Chamber of Commerce sues over Trump's $100K H-1B paywall The US Chamber of Commerce (CoC) has filed a suit accusing President Trump of exceeding his authority by seeking to slap a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications. H-1Bs are a favored tool of tech companies to fill high-end skills gaps with qualified foreign-born workers. The scheme has been the gateway to the US for the likes …
But this is what the peons, decade after decade, keep thinking that they want and continuously seem to vote for. Then complain [only] when it hits them.
This has (sadly) been true for, apparently, far, far too long, leading to the quintessential American phrase:
"Never Argue With Stupid People. They Will Drag You Down To Their Level and Then Beat You With Experience"
I'm no fan of that self-serving prat Farage, but name one sensible alternative? You got Starmer the ECHR apologist and his fondness for Ukrainain rent-boys. You got Badenoch who's like fart in a colandar and doesn't know which hole to pop through from day-to-day. Then you have the glory-hunter muppet from the Green Party who will do or say anything to get his mug in the media!
Sorry but as far as I'm concerned they're all as bloody uselses as each other and I would advise everyone abstain the next GE. Not wasting my time voting for the shite-show on offer.
I would advise everyone abstain the next GE
I wouldn't. Not unless you want to live with the consequences of having let Farage and Reform take control.
The parties may all be shit but you can at least make an effort to stop the worst shit taking control.
I am not going to let my inaction allow racists and fascists to secure power. I couldn't live with myself if I hadn't done what I could to prevent that. Sometimes you have to grit your teeth and do the right thing for the greater good.
You didn't slag off the Lib-Dems; so perhaps vote for them ?
That's the irony - they may prove the only non-irritating alternative. If they could only find some intelligent ideas and someone with more charisma than the average house brick they could stand a chance. As far as I can tell, Starmer is doing a Tony Blair but isn't smart enough for it, nor can he lie with as much eloquence so he's already losing the plot, and the country.
Libdem's pretty much shot themselves in the foot when they signed up with the Tories some years back: Promises made weren't kept, and people felt they were worse than a wet lettuce.
A shame as the Libs used to be one of the big two (A very long time ago), but were displaced by Labour.
I do agree that people need to vote rather than abstain: The question is who to vote for. My own approach is to look at the independent candidates and see if any of those are any good. An independent might not be able to form a government, but if there's enough independents, they can throw a real nasty spanner in the works of which ever party/coalition does form the next government.
Libdem's pretty much shot themselves in the foot when they signed up with the Tories some years back: Promises made weren't kept, and people felt they were worse than a wet lettuce.
They were severely punished for that, and rightly so.
But that was then, and this is now. Things have moved on in a decade and, if we shouldn't vote for a party because they fucked-up in the past, no one will need polling cards.
While Clegg should never have folded on fees so quickly or easily - his "sorry" was never going to be enough, it has become clearer in retrospect that they did prevent or limit some of the worse excesses Tories would have inflicted upon the nation.
I might be wrong, but aren't H1B visa requests specifically for one particular person? That I understand the Googles and Facebooks interview a shitload of people, and it's only after they decided to hire somebody that they say "ok let's try to get a H1B visa for this guy, if we don't get it he'll stay for a couple of years in Bengaluru until we can bring him to the US as an internal transfer"
Yes, that is how the visa process works, but I think the person you replied to was making a different point. They allege that, when they've seen these people hired, the job description was aimed at either one predefined person in particular or only people from certain backgrounds. I'm not sure how easily you can do that, how you'd identify your one target beforehand, or why you would bother to if you could just select your preferred candidate during interviews anyway, but that's what they're suggesting which isn't incompatible with the visa process.
Same kneejerk reactions again - people don't seem to get that Trump "goes in high" purely as a negotiating tactic - he hasn't declared a $100,000 fee because he thinks that where the fee needs to be, he's declared a $100,000 fee to make people sit up and think about the current state of affairs - and 'hey presto' everyone is talking about it - so he has already achieved what he wants.
You'll have noted the bit in the article where the head of the CoC is now encouraging Congress to address various related issues...
When Trump reaches a suitable compromise, of course we'll hear all the TACO comments again, but chances are the end result will be along the lines of what he was after in the first place anyway.
