{"id":86378,"date":"2026-05-30T00:01:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-30T06:01:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/?p=86378"},"modified":"2026-05-29T20:04:21","modified_gmt":"2026-05-30T02:04:21","slug":"actually-most-immigrants-wont-need-to-leave-u-s-to-get-green-cards-d-h-s-says","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.opinionpublica.tv\/portada\/actually-most-immigrants-wont-need-to-leave-u-s-to-get-green-cards-d-h-s-says\/","title":{"rendered":"Actually, most immigrants won\u2019t need to leave U.S. to get green cards, D.H.S. says"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Actually,<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The Department of Homeland Security sought on Friday to clarify its announcement last week that immigrants seeking permanent residency would have to return to their home countries to await their green cards, claiming there was no major change in policy and that only some will have to go back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The clarification appeared to be a partial walk-back of an announcement in a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services news release last week. Despite a longstanding policy of allowing immigrants to remain in the country while they wait for their green cards, it said individuals would now have to go back while they wait except in \u201cextraordinary\u201d cases.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But on Friday, the Homeland Security Department said it was not a blanket change and that it would be up to individual immigration officers to decide whether someone should be forced to go abroad to gain a green card. They said that officers have long had such discretion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThis was just a reminder to officers of their discretionary authority, which has always existed on a case-by-case basis,\u201d a D.H.S. spokesperson said in a statement. The spokesperson declined to provide a name. The person pointed to people who overstay visas or come from countries whose citizens are heavy users of public assistance as groups that could be affected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It was a substantial shift from last week\u2019s announcement, but was unlikely to reduce confusion or fear, as details are still scant about who might be affected and how. Even some inside the Homeland Security Department were confused as to the scope of the change when it was publicized.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though announced with a news release, a senior White House official said this week that the effort was meant to be a housekeeping matter, not a change of strategy. The official discussed internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some immigration lawyers said their clients were already being asked by U.S.C.I.S. officers in interviews this week why they were applying for green cards in the United States, and if any factors prevented them from applying in their home countries.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe public backlash has clearly sent the administration scrambling to clean up its own mess,\u201d said Sarah Pierce, a former U.S.C.I.S. official who is now the head of social policy at Third Way, a center-left group.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

She added that the \u201csignature\u201d of the administration\u2019s immigration agenda was to \u201cprioritize shock and awe over what is best for the country.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Outrage over the original announcement was swift. Immigration lawyers widely expected it to be met with legal challenges, but the confusing rollout left them pondering the best way to do so.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt does make it more difficult to figure out what you\u2019re suing for when you don\u2019t know what this thing really is,\u201d said Benjamin Johnson, the executive director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. \u201cIt\u2019s too early to tell right now what will be the most effective way to challenge this in court.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some business groups also pushed back on the policy change as originally described. Neil Bradley, an executive vice president and chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, praised the administration\u2019s efforts to reduce illegal immigration, but said policymakers should build a \u201cmore robust\u201d legal immigration system and that the policy change could be \u201cincredibly disruptive for employers.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About 1.4 million green cards were granted in 2024, with roughly 820,000 approved through a process known as \u201cadjustment of status,\u201d which allows prospective immigrants to apply while living in the United States. Many do so either through sponsorship by their employer, or a close relative such as a spouse.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Green cards can be granted to certain family members of Americans, a range of foreign workers and some people who gained status through humanitarian programs, such as refugees. People with green cards, or permanent residency status, are vetted and can wait years for approval. They must periodically renew their green cards and can eventually apply for citizenship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guidance announced last week seemed likely to have the most marked impact on immigrants applying through family sponsorship, since they are less likely to have an underlying business visa to live and work in the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Over the past few decades, many immigrants came on temporary visas, married U.S. citizens, and were allowed to stay in the U.S. while applying for green cards despite technically overstaying their visas. If forced to leave and apply from abroad, immigrants who have significantly overstayed a visa could well be prevented from coming back.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s very clear they\u2019re trying to go after that,\u201d said Doug Rand, a senior U.S.C.I.S. official during the Biden administration. \u201cBecause if now suddenly you can\u2019t adjust status, and you have to go home to your home country, joke\u2019s on you, now you\u2019re barred from coming back for 10 years.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The original guidance was worded in such a way that it made companies also fear for their high-skilled foreign workers on H-1B and other visas, many of whom have been waiting in line for a green card for years. Leaving the country and coming back could compound that, since wait times are already long at many consulates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consular officers also have more discretion to reject applications. Their decisions generally cannot be appealed, and applicants typically cannot have a lawyer present for an interview.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe employers are incredibly worried about this,\u201d said Bernard Wolfsdorf, a managing partner at Wolfsdorf Rosenthal, who helps large tech companies with their immigration issues. \u201cThese are the people who are at the very forefront of America\u2019s technological advantage, and they\u2019re being chased out of the country.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The guidance also left open the question of whether people from the scores of countries for which immigrant visa processing has been paused will have to go back to apply for green cards, and what would qualify an applicant for an exemption based on their importance to the \u201cnational interest.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Combined with other Trump immigration measures, the muddled guidance may deter people from trying to come to the United States in the first place. Interest from foreign job-seekers in U.S. positions has already fallen sharply, according to data from the hiring platform Indeed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIt\u2019s crazy how much panic this has caused,\u201d said Victoria Slatton, managing partner with Slatton & Hass. \u201cIf the memo wanted to scare people into not applying, it\u2019s doing a pretty good job.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n