U.S. Immigration Freeze Draws Sharp Criticism from Rights Groups, Affects Thousands of Applicants

U.S. Immigration Freeze Draws Sharp Criticism from Rights Groups, Affects Thousands of Applicants
—————————————–

The United States recently implemented a freeze on all immigration applications—covering asylum requests, family reunification visas, work permits and other legal entry pathways—for citizens of 19 countries. The policy has no publicly stated end date, Anadolu Agency reported.

On December 2, human-rights organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) sharply criticized the move, saying the freeze “undermines public safety, fairness and justice.” The group warned it could push individuals with no legal options toward dangerous, irregular migration routes—potentially increasing risks of human trafficking and exploitation.

Advocacy groups estimate that tens of thousands of applicants—including asylum seekers fleeing conflict, families awaiting reunification, foreign students, and skilled workers—are now left in indefinite uncertainty. Many had already submitted applications or were scheduled for visa interviews, which are now postponed or cancelled. Applicants report confusion and anxiety over their future.

International visa-processing centers in countries bordering the U.S., including Canada and Mexico, report a surge in demand as migrants seek alternate routes — only to be met with long backlogs and new delays. Some foreign-student visa applicants faced canceled university intakes, while skilled workers lost job offers or had relocation plans suspended.

HRW and other organizations argue that by restricting legal migration pathways, the policy may weaken community trust in authorities. Immigrants who no longer see legal avenues may avoid interaction with law enforcement, hampering crime-reporting and reducing overall public-safety cooperation.

Refugee-aid organizations, immigration attorneys and civil-society groups have urged Congress and the administration to reverse the freeze. They argue that safe, legal immigration must be preserved not only for humanitarian reasons but also to maintain public safety, social cohesion, and economic stability.

As pressure mounts, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are reportedly reviewing the policy’s legal implications and its compliance with U.S. humanitarian and immigration obligations.