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?