Curious what those 70 companies are and curious about the resumes of the folks that they thought were worth it

deddog said:

---

Curious what those 70 companies are and curious about the resumes of the folks that they thought were worth it

---

Yes that is what I want to know as well but that is not public. At least I've not been able to find out. All this information should be public.

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

Curious what those 70 companies are and curious about the resumes of the folks that they thought were worth it

---

Yes that is what I want to know as well but that is not public. At least I've not been able to find out. All this information should be public.

---

You evidently need to hire one to be able to code the query correctly for that information.

Goat exposing it all

Pichael Thompson said:

---

Goat exposing it all

---

What does Michael Jordan have to do with this!?

BigRobSA said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

Curious what those 70 companies are and curious about the resumes of the folks that they thought were worth it

---

Yes that is what I want to know as well but that is not public. At least I've not been able to find out. All this information should be public.

---

You evidently need to hire one to be able to code the query correctly for that information.

---

Well the database is not available as far as I know... if you find it let me know, I can code the query myself (no AI needed either)

Way too many new slots per year, dominated by largest companies. No limits on non-profits/education employers.

For the medium-sized companies, the new 100K fee means they hire US, or they offshore. I strongly suspect most have gone off-shore. But, since it is definitely an employers market, maybe a few more are employing US, at much lower wages.

And, as I pointed out in the last related thread, offshoring is much worse for the US than H1Bs.

Just a crappy deal all around. Particularly for those starting out (new US grads).

I wonder if lack of demand is because more companies are using AI .

infinity ag said:

---

Only 70.
How come these corporations are not rushing to pay 100K for all their QA Tester and Business Analyst jobs that we absolutely must import in from India?
Can we now agree that these corporations were lying and cheating the American public by claiming that there is no talent in the US and for that we need foreigners?

Who will pay the price? Which CEO will be led away in shackles?

I demand that the Administration raise it from 100K to 250K. If not, it needs to be 100K every year, not just one time.

I am tracking this online, Indian H1Bs are now scheming on how to use other visas to temporarily stay in the country after getting laid off, and how to jump on to other visas. Tricks include filling 1000s of patents all of a sudden for trivial things so that they can claim to the Administration that they are geniuses and need to be retained. All crooks.


Few US Businesses Have Paid $100,000 Fee to Hire H-1B Workers
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/few-us-businesses-have-paid-100-000-fee-to-hire-h-1b-workers
Feb. 26, 2026, 7:08 PM CST

Quote:

---

Only about 70 employers have paid a $100,000 Trump fee on H-1B workers from outside the US since it was imposed through a September White House proclamation, a government attorney said Thursday.

The low number of payments undermines arguments that the fee is a revenue raising measure that requires explicit Congressional authorization like Trump administration tariffs struck down this month by the US Supreme Court, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis said in a court hearing.
Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs, including a nurse recruiting firm, sparred in an Oakland courtroom over the lawfulness of the $100,000 charge that plaintiffs say has eliminated the specialty occupation visa program for small employers.

That fee was the most restrictive step by the Trump administration so far targeting skilled foreign workers amid a wider immigration crackdown.

The hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California case is the second time a court has heard arguments over a challenge to the fee. A federal judge in DC previously denied an injunction in a separate suit brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. That case is now under appeal. A third lawsuit was filed by California and other Democrat-led states in the District of Massachusetts.
Attorneys in the Oakland case and in the Chamber's appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have said the recent US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs regime bolsters challenges to the H-1B fee. Justices found the Constitution's framers gave Congress, not the executive, taxing powers.
The small number of fee payers "goes to show it's not a tax because it's not raising revenue," Davis said.
But the Supreme Court has abandoned distinctions between regulatory and revenue raising taxes, said Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee.
"The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly," she said. "That delegation has to be expressed."
The justices' decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump reinforces that point, Sung said.
The Trump administration has cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of certain classes of foreign nationals. But Global Nurse Force has argued in its suit that Congress only allowed for immigration fees to cover the cost of administering programs.

---

---

lol you demand! I doubt that means much.

I would bet H-1Bs ***** and moan as much as many Americans and that is part of the reason so many are hired.

Over_ed said:

---

Way too many new slots per year, dominated by largest companies. No limits on non-profits/education employers.

