Cycle on Aug 31, 2026

I will start by listing the active threads and watches for this topic to see if there are any specific open questions or catalysts that need to be addressed in this cycle.

I will now read the existing notes in the topic to see what has been established in previous research cycles, especially regarding the $100,000 H-1B fee, California v. Mullin, and other labor economics studies.

Let's check the current date in the simulation: August 31, 2026. Let's see if there are any new developments regarding the $100,000 H-1B fee, the lawsuit *State of California v. Mullin*, or other high-skilled/low-skilled immigration studies. First, I will run a search for `"California v. Mullin"` or `"State of California v. Mullin"` or the H-1B fee lawsuit to see if there has been a recent ruling from the First Circuit or if there are other updates. I will also search for recent empirical studies on the H-1B fee or tax from September 2025.

This is fascinating. The First Circuit on July 24, 2026 denied the government's stay request, meaning the $100,000 H-1B fee remains vacated nationwide during the appeal. Let's see if there have been any new developments since July 24, 2026. Let's fetch some of these URLs or do a more targeted search for recent filings in August 2026. Let's search for `"State of California v. Mullin"` or `"California v. Mullin"` with freshness set to "month" or "week" or just search for recent news. Let's do a search first.

This is an incredibly important development! Let's analyze this: 1. In June 2026, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts in *State of California v. Mullin* vacated the $100,000 H-1B fee (originally imposed in September 2025 by presidential proclamation). 2. On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the government's motion for a stay pending appeal, meaning the fee remains vacated nationwide while the appeal proceeds. 3. In August 2026, DHS (the Department of Homeland Security) proposed a NEW fee/rule: a $103,265 fee using different statutory authority (as Emily Neumann's post says: "Aug. 2026: DHS proposes a $103,265 fee using different statutory authority. Same number. New wrapper."). Let's search for this new DHS proposal from August 2026 to see exactly what it is, what statutory authority it uses, and what its status is. Let's run a search for `"DHS" OR "Department of Homeland Security" AND "103,265" OR "103265"`. Or search for `"H-1B" "103,265" OR "103265"`. Let's do that!

This is a massive development! Let's read these sources in detail to get the legal and economic arguments being made. Let's fetch: 1. `https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2026/08/25/dhs-immigration-rule-proposes-a-103265-tax-on-new-h-1b-visa-holders/` 2. `https://natlawreview.com/article/dhs-proposes-103265-fee-cap-subject-h-1b-petitions` 3. `https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-administration-moves-impose-more-than-100000-fee-h-1b-worker-visas-2026-08-24/` Let's fetch the Forbes article first to see the specific details of the proposed rule, the statutory authority DHS is using, and the economic research cited.

This is incredibly clear and detailed. Let's analyze the core mechanics and arguments: - **The proposed fee:** $103,265, published in the Federal Register on Monday, August 24, 2026 (the official date of publication appears to be August 25, 2026, or submitted on August 24). - **Scope:** Applies to all cap-subject H-1B petitions, including those under the advanced-degree exemption (the 20,000 cap). It does not apply to universities, nonprofit, and government research institutions (which are typically cap-exempt anyway). - **Statutory Authority:** DHS is citing Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), asserting that it has the authority to recover costs of providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services incurred by *multiple federal agencies* (including DHS, DOJ, State Department, and Department of Labor). - **The "Ability to Pay" Justification:** DHS argues that H-1B cap-subject petitioners are "most willing and able to pay an additional fee" compared to other benefit requestors. - **The "Double Tax" Threat:** If an employer is sponsoring a worker from outside the US, and the original September 2025 $100,000 fee (under the presidential proclamation) is eventually ruled lawful on appeal, the employer would have to pay *both*, totaling over $200,000! - **Potential Impact / NFAP Analysis:** DHS claims that the $103,265 fee will not significantly reduce H-1B petitions, citing a 2024 fee increase of less than $1,000. The NFAP (National Foundation for American Policy) calls this assumption highly suspect, pointing out that an increase of $1,000 is not comparable to an increase that is 100 times larger ($103,265). - **Funding Allocation:** The fee is expected to generate $8.8 billion annually (assuming 85,000 cap-subject petitions) and would be used to fund immigration-related activities across DHS, DOJ, State, and DOL, including funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Let's do a search on the original case, *State of California v. Mullin*. Let's check CourtListener or other sources to see what the District Court actually ruled in June 2026 and what the First Circuit decided on July 24, 2026. Let's search for `"State of California v. Mullin" "July 24"` or `"First Circuit" "Mullin"`. Let's do a search.

Let's fetch `https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/26-1699/26-1699-2026-07-24.html` or `https://eiglaw.com/first-circuit-refuses-to-reinstate-100000-h-1b-fee-while-appeal-proceeds/` to read the details of the First Circuit's July 24, 2026 decision. I'll fetch `https://eiglaw.com/first-circuit-refuses-to-reinstate-100000-h-1b-fee-while-appeal-proceeds/` first.

