The USA issues literally 'dozens of types of Visas'. The 'system' is out of control and must be inspected, modified and corrected soon.

 

Let’s Change Nonimmigrant Visas And Admissions

By Anony Mee www.americanthinker.com

Since America is revisiting its immigration policies, it’s time to revisit the visas we grant to non-immigrants, since the concerns their entries raise often overlap with immigrant issues.

From 2000 to 2008, the United States issued between 5 and 8 million non-immigrant visas a year. From 2010 through 2019, before 2020 when the world fell down the COVID rat hole, the number ranged between 7 and 11 million. Nonimmigrant (temporary) visas are obtained by applying at a US Embassy or Consulate abroad. With most countries, the US has a visa reciprocity schedule that allows for the issuance of multiple-year visas, up to ten years for nationals from around 110 countries.

In 2000, there were 33.7 million nonimmigrant admissions into the US, with about 10% of them being individuals making multiple trips. By 2019, that number had more than doubled to 81.6 million. Admission includes those with visas, those nationals of 42 countries allowed in under the visa waiver program, and holders of Mexican border crossing cards (BCC). People obtain entry by presenting themselves at a designated point of entry (air, sea, land), where an Immigration Officer can admit them.

 

U.S. Customs and Borders. Rawpixel public domain.

The vast majority of nonimmigrant visas issued and admissions granted are for visitors for business or pleasure, the B-1/B-2 category. Each entry is limited, usually to 90 or 180 days. The rest of the visa categories cover a wide range—diplomats, air crews, students, investors, certain relatives, workers of all sorts, and a smattering of infrequently used classifications.

One thing all nonimmigrant admissions (except for fiancés and certain relatives) have in common is that they assure the Consular Officer issuing the visa, and the Immigration officer granting the admission, that the person entering has a home abroad that s/he intends to return to. And the officer is convinced.

When people immigrate to the United States, they must have a medical clearance. This process is established to protect the American population’s health. This should also be made a requirement for anyone coming to the United States who anticipates remaining here longer than six months. This would include workers in every field and university students. It only makes sense that longer-term visitors be treated in the same manner as immigrants, and for the same reasons. It also makes sense that longer-term nonimmigrants be required to obtain medical insurance, whether through their school or employer.

There are multiple grounds for a finding of inadmissibility to the United States (see 8 USC §1182 for the full list). Health-related grounds are the first listed. Healthcare costs might raise public charge concerns. Mental issues raise the risk of criminality and other dangers to the community. Then there are communicable diseases of public health significance. It’s a short list—active TB, Gonorrhea, infectious Hansen’s Disease (Leprosy), and infectious syphilis.

In 2010, President Obama’s HHS removed HIV from this list for political reasons. The HIV prevalence rate in the US is around 0.4%. Long-term nonimmigrants to America come from several countries where HIV’s prevalence is much higher. HIV needs to be added back to the list of communicable diseases of public health significance.

Likewise, immigrants are required to provide a police clearance certificate as part of their immigration application. Long-term nonimmigrants should meet that requirement as well.

We’ve seen the riots over the past couple of years that include foreign students and other aliens. Secretary Rubio’s pause in issuing student visas to more fully vet applicants is a welcome improvement. I suggest that it is time that the Department of State print a brochure to be given to all successful temporary visa applicants, and to all those who cross the border under a visa waiver or a Mexican BCC. A signed acknowledgement of the receipt and understanding of the brochure should be incorporated into the record of the visa issuance or border admission, so there is no doubt.

The brochure should clearly outline America’s expectations of nonimmigrants, their rights and responsibilities as visitors to our country, and the penalties for violating legal restrictions on their behavior while in the United States. It should include the nonimmigrant’s acknowledgement that such violations may result in visa cancellation and immediate removal from the country.

