Civic Integration

Citizenship after 9/11

Speech

By: Eduardo Aguirre

Date: November 23, 2003

Source: Aguirre, Eduardo. "Civic Integration: Citizenship After 9/11." United States Citizenship and Immigration Service. November 13, 2003. 〈http://uscis.gov/graphics/aboutus/congress/testimonies/2003/EA111303.pdf〉 (accessed June 7, 2006).

About the Author: Eduardo Aguirre is director of the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, the federal agency overseeing the immigration and naturalization process.

INTRODUCTION

With the exception of a small number of Native Americans, the United States is populated entirely by immigrants and their descendents. Immigration to the United States has risen and fallen throughout the nation's history, propelled upward and downward by geopolitical and economic forces around the world. Immigration grew steadily throughout the 1800s, peaking with an influx of one million per year at the beginning of the twentieth century. The rate of immigration then fell sharply in the years leading up to World War I and remained relatively low throughout World War II. Immigration then began a steady climb that continued through the end of the twentieth century.

Dictated by public opinion and political whim, U.S. law has played a pivotal role in setting immigration patterns. Following World War I, Americans became less welcoming to immigrants from eastern and southern Europe. Congress responded by passing the Quota Act of 1921, and in 1924 President Calvin Coolidge signed an even more restrictive immigration bill into law. This act specified the maximum number of new citizens who would be accepted from each of a lengthy list of foreign countries. For each nation, the number of immigrants each year could not exceed two percent of the current number of immigrants from that nation already residing in the United States.

Under this policy, immigration was tightly capped at a specified level. Total immigration to the United States was initially set at only 165,000, less than one-fifth the pre-war level. Within that total, the quotas for individual countries varied widely. For example, in 1924, Great Britain was allowed 34,000 immigrants, while India was allowed only the minimum of 100. Italy, a country particularly impacted by the new law, found its prewar immigration levels of 200,000 slashed to just 4,000. Under the new policy, the ethnic makeup of the United States would remain largely unchanged.

A primary concern of U.S. immigration policy is the assurance of U.S. national security. Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Americans began to reconsider the potential threat posed by immigrants. As the investigation of the attacks continued, several of the terrorists were found to have been living in the United States illegally, highlighting the relationship between immigration policy and national security. In the flurry of legislative activity following the attacks, the new Department of Homeland Security was created. As part of that action, the existing Department of Immigration and Naturalization was transferred to the new department and renamed the Citizenship and Immigration Service.

In the wake of revelations that the 2001 terrorist attacks were financed, planned, and carried out by Islamic extremists of Middle Eastern descent, some of whom had been in the United States for many years, American policy-makers began wrestling with this newly recognized threat.

PRIMARY SOURCE

Good afternoon. Thank you, Bob, for that warm introduction. I am pleased to be here and speak to one of America's greatest privileges, Citizenship.

More specifically, I am here to talk about how Citizenship has changed since 9/11, and what USCIS is doing to refresh this American value.

An obvious place to start is by asking, what is Citizenship? Citizenship is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon.

But, that is academic. The practical is—we each have a unique opinion of what it means to be a citizen in the greatest country in the world. And, where else but America could there be such freedom to differ on the one thing that we have in common.

America was built upon the principles of freedom, democracy and certain unalienable rights. The dreams and determination of immigrants, in whose footsteps I followed, enriched this land—socially, culturally and economically.

And, that record of contribution continues as we speak, immigrant soldiers are fighting for freedom to triumph over terror. Their willingness to give the ultimate sacrifice echoes the words, as engraved on the Statue of Liberty:

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

Make no mistake; we are today, as much a nation of immigrants as we have ever been. America's founding fathers knew this would be. George Washington, in his farewell address, noted "Citizens by birth or choice of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections."

Washington's observations hold true. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country. That is my task before you. The fateful day of September 11, 2001, emboldened our nation and united us through patriotism.

We each remember, with vivid clarity and overwhelming emotion, where we were and what we saw. We continue to try and make sense out of incomprehensible acts. And, we each, in our own way, say never again.

The Nation's resolve led to the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security, the dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, a fundamental transformation in the delivery of immigration services and an uncompromising commitment to the integrity of our immigration system. It also reinvigorated Citizenship, and its sinews have never been stronger.

