As the Afghanistan crisis worsens, there are reports surfacing that claim the US officials had provided the Taliban with a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies.

An exclusive report from Politico claims that US officials gave a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to make sure the terrorist group allows the, a safe passage to the Kabul airport.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/south-asia/preach-about-importance-of-obeying-rulers-at-friday-prayers-taliban-to-afghan-imams-408861">Preach about importance of obeying rulers at Friday prayers: Taliban to Afghan imams</a>

This move, as per three US and congressional officials quoted by Politico, was designed to make sure that tens of thousands of US citizens in Afghanistan are able to leave the country safely.

While the US might have had good intentions behind taking Taliban’s support for safe passage of American citizens, this move has attracted a lot of criticism from lawmakers and military officials.

"Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list," a defense official told Politico on condition of anonymity. "It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean."

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/what-is-your-strategy-to-stop-taliban-from-acquiring-nuclear-weapons-us-lawmakers-to-biden-408837">What is your strategy to stop Taliban from acquiring nuclear weapons? US lawmakers to Biden</a>

While there has been no official confirmation on existence of such a list, the US President Joe Biden has also not denied the possibility of it. When a reporter questioned Biden about this media report, Biden did not confirm or deny the allegation.

"There have been occasions when our military has contacted their military counterparts in the Taliban and said this, for example, this bus is coming through with X number of people on it, made up of the following group of people. We want you to let that bus or that group through," he was quoted saying by Politico. "So, yes there have been occasions like that. To the best of my knowledge, in those cases, the bulk of that has occurred and they have been let through.

"I can't tell you with any certitude that there's actually been a list of names," he added, as per Politico. "There may have been. But I know of no circumstance. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that here's the names of 12 people, they're coming, let them through. It could very well have happened."

As the Afghanistan crisis worsens, there are reports surfacing that claim the US officials had provided the Taliban with a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies.

As the Afghanistan crisis worsens, there are reports surfacing that claim the US officials had provided the Taliban with a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies. An exclusive report from Politico claims that US officials gave a list of names of American citizens, green card holders and Afghan allies to make sure the terrorist group allows the, a safe passage to the Kabul airport. Also read | Preach about importance of obeying rulers at Friday prayers: Taliban to Afghan imams This move, as per three US and congressional officials quoted by Politico, was designed to make sure that tens of thousands of US citizens in Afghanistan are able to leave the country safely. While the US might have had good intentions behind taking Taliban’s support for safe passage of American citizens, this move has attracted a lot of criticism from lawmakers and military officials. "Basically, they just put all those Afghans on a kill list," a defense official told Politico on condition of anonymity. "It’s just appalling and shocking and makes you feel unclean." Also read | What is your strategy to stop Taliban from acquiring nuclear weapons? US lawmakers to Biden While there has been no official confirmation on existence of such a list, the US President Joe Biden has also not denied the possibility of it. When a reporter questioned Biden about this media report, Biden did not confirm or deny the allegation. "There have been occasions when our military has contacted their military counterparts in the Taliban and said this, for example, this bus is coming through with X number of people on it, made up of the following group of people. We want you to let that bus or that group through," he was quoted saying by Politico. "So, yes there have been occasions like that. To the best of my knowledge, in those cases, the bulk of that has occurred and they have been let through. "I can't tell you with any certitude that there's actually been a list of names," he added, as per Politico. "There may have been. But I know of no circumstance. It doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, that here's the names of 12 people, they're coming, let them through. It could very well have happened."

Kill list? Biden says US troops 'may' have handed a list of American citizens to Taliban

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law.

In his first public speech on an issue that has provoked intense partisan conflict in statehouses and in Washington, Garland served notice to Republicans pushing a raft of restrictive voting laws that he was determined to ensure the right to vote for all Americans.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/heres-how-democrats-sweeping-voting-rights-law-would-work-374584">Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work</a>

Garland did not outline any investigations or specific actions the department might take against states. Nevertheless, his pledge is an about-face from the department’s near abdication of voting rights enforcement under the Trump administration. Over the past four years, the department did not file any new cases under the Voting Rights Act until May of last year, a rare period of silence for one of the most consequential arms for protecting voting rights in the country.

