It's impossible to know that for sure, these are not procedures based on open discussion and debate.
The administration previously changed policy on undocumented workers in agriculture and hospitality a few times based on the social media reaction of far right influencers, business stakeholders and political organizations.
On 4chan some are trying to organize mass plane ticket reservation to prevent people who are abroad from coming back "in time". So who knows, maybe the newly clarified situation catches up with the far-right influencers and they force a change in the current position and another clarification that says that this fee is for everybody.
Edit: Well, actually this makes it open public discussion over live implementation :)
> these are not procedures based on open discussion and debate
Or law. If anyone bothered challenging them under the APA, they’d almost all be found illegal.
I get the companies being cowards. But where is the ACLU? Why aren’t cases being sponsored on behalf of victims of this childish autocracy that none of these rules followed the Administrative Procedures Act’s process? Does no stage AG want to stand up to a shakedown?
Meanwhile the Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning, leading a Justice voting in the minority to describe the Court's current shadow docket practice as "Calvinball."
So (a) they are filing cases (b) they are winning (c) the Supreme Court is giving every indication that the law will be whatever it needs to be to have those cases ultimately lose.
> Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning
The emergency docket does not set precedent. (If you like your Roman law, it is analogous to how a consul acting with senatus contultum ultimum is empowered [1], versus a dictator, who can literally make law.)
SCOTUS has been deferring to the administration around what happens while a case is being litigated. It’s stupid. But it’s not Aileen Cannon corrupt (not yet).
(If I’m guessing correctly, they’re bending the knee with one leg and punting with the other. If the midterms swing even one house of the Congress, the judiciary regains its independence.)
It generally requires rulemaking to be done pursuant to a public-comment period and not be done in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious." I'm not familiar with the Immigration & Nationalisation Act(s), (as amended), so I don't know the degree to which public comment is required and judicial review permitted, but a last-minute rule like this would be expected to make it to the SCOTUS docket earlier in our republic.
Complete haphazard system that creates mini tyrants in every border officer. "I didn't hear about the existing part... back to home country loser" "I don't have any tools to verify you had an existing blah blah, back on the plane loser"
On the other hand companies with the right corruption chain will make up whatever paperwork they have to , to bypass any of these after-the-fact clarifying sound bites.
They’re literally not fighting a fight I want them to fight, nor making any indication they want to. That translates into me looking for someone else to donate to.
Also keep ib mind its trumps deep state soing tge enforcement so grift and corruption along woth racism is tge ballgame. Not rational policy interpretation.
Darn if only we had some way of knowing a presidential candidate was corrupt. Like if they were charged with multiple felonies for corruption. Or if they were impeached twice for corruption.
If only the judiciary and house had literally any credibility that people wouldn't suspect the whole thing was politically motivated voters might actually care. At least as far as i can tell they remained magnificently indifferent.
I’m sure the inspectors general will keep an eye out for this. It would be very bad for the reputation of the administration to have blatant corruption at the top levels.
I assume your reply is sarcastic, but just in case, I'll say it directly: this administration does not care whether there is blatant corruption at the top levels, or any other levels for that matter. I'm fact, insofar as it antagonizes liberals, they'll encourage it.
One of the first things the Trump admin did was fire a lot of the inspectors general, including the one for the State Department.
I'd assume the reply you are replying to is being sarcastic specifically in reference to that event.
There's currently an (Acting) IG for State as a replacement, but I think its pretty clear how long that job would last for him if he were to actually do it.
One can wonder how people like DPR or that Nikola guy got pardoned. I'm pretty sure that the President didn't know about all those people until some aide or a relative brought it up. Now, how to make such an aide or a relative to bring it up before the President? May it help to pay $5M to join one of those lunches at Mar-a-Lago where one can meet such an aide or a relative and drop the name of somebody so deserving a Presidential pardon?
> Anyone still working in this government must be miserable.
Depending on where they work, that might be the case. I know a number of government employees and I wouldn't describe any of them as "miserable." Maybe a little griping about the end of telework -- they were already back in the office three days a week -- but, otherwise they seem no different than a year ago. (That includes concerns about a government shutdown; but, those concerns are directed at Congress.)
OK, but this is just an USCIS guidance to how they are going to interpret the proclamation when approving petitions. Important thing would be to have similar thing from CBP on how they are going to treat H-1B individuals at border crossings.
