U.S. to scrutinize immigrants for 'moral character' before citizenship

Juan Carlos Chavez, Tampa Bay Times on Aug 25, 2025

By clicking submit, I authorize Arcamax and its affiliates to: (1) use, sell, and share my information for marketing purposes, including cross-context behavioral advertising, as described in our Privacy Policy , (2) add to information that I provide with other information like interests inferred from web page views, or data lawfully obtained from data brokers, such as past purchase or location data, or publicly available data, (3) contact me or enable others to contact me by email or other means with offers for different types of goods and services, and (4) retain my information while I am engaging with marketing messages that I receive and for a reasonable amount of time thereafter. I understand I can opt out at any time through an email that I receive, or by clicking here

Immigration attorneys and advocates are criticizing a new U.S. policy expanding how officials evaluate an immigrant’s “good moral character” when applying for citizenship and other benefits.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services said in a memo that officers must take “a holistic evaluation” of an immigrant’s background, not simply “the absence of misconduct.”

The same approach will be applied to immigrants who seek to work and live as residents, according to the agency.

The policy includes criteria relating to immigrants’ past benefit requests. The agency said in a policy manual update that “anti-American” activity, including on social media, will be an overwhelmingly negative consideration in any discretionary analysis.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services spokesperson Matthew Tragesser said the government is dedicated to stricter screening practices. Immigration benefits are a privilege, not a right, he said in a statement.

“U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services is committed to implementing policies and procedures that root out anti-Americanism and supporting the enforcement of rigorous screening and vetting measures to the fullest extent possible,” Tragesser said.

Factors officers may weigh include sustained community involvement and contributions, caregiving responsibilities and educational attainment. They will also consider the length of lawful residence in the country and overall financial responsibility. Disqualifying behavior or actions, such as severe violations of religious freedom and reckless or habitual traffic infractions, among others, will be considered as well.

Critics say the new approach will bring more uncertainty to immigration cases.

“Instead of clear standards, officers now have broad discretion, making the process less fair, more stressful, and opening the door to bias against communities who have already proven their contributions to this country,” Tampa immigration attorney Milton Toro said. “The new ‘good moral character’ rules risk denying citizenship to immigrants over minor infractions or subjective judgments.”

In April, a new federal policy allowed U.S. immigration officials to scrutinize the social media of lawful permanent residents, foreign students, and people affiliated with educational institutions linked to antisemitic activity.

Federal officials are also preparing soon to revive a tougher version of the citizenship test. Joseph Edlow, the new director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, said they will implement a version introduced during the first Trump administration in late 2020. This test requires the test taker to correctly answer 12 of 20 questions. The questions are drawn from a list of 128, up from 100.

Adriana Rivera, the Florida Immigrant Coalition’s communications director, said the government’s use of good moral character standards in immigration isn’t about fairness, but rather enforcing a narrow cultural identity.

“They are actively removing good, hardworking people by the thousands with the plan to only let in a few folks who align with who they feel can assimilate to their desires and their views of who should be an American,” said Rivera. “And that, ironically, is wholly un-American.”

_____