Visa Restrictions: Not a Bug, But a Feature of Policy
THE ACTORS: The Plaintiffs: Immigrant visa applicants and their families from 75 countries (names unspecified in the unavailable article, but representative of hundreds of thousands globally). The Defendant: The U.S. State Department, led by Secretary of State Antony Blinken (as of 2021 when the article was likely published). The agency is responsible for implementing and enforcing immigrant visa
policies. The Legal Team: Likely immigrant rights organizations and pro-bono lawyers challenging the arbitrary nature of the bans. THE FUNDING: State Department Budget: For Fiscal Year 2021, the State Department and USAID requested $56.3 billion, a portion of which funds consular services and security determinations. (Congressional Research Service, 2021). The cost of implementing and enforcing
these bans, including consular resources diverted, is absorbed into this budget. Plaintiffs' Funding: Generally, these types of lawsuits are funded through legal aid organizations, non-profits, and individual plaintiff contributions, often operating on limited budgets compared to the government's legal resources. THE INCENTIVES: State Department: The stated incentive is 'national security' and
'public safety,' often broadly defined. Historically, such bans provide leverage in diplomatic relations and can be used to signal displeasure with specific countries without overt military action. They also appease domestic political factions advocating for stricter immigration controls. Plaintiffs: The obvious incentive is to reunite families and allow individuals to pursue legal immigration