Millions of travelers to the U.S. could be charged a new $250 "visa integrity fee"
The fee is effective in the current federal fiscal year, which began on Oct. 1, 2024, and ends on Sept. 30, 2025, according to the text of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. For subsequent years, the amount will be adjusted for inflation, the law states.
The fee applies to visitors who come to the U.S. on nonimmigrant visas, such as foreign students attending American universities or workers who receive temporary work visas such as the H-1B, which is often used by tech companies to hire foreign engineers or other skilled workers.
In 2023, the U.S. issued more than 10 million nonimmigrant visas, according to data from the U.S. State Department.
Visa holders subjected to the fee may later be reimbursed as long as they comply with their visa's restrictions, such as leaving the U.S. within five days of the visa's expiration, according to the new law. However, the law doesn't specify how visa holders may apply for reimbursement of the fee, nor how the fee will be collected.
"The visa integrity fee requires cross-agency coordination before implementation," a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security told CBS MoneyWatch in an email. "President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill provides the necessary policies and resources to restore integrity in our nation's immigration system," it added.
Given that fee isn't yet set up to be collected, it's unclear whether the visa integrity fee will be retroactive. The Department of Homeland Security didn't immediately respond to a question about whether the fee would be collected retroactively.
The new fee will add to the hurdles facing immigrants, according to the American Immigration Council, a nonpartisan think tank focused on immigration issues. It noted the new bill also includes additional new charges, including a new $100 fee for people applying for asylum.
"These fees, many of which are authorized to be layered on top of existing fees, are largely mandatory, effectively putting legal pathways out of reach for thousands of people," the group said in a July 14 statement.
For instance, student visa applicants already must pay an $185 application fee and a $350 fee for the Student and Exchange Visitor Program. The additional $250 fee will bring their total cost to $785.
People seeking asylum in the U.S., who previously could apply for that designation for free, could face total filing fees of more than $1,150 under the new law, according to the American Immigration Council.
Many tourists to the U.S. don't require visas due to the Visa Waiver Program, which allows residents of more than 40 nations — ranging from Australia to the U.K. — to enter the U.S. for fewer than 90 days without a visa.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Impact Silver Intersects 18.03% ZnEq over 2.60m Including 23.70% ZnEq over 0.73m at the Plomosas Mine
Vancouver, British Columbia--(Newsfile Corp. - July 29, 2025) - IMPACT Silver Corp. (TSXV: IPT) (OTCQB: ISVLF) (FSE: IKL) ("IMPACT" or the "Company") is pleased to announce results from its initial underground drill program in the Santo Domingo Zone at its Plomosas zinc (lead-silver) Mine in northern Mexico. SANTO DOMINGO ZONE DRILLING First IMPACT drill intersections from the Santo Domingo Zone of the Plomosas Mine are as follows: TABLE 1: SANTO DOMINGO ZONE DRILL RESULTS Hole No. From (metres) To (metres) Interval (metres) Estimated True Width (metres) Zinc (%) Lead (%) Silver (g/t) ZnEq* (%) UGSD-2501 59.50 63.00 3.50 3.32 6.35 1.56 8.06 7.64 Including 61.50 63.00 1.50 1.42 12.50 2.56 14.80 14.66 UGSD-2502 70.41 82.50 12.09 10.68 4.13 2.32 10.02 5.97 Including 71.91 76.50 4.59 4.06 8.37 3.59 16.36 11.25 Including 71.91 72.53 0.62 0.55 23.30 15.00 54.10 34.78 Including 74.45 75.00 0.55 0.49 15.40 7.45 29.10 21.19 UGSD-2504 47.06 48.18 1.12 0.89 9.03 21.20 30.10 23.56 UGSD-2505 74.40 77.82 3.42 2.60 11.08 9.24 30.00 18.03 Including 76.86 77.82 0.96 0.73 12.50 15.55 37.00 23.70 *Zinc Equivalent (ZnEq) is calculated using recent metal prices of US$1.21/lb Zn, US$0.88/lb Pb and US$38.07/oz Ag, and metal recoveries of 88.9% Zn, 77.3% Pb, and 71.3% Ag based on recent Plomosas production mill recoveries. Metal equivalence values allow for easier comparison of mineral zones with multiple metals reporting. True width estimates are interpreted from current geological models. These Santo Domingo drill holes are located north of IMPACT's active mine workings in the Plomosas Mine (see Figures 2&3). All these Santo Domingo drill intersections lie outside the JORC mineral resource blocks published by the previous operator (see IMPACT news release dated April 3, 2023 for details). Santo Domingo Zone mineralization remains open for exploration and drilling is continuing. CEO STATEMENT President and CEO Frederick Davidson commented, "Finding high-grade mineralization on this extension of the Santo Domingo Zone beyond the mine workings, adds yet more upside to the Plomosas Mine. Before this drilling, this area had not figured into our mining plans but with the zone located close to our active mine workings at Plomosas, it represents another area