Chasing the American Dream: Bringing Equity to Naturalization
Advisor: Dr. Parson
Internship Location: UC Santa Barbara
Onsite Mentor: Janna Haider, PhD Candidate, UC Santa Barbara
Naturalization is the process by which immigrants obtain citizenship. Although the current US naturalization system is not overtly discriminatory, a multitude of factors such as cost and a lack of transparency surrounding the process prohibit many interested immigrants from equitably accessing the legal process. The purpose of this Senior Project is to examine the current US naturalization system and determine the root causes of the disparities between naturalization rates of different demographics. At the conclusion of my research, I hope to produce a paper that answers the following question: In what ways can the US naturalization system be modified to be less discriminatory and more equity-based and inclusive? I will conduct a thorough review of the available scholarship on the barriers to naturalization and analyze census data to identify naturalization trends amongst different immigrant demographics. Time permitting, I will also conduct further research into the qualitative exchanges between immigrants and the courts as well as the naturalization processes of other nations, specifically Japan, India, and the European Union as one governing body. Amidst our current socio-political climate in which even the Constitutional right to birthright citizenship is in jeopardy, it is more important now than ever to fully understand what the US naturalization system truly constitutes and how certain demographics are placed at an inherent disadvantage in the process.
Project Blog
Week 1: I Contradict Myself: An Introduction (Week 1)
I Contradict Myself: An Introduction (Week 1)
Hi everyone, I’m Stephanie! Welcome to my first blog post (and the first of many Walt Whitman references)! I’m super excited to share with you all my research process and progress throughout this project. But before we get into that next week, I’ll start with a brief introduction to this project and what inspired me to pursue this subject area.
Background
My journey with naturalization law began this past summer through the 2024 UCSB Research Mentorship Program. There, I was introduced to my current external adviser Janna Haider, and under her guidance, I produced a research paper analyzing the relationship between race and citizenship within the landmark Supreme Court case Takao Ozawa v. United States (1922). I specifically examined the rhetoric in the the Appellant and Appellee’s briefs to the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as well as the opinion of the Supreme Court to reach a conclusion regarding how the courts acted as a venue for the production of race in early 20th-century America.
The seeds for my senior project were planted that summer—I knew I was going to pursue a project related to naturalization and citizenship.
Significance
If you’ve taken AP US Government and Politics before, you most likely already know that in order to obtain US citizenship, an individual must pass a civics exam. However, that’s only one of many requirements. The current naturalization process includes the following conditions:
• At least 18 years old
• Continuous residency (5 years)
• “Good moral character”
• English proficiency (sometimes waived)
• Oral civics exam (sometimes waived)
• Oath of renunciation and allegiance
• $640 filing fee, $85 biometric fee
Although the two exams—English proficiency and oral civics—may be waived on a case-by-case basis, they represent a major barrier to naturalization in conjunction with the $725 base fee and a lack of transparency regarding the entire process. Through my very limited review of available scholarship thus far, I’ve realized that the US naturalization system somewhat contradicts our image as a nation. I’ve managed to conclude that the naturalization rate in the US matches neither that of countries with comparable demographics (i.e. the US with a rate of 41% vs. Canada with a rate of 78% in 2006) nor the rhetoric of our “nation of immigrants” chasing the “American Dream.”
So that’s exactly what I seek to discover. Just how does our current naturalization system inhibit our nation of immigrants from chasing the American Dream, and how can we bring equity into such a system?
As for the answer? Well, I hope you’ll join me on this wonderfully complex and exciting journey together.
Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Sources
Aptekar, Sofya. “Citizenship Status and Patterns of Inequality in the United States and Canada.” Social Science Quarterly 95, no. 2 (2014): 343–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612168.
Ham, Zachary, Delaney Seward, and Ian McQuistion. “Barriers to Naturalization: A Review of the Literature,” Library of Congress, December 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/USCIS_Naturalization%20LitReview_December2023.pdf.
Week 2: I Contain Multitudes: A Deeper Dive (Week 2)
I Contain Multitudes: A Deeper Dive (Week 2)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! This time I’ll be covering the important aspects of the first book in my planned literature review, the multitude of further material it has led me to, and some next steps going forward.
A Review of The Road to Citizenship: What Naturalization Means for Immigrants and the United States by Sofya Aptekar
When I was conducting preliminary research to complete my project proposal, this was the first book I stumbled upon—it has proved to be helpful ever since. In this book, Aptekar covers a brief history of immigration and naturalization law, a deeper analysis of what the US citizenship process entails and associated limitations, and inequalities that may result from the process, and comparisons with other naturalization systems throughout. I’ll be addressing each of the above individually.
1. Legal History
As with many parts of American history, the naturalization process has historically been a venue through which systemic inequalities were further exacerbated. In the 19th century, a woman’s naturalization status was heavily dependent on her husband’s, and women could be denaturalized for marrying foreigners up until the early 20th century. Quotas based on nation of origin were still set in place until the 1965 Hart-Celler Act which ultimately introduced a naturalization system based on family reunification and bringing in skilled immigrants similar to the one we have today.
