Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
Immigrants seeking legal residency or work authorization in the United States will now face scrutiny for “anti-Americanism,” U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announced Tuesday, a move that supporters say protects national values but critics fear could allow bias to shape life-changing decisions.
The new policy directs immigration officers to weigh whether applicants have “endorsed, promoted, supported, or otherwise espoused” anti-American, terrorist or antisemitic views when considering benefits such as green cards.
“America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies,” USCIS spokesman Matthew Tragesser said in a statement. “Immigration benefits—including to live and work in the United States—remain a privilege, not a right.”
Background on Policy Shift
The directive follows other steps by the Trump administration to tighten immigration scrutiny, including expanded social media vetting and updated standards for assessing “good moral character” in naturalization cases. Those changes require applicants to demonstrate not just an absence of misconduct, but also positive contributions to society.
Elizabeth Jacobs, director of regulatory affairs at the Center for Immigration Studies, a group favoring immigration restrictions, said the new guidance makes explicit the behaviors that could count against applicants. But she acknowledged it still leaves room for discretion.
“The agency cannot tell officers that they have to deny—just to consider it as a negative discretion,” Jacobs said.
Concerns Over Subjectivity
Immigration advocates and academics worry the rule could leave applicants vulnerable to subjective interpretations of “anti-Americanism.”
“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, a sociology professor at Brigham Young University.
Attorneys echoed that concern, warning clients to prepare for higher evidentiary standards. “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 in Brownsville, Texas.
Legal Debate on Free Speech
Experts disagree over whether the policy infringes on constitutional rights. Jacobs argued that First Amendment protections do not extend to noncitizens outside U.S. borders.
But Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, countered that constitutional protections apply to anyone on U.S. soil. “A lot of this administration’s activities infringe on constitutional rights and do need to be resolved, ultimately, in courts,” he said.
Broader Context
The move aligns with Trump’s broader immigration philosophy, which critics describe as narrowing eligibility and shrinking “the strike zone.”
“This is what was elected,” said Jonathan Grode, managing partner of the immigration law firm Green and Spiegel. “They’re allowed to interpret the rules the way they want. The policy always to them is to shrink the strike zone. The law is still the same.”
What’s Next
It remains unclear how officers will define or document “anti-Americanism,” and how often the new guidance will be cited in denials. For now, attorneys and advocates expect the policy to face legal challenges, particularly over its potential clash with free speech protections.
