I believe that the United States has long benefited from being able to attract talented people from other countries. They pay taxes, they participate in the economy, and they make the US more innovative and competitive in the world.

If there are abuses, then let’s fix them. But this is too heavy handed, and may have an impact on US competitiveness for generations to come.

▲

A4ET8a8uTh0_v2 3 days ago | parent [-]

<< But this is too heavy handed

Is it really? Given the current salaries for AI talent ( or whatever future most desired skill sets are ), 100k seems like a decent enough spot to do the following:

- keep the program limited to what it was intended to do ( bring in the best people in, keep US competitive -- on tech, not on low wages ) - keep populace in a state, where they don't see a reason for a leadership change

Unless, of course, that is not what the program is used for ( and anecdotally, that take does not seem that far fetched ).

So my overall response is: good. Frankly, this made Trump's election worth it.

	▲	freetime2 12 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Having learned more about the details, it's honestly not as heavy-handed as I originally thought. The Reuters article linked said it was "$100,000 fee per year" - but it has now been clarified to be a one-time fee per new H1-B petition. I also thought initially that it would apply to existing H1-B holders, but it does not. And I've learned is that it's structured as a temporary change lasting for 12 months (of course it could be extended in the future). So - it's less heavy-handed than I thought. Given recent layoffs and the current state of the job market, I could maybe even be convinced that it's a good thing in the short term. I do still have concerns about US comptetiveness in the longer term though if we incentive companies to hire in other countries vs bringing talent to the US.