Public sentiment is strongly critical of the US visa restrictions on Palestinians, with many perceiving the policy as part of a biased foreign policy favoring Israel and silencing Palestinian voices. While some support the restrictions as necessary for security, a significant number of commenters express outrage, highlighting concerns about human rights and indicating a desire for systemic changes, such as relocating the UN headquarters away from the US.

United States Government

United Nations

Israel

Honestly, not letting in a group of people who will undoubtedly come in and sow discontent and chaos is not the most unreasonable thing.

Firecracker048

[deleted]

Disgraceful. Even if the stated goal is to delegimitise and isolate Hamas, this is accomplishing the exact opposite. The PA is the recognised entity that represents the Palestinian people and the government. It has enough recognition from across the world to be counted as a governing entity even if Palestine is not a recognised country by itself.

Choice_Ad2121

BaconMeetsCheese

Another sign of what's to come if Trump and MBD get their way.

Once war in Gaza finally ends Saudi Arabia will offer to join the Abrham accords and recognize Israel, in exchange Israel will need to accept (emaciated) Palestinian statehood.

This feels very much like preparation for that, a way to gain leverage by isolating the PA - Palestinians will be allowed in again after their leaders accept the deal that Trump hopes would land him his Noble.

For Gaza that plan seems to be to have it governed by forces trained by Egypt and UAE for at least 5 if not 10 years.

To placate the extreme-right in Israel it seems likely Trump would allow Israel to annex the settlement blocks in the west bank.

If it works - Trump will get his Noble and his ego would exceed the size of the known universe; though in reality it's MBD's plan much more than Trump's, Riyad wants region to calm down and stabilize, instability is costing the Saudis, the biggest investment body in the world, a lot of money.

rnev64

Not that this is the only blatantly illegal thing happening right now, but merely delaying or restricting the movements of official visitors to the UN would already be in breach of the UN Headquarters Agreement, which was codified into federal law after its signing.  Entirely banning them doesn't have a remotely plausible argument for being allowed.

https://www.nycbar.org/reports/the-u-s-should-adhere-to-its-commitments-under-u-n-headquarters-agreement/

ludovicana

&gt;The U.S. set conditions to lift the ban, including 'repudiating' terrorism and the October 7 attack, 'ending incitement in education and lawfare campaigns,' **and halting recognition of a Palestinian state**.

Our current foreign policy negotiating strategy of "we get all of what we want and you get none of what you want because that's easier for us to spin as a win" has always been ridiculous, but applying it to an organization that literally only exists for the purpose of creating a Palestinian state is just silly.

OmniscientOctopode

A very extreme move by the US government here. Is moving UN assemblies elsewhere even feasible?

ImGoggen

The Palestinian Authority has done nothing but cooperate with Israel under Abbas, only to then get screwed over time and time again. 

This really does demonstrate the the US government is no longer an honest broker in any negotiation between the Palestinians and Israelis, and will always favour the Israelis over the Palestinians

erasmus_phillo

So now they’re lumping the PLO and Hamas together. Smh

markjo12345

Incredibly baffling move. The US and Israel are just shooting themselves in the foot with this.

-Emilinko1985-

This is very likely to stay in place throughout his presidency or at a minimum until the situation in Gaza is resolved. The entire social media vetting procedure was put in place due to the behavior of students of Palestinian descent and there is tremendous sensitivity to any effort to resettle Gazans in the U.S.  unfortunately I would make alternate plans. 

LegitimateScratch722

I read speculation that this was related to the UN general assembly. The week before this, "the State Department also said it would not issue visas to Palestinian officials to attend the annual U.N. General Assembly in New York next month."

For example, the original *NYT* article says (here's a gift link so you can read the whole thing: [U.S. Suspends Visas for Palestinian Passport Holders, Officials Say](https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/31/world/middleeast/us-palestinian-visa-suspensions.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ik8.VARM._l9HsDzx8h_P&amp;smid=url-share)):

&gt;It was not clear what prompted the visa curbs, but they follow declarations by a number of U.S. allies that they plan to recognize a Palestinian state in the coming weeks. Some American officials have strongly opposed this push for recognition, which Israel has condemned.

As for how long this will last, the NYT articles says:

&gt;The more sweeping measures, laid out in an Aug. 18 cable sent by State Department headquarters to all U.S. embassies and consulates, would also prevent many Palestinians from the Israeli-occupied West Bank and in the Palestinian diaspora from entering the United States on various types of nonimmigrant visas, according to four U.S. officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive information.
&gt; 
&gt;The new measures affect visas for medical treatment, university studies, visits to friends or relatives and business travel, **at least temporarily.**

(emphasis added)

No on really knows more than what's been reported. All that's been reported is that this could be permanent or temporary. 

It also apparently only applies to *new* visa issuance, and only for people using their Palestinian passport.

&gt; They do not apply to Palestinians with dual nationalities using other passports or those who have already obtained visas.

