[listenallyall]

But this is an example of the most ridiculous ideas floated on HN. Even if every politician agreed there was a problem with the H1-B system, the proposed solution is far from agreeable to everyone. Adding criminal liability? Increasing labor costs ("remove the depressive impacts on salaries")? Making it easier to obtain permanent residency?

One of the reasons HN gets mocked is how dismissive many commenters are about the real-world complexities of various domains. Someone thinking that some wacky proposal he just made up 5 minutes ago is the ultimate solution to longstanding labor constraints and that everyone would automatically agree to it within 24 hours, makes it a joke rather than a basic idea that might have some merit if explored further.

[bubblethink]

I think the parent's point is to move to a free market/merits based system rather than whatever insane lottery system they have. Almost every other country has some type of points/skill/wages type system.

[listenallyall]

And my point is, whatever he was trying to say doesn't matter. When you assume the problem is so simple that it could all be fixed tomorrow, you expose yourself as someone who actually doesn't understand the problem.

[shiroiushi]

>Even if every politician agreed there was a problem with the H1-B system, the proposed solution is far from agreeable to everyone. Adding criminal liability? Increasing labor costs ("remove the depressive impacts on salaries")? Making it easier to obtain permanent residency?

What's wrong with these ideas? 1. Criminal liability - this sounds a bit harsh, but some people are concerned about making sure "bad people" don't get in, so making the completion of proper background checks a hard requirement seems reasonable to allay their concerns. But then they might be concerned the background checks are bogus, so adding criminal liability helps with these concerns too. But granted, this is probably the most extreme part of that post.

2. Increasing labor costs - why is this bad for anyone except employers trying to use H1B as a way of keeping costs down? It's claimed to be a system for letting employers get skilled help where there's a labor shortage, so it's supposed to cost them more.

3. Easier to obtain PR: what the heck is wrong with this? If these immigrants are highly skilled, aren't causing any problems, and want to stay, why would you want to make it difficult for them to stay in your country and help your economy?

[listenallyall]

I'm not here arguing for or against any proposal, or claiming any moral approval or disapproval. I'm just stating that they would face serious resistance and therefore would be extremely difficult to pass, directly contradicting the OP's implication that they are simple and easy.

1. and 2. are anti-business. Just like raising the minimum wage, passing anti-business legislation is very, very difficult. 3. well, if there aren't any negatives, why is there currently a limit on the number of visas?

[shiroiushi]

>1. and 2. are anti-business. Just like raising the minimum wage, passing anti-business legislation is very, very difficult.

Sure, I'll agree to that.

>3. well, if there aren't any negatives, why is there currently a limit on the number of visas?

That's a good question, and I have no idea what the answer is. If anti-business legislation (like #1 and #2 here) is so hard to pass, then it seemingly shouldn't be that hard to pass pro-business legislation. Increasing the number of visas (or eliminating the limit) should, logically, be a pro-business position (lots more workers), while also being of interest to the left-leaning people who generally claim to be pro-immigration. So WTF is the problem? I don't know. The only people who should be opposed to such a move are 1) the outright anti-any-kind-of-immigration racists on the right (who aren't even a sizeable number, a large portion (most?) of the anti-immigration people are usually against illegal and/or low-skilled immigration), and 2) any firms that are profiting off the shortage of visas.

>directly contradicting the OP's implication that they are simple and easy.

I don't think the OP was under any illusion that passing such legislation would be simple and easy, due to the hyper-partisan nature of the current government. If the government weren't this way, passing reforms would be easy.