The foundation of the US naturalization system lies in two principles: jus soli and jus sanguinis. Jus soli refers to birthright citizenship: if a child was born on US soil, that child will become a US citizen. Conversely, jus sanguinis translates to “right of blood,” meaning that if at least one of the child’s parents is a US citizen, the child will automatically be granted US citizenship as well.
There is a multitude of ways individuals can immigrate to the US. One of the most popular is through family reunification or sponsorship, which largely depends on the immigration status of a family member located in the US. Employment sponsorship through the form of H1B visas; holders of such visas can later apply for a green card, offering them lawful permanent resident (LPR) status. Green card lotteries are available for underrepresented immigration populations such as those from Ukraine, Liberia, etc. Refugees and asylees go through a separate process but still have a path to citizenship. However, the situation is vastly different for undocumented immigrants—for them, there is effectively no road at all.
2. Potential Limitations
As I mentioned in my previous blog, financial cost is a major burden and limitation to the US naturalization process. Although the $725 base fee is waived for immigrants below 150% of the federal poverty line, the total costs are far greater due to the widespread external preparation involved such as English and civics classes, attorney fees, and more. The civics and history test is another factor; critics of the current system have cited studies illuminating that many US high schoolers fail the exam, demonstrating a test too hard and a bar too high. However, the exam’s pass rate is a shockingly high 92%, perhaps suggesting that the very existence of the test itself represents a barrier to entry. This is something that I will investigate further as I continue with my literature review.
3. Resulting Inequalities
Contrary to popular belief, disadvantaged immigrants do not come to the US to seek welfare or take advantage of support programs. Benefits such as SNAP are only provided on the federal level after naturalization, and immigrants are also ineligible for state programs such as Medicaid and TANF. In fact, the most disadvantaged immigrants may benefit the most from acquiring citizenship yet they also face the most difficulties in obtaining it.
The gap in the rate of naturalization based on the level of education is immense and has only been further increasing within the past few decades. As depicted in the graph below, immigrants with a college education naturalize at over twice the rate of those without a high school education. This can largely be attributed to the required tests and the financial cost of the process, both of which are more prohibitive for the less-educated than their counterparts.
Immigrants with the highest level of education also naturalize at a shockingly lower rate. In the figure below, immigrants with a PhD naturalize at the second-lowest rate, only surpassing those without a high school education. This can be explained by the fact that immigrants with that level of education are disproportionately in the US on a form of temporary visa and must go through a different process to first obtain LPR status before moving on to the naturalization process itself.
4. Cross-Country Comparisons
Other nations’ naturalization processes are sometimes even more restrictive than that of the US. In some Gulf countries, it is still impossible for immigrants to naturalize at all. Residency requirements can be longer in certain European countries, and limitations on “moral character” occasionally offer the government wider discretion under the law. However, even with these requirements, other countries’ naturalization rates are still sometimes higher (i.e. Canada). However, this may be attributed to prior requirements that serve as a barrier to entry into the naturalization process itself, such as minimum personal wealth.
Further Research
I found that Aptekar’s book cited many other books and articles related to the topic I am investigating. I will be incorporating helpful material into my reading list within the coming weeks, so be on the lookout for that!
Next week, I’ll be discussing the content of a report conducted by the Library of Congress, an article by Irene Bloemraad, and more. See you next time!
Sources
Aptekar, Sofya, ed. The Road to Citizenship: What Naturalization Means for Immigrants and the United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey London: Rutgers University Press, 2015.
Week 3: I Too Am Untranslatable: A Review of a Federal Research Report That No Longer Exists (Week 3)
I Too Am Untranslatable: A Review of a Federal Research Report That No Longer Exists (Week 3)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I’ll be summarizing the next stage of my literature review, which has been largely comprised of a lengthy research report compiled by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress. I’ve also decided on the format and subsections of my paper, which I’ll cover in the conclusion of this post.
A Review of Barriers to Naturalization: A Review of the Literature by the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress
Wow, what a header! Before I go into the content of the report, I’d like to address the fact that it can no longer be accessed through the original link. I almost had a heart attack when I was halfway through and reloaded it by accident and it returned “Page Not Found.” Thankfully, I was able to access it through the Wayback Machine and have it downloaded on multiple devices now. I brought this up with my external mentor, and she said this was probably the result of the Trump Administration’s crackdowns on government agencies, and that events like this will only become more prevalent in the future. I still haven’t figured out how to appropriately cite the newly downloaded source, so the citation will include the obsolete link for now. Hopefully, I’ll have an update by next time!
Now, onto the good stuff.
1. Trends
The report covers several key trends. First, it suggests that naturalization applications appear to be at least slightly cost-sensitive. Applications tend to spike before fee increases and decline shortly thereafter. Second, it proposes that applications similarly spike before general elections and around major immigrant-related legislation. For instance, applications increased drastically prior to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, a piece of legislation that, among many other policy initiatives, decreased non-citizen access to welfare.