Yes, I know this memo above says "The proclamation does not impact the ability of any current visa holder to travel to or from the United States", but that means nothing, because it is coming from USCIS which has no authority here (CBP has).
pedantry - the point is the proclamation has ramifications and was poorly written to the point where this wasn't clear. evidenced by a need to follow up. bush league as always with this administration.
It’s not the media’s fault that the initial executive order was an ambiguous mess that threatened the livelihoods of immigrants all across the country.
No - the initial reporting accurately reflected what was in the proclamation. The proclamation did not exclude people already on H1B visas. That's why Microsoft and other huge companies were telling their employees not to leave the US or to get back to the US within 24 hours. This is the administration doing cleanup because they either screwed up drafting the proclamation, or they got so much pushback that they had to backtrack.
Yes, that’s the weird thing, they could have specified this in the proclamation that it only applies for next years lottery starting March next year, or uscis could have changed the fees to charge the money for new petitions, which happens next year.
It's extremely typical of this administration to move fast and do very sloppy work, with very little consideration of the consequences of their actions. There are many examples. DOGE repeatedly fired and then had to scramble to re-hire people either because they didn't realize that they were firing people who did critical jobs (security for transporting nuclear materials for instance) or because they just blatantly broke the law and the courts issued injunctions.
I did read it, the media reporting was accurate at the time, the proclamation as is doesn’t say anything about new applications, it just says that h1b holders won’t be let in unless they can prove the 100k$ fee was paid by their company starting September 21st.
The lawyers at my employer, much more qualified than me regarding law matters, reached the same conclusion as I did as a layman on the subject.
Even if you're 90% sure it means it doesn't apply to current holders, that's a 10% chance that not cutting your trip short costs $100,000. Very possible your employer doesn't want to pay that and you're suddenly unemployed and visa-less. Unless it's 101% crystal clear the status of visa holders, this was inevitable.
I have read it. I agree it was ambiguous in that area, but it would make absolutely no sense to restrict entry for people already in the program who happen to be on vacation or whatever. It did not state that it would do that, it just did not explicitly state that it wouldn’t. I think clarification is appropriate, but the reporting seemed to be that the least charitable interpretation WOULD happen, not that the least charitable interpretation COULD technically happen based on the language used. I believe the President has the authority to effectively cancel the program if he wanted to, so why would they do something bizarre and sneaky like block returning vacationers.
Executive Order 13769 (the so-called "Muslim Ban") actually was effective immediately, resulting in a similar race to the airport during its chaotic implementation. Hundreds of people with previously lawful immigration status were denied entry or detained, including dozens with green cards despite those being excluded by the EO.
In any case this new order was not ambiguous. It plainly said the restriction was on "entry", not the issuance of new visas. Nobody reading the text of the order claimed otherwise. The Trump administration just changed their position, in informal guidance rather than a formal executive order but with similar practical and legal effect.
Anyone who returned early was effectively hedging, paying the airline change fee and some inconvenience to avoid a potential $100k fee or worse, with downsides including job loss--potentially leading to forced repatriation--if your employer doesn't pay, and indefinite detention under harsh conditions. That hedge currently seems likely to expire worthless; but with such an imbalanced payoff, are you really saying you wouldn't have paid it yourself?
HN readers are likely most familiar with the tech industry's use of H-1B, but it's also used widely in healthcare, academia, and even by some public K-12 school districts that have trouble filling certain teaching jobs. These are jobs that are badly needed (doctors for rural hospitals for instance) and there will be real consequences for society if we can no longer get the workers to fill them.
I read an article on cnn and i'm slightly confused. Is the fee 100k 300k or 1 million? Either way those are insane figures. Can anyone tell me what the fees have been historically and what the fees are in similar countries?
Edit: i read up a bit more on it and i'm unimpressed. Apparently only 65 to 85 thousand of these visas are granted a year and about half of them go to about 5 companies (amazon, microsoft etc) , who can treat these employees however they like, because if they lose their jobs they face deportation.
Anyone that worked at those companies would tell you that there is little discretion in how salaries are set for rank-and-file employees. There is certainly abuse, but I don't believe it happens in FAANG companies.
Source: I worked for a FAANG company as an H-1B worker. They "mistreated" me so much that they sponsored a green card for me. Quotes mean sarcasm, just to be clear - it was a chill job with very good work-life balance and I have never felt mistreated.
H-1B visas are often used for jobs like medical residents ($70k a year), professors, and even some public school teachers. These employers can't just absorb an extra $100k fee.
Don't you think that they would have tried that if it was an option?
For academics, it's a global market for talent. There may only be a small number of people in the world who are doing top research in a particular area.
