Latest news with #AhilanArulanantham
Los Angeles Times
06-08-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
UC must reconsider policy barring undocumented students from jobs, court rules
In a key win for immigrant rights organizations, a California Court of Appeal ruled that the University of California has not provided sufficient legal grounds to justify its 'discriminatory policy' barring the hiring of undocumented students from on-campus jobs. A UCLA alumnus and a lecturer filed a lawsuit in October arguing that the UC system's hiring policy violates state law because it discriminates against students based on their immigration status. Plaintiffs said that, without access to campus jobs, many undocumented students struggle to meet tuition costs and cover basic needs such as housing and food. These students are often forced into the underground economy and miss out on career-advancing opportunities such as research assistant positions. Attorneys representing the UC system argued that its policy is justified because hiring undocumented students could run afoul of a federal law that bans the hiring of people without legal status and may provoke retaliation from the federal government. A three-judge panel, however, ruled that the system's policy violates California's Fair Employment and Housing Act and that fear of federal litigation is not sufficient grounds to uphold it. 'The University does not assert that it relied on the requirements of a federal statute or regulation in deciding to not to amend its policy — only on the risks associated with adopting a policy that the federal government might consider unlawful,' states the ruling. 'Accordingly, we conclude that the University abused its discretion by relying on an improper justification for continued application of its facially discriminatory policy.' The panel stopped short of ruling that UC must overturn its policy; rather, it ordered that the university system reconsider the policy based on proper legal criteria. Attorneys representing the plaintiffs consider the ruling a victory and are calling on UC to open jobs to undocumented students. 'The court's powerful opinion rejects the UC's attempt to justify its policy discriminating against undocumented students. It is wrong — both morally and legally — to bar our state's most talented students from access to crucial educational employment opportunities based on their immigration status,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of UCLA's Center for Immigration Law and Policy in a statement. 'We call on the UC to comply with state law and treat all its students equally, regardless of immigration status.' The UC system said it is reviewing the court's ruling but has not commented on whether it will change its hiring policy. 'To the extent it's compliant with the law, the University continues to believe undocumented students deserve the same opportunities as our other student,' said UC spokesperson Stett Holbrook in a statement. University officials have previously expressed fear that changing the system's hiring policy could result in civil fines, criminal penalties and the potential loss of billions of dollars in federal funding. Last week, the Trump administration announced it was freezing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research funding to UCLA, citing concerns over antisemitism and the university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests. Tuesday's court ruling comes after a years-long push to open campus jobs to students lacking documentation. The debate over whether it is legal to do so revolves around the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which bars the hiring of people without legal status. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that this federal law does not apply to government employers such as the UC system. Attorneys representing UC did not argue that the IRCA applies to public universities but said that the federal government might believe it does. In Tuesday's ruling, the three-judge panel noted that UC had the option to file a lawsuit against the federal government to secure a court ruling on whether the university system is subject to the IRCA. Under the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy — better known as DACA — undocumented youth who were brought to the United States as children could get work permits. The UC system does allow the hiring of undocumented students with work authorization. President Trump, however, terminated the DACA program in 2017, and although courts have challenged that decision, the program is no longer accepting new applicants. There are now around 64,300 undocumented college students who are not eligible for DACA in California and, therefore, not eligible for work authorization — or campus jobs. 'As someone who was undocumented and a UC lecturer, I know firsthand the transformative power of on-campus work opportunities,' said plaintiff Iliana G. Perez in a statement on the court ruling. 'UC must now act with urgency to dismantle exclusionary policies and ensure all students, regardless of immigration status, can fully participate in their education, contribute to their campuses, and shape California's future.' Students and faculty began advocating for the UC system to open jobs to all students regardless of their immigration status in 2022. The UC regents established a working group to consider change its hiring policy in 2023, but the group suspended its work due to fear that doing so would violate the IRCA. A year later, the California Legislature passed the Opportunity for All Act, requiring state public universities to open up employment to all students, but Newsom vetoed the bill, citing legal concerns over the IRCA. This prompted the plaintiffs to file their lawsuit in October 2024 seeking a writ of mandate requiring the UC system to consider undocumented students for on-campus jobs. A court initially denied this request, but the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court, which then ordered the state Court of Appeal to rule on the merits of the case. The Court of Appeal heard oral arguments in May and issued its ruling Tuesday.
