Tag Archives: Robert Alexander

Newsweek: Child Protections for Green Card Applicants Reversed: What To Know

Posted on by
Reply

Anew interpretation of immigration law has upended protections for children of long-waiting green card applicants, putting some 200,000 young people—many of whom have spent their entire lives in the U.S.—at risk of losing their legal status once they turn 21.

The change to the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA) undoes a Biden-era policy that had shielded thousands of children from “aging out” of green card eligibility, and represents a seismic alteration for children on immigrant families holding H-1B visas.

Why It Matters

The rollback isn’t just a technical tweak to visa calculations—it could decide whether thousands of children stay with their families or are forced to leave the only country they’ve ever known.

The impact will fall hardest on families of H-1B visa holders stuck in the green card backlog. About 200,000 children—mostly from India and China—risk “aging out” when they turn 21, losing dependent status and facing a future of student visas, self-deportation, or exile. For families who have already waited decades, the change highlights both the fragility of existing protections and the broader failures of America’s immigration system to keep families together.

What To Know

The new U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) rule officially took effect on August 15. From that date forward, only the Final Action Dates chart from the Visa Bulletin will determine a child’s CSPA age.

Families that submit adjustment of status applications before that date will still be protected under the more flexible February 2023 policy, which allowed children to rely on the earlier “Dates for Filing” chart. Those who wait beyond the deadline risk seeing their children age out much faster under the new calculation system.

In practical terms, families who delay filing until after mid-August may lose the protective cushion that previously gave them more time before their children turned 21.

The New Changes and What They Mean

The 2023 policy let families use the Dates for Filing chart to lock in a child’s CSPA age. This gave families valuable time and allowed more children to remain eligible as dependents, even amid long visa backlogs.

Immigration lawer, Carolyn Lee said: “The 2023 policy was an expansive move by USCIS to allow children to stop aging earlier. That is, to be given a broader avenue to remain under 21. However, this move raised other questions because it did not conform with U.S. State Department’s adoption of the “stop aging” point – or “visa availability.” So, the new policy, while snapping back to the less expansive position, aligns with State’s and eliminates confusion in this regard.”

Lee added: “The real problem is that dependents still can get separated from their parents during the lengthy visa adjudication process. Our immigration laws embrace family unity as a public goal, and so while we’re thankful to have CSPA, when faced with clients who face the very difficult outcome of being separated from their little ones, I do wonder whether we can look at this problem through a different lens and come up with a better solution.”

Advocates praised the 2023 policy as fairer, but critics said it conflicted with the State Department’s rules. With the new policy, USCIS is now reverting to Final Action Dates, aligning policies but narrowing protections. Eligibility will now hinge solely on this, and the change could accelerate the point at which children “age out” by turning 21 before receiving their green card.

The result is less flexibility for families, has higher risks for children, and potentially devastating consequences for those who have spent years—sometimes decades—waiting in line for permanent residency.

What Is the CSPA?

The Child Status Protection Act, passed in 2002, was designed precisely to shield families from bureaucratic delays.

Its goal was to allow children to retain eligibility despite the often yearslong wait between filing and approval.

The law calculates a “CSPA age” that subtracts certain delays from a child’s actual age, sometimes keeping them under the age of 21 even after their actual twenty-first birthday passes.

The law, however, leaves room for interpretation, especially around what counts as a “visa availability date.”

Without congressional reform of green card quotas, experts warn that children will continue facing the risk of aging out.

What People Are Saying

USCIS, in an August 8 alert detailing changes to the CSPA, said: “The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) defines a child as a person who is both unmarried and under 21 years old. If an alien applies for lawful permanent resident (LPR) status as a child but turns 21 before being approved for LPR status (also known as getting a Green Card), that alien can no longer be considered a child for immigration purposes.

It added: “This situation is commonly referred to as aging out, and may mean these aliens must file a new petition or application or wait even longer to get a Green Card, or are no longer eligible for a Green Card.”

Immigration lawer, Carolyn Lee told Newsweek via email on August 26 “The Child Status Protection Act is an important ameliorative law [something that improves a situation or reduces harm] that recognizes that delays in U.S. immigration processing can separate parents from their children and addresses that heartbreaking problem. It does so by providing a mechanism—a formula, really—that in its operation may keep children under 21 and thereby retain their derivative status.

What Happens Next

USCIS will open a formal rulemaking process later in 2025, inviting public comments that advocates and families are expected to use to push back against the policy. Legal challenges are also possible, as courts may be asked to decide whether the stricter interpretation conflicts with the CSPA’s purpose of keeping families together.