People need to calm down, stop the echo chamber reactions, and understand who this guy is and how he operates - sure it's more like a used-car salesman than normally expected from the office, but hey-ho...
The point here is not $100k is too much and we'll get something more reasonable. The point is, he's not allowed to do that, period. By law, the fees are only supposed to cover the cost of the program. It's like he's stealing a billion dollars and you say don't worry in the end he'll only steal ten millions.
This post has been deleted by its author
This post has been deleted by its author
Nah, the fee's still there and still 100K. The negotiate down bit is just that the secretary of homeland security can cancel the requirement for the fee paid to DHS. Once she says so, no fee! The opportunity for graft should be blatantly obvious. If it's somehow not something you can see, I'm sure Trump can.
People need to calm down, stop the echo chamber reactions, and understand who this guy is and how he operates.
We know who he is and how he operates: He's a bullying tyrant and acts as a bullying tyrant.
His threats to bring countries to their knees if they don't do as he demands is nothing short of terrorism.
Living in a country run by a bullying terrorist tyrant is nothing to be proud of, nor should it be something to be applauded.
His threats to bring countries to their knees if they don't do as he demands is nothing short of terrorism.
A little context...
So, back in Trump's first administration he begged and pleaded with NATO "allies" asking them to increase their military spending. He was ignored by most. Putin took that as yet another sign of NATO weakness and simply invaded a neighboring country. _That_ was on NATO, not Trump. Let us not forget the whole Nordstream-2 kerfuffle. Trump (as well as Obama) told Europe it was moronic to grow dependent on Russia. Again he was blatantly ignored. And again Putin interpreted the lack of action as a show of a major weakness (because that is what it was). All our energy policies lead us to where we are today. Just look at the nincompoops who still, to this day, argue against nuclear energy. Even here in a forum where most participants have deep technological knowledge.
Now enter Trump v2. Now we in Europe get to experience the fallback of the lying bastards and traitors we have elected for years. It is as Kathryn Porter pointed out in her talk with Triggernometry: We elect history majors. Not people with a technology background.
The sad truth: We need someone like Trump.
In this case they have not, as Legal Eagle explains https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kz-Hn1k0Lk I saw it a few weeks ago so don't recall all of the details, but it is an interesting watch.
If there was a situation where the fees, etc were not explicitly stated in law already, the president may have a way to do what he is doing, but at least in this particular case the fees are explicitly set and so he does not have authority to change them without passing a new law.
... is there *are* no Americans to fill these jobs.
And that the standard of training in other countries, especially the likes of India, is so high that the average yank wouldn't have a chance of qualifying in doctoring or STEM there.
The sad thing is that this muppet doesn't get that America was built by immigrants and is all the better for it.
Where does he think his pizza, which he famously eats with a knife and fork (see The Daily Show), came from.
Stop doctors and nurses coming into the country and see how the hospitals fare.
Stop IT professionals coming and see what happens to the tech industry.
The likes of Australia/NZ do have an immigration policy that sometimes says you need a certain amount of money in the bank and achieve a certain number of points.
Unless have skills that are *highly* sought after.
But you or the company dont have to pay it to the government - just show you have the means to support yourself.
I know this because I considered moving there about 20yrs ago.
Fun fact - when I filled out a test application that mimicked the official one...
The job of Librarian scored higher than IT Professional. No joke!
Example of the H1B problem...
The US employee replacement thing IS real -- I have seen it. Where I was working a decade or so ago, there was a project where a group of US (and CA) contractors were working on a forward-looking demo project. Every time we pulled together a release, the integrations went very well. My own code had one or two bugs *at most* during integration, usually zero. The integration cycles were fairly quick (a few weeks.) (I independently tested everything multiple time, during all kinds of normally unexpected situations.) Initially, the operation was extremely robust during error situations. When the non-US/CA contractors were brought in, the quality dropped. The code ended up being so fragile that it should have been embarrassing. All but one of the US/CA workers were let go, and the non-US/CA workers took over. I am pretty sure that they cost perhaps 1/2 of what we typically did, and I know that, in my case, the total cost of my time was less than $200k/yr. (I was nearing the end of my work career (years, not months), and didn't mind making less money than usual.) I have been within a degree or two of separation on several of this kind of instance. This wasn't likely a decision made by mgmt immediately above the workers, but a situation imposed at higher, corporate levels... This was probably just a spending savings matter at year's end. The company had every right to do what they did, but the total economic cost should be paid by the compony, not just the immediate labor cost. I don't like strong governmental control of things, but the border is one very legitimate place where the federal government does/should have control. How did the project go? It couldn't have gone well, but I simply don't know.