This is incredibly clear. Let's record an event or resolve/update the watches. Let's see what watches we have: 1. `First Circuit Merit Ruling or Supreme Court Action on the $100,000 H-1B Fee` (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`) - "Monitor the First Circuit's final decision on the merits of the appeal in State of California v. Mullin, or any emergency stay application filed by the federal government with the U.S. Supreme Court..." Wait, has the federal government filed an emergency stay application with the Supreme Court, or did the First Circuit's July 24 denial of stay resolve this part? Let's check if there has been any Supreme Court action or if the government has filed anything with the Supreme Court in *State of California v. Mullin* since July 24, 2026. Let's search for `"State of California v. Mullin" "Supreme Court"` or `"California v. Mullin" "Supreme Court" OR "SCOTUS"`. Let's do that!

Let's fetch `https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/26-1699/26-1699-2026-07-24.html` to see the actual text or summary of the First Circuit's July 24, 2026 order. This will give us excellent material for a note. Let's do a web_fetch on it.

This is excellent. Let's review the facts: 1. Under the original September 19, 2025 Proclamation No. 10973, a $100,000 payment was required to accompany each H-1B petition for workers *currently outside the United States*. 2. A coalition of 20 states filed suit in December 2025 (*State of California v. Mullin*, 1:25-cv-13829, D. Mass.). 3. The District Court (District of Massachusetts) on June 8, 2026 vacated the policy implementing the proclamation in its entirety under the APA, finding it unlawful and ultra vires. 4. On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit (No. 26-1699) denied the government's motion for an emergency stay pending appeal, finding that the government failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits. The court specifically noted that Congress has historically been explicit when authorizing immigration fees and that broad presidential authority to impose entry restrictions (under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a)) cannot be interpreted to authorize a $100,000 payment requirement without clear congressional authorization. 5. In response to this legal setback, on August 24/25, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a proposed rule in the Federal Register (91 Fed. Reg. 17324 or similar, wait, Forbes says: `https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/25/2026-17324/fee-for-certain-h-1b-petitions`) proposing a *new* fee of **$103,265** for each cap-subject H-1B petition. 6. The new fee is proposed under a different statutory authority: **Section 286(m) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m)**, which allows DHS to recover the "full costs of providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services" incurred by multiple federal agencies (including DHS, DOJ, State Department, and Department of Labor). 7. This new fee is proposed as a regulation (with a 30-day public comment period) rather than a presidential proclamation, and DHS asserts that its purpose is to recover costs and fund the lawful immigration system (generating an estimated $8.8 billion annually), rather than to restrict H-1B entry. 8. Critically, DHS argues that H-1B cap-subject petitioners are "most willing and able to pay" this fee. However, the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) and other legal experts argue that this fee is an unlawful tax that exceeds DHS's statutory authority under Section 286(m) and relies on flawed assumptions to claim it won't reduce H-1B filings. 9. Furthermore, if the original $100,000 fee is reinstated on appeal, employers sponsoring H-1B workers from abroad could face a combined cost of over $200,000 per worker. Let's check if there are other threads or watches. We have: - `First Circuit Merit Ruling or Supreme Court Action on the $100,000 H-1B Fee` (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`): Since this watch is for "final decision on the merits of the appeal... or any emergency stay application filed by the federal government with the U.S. Supreme Court," let's check if there has been any Supreme Court action on this emergency stay or if the government decided not to file a stay application with SCOTUS. Let's run a search for `"State of California v. Mullin" AND ("Supreme Court" OR "SCOTUS" OR "stay")` with freshness set to "month" to see if there was any filing in August 2026. Or did the government just accept the First Circuit's stay denial and instead pivot to the new DHS rulemaking? Let's search.

Let's fetch `https://www.rnlawgroup.com/dhs-proposes-a-103265-fee-on-every-h-1b-cap-petition/` or `https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/us-court-of-appeals-puts-100-000-h-1b-7816322/` to get additional details on the current status of the appeals and the new DHS fee proposal. I'll fetch `https://www.rnlawgroup.com/dhs-proposes-a-103265-fee-on-every-h-1b-cap-petition/` first.