In the meantime, lawyers are urging families to act fast and document extraordinary circumstances to protect eligibility.

The Trump regime is making changes that will likely force 200,000 children of H-1B visa holders to leave the only country they’ve ever known.

Child Protections for Green Card Applicants Reversed: What To Know
Stricter green card rules may split families because children of visa holders lose protections once they turn 21.

https://newsweek.com/child-protections-green-card-applicants-reversed-what-know-2119952

Newsweek: Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration is seeking more time in federal court as it considers how to bring a challenge to birthright citizenship before the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a consent motion filed on August 19 in the District of Maryland, government lawyers requested an additional 30 days to respond to an amended complaint in CASA Inc. v. Trump.

The case contests executive order 14160, titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The order denies citizenship at birth when the mother is unlawfully present (or lawfully but temporarily present) and the father is not a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment by email outside regular working hours on Wednesday.

Why It Matters

The case goes to the core of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause, which for more than a century has guaranteed citizenship to almost everyone born on U.S. soil.

A successful challenge could affect hundreds of thousands of children born each year to undocumented parents, while also testing the limits of presidential power to redefine constitutional rights through executive orders.

With the Trump administration signaling that it plans to seek a Supreme Court review, the litigation has the potential to reshape immigration law and the broader debate over American identity.

What To Know

The plaintiffs, a coalition of immigrant-rights organizations led by CASA, amended their complaint in June.

On July 18, the government’s deadline to respond was extended to August 22. The new motion seeks to push that date back to September 22.

According to the filing, the delay is tied to the administration’s broader legal strategy.

The Justice Department acknowledged that multiple lawsuits were pending against the executive order across different jurisdictions. To resolve the matter more definitively, the solicitor general is preparing to ask the Supreme Court to take up the issue in its next term.

“To that end, the Solicitor General of the United States plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Executive Order next Term, but he has not yet determined which case or combination of cases to take to the Court,” government attorneys wrote.

The administration emphasized that the extension request was not an attempt to stall the proceedings. “This request is not made for purposes of delay, and no party will be prejudiced by the relief requested herein, particularly because Plaintiffs consent to the same,” the motion said.

On August 7, the court in Maryland granted a classwide preliminary injunction, applying nationwide to members of the certified class.

Birthright Citizenship and the 14th Amendment

Executive order 14160 has drawn criticism from immigrant advocacy groups, which argue that birthright citizenship is guaranteed under the 14th Amendment.

The constitutional provision says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.”

The administration, however, has contended that the clause does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants.

By moving toward a Supreme Court review, the administration appears to be seeking a definitive ruling on the scope of the citizenship clause. The outcome could have significant implications for immigration law and the legal status of U.S.-born children of noncitizen parents.

What People Are Saying

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, criticizing the administration’s approach in the Supreme Court, said on May 15: “Your argument … would turn our justice system into a ‘catch me if you can’ kind of regime, in which everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, emphasizing constitutional precedent, added: “So, as far as I see it, this order violates four Supreme Court precedents.”

What Happens Next

If the Trump administration’s request for more time is approved, the government’s deadline would move to September 22. For now, a nationwide injunction continues to block the order, leaving it unenforceable.

Justice Department lawyers say they are considering which case to present to the Supreme Court for review in the next term, a move that could bring arguments before the justices in 2026. Both sides have agreed to the extension, and the government emphasized that no party would be harmed by the delay. While the extension keeps the litigation on hold, the broader fight over birthright citizenship is poised to escalate.

On June 27, the court ruled on nationwide injunctions in Trump v. CASA but did not decide the merits of birthright citizenship. The administration now plans to seek a full review next term on the lawfulness of the executive order itself. If the court grants the review, it will put the question of the core citizenship clause before the justices in a way not seen since United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Trump admin grapples with birthright citizenship dilemma
The Trump administration is seeking a 30-day delay as the DOJ maps the Supreme Court’s path to test birthright citizenship.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-admin-grapples-birthright-citizenship-dilemma-2116126

Newsweek: Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow

Posted on by
Reply

Afederal judge in Illinois has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration that sought to block the state’s workplace privacy law on the grounds that it conflicted with federal immigration enforcement.

In a ruling issued on August 19, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the administration’s arguments, finding that the Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act is not preempted by federal immigration law.

