Key Highlights
- The U.S. is implementing a more challenging civics test for new applicants aiming to become citizens.
- The changes include increasing the number of questions and making them harder, from 100 to 128 possible questions with tougher inquiries.
- Applicants will also need to prove “good moral character” beyond simply having no criminal record.
- Critics argue that these alterations could disproportionately affect individuals with low literacy levels and those without access to preparation materials.
The New Civics Test: Making Naturalization More Difficult
Under the Trump administration, the process for obtaining U.S. citizenship is about to become significantly more rigorous. As of October 20, new applicants for naturalization will face a substantially harder oral exam during their civics interview. This change comes as part of broader efforts by the government to limit immigration and restrict visa holders from entering or settling in the United States.
The current test has required applicants to answer six out of ten questions correctly since 2008.
However, starting soon, this will increase to twelve correct answers out of twenty. Furthermore, the list of possible questions will expand from 100 to 128, and many of these new questions are more complex. For instance, applicants may be asked why the United States entered the Persian Gulf War or Vietnam War.
Key Changes in the Naturalization Process
The new test is just one component of several changes USCIS has introduced to make it harder for immigrants to become U.S. citizens. Applicants will now have to demonstrate “good moral character” by submitting evidence of their positive contributions to American society, not merely avoiding criminal records.
“We need to know more,” stated Joseph Edlow, the USCIS director in Washington. “Especially if we’re going to really understand whether someone has a true attachment to the Constitution as required by the statute.” This requirement for moral character adds an additional layer of scrutiny and could potentially delay or even prevent some applications.
Impact on Applicants
The new test poses significant challenges, particularly for those with lower literacy levels or limited access to preparation materials. Julie Mitchell, legal director of the Central American Resource Center in Los Angeles, which offers citizenship courses, expressed concern about these changes: “It’s hard to imagine that these changes don’t have a negative impact on the number of people who are able to continue the naturalization process.”
Mitchell highlighted another potential issue: uncertainty around how immigration officers will assess “good moral character.” This could lead to inconsistency in the decision-making process, making it more unpredictable for applicants.
Expert Perspectives and Broader Implications
Amanda Frost, a professor of immigration law at the University of Virginia, argues that while increased scrutiny is appropriate, there’s no evidence that the current naturalization process fails to ensure that only those who share American values become citizens. “Has there been any evidence that we’re allowing people to naturalize who don’t share our values and don’t make for good participants in our democracy?” Frost questioned.
Frost also pointed out the positive contributions of immigrants, noting that nearly half of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. “Those who naturalize, and their children, thrive in the United States and have benefited this country,” she emphasized.
The changes to the U.S. citizenship process reflect a broader political agenda focused on limiting immigration and ensuring that only those deemed fully assimilated can become citizens. As these new rules take effect, they will shape not just the lives of individual applicants but also the future composition of American society.
