C-3 Citizenship: My Submission Arguing for the need for a time limit
2025/09/29 Leave a comment
Most Canadians favour scaling back immigration and temporary resident numbers, poll shows
2025/09/11 Leave a comment
Not surprising given coverage over some of the issues:
…Almost three-quarters of Canadians favour reducing the number of new immigrants coming here, while two-thirds support the government’s plan to cut the number of temporary residents, a new poll shows.
The Nanos poll for The Globe and Mail found that Canadians are more than twice as likely to support reducing the number of new immigrants coming to Canada, compared with those who oppose a cut.
More than three in five Canadians support or somewhat support the government reducing its targets for temporary residents until 2027, as set out in its levels plan last year, the poll also found.
The new survey demonstrates a steady hardening of views on immigration in the past few years. In 2023, 53 per cent of Canadians surveyed in a Nanos poll for The Globe said they wanted the federal government to accept fewer immigrants than it was planning that year.
The 2023 poll found a rise of almost 20 percentage points over six months earlier in the number of Canadians who thought this country should accept fewer immigrants than Ottawa’s 2023 target of 465,000 permanent residents.
The most recent survey of 1,028 Canadians, conducted between Aug. 30 and Sept. 3, showed support for cuts in numbers of newcomers across all age groups and regions of Canada.
“What is clear from the research is that a comfortable majority of Canadians are good with reducing the number of new immigrants and new temporary residents,” said Nik Nanos, chief data scientist and founder of Nanos Research….
Source: Most Canadians favour scaling back immigration and temporary resident numbers, poll shows
Canadian Immigration Tracker First Quarter 2025
2025/09/02 Leave a comment
My regular update on key immigration programs. Given the various articles on whether or not the government is meeting the reductions announced earlier, here is where we stand for January to June for the current and previous two years:
Permanent residents admissions: From 255,015 in 2024 to 207,510 in 2025, decline 18.6 percent, (from 2023, decline 21 percent), about 50 percent of 2025 target
TR2PR (Those already in Canada): From 148,020 in 2024 to 126,365 in 2025, decline of 14.6 percent (from 2023, decline 13 percent).
TRs-IMP: From 420,070 in 2024 to 295,505 in 2025, decline of 29.7 percent (from 2023, decline 23.4 percent), already exceeds 2025 target
TRs-TFWP: From 110,910 in 2024 to 106,105 in 2025, decline of 4.3 percent (from 2023, decline 7.2 percent), already exceeds 2025 target for both agriculture and non-agriculture workers
Students: From 248,820 in 2024 to 152,775 in 2025, decline of 38.6 percent (from 2023, increase 26.1 percent), about 50 percent of 2025 target (likely to overshoot given third quarter has highest number of admissions (between 40-45 percent for post-secondary albeit only 34 percent in 2024)
Asylum Claimants: From 93,315 in 2024 to 57,810 in 2025, decline of 38 percent (from 2023, decline 3.7 percent)
Citizenship: From 205,363 in 2024 to 151,804 in 2025, decline of 26.1 percent (from 2023, decline 14.2 percent)
Visitor Visas: From 868,234 in 2024 to 568,195, decline of 34.6 percent (from 2023, decline 40.5 percent)
Davis: When citizenship becomes a test and the tester is morally bankrupt
2025/08/29 Leave a comment
Strong and largely valid critique:
In August, journalist Mirandaa Jeyaretnam of TIME reported the Trump administration had expanded its definition of “good moral character” for citizenship applicants. The new policy directs U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services to apply a “holistic” standard that screens not just for criminal history, but for subjective notions of “anti-Americanism,” including applicants’ social media posts, political opinions and community affiliations.
USCIS even stated that “America’s benefits should not be given to those who despise the country and promote anti-American ideologies.” It is an extraordinary claim — not because citizenship should be cheapened, but because the arbiter is a president whose own moral record is anything but exemplary.
How can a leader with such a fractured moral compass sit in judgment of immigrants’ character? Worse, how can we allow the immigration system — long a pillar of America’s identity — to be transformed into an ideological loyalty test?