Additionally, the report covers naturalization trends by nation of origin. It concluded that the proportion of immigrants from Europe has been on the decline while we can observe an increase in immigrants from Asia and North America. Immigrants from Mexico, Canada, and South America naturalize at the lowest rates respectively, with all three under 35%. Conversely, immigrants from Vietnam, Iran, Poland, and the Philippines naturalize at the highest rates, with all four above 70%.
2. Barriers to Entry
The report named three main barriers: 1) financial cost, 2) lack of information, and 3) the English proficiency test. These match up with the main barriers I’ve identified since the beginning of my research, further confirming the prohibitive weight of these three factors in the naturalization process. A 2012 Pew Research Center survey reveals that 18% of Latino LPRs reported financial barriers as a major limiting factor with regard to naturalization. There also exists much debate surrounding price sensitivity and elasticity. Although studies do demonstrate that there is certainly some relationship between naturalization and price, there exist too many contradictory studies to truly reach a conclusion on this topic. However, it is undoubtedly true that naturalization applications are affected by price hikes in the short run; it remains to be seen whether or not that holds true in the long run
A lack of information surrounding the process is cited as another major limiting factor. The naturalization rates of refugees further prove this point—refugees are typically placed in areas with largely established immigrant enclaves with built-in support systems via naturalized immigrants proficient in the English language who have gone through the process already and are able to provide information on and guide others through the process. Refugees therefore have access to a support system that may not be available on a similar level to other immigrants. This is reflected by the contrasting naturalization rates; refugees naturalize at a rate of 45% compared to non-refugee LPRs who naturalize at a rate of 29%.
The English proficiency test is commonly referenced as well. According to a study conducted by the University of Southern California, LPRs proficient in the English language are 130-150% more likely to naturalize than their counterparts who have less experience with the language. However, this may be attributed to a correlation with the fact that immigrants with high English-language skills also tend to have a higher income and education level in addition to having spent a longer time in the US. Since the test has a relatively high pass rate, the test is considered to be a barrier to entry rather than a barrier after initiation.
3. Barriers after Initiation
The vast majority of the report was on the barriers to entry, so this section will be significantly shorter than the last. The report identifies the lengthy application and adjudication process as a possible barrier after initiating the process, as a study conducted by the National Immigration Forum and the New Americans Campaign found that 61% of LPRs surveyed reported that they had not received substantial information regarding the naturalization process. This was also a conclusion that Sofya Aptekar had reached in her book The Road to Citizenship which I covered last week in which she identified that other countries such as Canada play a far more active role in encouraging their LPRs to naturalize as opposed to the US. The backlog in processing times—around 10.5 months in the status quo—may also be a contributing factor as the motivation for some LPRs may be to vote in an upcoming election. When or if they realize that they might not be naturalized in time to be approved to vote, they may stop the process due to the length of it in the first place.
Paper Format
After reading Aptekakr’s book and this research report, I’ve decided to pivot from my original idea of writing the first part of my paper/literature review by book. The overlapping aspects are too multitudinous for me to justify that approach. Instead, I will be formatting it like so:
1. Barriers to naturalization
• Overview of process
• Financial cost
• English proficiency Test
• Oral civics exam
• Inequalities
• Lack of transparency/government support
2. Comparison to other countries
3. Solutions
I will flesh out parts 2 and 3 as I continue with my research, but this is how it’s looking so far. With that, I believe that’s all there is for this week. See you next time!
Sources
Aptekar, Sofya, ed. The Road to Citizenship: What Naturalization Means for Immigrants and the United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey London: Rutgers University Press, 2015.
Gonzalez-Barrera, Ana, Mark Hugo Lopez, and Jeffrey S. Passel, and Paul Taylor. The Path Not Taken: Two-Thirds of Legal Mexican Immigrants are Not U.S. Citizens. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, Pew Hispanic Center, February 4, 2013, 13. https://www.pewresearch.org/hispanic/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2013/02/Naturalizations_Jan_2013_FINAL.pdf.
Ham, Zachary, Delaney Seward, and Ian McQuistion. “Barriers to Naturalization: A Review of the Literature,” Library of Congress, December 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/USCIS_Naturalization%20LitReview_December2023.pdf.
Le, Thai V, Manuel Pastor, Justin Scoggins, Dalia Gonzalez, and Blanca Ramirez, Paths to Citizenship: Using Data to Understand and Promote Naturalization. Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for the Study of Immigrant Integration, January 2019. https://dornsife.usc.edu/assets/sites/731/docs/PathsToCitizenship_Full_Report_CSII.pdf.
National Immigration Forum and the New Americans Campaign. The Road to Naturalization: Addressing the Barriers to U.S. Citizenship. Washington, DC: National Immigration Forum, September 16, 2016. http://immigrationforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/The-Road-to-Naturalization.pdf.
Week 4: We Were Together: Updates on Scope and Feasibility (Week 4)
We Were Together: Updates on Scope and Feasibility (Week 4)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today will be a relatively short update centered around some (a multitude) of enlightenment and a brief summary of what I’ve been reading this past week.
Continuations, Realizations, Conclusions
Good news: I’ve started writing the first part of my literature review! That’s the continuation.
