2026-05-30T19:34:56.428Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/30/politics/trump-green-card-messaging
- 特朗普政府的一项指令威胁要求大多数绿卡申请人在本国等待审批流程。
- 令人困惑的政策言论让数百万 pending（待审批）移民申请人心存焦虑。
- 移民律师表示，这项政策调整是又一次限制合法移民的举措，可能引发严重的人才外流。
AI生成的摘要经CNN编辑审核。
弗朗西斯科和朱莉娅的缘分始于地球尽头。
这对夫妇都是科研人员，2024年1月在南极洲工作时相识。随着两人轮流探访彼此的家——他的家在智利，她的家在美国——他们的感情迅速升温。去年夏天，弗朗西斯科见过朱莉娅的家人后，他们开始认真规划未来。
“我们决定要共度余生，”弗朗西斯科说。
这对夫妇接受了CNN采访，并要求只使用他们的名字。他们去年结婚，弗朗西斯科申请了绿卡，以便能在美国永久居住和工作。他们咨询了几位律师，律师表示弗朗西斯科可以在与朱莉娅一同居住在美国期间申请变更移民身份，无需返回智利的家乡。
但特朗普政府近期在绿卡政策上的反复言论，却威胁到了他们刚刚起步的生活——不仅是作为伴侣，如今更是作为一个家庭。朱莉娅今年晚些时候就要生下双胞胎了。
上周公布的一项指令威胁要求大多数永久居留权申请人在本国等待审批流程。但在公告发布仅一周后，国土安全部就试图改口，称这不过是提醒美国公民及移民服务局的官员在处理个别案件时有裁量权。
从最狭义的解读来看，这项调整只是让个别审批人员拥有更多裁量权，以决定申请调整身份的移民在审批流程期间是否可以留在美国。但从最广义的解读来看，这可能会迫使包括弗朗西斯科在内的大多数待审批申请人们突然离开美国，抛下他们的家人和生活。
“这项政策变化让我们陷入了困境：我们基于既定的政策预期做出了家庭决策，而现在这项政策却被追溯性地修改了，”朱莉娅说。“我们面临的可能性是，如果这项政策适用于我们的情况，我将独自带着两个新生儿，同时还要做全职工作。”
“一想到要在孩子还小的时候分开，就觉得太吓人了，”她补充道。朱莉娅和弗朗西斯科是在国土安全部试图撤销该政策指令最宽泛的解读之前接受CNN采访的。
在公布这项政策的公开声明中，负责美国合法移民体系的政府机构美国公民及移民服务局表示，这一调整让美国移民体系更加“公平高效”，同时堵住了可能让移民在居留申请被拒后“悄悄躲进阴影”、非法留在美国的漏洞。
这项政策的最初公开声明看起来比政策本身更为严格。声明称只有在“特殊情况”下才能获得例外，但并未具体说明何种情况可被视为特殊。
CNN采访了六位移民律师，他们都表示目前尚无法确定这项调整最终会产生多大范围的影响。律师们表示，他们已经明确告知客户，这只是政策上的变动，而非法律修改，而且这项政策几乎肯定会在法庭上受到挑战。
“我不认为会出现大规模的拒签潮，而且他们也不可能追溯性地实施这份备忘录，”总部位于亚特兰大的移民律师查尔斯·库克说。“我敢说，待审批的身份调整申请至少有一百万份。你不可能现在对这一百万人说：‘感谢你付了钱，现在请回到你的祖国，重新开始整个流程。’没有法官会支持这种做法——一个都不会。”
“所以我告诉客户：‘放宽心，按兵不动，按照律师制定的计划走，你们会没事的，’”他补充道。
尽管美国公民及移民服务局将身份调整称为“漏洞”，但这一流程存在于国会制定的法律中，不能仅凭行政政策单方面废除。
“国会20次修改和完善一项法律，很难将其称为漏洞，就像美国公民及移民服务局在这项政策声明中做的那样，”库克说。“这就是法律，法律将继续允许符合条件的个人在美国境内申请调整身份。”
美国公民及移民服务局的审批人员似乎已经开始在政策中应用相关条款。CNN获得的一份针对待审批身份调整案件的补证要求函要求申请人说明，审批人员在考量是否批准申请时可考虑的十二项因素中是否有适用于他们的情况——比如如果申请被拒会给申请人家庭带来的困难、为社区做出贡献的证据，以及英语流利程度等。
但毫无疑问，这种言论已经在数百万潜在移民中引发了混乱——包括那些等待身份调整申请审批的人，以及原本考虑申请绿卡的人。
几位移民律师表示，这可能正是当局的目的。
“他们就是想让政策变得武断且反复无常，”移民律师吉姆·哈金说。“他们想让人们感到恐惧，想让人们自愿离开美国。”
这只是特朗普政府限制合法（而非非法）移民渠道的最新举措，包括大幅减少庇护申请、大幅削减允许逃离自然灾害或战争的人员免于被驱逐并留在美国的临时保护身份、几乎停止所有难民入境，以及限制工作和学生签证。
“我认为这再次明确表明，这是一场民族主义运动，而不仅仅是整顿移民服务的行动，”马里兰大学法学教授、该校查孔移民正义中心主任莫琳·斯威尼说。
“我认为本届政府从未对建立一个高效运转的移民体系感兴趣，”她补充道。“我认为他们很早就认定，尽可能关闭移民渠道符合他们的政治利益。他们认为反移民举措——越引人注目越好——在政治上对他们有利，而这正是他们现在正在做的事情。”
国土安全部拒绝就CNN提出的这些批评置评。
这些限制合法移民的举措已经导致美国出现了严重的人才外流，那些原本可以留在美国工作或学习的高素质科学家、医生和工程师纷纷离开。科技行业从业者尤其在该政策上周公布后对新的绿卡政策表示不满。
朱莉娅和弗朗西斯科两人都拥有博士学位，并积极参与社区活动，可能会成为这种人才外流的最新案例。弗朗西斯科同时也是欧盟公民，这对夫妇正在权衡其他选择。
“我们有备选方案，我们也在尽全力留在美国，为美国的经济发展做贡献，”朱莉娅说。“但如果这不可能实现，我们在其他市场也有竞争力，我们别无选择，只能带着家人搬到其他地方。”
‘It’s really scary’: Trump administration green card messaging prompts confusion and anxiety
