About half of the green cards issued each year in the United States go to people already living on American soil — not people waiting from abroad.1 That figure, according to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, represents hundreds of thousands of families following a legal pathway that has been established for decades, called adjustment of status (a procedure that allows people in the U.S. to apply for a green card without leaving the country).1 Within just a few days at the end of May 2026, the Trump administration attempted to overturn this entire foundation — then quickly backed down when faced with a wave of fierce backlash.
According to Times of San Diego, citing CalMatters, the Trump administration issued a comprehensive policy directive just before Memorial Day, requiring most people with temporary visas and those receiving humanitarian parole (which allows temporary stay in the U.S. without official residency status) to return to their home countries to wait for green card processing there.1 This is a direct reversal of the longstanding policy that allowed immigrants to remain in the U.S. while waiting.12
Then the following weekend, also according to Times of San Diego, the Department of Homeland Security began downplaying the importance of the directive it had just issued, telling the New York Times that this was not a comprehensive mandate and that officers of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) had always retained discretionary authority in individual cases.1
This is Not a Retreat — This is a Strategy of Deliberate Ambiguity
On the surface, the administration's denial of the policy's scope appears to be a sign of backing down. But the mechanism actually operating here is far more complex.
According to Times of San Diego, citing Patrick Kolasinski, an immigration attorney in Modesto, the Department of Homeland Security's interpretation is a "cover-up" — meant both to avoid public reaction and to avoid lawsuits since changing policy in this way is "completely illegal."1 Notably, the Department of Homeland Security itself did not answer CalMatters' question about whether the new policy had been reversed.1
In other words: the administration did not rescind the directive. They simply created a legal gray zone — where USCIS officers can still apply the spirit of the original memo without needing a clear policy statement to attack in court. This is a familiar strategy: shifting boundaries without leaving easily contestable legal traces.
The evidence is in what is actually happening during real interviews. According to Times of San Diego, some immigration attorneys report that their clients have been asked by USCIS officers why they are applying for a green card from within the United States, and whether there is any reason they could not return to their home country to wait.1 Lynn Damiano Pearson, Director of Legal Strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, stated that the immigration attorney community is noticing that these questions appear to come directly from the new memo.1
This is the mechanism that should genuinely concern people: there is no need for an official policy to be applied uniformly — only enough uncertainty to paralyze the actions of thousands of families.
Who Faces the Greatest Risk — and Why California is the Epicenter
According to Department of Homeland Security data cited by Times of San Diego, in 2023, 112,100 California residents received green cards through the adjustment of status pathway — more than any other state, accounting for nearly one-fifth of all adjustment of status cases nationwide.1
The groups most heavily affected include relatives of U.S. citizens, laid-off tech workers, families with mixed immigration status, and international students.1 It is important to understand that the majority of green card applicants do not fall into highly skilled employment categories — according to 2023 Department of Homeland Security data, approximately 64% of new green card holders obtained residency through family relationships with U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, rather than through employment pathways.1
This figure shatters a common assumption that the green card debate centers mainly on H-1B visas and tech workers. In reality, most people affected are those who have U.S. citizen parents, spouses, or children — people following the correct system, waiting through proper procedures.
For the Vietnamese American community in the United States — especially in densely populated centers like Little Saigon in Orange County, San Jose, and Houston — this is not an abstract issue. The Vietnamese American community has high rates of families in the process of sponsoring relatives from Vietnam, many of whom arrived in the U.S. on visitor visas or other temporary visas and are waiting to adjust status from within the United States. The consular processing procedure — meaning having to return to Vietnam to wait for interview and visa issuance — has traditionally taken many years and requires green card applicants to endure prolonged family separation, lost income, and in many cases, face the risk of being denied re-entry to the U.S. if they have ever violated immigration status.
Tech Industry Pushes Back Strongly — But This is Only the Tip of the Iceberg
According to Times of San Diego, employers — particularly in the technology sector — have strongly opposed the new memo, warning that the policy could disrupt operations and drive away talent.1 Silicon Valley has long depended on the flow of international engineers and specialists waiting to adjust status — people currently working legally in the U.S. on temporary visas.
However, the tech industry's opposition — though vocal — risks obscuring a far more vulnerable group: service workers, small business owners, and ordinary families without large corporate legal teams backing them. An engineer at a major tech company can have their company hire lawyers to handle their case. A nail salon worker in Orange County waiting for a green card through family sponsorship does not have that advantage.
An unnamed spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, according to Times of San Diego, also indicated that groups potentially affected could include those who have overstayed their visas or come from countries whose citizens use many public benefits.1 This is explicitly targeted language — and it shows that this policy is not just about administrative procedure, but about choosing who gets to stay and who is forced to leave.
The End Point of This Road is the Courts — But the Current Legal Vacuum is Real and Dangerous
Legal experts cited by Times of San Diego assess that the new policy will almost certainly be challenged in court.1 The history of the Trump administration's immigration policies in the previous term — from travel bans to the "Remain in Mexico" policy (Migrant Protection Protocols requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases are reviewed in the U.S.) — shows that legal challenges can temporarily suspend enforcement. But lawsuits take time, and during that time, the lives of hundreds of thousands of families hang in limbo.
Legal experts also note this is part of a broader trend, with the Trump administration targeting people following the proper legal procedures that were established to obtain residency status.1 That means even people who did everything "by the book" — submitted applications on time, attended interviews, paid fees — are discovering that the rules they followed can be changed mid-course.
This is the core point that analysis of this story cannot overlook: the issue is not just whether this specific policy will be enforced. The issue is that the predictability of the entire legal immigration system is being systematically eroded. When rules can be changed through a memo issued before a holiday, then denied a week later, and no one knows what will apply at the next interview — that is an environment where even legal compliance is not enough to ensure safety.
For the Vietnamese American community, which has had multiple generations navigate a complex and volatile immigration system, this hard lesson is not new. But the scale and speed of the current instability is concerning even for families accustomed to waiting in uncertainty.
Ultimately, courts will determine whether this policy can exist. But the damage from chaos — canceled interviews, delayed career decisions, families separated while attorneys try to understand what the law actually is — that damage is happening right now, without waiting for any court ruling.
Read the full original Times of San Diego report at the source link below.