They're really going after the internal immigration systems.
A nation built on the promise of arrival now asks hundreds of thousands of its residents — engineers, researchers, healers — to leave before they may stay. The Trump administration's new green card rule, announced Friday, requires temporary visa holders already living and working in the United States to return to their home countries and apply for permanent residency from abroad, reversing a decades-long practice upheld across administrations of both parties. The policy arrives at a moment when the global competition for scientific and technological talent is perhaps more consequential than at any point in modern history, raising a question that cuts deeper than politics: what does a country signal to the world when it makes belonging harder to earn?
- Hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants — H-1B workers, students, visa holders with jobs and families — now face forced departure from the country they have built their lives in.
- Tech leaders, AI entrepreneurs, and startup founders erupted in alarm, warning that displacing researchers and engineers mid-project could cede America's competitive edge in artificial intelligence and science to rivals abroad.
- Immigration lawyers are challenging the rule's legal foundation, noting that every administration since the practice began has permitted applicants to remain in the US during processing — a precedent courts have repeatedly upheld.
- For immigrants from conflict zones or those with complex legal histories, the stakes are existential: overseas processing could mean years in backlogs, family separation, or permanent bars to re-entry with no meaningful appeal.
- Litigation is already being framed, and the courts may become the final arbiter of whether administrative guidance can unilaterally dismantle a system that Congress and decades of practice have shaped.
On Friday morning, US Citizenship and Immigration Services announced a rule requiring foreigners already living in the United States on temporary visas — students, H-1B workers, visitors — to leave the country and apply for green cards from abroad. The agency framed the change as a return to congressional intent, but the reaction from Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill was immediate and sharp.
The scope is vast. The US issues roughly one million green cards annually, and the new rule directly affects the half that had previously been processed domestically. That means hundreds of thousands of people with jobs, homes, and families in America would be required to return to their home countries and wait in backlogged consular queues, with no guarantee of return. For those who entered without authorization and later married American citizens, overseas processing could trigger a review of their immigration history and effectively bar re-entry.
Tech leaders were among the first to sound the alarm. Reid Hoffman asked whether AI researchers and students would now be forced to abandon their work mid-stream. Andrew Ng called it a capricious attack on legal immigration that would leave the country with fewer doctors, scientists, and engineers. Y Combinator's Garry Tan called the guidance misguided, and investor Jason Calacanis surfaced a 2024 clip of Trump himself saying college graduates should automatically receive green cards.
Immigration lawyers raised legal objections, noting that both Republican and Democratic administrations have long permitted applicants to remain in the US during processing — a practice courts have consistently upheld. Attorneys described the move as part of a broader administrative strategy: unable to pass restrictionist legislation through Congress, the administration is using executive guidance to quietly narrow the legal immigration system from within.
In Congress, Representative Yvette Clarke called the policy a disgrace that would rip talented immigrants from the economy and further burden an already broken system. The rule lands within a sweeping immigration crackdown that began in January 2025, encompassing mass deportations, the end of humanitarian protections for over a million people, and tighter H-1B rules. Legal challenges are expected, and whether the courts will ultimately strike down the policy remains an open question — as does the cost to American competitiveness in the time it takes to find out.
On Friday morning, the Trump administration announced a rule that would force hundreds of thousands of foreigners already living in the United States to leave the country and apply for green cards from abroad. The change, announced by US Citizenship and Immigration Services, applies to anyone who entered on a temporary visa—students, workers on H-1B or L visas, visitors—and represents a fundamental shift in how the country processes permanent residency applications. The agency framed it as a return to congressional intent, but the reaction from Silicon Valley to Capitol Hill was swift and sharp: this policy, critics said, could hollow out American science and technology at precisely the moment the country needs to compete globally for talent.
The scope is enormous. The US issues roughly one million green cards annually, and while about half go to family members of citizens—applications already processed overseas—the new rule affects the other half directly. That means hundreds of thousands of people with jobs, homes, and families in America would be required to return to their home countries and wait in backlogged consular queues, with no guarantee they could return. For some, the stakes are even higher. Immigrants who entered without authorization and later married American citizens face the prospect of having their immigration history reviewed during overseas processing, potentially barring them from re-entry with little recourse to appeal.
