Chain Migration

Stephen Miller Also Benefitted from 'NOT ACCEPTABLE' Chain Migration

First Melania Trump, now Stephen Miller.



A scathing Monday column in Politico has revealed that yet another member of President Trump's administration benefitted from chain migration, something the president once called "NOT ACCEPTABLE!"

As Reason previously reported, First Lady Melania Trump's parents became U.S. citizens last week by using the first lady as a sponsor. The family-based path to citizenship, often referred to as "chain migration," is the most common form of immigration and relies on a green card holder or a legal U.S. resident to sponsor a foreign family member. Prior to the first lady's use of the procedure for her parents, the president suggested limiting its use to spouses and minor children. Among his many criticisms of the practice, Trump once asserted that chain migration "cannot be allowed to be part of any legislation on Immigration."

According to David S. Glosser, uncle of White House policy adviser Stephen Miller, Miller's family also benefitted from chain migration. On Monday, Glosser wrote in Politico that Miller's maternal great-grandfather, Sam Glosser, became a U.S. citizen after various ancestors sent enough money to Eastern Europe to pay off debts and sponsor the passage of immediate family members to America. Glosser criticized his nephew, "who is an educated man and well aware of his heritage," for becoming "the architect of immigration policies that repudiate the very foundation of our family's life in this country." He argued that had Miller's immigration policies been enacted in the 20th century, the family may have become victims of "violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar's army."

Similar to Trump, Miller has backed legislation that would end chain migration. When the merit-based Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act was introduced by congressional Republicans in August 2017, Miller explained to the White House pool reporters that the bill sought to eliminate "so-called chain migration." Like Trump, he said that the bill would limit family-based migration to "spouses and minor children."

When asked about his ideal number of immigrants to the U.S., Miller told Fox News' Tucker Carlson in January, "I have my own views on it, but I think the important point is ending chain migration, as the president has called for, is necessary not just for economic security but for national security." He also confirmed that the administration was not merely looking to limit chain migration, but to eliminate it in favor of merit-based immigration.

NEXT: Judge Rules Chicago Can Keep Its Amazon HQ2 Bid Secret, Rejecting FOIA Lawsuit

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Oh, the humanity!

  2. That’s crazy! Next we’re going to hear that all those politicians who opposed tax cuts benefited from those tax cuts! Hard hitting stuff

    1. Huh? That would be exactly the opposite of what is being reported here.

      1. You oppose something that ends up benefiting you or has benefited you in the past.

        How is that different?

  3. “He argued that had Miller’s immigration policies been enacted in the 20th century, the family may have become victims of “violent anti-Jewish pogroms and forced childhood conscription in the Czar’s army.””

    Because Lord knows, it’s not as if any Jewish immigrants could have qualified for skills-based visas. /sarc

    1. Almost all of them wouldn’t have qualified. The only group that could have generally qualified in a skills-based visa system were the Puritans.

  4. “President Trump, under the very policies you criticize, your in-laws were able to come to this country and become citizens.”

    “Yeah, thanks for reminding me.”

    1. Hahaha, Eddie, I think you’ve figured out why Trump is so opposed to chain migration.

  5. Now do articles on things that Trump administration people were for and actually did, instead of being against and legally doing.

  6. Holy fucking whataboutism Batman!

  7. This illustrates another reason why open borders is the correct position. Anybody in the United States who is not 100% Native American, and who advocates restrictions on immigration, is guaranteed to be a hypocrite. So it’s no surprise that Drumpf’s henchman Stephen Miller has benefited from opportunities he wants to deny others.


    1. Because we all come from somewhere (even Native Americans didn’t spontaneously arise on this side of the globe), we must let everyone from anywhere come to this somewhere?

      That’s literally insanity. Not figuratively. Literally.

    2. How many years will it take for 500 million persons to migrate from China and India? Will the resources be available to adopt these people? How many years to adopt 100 million Africans? Will resources be available to support 1 billion people? Will the standard of living improve? Do you believe liberty would survive Sharia?

      I believe open borders is suicide.

  8. The same way that all the pols that were opposed to Obamaocare (and their exemption from it) opted out and continue to pay for their own medical coverage.

    Grow up, Reason.

