"Immigrants Arriving at Ellis Island 1911" by Images of History is licensed under CC BY 2.0
With everything going on this week it is hard to blame people for feeling a bit disoriented, even disconsolate. Though what happened on January 6th is unprecedented in its particulars, it called to mind many events both past and present in America that heralded societal change and reflection. As a person who grew up in the 80s and 90s it was easy to feel like the big battles had already been fought. The domestic instability brought on by the Vietnam War, the battle for humanity embodied by the Civil Rights Movement, and the almost routine sequence of political assassinations throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s were already fading into the past by the time people in my generation cracked open a history book. Though 9/11 was a monumental event in my lifetime, the immediate reaction to that kind of attack among most Americans was to rally and unite behind our ideals, and despite the fact that this unity was later exploited by cynical politicians to attack civil liberties and guide us into disastrous wars abroad, it still serves as a proud but tragic moment in our recent history.
With these thoughts rolling around in my head, I encountered this article in the New York Times which looks at how many new citizens and immigrants view recent events. It should be said that while America enjoyed a good few decades between ~1980 and 2008, the rest of the world wasn’t so lucky. Large populations of Vietnamese, Mexicans, Central and South Americans, and Koreans (among others) migrated to the U.S. during these years to escape war, economic instability, and authoritarian political regimes. The U.S., to our everlasting shame, had a hand in many of the conflicts and upheavals that drove these people from their homes. They arrived in America penniless, or at best with some small degree of support through refugee resettlement plans or private charity group’s assistance. They faced numerous obstacles: discrimination, cultural and linguistic barriers, and disenfranchisement. And yet they thrived. Every family that “made it” and prospered opened the door for another, and as much as I complain about the INA it did facilitate the movement of large numbers of families from areas that didn’t have much of a presence in America before that point.
From an American’s perspective, an immigrant from another country is given a clean slate. We don’t spend much time or make a serious effort to evaluate their role or place in the society they came from. The promise of a “fresh start” is integral to the American experiment and we maintain it through a balance of carefully curated ignorance about the world and sentimental adherence to Enlightenment era beliefs that “all men (problematic, yes I know) are created equal”. The immigrant, however, is not so lucky. They carry with them the experience of living in, growing up in, and sometimes living through events that led to an erosion of the country or nation that they once called their own. They bring those experiences to the United States, and they apply them to what they see here. In many cases that works to our benefit, as they have experience that can lend perspective to what many Americans regard as upsetting or dangerous political upheavals. It cuts both ways though, as they also recognize the signs of emerging problems that others may try to ignore.
Before I get into the main topic for today, I wanted to spend a moment to say that if “All the world is a stage” (thanks Bill), then America is surely the lead. What we do, collectively, is closely watched and scrutinized by virtually everyone on this planet. When we welcome new people to this country and they become citizens we tend to think of it as a gift, but it is actually both a responsibility and a promise. They are expected to support and defend the Constitution, to abandon all loyalty to foreign powers, and to bear true faith and loyalty to the principles of the United States. Seriously, it’s right there in the oath. The promise we make to these new citizens is that we, as native-born Americans, will do the same. Hopefully that is something we can reflect on as a nation this week.
There are countries in this world that have to compete for (even plead for) new immigrants. America is not one of them. Historically incoming immigration to America is mostly a function of how wide we are willing to kick the door open. As we did research for this week’s edition, a colleague sent in an interesting article from the Wisconsin State Journal:
This op-ed, printed on January 10th, 1921, is a great window into how little has changed in the world of immigration in the intervening 100 years. Among the highlights: complaints about unfair distribution of incoming immigrants (at that time immigrants, mostly Europeans, were mostly being consolidated into large East Coast cities), lack of available skilled labor in agricultural areas, and even sniping at the inefficiency and profligate waste of the immigration service (!). While it is tempting to imagine that many of the problems with the immigration system in America are purely modern issues, the role of the immigrant in American society is a timeless theme that runs back all the way to the founding. It is also cyclical, as we have moved from periods or relative openness to draconian restrictions and back, through rarely so fast and reliably as we have over the last 10 years or so.
Throughout this history we have struggled to find the right way to integrate these new arrivals into our society. Without ethnic unity, religious conformity, or really any social or biological theme to tie us all together, what unites us? The answer is, of course, the Constitution and the principles upon which we founded this country. We know that, immigrants know that (to some extent), so why are we so bad at communicating that?
This is one of my all-time favorite Simpsons clips, not just because it is topical to immigration and citizenship but also because it contains a lot of incisive social commentary. It’s also very funny. The background for those who have not seen it is that Apu, the friendly neighborhood convenience store owner, is in danger of deportation after the feckless mayor of Springfield decides to scapegoat illegal immigrants for the city’s high taxes (sound familiar?). It turns out he is eligible for citizenship so he overprepares for the test, leading to the exchange in the clip. When you consider this episode aired in 1996 it should give you some sense of the ongoing problem with our naturalization process, as the joke lands pretty much fully intact even today and I imagine it more or less would have worked 20 years before that as well.
The truth is that the naturalization process as currently constructed doesn’t really do a whole lot to bring immigrants into American society. Some would argue it doesn’t have to, that’s what living here and experiencing American life is for. That aside, we do a nice little ceremony (they are nice) and give them a certificate, isn’t that enough? Leaving aside some of the minutiae about the actual application that we have gone through over the last couple weeks, what do we hope to achieve via the naturalization process besides doing some checks to see if people can learn some basic facts about our country and making sure they aren’t criminals? Surely we can do better than that.
