U.S. Immigration Hawks Push Sweeping Restrictions After National Guard Shooting in Washington
White House and Homeland Security impose travel bans, pause asylum and green-card processing following fatal attack by Afghan national
In the wake of a deadly shooting of two members of the National Guard in Washington, D.C., the U.S. immigration apparatus has moved rapidly to introduce sweeping restrictions — signalling a new, more hard-line era under the current administration.
The suspect, an Afghan national who was resettled under a prior refugee programme, has prompted authorities to suspend asylum approvals, reconsider green-card applications and halt visa issuance for Afghan nationals.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidance allowing officers to treat nationality from certain nations as a “significant negative factor” when assessing applications from 19 so-called “countries of concern.” For Afghans, all immigration requests are reportedly paused indefinitely.
The government also plans to re-review asylum, refugee and humanitarian-status cases accepted during the prior administration.
Work permits for asylum seekers, once valid for five years, are now limited to 18 months under the new rules.
The administration says this will enable more frequent vetting and help ensure that those living or seeking to live in the United States do not pose security risks.
In parallel, the home secretary has called for a broader travel ban on unspecified “third-world” countries, repeating language that immigrants from certain regions represent a threat to national safety.
High-ranking officials say the measures are aimed at safeguarding American citizens and restoring control after recent violent incidents.
Advocates for refugees and legal immigration have denounced the policies as punitive and sweeping — arguing that they amount to collective punishment for people from entire countries.
They warn the changes could disrupt livelihoods, exacerbate staffing shortages in critical sectors and leave many asylum seekers in legal limbo.
The surge of restrictions follows years in which immigration policy focused more on border enforcement and deportations.
The new measures mark a marked shift toward constricting legal pathways to residency, increasingly prioritising national-security criteria over humanitarian or family-unity considerations.
Proponents maintain the changes are necessary to prevent violence and protect the public, while opponents caution they may undermine the United States’ historic role as a refuge for the world’s vulnerable.
The suspect, an Afghan national who was resettled under a prior refugee programme, has prompted authorities to suspend asylum approvals, reconsider green-card applications and halt visa issuance for Afghan nationals.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services issued guidance allowing officers to treat nationality from certain nations as a “significant negative factor” when assessing applications from 19 so-called “countries of concern.” For Afghans, all immigration requests are reportedly paused indefinitely.
The government also plans to re-review asylum, refugee and humanitarian-status cases accepted during the prior administration.
Work permits for asylum seekers, once valid for five years, are now limited to 18 months under the new rules.
The administration says this will enable more frequent vetting and help ensure that those living or seeking to live in the United States do not pose security risks.
In parallel, the home secretary has called for a broader travel ban on unspecified “third-world” countries, repeating language that immigrants from certain regions represent a threat to national safety.
High-ranking officials say the measures are aimed at safeguarding American citizens and restoring control after recent violent incidents.
Advocates for refugees and legal immigration have denounced the policies as punitive and sweeping — arguing that they amount to collective punishment for people from entire countries.
They warn the changes could disrupt livelihoods, exacerbate staffing shortages in critical sectors and leave many asylum seekers in legal limbo.
The surge of restrictions follows years in which immigration policy focused more on border enforcement and deportations.
The new measures mark a marked shift toward constricting legal pathways to residency, increasingly prioritising national-security criteria over humanitarian or family-unity considerations.
Proponents maintain the changes are necessary to prevent violence and protect the public, while opponents caution they may undermine the United States’ historic role as a refuge for the world’s vulnerable.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
