U.S. immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism' screening
Immigrants seeking a legal pathway to live and work in the United States will now be subject to screening for 'anti-Americanism',' authorities said Tuesday, raising concerns among critics that it gives officers too much leeway in rejecting foreigners based on a subjective judgment.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said officers will now consider whether an applicant for benefits, such as a green card, 'endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused' anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views.
'America's benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,' Matthew Tragesser, USCIS spokesman, said in a statement. 'Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.'
It isn't specified what constitutes anti-Americanism and it isn't clear how and when the directive would be applied.
'The message is that the U.S. and immigration agencies are going to be less tolerant of anti-Americanism or antisemitism when making immigration decisions,' Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs and policy at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, said on Tuesday.
Jacobs said the government is being more explicit in the kind of behaviors and practices officers should consider, but emphasized that discretion is still in place. 'The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny — just to consider it as a negative discretion,' she said.
Critics worry the policy update will allow for more subjective views of what is considered anti-American and allow an officer's personal bias to cloud his or her judgment.
'For me, the really big story is they are opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions. That's really worrisome,' said Jane Lilly Lopez, associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University.
The policy changes follow others recently implemented since the start of the Trump administration including social media vetting and the most recent addition of assessing applicants seeking naturalization for 'good moral character'. That will not only consider 'not simply the absence of misconduct' but also factor the applicant's positive attributes and contributions.
'It means you are going to just do a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards,' Lopez said.
Experts disagree on the constitutionality of the policy involving people who are not U.S. citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the U.S. or who are not U.S. citizens.
Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protects all people in the United States, regardless of their immigration status, against government encroachment. 'A lot of this administration's activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,' Robinson added.
Attorneys are advising clients to adjust their expectations.
'People need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to U.S. citizens are not going to apply to somebody who's trying to enter the United States,' said Jaime Diez, an immigration attorney based in Brownsville, Texas.
Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, said the policy update was not unexpected considering how the Trump administration approaches immigration.
'This is what was elected. They're allowed to interpret the rules the way they want,' Grode said. 'The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.'
Corey Williams And Valerie Gonzalez, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
29 minutes ago
- CTV News
U.S. Dollar drifts as investors ponder Fed independence, await Jackson Hole
SINGAPORE — The U.S. dollar drifted on Thursday as investors awaited policy cues from the Federal Reserve's Jackson Hole symposium while keeping an eye on renewed concerns over central bank independence after President Donald Trump's latest salvo. Currencies showed a muted reaction to the announcement that the United States and the European Union locked in a framework trade deal reached last month that includes a 15 per cent U.S. tariff on most EU imports. The euro and sterling were flat at US$1.1649 and $1.3460, respectively. The Japanese yen declined 0.3 per cent to 147.85 while the Swiss franc nursed modest losses as well. Odds of a rate cut by the Fed next month eased slightly to 79 per cent, offering mild support to the dollar as focus remained on whether Fed Chair Jerome Powell will push back against market expectations for a September cut when he speaks on Friday. There would likely be a greater reaction if Powell were to indicate the Fed could keep rates steady again, than if he leans in the direction of a cut, said Kenneth Broux, head of corporate research for FX and rates at Societe Generale. 'The risks are asymmetric. Because it (a cut) is already priced in, the risk is that we go back to 50-50,' said Kenneth Broux, head of corporate research for FX and rates at Societe Generale. The reaction to that would be a sell-off in near-tenor U.S. treasuries and a firmer dollar, Broux said. U.S. President Trump's call for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign on the basis of allegations made by one of his political allies has meanwhile revived investor concerns over his efforts to gain influence over the central bank. Trump has also repeatedly criticized Powell for being too slow to cut rates. Investors expect Trump will replace Powell, whose term ends in May, with a more dovish appointment. 'Trump's desire for lower rates, even if not justified by the Fed's dual mandate, poses upside risks to the US inflation outlook and could trigger a loss of confidence in the US dollar and long-term US Treasuries if implemented,' Lee Hardman, senior currency analyst at MUFG, said in a note. Earlier this month, Trump also said he would nominate Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Stephen Miran to serve out the final few months of a vacant Fed seat after Adriana Kugler unexpectedly resigned. The dollar index, which measures the U.S. currency against six other peers, was flat at 98.337 and on course for a 0.4 per cent rise this week. The benchmark U.S. 10-year yield was a touch higher at 4.30 per cent, while the two-year yield, which is more sensitive to the monetary policy, ticked up slightly to 3.756 per cent. Some analysts cautioned that markets could end up being disappointed by Powell's speech on Friday, noting that the impact of Trump's tariffs on inflation remains unclear. Elsewhere, the Norwegian krone rose 0.6 per cent each against the dollar and the euro, after data showed that Norway's mainland economy grew at a faster pace than economists had expected in the second quarter. First quarter growth was also revised up. Bearish bets on China's yuan, meanwhile, hit their highest since mid-May, with analysts turning short spurred by mounting concerns over the economy, a Reuters poll showed on Thursday. In cryptocurrencies, bitcoin was down 0.8 per cent at $113,527 while ether fell 1.3 per cent to $4,303.89. (Reporting by Jaspreet Kalra in Mumbai and Ankur Banerjee in SingaporeEditing by Shri Navaratnam, Aidan Lewis, Toby Chopra)
