Members of the Trump administration are said to have drafted two orders which introduce further restrictions on immigrants to the U.S.—this time, over economic issues like public assistance and jobs.
According to the Washington Post, one order proposes to "'deny admission to any alien who is likely to become a public charge' and to develop standards for 'determining whether an alien is deportable...for having become a public charge within five years of entry.'"
Meanwhile, the second order would reportedly "rescind any work visa provisions for foreign nationals found not to be in 'the national interest' or found to be in violation of U.S. immigration laws."
According to a draft copy obtained by Bloomberg, "'Visa programs for foreign workers...should be administered in a manner that protects the civil rights of American workers and current lawful residents, and that prioritizes the protection of American workers—our forgotten working people—and the jobs they hold.'"
RELATED: Protesters and lawyers welcome international travelers in airports amid immigration
As such, further restrictions would likely be placed on workers with H-1B visas which are common among tech companies.
These proposed changes are geared to address one of Trump's primary goals which is listed on the White House website as "Bringing Back Jobs and Growth."
As the Post report goes on to say, "Together, the orders would aim to give U.S. citizens priority in the job market by preventing immigrants from taking jobs and by pushing some immigrants out of jobs."
While President Trump's perspective on these drafts is unknown, he continues to defend his controversial immigration order temporarily banning refugees and immigrants from seven predominantly Muslim countries.
On Wednesday morning, he tweeted, "Everybody is arguing whether or not it is a BAN. Call it what you want, it is about keeping bad people (with bad intentions) out of country!"
Nevertheless, the move is facing numerous legal challenges from various states and foreign nationals amid claims that it is unconstitutional, notes Reuters.