Bad news: As I was in my weekly meeting with Dr. Parson just yesterday, I came to the realization that I will probably not be able to complete everything I set out to accomplish, which was also something my mentor mentioned. Specifically, I may have to scrap the entire “comparison between the EU, Japan, and India” thing I’ve had going on and substitute Canada instead. The material I’ve been reading over these past few weeks all point towards a comparative analysis between the US and Canada as a much more viable direction. We (myself and the comparative analysis between the EU, Japan, and India) are no longer together. That was such a smooth connection to this week’s quote.
Concluding news: I have decided to just mention areas for further research instead! As Janna always tells me, part of being a researcher is understanding the fact that sometimes, your initial goal was just a little too ambitious and that you may need to adapt along the way.
A Review of Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era by Ming Hsu Chen
A lot of what was covered in this book has effectively been summarized in previous blog posts (all new scholarship does build on previous scholarship after all), so I’ll just dive right into the new information. Something I read in this book that didn’t appear much in others was the defining of terms such as “formal citizenship,” “substantive citizenship,” and “full citizenship.” Chen argues that these different legal statuses correspond to different integration levels and that we—or rather, the government—must work to develop ways to offer smoother transitions between the aforementioned levels. She specifically references the support system refugees receive as discussed in last week’s blog post as a means through which the government can promote social integration, and therefore, substantive citizenship, amongst immigrants. One key issue that she identifies is the enforcement era we are currently living in in which the federal government is more interested in enforcing aggressive and exclusionary immigration laws rather than focusing on integrating immigrants into society.
A solution Chen proposes to increase substantive belonging is a pipeline through which temporary visa holders wishing to naturalize can access social, economic, and civic opportunities while they transition to a more permanent status. A contradictory aspect of many temporary visas is the fact that in order to obtain that visa in the first place, an individual must declare that they do not intend to stay in the US past the specified duration of time when, in reality, they are highly interested in that exact purpose. The current system forces immigrants to deny the truth, resulting in immigrants commonly overstaying their visas. This means that not only do they not acquire LPR status, but they also move down a level and become undocumented. The overstaying of one’s visa is actually the number one source of undocumented immigrants, not illegal border crossings like popular news media sources would like you to believe. The establishment of a dual intention model such as the H-1B work and settlement model for similar temporary visas like the F-1 student visa would greatly contribute to substantive belonging and a decreasing proportion of undocumented immigrants in the US.
Realizations Pt. 2
I realized that two blog posts ago I mentioned something about an article by Irene Bloemraad. This week, I discovered that the “Bloemraad article” is not actually a Bloemraad article but rather a Bloemraad 300-something-page book. It’s also mainly a comparative analysis of the US and Canadian naturalization models, so I’ll get to that in April during the second part of my literature review.
Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Sources
Chen, Ming Hsu. Pursuing Citizenship in the Enforcement Era. Stanford University Press, 2020.
Week 5: I Too Am Not a Bit Tamed: Translating and Interpreting Statistics (Week 5)
I Too Am Not a Bit Tamed: Translating and Interpreting Statistics (Week 5)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today will be a relatively short update (for real this time) on an analysis of census data, or what I initially thought was census data.
Census Data... Or Is It?
At the onset of this project, I had set out to analyze census demographic data for the quantitative aspect of my research. However, I quickly ran into a roadblock earlier this week when I realized that data.census.gov had neither the 2020 census nor the 2010 census uploaded online for the information that I wanted.
However, I was able to find 2023 ACS data that matched exactly what I was looking for… and it looked suspiciously similar to census data with regard to the demographic information it collected. ACS, as it turns out, stands for the American Community Survey, which is conducted annually unlike the census which is conducted every decade. I was able to obtain the microdata and create crosstabs, some of which I have included below. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to make the images any larger.
Figure 1: Citizenship vs. World Area of Birth (WAOB)
Figure 2: Citizenship vs. Educational Attainment
Charts and Graphing
Using the 2023 ACS microdata, I was able to construct a couple of graphs and therefore reach a couple of observations. Below is the graph of the naturalized proportion of the population vs. WAOB:
Figure 3: Proportion Naturalized vs. Place of Birth
As you can see, immigrants from Mexico, Central America, and Oceania naturalize at far lower rates compared to the total naturalization rate. I attribute this to the number of undocumented immigrants originating from Mexico and Central America—they are included in the survey yet are ineligible to naturalize, therefore skewing the data. I don’t yet have an explanation for Oceania’s shockingly low rates. Other areas encompass the data from North America, Africa, and Oceania as I took the statistics for those areas from a different ACS survey.
Future Steps
I have yet to run any statistical tests or regression models on the data, which I aim to do in the coming weeks. I’ll have to brush up on my stats knowledge for that and learn some more Excel functions, but I am currently progressing on schedule!
Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Week 6: Dismiss That Which Insults Your Soul: Dismissing Variables I Can’t Access (Week 6)
Dismiss That Which Insults Your Soul: Dismissing Variables I Can’t Access (Week 6)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today will be another relatively short update on data analysis.
