President Trump Signs Executive Orders to Build a Border Wall, Dramatically Increase Deportations, and Enact a Temporary Ban on Refugees

On Wednesday President Trump signed two executive orders to begin construction of a wall on the US-Mexico border, increase border patrol forces as well as the number of immigration enforcement officers who carry out deportations. The orders also intend to strip so-called “sanctuary cities” of federal grant funding and establish new wide-ranging criteria that could make many more undocumented immigrants priorities for removal. "Beginning today, the United States of America gets back control of its borders," President Trump told workers of the Department of Homeland Security at the department's headquarters in Washington, where he signed the orders.

Although in the order President Trump directs the "immediate construction of a physical wall on the southern border," funding for the wall would require Congressional approval. Trump has claimed that Mexico will reimburse US taxpayers for the construction costs, most recently suggesting he would obtain the funds by instituting a twenty percent import tax. Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has denied that Mexico will pay for the wall, and canceled a planned meeting in the US with President Trump in protest.

The executive orders call to increase Border Patrol forces by an additional 5,000 agents as well as for 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers to carry out removals, again subject to Congress appropriating the sufficient funds. The executive actions also outline new criteria to determine which undocumented immigrants should be prioritized for deportation, potentially placing hundreds of thousands and arguably even millions more people in the federal government's crosshairs to deport. The order states that any undocumented immigrant convicted or simply charged with a crime that hasn't been adjudicated could be deported. (Under former President Obama, only undocumented immigrants convicted of a felony, serious misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors were prioritized for removal.) The order also specifies additional new priorities for deportation including undocumented immigrants who abuse public benefits, or simply those who in the “judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security," open-ended criteria that could be applied to many. 

Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, tells CNN that Trump's actions are "extremist, ineffective and expensive" and says the president is using lies about immigrants to push US policy. “Trump is taking a wrecking ball to our immigration system. It shouldn't come as a surprise that chaos and destruction will be the outcome," Hincapié says, noting that her organization will challenge Trump's moves in court.

Later this week or next President Trump is also expected to sign executive orders to block refugees from Syria and suspend the US refugee program for an initial 120-day period to ensure no admissions are made for those who “pose a threat to the security and welfare of the United States.” The order comes despite the fact that Syrian refugees already undergo intense screening processes that often last eighteen to twenty-four months. The orders, still in draft form, also stipulate that when the refugee program is resumed, it prioritizes refugees who have undergone religious-based persecution, “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” For Muslim-majority countries this would presumably mean Christians, Yazidis, and other religious minorities, even though the majority of those killed, persecuted, and displaced by the Islamic State are Muslims. The total amount of refugees admitted also will total 50,000, decreased from 110,000 that the Obama administration had planned to accept.

The draft order calls for an immediate thirty-day halt to all immigrant and nonimmigrant entry of travelers from certain countries—including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Sudan, Libya and Somalia—whose citizens “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States.” The order would allow those with visas to be turned away at US airports and other entry points. Additional provisions under the order would require all travelers to the United States to provide biometric data on entry and exit from the country, instead of current entry-only requirements, and suspends a waiver system under which citizens of certain countries where US visas are required do not have to undergo a face-to-face interview at a US Embassy or Consulate. The draft executive order also calls for visa applicants to be screened for their ideologies. “In order to protect Americans, we must ensure that those admitted to this country do not bear hostile attitudes toward our country and its founding principles,” it reads.

To justify the order, the action claims “hundreds of foreign-born individuals have been convicted or implicated in terrorism-related crimes since September 11, 2001.” The Washington Post notes, however, that most terrorist or suspected terrorist attacks since 9/11 have been carried out by US citizens. Moreover, the 9/11 hijackers hailed primarily from Saudi Arabia, as well as the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, all which are US allies and not affected by the proposed ban.

Immigrant advocates and human rights groups have criticized the announced actions. “To think that Trump’s first 100 days are going to be marked by this very shameful shutting of our doors to everybody who is seeking refuge in this country is very concerning,” Marielena Hincapié tells the New York Times. “Everything points to this being simply a backdoor Muslim ban."