For the medium-sized companies, the new 100K fee means they hire US, or they offshore. I strongly suspect most have gone off-shore. But, since it is definitely an employers market, maybe a few more are employing US, at much lower wages.

And, as I pointed out in the last related thread, offshoring is much worse for the US than H1Bs.

Just a crappy deal all around. Particularly for those starting out (new US grads).

---

You are right. H1B is just the tip of the whole thing. There are many other visas to jump to, and offshoring is very very bad. I believe Trump will fix that once things calm down, all you got to do is impose a 25% service tariff (maybe called "illegal" now but there are always loopholes and workarounds). That will reduce things and make it more fair.

My son is a new CS grad and he just got a job at a famous tech company in CA. He worked a LOT for it. Now interviewing with Google so who knows, that may work out too. It's not been easy by any means and the reason is not AI, it is offshoring and H1B parasites eating up our entry level jobs. Companies creating the AI are still hiring entry level software engineers for AI!

According to 'gemini':

The federal government has established several layers of consequences for non-compliance with H-1B regulations:
Petition Rejection or Revocation: The most direct penalty for failing to pay the $100,000 fee is that the petition will be denied, or if already approved without the required payment, it can be revoked.


Civil Monetary Penalties: General H-1B program violations (such as willful failure to meet labor conditions) carry civil fines. As of early 2026, these range from roughly $1,782 to over $50,000 per violation, depending on the severity and whether it involved the displacement of U.S. workers.


Debarment: Companies found to have willfully violated H-1B rules can be barred from participating in the H-1B and other immigration programs for up to two years.


Back Wage Orders: If an employer is found to have underpaid a worker or improperly passed fees onto them, they may be ordered to pay full back wages.

one safe place said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Only 70.
How come these corporations are not rushing to pay 100K for all their QA Tester and Business Analyst jobs that we absolutely must import in from India?
Can we now agree that these corporations were lying and cheating the American public by claiming that there is no talent in the US and for that we need foreigners?

Who will pay the price? Which CEO will be led away in shackles?

I demand that the Administration raise it from 100K to 250K. If not, it needs to be 100K every year, not just one time.

I am tracking this online, Indian H1Bs are now scheming on how to use other visas to temporarily stay in the country after getting laid off, and how to jump on to other visas. Tricks include filling 1000s of patents all of a sudden for trivial things so that they can claim to the Administration that they are geniuses and need to be retained. All crooks.


Few US Businesses Have Paid $100,000 Fee to Hire H-1B Workers
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/few-us-businesses-have-paid-100-000-fee-to-hire-h-1b-workers
Feb. 26, 2026, 7:08 PM CST

Quote:

---

Only about 70 employers have paid a $100,000 Trump fee on H-1B workers from outside the US since it was imposed through a September White House proclamation, a government attorney said Thursday.

The low number of payments undermines arguments that the fee is a revenue raising measure that requires explicit Congressional authorization like Trump administration tariffs struck down this month by the US Supreme Court, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis said in a court hearing.
Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs, including a nurse recruiting firm, sparred in an Oakland courtroom over the lawfulness of the $100,000 charge that plaintiffs say has eliminated the specialty occupation visa program for small employers.

That fee was the most restrictive step by the Trump administration so far targeting skilled foreign workers amid a wider immigration crackdown.

The hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California case is the second time a court has heard arguments over a challenge to the fee. A federal judge in DC previously denied an injunction in a separate suit brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. That case is now under appeal. A third lawsuit was filed by California and other Democrat-led states in the District of Massachusetts.
Attorneys in the Oakland case and in the Chamber's appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have said the recent US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs regime bolsters challenges to the H-1B fee. Justices found the Constitution's framers gave Congress, not the executive, taxing powers.
The small number of fee payers "goes to show it's not a tax because it's not raising revenue," Davis said.
But the Supreme Court has abandoned distinctions between regulatory and revenue raising taxes, said Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee.
"The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly," she said. "That delegation has to be expressed."
The justices' decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump reinforces that point, Sung said.
The Trump administration has cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of certain classes of foreign nationals. But Global Nurse Force has argued in its suit that Congress only allowed for immigration fees to cover the cost of administering programs.

