They need to fix that and address the root issue rather than force tens of thousands of companies to fire ppl who were working for several years and have a lot of institutional knowlege.
What does it mean to "address the root issue"? This is a platitude because any "address"-ing will have pretty clear winners & losers.
Two, automatic green-card for anyone who completes a four year degree at an accredited US institution.
2. I strongly disagree with this one. The end result will be accredited US institutions effectively selling green cards. If you thought tuition was high before this, think about what will happen after these schools can effectively sell permanent residency to the highest bidders (for prices under the EB-5 investment visa cut-offs of course)
If your argument for it being good is "the money goes to public colleges, which is basically the government!" then the government should just be transparently selling permanent residency without the smoke-and-mirror charade of a "school".
Are you then going to exclude private schools? I would guess that a degree from Harvard is more worthy of a green card, but then why should Harvard get a bunch of "free money" for selling a green card?
US Colleges will still only have a certain amount of capacity. If all of a sudden it comes with a free green card, either 1) less US students can afford to go there, because tuition has risen so much due to "supply and demand", or 2) US students still go there, and end up with even more debt than they currently have.
> Now at least some of the money and gatekeeping would flow through colleges. Especially public colleges, who love foreign students, because they pay full tuition.
With the EB-5 programs (the way to "buy" a green card), you have to invest within Qualified Opportunity Zones which are (in theory) designed to assist lower-income areas, or create a certain number of new jobs (I'm sure there are other investments that qualify too; I'm not an expert on this program).
Having funds go towards these endeavors is arguably "better" than going into the pockets of an already administratively-overloaded university system.
Besides, it's not rocket science that having more talented productive people in your country is a good idea.
Wait, so will this move lower engineers salaries or raise it because they won't have to compete "with an underclass."
The reasoning isn't self-consistent because obviously it will mean lower wages for engineers.
> A lot of positions companies could profitably hire at decent salaries won't ever be filled because salaries of people qualified to do those jobs start above profitability threshold.
This is true of every job. If salaries were cheaper you would be willing to hire more of them.
I'm with you up until this. Lets be real here, if there is enough reform to put H1-B and American workers on "level playing field" in terms of not being abused, American companies are going to look for American workers first (or people who are already on H1-Bs, and can now switch jobs more easily). This is simply because the American worker has the advantage of not having to go through the application process, and of being able to start working right away; the company won't have to wait months to bring the employee on board.
I'm in support of open borders. Somebody wants to enter the country? Do a background check, give them a tax ID and let them in. Everyone is a resident without fear of deportation unless they commit a felony. After 5 or 10 years of residency, anyone can become a citizen.
I realize that's pretty extreme, though, so here's a more conservative reform approach:
End the H1-B program entirely. Just grant people temporary work visas on request after a background check. No company needs to be involved at the beginning. If a person is able to find at least 3 months of full-time work in the first 6 months, they're given work residency.
H1B visa holders are required to be paid the prevailing wage and if this is a big problem, then the DOL can raise the H1B wage to help those threatened with deportation.
I am skeptical that removing the requirement to find local talent first would be a win for permanent residents & citizens.
The "find local talent first" requirement is also pretty weak today if you look into what's actually required. Posting the opening in a local print newspaper satisfies the requirement.
I think it's great someone who comes from an area where US$5k/month makes them extravagantly wealthy can get a job paying $10k/month. More power to them, and good for them for having that opportunity!
Then I think about it in another context. One that considers the huge subsidies (direct payments, defense) the US provides these countries, and in the context of the market wage in the absence of these visa programs. That is, the context in which a US (permanent resident or citizen) worker's already tiny salary negotiation leverage is diminished by the existence of this labor pool. That's not such a great thing, in my opinion.