3 ms·

Seems reasonable. For most people, it'll be returned as they leave. For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to l

by snvzz 1y ago

Seems reasonable. For most people, it'll be returned as they leave. For people who really shouldn't be there, it serves as a filter; If they can't afford to loan the US $250, it is unlikely they will be able to afford theirlife necessities once in the US. Such a person should solve their issues BEFORE traveling to the US. For visa overstayers, it funds their deportation.

jplrssn 1y ago
For someone intending to overstay their visa, is the loss of $250 really going to serve as much of a deterrent?
- snvzz 1y ago
  $250 is better than $0 for sure. We can argue what the amount should be, but that's a separate discussion.
AlotOfReading 1y ago
It's pretty clear that it won't be returned as they leave if you read the article. The government would need several years to implement reimbursement and in lieu of providing them the CBO estimates a $29B windfall for the government.
- snvzz 1y ago
  >It's pretty clear that it won't be returned as they leave if you read the article. What is clear is the bias of the article. The US administration would have to be extremely incompetent to not be able to organize this much. Yet the article pushes this idea.
alistairSH 1y ago
Except there are no details on how the refund process works... So, family of four saves up to visit NYC for vacation, now they need to find an extra $1000 to take the trip. And it's unclear when they get that money back (is DHS going to post somebody at international departure terminals to issue them - unlikely).