Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Home: A Plea for Reform in the U.S. Naturalization Process

An argumentative research essay I wrote during my first semester at Stony Brook University.

Grade received: A

Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of a Home:

A Plea for Reform in the U.S. Naturalization Process

To the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services,

I was raised around accents; the sweetness of broken English, saffron, and baguettes; hijabs; cheek kisses; and the talk of foreign lands. I have an immigrant mother, born and raised in France, who came to the States to fulfill her dreams of living in Manhattan. My father, a refugee from Iran, escaped the tyranny and horrors of the revolution, and came to the United States to build a new life of peace. Two different stories, two very different levels of urgency, two different experiences becoming citizens, and after watching my mother undergo the process in 2016, I’ve begun to wonder more about the naturalization process, and its reputation amongst aspiring citizens. Each year, over half a million people apply for U.S. citizenship; many, however, aren’t aware of the biases laced into the process, and the negative impact these hurdles can have on their dreams of American citizenship and assimilation. I hope to enlighten you on the silent struggles of aspiring citizens in the United States, prove to you that creating a fair naturalization test is possible, and explain what steps need to be taken to achieve this.

The naturalization process has purposefully excluded certain racial and ethnic groups since it originated in 1790. Built on a foundation of prejudice, it’s no wonder that even today, it remains an inherently discriminatory process. As you likely know, until 1868, the only people who could be naturalized were free white people, and it was only until the implementation of the Immigration and Nationality Act in 1952, that denials of naturalization due to race, gender, or marital status were prohibited (Ryo and Reed 10). It was a system born out of discrimination and opposition towards certain groups of people and harbors remnants of those policies today. The naturalization process remains an insecure system, one which needs to be reformed to disallow political leaders, human bias, and cost from getting in the way of a fair, equitable, and wholly American process and examination: one that reflects a country crowned with the nickname, “Land of Opportunity.”

The current naturalization process, last updated in 2008, has a reputation for breaking the bank. You make immigrants and refugees alike pay an application fee of 725 dollars and a biometric fee of 85 dollars (Ryo and Reed 13). The initial fees aren’t the end to the payments needed to complete the process, since legal assistance adds thousands of dollars to the bill, which is further troubling because we currently live in a country where “two in three Americans cannot cover a $400 expense” (“High Cost of Naturalization”). These costs are out of reach for most American citizens, particularly low-income immigrants, and according to a poll by the CATO Institute, 53% of immigrants came here to succeed financially (Etkins and Kemp). These people would have a better chance of paying fees like this following citizenship; according to an article written by the New Americans Campaign, citizens after naturalization “earn between 50 and 70 percent more than noncitizens” (“Top 6 Benefits of Citizenship”). This is due to the influx of job opportunities given to citizens. Human Resources at the University of Pennsylvania notes that this is because the USCIS put regulations in place that “require that non-citizens apply for and obtain work authorization before they can be lawfully employed” (“Employment of Non-U.S. Citizens”). This process often takes several months and may be delayed even longer by diplomatic complications.. You defend the hefty application fee with the claim that all funds go into sustaining your organization, suggesting that your agency–one that is elemental to the country’s foundations and crucial to its operations–receives the majority of its funding from the immigrants and refugees you attempt to aid. According to your website, “USCIS funding comes primarily from fees we charge applicants or petitioners requesting immigration or naturalization benefits.” (“Budget, Planning and Performance | USCIS”). How do you expect them to afford your exam when they are struggling to put food on the table? Why should this agency not be federally funded?

Some argue that the difficulty in becoming a United States citizen isn’t a topic that deserves attention; they say that a green card is all you need to survive in this country. In many ways they are, practically speaking, correct. The main differences between being a citizen versus only having a green card is green card holders cannot vote, cannot run for office, or have a passport (“The Benefits of a Green Card”). These are luxuries, and arguably do not affect one’s pursuit of happiness, a take that my father, grandmother, and great-grandmother would beg to disagree with. Yes, for their first couple years their green cards were the reasons for their survival. However, without citizenship, they couldn't live out their dreams of being United States citizens, ones with the peace and security administered by that title. For years, the hurdles put in place by your naturalization process meant they were still tied to the country they feared so greatly, still citizens of their worst nightmare.

