this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2026

267 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30038 readers

2021 users here now

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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

outrageousmatter@lemmy.world

aidan@lemmy.world

jordanlund@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world

JuBe@lemmy.world

Lasherz12@lemmy.world

267

Federal judge voids Trump’s $100,000 fee requirement for H-1B visas (www.cnn.com)

submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by TryingToBeGood@reddthat.com to c/politics@lemmy.world

34 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Sorry, paywall popped up; better:

https://www.reuters.com/world/trumps-100000-h-1b-visa-fee-is-unlawful-us-judge-rules-2026-06-08/

“Unlawful tax”

top 34 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Lasherz12@lemmy.world 41 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Trail of victims and no payouts. Preliminary injunctions are not optional in any of these cases.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 15 points 3 days ago

[–] BillCheddar@lemmy.world 16 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Should be $100,000 multiplied by the pay & compensation gap between the lowest person and the highest person at the company.

So a $9 million CEO and a $30,000 janitor is a 300x difference, so that company would pay $30,000,000 for a visa. THAT would show you actually need someone badly enough to tell tens of thousands of qualified Americans to fuck off.

[–] mkwt@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

In any case, whatever the scheme is, it should be voted upon by our Congressional representatives in Congress and enacted by Congress, and signed into law by the President. That is how the H1-B visa was created in the first place, and that is how taxes are raised in this country: with representation.

[–] tuxiqae@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 days ago

I feel likr companies will just fire janitors and hire contractors instead so it won't count

[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 5 points 3 days ago

Just in time for the 33,000 Amazon sponsored Visas

Smh

[+] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works -31 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Pity. One of the only good ideas that government has ever had. But of course, even when they're right, they're too corrupt and incompetent to actually get anywhere.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 33 points 3 days ago (3 children)

I assume you think this was a good idea because it encouraged businesses to hire locally rather than hiring internationally. But really all it did was ensure that large companies (rather than immigration officials) were in charge of deciding who was and wasn't allowed to work in the United States. Rather than improving overall employment, it just reinforced oligarchy.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 25 points 3 days ago (2 children)

The H1-B visa system is a trash system.

It is intended to cover cases where companies can't find a domestic talent pool that meets their needs.

In reality, it's a way for companies to import cheap labor, then hold their visas over their heads to drive down wages.

It should be prohibitively expensive to outsource work to foreign labor. Instead, it's cheaper, which is why the system is being abused, and why tacking an effective tax on that labor was good.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 11 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Except $100,000 is a pittance to any company big enough to be importing cheap labor in the first place. These are companies that shrug off billion-dollar fines, they have $100k in the executive boardroom couch cushions, so it's absolutely worth it for them to pay $100k to the government in exchange for getting a $50k per year discount on labor for that role.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Rather than dancing around it we should just be taxing the rich. Crap like taxing yachts, or country club memberships, or tailored suits just present a slight nuisance to billionaires. The problem isn't that they buy these things but that they have insane amounts of money to throw at their problems.

[–] W98BSoD@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 3 days ago

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

Exactly. The root of the problem isn't cheap overseas labor, it's that companies and billionaires have the money to do whatever they want regardless of the cost.

[–] testfactor@lemmy.world 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's a 3yr visa and a $100k application fee. So yeah, if you're paying someone $50k/yr under market value, that's a savings of $50k (as opposed to the $150k savings it was without the fee).

I agree it might not kill the program outright, but it shouldn't. The actual stated intent of the program is good. But it would curb abuse somewhat, as it takes away a huge portion of the proposed savings.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Sure, in theory. But they're not pulling people over here for a year or two. They're getting them over here for several years, and every year they keep them on is another $50k saved.

But on the other end, you have small businesses who need specialized labor that's not available in the US. Or family businesses who want to bring other family members from out of the country and hire them to work for their little mom-and-pop shop, to further help bring their family out of poverty. Neither were likely to hire anyone local to do the job, and the $100k might be everything the business earns in a year after expenses.

So the $100k fee does nothing to curb the onshoring of cheap labor by big companies who are causing the problem you want to solve, but it completely kills the ability of people in developing nations or people here who are trying to do right by their community to hire anyone who doesn't already have the right to work in the US.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I just realized I didn't address the three year limit. Sure, they're only saving $50k over the term of the visa now. But they're gambling that the visa situation will be more favorable in three years, or that the job market will be in such shambles that they can afford to cut pay across the board, or replace people with AI, or whatever. It doesn't just save them $50k, it lets them defer that cost for three years, which is three years that money can be earning interest for them. Plus, if they write it down as compliance or governmental fees or whatever, I believe there are beneficial tax implications.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago

Agreed 10x. $100k was far too low. Should've been several times that. For that matter, H1-B should be capped at several hundred in the country, maybe a thousand, max.

[–] ramble81@lemmy.zip 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I was actually seeing the inverse. Rather than hiring locally, I started seeing more outsourced. In that case even less money is spent in the US and money just leaves the country. At least with H-1Bs they were living here and spending their money here.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

That's another great point. There are a lot of knock-on effects from this, just like there are from tariffs. (Honestly it is a tariff, just levied on people immigrating rather than goods importing)

[+] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works -6 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm not commenting on any other changes to the process that they may or may not have made. I think that the idea of attaching an additional fee to H1B visas (or their equivalents) is a good idea. We shouldn't be facilitating companies bringing in cheaper overseas workers, and attaching a hefty fee is one way to shift the economics of that back towards domestic workers.

If I say "Sandwiches are a good idea" that doesn't mean I'm in favor of going to Strychnine Joe's, Home of the Deadly Poison Sub. A good idea can still be implemented badly. That doesn't stop the idea itself from being good.

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works -1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

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.

[–] Sanguine@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 days ago

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?

[–] ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

OK, fair point.

No idea why it took you so long to make it, but fair point all the same.

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Dear Voroxpete. as someone who was affected by that Bullshit.

Go fuck yourself with a syphilitic cactus until.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

sorry how were you effected?

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Been fighting for dear life to get a greencard and I have a PhD and that BS tax made it impossible to get a job.

No, If I leave I'll never see my daughters again, so that isn't an option.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

is marrying your spouse an option?

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

she's an abusive narcissist who encouraged my suicide.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Jesus Christ. Find another one and marry dude. Greejncard process will not look good for you, with or without this law

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I have text messages from her about immigration threats. I have a valid VAWA case, but the whole system is criminaly show.

[–] kevin2107@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

yeah thats the problem she will disrupt your immigration process either way. marry another and you'll be better off

[–] IAmNorRealTakeYourMeds@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago

Someone offered to be my beard, it would be actually harder for me to get a greencard through another marriage. not only I'll have to start from scratch and wait another 6 months to 2 years, but we will be questioned and they would be criminaly liable.

on top of that the American partner will have to have a certain income, and will have to cover all my debts even if we divorce immediately after getting the greencard.

it's a very shitty system designed to be terrible.