The Trump administration’s policies regarding migration – permanent and temporary – reflect the view of the strongest supporters of Christian nationalism. Christian Nationalists are estimated to account for half the population of some mountain, Midwest and southern states. Overall they comprise 30% of the entire population. The Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) estimates thay a third – or 10% of the American population – are “adherents” who strongly identify with Christian Nationalism. In this posting I profile this group’s views on immigration.

Supporters of Christian nationalism describe America as founded on Christian God-given principles and believe public life should reflect biblical values, even if the government is not a theocracy. They emphasize faith in the Christian God, moral living, patriotism, traditional social order, and the view that religious influence in American life has declined too far. When one views America as God’s chosen nation with a sacred identity, immigration becomes not just a policy challenge but a form of defilement threatening the nation’s covenant relationship with God. (Go here.)

Below is a topic-by-topic comparison, drawing on an October 2025 PRRI survey and showing the contrast between “All Americans” and adherent Christian nationalists.

Perceptions of Immigrants: A majority of Americans (57%) say immigrants strengthen American society, while 41% disagree. Among Christian nationalism adherents, this reverses sharply: only 31% agree, and nearly 70% express skepticism or outright rejection. While 32% of Americans overall agree that immigrants are invading and replacing the country’s cultural background, fully 67% of Christian nationalist adherents endorse this view.

Legal Status and Citizenship: 60% of Americans favor a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who meet requirements; only 24% support deportation first. Among Christian nationalist adherents, support for a pathway to citizenship drops below half (49%), while a majority favor deportation-first approaches.

Birthright Citizenship: Two-thirds of Americans (67%) support the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship. Christian nationalist adherents are divided, with only 49% in favor, even far below other Christian nationalism categories.

Due Process and Civil Rights: 61% of Americans agree that immigrants should have basic rights, including the ability to challenge deportation in court. Among Christian nationalist adherents, support falls to 37%. Majorities of adherents also support deportation to foreign prisons without due process (57%), a position opposed by nearly two-thirds of Americans overall.

Enforcement and Punitive Measures: One-third of Americans favor arresting and detaining undocumented immigrants with no criminal record; among Christian nationalist adherents, support rises to 57%. Stripping citizenship from those deemed threats is opposed by most Americans (57%) but supported by 63% of adherents.

 

Nationality-based bans in this administration were introduced in June. By mid December they grew to about 40 countries.

Behind bureaucratic excuses for the bans, which I will take up in a posting tomorrow, the language of the December 16 White House proclamation reveals a xenophobic mindset.  The United States “must ensure that admitted aliens do not intend to threaten its citizens; undermine or destabilize its culture, government or institutions, or founding principles; or advocate, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists or other threats to our national security.”

Here is a history of nationality-based bans starting with the first Trump administration.

This month’s action applies the Supreme Court’s June 2018 approval in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) for the government to apply nationality-based travel bans. At issue was the Presidential Proclamation 9645 – the so-called Muslim bans. This administration has worked up for wider bans a bureaucratic logic that applies like a sledgehammer.

It blows up our relations with countries as prominent as Nigeria and Cuba. There are 500,000 Nigerian-born and 1.7 million Cuban-born persons living in the U.S.

Thanks to David Bier of the Cato Institute, we see the draconian effect of the bans on long-term immigration and temporary business/tourism numbers.  The bans cover countries accounting for one billion persons.  Nationals of these countries have recently accounted for about 125,000 of the annual number of persons who come with or with the expectation of a permanent residence and about 300,000 annual business or tourist visitors. Based on recent experience, third of entries from Africa and a quarter from Asia are affected.

The bans apply to spouses and minor children of American citizens. They apply to persons – such as a professor in a European university – who is a national of a listed country and visits the U.S. regularly for research. It does not matter if the person has had little or nothing to do with their country of origin for years. It applies to sports fans wanting to come to the U.S. to support their national soccer team in the 2026 World Cup, in violation of assurances to FIFA.

 

Early 2026 may turn the country against mass deportation.

Arrests by ICE were in early 2025 predominantly at local jails, Later, arrests shifted toward workplace and street corners.  If ICE moves up its arrest pace beyond what it is now (about 1,000 a day) it must depend more and more on arrests of persons in public places, of persons without an arrest or conviction.

Here are a few figures. Between January and May 20, the average daily arrests through local jails was 328, from public areas 258. They summed to 616 per day on average.

Between May 21 and October 10, the pattern was reversed.  the average daily arrests through local jails 471, from public areas 508. They summed to 979 per day on average. This shift shows up the increasing share of persons in detention without a conviction.

It is reasonable to project that if, say, arrests rise to 2,000 a day – doubling this Fall’s – the great majority of arrests will be public. Perhaps on average per day, from jails 600, from public areas 1,400.

Trump keeps a slight majority in favor of mass deportation on the grounds that ICE is going after criminals – not roofers, personal aides and cooks.

There will be more news and commentary about how ICE is hurting employers and consequently customers. These postings may greatly increase in number and geographic distribution.  The story of criminal aliens will subside.

Here is a comment in a December 4 article about how ICE has come into New Orleans in December:

Immigration sweeps in Chicago created staffing shortages and safety concerns, according to reporting from Block Club Chicago. In Charlotte, it brought widespread fear among restaurant employees and patrons, the Charlotte Observer reported.  “I’m just hoping it’s not as bad as we’re all concerned about. I don’t have high hopes for that, though, based on what we’ve already seen elsewhere,” Gautreau said.

Peggy Noonan put her finger on the public’s pulse in her December 11 column in the Wall Street Journal:

“The president’s border triumph will likely weaken his and MAGA’s political position. He shut down illegal immigration on the southern border, which had been more or less open for decades. But it was anger at illegal immigration that kept his base cleaved to him and allied with each other. Remove the issue that made you, and you can no longer use it to gain votes or maintain unity.

“This is the paradox of politics: Every time you solve a major problem, you’re removing a weapon from your political arsenal.

Immigration remains in the news only because of brutal deportation practices. It isn’t “build the wall” anymore; it’s “Don’t arrest the poor guy working the line in a second job at the chicken-processing plant.” Americans don’t want that guy thrown out. The longer the deportations continue, the more unpopular and damaging to the administration they will become.”

The White House’s argument that birthright citizenship can be overturned conflicts with common law and legal precedent beginning before and extending after the creation of the United States. The 14th Amendment was passed with no prior, much less consistent bright-line constraints on entry to, continued presence in the U.S., right to citizenship, or right to vote. Common law prevailed to support birthright citizenship. After the 14th Amendment, no subsequent amendment or Supreme Court decision added any new constraints.

Permission to enter and reside in the U.S. was extremely relaxed

Prior to 1882, there were no systemic, law-imposed procedures for the United States government to review, approve, make conditional (such as time limits), or deny the entrance of foreigners into the U.S. Some states before the Civil War had set up rules, but state action was effectively abolished by the 14th Amendment, giving the federal government exclusive powers over immigration.

Power to remove foreign-born persons non-existent (except for war enemies)

Until the immigration acts of 1882 and 1891, there was no formal authority for the federal government to recognize a person as foreign-born, much less to deport a person. A provision close to that was included in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, which expired in 1800, but this act only addressed persons found to be working for an armed enemy.

Explicit citizenship recognition was nonexistent at the federal level

Prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the concept and application of citizenship lacked precise definition, often relying on inherited legal traditions rather than explicit constitutional language. Some states established state citizenship. The 14th Amendment effectively made the designation of citizenship an exclusively federal matter.

There were tests of the right to vote, including property ownership, but none involving birth outside the U.S. Any white male born in the U.S. was deemed eligible, conditioned on a test such as property ownership.

