-•'I i,! Lt« -A* 5fe u^s.

S. HRG. 101-741

NATURALIZATION PROCEDURES

HEARING \*jeff--.

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED FIRST CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

ON

PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO MODIFY IMMIGRATION AND

NATURALIZATION REQUIREMENTS

JUNE 15, 1989

Serial No. J-101-23

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

31-468 WASHINGTON \ 1990

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402
• '

!

' JiJl

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware, Chairman

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts STROM THURMOND, South Carolina

HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah

DENNIS DECONCINI, Arizona ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa

HOWELL HEFLIN, Alabama ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania

PAUL SIMON, Illinois GORDON J. HUMPHREY, New Hampshire

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin

MARK H. GITENSTEIN, Chief Counsel

DIANA HUFFMAN, Staff Director

TERRY L. WOOTEN, Minority Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts, Chairman

PAUL SIMON, Illinois ALAN K. SIMPSON, Wyoming

JERRY M. TINKER, Staff Director

CAROLYN P. OSOUNIK, Chief Counsel

RICHARD W. DAY, Minority Counsel

(II)

o,?o_ £ol'/*."
(A)XJ CONTENTS

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Page

Simon, Hon. Paul, U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, presiding 1

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts,

chairman of the subcommittee 2

Simpson, Hon. Alan K., U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 7

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Alan C. Nelson, Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service 3

Panel consisting of Elliott Barkan, professor of history and ethnic studies,

California State University at San Bernardino; Reed Ueda, associate professor of history, Tufts University; and Harry Pachon, national director, National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials 17

ALPHABETICAL LIST AND MATERIAL SUBMITTED

Barkan, Elliott:

Testimony 17

Prepared statement 19

Nelson, Alan C:

Testimony 3

Additional data on naturalization and naturalization applications processing 13

Prepared statement 15

Publication of the U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service, "Naturalization Requirements and General Information" 48

Pachon, Harry:

Testimony 25

Prepared statement 28

Simon, Hon. Paul: Responses to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy 90

Simpson, Hon. Alan K.:

Four sets of test questions for naturalization examinations 9

Responses to questions subsequently submitted for the record 40

Ueda, Reed: Testimony 23

APPENDLX

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Erich Pratt, Executive Director, U.S. Border Patrol, concerning

naturalization procedures 101

Letter to the Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs from Michael S. Teitelbaum, program officer, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, June 20,

1989 105

Letter to Senator Joseph R. Biden from C.P. Cariappa, franchise owner,

Dunkin' Donuts, June 6, 1989 107

(m)

NATURALIZATION PROCEDURES

THURSDAY, JUNE 15, 1989

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE AFFAIRS,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:37 p.m., in room

SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Paul Simon presiding.

Also present: Senator Simpson.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL SIMON, A U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

Senator SIMON. The subcommittee will come to order. I will temporarily preside. Senator Kennedy is involved in the child care bill.

He is occupied on the floor right now. He hopes to get over here

later. I will submit his statement for the record.

[The prepared statement of Senator Kennedy follows:]

(l)
OPENING STATEMENT BT SENATOR EDWARD KENNEDY

NATURALIZATION PROCEDURE HEARING

JUNE 15, 1989

1

Today's hearing resumes the Subcommittee's continuing review of

proposals for immigration reform • our effort to make our immigration

lavs more faithfully serve our immigration needs as well as reflect our

national interest.

Major immigration reform is moving once again in Congress. A bill

which I cosponsored with Senator Simpson, and worked on with Senator

Simon • has already been adopted by the Judiciary Committee last week

and will soon be ready for consideration by the full Senate. During

the course of our discussions on that legislation, we reviewed a number

of proposals to alter the requirements for naturalization. One,

proposed by Senator Simon, would reduce the length of residency for

naturalization from five years to three years.

During our discussions this seemed to be a modest and reasonable

proposal, with Justifiable objectives. It would reduce waiting periods

and perhaps encourage earlier naturalization and greater participation

in citizenship by new immigrants. It would facilitate earlier family

reunification under our immigration system. And both Canada and

Australia • the other large immigrant receiving nations • have

adopted the three year requirement.

But it was equally obvious that not a great deal of thought had

been given to this question as a policy option in recent years. The

Select Commission on Immigration and Refugee Policy, whose

recommendations have formed the basis for all recent immigration

reform, did not even look at this issue during its deliberations. And

it has not been raised during any of our immigration debates • not

only in recent years, but not even during the landmark changes made in

the 1965 Act reforms.

In fact, the record shows that the statutory, 5-year residency

requirement for citizenship • first proposed by Thomas Jefferson •

has not been changed since 1802. It may have been a lively issue

during the Federalist period, and during some later restrictionist

periods in our history • aimed variously at keeping out the Irish,

Italians, or others • but over the past half centry there has been no

questions raised about it. The 5-year requirement has remained

unchanged for most of our Nation's history.

The exception to the 5-year residency requirement has been for

spouses of U.S. citizens. For much of our history, wives of Americans

automatically gained U.S. citizenship just as American women lost

theirs upon marriage to a foreigner. Finally, after a number of

changes. Congress established a 3-year residency requirement for the

naturalization of both wives and husbands of U.S. citizens • a

requirement which holds today. In 1988, spouses accounted for 5.5% of

all naturalizations.

There is the obvious question: why change it now? Are there good

enough reasons to do so? What purposes will it serve? Hill there be

any unintended consequences? Will it contribute to the larger civic

and community goals involved in conferring citizenship • and should

some other requirements or procedures be considered as well?

American citizenship has historically been a cherished goal of

most arriving immigrants. It is one of the most precious rights we can

confer. And we have bestowed it solemnly, in full recognition of the

rights and obligations it implies. It is the civic binding that helps

join these United States. Clearly, any change in how we deal with this

process should be undertaken with care. Our hope this afternoon is

that this hearing will help us deal with some of these questions; to

consider the options before us on modifying our naturalization

procedures.
Senator SIMON. This hearing has been called at my request to

take a look at the question of how long you should have to wait

before you become a U.S. citizen. A commission on this whole question of immigration policy recommended some years ago that we

reduce it to a 3-year period. I understand that there are some

others who favor that.

It hastens the process of reunification; it hastens the process of

letting people participate fully in our society. But that is the question. It is a very narrow focus, but, frankly, since this committee

schedule has been called, we have had the tremendous shake-up in

China and will probably have a few questions on that.

I am pleased to see our Commissioner here. Alan Nelson, we are

very pleased to have you back here once again as our first witness.

STATEMENT OF ALAN C. NELSON, COMMISSIONER, IMMIGRATION

AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE, ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD

MILLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER FOR ADJUDICATIONS, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE; AND

MICHAEL L. SHAUL, SENIOR EXAMINER, ADJUDICATIONS DIVISION, IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE

Mr. NELSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, it is, as usual, a

pleasure to work with this committee. We have had a lot of interesting and productive times over the last number of times with the

passage of the Immigration Reform and Control Act and other legislative activities, so we are pleased to work with you.

I would like to commend you and the other members of the subcommittee for moving the immigration legislation forward. We understand it is getting close to floor action. We certainly commend

you for that activity and look forward to the Senate passing a bill

shortly, and hope that your counterparts in the House can likewise

move rapidly to deal with the important issue of legal immigration

much as we did in an effective bipartisan manner to deal with illegal immigration with the legislation 2 years ago.

Mr. Chairman, on the subject before us here on the requirements

for naturalization, I will make a few comments. We would submit

our brief statement for the record. As you point out, there is debate

on all these subjects; certainly one of the issues being what should

be the waiting period for naturalization, the current 5 years or a

reduced 3-year period.

As you might know, the Immigration Service, in developing some

options a year ago, had a lot of different positions that we advanced. We ourselves thought maybe there was some reason to

reduce the period to 3 years, but that was tied in with a much

broader picture where we thought there ought to be some revisions

of second, fourth, and fifth preferences, and that if you, in fact,

greatly reduced the second preference and required people to be

citizens in order to petition, there might well be good reasons to

drop the period to 3 years.

Without that, however•and the bill, as we understand it, that is

going forward does not make those changes•the administration

would have to take the position that without those kinds of

changes that we think the 5-year period is appropriate and that we
should stay with that. So we would have to respectfully oppose reducing the period to 3 years.

A lot of reasons there. One, of course, is that we want people

that become citizens to become as assimilated as possible, and we

think that a 5-year period makes sense, again, without these other

things.

If there is a way of reducing backlogs, a way of making more incentives to these citizens, I think there would be more merit to consider it. But without that, we think that the idea of keeping it at

the current time makes sense. It is a little bit of the old adage, if it

ain't broke, don't fix it. We think that that is certainly true on the

5-year time and, as mentioned, we think there is an assimilation

factor that is significant in leaving it there.

Of course, spouses now have a 3-year status. Of course, that

would remain. That, we understand, is only about 10 percent of the

numbers, but that 3-year period does apply to spouses and, of

course, should remain as it is.

So, that would be our basic position, Mr. Chairman, on the period

of time, that we would suggest that there not be a change and that

it be left as it is. I might move on, if I might, to another issue because I think it is also very relevant and relative, and that is the

whole administrative naturalization provision. That is in the bill,

as you marked it up the other day•I believe section 202 of the bill,

as passed; yes, section 202, administrative naturalization.

We would very strongly•the Reagan Administration for many

years strongly opposed administrative naturalization, and every indication I have from the Bush Administration would be that that

would be the same position. I think that that is an idea whose time

has come and gone.

Myself, and I am sure you and other members of this committee,

have many times appeared before the Federal judges or State

judges that are conducting naturalization ceremonies. In many

cases, the only time a new citizen will go before a judge is when

they are naturalized. It is a perfect example of our separation of

powers at work where the legislature passes the laws, the executive

branch implements them and processes people for naturalization,

and the judicial branch naturalizes them.

There is an aura of great dignity. It is a very significant thing

for the petitioners to go through, and I think to allow administrative naturalization would clearly do away eventually with most judicial naturalization. I think that would be a real step backward.

I think that this provision that is in the bill has sort of been a

carryover from the past. Chairman Rodino, of the House Judiciary,

proposed that, and when I came on the scene 8 years ago I thought

it was a good idea because the feeling was that we could reduce

backlogs and make it more efficient if we did away with judicial

naturalization as a requirement.

I have seen the light, if you might, that there is not a reason for

that. First of all, to the extent there are backlogs•and they have

been greatly reduced•it is not due to the judges. The judges, by

and large, we have worked out very well, so there is no reason for

it. It wouldn't accomplish anything, and I think it would take away

from, as I say, the dignity of the proposal.
So I would strongly urge, based on the past administration position•and I am sure Attorney General Thornburgh, having been

himself at ceremonies like this, and the President himself, would

say we ought to keep the judicial naturalization.

I know I have talked to retired Chief Justice Burger, who feels

very strongly that way, and I think most of the bench would agree

with that. So, I would strongly urge that the committee reconsider

that provision and drop it out because I think that ties in, again,

with wanting to strengthen naturalization.

So, I will stop at that point, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMON. I thank you very much, and I might just comment on the latter point. We had a lot of discussions on every

aspect of this bill. I have to say that part of it didn't come in for

much discussion as we were moving ahead, and we will take another look at it.

I guess I don't quite understand your thinking on how the second

preference ties in with your shift of opinion from 3 to 5 years.

Frankly, I included the 3-year provision because my understanding

at that point was the administration favored the 3-year provision

and it seemed to make sense to me, and so I included it.

Then it was not included in the bill of Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson, and then we agreed to have this hearing before the

bill got to the floor to see what the situation was. I guess the response is a little nebulous.

Mr. NELSON. It is a fair question, and I might ask a couple of colleagues here, Mike Miller and Mike Shaul, if they might want to

elaborate on this a little more because there is, maybe, a policy

reason which I will try to elaborate on, and maybe a little more of

a technical kind of thing that they can elaborate on.

Our thinking with second preference is we ought to do more and

more to make it desirable and a bit of a carrot, if you will, for

people to move down the track to citizenship. And if, in fact, the

second preference was dramatically cut back or even eliminated, of

course, then the carrot would be for the alien to go down the track

to become a citizen before they could petition for relatives.

So, with that being the case, we thought, well, there would be a

balancing. So much in immigration law is a balancing of interests.

In that case, since we would be putting more pressure on them to

become citizens, we could see reducing the time period to do so.

If you are going to leave second preference, that would remain.

They would have the ability to petition from that status, as well as

from the citizen status. Then, in the technical area•and, again,

Mr. Miller might want to elaborate. Why don't you come up here,

Mike?

We are talking about some backlog considerations, and I will

leave these gentlemen to elaborate, if I might, Mike Miller to my

left and Mike Shaul to my far left.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. The principal emphasis or impetus, I

guess, for naturalizing generally is, I think, mainly threefold. One

is to assist immediate relatives, such as parents or brothers and sisters, in emigrating to the United States without the quota numbers

or even assisting at all because a parent cannot be petitioned for by

a lawful permanent resident, and to be able to accept certain em-
6

ployment positions such as security jobs with the U.S. Government

or in the military.

As the Commissioner said, we are concerned on the one hand

about the assimilation of alien lawful permanent residents into the

society and culture of the United States prior to naturalization

and, on the other hand, with encouraging these folks to naturalize.

So, with the second preference reduction, we would be able to see

an impetus or a motivation to naturalize, but•I guess I am not explaining this very well, but the trade-off seems to be

Senator SIMON. Well, let me ask you this because you mentioned

backlogs. Obviously, what we do not want to do is create all of a

sudden a huge pile of paperwork. Is that what you are talking

about?

Mr. MILLER. That is one of the things. With the reduced time, we

would make probably several 100,000 people eligible immediately

that are not now eligible for naturalization because there is a 5-

year waiting requirement at the present time. And with 3 years,

we would make immediately persons who are not now eligible able

to apply.

Senator SIMON. Let me ask you, you are both career people with

INS, right?

Mr. MILLER. That is correct.

Mr. SHAUL. That is correct.

Senator SIMON. If I had asked you a year ago, should we reduce

it from 5 to 3 years, what would you have said?

Mr. SHAUL. Mr. Chairman, a year ago we were looking at a

number of options relating to legal immigration reform as a whole.

One of the options that we looked at was an avenue to reduce or

eliminate the backlogs of people awaiting immigrant visa petitions,

people who already have approved status as relatives of permanent

residents, but who, because of the sometimes exceedingly long

backlogs, must wait a number of years before they can be reunited

with their family.

One of the options was to eliminate the second preference over a

period of about 3 years in favor of having people naturalized in a

shorter period of time and then petition as immediate relatives for

those spouses and children.

This would eliminate the backlogs. It would make it so that there

would not be a difference between the waiting times depending

upon your country of origin. As you know, for Mexico, there is

about an 8-year backlog for bringing in a relative, a spouse, or a

child. For other countries, it is less, but for some countries it is

very long.

Senator SIMON. Well, if I can ask the two of you to forget that

the Commissioner is right here now. If you were a member of this

subcommittee•just a simple yes or no•at this point would you

vote to reduce that 5-year waiting period to 3?

Mr. SHAUL. At this point, no, I would not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. MILLER. Nor would I, sir.

Senator SIMON. OK. Let me note that the expert on immigration

law in the U.S. Senate has joined us, from that State with massive

numbers of immigrants, Wyoming.

Senator Simpson.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN K. SIMPSON, A U.S.

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and it

is very pleasing for me to see you as a member of the subcommittee taking a great interest in these issues. They are terribly

fraught with•and I say it time and time again•emotion, fear,

guilt, and racism. Always, we deal with these things. People pretend they don't, but they keep throwing that into the game.

It is a phony way to play the game because the game is not Democrat, it is not Republican, it is not racist. It may have been, and

that is our history, but it is not anymore. I always get offended by

that. The same people that use that as a tool are the same people

that, you know, have the most to lose in the process.

So, I appreciate your coming by. You spoke with the chairman of

the subcommittee about this; it is a matter of interest to you. How

much time should an alien reside in the United States before being

allowed to naturalize?

I think this is the first time this has been addressed since•well,

it is obviously the first time since I have been in the Senate in 10

years. I strongly believe that naturalization is a very important

aspect of immigration and assimilation. Now, some have even criticized the word "assimilation." You can twist that all around, too,

in various dazzling things.

But we must always encourage the naturalization of immigrants,

and I also strongly believe that a minimum level of assimilation

must be demonstrated by an immigrant before we grant this extraordinary benefit of U.S. citizenship to him or to her.

That appropriate degree of assimilation must include, at a minimum, a demonstration of a functional knowledge of English, a

knowledge of the history and government system of our country,

and an intention and a commitment to continue to be part of our

country.

It was best described at a hearing some years ago that the people

who become Americans must embrace a common public culture, a

common flag, and a common language. Whatever they do with

their private culture is strictly their business; and that is a good

distinction to draw.

I have the Immigration and Nationality Act on the computer in

English. I am going to put it in some day. It will be one of my last

acts in Congress, to rewrite the INA in English. It would be a dazzling document, because now it is the most contorted, twisted, verbose, garbled piece of legislation that I have ever got into in depth,

and there are a lot of them around here.

Senator SIMON. YOU need a nonlawyer to help you on that.

Senator SIMPSON. I will take a journalist like you with me when

we go over the cliff.

Senator SIMON. OK.

Senator SIMPSON. Well, just one other remark, Mr. Chairman. It

does say, in the clearest possible terms in the whole Act, that an

alien must have:

(1) An understanding of the English language, including an ability to read, write,

and speak words in ordinary usage in the English language;

(2) A knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history and of the

principles and forms of government of the United States of America.
8

I would like to insert in the record a sample of naturalization

questions that are asked of people at that very vital time of their

lives, and I think we will see that it is not an onerous condition.

[The information follows:]
SAMPLE TES*T QUESTIONS FOR NATURALIZATION EXAMINATION

Set #1

1. Who was the first President of the U.S.?

2. Who is the Governor of your state?

3. What are the first ten amendments of the Constitution/

called?

4. What is the highest court in the U.S.?

5. Who is the Vice President of the U.S.?

6. What is the supreme law of the U.S.?

7. Name the three branches of Government?

8. Where is the right to vote guaranteed to each citizen?

9. What is the term of office of the Vice President?

10. Where is the capital of the United States?

Set #2

1. Who is the President of the U.S.?

2. Name one of the two Senators from your state?

3. Name the two houses of Congress?

4. What is the capital of the U.S.?

5. What is the term of office of the President?

6. Name 5 of the first original thirteen states?

7. How many states in the U.S.?

8. How long is a congressman's term of office?

9. Who is your congressman?

10. What do the stars on the American flag represent?
10

SAMPLE TEST QUESTIONS FOR NATURALIZATION EXAMINATION

Set #3

1. Who was the first President of the U.S.?

2. Who is now the President of the U.S.?

3. What is the name of one of the Senator's from your state?

4. What is the highest court in the U.S.?

5. How many Senators are there in Congress?

6. What are the first ten amendments to the Constitution

called?

7. Give me two of these rights or privileges?

8. Why are there 13 stripes on the U.S. flag?

9. How many states make up the U.S.?

10. What are the three branches of the U.S. Government?

Set #^-

1. What do we celebrate on the 4th of July?

2. What is the Constitution of the U.S.?

3. What is the highest court in the U.S.?

4. What are the three branches of government and what are their

functions?

5. What is the form of government we have in the U.S.?

6. Name three of the first original thirteen states?

7. How many states in the U.S.?

8. How long is a Congressman's term of office?

9. Who is your Congressman?

10. What are the colors on the American flag?
11

Senator SIMPSON. I have seen no evidence that shows that 5

years is enough time or too little time or too much time to require

as a minimum period of residence before naturalization is allowed.

But I do know that it has served us well so far without noticeable

problems.

The 5-year period has been on the books since 1802, and I think

we have done fairly well under the past 187 years. But if we do

anything, I think that those who propose a change in this period of

residence bear the full burden of proof that a change is necessary

or desirable.

I strongly reject the notion that we should change our naturalization period merely because there are backlogs in the immigrant

visa system. If our immigrant selection system leaves something to

be desired, we should propose amendments to it. However, we

should not change our citizenship rules if our strongest concerns

are with our immigration rules or with the bureaucracy, or whatever it is.

So, I look forward to the testimony and appreciate your participation and your courtesy, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMON. Commissioner, if I may ask a question on a totally different area, I have the letter that Attorney General Dick

Thornburgh sent to you regarding the Chinese student situation,

and I commend the President for his decision on that.

Does that present any additional problems to INS, assuming the

hard-liners continue to take charge in China and we move ahead

on this? Does that present personnel problems or other problems to

INS?

Mr. NELSON. At this point, Mr. Chairman, no. What the future

might hold is a little hard to tell at this point, but we issued a

cable to our field that elaborated on that letter from the Attorney

General to me, giving the instructions to our field, giving the 1-

year extra time to those people already here. Of course, it applies

to those who are already here, not any potential new entrants.

As I understand it, so far in 1 week or 2 that that has been in

effect, it has not been any problem. We will need to look at the

issue of asylum claims when and if they are made. I understand

there have been very few made to date.

So, we think it can be handled smoothly, again, depending on

what might happen in China. What terms of exodus from China

there might be could present a whole raft of new issues, but with

those that are here, students and others, we think this deferral of

their departure time will work well.

Obviously, anybody wanting to go back can go back. Those that

are involved in criminal activities, we might well require them to

go back, but we think it is and can work well.

Senator SIMON. Any further questions, Senator Simpson?

Senator SIMPSON. NO, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMON. I thank you much, Commissioner, and your colleagues here. We appreciate it.

Mr. NELSON. One thing I might point out, Mr. Chairman, relating to Senator Simpson's comments, is that currently the average

time for naturalization for those naturalizing is 8 years. Of course,

a lot don't move as rapidly as the 5 years, so that is one factor.
12

I might also•I know there was some question on backlogs, and

we will submit for the record a couple of sheets that give some figures on backlogs and numbers.

[The information follows:]
City

INS Processing

Time in Months.

[] denote backlog

Los Angeles 5 [1]

New York

NYC

BRO

2.5 [0]

4 [0]

Houston 10.5E6.5]

Dallas 9.1 [5.1]

Miami 11 [7]

13

Naturalzatlon Applications Processing

Court Processing Total Processing

Time (Months) Time (Months)

2 4.5

6 10 .

6 16.5

6 15.1

6 17

For INS, a four month processing time is standard; processing times in excess

of four months are considered a backlog. INS cannot comment on average court

processing time because each court is independent. However, it is clear that

a certain amount of time should be considered standard for court processing and

should not be considered a backlog.

NATURALIZATION DATA

Naturalization Cases Pending Servicewide - Oct. 1, 1988

185,297

Mar. 1, 1989

175,216

Ave. Cases Rec'd Per Mo. Servicewide - 29,572

Four Months Normal Processing Time - 118,290

Number of Months Cases Pending S/Wide - 1.48

Persons Naturalized in FY 1988 - 246,256

Persons Naturalized 1st Half FY 1988 - 119,040

Persons Naturalized 1st Half FY 1989 - 125,260
14

Mr. NELSON. We are naturalizing, last fiscal year, nearly 250,000

people. This current fiscal year, we are running ahead of that. So,

if the rate continues at the same rate, we should be something

above the 250,000.

The backlogs have been dramatically reduced. About a year ago,

we were about at 8 months. Now, we build in a 4-month period as

sort of a normal processing time. That has always been the case.

So, we count the first month of backlog as the fifth month.

And, overall, we have like a iy2-month backlog servicewide. In a

few places, it is longer than that; some, it is less. Some places•in

New York City, for example, we are processing people a couple of

months after they file their applications•even shorter than that 4-

month period.

So, we think we have done a lot in terms of the backlogs. We will

continue to work on that. As we have automated more, as we are

getting out even more in the outreach efforts to encourage people

to naturalize, we think the system is working well. Backlogs are

down, and that is another reason•I can't miss this opportunity to

once more in front of Senator Simpson say why there is no reason

to move to an administrative naturalization and take away the dignity of the judicial system.

We would very much hope that you would revisit that because

that would be a step backward, we think, in the kind of comments

that Senator Simpson just made about the dignity of our process

and it has worked well.

Thank you very much.

Senator SIMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to add, I think

that there are backlogs•at least there is testimony that will be

presented here•in Dallas, Houston, Miami, New York, and Los

Angeles.

You are saying that those are being corrected and those are

under control? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir.

Senator SIMPSON. And you will furnish that information for the

record?

Mr. NELSON. We will.

Roughly, in Houston, there is a 6y2-month backlog; Dallas, 5

months; Miami, about 7, which, you know, is not•now, there is

some additional time with the court beyond that. And as I say,

overall in the country, it is only IV2 months. So, we think that the

backlog problem, while in a few areas is higher than we would like,

and we are working to reduce it, is certainly within general control. And we are convinced that we will•as we did reduce it from 8

to 1V2 months overall, that we will continue to reduce that.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SIMON. We will enter those statistics in the record.

Mr. NELSON. Thank you.

Senator SIMON. We thank you very, very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Nelson follows:]
15

TESTIMONY OF

ALAN C. NELSON

COMMISSIONER

IMMIGRATION ADD NATURALIZATION SERVICE

BEFORE THE

SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION AMD REFUGEE AFFAIRS

CONCERNING

IMMIGRATION NATURALIZATION PROCEDURES

* JUNE 15, 19S9

ROOM 226, DIRK8BN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposal to

reduce the general residency requirement for naturalization from

five years to three. Although there may be some sincerely held

beliefs in favor of reducing the residency requirement, the

Administration opposes such a change at this time and would

oppose any such amendment being offered to S. 358, the legal

immigration reform legislation recently ordered reported by this

Committee.

During the little more than two hundred years of our

country's existence, we have seen large groups of immigrants

arrive on our shores from every part of the globe. These

immigrants have brought many different attributes, have spoken

many different languages, have represented all the different

races and religions. The characteristics which they shared,

however, are an appreciation for the benefits that this country
16

offers, a willingness to work hard to build a better life in

their new land and a desire to attain that most prized possession

of all • U.S. citizenship.

The preservation of the value of U.S. citizenship and the

development of an appreciation of the institutions and values of

the United States is paramount to the naturalization process.

The primary reason that the immigration laws require a five-year

period of residency is to ensure that an applicant for

naturalization has had time to acquire knowledge of and a

commitment to American ideals. The full five years increases the

probability that the alien will have had a sufficient opportunity

to become attached to the principles upon which this country was

founded. The five-year period for naturalization has stood the

test of time having governed the naturalization of an entire

generation of this country's immigrants. We see no valid reason

for changing that process at this time.

Every applicant for naturalization is different from any

other. Each is a combination of all of their life experiences,

both prior to, and after, arrival in this country. Those

experiences affect both their desire to naturalize and the rate

at which they acquire those attributes necessary for citizenship.

A five-year period of residency ensures that the alien has had an

opportunity to experience American life fully and to acquire the

commitment to the American way of life necessary to make a good

citizen.

In conclusion, the Department does not believe that a

reduction in the residency requirement from five years to three,

would be appropriate. We must, therefore, oppose such a

reduction at this time. I would be pleased to answer any

questions which you or the other members may have.
17

Senator SIMON. NOW, a panel: Dr. Elliott Barkan, professor at

California State University at San Bernardino; Dr. Harry Pachon,

the National Director of the National Association of Latino Elected

Public Officials; and Dr. Reed Ueda, a professor at Tufts University

in Massachusetts.

We will enter your full written statements in the record. If you

can summarize in 5 minutes your statements, then we will toss

some questions at you.

Dr. Barkan, we will start with you here.

PANEL CONSISTING OF ELLIOTT BARKAN, PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AND ETHNIC STUDIES, CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

AT SAN BERNARDINO; REED UEDA, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF

HISTORY, TUFTS UNIVERSITY; AND HARRY PACHON, NATIONAL

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND

APPOINTED OFFICIALS

STATEMENT OF PROF. ELLIOTT BARKAN

Mr. BARKAN. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before

you, and I am sorry I didn't have the chance yet to submit a written statement, which I will shortly. Therefore, I would like to focus

on a few points, key points, and be glad to amplify them.

I do believe that we do need to focus on the value of citizenship,

and I think what has often happened with so much attention on

immigration is that we focus on those whom we welcome and not

on what we do for those newcomers after the welcome.

I think, also, that•and I bring a historical perspective as a professor of history and ethnic studies•that they have often understated and under-appreciated the momentousness of the decision to

become a citizen, and the significance of switching loyalties. And so

it is within that context that I wish to make a few of these remarks, and can amplify them if you wish.

I realize that it has been over 187 years since there has been any

change in the requirement. I do wish to point out that in the original discussions to increase the number of years from 2 to 5 years in

1795, it was not a magical number and there is no magic to the

number five. They did it at the time because they felt there was

the time needed for enculturation.

But I would emphasize that given the current situation, which is

vastly different than America in 1795 or 1802, that with the impact

of the media, extensive as it is in diverse languages, immigrants

are saturated and exposed continually to the American culture,

and that the opportunity to acquire the basics of American culture

can be done and acquired in less than 5 years. Canada, as I know

you know, has a 3-year waiting period. Australia has a 2-year waiting period.

The key here is not only the opportunity for enculturation or assimilation, but the receptivity of immigrants to citizenship, which

is really tied in with their inclination, their motivation, their personal needs, and their perception of the value of citizenship.

And I do believe that immigrants who are interested in citizenship will be inclined to take advantage of the opportunity of a

shorter waiting time, and those who are uninterested or ambivalent, I believe, will not be more inclined to seek citizenship if you
18

reduce it to 3 years or any other time, unless it is tied in with

other reforms that are not yet in Senate bill 358.

And particularly tied in with what Mr. Nelson just said, I would

like to point out the comment with who is delaying applying for

citizenship; that the term of median years of 8 for citizenship is

somewhat deceiving.

It is not only Latinos who have been slower and have lower rates

of applying. It is also Canadians, and in the past two decades increasingly Europeans have been lower in rates and slower to apply.

Let me just give you a very brief example of this. I took a look at

the 1985-87 data. Forty-seven percent of immigrants applied within

4% to 8% years. This is 43 percent of Europeans, only 27 percent of

North Americans, but 62 percent of Asians.

On the other hand, if you look at those who waited 12 years or

more to apply for citizenship, one-quarter of all new citizens waited

12 years or more, and this would include a third of Europeans and

Central and South Americans, 50 percent of North Americans, but

only 7.9 percent of Asians. I could mention individual countries.

Let me just point out, for example, Cubans are still waiting, twothirds of them, 12 years or more.

So, it is my belief that we should encourage those who are eager

to naturalize, who are eager to become part of the American

system. And for others, there are a variety of motives why they are

delaying or not applying at all.

Now, with respect to the question of the implications if you

reduce the waiting time, first of all I do believe that we will make

available, to the benefit of the Nation, a more rapid economic, and

especially the political integration, of those who are interested. I do

think you will then need to make revisions in the provisions for

special naturalizations.

Of course, given the fact that in the 1980's nearly half of all immigrants who have entered this country are related to American

citizens, both quota and nonquota, this certainly will accelerate the

immigration process. It could conceivably even double the number

of applicants.

The point I would emphasize is that this reduction needs to be

tied in with general reforms of the U.S. naturalization system, and

I would suggest the following: reduce the waiting time to 3 years,

eliminate the special categories, and separate the naturalization

system from the Immigration Service.

Do what you can to enhance and promote the desirability of citizenship, publicize your procedures and the separation; publicize

that the Nation wishes for immigrants to naturalize, and especially

in so doing, provide procedures that you will help immigrants to

overcome their fears and anxieties about applying for citizenship. I

do believe that this is a particularly key point that is influencing

the rates of naturalization.

I would be happy to expand upon any of these points. Thank you.

Senator SIMON. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barkan follows:]
19

FULL TEXT FROM WHICH REMARKS WERE DELIVERED BY

PROFESSOR ELLIOTT ROBERT BARKAK

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY

SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF.

Mr. Chairman, I wish t.o thank the Committee for this opportunity to appear before you regarding the question of reducing

the waiting period for naturalization from five to three years.

I regret that I was unable to provide you with a full written

text prior to my appearance, but there was not sufficient time.

I shall be concise but I do wish to present some new data

that have a bearing on this question. I realize t"hat for some

the whole question of naturalization has been regarded as a

rather esoteric matter. That is only true because so much

attention has been foucssed on the drama of immigration.

Nonetheless, since federal records have been more systematically

collected, beginning in 1907, 13,000,000 people have been

naturalized - made American citizens - and that is not an

insignificant sum.

First, let me note that during the 1795 debate to increase

the waiting time from two to five years, Congressman Samuel

Smith, of Maryland, noted that the longer period was needed so

that:

prejudices which the aliens had imbibed under the

government from whence they came might be effaced and

that they might, by communication and observance of our

laws and government, have just ideas of our constitution and the excellence of its institutions before they

were admitted to the rights of a citizen.

However, it must be emphasized that five years was no magic

number• It was seen at that time as a necessary period of

apprenticeship - and, some might say, of probation. But I would

submit that the rationale for five years is of limited value

today.

There are, as is known, exceptions to the five year rule,

and acculturation cannot always be presumed to have occurred in

all such cases. Spouses and children of citizens and members of

the armed forces need not wait five years. In fact, during

periods of war time since World War One, foreigners serving in

the armed forces could, in most instances, apply for immediate

naturalization, however long they had been in this country.

More crucially, as opposed to the style of life some 190

years ago, we Americans are not now as dispersed nor as isolated

as our forebears were. We are SATURATED WITH MEDIA - in many

forms and languages - media that expose resident aliens to our

culture and institutions all the time. Consequently, ACCULTURATION CAN NOW OCCUR FAR MORE RAPIDLY. I say "can" because, predominantly, personal factors play a critical role in the individual 's receptivity to American citizenship. Such receptivity is

not uniform and it certainly varies among ethnic groups.

What is vital in this decision making process is the

immigrant's inclination, motivation, needs, goals, and perception

of the value of American citizenship. Immigrants interested in

acquiring American citizenship will be more responsive to acculturating forces and will be more inclined to take advantage of a

shorter waiting period. They will do so for, among other
20

reasons, political /personal security, here and abroad* Job

opportunities; the right of political participation; for more

rapid family reunification; and Tor patriotism Loward their adopted country.

Immigrants uninterested or ambivalent will, I believe, be

little more inclined to seek citizenship here whether the waiting

time is three years or five years - especially, if that is the

only change made! I argue this point because my research has

revealed consistent patterns: Not just Latinos but Canadians and

Europeans have (the latter for at least the last two decades; the

others longer-) had lower and slower rates of naturalization.

Allow me to cite three types of data to suggest the presence

of real differences among ethnic groups as well as shifting

patterns since the 1960s: Special naturalizations; general naturalizations within 4 1/2 [4 3/4 after f.y. 1976] and 8 1/2 years

[8 3/4 after f.y. 1976]; and general naturalizations approximately 12 years or more after lawful admission.

1) Special naturalizations: Between 1958 and 1968, threefourths of those so eligible sought citizenship in less than five

years, ranging from three-fifths of North Americans to ninetenths of Koreans. Between 1968 and 1976 only .three-fifths of

all those eligible were naturalized but only 47% among Europeans

and 39% among North Americans. Nonetheless, three-quarters of

all eligible Asians did apply, including 87-88% among the Chinese

and Koreans. By 1978 the proportion among non-Asians applying

was down to 55% compared with 88% of all Asians, most notably 96%

of eligible Koreans and even 77% of eligible Filipinos.

2) Concerning the 4 1/2 - 8 1/2 year waiting period (general

naturalizations), between 1969 and 1978 one half of all new

citizens were naturalized: 41 - 45% of Europeans and persons

from the Americas versus 6 5% of Asians, particularly 58% of

Koreans, three-fifths of Filipinos, three-fourths of the Chinese,

and four-fifths of all Asian Indians.

3) With respect to the long waiting period of approximately

12 years or more, between 1969 and 1978 one-fourth of all new

citizens had waited that long, but 31% of North Americans and

one-third of Europeans were compared with merely 7.7% of Asians.

Were these figures skewed by the fact that Asians were just

arriving in large numbers and fewer had been present for so long?

In order to resolve this, I have taken a quick look at the

published 1985-1987 statistics for general naturalizations, which

now comprise some ninety percent of all naturalizations:

4) The 4 3/4 to 8 3/4 period, 1985-87, included 47% of all

new citizens - 43% of the Europeans, 27% of North Americans, 31%

among those from the West Indies, and 3 9% of Central and South

Americans BUT 62% of all persons from Asia and the Middle East

["Asia" as categorized by the INS]. More specifically, only 19%

of Mexicans and 20% of all Canadians fell within this early

period, as did 28% of Dominicans, 29% of English persons, 31% of

Greeks, 45% of Poles, and merely 19% of Cubans and 14% of

Italians!! However, 47% of Koreans, 60% of Filipinos, 66% of

Iranians, 71% of the Chinese, 78% of the Vietnamese, and 85% of

those from the Soviet Union had been given citizenship during

this waiting period.

5) Among those waiting 12 years of more, 1985-87, one still

finds one-fourth of all new citizens, 37% of Europeans, nearly

one-third of those from Central and South America, 48% of West

Indians, over half of all North Americans, but only 7.9% of

Asians. In terms of individual nationalities, we find 31% of
21

Poles, 49% of the Portuguese, half of the British, two-thirds of

Italians, 58% of Mexicans, 64% of Canadians - and 65% of all

Cubans. Yet, we still find merely 6% of Koreans, 10% of

Filipinos, and 15% of Asian Indians.

Thus, where such groups are eager for citizenship, this

nation SHOULD reward them and encourage their political adherence , their integration. their loyalty. their new American

identity, their sense of belonging, their security, their Quest

for opportunities - in other words. the ties that bind this

nation.

