There is no such thing as correct class. Broadly speaking, there are temporary workers who can eventually become permanent residents. And almost everyone needs to go through the same process which involves this PERM business. And everyone needs to participate in this charade of hiring someone once, then pretending that they don't have the employee, and then emerging victorious by putting out an ad that only that person satisfies. The competition and interviews already happened when the person was first hired.

> Broadly speaking, there are temporary workers who can eventually become permanent residents.

The laws governing immigration are very specific about the distinctions between visa classes and the requirements for each class- and the devil is in the details.

> The competition and interviews already happened when the person was first hired.

Perhaps, but that is your and Apple's (tacit) opinions. The government of the United States disagrees, and Apple just paid $25 million dollars to avoid getting this issue in front of a judge.

The difference in perspective, AFAICT, is you think a GC is a reward for getting a job after besting others (including citizens) in interviews. The government's contention is that the bar is higher: PERM is for jobs no American citizen or permanent resident are able and willing to do[1]. There are separate visa classes for being merely good, and being irreplaceable. Pretending that a candidate who is in the former group belongs to the latter by posting jobs on a noticeboard in an unlit basement without stairs is dishonest.

1. "The DOL must certify to the USCIS that there are not sufficient U.S. workers able, willing, qualified, and available to accept the job opportunity in the area of intended employment"

This horse and pony show is a farce, most of us agree. But the fact is, if you don't dangle this GC reward, much fewer people would come to the US for work and study. The "irreplaceable" term is vague enough that if you strictly enforce it, it would effectively shut down this class of visa. Ask yourself this: how many people in your department would be 100% sure to keep their position if their job is offered up to the public again?

Some would welcome the reduced influx of immigrants. But in the long term, it would cripple the US. If an individual can convince a company to sponsor them, they are already highly qualified and productive to society. If you deny even these people from immigrating here, then who would you let in? You turn them away and China or the EU would gladly take them. Meanwhile, you lose a significant portion of your workforce that contribute tax without ever withdrawing from it and a lot of research and development at the PhD and master levels done at minimum wages.

The current situation benefits the US a lot. There is a reason why they are hesitating to make any big reform. The US is having the chance to exploit the world's best and brightest all for a few pieces of paper a year. At most there are 140K permanent residents being made each year via this route. It is insignificant compared to the millions of US college graduate annually. The argument about "they took our jobs" is not really valid to me.

> You turn them away and China or the EU would gladly take them.

Firstly, there's a good reason the people in question want to go the US instead of China or the EU. EU salaries are much lower and the local language is always a barrier. The same holds for China, salaries can be higher but not US level and then there's all the other obvious drawbacks of living there.

Secondly, China also wouldn't gladly take them, it's the direct opposite

> if you don't dangle this GC reward

In China a GC-like reward is unfathomable.

There is no green card category for being irreplaceable. PERM is for situations where it's difficult to find equally good US workers, with "equally good" left intentionally vague. The idea is that the employer is expected to argue convincingly that the foreign applicant is clearly the best person for the job. That's inherently subjective, but most things in immigration and the job market are.

Sometimes there is a shortage of domestic candidates with sufficient qualifications and experience in the general field. Sometimes the job is highly specialized, and nobody outside of a handful of internal candidates can possibly do it without extensive training. Sometimes the candidate was selected according to the established standards of a profession, and the job only exists for that particular person. And so on.

A fake application process is dishonest, regardless of whether it looks like a real job opportunity or is intentionally kept hidden. But if the process is open and you know in advance that no other candidate can possibly qualify, you are being not only dishonest but also impolite. Unrelated people may apply thinking it's a real job opportunity, wasting their time.

>>The difference in opinion, AFAICT, is you think a GC is a reward for getting a job after besting others (including citizens) in interviews.

No, the difference in opinion is the absurdity of it all. To the extent that the government (DOL) can influence the labor market, for any practical benefit, it needs to do so at the outset and quickly. The market is already altered here with a large immigrant workforce where there are no restrictions on being a temporary worker - even for years or decades. They just have fewer rights. And it doesn't even work as intended. Let's say that Apple wants to hire a permanent employee directly. The PERM process takes a year. Should every company just wait for a year so that DOL can get it together before they can hire employees ? They do what the current regulations permit - bring them as temp workers and let the PERM thing resolve in the background.