Trump’s Proposal for South African Farmers’ Citizenship Faces Legal Hurdles
President Trump proposed citizenship for white South African farmers, citing mistreatment by their government. Legal experts argue that he lacks the authority to create new citizenship pathways through executive orders, asserting that only Congress can initiate such changes. This proposal highlights contradictions in immigration policy and potential legal challenges.
President Donald Trump recently proposed extending U.S. citizenship to white South African farmers, citing alleged mistreatment by their government. In a statement posted on Truth Social, he indicated a willingness to quickly facilitate this process for farmers seeking safety in the U.S. However, legal experts contend that Trump lacks the authority to grant citizenship through executive action. Rosanna Berardi, an immigration law attorney, emphasized that establishing new visa classifications falls exclusively within Congress’s purview and cannot be established by executive orders.
According to Berardi, this announcement exemplifies the ongoing trend of the Trump administration utilizing executive orders to bypass traditional legislative processes. She noted, “He does not have the authority to do this. Executive orders can change policies, they cannot change law,” suggesting that the proposed citizenship pathway would likely encounter immediate legal opposition.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, corroborated Berardi’s views, clarifying that no rapid pathway to U.S. citizenship exists without legislative backing. He stated that the fastest route to citizenship is through marriage to a U.S. citizen, which also requires a green card for a minimum of three years. Trump’s ability to create new citizenship pathways independently is restricted by congressional regulations.
The South Africa citizenship proposal follows other dubious plans by Trump that appear legally questionable, such as a recent initiative to offer “Gold Card” visas to wealthy foreign investors without congressional endorsement. Berardi highlighted that only Congress possesses the authority to devise new visa programs, pointing out existing case laws supporting this assertion.
Additionally, this proposal contradicts the Trump administration’s focus on restricting immigration. Berardi criticized the inconsistency of wanting to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Venezuelans and Ukrainians while simultaneously inviting South African farmers and high-net-worth individuals into the U.S. She remarked that TPS is typically designated for countries experiencing blatant danger, which she claims does not apply uniformly to white South Africans.
Trump’s claims of land confiscations affecting farmers are seen as predominantly affecting landowners from the apartheid era. Notably, some of Trump’s key supporters, including billionaires like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel, have connections to this demographic. Last month, Trump even signed an executive order condemning perceived racial inequities and aimed at aiding ethnic minority Afrikaners in South Africa, launching a refugee program for those allegedly facing racial discrimination.
In summary, President Trump’s proposal to expedite citizenship for white South African farmers faces significant legal challenges due to the limitations of executive authority. Legal experts affirm that establishing new immigration pathways requires congressional action, which Trump cannot unilaterally enact. Furthermore, this initiative raises questions about immigration policy inconsistencies and the implications for legislative integrity. Overall, the proposed citizenship pathway for South African farmers illustrates a complex intersection of law, policy, and political allegiance within the Trump administration.
Original Source: www.salon.com
