Trump’s Immigration Measure Upheld by Diverse Panel of Judges

A federal appeals court has given President Donald Trump’s administration the green light to implement a controversial immigration measure.

The court has allowed the Alien Registration Requirement (ARR) to continue, endorsing a key component of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy, Newsweek reported.

The ruling against halting the ARR was delivered on Tuesday by a per curiam decision from a three-judge panel.

The panel consisted of judges appointed by former Presidents Reagan, Obama, and Biden – Karen Henderson, Robert Wilkins, and Bradley Garcia, respectively.

Introduced on April 11, the ARR mandates that noncitizens aged 14 and older must register their fingerprints and carry an identification card.

Noncompliance with this requirement could lead to fines or imprisonment.

Furthermore, noncitizens under the age of 14 are required to be registered by a parent or guardian and must re-register at the age of 14.

This ensures that all applicable individuals are accounted for under the policy.

The decision confirms an earlier ruling from April 10 by U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden.

McFadden deemed that the plaintiffs did not show sufficient harm to justify an injunction against the rule.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the rule impacts an estimated 2.2 to 3.2 million people, primarily targeting undocumented entrants.

DHS emphasizes the rule’s significant scope in addressing undocumented immigration.

The ARR also applies to Canadian nationals who stay in the U.S. longer than one month, expanding its reach beyond typical foreign visitor categories.

Notably, green card holders and certain other documented immigrants are exempt, as they are already considered registered.

The legal proceedings concerning the ARR are advancing quickly, with deadlines set for the plaintiffs’ and government’s briefs in September and October, respectively, and a final reply by the plaintiffs in early November.

Oral arguments will be scheduled thereafter.

Carl Berquist from the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights views the ARR as a part of a broader deportation strategy, integrating various tools and incentives aimed at encouraging self-deportation among noncitizens.

Berquist also raised constitutional concerns, stating:

“It had a severe chilling effect on noncitizens, implicating their Fifth Amendment right not to self-incriminate and their First Amendment right to assemble and to protest.”

The National Immigration Law Center has echoed these concerns, suggesting that the enforcement of this registration could broadly target anyone perceived as foreign by law enforcement, potentially affecting a wide range of individuals.

In contrast, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin underscored the administration’s resolve to enforce all immigration laws uniformly without discrimination or selective enforcement.

This recent legal affirmation of the ARR by the appeals court marks a significant moment in the ongoing debate over U.S. immigration policy, reflecting deep divides over how best to regulate and manage immigration.

The court’s decision underscores the complex interplay between national security, legal enforcement, and individual rights at the heart of American immigration policy.

READ MORE – Federal Appeals Court Gives Trump Green Light to Slash Billions in Owed USAID Funds