Biden Must Honor Pledge to Immigrant Troops: Rescind Trump Policy Blocking Path to Citizenship
This piece first appeared in .
Over 100 days into his administration, President Joe Biden has yet to act on a Trump administration policy denying thousands of immigrants serving in the U.S. military the path to citizenship promised to them by Congress. Rescinding this policy—which runs contrary to U.S. history, values, and laws—is a no-brainer. It is also consistent with Biden’s own to “protect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service.” The Biden administration should seize the opportunity to honor this pledge by immediately withdrawing the Trump policy and abandoning the Trump administration’s defense of it in federal court.
As has been the case for over 70 years, before service members can apply for citizenship, the Defense Department must first certify their honorable service. This certification is a purely administrative task, consisting of looking up an individual’s service record and verifying honorable service to date. DoD’s longstanding practice was to issue certifications almost immediately after immigrants began their service so that they could become U.S. citizens prior to deployment. However, an October 2017 Trump administration required DoD to withhold certification until service members satisfied new preconditions, including a minimum service duration requirement. As a result, DoD denied thousands of immigrants in uniform the path to citizenship promised to them under federal law.
In April 2020, the ACLU filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of thousands of immigrants whose service in the U.S. military during a period of armed conflict entitles them to naturalize expeditiously but who were blocked from doing so by the Trump administration. Four months later, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia struck down portions of the Trump policy, ruling that the Immigration and Nationality Act “contains no minimum service requirement.” The court also held that those portions of the policy were unlawful because they were “arbitrary and capricious” under the Administrative Procedure Act. In October 2020, the Trump administration appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The government’s opening brief to the D.C. circuit was due in early February, giving the Biden administration an easy opportunity to comply with federal law, the district court’s decision, and Biden’s campaign promise by simply withdrawing the appeal. However, the Justice Department has now sought four extensions, and the brief is currently due on June 2, in just under two weeks.
We don’t know what is holding up the Biden administration, but by continually punting the decision to withdraw the appeal and disavow the Trump policy, it has left thousands of service members in a state of purgatory. The prospect of an adverse decision, which would effectively upend the expedited naturalization process for immigrant service members, continues to loom over thousands of class members in this case.
The Biden administration’s failure to act is inexplicable. The Trump policy was a component of that administration’s punishing anti-immigrant agenda, targeted specifically at immigrants serving in the U.S. military. It forced these service members to deploy and wait prolonged periods before they could obtain citizenship. In doing so, it prevented service members from enjoying the privileges of citizenship, such as voting while serving to protect the United States, or traveling with a U.S. passport while serving overseas. Because of the Trump policy, service members who fell out of lawful immigration status while awaiting citizenship became vulnerable to placement in removal proceedings and deportation, notwithstanding their ongoing military service. On top of it all, the policy prevented many immigrants from advancing their military careers since many specialized roles for which they are best suited, such as in linguistics or information-technology, require U.S. citizenship.
The Trump policy also eviscerated naturalization through military service, the path to citizenship over have taken since 9/11. In the year following the policy’s implementation, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services reported a in military naturalization applications from pre-policy levels. In fact, many service members waited so long to naturalize that they could have obtained citizenship faster through the civilian process, defeating the very purpose of the expedited naturalization Congress intended for non-citizens serving in the U.S. military.
The Trump policy broke the promise of expedited citizenship Congress has made to immigrant service members for over 200 years. From the War of 1812 to the present, federal laws have reflected Congress’ intent that immigrants serving during wartime naturalize almost immediately upon entering service and prior to deployment. Since 1952, that promise has been codified in a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act. As the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found in this case, the legislative history of that provision “is ripe with evidence that Congress intended that there be no minimum time-in-service required of a noncitizen enlistee in order to benefit from” the expedited path to citizenship. The legislative history also makes the for this intent clear: “if they are invited to fight and die for the United States, . . . they are good enough to come into citizenship.” Years later, when Congress expanded eligibility for expedited naturalization from those serving in World War II to those serving in future periods of conflict, it also explained that a service member should be “afforded an opportunity to acquire citizenship before he is assigned to active combat,” otherwise “the serviceman killed in action could never avail himself of the special benefits provided by his adopted country.”
The Biden administration’s failure to act on the Trump policy—either by withdrawing the appeal or rescinding the policy itself—is especially puzzling because the Trump policy so obviously conflicts with the administration’s promises on immigration reform. As part of the immigration plank of his campaign platform, Biden vowed to address the harms experienced by immigrant service members. He explicitly in his first 100 days to “[p]rotect and expand opportunities” for immigrants “who risked their lives in military service” and to “restore faith in the citizenship process by removing roadblocks to naturalization.” And in a Feb. 2 executive order, he specifically the secretary of state, attorney general, and secretary of homeland security to “develop a plan” within 60 days to “facilitate naturalization for . . . members of the military, in consultation with the Department of Defense.”
This failure to act is also disappointing because, as Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) outlined in a to then-President-elect Biden, immigrant service members face a legion of hurdles to citizenship that go beyond this specific Trump policy. The letter outlined a series of executive and agency actions the Biden administration could take in order to build on Biden’s stated “commitment to protect and expand citizenship opportunities for the brave men and women who have fought to defend our Nation.” A Biden administration serious about this commitment would not only address the Trump policy, but also begin to put this blueprint in action.
By rescinding the Trump policy, the Biden administration would be taking an easy step to honor the president’s pledge to immigrant service members. Thousands of service members are currently relying on that pledge and the restoration of the citizenship promise Congress made to them.
Update: On May 25, the D.C. Circuit granted the Justice Department’s fifth request for an extension on its opening brief, which is now due July 2.
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.