Roadblocks
If you recall from last week’s blog post, I mentioned briefly the crosstabs function of the ACS microdata in which I included a couple of examples—world area of birth and education attainment. With regard to naturalization, income is definitely a huge part of the equation as well, which is why I set out to discover a way to generate a crosstab with family income as a variable. However, I was unable to do so not because of a lack of such a variable but rather because of the nature of it.
When I attempt to drag the financial information variable into either the column or the row, I receive the following message:
Frankly, I have no idea what this means and how to recode this variable to make use of this data, so I will just have to make some assumptions regarding income. This is definitely not an optimal result as I anticipated income to be a huge intersection and factor in and of itself with respect to naturalization rates, educational attainment, etc. but I’ll just have to make do and acknowledge the limitations of my data in my paper. Oh well.
Results (of the Roadblocks)
Since I won’t be able to analyze financial information, I’ll stick with world area of birth, educational attainment, year of entry, and English language proficiency (with an asterisk). I say English language proficiency (with an asterisk) because I won’t necessarily be analyzing any data for that (the extent of the available data is simply “well,” “very well,” etc. for language skills) but rather the existence of the English proficiency test as a factor in the first place. The United States is one of the very few countries in the world that does not have an official language—or at least didn’t prior to a recent executive order passed on March 1st, but that’s a different story for a different day—so the existence of the English proficiency test as a factor towards naturalization may result in a seemingly “inequitable” system from an immigrant’s perspective. After all, if there is technically no official language, why must an immigrant prove their proficiency in one designated language? That’s a question I hope to examine somewhere in my paper.
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Week 7: I Celebrate Myself: Stephanie Finally Learns How to Use Excel (Week 7)
I Celebrate Myself: Stephanie Finally Learns How to Use Excel (Week 7)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I will be going over the wonders of Excel and how it has aided me in my final ventures with ACS data this past week.
Excel Enlightenments
The first step of my enlightenment was when I realized I could export the ACS data as an Excel sheet instead of tediously copying and pasting every cell value into a Google Sheet (although, in retrospect, that should’ve been pretty obvious). The most important part, however, was the epiphany that BISV actually provides access to not only Microsoft 365 Online but also to the respective apps themselves (Powerpoint, Word, Excel, etc.)! I was therefore able to fully utilize the vast computational powers of Excel as opposed to the comparatively desolate features of Sheets.
After getting accustomed to the functions of Excel, I converted my raw population data to proportions in order to better compare the educational attainment levels of US-born Americans, naturalized citizens, and LPRs. Then, the wonders of Excel prevailed—when I selected all the applicable cells, ready to create a chart, I was able to use the Recommended Charts feature under the Insert tab to point me in the right direction. One of the suggested options was a 2D chart with vertical labels, and I only needed to adjust the settings slightly to obtain the 3D chart below with slanted labels for better legibility.
I followed a similar process with the Year of Entry data; however, it didn’t prove as useful as I had envisioned it to be because the raw numbers directly specify the number of immigrants who have naturalized, so it fully makes sense for there to be a very limited number of immigrants who immigrated in 2023 and were able to naturalize. I had originally confused it with the raw data of citizens by year of naturalization, which would have been able to yield comparable numbers and aided me in drawing conclusions about legislation that occurred before and after sharp changes. Regardless, included below is the applicable chart:
Statistical Tests
I originally wanted to run a 2-sample z-test on the educational attainment data comparing the proportions of US-born Americans with naturalized citizens or LPRs for each attainment level since I have both the proportions and the raw numbers for each level. However, as I was running the tests on Excel, it kept returning 0 as the p-value, indicating an extremely significant result. In fact, a result so significant that it fails to be expressed as a non-zero value in Excel (the smallest non-zero value returned was 2.22045E-16). As a result, I guess I can conclude that the differences between the populations were all extremely significant, but since every single comparison appears to be significant, perhaps that in itself is a non-significant conclusion. But I digress.
With that, my data analysis as well as today’s blog post have come to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Week 8: Resist Much, Obey Little: Resisting Obsolete Understandings of the Law (Week 8)
Resist Much, Obey Little: Resisting Obsolete Understandings of the Law (Week 8)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I’ll be sharing the first part of my definitions journey now that I’m nearing the end of my project.
Defining Discrimination
Defining discrimination in the context of my research has been one of the greatest challenges in this project thus far. As a quick reminder, my research question is as follows: “In what ways can the US naturalization system be modified to be less discriminatory and more equity-based and inclusive?”
At the beginning of my project, I temporarily defined “discriminatory” as simply relating to de facto discrimination—socially existing discrimination that is not explicitly codified in the law. However, as I progressed, I realized that some of what I was seeing could not be 100% identified as discrimination, appearing more so as simply byproducts of a broken system. Upon sharing my frustrations with my external mentor, Janna recommended that I explore critical race theory (CRT) as a broader framework for my argument.
Critical Race Theory (CRT)
I’ll discuss what CRT means in the context of my argument in the next blog post in order to prevent this one from being too long (as I’ve been realizing some of my earlier blog posts are), so for now let’s dive into the first central work of CRT in relation to immigration law that I read.
