I'm generally suspicious of the H1-B program, mainly because I don't like programs that empower corporations to decide who is or isn't allowed to enter and work in the United States. That's bad. And I despise programs that allow corporations to determine the circumstances under which would be immigrants are allowed to remain in the US. This highly coercive relationship undermines almost everything that needs to work about a free market economy.

If I don't like a company's technical test, they can decide I won't become an employee. The should not decide that I won't get to live and work in the US. If I don't like a company's mandatory implicit bias training program of, they can decide I will no longer be an employee. I They should not decide that I will no longer be allowed to live in the US and must leave within a few weeks or jeopardize my future right to return. If I don't like my company's donations to the trump administration or position against same sex marriage, I should be able to leave the company without jeopardizing my right to remain in the US. The same goes for raises, telecommuting, open offices. I actually think that some of this gets rammed down our throats because a substantial percentage of software developers are negotiating with an employer who control their application for green cards and can have them deported if they get too uppity.

Ideally, we would have an immigration system that is independent of employer control. All citizens or residents are free and full members of the workforce, free to choose their career and life path according to their own interests and abilities. If someone decides becoming a developer in the Valley isn't a good deal, they can become a plumber in Duluth. You know, like, freedom.

Some people argue that we should award green cards directly. This would solve some of the problems, but it would still allow employers to demand a high sunk cost prior to immigrating. Someone might prefer to be a lawyer, journalist, or scented candle boutique owner, but if we attach immigration rights to studying STEM and perhaps getting a grad degree, the sunk costs do limit life freedom choices. So better would be to simply determine a level of immigration (I'm ok with a high one, I am not shocked by the concept of limits, and I think this issue is orthogonal to whether corporate HR departments or investors control the choice of who is allowed to enter).

Now, on a practical level... I get it. We're all in competition for the world's skilled workers, some types of immigrants do place a burden on government services (elderly people coming from poverty may place costs on the health care system and never pay a dime in). Canada, a country lauded by progressives, clearly favors younger, skilled, educated people fluent in French or English (I'm 48, I'd get zero points for age on their migration skills assessment).

So, as a practical matter, I do think that the US should have a skilled immigration preference, and I do think that this will please corporations and investors and universities. Ok. But watch out. Anyone who has watched the way universities treat grad students in STEM, anyone who has watched how companies abused the H1-B, anyone who has paid attention must know that you absolutely can not trust these organizations to do the right thing.

As a practical matter, there will be limits on people who are at risk of becoming a burden on the state, and preferences for the kind of people Zuckerburg wants to hire and feels he's paying too much for (and a bias against the sort of people who would compete with lawmakers - i.e., foreign lawyers). For example, Obama is a lawyer, and when he came on out to Silicon Valley, he met with CEOs. They're going to work out something nice for everyone at the table. Let's not be naive, an element of this is is what we're going to get.

But whatever the plan is, it is absolutely essential to preserve the personal freedom that underlies all properly functioning labor markets. For now, the H1-B fails that test miserably, absolutely miserably.