This is an absolute goldmine of detailed information, including specific legal theories, exact dates, statutory cites, and agency funding breakdowns! Let's analyze this carefully: - **Rule details:** Published in the Federal Register on August 25, 2026. - **RIN:** 1615-AD20 - **CIS No.:** 2861-26 - **DHS Docket No.:** USCIS-2026-0298 - **Proposed Fee:** $103,265, to be codified at 8 CFR 106.2(a)(3)(xii). - **Comment Period:** 30 days, ending around September 24, 2026. - **The Arithmetic:** Total cost target of $8,777,488,035 divided by an assumed volume of 85,000 cap-subject petitions = $103,264.57, rounded to $103,265. - **Agency Allocations:** - USCIS: 34.2% ($3,000.0M) - EOIR (DOJ immigration courts): 33.7% ($2,956.9M) - DOL: 13.8% ($1,210.4M) - ICE: 11.9% ($1,050.0M) - DOS: 5.5% ($484.0M) - CBP: 0.9% ($76.2M) - **Specific Allocations & Controversial Line Items:** - EOIR gets nearly $3B, funding 8,400 new positions for immigration judge teams and removal proceedings (not benefit adjudications). - ICE gets $1.05B ($900M for "vetting of aliens pending adjudication", $100M for "vetting of applicants for admission", $50M for SEVP). - DOS gets $484M (consular vetting, fraud programs, refugee program costs including Resettlement Support Center medical exams, refugee travel, Mission South Africa). - DOL gets $1.21B ($350M for Wage and Hour Division, $350M for Office of the Solicitor, plus PERM, prevailing wage, H-2A, H-2B/CW-1). - **The "Ability to Pay" & "Deterrence" Justifications:** - DHS claims H-1B cap-subject petitioners are "most willing and able to bear the cost," citing a median FY 2025 H-1B compensation of $133,000 and an unadjusted median wage of $798,000 over a 6-year period. - DHS asserts an "indirect benefit" of deterring employers from hiring H-1B workers over qualified American workers unless the need is legitimate. - **The Legal Challenges / Weaknesses:** - **Tax vs. Fee:** Under *National Cable Television Association v. United States* (1974) and *FPC v. New England Power Co.* (1974), a charge is a fee only when it confers a specific benefit on the payer. A charge funding general public benefits is a tax, requiring clear congressional delegation. Since 66% of the revenue goes to agencies/programs with no adjudicatory connection to the H-1B petitioner (e.g., removal courts, refugee travel, H-2A certifications), this is a tax. - **Statutory Authority under INA 286(m):** Authorizes fees for "providing adjudication and naturalization services." Removal proceedings, worksite enforcement, and refugee resettlement are not benefit adjudications. - **Congressional Preemption:** Congress has set specific H-1B fees (ACWIA, fraud prevention, 9-11 biometric, H.R.1). Silently authorizing a $103,265 fee under a general cost-recovery provision is highly suspect. - **Appropriations Clause / Miscellaneous Receipts Act (31 U.S.C. 3302):** Re-routing fee revenue to DOJ, DOS, and DOL raises anti-augmentation and fiscal law concerns. - **Major Questions Doctrine:** Restructuring the entire funding of the federal immigration system ($8.8B annual reallocation) using a general 1988 cost-recovery provision. - **Arbitrary and Capricious / Internal Contradiction:** DHS assumes 85,000 petitions will be filed and paid, but simultaneously claims the fee's benefit is that employers will be less likely to hire H-1B workers. If the deterrent works, the revenue falls and cost recovery fails. - **Pretext:** The fee is very close to the $100,000 fee under Proclamation 10973 that was vacated in June 2026. Briefing in the First Circuit appeal in *California v. Mullin* is expected to conclude in October 2026. This is extremely comprehensive and fits perfectly with our active threads and watches. Let's look at the active watches: 1. `First Circuit Merit Ruling or Supreme Court Action on the $100,000 H-1B Fee` (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`): - We have an update: On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the government's emergency stay request. The government's merits appeal remains pending, with briefing expected to conclude in October 2026. - Wait, did the First Circuit's July 24 denial of the stay resolve the "emergency stay" part? Yes, it did. But the watch is also for "final decision on the merits of the appeal... or any emergency stay application filed by the federal government with the U.S. Supreme Court". Let's record an event on this watch since a major milestone (the First Circuit's denial of the stay on July 24, 2026) occurred, but keep the watch open (`resolves: false`) as the merits appeal is pending and expected to wrap up briefing in October 2026. 2. `Empirical Replications and Policy Outcomes of the $100,000 H-1B Visa Tax` (id: `01a00ec3-594d-7b0e-80a7-2b09f1f0a16a`): - This watch is ongoing for "future peer-reviewed empirical studies, economic replications, court challenges, or policy changes regarding the $100,000 H-1B visa tariff/fee implemented in September 2025..." - The DHS proposal of a $103,265 fee on August 25, 2026 is a major policy change and ongoing policy outcome of this debate. We should record an event on this as well! 3. `CBO and DHS Annual Net Immigration Estimates` (id: `019eca51-dd39-7e01-b94d-142c0b0a0599`): - Let's check if there are updated net immigration estimates from DHS or CBO, or if there is any other new empirical research on immigration's impact on native wages and employment. Let's do a search for recent empirical papers on immigration, native wages, and employment, or replications of Mariel, or anything published in 2026. Let's search for `immigration "native wages" OR "employment" (empirical OR study OR paper OR journal) 2026`. Let's see what comes up.

This is absolute gold. We have two major new papers here: 1. **George Borjas (2026)**: "Gender, Selection into Employment, and the Wage Impact of Immigration", published in the *Journal of Labor Economics* (JOLE) in 2026. This paper addresses a major methodological puzzle we've been tracking: how selection bias and native labor force response (crowd-out) reconcile the employment and wage impacts of immigration. 2. **Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri (2026)**: "Immigration’s effect on US wages and employment redux" (CEPR Discussion Paper 21756 / NBER Working Paper 32389). This paper revisits the 2000-2023 period and estimates that immigration raised the wages of less-educated native workers by 2.6% to 3.4% and had positive employment rate effects, supporting native-immigrant complementarity. This is a classic labor-economics debate playing out in real-time in 2026 between George Borjas (proposing that selection bias and native crowd-out mask a negative wage effect of up to -0.9 for both native men and women) and Peri & Caiumi (proposing that native-immigrant complementarity and college-skill content lead to positive wage effects of +1.7% to +3.4% for less-educated natives and no significant crowding out). Let's fetch the Caiumi and Peri paper columns or details. I'll search for `"Caiumi" "Peri" "Redux"` to see the exact findings and quotes. Let's do a search first.

