Much of what you say is true, but it's important to realize the H1-B is not designed with any of those benefits in mind. Its only purpose is to fill roles where there is no local talent.
The H1B is also not designed to support diversity or equality, which is crucial if we consider it a stepping-stone to long-term immigration (which many people want).
It would seem reasonable to place an intake limit of 10% from any one country, and limiting males to a maximum of 49%.
Right now, lets be honest, the H1B is giant immigration scheme for Indian males to get into the USA: 75% of applicants are Indian, and roughly 70% of applicants are male.
With these kind of diversity requirements, it would also be much harder for crooked companies like Infosys to racially discriminate against non-Indians:
We shouldn’t focus on diversity for the sake of diversity. The purpose of H1-B is to attract talent but when you say a certain percentage need to be from a specific country, or of a specific sex or race then it’s not about talent (and is actually racist, “you’re not indian so you can’t have this job”). Why do we even tolerate ideas like this?
The US could go all-in and treat the H1b program as a diversity program. The background of every candidate would be examined, and a deliberate effort would be made to amplify the most marginalized of communities.
India holds 17% of the world's population. Any program that is designed for diversity would have a 15-20% Indian population. That is much smaller than the current number, and in fact it would be a fairly different set of Indians: victims of sexism, casteism, "colorism", etc.
This could work out pretty well. Indian social inequalities would be reduced, US tech companies would get an infusion of extremely diverse workers on strong career tracks. If you believe that diversity is good for the workforce, this would be a huge boost.
But the straight/cis/brahmin/male Indians would get mad.
