In an interview conducted shortly after his 2020 election victory, Alabama Senator Tommy Tuberville misidentified the three branches of the United States government as “the House, the Senate, and the Executive.”

Meanwhile, immigrants who wish to be American citizens must pass a civics test that an estimated 2 in 3 current American citizens would fail.

Something does not add up here.

The United States citizenship test, rooted in xenophobia, violates the country’s founding principles of equality and democracy and should therefore be eliminated. 

What it Means to be a Citizen

According to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, naturalized U.S. citizens “share equally the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship.”

These serve as the basis for political, economic, and social equality. The privilege to serve on a jury and run for office allows citizens to participate in the political system. Citizenship also opens doors to economic opportunities—research shows that citizenship increases immigrant employment rates and incomes, even after accounting for other factors. Lastly, it confers a certain social status; citizens are better integrated in the communities in which they live and work.  

Most importantly, it grants individuals the coveted right to vote: a privilege historically denied to the majority of the populace and one that governments continually try to curtail. Voting is a necessary mechanism of democratic society: it allows citizens to choose representatives in government who defend their interests and represent their voices—necessary practices for a republic that prompted the Declaration of Independence in the first place. Revolutionaries rallied around the phrase “taxation without representation,” and championed the idea that those who are subject to the acts of a government should be able to influence it. In other words, the government relies on the consent of the governed. This consent is given or not given through the practice of voting. 

Hence, withholding citizenship and consequently disenfranchising permanent residents who do not pass a test undermines democracy and propagates inequality.

The Citizenship Test

For immigrants to apply for citizenship, they must have lived in the U.S. for at least five years as a permanent resident (three if married to a U.S. citizen), and pass a background check.

During the application process, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “administers a naturalization test to determine whether an applicant [for citizenship] meets the English and civics requirements.” This oral test consists of 10 questions pulled from an available bank of 100 online questions, and applicants must answer 6 correctly to pass. 

Although it may seem a simple task, the questions are anything but easy. Some of the hardest ones include:

• The Federalist Papers supported the passage of the U.S. Constitution. Name one of the writers.
• How many amendments does the Constitution have?
• Who was President during World War I?

While a diligent history student may know all the answers, most Americans, and even some Senators, aren’t even close. (Are you? Take an online practice exam to find out.)

According to a survey conducted by the Institute for Citizens and Scholars, only 36% of Americans would pass the test. Even more concerning, only 19% of respondents under 45 would.  

Since all the questions are published online, the test, rather than measuring actual knowledge of history and civics, actually measures how well an applicant can memorize the provided study guide. However, the ability and knowledge required for effective civic engagement do not depend on one’s knowledge of the names of the thirteen colonies. The content of the test is clearly misaligned with its goals.  

This raises a critical question: what, then, is the true purpose of the test? Looking into its history provides an unpalatable answer.

The very idea of the test is rooted in xenophobia. The exam began in 1906 when examiners were permitted to ask questions about history and civics during the existing naturalization process. With the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952, the exam required knowledge of U.S. history and civics. This act was passed in the wake of the Second World War, an era defined by McCarthyism and exclusionary attitudes towards foreigners. Senator McCarran, who was instrumental in its development, said of the Act’s importance, “I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished.” This fear of immigrants “contaminating” or “overrunning” the country contributed to the civics test requirement. 

These methods are not unique to the case of citizenship—in fact, attaching a cost and a test to voting has been a common method used to suppress voter rights in America. In the wake of the Civil War, the Fourteenth Amendment granted freed slaves citizenship. However, states instituted poll taxes and literacy tests to prevent African Americans from voting. Remnants of these practices continue today as local politicians aim to make voting harder in African American communities. 

The Inequitable and Burdensome Nature of the Test

Citizens of a country that do not know their own history and government demanding that those seeking citizenship do is the definition of hypocrisy.

The U.S. government justifies this test because civic knowledge is, in its eyes, a requirement for enjoying the rights citizenship offers. Current American citizens, however, are not held to the same standard, as evidenced by their embarrassing passage rate on the citizenship test. Natural-born citizens are allowed to be ignorant, but naturalized citizens are not. 

Residents deserve these rights, regardless of their ability to memorize the citizenship test’s study guide. 

As New York University Professor Daniel Sharp explains, “immigrants’ interests are bound up with their place of residence…immigrants and citizens share [an interest in self-rule] equally.” 

Civic knowledge should not be a qualification for citizenship; residency should be enough. 

Even if permanent residents’ right to vote is contingent on a test, current citizens should be—in the spirit of equality—assessed in a similar manner. Although it may seem more fair, it is no solution.

Mandating the citizenship test for all citizens could exacerbate educational disparities and lead to inequality. Socioeconomic factors affect individuals’ access to high-quality education—if the citizenship test becomes a universal requirement, it would result in a shift of power toward the well-educated elite. A more equitable solution would be to eliminate the test entirely. 

Moreover, the test is a burden in and of itself.

It costs $725 to apply for citizenship. During times when 37% of Americans cannot address an unexpected expense of $400, this cost serves as a significant financial barrier to citizenship for many immigrants and their families. Mexican immigrants, the group with the lowest naturalization rates, cite this as a primary reason why many do not apply. 

Like any other examination, passing the citizenship test requires dedicated study. Time constraints, language barriers, and educational disparities make it difficult for many to properly prepare for the exam. 

Conclusion

The U.S. citizenship test serves as a hurdle to democracy and equality. Founded in an era characterized by xenophobia, it serves not to ensure a knowledgeable populace but instead to exclude immigrants and stifle their political, economic, and social equality.

Removing the test from the already tricky naturalization process would result in a more just and inclusive path to American citizenship and the generous rights and privileges it offers.