TV show where migrants compete for US citizenship considered by Homeland Security
The winner would obtain fast-tracked citizenship and would be sworn in on the steps of the US Capitol in Washington DC.
Show celebrates immigration process
'Along the way, we will be reminded what it means to be American – through the eyes of the people who want it most,' reads Worsoff's pitch, which was seen by Dailymail.com.
'As an immigrant myself, I am merely trying to make a show that celebrates the immigration process, celebrate what it means to be American and have a national conversation about what it means to be American, through the eyes of the people who want it most,' the Canadian-born Worsoff, 49, said.
He insisted the show was not a 'hunger game' for immigrants, with losers facing deportation.
'This is not, 'Hey, if you lose, we are shipping you out on a boat out of the country'.'
This is not the first time Worsoff has floated the plans, having first pitched the show during the Obama administration, but Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's appetite for publicity will likely have encouraged him about the viability of the show under the current administration.
In late March, Noem, nicknamed 'ICE Barbie', posed in front of caged prisoners in El Salvador's notorious mega-prison Cecot, with perfectly coiffured hair and in full make-up.
Standing in front of the barred prison cells, with tattooed, shaven-headed deportees as a backdrop, she said: 'I also want everybody to know, if you come to our country illegally, this is one of the consequences you could face.'
The Department for Homeland Security confirmed the proposals were 'under consideration' but had not been seen by Noem.
It is 'in the very beginning stages of that vetting process', a spokeswoman said, adding: 'Each proposal undergoes a thorough vetting process prior to denial or approval.'
However, suggestions that Noem had backed the plans were 'completely false', the department's spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said.
American Immigration Lawyers president Kelli Stump told the Telegraph: 'From what I've read about this 'idea', my legal thought is 'how?' Congress sets the laws for who can become a citizen and the process on how to become one. Not the President.'
Stump said she was horrified by allowing people to compete for citizenship.
'I just feel like making them compete in a Hunger Games / Squid Game reality show really undermines the sacred process… all for what? Ratings? America isn't a TikTok reel.'
Already, up to 55,000 US immigrants participate in the Green Card Lottery.
Known officially as the Diversity Immigrant Visa, the programme was introduced under the 1990 Immigration Act, which was passed with bipartisan support.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Herald
26 minutes ago
- NZ Herald
Officials concede they don't know the fate of Iran's uranium stockpile
A day after United States President Donald Trump declared that Iran's nuclear programme had been 'completely and totally obliterated' by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the programme seemed far more murky. Senior officials conceded they did not know the fate of Iran's
1News
4 hours ago
- 1News
US signals willingness to renew Iran talks to avoid prolonged war
The Trump administration has signalled a willingness to renew talks with Iran and avoid a prolonged war in the aftermath of a surprise attack on three of the country's nuclear sites as US officials assessed Tehran's nuclear ambitions and the threat of retaliation against American interests. US President Donald Trump, who had addressed the nation from the White House on Saturday night (Washington time), allowed his national security team to speak for him the next morning, staying quiet on social media and scheduling no public appearances. The coordinated messaging by his vice president, Pentagon chief, top military adviser and secretary of state suggested a confidence that any fallout from the attack would be manageable and that Iran's lack of military capabilities would ultimately force it back to the bargaining table. This image provided by the Department of Defense shows a chart that was displayed during a news conference by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine at the Pentagon in Washington (Source: Associated Press) Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a news conference that America 'does not seek war' with Iran while Vice President JD Vance said the strikes have given Tehran the possibility of returning to negotiate with Washington. ADVERTISEMENT 'Operation Midnight Hammer, involved decoys and deception and met with no Iranian resistance, according to Hegseth and Air Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. 'This mission was not and has not been about regime change,' Hegseth added. Caine said the goal of the operation — destroying nuclear sites in Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan — had been achieved. 