Or you could argue that the U.S. gains more from allowing 20 lower-paid civil engineers than allowing 1 private sector executive buy their H1B.

The point is that switching to an auction with the H1B causes more problems without really solving any, at least within the scope of the program's purpose.

Immigration policy has to balance two concerns: letting in unassimilated immigrants too quickly, and missing out on the economic value they bring. Therefore, it should optimize for economic value added per unassimilated immigrant. The harm of adding to the unassimilated population must be justified by the value brought.

Bringing in a lot of foreign civil engineers may be more total economic value brought in, but in a way that doesn't justify the cost in unassimilated people.

An "auction" by how much employers are willing to pay is indeed much closer to what the policy is trying to optimize for.

The lower-paid high-skill jobs should not be using the scarce H1-B spots, but should raise wages to draw more Americans, since the premium is much lower than you'd need to hire an American for the higher-paid jobs.

But the choice is not between 20 low paid engineers vs 1 highly private sector employee.

The choice is instead between 20 low paid engineers and 20 high paid executives/engineers/employees.

This makes the answer to this choice much more clear.

Which comes back to location and industry discrimination, since higher pay is a function of these different factors.

Again, auctioning H1B with quotas doesn't solve a problem, it just creates new ones.

I don't know.

If you're paying 20x what a civil engineer gets then you might as well go with E5 Investor Visas. Its true that auctions have issues, but we could go with (for example) second price (aka Vickrey) auctions for salaries.

How you would think the E5 is a substitute for an H1B is beyond me. A business isn't going to pay their executive to found and work at an entirely different business, especially if it jeopardizes the business's ability to sponsor future visas with USCIS.

EB-5 has nothing to do with founding and working at a different business. USCIS allows applicants to invest into EB-5 Regional Centers, which are essentially funds that would not require you to work there or start any new business. If an investment is made into a TEA, the capital requirements drop to $500, 000. Its effectively a for sale green card. If you are a sufficiently important executive, $500, 000 is chump change to ensure you can stay in the United States indefinitely.

I'm not sure why you are turning to hostilities. Please review the legislation.

The business then needs to cover the executive salary on top of EB investments into other businesses - that is not a substitute for H1B. This fact along with addressing the tone makes it seem like you're fishing for a red herring.