Note that the fee can be waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. So, just like the tariffs, one purpose of this change is to give companies the opportunity to come to the White House and ask what favors they can do in exchange for a waiver.
I'm interested to see how >26% of the country thinks it's a good idea for the president to pick winners and losers, and how that doesn't seem like the planned economy of the Soviet Union that failed disastrously.
The rate the Trump administration is losing plausible deniability has been accelerating over recent months/weeks/days. The MAGA diehards flying Trump flags aren't going to change their ways because they are true believers in "putting the corrupt radical left | greedy corporations | immigrants in their place". But what about all the techno-libertarians that populate HN? Can you genuinely say this type of loophole that allows naked corruption is good? Do you agree with the FCC threatening to take away broadcast licenses for jokes? When does the water get too hot for all us frogs?
I hope majority of the voting population sees this for what it is. The question is is there anything that can be done about it. There is midterms but that's a long ways out, especially at the speed things are moving now. Congress isn't keeping the executive branch in check, neither is the judiciary.
The techno-libertarians I’ve interacted with were always painfully naive, with a simplistic worldview (that they thought was extremely learn’ed - mistaking their technical skill for broad intellect that understood politics to be “simple”).
If they haven’t grown up thus far, I doubt yet another logical inconsistency will puncture their shallow and hermetic understanding.
Or as I read it somewhere, “We’ve created a group of technical people who can solve any technical problem but can’t explain why Nazism is bad.”
The only thing that might pierce that veil is this: they believed they were not workers, but more like a priestly class, “self made” but immune to the travails of “everyone else”. The massive spike in layoffs, the economic slump, our increased taxes (via tariff), the rights erosions - might get them to recognize their mistake in understanding, but only if it strikes them personally (this gets back to the naïveté mentioned above).
As we’ve learned from victims of pig butchering scams, denial of the obvious runs very, very deep. Pride and confidence and lack of self reflection will make it very difficult for Trump voters to change their minds.
from the technolibertarian side its great - many of the web2.0 companies were about breaking the law in some way(eg. uber, airbnb) and getting away with it. now there's a very explicit way to do so. there's also lots of change happening, so theres plenty of opportunity to make a quick buck and develop oligarchs similar to russia
Their arbitrary nature is designed to consolidate executive branch authority that can be welded as a weapon against corporations that might consider supporting his opposition in the future.
It's a classic fascist ploy, and is further proof that executive orders should be banned. In America we do not have kings who rule by decree, or at least we should not..
Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.
Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal (or, at least, without legal effect) to the extent they do that, but whether or not a particular order meets that description is frequently a matter of dispute, which can end up in litigation.
> Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.
Sort of. The executive order was originally used for routine administrative orders. Later their usage expanded, but they were still required to be based on either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself.
Now, presidents use them to invent law from scratch as Kings once did. They often do so under the flimsiest of pretense, if they bother with pretense at all.
It is this type that should be banned, or more accuratly: existing laws should be enforced.
This actually misses the mark. They don't need simply to be legal, they need to have been based upon an existing law or the constitution to be enforceable. In the US the executive can not create law.
That's the theory anyhow. As you mention, the courts now just obey the executive rather than acting as a check and balance as intended.
The period between the inauguration of the first President under the US Constitution (April 30, 1789) and the first formal executive order (June 9, 1789) was 40 days, so I have no idea what you are thinking of.
EDIT: It’s worth noting that the first Act of Congress was only signed into law 8 days earlier than the first executive order was issued, so for most of the time before executive orders the executive had no actual laws to execute.
Both have necessary and legitimate uses, which is why they exist. Any institutional power can be used corruptly. The defense against that is not to try to predecide and constrain every action of the executive. It is for the people, directly or through their representatives, to recognize the corruption and remove that executive through election or impeachment.
Any judicial system is a source of injustice, hopefully just at the periphery, but there needs to be some way to recognize and correct grievous errors.
"Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section."
This will only encourage more technical jobs to move offshore. We already lost most of our manufacturing capacity to offshore factories. Policies like this will encourage more IT, engineering and research jobs to permanently move to lower cost countries. Why pay 100k to bring the best talent to the US when you can just move the whole team offshore?
I assume immigration fees are solely the purview of the executive, is that correct ?
I also would think that if this fee is applied to some countries and not others, it would pass muster since its the same as with tariffs - they don't need to be universal (or uniform).
I am not clear on the mechanics of this though. Is the fee is annual, one-time or renewal; but i suppose this will be cleared up once the EO is released if it hasn't already ?
Congress gave the president broad authority to regulate the immigration process. Trump's executive order cites two statutes cited below.
I'm not a lawyer so it's possible, even likely that there's something I'm missing but to my laymans reading of the law it would seem to me he has the authority to put basically whatever process he wants into place.
Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a), states exactly:
Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful—(1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), states exactly:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
I'm absolutely not a lawyer, so may be mistaken, but the fees for I-129 / DS-160 are not explicitly mentioned anywhere. Instead the fee seems to be an entry fee, which is orthogonal to the actual visa (meaning ; you can have a visa but not be granted entry, or maybe be granted entry under a different program but then with no lawful work permit).
Personal Experience: H1B/Work PERM/Personal PERM/EADs/Naturalization
Assuming thoughtful intent is in use, perhaps this is a fishing attempt to see what corporations will challenge and litigate; an attempt to identify opposition and to add targets to punish next.
"creating panic among many - particularly Indian passengers - who even chose to leave the aircraft"
Are they are getting off the aircraft because they believe the "fee" will be required of their employment imminently, and that their employer will not pay it, and this will lead to their visa getting cancelled before they could return to the United States?
IMHO, it seems like there's a good chance of confusion and delay when reentering the US in the middle of this kind of change. It would be better to avoid that, if possible. And in the case that your visa does get canceled, it would be easier to fight that from in the US, and if necessary, to wind down your US household from inside the US as well. Everything gets a lot harder if you have to do it from outside the country.
It doesn’t seem very unclear - the president made up a policy it isn’t possible to comply with, since there is no way to actually pay the massive bribe, in addition to probably being illegal, but nonetheless CBP may start refusing entry to people in hours.
To the state coffers where it is money laundered to friends of the political class via favored private enterprises that win contracts for things like building border walls, keeping databases on US citizens, or running detention facilities.
Like many cleptocrats, DJT seems to think that money received by the federal government is somehow his. However I don't think bribe is the appropriate term, it's more of a shakedown.
So people are trying to get back to USA while half of Europe has crippled airports thank to cyberattack. Really sucks to have H1B and be outside of USA right now.
This isn't law so aren't we a few hours from this being put on injunction? This is just abusive to people who are doing great work and following the rules.
> This isn't law so aren't we a few hours from this being put on injunction?
That’s possible; it is also possible that it isn’t. And it is possible that even if it is, we are a few days or weeks away from an appeals court retroactively invalidating the injunction and allowing cancellations of visas based on failure to return when the injunction was in effect, or else “only” with immediate effect when the injunction is lifted.
If you are an employer who wants to keep your H-1B employees, you probably don’t want to gamble unnecessarily with this, you want the employees to act in a way which minimizes your risk.
Trump has been doing many lawless things that the courts might theoretically put a stop to, but I'm not sure this is one of them. The text of 8 USC 1182(f) seems pretty straightforward:
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
It's a stupidly broad law, but Congress passed it, and now they're too dysfunctional to do anything about it. So I guess we're stuck with it.