And yes, there have been various threats of suspension, suspensions, and what not that the Trump administration has walked back. Chad, for example, was banned from getting visas from September 2017 to April 2018 ([Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chad%E2%80%93United_States_relations)), though it was banned again in 2025. With the so-called Muslim ban, the exact conditions and who it applied to changed several times (in response to the courts). Just this year, the Trump administration also threatened several countries with future suspension of visas if they didn't change X or Y policy (usually around intelligence sharing or how they do their "golden visa" programs).

I wouldn't say it's necessarily likely that this reverses (that's too hard to predict), but it's certainly possible as facts on the ground change, or even just the UN General Assembly passes.

yodatsracist

u/prsehgal your help would be appreciated!

Striking_Citron_1835

After Elon Musk strong stance (on anti muslim immigration) I think US isn't going to approve Visa's of country like this, because if they do they'll face heavy criticism

Dangerous_Party_8810

There was a viral tweet about large numbers of Palestinians coming to the US for medical treatment. This caused an uproar in the media. Combined with a relatively high chance of immigration intent there is a total ban on Palestinian nationals to enter the country. I would not expect this to change in the next 3.5 years. This ban was written to avoid the issues in the first ban.

curiousengineer601

Not happy with what’s been going on in Gaza. 

That aside, and I’ve seen this happen with so many regions, but talented people cannot always jump ship (to wherever) because their people need them to stay and help recover and regain prosperity. When people leave, especially young people, it hurts their nation.

Investigator516

All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. **FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL.**

*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/law) if you have any questions or concerns.*

AutoModerator

If you made a list of all the awful things this administration could possibly do, you'll find a lot of fucking overlap with the things they're actively pursuing.

And they're still hiding the Epstein files from us.

bkelln

A bunch of other comments have gotten into the politics of the suspension, but you also asked for the legal basis for the suspension. The answer to that question is found in [8 U.S.C §1182(f)](https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1182%20edition:prelim)%20OR%20(granuleid:USC-prelim-title8-section1182)&amp;f=treesort&amp;edition=prelim&amp;num=0&amp;jumpTo=true#substructure-location_f), which provides that:

&gt; Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.

In [*Trump v. Hawaii*](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-965_h315.pdf), the Supreme Court explicitly agreed that this language is as broad as it sounds:

&gt; By its terms, §1182(f) exudes deference to the President in every clause. It entrusts to the President the decisions whether and when to suspend entry, whose entry to suspend, for how long, and on what conditions. It is therefore unsurprising that we have previously observed that §1182(f) vests the President with "ample power" to impose entry restrictions in addition to those elsewhere enumerated in the INA. *Sale*, 509 U.S., at 187 (finding it "perfectly clear" that the President could "establish a naval blockade" to prevent illegal migrants from entering the United States); *see also Abourezk v. Reagan*, 785 F. 2d 1043, 1049, n. 2 (CADC 1986) (describing the "sweeping proclamation power" in §1182(f) as enabling the President to supplement the other grounds of inadmissibility in the INA”).

That power has been upheld in light of the longstanding precedent that aliens outside the United States (as opposed to aliens already admitted to the United States) have essentially no Constitutional rights to demand their admission into the United States. As the Supreme Court recognized in 1972’s [*Kleindienst v. Mandel*](https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/408/753/), “It is clear that…an unadmitted and nonresident alien, ha[s] no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.” The Court quoted and summarized a number of prior cases for the proposition that:

&gt; The Court, without exception, has sustained Congress' plenary power to make rules for the admission of aliens and to exclude those who possess those characteristics which Congress has forbidden. Over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over the admission of aliens…. The power of Congress to exclude aliens altogether from the United States, or to prescribe the terms and conditions upon which they may come to this country, and to have its declared policy in that regard enforced exclusively through executive officers, without judicial intervention, is settled by our previous adjudications.

In short, Congress has the power to effectively make any rules that it wants to determine which aliens will be (or won’t be) admitted to the United States, and it also has the power to delegate that authority to the executive. It has done so through 8 U.S.C §1182(f), which effectively gives the President the power to ban the entry of any class of aliens if he deems their admission detrimental to the national interest.

NoobSalad41

Remember when the US turned away a ship full of Jews that were fleeing Nazi Germany and the holocaust?  We were supposed to learn from that story and recognize the moral failure and vow never to repeat it.

ggrieves

I don't know the law for all that (not a lawyer either) but apparently he has a lot of free reign over visas. No one is answering your question

buried_lede

dsj79

Check in on Dearborn Michigan Muslims for Trump

yoshimipinkrobot

EnfantTerrible68

The new U.S. visa restrictions on Palestinians have raised concerns about the silencing of voices advocating for Palestinian statehood.

US Visa Restrictions for Palestinians

Why This Matters

Public Sentiment Summary

Highlighted Comments

Parties Involved

What the people want