U.S. Immigration Policy Update: The Bans and Barriers to Entry

U.S. immigration policy is a mess. This has been true for some time, but current admissions policies have placed the ailing system on life support. The administration has taken an aggressive approach to curtailing legal immigration and existing humanitarian pathways while also stripping status from people who are already here through legal, protective pathways.

In light of these ever-changing policies, Quixote Center has updated our three-part series, “The State of Immigration in the United States.” The series will walk you through the various aspects of the immigration process, beginning with this article, “The Bans and Barriers to Entry,” followed by one that will look at detention and deportation and a final piece addressing the myths surrounding immigration and where we go from here. In his State of the Union address this past February, the president said, “We will always allow people to come in legally.” The message said to just come here the right way. However, the policy itself says, “Do not come at all,” and, as we will explore in Part Two, “If you are already here, go back.”

The administration has put in place several barriers to entry, making the already arduous process almost impossible. These barriers were introduced in conjunction with outright bans or freezes on broad categories of people seeking legal entry into the country. The immigrant and migrant population is vulnerable. Research, from  Justice for Immigrants, reveals that people leave their homes for safety concerns, persecution, economic instability, and environmental factors, such as natural disasters. Vulnerable people are applying for entry or taking the perilous journey to the border, only to find the doors slammed shut.

Setting the Tone

On January 20, 2025, the new president issued the first of several executive orders, entitled “Securing Our Borders,” that set the tone for his immigration policy. Only 5 days later he issued another order titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” These two orders made several consequential shifts, including revoking four executive orders issued by the previous administration, switching to a deportation-heavy approach, and reviewing all humanitarian parole programs.

These shifts have resulted in regular legal challenges. As noted in Bloomberg Law, “The U.S. Supreme Court in its latest term overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration” with regards to  immigration decisions, leaving hundreds of thousands vulnerable and uncertain of  their future.

Travel Ban

On January 21, 2026, the State Department expanded its visa freeze to 75 countries. The list spans countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. It is aimed at applicants they believe could be reliant on public assistance, making them what the administration has labeled a “public charge.”

USCIS Processing Pauses for Parolees & TPS Recipients 

TPS (Temporary Protected Status) and Parole are two distinct categories, although both are temporary and both are determined by the executive branch and not Congress.  Temporary Protected Status is a country-wide status granted to individuals coming from designated countries that are in some form of crisis where returning would pose a risk.  Parole differs in that it is highly discretionary and individually granted for reasons of urgent humanitarian reasons or a significant public benefit. Neither provide a pathway to citizenship, but both allow recipients to live and work legally in the United States. For example, Haitians were granted TPS options after the 2010 earthquake, while Cubans have not been designated for TPS but can apply for humanitarian Parole based on individual circumstances. The aforementioned executive orders reviewed Parole programs, and the review has resulted in the mass termination of Biden-era Parole programs for hundreds of thousands of people, leaving them at risk of deportation.

After several back-and-forth cases, the Supreme Court ruled on June 25, 2026, in Mullin v. Doe, that the administration could proceed with terminating TPS for Haitians and Syrians, putting more than 350,000 Haitians and approximately 6,100 Syrians at risk of deportation. Venezuela, Honduras, Nepal, Nicaragua, Burma (also known as Myanmar), Ethiopia, Somalia, and South Sudan are some of the other countries whose TPS protections remain under dispute and at-risk.

According to FWD.us, an estimated 1.3 million individuals in the U.S. are TPS holders and contribute $29 billion annually to the economy.

Refugees and Other Immigration Paths

Refugee status is an internationally recognized designation defined as a person outside the country of his or her nationality, who is unable or unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution based on his or her race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Though some of the reasons that make a person eligible for refugee status overlap with the above temporary status, it is not temporary and provides a path to citizenship. The current administration has also retracted refugee admissions. There has been a 94 percent reduction in the refugee cap, from 125,000 in 2024 to 7,500, the lowest in more than 45 years. They later expanded the cap to accommodate an additional 10,000 white Afrikaners, a nationality where evidence of persecution is limited. 

Additional Barriers

Additional barriers to immigration include rising costs of legal pathways, including a $100 initial asylum application fee, a $102 annual fee for certain pending asylum applications, a $1,000 immigration parole fee, and a $510 TPS registration fee. They also now require “online presence reviews,” requiring applicants to set their social media profiles to public for ideological screening. This is particularly concerning in light of the administration’s crackdown on anti-Israel sentiment, including the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and lawful permanent resident who participated in protests at Columbia University. Another notable case is that of Sami Hamdi, a British journalist who was detained after his visa was revoked during a speaking tour in the United States. The crackdown creates a real possibility that someone might be rejected from entering the U.S. on the basis of criticizing a foreign government.

Positive Note

All that said, not all is lost. In June 2026, the Supreme Court affirmed birthright citizenship. Earlier in the year, in April 2026, a federal appeals court ruled that the ban on asylum applications was unlawful and rejected the administration’s claim that it had the discretion to disregard asylum protections established by Congress. The asylum process has not yet fully resumed, and recovering from the pause will be a formidable administrative endeavor.

 The Former Homeland Security Secretary once said, “Under President Trump, America’s borders are closed to lawbreakers. Follow the law and you’ll find opportunity. Break it and you’ll find consequences.” However, immigration policy has become increasingly incoherent. The lucky few who gain access live in fear of having their status revoked arbitrarily, sending a clear message: just do not come at all.

Unfortunately the win for asylees was short lived. On July 26, 2026, USCIS issued a new rule effective immediately. The new rule means asylum seekers in affirmative proceedings will no longer be interviewed  but will instead be sent directly to an immigration judge. Importantly, immigration judges in some instances can remove individuals without hearing the case. This means many people who have undergone the arduous journey to the borders are then turned away without having the chance to plead their case. At this moment– a few days after the new rule– it is unclear how this will play out, but what is clear from the action of the administration and the language of the rule itself, the goal is to deport as many people as possible, as fast as possible.