The Phyllis Schlafly Report
By John and Andy Schlafly
The immigration issue remains near the top of voters’ priorities as the midterm elections rapidly approach. Liberal judges appointed by Obama and Biden continue to thwart President Trump at nearly every turn on this all-important issue.
On Friday another federal judge ruled against Trump, this time blocking his order to suspend visas from 75 mostly Third World countries. On January 14, 2026, nearly a year after Trump took office, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the pausing of visas to nationals from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda, and many other similar nations that most Americans could not find on a map of the world.
The reason for Trump's policy was sensible: admitting future immigrants from those countries is likely to impose a financial burden on American taxpayers. He ordered the State Department to undertake “a full review of all policies, regulations, and guidance to ensure that immigrants from these high-risk countries do not utilize welfare in the United States or become a public charge.”
Data from the Council of Economic Advisers show that more than 30% of immigrant households from these 75 countries depend on public assistance programs. Those who do not are taking jobs from Americans on employment-related visas, and that causes indirect harm to American citizens.
Yet Biden-appointed Judge Jeannette Vargas, who was confirmed to the bench just seven weeks before the 2024 election, decided that Secretary Rubio had exceeded his statutory authority by declining to issue visas to persons from these countries. The federal judge held instead that remote consular officers overseas have the exclusive authority to approve or deny individual visa applications, and her ruling tells them to continue to do so without regard to Trump’s policy.
Ordinarily a judge making a decision like this would remand the matter back to the agency, in this case the State Department, to develop a new policy based on the judicial ruling. But this arrogant judge took the extraordinary step of declaring her ruling final without giving the Trump Administration an opportunity to address what the court held.
This lawsuit was filed by two nonprofit organizations, five citizens of other countries who sought employment-based visas, and six other family members. Employment-based visas take jobs away from Americans who are struggling to find good-paying work.
Many might be surprised to learn that the lead plaintiff in this case is the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc. (CLINIC), which encompasses a network of 400 Catholic and community-based immigration legal-service providers in nearly every state and 3,000 employees. Although initially started by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), CLINIC is an independent nonprofit that has long been dependent on millions of dollars in federal funds.
The Left objects to any government funds flowing to Catholic schools, but is just fine with CLINIC receiving taxpayer money as it litigates against President Trump’s America First policies. CLINIC filed its lawsuit in the Southern District of New York along with another pro-immigration group called African Communities Together.
Anna Gallagher, the executive director of CLINIC, praised the ruling by saying that it helps keep families together. But families can just as easily be reunited in their native countries rather than in the United States.
CLINIC applauded the disastrous Supreme Court decision in June granting birthright citizenship to nearly anyone born here with foreign-born parents. “In our amicus brief, we explained how the values of Catholic social teaching, the particular realities of undocumented immigration in the United States, and our nation’s legal history make upholding the tradition of birthright citizenship the most just outcome of this case,” CLINIC cheered back then.
But none of the Catholic countries of Europe – Poland, Italy, Spain, and Ireland – accepts or allows birthright citizenship. Catholic Spain is currently struggling to ship back the recent influx of thousands of African migrants into Ceuta, who were incited to swim into that territory by a judicially activist ruling by Spain’s supreme court.
On Saturday the State Department responded to the latest court ruling against Trump by pointing out that his administration is “protecting the American people by upholding the highest standards of screening and vetting of visa applicants.” It will surely appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which also presides in New York City, and if necessary to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Federal courts have ruled against or temporarily blocked Trump more than 200 times during his second administration. In June a federal court invalidated his temporary $100,000 fee to discourage use of H-1B visas by employers to bring in cheap labor from other countries, and the Democrat-dominated First Circuit rebuffed Trump’s motion for a speedy reversal of that decision.
Trump recently responded with a new regulation to make this fee permanent at $103,265, which could generate $8.8 billion to help fund the costs of immigration enforcement. The flood of migrants is harming Americans by taking jobs and soaking up government benefits.
John and Andy Schlafly are sons of Phyllis Schlafly (1924-2016) and lead the continuing Phyllis Schlafly Eagles organizations with writing and policy work.
These columns are also posted on PhyllisSchlafly.com, pseagles.com, and Townhall.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment