What is proposed below is regulatory, lawful and entirely intended to create hardships and burdens.  Thus, a new era in State Department visa requirements respond to newly established guidelines by the Supreme Court.

As a pragmatic and patriotic American I respectfully suggest and recommend the U.S. State Department immediately institute the “Roberts Requirement” following similar visa entry protocols previously used for COVID-19 tests prior to U.S. admittance.

The Roberts Requirement: Each female visa applicant must present a valid negative pregnancy test taken no longer than 10 days prior to travel to the United States.

The certified document, negative pregnancy test, together with all related visa approvals must be presented to Customs and Border Patrol at each port of entry. Failure disqualifies the traveler.

This is the same protocol as COVID-19, only using pregnancy status as the disqualifying health issue. It is a lawful regulation, born from a new standard established by the Supreme Court, that does not need congressional approval.

Don’t get stuck on details about why it will not work, it will.

Start thinking like a person who realizes the goal is to create severe antagonism through regulation.  That antagonism can then be directed.

Aim isolation, ridicule and marginalization at those who created the problem.  This can be done without visible vitriol.

The objective is not just making sure pregnant women do not get visas; that is one small element. The bigger objective is to make it extremely difficult to come to the USA and THEN pin that global compliance requirement on Chief Justice John Roberts, making him live every day with the consequences of his blinded American stupidity; facing him, belittling him, ridiculing him, sitting on the front pages of his peers and global friends.

Chief Justice John Roberts created this mess, now put it on his doorstep every day.

But people will lie – doesn’t matter.

But people will create fake documents – doesn’t matter.

But people will still overstay their visas – doesn’t matter.

You are putting the emphasis on the wrong aspect.

Make every overburdensome visa rule and travel permit regulation specifically attributable to John Roberts decision. Pre-screenings, pregnancy tests, supplemental bond requirements for 15-to 45-year-old females, shortened visa terms and much more.

No exclusions for diplomats, sports figures, foreign actors, employees, H1Bs, student entry or any other visa type – the works. Make the total visa entry system subject to a regulatory and compliance nightmare at a scale that is unheard of.  That is the scale of the problem Roberts has created.  Now blame John Roberts for it.

This ‘Roberts Requirement’ applies to all visa types.

The objective, and it can accompany many other requirements such as a “bond” attachment required for 15- to 45-year-old females to travel, is to create such an overwhelmingly restrictive visa process that it creates ridicule on the SCOTUS decision.

Make every regulation specifically cited to the Supreme Court decision and make it exceptionally burdensome.

Make SCOTUS own the outcome.

Canadians and Mexicans also need to comply.  The same rules apply to every nation and no longer are visas determined by timeline, but by the number of extensions required or allowed within it.

Every visa has a maximum duration of 3 months, with various extensions possible.

A one-year visa becomes a three-month visa with 4 extensions allowed. At each extension the same origination requirements must be fulfilled.

A two-year USA visa, is now a U.S. visa with 7 extensions allowed, etc.

Student visas carry the same requirement for 3-month extensions.

Require a – refundable at exit – surety bond purchase valued at $500,000 for any non-tourist visa. [Later the bond issuer, sell those non-refunded bonds and release the bounty hunters.]

No visas are exempt from the entry requirements.

This is a new era with new rules that specifically come as an outcome of new judicial rulings.  This is not a White House or State Department issue.  This is an issue created by the Supreme Court that needs an immediate response.

Congress can fix it, but in the interim – maximum regulatory pressure is applied directly to the wound.

♦ Example of point and counterpoints.

POINT: Canada, Mexico, India or [XXX] will scream this is unfair given the nature of our collaborative visa designations.

Counterpoint: Yes, you are correct.  That was then; this is now.  The nature of our visa system has changed because SCOTUS has just codified new distinctions on citizenship that now become new visa factors. Your nation does not convey birthright citizenship, so I understand your inability to accept our new terms. Unfortunately, our nation now does convey birthright citizenship, and as a consequence changes are needed.

Don’t back down. Make SCOTUS own it.

Sure, there will be legal challenges, all the way up to the same SCOTUS, and what are they going to do?

Think about it!

Make everyone live by the new rules – that are created by those who didn’t think about the consequences.