NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani Supports Immigrants During ICE Crackdown

A recent immigration raid in New York City has sparked significant outrage, prompting Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani to express strong support for the city’s immigrant communities.

A recent immigration raid by federal authorities in New York City has ignited widespread anger among local residents. This operation, part of a series of similar actions occurring nationwide, prompted an immediate backlash as nearly 200 protesters gathered to obstruct the agents. Clashes with police resulted in several demonstrators being taken into custody, according to The Guardian.

In response to the escalating situation, New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani voiced his unwavering support for the city’s immigrant communities, emphasizing his commitment to stand with those affected by the crackdown. “My responsibility is to be the mayor to each and every person that calls this city their home. That includes millions of immigrants, of which I am one,” Mamdani stated on X.

During a recent meeting with President Donald Trump, Mamdani raised concerns about the immigration raids directly, urging the administration to reconsider its approach. “When I met the President, I made it very clear that these kinds of raids are cruel and inhumane, that they do nothing to public safety,” he remarked.

Following his election victory, Mamdani reiterated his commitment to New York’s immigrant population in his victory speech, declaring, “New York will remain a city of immigrants: a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants and, as of tonight, led by an immigrant.” He further asserted, “So, hear me, President Trump, when I say this: to get to any of us, you will have to get through all of us.”

Mamdani, a naturalized American citizen born in Uganda to Indian parents, has consistently emphasized the importance of protecting the city’s large immigrant population throughout his campaign. This message became a cornerstone of his run for office.

During the raid, demonstrators filled the streets chanting “ICE out of New York.” They formed human chains and even threw roadside planters at federal vehicles in a desperate attempt to prevent the agents from leaving a garage during the enforcement sweep.

As tensions escalated, police deployed pepper spray to disperse the crowd, leading to what officials later described as a violent clash, according to The Associated Press.

Murad Awawdeh, an immigrant rights advocate who now serves on Mamdani’s transition team, commended the demonstrators for their resilience. He characterized their actions as a powerful display of community solidarity against what he termed a “rogue, lawless” agency. “New York City is unlike any other place in this country or even the world, and what you have seen yesterday and time and again is that New Yorkers of all stripes, across all creeds, are not going to allow a rogue, lawless, violent and horrific agency to continue to mess with their neighbors,” he told TIME.

The recent events underscore the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in the United States and the strong opposition from local communities, particularly in cities like New York that are home to diverse immigrant populations. Mamdani’s election and his vocal support for immigrants signal a potential shift in the city’s approach to immigration policy, as he prepares to take office.

As the situation continues to unfold, the response from both local leaders and community members will play a crucial role in shaping the future of immigration policy in New York City and beyond, according to The Guardian.

Nick Fuentes Criticizes Indian-Americans Amid Controversial Remarks

Right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes has called for India to be added to the list of nations facing a full suspension of U.S. immigration visas, reflecting his ongoing anti-immigrant rhetoric.

WASHINGTON, DC – Controversial right-wing commentator Nick Fuentes has urged that India be included on a list of nineteen countries facing a complete suspension of immigration visas to the United States. This call comes amid a backdrop of his history of inflammatory remarks aimed at various minority groups, with critics often labeling him a neo-Nazi.

The push for India’s inclusion follows a recent shooting incident near the White House, involving an Afghan national who had entered the U.S. in 2021 under Operation Allies Welcome. The shooting, which targeted two National Guard soldiers, prompted the Department of Homeland Security to impose sweeping immigration restrictions.

The current suspension affects several nations, including Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

In a tweet, Fuentes stated, “Now do India,” echoing sentiments that resonate with segments of the MAGA base. He has previously argued that Indian nationals, who often enter the U.S. through H-1B visas, are taking jobs and college opportunities away from American citizens. This perspective frames legal immigration programs as being at odds with the America First ideology that Fuentes champions.

Fuentes’ remarks have sparked outrage among many who view his statements as part of a broader trend of xenophobia and racism that has gained traction in certain political circles. His call to restrict immigration from India reflects a growing sentiment among some right-wing factions that seek to limit immigration based on nationality and perceived economic competition.

As the debate over immigration policy continues to evolve, Fuentes’ comments serve as a reminder of the divisive rhetoric that can influence public opinion and policy decisions. The implications of such statements extend beyond mere commentary, potentially affecting the lives of countless individuals seeking opportunities in the United States.

While the Biden administration has made efforts to reform immigration policies, the specter of extremist views like those expressed by Fuentes remains a significant challenge in the ongoing discourse surrounding immigration in America.

As the situation develops, it will be crucial to monitor how these discussions shape the future of immigration policy and the treatment of various communities within the United States.

Source: Original article

Holiday Travel Privacy Risks: Tips for Staying Safe This Season

Travelers can safeguard their personal information during the busy holiday season by understanding data sharing practices and taking proactive steps to protect their privacy.

The holiday travel season is notorious for its stressors, including crowded airports, soaring flight prices, and unexpected itinerary changes. However, many travelers may not realize that their personal data is being collected, shared, and sold every time they book a flight, reserve a hotel, or use a travel app.

As millions of Americans prepare for holiday journeys, the companies that handle their sensitive information—including full names, home addresses, passport details, travel dates, and device data—are sharing this data with third parties. This practice becomes particularly concerning during the holiday rush, as the influx of data creates opportunities for scammers.

Understanding how this data collection works, which companies are the biggest culprits, and what steps travelers can take to protect themselves is essential for a safe holiday experience.

During the holiday season, travel-related data collection peaks. Airlines, hotels, booking platforms, loyalty programs, and travel apps experience significant traffic spikes as travelers search for deals, compare prices, and check for flight updates. Each of these actions generates trackable data points.

Many travelers might assume that their data remains with the airline or hotel, but that is not the case. Most companies share this information with advertisers, analytics firms, data brokers, and a range of unnamed partners. Some even use this data to create profiles that assess how frequently a traveler flies, their spending habits, and whether they are considered a “high-value” target.

This information can easily fall into the hands of scammers, who exploit the heightened stress and urgency that travelers experience during the holidays. With access to personal data, scammers can craft convincing attacks that target individuals at their most vulnerable moments.

Major U.S. airlines, for example, collect not only basic information like names and email addresses but also details about travel companions, payment methods, geolocation, device data, and loyalty program activity. This data is often shared with numerous partners, many of whom become part of the broader data broker ecosystem.

Privacy policies from booking platforms detail the types of information they collect, which can include extensive data categories. For instance, Marriott’s privacy policy outlines over 60 different types of data it gathers from guests. Unfortunately, this extensive data collection has previously led to breaches, such as the exposure of information from over 500 million Marriott guests, which scammers continue to exploit.

Once personal information enters the data ecosystem, scammers can design travel-themed attacks that strike when individuals are least prepared. These attacks are not based on guesswork; scammers already possess critical details such as names, flight itineraries, hotel bookings, and travel dates.

To protect personal information during the holiday season, travelers should take several proactive steps. First, hotels, airlines, and booking sites often provide options for data removal, although these options can be difficult to find within their privacy settings.

Travelers should also disable location permissions for apps that track their movements, even when not in use. On iPhone, users can navigate to Settings, tap Privacy & Security, select Location Services, and adjust permissions for each app. On Android devices, users can access Settings, tap Location, and modify app permissions accordingly.

While stopping new data collection is crucial, it is equally important to address existing data that may already be circulating among data brokers. Travelers can request data removal from numerous sites, but this process can be time-consuming. For a more efficient solution, many opt for data removal services that actively monitor and erase personal information from various websites.

Using an alias email can also help reduce spam and phishing attempts. By creating email aliases that forward messages to a primary address, travelers can manage communications more effectively while protecting their information.

Additionally, travelers should be cautious when using public Wi-Fi networks, especially in airports, as scammers often set up fake hotspots to capture sensitive information. Avoiding these networks when accessing financial accounts is a wise precaution.

As the holiday season approaches, many individuals will be traveling to visit family and friends. However, the increase in travel also correlates with a rise in personal data collection and sharing practices by airlines, hotels, and travel apps, which can be exploited by scammers. Before embarking on holiday travels, taking the time to remove personal data from online brokers can help protect identities and ensure a more secure travel experience.

How do you protect your personal information while traveling during the holidays? Share your tips with us at Cyberguy.com.

Source: Original article

Nayna Gupta Testifies on Deportation’s Impact on Families and Communities

Nayna Gupta, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, testified at a Shadow Hearing on September 18, 2025, addressing the impact of deportation on families and communities.

On September 18, 2025, Nayna Gupta, the Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, provided critical testimony at a Shadow Hearing organized by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07). Jayapal, who serves as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement, hosted the hearing titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Assault Destroys U.S. Families and Communities.” This event marks the third in a series led by Rep. Jayapal that seeks to illuminate the profound human costs associated with deportation policies.

During her testimony, Gupta emphasized the far-reaching consequences of current deportation practices. She articulated how these policies not only tear families apart but also destabilize entire communities. Gupta pointed out that the emotional and psychological toll on families affected by deportation is immense, often leading to long-lasting trauma.

Gupta further criticized the erosion of due process and fairness within the U.S. immigration system. She argued that the existing policies undermine the foundational values of justice and dignity that should characterize America. Gupta’s remarks reflect a growing concern among advocates about the implications of deportation on civil liberties and human rights.

At the American Immigration Council, Gupta and her colleagues are dedicated to fostering an immigration system that prioritizes family unity, upholds due process, and embodies the principles of justice and dignity. The Council’s mission is to advocate for reforms that protect vulnerable populations and ensure that the immigration system operates fairly and equitably.

As the discussion surrounding immigration continues to evolve, Gupta’s testimony serves as a poignant reminder of the real-life impacts of policy decisions on families and communities across the nation. The Shadow Hearing not only sheds light on the challenges faced by those affected by deportation but also calls for a reevaluation of the values that guide U.S. immigration policy.

According to American Immigration Council, Gupta’s insights resonate with a broader movement advocating for humane immigration reform that recognizes the dignity of all individuals.

Source: Original article

Sen. Bernie Moreno Advocates for Exclusive Citizenship Act to End Dual Nationality

Sen. Bernie Moreno has introduced the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025,” which aims to eliminate dual nationality and reinforce the principle of undivided loyalty to the United States.

Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) has unveiled new legislation designed to reaffirm the notion that U.S. citizenship entails undivided national loyalty. The proposed bill, titled the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025,” seeks to establish that citizens of the United States “must have sole and exclusive allegiance to the U.S.”

This legislation directly targets dual nationality, stipulating that individuals would not be permitted to maintain U.S. citizenship while also holding citizenship in another country. Should the bill become law, any American who voluntarily acquires foreign citizenship would be required to relinquish their U.S. citizenship effective from the date the measure takes effect.

Individuals currently holding dual citizenship would need to file a written renunciation of their foreign citizenship with the Secretary of State or submit a written renunciation of their U.S. citizenship to the Secretary of Homeland Security within one year of the law’s enactment.

According to the bill, those who fail to comply with these requirements would be considered to have voluntarily relinquished their U.S. citizenship under section 349(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

The legislation also mandates that the Secretary of State establish regulations and procedures for declaring, verifying, and maintaining records of exclusive citizenship. Additionally, it requires collaboration with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that individuals determined to have relinquished their citizenship are accurately recorded in federal systems and treated as aliens under immigration laws.

“Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege — and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing. It’s time to end dual citizenship for good,” Moreno stated.

If approved by Congress, the measure would take effect 180 days after being signed into law.

Historically, the Supreme Court has upheld dual citizenship as a constitutional right. In the landmark case Talbot v. Jansen (1795), the court ruled that Americans who acquire another citizenship do not have to forfeit their U.S. citizenship. Similarly, in Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), the court determined that a U.S. citizen cannot be stripped of their citizenship unless they willingly choose to renounce it.

While the U.S. government does not track the exact number of Americans with dual citizenship, estimates suggest that the figure is substantial. According to International Living, over 40 million Americans, including a significant number of Mexican Americans, are eligible for dual citizenship.

Source: Original article

Average U.S. Visa Wait Times Decrease in Major Cities

The U.S. State Department has reported a decline in average visa wait times across several key cities, although the interview waiver option is no longer available for most visa categories.

The U.S. State Department has recently updated its visa appointment wait times, revealing notable changes across various cities. One significant alteration is the discontinuation of the interview waiver option, commonly referred to as the “Dropbox” facility, which is no longer available for most visa categories, including temporary work visas and F-1 student visas. This change impacts a broad spectrum of travelers who previously relied on this expedited, paperwork-only process.

According to the BAL U.S. Practice Group, New Delhi has seen a dramatic reduction in wait times for F, M, and J visas. The wait time has decreased from approximately two months to about half a month, providing relief for many applicants in this category.

In contrast, Shanghai has experienced a significant increase in wait times for H, L, O, P, and Q visa appointments. These wait times have surged from under half a month to around three months, a notable rise compared to the figures reported in the global update from October.

Chennai (Madras) has also recorded a significant shift in wait times for B-1/B-2 visas, with average wait times moving from five months to “N/A.” The next available appointments for interviews have decreased from a five-month wait to three months since October.

New Delhi has similarly improved its B-1/B-2 interview-required wait times, which have dropped from 6.5 months to 3.5 months over the same period. However, some cities continue to experience lengthy wait times for these types of visas.

The cities with the longest wait times for B-1/B-2 interview-required visas include Toronto at 16.5 months, San Jose at 13 months, Lagos at 12.5 months, Merida at 11.5 months, and Ottawa at 11 months. While most petition-based work visas that require interviews fall within a wait window of under half a month to about three months, a few locations remain notable exceptions.

Overall, the latest global wait times in major visa-issuing cities show little movement. For work visas (H, L, O, P, Q) and student or exchange visitor categories (F, M, J), the next available interview dates have largely remained steady compared to the previous month across the key cities being tracked.

The U.S. State Department’s monthly updates provide reported wait times that reflect the average duration for non-immigrant visa interviews and an estimate for the next available visitor visa appointment. However, these averages do not guarantee that any individual applicant will secure an appointment within that timeframe.

U.S. embassies and consulates often open additional appointment slots, meaning new dates can become available regularly. The State Department counts months in 30-day increments and half months in 15-day increments, including weekends and holidays when embassies are closed. Once an interview is booked, applicants can monitor the scheduling system and reschedule to an earlier slot if one opens up.

As the visa landscape continues to evolve, applicants are encouraged to stay informed about the latest updates and changes to the appointment process.

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes Revoking Citizenship from Naturalized Criminals if Authorized

President Trump announced a potential long-term halt on asylum processing and discussed revoking citizenship from naturalized immigrants with criminal records during a recent press conference aboard Air Force One.

President Donald Trump stated on Sunday that his administration’s freeze on asylum processing could extend for an indefinite period. This announcement follows a tragic incident involving the shooting of two National Guard members in Washington, D.C. Trump also suggested he might pursue the authority to revoke citizenship from certain naturalized immigrants who have criminal histories.

While the administration has characterized the asylum freeze as an emergency response to the recent shooting, Trump’s remarks indicate that these restrictions could become a more permanent fixture of his immigration policy. He linked the pause in asylum processing to a tougher stance against 19 nations he described as “crime-ridden.”

During his comments, Trump asserted that he would “absolutely” seek to de-naturalize immigrants convicted of crimes, contingent upon whether he possesses the presidential authority to do so. “We have enough problems. We don’t want those people,” he stated, emphasizing that there is no set time limit for the moratorium on asylum processing.

“We have criminals that came into our country and they were naturalized,” Trump continued. “If I have the power to do it – I’m not sure that I do, but if I do – I would de-naturalize. Absolutely.”

Trump also clarified his recent mention of “reverse migration,” explaining that it refers to the removal of individuals already residing in the United States. “Get people out that are in our country – get them out of here,” he said.

The comments come in the wake of a shooting incident involving Rahmanullah Lakanwal, a 29-year-old Afghan national, who has been charged with the shooting of two West Virginia National Guard members near the White House. U.S. Army Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, was killed in the attack, while her colleague, U.S. Air Force Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in critical condition. Both service members were deployed to D.C. as part of Trump’s initiative to combat crime, which included federalizing local police forces.

In light of the incident, Trump stated that he has invited the families of both Guard members to the White House. “I said, ‘When you’re ready, because that’s a tough thing, come to the White House. We’re going to honor Sarah,” he told reporters. “And likewise with Andrew, recover or not.”

Lakanwal faces serious charges, including first-degree murder and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. These charges have prompted the Trump administration to halt all asylum decisions and pause the issuance of visas for individuals traveling on Afghan passports.

As the situation develops, the implications of Trump’s comments on immigration policy and the administration’s approach to asylum seekers remain to be seen.

Source: Original article

Elon Musk Discusses Indian Talent and H-1B Visas on Podcast

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk praised the contributions of Indian professionals to the U.S. economy and defended the H-1B visa program during a recent podcast with Nikhil Kamath.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk has expressed strong support for the contributions of Indian professionals to the United States economy, emphasizing that America has “benefited immensely” from skilled Indians who have migrated there over the years.

During an appearance on Zerodha co-founder Nikhil Kamath’s popular podcast, “WTF is,” released on Sunday, Musk underscored the crucial role that Indian engineers, scientists, and entrepreneurs have played in shaping the U.S. technology and business landscape.

Kamath initiated the conversation by noting that the U.S. has long attracted top global talent, a phenomenon often referred to in India as “brain drain.” He highlighted the increasing number of Indian-origin CEOs leading some of the world’s largest corporations.

Musk concurred with this observation, stating that Indian professionals have significantly bolstered the American innovation ecosystem. “America has benefitted enormously from talented Indians who came to the U.S.,” he remarked, adding that the tech industry consistently faces challenges in finding enough highly skilled individuals.

In response to concerns that foreign workers are taking jobs away from Americans, Musk dismissed this notion. “From my direct experience, there is always a shortage of truly talented people. More talent only helps solve hard problems,” he asserted.

He further noted that his companies, which include Tesla, SpaceX, X, and xAI, prioritize hiring the most capable professionals from around the globe.

Addressing the H-1B visa program, Musk acknowledged that while he supports it, there have been instances of misuse by certain outsourcing firms. “There has definitely been gaming of the system by certain companies, and that needs to stop,” he stated. However, he firmly opposed the idea of abolishing the program altogether.

“I’m not in favor of ending the H-1B program. That would be extremely harmful for America’s long-term technological growth,” Musk warned. The H-1B visa has long enabled highly skilled professionals, particularly from India and China, to work in specialized sectors in the U.S., with India being the largest beneficiary of this program.

Musk also touched upon immigration enforcement, criticizing what he described as inadequate border controls under the previous administration. He emphasized that effective border checks are vital for national stability.

“Without proper border controls, you don’t really have a country,” he said, adding that flawed incentive structures have encouraged illegal migration.

In summary, Musk’s remarks highlight the importance of skilled immigration to the U.S. economy while also acknowledging the need for reform within the H-1B visa program to prevent misuse.

Source: Original article

Federal Appeals Court Affirms Block on Iowa’s Anti-Immigrant Law

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld an injunction against Iowa’s controversial anti-immigrant law, SF 2340, protecting immigrant families and reinforcing constitutional limits on state authority.

On October 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered a decisive victory for immigrant communities and the rule of law by upholding an injunction that blocks Iowa’s Senate File 2340 (SF 2340). This law, described as Iowa’s most severe anti-immigration measure, would have criminalized the presence of certain immigrants in the state, even those who are legally authorized to reside in the United States.

SF 2340 aimed to empower local officials to arrest and deport immigrants, a power that the Constitution reserves for federal authorities. This provision was intended to prevent a fragmented immigration policy that could lead to family separations and chaos across state lines.

“This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” stated Erica Johnson, the founding executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), the organization that initiated the lawsuit. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”

The lawsuit, titled Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, was filed by Iowa MMJ alongside two individual plaintiffs, with legal representation from the ACLU of Iowa, the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, and the American Immigration Council.

Under SF 2340, non-citizens who had previously been deported or denied entry into the United States would have faced criminal charges for residing in Iowa, regardless of any subsequent lawful status or federal permission to return. Additionally, the law would have allowed state and local law enforcement to detain individuals based solely on their presence in the state, while mandating state judges to issue deportation orders. Such powers are constitutionally designated to the federal government to prevent the disarray that could arise from varying state laws.

“SF 2340 is the worst anti-immigrant law in Iowa’s history. Today’s ruling keeps SF 2340 blocked and protects immigrants in Iowa from many serious harms: arrest, detention, deportation, family separation, and incarceration, all by the state,” remarked Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa. “At a time when the federal government is causing so much harm to families, it’s all the more important that the state is not permitted to make things even worse. The Court reaffirmed that the Iowa legislature does not have the authority to pass its own immigration laws to detain and deport people.”

The law was enacted on April 10, 2024, but was blocked from taking effect on June 17, 2024. Following this, the state of Iowa appealed the decision. With the recent ruling from the Eighth Circuit, the law remains blocked while the case continues in federal court.

Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council, emphasized the broader implications of the Eighth Circuit’s decision, stating, “The Eighth Circuit’s decision resonates far beyond Iowa. Across the country, we’re seeing states attempt to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. This could create a reality in which a person could be welcomed in one state and arrested in the next, just for crossing a border. Under our Constitution, immigration has to be handled at a federal level so families aren’t trapped in chaos. This ruling upholds that principle.”

Spencer Amdur, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s national immigrants’ rights project, echoed these sentiments, noting, “Today the Eighth Circuit reiterated what the Supreme Court has said for over a hundred years: States have no business regulating immigration on their own. This law would have torn families apart and denied people their right to live in this country and seek legal protections. The court was right to strike it down, just like courts have done for other laws like this around the country.”

The ongoing legal battle surrounding SF 2340 underscores the critical importance of maintaining a unified federal immigration policy, safeguarding the rights and dignity of immigrant families across the United States.

Source: Original article

New Bill Aims to Double H-1B Visa Cap in Immigration Debate

A bill to double the annual H-1B visa cap has been reintroduced in Congress, reigniting discussions on high-skilled immigration amid ongoing political tensions and enforcement changes.

A new bill aiming to double the annual quota of H-1B work visas has been reintroduced in the U.S. Congress, sparking renewed debate over high-skilled immigration during a period marked by increased enforcement and political strife.

Illinois Democratic Representative Raja Krishnamoorthi has reintroduced the High-Skilled Immigration Reform for Employment (HIRE) Act. This legislation seeks to enhance America’s long-term economic and technological capabilities by expanding access to global talent. Specifically, the proposal would raise the yearly cap on new H-1B visas from 65,000 to 130,000.

This renewed initiative comes in the wake of stricter oversight of the H-1B program implemented during the Trump administration, which introduced more rigorous compliance rules and imposed a significant $100,000 application fee for new visas. This fee is currently facing legal challenges from various business groups.

The implications of the HIRE Act could significantly alter hiring practices across vital sectors such as technology, healthcare, engineering, and scientific research. Proponents argue that U.S. companies are grappling with persistent labor shortages in specialized fields and may fall behind global competitors if access to skilled foreign professionals remains restricted.

The bill’s reintroduction coincides with President Trump’s announcement of a new immigration crackdown following a tragic shooting incident involving two National Guard members near the White House. Trump pledged to “permanently pause” migration from certain developing nations, a statement that could directly impact future H-1B applicants, although formal policy details are still unclear.

The HIRE Act includes several key provisions aimed at addressing workforce needs:

The annual H-1B cap would be doubled from 65,000 to 130,000, along with increased federal funding for STEM education in U.S. elementary and secondary schools. The bill also aims to expand the domestic talent pipeline while supporting industries facing critical workforce gaps.

Advocates believe that combining foreign talent recruitment with domestic STEM investment will create a balanced long-term solution to workforce challenges.

Recent trends in H-1B visa approvals indicate a shift away from large outsourcing firms toward U.S.-based technology companies. Currently, most H-1B visas are granted to companies hiring fewer than 15 workers annually, reflecting heightened scrutiny and changes in hiring practices.

In addition, federal agencies have ramped up audits under a new enforcement initiative known as Project Firewall, which adds further compliance pressure on employers.

Supporters of the bill assert that America’s innovation economy relies heavily on access to global talent. Raja Krishnamoorthi, the bill’s sponsor, emphasized that the legislation is crucial for “building the workforce of tomorrow while keeping the U.S. at the forefront of innovation.”

Leaders from ITServe Alliance described the HIRE Act as a vital reform necessary to modernize the high-skilled immigration system, enhancing transparency and fairness. Economic policy experts point out that H-1B visas serve as the primary long-term pathway for hiring high-skilled foreign graduates, who constitute a significant portion of U.S. science and engineering programs.

However, critics from conservative policy groups argue that the current system enables abuse, suppresses American wages, and disadvantages U.S. graduates. The White House has reiterated that while temporary foreign workers may be necessary for launching large projects, companies are ultimately expected to prioritize hiring and training American workers.

As the bill moves forward, it will undergo the standard legislative process, which includes committee review, potential amendments, and debates in both the House and Senate. Given that immigration is already one of the most contentious issues in Washington, the future of the HIRE Act remains uncertain.

With mounting political pressure from business associations, labor groups, and advocacy organizations, the ongoing struggle between expanding high-skilled immigration and restricting foreign labor is expected to dominate discussions in the upcoming congressional session.

Source: Original article

What To Do If Your Visitor Insurance Claim Is Denied

Understanding the reasons behind visitor insurance claim denials can help families navigate the appeal process and ensure their loved ones receive necessary medical care while visiting the United States.

Visitor insurance provides essential peace of mind for families hosting loved ones from abroad, particularly parents, elders, and first-time travelers to the United States. However, like any insurance product, claims can sometimes be denied due to various factors, including documentation issues, policy exclusions, or misunderstandings regarding coverage.

When a visitor insurance claim is denied, it can be confusing and stressful for the policyholder. Understanding the reasons for the denial and the subsequent steps can help ease the process and improve the chances of getting the claim approved upon reconsideration.

This article outlines common reasons for claim denials, the steps to take afterward, and answers to frequently asked questions, empowering families to navigate these situations with confidence.

Common Reasons for Visitor Insurance Claim Denials

A denial does not necessarily mean the case is closed. Most denials occur due to issues that can be corrected. Here are some common reasons:

One of the primary reasons for claim denials is related to pre-existing conditions. Visitor insurance typically excludes coverage for pre-existing conditions unless it involves acute onset benefits. If the insurer determines that the condition existed before the policy’s effective date or if it was not classified as an acute onset according to the policy terms, the claim may be denied.

Another frequent cause of denial is insufficient or missing documentation. Claims often require specific documents, such as medical reports, diagnostic tests, itemized bills, and proof of payment. If any required document is incomplete or missing, the claim may be delayed or denied. In such cases, the claims department will communicate with the policyholder to request the missing information.

Policy exclusions can also lead to denied claims. Each visitor insurance plan has its own exclusions, which may include routine check-ups, preventive care, immunizations, maternity care, or ongoing treatments. If the treatment received falls under an exclusion specified in the policy, the claim may not be eligible for coverage.

Errors in the claim form can result in denials as well. Incorrect personal details, travel dates, or medical history can lead to complications in processing the claim. Even minor discrepancies can have significant impacts.

Additionally, if the treatment received is deemed not medically necessary by the insurer, it may not be covered. Insurers often assess whether the care was an emergency or required based on medical necessity.

Finally, late claim filing can result in denial. Many plans stipulate that claims must be filed within a specific time frame, typically ranging from 30 to 90 days. Missing this deadline can lead to a permanent denial of the claim.

Steps to Take If Your Visitor Insurance Claim Is Denied

A denial is not the end of the road. Policyholders can request a review or appeal the decision. Here are steps to follow:

First, carefully read the Explanation of Benefits (EOB) provided by the insurer. The EOB will detail why the claim was denied, what documents were missing, and instructions for the appeal process. Understanding the reason for the denial is crucial for addressing the issue.

Next, contact the insurance company or claims department for clarification. Inquire whether the denial was due to missing paperwork, what additional documents are required, and whether you can resubmit or appeal the claim. Sometimes, a simple correction can resolve the issue.

Gather all required documents to support your appeal. Depending on the situation, this may include updated medical records, itemized bills, proof of a new diagnosis, or physician statements explaining the medical necessity of the treatment. Providing complete and organized documentation significantly enhances the chances of a successful appeal.

If you disagree with the denial, file a formal appeal. Submit a written appeal along with supporting evidence and a letter from the treating physician. Most insurers offer multiple levels of review for appeals.

It is also important to keep copies of all documentation related to the claim, including emails, forms, receipts, and medical reports. This helps track the claim’s progress and supports follow-up communication.

Lastly, be mindful of deadlines. Appeals typically have strict timelines, and submitting your appeal on time increases the likelihood of success.

Preventing Future Claim Denials

To avoid denied claims in the future, consider the following proactive steps:

Purchase the insurance plan before traveling to ensure coverage starts prior to arrival in the U.S. Delaying the purchase can increase the risk of issues being classified as pre-existing conditions.

Understand the specifics of your plan, including coverage limits, exclusions, deductibles, and coinsurance. Always review the Certificate Wordings of the policy for complete clarity.

Keep all medical bills and reports, as even small urgent-care visits require proper documentation.

File claims early to reduce the chance of missing deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Can a denied visitor insurance claim be appealed? Yes, most insurers have a multi-step appeal process. If you provide the required documents or clarify the medical necessity, claims may be approved upon reconsideration.

How long does the appeal process take? Typically, it takes 30 to 60 days, depending on the insurer and the speed at which you submit supporting documents.

What if I do not have all the medical documents? You can request them from hospitals, clinics, urgent care centers, or doctors. U.S. medical providers are required to furnish medical records upon request, and insurance companies may ask for records from up to five years prior to the claim.

Will the insurer pay directly to the hospital after an appeal? This depends on whether the provider is in-network, the plan’s direct billing options, and the claim type. In many cases, reimbursement is issued directly to the policyholder.

What is my responsibility during a claim? You must submit accurate information, provide complete documentation, and respond promptly to insurer queries to help expedite the review process.

Can visitor insurance claims be denied due to age? Age itself does not cause denial, but older travelers may face higher premiums, more exclusions, and stricter rules related to pre-existing conditions.

What happens if I miss the claim filing deadline? Unfortunately, late claims are often permanently denied. Always submit your claims early to avoid this issue.

In conclusion, a denied visitor insurance claim can be a stressful experience, especially when it involves elderly parents or family members visiting the U.S. However, in most cases, denials are fixable with the right documentation, timely submission, and a clear appeal process. Being proactive—understanding your policy, keeping detailed records, and filing claims early—can help avoid issues and ensure your loved ones receive the necessary care without financial stress.

For families planning travel in the coming months, carefully reviewing policy benefits and choosing a reputable provider can make a significant difference.

Source: Original article

USCIS Suspends Asylum Decisions Following Shooting of National Guard Members

USCIS has suspended all asylum decisions following a shooting incident involving an Afghan national that resulted in the death of a National Guard member in Washington, D.C.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a halt to all asylum decisions after an Afghan national was accused of shooting two National Guard members in Washington, D.C., resulting in the death of one service member.

On Friday, USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow stated that the suspension of asylum decisions would remain in effect “until we can ensure that every alien is vetted and screened to the maximum degree possible.” He emphasized the priority of American safety in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter.

This pause in asylum decisions aligns with a broader immigration crackdown initiated by President Donald Trump. On Thursday, Trump pledged to halt migration from “Third World countries” and to reverse the admissions policies established during the Biden administration.

In a related development, Edlow indicated that officials would be reexamining green cards issued to immigrants from countries deemed concerning, including Afghanistan. USCIS has also introduced new national security measures to enhance the vetting process for immigrants from high-risk nations.

“I have directed a full-scale, rigorous reexamination of every Green Card for every alien from every country of concern,” Edlow stated.

Additionally, the Department of Homeland Security confirmed that it has suspended all immigration requests from Afghanistan and is reviewing all asylum cases that were approved under the Biden administration.

The Department of State has also acted swiftly, pausing all visa issuances for individuals traveling on Afghan passports in response to the shooting incident involving the National Guard members. “The Department is taking all necessary steps to protect U.S. national security and public safety,” the agency stated.

The shooting occurred on Wednesday, resulting in the death of National Guard member Sarah Beckstrom, 20, from West Virginia. Another service member, Andrew Wolfe, 24, remains in critical condition following the attack.

The alleged shooter, Rahmanullah Lakanwal, 29, has been charged with multiple offenses, including first-degree murder and two counts of assault with intent to kill while armed. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced that the Justice Department would seek the death penalty against Lakanwal.

Lakanwal entered the United States legally in 2021 under humanitarian parole as part of the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome, which was established following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. He had been vetted by the CIA in Afghanistan due to his work with the agency and underwent additional vetting for his asylum application in the U.S. A senior U.S. official informed Fox News that Lakanwal was “clean on all checks” in his background investigation.

Notably, Lakanwal’s asylum application was approved by the Trump administration earlier this year. A report from the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General released in June indicated that there were “no systemic failures” in the vetting process for Afghan refugees or subsequent immigration pathways.

The recent shooting has raised significant concerns regarding the vetting processes for immigrants and asylum seekers, prompting federal agencies to reevaluate their procedures to ensure national security.

Source: Original article

Trump Proposes ‘Reverse Migration’ Plan to Address Immigration Issues

Former President Donald Trump unveiled a “reverse migration” plan aimed at halting immigration from certain countries and rolling back Biden-era policies in a recent Truth Social post.

Former President Donald Trump took to Truth Social late on Thanksgiving to announce his “reverse migration” plan, which he claims would permanently stop immigration from what he refers to as “Third World Countries.” He also proposed a comprehensive rollback of immigration policies established during President Biden’s administration.

In his post, Trump asserted that his administration would impose a pause on all migration from nations he categorizes as “Third World.” He claimed that this plan would revoke what he described as “millions” of admissions granted under Biden, including those he alleges were signed by “Sleepy Joe Biden’s Autopen.” Furthermore, Trump indicated that he would seek to remove foreign nationals whom he considers public charges, security threats, or those he believes are “non-compatible with Western Civilization.”

Trump contended that the current U.S. immigration system is overwhelmed and that his proposed approach would allow it to “fully recover.” Among his promises, he vowed to eliminate federal benefits for noncitizens, denaturalize migrants accused of undermining “domestic tranquility,” and expand deportation efforts.

Trump’s announcement comes in the wake of a violent incident near the White House, where two National Guard members were shot in what officials described as a “targeted” attack. One of the guardsmen, 20-year-old Sarah Beckstrom from West Virginia, was reported dead, while the second service member, 24-year-old Andrew Wolfe, is currently “fighting for his life,” according to Trump.

The suspected shooter, 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, is also in serious condition. Lakanwal entered the United States legally in 2021 under humanitarian parole as part of the Biden administration’s Operation Allies Welcome, which was initiated following the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan.

In closing, Trump issued a stern warning in his social media post: “Other than that, HAPPY THANKSGIVING TO ALL, except those that hate, steal, murder, and destroy everything that America stands for — You won’t be here for long!”

Source: Original article

Kevin Roberts Advocates for Major Reforms to H-1B Visa Program

The Heritage Foundation’s president, Kevin Roberts, has called for significant reforms to the H-1B visa program, emphasizing the need to prioritize American workers and address systemic issues within the immigration system.

The Heritage Foundation has entered the ongoing debate surrounding the H-1B visa program, advocating for comprehensive reforms to the United States’ skilled immigration system. In a recent post on X, the think tank’s president, Kevin Roberts, urged lawmakers and the administration to tighten and overhaul existing visa policies.

Roberts highlighted the issues plaguing the H-1B visa process, stating, “Fraud, nepotism, and corruption affect every stage of the H-1B visa process. The program cannot go on in its current form. Putting American workers first is necessary to make the American Dream attainable again.”

The Heritage Foundation’s initial statement pointed out that the H-1B visa was established over 30 years ago to address a perceived temporary labor shortage. However, the organization argues that the program has expanded beyond its original intent and now requires urgent reform to prioritize American workers.

Adding to the discourse, Indian American scholar Ron Hira, a professor at Howard University and a vocal critic of the H-1B system, participated in a panel discussion titled “How the H-1B Visa Led to Importing Mass Cheap Labor,” hosted by The Heritage Foundation. Hira remarked on the historical context of the program, noting, “Back then, 20 years ago, it was obvious that H-1B visa abuse was critical in speeding up the offshoring of these jobs. Yet for the past 20 years, Washington has turned a blind eye to this abuse.”

The conversation around H-1B visas gained renewed attention following an interview in November with former President Donald Trump on Fox News. During the discussion with host Laura Ingraham, Trump reiterated the necessity of attracting highly skilled professionals from abroad, arguing that the U.S. cannot solely rely on domestic workers to fill specialized roles in sectors such as technology, engineering, and research.

Simon Hankinson, a senior research fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Border and Immigration Center, contributed to the dialogue with a policy paper outlining proposed changes to the H-1B system. He recommended that lawmakers eliminate current exemptions for universities and nonprofit research institutions, replace the existing lottery-based selection process with a system that prioritizes higher wage offers, and clarify that spouses on H-4 visas should not receive work authorization.

“Rather than this regulatory back and forth swing between administrations, it’s past time for Congress to end not only the numerous types of H-1B abuses, but also the administrative state creations that developed the student-to-H-1B-green-card pipeline that adversely affects American students and employees,” Hankinson stated in his report.

The Heritage Foundation has also provided guidance on potential changes that could be implemented by the Trump administration regarding the H-1B program. The report suggests that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should limit the number of H-1B applicants that each company can petition for annually and impose a permanent ban on any company, individual, or entity that knowingly violates immigration law from participating in the H-1B process.

The call for reform reflects a growing concern among some policymakers and scholars about the impact of the H-1B visa program on the American labor market. As discussions continue, the Heritage Foundation’s proposals may shape future legislative efforts aimed at reforming the skilled immigration system.

Source: Original article

U.S. Economist Claims H-1B Visa Fraud in Indian Region Exceeds Limits

Former Congressman Dr. Dave Brat has accused the H-1B visa program of extensive fraud, claiming one Indian region received visas far exceeding legal limits.

Dr. Dave Brat, a former U.S. Congressman and economist, has made serious allegations regarding the H-1B visa program, asserting that it is rife with fraud. He claims that a single district in India has received H-1B visas at a rate far exceeding the legal annual cap.