Why It Matters

The ruling matters because it draws a clearer boundary between federal immigration power and state authority over workplace regulation. By rejecting the Trump administration’s effort to use immigration law to override Illinois’ privacy protections, Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman reaffirmed that states retain broad authority to govern employment relationships.

The decision safeguards workers’ procedural rights in the hiring process, could set a precedent for other states considering similar measures, and marks a significant check on the expansion of federal enforcement authority.

What To Know

The case centered on whether federal law—particularly the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA)—supersedes state-level employment protections. The administration argued that provisions of Illinois’ law regulating the use of the federal E-Verify system and protecting employees during the employment verification process interfered with federal immigration authority.

Coleman disagreed, concluding that the state law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the government’s “broad interpretation of its power to regulate matters of immigration would swallow the historic powers of the states over employment-related issues”.

The Federal Government’s Argument

The Trump administration claimed that several provisions of Illinois’ privacy law—including penalties for violations related to E-Verify—constituted sanctions on employers of unauthorized workers and therefore fell under IRCA’s preemption clause. That provision bars states from imposing civil or criminal sanctions on employers who hire or recruit unauthorized workers/aliens.

The Justice Department also argued that Illinois’ law, by imposing notification requirements and other conditions on the use of E-Verify, conflicted with the federal goal of deterring unauthorized employment.

At oral argument, however, Coleman noted that government lawyers struggled to identify precisely which sections of Illinois law they believed were preempted. In her ruling, she wrote that the administration’s interpretation of IRCA’s preemption clause was “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Judge’s Reasoning

Coleman emphasized that employment regulation has historically been a power of the states. “States possess broad authority under their police powers to regulate the employment relationship to protect workers within the State,” she wrote, citing Supreme Court precedent.

The judge found that Illinois’ law does not penalize employers for hiring unauthorized workers but rather regulates how employers use verification systems and ensures employees’ rights are respected during that process. “A person’s immigration or work authorization status is irrelevant to determine whether an employer has violated any of the provisions of the act,” Coleman explained.

She further rejected the administration’s conflict preemption argument, which claimed that Illinois’ law undermined federal objectives. The government suggested that the state’s notification rules could encourage unauthorized workers to evade detection. Coleman dismissed this as “simply too speculative a basis on which to rest a finding of pre-emption.”

Broader Implications

The ruling represents a significant legal setback for Trump’s immigration agenda, which has frequently sought to expand federal authority over state and local policies. By upholding Illinois’ privacy protections, the court reaffirmed the principle that federal power over immigration does not automatically override state employment laws.

The decision may carry consequences beyond Illinois. Other states have enacted or considered similar laws governing the use of E-Verify and employee privacy. Coleman’s opinion suggests that such measures, when designed to regulate employment rather than immigration status, may withstand federal challenges.

Newsweek contacted the Department of Justice for comment via email outside of regular working hours on Wednesday.

What People Are Saying

Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman wrote in her ruling that Illinois’ workplace privacy law “is not expressly preempted by IRCA and does not intrude upon the federal government’s constitutional powers in the space of immigration and foreign affairs.” She added that the administration’s interpretation of federal law was, “broad to the point of absurdity.”

Kyle Cheney of Politico wrote on X, August 20, 2025, “A federal judge in Illinois has thrown out the Trump administration’s lawsuit against the state that claims IL’s workforce privacy law conflicts with federal immigration enforcement.”

In a broader context, legal scholars and state officials have long debated the limits of federal power in immigration enforcement.

Ilya Somin, professor of law at George Mason University, told the Washington Post in 2017: “Trump and future presidents could use [the executive order] to seriously undermine constitutional federalism by forcing dissenting cities and states to obey presidential dictates, even without authorization from Congress. The circumvention of Congress makes the order a threat to separation of powers, as well.”

What Happens Next

The Trump administration is expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit, with a possible path to the Supreme Court. For now, Illinois’ workplace privacy law remains in effect, and the ruling could inspire other states to adopt similar protections while intensifying debates over federal versus state authority.

Judge Coleman emphasized that federal immigration power “is not without limits,” and that preemption requires a clear conflict. By leaving Illinois’ law intact and denying an injunction, the ruling marks a notable legal setback for Trump’s immigration strategy.

Donald Trump suffers major immigration legal blow
Judge rejects Trump’s lawsuit, ruling Illinois’ workplace privacy law doesn’t clash with federal immigration power.

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-immigration-legal-setback-illinois-workplace-privacy-2116468

Newsweek: Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update

Posted on by
Reply

The U.S. Department of Justice has released an update confirming that it plans to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump‘s executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship.

