Phoenix Immigration & Naturalization Law Blog

For people in Arizona who are affected by U.S. immigration law, President Donald Trump's policies have raised a great deal of concern. Political rhetoric has escalated on the issue of immigration, and many people are concerned that their own applications could be negatively impacted as a result. However, there has been a response in the courts; on Nov. 19, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration's attempt to refuse asylum to people who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border without documentation.

The judge heard arguments in the case brought by two civil rights organizations, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, before issuing a temporary restraining order. On Nov. 9, Trump issued a presidential proclamation saying that people who crossed the southern border outside standard ports of entry would not be eligible to seek asylum. This comes into conflict with standing federal immigration law, which explicitly provides the right to apply for asylum to people who did not enter at standard entry points. If the presidential order is allowed to remain in place, thousands of people fleeing violence may face a more difficult process that could result in deportation.

Arizona might be one destination for a caravan of more than 7,000 people from Central America who are traveling toward the U.S. border. Although many of these immigrants may plan to apply for asylum and expect to be accepted, experts say that acceptance is unlikely.

This is the largest known caravan to travel to the border. In April, 1,500 people from Central America reached the border, but just 250 are currently still in the country. Asylum has been granted to just three of them. Around the same time that caravan arrived, the policy of family separation began. This has been modified to give parents a choice between remaining in detention with their children or having their children released while they remain in detention. This appears to be unlikely to deter asylum seekers.

Those wishing to enter Arizona or immigrants already residing in the country legally could experience trouble getting visas or green cards if they collect public benefits. The Trump administration has put forward a new rule that would alter an existing law that already curtailed the ability of immigrants to get documentation to live in the country if they had received cash benefits. After the public comment period, the proposed rule could expand the disqualifying benefits to include food assistance, Section 8 housing vouchers, Medicaid or the Medicare Part D low-income subsidy.

The concept of preventing immigrants from collecting welfare emerged in the 19th century. Known as the public charge rule, it was designed to turn away immigrants who might drain public funds. A representative from the National Immigration Law Center described the currently proposed restrictions as a way to favor wealthy immigrants and disrupt attempts by families of limited economic means to unite with relatives.

The debate over immigration has been contentious in Arizona and around the country since Donald Trump announced that he would be running for president in 2015, and the row over H1-B visas has been particularly fierce. These are the employment-based visas that allow companies to attract job candidates from overseas when workers with the necessary skills cannot be found locally, but critics of the program say that technology firms in particular take advantage of H1-B visas and use them to bring in cheap foreign labor instead of paying fair market rates to Americans.

The furor over employment-based visas has also raised questions about whether or not the spouses and minor children of H1-B visa holders, who are issued what are known as H-4 visas, should be allowed to work in the United States. President Trump thinks they should not, and he proposed that the rules be changed to reflect his views when he signed his 'Buy American and Hire American" executive order in April. The proposed rule change only apples to certain H-4 visa holders, but the executive order does not make clear how these decisions will be made.