U.S. Will Charge Visitors $250 Visa Deposits, Refugees Face $100 Annual Fee For Asylum Claims

The Big Beautiful Bill has more and more warts that just keep coming out, including a new $250 “Visa Integrity Fee” for most foreigners applying for U.S. nonimmigrant visas. It’s a ‘refundable deposit’ that you’re supposed to get back for leaving the U.S. on time, though no one knows yet how refunds will actually happen. Implementing a cross-agency refund system is going to take… time. The fee amount will adjust up with inflation.

Fortunately, travelers coming in from Visa Waiver Program who don’t need formal visas won’t have to pay this. The same law also quadruples the Form I-94 land-entry fee from $6 to $24, and imposes a new $100 application fee to seek asylum in the U.S. The U.S. has ever charged people for seeking asylum protection before.

  • Bizarrely ineffective: A $250 “integrity” deposit is too trivial to deter visa overstays or unauthorized work. Overstayers often stand to gain far more than $250 if they’re chosing to remain in the U.S. illegally.

  • Punishes rule-followers: It forces honest visitors to tie up $250 and navigate an unclear refund process to get it back. Law-abiding tourists, students, and workers face more red tape and costs, while the rare scofflaw isn’t meaningfully deterred.

  • Negligible revenue: Since the $250 is refundable, it’s not a reliable revenue source – except from those who overstay or who never navigate the refund. The deposit is meant to fund enforcement, yet if it works perfectly (i.e. everyone follows the rules), the government collects nothing. And if it doesn’t work, $250 is a drop in the bucket of enforcement costs.

  • Chilling effect: stacking fees on top of wait time and in-person visits makes the U.S. less welcoming to legal immigration (which isn’t great if you say your concern is illegal immigration). Along a certain margin, tourists and business visitors go elsewhere.

Imposing a fee on asylum seekers strikes at the heart of America’s refugee commitments. Charging $100 (plus another $100 for each year an application is pending) to people fleeing persecution is unprecedented and cruel.

By definition, many asylum seekers arrive destitute – the very people needing protection are least able to afford extra fees and penalizes the vulnerable for government-caused delays (since asylum backlog keeps them waiting years, accruing additional $100 charges each year).

Remember that making the legal routes harder and costlier encourages more illegal immigration. And restricting immigration harms the economy by reducing the workforce and reducing business formation. . When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the capacity of the economy, grow GDP, and increase tax revenue. Fewer workers and consumers lead to labor shortages and reduced consumer demand for incumbent businesses. Government-imposed tolls on peaceful, voluntary exchange is ultimately a tax on economic growth that hurts all of us.

Here’s what a Republican debate on immigration used to look like, by the way.

Additionally, the One Big Beautiful Bill’s tax on remittances encourages illegal immigration. By making it harder to send money across the border, it reduces the ties that people who come to the U.S. have back home, reducing the likelihood that they go back. It increases economic instability on the border, so that people are more desperate there and look to leave (taking risks to come to the United States).

There were no ex ante restrictions on immigration into the United States until the late 1800s (1875 Page Act and 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act). If you want to screen immigrants, fine, but we need more of it – more skills, more labor, and the U.S. is a better place (at least it has been!) for talent to flourish than most of the rest of the world. That means more ideas, inventions and creation for the whole world.

If these fees somehow enabled faster processing and higher caps, that would be good for the world. But too often critics of llegal immigration are really critics for foreigners period (usually foreigners who look different) and don’t actually support and grow legal immigration or more make it easier and less costly. This is the perfect example of taxing legal immigration.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. @George Romey

    to be honest, if I were renting a room to you I’d take a deposit too

  2. @ Gary. Really? Was this written by an AI? Your immigration talking points have that sing song quality. Maybe you hired an intern. Illegal immigration undercuts unions and reduces wages for the native less-skilled. Many are paid under the counter & do not pay taxes but do use government services. Somehow I don’t think the Central American women who parade through the L cars in Chicago with a rent-a-baby on their back asking for money are going to create the next startup, no matter how innovative rent-a-baby is for the begging profession. There were protests in Chicago because these people were getting a better hand-out deal than the local poor. And the asylum program is a different program than the refugee program, with the current claimants not falling within the traditional classifications for either.

  3. @Jack the Ladd — Sure, please keep focused on the poor and the brown ones; do ignore the mostly white oligarchs who automate, offshore, and abuse the H1B system to bring over folks who’ll accept 1/10th the wages and are beholden to their corporate visa-holders as indentured servants. At least you ‘sorta’ compliment workers/unions, but in a backhanded compliment kina way. While it is indeed convenient to punch-down, it’s always been those at the ‘top’ that are abusing the laws and profiting from the status quo. Once again, feel free to vilify those poor/brown folks though… so ‘great’ again.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *