WASHINGTON, DC – A group of American citizens and immigrant rights groups has filed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s administration’s suspension of immigrant visa processing for 75 countries.
The lawsuit filed Monday alleges the Trump administration relies on false statements to justify halting visa processing, one of the most substantial restrictions on legal immigration in the country’s history.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
The lawsuit charges that the policy “represents an unlawful ban on legal immigration based on national origin and constitutes a new discriminatory and unlawful public charge rule that deprives families and workers of the procedures guaranteed by law,” according to a case brief from the National Immigration Law Center, one of the groups supporting the legal challenge.
The voluminous 106-page complaint further alleges that the government relies on “unsubstantiated and demonstrably false claims that nationals of targeted countries immigrate to the United States to become unduly dependent on cash welfare and are likely to result in ‘public accusations.'”
The State Department described the measure, announced in mid-January, as a “temporary suspension” of immigrant visa processing for “countries whose immigrants receive welfare benefits from U.S. citizens at unacceptable amounts.”
The ministry did not reveal the criteria it used to decide which countries to add to the list. This comes amid a broader effort to restrict legal immigration routes into the United States and deport illegal immigrants.
Affected countries include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Mongolia, Brazil, Colombia, Cambodia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Senegal, Ghana, Somalia, and Russia.
The list includes Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, Tunisia, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, as well as several countries in the Caribbean, Pacific Islands and Eastern Europe.
Nonimmigrant visas, including business and tourist visas, will continue to be exempt.
“The freeze will remain in place until the United States can ensure that new immigrants do not extract wealth from American citizens,” the State Department said in January.
“Arbitrary, illegal, and extremely harmful.”
More than a dozen organizations and individuals named as plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit, as well as seven legal organizations supporting them, argue that the administration’s policies exploit the so-called “official accusation” grounds of inadmissibility set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
They argue that this provision represents an “individualized” determination that, if granted immigration status, a person risks becoming “primarily and permanently dependent on the government for his or her livelihood.”
Additionally, they alleged that the administration violated other provisions of the INA. That provision states that “no person shall receive any preferential treatment or preference or be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa on the basis of race, sex, nationality, place of birth or place of residence.”
It further argues that the government has adopted an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes a “public charge.”
Plaintiffs include U.S. citizens who have petitioned and had their families, including children and spouses, petitioned and approved to join the United States, a process known as “family reunification.” Other plaintiffs included foreign nationals who had been approved for immigrant visas through their professions.
Hassan Shafiqullah, immigration oversight attorney for the Legal Aid Society, said the State Department’s policy is “arbitrary, illegal, and deeply harmful to families who simply want to follow the rules and be reunited with their loved ones.”
Other lawyers supporting the case emphasized that the policy disproportionately affects people in Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe.
Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, accused the administration of relying on “an obviously pretextual metaphor that non-white families are receiving benefits unfairly.”
“Congress and the Constitution prohibit white supremacy as a basis for immigration policy.”
The complaint also points to “arbitrary and derogatory” statements made by President Trump and administration officials about immigrants’ ability to receive public benefits.
The report notes that most immigrants are required to pay local, state, and federal taxes even though they are not eligible for most government aid programs.
The State Department did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment on the new bill. U.S. government agencies typically do not comment on pending litigation.
chance of success
The chances of success in a new lawsuit amid a flurry of legal challenges remain uncertain.
The plaintiffs won at least a temporary stay on several key immigration issues, particularly related to President Trump’s use of the Alien Enemy Act of 1798 to expedite deportation of alleged gang members and his efforts to end birthright citizenship amid litigation over the legal system.
Many more long-term decisions remain elusive.
Meanwhile, in 2018, the conservative-controlled U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to uphold President Trump’s visa ban on several Muslim-majority countries, including Iran, Syria, Yemen, Libya and Somalia.
In a 2018 ruling, most justices ruled that the president has broad discretion to restrict individuals from entering the United States.
At the time, the Trump administration cited “national security” concerns rather than the “public accusation” argument used in recent suspensions.
