When I voted for Donald Trump, it wasn’t because I expected liberal immigration policies or low barriers on foreign work visas. I believed in “America First,” economic strength, and a more merit-based system of opportunity. I accepted that immigration would be tighter, that not everyone comes in, and that the rules should reward those who contribute.
But even someone who resonates with Trump’s worldview can reach a breaking point. His recent proclamation imposing a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa petitions has forced me to seriously consider uprooting my life — returning to India — even though my political sympathies remain intact. I’m torn: part of me still believes in his broader vision, but part of me must weigh whether the U.S. remains a viable home for professional immigrants.
In this article, I trace:
-
My path to becoming a Trump supporter
-
What the $100K H-1B policy changes mean in practice
-
The tipping points making me reexamine American opportunity
-
The attractiveness and challenges of returning to India
-
What this tension says about the new immigrant calculus
Section I: How I Came to Support Trump — Not Blindly, but Principled
Early life and values
I grew up in India, in a middle-class household. From childhood I saw teachers, public servants, small entrepreneurs struggle under bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption. I admired models of governance and capitalism where merit, accountability, and rule of law had weight. When I moved to the U.S. for graduate studies, I became fascinated by American institutions: its balance, its strengths, and how governance shapes opportunity.
Over time, disillusionment with status quo politics, concerns about debt, stagnation, and cultural change made me gravitate toward those who promised disruption and recalibration. Trump's rhetoric appealed as someone unafraid to challenge entrenched elites. I believed immigration reform could coexist with fairness, and that immigrants who truly add value should be welcomed but not unlimited inflows.
So when I voted, I did so not out of anger but out of hope: hope that certain values economic discipline, border control, merit emphasis would restore institutional balance.
Visiting contradictions
Of course, I was aware of many tensions: immigration restrictions, strong rhetoric, shifting policy. But I believed those would be constrained by political checks, legal recourse, and institutional moderation. I assumed the exceptional path would remain open gradual change, not radical exclusion.
As a professional with H-1B ambitions, I understood risk. But I also believed in the U.S. commitment to attracting global talent, especially in STEM and finance. I figured that policy would weigh national interest, economic demand, and American competitiveness.
Now, that assumption feels tested.
Section II: What Trump’s $100K H-1B Policy Really Means
The policy & its contours
On September 19, 2025, President Trump issued a proclamation requiring a one-time $100,000 fee on any new H-1B visa petition filed between September 21, 2025 and September 21, 2026.
This fee is in addition to existing filing, legal, and administrative costs.
Importantly, renewals of existing H-1Bs are exempt.
It also appears the restriction applies particularly to beneficiaries outside the U.S. who have not yet entered under H-1B petition, unless the employer pays the supplemental fee.
There is some discretionary carveout by the Secretary of Homeland Security for hires “in the national interest.”
In other words: if your employer wants to hire you from abroad (i.e. bring you into the U.S.) on a new H-1B, the cost has soared. If you already hold H-1B, you are less impacted at least for now.
Ripple effects in industry & lives
-
Indian IT and tech firms predict major disruption in U.S. operations. Nasscom called the change a “ripple effect.”
-
Indian students and STEM aspirants are rethinking the “American dream.” Some have already canceled U.S. plans.
-
Some startups, investment banks, and tech employers will restrict H-1B sponsorship only to senior, high-salary roles, cutting out junior hires.
-
The fact that Indians hold ~70 % of H-1B visas means this policy disproportionately affects Indian professionals.
-
Big tech firms (Google, Microsoft, Apple) are voicing internal concern about talent pipelines, though some argue current holders are unaffected.
In sum: for many immigrant professionals, this policy shift is existential. It isn't just administrative; it potentially alters life trajectories.
Section III: My Tipping Point — When Policy Outpaces Patience
I once believed that professional risk was part of immigrant life uncertainty about visas, politics, turnover. But there are thresholds beyond which one must reevaluate.
The cost calculus
When a company must add $100,000 over customary costs just to hire me, many employers will balk. That makes entry-level offers, startups, or smaller firms much less likely to sponsor me. Suddenly, opportunity narrows even if I have excellent skills. The cost barrier becomes a gatekeeper.
This means I must choose between:
-
Accepting roles in fewer, large, established firms willing to absorb costs
-
Staying in the U.S. but limiting career mobility or ditching visa ambitions
-
Returning to India, where I may have more freedom, less risk, and better growth prospects
That calculus weighs heavily.
Psychological cost
Immigration uncertainty, visa limbo, disrupted travel plans, familial displacement these weigh heavily. When policy changes feel capricious, one starts to question: am I a guest in someone else’s country, or a valued contributor?
The cognitive dissonance is real: how can I support a political system that now seems to disfavor people like me? My support is rooted in belief, but everyday lived experience is shifting.
When faith meets friction
Until now, I believed institutions, courts, elections would moderate extremes. I assumed policy would balance national interest with global talent. But this shift feels more aggressive, less tempered. If fundamental immigration access is being charged to a limit that makes me unhireable over a single fee that feels beyond reasonable reform.
