Today’s post is going to focus exclusively on immigration, in light of some new announcements yesterday from President Trump.

At the risk of oversimplifying, I think of immigration policy as having two main parts: setting rules governing the presence of foreigners; and enforcement actions against people who are present in the U.S. but are not in compliance with the applicable rules. Both are, admittedly, very complicated topics.

Most of what we’re talking about when we talk about “immigration” in the news is about the enforcement side — e.g., whether a class of people who have been living here peacefully for years without any legal status should be granted some form of status, or whether they should instead be rounded up and deported. Sometimes we’re talking about the rules side — e.g., what process should be followed for individuals with claims of asylum, or whether there should be greater vetting of social media posts before admitting people on student visas. And sometimes a topic straddles both topics — e.g., whether to eliminate Temporary Protected Status from some class of individuals and, if so, what enforcement actions to take on members of that class.

As an immigrant myself, I care about both the rules and how they are enforced. To give a flavor of my perspective on these complex matters, here’s something I wrote on Facebook back in 2018, and I think I still agree with almost all, maybe even all, of it:

(1) The USA needs immigrants. Fertility rates are down and the ratio of retirees per active worker is projected to climb dramatically. Japan went through that without embracing immigration, and their standing in the world has suffered for it.

(2) The USA needs measured constraints on immigration. 100 years ago, “give us your tired and poor” made eminent sense; the country was still in a growth phase. Our economy is more mature now, and it is critically important to be selective about who joins the American melting pot — certainly not from a geographic/racial standpoint, but from the standpoint of ability to make contributions to our society. Which doesn’t mean all immigrants need to be skilled workers; but, we ought to focus on bringing skilled workers in, and having them want to stay.

(3) Adherence to immigration law is an important civic principle. Of course, one also needs for those laws and the regulations implementing them to make sense, and for the enforcement systems to be properly funded and staffed. (Neither of those things has been done particularly well in recent decades.) This becomes even more important as we inevitably transition our economy away from the “everyone should work 40+ hours a week” model in light of automation etc, and more towards a “share the rewards of the economy broadly” model (e.g., universal basic income and other ‘entitlements’).

(4) The USA ought to be empathetic towards political refugees seeking asylum, and should treat asylum-seekers with dignity. However, asylum-seekers shouldn’t have unconstrained access to the country while awaiting adjudication of their claim. This may make detention facilities of some form a necessary evil.

(5) We very much need a single, free, government-provided National ID card that: is difficult to fake (biometrics?); demonstrates one’s legal status (citizen, LPR, visa, etc); and becomes how one routinely accesses government services, including schools, hospitals, gun acquisition/registration, driving rights, tax filing, and voting. “Show me your papers” ought not be a threat, but rather a routine part of daily life. Once it is, then life in the USA without legal paperwork becomes burdensome and the concept of so-called “self-deportation” becomes realistic instead of laughable.

(6) Once we have the National ID card, then all levels of government should have a general duty to enforce the immigration laws. No concept of “sanctuary cities”. If you come into contact with a civil servant and can’t demonstrate your legal status, then you enter the immigration enforcement system. That system, however, needs to treat people with dignity. No stealth deportations; give people a chance to wind up their affairs in an orderly manner.

(7) In the transition to the National ID card, it likely makes sense to regularize the status of some people, particularly the ‘dreamers’, as well as those who have been illegally so long that their nexus with their home country has become remote. This ‘amnesty’ can be done without creating a precedent for the future, because putting the ID card in place changes the game entirely.

(8) Legal immigrants deserve to be able to vote in, at a minimum, local elections.

In the 7 years since I wrote that, we’ve taken more steps backwards than forwards in achieving the principles I laid out.

And, it would seem, we’re about to take a major step backwards with respect to an aspect of immigration policy that is particularly near and dear to my heart, namely the main means by which educated foreigners enter the U.S. for work and pursue a path that may lead eventually to permanent residency and ultimately citizenship: the H-1B visa.