The return of the ‘Test’
This is not the first time America has demanded citizens prove their worthiness through arbitrary exams. History offers chilling parallels:
- Literacy tests — Introduced across the Jim Crow South, these tests were ostensibly neutral but were weaponized against Black Americans. Registrars could pass or fail applicants at will, asking absurd questions such as “How many bubbles are in a bar of soap?” The intent was clear: Disenfranchisement.
- Poll taxes — The requirement to pay a tax before voting disproportionately excluded Black citizens and poor whites. The 24th Amendment (1964) finally outlawed poll taxes in federal elections, and the U.S. Supreme Court extended the ban nationwide.
- The Boswell Amendment (1946, Alabama) — This law required prospective voters to “understand and explain” any section of the U.S. Constitution. Of course, registrars decided whether explanations were “good enough.” In Schnell v. Davis (1949), the Supreme Court struck it down, citing its discriminatory intent.
Each of these so-called “tests” was justified in the language of fairness, education or public order. In practice, they served to exclude people deemed undesirable by those in power. Today’s expanded “good moral character” standard belongs to this lineage of exclusionary devices. It is not about uplifting the nation; it is about narrowing it.
What ‘good moral character’ really means
For decades, USCIS has required naturalization applicants to show “good moral character.” Traditionally, this meant avoiding disqualifying offenses such as murder, aggravated felonies or repeated convictions. It was clear, factual and rooted in law.
“Under the Trump administration’s new directive, morality itself is being redefined.”
But under the Trump administration’s new directive, morality itself is being redefined. Applicants must not only avoid crime but also prove they possess “positive attributes,” such as stable employment, civic engagement and tax compliance. Officers are now instructed to weighconduct that may be “technically lawful” but still contrary to “average citizens’ behavior” in a given community.
That’s not a test of law — it’s a test of conformity.
And then comes the most troubling expansion: Screening for “anti-Americanism.” USCIS says it will investigate applicants’ support for “anti-American ideologies,” including antisemitism or pro-terrorist views. On paper, such goals sound defensible. But in practice, the term “anti-American” is undefined. Already, critics have documented how it has been applied to pro-Palestinian student activists, journalists and even lawful visa holders.
According to TIME, the Stanford Daily student newspaper has sued the administration, arguing the policy constitutes “thoughtcrime” and stifles free speech. As one immigration attorney put it: “Anyone who has any position that is against what the American government says they should think, they’re immediately labeled ‘anti-American.’”
The irony of the judge
This would be troubling under any administration. But under President Donald Trump, it is laced with bitter irony.
Here is a president who:
- Attempted to overturn an election result through false claims of fraud
- Was twice impeached — once for abuse of power and once for inciting an insurrection
- Faces multiple indictments for fraud, obstruction and conspiracy over 30,000 lies during his first presidency alone
- Publicly mocked military veterans, immigrants and even his own cabinet
- Has more than 30 felonies on his criminal record
And yet, he presumes to sit in judgment of others’ “moral character”? The absurdity cannot be overstated. Yet it’s only a glorious supernatural happening when many don’t see or fail to observe righteously these ungodly offenses.
A president who courts authoritarian leaders abroad, flouts norms at home and has a decades-long record of dishonesty is now dictating the morality of immigrants whose greatest offense may be criticizing American foreign policy online.
This is not moral leadership. It is moral theater — a dangerous masquerade.
Citizenship as ‘privilege’ vs. citizenship as right
USCIS spokesperson Matthew Tragesser declared: “Immigration benefits — including to live and work in the United States — remain a privilege, not a right.”
“Citizenship is not meant to be a privilege reserved for the elite or the ideologically pure.”
But history tells us otherwise. Birthright citizenship, enshrined in the 14th Amendment, was born out of the ashes of slavery. It was designed to guarantee full belonging to those once denied it. Citizenship is not meant to be a privilege reserved for the elite or the ideologically pure. It is a right grounded in America’s founding principle: equality before the law.
Trump already has tried to end birthright citizenship, raising alarms about dismantling constitutional guarantees. He has suggested denaturalizing U.S. citizens — even floating the idea of stripping Elon Musk of citizenship. A Justice Department memo in June directed officials to “maximize denaturalization proceedings.”