“To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” Garland said in an address at the department headquarters.

Garland made a specific commitment to protect the voting rights of people of colour, reflecting a return to the traditional role the Justice Department has played in preventing discrimination based on race. Voting rights groups and civil rights activists have argued that many of the new voting laws would have a disproportionate impact on voters of colour, and President Joe Biden described the restrictions Georgia passed in March as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.’’

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/florida-republicans-pass-voting-limits-in-broad-elections-bill-381618">Florida Republicans pass voting limits in broad elections bill</a>

Without identifying specific states, Garland made an apparent allusion to the hourslong lines many Black voters faced last year in Georgia’s June primary elections, citing studies showing that “in some jurisdictions, nonwhite voters must wait in a line substantially longer than white voters to cast their ballots.’’

He also made a clear reference to Arizona’s Republican-led&nbsp;and widely derided. recount of 2 million votes in Maricopa County, saying the department would scrutinize postelection audits “to ensure they abide by federal statutory requirements to protect election records and avoid the intimidation of voters.”

In a statement Friday evening, the department said it had sent a letter to the Arizona Senate, expressing concern over, and explaining federal legal constraints on, the conduct of its continuing postelection audit.

The drive to enact new voting laws has become a core mission of the Republican Party, as former President Donald Trump and his allies continue to peddle false claims about a rigged election and call for more states he lost to audit their results despite no evidence of fraud. Pledges to restrict access to voting under the banner of “election integrity” have become commonplace in fundraising emails and campaign ads from Republican candidates.

Republican-led legislatures in several states including Georgia, Florida and Iowa have passed laws imposing new voting restrictions, and Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona and Michigan, among other states, are considering changes to their electoral systems.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/georgia-law-kicks-off-partisan-battle-over-voting-rights-373609">Georgia law kicks off partisan battle over voting rights</a>&nbsp;

At the same time, hopes have dimmed on the left that Congress will pass two major election bills after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. said he would not support abolishing the filibuster to advance such measures.

Garland has said that protecting the right to vote is one of his top priorities as attorney general, and his top lieutenants include high-profile voting rights advocates such as Vanita Gupta, the department’s No. 3 official, and Kristen Clarke, head of the Civil Rights Division. The division currently has about a dozen employees on its enforcement staff, which is focused on protecting the right to vote, according to a department official familiar with the staff.

Despite his pledge, Garland is still limited in what he can do unless Democrats in Congress somehow manage to pass new voter protection laws. He can sue states that are found to have violated any of the nation’s four major federal voting rights laws. He can notify state and local governments when he believes that their procedures violate federal law. And federal prosecutors can charge people who are found to have intimidated voters, a federal crime.

The Justice Department’s most powerful tool, the Voting Rights Act, was significantly weakened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down pieces of the act forcing states with legacies of racial discrimination to receive Justice Department approval before they could change their voting laws.

Now the department can only sue after a law has been passed and found to violate the act, meaning that a restrictive law could stand through multiple election cycles as litigation winds its way through the courts.

Any new steps to protect voting rights are unlikely to move quickly, said Joanna Lydgate, a former deputy attorney general of Massachusetts who co-founded the States United Democracy Center. “People will need to be patient,” she said.

Still, progressive groups praised the announcement, which is seen as an important bulwark against the new voting laws introduced in all but two states that have Republican-controlled legislatures. There are nearly 400 measures in total, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law.

As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the group.

Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from affecting upcoming elections. And so far, the federal government has not joined the legal fight.

“We need to make sure that the federal government is an active participant in protecting the right to vote,” said Tom Perez, a former Democratic National Committee chair who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Barack Obama’s first term. “We can’t simply rely on private lawsuits.”

Conservatives who have crafted and pushed for the new voting laws scoffed at Garland’s announcement.

