ֱ

Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening

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’. (Reuters)
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’. (Reuters)
Short Url
Updated 20 August 2025

Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening

Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening
  • 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

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.
US 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 US 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 US citizens and their freedom of speech. Jacobs, of the Center for Immigration Studies, said First Amendment rights do not extend to people outside the US or who are not US citizens.
Ruby Robinson, senior managing attorney with the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center, believes the Bill of Rights and the US 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 US 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.”


French politicians accused of Islamophobia amid row over schoolgirls’ parliament visit

French politicians accused of Islamophobia amid row over schoolgirls’ parliament visit
Updated 5 sec ago

French politicians accused of Islamophobia amid row over schoolgirls’ parliament visit

French politicians accused of Islamophobia amid row over schoolgirls’ parliament visit
  • Parliament speaker and other MPs condemn wearing of hijab inside National Assembly’s public gallery
  • Opponents say the girls did not breach France’s strict laws on religious symbols at school

LONDON: The latest row surrounding France’s ban on religious symbols at school has erupted after a group of Muslim schoolgirls visited the National Assembly wearing hijabs.

Yael Braun-Pivet, the assembly’s speaker and a member of President Emmanuel Macron’s centrist Renaissance Party, said the girls’ visit to the public gallery was “unacceptable” under the country’s secularist laws.

But other MPs hit back, accusing Braun-Pivet of Islamophobia and adopting the far-right strategy of using bans on religious clothing to target Muslims.

Students in public schools are banned from wearing religious symbols, including Christian crosses, Muslim headscarves, Jewish kippas and Sikh turbans. Civil servants face similar restrictions.

In 2023, France also banned students from wearing the abaya in public schools.

Images of the girls’ visit to the lower house of the French parliament on Wednesday were shared on social media and quickly went viral.

Braun-Pivet wrote on X: “At the very heart of the National Assembly, where the 2004 law on secularism in schools was voted, it seems to me unacceptable that young children can wear conspicuous religious symbols in the galleries … This is a question of the coherence of the republic.”

Some centrist and right-wing politicians joined in with the outcry, including Julien Odoul, an MP from the populist right-wing National Rally, who described the images as a “vile provocation.”

Others, however, said the criticism amounted to Islamophobia. Paul Vannier of the far-left France Unbowed party said Braun-Pivet “misunderstands the principle of secularism and, like the far right, she is instrumentalizing it against our Muslim fellow-citizens.” 

“That she targets young children who came to visit our Assembly adds to the ignominy and the stain that her Islamophobic statement constitutes,” he wrote on X.

Marine Tondelier, leader of the Greens, said that the National Assembly’s rules did not prohibit women from wearing the hijab in the public gallery.

“But if it prohibited Islamophobia, many politicians could no longer enter,” she added.

Amid the row, politicians clashed over whether the school ban on religious symbols included school outings. 

“They are part of school time and the same rules apply,” Gerard Larcher, the conservative speaker of the Senate, the upper house of the French parliament, was quoted as saying in The Times.

France’s strict secular rules are often the source of fierce debate in the country.

The government has long been accused of using the laws to target the Muslim community.