When the government imposes a $100,000 fee on each new H-1B visa petition, what do religious traditions and constitutional principles say about welcoming the skilled stranger — and about who actually pays?
Religious traditions across the board affirm welcoming the skilled stranger as both moral obligation and wise stewardship. The Constitution gives Congress — not the president — the primary authority to set immigration policy. Whatever one thinks of the policy goal of protecting American workers, the actual mechanism of a $100,000 fee tends to accelerate the offshoring of work rather than create domestic jobs, and tends to be paid by consumers and workers rather than by the foreign professionals it nominally targets. The deeper question is whether American innovation can continue to lead globally if the country systematically shuts the door on the talent that has helped build it.
Religious perspectives
Religious traditions consistently emphasize the value of welcoming skilled and contributing newcomers, while also recognizing the legitimate interest of communities in orderly process.
Judaism: The Torah's many commands to welcome the stranger include explicit recognition that strangers may bring skills and contributions: "the foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born" (Leviticus 19:34). The repeated emphasis on equal treatment includes equal opportunity to contribute.
Christianity: "Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:40). The early church's rapid spread depended on hospitality across cultural and political boundaries. The same principle applies in reverse: communities that welcome contributors thrive; those that exclude them lose.
Islam: The Quran's teaching that humans were "made into peoples and tribes that you may know one another" (49:13) recognizes that diversity of skills and perspectives is part of God's design. The early Islamic civilizations' enormous scientific and intellectual flourishing was built on welcoming scholars from across the known world.
The principle: Welcoming the skilled stranger is not pure altruism. It is also wise stewardship. Religious traditions recognize that communities that close themselves off from the talents of others impoverish themselves spiritually and materially.
Constitutional & legal framework
The H-1B program is one of the principal pathways for skilled foreign workers to contribute to the U.S. economy. The 2025 fee changes represent one of the most significant restructurings in the program's history.
The policy: President Trump announced on September 19, 2025 that a $100,000 fee would apply to new H-1B visa petitions, effective September 21, 2025. Existing visa holders are not subject to the fee. Previously, employer petition fees totaled approximately $2,000-$5,000.
The scale: Over 70% of H-1B visa holders are Indian citizens. Over 80% of computer-related H-1B positions are filled by Indian workers. Major U.S. tech employers — Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Apple, Google, plus financial firms like JPMorgan — depend on the program to fill skilled positions where domestic supply is insufficient.
Constitutional and statutory framework: Congress sets immigration policy under Article I, Section 8 (uniform Rule of Naturalization). The H-1B program was created by the Immigration Act of 1990. Substantial changes to fees and program structure are typically made by statute. Whether a $100,000 fee — equivalent to a 20-50x increase — can be imposed by executive proclamation rather than congressional action raises questions about the limits of presidential authority over fee schedules.
Who actually pays: The fee is nominally on employers. In practice, economists note that fee increases are typically passed through in three ways: (1) higher prices for consumers, (2) reduced wages or benefits for workers (including American workers in the same firms), and (3) outsourcing of work to other countries. The cost rarely stays where the law puts it.
Economic impact assessments: Industry analysts project the fee will reduce H-1B utilization by U.S. firms, accelerating offshoring of work to "near-shore" centers in Mexico, Canada, or to "global capability centers" in India itself. The intended goal — protecting American jobs — may be undermined by the actual effect of moving the work, not the workers, abroad.
Humanitarian concerns: India's Ministry of External Affairs noted "humanitarian consequences" from family disruption — workers and their families separated by sudden inability to renew or extend status.
The "America First" framing: Supporters argue the fee protects American workers from wage suppression. Critics argue it accelerates the relocation of high-skilled work outside the U.S., harming the American economy without benefiting American workers.
See: Article I, §8 (Naturalization Power) → | USCIS H-1B information →
Sources cited:BibleConstitution