Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey.

Timeline of federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Trump Administration (first term)

US-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg

President Donald Trump
Vice President Mike Pence
Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term
Policy positions
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues
Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade
Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity
Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration
Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
Immigration-Tile Image.jpg
For more on immigration policy, view the following articles:
•Timeline of federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
•115th Congress on immigration, 2017-2018
•Federal policy on border security, 2017-2019
•Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020
•Federal policy on immigration enforcement and visa programs, 2017-2020
•Federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2017-2018
•Sens. Cotton and Perdue's Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act
•Trump administration officials on immigration, 2016-2018
•Immigration policy in the U.S.
See also: Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020

On January 8, 2019—the 18th day of a partial government shutdown that began over border wall funding—President Donald Trump called on Congress to allocate $5.7 billion to build a wall or steel barrier on the southern border to protect the nation. In the televised address from the Oval Office, Trump said that there was a humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border. He said, “At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.” Trump said that he would not sign legislation to end the partial shutdown if it did not include funding for border security.[1]

Immediately after Trump’s speech, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), issued a televised response rejecting Trump’s request for a border wall and calling on him to reopen the government. Pelosi said, “President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.” Schumer said that Democrats supported border security measures, but “disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.”[2]

On February 15, 2019, Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. He had requested $5.7 billion in wall funding. Because he did not get the amount requested, he declared a state of emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1 billion to build a border wall.[3]

The following timeline features major events and policy announcements on immigration. Click on the timeline below to learn more about each headline.


June 18, 2020: SCOTUS rules DHS did not properly follow APA when seeking to end DACA

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California (DHS) that DHS did not properly follow Administrative Procedure Act (APA) procedures when it sought to end the program in 2017. Though DHS started the program in 2012 with a memo that itself did not go through the APA rulemaking process, the court’s ruling argued that DHS failed to provide required analysis of all relevant factors associated with ending the DACA program. The majority opinion argued that that made the decision arbitrary and capricious under the APA. The court remanded the issue back to DHS, which can reattempt to end the program by providing a more thorough explanation for its decision.[4]

February 21, 2020: SCOTUS allows public charge rule to take effect

On February 21, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States voted 5-4 to allow the Inadmissability on Public Charge Grounds final rule, also known as the public charge rule, to take effect on February 24, 2020.[5][6] The practice of considering self-sufficiency in immigration proceedings in the United States predates the Trump administration. According to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, beginning in the 1800s "Congress has put into statute that aliens are inadmissible to the United States if they are unable to care for themselves without becoming public charges. Since 1996, federal laws have stated that aliens generally must be self-sufficient." The main law implementing this policy is the amended Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.[6]

On August 14, 2019, the Department of Homeland Security issued a final rule on the Inadmissability on Public Charge Grounds that modified the definition of a public charge and public benefits as governed by the statute. Under the final rule, the administration clarified the meaning of "likely at any time to become a public charge" as applying to any individual who is likely to receive public benefits for 12 months in a 36-month period. The phrase was previously defined as applying only to individuals likely to become primarily dependent on public benefits.

The final rule also expanded the programs considered to be public benefits, the receipt of which can result in an individual being considered a public charge. Prior to the final rule, three cash-based assistance program categories were admissible for consideration: Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), and general cash relief or assistance from state government. The final rule added the following programs to the definition of public benefits: non-emergency Medicaid; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program; Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance; and Public Housing. The final rule also clarifies the range of factors that will be considered when assessing whether an individual is considered to be a public charge.[7][8]

The final rule was initially scheduled to become effective on October 15, 2019, but injunctions from several federal courts prevented the rule from going into effect on that date.[9] In January 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court voted 5-4 to lift the injunctions applying to all states except Illinois, which was under a separate injunction.[10] On February 21, SCOTUS issued a decision to overturn the stay in Illinois in the case Wolf v. Cook County, Ill., which allowed the rule to take effect nationwide.[11]

February 15, 2019: Trump signs bill to fund parts of the government and border barrier; declares state of emergency

President Donald Trump signed a $328 billion spending bill that included $1.375 billion in funding for barriers on the southern border. He had requested $5.7 billion in wall funding. Because he did not get the amount requested, he declared a state of emergency on the southern border and directed $8.1 billion to build a border wall.[12]

In a Rose Garden announcement, Trump explained his emergency declaration, saying, “It’s a great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people.”[13]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the declaration, saying in a joint statement, “The president’s unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist does great violence to our Constitution and makes America less safe. The president is not above the law. The Congress cannot let the president shred the Constitution.”[13]

The day before Trump declared a state of emergency, the Senate passed the $328 billion spending bill by a vote of 83-16, and the House passed it by a vote of 300-128.

In the Senate, 42 members of the Democratic caucus and 41 Republicans voted for the bill. Eleven Republicans and five Democrats voted against the bill. 2020 presidential candidates Cory Booker (N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.), Kamala Harris (Calif.), and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) all voted against it. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) also voted against it. The 11 Republicans who voted against the bill were Sens. Mike Braun (Ind.), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Ted Cruz (Texas), Josh Hawley (Mo.), James Inhofe (Okla.), Mike Lee (Utah), Rand Paul (Ky.), Marco Rubio (Fla.), Ben Sasse (Neb.), Tim Scott (S.C.), and Pat Toomey (Pa.).[14]

In the House, 213 Democrats and 87 Republicans voted for the bill. One hundred and nine Republicans and 19 Democrats voted against the bill.[15]

The package of seven spending bills included funding for the following departments and agencies through September 30, 2019:[16]

  • Homeland Security: $61.6 billion in discretionary funding, including "$1.375 billion for construction of 55 news miles of physical barrier along Border Patrol’s highest priority locations along the southwest border," according to a Senate Appropriations Committee summary. This was the same amount of money that was in the 2018 spending bill, according to Politico. Trump had requested $5.7 billion.[17][16]
  • Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration: $23.042 billion in discretionary funding.
  • Commerce, Justice, and Science: $64.118 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $4.518 billion above the FY2018 enacted level.
  • Financial Services and General Government: $23.4 billion in discretionary spending.
  • Interior and Environment: $35.552 billion in discretionary funding, an increase of $300 million above the FY2018 enacted level.
  • State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs: $54.2 billion in discretionary funding, of which $8 billion is for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO).
  • Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: $71.079 billion, an increase of $779 million above the FY2018 level.

The bill was the result of negotiations that began on January 25, 2019, when members of Congress and Trump reached an agreement to temporarily fund the government while they worked out a larger plan to address immigration and border security.[18]

February 18, 2019: Sixteen states file suit against Trump's emergency declaration

On February 18, 2019, 16 state attorneys general filed a lawsuit in California’s Northern District against President Donald Trump's emergency declaration to pay for a wall along the southern border.[19]

The lawsuit stated that the emergency declaration showed a “flagrant disregard for the separation of powers. ... President Trump has veered the country toward a constitutional crisis of his own making.”[19]

The lawsuit was filed by Democratic attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Virginia. They said that the emergency declaration would cause their states to lose millions in federal funding and cause environmental damage.[19]

At the time of the filing, the following states with Democratic attorneys general did not join the lawsuit: Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin.

"The states’ lawsuit is likely to stall the implementation of the emergency declaration and generate protracted legal battles that could land before the conservative-dominated Supreme Court. The case may not be resolved before 2020, potentially making Mr. Trump’s plan an issue in the next presidential election," according to The Wall Street Journal.[19]

February 26, 2019: House passes resolution to overturn Trump's national emergency declaration

On February 26, 2019, the House passed legislation to overturn President Donald Trump's declaration of national emergency on the southern border. The resolution passed by a vote of 245-182. Every Democrat and 13 Republicans voted for the resolution.[20][21]

The 13 Republican who voted for the resolution were Reps. Justin Amash (Mich.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Mike Gallagher (Wis.), Jaime Herrera Beutler (Wash.), Will Hurd (Texas), Dusty Johnson (S.D.), Thomas Massie (Ky.), Cathy McMorris Rodgers (Wash.), Francis Rooney (Fla.), Jim Sensenbrenner (Wis.), Elise Stefanik (N.Y.), Fred Upton (Mich.), and Greg Walden (Ore.).[20]

The legislation now heads to the Senate where four GOP senators will have to vote with every member of the Democratic caucus to send it to Trump's desk. If it passes, Trump said that he would veto the resolution. It would be the first veto of his presidency.

Before the vote, Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), who supported the resolution, said, “We have a constitutional mission and a mandate to preserve the balance of power and to oppose this monument of hate.”[22]

Members of the House Liberty Caucus, including the group's leader Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), wrote in a statement, “This national emergency declaration does not conform to our constitution.”[22]

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who voted against the resolution, said, “What we see happening along the border, the amount of drugs, the amount of deaths in America, the human trafficking that’s coming across, the overwhelming problem there. So, the president has the authority to do it. And we will uphold him.”[23]

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.), an active-duty member of the Air National Guard, who was deployed to the border said, “I went down there neutral on this question, didn’t know whether or not I’d support a national emergency. And I came back more convinced probably than anybody that this is the right thing to do.”[23]

February 3, 2019: Trump administration announces more troops headed to southern border

On February 3, 2019, the U.S. Department of Defense announced that 3,700 members of the military would be sent to the southern border to assist Customs and Border Protection by placing razor wire along the border and helping with surveillance operations. Before the deployment, there were nearly 650 troops at the border.[24]

President Donald Trump initially signed a memorandum to deploy troops to the U.S.-Mexico border on April 4, 2018, and sent troops to the border in October 2018. Trump said that the troops were being deployed to combat "a drastic surge of illegal activity on the southern border."[25]

January 19, 2019: Trump releases plan to secure border and end partial shutdown

On January 19, 2019, President Donald Trump released his plan to secure the southern border and end the partial government shutdown that began on December 22, 2018. He said, “To every member of Congress: Pass a bill that ends this crisis. To every citizen: Call Congress and tell them to finally, after all of these decades, secure our border. This is a choice between right and wrong, justice and injustice. This is about whether we fulfill our sacred duty to the American citizens we serve.”[26]

Trump’s plan included the following:[26]

  • $5.7 billion to fund a steel barrier system;
  • $805 million for technology, canines, and personnel to prevent drugs and weapons from being brought into the country;
  • $800 million dollars in humanitarian assistance, medical support, and new temporary housing;
  • $782 million to hire an additional 2,750 border agents, law enforcement officers, and staff;
  • $563 million for the immigration court system, including hiring 75 new immigration judge teams;
  • Three years of provisional status for DACA and certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients, which would protect them from deportation.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) released the following statement shortly before Trump released his plan publicly: “Democrats were hopeful that the President was finally willing to re-open government and proceed with a much-need discussion to protect the border. ... It is unlikely that any one of these provisions alone would pass the House, and taken together, they are a non-starter.”[27]

January 24, 2019: Senate rejects two proposals to end the partial government shutdown

On January 24, 2019, the Senate rejected two proposals to end the partial government shutdown. The plan backed by Trump failed by a vote of 50-47. It needed 60 votes to pass. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) was the only Democrat who supported the bill. Sens. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) were the only Republicans who opposed the bill. The legislation proposed allocating $5.7 billion in border-wall funding, providing temporary protections for DACA and certain Temporary Protected Status (TPS) recipients, and funding unfunded government agencies.[28]

The Democratic-backed plan failed by a vote of 52-44. Six Republicans—Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Cory Gardner (Colo.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.), Mitt Romney (Utah), and Johnny Isakson (Ga.)—voted with Democrats for the continuing resolution to fund the government through February 8, 2019. It did not include funding for border security.[29]

The votes took place on the 34th day of the partial shutdown.

January 25, 2019: Congress and Trump reach temporary agreement to fund the government; border talks continue

On January 25, 2019, members of Congress and Trump reached an agreement to fund the government until February 15, 2019, while lawmakers worked out a larger plan to address immigration and border security.[18]

The Senate passed the continuing resolution by voice vote. The House unanimously passed the bill by voice vote, and Trump signed it, ending the 35-day partial government shutdown.

Trump had previously said that he would not sign legislation to reopen the federal government if it did not include funding for a border wall or barrier, but he agreed to do so, saying that he would declare a national emergency if the negotiations to fund the wall failed.[18]

January 8, 2019: Trump makes case for border barrier in televised address; Democratic leadership rejects request

In the televised address from the Oval Office on January 8, 2019, President Donald Trump said that there was a humanitarian and security crisis at the southern border, and he called on members of Congress to allocate $5.7 billion to build a wall or steel barrier to protect the nation. He said, “At the request of Democrats, it will be a steel barrier rather than a concrete wall. This barrier is absolutely critical to border security. It’s also what our professionals at the border want and need.”[1]

In making his case for the barrier, Trump said that individuals who enter the country without legal permission from the southern border strain public resources and drive down jobs and wages. He also said that some drugs and criminals enter the country through the southern border, harming Americans.[1]

In response to those, including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who “have suggested a barrier is immoral,” Trump said, “Then why do wealthy politicians build walls, fences, and gates around their homes? They don’t build walls because they hate the people on the outside, but because they love the people on the inside. The only thing that is immoral is the politicians to do nothing and continue to allow more innocent people to be so horribly victimized.”[1]

The address took place on the 18th day of a partial government shutdown. Trump said that he would not sign legislation to reopen the government if it did not include border funding.

