u/Significant-Let2961

This is a genuine question. Not political. Not ideological. Just human.

How are we talking about hundreds of thousands of affected people and still nobody seems able to create enough noise? Does nobody know someone who knows someone? Someone with enough reach to bring this to CNN, Fox News, major podcasts, senators, journalists, or public figures willing to expose what is happening and pressure for answers?

Nobody has a college friend, a former coworker, a client, an investor, a lawyer, a journalist, or someone politically connected who can simply pick up the phone and help amplify this?

I honestly struggle to understand that.

If I personally had that kind of access, I would absolutely use it.

In my own country, people are already trying to speak with congressmen and senators who could at least help elevate these concerns through diplomatic or institutional channels toward the U.S. government. And even that feels small compared to what could happen if more Americans, especially influential ones with media reach and political access, decided to speak publicly about this issue.

How do we still not have stronger coordination, media attention, public pressure, senators actively discussing this, or influential people amplifying these stories? Among all these applicants, families, employers, attorneys, researchers, founders, and even American citizens directly impacted by this system, how is there still no unified movement strong enough to force visibility at a national level?

What honestly surprises me the most is not even the policy itself, but how fragmented everyone still is. We are talking about thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people affected in different ways. Families separated from loved ones, children away from parents, researchers, doctors, engineers, entrepreneurs, highly skilled professionals, people with approved cases stuck in limbo, financial losses, emotional exhaustion, careers paused, lives completely reorganized around immigration timelines.

Every group has its own valid reasons and its own side to defend. Families separated from parents and mothers, kids growing up away from one of their parents, researchers and entrepreneurs who literally put their lives on hold, people forced to completely change their plans, financial losses, sick family members far away from loved ones, and many others who were extremely close to finally moving forward and depended on this process.

At the end of the day, everyone has a fair point. And honestly, from another perspective, family based visas are statistically much more associated with potential public charge concerns, while Employment Based, as EB1 and EB2 cases are usually tied to national interest, not bias, just data, and they bring specialized skills, advanced qualifications, high income potential, and economic contribution. So applying the same “public charge” logic across all categories doesn’t really make much sense.

The more this develops, the harder it is to believe this is purely about “public charge” or financial self-sufficiency.

If that were truly the core issue, why are EB1 and EB2 applicants, many of whom are highly educated, employer-sponsored, or considered above-average contributors, getting caught in the same net?

And on the family side, how does it make sense to broadly freeze cases where sponsors may already be financially strong and fully capable of support?

So what exactly are we looking at here?

Is this really about:

- A new I-945 bond system?

- Bonds only for certain visa classes?

- Expanded case-by-case vetting?

- Political optics? Selective geopolitical targeting?

Because right now, some country selections feel difficult to explain purely through economics or welfare data alone.

When countries with wildly different economic profiles, education levels, and immigration patterns are grouped together, it naturally raises bigger questions:

Is this actually data-driven policy… or broader political strategy?

And if new tools are coming, what makes the most sense?

A financial bond? Tax return thresholds? Employer guarantees? Sponsor net worth tests?

At this point, the lack of transparency is creating more speculation than clarity.

Also… why is mainstream media barely touching this?

And why aren’t more political opponents aggressively forcing this into the spotlight if the policy is truly as controversial as it appears?

Genuinely curious!

What do people here think is the real endgame?

A rational screening overhaul… or a policy shaped more by politics than publicly stated?

Over the past several weeks, more members have started noticing what appears to be a clearer shift in visible leadership dynamics among President Dallin H. Oaks and President Henry B. Eyring.

To be clear: there has been no official Church statement indicating any immediate crisis for either man. But publicly observable patterns are fueling increasing discussion.

President Oaks is 93. President Eyring is 92. At that age, even absent major public announcements, reduced travel, lighter public schedules, shorter speaking assignments, and more delegated responsibilities are natural realities.

Recent patterns many have pointed to:

• More visible reliance on other senior apostles for key assignments

• Elder Dieter F. Uchtdorf increasingly viewed as a stabilizing public presence

• Uchtdorf’s prior decade in the First Presidency gives him unusually deep executive continuity

• Quorum seniority makes him one of the most institutionally experienced active voices beyond Oaks and Eyring

• Broader delegation is consistent with historical late stage apostolic transitions

Important distinction:

This does not automatically mean severe hidden illness. Age related conservation of energy, schedule management, and strategic delegation are normal in Church leadership, especially given the global operational demands.

What some observers are watching:

• Conference stamina and speaking length

• Travel frequency

• Temple dedication appearances

• Assignment shifts within the Quorum

• Public event substitution patterns

Historically, the Church often adjusts quietly before any major formal transition becomes obvious. That has happened before with aging presidents and counselors.

Likely next phase if current trends continue:

• More operational visibility from senior apostles like Uchtdorf, Christofferson, and Bednar

• Continued institutional continuity rather than abrupt change

• Gradual practical redistribution of duties

• Increased focus on preserving stability

There is enough public evidence to suggest age is clearly affecting both Oaks and Eyring in practical ways, but not enough verified evidence to claim dramatic undisclosed decline. The strongest case right now is not “crisis,” but “managed transition through senior delegation.”

For members watching closely, the bigger story may not be immediate succession, but how the Church is quietly preparing continuity while preserving order. In LDS history, that often matters more than any headline.