The Administration and Congress called for, within the Homeland Security Act of 2002, the creation of an Office of Citizenship. This pioneering office is charged with promoting public awareness of the rights and responsibilities of this treasured value.

To put our ambitious agenda in context—by a show of hands, how many of you can trace your immigrant roots? In the private sector, I would call this redundant market research. Because, we all have an immigrant lineage of one form or another. That gives you insight into the size of our customer base everyone, citizen and non-citizen alike.

Now, some easier questions; not to show your hands, but ponder how many of you have a driver's license? How many of you got your license at the earliest possible age? Or, for the parents among us, how many of you recall the experience of your children earning a license?

In our country a license is a rite of passage, because to drive constitutes freedom to go, within reason, where you want, when you want. It also is an indisputable privilege, and one that is too often taken for granted.

Like a license, you have to earn Citizenship—a very different rite of passage—though the reward is beyond compare. And, like driver's education, the responsibilities that accompany the privilege of Citizenship do not culminate with a passing score and certificate. Rather, they multiply in number and scope.

The Office of Citizenship, within U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, is—loosely speaking—like a driving instruction program—coaching this rite of passage, for a nation-wide rediscovery of American Citizenship.

We are trying to take the concept of assimilation a step further, to what I call to Civic Integration. The difference between the two—is choice … more specifically, choice of allegiance.

America is as diverse as it is large. Today, a common denominator of our citizenry in a post-9/11 world is allegiance. Quite simply, we are one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Assimilation implies that government defines for the immigrant what it means to be American. We can, and should … do everything, but …

Defining what it means to be American is as much an individual right as our freedom to practice the faith, the politics and profession of one's choosing.

Government educates, facilitates and empowers potential new citizens to realize their respective American dreams. In the end, however, the decision to forge a personal and patriotic allegiance is up to the individual.

I want newly naturalized citizens to pick up the torch of American Citizenship and carry it for their children's generation. That is Civic Integration.

The Office of Citizenship will stress accountability and equip to that end. I am particularly pleased with our Immigrant Orientation Program, a pilot to provide legal immigrants with informational packets upon their initial arrival.

These packets will educate and inform on the expectations for Civic Integration as well as more clearly define the naturalization process.

At the grass-roots level, we will partner with groups like USA Freedom Corps to match new immigrants with community volunteers. And, we will soon have 30 Outreach Officers stationed in 17 strategic cities throughout the country, to carry out the President's charge that America continue to be "a nation that welcomes immigrants with open arms, not endless lines."

Any teacher will tell you that a proven barometer of knowledge is a test. So, we are looking at how we test potential new citizens.

We have convened a select and distinguished committee of university professors to identify the questions that best capture America and recommend as to how these questions should be framed. They began with English, and a corresponding study guide, and will turn next to Civics and History.

I cannot emphasize enough the significance of this undertaking. The current naturalization test is somewhat arbitrary. A candidate in San Francisco will, in all likelihood, not be asked the same questions as a candidate taking same exam on the same day in Boston. Inherently, this is now wrong; however, I think that we can do better!

In the current structure, an examiner will randomly select from a compilation of questions. This forces a candidate to memorize some 100 responses, instead of learning, grasping and retaining the answers to a strategic series of questions.

It comes down to meaning and substance. To compliment, we are making the naturalization ceremony more uniformly meaningful.

Because of the freedoms and economic opportunities that only America can provide, applications for naturalization have remained strong since 9/11. Last year, we welcomed more than 640,000 newly naturalized citizens to the American family.

Somewhere in America, right now, there is an administrative naturalization ceremony under way. Tomorrow, in Seattle, more than 100 service men and women, returning from Operation Iraqi Freedom, will take advantage of the President's Executive Order to expedite military naturalizations for those immigrant soldiers who bravely serve in the war against terror.

And, next week, I will join adoptive families in welcoming children in Miami to the table of America Citizenship.

Of course, the Oath of Allegiance is the most patriotic component to any naturalization ceremony.

And, having had the unique privilege of reciting the Oath as an immigrant, and now administering it as Director, I want to see it become even more so.