For those who defer seeking American citizenship, a shorter

waiting period MAY encourage some to apply sooner, but you need

to recognize other vital variables that come into play for such

persons:

. Their motives for migrating;

Their long-range plans and hopes for returning to their

homelands;

Their attachment to their homelands and the extent of their

visits there;

Their ideological motives, such as the hope for the liberation of their homeland by some versus the despair of ever returning by others;

The proximity of those homelands for some and yet the lack

of perceived advantages of American citizenship - even the fear

of acquiring it - by many, whatever the distance between homeland

and the United States;

Ambivalence about American society and culture, or adverse

experiences and/or limited success [or interest] in integrating

here;

Such demographic factors as age, occupation, education,

marital status and family size, residence location, and home

ownership;

Particularly, fear of the INS, intimidation of its procedures and personnel, the absence of sufficient - and sufficiently

clear - information, and the indifferent government promotion of

the idea that the naturalization of foreigners is even desirable;

and

Thus, the immigrant's perception that questions whether

their citizenship is even considered important to Americans.

This brings me to the important issue of the implications of

reducing the waiting period from five to three years, such as is

the provision in Canada (and two years now in Australia):

I anticipate that such a change would result in more rapid

economic and political integration for those groups more inclined

to take advantage of the change - and possibly a political advantage to the political parties more likely to attract those groups.

I would expect a short term acceleration in the number of

applicants for citizenship.

More importantly, given the fact that during the 1980s alone

just about half of ALL immigrants admitted to this country were

relatives of American citizens. X would expect a substantial

increase in the number of relatives of citizens applying for

admission to the U.S. (although this could possibly be partially

offset by provisions in S.B. 358 establishing a fixed ceiling

eventually).
22

Even given all theae points, the basic advantage to those

eager to become American citizens and to the nation itself make

the reduction in the waiting time desirable and timely.

I say timely because SUCH A REDUCTION IN WAITING TIME SHOULD

BE TIED TO GENERAL REFORMS OF THE U.S. NATURALIZATION SYSTEM THAT

OUGHT TO BE INCORPORATED IN THE PRESENT LEGISLATION:

Reduce the waiting time to three years AND

Eliminate the provision for special naturalizations as

unnecessary in most instances;

SEPARATE THE NATURALIZATION SERVICE FROM THE IMMIGRATION BRANCH, AS WAS ORIGINALLY THE CASE;

Enhance and promotev the desirability of citizenship

more than is currently proposed and provide adequate funding for such activities;

Publicize well the newly separated Naturalization

Service and the value and importance this nation

places on the acquisition of American citizenship

as proclaimed by that separation of the two

services;

Publicize this nation's wish that the immigrants we

welcome to our shores should become full members

of our political community;

Overcome the immigrants' fears and anxieties regarding

the application procedure by simplifying those

procedures and the forms, reducing the fees, revamping the offices where prospective citizens are

met and processed, and making the whole experience

so pleasant that the word will get out to others;

Provide citizenship identification cards for newly

naturalized citizens, whose citizenship - especially Latinos - is more often questioned by law

enforcement personnel and employers; and

Finally, complete the computerization of the

administrative and record keeping processes and

standardize nationwide the examination procedures

and questions.

In other words, the government must finally recognize that

any actions that dissuade, discourage, or deter our own, legally

admitted immigrants from seeking American citizenship are selfdefeating and undermine the objective of admitting such persons

in the first place nad, especially, are contrary to our political

maxim of E Pluribus Unum.

We need to focus attention on the value of citizenship and

not dwell only on whom we welcome but on what we do to and for

those newcomers AFTER the welcome. (And this has little to do

with assistance to refugees or other such programs.)

Thus, to conclude, we need integration without coercion,

acceptance without conformity, a citizenship policy that reaches

out to newcomers and acknowledges and recognizes the

momentousness of their decision to switch loyalties - a policy

that encourages and rewards those who eagerly seek American

citizenship by making their experience of applying for such

citizenship more enjoyable, stress-free, and memorable - and

available in a shorter period of time.

Thank you.
23

STATEMENT OF PROF. REED UEDA

Mr. UEDA. I have a written statement which I would like to read

from. I am a historian, like Dr. Barkan, and my statement is slightly different, though. I just wanted to try to throw light on the question of reducing the minimum residency requirement by taking a

look at the history of our immigration policy in a little more depth.

The procedure for naturalizing aliens in the United States was

established by a series of congressional statutes passed in the

1790's. The first Federal naturalization law in 1790 required that

applicants be any free white person who had resided for 2 years

within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States.

This naturalization period became a political football. Fearful of

the political support given by aliens to the Jeffersonians, the Federalists secured the passage of a law in 1795 that raised the residency requirement for naturalization to 5 years. In 1798, the Federalists obtained another aggressive upgrading of the residency requirement to 14 years. The shifting tides of national politics, however, thrust the Jeffersonian Republicans into power and in 1802

they reduced the residency requirement to 5 years, where it has remained since.

Throughout the 19th century, policymakers and their constituencies were generally satisfied with the 5-year requirement. The basic

reason seems to have been that few advantages accrued to lowering

the legal minimum. Most States and territories eager for population gave to aliens as a migration incentive virtually the same

rights as citizens, including the franchise. Little was gained by naturalizing quickly. The immigrant who wanted to naturalize before

satisfying the residency requirement often could. The administration of naturalization was infamously corrupt and lax in the 19th

century and many were naturalized fraudulently.

But by the early 20th century, State, municipal, and Federal

laws increasingly separated the status of aliens and citizens. Aliens

had inferior rights with respect to employment and property ownership. Alien suffrage was abrogated after World War I. The basic

cause for this policy shift was the growth of a consensus that the

new immigrants coming from southern and eastern Europe and

Asia were hard to assimilate. They had to be treated as a separate

class until they were properly socialized. The result of the derogation of alienage was that citizenship became more valuable and

thus more desirable to obtain quickly.

Congress provided citizens with special immigration rights not

available to aliens. After 1924, they had the right to obtain admission for their nonresident spouses and children above new quotas.

Naturalized citizenship became a potential device to reunify families. For Italian new citizens, for example, who frequently had

spouses or minor children in the home nation, this right made naturalization highly desirable. Also, before a spouse and children

joined him, the immigrant could return for long visitations, assured that because he was a citizen, he would be able to return to

America without fear of exclusion.

Despite the increasing advantages to possessing citizenship, a

major movement for reducing the 5-year residency requirement did

not develop. This outcome may have owed to the greatly reduced
24

flow of immigration after the restrictionist laws of the 1920's that

lasted until 1965. There were not enough immigrants to constitute

a powerful interest group or a powerful issue. Generally, no social,

political, or economic need among the alien population was deemed

by policymakers to justify raising a strong political movement for

faster naturalization.

Furthermore, since 1802, the 5-year minimum worked out, at

least in the eyes of policymakers, as an adequate probationary

period for establishing the civic and linguistic qualifications for

naturalization. Although many immigrants acquired a basic knowledge of English, American history, and civics sooner, 5 years had

proven not unreasonably long as a minimum learning period, especially for non-English speakers and those who came from undemocratic states.

The proposal to shorten the residency qualification, as I understand it•and I haven't really looked into this very much; I have

only•these thoughts are hastily put together, by the way•has the

instrumental purpose to reduce the visa back load caused by family

reunification applications.

I suppose the theory is to create a safety valve out of earlier naturalization. As aliens naturalize faster, they will be able to bring in

family members above the quota limits, and thus relieve the visa

backlog faster. But it should be remembered that if the proposal

seeks to promote family reunification this way•by the way, this is

a goal I support•it will only work if aliens can pass the exam.

Since applicants will take 2 years less time to prepare in the case

of the most efficient use of the naturalization safety valve, and because people naturally tend to learn more over time, it is logical to

expect many applicants will not be as prepared for naturalization

in terms of linguistic, historical, and civic knowledge.

Therefore, shortening the residency requirement may produce a

higher rate of failure. The desire to avoid this possibility could

tempt policymakers toward a revision of the qualifications for naturalization or the examination itself. I, myself, am open to looking

at the qualifications and the examination.

If this happens, policymakers should be prepared to reconsider

how important is preparation for citizenship in these measurable

linguistic and civic educational terms, what it consists of, and how

it should be tested. Reducing the residency period inescapably affects the role of linguistic and civic education in naturalization.

Finally, reducing the residency period may disproportionately

help some immigrant groups achieve family reunification sooner. I

offer this with the idea in mind that this is the principal instrumental purpose to promote family reunification.

Judging from the fact that Asian immigrants already naturalize

at the fastest rate, they would be given further advantages for

family reunification by the new proposal, and other immigrants

who, for various reasons, cannot pass the exam sooner might not be

helped at all in getting family members off the visa backlog. It

could raise an equity issue. Critics might charge that the 3-year

residency period favors immigrants who have the advantages

needed to pass the exam quickly, leaving others to wait as long as

ever for family reunion.
25

In conclusion, I have tried to provide a historical perspective, a

sketchy one, to show that in the past the 5-year residency requirement was felt to function adequately. I have discussed some possible repercussions of shortening the minimum residency requirement as a safety valve for backlogs to show that it is no simple

question. The residency requirement is connected in a subtle way

with who gets citizenship and how they qualify.

I would hesitate to enact the proposal without further study of

its effects, but I remain openminded•and let me underline that•I

remain openminded about its potential usefulness in our new era

of immigration, with its unique exigencies.

Senator SIMON. Thank you.

Dr. Pachon.

STATEMENT OF HARRY PACHON

Mr. PACHON. Thank you, Senator Simon, Senator Simpson, members of the Judiciary Committee. The National Association of

Latino Elected and Appointed Officials•NALEO is our acronym•

appreciates the opportunity to discuss our Nation's naturalization

program

Senator SIMON. And let me just add, we will put your full statement in the record.

Mr. PACHON. I was just going to ask permission for that. Thank

you.

NALEO is an organization that is a nonpartisan civic affairs Hispanic organization. We neither solicit nor accept government funding. But, yet, over the past 4 years we have had a multi-milliondollar citizenship project which has been trying to promote U.S.

citizenship amongst our legal immigrants.

We have done applied and basic research on U.S. citizenship. We

have also run a hot line, which has been called by over 150,000 immigrants from more than 66 countries. It is our research, as well as

the results of our hot line callers, that serves as the basis of my

testimony here today.

Before discussing our research findings, however, I would like to

point out to members of this subcommittee that you and your counterparts in the House are one of the few constituent groups that

U.S. citizenship has in this Nation. The natural constituents of naturalization, the legal immigrants, are unable to be an effective

voice on the part of naturalization because, after all, they are not

enfranchised and they view the INS as a powerful force that has

discretionary power over their legal status in this country.

As a consequence, the INS has overlooked the "N" in its initials

and is a stepchild of the agency. Only 1 out of 10 dollars goes to

naturalization within the agency, and repeatedly INS officials concentrate on immigration enforcement issues before this and other

committees of Congress and overlook the valuable service that they

provide to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who wish to

become Americans by choice.

In NALEO's opinion, the fact that naturalization is overshadowed by the Federal agency that has the sole responsibility for naturalization is unfortunate; all the more so when we see that the

naturalization demand has been growing in this country.
26

I would like to ask Ms. Maria Pincon, who is one of our citizenship staff people, to bring some charts that we would like the committee to look at very briefly. The first chart that Maria will be

putting up for your observation is the number of persons who are

applying for naturalization in the past 10 years, and what we see

here is that naturalization has been increasing for the past decade.

Yet, this chart does not include the fact that over 150,000 people

each year are rejected by the INS who apply for citizenship. These

people are rejected because they don't fill out their INS forms correctly or because when they are at the exam they aren't able to

master all the provisions of the exam process itself.

The 1-percent failure rate that the INS has consistently told this

committee over the past couple of years are those individuals who

fail officially. They go before the judge and the judge makes a determination that they indeed do not know either English or enough

civics. The other 20 percent who fail arbitrarily, as determined by

bureaucratic discretion, aren't coming under the official failure categories.

I would like to point out to members of this committee that using

the INS' own statistics, NALEO has been able to show that this rejection rate by office varies by region. In Chicago, Senator Simon,

18 percent of naturalization applicants are denied the first time

they apply for U.S. citizenship. In contrast, in Newark, 28 percent

are denied, while in Los Angeles 9 percent are denied.

In our opinion, this points out that the citizenship process is a

highly arbitrary process which varies by region, if not by the administrative sytle of the INS district commissioner.

Naturalization activities at the present time are also handicapped by two other factors, and there has been a decline in that

chart between 1986 and 1987 because of IRCA. We would like to

point out through the second chart that most of the decline comes

from States where the highest number of amnesty applicants applied for legalization.

So, if you look at the big drops there, you see that, you know,

California, Texas, and New York constitute•if we look at all those

States, they constitute something like 90 percent of all the cases

that declined over a 1-year period. To us, that demonstrates that

INS had to take its limited resources and move them away from

naturalization into IRCA.

Finally, this committee has addressed a substantive problem of

the backlogs, and our research shows that the backlogs are a little

bit longer than what the Commissioner indicated. As you can see,

these figures are based on calls to district offices and they do not

show the 1-month period that was mentioned earlier in the committee.

As a result of our research, we strongly support Senator Kennedy's authorizing $1 million to community outreach. There are a

host of activities that INS could undertake. Printed materials could

be put out by the INS outlining the responsibilities and obligations

of U.S. citizenship. Regional and national contact points where immigrants could contact the INS insofar as citizenship information

could be established.

We also support Senator Simon's provisions of the 65-10 rule,

supplementing the 50-20 rule. When we do our citizenship drives,
27

we notice that about 10 percent of our applicants who go through

NALEO citizenship activities are over 65. In fact, they range as

high as 81 years of age. The elderly wish to become U.S. citizens

and the 65-10 is a very positive provision in this light.

As well, we enthusiastically support the move from 5 years to 3

years. Presently, there is confusion in the immigrant community.

We get many people calling NALEO and asking, I am the wife of a

U.S. citizen; can't I apply in 3 years? My friend is in the military;

he has applied in 3 years. Therefore, a uniform standard would

eliminate this confusion.

And, finally, we also support the administrative option of naturalization. Regrettably, even though the court ceremony is a very

positive event, for the immigrant there are delays, as that second

chart shows, in scheduling naturalization ceremonies.

The provisions included in both bills are positive steps that will

do much to improve this country's naturalization process. I would

urge members of the committee, given INS' natural tendency to

focus on immigration law enforcement rather than the naturalization provisions, that the more specific you can be in your report

language, the better it will be for naturalization activities; for example, standardization of the citizenship exam.

I know that I have run out of time, so I will just be very brief.

We were told that there is a list of standardized questions, but,

Senator Simpson, we get calls from people who have applied for the

citizenship exam who tell us that they have been asked what is

Governor Cuomo's wife's first name. How many pilgrims landed at

Plymouth Rock? Now, these are a small number of cases, but a

standardization of the exam would do much to overcome these

abuses at the present time.

We would also ask INS to inform applicants that they failed in a

uniform manner. Many times right now, applicants do not know

why or how come they failed the process. Finally, we would ask

that the committee consider establishing regional INS citizenship

outreach offices.

Naturalization is a value to all of us. We can all agree on its

positive aspects to American society. All of us at NALEO wish to

commend the committee for specifically focusing on citizenship at

this hearing. We look forward to working with you on this vital

piece of legislation.

Thank you.

Senator SIMON. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pachon follows:]
c

28

National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials

. and the people wtin *:^pport them

NALEO Board of Dlreciors

Hun. F.ilwiifd R, RO)1M1

MMfltm at CongreM

P«-skh-iii.NALF.O

l)r Harry- P-.KIMHI

Exrruilvr DWMHH

NAU-.O

Mr Diivkl U/ilmiHii

CtMtonan * CBO

TfiLACL' liMhislrit-i

Hon. Gloria MONTH

CouncHmtmlier

Los Angeles. CA

Mr. Louis P. Mon-i

Ho<i. Solomon Orti*

Member of Cuiflrna

Hon. Bill NdBKfcun

Member of C-nnsres*

r. EoVrtrd Homcio, Pii^.

AS)

M'-iiilxv 1)1 Congress

Ms Calhl VII1al[iniKin

Senior Mee President.

Communications mi enviikma I

Harry Pachon, Ph.D.

National Director

National Association of Latino

Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)

and Kenan Professor of Politics

at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif.

Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Affairs

Thursday, June 15, 1989

Chairman Kennedy, Senator Simpson and Senator

Simon, the National Association of Latino Elected and

Appointed Officials welcomes this opportunity to discuss

our nation's naturalization process and ways to improve

the current program.

NALEO is a Hispanic non-profit, non-partisan civic

affairs research organization that focuses on issues

that have an impact on the nation's growing Latino

community. NALEO's members include the more than 3,300

Hispanic elected and appointed officials and their

supporters throughout the nation.

During the last four years, NALEO has been

undertaking an ambitious national research and

demonstration project on naturalization. This project,

which is the only one of its kind, has included the

operation of a toll-free U.S. citizenship hotline which

has received more than 150,000 calls in the past three

years. Indeed, it has received more than 50,000 of

708 G Street. S.E.

Washington. D.C. 20003

(202) S4-G-253G

1114 S. Lorena

Los Ai igeles, CA 90023

(213) 262-8503
29

those calls in the last 10 months. NALEO's hotline has provided basic

information on U'.$. citizenship to people from more than 66 countries

of origin. As importantly, callers from all these nations have given

us at NALEO an understanding of the problems that immigrants face when

they have made the decision to become U.S. citizens.

Today, as this subcommittee knows, there are more than 6 million

legal immigrants with resident status living in the United States • 4

million of which are of Latin American origin. Additionally, 3

million amnesty applicants could be added to this group as a result of

the recent legalization program. While these legal residents work,

pay taxes, contribute to the economy, raise families and serve in the

armed forces, they are not fully a part of our society because of they

are not U.S. citizens. They cannot serve on grand juries, they are

barred from certain government and private sector jobs and they cannot

fully participate in the Social Security program they are paying into.

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I would like to

start by saying that NALEO is pleased that the naturalization

provisions have been separated out of the major legal immigration

reform bills currently under consideration by the Senate. This action

will allow this crucial issue to be examined and debated for the

benefit all Americans and would-be U.S. citizens.

I would like to focus my comments on a few problem areas within

the naturalization program, and then discuss some of provisions of

Senate bills on naturalization.

Today, U.S. citizenship is the stepchild of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS). Since the Bureau of Naturalization was

merged with the Bureau of Immigration in 1933, U.S. citizenship has

31-468 0-90-2
30

been overshadowed by its big brother • immigration enforcement. In

1989, only about 10 percent of the TNS budget vai earmarked for

naturalization.

Money aside, the naturalization situation is not improving. In

fact, it is getting worse. NALEO research into INS naturalization

statistics indicates that the number of adjudicated U.S. citizenship

cases declined in fiscal year 1987. For example:

o In California, 105,284 legal permanent residents received U.S.

citizenship in FX 1987 • a 21.5 percent decline from the previous

year.

o In Illinois, the number of people granted U.S. citizenship

dropped by 47.2 percent.

o In Florida, the drop was a startling 60.5 percent.

o In New Mexico, it was an unbelievable 99.5 percent drop.

