The Citizenship Challenge: Unpacking Proposals to Toughen the Path to American Belonging

The path to American citizenship, a journey often marked by perseverance and dedication, has been a recurring focal point in national immigration debates. During the Trump administration, this path saw significant scrutiny, particularly concerning the naturalization process. A notable voice in this conversation was Joseph Edlow, then acting deputy secretary of Homeland Security, who reportedly advocated for making the U.S.

citizenship test considerably more challenging.

Edlow's suggestions were rooted in a broader sentiment within the administration that aimed to tighten immigration controls and ensure that those seeking citizenship genuinely understood American values and demonstrated self-reliance. The underlying premise, as articulated in various discussions, was a concern that some immigrants might be "gaming the system," and that a more rigorous examination would better vet aspiring citizens.

This push wasn't just rhetorical; it materialized in the form of a revised civics test launched in December 2020.

This new test significantly increased the difficulty for applicants. Instead of the previous 10 questions from a pool of 100, where applicants needed to answer 6 correctly, the 2020 version required answering 12 out of 20 questions correctly. The questions themselves were often more complex, requiring a deeper understanding of U.S.

history, government, and civics, rather than just rote memorization.

Critics swiftly decried these changes, arguing that the increased difficulty served as an intentional barrier to naturalization, rather than a genuine improvement in assessing civic knowledge. Immigration advocates and civil rights groups pointed out that many long-term residents, including U.S.-born citizens, might struggle with the more intricate questions.

They highlighted the disproportionate impact on elderly applicants, those with limited English proficiency, or individuals from educational backgrounds less focused on American civics.

The naturalization process is already a multi-year endeavor, involving extensive paperwork, interviews, and significant fees.

Adding a substantially harder civics test was seen as yet another hurdle, potentially slowing down the integration of immigrants into American society and denying them the full rights and responsibilities of citizenship, including the right to vote. The sentiment among opponents was clear: making the test harder was less about ensuring a deeper understanding of civics and more about reducing naturalization rates.

However, proponents of the tougher test, including Edlow, maintained that a more robust examination was necessary to ensure that new citizens fully grasp the responsibilities and principles associated with their new nationality.

They posited that a comprehensive understanding of the U.S. system fosters better integration and a stronger civic society.

The debate surrounding the citizenship test’s difficulty reflects a deeper ideological divide on immigration. Is the goal to welcome and integrate new populations efficiently, or to carefully filter and control who becomes a citizen? This question remains central to American identity.

Ultimately, the stricter 2020 civics test had a relatively short lifespan.

With a change in administration, President Biden's U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced in February 2021 that it would revert to the 2008 version of the civics test. This decision was met with relief by immigration advocates, who viewed it as a step towards making the naturalization process more accessible and equitable.

Joseph Edlow's proposal and the subsequent implementation of a harder test underscore a period where the gates to American citizenship were viewed through a lens of greater scrutiny and perceived protectionism.

While the specific changes were reversed, the conversation about what it means to be an American citizen and how that status should be earned continues to resonate in the national discourse.