Green card holders need to take care when returning from abroad

Green card holders face heightened deportation and entry risks under aggressive immigration enforcement approved by the Trump regime's radical Supreme Court.

In a stinging 6-3 decision for Blanche v. Lau, the high court handed border agents the ultimate wildcard, effectively stripping lawful permanent residents of their presumption of innocence the moment they step off an international flight.

For decades, a green card meant safety, security, and a permanent home. But under this new reality, returning immigrants are being transformed into "applicants for admission" based on nothing more than unproven criminal allegations.

The SCOTUS ruled June 22 that border officials do not need "clear and convincing evidence" of a disqualifying crime before placing a returning green card holder on immigration parole or denying them entry. Instead, officers only require a "reason to believe" a crime may have occurred.

The clashing opinions from the Justices highlight a deeply fractured view on where executive power ends and individual due process begins.

The Dissent: A "Massive Blank Check"

Writing for the liberal minority, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan—issued a blistering rebuke, accusing the majority of turning immigration law completely on its head.

Jackson warned that the decision hands the executive branch a "massive blank check" to bypass due process, weaponizing mere whispers and unproven allegations against people who have built lives in America. 

The dissent argued the ruling allows the government to treat a lawful resident as an applicant "seeking admission" based on unproven accusations, which strips the individual of their right to a formal removal process and traps them in "immigration limbo"

The dissent took aim at the majority's casual dismissal of "immigration parole," reminding the court that this isn't a harmless procedural pause. Being forced into parole means having your green card confiscated, your work permits frozen, and your access to housing and healthcare thrown into sudden, long-term chaos—all before a jury ever finds you guilty of a single thing.

Writing for the ultra-conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas focused heavily on the literal text of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), arguing that the law simply doesn't force border officers to meet a high evidentiary bar.

According to Thomas, demanding "clear and convincing evidence" at a chaotic port of entry is operationally unrealistic. In the eyes of the majority, border officials are paid to make quick judgments on the spot, and a pending charge or unresolved allegation is context enough to deny standard entry. Thomas even shrugged off the long-term risks, suggesting that if a traveler is eventually acquitted in criminal court, the government's deportation attempts will fail anyway—rendering the sudden loss of freedom a "justifiable precaution."

The case centered on Muk Choi Lau, a Chinese citizen and green card holder. Upon returning to the US from a trip abroad, immigration officials deemed him inadmissible because he was facing state charges for trademark counterfeiting, although he had not yet been convicted. He subsequently pleaded guilty and was ordered deported.

The fallout

While legal analysts note that immigrants with squeaky-clean records won't see an immediate shift in their daily commute, the psychological toll on the wider community is undeniable. By allowing the state to punish people before they are ever convicted of a crime, the Supreme Court has turned a routine trip abroad into a high-stakes gamble for millions of families across the country.

Immigration advocates are already sounding the alarm on what this means on the ground. Border officials no longer need to wait for a judge or a jury; a mere pending charge or a disgruntled accusation is enough to snatch away a traveler's standard re-entry and dump them into "immigration parole."

Green card holders will face additional scrutiny when returning from abroad.

Once trapped in this legal limbo, the fallout is immediate and devastating. Green card holders face losing their work permits, having their IDs confiscated, and being cut off from basic necessities like housing and health insurance while their lives stall in a backlogged immigration court system.

The SCOTUS ruling on green cards is in line with other recent decisions by the court's conservative majority allowing Trump and his supporters to make life miserable for immigrants and other communities of color including the aggressive deportation policy. The next major decision — the right of birthright citizenship as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment which is the Trump DOJ wants to ban —is expected in the next few weeks.

For transnational Asian families, the fallout on the green card ruling is devastatingly practical. Stripping an immigrant's green card and replacing it with a paper stamp leaves them in a cruel legal limbo — unable to easily renew a driver's license, open a bank account, or keep a job while trapped for years in a broken, backlogged immigration court system.

The bottom line is if you are planning to travel to visit family in your home country or have business interests abroad, you should reconsider if you have any past arrests, convictions, or pending charges in the US or abroad? or if you have any prior immigration violations. Always speak with a qualified immigration attorney before traveling internationally if you have any pending charges, prior arrests, or past immigration violations.

EDITOR'S NOTE: For additional commentary, news, views and chismis from an AANHPI perspective, follow me on Threads, on X, BlueSky or at the blog Views From the Edge. If you find this perspective interesting, please repost.