This deplorable decline in the number of U.S. citizenship cases

has not resulted from a lack of demand. Part of the explanation may

be that the INS has shifted staff and other resources away from

naturalization to accommodate the legalization program. Egually

important, naturalization has not been a priority of the INS during

the past few years. In fact, during a recent hearing in the House of

Representatives on the INS, naturalization was only briefly mentioned

in the testimony, while enforcement activities dominated the comments.

Naturalization is plagued with other major problems. Two, issues

have been most notable in the INS processing of naturalization cases:

backlogs; and the rejections of a large number of non-files and

returns of applicants.
31

Backlogs

Permanent residents seeking U.S. citizenship are confronted with

a set of bureaucratic obstacles that may cause huge delays. During

the past four years, NALEO has monitored the waiting times for

citizenship examination (the initial step of the process) and the

actual court ceremonies in key states. NALEO's figures, which are

based on information provided by INS district offices, show extreme

delays that cause frustration and disappointment among applicants.

For example, applicants in the following cities could expect the

following waiting times: • --•-

Office Interview Ceremony Total

Dallas 12 Months 12 Months 20 Months

Houston 12 Months 10-12 Months 22-24 Months

Los Angeles 3-6 Months 6-12 Months 9-18 Months

Miami 10 Months 2 Months 12 Months

New Vork

NYC, Bronx

& Brooklyn

4 Months 6 Months 10 Months

Source: NALEO Education Fund, June 1989.

Bureaucratic delays can make a person who has been a permanent

resident for five years wait up to another two years beyond that

statutory timeline. Of what value is it to our society for immigrants

to be required to show their commitment to our country by standing in

line, sometimes repeatedly, and enduring red tape?

Non-Files

NALEO recently told the House Subcommittee on Immigration,

Refugees and International Law about a hidden problem in

naturalization - the problem of applicants who do not obtain
32

citizenship and are categorized as "non-files" and "returns." While

the INS Maintain! its official denial rate is 1 percent, NALEO

research has discovered it that the actual percentage of applicants

who do not complete the naturalization process is closer to 33

percent.

Under the bureaucratic categories of "non-files" and "returns,"

more than 150,000 permanent residents seeking to become U.S. citizens

are turned away each year at the time of their first application. The

high rejection rates are due, in part, to the difficult INS

naturalization forms • the N-400 and G-325. These forms are

complicated to understand, have poor and vague instructions and are

essentially not "user friendly."

NALEO is currently working on a recommended naturalization form

that is clear, concise and provides the immigrant with the necessary

informational tools to pursue U.S. citizenship. When completed, NALEO

would gladly submit a copy to this Subcommittee.

Another reason for this large number of rejections may be the

fact that permanent residents are not told by the INS what the

requirements are to become a U.S. citizen. I will discuss this aspect

later in my testimony.

Suggested Senate Solutions

Bills introduced by Senator Kennedy and Senator Simon contain

naturalization provisions that would make the naturalization process

less confusing, as well as enhance the IKS' ability to better promote

U.S. citizenship.

Senator Kennedy ha<! twice introduced legislation that contains

authorization for up to $1 million for outreach activities. NALEO is

pleased to have worked closely with the Senator's staff during the
33

early phases of that provision.

Today, the United States does nothing to promote the

responsibilities and opportunities of U.S. citizenship. Permanent

residents spend years, perhaps a lifetime for some, without being told

of U.S. citizenship. Many would gladly take the step towards U.S.

citizenship if the government were not so timid about its promotion.

When NALEO started its naturalization outreach program, it was

told that Latino legal residents just were not interested in becoming

U.S. citizens. NALEO was told that the Hispanic foreign born did not

seek U.S. citizenship because they would eventually-return "home."--

Those arguments have been unfounded. Millions of permanent residents

call the United States "home," and they plan to continue residing

here.

Naturalization promotion does work in encouraging people to seek

citizenship information. NALEO, which operates a national and

California-exclusive hotlines, has received more than 150,000 calls in

three years. In addition, NALEO, along with the nation's largest

Spanish-language network, Univision, released a series of public

service announcements that promote the opportunities and

responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. The results were overwhelming:

In December 1S88, NALEO received approximately 20,000 calls; in

January 1989, more than 30,000 calls were received by NALEO.

Senator Kennedy's provision would pave the way for the INS, or

community organizations, to take the initiative in information

dissemination. This provision is essential to starting any serious

naturalization outreach effort.
34

Naturalization Uniformity

Senator Simon's naturalisation proposals would make several

important changes to the current process that would create an

efficient and less confusing process. It also continues to reinforce

our nation's high ideals of citizenship and full participation by

legal immigrants.

Senator Simon recommends a uniform three-year waiting period for

U.S. citizenship. Currently, legal immigrants must wait five years

before applying for U.S. citizenship, or three years if they are

currently married to a U.S. citizen. NALEO strongly supports this

uniform time period for reasons that benefit both the applicant and

the nation.

The five-year waiting period is both arbitrary and confusing.

Since the current naturalization process allows some people to become

U.S. citizens in three years, while making others wait five years,

this unnecessary inconsistency creates confusion and problems in the

initial filing stages. For the INS, this uniformity would make the

bureaucratic process a little easier.

65-10 Rule

To become a U.S. citizen, an applicant must pass an INSadministered oral and written exam that tests their knowledge of U.S.

civics and English. In the early 1950s, a naturalization provision

was made to allow people older than 50 and who have been permanent

residents for 20 years or more to take the test in their native

language. This is known as the 50-20 rule, and it has been very

beneficial to many older permanent residents.

Senator Simon has taken the positive step of creating an

additional rule that will benefit another segment of older residents
35

by permitting people who are older than 65 and have been permanent

residents for 10 years or more to take the naturalization test in

their native language.

Certainly many of thj older residents that would benefit by this

rule may have a limited understanding of English, and they may be more

comfortable taking the test in their native language. Concerns

about the interview examination have been raised during calls to

NALEO's toll-free hotline. Many of the older callers say they are

nervous about the interview process, and their anxiety is compounded

• by their limited English-Skills. If-they do ,iot gualify for the 50-20

rule, they may not become U.S. citizens. That is wrong, and our

nation's older residents deserve better treatment.

Some of these people be currently enrolled in classes. Certain

cognitive obstacles to learning a second language at that age may

prevent the elder resident from ever obtaining a sufficient amount of

English to meet the INS examiner's language expectations.

It is a matter of courtesy towards older residents who seek to

become full, active members of the United States. Creating a 65-10

rule in addition to the 50-20 rule would benefit a tpool of people that

the United States considers to be a valuable resource • their older

residents.

Administrative Naturalization

NALEO has long believed that a fair administrative naturalization

process could help to relieve the current processing backlogs and

provide many permanent residents with the dream they seek, becoming a

U.S. citizen.

Administrative naturalization could eliminate the delays in
36

scheduling-a federal court appointment, which in some cities can be up

to 18 months.

As we have told this Subcommittee and its House counterpart,

these court delays are unreasonable and unnecessary. Administrative

naturalization could eliminate it.

Under this process, people who have passed the naturalization

examination could be sworn in by the INS during an administrative

ceremony. This would be similar to the ceremony used by the armed

forces.

Within the administrative naturalization process, there is a

valid reason for maintaining some federal court involvement. If a

person's application is denied by the INS, the applicant should be

able to appeal the case to a judge.

Yet, for the large number of adjudicated cases that are ready for

the ceremony, administrative naturalization process should be

developed. The INS could develop a nice ceremony, at which time

family and friends could attend.

Conclusion

U.S. citizenship is the often overlooked obstacle to social,

economic and political advancement of law abiding, taxpaying permanent

residents. Today, one-third of adult Hispanics cannot vote, serve on

grand juries or participate fully in the society they live in only

because they are not U.S. citizens. While some permanent residents

may opt to retain their current nationality, many more are interested

in becoming U.S. citizens. Naturalization should be accessible for

all people, and today's legislation takes steps to make that a reality

for many more people.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony.
37

Senator SIMON. I am going to call on Senator Simpson first because he has another meeting to go to. But one of the points that

came up here that I think most Americans don't realize is the phenomenon of people who are not citizens of the United States not

being able to vote is a relatively recent phenomenon.

That was so in the State of Illinois. In fact, in the State of Illinois

the secret ballot is a relatively recent phenomenon. You can go

back and see exactly for•Abraham Lincoln had to go in and tell

the clerk of the polling place who he was going to vote for for each

office, and it is recorded there.

Senator Simpson.

Senator SIMPSON. Except in Cook County. [Laughter.]

Mr. Chairman, I thank you. I do have to skip away, and you are

kind to do that. Let me just ask a question of each one and then I

will be on my way and submit the rest of them in writing.

Professor Barkan, if we changed the naturalization residence

period from 5 to 3 years, will the percentage of aliens who naturalize increase by any substantial amount?

Mr. BARKAN. The percentage naturalized, yes.

Senator SIMPSON. Who naturalize.

Mr. BARKAN. Who are naturalized

Senator SIMPSON. The percent of aliens who naturalize•will that

increase by any substantial amount?

Mr. BARKAN. I would•well, certainly, in the short run you are

going to see that because of those who would already have met the

3-year residency requirement. If you speak about in the long run, I

think it really is tied in with the kinds of reforms I have referred

to and which Dr. Pachon has also referred to.

I think that much more needs to be done to make it a desirable

process, one that is not intimidating, one that is not so confusing to

immigrants. Therefore, in and of itself, it would not substantially

increase the number of persons seeking naturalization in the long

run because, as I emphasized, it is going to appeal to those who are

already inclined to seek citizenship and not to those who, for various reasons, are disinclined.

Senator SIMPSON. One of the interesting things in our previous

work on immigration was that I think the figure, at least 5 years

ago, was that 85 percent of those from Mexico who have permanent

resident alien status in the United States do not naturalize, an interesting figure. That is what it was 5 years ago. I don't know what

it is now.

Let me ask Professor Ueda, you note in your statement that you

would hesitate to enact the proposal for a 3-year residence period

for naturalization without a further study of its effects.

What types of specific studies would you recommend we conduct

or that we pursue as subcommittee members, or have experts such

as you and others conduct for us?

Mr. UEDA. Well, I think those words probably need to be amended. I didn't mean studies like experimental studies designed to take

place in the next few years. What I really meant was study in the

sense of discussing the question much like we are doing now.

I did not have much time to throw together ideas to make a firm

recommendation. I am enlightened by what Dr. Barkan and Dr.
38

Pachon have said today, for example, and I think I agree with

some of the points they brought up about broader reform.

And I thought that today was an opportunity just to get some•

to discuss what the potential ramifications might be and the kinds

of assumptions that underlie the naturalization process and the

residency requirement.

There are certain assumptions about assimilation, as you have

mentioned, Senator Simpson. I would say you might be able to

phrase it that some policymakers thought that this minimum

period was the period necessary for the immigrant to get to know

this country and for this country to get to know the immigrant.

Maybe that is another way to phrase it.

I shy away from a kind of rigid formula for what constitutes education or assimilation in these demonstrable terms. The reason I

say that is not out of my personal view, but because it seems to me

that if you look at what the legislators and scholars were saying

about American citizenship and naturalization since the 19th century, it appears that what they really wanted was some kind of

minimal demonstration of interest in learning English, of interest

in history and civics•minimal and acceptable. They wanted to see,

you know, interest and commitment, I think, expressed in these

ways rather than passing a civics exam, you see.

So, anyway, this is the kind of discussion about assumptions and

history and the kind of research, for example, that Dr. Barkan is

doing, which I think is very fine, that I meant by the term "study,"

basically.

Senator SIMPSON. OK. I thank you, and just a final question now

of Dr. Pachon. And I wanted to say that those questions I submitted for the record•and I will be glad to give you a copy•were not

really standardized questions. Those were a list of "sample questions"•you know, "who is the President of the United States;"

"name one of the two Senators from your State;" you know, "what

are the colors in the flag."

We are not talking about Matilda Cuomo in here. She is a lovely

lady. I have met her. [Laughter.]

Matilda is her name. Did you know that, Paul?

Senator SIMON. Yes. [Laughter.]

We will qualify you for citizenship.

Senator SIMPSON. And she is a very unique woman. Enough of

that.

You described the 5-year period as arbitrary, and yet a 3-year

period would be arbitrary as well. In fact, any period would be arbitrary, and yet we all agree we must have some residence requirement.

Sir, what are the most compelling reasons in your mind for a 3-

year period that would change a law that has been on the books for

187 years?

Mr. PACHON. I think it would show a positive move of welcoming

the immigrant into full integration into American society. These

individuals want to become Americans by choice.

Our studies show that it is only like about 1 or 2 percent of the

immigrants who will become naturalized that very first year that

have the opportunity to do so. So, there would be a blip of increased naturalizations if we changed from 5 to 3 years. But it
39

would be a positive message of encouraging integration of the immigrant, who has made this country what it is today at the present

time, into American citizens.

Senator SIMPSON.- Well, I appreciate that. My only concern•

there are several, but one would be that we don't shorten it and

then lead aliens into disappointment when they are not ready and

can't pass a test. They might not have the time to get to that point.

Many are fearful and embarrassed and all the things that go with

that.

I have some additional questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would

like to submit to the record.

[Responses to questions submitted by Senator Simpson follow:]
40

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALAN SIMPSON.

TO PROFESSOR ELLIOTT BARKAN

QUESTION: Some proponents of a change to three year

naturalization argue that such a change will benefit

aliens who now have 2nd preference petitions pending

for their spouses and children. Once these aliens

naturalize, their spouses and children may immigrate

immediately. The 2nd preference backlog from Mexico

is particularly long, approximately ten years. If

we change the naturalization period to three years,

will a large number of Mexican nationals naturalize

and thus be able to bring in their close family

sooner?

Regarding the second preference backlog and the question of

Mexicans seizing the earlier waiting period to bring such

persons in: I would say without qualification that the

historical pattern does not support such a conclusion because a.

large proportion of Mexicans eligible for citizenship have

consistently put off applying rapidly. If an eagerness to

bring in family members were so prevalent then why would 58% of

those Mexicans naturalized during FY 1985-87 have waited 12

years and more? Of course, SCT" would take advantage of the

change and, of course, some family relatives in Mexico would be

eligible for admission sooner, but the most likely upsurge is

not among Mexicans but among others already most receptive to

American citizenship. In addition, the proposed cap on total

immigration would stem, or stifle, some of the effects alluded

to.

The economic conditions in Mexico are so complex and yet the

strong sentiments for return are so persistent that it is

difficult to see a major change in Mexican patterns with an

alteration only in the waiting period - to say nothing of the

fact that the contemplated surge (shifting from Second

Preference to non-quota spouses and children, etc.) would be

short-term, unless one conjectures or factors in the long-term

rippling effect of subsequent earlier citizenship and then

other relatives becoming eligible. [One caveat, however, is in

order: If, indeed, there is a newer trend among Mexican

immigrants that involves a growing number of urban and middle

class persons, it is possible that their response may be

different, but so, too, would their economic and political

roles here.]

More importantly, and especially with respect to Mexicans and

other Latinos, I firmly believe that a shorter waiting period

needs to be tied to general reforms in the entire

Naturalization process. including separation of Immigration
41

from Naturalization, reduced fees, more pleasant environments

and congenial personnel. more consistent exams, and citizenship

cards for new citizens (especialy Latinos, who are more often

stopped by police. Border Patrols, etc.). I believe that it

would have definitely favorable diplomatic as well as favorable

domestic reprecussions if we made our procedures more inviting

and more civilized - as Canada has done - so that the

foreigners who do reside among us and who might consider

American citizneship will be less intimidated and fearful of

applying and will perceive that their membership in the

American polity is desired and their citizenship encouraged.

QUESTION: I am interested in your descriptions of how

different nationality groups display different

behaviors regarding their residence in the United

States. Could you elaborate on these different

behaviors, and tell the Subcommittee whether most

immigrants who come to the United States with

permanent resident alien status actually intend to

live in our country permanently?

Regarding the long term intentions of foreigners with respect

to remaining in the U.S.: I would first note that Robert

Warren (Statistics, INS) and probably Jeffrey Passel (Census

Bureau) have explored this question. Since the government

stopped keeping statistics on emigration in 1957,

determinations on this issue have involved various complex

estimates and calculations. Certainly, the literature on

immigration still confirms that some groups particularly those

from the Caribbean and the Americas, often come here with the

intention of returning home. True, too, is the fact that many

from other nations will live' their working years here and

retire on Social Security to their homelands, including

Ireland, Poland and Italy.

Simmilarly, political and economic conditions in many countries

do play a part here, for even permanent residents - who may

have sought such a status for protection - may contemplate

going back if those conditions improve; I do believe this is a

factor in the slow pace of Cuban applications for citizenship,

for example. I suspect, too, that the economic prosperity of

other nations, such as in Europe, has reduced the sense of

urgency to sever political ties with the homeland, whereas the

dearth of opportunities, such as in Ireland, Portugal, and

South Korea, compel people to leave but not necessarily to

switch allegiances, especially if remaining with one's original

citiznehship could be advantageous economically (i.e., in terms

of trade or, as is the case with India, the purchasing of
42

property there), or there remains a desire to be involved in

homeland politics.

I recently did a study on immigrants in New York and compared

the number of persons who said they were intending to reside in

New York with the number of alien registrations in 1970 and

1980 and the number naturalized during the 1970s and found far

more than half of those who were supposed to be there were in

fact not there! While various statistical modifications might

be done by demographers and certainly migration to other states

cannot at all be ruled out, the literature does support my

findings that many who acquired legal admission still returned

home, for that was their long-range intention. Consequently, I

stand by the observation that people who intend to return home

will not be particularly inclined to seek citizenship just

because the waiting period has been reduced. Those who want to

integrate will acculturate sufficiently within three years

given our present media saturation and these persons should be

encouraged and rewarded, for they and the nation benefit.

Finally, one cannot ignore the fact that many foreigners, like

Americans, are strongly attached to their homelands and cannot

envision switching loyalties - even if circumstances bring them

here. Improved naturalization processing facilities and a

shorter waiting time will encourage more rapid applications

among those more marginal or ambivalent in their sentiments as

well as among those who need, or plan, to remain here is more

clearcut - or their alternatives more limited, or non-existent,

given conditions in their homeland.
43

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALAN SIMPSON

TO PROFESSOR REED UEDA

QUESTION: You state in your testimony that, with a general

three year requirement, a higher percentage of

applicants may fail the naturalization exam, and

then pressure might build to make the exam easier.

How difficult do you believe the present exam is?

For example, sample questions include:

"1) How many states in the United States?",

"2) What is the highest court in the United States?"

"3) Who is now the President of the United States?",

"4) What do we celebrate on the 4th of July?"

I have not studied the current exam systematically, but it is

my understanding that the principal tasks involve demonstrating

a competence in the English language and civics. My impression

is that the exam is moderately difficult, with the ability to

speak and write basic English and history hinges, I believe, on

the ability to learn enough English to understand these

subjects and to communicate intelligently about them.

