A new immigration policy being prepared by the Trump administration is sending a wave of uncertainty through immigrant communities in the United States, including some Kenyans who entered the country legally on visitor or business visas before seeking asylum.

The United States is preparing to revoke the B-1 and B-2 visas of foreign nationals who entered the country on business or tourist visas and later applied for asylum, according to U.S. government documents and officials cited by major American news organizations.

The potential scale of the action is what has attracted widespread attention.

The Associated Press reported that up to 200,000 visas could eventually be revoked, potentially making it the largest single mass visa revocation in U.S. history. The exact number, however, has not been confirmed by the State Department, which says the revocations will be carried out on a rolling basis and that the number remains dynamic.

For Kenyans living in the United States, the announcement has raised an uncomfortable question: Could people who came to America legally as visitors and subsequently sought asylum now find themselves facing a new immigration crisis?

What the Trump administration is proposing

The policy targets holders of B-1 and B-2 visas.

A B-1 visa is generally used for temporary business travel, while a B-2 visa covers tourism, family visits, medical treatment and similar temporary purposes.

Under the plan, the State Department is expected to identify holders of B-1 and B-2 visas issued between 2016 and 2026 who have subsequently sought asylum in the United States.

The State Department is coordinating with the Department of Homeland Security to identify those individuals and revoke their nonimmigrant visas.

State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott said the administration is targeting foreigners who entered the country claiming to be short-term visitors and subsequently filed asylum applications to remain permanently.

Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau has also criticized what the administration considers fraudulent or “bogus” asylum claims, arguing that asylum should not be used as a way of circumventing U.S. immigration laws.

That argument is at the center of the administration’s justification for the policy.

But immigration law is more complicated than simply saying that someone entered America on a tourist visa and later applied for asylum.

Applying for asylum after entering America is not automatically illegal

This is an important distinction for immigrants to understand.

Under U.S. law, a foreign national who is physically present in the United States can generally apply for asylum if they fear persecution in their home country because of factors such as race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion.

USCIS says a person may apply for asylum regardless of their current immigration status, subject to the applicable legal requirements, including generally filing within one year of arrival.

That means the mere fact that someone entered the United States on a B-1 or B-2 visa and later sought asylum does not, by itself, establish that the person committed fraud.

The circumstances surrounding each person’s visa application and asylum claim matter.

Someone could, for example, enter the United States as a visitor and subsequently decide to seek protection after circumstances change or after becoming convinced that returning home would expose them to persecution.

The administration, however, is taking the position that people who represented themselves as temporary visitors and then used the asylum system to remain permanently should face consequences.

That difference in interpretation could become important if the policy is challenged in court.

Why some Kenyans are nervous

The policy does not specifically target Kenyans.

It is not a Kenya-specific visa ban.

Instead, it applies to foreign nationals who fall within the administration’s stated criteria.

Nevertheless, Kenyans can potentially be affected because the United States has a significant Kenyan immigrant population, and some Kenyans have entered America through temporary visas before pursuing other immigration options.

The uncertainty is particularly relevant to people who have pending asylum applications, families whose immigration situations are complicated, or individuals whose original B-1 or B-2 visas remain part of their immigration history.

For such people, the headline can sound frightening:

“The U.S. is revoking visas of asylum seekers.”

But that headline does not necessarily mean that everyone affected will suddenly be arrested or deported.

According to officials cited by AP, revocation of the visitor visa would not necessarily result in immediate deportation.

People with pending asylum cases could instead be placed into a different immigration category while their cases continue.

That distinction is extremely important.

A visa and legal status are not the same thing

One reason the announcement has created confusion is that many people use the words “visa” and “immigration status” interchangeably.

They are not the same.

A visa generally allows a foreign national to seek entry into the United States for a particular purpose. Once inside the country, a person’s immigration status and any subsequent immigration proceedings become separate legal questions.

Consequently, revoking a B-1 or B-2 visa does not automatically mean that an individual has been ordered removed from the United States.

It can nevertheless have serious consequences.

A person could lose the ability to use that visa for future travel, and the government could take additional immigration action depending on the person’s circumstances.

For anyone with an active asylum or immigration case, the details of that individual case therefore matter enormously.

Why the number 200,000 is attracting attention

The figure of 200,000 should be treated carefully.

It is a potential number, not a confirmed list of 200,000 people who have already been ordered out of America.

The State Department has not confirmed that exactly 200,000 visas will be revoked.

Instead, officials say the process will be conducted on a rolling basis and that the number remains subject to change.

If the maximum estimate materializes, however, it would represent an extraordinary expansion of visa enforcement.

The United States has already revoked more than 175,000 visas since President Donald Trump returned to office, according to figures released by the State Department.

Those revocations have involved a range of circumstances, including people accused or convicted of crimes and individuals whom the administration says violated U.S. immigration or foreign-policy rules.