“Jurisdiction” exclusions

The 14^th amendment bars citizenship from those not “under the jurisdiction” of the United States. This had three classes of births: by diplomats, by enemy aliens, and by Native Americans this last one resolved by acts of Congress in mid 20^th century). The diplomat and enemy liens exclusion were present in English law since the early 17^th Century. No other exclusions have been seriously proposed until today.

The upcoming Supreme Court review will be a test of the standard of jus soli.

The Court’s work will boil down to if it will affirm completely or qualify the status of a key standard of assigning citizenship at birth. From the founding of the republic, a prevailing common-law standard was jus soli, or birthright citizenship by virtue of birthplace. This was derived directly from English common law. The governing English rule was set by a court case in 1608. There is no evidence that on or after the passage of the Constitution that standard was challenged by courts or legal experts—in fact, quite the opposite.

In Lynch v. Clarke (1844), the New York Court of Chancery ruled that Julia Lynch, born in the U.S. to temporary Irish visitors, was a natural-born citizen, affirming that “every person born within the dominions and allegiance of the United States, whatever were the situation of his parents, is a natural born citizen.” William Rawle’s 1829 treatise stated that “every person born within the United States… whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen.”

The common law was disrupted by the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which barred Black persons from ever being citizens. The 14th Amendment was crafted explicitly to overturn Dred Scott. It effectively preserved the jus soli standard without needing to redefine it comprehensively. Instead, it stated when jus soli did not apply. It did not address the complicated case of Native Americans, who had treaty arrangements. Their full recognition as citizens did not take place until the mid-20th century.

No amount of legal gymnastics can distract from the fact that a key case found that the 14^th amendment affirmed jus soli. When the Supreme Court hears the case, Trump v. Barbara, much attention will be given to one of the very rare times the Court has addressed citizenship after the passage of the 14^th amendment: United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Court then said “The Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory [i.e. jus soli].”  Those arguing against birthright citizenship have to say that the Court did not mean what it said in this 1898 case, and that the informal acceptance of jus soli prior to the 14th amendment was a mirage.

The Trump administration wants to  close the door to future refugees, especially from 19 designated (or it may be 30 designated) countries, but the halt is for all.  The administration says it will exercise its powers to review Biden’s awards, thus raising the possibility of tens of  thousands of person already admitted and engaged in jobs will be deported.

In October 2025 the Trump administration formally set a refugee target of 7,500 for FY 2026. “The admissions numbers shall primarily be allocated among Afrikaners from South Africa pursuant to Executive Order 14204, and other victims of illegal or unjust discrimination in their respective homelands.” (Go here, here and here). the fact that we are two months into FY 2026 suggests that some awards-in-process are being ripped up.

The Biden administration awarded refugee status to 233,000 persons.  Over four years it increased the annual awards from below 20,000 to, in its final year, over 100,000, which has been its target. (Go here.) Under Obama roughly 80-90,000 persons were admitted as refugees annually. The Trump administration is not just shutting down the refugee program except for white South Africans, but aiming to deport some or many who entered during the Biden years.

I want to focus on Afghans.

Historically, after an American waged war in the emerging world, the U.S. has admitted on the order of 100,000 persons who had in some way supported the American ware effort (go here). This number is most likely for head of household, thus the number of persons admitted was much higher.  As we see below the Afghan program under Biden was much higher.

Some Afghans had been admitted as refugees before the American evacuation of Afghanistan in 2021.  An accounting of Aghan awards and actual entrance into the U.S. is not precise due to complicated and incomplete reporting.

As of end of 2022

By December 2022, according to the Dept of Homeland Security, somewhat over 100,000 persons had been awarded either humanitarian parole (which does not guarantee permanent admission) or a Special Immigrant Visa that had been crafted for Afghans. (Go here.) It is not clear how many had actually entered the US. This total figure I believe should be viewed with skepticism due to accounting problems.

As of end of 2022, Some 315,000 applications by Afghans were in approval backlog. All had left the country.  This figure as well should be viewed with skepticism.

