1. H1Bs are _auctioned_ instead of raffled. You really need that H1B? Prove it - pay for it. 2. Sponsoring companies are responsible for cost of living for that employee for the entire duration of their H1B. That obligation can be transferred to another company.
3. (Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. No questions asked. If you can take that much of their money, they can be citizens.
If we understand the act of giving a green card to mean the US wants that person to join the society for the long term, is "taxes paid" really the best measure of desirability?
As for #2, the main issue now is more of supply and demand. The US only gives out 140,000 employment based green cards a year (plus some from other unused categories), which also includes the worker's families. There are far more ways to get an employment based green card than through H1B. The problems we're hearing about are less to do with the process (which _is_ byzantine) and more to do with that there are not enough green cards to go around.
And just as an aside, there's no labor certification for an H1B, e.g. a company isn't saying they need that worker so so much. A company just wins the lottery and agrees to pay at least what the DoL says is the prevailing wage for the occupation. If they later want to get a green card for that employee, they have to redo the prevailing wage determination AND make an attempt to hire an citizen/GC before they can get the GC (or the employee has to prove they have exceptional skills that gains them international recognition, among other things which includes "being paid way more than your peers")
I think this is a good idea in general. One of the main complained about immigration is some supposed cost to the barely-existing US welfare system. Having a minimum lifetime tax before getting access to that seems like a decent compromise to calm down the xenophobes
Well, the downside is for the companies exploiting migrants and those are the ones donating money to the people who make decisions. Lobbying is legally bribing them and the effect is that the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them but the corporations.
And No, this is not a cynical take but a factual one.