For rural healthcare, if you're a hospital in a very poor, very remote area, and you want to hire say, an anesthesiologist, you have to hire someone who could make very good money working anywhere, but is willing to work at your hospital. $10k is not going to cut it.
No, because the existence of an underclass means it will be used. See agricultural labor and how an underclass prevents mechanization or wage increases.
Luckily, administrators' salaries and endowments can cover fees, and rural areas are often served by doctors who agree to loan forgiveness programs which help underserved areas.
It's 100k a year. H1B are normally valid for 3 years, so that's where the 300k comes from. The $1M figure is for the "Trump Gold Card" visa, which is unrelated to the H1B program.
I think the E.O wording says a 100K for an appliciant to enter the lottery and they'd hold that money I am assuming until you won, what happens if you don't win unclear? But I think this is all horrible law making. E.O. are not effective leadership or law building because its so underspecified and rush and haphazard. Its a shame that we can't have a sensible immigrantion reform and it is behavior like this that makes me feel republicans simply don't care about immigrantion reform just vibes. How they are doing it is simply unserious and punitive but short sighted.
This is simply going to push people away from coming to the US and we will see more and more robust tech competition with laws like this. Like them or hate them H1B visas are a major brain drain on all of the nations the US wants to compete with which is good for us not bad. Tech workers are not hurting in the salary department.
Please stop spreading the unsubstantiated rumor that it's 100K a year. It's not. It's for the lifetime of the visa which is 3-6 years, potentially longer, subject to employment.
This unsubstantiated rumor coming from......the Secretary of Commerce?
"Reuters was not immediately able to establish how the fee would be administered. Lutnick said the visa would cost $100,000 a year for each of the three years of its duration but that the details were "still being considered.""
"Lutnick said on Friday that "all the big companies are on board" with $100,000 a year for H-1B visas.
"We've spoken to them," he said."
It's not what the official announcement from the White House said. The official announcement from the White House has made it seem that the $100K fee applies for the full duration of the visa. This number is chump change for a 3+3=6 year visa.
I fully expect my company to perform a large layoff next month. Many of my peers are on H1B, and if this fee applied to them, my company’s calculus on who to layoff would likely change. When I first heard about this fee, I went shopping for a Trump 2028 hat. Now… I’m back to being upset about Kimmel and wondering where those Epstein files are. Once I’m laid off, I’ll have plenty of time to vent.
It's impossible to know that for sure, these are not procedures based on open discussion and debate.
The administration previously changed policy on undocumented workers in agriculture and hospitality a few times based on the social media reaction of far right influencers, business stakeholders and political organizations.
On 4chan some are trying to organize mass plane ticket reservation to prevent people who are abroad from coming back "in time". So who knows, maybe the newly clarified situation catches up with the far-right influencers and they force a change in the current position and another clarification that says that this fee is for everybody.
Edit: Well, actually this makes it open public discussion over live implementation :)
> these are not procedures based on open discussion and debate
Or law. If anyone bothered challenging them under the APA, they’d almost all be found illegal.
I get the companies being cowards. But where is the ACLU? Why aren’t cases being sponsored on behalf of victims of this childish autocracy that none of these rules followed the Administrative Procedures Act’s process? Does no stage AG want to stand up to a shakedown?
Cases are being filed -- of ones with decisions, about 138 successful cases to block executive actions so far, and 91 unsuccessful. https://apnews.com/projects/trump-executive-order-lawsuit-tr...
Meanwhile the Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning, leading a Justice voting in the minority to describe the Court's current shadow docket practice as "Calvinball."
So (a) they are filing cases (b) they are winning (c) the Supreme Court is giving every indication that the law will be whatever it needs to be to have those cases ultimately lose.
> Supreme Court has granted 16 out of 19 emergency petitions filed by the executive to overturn those rulings, grants that often require shifts in precedent without written reasoning
The emergency docket does not set precedent. (If you like your Roman law, it is analogous to how a consul acting with senatus contultum ultimum is empowered [1], versus a dictator, who can literally make law.)
SCOTUS has been deferring to the administration around what happens while a case is being litigated. It’s stupid. But it’s not Aileen Cannon corrupt (not yet).
(If I’m guessing correctly, they’re bending the knee with one leg and punting with the other. If the midterms swing even one house of the Congress, the judiciary regains its independence.)
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum
Ever tried to get a remote job lately?
> If anyone bothered challenging them under the APA, they’d almost all be found illegal.
Why?
> Why?
