US to require Canadians who are in the country for longer than 30 days to register with government
Artur Widak/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — Canadians who are in the United States for 30 days or longer and cross the land border will soon have to register their information with the U.S. government, according to a notice obtained by ABC News.
Foreign nationals who plan to stay in the U.S. for longer than 30 days will be required to apply for registration with the federal government and be fingerprinted starting on April 11, according to the rule, which was posted on the federal register on Wednesday.
Canadians are exempt from fingerprinting, which applies to other foreign nationals, according to an immigration lawyer who spoke with ABC News.
Traditionally, Canadians who cross the northern border by land and stay for longer than 30 days have not had to register with the federal government, but the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security can unilaterally change that rule.
Canadians who stay in the U.S. for 30 days or more and were not issued evidence of registration, such as Form I-94, at entry will need to complete the new Form G-325R through the myUSCIS online portal.
The rule would not require Canadians to apply for a visa but rather a different federal form to enter in the U.S.
Rosanna Berardi, an immigration attorney based in Buffalo, New York, told ABC News her firm has heard from many Canadians who have expressed “strong disappointment” in the new rule.
“It’s important to clarify that this measure specifically impacts Canadian citizens crossing land borders who intend to remain in the United States for periods exceeding 30 days,” she told ABC News. “Casual travelers visiting for tourism or shopping will not be affected. However, Canadian business professionals who regularly enter the U.S. for extended assignments will now face these new registration requirements.”
Berardi told ABC News that some Canadians are reconsidering their travel to the U.S. as a result of the “recent tensions” between the U.S. and Canada.
“Historically, Canadians have enjoyed visa-exempt status and have never been required to formally register their presence in the United States,” she said. “This development appears to align with recent tensions in U.S.-Canada relations, including the threat of the 51st state, the trade tariffs and other policy shifts.”
The Canadian Snowbird Association, which represents Canadian “snowbirds” who travel around the U.S. during the warmer months, said it is working with Congress to see if Canadians will be exempt from having to register.
US House Speaker Mike Johnson (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — House Speaker Mike Johnson met Thursday with Republican holdouts to his bid to retain the gavel in the new Congress, one day before the House convenes and votes for a speaker, which could come down to a single Republican vote.
Behind the scenes, President-elect Donald Trump and his top advisers were working to strike a deal with one lawmaker in particular, Rep. Chip Roy of Texas, sources told ABC News.
Johnson does appear to have the support of the majority of his conference and has the endorsement of Trump. But there are at least 16 hardliners who won’t commit to voting for Johnson and at least one Republican, Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, has said publicly he won’t vote for Johnson.
Several members of the House Freedom Caucus, including those who won’t commit to backing Johnson, were spotted entering the speaker’s office on Thursday, including Republican Reps. Roy, Michael Cloud, Eli Crane, Ralph Norman, Victoria Spartz, Andy Harris, Andy Biggs, Scott Perry, Andrew Clyde and Andy Ogles.
Spartz told ABC News that she will decide on Friday whether she will vote for Johnson.
Most of the members leaving the 2 1/2-hour meeting dodged questions from reporters. The few who did talk said they thought they were making progress but none had committed to voting for Johnson.
Norman did speak to reporters after the meeting, saying that he was happy with how the meeting went but that the group who convened with Johnson weren’t yet committed to voting for him on Friday.
Asked if he was still far from voting for Johnson, Norman said, “No I wouldn’t say that.”
“A day in politics is like a minute. It’s always changing, we’ll see. I was very happy with the discussions, we’ll see,” Norman added. “He’s listening, Mike is listening, he’s a good listener…. Are we there yet on everything? No. But we will continue the discussions.”
Asked before the meeting if he and other Republicans are defying Trump by withholding support for Johnson, Norman defended their push for certain concessions from the speaker.
“We haven’t done anything yet. We are discussing it. We are discussing it. Look, the vote will take place,” Norman said. “You’ll see how it comes out.”
“Trump’s behind him. He does make a lot of difference. Donald Trump says he’s his chosen speaker. So, we will see how that goes,” Norman added.
Roy placed his hand in front of his face when asked after the meeting if he had spoken with Trump about the speaker’s vote.
Cloud wouldn’t answer questions, either, but said later in a post on X that he’s still “working to help find a third option” as he thinks Johnson’s speakership, or the “status quo,” would “undoubtedly fail Trump’s agenda” but that any delay in this process would also push back Trump’s ability to enact it.
Johnson told ABC News the conversations on Thursday were “going well” and he believed the election on Friday is “going to go smoothly.”
“People are talking through process changes they want and those kinds of things. And I’m open to that. And I think tomorrow is going to go well,” he said.
Johnson is navigating the speakership battle with a historically narrow House majority.
