Just read this, and was wondering what people think:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...99N_story.html

Since there's no increase in the number of visas available, I think it's all a smoke screen. I think that once the bill gets to the Senate, it'll die in committee.

Ian

Apparently Grassley already put a hold on it.

I could see something like HR 3012 going through eventually. A non-technical case can be made that the EB country quota system is unfair (although, uh, it benefited me personally). And the EB2/3-I community is one that any savvy national politican would want to court, so it's not just a bunch of random non-voters complaining. It's just a shame that the only politically viable way to get EB3-I out of purgatory faster is apparently to deposit everyone else there too.

There is a recession coming.

I think you're right. Perhaps I was getting into a tizzy for nothing! ( )

I just saw this after a very depressing and sleepless night:

https://www.numbersusa.com/content/node/12604

Just as i was yesterday, especially as my EB3 PD isnt that far off being reached (if it continues to advance at the same rate)

I know how you feel. It's tough enough waiting as it is without this kind of stress! I hope you reach your priority date soon

If you actually look at the statistics, they are insane. The US grants permanent residency to about 1 million people every year, which means about 0.3% of the population of the US was granted permanent residency in the past year. In Canada, it's 0.8% (admittedly Canada is higher than average if you look internationally, but still, it's the closest comparison given geography).

So to begin with, it's evident the US has a pretty strict immigration policy.

Of those 1 million, nearly 700,000 get in via some sort of family tie, e.g. married a US citizen, sponsored by a US citizen or LPR, parent/child/sibling.

Nearly 150,000 are employment based - but compare that with Canada where it's around 250,000 - so merely in total numbers let alone per capita, a country with one-ninth the population lets more people in as skilled workers.

Of the remaining 150-200,000 people granted LPR status in the US, 50,000 come in via the lottery and most of the rest are refugees or people granted asylum. There are a few people in obscure categories, e.g. ministers of religion, immigrant investors and people granted LPR via a protected status (e.g. they were originally a victim of human trafficking or a victim of a forced marriage).

Really?

This makes perfect sense! The lower a country's population, the less likely they are to have the skilled workers that their economy needs so they need to allow more immigration.

Agreed, look at NZ, they have shortages for certain they fill with immigration, around 23% of the population is immigrants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration#New_Zealand

The UK is an interesting example, they used to encourage skilled immigrants with Tier 1 visa's which were not tied to jobs, but recently they flipped to the US model of only letting in those specifically needed for certain roles that can't be filled.

Not really sure that comparisons between Canada is a good one, while they are proximate they have very different resources and needs.

tht

The UK situation was down to massive fraud, which no doubt is still taking place under a different guise.

Actually I made a mistake, the 250,000 figure I based on the total number of people granted permanent residency, in fact in 2010 the number of people admitted into Canada for permanent residency for work-related reasons was 186,881: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resourc...iminary/01.asp

But still, the point still stands. Canada admits more people in work-related categories than the US does, even if you start chucking in the obscure categories the US lets in like ministers of religion.

Canada cracked down on skilled immigrants in 2008 and also in 2010 so the numbers will decline a bit as those applications get processed, but even so I have a feeling for 2011 at least the number will still be higher and for 2012 it will be quite close.

It doesn't make perfect sense, the US and Canadian job markets are not that much different. That's why I used it as an example. One of the concerns in Canada is the low birth rate and the need for there to be more people to support an aging population, which is also a problem in the US but not to the same degree.

I always wonder what will happen when countries like China and India develop to the point that emigration no longer looks particularly attractive and developed countries have no ready source of people to import.

The main natural resource in the world is people, not water, gold, oil, etc.

Um, having just looked at the visa bulletin, in the family-based categories Indians and Chinese born applicants have the same wait time as everyone else currently anyway. So no actual problem for any other nationalities.

It's only the employment-based categories where this would be an issue.