The Oath should not be altered in substance and solemnity, but it should be more crisp, fervent and meaningful—in keeping with the times. Renouncing and abjuring allegiances and fidelity to princes and potentates is confusing.

When a candidate raises his or her right hand to take this pledge, there is no guarantee that a new citizen will be a good citizen. However, we take an even bigger risk by using archaic language and convoluted grammar.

By choosing to become a Citizen, immigrants enter into a covenant with the Untied States. This covenant reserves the call to serve and bear arms, and demands loyalty to the Constitution and our laws.

One of the reasons the Department of Homeland Security was created is to prevent the wrong applicant from receiving an immigration benefit. Our comprehensive background checks, and effective risk management, sorts out the bad apples. Our initiatives for dramatically refreshing the citizenship process, including the Oath, will cultivate the good ones, and in so doing, we aim to sponsor new American patriots.

About a month ago, I was on CNN Moneyline with Lou Dobbs. The segment was billed by CNN as "The Great American Give Away." My message was that we give nothing away! In fact, we add value by making America more secure, preserving America's legacy of immigration, and celebrating America's ultimate privilege—Citizenship.

I remind you of what President Theodore Roosevelt, once noted, "The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his weight."

My fellow citizens, one of the ways in which we are pulling our weight is by debating an issue as important as American Citizenship.

Thank you, and may God continue to bless America.

SIGNIFICANCE

While some Americans demanded an end to immigration from the Middle East, U.S. immigration policy has traditionally been resistant to such pressure. During the 1990s, a decade when the United States and Iraq were openly hostile and occasionally at war, 68,000 Iraqis were granted U.S. residency. As of 2006, even nations officially identified as sponsoring terrorism had not been barred from sending immigrants to the United States.

The question of how to deal with Muslim immigrants is not unique to the United States. European nations including France have wrestled with the proper response to growing Muslim populations within their borders. Unlike many previous immigrant groups, Muslims appear more likely to segregate themselves and less likely to assimilate into their new cultures. In many countries they have attempted to establish their own communities governed primarily by Islamic law and tradition, and as their birth rates far outstrip those of their host countries their influence is expected to grow. The fact that Islamic terrorists have in several cases been assisted by Muslim populations within their host countries raises further questions about appropriate policies toward them.

Present U.S. immigration policy limits the number of non-citizens who may become permanent U.S. residents and receive a document known as a Green Card. Applicants are considered based on their circumstances. Immediate family members of U.S. citizens, including spouses, minor children, and parents of adult citizens are admitted without quotas. Other family members, including married children of citizens and family members of Green Card holders are allowed to receive residency, but the total number is limited to 226,000 per year. As of 2006, no single country is allowed to send more than 25,620 immigrants, regardless of the country's population. Children born in the United States are automatically granted citizenship, a quirk of immigration law that has led to the practice of non-citizens entering the United States to deliver children, thus ensuring them citizenship. In 2002, more than 600,000 foreign nationals became naturalized U.S. citizens.

FURTHER RESOURCES

Books

Freedman, Russell. Immigrant Kids. New York: Puffin, 1995.

Jacobson, Matthew Frye. Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999.

Portes, Alejandro, and Ruben G. Rumbaut. Immigrant America: A Portrait. Second Edition, Revised, Expanded, and Updated. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997.

Periodicals

Karaim, Reed. "Getting Real on the Border." U.S. News & World Report 140 (2006): 28.

Kelleher, C. C., et al. "The 'Americanisation' of Migrants: Evidence for the Contribution of Ethnicity, Social Deprivation, Lifestyle and Life-Course Processes to the mid-20th Century Coronary Heart Disease Epidemic in the U.S." Social Science & Medicine 63 (2006)485-500.

"Talking of Immigrants." The Economist 379 (2006): 50.

Web sites

The American Immigration Law Foundation. "Immigration Policy Center." 〈http://www.ailf.org/ipc/ipc_index.asp〉 (accessed June 7, 2006).

University of Missouri. Department of Sociology. "A Historical Look at U.S. Immigration Policy." 〈http://web.missouri.edu/∼socbrent/immigr.htm〉 (accessed June 7, 2006).

The White House. "President Bush Proposes New Temporary Worker Program." January 2004. 〈http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040107-3.html〉 (accessed June 7, 2006).