One other factor is the preceived threat of wage imbalances acting against U.S. non-naturalized citizens ("We'll be flooded with H1B's who will work for 25% less and undercut our sons and daughters!"). I'm not sure how much of an issue this actually is in practice but it's definitely something to think about, especially before we start stapling green cards to diplomas.
> Why help those who are already well off enough to get a college degree in the U.S.?
You answered your own question. It's about skills, not how much money the immigrant already possesses. The proof is in how famous India is for sending over tech entrepreneurs, despite being otherwise maligned by stereotype in many of the same ways that those from Central and South America are. They are able to come over and work here in the U.S. because they possess skills which are desired.
If you look at immigration practice as being simply that anyone who wants to come to America and work hard should get a fair chance, then that is probably unfair. But there are those who argue that we should be selective and prioritize towards those who would contribute most.
But I suppose all of this just adds to your argument that there's many competing factors in play here, even for a topic as obvious as this.
Just to be clear, I am in favor of substantial increases in skilled immigration, as well as shortening the visa->green card->citizenship route as much as is practical for those who have a clear capacity to contribute to our society and express a desire to do so as citizens. I'm only trying to explain some of the politics as I understand them.
One other factor is the preceived threat of wage imbalances acting against U.S. non-naturalized citizens ("We'll be flooded with H1B's who will work for 25% less and undercut our sons and daughters!").
I suspect that the "keep your job or you're gone" nature of H1B visas creates much more downward pressure on wages than increasing the supply of skilled workers does. Regardless, we want growth in industries that require skilled workers. I'd rather have 5 million software engineers in this country making $80K on average than 3 million making $100K.
But there are those who argue that we should be selective and prioritize towards those who would contribute most.
I can see the other side's argument about fairness, but to me it's a slam dunk that you invite in people that are likely to produce economically a large multiple of what they consume in benefits. I'm happy to figure out what to do about unskilled labor, too, but coupling the two seems counterproductive.
> If you look at immigration practice as being simply that anyone who wants to come to America and work hard should get a fair chance, then that is probably unfair. But there are those who argue that we should be selective and prioritize towards those who would contribute most.
Honestly, this happens today too. I recently acquired permanent residency through the diversity visa. The process was not fun for me and I am well educated and was able to hire a good lawyer. The number of inconsistencies in documents, the myriads of rules that one should follow all play into the favor of people who are already well educated, probably have deep pockets. This bugs me from a practical standpoint because if America is going to be anything other than a high-end service economy, you need the ability to let wage competitiveness to exist on all scales of the spectrum. Obviously from a ethical standpoint, this is highly unfair and a loaded die.
> Why help those who are already well off enough to get a college degree in the U.S.?
You answered your own question. It's about skills, not how much money the immigrant already possesses. The proof is in how famous India is for sending over tech entrepreneurs, despite being otherwise maligned by stereotype in many of the same ways that those from Central and South America are. They are able to come over and work here in the U.S. because they possess skills which are desired.
If you look at immigration practice as being simply that anyone who wants to come to America and work hard should get a fair chance, then that is probably unfair. But there are those who argue that we should be selective and prioritize towards those who would contribute most.
But I suppose all of this just adds to your argument that there's many competing factors in play here, even for a topic as obvious as this.