By John J. Miller and William James Muldoon

Executive Summary

Immigrants must meet a variety of requirements before they can become American citizens. One of the most important is a test on U.S. government and history. All citizenship applicants must pass this test in order to naturalize. The exams are not meant to be difficult, but neither are they meant to be haphazard or meaningless. Unfortunately, the Immigration and naturalization Service currently threatens to make them both.

Because record numbers of immigrants are applying for citizenship, the INS is under mounting pressure to process the applications of more people. As a result, the agency has unwisely begun to consider timesaving reforms that would effectively dumb-down naturalization testing. To make matters worse, testing procedures vary widely from district to district. It is possible for the same immigrant to pass the test in one district but fail it in another. This is the direct result of INS's practice of allowing each district to create its own testing rules and failing to make even a minimal effort to oversee the administration of these exams. INS headquarters in Washington is willfully ignorant as to how its 33 district offices handle testing.

The Center for Equal Opportunity surveyed each of the INS's districts to learn how they test citizenship applicants. This Policy Brief reports the findings of the survey and highlights the sometimes dramatic differences in district testing procedures as well as the appalling lack of oversight from Washington, D.C. Only a set of national standards will inoculate the naturalization process against diminished requirements and make the actual administration of citizenship tests more uniform across the country.

Introduction

The Immigration and Naturalization Service recently has come under intense scrutiny for its practice of allowing private contractors to conduct the U.S. history and government exams that naturalization applicants must pass in order to gain citizenship. During Congressional hearings on this issue, Rep. Mark Edward Souder (R-Ind.) said that lax INS oversight has led to "serious instances of testing fraud in the citizenship process."1

These tests on U.S. History and government are a cornerstone of the naturalization process. Any corruption in their administration must be rooted out. In focusing its attention on contract exams, however, Congress only touches a minority of naturalization test-takers. There are many problems with the tests given in INS offices themselves.

Why Is Naturalization Important?

As a nation of immigrants, the United States confronts a unique dilemma surrounding national unity.2 Perhaps Alexis de Tocqueville put the problem best in his book Democracy in America. "How does it happen that in the United States, where the inhabitants have only recently immigrated to the land which they now occupy ... where, in short, the instinctive love of country can scarcely exist; how does it happen that everyone takes as zealous an interest in the affairs of his township, his country, and the whole state as if they were his own?" asked Tocqueville. His answer: the United States "make[s] them partakers in the government" by allowing them to assume a set of political rights.3

In other words, the United States gradually draws immigrants into civil society. When they are ready, they can gain the citizenship that makes them full and equal members of the American community. They do this through the naturalization process.

But how to know when they are ready? The founders were deeply concerned about the possibility of accepting immigrants who would not assume the mantle of self-government. "Among other instances, it is known that hardly anything contributed more to the downfall of Rome than her precipitate communication of the privileges of citizenship to the inhabitants of Italy at large," wrote Alexander Hamilton in 1802. "And how terribly was Syracuse scourged by perpetual sedition's, when, after the overthrow of the tyrants, a great number of foreigners were suddenly admitted to the rights of citizenship."4

In order to make sure immigrants are prepared for citizenship, the United States has constructed a battery of requirements that all naturalization applicants must meet.

Five years of residency: Applicants must have lived legally in or under the jurisdiction of the United States for a minimum of five years to apply for naturalization.

Criminal background check: Applicants for naturalization must have "good moral character." For practical purposes, this means they cannot have been convicted for committing a major crime. The FBI conducts a background check of all naturalization applicants. A felony conviction while residing in the United States almost always leads to the immediate loss of citizenship eligibility.

English ability: Applicants must be able to speak, read, and write "simple English," which is typically interpreted to mean third-grade abilities. Persons who are at least 50 years old and have been living in the United States for at least 20 years are exempted from this requirement in what is popularly known as the "50/20" rule. There also is a "55/15" age/residency rule. These exempted applicants are allowed to take their U.S. History and government exam in their native tongue.

U.S. History and government exam: This examination is meant to ensure that all applicants for citizenship have a basic understanding of American history and the principles that are at the root of our government.

