H1B等身份即将失去grace period，失业行李都来不及收拾就要离境，请大家写comment反对

DHS近期发布了新的拟议规则，准备取消H1B，O1，L1，TN等工作身份在失业后60天的grace period，依附主申请人身份的配偶和孩子也会受到影响。目前还没有生效，正在公开征求意见，提按原文如下：

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-18631.pdf

如果该提案落地，H1B身份失业后当天就必须需要立即离境，否则失业后第二天理论上就立即会满足removability的条件，成为被ICE抓捕的目标。这不仅仅会让突然裁员后找第下一份工作变得几乎不可能，也会让境内转B/F等其他身份变得极其困难。就算不找下一份工作，只想收拾东西回国，也需要时间。如果裁员当天买不到回国的机票，收拾不好东西，办理不了孩子退学，卖不掉汽车，退不掉房子租约都理论上有可能被ICE抓走。

因此，烦请大家如果还在H1B身份上，从今天起在未来的60天内在下面的网址写下反对的comment，反对这个拟议规则：

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/09/11/2026-18631/eliminating-the-discretionary-60-day-grace-period#open-comment

不错，这条规则暂时不知道会直接影响到谁，因为我们都无法预计在多个月后这条规则正式生效后自己会不会失业。不过任何用H1B身份的人却都在将来可能成为这条规则的受害者，我觉得不应该到那个时候再后悔今天没有充分地发声。

提交反对的comment不是为了让DHS大发慈悲地不再颁布这条新规则，这是不太可能的。而是逼着DHS履行必须要address所有重要且合理的质疑才能让规则最终生效的法律义务。如果提交的合理的反对comment在final rule里面被DHS视而不见，这本身会在将来成为在法院起诉DHS的强有力依据。所以不要因为觉得DHS反正不会听就放弃提交。公开评论的重要作用之一是把具体问题和证据留在行政记录里，为后续司法挑战提供基础。

以下是我让AI总结出来的一些拟议规则里面的可以攻击的漏洞，仅供大家参考：

• 突然失业的人，怎样才能守法离境？ DHS拟取消H1B等身份失业后最多60天的宽限期，要求没有其他合法停留依据的人立即离境。若员工当天突然被裁员，又没有当天可乘坐的离境航班，怎样才能避免次日失去身份？
• 取消宽限期保护后，为什么还能用保护存在时的数据预测执法负担？ DHS列举2025年超过60天宽限期后收到遣返程序通知的37名H1B持有人，预测新规只会小幅增加执法量。但原本在60天内找到工作、转换身份或离境的人，今后也可能成为执法对象，这部分新增风险如何计算？
• 配偶被迫失业，为什么不算新规造成的家庭损失？ 目前主申请人失业后，符合条件的配偶仍可在宽限期内继续工作。取消后，配偶可能立即失去工作授权。DHS承认这种收入损失，却又认定规则对家庭的影响可忽略，依据是什么？
• 重新找工作、办理签证、返回美国，凭什么最多耽误两个月？ DHS用额外两个月失业作为收入损失的上限情景。但原有宽限期是60天，不代表被迫离境后恢复就业最多只需60天；这个上限有什么实际数据支持？

