WASHINGTON, August 20— The United States has enacted a stricter policy for those seeking to live and work in the country, with officials announcing new screening measures for “anti-Americanism.”
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) mentioned that officers would now consider whether an applicant has “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist, or antisemitic views when evaluating applications for benefits like a green card. This development has sparked concern among critics who worry it gives officers too much leeway and opens the door to subjective judgment.
Matthew Tragesser, a spokesperson for USCIS, said in a statement that “America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies.” He added, “Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.” The new directive, however, does not specify what constitutes “anti-Americanism,” and it remains unclear how or when the policy will be applied.
The Centre for Immigration Studies’ Elizabeth Jacobs, a group that advocates for immigration restrictions, noted that the government is being more explicit about the behaviors and practices officers should consider.
She mentioned that the new directive does not mandate a denial but instead instructs officers to “consider it as a negative discretion.” However, critics expressed concern that the policy update will allow officers’ personal biases to influence their decisions. Jane Lilly Lopez, an associate professor of sociology at Brigham Young University, noted that the policy is “opening the door for stereotypes and prejudice and implicit bias to take the wheel in these decisions.” She called the development “really worrisome.”
The new policy follows other changes implemented during the current administration, including the recent addition of social media vetting and the assessment of “good moral character” for naturalization applicants. This “good moral character” evaluation will now consider not only an applicant’s lack of misconduct but also their positive attributes and contributions.
Lopez mentioned that this change means applicants will have “a whole lot more work to provide evidence that you meet our standards.”
Legal experts hold differing views on the constitutionality of the policy regarding the free speech rights of non-citizens. Jacobs said that First Amendment rights do not extend to people who are not U.S. citizens or are outside the country.
However, Ruby Robinson, a senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Centre, noted that the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution protect all people within the United States, regardless of their immigration status, from government infringement. Robinson added that “a lot of this administration’s activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts.”
Immigration attorneys are advising their clients to adjust their expectations. Jaime Diez, a Texas-based immigration attorney, mentioned that people “need to understand that we have a different system today and a lot more things that apply to US citizens are not going to apply to somebody who’s trying to enter the United States.” Jonathan Grode, managing partner of Green and Spiegel immigration law firm, commented that the policy update was not unexpected given the administration’s approach to immigration.
He said, “This is what was elected. They’re allowed to interpret the rules the way they want.” Grode concluded by saying, “The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.”