There are a handful of other requirements, but these four are the most significant. And they lead to a fifth crucial requirement immigrants must meet as they pass through the threshold from resident alien to American citizen: the Oath of Allegiance, in which they forsake foreign allegiances and swear devotion to the U.S. Constitution in a formal ceremony.5

The Rush to Citizenship

If naturalization has been important to assimilation throughout American history, it is especially important today. More than 20 million foreign-born people currently live in the United States. They accounted for 8.4 percent of the total population in 1994, according to the Census Bureau.6 As more immigrants arrive on American shores, the foreign-born share of the population is bound to increase. Naturalization is one of the keys to keeping the United States dedicated to the maxim of E pluribus unum.

During the 1990s, the number of immigrants applying for citizenship skyrocketed. In 1996, an estimated 1.2 million immigrants will seek to become citizens, up from an annual average of just 230,000 during the 1980s.7 There are several ways to explain this sudden increase, such as legislative efforts to deny public assistance to non-citizens, changes in Mexican property rights laws, and an expanding pool of people eligible for naturalization.8

Whatever the reason, this rush to citizenship has created a huge backlog. In some INS districts, immigrants can wait for more than a year between the time they file their citizenship applications and the moment they actually sit down in an INS office for their formal interviews. In Miami, this lag can last as long as 480 days. Waits of up to 12 months are common in Detroit, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. On top of that, the time lapse between the naturalization interview and the actual swearing-in often is several months.9

To reduce the backlog, the INS has channeled additional resources to its naturalization efforts. It also has tried to streamline the naturalization process. Unfortunately, the agency has devoted an undue amount of attention to watering-down the testing requirements. The INS now appears to view the U.S. History and government test as an obstacle in the way of serving more people, as opposed to a necessary standard that all must meet. INS Commissioner Doris Meissner has even suggested eliminating the mandatory personal interview at which naturalization applicants currently take their history and government exam.10 Another proposal currently under INS consideration would exempt entire classes of people from having to take the history and government exam. These would include anybody with a U.S. high-school diploma as well as anyone who has completed a course in American history or political science at any U.S. college, university, or "INS approved facility."11

One of the most significant threats to the integrity of naturalization exams involves the contract testing that became the subject of combative Congressional hearings in September 1996. Six INS-approved testing services now offer examinations to naturalization applicants. For a fee, these groups will test immigrants on their knowledge of U.S. History and government. If the test-takers pass, they receive a waiver exempting them from the exam requirement when they have their interview with an INS official. Although sound in theory, this program has become rife with corruption. Many of the main contractors work with subcontractors whose ranks include advocacy organizations. Allegations of cheating are widespread and have been documented.12 Privatization and decentralization typically offer reliable strategies for coping with public problems, but the INS has done an extremely poor job of monitoring this program. Although the majority of contractors and subcontractors are honest providers, the scandalous dealings of some jeopardize the entire process.

Perhaps the most significant threat of all, however, comes neither from programmatic changes to the naturalization process nor from contract testing. Rather, it emerges from within, as INS offices cut corners to reduce the backlog of citizenship applicants. To see how this can happen, it is first necessary to understand how naturalization testing works.

How the Tests Work -- and How They Don’t

Naturalization applicants generally take their U.S. History and government exams when they appear for their formal interview at an INS office. In addition to taking this test during the interview, applicants will work with an INS officer to make sure their paperwork is in order; demonstrate their ability to speak, read, write and understand English; and answer any questions the officer asks them. Most interviews are completed in 10 to 15 minutes.

The U.S. History and government tests are all of a type, their content drawn from a series of short books published by the INS.13 The questions are simple enough: "Who was the first president of the United States?" "Why do we have a holiday on the 4th of July?" "Who makes the laws in the United States?" They may also ask applicants to name current officeholders, such as governors or senators.

The questions may have several possible answers. If a test asks, "Who was Abraham Lincoln?", an INS examiner will accept any of these possible answers: the 16th president, author of the Emancipation Proclamation, author of the Gettysburg Address, the president during the Civil War, the president who freed the slaves, etc. Some of the questions on the test can be tricky. If asked "Who elects the president?", most Americans probably would say "the people." The correct answer, however, is the electoral college. If asked "Which countries were our enemies during World War II?", the response must include Italy as well as Germany and Japan. Identifying each of the 13 original colonies and naming the chief justice of the Supreme Court are two more examples of questions beyond the reach of many native-born Americans. A thoroughly prepared citizenship applicant will know, among other things, the origin of the flag and its meaning, the reasons why we celebrate certain national holidays, the responsibilities of each of the three branches of government, the terms of office for the president and members of Congress, and a series of important names and dates.

