1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcin...], reform would seem to be necessary.
2) Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration. One would think HN would generally support this?
Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order.
Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.
At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick.
I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.
That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.
I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.
Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet.
My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.
This thread and your post history strongly suggest otherwise!
I find the other person usually just digs in their heels the more you reply...
coupled with slashing immigration in general.
The bill would change the system to be more about skill/merit rather than the fact you are related by blood to someone who has skill.
The reduction in numbers is a side effect of the current ratios of the existing system. So ideally they will boost the maximum number on the other end to increase the total number of skilled visas, instead of just cutting the relatives portion (as the bill proposed in August). To me that's the best of both worlds. It's possible it will may be tweaked as it goes through congress or it may have to wait for a future bill, but at least the basic framework is being laid out for a better system similar to Canada/Australia.
Plenty of republicans and democrats criticized the "50% reduction by 2028" projection when the original bill was announced a few months ago, so it's not entirely wishful thinking it may change in the future for the better.