The travel environment to and from the United States has radically changed during the Trump administration. This move has further caused legal experts and immigrant advocates to sound the alarm. In recent years, a series of executive orders and enforcement policies have provided a new framework. Now, foreigners’ political and cultural views are extremely important in determining whether they can be admitted to or remain in the country. This article from our Changemakers series explores the impact of these changes, giving voice to legal practitioners, advocates and impacted Americans.
Nate Freed Wessler is a First Amendment litigator and civil liberties attorney. Unique to under the current framework, he highlights that conventional Fourth Amendment safeguards—requiring a warrant or at least individualized suspicion before a search—don’t apply. This break from long standing standards is a deeply disturbing precedent in the ongoing U.S. government’s campaign to punish people for their political opinions.
The new administration’s first executive order finally addresses the issue. Such an order creates a new infrastructure to deport or bar entry to foreigners based on the content of their political beliefs that the government finds unwelcome. People usually turn to Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security, for guidance through our tangled immigration web. That’s particularly the case for people who outstay their visas or are turned back at the border.
Veteran immigration attorney Tahmina Watson points out that the Foreign Affairs Manual is crucial in driving policy. She hopes it acts as an important tool for understanding the rapidly changing landscape of policy in this arena. In addition to making travel accessible, she urges travelers to educate themselves on the rules that apply under their particular immigration status or visa type.
Golnaz Fakhimi, the legal director of Muslim Advocates, describes the last and biggest policy change. Now authorities are targeting non-citizens for ideological and viewpoint discriminatory purposes. In particular, this amendment has led to concerns that far-reaching free speech and civil liberties implications are on the table. People today experience such chilling effects at all U.S. borders. They might find themselves intimidated into silencing their convictions so they aren’t investigated.
The story of Jeanette Vizguerra, an immigrant-rights activist in Colorado, shows the very real impact these policies can have. As a result, they detained her to punish her for her protected speech. This episode should raise awareness about the threats that political activists frequently face.
Hasan Piker, a popular left-wing YouTuber and U.S. citizen, was recently held for several hours of intense questioning by Customs and Border Protection agents. His experience illustrates a larger trend that’s been developing on the ground. Increasingly, people are being targeted for greater policing simply due to their partisan identification or social media presence.
Camille Mackler, the executive director of Immigrant Arc, succinctly captures the essence of why this matters. Travelers need to be particularly aware of the rules that govern their unique visa or immigration status. She argues for proactive efforts to get people in compliance with the new rules, which will likely require a sharp departure from past policies.
The Trump administration issued Executive Orders 1461 and 14188. Despite these precedents, these orders nonetheless served as a precedent for targeting individuals through government actions because of their political views. Additionally, these orders further illustrate the idea that your beliefs can have real-world consequences when it comes to entering or leaving U.S. borders.
Nate Freed Wessler offers a sobering reminder for those considering travel: individuals should evaluate their risk tolerance before embarking on journeys to the United States. And perhaps most importantly, Whitlock warns that authorities are watching people’s social media activity with a watchful eye. It’s vital that travelers consider the way their digital footprint is perceived.
In one particularly shocking case, a French researcher was threatened with deportation from the U.S. This was probably the case because their phone held sensitive information regarding the then-U.S. president. These types of examples are indicative of the increasing willingness to use personal viewpoints as a basis for entering the country.
Golnaz Fakhimi sheds light on a troubling trend. She notes that the new regulations appear to be aimed more broadly at stifling criticism of the Israeli government and advocacy for Palestinian rights. This new focus invites criticism that arrests and prosecutions are being selectively enforced when they retaliate against ideological beliefs.
The ripple effects of these policies go far beyond the traveler at the door. A new study by the World Travel and Tourism Council unveils disturbing data. That’s costing the U.S. $12.5 billion in international travel spending so far this year. The economic effect is just one example of a mounting bad experience for foreign travelers. Many are now reconsidering their plans out of fear of being discriminated against or treated unfairly.
Tahmina Watson advises green card holders with criminal records against leaving the country, citing potential repercussions upon reentry. This cultural mores of caution show how increased scrutiny can have an outsized impact on marginalized communities.