Immigrants seeking legal work, citizenship now subject to ‘anti-American' screening
The announcement raised concerns about the subjective nature of the new policy, which will be a heavy factor in deciding whether a migrant can be given a green card or parole from incarceration.
'Anti-American activity will be an overwhelmingly negative factor in any discretionary analysis,' U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a statement.
The agency, in an update to its policy manual, also said it would include 'social media vetting' in its background checks.
But it doesn't specify what constitutes anti-Americanism, only saying the officer should check for it.
The new policy is part of President Donald Trump's heavy crack down on immigration. His administration has taken a multi-faceted approach in targeting both undocumented immigrants and legal immigration programs.
It could have major consequences for Florida, which is home to a large number of migrants, 55 percent of whom are naturalized citizens.
Experts raised concerns about the subjective nature of the rule, its effect on free speech and potential delays on the application process.
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a fellow at the American Immigration Council, an immigration advocacy group, called the new rule 'McCarthyism.'
'The term has no prior precedent in immigration law and its definition is entirely up to the Trump admin,' he wrote on social media.
Citizenship and Immigration Services defended the rule, arguing it's a 'privilege' to live and work in the United States.
'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' said USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser in a statement. 'Immigration benefits — including to live and work in the United States — remain a privilege, not a right.'
USCIS has instituted other rules for immigrants trying to build lives in America, even when it comes to things like marriages between a principal asylee or a refugees.
The agency is part of the Department of Homeland Security, which has taken the lead on Trump's immigration policy with a series of moves, including taking away legal protections for youths and allowing the government to detain children until they can be deported.
About 22.1 percent of Florida's residents are foreign-born, and 10.3 percent of its U.S.-born residents live with at least one immigrant parent, according to the American Immigration Council. Additionally, immigrants make up 27.4 percent of Florida's labor force.
The new rule goes into effect immediately and will be applied to current applications.
Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restriction, notes officers have always had discretion when it comes to immigration applications.
'This doesn't really change a lot,' she told McClatchy. 'The difference really is the tone and the explicitness of the administration with regards to what they're concerned about. But immigration officers have always been able to deny on the basis of discretion for those benefits that are discretionary, for a variety of reasons.'
She advised waiting to see how the rule is implemented given that 'what is considered anti-American is complicated, different from person to person.'
'I think the positive effect, though, is that it's forcing immigration officers to look more closely at people's activities outside the United States and inside the United States, and it's going to enhance security vetting.'
The new policy instructs officers to exercise their own discretion when determining what makes an anti-American statement or show of support for a terrorist group. Officers are also instructed to look for any 'evidence of antisemitic activity.'
All those factors will be weighed for any migrant seeking 'application for admission or parole.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court throws out Trump's $454 million civil fraud judgment
A New York appeals court has thrown out the half billion-dollar civil fraud judgment handed down last year against President Donald Trump, his family and his company. The Appellate Division's First Department upheld last year's ruling finding Trump, his eldest sons and his business liable for a decade's worth of business fraud. The appellate court, however, found the penalty of $454 million to be an excessive fine at odds with the Eighth Amendment. "The documentary evidence supports Supreme Court's conclusion that the Attorney General made a prima facie showing that each defendant participated in the fraudulent scheme," the opinion said. "The trial record is also replete with evidence supporting the court's determination that the individual defendants had the requisite intent to defraud, a necessary element of each Penal Law claim." MORE: Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience' However, said the opinion, "while harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the State." The decision allows either side to pursue an appeal to the state's highest court, the New York Court of Appeals. "Today's ruling by the New York appeals court is a resounding victory for President Trump and his company," said Trump's former personal attorney Alina Habba, who helped represent Trump in the case and was later named interim U.S. attorney for New Jersey. "The court struck down the outrageous and unlawful $464 million penalty, confirming what we have said from the beginning: the Attorney General's case was politically motivated, legally baseless, and grossly excessive." After a three-month civil trial last year, New York Judge Arthur Engoron found Trump liable for committing a decade of business fraud by inflating his net worth to secure better business deals. In his written decision, Engoron said that Trump and his co-defendants engaged in frauds that "leap off the page and shock the conscience" including wrongly claiming that Trump's penthouse was three times its actual size and valuing his Mar-a-Lago estate as a personal residence, rather than a social club. "Their complete lack of contrition and remorse borders on pathological. They are accused only of inflating asset values to make more money. The documents prove this over and over again," Engoron wrote, claiming that Trump and his co-defendants were "incapable of admitting the error of their ways." The former president has long criticized the case as politically motivated, including during an impromptu closing statement he delivered in court last year where he declared himself an "innocent man." "I've been persecuted by someone running for office," Trump said, referring to New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the case. "This statute is vicious. It doesn't give me a jury. It takes away my rights." In his February decision, Engoron temporarily barred Trump and his sons from leading New York-based companies and ordered Trump to pay a fine of more than $454 million. That number increased to around half a billion dollars based on interest accrued on the judgement. Trump has denied wrongdoing and argued that the alleged victims in the case were sophisticated counterparties who eagerly agreed to go into business with the Trump Organization and profited from the deals. Those arguments formed the crux of his appeal, filed in July, in which his lawyers argued that James violated the statute of limitations, misapplied the relevant law, and encouraged an exclusive penalty. MORE: Trump civil fraud case: Judge fines Trump $354 million, says frauds 'shock the conscience' During a hearing in September, several of the judges on the appellate panel appeared receptive to Trump's arguments seeking to reverse or reduce the his penalty, questioning the size of the massive judgment and the application of the fraud statute used to bring the case. Since Trump's reelection win in November, his lawyers have implored James to drop the case, citing the dismissal of Trump's federal criminal cases. Lawyers for James have rejected the request, arguing that Trump's return to the White House does not impact his civil cases. "The ordinary burdens of civil litigation do not impede the President's official duties in a way that violates the U.S. Constitution," New York Deputy Solicitor General Judith Vale wrote in a letter to Trump's lawyer. Trump owed more than $550 million between three civil judgments, including a $83.3 million judgment in damages for defaming former Elle magazine columnist E. Jean Carroll and a $5 million judgment awarded after a jury found he sexually abused Carol in the 1990s. This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's Your Call for Aug. 21
Will never vote for the GOP again Donald Trump has effectively ruined the Republican Party. I'll never vote Republican again. Never win another election If the Democrats' only policy is to fight Trump on everything, you will never win another election. Thank you for that. Poor planning I just delivered a grandson to Mid-Buch school, a two-lane road that was full of traffic. So that's the day MoDOT decided to mow the road and blocked one lane. Somebody needs to wake up out there. Pot calling kettle black Governor Kehoe accuses the Democrats of gerrymandering. President Trump admits to gerrymandering so he can gain another seat in the house in the state of Texas. Rejecting reality It's time for Trump to admit that Russia invaded Ukraine, not that Ukraine invaded Russia, but then that should come right after he admits that he lost the election to Biden. His ability to reject reality is truly amazing. Taking notes from Putin Is it not comforting to hear that our fearless leader is taking advice on how to run elections from someone who has basically run corrupt rigged elections for years? Putin says mail in ballots are bad, his little puppet jumps to issue an executive order to ban them. Pretty sure they discussed elections more than they did the war in Ukraine while in Alaska.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Exclusive-Putin's demand to Ukraine: give up Donbas, no NATO and no Western troops, sources say
By Guy Faulconbridge MOSCOW (Reuters) -Vladimir Putin is demanding that Ukraine give up all of the eastern Donbas region, renounce ambitions to join NATO, remain neutral and keep Western troops out of the country, three sources familiar with top-level Kremlin thinking told Reuters. The Russian president met Donald Trump in Alaska on Friday for the first Russia-U.S. summit in more than four years and spent almost all of their three-hour closed meeting discussing what a compromise on Ukraine might look like, according to the sources who requested anonymity to discuss sensitive matters. Speaking afterwards beside Trump, Putin said the meeting would hopefully open up the road to peace in Ukraine - but neither leader gave specifics about what they discussed. In the most detailed Russian-based reporting to date on Putin's offer at the summit, Reuters was able to outline the contours of what the Kremlin would like to see in a possible peace deal to end a war that has killed and injured hundreds of thousands of people. In essence, the Russian sources said, Putin has compromised on territorial demands he laid out in June 2024, which required Kyiv to cede the entirety of the four provinces Moscow claims as part of Russia: Dontesk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine - which make up the Donbas - plus Kherson and Zaporizhzhia in the south. Kyiv rejected those terms as tantamount to surrender. In his new proposal, the Russian president has stuck to his demand that Ukraine completely withdraw from the parts of the Donbas it still controls, according to the three sources. In return, though, Moscow would halt the current front lines in Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, they added. Russia controls about 88% of the Donbas and 73% of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, according to U.S. estimates and open-source data. Moscow is also willing to hand over the small parts of the Kharkiv, Sumy, and Dnipropetrovsk regions of Ukraine it controls as part of a possible deal, the sources said. Putin is sticking, too, to his previous demands that Ukraine give up its NATO ambitions and for a legally binding pledge from the U.S.