There’s hundreds of thousands of H1B visa holders? I thought this visa was for people with some specialized skill that doesn’t exist or is impossible to find in the U.S. Surely there can’t be that many.
It's wild to watch the zeitgeist among many programmers swap in real time from being against H-1B visas to pro H-1B visas the second Trump goes after them. It is possible for a stopped clock to be right twice a day. Left and right doesn't have to disagree on literally every single thing.
If you're on an H-1B and you get fired or laid off, you have 60 days to find a new job or be deported. That creates an underclass of workers who are willing to put up with much worse working conditions and work longer hours. That drives down working conditions and wages for everyone.
A $100k per year fee doesn't fix that, but it does make them so expensive that they are really only viable for $300k+ positions.
You can take issues with the current (previous) H1B policy and the new one at the same time.
There was abuse of the H1B program, but this new EO also has issues. The biggest one currently is the rollout. There is no guidance, no mechanism to pay the actual fee, no clarity on if it applies retroactively to existing visa holders etc.
>You can take issues with the current (previous) H1B policy and the new one at the same time.
That's entirely true. But that's not what I've been hearing since this EO was announced. I've just heard pro immigration arguments about all the good H-1B visas accomplish with none of the downsides.
We must be reading different things. In the other post about this topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305845) there were lots of discussions on the benefits of changing how the H1B program is run, with many in favor of this type of change.
I can't speak for others, but for me this seems like
1) a shakedown of corporations and / or
2) a way to ban immigration without being technically a ban
But overall I see this as another anti-immigration "policy" that's coherent with the rest of the anti-immigration policies from this administration. Hence the pro-immigration arguments.
Yup, whether the 100k fee will curb misuse remains to be seen. But giving people essentially 24h to react feels like utter bullshit causing totally unnecessary and avoidable chaos to LEGAL (and vetted from a background check standpoint) immigrants.
Where do you hear this? All I'm seeing is people praising this on X, people split here on HN, and people being downright racist towards Indians on Reddit h1b forums
Sure that can be your stance. But that's not we're talking about. I'm talking about people on the left who have historically been anti H-1B, but who have moved over to the pro H-1B camp because Trump acted against the program.
To that point though, there were ~40k O visas issued last year. And presumably that number would have been much higher if the H-1Bs were harder to get.
And unlikely H-1B the O visas actually have requirements that the person does have above average skills.
I understand. I'm not doing a good job communicating my position. I'm in the camp you're describing: I've historically been complaining about the H1B program and how it's run, I'm also pro H1B now after this announcement like you say.
To elaborate, I'm not pro or anti H1B per se. I'm for bringing in skilled immigrates with a reasonable qualification criteria. I agree that H1B has been abused in the past and should be reformed. I'm ALSO against just outright killing the H1B program without a replacement, which is what this EO seems to be trying to do. It's not because it's trump did it, it's because the of the chaos and confusion of this rollout (which I think is likely intentional) and because if this holds it'll cripple the H1B program which in turn will cripple the inflow of skilled immigrants.
Basically I'm against the H1B program as it was, but I'm in favor of keeping it as it was over what is being done here.
> A $100k per year fee doesn't fix that, but it does make them so expensive that they are really only viable for $300k+ positions
It also incentivizes the CTO to promote a cost saving measure. For any job that doesn't absolutely require onshore presence, lets move it offshore. We can save 100k per position and also retain talent.
Companies have been offshoring jobs due to the tax rule change. Personally I know lot of Google teams which have been offshored. So, I don't understand why people think this will somehow cause job retention. Some jobs might be retained and more will be lost. Acting as if this $100k is somehow a good idea shows lack of understanding of how real world works.
In the meantime, rural medical teams who employ H1B doctors will be decimated. But before that these pesky billion dollar companies need to be taught a lesson.
Are you sure that the people supporting H1B now are the same people who opposed it before? Do you think it's possible the people in favor of H1B were quiet before because they were happy with the status quo, and the people against H1B are quiet now for the same reason? It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
> It's wild to watch the zeitgeist among many programmers swap in real time from being against H-1B visas to pro H-1B visas the second Trump goes after them.
Trump isn’t going after them, he is converting them into another channel for arbitrary favoritism and graft.
Being against the H-1b as a bad system does not conflict with being against the way Trump is making that system worse.
Sure that's a thing he might do. I think the most likely outcome is that big tech ends up scooping up all the H-1B slots.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying people were anti H-1B visa and now they still are, but disagree with Trump's "solution" I'm seeing comments full of "H-1Bs are good actually".
That's clearly not a solution to any of the other problems in the country. But making a bad visa program more expensive to employers abusing it is potentially a way to mitigate it.
Here's Bernie Sanders comments on the H-1B visa.
"The main function of the H-1B visa program is not to hire “the best and the brightest,” but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad."
It's funny that you quote Sanders on this, when this EO's solution to 'human beings are being mistreated' is not 'stop mistreating them' it's 'lets do our best to throw as many as we can out'.
It's right up there with Oregon's stance on slavery. (The state banned it and fought for the Union on the basis that it didn't want any --------- living in it, even enslaved ones.)
>when this EO's solution to 'human beings are being mistreated' is not 'stop mistreating them' it's 'lets do our best to throw as many as we can out'.
I mean everything the Trump Whitehouse does is a mess, but they said that this only applies to new applicants, so it's not throwing anyone out.
Bernie's quote mentions 2 classes of people being mistreated. H-1B workers and American workers. Since the H-1B workers are being used as leverage to mistreat American workers, reducing the number of new H-1B workers coming in is certainly one way to mitigate harm to American workers.
I don't know how many people we should let in under H-1B, but I'd prefer they get rid of the requirements to find a new job within 60 days. That doesn't mean I don't think that making the program more expensive isn't beneficial.
Just causing chaos and confusion for no reason. Not that it matters, but can he even do this without Congress? One of the most frustrating things is witnessing all the things this admin has done that a normal admin wouldn't be able to do within "rules and norms" like we couldn't even get student loan cancellation under Biden.
Yes, you have to be a genius to go through a 1yr online remote masters program which is mostly group work and essentially a fee for undercutting others on the queue:
That argument only works if society distributes wealth more equitably.
Current setup simply brings in foreign labor so that capitalists can reduce wages and they pocket the profit, while Americans pocket the costs. Not to mention migrating for purely economic reasons is obviously not going to make the locals like you very much.
Nah, the employer will happily get rid of the US headcount and rehire the same guy in their home country or UK/Canada etc while paying a third of the salary. Zero employer is going to pay $100k.
At big tech companies they are already paying $200k or more than they'd pay the same worker in their home country for existing H-1Bs. An extra $100k might tip the scale for some but not for all.
The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.
> The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.
For publicly-held large tech, the equation isn't about affordability but about maximizing shareholder dividends. Moving jobs overseas has long been the preferred means to that end.
Sure, but they have always been able to do that. It's always been cheaper to hire employees overseas than to employe H-1Bs here. Making H-1Bs more expensive increases the delta and probably makes it more attractive for some jobs. But clearly there is some value in employing people in the US or they would have already moved the jobs.
> Sure, but they have always been able to do that.
I think the newness (some period before 2020) of tech in general tended to intimidate those legacy shareholder groups who got in early. And I suspect that early shareholding was often dominated by employees, etc (not sure tho).
