Immigration may be complex, but the essentials of the current situation are: 1) We are taking in over a million people a year. 2) There is very little job growth. 3) Projected population growth is ecologically unsustainable. 4) The vast majority of these immigrants present at best a break-even economic proposition for those already here. They tend to be net tax drains, in fact. 5) The native population overwhelmingly favors much reduced immigration, but powerful interests press for more.
The only way this disastrous situation will get fixed is with a year zero restart. The current set of interest groups are too entrenched for meaningful policy change. We need a period of zero immigration for five or ten years, after which other policies might be worth considering.
Out of those 1 mil people that get in only 140000 (14%) are employment based. The majority is family-based. H1Bs are not the bulk of that 1mil per annum, not by far.
It is in practice impossible to discuss isolated aspects of immigration like H1B. H1B stuff and chain migration and birthright citizenship and illegal immigration all wind up inextricably intertwined both in practice and in policy matters.
>We need a period of zero immigration for five or ten years, after which other policies might be worth considering
There most probably wouldn't be a need for any stricter policy after 10 years, for skill based employment. By that time, many companies would either move or have big offices in other locations in order to attract global talent so the US wouldn't be as attractive to come in anymore. Also, there are a lot of companies that are started by immigrants, so some other country is suddenly going to be a hub just like Silicon Valley now.
Looks like your proposal affects students too. That means a lot of folks like the Google and Yahoo founders. Do you even realize how much R&D at universities and companies is driven by immigrants?
Don't think it will happen? What if I tell you it's already happening to a certain extent even with the current policies?
I am very comfortable with multinational corporations and research organizations setting up shop near where the skilled people are. I don't see how it makes sense for them to have to import the people to America. Is there something magic about American soil? Why would you object to organizations having a larger international presence? Really, this would better serve both the foreign countries and American global interests.
>I am very comfortable with multinational corporations and research organizations setting up shop near where the skilled people are.
You don't think this is going to hurt employment in the US? If India open up immigration in response and Bangalore becomes a bigger startup hub than Silicon Valley, you don't think that hurts US workers? If US workers move out too, it's just brain drain that hurts the country.
There are a lot of synergies that come together to make technology hubs.
>Really, this would better serve both the foreign countries and American global interests.
How would large tech companies' IT workforces being international help American global interests? Imagine if other countries had access to all your internet searches and email.
Oh noes, all the startup multimillionaires and VC types might move to Bangalore. This is just LOL for a host of reasons. It's a laughable bluff. In reality, for the most part, companies would simply be forced to pay American workers more.
But even if I'm wrong, I don't really care. The high skill tech stuff people on here fixate on is not relevant in the bigger employment picture.
The only way this disastrous situation will get fixed is with a year zero restart. The current set of interest groups are too entrenched for meaningful policy change. We need a period of zero immigration for five or ten years, after which other policies might be worth considering.