The question becomes: what does “support” mean when your opportunity vanishes?
Section IV: The Return Option — Why India Looks So Much Freer Now
Returning to India is not a retreat it may become a strategic move. Here’s why that option is increasingly attractive.
Growing Indian tech ecosystem
-
India’s own tech, AI, fintech, startup sectors are booming. You no longer have to go abroad to build cutting-edge work.
-
The “brain gain” is real: many Indian companies are raising funding, buying global reach, and paying competitive salaries (in dollars or INR equivalent).
-
In India, I would not be subject to visa risk, border control, or sudden policy fee hikes. My professional mobility is more secure domestically.
Cost of living, lifestyle, and family proximity
-
The U.S. is expensive: housing, health care, childcare, taxes, legal costs, immigration lawyers. In India, many of these pressures recede.
-
Being closer to family, cultural familiarity, and roots matter emotionally. If professional sacrifice is comparable, the intangible benefits weigh strongly.
Role in India’s growth narrative
Returning means contributing to India’s digital transformation cloud infrastructure, AI labs, fintech, deep tech, education. It’s not second-best; it’s shaping future domestic strength. Some returnees find leadership roles, edge work, policy or startup opportunity, not just the “fallback” option.
Remotely global too
Remote work decouples geography from opportunity. I could live in India, deliver to U.S. or global clients, build international networks, and still avoid visa risk. Many global firms now accept remote or hybrid models. Returning doesn’t mean isolation.
Section V: The Risks, Compromises & Hard Realities of Going Back
It’s not all rosy — returning carries its own constraints.
Pay disparity & currency risk
Even in high-end Indian tech, USD-level pay is rare. Salaries may be lower. Currency fluctuations, tax burdens, local inflation may erode value. The tradeoff must be clear.
Infrastructure, ecosystem constraints
Some advanced R&D, cutting-edge labs, specialized equipment, or ecosystems (venture capital ecosystems, academic collaborations) are still more mature in U.S./Bay Area, Europe. Returning may limit access to those ecosystems.
Transition costs & disruption
Upheaval: moving, closing U.S. contracts, re-establishing networks, adjusting to local norms—that friction is nontrivial. You may lose seniority recognition, project continuity, or international stature in some circles.
Political and regulatory friction in India
India has its own challenges: bureaucracy, regulatory uncertainty, import tariffs, intellectual property concerns, infrastructure constraints. While often less existential than visa versions in U.S., these matter.
Psychological perceptions
Colleagues or peers may interpret return as failure or retreat even if it’s strategic. Balancing prestige, ego, and narrative becomes delicate.
Section VI: A Personal Road Map: How I’m Weighing the Decision
This is not a snap judgment but a continuum. Here’s how I think through it in practice:
-
Assess firm incentives
Are there U.S. firms ready to sponsor me despite the fee? Can I find roles where my value justifies the cost? -
Negotiate hybrid or remote roles
Accept roles where I can stay abroad but contribute to U.S. teams, reducing visa need. -
Save capital buffer & plan contingencies
Keep financial runway so move-back doesn’t feel desperate but optional. -
Test India opportunities quietly
Approach Indian firms or startups, network locally while still in U.S. role to see overlap. -
Continuously monitor policy & legal change
Track court challenges, legislative pushback, exceptions that may soften the fee. -
Define timeline & thresholds
Set benchmarks (e.g. “If no sponsorship by year X, I’ll commit to region swap”). -
Frame narrative proactively
In conversations, position return not as defeat but as strategic reorientation “returning to contribute,” “pursuing growth trajectory in my homeland.”
Section VII: Broader Implications of My Dilemma
My personal struggle is emblematic of new immigrant calculations in 2025. A few reflections:
-
Policy incoherence erodes goodwill
When rules shift aggressively, even political supporters feel alienated. Trust in institutions may diminish. -
Talent flight will reverse classic migration flows
We may see a “reverse brain drain,” with professionals leaving the U.S. and investing in Indian, Canadian, or European ecosystems. -
The American advantage is less certain
If opportunity is fragile and contingent on policy whims, the U.S. as a magnet for global talent weakens. -
Political identity and economic self-interest decouple
Immigrants may subscribe ideologically to a political brand, but reject policies that harm them materially. That decoupling is new. -
Global equity of opportunity is in flux
The shift may speed multipolar talent hubs, giving people more choice over where to invest life. The U.S. may lose monopoly.
Support, But Not Silence
I remain a Trump supporter in many respects — taxes, foreign policy, institutional critique. But policies are not immune to consequences. If the cost of entry becomes prohibitive, the uptake of immigrant talent will shrink. If the next generation of professionals look at the visa calculus and walk away, the ideological base will feel betrayed.
My choice to consider India again is both personal and political. It’s not a retreat, but a rebalance of where opportunity and dignity align. I hope policy rethinks this fee, legal challenges succeed, and the door to high-skilled immigration remains open. But as of now, I see returning home not as giving up, but as a new chapter one of agency, calculation, and redefined allegiance.
