Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

People from India are making their voices be heard on these important proposed changes in US policy, are you? Americans call your US Senators ASAP to oppose S386 and any similar or related bills. Public hearings and debate are needed: https://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state&Sort=ASC The biggest overall winner from S386 is India. They have the biggest backlog in employment based green cards and one of the biggest family joining backlogs. Thus, they benefit from both removal of per country caps for employment based green cards and the more than doubling of per country caps from 7% to 15% for family joining green cards. Due to the removal of country caps for employment based green cards they will dominate family joining over time. However, the biggest immediate winner for family joining will apparently be Mexico. Nonetheless, since family joining is still capped at 15% the biggest winners will likely be the top five in each family joining class, and include Mexico, India and China. There are a lot of big Latino winners, which is why there is apparently little to no opposition from the Latino lobby.   Depending on the Family joining category, winners include the Dominican Republic, Haiti, El Salvador, and Cuba.  The Philippines (part of the US for 50 years) and Vietnam are big winners in family joining. The US shares historical ties with the Philippines and Vietnam, which are lacking with India. India’s ties were to the UK and the Soviet Union and now are to Russia. At least 80% of employment based green card applicants are processed by the USCIS with the balance by the US Department of State. Family joining, however, would appear to be mostly DOS. The USCIS chart below shows the primary employment based green card applicant backlog at USCIS. Where the numbers can get huge and never-ending is derivative applicants – immediate family and family joining for that one applicant (as well as offspring born in the USA). Importing of spouses is favored due to caste-class endogamy and to expand chain migration. Not making this up. It is common sense and it is documented for India: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/caste-kinship-the-realisation-of-american-dream-high-skilled-telugu-india-migrants-in-the-usa The family joining information, further below, shows that India is one of the biggest applicants for very extended family joining (i.e. siblings), as well as for employment based green cards. This means that with per country employment based green card caps removed and per country family joining doubled to a max of 15%, the increase in Asian-Indian Americans will rise quickly to astronomical levels in the range of a million to millions for the backlog listed below of 306,601 primary migrants, listed below. We don’t know how many are still in the pipeline, either.
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447
These are the basic immigrants and not the derivative ones. The average family size in India is around 4 people. Furthermore, in the family joining category for very extended (sibling) family joining, the most back-logged is India – suggesting that a factor of four is very low. The primary green card applicant will likely bring spouse, bring or have children, bring parents, bring siblings, who will bring spouses, etc. Their children may also bring spouses from abroad. So, the family multiplier would seem to be more like 34 and growing over time for each employment based immigrant. India’s employment based greencard backlog was listed as around 306,601 for USCIS and 36,806 for Dept of State. Removing the country cap and giving India 78% would give them 109,000 primary migrant slots per year. S386 increases family joining caps to 15% per country, and India is already one of the dominant countries. So, this 343,407 could translate into 11.7 million immigrants from India and offspring in the not very distant future. Immediate family has no country caps.

immigrant worker + derivative migrants (for estimation):
spouse,
2 children,
2 children spouses,
parents and spouse’s parents (4),
4 siblings (2 worker and 2 spouse siblings),
4 sibling spouses and their 8 children and their 8 children’s spouses.
On their well-organized chain migration see: https://miningawareness.wordpress.com/2019/09/22/caste-kinship-the-realisation-of-american-dream-high-skilled-telugu-india-migrants-in-the-usa/

According to the CRS:
The INA limits worldwide permanent immigration to 675,000 persons annually: 480,000 family-sponsored immigrants, made up of family-sponsored immediate relatives of U.S. citizens (immediate relatives),8 and a set of four ordered family-sponsored preference immigrant categories (“preference immigrants”); 140,000 employment-based immigrants comprised of a set of five preference immigrant categories and 55,000 diversity visa immigrants.9 This worldwide limit, however, is referred to as a “permeable cap” because immediate relatives are exempt from numerical limits placed on family-sponsored immigration and thereby represent the flexible component of the 675,000 worldwide limit.10 Consequently, the actual total of foreign nationals receiving LPR status each year (including immigrants, refugees, and asylees) has averaged roughly 1 million persons during the past decade.11

