U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE, frequently finds itself at the center of controversy. Recent outcries on social media have accused the agency of making arrests at critical junctures in the citizenship process, particularly during naturalization ceremonies. However, these claims omit essential legal realities.
It is important to clarify that an individual is not considered a U.S. citizen until they take the Oath of Allegiance. Until that moment, they remain an applicant, regardless of how many steps they have completed in the naturalization process. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) made this clear: “You are not a U.S. citizen until you take the Oath of Allegiance at a naturalization ceremony.” Thus, even those who feel they are “minutes away” from citizenship are, in legal terms, still merely applicants. This means that ICE is acting within the law when it enforces removal orders at citizenship interviews or immigration court hearings.
While the assertion that ICE has interrupted citizenship ceremonies generates emotional responses, it is legally misleading. The reality is more nuanced and often misrepresented. Arrests at these critical moments are rare, with most occurring during immigration proceedings for individuals in violation of their status. Under current administration policies, ICE prioritizes immediate enforcement of existing removal orders, contrasting with previous administrations that may have allowed individuals to remain in the U.S. for longer periods while deferring deportation.
Take the case of Kasper Eriksen from Denmark. DHS confirmed Eriksen had a final deportation order dating back to 2019 due to missing a court hearing and not filing required paperwork. Despite this, he still attempted to pursue U.S. citizenship years later, only to be detained when ICE executed the pre-existing removal order at his naturalization interview. Critics may discuss his deportation as occurring during the citizenship process, but the legal framework demonstrates that he was already subject to removal long before that interview.
Another example encompasses Hanne Daguman of Norway, whose immigration status deteriorated after overstaying her student visa. Even though she applied for status adjustment based on her marriage, this did not change her unlawful presence. When she attended her USCIS interview, she was arrested for being out of status. This scenario underscores a broader reality where many immigrants do not realize that a change in legal status can have profound implications for their residency and future in the U.S.
The enforcement actions by ICE also extend to individuals with a history of criminal activity that compromises their legal status. Many do not realize that a conviction can render a green card or work visa revoked. Individuals attending immigration interviews, believing they have maintained their status, often face arrest upon learning that a prior offense has made them deportable. The cases of Fabian Schmidt and Ma Yang illustrate this troubling dynamic.
Schmidt was detained upon reentering the U.S. due to an outstanding misdemeanor drug charge, while Ma, who had lived in the country nearly her entire life, found herself deported after a marijuana trafficking conviction. Both were shocked to discover that their past actions had triggered removal proceedings.
The notion that applying for immigration benefits provides a safeguard against deportation is misguided. Filing a claim after losing legal status does not confer any rights or protections. The labyrinth of immigration law highlights that once an individual goes out of status, they become vulnerable to enforcement actions, regardless of their intent or efforts to comply with the law.
In sum, while it may be tempting to portray ICE’s actions as wrongful or predatory, the reality is rooted in legal frameworks that govern immigration. The portrayal of such incidents often lacks the necessary context, leading to public misunderstanding. Misleading narratives fail to consider the complex interplay between immigration status, legal applications, and enforcement actions. Ultimately, the idea that being “in the process” means one is safe from deportation is a misinterpretation of immigration law and policy.
"*" indicates required fields