One Twitter rabbit hole I found myself running down recently was the history of “Citizenship Day”. Many Americans may be surprised to learn that we already have a federal observance which recognizes naturalized citizens, currently celebrated on the 17th of September. This holiday has a history that extends back to the 1930s, when the idea was picked up by newspaper publishers and other entertainers who recognized the patriotic value of celebrating new citizens, and found expression in the form of activists like Olga Weber who sought to spread appreciation and respect for new immigrants. With the large number of themes and identities that we recognize and celebrate in this country, it would certainly be worthwhile to devote more attention to this day, and events surrounding it, to fully express to the immigrant community what they mean to the United States.
It is also important for native-born Americans to spend more time reflecting on what their citizenship means to them. Many authors have explored this theme both directly and indirectly, some of my favorites are Neil Postman’s “Building a Bridge to the 18th Century”, Dan Rather’s “What Unites Us”, and even critical works like those from Howard Zinn, John Pilger, and Noam Chomsky. How to be an American is by no means a settled question, and many of the quintessential works of American literature, up to and including the “Great American Novel”, seek to reconcile the many contradictory threads of the American experience into a cohesive narrative or at least provide an allegory to help understand these important questions.
On a more practical level, we would do well to focus on the immigrant experience and the journey to citizenship. There are many regional and local organizations that provide pro-bono representation and legal advice for immigrants seeking to navigate the path to naturalization. The way we treat these people, who will someday be Americans, will undoubtedly have a large impact on both their conception of America and the way that they conduct themselves once they obtain their U.S. passport.
Finally, you have organizations that are dedicated to improving the process itself. As outlined in this report from the National Foundation for American Policy, there are a number of easy fixes which could dramatically lower the barriers to naturalization for many people:
1) Lower the fees. Why do we try to recoup the cost of providing this service by charging it back to the applicant? Of all the things we pay for in this country, it seems like this would be the one thing we may consider subsidizing. Including the biometric fee, it costs $725 dollars to execute a citizenship application. Recent fee schedule changes which were enjoined by the courts would have raised that to nearly $1200 dollars. When you consider that the application is quickly followed by passport fees, name changes, and other associated applications the cost to go from a green card holder to a citizen is more than a month’s wage for many American residents. To give a comparison, the cost to apply for citizenship in Germany is just $300 USD (equivalent). Think about the message this sends.
2) Remove the requirement that people live continuously in the United States prior to naturalization. It’s a big world out there, and pre-COVID it was quite easy to go from the U.S. to another country for professional or personal reasons. The current requirement that green card holders spend the majority of their time each year in the U.S. or risk losing their green card doesn’t make sense in this day and age. By closing the door to many of the upwardly mobile, internationally-based families and workers we do ourselves no favors. Yes, living in the U.S. is a component of acclimating and preparing to obtain citizenship, but that can be proven in other ways (by paying your U.S. taxes consistently during the statutory period, for example).
3) Embrace technology. In the past USCIS would travel outside their field offices to conduct naturalization interviews. This is especially important for the elderly, disabled, and economically disadvantaged. While those days may be over, a new frontier has emerged in the form of virtual interviews. Empower the field offices to conduct interviews virtually and build partnerships with community organizations, local government, and religious groups to facilitate access and build trust. You can get a $500k home loan entirely virtually these days, so I think we can probably figure out a way to do a 20 minute naturalization interview with the same level of security and efficiency.
Well, this one ran a little long. We hope these ideas can help contribute to the conversation around naturalization in a constructive way. As a subject near and dear to myself, as the editor here, and many also to many of the contributors to Immiwonk we enjoyed writing about our thoughts on citizenship, especially during this time where all of us are thinking about Democracy and what it means in America during this strange election season.
Starting next week we will tackle a new series. We put it on the back burner initially, but our next topic will be the H-1B. While much ink has already been spilled on the subject of the most popular and controversial work visa category, we would like to drill down on how the program works in practice and what kinds of issues and changes we are likely to see in the near future as this program evolves. Join us next week for the H-1B!
In the news:
‘Dreamers’: DACA is good, but we need immigration reform - This is something we spent some time pointing out in our previous DACA coverage, and it bears repeating: Getting DACA back on track is not, and cannot, be the end goal for immigration reform. It’s a stop-gap measure and a dead-end for many people. With the recent pickup of the Senate seats in Georgia, Biden has a rare window of opportunity to move this forward. Let’s close the door on this with comprehensive legislation which creates a path to residency and eventual citizenship for every minor who arrives in the United States, legally or otherwise. If you need to placate conservatives or immigration hawks to make it happen, then give it a national service requirement, charge reasonable fees (a la 245(i)), or find another way to make it sufficiently punitive to assuage their objections. As long as path exists, people will take it.
Miami immigration court ruling could mean green cards for large number of Cubans - This one flew under the radar, I don’t remember seeing any real reporting on it (though I admit my Twitter lurking time suffered somewhat during the holidays). The Trump Admin’s punitive actions on Cuba seemed to have served him well vote-wise in Florida, but one casualty of that effort was the relatively permissive policy that allowed Cubans who made it to the U.S. to enter via parole and adjust to residency relatively easily. It’s hard to determine whether this ruling is being applied more narrowly in the Cuban context or more broadly to all those immigrants who are detained and then released. If it is the latter then there is huge potential here to open a pathway to adjustment for many of those who entered the country without inspection initially.