'Final battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction,' Caine said. Vance said in a television interview that while he would not discuss 'sensitive intelligence about what we've seen on the ground,' he felt 'very confident that we've substantially delayed their development of a nuclear weapon.' Pressed further, he told NBC's Meet the Press that 'I think that we have really pushed their program back by a very long time. I think that it's going to be many many years before the Iranians are able to develop a nuclear weapon.' The vice president said the US had 'negotiated aggressively' with Iran to try to find a peaceful settlement and that Trump made his decision after assessing the Iranians were not acting 'in good faith.' "I actually think it provides an opportunity to reset this relationship, reset these negotiations and get us in a place where Iran can decide not to be a threat to its neighbors, not to a threat to the United States and if they're willing to do that, the United States is all ears,' Vance said. ADVERTISEMENT Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on CBS's Face the Nation that "there are no planned military operations right now against Iran, unless, unless they mess around and they attack" US interests. Maxar satellite image reveals multiple buildings damaged or destroyed at the Isfahan nuclear technology center after US airstrikes (Source: Maxar Technologies) Trump has previously threatened other countries, but often backed down or failed to follow through, given his promises to his coalition of voters not to entangle the United States in an extended war. It was not immediately clear whether Iran saw the avoidance of a wider conflict as in its best interests. Much of the world is absorbing the consequences of the strikes and the risk that they could lead to more fighting across the Middle East after the US inserted itself into the war between Israel and Iran. Airstrikes that began earlier this month by Israel targeted Iran's nuclear facilities and generals, prompting retaliation from Iran and creating a series of events that contributed to the US attack. While US officials urged for caution and stressed that only nuclear sites were targeted by Washington, Iran criticized the actions as a violation of its sovereignty and international law. Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said Washington was 'fully responsible' for whatever actions Tehran may take in response. 'They crossed a very big red line by attacking nuclear facilities," he said at a news conference in Turkey. 'I don't know how much room is left for diplomacy.' ADVERTISEMENT China and Russia, where Araghchi was heading for talks with President Vladimir Putin, condemned the US military action. The attacks were 'a gross violation of international law,' said Russia's Foreign Ministry, which also advocated 'returning the situation to a political and diplomatic course.' A Turkish Foreign Ministry statement warned about the risk of the conflict spreading to 'a global level.' British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the United Kingdom was moving military equipment into the area to protect its interests, people and allies, but that he was focused on finding a solution. The leaders of Italy, Canada, Germany and France agreed on the need 'a rapid resumption of negotiations.' France's Emmanuel Macron held talks with the Saudi crown prince and sultan of Oman. Iran could try to stop oil exports through the Strait of Hormuz, which could create the same kind of inflationary shocks that the world felt after Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022. Oil prices have increased in the financial markets as the war between Israel and Iran had intensified, climbing by 21% over the past month. The Pentagon briefing did not provide any new details about Iran's nuclear capabilities. Hegseth said the timeline for the strikes was the result of a schedule set by Trump for talks with Iran about its nuclear ambitions. 'Iran found out" that when Trump "says 60 days that he seeks peace and negotiation, he means 60 days of peace and negotiation," Hegseth said. "Otherwise, that nuclear program, that new nuclear capability will not exist. He meant it.' ADVERTISEMENT That statement was complicated as the White House had suggested last Thursday that Trump could take as much as two weeks to determine whether to strike Iran or continue to pursue negotiations. But the US benefited from Iran's weakened air defences as it was able to conduct the attacks without resistance from Iran. 'Iran's fighters did not fly, and it appears that Iran's surface-to-air missile systems did not see us throughout the mission," Caine said. Hegseth said that a choice to move a number of B-2 bombers from their base in Missouri earlier Saturday was meant to be a decoy to throw off Iranians. He added that the US used other methods of deception as well, deploying fighters to protect the B-2 bombers that dropped a total of 14 bunker-buster bombs on Iran's sites at Fordo and Natanz. The strikes occurred Saturday between 6:40 p.m. and 7:05 p.m. in Washington, or roughly 2:10 a.m. on Sunday in Iran.
