i can't say i disagree with your broad intent Roy.
I do wonder how it would work, if people came in without a specific job and no clear indication that the economy needs them. i though part of your/PG's stated problem was that programmers were being allowed in when the market did not really need them?

btw in the UK the cap is created not by a number but by simply putting a threshold skill level by allotting points. the points can be for a variety of things including education/experience/US experience/english skills etc. it should not be mixed up with family ties unless substantial FB numbers are added to the merit base.
also i think spouse's qualifications should get you additional points (if you are married) - if the whole family contributes to the economy why is that not better?

the caveat is that if there is a point based system you absolutely cannot have a country quota, otherwise like CIR 2007, Indians/Chinese with 90 points (the maximum w/o family ties) may be left out and others with 70 may be accepted. that's not merit.also in CIR 2007, too many points (16) were given to STEM majors, that simply leaves everyone else out.


also please explain grandfathering. would you allow GC to be given in a reasonable time frame irrespective of the old (current) cap which is at jan 1, 2000 for EB2 India?

"also please explain grandfathering. "

Suppose you are here on the H-1b or L1 currently and you already have applied for a GC. Suppose the new rules would effectively shut you out. Grandfathering would offer you protection or exemption from the new rules if the new rules would harm you.

"i though part of your/PG's stated problem was that programmers were being allowed in when the market did not really need them?"

First, I seriously doubt the PG would support my position on this. The IEEE-USA does already. I am no longer on the board of the PG. I haven't been for over a year.

The word "need" is subjective. I would argue that companies don't need to import junior level programmers. Companies desire lower paid workers. And even if they aren't paid less, when you increase the supply of something you reduce demand. This will obviously result in lower pay across the board.

With what I am proposing, the needs or desires of the market aren't really the primary consideration. There isn't even a need for a labor test. It really serves a national interest of highly skilled people. I don't think you would see what we do today, which is concentration of foreign workers in the IT industry or at a handfull of companies (unless those companies lure them with competitive salaries). Because of the competive nature, we would have a broader skill base, and that skill base would be the best of the best.

Since the immigrants would have green cards, their ability to compete in the open job market is greatly improved. American workers benefit from this increased competition (becase exploiting foreign workers puts great pressures on American workers).

"I do wonder how it would work, if people came in without a specific job and no clear indication that the economy needs them."

I seriously doubt that the cream of the global crop will have any problem finding a job. Also, I doubt they would bother coming here if they didn't think our economy needed them. The people my plan will attract will be curing disease, developing new technologies, and advancing the human race.

Roy - What are you doing here? You repeat the same pattern over and over again of spouting positions you know people are going to find offensive (you're on an unabashedly pro-immigration site after all). If your goal was simply to get your position heard, that's one thing. But you don't seem capable of taking the heat and whine when people argue back.

The pattern is the same each time. You get offended. You engage in name calling. You ALWAYS insist on the last word. And sooner or later you storm off promising (and then failing to keep your promise) of never coming back.

I know you have your own blog and one of the benefits of having your own blog is that you can rant to your heart's content and can insist on the last word.

And now I am exercising the blogger's prerogative to end a conversation. I am now locking this thread.

Roy - I would suggest you think about taking the approach of debating less and simply trying to succinctly and eloquently state your position in no more than one or two comments per post - unless your goal is simply to antagonize rather than be convincing. If that's the case, you're succeeding wildly (and not helping your cause).