The most relevant aim of that bill was to introduce a "points system" following the Canadian model, to encourage skilled immigration and easier integration of immigrants within mainstream society. This can sustain far greater volumes of migration in the long-term than the current mix of legal and illegal immigration to the U.S. It's the closest thing to "open borders" that can actually work without significant social disruption. And Canada proves it, because they've made it work.

Your assertion is that a bill which would have cut legal immigration by 50% was meant to raise immigration in the long term?

you guys already have a point system…