Excellent. The paper "Immigration's Effect on US Wages and Employment Redux" by Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri was published as NBER Working Paper 32389 in 2024, and then published in CEPR Discussion Paper 21756 in July 2026. Let's fetch the VoxEU column summarizing this paper: `https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-immigrations-effect-us-wages-and-employment`. This will give us excellent direct quotes and details of their methodology and results. Let's do a web_fetch on it.

This is an amazing piece of research. Let's analyze the contrast: 1. **Borjas (2026)**: - *Title*: "Gender, Selection into Employment, and the Wage Impact of Immigration" - *Journal*: *Journal of Labor Economics* (JOLE) 2026. - *Core Argument*: Standard empirical models that find a zero or small impact of immigration on native wages are biased because they ignore two critical things: - **Selection Bias**: When immigration occurs, some native workers (especially women or lower-wage workers) exit the labor force (crowd-out effect). Because the workers who exit are disproportionately lower-wage, the average wage of the *remaining* workers in repeated cross-sections appears artificially high (selection bias). - **Native Labor Supply Response**: Standard models treat the size of the native workforce as fixed. Borjas shows that when you control for the size of the native labor force and correct for sample selection (using a Heckman-style correction with an inverse Mills ratio), a highly negative wage elasticity emerges. - *Key Findings*: - For **native women**, correcting for selection and controlling for native labor force size increases the estimated wage elasticity from close to zero/insignificant to **-0.91** (meaning a 10% immigration-induced increase in the labor force size reduces native female wages by about 9%). - For **native men**, the estimated wage elasticity is negative and significant across all specifications, lying between **-0.5 and -0.8** (with the fully corrected specification at **-0.70**). - Once both biases are corrected, the wage elasticities for native men (-0.7) and native women (-0.9) are statistically indistinguishable. - Borjas concludes that immigration has a substantial negative impact on native wages, which is masked in standard studies by native labor force exit and selection. 2. **Caiumi and Peri (2026)**: - *Title*: "Immigration’s effect on US wages and employment redux" - *Publication*: CEPR Discussion Paper 21756 / NBER Working Paper 32389, July 2026. - *Core Argument*: The national factor-supply approach (developed by Borjas 2003 and Ottaviano-Peri 2012) should be updated to account for: - **Recent Inflows**: Inflows between 2000 and 2023 were much more skill-intensive (college-educated immigrants became the largest group in the US foreign-born adult population by 2015, while the population of low-educated immigrants shrank). - **Endogeneity of Inflows**: They use a new instrumental variable based on origin-country "push factors" and origin-specific skill characteristics. - **Native Employment Adjustment**: Instead of assuming native employment is fixed, they model native labor supply responses to estimate if natives are "crowded out" or "attracted in." - **Occupational Upgrading/Task Specialization**: Immigrants take manual-intensive roles, prompting natives to upgrade to communication-intensive roles, which are higher paying and have better amenities. - *Key Findings*: - **Less-educated native workers** saw their wages *increase* by **2.6% to 3.4%** due to immigration between 2000 and 2023. This is because of strong productive complementarity and occupational upgrading. - **College-educated native workers** saw a small and non-significant wage impact, despite absorbing the bulk of the recent skilled immigrant inflows, because of strong within-group complementarity. - **No significant crowding out**: They find positive native employment rate effects, suggesting that immigration attracts natives into the labor force by raising their marginal productivity. This is a beautiful, classic, direct clash of methods and conclusions between the two leading camps in the labor economics of immigration! - **Borjas (2026)** uses a selection-correction framework to argue that native crowd-out and selection *hide* a large negative wage effect (-0.7 to -0.9). - **Caiumi and Peri (2026)** use an updated national factor-supply framework with a new push-factor instrument and task-specialization modeling to argue that complementarity and occupational upgrading *create* positive wage effects (+2.6% to +3.4% for less-educated natives) and draw natives *into* the labor force. Let's read our existing notes to see which ones we should update. The existing notes are: - `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` (Labor Economics Consensus: Skill-Group Effects and the NASEM Report) - `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance` (High-Skilled Immigration: Firm-Level Complementarity, the Wage-Weighted Lottery, and the September 2025 H-1B Visa Tax Debate) - `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts` (Selection Bias in Native Responses: Reconciling the Employment and Wage Impacts of Immigration) - `cepii-meta-analysis-wage-effects-immigration` (CEPII Meta-Analysis (2025): The Comprehensive Wage Effects of Immigration) Wait! - `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts` is the perfect place to write about Borjas (2026) "Gender, Selection into Employment, and the Wage Impact of Immigration" because it directly addresses selection bias and native employment/wage impacts! - `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` or `cepii-meta-analysis-wage-effects-immigration` or a new note could cover Caiumi and Peri (2026). Wait, we could update `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` to incorporate Caiumi and Peri (2026) as the latest evolution of the national factor-supply model, or we can update `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts` to cover BOTH Borjas (2026) and Caiumi & Peri (2026) as they are the two sides of the same coin: reconciling native employment adjustments and selection with wage impacts. Let's see the current contents of `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts` and `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` to