where we can quickly add high-grade production. Drilling is continuing with the aim to define additional resources on multiple zones at Plomosas." PLOMOSAS MINE GEOLOGY AND MINERALIZATION The Plomosas mine, a historic high-grade zinc producer in northern Mexico (Figure 1), was acquired in 2023 by the Company. Recent drill programs have been undertaken on extensions of active mine areas in the Tres Amigos area and nearby in the Juarez and Santo Domingo areas, where drilling continues (see Figure 2). Mineralization at the Plomosas mine occurs as zinc-rich Carbonate Replacement zones in three bedrock units - the Mina Vieja marble (Tres Amigos Zone), the Juarez limestone (Juarez Zone) and in carbonate layers within the Cuesta Shale (Santo Domingo Zone) - where structural ground preparation along these units accommodated concentrations of zinc, lead, and silver (see Figure 3). ABOUT IMPACT SILVER IMPACT Silver Corp. (TSXV: IPT) is a successful producer-explorer with two mining projects in Mexico. Royal Mines of Zacualpan Silver-Gold District: IMPACT owns 100% of the 211 km2 Zacualpan project in central Mexico where four producing underground silver mines and one open pit mine feed the central 500 tpd Guadalupe processing plant. To the south, the Capire Project includes a 200 tpd processing pilot plant adjacent to an open pit silver mine with an NI 43-101 inferred mineral resource of over 4.5 million oz silver, 48 million lbs zinc and 21 million lbs lead (see IMPACT news release dated January 18, 2016, for details and QP statement). Company engineers are reviewing Capire for a potential restart of operations to leverage improving commodity prices. Over the past 18 years, IMPACT has developed multiple exploration zones into commercial production and has produced over 13 million ounces of silver, generating revenue of more than $284 million, with no long-term debt. Plomosas Zinc-Lead-Silver District: Plomosas is a high-grade zinc producer in northern Mexico with exceptional exploration upside potential. In late 2023, the Company restarted mining operations and is ramping up production toward design capacity levels. Exploration potential at Plomosas is exceptional along the 6 km-long structure. This is in addition to other exploration targets on the 3,019-hectare property including untested copper-gold targets with indications of high-grade material at surface. Regionally, Plomosas lies in the same belt as some of the largest carbonate replacement deposits in the world. Quality Control/Quality Assurance Drill core was NTW size (5.71 cm diameter). Half core samples were collected with a rock saw and tagged for identification. All samples were securely stored at the Plomosas Mine until shipment. A total of 5% certified assay standards and 5% blanks were inserted into every sample shipment as a quality control measure. All samples were shipped to the ALS preparation laboratory in Chihuahua, Mexico, where they were fine crushed (70% passing a 2 mm screen), pulverized (85% passing a 75 micron screen) and pulp split separated for assay. These pulps were shipped to the ALS laboratory in North Vancouver, Canada, where a 10 gram split was aqua regia digested and then analyzed for 36 elements including zinc, lead and silver by ICP-AES spectrometry (ALS code ME-ICP41). Assays for base metals >1% used an overlimit ICP-AES method (ALS code OG46). ALS is an independent, international ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory. Qualified Person and NI 43-101 Disclosure Silvia Kohler, P. Geo., a Senior Geologist employed by IMPACT Silver Corp. and a "Qualified Person" within the meaning of NI-43101, has approved the technical information contained in this news release. Additional information about IMPACT and its operations can be found on the Company website at Follow us on X (formerly Twitter) @IMPACT_Silver and LinkedIn at On behalf of IMPACT Silver Corp. "Frederick W. Davidson"President & CEO For more information, please contact: Jerry HuangCFO | Investor Relations O: (604) 681 0172 or inquiries@ (778) 867 7909 Direct Neither TSX Venture Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Forward-Looking and Cautionary Statements This IMPACT News Release may contain certain "forward-looking" statements and information relating to IMPACT that is based on the beliefs of IMPACT management, as well as assumptions made by and information currently available to IMPACT management. Forward-looking information is often, but not always, identified by the use of words such as "seek", "anticipate", "plan", "continue", "planned", "expect", "project", "predict", "potential", "targeting", "intends", "believe", "potential", and similar expressions, or describes a "goal", or variation of such words and phrases or state that certain actions, events or results "may", "should", "could", "would", "might" or "will" be taken, occur or be achieved. Such statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding interpretation of drill results, activity at the projects and estimated timing thereof, the potential for defining and extending the known mineralization, exploration potential on the properties, and plans for drilling and future operations at the Company's projects