It's a nice sentiment, and I'm not sure it really disagrees with what I was saying. What I said was that Americans and Indians should both be treated indistinguishably in both America and in India. That would agree with your sentiment, no?*
The novel idea was only to link openness to openness. Imagine the result of such a treaty: Assuming India would be happy to grant residency and work rights to all Americans, then all Indians would have those same rights in America. That would, in fact, be a radical elimination of the current restrictions!
In structure, it's actually a little like freedom of movement within the EU.
Put another way, the highway would become a lot wider -- but it'd have lanes in both directions.
This is a deal that the United States should offer not just to India, but to most countries.
The only "catch" is the two-way nature of it. But why would India have a problem with that? Many Indians want access to the US; India is a democracy; ergo it would happen, right? It would only not happen if Indians thought it more important to keep Americans out. But why would they do that?
* The only way to break the idea is to distinguish between each group of people and their government. And in fairness, I suppose many Americans would very much want to be distinguished from the Trump administration (and some now from Biden). And possibly some Indians from Modi? Thus, basing the decision about whether Person X should be allowed to immigrate to/from US/India on the basis of their Indian/US citizenship, rather than only on things entirely in Person X's control, does violate your principle somewhat, even if it does so in an equal/reciprocal way. E.g., there are people outside of either the US or India who would not benefit from the treaty.
Still, I like this idea of using the carrot of American citizenship to create similar and symmetrical benefits for Americans, in other countries. The unidirectional way we think about immigration only to America seems broken. The idea that Americans might want to go to India should also enter our imagination.
It's a little like "copyleft", in a way: You get access, and in exchange we get access. Optimistically, at some point everyone would enter this web of reciprocal arrangements. (Of course, "Brexit"s would still be possible...)
Well anyway, at least this creates a new direction outside of the standard, boring, "pro-" vs. "anti-" immigration debate. It's one that, in its way, is radically pro-immigration, but one which also insists that the process create more options for ordinary Americans (rather than only for American businesses).
I think this kind of quid pro quo might be capable of producing a nice equilibrium.