Sorry, paywall popped up; better:
https://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-100000-h-1b-visa-fee-is-unlawful-us-judge-rules-2026-06-08/
“Unlawful tax”
Should be $100,000 multiplied by the pay & compensation gap between the lowest person and the highest person at the company.
So a $9 million CEO and a $30,000 janitor is a 300x difference, so that company would pay $30,000,000 for a visa. THAT would show you actually need someone badly enough to tell tens of thousands of qualified Americans to fuck off.
In any case, whatever the scheme is, it should be voted upon by our Congressional representatives in Congress and enacted by Congress, and signed into law by the President. That is how the H1-B visa was created in the first place, and that is how taxes are raised in this country: with representation.
Pity. One of the only good ideas that government has ever had. But of course, even when they’re right, they’re too corrupt and incompetent to actually get anywhere.
Dear Voroxpete. as someone who was affected by that Bullshit.
Go fuck yourself with a syphilitic cactus until.
sorry how were you effected?
Been fighting for dear life to get a greencard and I have a PhD and that BS tax made it impossible to get a job.
No, If I leave I’ll never see my daughters again, so that isn’t an option.
is marrying your spouse an option?
she’s an abusive narcissist who encouraged my suicide.
Jesus Christ. Find another one and marry dude. Greejncard process will not look good for you, with or without this law
I have text messages from her about immigration threats. I have a valid VAWA case, but the whole system is criminaly show.
I assume you think this was a good idea because it encouraged businesses to hire locally rather than hiring internationally. But really all it did was ensure that large companies (rather than immigration officials) were in charge of deciding who was and wasn’t allowed to work in the United States. Rather than improving overall employment, it just reinforced oligarchy.
I was actually seeing the inverse. Rather than hiring locally, I started seeing more outsourced. In that case even less money is spent in the US and money just leaves the country. At least with H-1Bs they were living here and spending their money here.
That’s another great point. There are a lot of knock-on effects from this, just like there are from tariffs. (Honestly it is a tariff, just levied on people immigrating rather than goods importing)
I’m not commenting on any other changes to the process that they may or may not have made. I think that the idea of attaching an additional fee to H1B visas (or their equivalents) is a good idea. We shouldn’t be facilitating companies bringing in cheaper overseas workers, and attaching a hefty fee is one way to shift the economics of that back towards domestic workers.
If I say “Sandwiches are a good idea” that doesn’t mean I’m in favor of going to Strychnine Joe’s, Home of the Deadly Poison Sub. A good idea can still be implemented badly. That doesn’t stop the idea itself from being good.
I just said, in the very comment you’re replying to, that an additional fee doesn’t do that. Even if the goal is a good one, this isn’t an effective way to do it. $100,000 is a pittance to any company big enough to be importing overseas labor in the first place. Even if it wasn’t, it’s absolutely worth it for them to pay $100k now in exchange for getting a $50k per year discount on labor for that role.
Charging them $100,000 is objectively better than charging them nothing. You’re not actually making a point here, you’re just quibbling over details.
Is it, though? If the big companies causing this problem are just ignoring the cost, and the small companies that might actually need to bring people in from overseas for legitimate reasons can’t afford to pay it, is it doing more good than harm?
There’s an Ethiopian restaurant in my old neighborhood that was very clearly run by a couple who used it as a way to get their cousins and friends out of Ethiopia in the '80s and '90s. They wouldn’t be able to do that with a $100,000 visa fee; that’s more than the restaurant makes in a year, after expenses.
And I’ve known a couple of people who have some very specific, very niche skill sets that aren’t taught at trade schools in the US; skills like scientific glassblowing, which small companies disproportionately need more than big companies. When the previous guy retires from the job, the company has to decide whether to outsource the production, hire someone to move from overseas, or exit a product line entirely (maybe going out of business in the process). When a $100,000 visa fee is introduced, their options are decreased by one. When there are also insane tariffs, their options decrease even further.
So no, I’d argue that charging them $100,000 is objectively worse than charging them nothing. It doesn’t harm the companies that are abusing the system, and it harms or even kills the companies for whom the H1B was originally created.
The details are really all that matter. If the thing you support doesn’t have the impact, and worse causes a serious defect in the process, then what exactly are you holding onto?
The H1-B visa system is a trash system.
It is intended to cover cases where companies can’t find a domestic talent pool that meets their needs.
In reality, it’s a way for companies to import cheap labor, then hold their visas over their heads to drive down wages.
It should be prohibitively expensive to outsource work to foreign labor. Instead, it’s cheaper, which is why the system is being abused, and why tacking an effective tax on that labor was good.
Agreed 10x. $100k was far too low. Should’ve been several times that. For that matter, H1-B should be capped at several hundred in the country, maybe a thousand, max.
Except $100,000 is a pittance to any company big enough to be importing cheap labor in the first place. These are companies that shrug off billion-dollar fines, they have $100k in the executive boardroom couch cushions, so it’s absolutely worth it for them to pay $100k to the government in exchange for getting a $50k per year discount on labor for that role.
It’s a 3yr visa and a $100k application fee. So yeah, if you’re paying someone $50k/yr under market value, that’s a savings of $50k (as opposed to the $150k savings it was without the fee).
I agree it might not kill the program outright, but it shouldn’t. The actual stated intent of the program is good. But it would curb abuse somewhat, as it takes away a huge portion of the proposed savings.
Sure, in theory. But they’re not pulling people over here for a year or two. They’re getting them over here for several years, and every year they keep them on is another $50k saved.
But on the other end, you have small businesses who need specialized labor that’s not available in the US. Or family businesses who want to bring other family members from out of the country and hire them to work for their little mom-and-pop shop, to further help bring their family out of poverty. Neither were likely to hire anyone local to do the job, and the $100k might be everything the business earns in a year after expenses.
So the $100k fee does nothing to curb the onshoring of cheap labor by big companies who are causing the problem you want to solve, but it completely kills the ability of people in developing nations or people here who are trying to do right by their community to hire anyone who doesn’t already have the right to work in the US.
I just realized I didn’t address the three year limit. Sure, they’re only saving $50k over the term of the visa now. But they’re gambling that the visa situation will be more favorable in three years, or that the job market will be in such shambles that they can afford to cut pay across the board, or replace people with AI, or whatever. It doesn’t just save them $50k, it lets them defer that cost for three years, which is three years that money can be earning interest for them. Plus, if they write it down as compliance or governmental fees or whatever, I believe there are beneficial tax implications.
Rather than dancing around it we should just be taxing the rich. Crap like taxing yachts, or country club memberships, or tailored suits just present a slight nuisance to billionaires. The problem isn’t that they buy these things but that they have insane amounts of money to throw at their problems.
Just in time for the 33,000 Amazon sponsored Visas
Smh
Trail of victims and no payouts. Preliminary injunctions are not optional in any of these cases.
