|Abstract||In light of the broken immigration system and anemic forecasts of future economic growth, this study considers and defends employment-based immigration reform as a proper course of action for the United States. The central question for this study is whether employment-based immigration reform offers a rational alternative to the dysfunctional U.S. immigration system by providing a framework that would regulate immigration flows in a manner most conducive to the long-term economic prospects of the U.S.? In addressing the research question, the study will examine a policy proposal by Pia Orrenius and Madeline Zavodny as a prototype for employment-based immigration reform--to allow for a process of selecting the most valued immigrant workers and allocating visas efficiently among applicants. Subsequently, the study provides an extensive defense through a virtual dialogue between popular critics and proponents of employment-based immigration reform. The following criticisms are considered and defended: (1) the nationalist criticisms (conservative and liberal) that such an approach will reduce native workers' employment and earnings, exacerbate income inequality, and place undue fiscal burdens on federal and state governments; and (2) the libertarian criticisms that such an approach results in a violation of free-market principles and an unwarranted abridgment of the individual human right to migrate. Finally, the conclusion affirms the study's question and provides significant implications for the current immigration debate.