Immigrant-rights groups regularly complain that the U.S. History and government exams are too difficult. At a recent symposium sponsored by Georgetown Law School, one activist told the story of an elderly Chinese immigrant who allegedly committed suicide because she found the U.S. History and government exam too difficult.14 Even if this tale is true, it is hardly typical. Despite this, self-proclaimed immigrant advocates often talk about people being asked obscure questions regarding the capital of North Dakota, President Millard Fillmore, or the 12th Amendment. Granted, immigrants themselves have generated fables surrounding the tests. Yet these tales must take their place beside other urban myths, such as the one about alligators living in the city sewer system, because that is what they are -- myths. Advocacy organizations that speak in such terms simply would like to do away with the testing entirely because they want as little as possible to stand between immigrants and citizenship. These groups refuse to accept even the modest standards already in place. They would prefer none at all. Their vocal presence serves only to encourage the INS in the sloppy way it currently handles naturalization testing.

CEO’s survey of INS district offices shows that, among those districts making their numbers available, only 5 to 10 percent of citizenship applicants fail. This is, of course, a self-selected group. Applicants would not take the test if they thought they would fail. But the low percentages also speak against the ridiculous claim that the tests are extraordinarily difficult.

District Testing Procedures

The INS gives each of its 33 districts an enormous amount of leeway in how they administer their U.S. History and government tests. They may be oral, written, or both. Figure tk, based on CEO’s survey, shows the dramatic variation that can occur from district to district. Because of arbitrary differences in the administration of history and government tests among the INS’s 33 districts, an immigrant who passes an exam in Boston might also fail an exam in San Antonio. This is a violation of current law, which says that naturalization requirements "shall be uniform throughout the United States."15

Here are three examples of how the testing varies:

Arlington, Va. Applicants are asked 12 questions, of which they must answer seven correctly (58 percent). These questions can be asked in either oral or written form.

Atlanta, Ga. Applicants face up to 100 oral questions. There is no minimum score needed to pass. Passing an applicant is at the discretion of the INS officer giving the test.

Miami, Fla. Applicants must score seven out of 10 (70 percent) on an oral examination. This is perhaps the single most popular form of the test, also used in Denver; Honolulu; Newark, N.J.; Portland, Ore.; and San Antonio.

Given these differences, it seems clear that not every citizenship applicant will have to meet the same standards. Applicants in Atlanta are at the total mercy of the INS officers who conduct their interviews. These officers may demand an unreasonably high level of knowledge. The more likely scenario, however, is that the officers will demand almost nothing at all.

Indeed, with the current rush to citizenship and the INS confronting enormous public pressure to process naturalization applicants quickly, citizenship standards appear particularly vulnerable to a massive dumbing-down. Agents regularly hint that their superiors are more interested in meeting a numbers-driven goal than in making sure every naturalization applicant receives an appropriate assessment. "We have about 15 minutes for each interview," noted an INS officer based in Arlington, Va. "If I want to take a little extra time to check something, it really backs things up. We’re always behind, even if things go smoothly. I usually skip my lunch hour just to catch up. You can guess what you want about the INS giving us so many appointments and so little time."16

A stunning loophole in the INS procedural manual shows just how subjective the history and government examination can become: "In choosing the subject matters, in phrasing questions and in evaluating responses, due consideration shall be given to the applicant’s education, background, age, length of residence in the United States, opportunities available and efforts made to acquire the requisite knowledge, and any other elements or factors relevant to an appraisal of the adequacy of the applicant’s knowledge and understanding."17 In other words, the INS permits completely arbitrary testing. Robert Bowles, assistant district director for examinations in Puerto Rico, confirms that this loophole comes into regular use in his office: "We try to administer the test in line with the applicant’s capacity. It all depends on the applicant’s capacity."

The INS district office in Boston allows for widespread abuse of this loophole: "There is no specific naturalization test. It is at the test administrator’s discretion to ask as many questions as he feels are necessary, or none." According to Karen Haydn, assistant district director for examinations in Boston, this is so because, "the workers’ union protested a standardized format some years ago."

