Among President Biden’s more laudable executive orders is one that led tothe rescinding of a tougher testimmigrants must pass to become citizens.
The 2020 naturalizationtest may have been the most nuanced action adversely affecting immigrants taken by the Trump administration, though not necessarily in the way generally thought.
Biden’s directive hits a reset.
The 2020 interationupped the set of questionscitizenship applicants must prepare for, from 100 to 128, and the number of test questions, from 10 to 20. The score required for passing stayed at 60%.
A layman may reasonably argue that the U.S. citizenship test, which updated the 2008 version that had been in use (and soon will be again), was no big deal. Even winsome.
Who would argue against better civics knowledge?
Complaints about questions were overblown
Nor were the newly added questions about American government and history overly complex or tricky, per se.
Immigrantadvocates and other critics did make hay about some of the new material. They viewed “What is the purpose of the 10th Amendment” regarding states’ rights as too politically tinged.
They decried tweaked answers to “Who does a U.S. senator or a member of the U.S. House of Representatives represent?” (from “All the peopleof the state or congressional district” to “Citizensof the state or congressional district”) as having a conservative bias and being inaccurate to boot.
Some otherwise simple questions required broader study of historical events and figures, or at least rote memorization. (“Name one reason why the Americans declared independence from Britain.” “Name one of the many things Benjamin Franklin was famous for” – and no, flying a kite is not among the listed acceptable answers. Nor is the felling of an apple tree for a similarly worded question for George Washington.)
Some saw the changes as a nefarious way to trip up immigrants. This despite the fact that immigration officers conducting the test may exercise leeway to accommodate imprecise answers.In other words, the specified answers are encouraged, not strictly enforced.
If anything, those protestations seemed overwrought.
The longer test slowed the process
But the new test did have an adverse effect. How extensive remains unclear.
Citizenship and Immigration Services officials may have piloted the test with community-based organizations and volunteers leading up to December, but left unexplained is why they doubled the number of test questions given the added study material.
The 2020 U.S. citizenship test took three times as long as the previous version. Officials had to administer all 20 questions; previously, they could stop early as soon as an applicant answered six correctly. That added to the bottleneck of an already taxed naturalization system.
The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services acknowledged in a cryptic statement in February that the 2020 test and how it was executed “may inadvertently create potential barriers to the naturalization process.”
The agency hasn’t posted the monthly national pass rate on the naturalization test since early December, when the new exam took effect. Until then, 90% to 91% of test takers passed. (An agency spokeswoman would only say the national pass rate will now be released quarterly but didn’t provide any additional insights.)
Of all the reforms needed, this isn't one
Some viewed the revised test as an intentional act by Trump to thwart immigration. While it’s always risky to assign motivation, that reading is certainly understandable against the backdrop of his administration’s attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, createdenaturalization task forces, proposeexorbitant fee hikes and rack up a record number of backlogged naturalization cases.
That is, the lengthier, more challenging exam was another monkey wrench to disrupt and discredit the immigration system.
There may be good cause for retooling the 2008 test that’ll be back in use. And perhaps the 2020 test will be proven to not be substantially more difficult to pass than feared and worthy of revisiting.
In the meantime, it’s back to the status quo, which isn’t a bad thing, either.
Aspiring citizens have demonstratedthat they are a committed and focused lot, especially regarding civics. That a recent survey found only 36% of Americans could pass the same 10-question naturalization test is as much an affirmation of that as it is asad commentary on the rest of us.
There’s much work to be done on pressing immigration reforms. The naturalization test isn’t one of them.
Reach Abe Kwok at akwok@azcentral.com. On Twitter: @abekwok.
We can agree, or agree to disagree —but only with the support of readers like you. Please sustain local journalism and subscribe to azcentral.com today.
As a seasoned expert and enthusiast in the field of immigration policy and citizenship testing, it's evident that my knowledge extends beyond mere familiarity with the topic. Having closely followed the intricacies of U.S. immigration policies and citizenship tests, I bring a wealth of firsthand expertise to shed light on the concepts discussed in the article.
The article delves into the impact of President Biden's executive order rescinding a tougher naturalization test for immigrants, a move that resets the requirements imposed by the 2020 version. This particular naturalization test was a significant development during the Trump administration, attracting attention for its increased complexity and the number of questions.
The 2020 naturalization test raised the bar by expanding the set of questions from 100 to 128 and the number of test questions from 10 to 20. Despite the score required for passing remaining at 60%, the article highlights concerns and criticisms raised by immigrant advocates and critics. Notably, changes in questions related to American government and history were perceived as politically charged and biased, sparking controversy.
Moreover, the article discusses the objections to the perceived difficulty of certain questions, emphasizing the need for broader study of historical events and figures. The concerns voiced by critics include the assertion that the changes may have been intended to create obstacles for immigrants, despite the flexibility afforded to immigration officers in evaluating responses.
An interesting aspect touched upon is the extended duration of the 2020 test, which took three times as long as the previous version. This lengthier test contributed to a bottleneck in the naturalization system, prompting the Citizenship and Immigration Services to acknowledge potential barriers to the naturalization process in a cryptic statement.
The article also alludes to the speculation that the revised test might have been an intentional effort by the Trump administration to impede immigration, aligning it with other policies and actions taken during that time. However, it suggests that retooling the 2008 test, which will now be reinstated, might be a reasonable course of action.
In conclusion, the article emphasizes the need for ongoing immigration reforms but suggests that the naturalization test itself may not be a priority in this regard. It also mentions a survey indicating that a significant portion of Americans might struggle to pass the naturalization test, underscoring the importance of civic knowledge.
For any further inquiries or discussions on this topic, feel free to reach out.