“Americans have been clear: they support laws making it easy to vote and hard to cheat in states across the country,” said Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action, which helped write and then organized support for many of the new laws. “Despite the false narrative coming out of the White House and now the Department of Justice, Americans support secure, fair elections, even if the left does not.”

The Justice Department’s curbed abilities to fight voter fraud were amplified under the Trump administration.

“It was a really low point for voting rights enforcement,” said Wendy R. Weisser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “There’s a lot of ground to be made up obviously, and now there’s unprecedented challenges to voting rights.”

During the 2020 election, the department publicly appeared to be more concerned with hunting for fraud than protecting voting rights. In September, then-Attorney General William Barr made numerous false statements about voting by mail in an interview with CNN, and amplified the importance of a minor ballot error in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, making it appear as if it warranted a major fraud investigation.

Garland expressed scepticism about the use of unorthodox postelection audits, saying they could undermine faith in the nation’s ability to host free and fair elections. He said that some jurisdictions had used disinformation to justify such audits.

Assertions of material voter fraud in the 2020 election “have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court, federal and state, that has considered them,” Garland said.

The Justice Department will publish guidance explaining the civil and criminal statutes that apply to post-election audits, as well as guidance on early voting and voting by mail, and will work with other agencies to combat disinformation, Garland said.

Republicans have taken aim at specific pillars of voting access, particularly ones utilized during the 2020 election as voters sought safer options amid the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/topics/coronavirus">coronavirus pandemic</a>. In an effort to restrict voting by mail, they have sought to limit the number of drop boxes in multiple states, limit who can request mail ballots and add new identification requirements for absentee ballots.

Republican legislatures are also seeking to greatly empower partisan poll watchers across the country. The role, which is meant to simply be an observational check granted to both political parties and all candidates, has grown increasingly controversial as party leaders, including Trump, have sometimes used militarist language to describe them.

Garland said that the Justice Department had taken note of a sharp rise “in menacing and violent threats” against state and local election workers. Such threats, he said, undermined the electoral process and violated federal laws.

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law.