I think those interests plus the proximity to adjacent industries created strong interest in US Gov's (now-former) incentives to create to bring many of the best minds here.
We've dialed back all the above. We've put truly hostile interests in power that are weaponizing Gov assets & millions of supporters - against every manifestation of immigration. Our actual outcomes are flavored with rising Gov violence and populist animosity toward (mostly non-white) immigrants and those associated with them.
Considering what and where we are, I absolutely see this high-paying, historical class of jobs being shipped overseas.
Cheap labor exists because there is a demand for it. Body shops don't pay those wages - companies who hire those bodies from body shops do. So, body shops are going to raise prices accordingly.
"You need someone to manage your Oracle/SAP ERP systems and do a horrible job of it? And that person needs to be here locally? That will be an extra $60k from our last contract because we cannot bring in cheap bodies now." (assuming they eat $40k of the costs)
In the meantime rural medical centers will be devasted because many teams are made of H1B doctors.
H1B certainly requires more government oversight. But doing their jobs or applying critical thinking skills isn't a criteria for this administration.
>Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means.
Something like 0.3% of their yearly profit.
They're already paying probably somewhere near $200k a year more. Clearly it's not for no good reason. Clearly there is some advantage to employing them here if they are already willing to pay $200k more than they have to.
An extra $100k doesn't erase whatever that value is. The question is, is employing them here worth $200k to Amazon, but not $300k? Likely the case for some employees, but almost certainly not all.
It's exactly like the tariff war with china. India refused to put sanctions on russia (who helped india in its wars with pakistan, who received help from USA), so now trump is saying we don't want your people in here. The outcome is probably going to be similar to the tariff war as well. They'll start out with totally absurd bullshit and then come down to something more reasonable. Maybe $10-20k per worker per year. From the point of view of the state, humans are just another resource, like crude oil. If you don't have something, you import it. And what's happening right now is haggling at the global scale. It's just a bunch of gorillas thumping their chests. Nobody cares about the citizens.
Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
They are, and increasingly so for the past 2-3 years. I guess you have not been paying attention.
I know as a matter of fact that my company and other companies almost exclusively create new headcounts in India/UK/Germany. US headcounts are only for replacement or as exceptions. Even some replacement headcounts are moved overseas.
Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
Certainly some will, but if we have learned anything from the 1990-Now, it is that remote R&D doesn't always save money or even work effectively at all.
The pressure to juice short-term dividends is as ceaseless as gravity or oxidation. It has to be overcome before lessons-learned can transform into wisdom-based outcomes.
As someone who works with colleagues from India (like, physically in India), I don't see any reason the company keeps me over some other random guy in India, to be honest.
A big change from then to now for remote collaboration is better connectivity in general, and technology such as Zoom and Teams. But how do you handle the time zone difference? That has always been the issue I've seen with any kind of real-time collaboration with contracrors or employees in India. If it's work that doesn't involve that, then what is the big difference now? Github? Slack?
If companies like airbnb allow you to work from anywhere in the world, it means timezone is not a problem. It definitely needs some investment though.
> what is the big difference now?
What is the difference between pre-2020 full-time in-office, vs 3 day or even fully remote? Nothing, in my opinion (CEOs don't agree though). If people are productive with 3 days in office, that could have been the norm before 2020.
All you need is someone actually making it happen.
Not really. The H1b and O visas were never used for "genius" talent, they are typically used by the WITCH companies to pay people bottom-rate wages (40k-60k for HCOL city) so companies can underpay market wages.
If you have to pay 100k, you might as well hire an American worker. The "shortages" will mysteriously disappear.
When I got my first LCA 14 years ago, the min salary my employer had to pay was 77k (and I actually got 90k). How on earth do Indian outsourcing companies get 401ks for employees earning only 40-60k?
No, because after the spectacle of human cruelty from the initial implementation has faded, large companies will cozy up to the regime ($$bribes$$) and the per-employee government fees will be waved.
Furthermore as we've seen with "return to office", companies are more concerned with having control than with the bottom line. This new dynamic gives them one more thing to hold over H1Bs heads. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of H1Bs increases.
>The median salary of someone on H1B is higher than someone not on H1B.
Not within the same job in the same location they aren't.
If you're on an H-1B and you get fired or laid off, you have 60 days to find a new job or be deported. That creates an underclass of workers who are willing to put up with much worse working conditions and work longer hours. That drives down working conditions and wages for everyone.
“In fiscal 2018, 70% of approved H-1B petitions were for workers 30 years of age and older—a significant indicator that those workers already possess at least six to eight years of experience. Further, H-1B workers’ educational levels, which are an important determinant of skills, indicate they should be filling higher-skilled positions. In fact, 63% of all H-1B workers held an advanced degree (master’s, professional, or doctorate degree),32 meaning one could reasonably conclude that a majority of H-1B workers have the educational attainment and/or years of experience to fill positions at wage levels 3 and 4. These data suggest it is likely that H-1B employers are underpaying workers relative to their skill levels.”
Anecdotally, I have seen the h1b under leveling happen multiple times. But not sure it’s common enough to skew the data but it does stand out when it happens because you have a great engineer with 10 years experience and you find out they are an SDE1. For every one of those there are probably 10 that are correctly leveled or over leveled.
70% of H1Bs are from India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/20/h-1b-visa-fee-timel.... That’s five times more than China. Are we really to believe that the supermajority of “the best minds of the world” come from a single country? Or is the marketing of H1B quite different from the product Americans are actually receiving.
India has 130 million college graduates, and 70% of H1bs. Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia together have over 50 million graduates, but only around 2% of H1bs combined.
The point is that it strongly suggests the system is being abused by India. Even excluding developed countries where people might lack incentive to move, India doesn’t come close to having 70% of “the talent.” Latin America alone probably has as many college graduates as India, accounting for higher college attendance rates. But Latin America accounts for a small share of H1bs while India accounts for 70%.
That argument is not sound. English is an official language of India, of course Indians are much more likely to seek work in the UK and the US than people from Latin America. You have failed to present any evidence concerning the skill levels of Indian H1B holders, and, moreover, since India has the largest population of all countries, those 130M college graduates must have gone through some very tough selection.
> English is an official language of India, of course Indians are much more likely to seek work in the UK and the US than people from Latin America.
The U.S. is also much closer to Latin America, and has a large Latino community already. The disparity in H1bs (70% versus 2% for Mexico/Brazil/Colombia) is just too huge to explain by language preferences.
> since India has the largest population of all countries, those 130M college graduates must have gone through some very tough selection.
This is the most desperate and feeble attempt to save an argument I've seen in a long time. How about you try find some actual evidence to support your claims instead these wild constructions.
> The disparity in H1bs (70% versus 2% for Mexico/Brazil/Colombia) is just too huge to explain by language preferences.
You base your position on these kind "hunches"? "Just too huge to explain". No, it isn't just too huge to explain. It's really that simple. India is the largest country of the world in terms of population, English is an official language of India, hence there is a substantial amount of people with high qualifications who use those qualifications to seek employment in major English speaking countries like the US and the UK with visas like the H1B. There are also many Chinese people in those countries but the language barrier makes it much harder for them.
People from Latin America have a hard time getting hired for highly qualified jobs in the US for various reasons, one of them being the language barrier.