Let’s discuss Temporary Protected Status for a second. TPS is granted when the Attorney General designates a foreign state as having extraordinary and temporary conditions that prevent its citizens from returning home safely. Such conditions do not support the granting of asylum or refugee status. They are allowed to stay in the US pending their eventual return home. TPS is currently granted to nationals of

• Afghanistan, due to violence and insurgency, scheduled to end 7/12/2025, entry currently restricted under the While House Proclamation dated 6/4/2025
• Cameroon, insurgency, 6/7/2025
• El Salvador, earthquake, 9/9/2026
• Ethiopia, violence and humanitarian crisis, 12/12/2025
• Haiti, earthquake, 8/3/2025, restricted
• Honduras, hurricane, 7/5/2025
• Lebanon, war, 5/27/2026
• Myanmar (Burma), coup, 11/25/2025, restricted
• Nepal, earthquake, 6/24/2025
• Nicaragua, hurricane, 7/5/2025
• Somalia, war, 3/17/2026, restricted
• South Sudan, war, 11/3/2025
• Sudan, conflict, 10/19/2026, restricted
• Syria, war, 9/30/2025
• Ukraine, war, 10/19/2026
• Venezuela has two separate TPS designations, socioeconomic and political crisis, 9/10/20205 and 10/2/2026, partially restricted
• Yemen, civil war, 3/3/2026, restricted.

At this time, the Attorney General has determined that these people temporarily have no home abroad to which they can return. It seems only sensible that no nonimmigrant visas, with the exception of diplomatic-type visas, should be issued, nor admission granted, to any nationals of these countries. If their stay cannot be determined to be truly temporary, they should not be admitted as nonimmigrants.

On June 4 this year, President Trump issued a White House proclamation restricting entry into the United States of aliens from countries that are home to anti-American foreign terrorism or which are the source of other national security and public safety threats to the United States. The identified countries need to improve their information-sharing and identity-management procedures before they are considered adequate to meet our visa issuance and entry-granting requirements.

Besides the countries in the list above, nationals from Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Iran, and Libya are fully restricted. Nationals from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, and Turkmenistan are partially restricted, mostly due to historically high overstay statistics. Before Biden’s presidency, two-thirds of the illegals in the US resulted from aliens overstaying their visa admissions. Trump’s order is excellent work, a promise kept, and We the People are pleased.

Asylum applicants present another sort of issue—that of fraud. All who obtain a nonimmigrant visa and/or admission to the US have declared that they have a home abroad to which they intend to return. Crying asylum and applying for refugee status means that the declaration was false. They obtained their visa or their entry, or both, by fraud. Any application for asylum status from someone issued a nonimmigrant visa and/or granted entry should be denied for being facially untrue. Send them back home, or let them go to any other country and present themselves for processing as a refugee. Boat people from Cuba and Haiti, who haven’t landed in an intermediate country of first asylum, are the clear exceptions.

Let’s tighten up visa issuance guidelines. No one is entitled to a nonimmigrant visa, except for diplomatic corps members. For countries not included on the above lists, especially from which terrorists have come to our shores or attacked our citizens abroad, e.g. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and Iraq, hard scrutiny is needed. Any hint of doubt about an applicant’s identity, intent while in the US, or motivation to return home, regardless of their nationality, should result in a denial of the application—either at the Embassy or at the border. It will lessen potential harm to our nation in the future.

 

Most of the time through out the ages, immigration and history collide; generally the results are catastrophic.

 

Learn From The Romans: You Cannot Welcome Armed, Unassimilated Enemies

By Vince Coyner www.americanthinker.com

In the Louvre, there’s a famous painting by the French Artist Jacques-Louis David depicting the Intervention of the Sabine Women. In it, the Sabine men, whose daughters were stolen by and then married to Romans in the mid-8th century BC, returned to avenge Roman treachery and retrieve their offspring. The scene depicts a woman standing between the belligerents, imploring them to cease fighting:

If you are weary of these ties of kindred, these marriage-bonds, then turn your anger upon us; it is we who are the cause of the war, it is we who have wounded and slain our husbands and fathers. Better for us to perish rather than live without one or the other of you, as widows or as orphans.

