas each fiscal year with the nationals of any one country
limited to 7% of that total. Under HR 3012, the so-called Fairness for High-
Skilled Workers Act, would remove the per country cap on EB migration
entirely, raise the cap on family migration to 15%, and stop taking 1,000
numbers from EB-2 China to compensate for the Chinese Student Protection Act
. There are transitional rules for Fiscal Years 2012(October 1, 2011-
September 30, 2012) through FY 2014 under which a certain percentage of
immigrant visas would go to nationals who are natives of a foreign state or
dependent area that was not one of two countries with the largest number of
natives obtaining LPR status in that fiscal year. In FY 2012, this
percentage would be 15% and would decline to 10% for the following two
fiscal years.
According to the report issued by the Office of Immigration Statistics in
late October, Mexico sent more immigrants than any other country(3.3
million or 26%) followed by the Philippines (560,000 or 4.4%) after which
came China (550,000 or 4.4%), India (500,000 or 4.0%) and then the Dominican
Republic(440,000 or 3.5%). The top 10 sending countries, including Cuba,
Canada, El Salvador, Vietnam and the United Kingdom, accounted for 55 % of
all permanent residents in FY 2010.
The motives behind HR 3012 are laudable, to end the chronic backlogs in
EB-3 and EB-2 migration from China and India; to allow highly-skilled
scientists and engineers to make the US economy more competitive; and to
avoid having to send this top talent to our competitors abroad so that more
white collar jobs can flee these shores. Amen to all that! The IT industry
and the immigration bar are in hog heaven as we used to say in Flatbush. So
, what's not to like? Isn't this what we all want and have been asking for?
The current system discriminates against nationals of China and India based
on their country of origin. It is essentially an unintended but no less
brutally effective revival of the hated national origins quota enacted in
1924 to keep Jews and Catholics from coming to the United States. Now we
keep out highly educated STEM Degree holders from China and India. What
would the end result of lifting the cap on EB per country migration be? It
would mean that those born in these two countries would virtually
monopolize all available EB visa numbers each fiscal year. By ending the
inanity and inequity of treating Chinese and Swiss nationals the same,
Congress would be effectively creating an equally pernicious regime that
will admittedly treat everyone equally but, in practice, would keep out
nationals of every country save for India and China. Everyone else would be
infinitely worse off than they are now. The yawning EB backlogs for China
and India would disappear to be replaced by equally discouraging queues for
the rest of the world.
Do we really want to create an employment-based green card system that
only works for India and China? Should discrimination against an educated
workforce from these two countries be shelved only to discriminate against
no less talented professionals from everywhere else? Why would those who
favor diversity in college admission and employment hiring not recognize its
value in immigration quotas? Doubtless advocates would contend that
spreading the pain around is the best, maybe the only way, to get Congress
to enlarge our manifestly inadequate EB quotas and they could be right.
Before we join in the chorus for this radical move away from geographic
neutrality, why not consider an alternative such as giving China and India a
preferred position but not scrapping EB per country limits entirely?
Remember the old adage: Beware of What You Wish For- You May Get It!