QUESTION: You note in your testimony that reducing the

residency period to three years may help some

immigrant groups gain family reunification more than

it would help others. What groups might experience

little or no benefit from this proposed change?

It seems logical to infer that the groups that take the longest

time to naturalize would be helped least to reunify their

families by this proposal. One can obtain this information by

looking at INS data.
44

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ALAN SIMPSON

TO DR. HARRY PACHON, NALEO

.*

QUESTION: You assert in your statement that the "five year

waiting period is arbitrary and confusing".

However, this waiting period has been the law for

187 years, since 1802, and instead it has been the

three year period (for spouses of citizens) that has

fluctuated. If the five year period has been the

law for so long, why is it "confusing"?

There is no applied or statistical research on the

naturalization program dating back to 1802, and NALEO is unable

to determine the actual impact of the five-year waiting period

at that time. Today, there is confusion because we allow a

five-year, three-year dual system of naturalization to exist.

The three-year period has proven it can work, and it should be

afforded to all people who seek to naturalize. Spouses and

children of U.S. citizens who have successfully met the

naturalization requirements under the law • which are simmilar

for people who must wait five years • have been recommended

for U.S. citizenship.

Finally, in discussions with INS officials in Washington, D.C.,

and elsewhere, NALEO has been told that the three-year waiting

period could be used for all permanent legal residents seeking

to naturalize. People who seek additional time to prepare for

the naturalization requirements may do so, but the three-year

period would permit those permanent residents who want to

become U.S. citizens the opportunity to pursue their dream.

QUESTION: You note that a large number of adult hispanics

today are not citizens, but are eligible to apply.

However,- Professor Barkan noted that a change in the

naturalization period alone, from five years to

three, is not likely to substantially change the

percentage of hispanics who naturalize. Is it not

true that naturalization rates are much more likely

to be affected by other proposed changes to our

naturalization laws, such as administrative

naturalization?

As I recall, Professor Barkan mentioned that he would need to

study this issue before he makes a definite statement.
45

Yet, is is correct to say that the single action in and of

itself of changing the waiting period is going to create a

surge of naturazalition. A uniform waiting period would be a

great step forward in facilitating the naturalization process

for all people seeking U.S. citizenship.

Fulfilling the dream of U.S. citizenship can be facilitated

through various positive actions.

Among these actions is administrative naturalization, passed by

this Chamber as part of the legal immigration bill, which would

be beneficial in terms of reducing the cumbersome delays for

court dates. As NALEO has mentioned in its testimony, court

delays can easily double the waiting time for U.S.

citizenship. In Houston, for example, it may take as long as

18 months before a court date is scheduled.

The Senate, as well as the House, have realized that U.S.

citizenship delayed is democracy denied. They have separately

approved administrative naturalization.
46

Senator SIMPSON. I also want to acknowledge and appreciate the

work of Helen York, our minority chief clerk, and Stephanie

Vroom, our intern. And I thank you for your usual courtesies to

me, which have been nearly 20 years' worth, now. Thank you.

Senator SIMON. I thank you.

Let me just ask•Dr. Pachon answered this. And before you came

in, Commissioner Nelson indicated he does not favor moving the

procedure away from the courts, and Dr. Pachon indicates he does

favor this administrative procedure.

The two of you, just a quick yes or no answer. Would you favor

keeping it in the courts or an administrative procedure for citizenship?

Mr. BARKAN. From the immigrants that I have spoken to who

have become citizens, in my own observation, they are enormously

moved by the court ceremony. The administration process could be

functional in certain circumstances if there is a very serious backlog. I certainly wouldn't want it to be any substitute for a court

procedure, but I could see in certain circumstances where it could

be beneficial if it was clearly noted that it is supplementary and

not intended to replace the court ceremony.

Senator SIMON. Dr. Ueda.

Mr. UEDA. I think the administrative procedure could function as

a backup under exigent conditions. I feel that the judicial proceeding is valuable in many ways and I think it should be retained.

Senator SIMON. Thank you, Senator Simpson, for being here. I

appreciate it.

Senator SIMPSON. Thank you very much.

Senator SIMON. Just a couple of other questions. Commissioner

Nelson, before you get out of here•you thought you were going to

get by here. One of the witnesses suggested that we give printed

materials outlining the responsibilities of citizenship. Do we do

anything along that line?

Mr. NELSON. We do, Mr. Chairman. You know, I think we all

agree that there is need for more outreach both by the INS and by

the different groups here. I think a lot has been done. I think the

legalization program is an example of how it can be done very well,

and I think we would all like to see more of that.

We do have a lot of printed materials. There are updates constantly of the different training materials, and so forth. Certainly,

more could be done in that area. I think we could all agree on that,

but there are a lot of materials out there.

And I can't miss this opportunity, since you caught me going out,

to say•it is a little off the track, but we have been working very

hard to try to develop a center on Ellis Island as part of the whole

development that would really focus on citizenship and our democratic ideals.

And I would hope we could get the committee and everybody else

to really support that because I think that could give a lot of public

attention to how valuable our citizenship is. We see that so much

today in light of events in China, the Soviet Union, and other

places.

But I think, to answer your question, Mr. Chairman, yes, a lot of

material is distributed, developed, and updated regularly, and we

would certainly like to expand that.
47

Senator SIMON. But is does seem to me that maybe just one

simple folder on your responsibilities as a citizen could be given to

each person after they are sworn in. I see somebody on your staff is

going to answer this.

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, we currently have a document called

"Welcome to USA Citizenship," which is perhaps not an exhaustive

list for the new citizen that is given to them at the time of naturalization.

Another activity that we are now participating in is development

of a new brochure prenaturalization, publicizing the benefits and

responsibilities of citizenship, and that should be out some time

later this year.

Senator SIMON. All right, great. We thank you both.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be very happy, and maybe

would suggest that we provide copies of these basic materials to the

committee.

Senator SIMON. I would appreciate getting one myself, and we

will enter one•so long as it is not too lengthy, we will enter it in

the record.

Mr. NELSON. I will distribute it. Thank you.

Senator SIMON. Thank you very, very much.

[Information follows:]
48

U.S. Department of Justice

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Naturalization

Requirements and

General Information
49

Table of Contents

Part Pages

1 General Information 1

2 How to Apply for Naturalization 3

Filing the Application 3

Citizenship of Applicant's Children.3-4

Examination on the Application... .4-5

Final Court Hearing 5-6

3 General Naturalization Requirements.. 7

Age 7

Lawful Admission 7

Residence and Physical Presence... 8-9

Permission to be Absent 9-10

(a) Employment by American

Organizations 10-11

(b) Employment by United

States Government 11

(c) Service and Religious

Organizations 11-12

Character and Loyalty 12-13

Communist Party and Similar

Membership 13

Deportation 13

Literacy and Educational

Requirements 13-14

Oath of Allegiance 15

4 Naturalization Requirements for

Special Classes 17

Wives and Husbands of United

States Citizens 17

Marriage to a Citizen 17

Marriage to a Citizen Stationed

Abroad 18

Overseas Assignment of Citizen

Spouse 18-19

Surviving Spouse of United States

Citizen Service Member 19
50

Part Pages

4 Naturalization of Children 20-21

Children of Citizen Parents 21

Adopted Children of Citizen

Parents 21-22

Former United States Citizens 22

Veterans of Foreign Armed

Forces 22-23

American Women Who Married

Aliens 23-24

Service Members of the Military

or Veterans 24

Service During Certain

Periods 24-25

Ineligible Service Members 25

Service for Three Years. 25

(1) When Three Years' Service

Continuous 26

(2) When Three Years' Service

Not Continuous 26

(3) Application Made More Than

Six Months After Service

Ends 26-27

Mariners 27-28

Employees of Organizations Promoting

United States Interests Abroad.28-29

5 Naturalization and Citizenship Papers

Lost, Mutilated, or Destroyed or

Where

Name has been Changed 31

6 Declaration of Intention 33-34

7 Certificates of Citizenship for

Wives and Children of

Citizens 35-36

u
51

Part Page

8 Legalizing Stay in the United

States 37-38

9 Offices of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service 39-41

in
52

General Information

Parti

This booklet provides information in brief and

plain language about the principal requirements

for naturalization; the special classes of persons

who are exempt from some ofthose requirements;

and what a person must do to become a naturalized citizen of the the United States. It also includes a brief discussion on how to obtain a copy

of a naturalization or citizenship paper (part 5);

how to file a declaration of intention, or, as commonly known, a "first paper" (part 6); and how

to legalize an alien's residence in the United States

so that he or she may be able to apply for naturalization (part 7).

The naturalization laws apply to both men and

women and to all races. They follow the same

procedures and become citizens of the United

States in the same way.

An alien living in the United States must keep

the Immigration and Naturalization Service informed of changes in his or her address. A lawful permanent resident is given an Alien

Registration Receipt Card. This card has a number on it which should be shown in all applications and when writing to the Immigration and

Naturalization Service about a case. Any alien who

has not registered should immediately get in touch

with the nearest office of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

Anyone who cannot find the answer to a

naturalization related problem in this pamphlet or

who may desire any additional information, may

obtain it from the nearest office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. A list of offices

ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service appears on pages 39 thru 41.
53

How to Apply for

Naturalization

Part 2

The requirements for naturalization that need

fuller explanation are discussed in more detail at

a later point. The steps to become naturalized,

however, are the same for all persons and are set

out below.

Filing the Application

The first step is to get an application and, except for children under 14 years of age, a fingerprint card and a Biographic Information form from

the nearest office ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service or from a social service agency in

the community. The application to be used is Form

N-400, "Application to File Petition for Naturalization," if the person is applying for his or her

own naturalization. If, however, a parent wants

to file a petition for the naturalization of his or

her own child or an adopted child by the court,

the application to be used is Form N-402, "Application to File Petition for Naturalization in Behalf of Child." For an optional procedure to gain

citizenship for an adopted child of U.S. citizen

parents (or parent, if single), without court action,

see page 21 and 22.

The application, the fingerprint card, and the

Biographic Information form if appropriate, which

are furnished without charge, must be filled out

according to the instructions and filed with the

office of the Immigration and Naturalization Service with jurisdiction over the applicant's residence. Three unsigned photographs as described

in the application must be submitted. No fee is

required at this time for filing of Forms N-400

or N-402.

Citizenship of Applicant's Children

If a parent who is applying for naturalization

expects to be naturalized before any of his or her

children reaches age 18, it is likely that such children who are living in the United States will
54

automatically become citizens. This would happen if the children's other parent already is a

citizen, or is deceased, or if both parents are

naturalized at the same time, or ifthe parents are

legally separated and the parent being naturalized

has the legal custody ofthe children, or ifthe parent being naturalized is the mother ofthe children

and the children were born out of wedlock.

These children may obtain certificates of citizenship in their own names, showing that they became citizens on the same date that the parent was

naturalized, by filing Form N-600, in accordance

with instructions on the form, "Application for

Certificate ofCitizenship." A fee is required. The

fee must be submitted with the application. No

currency should be sent in the mail. The children

involved who are over age 14 will appear before

the naturalization examiner and must take the same

oath of allegiance as is required of persons who

naturalize.

Examination on the Application -

After certain actions on the application have

been completed by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the applicant must appear before

a naturalization examiner for examination on the

application. The Immigration and Naturalization

Service will advise the applicant when and where

to appear for the examination. At the time of the

examination the applicant will, if found eligible,

be helped in filing the legal paper, known as a petition for naturalization, in the naturalization court.

On the date that the applicant files his or her

petition for naturalization he or she pays a filing

fee to the clerk of the naturalization court. This

is the only fee required in the naturalization

process.
55

Final Court Hearing

After the examination has been completed, the

petition filed in court, and all investigations of fitness for citizenship completed, the petitioner will

be notified to appear before the court for the final hearing. Generally, judges do not ask questions of the applicants at this hearing because the

naturalization examiner has already done so. The

naturalization examiner merely informs the judge

that the applicant has been found qualified for

naturalization and should be made a citizen.

Sometimes an applicant for naturalization is

prevented by sickness or physical disability from

meeting the naturalization examiner to file his or

her petition or from going to the courthouse for

the final hearing on the case. When this happens,

it may be possible to make other arrangements so

that the applicant will not have to travel to meet

the examiner or to go before the judge. Further

information about what should be done by such

a person to become naturalized can be obtained

from the nearest office of the Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

If the examiner finds that an applicant has not

demonstrated eligibility for naturalization, the applicant will be so notified before the court hearing. He or she may then come to the final hearing,

with or without an attorney, and request naturalization before the judge. The judge will hear

whatever the petitioner has to say about his or her

fitness for citizenship and will decide whether to

make him or her a citizen.

When the court decides that a petitioner should

be made a citizen, he or she takes an oath of allegiance to the United States. In doing so, he or

she gives up allegiance to any foreign country and

promises to support and defend the Constitution

and laws of the United States.
56

When a large number of persons become

citizens at a court hearing, it may not be possible

to issue certificates immediately showing that they

have been granted citizenship. In such instances,

the certificates of naturalization are mailed to them

later, or other arrangements for subsequent delivery are made.
57

General Naturalization

Requirements

P!art3

Applicants must be present in the United States,

and must meet every requirement for naturalization in this Part and Part 2, unless they are persons who fall within special classes that are exempt

from some of those requirements. These special

classes are discussed at later points in this pamphlet. The basic requirements for naturalization are

set out below.

Age

A person must be at least 18 years of age before he or she can apply for naturalization.

Lawful Admission

Only an alien who has been lawfully admitted

to this country for permanent residence can be

naturalized. This means that the alien must have

been lawfully allowed to live permanently in this

country as an immigrant. Not all aliens in the United States have been given this privilege. Somefor example, visitors, students, and seamen-have

been allowed to come into this country only temporarily and, therefore, cannot lawfully remain

here permanently. These persons do not meet the

requirements of this paragraph. Neither does an

alien who succeeded in getting into the United

States unlawfully, such as by hiding convictions

for serious crimes, or by deserting a ship, or by

sneaking into the United States.

An alien who has been allowed to live here permanently as an immigrant loses that privilege, as

well as the privilege of becoming naturalized, if

he or she leaves the United States with the intention of abandoning residence in this country.

Caution: An alien who has been admitted to the

United States for permanent residence and who

established residence in the United States may

choose to be treated as a nonresident alien for the

purpose of gaining certain benefits under the
58

income tax laws. In order to become a nonresident alien for that purpose, the alien must leave

the United States and in doing so must intend to

abandon residence in the United States. The intent to abandon may be formed also after the alien

has left the United States.

An alien who chooses to become a nonresident

for tax purposes may be considered as having also

given up and lost his or her status as an immigrant

under the immigration and naturalization laws.

This could mean that the alien may become ineligible for an immigrant visa, or a reentry permit or other document, for which permanent

residents are eligible; may become inadmissible

to the United States if seeking readmission as a

returning resident with a reentry permit, an alien

registration receipt card or a returning resident

visa; and may become ineligible for naturalization.

Aliens should give careful consideration to the

possible consequences mentioned above, before

deciding to claim nonresident alien status for tax

purposes.

Residence and Physical Presence

After an applicant has been admitted for permanent residence, he or she must reside in the

United States continuously for at least five years

just before filing a petition for naturalization in

court. At least the last six months of that five

years' residence, immediately before the filing of

the petition, must also be residence in the State

where the petition is being filed.

The applicant is not obliged to stay in the United States during every day of the five-year period. Short visits may be made outside the United

States, either before or after applying for naturalization, and may include as part of the required

five years' residence the time absent. However,

the applicant must be sure that:
59

(a) he or she is not absent for a continuous period of one year or more and

(b) he or she is not out of the United States for

a total of more than 30 months during the last five

years.

Generally, ifthe applicant is absent for one year

or more at any one time during the five-year period

just before filing the petition, he or she breaks

naturalization residence and must complete a new

period of residence after returning to the United

States. This means that he or she will have to wait

at least four years and one day after coming back

before he or she can be naturalized. Furthermore,

if during the five-year period he or she has been

absent for a total of more than 30 months, he or

she will have to stay in the United States until he

or she has been physically present for at least a

total of 30 months out of the last five years just

before filing a petition for naturalization in court.

Permission to be Absent

Under certain circumstances, persons and their

dependents who expect to be continuously absent

from the United States for a year or more in work

within one of the following classes may be given

permission to be absent without breaking their

naturalization residence. To obtain this permission, an application must be made on Form N-470,

"Application to Preserve Residence for Naturalization Purposes," in accordance with the instructions on the form. The fee must be submitted with

the form. No currency should be sent in the mail.

Persons and dependent members oftheir households who may qualify for this permission fall into

three categories as discussed below. It should be

particularly noted that there are important differences between the classes with regard to what is

necessary to be eligible for the permission, when

the application must be made, and whether the
60

person may be considered to be physically present

as well as residing in the United States during the

absence.

(a) Employment by American Organizations.

Such organizations include:

(1) American firms or corporations, or their

subsidiaries, which are developing foreign trade

and commerce of the United States.

(2) American institutions of research recognized by the Attorney General.

(3) Certain public international organizations

in which the United States takes part.

To be eligible to obtain permission, employees

within this class must first have been physically

present in the United States for an uninterrupted

period of at least one year after their lawful admission for permanent residence.

If possible, the application for permission should

be filed before the applicant leaves the United

States. It must be filed before the applicant has

already broken residence by being continuously

absent from the United States for as much as one

year. It must be filed even though the employee

has been issued a reentry permit to use to come

back to the United States after the absence. The

reentry permit alone is not enough to protect

naturalization residence. Unless the application is

filed and approved by the Immigration and

Naturalization Service, absence for a year or more

will break naturalization residence even though

the absence may have been for employment by

one of the above American organizations.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Immigration

and Naturalization Service may have granted permission for the absence and, therefore, the applicant's naturalization residence remains unbroken

by the absence of a year or more, employees within this class cannot include the time they are absent as any part ofthe 30 months' physicalpresence

10
61

required to qualify for naturalization. Care must

be taken, therefore, to have been actually physicallypresent in the United States for not less than

30 months of the five years just before filing petitions for naturalization in court.

(b) Employment by the United States Government. The requirements to obtain permission to

be absent and the benefits of being granted permission are the same for Government employees

and their dependents as for the employees of

American organizations above, with one exception:

Government employees are regarded as physically present in the United States during the time

they are absent with the required permission. They

may include, therefore, as part ofthe 30 months'

physical presence for naturalization purposes the

time that, with permission, they are absent in

Government employment.

Government employees who are to be absent

for continuous periods less than one year do not

have to apply for permission to be absent, and may

count each continuous period of less than one year

abroad toward the thirty months that they must

be physically present in the United States.

(c) Service for Religious Organizations. Persons engaged abroad as priests, ministers, missionaries, brothers, nuns, or sisters by a religious

denomination or interdenominational mission organization which has an organization in the United States and who are granted permission to cover

the absence enjoy the same benefits that are granted to Government employees including the right

to count as physicalpresence in the United States

the time they are absent with permission.

