In his State of the Union address on January 30, 2018, after completing his first year in office, President Trump officially introduced his Administration’s four pillars for immigration reform.
The first pillar “offers a path to citizenship for 1.8 million illegal immigrants who were brought [to the United States] by their parents at a young age…” Commonly known as Dreamers, individuals within this group who meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be eligible for naturalization (U.S. citizenship), according to Trump.
The second pillar aims to enhance border security. It involves building a big wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and hiring more border patrol officers. “Crucially, our plan closes the terrible loopholes exploited by criminals and terrorists to enter our country — and it finally ends the dangerous practice of ‘catch and release’,” Trump said.
The third pillar ends the Diversity Visa Lottery, which Trump criticized as “a program that randomly hands out green cards without any regard for skill, merit, or the safety of our people.” He further called for a “merit-based immigration system.”
The fourth pillar “protects the nuclear family by ending chain migration” and restricting family-based immigration to only spouses and minor children. Trump claimed that under the current system, “a single immigrant can bring in virtually unlimited numbers of distant relatives.”
Trump deems the Diversity Visa Lottery program and “chain migration” as sources of terrorist attacks and threats to the national security of the United States.
While Trump has said Congress should pass a “bill of love” for young, undocumented immigrants who qualified for the Obama Administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which he rescinded on September 5, 2017, his support does not come without conditions.
Conditioning protections for Dreamers and DACA holders on federal funding for a Southern border wall and reductions in legal immigration, in particular, makes it harder for a gridlocked Congress to reach a mutually agreeable, workable solution. Congress’ failure on February 15 to secure enough votes to advance any of the four immigration bills up for a vote is a prime example. To learn more, read White House-Backed Bill Proposing Protections for Dreamers/DACA Holders, Restrictions on Family-Based Immigration, and End to Diversity Visa Lottery Fails to Pass in the Senate; Worries Prevail.
In the meantime, the Trump Administration has relied on presidential proclamations and executive policies to bypass Congress and impose travel restrictions and broaden immigration enforcement priorities. While the termination of prior, executive orders and the introduction of new ones are subject to checks and balances, including review by U.S. federal courts and the U.S. Supreme Court, they still have ripple effects.
Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives the President broad authority to suspend entry of a class of foreign nationals temporarily if he or determines the entry of such aliens would be detrimental to the U.S. interest.
Trump’s Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats (Proclamation 9645) – dubbed “Travel Ban 3.0” – indefinitely suspends entry to the United States for nationals of eight countries (Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela, Yemen, Somalia).
There are a few exceptions, such as lawful permanent residents, asylees, and diplomatic visa holders from these countries. Consular officers and immigration officials may also grant case-by-case waivers to those who would otherwise be subject to the entry ban, if denial of their admission would cause them undue hardship and their admission would not pose a threat to the national security of public safety of the United States and would be in the national interest.
Federal courts in Hawaii and Maryland issued preliminary injunctions partially blocking Travel Ban 3.0, but they were lifted by the U.S. Supreme Court on December 4, 2017, allowing Trump’s proclamation to go into effect. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear oral argument on April 25 regarding whether the ban violates U.S. immigration law or the U.S. Constitution.
Trump’s termination of the DACA program has spurred federal lawsuits, which resulted in February 13th New York and January 9th San Francisco court orders, issuing temporary injunctions to block the Administration’s rescission. As a result, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) — which recently changed its mission statement to remove the term “nation of immigrants” and emphasize “protecting Americans” — continues to accept DACA renewal requests for now.
The Administration’s expansion of immigration enforcement priorities has also made certain, undocumented immigrants increasingly vulnerable at their USCIS interviews. Spouses of U.S. citizens are now more likely to be apprehended by U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) at in-person interviews with USCIS, when they seek an approval of a marriage-based petition to legalize their status, but have already been issued a removal order, been previously caught unlawfully entering the United States, have criminal convictions, etc.
In light of the Administration’s immigration policies, it has become more critical to have experienced, attentive immigration counsel evaluate your eligibility for immigration benefits (preferably before you file for them) and accompany you to in-person interviews with USCIS. For more information, read 5 Benefits of Having Immigration Counsel at Your In-Person Interview with USCIS.
Contact Dyan Williams Law to help you evaluate your qualifications for permanent residence or naturalization, overcome visa refusals, apply for waivers of inadmissibility, and represent you at green card or citizenship-related interviews with USCIS.
Founder & Principal Attorney
Dyan Williams Law PLLC
This article provides general information only. It is based on law, regulations and policy that are subject to change. Do not consider it as legal advice for any individual case or situation. Each legal case is different and case examples do not constitute a prediction or guarantee of success or failure in any other case. The sharing or receipt of this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.