---

---

lol you demand! I doubt that means much.

I would bet H-1Bs ***** and moan as much as many Americans and that is part of the reason so many are hired.

---

Yes, I demand.
If you also demand, we all demand, it will mean A LOT.
If you love your country and don't want it sold off to foreigners, you will also demand instead of laughing at people who do.

Think about it. Everything starts somewhere. You think Trump is talking about this on his own? He knows people are pissed off.

infinity ag said:

---

Only 70.
How come these corporations are not rushing to pay 100K for all their QA Tester and Business Analyst jobs that we absolutely must import in from India?
Can we now agree that these corporations were lying and cheating the American public by claiming that there is no talent in the US and for that we need foreigners?

Who will pay the price? Which CEO will be led away in shackles?

I demand that the Administration raise it from 100K to 250K. If not, it needs to be 100K every year, not just one time.

I am tracking this online, Indian H1Bs are now scheming on how to use other visas to temporarily stay in the country after getting laid off, and how to jump on to other visas. Tricks include filling 1000s of patents all of a sudden for trivial things so that they can claim to the Administration that they are geniuses and need to be retained. All crooks.


Few US Businesses Have Paid $100,000 Fee to Hire H-1B Workers
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/few-us-businesses-have-paid-100-000-fee-to-hire-h-1b-workers
Feb. 26, 2026, 7:08 PM CST

Quote:

---

Only about 70 employers have paid a $100,000 Trump fee on H-1B workers from outside the US since it was imposed through a September White House proclamation, a government attorney said Thursday.

The low number of payments undermines arguments that the fee is a revenue raising measure that requires explicit Congressional authorization like Trump administration tariffs struck down this month by the US Supreme Court, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis said in a court hearing.
Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs, including a nurse recruiting firm, sparred in an Oakland courtroom over the lawfulness of the $100,000 charge that plaintiffs say has eliminated the specialty occupation visa program for small employers.

That fee was the most restrictive step by the Trump administration so far targeting skilled foreign workers amid a wider immigration crackdown.

The hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California case is the second time a court has heard arguments over a challenge to the fee. A federal judge in DC previously denied an injunction in a separate suit brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. That case is now under appeal. A third lawsuit was filed by California and other Democrat-led states in the District of Massachusetts.
Attorneys in the Oakland case and in the Chamber's appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have said the recent US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs regime bolsters challenges to the H-1B fee. Justices found the Constitution's framers gave Congress, not the executive, taxing powers.
The small number of fee payers "goes to show it's not a tax because it's not raising revenue," Davis said.
But the Supreme Court has abandoned distinctions between regulatory and revenue raising taxes, said Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee.
"The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly," she said. "That delegation has to be expressed."
The justices' decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump reinforces that point, Sung said.
The Trump administration has cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of certain classes of foreign nationals. But Global Nurse Force has argued in its suit that Congress only allowed for immigration fees to cover the cost of administering programs.

---

---

The policy is absolutely working, it's a massive topic in recruiting for tech workers and the game has changed significantly. Not sure where you go from that to taking CEOs away in shackles though, they just follow the law and make policies that benefit their companies. If they didn't hire H-1s their competitors did. It's kind of like how Hillary tried to "gotcha" Trump for taking advantage of tax breaks personally.

The laws and policies are changing and the impact is occurring. If you are on H-1 or OPT and are looking for a job good luck, you better walk on water.

aggie93 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Only 70.
How come these corporations are not rushing to pay 100K for all their QA Tester and Business Analyst jobs that we absolutely must import in from India?
Can we now agree that these corporations were lying and cheating the American public by claiming that there is no talent in the US and for that we need foreigners?

Who will pay the price? Which CEO will be led away in shackles?

I demand that the Administration raise it from 100K to 250K. If not, it needs to be 100K every year, not just one time.

I am tracking this online, Indian H1Bs are now scheming on how to use other visas to temporarily stay in the country after getting laid off, and how to jump on to other visas. Tricks include filling 1000s of patents all of a sudden for trivial things so that they can claim to the Administration that they are geniuses and need to be retained. All crooks.