The proposed asylum-related action would therefore form part of a much broader immigration enforcement campaign.

The Trump administration is tightening immigration rules on multiple fronts

The visa proposal did not emerge in isolation.

The Trump administration has introduced a series of measures intended to make immigration to the United States more restrictive.

These include greater scrutiny of visa applicants, demands for additional information about applicants’ social-media activity, higher costs for some immigration processes and restrictions affecting nationals of certain countries.

The administration has also pursued policies based on concerns that some immigrants could become dependent on public benefits.

Just days before the asylum-related visa announcement, a federal judge in New York struck down a Trump administration policy that had suspended immigrant-visa processing for nationals of 75 countries on public-charge grounds. The judge found that the policy exceeded the secretary of state’s authority.

The decision demonstrates something important about the current immigration environment:

The administration is pushing aggressively, but some of its immigration policies are being challenged in court.

The proposed mass visa revocations could face similar legal scrutiny.

What happens to people whose visas are revoked?

This is perhaps the question causing the greatest concern.

The answer will depend heavily on the individual’s immigration circumstances.

A person with a pending asylum application is not necessarily in the same position as someone whose asylum claim has already been denied.

Likewise, someone with another lawful immigration status may be treated differently from someone whose only immigration basis is a visitor visa.

The administration has not indicated that every person whose B-1 or B-2 visa is revoked will immediately be deported.

AP reported that officials said most people with pending asylum cases would be recategorized but would lose their status as business or tourism travelers.

That means affected immigrants should not automatically interpret a visa-revocation notice as a deportation order.

At the same time, they should not ignore it.

An immigration document from the U.S. government can have significant consequences, and anyone who receives one should consider obtaining professional legal advice.

Why the policy could become a legal battle

The scale of the proposal alone is likely to attract legal challenges.

The administration is essentially arguing that the government can revoke visitor visas from people who used those visas to enter the country before seeking asylum.

Immigration advocates and attorneys could challenge the government’s interpretation of the law, particularly in cases where there is no evidence that the individual lied when applying for the original visa.

That distinction could prove critical.

There is a difference between planning to seek asylum when applying for a tourist visa and later deciding that asylum is necessary after entering the United States.

Whether the government can treat the two situations in the same way could become a major point of legal disagreement.

And recent court decisions show that the administration’s immigration policies are not immune from judicial review.

What this means for Kenyans considering America

For Kenyans outside the United States who are planning to visit, study, work or immigrate, the developments offer another reminder that U.S. immigration rules are becoming increasingly stringent.

A visitor visa should be used for the purpose for which it was granted.

Applicants should provide truthful information and should never assume that a visa guarantees entry into the United States or permanent residence.

At the same time, people should not be discouraged from seeking legitimate legal protection if their circumstances genuinely qualify them for asylum.

The safest approach is to understand the rules before making an immigration decision.

The fear is about more than visas

For many immigrants, the anxiety surrounding the announcement is not simply about losing a piece of paper.

It is about uncertainty.

People who have built lives in the United States may have homes, jobs, children, businesses and communities there.

An immigration policy that potentially affects hundreds of thousands of people can therefore create fear even among people who ultimately may not be affected.

For Kenyans, the message is particularly relevant because immigration to the United States has become an important part of the lives of many families separated between Kenya and America.

A relative in Nairobi may be following the story because a brother, sister, parent or child lives in the United States.

An asylum applicant may be wondering whether their case is still safe.

A visitor may be questioning whether immigration rules could change while they are in America.

And families planning future travel may simply be asking what the increasingly restrictive immigration environment means for them.

What affected immigrants should do

Anyone who believes they could fall within the policy should avoid making decisions based solely on social-media claims or sensational headlines.

The first step is to determine exactly what immigration status they currently hold and whether they have an active asylum or other immigration case.

They should also keep copies of their immigration documents, notices and previous applications.

Most importantly, people with pending immigration cases should consider consulting a qualified U.S. immigration attorney who can review their individual circumstances.

No two cases are necessarily identical.

The bottom line

The proposed action involving up to 200,000 B-1 and B-2 visa holders is significant, but it is important not to confuse visa revocation with automatic deportation.

The administration says it is targeting people who entered the United States as temporary visitors and subsequently sought asylum, arguing that some have abused the immigration system.

Critics are likely to question whether the government can broadly treat such cases as violations, particularly where individuals had legitimate reasons for seeking asylum after entering the country.

For now, the exact number of affected people remains uncertain, and the policy could face legal challenges.

But for Kenyans and other immigrants living in America, the development is another sign of how dramatically the U.S. immigration landscape is changing.

The immediate question for many will not simply be whether their visa remains valid.

It will be whether a decision they made years ago — entering America legally as a visitor — could now affect their future in the country.