Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s 75-country visa ban was ruled illegal by a federal judge August 21.Eric Lee/Getty
Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.
This January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed consular officers to refuse to process immigration visas for people from 75 countries because, he said, those immigrants would be more likely than others to “extract wealth” or “take welfare and public benefits” from the US. Since January, people from those 75 countries—all located in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, or Eastern Europe—have had their visa applications frozen or denied.
On August 21, though, a federal judge in New York struck down this blanket visa ban, on the grounds that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965’s prohibition on nationality-based discrimination in issuing a visa.
As my colleague Julia Métraux reported earlier this year, these “public charge” bans are in part based on eugenicist ideas.
Since the 19th century, the United States has used “public charge” rules to restrict entry, alleging that immigrants and even visitors would strain public services—reasoning very much rooted in the eugenicist and ableist thinking that shaped key aspects of public policy in the 19th and early 20th centuries, including the claim that so-called “defective” people would produce “defective” children. As president, especially in his second term, Donald Trump has brought eugenicist immigration policy roaring back.
Judge Jeannette Vargas’ August 21 ruling in CLINIC v. Rubio reverses any visa denials that occurred solely due to the “public charge” visa ban.
The policy, Vargas found, “is contrary to law and was issued in excess of
Secretary Rubio’s statutory authority,” and “has the effect of categorically
banning the issuance of immigrant visas to nationals of nearly 40% of the world’s
countries.” The government may still appeal the decision.
In a written statement to reporters, the nonprofit groups and private law firms involved in the suit praised Vargas’ ruling. “This latest attempt by the Trump administration to enforce its white nationalist worldview through US immigration policy is, like the others, equal parts retrograde and unlawful,” said Baher Azmy, Legal Director of The Center for Constitutional Rights. “We are proud to stand by communities that will not stop fighting against the administration’s attempts to project its racist insecurities to tear apart families.”
