【请大家参与评论】H‑1B 申请拟额外收费 $103,265，境内外申请均受影响

是时候上agent了

这种就要 agent 写。


Re: DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298, Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions

I support strong enforcement against abuse of the H-1B program. Fraudulent petitions, sham jobs, benching, wage violations, displacement of U.S. workers, and business models built on underpaid or captive workers harm Americans and legitimate H-1B professionals. But the proposed $103,265 fee is the wrong remedy: a financial barrier, not a targeted integrity measure.

H-1B is not charity. Properly administered, it is an instrument of American economic strategy. It lets U.S. companies recruit specialized talent, including graduates trained by American universities, while keeping research, product development, intellectual property, related jobs, and tax revenue here. In globally tradable fields, blocking a U.S. hire does not guarantee that an American gets the job. A company may instead delay investment or build the team abroad. The national-interest question is whether the United States remains the place where high-value work and future jobs are created.

The bipartisan 2013 Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, S. 744, offers a better model. The Senate passed it 68-32. Title IV pursued talent and worker protection together. Section 4101 proposed a 115,000 H-1B cap that could move between 115,000 and 180,000 with market conditions, plus 25,000 STEM visas. Sections 4104 and 4105 used fees in the low thousands, charged smaller employers less, and funded STEM education and training. Other provisions strengthened recruitment, created a Labor Department recruitment website, restricted further hiring by large H-1B-dependent employers, expanded investigations, increased fines, protected whistleblowers, and authorized agency-initiated enforcement. It distinguished legitimate hiring from abuse instead of treating every employer as the same risk.[2]

CBO’s 2013 analysis of S. 744 also rejected a simple one-for-one substitution theory. It projected higher employment, investment, and productivity, with real GDP 3.3 percent higher in 2023 and 5.4 percent higher in 2033 than under then-current law. The estimates covered the entire bill, not H-1B alone, but reflected the national interest in expanding productive capacity while enforcing labor standards.[3]

The present NPRM reverses that logic. DHS calculated $103,265 by dividing approximately $8.777 billion in government-wide immigration costs by 85,000 projected cap-subject petitions. The revenue would support activities across USCIS, CBP, ICE, EOIR, DOS, and DOL, far beyond adjudication of an individual H-1B petition.[1] Allocating a broad interagency budget to one narrow class of petitioners does not measure the cost or risk created by a particular filing.

The fee is also poorly designed to prevent abuse. It does not vary by employer size, H-1B dependency, wage level, third-party placement, history of violations, or evidence of fraud. A compliant startup hiring one exceptional engineer would owe the same amount as a large repeat filer. The rule would therefore select employers by ability to pay, not by compliance or the value of the work. It would favor large incumbents, make it harder for U.S. startups and small businesses to recruit, reduce opportunities for U.S.-educated international graduates, and encourage companies to place new teams abroad. An abusive firm with enough capital could still pay, while an innovative small employer acting lawfully could not. DHS itself acknowledges that registrations and petitions, including those from small entities, may fall, even though its revenue model depends on filing volume not falling below projections.[1]

DHS should withdraw proposed 8 CFR 106.2(a)(3)(xii). Fees should remain proportionate to actual adjudication and integrity-enforcement costs, with reasonable scaling by employer size. Anti-abuse policy should focus on risk: verify bona fide jobs; require wage and recruitment transparency; conduct targeted audits and site visits; apply enhanced scrutiny to H-1B-dependent employers and third-party placement models; protect whistleblowers; and impose meaningful penalties and debarment on repeat violators. A moderate surcharge could support scholarships and training for U.S. workers, following S. 744, without turning lawful high-skilled hiring into a six-figure privilege.

The United States can protect American workers and continue attracting world-class talent. The 2013 Senate approach showed the right principle: expand legitimate, economically valuable immigration while directing restrictions and enforcement at harmful conduct. The proposed flat $103,265 fee does neither and should be replaced with targeted, evidence-based reforms.

Sources:
[1] 91 Fed. Reg. 54817 (Aug. 25, 2026), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/ ... html/2026-17324.htm
[2] Congress.gov, S. 744, https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/744
[3] CBO, The Economic Impact of S. 744, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44346

补充内容 (2026-08-27 13:22 +08:00):
2013年的移民法案改革是参议院罕见高票通过的法案，最终被众议院议长直接毙了，这种参议院已经通过了的法案本身就代表了政策上的合理性，用这种去论证现在提出的修改是不合理的是最佳的方式。

zichaowu 发表于 2026-08-26 21:39:29
今年我才抽中；这个法案就算通过影不影响今年的h1b？

会的，去年提议100K境外申请人，今年提议100K所有申请人，那你猜明年是什么？

喬喬喬治 发表于 2026-8-26 21:25
会的，去年提议100K境外申请人，今年提议100K所有申请人，那你猜明年是什么？

就事论事，刚刚问了一下 Opus: 对今年已经 file 了的基本没有影响，针对的是 FY28 年开始以后的新申请。而且不影响 cap exempt（非盈利，医疗机构或高校类的 h1b）

1. The fee attaches at the petition stage, payable at time of filing. Your cap-subject petition was already filed during the FY2027 window (April–June 2026). A filing fee can't be assessed on a petition that's already in.

2. This is an NPRM under 5 U.S.C. 553, not an interim final rule, so nothing takes effect on publication. The timing DHS appears to be targeting is the FY2028 cap registration period opening around March 2027 — a full cycle after yours.

3. It does not apply to cap-exempt petitions, extensions, amendments, or transfers for beneficiaries already counted against the cap. Once you're counted, you're out of scope permanently. Your 3-year extension in 2029, and any employer change after that, would all be cap-exempt filings.

4. It's a fee on the employer's petition, not a condition on your status. Nothing in it conditions the validity of an approved petition or an October 1 change of status.

SparkX 发表于 2026-8-26 21:07
经典闹钟之先看看和我有没有关系，死道友不死贫道

就事论事，这种负面的事件当然要先评估一下对自己可能的影响；作为移民，该留的评论当然还是要留的

comment了。
我的论点是H1B比offshore+AI的practice更好，而且H1B worker在工作中的reinvestment和消费是可以促进各地的服务业的，而且现阶段教育天然有高新人才的gap（主要是因为教育质量差），这个很不幸但是是事实

已评论。这是我用的AI Prompt：Write a short, persuasive public comment (150–250 words) opposing DHS Docket No. USCIS-2026-0298 (Fee for Certain H-1B Petitions). Include 3 concise points on how the fee hurts [insert your industry/perspective: e.g., small tech startups / rural healthcare / international STEM graduates / software engineering] by accelerating offshoring, driving away U.S.-educated talent, and exceeding USCIS's statutory cost-recovery authority under INA § 286(m). End with a clear call to withdraw the rule.

建议大家去评论反对的时候从这条rule的论点和依据去攻击（主要是为什么要收钱，用途是什么，怎么计算出来的等等），可以让ai帮读和总结攻击的论点论据，而不是只泛泛而谈会影响tech公司和美国技术发展啥的。这样substantial的comment才是日后可以起诉程序违法的重要证据

Moss_Momo 发表于 2026-08-26 05:07:33
评论区一条反对的都没有

我看到不少反对的啊

cravenbrave 发表于 2026-8-27 12:42
除了上面评论里的观点还有以下补充的观点，供参考
1.        对美国大学（Higher Education）的打击： 绝大多数 Ca ...

能否针对你的“这超出了《移民与国籍法》（INA）授权 USCIS “仅按实际审理成本收费”的法律边界”再展开一下。

怎么超过了边界？应该怎样核定，才不是超过边界呢？这样更有说服力