> It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way Yeah it does. The letter of the law isn't being violated at all. The spirit isn't being violated either at

> It doesn't change my fundamental point in any way Yeah it does. The letter of the law isn't being violated at all. The spirit isn't being violated either at FAANG companies. The wages are in the top 5% nationally - they should have no difficulty attracting domestic workers, if they existed. The visa burden is so onerous. Why would any company go through that willingly? > How do the other thousands of U.S. tech startups have any U.S. workers at all Usually by underpaying workers by promising equity that will be worth way more later, recruiting through a sense of mission, giving out higher titles, or simply hiring lower-caliber talent or less-experienced people who don't know their worth. I've experienced all of the above. > Or is it more likely that they'd have to increase the offering to an even higher number? How does that increase supply? Where are the large numbers of people who are otherwise interested in and capable of doing software engineering but $300k just isn't enough money? > don't believe any reasonable judge could disagree with the main point that the program is not being used as intended. I don't know what a "reasonable" judge is - I assume it's whoever agrees with you - so that's meaningless. However, no judge so far has agreed with your opinion, as far as it relates to the FAANG companies.