Miami Herald
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Miami Herald
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
LOS ANGELES – It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration launched its no-holds-barred immigration enforcement campaign in Southern California, deploying federal forces on raids that have sparked massive protests, prompted ongoing litigation in federal court and triggered a flurry of bills from outraged state lawmakers trying to fight back. And yet - at least so far - nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics. In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult. "They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal," he said. "We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway." A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez, D-Alhambra, would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number. "While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals," Renée Pérez's office said in a news release. Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Jesse Arreguín, D-Berkeley, also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings. U.S. Representative Laura Friedman, D-Glendale, announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law. The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition. The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops - who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms - at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators. "Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable," Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement. Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers. Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors. Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts. The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. "Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents," a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. "We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents." Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants. Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off. A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries. "Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents," the letter said. The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting "criminal illegal aliens" and said it will continue operations despite efforts by "rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement." "As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals," Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release. Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy - but no notable cases have been filed. The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council. But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing. While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process. "The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power," Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr. "The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds." Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Los Angeles Times
02-07-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
California lawmakers struggle to find ways to hit back against Trump immigration raids
It has been nearly a month since the Trump administration launched its no-holds-barred immigration enforcement campaign in Southern California, deploying federal forces on raids that have sparked massive protests, prompted ongoing litigation in federal court and triggered a flurry of bills from outraged state lawmakers trying to fight back. And yet — at least so far — nothing seems capable of deterring the White House or forcing a change in tactics. In both Sacramento and Washington, observers said elected officials are coming up with proposals that seem to lack teeth. Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the UCLA Center for Immigration Law and Policy and former senior counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union in Los Angeles, said stopping the Trump administration from sending masked and unidentified immigration agents to snatch people off the street is proving difficult. 'They detain everybody and interrogate them all and then just figure out afterward who's unlawfully present, and that's blatantly illegal,' he said. 'We can write more laws, but there's already perfectly good laws that say this is unlawful, and they're doing it anyway.' A bill announced Monday by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Alhambra) would expand police impersonation laws and require all law enforcement, unless undercover, to wear a name tag or badge number. 'While ICE has publicly condemned impersonations, the agency's use of face coverings and lack of consistent, visible identification creates public confusion and makes it difficult for the public to distinguish between authorized law enforcement personnel and dangerous criminals,' Renée Pérez's office said in a news release. Another bill, introduced by state Sens. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco) and Jesse Arreguín (D-Berkeley) also seeks to ban law enforcement from wearing face coverings. U.S. Representative Laura Friedman (D-Glendale) announced similar legislation Tuesday at the federal level, but the Republican majorities in both congressional houses mean it stands little chance of becoming law. The state bills have a better chance of passage in the Democratic-controlled Legislature, but they still face opposition. The Peace Officers Research Assn. of California, the largest statewide law enforcement union in the country, said banning face coverings could inadvertently put local cops — who are already required to wear badges, nameplates or badge numbers on their uniforms — at risk of losing access to personal protective equipment like face shields and respirators. 'Using local law enforcement as a punching bag to grandstand against the federal government should not be an acceptable practice from our state leaders. It is misdirected, misguided, and intolerable,' Brian R. Marvel, president of PORAC, said in a statement. Marvel said he doubted California had the authority to regulate the attire of federal officers. Arulanantham disagreed, saying that the state law could stand as long as the mask ban was neutrally applied to all law enforcement, not just federal actors. Other potential measures in the state Legislature, Arulanantham said, could expand on SB 54, the sanctuary policy that limits collaboration between state law enforcement and federal authorities on immigration enforcement. But even those protections are now under assault in the courts. The Trump administration sued the city of L.A. on Monday, arguing its sanctuary policy hampered the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law. 'Our City remains committed to standing up for our constitutional rights and the rights of our residents,' a spokesperson for the L.A. city attorney said in a statement. 'We will defend our ordinance and continue to defend policies that reflect our longstanding values as a welcoming community for all residents.' Other bills advancing through the state Legislature include measures that would restrict school officials from allowing immigration enforcement inside the nonpublic areas of schools and prohibit healthcare workers from sharing a patient's immigration status without judicial warrants. Democrats aren't alone in trying to get the White House to back off. A group of state Republican lawmakers authored a letter to Trump, arguing that widespread immigration raids are crippling the economy by taking away workers from key industries. 'Unfortunately, the recent ICE workplace raids on farms, at construction sites, and in restaurants and hotels, have led to unintended consequences that are harming the communities we represent and the businesses that employ our constituents,' the letter said. The Department of Homeland Security has insisted its agents are busy arresting 'criminal illegal aliens' and said it will continue operations despite efforts by 'rioters and politicians trying to hinder law enforcement.' 'As bad faith politicians attempt to demean and vilify our brave law enforcement, we will only double down and ramp up our enforcement actions against the worst of the worst criminals,' Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a June 26 news release. Local city and county governments, civil rights groups and even individuals could step in to sue the government and ICE on the grounds that they are infringing upon citizens' constitutional rights and harming the local economy — but no notable cases have been filed. The city of Los Angeles is posturing for a suit and has already approved legal action against ICE, according to a proposal signed by seven members of the City Council. But early struggles in the state's challenge to Trump's deployment of federal troops do not bode well for future litigation. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals swiftly overturned a lower court decision that would've limited Trump's authority, and litigation over whether the troops can be used for immigration enforcement remains ongoing. While the court battle plays out, state Democratic leaders, including Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister), say they are working to fast-track some bills through the legislative process. 'The Speaker is deeply invested in protecting California's immigrant workers and families in the face of reckless ICE raids and Trump's abuses of power,' Rivas' spokesperson Nick Miller said in a statement. Some observers said that, despite the struggles legislation may face in the near term, it may be up to Republicans to change focus from Trump's agenda to things that affect their electorates, said veteran Democratic political strategist Roy Behr. 'The Republicans seem more focused on doing whatever Trump wants, but at least these votes force them to show where their loyalties really lie. And you know, maybe one day they will actually start to pay the price for these votes and ultimately feel the pressure to change their minds.'
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Hill
12-06-2025
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.'