The Per-country Ceiling

The INA further specifies a “per-country ceiling,” or “cap,” limiting the number of family-sponsored preference immigrants and the number of employment-based immigrants from any single country to 7% of the limit in each preference category.12 The per-country level is not a “quota” set aside for individual countries, as each country in the world could not receive 7% of the overall limit. The Department of State (DOS) notes that “the country limitation serves to avoid monopolization of virtually all the annual limitation by applicants from only a few countries,” and is not “a quota to which any particular country is entitled.”13…

Among prospective immigrants, the INA distinguishes between principal prospective immigrants (principals) who meet the qualifications of the employment-based preference category, and derivative prospective immigrants (derivatives) who include the principals’ spouses and children. Derivatives appear on the same petition as principals and are entitled to the same status and order of consideration as long as they are “accompanying” or “following to join” principal immigrants…https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447

The increase in family cap from 7% to 15% could be a trick to slip in more immigrant workers, as well: “any unused family-based preference immigrant visa numbers can be applied to employment-based preference immigrant visa numbers in the next fiscal years“. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45447


https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/WaitingList/WaitingListItem_2018.pdf
* First preference (F1) – unmarried sons and daughters, 21 years of age and older, of U.S. citizens;
* Second preference (F2A) – spouses and children (unmarried and under 21 years of age) of lawful permanent residents;
* Second preference (F2B) – unmarried sons and daughters, 21 years of age and older, of lawful permanent residents;
* Third preference (F3) – married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens; and
* Fourth preference (F4) – brothers and sisters of U.S. citizens (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age and older).

* https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/family-preference

Immediate relatives are not supposed to have green card caps.
If you are an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, you can become a lawful permanent resident (get a Green Card) based on your family relationship if you meet certain eligibility requirements. You are an immediate relative if you are:
* The spouse of a U.S. citizen;
* The unmarried child under 21 years of age of a U.S. citizen; or
* The parent of a U.S. citizen (if the U.S. citizen is 21 years of age or older).

https://www.uscis.gov/greencard/immediate-relative-us-citizen




https://travel.state.gov/content/dam/visas/Statistics/Immigrant-Statistics/WaitingList/WaitingListItem_2018.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Filipino_Americans
https://www.cfo.gov.ph/news/from-overseas-filipinos/588-filipino-immigrants-in-the-united-states2.html

We are letting in tons of people from the Dominican Republic each year and yet they aren’t nice to Haitians. We gave permanent residency to 58,384 from the DR in 2017. Most immigrants from India to the US are upper/dominant castes who (as a group) are very bad to the untouchable-Dalits. Are we taking Haitians from the Dominican Republic? If not, why is the United States favoring abusive groups as migrants?
Parliamentary questions
21 February 2019
E-000947-19
Question for written answer E-000947-19
to the Commission
Rule 130
Dubravka Šuica (PPE)
Subject:  The Dominican Republic-Haiti crisis
The Dominican Republic’s discriminatory policy systematically abuses the human rights of residents of Haitian origin. The country’s constitution was amended in 2010 to make ius soli the basis for obtaining citizenship, as well as having parents who are legal residents of the country.

In 2013, the Dominican Republic’s Constitutional Court decided to apply this rule retroactively to 1929. People of Haitian origin then had two years in which to prove that their ancestors were legal residents of the country, under threat of deportation (200 000 people had been de facto made stateless by 2017, of whom 55 000 were deported and 128 000 voluntarily fled to Haiti). Individuals have been left on the streets, arrested, physically and psychologically abused. Their movable and immovable property has been seized and threatened, and they are currently living in encampments on the border.

A market built through EU subsidies has become another battlefield in this conflict. Although it was built for the purpose of free and fair trade between the two countries, the reality is quite different. Specifically, guards are letting Haitians through only after keeping them waiting for hours, in order to allow residents of the Dominican Republic to occupy better positions in the market. At the same time, abuse, violence and the solicitation of bribes are not unknown.

What does the Commission intend to do in order to bring real change, and not just to improve its statistics?
Original language of question: HR
Last updated: 5 March 2019

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-8-2019-000947_EN.html