By the way, if there was some conspiracy to hire Indians with low qualifications, then you'd still have not done anything to explain why these people should be Indians as opposed to Latin Americans. The argument makes no sense. Can't you see that? I'm genuinely puzzled.
Finally, the best and brightest minds in the world can stay in their home countries and improve them, rather than brain drain the nation that raised them. What a blessing for those of us who care about the world!
All: please submit the original source and then add a link to alt sources in the comments.
I know the twitwall is frustrating (it is to us too) but we want HN posts to link to original sources, and for the site name to the right of the title to reflect that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We're happy to pin the alt links to the top of a thread and/or to move them into the top text, as I did in the current case.
x.com isn't even accessible from Firefox. It tries to trick you into turning off enhanced tracking protection claiming it is "known to cause issues" (the "issues" presumably being with them invading your privacy).
I just accessed x.com from Firefox 143.0.1, and there was no such message or claim. It just displayed the site without any warning or ceremony. I have not visited the site with this browser before.
It will never last. There is a 0% chance even one company or person will ever pay this fee. Only an act of congress can change visa requirements, and it will never come up for a full floor vote. Ever. So it will be in legal limbo, and therefore can be ignored.
>There is a 0% chance even one company or person will ever pay this fee
All through Trump's second term, and before, people have said things precisely like this. And here we are. At some point we realize that people just make such confident pronouncements because they think it bends reality towards their hopes.
>Only an act of congress can change visa requirements
It isn't a visa requirement. It's a processing fee. As of midnight no H1B will be considered without the fee. It is very real, and it is absolutely going into effect. Now places like Microsoft are panicking in the information gap currently, but the admin has clarified that it only applies to new H1B applicants.
As to the legal limbo, not only won't there be one, the Supreme Court has rubber stamped just about everything this admin has done.
The guy has both houses of congress, the courts, the DOJ, the full apparatus of government...at this point I find it simply amazing that people still dismiss the reality that he basically does whatever he wants.
The specific quote can be found in a number of media sources-
"Those who are visiting or leaving the country, or visiting India, they don't need to rush back before Sunday or pay the $100,000 fee. $100,000 is only for new and not current existing holders"
EDIT: Weirdly the parent edited in the "unnamed official" bit after I made my comment, then replied as if I'm illiterate.
Regardless, if "unnamed officials" are being cited by every major media source, it's obvious policy, especially given how vague and uncertain so many details of this are.
> It's obvious policy, given how vague and uncertain many details of this are.
" Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section."
Personally, I do not see anything vague and uncertain about that. I agree that how Trump has been handling things anything and everything is vague and uncertain. But the language of the actual executive order, which in any sane jurisdiction would be the only thing relevant, is pretty clear. Note how it says "restriction on entry", and zero about new applicants.
Related ongoing threads:
US Gov acknowledges that 100K fee does not apply to existing H-1B visas holders [pdf] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45318060 - Sept 2025 (43 comments)
Visa holders on vacation have 15 hours to return to US or pay $100k fee - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45312877 - Sept 2025 (218 comments)
New H-1B visa fee will not apply to existing holders, official says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45316226 - Sept 2025 (3 comments)
Also recent and related:
Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305845 - Sept 2025 (1675 comments)
The H-1B Visa Program and Its Impact on the U.S. Economy - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45309740 - Sept 2025 (51 comments)
Here's the email from MS, supposedly: https://x.com/onestpress/status/1969444099317981563
Note that the fee can be waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. So, just like the tariffs, one purpose of this change is to give companies the opportunity to come to the White House and ask what favors they can do in exchange for a waiver.
I'm interested to see how >26% of the country thinks it's a good idea for the president to pick winners and losers, and how that doesn't seem like the planned economy of the Soviet Union that failed disastrously.
That 26% don’t see this as overreach, they see it as putting the corrupt radical left | greedy corporations | immigrants in their place.
The rate the Trump administration is losing plausible deniability has been accelerating over recent months/weeks/days. The MAGA diehards flying Trump flags aren't going to change their ways because they are true believers in "putting the corrupt radical left | greedy corporations | immigrants in their place". But what about all the techno-libertarians that populate HN? Can you genuinely say this type of loophole that allows naked corruption is good? Do you agree with the FCC threatening to take away broadcast licenses for jokes? When does the water get too hot for all us frogs?
I hope majority of the voting population sees this for what it is. The question is is there anything that can be done about it. There is midterms but that's a long ways out, especially at the speed things are moving now. Congress isn't keeping the executive branch in check, neither is the judiciary.
As it turns out, power without accountability inevitably leads to corruption.
There is no functioning mechanism in operation today that forces the government to follow the law. Any law. Not even the constitution.
Power doesn't corrupt; it reveals.
-- Robert Caro
Except their oath. They have no honor.
The techno-libertarians I’ve interacted with were always painfully naive, with a simplistic worldview (that they thought was extremely learn’ed - mistaking their technical skill for broad intellect that understood politics to be “simple”).
If they haven’t grown up thus far, I doubt yet another logical inconsistency will puncture their shallow and hermetic understanding.
Or as I read it somewhere, “We’ve created a group of technical people who can solve any technical problem but can’t explain why Nazism is bad.”
The only thing that might pierce that veil is this: they believed they were not workers, but more like a priestly class, “self made” but immune to the travails of “everyone else”. The massive spike in layoffs, the economic slump, our increased taxes (via tariff), the rights erosions - might get them to recognize their mistake in understanding, but only if it strikes them personally (this gets back to the naïveté mentioned above).
As we’ve learned from victims of pig butchering scams, denial of the obvious runs very, very deep. Pride and confidence and lack of self reflection will make it very difficult for Trump voters to change their minds.
from the technolibertarian side its great - many of the web2.0 companies were about breaking the law in some way(eg. uber, airbnb) and getting away with it. now there's a very explicit way to do so. there's also lots of change happening, so theres plenty of opportunity to make a quick buck and develop oligarchs similar to russia
>waived at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security.
Yeah that just seems like corruption by design.
This.
Their arbitrary nature is designed to consolidate executive branch authority that can be welded as a weapon against corporations that might consider supporting his opposition in the future.
It's a classic fascist ploy, and is further proof that executive orders should be banned. In America we do not have kings who rule by decree, or at least we should not..
Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.
Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal (or, at least, without legal effect) to the extent they do that, but whether or not a particular order meets that description is frequently a matter of dispute, which can end up in litigation.
> Banning executive orders is nonsense; you can’t have an executive branch with a head and prohibit the head from giving direction to the rest of the executive branch.
Sort of. The executive order was originally used for routine administrative orders. Later their usage expanded, but they were still required to be based on either an expressed or implied congressional law, or the constitution itself.
Now, presidents use them to invent law from scratch as Kings once did. They often do so under the flimsiest of pretense, if they bother with pretense at all.
It is this type that should be banned, or more accuratly: existing laws should be enforced.
> Executive orders that violate, or direct the violation of, existing law are illegal
But now we run into the question of What is illegality without ethical-centric courts?
This actually misses the mark. They don't need simply to be legal, they need to have been based upon an existing law or the constitution to be enforceable. In the US the executive can not create law.
That's the theory anyhow. As you mention, the courts now just obey the executive rather than acting as a check and balance as intended.
I think we have that question regardless.
i for one dont think that congress can delegate something like how big a fee can be for the executive to decide on its own.
The US worked pretty well without them before?
> The US worked pretty well without them before?