 

Intervention of the Sabine Women, 1799, by Jacques-Louis David. Public domain.

The men stopped fighting, and eventually the Sabines became Roman citizens. This strategy of conquest and integration would characterize Rome for much of the next 1100 years. Other than perhaps Egypt, most conquered lands became essentially Roman. This is demonstrated by the extensive Roman ruins found in places like Britain, Portugal, Algeria, Turkey, and more. Although most would never become Roman citizens, their lives would have had similar characteristics throughout the Empire.

Romans didn’t just do forced acculturation through outside conquests. When armies would attack Rome and were defeated, which they almost always were, the Romans would sell those women and children who had traveled with the invading army into slavery. The men, if not sold into slavery, would be conscripted into the Legions, but sent to regions far from their native lands. Again, it forced its culture on others, not vice versa.

The result of this was that for most of its history, Rome faced relatively few consequential internal rebellions beyond civil wars between rival generals. In the 4th century AD, however, that would change. As the Huns moved east from the steppes, they began attacking various tribes that would then plead with Rome for asylum. Sometimes willingly and sometimes not, the Romans allowed the Goths, Vandals, and others to move into the Empire.

What was different now was that, rather than breaking up these foreign powers and disbursing their members throughout the Empire, the Romans allowed them to settle intact on Roman lands. These were armed groups living in their own communities, separate from the Romans and maintaining their cultures with no assimilation demanded. This would be a recipe for disaster, and Rome, after having lasted for more than a millennium, was gone within a century.

The leaders of the United States and the EU should have paid a little closer attention in history class because they’re mimicking the mid-4th century Roman Empire...

In both the US and the EU, politicians have either tolerated or encouraged an open border for much of the last quarter century. The result is that the United States today houses upwards of 30 million illegal aliens, while in Europe, the number may be half that.

In both cases, most of the immigrants crossing the borders come from countries with far higher crime rates, far lower income levels, and very different cultures. In the United States, illegal immigrants largely come from Mexico and Latin America, while in Europe, they come from Syria, Afghanistan, and other countries in Asia and Africa.

As immigrants have often done throughout history, these new arrivals, when they move to a new place, seek out brethren from their home countries or people with whom they share customs or languages. Indeed, that’s exactly what the Italians in New York did at the turn of the century.

The difference here, however, is that when the Italians moved to New York or the Irish moved to Boston, their goal was to integrate and become Americans. Today’s immigrants to the United States don’t seem to have that same desire. They may want to become citizens to stay permanently, but that doesn’t mean they want to be American. Indeed, half of American Hispanics are from Mexico, and a significant portion of them believe that America’s Southwest is stolen land that rightfully should be returned to Mexico. At the same time, most of Europe’s newly arrived are from Islamic nations, and their allegiance is to Islam, not their new homes.

That’s a problem because successful societies are built around core, fundamental values that are shared by the overwhelming majority of the population. Ideas such as free speech and freedom of religion, individual rights, and private property, which exist in Europe and America to varying degrees, while they were not always core tenets of Western civilization, are so today, or at least were until quite recently. Without those shared fundamental notions, it’s difficult for Western nations to function properly.

It’s one thing for a nation to have competing powers within the existing framework (think: Democrats and Republicans), but it’s another thing altogether if the competing power wants to split off a quarter of the nation or wants to impose Sharia law.

Recent events have demonstrated exactly how deep the problems are. Across Europe over the last two years, there have been giant pro-Hamas demonstrations, some of which devolved into violence. Across the United States, Donald Trump’s attempt to begin to ramp up deportations has been met with violence against ICE agents, and in California, it devolved into riots with law enforcement members being pelted with rocks, bottles, and various incendiaries while cars were set afire, stores looted, and the LAPD headquarters attacked.

Of course, demonstrations and riots happen in any country, but when they are symbols of a bigger fissure, that’s a problem. In both cases, these illegals and their predecessors, many of whom have been legalized, seek to fundamentally change the nature of the countries they now call home.