During an appearance on Steve Bannon’s podcast, Dr. Brat stated that while the official U.S. limit for H-1B visas is set at 85,000 per year, one Indian district was allegedly linked to the issuance of 220,000 H-1B visas. This figure, he noted, represents two-and-a-half times the national limit, suggesting a systemic abuse of the program.

“When you hear H-1B, think of your family, because these fraudulent visas just stole their future,” Dr. Brat remarked. He also pointed out that while China accounts for only about 12% of the H-1B visa pool, India remains the dominant player in the program.

Reports indicate that the U.S. Consulate in Chennai processed approximately 220,000 H-1B visas and 140,000 H-4 dependent visas in 2024 alone, raising concerns about its operational integrity.

The controversy surrounding the H-1B visa program intensified following allegations made by Mahvash Siddiqui, a former Indian-origin U.S. Foreign Service officer who worked at the Chennai consulate. Siddiqui described what she termed “industrial-scale fraud” in the H-1B visa application process.

During her tenure from 2005 to 2007, Siddiqui claimed she personally adjudicated over 51,000 H-1B visa applications. She estimated that 80–90% of these applications contained falsified information, including fake academic qualifications, forged documentation, and misrepresentation of skills.

Siddiqui noted that the consulate at that time handled applications from various regions, including Hyderabad, Karnataka, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu, with Hyderabad emerging as a particularly problematic hub.

In her allegations, Siddiqui highlighted that the Ameerpet area in Hyderabad had developed into a significant center for visa fraud. She claimed that candidates could openly purchase fake educational degrees, forged marriage certificates, and fabricated employment records, all of which were allegedly used to manipulate H-1B visa approvals.

Moreover, Siddiqui asserted that when these fraud patterns were identified and reported, the response from higher authorities was not supportive. She claimed that internal investigations were dismissed as a “rogue operation,” and that intense political pressure was applied to prevent deeper inquiries into the matter.

She further alleged that certain political figures were involved in shielding the fraudulent network, obstructing efforts to dismantle the fraud pipeline.

The recent allegations from both Dr. Brat and Siddiqui have reignited discussions in the U.S. regarding the integrity of the H-1B visa program, the oversight of overseas U.S. consulates, and the balance between skilled immigration and domestic job protection.

While official investigations have yet to publicly confirm many of these claims, the controversy is likely to spur renewed calls for stricter verification processes, auditing, and reforms within the H-1B system.

Source: Original article

F-1 Visa Update: DIGNITY Act of 2025 Targets ‘Intent to Leave’ Rule

The DIGNITY Act of 2025 aims to eliminate the “Intent to Leave” requirement for foreign students applying for F-1 visas, potentially reshaping U.S. immigration policy for international education.

The number of international students selecting the United States as their study destination has been on a steady decline, largely due to stricter immigration enforcement and heightened visa scrutiny under recent U.S. policies. In response to these concerns, lawmakers have introduced the DIGNITY Act of 2025, a proposed reform designed to eliminate the long-standing “Intent to Leave” rule that currently impacts foreign students applying for F-1 visas.

While the proposed repeal could facilitate the process for students seeking U.S. study visas, another suggested change involving fixed-term admissions may introduce new challenges for international students.

The DIGNITY Act of 2025 has been jointly introduced by Congresswomen María Elvira Salazar and Veronica Escobar, along with a bipartisan group of 20 co-sponsors. A central element of the bill is the proposal to abolish the “Intent to Leave” requirement, which currently mandates that international students prove their intention to return to their home country after completing their studies.

If passed, the Act could significantly alter the evaluation process for student visa applications in the U.S.

Currently, F-1 visa applicants must demonstrate non-immigrant intent, which requires them to declare plans to leave the U.S. after finishing their education, show strong ties to their home country, and provide evidence such as property ownership, family connections, or employment prospects. Failure to convincingly prove intent to return often results in visa denials, even for academically qualified students.

The proposed repeal under the DIGNITY Act would eliminate this specific barrier, meaning future student visa decisions would no longer hinge solely on a student’s declared intention to leave the U.S. after graduation. However, it is important to note that this change does not grant automatic permission to remain in the U.S. after studies. Students wishing to stay must still qualify for appropriate employment-based or other legal immigration categories.

In tandem with the proposed repeal, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has suggested a regulatory shift that could affect student stay limits. This proposal seeks to change student admissions from a “Duration of Status” to a fixed time period. Currently, the “duration of status” allows students to remain in the U.S. as long as they maintain valid student status. Under the proposed system, students would be admitted for a specific, pre-determined time frame, after which they would be required to exit the country—even if their academic program is still ongoing.

This change would apply to holders of F, J, and I visas and could create uncertainty for students facing program extensions, research delays, or medical or academic interruptions.

If implemented together, these two policy changes could yield mixed outcomes for international students. On the one hand, the removal of the “intent to return” requirement could lead to easier visa approvals and reduced rejections based solely on immigration suspicion, potentially improving confidence among international applicants. On the other hand, strict exit deadlines under fixed-term admissions could result in increased paperwork for extensions and greater uncertainty for long-term academic programs.

It is essential for students to understand that the DIGNITY Act of 2025 is still a proposal and has not yet become law. The fixed-term admissions policy is still under regulatory review, and existing F-1 rules remain in effect until formal changes are enacted. Students must continue to adhere to all post-study visa procedures for legal residency.

In conclusion, the DIGNITY Act of 2025 represents a significant step toward easing one of the most restrictive aspects of U.S. student visa policy. The removal of the Intent to Leave rule could encourage more international students to consider U.S. education once again. However, the proposed shift to fixed-term admissions may introduce new uncertainties that students will need to navigate carefully.

As reforms continue to evolve, international applicants should stay informed, seek proper guidance, and plan well in advance.

Source: Original article

H-1B Challenges Drive Indian Professionals Towards EB-1A Visa Options

As uncertainty surrounding H-1B visas increases, many skilled Indian professionals are turning to the EB-1A visa as a more viable path to U.S. residency.

As the path to securing an H-1B visa becomes increasingly uncertain, a growing number of highly skilled Indian professionals are exploring alternative routes to the United States. Immigration attorneys report a notable shift towards the EB-1A category, which is an employment-based visa designated for individuals of extraordinary ability. This option is gaining traction as a means to achieve long-term residency and career stability.

The EB-1A visa is tailored for professionals who can demonstrate significant achievements in fields such as science, technology, education, business, or the arts. Unlike other employment-based green card categories, such as EB-2 and EB-3, the EB-1A offers greater flexibility. Candidates are not required to have a job offer or employer sponsorship, which can be a significant barrier in the H-1B process.

To qualify for the EB-1A visa, applicants must provide evidence that they meet at least three of the ten eligibility criteria established by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). These criteria include recognition through awards, published work, contributions to the industry, or leadership roles.

Another significant advantage of the EB-1A category is that applicants, including researchers and multinational executives, are exempt from the labor certification process. This requirement is often time-consuming and burdensome for H-1B holders and most other employment-linked green cards. The processing timeline for EB-1A petitions is generally faster, and unlike other visa categories that can experience lengthy wait times due to country-based quotas, EB-1A applications often progress with fewer delays.

Recent data from USCIS indicates a substantial increase in EB-1A filings. Approximately 7,300 EB-1A applications were submitted in the first quarter of 2025, marking a surge of over 50% compared to the previous quarter. Overall, EB-1A applications in 2025 are tracking nearly 50% higher than the previous year. This spike is largely attributed to Indian professionals seeking a more reliable alternative to the H-1B route, particularly in light of recent policy changes under the Trump administration, according to Frederick Ng, co-founder of the immigration platform Beyond Border.

The proposed increase in H-1B filing fees, potentially reaching as high as $100,000, has added another layer of complexity for U.S. employers considering foreign hires. This makes the H-1B program increasingly cost-intensive and less accessible. As companies navigate these financial challenges, many Indian professionals are seeking immigration options that provide greater autonomy, especially those that do not rely on employer sponsorship for entry into the U.S. or for securing permanent residency.

The shift towards the EB-1A category is particularly pronounced among Indian H-1B holders. Indians represent over 70% of approved H-1B beneficiaries, meaning any tightening of policies or downturns in the tech sector disproportionately affect them. Sukanya Raman, an immigration attorney and country head at Davies & Associates, notes that the increasing backlogs in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories for Indian applicants are fueling this trend. The EB-1A pathway is becoming more appealing as it allows qualified individuals to self-petition, offering more control and often significantly shorter wait times. “Extraordinary ability is really about measurable impact, not global fame,” Raman explained.

More Indian engineers, researchers, and product leaders are now turning to the EB-1A route, leveraging their professional accomplishments to bolster their applications. Many are emphasizing patents, high-profile publications, industry recognitions, and leadership positions to meet the criteria for “extraordinary ability.” This strategy positions them for a faster and more independent path to U.S. residency.

“Indian professionals are realizing they already meet the standard,” Raman stated. “Their work is driving innovation globally, and the EB-1A category acknowledges that.”

Source: Original article

Federal Judge Overturns USCIS EB-5 Fee Increase, Impacting H-1B Lawsuits

A recent federal court ruling in Colorado has invalidated significant fee increases for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program, raising hopes for challenges to a controversial H-1B visa fee imposed by the Trump administration.

A federal judge in Colorado has struck down the steep fee increases announced by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for the EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program. This ruling, issued on November 12, has been celebrated as a significant victory for investors and has implications for ongoing legal challenges to the Trump administration’s $100,000 H-1B visa fee.

The court’s decision mandates that USCIS revert the EB-5 fees to their pre-2024 levels, a move that many in the immigration community view as a crucial win for those looking to invest in the United States.

Legal experts are also interpreting the ruling as a potential precedent for lawsuits aimed at overturning the controversial H-1B visa fee. Prominent immigration attorney Greg Siskind, who is involved in the case “Global Nurse Force v. Trump,” stated that while the EB-5 ruling may not directly impact the H-1B fee case, it signals that judges are scrutinizing immigration policies that may not comply with established legal requirements.

The crux of the EB-5 ruling lies in whether USCIS adhered to the legal framework established by Congress. Under the EB-5 Reform and Integrity Act, the agency is obligated to conduct a comprehensive fee study before implementing any increases. Critics argue that USCIS bypassed this requirement, leading to some of the most substantial fee hikes across various visa categories.

According to the judge, the fee increases were “contrary to law,” violating both the statutory framework and the Administrative Procedure Act. Jihan Merlin, head of immigration strategy at the legal tech firm Alma, explained that the ruling reinforces the principle that USCIS must follow the rules set by Congress before raising fees. This principle could play a significant role in the H-1B lawsuits, where the legality of the $100,000 fee is being questioned.

As a result of the ruling, the 2024 fee schedule has been effectively halted, allowing investors to file at the previous, lower rates. This development has opened a new window for potential investors who were considering submitting petitions, now able to do so at significantly reduced costs.

The implications of this ruling extend to the ongoing H-1B lawsuits. Charles H. Kuck, co-counsel in “Global Nurse Force v. Trump,” emphasized that the President exceeded his legal authority by imposing an unlawful fee as a barrier for certain H-1B visa holders. He expressed confidence that the court would ultimately strike down this fee.

However, while the EB-5 ruling provides some optimism for those challenging the H-1B fee, legal experts caution that the two cases are not entirely comparable. Merlin noted that the EB-5 case dealt with a regulation from USCIS, whereas the H-1B fee stems from a presidential proclamation. Courts may exhibit more deference to the President’s broad powers under the Immigration and Nationality Act regarding the entry of noncitizens.

The $100,000 H-1B fee has been one of the most contentious issues affecting work-based visa holders since its announcement. It has faced immediate legal challenges from employers, universities, and immigrant rights groups, all arguing that the fee is not authorized by Congress and functions more as a punitive measure to deter skilled immigration.

While the Colorado ruling does not directly resolve the H-1B issue, it underscores the willingness of courts to examine whether the government has adhered to the legal boundaries set by Congress. Legal experts suggest that when a fee deviates from traditional cost-based visa charges, judges may be inclined to scrutinize its legitimacy.

In conclusion, while the EB-5 ruling does not guarantee a victory for H-1B plaintiffs, it serves as an important indicator that courts are attentive to issues of fee authority and statutory compliance. As Merlin stated, “While it’s not a crystal ball for the H-1B cases, the EB-5 decision is encouraging, because it shows courts are paying attention to whether the Executive Branch stayed within the limits Congress set.”

Source: Original article

Indian-American Ron Hira Defines H-1B as Guest Worker Program

Indian American scholar Ron Hira critiques the H-1B visa program, highlighting its role in worker exploitation and the displacement of American employees during a recent panel discussion.

Indian American scholar Ron Hira, a professor at Howard University and a noted critic of the H-1B visa system, recently shared his insights on the program’s impact on American workers. Speaking at a panel discussion titled “How the H-1B Visa Led to Importing Mass Cheap Labor,” hosted by The Heritage Foundation, Hira outlined the reasons many U.S. employers favor hiring foreign visa holders over American workers.

Hira is well-known for his research on offshoring, high-skilled immigration, and the effects of these practices on employment relations and the middle class. During the panel, he discussed the effectiveness of executive actions taken during the Trump administration aimed at reforming the H-1B program. He remarked, “Back then, 20 years ago, it was obvious that H-1B visa abuse was critical in speeding up the offshoring of these jobs. Yet for the past 20 years, Washington has turned a blind eye to this abuse.”

Hira referenced a 2017 segment from “60 Minutes” that profiled American workers forced to train their H-1B replacements. He highlighted a particularly troubling case involving the University of California, which receives significant state and federal funding to train scientists and engineers. “Now they’re forcing their own tech workers to train their H-1B replacements. Imagine the workers’ humiliation and sense of betrayal,” he said.

He posed a rhetorical question to the audience: “Does anybody really think that that’s how the program is supposed to operate?” He answered his own question, stating, “It’s certainly not sold that way. But it persists today. People are training their replacements today.”

Hira explained that the H-1B program is fundamentally a guest worker program, which he argues is more about labor policy than immigration policy. “All guest worker programs leave workers vulnerable to exploitation, whether it’s high-skilled H-1B or lower-skilled H-2A and H-2B,” he noted. “We need labor policies that protect both American and foreign workers.”

He criticized the current labor protections and regulations surrounding the H-1B program as inadequate, stating, “The H-1B labor protections and regulations and rules are a complete fiasco.” Hira emphasized the need for a redesign of these labor regulations to ensure that the H-1B program does not depress wages, protects workers, and fulfills its intended purpose of addressing genuine labor shortages without displacing American workers.

To illustrate his points, Hira provided real-world examples of how employers exploit the system. He described a situation involving Deloitte Consulting, a top H-1B employer, which claimed that a senior consultant position was actually an entry-level role for the purpose of determining the prevailing wage for H-1B workers. “Now is a senior consultant entry level? Probably not,” he remarked.

Hira expressed further concerns about the H-1B program, stating, “You have thousands of H-1B eligible workers who are just sitting overseas waiting for billable jobs to show up. That’s against the law. Nobody’s enforcing it.” He called for limitations on the types of organizations eligible for H-1B cap exemptions, arguing that these have been expanded too broadly. He also urged the Department of Homeland Security to overhaul the L-1 visa and optional practical training programs, which he noted have even fewer protections than the H-1B program.

He suggested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Justice should investigate employment discrimination by auditing all mass H-1B employers and intervening in whistleblower lawsuits related to guest worker abuse.

Hira concluded by urging Congress to consider a broader transformation of the skilled immigration system in the U.S. “Our U.S. skilled immigration system has almost no immigration in it. It’s almost entirely guest worker programs,” he stated. He highlighted the disparity between the number of skilled guest workers and available green card slots, noting that there are about 1.5 million skilled guest workers competing for approximately 60,000 green card slots.

As discussions around immigration policy continue, Hira’s insights shed light on the complexities and challenges associated with the H-1B visa program, emphasizing the need for reform to protect both American and foreign workers.

Source: Original article

Georgia Worksite Raid Highlights Impact of Trump’s Immigration Policies

On September 4, law enforcement agencies conducted a large-scale immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia, detaining approximately 475 workers, many of whom were South Korean nationals.

On September 4, law enforcement agents from various state and federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), executed a significant immigration raid at a Hyundai manufacturing plant in southeastern Georgia. This operation reportedly led to the detention of at least 475 workers, a number of whom were South Korean nationals, including some individuals with legal status. This raid marks the largest of its kind in recent history at a single worksite.

In the wake of the raid, the American Immigration Council issued a statement highlighting the detrimental effects of such actions. Michelle Lapointe, the legal director at the American Immigration Council, who is based in Atlanta, expressed her concerns regarding the implications of the raid.

“These raids don’t make anyone safer. They terrorize workers, destabilize communities, and push families into chaos,” Lapointe stated. “This historic raid may make dramatic headlines, but it does nothing to fix the problems in our broken immigration system: a lack of legal pathways and a misguided focus on punishing workers and families who pose no threat to our communities. Raiding worksites isn’t reform; it’s political theater at the expense of families, communities, and our economy.”

Lapointe’s comments reflect a broader concern about the impact of immigration enforcement on the workforce. Nan Wu, the director of research at the American Immigration Council, emphasized the critical role that immigrant workers play in the economy. “Immigrant workers are the backbone of our economy, filling critical labor gaps in manufacturing and beyond. Nationwide, 5.7% of manufacturing workers are undocumented, and here in Georgia, they make up 6.7% of that workforce,” Wu noted.

Wu further argued that the approach of raiding worksites instead of creating pathways for legal employment is not only cruel but also counterproductive. “The chilling effect of these raids will make it less likely that people will show up to work, deepening labor shortages and hitting businesses hard at an already precarious economic moment,” she added.

The American Immigration Council has made experts available to discuss the negative consequences of worksite raids and to propose more effective immigration solutions. They argue that addressing the root causes of immigration issues is essential for the well-being of communities and the economy.

As the debate over immigration policy continues, this raid serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing tensions surrounding enforcement practices and their impact on workers and families across the United States.

Source: Original article

National Immigrant Rights Groups Sue Government Over ICE Arrest Records

National immigrant rights organizations have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, demanding the release of records related to arrests at immigration courts and the dismissal of cases.

Washington, D.C., October 15 — LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the American Immigration Council, and Democracy Forward have initiated legal action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks the release of crucial records that the government has allegedly withheld regarding arrests at immigration courts and the subsequent dismissal of immigration cases.

Since May 20, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), have been involved in a coordinated effort to detain noncitizens who appear for their hearings in immigration courts across the country.

The practice of arresting individuals who voluntarily attend their immigration court dates in search of protection raises significant concerns. Immigration courts are intended to be venues that ensure fair hearings, not mechanisms that funnel individuals into detention. When those seeking justice are instead arrested, it undermines fundamental democratic principles, deters individuals from exercising their legal rights, and inflicts severe human costs.

Furthermore, ICE attorneys have been requesting immigration judges to dismiss cases and transfer individuals into expedited removal, a process that offers fewer due process protections and no pathway to permanent residence. The EOIR has instructed immigration judges to grant these dismissals immediately, despite this practice violating established agency policy and longstanding norms.

In an effort to understand the rationale behind these arrests at immigration courts, LatinoJustice and the American Immigration Council submitted a total of 11 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on July 28 and 29, 2025. Six of these requests were directed to the EOIR, while five were sent to ICE. The requests aim to obtain basic information regarding arrests and dismissals in immigration courts, as well as communications between the agencies involved in these actions. The organizations also requested expedited processing for these requests.

However, the government has failed to provide timely and adequate responses to ten of these FOIA requests, which constitutes a violation of the law. The EOIR has claimed it cannot locate any guidance issued to immigration judges concerning case dismissals and courthouse arrests, despite a copy of relevant guidance having been leaked to the public. Additionally, the EOIR has declined to search for records related to its coordination with ICE, while ICE has either ignored or delayed processing all requests directed to it.

“Our FOIA requests seek to shine a light on how ICE operates in immigration courts, where families are fighting to keep their families together and for their future,” said Rex Chen, supervising counsel for Immigrant Rights at LatinoJustice PRLDEF. “Instead of transparency, they have chosen secrecy, stonewalling, or have provided inadequate responses to our request. It is unacceptable to prolong this urgent matter.”

“Families’ futures are on the line. That’s why we need to better understand how these arrests at immigration courts are being carried out, and the degree to which supposedly independent and neutral agencies like the EOIR are pushing a mass deportation agenda. The public has a right to know what the EOIR and ICE are doing behind closed doors,” stated Chris Opila, staff attorney for transparency at the American Immigration Council.

Democracy Forward’s president and CEO, Skye Perryman, emphasized the importance of transparency, stating, “The public has a right to know when our government rewrites the rules to make mass arrests and deny people of due process — especially inside the very courtrooms meant to deliver justice. The administration cannot hide guidance that turns immigration courts into traps and accelerates deportations without fair hearings. We will not allow these agencies to operate in the shadows. Transparency is the first safeguard against abuse of power, and we’re in court to demand accountability.”

The lawsuit aims to compel the four agencies to fully comply with FOIA and release all documents responsive to seven of the requests. It also calls for the expedited disclosure of guidance directives and correspondence between ICE and the EOIR.

LatinoJustice PRLDEF has been advocating for over 50 years to create a more just society by challenging injustices through the rule of law. The organization focuses on empowering communities and fostering leadership through advocacy and education. For more information about LatinoJustice, visit www.LatinoJustice.org.

Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization dedicated to advancing democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. More details can be found at www.democracyforward.org.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping perceptions and actions towards immigrants and immigration, aiming for a fair and just immigration system. The Council employs various advocacy strategies, including litigation, research, and communications, to protect immigrant rights and promote community integration. For updates, follow the Council on social media or visit their website.

Source: Original article

Access to Lawyers Critical During Trump’s Mass Deportation Campaign

As the Trump administration escalates its deportation efforts, a new report underscores the crucial role of legal representation in immigration court proceedings.

Washington, D.C., Nov. 20 — A recent report from the American Immigration Council reveals that legal representation is vital for ensuring fairness in immigration court, particularly as the Trump administration intensifies its mass deportation and detention efforts.

The analysis, which examines over 2.28 million immigration court cases from fiscal years 2019 to 2024, indicates that having a lawyer significantly decreases the likelihood of deportation. The findings also highlight how case outcomes are influenced by factors such as detention status and the geographical location of the court, which are increasingly undermining the fairness of the immigration court system.

The report, titled Where Can You Win in Immigration Court? The Impact of Lawyers, Detention, Geography, and Policy, arrives at a critical time when the Trump administration is ramping up its deportation targets while simultaneously restricting access to due process.

“The Trump administration’s enforcement surge is exposing just how vulnerable people are when they go into immigration court without a lawyer,” said Adriel Orozco, the report’s author and senior policy counsel at the American Immigration Council. “Americans expect that every single person should get a fair hearing before a judge. While in the current moment of mass arrests and rapid removals that is increasingly difficult, having a lawyer is often critical in protecting a person’s right to argue their case.”

The report’s findings are striking:

Access to legal representation is a transformative safeguard in immigration court. From FY 2019 to FY 2024, 62 percent of immigrants without legal counsel were ordered deported, compared to just 27 percent of those who had legal representation.

The situation is even more dire for those in detention. In courts with the highest deportation rates, over 90 percent of cases involving detained individuals resulted in removal orders.

Geographical disparities in access to legal representation are pronounced. For example, non-detained immigrants in Honolulu had a legal representation rate of 70 percent, while in Harlingen, Texas, that rate plummeted to just 25 percent.

Moreover, the report highlights a significant shift in case outcomes between the Trump and Biden administrations. In FY 2019, nearly 80 percent of cases under Trump ended in removal orders, while that figure dropped to 40 percent under Biden in FY 2024.

The disparities outlined in the report are likely to worsen due to current policies under the Trump administration. Immigration courts are already grappling with unprecedented backlogs, and the ongoing mass deportation and detention campaign is exacerbating the chaos. This includes the reassignment and firing of immigration judges, the expansion of “fast-track” deportation processes, and other policies that limit individuals’ opportunities to present evidence or secure legal counsel. These developments raise serious concerns about access to justice for those in immigration court and the integrity of the judicial system itself.

“This report makes one thing clear: ensuring access to a qualified lawyer is a powerful way of protecting someone against unjust or erroneous deportation,” Orozco emphasized. “However, whether someone gets a lawyer depends far too much on their location, whether they are detained, and the prevailing policies. With detentions expected to surge due to record funding approved by Congress, having a lawyer is critical in a system that this administration is deliberately breaking down.”

The full report and an interactive data tool, which includes a court-by-court breakdown, are available for those interested in exploring outcomes based on location, detention status, and representation. This resource offers one of the most detailed insights into immigration court trends to date.

Source: Original article

FIFA Introduces Special Pass for Fans Attending 2026 World Cup

The FIFA Pass aims to streamline the visa process for ticket holders attending the 2026 World Cup in the United States by providing faster interview slots.

FIFA is making significant strides in preparation for the 2026 World Cup, set to take place in the United States, by introducing a special pass designed to enhance the experience for international fans.

The FIFA Pass, officially known as the Prioritized Appointment Scheduling System, offers ticket holders access to expedited visa interview slots. While the specific details regarding eligibility and access through the FIFA Portal remain somewhat unclear, the initiative is intended to prioritize those who have purchased official tickets for the matches.

By facilitating quicker appointment scheduling, the FIFA Pass aims to minimize wait times and assist fans in obtaining their visas more efficiently for the upcoming tournament. However, it is important to note that expedited scheduling does not guarantee visa approval, as applicants will still be subject to the standard vetting processes.

In response to the anticipated demand from FIFA Pass users, the U.S. State Department has reportedly deployed over 400 additional consular officers worldwide. Nonetheless, it remains uncertain how individual consulates will manage the allocation of priority slots or the percentage of applicants who will actually benefit from the reduced wait times.

While the FIFA Pass is designed to enhance access for international visitors, various logistical and operational challenges may impact the system’s effectiveness in certain regions. This initiative reflects a concerted effort by FIFA and U.S. authorities to streamline the visa process for the expected influx of travelers during the World Cup.

FIFA has confirmed that the priority system will function through a dedicated online portal, enabling ticket holders to schedule their appointments more swiftly. Projections suggest that appointment wait times could be reduced to as little as 60 days or fewer in some countries, although these estimates may vary based on local demand and the capacity of individual consulates.

Founded in 1904 and headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland, FIFA, or the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, serves as the global governing body for association football, futsal, and beach soccer. The organization is responsible for overseeing international competitions, establishing rules and regulations, and promoting the development of football worldwide.

FIFA organizes major tournaments, including the FIFA World Cup, which occurs every four years for both men’s and women’s national teams and attracts billions of viewers globally. In addition to competitions, FIFA collaborates with regional confederations and national associations to enhance infrastructure, training, and youth development programs.

Beyond its role in competitions, FIFA sets standards for refereeing, player transfers, and ethical conduct, striving to maintain fairness and integrity within the sport. The organization generates revenue through sponsorships, broadcasting rights, and commercial partnerships, which are subsequently reinvested into football development. FIFA’s influence is felt in nearly every country, solidifying its position as one of the most powerful entities in global sports.

The FIFA Pass initiative represents a significant effort to facilitate travel for international fans attending the 2026 World Cup in the United States. This program underscores the necessity of integrating major sporting events with travel facilitation systems, highlighting the collaboration required between sports governing bodies and government agencies to effectively support attendees.

Source: Original article

Nalin Haley Advocates Against Naturalized Citizens Holding Public Office

Nalin Haley sparked controversy by asserting that naturalized U.S. citizens should be barred from holding public office, igniting discussions on immigration and citizenship.

Nalin Haley, the son of former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley, has ignited controversy with his recent comments regarding naturalized citizens in the United States. The 24-year-old stated that individuals who are not born in the U.S. should not be eligible for public office, claiming that growing up in America is essential for understanding the country.

Haley made these remarks during a conversation with conservative commentator Tucker Carlson, where he emphasized his belief that only those born in the United States should hold elected positions. This stance has drawn significant attention, particularly in light of his previous strong opposition to the H-1B visa program, which has predominantly benefited skilled workers from India.

In a separate interview, Haley expressed his frustration with the current job market, noting that many of his peers, despite graduating from prestigious institutions, have struggled to find employment. “We are seeing kids graduate with six figures in debt and not having a job to show for it,” he lamented during a discussion with Fox News. He highlighted that none of his friends, who graduated a year and a half ago, have secured jobs, and pointed to statistics indicating that 58% of recent college graduates are unemployed. Of those who are employed, he noted that half hold temporary positions or jobs that do not require a degree.

Haley’s comments have not gone unchallenged. He previously engaged in a heated exchange with journalist Mehdi Hasan, who reminded him of his family’s immigrant background. Hasan suggested that Haley’s anti-immigration rhetoric was hypocritical, considering that his grandfather, Ajit Singh Randhawa, immigrated to the United States from India in 1969. Randhawa, a Sikh immigrant from Punjab, faced similar anti-immigrant sentiments during his time in the U.S. and went on to have a distinguished academic career.

The irony of Haley’s remarks is underscored by the fact that his grandfather overcame significant challenges as an immigrant. After earning a master’s degree in biology and completing a PhD at the University of British Columbia, Randhawa joined the faculty at Voorhees College in South Carolina, contributing to the academic community for decades.

This debate comes at a time when the H-1B visa program is under scrutiny, with varying opinions within the Republican Party. Former President Donald Trump has recently softened his stance on immigration, leading to divisions within the MAGA base regarding the future of such visa programs.

As discussions around immigration and citizenship continue to evolve, Nalin Haley’s comments have reignited conversations about the role of naturalized citizens in American politics and the complexities of the immigration debate.

Source: Original article

New Arrivals of Indian Students in the U.S. Drop by 44%

The number of new Indian students arriving in the U.S. has dropped by 44%, reflecting broader trends in international student enrollment and immigration policy changes.

New data reveals a significant decline in the number of international students arriving in the United States this fall, with a particular emphasis on students from India. According to a recent analysis by the New York Times, the overall number of international students has decreased by 19% compared to last year, with Indian student arrivals falling by an alarming 44% this August.

This decline follows a trend that began last year, exacerbated by prolonged delays in student visa processing and increased scrutiny of applicants. Nearly one in three international students in the U.S. is Indian, making this drop particularly noteworthy for educational institutions and policymakers alike.

The implications of this decline extend beyond just numbers. Data from the Pew Research Center indicates that there are currently approximately 5.2 million Indian Americans in the United States. Over the past several years, South Asian Americans have emerged as the fastest-growing demographic within the broader Asian American community, which is itself the fastest-growing racial or ethnic population in the country.

As the flow of new international students diminishes, coupled with stricter guidelines for H-1B visas affecting skilled workers, the future trajectory of the Indian and South Asian populations in the U.S. may be significantly impacted. This trend raises questions about the long-term effects on the cultural and economic landscape of the nation.

In addition to these immigration challenges, there are growing concerns about America’s global cultural influence. Canadian author Stephen Marche recently argued in a New York Times op-ed that the United States may be losing its appeal as a cultural leader. He suggests that the narrative surrounding America has become disjointed, leading to a perception of the country as less attractive to foreign observers.

Marche succinctly states, “If you have to say you’re hot, you’re not,” highlighting the need for the U.S. to reassess its global standing and the factors contributing to its diminishing allure.

Recent polling data from AAPI Data’s latest AP-NORC Survey indicates that dissatisfaction with immigration policies is rising among Asian Americans. The survey shows that a greater percentage of Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) adults disapprove of the current administration’s handling of immigration, with disapproval rates increasing from 58% to 71% over the past six months.

In light of these trends, there are indications that some political leaders may reconsider their stances on immigration. In a recent television interview, former President Donald Trump discussed the importance of attracting foreign talent while also addressing concerns about American workers. During the exchange with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham, Trump acknowledged the need for skilled workers, stating, “You also do have to bring in talent.”

This conversation underscores the ongoing debate surrounding immigration policy and its implications for the U.S. economy and workforce. As the nation grapples with these complex issues, the decline in new international student arrivals, particularly from India, serves as a critical indicator of broader shifts in immigration and cultural dynamics.

As the landscape of international education and immigration continues to evolve, stakeholders will need to pay close attention to these trends and their potential long-term effects on the Indian American community and the U.S. as a whole.

Source: Original article

Craigslist Scam Targets Vehicle Sellers with Fake Car Reports

Fake vehicle report scams are targeting car sellers on platforms like Craigslist, leading to potential credit card fraud. Awareness of warning signs can help protect sellers from these schemes.

Selling a car online is often seen as a straightforward process. However, many sellers are increasingly encountering scams that involve fake demands for vehicle reports from unknown websites. These scams typically begin with a seemingly routine inquiry from a potential buyer, but they quickly lead to a payment page designed to steal credit card information.

Nick K., a resident of Washington, recently experienced this scam while attempting to sell his vehicle. He shared his observations in an email, noting, “In trying to sell a car, it has become apparent that there is a scam related to CarFax-type reports.” He described how the scam unfolds: a person expresses interest in the car but insists on obtaining a report from a specific service. Initially, Nick thought this might be a tactic to sell more reports, but he soon realized it was a method for harvesting credit card numbers and personal data.

Nick identified several warning signs that can indicate a scam. These include inquiries about accepting cash, questions that suggest the buyer has not read the advertisement, offers that exceed the listed price, and vague initial contact. “These are just the usual signs I am looking for when I am trying to decide if someone responding to a Craigslist or Facebook ad is legit,” he explained.

This scam has been proliferating across various online platforms, including Craigslist and Facebook Marketplace. It often begins with a message that appears entirely normal. For instance, a supposed buyer may text, “Is the 1985 F150 available?” followed by friendly but vague questions like, “OK, I’m interested in seeing it. When and where would be good for you?”

Once the seller responds, the scammer establishes just enough rapport to seem credible. The next step involves the scammer claiming they are serious about purchasing the vehicle but require a detailed report from a service that most sellers have never heard of.

In Nick’s case, after he provided the Craigslist link and vehicle details, the scammer replied with a suggestion to obtain an “Auto Smart Report,” complete with a link to the site. The message continued with, “Oh, I forgot to ask for your name? I’m Richard. Will you accept a cash payment? Let me know.” While this may sound harmless, the scam relies on enticing the seller to click the link.

The website linked in the message appears professional, promising a “Complete Vehicle History at Your Fingertips.” However, once the seller enters their information, they are not purchasing a report; instead, they are unwittingly providing their credit card details and personal data to criminals.

When Nick pushed back against the request for the report, the scammer intensified their pressure tactics, stating, “If you can show me the Auto Smart Report, that would be great, as it’s the most reliable and complete report. My offer to you is $7,000. I have no issue with that.” This tactic included increasing the offer by $500 to keep Nick engaged.

Scammers often employ various strategies to maintain the illusion of a legitimate transaction. However, once the seller pays for the fake report, the scammer typically disappears, having achieved their goal of harvesting financial information rather than purchasing the vehicle.

To protect oneself from such scams, it is crucial to remain vigilant. If you notice two or more suspicious signs, treat the inquiry as potentially fraudulent. Even the most convincing buyer could be a scammer, so taking proactive measures can safeguard your finances and personal data.

One of the most effective ways to avoid falling victim to these scams is to refrain from clicking on any links sent via text, email, or messaging apps. Such links often lead to phishing sites or malware downloads. Keeping devices protected with strong antivirus software and running regular scans can help block new threats.

Additionally, if a buyer insists on using an unfamiliar website, it is essential to stop immediately and verify the site’s legitimacy before sharing any financial or personal details. Considering a data removal service can also be beneficial, as it limits the availability of personal information that scammers might exploit.

When selling a vehicle, stick to reputable services like Carfax, AutoCheck, or NMVTIS. Including your vehicle’s VIN allows genuine buyers to run their own reports safely without needing your involvement.

It is also advisable to report suspicious messages directly to the platform and to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Sharing details of these scams can help protect others from falling victim. If you suspect you have been scammed, contact your bank immediately, cancel your card, and monitor your account for unauthorized charges.

When meeting a buyer, choose a public place with security cameras, bring a friend, keep your phone charged, and document all communication. This scam thrives on the perception that a vehicle report is a routine request. Scammers apply pressure to act quickly, but it is crucial to slow down, verify, and stick to well-known services. Genuine buyers will accept a report you provide or will run one themselves.

Thanks to individuals like Nick K., more sellers can recognize these traps and protect themselves from potential financial loss and data theft.

Have you encountered buyers pushing for unusual report sites when selling online? What were your first clues that something was off? Share your experiences with us at Cyberguy.com.

Source: Original article

Pope Leo XIV Backs US Bishops’ Criticism of Trump Immigration Raids

Pope Leo XIV has expressed strong support for U.S. bishops condemning the Trump administration’s immigration raids, urging compassion and dignity for migrants.

Pope Leo XIV has firmly backed the U.S. Catholic bishops in their condemnation of the Trump administration’s immigration sweeps, calling for Americans to treat migrants with respect and dignity. His comments came during a press conference on Tuesday, where he was asked about a “special message” adopted by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during their recent general assembly in Baltimore.

The bishops criticized President Donald Trump’s mass deportation agenda and the “vilification” of migrants, highlighting the fear and anxiety that immigration raids have instilled in communities across the nation. They expressed concern over the conditions in detention centers and the lack of pastoral care available to migrants held there.

“We are disturbed when we see among our people a climate of fear and anxiety around questions of profiling and immigration enforcement,” the bishops’ statement read. “We are saddened by the state of contemporary debate and the vilification of immigrants. We are concerned about the conditions in detention centers and the lack of access to pastoral care,” they added, opposing “the indiscriminate mass deportation of people.”

Pope Leo, the first American pope, commended the bishops’ message and encouraged both Catholics and all people of goodwill to listen to migrants and treat them humanely, regardless of their legal status in the United States. “I think we have to look for ways of treating people humanely, treating people with the dignity that they have,” he stated. “If people are in the United States illegally, there are ways to treat that. There are courts, there’s a system of justice.”

The pope has a history of urging local bishops to address social justice issues, and Catholic leaders have been vocal in their criticism of Trump’s mass deportation policies. The fear of immigration raids has reportedly led to a decline in Mass attendance at some parishes.

Earlier this year, the federal government reversed a directive from the Biden administration that had prohibited immigration agents from conducting raids in sensitive locations such as churches, schools, and hospitals. This change has further intensified the concerns voiced by the bishops and the pope.