January 2025 (end of Biden administration)

It appears that about 170,000 applications by head of household had been approved. Assuming average household size of four, that comes close to 700,000 in all, and it is not clear how many had actually entered the U.S. And, may be that 60,000 applications were still being reviewed – that is, for some 250,000 persons.

December 2025

It appears that some 700,000 persons already approved (some perhaps in post-award processing) are subject to review and 250,000 are completely blocked from going forward.

 

On December 11, Judge Paula Xinis of the District Court for Maryland ordered Abrego Garcia released from ICE custody. He had been in custody for months, and her decision came 10 months after ICE snatched him off the streets in Maryland, sent him to El Salvdor, only for ICE to bring him to Tennessee, then only to bring him to the final custody in Baltimore by ICE.

Late December 11, DHS had Philip Taylor, an immigration judge in Atlanta who has an 88.9% asylum denial track records, to issue an order of removal, which would authorize ICE to detain Abrego Garcia.

The history so far

I have tracked Abrego Garcia’s case from the outset. Here is a timeline March – early June,  timeline June – August, and here is an October update. What follow is how Judge Xinis narrated the case – starting with a fatal, uncorrected flaw by DHS in 2019.

The 2019 withholding decision is the original fault line

October 10, 2019, an immigration judge in Maryland made a key ruling in Abrego Garcia’s immigration case. the judge granted him withholding of removal and ruled that he could not be deported to El Salvador due to a credible fear of persecution by gangs there. He was given a work permit and placed under federal supervision instead of being removed from the United States.

This October 10, 2019 immigration decision was for Xinis the foundational legal moment. She emphasized that although withholding of removal was granted, no removal order was ever issued and no country of removal was designated. This omission was not treated by Xinis as technical or harmless. It made all detention and removal efforts legally unsupportable.

Six years of lawful supervision underscore the absence of removal authority

For six years after the 2019 decision, Abrego Garcia lived and worked in Maryland under ICE supervision with employment authorization. ICE itself treated him as non-removable.

March–April 2025: the “wrongful expulsion” to El Salvador

The judge narrated the March 2025 arrest and expulsion as unlawful rupture. Abrego Garcia was seized without criminal charges and expelled to El Salvador despite existing protection from removal. His detention in CECOT and exposure to torture were treated by Xinix as undisputed facts. Every court on appeal agreed the removal was improper.

Return to the U.S. via criminal process was suspicious

Xinis noted that DHS facilitated his return from El Salvador only after securing a federal indictment, which was potentially vindictive or selective. The criminal process was used as leverage to reassert custody rather than as a neutral enforcement action.

The African removal story fell apart

Xinis recounted DHS’s shifting claims that Abrego Garcia would be removed to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Each proposed destination collapses under scrutiny, public denials, or lack of preparation. She saw no real diplomatic engagement, and noted the repeated inability of government witnesses to explain or defend removal plans.

Costa Rica became the credibility test, and DHS failed it

Xinis treated Costa Rica’s formal offer to accept Abrego Garcia as a refugee as decisive. Costa Rica made clear, written assurances, while DHS claimed that the offer was withdrawn.

The missing removal order became dispositive

The central legal fact: no removal order had ever existed. ICE officials repeatedly admitted they had never seen one. Its attempts to imply a removal order from the 2019 withholding decision were rejected by Xinis as legally impermissible and contrary to Supreme Court precedent.

End state: detention lost any lawful purpose

Xinis said that Abrego Garcia’s detention no longer served any legitimate immigration purpose, without a removal order or a realistic prospect of removal.

 

 

 

The Gold Card program to expedite immigration based on wealth is a legal fantasy. It will die by court decision. For the time being, the Administration is telling people to pay a processing fee of $15,000 for a review that will take weeks – and will not end well.

“A Joke”

In February President Trump said he was creating a new way to enter permanently into the United States and that the program would be available in two weeks.  In June the White house created a Gold Card website. On Sept 19 the White House issued the first formal statement.  Here is the “official” website which began taking applications in the past few days.