Of course, invaders always want to change the nature of the place they invade, just as the Romans did as they were growing their empire. The difference is that when the Romans invaded a new land, the people already there usually fought them to maintain their culture. They usually lost, but at least they had enough pride in their culture to fight for it.

What we see across the West today is just the opposite. From Sweden to the UK to Spain and the US, leaders have for years worshiped at the altar of guilt and sought to repent by welcoming millions from cultures far different than their own. Most of these leaders have been under the delusion that, if they welcome these invaders with open arms, give them shelter, food, phones, and more, the invaders will somehow respect the culture of their new homes and assimilate accordingly.

Not only have the invaders failed to assimilate, but many have also attacked the very people and culture that welcomed them. From skyrocketing rapes and bombings in Sweden to knife crime and rape rings in the UK to drug dealing and taking over apartment complexes in Denver, these illegals have made it perfectly clear that they see their new homes not as refuges from some dysfunctional dystopia, but rather as fertile ground to be exploited. They have no intention of assimilating, and in reality, who can blame them? If a nation doesn’t care enough about its citizens and its culture to protect them, why should anyone else?

Here in America, we finally have a leader who understands the danger and is doing something about it. If the leaders of Europe don’t follow Donald Trump’s lead soon, they may find that it’s too late.

 

Some say we are fighting WWIII here at home! Is L. A. the front lines - seems like it.

 

The LA Riots Prove that Democrats Need Illegals

By J. Robert Smith www.americanthinker.com

ICE bad, illegals rioting good. You can bet that’s Democrats’ calculation. Riots have been underway in Los Angeles. Mask-wearing provocateurs are waving Mexican flags. LA is their Mount Suribachi. A lot of people say that if illegals love Mexico so much, then go back home. But they miss the point. What’s happening in LA is about conquest.

Hoisting Mexican flags on U.S. soil stakes a claim. This real estate is ours, declare the troublemakers, among whom are surely homegrown leftist agitators. LA, in part, smells like a George Floyd riots redo. In this instance, federal agents, acting on behalf of American citizens, are being fought. The feds tucking tail is the aim. Meanwhile, Democrats are quiet. Well, not exactly quiet, but there is no full-throated condemnation of the punks and agitators inflicting mayhem on law enforcement and innocent Angelenos. We hear weasel words instead.

Gavin Newsom condemns the violence and calls for peaceful protests, while thugs burn cars, pelt police with stones, and loot stores. Newsom criticizes Trump for deploying National Guard units to restore order.

LA mayor Karen Bass’ moral outrage is reserved for the ICE raids. ICE is instigating “terror in our communities,” says Bass, who was junketing in Africa earlier in the year as the Palisades burned. Violence needs to be met with (wait for it)… peaceful responses. Translated: law enforcement and the National Guard need to scram.

Says wine-tippling Kamala Harris, in pure Orwellian fashion, Trump’s deployment of National Guard units is a “dangerous escalation and cruel.”

U.S. Rep. Jimmy Gomez visited a detention center. He deplored the conditions. Detainees, claimed the big-hearted congressman, lack food, water, and medicine. A bogus allegation but nifty propaganda.

LA County supervisor Janice Hahn came out for peaceful protests without condemning the lawbreakers and their violence.

Maybe these California Democrats would have preferred Trump deploying crisis counselors? A little kumbaya goes a long way, right?

Democrats always sing from the same song sheet. A unified front is a leftist tactic that Democrats picked up. They’re all calling for peaceful protests (after the fact) and deploring the National Guard’s deployment. With mobs attacking ICE agents, with rioters looting and damaging property, with LA citizens being terrorized, the only response is a show of force. If the bad guys don’t back down, then force is the recourse. And don’t hesitate to deploy more National Guard units if warranted.

We know what the Democrats’ prescription is for stopping the street violence. Just call off the ICE raids, Mr. President. Leave illegal immigrants alone. (Wink, wink), the riots will cease.