Pope Leo acknowledged the challenges within the U.S. immigration system but emphasized that no one is advocating for open borders. He affirmed that every country has the right to determine who can enter and the methods by which they do so. However, he expressed dismay at the treatment of long-term residents who have lived in the U.S. for many years. “But when people are living good lives, and many of them for 10, 15, 20 years, to treat them in a way that is extremely disrespectful to say the least — and there’s been some violence unfortunately — I think that the bishops have been very clear in what they said,” he remarked as he left the papal country house south of Rome.

In closing, Pope Leo invited all people in the United States to listen to the concerns of migrants, reinforcing the bishops’ call for compassion and understanding.

Source: Original article

Fake Flight Cancellation Texts Target Travelers Amid Ongoing Travel Disruptions

Fake airline texts claiming flight cancellations are deceiving travelers, aiming to steal personal and financial information through convincing scams.

In a troubling trend, cybercriminals are targeting travelers with fake text messages that appear to be from airlines, claiming flight cancellations. These scams exploit the panic that often accompanies travel disruptions, leading unsuspecting individuals to divulge sensitive personal information.

The scam typically begins with a text message that looks legitimate, often including the recipient’s name, flight number, and a link or phone number. The messages use urgent language, stating that a flight has been canceled or delayed, and instructing the recipient to “call this number” or “click to rebook.”

Once the recipient engages with the provided contact, they are connected to a scammer posing as an airline representative. These fraudsters often offer to assist with rebooking the flight for a fee, requesting payment information or personal details such as birth dates or passport numbers. To enhance their credibility, scammers may send confirmation emails that closely mimic official airline communications.

Scammers are increasingly sophisticated, utilizing real airline names, logos, and flight numbers to make their messages appear authentic. Many are now employing artificial intelligence tools to generate convincing language and fake confirmations that resemble genuine airline alerts. This is particularly effective during busy travel seasons or periods of inclement weather, when travelers are more likely to be anxious and susceptible to such scams.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has issued warnings about these deceptive practices, noting that criminals impersonate airline customer service through fraudulent texts and calls. They exploit travelers’ fears to push them into rebooking flights or sharing personal information.

Additionally, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) has reported a significant increase in fake cancellation notices that include phony phone numbers leading directly to scammers. Due to the realistic appearance of these alerts and the urgent tone of the messages, even seasoned travelers can mistakenly believe they are receiving genuine updates.

To protect oneself from these scams, it is crucial to remain calm and verify any flight updates directly with the airline. Travelers are advised to check the airline’s official website or mobile app for the most accurate information, rather than clicking on links from unexpected texts or emails. Scammers often create fake links that look legitimate, but a single click can compromise personal data.

If a traveler needs to contact customer service, they should use the phone number listed in their booking confirmation, the airline’s app, or the verified website. It is important to avoid trusting phone numbers sent via text or social media, as legitimate airlines will not change their contact information mid-trip.

Scammers thrive on urgency, using phrases like “call now,” “act fast,” or “your seat will be canceled” to pressure travelers into quick decisions. Taking a moment to verify flight status can save individuals from losing money or exposing their personal information.

Legitimate airline representatives will never request payment via gift cards, wire transfers, or bank login information. To further safeguard against phishing attempts and malware, travelers should install strong antivirus software on all devices. This software can help block malicious links and alert users to potential phishing emails and ransomware scams.

Another effective strategy for protecting personal information is to utilize a data-removal service that scrubs personal details from people-search websites. These sites can make it easier for scammers to target individuals by name, location, and phone number. While no service can guarantee complete removal of data from the internet, a reputable data removal service can actively monitor and erase personal information from numerous websites, reducing the risk of being targeted.

Travelers are encouraged to forward any scam texts to 7726 (SPAM) and report fake airline messages to the Federal Trade Commission at reportfraud.ftc.gov. Sharing these reports can help agencies shut down ongoing scams and protect other travelers.

As fake flight cancellation scams continue to proliferate, especially during peak travel times, it is essential for individuals to remain vigilant. By staying calm, verifying information through official airline channels, and avoiding random links or unknown numbers, travelers can better protect themselves against these malicious schemes.

Have you ever received a fake flight alert that almost fooled you? Share your experiences with us at Cyberguy.com.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court to Review Ninth Circuit Ruling on Asylum Seeker Turnbacks

The Supreme Court has agreed to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the Trump administration’s turnback policy for asylum seekers unlawful.

Washington (November 17, 2025) – The Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration’s request to review a Ninth Circuit decision that declared the government’s prior turnback policy, known as “metering,” unlawful. This policy allowed border officers to physically block individuals from seeking asylum at ports of entry along the southern border, effectively turning them back to Mexico.

In response to the Supreme Court’s decision, attorneys representing the asylum seekers, along with Al Otro Lado, an organization dedicated to supporting them, issued a statement emphasizing the legal rights of noncitizens. They argued that individuals seeking safety at U.S. ports of entry have a legal right to apply for asylum. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling, they noted, correctly concluded that U.S. immigration laws mandate the government to inspect and process asylum seekers at these ports, allowing them to pursue their legal claims within the United States.

The statement further criticized the government’s turnback policy as an illegal maneuver to bypass these legal requirements. It highlighted the dire consequences faced by vulnerable families, children, and adults fleeing persecution, who were left stranded in dangerous conditions where they encountered threats of violence, kidnapping, and even death. The attorneys expressed their eagerness to present their case before the Court.

Co-counsel for the case includes the American Immigration Council, the Center for Gender & Refugee Studies (CGRS), the Center for Constitutional Rights, Democracy Forward, and the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Al Otro Lado provides comprehensive legal and humanitarian support to refugees, deportees, and other migrants in both the U.S. and Tijuana. Their approach is multidisciplinary and client-centered, focusing on harm reduction. They engage in individual representation, human rights monitoring, medical-legal partnerships, and impact litigation to safeguard the rights of immigrants and asylum seekers.

The American Immigration Council aims to strengthen America by influencing public perceptions and actions regarding immigrants and immigration. They advocate for a fair and just immigration system that welcomes those in need of protection while harnessing the skills and energy that immigrants contribute to society. Their strategies include litigation, research, legislative and administrative advocacy, and communications.

The Center for Gender & Refugee Studies is dedicated to defending the human rights of refugees seeking asylum in the United States. With a strategic focus and extensive legal expertise, CGRS champions complex cases, advocates for due process, and promotes policies that ensure safety and justice for refugees.

The Center for Constitutional Rights has been fighting for justice and liberation since 1966, working with communities facing threats from oppressive systems of power, including structural racism and governmental overreach. Their efforts include litigation, advocacy, and strategic communications.

The Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization that promotes democracy and social progress through litigation, policy initiatives, public education, and regulatory engagement.

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, a non-partisan public interest organization within Georgetown Law, focuses on defending constitutional rights and protecting democratic processes through litigation, policy work, and public education.

As the case progresses, it will be closely watched for its implications on the rights of asylum seekers and the broader immigration landscape in the United States.

Source: Original article

TikTok Malware Scam Uses Fake Activation Guides to Deceive Users

Cybercriminals are exploiting TikTok to distribute malware disguised as free activation guides for popular software, putting users’ sensitive information at risk.

In a new wave of cybercrime, TikTok has become a platform for a malware campaign that tricks users into executing harmful commands. The scheme disguises malicious downloads as free activation guides for widely used software, including Windows, Microsoft 365, Photoshop, and even fake versions of streaming services like Netflix and Spotify Premium.

Security expert Xavier Mertens first identified this campaign, noting that similar tactics were observed earlier this year. According to BleepingComputer, the fraudulent TikTok videos present short PowerShell commands that instruct viewers to run them as administrators to supposedly “activate” or “fix” their software.

However, these commands do not perform the promised functions. Instead, they connect to a malicious website and download a type of malware known as Aura Stealer. Once installed, this malware quietly extracts sensitive information, including saved passwords, cookies, cryptocurrency wallets, and authentication tokens from the victim’s computer.

The campaign employs what experts refer to as a ClickFix attack, a social engineering tactic designed to make victims feel they are following legitimate technical instructions. The instructions appear simple and quick: run a short command and gain instant access to premium software. But the reality is far more sinister.

The PowerShell command connects to a remote domain named slmgr[.]win, which retrieves harmful executables hosted on Cloudflare. The primary file, updater.exe, is a variant of Aura Stealer. Once it infiltrates a system, it actively seeks out credentials and transmits them back to the attacker.

Another component, source.exe, utilizes Microsoft’s C# compiler to execute code directly in memory, complicating detection efforts. While the full purpose of this additional payload remains unclear, it follows patterns seen in previous malware associated with cryptocurrency theft and ransomware distribution.

Despite the convincing nature of these scams, users can take steps to protect themselves. It is crucial to avoid copying or executing PowerShell commands from TikTok videos or unknown websites. If a source promises free access to premium software, it is likely a scam.

Always download or activate software directly from official websites or reputable app stores. Outdated antivirus software or browsers may not detect the latest threats, so regular updates are essential for maintaining security.

Installing robust antivirus software that offers real-time scanning and protection against trojans, info-stealers, and phishing attempts is also advisable. This kind of protection can alert users to potential threats, including phishing emails and ransomware scams, safeguarding personal information and digital assets.

If personal data ends up on the dark web, a data removal or monitoring service can notify users and assist in removing sensitive information. While no service can guarantee complete data removal from the internet, these services actively monitor and systematically erase personal information from numerous websites, providing peace of mind.

For those who have followed suspicious instructions or entered credentials after watching a “free activation” video, it is crucial to reset all passwords immediately. Start with email, financial, and social media accounts, and ensure unique passwords are used for each site. Utilizing a password manager can help securely store and generate complex passwords, reducing the risk of password reuse.

Additionally, users should check if their email has been exposed in past data breaches. The top-rated password managers often include built-in breach scanners that can determine whether email addresses or passwords have appeared in known leaks. If a match is found, it is vital to change any reused passwords and secure those accounts with new, unique credentials.

Adding an extra layer of security by enabling multi-factor authentication wherever possible is also recommended. This measure ensures that even if passwords are compromised, attackers cannot access accounts without the necessary verification.

Given TikTok’s extensive global reach, it remains a prime target for scams like this. What may appear as a helpful hack could ultimately jeopardize users’ security, finances, and peace of mind. Staying vigilant, trusting only verified sources, and remembering that there is no such thing as a free activation shortcut are essential steps for users.

As the prevalence of such scams continues to rise, the question remains: Is TikTok doing enough to protect its users from these threats? Users are encouraged to share their thoughts and experiences by reaching out through platforms like Cyberguy.com.

Source: Original article

SNAP Benefits Freeze Affects Immigrant Families Amid Ongoing Food Insecurity

As the government nears a potential reopening, millions of Americans face a continued freeze on SNAP payments while the Trump Administration intensifies funding for immigration enforcement efforts.

As millions of Americans grapple with the ongoing freeze on Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) payments, the Trump Administration is simultaneously ramping up funding for its immigration enforcement initiatives. This development comes as the government appears poised to reopen after a prolonged shutdown.

Recent documentation reveals that the administration has allocated millions in new federal contracts to Palantir Technologies, a software company that plays a crucial role in the government’s efforts to target, detain, and deport immigrants. On September 19, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) exercised a $19 million option to expand its existing contract with Palantir, aimed at enhancing its Investigative Case Management System. Just a week later, ICE announced a supplemental agreement totaling $30 million to improve the prototype of its ImmigrationOS system, designed to better track and detain immigrants. The following day, ICE awarded Palantir an additional $2 million to further support its ongoing contract.

Despite the government shutdown, ICE is ensuring that its deportation operations continue unabated. While some of the software enhancements will assist ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Unit in combating drug and human trafficking, it is evident that the enhanced capabilities of ImmigrationOS and the Investigative Case Management System will also be used to target immigrants who are not involved in criminal activities, including those who voice dissent against government policies.

Austin Kocher, a geographer at Syracuse University and a leading expert in immigration enforcement trends, reported a significant increase in ICE arrests, rising from 12,000 per month in January 2025, at the end of the Biden administration, to 30,000 per month by September. Alarmingly, nearly half of those detained were non-criminals.

The non-criminal detainees include many individuals who are lawfully present in the U.S., such as backlogged applicants for U visas—designated for victims or witnesses of crimes who have assisted law enforcement—T visa applicants (victims of human trafficking), backlogged asylum seekers, and DACA recipients. There is currently no comprehensive record of how Palantir’s technology has been employed to target specific individuals, but reports indicate that ICE has utilized the software to monitor individual air travel, scan driver’s licenses, and access cell phone records, among other data points.

Among the vulnerable immigrant populations are those living and working legally in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status (TPS). These individuals face precarious circumstances, as their legal status can be revoked at any time due to arbitrary decisions made by the government. For instance, in July, nearly 9,000 Afghans had their TPS status revoked after the Department of Homeland Security determined that conditions in Afghanistan had improved, despite reports indicating that over half of the country’s population requires food aid and that rights for women and minorities are deteriorating.

Many of these Afghan TPS recipients fled their home country in 2021 amid the U.S. withdrawal, having worked with U.S. and international agencies to promote democracy or served as translators during military operations against the Taliban.

By leveraging data from various sources and utilizing Palantir’s artificial intelligence technology, ICE can more effectively target and track these vulnerable groups, including Afghans, Haitians, Venezuelans, South Sudanese, and others who have been criminalized by sudden revocations of their legal status.

It remains uncertain what specific enhancements Palantir will implement with the new influx of federal funding, and what additional personal information—including Medicaid, SNAP, IRS, and Social Security Administration data—will become accessible to the Department of Homeland Security. However, it is likely that these developments will lead to an expansion of state and commercial databases that can be used to target and monitor individuals, regardless of their immigration status.

One concerning example is the Department of Labor’s recent attempt to access individual records from the federal-state unemployment insurance system. “This should be ringing alarm bells,” said Quinn Anex-Ries, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy and Technology. He noted that this effort occurs against the backdrop of the Trump administration’s extensive initiatives to collect vast amounts of information about everyday Americans, often under the pretense of preventing fraud, waste, and abuse. However, as evidenced by past actions, this data has frequently been repurposed for surveillance and immigration enforcement.

The ultimate consequences of these initiatives to access confidential personal data, authorized by executive orders aimed at eliminating waste and protecting the American populace, remain uncertain. Many of these efforts have faced legal challenges, often being rebuffed by federal judges. Nevertheless, litigation continues, and the Supreme Court has generally supported assertions of executive authority.

As the Senate reaches a tentative agreement to reopen the government following the longest shutdown in U.S. history, the focus now shifts to the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the Trump Administration persists in its campaign to freeze some or all SNAP payments while simultaneously increasing its investments in targeting immigrants.

Source: Original article

Missouri Senator Advocates Overhaul or End of OPT Work Program

Senator Eric Schmitt of Missouri is advocating for a comprehensive review of the Optional Practical Training program, calling it a “cheap-labor pipeline” that disadvantages American workers.

Senator Eric Schmitt, a Republican from Missouri, has formally requested a thorough review of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, which permits international students graduating from U.S. universities to work in the country. In a letter addressed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem, Schmitt expressed his support for the agency’s reported plans to either reform or terminate the program.

The OPT program allows international graduates to work in the United States for up to twelve months after completing their degree, with those in STEM fields eligible for an additional twenty-four-month extension. However, the program has come under increasing scrutiny, particularly in the context of the Trump administration’s hardline stance on illegal immigration and employment-based visas like the H-1B. Once viewed as a relatively uncontroversial benefit for international students, OPT is now facing calls for reevaluation from policymakers who argue that any pathway allowing foreign graduates to work in the U.S. should be reconsidered under the “America First” immigration framework.

Schmitt, who was elected to the Senate in November 2022, highlighted that the OPT program was established administratively and lacks explicit congressional authorization. He contended that the program primarily serves the interests of large corporations and academic institutions while placing American workers at a disadvantage.

In his letter, Schmitt stated, “In light of your administration’s continued commitment to America First immigration policy, I write to you in strong support of ongoing discussions surrounding reforms to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program.” He further noted that recent reports indicate DHS plans to overhaul or eliminate OPT, which he views as a necessary correction to a program he describes as one of the most abused in the U.S. immigration system.

The senator criticized the current state of the OPT program, asserting that it has deviated from its original purpose. He remarked, “Today, however, the program functions as a cheap-labor pipeline for big business—and a backdoor into the U.S. job market for foreign workers.” Schmitt emphasized that the OPT program serves the financial interests of large corporations and academic institutions at the expense of young American workers and students.

He elaborated on the negative impact of the program, stating, “This system boxes young Americans out of the workforce, discriminates against American workers in favor of foreign labor, and suppresses wages and job opportunities for U.S. graduates.” Schmitt also expressed concerns that the program distorts the higher education landscape, incentivizing colleges to operate as “visa mills” and posing threats to national security and economic prosperity.

Schmitt pointed out that the OPT program was created and expanded by unelected bureaucrats in the executive branch, circumventing the legislative process. He argued that this lack of congressional oversight means that the program could potentially be reformed or terminated through executive action.

The senator also highlighted the financial motivations for universities to promote work permits for foreign students, noting that these students often pay significantly higher tuition fees than their American counterparts. He stated, “As a result, many would argue that young Americans are being boxed out of both the workforce and the university system in their own country.”

Schmitt provided statistics to support his claims, noting that foreign students now make up 20 to 30 percent of total enrollment at many elite and public universities, with even higher percentages in graduate programs. For instance, he cited that last year, 39 percent of Columbia University’s student body was international, while nearly 44 percent of New York University’s enrollment fell into this category, representing a 244 percent increase since 2013.

In addition to his concerns about the OPT program, Schmitt has also voiced criticism regarding H-1B visas. He alleged that some U.S. companies are misusing these visas to staff diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices. He remarked on social media, “The H-1B visa was sold as a way to keep America ‘competitive.’ Instead, it imported millions of foreign nationals to replace American workers—and transferred entire industries into the hands of foreign lobbies.”

Schmitt’s advocacy for a review of the OPT program reflects a broader trend among lawmakers who are increasingly scrutinizing immigration policies and their implications for the American workforce.

Source: Original article

Racist Slur ‘Pajeet’ Gains Traction Online Among Indian-Americans

“Pajeet,” a derogatory term targeting Indians, has gained popularity among far-right groups, reflecting rising hostility toward Indian immigrants and H-1B visa workers in the U.S.

The term “Pajeet” has emerged as a slur within far-right online communities, gaining traction amid the backlash against H-1B visa holders and increasing political animosity toward Indian immigrants in the United States. This trend has been particularly notable since September, following President Trump’s announcement of a significant $100,000 fee for new H-1B visa applicants.

Shortly after the fee announcement, a disturbing campaign surfaced on 4Chan, an anonymous imageboard known for its minimal moderation. Some users encouraged Americans to prevent Indian H-1B workers traveling abroad from returning to the U.S. before the fee deadline by launching a “Clog the Toilet” initiative, which involved flooding airlines with fake bookings. Throughout these discussions, far-right commenters frequently referred to Indians using the term “Pajeet,” a word that many were encountering for the first time.

Although the term originated in the United States, it has since spread to right-wing groups in Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia. Harmeet Gugni, a resident of Toronto, found the term particularly unsettling during a visit with family earlier this year. She recalls her relatives advising her to remain calm if anyone used the slur in public. “I was disturbed,” she said. “A casual walk in Brampton suddenly felt like something I had to prepare for. Thankfully, nothing happened, but it stayed with me.”

The term “Pajeet” evokes painful memories for many South Asians, reminiscent of the slur “Paki,” which has been used in the UK against Indians, Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis. As political rhetoric targeting immigrants, especially Indian H-1B workers, intensifies, the use of “Pajeet” has surged across various online platforms, including Reddit, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram.

Sangay Mishra, a professor at Drew University specializing in immigrant political incorporation and racial politics, notes that the slur has circulated in far-right circles in the U.S. for several years. “I’ve been hearing about it for a while,” he remarked. “It doesn’t make logical sense, but racial slurs rarely do. People have tried to trace its origins, but there’s no single definitive answer.”

According to Know Your Meme, a digital encyclopedia documenting internet culture, the term “Pajeet” first appeared on 4Chan’s international board around 2015. It describes the term as a fabricated Indian name used to mock Indian men, particularly those who are Hindu or Sikh. A female variant, “Pajeeta,” emerged later, with both terms spreading beyond 4Chan in the early 2020s. Variations such as “Pajeet Kumar” are also commonly used.

Some theories regarding the term’s origin delve into internet folklore. One suggestion links it to the Turkish meme “Mehmet My Son,” proposing that “Pajeet” evolved as a parody name meant to mock Indians through exaggerated stereotypes, including outdated images of open defecation. Another explanation highlights the suffix “–jeet,” which is common in Sikh names, while “Kumar” is widely used among Hindus, making the slur an indiscriminate catch-all for Indians, regardless of their community. As one internet theorist pointed out, “White racists coined the term without understanding cultural differences; they lumped Sikh and Hindu names together and used it against all Indians.”

The association with open defecation has further fueled the creation of memes. A notorious 4Chan thread from July 2015 mocked an Indian user defending the country against “India smells bad” jokes, claiming that people only defecate on “designated shitting streets.” This phrase became a viral shorthand that led to numerous compilations and racist parodies.

A quick search on Instagram today reveals a plethora of far-right accounts employing “Pajeet” alongside images of cow dung, toilets, and degrading caricatures of Indians. Variations such as “Smelly Pajeets” are also prevalent, appearing in AI-generated videos and memes. The overarching theme is dehumanizing, reducing Indians, particularly immigrants, to a single, monolithic stereotype.

What makes the term “Pajeet” particularly insidious is its broad application. Many Americans unfamiliar with South Asian cultures tend to conflate different religions, languages, and regions under this single slur. As political hostility toward immigrants escalates, especially against Indian tech workers, the term has migrated from fringe forums into more mainstream corners of the internet.

As the discourse surrounding immigration and cultural identity continues to evolve, the spread of terms like “Pajeet” serves as a stark reminder of the challenges faced by immigrant communities in the U.S. and beyond.

Source: Original article

Lawmakers Push for End to H-1B Visas Amid Concerns

A growing number of lawmakers are advocating for the termination of the H-1B visa program, citing concerns over its impact on American workers and the job market.

The backlash against the H-1B visa program is gaining momentum, particularly among Republican lawmakers. Recent political statements, stricter enforcement measures, and rising online hostility are reshaping the environment for H-1B visa holders.

On Thursday, Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, introduced a bill aimed at abolishing the H-1B program. In her social media announcement, she stated, “I am introducing a bill to end the mass replacement of American workers by aggressively phasing out the H-1B program. Big Tech, AI giants, hospitals, and industries across the board have abused the H-1B system to cut out our own people.”

Greene emphasized her commitment to prioritizing American workers, asserting, “My bill eliminates the corrupt H-1B program and puts Americans First again in tech, healthcare, engineering, manufacturing, and every industry that keeps this country running! If we want the next generation to have the American Dream, we must stop replacing them and start investing in them.”

Adding to the chorus of criticism, Oklahoma State Senator Dusty Deevers, who has been in office since 2023, took to X (formerly Twitter) to express his opposition. In a video, he declared, “Oklahomans, it’s time to end the H-1B visa scam. Companies exploit it to skip American workers for cheap, captive foreign labor. Congress must abolish it, but Oklahoma can lead like Florida: Ban H-1B for state jobs.”

The post garnered a wide range of reactions online. While some supporters of the H-1B program acknowledged the need for reform, they cautioned that outright abolition could have detrimental effects on the U.S. economy. One user responded to Deevers’ video, stating, “H-1B visas need reforms — that’s 100% true. But if you abolish them, most companies will offshore tech jobs overseas. America will lose by abolishing H-1B visas, not because it lacks an understanding of what needs to be reformed to address some core issues.”

On the same day, Representative Andy Ogles, who represents Tennessee’s 5th Congressional District, also voiced his opposition to the H-1B program, stating, “No more H-1Bs is a no-brainer. Let’s get it done.”

As political rhetoric continues to shift public perception of H-1B visa holders, new policies and agency actions are tightening regulations around the program in unprecedented ways. Immigration attorney Poonam Gupta of Summit Legal PLLC noted, “The H-1B crackdown is quietly shifting the U.S. job market. A new policy push by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), dubbed Project Firewall, is marking a turning point in how high-skill employment visa programs are enforced. For employers and visa candidates alike, the ripple effects are already showing.”

Gupta explained that Project Firewall empowers the DOL to initiate investigations into the H-1B visa program without requiring a worker complaint. “Penalties for violations can include up to $51,500 per violation, multi-year bans on sponsoring H-1Bs, and recovery of back wages. Firms that rely heavily on foreign-skill hiring, especially in IT outsourcing and staffing models, are under the most scrutiny,” she added.

Last week, Representative Chip Roy, a Republican from Texas, announced plans to introduce legislation known as the Pause Act, which would freeze all immigration, including the H-1B program. “I’ve got a bill that I’m going to be introducing that is a freeze on all immigration,” he said. “Freeze it until we achieve certain objectives — reforming chain migration, ending H-1B visas, getting birthright citizenship dealt with, and vetting people for their adherence to Sharia law.”

In a related development, the Young Republicans of Texas, an official youth auxiliary of the Texas GOP, issued a statement declaring that they would not endorse any candidate seeking national office unless that candidate supported ending the H-1B visa program.

While the rhetoric against the H-1B program intensifies, President Trump’s recent comments have raised eyebrows among some far-right supporters. In an interview with Fox News anchor Laura Ingraham, Trump suggested that the United States lacks enough domestic talent to fill certain specialized jobs, a stance that contradicts the calls from some in his base to abolish the visa program entirely.

The ongoing debate surrounding the H-1B visa program highlights a significant shift in political attitudes and policies, with potential implications for the future of high-skill employment in the United States.

Source: Original article

Indian Americans on H-1B Visas Face Changing Public Perceptions

Amid rising anti-immigrant sentiment, Indian Americans and H-1B visa holders are facing shifting public perceptions in the United States, particularly in the wake of Donald Trump’s presidency.

A recent encounter in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, highlights the growing tensions faced by Indian professionals in the United States. An Indian IT worker on an H-1B visa was confronted by a man who blocked his path and demanded to know, “What are you doing, and where are you from?” The worker, who is employed by an Indian American-owned IT firm, initially resisted the inquiry, stating, “It’s none of your business who I am or where I’m from.” However, the man insisted, “It is my business. I want to know who is here in my country and what they are doing.” This unsettling confrontation left the IT professional shaken, prompting him to express a desire to return to India later that evening.

This incident is not an isolated case; it reflects a broader trend of increasing hostility toward Indian Americans and those on H-1B visas. Since Donald Trump resumed his presidency in January, public sentiment has shifted dramatically, particularly among right-wing groups. Following Trump’s announcement of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B petitions in September, claims that Indians are “job stealers” have proliferated on social media, alongside calls to abolish the visa program altogether.

The political landscape has also changed, with figures such as Florida Governor Ron DeSantis taking a stand against H-1B visas. DeSantis recently declared that public universities in Florida would cease to utilize H-1B visas, asserting that they are hiring foreign workers instead of qualified Americans. This move is expected to have a significant impact on the more than 400 foreign workers employed at Florida’s state universities, further fueling anti-immigrant rhetoric across the nation.

According to fwd.us, an advocacy group that supports the H-1B program, there are approximately 730,000 H-1B visa holders in the United States, along with around 550,000 dependents, totaling nearly 1.3 million individuals. Notably, over 70 percent of H-1B recipients are Indian nationals. The majority of these visas—65 percent in 2023—were issued for computer-related occupations, with nearly half of all H-1B-sponsoring employers falling within the professional, scientific, and technical services sector, according to data from USCIS.

The H-1B visa program, which has long faced criticism, has become a political flashpoint. The current climate is marked by a notable shift, as some of Trump’s closest advisors, including White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, have emerged as vocal opponents of the program. Their views are echoed by a growing chorus of right-wing voices on social media, creating a ripple effect that is reshaping the fabric of American society.

Amar Gupta, a long-time resident of New Jersey, observes the changes in public perception of Indian culture. He notes that this year’s Diwali celebrations were marred by multiple incidents of white neighbors calling the police on Indian families celebrating with fireworks. What was once an enjoyable festival for many has now become a source of contention.

Heightened scrutiny has also been directed at Indian Americans in professional and social settings. Many individuals within the community report feeling increased racism, exacerbated by the ongoing reinforcement of immigration controls and stricter visa regulations. The rise of Trump’s “Make America Great Again” movement has left many immigrant groups, including Indian Americans, grappling with a rapidly changing public image.

Today, six Indian Americans serve in the U.S. Congress, a significant increase from a generation ago when there were none. Prominent companies such as Google, Microsoft, and IBM are led by Indian American CEOs. However, this visibility may also render the community a target for immigration hardliners, as economic anxiety and political polarization grow.

Sanjeev Joshipura, executive director of Indiaspora, a leading Indian American organization, notes that the rise in anti-immigrant sentiment has been brewing for some time. He attributes this to the widening gap between affluent individuals and those who are less well-off, which has been exacerbated by recent political developments.

Joshipura emphasizes that issues such as tariffs, visas, and immigration policies, along with inflammatory rhetoric from influential figures, have contributed to the anti-India sentiment observed online and in real life. This sentiment is increasingly reflected in how Indian cultural celebrations, like Diwali, are perceived in the U.S.

Some community members argue that an overemphasis on cultural identity may also be contributing to the backlash. Instances of Indian nationals or Indian Americans involved in high-profile legal cases have drawn public attention, further complicating perceptions of the community. For example, a recent case involving an Indian national accused of orchestrating a visa fraud scheme prompted a stern warning from USCIS about immigration fraud.

In another notable incident, BlackRock was reportedly defrauded of over $500 million by an Indian-origin executive. Such cases have emerged alongside international policy shifts, including Canada’s recent tightening of controls on Indian students, aimed at curbing temporary migration and addressing student visa-related fraud.

In light of these developments, some community voices are calling for introspection. Dan Mayur, a researcher based in Sugar Land, Texas, reflects on the evolving perception of Indian identity in the U.S. He acknowledges that while most Indians are hardworking and honest, a small number of individuals engaging in fraudulent activities can tarnish the community’s reputation.

Rajat Gupta, who runs the Instagram account ouramericandream.vlogs, highlights instances of Indians clashing with civic norms, such as shoplifting and public disturbances. He believes that acknowledging these issues is crucial for the community to address and resolve them.

Mayur concurs, suggesting that while pride in cultural heritage is important, it should not come at the expense of public convenience. He notes that the differing cultural expectations between Indian and American societies can lead to misunderstandings, particularly regarding large gatherings and celebrations.

Joshipura advocates for active participation in civic and philanthropic sectors as a means for the Indian community to combat negative perceptions. He emphasizes the importance of demonstrating that Indian Americans are a valuable asset to the nation.

As the landscape of public perception continues to evolve, the Indian American community finds itself at a crossroads, navigating the complexities of identity, success, and the challenges posed by a shifting political climate.

Source: Original article

Immigration Agencies Expand Workforce Amid Government Downsizing

The Trump administration has hired approximately 50,000 federal employees, primarily in immigration and national security, while planning to cut 300,000 positions across other government sectors.

The Trump administration has made significant changes to the federal workforce, adding roughly 50,000 employees since Inauguration Day. This hiring surge, primarily focused on national security roles, reflects the administration’s current priorities, particularly in immigration enforcement.

According to the government’s top personnel official, most of the new hires have been directed towards Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This rapid expansion of ICE has emerged as a clear indicator of the administration’s enforcement-driven approach to immigration policy.

This hiring initiative occurs alongside a broader strategy to reshape the federal workforce, even as the administration implements cuts in other departments. “It’s about reshaping the workforce to focus on the priorities that we think are most important,” the official stated.

Despite a hiring freeze and job cuts affecting various sectors of the federal bureaucracy, including the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of Health and Human Services, the administration continues to bolster positions in immigration enforcement.

In August, the administration indicated plans to trim approximately 300,000 federal positions by the end of the year. This downsizing initiative has been spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, who was appointed by President Trump to lead efforts aimed at reforming the 2.4-million-person civilian workforce.

Musk has argued that federal agencies have become bloated and inefficient, necessitating a dramatic overhaul to enhance functionality. This restructuring has led to cuts across agencies responsible for civil rights enforcement, tax collection, and federal clean-energy initiatives, as resources are redirected towards the administration’s priorities.

As these cuts have intensified, around 154,000 federal workers have opted for buyouts offered by the administration. Departures have occurred across various agencies, impacting areas such as weather forecasting, food safety, public health programs, and space operations, according to former officials and union representatives.

The combination of targeted hiring in security agencies and substantial cuts in civilian departments has set the stage for a significant transformation of the federal workforce. While the administration argues that reallocating personnel towards border enforcement and defense will enhance national strength, the extensive reductions in public services have raised concerns among former officials and labor groups about potential disruptions.

With tens of thousands of employees taking buyouts and many more expected to leave by the year’s end, the government is undergoing an unusually rapid overhaul. Supporters of the changes view them as long-overdue reforms, while critics warn that they could undermine essential operations.

Ultimately, the ability of federal agencies to adapt to these swift changes, along with the realization of the promised efficiencies, will be crucial in determining how effectively the government can address the needs of the country in the coming years.

Source: Original article

Britain Unveils Major Changes to Asylum Policies for Refugees

Britain has announced a significant overhaul of its asylum policy, inspired by Denmark’s stringent immigration measures, marking the most substantial changes to its refugee system in modern history.

Britain is set to implement a major overhaul of its asylum policy, introducing longer wait times for permanent residency and mandating the return of refugees to their home countries once deemed safe. This shift represents the largest transformation of asylum seeker policies in modern times, drawing inspiration from Denmark, which is known for its strict immigration regulations and has faced considerable scrutiny from human rights organizations.

The Labour government in Britain has intensified its immigration stance in response to the rising popularity of the populist Reform U.K. party, which advocates for a stringent approach to immigration. As a result, Labour has felt compelled to adopt a tougher position on asylum seekers.

Among the key changes announced by the Home Office are the revocation of the statutory duty to provide housing and financial support to certain asylum seekers. Additionally, refugees will now have to wait 20 years to apply for permanent residency, a significant increase from the current five-year period. The duration of initial refugee status will be reduced from five years to two and a half years, and the rules governing family reunifications will be tightened. Furthermore, refugees will be encouraged or required to return to their home countries once it is considered safe.

The Home Office indicated that these measures will apply to asylum seekers who are able to work but choose not to, as well as those who engage in illegal activities. Support funded by taxpayers will be prioritized for individuals who contribute positively to the economy and local communities.

Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood stated that the changes aim to make the United Kingdom less appealing to illegal migrants and facilitate the removal of individuals whose asylum claims are denied. “This country has a proud tradition of welcoming those fleeing danger, but our generosity is drawing illegal migrants across the Channel,” Mahmood remarked. “The pace and scale of migration is placing immense pressure on communities.”

In response to these proposed changes, more than 100 British charities have urged Mahmood to “end the scapegoating of migrants and performative policies that only cause harm.” They argue that these measures exacerbate racism and violence against vulnerable populations.

Britain’s Refugee Council emphasized on social media platform X that refugees do not compare asylum systems when fleeing danger. Many seek asylum in the U.K. due to family connections, some familiarity with the English language, or existing networks that can help them rebuild their lives safely.

As the U.K. government moves forward with these sweeping changes, the implications for asylum seekers and the broader community remain to be seen.

Source: Original article

Kristi Noem Reports Faster Green Card and Visa Processing Under Trump

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the Trump administration is making progress in expediting green card and visa processing, despite a significant backlog of applications.

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem recently stated that the Trump administration has made significant strides in accelerating the processing of green card and visa applications. Speaking in November, Noem emphasized that the number of individuals becoming U.S. citizens has reached unprecedented levels during this administration, reflecting both faster processing times and an increase in naturalizations.

However, these optimistic remarks come amid a challenging backdrop. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is currently grappling with an unprecedented backlog, with over 11 million pending applications. This surge in demand encompasses various immigration categories, including green cards, work permits, and popular admissions like the H-1B visa. As a result, processing times for many applications remain lengthy, leading to frustration among applicants awaiting decisions.

Noem underscored the administration’s commitment to enhancing the integrity of the visa and green card systems. She highlighted improvements in vetting procedures, aimed at ensuring that only qualified individuals seeking legitimate entry into the United States are approved. Furthermore, she noted a strong commitment to balancing enforcement with the facilitation of legal immigration.

Despite these efforts, experts point out that while premium processing fees can offer a slight reduction in wait times for some applicants, the average processing time for employment-based green cards still extends to several years. This reality raises concerns among stakeholders who argue that reforming and streamlining immigration procedures is essential for maintaining the United States’ competitiveness in attracting global talent.

The administration’s broader immigration agenda continues to focus on security, efficiency, and legal compliance as it navigates these challenges. As the landscape of immigration evolves, the emphasis remains on improving processes while ensuring that the integrity of the system is upheld.

Source: Original article

Trump’s H-1B Visa Comments Divide Conservatives and MAGA Supporters

Donald Trump’s recent comments on the H-1B visa program have sparked intense debate among conservatives and MAGA supporters, highlighting divisions over immigration and labor policies.

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding the H-1B visa program have reignited discussions across social media platforms. Many users are expressing the belief that the United States possesses sufficient talent to rely on its own workforce, rather than depending on foreign professionals. This debate raises questions about whether easing visa restrictions aligns with Trump’s long-standing “America First” philosophy.

One user on X stated, “America landed on the moon 20 years before the H-1B program even existed. Don’t give me this nonsense about America not having enough ‘talent.’ Abolish the H-1B program and invest in American youth, not foreigners.” This sentiment was echoed by another user who shared data emphasizing the contributions of foreign talent to American achievements, stating, “You mean the Moon landing was designed by a German, guided by Australians & Spaniards, & coded by Indians & immigrant engineers? America’s been powered by foreign talent long before H-1Bs existed.”

The user went on to list notable figures who contributed to the Apollo program, including Joe Mehta, an Indian engineer who worked on SIMCOM code, and Wernher von Braun, a German engineer who played a key role in developing the Saturn V rocket. This exchange quickly garnered thousands of reactions, revealing a significant divide over the United States’ reliance on global talent.

While some users argued for a focus on nurturing domestic skilled professionals, others pointed out that many of the country’s landmark achievements, from space exploration to the tech boom in Silicon Valley, have been built through international collaboration. The debate highlights how Trump’s comments have reignited broader questions about the balance between protecting domestic jobs and maintaining America’s status as a destination for global expertise.