It generally requires rulemaking to be done pursuant to a public-comment period and not be done in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious." I'm not familiar with the Immigration & Nationalisation Act(s), (as amended), so I don't know the degree to which public comment is required and judicial review permitted, but a last-minute rule like this would be expected to make it to the SCOTUS docket earlier in our republic.
Complete haphazard system that creates mini tyrants in every border officer. "I didn't hear about the existing part... back to home country loser" "I don't have any tools to verify you had an existing blah blah, back on the plane loser"
On the other hand companies with the right corruption chain will make up whatever paperwork they have to , to bypass any of these after-the-fact clarifying sound bites.
donate to them
> donate to them
They’re literally not fighting a fight I want them to fight, nor making any indication they want to. That translates into me looking for someone else to donate to.
Also keep ib mind its trumps deep state soing tge enforcement so grift and corruption along woth racism is tge ballgame. Not rational policy interpretation.
Also apparently the secretary of state can just wave the fee?
Sounds like it's just corruption as a service.
Darn if only we had some way of knowing a presidential candidate was corrupt. Like if they were charged with multiple felonies for corruption. Or if they were impeached twice for corruption.
If only the judiciary and house had literally any credibility that people wouldn't suspect the whole thing was politically motivated voters might actually care. At least as far as i can tell they remained magnificently indifferent.
Or if they take hundreds of millions from "special" lobbyists to enable land grabs overseas
[flagged]
I’m sure the inspectors general will keep an eye out for this. It would be very bad for the reputation of the administration to have blatant corruption at the top levels.
> sure the inspectors general will keep an eye out for this
The dude who runs Homeland Security accepted bags of cash from the FBI [1]. (The case is being dropped. For good and bad reasons.)
Meanwhile, DOJ prosecutors are being fired for not following partisan marching orders [2].
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/tom-homan-fbi...
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/20/us/politics/trump-justice...
I assume your reply is sarcastic, but just in case, I'll say it directly: this administration does not care whether there is blatant corruption at the top levels, or any other levels for that matter. I'm fact, insofar as it antagonizes liberals, they'll encourage it.
One of the first things the Trump admin did was fire a lot of the inspectors general, including the one for the State Department.
I'd assume the reply you are replying to is being sarcastic specifically in reference to that event.
There's currently an (Acting) IG for State as a replacement, but I think its pretty clear how long that job would last for him if he were to actually do it.
Thank you for reminding me of the IG firings!
Indeed. They'll use this to hurt companies they want to hurt.
Also trap the companies that are their "friends".
Trump isn't above cutting a deal and altering it and continuously making demands.
One can wonder how people like DPR or that Nikola guy got pardoned. I'm pretty sure that the President didn't know about all those people until some aide or a relative brought it up. Now, how to make such an aide or a relative to bring it up before the President? May it help to pay $5M to join one of those lunches at Mar-a-Lago where one can meet such an aide or a relative and drop the name of somebody so deserving a Presidential pardon?
DPR's pardoning was the administration throwing a bone to libertarian influencers who campaigned for his release.
Sounds worse. The big companies won't have a problem and anyway can afford it. Smaller industries will have a much harder time getting attention.
To be frank the H1b scheme seems slightly dodgy to me anyway. But i only learned about it 30 minutes ago.
Anyone still working in this government must be miserable.
President tweets something Friday afternoon and you probably had no idea.
> Anyone still working in this government must be miserable.
Depending on where they work, that might be the case. I know a number of government employees and I wouldn't describe any of them as "miserable." Maybe a little griping about the end of telework -- they were already back in the office three days a week -- but, otherwise they seem no different than a year ago. (That includes concerns about a government shutdown; but, those concerns are directed at Congress.)
OK, but this is just an USCIS guidance to how they are going to interpret the proclamation when approving petitions. Important thing would be to have similar thing from CBP on how they are going to treat H-1B individuals at border crossings.
Yes, I know this memo above says "The proclamation does not impact the ability of any current visa holder to travel to or from the United States", but that means nothing, because it is coming from USCIS which has no authority here (CBP has).
Ah I didn’t consider that, great point.
this is what happens when you're so bad at writing legislation
It's a presidential proclamation, not legislation.
pedantry - the point is the proclamation has ramifications and was poorly written to the point where this wasn't clear. evidenced by a need to follow up. bush league as always with this administration.
Trump agrees with you that the caring about the distinction between congressional and executive authority is pedantic.
that's not what i said tho
but yeah he is a bad president who has done huge damage to our nation due to his disrespect for checks and balances
That's a bit harsh. The constitution was a very well written document by 18th century standards.