Immediately after Trump’s speech, Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), issued a televised response rejecting Trump’s request for a border wall and calling on him to reopen the government. Pelosi said, “President Trump must stop holding the American people hostage, must stop manufacturing a crisis, and must reopen the government.”[2]

Schumer said that Democrats supported border security measures, but “disagree with the president about the most effective way to do it.” Schumer also criticized Trump for creating a crisis that he said did not exist. Schumer said, “This president just used the backdrop of the Oval Office to manufacture a crisis, stoke fear, and divert attention from the turmoil in his administration.”[2]

In his address, Trump did not declare a national emergency over border security, something he said that he was considering. “Federal law allows the president to halt military construction projects and divert those funds for the emergency,” according to The Wall Street Journal. Democrats said that they would challenge Trump’s declaration in court if issued.[30][31]

December 21, 2018: Trump pledges government shutdown unless border wall funding secured

On December 21, 2018, President Donald Trump announced that the government would shut down unless border wall funding was included in a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government beyond midnight on December 22. The statement came after the Senate passed a CR that did not include funds for a border wall on December 19. In response, the House passed an amended CR that included $5 billion in funding for a border wall. The Senate would have to accept the amendments from the House in order to send the CR to Trump's desk. According to The Wall Street Journal, the Senate was not expected to pass the CR that included border wall funding.[32]


Child Protection Improvements Act of 2017 (HR 695)

Yes check.svg Bill Passed (217-185) on December 20, 2018
Proposed providing continuing FY2019 appropriations to several federal agencies through February 8, 2019.[33]
  • The details: The House passed a continuing resolution (CR) to fund the government until February 8, 2019, by a vote of 217-185, with 31 members not voting. The resolution included $5 billion in funding for a border wall.[34]

December 20, 2018: DHS announces some migrants will be sent back to Mexico to await immigration proceedings

On December 20, 2018, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that individuals attempting to enter the U.S. without legal permission or proper documentation could be returned to Mexico while waiting for immigration proceedings. DHS invoked Section 235(b)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act in making the policy change.[35]

DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said in a statement, “Aliens trying to game the system to get into our country illegally will no longer be able to disappear into the United States, where many skip their court dates. Instead, they will wait for an immigration court decision while they are in Mexico. ‘Catch and release’ will be replaced with ‘catch and return.’ In doing so, we will reduce illegal migration by removing one of the key incentives that encourages people from taking the dangerous journey to the United States in the first place. This will also allow us to focus more attention on those who are actually fleeing persecution."[35]

Nielsen also said that the Mexican government was notified of the change. “In response, Mexico has made an independent determination that they will commit to implement essential measures on their side of the border. We expect affected migrants will receive humanitarian visas to stay on Mexican soil, the ability to apply for work, and other protections while they await a U.S. legal determination,” Nielsen said.[35]

Rep. Steve Chabot (R-Ohio) praised the policy change, saying it would bring “sanity to our asylum policies that have been exploited and abused.”[36]

Maureen Meyer, director for Mexico at the Washington Office on Latin America, criticized the policy, saying it was “yet one more example of the U.S. trying to outsource its international protection obligations to Mexico.”[36]

November 9, 2018: Trump issues presidential proclamation on asylum

On November 9, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a presidential proclamation preventing migrants who enter the country without legal permission from claiming asylum. The proclamation enacted a rule published by the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and Justice that stated only migrants who enter the country through legal ports of entry can claim asylum.[37][38][39]

Under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (INA), migrants can claim asylum even if they do not enter the country through a port of entry. The INA also gives the president the authority to prohibit the entry of migrants into the U.S. if their presence would be detrimental to the country.[40][41]

Citing the actions of previous presidents to prevent mass migration, Trump wrote, “I am similarly acting to suspend, for a limited period, the entry of certain aliens in order to address the problem of large numbers of aliens traveling through Mexico to enter our country unlawfully or without proper documentation. I am tailoring the suspension to channel these aliens to ports of entry, so that, if they enter the United States, they do so in an orderly and controlled manner instead of unlawfully. Under this suspension, aliens entering through the southern border, even those without proper documentation, may, consistent with this proclamation, avail themselves of our asylum system, provided that they properly present themselves for inspection at a port of entry.”[42]

November 9, 2018: Groups sue Trump administration over asylum proclamation

On the same day Trump issued the proclamation, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the Center for Constitutional Rights sued the administration alleging that the rule and proclamation violated the INA and the Administrative Procedure Act.[43]

Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement, “President Trump’s new asylum ban is illegal. Neither the president nor his cabinet secretaries can override the clear commands of U.S. law, but that’s exactly what they’re trying to do. This action undermines the rule of law and is a great moral failure because it tries to take away protections from individuals facing persecution — it’s the opposite of what America should stand for.”[43]

The groups said that the rule and proclamation “are in direct violation of Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar. Consistent with its international obligations, Congress was specific and clear: Entering without inspection is not a basis to categorically deny asylum to refugees."[43]

November 19, 2018: Judge blocks presidential proclamation on asylum

On November 19, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge Jon S. Tigar issued a temporary restraining order against Trump’s presidential proclamation on asylum. Tigar ruled the proclamation conflicted with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Tigar wrote, "Whatever the scope of the President's authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden." Tigar also said the rule was "an extreme departure from prior practice" and that immigrants would "suffer irreparable injury if the rule goes into effect."[44][45] Click here to read the full ruling.

November 8, 2018: Ninth Circuit Court rules Trump administration cannot end DACA

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On November 8, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a preliminary injunction against the Trump administration's attempt to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Ruling that the administration's reasons for ending DACA were arbitrary, the court wrote, “DACA was a permissible exercise of executive discretion.”[46][47]

"All three judges on the Ninth Circuit panel were appointed by Democratic presidents but they didn’t all adopt the same reasoning Thursday. Two said the Trump administration had likely violated principles of administrative law, while the third thought the rescission of DACA may have been motivated by unconstitutional racial animus, in violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection," according to The Wall Street Journal.[46]

In response to the decision, Justice Department spokesman Steven Stafford said, “While we are disappointed with today’s ruling, we are pleased that the court has finally acted and that the Supreme Court now can consider our petition for review.”[46]

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the ruling, saying, “Today’s decision is a tremendous victory for our young immigrant Dreamers and the rule of law. In California and across our nation, Dreamers significantly enrich our communities as scholars, entrepreneurs, first responders and much more. This fight, of course, is far from over. We will continue to defend Dreamers and DACA all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.”[46]

DACA, which was established by the Obama administration in 2012, protected individuals who were brought to the United States as children without legal permission from deportation and allowed those individuals to go to school and work.

October 30, 2018: Trump proposes ending birthright citizenship

During an interview released on October 30, 2018, President Donald Trump said that he would sign an executive order to end birthright citizenship, the right to citizenship for babies born on U.S. soil to non-citizens and individuals residing in the country without legal permission.[48]

Speaking about birthright citizenship, Trump said, "We're the only country in the world where a person comes in and has a baby, and the baby is essentially a citizen of the United States ... with all of those benefits. It's ridiculous. It's ridiculous. And it has to end." According to Axios, more than 30 countries have some form of birthright citizenship.[48]

If Trump signs the order, the courts would likely have to decide if it is constitutional. The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The amendment granted full citizenship to former slaves. In 1898, the Supreme Court addressed birthright citizenship in United States v. Wong Kim Ark. The court ruled that Wong Kim Ark, a child born to Chinese parents living in the U.S., was a citizen. According to Stephen Legomsky, former chief counsel for U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services during the Obama administration, the Supreme Court has only ruled that children of foreign diplomats and children of enemy occupiers are not eligible for birthright citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on whether birthright citizenship applies to the children of individuals in the country without legal permission or those with temporary visas.[48][49]

At a Politico event, Vice President Mike Pence used this argument as support for the executive order, saying, "The Supreme Court of the United States has never ruled on whether or not the language of the 14th Amendment subject to the jurisdiction thereof applies specifically to people who are in the country illegally.”[50]

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) criticized Trump’s proposal in a tweet, writing, "This is a blatantly unconstitutional attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigrant hatred in the days ahead of the midterms. The 14th Amendment’s citizenship guarantee is clear. You can’t erase the Constitution with an executive order."[50]

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said that Trump announced the executive order to get Republicans to vote. She said, "He’ll say anything before the election. Don’t take the bait. Focus on ending the hate. Hug a kid. Be nice to someone you don’t know or agree with. And vote. Please vote."[50]

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said that Trump did not have the authority to end birthright citizenship by executive order. He said, "As a conservative, I’m a believer in following the plain text of the Constitution, and I think in this case the 14th Amendment is pretty clear, and that would involve a very, very lengthy constitutional process. But where we obviously totally agree with the president is getting at the root issue here, which is unchecked illegal immigration.”[51]

Graham says he will introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said that he supported Trump’s proposal to end birthright citizenship and would introduce legislation to end it. Graham wrote in a series of tweets,

“ Finally, a president willing to take on this absurd policy of birthright citizenship. I’ve always supported comprehensive immigration reform – and at the same time – the elimination of birthright citizenship. The United States is one of two developed countries in the world who grant citizenship based on location of birth. This policy is a magnet for illegal immigration, out of the mainstream of the developed world, and needs to come to an end. In addition, I plan to introduce legislation along the same lines as the proposed executive order from President @realDonaldTrump.” I will be introducing legislation to deal with the issue of birthright citizenship for children of illegal immigrants -- in a prospective manner -- as I have always contended it has become a magnet for illegal immigration in modern times.”[54] ”

October 26, 2018: Trump administration to send troops to U.S.-Mexico border

On October 26, 2018, Secretary of Defense James Mattis approved a request from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to send additional members of the military to the southwest border to assist border patrol agents with a convoy of thousands of migrants trying to enter the U.S. The active-duty troops were approved in addition to the 2,000 National Guard members sent to the U.S.-Mexico border in April 2018. The Pentagon said that 5,200 troops would be deployed, with about 1,800 in Texas, 1,700 in Arizona, and 1,500 in California. The mission was expected to last until mid-December 2018.[55][56]

On October 31, 2018, President Donald Trump said that up to 15,000 members of the military could be deployed. He said, "As far as the caravan is concerned, our military is out. We have about 5,000. We'll go up to anywhere between 10 and 15,000 military personnel on top of Border Patrol, [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] and everybody else at the border."[57]

According to a statement from the Pentagon, the additional troops were approved to support border agents by providing “aviation support to move [Customs and Border Protection] personnel, medical teams to triage, treat and prepare for commercial transport of patients, command and control facilities, temporary housing for CBP personnel and personal protective equipment for CBP personnel.” Members of the military were also authorized to build temporary barriers, barricades, and fencing at the border. The military cannot engage in law enforcement activities at the border because the Posse Comitatus Act bars them from doing so.[55][58]

Speaking about the caravan, President Donald Trump said, “We’re not letting them in. They’d better go back now. Now, do we want them to apply and come in legally? Absolutely.”[55]

Will Fischer, director of government relations for VoteVets, a pro-Democratic advocacy group, criticized the move for harming military readiness. Fischer said, “What that means is that Donald Trump is mobilizing the military to be a bunch of gophers and movers for border patrol and DHS, which is a gross misuse of our military. For the president to take them away from training affects mission readiness.”[55]

November 25, 2018: DHS closes San Ysidro Port of Entry

On November 25, 2018, U.S. authorities closed the San Ysidro Port of Entry and fired tear gas at a group of Central American migrants trying to enter the country without legal permission. Tear gas was fired after some of the migrants threw projectiles at border patrol agents, according to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen. The migrants were seeking asylum in the U.S. to escape poverty and violence in their home countries, according to The Hill.[59][60]

Nielsen released a statement on the decision to close the port and use tear gas. She said,

“ This morning, CBP was forced to close the San Ysidro Port of Entry to ensure public safety in response to large numbers of migrants seeking to enter the U.S. illegally. After being prevented from entering the Port of Entry, some of these migrants attempted to breach legacy fence infrastructure along the border and sought to harm CBP personnel by throwing projectiles at them. As I have continually stated, DHS will not tolerate this type of lawlessness and will not hesitate to shut down ports of entry for security and public safety reasons. We will also seek to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law anyone who destroys federal property, endangers our frontline operators, or violates our nation’s sovereignty. CBP, along with other DHS law enforcement, federal law enforcement, the U.S. military and state and local law enforcement, will continue to have a robust presence along the Southwest Border and at our ports of entry to prevent illegal entry or violence. We continue to stay in close contact with Mexican authorities and we remain committed to resolving this situation safely in concert with our Mexican partners.[54] ”


June 20, 2018: Trump signs an executive order addressing the separation of children from parents crossing the border illegally

On June 20, 2018, President Donald Trump (R) signed an executive order directing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to keep detained families together. The order also called on the U.S. Department of Defense to assist in providing housing for families when detention centers are at capacity, according to Politico. The order came amid criticisms of the administration's policy, announced on May 7, 2018, of prosecuting parents crossing the U.S. border illegally and separating children from their parents pending resolution of their cases. Prior to signing the order, Trump said, "We’re going to be signing an executive order in a little while. We’re going to keep families together but we still have to maintain toughness or our country will be overrun by people, by crime, by all of the things that we don’t stand for and that we don’t want." The full text of the order can be accessed here.[61][62][63]

At the time the order was signed, it was unclear how it might conflict with the Flores agreement, a legal settlement reached in 1997 that has been interpreted by federal courts to prevent immigration officials from detaining minor children for more than 20 days. Trump's order directed the attorney general to file a request in federal district court to modify the terms of the agreement "in a manner that would permit [federal officials] ... to detain alien families together throughout the pendency of criminal proceedings for improper entry or any removal or other immigration proceedings." On July 9, 2018, Judge Dolly Gee, of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, issued an order denying that request. Gee wrote, "It is apparent that Defendants' Application is a cynical attempt ... to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. ... In sum, Defendants have not shown that applying the Flores Agreement 'prospectively is no longer equitable,' or that 'manifest injustice' will result if the Agreement is not modified." Devin O'Malley, a spokesman for the U.S. Department of Justice, said the following in a statement responding to Gee's order: "Parents who cross the border will not be released and must choose between remaining in family custody with their children pending immigration proceedings or requesting separation from their children so the child may be placed with a sponsor."[64][65][66]

Pentagon spokesperson Dana White told Reuters that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had asked the Pentagon "to determine its capabilities to provide up to 20,000 temporary beds for unaccompanied alien children" at military bases. As of June 22, 2018, no final decision on whether to house such children at military bases had been made.[67]

On June 22, 2018, an anonymous Trump administration official told the Associated Press that approximately 500 of the roughly 2,300 children separated from their families at the border had been reunited since May 2018. The official went on to say that federal agencies were planning to establish a procedure for processing the remaining reunifications.[68]

On June 23, 2018, the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a press release detailing the planned reunification process. According to that release, the federal government had reunified 522 children—referred to as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC)—with their families and was in the process of reuniting another 16 UAC with their families at the time the statement was issued. This left 2,053 unaccompanied minors being housed in HHS facilities, with 83 percent of those having arrived in the United States without a parent or guardian, according to the press release.[69]

