Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

Bit ridiculous that this article leaves as a footnote that this rule change is illegal and likely to be struck down by the first lawsuit.

I think it is kind of a footnote. Many things this administration has done are illegal and struck down by the first lawsuit but later let stand by a friendly Supreme Court.

The trump administration has not complied with any unfavorable court ruling about immigration why would they care about this one?

Interesting. Does this also require a law to be passed?

They've complied with a number of unfavorable court rulings about immigration, but precisely because that's what they're supposed to do it goes much less viral.

The one ruling they arguably didn’t comply with was overturned by the Supreme Court, who held the district court didn’t even have jurisdiction in the first place.

That's true on administrative state issues (Trump being allowed to fire people in the exec. branch). It's not clear this is a 100% guarantee for everything beyond that. (Maybe a 65% guarantee).

And should be added, let stand by the Supreme Court without given a reasoning on why it stands. Just all shadow dockets.

Corruption by another name. The canary is already dead.

Apologies if this comes across as pedantic, but it isn’t a footnote. It’s part of the actual article, just included near the end in the “Looking Ahead” section. If they omitted it entirely or put it in an actual footnote, then yes I agree that would be a noteworthy omission. But it feels extreme to call it ridiculous when it’s right there in the article.

The other thing I’ll say is that even if this is struck down by the courts (which is not certain give the Supreme Court’s recent support for the president), that can take a while and this could still have a real impact on people. Many people thought the president imposing tariffs was unconstitutional, but as right now those tariffs are actually in effect. Companies that employ H-1B workers (and the workers themselves) will need to start planning for this immediately regardless of whether or not it is eventually struck down.

The last thing I’m wondering is when you say it’s ridiculous, do you just mean sloppy reporting? Or are you implying that the author has some ulterior motive? And if the latter, what do you think that ulterior motive is?

Not likely. It appears this rather awkward method is actually built to keep this well within the president's power

Can you give an example?

"Yeah they're breaking laws, but why aren't you talking about the ones they are following?"

I do! This dynamic drives it as well. A lot of people on social media are passionately convinced that "Trump can do whatever he wants" is the anti-Trump position and "Trump's power is still limited in many ways" is therefore a pro-Trump position. I never know how to engage with that perspective other than to say it doesn't sound right to me. If you're an anti-Trump person trying to figure out how to stop him from doing bad things, it seems pretty important to know that lawsuits are a useful component.

How is a president winning the election and then packing the SC corruption? It's not like people didn't have a choice, they did vote for the guy. Twice!