In the midst of this debate, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro defended the H-1B visa program, arguing that it is essential for maintaining America’s technological edge. In a post on X, he pointed to gaps in U.S. education, particularly in STEM fields, and cited figures like Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, and Satya Nadella as examples of how immigrant talent drives innovation and keeps high-tech jobs within the country.

Shapiro’s remarks, however, drew sharp backlash from the MAGA wing of the conservative movement, which accused him of prioritizing corporate interests over American workers. Supporters of the H-1B program contended that such initiatives are crucial for economic growth and global competitiveness. This division reflects a growing rift within conservative circles as Trump signals potential reforms to skilled immigration.

One user countered Shapiro’s defense, questioning the high-skilled nature of immigration by asking, “If the immigration is so high-skilled, why are their nations of origin (India and China) not desperate to retain it? Wouldn’t they surpass America as the global superpower if they were such a reservoir of entrepreneurship and expertise?”

Another user, Daniel Di Martino, shared data indicating that Indians in the U.S. have one of the lowest crime rates of any demographic group, far below that of non-Hispanic whites. This statistic was part of a broader discussion about the contributions of immigrants to American society.

Reflecting on the backlash against Shapiro, one user remarked, “All the H-1B Visa program does is circumvent the desperate need for educational reform in America.” Some users defended the program, arguing that Shapiro’s points about H-1B visas are valid, but suggested that many people simply do not understand the complexities involved.

The ongoing back-and-forth has laid bare a growing divide within conservative ranks regarding the future of America’s immigration and labor policies. On one side are those who view the H-1B program as detrimental to U.S. workers by suppressing wages and outsourcing opportunities. On the other side are conservatives who argue that restricting skilled immigration could stifle innovation, drive companies overseas, and weaken America’s leadership in technology.

This widening rift reflects a deeper ideological struggle between economic nationalism and global competitiveness, an issue that is likely to intensify as Trump’s stance on H-1B visas continues to evolve.

Source: Original article

AI-Powered Scams Target Children as Parents Remain Silent

New survey reveals that while 78% of parents fear AI scams targeting their children, nearly half have not discussed these threats, leaving kids vulnerable in an increasingly digital world.

As children spend more time online, they are exposed to a growing array of dangers, particularly in the realm of artificial intelligence (AI). Recent findings from a Bitwarden survey conducted for “Cybersecurity Awareness Month 2025” reveal that while a significant majority of parents are aware of the risks posed by AI-enhanced scams, many have not engaged in crucial conversations with their children about these threats.

The survey indicates that 78% of parents worry their child could fall victim to AI-driven scams, which can include sophisticated voice-cloned messages or deceptive chats that appear to come from friends. Alarmingly, nearly half of these parents have not discussed what an AI-powered scam might look like with their children. This disconnect is particularly pronounced among Gen Z parents, with about 80% expressing concern about their child’s safety online, yet 37% allowing their kids nearly unrestricted access to the internet.

Children as young as preschool age are now part of the connected world, yet many lack the understanding necessary to navigate it safely. The survey found that 42% of parents with children aged 3 to 5 reported that their child had accidentally shared personal information online. This early exposure to technology, combined with insufficient supervision and education, creates a perfect storm for potential exploitation.

Many parents mistakenly believe that existing safety tools, such as parental controls and supervision software, are sufficient to protect their children. However, these measures often fall short as children explore various apps, games, and chat platforms designed to engage them. The reality is that while device access has become nearly universal by early elementary school, meaningful supervision and open discussions about online safety are lagging behind.

The nature of online scams has evolved dramatically due to advancements in AI, making them more personalized and harder to detect. Despite their fears, many parents remain hesitant to translate their awareness into action. A significant number of parents feel unprepared to explain AI to their children or assume that their existing safety measures will suffice. Only 17% of parents actively seek information about AI technologies, leaving a large majority relying on outdated advice or partial knowledge.

Compounding the issue, many parents juggle multiple devices at home, making it challenging to monitor every app or game their child uses. Some even overestimate their own online safety habits, admitting to practices like reusing passwords or neglecting security updates. This lack of firsthand understanding makes it difficult for parents to impart essential lessons to their children, leaving kids to navigate the internet with curiosity but little guidance.

Fortunately, there are practical steps parents can take to mitigate these risks and foster lasting online safety habits. Setting up devices in shared family areas rather than in bedrooms can help keep screens visible and encourage open conversations. By being present in their child’s online world, parents can more easily spot suspicious messages, fake friend requests, or scam links before they lead to trouble.

Most devices come equipped with robust parental control tools that can be activated in minutes. For instance, Apple’s Screen Time and Google Family Link allow parents to limit screen time, approve new app installations, and monitor app usage. These controls are particularly beneficial for younger children, who often lack supervision despite heavy device use.

Before allowing a child to install a new game or app, parents should take the time to review it together. Checking reviews, understanding what data the app collects, and confirming the developer’s identity can teach children to approach new technology with healthy skepticism. This collaborative approach helps children recognize red flags and understand the importance of online safety.

AI scams often exploit weak or reused passwords, making it essential for families to use password managers to create and store strong, unique logins for each account. Enabling two-factor authentication (2FA) adds an extra layer of protection, ensuring that even if a password is compromised, the account remains secure. Parents should model these security practices for their children, demonstrating that maintaining online safety is a manageable habit.

Additionally, parents can check if their email addresses have been exposed in past data breaches. Many password managers include built-in breach scanners that alert users if their information has been compromised. If a match is found, parents should immediately change any reused passwords and secure those accounts with unique credentials.

Encouraging children to pause and discuss anything unusual they encounter online is another effective strategy. Whether it’s a pop-up claiming a prize, a suspicious link in a chat, or a voice message that seems familiar, reminding children that it’s okay to ask for help can prevent costly mistakes and foster trust.

Keeping software updated is also crucial, as outdated systems can leave vulnerabilities that scammers exploit. Regularly updating operating systems, browsers, and apps, along with installing strong antivirus software, can significantly enhance online safety. Parents should explain to their children that these updates are not just for their benefit but are essential for maintaining the safety of their favorite games and videos.

Conversations about online safety should not be reserved for moments of crisis. Instead, parents should integrate these discussions into everyday family interactions, whether during family time or while watching YouTube together. Treating digital safety as a life skill that requires ongoing practice can help children become more confident and cautious when faced with online risks.

The findings from Bitwarden serve as a stark reminder of the urgent need for communication between parents and children regarding online safety. While concern among parents is high, the lack of conversations about AI-powered scams leaves children vulnerable to exploitation. By taking proactive steps now, parents can bridge the gap between awareness and understanding, ensuring their families are better protected in an ever-evolving digital landscape.

Are you ready to start the conversation that could keep your child from becoming the next target of an AI-powered scam? Let us know by writing to us at Cyberguy.com.

Source: Original article

Dinesh D’Souza Supports Trump Following Controversy Over H-1B Comments

President Donald Trump’s recent comments on H-1B visas have ignited controversy within his “Make America Great Again” base, prompting mixed reactions from supporters and critics alike.

President Donald Trump’s recent remarks regarding H-1B visas have sparked renewed debate within his “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) base. His comments suggest a potential softening of his previously hardline immigration stance.

During an interview with Fox News, Trump stated that the United States is open to “foreign talent” who can contribute to specialized sectors. This statement has been perceived by many supporters as a surprising departure from his earlier “America First” rhetoric.

When asked if reforming the H-1B visa program remains a priority, Trump responded affirmatively, emphasizing the need to attract skilled individuals. “I agree, but you also have to bring this talent,” he said. He acknowledged the importance of raising wages for American workers but argued that the country cannot rely solely on the long-term unemployed to fill advanced positions in critical industries such as manufacturing and defense.

Trump firmly rejected the notion that the U.S. has enough homegrown talent to meet its needs. “You don’t have certain talents… And people have to learn,” he stated. “You can’t take people off an unemployment line and say, I’m going to put you into a factory. We’re going to make missiles.”

The president’s comments quickly ignited backlash among his core supporters, many of whom took to social media to express their anger and disappointment. On X, several users accused Trump of abandoning the “America First” agenda and yielding to corporate interests by favoring foreign labor over American workers.

One user lamented, “Thanks for doing your job. It’s too bad POTUS turned his back on the American people and sold us out to foreigners and big corporations.” Another user pointed out, “Maybe POTUS doesn’t know we have engineers and techies who are on that unemployment line, or far underemployed because the companies who hire H-1Bs don’t advertise to Americans. Ignorance is not becoming in a president.”

Another supporter expressed deep disappointment, stating, “When a president loses faith in his own people, he forfeits the nation’s soul. To distrust your citizens while flooding the country with 600,000 students from a rival power isn’t leadership—it’s betrayal. A nation without trust cannot stand.”

Critics were vocal about their discontent, with one user describing Trump’s response as “horrific” and “insulting” to the hundreds of thousands of displaced workers in the tech industry. Another user remarked, “I don’t know who you are lady, but you just absolutely permanently destroyed what remained of the positive image that I, and many others, had of Trump. Thanks for revealing who he really is.”

In contrast, Indian American conservative commentator and longtime Trump supporter Dinesh D’Souza came to the president’s defense, urging fellow Republicans to look past the outrage. He dismissed the critics who accused Trump of betraying American workers, labeling their outrage as misplaced.

D’Souza challenged those who claimed the president had softened his stance on H-1B visas, arguing that such critics were contradicting themselves. “Many people: Our education system sucks! It’s all indoctrination, no real learning. Standards have plummeted. The same people: Is Trump seriously saying our graduates are not the best in the world and can do any job you can think of? Let’s at least get our stories straight,” he wrote on social media.

The ongoing debate over Trump’s comments on H-1B visas highlights the deep divisions within conservative circles regarding immigration policy. For Trump, the challenge lies in balancing his nationalist rhetoric with the economic realities of a globalized labor market, where innovation often relies on international talent.

As discussions continue, it remains to be seen how this episode will influence Trump’s standing among his supporters and the broader implications for immigration policy in the United States.

Source: Original article

High HB1 visa fees and some impacts

For decades, America’s technological lead depended on attracting the world’s top talent. That allure is diminishing. The recent hike in H-1B visa fees alone is projected to cost U.S. companies $14 billion annually, leading many to prefer hiring abroad to avoid these costs.
For instance, Zhou Ming, who played a key role in developing software ensuring the safe flight of Boeing 787s and Airbus A380s, has stepped down from a leadership position at a major U.S. firm. His departure wasn’t driven by financial or prestige reasons, but by a more compelling opportunity—he became the founding dean of an engineering college in Ningbo, China. Zhou is not an exception but a sign: top Chinese scientists, engineers, and entrepreneurs who historically contributed to American innovation are returning home, drawn by opportunities to build, lead, and succeed.
Meanwhile, U.S. policies are quietly driving them away. Over the past year, several Chinese-born academics and tech experts have left elite U.S. institutions for influential roles in China’s innovation scene. In the U.S., foreign researchers now face rising visa costs, increased political scrutiny, and shrinking research funding. Conversely, China offers these researchers million-dollar grants, state-backed laboratories, housing stipends, and startup capital.
This shift is driven by a clear national strategy: China prioritizes science and technology, supporting it with policies designed to attract top global talent. In 2024, China streamlined its visa system, and in October 2025, launched the “K visa,” enabling young STEM professionals to live, work, and seek employment in China without a job offer.
This wasn’t coincidental, as it coincided with the U.S. imposing a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, which drove away thousands of skilled workers overnight. In India, the Indian tech sector faces immediate impacts due to heavy reliance on the H-1B visa program for U.S. operations. The high application fees could reduce H-1B approvals by thousands monthly, affecting Indian workers and remittances. The policy may also promote “reverse brain drain,” encouraging highly skilled Indian professionals to stay in India or explore other countries. Additionally, with U.S. restrictions, Indian tech firms might expand their markets through diversification and local employment. The landscape continues to evolve—let indian government also align  strategies with these shifting global trends.

U.S. Investigates 175 Employers for H-1B Visa Fraud Allegations

The U.S. Department of Labor is investigating over 175 employers for potential H-1B visa fraud as part of its enforcement initiative, Project Firewall, aimed at protecting American jobs.

The United States Department of Labor has initiated a comprehensive investigation into more than 175 suspected cases of fraud within the H-1B visa program. This move underscores a determined effort to protect American jobs and ensure adherence to legal hiring practices. The investigations are part of “Project Firewall,” an enforcement initiative launched in September 2025, shortly after the introduction of a one-time $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications by former President Donald Trump.

At the forefront of this initiative is Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who has personally authorized each investigation, marking an unprecedented approach for the department. In her remarks, she emphasized the importance of this crackdown, stating, “Rooting out fraud and abuse will guarantee that highly skilled jobs are prioritized for Americans first as we work to restore our nation’s economic strength.” The administration has reiterated its commitment to protecting the American workforce by holding employers accountable for any attempts to circumvent regulations and exploit foreign workers.

Project Firewall aims to address ongoing abuses within the H-1B visa process, ensuring that it serves both American talent and genuinely skilled foreign workers. Investigations have revealed several troubling patterns of misconduct. For instance, some employers have been found to pay highly qualified visa holders significantly less than the wages promised in official documents. This practice not only undermines job prospects for American professionals but also pressures U.S. workers with similar qualifications to accept lower pay to remain competitive.

Another concerning issue involves fraudulent Labor Condition Applications (LCA) submitted by employers. The LCA process requires employers to notify their existing American workforce before hiring H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 visa holders. Reports indicate that some companies have listed fictitious or non-existent work locations on these forms, misled workers about their job assignments, and failed to promptly report employee terminations. This has resulted in inaccurate records with authorities being maintained for weeks or even months. Furthermore, there have been documented cases where salaries did not match those detailed in the applications, and some job postings appeared to be generic templates with little relation to actual job roles.

The exploitation of foreign workers extends beyond these discrepancies. Some individuals have been paid less than the rates specified in the LCAs and have been excluded from wage cycles while awaiting new projects, which constitutes a clear violation of federal policy. Such inconsistencies not only harm visa holders but also depress wages across the labor market, creating an uneven playing field for American employees.

If companies are found guilty of these violations, they may face several penalties, including the recovery of owed back wages, civil financial penalties, and suspension from participating in the H-1B visa program for a specified duration. The Department of Labor has committed to utilizing all available resources under Project Firewall to audit and enforce compliance. This effort is not only aimed at correcting past abuses but also at deterring future misconduct within the highly scrutinized H-1B visa sector.

Source: Original article

Legal Groups Seek Emergency Motion to Halt ICE Detention of Immigrant Teens

Advocacy groups have filed an emergency motion to enforce a court ruling that prohibits ICE from detaining immigrant teens in adult facilities, highlighting the need for safer alternatives.

Washington, D.C. — The American Immigration Council and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) have filed an emergency motion aimed at enforcing a 2021 court ruling from the Garcia Ramirez v. ICE case. This ruling prevents the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from unlawfully detaining unaccompanied immigrant children in adult detention centers once they reach the age of 18.

The motion was filed after reports surfaced indicating that ICE had resumed transferring immigrant children who entered the United States alone into adult detention facilities upon their 18th birthday, a practice that violates the permanent injunction established in the Garcia Ramirez case.

“The permanent injunction made clear that ICE cannot automatically transfer young people to adult detention centers simply because they have turned 18,” stated Michelle Lapointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council. “Locking up these young people in ICE jails rife with overcrowding and hazardous conditions, and far from their support systems, does nothing to make our communities safer; it only inflicts more harm on vulnerable youth.”

When children under 18 enter the United States unaccompanied, they are typically placed in shelters operated by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). These children are generally released to family members or other vetted sponsors in the U.S., rather than being sent to ICE detention centers. This approach acknowledges that children require care and support, not punitive measures.

According to the Garcia Ramirez ruling, which resulted from extensive litigation by the NIJC and the Council, ICE must consider placing these youths in the least restrictive settings, such as alternative-to-detention programs, rather than resorting to immigration detention.

“ICE’s attempt to expand the detention of immigrant youth is a direct violation of the courts, which explicitly requires the agency to consider safe, less restrictive alternatives to detention,” remarked Mark Fleming, associate director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “We will not allow the government to turn back the clock and return to a practice that the courts have already found unlawful.”

The number of individuals in immigration detention has reached unprecedented levels, leading to overcrowding and abusive conditions. Critics argue that the previous administration weaponized the threat of prolonged confinement in these dangerous facilities to coerce individuals into relinquishing their legal rights and accepting deportation. This pressure is further exacerbated by new policies, including a program that offers financial incentives to unaccompanied youths who agree to leave the country.

“The law is clear: ICE must use safe, less restrictive alternatives, not default to jailing young people indefinitely,” emphasized Marie Silver, managing attorney for NIJC’s Immigrant Children’s Protection Project. “These kids came here seeking safety and hope. They deserve a chance to be free, reunite with family and community members, attend school, and work with their lawyers to have their day in court. Trapping them in dangerous and degrading conditions in immigration detention only compounds their trauma in a cruel and unnecessary way.”

The court has granted the emergency motion, reinforcing the need for compliance with the established legal framework regarding the treatment of unaccompanied immigrant minors.

Source: Original article

Immigrants With Health Conditions Face Visa Denials Under New Guidance

Foreigners applying for U.S. visas may face rejection due to certain medical conditions, including diabetes and obesity, under new guidance from the Trump administration.

Foreign nationals seeking visas to reside in the United States may be denied entry if they have specific medical conditions, such as diabetes or obesity, according to a directive issued by the Trump administration. This guidance, released in a cable sent to embassy and consular officials, has raised concerns among immigration advocates and health experts.

The directive instructs visa officers to consider a broader range of health-related factors when evaluating applicants. This includes assessing the likelihood that an applicant might become a “public charge,” meaning they could potentially rely on government resources due to their health issues or age. The new criteria represent a significant expansion of the health considerations that have traditionally been part of the visa application process.

Historically, visa applicants have undergone health screenings for communicable diseases, such as tuberculosis, and have been required to provide vaccination histories. However, experts argue that the latest guidelines give visa officers increased discretion to deny applications based on a wider array of medical conditions. This change is seen as part of the Trump administration’s broader efforts to limit immigration and enforce stricter policies regarding those living in the U.S. without authorization.

The cable emphasizes that visa officers must consider an applicant’s health status, stating, “You must consider an applicant’s health.” It lists several medical conditions, including cardiovascular diseases, respiratory diseases, cancers, diabetes, metabolic diseases, neurological diseases, and mental health conditions, as factors that could lead to significant healthcare costs.

With approximately 10% of the global population affected by diabetes and cardiovascular diseases being the leading cause of death worldwide, the implications of this guidance could be far-reaching. The directive also highlights obesity as a condition that can lead to other health issues, such as asthma and high blood pressure, further complicating the assessment of potential immigrants.

The cable encourages visa officers to evaluate whether applicants have the financial means to cover their medical expenses without relying on U.S. government assistance. It raises questions about whether applicants can afford long-term care throughout their expected lifespans without seeking public cash assistance or institutionalization at government expense.

This new directive appears to conflict with the Foreign Affairs Manual, which outlines that visa officers should not reject applications based on hypothetical scenarios. Charles Wheeler, a senior attorney for the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, expressed concern over the potential for bias in these assessments, noting that visa officers are not medically trained and should not be making predictions about future medical emergencies or costs.

The guidance also requires visa officers to consider the health of an applicant’s family members, including children or elderly parents. Questions posed in the cable include whether dependents have disabilities or chronic conditions that could hinder the applicant’s ability to maintain employment.

Currently, immigrants must undergo a medical examination by a physician approved by a U.S. embassy. This includes screenings for communicable diseases and inquiries about drug or alcohol use, mental health conditions, and violence history. Additionally, applicants must provide proof of vaccinations against infectious diseases such as measles, polio, and hepatitis B.

However, the new guidance expands the criteria for evaluation, prompting immigration lawyers like Sophia Genovese from Georgetown University to express concern. She noted that the directive encourages visa officers and examining physicians to speculate on the potential costs of an applicant’s medical care and their ability to secure employment based on their medical history. This could lead to significant challenges for applicants during their consular interviews.

The implications of these changes could affect countless individuals seeking to immigrate to the U.S., particularly those with pre-existing health conditions. As the Trump administration continues to implement stricter immigration policies, the impact on public health and the lives of potential immigrants remains to be seen.

According to KFF Health News, the new guidelines represent a significant shift in how health considerations are integrated into the visa application process, raising concerns about equity and access for those with medical conditions.

Source: Original article

U.S. Launches 175 Investigations into H-1B Visa Potential Abuse

The U.S. Department of Labor has launched 175 investigations into potential H-1B visa abuses, emphasizing a commitment to prioritizing American workers and holding employers accountable.

The U.S. Department of Labor has ramped up its efforts to address potential abuses of the H-1B visa program, confirming the initiation of 175 active investigations into suspected violations. This move underscores the agency’s commitment to prioritizing American workers and addressing longstanding issues within the program.

In a recent post on social media platform X, the Labor Department highlighted its determination to enforce regulations more stringently, stating that it will hold employers accountable for any misuse of the H-1B visa. “For decades, DC bureaucrats looked the other way as companies abused the H-1B visa and sold out the American Worker,” the department stated. “POTUS and Secretary LCD are bringing this to an end, holding employers accountable for their abuse and ensuring American jobs go to American workers.”

Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer has emphasized that safeguarding American workers is her top priority under President Donald Trump’s administration. She announced the launch of Project Firewall, an initiative designed to combat widespread H-1B visa misuse and ensure that U.S. workers are prioritized for available jobs. “That’s why we’re taking action through Project Firewall to hold companies accountable for rampant H-1B abuse and ensure Americans are put first in the hiring process,” she stated.

In an interview with Fox News, Chavez-DeRemer revealed that she personally approved all 175 investigations, marking a significant shift in the Labor Department’s approach to oversight. “We want to make sure these companies are not abusing,” she said, indicating a hands-on approach to the enforcement of H-1B regulations.

Just two days prior to the announcement, Deputy Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling criticized Senate Democrats for allegedly obstructing President Trump’s “America First” agenda. He urged lawmakers to cease “playing politics” with the livelihoods of American workers, further emphasizing the administration’s focus on protecting domestic employment.

The investigations are primarily aimed at uncovering misuse of the H-1B visa program, particularly cases where employers may have underpaid or manipulated over $15 million in worker wages. Early findings from the investigations have revealed concerning patterns in how the visa program has been utilized.

Officials from the Labor Department have reported widespread irregularities in the use of the H-1B visa program. In several instances, foreign workers, including those with advanced degrees, were allegedly compensated far less than what their employers had certified in official filings. Such practices not only exploit visa holders but also contribute to wage suppression for American workers.

Additionally, investigators discovered that some companies delayed reporting the termination of H-1B employees, resulting in inaccurate employment records that remained on file for weeks or even months. A review of Labor Condition Applications (LCAs)—documents that must be filed prior to hiring an H-1B worker—revealed further red flags, including fake or non-existent job locations, mismatched salaries, and positions that did not align with what was promised in the paperwork. In some cases, job postings appeared to be generic templates, lacking relevance to the actual work being performed.

These findings indicate systemic flaws in the management of the H-1B program, prompting the Labor Department to adopt a more aggressive enforcement stance to protect both U.S. and foreign workers from further exploitation.

Project Firewall, launched in September, represents the Labor Department’s most assertive effort to close loopholes and address misuse within the H-1B system. This initiative followed President Trump’s imposition of a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, a measure aimed at discouraging what the administration describes as mass applications for low-cost foreign labor.

The H-1B program is widely utilized across various sectors, including technology, engineering, and healthcare, to attract highly skilled professionals from abroad, with Indian nationals constituting one of the largest groups of recipients. According to the White House, the new measures are designed to prevent companies from inundating the system with “cheap labor” petitions and to ensure that American workers remain competitive in the job market.

Officials assert that the initiative is part of a broader strategy to restore public confidence in the visa process and guarantee that U.S. jobs are prioritized for U.S. citizens. Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer has stated that the department is committed to deploying “every resource” available to combat H-1B program abuse and will continue to strengthen oversight under President Trump’s leadership.

Source: Original article

Nearly Two-Thirds of Young Americans Contemplate Moving Abroad Due to Stress

Nearly two-thirds of young American adults are considering relocating abroad, driven by rising national stress and societal challenges, according to a recent survey by the American Psychological Association.

As the United States faces increasing societal pressures, nearly two-thirds of young American adults have contemplated moving abroad. This trend reflects a deep unease with the current state of the nation. Data from the American Psychological Association’s 2025 Stress in America survey reveals that 63% of adults aged 18 to 34 and 53% of parents have seriously considered leaving the United States due to various national challenges.

The survey, conducted from August 4 to 24, 2025, involved over 3,000 participants and highlights a nation grappling with heightened anxiety about its future. Approximately 75% of respondents reported feeling increased stress regarding the country’s trajectory compared to previous years. Political tensions remain a significant stressor, affecting 76% of adults, a figure that has remained consistent since before the 2024 election. This indicates that the concerns of many Americans extend beyond typical partisan politics.

When asked to describe the current American identity, respondents frequently used terms such as “freedom” (41%), “corruption” (38%), “opportunity” (37%), and “division” (36%). The impact of societal division is felt on a personal level, with 62% of respondents acknowledging it as a significant source of stress. Those who feel stressed by division report much higher rates of isolation, feeling left out, and lacking companionship compared to those less affected.

Loneliness is a pervasive issue, impacting half of American adults. Over 54% reported feelings of isolation, while 50% stated they often feel left out, and another 50% indicated they lack companionship at times. The need for emotional support is on the rise; 69% of adults admitted to requiring more support in the past year than they received, an increase from 65% the previous year. Among those burdened by division-related stress, 75% felt their emotional needs were unmet.

The correlation between loneliness and chronic health problems is striking. Eighty percent of those experiencing severe loneliness also live with chronic illnesses such as depression, anxiety, or chronic pain, compared to lower percentages among those who report less loneliness. Additionally, stress stemming from political and societal division manifests physically, with 83% of those stressed by division reporting symptoms like anxiety, fatigue, or headaches in the past month, compared to 66% among those less affected.

This pressure seeps into daily life, leading to increased impatience, arguments with family, cancellations of social plans, and difficulties in making future plans. Despite feelings of division and struggle, Americans hold mixed views about progress. Two-thirds believe they have more opportunities than previous generations, yet nearly as many feel their generation has faced sacrifices not previously experienced.

Technological anxiety adds another layer to these worries, particularly concerning artificial intelligence. Currently, 57% of adults cite AI as a source of stress, a significant rise from 49% in 2024. Students are particularly affected, with 78% reporting AI-related stress, nearly double from the previous year. Young adults and parents across age groups also report growing anxiety related to AI developments. Misinformation is another increasing source of stress, cited by 69% of adults, up from 62%.

Other significant sources of worry remain stable, including the economy (75%), financial issues (66%), U.S. politics, housing affordability, and mass shootings (each at 65%). Yet, amidst this turmoil, most Americans feel they retain some control over their personal lives. Seventy-seven percent are confident they can influence their futures, and 74% believe their dreams remain achievable. An even higher 84% think they can create a fulfilling life, albeit perhaps differently than previous generations.

However, 85% identify barriers obstructing their goals, and 26% are uncertain or pessimistic about achieving their aspirations. Those who doubt their future prospects experience intense mental health strains, with 89% reporting stress linked to these concerns.

Meaning and purpose primarily stem from relationships, with 92% of respondents identifying connections as central to life satisfaction. Family is paramount for 77%, followed by friendships, romantic partnerships, and pets. Health and well-being also rank highly at 59%. Conversely, while 69% of workers find their jobs stressful—the highest level since the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic—only 46% say their work adds meaning to their lives, highlighting a growing dissonance between stress and fulfillment.

Looking ahead, financial security is the top personal goal for 64% of respondents, followed by maintaining or improving health (60%) and spending quality time with loved ones (53%). Despite anxieties about the future of America, 65% of adults feel a personal responsibility to help shape the nation’s path, a sentiment that is even stronger among parents. Overall, 73% believe they can contribute to steering the country toward a better future.

The survey paints a picture of Americans navigating multiple crises—political division, social isolation, technological anxiety, and economic uncertainty—while yearning for connection and purpose. Although many young people and parents seriously contemplate leaving the country, a resilient majority still believes in their ability to build meaningful lives and effect positive change. The question remains how this optimism will endure amidst mounting pressures.

Source: Original article

DHS Ends Automatic EAD Extensions, Impacting Indian-American Communities

A recent rule change by the Department of Homeland Security has left many visa-dependent professionals, particularly Indian women on H-4 EADs, facing uncertainty and potential job loss.

In a significant shift that has left many work-based visa holders in the United States anxious, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced late last week the termination of automatic extensions for employment authorization documents (EADs). This change affects most noncitizens who must file timely renewal applications to maintain their employment status in the country.

Under the new rule, noncitizens seeking to renew their EADs will no longer receive an automatic extension of their employment authorization or EAD validity while their renewal applications are being processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). DHS claims that this policy aims to improve screening and vetting processes to reassess an individual’s eligibility before extending their work authorization. However, experts argue that the ruling poses significant financial risks to individuals and could adversely impact the U.S. economy.

Immigration attorney Emily Neumann expressed her concerns, stating, “If proper vetting was actually the issue, why has USCIS been waiting until people renew their EADs to complete a screening? USCIS can review an alien’s background at any point. This just harms the people who are actually following the law and are not a security threat.”

The abrupt implementation of this rule, with only a 24-hour notice, has already begun to affect individuals on the ground. Mani S., a software professional on an H-4 EAD, shared her distress: “Both my H-4 and EAD extensions are filed. I received the receipt in September, a month before this ruling came in. But I am confused; even though I applied for an extension before the ruling date, my EAD has already expired. Does this mean I cannot work? I have been trying to seek opinions from legal experts, and I am told that I need to wait to get a new EAD card before I can start working. This means that one fine day I woke up to joblessness.”

Statistics indicate that a significant number of H-4 EAD holders are Indian women, who are directly impacted by this ruling. While some may overlook the contributions of immigrants to the American economy, immigration consultant Netra Chavan emphasizes the vital roles H-4 EAD holders play. “H-4 EAD holders are often more than just contributors to the workforce; many are passionate professionals dedicated to making a real difference. They can be self-employed, creating jobs, or serve their local community, filling essential gaps in America’s job market, like special needs teachers. Very often, they also drive scientific discoveries, advance technology in IT, and serve in countless other vital roles. Losing their ability to work abruptly wouldn’t just affect their careers; it would challenge employers to find similar replacements.”

As a result of this swift rule change, thousands of H-4 EAD holders are now left scrambling for clarity regarding their next steps. For those who require extensions in the near future, the specter of forced unemployment looms large. Srija K., who works in the tech sector, expressed her confusion: “The rule left me wondering, as my EAD is valid until May 2026, but my I-94 is valid until a later date. Does that mean I stop working once my EAD expires or my I-94? I quickly booked an online consultation with an attorney, and I was told that I can only work until my EAD expiration date. This means I need to plan now, because I may lose my ability to work next year. I hope it’s temporary, but with increased paperwork for the employer too, the situation becomes very precarious. Will they be willing to hold the work until their employee navigates the changing rules?”

DHS implemented this interim final rule without prior notice, public comment, or a delayed effective date, citing urgent national security and public safety reasons. The agency stated that immediate implementation is necessary to enhance the vetting and screening of foreign nationals and that the rule relates to immigration policy affecting foreign affairs. Consequently, DHS waived the usual 30-day waiting period, making the rule effective immediately.

For H-4 EAD holders who need an extension, Chavan advises, “As per USCIS’s ‘Check Case Processing Times,’ currently, for H-4 applicants filing with an EAD, 80% of cases are completed within four months. This applies to both the Application to Extend/Change Nonimmigrant Status (Form I-539) at Service Center Operations (SCOPS) and to the Application for Employment Authorization (Form I-765) filed alone, indicating relatively swift processing for the majority of applicants.”

She adds, “If an H-4 applicant files their H-4 extension and/or EAD renewal up to 180 days before the current status or EAD expires, they are already taking the recommended steps to avoid any employment gaps. In that case, the new DHS rule ending automatic extensions starting October 30, 2025, should not directly affect them, because their work authorization will continue as long as USCIS adjudicates the timely-filed applications while maintaining valid underlying status.”

However, complications arise if USCIS processing times extend beyond the expiration of the EAD for H-4 holders, potentially leading to unintended employment gaps. Chavan notes, “In such cases, applicants may need to challenge the ended rule in court or seek administrative relief, presenting themselves as impacted parties to argue for reinstatement of automatic extensions or other remedies to protect their ability to work legally.”

Source: Original article

Trump’s Second Term Could Bring Major Immigration Overhaul

New report reveals that the Trump administration’s recent immigration policies threaten the foundations of American democracy through extreme measures and a radical overhaul of the immigration system.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 23, 2025 — A special report released today provides a comprehensive analysis of the Trump administration’s first six months back in office, highlighting a significant transformation of the U.S. immigration system that poses a serious threat to the foundations of American democracy. While some voters may have endorsed a tougher stance on immigration during the election, the report illustrates how the administration’s extreme actions extend far beyond mere policy changes; they undermine the rule of law itself.

The report, titled Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America, was published on July 23 by the American Immigration Council. It details a radical, multi-faceted assault on immigrants and the immigration system.

Among the administration’s actions are severe restrictions on who can enter the United States, the removal of legal protections for those already residing in the country, and an unprecedented increase in enforcement measures. In the process, the Trump administration has dismantled long-standing legal safeguards, disregarded the authority of Congress and the courts, and weaponized government resources against immigrants and dissenters alike.

“This isn’t just a hardline immigration agenda,” said Nayna Gupta, policy director at the American Immigration Council and co-author of the report. “It’s a wholesale effort to use immigrants and the U.S. immigration system to attack core tenets of our democracy and exercise unchecked executive power to realign the American government around exclusion and fear.”

The report outlines several key findings that underscore the administration’s aggressive approach to immigration:

The end of asylum. The report states that asylum at the southern border is effectively non-existent. The administration has shut down the CBP One application without providing an alternative. Asylum-seekers who attempt to approach a port of entry are often turned away, and in some instances, those who win their cases remain detained indefinitely.

Demolishing the refugee program. The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been indefinitely suspended, with the exception of white South Africans who have been fast-tracked under questionable persecution claims. Tens of thousands of approved refugees are left stranded abroad.

Mass revocation of legal status. The administration has aggressively revoked humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for over a million individuals within just six months, stripping them of work permits and forcing many into undocumented status.

Weaponizing bureaucracy. Legal immigration pathways are being obstructed by significant fee increases, processing freezes, and opaque barriers that make it nearly impossible for lawful applicants to obtain or maintain their status.

A maelstrom of fear and chaos. The administration’s aggressive enforcement tactics have instilled fear among immigrants of all legal statuses, leaving them anxious about their daily safety in the United States. Anyone can be targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation, regardless of their legal status, and these actions can occur in places such as churches, schools, and courthouses.

A radical reorganization of law enforcement resources. The Trump administration is establishing an unprecedented, cross-agency immigration operation that draws resources from various federal and state law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military, prioritizing immigration enforcement above all other public safety and law enforcement objectives.

Turbocharging an inhumane detention system. The “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July, increases the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention by 308 percent annually, setting the stage for a dramatic expansion of a detention system already criticized for its careless and cruel management, which has placed tens of thousands of immigrants in life-threatening conditions.

The report also includes powerful firsthand accounts from individuals affected by these policies. Ilia, a nonbinary Russian dissident, won their asylum case but remained in detention for over a year without a release date. Axel, a DACA recipient and youth leader, is leaving his job to return to school amid uncertainty regarding his legal status. Beatriz, an immigrant lawyer, has encountered cases that remind her of her own journey to the U.S., including a confused six-year-old who appeared in court without representation. Kaelyn is incurring debt to prevent her partner from being deported to El Salvador’s megaprison under the Alien Enemies Act.

The report warns that while some policies may change due to legal challenges, the administration’s broader agenda remains clear: to permanently redefine who belongs in America and how power is wielded by the federal government.

“The administration’s policies are reshaping the immigration system in ways that are unfair, unlawful, and out of step with core American values,” said Dara Lind, senior fellow at the Council and co-author of the report. “We’re seeing real harm to families, communities, and the rule of law, and the public deserves to understand what’s at stake.”

The full report is available for review, along with interviews featuring experts and individuals impacted by these policies.

Source: Original article

New Report Highlights Impact of Expanded Travel Ban on Indian-Americans

A recent report highlights the significant economic and humanitarian impacts of the Trump administration’s expanded travel ban, which affects immigration from 19 countries.

WASHINGTON, DC — A new report released today by the American Immigration Council outlines the extensive economic and humanitarian consequences of the Trump administration’s travel ban, implemented in June 2025. This ban restricts immigration from 19 countries, and its effects are already being felt across various sectors.

In 2022, nearly 300,000 individuals from these affected countries entered the United States, contributing significantly to the economy by filling essential jobs and generating approximately $715.6 million in tax revenue.

“Those affected by this travel ban are students, workers, and family members who pay taxes, support local economies, and fill jobs in industries facing massive shortages. We’re throwing all of that away, to the detriment of our communities and the U.S. economy,” stated Nan Wu, research director of the American Immigration Council.

According to data from 2023, of the 300,000 individuals impacted by the travel ban, 82 percent were employed, particularly in sectors already grappling with labor shortages, such as hospitality, construction, and manufacturing. The manufacturing sector alone is projected to face a shortfall of 1.9 million workers by 2033.

“The United States absolutely needs strong screening procedures to protect national security, but this travel ban isn’t how you do that. The Trump administration is trying to sell this policy as a security measure, but when you dig into the justifications, they don’t add up,” remarked Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “Many of the targeted countries had fewer than 500 visa overstays last year. This isn’t about keeping America safe; it’s about keeping certain people out.”

While the original travel ban enacted in 2017 sparked immediate and widespread public backlash, the 2025 iteration has seen a more subdued response. This is largely attributed to its gradual implementation and the introduction of expanded exemptions. However, the report emphasizes that the damage caused by this version of the ban is no less severe.

“This quieter version of the ban is deeply harmful,” Robbins added. “It separates families, blocks international talent, and hurts communities across the country. The absence of airport protests doesn’t mean the harm isn’t real; it’s just happening more quietly and more bureaucratically.”

