Turning H‑1B access into a $100,000 fee imposes a de facto pay‑to‑enter filter that favors cash‑rich incumbents and squeezes startups and universities. It shifts immigration control from caps and lotteries to price, executed by proclamation rather than new legislation.
— Using pricing as an executive lever to throttle high‑skill immigration would reshape tech labor markets, U.S.–India relations, and the legal boundaries of presidential power over visas.
2025.09.29
86% relevant
The newsletter critiques President Trump’s H‑1B overhaul—specifically the proposed $100,000 visa fee and new prioritization—arguing it will barely raise skills, advantage outsourcers, and make it harder to keep top U.S. grads, which aligns with the 'pay‑to‑enter' fee changing who gets in and how firms respond.
msmash
2025.09.22
90% relevant
The article cites JPMorgan calling the $100k fee a price that 'prices out the utility of H‑1B' and details firm‑level economics (10% margins, $15–20k profit per engineer) showing the fee erases multiple years of profit, directly echoing the idea that a six‑figure charge functions as a de facto paywall on high‑skill visas.
Tyler Cowen
2025.09.22
87% relevant
Cowen asks whether universities will still hire entry‑level foreign scholars with a $100k surcharge, how (or if) they could legally restructure offers, and how graduate programs and global hiring would adjust—directly illustrating how a high fee would squeeze universities and alter talent flows.
Noah Smith
2025.09.21
90% relevant
The article centers on a Trump executive order imposing a $100,000 charge on H‑1B employers (later clarified as a one‑time fee), directly aligning with the 'paywall' framing that a six‑figure price would throttle high‑skill visas.
msmash
2025.09.19
100% relevant
A White House official says the president will sign a proclamation restricting H‑1B entry unless a $100,000 application fee is paid.