Us Gov Acknowledges That 100k Fee Does Not Apply to Existing H-1b Visas Holders [pdf]

I'd assume the reply you are replying to is being sarcastic specifically in reference to that event.

There's currently an (Acting) IG for State as a replacement, but I think its pretty clear how long that job would last for him if he were to actually do it.

"Reuters was not immediately able to establish how the fee would be administered. Lutnick said the visa would cost $100,000 a year for each of the three years of its duration but that the details were "still being considered.""

"Lutnick said on Friday that "all the big companies are on board" with $100,000 a year for H-1B visas. "We've spoken to them," he said."

https://archive.is/WYuI1#selection-1571.0-1575.32

As if that ever stopped this administration from doing something.

Even expert interpretation considered it WOULD happen.

In any case this new order was not ambiguous. It plainly said the restriction was on "entry", not the issuance of new visas. Nobody reading the text of the order claimed otherwise. The Trump administration just changed their position, in informal guidance rather than a formal executive order but with similar practical and legal effect.

Anyone who returned early was effectively hedging, paying the airline change fee and some inconvenience to avoid a potential $100k fee or worse, with downsides including job loss--potentially leading to forced repatriation--if your employer doesn't pay, and indefinite detention under harsh conditions. That hedge currently seems likely to expire worthless; but with such an imbalanced payoff, are you really saying you wouldn't have paid it yourself?

They’re literally not fighting a fight I want them to fight, nor making any indication they want to. That translates into me looking for someone else to donate to.

It generally requires rulemaking to be done pursuant to a public-comment period and not be done in a way that is "arbitrary and capricious." I'm not familiar with the Immigration & Nationalisation Act(s), (as amended), so I don't know the degree to which public comment is required and judicial review permitted, but a last-minute rule like this would be expected to make it to the SCOTUS docket earlier in our republic.

The emergency docket does not set precedent. (If you like your Roman law, it is analogous to how a consul acting with senatus contultum ultimum is empowered [1], versus a dictator, who can literally make law.)

SCOTUS has been deferring to the administration around what happens while a case is being litigated. It’s stupid. But it’s not Aileen Cannon corrupt (not yet).

(If I’m guessing correctly, they’re bending the knee with one leg and punting with the other. If the midterms swing even one house of the Congress, the judiciary regains its independence.)

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senatus_consultum_ultimum