decide the best way to integrate these findings. Let's fetch the text of `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts` and `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem`. Wait, do we have a tool to read notes? Wait, there is no direct "read_note_body" tool, but `read_notes` gave us a preview. Let's see if we can search or write notes. The instructions say "reusing a slug updates the existing note". Wait, let's search if we can read the note bodies first. Can we search for files? No, we don't have a direct file-reading tool in the declaration list, only `list_threads`, `read_notes`, `write_note`, `record_thread`, `resolve_thread`, `record_watch`, `record_event`, `web_search`, `web_fetch`, `market_view`, `finish_cycle`. Wait, let's double check the declaration list. Yes! These are the only tools. So we can't directly read the full body of the existing notes unless they are in the workspace or if we just write them. But wait, the system prompt says: "Before modifying a file, read it first." Since we don't have file-reading tools like `view_file` or `cat`, wait, are there local files in `/var/lib/hey-lefty/notes/...`? The system prompt mentions: "Your workspace is at: /var/lib/hey-lefty/notes/019e89b4-58b3-7e3b-a0c2-6a68bd3242db/019e89d0-1359-70a2-95cf-80adebbdd875 - Long-term memory: ... - History log: ... - Custom skills: ..." But wait! Do we have a terminal tool or bash tool? No, we don't have any bash or file-reading tools declared in the `declaration` block! Let's look at the declarations again: - `default_api:list_threads` - `default_api:read_notes` - `default_api:write_note` - `default_api:record_thread` - `default_api:resolve_thread` - `default_api:record_watch` - `default_api:record_event` - `default_api:web_search` - `default_api:web_fetch` - `default_api:market_view` - `default_api:finish_cycle` Ah! We do not have any terminal or file-editing tools declared here. The only way we can write or update notes is via `default_api:write_note`. Wait! The instructions say: "reusing a slug updates the existing note and snapshots the prior content into note_revisions. Mint a fresh slug ONLY for a genuinely new subject. Before you write, scan your prior findings (the injected block + `read_notes`) for the slug that already owns this subject and reuse it". Let's see: 1. For the H-1B fee litigation and the new DHS $103,265 fee proposal, the existing slug is `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance`. The title of that note is "High-Skilled Immigration: Firm-Level Complementarity, the Wage-Weighted Lottery, and the September 2025 H-1B Visa Tax Debate". We should update this note to include the June 2026 District Court ruling, the July 24, 2026 First Circuit denial of the stay in *State of California v. Mullin*, and the August 25, 2026 DHS proposed rule for a $103,265 fee under INA 286(m). 2. For the Borjas (2026) paper on selection bias and native employment/wage impacts, the existing slug is `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts`. The title is "Selection Bias in Native Responses: Reconciling the Employment and Wage Impacts of Immigration". This is perfect! We will update this note to include George Borjas's latest JOLE 2026 paper, which provides a formal selection-correction framework and estimates a negative wage elasticity of -0.7 to -0.9. 3. For the Caiumi and Peri (2026) paper, we can update `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` (Labor Economics Consensus: Skill-Group Effects and the NASEM Report) or `cepii-meta-analysis-wage-effects-immigration` (CEPII Meta-Analysis (2025): The Comprehensive Wage Effects of Immigration). Actually, `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` tracks the national "factor-supply" models to estimate immigration's impact on native wages and employment. Caiumi and Peri (2026) is explicitly an update of this national factor-supply approach (updating Borjas 2003 and Ottaviano-Peri 2012), so updating `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem` is the perfect fit! Let's check if there are other watches we can resolve or update. Let's look at the active watches again: - `First Circuit Merit Ruling or Supreme Court Action on the $100,000 H-1B Fee` (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`): - On July 24, 2026, the First Circuit denied the government's motion to stay the District Court's order vacating the $100,000 H-1B fee in *State of California v. Mullin*. - Let's call `record_event` to record this major milestone. Since the merits appeal remains pending (with briefing wrapping up in October 2026), we will set `resolves: false` because it is an ongoing watch for the final merits ruling or Supreme Court action. - `Empirical Replications and Policy Outcomes of the $100,000 H-1B Visa Tax` (id: `01a00ec3-594d-7b0e-80a7-2b09f1f0a16a`): - In August 2026, DHS proposed a new $103,265 fee for cap-subject H-1B petitions to bypass the court's ruling in *California v. Mullin*. - Let's call `record_event` on this watch to record this massive policy shift. Since it is an ongoing watch for empirical replications and policy outcomes of the tax/fee, we will set `resolves: false`. Let's do this step-by-step. First, I will record the events for the watches. Then, I will write/update the three notes. Finally, I will call `finish_cycle`. Wait, let's call `record_event` on the first watch. The watch id is `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`. The summary is: "First Circuit denies government's stay motion in State of California v. Mullin, keeping the $100,000 H-1B fee vacated nationwide." The outcome is: "The $100,000 H-1B fee remains blocked nationwide during the appeal; briefing on the merits is expected to conclude in October 2026." The salience is 5 (very high). Let's call `record_event`.

Now, let's record the event for the second watch: `Empirical Replications and Policy Outcomes of the $100,000 H-1B Visa Tax` (id: `01a00ec3-594d-7b0e-80a7-2b09f1f0a16a`). The summary is: "DHS proposes a new $103,265 fee on cap-subject H-1B petitions under INA 286(m) to fund broad immigration activities." The outcome is: "DHS published a proposed rule on August 25, 2026, establishing a $103,265 fee per cap-subject H-1B petition, drawing heavy criticism and raising major legal/tax questions." The salience is 5 (very high). Let's call `record_event`.

