Nearly 180 new United States citizens naturalized in Peoria ceremony
In the auditorium situated in the lower level of the library, there sat around 90 people from Mexico, the Philippines, India and 30 other countries eagerly waiting to finally call themselves citizens.
Marco Sanchez moved to the United States from Mexico in 1996, but the choice to become a citizen nearly 30 years later was simply a calling he felt.
'Your voice really counts,' Sanchez said. 'Especially for voting… It's time to help out, and maybe we can help with the future of the country.'
Rosevita Muiruri moved to the U.S. in 2013 from Kenya, and to walk the stage after all of the hard work it took to get here, it's a proud moment for her.
'It was quite difficult. That's what I would say. But now and it's been a journey, quite a long journey, and now this is the end. This means I got it,' Muiruri said, waving a small American flag.
Health care leaders featured at Eggs and Issues event
In the back of the room, the families of those waiting to cross the stage sat, some with tears in their eyes.
The mid-morning ceremony began with a loud hammering of the gavel from court clerk Shig Yasunaga.
Yasunaga opened the ceremony by introducing the presiding Judge, the Honorable Ronald L. Hanna.
A representative from the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration Services officer Samantha Brewer granted the motion to move forward and approve citizenship for everyone present.
After this, everyone in the room stood up, placed their right hand over their heart and said the Pledge of Allegiance in unison.
Judge Hanna introduced the guests to his right, took off his glasses and gazed upon the 90 soon-to-be citizens with honor.
He gave a brief speech about what it means to be an American. He talked about the long, arduous process that a lot of these people endured to get to where they were.
After his speech, Hannah had the representatives from each country stand until all 89 total people from 33 countries were standing, as one.
With all 89 people standing side by side with American flags in hand, Judge Hanna asked them to raise their right hand, and repeat the oath of allegiance.
Another ceremony was held in the afternoon, which brought the total of new citizens naturalized in Peoria today to nearly 180.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
18 minutes ago
- New York Post
Don't whine about federal budget cuts, lefties — put your money where your mouths are
Before politics overwhelmed the word, the primary meaning of 'liberal' was 'generous.' President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress have given political liberals a chance to take that meaning back — by opening their wallets to show just how much they value NPR, PBS and other programs defunded by the GOP. There's no shortage of funds on the left. Laurene Powell Jobs, the mega-rich backer of The Atlantic, has a net worth estimated at above $11 billion a year ago and believed to be even higher today. George Soros, at 94, has a fortune in the vicinity of $7 billion, with billions more in his Open Society Foundation. Bill Gates has about $115 billion, his ex-wife Melinda around $30 billion. Any one of these left-leaning billionaires could single-handedly make up the $535 million that NPR, PBS and local stations were getting annually from taxpayers before Congress zeroed out the subsidies. If half a billion a year is too much for one zillionaire, a half-dozen of them — or more — could share the burden without feeling a pinch. But are wealthy liberals willing to put their money where their mouths are? Citing Michal Heiplik, president of the public-media analytics organization Contributor Development Partnership, The New York Times reports PBS and NPR have reaped a windfall from small-dollar donors in recent months, with 120,000 new supporters stepping up to give some $20 million. Overall, donations are running $70 million above last year. And what works for PBS and NPR will work for humanitarian programs formerly funded as part of USAID as well, though the cuts to be made up there are bigger: Congress has eliminated about $8 billion in funding for USAID and other foreign-aid efforts, according to the Cato Institute. That's a lot of money — but not a dime of it has disappeared. After all, where does government get its money in the first place? Washington could only give to foreign aid or nonprofit broadcasting what it took — or borrowed — from the American people in the first place. When government doesn't spend money, society doesn't lose any of its resources: They just stay with the taxpayers, and the middlemen in government don't get their cut. That, for liberals, is a big part of the problem. The Democratic Party depends on shunting everyone's tax (or debt) dollars into the hands of bureaucrats, one of the party's most loyal constituencies. It's not just NPR and PBS that have been publicly financed — it's also liberalism as a movement. Bureaucrats in government, in government-supported nonprofits and other less-than-fully-private parts of the 'private sector' may work for organizations that are officially nonpartisan, but their campaign-giving heavily favors Democrats. Every morning, the NY POSTcast offers a deep dive into the headlines with the Post's signature mix of politics, business, pop culture, true crime and everything in between. Subscribe here! Their employers may be nonpartisan in theory, but the employees have a strong partisan tilt, and personnel is policy: Any organization is only a collection of people. USAID and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting were both born in the Kennedy-Johnson years, at mid-century liberalism's zenith. Liberalism had been dominant for so long — starting with the New Deal and Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration — that liberal intellectuals and policymakers came to think of themselves as more than just one side of American politics. They claimed to speak for everyone, as if a single party could define what it meant to be nonpartisan. But even then, the conservative movement was taking off while the Democrats were being dragged to the left by young radicals who wanted 'acid, amnesty and abortion.' Start your day with all you need to know Morning Report delivers the latest news, videos, photos and more. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters The agencies and programs the Republican Congress has defunded were never as neutral as they claimed to be. And as liberals, under the influence of the left, adopted a more adversarial attitude toward America's past and present, it only became more obvious that the agencies and public-private partnerships they ran represented only one side of any argument. But this doesn't mean liberals can't continue to fund everything they funded before. Now they just have to do it with their own money. Some centrist liberals rightly see that as an opportunity, not an imposition: When I told a friend at a government-supported think tank I was sorry for the professional upheaval he was going though, he noted that his institution had in fact been coasting by ever since the end of the Cold War. He said it needed a renewed sense of mission, and having to raise private funds would give it the impetus it had been lacking for decades. Republicans aren't worried NPR or PBS will move further left if they court progressive billionaires, considering what little presence conservatives had on those networks already. But if they're smart, the broadcasters will see the loss of government funding as a spur to court a wider spectrum of support — and to put to the test what it means to be nonpartisan. Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.