Never mind that the Trump administration’s priority is removing the worst criminals among “undocumented immigrants.” In the early going, border czar Tom Homan and Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem have had striking success in locating and deporting Tren de Aragua desperados, as well as MS-13 gangbangers. Who do these cold-blooded gangsters prey on first? Innocents in Latino communities. Surely, Democrats favor Trump administration initiatives to root out the worst criminal elements in communities they say they champion?

The open secret is that Democrats need lots of illegal aliens. Replenishing their constituencies with the undocumented is critical for political success. What they fear is further ICE roundups leading to deportations of ever larger numbers of illegals. Their fear isn’t without basis. Tom Homan has commented that greater numbers of apprehensions are required. For Democrats, depleting illegals’ populations and sealing the southern border is a recipe for political disaster.

Democrats’ principal fear is the next U.S. census. Every ten years, national census counts matter in terms of federal dollars allocated, U.S. House representation, and in allocation of electoral votes by state. If the 2030 census shifts House seats to red states, it’ll mean shifting Electoral College votes. Blue states will pay dearly. An apt example is California, Ground Zero for the current battles with ICE.

Reported the Brennan Center, December 20, 2024:

Meanwhile, California and New York, which have seen significant population outflows this decade, are projected to lose four [California] and two districts respectively. For California, this would be only the second time in its history it has lost representation (the first was this decade when the Golden State lost one seat).

Red states gains would cause Democrats to struggle to win the U.S. House and the presidency. Fewer federal dollars crimps Democrats’ ability to pay off voters. Retaining and boosting illegal populations are imperative for California and every blue state on the map. And, yes, illegals were counted in 2020, ensuring that Democrat losses were minimized.

Pew Research, which keeps tabs on the Census Bureau’s “undocumented migrant” counts, estimated that 10.5 million illegals were added in the 2020 census count. Pew reports that as of 2022, that number had climbed to 11 million. That’s still below the peak -- 12.2 million in 2007 -- when George W. Bush was in the White House. Surprisingly, Barack Obama earned the monicker “Deporter-in-Chief” for his record of booting illegals. With Biden’s election, Democrats decided not to make that mistake again.

Nonetheless, we await census estimates since 2022. Given the high volume of illegal entrants from 2023 to the end of Biden’s term, expect those numbers to reach or surpass the Bush presidency high.

The Trump administration, congressional Republicans, and conservative groups are using executive orders, legislation, and litigation to contest including illegals in the 2030 census. If Republicans succeed, Democrats will find themselves in a world of hurt.

But Democrats do have a window to change the dynamic in their favor. In 2028, let’s say Andy Beshears or Roy Cooper or Gavin Newsom is elected president. Whoever the Democrat, he’ll declare a blanket amnesty and sign an executive order -- or legislation, if Democrats run Congress -- granting quick paths to citizenship. It’ll be done in the name of community and compassion and harmony. Not only will the millions of illegals among us benefit, but the many millions to come. And Democrats will have done everything possible to get the 2030 census to again count illegals.

The U.S.-Mexican border, shut tight by Donald Trump, will reopen. Got to keep the pipeline flowing. Yes, sirree, America will be transformed and you’ll like it. If you don’t, tough luck, because Democrats will possess the authority backed by millions of immigrantes.

As critical as the 2024 election was, the 2028 presidential contest will be of complimentary consequence. (No less critical, the 2026 midterms need Republican victories to hold the House.) Failure to elect J.D. Vance president -- or, if not Vance, any worthy successor to Trump -- means the Trump administration’s hard-won gains will be lost. The 2030s, which MAGA Republicans should dominate, may, at best, be a decade’s worth of contested ground. At worst, Democrats, boosted by illegal immigrant populations and a reopened border, could prevail.

The LA riots underway are a battlefront in a larger war. Illegals are declaring that American turf is theirs, and Democrats tacitly support the claim. An aim is to de-Americanize America. That alone may satisfy those who hate the stars and stripes, but for grasping Democrats, the goal is, and forever shall be, power -- its acquisition, increase, and retention. The Mexican flags waving over LA streets are mostly about that.