The mental health of aspiring citizens, and the reasons surrounding their urgency while applying aren’t mentioned as much as they should be when arguing the importance of American citizenship. My father has told me multiple times that he will never go back there. He vowed it when he stepped on American soil. While he is proud to be ethnically Persian, the country of Iran is a place he forever wants to leave behind. The torment that living there put him through has left him repulsed by any form of connection to that country, especially legally. With a traumatic event like escaping a country comes the desire for something peaceful, something safe, and for many people, that is living in America. According to an article written in Journal of Health and Social Behavior, “Naturalization may also exert positive effects on health by fostering the development of symbolic connections to a new country and the willingness and desire to take on new civic engagements, commitments, and identities. Becoming a new citizen is associated with a shift in social role or identity and an increased “sense of belonging” (Gubernskaya et al.). The language barrier, and the price of the process are nothing compared to the mental torment they experience while they are still connected to their home country through citizenship, and by making the process more affordable and by recognizing the exam’s biases against non-English speakers, you could eliminate one of the factors contributing to the poor mental health of immigrants and refugees in this country.

One of the main issues with the exam itself, is its vulnerability towards fluctuating political stances. When the Trump administration took control, explicitly harmful changes were made to the exam’s structure, “injecting hints of conservative philosophy and making the test harder for many learners of the English language” (Romero and Jordan). The changes affected the leniency of the answer choices, making the correct answers one specific word, instead of synomic phrases, which disadvantages non-native English speakers. They may know the answer, but if they write on the document “people who live in the country,” instead of “citizens,” the answer will be marked as incorrect. Eric Cohen, founder of The New Atlantis, one of the nation's leading journals on ethical and social challenges, has rightly described this new policy as “a last-ditch effort on their way out the door for the administration to keep people from realizing their dreams of becoming citizens’” (Romero and Jordan). However, shortly after taking office, President Joe Biden reverted the test to the version previously approved in 2008 (Ahmed), and according to data shown on your website, passing rates went up by 4% two years after Biden entered office (“Applicant Performance”). The problem with this is inconsistency; the structure of the exam should be concrete, and stable enough that fluctuating political stances shouldn’t be able to change the reliance of the naturalization exam.

So, what changes would improve the exam? How do we make it genuinely more inclusive? I believe that it starts with recognizing the impact immigrants have had on the shaping of American history, and incorporating that into the exam. As explained in “A More Meaningful Citizenship Test? Unmasking the Construction of a Universalist, Principle-Based Citizenship Ideology”, published in the California Law Review: "We the People’ is a diverse group that makes up our citizenship community instead of subordinating the citizenry to abstract principles” (Park 1027). The test questions should include the contributions made by various ethnic groups, and how they helped found the civic rights and regulations that are foundational to the United States. This would help address an important, direct criticism that the content of the exam does not encapsulate the meaning of citizenship, but is a collection of facts that needs to be memorized” (Van Ruyskensvelde and Ketch 3). Edit the exam while recognizing the backgrounds of the people who will take the test, without including anything too niche, such as specific dates. Don’t use specific questions as an attempt to reform or assimilate new citizens; instead, celebrate them. Currently, “naturalization is increasingly geared towards the socialization of immigrants into the norm and value system of a country… They are a reflection of the government’s expression of what citizenship is and who should be included or excluded” (Van Ruyskensvelde and Ketch 4). Moreover, accomplish all of this while remaining aware of the varying levels of fluencies in English of those who will be taking this exam. This could be addressed by providing more exceptions for correct answers. If the idea is there, if it’s reasonably clear that the applicant understands the concept, they shouldn’t have to write it out perfectly. It should be recognized as a correct answer. The purpose of the test, described by you, the USCIS, is “to preserve our legacy as a land of freedom and opportunity” (“Mission and Core Values”). Anyone with a clear basic understanding of what the correct answers to the prompts are, by default fitting into that mold. Don’t let someone’s level of English fluency stop them from reaching their full potential as hardworking, loyal patriots of the “Land of the Free.”

