President Trump has said he supports “legal” immigration, but his administration has dismantled or limited pathways for immigrants to attain legal status. Visa programs including the diversity lottery are on hiatus. Citizenship ceremonies have been canceled. Wait times for green card approvals are stretching longer. We’ll talk about the Trump Administration’s moves to limit immigration and what pathways remain.
Guests:
Jennifer Chacón, professor, Stanford Law School
Julia Gelatt, associate director, U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute
This partial transcript was computer-generated. While our team has reviewed it, there may be errors.
Alexis Madrigal: Welcome to Forum. I’m Alexis Madrigal.
For as long as I can remember, there’s been a certain narrative about immigrants to the United States. Both political parties tended to demonize so-called “illegal” immigrants, regardless of how they became undocumented. But when it came to legal immigration—through work visas, marriage to a U.S. citizen, or family pathways—there was broad agreement around a familiar idea.
People often used the same phrase: hardworking immigrants who want to create a better life for their families and do things “the right way” are welcome in the United States. After all, those pathways are how a large majority of Americans or their ancestors arrived here.
But under Donald Trump’s second administration, that narrative has broken down on the right, largely because of Trump’s influence in pushing the Republican Party toward more hardline immigration positions.
To discuss what’s happening at the policy level, we’re joined by Jennifer Chacón, professor at Stanford Law School. Welcome.
Jennifer Chacón: Thank you.
Alexis Madrigal: We also have Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute. Welcome.
Julia Gelatt: Thank you. Good to be here.
Alexis Madrigal: Jennifer, let’s start with the big picture. What are the main ways the Trump administration is making it harder to gain legal status in the U.S.?
Jennifer Chacón: There are many ways, so it’s a good place to start.
During the campaign, President Trump often said he supported legal immigration “all day long” and was focused on stopping illegal immigration. But over the past year, we’ve seen that legal immigration has also been a major target of administration policies.
For example, there have been expanded travel bans—initially affecting 19 countries on national security grounds similar to those cited during his first administration, when he implemented what was often referred to as a “Muslim ban.” That was later extended to an additional 75 countries through policies like the expanded use of the public charge rule, limiting entry for certain visa holders.
We’ve also seen asylum processes effectively frozen at the southern border and significantly curtailed within the country. That shuts down another legal pathway to status.
In addition, visa processing has slowed considerably, partly due to reductions in government staffing, including State Department officials who handle applications. With a few exceptions, the number of visas issued has declined.
There’s also been increased focus on rescinding or challenging existing lawful statuses. That includes efforts to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of people, increased fraud investigations of individuals who have obtained legal status or citizenship, and even challenges to birthright citizenship.
Taken together, these measures reduce lawful pathways and raise questions about the stability of legal status—even for people who already have it.
Alexis Madrigal: That’s quite a roadmap for the rest of the show—lots to unpack.
Julia, how many of these moves are formal policies—things that go through official channels—and how many are more indirect, like bureaucratic slowdowns or underfunding?
Julia Gelatt: That’s a great question.
In the first Trump administration, many immigration policies were blocked in court because they were implemented hastily or without following proper procedures. Courts often focused on how policies were enacted rather than their substance.
This time, we’re seeing a mix. Some changes are going through the formal regulatory process, which requires public notice and comment. Those tend to move more slowly. For example, updates to the public charge rule, as well as changes to student visas and H-1B visas, have followed that path.
But there are also many changes coming through memos or administrative actions. For instance, the new $100,000 fee on certain H-1B visas was announced abruptly, creating confusion. The administration then spent days clarifying who would be affected, which caused a lot of anxiety.
So these changes are happening at multiple levels—formal rulemaking, informal guidance, and administrative practices. Some officials in this administration have spent years preparing to implement a wide range of restrictions, and we’re now seeing that play out.
Alexis Madrigal: Jennifer, looking at American history, is there a precedent for this kind of approach?
Jennifer Chacón: There are certainly historical parallels.
In the 1920s, immigration laws established quotas that heavily favored immigrants from Northern Europe and restricted others. These policies were explicitly shaped by eugenic ideas.
They built on earlier exclusions, including bans on immigration from much of Asia. It was a system that openly prioritized certain racial and ethnic groups.
That approach was largely rejected with the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which moved away from explicitly racist quotas in favor of a more uniform system. While that system still has inequities, it marked a clear shift away from overtly discriminatory policies.
Alexis Madrigal: What about other periods—like the 1930s, when Mexican workers were pushed out, or restrictions on Asian land ownership? Are we seeing echoes of those moments?
Jennifer Chacón: Yes, there are definitely echoes.
In the 1930s, there were large-scale removal campaigns targeting Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans, including U.S. citizens. Many people were deported or pressured to leave based on their ethnicity.
Today, we see similarities in the racialized enforcement of immigration laws. While policies are framed as targeting undocumented individuals, enforcement often extends more broadly, affecting communities based on perceived identity.
Alexis Madrigal: We’re talking about the Trump administration’s efforts to limit immigration and how the process of gaining legal status is changing.
We’re joined by Jennifer Chacón, professor at Stanford Law School, and Julia Gelatt, associate director of the U.S. Immigration Policy Program at the Migration Policy Institute.
We’d love to hear from you. Many of our listeners have direct experience with the immigration system.
How has it been for you recently? Have you noticed changes? Or do you have questions about how immigration works in the U.S.?
Call us at 866-733-6786 or email forum@kqed.org.
I’m Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned.