Washington — A wave of outrage is spreading after immigration aid organizations and lawyers released allegations that some people in the final stages of naturalization had their oath ceremonies canceled at the last minute, or were even asked to leave the line at the ceremony, based on their national origin. The allegations quickly ignited a heated debate about how the Trump administration enforces immigration policy.

According to Project Citizenship, a non-profit organization that supports immigrants, a 50-year-old Haitian woman, who had lived in the U.S. for nearly two decades, attended her scheduled oath ceremony because she didn’t receive notification of cancellation in time. Executive Director Gail Breslow said her client recounted that upon arrival, staff asked each person what country they were from, and some were asked to leave the line with notification that their ceremony was canceled. “People were shocked and panicked. Not the entire ceremony was canceled — just some people,” Breslow said.

In addition to on-site cases, some others reported receiving emails or text messages notifying them of the cancellation of their swearing-in ceremonies after years of waiting and significant expense. “Some people asked: What did I do wrong?… and needed reassurance that it wasn’t their fault,” Breslow added.

Political voices quickly joined the fray. Representative Ilhan Omar and several civil rights activists accused the practice of being discriminatory, arguing it contradicted the commitment to “coming to America lawfully.” Conversely, the White House and related officials maintained their goal was to properly enforce the law, emphasizing that administrative decisions may arise from processes, schedules, or procedural requirements—not from any particular race or nationality.

Legal experts noted that, if confirmed, national selection at swearing-in ceremonies would raise serious questions about the consistency and transparency of immigration law enforcement. Congressional committees are reportedly closely monitoring these allegations, while civil rights organizations are calling for an independent investigation.

As the debate continues, those at the center of the story—the naturalization applicants—say what hurts them most is being deprived of the moment of fulfillment after years of compliance. The case has become a new flashpoint in the national debate over immigration: how far the law should be enforced, and how to ensure the dignity of those who have “done everything right.”