2026-05-30T19:34:56.428Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/30/politics/trump-green-card-messaging
- A Trump administration directive threatened to require most green card applicants to wait out the process in their home countries.
- The confusing messaging has created anxiety for millions of immigrants with pending applications.
- Immigration attorneys say the policy change represents another effort to curtail legal immigration and could trigger significant brain drain.
AI-generated summary was reviewed by a CNN editor.
Francisco and Julia’s world together began at the end of the Earth.
The couple, both research scientists, first met while working in Antarctica in January 2024. Their relationship quickly progressed as each took turns visiting each other’s homes — his in Chile, and hers in the US. Last summer, after Francisco met Julia’s family, they began planning seriously for the future.
“We decided we want to spend the rest of our lives together,” Francisco said.
The couple, who spoke with CNN on the condition that only their first names be published, got married last year, and Francisco applied for a green card that would allow him to permanently live and work in the country. They met with several lawyers who said Francisco would be able to apply to change his immigration status while living with Julia in the US rather than returning to his home in Chile.
But the Trump administration’s recent whiplash messaging on its green card policy threatened to interrupt their burgeoning lives — both as a couple and now as a family. Julia is expecting twins later this year.
A directive announced last week threatened to require most applicants for permanent residency to wait out the process in their home country. But barely a week after it was announced, the Department of Homeland Security sought to backpedal, claiming it was simply a reminder that US Citizenship and Immigration Services officers had discretion on the decisions they made on individual cases.
At its most minimal interpretation, the change simply gives individual adjudicators more discretion to determine whether immigrants requesting an adjustment to their status can stay in the United States while that process plays out. At its maximum interpretation, it could have required most people with pending applications, like Francisco, to suddenly leave the US — and their families and lives behind.
“This change in policy puts us in a situation where we made a family decision based on a certain policy expectation, and now that’s been changed retroactively,” Julia said. “We’re looking at the possibility of, if that applied to our case, that I would be alone with two newborns in a full-time job.”
“It’s really scary to think about being separated when the kids are little,” she added. Julia and Francisco spoke with CNN before DHS sought to roll back the most expansive interpretation of the policy directive.
In public statements announcing the policy, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the government agency that is in charge of the country’s legal immigration system, said the change allows the US immigration system to be “fairer and more efficient” while eliminating loopholes that could allow immigrants to “slip into the shadows” and live illegally in the US if their residency application is denied.
The initial public announcement of the policy appeared to take a more restrictive posture than the policy itself. The announcement says exceptions would be granted only in “extraordinary circumstances” without laying out what exactly may make one’s circumstances extraordinary.
CNN spoke with half a dozen immigration attorneys, all of whom said it is too soon to tell how sweeping the changes would ultimately be. The lawyers said they are making clear to their clients that this represents simply a change in policy, not in law, and that the policy would almost certainly be challenged in court.
“I do not expect a massive series of denials, plus there is no way they can apply this memo retroactively,” said Charles Kuck, an Atlanta-based immigration attorney. “I bet you there’s a million pending adjustment applications, easy. You cannot say now to those million people, ‘Thanks for your money, I need you to go to your home country and restart this all over again.’ No judge upholds that — none.”
“So, I’m telling clients, ‘Sit back, relax, let this play out, follow the plan that your lawyer put in place, and you’re going to be OK,’” he added.
While USCIS described adjustment of status as a “loophole,” the process exists in a statute created by Congress and cannot be unilaterally scuttled by administrative policy.
“When Congress amends and betters a law 20 times, it’s hard to call that a loophole, as USCIS did in this policy announcement,” Kuck said. “It is the law, and the law will continue to allow for adjustment of status for individuals who otherwise qualify inside the United States.”
USCIS adjudicators appear to be applying aspects of the policy already. A request for evidence on a pending adjustment of status case obtained by CNN asks applicants to specify whether one of a dozen factors that adjudicators could consider weighing in the applicant’s benefit could apply to them — such as hardship to the applicant’s family if they are denied, evidence of value or service to the community and fluency or proficiency in English.
But there is no doubt the messaging has sowed chaos among potentially millions of immigrants — both those waiting on their adjustment of status application and those who had been considering applying for a green card.
That was likely the point, several immigrations attorneys said.
“They want it to be arbitrary and capricious,” said immigration attorney Jim Hacking. “They want people to be scared, and they want people to leave the US voluntarily.”
It represents just the latest way the Trump administration is seeking to curb avenues of legal — not just illegal — immigration, including making efforts to significantly reduce asylum claims; significantly curtailing the temporary protected status that allows those fleeing natural disasters or wars to live in the US without fear of deportations; halting almost all refugee admissions; and restricting work and student visas.
“I think this is yet another very clear indication that this is a nationalist campaign, not just a campaign to clean up the immigration service,” said Maureen Sweeney, a University of Maryland law professor and the director of the school’s Chacón Center for Immigrant Justice.
“I don’t think this administration was ever interested in a functional immigration system,” she added. “I think that they decided early on that it was in their political interests to shut down as much immigration as they could. I think they decided that anti-immigrant efforts — the splashier, the better — play well politically for them, and that’s what this is.”
The Department of Homeland Security declined to respond to CNN’s request for comment on those criticisms.
Those efforts to curtail legal immigration have already led to a significant brain drain in the US among highly qualified scientists, doctors and engineers who otherwise would have stayed to work or study in the country. Technology industry workers, in particular, were among those who lamented the new green card policy after it was announced last week.
Julia and Francisco, both of whom have PhDs and are active in their communities, may become the latest examples of that brain drain. Francisco is also a citizen of the European Union, and the couple is weighing alternatives.
“We have options, and we’re fighting really hard to stay in the US and contribute economically to the US,” Julia said. “But if that’s not a possibility, we are competitive in other markets, and we’ll have no other choice but to take our family elsewhere.”