Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Recent Republican policies and proposals limiting legal immigration and legal immigrants' benefits and rights

News

Recent Republican policies and proposals limiting legal immigration and legal immigrants' benefits and rights

An oversized gavel surrounded by people.

Getty Images, J Studios

In a recent post we quoted a journalist describing the Republican Party as anti-immigration. Many of our readers wrote back angrily to say that the Republican party is only opposed to immigrants who are present illegally.

But that's not true. And we're not shy of telling it like it is.


Recent Republican legislation and executive orders have sought to limit legal immigration, limit benefits for legal immigrants, and limit the rights of legal immigrants. Here are just some examples.

Limiting Legal Forms of Immigration

Immigrants may currently apply for asylum no matter how they enter the United States if they are seeking protection because they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution. It's not unusual for asylum seekers to arrive between official ports of entry, look for Border Patrol agents and turn themselves in so that they can begin the asylum process. H.R. 871: RULES Act by Republican Rep. Anna Luna would make only entry at ports of entry an acceptable way to apply for asylum.

The Trump Administration ended Temporary Protected Status for 350,000 Venezuelans and 500,000 Haitian who through designations during the Biden Administration were able to obtain work permits and deportation protection.

And on January 20, U.S. Customs and Border Protection announced it was shutting down the CBP One app causing thousands of people who were trying to enter the U.S. legally to lose their appointments.

There are several ways to be born or become a citizen, but one is in the Constitution: The Constitution's 14th Amendment reads, "All persons born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Now Republicans are trying to change what "jurisdiction" means, contrary to the plain meaning of the word. On January 20, President Trump issued an executive order directing agencies to not "recognize" the citizenship of individuals born to parents either temporarily (e.g. with a visa) or unlawfully in the country, if they don't have citizenship another way. S. 304: Birthright Citizenship Act of 2025 and its companion legislation in the House, introduced by Republicans, would do the same, and dozens of similar bills have been introduced by Republicans over the last two decades. In unrelated but contradictory remarks, Trump's Secretary of Homeland Security said of her department, "We have jurisdiction over people who live here, people who leave here, and people who come here. ... I tell people we have jurisdiction over everything."

Limiting Access to Benefits to Legal Immigrants

President Trump signed an executive order purporting to make English the official language of the country, though the president has no specific power to do so, and the executive order's only directive is merely that federal agencies won't provide language assistance to non-English speakers seeking federal services, which had been required since the 1990s. Around 15% of United States citizens speak a language other than English at home, as of course do many lawfully present immigrants (not to mention that in Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory inhabited by U.S. citizens, Spanish is the predominant language). Republicans have been proposing bills in Congress to make English the official language for decades.

H.R. 746: America First Act by Republican Reps. Jodey Arrington and Chip Roy would deny numerous federal benefits for health, child care and school meals, housing, and natural disasters to non-citizens and their children not only to those present unlawfully but also to those present legally through Temporary Protected Status and asylum. (It also would deny benefits to unlawful immigrants who themselves arrived in the country as children but now may be adults.)

Limiting the Rights of Legal Immigrants

You've probably read about the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student and lawful permanent resident (i.e. green card holder) who was born a Palenstinian refugee in Syria and led pro-Palestinian protests here. He's being detained with the intention of deportation. But he hasn't been charged with a crime. It's expected that the Trump Administration will cite protest activities that would be protected by the First Amendment if he were a citizen but may not protect him from deportation. It's not clear how courts will rule on it. If they rule against Khalil, First Amendment rights will be significantly curtailed for immigrants.

The Washington, D.C. municipal government and municipalities in California, Maryland and Vermont allow non-citizens to vote in local elections. It sounds odd today, but it was actually normal for non-citizens to be permitted to vote through the early 20th Century. Republicans in Congress have sought to block D.C.'s municipal government from doing so.

Look, we know that politicians' have sometimes said that their goal is to remove incentives for illegal immigration. But we have always reported not on what politicians say but what they do. And what the policies in this article would do is limit legal immigration, reduce benefits for legal immigrants, and limit the rights of legal immigrants. And while obviously not all Republican officials have supported all of these policies, as a whole the party has clearly adopted an anti-immigration stance.

