Barriers to Citizenship: the Naturalization Application Process - Research Paper Example

?Outline Introduction The American Context of Naturalization Process English Language Eligibility Civics Eligibility Ideological Qualifications Oath of Disowning Past Citizenship Living and Good Moral Character Citizenship Right for Asylum Seekers Racial Angle to the Process of Naturalization Conclusion: the Future of U.S. Citizenship Barriers to Citizenship: Difficulties in the Naturalization Application Process Introduction National governments organize citizenship tests as required by naturalization procedures. An analysis of these citizenship tests indicates that these help in developing civic unity. In Canada, the 2009-2010 citizenship tests have been used to evaluate citizens’ movement in various national settings. Such tests can be used as a tool to formulate public policy. In this context, the Canadian citizenship test has become a tool for naturalization as well as inclusion of various races into a singular national identity. In Britain, the naturalization process has been used as a tool to control immigration (Paquet 243). The American Context of Naturalization Process The road to getting American citizenship has largely got evaded from the inspection of legal experts. Scholars and policy makers have not given due attention to it on the cross-roads of two overdue issues of U.S. citizenship: that it has not been tackled efficiently, and that in no circumstance, it has been a smooth process (Spiro 1). The first task has been neglected due to the emerging proofs of a heightened difference between citizenship and alienage. Leaving aside the issue of vote and a reducing count of public sector jobs, for decades it has been difficult to differentiate the status of legal citizen aliens in U.S. society. Things changed with the implementation of the 1996 welfare legislation, which decided the criteria for critical federal benefits available on citizenship only. The process of naturalization got a unique revival with the severe amendments in the federal immigration law. The period of mid-1990s observed a record increase in the number of naturalization applications (Spiro 1). Thus, after decades of negligence, the issues pertaining to naturalization and citizenship came to the political limelight. Academics have taken the hint by writing on citizenship issues. The reinforced attention given to citizenship issues lacks the direction for the criteria of naturalization process. The second rough detail of citizenship has acted as a backstop to the revision of the first. Citizenship rank may now be eventful, but if citizenship is easily attained, then the process of acquiring it is of little value. The traditional wisdom greatly rests with the concept that U.S. citizenship is not exclusive, and that the bridge to naturalization is not unattainable. Actually, not going with the traditional wisdom, and adhering to the premise that naturalization needs create barriers for the applicants to naturalization. Being both a historical and current issue, a large number of naturalization applications have been rejected, causing loss of benefits to be accruing from citizenship (Spiro 1). A big rush was seen in citizenship applications in the mid-1990s to verify famous reasons including, such as the outcomes on IRCA law, fear of inability to avail public benefits, and impact of citizenship outreach programs. Applicants seemed very eager to attend English language classes. With the provision of Amnesty under IRCA, it initiated quick rush for citizenship after becoming eligible but it did not materialize in proficiency in the English language or the naturalization process. The public rush to apply for naturalization was because of not loosing benefits attached to citizenry. Applicants were more interested to apply to ensure their participation in day-to-day American life, to offer sponsorship for the immigration of relatives, and to guarantee a promising career for their children. The leading recognized barrier was total expertise of the English language. The most dependable mean to facilitate naturalization in the 1990s was to invest more resources to English-language learning (Freeman et al. 1013). TABLE 1 Obstacles to Naturalization for Those Who Had Not Filed Applications (n = 230)___________ Percent­­­ ____________ Not yet eligible 25.2 I don’t have time 20.9 Cost is prohibitive 17.8 English proficiency is insufficient 14.8 I don’t know how to apply 14.3 No response 10.9 Not yet prepared to apply 10.0 I don’t want to lose my native citizenship 3.5 Other 3.0 I don’t like the U.S. lifestyle 1.3 No plans to apply 1.3 I have been treated badly in the U.S. 0.9 I don’t intend to continue living in the U.S. 0.4 I want to raise my children in my home country 0.4 ______________________________________________________________________________ NOTE: Percentages exceed 100 because respondents could choose more than one option. The above table ranks the barrier of expertise in the English language, the cost factor, and the compounding of the naturalization process to be critical (Freeman et al. 1022). Applicants face a number of difficulties in the naturalization application process. These difficulties create barriers to getting the status of citizenship. First is the English language eligibility, as given below: English Language Eligibility The eligibility that naturalization applicants need over the English-language expertise creates the biggest bottleneck in the path of attaining citizenship. Applications rejected on the count of lack of English-language literacy need to be justified suitably. Applicants fail the English-language test, as there is no linguistic explanation available for American nationhood. There are numerous other non-English mediums to get civic information by applicants lacking the English-language literacy resulting in rejection of naturalization applications. Bureaucracy takes a rigid view over this deficiency of applicants, which needs to be amended (Spiro 5). Civics Eligibility The civics eligibility can be relatively more easily proved than the language eligibility theoretically and as a historical topic. It also presents a less critical hurdle to naturalization; those who clear the language exam get a fail in the civics exam. The civics eligibility poses problems particularly due to the multi-cultural attacks on the old Anglo English of American identity. This deficiency can not be easily considered a drawback more so in the globalized world, where immigrants have far better knowledge and awareness over essential democratic procedures (Spiro 7). Ideological Qualifications It is