Many people’s dreams of American citizenship and all that entails are put in jeopardy because of the intolerance the United States’s naturalization process has towards the majority of its applicants. They are disadvantaged because of the biases in favor of English speakers with knowledge of specific components of American history, the ability to abide by the chains of political trends, and the inconvenient prices required to undergo the process. By recognizing the faults in the exam structure, standardizing the set of information to guarantee immigrants have a fair chance at knowing the answers, and lowering the presented costs, you could change the lives of foreigners everywhere. You could give all people a chance at the American dream, rather than favoring a select few. You have the power to unleash them from the chains of their traumatic past.

Sincerely,

Salome Davoudiasl

---

Works Cited

“Applicant Performance on the Naturalization Test - March 2017 | USCIS.” www.uscis.gov, 5

June 2018,

www.uscis.gov/archive/applicant-performance-on-the-naturalization-test-march-2017. Accessed 6 Nov. 2023.

“Budget, Planning and Performance | USCIS.” www.uscis.gov, 28 May 2021, www.uscis.gov/about-us/budget-planning-and-performance#:~:text=USCIS%20funding%20comes%20primarily%20from.

Ekins, Emily, and David Kemp. “Poll: 72% of Americans Say Immigrants Come to the United States for Jobs and to Improve Their Lives.” Cato.org, 27 Apr. 2021, www.cato.org/blog/poll-72-americans-say-immigrants-come-us-jobs-improve-their-lives-53-say-ability-immigrate.

“Employment of Non-U.S. Citizens.” PublicWeb, 2014, www.hr.upenn.edu/policies-and-procedures/policy-manual/recruitment-and-staffing/employment-of-non-u.s.-citizens#:~:text=United%20States%20Citizenship%20and%20Immigration.

Gubernskaya, Zoya, et al. “(Un)Healthy Immigrant Citizens.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior, vol. 54, no. 4, Dec. 2013, pp. 427–443,

“High Cost of Naturalization Prevents Low-Income Immigrants from Becoming Citizens, Stanford Study Finds.” News.stanford.edu, 17 Jan. 2018, news.stanford.edu/press-releases/2018/01/17/low-income-immig-u-s-citizenship/.

according to a poll done by the CATO Institute – a public policy research organization, Julian Wonjung. “A More Meaningful Citizenship Test? Unmasking the Construction of a Universalist, Principle-Based Citizenship Ideology.” California Law Review, vol. 96, no. 4, 2008, pp. 999–1047.

Romero, Simon, and Miriam Jordan. “New U.S. Citizenship Test Is Longer and More Difficult.” The New York Times, 3 Dec. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/12/03/us/citizenship-test.html.

Ryo, Emily, and Reed Humphrey. “Citizenship Disparities.” Minnesota Law Review, vol. 107, no. 1, Sept. 2022, pp. 1–76.

“Top 6 Benefits of Citizenship.” www.new americans campaign.org, www.newamericanscampaign.org/top-6-benefits-of-citizenship/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20naturalized%20citizens%20on%20average. Accessed 31 Oct. 2023.

The Benefits of a Green Card. Boundless. (2023, August 15). https://www.boundless.com/immigration-resources/green-card-benefits/#:~text=A%20U.S.%20green%20card%20allows,a%20citizen%2C%20but%20not%20all.

Van Ruyskensvelde S, Ketch Mk. The Civics Test: A Political Or Educational Tool For Creating The Perfect Citizen? A Historical Overview Of Forms And Processes Of Naturalization In The United States. Encounters In Theory And History Of Education. 2018;19:205-220. Doi:10.24908/Eoe-Ese-Rse.V19i0.7824