Responses

  • On June 26, 2018, Judge Dana Sabraw of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that migrant families separated at the border must be reunited. Sabraw issued a nationwide injunction against separating migrant families at the border. The ruling specified that children under the age of five held in federal shelters should be returned to their parents by July 10 and children older than the age of five should be returned by July 26. Sabraw stated in the injunction that families were not to be separated unless parents were deemed unfit and added that parents were entitled to speak with their children within 10 days. On July 6, 2018, federal officials asked that these deadlines be extended. Attorneys for the federal government said the following in a statement submitted to the court: "The government does not wish to unnecessarily delay reunification. At the same time, however, the government has a strong interest in ensuring that any release of a child from government custody occurs in a manner that ensures the safety of the child." On July 8, 2018, federal officials informed Sabraw that more than 50 children would be reunited with their families the following day and that approximately 40 others could not yet be reunified with their families due to issues with matching them with their parents or clearing the parents to take custody of the children. Sabraw said, "I am very encouraged about the progress. This is real progress. I'm optimistic that many of these families will be reunited tomorrow."[70][71][72]
    • On July 10, 2018, federal officials informed Sabraw that 38 of 102 children under the age of five would be reunited with their parents by the end of the day (and that another 16 would be reunited with their parents shortly thereafter). The U.S. Justice Department said, "Any children not being reunified by the July 10 deadline are not being reunified because of legitimate logistical impediments that render timely compliance impossible or excusable, and so defendants are complying with the court's order." Sabraw said, "I intend to stand on the deadline. The government, because of the way the families were separated, has an obligation to reunite and to do it safely and efficiently, that's paramount." Sabraw ordered officials to provide an update on July 12.[73]
    • On July 12, 2018, federal officials announced that 57 children under 5 years of age had been reunited with their families. Officials noted that another 46 children were not eligible for reunification (e.g., because their parents hadn't cleared background checks, had criminal records, or had been deported). Alex Azar, secretary of Health and Human Services, Kirstjen Nielsen, secretary of Homeland Security, and Jeff Sessions, attorney general, said, "As of this morning, the initial reunifications were completed. Throughout the reunification process, our goal has been the well-being of the children and returning them to a safe environment."[74]
    • On July 16, 2018, Sabraw ordered a temporary halt to the deportation of families reunited under his June 26 ruling. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) requested the move, arguing that it was necessary due to "persistent and increasing rumors — which [federal officials] have refused to deny — that mass deportations may be carried out imminently and immediately upon reunification." Sabraw gave federal officials one week to file a response in opposition to this request.[75][76]
    • On July 26, 2018, the deadline set by Sabraw for reuniting children over the age of five with their families, federal officials reported that 1,442 such children had been reunited with their parents held in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody. Another 378 children had been sent either to a sponsor or to their parents held in Department of Homeland Security custody. Another 711 children remained in the care of the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement because their parents were either ineligible or unavailable for reunification. This included 120 children whose parents waived the right to reunification, 431 children whose parents were outside of the United States, and 94 whose parents' locations remained unclear.[77]
  • On June 21, 2018, Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson (D) announced that Washington and 10 other states would file suit in federal district court against the Trump administration over its policy of separating children from parents who cross the U.S. border illegally. Ferguson said, "We'll allege that the administration is violating constitutional due process rights of the parents and children by separating them as a matter of course and without any findings that the parent poses a threat to the children. The policy is also irrationally discriminatory in violation of constitutional guarantees of people protection, because it only targets people crossing our southern border, not any other entrance to the United States." The other states joining the lawsuit included Oregon, California, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Iowa, Illinois, and Minnesota. Ferguson's office had planned to file the suit in federal district court on June 21, 2018, but postponed filing to amend the complaint to reflect Trump's June 20, 2018, executive order.[78] On June 26, six other states—Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia—joined the lawsuit.[79][80]
  • In a statement issued on June 20, 2018, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said, "I am glad the president took this step today. I hope the federal courts reconsider the decision that limits an administration's ability to keep families together while their immigration status is being determined."[81]
  • Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y) said the following via Twitter on June 20, 2018: "It's a relief that [Trump] has reversed himself & recognized the cruelty of his policy of separating families. While the EO doesn't reference the families already ripped apart, I hope & expect that the admin will be able to quickly reunite these children w/their parents."[81]
  • House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said the following in a statement on June 20, 2018: "The President’s Executive Order seeks to replace one form of child abuse with another. Instead of protecting traumatized children, the President has directed his Attorney General to pave the way for the long-term incarceration of families in prison-like conditions."[82]
  • Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said via Twitter on June 20, 2018, "Very pleased [President Trump] will issue an executive order dealing with separation of children and parents detained at our southern border. Only Congress can provide a permanent solution regarding the legal dilemma created by the 1997 Flores settlement agreement."[81]

June 11, 2018: Sessions says individuals who are victims of private crime not eligible for asylum

On June 11, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that individuals who are victims of private crime, including domestic and gang violence, in their home country will no longer automatically qualify for asylum in the U.S. Sessions said in a statement, “Our nation’s immigration laws provide for asylum to be granted to individuals who have been persecuted, or who have a well-founded fear of persecution, on account of their membership in a ‘particular social group,’ but most victims of personal crimes do not fit this definition—no matter how vile and reprehensible the crime perpetrated against them.”[83]

Sessions’ decision overturned two asylum rulings from the federal immigration appeals board. In 2016, the board ruled that a Salvadoran woman who came to the U.S. to escape physical and emotional abuse inflicted by her husband should be granted asylum. In 2014, the appeals board ruled that married women from Central America who were not allowed to leave their abusive marriages could apply for asylum because they were members of “a particular social group.”[83][84]

Sessions said of the 2014 decision, “The mere fact that a country may have problems policing certain crimes effectively — such as domestic violence or gang violence — or that certain populations are more likely to be victims of crime, cannot itself establish an asylum claim.”[84]

Michelle Brané, the director of the Women’s Refugee Commission’s Migrant Rights and Justice program, criticized Sessions' decision, saying, “Attorney General Sessions’ decision to limit the reasons why people can claim asylum is a devastating blow to families who come to our country seeking protection and safety.”[83]

Jason Cone, executive director of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières said the decision was “an extension of a ruthless pattern by the Trump Administration of targeting neglected and at-risk people, such as refugees, unaccompanied minors fleeing forced gang conscription and women in need of lifesaving reproductive-health services.”[83]

December 19, 2018: Judge blocks asylum policy

On December 19, 2018, Judge Emmet Sullivan called the Trump administration's asylum policy “arbitrary” and “capricious,” and ruled in favor of 12 adults and children who challenged the policy. The individuals claimed to have been sexually abused, kidnapped, and beaten in their home countries and sought asylum in the United States.[85]

In his opinion, Sullivan wrote that the Trump administration's asylum policy violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). He wrote that the policy was "inconsistent with the intent of Congress as articulated in the INA. And because it is the will of Congress—not the whims of the Executive—that determines the standard for expedited removal, the Court finds that those policies are unlawful." The ruling prevents the Trump administration from deporting asylum seekers who are victims of domestic and gang violence in their home country.[86]

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a motion to stay a broad application of the ruling. The DOJ said, “Should this court’s decision not hold up on appeal, it would result in changing and confusing alterations of the policies needed to screen tens of thousands of aliens arriving at our borders."[85]

May 7, 2018: Trump administration announces it will prosecute parents who cross the border with their children

On May 7, 2018, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration would prosecute parents who crossed the U.S. border illegally with their children. The policy called for parents to be separated from their children, pending resolution of their cases. The policy called for children to be placed in shelters or with families. The policy applied to those crossing the border illegally, not those requesting asylum at ports of entry. Those caught crossing the border illegally would still be permitted to apply for asylum.[87]

Sessions said, “I have put in place a zero-tolerance policy for our Southwest border. If you cross the border illegally, we will prosecute you. It’s that simple. If you smuggle illegal aliens across our border, then we will prosecute you. If you are smuggling a child, then we will prosecute you and that child will be separated from you as required by law. If you make false statements to an immigration officer or file a fraudulent asylum claim, that’s a felony. If you help others to do so, that’s a felony, too. You’re going to jail. So if you’re going to come to this country, come here legally. Don’t come here illegally.”[88]

At a Senate Appropriations subcommittee meeting on May 8, 2018, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) criticized the policy, saying, “No matter what you call it, the new policy is going to result in thousands of children, some of them infants, being forcibly separated from their families. My concern is not just that the administration is turning its back on immigrants. This administration is turning its back on what it means to be American.”[89]

Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen responded to the criticism by calling on families to come to the ports of entry to request asylum instead of crossing the border illegally. She said, “If you are fleeing and have a need to come to the United States, please come to the ports of entry. If you have a legitimate claim and you come to a port of entry, you haven’t broken the law.”[89]

Amid criticism, White House officials said "that releasing the entire family would remove all consequences for adults trying to enter the U.S. They said it would make the country a 'magnet' for more illegal immigration, and that they were barred from the alternative of detaining families as a unit by the Flores decision," according to The Wall Street Journal. The 1997 Flores decision stated that children entering the U.S. without legal permission cannot be detained for more than 20 days.[90]

Ur Jaddou, the director of DHS Watch at America’s Voice, disputed the White House's stance, saying, “Deliberately separating children from parents to sow fear in parents as a deterrence is unprecedented and beyond cruel. There are no ‘loopholes’ nor statutory requirements that children be ripped from their parents’ arms as a matter of routine practice.”[90]

Questions raised about separation policy

In early June 2018, media attention to the policy increased, resulting in a series of reports by a variety of outlets. This increased attention prompted reactions from political figures, both Republican and Democratic.

On June 16, 2018, Senators Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine.) submitted a letter to Kirstjen Nielsen, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Alex Azar, Secretary of Health and Human Services, asking for additional information on U.S. policy regarding the separation of children from parents seeking asylum. "We write regarding the safety and security of young children immigrating to the United States. Secretary Nielsen recently appeared before the U.S. Senate and testified that immigrant parents and children who present themselves at U.S. ports of entry to request asylum will not be separated. Despite Secretary Nielsen's testimony, a number of media outlets have reported instances where parents and children seeking asylum at a port of entry have been separated."[91]

On June 17, 2018, Secretary of Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen made the following statement via Twitter: "This misreporting by Members, press & advocacy groups must stop. It is irresponsible and unproductive. As I have said many times before, if you are seeking asylum for your family, there is no reason to break the law and illegally cross between ports of entry. You are not breaking the law by seeking asylum at a port of entry. For those seeking asylum at ports of entry, we have continued the policy from previous Administrations and will only separate if the child is in danger, there is no custodial relationship between 'family' members, or if the adult has broken a law. DHS takes very seriously its duty to protect minors in our temporary custody from gangs, traffickers, criminals and abuse."[92]

Some Democratic members of Congress disputed Nielsen's statement. Rep Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said, via Twitter, "If this isn't the White House policy, please tell the officials who I spoke with in Tornillo today who believe it is. Either own it or change it. Scratch that - just change it." Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) said, also via Twitter, "This isn't true. I just met with officials at Border Patrol Processing Center in McAllen, Texas, who told me 1,147 children have been separated from parents at their facility."[92]

On June 18, 2018, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said, "The pace of separations has increased — from nearly 50 to nearly 70 per day — despite widespread opposition throughout America. The White House appears deaf to the wellspring of opposition and deep concern about the welfare of children."[93]

Trump calls for legislative action

On June 18, 2018, at a space policy event at the White House, President Donald Trump (R) said, "If the Democrats would sit down instead of obstructing, we could have something done very quickly. Good for the children, good for the country, good for the world."[93] That same day, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) also called for a legislative solution whle speaking at the National Sheriffs' Association conference. He said, "President Trump has said this cannot continue. We do not want to separate parents from their children. If we build the wall, if we pass legislation to end the lawlessness, we won’t face these terrible choices. We will have a system where those who need to apply for asylum can do so and those who want to come to this country will apply legally. The American people are generous people who want our laws enforced. That is what we intend to do, and we ask Congress to be our partners in this effort."[94]

On June 19, 2018, in remarks delivered at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration in Washington, D.C., President Donald Trump (R) said, "Under current law, we have only two policy options to respond to this massive crisis: We can either release all illegal immigrant families and minors who show up at the border from Central America, or we can arrest the adults for the federal crime of illegal entry. Those are the only two options. ... So what I’m asking Congress to do is to give us a third option, which we have been requesting since last year — the legal authority to detain and promptly remove families together as a unit. We have to be able to do this. This is the only solution to the border crisis. We have to stop child smuggling. This is the way to do it."[95]

Following Trump's comments, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters, "I support, and all of the members of the Republican conference support, a plan to keep families together while their immigration status is determined. This requires a solution, a narrow agreement to fix a problem that we all agree needs to be fixed."[96] According to The Washington Post, Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) were each drafting separate bills designed to address this issue.[96] Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) dismissed a legislative solution, saying, "Anyone who believes this Republican congress is capable of addressing this issue is kidding themselves. The president can end this crisis with the flick of his pen, and he needs to do so now."[97]

May 1, 2018: Texas and six other states file lawsuit to end DACA

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On May 1, 2018, Texas and six other states filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration for continuing to administer the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The states argued that DACA is unlawful and requires them to spend more money on healthcare, law enforcement, and education. They also argued that DACA has resulted in increased competition for jobs in their states. Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Nebraska, South Carolina, and West Virginia joined Texas in filing the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.[98]

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton explained his decision to file the lawsuit, saying, "The multi-state coalition lawsuit we filed today is about the rule of law, not the wisdom of any particular immigration policy. The Constitution guarantees the American people the right to set their own immigration policies through their representatives in Congress. The federal executive branch lacks the power to unilaterally grant unlawfully present aliens lawful presence and work authorization."[99]

In the lawsuit, Paxton argued that establishing DACA through an executive order was unconstitutional. The lawsuit stated, "The policy merits of immigration laws are debated in and decided by Congress. The Executive Branch does not exercise a lawmaking role. Its duty is to take care that the law is faithfully executed — substantive immigration law and procedural administrative law alike."[99]

The lawsuit said that although the court "has authority to immediately rescind and cancel all DACA permits currently in existence because they are unlawful," the states would be satisfied if the federal government was ordered to stop issuing new permits and renewing existing ones. This would lead to the end of the program within two years as existing DACA permits expire.[99]

