In the aftermath of the targeted shootings of two National Guardsmen by an Afghan migrant in Washington, D.C. last week, the US President, via a Thanksgiving Day post, made the following announcements:

“I will permanently pause migration from all Third World countries to allow the US system to fully recover … and remove anyone who is not a net asset to the United States, or is incapable of loving our country . . ., denaturalize migrants who undermine domestic tranquility, and deport any foreign national who is a public charge, security risk, or non-compatible with Western Civilization… Only REVERSE MIGRATION can fully cure this situation.”

The above followed an earlier post regarding the “permanent pause” in the processing of all asylum applications filed by Afghan nationals, as well as a thorough review and re-vetting of all pending and previously approved green card cases of people originating from “countries of concern.”

The oxymoronic interplay of words notwithstanding, there has been a great deal of confusion as to which nationals or countries of concern would be impacted by these announcements.

Subsequently, and presumably to provide clarity on the issue, the US Department of Homeland Security issued a statement that only nationals of certain countries would be affected, namely, Afghanistan, Burundi, Burma, Chad, Congo, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Laos, Libya, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Togo, Turkmenistan, Venezuela and Yemen.

These are the same countries subject of the Travel Ban Part II issued via a Presidential Proclamation dated 4 June 2025 restricting entry of certain foreign nationals to the US.

Fortunately for Filipinos, the Philippines isn’t on the list of nations tagged as “concerning.” 

Based on official USCIS pronouncements, it appears that focus will be directed at the security vetting capabilities and hostility levels of the designated countries, with the burden of proof resting on these countries’ citizens to rebut the presumption of ineligibility.

Still, considering that the cited presidential posts bear the possibility of surviving a constitutionality challenge given the US Supreme Court’s right-leaning composition, concerns have arisen regarding the risk of an extreme governmental overreach that may result in arbitrary denials of otherwise meritorious green card and immigrant visa applications.

Moreover, fears abound that the scope of the enhanced vetting and restrictive adjudicatory policies may eventually expand to include citizens of other countries, given the White House’s declared stance against migration from “all” Third World nations.

Indeed, if the objective is to reduce all types of immigration in order to reverse the flow of migration to America, the D.C. incident can be parlayed into a virtual screening mesh to justify green card denials and immigrant visa refusals for national security reasons, in addition to leveraging the attack as some sort of patriotism gallows to purge the country of disloyal citizens.

Concerningly, while the status of naturalized Filipino-Americans and green card holders in the US remains secure at this point, it’s possible that a negative foreign policy shift by the Philippine government would engender geopolitical tensions that could impact the immigration relationship between the two nations.

Thus, pivoting to China, for instance, may result in the Philippines’ revised designation as a country of concern.

But then maybe not, considering that China itself isn’t on the dreaded list.