The resignation of former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz in December left the House with 434 members, 219 of whom are Republicans and 215 Democrats. That means if all members are present on Friday, Johnson could afford to lose only one Republican vote.
There is also an all-out push from Trump’s advisers to come to an agreement with Roy.
The Texas congressman, who posted on X on Wednesday that he was undecided, has spoken to both Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance, who are personally involved in striking a deal with Roy, sources told ABC News.
In a call on New Year’s Day, Trump praised Roy’s work in the House but encouraged him to support Johnson, who was also on the call along with Vice President-elect JD Vance.
The sources told ABC News that discussions with Roy include making him the chair of the Rules Committee, one of the most powerful committees in the House that can block any legislation from advancing to the House floor. Roy also has indicated privately that he wants a commitment to major cuts in government spending.
The House will gavel in at noon Friday to embark on the start of the 119th Congress, in which Republicans will have control of both the House and Senate.
The first order of business in the House is its constitutional obligation to elect its speaker, a process that has created high drama in recent years as Kevin McCarthy took 15 ballots to ultimately seize the gavel at the beginning of the 118th Congress.
McCarthy later became the first lawmaker vacated from the speaker’s office after a revolt by a handful of Republican hardliners led by Gaetz.
Republicans then took three weeks to decide on a new leader and ultimately settled on Johnson as the 56th speaker of the House in October 2023.
The House cannot conduct any business until a speaker is elected, such as certifying Trump’s 2024 election victory — a process set for Jan. 6.
Johnson has expressed confidence that he will be successful, despite at times acknowledging the “numbers game” he faces.
Asked about his message to undecided Republicans, Johnson replied: “We need to stay unified so we can save the country. And I think that’s an important message.”
Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, an assistant Republican whip who backs Johnson’s bid to remain speaker, said on CNN on Thursday she wouldn’t be surprised if the vote goes to multiple rounds.
“I don’t know if he has the votes right now, but I do believe that he will have the votes,” Malliotakis said. “And I’m not sure that it will be on the first round, but I do think by tomorrow we will have a speaker and that speaker will be Mike Johnson.”
Asked what would it say about House Republicans if he were to lose on the first ballot, Johnson said he hopes to have the necessary votes.
But if not, Johnson said, “That’s the process of Congress with a small majority, that’s what that says.”
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge on Wednesday entered an emergency order barring the Trump administration from implementing major parts of its executive order that sought to target the law firm Perkins Coie over its representation of Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016.
District Judge Beryl Howell, ruling from the bench, found that attorneys for Perkins Coie had met the bar for her to enter a temporary restraining order — determining they would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if provisions of the order targeting the law firm’s work with government contractors as well as restrictions on their attorney’s access to government buildings were implemented.
In an extraordinary hearing in which the Justice Department put forward Attorney General Pam Bondi’s chief of staff, Chad Mizelle, to present its arguments, Howell repeatedly questioned the logic and legality surrounding the order — which she said had extraordinary breadth and whose language was unlike any other order she’d ever read.
“Regardless of whether the President dislikes the firm’s clients … issuing an executive order targeting the firm based on the President’s dislike of the political positions of the firm’s clients, or the firm’s litigation positions is retaliatory and runs head on into the wall of First Amendment protection,” Howell said.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Photo by Nicolas Economou/NurPhoto via Getty Images
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court to significantly narrow nationwide injunctions issued by three different federal judges blocking his executive order redefining birthright citizenship in the U.S.
The emergency applications ask the justices to take a “modest” step and roll back the judges’ restrictions on Trump’s Day 1 order, allowing federal agencies to move forward with developing guidance and preparing for implementation if, at the end of litigation, the president prevails.
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable,” Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in the application.
Trump’s executive order would deny citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to unlawful immigrants or those on a temporary immigrant status. The administration’s claimed in court proceedings birthright citizenship creates a strong incentive for illegal immigration.
Federal judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington state, in their rulings, have said such a move would appear plainly contrary to the text of the 14th Amendment and legal precedent.
The 14th Amendment states that all “persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
The Trump administration, in its appeals to the Supreme Court, railed against the use of nationwide injunctions and said they should be limited to the plaintiffs involved in the legal challenges.
“This Court should declare that enough is enough before district courts’ burgeoning reliance on universal injunctions becomes further entrenched,” the acting solicitor general wrote. “The Court should stay the district courts’ preliminary injunctions except as to the individual plaintiffs and the identified members of the organizational plaintiffs (and, if the Court concludes that States are proper litigants, as to individuals who are born or reside in those States).”
“At a minimum, the Court should stay the injunctions to the extent they prohibit agencies from developing and issuing public guidance regarding the implementation of the Order. Only this Court’s intervention can prevent universal injunctions from becoming universally acceptable.”
