<div itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Article”>
<h3 itemprop=”name”>
<!–ARTICLE TITLE START–>
Naturalize Now!
<!–END ARTICLE TITLE–>
</h3><h4><i>by <a href=”http://discuss.ilw.com/articles/articles/391316-july-29-naturalize-now#bio”>
<span itemprop=”author” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Person”>
<span itemprop=”name”>
<!–AUTHOR NAME START–>
Alan Lee, Esq.
<!–END AUTHOR NAME–>
</span></span>
</a></i></h4><br/>
<span itemprop=”articleBody”>
<p>
Anything that U.S.C.I.S. changes at this time generally is tougher to pass
or to obtain, and so our advice to people who are or will soon become
eligible to naturalize is to do it ASAP. The agency announced on July 19,
2019, that it will be changing the naturalization civics test with an
implementation date in December 2020 or early 2021. That gives applicants
approximately 16+ months to get to the point of the naturalization
interview and testing if they file now. The rules on naturalization filing
are that most everyone can file 90 days before either the three-year
eligibility mark (if qualifying through marriage to a U. S. citizen) or the
five-year eligibility mark for others.
</p>
<p>
Why the concern? The presumption is that in the age of Republican politics
and President Trump where the Party and the President are fighting over
every vote, and in which the Administration’s immigration policy is seen as
anti-immigrant, the vast majority of those who naturalize will vote
Democrat and the president and his party would like to lessen the number of
recently naturalized eligible voters.
</p>
<p>
A look at the May 3, 2019 U.S.C.I.S. memorandum, “Revision of the
Naturalization Civics Test,” ringingly promotes the concern. It is replete
with phrases and sentences that would make one shudder if one was not
completely fluent in the English language. A prime example is “In addition,
the working group will also assess potential changes to the <u>speaking</u>
test.” What that means is that regardless of how many classes a
naturalization applicant goes to, that will not help where the
naturalization examiner starts to converse with the applicant at the
interview on subjects related only tangentially to history and government
to test the ability of the person to have a good understanding of English.
The foreboding tone can be seen in at least two other sentences in the
memorandum that “The civics test was instituted to ensure that applicants
for naturalization <u>understand</u> American civics and <u>can exercise their rights and responsibilities</u> as new citizens” and
“Standardized tests are revised regularly to ensure accuracy and timeliness
of content, as well as to
<u>
counter ways that test takers may engage in fraud or nefarious actions
that attack the integrity of the exam
</u>
.” One wonders how test takers would engage in fraud or nefarious actions
attacking the integrity of the exam unless there is complicity on the part
of U.S.C.I.S. examiners, and if that was the case, such would not be solved
by a test revision. Finally the memorandum’s summary sentence contains
buzzwords that the test will be more difficult in stating, “The purpose of
this test redesign is to create a <u>meaningful, comprehensive</u>,
uniform, and efficient test that will assess applicant’s knowledge and
understanding of U. S. history, government, principles, and values.” Both
“meaningful” and “comprehensive” cry out that U.S.C.I.S. will want a level
of understanding of the country’s history and government structure that
beggars what is required today. What that sentence and the others means is
– expect a harder test!
</p>
<p>
The memorandum was written by the former director of U.S.C.I.S., L. Francis
Cissna, who was recently forced out by Mr. Trump for not coming out with
restrictive regulations faster. Under his successor, Ken Cuchinelli, one
can only expect that the future change to the test will either continue as
planned or that he will make the contemplated degree of difficulty harder
or the implementation faster. Upon his installation as the acting director
of U.S.C.I.S. last month, he stated that he sees it as his job to treat
access as a privilege and not a right, and that, “We are not a benefit
agency, we are a vetting agency.”
</p>
<p>
For readers who are eligible for and are thinking to naturalize, the
watchword is “Don’t wait!” The future does not look as bright for those who
choose to wait and are not very good at English, but hope to get better
through naturalization classes.
</p>
<p>
‡ This article © 2019 Alan Lee, Esq.
<br/>
</p>
<br/>
<hr/><h4>
<a name=”bio”></a>
About The Author<br/>
</h4>
<!–AUTHOR BIO START–>
<p>
<img title=”Alan Lee, Esq.” itemprop=”image” src=”http://www.ilw.com/articles/2014,1103-Lee.jpg” alt=”Alan Lee, Esq.” target=”blank” align=”left” width=”100″ hspace=”10″/>
<b>Alan Lee, Esq. </b> is an exclusive practitioner of immigration law based in New York City with an AV preeminent rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory for 20+ years, registered in the Bar Register of Preeminent Lawyers, on the New York Super Lawyers list (2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-2015, 2015-2019), and recognized as a New York Area Top Rated Lawyer. He has written extensively on immigration over the past years for Interpreter Releases, Immigration Daily, and the ethnic newspapers, World Journal, Sing Tao, Epoch Times, Pakistan Calling, Muhasba and OCS; testified as an expert on immigration in civil court proceedings; and is a regular contributor to Martindale-Hubbell’s Ask-a-Lawyer program. His article, “The Bush Temporary Worker Proposal and Comparative Pending Legislation: an Analysis” was Interpreter Releases’ cover display article at the American Immigration Lawyers Association annual conference in 2004; his 2004 case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Firstland International v. INS, successfully challenged Legacy INS’ policy of over 40 years of revoking approved immigrant visa petitions under a nebulous standard of proof, although its central holding that the government had to notify approved immigrant petition holders of the revocation prior to the their departure to the U. S. for the petition to be able to be revoked was short-lived as it was specifically targeted in the Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (which in response changed the language of the revocation statute itself). Yet Firstland lives on as precedent that the government must comply with nondiscretionary duties established in law, and such failure is reviewable in federal courts. His 2015 case, Matter of Leacheng International, Inc., with the Administrative Appeals Office of USCIS (AAO) set nation-wide standards on the definition of “doing business” for multinational executives and managers to gain immigration benefits.
</p>
<!–END AUTHOR BIO–>
<p><hr/>
<div class=”ilwFinePrint”>The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the opinion of <span itemprop=”publisher” itemscope itemtype=”http://schema.org/Organization”>
<span itemprop=”name”>ILW.COM</span></span>.</div></p>
</div>
{$inline_image
