A group of civil rights organizations and U.S. citizens is challenging the State Department. They argue that its recent suspension of immigrant visa processing for people from 75 countries is unlawfully sweeping. The plaintiffs claim this action undermines decades of immigration law.
The new policy, initiated on January 21, targets various nations like Afghanistan, Somalia, Brazil, Colombia, Thailand, Russia, and Cambodia. It aims to limit immigration from countries whose migrants reportedly “extract welfare” from the U.S. However, the lawsuit highlights that this measure creates a nationality-based ban that unfairly affects families and removes legal pathways for many.
The complaint emphasizes that the law has never categorized individuals as inadmissible just for receiving, or potentially needing, non-cash public benefits. Such support, the lawsuit argues, has historically been part of the integration process.
The State Department has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. Notably, most countries on the ban list have majority non-white populations and are outside of Europe. Previous communications from the department state that the ban will remain until the U.S. can ensure that new immigrants will not burden its resources.
The National Immigration Law Center, Democracy Forward, and The Legal Aid Society filed the lawsuit on behalf of various plaintiffs, including citizens who have been separated from their family due to the policy. Efrén Olivares, Vice President of Litigation at the National Immigration Law Center, noted that the blanket ban has ignored the proper regulatory processes, questioning how any reasonable assessment could deem every individual from an entire country a potential risk.
Among the plaintiffs is a Colombian physician who received an “Einstein Visa” for individuals with extraordinary abilities. Despite his qualifications, he found out he was now ineligible for a work visa because his country is included in the ban.
Recent data sheds light on the immigrant welfare narrative. A study from the Cato Institute revealed that immigrants actually use about 24% less in welfare benefits compared to native-born Americans on a per capita basis. This evidence challenges the assumption that immigrants drain public assistance.
Olivares summed it up well: “We simply ask the government to follow the law and assess each visa applicant on an individual basis, rather than discriminating based on nationality.”
As this legal case develops, it reflects ongoing debates and changing attitudes toward immigration in the U.S. The historical context of previous immigration policies illustrates a long-standing struggle between law, welfare, and the integration of different communities.
For further details, refer to the Cato Institute’s recent study which highlights these statistics.