求管理员置顶这个帖子

核心逻辑是：取消 60 天 grace period 不只是伤害 H-1B 本人，而是会给美国企业、劳动力市场和本土经济制造额外成本。
招聘现实：60 天本来就很短。正常招聘包含 recruiter screen、数轮 interview、headcount/comp approval、background check、律师准备 H-1B transfer 等，不可能在失业当天完成。
雇主成本：候选人突然必须离境，会导致 vacancy 延长、项目 delay、重复招聘、律师费用和 productivity loss。
小企业 / startup 更吃亏：大公司有 immigration team、海外 office 和成熟流程，小公司没有；DHS 自己的数据也显示受影响 employer 中相当大比例是 small entities。
进一步加强大公司的优势：人才会更倾向于留在有能力快速处理签证的大公司，而不敢去 startup，降低创业公司竞争力。
Employer lock-in / monopsony：员工知道“一旦失业就必须马上离境”，会更不敢换工作、谈工资、举报不良工作环境，从而增强雇主议价权。
不一定帮助美国工人：一个 H-1B 离境，并不意味着第二天就有一个美国人补上。专业岗位可能长期 vacant、项目被取消，或者工作由现有员工承担。
可能推动 offshoring：跨国公司完全可能把岗位或项目直接转到 Canada、India 等海外 office，而不是在美国雇一个替代者。因此最终可能是美国失去这个 job 本身。
损害本土消费和税基：这些 worker 在美国交 federal/state/local taxes、付房租或房贷、买商品和服务。突然离境意味着当地消费和税收也一起流失。
产业链外溢效应：高技能 worker 带来的 productivity 不只影响本人，也会影响 sales、operations、供应商、服务业等其他美国就业。
人才竞争力：美国与 Canada、UK、Australia、Europe、Singapore 等争夺全球高技能人才。“一次 layoff 就产生立即离境风险”会降低美国长期吸引力。
创新和创业：更少的人愿意加入 startup、创业或承担职业风险，会伤害美国 innovation ecosystem。
家庭和社区稳定性：很多人已经在美国生活多年，有配偶、孩子、房产和社区关系；突然离境产生的 disruption 远超一份工作的终止。
政策目标与手段不匹配：如果 DHS 真正担心 abuse、fraud 或行政负担，可以做更窄的改革，没有必要彻底取消 grace period。
DHS 的成本分析不足：尤其值得指出，它承认存在 employer productivity loss 和 reliance interests，却没有充分量化失去税收、消费、人才、创新和 offshoring 等成本。
60 天不是“允许非法工作”：grace period 只是允许合法停留并寻找新的 sponsor，期间并没有自动获得工作授权，因此它本质上是一个 labor-market transition mechanism，而不是额外 employment benefit。

所以一定要写 comment反对？不能comment支持？

GPT总结的：

① §214(n) + H-1B 的特殊性 — 最强法律点

Congress specifically created H-1B portability under INA §214(n). DHS 删除 grace period 后，必须解释 失业 → status immediately ends → 新雇主随后提交 I-129 的情况下，§214(n) 如何继续有效。
同时，DHS 将 H-1B 与另外 7 类一刀切，却没有充分解释为什么 H-1B 独有的 statutory portability 不需要区别分析。

② Reliance interests 的“选择性量化” — 最锋利的新点

DHS 对 USCIS administrative burden 精确量化到 190万件、5.77%、0.59%、1.70%、<0.1%，但对取消 grace period 后转移给 EOIR/ICE/DOJ 的负担只使用 “marginal/minor increase”等定性描述。
DHS 同时承认重大 reliance，却没有同等程度地量化/解释这些 reliance interests 为什么被 government interests outweighed。

③ 已经进入 grace period 的人：完全没有 transition / grandfather analysis

DHS 讨论了 partial elimination、shortening、evidentiary alternatives，却没有充分分析最直接的 transition option：final rule 生效时已经进入 60-day grace period 的人是否保留剩余期限。
这是一个非常具体的 failure-to-consider alternative / reliance 问题。

④ Dependents：DHS 承认重大未知数，却没有把它真正纳入 balancing

DHS 估算平均每年约 20.8万 dependents，同时明确承认无法可靠估计其中多少依赖 grace period。
但在最终认定 reliance interests 被 outweighed 时，没有充分解释这个重大 uncertainty 如何影响其分析。

⑤ 2016 → 2026 policy reversal：解释为什么以前成立的理由现在全部不成立

2016 DHS 明确认为 grace period 有利于 job mobility、worker stability、employer flexibility。
2026 DHS 可以改变政策，但必须合理解释：为什么这些此前由 DHS 自己认定的重要利益现在不再值得保留，以及发生了什么变化使 60→0 成为合理选择。

⑥ 为什么必须是 60 → 0，而不是 30 / transition / grandfathering

即使 DHS 有权取消 60 天，也不自动证明 完全归零 是合理且必要的。
DHS 必须解释为什么较窄、伤害更小的方案——尤其 grandfathering、transition period、30天——不足以实现其 statutory-alignment 和 administrative-burden 目标。
-baidu 1point3acres
在另一个帖子里也发了，希望大家都去评论

Comment 1: DHS must explain how this proposal can coexist with H-1B portability under INA § 214(n).

