I think everyone (except maybe self-interested immigration lawyers) thinks the current system in the US is broken.
I think there are two extremes, and the US is inconsistently taking pieces of each.
In the United Arab Emirates (UAE, which contains Dubai, ...), there is a fairly open work visa policy for anyone with either enough capital ($50-100k) to set up his own business, or with a job offer paying at least $1-2k/mo for white collar positions (there is also the borderline-slavery $100-500/mo construction industry, but I think that is basically a separate issue). There is no pretense, outside banking and government, that local nationals need to be given first shot at a job.
Then, you have countries with citizenship or permanent residency-track-only immigration programs. (I think Canada's program is like this, and some other commonwealth nations.) You don't NEED to become a PR or citizen if you qualify, but almost all work visas qualify toward the PR/C process.
The main downside of the UAE system is that skilled people feel very little long-term attachment to the place. e.g. there are non-resident indian families who have lived for generations in UAE, but who are not permanent residents, although they control important businesses.
The US has a weird hybrid system, where most green cards, allocated by country and with preference toward reuniting families, go to people who have external reasons to want to stay in the US permanently (family, where they came from was worse, etc), and are generally economically non-productive. We give temporary L1/H1B/etc. visas to the economically productive, disincenting them to stay long term.
Basically, the US system is backward -- we should be trying to keep the people who are economically valuable, as they bring net value into the economy, and would allow us to increase the number of immigrants. We should have liberal short and medium term visit visas, etc. for family and tourist and other non-productive immigrants.
I think there are two extremes, and the US is inconsistently taking pieces of each.
In the United Arab Emirates (UAE, which contains Dubai, ...), there is a fairly open work visa policy for anyone with either enough capital ($50-100k) to set up his own business, or with a job offer paying at least $1-2k/mo for white collar positions (there is also the borderline-slavery $100-500/mo construction industry, but I think that is basically a separate issue). There is no pretense, outside banking and government, that local nationals need to be given first shot at a job.
Then, you have countries with citizenship or permanent residency-track-only immigration programs. (I think Canada's program is like this, and some other commonwealth nations.) You don't NEED to become a PR or citizen if you qualify, but almost all work visas qualify toward the PR/C process.
The main downside of the UAE system is that skilled people feel very little long-term attachment to the place. e.g. there are non-resident indian families who have lived for generations in UAE, but who are not permanent residents, although they control important businesses.
The US has a weird hybrid system, where most green cards, allocated by country and with preference toward reuniting families, go to people who have external reasons to want to stay in the US permanently (family, where they came from was worse, etc), and are generally economically non-productive. We give temporary L1/H1B/etc. visas to the economically productive, disincenting them to stay long term.
Basically, the US system is backward -- we should be trying to keep the people who are economically valuable, as they bring net value into the economy, and would allow us to increase the number of immigrants. We should have liberal short and medium term visit visas, etc. for family and tourist and other non-productive immigrants.