The period between the inauguration of the first President under the US Constitution (April 30, 1789) and the first formal executive order (June 9, 1789) was 40 days, so I have no idea what you are thinking of.
EDIT: It’s worth noting that the first Act of Congress was only signed into law 8 days earlier than the first executive order was issued, so for most of the time before executive orders the executive had no actual laws to execute.
If executive orders get banned, should presidential pardons as well? This instrument can also be used for leverage.
Both have necessary and legitimate uses, which is why they exist. Any institutional power can be used corruptly. The defense against that is not to try to predecide and constrain every action of the executive. It is for the people, directly or through their representatives, to recognize the corruption and remove that executive through election or impeachment.
Genuine question: what are the legitimate uses of a presidential pardon? It always seemed strange to me, I don’t understand it.
Any judicial system is a source of injustice, hopefully just at the periphery, but there needs to be some way to recognize and correct grievous errors.
Yes.
The fee applies only to new applicants, per https://www.axios.com/2025/09/20/trump-h-1b-immigration-visa...
"Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section."
See https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...
Nothing in there says it only applies to new applicants.
it was corrected by Karoline. Very surprising, when they announced it yesterday, they universally said for all.
https://x.com/PressSec/status/1969494255857987597
This will only encourage more technical jobs to move offshore. We already lost most of our manufacturing capacity to offshore factories. Policies like this will encourage more IT, engineering and research jobs to permanently move to lower cost countries. Why pay 100k to bring the best talent to the US when you can just move the whole team offshore?
I assume immigration fees are solely the purview of the executive, is that correct ?
I also would think that if this fee is applied to some countries and not others, it would pass muster since its the same as with tariffs - they don't need to be universal (or uniform).
I am not clear on the mechanics of this though. Is the fee is annual, one-time or renewal; but i suppose this will be cleared up once the EO is released if it hasn't already ?
Congress gave the president broad authority to regulate the immigration process. Trump's executive order cites two statutes cited below.
I'm not a lawyer so it's possible, even likely that there's something I'm missing but to my laymans reading of the law it would seem to me he has the authority to put basically whatever process he wants into place.
Section 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1185(a), states exactly:
Unless otherwise ordered by the President, it shall be unlawful—(1) for any alien to depart from or enter or attempt to depart from or enter the United States except under such reasonable rules, regulations, and orders, and subject to such limitations and exceptions as the President may prescribe;
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1182(f), states exactly:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
Law requires these fees to be ~essentially the cost of processing.
So that EO is almost certainly illegal, and will be litigated.
I'm absolutely not a lawyer, so may be mistaken, but the fees for I-129 / DS-160 are not explicitly mentioned anywhere. Instead the fee seems to be an entry fee, which is orthogonal to the actual visa (meaning ; you can have a visa but not be granted entry, or maybe be granted entry under a different program but then with no lawful work permit).
Personal Experience: H1B/Work PERM/Personal PERM/EADs/Naturalization
Assuming thoughtful intent is in use, perhaps this is a fishing attempt to see what corporations will challenge and litigate; an attempt to identify opposition and to add targets to punish next.
"creating panic among many - particularly Indian passengers - who even chose to leave the aircraft"
Are they are getting off the aircraft because they believe the "fee" will be required of their employment imminently, and that their employer will not pay it, and this will lead to their visa getting cancelled before they could return to the United States?
IMHO, it seems like there's a good chance of confusion and delay when reentering the US in the middle of this kind of change. It would be better to avoid that, if possible. And in the case that your visa does get canceled, it would be easier to fight that from in the US, and if necessary, to wind down your US household from inside the US as well. Everything gets a lot harder if you have to do it from outside the country.
> it would be easier to fight that from in the US
Would it? Aren't ICE agents showing up to court hearings and deporting people?
At least you could meet with your lawyers in person, during mutual daylight.
Do you even have standing to sue from abroad about a visa revoked capriciously?
It's all relative.
It seems for the moment they will only check for this new fee on entry at the borders. If the fee has been not paid entry will be denied from tonight.
Hence, if you stay in the country nothing will change. And they can wait until this gets played out in the courts, media, congress etc.
Or that, like the de minimus situation wrt post, there just is no process in place to pay the fee and you're left in a legal limbo, or worse.
It doesn’t seem very unclear - the president made up a policy it isn’t possible to comply with, since there is no way to actually pay the massive bribe, in addition to probably being illegal, but nonetheless CBP may start refusing entry to people in hours.
why do you say its a bribe? where is actual money going?
To the state coffers where it is money laundered to friends of the political class via favored private enterprises that win contracts for things like building border walls, keeping databases on US citizens, or running detention facilities.
Is there any evidence of this? Otherwise please don't post unsubstantiated rumors on this site, it's not what it was made for!
Do you take contention with the part where I indicate the money paid goes into the state coffers?
Or the part that money from the state coffers is then laundered to friends of the political class via favored private enterprises that win contracts?
Let us be specific about the part that is the "unsubstantiated rumor", so that I can come up with "any evidence" which is a low bar to pass indeed.
you mean there isn't enough money in the coffers already for the 'laundering to friends' that have to create new schemes?
Like many cleptocrats, DJT seems to think that money received by the federal government is somehow his. However I don't think bribe is the appropriate term, it's more of a shakedown.
So people are trying to get back to USA while half of Europe has crippled airports thank to cyberattack. Really sucks to have H1B and be outside of USA right now.
Full text of EO: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...
This isn't law so aren't we a few hours from this being put on injunction? This is just abusive to people who are doing great work and following the rules.
> This isn't law so aren't we a few hours from this being put on injunction?
That’s possible; it is also possible that it isn’t. And it is possible that even if it is, we are a few days or weeks away from an appeals court retroactively invalidating the injunction and allowing cancellations of visas based on failure to return when the injunction was in effect, or else “only” with immediate effect when the injunction is lifted.
If you are an employer who wants to keep your H-1B employees, you probably don’t want to gamble unnecessarily with this, you want the employees to act in a way which minimizes your risk.
Trump has been doing many lawless things that the courts might theoretically put a stop to, but I'm not sure this is one of them. The text of 8 USC 1182(f) seems pretty straightforward:
> Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.
It's a stupidly broad law, but Congress passed it, and now they're too dysfunctional to do anything about it. So I guess we're stuck with it.
The big question mark is if this fee would apply to hundreds of thousands of existing H1B visa holders when they need an extension/renewal?
There’s hundreds of thousands of H1B visa holders? I thought this visa was for people with some specialized skill that doesn’t exist or is impossible to find in the U.S. Surely there can’t be that many.
yes, and it started from today.
No, it's for new H1-Bs and renewals, and it starts tomorrow.
You are correct [although what was said at the oval office was different].
It's wild to watch the zeitgeist among many programmers swap in real time from being against H-1B visas to pro H-1B visas the second Trump goes after them. It is possible for a stopped clock to be right twice a day. Left and right doesn't have to disagree on literally every single thing.
If you're on an H-1B and you get fired or laid off, you have 60 days to find a new job or be deported. That creates an underclass of workers who are willing to put up with much worse working conditions and work longer hours. That drives down working conditions and wages for everyone.
A $100k per year fee doesn't fix that, but it does make them so expensive that they are really only viable for $300k+ positions.
You can take issues with the current (previous) H1B policy and the new one at the same time.