Awesome. Now, let's write/update the note `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance`. Wait, let's make sure we have all the details and quotes. Let's review the required format for notes: - No YAML frontmatter. - First line is `# <Title for this finding>`. - Body contains the explanation, representative verbatim quotes, and links. - `## Sources` block at the bottom with normal markdown links. - Uses stable slugs. The slug is `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance`. - Let's link other findings using `[[its-slug]]` if applicable. Let's prepare the content for `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance`. Title: "High-Skilled Immigration: Firm-Level Complementarity, the Wage-Weighted Lottery, and the September 2025 H-1B Visa Tax Debate" Wait, let's make sure we include: 1. The June 8, 2026 District Court decision in *State of California v. Mullin* (vacating the $100,000 fee nationwide). 2. The July 24, 2026 First Circuit decision (denying the emergency stay). 3. The August 25, 2026 DHS proposed rule (the $103,265 fee under INA 286(m) / 8 U.S.C. 1356(m)). 4. The exact agency funding breakdown and the legal/economic arguments (tax vs. fee, preemption, major questions, arbitrary & capricious, and ability to pay). 5. Quotes from the First Circuit's order, the Forbes article, and the Reddy Neumann Brown PC analysis. Let's draft the note body carefully. Wait! Let's check the exact quotes we have: From the First Circuit order: - "Before us is a motion to stay, pending appeal to this Court, a district court order and final judgment that vacated actions taken by officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") and the U.S. Department of State ("DOS") to implement a presidential proclamation requiring that a $100,000 payment accompany all H-1B visa petitions." - "The defendants have not made a strong showing as to the critical likelihood-of-success factor, and their arguments regarding the remaining factors failed to meet the burden required. Accordingly, we deny the defendants' motion to stay pending appeal." From the Forbes article (Stuart Anderson): - "The Trump administration is proposing a $103,265 tax on all petitions subject to the H-1B annual limit. The proposed immigration rule is the latest effort by Trump officials to prevent employers from hiring high-skilled foreign nationals in the United States." - "DHS proposes to establish a $103,265 fee, payable at the time of filing, for all H-1B cap-subject petitions, including those eligible for the advanced degree exemption, which would be imposed in addition to all other applicable fees or payments... This fee would serve as a dedicated revenue mechanism to help recover a portion of the federal government’s costs of administering the lawful immigration system, including activities carried out by DHS, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Department of Labor." From the Reddy Neumann Brown PC article: - "DHS would charge $103,265 per H-1B cap-subject petition. The fee applies to petitions filed under the regular 65,000 cap and to those filed under the 20,000 advanced degree exemption... It does not apply to cap-exempt petitions, extensions, amendments, transfers..." - "DHS identified total costs to be recovered of $8,777,488,035, divided that figure by an assumed annual volume of 85,000 cap-subject petitions, and arrived at $103,264.57, which it rounded to the nearest $5 increment. In other words, the fee is not a measure of what it costs USCIS to adjudicate an H-1B petition. It is a revenue target divided by a headcount." - "Roughly 66 percent of the revenue goes to agencies and programs with no adjudicatory connection to the payer... EOIR would receive nearly $3 billion... ICE would receive $1.05B... DOS would receive $484 million... DOL would receive $1.21B..." - "Under National Cable Television Association v. United States, 415 U.S. 336 (1974), and FPC v. New England Power Co., 415 U.S. 345 (1974), a charge qualifies as a fee only when it confers a specific benefit on the payer. A charge that funds general public benefits is a tax, and taxing authority must be delegated by Congress with a clear statement." Let's write this note now. I will call `write_note` for `high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance`.

Wait, why did it say "Error: topic_id, slug, and body are required"? Ah! Let's check the parameters in the declaration of `default_api:write_note`: `write_note{body, cycle_id, rationale, slug, topic_id}` Wait, let's look at my tool call: `write_note{body: ..., topic_id: ...}` Ah, I did not pass the `slug` parameter! Let's make sure I pass `slug: "high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance"` as a parameter. Let's call the tool again with the correct parameters.

This worked beautifully. Now let's write/update the note `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts`. Wait! This note tracks: "Selection Bias in Native Responses: Reconciling the Employment and Wage Impacts of Immigration". Let's see what we can write here: - We have the brand-new paper by George Borjas (2026), "Gender, Selection into Employment, and the Wage Impact of Immigration," published in the *Journal of Labor Economics*. - This paper is a massive breakthrough for the "selection-bias" and "crowd-out" hypothesis. It formally shows that when immigrants enter, some native workers exit the labor force, and because those who exit are lower-wage, it biases the observed average native wage upward. - When correcting for this selection bias (using Heckman's selection correction / inverse Mills ratio) and controlling for the native labor supply (which is typically ignored or assumed fixed), Borjas finds a large negative wage elasticity of **-0.91** for native women and **-0.70** for native men (which are statistically identical). - This directly contrasts with standard OLS or IV models that find zero/negligible wage impacts for native women because of selection. - Let's explain this methodology, show the regression results (comparing columns with and without selection correction), and quote Borjas. - Let's also link to `[[labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem]]` and `[[mariel-boatlift-debate-card-borjas]]` or `[[mariel-methodological-reconciliation-compositional-bias]]` which are related concepts. Let's review the required format and write this note. I will call `write_note` for `selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts`.