April 24, 2018: Judge rules Trump administration must continue accepting new DACA applications

See also: Federal policy on DACA and DAPA, 2017-2020

On April 24, 2018, U.S. District Judge John Bates ruled that the Trump administration had to continue accepting new applications from individuals seeking benefits under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Previous rulings only required the administration to process renewal requests. The order did not take effect immediately. The Trump administration had 90 days to explain its decision to end DACA.[100][101]

Bates called the administration's cancellation of DACA “arbitrary and capricious” because he determined that the administration did not explain why the program was unlawful. He wrote, “Neither the meager legal reasoning nor the assessment of litigation risk provided by DHS to support its rescission decision is sufficient to sustain termination of the DACA program.”[100]

Justice Department spokesman Devin O’Malley commented on the ruling, saying, “The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”[100]

April 4, 2018: Trump signs memorandum to deploy troops to U.S.-Mexico border

On April 4, 2018, President Donald Trump signed a memorandum to deploy National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to combat "a drastic surge of illegal activity on the southern border." The memorandum stated, "The combination of illegal drugs, dangerous gang activity, and extensive illegal immigration not only threatens our safety but also undermines the rule of law. ... The situation at the border has now reached a point of crisis. The lawlessness that continues at our southern border is fundamentally incompatible with the safety, security, and sovereignty of the American people. My Administration has no choice but to act."[25]

The day before issuing the memorandum, Trump said, “Until we can have a wall and proper security, we are going to be guarding our border with the military. That's a big step. We really haven't done that before, or certainly not very much before.”[102]

Speaking about the memorandum, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Border security is homeland security, which is national security. It’s not a partisan issue.” Nielsen told reporters that she and the governors from Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas were working out the details of the deployment. According to the Associated Press, "Trump’s order invoked a federal law called Title 32, under which governors retain command and control of Guard members from their state, with the federal government paying for the deployment."[103][104][105]

When asked how many National Guardsmen he wanted to send to the border, Trump said, "Anywhere from 2,000 to 4,000. We’re looking at a combination of from 2,000 to 4,000. We’re moving that along. ... And we’ll probably keep them, or a large portion of them, until such time as we get the wall."[106]

Rep. Francis Rooney (R-Fla.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, opposed the move, saying, “I don't feel really comfortable with the idea of deploying military troops and creating the possibility for an increase in violence and an escalation of the conflict."[102]

Mario Carrillo, Texas director for America’s Voice, criticized the announcement, saying, “This is not only unnecessary, but it’s entirely wasteful and will only add more fear and uncertainty to what border residents already experience."[105]

The previous two presidents sent guardsmen to the border for security purposes. From 2006 to 2008, President George W. Bush (R) deployed 6,000 National Guard troops to the southern border to assist the Border Patrol. In 2010 and 2011, President Barack Obama (D) sent about 1,200 guardsmen to the U.S.-Mexico border as well. According to The Wall Street Journal, “During those deployments, the troops helped augment the Border Patrol while that agency worked to add additional agents and construct new fencing. The troops, which were there mostly for training, were barred from law-enforcement activities but helped repair equipment and monitor surveillance cameras and sensors. Active-duty troops also have been sent to the border from time to time, primarily for training activities.”[107]

During a meeting on April 3, 2018, Trump and top administration officials also discussed the administration’s strategy to address “the growing influx of illegal immigration, drugs and violent gang members from Central America," according to White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders. She added that administration officials “agreed on the need to pressure Congress to urgently pass legislation to close legal loopholes exploited by criminal trafficking, narco-terrorist and smuggling organizations.”[108]

Responses from governors

Support

  • Arizona Governor Doug Ducey (R) supported the decision, writing in a tweet, “Washington has ignored this issue for too long and help is needed.”[105]
  • Texas Governor Greg Abbott (R) supported the decision, saying, “Today’s action by the Trump Administration reinforces Texas’ longstanding commitment to secure our southern border and uphold the rule of law.”[105]
  • North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum said his state would “answer the call. We North Dakotans know from experience how critical it is for states to support each other in times of need."[103]

Oppose

  • Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval's (R) spokeswoman, Mary-Sarah Kinner, said Sandoval throught the mission would not be “an appropriate use” of the Nevada Guard.[103]
  • Oregon Governor Kate Brown (D) said she would not send guardsmen to the border. She wrote in a tweet, "As commander of Oregon’s Guard, I’m deeply troubled by Trump’s plan to militarize our border."[103]
  • California Governor Jerry Brown (D) did not immediately comment on the move. Lt. Col. Tom Keegan of the California National Guard said the administration’s request “will be promptly reviewed to determine how best we can assist our federal partners.”[105]

April 2, 2018: Justice Department announces quotas for immigration judges

On April 2, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced quotas for immigration judges aimed at shortening the backlog of immigration cases. The quota requires judges to close 700 cases per year. Critics of the new policy argued that the quota system will prevent defendants from acquiring enough evidence to support their cases.[109]

March 28, 2018: Trump shares photos of construction on U.S.-Mexico border

On March 28, 2018, President Donald Trump tweeted photos of a construction site in Calexico, California, writing that it was the start of construction on his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen shared the tweet, adding that the “30ft wall will help secure the area near Calexico, CA.” Border Patrol officials in California said that the construction seen in President Trump’s tweets had been planned since 2009.[110]

March 20, 2018: Trump claims sanctuary cities harbor criminals

On March 20, 2018, President Donald Trump spoke at a law enforcement roundtable and commented on sanctuary cities, saying “They’re causing a lot of problems for this country.” Trump said that immigrants who came into the U.S. illegally “go into those sanctuary cities when they see them; they go there because they feel they’re safe,” and subsequently commit crimes.[111]

March 13, 2018: Trump visits border wall prototypes in California

On March 13, 2018, President Donald Trump went to the desert outside of San Diego, California, to view mock-ups of his proposed wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Several construction companies from Alabama, Mississippi, Arizona, Maryland, and Texas were given bids to build prototypes made from concrete and other materials. Shortly before President Trump’s arrival in California, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) criticized the project, saying, “In California we are focusing on bridges, not walls.” President Trump responded by tweeting that “the $18 billion wall will pay for itself by curbing the importation of crime, drugs and illegal immigrants who tend to go on the federal dole.”[112]

March 6, 2018: DOJ files lawsuit against California's immigration laws

On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the State of California, Governor of California Jerry Brown, and Attorney General of California Xavier Becerra for passing three state laws—Assembly Bill 450, Senate Bill 54, and Assembly Bill 103—that the DOJ said prevent officials from enforcing federal immigration law. The DOJ is asking a federal judge to block the implementation of the laws.[113]

According to a DOJ press release, "The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, the Justice Department is seeking to permanently enjoin these state statutes, which are contrary to federal law and interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties."[113]

The lawsuit targets the following California state laws:

  • California SB 54: According to the DOJ, the law "restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody. These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law. ... SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement. The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings."
  • California AB 450: According to the DOJ, the law "prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations. It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements."
  • California AB 103: According to the DOJ, the law "imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution."

Speaking about the lawsuit, Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen said, “Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President. California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”[113]

Brown responded to the lawsuit on Twitter, writing, “At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America. Jeff, these political stunts may be the norm in Washington, but they don’t work here. SAD!!!”[114]

Becerra also weighed in, saying, “In California, our state laws work in concert with federal law. Our teams work together to go after drug dealers and go after gang violence. What we won’t do is change from being focused on public safety. We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation.”[114]

On March 7, 2018, during a speech at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association, Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed California's immigration laws and the lawsuit filed by the DOJ. He said, "California is using every power it has—and some it doesn’t—to frustrate federal law enforcement. So you can be sure I’m going to use every power I have to stop them. ... We are going to fight these irrational, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you and our federal officers. We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. We are fighting to have a lawful system of immigration that serves Americans. And we intend to win."[115]

February 27, 2018: Federal judge rules administration did not improperly waive regulations for wall construction

On February 27, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled in favor of the Trump administration in a case filed by the state of California regarding environmental regulation waivers for the construction the U.S.-Mexico border wall. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) argued that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security improperly waived environmental and immigration regulations, including the National Environmental Policy Act, to expedite construction of the wall. Judge Curiel sided with the Trump administration, writing that he did not have “serious constitutional doubts” about the administration’s use of waivers.[116]

February 26, 2018: SCOTUS denies Trump administration's request to review DACA case

On February 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) denied the Trump administration's request to immediately review a U.S. district court's ruling that temporarily blocked the administration's September 2017 order ending the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The district court issued a preliminary injunction on February 13, 2018, and the Trump administration appealed directly to the Supreme Court rather than to the circuit court of appeals. The Supreme Court denied the order without prejudice, meaning that the administration may appeal again after the circuit court of appeals has a chance to consider the case.[117]

Under the Trump administration's September order, the DACA program was supposed to end on March 5, 2018. The Supreme Court's refusal to hear the appeal leaves the district court's ruling blocking that recession in place for now. Federal judges in San Francisco and New York issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Trump administration to continue renewing DACA permits. While the cases against the Trump administration work their way through the courts, DACA recipients can continue to renew their permits to live, work, and go to school in the U.S. The permits are issued for two-year periods. Without the injunctions, DACA recipients would have lost their benefits after their individual permits expired following the stated March 5, 2018, end date for the program.[118][119]

White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah commented on SCOTUS’ decision saying, “The district judge’s decision unilaterally to re-impose a program that Congress had explicitly and repeatedly rejected is a usurpation of legislative authority. The fact that this occurs at a time when elected representatives in Congress are actively debating this policy only underscores that the district judge has unwisely intervened in the legislative process. We look forward to having this case expeditiously heard by the appeals court and, if necessary, the Supreme Court, where we fully expect to prevail.”[120]

February 15, 2018: Senate rejects four immigration reform proposals

On February 15, 2018, the Senate began voting on a series of immigration bills aimed at finding a legislative fix for the expiring Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and border security measures. All of the measures failed to earn enough support for passage.

By a vote 52-47, the Senate rejected a measure from Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) that proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children and included a study to determine what border security measures were needed. It also proposed requiring the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to secure the U.S.-Mexico border by 2021. It did not include any funding for border security. The motion needed 60 votes to proceed to a vote on the final bill.[121][122]

The Senate also rejected an amendment from Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that proposed withholding “certain non-law enforcement federal grant funds from ‘sanctuary cities’ -- jurisdictions that forbid their local law enforcement officers from cooperating with federal immigration officials, even when they wish to do so,” according to a press release from Toomey’s office. The legislation was rejected by a vote of 54-45. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle.[123][124]

By a vote of 54-45, the Senate rejected a bipartisan proposal from the Common Sense Coalition, a group of centrist senators, that proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children, $25 billion for border security, and limitations on family-based immigration. President Donald Trump threatened to veto the legislation because it did not include all of his immigration reform priorities. Sixty votes were needed to overcome the procedural hurdle.[125][126]

By a vote of 40-59, the Senate rejected a proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that included President Donald Trump's four immigration reform pillars. It proposed a path to citizenship for 1.8 million individuals brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children, $25 billion for border security, limits on chain migration or family-based migration, and eliminating the visa lottery system.[127]

The following Republican senators voted against the proposal:


After the votes, it was unclear how Congress would address DACA and other immigration reform measures.

January 31, 2018: Trump administration announces new process for asylum applications

On January 31, 2018, the Trump administration said that it would return to the process of reviewing the most recent applications for asylum, instead of the order in which they were received. In December 2014, the Obama administration changed the policy to prioritize the oldest cases first. The new process requires U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services agents to first process applications in which an interview had to be rescheduled and applications that have been pending for 21 days or fewer. Then, applications starting with the newest and working back to the oldest will be processed.[128]

L. Francis Cissna, director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, commented on the change in policy in the following statement: “Delays in the timely processing of asylum applications are detrimental to legitimate asylum seekers. Lingering backlogs can be exploited and used to undermine national security and the integrity of the asylum system.”[128]

According to The Wall Street Journal, “The backlog—which now stands at 311,000 pending cases—allows new unauthorized border crossers to stay in the U.S. if they can pass a test showing they have a ‘credible fear’ of persecution in their home countries. Many of these migrants turn themselves into border-patrol agents, believing they will be allowed to stay. The Trump administration argues that many of their claims are fraudulent and is seeking to discourage them from crossing.”[128]

Greg Chen of the American Immigration Lawyers Association criticized the move, saying, “This is another blow to Lady Liberty and to America’s commitment to ensure those facing persecution are not returned to life-threatening persecution and violence.”[128]

January 25, 2018: Trump administration releases initial framework for immigration plan

On January 25, 2018, the Trump administration released an immigration plan that would allow as many as 1.8 million individuals who were brought into the U.S. without legal permission as children U.S. citizenship in exchange for $25 billion in border security, including a border wall, and other changes to the immigration system.[129][130][131]

Senior White House adviser Stephen Miller discussed President Donald Trump's decision to offer citizenship to individuals known as Dreamers, saying, “The president has indicated a willingness to extend citizenship to 1.8 million individuals as part of this immigration reform package. That would be the DACA population, plus individuals who failed to apply for DACA but otherwise met the requirements, as well as adjustments in timeframe that would bring the total maximum population size to 1.8 million.”[131]

The immigration plan included:[129][130][131]

  • A path to citizenship for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients, as well as those who were eligible but did not apply for legal status. The administration estimated that it would take 10-12 years for these individuals to earn citizenship.
  • A $25 billion trust fund for a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border, new security on the U.S.-Canada border, more border agents, and more immigration judges. According to The Hill, "The money would be kept in a trust fund so it could not be clawed back by future Congresses."
  • Limiting chain migration or family-based migration. Spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens would still be eligible to migrate to the U.S., but parents and siblings would not.
  • Eliminating the visa lottery system, an immigrant visa program for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the U.S.