Imagine the precedent: Citizenship not as permanent, but as conditional — contingent on loyalty to a president’s worldview. What about Trump’s wife? Melania Trump’s immigration status (born Melanija Knavs of Slovenia) is that she came here on a work visa (an H-1B type and a green card) becoming a citizen in 2006. This is how the Einstein visa applies to a model?
That is not democracy. That is authoritarianism.
The slippery slope of ‘anti-Americanism’
The new directive makes “anti-Americanism” an “overwhelmingly negative factor.” Yet who defines “anti-American”?
Is criticizing U.S. foreign policy anti-American? What about supporting racial justice protests or writing a critical op-ed? Is being pro-Palestinian anti-American? The administration already has pledged to deport pro-Hamas students, conflating political dissent with terrorism.
By this logic, dissent itself becomes disloyalty. But dissent always has been America’s heartbeat — from abolitionists to suffragists to civil rights leaders.
If this policy had been in place in the 1960s, Martin Luther King Jr. — once accused of being a communist sympathizer — might have failed the test.
Lessons from history
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 abolished literacy tests, poll taxes and “understanding clauses” because they were subjective and discriminatory. They handed local officials the power to deny rights arbitrarily.
Today, USCIS officers hold similar discretion over immigrants’ futures. They can now decide not just whether an applicant obeys the law, but whether they “fit in.” That is not the rule of law — it is the rule of bias.
The same danger applies: selective enforcement, prejudice cloaked in procedure and systemic exclusion.
The real moral test
The true test of America’s character is not whether immigrants love us enough. It is whether we, as a nation, love our ideals enough to uphold them consistently.
If we allow subjective morality tests to dictate citizenship, we betray the very principles we claim to defend. We risk turning citizenship from a shield of equality into a weapon of conformity.
In the end, the question is not whether immigrants meet Trump’s definition of “good moral character.” The question is whether America can survive leaders who confuse moral judgment with political control.
Because when citizenship becomes a test — and the tester is morally bankrupt — it’s not immigrants who fail. It’s us.
Edmond W. Davis is a social historian, speaker, collegiate professor, international journalist and former director of the Derek Olivier Research Institute. He is an expert on various historical and emotional intelligence topics. He’s globally known for his work as a researcher regarding the history of the Tuskegee Airmen and Airwomen. He’s the founder of America’s first and only National HBCU Black Wall Street Career Fest.
Source: When citizenship becomes a test and the tester is morally bankrupt
USCIS Resumes Neighborhood Checks for Citizenship Applicants
2025/08/29 Leave a comment
Further erosion and reversals. Likely those targeted will reflect minorities also targeted by ICE:
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will once again conduct in-person “neighborhood checks” as part of the citizenship process, ending a decades-old waiver of the practice.
In a policy memo dated August 22 and released publicly on Tuesday, the agency said officers may now interview neighbors, coworkers, or employers of naturalization applicants to confirm eligibility for U.S. citizenship. The move restores a practice last used under the George H.W. Bush administration, more than 30 years ago.
What Naturalization Applicants Need to Know
Under the updated policy, USCIS officers will decide on a case-by-case basis whether to conduct a neighborhood investigation. These investigations could include reviewing testimonial letters or, in some cases, speaking directly with people who know the applicant.
This change ends the 34-year blanket waiver that applied to all cases. Instead, officers will now make decisions on a case-by-case basis. If an applicant provides strong supporting evidence up front, officers may still choose to waive the neighborhood investigation.
“The challenge is that officers now have wide discretion but little guidance,” said Erik Finch, a former USCIS officer and Boundless director of global operations. “Without clear standards, two applicants with nearly identical cases could face very different levels of scrutiny.”
In the memo, USCIS encourages applicants to submit testimonial letters from neighbors, employers, or community members. If the agency requests additional evidence and the applicant doesn’t provide it, officers may move forward with a neighborhood check, which could cause delays.
Historical Context
Neighborhood investigations aren’t new. For much of U.S. history, applicants had to bring witnesses who could testify about their character. Later, officers sometimes carried out neighborhood checks themselves. The practice was discontinued entirely in 1991, when the agency’s predecessor, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), stopped using them.
USCIS Director Joseph Edlow said in a statement the move protects the integrity of the naturalization process.
“Americans should be comforted knowing that USCIS is taking seriously its responsibility to ensure aliens are being properly vetted and are of good moral character, attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States,” Edlow said.