UPDATE JANUARY 27, 2017: This afternoon President Trump signed the executive order, “Protecting the Nation from Terrorist Attacks by Foreign Nationals,” that according to a draft released earlier this week enacts a temporary ban on refugees and suspends visas to immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries.

UPDATE FEBRUARY 4, 2017: A judge in Seattle ordered a nationwide halt on Friday to the travel ban after a Boston court refused to extend a stay. The ruling from the Seattle judge, James Robart of the Federal District Court for the Western District of Washington, an appointee of President George W. Bush, is the most far-reaching ruling to date, though courts around the country have stayed certain aspects of President Trump's travel ban.

The federal government was “arguing that we have to protect the US from individuals from these countries, and there’s no support for that,” Judge Robart said in his decision. The judge's temporary ruling bars the administration from enforcing two parts of President Trump’s order: the ninety-day suspension of entry into the US of individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries—Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen—and the order's limits on accepting refugees, including “any action that prioritizes the refugee claims of certain religious minorities.”

Initially calling the ruling "outrageous," the White House late Friday issued a revised statement saying it would seek an emergency halt to the judge’s stay to restore the president’s “lawful and appropriate" order. Earlier this week the State Department said 60,000 visas had been revoked. A State Department official tells CNN that the department has "reversed the cancellation of visas that were provisionally revoked following the Trump administration's travel ban—so long as those visas were not stamped or marked as canceled." The Department of Homeland Security also said Saturday it has suspended actions to implement President Trump's executive immigration order. Nationals of the affected seven-Muslim majority countries who intend on traveling outside the US or to the US should consult an experienced immigration attorney. We will continue to provide updates as we receive them.

New York Times: “U.S. to Further Scour Social Media Use of Visa and Asylum Seekers”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is building tools to examine social media accounts of visa applicants as well as those seeking asylum or refugee status in the US for possible terrorism ties. At a congressional hearing last month, Francis X. Taylor, Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, the top counterterrorism official at DHS, said after the mass shooting in San Bernardino “we saw that our efforts are not as robust as they need to be,” and therefore would start to examine posts on Twitter, Facebook, and other social media sites.

This DHS announcement comes after terrorist groups, most prominently the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, have been increasingly successful in using social media sites to spread propaganda, encourage independent terrorist attacks, and as a recruitment tool. Previous to DHS’s announcement, Senator John McCain introduced a bill that would require the DHS to screen social media sites for refugees and those visiting or immigrating to the US, and Representative Vern Buchanan has additionally introduced a bill mirroring McCain's that requires the DHS to examine all public records, including “Facebook and other forms of social media,” as part of the routine security background check.

“This legislation adds an important and necessary layer of screening that will go a long way in properly vetting the online activities of those wishing to enter the United States,” Representative Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, told the New York Times. “A simple check of social media accounts of foreign travelers and visa applicants will help ensure that those who have participated in, pledged allegiance to or communicated with terrorist organizations cannot enter the United States.” While Congress has yet to act on the proposed legislation, in December, twenty-two Democratic lawmakers urged DHS to examine social media accounts for those seeking US visas.

Melanie Nezer, Vice President for Policy & Advocacy at HIAS, an agency that assists in refugee resettlement, commented to the New York Times about DHS’s social media plans: “We haven’t seen the policy, but it is a concern considering the already lengthy and opaque process that refugees have to go through. It could keep out people who are not a threat.” The American Civil Liberties Union of Maine agreed, telling WMTW News, an ABC affiliate: “We already have a rigorous and multi-layered security screening program in place for refugee resettlement that works. This proposal will only serve to further stigmatize immigrants and divide our country."

DHS’s new plan to review social media accounts comes after they abandoned a similar proposal in 2011. Currently, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), an agency of DHS, examines social media accounts as part of the screening process for certain Syrian refugees, but only when there is a "hit" in an intelligence database for the applicant or if there is a security concern stemming from the interview with immigration officials. DHS says they are now hoping to automate the social media review, as a huge amount of messages and other data will need to be processed, as well as make additional hires to conduct the necessary social media security checks.