No Oversight

The INS has earned a reputation for being one of the worst-run federal agencies. (For a thorough review of its problems, see Daniel W. Sutherland’s CEO Policy Brief, "Abolish the INS.")18 The fact that Washington does not monitor the naturalization testing that goes on in its 33 districts is further proof of this claim. Indeed, INS headquarters in Washington is unable to provide the information revealed in Figure tk. It simply has no idea what happens beyond the Washington, DC city limits.

In CEO’s survey of all 33 districts, most spokesmen said that nobody oversees their testing procedures. Figure tk shows each district’s response -- yes or no -- as to whether Washington oversees its administration of the U.S. History and government examination. Only six said they received supervision. The other 27 said that nobody monitors their testing. Here are a few examples:

"There is no oversight," said Karen Haydn, assistant district director for examinations in Boston.

"All Washington did was establish the guidelines for the operation of our test site. We just comply," said Karen Eckert, deputy assistant director for examinations in Buffalo, N.Y.

"There is no Washington oversight," said Mark Hansen, assistant district direction for examinations in Cleveland.

Indeed, the INS headquarters in Washington, DC, acknowledges its lack of oversight. "There are no oversight procedures at all," said Ernestine Fobbs, an INS spokeswoman.

Conclusion: Adopt National Standards

By weakening the U.S. History and government test, the INS damages a vital part of the naturalization process, the single best measure it has for determining whether immigrants understand the democratic principles they must know in order to participate fully in American civil society. The surest guard against the erosion of standards –- and the only way to guarantee fair treatment from district to district –- is to establish set of national standards based upon the following four principles:

The test should be neither too hard nor too easy. It should include 20 fill-in-the-blank questions and require 15 correct responses to pass. A 10- to 15-minute time limit would be appropriate. INS interviewers might also be permitted to coax oral responses from borderline cases, but only with guarantees that this practice would not become a slippery slope to lower standards. Individual districts might be allowed to experiment with testing people in groups immediately before they sit down for their interviews, especially if such a procedure were deemed to save time.

The questions should be made more meaningful. Currently, many of the questions test trivia rather than an understanding of American political principles. An immigrant might be asked a U.S. Senator’s term of office. A more compelling question would ask why elected representatives have terms of office in the first place. It strikes at a more fundamental point about American democracy -- and questions like it would probably serve as a better index of knowledge.

Combine the U.S. History and government exam with the English-language requirement. Because this is a written, fill-in-the-blank test, applicants who pass should be assumed to have met the English-language reading and writing requirements. They would not have to read sentences to their INS interviewers nor would they have to write down sentences dictated to them -- two popular practices right now. This practice would save these extra steps and cut down on the amount of time needed for interviews.

INS headquarters should monitor the testing procedures in all district offices to ensure their uniform nature. Furthermore, if the INS wants to continue its practice of allowing private vendors to offer the U.S. History and government test, it must immediately begin an aggressive quality-control program to guarantee the integrity of all involved. Absent this reform, the INS should abandon contract testing entirely.

By meeting these goals, the INS would ensure that its testing on U.S. History and government is fair and meaningful. It would also put the INS in compliance with a law that, at least for the moment, it carelessly flouts. The U.S. Attorney general has broad powers to make rules and regulations governing the content and administration of the U.S. History and government examination.19 There is no reason why the INS cannot begin immediately to write and adopt a set of national standards that would make its testing more fair and more meaningful.

Methodology

The authors would like to thank the dozens of INS officials who shared their knowledge and insights for this Policy Brief. This paper would not have been possible without their generous assistance.