Few US Businesses Have Paid $100,000 Fee to Hire H-1B Workers
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/few-us-businesses-have-paid-100-000-fee-to-hire-h-1b-workers
Feb. 26, 2026, 7:08 PM CST

Quote:

---

Only about 70 employers have paid a $100,000 Trump fee on H-1B workers from outside the US since it was imposed through a September White House proclamation, a government attorney said Thursday.

The low number of payments undermines arguments that the fee is a revenue raising measure that requires explicit Congressional authorization like Trump administration tariffs struck down this month by the US Supreme Court, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis said in a court hearing.
Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs, including a nurse recruiting firm, sparred in an Oakland courtroom over the lawfulness of the $100,000 charge that plaintiffs say has eliminated the specialty occupation visa program for small employers.

That fee was the most restrictive step by the Trump administration so far targeting skilled foreign workers amid a wider immigration crackdown.

The hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California case is the second time a court has heard arguments over a challenge to the fee. A federal judge in DC previously denied an injunction in a separate suit brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. That case is now under appeal. A third lawsuit was filed by California and other Democrat-led states in the District of Massachusetts.
Attorneys in the Oakland case and in the Chamber's appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have said the recent US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs regime bolsters challenges to the H-1B fee. Justices found the Constitution's framers gave Congress, not the executive, taxing powers.
The small number of fee payers "goes to show it's not a tax because it's not raising revenue," Davis said.
But the Supreme Court has abandoned distinctions between regulatory and revenue raising taxes, said Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee.
"The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly," she said. "That delegation has to be expressed."
The justices' decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump reinforces that point, Sung said.
The Trump administration has cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of certain classes of foreign nationals. But Global Nurse Force has argued in its suit that Congress only allowed for immigration fees to cover the cost of administering programs.

---

---

The policy is absolutely working, it's a massive topic in recruiting for tech workers and the game has changed significantly. Not sure where you go from that to taking CEOs away in shackles though, they just follow the law and make policies that benefit their companies. If they didn't hire H-1s their competitors did. It's kind of like how Hillary tried to "gotcha" Trump for taking advantage of tax breaks personally.

The laws and policies are changing and the impact is occurring. If you are on H-1 or OPT and are looking for a job good luck, you better walk on water.

---

Thanks for your perspective aggie93.
Looks like it is working as almost every day I see people posting on Linkedin and Twitter that they are moving back to India "after 12 years" of course "to be closer to family".

Well, the CEOs blatantly lied to all of us. They shamelessly claimed that we have no talent in the US when we have the best talent here. Even the H1Bs they wanted to bring in, many of them got educated in the US. The real reason was always cheap labor which then put Americans out of work but they didn't care. They were enriching themselves in unethical ways though how illegal it was is under question. Whether they should be locked up is a matter of opinion, and I have no problem if people think this doesn't warrant it.

Question for you, I read chatter about people wanting to move to other visas like B1/B2 (visitor) or F1 (student) again or game the EB1 (extraordinary ability). Has the administration put in safeguards or are these in open borders territory?

Sorry for jumping into this cold. I'm writing a blog article about how MAANGs bypass hiring US workers and I dove into TexAgs to see if there was discussion on the article a month ago about TAMU's practices, and sure enough, there was in another thread.

There's two programs that corporations abuse. H1B gets the most publicity, but PERM is equally as abused.

H1B is a work visa. It is intended to be a maximum stay of 6 years. It is not intended to be a path to a Green Card.

PERM is a path to a Green Card. If you're on an H1B, to get a Green Card, you must then get on PERM.

Both can be sponsored by companies, but here are the differences:

- H1B is limited to 65k applicants/year. PERM is not limited, but gets ~150k applicants/year. The worker's spouse and children are also eligible for PERM.
- H1B is a pure lottery, but DJT is changing that to a lottery that is heavily weighted to job salary.
- H1B does not require companies to evaluate US applicants. This is the most common misconception. H1Bs also require the job to be a market wage. H1B at MAANGs are not necessarily low wage jobs. This is another common misconception.
- PERM requires companies to post and evaluate US applicants, but the way companies skirt this is absolutely atrocious and insulting. Among the many shady things they do is post on local print newspapers. In 2026.

The new H1B fee does dissuade firms from importing foreign workers, but not like you think. If they really want it, they'll just switch to PERM. However, with the job market, it is harder, but still not a huge barrier, for companies to hire foreigners.

