Trump legal immigration restrictions impact is drawing scrutiny after new findings show visa delays and declining legal entries. The trend could affect Latino families and workforce growth in California, where immigration plays a central economic role.
David Bier, a migration policy expert at the Cato Institute, has just published two reports that fundamentally challenge the migration strategy of the Donald Trump administration. The first argues that, during its first year, the administration’s restrictions have impacted legal immigration more heavily than illegal immigration.
Concurrently, a second investigation reveals that the government is amassing hundreds of millions of dollars in fees for visas and permits that it is failing to process—a practice which, according to the analyst, amounts to a “scam” involving the charging of fees for services that are never rendered.
The first report asserts that, over the course of this initial year, the Donald Trump administration has blocked more legal immigrants than illegal ones.
Q: How did you arrive at that conclusion?
A. What I did was analyze the number of border crossings and apprehensions in December 2024, and I compared that figure with the current situation—where the monthly total has dropped to approximately 50,000. I then compared that figure with the decline in visa issuances to individuals seeking to enter the United States, as well as with the number of legal entries by people crossing the border. Consequently, if you aggregate the reductions across those categories, the total is more than double the reduction observed in illegal immigration.
Q: However, you are not taking into account figures such as the apprehensions of individuals in irregular status *within* the United States, but rather focusing solely on those individuals who were unable to gain entry into the country. Why is that?
A: Because this approach allows you to determine how many people are entering the country—and by what means they are doing so. And that was precisely what we set out to examine.
Q: According to the Cato Institute, the driving force behind all of this is an ideological strategy aimed at bringing migration to a complete halt. Why do you believe that to be the case?
A: Because this is no mere coincidence. It is not a consequence of people losing the desire to come to the United States; rather—at least insofar as legal immigration is concerned—their arrival is being obstructed due to policy changes that effectively bar their entry. The mission is clearly defined: to reduce legal immigration as much as possible—and that is exactly what we are seeing.
Q: Both you and Cato argue that this is a mistake and that legal immigration is good for the country. What data exists to support this?
A: Well, our report—which analyzed the fiscal impact of immigration—revealed that immigrants reduced the deficit by $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years; only about $1.7 trillion of that amount came from undocumented immigrants, meaning the vast majority comes from legal immigrants.
And if we look at their economic contributions, the story is much the same. Their disproportionate impact on GDP and other indicators of economic vitality—entrepreneurship, innovation—is all vastly bolstered by the legal immigrants who come here.
Q: What do you believe would be the long-term consequence of implementing this type of strategy in the United States?
A: In the long run, this translates into slower economic growth, a smaller economy, and less prosperity for Americans. And, ultimately, a poorer and weaker country. If we look solely at the next three years, we are talking about a reduction of 170,000 people per month. We are talking about millions fewer people who could come here and contribute to the country. That is by no means insignificant.
