A new citizen who swears by obedience to America. For example, 1000 new immigrants have just become citizens at the Wrigley Field. But now, US immigrants will have to go through a new test of good moral nationality.
aging
If the test of good morality citizenship now required immigrants who wish to become Americans to our leaders and those in strong positions in America, many will fail. What does this indicate for the standards we apply to immigrants if we ourselves cannot respond to them?
A new nationality test
To become a US citizen through naturalization, the applicant must be at least 18 years of age, have a legal status of a permanent resident (generally for 5 years or 3 years if he is married to an American citizen) and show a constant stay and physical presence in the United States during this period. They must reside in the region of applications for at least 3 months and adopt the constitution and US laws. Candidates must also pass tests in basic English and American Civics (with some exceptions for elderly or long -term residents), register with selective service, if required and eventually take over the oath of obedience. In addition to all these requirements, candidates should now have another test.
But US citizenship and immigration (USCIS) have exactly have announced That immigrants seeking naturalization will now face a more demanding review of “good moral character”. Candidates must prove not only the absence of serious offenses but the presence of the politician virtue: social service, financial responsibility, family stability and reform when mistakes occur.
It is a gentle suction. However, it also raises a worrying question: How many of America’s leaders – politicians, corporate or cultural – will pass the test? Let’s learn.
The Declaration of Independence was an ambitious document
aging
America’s founding imperfection
Looking at the recent story, the honest answer to the question of how many of our leaders will pass the new trial is. And this should remind us of something vital: If our presidents, cabinet secretaries and business images will fight to prove their value under this new test, then should we not show more compassion for immigrants when they are trampled on?
Since its first days, the United States was shaped by actress. The creators of the Constitution wrote by mixing words about freedom, even for many slaves who belong to. Women, black Americans and immigrants were excluded from equal rights for generations.
Our democracy has always been ambition – a nation trying to ideally could not fully achieve. This tension does not defame the American experiment. defines it. If the founders themselves failed a strict test of moral character, we may be careful in using today against those who seek to participate in our national community.
Abuse of secret
President Biden was found to have “deliberately maintained” classified documents in his home and office, although the prosecutors chose not to charge him. On the contrary, former President Trump stores hundreds of secret records in Mar-A-Lago, refusing to return them until the FBI intervenes.
Underneath the new USCIS standard, the two men’s actions will weigh greatly against them. Immigrants say they must demonstrate transparency and compliance with the law. Shouldn’t the presidents be kept in the same standard?
Grace and principle
The grace of Hunter’s son’s son, despite previous promises to support judicial independence, has caused charges of personalization. Trump further, forgiven on January 6, who attacked police and tried to overthrow the elections.
For immigrants, the hierarchy of faith in the law will almost certainly exclude them from citizenship. Why should the presidents be exempt?
The Epstein Shadow
The ability of the late Jeffrey Epstein to surround himself with politicians, entrepreneurs and celebrities, despite his crimes, emphasizes the ethical compromises of America’s elite. The association with the perpetrators for personal profit will irreparably harm the case of an immigrant. However, for the strong, the reputation can fade, but it lives largely it continues to be affected.
Ethical failures across the boat
Ethical returns are not the exception. They are everywhere:
Neera Tanden, a senior adviser to Biden, referred to violations of the hatch law after the posting of Partisan Fundraising appeal.
Lynne Patton, a Trump Hud appointed, abused her position to film tenants for a democratic campaign advertising, resulting in fines and banning federal employment.
Rachael Rollins, a former US lawyer in Boston, resigned after a conduct investigation revealed that he was leaking DOJ information and accepted inappropriate gifts.
Amazon and other technological giants have reduced US tax accounts Through complex gaps, depriving the treasury of the billions that ordinary families have to pay.
Brett Favre, a general in the rumor room, raises Mississippi’s prosperity to build a volleyball arena in his alma mater.
Each of these examples depicts what USCIS now calls the essence of the evil moral character: an apostate in public confidence, a personal gain for Community good.
Citizenship should not include imposing double standards on immigrants.
aging
The double standard
USCIS is correct to declare that citizenship involves significant change. But if a good moral character means to avoid the big mistakes entirely, then not only many immigrants will fail – the leaders of the nation would also be.
“Let the one who is without sin to throw the first stone,” the biblical reference claims. The truth is that in order to be human is to be wrong. We’ve all stuck. The presidents and athletes, the CEOs and the Secretaries of the Council of Ministers, our fathers themselves – all have lived with contradictions.
That is why the moral test must be balanced with compassion. They should evaluate the entire range of a person’s life: their service, their reform, their contributions – not just their worst mistakes.
An objection to compassionate nationality
The risk of the new USCIS framework is not its vision, but its rigidity. Immigrants should not be maintained higher than the presidents who serve or the corporate leaders for whom they work. The standard must motivate, not condemn. It should serve as a reminder that Americans – whether born here or naturalized – are more determined by how they take responsibility, make modifications and contribute to the collective good than by their mistakes.
We as Americans need to respond to the same standard we impose on immigrants. Let us all try to be more moral, not only to demand it than those who want to come with us, but keeping ourselves responsible for it. In the end, citizenship is not perfection. It’s participation. It’s a commitment. It is the daily act of efforts for the ideals we do not always meet. If America cannot forgive the defects of immigrants, and will justify those of its own leaders, then we are dealing with hypocrisy.
The best path is humility: to expect high standards, but to impose them with mercy, to remember that imperfection is not the enemy of democracy – it is his condition.
Conclusion
If today’s US leaders are struggling to pass the nationality of good morality, then the real question is whether we can deal with immigrants with the same compassion and understanding of their humanity that we often maintain for ourselves.