The H-1B visa program has attracted a tremendous amount of criticism in recent years, with critics arguing that it has been exploited by technology outsourcing firms to enable replacement of U.S. workers by lower-paid foreign workers, who are at the mercy of their sponsoring employer. I agree that this type of exploitation is completely contrary to the original aims and objectives of the H-1B program and needs to be curbed.

Having said that, my personal experience–which, admittedly, is 25 years old at this point–with the H-1B program bears no resemblance to that criticism. When I first left graduate school in Chicago to seek entry-level employment in the actuarial field, as a Canadian I was able to obtain a TN visa; however within a couple of years, my employer was able and willing to sponsor me for an H-1B. I switched employers at least once, maybe even twice (my memory is getting fuzzy), while on an H-1B, and at no time was I getting paid less than an American would have gotten paid for those jobs, nor was I “taking a job away from an American”. Rather, I was getting those jobs in the normal fashion through a competitive interview process, with my employer concluding I was the best-qualified person for the role and willing to pay not only a market salary to me, but also a modest amount of fees and legal expenses (probably on the order of a few thousand dollars) connected with my visa status.

As such, for all the talk of exploitation by outsourcing firms, the H-1B program has played and continues to play an important role in providing a path for high-potential, U.S.-educated foreigners to pursue their early-stage career ambitions here in the U.S., and to consider building their lives here. H-1B visas have become increasingly harder to obtain today than was true in my time, causing some people I’ve worked with to abandon their ambitions of working and settling in the U.S. and move elsewhere. Yet, it remains the case that many of the younger actuaries I work with are here on H-1B visas. hired by my employer not because they are a cheaper alternative to U.S. labor (which they are not), but because they are talented and hard-working and want to be in this country.

Yesterday, Trump issued a proclamation, “Restriction on Entry of Certain Nonimmigrant Workers,” which imposes a $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, effective Monday.

Right now there is a lack of clarity on what exactly this means, whether it applies only to completely new applicants or whether it applies in some fashion to people already on H-1B visas. I’ve also seen articles suggesting that the fee would need to be paid anew every year while the applicant remains on an H-1B. And, one imagines, there will be lawsuits, because with this administration there are always lawsuits.

But if we step back: If this proclamation had been made by President Clinton, I almost certainly would not have spent these past three decades in the U.S., but instead would have returned to Canada and built a completely different life there than the life I’ve led here. Nobody is going to pay $100,000 a year in fees, plus market wages, to hire a promising young foreigner for a relatively junior actuarial position. If you’re an A.I. researcher graduating from a PhD program, sure, maybe the $100,000 fee makes economic sense to a prospective employer. For the rest of us, the door to America is closing. Trump is telling the Rowen Bell of today, whoever he or she may be, that they are not welcome here.

And to make even more explicit the theme that “give us your tired, your poor” has been replaced with “give us your rich”, yesterday Trump also issued an Executive Order directing the Secretary of Commerce to create a new immigrant visa program called the Gold Card. This new visa would require a payment of $1 million by an individual on their own behalf, or $2 million by a corporate sponsor.

This program differs from similar “golden visa” programs across the world, including the U.S. EB-5 program, in that those programs are structured around the applicant making a capital investment in the country, typically involving the creating of new jobs. Whereas, Trump’s Gold Card proposal just requires a payment of cash to the U.S. government, who will supposedly use the proceeds “to promote commerce and American industry”.

And the government’s new “Trump Card” website also talks about a Platinum Card, which would require a $5 million payment and would allow the holder to spend up to 270 days per year in the U.S. without being subject to U.S. income tax on non-U.S. income. That would be a significant modification to current U.S. tax policy, under which anybody who meets the substantial presence test is subject to U.S. income tax on their worldwide income.

Does the U.S. immigration system’s rules for admitting foreigners need reform? Hell yes. But does it need these particular reforms? Hell no.