-led military alliance that it will not expand further eastwards, as well as for limits on the Ukrainian army and an agreement that no Western troops will be deployed on the ground in Ukraine as part of a peacekeeping force, the sources said. Yet the two sides remain far apart, more than three years after Putin ordered thousands of Russian troops into Ukraine in a full-scale invasion that followed the annexation of the Crimean peninsula in 2014 and prolonged fighting in the country's east between Russian-backed separatists and Ukrainian troops. Ukraine's foreign ministry had no immediate comment on the proposals. President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has repeatedly dismissed the idea of withdrawing from internationally recognised Ukrainian land as part of a deal, and has said the industrial Donbas region serves as a fortress holding back Russian advances deeper into Ukraine. "If we're talking about simply withdrawing from the east, we cannot do that," he told reporters in comments released by Kyiv on Thursday. "It is a matter of our country's survival, involving the strongest defensive lines." Joining NATO, meanwhile, is a strategic objective enshrined in the country's constitution and one which Kyiv sees as its most reliable security guarantee. Zelenskiy said it was not up to Russia to decide on the alliance's membership. The White House and NATO didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on the Russian proposals. Political scientist Samuel Charap, chair in Russia and Eurasia Policy at RAND, a U.S.-based global policy think-tank, said any requirement for Ukraine to withdraw from the Donbas remained a non-starter for Kyiv, both politically and strategically. "Openness to 'peace' on terms categorically unacceptable to the other side could be more of a performance for Trump than a sign of a true willingness to compromise," he added. "The only way to test that proposition is to begin a serious process at the working level to hash out those details." TRUMP: PUTIN WANTS TO SEE IT ENDED Russian forces currently control a fifth of Ukraine, an area about the size of the American state of Ohio, according to U.S. estimates and open-source maps. The three sources close to the Kremlin said the summit in the Alaskan city of Anchorage had ushered in the best chance for peace since the war began because there had been specific discussions about Russia's terms and Putin had shown a willingness to give ground. "Putin is ready for peace - for compromise. That is the message that was conveyed to Trump," one of the people said. The sources cautioned that it was unclear to Moscow whether Ukraine would be prepared to cede the remains of the Donbas, and that if it did not then the war would continue. Also unclear was whether or not the United States would give any recognition to Russian-held Ukrainian territory, they added. A fourth source said that though economic issues were secondary for Putin, he understood the economic vulnerability of Russia and the scale of the effort needed to go far further into Ukraine. Trump has said he wants to end the "bloodbath" of the war and be remembered as a "peacemaker president". He said on Monday he had begun arranging a meeting between the Russian and Ukrainian leaders, to be followed by a trilateral summit with the U.S. president. "I believe Vladimir Putin wants to see it ended," Trump said beside Zelenskiy in the Oval office. "I feel confident we are going to get it solved." Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Thursday that Putin was prepared to meet Zelenskiy but that all issues had to be worked through first and there was a question about Zelenskiy's authority to sign a peace deal. Putin has repeatedly raised doubts about Zelenskiy's legitimacy as his term in office was due to expire in May 2024 but the war means no new presidential election has yet been held. Kyiv says Zelenskiy remains the legitimate president. The leaders of Britain, France and Germany have said they are sceptical that Putin wants to end the war. SECURITY GUARANTEES FOR UKRAINE Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff was instrumental in paving the way for the summit, and the latest drive for peace, according to two of the Russian sources. Witkoff met Putin in the Kremlin on August 6 with Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov. At the meeting, Putin conveyed clearly to Witkoff that he was ready to compromise and set out the contours of what he could accept for peace, according to two Russian sources. If Russia and Ukraine could reach an agreement, then there are various options for a formal deal - including a possible three-way Russia-Ukraine-U.S. deal that is recognised by the U.N. Security Council, one of the sources said. Another option is to go back to the failed 2022 Istanbul agreements, where Russia and Ukraine discussed Ukraine's permanent neutrality in return for security guarantees from the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, the sources added. "There are two choices: war or peace, and if there is no peace, then there is more war," one of the people said. Solve the daily Crossword