or plans for financing. Such forward-looking information involves known and unknown risks and assumptions, including with respect to, without limitation, exploration and development risks, expenditure and financing requirements, title matters, operating hazards, extreme weather events, criminal activity, metal prices, political and economic factors, community relations, competitive factors, general economic conditions, relationships with vendors and strategic partners, governmental regulation and supervision, seasonality, technological change, industry practices, pandemics and one-time events. Should any one or more risks or uncertainties materialize or change, or should any underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results and forward-looking statements may vary materially from those described herein. IMPACT does not assume the obligation to update any forward-looking statement or beliefs, opinions, projections or other factors, except as required by law. The Company's decision to place a mine into production, expand a mine, make other production related decisions or otherwise carry out mining and processing operations, is largely based on internal non-public Company data and reports based on exploration, development and mining work by the Company's geologists and engineers. The results of this work are evident in the discovery and building of multiple mines for the Company at Zacualpan and in the track record of mineral production and financial returns of the Company since 2006. Under NI 43-101, the Company is required to disclose that it has not based its production decisions on NI 43-101 mineral resources or reserve estimates, preliminary economic assessments or feasibility studies, and historically such projects have increased uncertainty and risk of failure. 303-543 Granville Street Vancouver, BC, Canada V6C 1X8 Telephone (604) (Twitter)LinkedIn Figure 1: Location map of Plomosas Mine and nearby mines and infrastructure. References to nearby projects are for information purposes only and there are no assurances that Plomosas will achieve similar results. To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: Figure 2: Plan map of the Plomosas Mine workings. To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: Figure 3: Schematic cross section of the Santo Domingo Zone geology and mineralization showing new drill intersections. To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit: To view the source version of this press release, please visit Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Fast Company
4 minutes ago
- Fast Company
3 things the pronatalist movement gets wrong about birth rates
Pronatalism—the belief that low birth rates are a problem that must be reversed— is having a moment in the U.S. As birth rates decline in the U.S. and throughout the world, voices from Silicon Valley to the White House are raising concerns about what they say could be the calamitous effects of steep population decline on the economy. The Trump administration has said it is seeking ideas on how to encourage Americans to have more children as the U.S. experiences its lowest total fertility rate in history, down about 25% since 2007. As demographers who study fertility, family behaviors, and childbearing intentions, we can say with certainty that population decline is not imminent, inevitable or necessarily catastrophic. The population collapse narrative hinges on three key misunderstandings. First, it misrepresents what standard fertility measures tell us about childbearing and makes unrealistic assumptions that fertility rates will follow predictable patterns far into the future. Second, it overstates the impact of low birth rates on future population growth and size. Third, it ignores the role of economic policies and labor market shifts in assessing the impacts of low birth rates. Fertility fluctuations Demographers generally gauge births in a population with a measure called the total fertility rate. The total fertility rate for a given year is an estimate of the average number of children that women would have in their lifetime if they experienced current birth rates throughout their childbearing years. Fertility rates are not fixed—in fact, they have changed considerably over the past century. In the U.S., the total fertility rate rose from about 2 births per woman in the 1930s to a high of 3.7 births per woman around 1960. The rate then dipped below 2 births per woman in the late 1970s and 1980s before returning to 2 births in the 1990s and early 2000s. Since the Great Recession that lasted from late 2007 until mid-2009, the U.S. total fertility rate has declined almost every year, with the exception of very small post-COVID-19 pandemic increases in 2021 and 2022. In 2024, it hit a record low, falling to 1.6. This drop is primarily driven by declines in births to people in their teens and early 20s —births that are often unintended. But while the total fertility rate offers a snapshot of the fertility landscape, it is not a perfect indicator of how many children a woman will eventually have if fertility patterns are in flux—for example, if people are delaying having children. Picture a 20-year-old woman today, in 