Persons within this class have the additional

privilege of applying for permission to cover the

absence at any time. They may also be granted

permission to be absent even though they have not

11

31-468 0-90
62

yet completed a year of uninterrupted physical

presence in the United States after their lawful admission for permanent residence. Ifthey have not

completed this year of uninterrupted physical

presence, however, they must complete at least

one year of uninterrupted physical presence in the

United States before they can file their petitions

for naturalization in court.

Character and Loyalty

An applicant for naturalization must show that,

during all ofthe five yearsjust before filing a petition for naturalization in court, and up until the

judge decides that the applicant qualifies for

naturalization, he or she has been a person of good

moral character who believes in the principles of

the Constitution ofthe United States and is favorable to the good order and happiness ofthe United

States.

The naturalization law states that an applicant

for naturalization cannot be considered to be of

good moral character if he or she comes within

any of the following classes at any time during

the five-year period and up until becoming

naturalized:

(a) Habitual drunkards;

(b) Polygamists, persons connected with prostitution or narcotics, criminals;

(c) Convicted gamblers, persons getting their

principal income from gambling;

(d) Persons who lie under oath to gain a benefit

under the immigration or naturalization laws;

(e) Persons convicted and jailed for as much as

180 days.

A person also can never become a citizen if he

or she has been convicted of murder at any time.

The disqualifications listed above are not the

only reasons for which a person may be found to

lack good moral character. Other types ofbehavior

12
63

may be taken into consideration by the judge in

deciding whether or not an applicant has the good

moral character required to become a citizen.

Aliens who have not performed their duties to

serve in the armed forces ofthe United States may

also be denied citizenship. These include persons

who have been convicted of deserting or evading

service in the armed forces of the United States

during time of war, as well as persons who applied for and were given exemption from service

on the ground that they were aliens.

Communist Party and Similar Membership

A person cannot become a citizen who, at any

time during a period of ten years just before filing a petition for naturalization in court, has been

a member of or connected with the Communist

Party or a similar party within or outside the United States; or a member of or connected with any

other party or organization that is against all organized government or for world communism,

dictatorship in the United States, overthrowing the

United States Government by force, injuring or

killing officers ofthe United States, or sabotage.

If the membership or connection with any of

these parties or organizations during the ten-year

period was involuntary, or before 16 years of age,

or compelled by law, or to get employment, food

or other necessities oflife, the person may become

a citizen if no longer a member of or otherwise

connected with the party or organization.

Deportation

A person who has broken the immigration laws

and as a result is under a deportation order cannot be naturalized.

Literacy and Educational Requirements

Unless physically unable to do so, an applicant

13
64

for naturalization must be able to speak and understand simple English as well as read and write

it. However, a person who is over 50 years old

on the date ofthe examination, and has at that time

been living in the United States for at least 20 years

as a lawful permanent resident may become a

citizen even though he or she cannot speak, read

or write English.

All applicants physically able to write, must also

be able to sign their names in the English language.

However, the person mentioned above who is excused from knowing English is permitted to sign

in a foreign language if unable to sign in English.

Every person applying for naturalization, including the persons mentioned above, must pass an

examination showing that he or she is knowledgeable about the history and form of government of

the United States. There are no exceptions to this

requirement. The examination on these matters

and on English is given by a naturalization examiner at the time the applicant files the petition.

The questions the examiner asks are in simple English and to be able to answer them requires

knowledge only of subjects that anyone who has

really tried to learn will be familiar with.

In many places the public schools, as well as

other community groups, have citizenship classes to prepare persons to become citizens. Certain

educational institutions also offer courses by mail

for persons who want to study under their supervision at home instead of in school. The nearest

Immigration and Naturalization Service office can

furnish information about the correspondence

courses. The Federal Government also publishes

textbooks to aid applicants for naturalization in

studying to become citizens. It is upon the information in these books that the examination on history and government is given. Applicants who

attend citizenship classes in public schools or who

14
65

are studying by mail receive these books from the

schools without charge. The books can also be

bought direct from the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC 20402, and can be used to study privately at

home instead of under the supervision of a school.

Form M-132, "Information Concerning

Citizenship Education to Meet Naturalization Requirements," contains more information about the

Federal Textbooks on Citizenship and courses that

can be taken by mail. This form can be obtained

without charge from the nearest office ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Oath of Allegiance

Before being admitted to citizenship (unless a

child too young to understand), an applicant for

naturalization must give up any foreign allegiance

and any foreign title and must promise to obey

the Constitution and laws ofthe United States. Unless it is against his or her religion, the applicant

must also promise to bear arms or fight for the

United States, to perform other types of service

in the armed forces of the United States, and to

do work of importance to the nation when asked

to do so.

If it is against the religion of a person to fight

for the United States or to perform other types of

service in the armed forces of the United States,

that person can be excused from promising to do

these things and may become naturalized without

making such a promise. However, the person cannot be excused from promising to do work as a

civilian which is important to the nation.

15
Naturalization Requirements

for Special Classes

Part 4

This part discusses special classes of persons

who may become naturalized even though they

cannot meet all ofthe requirements mentioned in

Parts 2 and 3 of this pamphlet. This part will list

under each class the particular exemptions for that

class. Unless so listed, an applicant who comes

within a special class generally must still meet the

requirements and follow the procedures mentioned

in Parts 2 and 3.

Wives and Husbands of United States Citizens

A person who is married to a citizen ofthe United States may become naturalized in the same way

as any other alien or may take advantage of special naturalization exemptions that are granted to

the spouse of a citizen ofthe United States. These

exemptions fall into two classes, the first granted

simply because ofthe relationship to a citizen and

the second granted because of the relationship to

a citizen who is stationed abroad. Both of these

classes are discussed below.

Marriage to a Citizen.

An applicant

(1) whose spouse has been a citizen ofthe United States for at least three years, and

(2) who has been married to and living with the

citizen spouse for at least the three-year period

just before the date offiling a petition for naturalization may become a citizen of the United States

upon meeting all ofthe requirements for naturalization in Parts 2 and 3 except:

Instead offive years' residence and 30 months'

physical presence, the applicant must reside in the

United States for only three years after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence and just

before filing the petition. For at least one-half of

that three-year period, or 18 months.the applicant

must have been present in person in the United

States.

17
67

Marriage to a Citizen Stationed Abroad.

An applicant

(1) whose spouse is a citizen ofthe United States

working or serving in a foreign country for one

of the reasons below,

(2) who, upon becoming naturalized, will live

abroad with the citizen spouse, and

(3) who will again reside in the United States

as soon as the foreign work or service ofthe citizen

spouse ends may become a citizen of the United

States if all the requirements for naturalization in

Parts 2 and 3 are met except:

(a) The petition does not have to be filed in the

place where the petitioner lives, but may be filed

in any naturalization court.

(b) The petitioner may be naturalized without

having resided in the United States or any State,

and without having been physically present in the

United States, for any particular length of time

after being lawfully admitted for permanent

residence.

Generally, ifthe applicant is absent for one year

or more at any one time during the three-year period just before filing the petition, he or she breaks

naturalization residence and must complete a new

period of residence after returning to the United

States. This means that he or she will have to wait

at least 2 years and 1 day after coming back before he or she can be naturalized. Furthermore,

if during the three-year period he or she has been

absent for a total of more than 18 months, he or

she will have to stay in the United States until he

or she has been physically present for at least a

total of 18 months out of the last three years just

before filing a petition for naturalization in court.

Overseas Assignment of Citizen Spouse.

For the petitioner to qualify for the exceptions

18
68

mentioned, previously the citizen spouse must be

working or serving in the foreign country

(1) in the employment of the United States

Government (including service in the armed forces

of the United States), or

(2) in the employment of an American institution ofresearch recognized by the Attorney General, or

(3) in the employment of an American firm or

corporation, or its subsidiary, which is developing the foreign trade of the United States, or

(4) in the employment of certain public international organizations in which the United States

takes part, or

(5) under authority to perform the functions of

a minister or priest of a religious denomination

having an organization within the United States, or

(6) under an engagement solely as a missionary by a religious denomination or by an interdenominational mission organization having an

organization within the United States.

Surviving Spouse of United States Citizen Service

Member

Any person whose citizen spouse dies during

a period of honorable and active service in the

armed forces of the United States, and who was

living in marital union with the citizen spouse at

the time of the service member's death, may become a citizen of the United States if all the requirements in Parts 2 and 3 are met except:

(a) The petition does not have to be filed in the

place where the petitioner lives, but may be filed

in any naturalization court.

(b) The petitioner may be naturalized without

having been physically present in the United

States, for any particular length of time after being lawfully admitted for permanent residence.

19
69

Naturalization of Children

The fact that one or both parents may have been

citizens ofthe United States at the time of a child's

birth in a foreign country, or may have become

naturalized citizens ofthe United States after the

child's birth is not enough in itself to give United

States citizenship automatically to the child. Additional conditions which must be satisfied by the

parents and the child affect the question of whether

the child has become a citizen through his or her

parents. For example, a citizen parent may have

been required before the birth ofthe child to have

resided in the United States or its territory, or to

have been physically present there, between certain ages in order to pass citizenship on to the

child. Or, with regard to a child born abroad to

alien parents, the later naturalization of both parents in the United States and the child's own lawful admission to the United States for permanent

residence may have been required to take place

before the child reached a certain age, in order

for the child automatically to have become a

citizen of the United States after birth.

A child who is adopted by a citizen parent orparents does not automatically become a United States

citizen.

A child adopted by alien parents and admitted

for permanent residence while under 16 years old

does automatically become a citizen if his or her

adoptive parents are naturalized during the child's

minority (18 years).

For those children who at the time of birth or

later do become citizens of the United States automatically through their parents, there is a special provision of law under which a certificate of

citizenship can be furnished to them by Immigration and Naturalization Service. This is not a certificate of naturalization since the children are

20
70

already citizens of the United States. It is simply

proof'mat they can present whenever anyone raises

any question about their citizenship.

Children (including children adopted while under age 16) who do not become citizens of the

United States automatically through their parents

may nevertheless be made citizens if petition is

filed by one or both of their parents for the

naturalization of the children, provided the petitioning parent or parents are U.S. citizens.

A special provision oflaw gives a parent or parents of certain adopted children the right to apply

for their adopted child or children to become a

United States citizen(s) by filing an application

with the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Children of Citizen Parents.

An alien child of one natural or two citizen parents may be naturalized under the following conditions:

(1) The citizen parent (or both citizen parents,

if they wish) must file an application on behalf

ofthe child on Form N-402, "Application to File

Petition for Naturalization in Behalf of Child."

No fee is required at this time.

(2) No fingerprint card is required if the child

is under 14 years of age.

(3) The child's naturalization that is, his or her

admission to citizenship by the judge must be completed before he or she reaches 18 years of age.

Adopted Children of Citizen Parents.

An adopted child of one or two citizen parents

(if married) can become a citizen under the following conditions if the child:

(1) is under 18 years of age;

(2) is adopted before reaching age 16 by a parent who is a citizen of the United States, either

by birth or naturalization; or

(3) is residing in the United States in the

21
71

custody of the adopting citizen parent, pursuant

to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

The child does not have to:

(a) Be able to speak, read, or write English or

sign his or her name.

(b) Know aboutthe history and form of government of the United States.

(c) Have lived or been physically present in the

United States or in a State for any particular length

of time after admission for permanent residence.

(d) Take the oath of allegiance if he or she is

too young to understand.

Former United States Citizens

The only former citizens of the United States

who are granted any exceptions from the requirements for naturalization in Parts 2 and 3 are persons who lost their United States citizenship during

World War II as a result of service in the armed

forces of certain foreign countries and women who

lost their United States citizenship as a result of

marriage to aliens. Both of these classes are discussed below:

Veterans of Foreign Armed Forces. Any person

who:

(1) lost United States citizenship between September 1, 1939 and September 2, 1945

(2) as a result ofservice in the armed forces' of

a foreign country that was not at war with the United States during any part of his or her service, and

(3) that fought against a country with which the

United States was at war after December 7, 1941

and before September 2, 1945 may become a

citizen of the United States if he or she meets all

of the requirements for naturalization in Parts 2

and 3 except:

(a) The petition does not have to be filed in the

place where he or she lives, but it can be filed

in any naturalization court.

22
72

(b) He or she can be naturalized without having resided and without having been physically

present in the United States or any State for any

particular length oftime after admission for permanent residence.

(c) The fact that he or she has been ordered

deported from the United States does not in itself

bar him or her from becoming a citizen.

American Women Who Married Aliens.

As a general rule, a woman could have automatically lost her United States citizenship if, before September 22, 1922, she married an alien,

or if her husband was naturalized in a foreign

country, or if, between that date and March 3,

1931, she married an alien who was not of the

white race or African race. In each of these instances, she lost her citizenship if she entered into

the marriage with the intention of relinquishing

her United States citizenship.

If citizenship was lost by such marriage, there

are simplified ways in which United States citizenship and the rights of citizenship may be regained.

However, not all cases follow the same procedure.

For example, some women who were native-born

citizens and whose marriages either ended before

January 13, 1941, or who remained in the United States after the marriages, have been automatically given back their United States citizenship,

but they must take an oath of allegiance to the

United States before they can do what only a

citizen can do, such as vote. Others must file a

petition in a naturalization court in order to get

back their United States citizenship, but they are

exempt from some of the requirements in Parts

2 and 3, such as from any particular period ofresidence and physical presence in the United States.

Any woman who was the wife of an alien at any

time during the periods stated above and who

23
73

wants advice about her citizenship may get it at

the nearest office ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service or, if she is abroad, at the nearest

American Consulate.

Service Members of the Military or Veterans

An alien who has served or is serving in the

armed forces of the United States does not automatically become a citizen of the United States.

Like other aliens, such alien must apply for

naturalization and be admitted to citizenship by

a court. However depending upon such matters

as the period during which he or she served, the

length ofservice, and other factors which will be

mentioned below-he or she may be exempt from

some ofthe requirements other aliens must meet.

Service During Certain Periods.

A person who has served honorably and actively

in the armed forces ofthe United States, no matter how briefly, during any part of the periods:

April 6, 1917 to November 11, 1918,

September 1, 1939 to December 31,

1946,

June 25, 1950 to July 1, 1955, February

28, 1961, to October 15, 1978, or

October 25, 1983 to November 2, 1983

(for qualifying active duty in the geographic area of the Grenada campaign),

and

who is not within any of the below listed ineligible classes is exempt from the following requirements:

(1) No lawful admission for permanent residence is required if he or she was inducted, enlisted or reenlisted at any time in the United States,

the Panama Canal Zone, American Samoa, or

Swains Island. If he or she did not at any time

enter into such armed forces in one of the places

24
74

mentioned he or she must have been lawfully admitted for permanent residence before he or she

can be naturalized.

(2) He or she need not have resided or been

physically present in the United States or any State

for any particular length of time.

(3) He or she does not have to file the petition

in the place where he or she lives, but can file

it in any naturalization court.

Ineligible Service Members

The following persons do not qualify for the special naturalization exemptions discussed immediately above:

(1) Veterans who were discharged at their request because of alienage.

(2) Conscientious objectors who performed no

military duty whatever or refused to wear the

uniform.

(3) Veterans who were once naturalized on the

basis of the same period of military service and

have since lost their citizenship.

The fact that a person is ineligible for naturalization as such a veteran does not mean that he or

she may not be naturalized under the general

naturalization laws applicable to other classes of

aliens. He or she may still qualify for naturalization if able to meet the naturalization requirements

applicable to other aliens.

Service for Three Years

Veterans who have been lawfully admitted to

the United States for permanent residence and who

have served honorably at any time for as much

as three years, and who have never been discharged without honor, are entitled to certain exemptions from the requirements stated in Parts 2

and 3 if they come within one of the following

classes:

25
75

(1) When Three Years' Service Continuous.

A person who has served honorably at any time

in the armed forces ofthe United States for a continuous period ofthree years and who applies for

naturalization while still in service or not later than

six months after discharge from service may be

naturalized:

(a) Without having resided and without having

been physically present in the United States for

any particular length of time.

(b) The petition for naturalization does not have

to be filed in the place of residence, but may be

filed in any naturalization court.

(c) The fact that the person has been ordered

deported from the United States does not in itself

bar him or her from becoming a citizen.

(2) When Three Years' Service Not Continuous. A person who has served honorably at any

time for three years but whose service is made

up ofshort periods ofservice, instead of one continuous period, and who applies for naturalization

while still in service or not later than six months

after discharge from service is entitled to the exemptions stated in (b) and (c) immediately above.

However, for any part of the five years just before he or she files the petition for naturalization

in court and which is between the periods of service, he or she will have to prove residence and

the other qualifications for naturalization.

(3) Application Made More Than Six Months

After Service Ends. A person who has the three

years of honorable service but who fails to apply

for naturalization until more than six months after such service has ended is not qualified for the

exemptions stated in (1) above and must comply

with all the requirements in Parts 2 and 3 except

that:

(a) All service within five years ofthe date when

26
76

filing the petition is considered residence and physical presence in the United States.

(b) The fact that the person has been ordered

deported from the United States does not in itself

bar him or her from becoming a citizen.

If a service member for any reason is unable

to qualify for the exemptions given to these veterans he or she may nevertheless be naturalized under the naturalization laws applicable to other

classes of aliens if those requirements are met.

Note to persons with three years ofservice who

must apply for naturalization within six months

after discharge: the petition must be filed with the

naturalization court within the six month period.

Applicants must therefore file their applications

with the Immigration and Naturalization Service

early enough to permit filing of the petition with

the naturalization court before the six month period

has passed.

Mariners. A merchant mariner whose employment aboard a vessel requires absence from the

United States is exempt in part from the general

residence and physical presence requirements for

naturalization. He or she has the right to count

the time ofservice as a merchant mariner outside

the United States as residence and physical

presence in the United States if such service was

not as a member ofthe armed forces of the United States and it meets the following conditions:

(1) It was performed on board a vessel •

(a) operated by the United States or one of its

agencies and owned by the United States, or

(b) with its home port in the United States and

registered under the laws ofthe United States, or

(c) with its home port in the United States and

owned by a citizen of the United States or a corporation organized under the laws of a State.

(2) It was performed •

(a) honorably or with good conduct, and

27
77

(b) after lawful admission to the United States

for permanent residence, and

(c) within five years ofthe date of filing the petition for naturalization.

Employees of Organizations Promoting United

States Interests Abroad

A person who has been lawfully admitted to this

country for permanent residence and who thereafter is employed abroad by a United States incorporated nonprofit organization which is

principally engaged in conducting abroad through

communications media the dissemination of information which significantly promotes United States

interests abroad and which is recognized as such

by the Attorney General, may take advantage of

special naturalization exemptions. Examples of

such an organization are Radio Free Europe, Inc.,

Radio Liberty Committee, and Radio Marti.

Such a person is not required to reside or to be

physically present in the United States (see pages

8, 9, 10 and 11) for any particular period oftime

before becoming a citizen, if the following conditions are met:

(1) He or she has been employed by the organization continuously for at least five years after becoming a permanent resident.

(2) The petition must be filed with the naturalization court while the petitioner is still employed,

or within six months after leaving such employment. An applicant must, therefore, file the application with the Immigration and Naturalization

Service early enough to permit filing the petition

with the naturalization court before the six-month

period has passed.

