[dragonwriter]

> I don't see how anyone can be against this. Should we really take an unskilled immigrant who can't speak english over an AI researcher?

Probably; the nonskill categories in US immigration are mostly family-unification categories. The people it brings over have stronger US roots than economic migrants without close family tied here, plus bringing them in reduced outbound remittances and increases domestic velocity of money, spurring demand and creating jobs.

Bringing in additional competition for US workers in high paying jobs keeps wages down and increases returns on capital, which certainly benefits capitalists and the immigrant in question, but less so the country.

If Trump wanted to “make Mexico pay” for the wall (or, better, actual useful US government services), he'd increase the quotas for legal, family-based immigration from Mexico, keeping money that would otherwise flows out into Mexico in remittances in the US domestic economy through more (taxed) exchanges.

[cmahler7]

Those non-skill jobs are going to disappear soon, then we just have millions on government benefits, to go along with the 47 million currently on food stamps. We don't need more unskilled labor, get those 47 million to work instead

Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win, especially compared to importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.

[dragonwriter]

> Those non-skill jobs are going to disappear soon

Doesn't really matter to the point; non-skilled (or even skilled, but not elite)) immigrants qualified for family-based immigration are quite often supported by their US-based (citizen or permanent resident) family via remittances now; bringing them to the US keeps more money in the domestic economy even if they aren't working, driving domestic demand and creating domestic jobs.

> Cutting the overall amount of immigration but raising the quality is a win

Sure, it's just a question of whether “utility to capitalists” or “ties to the US and contribution to retaining economic activity in the domestic economy” is your benchmark for quality. Clearly, you favor the former, though I can't see why.

> importing H1-B slaves which actually does lower wages for high skill jobs.

H-1B workers aren't slaves, and increasing supply of high-skilled labor decreases market clearing cost independent of whether the visa used to import the labor is an immigrant visa or a non-immigrant visa like the H-1B. I'd abolish the H-1B outright, without any additional skill-based visa quota in other categories, but also allow supernumerary (unrestricted by categorical caps) entrance with work permission and a path to permanent residency of individuals not otherwise excluded from immigration, subject to both annual fees and supplemental income taxes.