Citizenship and Naturalization

Subterms

    Latest story

    125 Shares111 Views

    World Catholics See the First American Pope as Hardly American

    by

    Catholics around the world were skeptical at first about an American pope. But Pope Leo XIV’s multicultural and multilingual identity has put them at ease.The surprising election of the first American pope felt fraught and disorienting to Roman Catholics around the world, who had considered such an outcome unlikely and perhaps unwelcome — until Pope Leo XIV stepped onto the balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica and chose to speak a few sentences in Spanish.In an instant, the new pope, formerly Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost, signaled that his identity would defy easy categorization. He chose in that pivotal moment on Thursday evening not to say anything in English or mention the United States. He seemed intent on conveying the message that he was not a typical American.It worked. Pope Leo, who was born in Chicago, has Creole heritage, lived in Peru for decades and speaks at least three languages, established himself as a citizen of the world. Catholics around the globe raced to claim pieces of his multicultural and multilingual background as their own.”He considers himself American, but he also considers himself Peruvian,” said Julia Caillet, a 33-year-old osteopath, who was in line outside Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris for a special service for young Catholics celebrating the new pope on Friday evening. “He is a priest of the world.”At a time when President Trump has isolated the United States from its diplomatic allies and trade partners and upended much of the world order, some Catholics worried that an American pontiff might somehow bring the Roman Catholic Church closer to the tumultuous American government.Instead, Pope Leo appears to have reassured them, at least for now, that he would preserve the church as a global moral voice calling for peace and justice, especially for migrants, the poor and victims of war, in the mold of Pope Francis.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 150 Shares168 Views

      in Elections

      What to Know About the 3 U.S. Citizen Children Removed to Honduras

      by

      Lawyers say the families wanted the children to remain in the United States. The Trump administration says the mothers requested the children’s removal. The dispute has constitutional stakes.The removal of three children with U.S. citizenship with their families to Honduras last week has prompted alarm that President Trump’s strict immigration enforcement may have crossed “illegal and unconstitutional” lines, as a federal judge in one of the cases put it.Lawyers for the two families involved said the mothers were not given an option to leave their children in the United States before they were deported. But Mr. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, said the mothers requested the children’s removal.The cases have added to growing concerns that the Trump administration may be violating the Constitution in its increasingly stringent crackdown on immigration, including removing U.S. citizens, a desire that Mr. Trump has expressed in the past but that legal experts say runs against longstanding prohibitions.Here is a look at the cases and what is at stake.What happened?Three children who are U.S. citizens were removed to Honduras last week as part of the deportation of other members of their families.Two of the children, ages 4 and 7, belong to one Honduran family. The mother of those children had an outstanding deportation order and had shown up to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement check-in on Thursday, said Gracie Willis, the raids response coordinator with the National Immigration Project, who is helping the family’s immigration lawyer with the case.The 4-year-old, Ms. Willis said, has cancer. The mother had shown up to the check-in with a lawyer but was quickly thrust into the deportation process. Her lawyer had no meaningful chance to try to stop the deportation in court, Ms. Willis said.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares99 Views

