Latest news with #OathofAllegiance
Hindustan Times
6 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
USCIS tightens focus on ‘good moral character' for citizenship applicants: Here's what it means
The US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is bringing a major policy shift that lays focus on holistic and rigorous approaches when evaluating the 'good moral character' (GMC) of foreigners applying for citizenship there. Titled Restoring a Rigorous, Holistic, and Comprehensive Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization, the memo seeks to change how USCIS officials treat GMC. Image for representation(Unsplash) As per the USCIS, 'good moral character' is one of the requirements for naturalization. 'An applicant for naturalization must show that he or she has been, and continues to be, a person of good moral character. In general, the applicant must show GMC during the five-year period immediately preceding his or her application for naturalization and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance. Conduct prior to the five-year period may also impact whether the applicant meets the requirement,' the USCIS announcement reads. What are the changes USCIS has made to GMC rules The USCIS put out a policy memorandum on August 15, detailing changes in how 'good moral character' will be evaluated. Titled Restoring a Rigorous, Holistic, and Comprehensive Good Moral Character Evaluation Standard for Aliens Applying for Naturalization, it seeks to change how USCIS officials treat GMC. Now, it won't just be a checklist of disqualifying offenses. Rather, it will be a 'totality of circumstances', which includes negative conduct and positive contributions. 'Going forward, USCIS officers must account for an alien's positive attributes and not simply the absence of misconduct,' the memo reads. 'In evaluating whether or not an alien has met the requirement of establishing GMC the Officer must take a holistic approach in evaluating whether or not an alien seeking naturalization has affirmatively established that he or she has met their burden of establishing that they are worthy of assuming the rights and responsibilities of United States Citizenship,' it continues. USCIS officials have been directed to put greater emphasis on an alien's positive attributes and contributions to determine GMC. These include, but aren't limited to – Sustained community involvement and contributions in the United States, educational attainment, family caregiving, responsibility, and ties in the US, stable and lawful employment history and achievements, compliance with tax obligations and financial responsibility there, and length of lawful residence in the United States. Meanwhile, officials have also been asked to place greater attention on if an alien has 'engaged in any behavior or act that disqualifies the alien from being found to be a person of good moral character'. Among these are permanent bars to GMC, like murder, aggravated felony, genocide. There can also be conditional bars to GMC like controlled substances violations and fals claims to US citizenship, among others. The memo also said USCIS will focus more on ensuring that aliens who engaged in wrongdoing are properly rehabilitated and reformed. 'Consistent with the totality of circumstances approach, evidence of genuine rehabilitation may support a finding of GMC,' it reads. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) also gave an example on X. "Everyone who applies for naturalization must truthfully answer a series of questions to show that they have the good moral character required to become a U.S. citizen. One of the questions is, 'Have you ever committed a crime or offense for which you were not arrested?', the agency wrote.
Mint
2 days ago
- Politics
- Mint
Trump admin tightens citizenship rules, USCIS expands scope of ‘good moral character'
The Trump administration is indicating it will examine applications from legal immigrants seeking US citizenship more closely, as part of its latest move to restrict access to immigration benefits. The federal agency responsible for legal immigration, US Citizenship and Immigration Services, asked officers on Friday to consider additional factors when assessing whether immigrants applying for US citizenship possess a 'good moral character," according to a report by CBS News. A USCIS notification states that, 'One of the requirements for naturalisation is good moral character (GMC). An applicant for naturalisation must show that he or she has been, and continues to be, a person of good moral character.' The notice further added, 'In general, the applicant must show GMC during the five-year period immediately preceding his or her application for naturalisation and up to the time of the Oath of Allegiance. Conduct prior to the five-year period may also impact whether the applicant meets the requirement.' Reflecting "a good moral character" has always been a key requirement for US citizenship, in addition to passing English and civics tests. Earlier, the "good moral character" assessment typically consisted of an applicant who did not have any record of criminal offences or disqualifying conduct specified in US laws. It included crimes such as murder, aggravated felonies, drug offences and being a habitual drunkard. However, USCIS's policy issued Friday widened the scope of 'good moral character.' The agency stated that it must involve "more than a cursory mechanical review focused on the absence of wrongdoing." The officers have been asked to conduct a 'holistic assessment of an alien's behaviour, adherence to societal norms, and positive contributions that affirmatively demonstrate good moral character.' Applicants will be given "greater emphasis" based on "positive attributes and contributions," such as community involvement, family caregiving and ties, educational achievement, "stable and lawful" employment, duration of residence in the US, and tax payment history. The new USCIS policy instructs officers to consider factors that indicate an applicant's rehabilitation after wrongdoing, such as adherence to probation, paying overdue taxes or child support, and receiving community support letters.