Attorney General Merrick Garland laid out an expansive plan on Friday for protecting voting rights, announcing that the Justice Department would double enforcement staff on the issue, scrutinize new state laws that seek to curb voter access and take action if it sees a violation of federal law. In his first public speech on an issue that has provoked intense partisan conflict in statehouses and in Washington, Garland served notice to Republicans pushing a raft of restrictive voting laws that he was determined to ensure the right to vote for all Americans. Also read | Here’s how Democrats’ sweeping voting rights law would work Garland did not outline any investigations or specific actions the department might take against states. Nevertheless, his pledge is an about-face from the department’s near abdication of voting rights enforcement under the Trump administration. Over the past four years, the department did not file any new cases under the Voting Rights Act until May of last year, a rare period of silence for one of the most consequential arms for protecting voting rights in the country. “To meet the challenge of the current moment, we must rededicate the resources of the Department of Justice to a critical part of its original mission: enforcing federal law to protect the franchise for all eligible voters,” Garland said in an address at the department headquarters. Garland made a specific commitment to protect the voting rights of people of colour, reflecting a return to the traditional role the Justice Department has played in preventing discrimination based on race. Voting rights groups and civil rights activists have argued that many of the new voting laws would have a disproportionate impact on voters of colour, and President Joe Biden described the restrictions Georgia passed in March as “Jim Crow in the 21st Century.’’ Also read | Florida Republicans pass voting limits in broad elections bill Without identifying specific states, Garland made an apparent allusion to the hourslong lines many Black voters faced last year in Georgia’s June primary elections, citing studies showing that “in some jurisdictions, nonwhite voters must wait in a line substantially longer than white voters to cast their ballots.’’ He also made a clear reference to Arizona’s Republican-led and widely derided. recount of 2 million votes in Maricopa County, saying the department would scrutinize postelection audits “to ensure they abide by federal statutory requirements to protect election records and avoid the intimidation of voters.” In a statement Friday evening, the department said it had sent a letter to the Arizona Senate, expressing concern over, and explaining federal legal constraints on, the conduct of its continuing postelection audit. The drive to enact new voting laws has become a core mission of the Republican Party, as former President Donald Trump and his allies continue to peddle false claims about a rigged election and call for more states he lost to audit their results despite no evidence of fraud. Pledges to restrict access to voting under the banner of “election integrity” have become commonplace in fundraising emails and campaign ads from Republican candidates. Republican-led legislatures in several states including Georgia, Florida and Iowa have passed laws imposing new voting restrictions, and Texas, New Hampshire, Arizona and Michigan, among other states, are considering changes to their electoral systems. Also read | Georgia law kicks off partisan battle over voting rights At the same time, hopes have dimmed on the left that Congress will pass two major election bills after Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. said he would not support abolishing the filibuster to advance such measures. Garland has said that protecting the right to vote is one of his top priorities as attorney general, and his top lieutenants include high-profile voting rights advocates such as Vanita Gupta, the department’s No. 3 official, and Kristen Clarke, head of the Civil Rights Division. The division currently has about a dozen employees on its enforcement staff, which is focused on protecting the right to vote, according to a department official familiar with the staff. Despite his pledge, Garland is still limited in what he can do unless Democrats in Congress somehow manage to pass new voter protection laws. He can sue states that are found to have violated any of the nation’s four major federal voting rights laws. He can notify state and local governments when he believes that their procedures violate federal law. And federal prosecutors can charge people who are found to have intimidated voters, a federal crime. The Justice Department’s most powerful tool, the Voting Rights Act, was significantly weakened by a 2013 Supreme Court decision that struck down pieces of the act forcing states with legacies of racial discrimination to receive Justice Department approval before they could change their voting laws. Now the department can only sue after a law has been passed and found to violate the act, meaning that a restrictive law could stand through multiple election cycles as litigation winds its way through the courts. Any new steps to protect voting rights are unlikely to move quickly, said Joanna Lydgate, a former deputy attorney general of Massachusetts who co-founded the States United Democracy Center. “People will need to be patient,” she said. Still, progressive groups praised the announcement, which is seen as an important bulwark against the new voting laws introduced in all but two states that have Republican-controlled legislatures. There are nearly 400 measures in total, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a progressive public policy institute that is part of the New York University School of Law. As of May 14, lawmakers had passed 22 new laws in 14 states to make the process of voting more difficult, according to the group. Democrats have filed lawsuits against some new voting laws, but that litigation could take years to wind its way through the courts and may have little power to stop those laws from affecting upcoming elections. And so far, the federal government has not joined the legal fight. “We need to make sure that the federal government is an active participant in protecting the right to vote,” said Tom Perez, a former Democratic National Committee chair who led the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division during President Barack Obama’s first term. “We can’t simply rely on private lawsuits.” Conservatives who have crafted and pushed for the new voting laws scoffed at Garland’s announcement. “Americans have been clear: they support laws making it easy to vote and hard to cheat in states across the country,” said Jessica Anderson, executive director of Heritage Action, which helped write and then organized support for many of the new laws. “Despite the false narrative coming out of the White House and now the Department of Justice, Americans support secure, fair elections, even if the left does not.” The Justice Department’s curbed abilities to fight voter fraud were amplified under the Trump administration. “It was a really low point for voting rights enforcement,” said Wendy R. Weisser, director of the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center. “There’s a lot of ground to be made up obviously, and now there’s unprecedented challenges to voting rights.” During the 2020 election, the department publicly appeared to be more concerned with hunting for fraud than protecting voting rights. In September, then-Attorney General William Barr made numerous false statements about voting by mail in an interview with CNN, and amplified the importance of a minor ballot error in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, making it appear as if it warranted a major fraud investigation. Garland expressed scepticism about the use of unorthodox postelection audits, saying they could undermine faith in the nation’s ability to host free and fair elections. He said that some jurisdictions had used disinformation to justify such audits. Assertions of material voter fraud in the 2020 election “have been refuted by the law enforcement and intelligence agencies of both this administration and the previous one, as well as by every court, federal and state, that has considered them,” Garland said. The Justice Department will publish guidance explaining the civil and criminal statutes that apply to post-election audits, as well as guidance on early voting and voting by mail, and will work with other agencies to combat disinformation, Garland said. Republicans have taken aim at specific pillars of voting access, particularly ones utilized during the 2020 election as voters sought safer options amid the coronavirus pandemic. In an effort to restrict voting by mail, they have sought to limit the number of drop boxes in multiple states, limit who can request mail ballots and add new identification requirements for absentee ballots. Republican legislatures are also seeking to greatly empower partisan poll watchers across the country. The role, which is meant to simply be an observational check granted to both political parties and all candidates, has grown increasingly controversial as party leaders, including Trump, have sometimes used militarist language to describe them. Garland said that the Justice Department had taken note of a sharp rise “in menacing and violent threats” against state and local election workers. Such threats, he said, undermined the electoral process and violated federal laws.