The Hill
18 minutes ago
- The Hill
DOJ to launch grand jury probe over Russia allegations against Obama officials
Attorney General Pam Bondi on Monday directed Justice Department officials to open a grand jury investigation over how Obama administration officials handled intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The grand jury probe marks another escalation of the Trump administration's focus on allegations of wrongdoing by Obama officials, including the former president. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has in recent weeks declassified various documents connected to Russia's election interference, claiming it showed 'treasonous conspiracy' by Obama administration officials. 'Following the compelling case outlined by DNI Tulsi Gabbard, which exposed clear and blatant weaponization by corrupt intelligence officials acting at the behest of the Democrat Party and likely former President Obama, the Administration remains committed to conducting a thorough investigation,' White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement. 'This effort aims to provide the American people with the truth about the extent to which former government officials worked to sabotage the Trump administration and undermine the will of the American people in a clear attempt to subvert our Constitutional Republic,' Fields added. Fox News first reported that Bondi had directed the start of a grand jury investigation. The documents Gabbard has released do little to suggest wrongdoing by the intelligence community in seeking to investigate Russia's efforts to influence the 2016 contest. Gabbard and other officials have pushed back on established findings from the intelligence community and a bipartisan Senate panel that Russia showed a preference for then-candidate Donald Trump in the 2016 election. Gabbard has alleged that Obama officials manipulated intelligence to harm Trump. Gabbard referred the documents to the Justice Department and FBI for potential criminal referrals, though the director repeatedly dodged when pressed on what crime former President Obama could be charged with. Obama's office issued a rare public statement calling the document drops a 'distraction' as Trump faced calls to release information about the prosecution of convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence under Obama and has faced intense criticism from Trump officials, has called the allegations against him 'patently false and unfounded.'
The Hill
an hour ago
- The Hill
Company advised by Trump sons said it hoped to benefit from fed money, then took it back
NEW YORK (AP) — A public document filed by a company that just hired President Donald Trump's two oldest sons as advisers included a sentence early Monday that said it hoped to benefit from grants and other incentives from the federal government, which their father happens to lead. But when The Associated Press asked the Trump family business about the apparent conflict of interest, the document was revised and the line taken out. Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. are getting 'founder shares' worth millions of dollars in New America Acquisition 1 Corp., a company with no operating business that hopes to fill that hole by purchasing an American company that can play 'a meaningful role in revitalizing domestic manufacturing,' according to to the filing. The president has geared his trade policy toward boosting manufacturing in the U.S. The original version of the securities filing said the target company should be 'well positioned' to tap federal or state government incentives. That reference was taken out of the revised version of the filing. The Trump Organization didn't reply to a question about whether New America still planned to benefit from government programs or why the line was cut. But the outside law firm Paul Hastings that helped prepare the document sent an email to AP saying it was 'mistake' made by 'scriveners,' an old term for transcribers of legal papers. Kathleen Clark, an expert in government ethics, said any excuses are too late because the Trumps had already tipped their hand. 'They just deleted the language. They haven't committed not to do what they said earlier today they were planning to do,' said the Washington University law professor and Trump critic. 'It's an attempt to exploit public office for private profit.' New America is what's know as a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC. It's a publicly traded company that exists solely to use its funds to acquire another company and take the target public. New America plans to raise money by selling stock on the New York Stock Exchange at $10 a share. That will hand the two Trump sons a total of $5 million in paper wealth on the first day of trading. The company hopes to sell enough shares to raise $300 million, which it then plans to use buying a yet unidentified manufacturer. A press release issued by New America saying it was focused on 'American values and priorities.' It made no mention of the aim to get government incentives. The filing to New America's potential new investors to the Securities and Exchange Commission was explicit about what it was looking for in a target company. It said, among other things, it wanted a company that can ride 'public policy tailwinds' by benefiting from federal or state 'grants, tax credits, government contracts or preferential procurement programs.'