What it does do is essentially blow up H1B hiring at WITCH firms. WITCH is an acronym for Wipro, Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, who are big consultants in Texas who are horrible abusers of the system. As consultants, WITCH companies are able to skirt the H1B salaries. Hopefully with the H1B reforms and Abbott also spotlighting them, they'll be cripled.

TL;DR-
- Only 70 companies is not entirely surprising.
- If you want real change, slap $100k and put application limits on PERM too.
- Run Wipro, Infosys, and Tat out of the state.

H1B is only 6 years?

What do the visa holders and companies do after 6 years?

bmks270 said:

---

H1B is only 6 years?

What do the visa holders and companies do after 6 years?

---

Yes. It's three with one renewal, making 6.

It gets complicated because I'm not an immigration lawyer, but as I understand it, there's three options.

1) Spouses of H1Bs can legally live here under an H4 authorization, which doesn't automatically grant an authorization to work, but often does. Since H4 isn't tied to one particular sponsoring company, that spouse's fate is tied to the free market. At the end of 6 years, the H4 spouse can find a company that switches him or her to an H1B and the original spouse switches to an H4 and continues working. Then with that renewal, you get 12 years. Some would call this a loophole.

2) More commonly, the H1B switches to PERM and continues the Green Card process. The employer now has to prove the job can't be done by an American, but like I said, the process is so egregious and easily gamed, this really isn't an issue. Literally 90% of PERM applications are approved.

3) Go home.

infinity ag said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Only 70.
How come these corporations are not rushing to pay 100K for all their QA Tester and Business Analyst jobs that we absolutely must import in from India?
Can we now agree that these corporations were lying and cheating the American public by claiming that there is no talent in the US and for that we need foreigners?

Who will pay the price? Which CEO will be led away in shackles?

I demand that the Administration raise it from 100K to 250K. If not, it needs to be 100K every year, not just one time.

I am tracking this online, Indian H1Bs are now scheming on how to use other visas to temporarily stay in the country after getting laid off, and how to jump on to other visas. Tricks include filling 1000s of patents all of a sudden for trivial things so that they can claim to the Administration that they are geniuses and need to be retained. All crooks.


Few US Businesses Have Paid $100,000 Fee to Hire H-1B Workers
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/few-us-businesses-have-paid-100-000-fee-to-hire-h-1b-workers
Feb. 26, 2026, 7:08 PM CST

Quote:

---

Only about 70 employers have paid a $100,000 Trump fee on H-1B workers from outside the US since it was imposed through a September White House proclamation, a government attorney said Thursday.

The low number of payments undermines arguments that the fee is a revenue raising measure that requires explicit Congressional authorization like Trump administration tariffs struck down this month by the US Supreme Court, Department of Justice attorney Tiberius Davis said in a court hearing.
Attorneys for the government and plaintiffs, including a nurse recruiting firm, sparred in an Oakland courtroom over the lawfulness of the $100,000 charge that plaintiffs say has eliminated the specialty occupation visa program for small employers.

That fee was the most restrictive step by the Trump administration so far targeting skilled foreign workers amid a wider immigration crackdown.

The hearing in the US District Court for the Northern District of California case is the second time a court has heard arguments over a challenge to the fee. A federal judge in DC previously denied an injunction in a separate suit brought by the US Chamber of Commerce. That case is now under appeal. A third lawsuit was filed by California and other Democrat-led states in the District of Massachusetts.
Attorneys in the Oakland case and in the Chamber's appeal at the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit have said the recent US Supreme Court decision striking down President Donald Trump's global tariffs regime bolsters challenges to the H-1B fee. Justices found the Constitution's framers gave Congress, not the executive, taxing powers.
The small number of fee payers "goes to show it's not a tax because it's not raising revenue," Davis said.
But the Supreme Court has abandoned distinctions between regulatory and revenue raising taxes, said Esther Sung, legal director at Justice Action Center and counsel for plaintiffs challenging the $100,000 fee.
"The Supreme Court has reiterated that when Congress is going to delegate discretionary authority to the executive to impose monetary assessments of any kind, regardless of whether they are characterized as fees or taxes, it has to do so clearly," she said. "That delegation has to be expressed."
The justices' decision in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump reinforces that point, Sung said.
The Trump administration has cited authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to restrict the entry of certain classes of foreign nationals. But Global Nurse Force has argued in its suit that Congress only allowed for immigration fees to cover the cost of administering programs.

