Screening for “Anti-Americanism”: What Immigrants Need to Know
In recent weeks, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has announced a new screening policy that looks beyond traditional security concerns to consider whether an applicant has expressed “anti-American” views. While the agency has always been charged with excluding those who pose a threat to national security or public safety, the expansion into ideological territory raises critical questions about rights, standards, and fairness.
What Does the Policy Say?
According to public statements, USCIS officers may now consider whether an applicant for a visa, green card, or citizenship has:
Expressed antisemitic, terrorist-related, or anti-American views;
Engaged in advocacy that could be construed as undermining U.S. values or institutions;
Associated with groups designated as hostile to the United States.
This framework resembles the Cold War–era “ideological exclusion” provisions, which were largely repealed in the 1990s after widespread criticism.
What Does the Law Actually Provide?
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) already contains provisions that make certain individuals inadmissible or removable, including those who:
Engage in terrorist activity (INA §212(a)(3)(B));
Espouse or incite terrorist activity or endorse terrorist organizations;
Participate in totalitarian or communist parties (residual Cold War provisions still exist in §212(a)(3)(D));
Advocate for the overthrow of the U.S. government by force.
These provisions are narrow, tied to specific statutory definitions, and subject to judicial review. They are grounded in demonstrable conduct, not vague notions of “anti-Americanism.”
The new policy does not introduce a new statute but instead broadens how officers interpret the “good moral character” requirement for naturalization (INA §316) and the discretionary analysis applied to many immigration benefits. Because many benefits are discretionary, USCIS can weigh factors like ideological statements even if not strictly disqualifying under law.
Whose Rights Are at Stake?
Applicants for Naturalization – Citizenship applicants must show “attachment to the principles of the Constitution.” This has traditionally meant obeying U.S. law and supporting democratic institutions. The fear is that subjective interpretations could allow examiners to deny citizenship based on unpopular speech.
Asylum Seekers and Refugees – Many fleeing persecution come from societies where anti-U.S. rhetoric is common. If USCIS interprets prior statements or associations too broadly, deserving applicants may be excluded.
Employment-Based and Family-Based Immigrants – For those applying for green cards, discretionary denial could be based on posts, associations, or speech—even if never connected to violence.
Legal Standards vs. Practical Realities
First Amendment Concerns: The Constitution protects speech, including unpopular or critical views of government. Non-citizens within the U.S. enjoy free speech protections, though immigration benefits remain discretionary. This creates tension: speech that is constitutionally protected may still be weighed negatively by USCIS in a discretionary decision.
Vagueness & Subjectivity: What counts as “anti-American”? Criticizing U.S. foreign policy? Supporting controversial protests? The lack of clear definition risks inconsistent and potentially discriminatory application.
Documentation & Surveillance: Applicants may see their social media, writings, or affiliations scrutinized more closely. The Department of Homeland Security has already acknowledged monitoring public online activity in the immigration process.
Practical Implications for Immigrants
Expect Greater Scrutiny of Public Speech: Anything posted online—social media, blogs, interviews—could be reviewed by immigration officers.
Prepare for Questions in Interviews: Applicants may face questions about past political statements, associations, or protests. Having a lawyer present and prepared to contextualize these issues will be essential.
Seek Legal Guidance Early: If an applicant has a history of strong political speech or activism, counsel can frame it in a way that demonstrates constitutional values (e.g., exercising free speech) rather than hostility.
Document Positive Factors: Evidence of community service, family ties, and employment can counterbalance concerns raised under discretionary review.
Conclusion
The expansion of screening for “anti-Americanism” signals a return to an era when ideology itself could be a barrier to immigration. While statutory law has not changed, the discretionary power of USCIS officers has grown—and with it, the risk of subjectivity and unequal treatment.
For immigrants and their advocates, the key is awareness. Understand what officers may now look for, prepare accordingly, and assert both the legal standards under the INA and the constitutional values that define the U.S. immigration system.