While data mining experts such as John Elder, who has worked with the Internal Revenue Service and the Postal Service on fraud detection, believe that analyzing social media accounts of millions of people who enter the US each year is feasible, other stress that conducting a thorough and accurate review would be very difficult. David Heyman, a former Assistant Secretary of Policy for DHS, told the New York Times: “You have to be careful how you design the proposal to screen people,” he said. “Artificial intelligence and algorithms have a poor ability to discern sarcasm or parody.”

The Guardian: “G20 to discuss threat of ISIS infiltrators among EU migrants after Paris attacks”

After the horrific recent terrorist attacks and bombings by the Islamic State, or ISIS, world leaders at the G20 summit in Turkey are not only discussing their joint response to the global threat posed by ISIS but also the supposed fear of terrorists infiltrating the stream of migrants fleeing into the EU and elsewhere. This fear was sparked by the discovery of a Syrian refugee passport found near or on the body of one suicide bomber in Paris and has led many to speculate on the danger in accepting Syrians and refugees of other nationalities, even though there are still many unanswered questions about who the passport belonged to, whether it was stolen, and other key details. 

The Most Vulnerable

EU chief Jean-Claude Juncker said in the Guardian: “We should not mix the different categories of people coming to Europe. The one responsible for the attacks in Paris…he is a criminal and not a refugee and not an asylum seeker.” At the G20 summit, President Obama said: "The people who are fleeing Syria are the most harmed by terrorism. They are the most vulnerable as a consequence of civil war and strife. They are parents. They are children. They are orphans and it is very important...that we do not close our hearts to these victims of such violence and somehow start equating the issue of refugees with the issue of terrorism."

If there is no end to the Syrian civil war, the EU is predicting that as many as three million refugees will arrive in the next year. UK Prime Minister David Cameron has proposed that more refugees be given jobs and education in the semi-permanent camps on the border of Syria to discourage them from making the dangerous journey to the EU. Poland’s new government has already stated they won’t accept the EU migrant quotas. “In the wake of the tragic events in Paris, Poland doesn’t see the political possibilities to implement a decision on the relocation of refugees,” Konrad Szymanski, the nation’s future minister for European affairs, was quoted as saying on Wpolityce.pl website. “The attacks mean there’s a need for an even deeper revision of the European policy regarding the migrant crisis.”  

Anti-Refugee Backlash

As EU leaders continue to deal with the influx of Syrian migrants, many are fearing an anti-immigrant and refugee backlash, including in Germany which has taken in the majority of Syrian refugees and has seen a dramatic surge in attacks against migrants and refugee shelters. American Muslim communities are also fearing a backlash after the Paris attacks. 

In the US meanwhile, more than twenty-five states have declared they will not accept the resettlement of Syrian refugees, even though the security vetting process can take approximately twenty-four months, and many states have yet to receive any refugees. One South Carolina town even preemptively passed a resolution against the resettlement of refugees in their county limits, even though no Syrian refugees have been resettled in the entire state. The move to not accept Syrian refugees is more symbolic, given that out of the millions fleeing their country’s civil war, only 2,000 Syrian refugees have been granted entrance to the US in the past four years; moreover, it is unclear what effect these announcements will have, since it is President Obama not state governors who “has explicit statutory authorization to accept foreign refugees into the United States.” House Republicans are also creating a task force on Syrian refugees to pursue possible legislation to "pause" the flow of refugees into the US.

Religious Test for Refugees?

In a slightly different proposal, presidential candidates Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz suggested that the US prioritize and accept only Christian Syrian refugees, a move which President Obama condemned. “When I hear political leaders suggesting that there should be a religious test for admitting which person fleeing which country,” Obama said in the Guardian, “when some of these folks themselves come from other countries, that’s shameful. That’s not America. That’s not who we are. We don’t have religious tests to our compassion.”