Newsweek
25-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Trump Admin Reveals Planned Changes to US Citizenship Test, H-1B Visas
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The new director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service (USCIS) said Friday that the U.S. citizenship test is too easy and needs to be changed. Joseph Edlow told The New York Times that the Trump administration was also looking at making changes to the H-1B work visa, which has been at the center of the legal immigration debate for several months now. "I really do think that the way H-1B needs to be used, and this is one of my favorite phrases, is to, along with a lot of other parts of immigration, supplement, not supplant, U.S. economy and U.S. businesses and U.S. workers," Edlow told the Times. Why It Matters The Trump administration has previously given little indication of plans to update or modernize the legal immigration system, focusing on illegal immigration enforcement instead for much of its first six months. Edlow's comments mark a change in messaging from USCIS as it seeks to further deliver on President Donald Trump's immigration agenda. New US citizens recite the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2025. New US citizens recite the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago, Illinois, on June 25, 2025. KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images What To Know Edlow said that he felt the U.S. citizenship test was "not very difficult" right now, and allowed immigrants seeking to naturalize to easily memorize the questions and answers. He argued this was not really "comporting with the spirit of the law". The test was largely random and non-standardized before 2008, when the Bush administration introduced a standardized civics test that required applicants to correctly answer six out of 10 questions, out of a possible 100. During the first Trump administration, that number was raised to 128, and the number of correct answers to 12 out of 20, before the Biden administration switched it back in March 2021 and a planned redesign announced in the last few years was canned after largely negative feedback in late 2024. Edlow told the Times that USCIS plans to return to a 2020-era style test soon. As for the H-1B visa, which has been widely criticized as being used by companies favoring foreign workers on low wages over American-born employees, Edlow said there was a place for the program, but it should favor companies paying higher wages instead. It was recently revealed that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees USCIS, was looking at changing the current lottery-style system for H-1B selection and replacing it with a "weighted selection process" that would help with Edlow's approach. In January, the Institute for Progress, a nonpartisan think tank examining innovation policy, floated the idea of eliminating the H-1B lottery. It argued that the economic value of the visa program could be increased by 88 percent if applicants were evaluated based on seniority or salary. Despite the America-first messaging from the White House and those within the MAGA movement wanting to see all immigration cut off, Edlow made it clear in his interview that immigration could benefit the U.S. if managed correctly. What People Are Saying David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, told Newsweek: "Assigning H-1B visas only to the highest wage offers would favor older workers who may retire or leave the country, while eliminating the main path for college grads to stay in America. "It's strange to say that the test is easy when it's a test most Americans would fail." Edlow, in his interview with the Times: "I think it absolutely should be a net positive, and if we're looking at the people that are coming over, that are especially coming over to advance certain economic agendas that we have and otherwise benefit the national interest — that's absolutely what we need to be taking care of." Connor O'Brien, a researcher at the Economic Innovation Group, previously told Newsweek: "The H-1B is the primary way through which we bring in skilled immigrants and we only have 85,000 visas to give away each year. Giving away these visas randomly is an enormous, missed opportunity to attract truly scarce talent that would benefit American businesses and communities." What's Next USCIS cannot technically change the way it issues visas or runs the citizenship test without getting permission from other agencies or even Congress, where lawmakers are proposing bipartisan changes to the immigration system overall.
