Sunday, November 10, 2019

New Tactic From the Administration to Decrease Lawful Immigration

Here is more evidence that President Trump just hates immigrants, illegal or otherwise.

John Q. Khosravi, who specializes in immigration law, emails:
The new tactic for the Administration to decrease lawful Immigration to the United States has been to increase the financial costs associated with the process. Two programs, the Public Charge Rule and the requirement for Immigrant Visa Applicants to obtain Health Insurance, have been put on hold due to Federal Court Injunctions.

However, this week DHS/USCIS announced its plans to increase the filing fees for various application/petition types. The 314 Page Proposed Rule, may cause fee increases as soon as the end of this year, although exact dates are not clear. Examples include:

- Adjustment of Status (Green Card Request within the U.S. with Travel Permission and Work Permit): From $1,225 to $2,195.
- Foreign Worker Visas: $100-$355 increase depending on the type of Petition.
- Naturalization (Citizenship): From $640 to $1,170.

Suffice to say that if you were interested in applying for immigration benefits, it is better to start sooner rather than later.


  1. Well I guess I am an immigrant hater too, since I think there should be a moratorium on all immigration for at least a few years, while we absorb the tsunami of immigrants over the last few years.

  2. Bob, since you don't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration, why should we?

  3. So what you're saying is that the immigration process is undergoing the same thing that everything else government has been going through, making everything more expensive and difficult. Sometimes only because of the ideas of the people in charge and sometimes just because they want more money, a bigger headcount, and rent for cronies.

    When the left uses this process it hardly gets any attention and if it does it is usually presented as needed or a good thing by the mainstream media. The immigration process has been expensive and painful for decades getting more so as time passes. The increasing of fees and demanding people pay crony industries doesn't seem at all unusual.

  4. Since we do not live in a PPS where borders are determined by property owners I endorse open borders with no redistribution of wealth. Even though open boarders is likely to result in cultural change for a wealthy country like the US, even without redistribution of wealth, that lack of redistribution of wealth may result in a better culture.

    Since we have redistribution of wealth and other impingements on freedom that can be exasperated by cultural change in our so called democratic republic, I would like to keep immigration of those that are not oriented toward freedom to a minimum. This is not likely when immigration is in the hands of government.

    I say the less government the better. In this case that means open borders would be better than what we currently have. Ben Powel has cited studies that find open boarders would result in immense economic benefits to all. So much so that the bad parts of open borders would be both overshadowed by and easily overcome by the economic benefits.

    Mark Krikorian brought up some very good points in opposition to Powel when they debated ( The cultural aspect of Krikorian’s argument is the most compelling to me. My belief is that in the long run most would be better off with open borders economically. Our level of freedom would probably be a push. Less government intrusion with who we associate with based on a person’s past location and possibly growing government intrusion in other areas due to cultural changes brought in by open immigration.

    Considering the trend we are on now, how much worse would government intrusion be with open borders? Open borders is a form of freedom. It is possible this freedom would bring an appetite for more freedom.

    1. Right. America would cease to exist along with most of the Western world.

    2. You may be right. We will never know. Truly open borders will not happen in our life time unless the society we currently have completely breaks down.

      Consider that the culture of the western world is currently breaking down, not in small part, due to government miss-management of immigration and borders. I think it was Hoppe that called it “forced integration”. I am arguing that not only would we be better off overall by the elimination of government control of borders and who and what crosses them, but the preservation of cultures would be better than what we currently have.

      Again, I am for borders based on PP. But let’s do a thought experiment. What would happen if the US unilaterally opened its borders? No other changes. The crony bankster welfare warfare state still controls everything else.

      The US would get a huge influx of both those looking for welfare and those looking to work for their prosperity. There is also the aspect that the US gang took from the Mexican gang what is currently the western part of the US. This will increase the influx of Mexicans; how much is hard to predict.

      If Powel is correct the ill effects from the demographic changes are overridden by the economic benefits. If the economic benefits are not great enough to make the welfare state less attractive than working to a prospective welfare recipient, I would think the welfare state would quickly be pushed to the brink and have to be given up.

      But what becomes of the culture? It’s going to change. In some ways it is going to be ugly. How ugly would be determined by the actual economic benefits of an open border and how the welfare state is affected.

      If most first world countries opened their borders welfare benefits would be overshadowed by working for a living. In this scenario where the US unilaterally opens its borders, the welfare state will initially grow until it breaks down. Which may take a while because the economy is growing at the same time allowing the welfare state to perpetuate. Once the welfare state has been abandoned the economic and other benefits of the open border remain. There is more freedom and more prosperity. Less state welfare and results in stronger family and personal ties. Along with the added freedom and prosperity we have a culture that encourages the better parts of what some consider traditional western values.

  5. Another awesome policy that should have been instituted years ago. I'm for zero refugees and heavy downturn of even legal immigration. If these people can't prove they won't be public problems, why should we let them in?

    I wish we had Mexico's awesome immigration policy. Here is an example and the racist Jorge Ramos was not around to cry for them:

    Keep in mind that the recent losses is VA were because of non white immigration voting Democrat. But hey, you libertardians keep being morons and thanks RW for letting us know you are happy to see America destroyed.