Reports indicate that the administration is contemplating the addition of 36 more countries to the travel ban. Should this occur, tens of thousands more individuals from those nations could be prohibited from entering the United States, further exacerbating the economic, social, and diplomatic fallout.

The countries currently affected by the travel ban include:

All travel banned:

Afghanistan

Burma

Chad

Republic of Congo

Equatorial Guinea

Eritrea

Haiti

Iran

Libya

Somalia

Sudan

Yemen

Visas sharply restricted:

Venezuela

Burundi

Cuba

Laos

Sierra Leone

Togo

Turkmenistan

The implications of this travel ban extend beyond individual hardship; they pose a significant threat to the U.S. economy and its global standing. As the situation evolves, the American Immigration Council continues to advocate for policies that promote inclusivity and economic growth.

Source: Original article

Over 100,000 South Asian Families Face Job Loss After EAD Changes

More than 100,000 South Asian families face potential job loss as the Department of Homeland Security eliminates the 540-day automatic extension for Employment Authorization Documents (EAD).

On Thursday, a significant change in immigration policy was announced that has left many South Asian families in distress. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has officially removed the 540-day automatic extension for Employment Authorization Documents (EAD), a lifeline that many had relied upon to maintain their employment status while waiting for renewals.

This decision, effective October 30, 2025, means that any EAD renewal filed on or after this date will not receive any grace period. As a result, if an individual’s EAD card expires, their job is at risk, along with their family’s financial stability and future plans.

The 540-day extension was initially introduced to alleviate the burden on legal workers, particularly those from South Asian countries such as India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, as well as others from around the world. This policy was championed by advocates who aimed to “Save 1 Million Families” by extending the auto-renewal period from 180 to 540 days. The extension was signed into law on May 3, 2022, and had provided crucial support to approximately 1.2 million legal workers while the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processed their applications.

However, the recent decision by the DHS has left many individuals anxious about their futures. A software engineer from Hyderabad, a nurse from Kerala, a data scientist from Colombo, and an ERP developer from Dhaka have all reached out with the same urgent concern: “If USCIS takes eight months to process my renewal, will I lose my job, my health insurance, and my child’s school?” The unfortunate answer is yes, unless they filed their renewal before the October 30 deadline.

Among those affected are over 100,000 Indian H-4 spouses, recent OPT STEM graduates from prestigious institutions, and Nepali TPS nurses who played a vital role in healthcare during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of this policy change is not just theoretical; it translates into real financial losses for families. For instance, if a card expires on March 1, 2026, and an application is filed on November 3, 2025, the average processing time of 7.5 months could result in a gap of 106 days without income, amounting to a staggering loss of nearly $30,000 for a single family. When multiplied across 100,000 households, this could mean a total economic impact of approximately $3 billion.

The implications of this policy change extend beyond immediate job loss. Families may face severe financial strain as mortgages stall, children may have to switch schools, and remittances to aging parents in their home countries could dry up. Additionally, many individuals may find their driver’s licenses expiring, as these are often tied to EAD status in 17 states. Employment gaps could also jeopardize green card applications, leading to potential denials based on “public charge” criteria.

In light of these challenges, advocates are urging affected individuals to take immediate action. They recommend filing the I-765 application online as soon as possible, as waiting until the previous timeline of 180 days early is no longer sufficient. Individuals are encouraged to document their application receipt and communicate with their employers about potential unpaid leave. Financial planning is also critical, with suggestions to save at least three months’ worth of expenses in a separate account designated for EAD gaps.

Despite the grim outlook, there remains a thread of hope. The USCIS still has 22,000 unused H-1B visas available this year, and there are bipartisan efforts in Congress to address the backlog of applications. Community support continues to be a vital resource, with many South Asian volunteers coming together to provide assistance and solidarity during these trying times.

As families navigate this new reality, it is crucial to remain proactive and connected. The immigrant community has historically shown resilience in the face of adversity, and this situation is no different. By filing early, planning carefully, and leaning on community networks, families can work to protect their futures one renewal at a time.

Source: Original article

Nearly Half of 2025 Fortune 500 Companies Founded by Immigrants or Their Children

Nearly half of the Fortune 500 companies in 2025 were founded by immigrants or their children, generating $8.6 trillion in revenue and employing over 15 million people worldwide.

WASHINGTON, DC, August 21, 2025 — A recent analysis of the 2025 Fortune 500 list reveals that 46.2 percent of America’s largest companies—231 out of 500—were founded by immigrants or their children. These companies collectively generated an impressive $8.6 trillion in revenue during the fiscal year 2024 and employed more than 15.4 million people globally. This data underscores the vital role that immigrants play in fostering innovation, driving economic growth, and creating jobs in the United States.

This marks the highest percentage recorded since the American Immigration Council began tracking immigrant entrepreneurs in its annual reviews of the Fortune 500 list in 2011.

“Immigrants are a driving force behind America’s prosperity. We need immigration policies that reflect that, instead of investing billions of dollars into detention, deportation, and making it incredibly difficult for foreign workers to come here or even renew their visas. These reckless policies undermine America’s greatest competitive advantage: the talent and drive of immigrants,” stated Nan Wu, director of research at the American Immigration Council.

Companies founded by immigrants or their children are transforming various industries, including technology, retail, and media. Notable names on the list include Amazon, Apple, NVIDIA, Levi Strauss & Co., Ace Hardware, and Sirius XM Holdings.

Key findings from the analysis highlight the significant impact of these immigrant-founded companies:

In fiscal year 2024, the Fortune 500 companies established by immigrants or their children generated $8.6 trillion in revenue, which, if compared to national GDPs, would rank as the third-largest economy in the world.

These companies employ over 15.4 million people, a workforce comparable to the population of the fifth-largest U.S. state.

Immigrants and their children founded 80 percent of the Fortune 500 companies in professional and other services, 65.6 percent in manufacturing, and 57.5 percent in information technology.

Among the 14 companies appearing on the Fortune 500 list for the first time this year, 10 were founded by immigrants or their children.

“Immigrants built nearly half of our Fortune 500 companies, created millions of jobs, and keep our economy competitive. And yet U.S. political leaders are making it increasingly difficult for foreign talent to come here or stay. It’s economic self-sabotage. If we want to stay the world’s innovation leader, we should be welcoming immigrants, not attacking them,” remarked Steve Hubbard, senior data scientist at the American Immigration Council.

The American Immigration Council has experts available to discuss further the benefits that immigrants bring to the U.S. economy at both national and state levels.

Source: Original article

MAGA Supporters Claim Immigration Influenced Mamdani’s NYC Mayoral Victory

Social media reactions to Zohran Mamdani’s election as New York City mayor reveal a surge of criticism from MAGA supporters, who attribute his victory to rising immigration and demographic shifts.

Following the election of Zohran Mamdani as the new mayor of New York City, social media has been buzzing with reactions, making #NewYork one of the top trending hashtags. Among the most vocal are MAGA supporters, who have expressed their discontent by claiming that increasing immigration and changing demographics significantly influenced Mamdani’s victory.

One of the posts gaining traction on X, formerly known as Twitter, encapsulated the outrage among conservative users. “New York elected a Muslim who supports aborting babies with a heartbeat, arms, fingers, and toes. Virginia elected a man who fantasized about killing conservatives and their babies. Violence is officially normalized in the Democrat Party. Pray for America,” the user wrote, reflecting the tone of anger circulating in right-wing circles.

In recent discussions on X, several users have pointed to demographic data to illustrate what they perceive as a troubling trend. A notable thread by commentator Matt Walsh stated, “A third world communist won in New York because New York is a third world city now. This is mass migration working exactly as intended.”

Another user, William E. Wolfe, expressed a more dire sentiment, writing, “It’s incredibly important to understand that Mamdani was not actually elected mayor of the historic American city that we know as ‘New York’… And his election is not the beginning of the end for NYC—it’s a death certificate. Finally, it’s a reminder that everything right now inescapably comes back to immigration.” Wolfe’s comments suggest that he believes unchecked immigration will continue to reshape the political landscape in ways detrimental to traditional American values.

These posts exemplify a broader narrative among certain social media users, who intertwine demographic statistics with pointed rhetoric. They argue that immigration and demographic shifts are directly responsible for the Democratic Party’s electoral success. The underlying message suggests that the Democratic Party, with the aid of immigration, is intentionally reshaping the electorate to its advantage. Many users express alarm, framing these changes as an existential threat to what they consider traditional American identity.

Mamdani’s victory speech has further fueled this discourse. In a clip shared widely on social media, he stated, “New York will remain a city of immigrants, a city built by immigrants, powered by immigrants, and as of tonight, led by an immigrant.” This statement has been met with mixed reactions, with some conservative users interpreting it as a sign of cultural decline.

In the wake of Mamdani’s election, X has seen an influx of videos and images that convey a sense of despair among conservative users. One particularly striking image reads, “RIP NYC: Founded 1624, Died 2025,” suggesting that the city’s identity has been irrevocably changed. Accompanying posts lament the perceived “death” of New York, framing Mamdani’s election as a final blow to what they view as the city’s traditional culture and values.

Some users have taken the anti-immigration narrative even further, linking Mamdani’s win to the influence of foreign-born and female voters. One user wrote, “Zohran Mamdani won New York City’s mayoral race thanks to super-blocs created by women voters and foreign-born voters. Noticing patterns? We need our Gen Z native-born MEN to realize that now is their time to restore order and Christian Patriotism. Christ is King.” This rhetoric illustrates how some users perceive immigration and demographic change as a direct threat, calling for action from native-born citizens.

Another user amplified the anti-immigration sentiment by sharing a poll that suggested most of Mamdani’s voters had lived in New York for less than five or ten years. “People born in New York overwhelmingly rejected him. They remember,” the user claimed. Such posts frequently attack immigration and the influence of newcomers, framing Mamdani’s victory as evidence that recent arrivals are reshaping the city’s political landscape.

Taking the rhetoric a step further, Gabe Guidarini, Vice President of College Republicans America, made a historical reference, stating, “Demography is destiny. Thanks, Ronald Reagan!” By invoking Reagan, Guidarini linked current demographic changes and Mamdani’s victory to the long-term effects of the 1965 immigration reforms, suggesting that shifts in population composition were an inevitable factor shaping electoral outcomes today.

The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted under President Lyndon B. Johnson, reshaped U.S. immigration by prioritizing family reunification and ending quotas that favored Northern and Western European immigrants. This act opened U.S. immigration to a more diverse array of countries, significantly altering the immigrant population.

In response to the new realities created by the 1965 Act, Ronald Reagan’s 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act offered amnesty to millions of undocumented immigrants and introduced employer sanctions to curb illegal hiring. Together, these legislative measures set the stage for the modern U.S. immigration system, balancing legal pathways with regulatory oversight.

The discourse surrounding Mamdani’s election underscores the deep divisions in American society over immigration and demographic change. As social media continues to amplify these sentiments, the implications for future elections and cultural identity remain a topic of intense debate.

Source: Original article

U.S. Department of Labor Restarts H-1B and PERM Application Processing

The U.S. Department of Labor has resumed processing Labor Condition Applications for H-1B visas and PERM labor certifications following the end of the recent government shutdown.

After a government shutdown caused by a lapse in federal funding, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has officially resumed processing Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) for H-1B visas and PERM labor certifications. The Office of Foreign Labor Certification (OFLC) announced that its Foreign Labor Application Gateway (FLAG) system is now fully operational.

This resumption allows employers to file new applications, track current submissions, and receive updates on pending cases. The critical restart of the FLAG system lifts a pause that began around September 30, 2025, which halted services for several weeks.

During the shutdown, employers were unable to submit new applications or amendments, resulting in a significant backlog of cases. With the system back online, employers can now submit LCAs for H-1B, H-2A, H-2B, and PERM certifications necessary for sponsoring foreign workers for both temporary and permanent employment.

However, officials have cautioned that processing times may be slower than usual due to the accumulated backlog, particularly for applications filed prior to the shutdown. This delay has significantly impacted industries that heavily rely on foreign talent, such as technology and healthcare.

Many Indian nationals, in particular, are facing extended wait times as a result of the shutdown. The DOL has committed to providing ongoing updates and technical assistance to help stakeholders navigate the resumption of services smoothly. They emphasize the importance of patience as the OFLC works to return to full operational status.

As the situation continues to evolve, employers and applicants are encouraged to stay informed about processing times and any further developments from the DOL.

Source: Original article

Congressional Leaders, Including Ami Bera, Call for Reconsideration of H-1B Restrictions

U.S. lawmakers, including Representative Ami Bera, are urging President Trump to reconsider recent restrictions on H-1B visas, citing potential negative impacts on the economy and U.S.-India relations.

In a recent letter to President Donald Trump, U.S. Representative Jimmy Panetta, along with Congressmen Ami Bera, Salud Carbajal, Derek Tran, and Congresswoman Julie Johnson, has called for the reversal of the September 19 Proclamation that limits H-1B visas. The bipartisan group of lawmakers expressed concern that these restrictions could adversely affect the relationship between the United States and India, as well as diminish America’s competitive advantage in technology and innovation.

Representative Ami Bera, a senior Indian American member of Congress and a long-time proponent of stronger ties between the U.S. and India, underscored the importance of H-1B professionals in bolstering the U.S. technology sector. “Our economy thrives on global talent and innovation,” Bera stated. He cautioned that restrictive visa policies could jeopardize both American leadership in the tech industry and the partnership with India.

Panetta shared similar sentiments, describing the H-1B program as essential for maintaining America’s leadership in technological innovation, particularly in light of the rapid advancements in artificial intelligence. He noted that nearly 75 percent of current H-1B recipients originate from India and urged the administration to expand the program rather than restrict it to foster continued growth in high-tech industries.

The lawmakers highlighted that many of the most successful companies in America were founded or led by individuals who were once H-1B visa holders. These entrepreneurs continue to contribute to job creation and economic development across the country. They argued that limiting visa availability would negatively impact local economies, particularly in areas with significant Indian American and immigrant populations that play a vital role in civic and economic life.

This appeal comes in the wake of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis’s recent decision to prohibit H-1B hiring at state universities, as well as new guidance from the Department of Homeland Security regarding application fee adjustments. Despite these developments, the White House has reiterated that President Trump’s priority remains “putting American workers first.” This stance continues amid ongoing legal challenges from business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, regarding the visa restrictions.

As the debate over H-1B visa policies unfolds, the implications for the tech industry and U.S.-India relations remain a focal point for lawmakers advocating for a more inclusive approach to immigration that supports innovation and economic growth.

Source: Original article

US Government Shutdown Halts H-1B Visa Filings, Impacting Indian Applicants

As the U.S. government shutdown continues, thousands of overseas technology professionals, particularly from India, are facing significant disruptions in H-1B visa processes and job security.

The ongoing U.S. government shutdown, now in its fifth week, has left thousands of overseas technology professionals grappling with uncertainty over stalled visa processes and potential job disruptions. Many of those affected are Indian nationals, who comprise over 70% of all H-1B visa holders in the United States.

With key federal departments unable to process Labour Condition Applications (LCAs)—the first step in H-1B filings—immigration attorneys are warning that the shutdown has effectively frozen both visa renewals and new petitions. This situation has deepened anxiety for skilled workers and their employers alike.

“Labor Condition Application (LCA) processing has stopped, forcing clients to halt H-1B filings,” said Matthew Minor, a partner at Corporate Immigration Partners based in Cincinnati. The LCA is a required certification from the Department of Labor (DOL) that employers must complete before hiring foreign professionals under H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 categories.

With the DOL’s operations stalled, even routine applications are at a standstill. “This effectively halts all H-1B filings—new, change of employer, extension, or amendment,” noted Helene Dang, a Houston-based immigration lawyer and partner at Foster LLP. The disruption has left both companies and workers in a state of limbo.

The impact of the shutdown is particularly severe for Indian nationals, who are facing stalled career moves, delayed project starts, and growing anxiety over maintaining lawful status while their paperwork remains stuck in the system. “The problems facing H-1B workers from India are the same, regardless of which state they work in—petitions cannot be filed now because the shutdown has prevented LCAs from being processed,” explained Richard T. Herman, an immigration attorney based in Cleveland.

The shutdown has also disrupted the DOL’s core responsibilities, including certifying LCAs and determining prevailing wages—both essential steps for H-1B visa processing and employment-based green card applications. While the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) continues to operate, employers cannot proceed with filings until their LCAs are approved by the DOL.

According to Dang, the USCIS notice allowing for flexibility in late or incomplete filings under “extraordinary circumstances” offers limited comfort. “It is discretionary—meaning it is not guaranteed,” she said, emphasizing that employers and workers remain at the mercy of unpredictable timelines.

In the current climate, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been actively enforcing removal powers, relying on this exception is causing significant anxiety for many H-1B workers. They are faced with the difficult choice of either departing the United States or overstaying their authorized period of stay, as noted by Becki Young, founding partner of Grossman Young & Hammond.

The ramifications of the shutdown extend beyond visa paperwork, impacting both livelihoods and business operations. “Moreover, these workers must be removed from payroll until a new H-1B petition can be filed, which disrupts U.S. business and leaves the workers without a paycheck while the shutdown is ongoing,” Young added.

Herman cautioned that the effects of the shutdown may linger well beyond the immediate crisis. “I am hearing of more companies deciding to cease immigration sponsorship in the future—whether H-1B or green card,” he said, noting that the uncertainty has made many employers hesitant to rely on foreign talent amid ongoing policy disruptions.

As the uncertainty deepens, some affected professionals are exploring alternative immigration pathways. Clients are considering options such as the EB-5 investor or EB-1C categories, according to Herman. “Some are also looking at Canada and other countries,” he added.

Unlike the H-1B, which is a temporary visa for specialized workers, the EB-5 program offers a path to permanent residency for investors who create jobs in the U.S. Similarly, the EB-1C visa allows multinational companies to transfer senior executives or managers to their U.S. operations—options that are increasingly appealing amid the ongoing freeze.

The federal shutdown, which began on October 1 after lawmakers failed to reach a funding agreement, has also stalled progress for employment-based green card applicants who depend on the DOL for crucial certifications. Geetha N. Adinata, an immigration attorney based in Los Angeles, warned that the resulting delays could cause serious setbacks for those nearing the end of their visa validity. Without timely submission of the labor market test, known as the PERM application, workers risk falling out of status.

As the situation continues to evolve, the future remains uncertain for many skilled workers navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration policy.

Source: Original article

Little Jaffna: The Intersection of Immigration and Memory in Europe

In *Little Jaffna*, Lawrence Valin’s debut film explores the complexities of Tamil-French identity through a gripping crime thriller set in Paris’s immigrant heart.

In *Little Jaffna* (2024), writer-director-actor Lawrence Valin delivers more than just a debut feature; he crafts a defiant act of representation. Set against the backdrop of the immigrant heart of Paris’s La Chapelle district, the film intricately weaves personal trauma, diasporic displacement, and systemic marginalization into the framework of a crime thriller. Beneath its gangster genre exterior, however, lies the pulse of a political film—one that interrogates the meaning of living between worlds that refuse to fully embrace you.

*Little Jaffna* served as the opening film at the recently concluded 3rd i’s 23rd Annual San Francisco International South Asian Film Festival. The crime thriller premiered at the Venice Film Festival 2024 and received a nomination for Best International Feature Film at the Zurich Film Festival.

The narrative follows Michael (Valin), a French police officer of Tamil origin, who is ordered to infiltrate a Tamil gang accused of funding Sri Lankan militants. What begins as a procedural mission evolves into an existential exploration of identity and loyalty—a metaphor for every child of migration tasked with policing their own heritage to find a sense of belonging.

Valin’s decision to center Tamil-French identity within the language of the thriller represents a radical cinematic gesture. This choice subverts the Euro-centric crime genre, redirecting its focus toward the racialized spaces that France often prefers to overlook. The vibrant neon glow of Paris is replaced with dimly lit curry shops, cramped apartments, and Tamil grocery aisles—not as exotic backdrops, but as sites of resistance and community.

The film’s bilingual script, featuring both Tamil and French, resists assimilation. By choosing not to translate everything, Valin makes a political statement: the viewer must engage actively, as the characters do not reach out to explain themselves. This approach reverses decades of colonial cinematic hierarchy, where non-white cultures were often required to justify their existence to white audiences.

*Little Jaffna* situates its moral conflict within the context of post-colonial policing. Michael’s dual role—as both an officer of the French Republic and a son of a colonized diaspora—captures the psychological violence inherent in the process of assimilation. Each undercover scene serves as an allegory for systemic surveillance, with the state’s gaze intruding into the immigrant home.

In one standout moment, Michael watches a Tamil news broadcast about the Sri Lankan war while his French colleagues joke about “foreign conflicts.” This juxtaposition is not subtle; it is a deliberate choice by Valin to emphasize that the empire never truly ended—it simply learned to disguise itself within multicultural rhetoric.

The women in *Little Jaffna* are not merely emotional anchors; they embody generational memory. Radhika Sarathkumar’s portrayal of Michael’s grandmother—a survivor of war—represents the matrilineal burden of exile. Her quiet resilience stands in stark contrast to the performative masculinity exhibited by both the police and the gang, suggesting that true endurance in diaspora spaces has always been feminine, communal, and care-oriented.

Meanwhile, Puviraj Raveendran’s character, Puvi, a charismatic gang member, critiques how marginalized men are often criminalized for seeking agency that society denies them. The film does not excuse violence; instead, it contextualizes it, compelling audiences to recognize the socio-economic roots of rebellion.

Cinematographer Maxence Lemonnier employs a dense and unglamorous palette—warm earth tones, fluorescent blues, and smoke from kitchen vents—to signal that beauty in *Little Jaffna* arises from visibility rather than polish. The community’s sights and sounds are not filtered for palatability; they demand recognition. The sound design, which mixes temple chants with sirens and news static, reflects the collision of cultures.

For audiences from marginalized backgrounds, *Little Jaffna* is not merely a representation; it is a reclamation. For everyone else, it offers an opportunity to confront how systems of race, migration, and memory intertwine, even in so-called “post-colonial” Europe.

Source: Original article

India Reports Over 2,790 Deportations from the U.S. in 2025

Over 2,790 Indian nationals have been deported from the United States in 2025 as part of intensified immigration controls and cooperative efforts between India and international authorities.

Since the beginning of 2025, more than 2,790 Indian nationals who were illegally residing in the United States have been deported back to India, according to the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA). This information was disclosed by MEA spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal during a weekly media briefing held on October 30.

Jaiswal emphasized that authorities conducted thorough verifications of the nationality and credentials of each individual before facilitating their return to India. This process is part of a broader effort to manage illegal migration effectively.

In addition to the deportations from the United States, the MEA spokesperson noted that approximately 100 Indian nationals have also been deported from the United Kingdom this year, following similar verification procedures.

The recent deportations are indicative of ongoing cooperative efforts between Indian and international authorities to address the issue of illegal migration. Notably, the number of Indian nationals detained while attempting to enter the U.S. illegally has significantly decreased, reaching a four-year low. Customs and Border Protection reported a remarkable 62% drop in such cases between October 2024 and September 2025.

Reports have highlighted specific instances of deportations, including a group of 54 individuals from Haryana. These individuals had used the so-called “donkey route,” a notorious path often employed by traffickers, to enter the U.S. illegally before being apprehended and sent back to India.

These developments underscore the heightened enforcement measures and diplomatic coordination aimed at tackling the challenges posed by illegal crossings and visa overstays involving Indian nationals. The collaborative approach reflects a commitment to managing migration more effectively and ensuring compliance with immigration laws.

As the situation evolves, authorities continue to monitor and adapt their strategies to address the complexities of illegal migration, ensuring that both national security and humanitarian considerations are taken into account.

According to Global Net News, these actions are part of a larger framework aimed at enhancing immigration controls and fostering international cooperation in managing migration flows.

Source: Original article

U.S. Ends Automatic Work Permit Extensions for H-1B Spouses and F-1 Students

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has announced a new policy ending automatic work permit extensions for certain noncitizens, significantly affecting H-1B spouses and F-1 students.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has implemented a new policy that will take effect on October 30, 2025. This policy will end the automatic extension of Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) for specific noncitizens who are applying for renewals. The change particularly affects H-4 visa holders, who are spouses of H-1B workers, F-1 students on Optional Practical Training (OPT), asylum seekers, and others who depend on EADs to work legally in the United States.

Under the previous policy, individuals filing timely renewal applications could continue to work for up to 540 days while their renewal was being processed, thanks to an automatic extension. However, this automatic extension will no longer be available, except in exceptional cases that are explicitly outlined by law or under Temporary Protected Status provisions.

DHS has described this policy shift as a necessary measure to enhance security by increasing vetting and background checks. The goal is to better detect fraud and identify potential public safety risks. Joseph Edlow, the Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), emphasized that working in the U.S. is a privilege that necessitates rigorous screening to ensure national security.

In light of this new policy, applicants are strongly encouraged to submit their renewal applications up to 180 days before their current EAD expires. This proactive approach is crucial to avoid potential gaps in work authorization, which could occur if there are delays in the renewal processing.

This sudden policy change is expected to impact thousands of foreign workers, particularly Indian nationals, who represent the largest group of H-1B visa holders and international students in the U.S. In 2024, approximately 27% of all international students in the U.S. were from India, and Indian nationals accounted for around 71% of approved H-1B visa recipients.

The decision to end automatic work permit extensions marks a significant tightening of immigration work authorization policies. This shift reverses earlier expansions made by the Biden administration during the COVID-19 pandemic, which aimed to address processing backlogs. The current administration’s focus appears to be on stronger immigration enforcement that aligns with national security priorities.

As the October 2025 deadline approaches, many affected individuals will need to navigate this new landscape carefully to maintain their work authorization and avoid disruptions in their employment.

Source: Original article

The Journey of an Undocumented Immigrant in American Hospitality

Amar Shah and Rahul Rohtagi’s short film “The Patel Motel Story” explores the transformative impact of Indian immigrants on the American hospitality industry, highlighting resilience and the reimagining of the American dream.

In the spring of 2018, Amar Shah sparked a conversation on social media that would resonate with many. His Twitter thread, which quickly went viral, addressed the backlash surrounding the character of Apu from “The Simpsons.” Shah argued that, despite the stereotypes, Apu represented the reality of countless children like him—those who grew up in immigrant families, often helping out in their parents’ small businesses.

Shah’s reflections on his childhood experiences at his father’s gas station mini-mart in rural America revealed the challenges faced by immigrant families. He wrote about the fears that accompanied working behind the counter, including the anxiety of theft or even the threat of violence. This candid portrayal of immigrant life became the foundation for a viral essay in the Washington Post and later inspired his award-winning screenplay, “Gas-N-Shop.”

Now, with his new short film, “The Patel Motel Story,” co-directed with Rahul Rohtagi, Shah turns his focus to the untold narratives of Indian immigrants who have reshaped the American hospitality landscape. This 13-minute documentary premiered at the Tribeca Festival in New York and is currently making its way through various film festivals.

In a conversation with The American Bazaar, Shah and Rohtagi shared a striking statistic: Indian Americans, despite comprising only about 1 percent of the U.S. population, own more than 40 percent of all motels in the country. This remarkable achievement is rooted in the determination of the early “Patel motel” pioneers who laid the groundwork for future generations.

Both directors have personal connections to the immigrant experience. While Rohtagi’s parents were doctors, he acknowledges that the stories of hard work and sacrifice are common among immigrant families. These early impressions fueled their passion for documenting the lives of those who have contributed to the American hospitality industry.

Rohtagi explained their inspiration for the film, noting that they grew up hearing stories from family friends and acquaintances who came from India and started small businesses, often in the motel industry. The idea of transforming these memories into a documentary took time to develop, but the two eventually recognized the importance of telling this story.

Shah and Rohtagi’s journey to create the documentary was not without challenges. They faced the difficulty of piecing together a narrative with limited documentation, relying heavily on personal anecdotes. A significant breakthrough came when they connected with historian Mahendra K. Doshi, who was researching the history of Indian immigrants in the hospitality sector. Doshi’s work, particularly his book “Surat to San Francisco,” provided crucial insights into how Patels from Gujarat began establishing their motel empire in the United States.

One of the key figures in this narrative is Kanji Manchu Desai, who is credited with laying the foundation for many families from Gujarat. According to Shah, Desai arrived in the U.S. in the mid-1930s and eventually owned the first motel operated by an Indian. His vision extended beyond personal success; he encouraged other Indians to lease motels, offering guidance and support during a time when many faced discrimination and limited access to financial resources.

Rohtagi noted that Desai’s influence was profound, as he provided handshake loans to many newcomers who were eager to start their own businesses. This support was especially crucial at a time when racism was prevalent, and many motels advertised themselves as “American owned” to deter potential customers from patronizing establishments run by immigrants.

However, Desai’s journey was not without its challenges. Rohtagi shared that he became undocumented after overstaying his visa, ultimately leading to his deportation. Despite this setback, Desai’s legacy lives on through the families he inspired, many of whom have turned their small motel operations into successful enterprises.

The documentary, while only 13 minutes long, serves as a starting point for a larger narrative that Shah and Rohtagi hope to expand into a feature film or series. They have already screened the film at various festivals, including the International South Asian Film Festival of Canada and the Tasveer South Asian Film Festival in Seattle.

Since its release, Shah has received numerous accounts from motel owners eager to share their own compelling stories. The filmmakers are excited to explore these narratives further, as they believe there are many more journeys to uncover within this rich tapestry of immigrant experiences.

For Shah and Rohtagi, “The Patel Motel Story” is not just a film; it represents a reclamation of a legacy that has quietly redefined the American dream for countless families. As they continue to share these stories, they hope to shed light on the resilience and ingenuity of those who have contributed to the hospitality industry in the United States.

Source: Original article

Indian-American Community Responds to Recent Policy Changes in Newsroom

USCIS provides a comprehensive online newsroom featuring news releases, updates, and resources related to immigration and citizenship.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) offers a dedicated newsroom that serves as a central hub for all news releases and alerts. This platform is designed to keep the public informed about various topics related to immigration and citizenship.

Visitors to the USCIS News webpage can easily search for news by topic and date. This feature allows individuals to find relevant information quickly, whether they are looking for policy updates, procedural changes, or urgent announcements regarding office closures and emergencies.

In addition to news releases, the USCIS newsroom includes a video and image gallery. This section provides visual content that showcases USCIS operations, giving the public a better understanding of the agency’s work and its impact on communities across the nation.

For those interested in data and statistics, the Immigration and Citizenship Data page is a valuable resource. It offers a variety of categories related to immigration data, enabling users to access important statistics that inform public discourse and policy discussions.

USCIS also maintains a robust social media presence. Through various social media accounts, the agency shares the latest updates and information, making it easier for the public to stay connected and informed about immigration matters.

The newsroom features recent speeches, statements, and testimonies from USCIS leadership. These documents are searchable by topic and date, providing insights into the agency’s priorities and initiatives.

For those seeking more in-depth information, the Electronic Reading Room is an essential resource. This section allows users to access information identified under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), enabling transparency and public access to government records.

USCIS also has media contacts throughout the country to handle inquiries from journalists and other media representatives. This network ensures that accurate information is disseminated to the public and that media professionals have the resources they need to report effectively on immigration issues.

Lastly, the USCIS newsroom highlights upcoming events, including local and national engagements. This information is crucial for individuals and organizations interested in participating in discussions or learning more about immigration policies and practices.

For more information and to access these resources, visit the USCIS News webpage.

Source: Original article

New Platform Reveals Details of Family Separation Chaos

Newly launched platform reveals the chaotic implementation of family separations during the Trump administration’s zero-tolerance policy, highlighting the need for transparency and accountability in immigration practices.

On October 30, 2025, the American Immigration Council unveiled a new platform aimed at analyzing records pertaining to the U.S. government’s tumultuous execution of family separations during the controversial zero-tolerance policy period under the first Trump administration.

This transparency project provides a detailed examination of what many consider to be one of the most disgraceful immigration policies in modern American history. It also highlights the responses from various stakeholders during the crisis, offering critical insights into how public resistance emerged against this harmful policy.

The project draws upon thousands of internal government emails, memos, and previously unreleased datasets obtained through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests and litigation. It reveals that the zero-tolerance policy was not merely a reactionary measure but a calculated strategy intended to deter migration by punishing families while obscuring accountability.

“Thanks to these records, we can more clearly see the inner workings of how this atrocity was carried out and the public’s struggle to obtain transparency and accountability,” said Raul Pinto, deputy legal director for transparency at the American Immigration Council. “The same disregard for oversight and human consequences that made family separation possible is now re-emerging in the ongoing mass detention and deportation efforts.”

The family separation project features interactive visualizations and declassified documents that illustrate how families were systematically erased from government databases. It also reveals how officials misled the public and how congressional oversight, along with media scrutiny, played a crucial role in bringing the policy to an end. The project includes audio recordings of actor Corey Stoll reading significant internal government emails that expose the confusion and insensitivity surrounding the policy’s implementation.

Key findings from the archive underscore the troubling realities of the family separation policy. Internal communications show that officials were aware their data on separated families was “corrupt.” Leaders within Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) expressed a lack of confidence in their own data regarding children taken from their parents, even while publicly denying any wrongdoing.

Moreover, oversight from Congress, the media, and regulatory agencies proved vital in halting family separations. However, as of 2025, critical oversight bodies such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties have faced significant sidelining or defunding.

The records indicate that the family separation policy was characterized by intentional chaos. Confusion was weaponized to create significant delays in the reunification of children with their parents, exacerbating the trauma experienced by affected families.

“The records don’t just show government officials’ egregiousness and cruelty. They serve as a warning for our current moment of mass detention and deportation that is still seeing families separated,” Pinto stated. “These records illustrate how data manipulation and secrecy enabled systemic human rights violations during the first Trump administration. Without transparency and oversight, history will repeat itself.”

The newly created portal, a result of years of FOIA litigation by the American Immigration Council and its partners, allows journalists, researchers, and policymakers to delve into key documents and data that expose the inner workings of family separation and the failures that ensued.

Despite claims that the family separation policy ended in June 2018, hundreds of children remained separated from their parents for years, with some still not reunited. “Family separation was a national shame made possible by bureaucratic indifference to human suffering,” Pinto added. “The lesson here is clear: a collapse of oversight allows for cruelty to fill the vacuum.”

Source: Original article

Litigation Threatens USCIS Decision to End Automatic EAD Extensions

The Department of Homeland Security’s recent decision to end automatic Employment Authorization Document extensions has sparked concerns among H-4 and Adjustment of Status visa holders, prompting potential legal challenges.

As October comes to a close, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has introduced a significant policy change that has left many work permit holders in a state of uncertainty. The new rule, which takes effect on October 30, 2025, will eliminate automatic extensions for Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) across several categories, including H-4 visa holders and those applying for Adjustment of Status (AOS).

Under the existing policy, applicants seeking EAD renewals benefit from an automatic 540-day extension, allowing them to continue working while their applications are processed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). However, with the new rule set to take effect just 24 hours after its announcement, many individuals are now facing the prospect of job loss.

The abrupt nature of this policy change has raised concerns about the lack of notice provided to those affected. Immigration attorney James Hollis, a partner and head of sports, entertainment, and business immigration at McEntee Law Group, criticized the timing of the announcement, suggesting that it could leave applicants vulnerable. “USCIS realizes that this is a potential problem with major policy announcements,” Hollis stated. “So, when they make an announcement on the morning of October 29, 2025, that any cases received on or after October 30, 2025, will have a different policy, my assumption is that they’re trying to catch people out.”

Hollis emphasized that this lack of notice means applicants who were preparing to submit their applications based on the previous rule will now have to navigate the new regulations, potentially leading to significant disruptions in their employment status.

Despite the challenges posed by this new rule, there may be a glimmer of hope. Hollis indicated that litigation challenging the rule is a possibility, with immigration attorneys already strategizing their next steps. “I would also suspect that litigation on this issue will be considered,” he noted.

The implications of this policy change extend beyond individual applicants; it poses serious financial and professional challenges for thousands seeking to renew their work permits. Attorney Kripa Upadhyay, co-chair of the Immigration & Global Mobility Practice at Buchalter, highlighted the broader impact on the workforce. “The biggest repercussion is unnecessary disruption to the workforce at a time when inflation is already high,” she said.

Upadhyay also pointed out the professional constraints that may arise from this policy shift. “Employees will be forced to face job loss once the current EAD expires and before the new one is issued. USCIS does not allow for premium processing options for EADs, and normal processing times can range from 7 to 10 months, depending on the jurisdiction of the case,” she explained.

The sudden change in policy has left many applicants confused and ineligible for benefits they had anticipated under the previous rules. Hollis elaborated on the potential consequences: “If someone has been preparing an employment authorization document extension believing that they will have a 540-day automatic extension while the application is pending, but haven’t submitted the application by yesterday night, they will now not receive the automatic extension and may be left for a period without work authorization.”

This situation could lead to job loss, difficulties in renewing driver’s licenses, and other complications for those affected.

The ruling also imposes challenges on employers, who may need to terminate employees once their current EADs lapse if the new EAD has not yet arrived. Upadhyay remarked, “For employers, this is an unnecessary disruption and adds compliance needs, as they will need to terminate employees and then rehire them, adequately documenting all of this to avoid I-9 fines.”

For those who may soon require an extension but have not yet applied under the previous rule, immigration attorney Leandro Carvalho, a partner at Dell’Ome Law Firm, advises prompt action. “They will need to file for an EAD renewal as soon as possible. If the new EAD is not issued in time, depending on the circumstances, they can try to submit an expedite request to USCIS. In any case, they will not be able to work without a valid EAD,” he said.

As advocacy groups and immigration lawyers prepare for potential litigation, those affected by the policy change are left anxiously awaiting the outcome. The resolution of this issue could significantly influence how USCIS implements future policy changes and whether advance notice becomes a legal requirement.

Source: Original article

Revised Form I-129 for Immigration Petitions Now Available

USCIS has released a revised version of Form I-129, which will be the only accepted edition starting May 1, 2015.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced the availability of a revised Form I-129, known as the Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker. This updated form is marked with an edition date of October 23, 2014.

Beginning May 1, 2015, USCIS will only accept the revised form. After this date, previous editions of Form I-129, specifically those dated October 7, 2011, January 19, 2011, and November 23, 2010, will no longer be accepted.

The revised Form I-129 is designed to enhance the filing process. USCIS encourages applicants to download the updated form, which includes prompts to ensure that all necessary information is provided. This improvement aims to facilitate more efficient processing of applications.