Stop doctors and nurses coming into the country and see how the hospitals fare.
Stop IT professionals coming and see what happens to the tech industry.
As far as I can tell, that is exactly what he is after.
From the look of it, Trump's explicit goal is to destroy the country, and so far he's doing a bang up job of it. I don't know for whom he is doing it, but my bet would be on Putin.
What I don't get is how Putin keeps him under control, because he's known to eventually turn on practically everyone who has ever helped him. There must be more than just Epstein, and I suspect Melania knows some of it.
"This includes doctors, with a shortfall of up to 139,000 physicians predicted by 2033, as well as gaps in education and STEM in general."
Well, so long as he doesn't cut University, Schooling and research budgets and fill important positions with sycophants this issue will no doubt go away
For clarity, the skills are 'High' but the salary is 'cheaper' !!!
Standard US of A Business practices ... money counts ALWAYS.
It is projected as 'Nasty Foreigners' taking jobs ... but usually there is a skills shortage which cannot be filled by US people ... the business is simply getting the level of skills they want AND at a reduced salary !!!
If a US person has the skills they can apply BUT the salary will still be at the low rate and often this is the reason why no 'American' applies.
Don't blame the 'foreign worker' ... blame the company for listing the job at a reduced rate.
This is not just the US of A, I have experienced jobs being posted at stupid rates of pay then HR and others complain that no-one applies !!!???
If there are skills shortages there should be a boost in pay to chase the reduced numbers of people with the skills !!!
Chasing 'Foreign workers' with the skills is cheaper and it is also easier to 'drop' them when they have been 'used' !!!
[Does this remind you of 'Caring & Sharing' employee-focused practices in the US of A !!!]
:)
Or maybe it's a reflection on the way the "open and competitive" US economy has built such elevated structural costs into the basic fabric of American life - education, housing, health care, child care, transport - that it's becoming increasingly unsustainable to pay Americans the salaries they expect.
Perhaps with a little more social security (in the broadest sense), Americans might be more reasonably-priced.
The people responsible for making their products so needed that they become part of those (need a degree to flip burgers so the university administrator graft gets their cut, 4 generations ago they cut public transit so you need a car so the automaker bosses get their cut, etc) have no desire to pay for the social security either, so good luck.
H1B visa's have been hurting US compsci grads for well longer than AI has been a thing. Anyone who thinks this restriction on them isn't an amazing thing either 1. has not tried to get a job in the tech industry in the US in the last decade or 2. has a financial interest in paying WAY below fair market rates for someone with a technical degree.
The way the H-1B program is typically presented in these sorts of debates hinges on an oddly symbiotic consensus of hypocritical doublespeak between the program's corporate supporters and its anti-immigrant opponents.
Employers arguing in favor of H-1B disingenuously wrap themselves in the garb of tolerance and multiculturalism to obscure the extent to which their support is grounded in the ability to use the conditions and restrictions of the visa program itself to clamp down on foreign workers' freedom to say no to an abusive or exploitative employer.
On the flip side, xenophobes disingenuously wrap themselves in the garb of pro-worker populism to obscure the extent to which their a priori goal of clamping down on foreigners ultimately ends up hurting domestic workers, by making foreign workers easier for employers to mistreat (which ironically only makes companies want to hire them even more).
Restructuring the H-1B program in a genuinely pro-immigrant way, so that an individual visa holder would be free to quit an abusive job and search for another without the threat of imminent deportation, would degrade companies' ability to use the program's restrictiveness as leverage over their workforce, while also offending the sensibilities of those for whom hatred of foreigners is a goal in and of itself, not necessarily a means to any other end.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