(3) Upon becoming a citizen, the employee must

intend to take up residence in this country as soon

as the foreign employment ends. If the petitioner

is no longer employed by the organization at the

28

31-468 0-90-4
78

time offiling the petition, then he or she must intend to continue living in the United States upon

becoming a citizen.

29
79

Naturalization and Citizenship Papers Lost, Mutilated or

Destroyed, or Where Name

has been Changed

Part 5

A person whose Form N-315, "Declaration of

Intention", or certificate of naturalization/citizenship has been lost, mutilated or destroyed, or a

naturalized person whose name has been changed

by a court or by marriage after naturalization, may

apply for a new declaration or certificate. The application form, N-565 "Application for a New

Naturalization or Citizenship Paper", can be obtained without charge from the nearest office of

the Immigration and Naturalization Service. It

should be filled out, following the instructions in

it, and then taken or mailed to that office with the

required photographs and fee. No currency should

be sent in the mail. That office will then take the

action necessary with regard to issuing the new

document and will inform the applicant further.

31
80

Declaration of Intention

Part 6

Before the present naturalization law came into

effect on December 24, 1952, persons generally

were required to file a declaration of intention to

become a citizen of the United States • which

was known as the "first paper" • and then had

to wait for not less than two years before they

could take the next step toward becoming a citizen

ofthe United States, that is, before they could file

a petition for naturalization. Since 1952 a declaration of intention is no longer required before a

person can become a citizen, and a petition for

naturalization may be filed as soon as the required

residence and other qualifications for citizenship

have been met.

With the passage ofthe Immigration Reform and

Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), came the requirement for a declaration ofintent to become a citizen

which could be filed by persons who have not yet

become lawful permanent residents, but who are

permitted to live and work in the United States,

and entitled to file discrimination complaints

against employers violating IRCA imposed conditions. Form 1-772 was created to fill this requirement. This form is filed with the local INS office

by persons wishing to establish the groundwork

for IRCA discrimination complaints. It does not

replace the Form N-315, "Declaration of Intention"; however, a lawful permanent resident who

has filed the declaration with the court is protected under IRCA as if he or she had filed Form

1-772.

The law still permits the old Form N-315,

"Declaration of Intention," to be filed, if one is

needed for such reasons as getting certain employment or a license ofsome kind. The only requirements are that the person be at least 18 years old

and lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence. The declaration may be filed

at any time after admission for permanent residence and in any naturalization court.

33
81

The person is not required to be able to read,

write, and speak English or to pass any examination on the history and form of government ofthe

United States, and he or she may sign the declaration in any language or by mark.

The application forms are N-300 and 1-772,

"Application to File Declaration of Intention",

and "Declaration of Intending Citizen", respectively. These forms may be obtained from the

nearest office of Immigration and Naturalization

Service or from the clerk of a naturalization court

or, possibly, from a social service agency in the

community. Either one should be filed with the

nearest office ofthe Immigration and Naturalization Service. Form N-300 requires three photographs as described in the application, while Form

1-772 requires no photographs. A short time after the N-300 application is received by the Immigration office, the applicant will be notified to

call at the office ofthe clerk ofthe nearest naturalization court. He or she will then file the declaration of intention and at that time must pay a fee

to the clerk ofthe court for filing this legal paper

in court.

34
82

Certificates of Citizenship

for Wives and Children

of Citizens

PSirt7

Women who married citizens of the United

States before September 22, 1922, or whose husbands became citizens during the marriage and before that date, may have automatically become

citizens of the United States as a result of their

marriages. A child born in a foreign country of

one or two United States citizen parents may have

also become a United States citizen at birth. Similarly, a child born in a foreign country of alien

parents, or adopted by alien parents, may have

become a United States citizen automatically after birth, without having himself or herself applied

for naturalization, if one or both of his or her parents became naturalized before he or she reached

a certain age. An adopted child, however, does

NOT become a citizen ofthe United States automatically, through adoption by citizen parents. If

both adoptive parents are United State citizens,

however, the child may either be naturalized upon

the filing of a petition with the court by one of

the citizen parents, or upon the filing of an application with the Immigration and Naturalization

Service for issuance of a certificate of citizenship,

while the child is under age 18.

The conditions under which a child of a citizen

parent or parents becomes a citizen have varied

from time to time and, therefore, differ so much

from case to case that they cannot be presented

in detail within this pamphlet. Consequently, persons who need additional information along these

lines should communicate with any office of the

Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Wives and children who have become citizens

automatically may be issued certificates of citizenship by the Immigration and Naturalization Service

in their own names, showing that they are citizens

35
83

through their husbands or parents. A person who

desires to obtain such a certificate (including a parent or guardian of a child too young to act for himself or herself) may submit an application on Form

N-600, "Application for Certificate of Citizenship," to the nearest office ofthe Immigration and

Naturalization Service. The filing of the application is an entirely voluntary matter, however, and

the failure to submit it does not in any way affect

a person's citizenship.

The applicant should be prepared to submit in

connection with the application evidence of birth,

marriage, death, divorce, adoption, and other essential matters in the form of certificates or documents which will prove the claim to citizenship

through marriage or through parents. Detailed instructions regarding the nature ofthe proof needed in each case are included in the application

form.

\

36
84

Legalizing Stay in the

United States

Part 8

In the cases ofsome foreign - born persons who

are in the United States there are no records showing admission for permanent residence, or at least

no records can be found. These persons may have

been brought here during childhood and may never

have known just when or how they came; or they

may have come here as visitors or other temporary

nonimmigrant class and decided to stay; or they

may have entered unlawfully.

Since no records of lawful admission for permanent residence can be identified, they cannot

become citizens of the United States until such

records have been made. An alien eligible for

citizenship and not within a class barred from the

United States under the immigration laws such as

criminals and other immoral persons, subversives,

smugglers, and persons unlawfully connected with

narcotics who has had his or her residence in the

United States ever since sometime before January 1, 1972, can have a record of lawful admission to the United States for permanent residence

created if he or she is a person of good moral

character. The application is Form 1-485, "Application for Permanent Residence." This form,

together with information about the procedure to

be followed, may be obtained from the nearest Immigration and Naturalization Service office. The

required fee, photographs and supporting documents must be filed with the nearest Immigration

and Naturalization Service office.

If an applicant can prove that he or she has been

in the United States since before July 1, 1924, the

record of admission will be made as of the date

of actual entry into the United States and he or

she will be able to apply for citizenship without

completing any more residence in the United

States. If an applicant did not come to the United

States until on or after July 1, 1924, the record

of admission will be made as of the date the

37
85

application is approved and he or she will then

have to complete whatever additional residence

and physical presence in the United States are

required for naturalization.

Persons who came to the United States illegally on or after January 1, 1972, should ask for information and advice from the nearest office of

the Immigration and Naturalization Service or a

social service agency.

38
86

Office of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service

ftirt 9

The following is a list of offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service from which information concerning matters referred to in this

pamphlet may be obtained. (* Indicates District

Offices)

Agana, GU 96910 Pacific

News Bldg. 238 O'Hara St.

Albany, NY 12207 Room

220 U.S. Post Office and

Courthouse 445 Broadway

Albuquerque, NM 87103

Federal Bldg. U.S. Courthouse, Room 1114, 517 Gold

Ave., S.W. Box 567

•Anchorage, AK 99513

Federal Bldg.,

U.S. Courthouse 701 "C"

St., Rm. D251 Lock Box 16

•Arlington, VA 22203 4420

North Fairfax Dr. Room 210

•Atlanta, GA 30303 Rm.

G-85, Federal

Annex Building

77 Forsyth St., S.W.

•Baltimore, MD 21201

E.A. Garmatz Fed. Building

101 W. Lombard Street

•Boston, MA 02203

John Fitzgerald Kennedy Fed.

Bldg. Government Center

•Buffalo, NY 14202

68 Court Street

Charlotte, NC 28217

6 Woodlawn Green

Suite 138

•Chicago, IL 60604

Dirksen Fed. Office Bldg.

219 South Dearborn St.

Cincinnati, OH 45202

Federal Bldg., Rm. 8525

550 North Main Street

•Cleveland, OH 44199

Anthony J. Celebrezze Fed.

Bldg.,

Rm. 1917, 1240 E. 9th St.

•Dallas, TX 75242

U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service

Rm. 6A21, Fed. Bldg.

1100 Commerce St.

•Denver, CO 80202

1787 Federal Bldg.

1961 Stout St.

•Detroit, MI 48207

Federal Building

333 Mt. Elliott St.

•El Paso, TX 79984

700 E. San Antonio St.

P.O. Box 9398

Fresno, CA 93721

Federal Bldg., U.S.

1130 "O" St.

Courthouse

•Harlingen, TX 78550

2102 Teege Rd.

Hartford, CT 06103

Ribicoff Federal Bldg.

450 Main Street

•Helena, MT 59626

Federal Building

301 South Park

Room 512

39
87

•Honolulu, HI 96813

595 Ala Moana Blvd.

P.O. Box 461

•Houston, TX 77060

509 North Belt

Main Floor

Indianapolis, IN 46204

U.S. Fed. Bldg. &

Courthouse

46 East Ohio Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202

Federal Bldg., Rm. G-18,

400 West Bay St., Box 35029

•Kansas City, MO 64153

9747 N. Conant Avenue

Las Vegas, NV 89101

Federal Building

U.S. Courthouse

300 Las Vegas Blvd.,

South

•Los Angeles, CA 90012

300 N. Los Angeles St.

Louisville, KY 40202

U.S. Courthouse

Room 601

West 6th & Broadway

Memphis, TN 38103

814 Federal Bldg.

167 N. Main Street

•Miami, FL 33130

7880 Biscayne Blvd.

Milwaukee, Wl 53202

Rm. 186, Fed. Bldg.

517 E. Wisconsin Ave.

•Newark, NJ 07102

Federal Building

970 Broad Street

•New Orleans, LA 70113

Postal Service Bldg.

701 Loyola Avenue

•New York, NY 10278

26 Federal Plaza

Norfolk, VA 23510

Norfolk Federal Bldg.

200 Granby Mall

Room 439

Oklahoma City, OK 73108

4149 Highline Blvd., Suite 300

•Omaha, NE 68102

Room 1008, Federal Office Bldg.

106 South 15th Street

•Philadelphia, PA 19106

Rm. 1321, U.S. Courthouse

Independence Mall West

601 Market Street

•Phoenix, AZ 85025 Federal

Building

230 N. First St.

Pittsburgh, PA 15222

2130 Federal Building

1000 Liberty Avenue

•Portland, ME 04103

739 Warren Avenue

•Portland, OR 97209

Federal Office Bldg.

511 N.W. Broadway

Providence, RI 02903

203 John O. Pastore

Federal Bldg.

Reno, NV 89502

Suite 150

712 Mill Street

40
Sacramento, CA 95814

Federal & U.S.

Courthouse Bldg

Rm. 1-060

650 Capitol Mall

St. Albans, VT 05478

Federal Building

P.O. Box 328

St. Louis, MO 63101

Room 100

210 Tucker Blvd.

*(**)St. Paul, MN 55101

927 Main Post Office

Building

180 E. Kellogg Blvd.

Salt Lake City, UT

84138

230 West 400 South St.

•San Antonio, TX 78206

U.S. Federal Bldg.

727 East Durango

Suite A301

•San Diego, CA 92188

880 Front St.

•Seattle, WA 98134

815 Airport Way, South

Spokane, WA 99201

691 U.S. Courthouse Building

Tampa, FL 33609

Suite 113

5509 West Gray Street

•San Francisco

94111

Appraisers Bldg.

630 Sansome St.

CA

San Jose, CA 95113

280 South First Street

•San Juan, PR 00936

GPO Box 5068

•• Telephone and in

person inquiries will

be handled at: 2716

East 82nd Street,

Bloomington, MN 55420.

41
89

Mr. BARKAN. Mr. Simon, may I note a comment on this? The

pamphlets may be provided, but I think that what is being forgotten here is that from the perspective of the immigrants, the process is intimidating, it is fearful, it is confusing. I went through it

with my wife step by step. I read the forms. You need to be a

lawyer to understand the forms. It is a terribly intimidating process.

And if they were to do the kind of outreach which was done for

the amnesty program, which would then indicate to immigrants

that, yes, this is really as valued as legalizing undocumented

aliens, I think you would find that the response of many groups,

particularly groups that have certain reservations about becoming

citizens•Mexicans, other Latinos, people from the Caribbean; I

could detail more if you wish•might be more responsive and

might not be as intimidated.

Senator SIMON. OK. They heard you. Thank you very, very

much.

We have a few more questions we would like to submit to you for

the record. If you can get those answers in as quickly as possible so

we can get the record printed, I would appreciate it.

[Responses to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy follow:]
90

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

TO PROFESSOR ELLIOTT BARKAN

QUESTION: The residency requirement for naturalization is

presently five years. Yet many people wait much

longer before applying for citizenship. This means

that they are unable to fully participate in our

system and, perhaps, are also ignored by the system

as they can not participate.

In your studies, what is the average length of time

between entry as a permanent resident and actual

naturalization? Which groups seem to naturalize the

quickest? Which groups delay the longest? Why?

What, in your opinion, can/should be done to improve

this in order to bring these people into full

participation in the American system?

For the hearing on June 15, I reviewed the last three INS

annual reports ('85-'87) in order to determine current patterns

of naturalization in terms of waiting times and to compare that

data with my research on the 1960s and 1970s that was published

a few years ago, copies of which were sent to Joyce Vialet.

A PROCEDURAL POINT: To try calculating the average waiting

time for the total number of new citizens would require using

the original data for individual cases and doing a calculation

of each person's waiting time and then computing the average

[which for 1985-87 would be for over 3/4 of a million persons].

This could be done, but would need more time. On the other

hand, using the published reports, which are arranged by

groups, precludes finding the average waiting time because the

relevant table lumps all persons together who waited over 12

years. With the table one cannot also distinguish persons who

qualified under special provisions for early citizenship but

did not apply in less than five years from those who applied

under the general provisions and necessarily waited at least

five years to apply for citizenship. Again, this could be

determined from the INS' public use computer tapes were there

somewhat more time.

More importantly, deriving such averages obscures important

differences between groups and significant patterns within

those groups themselves. Thus, I have found it far more

valuable, using the tables, to break the naturalization figures

into three groups: those naturalized under special provisions

(those eligible to apply in less than five years); the great

bulk of immigrants who applied within 4 3/4 years and 7 3/4

years of arrival; and, finally, those who applied only after

residing here 12 3/4 years or more. [The odd periods are due
91

to the fact that fiscal years and the calendar years used in

the printed reports obviously do not coincide.]

A. SPECIAL CATEGORY GROUP PATTERNS: During fiscal years

1985-87, 10.14% of all new citizens qualified under various

special naturalization categories; among them were 6.3% of all

Europeans naturalized, 6.5% of North Americans, 11.4% of South

Americans, and 13% of all Asians. Not only could the largest

proportion of special naturalizations be found with Asians

[Indeed, 62.3% of ALL persons so qualified were from Asia and

the Middle East.] but among the individual countries the

pattern persists: Ten to eleven percent of Germans and Brits

were so eligible and 9.7% Canadians and even 15.3% of

Colombians; on the other hand, 4.4% from Portugal, 5.6% of

Greeks, and just about 6% of Mexicans met these requirements,

compared with 19% of Filipinos, 16.8% of Iranians, 8.4% of

Asian Indians, and 44.7% of Koreans [nearly half of whom were

children of U.S. citizens - and, I suspect, mostly orphans

adopted by U.S. citizens].

However, further analysis reveals that A SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF

THESE SPECIALLY QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS DID NOT APPLY WITHIN THE

UNDER-FIVE YEAR PERIOD, even if we acknowledge that there is a

three month period that overlaps my categories for reasons

noted above; that is, persons applying between 4 3/4 and 5

years under these provisions were necessarily grouped in the

next calendar year column in the printed tables.

The analysis shows that ONLY 64.6% of ALL NEW CITIZENS ELIGIBLE

FOR EARLY CITIZENSHIP HAD APPLIED WITHIN 4 3/4 YEARS OF

ADMISSION, 6.6% of the total (versus the 10.14% who were

classified in the special categories). Moreover, regional

patterns persist here, too, for only 47% of eligible Europeans,

49% of eligible West Indians, 64% of eligible Central

Americans, 69% of eligible South Americans and 71.2% of

eligible Asians applied within 4 3/4 years. Among individual

countries, we find comparable statistics: Less than one-fourth

of those from the U.K. who were naturalized under special

provisions (mostly as spouses of U.S. citizens) had applied

early; one-third of the Germans; less than a third of these

Canadians; and less than 48% of specially qualified Mexicans.

One the other hand, 58% of special category Koreans, 64% of

Filipinos, 71% of Chinese, and 73% of Colombians applied within

less than five years.

Thus, with 7-8% applying early [allowing for the extra 3

months] versus 10% meeting the special provisions, it is clear

that many such persons have NOT been applying as soon as they

might have been eligible and that the variations are consistent

with other regional and national patterns, notably the

eagerness of many Asian groups far more than that of nearly all
92

others to take advantage of the opportunities for rapid

citizenship rather than deferring.

B. GROUP PATTERNS UNDER GENERAL PROVISIONS: Since the vast

majority of new citizens in recent years meet only the general

five-year qualifications, their patterns are, perhaps, of

greater relevance. I have noted in my remarks that 47% of all

new citizens applied within 4 3/4 and 1 3/4 years: 30% of

those from the Caribbean, 39-40% of those from Central and

South America, 43% of Europeans, and 62% of persons from Asia

and the Middle and Near East. Of the 20 nationality groups I

sampled, Germans and Italians had the smallest percentages

applying within that period: 14%. Mexicans followed with only

18.7%. Among most groups from the Americas, except perhaps the

Guyanese and the Jamaicans [and that is a recent development],

proportionally more persons tend to defer. Yet, the pattern is

not one of greater eagerness among Europeans, except for the

Portuguese recently and the very notable case of Soviet Jews,

among whom the rate was an astonishing 85% during these three

fiscal years analyzed.

Two other groups who applied rapidly were also made up of

persons fleeing untenable situations - or those clearly not

intending to return - the Iranians (nearly 66%) and the

Vietnamese (71%). In addition, among one of the largest

groups, the Filipinos, 60% applied during this three year time

slot. And for another of the largest groups, the Koreans, if

one omits those who were naturalized early (approximately

12,700; a great many of whom were orphans adopted by U.S.

citizens), 65% of the remaining Koreans applied within three

years of eligibility. Finally, and probably the most

astonishing finding, compared with data for other refugee

groups and given the 25-28 years since Castro's rise to power

by the time of these three annual reports, is that only 19.2%

of Cubans applied during their first three years of eligibility

[and under 2% met any special provisions].

Thus, the data reenforce the first finding, namely that some

groups have delayed applying for citizenship whether they meet

special provisions for early application or the general

provisions. It would appear, in the absence of a systematic

questionnaire, the group patterns are clear and that certain

groups are arriving with very clear intentions of remaining and

rapidly adopting American citizenship and others remain far

more tentative in terms of their willingness to switch

loyalities. Although seeking citizenship is certainly an

individual act in most instances, variables relating to group

patterns appear, to my mind, to be clearly present.

