Yes, let's have money decide who gets or doesn't get into the country, who can and cannot get hired from abroad. Isn't legal bribery great...
> Or let in anyone who surpasses the average native in education
And how do you determine that?
I'm pretty sure that people with enough money already have ways and means to get around visa restrictions by doing contortions similar to what companies do to avoid paying taxes.
As an example, the US process for H1b visas is a highly technical affair that allows companies with large legal departments (e.g. IBM) to hire people significantly below market rate while other companies would have trouble employing people from abroad on an H1b visa. This leads to a double market distortion: one is positively discriminating for companies with a large legal department, narrowing the number of positions that people from outside the US can access, and the other is that the H1b holders themselves are (if you look at the facts) underpaid in comparison to the normal US job market.
Having an auction would ensure that the corresponding money flows to the state (and can help alleviate any qualification shortage that makes it necessary to rely on talent from abroad), while making sure employers have fair and non-discriminatory access to international employees, prioritized by the value these companies put on the talent. Also, an auction would mean that the price is set by the market, i.e. if one particular field of employment has a shortage, then paying extra money to sponsor a visa beyond what other fields can pay makes economic sense and companies from that particular field would spend more money but also get a larger share of the available visa pool.
It's not like the current systems are reward paragons of virtues with a visa.
Yes, let's have money decide who gets or doesn't get food or shelter or medical care... oh wait.
Snarkiness aside, rich people can already buy citizenship in most countries, even the U.S. It's by far the fairest and most objective system to decide who gets in or doesn't get in. It also has the positive side effect of selecting those least likely to mooch off the state (a popular fear amongst those against immigration).
You mean human rights which are covered by the government for those who can't afford it?