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
How Christian Zionism became a key force in U.S. politics
Christian Zionism — the belief that the modern state of Israel fulfills biblical prophecy — has existed as a theological concept for well over a century. But in the past couple decades its political power and influence in the United States has surged, with many of Donald Trump's closest political allies among its adherents. Today we're taking a look at the theological roots of Christian Zionism, how it became a political force in America, and its impacts on U.S.-Israel policy. Our guest is Daniel Hummel, the author of Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, and U.S.-Israeli Relations. For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: Subscribe to Front Burner on your favourite podcast app. Listen on Apple Podcasts Listen on Spotify Listen on YouTube
Globe and Mail
5 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. places sanctions on four ICC officials, including Canadian
The United States has issued new sanctions against senior officials with the International Criminal Court, including against a Canadian jurist, threatening to increase friction between Ottawa and Washington as trade talks continue. The U.S. sanctioned two of the court's deputy prosecutors as well as two judges, a French jurist and Kimberly Prost, a University of Manitoba graduate who spent nearly two decades with Justice Canada before moving overseas. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the court 'a national security threat that has been an instrument for lawfare against the United States and our close ally Israel.' The ICC has 125 member countries, including Canada – but not the U.S. or Israel. Opinion: Canada must come off the sidelines of international justice Nearly 150 Canadians held in ICE custody this year, including two toddlers, data show Mr. Rubio faulted Ms. Prost for ruling in favour of an investigation into U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. She was one of five judges who decided unanimously in 2020 to authorize an investigation into war crimes committed in Afghanistan by the Taliban, Afghan forces and members of the U.S. military and Central Intelligence Agency, which operated secret detention facilities. Canada has been a leading supporter of The Hague-based court, with Canadians occupying pivotal roles in the negotiations toward its establishment in 2002. Ottawa has also provided considerable financial backing. Ms. Prost is the second Canadian to serve as a judge on the ICC. The Donald Trump administration has criticized the court for overstepping its bounds by issuing a war crimes arrest warrant for Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu and investigating U.S. military conduct. The new U.S. measures, which build on sanctions against four ICC judges in June, raise a raft of potential issues for those named as well as institutional issues for the court in dealings with financial institutions, companies and groups with American ties. Mr. Trump also directed sanctions toward the court in his first term, but the scope of his actions this year goes well beyond what he has done previously, by sanctioning judges in addition to prosecutors. 'This is incredibly disturbing,' said Sara Ochs, a legal scholar at Elon University who has written on the U.S. relationship with the ICC. Those judges 'were merely following their judicial obligations and authorizing investigations pursuant to guidelines set forth in the Court's governing legislation,' she said. 'To me, this clearly shows the administration's position on international criminal justice, which is that the powerful should be able to avoid accountability for even the worst crimes.' It also raises a new set of complications for Canadian leadership, which is in the midst of trade talks with a Trump administration that has shown a willingness to respond with economic punishment to non-trade issues. Prime Minister Mark Carney 'is going to have to be pretty careful here in how he responds,' said John Boscariol, an international trade lawyer with McCarthy Tétrault. Any reaction will need to be weighed against how it 'might impact ongoing negotiations for a trade deal.' The International Criminal Court is a permanent judicial body tasked with investigating and prosecuting some of humanity's worst conduct, but its lofty ideals have often clashed with the interests of individual countries, including those who are signatories to the Rome Statute that established the court. Earlier this year, Hungary said it would withdraw from the court, after its Prime Minister, Viktor Orban, declared that the arrest warrant against Mr. Netanyahu would have 'no effect' on Hungarian soil. Last year, too, Mongolia ignored an ICC arrest warrant for Russian President Vladimir Putin stemming from the invasion of Ukraine. Earlier this year, Italy did the same, freeing a Libyan wanted for war crimes. 'States' compliance with the International Criminal Court is poor at best. This is not only the United States,' said Mark Drumbl, director of the Transnational Law Institute at Washington and Lee University. Those working with the ICC, meanwhile, should not have been surprised that powerful countries would respond to the court's actions, said Prof. Drumbl, who is Canadian. 'You're a high-profile institution targeting national leaders and accusing them of war crimes. You don't think this is going to have blowback?' he said. 'To be shocked that this happened strikes me as a little bit of pearl-clutching.' Mr. Rubio, on Wednesday urged other countries to oppose the work of the court, which he called a 'bankrupt institution.' U.S. allies should keep in mind that for many, their 'freedom was purchased at the price of great American sacrifices,' he said. France, however, declared its 'unwavering support' for the ICC, while the court itself decried what it called an affront to 'the rules-based international order and, above all, millions of innocent victims across the world.' Neither Ms. Prost nor Global Affairs Canada responded to requests for comment. Canada already has in place the Foreign Extraterritorial Measures Act which allows the Attorney-General, in tandem with the Foreign Minister, to prohibit people in Canada from abiding by certain foreign sanctions. That law has been most commonly used with companies connected to Cuba, which has spent decades under a U.S. economic embargo but remains a Canadian trading partner. The ICC sanctions 'should be interpreted as a really hostile act' to all countries that support the court, said Jens Iverson, an assistant professor in international legal studies at Leiden University who knows Ms. Prost. They should be seen as the U.S. 'abusing the power it happens to have because in the past it's been viewed as a rule of law country,' he said. 'The question is what friends of the court are going to do,' he added, and whether those countries 'have other priorities than defending the rule of law, the court and their own nationals.'
