Donald Trump continues his offensive against immigration, although this time his restrictions have climbed one more level after this Wednesday announced against citizens of up to twelve countries – in addition to limiting the entrance to the country of another seven – to which he accuses of causing “extreme hazards” within the US territory, mainly from Africa and the Middle East. According to the US president, who justifies the measure through a video on social networks, foreigners, whom he relates to attacks such as last Sunday in Boulder, Colorado, access the country without the “adequate review.” Something that is “dangerous” for the security of the nation.
This measure, which enters into force on Monday, June 9, adds to those already taken by the Trump administration since he assumed his position in January. One of them is the prohibition of the entry of international students to Harvard University or the blockade of asylum applicants at the southern border. The mainly affected countries are Afghanistan, Burma, Chad, Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen, who will not be able to access under any category of visa. In addition, the restrictions for visitors from Cuba, Laos, Burundi, Sierra Leone, Togo, Venezuela and Turkmenistan will be expanded, which can only access the type of visa and the background of the applicant.
In the case of Cuba and Venezuela, the restrictions will not be total, although they do a wide veto at the entrance of new visa applicants: citizens who request visas for permanent residence or those who require non-immigrant visas of the categories B-1, B-2, F, M or J. issued to its citizens, provided that the law allows it. Both lists [que recogen los países con prohibiciones totales y parciales] They are not definitive, as the president has announced in Truth Social, They could modify “if substantial improvements” are produced, as they could expand “as threats emerge throughout the world.”
“We cannot allow open migration from any country where we cannot examine and select those who wish to enter the United States in the United States,”
Donald Trump
“We cannot allow open migration from any country in which we cannot examine and select in a safe and reliable way to those who wish to enter the United States (…) and nothing will prevent us from maintaining the security of the United States,” said the Republican president, who, although he puts as an argument the attack of Colorado, carried out by an Egyptian, does not include Egypt in the list of countries with a prohibition of travel. In addition, it should be noted that the large part of affected countries were those that are in repressive regimes and of which its citizens escape (or so try) with the aim of having a better life or merely to survive. In fact, some of these nations are governed by groups that took control of the area after years of US intervention in their affairs, as is the case of Chad.
Fortunately, there are some people that are excluded from restrictive regulations. For example, those that already have US visas are not included. Nor are the Afghan eligible for the special visa program for immigrants, which includes those who collaborated with the United States government during the war in Afghanistan. Together with them, green card holders, citizens with dual nationality and sports athletes or coaches traveling for an important sporting event within the US – like the Olympic Games or the World Cup – are not affected either.
US border wall.
A continuation of your first mandate
It is not the first time that the Republican launches this offensive against migrants, because already in his first term, in 2017, he launched a similar policy, prohibiting the entry of travelers from seven countries (most Muslim), including Iraq, Iran, Libya, Sudan, Yemen or Somalia. In fact, five of the countries that have already been limited at that time, are again on the list of 2025. That initiative, announced by an executive order, began to be in force from the moment it was transmitted, generating great chaos among hundreds of passengers that were at the airports and between the universities and technology companies of the United States.
The case reached the courts and several federal judges quickly issued blockages to the order, achieving a national court order that did not allow the application of the law. However, after an intense legal battle and after the White House presented a smaller version of the veto – restricted to those who do not have close relatives in the US or have approved refugee status – finally, after the end of the first Government of the Republican and with the arrival of Democrat Joe Biden, the prohibition came to an end.
The difference between that occasion and the current regulations is that, in addition to the fact that the latter affects more countries than the previous one, this time it is more likely that the regulations resist to legal scrutiny, according to the Not only for the time transcurred to the announcement, but also by the large number of countries that are included in it. “The first Muslim prohibition was very selective, brutal, immediate and massive,” says Nihad Awad, executive director of the US-Islamic Relations Council. “Now, the administration not only attacks nations with certain religious affiliations, but also to people of color in general, to whom they criticize the US government by financing the genocide in Gaza,” adds the man to
Some international reactions
Contradictions such as countries such as Syria or Egypt that are not included – despite the fact that national security officials have had them in the sights for a long time – or that the territories where there are a greater number of people who exceed the term of their visa were also excluded from the list, some criticisms have generated. In fact, while places like Spain, which had more than 20,000 visitors in the US that exceeded their visas, are not within the regulations, countries like Chad, where only 400 people remained longer allowed – according to government data – are included in it.
“There is no uniform set of criteria that lead to these 19 countries,” he says to Doug Rand, an immigration official during the Biden mandate, who believes that “there is a motion of countries that seem to have political motivations and a lot of random countries with a data parra sheet to support its conclusion.” On the contrary, voices such as Chad Wold, former interim secretary of National Security during the first government of the Republican, believe the idea is well founded. “Can I prevent some very dangerous countries from being Muslims and located in Africa and other places?” “No. It is not for me to decide. That is the reality. This is the world in which we live. I understand why people would say: ‘Oh, it is a Second Muslim war or it is only political.’ The reality and the facts on the ground tell a very different story,” he added then.
In spite of the discrepancies, which there is no doubt that the prohibition is a deeply segregationist measure and a new attack against migrants, especially Muslims. “This new proclamation is another step in the attempt to recover a white and Christian America, and capitalize it, fanning the fire of the racial and foreign threat,” criticizes P. Deep Gulasekaram, a migratory professor at the Law Faculty of the University of Colorado. In addition, as the Director of Immigration Studies in the Cato Institute questions, “if the prohibition had been preventing attacks, then why did these attacks not occur when the ban was raised?”
The position of the affected countries has not taken to arrive either. One of them has been the Minister of the Interior of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, who described the US government as “fascist” and emphasizes that “being in the United States is a great risk for anyone, not only for Venezuelans.” The African Union also published a statement where it expressed its discomfort, pointing out the “potential negative impact” that the measure in interpersonal relationships, trade, education and “diplomatic relations that have been grown carefully for decades” could have. In Cuba, Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla criticized that the ban has “racist connotations” and that “harms personal, professional, academic and cultural exchanges between the two countries.” Finally, organizations such as Amnesty International have also judged the measure, which have described as “discriminatory, racist and absolutely cruel.”