For those looking to file Form I-129, it is crucial to use the correct edition to avoid potential delays or rejections of their petitions.

For more information and to download the revised form, visit the USCIS forms website.

Source: Original article

Who Is Responsible for the $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee?

The new $100,000 fee for certain H-1B visa petitions, effective September 21, 2025, raises questions about applicability, exemptions, and payment processes for employers and foreign nationals.

The “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers” is a presidential proclamation that introduces a significant $100,000 fee for specific H-1B visa petitions submitted after September 21, 2025. This new fee is set to impact a variety of stakeholders, including employers and foreign nationals seeking employment in the United States.

On October 20, 2025, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) provided an update regarding the fee’s applicability. This update clarified who is responsible for paying the fee, the timing of the payment, and the eligibility criteria for exemptions.

The $100,000 fee will not apply to H-1B petitions filed before September 21, 2025. Additionally, petitions filed on or after this date that involve an amendment, a change of status, or an extension of status for individuals already in the United States will also be exempt, provided these requests are approved.

While USCIS did not explicitly address change of employer petitions, these typically involve status extensions and are generally considered exempt from the fee. Beneficiaries approved under these conditions will not be required to pay the fee if they later leave the U.S. and apply for a new H-1B visa or seek admission in H-1B status.

Conversely, the $100,000 fee will apply to new H-1B petitions filed from September 21, 2025, onward for foreign nationals who are outside the U.S. without a valid H-1B visa. It will also apply to petitions requesting consular notification, port of entry notification, or pre-flight inspection for beneficiaries physically present in the United States.

In situations where a beneficiary is currently in a non-immigrant status within the U.S., but USCIS denies their change of status to H-1B, the employer must pay the fee for the beneficiary to apply for the H-1B visa abroad or seek admission in H-1B status.

Exemptions to the fee have also been clarified. Contrary to previous assumptions, organizations exempt from the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) cap—such as nonprofit universities, governmental bodies, and nonprofit research institutions—are not relieved from paying the fee.

USCIS has outlined a very limited path for seeking a national interest waiver. Such waivers, granted solely at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, are reserved for “extraordinarily rare circumstances.” To qualify, employers must demonstrate that the foreign worker’s presence in the U.S. benefits national interests, that no U.S. worker can fill the role, that the individual poses no security or welfare risk, and that imposing the fee would harm U.S. interests. Requests with supporting documentation should be sent to H1BExceptions@hq.dhs.gov, although processing timelines remain unclear.

It is important to note that the USCIS criteria for exemption are more restrictive than the broader provisions outlined in the original proclamation, which allowed for industry-wide or company-wide exemptions deemed to be in the national interest.

The payment process for the $100,000 fee requires completion online via ACH transfer to the U.S. Treasury before filing the petition. The payment portal indicates that a full refund will be processed if the application is not approved. However, it remains unclear if this refund policy applies solely to visa applications or also to petitions. There is no explicit guidance on payment timing if a change of status request is denied.

Legal challenges to the fee have already emerged. Several lawsuits have been initiated, including one filed in the Northern District of California by diverse employers, such as healthcare recruiters and unions. Additionally, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a separate suit in the District of Columbia, alleging that the fee is unlawful and detrimental to American businesses.

Given the ongoing uncertainties surrounding the fee’s implementation and the unsettled regulatory environment, foreign nationals currently in the United States should exercise caution before planning any travel abroad, especially when needing to secure an H-1B visa. The guidance is subject to change without formal rulemaking, and potential government shutdowns could limit consular services, leading to delays. Therefore, travel plans should be flexible and coordinated closely with legal counsel and employers.

Source: Original article

Nayna Gupta Discusses Deportation’s Effects on Families and Communities

Nayna Gupta, Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, testified at a Shadow Hearing addressing the severe impacts of deportation on families and communities.

On September 18, 2025, Nayna Gupta, the Policy Director of the American Immigration Council, provided crucial testimony at a Shadow Hearing organized by U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (WA-07). This event, titled “Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump’s Assault Destroys U.S. Families and Communities,” marks the third installment in Rep. Jayapal’s series focused on the profound human costs associated with deportation policies.

During her testimony, Gupta emphasized the far-reaching consequences of current deportation practices. She articulated how these policies not only tear apart families but also destabilize entire communities across the nation. Gupta pointed out that the impact of deportation extends beyond individual cases, affecting the social fabric and emotional well-being of those left behind.

In addition to the emotional toll, Gupta underscored the systemic issues that arise from such policies. She argued that deportation practices undermine due process and fairness within the U.S. immigration system. This erosion of legal protections, she noted, contradicts the foundational values of justice and dignity that should characterize American society.

Gupta’s testimony is part of a broader commitment by the American Immigration Council to advocate for an immigration system that prioritizes family unity, safeguards due process, and upholds the principles of justice and dignity. The Council aims to foster an environment where immigrant families can thrive without the constant threat of separation.

As the hearing concluded, the urgency of addressing these issues became increasingly clear. The testimonies shared during the event highlighted the need for comprehensive immigration reform that recognizes the humanity of all individuals affected by deportation.

According to the American Immigration Council, it is essential to build a system that not only protects families but also reflects the core values that define the nation.

Source: Original article

U.S. Implements New Entry and Exit Rules for Foreign Nationals

The U.S. government has introduced new entry and exit regulations for non-citizens, including Green Card holders, aimed at enhancing border security through advanced facial recognition technology.

The United States government has unveiled new entry and exit regulations that mandate the collection of photographs from all non-citizens, including Green Card holders. This initiative, part of enhanced border security measures, was published by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Federal Register on Friday. The primary goal of these new rules is to leverage advanced facial recognition technology to bolster national security and combat document fraud.

According to CBP, the initiative aims to address various national security concerns, including the threat of terrorism, the fraudulent use of legitimate travel documentation, and the presence of individuals who remain in the United States beyond their authorized stay or are present without proper admission or parole.

The agency’s filing specifies that photographs and biometric data will be collected at all entry and exit points, which include airports, seaports, and land crossings. While CBP has already been gathering fingerprints and images from visa holders and certain residents, this new regulation extends mandatory data collection to all individuals departing the country.

These measures are part of a broader immigration crackdown initiated during former President Donald Trump’s administration. Although first proposed in 2021, the updated rule is set to take effect on December 26, 2025. This will grant U.S. border officials the authority to photograph non-citizens at any point of exit. Additionally, CBP plans to expand biometric data collection to include individuals who are currently exempt from such measures, such as children under 14 and adults over 79.

CBP has acknowledged the challenges associated with implementing these new systems, particularly the difficulty of executing the program without designated, secure exit lanes at various ports. However, the agency has stated that advancements in facial recognition technology now make comprehensive enforcement more feasible.

According to the Trump administration, an integrated biometric entry-exit system will assist the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in identifying visa overstays and individuals attempting to evade immigration laws. CBP plans to create galleries of images linked to individuals, utilizing passport data, border checkpoints, and travel documents to compare with real-time images at entry and exit points.

A public comment period regarding the new rule will commence on October 27. CBP anticipates that the system could be deployed nationwide within three to five years. Officials assert that this updated framework represents a significant step toward establishing a “fully coordinated” border security system.

Source: Original article

Silicon Valley’s Silence on H-1B Visas: Indian-American Perspectives

Silicon Valley leaders have largely refrained from commenting on the recent increase in H-1B visa fees, raising concerns about its impact on the tech industry.

Silicon Valley executives have remained notably silent regarding the recent hike in H-1B visa fees, a policy change that directly affects the tech industry, one of the most vulnerable sectors. As both startups and major tech firms grapple with increased costs associated with hiring international talent, the lack of public response from these influential leaders has raised eyebrows.

In stark contrast, smaller startups have been vocal about the ramifications of the H-1B fee increase, openly discussing how it has strained their already limited budgets. Many founders express that the heightened costs are forcing them to slow down hiring, rethink planned expansions, and in some cases, even consider relocating operations to countries with more favorable immigration policies. For these young companies, which heavily rely on skilled international talent, the fee increase poses a significant threat to their growth and innovation, making their concerns both immediate and urgent.

While the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has filed a legal challenge against the administration’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visa petitions, some Silicon Valley leaders have surprisingly welcomed the fee hike. Figures such as Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang, and OpenAI’s Sam Altman have expressed support, while others have chosen to remain silent. Tesla CEO Elon Musk, a long-time advocate for the H-1B program, has not publicly commented on the fee increase, leading to speculation about his silence, particularly following his recent fallout with former President Trump.

Atal Agarwal, founder and CEO of OpenSphere and LegalBridge, noted, “After the U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawsuit, I feel there is going to be more statement overall around this. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce usually consists of many different companies, so a joint lawsuit addresses that. Another point is – we all know the way Trump works. He is not happy with people or companies that retaliate. So, the real problem here is that companies do not want to go against him in isolation. But yes, everyone was expecting that the corporates would be more active and would issue more statements.”

In 2025, major tech companies such as Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and Meta have significantly increased their reliance on H-1B visas, making them some of the largest sponsors of skilled foreign workers. Among these big players, JP Morgan has been one of the few to comment on the issue, while most others have opted for silence despite their growing dependence on the program. Agarwal added, “First of all, we have to realize that Silicon Valley consists broadly of two types of sectors – one, the really big tech companies that have a lot of money and often pay upwards of $300k per year to many H-1B employees. So, a $100k fee, while it bothers them, they know that they can absorb it. The other sector of Silicon Valley consists of founders who have raised VC capital or are in the early stages. These founders usually end up hiring their early employees, and often the founders themselves are immigrants who often end up using the O-1A pathway, so for them, the fee hike does not take any impact.”

JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon has been among the few industry leaders to directly address the H-1B fee hike, calling Trump’s $100,000 charge “something that came out of the blue.” He stated that the bank would be “engaging with stakeholders and policymakers” regarding the issue. In an interview with The Times of India, Dimon emphasized the importance of visas for a global firm like JP Morgan, saying, “For us, visas matter because we move people around globally – experts who get promoted to new jobs in different markets.” He also highlighted the broader implications, noting, “The challenge is that the US still needs to remain an attractive destination. My grandparents were Greek immigrants who never finished high school. America is an immigrant nation, and that’s part of its core strength.”

The approval figures underscore just how heavily these companies depend on international talent to fuel their growth. Data shared by Amanda Goodall on X indicates that Amazon Web Services led the way in 2025 with 10,044 H-1B approvals, nearly 800 more than the previous year. Microsoft and Meta followed closely with 5,189 and 5,123 approvals, both showing solid year-over-year gains. Apple also experienced an increase with 4,202 approvals, while JP Morgan Chase saw a sharp rise to 2,440, an increase of more than 700. Together, these numbers highlight a growing reliance on skilled workers from abroad, even as policy costs escalate.

Given these soaring approval numbers, the silence of most tech leaders is even more pronounced. Their companies are among the heaviest users of the H-1B program, yet they appear hesitant to speak out, possibly fearing political backlash or the risk of being blacklisted at a time when federal contracts and regulatory goodwill are crucial to their operations. For firms that depend heavily on Washington’s support—whether through infrastructure partnerships, AI research grants, or defense-related deals—the calculation may be that remaining quiet protects their interests, even if the policy directly undermines their hiring pipelines.

At the same time, if Silicon Valley giants choose to quietly accept the fee hike, they risk slowing down their hiring processes and narrowing their intake to only those skilled workers who can absorb the added costs. This selective hiring could disrupt revenue growth, stifle innovation, and ultimately harm competitiveness. Yet, despite these significant stakes, the industry’s most influential voices remain silent.

Are they working behind the scenes on a larger strategy? Will they press the Trump administration to reconsider, or simply move forward by absorbing the blow? If pressure mounts, could they follow the lead of smaller startups by relocating operations or relying more on remote talent, ironically at a time when many insist on returning to physical offices?

Source: Original article

German Chancellor Defends Comments on Migrants and Public Safety

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz defends his controversial remarks about migration, asserting that many citizens feel unsafe in public spaces due to the presence of undocumented migrants.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has reaffirmed his controversial statements regarding migration, claiming that many Germans and Europeans feel “afraid to move around in public spaces.” His comments have sparked significant backlash, particularly from various political factions within Germany.

During a recent visit to Potsdam, Merz addressed the ongoing issues related to illegal immigration, stating, “But we still have this problem in the cityscape, of course, and that’s why the federal interior minister is facilitating and carrying out large-scale deportations.”

The remarks drew criticism, with some accusing the Chancellor of harboring racist sentiments. In response to the backlash, Merz defended his position while attending a summit on the Western Balkans in London. He emphasized that migrants play a vital role in the labor market, as reported by German-based DW News.

Despite acknowledging the contributions of migrants, Merz insisted that many people in Germany and across Europe are still “afraid to move around in public spaces.” He attributed this fear to the presence of migrants who lack permanent residency, do not engage in the workforce, and fail to adhere to local regulations.

When pressed about whether he would retract his earlier statements, Merz responded, “I don’t know whether you have children. If you do, and there are daughters among them, ask your daughters what I might have meant. I suspect you’ll get a pretty clear and unambiguous answer. There’s nothing I need to retract.”

The controversy surrounding Merz’s comments has led to the creation of a petition challenging his views. Among the signatories are prominent figures such as actor Marie Nasemann and environmental activist Luisa Neubauer. Neubauer expressed her concerns on Instagram, stating, “There are approximately 40 million daughters in this country. We have a genuine interest in ensuring that our safety is taken seriously. What we are not interested in is being misused as a pretext or justification for statements that were ultimately discriminatory, racist and deeply hurtful.”

As the debate continues, Merz’s comments highlight the ongoing tensions surrounding immigration policy in Germany and the broader European landscape.

Source: Original article

Standing with Sikh Truckers to Uphold Workers’ Rights in America

The recent federal rule change affecting immigrant truckers, particularly within the Sikh community, raises significant concerns about workers’ rights and the values that underpin American society.

As the proud son of Indian immigrants who built their lives in Silicon Valley through hard work and unwavering determination, I have always believed in the American promise: that if you follow the rules, contribute to society, and pursue your dreams with integrity, this nation will welcome you with open arms. However, the recent federal rule change targeting immigrant truckers—especially those from the hardworking Sikh community—strikes at the core of that promise. It is not merely a policy adjustment; it represents a betrayal of the values that make America great.

In the aftermath of a tragic accident on a Florida turnpike, where a Sikh trucker from California was involved in a fatal crash that claimed three lives, the Trump administration has seized upon this heartbreaking incident to cast a shadow over an entire community. U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s sweeping restrictions now bar immigrants with temporary work authorization—such as those with pending asylum cases—from obtaining or renewing commercial driver’s licenses (CDLs). This move is not about enhancing road safety; it is a blunt instrument wielded against legal workers who have every right to earn a living.

It is essential to clarify that the Sikhs affected by this rule are not skirting the system. They hold lawfully issued Employment Authorization Documents (EADs), granted after rigorous vetting by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. These individuals have presented their asylum claims in immigration courts, attended every required hearing, and complied fully with the law. Many have passed stringent CDL exams, logged thousands of safe miles, and supported families while keeping America’s supply chains humming. For them, trucking is not just a job—it is a pathway to the American Dream, one that accommodates their faith’s sacred tenets, such as uncut hair and turbans, in a profession that values independence and resilience.

Sikh Americans have long been the backbone of the trucking industry. An estimated 150,000 Sikhs drive trucks across the U.S., with the vast majority hailing from California, where they have transformed vast farmlands and bustling ports into economic engines. This community chose trucking because it offered dignity: the flexibility to pray five times a day, the open road to reflect on their heritage, and wages to send remittances home or invest in their children’s futures. Now, with licenses expiring overnight and no grace period for renewal, thousands face job loss, financial ruin, and the dismantling of businesses built over decades.

The xenophobia fueling this policy is as predictable as it is painful. The Florida crash sparked a torrent of racist vitriol online and on the airwaves—tweets mocking turbans, slurs hurled at bearded drivers, and conspiracy theories painting Sikhs as perpetual outsiders. This is not a new phenomenon; post-9/11, Sikhs were among the most targeted religious groups for hate crimes precisely because their visible faith makes them easy scapegoats. Yet, instead of condemning bigotry, the administration has amplified it, zeroing in on California as a punching bag for its progressive stance on immigration under Governor Gavin Newsom.

However, facts do not bend to fearmongering. Data from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) paints a starkly different picture. California’s commercial fatal crash rate is nearly 40% below the national average—proof that immigrant drivers, including Sikhs, are among the safest on the road. In contrast, the ten states with the highest rates of fatal crashes are all red states: Wyoming, New Mexico, North Dakota, West Virginia, Oklahoma, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, and Mississippi. When measured per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, these figures expose the hypocrisy of the current narrative. If safety were the goal, we would see nationwide reforms: mandatory advanced training, AI-assisted fatigue monitoring, and incentives for electric fleets. Instead, we are punishing a minority community that is already overrepresented in one of the nation’s deadliest jobs.

This is not a safety policy; it is immigration theater, timed to stoke division ahead of midterms and score points against “sanctuary” California. Immigrant truckers do not just drive our goods—they sustain our economy. They haul produce from the Central Valley, deliver tech components to factories, and ensure shelves remain stocked during crises. Revoking their licenses does not make roads safer; it creates chaos, shortages, and lost revenue. And for what? To appease a fringe narrative that portrays “others” as threats behind the wheel?

As someone who has championed South Asian voices in tech and politics—from advising on Indo-U.S. trade deals to mobilizing AAPI voters—I stand unequivocally with these Sikh truckers. They deserve better than abrupt edicts that ignore their qualifications and contributions. We must demand a reversal: reinstate eligibility for EAD holders who have passed CDL standards, provide transition periods for renewals, and invest in holistic safety measures that elevate everyone.

To my fellow Americans: Remember that the trucker logging miles at dawn, turban tied firm and eyes on the horizon, is as American as apple pie—or in this case, perhaps a plate of saag paneer shared roadside. Let us protect their right to work, worship, and thrive. The road ahead should be one of justice, not jeopardy.

Source: Original article

Federal Appeals Court Affirms Block on Iowa’s Anti-Immigrant Law

In a significant ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has upheld an injunction against Iowa’s controversial anti-immigrant law, SF 2340, protecting immigrant families and reinforcing constitutional limits on state power.

On October 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit delivered a decisive victory for immigrant communities and the rule of law by upholding an injunction that blocks Iowa’s Senate File 2340 (SF 2340). This law, described as the most severe anti-immigrant legislation in Iowa’s history, sought to criminalize the presence of certain immigrants in the state, even those who are legally authorized to be in the United States.

SF 2340 aimed to empower local officials to conduct arrests and deportations, a power that is constitutionally reserved for federal authorities. This federal oversight is crucial to maintaining a consistent national immigration policy, preventing a fragmented approach that could lead to family separations and chaos across state lines.

“This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” said Erica Johnson, founding executive director of the Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), the organization that initiated the lawsuit. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”

The lawsuit, titled Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice v. Bird, was filed by Iowa MMJ alongside two individual plaintiffs, with representation from the ACLU of Iowa, the ACLU Immigrant Rights Project, and the American Immigration Council.

Under SF 2340, non-citizens who had previously been deported or denied entry to the United States would have faced criminal charges for residing in Iowa, regardless of any subsequent lawful status or federal permission to return. Additionally, the law would have allowed state and local law enforcement to arrest individuals based solely on their presence in the state and mandated state judges to issue deportation orders. Such powers are constitutionally designated to the federal government, ensuring that families are not divided by conflicting state regulations.

“SF 2340 is the worst anti-immigrant law in Iowa’s history. Today’s ruling keeps SF 2340 blocked and protects immigrants in Iowa from many serious harms: arrest, detention, deportation, family separation, and incarceration, all by the state,” stated Rita Bettis Austen, legal director of the ACLU of Iowa. “At a time when the federal government is causing so much harm to families, it’s all the more important that the state is not permitted to make things even worse. The Court reaffirmed that the Iowa legislature does not have authority to pass its own immigration laws to detain and deport people.”

The law was initially enacted on April 10, 2024, but was blocked from taking effect on June 17, 2024, leading the state of Iowa to appeal the decision. Following the recent ruling by the Eighth Circuit, the law will remain blocked as the case continues to navigate the federal court system.

“The Eighth Circuit’s decision resonates far beyond Iowa,” remarked Emma Winger, deputy legal director at the American Immigration Council. “Across the country, we’re seeing states attempt to take immigration enforcement into their own hands. This could create a reality in which a person could be welcomed in one state and arrested in the next, just for crossing a border. Under our Constitution, immigration has to be handled at a federal level so families aren’t trapped in chaos. This ruling upholds that principle.”

Spencer Amdur, senior staff attorney at the ACLU’s national immigrants’ rights project, emphasized the significance of the ruling, stating, “Today the Eighth Circuit reiterated what the Supreme Court has said for over a hundred years: States have no business regulating immigration on their own. This law would have torn families apart and denied people their right to live in this country and seek legal protections. The court was right to strike it down, just like courts have done for other laws like this around the country.”

As the legal battle continues, the implications of this ruling are expected to influence immigration policy discussions and enforcement practices not only in Iowa but across the United States.

Source: Original article

USCIS Announces New H-1B Visa Fee Structure and Exceptions

USCIS has announced new guidelines regarding the H-1B visa program, including a $100,000 fee for certain petitions starting September 21, 2025, along with specific exceptions.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has issued updated guidance concerning the Proclamation Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers. This proclamation, originally announced on September 19, is part of the administration’s ongoing reform of the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program.

Beginning at 12:01 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time on September 21, 2025, all new H-1B petitions must include an additional payment of $100,000 to be eligible for consideration. This requirement specifically targets petitions filed on behalf of beneficiaries who are outside the United States and do not currently hold a valid H-1B visa.

The new fee structure also applies to petitions that request consular notification, port of entry notification, or pre-flight inspection for individuals already in the U.S. If a petition is filed after the specified time and requests a change of status, amendment, or extension of stay, the $100,000 fee will be required if USCIS determines that the alien is ineligible for such changes. This could occur if the individual is not in a valid nonimmigrant status or if they leave the U.S. before their change of status request is adjudicated.

Importantly, the proclamation does not affect any H-1B visas that have already been issued and remain valid, nor does it apply to petitions submitted prior to the cutoff time. Holders of current H-1B visas, as well as beneficiaries of approved petitions, are not restricted from traveling in and out of the United States.

Furthermore, if a petition is filed after the deadline and requests an amendment, change of status, or extension of stay for an alien already in the U.S., the $100,000 fee will not apply if the alien is granted the requested changes. If such an alien subsequently departs the U.S. and applies for a visa based on the approved petition, they will not be subject to the payment requirement upon re-entry.

Petitioners must submit the $100,000 fee through pay.gov, adhering to the instructions provided on the platform. Payment should be completed before filing the petition with USCIS. Petitioners are required to provide proof of payment or evidence of an exception from the Secretary of Homeland Security when submitting the H-1B petition. Failure to include this documentation will result in denial of the petition.

Exceptions to the $100,000 payment can be granted by the Secretary of Homeland Security under rare circumstances. These exceptions are reserved for cases where the Secretary determines that the alien worker’s presence in the U.S. as an H-1B worker is in the national interest, that no American worker is available for the position, and that the alien does not pose a threat to national security or welfare. Additionally, it must be established that requiring the employer to make the payment would significantly undermine U.S. interests.

Employers who believe their worker meets these stringent criteria may request an exception by submitting their request and supporting evidence to H1BExceptions@hq.dhs.gov.

As the September 2025 deadline approaches, employers and potential H-1B petitioners should prepare for these changes and consider the implications of the new fee structure on their hiring processes.

Source: Original article

USCIS Clarifies $100,000 H-1B Visa Fee Requirements for Employers

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has clarified the implementation of a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions, detailing who must pay and the limited exemptions available.

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has recently provided much-anticipated guidance regarding the $100,000 fee imposed on H-1B visa petitions. This fee applies to petitions filed on or after September 21, 2025, for beneficiaries located outside the United States who do not currently hold a valid H-1B visa. The announcement has sparked significant discussion within immigration circles, as many visa holders express concerns about their eligibility and the implications of this new requirement.

Employers are required to pay the fee through Pay.gov, utilizing the form titled “H-1B visa payment to remove restriction.” This payment must be completed prior to submitting any petitions to USCIS. Notably, petitions filed before the September 21 deadline, as well as extensions or amendments for individuals already in the U.S., are exempt from the new fee.

While the announcement has provided some clarity, it has also raised questions about the circumstances under which exemptions may be granted. According to USCIS, rare exemptions may be available if the H-1B worker’s employment is deemed to be in the national interest, poses no security risk, and there are no qualified U.S. workers available for the position. However, immigration attorneys have criticized the “national interest” waiver as overly broad and ambiguous, suggesting that it leaves room for significant administrative discretion.

Jihan Merlin, Head of Immigration Strategy at Alma, commented on the administration’s approach, suggesting that it reflects a strategic recalibration rather than a retreat. “It’s not unraveling but it’s being narrowed in a way that seems designed to give it more of a chance to survive in court,” she stated. “By limiting it to consular petitions, the administration is aligning the policy more closely with its 212(f) authority over entry restrictions.” The true test of this strategy will come as it faces legal scrutiny.

For many current H-1B holders, the new fee and the potential for USCIS to determine ineligibility for extensions while remaining in the U.S. adds a layer of uncertainty to their immigration status. Jitesh Kumar, an H-1B visa holder, expressed his concerns, stating, “This leaves me and many others like me in a state of limbo. Since there is no clear guideline on who qualifies, we may be doing everything by the book and still discover that we’re ineligible.” This uncertainty has left many visa holders fearing the possibility of having to leave the country unexpectedly.

In terms of payment logistics, USCIS has clarified that the fee must be processed through Pay.gov before any petition is submitted. This clarification comes after confusion surrounding the payment process since the announcement of the fee by President Trump.

As for the exemptions, USCIS has specified that petitions filed before September 21, those for individuals who already hold valid H-1B visas, and approved amendments or extensions for workers within the U.S. will not be subject to the new fee. However, the criteria for the national interest waiver remain vague, leaving many in the immigration community questioning how it will be applied in practice.

Looking ahead, Merlin expressed caution regarding the potential for further easing of the fee requirements. “I don’t see the administration easing up further unless the courts step in,” she remarked. “The recent tweaks look more like a legal defense strategy than a policy reversal. If they tighten it further, it’ll be just enough to stand up in court. We’re telling companies to plan for either outcome.”

The USCIS’s recent clarifications have shed light on the $100,000 H-1B visa fee, but the ambiguity surrounding exemptions and the implications for current visa holders continue to create anxiety within the immigration community.

Source: Original article

Salesforce Proposes Streamlined Hiring Process for Immigration Officers at ICE

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff faces criticism after proposing the use of the company’s AI technology to assist ICE in recruiting immigration officers and enhancing deportation efforts.

Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff is under fire following reports that he proposed leveraging the company’s artificial intelligence technology to support the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in its recruitment and deportation initiatives.

Internal documents obtained by The New York Times reveal that Benioff suggested using Salesforce’s AI capabilities to help ICE recruit 10,000 new agents and streamline the agency’s deportation processes. The materials included a five-page memo, a spreadsheet outlining potential opportunities with ICE, and slides detailing how AI could assist in processing tip-line reports and investigations. Salesforce confirmed the authenticity of these documents but refrained from providing detailed comments, citing the confidential nature of its contracts.

This revelation is likely to provoke further controversy among San Francisco’s liberal community, which has already expressed discontent with Benioff’s previous comments advocating for the deployment of the National Guard to address crime, drug issues, and homelessness in the city.

At this week’s Dreamforce conference, which concluded Thursday at the Moscone Center with nearly 50,000 attendees, Benioff did not address questions regarding his comments on ICE or the National Guard. His earlier endorsement of using National Guard troops to enhance public safety had already drawn criticism prior to the conference.

During a session at Dreamforce, Benioff emphasized the importance of safety, stating, “The number one thing that’s on my mind is safety. It’s all about trust and safety — it’s our highest value here.”

The U.S. government is Salesforce’s largest client, with various agencies, including the Army, Coast Guard, and Veterans Affairs, utilizing the company’s products. While Salesforce has previously collaborated with ICE under both the Obama and Biden administrations, its recent proposal to assist in scaling up enforcement operations marks a significant shift in its approach.

Benioff has positioned himself as a strong supporter of San Francisco, pledging billions to the city, including a commitment of $15 billion over the next five years. On Thursday, he also announced a $1 million donation to the San Francisco Police Department.

Salesforce’s involvement with ICE is not an isolated case among Bay Area tech firms. Recently, the White House hosted a summit with executives from OpenAI, Google, Oracle, Apple, and Meta to discuss potential collaborations on artificial intelligence and other federal technology initiatives.

The actions of Salesforce and other tech giants in Silicon Valley highlight the growing intersection between technology companies and federal policymaking. As discussions around public safety, AI regulation, and federal partnerships intensify, these engagements illustrate how influential tech leaders are shaping national priorities while navigating scrutiny and opportunities in the political landscape.

Source: Original article

Indian-American Tech Leaders Navigate H-1B Visa Changes Under Trump Administration

Several prominent Indian-origin tech leaders have navigated the H-1B visa landscape, influencing the U.S. tech industry amid proposed reforms by the Trump administration.

Several prominent Indian-origin tech leaders, including Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, Aravind Srinivas, Jayshree Ullal, and Arvind Krishna, began their careers in the United States on H-1B visas. These individuals have played pivotal roles in shaping the tech industry, with companies like Microsoft, Google, Perplexity AI, Arista Networks, and IBM benefiting from their leadership.

However, recent policy changes proposed by the Trump administration, such as a $100,000 fee for H-1B visa petitions and stricter eligibility criteria, have raised concerns among the tech community. These reforms could significantly impact the hiring practices of tech companies that rely on skilled foreign talent.

In response, several tech leaders have expressed their opposition to the proposed changes. Sundar Pichai has emphasized the importance of immigration in driving innovation and economic success in the U.S. Similarly, Arvind Krishna has advocated for policies that attract global talent to maintain the country’s competitive edge.

The ongoing debate highlights the critical role of immigration in the growth and sustainability of the tech industry, underscoring the need for balanced policies that support both national interests and the contributions of skilled immigrants. The voices of these leaders reflect a broader concern within the industry about maintaining an environment conducive to innovation and progress.

As the discussion continues, the implications of these proposed reforms remain to be seen. The tech industry, which has thrived on the contributions of diverse talent, faces a pivotal moment in its evolution. The outcome of this debate could shape the future landscape of technology in the United States.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Upholds Work Rights for H-1B Spouses of Indian-Americans

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld work rights for certain spouses of H-1B visa holders by declining to review a challenge to a federal rule, affirming a previous appellate ruling.

In a significant legal development, the U.S. Supreme Court has chosen not to review a challenge to a federal rule that allows certain spouses of H-1B visa holders to work in the United States. This decision effectively upholds a 2024 appellate ruling that confirmed the legality of the program.

The case, known as Save Jobs USA v. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was initiated by a group representing American technology workers. They argued that the DHS had overstepped its authority by extending work authorization to holders of H-4 visas, which are granted to the dependents of H-1B skilled workers. By refusing to hear the case, the Supreme Court has left the D.C. Circuit’s decision intact, allowing the rule to remain in effect.

Introduced during the Obama administration in 2015, the rule permits certain H-4 visa holders—typically spouses of H-1B workers who are pursuing permanent residency—to obtain work authorization. Proponents of the policy argue that it promotes family unity and economic stability, while critics contend that it may displace American workers.

This ruling marks the conclusion of nearly a decade of legal challenges surrounding the issue and provides clarity for thousands of families navigating the complexities of the U.S. immigration system. It also highlights the ongoing debate over employment-based immigration policies and their implications for the domestic workforce.

As the landscape of immigration continues to evolve, this decision reinforces the rights of H-4 visa holders and their families, ensuring that they can contribute to the U.S. economy while maintaining their family ties.

Source: Original article

National Immigrant Rights Groups Sue Government for ICE Arrest Records

National immigrant rights organizations have filed a lawsuit against the federal government, seeking the release of records related to ICE arrests at immigration courts and the dismissal of cases.

Washington, D.C., October 15 — LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the American Immigration Council, and Democracy Forward have initiated legal action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit demands the release of crucial records that the government has unlawfully withheld regarding arrests at immigration courts and the dismissal of immigration cases.

Since May 20, 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), along with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), has engaged in a coordinated effort to detain noncitizens who appear for hearings in immigration courts across the country.

The practice of arresting individuals who voluntarily attend their immigration court dates in search of protection raises significant concerns. Immigration courts are intended to be venues for fair hearings, not mechanisms for detention. When individuals seeking justice are arrested instead, it undermines fundamental democratic principles, discourages people from exercising their legal rights, and inflicts severe human costs.

Moreover, ICE attorneys have reportedly been requesting immigration judges to dismiss cases and transfer individuals into expedited removal processes, which offer fewer due process protections and no pathway to permanent residency. The EOIR has instructed immigration judges to grant these dismissals immediately, a move that contradicts established agency policy and longstanding practices.

To gain insight into the circumstances surrounding these arrests at immigration courts, LatinoJustice and the American Immigration Council submitted a total of 11 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests on July 28 and 29, 2025. Six requests were directed to the EOIR, while five were sent to ICE. These requests sought basic information about arrests and dismissals related to immigration courts, as well as communications among the agencies involved in these activities. The organizations also requested expedited processing for their requests.

However, the government has failed to provide timely and adequate responses to ten of these FOIA requests, violating legal requirements. The EOIR has claimed it cannot locate any guidance issued to immigration judges regarding case dismissals and courthouse arrests, despite the existence of leaked documents that contradict this assertion. Additionally, the EOIR has declined to search for records detailing its coordination with ICE, while ICE has either ignored or delayed responses to all requests directed to it.

“Our FOIA requests seek to shine a light on how ICE operates in immigration courts, where families are fighting to keep their families together and for their future,” said Rex Chen, supervising counsel for Immigrant Rights at LatinoJustice PRLDEF. “Instead of transparency, they have chosen secrecy, stonewalling, or provided inadequate responses to our request. It is unacceptable to prolong this urgent matter.”

Chris Opila, a staff attorney for transparency at the American Immigration Council, emphasized the importance of understanding the dynamics of arrests at immigration courts. “Families’ futures are on the line. That’s why we need to better understand how these arrests at immigration courts are being carried out, and the degree to which supposedly independent and neutral agencies like the EOIR are pushing a mass deportation agenda. The public has a right to know what the EOIR and ICE are doing behind closed doors,” he stated.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, echoed these sentiments, stating, “The public has a right to know when our government rewrites the rules to make mass arrests and deny people due process — especially inside the very courtrooms meant to deliver justice. The administration cannot hide guidance that turns immigration courts into traps and accelerates deportations without fair hearings. We will not allow these agencies to operate in the shadows. Transparency is the first safeguard against abuse of power, and we’re in court to demand accountability.”

The lawsuit aims to compel the four agencies to comply fully with FOIA and to disclose all documents responsive to seven of the requests. It also seeks the expedited release of guidance directives and correspondence between ICE and the EOIR.

LatinoJustice PRLDEF has been advocating for over 50 years to create a more just society by challenging injustices and empowering communities through advocacy and education. For more information about their work, visit www.LatinoJustice.org.

Democracy Forward Foundation is a national legal organization focused on advancing democracy and social progress through litigation, policy, public education, and regulatory engagement. More details can be found at www.democracyforward.org.

The American Immigration Council works to strengthen America by shaping perceptions and actions towards immigrants and advocating for a fair immigration system. Their efforts include litigation, research, legislative advocacy, and communications. For the latest updates, follow them on social media or visit their website.

Source: Original article

Supreme Court Provides Relief for H-4 EAD Holders Amid Uncertainty

The Supreme Court’s decision to decline a challenge to the H-4 EAD program offers temporary relief to immigrant spouses, yet experts caution that its future remains uncertain amid shifting political landscapes.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear a challenge against the H-4 work authorization has provided a moment of stability for thousands of immigrant spouses. However, experts warn that the program’s future is still closely tied to the unpredictable nature of political will.

In recent months, the immigration landscape in the United States has been tumultuous, with work visa holders facing significant uncertainty due to abrupt policy changes from the Trump administration. Amid this chaos, a cautious sense of optimism has emerged for H-4 EAD (Employment Authorization Document) holders, who are primarily spouses of H-1B visa holders.

On Tuesday morning, the Supreme Court declined to review a petition filed by Save Jobs USA, which sought to challenge a ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This ruling affirmed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had the authority to implement the H-4 EAD rule. The news was met with celebrations among H-4 EAD holders, who viewed the decision as a protective measure for their work authorization.

Johnson Myalil, an immigration attorney based in the Washington, D.C., area, expressed cautious optimism about the ruling. “In some ways, it is good news, as it removes the uncertainty of the court invalidating the H-4 employment authorization, which is used by a substantial number of highly educated spouses of H-1B professionals—estimated to be around at least 300,000,” he stated.

Despite the positive implications of the Supreme Court’s decision, experts caution that challenges remain. Nandini Nair, an immigration attorney at A.Y. Strauss, LLC, emphasized the need for caution. “Absolutely not,” she said when asked if the decision alleviates uncertainty for H-4 EAD holders. “While the Supreme Court declined review this time, a different case with a stronger factual or procedural posture could make its way up again. The program is safe for now, but its survival depends on regulatory stability and political will.”

Nair further noted that for the H-4 EAD program to achieve true permanence, it would need to be codified by Congress rather than relying solely on regulation. “But for today, we can breathe a bit easier,” she added.

The history of the H-4 EAD program has been fraught with challenges. Introduced in 2015 during President Barack Obama’s administration, the program faced immediate opposition from Save Jobs USA, which argued that the DHS had overstepped its authority. This led to years of litigation, leaving many H-4 EAD holders in limbo as companies hesitated to hire them amid ongoing uncertainty.

Myalil remains cautious about the program’s future, stating, “We cannot rule out the possibility that immigration restriction advocates in the Trump administration may push for the cancellation of H-4 EAD through the federal rulemaking process.” However, he also pointed out a silver lining: “That process can take several years.”

Critics of the H-4 work authorization often argue that it takes job opportunities away from American workers. Yet, mounting evidence and legal testimony suggest the opposite—that H-4 EAD holders have made significant economic contributions. Nair highlighted that H-4 EAD holders are predominantly women who contribute billions in household income and tax revenue. Many work in high-demand STEM fields, launch startups, open businesses, and even employ U.S. workers.

“H-4 EADs aren’t just about helping immigrant families; they’re about unlocking untapped talent, boosting the U.S. economy, promoting equity, and stabilizing the workforce. This program has actually been a net gain for the United States,” Nair asserted.

Her argument is supported by data. A 2019 analysis by the American Action Forum, utilizing U.S. Census data, estimated that H-4 workers contribute approximately $12.9 billion annually to the U.S. GDP. This figure could rise to between $40 and $41 billion if all eligible spouses were authorized to work. A 2024 report by FWD.us found that removing current H-4 EAD holders from the workforce would shrink annual GDP by $7.5 billion and cut tax revenues by $2 billion across federal, state, and local levels.

Despite these positive contributions, the H-4 EAD program has often been unfairly criticized, similar to the H-1B visa program. This criticism often stems from widespread misconceptions about immigration’s role in the American economy. Nair noted, “They often get a bad rap because of the persistent narrative that H-1B visa holders ‘take American jobs.’ That same mindset spills over to the H-4 EAD program.”

She concluded, “The controversy isn’t really about H-4 spouses at all—it’s about the larger debate over high-skilled immigration.”

Source: Original article

Georgia Worksite Raid Highlights Impact of Trump’s Immigration Policies

On September 4, a massive immigration raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia resulted in the detention of at least 475 workers, highlighting the chaos of the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

On September 4, law enforcement agents from various state and federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conducted a significant immigration raid at a Hyundai manufacturing facility in southeastern Georgia. This operation led to the detention of at least 475 workers, many of whom were South Korean nationals, with some reportedly holding legal status. This incident marks the largest worksite raid in recent history.

In the wake of the raid, the American Immigration Council issued a statement addressing the implications of such actions. Michelle Lapointe, the legal director at the American Immigration Council, based in Atlanta, Georgia, expressed deep concerns about the impact of these raids on communities and families.

“These raids don’t make anyone safer. They terrorize workers, destabilize communities, and push families into chaos,” Lapointe stated. She emphasized that while the raid may generate dramatic headlines, it fails to address the underlying issues within the U.S. immigration system, such as the lack of legal pathways for workers and an inappropriate focus on punishing individuals who do not pose a threat to society. “Raiding worksites isn’t reform; it’s political theater at the expense of families, communities, and our economy,” she added.

Nan Wu, the director of research at the American Immigration Council, further elaborated on the economic implications of such raids. “Immigrant workers are the backbone of our economy, filling critical labor gaps in manufacturing and beyond,” she noted. According to Wu, undocumented workers constitute 5.7% of the national manufacturing workforce, while in Georgia, they represent 6.7% of that sector. She argued that targeting worksites instead of creating pathways to legal employment is not only cruel but also shortsighted. “The chilling effect of these raids will make it less likely that people will show up to work, deepening labor shortages and hitting businesses hard at an already precarious economic moment,” Wu explained.

The American Immigration Council has made experts available to discuss the counterproductive nature of worksite raids and to propose more effective immigration solutions. The organization advocates for reforms that would create a more humane and functional immigration system, rather than relying on punitive measures that disrupt lives and communities.

This incident serves as a stark reminder of the ongoing challenges within the U.S. immigration system and the need for comprehensive reform that prioritizes the well-being of workers and the economy.

Source: Original article

Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes Backs GOPIO-CT on H-1B Visa Fees

Connecticut Congressman Jim Himes recently met with GOPIO-CT to discuss concerns over a proposed $100,000 fee increase for H-1B visas, emphasizing its potential negative impact on small businesses and the economy.

On October 9, 2025, the Connecticut chapter of the Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO-CT) held a virtual meeting with Congressman Jim Himes (CT-4) to address the contentious $100,000 fee hike for H-1B visas, a policy introduced during the Trump Administration. The meeting included GOPIO-CT officials, representatives from GOPIO International, and business owners who would be affected by this significant change.

Dr. Thomas Abraham, Chairman of GOPIO and Trustee and Advisor to the chapter, underscored the H-1B program’s substantial contribution to the U.S. economy, noting it generates over $200 billion annually while costing only $8.5 billion. He cautioned that increasing barriers for highly skilled professionals may drive them to seek opportunities in countries such as Canada, Germany, and China, which could result in long-term economic detriment for the United States.

Mahesh Jhangiani, President of GOPIO-CT, highlighted the disproportionate impact of the fee hike on small and medium-sized enterprises, which typically lack the resources to absorb such a steep cost unlike larger corporations. He also expressed concerns regarding what he characterized as anti-India policies from the current administration.

Members of GOPIO-CT, including Prasad Chintalapudi from Panzer Solutions and Shailesh Naik of Cameron Engineers, emphasized the role of small businesses employing H-1B workers in fostering local employment and driving economic growth. They pointed out that many successful leaders in the tech industry, such as Elon Musk, Sundar Pichai, Satya Nadella, and Aravind Krishna, have benefitted from the H-1B program.

Attorney Nandita Ruchandani, representing Cameron Engineers, remarked on the critical sectors where H-1B visa holders work, including healthcare, education, engineering, and technology. She stressed that these immigrants not only contribute taxes and purchase homes but also support local communities. However, the prohibitive fee could jeopardize their employment.

Dr. S.K. Lo, Chairperson of the Asian American Unity Coalition (AAUC), also participated in the discussion, reinforcing the necessity of a collective approach to tackle these pressing issues.

Congressman Jim Himes, who is currently serving his ninth term and holds senior positions on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the Financial Services Committee, expressed his full support for GOPIO-CT’s position. He acknowledged the risk of losing valuable talent and reiterated the importance of continued U.S.-India collaboration in areas such as commerce, trade, and defense.

For over two decades, GOPIO-CT has actively engaged in community programs, youth mentoring, policy discussions, and cultural initiatives. The chapter aims to promote awareness of Indian heritage while fostering dialogue and partnerships with local communities.

Source: Original article

Visa Restrictions Under Trump Administration Result in 19% Decline in International Students

In August 2025, the U.S. saw a 19% drop in international student arrivals, largely due to visa restrictions enacted during the Trump administration.

In August 2025, the United States experienced a notable decline of 19% in international student arrivals compared to the same month in 2024. This downturn is largely attributed to a series of stringent measures implemented by the Trump administration.

Among these measures were the suspension of student visa interviews and the introduction of a travel ban affecting 19 countries, primarily located in Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. This has had a particularly significant impact on India, which has historically been the largest source of international students to the U.S. The country saw a staggering 45% decrease in student arrivals.

The new vetting procedures introduced during this period require applicants to provide access to their social media accounts, further complicating the visa application process. These developments have led many prospective students to reconsider their options for studying abroad, with some choosing alternative destinations such as Germany and the United Kingdom instead.

The decline in international student numbers poses a financial challenge for U.S. universities, many of which rely heavily on tuition fees from foreign students. Experts warn that if this trend continues, it could undermine the global standing of American higher education institutions.

As the landscape of international education shifts, the long-term implications of these visa restrictions remain to be seen. Universities may need to adapt their recruitment strategies to counteract the effects of these policies and attract students from abroad.

According to Global Net News, the ramifications of these changes could extend beyond immediate enrollment figures, potentially affecting the diversity and global engagement of U.S. campuses.

Source: Original article

Will $100,000 Fee Impact H-1B Visa Status for Indian-Americans?

New regulations may impose a $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visa applications, raising questions about their impact on visa status and processing.

The recent announcement regarding a $100,000 fee for specific H-1B visa applications has sparked concern among prospective applicants and current visa holders. This fee, which is set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. EDT on September 21, 2025, is aimed primarily at H-1B workers who are currently outside the United States.

As the situation evolves, many are left wondering how this new fee will affect their visa status and application processes. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) has reached out to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) for clarification on various scenarios that remain uncertain.

According to the current guidelines, the payment of the $100,000 fee is required for new H-1B petitions filed by companies seeking to bring workers from outside the U.S. However, the requirements become less clear in other situations. For example, if a company files a new petition to bring back someone who was previously on an H-1B visa but is currently outside the U.S., the necessity of the fee is still uncertain.

In cases where an individual is applying for an H-1B visa from within the U.S., such as an F-1 student transitioning to H-1B status, the requirement for the fee is also unclear. The USCIS has yet to provide definitive guidance on these matters.

For existing H-1B visa holders, the implications of the new fee vary significantly. Those applying for an extension or renewal with the same employer do not need to pay the fee, nor do individuals transferring to a new employer while remaining in the U.S. Additionally, existing H-1B workers who travel abroad during the extension or transfer process will not be required to pay the fee, provided their petition was filed while they were still in the U.S.

Current H-1B visa holders who are outside the country and wish to re-enter the U.S. will also not be subject to the fee. This exemption applies to individuals who have been counted against the cap and are returning to the U.S. after traveling abroad.

Despite these clarifications, many questions remain unanswered. The AILA has submitted a four-page questionnaire to the USCIS, seeking further details on various aspects of the new fee, including its implications for renewals, changes of employer, amended petitions, cap-exempt petitions, extensions of stay applications, and the payment method for the fee. They are also inquiring about the status of H-4 dependents.

The Indu Law Group (ILG) notes that the situation is rapidly changing as agencies work to implement the new proclamation. As more information becomes available, it is crucial for individuals affected by these changes to stay informed and seek guidance regarding their specific circumstances.

For those with questions about how the new fee may impact their H-1B visa status, it is advisable to consult with immigration experts or legal professionals who can provide tailored advice based on individual situations.

As the deadline approaches, the uncertainty surrounding the $100,000 fee continues to generate discussions among stakeholders in the immigration community. The potential for extensions of the proclamation adds another layer of complexity to the situation, making it essential for applicants to remain vigilant and proactive in understanding their rights and responsibilities under the new regulations.

Source: Original article

Health Care Workforce Faces Challenges from Immigration Policies and Medicaid Cuts

The health care sector is experiencing significant job growth, but immigration restrictions and Medicaid cuts may threaten its future stability, according to economists and industry experts.

The health care sector has emerged as a bright spot in the U.S. economy this year, contributing nearly half of the nation’s employment gains. However, economists and experts warn that ongoing immigration crackdowns and impending cuts to Medicaid could threaten future job growth in this vital industry.

According to the latest nonfarm payroll data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, employers added 487,000 jobs from January to August, with the health care sector accounting for 48% of that growth. This translates to approximately 232,000 new jobs in health care, despite the sector employing only about 11% of the workforce.

“On the labor side, health care growth is driving the economy,” said Neale Mahoney, a professor of economics at Stanford University.

However, the potential impact of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies and cuts to public insurance programs could dampen this growth. These changes may create uncertainty in the economy and pose challenges for the GOP in the upcoming midterm elections. The health care industry is particularly reliant on foreign-born workers, and a proposed law that would reduce federal spending on the $900 billion Medicaid program is projected to result in a loss of 1.2 million jobs nationwide, according to the Commonwealth Fund.

In recent years, job growth in health care has been most pronounced in the home health sector, which has seen an increase of nearly 300,000 jobs, bringing the total to 1.82 million workers from August 2019 to August 2025. This growth is largely driven by an aging population that requires more in-home care. Job growth has also been robust in hospitals and doctors’ offices, while nursing homes and residential care facilities have experienced weaker numbers due to a shift towards home caregiving.

Some research suggests that while health care job growth is generally seen as positive, it does not always translate to economic benefits. An increase in administrative roles within health care can drive up costs without significantly improving patient outcomes. Nevertheless, health care jobs are often viewed as stable and recession-proof, making the sector the top employer in most states. Despite the growth, many areas still face a critical shortage of health care workers to meet rising demand.

Several economists have expressed concern that recent federal policy changes regarding immigration and Medicaid could hinder job growth in the health care sector.

“Health care as an industry is pretty reliant on immigrant labor,” noted Allison Shrivastava, an economist with the Indeed Hiring Lab. “It has a large share of non-native labor, so it’s going to be impacted more.”

According to 2023 Census Bureau data, approximately 18% of Americans employed in health care were born abroad. Around 5% of health care workers are non-citizens, which includes about 60,000 doctors and surgeons, 117,000 registered nurses, and 155,000 home health or personal care aides. While many of these workers are in the U.S. legally, the Census Bureau does not track how many non-citizens have authorization to live and work in the country. Nonetheless, even those with legal status may face deportation risks, as the federal government deported around 200,000 individuals from February to August, marking a significant increase from previous months.

Moreover, the perception of hostility towards immigrants may deter potential health care workers from studying or relocating to the U.S. Data from the State Department indicates that the number of immigrant visas issued from March to May fell by approximately 23,000, or 14%, compared to the same period last year. Additionally, attempts to cross the border without authorization have reportedly decreased.

Despite these challenges, Shrivastava mentioned that Indeed’s job posting data indicates a continued strong demand for doctors, particularly among employers willing to assist with visa sponsorship. However, it remains uncertain whether prospective workers will accept these offers.

This summer, Congress passed what Republicans termed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which President Trump quickly signed into law. This legislation includes approximately $910 billion in cuts to federal Medicaid spending over the next decade, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation based on data from the Congressional Budget Office.

The reductions in Medicaid are expected to leave millions without health insurance in the coming years. Consequently, hospitals, nursing homes, and community health centers may have to absorb more costs associated with treating uninsured patients, potentially leading to service reductions or closures.

California alone could see up to 217,000 job losses, with two-thirds of those in the health care sector, according to an analysis conducted by the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center prior to the bill’s finalization.

“It doesn’t mean necessarily that 200,000 people are going to lose their jobs,” said Miranda Dietz, interim director of the Health Care Program at the Labor Center. “Some people will lose their jobs, and in some cases, job growth won’t be as fast as anticipated.”

Adding to the complexity, Trump recently dismissed the official who oversaw the Labor Department’s statistical branch, raising concerns about the potential political influence on job data.

While it is unclear when or if the immigration actions and Medicaid cuts will impact hiring in the health care sector, there are early signs of a potential slowdown. Federal data revealed a significant decline in job openings in the health care and social assistance sector in July. Additionally, Indeed’s job posting data indicates a decline in certain health care fields, although Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at the Indeed Hiring Lab, noted that overall postings remain above pre-pandemic levels.

For the time being, job growth is expected to remain strong, particularly among nurse practitioners, physician assistants, and home health aides, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics projections.

Many health care jobs require extensive education but offer high salaries, with family physicians earning over $240,000 annually and registered nurses making approximately $94,000 per year.

Joshua Lejano, president of the Sacramento State chapter of the California Nursing Students’ Association, expressed cautious optimism about securing a job as a registered nurse upon graduation in December. He is currently completing nursing clinical rotations that provide essential real-world experience for long shifts.

Lejano noted that hospitals in his area are expanding capacity, while some veteran nurses are exiting the profession due to burnout from the COVID-19 pandemic, creating new openings. “Right now, I think the big thing is just staying on top of all the application cycles,” he said.

Health care jobs that require less training tend to offer lower pay. The median annual earnings for approximately 4.4 million home health and personal care aides were about $35,000 last year, comparable to the earnings of waitstaff, according to federal data.

The growth in health care jobs has been particularly advantageous for women, with nearly 80% of health care and social assistance workers being female, as highlighted in a recent Indeed study. This research found that female workers accounted for over a million new health care jobs in the past two years.

According to Shrivastava, the health care sector remains resilient because Americans generally do not view health care as a luxury. They continue to pay for it during both prosperous and challenging times. Health insurance costs are projected to experience their largest increase in at least five years, and health care spending often focuses on older adults, a demographic that is rapidly growing as baby boomers age. The number of Americans aged 65 and older increased from 34 million in 1995 to 61 million in 2024.

“So many of these health care jobs are to support the growing population of older Americans,” Ullrich said. “It’s not surprising that we’re seeing growth there. But I think what is surprising is how lopsided it is.”

Source: Original article

H-1B Fees Impact Universities: 25 Schools Face Financial Risks

The implementation of a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas could significantly impact universities, prompting advisories and concerns about the future of international faculty recruitment.

The recent announcement of a $100,000 fee for new H-1B visas is poised to create challenges for universities across the United States. While the fee is not scheduled to take effect until March 2026, coinciding with the annual lottery for approximately 85,000 new H-1B visas, its implications are already being felt in academic institutions.

Jeremy Neufeld, director of immigration policy at the nonpartisan Institute for Progress, emphasizes that universities may be among the first to experience the fallout from this policy. Unlike private companies, universities and certain nonprofit organizations are currently exempt from the lottery system, allowing them to apply for H-1B visas year-round. However, they are not exempt from the new fee, which represents a significant financial burden. “The universities are on the frontlines and this is just a pure tax on their pipeline,” Neufeld stated.

Previously, H-1B fees ranged from $2,000 to $5,000, depending on the size of the employer, according to the American Immigration Council. The steep increase to $100,000 raises concerns about the ability of universities to attract and retain international talent, particularly as the Trump administration’s recent measures also propose changes to the visa lottery system that would favor older, higher-paid workers. This shift could hinder the prospects of international students earning advanced degrees in the U.S., who traditionally have relied on H-1B visas to remain in the country after graduation.

In response to the uncertainty surrounding the new visa rules, the University of Southern California (USC) has issued a travel advisory for faculty and staff on H-1B visas. The advisory recommends postponing international travel until further guidance is provided. The university’s student newspaper reported that faculty currently abroad are encouraged to return to the United States before the new regulations take effect.

“Out of an abundance of caution, all faculty and staff in H-1B status currently in the U.S. should put international travel plans on hold until they receive further guidance,” the advisory stated. “If possible, any faculty and staff in H-1B status who are currently outside the U.S. are strongly recommended to return to the U.S. before the proclamation takes effect.”

Aisling Kelliher, an associate professor in cinematic arts at USC, highlighted the importance of the American education system’s international reputation. “It’s a huge opportunity, both to come here as an immigrant and to receive an education, and then also to be able to continue as a researcher and as a teacher within the system that you’ve learned from,” she remarked.

The impact of the Trump administration’s policies on foreign student enrollment is already evident. Data from the U.S. International Trade Administration indicates that international student arrivals (excluding those from Canada and Mexico) decreased by 19% in August 2025 compared to the previous year, totaling 307,419. Similarly, July arrivals fell by 28% to 76,519. Forbes immigration senior contributor Stuart Anderson noted that some of this decline may be attributed to already enrolled students opting not to return home for the summer, as many universities advised them to remain in the U.S. to avoid potential reentry issues.

According to data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the 25 universities that received the most H-1B visas in the first nine months of Fiscal Year 2025 included Stanford University, which granted 500 visas during this period. Notably, 36% of its graduate students are international. Washington University in St. Louis and Columbia University in New York City reported that nearly half of their graduate students (46%) are from abroad.

In light of the new fee, a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the $100,000 charge. The plaintiffs include the American Association of University Professors, unions representing graduate students and medical residents, a church and its pastor, the recruiting firm Global Nurse Force, and an Indian postdoctoral researcher who lost her H-1B sponsorship due to the fee.

The lawsuit argues that the fee disproportionately affects workers already in the U.S. on other visas, such as F-1 student visas, who are seeking to transition to H-1B status. Even if the courts ultimately block the fee or grant exemptions for universities and nonprofits, the broader implications of the H-1B measures could still deter international faculty recruitment.

Additionally, proposed changes to student visas may restrict some graduate students from pursuing postdoctoral positions in the U.S. through Optional Practical Training (OPT). This program allows STEM graduates from abroad to work for up to three years, helping them build professional networks and transition into H-1B roles sponsored by universities or private employers.

The evolving landscape of immigration policy continues to raise concerns among academic institutions, as they navigate the challenges posed by new fees and regulations that could significantly alter the recruitment of international talent.

Source: Original article

Axel, DACA Recipient, Works to Safeguard His Community

Axel Herrera, a DACA recipient in North Carolina, faces uncertainty as local police checkpoints increase, impacting his community and prompting him to pursue further education at Yale.

Since the election of President Trump, Axel Herrera has witnessed a troubling rise in local police traffic checkpoints throughout his North Carolina community. As a DACA recipient, Axel enjoys legal protection from deportation, yet he has seen friends and family members detained or deported following random traffic stops. This has left many undocumented individuals in his community living in a state of constant fear. “It’s creating a hostile environment,” Axel states. “It’s pretty clear what the government is trying to do.”

At 27 years old, Axel has lived in North Carolina since he was seven, when his family fled Honduras in search of a better life. Achieving DACA status felt like the realization of his family’s dreams. He earned a scholarship to Duke University, becoming the first in his family to attend college, and graduated with multiple awards, including a prestigious Congressional internship.

Following his graduation, Axel took on the role of civic engagement director for Mi Familia en Acción, a nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting Hispanic communities. Over the past few years, he has focused on registering citizens to vote, creating youth programs, and mentoring immigrants as they pursue educational and professional opportunities. “All I ever wanted was to belong, and to give something back,” he reflects.

However, the current political climate has posed significant challenges. Ongoing legal battles surrounding DACA’s validity threaten Axel’s protection from deportation. He must renew his DACA status and employment authorization every two years. Although he was able to process his paperwork just before Trump took office, he remains uncertain about the future of his status when it expires in 2026. He is aware that some Dreamers are struggling to get their applications processed, and the Trump administration has already deported at least one DACA recipient under the claim of an outstanding deportation order. “Right now, everything is up in the air,” Axel admits. “I’m very concerned about the future.”

One potential outcome is that courts may uphold DACA but revoke the work authorization for its recipients. Due to this uncertainty, Axel has decided to leave his hard-earned job and return to school. This fall, he will relocate to Yale, where he has secured a scholarship to study business and public policy. “It’s a great opportunity, but also a hedge against losing my status,” he explains. “If I lose my work authorization, then being a student might buy me some time and let me find a different path forward.”

Despite his current protections, Axel feels conflicted about leaving his community. Many of his friends and neighbors are constantly communicating via WhatsApp, assessing police conditions whenever they leave their homes. He knows numerous young Venezuelans whose humanitarian parole has recently been revoked, rendering them unable to work or study. In the past six months, he has witnessed families torn apart by raids and deportations, or those too fearful of ICE to attend school. “I speak all the time with young people whose whole future is on the chopping block,” Axel shares.

Yet, despite his protections, Axel senses a looming threat that conditions could deteriorate rapidly. Under Trump, anti-immigrant sentiment and policies have become more entrenched. He is particularly concerned about the long-term implications of a new state law mandating that sheriffs cooperate with ICE. Axel fears for his and his family’s future, stating, “After 20 years, we’re barely scratching the surface of dealing with our status issues. It never ends—and the Trump administration is rolling back so much of the progress we’ve made.”

Source: Original article

Deaths and Disappearances in U.S. Immigration Detention Spark Concerns

Immigrant advocates are raising alarms over a humanitarian crisis in U.S. detention centers, citing alarming statistics of deaths, disappearances, and the treatment of asylum seekers.

A crisis is unfolding within U.S. immigration detention centers, with reports indicating that fifteen individuals have died and more than 1,200 are currently unaccounted for. Nearly 60,000 detainees are held behind barbed wire, according to advocates who spoke at an October 3 briefing hosted by American Community Media. They warned that the existing infrastructure may be on the brink of collapse.

The event featured a panel of lawyers and human rights experts who emphasized that the combination of a record number of detainees, along with a lack of transparency and neglect, is contributing to a growing humanitarian crisis. “This is a crisis,” said moderator Pilar Marrero. “And it is happening with diminishing transparency.”

One of the most concerning situations is at the Everglades detention center in Florida, often referred to as “Alligator Alcatraz.” Here, families and attorneys report that over 1,200 detainees cannot be located, raising serious concerns about their well-being.

Nationwide, the number of detainees has surged to nearly 60,000, the highest figure on record, with most individuals having not been convicted of any crime. This alarming trend has drawn attention to the plight of asylum seekers, who often find themselves treated as criminals.

Heather Hogan, Policy and Practice Counsel for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, shared her experiences as an asylum officer within detention centers. She described how asylum seekers are routinely subjected to harsh treatment, often waking up at 3:30 or 4:00 a.m. for interviews that could determine their futures. “By the time I interviewed them, they were exhausted and hungry,” she recounted. “These were life-altering interviews, but people had nothing left.”

Hogan recalled instances where asylum seekers arrived in shackles and orange jumpsuits, lined up in holding cells. Guards referred to them as “bodies,” and she described an incident where a man needed to use the restroom during an interview but was mocked by a guard for not locating it quickly enough. “That kind of behavior was common,” she noted.

She also highlighted the severe impact of prolonged detention on individuals already fleeing violence, stating that those at risk of suicide or LGBTQ detainees are often placed in solitary confinement, a practice that the United Nations has classified as torture. Hogan recounted the tragic suicide of a young asylum seeker in Arizona, who took her life shortly after expressing credible fears during her interview. “The safeguards just aren’t there,” she lamented.

Andrew Free, an Atlanta-based lawyer and founder of the project #DetentionKills, revealed that 22 individuals died in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody in 2025, marking the second-highest total on record. “Most of the deaths were in Florida, particularly at the Krome Detention Center,” Free stated.

He raised concerns about the accuracy of the official death toll, noting that his investigations uncovered five deaths that had not been publicly reported. “What is the true number of people dying in ICE custody?” he questioned. “I don’t know. And I don’t think anybody does.”

Free now tracks detention deaths for journalists and researchers, emphasizing that lawsuits and investigative reporting are the only reliable means to compel disclosure. “The reason we know anything about deaths in custody is because people sued,” he explained. “And reporters kept digging.”

Yannick Gill, Senior Counsel for Refugee Advocacy at Human Rights First, echoed concerns about the erosion of transparency in the detention system. He cited instances where members of Congress have been denied entry to detention centers, calling such actions unconstitutional. “It should make us stop and ask: What exactly is ICE hiding behind those walls?” he questioned.

Gill also discussed the existence of “shadow sites”—facilities not included in ICE’s public reports—where detainees often disappear from official tracking systems, leading to what he termed “enforced disappearances.” “People are simply off the grid,” he stated. “That is unacceptable in a democracy.”

Advocates argue that the harsh conditions within detention centers are not merely the result of poor management but are indicative of a deliberate strategy. “The cruelty is the point,” Hogan asserted. “Separating people from their families, traumatizing them, making conditions unbearable—that is the government’s approach now. The goal is to get people to give up their asylum claims.”

Hogan proposed that community-based case management could serve as a more humane alternative to detention, asserting that it should be rare and only used when absolutely necessary. “Instead, it has become the default,” she said.

Free added that while lawsuits may be imperfect, they can still yield significant results. He noted that during the pandemic, litigation led to the release of tens of thousands of individuals from detention, many of whom would not have survived COVID-19 if they had remained incarcerated. “Many of those people would not have survived COVID inside,” he said.

Gill emphasized the need for restored oversight, stating that Congress has the constitutional authority to enter detention centers. “Blocking that authority undermines democracy itself,” he warned.

“Immigration detention is supposed to be civil,” Free remarked. “That’s the fiction. In reality, it is indistinguishable from prison.” He concluded by stating, “This is not just about law. It’s about justice. And right now, people are dying without either.”

Source: Original article

Congressman Frank Pallone Calls for U.S.-India Talks on H-1B Visa Issues

Congressman Frank Pallone has called for early U.S.-India discussions in light of recent turmoil surrounding H-1B visa policy changes that could significantly impact skilled workers and the technology sector.

The Global Organization of People of Indian Origin (GOPIO) hosted a special webinar titled “H-1B Visa Storm: Current Challenges and Pathways Forward” on October 4, 2025. The event brought together immigration attorneys, policy experts, and community leaders to discuss the implications of recent changes to U.S. visa policies.

This webinar was organized in response to growing confusion and concern following President Donald Trump’s announcement on September 19, which introduced a $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. This fee is nearly 67 times higher than the current cost, leaving thousands of Indian professionals and U.S. employers uncertain about their futures.

Sunil Vuppala, GOPIO Associate Secretary and Webinar Chair, welcomed participants and highlighted the urgent need for clarity amid widespread misinformation. GOPIO Chairman Dr. Thomas Abraham expressed disappointment over the administration’s response to concerns raised by the organization. He emphasized that the H-1B program generates over $200 billion annually for the U.S. economy, while costs amount to only $8.5 billion.

Dr. Abraham remarked, “The U.S. technology sector thrives because of the H-1B visa program. There’s a clear link between H-1B professionals and American innovation.”

The panel discussion was moderated by New York Immigration Attorney Dilli Batta and featured experts such as David Nachman from NPZ Law Group in New Jersey, Stephanie Dy from Parikh Law Group in Chicago, and Prashanti Reddy from Reddy Law Firm in New York.

Attorney David Nachman described the new policy as a “torrential storm” for skilled workers, outlining three critical changes. First, the massive fee increase primarily affects first-time H-1B applicants outside the U.S., excluding renewals or extensions. Experts warned that this could deter global talent from seeking opportunities in the United States.

Second, proposed reforms would prioritize higher-paying jobs in the H-1B lottery system, which could disadvantage small and mid-sized firms and undermine merit-based selection. Third, enhanced compliance checks will lead to increased site visits and audits, tightening scrutiny on employers and raising operational challenges.

Attorney Prashanti Reddy noted that while renewals and amendments remain unaffected, the new policy could harm applicants in research and technology sectors. Stephanie Dy added that stricter qualification standards could make it more challenging for small firms to recruit top talent, particularly those without advanced degrees.

The panelists collectively warned that the U.S. risks losing its competitive edge in innovation if it continues to discourage skilled immigrants.

Congressman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), who served as the Chief Guest, criticized the administration’s approach, labeling it “short-sighted and counterproductive.” He argued that instead of imposing exorbitant fees, the government should focus on training domestic talent and fostering international collaboration.

Pallone stated, “This policy shifts focus from developing local skills to simply generating revenue,” stressing that small businesses and startups would be hit hardest. He cautioned that other nations, such as Germany and China, are actively courting global professionals, potentially diverting talent away from the U.S.

The Congressman also underscored the strategic implications of alienating India, noting that India’s growing ties with Russia and China could complicate U.S. foreign policy. He urged both nations to initiate early bilateral dialogue to “remove current hiccups” and strengthen their long-standing ties.

Pallone reaffirmed bipartisan support in Congress for maintaining the H-1B program and encouraged organizations like GOPIO to continue engaging lawmakers. “Community participation and policy dialogue are vital to ensure America remains open to innovation and global expertise,” he added.

The session concluded with a vote of thanks from GOPIO General Secretary Siddharth Jain, with technical coordination provided by Vatsala Upadhyay, CEO of AI Junoon. GOPIO announced plans for continued engagement with congressional leaders on immigration and diaspora issues.

Founded in 1989, GOPIO is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with chapters in over 36 countries. It works to build bridges between the global Indian diaspora and local communities through cultural, civic, and humanitarian initiatives.

Source: Original article

Kaelyn Faces Debt to Prevent Partner’s Deportation to El Salvador

Kaelyn’s unexpected romance with Yapa, an asylum seeker from Venezuela, has turned into a desperate fight against his deportation, leading her into significant debt for legal support.

Last summer, Kaelyn found herself at a Latin club in Wilmington, North Carolina, when a charming stranger asked her to dance. Initially reluctant, she was drawn in by his genuine demeanor. “If anyone else had asked, I would’ve said no, but Yapa is so genuine,” she recalls, using a pseudonym to protect his identity. What began as a dance blossomed into a deep friendship and romance, but it would soon lead to a desperate battle for Yapa’s freedom.

Yapa, who fled violence in Venezuela in 2022, was an asylum seeker with a legal work permit. He attended regular court hearings and worked as a delivery driver, aspiring to obtain his commercial trucking license. As their relationship grew, Kaelyn became an integral part of his life.

They celebrated Thanksgiving together, with Yapa bonding with Kaelyn’s family, even playing pool with her father. Her affection for him was evident as his sisters affectionately called her “reina,” a term of endearment meaning queen. They spent their time watching movies and overcoming language barriers with translation apps and Kaelyn’s college Spanish. Each morning, Yapa would text her to ask about her day, solidifying their connection.

Before meeting Yapa, Kaelyn rarely considered immigration policy. Originally from Connecticut, she had relocated to Wilmington for work in film location scouting. However, the political climate shifted dramatically after President Trump’s election, which sparked her concerns about the treatment of asylum seekers.

“People would tell me, ‘Oh, you’re overreacting,’” she says. “This isn’t 1930s Germany. And I’d say, ‘Yeah, but it’s starting to feel that way.’ Looking back now, while people were telling me I was being dramatic, I was actually underreacting.”

On February 22, 2025, Kaelyn’s worst fears materialized when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrived unexpectedly in the early morning hours while Yapa was preparing for work. Without explanation, they handcuffed him, confiscating his ID and work permit—documents that have not been returned. They provided no information about his destination, only that he was being deported.

Kaelyn was devastated when Yapa’s sister called to inform her of his detention. Just the night before, Yapa had stayed with her, and she had hoped to keep him close as a U.S. citizen, believing she could better advocate for his rights. “I couldn’t explain it, but I was so emotional,” she recalls of their final night together. “And he told me, ‘There’s no reason for them to take me.’” Now, they faced an urgent need to act to save him.

Yapa was transported to Georgia’s Stewart Detention Center, where he faced allegations of gang affiliation with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) during a hearing two months later. “Shocking is not even the word,” Kaelyn says, recalling her reaction. “I was shaking.”

In a recent court filing, ICE admitted it has no evidence linking Yapa to any gang. However, a ruling from the Trump administration complicates the situation for immigrants like Yapa, who entered the country recently and are now struggling to secure their release from detention. Yapa could remain incarcerated for up to a year while his asylum case is pending, facing the grim possibility of deportation to a dangerous environment.

Kaelyn’s fear of the allegations against Yapa was palpable, knowing that if he were deported, he could end up in CECOT, a notorious prison in El Salvador known for its brutality. “I thought, I’m going to have to live the rest of my life knowing he’s in there, and there’s nothing that we can do to get him out of there,” she reflects. The thought of Yapa, along with many other innocent individuals, being imprisoned in what some describe as a modern-day concentration camp is an “atrocity,” she asserts.

The emotional and financial toll on Kaelyn has been immense. She has hired multiple attorneys to advocate for Yapa and has incurred significant debt due to legal fees. Meanwhile, Yapa is held nearly nine hours away from Wilmington, with limited access to phone communication. In April, attorneys from the American Immigration Council and the ACLU took on part of Yapa’s case pro bono. By May, they secured a ruling that prevents the Trump administration from deporting Yapa to CECOT or elsewhere based on the Alien Enemies Act without allowing him a fair chance to contest the TdA allegations. While this decision brought some relief, Kaelyn’s life has been drastically altered.

Conversations with her sister now revolve primarily around updates on Yapa’s case and the latest developments in immigration policy. “We can’t be happy when there’s literally a member of our family who’s been taken from us,” she says. “I’ll never let this go. The administration thinks they’re sowing fear—but they’re creating activists. You can’t destroy someone’s life and expect us to stay quiet.”

Source: Original article

Beatriz: Immigrant Lawyer Advocating for Noncitizen Children’s Rights

Beatriz, a Venezuelan-American lawyer, faces challenges in advocating for unaccompanied minors amid changing immigration policies and a climate of fear affecting her community.

In February 2025, Beatriz, a Venezuelan-American lawyer, received an unexpected order from the Interior Department directing her nonprofit organization to cease all operations. Beatriz specializes in representing unaccompanied minors—children navigating immigration proceedings without their parents. These vulnerable youngsters often find themselves living with relatives, placed in foster care, or detained in facilities, facing a daunting system alone.

Beatriz’s own journey began when she immigrated to the United States at the age of eight, fleeing violence and political persecution in Venezuela. Having witnessed her parents struggle through numerous meetings with immigration lawyers, she decided to pursue a legal career to help others in similar situations. “I know how terrifying it is to be a child, alone and unable to speak English, trying to deal with authority figures,” Beatriz reflects. “That’s why I became a lawyer, to bring some empathy to that process.” Today, she is a U.S. citizen dedicated to advocating for those who are not.

The abrupt stop-work order disrupted Beatriz’s efforts to assist these children. “It came completely out of the blue—suddenly, everything changed,” she recalls. The order led to the cancellation of federal contracts, forcing organizations like hers to reduce staff and resources. “For those of us left, it was all hands on deck,” Beatriz explains, highlighting the urgency of their mission.

Although the stop-work order was eventually rescinded, the legal battles surrounding the canceled contracts continue. The immediate impact, however, has been severe. “In practical terms, it left children without anybody to advocate for them,” Beatriz states. During this period, she and her colleagues attended numerous hearings to observe and take notes. In one particularly heartbreaking instance, Beatriz witnessed a confused six-year-old appear in court without any legal representation. “These young children are being brought to immigration hearings—speaking no English, and without a lawyer—to try to explain why they shouldn’t be deported,” she laments.

The situation has been exacerbated by the use of “rocket dockets” in immigration courts, which cram multiple hearings into a single day. “They started fast-tracking kids through the system at a time when we weren’t able to accompany them,” Beatriz says, expressing her concern over the increasing challenges faced by unaccompanied minors.

Beatriz has also observed the chaos that ensues when caregivers are detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Some of her young clients have been placed in detention or foster care, while the government has sometimes refused to disclose the whereabouts of their caregivers. “It’s something none of my superiors—including people who worked during Trump’s first term—have ever experienced before,” she notes, highlighting the unprecedented nature of the current climate.

As a result, Beatriz frequently encounters children who are afraid to attend school or even leave their homes. “So much of my job is now simply dealing with anxious kids,” she says. “Pretty much every one of these children has a deep sense that the U.S. is no longer a safe place for them.”

This pervasive fear extends beyond the children to Beatriz’s entire community. Even before the Trump administration canceled Temporary Protected Status for approximately 350,000 Venezuelans, her WhatsApp groups were filled with messages from individuals whose loved ones had disappeared from their neighborhoods. “I have friends who are scared to step onto the street,” she shares. “The demonization of my culture and my community is really hurtful, and really harmful.”

With discussions around denaturalizing or deporting U.S. citizens to foreign prisons and eliminating due process for migrants, Beatriz worries for the safety of her own family, all of whom are now American citizens. “We worked hard to get citizenship, but there’s a real fear that even that won’t protect us,” she says. “For Venezuelans, the feelings of insecurity are always present. It really weighs heavily on us.”