Might be time to update that inscription on the Statue of Liberty: ‘Never mind your poor and tired. Give us a million bucks — you’re in.’” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“You would think that a transaction like this would involve a good deal of paperwork, right? Nope. The application’s one page long. You have to give more information to rent a Toyota Camry.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

The Executive Action

On Sept 19,2055 the President issued an Executive Action establishing a Gold Card.  The program works as follows. An individual makes an “unrestricted gift” of $1 million – a Gold Card–or a business of $2 million on behalf of the individual – a Corporate Gold Card. (In this posting I don’t discuss the $5 million Platinum Card).  In response, “In adjudicating visa applications, the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law, treat the gift specified in subsection (a) of this section as evidence of eligibility under 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(1)(A), of exceptional business ability and national benefit under 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(A), and of eligibility for a national-interest waiver under 8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(B).”

Apply now!

The Gold Card website says that “once an applicant’s processing fee and application are received, the process should take weeks. The applicant will need to attend a visa interview and submit any additional documents in a timely manner.”  I filled out an application(12/12/25).  I was asked my place of birth and nationality (I chose a UK birth and address.  At that point, with no further steps or advice, I was sent to a page to pay a “Processing Fee: $15,375 (If using credit card, an additional 2.5% fee is included.)” It is not clear if this fee is refundable.

Go here for an annotated review of these and other provisions in the pertinent immigration statutes.

8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(1)(A) – EB-1 visa: Extraordinary Ability

The EB-1 extraordinary ability visa is an employment-based immigrant category for individuals at the very top of their fields. Roughly 40,000 visas per year (including dependents) are available under the EB-1 cap. Applicants must show sustained national or international acclaim, proven through major awards or extensive evidence such as publications, original contributions, judging others’ work, or leading roles, and must demonstrate continued work benefiting the United States.

8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(A) EB 2 visa: Advanced degree or exceptional ability

There is a 10,000 annual ceiling for EB-2 visa issuances. It  is for professionals with advanced degrees or individuals of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business. Applicants must either hold an advanced degree (or a bachelor’s plus five years of progressive experience) or demonstrate exceptional ability with strong evidence such as education, long-term experience, high salary, or recognition. A permanent job offer and PERM labor certification from a U.S. employer are required,

8 U.S.C. 1153(b)(2)(B) National Interest Waiver

Within EB‑2, this allows the Attorney General/Secretary of Homeland Security to waive the job‑offer and labor‑certification requirements when doing so is in the “national interest.”​

Legal challenges

The program threatens the INA’s visa allocation system. Employment-based visas are numerically capped and allocated by priority date. Courts have repeatedly held that agencies may not reorder congressionally mandated priorities through administrative convenience or political preference. In Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243, 258 (2006) the court held that agencies may not “rewrite clear statutory terms” when agencies attempt to reorder statutory priorities.

INA §286(m), 8 U.S.C. §1356(m) authorizes USCIS to set fees “at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services” related to immigration adjudication and administration. It does not authorize fees to raise revenue, fund unrelated government programs, or incentivize particular immigration outcomes.

Congress has specified how money can lawfully intersect with immigration through the EB-5 investor visa, which is tightly legislated with specific dollar thresholds and safeguards. The Gold Card program bypasses that structure entirely. For these reasons, the program is likely to be viewed by courts not as a permissible exercise of discretion, but as an unlawful end-run around Congress’s exclusive authority over immigration law.

A lawsuit to challenge the program needs to be brought by someone who has standing, and that party will likely be a person who says their application for an EB-1 or EB-2 visa has been or will be harmed by the Gold Card.

This December 8 article by Columbia University undergraduates focuses on Congressional powers. The Gold Card Visa is unconstitutional because it creates a new, wealth-based immigration category without congressional authorization.

 

 

President Trump in Pennsylvania, December 9: “We had a meeting, and I said, why is it we only take people from shit hole countries. right? Why can’t we have some people from Norway, just a few, let’s have a few Denmark some people? Do you mind that we always take people from places that are a disaster, right, filthy dirty disgusting ridden with crime.”