The Trump administration was expected to ask members of the Senate to use his immigration plan to draft legislation.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) said that he did not like the price tag for the border wall but would be willing to fund it in exchange for Dreamers being granted a path to citizenship. He said, “I don’t think that’s the best way to spend money but look if I can get protection for Dreamers, I’m prepared to do some things that I don’t think are exactly the best."[131]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) criticized the plan, saying, “I do not believe we should be granting a path to citizenship to anybody here illegally. Doing so is inconsistent with the promises we made to the men and women who elected us.”[130]

Trump’s immigration framework was criticized by outside groups and news outlets on both ends of the political spectrum. Breitbart News, a conservative news and opinion website, called the framework "Don's Amnesty Bonanza." CREDO Action, a progressive group, called the framework a "white supremacist’s wish list."[132]

According to a Cato Institute study conducted by David Bier and Stuart Anderson, Trump's immigration plan "would cut the number of legal immigrants by up to 44 percent or half a million immigrants annually—the largest policy-driven legal immigration cut since the 1920s. Compared to current law, it would exclude nearly 22 million people from the opportunity to immigrate legally to the United States over the next five decades."[133]


January 24, 2018: Trump says he supports a pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients

On January 24, 2018, President Donald Trump said that he supported a 10-12-year time frame to give individuals who were brought to the U.S. without legal permission as children a pathway to citizenship. He also said that he would consider moving back the expiration date of March 5, 2018, of the DACA program if Congress failed to pass into law a legislative fix. He said, “I might do that. I’m not guaranteeing it.”[134]

Conservative Republicans criticized Trump’s comments. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa.) said, “Even legalizing the DACA recipients is amnesty because they’re granting them a pardon for their immigration-law violations. To couple it with the reward of citizenship for their crimes—it’s problematic.”[134]

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), praised Trump’s comments, saying, “This statement represents presidential leadership on immigration. I truly appreciate President Trump making it clear that he supports a path to citizenship for DACA recipients.”[134]

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), also praised Trump’s comments, saying, “The President is headed in the right direction here.”[134]

January 16, 2018: U.S. Department of Justice appeals DACA ruling

The U.S. Department of Justice announced on January 16, 2018, that it would appeal a federal district court ruling requiring the Trump administration to continue processing renewal applications submitted by individuals granted deferred status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.[135]

In addition to filing an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court, the Justice Department announced that it would ask the U.S. Supreme Court to bypass the Ninth Circuit and rule on the case itself. According to Politico, "the unusual tactic of petitioning directly to the Supreme Court would make an end run around the lower court [the Ninth Circuit Court], which Trump and his aides have repeatedly criticized for what they view as liberal rulings."[136]

In a statement about the appeal, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said, "It defies both law and common sense for DACA... to somehow be mandated nationwide by a single district court in San Francisco. We are now taking the rare step of requesting direct review on the merits of this injunction by the Supreme Court so that this issue may be resolved quickly and fairly for all the parties involved."[136]

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, one of the officials who brought the suit, said, "I am confident the appellate courts will see the logic and justice behind the district court's issuance of the preliminary injunction against the termination of the DACA program. The unlawful action by the Trump Administration to terminate DACA impacts the lives and livelihood of hundreds of thousands of Dreamers, their colleagues, our universities, our businesses and our economy."[135]

The Justice Department did not request an immediate stay of the district court ruling, so the requirement that the administration continue renewing DACA permits remained in force pending further legal action.[136]

January 9, 2018: Judge rules that Trump administration must keep renewing DACA permits

On January 9, 2018, San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup ordered the Trump administration to continue processing renewal applications submitted by individuals who had been granted deferred status under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Alsup also ruled that the administration did not have to accept new applications for deferred status from people who had never before received the protected status. Alsup wrote, “DACA gave them a more tolerable set of choices, including joining the mainstream workforce. Now, absent an injunction, they will slide back to the pre-DACA era and associated hardship.”[119][137][138]

Alsup wrote that the decision of the Trump administration to end DACA, which allowed individuals who were brought to the United States as children to receive relief from being deported for a period of time if they meet certain criteria, was arbitrary. He also wrote that Attorney General Jeff Sessions' conclusion that the program was illegal appeared to be "based on a flawed legal premise."[119]

According to Politico, “Unless halted by a higher court, the ruling will allow former DACA recipients who failed to renew by an October 5 deadline a chance to submit renewal applications and will also require the administration to allow renewal of applications expiring in the future.”[119]

Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley issued the following statement saying that the administration would continue to move to end DACA: "Today’s order doesn’t change the Department of Justice’s position on the facts: DACA was implemented unilaterally after Congress declined to extend these benefits to this same group of illegal aliens. As such, it was an unlawful circumvention of Congress, and was susceptible to the same legal challenges that effectively ended DAPA. The Department of Homeland Security therefore acted within its lawful authority in deciding to wind down DACA in an orderly manner. Promoting and enforcing the rule of law is vital to protecting a nation, its borders, and its citizens. The Justice Department will continue to vigorously defend this position, and looks forward to vindicating its position in further litigation.”[119]

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra praised the ruling and discussed its potential impact on the ongoing immigration negotiations that members of Congress are conducting. He said, “Why would anyone want to negotiate a bad deal to get DACA now that it’s become clear the court is saying the Trump administration may have tried to repeal the program in an unlawful way? It's high time the Trump administration and stopped trying to load up the measure with all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the desperate plight Trump has put the Dreamers in. … The record is becoming stronger that the basis for the Trump action is unsupported by the law. I have reason to believe we have a strong chance of having the preliminary injunction remain in place."[119]

Trump also commented on the ruling, writing in a tweet, "It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our Court System is when the opposing side in a case (such as DACA)...almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts."[119]

The order came as Congress was debating immigration policy and the future of the DACA program.

February 13, 2018: Second judge temporarily blocks Trump administration from ending DACA program

On February 13, 2018, Judge Nicholas Garaufis issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the Trump administration's order ending the DACA program. The plaintiffs in the case filed suit to challenge that order. They argued in part that the Trump administration's order violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction to temporarily block the order while the case proceeded.[118]

Garaufis ruled that while the administration possessed the legal authority to end the DACA program, its stated rationale in its September 2017 order could not survive judicial review. Under the APA, courts asked to review administrative decisions "must set aside action, findings, or conclusions that are, among other things, arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law." Garaufis wrote, "The question before the court is thus not whether [the administration] could end the DACA program, but whether they offered legally adequate reasons for doing so." In this case, Garaufis wrote, the Trump administration's stated rationale for ending the DACA program was its belief that the program was unconstitutional. Garaufis ruled that the Obama administration's creation of the program was within its legal authority. "Because [the Trump administration's] conclusion was erroneous," Garaufis concluded, "the decision to end the DACA program cannot stand." The preliminary injunction requires the administration to continue processing DACA applications while the litigation was underway. Garaufis emphasized that his order did not mean that the administration was unable to lawfully rescind DACA on different grounds.[118]

January 8, 2018: DHS announces end date for program allowing El Salvadorans to live and work in U.S.

On January 8, 2018, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen announced the termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for El Salvador that allowed 262,500 El Salvadorans to live and work in the United States after the humanitarian crisis created by the 2001 earthquake. El Salvadorans living in the U.S. have until September 9, 2019, to return to El Salvador or apply for lawful immigration status in the U.S., if eligible. The delay in termination was designed to give those living in the U.S. time to obtain travel documents and make other arrangements for departure. Nielsen noted that, because of international aid, reconstruction projects to repair schools, hospitals, homes, and water and sanitation systems have been completed.[139][140]

Nielsen said that DHS will help El Salvadorans with the transition and that “[o]nly Congress can legislate a permanent solution addressing the lack of an enduring lawful immigration status of those currently protected by TPS who have lived and worked in the United States for many years. The 18-month delayed termination will allow Congress time to craft a potential legislative solution.”[139]

Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass) said that he would work to craft legislation to address the residency status of TPS holders. He said, “America is better than this and I will do all I can in the next 18 months to fight this terrible decision and work with my colleagues to pass bipartisan legislation to help regularize the residency status of long-term TPS holders.”[140]

The decision was criticized by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who said, “The White House is peddling a fantasy where hundreds of thousands of people who have established their lives, families, and businesses in the U.S. for decades will leave or can be rounded up and deported. Turning immigrants living and working legally in the U.S. into undocumented immigrants defies logic, even for this president.”[140]

Roy Beck, president of NumbersUSA, praised the decision, saying, “By ending the Salvadoran TPS, Secretary Nielsen has taken a major step toward saving the TPS program so it can be used for future emergencies. The past practice of allowing foreign nationals to remain in the United States long after an initial emergency in their home countries has ended has undermined the integrity of the program and essentially made the ‘temporary’ protected status a front operation for backdoor permanent immigration.”[140]

The announcement was the fourth change to TPS under the Trump administration. TPS status for immigrants from Sudan, Haiti, and Nicaragua was changed in 2017. TPS is a program that lawfully allows a group of persons temporary refuge in the United States due to a humanitarian crisis. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “Under a provision of the Immigration Act of 1990, the Attorney General may designate nationals of a foreign state to be eligible for TPS with a finding that conditions in that country pose a danger to personal safety due to ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster. Grants of TPS are initially made for periods of 6 to 18 months and may be extended depending on the situation.”[141]

January 5, 2018: Trump administration sends list of immigration priorities to lawmakers

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, the Trump administration sent a letter to Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) outlining a list of immigration priorities that “must be included as part of any legislation” addressing DACA recipients.[142]

The Trump administration asked Congress for the following in any immigration deal:[142]

  • $18 billion to construct more than 700 miles of new and replacement barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. By 2027, the administration wants fencing or a wall along 970 miles of the 2,000-mile border. There are currently 654 miles of barrier on the border.
  • An end to chain migration, an immigrant visa program for relatives of U.S. citizens.
  • An end to the diversity-visa lottery, an immigrant visa program for people from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States.
  • Changes to the asylum system.
  • Mandatory use of the e-Verify system for businesses to check the employment status of prospective employees.
  • $33 billion in new border security spending over 10 years, including “$5.7 billion over five years for towers, surveillance equipment, unmanned aerial vehicles and other technology; $1 billion over five years for road construction and maintenance; and $8.5 billion over seven years for 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and other personnel,” according to "The Wall Street Journal".[142]

Durbin criticized the proposal, saying, “It’s outrageous that the White House would undercut months of bipartisan efforts by again trying to put its entire wish list of hard-line anti-immigrant bills—plus an additional $18 billion in wall funding—on the backs of these young people.”[142]

The document, which was prepared by the Department of Homeland Security and requested by a group of senators, was not publicly released.[142]

December 11, 2017: Trump calls for end to chain migration after terror attack

On December 11, 2017, Trump called for an end to immigration preferences for family members of legal U.S. residents, also known as chain migration, and enhanced immigration security after a botched terror attack was carried out by a Bangladeshi immigrant who was inspired by the Islamic State terrorist group.[143] Trump said,

“ First and foremost, as I have been saying since I first announced my candidacy for President, America must fix its lax immigration system, which allows far too many dangerous, inadequately vetted people to access our country. Today’s terror suspect entered our country through extended-family chain migration, which is incompatible with national security. My Executive action to restrict the entry of certain nationals from eight countries, which the Supreme Court recently allowed to take effect, is just one step forward in securing our immigration system. Congress must end chain migration. Congress must also act on my Administration’s other proposals to enhance domestic security, including increasing the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, enhancing the arrest and detention authorities for immigration officers, and ending fraud and abuse in our immigration system. The terrible harm that this flawed system inflicts on America’s security and economy has long been clear. I am determined to improve our immigration system to put our country and our people first. Second, those convicted of engaging in acts of terror deserve the strongest penalty allowed by law, including the death penalty in appropriate cases. America should always stand firm against terrorism and extremism, ensuring that our great institutions can address all evil acts of terror.[54] ”

Akayed Ullah, a 27-year-old Bangladeshi immigrant, set off a pipe bomb between the Port Authority Bus Terminal and Manhattan’s Times Square subway station. The explosive did not detonate properly, but it burned Ullah and injured three others.[143]

November 20, 2017: DHS announces end date for program allowing Haitians to live and work in U.S.

On November 20, 2017, Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke announced the termination of the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Haiti that allowed Haitians to live and work in the United States after the 2010 earthquake devastated the island. Haitians living in the U.S. had until July 22, 2019, to return to Haiti or apply for lawful immigration status in the U.S., if eligible. The delay in termination was designed to give those living in the U.S. time to obtain travel documents and make other arrangements for departure.[145]

The decision to terminate the program was made based on a review that showed improved conditions in Haiti. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “The decision to terminate TPS for Haiti was made after a review of the conditions upon which the country’s original designation were based and whether those extraordinary but temporary conditions prevented Haiti from adequately handling the return of their nationals, as required by statute. Based on all available information, including recommendations received as part of an inter-agency consultation process, Acting Secretary Duke determined that those extraordinary but temporary conditions caused by the 2010 earthquake no longer exist. Thus, under the applicable statute, the current TPS designation must be terminated.”[145]

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) is a program that lawfully allows a group of persons temporary refuge in the United States due to a humanitarian crisis. According to the Department of Homeland Security, “Under a provision of the Immigration Act of 1990, the Attorney General may designate nationals of a foreign state to be eligible for TPS with a finding that conditions in that country pose a danger to personal safety due to ongoing armed conflict or an environmental disaster. Grants of TPS are initially made for periods of 6 to 18 months and may be extended depending on the situation.”[146]

November 1, 2017: Trump calls on Congress to end Diversity Lottery after terrorist attack

See also: Diversity Lottery

On November 1, 2017, after a terrorist killed eight people in New York City in the name of the Islamic State terrorist group, President Donald Trump called for ending the Diversity Lottery Program. During a meeting with his Cabinet, Trump said, "I am today starting the process of terminating the diversity lottery program. I'm going to ask Congress to immediately initiate work to get rid of this program."[147]

Trump also tweeted, "The terrorist came into our country through what is called the 'Diversity Visa Lottery Program,' a Chuck Schumer beauty. I want merit based."[148]

The Diversity Lottery was established in 1990 to issue visas to nationals of countries from where few immigrants have come to the United States in the past. Through the program, about 50,000 diversity immigrant visas are made available each year. The program is referred to as a lottery because individuals are randomly selected from a group of registrants to apply for a visa. Those selected for visas enter the country as lawful permanent residents, or Green Card holders, and may live and work in the country on a permanent basis.

October 24, 2017: Restrictions on refugee admissions expire; new guidelines in place

On October 24, 2017, the suspension of refugee admissions outlined in President Donald Trump's March 6 executive order on immigration expired. President Trump issued a new executive order ordering refugee admissions to resume with new national security procedures. The procedures were the result of the review of refugee admissions policies that took place during the 120-day suspension; according to the executive order, they are related to officer training, fraud detection, and sharing information between federal agencies.[149]

According to The Associated Press, the administration conducted a more in-depth review for refugees from 11 countries. The administration did not identify the 11 countries.[150]

September 27, 2017: Trump administration limits number of refugees to be admitted to the U.S. to 45,000

On September 27, 2017, the Trump administration notified Congress that it would allow no more than 45,000 refugees into the United States during fiscal year 2018. According to The Hill, it is "the lowest cap ever set for resettlement." Before the announcement, the number of refugee admissions had not been set below 67,000.[151]

A Trump administration official said that the number was chosen to make sure that all refugees are properly vetted. The official said, “The safety and the security of the American people is No. 1, and we want to make sure no one is allowed through who would endanger the safety of the American people."[151]

According to The Hill, "The U.S. will take in as many as 19,000 refugees from Africa next fiscal year, officials said, while admitting a maximum of 17,500 from the Middle East and South Asia. As many as 5,000 refugees from East Asia will be resettled, along with 2,000 from Europe and 1,500 from Latin America and the Caribbean."[151]

September 24, 2017: Trump administration releases updated travel restrictions

See also: Donald Trump's travel restrictions issued September 24, 2017

On September 24, 2017, President Donald Trump issued updated guidelines to his March 6, 2017, executive order. The March 6 order temporarily suspended entry into the United States for individuals from Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen and suspended refugee admissions to the United States for 120 days. The updated guidelines outlined new travel restrictions that vary by country on certain individuals from Chad, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen.[152]

In a statement, Trump said, “Following an extensive review by the Department of Homeland Security, we are taking action today to protect the safety and security of the American people by establishing a minimum security baseline for entry into the United States. We cannot afford to continue the failed policies of the past, which present an unacceptable danger to our country. My highest obligation is to ensure the safety and security of the American people, and in issuing this new travel order, I am fulfilling that sacred obligation.”[153]

The updated guidelines outlined the following restrictions by country:[152]

  • Chad: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Chad, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is hereby suspended.”
  • Iran: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Iran as immigrants and as nonimmigrants is hereby suspended, except that entry by such nationals under valid student (F and M) and exchange visitor (J) visas is not suspended, although such individuals should be subject to enhanced screening and vetting requirements.”
  • Libya: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Libya, as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is hereby suspended.”
  • North Korea: “The entry into the United States of nationals of North Korea as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.”
  • Somalia: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Somalia as immigrants is hereby suspended. Additionally, visa adjudications for nationals of Somalia and decisions regarding their entry as nonimmigrants should be subject to additional scrutiny to determine if applicants are connected to terrorist organizations or otherwise pose a threat to the national security or public safety of the United States.”
  • Syria: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Syria as immigrants and nonimmigrants is hereby suspended.”
  • Venezuela: “Notwithstanding section 3(b)(v) of this proclamation, the entry into the United States of officials of government agencies of Venezuela involved in screening and vetting procedures -- including the Ministry of the Popular Power for Interior, Justice and Peace; the Administrative Service of Identification, Migration and Immigration; the Scientific, Penal and Criminal Investigation Service Corps; the Bolivarian National Intelligence Service; and the Ministry of the Popular Power for Foreign Relations -- and their immediate family members, as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is hereby suspended. Further, nationals of Venezuela who are visa holders should be subject to appropriate additional measures to ensure traveler information remains current.”
  • Yemen: “The entry into the United States of nationals of Yemen as immigrants, and as nonimmigrants on business (B-1), tourist (B-2), and business/tourist (B-1/B-2) visas, is hereby suspended.”

The March 6, 2017, order expired on September 24, 2017. The new rules were expected to take effect on October 18, 2017. On October 20, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson issued a preliminary injunction against the restrictions, preventing them from going into effect. On November 13, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a partial stay of that injunction, allowing the restrictions to be enforced unless an individual has a bona fide relationship to the United States.[154][155][152]

On December 4, 2017, the United States Supreme Court allowed the full plan to take effect.[156] On January 19, 2018, the United States Supreme Court agreed to hear the government's appeal.[157] On February 15, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit joined the Ninth Circuit in upholding a preliminary injunction blocking the administration's order. It ruled, "Examining official statements from President Trump and other executive branch officials, along with the Proclamation itself, we conclude that the Proclamation is unconstitutionally tainted with animus toward Islam."[158]

January 19, 2018: SCOTUS to hear travel ban case

On January 19, 2018, the United States Supreme Court announced that it would consider the legality of the Trump administration's September 24, 2017, revised travel ban. According to The Hill, "The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last month that Trump’s latest ban exceeded the scope of his authority on immigration and violated the Immigration and Nationality Act’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in the issuance of immigrant visas." The administration is appealing the ruling. The justices are expected to hear arguments this spring and issue a final decision by the end of June.[159][160]

September 18, 2017: U.S. State Department outlines new requirements for visa holders

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson issued a memo to United States consular offices overseas, outlining new requirements for visa holders. Individuals who obtain a visa before entering the country must then abide by their stated plans for at least three months. If events occur within this period that were not mentioned during the visa application process—such as getting married or finding a job—the U.S. State Department will presume the visa holder deliberately misrepresented their reasons for coming to the United States. Such individuals would be eligible for deportation.[161]

Previously, visa holders were required to abide by their stated plans for one month. The new rule does not apply to individuals from the 38 countries that participate in the Visa Waiver Program; citizens of these countries may enter the United States without a visa at all.

For more information on visas and the Visa Waiver Program, click here.

September 5, 2017: Trump administration ends DACA

On September 5, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a press briefing where he announced that the administration would be rescinding a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. The program was established underneath the Obama administration and provided temporary relief from deportation for individuals who had been brought without legal permission to the United States as children. Sessions said that the program was "an unconstitutional exercise of the executive branch" and that it was his duty to uphold constitutional order. The memo rescinding the order was supposed to go into effect on March 5, 2018; however, federal judges in San Francisco and New York issued preliminary injunctions requiring the Trump administration to continue renewing DACA permits until the court reached a final decision on DACA.[162]

August 2, 2017: Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act

On August 2, 2017, Senators Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) and David Perdue (R-Ga.) introduced a bill to modify the country's immigration system, the Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act. The bill would move away from the system of awarding visas based on various categories of employment and instead implement a points-based system. Under the points-based system, potential immigrants would earn points "based on education, English-language ability, high-paying job offers, age, record of extraordinary achievement, and entrepreneurial initiative." An individual would need to earn 30 points before becoming eligible for a visa; they would then join a pool of other eligible individuals, from which U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would twice per year select individuals with the most points to fill out applications. Up to 140,000 immigrants would be granted employment-based visas annually.[163]

The bill would also eliminate the Diversity Lottery—which was established to provide 50,000 visas to individuals from countries with historically low rates of immigration to the United States—as well as family-based immigration for siblings and adult children. Permanent visas given to refugees would be capped at 50,000 annually.[163]

President Donald Trump (R) endorsed the bill, stating "This legislation will not only restore our competitive edge in the 21st century, but it will restore the sacred bonds of trust between America and its citizens." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the bill, saying that the bill "goes after hardworking people who want to play by the rules” and that "to cut immigration by half a million people, legal immigration, doesn't make much sense."[164][165][166]

July 25, 2017: New Byrne criminal justice grant requirements for cities and states

See also: Sanctuary jurisdictions

On July 25, 2017, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that localities receiving Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants from the U.S. Department of Justice would need to meet new conditions to remain eligible for the grants. The grants provide federal funding to states and localities to be used for law enforcement and criminal justice purposes. On July 25th, 2017, the Department of Justice announced that jurisdictions wishing to receive JAG funds must comply with two new conditions: 1) must honor requests by federal immigration officials to receive 48-hour notice prior to releasing certain detainees, and 2) must allow federal immigration officials access to local jails and prisons in order to interrogate prisoners. Localities already were required to allow communication between local law enforcement and federal immigration officers to receive the grants.[167]

"So-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes," Sessions said when detailing the new policy. The previous policy, which had been put in place by the Obama Administration in July 2016, required jurisdictions to prove that they were not preventing local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law and gave noncompliant jurisdictions time to adjust their policies.[167]

August 7, 2017: Lawsuit from Chicago

On August 7, 2017, the City of Chicago filed suit in an effort to prevent implementation of new criteria. The city contended that the new criteria were unconstitutional. In filing for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the new grant criteria, the city argued that the government cannot deny JAG grants to the city as the grants were based on a statutory formula created by Congress, and that both the president and the Justice Department lacked the constitutional authority to alter Congress’ requirements for awarding the grants. Chicago expected to receive $3.2 million in JAG grants this year to purchase new police vehicles and equipment.[168]

On September 15, 2017, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber ordered a preliminary injunction to block the new criteria. In his ruling, Leinenweber said, "The court finds that the city has established that it would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered." The injunction applies nationwide because Leinenweber concluded that the issues presented by Chicago could also apply to other cities.[169][170]

August 14, 2017: Lawsuit from California

On August 14, 2017, the city of San Francisco and the state of California filed separate but coordinated lawsuits against the Department of Justice alleging that the new grant requirements are detrimental to public safety and violate the U.S. Constitution. The lawsuits challenge the requirements that federal agents be given access to correctional facilities and that the Department of Homeland Security be given 48 hours' notice before the release of individuals wanted by immigration authorities, arguing that these conditions do not have a basis in federal law. California receives $28 million in public safety funds through the program each year and San Francisco receives $1.5 million.[171][172][173]

April 19, 2018: Nationwide injunction upheld

The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit released a ruling upholding a nationwide injunction against the grant requirements on April 19, 2018. In the ruling by a three-judge panel, Judge Ilana Rovner wrote, "If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence of elected legislators, that check against tyranny is forsaken."[174] This ruling keeps the September 2017 injunction in place originally established by U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber while the City of Chicago's lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

July 11, 2017: DHS delays implementation of International Entrepreneur Rule

On July 11, 2017, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a rule that delayed implementation of an Obama administration rule related to international entrepreneurs. The rule would have allowed, under certain conditions, entrepreneurs from foreign countries to enter the United States for 30 months to establish a startup business. To be eligible, entrepreneurs had to either raise at least $250,000 from American investors or receive at least $100,000 in grants from American federal, state, and local government entities. Such entries would have occurred under DHS's parole authority, through which individuals who do not meet visa requirements may be allowed entry at the discretion of the secretary of homeland security.[175][176]

The rule was originally slated to go into effect on July 17, 2017. The new notice from DHS delayed implementation until March 14, 2018. DHS stated that the reason for the delay was to consider the rule in light of President Trump's executive order Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements, which directed the secretary of homeland security to exercise parole authority on a case-by-case basis and "only when an individual demonstrates urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit derived from such parole." DHS also stated that delaying the rule would give the department the opportunity to receive public comments on a proposal to rescind the rule.[176]

June 15, 2017: Trump administration rescinds Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA) policy

On June 15, 2017, then-U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly rescinded a policy enacted during the Obama administration that suspended the removal of individuals residing in the country without legal permission who were the parents of U.S. citizens. The policy was known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA). The policy was placed on hold by federal courts as part of a lawsuit by the state of Texas and was never implemented. June 15 was the deadline for both parties to decide how to move forward in the case; since the policy was rescinded, the case became moot.[177]

A similar policy for individuals residing in the country without legal permission who were brought to the United States as children was left in tact. This policy was called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

May 18, 2017: ICE 2017 immigration-related arrests up nearly 38 percent over 2016 arrests

On May 18, 2017, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) released statistics on the number of immigration-related arrests that took place within the 100 days following President Trump's January 25 executive order. Between Jan. 22 and April 29, 2017, ICE arrested 41,318 individuals on civil immigration charges, a 37.6 percent increase over the same time period in 2016. The January 25 executive order expanded ICE's enforcement priorities to include individuals eligible for removal who have committed any criminal offense or abused public benefits programs. Under the Obama administration, ICE had been directed to prioritize the removal of individuals who had committed serious crimes. The May 18 report stated that 75 percent, or 30,473, of the individuals arrested had been convicted of crimes. Beyond noting that 2,700 of these convictions were for violent crimes, the report did not provide specific details on the nature of the criminal convictions.[178]

April 18, 2017: Trump issues Buy American, Hire American executive order

On April 18, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order prioritizing federal use of American goods and services and directing changes in the process for issuing H-1B visas, which are visas for skilled foreign workers.

