Judge sends two to prison for 7 years for H-1B fraud

How?

Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone. This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship. So, what you are really advocating is that people without jobs can remain in-country "off-visa". This is not the purpose of the H1-B program.

So, if you were to allow this, yet still keep the notion of H1-B sponsorship alive, then there would be the source of the net increase of available workers.

Now, you could make arguments about lowering the expense and friction involved for sponsoring companies, which would then increase the appeal of H1-B visa holders and make finding new sponsors easier. That would probably go further in the direction of increased salaries you mentioned, so long as you kept the visa-holder cap constant. But, of course, part of the reason for this cost/friction is to provide companies with incentives to source labor locally before looking to non-U.S. labor markets.

It's a complex problem with no easy solutions.

If you can get a high salary, then you're in demand and we should keep you. If you have a STEM degree but can't even get a good job, then I don't see any reason to grant a visa.

They absolutely do. Consider that at many schools (particularly UCs) in-state tuition is not enough to cover costs. International students paying high tuition are absolutely helping to subsidize such situations.

Even at top private universities, international students can be a major subsidy. Domestic students typically have their full financial need met, but international students don't. International students thus subsidize the aid for domestic students.

Absurd? Perhaps. However, it is reality and happening in the University of California system. [1] The tuition for CA residents (regardless how they choose to finance this -- which is what you are referring to) is currently only maintained by the large number of out of state (and international) admissions. The problem has gotten so bad that a bill was passed in the state legislature to limit the out of state student enrollment. [2]

>> Attending university in the US is a privilege and that does not mean you should be guaranteed a job in the United States upon graduation.

A privilege that is only accessible to the most privileged foreigners (because they are wealthy in their home countries) or most talented (who receive financial assistance from private organizations, or in some cases their home country).

>> You seem to have a real sense of entitlement that because you went to school in the US the US owes you a job. Wow.

I certainly did not make the case that any graduate of a US university is entitled to any job. I agree with you.

Taking the perspective of a business, how would you incentive your business not to hire the best available candidates who are already in the country (regardless of whether or not they are foreign-born)?

>> This idea that the most talented people can only be found from outside the US needs to just die. If the US were so bereft of talent none of these companies that these H1B visa folks want to work for would exist. Ditto for the US universities they attend.

This is not what I said. I was referring to US-born and foreign-born students attending the same universities for the same duration. I did not advocate for bringing people into the country.

Note that those international students having attended US institutions of higher education can already start working for any employer under the post graduation Optional Practical Training (OPT) for a few years.

>> This idea of relocating people to London for year is just gaming the system.

Agreed. I am not advocating for this. Just describing that this is happening.

[1]: http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_29954758/california-...

[2]: http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert...

The GP is correct, domestic students rarely, if ever, pay the true cost of attendance at colleges and universities (hereafter, called 'schools') [1]. The are taxpayer subsidies such as tax breaks (both the publics and privates benefit) to the schools from local and state governments, as well as annual appropriations for operating costs of public schools. This is especially evident in areas where the cost of attendance is so low to in-state residents, such as the California State school system.

Private schools also subsidise students through merit scholarships, which lower the cost of attendance for foreign and domestic alike, to the tune of anywhere between a few hundred dollars and a free ride.

[1] https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/06/12/study-us-high...