Atlantic
20-07-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Naturalized Citizens Are Scared
On a bookshelf near my desk, I still have the souvenir United States flag that I received during my naturalization ceremony, in 1994. I remember a tenderhearted judge got emotional as the room full of immigrants swore the Oath of Allegiance and that, afterward, my family took me to Burgerville to celebrate. The next morning, my teacher asked me to explain to my classmates—all natural-born Americans—how I felt about becoming a citizen at age 13. One girl had a question: 'So Chris can never be president?' I wasn't worried about becoming president—I just wanted to get to the computer lab, where we were free to slaughter squirrels in The Oregon Trail. But her question revealed that even kids know there are two kinds of citizens: the ones who are born here, and the ones like me. The distinction is written into the Constitution, a one-line fissure that Donald Trump used to crack open the country: 'Now we have to look at it,' Trump said, after compelling Barack Obama to release his birth certificate in 2011. 'Is it real? Is it proper?' Nearly 25 million naturalized citizens live in the U.S., and we are accustomed to extra scrutiny. I expect supplemental questions on medical forms, close inspection at border crossings, and bureaucratic requests to see my naturalization certificate. But I had never doubted that my U.S. citizenship was permanent, and that I was guaranteed the same rights of speech, assembly, and due process as natural-born Americans. Now I'm not so sure. Last month, the Department of Justice released a civil-enforcement memo listing the denaturalization of U.S. citizens as a top-five priority and pledging to 'maximally pursue' all viable cases, including people who are 'a potential danger to national security' and, more vague, anyone 'sufficiently important to pursue.' President Trump has suggested that targets could include citizens whom he views as his political enemies, such as Zohran Mamdani, the New York City mayoral candidate who was born in Uganda and naturalized in 2018: 'A lot of people are saying he's here illegally,' Trump said. 'We're going to look at everything.' Looking at everything can be unnerving for naturalized citizens. Our document trails can span decades and continents. Thankfully, I was naturalized as a child, before I had much background to check, before the internet, before online surveillance. I was born in Brazil, in 1981, during the twilight of its military dictatorship, and transplanted to the United States as a baby through a byzantine international-adoption process. My birth mother had no way of knowing for sure what awaited me, but she understood that her child would have a better chance in the 'land of the free.' I don't consider myself 'a potential danger to national security' or 'sufficiently important to pursue,' but I also don't believe that American security is threatened by international students, campus protesters, or undocumented people selling hot dogs at Home Depot. I'm a professor who writes critically about American power, I believe in civil disobedience, and I support my students when they exercise their freedom of conscience. Because I was naturalized as a child, I didn't have to take the famous civics test—I was still learning that stuff in school. I just rolled my fingertips in wet ink and held still for a three-quarter-profile photograph that revealed my nose shape, ear placement, jawline, and forehead contour. My parents sat beside me for an interview with an immigration officer who asked me my name, where I lived, and who took care of me. But these days, I wonder a lot about that civics test. It consists of 10 questions, selected from a list of 100, on the principles of democracy, our system of government, our rights and responsibilities, and milestones in American history. The test is oral; an official asks questions in deliberately slow, even tones, checking the responses against a list of sanctioned answers. Applicants need to get only six answers correct in order to pass. Democracy is messy, but this test is supposed to be easy. However, so much has changed in the past few years that I'm not sure how a prospective citizen would answer those questions today. Are the correct answers to the test still true of the United States? What does the Constitution do? The Constitution protects the basic rights of Americans. One of the Constitution's bedrock principles can be traced back to a revision that Thomas Jefferson made to an early draft of the Declaration of Independence, replacing 'our fellow subjects' with 'our fellow citizens.' As with constitutional theories of executive power, theories of citizenship are subject to interpretation. Chief Justice Earl Warren distilled the concept as 'the right to have rights.' His Court deemed the revocation of citizenship cruel and unusual, tantamount to banishment, 'a form of punishment more primitive than torture.' By testing the constitutional rights of citizenship on two fronts—attempting to denaturalize Americans and to strip away birthright citizenship—Trump is claiming the power of a king to banish his subjects. In the