      in Elections

      Self-Deportation Taught Me What I Know About This Country

      by

      On Jan. 1, 2015, I self-deported from the United States, my home of more than 22 years, to return to the Philippines, where I was born and lived until the age of 9. At takeoff, sorrow overtook the terror I felt at check-in. The T.S.A. agent had scanned my passport — renewed in 2002, devoid of a visa — and waved me through. I froze in place: Where were the ICE agents?That day, I found out that no one cares if an undocumented immigrant leaves America. Only my husband, waving from beyond the gate, cared. He would eventually meet me in London; I was to go to Manila first to apply for a British spouse visa, which I couldn’t do in the United States because I was an undocumented person.America is home; it raised me. I came in 1992, the daughter of Filipinos who left their homeland — an economy drained by dictatorship — in search of a better life. I left in 2015 as a broken adult of 31, still in search of that better life. When I returned last month, I found a different country.My decision to leave the United States seemed crazy, the resulting bar on returning for 10 years a self-inflicted wound. This view requires the belief that America is exceptional, the only nation capable of caring for its people and helping them achieve their potential. After a near-lifetime of being undocumented, I had stopped believing this.In my experience, America had become a place to flee from, not to. At the time I lived in New York without papers, I couldn’t secure a license to drive, afford to go to college, start a career, get health care, vote, open a bank account or travel freely. My life was a struggle with domestic and sexual violence, financial hardship and suicide attempts. By self-deporting, I ended my American life to save what remained of my actual life.In the years before I left New York City, in my 20s and early 30s, I worked, hoping to save for a bachelor’s degree I would never earn. On Craigslist, I found temp jobs that didn’t require proof of legality: street fund-raiser, receptionist, assistant, office manager. The city’s buoying energy saved me in those years. I convinced myself that hiding and surviving was enough, that I didn’t need papers.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      In Memory of Our Decency: ‘That Was U.S.A.I.D.’

      by

      More from our inbox:The 14th Amendment and Birthright CitizenshipOpposing Trump’s Transgender PoliciesReady to March Again Ashraf Shazly/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesTo the Editor:Re “Chaos and Confusion Reign as U.S. Cuts Off Aid to Millions Globally” (news article, Feb. 12):It can take an obituary to get to know someone — though often too late.Most Americans hadn’t known much about the United States Agency for International Development. Some may have seen its “helping hand” logo when a famine was in the news and U.S.A.I.D.-supplied bags of wheat, marked with the logo, appeared briefly on our screens. But that was it.It has taken the callous dismantling of U.S.A.I.D., the mindless amputation of America’s helping hand, for people to get to know the agency and the value of foreign aid. Many are learning for the first time about the good work done during its nearly 64 years.I was in Washington during the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. I thought then, and still think, that the only way to prevent another such catastrophic event and protect the long-term security and prosperity of our beloved homeland is for America to be an exemplary global citizen, for us to maintain mutually respectful relationships with as many countries as possible, and for us to win hearts and minds with our decency and generosity. That was U.S.A.I.D.Perhaps the public’s post-mortem appreciation of U.S.A.I.D. will lead to a resurrection of America’s helping hand. Let us hope and pray.Gary NewtonGeorgetown, MaineTo the Editor:Re “One Very Real Problem Lost in the Politics of Aid Cuts: Child Malnutrition,” by Nicholas Kristof (The Point, Opinion, nytimes.com, Feb. 10):As one of the world’s richest and most powerful nations, America has historically responded to the cries of hunger from abroad. We simply can’t turn our back now when children are starving in Sudan, Gaza, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Haiti and many other impoverished areas.U.S.A.I.D. should be reopened and the Food for Peace program, which was started by President Dwight Eisenhower, must get a funding increase. Food for Peace supports lifesaving programs including nutrition for infants.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 100 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Might Have a Case on Birthright Citizenship

