When citizenship becomes a test and the tester is morally bankrupt

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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 weigh conduct 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.                                                  

 

Related articles:

‘Privilege, not a right’ is language of abusive control | Opinion by Mark Wingfield

Trump administration wages war on inconvenient facts | Analysis by Steve Rabey

Hypocrisy | Opinion by Mark Wingfield

What I learned about voter suppression while sitting in the Quiet Chair as a child | Opinion by Paula Mangum Sheridan