United States, citizens choose the president. The president does not choose citizens What is the ' rule of law'? Nobody is above the law. Except, perhaps, the president, who is immune from criminal prosecution for official acts performed while in office. Trump is distorting that principle by directing the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and ICE to enforce his own vision of the law without regard for constitutional norms. Civil law is more malleable than criminal law, with fewer assurances of due process and a lower burden of proof. ICE raids rely on kinetic force to fill detention cells. Denaturalization cases can rely on stealthy legal proceedings. In 2018, the Trump administration stripped a man of his citizenship. He was married to a U.S. citizen and had been naturalized for 12 years. The administration accused him of fraudulently using an alias to apply for his papers after having been ordered to leave the country. In an article for the American Bar Association, two legal scholars argued that this was more likely the result of a bureaucratic mix-up. Whatever the truth of the matter, the summons was served to an old address, and the man lost his citizenship without ever having had the chance to defend himself in a hearing. The DOJ is signaling an aggressive pursuit of denaturalization that could lead to more cases like these. In the most extreme scenarios, Americans could be banished to a country where they have no connection or even passing familiarity with the language or culture. What stops one branch of government from becoming too powerful? Checks and balances. Denaturalization efforts may fail in federal court, but the Trump administration has a habit of acting first and answering to judges later. When courts do intervene, a decision can take weeks or months, and the Supreme Court recently ruled that federal judges lack the authority to order nationwide injunctions while they review an individual case. FBI and ICE investigations, however, can be opened quickly and have been accelerated by new surveillance technologies. How far might a Trump administration unbound by the courts go? Few people foresaw late-night deportation flights to El Salvador, the deployment of U.S. Marines to Los Angeles, a U.S. senator thrown to the ground and handcuffed by FBI agents for speaking out during a Department of Homeland Security press conference. To many Americans who have roots in countries with an authoritarian government, these events don't seem so alien. What is one right or freedom from the First Amendment? Speech. And all the rights that flow from it: Assembly. Religion. Press. Petitioning the government. During the McCarthy era, the Department of Justice targeted alleged anarchists and Communists for denaturalization, scrutinizing the years well before and after they had arrived in the U.S. for evidence of any lack of 'moral character,' which could include gambling, drunkenness, or affiliation with labor unions. From 1907 to 1967, more than 22,000 Americans were denaturalized. Even if only a handful of people are stripped of their citizenship in the coming years, it would be enough to chill the speech of countless naturalized citizens, many of whom are already cautious about exercising their First Amendment rights. The mere prospect of a lengthy, costly, traumatic legal proceeding is enough to induce silence. What are two ways that Americans can participate in their democracy? Help with a campaign. Publicly support or oppose an issue or policy. If, apparently, it's the 'proper' campaign, issue, or policy. What movement tried to end racial discrimination? The civil-rights movement. The question of who has the right to have rights is as old as our republic. Since the Constitutional Convention, white Americans have fiercely debated the citizenship rights of Indigenous Americans, Black people, and women. The Fourteenth Amendment, which established birthright citizenship, and equal protection under the law for Black Americans, was the most transformative outcome of the Civil War. Until 1940, an American woman who married a foreign-born man could be stripped of her citizenship. Only through civil unrest and civil disobedience did the long arc of the moral universe bend toward justice. The 1964 Civil Rights Act opened the door for the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which ended the national-origin quotas that had limited immigration from Asia, Africa, and the Caribbean. The act 'corrects a cruel and enduring wrong in the conduct of the American Nation,' President Lyndon B. Johnson said as he signed the immigration bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty. The possibility of multiracial democracy emerged from the civil-rights movement and the laws that followed. Turning back the clock on race and citizenship, and stoking fears about the blood of America, is a return to injustice and cruelty. What is one promise you make when you become a United States citizen? To support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Now Americans like me have to wonder if we can hold true to that promise, or whether speaking up for the Constitution could jeopardize our citizenship.