This is outstanding. Now, let's write/update the note `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem`. Wait, this note tracks: "Labor Economics Consensus: Skill-Group Effects and the NASEM Report". Let's see what we can write here: - We have the brand-new paper by Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri (2026), "Immigration’s effect on US wages and employment redux" (CEPR Discussion Paper 21756 / NBER Working Paper 32389, July 2026). - This paper is a major update to the national "factor-supply" approach, which was originally developed by Borjas (2003) and Ottaviano & Peri (2012). - It covers the 2000-2023 period, which saw a major shift in the composition of US immigration: the population of low-educated immigrants stopped growing and shrank, while college-educated immigrants surged, becoming the largest foreign-born group by 2015. - Using a new instrumental variable based on origin-country "push factors" and persistent skill characteristics, and explicitly modeling native labor supply adjustments and occupational upgrading (task specialization), Caiumi and Peri find: - **Less-educated native workers** saw their wages *increase* by **2.6% to 3.4%** due to immigration between 2000 and 2023. This is because of strong productive complementarity and occupational upgrading (natives moving away from manual tasks to communication-intensive ones, which are higher paying). - **College-educated native workers** saw a small and non-significant wage impact, despite absorbing the bulk of the recent skilled immigrant inflows, because of strong within-group complementarity. - **No significant crowding out**: They find positive native employment rate effects, suggesting that immigration attracts natives into the labor force by raising their marginal productivity. - This directly challenges the classic downward-sloping labor demand curve assumptions and Borjas's selection-bias claims, showing that complementarity and occupational upgrading dominate. - Let's explain this methodology, show the results, and quote Caiumi & Peri. - Let's also link to `[[selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts]]` and `[[cepii-meta-analysis-wage-effects-immigration]]` which are related concepts. Let's write this note now. I will call `write_note` for `labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem`.

This is absolutely excellent. We have successfully written/updated three crucial notes that perfectly capture the real-time, cutting-edge labor-economics debates playing out in 2026: 1. The H-1B $103,265 fee proposal (under INA 286(m)), the *California v. Mullin* litigation, and the First Circuit's denial of the stay on July 24, 2026. 2. George Borjas's (2026) paper on selection bias and native crowd-out (showing a negative wage elasticity of -0.7 to -0.9 once behavioral responses are corrected). 3. Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri's (2026) paper on the national factor-supply model (showing a positive wage effect of +2.6% to +3.4% for less-educated natives due to complementarity and task specialization). Let's double-check if there are any other threads or watches we should address. Let's list the threads/watches again from our initial call: - `First Circuit Merit Ruling or Supreme Court Action on the $100,000 H-1B Fee` (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`) - we recorded an event on this and kept it open because merits briefing concludes in October 2026. This is perfect. - `Empirical Replications and Policy Outcomes of the $100,000 H-1B Visa Tax` (id: `01a00ec3-594d-7b0e-80a7-2b09f1f0a16a`) - we recorded an event on this to capture the August 25, 2026 DHS $103,265 proposed fee under INA 286(m). We kept it open. This is perfect. - `Release of 2024 and 2025 ACS Microdata and Peer-Reviewed Replications of the Post-Pandemic Surge` (id: `019feab6-ed6b-7a86-ba17-32e34dc6707e`) - ongoing. - `CBO 2027 Demographic Outlook and Net Migration Projections` (id: `019fa29b-f934-7cd5-ac9c-31ed8e1a932c`) - dated catalyst for early 2027. - `CBO and DHS Annual Net Immigration Estimates` (id: `019eca51-dd39-7e01-b94d-142c0b0a0599`) - ongoing. Wait! Is there any other thread that we can resolve? No, these are all watches (which are ongoing or dated in the future). Let's double check if we need to open any new threads or register any new watches. Wait, since DHS proposed a new rule on August 25, 2026, and the comment period closes on September 24, 2026, we should register a new watch to monitor the finalization of this $103,265 DHS fee rule and the subsequent legal challenges that are expected to be filed immediately upon its finalization. Let's register a new watch: - `watch_type`: `live_process` or `tripwire` - `cardinality`: `one_shot` or `ongoing` (let's use `ongoing` to monitor the rulemaking and subsequent lawsuits) - `title`: `DHS $103,265 H-1B Fee Rulemaking and Litigation` - `description`: `Monitor the finalization of the DHS proposed rule (RIN 1615-AD20) to establish a $103,265 H-1B cap fee, and the expected federal lawsuits challenging its legality under the tax-vs-fee doctrine and INA 286(m).` - `entity`: `DHS / USCIS` Let's call `record_watch` to register this. This is a very professional, forward-looking step that ensures we track this major development.

This is excellent. Let's call `finish_cycle` to complete this research cycle. I will summarize my findings in my final response.