---

---

The policy is absolutely working, it's a massive topic in recruiting for tech workers and the game has changed significantly. Not sure where you go from that to taking CEOs away in shackles though, they just follow the law and make policies that benefit their companies. If they didn't hire H-1s their competitors did. It's kind of like how Hillary tried to "gotcha" Trump for taking advantage of tax breaks personally.

The laws and policies are changing and the impact is occurring. If you are on H-1 or OPT and are looking for a job good luck, you better walk on water.

---

Thanks for your perspective aggie93.
Looks like it is working as almost every day I see people posting on Linkedin and Twitter that they are moving back to India "after 12 years" of course "to be closer to family".

Well, the CEOs blatantly lied to all of us. They shamelessly claimed that we have no talent in the US when we have the best talent here. Even the H1Bs they wanted to bring in, many of them got educated in the US. The real reason was always cheap labor which then put Americans out of work but they didn't care. They were enriching themselves in unethical ways though how illegal it was is under question. Whether they should be locked up is a matter of opinion, and I have no problem if people think this doesn't warrant it.

Question for you, I read chatter about people wanting to move to other visas like B1/B2 (visitor) or F1 (student) again or game the EB1 (extraordinary ability). Has the administration put in safeguards or are these in open borders territory?

---

If you look at postings that companies are putting out you will see the "This position is not eligible for sponsorship" language with companies that didn't before.

I still think your blame of CEOs is misplaced, they are just looking for profits as their shareholders demand. There are a lot of interested parties but the primary blame is with the politicians and bureaucrats that made it happen.

It's also disingenous to think this was all about cheap labor or to act like we have all the talent we need. It's making it very difficult to fill a lot of positions. We don't have enough talent in a lot of areas, yet. The wildcard is honestly AI and how that will impact things. It's going to take several years for this to work itself out, you can't turn everything on a dime. Long term it's going to be a big positive though so long as we focus on merit and reason.

A B1/B2 isn't really viable as an alternative nor is an F-1. Visitors can't be paid in the US in a traditional sense they can only consult and a company isn't going to hire someone on a B-1. An F-1 you can only use for internships realistically, you can use an OPT but it's time limited and you have to have an H-1 at the other end and companies don't want to hire what is essentially a new grad that they can only keep for 3 years. Companies are viewing an OPT the same way as an H-1. EB1's are available as are O-1 but they are very hard to get and really are for PhD's with a lot of publications. I've done a couple in the last year and both were serious heavyweights and O-1s are even harder. Those are definitely the folks we want and add value, they also are much less likely to come from India and China.

BigRobSA said:

---

Pichael Thompson said:

---

Goat exposing it all

---

What does Michael Jordan JFF have to do with this!?

---

FIFY

This is 70 too many.

Sea Speed said:

---

This is 70 too many.

---

Yup. Increase it to 250k. Or better yet, make 100k an annual fee.

Quote:

---

If you look at postings that companies are putting out you will see the "This position is not eligible for sponsorship" language with companies that didn't before.

---

Yes, I see more and more of this lately, so that is a good sign for America citizens. This will allow our own citizens to grow and advance in their careers, especially in tech.

Quote:

---

I still think your blame of CEOs is misplaced, they are just looking for profits as their shareholders demand. There are a lot of interested parties but the primary blame is with the politicians and bureaucrats that made it happen.

---

Yes, they are looking for profits, but even that they do a poor job of. There are short term gains and there are long term gains. A good CEO looks for long term gains. This benefits everyone more or less equally and also helps the community. A bad CEO (which is how most are) looks for short term gains. They want a spike in performance (short term) so they can get their bonus. They don't care about getting fired after that. This hurts the community as the business goes under and people suffer with unemployment. "Looking out for shareholders" is a very misleading phrase - it hides a lot.