Recent Republican policies and proposals limiting legal immigration and legal immigrants' benefits and rights was originally published by GovTrack.us and is shared with permission.

Joshua Tauberer is the founder of GovTrack.us and created the site initially as a hobby in 2004.

Amy West has been the GovTrack research and communications manager since February 2017.


Read More

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

Waiting for the Door to Open: Advocates and older workers are left in limbo as the administration’s decision to abandon a harsh disability rule exists only in private assurances, not public record.

AI-created animation

Silence, Signals, and the Unfinished Story of the Abandoned Disability Rule

We reported in the Fulcrum on November 30th that in early November, disability advocates walked out of the West Wing, believing they had secured a rare reversal from the Trump administration of an order that stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers.

The public record has remained conspicuously quiet on the matter. No press release, no Federal Register notice, no formal statement from the White House or the Social Security Administration has confirmed what senior officials told Jason Turkish and his colleagues behind closed doors in November: that the administration would not move forward with a regulation that could have stripped disability benefits from more than 800,000 older manual laborers. According to a memo shared by an agency official and verified by multiple sources with knowledge of the discussions, an internal meeting in early November involved key SSA decision-makers outlining the administration's intent to halt the proposal. This memo, though not publicly released, is said to detail the political and social ramifications of proceeding with the regulation, highlighting its unpopularity among constituents who would be affected by the changes.

Keep ReadingShow less
How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

A memorial for Ashli Babbitt sits near the US Capitol during a Day of Remembrance and Action on the one year anniversary of the January 6, 2021 insurrection.

(John Lamparski/NurPhoto/AP)

How Trump turned a January 6 death into the politics of ‘protecting women’

In the wake of the insurrection at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, President Donald Trump quickly took up the cause of a 35-year-old veteran named Ashli Babbitt.

“Who killed Ashli Babbitt?” he asked in a one-sentence statement on July 1, 2021.

Keep ReadingShow less
Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

Supreme Court, Allen v. Milligan Illegal Congressional Voting Map

Gerrymandering Test the Boundaries of Fair Representation in 2026

A wave of redistricting battles in early 2026 is reshaping the political map ahead of the midterm elections and intensifying long‑running fights over gerrymandering and democratic representation.

In California, a three‑judge federal panel on January 15 upheld the state’s new congressional districts created under Proposition 50, ruling 2–1 that the map—expected to strengthen Democratic advantages in several competitive seats—could be used in the 2026 elections. The following day, a separate federal court dismissed a Republican lawsuit arguing that the maps were unconstitutional, clearing the way for the state’s redistricting overhaul to stand. In Virginia, Democratic lawmakers have advanced a constitutional amendment that would allow mid‑decade redistricting, a move they describe as a response to aggressive Republican map‑drawing in other states; some legislators have openly discussed the possibility of a congressional map that could yield 10 Democratic‑leaning seats out of 11. In Missouri, the secretary of state has acknowledged in court that ballot language for a referendum on the state’s congressional map could mislead voters, a key development in ongoing litigation over the fairness of the state’s redistricting process. And in Utah, a state judge has ordered a new congressional map that includes one Democratic‑leaning district after years of litigation over the legislature’s earlier plan, prompting strong objections from Republican lawmakers who argue the court exceeded its authority.

Keep ReadingShow less
New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) (L) and Rep. August Pfluger (R-TX) lead a group of fellow Republicans through Statuary Hall on the way to a news conference on the 28th day of the federal government shutdown at the U.S. Capitol on October 28, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla

New Year’s Resolutions for Congress – and the Country

Every January 1st, many Americans face their failings and resolve to do better by making New Year’s Resolutions. Wouldn’t it be delightful if Congress would do the same? According to Gallup, half of all Americans currently have very little confidence in Congress. And while confidence in our government institutions is shrinking across the board, Congress is near rock bottom. With that in mind, here is a list of resolutions Congress could make and keep, which would help to rebuild public trust in Congress and our government institutions. Let’s start with:

1 – Working for the American people. We elect our senators and representatives to work on our behalf – not on their behalf or on behalf of the wealthiest donors, but on our behalf. There are many issues on which a large majority of Americans agree but Congress can’t. Congress should resolve to address those issues.

Keep ReadingShow less