Fan—CRT as a Missing Lens
Stephen Shie-Wei Fan’s 1997 article on the importance of CRT in immigration law remains a cornerstone of this field to this day. CRT rejects the common conception that the law is colorblind and instead emphasizes the centrality of race in all aspects of law and society, Fan argues. Race permeates across all US institutions regardless of how equitable a system may seem, and the issues surrounding scholarly discussion of immigration law—and therefore, naturalization law—are emblematic of this fact.
Immigration law has historically treated race as a non-issue, consequently ignoring structural racism. CRT in turn highlights the voices and experiences of those affected and marginalized by these facially neutral laws that often implicitly uphold white supremacy even without explicit intent.
Project Application
After I read this article, I was pretty concerned about how I was going to implement Fan’s theory of experiential argumentation until my weekly meeting with Janna. I then realized that citing Fan’s theory did not necessarily equate to my having to implement the methodology therein; instead, it granted me the vocabulary necessary to articulate my stance on discrimination relative to my project. The theory is that human experiences and emotions have the power to combat the supposed rigidity of the law, and that will certainly be key with regard to my definition of discrimination.
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Sources
Fan, Stephen Shie-Wei. “Immigration Law and the Promise of Critical Race Theory: Opening the Academy to the Voices of Aliens and Immigrants.” Columbia Law Review 97, no. 4 (1997): 1202–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/1123320.
Week 9: I Exist as I Am, That Is Enough: What Is and Isn’t Enough Under Our Legal System (Week 9)
I Exist as I Am, That Is Enough: What Is and Isn’t Enough Under Our Legal System (Week 9)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I’ll be discussing the final part of defining discrimination within my project.
Wolfe—Race as a Patch
In his 2004 article, Patrick Wolfe argues that race exists to bridge the gap of contradictions between the ideal of equal citizenship and the reality of social inequality and systemic racism. Whereas citizenship appears to promote equality by lending all individuals the same legal status, race inherently restores an innate social hierarchy specifically within settler-colonial nations such as the US. He also uses the societies of Australia and Brazil to justify his argument, but that’s veering a bit off topic so I’ll just cover his US-centric points applicable to my project.
I believe Wolfe’s argument can be separated into two distinct theories: 1. The idea that citizenship is legally egalitarian, and 2. That race is intrinsically hierarchical, resulting in the patchwork of race and citizenship we can observe in the status quo. Race is often used as a means by which inequality is maintained within the framework of formal equality—the framework of citizenship.
One major historical example of this is the Naturalization Act of 1870 which granted citizenship to all individuals of African descent yet was effectively negated by Jim Crow laws following the Civil War. Although African Americans were technically equal under the guise of citizenship, they never truly experienced this supposed equality. Citizenship has never abolished inequality; at times, it can fundamentally mask and reinforce it via race.
Molina—Mexican-Americans on the Border
This section will be slightly shorter because a large portion of the article was dedicated to a specific case study which is not super relevant to my project, but I’ll summarize the general ideas. All you’ll have to know about the specific case is that a multi-generational Mexican-American by the name of Nicolas Flores experienced a deportation case in the early twentieth century despite having US citizenship.
What the Flores case revealed was that, despite possessing generational US citizenship, his belonging was still questioned and the government still treated him as an alien, an Other. This, and other cases, revealed that citizenship is not as colorblind as we perceive it to be, but rather defined by race, language, class, etc. Flores’ case is simply one instance of a widely prevalent issue, one that is still being observed today.
Project Application
After reading these two articles, I realized just how much these issues are still ingrained within our current naturalization process. Race, language, class—these are all factors that, summed together, result in the intersection of those least likely to obtain citizenship. Although the current naturalization system may not be explicitly inequitable, the results certainly are.
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time!
Sources
Natalia Molina. “The Long Arc of Dispossession: Racial Capitalism and Contested Notions of Citizenship in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands in the Early Twentieth Century.” Western Historical Quarterly 45, no. 4 (2014): 431–47. https://doi.org/10.2307/westhistquar.45.4.0431.
Wolfe, Patrick. “Race and Citizenship.” OAH Magazine of History 18, no. 5 (2004): 66–71. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163727.
Week 10: I Discover Myself on the Verge of a Usual Mistake: A Second Revelation on Scope (And Happier, More Conclusive Findings!) (Week 10)
I Discover Myself on the Verge of a Usual Mistake: A Second Revelation on Scope (And Happier, More Conclusive Findings!) (Week 10)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I’ll be sharing my findings from the last part of my literature review—the cross-country comparative analysis.
However, there has been one significant change in my plans since the inception of my project. Originally, I had planned for this portion to include comparing the naturalization systems of Japan, India, and the European Union, but after further consideration taking into account the timeline of my project, I’ve decided to pivot to analyzing only the US and Canada.
Also—don’t worry, the title still begins with a Whitman quote. I checked on Goodreads!!!