I am happy to have this 100k rule announced. Couldn't be better way to stop the Brain Drain.
Related:
New H-1B visa fee will not apply to existing holders, official says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45316226 - Sept 2025 (66 comments)
Microsoft memo advises H1B employees to return immediately if currently abroad - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45314906 - Sept 2025 (153 comments)
Microsoft has urged its employees on H-1B and H-4 visas to return immediately - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312877 - Sept 2025 (552 comments)
The H-1B Visa Program and Its Impact on the U.S. Economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45309740 - Sept 2025 (52 comments)
Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305845 - Sept 2025 (1750 comments)
Initial media reporting once again mimics headless chicken.
It’s not the media’s fault that the initial executive order was an ambiguous mess that threatened the livelihoods of immigrants all across the country.
No - the initial reporting accurately reflected what was in the proclamation. The proclamation did not exclude people already on H1B visas. That's why Microsoft and other huge companies were telling their employees not to leave the US or to get back to the US within 24 hours. This is the administration doing cleanup because they either screwed up drafting the proclamation, or they got so much pushback that they had to backtrack.
Yes, that’s the weird thing, they could have specified this in the proclamation that it only applies for next years lottery starting March next year, or uscis could have changed the fees to charge the money for new petitions, which happens next year.
They did neither.
It's extremely typical of this administration to move fast and do very sloppy work, with very little consideration of the consequences of their actions. There are many examples. DOGE repeatedly fired and then had to scramble to re-hire people either because they didn't realize that they were firing people who did critical jobs (security for transporting nuclear materials for instance) or because they just blatantly broke the law and the courts issued injunctions.
> It's extremely typical of this administration to move fast and do very sloppy work
Isnt that Silicon Valley's mantra.
Did you read the proclamation?
I did read it, the media reporting was accurate at the time, the proclamation as is doesn’t say anything about new applications, it just says that h1b holders won’t be let in unless they can prove the 100k$ fee was paid by their company starting September 21st.
The lawyers at my employer, much more qualified than me regarding law matters, reached the same conclusion as I did as a layman on the subject.
Even if you're 90% sure it means it doesn't apply to current holders, that's a 10% chance that not cutting your trip short costs $100,000. Very possible your employer doesn't want to pay that and you're suddenly unemployed and visa-less. Unless it's 101% crystal clear the status of visa holders, this was inevitable.
I have read it. I agree it was ambiguous in that area, but it would make absolutely no sense to restrict entry for people already in the program who happen to be on vacation or whatever. It did not state that it would do that, it just did not explicitly state that it wouldn’t. I think clarification is appropriate, but the reporting seemed to be that the least charitable interpretation WOULD happen, not that the least charitable interpretation COULD technically happen based on the language used. I believe the President has the authority to effectively cancel the program if he wanted to, so why would they do something bizarre and sneaky like block returning vacationers.
> … it would make absolutely no sense …
As if that ever stopped this administration from doing something.
Executive Order 13769 (the so-called "Muslim Ban") actually was effective immediately, resulting in a similar race to the airport during its chaotic implementation. Hundreds of people with previously lawful immigration status were denied entry or detained, including dozens with green cards despite those being excluded by the EO.
In any case this new order was not ambiguous. It plainly said the restriction was on "entry", not the issuance of new visas. Nobody reading the text of the order claimed otherwise. The Trump administration just changed their position, in informal guidance rather than a formal executive order but with similar practical and legal effect.
Anyone who returned early was effectively hedging, paying the airline change fee and some inconvenience to avoid a potential $100k fee or worse, with downsides including job loss--potentially leading to forced repatriation--if your employer doesn't pay, and indefinite detention under harsh conditions. That hedge currently seems likely to expire worthless; but with such an imbalanced payoff, are you really saying you wouldn't have paid it yourself?
> The lawyers at my employer, much more qualified than me regarding law matters, reached the same conclusion as I did as a layman on the subject.
Even expert interpretation considered it WOULD happen.
HN readers are likely most familiar with the tech industry's use of H-1B, but it's also used widely in healthcare, academia, and even by some public K-12 school districts that have trouble filling certain teaching jobs. These are jobs that are badly needed (doctors for rural hospitals for instance) and there will be real consequences for society if we can no longer get the workers to fill them.
Pay Americans more.
so you're saying it will negatively afect mostly trump supporters? what a surprise
I read an article on cnn and i'm slightly confused. Is the fee 100k 300k or 1 million? Either way those are insane figures. Can anyone tell me what the fees have been historically and what the fees are in similar countries?