The announcement was disclosed in a joint status report filed Wednesday, August 6, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.

Why It Matters

The Justice Department’s plan to seek a Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship—entitled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”—marks a critical juncture in the national debate over immigration and constitutional rights.

Signed on January 20, 2025, it directs the federal government to deny citizenship documents to children born in the U.S. to undocumented or temporary immigrant parents.

At stake is the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which has long been understood to guarantee citizenship to nearly all individuals born on U.S. soil. A ruling in favor of the order could reshape federal authority over citizenship, impact millions of U.S.-born children, and redefine the limits of executive power—making this one of the most consequential legal battles in recent memory.

What To Know

On February 6, 2025, the district court in Seattle issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of President Trump’s executive order.

The case under review, State of Washington v. Trump, was just one of several ongoing legal challenges in which lower courts have largely rejected the administration’s legal theory. District courts in Maryland (February 5), New Hampshire (February 10), and Massachusetts (February 13), have each upheld that the order conflicted with constitutional protections and halted its enforcement in their respective jurisdictions.

One of those judges, U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, an appointee of former President Barack Obama who sits on the federal bench in Boston, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, affirming that the constitutional guarantee of citizenship applies broadly, and finding the policy to be, “unconstitutional and contrary to a federal statute.”

The government appealed the ruling and sought partial stays from the district court, the Ninth Circuit, and the Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court denied a partial stay, the Ninth Circuit requested further briefing and, on July 23, upheld the injunction.

The new update came in a joint status report filed August 6, 2025, in which the DOJ stated that Solicitor General D. John Sauer intends to file a petition “expeditiously” for certiorari—a legal term that refers to the process by which a higher court (most commonly the U.S. Supreme Court), agrees to review a lower court’s decision—in order to place the case before the Court during its next term, which begins in October.

This means the Justice Department has now formally indicated it will seek a U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the constitutionality of President Trump’s executive order; though it has not yet chosen which specific case—or combination of ongoing cases—it will use as the basis for its appeal.

The parties plan to update the court further once those appellate steps are finalized.

Fourteenth Amendment At Stake

Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by its Citizenship Clause, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Courts have consistently upheld this principle for more than a century, most notably in the 1898 Supreme Court case United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

However, the Trump administration argues that the amendment should not apply to children of parents who lack permanent legal status, a position that has been repeatedly rejected by lower courts.

What People Are Saying

President Trump, during an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press, December 8, 2024, said: “Do you know if somebody sets a foot—just a foot, one foot, you don’t need two—on our land, ‘Congratulations you are now a citizen of the United States of America,’ … Yes, we’re going to end that, because it’s ridiculous.” Adding: “…we’re going to have to get it changed. We’ll maybe have to go back to the people, but we have to end it. … We’re the only country that has it, you know.”

Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters in June 2025: “Birthright citizenship will be decided in October, in the next session by the Supreme Court.”

DOJ attorneys wrote in the filing: “In light of the Ninth Circuit’s decision, Defendants represent that the Solicitor General plans to seek certiorari expeditiously to enable the Supreme Court to settle the lawfulness of the Citizenship Order next Term.”

Jessica Levinson, constitutional law professor at Loyola Law School, said: “You can’t ‘executive order’ your way out of the Constitution. If you want to end birthright citizenship, you need to amend the Constitution, not issue an executive order.”

What Happens Next

The Justice Department must decide which case or combination of cases it will use to challenge lower court rulings and bring the birthright citizenship issue before the Supreme Court. Once it makes that decision, the DOJ will file a petition for certiorari.

The Court is not required to accept every petition, but because this involves a major constitutional question, it is likely to grant review. If that happens, the Court could hear arguments in 2026 and issue a ruling by June of that year.

For now, the Justice Department and attorneys representing plaintiff states—including Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon—have agreed to submit another update once the appellate process is clarified or if further proceedings in the district court are required. Until then, the order remains unenforceable, lower court rulings blocking Trump’s executive order remain in effect, and current birthright citizenship protections continue to apply.

What part of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is so hard to understand? Only a Totally Retarded Dumb-Assed Idiot (TRDAI) could miss the meaning of it:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of TRDAIs in the Trump regime. 🙁

Justice Department Issues Birthright Citizenship Update
Fight over Trump’s order to deny birthright citizenship heads toward Supreme Court, with 14th Amendment protections at stake

https://www.newsweek.com/justice-department-issues-birthright-citizenship-update-2110176