State Department Faces Lawsuit Over Visa Ban

A group of American citizens, immigration nonprofits and legal organizations on Monday sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department, asking a judge to block a visa ban that they said attempted to “eviscerate decades of settled immigration law.”

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, is the first major attempt to stop the State Department policy announced and implemented last month that suspended the approval of visas for people from 75 countries. More than 85 percent of the countries are non-European and have significant nonwhite populations.

The State Department said in a social media post last month that the policy, which it has characterized as a pause, was necessary to prevent migration of those who “take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates.”

It added that immigrants from the countries in question “often become public charges,” meaning that they become reliant on the government for subsistence.

The lawsuit filed on Monday by the National Immigration Law Center and five other legal organizations, calls that an “unsupported and demonstrably false claim,” noting that most people who apply for immigrant visas are not eligible for cash welfare for years.

Joanna Cuevas Ingram, a senior staff attorney at the law center, said that the regions and countries from which immigration was banned under the new policy bore an eerie resemblance to quotas enforced by 1920 statutes that were abolished during the civil rights era.

She said that her concern was that the justifications in the executive order were a pretext “to limit legal immigration under the actual statute passed by Congress, and to reinstate those old racial quotas.”

The ban placed a halt on visa processing from people coming from Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Russia, Somalia, and several other nations indefinitely.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott explained that the move is necessary for preventing immigrants from using government welfare programs and public benefits. He said “the Trump administration is putting an end to the misuse of America’s immigration framework by those seeking to take advantage of the American people’s resources,” according to NBC News.

The ban, which took effect on January 21, does not affect temporary visas for tourists, students, or business travelers. Instead, it will apply to permanent immigrant visas.

The Cato Institute estimated that the ban would affect about 324,000 legal immigrants and 100,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. 

It also noted that non-citizen immigrants make up about 7.5 percent of the population but they account of about 3.2 percent of public benefits.

However, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by citizens.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said it “strongly condemns” the policy, saying that it “weaponizes economic status, health, age, disability, and other personal characteristics” to justify the ban. It further pointed out that it will “disproportionately impact immigrants from the Global South, including Arab, African, Muslim, and other historically targeted communities.”

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) said it is assembling legal cases to challenge the policy, citing “due-process violations and harm to U.S. businesses.”

A group of American citizens, immigration nonprofits and legal organizations on Monday sued Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the State Department, asking a judge to block a visa ban that they said attempted to “eviscerate decades of settled immigration law.”

The suit, filed in Manhattan federal court, is the first major attempt to stop the State Department policy announced and implemented last month that suspended the approval of visas for people from 75 countries. More than 85 percent of the countries are non-European and have significant nonwhite populations.

The State Department said in a social media post last month that the policy, which it has characterized as a pause, was necessary to prevent migration of those who “take welfare from the American people at unacceptable rates.”

It added that immigrants from the countries in question “often become public charges,” meaning that they become reliant on the government for subsistence.

The lawsuit filed on Monday by the National Immigration Law Center and five other legal organizations, calls that an “unsupported and demonstrably false claim,” noting that most people who apply for immigrant visas are not eligible for cash welfare for years.

Joanna Cuevas Ingram, a senior staff attorney at the law center, said that the regions and countries from which immigration was banned under the new policy bore an eerie resemblance to quotas enforced by 1920 statutes that were abolished during the civil rights era.

She said that her concern was that the justifications in the executive order were a pretext “to limit legal immigration under the actual statute passed by Congress, and to reinstate those old racial quotas.”

The ban placed a halt on visa processing from people coming from Afghanistan, Brazil, Egypt, Iran, Russia, Somalia, and several other nations indefinitely.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott explained that the move is necessary for preventing immigrants from using government welfare programs and public benefits. He said “the Trump administration is putting an end to the misuse of America’s immigration framework by those seeking to take advantage of the American people’s resources,” according to NBC News.

The ban, which took effect on January 21, does not affect temporary visas for tourists, students, or business travelers. Instead, it will apply to permanent immigrant visas.

The Cato Institute estimated that the ban would affect about 324,000 legal immigrants and 100,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens. 

It also noted that non-citizen immigrants make up about 7.5 percent of the population but they account of about 3.2 percent of public benefits.

However, the Center for Immigration Studies reported that 51 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one welfare program in 2012, compared to 30 percent of households headed by citizens.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said it “strongly condemns” the policy, saying that it “weaponizes economic status, health, age, disability, and other personal characteristics” to justify the ban. It further pointed out that it will “disproportionately impact immigrants from the Global South, including Arab, African, Muslim, and other historically targeted communities.”

The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) said it is assembling legal cases to challenge the policy, citing “due-process violations and harm to U.S. businesses.”