That's not how visas work. Those employees have 60 up to days to find another sponsoring employee, or they can acquire a different visa, like a visitor or student visa.

It doesn't really make sense to unjustly punish the employees for the employers' mistake, does it? Those foreign employees followed the process. It's not their fault that their employers abused the system.

I know it's fun to clamor for ripping apart due process in favor of xenophobic fantasies, but you really don't want to live in the resulting society, and I don't just mean that statement in the context of immigration policy.

As it relates to immigration policy, I have a fun prompt you can input into your AI of choice: "Would the US be shrinking in population if there was no immigration? What are the implications for economic prosperity if that were to happen?"

> It doesn't really make sense to unjustly punish the employees for the employers' mistake, does it? Those foreign employees followed the process. It's not their fault that their employers abused the system.

The idea that someone from another country on a temporary work visa is being unjustly punished by no longer being allowed to legally reside in the US is an argument against having any kind of temporary work visa at all. If the US can't legitimately revoke a foreigner's permission to work and live in the US because the company that hired them was abusing the system, then every visa the US government gives to any foreigner is effectively permanent and the state visa-granting apparatus should consider this before it gives anyone any kind of visa.

> As it relates to immigration policy, I have a fun prompt you can input into your AI of choice: "Would the US be shrinking in population if there was no immigration? What are the implications for economic prosperity if that were to happen?"

This is a difficult question to answer confidently because the presence of large numbers of immigrants extremely plausibly suppresses the native birth rate; and different groups of immigrants have different implications for overall economic prosperity - especially when important but hard-to-measure facets of quality of life are considered. If you're more economically prosperous on paper because of a growing economy, but the price of goods like housing in desirable areas has gone up because there are more equally-prosperous people competing for them, then decline in population is not necessarily against your interests.