The U.S. will now screen U.S. citizens for “good moral character (GMC).” This isn’t necessarily new, but it is tricky in application. Currently, would-be citizens have to show a clean criminal background check. Now, however, USCIS says that the absence of wrongdoing is not enough. Officers can disqualify applicants for “actions that, while technically lawful, may be inconsistent with civic responsibility within the community — such as reckless or habitual traffic infractions, or harassment or aggressive solicitation.” But wait — aren’t traffic infractions and harassment unlawful? It doesn’t make sense. The new standard says lawful acts can disqualify you, then gives examples of unlawful acts. That’s the problem: the line between lawful, unlawful, and merely frowned-upon behavior is blurred to the point of meaninglessness. The GMC clause has been part of the Immigration and Nationality Act since 1952. Screening for “good” character might sound like common sense, but in practice it’s wide open to abuse. The Supreme Court has ruled that naturalization is a privilege, not a right — but it also requires that the criteria be non-discriminatory and applied consistently. This new vagueness all but guarantees litigation. And here’s where it gets dangerous: the U.S. has already begun deporting immigrants who publicly criticize Israel. Will that now be folded into the “good moral character” test? If traffic tickets and “aggressive solicitation” are enough to deny citizenship, what happens when political speech is labeled as inconsistent with “civic responsibility”? The post When ‘Good Moral Character’ Means Whatever They Say It Means appeared first on Redacted.