There was abuse of the H1B program, but this new EO also has issues. The biggest one currently is the rollout. There is no guidance, no mechanism to pay the actual fee, no clarity on if it applies retroactively to existing visa holders etc.
>You can take issues with the current (previous) H1B policy and the new one at the same time.
That's entirely true. But that's not what I've been hearing since this EO was announced. I've just heard pro immigration arguments about all the good H-1B visas accomplish with none of the downsides.
We must be reading different things. In the other post about this topic (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45305845) there were lots of discussions on the benefits of changing how the H1B program is run, with many in favor of this type of change.
I can't speak for others, but for me this seems like
1) a shakedown of corporations and / or
2) a way to ban immigration without being technically a ban
But overall I see this as another anti-immigration "policy" that's coherent with the rest of the anti-immigration policies from this administration. Hence the pro-immigration arguments.
Yup, whether the 100k fee will curb misuse remains to be seen. But giving people essentially 24h to react feels like utter bullshit causing totally unnecessary and avoidable chaos to LEGAL (and vetted from a background check standpoint) immigrants.
Sure everything Trump does is insane, but all I've been hearing is how "H-1Bs are good actually".
Where do you hear this? All I'm seeing is people praising this on X, people split here on HN, and people being downright racist towards Indians on Reddit h1b forums
Mostly my own friend group and r/programming.
Having skilled immigrants is good for the country. H1B right now is the primary way this happens. Crippling H1B goes against that.
Sure that can be your stance. But that's not we're talking about. I'm talking about people on the left who have historically been anti H-1B, but who have moved over to the pro H-1B camp because Trump acted against the program.
To that point though, there were ~40k O visas issued last year. And presumably that number would have been much higher if the H-1Bs were harder to get.
And unlikely H-1B the O visas actually have requirements that the person does have above average skills.
I understand. I'm not doing a good job communicating my position. I'm in the camp you're describing: I've historically been complaining about the H1B program and how it's run, I'm also pro H1B now after this announcement like you say.
To elaborate, I'm not pro or anti H1B per se. I'm for bringing in skilled immigrates with a reasonable qualification criteria. I agree that H1B has been abused in the past and should be reformed. I'm ALSO against just outright killing the H1B program without a replacement, which is what this EO seems to be trying to do. It's not because it's trump did it, it's because the of the chaos and confusion of this rollout (which I think is likely intentional) and because if this holds it'll cripple the H1B program which in turn will cripple the inflow of skilled immigrants.
Basically I'm against the H1B program as it was, but I'm in favor of keeping it as it was over what is being done here.
That’s fair.
I think as usual Trump did things in the most disruptive, ridiculous way possible.
I think there are enough Tech and finance jobs to pay the 8.5 billion that this will cost to bring in 85k workers.
Goomba fallacy.
> A $100k per year fee doesn't fix that, but it does make them so expensive that they are really only viable for $300k+ positions
It also incentivizes the CTO to promote a cost saving measure. For any job that doesn't absolutely require onshore presence, lets move it offshore. We can save 100k per position and also retain talent.
Companies have been offshoring jobs due to the tax rule change. Personally I know lot of Google teams which have been offshored. So, I don't understand why people think this will somehow cause job retention. Some jobs might be retained and more will be lost. Acting as if this $100k is somehow a good idea shows lack of understanding of how real world works.
In the meantime, rural medical teams who employ H1B doctors will be decimated. But before that these pesky billion dollar companies need to be taught a lesson.
Are you sure that the people supporting H1B now are the same people who opposed it before? Do you think it's possible the people in favor of H1B were quiet before because they were happy with the status quo, and the people against H1B are quiet now for the same reason? It's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.
> It's wild to watch the zeitgeist among many programmers swap in real time from being against H-1B visas to pro H-1B visas the second Trump goes after them.
Trump isn’t going after them, he is converting them into another channel for arbitrary favoritism and graft.
Being against the H-1b as a bad system does not conflict with being against the way Trump is making that system worse.
Sure that's a thing he might do. I think the most likely outcome is that big tech ends up scooping up all the H-1B slots.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm not saying people were anti H-1B visa and now they still are, but disagree with Trump's "solution" I'm seeing comments full of "H-1Bs are good actually".
What's really wild is anyone seeing that the solution to the multitude of real and self-inflicted problems in this country is...
A shakedown of and a head tax on immigrants.
I wonder what's next. Maybe stealing their 401Ks and their SS contributions?
Replace "immigrant" with "Jew" and you have some idea of the human failings on display here.
[flagged]
That's clearly not a solution to any of the other problems in the country. But making a bad visa program more expensive to employers abusing it is potentially a way to mitigate it.
Here's Bernie Sanders comments on the H-1B visa.
"The main function of the H-1B visa program is not to hire “the best and the brightest,” but rather to replace good-paying American jobs with low-wage indentured servants from abroad."
It's funny that you quote Sanders on this, when this EO's solution to 'human beings are being mistreated' is not 'stop mistreating them' it's 'lets do our best to throw as many as we can out'.
It's right up there with Oregon's stance on slavery. (The state banned it and fought for the Union on the basis that it didn't want any --------- living in it, even enslaved ones.)
>when this EO's solution to 'human beings are being mistreated' is not 'stop mistreating them' it's 'lets do our best to throw as many as we can out'.
I mean everything the Trump Whitehouse does is a mess, but they said that this only applies to new applicants, so it's not throwing anyone out.
Bernie's quote mentions 2 classes of people being mistreated. H-1B workers and American workers. Since the H-1B workers are being used as leverage to mistreat American workers, reducing the number of new H-1B workers coming in is certainly one way to mitigate harm to American workers.
I don't know how many people we should let in under H-1B, but I'd prefer they get rid of the requirements to find a new job within 60 days. That doesn't mean I don't think that making the program more expensive isn't beneficial.
Microsoft laid off tens of thousands in the last few years. Clearly there’s no “talent shortage”.
How do you know the people laid off were talented?
If they weren’t talented, I hope the aforementioned layoffs included the nimrods who hired them.
Just causing chaos and confusion for no reason. Not that it matters, but can he even do this without Congress? One of the most frustrating things is witnessing all the things this admin has done that a normal admin wouldn't be able to do within "rules and norms" like we couldn't even get student loan cancellation under Biden.
Does it matter when you have a Congress that does not care what he does?
Summed together with the study visa changes: Thanks Trump for helping solve Brazil's brain drain.
So much for being a safe and lucrative place for all the best minds of the world.
I could be wrong but I thought O-1 was the genius visa and H1B was the skilled labor visa.
>> I thought O-1 was the genius visa
Yes, you have to be a genius to go through a 1yr online remote masters program which is mostly group work and essentially a fee for undercutting others on the queue:
https://www.smu.edu/online/masters/data-science
https://pe.gatech.edu/georgia-tech-online or
If you think H1B brings “the best minds of the world” I have a bridge to sell you.
That argument only works if society distributes wealth more equitably.
Current setup simply brings in foreign labor so that capitalists can reduce wages and they pocket the profit, while Americans pocket the costs. Not to mention migrating for purely economic reasons is obviously not going to make the locals like you very much.
[dead]
Doesn't the 100k fee ensure only the best (most worthwhile in a capitalist system) come and you don't end up with mass used to undercut local wages?
Nah, the employer will happily get rid of the US headcount and rehire the same guy in their home country or UK/Canada etc while paying a third of the salary. Zero employer is going to pay $100k.
At big tech companies they are already paying $200k or more than they'd pay the same worker in their home country for existing H-1Bs. An extra $100k might tip the scale for some but not for all.
The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.
> The most likely outcome is that body shops can no longer afford H-1Bs, but big tech still can.
For publicly-held large tech, the equation isn't about affordability but about maximizing shareholder dividends. Moving jobs overseas has long been the preferred means to that end.
Sure, but they have always been able to do that. It's always been cheaper to hire employees overseas than to employe H-1Bs here. Making H-1Bs more expensive increases the delta and probably makes it more attractive for some jobs. But clearly there is some value in employing people in the US or they would have already moved the jobs.
> Sure, but they have always been able to do that.
I think the newness (some period before 2020) of tech in general tended to intimidate those legacy shareholder groups who got in early. And I suspect that early shareholding was often dominated by employees, etc (not sure tho).
I think those interests plus the proximity to adjacent industries created strong interest in US Gov's (now-former) incentives to create to bring many of the best minds here.
We've dialed back all the above. We've put truly hostile interests in power that are weaponizing Gov assets & millions of supporters - against every manifestation of immigration. Our actual outcomes are flavored with rising Gov violence and populist animosity toward (mostly non-white) immigrants and those associated with them.
Considering what and where we are, I absolutely see this high-paying, historical class of jobs being shipped overseas.
Ok but if that’s the case it’s happening with or without an extra 100k in H-1B costs. The best you can say is that the extra fee speeds it up.
Big tech can get waiver from DHS.
Cheap labor exists because there is a demand for it. Body shops don't pay those wages - companies who hire those bodies from body shops do. So, body shops are going to raise prices accordingly.
"You need someone to manage your Oracle/SAP ERP systems and do a horrible job of it? And that person needs to be here locally? That will be an extra $60k from our last contract because we cannot bring in cheap bodies now." (assuming they eat $40k of the costs)
In the meantime rural medical centers will be devasted because many teams are made of H1B doctors.
H1B certainly requires more government oversight. But doing their jobs or applying critical thinking skills isn't a criteria for this administration.
Extra $100k might "tip the scale"? If you are the employer, are you going to shell out 50% more for no good reason?
Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means.
>Amazon has over 10k H1B workers. Think about how much money it means.
Something like 0.3% of their yearly profit.
They're already paying probably somewhere near $200k a year more. Clearly it's not for no good reason. Clearly there is some advantage to employing them here if they are already willing to pay $200k more than they have to.
An extra $100k doesn't erase whatever that value is. The question is, is employing them here worth $200k to Amazon, but not $300k? Likely the case for some employees, but almost certainly not all.
Care to show your math?
From your post
>while paying a third of the salary
If they're paying $300k, they are paying $200k extra to employ that person in the US.
That 0.3% seems quite a bit off.
10k * 100k is 1 billion, which is 0.3% of 300 billion.
It's exactly like the tariff war with china. India refused to put sanctions on russia (who helped india in its wars with pakistan, who received help from USA), so now trump is saying we don't want your people in here. The outcome is probably going to be similar to the tariff war as well. They'll start out with totally absurd bullshit and then come down to something more reasonable. Maybe $10-20k per worker per year. From the point of view of the state, humans are just another resource, like crude oil. If you don't have something, you import it. And what's happening right now is haggling at the global scale. It's just a bunch of gorillas thumping their chests. Nobody cares about the citizens.
Yep, it's definitely designed to target indians. Navratri starts on monday lol.
Couldn't companies have already done that if it was so easy to save 2/3 of the salary?
They already do. IBM has ~100K employees in India out of some 250-300K. That same labor budget would pay for 1/3rd that in the US.
Edited to add: The local Indian economy doesn't sustain those many IBM employees. They are servicing the rest of the world.
Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
They are, and increasingly so for the past 2-3 years. I guess you have not been paying attention.
I know as a matter of fact that my company and other companies almost exclusively create new headcounts in India/UK/Germany. US headcounts are only for replacement or as exceptions. Even some replacement headcounts are moved overseas.
Exactly, so this $100K fee shouldn't change anything that isn't already happening. If they could ship the jobs elsewhere that you're worried about, they would have already?
What do you think recent layoffs are for?
I don't understand what point you're trying to make. I think we're saying the same thing - $100K fee won't change anything.
Yeah, I suspect more jobs are going overseas now.
Certainly some will, but if we have learned anything from the 1990-Now, it is that remote R&D doesn't always save money or even work effectively at all.
The pressure to juice short-term dividends is as ceaseless as gravity or oxidation. It has to be overcome before lessons-learned can transform into wisdom-based outcomes.
The world in 1990 is no longer the world now.
As someone who works with colleagues from India (like, physically in India), I don't see any reason the company keeps me over some other random guy in India, to be honest.
A big change from then to now for remote collaboration is better connectivity in general, and technology such as Zoom and Teams. But how do you handle the time zone difference? That has always been the issue I've seen with any kind of real-time collaboration with contracrors or employees in India. If it's work that doesn't involve that, then what is the big difference now? Github? Slack?
If companies like airbnb allow you to work from anywhere in the world, it means timezone is not a problem. It definitely needs some investment though.
> what is the big difference now?
What is the difference between pre-2020 full-time in-office, vs 3 day or even fully remote? Nothing, in my opinion (CEOs don't agree though). If people are productive with 3 days in office, that could have been the norm before 2020.
All you need is someone actually making it happen.
Not really. The H1b and O visas were never used for "genius" talent, they are typically used by the WITCH companies to pay people bottom-rate wages (40k-60k for HCOL city) so companies can underpay market wages.
If you have to pay 100k, you might as well hire an American worker. The "shortages" will mysteriously disappear.
When I got my first LCA 14 years ago, the min salary my employer had to pay was 77k (and I actually got 90k). How on earth do Indian outsourcing companies get 401ks for employees earning only 40-60k?
Exactly. It might not make economic sense to pay the fee for $40k wages. But maybe it does for $500 k/yr Google/meta employee
No, because after the spectacle of human cruelty from the initial implementation has faded, large companies will cozy up to the regime ($$bribes$$) and the per-employee government fees will be waved.
Furthermore as we've seen with "return to office", companies are more concerned with having control than with the bottom line. This new dynamic gives them one more thing to hold over H1Bs heads. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the number of H1Bs increases.
The median salary of someone on H1B is higher than someone not on H1B.
If H1B is gone we will see a decrease in wages not an increase.
>The median salary of someone on H1B is higher than someone not on H1B.
Not within the same job in the same location they aren't.
If you're on an H-1B and you get fired or laid off, you have 60 days to find a new job or be deported. That creates an underclass of workers who are willing to put up with much worse working conditions and work longer hours. That drives down working conditions and wages for everyone.
>Not within the same job in the same location they aren't.
The actual data doesn't support this belief. 100% offer market wages and 78% offer higher than market wages.
1. I'd need to see the exact data you're citing.
2. It's a common tactic to employ people on H-1Bs in a lower paying job title while having the perform the work of a higher paying title.
3. You'd need to adjust for average number of hours worked.
None of what you said is true.
https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/The-Impact-of-H-...