Tech leaders erupted almost immediately. Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn co-founder, posed the question directly: "Does this mean AI researchers, employees, and students will now have to leave the country and wait through a backlog process to continue their work?" Andrew Ng, the AI entrepreneur and Coursera co-founder, called it "a capricious attack on legal immigration" that would leave the country with fewer doctors, teachers, and scientists while undermining American competitiveness in artificial intelligence. Garry Tan, CEO of the startup accelerator Y Combinator, described the guidance as "bad and misguided," arguing that keeping talented people in the country is essential to building tomorrow's businesses. Blake Scholl, founder of Boom Supersonic, drew a distinction between addressing illegal immigration and making it harder for motivated, skilled workers to build lives in America. Even Jason Calacanis, the investor and podcast host, invoked Trump's own 2024 statement that college graduates should "automatically" get green cards, posting a clip of the president saying exactly that.
Immigration lawyers were equally alarmed, though their concerns centered on legal grounds. Elizabeth Goss, a Boston-based immigration attorney, described the policy as "another way to try to deport people I believe are not deportable." The American Immigration Lawyers Association noted that successive Republican and Democratic administrations have permitted applicants to remain in the US during processing, a practice upheld repeatedly in court. David Leopold, an immigration attorney in Cleveland, placed the announcement in the context of the administration's broader strategy: unable to pass restrictionist legislation through Congress, the administration was using executive guidance to narrow what agencies could do. "It's one more thing," Leopold said. "They're really going after the internal immigration systems."
On Capitol Hill, Representative Yvette Clarke, a Democrat from New York, called the policy "a disgrace" that would "rip talented, hardworking immigrants out from America and our economy, congest an already overburdened backlog, and further break an already broken immigration system." She added, pointedly, that the administration had made the pain of immigrants a priority, and that approach would not change until there was no one left to hurt. The new rule sits within a larger immigration crackdown that began in January 2025: hundreds of thousands of immigrants, including asylum seekers, have been arrested and deported; humanitarian protections for more than one million foreigners have been ended; and H-1B visa rules have been tightened. David Bier, an immigration policy analyst at the Cato Institute, described the latest move as a "radical expansion" of what he called the administration's "quiet quitting" on legal immigration.
Litigation is widely expected. Whether courts will ultimately push back against the rule remains uncertain, but the legal challenges are already being framed. The question now is whether the administration's strategy of narrowing legal immigration through administrative action will survive judicial scrutiny, and what the cost to American competitiveness will be in the meantime.
Citações Notáveis
Does this mean AI researchers, employees, and students will now have to leave the country and wait through a backlog process to continue their work? Harmful move for tech, business, and America broadly.— Reid Hoffman, LinkedIn co-founder
The new White House policy requiring green card applicants to apply from outside the US is a capricious attack on legal immigration. It will hurt families, leave us with fewer doctors, teachers and scientists, and hurt American competitiveness in AI.— Andrew Ng, AI entrepreneur and Coursera co-founder
It will rip talented, hardworking immigrants out from America and our economy, congest an already overburdened backlog, and further break an already broken immigration system.— Rep. Yvette Clarke, Democrat from New York
A Conversa do Hearth Outra perspectiva sobre a história
Why would an administration push out people who are already here, working, contributing? What's the logic?
The stated logic is that the law always intended for applicants to process from abroad, and that allowing them to stay was a loophole. But the real logic seems to be about control—making legal immigration harder without needing Congress to pass new laws.
But tech companies are saying this will hurt them. Doesn't the administration care about that?
They may not see it as their problem. The administration's priority appears to be reducing immigration overall, regardless of skill level or economic impact. Tech leaders are essentially arguing that the country should want to keep talented people, but that argument isn't landing.
What happens to someone who has to leave? Do they just... go home and wait?
In theory, yes. But for many, it's more complicated. If you're from a conflict zone, going home might not be safe. If you married an American citizen after entering without authorization, leaving could mean permanent bars to re-entry. The backlog overseas could mean years of waiting with no income, no ability to work in the US.
So this could actually separate families?
Absolutely. Someone could have a spouse and children here, a job, a mortgage—and be forced to leave and wait years in a queue. There's no guarantee they'll be approved, and no guarantee they can come back.
Is this legal?
Immigration lawyers say it's legally questionable. Courts have upheld the right to adjust status from within the US for decades, under both parties. But whether courts will actually block it is another question entirely.