very difficult to approximate ideological qualifications for naturalization over its various conditions to citizenship. From one perspective, they look justified in principle, as providing citizenship to applicants with doubtful ideologies carry the risk of jeopardizing the system. Perceiving from a different perspective, ideological parameters have been historically weak to be easily misused as a tool against those whose viewpoints are not similar to the radical viewpoint, to the extent of extremism. In the current context, ideological criteria present a hurdle to only selected applicants, and therefore, are not significant. The provision, nevertheless, needs to be cut back to the minimum; in other words it needs to be stipulated in the naturalization applications that applicants agree to constitutional directives. This can reduce the possibility for future misappropriation over ideological hurdles to naturalization (Spiro 9). Oath of Disowning Past Citizenship It is mandatory as per the naturalization procedure to disown loyalties to previous citizenships. This condition has never been applied by U.S. authorities, but it carries the symbolical value as the basis of old concepts of citizenship as a limiting parameter. It actually happened at one period of time when the act of naturalization generally resulted in the cancellation of one's past nationality, as per the law. It was not discarded in view of the enmities between independent states. In the current time, this disowning of the previous citizenship right is no more applicable, therefore, it should be discarded as unwanted condition and as a likely barrier to naturalization in certain aspects (Spiro 11). Lyons (1999: 1017) discusses the case of mentally disabled citizenship applicants and the stipulation of taking oath for naturalization. In 1994, the Congress eradicated this primary hurdle to attain the right to naturalization for permanent citizens with handicaps; such applicants were not enforced to clear the English language test and awareness on the U.S. history and politics. But in the case of mentally disabled citizens, the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s explanation of the oath of allegiance is still compulsory by law for most naturalized Americans. The purpose of taking the oath of allegiance was to exhibit faith to the directives of the U.S. constitution with the aim of rejecting any connection with the previous country. Actually, this focus is misleading. The history of past conditions as formed by Congress for naturalization shows that the major issue has been of getting an assurance that there would be no risk to the national security. This interest has taken the shape of inquiring a person’s response over matters of national and security concern, and over the principles on which the functioning of the government rests. There is no need of taking any positive action to show allegiance but still it is compulsory for mentally disabled candidates to exhibit their intention to adhere with the directives related to the oath of renunciation. Living and Good Moral Character Living and bearing a good moral character conditions have since the establishment of the Republic been a part of the naturalization law. Considering on this historical ancestry, this parameter can be easily acclaimed essential for naturalization, but at the same time in the increasingly globalizing and secure territories governed on the basis of human rights, this criteria has lost its significance (Spiro 13). Citizenship Right for Asylum Seekers A government perspective over citizenship rights in countries of asylum can be varied, given the inclination of refugees to migrate to their country of origin. It is seen that when refugees are provided all civil, social and economic citizenship rights in the matter of gaining employment, self-employment, and provision of social services like housing, schools, health facilites, and social security – the criticality of repatriation reduces as a possible alternative (Kibreab 24). Racial Angle to the Process of Naturalization In the U.S. naturalization is a procedure to make people American. Naturalization becomes racial when it is forced on a set group of people having a racial identity. It provides awareness and insight into the identity experience. The process of naturalization has created comprehendible race-based American identities. To make it clearer, when an Irish becomes white, it is racial naturalization; and these real shifts from African to slave to Negro to colored, and further, these are shifts produced by racial naturalization (Carbado 646). Conclusion: the Future of U.S. Citizenship The push of this analysis of the naturalization is quite clear: the barriers to citizenship should be reduced, if not erased totally. Americans breeding the nationalist outlook would find it as if ignoring the charm of American citizenship, and consider it as an outcome of divisionary American politics. But it needs to be noted that the present naturalization conditions are not dependable and are undesirable for preserving the unity of the national citizenry and its political basis. Further, such conditions to citizenship applications can not be adhered to if they pose deterrent to personal rights. One must balance the stipulations to naturalization against the losses that are caused to those who are unable to fulfill such stipulations. It is seen in most of the cases that the balance tilts in favor of the naturalization applicants and against the barriers. As long as the citizenship includes extra rights, the balance favors the rights of naturalization applicants, as barriers fulfill no legal cause, and continuance of these barriers can only be ascribed to past conservative traditions being followed due to lack of judicial check (Spiro 16). Works Cited Carbado, Devon W. “Racial Naturalization.” American Quarterly 57. 3 (2005): 633-658. The Johns Hopkins University Press. Print. Freeman, Gary P., et al. “Explaining the Surge in Citizenship Applications in the 1990s: Lawful Permanent Residents in Texas.” Social Science Quarterly 83.4 (2002): 1013-1025. Print. Kibreab, Gaim. “Citizenship Rights and Repatriation of Refugees.” IMR 37. 1 (2003): 24-73. Print. Lyons, Joren. “Mentally Disabled Citizenship Applicants and the Meaningful oath Requirement for Naturalization.” California Law Review 87 (1999): 1017-1048. Print Paquet, Mireille. “Beyond Appearances: Citizenship Tests in Canada and the UK.” International Migration & Integration 13 (2012):243–260. Print. Spiro, Peter J. “Questioning Barriers to Naturalization.” Georgetown Immigration Law Journal (1999): 479-517. Print. Read More