The order directed federal agencies to comply with laws that require prioritizing American firms and goods when contracting for projects, referred to in the order as Buy American Laws. Under the order, federal agencies were directed limit the use of waivers from Buy American Laws when possible to "ensure the maximum utilization of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States." The secretary of commerce and the U.S. trade representative were also directed to assess how free trade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreement impact compliance with Buy American Laws.[179][180]

The order also directed the secretary of state, attorney general, secretary of labor, and secretary of homeland security to develop new regulations to prevent fraud and abuse of the immigration system. These officials were also directed to suggest potential changes that could be made to the H-1B visa program to make sure such visas are awarded to the highest-skilled immigrants.[181]

March 20, 2017: DHS issues first detainer report

On March 20, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security released its first weekly "Declined Detainer Outcome Report," highlighting jurisdictions that have declined to honor Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers for potentially removable individuals who have been arrested or held in police custody. The report also included examples of criminal charges associated with these released individuals.[182]

In addition to listing 206 declined detainers, the report identified the 10 counties with the most declined detainers.[183]

March 6, 2017: Trump issues executive order temporarily suspending immigration from six countries

See also: Donald Trump immigration executive order issued March 6, 2017

Trump issued a revised executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," on March 6, 2017, to suspend immigration from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen for 90 days. Iraq, which was included in the original order on January 27, 2017, was removed from the list of covered countries after the Iraqi government instituted new vetting procedures, such as heightened visa screening and data sharing with the U.S. Other differences from the first executive order included specifying that current visa holders were not affected, removing the indefinite suspension on admitting Syrian refugees, and allowing entry for refugees who had already been granted asylum.[184]

February 20, 2017: DHS issues guidance on enforcement of immigration laws

On February 20, 2017, DHS issued two guidance memos on the enforcement of immigration laws and two of Trump's executive orders on immigration:[185]

Officials from the DHS said that these guidance memos would not impact the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program and noted that no National Guard troops would be deployed to detain individuals without legal permission to reside in the United States[186]

February 2017: ICE conducts operations targeting criminals

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) confirmed on February 10, 2017, that it was executing a series of enforcement operations by the Los Angeles, Chicago, Atlanta, San Antonio, and New York City ICE offices, targeting convicted criminals, gang members, individuals who re-entered the country after being deported, and individuals who had final removal orders in place. According to the Department of Homeland Security, the operations had netted more than 680 arrests by February 13, 2017. Secretary of Homeland Security John Kelly described the operations as routine.[187]

Democratic members of Congress were critical of the operations. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said in a statement on February 13, 2017, requesting more information, "I am troubled by the lack of transparency and potential due process violations surrounding ICE's most recent enforcement actions. That is why I'm calling on ICE to release information about the location of the raids and details of the people who were arrested. I have always supported smart immigration enforcement that helps to keep our country safe, but raids targeting law-abiding immigrants and treating those with traffic violations the same as murderers and robbers will only achieve the opposite."‎[187][188]

January 27, 2017: Trump issues executive order on refugee admission and immigration bans

See also: Donald Trump's immigration executive order issued January 27, 2017

Trump issued an executive order, "Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," on January 27, 2017, impacting refugee applicants and foreigners and green card holders from seven Muslim-majority countries.[189]

The order suspended the refugee admission program for 120 days, indefinitely halted the admission of refugees from Syria, and called for a review of the refugee admission process. It also limited the number of refugees to be admitted to the U.S. in 2017 to fewer than 50,000. Any higher, Trump wrote, would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States."[189]

Immigrants and nonimmigrants from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen were banned from entering the U.S. for at least 90 days "to ensure the proper review and maximum utilization of available resources for the screening of foreign nationals, and to ensure that adequate standards are established to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists or criminals."[189]

On January 28, 2017, federal judge Ann M. Donnelly issued an emergency stay to prevent the removal of individuals arriving in the United States from the covered countries. At the time of the order, 100 to 200 individuals were detained at airports or in transit, according to the ACLU.[190]

During a news conference on February 1, 2017, White House press secretary Sean Spicer announced that White House counsel had published updated guidance on how the executive order would apply to legal permanent residents. Initially, these green card holders would have had to request a waiver and be rescreened to avoid detention. Spicer said that green card holders would no longer need to do so.[191]

Federal judge James Robart of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on February 3, 2017, suspending enforcement of the executive order nationwide. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the TRO on February 9, 2017.[192][193]

January 25, 2017: Trump issues executive orders on sanctuary cities and border wall

On January 25, 2017, President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on immigration. The first, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” introduced penalties against sanctuary cities—which limit the enforcement and prosecution of federal immigration laws—including making them ineligible for federal grants. A November 2016 study by Ballotpedia found that 21 of the largest 100 cities by population in the United States either self-identified or were identified by others as sanctuary cities.[194]

This executive order also prioritized the deportation of individuals who “pose a risk to public safety or national security.” This directive applied not only to non-citizens found guilty of a criminal offense, but also those who have been charged with but not convicted of a crime.[194]

“Secure Communities,” a deportation program discontinued under the Obama administration which uses local law enforcement arrest data to identify individuals residing in the U.S. without legal permission, was also reinstituted as a result of this executive order.[194]

Trump’s second January 25, 2017, order on immigration, “Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements,” called for the construction of a wall along the United States’ southern border, a key component of Trump’s platform as a presidential candidate. Under this executive order, additional detention facilities were set to be built near the border to house individuals residing in or entering the U.S. without legal permission.[195][196]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) estimated on January 26, 2017, that the wall would cost between $12 billion and $15 billion. “We intend to address the wall issue ourselves, and the president can deal with his relations with other countries on that issue and others,” McConnell said, indicating Congress would handle funding the project.[197]

White House press secretary Sean Spicer said on January 26, 2017, that Trump was considering applying a 20 percent tax on imports from Mexico to pay for the construction of the wall.[198]

Early priorities of the Trump administration

After running a presidential campaign that offered unconventional immigration policies—including the construction of a wall along the southern border paid for by Mexico and a temporary moratorium on Muslims entering the United States—both supporters and opponents of Trump have wondered what immigration policy areas he will address first.

On November 21, 2016, Trump released a video message summarizing six priorities for his administration in its first 100 days. On immigration, Trump said that he would "direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker." Trump separately offered ten policy actions he would take to address immigration reform on his official transition website:[199]

  • Constructing a wall along the southern border;
  • Ending catch-and-release programs;
  • Having zero tolerance for criminals who live in the United States illegally;
  • Blocking funding for sanctuary cities;
  • Canceling "unconstitutional executive orders" and enforcing immigration laws;
  • Suspending visas to individuals from countries where "adequate screening cannot occur;"
  • Ensuring that foreign countries keep citizens deported from the United States;
  • Completing the biometric entry-exit tracking system;
  • Ending employment and benefits for individuals residing in the country without legal permission; and
  • Reforming immigration regulations to benefit the country and its labor force.[200]

In November 2016, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) identified border security as the initial focus of immigration reform in Congress.[201]