Garland pledges renewed efforts to protect voting rights

Priority #1 of the POTUS is to give American citizens a full shower flow. Trump plans to approve new dishwashers. Besides, POTUS also thinks energy-efficient light bulbs make people look orange. WION's Palki Sharma summarises Trump's tryst with dishwashers.

Gravitas: Trump's tryst with dishwashers

The US&nbsp;Vice President Mike Pence is the beneficiary of a legal defence fund set up to aid in expenses related to the 2016 election, according to disclosures the vice president made public on Thursday.

The fund has $25 in it, according to the disclosure.&nbsp;

To donate to the fund, supporters will have to complete a series of certifications, including that Pence himself did not solicit the contribution, according to a White House official.&nbsp;

Donors will also have to verify that they are American citizens, they are not a lobbyist and the money is from their personal wealth, not a corporation, the official said.&nbsp;

Additionally, federal employees, federal government contractors and registered agents for a foreign government will also be prohibited from donating.

Federal ethics laws that prohibit accepting excessive gifts have made it difficult for officials to raise money for defence funds. Past presidents, including President Bill Clinton, have formed legal defence funds, avoiding rules by disclosing individual donors and prohibiting contributions from lobbyists.

President Donald Trump`s 2016 campaign has been the subject of intense scrutiny after critics said those close to the president colluded with Russian operatives to influence the outcome of the election.&nbsp;

Special Counsel<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/mueller-wont-testify-next-week-talks-ongoing-house-democrat-217694"> Robert Mueller</a> released a report in April that determined there was not enough evidence to charge Trump or those near him with criminal conspiracy related to collusion.

The investigation saw dozens of Trump campaign employees and associates called before investigators, a grand jury and congressional panels. Obtaining private attorneys to assist in the interviews has caused some to rack up large legal bills.&nbsp;

The vice president is required to file an annual personal financial disclosure that details income and liabilities.&nbsp;

New to the report this year was the defence fund, named the MRP Legal Expense Trust Fund.

According to a footnote, James D. Atterholt of Florida created the fund on Dec. 10, 2018, to make payments "in connection with the 2016 presidential election and related matters."&nbsp;

The $25 payment to the fund was made to establish the trust, the footnote said.

"The Trust had no other assets, received no other contributions, and produced no income during the reporting period," the footnote said.

The US Vice President Mike Pence is the beneficiary of a legal defence fund set up to aid in expenses related to the 2016 election, according to disclosures the vice president made public on Thursday.

