President Donald Trump’s challenge regarding Third World immigration requires a strategic approach to withstand potential legal battles. He can utilize his powers under 8 U.S.C. 1182(f), which allows for the suspension of entry for certain aliens if their admission is found to be detrimental to the U.S. This broad interpretation includes not only national security concerns but also economic and social implications. Every president since Ronald Reagan has successfully invoked this authority, and the Supreme Court upheld it in 2018, underscoring the deference granted to the president in such matters.
However, targeting specific countries could spark unnecessary challenges, allowing courts to dissect the details and reasoning behind such decisions. National origin discrimination concerns and demands for data to back up the targeting process could easily stall progress. Instead, a universal pause on immigration would circumvent these issues and is justifiable based on current broken systems for filtering welfare cases and detecting asylum fraud.
The need for caution is clear. A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) study revealed that 70 percent of asylum cases involve fraud or potential fraud, a revelation so alarming that the Obama administration withheld the study until a whistleblower prompted action in Congress. With over a million asylum claims filed in 2023 alone, it is estimated that roughly 700,000 could be fraudulent.
Additionally, the public charge doctrine, which restricts admitting individuals likely to become dependent on public benefits, has been subverted by bureaucratic interpretations. Today, 54 percent of immigrant-headed households rely on some form of public assistance, despite the law meant to prevent such admissions. This contradiction results in taxpayers facing an annual bill of $109 billion, along with growing reports of fraud, such as recent cases in Minnesota involving substantial fraudulent schemes within the Somali community.
When such flaws in the immigration system persist and cannot prevent welfare dependency, the national interest is undeniably compromised. The challenges don’t stop there; the administration can also employ measures regarding injunction bonds. Federal law dictates that plaintiffs seeking injunctions must post a bond sufficient to cover any damages faced by defendants if the injunction is wrongfully issued. Given the substantial welfare costs associated with this immigration debate, these bonds could run into the tens of millions.
Moreover, as litigation unfolds, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could take decisive action by revoking the delegation of immigration approval authority. This authority was granted to the DHS Secretary by Congress, and the existing delegations could be seen as unnecessary. If Noem chooses to exercise her power, requiring personal approval for applications could significantly slow down the process. This wouldn’t be a workaround; it would be a strategic maneuver within her outlined responsibilities.
The immigration debate has lingered for years without resolution. President Trump’s recent call for tougher immigration measures is a step in the right direction, but for many, it may sound like familiar rhetoric that has fallen flat in the past. The base is looking for tangible actions, not just promises. To translate the President’s promises into reality, creativity and urgency in execution are essential. Only then can immigration policy be truly transformed.
"*" indicates required fields
