Another major change to the legal immigration system; the Trump administration wants to eliminate "duration of status" visas for international students, exchange visitors, and international media.
Students would be limited to visas that last 2-4 years, with extensions allowed.
Under DHS's proposal, it seems that international journalists on assignment in the US would be effectively prohibited from remaining for long periods of time.
The proposal would limit their visas to at most 240 days, and require them to file for Extension of Statuses after that.
New restrictions on student visas would also be imposed by the rule, including limiting language training students to a maximum 24-month period of stay, requiring students to leave the U.S. more quickly after their visa expires, and setting a limit on changing educational levels.
Importantly, under the new rule international students would receive automatic six-month extensions of their status once they filed for an extension, which would in times when @USCIS was actually functional ensure that people would get an answer before their status expired.
Here's the full list of changes DHS says the rule would make for international media.
I don't know much about "I" visas, so I don't know how many foreign journalists use them to remain in the US for long periods of time. But these changes seem designed to make that impossible.
Here's another good thread going over some of the more fine details of the rule, from someone with significantly more experience in these types of visas than me.
Importantly, @doug_rand notes that the new proposed rule would effectively impose racist nationality-based limitations on some foreign students, declaring people security threats purely based on the place they were born and the nationality they posses.
Probably the biggest change in the rule would be a ban on student visas longer than 2 years for any person born in, or a citizen of, a country with a student visa overstay rate over 10%—meaning no bachelor/grad degrees.
You can have valid, good faith disagreements about the legality of the CHNV Program, but even if the program is eventually found to be unlawful by a court of law, that would not make those who arrived under the program “illegal.”
For example, if the DACA program is eventually struck down for final time, it would not mean that those who received work authorization under the program had been illegally working for over a decade or had somehow violated other laws while they had the status.
Funny they ask this. Here's my effort at jotting down a brief timeline of actions the admin has "done to lower illegal crossings" over the last 3 years. I'm sure I'm missing some things. Some have been successful. Others have been not. But it's wild to claim they haven't tried.
To be clear, I’m neither endorsing these actions nor touting them as grand failures. As I’ve said before, Biden’s record on the border is a mixed bag. But the idea the administration has not taken actions it believes will reduce illegal entries is wrong as a matter of fact.
Take the CHNV deal the Biden admin made in January 2023; Mexico let the US expel more non-Mexicans migrants back across the border in exchange for the US starting a new parole program.
There are serious concerns about both parts. But unlawful crossings are demonstrably down.
He still won’t stop lying about the nature of this program. There are no “gov’s secretive immigrant flights.” There are people who get approved for a government program and have to buy a plane ticket to get here. The “flights” are United, Delta, American, etc…
I’ll also note that @BensmanTodd still refuses to acknowledge the major holes in his story that I pointed out multiple times, including his flagrant misrepresentation about what the government said in response to his FOIA.
@BensmanTodd Bensman’s falsehood-ridden post about the FOIA lawsuit is directly responsible for fueling a massive misinformation campaign about the CHNV parole program, a campaign which has seen US senators spreading wild falsehoods like the existence of “secret charter flights.
Beginning this moment, Texas law enforcement officers can arrest any person in the state they believe crossed illegally. And judges can now order people to walk back into Mexico at threat of 20 years in prison if they don't—even if the person has federal permission to be here.
Crucial context: Barrett and Kavanaugh both say they are not making any decision right now because of the weird procedural posture by which it made it to the Court's shadow docket, but say if the 5th Circuit doesn't act ASAP, they may change their minds.
SO what does this mean? Well, this means SB4 is in effect—for now. But the case is likely going back to the Supreme Court on an emergency poster within the next month, either because the 5th Circuit rules officially on the stay motion, or because they wait too long and don't.
🚨HUGE news. Judge Tipton dismisses the multistate lawsuit against the Biden admin's CHNV parole program, finding that the states do not have standing to sue.
That leaves the program alive for now. Texas will no doubt appeal to the 5th Cir.
Here is the key finding that Judge Tipton made: evidence shows that, after the parole programs went into effect, border crossings by people from the four CHNV countries went down (⬇️).
As he reads 5th Circuit law, since the program was a success, there can't be any injury.
The CHNV parole program represented Biden's big shift to a "carrot and stick" approach.
Mexico lets the US send 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans back across the border each month. In exchange, the US agrees to take 30,000 people a month through parole.
SB4 even goes beyond federal immigration law by allowing the state to prosecute people with green cards if the person was previously been deported and then allowed to reenter legally by the federal government—prob because the people who wrote the law didn't know that was a thing.
Under SB4, any noncitizen who has previously been deported commits a Class A misdemeanor by stepping into Texas—even if they have since legally reentered and obtained permanent legal status. There are no affirmative defenses of lawful presence for the reentry crime.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are thousands of people living in Texas with green cards or other forms of legal immigration status who, at one point in their life, had been deported. If SB4 goes into effect, every one of them risks arrest.