Newsroom
7 hours ago
- Newsroom
Kiwi weapons inspector warns of the same mistakes, in Iran
Analysis: It was the sense of futility that Blenheim's Steve Allinson remembers. He and the other UNMOVIC weapons experts would return from their site inspections, and tune in to satellite TV to see American and British politicians insisting there were weapons of mass destruction. The fact the weapons inspectors had found no evidence of them just showed they weren't doing their job. And as they walked through the airport to fly out of Iraq for the last time on March 18, 2003, he tells me of his most stark memory, 'It was the look on the faces of all the normal people, of all the normal Iraqis there, because they knew what was coming.' The following day, the US and its allies hit Iraq with large-scale air strikes. For Allinson, it was hard to return to New Zealand. 'It's like coming back from war, you know, and everyone else is living their normal lives, like nothing's happening – because it's not happening in my backyard.' Coulda? Woulda? The questions asked of Iraq, 22 years ago, are the same questions being asked today of Iran. Could they make a weapon of mass destruction – specifically, a nuclear weapon? And would they? US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard had told Congress in March that intelligence showed Iran was not building nuclear weapons, but now agrees with Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump that the rogue state could do so within weeks. Despite her equivocation, it seems clear that Iran is, at least, further progressed than Saddam Hussein was. The International Atomic Energy Agency says Iran's uranium has reached about 60 percent enrichment, more than can be justified for peaceful purposes and well on its way to being concentrated enough for a nuclear weapon. Agency chief Rafael Grossi adds that Iran has enough nuclear material for several warheads – though he emphasises this shouldn't be confused with possessing an actual nuclear weapon. Equally worrying is the answer to the question of whether Iran would deploy nuclear weapons. Before yesterday's strikes, the New York Times reports that US intelligence had assessed that Iran had not made the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Steve Allinson uses a satellite phone while working in Iraq as a UN weapons inspector. Photo: Supplied However, Iranian leaders were likely to shift toward producing a bomb if the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site Fordow, or if Israel killed Iran's supreme leader. Yesterday, the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site Fordow. The US gave Netanyahu what he wanted: B-2s dropped more than a dozen massive 'bunker buster' bombs on the Fordow and Natanz facilities, while Tomahawk missiles struck Isfahan. Donald Trump called it 'Operation Midnight Hammer'. This is a more dangerous time than 2003. We now have three nations in active military conflict in the Middle East, two of which are nuclear-armed and one of which is close to that point – and all three have strong leaders who show little regard for multilateral rules or institutions. For the first time since the Cuban missile crisis, there are itchy trigger fingers on tactical nuclear weapons. Moreover, the authority of the United Nations and other international institutions has been undermined, to the point they are almost powerless. Those who protest that the US action is a breach of the UN Charter and international law, because this was not a preemptive self-defence, are shouting into the void. This morning, Winston Peters acknowledges they may be right – but we need more facts. There are too many judgments being made by those who aren't qualified lawyers, who aren't qualified internationalists, who aren't qualified nuclear experts: 'Let's find out what the truth is here,' he says on Morning Report. 'Let's get the facts out before the New Zealand people, before we make a mistake and rush to judgment and regret it.' Steve Allinson needs to know that lessons have been learned from 2003, and the nine years of war that ensued in Iraq – so he welcomes the cautious stance being taken by Kiwi leaders. 'I think the New Zealand Government's taking the right approach, getting New Zealand citizens out, and just seeing where everything pans out. Everyone's just waiting for a response – and they probably will respond.' Today, Israel says Iranians will rise up and overthrow their fundamentalist Shiite regime. The US is demanding Iran now come back to the negotiating table. But Iran is vowing vengeance. What the past 100 or more years of history shows is that the great powers have repeatedly underestimated smaller nations. Vietnam. Afghanistan. Ukraine. The US and Russia have found themselves mired down for decades; eventually they've been forced to withdraw. How can this be? It's because even divided communities like those in Iran don't react to 'shock and awe' attacks by rising up against their leaders. No, they 'rally round the flag' against those they see as foreign oppressors. Nothing unites more than a common enemy. And it won't just be the people of Iran who unite. There is a risk that Arabs and Muslims across many Middle Eastern nations put aside their differences. The world may look back at this weekend's airstrikes as the start of many years of heightened conflict across the Middle East and beyond, and the whole world will feel that pain and grief. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon is right. 'New Zealand doesn't want to see a nuclear-armed Iran destabilising its neighbours,' he says. 'We don't want to see Gaza under Israeli occupation. We don't want to see Hamas holding onto hostages. But the answer in all of those cases, and all of the conflicts within the Middle East is actually dialogue and diplomacy, not military action.'