Neighborhood Checks: What to Expect Now
- When USCIS May Apply It: Officers will make decisions individually. If your application clearly shows continuous residence and good moral character, USCIS may waive the check. If questions arise, a neighborhood investigation is more likely.
- How to Prepare: Submitting testimonial letters with your application may help USCIS determine an investigation isn’t needed. Preparing this evidence early can reduce delays.
- Possible Delays:USCIS staff reductions and new vetting requirements may slow down the naturalization process.
What Employers Should Know
USCIS has said neighborhood investigations may include contacting an applicant’s workplace. That could mean interviewing employers, managers, or coworkers to confirm details about the applicant’s character and eligibility.
Employers don’t need to prepare special documents in advance, but it’s helpful to be aware of this possibility. If contacted by USCIS, you should be ready to confirm basic information such as dates of employment and the applicant’s role.
Bottom Line
For most applicants, the naturalization process will look the same, but USCIS now has the option to conduct neighborhood investigations. Preparing strong evidence up front may help avoid extra steps and delays.
Source: USCIS Resumes Neighborhood Checks for Citizenship Applicants
Two contrasting views on national service
2025/08/25 Leave a comment
Starting with David McLaughlin advocating, followed by Paul Kershaw noting how youth are already providing “national service” through a variety of means:
Building Citizenship Through National Service
…So Canada has many models from which to choose. Mandatory service with a choice between military, civil defence and community services
Canada has a modest form of national service now, actually, called the Canada Service Corps. But it is entirely voluntary and will benefit only 20,000 young people over three years. There are over five and a half million Canadians aged 16 to 29 today. A much bigger national service initiative is required.
Prime Minister Mark Carney says Canada is at a hinge moment in its history. Our economic sovereignty is threatened by the United States. Our international security is threatened by war, conflict and rising global tensions. Our national unity is threatened by political polarization, disinformation and regional economic disparities. And our national cohesion is under threat by domestic tensions imported from external conflicts and past immigration and refugee intakes that did not sufficiently account for our capacity to successfully integrate newcomers to our country.
National service will not automatically fix this. National service would help build a shared Canadian identity necessary for our continued unity and prosperity. It would help bridge regional and civic alienation. It would reinforce common Canadians experiences for diverse communities. It is the best riposte possible to the dubious claim by our previous prime minister that we are the first post-national state with “no core identity, no mainstream.” National service speaks directly to the inherent pressures faced by a multicultural, pluralist society like Canada.
As Canadians, we are proud of the personal liberties guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But rights come with responsibilities. Just as parents and schools strive to instill personal responsibility with our children, national service obligations would emphasize this as they come of age.
National service would mark an important down payment to creating a stronger Canadian democracy around stronger Canadian citizenship. After all, it is never too early to learn about the importance of giving back.
Source: Building Citizenship Through National Service
Gen Z doesn’t need a year of national service. They’re already drafted into decades of service for older Canadians
…It therefore feels dissonant for older Canadians to endorse yet another form of mandatory service for the young when, in truth, we already conscript younger Canadians into decades of obligations that advantage their elders. Service doesn’t just happen when young adults don a uniform in health care, fire protection or a climate corps. It happens every day when they absorb inflated housing costs, heavier taxes and mounting environmental debts so their elders don’t have to.
Older Canadians now owe it to younger generations to revisit whether our governments do enough to leave a proud legacy. That may mean adjusting housing policy so affordability becomes a bigger priority than asset protection. It should mean reforming Old Age Security so retirees with six-figure incomes lighten the load for their children’s generations. And it absolutely means taking responsibility for today’s pollution, rather than expecting our kids to pay more dearly for it later.
I’m not dismissing the value of civic programs that help young people contribute to their country. But until we acknowledge that millennials and Gen Z already perform critical national service on behalf of the aging population, it is misguided to demand even more. Young Canadians don’t need to give another year of national service. They need recognition – and reciprocity from older generations.
Dr. Paul Kershaw is a policy professor at UBC and founder of Generation Squeeze, Canada’s leading voice for generational fairness. You can follow Gen Squeeze on X, Facebook, Blueskyand Instagram, as well as subscribe to Paul’s Hard Truths podcast.
