>I found this part to be the most interesting. If this current proclamation is a prelude to the overhaul of H1B system in a way that would make it work like described above, then it is somewhat exciting for a couple of reasons.

I think most people who've dealt with the immigration system would think that that is naive. This administration has proven time and time again with regards to immigration that they will pay lip service to making improvements while almost always simply making life harder for immigrants and people on visas.

See: how they suspended H-1B premium processing for a while some time back, also claiming that it was in service of "overhauling" the H-1B system.

>See: how they suspended H-1B premium processing for a while some time back, also claiming that it was in service of "overhauling" the H-1B system.

Except this time they didn't say they suspended H1B to "overhaul" the system, and that by the time it is over, we will get a new system. They just said they have longer-term reforms in that area in their plans.

Which makes perfect sense in my eyes, because swapping to an H1B system similar to what Canada has is a massive change. I don't see it happening on a scale that is shorter than 5 years from start to finish.

So a reelection cliffhanger. Does actually seem plausible for this administration.

Is there any reasonable explanation why the previous administration, which controlled both the house and senate albeit for a short period + won 2 terms, didn't make any meaningful progress to overhaul the process and make it merit based?

The Democrats spent all of the period when they had supermajority in the senate and majority in the house barely being able to pass the affordable care act (and subsequently sustaining great political damage for that). After Scott Brown replaced the late Ted Kennedy, almost everything was subject to filibuster and it became really hard to do anything substantial. Comprehensive Immigration reform came close in 2013 (in the wake of the 2012 republican presidential election loss) and was passed bipartisanly in the senate but died in the republican-controlled house.

This. Democratic party never intended to pass DACA. All the wanted was to create shock waves and funny how that turned out. If President Obama wanted to legislate DACA, he would've done in his first term. He made sure to to get elected twice and in last term, he chose to introduce DACA. It is clear form last election voting, that majority of America doesn't want DACA. Doesn't matter how much news outlets push for it. All democrats wanted was to polarize their base. They're no different from DJT.

The house killed immigration reform in 2013 that passed the senate by overwhelming bipartisan margins. Blame Cantor and Boehner.

> This administration has proven time and time again with regards to immigration that they will pay lip service to making improvements

Not much different than 8 years of previous administration [1]. One good thing about this administration is that it hurts SV, and that might bring attention to the problem of Greencard backlogs, and the resulting indentured servitude and labor market distortions.

Also, note that the person putting hold on the bipartisan S386[2] bill is Sen. Durbin, a Democrat. So, please don't lay all blame for this situation at Republican's or President's doorstep.

[1] Executive Action: Support High-skilled Business and Workers -http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120_... [2] Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act of 2019 - https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/386...

Very likely that there are people with different views who are pulling things to different directions.

I think that if the rules were changed in the way that the administration has been describing (for several years now), then most people would think them to be good changes.

The problem is that the actual immediate actions don't reflect the message and cause chaos and uncertainty in lives of people whose futures depend on these work permits (ex: recent international student grads whose OPTs are expiring)

> I found this part to be the most interesting. If this current proclamation is a prelude to the overhaul of H1B system in a way that would make it work like described above, then it is somewhat exciting for a couple of reasons.

Only if you still believe the current administration

I have no reason to believe anyone will start “working” on this in an election year in the middle of a pandemic

Canadian system is not happening in USA. Democrats don't want it. Democrats cater to different audience.

Can you expand on this?

I think the parent comment was trying to say that addressing high-skill immigration is not a hot topic for the Democratic party, they have no interest in that. Their immigration-related hot topic is illegal immigration and everything related, such as DREAM Act, because they know that's what their target demographic gets riled up by.

Trump invoked an EO three years ago to conduct a study on H1B reform. Then nothing but crickets. It doesn't take three years to take action on the abuses. The people profiting off this scheme made sure he didn't upset their game. This is just an election year tactic to pander to the base.

Wages are not considered at all for Canadian Express Entry. Only a job offer in and of itself.

It's a terrible goal, and a terrible metric.

TIf immigration is good, then you want as much as possible. If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get.

The second is that wage is a very fungible metric. It's a bad metric target because the economic value of a work to the country is not necesarily measured by wages. Clinical doctors make less than some categories of software engineers, but their value could literally save lives by cheapening and increasing access to healthcare.

And then you have a lot of ways to manipulate it: FAANG pays a lot with stock that does not show in the base compensation, so now the incentive would be to eliminate stock and increase salary, which can be tax inneficient and more expensive and inconvenient for the company and the employee. Then you can cut benefits: PTO, parental leave, health insurance. Then you can cut office presentism and hire contractors, etc. What a perverse incentive.

> It solves the whole issue with consultancy companies flooding the H1B pool with extremely underpaid bodies, thus making it more difficult for other people to get their H1B visas.

It solves them by reducing the underpaid persons wages to 0, because they become unemployable in the US. Why a software engineer making 70k is better by making 0? Senseless. This is a senseless discussion that only exists because a rule exists. This discussion makes no sense in hiring international contractors, importing software products or hiring internacional software companies, all solutions that pay less than prevailing wages and pay no taxes to the US.

Most countries run subsidy programs, campaigns, prizes to try to keep software engineers from going to the US, and the US keeps investing money in throwing that advantage away.

>If immmigration is bad then you want as little as possible. It doesn't make sense as a goal to say you want to limit something you want to get.

People want food to sustain themselves. But, for a lot of people, limiting the amount of food consumed and picking healthy foods over junk food is a good idea. You don't want just "any" food, you want the food that will sustain you and will be good for your health in long-term.

You want access to all the food you can get, to eat what you want. Immigrants still need to find an employer willing to pay for their labor.

Additional, the best argument against limitation of immigration for labor is not that immigrants don't have rights, but that this is taking rights from Americans to choose. It is Americans that are being forced into hiring more expensively, or not at all.