    1. Congress was required to purchase plans from the Obamacare exchange, even though normally, they would have employer provided coverage. Not only were they not exempt, they had special requirements just for them.

  9. Yes, because US immigration laws and policies were exactly the same today as they were in 1903, and our society, economy, and population today haven’t changed a whit since then.

    You’re really grasping at straws here, Reason.

  10. Advocating for a change in a law and taking full advantage of the law as it stands are not contradictory.

  11. His great grandfather took advantage of this law before even his grandparents were alive.


    He’s responsible for this……….?

    Have you people lost your damned minds?

  12. Silly wabbit, these people are white. Does anyone really enjoy talking around the actual central subject here? I for one find it tedious.

    1. At the time, they were not considered white.
      White isn’t really a thing. It’s only a symbol of what society finds acceptable at the time. For the Know-Nothings, Catholics weren’t white, so Irish, Italians, and Spaniards were limited in their immigration. Then, they became acceptable and achieved Whiteness. Like Jews.

      1. Hahaha the people that believe this narrative are so dumb.

  13. There is a small but important point here.

    I believe when Trump (et al) are referring to “chain migration” they are referring to people who have a green card or are legal US residents who then bring over multiple family members.

    But Melania became a US citizen in 2006. I don’t think that is what they are talking about in terms of “chain migration”.

    1. Non-citizens can only sponsor unmarried children under 21 or spouses. You have to be a citizen to sponsor parents or other relatives. You can’t “chain” without someone becoming a citizen.

  14. Are we back to pointing out hypocrisy again?

    Tu quoque . . . or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal fallacy that intends to discredit the opponent’s argument by asserting the opponent’s failure to act consistently”

    How embarrassing for you!

    Didn’t you not take a logic class in college?

    Did you not know that libertarians aren’t susceptible to blatant fallacy?

    If your ability to argue for immigration is so pathetic that you can’t even attempt it without resorting to blatant fallacy, then work on that! For goodness’ sake, you’re making the rest of us open borders people look foolish by association–not that there’s anything okay with that fallacy either.

    1. More embarrassing that whining on behalf of Stephen Miller?

      1. It’s okay to be blatantly irrational so long as the person you’re criticizing is bad?

        Why should I listen to anything you say if you truly believe that reason and logic don’t matter–so long as your intentions are good?

        That’s why you’re a laughing stock, Tony.

        1. Oh dear me, I forgot all those times you jumped to Obama’s defense every time he was harassed about his immigration status even though it was perfectly legitimate and didn’t even involve any hypocrisy on his part.

          This can all be easily resolved as I proposed above: just be honest when you talk about the subject. It’s not immigration these people are opposed to, it’s people with a certain amount of melanin.

          1. One of the great things about the internet, for you, is that you get to interact with people you’d never even get to meet otherwise.

            For other people, you’re the turd in the punch bowl.

          2. Is there not a positive association between people with “different amounts of melanin” and cultural traits that may or may not be compatible with US society? Can’t we favor, or disfavor, people from cultures with compatible traits, even if it incidentally affects people with “different amounts of melanin”?

            1. Who gets to be the arbiter of what counts as legitimate American culture?

              I vote Native Americans, if anything. What about you?

              1. Founder descendants.

                1. Do you have any idea how many of those are black? Just saying.

                  1. More are not black. More are white Americans.

                    It matters not as ‘American’ has no race. Americans are all sorts of races.

                    1. We also are characteristically nonaristocratic, so it’s un-American to say that only the descendants of the Founders are real Americans. Also, very stupid. And retarded. And I’d like to reiterate that there are black people with more of a claim than you have.

    2. That’s not what was done here. This was to illustrate the effects of policy. The fact that it is personal to Miller just adds to its strength.

      t is a fallacy because the moral character or actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.

      That is not true in this case. The effect of the proposed policy if it had been in effect historically is relevant to our judgement of the policy.

      1. Fantasy.

        Fantasy is relevant.

        Great argument.

  15. US Constitution, Article II, Section 1:
    No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.

    Notice how the Founders wanted the rule for being president to only be Natural Born Citizens, except for the citizens at the time of adoption of the Constitution.

    You can be against a rule and still legally take advantage of it.

    1. They had to make that initial exception, or else it would be 35 years before anyone would qualify for the office of the President.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.