See also

External links

Footnotes

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the Crisis at the Border," January 8, 2019
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 The Wall Street Journal, "Democratic Leaders Denounce Wall, Call on Trump to Stop ‘Hostage’ Tactics," January 8, 2019
  3. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory," February 15, 2019
  4. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California," June 18, 2020
  5. ↑ The New York Times, "In Case on Wealth Test for Green Cards, a Scathing Sotomayor Dissent," February 21, 2020
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Public Charge," accessed April 21, 2020
  7. ↑ Federal Register, "Inadmissibility on Public Charge Grounds," August 14, 2019
  8. ↑ CLINIC, "DHS Finalizes Public Charge Rule," August 12, 2019
  9. ↑ U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, "Public Charge Fact Sheet," accessed April 21, 2020
  10. ↑ CNN, "5-4 Supreme Court allows rule to take effect that could reshape legal immigration," January 27, 2020
  11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Wolf v. Cook County," February 21, 2020
  12. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Border Security Victory," February 15, 2019
  13. ↑ 13.0 13.1 The Hill, "Trump declares national emergency at border," February 15, 2019
  14. ↑ Senate.gov, "On the Conference Report (Conference Report to Accompany H.J. Res. 31)," accessed February 15, 2019
  15. ↑ Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 87," accessed February 15, 2019
  16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 Appropriations.Senate.gov, "Summary of Remaining FY2019 Appropriations Bills," accessed February 15, 2019
  17. ↑ Politico, "Congress averts shutdown as Trump prepares national emergency," February 14, 2019
  18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 18.2 Politico, "Trump announces deal to reopen government — without his wall," January 25, 2019
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 19.2 19.3 The Wall Street Journal, "States File Suit Against Trump Administration Over Wall Emergency," February 18, 2019
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 94," accessed February 27, 2019
  21. ↑ Congress.gov, "H.J.Res.46 - Relating to a national emergency declared by the President on February 15, 2019." accessed February 27, 2019
  22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 Politico, "House votes to block Trump's national emergency declaration," February 26, 2019
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 The Hill, "House votes to overturn Trump's emergency declaration," February 26, 2019
  24. ↑ The Hill, "Pentagon announces nearly 4,000 additional troops heading to US-Mexico border," February 3, 2019
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security," April 4, 2018
  26. ↑ 26.0 26.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump’s Plan to Reopen the Government and Fund Border Security," January 19, 2019
  27. ↑ The Hill, "Trump pitches new plan to reopen government amid Dem pushback," January 19, 2019
  28. ↑ Senate.gov, "On the Cloture Motion (Motion Invoke Cloture on the Shelby Amdt. No. 5)," January 24, 2019
  29. ↑ Senate.gov, "On the Cloture Motion (Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Schumer Amdt. No. 6)," January 24, 2019
  30. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Pushes for Wall, Democrats Say He Stokes Fear for Political Gain," January 9, 2019
  31. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Walks Out of Shutdown Talks, Calls Them 'Total Waste of Time,'" January 10, 2019
  32. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Pledges Long Government Shutdown Without Border-Wall Funding," December 21, 2018
  33. ↑ Clerk.House.gov, "Final Vote Results for Roll Call 472," accessed December 21, 2018
  34. ↑ NBC News, "House passes stopgap funding bill with $5 billion for Trump's border wall, at odds with Senate," December 20, 2018
  35. ↑ 35.0 35.1 35.2 DHS.gov, "Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announces Historic Action to Confront Illegal Immigration," December 20, 2018
  36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 The Wall Street Journal, "'Catch and Return': U.S. to Send Some Migrants to Mexico to Await Proceedings," December 20, 2018
  37. ↑ DHS.gov, "Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen, Acting Attorney General Matthew G. Whitaker Statement on DHS-DOJ Asylum Regulation," November 8, 2018
  38. ↑ DHS.gov, "Aliens Subject to a Bar on Entry under Certain Presidential Proclamations; Procedures for Protection Claims," November 8, 2018
  39. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump Is Upholding the Rule of Law and Ensuring Consequences for Those Who Illegally Cross Our Border," November 9, 2018
  40. ↑ DHS.gov, "DHS Myth vs. Fact: Asylum Proclamation and Rule," November 9, 2018
  41. ↑ The Hill, "Trump moves to restrict asylum claims at border," November 8, 2018
  42. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Proclamation Addressing Mass Migration Through the Southern Border of the United States," November 9, 2018
  43. ↑ 43.0 43.1 43.2 The Hill, "Groups sue Trump over order blocking asylum claims," November 9, 2018
  44. ↑ BBC, "US migrant caravan: Trump's asylum ban halted by judge," November 20, 2018
  45. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of California, East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, November 19, 2018
  46. ↑ 46.0 46.1 46.2 46.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Appeals Court Rules Against Trump on Canceling DACA Protections," November 8, 2018
  47. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "18-15068 The Regents of the University Of California And Janet Napolitano v. United States Department Of Homeland Security and Kirstjen Nielsen," November 12, 2018
  48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 48.2 Axios, "Exclusive: Trump targeting birthright citizenship with executive order," October 30, 2018
  49. ↑ Politico, "Can Trump revoke birthright citizenship? Nearly all on left and right say no." October 30, 2018
  50. ↑ 50.0 50.1 50.2 The Hill, "Graham to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship," October 30, 2018
  51. ↑ Politico, "Speaker Ryan: 'You cannot end birthright citizenship with an executive order,'" October 30, 2018
  52. ↑ Twitter, "LindseyGrahamSC," October 30, 2018
  53. ↑ Twitter, "LindseyGrahamSC," October 30, 2018
  54. ↑ 54.0 54.1 54.2 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
  55. ↑ 55.0 55.1 55.2 55.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Defense Secretary Approves Sending More Troops to Mexican Border," October 26, 2018
  56. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Trump to Deploy 5,200 Troops to Southern Border," October 30, 2018
  57. ↑ The Hill, "Trump says he may deploy 15,000 troops to border," October 31, 2018
  58. ↑ The Hill, "Overnight Defense," October 29, 2018
  59. ↑ The Hill, "Tensions escalate at US-Mexico border," November 25, 2018
  60. ↑ 60.0 60.1 DHS.gov, "Secretary Nielsen Statement On San Ysidro Port Of Entry Closure," November 25, 2018
  61. ↑ The Hill, "Trump says he will sign 'something' to end family separations," June 20, 2018
  62. ↑ The Guardian, "Donald Trump pledges to end family separations by executive order," June 20, 2018
  63. ↑ Politico, "Trump signs executive action halting family separations," June 20, 2018
  64. ↑ Reuters UK, "Trump backs down on separating immigration children, legal problems remain," accessed June 21, 2018
  65. ↑ United States District Court for the Central District of California, "Flores v. Sessions: Order Denying Defendants' 'Ex Parte Application for Limited Relief from Settlement Agreement," July 9, 2018
  66. ↑ Reuters, "Judge rejects Trump administration request for long-term detention of immigrant children," July 9, 2018
  67. ↑ Reuters, "U.S. military may house immigrant children as Trump policy beset by confusion," June 21, 2018
  68. ↑ Associated Press, "Confusion swirls on border after Trump reversal on families," June 22, 2018
  69. ↑ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Zero-Tolerance Prosecution and Family Reunification," June 23, 2018
  70. ↑ ACLU, "Ms. L v. ICE - Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Motion For Classwide Preliminary Injunction," accessed June 27, 2018
  71. ↑ NBC News, "Trump admin asks for more time to reunite kids and parents separated at border," July 6, 2018
  72. ↑ The Washington Post, "More than 50 separated children to be reunited with parents Tuesday," July 9, 2018
  73. ↑ Bloomberg, "Immigration Deadline for Reuniting Families Remains, Judge Says," July 10, 2018
  74. ↑ The Hill, "Trump administration says it has completed reunifying migrant kids under 5," July 12, 2018
  75. ↑ The Hill, "Judge temporarily halts Trump admin from deporting reunited families," July 16, 2018
  76. ↑ ABC News, "Judge temporarily halts deportation of reunified families," July 16, 2018
  77. ↑ The Hill, "Hundreds of migrant children still separated from parents as deadline nears," July 26, 2018
  78. ↑ The Seattle Times, "AG Ferguson: Washington, other states to sue Trump administration over separating immigrant families at border," June 21, 2018
  79. ↑ CNBC, "17 states sue Trump administration over family separations," June 26, 2018
  80. ↑ Governing, "17 States Sue Trump Over Family Separations at the Border," June 27, 2018
  81. ↑ 81.0 81.1 81.2 Newsmax, "Lawmakers React to Trump Order Stopping Family Separations," June 20, 2018
  82. ↑ Nancy Pelosi: Democratic Leader, "Pelosi Statement on Trump's Family Detention Plan," June 20, 2018
  83. ↑ 83.0 83.1 83.2 83.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Sessions Rules Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence Can’t Always Win Asylum," June 11, 2018
  84. ↑ 84.0 84.1 Politico, "Sessions moves to block asylum for most victims of domestic, gang violence," June 11, 2018
  85. ↑ 85.0 85.1 Politico, "Judge strikes down Trump policy blocking domestic violence victims from asylum," December 19, 2018
  86. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Columbia, "Opinion, Grace, et al. v. Matthew G. Whitaker," December 19, 2018
  87. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Stiffened U.S. Approach to Illegal Border Crossings Will Separate Families," May 7, 2018
  88. ↑ Justice.gov, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks Discussing the Immigration Enforcement Actions of the Trump Administration," May 7, 2018
  89. ↑ 89.0 89.1 The Wall Street Journal, "New Policy of Separating Immigrant Families Draws Criticism," May 8, 2018
  90. ↑ 90.0 90.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Defends Its Immigration Policies," May 29, 2018
  91. ↑ The Hill, "GOP senators push for clarification on migrant family separations," June 17, 2018
  92. ↑ 92.0 92.1 The Hill, "DHS secretary defends Trump administrations' migrant policies," June 17, 2018
  93. ↑ 93.0 93.1 Politico, "Defiant Trump refuses to back off migrant family separations," June 18, 2018
  94. ↑ The Hill, "Sessions on separating families: If we build a wall and pass legislation, we won't have these 'terrible choices,'" June 18, 2018
  95. ↑ White House, "Remarks by President Trump at the National Federation of Independent Businesses 75th Anniversary Celebration," June 19, 2018
  96. ↑ 96.0 96.1 The Washington Post, "Senate Republicans just rebuked Trump on family separations," June 19, 2018
  97. ↑ The New York Times, "G.O.P Moves to End Trump's Family Separation Policy, but Can't Agree How," June 19, 2018
  98. ↑ Politico, "Texas, six other states call for immediate halt to Dreamer program," May 2, 2018
  99. ↑ 99.0 99.1 99.2 USA Today, "Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton files 7-state lawsuit seeking to end DACA," May 1, 2018
  100. ↑ 100.0 100.1 100.2 The Wall Street Journal, "Judge Rules Trump Administration Must Continue DACA Program," April 24, 2018
  101. ↑ USA Today, "Another federal judge rules against Trump move to end DACA," April 24, 2018
  102. ↑ 102.0 102.1 The Hill, "Trump says he will deploy U.S. military to southern border," April 3, 2018
  103. ↑ 103.0 103.1 103.2 103.3 Associated Press, "Trump troop request creates opening for governors to say no," April 6, 2018
  104. ↑ The Hill, "Trump to deploy National Guard to southern border," April 4, 2018
  105. ↑ 105.0 105.1 105.2 105.3 105.4 105.5 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Unveils Plans to Send National Guard Troops, Build Base Walls Near U.S.-Mexico Border," April 4, 2018
  106. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Remarks by President Trump in Press Gaggle en route Washington, D.C." April 5, 2018
  107. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Calls for Military to Guard Southern Border," April 3, 2018
  108. ↑ Associated Press, "Correction: Trump story on securing US-Mexico border," April 5, 2018
  109. ↑ The Hill, "Trump administration sets quotas for immigration judges," April 2, 2018
  110. ↑ The Hill, "Trump shares photos touting 'the start' of border wall," March 28, 2018
  111. ↑ White House.gov, "Remarks by President Trump at Law Enforcement Roundtable on Sanctuary Cities," March 20, 2018
  112. ↑ Bloomberg, "Trump Inspects Border Wall Prototypes in California," March 13, 2018
  113. ↑ 113.0 113.1 113.2 Justice.gov, "Justice Department Files Preemption Lawsuit Against the State of California to Stop Interference with Federal Immigration Authorities," March 7, 2018
  114. ↑ 114.0 114.1 The New York Times, "Trump Administration Sues California Over Immigration Laws," March 6, 2018
  115. ↑ Justice.gov, "Attorney General Sessions Delivers Remarks at the 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day Hosted by the California Peace Officers' Association," March 7, 2018
  116. ↑ The Hill, "Mexican-American judge who Trump attacked rules in favor of border wall," February 27, 2018
  117. ↑ United States Supreme Court, "Order List," February 26, 2018
  118. ↑ 118.0 118.1 118.2 United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, "Batalia Vidal et al. v. Trump" Amended Memorandum & Order & Preliminary Injunction
  119. ↑ 119.0 119.1 119.2 119.3 119.4 119.5 119.6 Reuters, "U.S. judge blocks Trump move to end DACA program for immigrants," January 9, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "alsup" defined multiple times with different content
  120. ↑ The Hill, "Supreme Court refuses to hear Trump challenge on DACA," February 26, 2018
  121. ↑ The Wall Street Journal, "'Dreamer’ Talks Aim to End Budget Impasse," February 4, 2018
  122. ↑ The Hill, "Senate rejects bipartisan measure as immigration votes begin," February 15, 2018
  123. ↑ Toomey.Senate.gov, "Toomey Introduces Amendment to End Dangerous Sanctuary City Policies," February 13, 2018
  124. ↑ The Hill, "Senate Dems block crackdown on sanctuary cities," February 15, 2018
  125. ↑ Politico, "Senate immigration deal on life support," February 14, 2018
  126. ↑ The Hill, "Senate rejects centrist immigration bill after Trump veto threat," February 15, 2018
  127. ↑ The Hill, "Senate rejects Trump immigration plan," February 15, 2018
  128. ↑ 128.0 128.1 128.2 128.3 The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. to Prioritize Recent Asylum Applications," January 31, 2018
  129. ↑ 129.0 129.1 WhiteHouse.gov, "White House Framework on Immigration Reform & Border Security," January 25, 2018
  130. ↑ 130.0 130.1 130.2 The Hill, "Trump to support path to citizenship for 1.8 million Dreamers," January 25, 2018
  131. ↑ 131.0 131.1 131.2 131.3 Politico, "White House jumps back into Dreamer battle with citizenship offer," January 25, 2018
  132. ↑ The Hill, "Five hurdles to getting an immigration deal," January 27, 2018
  133. ↑ Cato.org, "White House Plan Bans 22 Million Legal Immigrants over 5 Decades," January 29, 2018
  134. ↑ 134.0 134.1 134.2 134.3 The Wall Street Journal, "Donald Trump Backs Citizenship Pathway for Dreamers," January 24, 2018
  135. ↑ 135.0 135.1 The Hill, "Justice Department to appeal court's DACA ruling," January 16, 2018
  136. ↑ 136.0 136.1 136.2 Politico, "DOJ seeking Supreme Court review of DACA ruling," January 16, 2018
  137. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of California, "The Regents of the University Of California And Janet Napolitano v. United States Department Of Homeland Security and Kirstjen Nielsen," January 9, 2018
  138. ↑ Reuters, "U.S. judge blocks Trump move to end DACA program for immigrants," January 9, 2018
  139. ↑ 139.0 139.1 DHS.gov, "Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen M. Nielsen Announcement on Temporary Protected Status for El Salvador," January 8, 2018
  140. ↑ 140.0 140.1 140.2 140.3 The Hill, "Trump officials end immigration protection for 260K Salvadorans," January 8, 2018
  141. ↑ DHS.gov, "Definition of Terms," accessed November 21, 2017
  142. ↑ 142.0 142.1 142.2 142.3 142.4 The Wall Street Journal, "Trump Administration Seeks $18 Billion Over Decade to Expand Border Wall," January 5, 2018
  143. ↑ 143.0 143.1 The Wall Street Journal, "Botched Suicide Bombing Jolts New York Rush Hour, Injures Four," December 12, 2017
  144. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "Statement from President Donald J. Trump Regarding Today's Attack in New York City," December 11, 2017
  145. ↑ 145.0 145.1 DHS.gov, "Acting Secretary Elaine Duke Announcement On Temporary Protected Status For Haiti," November 20, 2017
  146. ↑ DHS.gov, "Definition of Terms," accessed November 21, 2017
  147. ↑ Reuters, "Trump says to end program that allowed New York attack suspect into U.S.," November 1, 2017
  148. ↑ Twitter, "Donald J. Trump," November 1, 2017
  149. ↑ The White House, "Presidential Executive Order on Resuming the United States Refugee Admissions Program with Enhanced Vetting Capabilities," October 24, 2017
  150. ↑ The Associated Press, "The Latest: US to resume refugee admissions," October 24, 2017
  151. ↑ 151.0 151.1 151.2 The Hill, "Trump slashes refugee admissions to 45,000," September 27, 2017
  152. ↑ 152.0 152.1 152.2 WhiteHouse.gov, "Presidential Proclamation Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats," September 24, 2017
  153. ↑ WhiteHouse.gov, "President Donald J. Trump Announces Enhanced National Security Measures," September 24, 2017
  154. ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, "Hawaii v. Trump: Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order," October 17, 2017
  155. ↑ U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, "Hawaii v. Trump: Order Granting Motion for Temporary Restraining Order," October 17, 2017
  156. ↑ The Hill, "Supreme Court allows full Trump travel ban to take effect," December 4, 2017
  157. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Justices to review travel ban challenge," January 19, 2018
  158. ↑ United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, "International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump" Order, February 15, 2018
  159. ↑ The Hill, "Supreme Court to take up Trump travel ban," January 19, 2018
  160. ↑ Politico, "Supreme Court to hear case over Trump's revised travel ban," January 19, 2018
  161. ↑ The New York Times, "State Department Tightens Rules for Visas to U.S." September 18, 2017
  162. ↑ CNBC, "Trump administration is ending DACA immigration program, AG Sessions says," September 5, 2017
  163. ↑ 163.0 163.1 Senator Tom Cotton, "Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy Act (RAISE Act)," accessed August 3, 2017
  164. ↑ The New York Times, "Trump Supports Plan to Cut Legal Immigration by Half," August 2, 2017
  165. ↑ The Post-Standard, "Schumer: Trump wants to cut immigration, except when it benefits his hotels," August 3, 2017
  166. ↑ 89.3 KPCC, "Trump-backed bill to cut immigration by half worries tech groups, angers civil rights advocates," August 3, 2017
  167. ↑ 167.0 167.1 Politico, "Justice Department makes new move against sanctuary cities," July 25, 2017
  168. ↑ United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, The City of Chicago v. Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States - Complaint for injunctive and declaratory relief, filed August 7, 2017
  169. ↑ Bloomberg, "Judge Blocks Trump on Threat to Punish Sanctuary Cities," September 15, 2017
  170. ↑ Chicago Tribune, "Judge rules in city's favor on sanctuary cities, grants nationwide injunction," September 15, 2017
  171. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "California and San Francisco suing Trump administration over 'sanctuary cities' funding fight," August 14, 2017
  172. ↑ SFGate, "State to join SF in suing Trump administration over sanctuary-city threat," August 14, 2017
  173. ↑ Justia, "State of California, ex rel. XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California v. Sessions et al," August 14, 2017
  174. ↑ CBS Chicago, "Appeals Court Upholds Injunction Blocking Trump Policy Punishing Sanctuary Cities," April 19, 2018
  175. ↑ The Los Angeles Times, "Trump administration delays program that lets immigrant entrepreneurs into the U.S.," July 11, 2017
  176. ↑ 176.0 176.1 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "International Entrepreneur Rule: Delay of Effective Date," July 11, 2017
  177. ↑ The Washington Post, "Kelly revokes Obama order shielding immigrant parents of U.S. citizens," June 15, 2017
  178. ↑ U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "Feature: 100 Days of ICE," accessed May 20, 2017
  179. ↑ The Washington Post, "Trump signs ‘Buy American, Hire American’ executive order, promising to fight for American workers," April 18, 2017
  180. ↑ The New York Times, "Trump Signs Order That Could Lead to Curbs on Foreign Workers," April 18, 2017
  181. ↑ The White House, "Presidential Executive Order on Buy American and Hire American," April 18, 2017
  182. ↑ Immigration and Customs Enforcement, "DHS releases U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Declined Detainer Outcome Report," March 20, 2017
  183. ↑ CNN, "DHS issues first 'detainer' report," March 20, 2017
  184. ↑ Reuters, "Trump signs new travel ban order, Iraq left off: officials," March 6, 2017
  185. ↑ Department of Homeland Security, "Executive Orders on Protecting the Homeland," accessed February 22, 2017
  186. ↑ CNN, "Trump admin sets stage for mass deportations," February 22, 2017
  187. ↑ 187.0 187.1 CNN, "ICE operations net nearly 700 arrests, DHS says," February 13, 2017
  188. ↑ CNN, "Democrats, advocates question ICE raids after hundreds of arrests," February 14, 2017
  189. ↑ 189.0 189.1 189.2 White House, "Executive Order: Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States," January 27, 2017
  190. ↑ Reuters, "Judge allows travelers who landed with visas to stay in country," January 29, 2017
  191. ↑ Reuters, "White House says has updated guidance for green card holders," February 1, 2017
  192. ↑ CNBC, "Homeland Security suspends actions associated with Trump's travel ban; 'standard policy' now in effect," February 4, 2017
  193. ↑ The New York Times, "Court Refuses to Reinstate Travel Ban, Dealing Trump Another Legal Loss," February 9, 2017
  194. ↑ 194.0 194.1 194.2 White House, "Executive Order: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," January 25, 2017
  195. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named WHEO2
  196. ↑ White House, "Executive Order: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements," January 25, 2017
  197. ↑ ABC News, "McConnell, Ryan Say Congress Will Pay for Trump's $12B Border Wall," January 26, 2017
  198. ↑ CNN, "Trump floats 20% tax on Mexican imports to pay for wall, but considering other options," January 26, 2017
  199. ↑ Breitbart, "Trump Update on Day 1 to 100 Plan and Transition Team Progress," November 21, 2016
  200. ↑ GreatAgain.gov, "Immigration," accessed November 22, 2016
  201. ↑ CNN, "Ryan: 'We are not planning on erecting a deportation force,'" November 13, 2016
v • e
President Donald Trump's policies (first term)
OverviewsUS-WhiteHouse-Logo.svg
Domestic policy
Economic affairs and regulations
Foreign affairs and national security
Trump's second term overviews
Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Timeline_of_federal_policy_on_immigration,_2017-2020&oldid=8571910"