(Daily Signal)—Would you let absolutely anyone in your house, with no conditions? Of course not. If even an invited guest got rowdy, trashed your kitchen, took over your bathroom, insulted your religion, or invited their friends to set up tents on your lawn, you’d send them packing.
By the same token, no nation should be forced to admit people who hate that country and its values. Visas are a privilege, not a right.
Furthermore, foreigners visiting, studying, or working here have fewer rights and more limited “due process” than citizens—as they should. The rights and responsibilities of U.S. citizenship should be held to a much higher standard, not watered down and “given” to those with lesser immigration status or skin in the game.
I was a U.S. Foreign Service officer from 1999-2022, and my first tour was to our embassy in New Delhi, India. We officers on the “visa line” did around 150 interviews a day to determine whether Indian applicants were qualified to come to the U.S. We used a two-page paper form that had little information, which we checked against a criminal and terrorist records database that was not as comprehensive as today’s. If the communications systems went down, we had to rely on CDs that were weeks old to check the names.
All the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were in the United States on nonimmigrant visas; mostly tourist/visitor visas, although there was at least one holding a student visa. The world became a lot riskier, and the U.S. needed to adapt the way we admitted foreigners.
The massive 9/11 Commission Report detailed inefficiencies and loopholes in the way U.S. intelligence and national security agencies worked with the Department of State to check the names, dates of birth, and other personal information of applicants before issuing them visas.
In response, the State Department added forms and took more information from each applicant, so we knew as much as possible about who wanted to come to our country and why. State also improved the way that information was shared and vetted by the rest of the U.S. government so that everything we collectively knew about any John Q. Foreigner was considered before we let him into the country.
The change in process slowed things at first, but then we adapted and increased efficiency. The entire application process is now done online, where entered data is combined with a photo and fingerprints for each person.
Today, everyone is online, particularly younger people. Every student applicant has a smartphone and most likely multiple social media accounts. What we post online reflects who we are. Anonymity is an illusion—one should not post things one is ashamed of or wants to hide.
As any consular officer will tell you, some people lie in visa interviews. We have something they want: a visa to get into the United States. They might not lie to their mother or priest, but lying to a foreign official is a far lesser sin.
Given that reality, and the wealth of information available online that truly reflects a person, consular officers would ideally be vetting all applicants’ social media already. Until now, the constraints of staffing—having an individual human access and look through each applicant’s many accounts and possibly thousands of posts—made that prohibitive except in cases deemed worthy of increased scrutiny. Consular units in U.S. embassies have fraud prevention units, but they are not staffed to handle every single case. Nor can every case be elevated for scrutiny by other U.S. agencies.
The growing capacity of Artificial Intelligence will make social media screening, and broader vetting, possible for more applicants.
It makes sense to start with students, as they are in our country much longer than someone visiting Disneyland or attending a business meeting. Most students come to do a four-year bachelor’s degree at least, and many remain to get jobs and become legal residents and, perhaps later, citizens.
If done right, social media vetting will not slow down the visa process. It won’t keep out most applicants who plan to come here for a specific, valid purpose, tell us the truth, and stick to their word.
But people who post incendiary, criminal, violent, anti-American, antisemitic, or anti-capitalist content won’t make good visitors, students or future Americans. When I see some of the posts by people here on student visas, or trying to become Americans, I wish a few of them had never received visas.
Like Momodou Taal, who seemed to spend most of his time at Cornell University protesting, occupying buildings without permission, and going “hard for Gaza.” At a protest in 2024, he said “we don’t take our cue from some bulls— student assembly at Cornell. … We take our cue from the armed resistance in Palestine.” Cornell refused to suspend him because they didn’t want him deported.
Given that our colleges are willing to champion those who hate the West, capitalism, and our allies, defending the national interest is up to those who issue visas. It’s quite possible that a review of Taal’s social media before they issued his visa would have revealed ineligibilities and saved us having to find a job for one more “Africana studies” Ph.D.
Then there’s Kishan Kumar Singh, Mahammadilham Vahora and Hajiali Vahora, and Vedantkumar Bhupenbhai Patel, all of whom were here on visas ostensibly to study when they were arrested in separate cases across the country for allegedly trying to scam elderly Americans out of their money. What might their social media have shown?
Looking at Chinese students more carefully, in particular, might stop a future Shenghua Wen—the Chinese student who overstayed his 2012 student visa, dropped out of school, and apparently went into business shipping arms to North Korea. Chinese students being caught smuggling in suspicious items and engaged in research that could benefit China and undermine the U.S. are happening with alarming frequency.
The U.S. has over a million foreign students here already and issues almost half a million more such visas every year. Weeding out a few who are more intent on rioting, protesting, or doing nefarious research than getting a degree will encourage the rest to respect our country and our rules.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