Background
Since the very beginning of this project when I was conducting my background research, I’ve come across a multitude of sources that have speculated as to why Canada’s naturalization rate is almost double that of the US (approximately 70% vs. approximately 40%). This seems to be a very common point of investigation in the field of naturalization law, so I’m going to synthesize my conclusions on what I’ve read thus far.
Undocumented Populations
One of the most common proposed reasons for the gap in naturalization rates is the proportion of undocumented immigrants relative to the total immigrant population. There are significantly more undocumented immigrants in the US which may explain the vastly lower naturalization rate. Undocumented immigrants have no legal standing to naturalize and therefore greatly skew the data. However, even when controlling for the number of undocumented individuals across both nations, Canada still has a disproportionately higher rate of naturalization.
Canada’s Point System
This is what brings me to the issue of correlation—across both countries, those with less education are more likely to be closer to the poverty line and less likely to naturalize. Although the demographics of the immigrant population in the US and Canada are similar, they are different in a fundamental way: the US system relies primarily on family reunification with relatively fewer cases of skilled immigrants with H1B visas whereas 50-60% of Canadian immigrants are independent and immigrated via a points pathway that takes into consideration an individual’s level of education, language ability, personal skills, and other factors. As a result, perhaps the average Canadian immigrant possesses innate characteristics that make them inherently more predisposed to naturalizing without considering specific personal circumstances.
Citizenship as a Right vs. Privilege
Perhaps the most significant of all reasons is the mentality of the US and Canadian governments. The Canadian government has always posed the issue of citizenship as a right that all Canadians may be able to obtain, and its policies confer. They offer free civics and language classes for all immigrants, with some even being taught in an immigrant’s native language. The government informs citizens of the necessary qualifications for a fee waiver and actively seeks to disseminate helpful information to motivate and assist immigrants along their naturalization journey.
Conversely, the US process is extremely complicated bureaucratically. The process itself consists of many confusing steps and hurdles, and information is not always freely available. Although the financial cost of naturalization is $760, the true price is often in the thousands when taking into account private civics classes and other educational courses. Although fee waivers are also offered in the US, the information and forms are often tricky to access, acting as another barrier to initiation. A significant number of immigrants aren’t even aware that they may be eligible for a fee waiver in the first place. The difference in mentality between Canada’s multicultural emphasis and the American exclusionary process is stark, and the results are as well.
Conclusions
There is simply no easy solution to this problem. When I first started this project, I thought I would be able to come across a unique solution of my own through my data analysis and with the assistance of decades of scholarship. However, I’ve found the answer to be quite the opposite—with more reading only comes more questions. This research question was far broader in scope than I ever anticipated, despite cautionary advice from both of my mentors. It feels quite unsatisfactory to end with an “I don’t know, further research must be conducted,” but sometimes, that’s just the world of research.
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time (for the penultimate blog post)!
Sources
Aptekar, Sofya. “Citizenship Status and Patterns of Inequality in the United States and Canada.” Social Science Quarterly 95, no. 2 (2014): 343–59. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26612168.
Aptekar, Sofya, ed. The Road to Citizenship: What Naturalization Means for Immigrants and the United States. New Brunswick, New Jersey London: Rutgers University Press, 2015.
Bloemraad, Irene. Becoming a Citizen: Incorporating Immigrants and Refugees in the United States and Canada. Oakland, California: University of California Press, 2006.
Ham, Zachary, Delaney Seward, and Ian McQuistion. “Barriers to Naturalization: A Review of the Literature,” Library of Congress, December 2023. https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/USCIS_Naturalization%20LitReview_December2023.pdf.
Week 11: I Sound My Barbaric Yawp over the Roofs of the World: Sounding My Barbaric Yawp in Room 148 at 8:45 AM on May 17th (Week 11)
I Sound My Barbaric Yawp over the Roofs of the World: Sounding My Barbaric Yawp in Room 148 at 8:45 AM on May 17th (Week 11)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog! Today I’ll be discussing the paper-writing and presentation-creating process. Tomorrow is the date of my final presentation, and I hope to see you there!
Paper Writing
Writing my paper went pretty smoothly, but there are a few things I realized during the process.
First, I am not a very chronological writer, meaning that I don’t start from the introduction and write to the conclusion. I write in chunks depending on how I see it fit, which was actually very helpful in writing this paper. Below are the sections in my paper:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review: Barriers to Naturalization
2.1 Overview of the US Naturalization Process
2.2 Financial Cost
2.3 English Proficiency Test
2.4 Oral Civics Exam
2.5 Lack of Government Transparency and Support
2.6 Conclusions
3. Data Analysis
3.1 Educational Attainment
3.2 World Area of Birth
3.3 Family Income Level
4. Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Canada vs. US
5. Solutions
6. References
For reference, please access my paper here.
I started writing with Section 2 then continued down, before finishing the writing process with the Introduction section. I had a far easier time contextualizing my writing as a result, as I knew exactly which points to introduce and bring up in the section rather than deleting and moving paragraphs around afterward. When I was taking notes during my two-part lit review, I noted down page numbers and transferred them over while writing, so citing my sources took up very little of my time. Most of my footnotes include page numbers—with exceptions if I’m discussing a more general idea from a book or journal article—so it was not at all as cumbersome as I had expected.