Sources interviewed in July 1996 for the survey of districts include:

Penelope Acosta, Supervisor District Adjudication Officer, Denver;
Marjorie Allen, Assistant District Director of Examinations, San Antonio;
Robert Bach, Executive Associate Commissioner for Immigration, Washington, DC;
Robert Bowles, Assistant District Director for Examinations, San Juan, Puerto Rico;
Tom Brownrigge, Supervisor of District Adjudication, Detroit;
Walter Cadman, District Director, Miami;
William Carroll, District Director, Arlington, Va.;
Karen Eckert, Deputy Assistant Director for Examinations, Buffalo, NY;
Robert Eddy, District Director, Anchorage, Alaska;
Dwight Faulkner, Examinations Officer, Atlanta, Ga.;
Benedict Ferrol, District Director, Baltimore;
Eugene Fitzpatrick, District Director, Portland, Maine;
Ernestine Fobbs, Press Associate, Washington, DC;
Greg Gagne, Press Associate, Washington, DC;
Jerry Garcia, Assistant District Director, Portland, Ore.;
Greta Gozinski, Supervisor of District Adjudication, Philadelphia;
Mark Hansen, Assistant District Director of Examinations, Cleveland;
Sylvia Hatfield, Supervisor District Adjudication Officer, New Orleans;
Karen Haydn, Assistant District Director of Examinations, Boston;
Craig Howie, Press Associate, Washington, DC;
John Klow, Supervisory District Adjudication Officer, Bloomington, Minn.;
Rob Koon, Press Associate, Washington, DC;
David Lambert, Head of Examinations, Seattle;
Warren Lewis, District Director, Newark, NJ;
Lisa McClellan, Special Assistant Public Information Officer and Congressional Liaison Officer, San Diego;
Edward McElroy, District Director, New York, NY;
Kenneth Pasquarell, District Director, El Paso, Texas;
Michelle Perry, District Adjudication Officer, Kansas City, Mo.;
Roger Piper, Acting District Director, Chicago;
Donald Radcliffe, District Director, Honolulu;
Richard Rodgers, District Director, Los Angeles;
Deborah Rodriguez, Acting Deputy District Director, Phoenix;
Kathy Schuler, Supervisor for District Adjudication, Dallas;
David Still, Assistant District Director of Adjudication, San Francisco;
Eric Trominski, District Director, Harlingen, Texas;
Jerry Uhte, Assistant District Director of Examinations, Helena, Mont.;
Robert Wallis, District Director, Houston;
Ken Zarybnick, District Adjudication Officer, Omaha, Neb.

ENDNOTES

1. William Branigin, "INS Accused of Tolerating Citizenship Testing Fraud," Washington Post, September 11, 1996.

2. See Matthew Spalding, "From Pluribus to Unum," Policy Review, Winter 1994, pgs. 35-41.

3. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, New York: Vintage Books, 1945, pg. 250.

4. Quoted in Spalding, pg. 38.

5. The Oath of Citizenship: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.

6. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, "The Foreign-Born Population, 1994."

7. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 1993 Statistical Yearbook, pg. 134; Patrick J. McDonnell, "Learning the Language of Citizenship," Los Angeles Times, August 5, 1996, pg. B3.

8. For a brief summary of these details, see the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform, Legal Immigration: Setting Priorities, 1995, pgs. 181-2.

9. American Immigration Lawyers Association, Report Card on INS Adjudications, July/August 1996.

10. Patrick J. McDonnell, "INS May Waive Some Interviews for Citizenship, Los Angeles Times, September 1, 1995, pg. B1.

11. Arnold Rochvarg, "Reforming the Administrative Naturalization Process: Reducing Delays While Increasing Fairness," Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, Summer 1995, pg. 428.

12. Branigin, ibid. See also Ruth Larson, "Testing firms assist citizenship-seekers," Washington Times, September 10, 1996; Frank Trejo, "Firm Says It Hasn’t Heard from I.N.S.," Dallas Morning News, June 29, 1996; and the ABC News program 20/20, "Selling Out America," July 12, 1996.

13. See, for example, these INS publications: "Citizenship Education and Naturalization Information" (M-287), "United States History: 1600-1987" (M-289), and "U.S. Government Structure" (M-291).

14. Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, 10th Anniversary Symposium Transcript, Vol. 10, No. 1, Special Symposium Edition, March 6, 1996, pg. 12.

15. Immigration Act of 1990, Title III, Section 332a.

16. Quoted in John J. Miller, "The Naturalizers," Policy Review, July/August 1996, pg. 51.

17. U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, Service Law Books, Section 312.2-b2.

18. Daniel W. Sutherland, "Abolish the INS: How Federal Bureaucracy Dooms Immigration Reform," Center for Equal Opportunity, January 1996.

19. See Immigration Act of 1990, Title III, Section 332a.