Trump administration requires foreign nationals in U.S. to apply for green cards abroad
Trump administration announced Friday that foreigners in the U.S. who want green cards must leave and apply in their home country, a surprise change to longstanding policy.
Objective Facts
In a memo dated May 21, USCIS told its officers to require more green card applicants to go back to their home countries and apply from there. For over half a century, foreign nationals with legal status have been able to apply for and complete the entire process for permanent residence in the United States—including individuals married to U.S. citizens, holders of work and student visas, and refugees and political asylum seekers. USCIS did not say when the change would come into effect, whether individuals would be required to remain in another country throughout the entire process, or whether the policy impacts foreigners whose green card applications are already underway. Immigration lawyers said the policy could affect hundreds of thousands of people who file applications each year while living in America on temporary visas. USCIS said people who provide an 'economic benefit' or 'national interest' could likely stay in the U.S. while others would have to go abroad to apply.
Left-Leaning Perspective
Indian-American Congressman Ami Bera sharply criticized the Trump administration's new immigration policy, calling it 'disruptive' and stating 'I strongly oppose the Trump administration's disruptive decision to require many students, temporary visa holders, and other individuals seeking green cards to leave the United States and return to their home countries while their applications are processed.' David Bier at the libertarian Cato Institute ridiculed the idea that adjustment of status is supposed to be an exception, not the rule, saying most green card applicants have received adjustments for years and that Congress meant this as a normal way for immigration to work, to spare people the work of having to go back home. Bier noted that 'In 1952, Congress created the adjustment of status provision because it was causing so much hardship to Americans and their families to have to leave the United States for the sole purpose of getting a visa to come right back' and that 'Since then, Congress has repeatedly attempted to expand the use of the adjustment of status.' World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization, said the policy was 'cruel' and 'anti-family,' stating it will 'force apart husbands from wives and children from their parents.' Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy 'could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense.'
Right-Leaning Perspective
USCIS spokesman Zach Kahler stated in an official statement that 'This policy allows our immigration system to function as the law intended instead of incentivizing loopholes,' adding that 'When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency.' PJ Media's coverage framed the policy as 'vital reform to our immigration system' and wrote that the stricter vetting 'is the sort of catastrophe that will hopefully occur much less often thanks to the new green card requirements.' Fox News reported that 'The Trump administration's position remains that when noncitizens travel into the country via student visas, tourist visas or temporary work status, they are supposed to leave once that term expires and that temporary permission to be in the U.S. should not serve as the first step toward getting a green card.' USCIS's official rationale stated 'When aliens apply from their home country, it reduces the need to find and remove those who decide to slip into the shadows and remain in the U.S. illegally after being denied residency' and that 'Following the law allows the majority of these cases to be handled by the State Department at U.S. consular offices abroad and frees up limited USCIS resources.'
Deep Dive
For over half a century, foreign nationals with legal status have been able to apply for and complete the permanent residence process in the United States through adjustment of status, including individuals married to U.S. citizens, work visa holders, students, refugees and asylum seekers. The adjustment of status process allows applicants to apply for permanent residence while in the U.S., and more than half of green card recipients have used it; the figure was 600,000 people back in 2023. The Trump administration frames its policy as 'closing a loophole,' arguing that people come to the U.S. for non-immigration purposes like work or tourism with less vetting, but once here 'they're violating the intent of the visas and becoming de facto immigrants.' What the left gets right: Congress explicitly created the adjustment of status provision in 1952 and has 'repeatedly attempted to expand the use of the adjustment of status,' contradicting the framing that it is an unintended loophole. Section 245 of the INA explicitly allows adjustment of status, and H-1B and L-1 visas are 'specifically designed for dual intent,' meaning applicants can legally hold temporary status while pursuing permanent residence. Practical concerns are valid: at some U.S. consulates abroad, wait times for visa appointments could take 'more than a year.' What the left leaves out: USCIS has left key questions unanswered about implementation, including when the policy takes effect and whether it applies to pending applications, making legal challenges likely. The memo suggests that people with 'dual intent' visas, such as H-1Bs for high-skilled workers, as well as refugees and asylees, may still be allowed to use adjustment of status. What the right gets right: At overseas consulates, applicants face the 'doctrine of consular nonreviewability,' which protects any denial from judicial review with no administrative appeals process, meaning 'when people are denied, if their underlying status has expired, they will be eligible for arrest and deportation.' This creates real risks for applicants forced abroad. The administration's concern about dual-intent abuse has merit in theory. What the right leaves out: Michael Clemens, an economist at Johns Hopkins University, noted that 'For high-skill Indian workers seeking EB-2/3 visas, a major source of STEM talent and innovation in the US workforce, that will usually mean years of waiting overseas for consular processing,' and 'many will give up, and the US will lose their talents permanently.' The policy's effect on attracting skilled workers goes unaddressed. Immigration lawyers noted 'many people couldn't return home because it wasn't safe or they had no embassy to apply at,' pointing to examples like the closed U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. What to watch next: USCIS could face litigation over its move 'on numerous grounds, including the argument that such a significant policy must be crafted through notice-and-comment rulemaking.' Immigration attorneys were still 'picking through the policy memo and announcement,' trying to decipher who it applies to. Key questions remain: When does it take effect? Does it apply retroactively to pending cases? How will 'extraordinary circumstances' be defined? Will the exceptions for economic benefit and national interest significantly blunt the policy's impact?