C. GROUP PATTERNS OF DELAYED APPLICATIONS FOR CITIZENSHIP:

The above observation certainly holds for the last set of

data. My earlier findings that one-fourth of all new citizens
93

had waited 12 years or more to apply for American citizenship

continued to be the pattern in the mid 1980s. Thirty-seven

percent of the Europeans, including over two-thirds of the

Germans and Italians and half of those from the U.K. had waited

that long. Half of all North Americans, notably 58% of

Mexicans, 64% of Canadians and an extraordinary 65% of all

Cubans, versus just under a third of Central and South

Americans, had put off applying. Yet, merely 8% of Asians had

waited so long, among them only 5.7% of Koreans, 7.5% of the

Chinese, 8.3% of Iranians, and just under 10% of Filipinos -

and sufficient time had elapsed since 1965 so that these

figures cannot be ascribed simply to recency to arrival.

Further illustrations would not significantly alter what the

above data reveal: There are clear regional and national

variations in terms of the willingness to embrace American

citizenship and these patterns have been rather consistent

during the past two decades. The eagerness of most refugees

seems rather easy to understand; the ongoing reticence of

Cubans requires more investigation, for the lapse of decades

and the growth of the Cuban community and its political

emergence in Florida do not appear to have altered their

pattern of slow applications. The pace has quickened for some

of those from the Caribbean area, especially as their

communities have become more stable, but my research has shown

continued strong patterns of circular migration even among

those legally admitted, which may explain why almost half of

the new citizens from that region had waited 12 years or more

[although only 32% of Jamaicans and 8.3% of Guyanese, the

latter most likely due to the smaller number of earlier

arrivals].

On the other hand, it is my firm belief that any inducements

for citizenship [viz. an earlier waiting period] will have a

limited effect on those whose intentions remain tentative, for

their plans are not tentative primarily because of our

naturalization procedures. Changes in the circular patterns

and/or more economic stability here - as the NALEO study has

shown - will play more significant roles in the decision making

process. Likewise, strong attachments to homelands and/or

fears about general U.S. policies (particularly regarding

immigration and the treatment of aliens) will figure more

prominently than changes in the waiting period.

On the other hand, a shorter waiting period will be a benefit

to those who are most eager to integrate and whose talents and

energies we ought to reenforce, if not reward. Since we cannot

screen out potential citizens on the basis of their motives for

applying (i.e., to bring in relatives more easily or to qualify

for a job or grant) and these same motives could just as well

have existed for others not so eager to apply, the prima facie

intent in the eagerness to apply promptly should be accepted
94

and the three-year waiting time implemented. As I suggested

last month, the conditions for acculturating foreigners are now

much more pervasive and favorable than 180 years ago; persons

wanting to become citizens in three years could, if they so

chose, acquire the necessary information and language skills

along with planting their economic roots in that time.

HOWEVER. I am as equally convinced that there is a larger issue

intimately related to any proposal for a reduced waiting period

and which unquestionably relates to the objective of getting

groups now somewhat slower or more reluctant to apply for

citizenship to do so more readily and more quickly. I have

heard sufficient first hand accounts and have observed myself

that current procedures DEFINITELY dissuade many foreigners

from applying. I_f the government truly wishes to improve the

rates of citizenship, it must dramatically improve the process

by which it has foreigners apply for citizenship.

It should separate the Naturlization and ImmigrationServices

because the negative image of the Immigration authorities

unquestionably colors the view of the Naturalization services.

Foreigners need to be shown that this government and society

welcome their membership in this polity and that the process by

which they are to be integrated will be as modest in cost, as

stress-free in its procedures, and as pleasant in its setting

as can possibly be done. A public relations campaign should be

pursued comparable to that done for the amnesty program whereby

foreigners can be shown that their citizenship is valued by us

because we recognize that membership in the American polity is

what binds this very heterogeneous nation together.

QUESTION: Canada is also an immigrant nation like the United

States. Many of the requirements for naturalization

in Canada are similar to those of the United

States. Yet percentage-wise, more resident aliens

in Canada become Canadian citizens than resident

aliens in the United States become U.S. citizens.

Do you have any explanation as to the cause of

this?

I believe that the greater success that Canada has had in

integrating its foreign-born is due, among others, to three

factors: (A) Immigrants have long associated this nation with

economic opportunity, an opportunity to earn money without

having to make permanent commitments, an opportunity to gather

resources in this rich land in order to improve their homeland

situation. They obviously contribute their labor but do not

initially wish to settle permanently here. I have not seen

that long-standing image associated as strongly with Canada
95

and, therefore, believe that those who go there may have

somewhat different long-term goals, especially in recent

decades (Although I would not overlook the historical pattersn

of substantial secondary southward migration from Canada!);

(B) We have had historical experiences of mistreating certain

foreign groups, such as Mexicans and the Japanese (And remember

Title II, I believe it was, of the 1950 McCarran Internal

Security Act, providing for detention camps?), which I believe

have affected certain groups that may have some lingering

distrust of this nation's reliability in a crisis and its

potential for seeking scapegoats. I am not as sure this

pattern or perception exists in Canada, despite the treatment

of the Japanese during the war; (C) Finally, and perhaps most

significantly, Canada did overhaul its naturalization

procedures, incorporating many of the reforms I am urging the

U.S. to adopt, as well.

QUESTION: It has been suggested that the mandated residency

period for naturalization should be reduced. Other

countries, such as Canada, require less years than

we do. What, in your opinion, would be the

results/consequences if we reduced the residency

requirement to three years?

If the residency requirement were reduced and no other reforms

made. I would anticipate a surge of applicants among those

groups identified above, along with others similarly inclined,

who are eager, for a variety of reasons, to become American

citizens. And, of course, there would be a rippling effect in

terms of some surge of relatives who would be eligible to apply

for admission SOONER. I would expect that one could calculate

that, with each wave of relatives entering and able to apply

for citizenship earlier, there would be, in the long run, some

greater number applying for admission to this country, although

that greater number may simply be a greater number applying

sooner rather than an absolutely greater figure (for the size

of the families of eligible persons in the various homelands

would not be bigger because of such a legislative change here).

True, too, is the fact, that the proposed cap on immigration

may offset some of this rippling effect, unless, down the road,

it fosters the same kind of pressure for relief that we now see

coming from supposedly "disadvantaged" countries that have been

unable to send as many immigrants and which have recently

qualified under the special visa lottery programs.

Finally, if the reduced waiting period is combined with general

reforms of the naturalization procedures. comparable to what

has been done in Canada and along the lines suggested above, I

do definitely anticipate that foreigners now marginal in their
96

intentions, or suspicious of the government, or fearful of its

personnel and procedures would be more inclined to apply for

citizenship. And if our goal IS to integrate these persons

rather than leave them on the margin of the American polity.

then the reduced waiting time plus general reforms would bring

more new citizens into the national fold and reward those so

inclined. Not only they benefit but the nation does, too.

since there are areas where such persons would remain for two

more years ineligible to apply for work or other programs and

their contributions may well be lost to us - or unnecessarily

delayed.
97

RESPONSES TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATE EDWARD M. KENNEDY

TO PROFESSOR REED UEDA

QUESTION: It has been suggested that the mandated residency

period for naturalization should be reduced. Other

countries, such as Canada, require less years than

we do. In your opinion, how long should the waiting

period for naturalization be and why?

In thinking about this question, I feel it is necessary to

separate naturalization from instrumental purposes such as

family reunification. Naturalization is too important to turn

into a servant of other policy goals. I am not against

reducing the waiting period in a presumptive way. However, I

do believe it is important to identify what makes

naturalization effective in admitting new citizens. If it is

determined that a shorter period provides for the kind of

qualification for citizenship that is desirable and adequate,

then and only then should proposals to decrease the current

five years requirement be reduced. Otherwise, I would favor

letting it stand.
RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY

TO DR. HARRY PACHON, NALEO

QUESTION: In some of the literature, it has been reported that

the rate of naturalization would increase if the

role/procedures of INS were changed. Do you agree

with this? If yes, how would you change the role of

INS in the naturalization process and why?

NALEO believes the INS could greatly facilitate naturalization

through procedural changes.

First, the INS must change the image of U.S. citizenship and

the agency's service component.

During the past eight years, the INS has bolstered its

enforcement image. While border security and enforcement of

this nation's laws are of great importance, these activities

have tarnished the service image of the INS.

Second, the INS must actively promote the responsibilities and

opportunities of U.S. citizenship. Through the operation of

its toll-free national U.S. citizenship hotline and active

promotion of naturalization, NALEO has proven that legal

permanent residents do want to become full members of our

society. The Senate wisely approved $1 million for outreach

and promotion of U.S. citizenship. This action is to the

benefit of all Americans.

Third, the INS altered its management structure to change the

Associate Commissioner for Naturalization postition into an

Associate Commissioner for Adjudications. This effort

de-emphasized the role of U.S. citizenship within the national

office. The INS should raise naturalization to a higher

priority by again developing the position solely for

naturalization, and give the Associate Commissioner access to

the INS Commissioner.

Finally, the INS naturalization forms are difficult to fill

out, provide little or no instructions and need to be revised.

The INS has begun an internal review of the N-400 and G-325

forms, the naturalization forms. NALEO is submitting form

recommendations to the INS and the House Immigration

Subcommittee.
99

Congress could play a role by developing and passing a

naturalization reform bill that includes:

o Administrative Naturalization;

o Additional naturalization personnel in areas with either

long backlogs or high numbers of naturalization applications;

o Outreach Funding, including grants to local INS offices

and organizations, and direction;

o Development of a Naturalization Commission to examine

the feasibility of the above, as well as a separate U.S.

citizenship bureau, and report to Congress on its findings;

o This Subcommittee should initiate hearings on the

possibility of developing a naturalization bureau that is

separate from the INS. This would effectively divide the

enforcement role from the service activities, which could help

avoid the apparent conflict between the two.
100

Senator SIMON. We appreciate your being here and thank you for

helping to give us another three more perspectives on where to go.

The hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
101

APPENDIX

ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Statement of Erich Pratt,

Executive Director, U.S. Border Control,

Submitted to the Subcommittee on

Immigration and Refugee Affairs

Concerning Naturalization Procedures

U.S. Border Control welcomes the opportunity to testify on

the naturalization provisions in legislation pending before the

Senate. U.S. Border Control is a citizens' organization

concerned with national security and other immigration issues.

We are opposed to changing the residency requirements at

this time. For over 150 years, U.S. law has required immigrants

to live here five years before they can be naturalized. This

five year residency requirement not only benefits immigrants, it

also promotes our national security. Thus, the five year

requirement should not be reduced to three years.

Immigrants Benefit Prom Time to Adapt

Adjusting to a new culture and learning a new language take

time. The five year residency requirement is intended to give

immigrants that needed time.

If the residency requirement is reduced to three years,

however, then aliens will have less time to prepare before taking

their citizenship exams. This means there will probably be a
102

higher rate of failure • a problem indeed. A higher failure

rate could induce pressures to make the English proficiency

requirements easier. (After all, proponents who support reducing

the residency requirement hope that this cutback will dwindle

the backlogs in immigration to this country. But if reducing the

five year requirement produces a higher rate of exam-failures,

then the next move may be to make the exams easier • probably by

weakening the English proficiency requirements.)

Easier exams are all too often the. answer to declining test

scores. When the SAT scores began dropping in the 1960's • and

continued to drop for over a decade • the exams were simplified.

Of course, this did not help the student, it only covered up a

problem.

Similarly, aliens would not benefit if the English

proficiency requirements were made easier. A naturalized citizen

who is not proficient in English is at a disadvantage in the

United States • not only in the marketplace, but in the public

sector as well. For example,

* Immigrants dialing "911" can not afford to wait for an

interpreter to handle their call;

* Getting a driver's license can be a chore for those who

are not proficient with the English language. (The

Department of Motor Vehicles can not possibly supply

interpreters for every language group. For instance,

in Los Angeles alone, there are 89 different language

groups.)

Requiring immigrants to learn English levels the playing

field for everyone. The quicker immigrants learn English, the
103

quicker they can assimilate into the culture.

Therefore, this nation must encourage immigrants to learn

the English language before they can become citizens. They must

also learn our laws, history and customs. The five year

residency requirement provides that needed time better than a

three year requirement will • especially since a three year

period could spur a further decline in the English proficiency

requirements.

Promoting the Security of the U.S.

The five year residency requirement also promotes our

national security. That is, the five year prerequisite gives our

country time to screen immigrants before they become citizens.

Attaining citizenship is similar to achieving tenure at a

university. Many universities require a professor to teach for a

number of years (usually five or more) before the university will

grant them tenure. The trial period allows the university to

carefully watch a profesBor over time before making a nonrevocable decision.

Similarly, this country requires a trial period for immigrants who desire to become citizens. The five year requirement

serves as a screening process, helping our country to discover

and exclude harmful aliens. Under current federal law (8 0.S.C.

1251), the following aliens can be deported • and thus be denied

citizenship:
104

* Aliens who commit a serious crime "after entry" into the

United States (a)(4);

* Immigrants who are drug addicts or who traffic in

narcotics (a)(11);

* Immigrants who engage in espionage (a)(17);

* Aliens who become depends dependent on welfare "after entry" into

the United States (a)(8)) (a)(8); or

* Aliens who are institutionalized "because of a disease or

illness they already had upon entering the country (a)(5)-

Many universities would agree that a good screening process

takes at least five years. The U.S. government should not deem

any differently.

Reducing the Backlog

The security of this country should not be sacrificed in the

name of reducing immigration backlogs. These backlogs are the

inevitable result of immigration quotas, which puts Congress in a

catch-22. A Roper poll showed that 80$ of the American people

want immigration quotas cut, rather than raised. But since the

best way to reduce immigration backlogs is to increase quotas,

Congress could find itself dealing with political hot potato.

In conclusion, the residency requirement should not be cut

under any circumstances. It should remain at five years since it

will better serve both immigrants and the nation.
105

ALFRED P. SLOAN FOUNDATION

630 FtrTM AVENUE

NEW YORK,N. Y. I0IIKJ242

; SUITE 2SSO

MICHAEL S. TEITELBAUM (212) S82-0-4TO

"«»«•« Orncn fAX (2121 7S7-SII7

June 20, 1989

Mr. Carl Hampe (fax: 202-224-1315)

Subcommittee on Immigration

and Refugee Policy

United states Senate

Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Carl:

This is in response to your request for comments as to

the possible implications of Senator Simon's proposal to

reduce the residence required for naturalization from 5 to

3 years. These comments are in my personal capacity,

rather than on behalf of any organization with which I have

an affiliation.

I should say at the outset that I am a longtime admirer

of Senator Simon. He was one of the most constructive and

thoughtful members of the House Select Committee on

Population, of which I was the Staff Director, and in this

setting I came to have the highest respect for his

intelligence and probity.

So that I might understand what he intends to achieve

by his naturalization amendment, I have tried to reach his

staff by telephone, but have not yet received a callback.

Since I understood from you that the Committee timetable is

short, X am writing now to say that on the basis of what I

know so far, I must wonder if Paul haft been well advised as

to the possibly unanticipated effects of such changes. I

shall fax Paul Simon a copy of this letter for his

information. '

In my judgment, there would have to be a very strong

case made for shortening the naturalization residency

requirement. Hy assumption is that Senator Simon's

principal goal is to shorten the waiting list for 2nd

preference. However, I doubt if he would be pleased if one

of the effects were to be a lengthening of the waiting

lists in other preference categories, especially the 1st,

4th and 5th. This might indeed be the result, unless other

legal provisions were changed at the same time.

Hy reasoning is quite straightforward: No one can

seriously doubt that there is demand for U.S. immigrant
106

visas that is Igr. In excess of their currant, or plausible,

supply. All one has to do is to look at the very large •

I would say profoundly, embarrassingly large • responses

to the two "visa lotteries" that certain interest groups

have managed to push through the Congress in recent years.

The NP-5 program generated nearly 1.5 million applications

for its 10,000 visas, though with an unknown number of

duplicate applications by the same individuals. I

understand that the recent "Barman" lottery has attracted

some 3,000,000 applicants (this time it is 3 million actual

individuals) for its 20,000 visas. Thus without trying to

be very quantitative, the demand in these lotteries seems

to exceed the supply by many thousands of percent.

Under these conditions of very large excess demand for

U.S. visas, the proposed shortening of the naturalization

waiting period might well simply increase the "velocity" of

immigration petitioning, as extended family networks seek

to maximize the pace of visa issuance. This would be akin

to what monetary economists talk about as the increasing

velocity of money in circulation, even if the money stock

is constant. Such an effect could be minimized if the

current system of numerically unlimited admissions for

immediate family were modified, but my understanding is

that such a change is not being contemplated.

Thus the overall result of a shorter waiting period for

naturalization, coupled with continued unlimited admissions

of immediate family of U.S. citizens, might well be to

increase the waiting lists in some of the family

preferences. 1 sincerely doubt whether such a perverse

effect would be intended by Paul Simon.

1 would respectfully suggest that Senator Simon himself

discuss this possibility of perverse outcomes with the

people at the State Department who mahage the visa system.

They have operational knowledge of how the system actually

works, and what "spillovers" might result.

I reiterate that in my personal opinion there would

have to be an awfully strong case for shortening the

naturalization waiting period at a time of strongly

excessive demand for U.S. immigrant visas. If indeed the

main rationale is to reduce the length of waiting lists, I

sincerely doubt if this effect would be realized.

Michael S. Teitelbaum

CCJ Senator Paul Simon (fax: 202-224-2223)
107

FRANCHISE OWNER

CP. Canaopa

202-09 Hillside Avenue

Hotos. NY 11423

718-776-3130

June 6,'89.

Sen. Joseph Biden,

Chairman, Judiciary Conmittee,

United States Senate,

Washington DC 20510.

Honorable Senator Biden, .

I have been a permanent resident here for the last three years, and

would vrry much like to become a citizen of this great country as

soon as possible.

On 9th February 89 I was married to Roshini tn India. The few

months I was in India with my wife were truly bl cul, and then I

had to come away due to business.

Nowymy .wife and I cannot I .ngether because of the long waiting

period involved for spouses of &, lens. The separation causes a lot

of£'agbriy7* and my best efforts to explain to my wife why she cannot

be"vith me sometimes seem futile. She sometimes even questions my

intentions and thinks that I am doing this on purpose. This

situation is not unique to me, and most of us who are separated

have to go through this trial by fire

I would very strongly support Senator Paul Simon's Bill S.448 as it

enables me to become a citizen within three years and also because

it reduces the waiting period for spouses of aliens.

The need for change is great and I request you to consider the

plight of so many people like myself who are unncessailiy separated

from their families.

Truly yours,

cc; Sen. Paul Simon.

-3i-46a:"14JI^T

An independently Owned and opefaied FRANCHISEE of the DUNKIN" OOIMUTS SYSTEM

o

31-468 (112)