The US Vice President Mike Pence is the beneficiary of a legal defence fund set up to aid in expenses related to the 2016 election, according to disclosures the vice president made public on Thursday. The fund has $25 in it, according to the disclosure. To donate to the fund, supporters will have to complete a series of certifications, including that Pence himself did not solicit the contribution, according to a White House official. Donors will also have to verify that they are American citizens, they are not a lobbyist and the money is from their personal wealth, not a corporation, the official said. Additionally, federal employees, federal government contractors and registered agents for a foreign government will also be prohibited from donating. Federal ethics laws that prohibit accepting excessive gifts have made it difficult for officials to raise money for defence funds. Past presidents, including President Bill Clinton, have formed legal defence funds, avoiding rules by disclosing individual donors and prohibiting contributions from lobbyists. President Donald Trump`s 2016 campaign has been the subject of intense scrutiny after critics said those close to the president colluded with Russian operatives to influence the outcome of the election. Special Counsel Robert Mueller released a report in April that determined there was not enough evidence to charge Trump or those near him with criminal conspiracy related to collusion. The investigation saw dozens of Trump campaign employees and associates called before investigators, a grand jury and congressional panels. Obtaining private attorneys to assist in the interviews has caused some to rack up large legal bills. The vice president is required to file an annual personal financial disclosure that details income and liabilities. New to the report this year was the defence fund, named the MRP Legal Expense Trust Fund. According to a footnote, James D. Atterholt of Florida created the fund on Dec. 10, 2018, to make payments "in connection with the 2016 presidential election and related matters." The $25 payment to the fund was made to establish the trust, the footnote said. "The Trust had no other assets, received no other contributions, and produced no income during the reporting period," the footnote said.

US Vice President Pence received legal defense fund from Florida lawyer

Between 2005 and 2015, India, along with Ecuador, posted the biggest increase among origin countries for eligible immigrants opting to become American citizens, a study has found.

By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said.

Ecuador from Africa also registered a similar 12 percentage point increase during the same period.

During this period, the total number of naturalised immigrants in the US increased from 14.4 million in 2005 to 19.8 million in 2015, a 37 per cent increase.

&quot;By 2015, eligible immigrants from India had one of the higher naturalisation rates (80 per cent) due to a 12- percentage-point increase in its naturalisation rate since 2005. Only eligible immigrants from

Ecuador (68 per cent in 2015) had as large an increase,&quot; Pew said.

&quot;This is a bigger increase than for US immigrants overall, among whom naturalisation rates jumped from 62 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2015,&quot; the research center said, adding that eligible immigrants from Vietnam (86 per cent) and Iran (85 per cent) had the highest naturalisation rates of any group in 2015.

However, the naturalisation rates among eligible immigrants from Honduras, China and Cuba declined or remained largely unchanged from 2005 to 2015, as per the most recent year for which Pew

Research Center estimates are available.

To be eligible for US citizenship, immigrant must be at least 18 years old, have lived in the country for at least five years as lawful permanent resident or three years for those married to a US citizenship and be in a good standing with the law.

Between 2005 and 2015, the United States denied naturalisation applications to nearly one million immigrants.

By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said

Between 2005 and 2015, India, along with Ecuador, posted the biggest increase among origin countries for eligible immigrants opting to become American citizens, a study has found. By 2015, as many as 80 per cent of eligible immigrants from India opted to become American citizens, as against 69 per cent in 2005, thus registering an increase of 12 percentage point, the Pew Research Center has said. Ecuador from Africa also registered a similar 12 percentage point increase during the same period. During this period, the total number of naturalised immigrants in the US increased from 14.4 million in 2005 to 19.8 million in 2015, a 37 per cent increase. "By 2015, eligible immigrants from India had one of the higher naturalisation rates (80 per cent) due to a 12- percentage-point increase in its naturalisation rate since 2005. Only eligible immigrants from Ecuador (68 per cent in 2015) had as large an increase," Pew said. "This is a bigger increase than for US immigrants overall, among whom naturalisation rates jumped from 62 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2015," the research center said, adding that eligible immigrants from Vietnam (86 per cent) and Iran (85 per cent) had the highest naturalisation rates of any group in 2015. However, the naturalisation rates among eligible immigrants from Honduras, China and Cuba declined or remained largely unchanged from 2005 to 2015, as per the most recent year for which Pew Research Center estimates are available. To be eligible for US citizenship, immigrant must be at least 18 years old, have lived in the country for at least five years as lawful permanent resident or three years for those married to a US citizenship and be in a good standing with the law. Between 2005 and 2015, the United States denied naturalisation applications to nearly one million immigrants.

US naturalisation rates increase high among Indians: Study