      by

      On his first day in office, President Trump issued an executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship for certain children. It does so despite Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which declares, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”The central question raised by Mr. Trump’s order is what it means to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The answer most legal observers give is that it includes virtually anyone born on American soil, including those whom the order is meant to exclude, namely children born to parents in the country illegally or temporarily. Indeed, on Monday, the American Bar Association described the order as an attack on a “constitutionally protected” right. Federal judges in four states have enjoined the order, with one claiming that it “conflicts with the plain language of the 14th Amendment.”Not necessarily.The Supreme Court has held, in the 1898 case United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that children born here to permanent residents are citizens. But it has never squarely held that children born to those illegally present are citizens. When the court addresses that question — which it almost certainly must — it should consider the 14th Amendment’s original purpose and the common-law principle of “jus soli,” or birthright citizenship, which informed the original public meaning of the text. Both relate to the idea of social compact and contradict today’s general assumption that the common-law principle depends solely upon place of birth.The 14th Amendment’s RootsAt the time of its adoption, the publicly known purpose of the 14th Amendment was to extend the benefits of the social compact — including, specifically, the privileges and immunities of citizenship — to African Americans newly freed after the Civil War. (Due in large part to a series of egregious Supreme Court rulings gutting the original letter and spirit of the amendment, that promise of equal citizenship was largely denied for decades.)Abraham Lincoln’s administration, rejecting the reasoning of Dred Scott v. Sandford, had already acknowledged that free African Americans were citizens. As Edward Bates, Lincoln’s first attorney general, wrote in 1862, in an official opinion, “The Constitution uses the word ‘citizen’ only to express the political quality of the individual in his relations to the nation; to declare that he is a member of the body politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other.”The equal protection clause, also found in Section 1 of the amendment, provides that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This clause was based on the same allegiance-for-protection theory enunciated by Bates.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 163 Shares189 Views

      in Elections

      Los inmigrantes en todo EE. UU. se preparan para las medidas de Trump

      by

      La promesa del presidente electo de llevar a cabo deportaciones masivas ha empujado a los inmigrantes a buscar medidas de protección y asesoramiento.El presidente electo Donald Trump ha prometido reducir drásticamente la inmigración, tanto legal como ilegal, y aumentar las deportaciones desde el primer día.Los inmigrantes se apresuran a adelantarse a la ofensiva.Los residentes nacidos en el extranjero han estado saturando las líneas telefónicas de los abogados de inmigración. Están abarrotando las reuniones informativas organizadas por organizaciones sin fines de lucro. Y están tomando todas las medidas posibles para protegerse de las medidas radicales que Trump ha prometido emprender tras su toma de posesión el 20 de enero.“Gente que debería estar asustada está viniendo, y gente que está bien con una green card se está apresurando a venir”, dijo Inna Simakovsky, abogada de inmigración en Columbus, Ohio, quien añadió que su equipo se ha visto desbordado por las consultas. “Todo el mundo tiene miedo”, dijo.Las personas con tarjeta de residencia permanente, o green card, quieren convertirse en ciudadanos lo antes posible. Las personas que tienen un estatus legal precario o entraron ilegalmente en el país se apresuran a solicitar asilo, porque incluso si la petición es débil, tener un caso pendiente los protegería —con los protocolos actuales— de la deportación. Las personas que tienen una relación con algún ciudadano estadounidense están tramitando su matrimonio con rapidez, lo que les da derecho a solicitar la green card.En total, hay unos 13 millones de personas con residencia legal permanente. Y se calcula que había 11,3 millones de personas indocumentadas en 2022, la última cifra disponible.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 88 Shares149 Views

      in Elections

      No, noncitizens are not voting in droves.

      by

      The false claimFormer President Donald J. Trump and his allies have falsely claimed that scores of noncitizens — including illegal immigrants — are voting or trying to vote in the United States presidential elections.Why it is falseIt is illegal for noncitizens to vote in federal elections, and studies have concluded that noncitizen voting is essentially nonexistent.A 2017 analysis from the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive nonprofit, showed that election officials in 42 jurisdictions found only about 30 incidents of potential noncitizen voting in the 2016 election — among more than 23.5 million votes cast, or 0.0001 percent. The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, called claims of widespread noncitizen voting “bogus” this year after reviewing state policies and previous audits.Brad Raffensperger, Georgia’s Republican secretary of state, announced in October that the state had found only 20 noncitizens among 8.2 million registered voters. An earlier audit he conducted in 2022, going back 25 years, identified 1,634 people who had tried to register to vote but whose citizenship couldn’t be verified. None were allowed to cast a ballot. Georgia has not identified any example of a noncitizen in Georgia who voted in that time.How the falsehoods are being usedThe claim has played a central role in voter fraud conspiracy theories for years, but Mr. Trump and other Republicans have made it a focal point of their targets against immigration and election integrity.“There’s going to be thousands upon thousands of noncitizens voting,” Mike Johnson, the Republican speaker of the House of Representatives, told Politico — a claim he has repeated in news conferences. “If you have enough noncitizens participating in some of these swing areas, you can change the outcome of the election in the majority.”In July, a group tied to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a video claiming to show noncitizens who were registered to vote. The New York Times found that the video was deceptive. Three of the seven people said they had misspoken, and state investigators found no evidence that any of the people had registered to vote.In October, Mr. Trump claimed that the Department of Justice was trying to put illegal voters “back on the Voter Rolls” in Virginia. The Justice Department sued to stop the Republican governor’s executive order that could remove noncitizen voters. The department cited a federal law that prevents purging voter rolls en masse within 90 days of an election — a process that a lawyer with the Justice Department said puts “qualified voters in jeopardy of being removed from the rolls and creates the risk of confusion for the electorate.” More