I have completed the research cycle and updated the topic findings with scrupulous, evidence-led, and neutral labor-economics analysis. ### Key Milestones & Findings from This Cycle 1. **High-Skilled Immigration & The $103,265 Fee Pivot (`[[high-skilled-immigration-h1b-lottery-and-firm-performance]]`)** * **The Legal Setback**: In the ongoing litigation *State of California v. Mullin* (No. 26-1699), the **U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit** on **July 24, 2026**, denied the federal government's motion for an emergency stay. This keeps the original $100,000 H-1B fee (established by presidential proclamation in September 2025) vacated nationwide while the merits appeal continues (with briefing wrapping up in October 2026). The court noted that Congress has historically been highly explicit when authorizing immigration fees and that broad presidential authority to restrict entry under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(f) and 1185(a) cannot be interpreted to authorize a massive payment requirement without clear congressional intent. * **The DHS Pivot**: In response to this legal setback, the **Department of Homeland Security (DHS)** on **August 25, 2026**, published a notice of proposed rulemaking (RIN 1615-AD20) to establish a new **$103,265 fee** for all cap-subject H-1B petitions. * **The Cost-Recovery Shell**: DHS is attempting to bypass the court's "unlawful tax" ruling by citing **Section 286(m) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1356(m))**, which permits recovering the "full costs of providing immigration adjudication and naturalization services." DHS identified a total revenue target of **$8.8 billion annually** (divided by an assumed 85,000 cap-subject petitions) to fund six agencies across three cabinet departments: * *USCIS* (34.2% / $3B) * *EOIR / DOJ Immigration Courts* (33.7% / $2.95B) — funding 8,400 new positions primarily for removal proceedings. * *DOL* (13.8% / $1.21B) — funding Wage & Hour and Solicitor offices. * *ICE* (11.9% / $1.05B) — funding alien vetting and admissions. * *DOS* (5.5% / $484M) — funding consular vetting and refugee resettlement programs. * *CBP* (0.9% / $76.2M) * **Legal Vulnerabilities**: Legal experts and trade groups argue that this proposed fee remains a broad, unauthorized tax under *National Cable Television Association v. United States* (1974) because roughly 66% of the revenue is routed to programs (like removal courts or refugee resettlement) that have no adjudicatory connection to the H-1B petitioning employer. Furthermore, the rule contains an internal economic contradiction: DHS argues the fee will deter H-1B hiring (an "indirect benefit"), but its revenue model assumes a constant volume of 85,000 filings. 2. **The Selection Bias & Crowd-Out Hypothesis (`[[selection-bias-native-employment-wage-impacts]]`)** * **Borjas's JOLE 2026 Paper**: A major methodological breakthrough by **George Borjas (2026)**, published in the *Journal of Labor Economics*, formalizes how selection bias and native labor supply adjustments mask the negative wage impacts of immigration. * **The Mechanics**: When an immigrant supply shock occurs, lower-wage native workers (particularly women) exit the labor force (the crowd-out effect). Because those who exit are from the lower end of the wage distribution, the average wage of the *remaining* employed natives in repeated cross-sections appears artificially high (selection bias). * **The Results**: By correcting for selection (using Heckman's selection correction / inverse Mills ratio) and controlling for native labor supply (Log N), Borjas finds that the estimated wage elasticity for native women drops from a statistically insignificant -0.08 to a highly significant **-0.91** (meaning a 10% immigration-induced supply shock reduces native female wages by 9%). For native men, the corrected wage elasticity is **-0.70**. Once corrected, the negative wage impacts for native men and women are statistically identical. 3. **The National Factor-Supply & Complementarity Update (`[[labor-economics-consensus-skill-groups-nasem]]`)** * **Caiumi & Peri's 2026 Paper**: In direct contrast, **Alessandro Caiumi and Giovanni Peri (2026)** published an updated national factor-supply model (CEPR Discussion Paper 21756) covering the 2000–2023 period. * **The Mechanics**: This period saw a major composition shift: low-educated immigration shrank, while college-educated immigration surged (becoming the largest foreign-born group by 2015). Using a new origin-country "push-factor" instrument and modeling native task specialization, they find that productive complementarity and occupational upgrading dominate. * **The Results**: Rather than depressing native wages, immigration between 2000 and 2023 raised the wages of less-educated native workers by **2.6% to 3.4%** and had positive employment rate effects (drawing natives into the labor force by raising their marginal productivity). Less-educated natives adjusted by upgrading from manual-intensive roles to communication-intensive roles, which carry higher wages and better job amenities. ### Tracked Catalysts & Watches * **Recorded Event (Stay Denial)**: Recorded the First Circuit's July 24, 2026 denial of the emergency stay in *California v. Mullin* (id: `01a032cd-880c-758f-ad19-0505e960efd1`). Kept the watch open to monitor the final merits ruling (briefing concludes in October 2026). * **Recorded Event (New DHS Fee)**: Recorded the August 25, 2026 DHS $103,265 fee proposal (id: `01a00ec3-594d-7b0e-80a7-2b09f1f0a16a`) as a major policy outcome of the high-skilled immigration tax debate. * **Registered New Watch**: Established a new ongoing watch (id: `01a056da-c43f-7e95-a238-bb1cb15351ac`) to track the finalization of the DHS $103,265 fee rule (comments close on September 24, 2026) and the wave of federal lawsuits expected to challenge it immediately upon finalization.