A group of American citizens, immigration non-profits and legal organisations on Monday sued US 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 federal court in New York City’s Manhattan borough, 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 per cent of the countries are non-European and have significant non-white populations.
The state department said in a social media post last month that the policy, which it has characterised 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 Monday by the National Immigration Law Centre and five other legal organisations, calls that an “unsupported and demonstrably false claim,” noting 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 centre, said 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.
Us president Donald Trump. Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times
She said 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 state department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The state department policy, which was announced on January 14th and went into effect the following week, is the latest in a string of policies stretching back to the first Trump administration in which president Donald Trump has sought to restrict immigration from countries that he and other top officials have cast as undesirable.
In 2018, the supreme court upheld his ban on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, saying that as president, Trump had the authority to secure the country’s borders.
The ban implemented last month makes a different argument. The State Department said it was meant to ensure that immigrants from “high-risk countries do not utilise welfare in the United States.” Experts have said the policy would block close to half of all legal immigration.
The lawsuit demonstrates the way the new ban has already begun to separate families.
One of the plaintiffs is a Long Island, New York, man and American citizen who has been separated from his young daughter and wife. The man, Cesar Andred Aguirre, returned to Guatemala with his wife, Dania Mariela Escobar, for her visa interview, where the family was informed Escobar could not return.
Their younger daughter is still nursing and remains in Guatemala with her mother even though she has a disease, Turner syndrome, requiring medical care that is not available there.
[ The world could be about to get even more dangerousOpens in new window ]
Another plaintiff is a Rochester, New York, man and American citizen, Munthaz Mahmud Hassen, who has been separated from his two adolescent children, whose visa petitions and fees were approved and paid but who cannot travel to the United States.
And a third, Fernando Lizcano Losada, is a renowned Colombian doctor and endocrinologist who had expected to continue his research at Harvard Medical School. In an interview, Losada said that with the resources available to him in the United States, he had expected to contribute to meaningful advances in the understanding and treatment of several cancers, including breast cancer.
The suit asks a judge to find the ban is unlawful and to set it aside. It argues, “Congress has never authorised categorical bans, wealth tests or nationality-based presumptions regarding public charge risk.”
As the suit notes, in 2019, the Homeland Security Department tried to change its definition of “public charge” to encompass benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers and Medicaid. The administration was sued, and five separate federal courts blocked the implementation of the rule.
But in Trump’s second term, his administration has taken advantage of the lag time between the challenge to a given rule and a judge’s finding it to be unlawful to implement its policy choices, regardless of whether they are expected to stand up to judicial scrutiny.
Along with the blanket ban on visas, the administration has restored an extensive definition of “public charge,” which the lawsuit is also challenging.
Cuevas Ingram said the administration was flagrantly violating the law and relying on the likelihood that the resultant litigation would be arduous and time-consuming.
She said it would leave “families and working people who’ve gone through the process and followed all the laws in limbo in a way that is patently discriminatory and insulting to their dignity.” – This article originally appeared in The New York Times