'Public charge' rule goes into effect Monday

New immigrants face new obstacles to citizenship.

ASAM NEWS

A ruling from the US Supreme Court late Friday clears the way for the Trump administration to make it harder for legal immigrants who are likely to apply for government benefits to get a green card, an important step towards citizenship.

Known by its critics as the wealth test, the policy discourages people seeking legal citizenship from applying for housing assistance, medicaid, food stamps and other public benefits. The court's decision allows it to go into effect Monday, Feb. 24.

The high court lifted a national injunction in January against the public benefit, but Friday it removed the last legal obstacle from its implementation in all 50 states beginning Monday.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a blunt dissenting opinion of the 5-4 split decision blasting the five justices for making its ruling despite a lower court in Illinois being scheduled to take up the Illinois-specific stay this week.

“Today’s decision follows a now-familiar pattern. The Government seeks emergency relief from this Court, asking it to grant a stay where two lower courts have not,” wrote Sotomayor, who voted in the minority. “The Government insists—even though review in a court of appeals is imminent—that it will suffer irreparable harm if this Court does not grant a stay. And the Court yields.

EDITOR'S NOTE: Know your rights

“It is hard to say what is more troubling: that the Government would seek this extraordinary relief seemingly as a matter of course, or that the Court would grant it,” she concluded.

The White House applauded the decision, according to the Economic Times.

“This final rule will protect hardworking American taxpayers, safeguard welfare programs for truly needy Americans, reduce the Federal deficit, and re-establish the fundamental legal principle that newcomers to our society should be financially self-reliant and not dependent on the largesse of United States taxpayers,” said White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham.

Presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren tweeted that she would “roll back” the public-charge policy if elected.

“Millions of children could lose their health care coverage because of the Trump administration’s cruel public charge rule,” Warren said.

Contrary to the popular model minority stereotype, in 2015, eight of 19 Asian American groups had poverty rates higher than the US average thus most likely to use some form of government aid such as food stamps or rental assistance.

Among those subgroups, Pakistani Americans (15.8 per cent), Nepali Americans (23.9 per cent), Bangladeshi Americans (24.2 per cent), and Bhutanese Americans (33.3 per cent) had the highest poverty rates among South Asian American groups, according to the PEW Center.

As much as 69% of the more than 5 million individuals who received a green card over the past five years have at least one negative factor against them under the new rule, and thus might have been denied immigration benefits had the new rule been in effect.

Late last month, the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), and Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) joined together to oppose the public charge rule.

“Our immigration system has long been built on the principle that immigrants from all walks of life make our country better. And despite the false claims made to justify this public charge rule, the data shows that immigrants help grow the economy and use fewer government resources than native-born individuals. Regardless, the Trump Administration has spent the past three years creating an immigration system that is cruelly stacked against immigrants of color and the public charge rule is no exception,” the groups stated.

Views From the Edge contributed to this report.

Green card holders vulnerable to deportation under new fedreal guidelines

IN DONALD TRUMP'S ever-widening war against immigrants, the federal government is going way beyond deporting criminal gangs or undocumented immigrants. Under new guidelines green card holders will get a closer look and are even more vulnerable to being deported.

New guidelines implemented last week by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) say that immigrants who abuse “any program related to the reception of public benefits” will be summoned to appear before an immigration court.

The main public benefits that immigrants with legal residence permits, known as Green Cards, can receive are: Medicaid for people with low income or disabilities; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program; Supplemental Security Income; and the Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Receiving assistance from those programs could even harm an immigrant’s application for a Green Card under a proposal by the Homeland Security Department designed to block documented immigrants from obtaining residence if they or their children receive public benefits, including food stamps and early childhood education programs.

“An alien’s receipt of public benefits comes at taxpayer expense and availability of public benefits may provide an incentive for aliens to immigrate to the United States,” the DHS draft argued.

After going after the low-hanging fruit at the borders and successfully passing a Muslim travel ban, the federal government will expand their efforts to go after those immigrants who are here legally. Some have been living and working in the U.S. for years, bought homes, becoming productive members of the community.

Green card holders will also open themselves up for deportation if they break the law or if their application for citizenship is denied if they are not considered of good and moral character. Those foreign nationals who wish to change their visas -- from student visa to an H-1B visa for example, will receive extra scrutiny by USCIS employees.
_________________________________________________________________________________