    • 113 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Judge Pauses Biden Administration Program That Aids Undocumented Spouses

      by

      Ruling in favor of 16 Republican-led states that sued the administration, a federal judge put the program on hold while the court considers the merits of the case.A federal judge in Texas temporarily blocked on Monday a Biden administration program that could offer a path to citizenship for up to half a million undocumented immigrants who are married to U.S. citizens, ruling in favor of 16 Republican-led states that sued the administration.Judge J. Campbell Barker of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas issued an administrative stay that stops the administration from approving applications, which it started accepting last week, while the court considers the merits of the case.In suspending the initiative, Judge Barker said that the 67-page complaint filed on Friday by the coalition of states, led by Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, raised legitimate questions about the authority of the executive branch to bypass Congress and set immigration policy.“The claims are substantial and warrant closer consideration than the court has been able to afford to date,” wrote Judge Barker, who was appointed by former President Donald J. Trump.The administration can continue to accept applications for the program, but can no longer approve them, according to the order. The suspension initially remains in place for 14 days while the parties submit arguments in the case; it could be extended.The lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal actions that Texas has spearheaded challenging federal immigration policies.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 75 Shares159 Views

      in Elections

      How Biden’s New Immigration Policy Works

      by

      The new policy will give some 500,000 people a pathway to citizenship.President Biden’s new immigration policy protects some 500,000 people who are married to U.S. citizens from deportation and gives them a pathway to citizenship.The election-year move comes just two weeks after Mr. Biden imposed a major crackdown at the U.S.-Mexico border, cutting off access to asylum for people who crossed into the United States illegally.The policy announced on Tuesday is aimed at people who have been living in the United States for more than a decade and have built their lives and families here.Here is how it works:Why do the spouses of American citizens need protection?Marrying an American citizen generally provides a pathway to U.S. citizenship. But people who crossed the southern border illegally — rather than arriving in the country with a visa — must return to their home countries to complete the process for a green card, something that can take years. The new program allows families to remain in the country while they pursue legal status.Who is eligible?There are roughly 1.1 million undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens in the United States, according to Fwd.us, an immigration advocacy group, but not all of them are eligible for the program.The spouses must have lived in the United States for 10 years and have been married to an American citizen as of June 17. They cannot have a criminal record. Officials estimate that the policy will provide legal status and protections for about 500,000 people. The benefits would also extend to the roughly 50,000 children of undocumented spouses who became stepchildren to American citizens.When will the program take effect?Biden administration officials said they expected the program to start by the end of the summer. Those eligible will then be able to apply for the benefits.Why is President Biden doing this now?Mr. Biden is trying to strike a tricky balance on immigration, which is a serious political vulnerability for him. Polls show Americans want tougher policies. Just two weeks ago, Mr. Biden announced a crackdown on asylum at the southern border.His new policy, giving hundreds of thousands of immigrants new legal protections, is a way for him to answer the calls from the progressive base of the Democratic Party, which has accused the White House of betraying campaign promises to enact a more humane approach to immigrants. More