Quote:

---

It's also disingenous to think this was all about cheap labor or to act like we have all the talent we need. It's making it very difficult to fill a lot of positions. We don't have enough talent in a lot of areas, yet. The wildcard is honestly AI and how that will impact things. It's going to take several years for this to work itself out, you can't turn everything on a dime. Long term it's going to be a big positive though so long as we focus on merit and reason.

---

This is a manufactured problem. We did it to ourselves because of our greed. I am guessing we are about the same age more or less so we have seen a lot of tech.

In the late 90s, this was not a big problem. Y2K showed how companies can reduce costs (they didn't talk about quality) by offshoring. Everyone got greedy. The Indians made pipelines into the tech industry and began to funnel more and more people in. Americans lost entry level jobs, all were sent out. Our own Boomers recommended that Americans give up tech and get into plumbing and HVAC so that happened. It was a vicious cycle. Today? Yes, we have a shortage but not because Americans are stupid or don't want to do the job, it's because the industry was willfully killed by the corporations headed by evil CEOs and egged on by evil US politicians. It will take time to fix but you cannot fix it by letting more Indians in. There will be some short term pain for long term gain. AI? I am skeptical. I am familiar with real world problems with the tech. Let's not use AI to explain away what may or may not happen in the future.

Quote:

---

A B1/B2 isn't really viable as an alternative nor is an F-1. Visitors can't be paid in the US in a traditional sense they can only consult and a company isn't going to hire someone on a B-1. An F-1 you can only use for internships realistically, you can use an OPT but it's time limited and you have to have an H-1 at the other end and companies don't want to hire what is essentially a new grad that they can only keep for 3 years. Companies are viewing an OPT the same way as an H-1. EB1's are available as are O-1 but they are very hard to get and really are for PhD's with a lot of publications. I've done a couple in the last year and both were serious heavyweights and O-1s are even harder. Those are definitely the folks we want and add value, they also are much less likely to come from India and China.

---

I am not too worried about B1 visas. That may just let them stay for some more time but not do anything more. I am more worried about them gaming the EB1 visa. I see twitter complaints about such companies all of a sudden putting in 100s of patent applications for silly stuff. The only reason would be to polish their EB1 visa credentials. Now every incompetent H1B will be portrayed as an Einstein and given an EB1 for "extraordinary ability". If a system can be games you can assume that Indians will game it, so guard rails must be strong and punishment must be swift and permanent.

Find an EB1 coach
https://mentorcruise.com/coach/eb1/

Quote:

---

An EB-1 coach helps you build your evidence package and professional profile before your attorney files the petition Most EB-1 denials come from weak evidence ...

---

So this EB1 thing can also be gamed.

Quote:

---

More commonly, the H1B switches to PERM and continues the Green Card process. The employer now has to prove the job can't be done by an American, but like I said, the process is so egregious and easily gamed, this really isn't an issue. Literally 90% of PERM applications are approved.

---

This is the goal of the vast majority of H1B visa applicants. And you know that the PERM application is gamed because when you attempt to move someone to that sponsorship and lay out what it will take for compliance, you get questioned on the fee and never on salary or job postings.

This gal is gutsy.
I hope something comes out of it.

She's fighting a lone battle while all the cowardly cowboys ran away.

infinity ag said:

---

Quote:

---

If you look at postings that companies are putting out you will see the "This position is not eligible for sponsorship" language with companies that didn't before.

---

Yes, I see more and more of this lately, so that is a good sign for America citizens. This will allow our own citizens to grow and advance in their careers, especially in tech.

Quote:

---

I still think your blame of CEOs is misplaced, they are just looking for profits as their shareholders demand. There are a lot of interested parties but the primary blame is with the politicians and bureaucrats that made it happen.

---

Yes, they are looking for profits, but even that they do a poor job of. There are short term gains and there are long term gains. A good CEO looks for long term gains. This benefits everyone more or less equally and also helps the community. A bad CEO (which is how most are) looks for short term gains. They want a spike in performance (short term) so they can get their bonus. They don't care about getting fired after that. This hurts the community as the business goes under and people suffer with unemployment. "Looking out for shareholders" is a very misleading phrase - it hides a lot.

Quote:

---

It's also disingenous to think this was all about cheap labor or to act like we have all the talent we need. It's making it very difficult to fill a lot of positions. We don't have enough talent in a lot of areas, yet. The wildcard is honestly AI and how that will impact things. It's going to take several years for this to work itself out, you can't turn everything on a dime. Long term it's going to be a big positive though so long as we focus on merit and reason.