Bill C-3 could open the citizenship doors to people with little connection to Canada
2025/08/23 Leave a comment
My latest:
When the Mark Carney government tabled Bill C-3 in June, the purpose of the proposed legislation was to reduce citizenship barriers for any foreign-born children of Canadians who were themselves born abroad, including both second and subsequent generations.
This would address controversy that surrounded the previous first-generation citizenship cutoff, which resulted in cases where Canadian parents born abroad could not pass on their citizenship to children also born outside of the country.
However, the biggest effect of these Citizenship Act amendments could be to complicate Canada’s citizenship administration and open the door to applicants who have minimal connection with Canada.
Bill C-3 is largely identical to the previous government’s C-71, which died on the order paper early this year when Parliament prorogued, followed by a new Liberal Party leader and the general election.
This citizenship reform was sparked after the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, in 2023, ruled as unconstitutional a 2009 law passed by the Stephen Harper government that ended the right of Canadians born abroad to pass down citizenship to any children born outside of Canada.
After a year of inaction while Ottawa’s political landscape evolved, this past spring the Ontario Superior Court of Justice gave the federal government a deadline of Nov. 20 to pass and implement the new legislation.
In addressing issues that led the 2009 law being declared unconstitutional, Bill C-3 significantly expands the definition — and the number — of Lost Canadians by not requiring a time limit under which parents born abroad can meet the cumulative physical-presence requirement of 1,095 days (three years).
If applicants did not have a five-year limit within which to amass three years of accumulated residency (as is the requirement for permanent residents), the new criteria would end up recognizing many as Canadian citizens whose links to Canada are tenuous.
Speaking last December to a Senate committee that was studying Bill C-71, then-immigration and citizenship minister Marc Miler said the time limit was being eliminated due to a concern that “we would create another series of Lost Canadians.” A senior official from Miller’s department told the committee that eliminating the time requirement was intended to make it easier for qualified recipients to claim citizenship, including those who “come to Canada to study every summer or visit their grandparents so they have built up that connection to Canada over many years and not in a short time frame.”
Testimony at the Senate committee also revealed that the government was basing the policy change on the relatively low numbers of previous cohorts of Lost Canadians, some 20,000 since 2009, most recently at a rate of about 35 to 40 per year. Miller stated, “It’s sure to go up, but I don’t think there are these wild scenarios where we’ll have hundreds and thousands of people.”
This casual assertion, however, contrasts greatly with perceptions held abroad, where headlines proclaimed that the new law would open the door to allow thousands of people to claim Canadian citizenship.
Given that the department of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada has not provided estimated numbers and impacts beyond broad statements, how many members of the second generation born abroad could avail themselves of Canadian citizenship?
The potential number of people affected is substantial.
Of the estimated four million Canadian citizens living outside Canada, about half were born abroad. As of 2017, two-thirds of them lived in the U.S. Another 15 per cent were in the U.K., Australia, France, and Italy. Unsurprisingly the portion living in all other countries has been rising, from 14 per cent in 1990 to 20 per cent in 2017.
In the context of Bill C-3, this trend is noteworthy. Securing Canadian citizenship may not be a top priority for second- and subsequent-generation expatriates in the U.S., EU, and other politically stable places. But it would be much more of an urgent concern for those in less stable countries.
Further complicating the issues surrounding Bill C-3, expatriate Canadians are older than those living in Canada – 45.3 years old compared to 41.7. Citizens by descent (i.e. someone born outside Canada to a Canadian citizen) are younger still, at an average age of 31.7. Given their younger ages, citizens by descent are more likely to have children, who will then be able to obtain Canadian citizenship if their parents have met the residency requirement.
Without an established timeframe, it will be more challenging for applicants to provide citizenship officials with proof of residency, just as it will be challenging for the government to verify residency and predict citizenship acquisition year over year. For example, a person who has studied in Canada continuously for five years would have an easier time providing proof of residency than someone who has visited or worked in Canada at various times for different reasons.
In terms of protecting Canada’s sovereignty, the porous timeframe could also provide opportunities for long-term foreign interference by countries like China and India in recruiting and exploiting their own expats who have acquired Canadian citizenship. There is currently no security or criminality vetting for Canadians by descent and presumably the same would apply to the second generation born abroad as well.
Same rights, divergent pathways
Under current law my own grandson, who was born in Europe, cannot pass down Canadian citizenship to any of his future children. Under Bill C-3 he would gain that right, but only after first spending 1,095 cumulative days in Canada. For people like him, one strategy for achieving that would be to attend a Canadian university or college and accumulate most or all of the 1,095 days while getting a degree.
However, for a Canadian born abroad who, say, maintains a cottage in Canada and spends eight weeks a year there each summer, it would take nearly 20 years to acquire the right to give their descendants Canadian citizenship.
The road is even longer for second-generation Canadians who spend most of their life abroad. Even if they make occasional trips to Canada, they would not likely accumulate the 1,095-day requirement unless they return permanently, say, in retirement.
Descendants who are temporary residents (perhaps through a job transfer, or as spouses of skilled workers or students) would likely achieve the necessary physical-presence threshold, but temporary foreign workers on seasonal or short-term contracts would probably never meet the requirement.
Estimates of expected numbers needed
Citizenship officials say that the number of Lost Canadians who want to be found is much smaller, about 20,000 to date, than the “between one and two million” as claimed by some advocates. (Likewise, the low number of expatriates who register and vote at election time is another indicator that the number of Lost Canadians is lower than many suggest.)
However, Bill C-3’s potential impact could be disproportionately large, significantly affecting government workload and bloating the current processing time of five months or longer for citizenship proofs. Officials from Immigration Refugees and Citizenship Canada need to determine estimates for the number of new citizens expected under the new law and the resources required to handle the increased workload.
Arguably, Bill C-3 would move Canada closer to being a hybrid jus sanguinis/jus soli regime, making it possible for families to maintain intergenerational Canadian citizenship through different scenarios. This currently is not possible.
In the broader sense, however, citizenship policy is about striking the balance between facilitation (making it easier to become citizens and fully participate in the political life of Canada) and meaningfulness (ensuring that becoming Canadian is a significant step in the integration journey for both applicants and Canadian society as a whole).
In my view, the accumulated-physical-presence requirement should be time-limited to five years, just as it is for new Canadians. As former prime minister Justin Trudeau stated, “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian.” By implementing two time requirements — five years vs. no time limit — the bill would create two categories of Canadians.
Canadian citizenship is a precious gift. At the committee stage, members of Parliament must be able to fulsomely examine the implications, both good and bad, of an open-ended residency requirement and seriously consider the option of establishing a specific timeframe of five years within which to accumulate the required 1,095 days to qualify for Canadian citizenship.
Source: Bill C-3 could open the citizenship doors to people with little connection to Canada
Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening
2025/08/21 Leave a comment
Well, it likely will, encouraged by the Trump administration and USCIS political appointments:
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 vettingand 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.”…
Source: Immigrants seeking lawful work and citizenship are now subject to ‘anti-Americanism’ screening
Marco Rubio Once Filed a Brief Embracing Birthright Citizenship
2025/08/19 Leave a comment
While people can legitimately change their minds and positions, the nature of many of the policy reversals by Rubio and others appear more driven by pleasing Trump and being in power than by principle:
In a 2016 court filing, Marco Rubio, then a senator running for president, made the case that the Constitution conferred citizenship on essentially all children born in the United States. His argument was a crisp rendition of what was until recently the consensus understanding.
But the views he expressed are now in tension with an executive order issued by President Trump in January that seeks to restrict birthright citizenship. The Supreme Court seems likely to hear a direct challenge to the order’s constitutionality in the term that starts in October.
The little-noticed court filing helps show how quickly the Republican Party and parts of the mainstream of conservative legal thought have shifted on the issue. It is also a reminder that the question of who is born a citizen may affect eligibility to be president.
Tommy Pigott, a State Department spokesman, said in a statement that “it’s absurd the NYT is even wasting time digging around for decade-old made-up stories,” adding that Mr. Rubio was “100 percent aligned with President Trump’s agenda.”
Source: Marco Rubio Once Filed a Brief Embracing Birthright Citizenship
Multiculturalism in Canada: Evidence and Anecdote
Click image for book purchase
Multicultural Meanderings 