I decided to start my paper with an introduction to the case of Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi. On April 14, 2025, he was taken into custody during his naturalization interview in Vermont. He was mere steps away from fully obtaining US citizenship, yet he was detained and is now at risk of deportation on the grounds of organizing pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. As a legal permanent resident in the US on a green card, Mahdawi’s case was supposed to have been handled with full due process, yet there are arguments that it was not procedurally followed. This case served as a perfect introduction to my project especially within the broader issue of citizenship being challenged in the US today.
Presentation Creating
This part was also pretty easy, as I effectively followed the sections in my paper. I had to remove certain sections though, including 2.5, 2.6, and 3.3 for the sake of time. When I first started practicing, my presentation was 27 minutes, a far cry from the maximum allotted time of 15 minutes. But not to fear—it is currently sitting at a very comfortable 14:58!
One interesting thought experiment came up when I was thinking of which questions I might receive during the Q&A portion tomorrow. I expect at least one question related to the significance of my project in the context of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship. I got to thinking about how to answer that—perhaps naturalization isn’t extremely relevant with respect to birthright citizenship since they are fundamentally different processes. A part of my project deals with the perception of citizenship as a right vs. a privilege in the US and Canada—I realized that, historically, naturalization has always been viewed as this sort of second-tier citizenship while birthright citizenship has been considered slightly superior. With this executive order, birthright citizenship has similarly been placed on the chopping block, interestingly equating the two more than before. I experienced a series of small periods of enlightenment like this over the duration of the past week.
Conclusions
This journey evaluating the inequities in the US naturalization system has been extremely eye-opening for me. I have acquired a multitude of knowledge over the course of my research, and I’m so glad to have had such an opportunity. If you’re reading this, I would love to see you at my presentation tomorrow at 8:45 AM in Room 148!
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading, and see you next time for the last blog post ever :(((!
Sources
Atkins, Chloe, and Matt Lavietes. “Judge Orders Columbia Student Mohsen Mahdawi to Be Released,” April 30, 2025. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-orders-columbia-student-mohsen-mahdawi-released-rcna203675.
Roy, Yash. “Mohsen Mahdawi: Palestinian Student at Columbia University Detained | CNN,” April 15, 2025. https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/14/us/mohsen-mahdawi-columbia-university-trump.
Week 12: We Were Together. I Forget the Rest: The End, Together, and Without Forgetting (Week 12)
We Were Together. I Forget the Rest: The End, Together, and Without Forgetting (Week 12)
Hi everyone, welcome back to my blog for the last time! Today I’ll be discussing how my presentation went this past Saturday and general findings throughout this project!
Presentation
I think my presentation went generally well, although I had to speed up certain parts due to the very limited time frame offered. I received a very interesting question in the Q&A section—a parent asked if I had considered the smaller Canadian labor force in conjunction with the point system as a reason as an explanation for the relatively higher naturalization rate, something which I had not investigated. Still, based on the trends I’ve seen over the course of my research, the affirmative nature of the Canadian naturalization system would most likely be of greater impact as reflected in the rates.
General Findings
I’ve learned a multitude of things through this project, not only limited to research findings.
First, research is a process. I faced significant challenges in certain portions along the way, largely in the ACS data analysis section, but it was a completely normal occurrence. Research goalposts often change widely; what you are determined to investigate at the beginning of your project may not be what you actually investigate, and that is fine.
Second, pacing is important. I wasn’t able to work on my project as much in April due to focusing on ensuring that I committed to a college that I would be happiest at. Whereas I heavily prioritized my Senior Project in February and March, other things took importance in the later weeks of April especially. However, because I was pretty ahead of schedule in the first half, I was able to compensate for the lost time easily later on. I wouldn’t have been able to explore naturalization law this in-depth if I hadn’t planned my schedule to account for that exception ahead of time.
Third, I love writing. The initial literature review portion of the project was a bit of a drag (albeit still interesting!!!), but I was very very invested during the writing portion. Seeing the immediate product of writing just offers an unparalleled level of satisfaction. I was able to write my entire paper in five days without feeling tired or uninterested at any point, which I would not be able to say about the literature review process.
Conclusions
While I was a little unsure during the fall whether or not I wanted to commit to doing a Senior Project because of the requirements in the busiest time of the year, I am so so happy to have ultimately elected to complete this. At no other point in my high school journey was I able to have three months dedicated to solely exploring the field I am most passionate about. Thank you to everyone who has helped me along the way—Dr. Parson for his unwavering support, Janna for providing me with field-specific advice, and Mr. Cunningham for facilitating this entire process. I’ve been able to further develop these core skills that will aid me through my college journey and beyond.
And with that, today’s blog post comes to an end. Thanks for reading—I hope I was able to teach you something about naturalization law and the underlying inequalities, or maybe inspired you to complete a Senior Project of your own.
Until next time,
Stephanie 🤠