Beatriz’s commitment to her work remains steadfast, even in the face of adversity. She continues to advocate for unaccompanied minors, striving to ensure that these children receive the legal representation and support they desperately need.

Source: Original article

Grandmother Deported to India After Three Decades in the U.S.

A Sikh grandmother who lived in the U.S. for over 30 years was deported to India after enduring harsh conditions in an ICE detention center, raising concerns about the treatment of vulnerable immigrants.

A Sikh grandmother, Harjit Kaur, who had resided in the United States for more than three decades, was deported to New Delhi, India, on September 23. Her deportation followed a week spent in what her attorney described as “barbaric” conditions at a private Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Georgia.

“There was no rationale to detain Bibi Harjit Kaur,” said Deepak Ahluwalia, Kaur’s attorney, in an interview with American Community Media on September 24. “It’s all part of their effort to fill beds.”

Ahluwalia expressed deep concern over Kaur’s treatment, emphasizing her age and health issues. “Her detention was nothing short of barbaric,” he stated. “That type of treatment would affect most people. They chose to do this to a 73-year-old woman with disabilities and health issues.”

Kaur was initially detained at an ICE facility in Bakersfield, California, before being transferred to the Stewart Detention Center in Lumpkin, Georgia, without any notification to her family or attorney.

During her time in detention, Kaur faced numerous challenges. According to Ahluwalia, she was denied water to take her medications and was instead given a plate of ice, which she could not consume due to her dentures. In Lumpkin, she was forced to sleep on the floor in a crowded facility, which was particularly difficult for her given her recent knee surgeries. Additionally, as a strict vegetarian, Kaur was provided meat-based meals for the first six days of her detention. She also experienced multiple instances of being handcuffed during transfers.

The Stewart Detention Center is a private facility operated by CoreCivic, a company that has faced scrutiny for its treatment of detainees.

Kaur, a seamstress who worked at the Berkeley Sari Palace for over 20 years, initially sought asylum in the U.S. in 1991 after the death of her husband. Her asylum claim was based on a credible fear of persecution in India, particularly in the wake of the anti-Sikh riots that followed the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi in 1984. This tragic event led to the deaths of thousands of Sikhs and has been described by many international civil rights organizations as a genocide.

In 2023, California State Assemblywoman Jasmeet Bains introduced AJR2 to recognize the 1984 anti-Sikh riots as genocide. The resolution passed both the state Assembly and Senate without requiring the governor’s signature. A similar measure was introduced in Congress last October by Rep. David Valadao, R-California.

Kaur’s asylum case was denied twice, with the last denial occurring in 2013 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. After her asylum claim was rejected, she needed travel documents to return to India but had not received the necessary paperwork when she was arrested by ICE on September 8 during a routine check-in at the ICE office in San Francisco. Kaur had consistently complied with immigration authorities, making the required check-ins every six months for the past 12 years.

Her family was unable to sponsor her for permanent residency due to her undocumented status. Ahluwalia explained that an undocumented resident’s family cannot apply for sponsorship while the individual is still in the U.S. Kaur would have needed to return to India to obtain a family-based visa, which was complicated by her lack of travel documents.

In a statement released last week, Kaur’s family expressed their dismay, stating, “Harjit’s case represents a failure of our immigration system. She has been a contributing member of her community for decades, paying taxes, working legally, and building relationships with neighbors and friends. Her detention is not only cruel but unnecessary.”

They further noted, “She has never refused to return to India but cannot without documents.”

Dr. K. Srikar Reddy, the Consul General of India in San Francisco, commented on the situation, stating that it is ICE’s responsibility to request travel documents for individuals being deported. He noted that no such request had been made in the 12 years since Kaur’s asylum claim was rejected.

“Once ICE requests travel documents, it usually takes just a couple of days for us to issue them,” Reddy explained. “But Mrs. Kaur had migrated more than 30 years ago, so we had no information about her. We had to connect with Indian authorities, which took some time.”

When asked whether Kaur might face persecution upon her return to India, Reddy stated, “She was denied by the highest appeals court. That clearly shows that her fears of persecution were unfounded.”

In a statement to NBC News, ICE defended its actions, asserting that Kaur had exhausted all legal remedies several years ago. “ICE is enforcing U.S. law and the orders by the judge; she will not waste any more U.S. tax dollars,” the statement read.

According to the Pew Research Center, India was the fifth largest source of unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. as of 2022-2023, following Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Reddy noted a slight increase in requests for travel documents over the past seven months.

Estimates suggest that approximately 1.5 million undocumented individuals over the age of 55 reside in the United States. However, ICE does not provide age-specific data on deportations.

Source: Original article

Legal Challenge Emerges Against $100,000 Fee on H-1B Visas

The first legal challenge against President Trump’s $100,000 fee on H-1B visas has been filed, with critics arguing it could devastate key sectors and exceed presidential authority.

A coalition of unions, employers, religious organizations, and healthcare providers has initiated the first federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s controversial $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions. The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco, asserts that the Trump administration has overstepped its constitutional authority, as only Congress has the power to impose taxes or fees.

Trump announced the unprecedented policy on September 19, claiming that the H-1B program, which allows tens of thousands of high-skilled foreign workers to enter the United States each year, had been “deliberately exploited” to replace American workers with lower-paid labor. The new fee is set to take effect just 36 hours after the announcement, prompting panic among employers who rushed to secure workers before the rules changed.

The proclamation mandates that employers pay an additional $100,000 for each new H-1B hire, in addition to existing fees that typically range from $2,000 to $5,000. Notably, this fee does not apply to current H-1B holders or to petitions filed before September 21.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the United Auto Workers union, the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), healthcare providers, and various religious groups. They argue that Trump’s actions have effectively disrupted a program established by Congress, creating chaos for employers, workers, and federal agencies alike. They contend that the proclamation must be blocked to prevent widespread harm.

“Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators,” stated the Democracy Forward Foundation and Justice Action Center, which are representing the plaintiffs in a joint press release.

The H-1B visa program, introduced by Congress in 1992, permits U.S. employers to hire temporary foreign workers in specialized fields such as technology, medicine, engineering, and education. Each year, the program issues 65,000 visas, with an additional 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees. Due to high demand, visas are typically allocated by lottery.

This lawsuit highlights the extensive impact of the H-1B program beyond the technology sector. According to the plaintiffs, approximately one-third of H-1B visa holders are employed as nurses, physicians, teachers, scholars, and clergy. Hospitals and universities have expressed concerns that the new fee could severely hinder their staffing capabilities, while religious organizations fear it may impede their ability to recruit clergy.

“The $100,000 fee will discourage the best and brightest minds from bringing life-saving research to the U.S.,” remarked Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP, in comments reported by the Associated Press.

Business leaders have echoed these sentiments. Amazon, which received over 10,000 H-1B visas this year, is among the largest beneficiaries, followed by Tata Consultancy, Microsoft, Apple, and Google. California, home to many of these companies, employs the highest number of H-1B workers in the nation. For these businesses, the new fee could translate into tens of millions of dollars in additional costs, not to mention the potential chilling effect on talent mobility.

The Trump administration defends the fee as a necessary measure to curb abuse of the H-1B program and to protect American jobs. Trump has argued that the influx of lower-wage workers has undermined the program’s integrity and poses a threat to national security by discouraging Americans from pursuing careers in science and technology.

Supporters of the fee assert that some outsourcing firms exploit the H-1B program to import workers at salaries as low as $60,000, which is significantly below the typical six-figure compensation for U.S. tech jobs.

The lawsuit raises a critical constitutional question: Can a president unilaterally impose new fees on a visa program established by Congress? The plaintiffs assert that the answer is no, emphasizing that the Constitution reserves the authority to levy taxes or fees for Congress alone.

The proclamation effectively transforms the H-1B program into one where employers must either “pay to play” or seek a “national interest” exemption, which would be granted at the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security. This system raises concerns about selective enforcement and potential corruption, according to the lawsuit.

Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, described the “exorbitant fee” as illegal and a potential invitation for corruption. “Congress created the program, and Trump cannot rewrite it overnight or impose new taxes by executive order,” she stated, as reported by the Associated Press.

The lawsuit also critiques the administration for failing to adhere to the required rulemaking process, alleging that agencies such as USCIS and the State Department implemented policies without proper notice or consideration of their impact on employers and innovation.

India is the largest beneficiary of the H-1B program, with Indian nationals accounting for 71 percent of approved visas last year, while China received 11.7 percent, according to government data. The steep new fee is expected to disproportionately affect Indian professionals, potentially straining U.S.-India relations at a time when Washington seeks to strengthen ties with New Delhi.

The plaintiffs are seeking an immediate injunction to halt the enforcement of the fee. A federal judge in San Francisco is expected to hear arguments in the coming weeks. Meanwhile, uncertainty looms as employers remain unsure whether to proceed with petitions and workers find themselves in limbo.

If the court rules against the administration, it would represent a significant rebuke of Trump’s expansive claims of executive authority over immigration. Conversely, if the order is upheld, it could permanently alter one of America’s most vital pathways for high-skilled immigration, with far-reaching implications for the economy, education, healthcare, and international diplomacy.

For now, this lawsuit marks the first but likely not the last challenge to a policy that critics argue threatens to close America’s doors to global talent while entangling employers and workers in costly and confusing regulations.

Source: Original article

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis Poll Reveals Support for Ending H-1B Program

A recent poll by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis reveals significant public support for ending the H-1B visa program, reigniting discussions about U.S. job protection and global competitiveness in technology.

A new poll conducted by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has reignited the debate surrounding the H-1B visa program, revealing strong public support for its elimination. The poll, which was shared on X, found that 62.3% of respondents favored ending the program entirely, while 31.4% supported reforming it. Only 6.3% of those surveyed preferred to maintain the program as it currently stands.

Closing with 49,206 votes and reaching over 638,000 views, the poll has sparked renewed discussions about the future of the H-1B visa program. This program allows U.S. companies to hire foreign workers in specialty occupations, particularly in technology and engineering fields.

DeSantis, who is considered a potential contender for the 2028 presidential election, has been vocal in his criticism of the H-1B visa program. He argues that it negatively impacts job opportunities and wages for American workers. The results of this poll reflect a growing public interest in reforming U.S. immigration policies related to high-skilled labor.

Recently, DeSantis intensified his rhetoric against the H-1B visa program, labeling it a “total scam.” He accuses companies of exploiting the program to import “cheap foreign labor” at the expense of American workers. DeSantis contends that the program is particularly harmful as automation and artificial intelligence are set to displace many white-collar jobs, making the continued importation of foreign workers unjustifiable.

Florida Representative Anthony Sabatini has also called for a complete shutdown of the H-1B visa program, arguing that it is essential for protecting American workers. Critics of the program assert that it has been misused to replace U.S. employees with lower-paid foreign workers.

DeSantis’s remarks have sparked significant controversy, particularly among Indian professionals who make up a substantial portion of H-1B visa holders. Many have pointed out that Indian workers have been integral to the growth and innovation of the U.S. technology sector. The governor’s comments have intensified the ongoing debate regarding the future of the H-1B program and its implications for the U.S. labor market.

The poll conducted by DeSantis underscores the polarizing nature of the H-1B visa program in U.S. public discourse. With nearly two-thirds of respondents favoring a complete end to the program, it is evident that concerns over job security, wage suppression, and the impact of automation resonate strongly with many Americans. This debate highlights the delicate balance between protecting domestic labor interests and maintaining the United States’ global competitiveness in technology and engineering sectors.

Critics of DeSantis’s stance argue that abruptly eliminating H-1B visas could disrupt industries that heavily rely on high-skilled foreign talent, particularly Indian professionals who have long contributed to innovation and growth in Silicon Valley and beyond. Supporters of reform, however, insist that changes or even a complete shutdown are necessary to prevent companies from exploiting the system and to ensure that American workers are not unfairly displaced.

As discussions continue, it is clear that the H-1B visa issue transcends immigration policy, touching on broader questions of economic fairness, technological progress, and national priorities.

Source: Original article

Legal Groups Seek Emergency Order to Prevent ICE from Detaining Immigrant Teens

Advocacy groups have filed an emergency motion to enforce a court ruling preventing the detention of unaccompanied immigrant teens in adult facilities, citing recent violations by ICE.

Washington, D.C., October 4 — The American Immigration Council and the National Immigrant Justice Center (NIJC) have filed an emergency motion today, aiming to enforce a 2021 court ruling from the Garcia Ramirez v. ICE case. This ruling prohibits U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from unlawfully detaining unaccompanied immigrant children in adult detention centers once they reach the age of 18.

The motion comes in response to multiple documented instances where ICE has resumed transferring immigrant children who entered the U.S. alone into adult detention facilities upon turning 18, a practice that violates the permanent injunction established in the Garcia Ramirez case.

“The permanent injunction made clear that ICE cannot automatically transfer young people to adult detention centers simply because they have turned 18,” said Michelle Lapointe, legal director at the American Immigration Council. “Locking up these young people in ICE jails rife with overcrowding and hazardous conditions, and far from their support systems, does nothing to make our communities safer; it only inflicts more harm on vulnerable youth.”

When children under 18 enter the United States unaccompanied, they are typically placed in shelters managed by the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR). These children are generally released to family members or other vetted sponsors in the U.S., rather than being sent to ICE detention centers. This policy is designed to prioritize care and support for children instead of punishment.

According to the Garcia Ramirez ruling, which resulted from years of litigation by the NIJC and the Council, ICE is required to consider placement in the least restrictive setting once these youths turn 18. This includes exploring alternatives to detention rather than resorting to immigration detention.

“ICE’s attempt to expand the detention of immigrant youth is a direct violation of the courts, which explicitly requires the agency to consider safe, less restrictive alternatives to detention,” stated Mark Fleming, associate director of litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. “We will not allow the government to turn back the clock and return to a practice that the courts have already found unlawful.”

The number of individuals in immigration detention has reached unprecedented levels, leading to overcrowding and abusive conditions. Critics argue that the previous administration weaponized the threat of prolonged confinement in these dangerous facilities to coerce individuals into relinquishing their legal rights and accepting deportation. This pressure is further exacerbated by new policies, including financial incentives for unaccompanied youths who agree to leave the country.

“The law is clear: ICE must use safe, less restrictive alternatives, not default to jailing young people indefinitely,” emphasized Marie Silver, managing attorney for NIJC’s Immigrant Children’s Protection Project. “These kids came here seeking safety and hope. They deserve a chance to be free, reunify with family and community members, attend school, and work with their lawyers to have their day in court. Trapping them in dangerous and degrading conditions in immigration detention is compounding their trauma in a cruel and unnecessary way.”

The emergency motion filed today underscores the urgent need to uphold the rights of immigrant youth and ensure compliance with established legal rulings.

Source: Original article

U.S. Government Faces Accountability for Migrant Detentions in El Salvador

After 125 days in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center, two Venezuelan nationals were released, prompting calls for accountability from the U.S. government for their detention and treatment.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Venezuelan nationals Edicson Quintero Chacón and Jose Manuel Ramos Bastidas were released yesterday after spending 125 days in El Salvador’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). Their release came on a U.S.-brokered flight back to Venezuela, alongside approximately 250 other Venezuelans detained at CECOT, a facility criticized for its inhumane conditions.

Counsel for both men expressed relief at their release but underscored the urgent need for accountability regarding their initial detention. The U.S. government transferred the men to CECOT on March 15, 2025, where they were held without charges and incommunicado, in a facility known for mass arbitrary detention and mistreatment.

Both Quintero and Bastidas had previously been ordered removed from the United States. They informed a federal court that they wished to return home to Venezuela, but instead, they were sent to CECOT. The agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador stipulated that the U.S. would send members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA), yet there is no evidence linking either man to the gang. Their return to Venezuela was part of a prisoner swap deal that also involved the release of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents from Venezuela.

A family member of Quintero, who requested anonymity, expressed shock at the sudden news of the flights to Venezuela. “Edicson should never have been sent to CECOT in the first place. No one should. He was treated cruelly and inhumanely when all he wanted was safety,” they said. “This so-called prisoner swap doesn’t undo the injustice he suffered, nor the pain and terror that my family has had to endure in the past several months.”

Roynerliz Rodriguez, the partner of Jose Manuel Ramos Bastidas, shared her relief at his release. “We have been waiting for this moment for months, and I feel like I can finally breathe, knowing that Jose Manuel is now free from CECOT and on his way home,” she said. “His son, whom he hasn’t seen since he was four months old, is eagerly waiting for him. These last months have been a living nightmare.”

Concerns remain regarding the legality and transparency of the U.S. government’s actions. Many individuals sent to CECOT had pending asylum claims and expressed credible fears of returning to Venezuela. Their forced return, without due process to address their asylum requests, raises significant questions about the U.S. government’s compliance with both domestic and international legal obligations.

There has been no public accounting of how individuals were selected for transfer to CECOT, nor has there been a comprehensive list of those detained. The lack of transparency raises further concerns about whether all victims are accounted for.

The practice of outsourcing detention to foreign facilities, particularly those with documented records of systemic abuse, poses serious human rights and due process issues. Critics argue that the U.S. government should not engage in such arrangements or collaborate with regimes that violate human rights. A full investigation into these disappearances is necessary, along with safeguards to prevent similar actions by future administrations.

Rebecca Cassler, a senior litigation attorney at the American Immigration Council, stated, “We are deeply relieved that Mr. Quintero Chacón and Mr. Ramos Bastidas are finally released from CECOT, but this should never have happened in the first place. The U.S. government paid to detain these men in one of the world’s most notorious prisons, then denied responsibility while they suffered.”

CJ Sandley, a senior staff attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights, emphasized the inhumane treatment of the detainees. “The deals made for these Venezuelans’ confinement and transfers treat human beings as bargaining chips and underscore the cruel consequences of criminalizing migration and monetizing torture,” he said. “The U.S. government must stop these abuses and uphold its obligations to protect the rights and dignity of all people.”

Stephanie M. Alvarez-Jones, Southeast Regional Attorney at the National Immigration Project, also expressed her relief at the men’s release. “It is unconscionable that they and 250 other Venezuelan men were sent by the United States to be detained at CECOT and forced to endure suffering,” she said. “While we celebrate their long overdue release, the government must be held accountable for its outrageous actions.”

The American Immigration Council, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and the National Immigration Project represent Mr. Quintero Chacón and Mr. Ramos Bastidas in their habeas corpus proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia, where they have been fighting for their freedom from CECOT.

Source: Original article

SAAJCO Initiates Lawsuit Against $100,000 H-1B Fee for Indian-Americans

Labor unions, healthcare providers, and educational institutions have filed a lawsuit against President Trump’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, claiming it threatens essential services and the economy.

A coalition of labor unions, healthcare providers, educational institutions, and religious organizations has initiated a lawsuit to challenge a recent executive action by President Trump that imposes a $100,000 fee on every new H-1B visa application. Filed on October 3, the lawsuit aims to halt what the plaintiffs describe as an unlawful and detrimental policy that could severely impact the American workforce and economy.

The proclamation, issued on September 19, 2025, and made effective just 36 hours later, has already created confusion among employers, workers, and federal agencies. Kalpana V. Peddibhotla, Executive Director of the South Asian American Justice Collaborative (SAAJCO), emphasized the importance of H-1B workers, stating, “South Asians make up the majority of H-1B workers and are part of the fabric of America, staffing rural hospitals, advancing lifesaving research, and driving innovation in businesses across the country.”

The lawsuit, titled *Global Nurse Force et al v. Trump et al.*, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It argues that the executive order is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. The coalition of plaintiffs includes organizations such as Global Nurse Force, Global Village Academy Collaborative, and the American Association of University Professors, among others.

The H-1B visa program was established by Congress to attract highly skilled professionals from around the world to fill critical roles in the U.S. economy and public services. This program allows U.S. employers to hire qualified foreign talent, including doctors, nurses, engineers, and researchers, after a thorough vetting process.

The coalition’s lawsuit highlights the potential consequences of the new fee, which they argue could lead to significant harm for communities across the nation. Peddibhotla noted that when the government makes it prohibitively expensive for skilled professionals to come to the U.S., entire communities suffer. “Patients wait longer for care, students have fewer teachers, and local economies miss out on the innovation and jobs these experts create,” she said.

The complaint outlines several key arguments against the new fee. It asserts that the fee violates the legislative framework established by Congress, which includes a carefully structured fee and oversight system for the H-1B program. The plaintiffs contend that the President does not have the authority to unilaterally impose such a fee or to create new taxes through executive action.

Additionally, the lawsuit claims that the proclamation invites chaos and favoritism by introducing a vague “national interest” loophole for fee exemptions, which could lead to arbitrary decision-making. The plaintiffs argue that the fee will disproportionately affect rural hospitals, schools, and nonprofit organizations that rely on H-1B workers to fulfill essential roles.

Economists have pointed out that H-1B workers contribute significantly to job creation and innovation in the U.S. economy. The lawsuit warns that forcing skilled talent to seek opportunities abroad could lead to a loss of jobs and innovation within the country. “Without relief, hospitals will lose medical staff, churches will lose pastors, classrooms will lose teachers, and industries across the country risk losing key innovators,” the complaint states.

The coalition is requesting that the court block the implementation of the $100,000 fee and restore predictability for employers and workers. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, expressed concern about the implications of the new policy, stating, “Trump’s restrictions on H-1B visa applications will lead to less lifesaving research, reduced innovation, and diminished competitiveness.”

Dr. Taylor Walker, President of the Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU, added that the fee would have a devastating impact on healthcare, particularly at a time when the U.S. is facing a physician shortage. “The unconscionable fee for H-1B petitions will reduce the number of resident physicians available to provide care,” he said.

Skye Perryman, President and CEO of Democracy Forward, criticized the fee as a tactic to undermine American innovation and essential work. “This exorbitant fee invites corruption and is unlawful, destabilizing, and bad for everyone,” she stated. “H-1B workers keep rural hospitals staffed, bring STEM education to schools with teacher shortages, advance lifesaving medical research, and help small businesses thrive.”

As the lawsuit progresses, the coalition seeks to have the court declare the proclamation unlawful and prevent the government from enforcing the new fee. Peddibhotla remarked, “We are asking the court to block the government from enforcing the $100,000 fee and require agencies to continue processing H-1B petitions under the law that Congress put in place.”

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the future of the H-1B visa program and the broader landscape of immigration policy in the United States.

Source: Original article

Trump’s Second Term Could Bring Major Immigration Overhaul

A recent report reveals that the Trump administration’s immigration policies threaten the foundations of American democracy, marking a significant overhaul in the first six months of his second term.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 23, 2025 — A special report released today provides an in-depth analysis of the Trump administration’s first six months back in office, revealing a dramatic transformation of the U.S. immigration system that undermines the very principles of American democracy. While some voters may have supported a “tougher” stance on immigration during the election, the report indicates that the administration’s extreme measures extend far beyond mere policy changes; they pose a direct threat to the rule of law.

Titled Mass Deportation: Analyzing the Trump Administration’s Attacks on Immigrants, Democracy, and America, the report was published by the American Immigration Council on July 23. It outlines how the administration has launched a radical, multi-faceted assault on immigrants and the immigration framework.

The report details several actions taken by the Trump administration, including restricting entry into the United States, stripping legal protections from those already residing in the country, and escalating enforcement to unprecedented levels. These measures have dismantled long-standing legal safeguards, defied the authority of Congress and the courts, and weaponized government resources against immigrants and dissenters alike.

“This isn’t just a hardline immigration agenda,” said Nayna Gupta, policy director at the American Immigration Council and co-author of the report. “It’s a wholesale effort to use immigrants and the U.S. immigration system to attack core tenets of our democracy and exercise unchecked executive power to realign the American government around exclusion and fear.”

Key findings from the report highlight several alarming trends:

The end of asylum: The report states that asylum at the southern border is effectively non-existent. The administration has shut down the CBP One application without providing an alternative. Asylum-seekers approaching a port of entry are often turned away, and some are detained indefinitely, even after winning their cases.

Demolishing the refugee program: The U.S. Refugee Admissions Program has been indefinitely suspended, with the exception of white South Africans who have been fast-tracked under questionable persecution claims. This has left tens of thousands of approved refugees stranded abroad.

Mass revocation of legal status: Over one million individuals have had their humanitarian parole and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) revoked in just six months, stripping them of work permits and pushing many into undocumented status.

Weaponizing bureaucracy: The report notes that legal immigration pathways are being obstructed by significant fee increases, processing freezes, and opaque barriers, making it nearly impossible for lawful applicants to obtain or maintain their status.

A maelstrom of fear and chaos: The aggressive enforcement tactics employed by the Trump administration have instilled a constant sense of fear among immigrants of all legal statuses. Individuals can be targeted for arrest, detention, and deportation anywhere, including at churches, schools, and courthouses.

A radical reorganization of law enforcement resources: The administration is establishing an unprecedented, cross-agency immigration operation that utilizes manpower from various federal and state law enforcement agencies and the U.S. military, prioritizing immigration enforcement above all other public safety objectives.

Turbocharging an inhumane detention system: The “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” enacted in July, increases the budget for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention by 308 percent annually. This funding boost sets the stage for a radical expansion of a detention system already criticized for its careless and cruel management, which has placed tens of thousands of immigrants in life-threatening conditions.

The report includes powerful firsthand accounts from individuals affected by these policies. Ilia, a nonbinary Russian dissident, won their asylum case in court but remained in detention for over a year without a release date. Axel, a DACA recipient and youth leader, has chosen to abandon his job to return to school amid uncertainty regarding his legal status. Beatriz, an immigrant lawyer advocating for noncitizen children, has encountered cases that resonate with her own journey to the U.S., including a confused six-year-old who appeared in court without representation. Kaelyn is incurring debt to prevent her partner from being deported to El Salvador’s megaprison under the Alien Enemies Act.

The report warns that while some policies may shift in response to legal challenges, the administration’s broader agenda remains clear: to permanently redefine who belongs in America and how power is exercised by the federal government.

“The administration’s policies are reshaping the immigration system in ways that are unfair, unlawful, and out of step with core American values,” said Dara Lind, senior fellow at the Council and co-author of the report. “We’re witnessing real harm to families, communities, and the rule of law, and the public deserves to understand what’s at stake.”

The full report is available for review, and interviews with experts and individuals impacted by these policies can also be arranged.

Source: Original article

Who Is Deported in the United States and Why?

Research reveals that over 96% of deportation orders in the U.S. target individuals from non-white countries, highlighting systemic racial biases in immigration policies.

Who gets deported in the United States? A recent report from the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy, in collaboration with Million Dollar Hoods, sheds light on this pressing issue. The findings indicate a troubling trend: over 96% of deportation orders issued from 1895 to 2022 were directed at individuals from non-white countries.

During a briefing on September 19, hosted by American Community Media, experts involved in the project, titled Mapping Deportations, presented insights into their interactive maps and visualizations. These tools trace the history of deportation policies back to 1895, revealing patterns of racial bias that persist today.

The panel included prominent figures such as Kelly Lytle Hernández, the Thomas E. Lifka Endowed Chair in History at UCLA and founding director of Million Dollar Hoods; Mariah Tso, a G.I.S. Specialist at UCLA; and Ahilan Arulanantham, Faculty Co-Director at the Center for Immigration Law and Policy at UCLA School of Law.

The interactive maps allow users to delve into data by year and region, as well as by categories such as race, country, and enforcement tactics. These visualizations incorporate context-rich quotes from lawmakers, highlighting the racial and ideological biases that underpin immigration policies. Features like racing bar charts and log-scale transformations make complex data more accessible and comprehensible. The website connects historical deportation data to current immigration policies, providing a clearer understanding of long-standing systemic patterns of racial discrimination.

According to Hernández, the website’s foundation lies in three significant forced migrations that shaped modern America: the expulsion of Native nations, the transatlantic slave trade, and contemporary mass deportations. While maps and visualizations exist for the removal of Native nations and the slave trade, there has been a notable absence of data on mass deportation.

“I knew, as a historian, that there had been more than 50 million deportation orders in U.S. history, which is a mind-boggling number, but no one had really scraped the data and created a dynamic map showing over time the patterns of deportation,” Hernández explained.

The goal of the website, according to Arulanantham, is to serve as an educational tool that presents a more honest narrative of immigration law and policy history, telling a rich, contextual story that has often been overlooked.

In collaboration with lead cartographer Mariah Tso, the researchers meticulously mapped every deportation order from 1895 to 2022. Tso noted that the data reveals a consistent pattern: over 96% of deportation orders have targeted predominantly non-white countries, reflecting policies steeped in racism.

The visualizations utilize publicly available data from federal authorities, mapping immigration statistics and deportation orders by country or region. Each dot on the map represents deportation orders, with larger dots indicating higher numbers of orders. Historically, prior to 1934, authorities tracked deportations by race or ethnicity, while post-1934, the focus shifted to nationality.

Notably, Mexico has consistently led in the number of deportation orders since 1916.

Arulanantham, who has dedicated 25 years to challenging federal immigration policies on behalf of immigrants and their rights, expressed concern over the stark racial discrimination evident in immigration policy, even under the Biden administration. He cited the Title 42 program, which excluded individuals from the U.S. based on COVID-19 concerns, applying it harshly to Haitians, Afghans, and Central Americans, while allowing virtually all Ukrainians to enter.

“There’s obvious racial discrimination even now that’s driving who gets to come in and also who gets deported,” Arulanantham stated, referencing quotes from lawmakers across different eras. He highlighted former President Donald Trump’s infamous remark regarding immigrants from Haiti and other countries, questioning, “Why are we having people from shithole countries coming here?”

The historical roots of racial discrimination in immigration laws can be traced back to a 1929 law motivated by eugenic ideologies, which remains influential today.

The website provides a historical overview of deportation data organized into five major eras, illustrating the laws enforced, communities targeted, and changing enforcement priorities. Hernández noted that from 1790 to 1875, during the period of slavery before the Civil War, the U.S. immigration system was designed to maintain a white-dominated republic, targeting free black migrants for exclusion.

From 1876 to 1929, the federal government sought to establish a whites-only immigration regime, excluding and punishing non-white immigrants. Despite these efforts, black and non-white immigration persisted, often relegating individuals to low-wage jobs, thereby reinforcing racial hierarchies.

During the Cold War, Congress continued to uphold the whites-only immigration system. Hernández pointed out that following the 1965 Immigration Act, new laws and Supreme Court rulings perpetuated racism within the immigration system, including the 1975 Brignoni-Ponce decision, which legitimized the use of race in immigration law enforcement.

Since 1991, the U.S. federal government has conducted over 7 million deportations and issued more than 25 million voluntary departure orders, establishing what Hernández describes as the largest immigrant detention and deportation system in the world.

Arulanantham cautioned that the current escalation of U.S. immigration policy echoes sentiments from the 1920s, where fears of “morally contagious” individuals from other countries were prevalent. He noted that racist rhetoric continues to influence public perception, as seen in Trump’s claims about Haitian immigrants and unfounded rumors regarding Venezuelans.

“Racism was baked into the immigration system over time, dating all the way back to the antebellum period, and is yet to be fully purged,” Hernández concluded, emphasizing the need for a critical examination of immigration policies and their historical implications.

Source: Original article

New Report Highlights Impact of Expanded Travel Ban on Indian-Americans

A new report highlights the significant economic and humanitarian impacts of the Trump administration’s expanded travel ban, which affects immigration from 19 countries.

WASHINGTON, DC, August 6 — A report released today by the American Immigration Council outlines the extensive economic and humanitarian consequences of the Trump administration’s travel ban, which was expanded in June 2025 to restrict immigration from 19 countries. In 2022, nearly 300,000 individuals from these nations entered the United States, contributing approximately $715.6 million in taxes and filling essential roles in various sectors.

“Those affected by this travel ban are students, workers, and family members who pay taxes, support local economies, and fill jobs in industries facing massive shortages. We’re throwing all of that away, to the detriment of our communities and the U.S. economy,” stated Nan Wu, research director of the American Immigration Council.

According to 2023 data, of the 300,000 individuals from the countries impacted by the travel ban, 82 percent were employed, particularly in sectors already grappling with labor shortages, such as hospitality, construction, and manufacturing. The manufacturing sector alone is projected to face a shortfall of 1.9 million workers by 2033.

“The United States absolutely needs strong screening procedures to protect national security, but this travel ban isn’t how you do that. The Trump administration is trying to sell this policy as a security measure, but when you dig into the justifications, they don’t add up,” remarked Jeremy Robbins, executive director of the American Immigration Council. “Many of the targeted countries had fewer than 500 visa overstays last year. This isn’t about keeping America safe; it’s about keeping certain people out.”

While the original travel ban enacted in 2017 prompted widespread public protests, the 2025 version has seen a more subdued response, attributed to its gradual implementation and expanded exemptions. However, the report emphasizes that the negative impacts remain significant.

“This quieter version of the ban is deeply harmful,” Robbins added. “It separates families, blocks international talent, and hurts communities across the country. The absence of airport protests doesn’t mean the harm isn’t real; it’s just happening more quietly and more bureaucratically.”

Reports suggest that the administration is contemplating the addition of 36 more countries to the travel ban. If implemented, this could prevent tens of thousands of additional individuals from entering the United States, further exacerbating the economic, social, and diplomatic repercussions.

The countries currently affected by the travel ban include:

All travel banned:

Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen.

Visas sharply restricted:

Venezuela, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Turkmenistan.

This report underscores the far-reaching implications of the travel ban, highlighting the need for a reevaluation of policies that impact both the economy and the lives of individuals seeking opportunities in the United States.

Source: Original article

US Proposes $100,000 Fee for H-1B Visas Amid Regulatory Changes

The U.S. government has implemented a $100,000 annual fee for H-1B and L-1 visa applications, a decision that could significantly affect Indian professionals in the tech sector.

Washington D.C. – The United States government has introduced a substantial $100,000 annual fee for employers applying for H-1B and L-1 visas. This move is anticipated to have a significant impact on Indian professionals working in the U.S. tech sector. The fee, which takes effect immediately, adds to the existing costs associated with obtaining these visas and aims to prioritize higher-wage foreign workers.

In conjunction with the fee, lawmakers, including Senators Chuck Grassley and Dick Durbin, have proposed new legislation aimed at tightening visa regulations. This proposed legislation seeks to raise wage requirements and limit eligibility for certain organizations, further complicating the landscape for foreign workers seeking employment in the United States. Additionally, Senator Tom Cotton has suggested that restrictions be placed on foreign hires at universities and non-profit organizations.

As India is the largest source of H-1B visa holders, this new fee structure may lead to a slowdown in employment opportunities for Indian tech professionals. U.S. companies are likely to adjust their hiring practices in response to the increased costs associated with these visas. Leaders within the tech industry have expressed concerns regarding potential disruptions to workforce planning and recruitment efforts, as the new regulations may deter companies from hiring foreign talent.

The government asserts that these measures are designed to protect American workers and prevent the misuse of visa programs, while still ensuring that skilled foreign workers can fill critical roles in the U.S. economy. The balance between protecting domestic labor and allowing for the influx of skilled foreign professionals remains a contentious issue as these changes take effect.

As the implications of the new fee and proposed regulations unfold, stakeholders in the tech industry and potential visa applicants will be closely monitoring how these changes will affect the hiring landscape and the broader economy.

Source: Original article

US Senators Introduce Major Reforms to H-1B Visa Program

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is advancing a bipartisan initiative to reform the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, addressing concerns over corporate misuse and its impact on American workers.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee is witnessing a rare moment of bipartisan cooperation as top Republicans and Democrats come together to propose significant changes to the H-1B and L-1 visa programs. This initiative is driven by concerns that large corporations have misused these visa systems, often at the expense of American workers.

The H-1B visa program allows U.S. companies to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require specialized knowledge, such as technology, engineering, and medicine. Designed to address labor shortages in fields lacking qualified U.S. workers, the H-1B visa is typically granted for up to three years, with the possibility of extension to six years. Each year, the program caps the number of H-1B visas issued at 85,000, which includes 20,000 reserved for applicants holding advanced degrees from U.S. institutions.

This program is highly competitive, with demand frequently surpassing the available visas, leading to a lottery system for selection. While the H-1B visa has been instrumental in fostering innovation and maintaining global competitiveness for businesses, it has also drawn criticism for potential misuse, wage suppression, and negative impacts on domestic employment. Policymakers continue to grapple with reforms that would balance the interests of employers, foreign workers, and the American labor market.

Among the proposed reforms, the Senators have suggested making job postings public and introducing a stricter definition of “specialty occupation,” which would require applicants to possess at least a bachelor’s degree.

Committee Chair Chuck Grassley, a Republican from Iowa, and Democratic ranking member Dick Durbin of Illinois have reintroduced the bill, which includes several key changes:

The legislation would empower the Labor Department to impose fees to hire 100 additional enforcement officers, aimed at increasing oversight of the visa programs.

It proposes stricter wage and hiring standards, ensuring that employers adhere to fair compensation practices.

Mandatory public job postings and narrower eligibility criteria for applicants are also part of the proposed changes, which aim to enhance transparency in the hiring process.

Additionally, the bill introduces new wage and hiring rules that prioritize H-1B applicants with qualifications in STEM fields. It seeks to tighten the definition of “specialty occupation,” mandating a bachelor’s degree as a minimum requirement for applicants.

Employers found in violation of wage rules would face fines or even debarment from the program, reinforcing accountability within the system.

This legislative effort comes on the heels of the Trump administration’s recent imposition of a $100,000 fee on new H-1B applications, which has intensified scrutiny of the visa program.

Grassley emphasized the original intent of the H-1B and L-1 visa programs, stating, “Congress created these programs as limited pathways for businesses to acquire top talent when it can’t be found at home. But over the years, many employers have used them to cut out American workers in favor of cheap foreign labor.”

The proposed changes aim to close existing loopholes and prevent misuse by large corporations that may prioritize cheaper labor over domestic employment. By tightening eligibility criteria, increasing enforcement, and emphasizing higher wage standards, the legislation seeks to protect U.S. workers while still allowing companies to fill critical skill gaps, particularly in STEM fields.

Public job postings and clearer definitions of specialty occupations are expected to promote transparency and fairness in the hiring process. These reforms could help restore trust in the visa system, ensuring it fulfills its original purpose of attracting top talent when genuinely needed, rather than displacing American workers.

Ultimately, this bipartisan approach reflects a pragmatic attempt to modernize immigration policies in a manner that supports both economic competitiveness and workforce integrity.

Source: Original article

-+=