Edit: i read up a bit more on it and i'm unimpressed. Apparently only 65 to 85 thousand of these visas are granted a year and about half of them go to about 5 companies (amazon, microsoft etc) , who can treat these employees however they like, because if they lose their jobs they face deportation.
Anyone that worked at those companies would tell you that there is little discretion in how salaries are set for rank-and-file employees. There is certainly abuse, but I don't believe it happens in FAANG companies.
Source: I worked for a FAANG company as an H-1B worker. They "mistreated" me so much that they sponsored a green card for me. Quotes mean sarcasm, just to be clear - it was a chill job with very good work-life balance and I have never felt mistreated.
you made 30 to 60pct less than a local hire with same qualifications.
$100K/year fee sounds extremely reasonable if there is in fact a shortage of skilled workers.
It sounds terrible if the sole purpose of H-1B is to pay less than the labor is worth.
Of course, this assumes that it actually has to be paid, rather than being used to extort political support.
I disagree. Reasonable would be to require a minimum salary for the job, as market evidence of scarcity.
Paying an exorbitant fee to the government will discourage the activity in the United States.
H-1B visas are often used for jobs like medical residents ($70k a year), professors, and even some public school teachers. These employers can't just absorb an extra $100k fee.
At that price scale, paying an extra $10k to a local will make you immediately discover that there was not in fact a labor shortage at all.
Don't you think that they would have tried that if it was an option?
For academics, it's a global market for talent. There may only be a small number of people in the world who are doing top research in a particular area.
For rural healthcare, if you're a hospital in a very poor, very remote area, and you want to hire say, an anesthesiologist, you have to hire someone who could make very good money working anywhere, but is willing to work at your hospital. $10k is not going to cut it.
No, because the existence of an underclass means it will be used. See agricultural labor and how an underclass prevents mechanization or wage increases.
Luckily, administrators' salaries and endowments can cover fees, and rural areas are often served by doctors who agree to loan forgiveness programs which help underserved areas.
It's 100k a year. H1B are normally valid for 3 years, so that's where the 300k comes from. The $1M figure is for the "Trump Gold Card" visa, which is unrelated to the H1B program.
I think the E.O wording says a 100K for an appliciant to enter the lottery and they'd hold that money I am assuming until you won, what happens if you don't win unclear? But I think this is all horrible law making. E.O. are not effective leadership or law building because its so underspecified and rush and haphazard. Its a shame that we can't have a sensible immigrantion reform and it is behavior like this that makes me feel republicans simply don't care about immigrantion reform just vibes. How they are doing it is simply unserious and punitive but short sighted.
This is simply going to push people away from coming to the US and we will see more and more robust tech competition with laws like this. Like them or hate them H1B visas are a major brain drain on all of the nations the US wants to compete with which is good for us not bad. Tech workers are not hurting in the salary department.
Please stop spreading the unsubstantiated rumor that it's 100K a year. It's not. It's for the lifetime of the visa which is 3-6 years, potentially longer, subject to employment.
This unsubstantiated rumor coming from......the Secretary of Commerce?
"Reuters was not immediately able to establish how the fee would be administered. Lutnick said the visa would cost $100,000 a year for each of the three years of its duration but that the details were "still being considered.""
"Lutnick said on Friday that "all the big companies are on board" with $100,000 a year for H-1B visas. "We've spoken to them," he said."
https://archive.is/WYuI1#selection-1571.0-1575.32
It's not what the official announcement from the White House said. The official announcement from the White House has made it seem that the $100K fee applies for the full duration of the visa. This number is chump change for a 3+3=6 year visa.
> because if they lose their jobs they face deportation.
Just to clarify, this is true for the L1 visa, which is tied to an employer.
With the h1b, you have 60 days to find another employer, or you have to leave the country. It’s hard but not impossible. It’s a bad situation anyways.
I fully expect my company to perform a large layoff next month. Many of my peers are on H1B, and if this fee applied to them, my company’s calculus on who to layoff would likely change. When I first heard about this fee, I went shopping for a Trump 2028 hat. Now… I’m back to being upset about Kimmel and wondering where those Epstein files are. Once I’m laid off, I’ll have plenty of time to vent.
A lot of people fell again for Trump
What was written in the proclamation and what they are saying doesn’t match, at least until this uscis announcement.
Between a legal document and a saying by a government official, I will take the legal paper.
Or the program requires more teeth to mitigate all adverse citizen impacts.