I oppose the proposed elimination of the 60-day grace period because DHS has not adequately explained how the proposal would operate together with Congress’s statutory H-1B portability framework under INA § 214(n).

Congress specifically created H-1B portability so that an H-1B worker may begin employment with a new H-1B employer upon the filing of a nonfrivolous H-1B petition, rather than waiting for approval. This statutory framework assumes that H-1B workers can move between employers in a practical and workable way.

If DHS eliminates the grace period, an H-1B worker who is laid off may be deemed to fail to maintain status immediately after employment ends. In that scenario, DHS must explain how a new employer’s subsequently filed H-1B petition can meaningfully preserve portability. If the worker is already considered out of status before the new employer can realistically prepare and file the petition, the statutory portability protection becomes substantially less effective in real-world layoff situations.

DHS should not treat H-1B the same as every other classification without separately analyzing INA § 214(n). H-1B has a unique statutory portability provision. DHS must explain why eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers does not undermine Congress’s portability scheme, or alternatively preserve a transition period at least for H-1B workers.

Comment 2: DHS should account for LCA timing in H-1B transfer cases.

For H-1B workers, a new employer often cannot file an H-1B transfer immediately. Before the I-129 petition can be filed, the employer usually needs to prepare and file a Labor Condition Application, confirm the worksite, wage level, job duties, occupational classification, and internal sponsorship approval.

This process takes time even when the employer and attorney act quickly. If the grace period is eliminated, a worker terminated unexpectedly may not have enough time for a new employer to complete the required pre-filing steps. The result is that H-1B portability may become practically unavailable in many real-world layoff situations.

DHS should specifically analyze the interaction between LCA timing, H-1B transfer preparation, and INA § 214(n) portability before eliminating the grace period for H-1B workers. A zero-day rule does not reflect how H-1B transfer filings actually work.

Comment 3: DHS must explain why the 2016 reasons supporting job mobility and employer flexibility no longer apply.

In 2016, DHS recognized that the grace period promoted worker mobility, worker stability, and employer flexibility. DHS explained that the grace period helped workers pursue new employment and helped U.S. employers facilitate changes in employment for existing and newly recruited nonimmigrant workers.

DHS may change policy, but it must provide a reasoned explanation for changing position. The proposed rule says DHS has reconsidered the issue, but it does not adequately explain what has changed since 2016 that makes the prior benefits no longer important. Job mobility, employer flexibility, and workforce stability remain important today.

If anything, layoffs, restructuring, and rapid labor market changes make a transition period more important, not less. DHS should explain why the same interests it previously recognized are now insufficient to justify any grace period at all. DHS should also explain why a reduction from 60 days to zero is reasonable, rather than a shorter grace period or a more tailored rule.

Comment 4: Eliminating the grace period would increase employer control over immigration status and undermine worker protections.

Eliminating the grace period would give employers extraordinary leverage over foreign national workers. If a worker’s lawful status ends immediately upon employment cessation, then the employer effectively controls the worker’s immigration stability by deciding when to terminate employment.

This could make workers less willing to report wage violations, discrimination, harassment, unsafe working conditions, retaliation, or other unlawful conduct. A worker may tolerate mistreatment because leaving or being terminated could immediately place the worker and family out of status.

The current grace period helps reduce this imbalance by giving workers a short period to seek another sponsor or legal option. DHS should consider the worker-protection consequences of eliminating it. Program integrity should include protecting compliant workers from excessive employer control, not increasing vulnerability after job loss.

想请问一下，公示期过后，是否会有诉讼推翻这个取消grace period的政策？

提交comment无需注册账号，可以匿名提交，甚至多次提交都可以

锦晖律师事务所 发表于 2026-9-12 01:51
Comment 1: DHS must explain how this proposal can coexist with H-1B portability under INA § 214(n) ...

您好！

准备去评论，觉得您从law的角度开展评论非常有力，都很好！想参考您的所有观点。请教：

如果相同观点的评论A出现的次数多，DHS是不是必须explian这个A?