---

This is a manufactured problem. We did it to ourselves because of our greed. I am guessing we are about the same age more or less so we have seen a lot of tech.

In the late 90s, this was not a big problem. Y2K showed how companies can reduce costs (they didn't talk about quality) by offshoring. Everyone got greedy. The Indians made pipelines into the tech industry and began to funnel more and more people in. Americans lost entry level jobs, all were sent out. Our own Boomers recommended that Americans give up tech and get into plumbing and HVAC so that happened. It was a vicious cycle. Today? Yes, we have a shortage but not because Americans are stupid or don't want to do the job, it's because the industry was willfully killed by the corporations headed by evil CEOs and egged on by evil US politicians. It will take time to fix but you cannot fix it by letting more Indians in. There will be some short term pain for long term gain. AI? I am skeptical. I am familiar with real world problems with the tech. Let's not use AI to explain away what may or may not happen in the future.

Quote:

---

A B1/B2 isn't really viable as an alternative nor is an F-1. Visitors can't be paid in the US in a traditional sense they can only consult and a company isn't going to hire someone on a B-1. An F-1 you can only use for internships realistically, you can use an OPT but it's time limited and you have to have an H-1 at the other end and companies don't want to hire what is essentially a new grad that they can only keep for 3 years. Companies are viewing an OPT the same way as an H-1. EB1's are available as are O-1 but they are very hard to get and really are for PhD's with a lot of publications. I've done a couple in the last year and both were serious heavyweights and O-1s are even harder. Those are definitely the folks we want and add value, they also are much less likely to come from India and China.

---

I am not too worried about B1 visas. That may just let them stay for some more time but not do anything more. I am more worried about them gaming the EB1 visa. I see twitter complaints about such companies all of a sudden putting in 100s of patent applications for silly stuff. The only reason would be to polish their EB1 visa credentials. Now every incompetent H1B will be portrayed as an Einstein and given an EB1 for "extraordinary ability". If a system can be games you can assume that Indians will game it, so guard rails must be strong and punishment must be swift and permanent.

---

I don't disagree with you that we created this problem ourselves but the reality is it is going to take some time to figure it out. If you just make a huge portion of the workforce suddenly ineligible to hire that has an impact. It takes some time for citizens to go to school, graduate, and get experience to make up for that gap. My point on AI is it doesn't take as many people to do the same amount of work as before so that helps with the problem. If you need 20 people instead of 100 then that means you don't need as many of those visas. Still, this is why I like Trump's approach. He's sending the signal hard to companies to move away from visas and they are, it's the most dramatic shift I have seen in 30 years of recruiting and nothing comes close. The danger in moving TOO fast is you could end up making the case of how companies failed or were put out of business because they couldn't find the talent they could hire or they simply start offshoring. It's a balance and we are moving really fast as it is in the right direction. The fundamentals have already shifted.

As for EB1's and abuse of course anything is possible. Every bureaucratic system can be abused. That said it is 1000x harder to abuse than H-1s and the point that EB1's are both finite and merit based can't be overstated. They are only granting the strongest applications not a lottery. Is it possible some folks game the system? Sure, but it is making it really freaking difficult. Like I said most of the EB1's are PhD's or people with serious patents and publications and the applications are reviewed in a completely different way than H-1s. An EB1 is basically like getting a Green Card on Day 1 and they are very careful about who they hand those out to. I have a guy right now I am hiring on 1 that is European with a PhD and 10 years experience in a very in demand field with multiple patents and a list of publications a mile long. You also don't get an EB1 sponsored-by a company, it's done by the individual. If you are opposing EB1's and O-1's you are basically saying you don't want any tech people to get a visa from outside the US. I'm fine with more restrictions and scrutiny on them or to reduce the number if need be but elimination of those programs is very short sighted and a completely different subject than H-1s.

It's also important to remember that people talking about or applying for an EB1 is not remotely the same as people getting one. You have a lot of desperate H-1/F-1/OPT folks out there looking for a life raft and they will try anything to be able to work in the US, that doesn't mean they will get an extremely selective visa.