2025. The total fertility rate assumes she will have the same birth rate as today's 40-year-olds when she reaches 40. That's not likely to be the case, because birth rates 20 years from now for 40-year-olds will almost certainly be higher than they are today, as more births occur at older ages and more people are able to overcome infertility through medically assisted reproduction. A more nuanced picture of childbearing These problems with the total fertility rate are why demographers also measure how many total births women have had by the end of their reproductive years. In contrast to the total fertility rate, the average number of children ever born to women ages 40 to 44 has remained fairly stable over time, hovering around two. Americans continue to express favorable views toward childbearing. Ideal family size remains at two or more children, and 9 in 10 adults either have, or would like to have, children. However, many Americans are unable to reach their childbearing goals. This seems to be related to the high cost of raising children and growing uncertainty about the future. In other words, it doesn't seem to be the case that birth rates are low because people are uninterested in having children; rather, it's because they don't feel it's feasible for them to become parents or to have as many children as they would like. The challenge of predicting future population size Standard demographic projections do not support the idea that population size is set to shrink dramatically. One billion people lived on Earth 250 years ago. Today there are over 8 billion, and by 2100 the United Nations predicts there will be over 10 billion. That's 2 billion more, not fewer, people in the foreseeable future. Admittedly, that projection is plus or minus 4 billion. But this range highlights another key point: Population projections get more uncertain the further into the future they extend. Predicting the population level five years from now is far more reliable than 50 years from now—and beyond 100 years, forget about it. Most population scientists avoid making such long-term projections, for the simple reason that they are usually wrong. That's because fertility and mortality rates change over time in unpredictable ways. The U.S. population size is also not declining. Currently, despite fertility below the replacement level of 2.1 children per woman, there are still more births than deaths. The U.S. population is expected to grow by 22.6 million by 2050 and by 27.5 million by 2100, with immigration playing an important role. Will low fertility cause an economic crisis? A common rationale for concern about low fertility is that it leads to a host of economic and labor market problems. Specifically, pronatalists argue that there will be too few workers to sustain the economy and too many older people for those workers to support. However, that is not necessarily true—and even if it were, increasing birth rates wouldn't fix the problem. As fertility rates fall, the age structure of the population shifts. But a higher proportion of older adults does not necessarily mean the proportion of workers to nonworkers falls. For one thing, the proportion of children under age 18 in the population also declines, so the number of working-age adults—usually defined as ages 18 to 64—often changes relatively little. And as older adults stay healthier and more active, a growing number of them are contributing to the economy. Labor force participation among Americans ages 65 to 74 increased from 21.4% in 2003 to 26.9% in 2023 — and is expected to increase to 30.4% by 2033. Modest changes in the average age of retirement or in how Social Security is funded would further reduce strains on support programs for older adults. What's more, pronatalists' core argument that a higher birth rate would increase the size of the labor force overlooks some short-term consequences. More babies means more dependents, at least until those children become old enough to enter the labor force. Children not only require expensive services such as education, but also reduce labor force participation, particularly for women. As fertility rates have fallen, women's labor force participation rates have risen dramatically —from 34% in 1950 to 58% in 2024. Pronatalist policies that discourage women's employment are at odds with concerns about a diminishing number of workers. Research shows that economic policies and labor market conditions, not demographic age structures, play the most important role in determining economic growth in advanced economies. And with rapidly changing technologies like automation and artificial intelligence, it is unclear what demand there will be for workers in the future. Moreover, immigration is a powerful—and immediate—tool for addressing labor market needs and concerns over the proportion of workers. Overall, there's no evidence for Elon Musk's assertion that 'humanity is dying.' While the changes in population structure that accompany low birth rates are real, in our view the impact of these changes has been dramatically overstated. Strong investments in education and sensible economic policies can help countries successfully adapt to a new demographic reality.
