politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I just said, in the very comment you're replying to, that an additional fee doesn't do that. Even if the goal is a good one, this isn't an effective way to do it. $100,000 is a pittance to any company big enough to be importing overseas labor in the first place. Even if it wasn't, it's absolutely worth it for them to pay $100k now in exchange for getting a $50k per year discount on labor for that role.
Charging them $100,000 is objectively better than charging them nothing. You're not actually making a point here, you're just quibbling over details.
The details are really all that matter. If the thing you support doesn't have the impact, and worse causes a serious defect in the process, then what exactly are you holding onto?
Is it, though? If the big companies causing this problem are just ignoring the cost, and the small companies that might actually need to bring people in from overseas for legitimate reasons can't afford to pay it, is it doing more good than harm?
There's an Ethiopian restaurant in my old neighborhood that was very clearly run by a couple who used it as a way to get their cousins and friends out of Ethiopia in the '80s and '90s. They wouldn't be able to do that with a $100,000 visa fee; that's more than the restaurant makes in a year, after expenses.
And I've known a couple of people who have some very specific, very niche skill sets that aren't taught at trade schools in the US; skills like scientific glassblowing, which small companies disproportionately need more than big companies. When the previous guy retires from the job, the company has to decide whether to outsource the production, hire someone to move from overseas, or exit a product line entirely (maybe going out of business in the process). When a $100,000 visa fee is introduced, their options are decreased by one. When there are also insane tariffs, their options decrease even further.
So no, I'd argue that charging them $100,000 is objectively worse than charging them nothing. It doesn't harm the companies that are abusing the system, and it harms or even kills the companies for whom the H1B was originally created.
OK, fair point.
No idea why it took you so long to make it, but fair point all the same.