“In fiscal 2018, 70% of approved H-1B petitions were for workers 30 years of age and older—a significant indicator that those workers already possess at least six to eight years of experience. Further, H-1B workers’ educational levels, which are an important determinant of skills, indicate they should be filling higher-skilled positions. In fact, 63% of all H-1B workers held an advanced degree (master’s, professional, or doctorate degree),32 meaning one could reasonably conclude that a majority of H-1B workers have the educational attainment and/or years of experience to fill positions at wage levels 3 and 4. These data suggest it is likely that H-1B employers are underpaying workers relative to their skill levels.”
https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wa...
Anecdotally, I have seen the h1b under leveling happen multiple times. But not sure it’s common enough to skew the data but it does stand out when it happens because you have a great engineer with 10 years experience and you find out they are an SDE1. For every one of those there are probably 10 that are correctly leveled or over leveled.
Bold claim cotton
The data is publicly available.
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/foreign-labor/performance
This proves the first part of your claim, not the second (which is wild speculation and no data exists)
The US has successfully brain-drained the rest of the world over the last 20 years.
https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/The-Impact-of-H-...
70% of H1Bs are from India: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/20/h-1b-visa-fee-timel.... That’s five times more than China. Are we really to believe that the supermajority of “the best minds of the world” come from a single country? Or is the marketing of H1B quite different from the product Americans are actually receiving.
India has the largest population on Earth and Indians have more incentives to leave their country than Chinese.
India has 130 million college graduates, and 70% of H1bs. Mexico, Brazil, and Colombia together have over 50 million graduates, but only around 2% of H1bs combined.
So the US is more popular among Indians than among Mexicans, Brazilians, and Colombians. What is the point?
And why these countries when I've already said the same about Indians vs. Chinese?
The point is that it strongly suggests the system is being abused by India. Even excluding developed countries where people might lack incentive to move, India doesn’t come close to having 70% of “the talent.” Latin America alone probably has as many college graduates as India, accounting for higher college attendance rates. But Latin America accounts for a small share of H1bs while India accounts for 70%.
That argument is not sound. English is an official language of India, of course Indians are much more likely to seek work in the UK and the US than people from Latin America. You have failed to present any evidence concerning the skill levels of Indian H1B holders, and, moreover, since India has the largest population of all countries, those 130M college graduates must have gone through some very tough selection.
> English is an official language of India, of course Indians are much more likely to seek work in the UK and the US than people from Latin America.
The U.S. is also much closer to Latin America, and has a large Latino community already. The disparity in H1bs (70% versus 2% for Mexico/Brazil/Colombia) is just too huge to explain by language preferences.
> since India has the largest population of all countries, those 130M college graduates must have gone through some very tough selection.
Not at all. Outside the top schools standards plummet. Half of those graduates are not qualified to work in their fields: https://www.tbsnews.net/bloomberg-special/worthless-degrees-...
This is the most desperate and feeble attempt to save an argument I've seen in a long time. How about you try find some actual evidence to support your claims instead these wild constructions.
> The disparity in H1bs (70% versus 2% for Mexico/Brazil/Colombia) is just too huge to explain by language preferences.
You base your position on these kind "hunches"? "Just too huge to explain". No, it isn't just too huge to explain. It's really that simple. India is the largest country of the world in terms of population, English is an official language of India, hence there is a substantial amount of people with high qualifications who use those qualifications to seek employment in major English speaking countries like the US and the UK with visas like the H1B. There are also many Chinese people in those countries but the language barrier makes it much harder for them.
People from Latin America have a hard time getting hired for highly qualified jobs in the US for various reasons, one of them being the language barrier.
By the way, if there was some conspiracy to hire Indians with low qualifications, then you'd still have not done anything to explain why these people should be Indians as opposed to Latin Americans. The argument makes no sense. Can't you see that? I'm genuinely puzzled.
The second largest recipient of h1bs in 2025 was Cognizant, an Indian company that was found liable by a jury for favoring Indian workers: https://insider.govtech.com/california/news/jury-finds-discr...
Finally, the best and brightest minds in the world can stay in their home countries and improve them, rather than brain drain the nation that raised them. What a blessing for those of us who care about the world!
Jesus fucking Christ reading the comments on that thread.
this site is so much better than X
Most people on HN appear to be using it for submissions now, which is a welcome development.
All: please submit the original source and then add a link to alt sources in the comments.
I know the twitwall is frustrating (it is to us too) but we want HN posts to link to original sources, and for the site name to the right of the title to reflect that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.
We're happy to pin the alt links to the top of a thread and/or to move them into the top text, as I did in the current case.
x.com isn't even accessible from Firefox. It tries to trick you into turning off enhanced tracking protection claiming it is "known to cause issues" (the "issues" presumably being with them invading your privacy).
I just accessed x.com from Firefox 143.0.1, and there was no such message or claim. It just displayed the site without any warning or ceremony. I have not visited the site with this browser before.
In my experience, it's often blocked if it's embedded in another page. You can visit x.com directly without issues.
You probably have enhanced tracking protection turned off. The message appears for me right now (FF 143.0).
It will never last. There is a 0% chance even one company or person will ever pay this fee. Only an act of congress can change visa requirements, and it will never come up for a full floor vote. Ever. So it will be in legal limbo, and therefore can be ignored.
Only congress can enact tariffs, but we're all paying them anyway.
I think it's not quite tree due to the Reciprocal Tariff Act. Depends on how you define reciprocal of course.
Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_Tariff_Act
>There is a 0% chance even one company or person will ever pay this fee
All through Trump's second term, and before, people have said things precisely like this. And here we are. At some point we realize that people just make such confident pronouncements because they think it bends reality towards their hopes.
>Only an act of congress can change visa requirements
It isn't a visa requirement. It's a processing fee. As of midnight no H1B will be considered without the fee. It is very real, and it is absolutely going into effect. Now places like Microsoft are panicking in the information gap currently, but the admin has clarified that it only applies to new H1B applicants.
As to the legal limbo, not only won't there be one, the Supreme Court has rubber stamped just about everything this admin has done.
The guy has both houses of congress, the courts, the DOJ, the full apparatus of government...at this point I find it simply amazing that people still dismiss the reality that he basically does whatever he wants.
Has the administration officially confirmed this applies to new applicants only? All the reporting I’ve seen on this are from unnamed officials.
https://www.moneycontrol.com/world/us-official-clarifies-100...
The specific quote can be found in a number of media sources-
"Those who are visiting or leaving the country, or visiting India, they don't need to rush back before Sunday or pay the $100,000 fee. $100,000 is only for new and not current existing holders"
EDIT: Weirdly the parent edited in the "unnamed official" bit after I made my comment, then replied as if I'm illiterate.
Regardless, if "unnamed officials" are being cited by every major media source, it's obvious policy, especially given how vague and uncertain so many details of this are.
> It's obvious policy, given how vague and uncertain many details of this are.
" Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) Pursuant to sections 212(f) and 215(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1182(f) and 1185(a), the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000 — subject to the exceptions set forth in subsection (c) of this section."
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...
Personally, I do not see anything vague and uncertain about that. I agree that how Trump has been handling things anything and everything is vague and uncertain. But the language of the actual executive order, which in any sane jurisdiction would be the only thing relevant, is pretty clear. Note how it says "restriction on entry", and zero about new applicants.
Also unnamed official. Where is the official white house announcement?
This is why the new 100k policy allows the government the discretion to exempt their friends from the fee. Want H1Bs? Bend the knee.