Another thing this shows is just how bad having a years-long visa processing pipeline is. If USCIS worked on a reasonable schedule and processed applications within a week you wouldn't have to spend years anxiously waiting at the mercy of political changes.
Its an interesting framing and obviously things could be more efficient, but this sort of rests on the assumption that everyone SHOULD have the right to live in a different country.
Well processing can also deny requests that shouldn't be approved. The point is that you shouldn't make legal requests wait years to hear back.
And this goes both ways, illegal entries also just get to stay indefinitely while their deportation case processes - remember that in the abergo Garcia case, he was first picked up and admitted to illegal immigration all the way back in 2019, but we're still litigating how he can be deported seven years later.
This strikes me as odd. You say 49% of Asian immigrants are banned under this. But China, Korea, Philippines, and India are not subject to the ban. I would’ve thought the vast majority of Asian immigrants came from those countries. Is that wrong?
Moreover, it seems unlikely that these countries cover half of previous year immigrants if there are no bans on Mexico, India, the Philippines and China.
Mexico, India, the Philippines and China only accounted for about one in five immigrants. They didn't ban 6 of the top 7 nationalities for immigrant visas, but then banned 9 of the next 10.
Asia includes the Middle East in the State Department's definitions. Afghanistan had the most immigrant visas for Asians by far in 2024 (42,287 v. 32,888 for China). There were, for instance, as many visas issued to Pakistanis as Indians in 2024. These are the banned Asian countries:
Another thing this shows is just how bad having a years-long visa processing pipeline is. If USCIS worked on a reasonable schedule and processed applications within a week you wouldn't have to spend years anxiously waiting at the mercy of political changes.
Its an interesting framing and obviously things could be more efficient, but this sort of rests on the assumption that everyone SHOULD have the right to live in a different country.
Well processing can also deny requests that shouldn't be approved. The point is that you shouldn't make legal requests wait years to hear back.
And this goes both ways, illegal entries also just get to stay indefinitely while their deportation case processes - remember that in the abergo Garcia case, he was first picked up and admitted to illegal immigration all the way back in 2019, but we're still litigating how he can be deported seven years later.
This strikes me as odd. You say 49% of Asian immigrants are banned under this. But China, Korea, Philippines, and India are not subject to the ban. I would’ve thought the vast majority of Asian immigrants came from those countries. Is that wrong?
Moreover, it seems unlikely that these countries cover half of previous year immigrants if there are no bans on Mexico, India, the Philippines and China.
Mexico, India, the Philippines and China only accounted for about one in five immigrants. They didn't ban 6 of the top 7 nationalities for immigrant visas, but then banned 9 of the next 10.
Asia includes the Middle East in the State Department's definitions. Afghanistan had the most immigrant visas for Asians by far in 2024 (42,287 v. 32,888 for China). There were, for instance, as many visas issued to Pakistanis as Indians in 2024. These are the banned Asian countries:
Afghanistan Pakistan Bangladesh Nepal Yemen Iran Jordan Lebanon Iraq Syria Cambodia Burma Thailand Kuwait Laos Mongolia Bhutan Palestinian Authority Travel Document
Here's a table of visa issuances for CY 2024
https://www.datawrapper.de/_/GYYft/
Thanks. Looks like my understanding of the numbers was perhaps dated.