Newsweek
16-07-2025
- Politics
- Newsweek
Green Card Holders Handed Big Legal Win Amid Trump Administration Crackdown
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that the Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot unilaterally revoke a green card, calling the government's approach "antithetical" to the separation of powers and a violation of Congress' authority in a case pertaining to a lawful permanent resident. A DOJ spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by Newsweek on Wednesday. Newsweek has contacted the petitioner's counsel for comment via email. Why It Matters The court's decision pushes back on the Trump administration's desire to be able to reconsider and potentially revoke an individual's lawful permanent residency, which could have sweeping implications for millions of permanent residents. President Donald Trump has pledged to launch the largest mass deportation operation in U.S. history, and immigrants residing in the country illegally and legally, with valid documentation such as green cards and visas, have been detained. Newsweek has reported dozens of cases involving green-card holders and applicants who were swept up in the immigration raids and various arrests. A Customs and Border Protection warning published on July 9 said, "Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right." It added that legal residents arriving at a port of entry with prior criminal convictions may be detained in advance of removal proceeding. A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25. A new U.S. citizen waiting to take the Oath of Allegiance before receiving their naturalization certificates during a formal ceremony at Midway International Airport in Chicago on June 25. KAMIL KRZACZYNSKI/AFP via Getty Images What To Know In a Tuesday ruling, a court said the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which is part of the DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review, lacked the authority to unilaterally revoke the legal permanent status of Mohammad Qatanani, a longtime New Jersey imam. Qatanani, who is Palestinian, has spent more than two decades seeking permanent residency in the United States. In 1996, he was admitted to the U.S. on a work visa, and three years later he applied to adjust his status to a lawful permanent resident. However, federal officials cited alleged ties to Hamas, allegations that Qatanani has denied. "An Immigration Judge twice made fact findings and credibility determinations in Qatanani's favor and granted his application to adjust to LPR status. The IJ issued those orders in 2008 and 2020, respectively," the case said. However, the 2008 order never became final because the Department of Homeland Security appealed, and the BIA vacated it. Although DHS did not appeal the second ruling within the required 30 days, the BIA later ordered Qatanani's removal, a decision he appealed. Tuesday's opinion, written by Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, said, "The BIA exceeded its authority when it attempted to undo Qatanani's adjustment to LPR status by using an agency regulation in a manner inconsistent with the procedures set out by Congress in the [Immigration and Nationality Act]," adding that it came long after the 30-day period. Freeman continued, "Accordingly, we granted Qatanani's petition for review and vacated the BIA's order," thereby asserting that the immigration judge's 2020 order granting Qatanani permanent residency was upheld. Later in the opinion, she wrote: "The implications of this [the Justice Department's] argument are extraordinary. Under this reading of agency authority, the government has carte blanche to evade the limits Congress imposed on the Executive's discretionary authority over adjustments to LPR status and to circumvent the procedures Congress mandated for recission of such adjustments." Freeman continued: "The government's position is antithetical to 'the basic concept of separation of powers.' … We therefore reject it." Judge Paul Matey, whom Trump appointed to the court, wrote in his dissent, "For more than a quarter century, five Presidents and 10 Attorneys General have objected to Mohammad Qatanani's presence in our Nation." He concluded, "Seeing no constitutional claim or legal question that warrants granting the petition, and mindful we lack jurisdiction to review the Executive's discretionary decision not to grant Qatanani a status adjustment, I would deny the petition and so respectfully dissent." What People Are Saying Amelia Wilson, an assistant professor of law and the director of the Immigration Justice Clinic at Pace University, told Newsweek: "Under Trump, the Department of Justice has repeatedly sought to usurp Congressional lawmaking authority, rewrite the Constitution, and upset the balance of power. The judiciary's duty is to safeguard the people against such abusive government conduct and Executive overreach. The Third Circuit did just that yesterday by guaranteeing that, at least for now, the Department must observe the basic mandates of due process." Bradford Bernstein, a managing partner at Spar Bernstein, previously told Newsweek: "In this case, the government is arguing that it can revoke a green card years or even decades after it was granted, based solely on a claim that an immigration judge did not complete all the administrative steps required to finalize the grant of permanent residency. The immigrant involved was granted a green card by a judge, and the government failed to appeal within the standard 30-day window. Under well-established legal principles, that decision should be considered final. Yet the government now claims that because of a procedural oversight by the judge or the immigration service, it can still rescind the green card long after the fact." Customs and Border Protection wrote on X on July 8: "Having a criminal history does not make you an upstanding lawful permanent resident. Possessing a green card is a privilege, not a right. Under our nation's laws, our government has the authority to revoke your green card if our laws are broken and abused. In addition to immigration removal proceedings, lawful permanent residents presenting at a U.S. port of entry with previous criminal convictions may be subject to mandatory detention." U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services wrote on X on May 5: "Green cards and visas will be revoked if an alien breaks the law, supports terrorism, overstays their permitted visit time, performs illegal work, or anything else that violates the terms on which we granted them this privilege or compromises the safety of our fellow Americans." What Happens Next The BIA's order has been vacated against Qatanani and maintains that he is a lawful permanent resident.
