While you're making a point in response to a specific post (and the OP), and so you're making a point strictly about Microsoft, an implicit premise that's supposed to strengthen your argument is that only the deep-pocketed Microsoft or its equals are subject to penalties. What about other companies for which this is a less manageable expense?

And is it respectable and okay to switch up the law over the weekend if, and just because, the ones who are affected are large companies? Realistically, what's the rush to have the "law" (Congress?) come into effect two days after its announcement, beside making it a shakedown? Remember that policymakers anticipate, or should anticipate, second-order effects. Either Microsoft forks out $100k per employee, or the cost of coping with the new policy is pushed onto the regular Joe. In any case, this produces a sense of crisis and urgency that you'd criticize if it happened at a measly, inexperienced startup you happened to work at.

The law changes three months ahead? Looks like I'll have to cancel my December plans. But when I'm on a holiday? Sure, let me pack my bags, get back to the nearest airport and take the first transcontinental flight. Or maybe Microsoft is flexible enough to have me shoulder the $100K to stay until the end of my holiday?

I'm not sure how openly the measure was discussed beforehand (and on that point: the employees already have visas; why must they return, unless their visa is about to expire?), but it was promulgated _yesterday_.

I agree with you with respect to timing, but I don't think it's too much of one thing or another, and just chalk it up to typical Trump Administration "move fast and make things dumb" approach to various policies. I guess it's possible they chose this weekend to enact the highest shakedown possible on H1B visa holders outside the United States, but I'm reluctant to give them that much credit. I think they just said here is the policy, go now and the inconveniences be damned.