Public Comment
⚙
United StatesImmigrationLabor

A presidential proclamation effective September 21, 2026 restricts entry of certain H-1B specialty-occupation workers who are outside the United States unless the associated petition is accompanied or supplemented by a $100,000 payment. The restriction is scheduled to last 12 months unless extended and allows the Department of Homeland Security to grant national-interest exceptions for individuals, companies or industries. The H-1B program is used by U.S. employers to hire foreign workers in qualifying specialty occupations. The new policy therefore raises a broader question about whether scarce skilled-worker access should be rationed through a large employer payment, wage or skill standards, labor-market tests, numerical allocation, or some combination. The country can benefit from recruiting specialized talent and still ask whether employers are using the program because a worker is genuinely hard to find or simply because the immigration channel is advantageous. A $100,000 payment is one way to force that distinction, but it may also screen employers by wealth rather than by actual need.

What rule should determine when a U.S. employer may bring in a new H-1B specialty worker from abroad?

Overall results

1
52% support · excluded by 8%
6

People already selected under a lawful visa framework should not face an extraordinary new economic barrier based principally on where they were born and work authorization status.

2
51% support · excluded by 4%
7

Wages are more directly connected to the value and labor-market level of a job than an identical fee imposed on every occupation or employer.

7

A wage-based hierarchy can prioritize scarce visa capacity without making a fixed fee comparatively trivial for a giant company and prohibitive for a small one.

3
48% support · excluded by 8%
7

The payment can discourage routine use while still leaving the channel open for positions employers value most highly.

7

A company claiming that an overseas hire is exceptionally valuable should be willing to bear a meaningful additional cost rather than socializing the labor-market consequences.

4
48% support · excluded by 8%
7

Employers should invest more aggressively in recruiting, training and retaining U.S. workers before government expands access to an overseas labor pool.

5
46% support · excluded by 14%
7

A specialized small employer may have a legitimate hiring need without having $100,000 available for a single immigration fee.

7

The country needs different amounts of outside talent in different fields. Shortage evidence and national-interest tests can target access where domestic supply is genuinely constrained.

About the author

Anonymous

#5PWTpNnRYr