The application form that green card holders must fill out in order to apply for U.S. citizenship (Form N-400, Application for Naturalization), asks various questions about group and party memberships.
First, it asks an open-ended question about whether applicants have been members of any organization, association, or other type of club or group. Then the form asks specifically whether the applicant is or has ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party, or ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government by force or violence.
Saying “yes” or otherwise indicating membership in or advocacy for the Communist Party or any totalitarian or similar party can result in denial of one’s application for U.S. citizenship. This all relates to the portion of U.S. immigration law that requires citizenship applicants to show that they are attached to the principles of the U.S. Constitution and well-disposed to the nation’s good order and happiness. (See I.N.A. § 316(a)). This includes a belief in representative democracy and the basic premise that political change should be brought about in an orderly fashion.
Given how many people come to the U.S. from regimes that fit (or once fit) this description, however, it’s worth taking a closer look at both the bar, the exceptions to it, and real-life interpretations of who is ineligible.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (I.N.A.) contains a prohibition on naturalization for anyone involved, within the last ten years, with a group that advocates or teaches opposition to all organized government; or involved with the Communist Party or any other totalitarian party of the U.S. or any foreign state; or who advocates world communism or totalitarian dictatorship even without formal group membership. (See I.N.A. Section 313).
The law similarly blocks naturalization for anyone who within the last ten years, individually or as part of any organization, advocates or teaches the forceful or violent overthrow of the U.S. government, who assaults or murders any government officer, or who damages, injures, or destroys property, or commits sabotage.
The law doesn’t use the word “anarchist,” but lawyers consider this to be among the types of prohibited groups referred to in this section of the law.
The above is a boiled-down summary. If you think you fit into a loophole in what was just described, be sure to consult with an attorney or read the original law, which clearly tries not to leave anyone out.
Despite the ideological and political bars described above, the applicant may be able to succeed with an application for U.S. citizenship if he or she falls into an exception. The exceptions cover applicants who:
These exceptions are set forth in the law.
In addition, court cases have said that the association with the organization in question must be a “meaningful” one in order to bar naturalization. Simply paying dues, attending meetings or social events, especially while young, is less likely to be considered meaningful than, say, enthusiastic participation or taking on leadership roles.
For example, a federal district court found in a case called In re Pruna (D.P.R. 1968), that because the applicant’s membership in an organization supporting Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution in 1958 resulted from his belief that its objective was to restore representative democracy rather than communism, his participation did not amount to a "meaningful association" and he was eligible for U.S. citizenship.
Although some of the above exceptions will be easy to prove, others will require more research and persuasion. In either case, it’s best to get a lawyer’s help with showing that you fall into an exception.
U.S. court decisions contain important examples of naturalization applicants who have successfully proven that they fall into an exception. For example, in a case called Grzymala-Siedlecki v. United States (5th Cir. 1961), the applicant’s enrollment in the Polish Naval Academy, which automatically conferred Communist Party membership upon him, was found to not disqualify him from naturalizing because it was necessary to his earning a living in Poland.
In another case, called Petition of Klajic (C.D. Cal., 1966), the court found that the applicant’s membership in the Narodna Omladina Jugoslavije ("People's Youth of Yugoslavia") did not bar him from naturalization because the organization primarily fostered social and athletic events for young people and may not have even been truly affiliated with the Communist Party. Also, the court found that his membership was involuntary and was solely for the purposes of obtaining employment and other essentials of living, including a basic education that would make him employable.
Of course, there are cases that came to the opposite conclusion in similar situations. Again, your best bet is to get help from an experienced U.S. immigration attorney.