> Likely there should be some path for immigrant students to stay, but H-1B shouldn't be that path.

Perhaps they should create an exception that allows immigrant student to work for entry-level market wages for a few years after they graduate.

I mean, immigrants students will need some kind of visa that lets them work to stay here after school. It could be the H-1B, or something else.

But the only way they can stay is if that visa requires only paying what new graduates normally make.

There is a huge range of salary's for recent grads from minimum wage to 200+k/year. So, a minimum salary of say 75k would allow many students to stay but not all students to stay.

PS: I suspect if there where a direct path from student to staying in the US then people would just game that process. Which would reduce the number of 'real' students and cause a political backlash.

> if there where a direct path from student to staying in the US then people would just game that process

If someone manages to get accepted at a genuine accredited U.S. high-education institution, and completes their studies, and graduates, why not let them stay? I understand there will be a lot more demand to study in the U.S. if such a pathway existed; so you would want to make sure that there are no diploma mills, and that only people graduating from accredited colleges are allowed to stay. Perhaps capping the number of international students at a college to something like 20% would go further in mitigating your concern. The flow of student immigrants would then be naturally regulated by the admissions process, and by the number of available seats for international students in U.S. universities and institutions.

"why not let them stay?" has a simple answer that not letting them stay has some benefit to some USA citizens in reducing competition in the workforce. One may argue whether benefits of this 'labor market protectionism' really outweigh the drawbacks in economic competitiveness, but after recent elections this choice has been made and "jobs for Americans instead of immigrants" has become an explicit goal.

It really doesn't make much practical sense to attract students, educate them, and have them leave. But having the flow of student immigrants be naturally regulated by the admissions process, as you propose, seems to be putting the cart before the horse policy wise. From the gov't perspective, the interests and education goals of the (potential) immigrants are irrelevant but the flow of skilled immigrant labor matters a lot - what would be a practical solution is to make a decision about what amount and kind of post-college immigrants staying would be best for the interests of current USA citizens (which might reasonably be close to 0 in some areas of study), and then set the limits and conditions for student visas/admissions to match that goal.

Most schools are not very good and have very low admissions criteria. These programs operate as cash cows for the university and students come with the intent to find a US employer to hire them. It's why graduate programs in Computer Science are primarily international students, it's not that they're better it's just that the vast majority of them want a job in the US.

That game is already being played. It's very lucrative for private colleges catering to third world (and second world) kleptocrats that want to plant their children and their dirty cash in the USA.

> Perhaps they should create an exception that allows immigrant student to work for entry-level market wages for a few years after they graduate.

They have something like this, it's called Optional Practical Training (OPT).

Yes, I know about OPT. I was making the general point that if there is going to be reform, we need to make sure that there is some way for immigrant students to stay and work in the country after they graduate. Right now, we've got that through OPT, the 3-year OPT extension for STEM graduates, and the H-1B visa. A few students lose multiple rounds on the H-1B lottery, use up their OPT, and get kicked out. If we're going to reform the system, we should try to not eliminate the pathway that exists, and preferably provide one that's even better.

OPT is only good for 1 year.

The permanent employment based visas (E-2, E-3) should have primacy. Although it is a long process it would be possible to obtain work authorization within the optional practical training period even without the STEM extension if the quota was current. The issue is the employment based quota, especially the per country limits.

Yes, I would like it if they eliminated the quota for the employment-based (EB-2 and EB-3) visas, and created a exemption from labor certification for people who studies in the US.

It's already incredibly difficult, time-consuming, and expensive to secure an employment-based immigration path. The process takes between 1 to 2 years. In addition, the employer is required to attest (via labor certification) that there are no minimally qualified U.S. workers who can do the same job. The quotas create just decades-long backlogs, and make things even worse for immigrants.

The regulatory red tape for EB immigrant visas is incredible. I've read comments on HN and other forums saying that companies typically spent circa $40,000 to get an EB-2/EB-3 visa. In fact, Congress intentionally made it easier to get H-1B visas for precisely this reason: https://www.cato.org/blog/why-congress-rejected-h-1b-recruit...

> E-2, E-3

You mean EB-2 and EB-3 (Employment Based green cards)?

E-3 is a US work visa for Australian citizens only, almost identical to H1-B but with a separate cap. It was a thank you to Australia from the Bush Administration for helping in the Iraq war.

Yes, that's what I meant.

STEM F-1 students can work under OPT for 3 years. I'd say that's good enough considering the fact that H1B also get issued for 3 years.