A recent U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services memo announced that foreigners aspiring to become American citizens must meet a “Good Moral Character” standard. This directive is a return to policies that existed before the loosening of naturalization requirements in the early 1990s. That USCIS is now again requiring foreigners to demonstrate “character commensurate with the standards of average citizens” is positive.
Critics argue the change will make acquiring citizenship too difficult or political. But as the USCIS memo relates, naturalization is not simply “a procedural immigration benefit.” And the grant of citizenship has never been completely apolitical. Naturalization is a gift from the American people, not a status earned by ticking administrative boxes. So important is that gift that a congressional grant of mere honorary citizenship to the universally esteemed Winston Churchill in 1963 engendered thoughtful, bipartisan debate before its passage.
A review of the history of that bill is a reminder that American citizenship is sacred and should be granted only following a thorough examination of those aspiring to naturalize. The Trump administration’s return to a comprehensive, individualized good moral character standard restores this important tradition. Congress should support this positive development, just as it eventually did in granting honorary citizenship to Winston Churchill.
A popular misbelief holds that the Marquis de Lafayette was the first foreigner to receive honorary citizenship. This myth originates from a grant of full Maryland citizenship to Lafayette by that state’s General Assembly in 1784. Upon ratification of the U.S. Constitution four years later, Lafayette, like all Marylanders, became an American citizen. The actual first grant of honorary citizenship was that to Churchill. Since then, seven other foreigners have been granted honorary American citizenship: Raoul Wallenberg (1981), William Penn and his wife (1984), Mother Teresa (1996), Lafayette (finally formalized in 2002), Casimir Pulaski (2009), and Bernando de Gálvez (2014).
Journalist and former OSS employee Kay Halle initiated the effort to make Churchill an honorary citizen. Inspired by her friendships with the former Prime Minister’s family, Halle used her extensive Washington network to gain support. Her first success was in 1959, when she persuaded a then-Sen. John F. Kennedy to read a statement into the congressional record encouraging honorary citizenship for Churchill. Kennedy’s endorsement, however, noted that such an honor was appropriate only because “Sir Winston has left active political office.”
After JFK’s election to the presidency three years later, Halle visited the White House to discuss the matter further. President Kennedy agreed again to support honorary citizenship for Churchill, assigning arrangements to White House advisor Arthur Schlesinger Jr. In 1962 though, President Kennedy informed Halle that her idea was unconstitutional. He instead offered to name a naval vessel after Churchill.
Halle was unsatisfied. She flanked Kennedy by lobbying Congress directly, urging members to move immediately in light of Churchill’s advancing age. Simultaneously, she led a public campaign that took to radio, newspapers, and magazines. Eventually, Schlesinger, in consultation with experts within the Department of State and the Department of Justice, determined that a narrowly enough crafted bill could pass constitutional muster.
In early 1963, Sen. Stephen Young and Rep. Frances Bolton, both from Halle’s home state of Ohio, introduced joint resolutions supporting honorary citizenship. On March 12, 1963, Representative Bolton’s resolution reached the floor first. Congresswoman Bolton opened debate with her hope that the bill would be “passed today without a dissenting vote.” That was the case for Senator Young’s resolution, which eventually advanced on a voice vote.
This was not to be in the House, though, where certain congressmen, all admittedly admirers of Churchill, insisted first on a thorough examination of the proposal. That review, like the moral character review required under the recent USCIS memo, was not just a formality. Members engaged in a detailed discussion about giving Churchill honorary citizenship.
H.R. Gross, R-Iowa, rose to state that he was “disturbed by this proposed legislation.” A strident fiscal conservative, Rep. Gross worried such a grant might be used to color a later debate about Britain’s debts to America. Rep. James A. Haley, D-Fla., insisted on confirmation that honorary citizenship would not extend to Churchill’s heirs, including any tax consequences. The chair of the House Judiciary Committee, Emanuel Cellar, D-N.Y., confirmed that, though unprecedented, the grant would be limited to Winston Churchill only.
Rep. Edgar Foreman, R-Texas, also opposed the bill, stating, “I recognize the good that Sir Winston Churchill has done for this world, but also I recognize the sacredness and the associated responsibility of citizenship in the United States of America.”
Congressman Walter Rogers, D-Texas, grounded his objection in the possible dilution of citizenship, should Congress establish an honorary category:
It is not my purpose to cause hurt or injury to anyone and especially to Sir Winston Churchill. … My position is dictated solely by my feelings that U.S. citizenship is sacred. … It should never be associated with a position less than first. … The first allegiance of Sir Winston Churchill will always be to the British Crown. Hence, any status of citizenship granted him by this country must be in second place. I cannot subscribe to the proposition that citizenship of the United States should ever, in whole or in part, be secondary to that of any other government.
Representative Rogers’ concerns about dual allegiance reflected the prevailing jurisprudence of the time, as outlined in Justice Felix Frankfurter’s Perez v. Brownell (1958) holding. In that decision, the court upheld a statute revoking the citizenship of Americans who voted in foreign elections. Frankfurter reasoned that a dual citizen “may by his action unwittingly promote or encourage a course of conduct contrary to the interests of his own government.” This reasoning followed the cry of President Theodore Roosevelt from a half century earlier, who had regularly rallied against so-called “hyphenated Americans,” explaining that their conflicted loyalties endangered security and social cohesion.
(It is worth noting that although current case law prevents the federal government from prohibiting dual citizenship for existing citizens, existing immigration law obligates naturalizing individuals to surrender all previous allegiances — a nuance that has been regretfully downplayed by previous administrations.)
The House’s willingness to weigh even Churchill’s suitability against this dual allegiance test is an indication that there should be no free passes when considering naturalization. Unlike the Senate, members in the House raised concerns, debated technicalities, and considered at length how they would vote on the Churchill resolution. Ultimately, Representative Bolton’s measure passed 378-21, with 34 present votes. Five Democrats joined 16 Republicans to vote nay. President Kennedy signed the law making Winston Churchill an honorary American citizen on April 9, 1963.
Just as Congress did in examining Churchill’s suitability for honorary citizenship, most reviews of moral character under the new Trump administration standard will result in a favorable finding. Nevertheless, that process is important. USCIS has related that it will now examine moral character on a “case-by-case basis,” instead of merely checking a database to confirm an immigrant’s absence of criminal history.
Under the new standards, the totality of the alien’s experience in America — their participation in their local community, responsibility to family members in the United States, employment history, and compliance with financial obligations will be considered. This holistic view is essential to identifying potential citizens who can integrate into America and become Americans, not just aliens who have waited a certain number of years to get a passport.
Our government, be it the executive applying immigration laws passed by Congress or Congress itself considering a private bill to naturalize a foreigner, must properly and individually examine aliens before making them Americans. Claims that the recent USCIS memo standard subjects aliens to an unfair examination ignore our history. Winston Churchill, who helped us defeat Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany (and whose own mother was American), didn’t get a free pass. We should examine all requests for naturalization closely because citizenship is sacred, even when it is merely honorary.
The Trump administration’s reinvigoration of character reviews before naturalization is proper. Congress should support this effort legislatively, funding requests to implement these extra measures of scrutiny as needed. If Lafayette, William Penn, and Winston Churchill were subject to individualized examination before a grant of honorary citizenship, then certainly the same standard should apply to the millions of aliens who wish to become Americans today.
